1. #1
    I see many people on the forums complaining about the lack of effectiveness of the .50 Cals in the game. I think there are several factors that help explain this, and none of them involve a conspiracy.

    The first is range. The monitor tends to make objects appear closer than they are, and understates the difference between target size 300, 200 and 100 metres (for a comparison, look at the size of cars at those ranges when you're driving down the highway). Combat ranges in world war two were short, often under 100 metres. In the game many people shoot from 300 meters or more.

    Firing from closer range achieves two things: it gives the bullets more energy and it concentrates the bullet stream, which makes the chances much greater that you will critically damage an area (e.g. saw off a wing). I assume Il2 uses a simplified model where the aircraft is divided into areas that each have a "hit point" value (in simplified terms). From longer range you tend to "spray" the entire target without causing enough hits in one area. But get in close, and "close" means under 150 metres, and you will chew them up with the .50 Cals.

    Mostly it's a matter of discipline. We all want to fire when we finally get the enemy plane in our sights, but you have to teach yourself to wait, then wait some more, and then€¦ Like the saying goes: "When you think you are too close, get closer".

    The second big factor is damage model. I think Il2 is the best flight sim ever created, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement of course. I€m fairly sure the game uses a simplified damage model that doesn't fully simulate all the internal components of the aircraft. Aircraft are filled with highly flammable and explosive stuff like fuel, hydraulic fuel, ammunition and compressed oxygen. One bullet in the right place means KABOOM, and with lots of .50 Cal bullets flying the chances of getting that lucky hit goes up of course.

    This is speculative, but I get a feeling that the game's limited modelling of internal structures may penalize the .50 Cals a bit. Why? A single .50 Cal bullet has enough energy to go though the aircraft but not enough to bring it down, unless of course it hits something vulnerable. But this is an indirect consequence of a perfectly understandable design limitation, not a conspiracy. (And for BoB Oleg has promised insanely detailed internal modelling, so don't worry. There will be more chances to hit those oxygen bottles in future.)

    The third factor is flying and AI. In the game both humans and the AI tend to engage in turning fights at high G. If you look at gun camera films you'll see that it was very rare for the target to maneuver to this extent.

    What this means is that in the game the target is only in the sight for a brief time. Some may claim that this gives the .50 Cals an advantage, since they put out more lead in less time. But I have a feeling it may be the opposite, since the target won't spend enough time in the sight for the .50 Cals to achieve enough hits in one area (see above about the importance of concentrating the bullet stream). For proof of this, look at the popularity of the big gun fighters (tankbuster Yaks etc) online. They only need one hit, which gives them an advantage if the target is turning.

    Anyway, those are my reflections on the ".50 Cal conspiracy". Comments?
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Your insane.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Thank you for that constructive piece of criticism. Anyone else?
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Brain32's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,209
    You are trying to start a constructive, unbiased and reasonable discussion in this forum - bad idea.
    Saracasm ON
    Where did you go wrong:
    1. You didn't say that .50 is completely porked and unusable
    2. Nowhere in your thread did you mention that P51 won the war by completely outclassing any opposing forces fighter.
    These two mistakes are unforgivable.
    Sarcasm OFF
    EDIT: Actually I pretty much agree with everything you said
    Share this post

  5. #5
    joeap's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,006
    Make that two who think you're (not your) <STRIKE>insane</STRIKE> a genius.

    No seriously agree with Brain very well thought out post. Have to wonder about ranges and siz of planes in the game vs. reality though, probably a monitor limitation.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    If they de-synch the tracers i'll be perfectly happy....
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Jetbuff's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,444
    Originally posted by Brain32:
    You are trying to start a constructive, unbiased and reasonable discussion in this forum - bad idea.
    I'm afraid Brain's right. It is a requirement for a thread to last longer than 3 pages that it have at least one of the following words/phrases:
    Uber, porked, conspiracy, bias, BS, nerfed, super, cr@ppy modeling, so I was online, I am an online ace, KGB, Nazi, Commie, Capitalist pigs, UFO, 0.50+Tiger.
    Share this post

  8. #8
    georgeo76's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,756
    Your right about people who want to shoot from too great a distance. At < 150m, 4x .50 is enough to do the job in a 1sec burst to even the toughest AC regardless of tracers.

    I'll add another observation. Many or most, I find, are unsatisfied until they see an aircraft disintegrate or explode. If this doesn't happen in the air, they continue to fire until they see it happen on the ground. While this is satisfying, it's rarely necessary. Compared to the mk108 or even multiple 20mms, the .50 appear pretty anemic in this regard, while still being just as effective.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Ratsack's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,772
    Guderian: I agree with most of that. Good post.

    Dolemite: it's you're (the contraction of you are), not your. Go and stand in the corner.

    georgeo76: love your sig. and pic. It's a terrific movie.

    Ratsack
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Originally posted by Jetbuff:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
    You are trying to start a constructive, unbiased and reasonable discussion in this forum - bad idea.
    I'm afraid Brain's right. It is a requirement for a thread to last longer than 3 pages that it have at least one of the following words/phrases:
    Uber, porked, conspiracy, bias, BS, nerfed, super, cr@ppy modeling, so I was online, I am an online ace, KGB, Nazi, Commie, Capitalist pigs, UFO, 0.50+Tiger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>thats exaclt why I dont bother to post in any meaningful threads on UBI anymore. if I wish to discuss something then I goto the CWOS forum. too many Spammers, flammers and Kiddies on UBI
    Share this post