PDA

View Full Version : Possible explanation for reduced cannon effectiveness



Jetbuff
03-13-2004, 11:43 AM
OK, bear with me here:

There has been some argument recently over whether the effectiveness of cannons, particularly MG151/20, has gone down. Oleg says the gun modelling hasn't changed and, barring an inadvertent typo in the code, I believe him.

OTOH, I too have experienced less than the usual results with my cannons both on and offline, more so online. So, I set out for a scientific approach and placed various targets on the ground at an incline in front and under the pipper of a 109F-4. Starting the mission, I would hold wheelbrakes and fire the nose cannon only using the backspace key.

Before I got too far, after a number of runs to validate my test procedure in both AEP and FB 1.22, I could not discern any obvious change in effectiveness. So, I stopped before proceeding (and wasting more time! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) to look at other probable causes for this perception of lower cannon efficacy.

After a few runs against friendly P-51's in the mission builder I noticed the following: Even when aiming at the same spot the effect was HIGHLY variable even within the same mission in AEP. The effects were less variable with FB 1.22.

So before I make more of a grognard statement about myself than I already have, here's what I'm thinking:

Cannon efficiency hasn't changed, but:
- AEP has more torque modelled correct?
- Gut feeling says the aircraft bounce around a hair more now than they did in AEP.
- The 190 at least has had it's DM revised, are there any others?

Given the above, then can it be that the DM being very location-dependent (multiple hits on the same spot required) is not responding too well to the fact that with the less stable planes and more complex DM cannon rounds are not landing exactly on top of each other like they used to? This would also explain why MG fire appears to be more effective since the higher rate of fire would perclude the preceeding effect.

One last thing to consider, even the revised 190 DM had a minor (albeit irritating) bug with the gunsight thing. If the 190 is not the only series with a revised DM, can it be that similar minor errors have snuck into some of the revisions?

I was going to actually do the tests anyway to prove my point, but I suddenly got a little voice in my head, "All this over a game? LOSER!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

Jetbuff
03-13-2004, 11:43 AM
OK, bear with me here:

There has been some argument recently over whether the effectiveness of cannons, particularly MG151/20, has gone down. Oleg says the gun modelling hasn't changed and, barring an inadvertent typo in the code, I believe him.

OTOH, I too have experienced less than the usual results with my cannons both on and offline, more so online. So, I set out for a scientific approach and placed various targets on the ground at an incline in front and under the pipper of a 109F-4. Starting the mission, I would hold wheelbrakes and fire the nose cannon only using the backspace key.

Before I got too far, after a number of runs to validate my test procedure in both AEP and FB 1.22, I could not discern any obvious change in effectiveness. So, I stopped before proceeding (and wasting more time! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) to look at other probable causes for this perception of lower cannon efficacy.

After a few runs against friendly P-51's in the mission builder I noticed the following: Even when aiming at the same spot the effect was HIGHLY variable even within the same mission in AEP. The effects were less variable with FB 1.22.

So before I make more of a grognard statement about myself than I already have, here's what I'm thinking:

Cannon efficiency hasn't changed, but:
- AEP has more torque modelled correct?
- Gut feeling says the aircraft bounce around a hair more now than they did in AEP.
- The 190 at least has had it's DM revised, are there any others?

Given the above, then can it be that the DM being very location-dependent (multiple hits on the same spot required) is not responding too well to the fact that with the less stable planes and more complex DM cannon rounds are not landing exactly on top of each other like they used to? This would also explain why MG fire appears to be more effective since the higher rate of fire would perclude the preceeding effect.

One last thing to consider, even the revised 190 DM had a minor (albeit irritating) bug with the gunsight thing. If the 190 is not the only series with a revised DM, can it be that similar minor errors have snuck into some of the revisions?

I was going to actually do the tests anyway to prove my point, but I suddenly got a little voice in my head, "All this over a game? LOSER!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

clint-ruin
03-13-2004, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jetbuff:
I was going to actually do the tests anyway to prove my point, but I suddenly got a little voice in my head, "All this over a game? LOSER!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think any other DMs have changed - at least - if they have, Oleg has not mentioned it, and has only referred to the 190 getting a new CDM.

Ground targets aren't the best thing you can find to test against, but definitely the quickest and easiest [and it IS only a game :&gt;]. One thing I played with for a while was parking fighters nose-up into a friendly parked bomber with 0 fuel - AI bails out but you still get enough time to test it. Turning off recoil/shake/etc and putting the wheel brakes on helps keep the pipper on target. I eventually gave up using that as well since it doesn't tell you much about the plane DMs other than the bombers. Yes I'm a grognard :&gt;

I think your theory about ROF/joystick settings/torque is probably about as good as any other at this point. I just wish we could get some tracks showing any difference of any kind posted.

For what it's worth, a simple direct comparison is at:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/nincompoops.zip

With 1x 1.21 track, and 3 others. One round PK, 2 round engine kill/engine fire - same as in 1.21, 4 round "wing completely falls off the plane" on a Yak3 [it of the INCEDIBLE INDESTRUCTIBLE damage model].

