PDA

View Full Version : PF and .50 cals



Obi_Kwiet
05-20-2004, 03:50 PM
OK, according to this http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1014.html link, the .50's won't be fixed. Their insane dispersion will remain the way it is. They're fine if they're aimed precisely were their conversion is at, but any different and they spread like crazy. Now obviously, if they were as crappy as represented in game, they wouldnâ't have the awesome reputation they have now, and the US wouldn't have used them nearly so much. Sure, some of the better ones of you might be good a getting it precisely aligned, but AI can't and neither can most of us. WW2 pilots had far lees experience than us, and still did well with them. I fear that with out hem being fixed, PF will be stupid, in that the US will be represented far less effective than it was and pretty much ruin the sim. Since the US uses primarily the .50's, and it will be primarily about the US vs. Japan, and one of the few advantages that helped us against Japanâ's planes were the .50's. I am sorry to say that, I may, for the first time, not buy one of Maddox's sims. Nor, will I buy it till they are fixed. No mater how good the graphics are this one thing will make it unplayable.

Obi_Kwiet
05-20-2004, 03:50 PM
OK, according to this http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1014.html link, the .50's won't be fixed. Their insane dispersion will remain the way it is. They're fine if they're aimed precisely were their conversion is at, but any different and they spread like crazy. Now obviously, if they were as crappy as represented in game, they wouldnâ't have the awesome reputation they have now, and the US wouldn't have used them nearly so much. Sure, some of the better ones of you might be good a getting it precisely aligned, but AI can't and neither can most of us. WW2 pilots had far lees experience than us, and still did well with them. I fear that with out hem being fixed, PF will be stupid, in that the US will be represented far less effective than it was and pretty much ruin the sim. Since the US uses primarily the .50's, and it will be primarily about the US vs. Japan, and one of the few advantages that helped us against Japanâ's planes were the .50's. I am sorry to say that, I may, for the first time, not buy one of Maddox's sims. Nor, will I buy it till they are fixed. No mater how good the graphics are this one thing will make it unplayable.

Korolov
05-20-2004, 04:30 PM
.50 cals suck so much, I can light Bf-109s up with them!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/P-47%20Guncam%202.gif

Sorry, I just gotta boast about my gunnery ability. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Obi_Kwiet
05-20-2004, 04:52 PM
n1. Why can't I do that? Could it be that I stink? But then why can I do it in the other AC?

luthier1
05-20-2004, 05:15 PM
I think this debacle is a case of people having absolutely unrealistic expectations more than anything. I really have a feeling that many vocal posters on the .50 cal issue won't be satisfied until they can blow up any plane with a half-a-second high deflection burst.

Read up actual encounter reports, listen to some pilot interviews, watch lots of gun camera footage and not just the dramatic bits that get reused in every other documentary. You needed to aim well, try to hit a vulnerable spot, and keep your target in the sights for a good period of time.

In most encounter reports you'll see pilots mention at least a 2-3 second burst. Count with me - "one one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand". That's a three second burst, during which you need to keep the target in your sights at convergence and have your rounds hitting the target. If you expect to consistently destroy your targets with anything less, then I'm afraid PF won't be a satisfying experience for you.

The reason the US used .50 cals on most of their planes is because first and foremost we had well trained pilots with excellent aerial gunnery skills. They were expected to keep firing at the target long enough to ensure its destruction, and overall reliability and large ammo load on the M2s ensured their ability to attack multiple targets in a single sortie.

THAT's why the M2 was used so extensively in WWII - not because it was a wonder weapon capable of destroying any target with no effort on the pilot's part, which seems to be what so many people expect.

Dispersion is a pretty minor factor in the large scale of things. Whether or not it gets finetuned you still need to be a good shot, and work to keep the target in your sights for more than a quarter of a second in order to get kills. That's my last ever comment on the .50 cal issue.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Barkhorn1x
05-20-2004, 06:29 PM
My advice, practice so you can make kills consitently w/ the P-51B. After that the D model and the P-47 are a piece of cake And, by extension, so will the Wildcat, Hellcat and Corsair.

Barkhorn.

Obi_Kwiet
05-20-2004, 07:08 PM
Well, ok. *Realizes sheepishly that I would break down and buy it after 5 seconds any way. Still wahts upwith the I-185? It has laser like despersion. Still I did knotice that hitting BF 109s was easier in the IAR than in the P-51 D. Sigh. Practice makes perfect I guess.

