PDA

View Full Version : If .50's are that bad .. then please explain this



edradour
07-09-2004, 09:41 AM
Banzai got 5 humans in one VWF mission

http://vwf.klepaker.no/?do=mission&missionid=2927

The problem with .50's has to be the pilot - not the guns

edradour
07-09-2004, 09:41 AM
Banzai got 5 humans in one VWF mission

http://vwf.klepaker.no/?do=mission&missionid=2927

The problem with .50's has to be the pilot - not the guns

BS87
07-09-2004, 11:15 AM
That proves nothing... i can show you sorties where i pump a plane full of .50cal..... or i can show you where i shoot down 10 planes on 1 ammo load. Besides, the main gripe about the .50s is Dispersion, not the hitting power.

tttiger
07-09-2004, 11:55 AM
edradour, enough with the .50s...it's all been said a hundred times. There's nothing you or I or anyone else can add to the discussion until we see the patch (if we ever see it).

This subject has caused way too many hard feelings in this community. Leave it alone.

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

HQ1
07-09-2004, 12:01 PM
quote:
BS87

posted Jul 10, 02:15 AM
That proves nothing... i can show you sorties where i pump a plane full of .50cal..... or i can show you where i shoot down 10 planes on 1 ammo load. Besides, the main gripe about the .50s is Dispersion, not the hitting power.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Thu March 27 2003

------------------------------------------
yes if you think .50 is not good enough than ask oleg mount laser gun on your http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gifyankee plane.

RCAF_Hawk2
07-09-2004, 12:14 PM
IM going to get flamed for this but. I really dont see where the 50.s are that far off in 2.01 there better then in 1.22 right? offline I get 3 to 4 kills per flight with us planes armed with fifties I have gottin as many as 7 in a mission but luck had a factor.Online I normally get can 2 kills per sortie with my ammo load sometimes more .but most of the time I make a kill and then head for home but I still have plenty of ammo to make a kill while rtbing if I run into problems as in planes stafing my runway.I Have made four kills and one damaged in one flight with a p-40 online ,2 stuctual damage 1 engine fire ,1 control cables and the damaged one was losing fuel and had visable damage. what else could you ask for.The fifties might need a bit of fine tuning to be 100 % but there close enough for me . They are no where the problem that the muzzle flashes are for the LW boys have , I really feel for them guys (I know some allied AC have the same prob) because the LW planes are somewhat handicaped from the flashes.

http://www16.brinkster.com/hawkspage/hawkssig.jpg
Your not getting my Buffalo wings

Freefalldart
07-09-2004, 12:31 PM
Oh no!, not again! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

"Cuando un loco parece totalmente sensato es hora de ponerle la camisa de fuerza"
Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)

TgD Thunderbolt56
07-09-2004, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BS87:
"...Besides, the main gripe about the .50s is Dispersion, not the hitting power.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed

Can we PLEASE not beat this dead horse into a bloody mess again?

TB



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

BS87
07-09-2004, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HQ1:
------------------------------------------
yes if you think .50 is not good enough than ask oleg mount laser gun on your http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gifyankee plane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice attempt at a flame. Anyway, i think the .50s are fine, thought the dispersion is incorrect. Its just the same as if the LW 20mm fired and dispersed in a huge box witout coming close to a set convergence. But instead, they are too weak http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Anyway like Thunderbolt said, lets not beat this dead, rotting and decaying horse.

Gibbage1
07-09-2004, 01:19 PM
http://www.gibbageart.com/spread.jpg

On the left. 2 nose mounted Ho-103's on Ki-84. On the right, two .50's on the P-39. All HMG's in game (Jap, Russian, and German) get the sniper accurate dispersion on the left. All US M2 .50 cal's get the dispersion on the right.

Thats the problem.

TgD Thunderbolt56
07-09-2004, 01:48 PM
These simple screenies Gibbage posted months ago were the "clincher" for me. I had my suspicions, but this is definitive proof and will "supposedly" be addressed in the...erm...patch...to be released...erm...in short order?



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

MEGILE
07-09-2004, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That proves nothing... i can show you sorties where i pump a plane full of .50cal..... or i can show you where i shoot down 10 planes on 1 ammo load. Besides, the main gripe about the .50s is Dispersion, not the hitting power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok im realy not understanding something here... you are obviously all uber-aces able to get 10 kills one one load of ammo with the .50 cals.. so if that is the truth why do you particularly feel it is necessary to fix the dispersion..

On another point, you claim its not about the hitting power, its about dispersion, so Im assuming from this that you want the dispersion tightened to what you believe to be realistic, so that you can down more planes.. I mean why else would you argue so zealously for it...

.50 cals kill planes, as you rightly say... so why are y'all quick to cover it with.. Oh we can kill the planes, we just want the dispersion tighter...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

Countdown to 1337 post count = P minus 97

LilHorse
07-09-2004, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HQ1:
yes if you think .50 is not good enough than ask oleg mount laser gun on your http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gifyankee plane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, see? It's cr@p like this that we really don't need any more of.

VW-IceFire
07-09-2004, 02:11 PM
Two reasons for changing something:

1) Historical accuracy or attention to the same level of historical accuracy. Please answer why the Japanese copy of the Browning M2 .50cal has no dispersion and the American Browning M2 .50cal has a ton of it. Heck, change the Japanese one so that it does have dispersion...that eliminates that problem with logic. I'll be happy. Just keep things consistent

2) The problem isn't with killing planes, the problem is that its so very random on if you will hit or if you will miss. So on one sortie, despite the same level of accuracy of shooting, you miss your target or cause superficial damage while on another one you do exactly the same thing and blow the plane up. It swings too far on both sides. On every other gun, if you aim well, you are fairly assured of hitting your target (all things considered) and doing damage to what you hit. With the Browning .50 its a guessing game right now.

I will live with the guessing game version with the massive spray and I can learn to cope with the new less spray more concentrated version as well. It doesn't matter to me either way...I'd like to see it resolved and I want to see as historically accurate as possible for all guns, aircraft, bombs, rockets, and so on and so forth.

But this means that the massive discrepancy between the Japanese version and the American version does sort of need to be cleared up. This is the easiest comparison to make. The other HMG's are different weapons so they are arugably better with dispersion but there is such a disparity...some of us would like to see that cleared up regardless of the result.

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

Gibbage1
07-09-2004, 02:22 PM
I think there are two problems in IL2 FB in reguards too HMG's. #1, M2 dispersion is WAY too high. It should be more concentrated. #2, all other HMG's dispersion is WAY too low. They should all spread more. Sniper accuracy in an aircraft with an HMG was not possible in WWII. Only in Oleg's world.

The M2 did NOT have a drasticly differant firing pattern from other WWII HMG guns. But here it does. Its simply not historical. I DONT care if you can shoot down aircraft with the M2. If it had the power of the .30 cal YOU COULD STILL SHOOT STUFF DOWN! Thats NOT the issue and dont even try to make it that. The issue is spread, accuracy, and concentration of hits. Nothing more.

pcisbest
07-09-2004, 02:49 PM
How are you guys experts on the dispersion of the .50 calibers mounted in American aircraft, and furthermore, how do you accurately test this in game? If i saw actual numbers and statistics I would be more inclined to take sides in this on going argument, but to me it seems both those for and against the .50 calibers have little to no hard evidence to back up what they say, if they do they arent posting much of it.

The .50 caliber round fired in American M2s is very different then the 12.7mm varieties fired in Russian UBs or the German 13mm, also, the actual design of the weapon's reciever and length of the barrel, etc. are all different. In other words, you are acting as if all the weapons are similar just for the fact that they fire a round 12.7mm in diameter, you do not take into account the different characteristics of the weapon (most important, the different velocities, round weights, barrel lenghts and reciever design and weight) when comparing dispersion and hitting power over distance.

