PDA

View Full Version : Dispersion and realism



BaldieJr
06-16-2004, 02:09 PM
If you are going to model the planes realisticly, the dispersion of the .50's needs to be wide.

In Shaws Holy Bible of Arial Combat, there are several references to multi-converged weapon sets.

The overwhelming majority of fighter pilots in WWII used multiple convergences to get wide dispersion. A box-pattern was very common since it promised a higher hit-rate.

Since we can't set multiple convergences, then some degree of dispersion is mandatory in order to recreate history.

Since 1C tends to cater to the 5-million hour virtual aces, rather than HISTORY, one has to wonder just how much of this games historical representation has been lost to skewed perception.

Let us all don our aluminum foil hats.

BaldieJr
06-16-2004, 02:09 PM
If you are going to model the planes realisticly, the dispersion of the .50's needs to be wide.

In Shaws Holy Bible of Arial Combat, there are several references to multi-converged weapon sets.

The overwhelming majority of fighter pilots in WWII used multiple convergences to get wide dispersion. A box-pattern was very common since it promised a higher hit-rate.

Since we can't set multiple convergences, then some degree of dispersion is mandatory in order to recreate history.

Since 1C tends to cater to the 5-million hour virtual aces, rather than HISTORY, one has to wonder just how much of this games historical representation has been lost to skewed perception.

Let us all don our aluminum foil hats.

Eagle_361st
06-16-2004, 02:16 PM
Be quiet!!!11 You dirty "not-official" patch leaker you!!11 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

Jippo01
06-16-2004, 02:21 PM
Not quite true. If there is more dispersion to .50's it is less realistic. First thing Finnish war veteran's pointed out when they saw Brewster for the first time was the horrible dispersion of it's weapons in the game.

Americans were the only ones using pattern harmonisation later in the war.

Brits abandoned pattern harmonisation in/after BoB.

Finns used point harmonisation all along, usually 300m or less.

Germans used point harmonisation.

Also I make a wild bet that many American pilots got to choose and chose point harmonisation over pattern. At least the experienced pilots.

Reducing .50 accuracy is artificial trickery that takes away from realism. If something should be done, it would be to add a possibility to make pattern harmonisation (doesn't this option exist for P-47?), not reduce the gun accuracy.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

BaldieJr
06-16-2004, 02:22 PM
B O X P A T T E R N S ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


H I S T O R I C L Y A C C U R A T E ! ! ! ! ! !

I'm sorry to rain on the parade, but its the truth. Noone converged all .50's to a single point.

IF you want to argue dispersion, ask that the uber-tight patterns of the Russian planes be removed, but don't ask that the .50's have a tighter pattern as its not realistic.

Martial1
06-16-2004, 02:22 PM
Hey lets create history as it was.
Why cant IC bring out a patch that permanently uninstalls your game once you get killed, thus forcing you to purchase a new one or never play again.
Realism at its best, lets face it all you full ral nuts cant argue

VW-IceFire
06-16-2004, 02:22 PM
I've got a ten foot pole and I'm not touching it.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Hoarmurath
06-16-2004, 02:26 PM
Martial, IL2 built its success on its graphisms and its realism... We don't want another cfs3, thx...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

tsisqua
06-16-2004, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I've got a ten foot pole and I'm not touching it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see you've been answering those "male-enhancement" pill advertisements in your email.


Tsisqua

Jippo01
06-16-2004, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
_B O X P A T T E R N S ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


H I S T O R I C L Y A C C U R A T E ! ! ! ! ! !_

I'm sorry to rain on the parade, but its the truth. Noone converged all .50's to a single point.

IF you want to argue dispersion, ask that the uber-tight patterns of the Russian planes be removed, but don't ask that the .50's have a tighter pattern as its not realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stop shouting, will you?

Do you have problems understanding written english?

Finns used point harmonisation to 300m and closer on Brewsters. That's no one to you. Brits used .50, and hadn't pattern harmonisation. Another no one I guess...


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

BaldieJr
06-16-2004, 02:33 PM
Show me british .50's Jippo1.

Point them out in a screenshot k?

Even though the US pilots could have thier guns setup for lazing, VERY few did it, as VERY few were 'online aces' with 5 million combat hours.

I wasn't yelling at you. As a matter of fact, your post wasn't even 'live' when I posted. I was responding, with HUMOR, to Eagles "Be quiet!!!11 ".

Jippo01
06-16-2004, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Show me british .50's Jippo1.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For your information, British used Wildcats (Brit designation Martlet), Corsairs, P-40's (Kittyhawk, Tomahawk), and also Spitfires had .50's.

In the game any changes will also affect at least Fiat G.50 and Brewster in Finnish service.

And doesn't FB P-47 have an option for pattern harmonisation or not?


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

patch_adams
06-16-2004, 02:43 PM
rofl people will never be happy. fifties are fine in the 2.02 patch, in fact they rule, learn how to aim.