Giganoni
05-20-2004, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Well, ok. *Realizes sheepishly that I would break down and buy it after 5 seconds any way. Still wahts upwith the I-185? It has laser like despersion. Still I did knotice that hitting BF 109s was easier in the IAR than in the P-51 D. Sigh. Practice makes perfect I guess.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, practice your .50 cal training with the Fiat G.50 has two guns, very little ammo. I hardly get more than 2 kills before running out and I try to be conservative. However, if you aim right you can snap wings off a plane and I just blew up a spitfire, with 2 1 second bursts straight to the engine. Unfortunately they are nose guns so convergance isn't AS important. Still I'm practicing with it because when PF comes along I'm flying the Ki-43 which means while you Allied boys will have 4,6, 8 mgs I'll have 2..and sometimes they will be 30 cals! I just hope they have a lot of ammo.

Gibbage1
05-20-2004, 07:45 PM
Its not about power. Its about accuracy and dispersion. I agree with Luthier. People expect to much from the POWER of the .50 cal. My complain is the SPREAD. Having power is one thing, but placing it in a concentrated area is another.

In an aircraft like the P-38 in IL2, the .50 cals spread as much as 5 feet in 100 meters. Were as all other HMG's have a spread of about 6" at the same distance. Thats the problem. Thats what I am fighting for. NOT the power.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
.50 cals suck so much, I can light Bf-109s up with them!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/P-47%20Guncam%202.gif

Sorry, I just gotta boast about my gunnery ability. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <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.

Korolov
05-20-2004, 08:40 PM
Where did I say you were complaining about damage? I was simply showing off my gunnery ability. Jeeze. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Gibbage1
05-20-2004, 08:48 PM
Well you only hit a few times http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"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.

Obi_Kwiet
05-20-2004, 08:52 PM
Exactly Gib! I run up to a 109G did a 1 sec burst right up his tail and blew it off. But I was 8 feet away and all my bullets hit. I got away with 6inches prop clearance. :P Plenty powerfull, but they still spread in the patch. If they were that bad, they'd be sold as shot guns.

Korolov
05-20-2004, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Well you only hit a few times http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"SNIPER!!!!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

VW-IceFire
05-20-2004, 10:30 PM
Its still much better now than before. They hit harder and while they still spread...I can now feel confident in taking out a Bf 109 in a sustained shot (one-one thousand...two...) at 500 meters with 260 meter convergence or a Zero I can completely blow away in a similar encounter.

I'm much happier overall with everyting in 2.01 and this issue I'm happier with. It could be worse...like 1.0? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

Copperhead310th
05-20-2004, 11:13 PM
while i agree with Gib 100% none of this amounts to **** since we won't have any GD 109's in PF. (Luthier willing & the Creek don't rise that is) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif nothing chaps my hide more than the thought of haveing 109's over Iwo Jima.
after 3 years of fighting the germans i'm finnished. Been there ... done that..( http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gifYAWN)
lets get on to some thing better. like PACIFIC FIGHTERS. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (not Pacific fighters that were never in the pacific) lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But please Ilya get Oleg to fix the convergence on the M2. Power is fine but fix the convergence. the spread is horrible.

(@ Luthier)Also a heads up.....squadron regimentals & nose arts arent showing on B-25's at all. Email on it's way to 1c Dev ASAP. Also some other AER planes seem to have this problem.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

VFA-195 Snacky
05-20-2004, 11:18 PM
I'm starting to get the feeling this has nothing to do with dispersion, but more to do with Principle.
It is a video game folks, if the end effect is there does it really matter????

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**

Menthol_moose
05-20-2004, 11:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snacky1:
I'm starting to get the feeling this has nothing to do with dispersion, but more to do with Principle.
It is a video game folks, if the end effect is there does it really matter????

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg prides himself on attention to detail and historical accuracy (no pun intended).

It is a simple fix to make the gun behave like it should in real life.

Thats all there is to it.

Copperhead310th
05-21-2004, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
while i agree with Gib 100% none of this amounts to **** since we won't have any GD 109's in PF. (Luthier willing & the Creek don't rise that is) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif nothing chaps my hide more than the thought of haveing 109's over Iwo Jima.
after 3 years of fighting the germans i'm finnished. Been there ... done that..( http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gifYAWN)
lets get on to some thing better. like PACIFIC FIGHTERS. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (not Pacific fighters that were never in the pacific) lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But please Ilya get Oleg to fix the convergence on the M2. Power is fine but fix the convergence. the spread is horrible.