LuftLuver
07-09-2004, 03:11 PM
Mods, just a few drops will do the job.

http://www.mdt-products.com/products/160_loctite/loctite.jpg

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

crazyivan1970
07-09-2004, 03:44 PM
One more 50 cals thread and i will shoot myself... not even funny anymore

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Zayets
07-09-2004, 03:50 PM
OK,Ivan!
Then I'll open a new thread if you don't mind?
Edit: .50 related,obviously http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Zayets out

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

Locust_
07-09-2004, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BS87:
That proves nothing... i can show you sorties where i pump a plane full of .50cal..... or i can show you where i shoot down 10 planes on 1 ammo load. Besides, the main gripe about the .50s is Dispersion, not the hitting power.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Exzactaly

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

L ˜ ӡ ˜

Screaming Insanity

Locust_
07-09-2004, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I think there are two problems in IL2 FB in reguards too HMG's. #1, M2 dispersion is WAY too high. It should be more concentrated. #2, all other HMG's dispersion is WAY too low. They should all spread more. Sniper accuracy in an aircraft with an HMG was not possible in WWII. Only in Oleg's world.

The M2 did NOT have a drasticly differant firing pattern from other WWII HMG guns. But here it does. Its simply not historical. I DONT care if you can shoot down aircraft with the M2. If it had the power of the .30 cal YOU COULD STILL SHOOT STUFF DOWN! Thats NOT the issue and dont even try to make it that. The issue is spread, accuracy, and concentration of hits. Nothing more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

couldnt have said it better.......

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

L ˜ ӡ ˜

Screaming Insanity

Gibbage1
07-09-2004, 03:58 PM
I have not started a .50 cal thread in MONTHS http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But I sure as hell not going to let ANYONE say "I dont see a problem" without presenting them the proper proof in a calm way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
One more 50 cals thread and i will shoot myself... not even funny anymore

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RACFrankenstein
07-09-2004, 03:59 PM
For god's sake, please lock this thread!

Gibbage1
07-09-2004, 04:14 PM
Why? I dont see any flames or anything against Ubi rules.

If you dont like the thread, DONT READ IT! Its that simple. I never bothered to read the 200+ pages of the FW-190 bar thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RACFrankenstein:
For god's sake, please lock this thread!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
07-09-2004, 04:45 PM
i got one bullet (m2 fifty cal in the P-47) to hit a FW-190s wing

his wing fell off & he looked at his log , only was hit by one bullet

that proves NOTHING about dispersion

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hoarmurath
07-09-2004, 04:53 PM
hey, gibbage, on your screen, where is the smoke of the Ho103 round?

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

Gibbage1
07-09-2004, 04:57 PM
Smoke only last's for a short time, but the white dots for arcade=1 last for a few seconds. The screenshot was taken after the smoke disipated. Do you think that in some twistid way that invalidates the test?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
hey, gibbage, on your screen, where is the smoke of the Ho103 round?

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
07-09-2004, 05:18 PM
Cool. Maybe you hit his ammo on the Mk-108's? I did not know if that just jammed the gun or exploded the ammo.

I was in a Brewster last night. A 109Z was dumb enough to turn-fight me. I ripped his elivator off, and then his left wing with 2 short birst's. (Maybe hit his Mk-108 ammo?)

Again, proves nothing. Just that the .50's do damage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
i got one bullet (m2 fifty cal in the P-47) to hit a FW-190s wing

his wing fell off & he looked at his log , only was hit by one bullet

that proves NOTHING about dispersion

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hoarmurath
07-09-2004, 05:19 PM
I think a screenshot isn't a test. A track would have been, but a screen, no way.

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

Gibbage1
07-09-2004, 05:33 PM
Want a track? OK. I will post one later when I get home. Two. 1 of a P-39, and 1 of a Ki-84. Both on the same map and same situation. I did this test at night so you can see the marks better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
I think a screenshot isn't a test. A track would have been, but a screen, no way.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AnalFissure
07-09-2004, 06:10 PM
I don't think Hoarmurath understands what arcade=1 means. Perhaps that is why he hasn't been convinced -- heck I wouldn't be either if I thought those dots in gibbage's tests were the ACTUAL TRACERS.

Was it you, Hoarmurath who offered those screenshots of actual tracers as counter-proof that the .50's spread was no worse than other HMGs in the game? Did you think that was the method that gibbage et al had been using all this time?

They're not, Hoarmurath. When you set arcade=0 to arcade=1 in your conf.ini file, a yellow, glowing dot is stuck to the place of impact of all bullets. The glowing dot sticks around for a while. This makes for an easy and accurate means of testing dispersion.

I agree, certainly a screenshot of a single set of tracers in the air, or even temporary impact effects means nothing, but that's not what gibbage has been doing. With arcade set to 1 you can get a large sample of bullet impacts recorded over time. Try it.

BS87
07-09-2004, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MEGILE:

Ok im realy not understanding something here... you are obviously all uber-aces able to get 10 kills one one load of ammo with the .50 cals.. so if that is the truth why do you particularly feel it is necessary to fix the dispersion..

On another point, you claim its not about the hitting power, its about dispersion, so Im assuming from this that you want the dispersion tightened to what you believe to be realistic, so that you can down more planes.. I mean why else would you argue so zealously for it...

.50 cals kill planes, as you rightly say... so why are y'all quick to cover it with.. Oh we can kill the planes, we just want the dispersion tighter...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

Countdown to _1337_ post count = P minus 97<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not claiming to be an Ace. I'm not claiming to shoot down 10 planes every sortie. In fact, it has only happened once. You just get insanely close, aim the engine/wing roots, and blast away. I ask for dispersion to be fixed, because from the information provided to me, in my opinion the .50s dispersion is not modled correctly. This is my opinion, and it may be wrong, but i am entitled to it, just as you are entitled to yours.

Stanger_361st
07-09-2004, 07:41 PM
http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/AwJ.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
07-09-2004, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MEGILE:
if that is the truth why do you particularly feel it is necessary to fix the dispersion..

On another point, you claim its not about the hitting power, its about dispersion, so Im assuming from this that you want the dispersion tightened to what you believe to be realistic, so that you can down more planes.. I mean why else would you argue so zealously for it...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dude you do realise that tighter dispersion will make it harder to hit with dont you ?

its about accuracy in the game

look at all the other Heavy MGs in FB

the M2 is wrong

the people posting about this aint after anything but a tighter dispersion

its wrong

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gibbage1
07-09-2004, 07:59 PM
Thanks for the bump. Even stupid pics like that help keep threads like this from leaving the front page. We would not want that now would we?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/AwJ.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Copperhead310th
07-09-2004, 09:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Why? I dont see any flames or anything against Ubi rules.

If you dont like the thread, DONT READ IT! Its that simple. I never bothered to read the 200+ pages of the FW-190 bar thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RACFrankenstein:
For god's sake, please lock this thread!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gib you said it man. took the words right out of my mouth.

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

crazyivan1970
07-09-2004, 11:34 PM
Get a room you two http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

VW-IceFire
07-09-2004, 11:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pcisbest:
How are you guys experts on the dispersion of the .50 calibers mounted in American aircraft, and furthermore, how do you accurately test this in game? If i saw actual numbers and statistics I would be more inclined to take sides in this on going argument, but to me it seems both those for and against the .50 calibers have little to no hard evidence to back up what they say, if they do they arent posting much of it.

The .50 caliber round fired in American M2s is very different then the 12.7mm varieties fired in Russian UBs or the German 13mm, also, the actual design of the weapon's reciever and length of the barrel, etc. are all different. In other words, you are acting as if all the weapons are similar just for the fact that they fire a round 12.7mm in diameter, you do not take into account the different characteristics of the weapon (most important, the different velocities, round weights, barrel lenghts and reciever design and weight) when comparing dispersion and hitting power over distance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1) I'm not an expert. I just see a flaw in some logic. Someone please explain to me why the Japanese copy behaves like every other HMG in the game and the American version is radically different. Just explain that.... Why does the one gun differ so drastically?

2) You are absolutely correct...all of the HMG's were different. But not that different. The Berezin is undisputedly the best for almost everything (size, weight, ballistics, etc.). But its not that radically different than the Browning. Essentially the same technology at work. Also consider that the Japanese copied the Browning and we have that gun on the Ki-84a cowling guns. Behaves very differently.

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

badatit
07-10-2004, 12:00 AM
Stanger_361st http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

badatit
07-10-2004, 12:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by edradour:
Banzai got 5 humans in one VWF mission

http://vwf.klepaker.no/?do=mission&missionid=2927

The problem with .50's has to be the pilot - not the guns<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Question for edradour...What plane do you usually fly, sir?
Edit: I'll wager it isnt armed with M2's.

