PDA

View Full Version : P-38 Dispursion. Very alarming findings!



Pages : [1] 2 3

Gibbage1
03-21-2004, 12:54 PM
OK. I am not one to typically whine about something because I simply dont know. But this needs to be corrected! The P-38 was legendary for its firepower. Not because it had a lot of guns, but because the spread was so tight! Its spread would stay tight for a very long distance and have killing power at even 1000M (Yes, not accuratly). I have posted photo's if P-38 night fire showing NO spread of the .50 cal but its will spreads wildly! I did a VERY simple test and found the proof I need that the P-38 is wrong as it is in-game.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/spread.jpg

The test's were done in-flight. Both aircraft had the same fuel loadout and set too 100-100 convergance. Nose mounted guns are boarsighted.

Both aircraft were fired from there aproximate rage (by sight) at about the same dive angle at around 400KPH. Since this was done in-air, it was not exact. But close enough. I had 3 Me-210's on the runway as static for this test.

In the shallow dive, the crosshairs were pointed ON the target.

The P-38 itself was more stable directionally and was a better gun platform in-game then the LAGG. The LAGG's nose tended to wander when I was ligning up the shot. But the LAGG had NO shake at all. Even with its wandering nose, the spread was a LOT more concentrated and accurate. Also a lot more powerful.

LAGG-3 1941 is about 7200lb at takeoff.
P-38 L is about 17,000lb on takeoff.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/P38_21_action.jpg

Everything on the P-38 was made to make it a stable gun platform. It was made to house the 37MM cannon plus the 4 .50 cal and to be used as a stand-off weapon against high altitude bombers. Later it was changed to 20MM Hispano. All pilot accounts says it was a very stable gun platform and had massive firepower, even at distance. It I think was the only aircraft to make "instant aces" (first kill, and 5th ace kill in 1 mission).

Its interesting that I fired JUST the .50 cal guns on the P-38. Even with the 20MM and all 4 MG's going on the LAGG it has less spread.

Oleg, please. This must be fixed. The Browning M2's spread is the reason all US aircraft have very little firepower, especially a .50 cal. You cant POSSIBLY believe that the LAGG at more then half the weight of the P-38 is more stable?

How much more proof do you need Oleg?

Gibbage1
03-21-2004, 12:54 PM
OK. I am not one to typically whine about something because I simply dont know. But this needs to be corrected! The P-38 was legendary for its firepower. Not because it had a lot of guns, but because the spread was so tight! Its spread would stay tight for a very long distance and have killing power at even 1000M (Yes, not accuratly). I have posted photo's if P-38 night fire showing NO spread of the .50 cal but its will spreads wildly! I did a VERY simple test and found the proof I need that the P-38 is wrong as it is in-game.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/spread.jpg

The test's were done in-flight. Both aircraft had the same fuel loadout and set too 100-100 convergance. Nose mounted guns are boarsighted.

Both aircraft were fired from there aproximate rage (by sight) at about the same dive angle at around 400KPH. Since this was done in-air, it was not exact. But close enough. I had 3 Me-210's on the runway as static for this test.

In the shallow dive, the crosshairs were pointed ON the target.

The P-38 itself was more stable directionally and was a better gun platform in-game then the LAGG. The LAGG's nose tended to wander when I was ligning up the shot. But the LAGG had NO shake at all. Even with its wandering nose, the spread was a LOT more concentrated and accurate. Also a lot more powerful.

LAGG-3 1941 is about 7200lb at takeoff.
P-38 L is about 17,000lb on takeoff.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/P38_21_action.jpg

Everything on the P-38 was made to make it a stable gun platform. It was made to house the 37MM cannon plus the 4 .50 cal and to be used as a stand-off weapon against high altitude bombers. Later it was changed to 20MM Hispano. All pilot accounts says it was a very stable gun platform and had massive firepower, even at distance. It I think was the only aircraft to make "instant aces" (first kill, and 5th ace kill in 1 mission).

Its interesting that I fired JUST the .50 cal guns on the P-38. Even with the 20MM and all 4 MG's going on the LAGG it has less spread.

Oleg, please. This must be fixed. The Browning M2's spread is the reason all US aircraft have very little firepower, especially a .50 cal. You cant POSSIBLY believe that the LAGG at more then half the weight of the P-38 is more stable?

How much more proof do you need Oleg?

Korolov
03-21-2004, 01:01 PM
Just a question: did we really need to start another thread?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

VW-IceFire
03-21-2004, 01:02 PM
Seems like all of the .50cal have a huge spread. Now that their structural damage ability has been toned down the Browning has little advantage.

I also noticed that the tracers are now all synced to fire in one blast. Any reason for that change?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

crazyivan1970
03-21-2004, 01:05 PM
Gibb, let`s keep everything in 1 topic about P-38 issues, after all it was dedicated to it. Ok? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.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.

LEXX_Luthor
03-21-2004, 01:17 PM
Gibb I am getting NO shake at all. Don't know about Dispersion.

Fast roll ~4 ~5 seconds

Fast sea level speed 540km/hr IAS, Crimea, 110%.

Athalon 1700+ ... maybe its the Pentium FPU I heard Intel porked it starting with PIII. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Aaron_GT
03-21-2004, 01:38 PM
" I have posted photo's if P-38 night fire showing NO spread of the .50 cal"

Gibbage, that's not correct
as the photo you posted
does indeed show dispersion.
The tracks get thicker with
distance from the gun, even
despite perspective. This
indicates visible dispersion
As to whether this is less
than that modelled in the
game that's another matter.
Since the photo can't be
scaled along the track of
the rounds due to lack of
reference points all it
can tell us is that
dispersion isn't very bad
but that there is some.

I'm not knocking the .50
or P38, just pointing out
that this photo doesn't
provide much information.
Your in game screenshots
could be more informative.

rbstr44
03-21-2004, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Just a question: did we really need to start another thread?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since Gib did the model for the P-38 (pit, too?), I think he, more than anyone, deserves to have his own P-38 thread.

Displacement through a Slab of Glass
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/refraction/displacementcolorthreebeams.jpg
Entering and exiting rays are displaced
from each other, but parallel.
Refraction of Light (http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/refraction/refraction.html)

Jippo01
03-21-2004, 01:48 PM
Interesting thread, but this is an age old subject - Russian weapons have the smallest dispersion of the weapons in the game.

Why is it such a surprise that P-38 (along with all the other planes that do not have Russian weapons) fares worse? To me it sounds logical. IIRC on JTD's tests UBS was the most accurate weapon, and .50 cal did very badly indeed.

Maybe the topic should ask why the Russian weapons are inherently more accurate than western ones?


-jippo

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

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

CHDT
03-21-2004, 01:59 PM
"Just a question: did we really need to start another thread?"

As Gibbage is the guy who made the P-38, it seems correct to me that he is able to start a topic about his own aircraft http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
03-21-2004, 02:13 PM
By "could be more informative" I mean "is more informative", btw.

I think JtD's tests were good.

What we need to do is maybe find those, and
repeat the methodology for the P38 and Lagg 3
1941. If we can measure the chimney size (park
a plane next to it, use a top down camera and
measure it?) we can probably get a fairly
accurate dispersion measurement in mils for
the P38 .50s and compare that against official
figures (8 mils average, AFAIK, for plane
mounted guns). It could be that the .50 is
accurate, and the Lagg's guns are too accurate,
or the .50 guns are too inaccurate, or a
combination. If we can do a fairly controlled
test that allows us to model mils in a static
test that would be good.

One thing that looks clear from both JtD's
tests and Gibbage's screen shots is that the
dispersion is modelled as a perturbation on
the x and y axes, rather than a polar pattern
(dispersion of a radial amount at a random
angle).

Since there are multiple .50s involved
it is a little tricky to work out the
dispersion from the screen shots as they
are somewhat spread out in the horizontal
direction, so the best thing to do from
Gibbage's screen shots is take the dispersion
in the y axis (as seen from the P38) and
calculate from there. The dispersion as
modelled in the game for a single .50 will
be a little less than this, as it is hard
to determine which gun the rounds have come
from, so there may be spread from guns
next to each other which are also displaced
in the y axis.

Anyway... looking at the 100m screenshot
(as that is the convergence range), the
vertical dispersion appears to be about
1/3 of the length of an Me210 (the yellow
bars are outside the max spread a little)
(The plane also appears to be around 20
degrees off from the vertical - but I will
presume that this did not change through
the half second burst, which would be around
50m of travel to the target, which complicates
matters a bit). That gives an estimate of
somewhere between 20 and 35 mils (depending
on what the range was).

For the Lagg3 the dispersion at 100m is
about over 1/5 of the length of the Me210,
which gives about 12 to 20 mils.

Both figures are over the quoted figure by
the USA after the end of the war of around 8
mils.

There are lots of additional, hard to account
for, variables in a moving test, though.

On the face of that very approximate analysis,
the Lagg 3 dispersion would look to be about
correct for the .50 (given all the extra
variables in play) but Jtd-style static
tests would be a good adjunct.

Bull_dog_
03-21-2004, 02:20 PM
Gib... in my profession, I have spent some time negotiating for various reasons... I will tell you this, negotiation happens from a position of power... pure and simple.

Now Oleg can change it on his own, or you/with the help of the lightning whiners of the world can negotiate ... what does Oleg value from you? Take it away! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

If you can't or won't or don't want to or it won't make any difference then you are not in a position of power and can not negotiate... we all can keep posting and whining.

interestingly...I got in a low level run away from a P-51D down on the deck...the listed speeds for the J are 590km/hr at 1500 meters and the mustang is at 578 km/hr at sea level...

The mustang didn't catch me but he was getting 560 from the stang and I was getting 561 or 562 from the lightning...I was on 25% fuel. I wonder if the stang was souped up or the lightning isn't hitting on all cylinders. Nice thing is that I was able to slowly extend and turn for head on's... after 3 passes the mustang engine did its normal pooping out and one of mine was smoking but fortunately i had two engines http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gibbage1
03-21-2004, 03:02 PM
In my openion, yes. If Oleg started reading the other P-38 thread, it would not be till page 5 that the spread issue is really pressed. I think that the spread is such a critical flaw that it needs its own thread, and not get barried with other issues and to bring it to light to more people.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Just a question: did we really need to start another thread?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

chris455
03-21-2004, 03:14 PM
I agree with Gibbage.
Bump.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

SeaFireLIV
03-21-2004, 03:38 PM
While you`re here, Gibbage1, I just wanted to drop by and say WELL DONE on the Spitfire. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Spitfeur2.jpg
Achtung! IT`S HERE!

03-21-2004, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Gibb, let`s keep everything in 1 topic about P-38 issues, after all it was dedicated to it. Ok? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.50" Browning dispersal is a legitimate problem. I'm behind Gibbage 100%

If you don't like reading this thread, don't! I for one am glad Gib has posted some more insightful data. It's far better than b!tching about "yet another thread".

03-21-2004, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maybe the topic should ask why the Russian weapons are inherently more accurate than western ones?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that's anoter good way to look at it. I have always been supsicious of how steady ShVAK and UBS are, especially considering they're mounted to tiny lightweight aircraft like MiGs and Yaks.

Dispersal for ALL guns needs to be fixed. For instance, gunpods (P-39, MiG, Bf 109, etc) have the same dispersal as nosemounted weapons of the same type. This is wrong. Gunpods ought to have higher dispersal.

Aaron_GT
03-21-2004, 04:06 PM
Actually, cosmokart, if
the figure for .50
dispersion should be 8 mil
on average in a fighter
mount (on average) then
the Lagg 3 dispersion
from Gibbage's test at
12 to 20 mils (depends on
the range - the range
changes in the test), then
the UBS dispersion is still
too high (assuming in
reality that it should be
no worse than a .50). The
.50 seems even worse
again. I wonder why the guns
have so much dispersion.

From memory the .50
dispersion in the tests
seems more typical of what
should be seen in a bomber
flexible mount.

A good static test would be
better, of course.

clint-ruin
03-21-2004, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Interesting thread, but this is an age old subject - Russian weapons have the smallest dispersion of the weapons in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all respect I don't think that's actually borne out by the tests at all.

The problem with UBS/UBT/UBK is much more to do with its lack of speed loss over distance IMHO. This has a quite predictable effect on dispersion, ie, practically removing gravity / Y axis spread.

The thing to bear in mind from JTDs tests is the installation of the weapon.

Note how godawful ShKAS dispersion is from some mounts:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/I1612.jpg

..as compared to others:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/I15312.jpg

Both of those are unsyched ShKAS - one from the I-153, the other from the I-16.

Let's compare to a mount that is probably the 'worst case' MG17 mount in terms of gun seperation - the Ju87B2:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Ju87B21.jpg

The location of the guns does indeed have an effect on how they appear to disperse. Except with the MG17 :&gt;

As some noticed back in 1.11/1.0, the P-47s main problem seemed to be the way the mount shook in the X axis unevenly when both sets of guns were fired.

JtDs tests on ROF noted that at least in the P-40s case, different mounts of the same gun type being able to have different ROFs was modelled in FB. It would not be totally out of the realms of possibility to include this as a possible reason for the P-38s spread, either.

One of the better comparative tests done with JtDs, though without appropriate convergence set, was this one by Korolov:

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/p38_50calspread.jpg

Always be careful what you ask for with Oleg and make as sure as you can that you are asking for the right thing to be looked at or changed. Would be terrible to have him look at something and change a factor that is totally inconsequential to dispersion :&gt;

er, and UBS as well, above.

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

Korolov
03-21-2004, 04:10 PM
But Gibbage is in contact with Oleg - I don't see why he needs to post on this forum to get his attention. The other thread might have been 5+ pages long, but thats still a lot of evidence that needed to be seen, not just this one issue alone.

Also, Gibbage was paid for the modeling work he did for AEP; for all intents and purposes, it is Oleg's P-38, not the other way around. Oleg has essentially bought the model from Gibbage, and it is up to him to decided how it should be modeled.

What we have going here is good, but we really need a lot more evidence than what is on hand. The LaGGs or Yaks might have very accurate MG and the P-38 may have very wide spread, but the issue isn't with the Yak or the LaGG, it is with the M2 .50 cal. What I recommend you guys do is start searching the net for as much information as you can on that machine gun, and then present your case to Oleg. Get yourself overwhelming evidence and Oleg will likely listen. Otherwise, sitting here pleading for a fix won't do much good.

Remember, the issue isn't just with the P-38, its with the M2.

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

clint-ruin
03-21-2004, 04:14 PM
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/dispersion.html

For JTDs dispersion tests.

Even back in 1.11 people were noting that it was a bit funny to see sych/nose mounted .50s displaying similar shake/disperse properties as those from wing mounted guns.

But yes I agree with Korolov, definitely time to actually dig up ballistic data on the WW2 era M2 .50, there can't be any shortage of actual ballistics tests given that the Navy/AAF stuck it on anything they could.

03-21-2004, 04:27 PM
This issue is with *all* the guns. Until somebody verifies that the dispersal is correct, we're at the mercy of "you is wrong".

I just set up a test map in FMB with that big Crimea cliff in the middle of the runway. Put an aircraft 300m away on the ground and shoot it up in arcade mode, then observe where the white dots appear. To avoid bouncing around, only fire 1 short burst.

The 50 caliber brownings in ALL aircraft have horrible dispersion. It is also very obvious that the dispersion is modelled with random X and Y values, because you get a really dumb looking SQUARE pattern.

The .303's on the Hurricane are far more accurate, esp. when you set the convergance exactly to the face of the cliff.

Even the FLEXIBLE MOUNTED nosegun on the He 111 is more accurate... both in the H-2 and even H-6. Can you imagine that? Pinpoint accuracy from a flexibly mounted 20mm cannon. Haha.

Disperal for the other aircraft "feels" OK, but I'm no expert. For instance, the Bf 109E's wing guns flop all over the place, while the same MG/FF mounted in stiffer Fw 190 wings has lower dispersal.

MAYBE the wing-mounted .50 cal dispersal for the Mustang and T-bolt is correct, but Oleg accidentally plugged the same dispersal into the nose mounted .50's on the P-38 and P-80. It's a plausible mistake.

clint-ruin
03-21-2004, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cosmokart:

Disperal for the other aircraft "feels" OK, but I'm no expert. For instance, the Bf 109E's wing guns flop all over the place, while the same MG/FF mounted in the wing roots of a Fw 190 have lower dispersal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erm, isn't it only MG-FF in the outer wings for the A4/A5? If you are comparing FF to MG151/20 that might explain a lot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
MAYBE the wing-mounted .50 cal dispersal for the Mustang and T-bolt is correct, but Oleg accidentally plugged the same dispersal into the nose mounted .50's on the P-38 and P-80. It's a plausible mistake.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back when people were examining what on earth was going on with the P-47 it was noted that the P-39s nose guns seemed to have quite similarly bizarre tracer patterns. There's also that bizarre matter of how people perceive the P-40 to have greater concentration/accuracy than the same guns mounted in similar positions in the P-51D. I think there's more to it than meets the eye .. more boring testing to be done.

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

03-21-2004, 05:11 PM
You are right Clint, but read my post. I fixed it. I realized it and retested Emil's MG/FF against FW 190A-4/5 OUTER cannons. The FW still has stiffer wings.

Good point about how the P-40's guns feel different. Another plane to test might be the B-239. The Brewster had .50 cals as well, maybe even Brownings, though I am not sure. One thing is for certain, the Brewster does not have laser beams like the 12.7mm Berzins.

Gibbage1
03-21-2004, 06:25 PM
I have been in contact with Oleg and he is reluctant to change anything based on the openion of one man. Now if I post proof and get the comunity behind me, its much more likley to catch Oleg's attention then me sending him E-mails. It may not be the "best" way, but its proven to be the most effective.

But yes. Its a M2 problem it seems. But I can accept dispursion with wing mounted guns. I cant accept it with the P-38's nose mounted guns.

Hay. Has anyone tested the P-80? That would be interesting to see.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
But Gibbage is in contact with Oleg - I don't see why he needs to post on this forum to get his attention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gunner_361st
03-21-2004, 06:28 PM
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

A handy link on WW2 Aircraft Weapons.

The .50 caliber Browning M2 is a 12.7mm/99 round. Check its stats in Table 1 and 2.

Thing is, the accuracy of rounds is chiefly determined by the quality of the projectile in terms of balance, and the speed at which it is spun as it leaves the barrel of the gun.

I'll post more information on that if I can find it. and yes, I would agree with Gibbage that the .50 caliber M2's dispersal does deserve it's own thread.

Anyone remember how ridiculous the Thunderbolt gyrated left and right when firing in early version of IL2:FB? I sure do. ~S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Gunner_361st
03-21-2004, 07:11 PM
The following information is from the book "The Illustrated Directory of 20th Century Guns" by David Miller.

"Browning 0.50 inch M2HB

Country of Origin - USA

Length of the entire gun - 65 inches (1,651 mm)

Barrel Length - 45 inches (1,143 mm)

Weight(gun) - 84 pounds (38.1 KG) *Weight is the total weight of the weapon, plus (where applicable) one empty magazine, but less bayonet (if fitted). For heavy machine guns the tripod weight is given separately.

Weight(tripod) - 44 pounds (19.09 KG)

Caliber - 0.50 inch (12.7mm)

Rifling - 8 grooves, r/hand

Operation - Recoil

Feed - Belt

Cooling - Air

Cyclic rate - 500 rounds per minute. (This is the theoretical rate at which an automatic weapon would fire with a continuous and unlimited ammunition supply.)

Muzzle Velocity - 2,930 feet per second (894 meters/second) *Muzzle velocity is an approximate figure.