(@ Luthier)Also a heads up.....squadron regimentals & nose arts arent showing on B-25's at all. Email on it's way to 1c Dev ASAP. Also some other AER planes seem to have this problem.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
_http://www.310thVFS.com
_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok i'm quoting myself here to make a correction of sorts. I have personaly had ZERO time with the patch so i am not truly able to comment on the M2 Brownings current state. i'll know more after i have had some time with it.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

Aaron_GT
05-22-2004, 02:29 AM
luthier wrote:
"I think this debacle is a case of people having absolutely unrealistic expectations more than anything. I really have a feeling that many vocal posters on the .50 cal issue won't be satisfied until they can blow up any plane with a half-a-second high deflection burst."

I've been one of the people campaigning for accurate representation of the dispersion of the M2 .50 (even though my beloved British planes rarely have them!). To me it seems that now the relative destructive power of the rounds relative to the DMs has been increased and that they are now TOO powerful! With high dispersion and powerful rounds I think they have gone too far the other way. Of course if this is an accurate representation of how they were, then so be it. Accurate representation is what is important.

Fliger747
05-25-2004, 05:58 PM
In Woolridge's book, "Carrier Warfare in the Pacific", there is a piece by David McCamble, the leading USN "ace". He discusses convergence patterns of the 50's in the F6F. This was a hot topic in most airforces!

The Bu-ord boresight "pattern" which had all six guns parallel out to infinity was not deemed satisfatory. What they developed was a convergence pattern that would group 95% (approx) of the shells in a 3' circle at 1000'. This worked well for both air combat and strafing.

RAAF_Edin
05-25-2004, 06:19 PM
Well YES historical accuracy DOES matter!

The 0.50call still sprays too much although I am of the opinion they are tweaked a bit with the patch.

I have seen that the big thing that is wrong about 0.50call is the tracers. They simply do not show/go where the bullets do. Tracers have a very wide/high spread around the aiming (convergence) point and I mean by couple meters in each direction, but the bullets actually do not spray that much and are much "tighter".

I am not just saying this because I "think" that's the way it is, but because I have tested this and I am of firm belief that the tracers and bullets do not have the same fligh path! Why this is like this I have no idea, but this is what the P-40 0.50call have shown to be like in EAP patch.

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

heywooood
05-25-2004, 06:43 PM
some issues just wont die.

.50 cal dispersion? Chuck Yeager flew P39's in gunnery school and said that firing the cannon was like lobbing flaming grapefruit at the target. They just kinda fell out of the nose and you really had to be close to the target and still aim very high to get hits with it.

The reason for setting convergence was because of dispersion - it was to minimise the effect, while maximizing firepower.

Bullets fly. They are not beams of light, they are projectiles of various size and weight and velocity. Even though they are machined to tight tolerance there are variations. Get over the fact that you are used to video game architecture and that this product is a little different or that some things can only be approximated in the transfer from R/L to 'simulator' and that we just need to deal with it.

PlaneEater
05-25-2004, 08:20 PM
Luthier, it's not the hitting power people have a problem with... it's the exaggerated dispersion. What's starting to bug me, and probably a lot of people, is that we're putting a lot of time and effort into finding and presenting conclusive proof that there are bugs, inconsistencies, or problems present, but you and Oleg--mostly Oleg--don't seem to want to believe us, even when our sources are very credible, or in the example farther down, the game itself.

When I sat down and thought about it for a minute, and looked again at the bench test screenshots Gibb did, a few things occured to me.

First, I think part of the problem stems from IL-2's dispersion system--it uses a simple randomized X,Y offset that moves the impact point around inside a preset-size box.

Here's the problem that crops up with that--it's too random. (Here's the "when will I ever use this?" moment from my high-school statistics class)

When you simply give every shot a random X,Y point offset within a preset distance from the center point, Bullet X has just as much probability of hitting the very corner as it does landing dead-center.

That's the polar opposite of how gunfire--ANY gunfire--actually disperses. It follows a bell curve dispersion. You've probably seen one of these before:

http://www.susd.org/district/currinstruction/images/normal-curve.gif

With IL-2, any given bullet could land anywhere within the pre-designated 'accuracy grid'. In real life, 55% of the shots will land within 1/6th of the maximum possible dispersion distance from dead center; 79% would land within 1/4th.