Fehler
07-10-2004, 01:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
One more 50 cals thread and i will shoot myself... not even funny anymore


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just dont do it with a v2.01 50 cal...

According to Gibbage, you will either miss yourself or cause no damage...

ROFL!

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

BennyMoore
07-10-2004, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pcisbest:
The .50 caliber round fired in American M2s is very different then the 12.7mm varieties fired in Russian UBs or the German 13mm, also, the actual design of the weapon's reciever and length of the barrel, etc. are all different. In other words, you are acting as if all the weapons are similar just for the fact that they fire a round 12.7mm in diameter, you do not take into account the different characteristics of the weapon (most important, the different velocities, round weights, barrel lenghts and reciever design and weight) when comparing dispersion and hitting power over distance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose that American and British machine guns really did have ten times the dispersion of any other country's machine guns? Because that's what the game mathematics state. The difference is roughly ten times.

In any event, you failed to mention the Jap machine guns, which in real life were copies of American ones.

No, my take on it is that Oleg has this issue with American quality versus Russian quality. Although Russian quality is often put down (sometimes justly, sometimes not), I see no reason to do the same thing in the opposite direction. It's not like he's be making up for Russian stuff's bad reputation by portraying American stuff in a bad light. All that's happening is that he's looking very silly, except for to a very few syncophants and a bunch of Russians.

pcisbest
07-10-2004, 02:46 AM
But why? Why would Oleg and team, who strive for realism in all other areas, make the .50 caliber ballistics so unrealistic? Im not saying the team does everything perfect, but some people are starting to talk as if there is a conspiracy going on here. Again, I would appreciate it if someone would post actual hard data that can back up what people are saying.

Like those screenshots, there could be many factors involved. The distance would have needed to have been EXACTLY the same for both planes, how did you measure this distance from plane to smokestack? How could you be 100% sure that the speed and flight altitude of those two planes were exactly the same, even a minor variaton in slip angle or pitch, maybe as little as 1 degree, could throw off the bullets (as we all know how minute of angle works hopefully) into two very different dispersions. Also, was each burst for each respective airplane done at the exact same duration? Even then, the two weapons (Ho 103 and M2) use different rates of fire. Also, aircraft weight is different, which combined with differnt recievers and barrels would produce two different types of recoil effect, therefore producing two different dispersions.

Basically, what I am saying is that it is hard to conduct ballistic experiments from a moving aircraft, specifically two DIFFERNT aircraft. If you could put the Ho103 guns in the P-39 or vice versa, so you could see the effects of the two differnt armaments withing the same airframe that would be one thing, or even doing this test a minimum of 3 times so we could see some kind of average result: just doing it one time, and taking only one picture for each aircraft isnt really scientific. Even at this, you still have the aforementioned problems of controlling aircraft speed, flight attitude, and distance to the target to EXACT values. The best way to definitivley test the M2 against the other weapons would be to have the weapon on the ground, unmoving, firing at a fixed target at a known distance, but I dont know how you could do this in IL-2.

Nub_322Sqn
07-10-2004, 03:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pcisbest:
But why? Why would Oleg and team, who strive for realism in all other areas, make the .50 caliber ballistics so unrealistic? Im not saying the team does everything perfect, but some people are starting to talk as if there is a conspiracy going on here. Again, I would appreciate it if someone would post actual hard data that can back up what people are saying.

Like those screenshots, there could be many factors involved. The distance would have needed to have been EXACTLY the same for both planes, how did you measure this distance from plane to smokestack? How could you be 100% sure that the speed and flight altitude of those two planes were exactly the same, even a minor variaton in slip angle or pitch, maybe as little as 1 degree, could throw off the bullets (as we all know how minute of angle works hopefully) into two very different dispersions. Also, was each burst for each respective airplane done at the exact same duration? Even then, the two weapons (Ho 103 and M2) use different rates of fire. Also, aircraft weight is different, which combined with differnt recievers and barrels would produce two different types of recoil effect, therefore producing two different dispersions.

Basically, what I am saying is that it is hard to conduct ballistic experiments from a moving aircraft, specifically two DIFFERNT aircraft. If you could put the Ho103 guns in the P-39 or vice versa, so you could see the effects of the two differnt armaments withing the same airframe that would be one thing, or even doing this test a minimum of 3 times so we could see some kind of average result: just doing it one time, and taking only one picture for each aircraft isnt really scientific. Even at this, you still have the aforementioned problems of controlling aircraft speed, flight attitude, and distance to the target to EXACT values. The best way to definitivley test the M2 against the other weapons would be to have the weapon on the ground, unmoving, firing at a fixed target at a known distance, but I dont know how you could do this in IL-2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These tests are done with the plane on the ground.
All planes where simply replaced with another in the mission builder so the conditions are the same for all planes that where tested.

It's better to ask how the tests where done before assuming how the tests where done and then draw your conclusions based on your own views. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So what you are basicly saying is that dispersion should be overmodelled on the US .50's and stay the same (undermodelled) on the other planes.

All we want is to bring them more together so tone down the dispersion a bit on the US .50 and tone up the dispersion on the other MG's.

I am not saying they should all be the same but the difference should not be so large between them as they are now.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

pcisbest
07-10-2004, 03:22 AM
I am not saying dispersion should be "overmodelled", what I am saying is how can we indeed be certain it is even overmodelled to begin with?!?!?

Please, actual evidence is desperately needed, meaning numbers, statistics or whatever, I would be more then willing to believe you guys if you could prove something, one way or the other.

That is interesting though, that you were able to shoot from the ground to the smokestack, I guess that does make the test much more credible in my eyes, since no one said otherwise, I simply assumed the tests were done while in mid-air.

BTW why doenst someone from 1C just come in here and settle this by giving us some raw data showing actuall differences between the modelling of the weapons in question? Maybe they already have and I missed it, but if so, why still the incessent arguing?

Nub_322Sqn
07-10-2004, 03:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pcisbest:
I am not saying dispersion should be "overmodelled", what I am saying is how can we indeed be certain it is even overmodelled to begin with?!?!?

Please, actual evidence is desperately needed, meaning numbers, statistics or whatever, I would be more then willing to believe you guys if you could prove something, one way or the other.

That is interesting though, that you were able to shoot from the ground to the smokestack, I guess that does make the test much more credible in my eyes, since no one said otherwise, I simply assumed the tests were done while in mid-air.

BTW why doenst someone from 1C just come in here and settle this by giving us some raw data showing actuall differences between the modelling of the weapons in question? Maybe they already have and I missed it, but if so, why still the incessent arguing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything has already been said, proven and communicated to Oleg so if you really want to know what was actually provided I suggest you use the forum search button because I am not going to search it for you.

This thread was started by a whiner that just want's to kick up some dust for his own personal amusement, not another person that asks to get it fixed.

From your replies is pretty obvious that you only know less then half the facts of what has been discussed before regarding the .50 dispersion so I suggest you either search the forum and read up on things and then mix yourself in this conversation or stop replying now with useless information that is only going to draw this thread into another flame fest.

Unless if that is your intention ofcource.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

pcisbest
07-10-2004, 03:57 AM
Okay, but just one last thing,the screenshots were taken between a Ki-84 and a P39 right? I kept thinking about this, then something hit me: the P-39 uses tricycle gear while the Ki-84 is a tail-sitter! How were these two planes sitting on the ground and shooting at the same target at the same distnace, since the nose of the Ki-84 would have been elevated right, whereas the P-39 would be firing parallel to the ground? That mustve been why I assumed the test was done in mid-air, as all you would see from a Ki-84 cockpit while on the ground would be sky and clouds.

Well anyway, better start wading into the mess of threads Im digging up on this using "Find" LOL...

Cajun76
07-10-2004, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pcisbest:
Okay, but just one last thing,the screenshots were taken between a Ki-84 and a P39 right? I kept thinking about this, then something hit me: the P-39 uses tricycle gear while the Ki-84 is a tail-sitter! How were these two planes sitting on the ground and shooting at the same target at the same distnace, since the nose of the Ki-84 would have been elevated right, whereas the P-39 would be firing parallel to the ground? That mustve been why I assumed the test was done in mid-air, as all you would see from a Ki-84 cockpit while on the ground would be sky and clouds.