Range - 2,600 yards (2,378 meters)

"John Browning's M2 first appeared in 1933 and was intended principally for use on multiple anti-aircraft mounts but there was a version for use as a tank turret gun and yet another for use on a ground mount. It worked on the usual Browning system of short recoil. When the cartridge was fired the barrel and breechblock, securely locked together, recoiled for just under an inch when the barrel was stopped by means of an oil buffer. At this stage the pressure had dropped sufficiently for the breechblock to unlock and continue to the rear under the initial impetus given to it by the barrel, extracting and ejecting the empty case and extracting the next live round from the belt. Once the rearward action had stopped, the compressed return spring then took over and drove the working parts sharply forward, chambering the round, locking the breechblock, and firing the cartridge, after which the cycle continued as long as the trigger was pressed and there were rounds in the belt. The gun would fire automatic only, although some were equipped with bolt latches to allow single rounds to be fired if necessary. Although this gun functioned well enough mechanically it showed an unfortunate tendency to overheat, so that 70 or 80 rounds was about the maximum which could be fired continuously without a considerable pause for allowing the barrel to cool. This was of course unacceptable so a heavy barreled version (M2HB) was adopted, the weapon illustrated being one of these. The extra metal in the barrel made a considerable difference and this new gun was most effective, being extensively used by the United States and many other countries in the course of World War II and all subsequent campaigns up to the present day."

~S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

03-21-2004, 07:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I have been in contact with Oleg and he is reluctant to change anything based on the openion of one man. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many men's opinions did it take for Oleg to make the .50 caliber dispersion the way it is currently?

Let's all hunt for dispersal tests and see how it turns out.

BTW, Gibbage, the P-80's dispersal is just as bad as the P-38. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ZG77_Nagual
03-21-2004, 07:33 PM
I'm with you gib - I've been reading up and comparing - it should be much tighter esp relative to other nose mounted planes in the simm.

Gibbage1
03-21-2004, 07:41 PM
I was afraid of that.

Now the proper question is "Why does Oleg hate the Browning M2?"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cosmokart:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I have been in contact with Oleg and he is reluctant to change anything based on the openion of one man. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many men's opinions did it take for Oleg to make the .50 caliber dispersion the way it is currently?

Let's all hunt for dispersal tests and see how it turns out.

BTW, Gibbage, the P-80's dispersal is just as bad as the P-38. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bull_dog_
03-21-2004, 08:18 PM
The relative accuracy of a given weapon is governed by a number of things ... its been awhile since I've dug out my handloading books, but I could if you need a reference.

I do know that the .50 cal projectile by itself is a very accurate round. Auto loaders of all types tend to be less accurate than say bolt action mechanisms... I'm saying all of this because I am assuming Oleg is referring to the relative accuracy of a weapon not the mounting system... that would be different. Poor design of the mounting system could cause dispersion problems ... but the M2 browning as far as I know is a very accurage weapon.

I still am struggling to understand where and why Oleg has assumed that it is a poor weapon...nobody here has presented evendence to the contrary so why not assume it was a good weapon?

I don't know if I can be of any help but I could possibly produce some ballistic information that talks about relative accuracy and why one gun is more or less accurate than another.... I sorta doubt it will help... Gib stomping his foot and yelling foul for his beloved Lightning would probably do more good cause as much as I hear stuff about stats and empirical data, I see the opposite as it relates to the more abstract attributes of an aircraft.

I have seen tons of evidence that the dispersion is high on the P-38 both relative to pilot accounts, pictures, gun cam footage and relative to other aircraft in the sim (the latter is the worst). If a Yak or Lagg can shoot straight ... so should a lightning or other nose mounted weapons from other countries.

chris455
03-21-2004, 08:39 PM
I think this is a noble cause.
(How could I not? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

If I were to venture an opinion or two, they would be as follows:

1) Oleg has probably been exposed to a source or sources of data leading him to sincerely believe that the M2 family of .50 cal MGs display greater than normal shot-to-shot deviation than other MG types and;
2) If the community can show that this is not the case there is a good chance that Oleg will re-open the matter, possibly to the benefit of all Browning M2 armed aircraft.

Well,what are we waiting for? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Gib, I'll look and see what I can find, maybe others will pitch in too.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

03-21-2004, 08:57 PM
P-38 tests

Test methodology:
10 short bursts were fired from 300 meters using a special gun range set up in the FMB, taking a screenshot after each burst, then hitting "refly" before the next.

Gun range description:
The gun range was a wall made of smokestacks placed 300 meters from the P-38, as verified by coordinates in the mission file.

A scale of reference was provided by a row of telegraph poles spaced at exact 1 meter intervals. Precise spacing was ensured by hand-editting the mission file with a text editor.

Test results:
Short bursts from the P-38's four (typo: i accidentally said six the first time i wrote this up.... P-80 on the brain http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) M2 guns averaged 50 rounds per burst. Two dispersal measurements were made per burst:
1) dispersal of 100% of rounds
2) dispersal of 80% of rounds

Average dispersal of 100% of rounds can sometimes be misleading if a single round goes wild. US military usually measures automatic cannon accuracy in terms of "80% of rounds within X mils"

In the tests, the mean dispersal of 100% of the rounds was 5.33 meters, or 17.77 mils.

The mean dispersal of 80% of the rounds was 4.48 meters, or 14.93 mils.

Roughly speaking the P-38's accuracy is 80% within 15 mils. That is (roughly speaking) REALLY AWFUL. The M2 Browning is noticably worse than any other machinegun in the sim. Similar horrible dispersal is noticable all the other aircraft which carry M2 Brownings as well.

Rather than we the users justifying correct values to Oleg, perhaps Oleg should justify the current outrageously high dispersion. No other machine gun in the sim is anywhere near as bad as the Browning M2. Common sense indicates that something is wrong.

[This message was edited by cosmokart on Sun March 21 2004 at 10:26 PM.]

tenmmike
03-21-2004, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
The following information is from the book "The Illustrated Directory of 20th Century Guns" by David Miller.

"Browning 0.50 inch M2HB

Country of Origin - USA

Length of the entire gun - 65 inches (1,651 mm)

Barrel Length - 45 inches (1,143 mm)

Weight(gun) - 84 pounds (38.1 KG) *Weight is the total weight of the weapon, plus (where applicable) one empty magazine, but less bayonet (if fitted). For heavy machine guns the tripod weight is given separately.

Weight(tripod) - 44 pounds (19.09 KG)

Caliber - 0.50 inch (12.7mm)

Rifling - 8 grooves, r/hand

Operation - Recoil

Feed - Belt

Cooling - Air

Cyclic rate - 500 rounds per minute. (This is the theoretical rate at which an automatic weapon would fire with a continuous and unlimited ammunition supply.)

Muzzle Velocity - 2,930 feet per second (894 meters/second) *Muzzle velocity is an approximate figure.

Range - 2,600 yards (2,378 meters)

"John Browning's M2 first appeared in 1933 and was intended principally for use on multiple anti-aircraft mounts but there was a version for use as a tank turret gun and yet another for use on a ground mount. It worked on the usual Browning system of short recoil. When the cartridge was fired the barrel and breechblock, securely locked together, recoiled for just under an inch when the barrel was stopped by means of an oil buffer. At this stage the pressure had dropped sufficiently for the breechblock to unlock and continue to the rear under the initial impetus given to it by the barrel, extracting and ejecting the empty case and extracting the next live round from the belt. Once the rearward action had stopped, the compressed return spring then took over and drove the working parts sharply forward, chambering the round, locking the breechblock, and firing the cartridge, after which the cycle continued as long as the trigger was pressed and there were rounds in the belt. The gun would fire automatic only, although some were equipped with bolt latches to allow single rounds to be fired if necessary. Although this gun functioned well enough mechanically it showed an unfortunate tendency to overheat, so that 70 or 80 rounds was about the maximum which could be fired continuously without a considerable pause for allowing the barrel to cool. This was of course unacceptable so a heavy barreled version (M2HB) was adopted, the weapon illustrated being one of these. The extra metal in the barrel made a considerable difference and this new gun was most effective, being extensively used by the United States and many other countries in the course of World War II and all subsequent campaigns up to the present day."

~S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> your listing for the rof is inncorrect the m-2 .50 cal was modified in 1940 that raised the rate of fire from 500-600 to 750-850 rpm...flying guns world war II by anthony williams and dr E. gustin

http://www.2-60inf.com/2-60_crest.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

03-21-2004, 09:30 PM
1) Here's a similar gun, the 12.7mm KORD. It is modern, so better dispersion may be expected. It has accuracy of 2.2 mils.
"Dispersion: &lt;0.22m at 100m"
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/ARM/kord.html


---------------

2) And here's another 12.7mm machine gun. Its accuracy is quoted as " Less than 1.5 Mils, One Sigma Radius"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m312.htm


---------------

3) Here's a very old gun which as NOTED for being innacurate, the 13.2mm Hothkiss. It has an dispersion of ONLY 6 MILS. "big dispersion (60cm of a horizontal dispersion at 100m distance)"
http://derela.republika.pl/weap.htm (scroll down to the 13.2 mm wz. 30)


So... we have 3 different guns, two modern and one very old. The two modern guns have accuracies of 1.5 to 2.2 mils. The older Hotchiss, noted for being innacurate, has an accuracy of 6 mils.

The M2 Brownings in the P-38 have an accuracy of 15 mils. OVER TWICE AS BAD AS THE HOTCHKISS.

If anyone can find dispersion data for the M2 I'd be grateful. In the meantime keep looking for data on similar guns. and Gibbage, if you could forward this to Oleg maybe it would help.

ZG77_Nagual
03-21-2004, 09:44 PM
Found this from an interview with Kelly Johnson on the prop rotation - goes to priorities in the aircrafts design:

For general on the 38 this link is very good

p38 read (http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html)

I met Kelly in about '82 or '83 at a seminar in Norman, Oklahoma. I asked
him about the P-38 props turning outboard at the top, giving two critical
engines.

I though I knew the answer: because the spiral flow off the props was
opposite the tip vortices, the ship should be cleaner. And it is. But that
wasn't the reason he gave....

He just said "it made a better gun platform".

That was it. The entire purpose of the airplane was to shoot, and anything
that made it do that job better was the deciding factor in all decisions like
the prop rotation, etc...

He said they actually tried it in every possible combination of prop
directions, and that's the one that worked best and gave the highest gunnery
scores.

That day I learned to *focus*.

Craig Wall

ajafoofoo
03-21-2004, 09:47 PM
Lagg had delta wood. It makes it more accurate.

End of discussion.

WWMaxGunz
03-21-2004, 11:58 PM
Hi Gib!

I have a track up but it ain't a touch on the smokestacks and poles business. In it I taxi a P-38-J over to a hanger and fire at or above the top edge and see where the hits strike. What I noticed besides where the rounds hit was that the P-38 rocked enough to account for a bunch of vertical. The sight view shows it even from non-gunsight wide-view. In sustained fire of guns and cannon the P-38 rocked, slid back against the brakes and canted to the left a good bit. Perhaps it's because of the suspension, I don't know.

The square dispersion isn't the bad part. The bad is the flat random of dispersion as opposed to bell curve. 80% of rounds should fall into less than half of the full dispersion width, IIRC.

If someone used a worn out M2 to determine dispersion, a captured one that had been run red hot a number of times so the rounds all but clinked up the barrel or just a surplus gun that was heavily used and sold by junk gun dealers (at full $) then would that account for so much dispersion?

Keep on trying. Photos and official data from unworn weapons. All the planes are like new and never model defects, don't they?


Neal

Snoop_Baron
03-22-2004, 12:19 AM
Keep looking for that evidence guys http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I don't know squat about guns but relative to the other planes I'm not very impressed with the shot pattern of the P-38 and is probably the most negative aspect of the plane in my opinion.

s!

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

ucanfly
03-22-2004, 12:20 AM
Not to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion, but has anyone discounted the fact that Oleg might be modeling a box pattern in the bullet pattern? I have read than on the P_51 and other wing mounted birds the armourers would frequently adjust the guns to fire in a box pattern (hi dispersion) to make it easier for newbie pilots to hit something when they shot. Of course many pilots chose not to do it this way (for darn good reason).


If this is how Oleg modelled it intentionally (esp in P-38) this seems to be an extremely arbitrary decision on his part IMO. Just a thought.

chris455
03-22-2004, 12:31 AM
Ucanfly, you are absolutely right.
An EIGHTEEN INCH square is what 80% of the shots were to go into when the guns were converged @ 200 yds.
I've spent most of the evening on the web looking for references to this, without luck. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

ajafoofoo
03-22-2004, 01:00 AM
Well, if box pattern was pilot choice, then we should have the choice too.

If not, just tighten the disperion up and leave it.

The accuracy difference is silly.

The i16 with wing mounted guns has tighter bullet pattern than a p38. That is just wrong. I don't care what magic wood/guns or whatever was put in i-16, it's wrong.

Oleg_Maddox
03-22-2004, 01:43 AM
1. On the photo that shown the traces the plane is fixed on a deck by special device. In this case there will no effect of recoil, irregulatity of flight, etc...
You try to get the same in a flight?

2. You ask me to model the recoil effect way smaller that it is for other planes.... But we don't model recoil for type of planes... We model recoil of _each type_ of weapon. Please concider it as a very different things.
Then this recoil has effect on the aricraft as a great system of forces.

3. In additional to item 2: The dispercion of bullets we model for types of weapon. So doesn't matter if the one the same weapon will be installed on different types of aircraft the dispercion of bullets (shells) will be _the same_ for _this type_ of weapon and will be diferent on different aircraft as well, because the the result there will be as a system of forces that depends of the weapon installation place.


PS. The recoil effect is great really for different types of MGs. It may achive tonns. Just try to imagine this.

PS.2. The dispersion on P-38 isn't worse than on the planes that has engine mounted weapon. It is easy to compare.
But you all try to compare by recals of pilots that compare with _wing mounted weapon_. They are right. But you are not right.
So compare oon different distances with the other types of US planes and you will see that it will confirm the US pilots recals.
Please think twice about what I said in PS.2.


Thats all.

In add-on we will change for 500 rounds per MGs. Sorry its a bug of our programmer that was placed there wrong amount of bullets per gun. But we will not change the physics of weapon trajectory.

[This message was edited by Oleg_Maddox on Mon March 22 2004 at 01:06 AM.]

Oleg_Maddox
03-22-2004, 01:53 AM
I just checked once more the P-38 with a "problem".

Sorry for thes that can't calculate the right digits and don't know about differences of shhoting on ground in fixed frame and in air.

Just to confirm: There will no changes for P-38 "dispersion". It has even better result than some of nose mounted weapon for single engine aircraft. Some time way better.

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 01:53 AM
I guess that is that. That is the word of god. We gave him many many many forms of proof that the dispursion on the .50 cal is NOT accurate, and he has no proof that its not.

Oleg. We did not "just" use pilot accounts. They did help to back us up. But use common logic Oleg!!! Look at my screenshot! 100M and the gun sways more then 5 feet in each direction?

I have not asked for any changes or stood for anything till this. This is obserd! If you want to call this sim accurate, look into the accurace of the M2 .50 cal! We not only have WWII pilot accounts of its accuract, but people who use the same gun today!!! Also technical specs! Please reconsider this, or I will need to reconsider any of my own support for this game.

LuftLuver
03-22-2004, 01:53 AM
Oleg,

So you are correcting ammo AMOUNT but not dispersion.

What about .50 tracer COLOR and SPACING. Looking at original black and white gun camera footage, you can easily see the tracers. In Forgotten Battles, the .50 tracers are very very hard to see. The tracers also fire out in evenly spaced pairs, which is wrong.

Fixing the tracers to bright yellow would make the M2 .50 cal guns much more effective.

Thank you.

Oleg_Maddox
03-22-2004, 02:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ajafoofoo:
Well, if box pattern was pilot choice, then we should have the choice too.

If not, just tighten the disperion up and leave it.

The accuracy difference is silly.

The i16 with wing mounted guns has tighter bullet pattern than a p38. That is just wrong. I don't care what magic wood/guns or whatever was put in i-16, it's wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I just checked myself and got other result. The P-38 in this case is better than I16 with wing mounted cannons (type 24). and on big distances is way better...

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 02:20 AM
Oleg. You say the photo I posted has the P-38 on a special mount. No. Its on chalks and lashed down. What better mount then a 17,000LB chunk of meta?

You say the .50 cal browning is not accurate? They used the M2 as a sniper gun in Vietnam and scored kills on small human targets as far away as 2400M. Using only a 45lb tripod and a scope! But a 17,000lb mount spreads bulletes in a 10 foot block 100M away?

The US military still uses the .50 cal M2 Browning today. But you say its the most in-accurate MG ever made? I just cant even fathum your logic here. What are your referances to the accuract and spread of the M2 Browning? I, and many people on this forum have given you ours.

Also, do a little research on the internet. The .50 cal browning on a 44 pound tripod has a max effective range of 2000 Meters. But how can that be if you get a 5 foot by 5 foot spread at 100M on a 17,000 pound mount with two gyro's?

Gib

03-22-2004, 02:27 AM
Oleg, just one problem... why is the M2 Browning nearly five times LESS ACCURATE than the 12.7mm Berezin? The Berezin is a damn laser beam that can kill barrage balloons at 3 km range.

The M2 Brownings are ridiculously inaccurate compared to evey other weapon. It's not a problem of "entire system" as you claim. _All_ aircraft armed with M2 Browning have horrible bullet dispersion. The weight of the aircraft or the stiffness of the weapon mount does not seem to matter.

The bullets spray wildly like a garden hose both on the ground AND IN THE AIR. Run some tests yourself, oh great programmer. It's pretty damn obvious that the M2 Browning sprays bullets randomly. To make it worse, the bullets spray in a SQUARE pattern. Why can't the dispersal be radial? The square pattern just plain looks bad and it's not fooling anyone.

If the recoil affects accuracy as you claim, why then is the 20mm hispano's accuracy not affected by the 4 M2 Brownings? You can fire the Hispano at the same time as the Brownings and the Hispano is still just as accurate as when the .50s are not firing.

03-22-2004, 02:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It has even better result than some of nose mounted weapon for single engine aircraft. Some time way better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Name ONE. I dare you.

03-22-2004, 02:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But we will not change the physics of weapon trajectory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The trajectory is fine as-is. The problem is bullet dispersion. I found 80% within 15 mils. That's utter crap and approximately twice as bad as the next worse gun in the whole sim!

There is no reason for the M2 Brownings to be so inaccurate. This is not a problem of trajectory. Muzzle velocity and bullet drop are PERFECT... just fix the damn dispersion, please!

CHDT
03-22-2004, 02:40 AM
I don't think it would be hard to find a similar doc....

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/16105/47GECD.gif

... for the P-38 and the case would be solved!

Cheers,

03-22-2004, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I guess that is that. That is the word of god. We gave him many many many forms of proof that the dispursion on the .50 cal is NOT accurate, and he has no proof that its not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're both stuck trying to prove a negative.

Oleg claims the dispersion is not wrong, but he hasn't produced anything to prove that the current way is right.

We're trying to prove that the current dispersion is wrong, but the best we've found so far is that every other 12.7mm machine gun on the face of the earth is 10 times more accurate than the M2 Brownings found in this sim.

So, either somebody come up with M2 Browning dispersion/accuracy results, or ask Oleg to provide the data that the sim currently uses with rationale.

CHDT
03-22-2004, 02:47 AM
"The .50 cal browning on a 44 pound tripod has a max effective range of 2000 Meters."

I can only speak of "my" 20mm cannon, the Oerlikon 54.

Utile range between 800 and 1200 meters.

At 800 meters, the bullets were in a square of 2X2 meters.

At 2000 meters, the bullets were in a square of 5X5 meters.

Of course, with a tube perfecty immobile. In normal use, I would say the dispersion would be twice or three the same, but not more.

By the way, with a standard assaut gun, you can fire at 200-300 meters, in rafale, and put all your bullets in a 2-3 meters area.

Cheers,

03-22-2004, 02:54 AM
Thanks CHDT. The more data we collect, the more obvious it becomes that Oleg has modelled the 50 caliber Browning as the world's most inaccurate machine gun.

The most frustrating thing is that other similar machine guns in the sim are nowhere near as bad.

CHDT
03-22-2004, 03:19 AM
Here's an interesting link:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2-50cal.htm

Together with its slow rate of fire and its traversing and elevating mechanism, the M2 was used to a very limited extent as a sniper weapon during the Vietnam war at fixed installations such as firebases. Snipers prefired the weapons at identifiable targets and worked the data into range cards insuring increased first-round accuracy. The 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry, 25th Infantry Division constructed 20-30 foot high shooting platforms, adding steel base plates and posts to further stabilize the M2 on the M3 tripod. Together with the use of Starlight night vision scopes, the M2 severely limited enemy movement within 900 yards (1,000m) of the perimeter of a firebase.