With a weapon that has a wider dispersion, the way the Browning .50 does right now, that inaccuracy is doubly exaggerated, because a bullet is much more likely than in reality to veer way off.

Blutarski posted this over in ORR:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
According to a 1950 USAF fighter gunnery manual in my library, the M2 50cal in a rigid a/c mounting (wing or nose) firing in the air-to-air mode is credited with a 100 pct dispersion zone of 8 mils. In 1950 USAF parlance a mil is the apex angle formed by an isosceles triangle with sides 1000 ft long and a base of 1 foot. Stated in another way, 100 pct of shots fired by a single 50cal will strike within a circular area 8 feet in diameter at a range of 1000 feet (333 yards). At 500 meters (547 yards), the diameter of the circular area would be about 13 feet.

According to the standard exterior ballistics law of distribution, at 500 meters the distribution of hits within that circle will be as follows:

50 pct of hits strike within a circle of 2 mils (3.25 ft) diameter.

82 pct of hits will strike within a circle of 4 mils diameter (6.5 feet) diameter.

96 pct of hits will strike within a circle of 6 mils diameter (9.75 feet).

With a point convergence set at 547 yards / 500 meters (a very long range indeed for air to air), a battery of six 50cals firing a one second burst at that range would theoretically put 36 bullets out of 72 bullets fired into a area of 8.3 square feet (less than one square yard), i.e. - about 4 bullets per square foot.

Since hitting density varies inversely according to the square of the range, it can be seen that the same six guns firing at 250 meters point convergence would be quite deadly, depositing those same 36 hits within a circular area of 2 square feet, i.e. - about 18 bullets per square foot.

Please note that this is dispersion of air to air fire expected by the USAF, and was not ground based bench test results.

If you were watching a strafing run, with bullets striking the ground, over eighty percent of the bullets would be striking within the middle 50 percent of the bullet pattern width.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering how crucial the gunnery model is to the sim, I really, REALLY hope this is something that gets looked at. I'm no master programmer, but I DO have enough experience with object oriented C++ to know that while altering the gunnery model might be complicated, it won't require re-writing the game from the ground up or anything else that drastic. Considering how much of a quick-and-dirty job the current bullet disperion code is with the simple X,Y grid offset, instead of an angle theta, it's something that should have been done a while ago.

Chochacho pointed out the flaw and has a solid solution.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If only the dispersion was cone-shaped. The bullets spread out in a square pyramid shape.

The dispersal model currently uses random X and Y offsets.

To be correct it should use a random angle theta and a dispersal r where r follows the shape of half a bell curve.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's what that would change: when a bullet is fired, instead of retrieving the entered maximum dispersion distance and generating a random X and Y coordinate within that distance, it would generate a random dispersion direction (a vector pointing out the side of the barrel), and then use a bell-curve randomizer to see how far in that direction the angle of the bullet's path should disperse (relative to dead center). It's not that much more complex mathematically, and would NOT be that complex to code. Heck, I could create a vector-generator program that uses that system in VB+. And since you're only generating the vector, once that is established you can pass it through to the existing code.



Second, and you probably have seen this argument before, something is numerically wrong with the Browning .50. It doesn't matter if Oleg THINKS it's right; something either got misread or mis-entered. Here's why:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/b2392.jpg

This is the Browning .50's impact profile, at 300 meters, with a single shot from each gun (nose guns on the B239; P-39's dispersion pattern is essentially identical). Recoil from sustained fire is not a factor here.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Ki84Ia1.jpg

This is the Ki-84Ia's Ho-103 nose guns from the same position, with the same single-shot burst.

The Ho-103 is a COPY of the Browning .50, and a mechanically inferior one as well. It fires a shortened 12.7x88mm round, giving it less energy and a faster drop. The breech assembly and the gun as a whole is built to looser tolerances, degrading accuracy, and is lighter weight than the Browning. With less mass, the gun's mass does not 'absorb' the shock and per-round recoil as well. The barrel is shorter, which means less muzzle velocity and less stabilization of the projectile--both of which are major detriments to accuracy, especially the shorter barrel length.

Either the Ho-103 is incorrect, or the M2 Browning .50 is. One of them MUST be changed.


Here's something else. Compare the Browning .50...