Well anyway, better start wading into the mess of threads Im digging up on this using "Find" LOL...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Apparently you've never sat in a P-39 on the ground before. Try this before posting more inaccuaracies, please. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/p47nh.jpg
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

pcisbest
07-10-2004, 04:37 AM
Uhh, you are joking with me right?

Cajun76
07-10-2004, 05:22 AM
Sure, and the P-38 fires level, too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/p47nh.jpg
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

BennyMoore
07-12-2004, 10:24 PM
Pcisbest, why don't you make the test yourself, right now? You'll see that the P-39 does not fire horizontally when it is on the ground. You'll also be able to make your own conclusions about dispersion. And, if you're as open minded as you say you are, I think you'll come to agree with Gibbage after making the experiment.

alarmer
07-13-2004, 12:24 AM
Ok so maybe one more of these 0.5cal threads made me snap but I will say this anyways.

You 0.5cal people dont know jack about suffering. Maybe now you know 5% of the pain what Axis pilots have felt for the whole life span of Il2. Iam not even going to go into the issues, if you know anything about il2 you know these things allrdy.

Your gun kills well. Why the helluva fuss then? Axis planes have problems too but in time we have learned to live with them. So should you.

BS87
07-13-2004, 12:45 AM
I've seen luft threads go 10x longer (190 cockpit bar *cough*).... I fly Luft planes alot too, and i suffered through all the hard ships, the pea shooter 20mm and whatnot. So don't go lableing us all ameriwiners.

BennyMoore
07-13-2004, 12:47 AM
I fly German planes and American planes. And I don't mean I fly German planes sometimes as a diversion. If I want to fly the ships which I love the best in real life, I fly American aircraft - P-38, P-40 E, and (if I really feel like dying) P-47.

If, on the other hand, I want to rack up kills, or have had a bad day at work and want to blast someone to small pieces, I fly German planes - BF-109 G-2 or, if former is not allowed, BF-109 K-4.

If someone in a superplane of some sort has insulted me or ridiculed my flying, only then must I turn to a Russian aircraft - the Lag-3.

So I intimately know aircraft from three sides. I will say that the ones with the most handicaps are the American ones (excepting the P-51 - I'm never talking about the P-51). The Germans do have it bad, and it's close, but it's not quite up to the Americans. And the fifty caliber machine guns, while not one of my major gripes, actually, would tip the scales and give the American planes just the boost they need to be decently effective, perhaps even as effective as they really were (although I highly doubt it in the case of the poor P-38).

At the very least, they'd be able to pull off super sniper shots like the Russian planes they always have to face in these ridiculous planesets.

To be honest with you, I'm with Gibbage on one more thing. I don't feel that the American guns need to be made like the Russian guns, nor vica versa, but I feel that they two should be brought closer together.

BS87
07-13-2004, 12:57 AM
Benny.. i have no problem killing things in the P38 or P47.. its all about the way you fly them.

M.R.Maiornikov
07-13-2004, 12:57 AM
is this one of those discussions again when everyone think their country is better than the otherone's? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif Who cares if you fly with .50 or .10 (a great pilot uses his head instead the size of his gun)

------------------------------------------------------------
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/MRMaiornikov-sovietAF.jpg

The RED GUARD (777th Gv.I.A.P)-"For The Glory Of Our Motherland"
Lt.M.R.Maiornikov

alarmer
07-13-2004, 01:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BS87:
I've seen luft threads go 10x longer (190 cockpit bar *cough*).... I fly Luft planes alot too, and i suffered through all the hard ships, the pea shooter 20mm and whatnot. So don't go lableing us all ameriwiners.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I went bit overboard I admit, but there are certain differences between FW190 bar discussion and 0.5cal

1) Even if 190 bar issue thread was long there was superb evidence provided by the community to the very end.

2) It took 10 times more writing to get Oleg respond to the FW190 bar issue than to the 0.5cal issue.

So when I read point 1 and 2 again I see big differences in these two issues.

1. There hasnt been any new evidence in 0.5cal issue for quite some time. Its the same pictures and same arguments over and over again. I admit that Bar issue might have been easyer to prove than 0.5cal maybe thats why this difference.

2. Oleg responded to 0.5cal issue and there is hope of change. We just need to wait for the patch to arrive which shouldnt be far away. In FW190 issue we had plenty of support and evidence and I could say that the point we made was very strong. It didint get fixed so that was that.

Lets wait and see after the patch.

Btw Iam not labeling you into any whiner cast since in my mind thats just absurd. Your just trying to make your side more historical. Sometimes we are right other times we are wrong. And Oleg is the fellow to decide that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
07-13-2004, 01:10 AM
Hi,

It's easy to get kills with these noob guns and I say that fully supported by the US military. For example: the other night, I'm having 'one of those nights' where nothing seems to go right on bnz runs. I swap to a P51 (against "so-called uber" Ki84) and get 3 kills on the first flight out. I then take a P40 up and two kills, right away. What was more amusing was that I infrequently fly these planes.....I even thought about selling my soul and flying these more often (think of the points!) but that would be too easy.

Anyone who claims that you have to use a full load of .50s to take something down is either mis-stating the problem or not aiming too well.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Hoarmurath
07-13-2004, 01:17 AM
I agree with norris. I think it is a case where we should have "less whining, more training"...

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

BaldieJr
07-13-2004, 01:24 AM
Less opinion, more proof.

Show us screenshots of your ballistic tests or shut your hole.

AWL_Spinner
07-13-2004, 01:38 AM
My first comment on this damnfool discussion, I think...

Why would anyone want more laser accuracy? If they could regularly hit things at vast distances with machine guns during WWII without atmospherics, ballistics and inertia etc. etc. having an effect then why would anyone ever bother dogfighting?

If one MG is modelled a lot different than the others then yeah, it should probably be changed it Oleg and crew have nothing better to work on (although I can't BELIEVE people get this bothered by it, it's 0.0000000001% of the game) but I'd wager every other MG should be like the .50, not the other way around.

If the bad guy is filling your gunsight like he's supposed to, it doesn't matter in the slightest anyway....

Cheers, Spinner

http://www.alliedwingedlegion.com/members/signatures/spinner_sig.jpg

Levethane
07-13-2004, 02:17 AM
I've seen some old gun cam footage of Corsairs engaging Zero's, a quick squirt was ripping the zero in half at medium range. Also seen video of a P40 Tomahawk (in late 1940 under the RAF) shooting a ME110 down, another 1 sec burst blew the 110's wing off from at least 100 meters away.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
07-13-2004, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Levethane:
I've seen some old gun cam footage of Corsairs engaging Zero's, a quick squirt was ripping the zero in half at medium range. Also seen video of a P40 Tomahawk (in late 1940 under the RAF) shooting a ME110 down, another 1 sec burst blew the 110's wing off from at least 100 meters away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so? you're saying you cant do this ingame ?
ive done it plenty of times both off and online.infact its easier to rip a 109/zero apart with 6 to 8 fiftie guns than to rip apart a P51,P47,P63,P39 with 2x20mm 2x13mm and sometimes just sometimes even with the mk108 on some planes COUGH TANK 39/P63 P51 COUGH*

there are somany things not historical accurate in this sim and will never be just because there are somany different recourses all saying something else.

anyway ive flown v2.02 for a while back with the fixed 50cals and there was this US sqaud that flies often in our server and i have to say they couldnt hit **** in 2.01 and they still couldnt hit **** in 2.02 but atleast they kept their mouth shut about the desperion
but they would now whine about how underpowerd they were. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif
some 50 noobs will never be happy and want a one shot one kill gun. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

im getting more than annoyed about 50cals both on the forum and online.

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sunsigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

LeadSpitter_
07-13-2004, 03:09 AM
lock

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

LeadSpitter_
07-13-2004, 03:10 AM
lockit

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

pcisbest
07-13-2004, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Sure, and the P-38 fires level, too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/p47nh.jpg
What if there were no hypothetical questions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was pretty stupid. Obviously the P-39 doesnt fire perfectly, 180 degrees parallel to the ground, I mean come on. I think you could see my point though, that without getting into the actual angle measures of the two aircraft, you simply cannot have the same firing angle to a target from a plane on tricycle gear as you can from a tail-sitter. This difference, even if only small, will grow large over distance, that is what I meant by minute of angle in my earlier post.