Cheers,


P.S. Btw, no muzzle flashes on the pics http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 03:27 AM
CHDT. I would be VERY interested to see if the P-47 in IL2 meets that cart! I personally dont know how to read it. But if IL2 is WAY out of that chart, then that proves Oleg is wrong about the accuracy of the M2 in general.

I also thing that chart is from the pilots manual. Just an FYI Oleg. Feeding our own pilots false data or propaganda kills more pilots then it helps. Giving them accurate data is what saves them. Propaganda is for your enemy to read. So dont say the chart is false or propaganda.

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 03:30 AM
Also no muzzle flash in my NIGHT TIME P-38 photo. Amazing hay?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
Here's an interesting link:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2-50cal.htm

Together with its slow rate of fire and its traversing and elevating mechanism, the M2 was used to a very limited extent as a sniper weapon during the Vietnam war at fixed installations such as firebases. Snipers prefired the weapons at identifiable targets and worked the data into range cards insuring increased first-round accuracy. The 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry, 25th Infantry Division constructed 20-30 foot high shooting platforms, adding steel base plates and posts to further stabilize the M2 on the M3 tripod. Together with the use of Starlight night vision scopes, the M2 severely limited enemy movement within 900 yards (1,000m) of the perimeter of a firebase.

Cheers,


P.S. Btw, no muzzle flashes on the pics http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

clint-ruin
03-22-2004, 03:37 AM
Cosmokart and Gibbage, I know you feel this is a pure matter of right and wrong and that Oleg is wrong, but it would be nice to try and keep it as respectful as possible.

Don't want to totally turn Oleg off the concept of changing anything like those FW190 view thread boys :&gt;

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

CHDT
03-22-2004, 03:39 AM
Just an addenda about the muzzle flashes.

They're visible at night....

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/16105/North%20American%20Mitchell%20B-25_025.jpg

... but not visible by day

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/16105/m-2-50cal-dvic552.jpg

only smoke.

Cheers,

WWMaxGunz
03-22-2004, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
I just checked once more the P-38 with a "problem".

Sorry for thes that can't calculate the right digits and don't know about differences of shhoting on ground in fixed frame and in air.

Just to confirm: There will no changes for P-38 "dispersion". It has even better result than some of nose mounted weapon for single engine aircraft. Some time way better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes about nose mounted. How many of those have engines and props in/on the nose as well? 110G, Me262, a few. Are all nose mounts the same way with scatter?

No engine or prop in the nose, should there be less vibration to cause scatter?

Just asking.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
03-22-2004, 03:52 AM
Okay about the sniper gun M2 guys. A single shot weapon is NOT going to have dispersion due to recoil, is it? Bad examples are worse than none at all.

Get disciplined or lose to your own arguments.


Neal

Oleg_Maddox
03-22-2004, 03:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cosmokart:
Oleg, just one problem... why is the M2 Browning nearly five times LESS ACCURATE than the 12.7mm Berezin? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry can you show me this with exact data that you get 5 times worse? Can or NOT?

Before to tell such things please be ready with the hard data, that corresponds to the real data and modeled physics. All in comparison. All in formulas. All in samples.
Go ahead. I will wait.

CHDT
03-22-2004, 03:54 AM
"Okay about the sniper gun M2 guys. A single shot weapon is NOT going to have dispersion due to recoil, is it? Bad examples are worse than none at all.

Get disciplined or lose to your own arguments."



That's an evidence, but that shows nevertheless that this weapon still has damaging power beyond 150 meters http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oleg_Maddox
03-22-2004, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Okay about the sniper gun M2 guys. A single shot weapon is NOT going to have dispersion due to recoil, is it? Bad examples are worse than none at all.

Get disciplined or lose to your own arguments.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This just one of the factors that Gibbage even don't know.

WWMaxGunz
03-22-2004, 04:06 AM
Oleg, sir, if you would post some factors like how much recoil for different guns used, dispersion just due to the gun type itself... things either not understood or that we don't have the numbers used for?
You did this for Guns and Ammo Table which helped and still do, though I would like much to have rate of fire syncronized and not as well, maybe someday?

Please have patience. People got worked up! It takes time no matter what for the blood to clear. The younger the head, the quicker and longer the heat. I remember how it is very well.


Neal

Oleg_Maddox
03-22-2004, 04:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cosmokart:

We're trying to prove that the current dispersion is wrong, but the best we've found so far is that every other 12.7mm machine gun on the face of the earth is 10 times more accurate than the M2 Brownings found in this sim.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Please don't mix the terms accuracy of weapon and accuracy of installed on aircraft weapon. Its too different things. Be sure to use right terms.

2. Please try to make samples where other tna browning is _10 times_ better. I don't like the words that show nothing except "cry".

3. And please use all the sources that posted here to evaluate with other similar types of weapon by all the possible ways from the muzzle velocity, tragectory, coefficients of effiency. That will be right way comparing to what you try to say here.

Oleg_Maddox
03-22-2004, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Oleg, sir, if you would post some factors like how much recoil for different guns used, dispersion just due to the gun type itself... things either not understood or that we don't have the numbers used for?
You did this for Guns and Ammo Table which helped and still do, though I would like much to have rate of fire syncronized and not as well, maybe someday?

Please have patience. People got worked up! It takes time no matter what for the blood to clear. The younger the head, the quicker and longer the heat. I remember how it is very well.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I plan to make such a table (like in the past posted here on the forum for modelled guns/shlles/bullets/mussle velocity, etc) for the Italian programmers that makes special tools how better to aim with different weapon and gunsights, etc... There will be such a data.
But it doesn't help the people who don't know the physics even when they have all the data in their hands.

Gibbage isn't so young. Simply he can't get from this one of his favorite planes (and which he is initialy modelled for us) what he is expected. He use incorrect samples, but never use hard data. Just wrods.
And he try to compare the recoil of 2x7,62 2x12,7 1x20mm on LaGG-3 with 2x 12,7 + 1x20mm on P-38 which is almost two times greater. But he can't evaluate it.... that he compare different things of different weapon. Especially 7,62 ShKAS!

Oleg_Maddox
03-22-2004, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Oleg, sir, if you would post some factors like how much recoil for different guns used, dispersion just due to the gun type itself... things either not understood or that we don't have the numbers used for?
You did this for Guns and Ammo Table which helped and still do, though I would like much to have rate of fire syncronized and not as well, maybe someday?

Please have patience. People got worked up! It takes time no matter what for the blood to clear. The younger the head, the quicker and longer the heat. I remember how it is very well.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For synchronised we just use the "coefficients" that decrease ROF. But we don't model constant changes of ROF that depends of the RPM. These coefficients are almost equal to the maximal RPM (a bit less than maximal RPM) and they calculates directly in each type of engine/plane where they are mounted acording to technical data of synchronization type, etc.

The functions, that will follow RPM for synchronized weapons will be only in the next sim (this means probably in follow on after BoB list of planes) and some effincy in this case on maximal RPM will be a little bit increased comparing to the current walues.

NegativeGee
03-22-2004, 04:30 AM
Fascinating discussion....... words of wisdom from clint-ruin though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have to admit, I surprised the muzzle flash thing is still being brought up..... this game has one set of general purpose muzzle flashes, for all lighting conditions. I would not expect anything new on this before BoB.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

BfHeFwMe
03-22-2004, 04:43 AM
You guys better dig into the history of the Browning .50's a bit. The modern version is not the same as that from years gone by. FN engineers took a look at the barrel specs and why it was such a lackluster performer. They discovered no one had really designed the barrel rifling and twist rate specs specifically for the .50 bullet, they simply upscaled the original army .30 rifling and barrel specs and called it good. This thing was an absolute pig, modern spec barrels last several times the service life in rounds fired, don't have severe overheating, and much more accurate. Those barrels from yesteryear were taking a beating, wasn't doing the bullet much favors either for stability. Overheating was rapid and severe with sustained fire.

Another flaw you'd better account for, in your boresighting photo itself, says the guns were set up for straight line firing. So how is it your setting convergence for these guns if they didn't have a convergence point? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

clint-ruin
03-22-2004, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

I plan to make such a table (like in the past posted here on the forum for modelled guns/shlles/bullets/mussle velocity, etc) for the Italian programmers that makes special tools how better to aim with different weapon and gunsights, etc... There will be such a data.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh! Thanks Oleg, been wondering if we could get something like that together for AEP :&gt;

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

Kurfurst__
03-22-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You say the .50 cal browning is not accurate? They used the M2 as a sniper gun in Vietnam and scored kills on small human targets as far away as 2400M. Using only a 45lb tripod and a scope! But a 17,000lb mount spreads bulletes in a 10 foot block 100M away?

The US military still uses the .50 cal M2 Browning today. But you say its the most in-accurate MG ever made? I just cant even fathum your logic here. What are your referances to the accuract and spread of the M2 Browning? I, and many people on this forum have given you ours.

Also, do a little research on the internet. The .50 cal browning on a 44 pound tripod has a max effective range of 2000 Meters. But how can that be if you get a 5 foot by 5 foot spread at 100M on a 17,000 pound mount with two gyro's?

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gib, I think it`s you who should make a lot more research, and at least read some of the theory behind practice for a start. You talk of things with big words about you have little actual idea... that`s a fact. Have you ever bothered to read some about ballistics, how bullet dispersion works with change of grooving, lenght of barrel, muzzle velocity, weight of projectile ? No. I guess Oleg did all that, he probably graduated from these subject.

To my knowladge he is a graduated aero engineer, and wanted to work in the ex-soviet military aircraft industry... you really want to give lessons to THIS man about ballistics ? You speak of proofs, but in fact this thread produced nothing that could be called as that with a reason - it was your merely in-flight shooting, which frankly, doesn`t show THAT bad spread for the P-38 at all IMHO, plus the usual , somewhat overstatements about the "legendary" accuracy, firepower etc.

This ain`t proof, Gib. This is an opinion. And more on the subjective side rather than the objective one. Proof would be something a picture of spread on ground firing tests (the target itself), or a ballistic table that lists dispersion %, angle of fall, angle of sight, disperision in the X and Y axis. Nothing like this was re-produced here.

Finally, the misconceptions about ballistics. You don`t know what "effective range" means. It doesnt mean the gun is dead accurate at those range, but that it`s capable to fullfill some, subjectively defined task at a given distance with effect. A 2000m effective range can mean very different things, capab. to pierce armor, wound/kill people, punch through helmets, wooden structures or surprass the enemy etc. It depends on

.50 is used as a sniper weapon. Great and true. The .50 caliber has good ballistics, so what ? Does the P-38 feature .50 caliber sniper rifles with scope? No. Does it feature it on a standing bipod/tripod, ie. a solid base ? No. Does it fire them in single shots, or full bursts, 10-12 per second? It`s a whole DIFFERENT CASE.

The misconceptions about high muzzle velocity and long barrel being good for dispersion. AH-AH, you are dead wrong in this in case of a automatic weapon. Higher MV, higher energy will only lead to more kickback, no matter what aircraft, it will effect accuracy more in a negative way.

And not only the aircraft, the gun itself, too. The Germans tested the low velocity, short barrelled MG FF and MK 108, the long barreled/high velocity MG 151/20 and Mk 103 for dispersion, when firing them in full auto, in built in configuration.

Now, which one would have the least dispersion of all these, Gib? I bet you would say the 30mm MK 103, it has the largest shell, ultra high 900+m/sec muzzle velocity, and a VERY long barrel, the gun itself was in fact so powerful it could pierce a Tiger tank from the front... I must have good accuracy then !

No. The gun with the LEAST dispersion was the lowly 20mm MG FF, with lightest shell, shortest barrel, lowest muzzle velocity. Next was the MK 108, then the MK 151. The MK 103 was the worst, dispersion being two times that of the MG FF...

Why?

The answer is : vibration of the barrel under sustained fire, badly effecting each subsequent shot.. the longer the barrel, the more it vibrates, the more powerful the ammunition is, the more it vibrates the barrel.

Also, the higher the muzzle velocity, the higher the sideways departure from the sighting line is with increased distance. Why? Keep in mind that bullets are kept from thumbling by their rotational movement along their longitudal axis. But this centrifugal movement also generates a sideway force... the faster the bullets spins, the greater the force. The higher the muzzle velocity is, the faster the bullet spins...

You see, it`s a BIT more complicated matter than you thought... I advise you to do a lot more background research work or just please dont tell people who actually know how it works how you think it should work.

LEXX_Luthor
03-22-2004, 05:09 AM
I don't know what you guys are talking about...

But I remember The Experts whining about P~38 Gun Shake until I tried it and NO P~38 GUN SHAKE...none...smooth like silk.

...and the whole P~38 Gun Shake subject quietly went away from ubi.com...*poof* gone.

Same probably with the Dispersion problem...it will be forgotten by the same Experts who made up the Gun Shake problem out of nowhere.

Gibb, I thought you actually worked for 1C:Maddox Games now. You better not get Fired cos I want that Ramjet I~152 Biplane you are supposed to be working on. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

__________________
New Zealand's Cleopatra2525 Sunday mornings USA SciFi Channel (5-6 AM EST lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )
http://www.xenite.org/exchange/standard/cleorenpictures.jpg (http://www.sf-fandom.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=19)

BfHeFwMe
03-22-2004, 05:11 AM
Visited FN's site ,they now produce the modern M2's and advertise the fire rate spec at 1100 RPM, nearly double the rate of early and beats the 850 M2's. Also have barrels with life cycles through 10,000 rounds, all due to the redesign of rifling to fit the .50.

Have to remember it was originally the M1917 M1, produced in a hurry right smack in the big WW one. No time to develope it, the mistake wasn't caught till the 90's.

BfHeFwMe
03-22-2004, 05:18 AM
Don't forget the units using M2's as long range serious sniping systems had teams of specialists who's sole function was building sniper systems from all avaliable sources. They had the very best avaliable for tooling and hardware.

Aaron_GT
03-22-2004, 05:21 AM
"The mean dispersal of 80% of the rounds was 4.48 meters, or 14.93 mils."

The figures I've seen for aircraft mounted
guns, from the USAAF, is about 8 mils for
fighter mounts (anything up to 20 mils for
some turret mounts, and the latter in fixed
tests AFAIK).

From Gibbage's tests in flight, the UBS had
about half the dispersion of the .50, so saying
it is modelled 5 or 10 times worse is not
supported by the evidence in game (sort of
reminds me of those people who keep saying
the P47D27 rolls more slowly than the He111
when it is easy to show that this isn't the
case).

I can see how a gun mounted directly into
the engine block (e.g. MG151/20 on the
Bf109) would have a very low dispersion.

I'm wondering if the dispersion, in terms
of the location of 80% rounds is correct, but
if the lack of a bell curve (apparently) makes
the actual distribution of the rounds worse
than would be the case in reality? It shouldn't
be too hard to change the random number generator
to a bell curve with radial dispersion.

Oleg_Maddox
03-22-2004, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
I just checked once more the P-38 with a "problem".

Sorry for thes that can't calculate the right digits and don't know about differences of shhoting on ground in fixed frame and in air.

Just to confirm: There will no changes for P-38 "dispersion". It has even better result than some of nose mounted weapon for single engine aircraft. Some time way better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes about nose mounted. How many of those have engines and props in/on the nose as well? 110G, Me262, a few. Are all nose mounts the same way with scatter?

No engine or prop in the nose, should there be less vibration to cause scatter?

Just asking.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal in fact the wight of engine and installed on the frame of engine MGs or cannons has less "vibrations" than the weapon installed in the niose of fuselage of two enginee fighters. Just because the engine with the frame and attched to this frame weapon "eat" all the vibration of the weapon - it is as one hard mounted system (not on all aircraft of course).

Instead the "light" mounted nose of Bf-110 and especially P-38 comparing to Me-262 and Bf-110 has more vibration movements by recoil of weapon than the nose with heavy engine inside.

Even without any formulas is possible to understand it.
However there are exclusions: for example such as A-10 for example the fuselage and logerons of wings of which was designed especially for that great cannon as a one system.

WhiskeyRiver
03-22-2004, 05:23 AM
Oleg, what are some testing procedures that you would accept as valid? There are a lot of hard to reproduce variables inherent in the process.

Does anyone else have ballistic data for the 12.7mm Russian machineguns? I'm having trouble finding any.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

JtD
03-22-2004, 05:35 AM
Dear Mr. Maddox, please look at this link. You might find something interesting:


http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/dispersion.html

excerpt:

dispersion of 2xUBS in Yak 9u nose

&lt;img src="http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Yak9u1.jpg"&gt;

dispersion of 2xM2 Browning in B239 nose

&lt;img src="http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/B2391.jpg"&gt;

dispersion of 2xUBK in gunpods under MiG-3 wing

&lt;img src="http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/MiG3udpods.jpg"&gt;

dispersion of 2xM2 Browning in B239 wings

&lt;img src="http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/B2392.jpg"&gt;

You will find many more pictures like that if you follow the link. Like you said, dispersion is by gun, not by mount. So, more or less, all Brwoning and UB pictures look the same.

The UBS is indeed about 4 times more accurate than the Browning.

[This message was edited by JtD on Mon March 22 2004 at 04:51 AM.]

JtD
03-22-2004, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
Not to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion, but has anyone discounted the fact that Oleg might be modeling a box pattern in the bullet pattern?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Impossible, since one gun has the same huge dispersion as six.

SeaFireLIV
03-22-2004, 06:12 AM
Clint-ruin`s right. Gibbage needs to be a little more diplomatic in his words. This arguing with Oleg is NOT the way to get things done (even if Gibbage did model some of the planes, it doesn`t give him the right to be rude). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Trying FORCE Oleg is ugly. And you might even be wrong, Gibbage1, you just might be.

All this over simple dispersion? As if it ruins the aircraft?? Whether right or wrong.

(I guess THIS is why a lot of HEAD-programmers have a policy of NOT talking on the forums. It can cause these sort of problems from people who are getting a bit too big for their boots and start threatening).

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Spitfeur2.jpg
Achtung! IT`S HERE!

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Mon March 22 2004 at 05:23 AM.]

clint-ruin
03-22-2004, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
This arguing with Oleg is NOT the way to get things done (even if Gibbage did model some of the planes, it doesn`t give him the right to be rude). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Trying FORCE Oleg is ugly. And you might even be wrong, Gibbage1, you just might be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just don't get the reason for all of the screaming when there has to be an absolutely massive amount of real test data to point to on this.

The UBx and Browning M2/.50 were used in practically every fighter the Soviet and US made during the war. There has to be some kind of relevant test data to point to - it is totally unthinkable that those weapons would be so ubiquitous without it. Photographs - and photographs of re-designed variants some 20/40 years later are probably not the way to do this.

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

Gunner_361st
03-22-2004, 06:37 AM
"your listing for the rof is inncorrect the m-2 .50 cal was modified in 1940 that raised the rate of fire from 500-600 to 750-850 rpm...flying guns world war II by anthony williams and dr E. gustin"

That is correct, as noted in the first source I listed.

And I agree, Seafire. Gibbage seems very upset, but growling that it is totally wrong and being generally abrasive isn't helping. Lets keep it civil, gentlemen.

and I also hope its clear that we are talking about the .50 caliber M2's dispersal, not trajectory or rate of fire.

As for an earlier poster claiming it had massive overheating problems, thats correct, in its early development it did. If you look back on the page 2 of this thread, I note this. I also note that the overheating was unacceptable for military use, so they put a heavy barrel on it, considerably reducing the problem, enough so that the US military adopted it. They still use it today.

Remember, accuracy of rounds chiefly hinges on the balance/center of gravity of the round and the speed at which it is spinning when it leaves the barrel. I will post more information on this as it pertains to the Browning .50 caliber M2 when I find it.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

chris455
03-22-2004, 06:55 AM
I don't know about you guys, but trying to "bully" Oleg is wrong, just wrong.
I don't feel good about the way this thing is going, why did this have to become a grim struggle of wills as opposed to a dialogue?
I said earlier, there are probably reasons Oleg feels the way he does about the issue.
Why are we accusing and threatening him?
That's no way to convince someone.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

SeaFireLIV
03-22-2004, 07:07 AM
Indeed.
There`s also now a principle developed here. If Oleg gives in to such threats and anger what then? IL2/FB AEP according to Gibbage? Or anyone else who gets angry and threatens to boycott the sim? More serious changes now made on the loudest and rudest poster? Oleg should not now give in IMHO.