Blutarski2004
06-16-2004, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
_B O X P A T T E R N S ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


H I S T O R I C L Y A C C U R A T E ! ! ! ! ! !_

I'm sorry to rain on the parade, but its the truth. Noone converged all .50's to a single point.

IF you want to argue dispersion, ask that the uber-tight patterns of the Russian planes be removed, but don't ask that the .50's have a tighter pattern as its not realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The people who wrote those WW2 era USAAF fighter gunnery manuals would vigorously dispute your claim. Both point harmonization and pattern harmonization were specifically discussed. In fact, when you plot out the standard P51D harmonization method described in the manual, it is in point harmonization. Your claim that "No one converged all .50's to a single point" is untrue.

OTOH, I'd very much like to see a customized gun harmonization option provided for FB (as is possible in CFS), so that we can experiment with various pattern harmonization arrangments. I think it would be fun.

BLUTARSKI

Capt._Tenneal
06-16-2004, 03:01 PM
They might be fine in the leaked beta unofficial 2.02. We'll have to see how they are in the official patch.

BaldieJr
06-16-2004, 03:02 PM
Think what you want, but the overwhelming majority of WWII pilots did not use lazer-beamed .50s.

This is talked about in Shaws book.

Two words for the tight-dispersion crowd: Trim Speed.

Blutarski2004
06-16-2004, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Think what you want, but the overwhelming majority of WWII pilots did not use lazer-beamed .50s.

This is talked about in Shaws book.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... So what's your point?

BLUTARSKI

Jippo01
06-16-2004, 03:11 PM
Baldie, you are not making any sense...

Just complaining for the sake of it?


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

BfHeFwMe
06-16-2004, 03:32 PM
Let me guess, your getting trashed on the lobby with .50's now. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Zayets
06-16-2004, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Let me guess, your getting trashed on the lobby with .50's now. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You know,you're right.Just came from lobby and my **** is full of holes from a certain Mustang .50's. Or it was a Cobra? God knows.

Zayets out

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Zayets-sigIAR.jpg

VF-17_Jolly
06-16-2004, 03:49 PM
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

&gt;This convergence point of the fire-streams was, I believe, set to be
&gt;roughly up to half a mile or so in front of most of the WWII fighters

USAAF doctrine called for generating a "lethal density pattern"--the most
bullets passing through a given space in a given time.
But the AAF was also concerned with the less than remarkable gunnery of the
vast majority of fighter pilots. So the official recommendation was to have
each pair of guns boresighted to converge 100 yards beyond the previous. A
typical recommended pattern for a six wing gun figher would be 250 yards for
the first pair, 350 yards for the second and 450 yards for the third. That
way, it was figured, the bad shot would have a chance of getting at least some
hits.
In the field, this was generally considered to be complete nonsense. Your best
chance of shooting someone down was by catching him by surprise and squashing
him like a bug on the windshield of a Mack truck before he had a chance to
react. If you managed to sneak up on him, but then just tapped a handful of
tacks into his tail feathers, all you'd do is piss him off and tell him where
you were. And if you couldn't shoot him down when he was cruising along with
his thumb stuck up his ***, you sure as hell weren't going to shoot him down
when he had his dander up and was doing everything he knew how to shoot you
down.
So fighter groups stuck with the lethal density pattern. The rule was, the
worse shot you were, the closer in you moved before you opened fire. Most 5AF
fighter squadrons flying wing gun planes boresighted all the weapons for 200
yards, but some squadrons boresighted them for 100 yards. As new pilots were
told when joining a squadron, "If you can't goose the squint with your
spinner, you're too far away."
Whether boresighted for 100 or 200 yards, with the rounds from every gun
passing through an 18-inch square, a brief burst was all that was needed to
finish an opponent--if you hit him. Thus the insistence on closing in to
"can't miss" range. That was, of course, easier said than done, taking a great
deal of flying skill, self-discipline--and guts.

http://www.skyknights.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/jolly.jpg

Waldo.Pepper
06-16-2004, 04:00 PM
I have an interview on video of a Tuskeegee Airman who harmonized his uns to converge on as he put it "a 50 cent piece"

I think testimony like this should put an end to the debate (as stupid as it is.... so stupid I did not read all the posts to the topic.)

Locust_
06-16-2004, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Martial1:
Hey lets create history as it was.
Why cant IC bring out a patch that permanently uninstalls your game once you get killed, thus forcing you to purchase a new one or never play again.
Realism at its best, lets face it all you full ral nuts cant argue<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I LOVE YOU MAN&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

but you cant have my budlight

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

whitetornado_1
06-16-2004, 04:31 PM
A good pilot would get within 300 to 500 yards of thier target and shoot and hit the target a bit and get what they called ''probable kill'' .

An Ace would get within 150 to 300feet and put ALL of his bullets in the enemy plane and that was called a ''kill''
When pilots were de-briefed they would declare
a lot more kills but, in reality the aircraft losses were much lower for thier enemy.