Therefore, you cannot have a completely concrete test between these two aircraft armaments by simply firing from the two aircraft on the ground: you would need to have the twin .50s and Ho103 on "benches", at the same distance from the target and same elevation, non-moving.

AnalFissure
07-13-2004, 03:29 AM
Speaking personally, I'm only bothered by the flawed logic of giving the .50 relatively ****ty dispersion when you've got all of the other supposedly comparable weapons with dispersion entire orders of magnitude better.

The whole fw190 cockpit debate had lots of evidence to at least promote discussion, but in the end it was still largely subjective. At least compared to this.

The logic is blindingly simple here. You don't need detailed, comprehensive ballistics data to prove anything. The tests were done in game, and there's a discrepancy in game. Whether the .50 is undermodelled, or all of the other weapons are overmdelled -- it really makes no difference to me. I just want the same rules to be applied across the board.

IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT YOU CAN STILL BRING DOWN PLANES WITH THE .50. This is a moot point! Nobody here is saying you can't, so stop telling people to "learn how to fly and shoot".

And for the record, I have no particular favorite plane or nationality in the game. In fact, when I first started to read these forums regularly it surprised me how vehemently some people would stick to one side's planes. To me, one of the things that makes the sim great is that you have such a wide selection, and I've always flown most, if not all of them fairly equally. (Got a soft spot for the 109, though, I have to admit. She's a beaute.)

AnalFissure
07-13-2004, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Therefore, you cannot have a completely concrete test between these two aircraft armaments by simply firing from the two aircraft on the ground: you would need to have the twin .50s and Ho103 on "benches", at the same distance from the target and same elevation, non-moving.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on. this isn't rocket science, no need to split hairs.

But if you're that desparate for a tail dragger, I believe the buffalo showcases the same dispersion as the rest of them. In fact, it's quite telling that the cone of dispersion is pretty much the same for a plane firing only 2 .50 cals as it is for one firing 8.

Have you even bothered to try the test for yourself?

Hoarmurath
07-13-2004, 03:37 AM
Tests done in game show there is no big difference between the way M2 are modelled, and other HMG are modelled. The only big difference is when you fire six or eight MG instead of one or two.

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

AnalFissure
07-13-2004, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Tests done in game show there is no big difference between the way M2 are modelled, and other HMG are modelled. The only big difference is when you fire six or eight MG instead of one or two.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're running a bath, mate.

Hoarmurath
07-13-2004, 03:44 AM
I did the test, posted the result. While testing, i learned also that all HMG have same max range, as bullets disapear at approx 1000m range, and have similar trajectories, as they disappear at similar height, no big differences even here.

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

AnalFissure
07-13-2004, 03:48 AM
Where have you posted the results?

Nub_322Sqn
07-13-2004, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Tests done in game show there is no big difference between the way M2 are modelled, and other HMG are modelled. The only big difference is when you fire six or eight MG instead of one or two.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pics of the tests that where done was with 2 nose mounted .50's on a P39, not wing mounted 6 or 8 .50's.
But according to you both are the same eh.

Just another Hoarmurath post trying to kick up some dirt to turn this into another flame thread. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

pcisbest
07-13-2004, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AnalFissure:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Therefore, you cannot have a completely concrete test between these two aircraft armaments by simply firing from the two aircraft on the ground: you would need to have the twin .50s and Ho103 on "benches", at the same distance from the target and same elevation, non-moving.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on. this isn't rocket science, no need to split hairs.

But if you're that desparate for a tail dragger, I believe the buffalo showcases the same dispersion as the rest of them. In fact, it's quite telling that the cone of dispersion is pretty much the same for a plane firing only 2 .50 cals as it is for one firing 8.

Have you even bothered to try the test for yourself?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif "No need to split hairs"? Then what in the name of all that is good and holy are all these .50 cal whining threads doing here? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

If you demand changes to be implemented, and they are that important to you to conduct tests to prove your point, then shouldnt the tests be done as accurately as possible? All I was saying is I dont consider settting up one aircraft using tricycle gear and another one a tail-sitter, shooting off into a smockestack, at who-knows-what range a substantial enough test to truly convince everyone that the dispersion is in FACT wrong.

It may prove as an interesting experiment, but it cannot DEFINITEVLY prove anything. We need actual data of how much a burst of .50 cal fire dispersed at a certain range, compared to how much XX MG dispersed at same range, firing same lenght of burst, from a similar position.

Let me be simple: if you want to nitpick about the ballistics of a weapon, then people can nitpick about the so-called "tests" used in other's validations, and my "nitpick", you must admit, is a valid one, there IS a difference firing from the two aircraft, and the lack of hard numbers goes a long way to make these arguments non-convincing. Show me the actual code in the game that shows the difference between the in-game travel of a .50 cal round and a Ho103 round, not this dead reckoning where people are like "Well, it seems as if the rounds have a similar blah blah blh..." or "look at gun cam footage, this plane gets shot down by .50s, so that means they are not as good as they should be"

[This message was edited by pcisbest on Tue July 13 2004 at 03:06 AM.]

AnalFissure
07-13-2004, 04:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No need to split hairs"? Then what in the name of all that is good and holy are all these .50 cal whining threads doing here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look, all I'm saying is that you'd have to be nuts (or hoarmurath), to not see that there is a discrepancy here. You don't need to go into super fine detail, or have ultra controlled tests... for one thing, it's impossible to do in the game.

The test that gibbage et al have provided us with is the best we can do, and I for one think it's more than acceptable when it comes to demonstrating that there is a problem.

If you don't like the endless threads about it, you really don't have to participate -- heck, you don't even have to read them -- just steer clear. If you have something useful to add, then by all means, contribute, whether it is arguing for or against a change. That's all I'm doing.

Your annoyance doesn't prove anything.

pcisbest
07-13-2004, 04:09 AM
Ok, I am having trouble sifting through all the muck this issue has in the forums. So, can someone just finally, from the goodness fo their heart, post what Oleg had to say about this issue for me? I would like to hear from him why there is indeed a discrepency, and what he is going to do about it if that is the case.

&lt;EDIT&gt; I have read quite a bit of the posts I have found on this subject, and I must say taht Bultarski2004's point on how the game assigns randomized hit locations for the bullets within a "square" area is a very important one. His mathematical calculations and specific recommendations for code chagnes are the kind of stuff I was looking for. I am convinced that something does need to be implemented to make computing the hit locations more realistic. However, still havnet found anything from Oleg, does anyone have it marked or copied so they could post Oleg's response to all of this?

[This message was edited by pcisbest on Tue July 13 2004 at 03:26 AM.]

WUAF_Co_Hero
07-13-2004, 04:19 AM
Sweet jesus, where's the proverbial padlock when you need it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

AnalFissure
07-13-2004, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It may prove as an interesting experiment, but it cannot DEFINITEVLY prove anything. We need actual data of how much a burst of .50 cal fire dispersed at a certain range, compared to how much XX MG dispersed at same range, firing same lenght of burst, from a similar position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The tests do provide all of the data you speak of!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let me be simple: if you want to nitpick about the ballistics of a weapon, then people can nitpick about the so-called "tests" used in other's validations, and my "nitpick", you must admit, is a valid one, there IS a difference firing from the two aircraft, and the lack of hard numbers goes a long way to make these arguments non-convincing. Show me the actual code in the game that shows the difference between the in-game travel of a .50 cal round and a Ho103 round, not this dead reckoning where people are like "Well, it seems as if the rounds have a similar blah blah blh..." or "look at gun cam footage, this plane gets shot down by .50s, so that means they are not as good as they should be"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not dead reckoning at all. If you would have seen the tests you'd know.

I forget who did them originally, but every single weapon in the game was tested under the exact same conditions -- excepting, as you have said, gear configuration, and armament layout (ie. wing mounted vs. nose).

But this is not real life, and there was no proof that those differences are even taken into account in the code when it comes to calculating dispersion, and infact, the tests demonstrated just that. Gear configuration, weapon configuration had no impact whatsoever upon the m2's dispersion pattern! Every single plane in the game that used the m2 featured the same inflated pattern! Regardless of the gear. Regardless of the number of weapons on board.