I am desperately trying NOT to be hard on Gibbage1 because he did the Spitfire, but he`s really fast using up all his `good` points. Personally, I think he`s stepping over the line and should at least give Oleg a simple apology if he wishes this to go further.

Of course, had the conversation been polite and respectful there would have been no problems...

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Spitfeur2.jpg
Achtung! IT`S HERE!

p1ngu666
03-22-2004, 07:24 AM
im abit :| about engine mount
why? well engine off, ton of weight, fair enuff.
now a merlin engine was 27litre capacity, german aircraft was 30-40litres i think?. so run the engine, v12 (possibly inverted) and u got a lot of big chunks of metal hammering away in that engine, big explosions in cylinders. your gonna get some vibration there, im sure...
i read that in the desert p40's .50cals became .60cals cos of sand eroded the barrels
guess the effects are what we have now :\

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

CaptainGelo
03-22-2004, 08:06 AM
how hard can it be to fines some1 who flew p38 in WW2 and ask him? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/p38abig.jpg

CHDT
03-22-2004, 08:18 AM
For me, the case is closed, the P-38 DID vibrate during firing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/16105/pm0001006p.jpg

"the cockpit vibrates CONSIDERABLY"

Cheers,

LEXX_Luthor
03-22-2004, 08:21 AM
Sounds like that P~38 Gun Shake problem which it turns out isn't a "problem" anymore and never was. They totally made that up here at ubi.com.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JAS_Gripen
03-22-2004, 08:38 AM
Dispersion...maybe it is unhistorical but is it also evil? Flying game is hunted with shotguns, not with rifles. Dispersion might be also be viewed as an advantage for those who are not Foncks or Yorks (orig. sniping = hitting a quick bird "Snipe" with a rifle), particularly if one must make a quick lead shot. I guess it boils down on whether you are a "total disintegration-or-nothing" guy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Ok, back to the charts and quotes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

crazyivan1970
03-22-2004, 08:43 AM
I would like to remind participants of of this thread... that i am watching. And IF some replies are conducted in disrespectfull and offencive manner towards anyone... those will be deleted without warning. Choose your words wisely http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.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.

WhiskeyBravo
03-22-2004, 08:45 AM
CHDT,

Dont leave us in supense show us the next page of that book - what happened to the guy? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

WB.

CaptainGelo
03-22-2004, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyBravo:
CHDT,

Dont leave us in supense show us the next page of that book - what happened to the guy? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

WB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/p38abig.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
03-22-2004, 08:55 AM
Yeah! What happened to the guy?
I find the 38 a very stable gun platform by the way.

CHDT
03-22-2004, 09:16 AM
The full (and very good) story is here:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cocoon/vhp-stories/loc.natlib.afc2001001.00449/pageturner?ID=pm0001001&page=1

Two small reflexions about gunnery in AEP.

- if the gunnery seems wrong to some, it's simply perhaps it is on the contrary very realistic in AEP. From my army days as AA gunner, I cleary remember that hitting an aircraft was not an easy task. For instance, on a 20men platoon, only 4-6 people were really useful gunners. In fact, the difference between a "killer" shot and a missed shot is very thin!

So, I think that a light hand and a good adjusted joystick are obligatory in AEP to get successes with air-air gunnery. Not "spray and pray", but "aim and touch" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

- I've also just watched some gun camera movies and this looked just like in AEP, very few aircrafts touched by shots sustained major structural damages. It was rather smokes, fire, wounded pilots or loss of contral, what AEP represents quite good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,

03-22-2004, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Before to tell such things please be ready with the hard data, that corresponds to the real data and modeled physics. All in comparison. All in formulas. All in samples.
Go ahead. I will wait.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Please tell us why the M2 Brownings dispersion is noticeably greater than all other machineguns in the sim.

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Mon March 22 2004 at 09:57 AM.]

Ivan, you better quit monkeying with posts. Your role as a moderator is to stay neutral. Take sides on this issue and you will be reported to Ubi.

[This message was edited by cosmokart on Mon March 22 2004 at 10:03 AM.]

03-22-2004, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
1. Please don't mix the terms accuracy of weapon and accuracy of installed on aircraft weapon. Its too different things. Be sure to use right terms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same applies for you. For example, the flexible MG17 mounted in He 111 and Stuka has the same accuracy as fixed MG17 mounted in fighters. This is wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
2. Please try to make samples where other tna browning is _10 times_ better. I don't like the words that show nothing except "cry".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you really want us to perform and exhaustive test between the M2, the Berezin, and MG131? It would be better to simply post the dispersion data that the sim currently uses. It only needs to be kept secret if the truth is embarrassing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
3. And please use all the sources that posted here to evaluate with other similar types of weapon by all the possible ways from the muzzle velocity, tragectory, coefficients of effiency. That will be right way comparing to what you try to say here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have done exactly that! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Please read my post about 12.7mm KORD, M312 and Hotchkiss 13.2mm.

03-22-2004, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Okay about the sniper gun M2 guys. A single shot weapon is NOT going to have dispersion due to recoil, is it? Bad examples are worse than none at all.

Get disciplined or lose to your own arguments.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This just one of the factors that Gibbage even don't know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage never claimed that fully automatic guns should have the same accuracy as single-shot weapons. NEVER!

Stop trying to mislead the discussion.

crazyivan1970
03-22-2004, 11:12 AM
I think i made myself clear cosmokart. Conduct yourself in repsectfull manner and you`ll be fine. You if you wanna stay in this discussion choose words wisely, otherwise stay out of it. Simple as that.

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.

03-22-2004, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
I plan to make such a table (like in the past posted here on the forum for modelled guns/shlles/bullets/mussle velocity, etc) for the Italian programmers that makes special tools how better to aim with different weapon and gunsights, etc... There will be such a data.
But it doesn't help the people who don't know the physics even when they have all the data in their hands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wonderful http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I would be grateful for such a table.

Who are these people with data "in their hands"? The only such person is YOU, Oleg. We could go on all day talking about guns in reality but it has no relevance to the guns in the sim unless we know the data for the guns in the sim.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Oleg Maddox:
Gibbage isn't so young. Simply he can't get from this one of his favorite planes (and which he is initialy modelled for us) what he is expected. He use incorrect samples, but never use hard data. Just wrods.
And he try to compare the recoil of 2x7,62 2x12,7 1x20mm on LaGG-3 with 2x 12,7 + 1x20mm on P-38 which is almost two times greater. But he can't evaluate it.... that he compare different things of different weapon. Especially 7,62 ShKAS!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right about Gibbage. He's an absolute genius and a fantastic artist, but like all of us sometimes we say something inaccurate. I know that Gibbage is an intelligent person. 4x 12.7mm and 1x 20mm is more recoil than the guns on a LaGG-3. But, as you said yourself, consider the entire weapon system. The LaGG-3 weighs less than a P-38.

Besides, the problem is not just the "favorite" P-38. The problem affects ALL aircraft armed with M2 Browning.

03-22-2004, 11:18 AM
Check your PM

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Mon March 22 2004 at 10:36 AM.]

Kurfurst__
03-22-2004, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cosmokart:

The same applies for you. For example, the flexible MG17 mounted in He 111 and Stuka has the same accuracy as fixed MG17 mounted in fighters. This is wrong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OFF: The He 111 and Stuka does not mount the MG 17 is flexible position, they mount the (altough very similiar in construction) MG 15 (and later versions the MG 81). There is indeed an unquestionalbe, but most likely engine related bug with the MG 15, all weapons that used a clips and not belts; there should be about 5 secs reload time after each 75 shots fired; I miss this a lot, but most likely this is limitation of the engine.

However it would be most nice to see this feature, at least in BoB. Many planes would be effected, all early German bombers, Me 110C (with MGFF), Beufighters, Hungarian conversion of Me 210 with 40mm Bofors etc. These planes all had to reload the weapon after a number of shots and of course could not fire during that time.

SeaFireLIV
03-22-2004, 11:44 AM
Disgusting attitude. It`s people like you Cosmokart that don`t care what they ruin over one lousy dispersion quarrel. It`s pathetic.

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 12:08 PM
Oleg. This is the problem.

Browning M2 .50 cal. (nose mounted on brewster)

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

Ho-103 (nose mounted on Ki-84

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

Mg-131 (nose mounted on 109 G6)

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

UBs (Nose mounted on Yak 1b)

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Yak1b1.jpg

You clearly model the .50 cal as the most inferior MG ever. All M2's in the game have the same spread, so it does not matter were its mounted.

Oleg. I have tried reasoning with you, and it did not work. I have tried to show proof, and it did not work. I have tried public support, and it did not work. Im tired of this. I will no longer model for your game unless this is changed.

I ask again, for the last time. Why do you hate the browning M2 .50 cal?

Gibbage

faustnik
03-22-2004, 12:15 PM
Gibbage chill out!

Oleg has a difference of opinion, don't threaten him.

WTF?

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

03-22-2004, 12:20 PM
Maybe it's best to cool off this public thread and continue the discussion by PM or email.

I don't wish to hide the debate from anyone, but the emotions in this forum are getting out of hand. While I have no qualms about fighting fire with fire, this isn't the place to do it. Both Oleg and several forum members have "vented", to say the least.

Let's get over it and get back to being rational before this turns into a "cold war" over who controls 3D models. It'd be a shame for the M2 to remain broken, and it'd also be a shame for BoB to lose potential aircraft. I don't think the stakes need to be that high, really. Calmer minds shall prevail.

Nobody wants this to turn into another Fw 190 window bar, either. Remember what happened. The creators of this sim don't listen to reason when it is rammed down their throats in an ugly way. Obviously!

crazyivan1970
03-22-2004, 12:22 PM
Gibb, i will not edit your post...even that i think it`s a privat matter between you and Oleg - i hope you`ll do it yourself. But this is not cool, sorry.

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.

crazyivan1970
03-22-2004, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cosmokart:
Maybe it's best to cool off this public thread and continue the discussion by PM or email.

I don't wish to hide the debate from anyone, but the emotions in this forum are getting out of hand. While I have no qualms about fighting fire with fire, this isn't the place to do it. Both Oleg and several forum members have "vented", to say the least.

Let's get over it and get back to being rational before this turns into a "cold war" over who controls 3D models. It'd be a shame for the M2 to remain broken, and it'd also be a shame for BoB to lose potential aircraft. I don't think the stakes need to be that high, really. Calmer minds shall prevail.

Nobody wants this to turn into another Fw 190 window bar, either. Remember what happened. The creators of this sim don't listen to reason when it is rammed down their throats in an ugly way. Obviously!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you making alot of sense, thank you. Hope everyone will read this.

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.

JFW
03-22-2004, 12:33 PM
Gibbage has made a pretty good case, overall. It would please me if after emotions have let down, if Oleg did agree to reconsider this issue given the visual evidence Gibbage has presented (it seems Oleg doesn't dispute that the dispersion *shouldn't* be any worse than other nose-mounted weapons, so it bears to reason that if it can be shown his program doesn't operate as intended, he'll certainly look into it)

I certainly won't comment on my experiences as my flightstick and personal skill aren't the most condusive examples of aerial gunnery in the first place.

Thanks Gibbage, Oleg. You both do good work!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gunner_361st
03-22-2004, 12:48 PM
I agree on that, it may be best to take further evidence through personal messages and emails. I hope more reasonable, objective discussions can be held there.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

SeaFireLIV
03-22-2004, 12:48 PM
The case presented is NOT the problem. It`s the WAY it`s being presented. If you are not getting what you want, then so be it. If someone`s happy with the Apple pie, but you hate a particular colour or taste of it, and the cook won`t agree with you. What do you do? Threaten him? Beat him up?

No, you`d leave the pie and go. Or you`d eat the pie anyway and hope to change the cook`s mind later.

You wouldn`t threaten the guy. No matter HOW RIGHT you believe you are, you DO NOT FORCE it on any Human Being. They will by default FIGHT against you. Learn this lesson for later in life.

Gibbage1 wrote:`I have tried Public Support and it did not work`

Gibbage has inadvertently lost support simply by this attitude. A simple mistake made in history. Funny to see it happen here again.

(Sorry to go on, but there is a very important lesson to be learned here. I am now finished).

03-22-2004, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Browning M2 .50 cal. (nose mounted on brewster)

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

Ho-103 (nose mounted on Ki-84

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

Mg-131 (nose mounted on 109 G6)

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

UBs (Nose mounted on Yak 1b)

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Yak1b1.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are some great pictures. Thanks Gibbage and JTD for posting them.

It is ESECIALLY interesting to see that even the B-239 suffers from poor accuracy.
1/ The B-239 has only 2 nose mounted guns, for less shaking.
2/ The B-239 has an big strong stiff engine in the nose.

You'd think that the Brewster's two nose mounted 50's would be at least a little bit more accurate than wing mounted 50's or the "shaky" nose mounted 50's in the P-38 and YP-80.

nixon-fiend.
03-22-2004, 12:59 PM
"Oleg, why do you hate this gun??"


That is the stupidest thing i've heard today.

Oleg has his reasons, his data and his opinion.

From what this sim has shown me, his middle name is "historical accuracy" (well, i guess it's something more russian than that.. maybe Boris, but i'm speaking metaphorically damnit!)

And I'm finding it hard to believe he is willing to come here and suffer this abuse.

Nothing in a PC game is going to be 100% representative of reality anyways. Why would Mr.Maddox want to do anything other than make it correct??

Hating guns... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif F**king stupid.

Aaron_GT
03-22-2004, 01:06 PM
I suggest a comparative test of the
Me110 versus the P38. Ok, the Me110G
has cannon, not MGs, but both are mounted
in noses which do not have engines in,
so should be comparable. If possible then
testing against a Pe2 might be worthwhile
(rather harder to aim, though) and the
Me210. Also it might be worth doing a
comparative test between the .50s in the
P38 and the 20mm cannon, by way of
comparasion to the .50 and to the Me110
and 210.

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 01:14 PM
Aaron. The Brewster also has nose mounted guns on an engine, but suffers from a HUGE dispursion were as the Ki-84 has the same type of gun setup but has pinpoint accuract. That is all the testing needed. The .50 cal's dispursion is 10X worse then any HMG in the game, and I wanna know why?

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 01:22 PM
Oleg. 1 final bit of proof.

Me-262 4x 30MM Mk-108

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Me262.jpg

Brewster 2x .50 cal ENGINE mounted

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

How is it possible that two engine mounted .50 cal guns have more dispursion then 4 30MM nose mounted?

One thing I noticed about the ground test's. This dispursion is not recoil induced. The dispursion is hard-coded into the game. Look at the Me-262's spread. Anyone who has ever flown it knows that it spreads over a LOT more in air. So that means the browning .50 cal is programmed to spread without recoil being a factor. Add recoil, and it will only get worse.

[This message was edited by Gibbage1 on Mon March 22 2004 at 12:42 PM.]

VW-IceFire
03-22-2004, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Aaron. The Brewster also has nose mounted guns on an engine, but suffers from a HUGE dispursion were as the Ki-84 has the same type of gun setup but has pinpoint accuract. That is all the testing needed. The .50 cal's dispursion is 10X worse then any HMG in the game, and I wanna know why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a valid argument for sure.

What interests me is, has everyone checked their convergence settings. I find 250 meters is best for the P-51 and most other wing mounted machine gun equipped fighters. But, and I haven't tried it yet...would 300 or 400 or even 600 meters benefit the P-38?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Kurfurst__
03-22-2004, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
How is it possible that two engine mounted .50 cal guns have more dispursion then 4 30MM nose mounted?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To my knowladge, the Brewster had 4x.50 cals in the nose.

Gibbage, dispersion of high velocity, long barrelled weapons is HIGHER than low velocity, short barreled weapons. It`s a RULE of thumb in ballistics. If that`s the way AEP has it, it`s ballistically correct.

Try to understand the words 'dispersion' and 'ballistics', 'trajectory', 'travel time' are DIFFERENT things. Try to undestand it.

ZG77_Nagual
03-22-2004, 01:48 PM
Kurfurst - the brewsty has two in the nose and two in the wings http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (I'm sure you knew that)

Gib, you've been making a good case but this is basically science - getting emotional about it really takes away from your point. Olegs point about engine mounted guns is a good one - and one I hadn't thought of. The mass of the engine would absorb alot of the recoil. It would be interesting to see dispersion tests for the 110 and 262 - two other planes without motors in their noses. Functionally, in the simm - the 38's guns do seem more effective that even the 8 .50s in the p47 - unless you catch them right at convergence.

This brings up a question - is convergence modeled for nose mounted guns? Should it be?

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 01:49 PM
Then what your saying is the UBs, Mg-131, Ho-103 and all other HMG's are incorrect? Because they are all high velocity, long barrelled weapons with high velocity, but have pinpoint accuract.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

To my knowladge, the Brewster had 4x.50 cals in the nose.

Gibbage, dispersion of high velocity, long barrelled weapons is HIGHER than low velocity, short barreled weapons. It`s a RULE of thumb in ballistics. If that`s the way AEP has it, it`s ballistically correct.

Try to understand the words 'dispersion' and 'ballistics', 'trajectory', 'travel time' are DIFFERENT things. Try to undestand it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

clint-ruin
03-22-2004, 01:51 PM
Thanks for a few very well expressed posts on this thread now, Kurfurst.

Some random pages found on google which might be of use - hard to find pages that refer to the WW2 era weapons rather than redesigns from the 60s and later. First one especially seems like a nice read from my skim of it.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/50traj.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/pg335.jpg

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1922/naca-tm-111/naca-tm-111.pdf

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

03-22-2004, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
One thing I noticed about the ground test's. This dispursion is not recoil induced. The dispursion is hard-coded into the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is very true. In all of the testing we have been careful to fire short bursts and avoid recoil induced movement.

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 02:04 PM
Double post. Sorry.

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 02:04 PM
I have calmed down quite a bit in my more recent post's. I understand that getting irate will only make matters worse for me and everyone.

The main problem is that its no longer a matter of nose mounted or wing mounted. If you look at the web page, P-47 has the same spread as a Brewster or a P-39. The Browning .50 cal is programmed to spread without recoil. That is wrong.

Looking over all the test's, I have come to the conclusion that Oleg programs spread mased on two factors. #1, being accuracy of the weapon in general. #2 being recoil. You can see this in the ground test's because everything in general is very accurate. Even guns like the Mk-108 that is natoriously inaccurate get good results on the ground.

But the .50 cal in compleatly inaccurate when when you negate the recoil by being on the ground. You can see this in the screenshots compaired to other guns of its same caliber. Nose mounted or wing, you get the same spread. Then once your in the air, the shots are spread out even further when recoil.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Kurfurst - the brewsty has two in the nose and two in the wings http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (I'm sure you knew that)

Gib, you've been making a good case but this is basically science - getting emotional about it really takes away from your point. Olegs point about engine mounted guns is a good one - and one I hadn't thought of. The mass of the engine would absorb alot of the recoil. It would be interesting to see dispersion tests for the 110 and 262 - two other planes without motors in their noses. Functionally, in the simm - the 38's guns do seem more effective that even the 8 .50s in the p47 - unless you catch them right at convergence.

This brings up a question - is convergence modeled for nose mounted guns? Should it be?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

clint-ruin
03-22-2004, 02:05 PM
By way of contrast, doing a similar search on google for

Berezin UBS Ballistic

Rather than

Browning M2 Ballistic

Comes up with a grand total of five results :&lt;

Comparing the .50 cal to the others might be a bit harder than I thought.

edit: 5 results! not 5 pages. i wish I could find 5 pages worth ..

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

ZG77_Nagual
03-22-2004, 02:07 PM
So -
Things are getting confusing, so lets make a list http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

&gt;Engine mounted guns have less dispersion that nose mounted guns

&gt;Hi velocity/long barrelled guns have more than low/short

&gt;Looks like the Mk108s in the 262 have about the same dispersion as the .50s in the 38

This would be explained by the fact the the short-barrelled/low velocity 108s probably have fairly heafty recoil - which counters their low dispersion? Fair enough.