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/b2392.jpg

--and the previously fault-proven Ho-103--

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Ki84Ia1.jpg

--with the other .50 caliber cowl and nose mounted weapons in the game: the MG131--

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Bf109G61.jpg

--and the UBs:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Yak1b1.jpg

Regardless of whether the Ho-103 has problems, there is an obvious similarity between the MG131, UBs and Ho-103. That similarity, puzzlingly, does not extend to the Browning.

Basically, we just want Oleg to double-check the numbers that are currently punched in for the .50 cal weapons. Maybe something got entered wrong, like the single extra-fast-firing wing gun on the P-47 in ver 1.0 of FB.

If this disparity is intentional, we just want to see the sources Oleg used to create the .50s in FB so we can understand why. A number of community members have found WWII documents dealing with the M2 that contradict its behavior in FB, and we want to get to the bottom of the differences.


There. It's all said clearly, in one spot. Luthier, PLEASE have Oleg read this. Especially the part about the Theta-R(bellcurve_angle) dispersion model.


EDIT: One last thing I wanted to add--I've been flying the razorback P-47s and the P-51D a lot recently. What I'm starting to think is that with the 2.01 patch changes to damage modeling, the Browning .50 may be too strong.

I have this nagging suspicion that with a corrected dispersion and 2.0 damage, they'd be perfect.

-----------------------
"To put it another way, a one second burst of fire from a single .50 cal M2 rigidly mounted aircraft gun shooting at you from 100 yards will put about 10 bullets through the computer screen you are looking at right now."
--Blutarski

There aren't many of them left. They flew these things. They stepped off the earth, into the sky, in a pair of metal wings and a howling, living, fire-breathing beast of war, and they fought.

And they died.

And the least we can do is remember they were heroes.

[This message was edited by PlaneEater on Tue May 25 2004 at 07:45 PM.]

RedDeth
05-26-2004, 12:31 AM
Plane eater NO ONE can dispute what youve posted. oleg needs to read this .

one thing though. only some of the planes had their damage models changed . or so ive heard from the guys in charge posting on forums. i do not find the 50 cal stronger now. on some planes its more effective than others true though

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

Texas LongHorn
05-26-2004, 09:23 AM
Man, I gotta' throw my two cents in here. I don't think the dispertion is in error, I suspect the pilots are expecting miracle kills. I'm an insane shot, in RL and in Aces and have never had a problem. The reason for my skill is easy, I know how to use the sights! Even high angle deflection shots are easy with Browning fifty as long as you are at the right range and _USING_ the gunsight correctly &lt;ggg.&gt; LongHorn

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v149/msdavis/My_Sig_Image2.jpg

PlaneEater
05-26-2004, 09:41 AM
I hate it when people don't listen...

Longhorn, I can shoot under 1 MOA with match grade ammo, a Winchester 700 and an Unertl 8x. I've put 5 7mm rounds through a space the size of a silver dollar at 1000m, more than once... But the problem is, THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE HERE.

Actually READ my post, then please come back and try again.

Tater-SW-
05-26-2004, 10:48 AM
heywoood, you are right, but it begs the question why similar weapons, sometimes direct copies of the browning, have extremely different dispersions simply based upon national origin.

If the US M2 is so inaccurate compared to any other 12.7mm weapon, then WHY?

That is the question. It'd still be a problem since it's the exclusive weapon of most US planes, but the real issue is why should US guns be less accurate than similar weapons with similar muzzle velocities on other airframes? Even the nose-mounted guns on the P-38 have greater dispersion, so it's not a wing mounted vibration issue.

I don't expect lasers, but I expect them to act like guns. (yes, I'm a shooter)

Longhorn, same thing, I don;t expect miracle kills, but if a IJ plane has a M2 copy, why should it be MORE accurate. The fact that they are so different says it was an intentional nerf for gameplay, or a typo in the M2 specs. That or the other 12.7mm guns are too accurate for gameplay.

tater

RedDeth
05-26-2004, 01:44 PM
longhorn if your so good then with ACCURATE dispersion you might become a legend online.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

rummyrum
05-26-2004, 05:27 PM
Imagine the complaints if dispersion is lessend. THere will be alot of unhappy folks who can't hit squat because it will require more skill and patience (not acussing anyone here, it is just some dont quite fully grasp what it takes to put a bullet on target much less several at a high rate of fire, while in a turn, while on the verge of a stall etc, me being one). Why was the K-14 sight even invented....surely there was a reason and a need? As it is now folks have a greater chance of scoring hits. THere are numerous accounts of some pilots even requesting a convergence which would give greater spread thus a better chance to score hits. Correct or incorrect be careful of what you ask for http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

9./JG54 Rummy

heywooood
05-26-2004, 05:39 PM
Alright - planeater and tater your point is well illustrated and well taken.