As far as hit location goes in determining effectiveness - you will probably find that happens as a side effect of the hit percentage. Even from 100m out it is not uncommon to get 80% of shots missing according to "user stat" in FB. Different rounds will clean up different systems at different rates - typically AP against internals, HE/MG against the structure.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

WWMaxGunz
03-13-2004, 12:15 PM
All good observations though I somehow feel that the DM's do not record exact hit placements perhaps because of the generalized damaged graphics and how much more data that would take plus correlatng the next hit position with all the rest, etc. This would be for the same spot in an area rather than for the same model component area.

To me it would make more sense that there are 3D volumes with surfaces that some even are inside others but each one has a damage state with corresponding graphics. A shot may penetrate a surface and damage it then hit another if it is not soaked up yet. Shells seem to detonate on the outsides mostly but a high damage state component may let a shell pass through to explode onto another surface and do like blowing a damaged rear fuselage apart action unless that's a gas tank or bomb going off? Ditto with wings.

Some planes are definitely DM'd as having more parts and layers. The fewer there are, the more the damage is spread but the more it seems to get a section broken off with a lot of hits over a general quarter of the plane. if this is true then perhaps now the sum of the components is more than the total of a major simplified section used to be. Blasting a wing area used to all add up to the wing or half of it so you could have a wider spread of fire that all damaged the same thing and now it's split up. But only if I guess it right.


Neal

Jetbuff
03-13-2004, 12:15 PM
Regarding the "targets" they were of various types including other aircraft. My intention was to find a target that withstood enough rounds without too much variability in it's DM so it's results from several tests in AEP can be compared directly with similar results in FB 1.22 making the only variable the effects of cannon rounds.

I wonder if turning torque/turbulence off will show a significant difference for air gunnery?

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

Jetbuff
03-13-2004, 12:18 PM
Quick note re: joystick settings, they remained the same. (conf.ini copied over between 1.22 and 2.0)

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

faustnik
03-13-2004, 12:31 PM
JetBuff,

Even though Oleg says nothing has changed, I would be lying if I said I had not noticed a difference. Online against P-47s, I twice got hits that would have torn the wing off my P-47 tartgets. I have a habit of firing from close range and I watched my 20mm shell hit the root and explode. Both targets went down, but the damage effect was less catastophic than usual. I have no proof, all I can say is that I have taken the same shot many times and it just looked different.

As I said in other threads though, I don't think it is limited to the Mg151. The P-38's 20mm is doing less damage than I would expect too. I'm not saying right or wrong, just that it "looks" like something has changed even when I see the hits.

Great idea on the torque effect on gunnery though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Jetbuff
03-13-2004, 12:42 PM
Well Faustnik, I know exactly where you're coming from. I know I stink at gunnery, but I've never stunk as bad as I do now with AEP. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

However, my attempts to verify the claim that the effectiveness of the weapons themselves had changed came out negative. I did notice though that trying to reproduce exact, same position hits on targets was a lot tougher now though, which started me thinking: what other factors could AEP have introduced to give the "impression" that the cannons were now weaker.

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

Maj_Death
03-13-2004, 12:46 PM
I have noticed a big difference too. It seems to be that the guns are just as effective but a planes airframe is MUCH stronger. Punching holes in wings is still easy but actually ripping the wing off now borders on being impossible unless you carry a 30mm or bigger. On the other hand, other types of damage seem more common such as control severings, engine kills, and PK's. I think I'll just need to start aiming for the cockpit rather than the wings like I used to.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The F7F Tigercat in Aces Over the Pacific is overmodeled.

SeaFireLIV
03-13-2004, 12:50 PM
Intelligent post... pity I don`t have AEP yet, or I could join in... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Jetbuff
03-13-2004, 01:52 PM
Maj_Death, what you've described there seems to fall in line with my theory. Structural damage would be more likely if multiple hits landed on the same "damage section" but catastrophic failure of other sytems, including pilot kills is merely the luck of the draw.

Seafire, my thoughts are with you and all the others who still don't have AEP, it's a blast!

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-13-2004, 03:47 PM
Major Death, I've said exactly what you said about 20 times already so obviously I agree. Structural strength of plane, especially wings, seems to have been strengthened considerably. Engine kills, fuel leaks, etc. seem to happen more frequently.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

pourshot
03-13-2004, 04:51 PM
I have been reading a book about the RAAF flying p40's in the desert and it would seem to me that a plane could withstand a fair pounding from 20mm cannons (five or more hits) and still fly well enough to evade the enemy and in some cases even shoot them down.On the other hand any shots hitting the cockpit had a far greater effect on the pilots ability to carry on the fight even if only slightly wounded and that is what I would like to see modeled better in FB ( I still dont have AEP ).

When I land 2-3 20mm cannon shells on or next to the cockpit I think it should be game over even if the plane is still flyable the pilot would be looking to get the hell outa dodge.

Then again I wounder if the big cannons have been reduced in power to make up for the fact that nobody will fly with less than 30mm and as a result the smaller 20mm is under powered.

Personaly I dont mind the idea of 2 30mm hits makeing a fighter unflyable so long as the other team dos'nt mind being PK'd more often by heavy MG's as was the case inrl

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It