Why the Brownings are so much worse than the vvs and german guns I don't know. I do know the vvs guns had (I think) higher velocity - and were known to have very little drop. Dispersion I don't know about however.

I have no trouble understanding greater dispersion for guns not mounted to an engine - but there is still the mystery of why the M2 is so much worse than comparable calibres from other countries, though I certainly acknowlege it's possible.

ASH at S-MART
03-22-2004, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Oleg. This is the problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage! Thanks for the hard work you did on the 3D stuff and on this .50cal issue.. I could never explain or understand why the .50cal seemed so poor.. But it looks like you might be onto something.. But alow me to play devils advocate here for a second.. These pictures you posted here..

Browning M2 .50 cal. (nose mounted on brewster)

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

Ho-103 (nose mounted on Ki-84

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


Mg-131 (nose mounted on 109 G6)

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


UBs (Nose mounted on Yak 1b)

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Yak1b1.jpg

Where you comp the Brewster "engine" mounted .50 to the others.. Im not at home so I can not verify this right now.. But let me say this.. An engine mounted MG vs. a CANNON/MG that fires THROUGH the crank shaft.. ie the barrel is the crank shat itself would probally be more stable?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Oleg. I have tried reasoning with you, and it did not work. I have tried to show proof, and it did not work. I have tried public support, and it did not work. Im tired of this. I will no longer model for your game unless this is changed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Gibbage! I know this is close to your hart and all.. It would be to me to if I did all that hard work on the 3D model P38 only to have it's nutts cut off due to a poor gun model.. but buddy! CHILL!!! You catch more bee's with honey! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif In short.. not tackful at all.. I understand your emotion.. but that is not an excuse!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I ask again, for the last time. Why do you hate the browning M2 .50 cal?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It would not be the first or last time they made a mistake.. But it would be the first time they intentinally crippled something.. So, Im sure it is just some missunderstanding or mistake on thier or our part.. The only thing left here is to find out who is actually in the wrong! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-22-2004, 02:16 PM
The spread of the Brownings have been wrong since day one. Its no secret and why Oleg and his team have not corrected it is a mystery.

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/98027.jpg

03-22-2004, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
Where you comp the Brewster "engine" mounted .50 to the others.. Im not at home so I can not verify this right now.. But let me say this.. An engine mounted MG vs. a CANNON/MG that fires THROUGH the crank shaft.. ie the barrel is the crank shat itself would probally be more stable?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH is right. Let's compare the Brewster to another aircraft with cowl mounted machineguns, such as LaGG-3, MiG-3, Bf 109 or Fw 190.

One minor thing-- the crankshaft is not barrel. The barrel passes through the "vee" between the cylinder banks on to the hollow prop shaft. The crankshaft is located above/below the gun barrel (depending on engine orientation) and the crank is connected to the propshaft by a reduction gear.

Aaron_GT
03-22-2004, 02:33 PM
"Aaron. The Brewster also has nose mounted guns on an engine, but suffers from a HUGE dispursion were as the Ki-84 has the same type of gun setup but has pinpoint accuract. That is all the testing needed. The .50 cal's dispursion is 10X worse then any HMG in the game, and I wanna know why?"

Gibbage, if you are trying to argue Oleg
round then saying things which are wild and
inaccurate exagerations aren't going to help
things! I did the calculations based on
your tests on the Me210. The Lagg3 (which
includes HMGs) had about twice the dispersion
evident in the P38, not 10 times.

Also the guns in the Brewster are nose
mounted next to an engine, not engine mounted.

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 02:36 PM
Thats why I also compaired it to the Ki-84's cowel mounted MG's. They are pinpoint accurate. I also would like to see the P-39 Q-10 in the same situation. Because the Brewster has 2 cowel and 2 wing gun. If I remember, the test ran the wing guns out first, and then recorded the result on the brewster hence the "cowel mounted" result. But I wish to try it on the P-39 Q-10 or P-63 so nobody can claim the spray was from the wing mounted MG's. Im at work now so I cant for at least a few more hours.

Can anyone help me on this? Like the original poster of those screenshots? Do you have the mission that puts you in front of a chimney at 300M?

03-22-2004, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The Lagg3 (which
includes HMGs) had about twice the dispersion
evident in the P38, not 10 times.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure about that?

ЛаГГ-3 ИТ 1хБС
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/LaGG3IT1.jpg

I wonder if JTD did tests for the other LaGG-3s....

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 02:51 PM
This is true. I should not over exagerate things. It only hurts.

As for the Brewster, I also said "same setup as the Ki-84". I dont know for sure if the mounting for the .50's are on the engine, but it is the same basic setup as the Ki, but the Ki has no dispursion.

Looking at my drawings, it looks like the brewsters guns were mounted on the engine mount, not the engine. But thats still a very sturdy mount.

Now with the mount no longer in question, lets look at other factors. Weight. In IL2, its proven that when an aircraft is on the ground, recoil is not in play (hence the Me-262 Mk-108). So weight is not a factor since that helps recoil.

This is also why I would like to test the P-63 (9,350lb for P-63, 8500 for KI). Its of similar weight to the Ki-84, and with two nose mounted MG's. So nobody can say the .50 cals were just pushing the Brewster around. I would also think the P-63 being almost 1000lb more would make a better gun platform since the Ki-84 and P-63 both use body mounted MG's and not engine mounted.

Is my assumption correct?

My crusade turned from "fixing the P-38" to "Fixing the Browning M2". It effects ALL US aircraft. And soon some British AC like the Spit IX.

P.S. The Brewsters guns are mounted over and behind the engine, just like the Ki-84 and 109 G6. Not next to the engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Gibbage, if you are trying to argue Oleg
round then saying things which are wild and
inaccurate exagerations aren't going to help
things! I did the calculations based on
your tests on the Me210. The Lagg3 (which
includes HMGs) had about twice the dispersion
evident in the P38, not 10 times.

Also the guns in the Brewster are nose
mounted next to an engine, not engine mounted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
03-22-2004, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cosmokart:
One minor thing-- the crankshaft is not barrel. The barrel passes through the "vee" between the cylinder banks on to the hollow prop shaft. The crankshaft is located above/below the gun barrel (depending on engine orientation) and the crank is connected to the propshaft by a reduction gear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ahhhhh I didnt know that! I allways thought that would be one hard thing to do.. Machine a cranks shaft with all the rod gernals and make a gun barrel!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That discription you gave is a much better way of doing it! Much more practal! Actually a DUH and I can not belive I thought otherwise! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

boohaa
03-22-2004, 02:56 PM
Boooohaaaa will now add his points on the the "Battle of the Brownings" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

There are alot of people here against Gibbage on this and its making me start to wonder where this Oleg worshipping comes from.I keep reading get some common sense Gibbage and you is wrong but I see gibbages dispersion shots and I get a feeling that he is totally right here.

Second thing is,have you never gotten a feeling that when firing the P-47's 6 guns(or any plane with .50's)at a plane,THAT LOTS OF THEM ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE FREAKING NEAR THE PLANE IN YOUR CROSSHAIR??????(reread what I just posted) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gifIn a quieter voice now have you ever felt that some of the russian planes shoot what appear to be lasers????Pinpoint accuracy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

I hate the fact that many of the people that I respect on this board,from just reading their posts,can also instill anger in me when they say such stupid remarks as "why cant we just leave it alone...why do people have to keep bothering Oleg on these issues".

Climb rates/max speeds/max dive speeds being just some of the points that Oleg got his buddies to jump in on.

I like you Oleg and respect you but I also find that you say that we are wrong and then months later change the things we were wrong about.I kinda lost hope in you when you told us that an LA7 "SHOULD" hang on its prop and climb to the moon....be sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gifYou mentioned a plane with the horsepower and weight that an LA7 has should be able to fly like a rocket.Now it flys like an LA7.What happened???

On a final note I will add that from day one when firing my .50 calibers....I thought that I should be tearing the enemy a new one and instead I look on as I dont really do as much damage as I thought I would.Could this be why the .50's are modeled with unseeable tracers since if we had the tracers from the russian tie fighters we would of been crying from day one!!!!!

ASH at S-MART
03-22-2004, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Is my assumption correct?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So far so good!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
My crusade turned from "fixing the P-38" to "Fixing the Browning M2". It effects ALL US aircraft. And soon some British AC like the Spit IX.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

Basically.. you doing good here.. Just leave out the "If you dont play my way Ill take my ball and go home" threats to Oleg.. It aint going to help! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Gunner_361st
03-22-2004, 02:58 PM
"Gibbage, dispersion of high velocity, long barrelled weapons is HIGHER than low velocity, short barreled weapons. It`s a RULE of thumb in ballistics. If that`s the way AEP has it, it`s ballistically correct."

I can only assume you switched the names around improperly.

High velocity + Long Barrel = Less Dispersion than Low Velocity + Short Barrel.

Lets look at two examples. A 7.62mm Pistol and a 7.62mm Rifle.

The rifle's barrel is 25 inches (1,208mm) long and has a muzzle velocity of 2,723 feet/second (830 m/sec)

The pistol's barrel is 4.5 inches (114 mm) long and has a muzzle velocity of 1,099 ft/sec (335 m/sec)

Both are placed on a mount for stability, and fired at a target 100 yards away.

Tell me, even people that have no education of ballistics. Which do you think will shoot a tighter circle?

Again, Kurfurst. I can only honestly hope that was a typo on your part.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

ASH at S-MART
03-22-2004, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by boohaa:
Second thing is,have you never gotten a feeling that when firing the P-47's 6 guns(or any plane with .50's)at a plane,THAT LOTS OF THEM ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE FREAKING NEAR THE PLANE IN YOUR CROSSHAIR??????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! But in contrast.. I can down aircraft very easly with a P40! So.. that is why I think there is something ELSE at play here.. I dont think it is the .50 gun model.. In that I can do fantastic things in a P40 in HALF THE TIME I could in a P47.. Even though the P47 has twice as many guns.. I dont know that that other thing is.. But, unless Oleg has seperate .50 gun models.. It has to be something else.. but what?

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

dahdah
03-22-2004, 03:04 PM
ASH SMART, how does one set the interrupter sequence to miss all those con rods? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Six big ends with 12 attached con rods turning at say 3000rpm.

Gunner_361st
03-22-2004, 03:05 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by boohaa:
Second thing is,have you never gotten a feeling that when firing the P-47's 6 guns(or any plane with .50's)at a plane,THAT LOTS OF THEM ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE FREAKING NEAR THE PLANE IN YOUR CROSSHAIR??????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactally! But in contrast.. I can down aircraft very easly with a P40! So.. that is why I think there is something ELSE at play here.. I dont think it is the .50 gun model.. In that I can do fantastic things in a P40 in HALF THE TIME I could in a P47.. Even though the P47 has twice as many guns.. I dont know that that other thing is.. But, unless Oleg has seperate .50 gun models.. It has to be something else.. but what?

ASH at S-MART
----------------------------------------------

Uhm... Fraid you made a few mistakes or typos there, gentlemen.

The P47 Thunderbolt has 8 .50 caliber M2's, not 6.

The P40 variants we have do not have half the guns the P47 has. The P40 has 6 50 caliber M2. The P47 has 8.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

boohaa
03-22-2004, 03:06 PM
Im wondering if doing the dispersion test but just tapping the trigger would still yield such a wide circle of bullets.By tapping the trigger you should see much less dispersion since you are taking away the recoil effect of so many guns firing at once.

Fillmore
03-22-2004, 03:07 PM
"I can only assume you switched the names around improperly.

High velocity + Long Barrel = Less Dispersion than Low Velocity + Short Barrel.

Lets look at two examples. A 7.62mm Pistol and a 7.62mm Rifle."

From what I read of his post on page 4 there is no typo here, he meant it the way he said it, but he is only talking about automatic weapons fire.

ASH at S-MART
03-22-2004, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Uhm... Fraid you made a few mistakes or typos there, gentlemen.

The P47 Thunderbolt has 8 .50 caliber M2's, not 6.

The P40 variants we have do not have half the guns the P47 has. The P40 has 6 50 caliber M2. The P47 has 8.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger P47 has 8x0.50 but I *thought* the P40 in the game only had 4x0.50? If not, my BAD! BUT! The point is still valid!! Why oh WHY can I do more in a P40 then a P47? Same is true for a P40 vs. P51.. There is *something* different in the way the P40 does *it* that makes it's .50s more deadly.. What.. I dont know.. But the FACT that some aircraft with 0.50s are good and some are bad leads me to belive it is NOT the 0.50cal gun model.. but something about the aircraft *dispersion* modeling... Oh which the P38 should have ZERO if not much MUCH LESS!! in comparsion to wing mounted aircraft.. Even if you have the tgt set at the dispersion range.. the wings are assumed to be less ridged then the nose with regards to vibrations

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

boohaa
03-22-2004, 03:17 PM
Lets not forget that the dispersion is also caused by the plane yawing left and right as each wing fires off a bullet.The P38 may have lots of vibration but it has all its guns firing from center point and that was made to give it less dispersion.Also remember that the plane was very heavy

boohaa
03-22-2004, 03:17 PM
Lets not forget that the dispersion is also caused by the plane yawing left and right as each wing fires off a bullet.The P38 may have lots of vibration but it has all its guns firing from center point and that was made to give it less dispersion.Also remember that the plane was very heavy.

Gunner_361st
03-22-2004, 03:21 PM
"From what I read of his post on page 4 there is no typo here, he meant it the way he said it, but he is only talking about automatic weapons fire." - Fillmore

----------------------------------------------

Dispersion with automatic weapons would be chiefly determined on how well/solidly its mounted. An automatic gun with low muzzle velocity and a short barrel would obviously have less recoil than a long-barreled, high velocity automatic gun, but the effects of that would only be seriously felt IF the high-velocity, long barreled automatic gun was NOT firmly mounted/secured.

As the weapons were solidly mounted in practically all World War II fighters.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

ASH at S-MART
03-22-2004, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by boohaa:
Lets not forget that the dispersion is also caused by the plane yawing left and right as each wing fires off a bullet.The P38 may have lots of vibration but it has all its guns firing from center point and that was made to give it less dispersion.Also remember that the plane was very heavy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually the game kind of over models that IMHO.. You kind of hit on it there too.. the plane was very heavy.. That mass when moving presents a large momentum.. something a 0.50cal would not have much effect on.. in short.. not much yaw due to a non-sequence firing gun(s) on the wing

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

clint-ruin
03-22-2004, 03:26 PM
OK, so the document scans I linked to at the top of page 7 don't seem to have taken the discussion anywhere.

So just to throw this at the more physics inclined members of the forum, I'd like to ask what this tells us about what we should expect from the .50 :

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/t1.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/t2.jpg

Just a crop of the file since the original is a little large to direct link.

If I'm reading that table right, that doesn't actually look all that good in terms of accuracy, but I'd like to get an opinion with someone more familiar with what's commonly called "good" :&gt;

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

ASH at S-MART
03-22-2004, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
If I'm reading that table right, that doesn't actually look all that good in terms of accuracy, but I'd like to get an opinion with someone more familiar with what's commonly called "good"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally.. without some reference point.. ie another table like this for one of the other guns in question/comparsion it dosnt help much..

PS.. note.. this is about INCENDIARY rounds.. I belive they were know for being.. less that accurate, like the tracer rounds.. they just didnt fly right! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

[This message was edited by ASH_SMART on Mon March 22 2004 at 02:52 PM.]

ucanfly
03-22-2004, 03:37 PM
Not familiar with some terms on that chart , but it looks to me like a bullet drop chart (for sighting in or convergence adjustment) , and I don't know if that has anything to do with accuracy or dispersion.

clint-ruin
03-22-2004, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
Not familiar with some terms on that chart , but it looks to me like a bullet drop chart (for sighting in or convergence adjustment) , and I don't know if that has anything to do with accuracy or dispersion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, seems that way.

But this is for a single API round from a steady mount with very precisely controlled aiming.

At 1109 yards it's already dropped 10 yards in altitude. Don't know what our chances are of getting that nice little 30" circle with 4 of 'em going off at once in full auto.

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

WWMaxGunz
03-22-2004, 04:11 PM
Tagerrrr.... uhhh ASH_SMART, when you fire the P-47 is it all the guns at once or just the ast set of 4? The 2nd set of 4 is via the cannon trigger.

Gib, I didn't post a link to my track of the P-38 ground firing after I saw how teh smokestack tests were done. I don't see the pics on my browser (I could if I went through the html source and brought them up the hard way on a new window, which I usually don't) and I wonder if in those tests they get anything like I did.

Recoil in-game is very much there in on-ground firing. Unless you can mount a plane in-game on a frame and chocks then hey, the gear suspension is not rigid or whatever other explanation you want but the nose bobs and the plane itself slews esp when firing everything. With everything going even the brakes don't hold. With all 4 50's on continuous the rocking builds up. I've seen it in gunsight movement against a close wall. Not saying everything is hunky-dorey but there's more going on that you seem to be giving creedence to when you say groundfire = no recoil.

You need to see for yourself. Fire from a parked P-38 just the 50's with the pipper on a definite object and see how well it don't stay on target. The sight circle itself will provide you with angular measure once you know the range a 10m set of wings fills the ring.

Perhaps there's a way to flight test the recoil using a fully trimmed plane, fire key on keyboard (no stick trigger pull to affect flight), and what for a target I don't know but perhaps tall ground object in a long enough distance but not too far as a viewpoint reference only? Wind, torque and other non-gunnery effects off. Get trimmed as best as possible, hands off the stick and fire via keyboard short bursts and a long one. Make a full track and record/analyze results from that.

I don't know if it will get you anywhere but maybe the information will change how you argue the issue.


Neal

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 04:17 PM
In short birst's with brakes on, no. No recoil, or at least not enough to effect the spread any great ammount. Also note the Ki-84 and other aircraft have NO spread using the same test. Like I said. Even a Me-262 has less spread with 4 Mk-108's then a Brewster with 2 .50 cal when parked. That means the recoul is GREATLY negated, and what you see when parked is the programmed inaccuracy of the gun, not the recoil effect. In air, the recoil effect is a LOT greater because everyone knows how much the Me-262 spreads wildly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Recoil in-game is very much there in on-ground firing. Unless you can mount a plane in-game on a frame and chocks then hey, the gear suspension is not rigid or whatever other explanation you want but the nose bobs and the plane itself slews esp when firing everything. With everything going even the brakes don't hold. With all 4 50's on continuous the rocking builds up. I've seen it in gunsight movement against a close wall. Not saying everything is hunky-dorey but there's more going on that you seem to be giving creedence to when you say groundfire = no recoil.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 04:19 PM
But the M2 browning cant keep a 30" circle at 100 yards. Were is every other HMG in the game keeps a spread of about 20-30" at 300 yards. Thats the problem. Not the spread at 1000 yards.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

Yep, seems that way.

But this is for a single API round from a steady mount with very precisely controlled aiming.

At 1109 yards it's already dropped 10 yards in altitude. Don't know what our chances are of getting that nice little 30" circle with 4 of 'em going off at once in full auto.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 04:26 PM
I found this on the P-39. Can anyone make sense of it?

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/p39iv6.JPG

I just noticed at the bottom of this pic. "Range of GUN AJUSTMENT". This is not the result of fire test, but the range at witch the gun can be ajusted.

[This message was edited by Gibbage1 on Mon March 22 2004 at 03:57 PM.]

dahdah
03-22-2004, 04:26 PM
Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds to 600yds:

ball turret &gt; dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret &gt; dia. 21' - 11.7mils
chin turret &gt; dia. 23' - 12.6 mils
waist(closed) dia. 26' - 14.3mils
side nose &gt; dia. 34' - 18.7mils
tail turret &gt; dia 45' - 25mils

For the B-24 it was:

ball turret &gt; dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret &gt; dia. 20' - 11.2mils
nose turret &gt; dia. 23' - 12.9mils (Emerson)
nose turret &gt; dia. 35' - 19.3mils (Motor Prod.)
waist(closed) dia. 23' - 12.9mils
waist(open) dia. 63' - 35.6mils
tail turret &gt; dia 35' - 19.3mils

All these are not 'rigid' mounted guns like in the fighters.