This dispersion variance between aircraft is a real issue - I think what I was trying to say is that I can live with it. It would be nice to see more consistancy, as you have diagrammed, from one plane type to the next but it may not be changed - or else the change might alter or 'ruin' something else. So I just want to say that I'm ok with the .50 cals already. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

PlaneEater
05-26-2004, 05:41 PM
The K-14 was created for two reasons:

1) To increase effectiveness during deflection shooting
2) Because having a mechanical device that can tell you exactly where to shoot in order to gurantee you hit your target is damn useful

It wasn't a compensation for any shortcoming of the .50s, other than air-to-air missiles hadn't been invented yet. ;P

Tater-SW-
05-26-2004, 05:45 PM
rummy, you can already set 50 cal planes to shotgun by setting the MG and canon convergance differently if you choose. (it'll only give 2 zones, but that's close enough)

It still doesn't change the P-38 issue. They are nose mounted a few inches apart, and it's my understanding they were bore sighted---should the hub gun on a bf109 get wild dispersion added to it?

I know it'll be harder to shoot, but I don't have a problem with that--I'll just get closer &lt;G&gt;.

tater

rummyrum
05-26-2004, 05:50 PM
I agree with heywooood. If there was consitency through out that would be grand. .50s are'nt the only one with issues.

PlaneEater....your number one reasons supports the statement about a need for accuracy when firing this weapon. My point was'nt that the .50 was ineffective but that lowering dispersion will require folks to aim. Belive me folks with biatch to no end not about dispersion but back to effectiveness.

BTW... tell me to get back to work http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

9./JG54 Rummy

heywooood
05-26-2004, 06:07 PM
back to work - rummy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gibbage1
05-26-2004, 06:17 PM
One idea I proposed to Oleg is to keep the dispersion on the wing mounted guns like the P-51 and P-47, but give the nose mounted guns like the P-38 and Fiat G.50 just as accurate as all other HMG's. The spread will simulate the pattern the USAAf set up to help green pilots hit stuff http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I have had no word back from Oleg about this proposal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rummyrum:
I agree with heywooood. If there was consitency through out that would be grand. .50s are'nt the only one with issues.

PlaneEater....your number one reasons supports the statement about a need for accuracy when firing this weapon. My point was'nt that the .50 was ineffective but that lowering dispersion will require folks to aim. Belive me folks with biatch to no end not about dispersion but back to effectiveness.

BTW... tell me to get back to work http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

9./JG54 Rummy<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.

PlaneEater
05-26-2004, 07:53 PM
I thought IL2 modeled the twist and vibration for wing mounts already.

Better to correct the baseline gun and let the engine make additional recoil effects based on the specific mount.

Gibbage1
05-27-2004, 12:46 AM
It does not model that. Its just a flat type of spread for all m2's. Thats why the P-47's 8 .50 cal is no differant then the P-39's 2 .50 cal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlaneEater:
I thought IL2 modeled the twist and vibration for wing mounts already.

Better to correct the baseline gun and let the engine make additional recoil effects based on the specific mount.<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.

Giganoni
05-27-2004, 02:14 AM
I really don't trust in game tests..for one thing there are too many variables that the posters never explain. Would there be a track of this test? Also it never proves that something is wrong with the game it just shows (considering that the tests are impossibly perfect) that, it is that way in the game. Oh well, hard data is hard to find sometimes so I understand why people do ingame tests.

Anyway..as to the Type 1 Ho 103 12.7 mm mgs..I don't think you should expect its performance due to "mechanical inferiority" to be affected in PF or AEP (Otherwise lots of planes would need their problems modeled). The other points may be valid.

Diablo310th
05-27-2004, 05:59 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
One idea I proposed to Oleg is to keep the dispersion on the wing mounted guns like the P-51 and P-47, but give the nose mounted guns like the P-38 and Fiat G.50 just as accurate as all other HMG's. The spread will simulate the pattern the USAAf set up to help green pilots hit stuff http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I have had no word back from Oleg about this proposal.