You want to down a plane get in close. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaFireLIV
06-16-2004, 04:55 PM
If you truly believe this baldieJr, why are you speaking only now? Why did you not speak when Gibbage1 was starting his Crusade for a tighter dispersion?

Or is this some kind of joke?

I`ll bet Oleg`s will be ready to be committed if he sees this.

BS87
06-16-2004, 05:07 PM
Even IF they did use box dispersion, i don't think the box was the size of the current dispersion. Besides, our current dispersion ins't a box, more like a shotgun scatter effect.

BaldieJr
06-16-2004, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
If you truly believe this baldieJr, why are you speaking only now? Why did you not speak when Gibbage1 was starting his Crusade for a tighter dispersion?

Or is this some kind of joke?

I`ll bet Oleg`s will be ready to be committed if he sees this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because I thought Gibbage was right at the time.

The problem is not .50 dispersion. Its Russian dispersion, or lack thereof.

We find ourselves doing the worng thing with good intentions... just like with trim.

Menthol_moose
06-16-2004, 05:33 PM
Boo hoo.. the .50s are fixed.

the whining begins http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 05:36 PM
If you want historical accuract, put a loaded gun by your monitor. If you get shot down and die, use it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
_B O X P A T T E R N S ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


H I S T O R I C L Y A C C U R A T E ! ! ! ! ! !_

I'm sorry to rain on the parade, but its the truth. Noone converged all .50's to a single point.

IF you want to argue dispersion, ask that the uber-tight patterns of the Russian planes be removed, but don't ask that the .50's have a tighter pattern as its not realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

HellToupee
06-16-2004, 05:39 PM
i rember before we got these .50s planes that people were saying the advantages were the shotgun scatter effect and the box dispersion :P

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 05:41 PM
You can simulate the box pattern in the P-47. Set the MG's to 200M, and the canon as 300M. The outboard 2 .50 cal's on the 2nd trigger are set as "canon" and use the canon convergance. It works quite well!!! Anything between 200-300M gets shreded.

BTW. Aces preferred point convergance were the green pilots were diven the box pattern.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

BM357_Raven
06-16-2004, 06:13 PM
yes...no...

Blazing Magnums 357th VFG
bm357.com (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash_intro.html) | Roster (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/bm357_rosters.asp) | Flash Cartoon (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/raven_in_plane9p.html) | BroDawg (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash-intro/tinman3.html) | QuickTime Video (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/Downloads_Public/bm357_transmission.zip)
Blazing_Magnums Server (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/server.htm)

http://bm357.com/bm357_goofy_ubi.jpg (http://bm357.com)http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

My mamma's Harley is bigger than your mamma..

SeaFireLIV
06-16-2004, 06:21 PM
All I can say is Oleg shouldn`t listen to any of you armchair experts. He should just do as much research through books and credited information sites and eyewitness` accounts and stay with that. No matter what other individuals say.

I do not like the feeling that I could be flying a sim based on whoever shouts the loudest here and not on as much historical accuracy as possible
Sad. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

AB_Mormac
06-16-2004, 08:27 PM
Martial1 NICE

Athosd
06-16-2004, 09:00 PM
Must be Wednesday where BaldieJr lives http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Over the Hills and O'er the Main,
To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,
The Queen commands and we'll obey
Over the Hills and far away.

AnalFissure
06-16-2004, 09:50 PM
"I do not like the feeling that I could be flying a sim based on whoever shouts the loudest here and not on as much historical accuracy as possible"


You've been shouting pretty loudly yourself, these passed few weeks, seafire. I call hypocrisy.

There is nothing wrong with open discussion. There never was. Oleg isn't being forced to listen to anybody on these boards, but at the same time, he's not being forced to ignore anybody either.

Just settle down.

jtasker
06-16-2004, 10:50 PM
[b]"Noone converged all .50's to a single point"[b]

Utterly and Totally incorrect! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I know 2 USAAF pilots still living, and BOTH of them point harmonized their guns in the 250-300 Yard range. (One flew P51D then later F86's, one flew P47D/P51D) They also said it was routine for most pilots with some time in theater to set their convergence up the way they liked it on their aircraft. Some guys, even successful "old timers", didn't change it believing that it was best for their shooting ability.(or lack thereof)

jtasker
06-16-2004, 10:58 PM
Also keep in mind that the saltiest LW Experten to survive the war would have logged combat hours that would pale in comparison to the hours of "combat" experience and gunnery practice players in IL2 would have.

Pilots with 500 hours were very well trained and experienced by WWII standards.. I've flown flight Sim for 15 years and its sad to think that I'd bet the total hours would be in the tens of thousands. All that experience and the lack of G forces allow Sim pilots to be "Aces" to the extreme.

Box harmonization in IL2 requires either a fairly long trtacking shot, or a non maneuvering target. Something to rarely get against a human who can max G at will and not get tired. Point harmonization requires good flying and good aiming..but rewards that will more realistic hitting power.

I really like the 50's on the 51D in the patch..hopefully it will be like that in the final release..