WWMaxGunz
03-22-2004, 04:33 PM
Sorry Gib! I was watching recoil over 2 to 6+ seconds and only the gunsight pipper, not the where the bullets went. Pipper movement I took to be recoil. Yeah I got dispersion in very short bursts at about 50m but I did notice a small amount of rocking movement to the plane. Perhaps at 1/4 speed and magnified gunsight view I can see how far or if it was an illusion or not.

Track is at www.intergate.com/~nealorr (http://www.intergate.com/~nealorr)
It's a 20k zip but I think maybe any ground test with a good close horizontal ground ref to the pipper should show as much. Besides, after the first firings I did use all weapons.


Neal

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 04:47 PM
Wow. Even at 50M? What aircraft did you test with? Im at work now so I cant take a look. Even though IL2 IS on my work pc, thats for after work with the boss.

WWMaxGunz
03-22-2004, 05:04 PM
Gib! Angle is angle. It doesn't matter how far the visual reference is away does it? IF the dispersion is due to the nose rocking THEN it's about recoil. Anyway you have a link. The first short burst or two should be what you want and I am SURE that you will want to take things from there. just PLEASE make sure to include pipper movement measured at slo-mo in playback as actual gun barrel aim deviation and not as intrinsic M2 bullet scatter.

You know that with 10 rounds per second that in 1/2 second and less there's already vibration? And you know that game graphics can't keep up with real? So just maybe there's game factors. I'm not saying they're right, just that testing can only be interpreted so far. Personally I think that the short burst comparisons are the best thing going but after a couple other issues I also don't think you have more than a 50-50 chance of getting anywhere.

You point to any one thing and they can look in the code. If that particular stretch of code is not where the difference is then everyones' time is wasted. Problem may be in data or interactions in codes, datum, or the runtime result of any of those. End results is the best evidence of problems I've seen and I do think some claims as to error are exaggerated to very exaggerated.


Neal

VW-IceFire
03-22-2004, 05:06 PM
Seriously try some different convergence settings and see how it goes. I'm not sure on how you guys are doing your testing but I don't want to really weigh in on that myself...but try some convergence settings for the nose mounted .50 cals.

The P-38 I practiced alot with but I'm not a good pilot with it. The plane is bloody fast and I can outrun almost everything that I flew it against but I have trouble placing aircraft in my gunsights to properly test. So I went to the YP-80 which I'm getting very good at (its the right mix of manuverability and speed - its bloody impressive actually) and I tried my usual 250 meter convergence and then I tried a 400 meter convergence. With 400 meter convergence the spread seems (massively subjective here) to be substantially less...to the effect that I was blasting the Ta 152H that I was testing it on with no problem and I took out the engine with two high speed passes.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

JtD
03-22-2004, 05:16 PM
Okay guys. May I have your attention please!

Since I did the tests Gibbage took the pictures from, I think I better make a few things clear.

For all the pattern-screenshots shown so far:

1st: Recoil has no effect on the dispersion. The plane can be considered rock solid. If it moved, I repeated the test. (With the I-16 there is exactly _one_ exception, for whatever reason.) There is NO difference if you fire the nose mounted guns of the B239, the wing mounted guns or all together. You'll always be left with the same pattern.

2nd: Gun installations have no effect. If you look at all the pictures, you will see that gun mounts of the same gun in different planes and places. The MG 151 in the nose of the Bf 109 has the same pattern like the MG 151 in the outer wings of the FW 190. This is true for every weapon and plane tested. THe UB in the Hurricane FM's wing is as good as the one in the LaGG's nose, 3 B20's are as good as 1 ShVAK, 4 MK 108 as good as 2 or 1. No matter if mounted in nose wing or whereever. But than there is a difference between the UBS mounted in Hurricanes wing and the Brwoning 0.303. Go figure...

3rd: In addition to the pattern you see, you get plane movement if you fire longer bursts. This is what makes the P-47 a very poor gun platform.

4th: The intention of the test was to get the hardcoded dispersion for the guns tested and every caution was taken to see just this. I am 100% convinced that I got what I wanted. (exception still is I-16)

5th: Gibbage is totally right: The dispersion for the M2 Browning is far to big in relation to all other weapons. My tests did show just that.
I don't like to read it, but this time I'd like to say:

PERIOD.

Oleg's Ready Room just isn't the place for a discussion featuring more wild assumptions than anything else.

I repeat:

- no difference because of numbers
- no difference because of mountings
- no difference because of plane
- only difference because of type of gun
- Browning M2 has way more dispersion than any gun of it's class. "Way" being something like factor 2 to 4.

PERIOD.

03-22-2004, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dahdah:
Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds to 600yds:

ball turret &gt; dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret &gt; dia. 21' - 11.7mils
chin turret &gt; dia. 23' - 12.6 mils
waist(closed) dia. 26' - 14.3mils
side nose &gt; dia. 34' - 18.7mils
tail turret &gt; dia 45' - 25mils

For the B-24 it was:

ball turret &gt; dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret &gt; dia. 20' - 11.2mils
nose turret &gt; dia. 23' - 12.9mils (Emerson)
nose turret &gt; dia. 35' - 19.3mils (Motor Prod.)
waist(closed) dia. 23' - 12.9mils
waist(open) dia. 63' - 35.6mils
tail turret &gt; dia 35' - 19.3mils

All these are not 'rigid' mounted guns like in the fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent! Now we're really getting somewhere. Do you have a source for that data, dahdah?

In my tests with a P-38 the spread was
80% of rounds within 14.9 mils
100% of rounds within 17.8 mils

and coincidentaly my average burst was 50 rounds, or almost exactly 12 rounds per gun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Looks like the P-38 could use a ball turret http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 05:24 PM
Thanks for speaking JtD. If you wish, I can host the screenshots on my server so me posting your shots dont eat up your bandwidth.

WWMaxGunz
03-22-2004, 05:36 PM
Zips of tracks would take less room! Please so we can see and these can get to Oleg! 2 steps forward?


Neal

Bull_dog_
03-22-2004, 05:43 PM
Some of the factors that affect accuracy according to Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading... cartridge to chamber fit, alignment with the bullet to the bore, depth of bullet seating, distance bullet travels before contacting rifling, burrs etc...lots of things!

I have heard 3 major things brought up...M2 inaccuracy, vibration/mounting/recoil induced dispersion, and just plane old dispersion relative to other aircraft in the sim...namely USSR and Japanese aircraft....

Gib got emotional and several posts were made for him to not do that... well that is for Gib to decide not us ... but I do not believe this to be an argument of logic any more. It began as one, but Oleg has a notion in his head about the accuracy of the M2 and nobody nor Oleg has stated where it came from. I have seen lots of objective data, screenshots and tables along with some subjective anectdotal type comments.... still Oleg does not even acknowledge the remote possibility that he may be wrong.

What evidence can be brought forward to change Oleg's mind? I'm no longer believing that it is possible with facts and figures unless he tells us what it will take.

I suspect he is calculating the footpounds of recoil of weapons and using it as the basis for dispersion/vibration...I'm thinking there is a bug or a rat. The lightning combination has more recoil than the lagg, but compared to thrust and weight...much less and we all know that a heavier aircraft is a better gun platform than a light aircraft in a general sense.

What logical or intellectual arguement can be brought forward to change Oleg's mind? If there is none... Well if there is none then we are really having an emotional debate after all...Gib, I for one is with you...you brought us many aircraft and no single 3rd party designer that I know of has had more to do with the sim I fly every day than you. The Lightning is pretty good...but not quite complete and I for one am tired of US aircraft getting the conservative side of most every abstract flight characteristic that exists... and yes, dispersion/vibration is an abstract characteristic as I have seen no charts, tables or references to tell me otherwise.

What would the math look like... for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction... ft #'s of energy x rate of fire/ weight of aircraft...don't know if momentum counts and of course the symetry definitely counts.... I'm not a Physics guy, but I'd be willing to bet the recoil produced by a 4 .50's and a 20mm divided by the weight of the aircraft with momentum factored in would be a much smaller number than the same calculation for the Lagg

SeaFireLIV
03-22-2004, 05:52 PM
Hmmm. JTD says what Gibbage and Cosmokart want to hear. What would be the response I wonder if he had said Gibbage was wrong with the same evidence?

People take and hear what they want to.
Is JTD some kind of expert? Better than others?

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 06:13 PM
FYI. In my screenshot, I did not fire the 20MM. I was only worried about the spread of the .50 cal. My therie is that 4 .50 cal produce a bit less recoil then two .50 cal, 2 7.62 and 1 20MM. Add to that the EXTREME weight differance of the two airframe. So the LAGG has a lighter airframe, heavier recoul, but less dispursion. That was the point of the screenshot. That defies all logic and phisics.

Again, look at the spread of .50 cal bulletes compaired to ALL other HMG's and you will see there is a clear error in its spread. It even spreads more then Mk-108 when recoil is not a factor.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
What would the math look like... for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction... ft #'s of energy x rate of fire/ weight of aircraft...don't know if momentum counts and of course the symetry definitely counts.... I'm not a Physics guy, but I'd be willing to bet the recoil produced by a 4 .50's and a 20mm divided by the weight of the aircraft with momentum factored in would be a much smaller number than the same calculation for the Lagg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WhiskeyRiver
03-22-2004, 06:19 PM
I see pictures proving Gibbages point and I see Oleg ignore them. The smokestack tests have proven it to me. I can't find any dispersion data on the Russian or Axis 12.7/13mm weapons. I have fired a 50 cal, M249, MG42, and M60 and found the 50 to be the most accurate of the 3. The SAW came in 2nd place but seemed to lose a lot of accuracy as the barrel heated up. The MG42 had been rechambered to 7.62x51mm and was a blast. It was about on par with the M60 but with a much higher rate of fire. The thing is unbelievable.

I also challenge anyone who thinks shorter barrels are more accurate to a shoot out. You can take an M4 carbine and I'll take an M249 SAW (with M4 capacity mags)http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually whoever posted that could you please direct me to source for that info. As I understood things the Mk-103 had greater spread due to it's higher recoil forces since the cartridge contained a lot more powder.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

|CoB|_Spectre
03-22-2004, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Is JTD some kind of expert? Better than others?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know, but at least it looks like he tried to devise a test related to this discussion. I did not get the impression that he inferred in any way that he was "better than others" nor "some kind of expert".

ASH at S-MART
03-22-2004, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
Okay guys. May I have your attention please!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for all your hard work JtD.. One question.. In an attempt to put to bed my notion that the P40 is more deadly with 6 then the P47 with 8.

Did your tests include the P40.. if so, did it exhibit the same wide dispersion pattern?

If your answer is yes.. yes.. then Ill have to agree with most that there is something wrong with the M2 gun model..

Or.. Maybe there is a problem with the build up of vibrations.. And how that effects the aim.. That might fit the prob of the P47.. In that the *model* simply takes the number of guns.. times the vibration per gun.. and sums it up with time.. to a max value.. Thus.. the more guns, the more vibration, and the faster the aim goes to heck! Which I think is a bogus way of modeling it! In that it does not take into account the airframe differences.. The P47 has more guns.. but it is also a much larger and heavier aircraft.. and probally more solid for that very same reaons.. thus the vibrations would be a wash..

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 06:30 PM
One thing I have noticed. Nobody disagrees that the M2 is not modeled correctly but Oleg. Sure some people dont agree with how I approached the subject, but they ALL agree that in the game, the .50 cal Browning is wrong.

Typically a debate like this has two sides, but this is clearly 1 sided. Not even Luftwhiners or trolls. Its clear to me that everyone things the Browning .50 cal needs to be fixed.

Whiskey. The .50 cal you fired. Was that a newer model? I doubt this has anything to do since ther have been very few changes and I doubt anytihng could change the accuracy so drastically from what Oleg thinks a 1940 M2 and todays M2 should dispurse like.

ASH at S-MART
03-22-2004, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
One thing I have noticed. Nobody disagrees that the M2 is not modeled correctly but Oleg. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I *think* the jurry is still out on that.. In that I *personally* find the P40 to be very deadly! And it uses the same M2 model.. That would imply it is something else at play.. but what? Or am I the only one that seems to think the P40 is deadly? Even comparied to a P51 with the same amount of guns I seem to get faster results with the P40 in taking wings off the enmy.

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Gunner_361st
03-22-2004, 06:42 PM
Ash, this has been a general impression many people have had since the early days of FB.

The Thunderbolt's yaw effect when firing used to be much worse, but now its barely noticeable.

It is the plane in which I've acquired the most kills in one online sortie... 4x BF109 and 3x ME410's. With Extra Ammo, of course. :P

I love the Jug.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 06:54 PM
Wow. I cant shoot squat in a jug! I tried many convergance settings from 100M, to 300M, to a convergance box of 150/200. But I agree the P-40 "feels" like it has more firepower. More concentrated power.

It could be many things. Like a higher ROF for the P-40, or differant ammo. Because I know for a fact that the P-39's nose guns use 1/2 power bulletes to SIMULATE the 1/2 ROF from firing through the prop. This Oleg has said to me and on this message board. Could it be that this same 1/2 power bulletes are fed into all US aircraft BUT the P-40? Its possible. But I dont know if Oleg would look through his 3 million lines of code to check, or just give us the standard "Be sure, its right" line.

Also, the P-39 Q-1 in IL2 (original) the nose guns lasted longer then the wing guns because of its half rate of fire. In FB and Aces, the nose guns run out first. I told this to Oleg many times with no respose other then "I will check".

There is something more then fishy with the .50 cal in general. And Oleg is very reluctant to address it.

Fehler
03-22-2004, 07:28 PM
If the 50cal was a sniper rifle in WWII aircraft, why did they put 4-8 of them in the planes?

The Ma deuce I fired in the military was extremely accurate, but it was always told to me that this "Wasnt your mother's Ma-deuce" when in school.

Nevertheless, it bucked a bunch whenever you squeezed the trigger.

Just food for thought; stick to stir the pot.

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

ZG77_Nagual
03-22-2004, 07:30 PM
Well, for sure the .50s in the 39 are less effective that the 12.7s in yaks and so forth. The p63's cowl guns also seem to run out first - don't know what the relative ammo count is however. shooting something down with the 39 or 63s cowl fifties takes a bit of work compared to a yak.
It is starting to look the the M2s across the board may need a look - but again I say theres no call for the hostility - this is counter productive and takes alot of the fun outta this thread.
Good research though.

PS - also - we need to stop comparing the ww2 M2 with the modern .50 - as has allready been noted FN found flaws in the rifling and reworked the .50 awhile back.

Bull_dog_
03-22-2004, 07:36 PM
I find the Jug to be pretty deadly off line...on line its ok. As I think about what I've read (specifically kills per sortie etc.) I feel like the Jug is about what 6 .50's aught to be and the mustang D is about where the B aught to be...but I'm not a pilot so I don't know for sure...just opinions as I watch gun cam footage....

Anyone watch the color of war on Sunday... there was a piece about airmen with lots of gun cam footage...I didn't catch all of it but I think that is the one that shows lots of Jug and lightning footage. It is very easy to tell the difference in which one is shooting...the Jug has clouds of bullets all over and is hard to tell the bullet path where the Lightning is a small ball of tracers that snakes along the ground like a line of gunpowder lit on fire.

That is a pretty objective reality to me. and I don't see the same effect in FB

Two things really peeve me most of all in this whole debate:

1) most of all... M2's stink in this sim other guns don't... if it weren't for the other guns shooting so well I would not have become so animated. The 38 and other M2 based aircraft should be on par with the VVS 12.7 mm guns. Why cant they just be like the other guns? end of story if they were

2) All of the facts support Gib's argument and I have seen none that have countered it... Gib designed the plane for heavens sake... this is one argument that Oleg should want to lose... instead it is always a right/wrong debate. We are all wrong regardless of what evidence is dug up.

I'm still a little worried that there is a bug involved and that may present Oleg with a hard thing address...much harder to find than fix but I agree that there is something consistantly wrong with John Brownings virtual machine gun.

Copperhead310th
03-22-2004, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
If the 50cal was a sniper rifle in WWII aircraft, why did they put 4-8 of them in the planes?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

umm because 8 hits harder than 1.

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

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 07:40 PM
Simple. It took more then 1 .50 cal to take down an aircraft.

Also please remember. P-51 and P-47's guns were all set into a convergance box, and not a single point. The P-51 had its outboard guns set at (for example) 200M, middle to 175, and inner to 150. Now if the .50 cal sprayed wildly like it does in game, why would they have done that? Its simple. Because if they set all guns to a single point, thats were they would have gone. Then you have no "kill box" and all your pilots would need to become instant snipers in order to score air-2-air kills. Not to mention how hard it would be for rookies if they had no kill box.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
If the 50cal was a sniper rifle in WWII aircraft, why did they put 4-8 of them in the planes? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Copperhead310th
03-22-2004, 07:57 PM
So by what your saying Gib, then the P-80 dispertion could be off too.

Also .50 cal in the nose.

persoanlly i don't thin the us 50 cals do enough damage on LW & VVS planes.

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

VW-IceFire
03-22-2004, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
So by what your saying Gib, then the P-80 dispertion could be off too.

Also .50 cal in the nose.

persoanlly i don't thin the us 50 cals do enough damage on LW & VVS planes.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
_http://www.members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron
_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't exactly agree. When the .50cals are on target they are just as deadly as I think they should be. Its just the spread that makes it hard.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Athosd
03-22-2004, 09:28 PM
From Oleg's IL2 weapon listing (my copy possibly dated now) the M2 (all ammo types) throws a 48.5g projectile at 870m/s. The UBS projectile IIRC is around 44g and 850m/s - from other sources the weapon is somewhat lighter and has a higher rate of fire.

With both weapons bolted down for testing one would expect to get fairly similar ballistic results (at least out to ~500m) - assuming the barrel/rifling were of similar quality.

JtD's tests indicate that FB's M2 has the worst ballistic properties in the sim by a very large margin (regardless of wing or centerline installation).
Even if there are issues with the testing method (nothing better available to we humble end users) - the results are repeatable and provide a good indication of the relative spread for each weapon.

I feel for Gibbage's anxiety - busts his hump to get these great models in the game only to have a difference of opinion on a minor yet critical detail dampen the end result.
I say opinion there because there appears to be less evidence for the M2 as it is in FB than has been presented for how it should be.

Here's hoping the issue gets some of Oleg's attention.

Salute

Athos

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 09:33 PM
What I am saying is that ALL aircraft that use the Browning M2 .50 cal have a very wild spread. Even at the convergance. JtD did all his test's with the smoke stack at the same distance of the convergance. So the .50 cal M2 should be just as accurate as other guns of similar caliber. But its not. Its at least 5x the spread. There is no recoil to blame it on using short birst's, and its that way for EVERY .50 M2 no matter the mount (wing or nose). So the only explination is that its programmed for this wide dispursion, and thats what we need fixed. So when your firing at someone within the convergance, its a concentrated hit, and not lightly spread out all over the target. Thats why US aircraft have no hitting power.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
So by what your saying Gib, then the P-80 dispertion could be off too.

Also .50 cal in the nose.

persoanlly i don't thin the us 50 cals do enough damage on LW & VVS planes.

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

WWMaxGunz
03-22-2004, 09:41 PM
Would love to get JtD's tracks or even mission files.

If JtD is right then I'd tend to think that certain gun factors are not runtime simulated but rather used to make general formulae for gun behaviour algorithms. I can't say certain though and even with tests I think "very likely" might be the best I can say, or "not likely at all". Game graphics are not game reality, for one. So it's the end results that have the most meaning.

1/2 power bullets for the P-39? So even if you do hit they can be stopped by some armor and don't have the chance to make criticals on major structure if that's modelled true as well? To me, not having different rates of fire points to shortcuts in the gunnery. Why all this about seperate dispersion on gun + mount if even the rof is a general value? I wonder if Oleg really knows what's in the code? I've had to explain things to managers before and partway through they stopped listening because the code functions were way outside their experience. Then I'd explain the best I could and they'd go off and write something else as evaluation or spec and be mad when I said "that's not it". Code is a very strange world.


Neal

03-22-2004, 09:45 PM
About "half power" bullets in the P-39...

Back in version 1.22 I ran into a series of missions in an offline campaign that pitted me in a P-39 against MC.202s. Before AEP, the MC.202 had a _very_basic_ damage model that was notorious for absorbing lots of MG without going down.