So you see, LOGIC DICTATES THAT THERE IS A DISCREPANCY. The tests are valid.

If you still disagree, I suggest you do a little more research into how the tests were done, and download some tracks, or even try it yourself.

AnalFissure
07-13-2004, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have read quite a bit of the posts I have found on this subject, and I must say taht Bultarski2004's point on how the game assigns randomized hit locations for the bullets within a "square" area is a very important one. His mathematical calculations and specific recommendations for code chagnes are the kind of stuff I was looking for. I am convinced that something does need to be implemented to make computing the hit locations more realistic. However, still havnet found anything from Oleg, does anyone have it marked or copied so they could post Oleg's response to all of this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re: oleg's response. From what I recall he acknowledged gibbage's tests, but then made an off-hand comment about how it was invalid because of the suspension system on the m2 plane gibbage used. That it had one of the newer "bouncy" ones, and that that had affected the dispersion. He didn't really elaborate, but I find this hard to believe as the m2 dispersion is consitently larger (and to the same degree) than other comparable weapons, regardless of any of the planes it's fired from in the game. Moreover, none of the non-m2 planes, plenty I'm sure with the newer modelled suspension, suffer from this enlarged pattern.

re: the way the game calculates dispersion in the box pattern. Yes, I agree this doesn't seem very realistic. But as far as how it relates to this issue -- it doesn't really, as all weapons in the game calculate it that way, just at varying scales (ie. larger square as opposed to a smaller square). The m2 specific discrepancy is still there.

pcisbest
07-13-2004, 04:39 AM
Yes, AnalFissue, I see what you mean. What I meant by requiring furhter information is that without real-life info on the dispersion of the .50 cal compared to the other weapons, how are we to know when the values in-game have been adjusted to the correct levels? This is what I meant by "dead reckooning", that even if Oleg adjusts the code accordingly, how do we know when to stop and how can we be sure that the .50 cal (or any MG) is truly being modelled correctly based only upon visual tests and watching gun camera footage?

Dont get me wrong, upon further reading into this HUGE subject on this forum, I finally found the post where the test was posted, by Planeeater or someone. His test was explained in much more depth there, and this, taken together with Blutarski2004's calculations, has led me to believe that yes, there must be a discrepency.

What I have taken issue with to this point, is that people are taking things as truths when there is, in fact, a lot left up in the air. While I agree some discrepency is evident, I dont know how we are planning on specifically going to make this "correct", as we stand a chance of "over-correcting" if we adjust the dispersion based only on visual tests of the type between the P-39 and Ki-84, that is why I said I wanted hard data.

As I said in my edited post above, Blutarski2004's work seems very valid, and if we implement his idea for hit calculation we will probably see much more realistic dispersion for ALL of the MGs. In other terms, maybe the .50 claiber's dispersion isnt too much as the other MGs are too little? Again, I would appreciate if someone could link or post me any comment from Oleg on this issue, as I seem to be having trouble finding anything like that.

&lt;EDIT&gt; Oh, you posted it, but I didnt see as it went up before I got done with this post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif Thank you.

AnalFissure
07-13-2004, 04:48 AM
Bottom line is I really don't understand why.

Why is the m2 dispersion in game so much worse than the other HMGs (a prime example is the ho-103, a supposed copy of the m2 itself).

What reason could there be for the way it's coded in the game now?

The best I can come up with is that it's analagous to the improved damage model situation: Some planes got the newer damage model, while others didn't, giving the ones that didn't a bit of an unfair advantage as they were more durable, in many cases.

Perhaps the same thing is true with the m2. It may indeed have more modern, more realistically modelled dispersion code in comparison to the other HMGs. More realistic, maybe, but definitely not as straight shooting.

Hoarmurath
07-13-2004, 04:49 AM
According to Oleg, M2 were modelled the same as UB HMG. I think he was refeering to the game code. Anyway, Oleg opinion on the subject is that M2 modelling is fine in 2.01. But of course, if you believe oleg is lying, i don't see how we are to settle this. You don't believe tests that don't prove your point, you don't believe what the game designer have to say about this issue. We are not going anywhere, this debate is useless. Indeed you are not debating, you just keep saying that you have the truth, and all others are liars. If you have valid datas, send them to Oleg, if he is not convinced by your data, there is no need to continue *****ing and bringing the issue over and over.

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

AnalFissure
07-13-2004, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What I have taken issue with to this point, is that people are taking things as truths when there is, in fact, a lot left up in the air. While I agree some discrepency is evident, I dont know how we are planning on specifically going to make this "correct", as we stand a chance of "over-correcting" if we adjust the dispersion based only on visual tests of the type between the P-39 and Ki-84, that is why I said I wanted hard data. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, then. The acknowledgement that there is something going on is the only thing I really know about, and was arguing at this point.

You're right, the question of how to proceed from there is still up for debate, and hard data can indeed help with that.

Cheers.

AnalFissure
07-13-2004, 04:53 AM
Still waiting for the results of your test, Hoarmurath.

Hoarmurath
07-13-2004, 04:58 AM
Result of my tests is in one of those locked .50 threads. An old one. But i won't lose my time looking for it. It's pointless, you are not interested in it, you could have done the testing by yourself. Everyone can, you just have to launch the game.

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

AnalFissure
07-13-2004, 05:15 AM
I have run the smokestack test myself, Hoarmurath. My results were in line with gibbage et al.

You're saying otherwise, and the only thing I recall you posting were screenshots of bullets in flight taken from the f2 view rotated around to look at your plane from half a kilometer in front of it. Oh yeah, and there were the ones of your bullets hitting the smokestack... WITHOUT arcade mode turned on.

So you can understand that I'm a little apprehensive about your "tests".

If you make claims that are contrary to others' findings, you're supposed to back it up with proof. Gibbage did, after all.

But if you don't want to waste your time, that's fine. I'd rather not waste mine, either.

Nub_322Sqn
07-13-2004, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
According to Oleg, M2 were modelled the same as UB HMG. I think he was refeering to the game code. Anyway, Oleg opinion on the subject is that M2 modelling is fine in 2.01. But of course, if you believe oleg is lying, i don't see how we are to settle this. You don't believe tests that don't prove your point, you don't believe what the game designer have to say about this issue. We are not going anywhere, this debate is useless. Indeed you are not debating, you just keep saying that _you_ have the truth, and all others are liars. If you have valid datas, send them to Oleg, if he is not convinced by your data, there is no need to continue *****ing and bringing the issue over and over.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems you didn't read what Oleg actually said since he didn't posted it on the forums but was said in an email to Gibbage.
What was discussed further was also not posted here on the forum by Oleg so you have absolutely no idea what he said since you understood Oleg's words the same as Gibbage did.
Later it turned out that Oleg said that they should be modelled the same as the UB (Or close to it), not that it actually was modelled the same. (Or close to it)

All you do is poke around in threads like these for your own personal enjoyment Hoarmurath and then you act like you're the victim when it turns ugly.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

alarmer
07-13-2004, 05:48 AM
Ok Iam not convinced yet about this issue, since I see lots of opinions and much less hard proof.

One question. Shoudn´t cowl mounted machine guns be more accurate than wing mounted machine guns?

Atleast to me Olegs evidence made lots of sense. While firing in air there is much things to take in account. Air , turbulance , planes wings shaking, gun recoil.

Throw in couple of those strafeing gun cams and Iam convinced that 0.5cals are rather well modelled in 2.01

What I think you should be doing is do tests and see if other MG:s have right dispersion or not. Right but you have doned that and founded out that other mg:s are sniper guns. Why on earth would you then want to turn 0.5cals into something unrealistic as that?

I think some of the people here are going into a wrong direction.

Nanuk66
07-13-2004, 05:53 AM
i think that more and more of you lot should post more tests and stuff and generally have a good moan again.

Then, after a while, when it dawns on you that its all been done before and that you should really wait til the next patch and that its Oleg's game that your playing and not your game or the USAAF's game, maybe, just maybe, you'll all STFU.

Here's hopin'...

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------

Nub_322Sqn
07-13-2004, 05:54 AM
That was also suggested alarmer, or find a middle way to downgrade the spread on the 50's and upgrade it on the other heavy MG's.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
07-13-2004, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Tests done in game show there is no big difference between the way M2 are modelled, and other HMG are modelled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


this is quite wrong to the point of being a total lie

there is a huge difference

you cannot possibly show any proof to back this up

because your lying

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
07-13-2004, 06:25 AM
Hi,

No one needs to post evidence about the guns because we can just rely on anecdotal accounts to prove the point.