Ohhh no Gib..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif I want to be able to put all my rounds from my Jug on target too. Right now i jsut use teh guns as a big shotgun. Sure it works but it takes a whole load sometimes to get planes smoking. Please allow us to set a tighter convergence on our wing guns. LOL

http://img54.photobucket.com/albums/v166/310thDiablo/Diablos20Sig.jpg

sugaki
05-27-2004, 11:12 AM
Planeater -- As informative and convincing your comprehensive post is, not sure if it'd convince Oleg and his crew--after all, all that information was already presented to them in that other uber-long .50 caliber thread.

Don't quite understand why it doesn't get fixed though.

One suggestion I'd make to Planeater or Gibbage is to provide the actual track or mission to validate the claims. A pic of explosions on a chimney aren't that concrete as far as evidence goes. Providing the mission info will prove the distance from the plane to the chimney, and offer insight into other factors that may explain the dispersion disparity (or, it just may be that you guys are right).

Gibbage1
05-27-2004, 11:31 AM
I provided Oleg with many tracks showing how great the dispersion is on the .50 cal. He no longer disputes the wide spread, he now disputes if its historically accurate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
Planeater -- As informative and convincing your comprehensive post is, not sure if it'd convince Oleg and his crew--after all, all that information was already presented to them in that other uber-long .50 caliber thread.

Don't quite understand why it doesn't get fixed though.

One suggestion I'd make to Planeater or Gibbage is to provide the actual track or mission to validate the claims. A pic of explosions on a chimney aren't that concrete as far as evidence goes. Providing the mission info will prove the distance from the plane to the chimney, and offer insight into other factors that may explain the dispersion disparity (or, it just may be that you guys are right).<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.

Tater-SW-
05-27-2004, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I provided Oleg with many tracks showing how great the dispersion is on the .50 cal. He no longer disputes the wide spread, he now disputes if its historically accurate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So, if there is a simple fixed dispersion for all 50s, then he has to decide if it's accurate that the dispersion numbers that are what he thinks are right for wobbly wing guns are also right for nose guns.

Short of actually modelling real vibration effects, tehy could just make a M2n gun that is for centerline guns (n for "nose") and has a lower dispersion value.

tater

ZG77_Nagual
05-27-2004, 11:42 AM
Blutarski at some point said he thought it should be about 13 feet (4 meters) at 500 meters convergence and range. From what I can tell the p38 is very close to that.

I like Planeater's argument about the distribution within that dispersion needing to be adjusted. Regarding dispersion area, if blutarski's figure is right, the other 12.7s probably need adjusting.

Blutarski2004
05-28-2004, 02:44 PM
A reasonable facsimile of the pattern harmonized "shotgun effect" with wing-mounted guns exists now in FB with the current 50cal dispersion value and a 300 meter point convergence.

The K14 gunsight was introduced to improve the scoring chances of the zillions of those AVERAGE pilots who were typically unable to hit anything at all except when shooting from the dead 6 position. Not only did it improve defelction shooting for such pilots, it also extended effective gun range from 200 up to 400 meters, with occasional lucky kills at ranges up to 700 meters. They didn't call the K14 "the ace-maker" for nothing.

BLUTARSKI

Aaron_GT
05-30-2004, 11:05 AM
"I like Planeater's argument about the distribution within that dispersion needing to be adjusted. Regarding dispersion area, if blutarski's figure is right, the other 12.7s probably need adjusting."

Normal distribution for all guns would be good. Shouldn't be too hard to change in the code - C++ has plenty of maths libraries. I suppose there might conceivably be an issue with speed of the library and licensing of fast libraries, but a workaround that is closer to a normal distribution could be knocked up and be made to work fast. If you had a dispersion pattern going out to 4 sigma you could use a histogram rather than continuous function and get a pretty good approximation.

E.g. for x dispersion

int h = (int)floor(8 * drand48());
double delta = disperion[h] + boxWidth*drand48() - boxWidth/2;
double r = 2*PI*drand48();
x = x + delta*sin(r);
y = y + delta*cos(r);

And you can simplify the sin and cos with
LUTs too.

Obi_Kwiet
05-30-2004, 11:26 AM
Mabey the 50 cals are pretty close to being fine, and all the other guns have too little dispersion. I know that the .50's can't be THAT much crappier than the other guns.

fordfan25
05-30-2004, 03:43 PM
i heard that man