Well, I found that it was nearly impossible to take out an MC.202 with just the nose MGs of a P-39. You could hose 'em down for ages and they'd keep truckin. Fortunately the P-39 has that handy 37mm, too.

jtasker
03-22-2004, 09:59 PM
PS.. note.. this is about INCENDIARY rounds.. I belive they were know for being.. less that accurate, like the tracer rounds.. they just didnt fly right!

Incendiary ammo like the API so common in US fighters was basically the same as ball for accuracy..it did NOT burn enroute to the target, it detonated on impact with a hard object..

WhiskeyRiver
03-22-2004, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
One thing I have noticed. Nobody disagrees that the M2 is not modeled correctly but Oleg. Sure some people dont agree with how I approached the subject, but they ALL agree that in the game, the .50 cal Browning is wrong.

Typically a debate like this has two sides, but this is clearly 1 sided. Not even Luftwhiners or trolls. Its clear to me that everyone things the Browning .50 cal needs to be fixed.

Whiskey. The .50 cal you fired. Was that a newer model? I doubt this has anything to do since ther have been very few changes and I doubt anytihng could change the accuracy so drastically from what Oleg thinks a 1940 M2 and todays M2 should dispurse like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was an early 60's or late 50's production model I believe. My uncle has a license to own full automatic weapons. The machine guns were part of his personal collection. I remember him complaining that he really wanted to get one of the newer model 50's with the higher rate of fire. He said he had owned it since the 70's. It was about 10 years ago when I shot them.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 10:19 PM
I just ran the JtD test on my own computer with the P-39 Q-10 with two .50 cal in the nose. Same result. Extreamly wide spread on an object thats even 150M in front of me. I will make two tracks. 1 of the P-39 and 1 of the Ki-84 Ho-103.

Before I contenue. Please read about the Ho-103 gun.

The Japanese Army Ho-103 was a copy of the Browning .50. The copy was lighter and had a faster rate of fire, but it also fired a smaller round, with a cartridge case 81mm long instead of the 99mm of the Browning. The Japanese Navy also copied the Browning, to create the Type 3, but in typical style it chose to use different ammunition. The 13.2mm calibre was the same as used by Hotchkiss anti-aircraft guns, although the 99mm cartridge case was almost identical to that of the Browning. The Navy also used the Type 2, which was a copy of the MG131, retaining the dimensions of its 13 x 64B ammunition, but with percussion firing instead of electrical ignition.

So the Ho-103 is a copy of the M2, but lighter and had a smaller round. That should give the same results or close too correct?

You can see that the Ki-84 is FAR more accurate.

Test notes. Both aircraft used the same convergance of 100M/100M. I tapped the trigger and then let the aircraft settle before tapping it again. Giving only the MINIMAL birst to counter recoil. At the end of the test, I held down the trigger for a few seconds to see how recoil did effect both aircraft. The Ki-84 kept accuracy in full auto for a few seconds then short no recoil birst's from the P-39.

Turn on arcade mode before playing!

Track file
http://www.gibbageart.com/test.zip

ALL .50 cal on ALL US aircraft have the same spread NO MATTER THE MOUNT.

Please take a look.

[This message was edited by Gibbage1 on Mon March 22 2004 at 09:28 PM.]

WUAF_Badsight
03-22-2004, 10:38 PM
why do the P-40 .50cals seem so good if all american .50 cals dispurse the same ?

i mean i find the P-40 .50 cals great but the Mustang & P-38 .50 cals not so effective

PzKpfw
03-22-2004, 10:45 PM
Just a few comments:

- Convergence affected wing mounted weapons much more then say a P-38's nose mounted guns. And also we can not set our convergence, in ACe etc Historicly as the engine would need settings box for each pair of wing guns? Ie, reccomended convergence settings on the 8 x .50 on the P-47* was:

2 x .50 - 250yrd
2 x .50 - 350yrds
2 x .50 - 450yrds
2 x .50 - 550yrds

This convergence created an density pattern in depth as well as width out to 200yrds, which gave pilots a higher % to hit a plane in flight.

Also dispersion in a P-38 due to the armaments location was much less then comparible wing mounted fighters as evident in the JFC quote I have provided In fact the ordinance represenitive stated in an instalation like that you could possibly be better off fireing 4 x 20mm then 6 x .50 etc.


Concerning bore sighting the USN tried to implement a pattern bore sighting standard program, but tests showed that the guns when fired, actualy jumped around so much, that the point bore sight actualy gave, a pattern bore sight at the hidden ranges, and when a pattern bore sight was achieved, it was actualy scattering rounds all over the sky. So the USN then went to work on an point bore sight set to 300yrds. Which was generaly disregarded.

As to the jumping around in the P-38 ppl are expeirenceing, yes their was cockpit vibration but one has to ask, did the vibration jolt the gunsight so much; that it affected sighting?, we know from pilot accounts in the P-47 that when the 8 x .50 were fired the pilots felt it, in the cockpit, but none state it adversely affected their sighting.

The dispersion in the screen shots seems wrong, but I dont have enough data to prove my feeling, but it is clear the M2 dispersion is much wider then the Soviet 12.7.

*See: Report of Joint Fighter Confrence: NAS Patuxent River, MD 16-23 Oct. 1944 p.170


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Gibbage1
03-22-2004, 10:57 PM
Its been proven that, standing still, the P-40 has the same spread as all .50 cal M2 mounted guns.

But as you fly, you oviously have less accuracy. Maybe in-flight, the P-40 is more concentrated then other US aircraft due to less recoil? Or maybe the P-40 rounds do more damage per bullete.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
why do the P-40 .50cals seem so good if all american .50 cals dispurse the same ?

i mean i find the P-40 .50 cals great but the Mustang & P-38 .50 cals not so effective<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

chris455
03-22-2004, 11:24 PM
It's an intersting question that Badsight asks.

Before AEP the P-40 was VERY hard-hitting.
But, I feel that since AEP it is now the same gun-wise as Mustangs, P-47s, and other US craft.

It is strange that Oleg says, for example, "the code for roll is the same for all P-47" and yet we ALL know the D27 rolls slower.

Now, he seems to tell us that the code for gun dispersion is the same for ALL .50 cal M2 guns, but most of us know that the P-40 hits really hard,(or used to) the P-47 (for the size of it's armament) hits with much less authority.

I wish there were more answers.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Mon March 22 2004 at 10:47 PM.]

ASH at S-MART
03-23-2004, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its been proven that, standing still, the P-40 has the same spread as all .50 cal M2 mounted guns.

But as you fly, you oviously have less accuracy. Maybe in-flight, the P-40 is more concentrated then other US aircraft due to less recoil? Or maybe the P-40 rounds do more damage per bullete.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmmm well in light of your note about Oleg doing the 1/2 power on some aircraft ammo.. who knows what he has done to the gun model itself?

For some reason.. A P40 with 6x.50s *seems* to be more deadly than a P47 with 8x.50s.. Let alone the P51 with the same amount.. So.. If Oleg is willing to FUDGE things by doing the 1/2 power on ammo... As aposed to doing it right.. Who knows what he has done to TWEAK OTHER aspects... Pretty much all bets are off now.. So, all we have is our end results tests like JtD did.. I think Oleg should put these THEORYS and to rest and tell us HOW he FUDGED them and WHY he FUDGED them.. His *reasoning* may be just.. it may not.. but it would be nice to hear it so we can at least know.. But.. if Oleg is smart he WILL NOT TELL US! Because one thing for SURE.. Some will be happy with his *reasoning* and some wont be happy.

If nothing else.. at least this will make him take another look at it to insure it is not a BUG and an INTENDED CODING STYLE! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Aaron_GT
03-23-2004, 01:19 AM
cosmokart: "Are you sure about that?"

Yes, I did the calculations for dispersion
on the Lagg 3 and P38 from Gibbage's screen
shot (for convergence ~= range only) earlier.
You can only measure vertical dispersion
relative to the gun axis as the P38 guns are
spread out horizontally.

WWMaxGunz
03-23-2004, 01:29 AM
I'm still wondering if everyone is using all 8 guns on the P-47's? There are two convergences you can set for those which ain't as good as four but better than one. Four of the 50's on the Jugs are on the cannon trigger and convergence. Just be aware that convergence also sets at what range the rounds cross back onto sight zero.

And about sight zero... bullets drop after that range but inside and esp at half range they are above the pipper. That's ballistics.

You know that ALL things have to be done by shortcutting in any sim or it won't run faster than a slideshow. The half power rounds to me is a bit cheesy though as compared to halving the ROF. It says to me there's one gun model per type with one ROF rather than one model for all guns with variables for all parameters. This could well be for speed, the practice of in-lining code (esp machine code) and they may well not have room for variations. It's a balance call that may go clear back to the start of the sim when the only flyable was going to be the IL2.


Neal

Aaron_GT
03-23-2004, 01:56 AM
Gibbage wrote:
"But the M2 browning cant keep a 30" circle at 100 yards. Were is every other HMG in the game keeps a spread of about 20-30" at 300 yards. Thats the problem. Not the spread at 1000 yards. "

When actually flying about the other guns in the sim don't manage 20-30" at 300 yards on
other planes, let along those armed with the
M2. In your tests of the Lagg 3 firing at the
Me210 the spread was about 1/5 of the length
of the 210 at 100m. The Me210 is 11.2m long,
so the spread was at least 2m at 100m for the
Lagg3's guns whilst flying.

The 8 mils figure from the USAAF for aircraft mounted guns would give about the
30" circle at 100m you suggest. As you
can see the Lagg, when flying, has a dispersion
of about twice that.

I can't help wondering if, despite what people
said when the information was posted, if the
8 mils figure for USAAF M2 armed aircraft is
meant as a measure of the accuracy from ground
tests, not from in flight.

From the static tests done the dispersion
when static from the P38 appears to be
about 15 mils at typical combat distances,
as tested by cosmokart.

It's somewhat erroneous to suggest that
simply because the P38 as a whole is massive
that dispersion due to gun recoil will be
minimal - it depends on the rigidity of
the mountings and the rigidity of the airframe.
For example, wing flex was a problem for
wing mounted guns in many aircraft, so
rigidity of the airframe can be important.
If the P38 airframe is very rigid, and big,
heavy, rigid mounts are used, then the whole
weight of the plane comes into play a bit more,
notwithstanding that the undercarriage will
move.

Aaron_GT
03-23-2004, 02:10 AM
Based on cosmokart's tests, and compared
to USAAF figures on dispersion, it would
seem that for static tests the .50 dispersion
is about twice what it should be, on average.

I think we need to tone down some of the
wild suggestions that it is 10 times too much,
but twice as much seems to be supportable.

With regard to the P40/47 issue I've often
wondered if it is a wing stiffness modelling
issue? The P40 wing is a relatively thick
wing compared to the P47. The P47 wing
has lots of components, but it is thinner
in proportion to its weight. Is the P47 wing
designed to be able flex in flight like modern
passenger jets, and is this somehow taken into
account in the sim in a general reduction
in accuracy no matter whether G inducing
maneouvers are taking place or not? If this
is the case, it might not be too hard (since
a general G figure must be available in the
sim) to modify this such that the wing flex
additional dispersion/aim dispersion occurs
in proportion to G forces?

Gibbage1
03-23-2004, 02:29 AM
Have you seen some of the test screenshots? Clearly 5X, and as much as 10x is supportable with some weapons.

http://www.gibbageart.com/spread.jpg

The Ho-103 is CLEARLY 5 to 10 times more accurate. If thats just double, please tell the math formula that your using.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

I think we need to tone down some of the
wild suggestions that it is 10 times too much,
but twice as much seems to be supportable.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2004, 02:46 AM
Radius is about ~3 times larger...squared gives area ~9 times larger circle area.

So what is "accuracy" 3 or 9? Does anybody know?

http://www.gibbageart.com/spread.jpg


Where do we get this JTD mission file and testing procedure--complete written testing procedure as if I have to ask for that--as these tests are supposed to be repeatable by anyone?

JtD
03-23-2004, 03:41 AM
please disregard

JtD
03-23-2004, 03:44 AM
Warning, all-in-one monster post.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you wish, I can host the screenshots on my server so me posting your shots dont eat up your bandwidth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as it works, I don't care. I don't pay a dime and the only reason I got it was to post pictures on the forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> JTD says what Gibbage and Cosmokart want to hear. What would be the response I wonder if he had said Gibbage was wrong with the same evidence?

People take and hear what they want to.
Is JTD some kind of expert? Better than others?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I say what I want to say. If that is what people want to hear, great. But just a coincidence.

I think I did/published more tests with the guns than anybody else, including the game designers. I know what I did in these test, you can only assume I did no mistakes. Therefore I do consider myself a kind of expert for in game gun behaviour and performance. I know a couple of things. Look at the tests and tell me why I shouldn't.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/weapons.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In an attempt to put to bed my notion that the P40 is more deadly with 6 then the P47 with 8.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-40 has the same dispersion pattern like a P-47. There are two reasons why the P-40 is more deadly than the P-47.
1st: The gun mount in the P-47 wing are far more outside than on the P-40. This generally allows you a higher bullet density outside the convergence range in a P-40.
2nd: The P-47 has different ROF for some guns, making it sway left and right while firing. The P-40 is more stable and allows you to hit better.

I have been flying both, P-47 and P-40 and I didn't see to much difference.

BTW, P-40 guns have a rate of fire at 733 rpm, P-51 has 750 and P-47 a range from 733 to 800 or so. You can look it all up in the link provided above.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Because I know for a fact that the P-39's nose guns use 1/2 power bulletes to SIMULATE the 1/2 ROF from firing through the prop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage, this is no current information. It was handled like this back in IL-2, but since FB came out there are differences in ROF for harmonized and not harmonized guns. The hitting power is basically the same for both variants. The nose guns run out of ammo sooner because the loss in ROF is nowhere near the 50% simulated before. It's 650 vs. 750.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Would love to get JtD's tracks or even mission files.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tracks are not available, since they'd be only a couple of seconds long anyway. Not worth the effort. The mission set up is there, follow the link. I used a similar mission set up for tricycle landing gear AC, which is not there, I think.

About true dispersion: I one of the endless 0.50 vs. Tiger tank threads one guy posted some guncam footage of a P-47 going after something like a Jagdpanther. If you watched it, you could see the tracers flying everywhere. I therefore have little problems with the Brownings high dispersion in FB. I think it's a little too much, but than some planes are a little too fast, some climb a little too bad and so on. What angers me is the difference between the Browning and every other gun in the game. There needs to be a proper relation.

NegativeGee
03-23-2004, 04:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cosmokart:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dahdah:
Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds to 600yds:

ball turret &gt; dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret &gt; dia. 21' - 11.7mils
chin turret &gt; dia. 23' - 12.6 mils
waist(closed) dia. 26' - 14.3mils
side nose &gt; dia. 34' - 18.7mils
tail turret &gt; dia 45' - 25mils

For the B-24 it was:

ball turret &gt; dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret &gt; dia. 20' - 11.2mils
nose turret &gt; dia. 23' - 12.9mils (Emerson)
nose turret &gt; dia. 35' - 19.3mils (Motor Prod.)
waist(closed) dia. 23' - 12.9mils
waist(open) dia. 63' - 35.6mils
tail turret &gt; dia 35' - 19.3mils

All these are not 'rigid' mounted guns like in the fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent! Now we're really getting somewhere. Do you have a source for that data, dahdah?

In my tests with a P-38 the spread was
80% of rounds within 14.9 mils
100% of rounds within 17.8 mils

and coincidentaly my average burst was 50 rounds, or almost exactly 12 rounds per gun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Looks like the P-38 could use a ball turret http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The data quoted by dahdah is presented in the book Gunner (Donald Nijboer, ISBN 1-84037-304-0). I don't know if that is where he got it from, I just say this volume contains it. I don't know where the original source is, but it will be one of the works cited in the biblography.

It also includes diagrams showing the shot dispersals on a ~35ft wingspan static target.

A couple of points:

dahdah:
how can you be sure that all the mountings tested in the above produce inferior dispersion to the 'rigid' types used in fighters? without comparative data, such a statement is unqualified.

cosmokart:
What range were your tests conducted at? You need to consider the range of the two tests before making comparisons. If yours were 600m then thats fine.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2004, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The mission set up is there, follow the link.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JTD, concerning the smokestack test, I don't see any mission file with complete written procedure you are using--if that was your test. Please post mission text file and complete written procedure here. Thanks. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

dahdah
03-23-2004, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>how can you be sure that all the mountings tested in the above produce inferior dispersion to the 'rigid' types used in fighters? without comparative data, such a statement is unqualified.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why? Because of logic. Anything that is moveable will have some play in it. One could not move the turrets if there was not some toleance(play) in the bearings. (0 tolerance = seized) Even a .005" clearance could have the barrel tip moving an inch or two possibly.

NegativeGee
03-23-2004, 05:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Why? Because of logic. Anything that is moveable will have some play in it. One could not move the turrets if there was not some toleance(play) in the bearings. (0 tolerance = seized) Even a .005" clearance could have the barrel tip moving an inch or two possibly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a fair point, but as I said, how can you be sure?. Without comparative data for fighter gun mounts the statement is unqualified.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Aaron_GT
03-23-2004, 05:59 AM
"Have you seen some of the test screenshots? Clearly 5X, and as much as 10x is supportable with some weapons."

In the test you did against the Me210, Gibbage,
it was about twice as much, maybe a little more.
As LEXX Luthor points out the radii of the
chimney tests are about a factor of three
different, not 5 times or 10 times!

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2004, 06:10 AM
Created my own smokestack test for the Board to use for themselves--copy and paste below...

To ensure flat ground, the takeoff waypoint is in the Kuban area to the very right of the Crimea map--off the map to the right. Scroll map to the right to see this. You may change the aircraft type by clicking on the waypoint in the center of Crimea map--this ensures one does not change the takeoff position or direction accidentally with the mouse. A static camera is set up on the other side of the smokestack object (here 200m in front of plane) and you may use this to maneuver around and get right up to the target point while you pull the trigger--as an alternative to viewing through the gunsight although the gunsight view works the best probably.


[MAIN]
MAP Crimea/load.ini
TIME 10.0
CloudType 1
CloudHeight 1500.0
player g0100
army 2
playerNum 0
[Wing]
g0100
[g0100]
Planes 1
Skill 1
numberOn0 0
Class air.P_38L
Fuel 100
weapons default
[g0100_Way]
TAKEOFF 293000.17 91999.72 0 0
NORMFLY 291998.05 91997.18 500.00 300.00
NORMFLY 197513.61 41477.99 500.00 300.00
[NStationary]

0_bld House$LastochkinoGnezdo 1 71870.84 40000.46 360.00
1_bld House$BerlinStella 1 72329.15 36587.28 360.00
2_bld House$IndustrialFactoryChimney1 1 72076.45 36778.68 360.00
3_bld House$PortLightHouse 1 72616.25 36413.15 360.00
4_bld House$IndustrialFactoryChimney1 1 292799.67 92000.15 360.00
[StaticCamera]
292187 92000 100

[House]



I used mostly 200m convergence, single bursts, 1/4 time speed, holding brake. On some planes you must start and immediately stop the engine to get the propeller out of the way so you can see the smokestack. The USA planes are [B]the same basic dispersion as Hurricane Mk-1 and IAR-80 (make your own judgment here). However, J8A has a tighter pattern. Bf-110G tighter too.

Ki~84c cannon are tight. However the enormous jumping around of the Ki~84 surprised me, and may negate any dispersion advantage. Gibbage may be onto something here.

Also, for the previous smokestack screenshot of impact Area, we must remember the sheer number of rounds of P~38 MG as opposed to the small number of Ki~84 cannon falling on target area per unit of time (total rate of fire of all guns together) may produce a larger region of impact points simply because there are a far greater number of projectiles to be spread about, even if the two planes/weapons have the same "dispersion." ~-~ granted this assumes the game code uses some kind of random statistics or gives an absolute limit to dispersion. We dunno.


There ~is~ some confusing language in this thread here although most likely unintentional, probably relating to confusion over Radius and Area of the projectile pattern. We have seen "mils" used for accuracy but the claim of 5x to 10x difference in "accuracy" may come from visual inspection of the Area of impact pattern and not Radius. I assume the "mils" is a one dimensional unit Length or non~dimensional unit of Angle of measure and thus is a measure of Radius. I dunno. Either way this was fun.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose [B]nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Tue March 23 2004 at 05:20 AM.]