We can do this because we often see posts such as:

"But in (insert anecodtal rich veteran US pilots name)'s book, which is completely unbiased of course, saying that when he was flying a Pxx, he said he shot down 58 planes per mission and his Pxx took 3x10^8 mk108 hits and he still made it home..."

and, the old chestnut:

"...I once saw some guncam footage once..."

Did you?

Marvellous.

Now show me the footage and prove to me that it's authentic and free from any propaganda. I say this because I actually had a guncam video from the library the other month and I only watched 10 mins of it because it was almost entirely newsreel propaganda spiel. So bad was it that for a split second, I thought Bruckheimer had produced it.

Anyone have some links to some decent axis guncam footage so I can harp on about that every 10 microseconds when I fail to down a P47 after spraying it with 262-1a cannons for half a second?

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Nub_322Sqn
07-13-2004, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

No one needs to post evidence about the guns because we can just rely on anecdotal accounts to prove the point.

We can do this because we often see posts such as:

"But in (insert anecodtal rich veteran US pilots name)'s book, which is completely unbiased of course, saying that when he was flying a Pxx, he said he shot down 58 planes per mission and his Pxx took 3x10^8 mk108 hits and he still made it home..."

and, the old chestnut:

"...I once saw some guncam footage once..."

Did you?

Marvellous.

Now show me the footage and prove to me that it's authentic and free from any propaganda. I say this because I actually had a guncam video from the library the other month and I only watched 10 mins of it because it was almost entirely newsreel propaganda spiel. So bad was it that for a split second, I thought Bruckheimer had produced it.

Anyone have some links to some decent axis guncam footage so I can harp on about that every 10 microseconds when I fail to down a P47 after spraying it with 262-1a cannons for half a second?

Cheers,
Norris
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice rant, but this is not about hitting power.
Next time read what is actually posted and then reply.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Cajun76
07-13-2004, 07:30 AM
Norris and Hoarmurath seem to want an arcade shooter with pray and spray 20mm and 30mm. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif If the .50 cals get modeled correctly, the P-47s will be historically devastating, something that, if I were heavily biased toward the Axis, I wouldn't want either. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I like flying all the planes, Axis and Allied, but especially enjoy the P-47. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The constant, blatant trolling, baiting and trying to either throw fuel or water on this debate seems to be a kind of retribution for the 190 bar debacle. If the bar is wrong, then I fully suport changing it. Thing is, it got shoved because of some ultra Axis fanboys getting too hot under the collar and shooting themselves in the foot. Now here are some who are trying to fix something they feel is just as wrong, and trying to have an open, honest, thought out debate, and guys like Hoarmurath, who apparently have nothing better to do than muddy the water for thier own amusement, are out to derail, sabotage, and otherwise turn the subject into a flamefest.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Hoarmurath wrote:

Result of my tests is in one of those locked .50 threads. An old one. But i won't lose my time looking for it. It's pointless, you are not interested in it, you could have done the testing by yourself. Everyone can, you just have to launch the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage recreated someone else's test, and came up with the same results. Much higher than average disperion when compared with other HMGs. I believe some others have also came up with the same results. Your test was apparently rigged, slopily done, or just plain biased. Looks like all three. If looking up your own test is a waste of time, it's obviously not worth your time posting in these .50 cal threads, right? I mean, you do have a piont, don't you? No, didn't think so..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif


* Had it bookmarked. Original test was done by JtD, AFAIK. I hope this dosen't eat his bandwidth too bad. He spent a lot of time and effort testing these.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/weapons.html

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/p47nh.jpg
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

SeaFireLIV
07-13-2004, 08:00 AM
You know, at the beginning, before this ever came up, NOONE actually noticed anything wrong with the 0.50s, except some felt they were maybe a little weak, but doesn`t EVERYONE say that about their favourite plane`s gun?

Then one guy pops up with this exclamation about it being wrong and even though nearly all of you had no idea what he was talking about most of you jumped on the band wagon and insist it`s wrong.

And most of you still don`t really know what it`s about and never did and probably never will notice any difference at all when you fly and shoot with the 0.50s, even if they are changed.

It`s just become a `them or us` polarised sad story.

Much Ado About Nothing!

AWL_Spinner
07-13-2004, 08:15 AM
*politely applauds SeaFireIV, for he speaks truth*

http://www.alliedwingedlegion.com/members/signatures/spinner_sig.jpg

Inadaze
07-13-2004, 08:16 AM
http://www.apws62.dsl.pipex.com/band.gif

Atomic_Marten
07-13-2004, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
You know, at the beginning, before this ever came up, NOONE actually noticed anything wrong with the 0.50s, except some felt they were maybe a little weak, but doesn`t EVERYONE say that about their favourite plane`s gun?

Then one guy pops up with this exclamation about it being wrong and even though nearly all of you had no idea what he was talking about most of you jumped on the band wagon and insist it`s wrong.

And most of you still don`t really know what it`s about and never did and probably never will notice any difference at all when you fly and shoot with the 0.50s, even if they are changed.

It`s just become a `them or us` polarised sad story.

Much Ado About Nothing!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Blutarski2004
07-13-2004, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pcisbest:
Okay, but just one last thing,the screenshots were taken between a Ki-84 and a P39 right? I kept thinking about this, then something hit me: the P-39 uses tricycle gear while the Ki-84 is a tail-sitter! How were these two planes sitting on the ground and shooting at the same target at the same distnace, since the nose of the Ki-84 would have been elevated right, whereas the P-39 would be firing parallel to the ground? That mustve been why I assumed the test was done in mid-air, as all you would see from a Ki-84 cockpit while on the ground would be sky and clouds.

Well anyway, better start wading into the mess of threads Im digging up on this using "Find" LOL...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... When you go hunting for previous 50cal threads, look for PlaneEater's thread on 50cals. He posted the 31 pages of 50cal data extracted from USAF fighter gunnery manual and US Army ballistic data which were forwarded to Oleg and crew. Read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

BLUTARSKI

NorrisMcWhirter
07-13-2004, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

No one needs to post evidence about the guns because we can just rely on anecdotal accounts to prove the point.

We can do this because we often see posts such as:

"But in (insert anecodtal rich veteran US pilots name)'s book, which is completely unbiased of course, saying that when he was flying a Pxx, he said he shot down 58 planes per mission and his Pxx took 3x10^8 mk108 hits and he still made it home..."

and, the old chestnut:

"...I once saw some guncam footage once..."

Did you?

Marvellous.

Now show me the footage and prove to me that it's authentic and free from any propaganda. I say this because I actually had a guncam video from the library the other month and I only watched 10 mins of it because it was almost entirely newsreel propaganda spiel. So bad was it that for a split second, I thought Bruckheimer had produced it.

Anyone have some links to some decent axis guncam footage so I can harp on about that every 10 microseconds when I fail to down a P47 after spraying it with 262-1a cannons for half a second?

Cheers,
Norris
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice rant, but this is not about hitting power.
Next time read what is actually posted and then reply.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is talking about hitting power?? I'm not.

The point is that we have yet another thread talking about how badly done to the .50s are when I find, personally, them absolutely devastating against any target when I fly cl..er..allied.

And to answer Cajun, I have frequently pointed out that the last thing I want is a biased affair that panders to patriots who get whatever they want simply by running up 50 page threads in ORR or here/because they are a large, lucrative market OR Axis fans who want to rewrite WW2 and virtually 'win it' because of overmodelled aircraft.

I've always advocated historical accuracy but I do not think that historical accuracy comes from biased anecdotal evidence; it comes from hard, like-for-like comparisons under the same test conditions. OK, if that is not possible, then let's settle for a compromise but let's have it from mathematical modelling and not comic-book perception.

Also, I don't want spray and pray 20mm or 30mm - please show where I said that. I think that the 20mm and 30mm LW cannons are now quite effective (relative to AEP v2.0) against most targets but that I still think it very odd that a P47 can withstand 4-6 mk108 hits. Why? I look at the Spitfire image that has taken a 30mm hit. I assume that t to have been hit my a 30mm shell and also that it is generally representative of a 30mm hit. Of course, it could be wrong, and I'm open to someone showing me images of planes that have been hit with 30mm shells and which have sustained no such damage.

As to the FW190 cockpit bar, I never really engaged in those discussions but I do know that Oleg said that it will never be fixed even after all the whining. I'd very much like for Oleg to apply the same rule for the .50 cals but I somehow don't think that will happen with the amount of money at stake.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Hoarmurath
07-13-2004, 10:07 AM
hey, cajun, want to see my favorite plane?

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/myg_3.jpg

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

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

Aaron_GT
07-13-2004, 10:10 AM
Is that a PF screeshot?

BS87
07-13-2004, 10:14 AM
I think the main dispersion argument is that the spread of the .50s is so much more different than ALL of the other hmgs in the the game (From what the tests on the website show).

At this point, i honestly do not care what happens to the .50s. I've learned to use them as they are. I am no ballistic expert, nor do i have any formal training or experiance with HMGs. Though, i do think it will be hilarious if they DO get fixed, because then the people who rely on spray and pray with the bad dispersion of the .50s will be able to hit even less, and then they will cry that .50s are under moddled. Ofcourse, you have to the people that will be killing alot more, because all along they've been aiming well, just the dispersion was off. Either way, the threads ensuing after the next few patches will be fun to watch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hoarmurath
07-13-2004, 10:23 AM
No, it's a regular AEP screenshot on multiplayer8island map, with a personal skin i'm working on.... My first PC combat sim was Aces of the pacific, and since that time, i fly the P38 every time i have the occasion.

another pic of my baby http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/myg_6.jpg

i still have some work to do on that skin...

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

Udidtoo
07-13-2004, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
No, it's a regular AEP screenshot on multiplayer8island map, with a personal skin i'm working on.... My first PC combat sim was Aces of the pacific, and since that time, i fly the P38 every time i have the occasion.

another pic of my baby http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif



http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/myg_6.jpg

i still have some work to do on that skin...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

I just got home from the eye Dr Hoarmurath, is that a Tarantula? I'm all blurred, from what I can see nice skin.


..............................
I always have just enough fuel to arrive at the scene of my crash.

Nub_322Sqn
07-13-2004, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Who is talking about hitting power?? I'm not.

The point is that we have yet another thread talking about how badly done to the .50s are when I find, personally, them absolutely devastating against any target when I fly cl..er..allied.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then I suggest you brush up on your reading skills big time since this thread was NOT started by a person who complained about the .50 but by someone fishing for a flame war, just like Hoarmurath.

As for your MK108 comment, you can open a thread about that if you like, there have been plenty of those as well, just like all the other threads about the German 20mm and every other German cannon or MG in this game.

Come to think of it, there have been multiple threads just about any cannon or MG in this game on whatever plane.

So basicly complaining about a thread that doesn't suit your view is pretty silly.
Don't lime threads about the 50's?
Good for you, then don't read them next time.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

[This message was edited by Nub_322Sqn on Tue July 13 2004 at 09:46 AM.]

Nub_322Sqn
07-13-2004, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
I've always advocated historical accuracy but I do not think that historical accuracy comes from biased anecdotal evidence; it comes from hard, like-for-like comparisons under the same test conditions. OK, if that is not possible, then let's settle for a compromise but let's have it from mathematical modelling and not comic-book perception.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you think that data extracted from USAF fighter gunnery manual and US Army ballistic data is based on "biased anecdotal evidence" and "comic-book perception" or something?

"look for PlaneEater's thread on 50cals. He posted the 31 pages of 50cal data extracted from USAF fighter gunnery manual and US Army ballistic data."

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Hoarmurath
07-13-2004, 10:47 AM
Yes, that's a tarantula... i should release it at il2skin when i'm satisfied with the result...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/myg_2.jpg

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

BS87
07-13-2004, 11:59 AM
That's actually looking really good, alot of the 38 skins i see have really harsh lines, or they are so smoothed out it looks cartoonish. But yours is a good blend of the two, it looks good.

WUAF_Badsight
07-13-2004, 10:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
You know, at the beginning, before this ever came up, NOONE actually noticed anything wrong with the 0.50s, except some felt they were maybe a little weak, but doesn`t EVERYONE say that about their favourite plane`s gun?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats so wrong seafireliv

i & the people i game with have been aware of the lack of hit power (v1.0)

that got changed dramatically (overly it seems on occasion) with AEP

the dispersion has been commented on since v1.1f !

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BennyMoore
07-13-2004, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
As to the FW190 cockpit bar, I never really engaged in those discussions but I do know that Oleg said that it will never be fixed even after all the whining. I'd very much like for Oleg to apply the same rule for the .50 cals<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There we have it. "My issue isn't going to be fixed, so I don't want your issue to be fixed either." Well, if it makes you feel better, I personally want both issues to be fixed. And I do not even care for the FW-190.

In fact, I think that almost all of the "whines" at this place are legitimate, on both sides. Many of them would mean that I would get killed far more often by planes that I now regard as cannon fodder, but I would still like to see them fixed for the sake of realism.

The muzzle flash "whine" is legitimate. The underpowered Mk 108 "whine" is legitimate. The P-38 speed "whine" is legitimate. The selectively enforced compression "whine" is legitimate. The incorrect dive modelling "whine" is legitimate. The FW-190 cockpit view "whine" is legitimate.

The only players that don't have any legitimate complaints are the Russkies, and that's because the Russian developers have given them nothing to whine about. If I wanted to get many kills and almost never be beated, then I would always fly a Russian airplane.

alarmer
07-13-2004, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
As to the FW190 cockpit bar, I never really engaged in those discussions but I do know that Oleg said that it will never be fixed even after all the whining. I'd very much like for Oleg to apply the same rule for the .50 cals<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There we have it. "My issue isn't going to be fixed, so I don't want your issue to be fixed either." Well, if it makes you feel better, I personally want both issues to be fixed. And I do not even care for the FW-190.

In fact, I think that almost all of the "whines" at this place are legitimate, _on both sides_. Many of them would mean that I would get killed far more often by planes that I now regard as cannon fodder, but I would still like to see them fixed for the sake of realism.

The muzzle flash "whine" is legitimate. The underpowered Mk 108 "whine" is legitimate. The P-38 speed "whine" is legitimate. The selectively enforced compression "whine" is legitimate. The incorrect dive modelling "whine" is legitimate. The FW-190 cockpit view "whine" is legitimate.

The only players that don't have any legitimate complaints are the Russkies, and that's because the Russian developers have given them nothing to whine about. If I wanted to get many kills and almost never be beated, then I would always fly a Russian airplane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heheh that is actually true Benny. When you think about it I dont even remember when was the last time somebody from the VVS camp would have complained about their planes.

One would quickly draw a conclusion that VVS players dont care about realism?

Then ofcourse all this stuff could be in russian forums and given my russian skills aint the sharpest I wouldnt know anything about em http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

ps. I think VVS plane speeds etc are quite good but they have weird unrealistic annomalities still. Example the "I have 0 energy left but Ill lift my nose up no matter what and blast that B&Z bf109 out of the sky" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

faustnik
07-14-2004, 12:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
You know, at the beginning, before this ever came up, NOONE actually noticed anything wrong with the 0.50s, except some felt they were maybe a little weak, but doesn`t EVERYONE say that about their favourite plane`s gun?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats so wrong seafireliv

i & the people i game with have been aware of the lack of hit power (v1.0)

that got changed dramatically (overly it seems on occasion) with AEP

the dispersion has been commented on since __v1.1f !__

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight,

This issue was noted and commented on way back in IL-2 1.0. The P-39s on our Cobras did squat and sprayed all over the place. Soviet guns were dead on accurate and very effective. This is a very old subject, Seafire could not be more wrong.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Jippo01
07-14-2004, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
You know, at the beginning, before this ever came up, NOONE actually noticed anything wrong with the 0.50s, except some felt they were maybe a little weak, but doesn`t EVERYONE say that about their favourite plane`s gun?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the dispersion has been commented on since __v1.1f !__
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. I mentioned it in FB beta. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-jippo


PS. One should always read all the new post in thread before posting. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It seems issue was even older than I knew. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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)