SeaFireLIV
03-23-2004, 06:24 AM
Hmmm... shooting at chimney stacks. Shooting at runways... Has anyone actually tried shooting at enemy aircraft? Who kills first? Fastest? I could test myself, but I`m not that sad. I enjoy the sim, not over analyse it. If it does the job then it`s good enough!

Paralysis through Analysis.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Dark.jpg

`The whole of this unfortunate business has been the result of pride and prejudice....`

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2004, 06:43 AM
Not so SeaFire, testing FM using lab techniques is a fascinating thing to do, and can give insight into your favorite plane that most do not have. It was posted recently that some onwhine Noob Squads were keeping IL~2 Compare FM program for themselves but somebody made it pubic for the rest of the masses. Well that's what I heard anyway.

Well, I Deleted this from my post as it was not an objective statement, but the differences in dispersion most likely (?) will have no effect on THE GAME unless there is truth to the recent post I saw which claimed that to inflict good damage you have to (basically) keep hitting the same rivet or weld/glue joint time and time again. The dispersion I saw could affect this. But, most fascinating...

...the P~38L has same dispersion as Hurri~1 and IAR~80 and all have more dispersion than J8A. Perhaps this is the way it was I dunno. But its interesting cos I never thought much about it before.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

chris455
03-23-2004, 06:50 AM
Seafire,
There most likely is a problem. It isn't easy setting up strictly controlled static tests with AC that mean anything in this context. I realize shooting at smokestacks, etc seems odd but they do offer a convenient vertical surface to shoot at as most AC are tail-draggers and their guns point up when the ship sits on the ground.

If there is an issue (this is universally true here and should be) reason states that it should be tested out and the results portrayed in a coherent, logical way. Not at all the way it was approached initially, and you were right to register dismay, (as did I and lots of others) at the way things started out on this subject.
Finally it looks as though we're on the right track, but now we hear, "paralysis through analysis".

You cannot have it both ways my friend. This is important to ALOT of us. Maybe if you can't support it (as many of us supported you when you lobbied so hard for the escape feature in campaigns to be implemented) you could be more empathetic.
Nothing personal intended, really.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

SeaFireLIV
03-23-2004, 07:11 AM
OK, perhaps I did not need to be THAT critical. I suppose I`m letting my anger at the earlier rudeness affect what I said there. Personally, I had no disagreement\agreement with Gibbage1 either way. If you look at my first post I even congratulated him (before he got rude), but now for me he has put a bad taste in ORR. And I note he still refuses to apologise for his implied insults and rudeness.

Maybe he`s right, maybe not. But I cannot support it. Not now. Of course not that he cares anyway.

Perhaps he should talk privately to Oleg (as he should have done).

Anyway, I`ll not interfere any more as long as it stays civil. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.s. About Escape, as you should know, I was always polite. Even when I got frustrated. I stopped for a while, then asked again. That`s all. Oleg never responded to me either. But it happened. Perhaps Gibbage1 should follow this example.

And I DO appreciate the support I got, but there were ALOT more people constantly putting down the Escape idea. At one point I felt very alone, so in a way I know how Gibbage might feel. But the trick is stay polite, stop for a bit, then whine later, and again later. But arguing, especially when Oleg responds is not the way.



SeaFireLIV...


`The whole of this unfortunate business has been the result of pride and prejudice....`

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Tue March 23 2004 at 06:28 AM.]

boohaa
03-23-2004, 07:28 AM
Ok here comes some more non engineering type logic from a 9th grade dropout http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gifIts funny how some arse hole people here will say such lines as ....well lets just keep this debate to the people with some scientific background http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Common sense men http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

I just did some on ground firing test and my eyes have been opened.All this time people have been saying that its not recoil and that its the dispersion.Even saying that they notice no recoil when sitting on ground firing gun. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

The way to test recoil on ground is to go to wide view and take credit card and mark area in cockpit and then on ground in distance.Then fire those crazy arse 50 calibers and be rudely awakend http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/351.gif

Guys the 50's have this weird recoil effect where the first shot yaws plane left than next is down right then next is up left and so on.Compared to other similiar gauge bullets such as in bf109-g6,the gun has almost no recoil unless held down for a long time and then its barely noticable.

Also,Oleg doesnt model any type of recoil differences for wing mounted/engine mounted guns since the nose mounted 50's have same INSANEO recoil as the 8-50's on P47 and the same as the 50's on P38.

Go ahead and try all the planes and youll be amazed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/354.gif

chris455
03-23-2004, 07:32 AM
Well Seafire,
I admired your perserverence, your conduct, and the fact that you finally got what you wanted! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
(the escape thing.It WAS a good idea)
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

NegativeGee
03-23-2004, 07:35 AM
Good point LEXX, mils = Milliradians.

There is a definition here:

http://edc.usgs.gov/guides/glossary/m_o.html

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

boohaa
03-23-2004, 07:57 AM
Oleg_Maddox posted 22-03-04 00:43
1. On the photo that shown the traces the plane is fixed on a deck by special device. In this case there will no effect of recoil, irregulatity of flight, etc...
You try to get the same in a flight?

2. You ask me to model the recoil effect way smaller that it is for other planes.... But we don't model recoil for type of planes... We model recoil of _each type_ of weapon. Please concider it as a very different things.
Then this recoil has effect on the aricraft as a great system of forces.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">And here is where the problem is,we need to have recoil modeled different for the different types of airframes and gun placements since that is a very important part of gun modeling in a sim </pre>

3. In additional to item 2: The dispercion of bullets we model for types of weapon. So doesn't matter if the one the same weapon will be installed on different types of aircraft the dispercion of bullets (shells) will be _the same_ for _this type_ of weapon and will be diferent on different aircraft as well, because the the result there will be as a system of forces that depends of the weapon installation place.


PS. The recoil effect is great really for different types of MGs. It may achive tonns. Just try to imagine this.<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">And here is where the modeling of differnt recoil effects would help out the planes in question. </pre>

PS.2. The dispersion on P-38 isn't worse than on the planes that has engine mounted weapon. It is easy to compare.<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">your right its not dispersion per single bullet but the wide recoil eefect that the 50's have in FB </pre>

But you all try to compare by recals of pilots that compare with _wing mounted weapon_. They are right. But you are not right.<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> :dazed: </pre>
So compare oon different distances with the other types of US planes and you will see that it will confirm the US pilots recals.
Please think twice about what I said in PS.2.<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> :spam: </pre>

Just kidding around Oleg....but please look into the insane amount of recoil the 50's have.

boohaa
03-23-2004, 07:57 AM
Oleg_Maddox posted 22-03-04 00:43
1. On the photo that shown the traces the plane is fixed on a deck by special device. In this case there will no effect of recoil, irregulatity of flight, etc...
You try to get the same in a flight?

2. You ask me to model the recoil effect way smaller that it is for other planes.... But we don't model recoil for type of planes... We model recoil of _each type_ of weapon. Please concider it as a very different things.
Then this recoil has effect on the aricraft as a great system of forces.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,And here is where the problem is,we need to have recoil modeled different for the different types of airframes and gun placements since that is a very important part of gun modeling in a sim ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

3. In additional to item 2: The dispercion of bullets we model for types of weapon. So doesn't matter if the one the same weapon will be installed on different types of aircraft the dispercion of bullets (shells) will be _the same_ for _this type_ of weapon and will be diferent on different aircraft as well, because the the result there will be as a system of forces that depends of the weapon installation place.


PS. The recoil effect is great really for different types of MGs. It may achive tonns. Just try to imagine this&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;And here is where the modeling of differnt recoil effects would help out the planes in question.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

PS.2. The dispersion on P-38 isn't worse than on the planes that has engine mounted weapon. It is easy to compare&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;your right its not dispersion per single bullet but the wide recoil eefect that the 50's have in FB&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
But you all try to compare by recals of pilots that compare with _wing mounted weapon_. They are right. But you are not right
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif
So compare oon different distances with the other types of US planes and you will see that it will confirm the US pilots recals.
Please think twice about what I said in PS.2
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1241.gif

Just kidding around Oleg....but please look into the insane amount of recoil the 50's have.

[This message was edited by boohaa on Tue March 23 2004 at 07:09 AM.]

boohaa
03-23-2004, 07:57 AM
Oleg_Maddox posted 22-03-04 00:43
1. On the photo that shown the traces the plane is fixed on a deck by special device. In this case there will no effect of recoil, irregulatity of flight, etc...
You try to get the same in a flight?

2. You ask me to model the recoil effect way smaller that it is for other planes.... But we don't model recoil for type of planes... We model recoil of _each type_ of weapon. Please concider it as a very different things.
Then this recoil has effect on the aricraft as a great system of forces.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">And here is where the problem is,we need to have recoil modeled different for the different types of airframes and gun placements since that is a very important part of gun modeling in a sim </pre>

3. In additional to item 2: The dispercion of bullets we model for types of weapon. So doesn't matter if the one the same weapon will be installed on different types of aircraft the dispercion of bullets (shells) will be _the same_ for _this type_ of weapon and will be diferent on different aircraft as well, because the the result there will be as a system of forces that depends of the weapon installation place.


PS. The recoil effect is great really for different types of MGs. It may achive tonns. Just try to imagine this.<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">And here is where the modeling of differnt recoil effects would help out the planes in question. </pre>

PS.2. The dispersion on P-38 isn't worse than on the planes that has engine mounted weapon. It is easy to compare.<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">your right its not dispersion per single bullet but the wide recoil eefect that the 50's have in FB </pre>

But you all try to compare by recals of pilots that compare with _wing mounted weapon_. They are right. But you are not right.<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> :dazed: </pre>
So compare oon different distances with the other types of US planes and you will see that it will confirm the US pilots recals.
Please think twice about what I said in PS.2.<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> :spam: </pre>

Just kidding around Oleg....but please look into the insane amount of recoil the 50's have.

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2004, 08:05 AM
Bohaa, you will need to take out that special formatting in all triple posts...

...not being able to read the thread won't help anybody to understand anything. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just use regular quote code, thanks. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

DangerForward
03-23-2004, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by boohaa:
Guys the 50's have this weird recoil effect where the first shot yaws plane left than next is down right then next is up left and so on.Compared to other similiar gauge bullets such as in bf109-g6,the gun has almost no recoil unless held down for a long time and then its barely noticable.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One reason for this, atleast with the wing mounted 50 cals, is that the guns don't appear to fire at exactly the same time. There appears to be a net result that one wing fires slightly before the other, causing a recoil waggle. Interestingly the same effect doesn't happen to some other planes with many guns such as the FW190. I observed this from looking down on the plane while firing.

DangerForward

Aaron_GT
03-23-2004, 10:04 AM
bouhaa writes:
"And here is where the problem is,we need to have recoil modeled different for the different types of airframes and gun placements since that is a very important part of gun modeling in a sim"

No, what Oleg is saying is that the recoil
of each example of each gun is the same (which
makes sense - they are the same gun) but that
the 'system of forces on the plane' is taken
into account. I.e. the way each plane reacts
to the recoil is apparently different.

Now in static tests the dispersion looks
pretty much the same whatever the plane, but
there is also the possibility that the physics
modelling is different when on the ground.
We know it is different for torque on the
ground (simpler physics modelling) and in
the air, so are ground tests subject to an
overall reduction in fidelity of the physics
model? I have no idea myself - just wondering.

boohaa
03-23-2004, 10:13 AM
I thought the same thing everytime I flew a P47 that it was a gun firing at wrong time.I would wonder why it seemed as though one side had extra gun or whatnot.I couldnt explain it to myself.But you see its also with 50's mounted on the nose of a plane.

As Oleg said...We model recoil of _each type_ of weapon.

Yes and there is something wrong with the 50's recoil effect.

I understand when Oleg gets angry and bites back on these here boards.Could you imagine all the work to get AEP shipped out and now we are whining about the way the bullets on a P38 spread too much.Yes I would be alittle angry too BUT and I hate to use the BUT word(unless its my girls BUTT http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif )but its really affecting how much damage these warbirds were know for giving.Come one and all and agree that its not easy to get your sights on target in these birds and when you finally do we need the ability to unleash the power they trulley had http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

clint-ruin
03-23-2004, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DangerForward:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by boohaa:
Guys the 50's have this weird recoil effect where the first shot yaws plane left than next is down right then next is up left and so on.Compared to other similiar gauge bullets such as in bf109-g6,the gun has almost no recoil unless held down for a long time and then its barely noticable.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One reason for this, atleast with the wing mounted 50 cals, is that the guns don't appear to fire at exactly the same time. There appears to be a net result that one wing fires slightly before the other, causing a recoil waggle. Interestingly the same effect doesn't happen to some other planes with many guns such as the FW190. I observed this from looking down on the plane while firing.

DangerForward<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd mostly agree with this.

Dispersion tests such as JtDs which bring out the hardcorded dispersion behaviour are very good to have and make it clear that the relative inaccuracy seems to be a lot to do with the way the guns themselves are coded rather than straight out platform stability. So that's one point of behaviour nailed down. As with any test though, it is important to realise -what- it is testing and what behaviour such a test will show.


Assuming I've read JTDs labels correctly, we get the following two results from the Hurricane I and IIb

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/hurri11.jpg

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/hurri21.jpg

I can't see any big difference there, myself.

The effects of the extra 4 guns on accuracy only kick in when the plane is in motion and the trigger is held down for some time. Or compare the P-39N1 to the Hurricane I - slightly different guns, but the effect while in flight from continuous fire is markedly different. Similar comparisons can be made between the B-239, P-51B/C and D, P-47, etc.

I can't actually think up a good way to test accuracy of weapons in-flight that would have an acceptable margin of error, but I think they'd also be good to have if we're going to look at this seriously. Given that most games development is a big series of short-cuts for performance, it would not be totally out of the ordinary to assume that for some weapons, the dispersion effects are coded into the firing pattern, whereas on others the dispersion/inaccuracy is compensated for by shaking the platform with the weapons recoil effects. The NS-37 and M-4 are extremely predictable in terms of where the rounds go, but you are very rarely going to get two shots to go to the same place in a burst, given the recoil effects.

As we might expect there's a pretty poor signal to noise ratio in the thread. I found some documents which only relate tangerially to the issue, Gibbage found some more appropriate ones relating to the P-39, Dahdah found references to B-17 .50 cal turret accuracy, and JTD did his usual excellent testing work. Thanks to Lexx and AaronGT [and others] as well for contributing more real data and constructive ways of looking at the issue.

That's all good stuff, but I don't think we're very much closer to getting anything changed here. Almost nothing has been produced that fits the requirements Oleg listed for looking at the issues raised.

So, to say what I said earlier yet again: given the widespread use of the MG17, UB, Browning M2, and so on in WW2, it beggars belief that there would -not- be detailed information on the characteristics of these weapons, either for pilots or for maintenance staff or for further weapons refinement and development.

So far very little of this has been found and posted. It would probably be a pretty good start. I'd be very interested to see if Kurfurst or Skychimp or Butch2k have anything on the subject we could use.

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

boohaa
03-23-2004, 10:24 AM
No, what Oleg is saying is that the recoil
of each example of each gun is the same (which
makes sense - they are the same gun) but that
the 'system of forces on the plane' is taken
into account. I.e. the way each plane reacts
to the recoil is apparently different.
Aaron_GT wrote:

Now in static tests the dispersion looks
pretty much the same whatever the plane, but
there is also the possibility that the physics
modelling is different when on the ground.
We know it is different for torque on the
ground (simpler physics modelling) and in
the air, so are ground tests subject to an
overall reduction in fidelity of the physics
model? I have no idea myself - just wondering.

Yes my friend...I am wondering the same thing.It doesnt seem that there is any difference from ground to flight recoil but many here state that the MK108 has a major difference!!

I hope that Oleg is gonna also add into the physics the effect of speed on recoil for BOB.I aksed for this in the times of IL2 and had no answer.Would be great to get this crazy recoil when near stall speeds and to diminish as your diving at great speeds on target.

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2004, 10:24 AM
Boha, I couldn't read your other thread, so I may be guessing here, but we are now saying its not the 50 calibre guns anymore but the firing pattern in general is too wide?

Now, for me USA planes have the same firing pattern as Hurricane 1 and IAR~80. So what is the problem? J8A has smaller pattern then those above. So does Ki~84c cannon but then again that gives off much fewer projectiles.

Now we can't go back to the P~38 Gun Shake, as its nothing much at all when I tried it. So...given the slightly wider pattern goes beyond the USA planes and even beyond the "ally" planes, what are we talking about now?


--- as for Gun Shake, I have Athalon 1700+ ... and I get fast P~38 roll


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TAGERT.
03-23-2004, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by boohaa:
No, what Oleg is saying is that the recoil
of each example of each gun is the same (which
makes sense - they are the same gun) but that
the 'system of forces on the plane' is taken
into account. I.e. the way each plane reacts
to the recoil is apparently different.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey boohaa.. Due to formatting I could barely read your reply to Oleg.. And I could not even find that original post from Oleg in this thread.. so Ill assume you got it from another thread?

Either way, in summary, Oleg said, correct me if I'm wrong.. but the .50 cal model is the same for all aircraft.. thus the recoil model is the same.. BUT what is different and UNIQUE to each aircraft is the SYSTEM OF FORCES..

Assuming that is the case.. This effect we see with the .50 may be correct.. EQUATION WISE.. In that the .50 are NOT sync up.. That is to say they fire independently of each other.. You could have two fire on the right side.. then one on the left.. followed by three on the right and four on the left..

Summing those types of forces would result in a very SHAKIE system.. Which would result in a very wide dispersion. It would also explain why the P47 seems to be so BAD!

But.. Oleg also said.. and I quote from your post

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Oleg:
PS. The recoil effect is great really for different types of MGs. It may achive tonns. Just try to imagine this<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here I think may be the problem.. The problem being that SIMULATION by EQUATIONS does not all ways ADD UP to REALITY!! In that if you FORGET or just don't realize one VARIABLE you will end up with a SIMULATION that does not represent REALITY..

And the REALITY is that 6x50cals fringing independently did NOT affect the aim let along the speed of the aircraft

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Leonard "Kit" Carson from PURSUE & DESTROY:
Incidentally, firing the guns did not noticeably slow the airplane down; the velocity loss was less than one mile per hr. What the pilot felt was the vibration of six guns recoiling. When worked out, a P51 weighing 9,000lbs and going 300mph. (440 ft. per second) has a kinetic energy of 27 million ft. pounds. That of all six guns firing simultaneously (actually, they don't: the fire at random with respect to each other, but for our purposes, let's lump their kinetic energy together) is about 75 thousand pounds. Thus the speed differentiation is negligible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Oleg may be right in that firing guns does generate TONS.. but relative to the kinetic energy of the aircraft it is nothing.. i.e. 27million ft pound vs. 75 thousand pounds.. Not saying Oleg is wrong.. Just that there maybe some variable or portion of the equations(s) that is not being considered or not being applied correctly.. In that if the aim of the P47 was truly that bad.. they could have sync up the .50s.. but they didn't.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2004, 11:44 AM
Wow this is HUGE. From my test mission last page, the diameter of smokestack base (object 61 I believe darn it I didn't record the object number grrrh)...

Smokestack base dimaeter is 10m octagon measured with FMB map grid. P~38 has a firing pattern that at maximum covers up to maybe ~40% of smokestack width. As smokestack gets thinner as it gets higher, lets say 9m diameter at the target region. Now 40% of that is ~3.6m hit box (at 200m range although slightly longer from target region slightly above ground). What does that sound like? Does that sound big or does that sound BIG?

Problem:: Almost all planes have (roughly) the same hit box... P~38, I~16, Hurricane~1, P~40, etc...contradicting a much earlier result from another poster (one should see the recoil on I~16, most impressive). J8A has slightly smaller hit box--I think. Difficult to judge because on many planes the angle the plane sits makes the target region much higher on the smokestack which means the hits are (slightly) farther away and the smokestack is thinner.

Now, we seem to be thinking that its not the "50 calibre guns" alone anymore--although we spent the last 10 pages Beating up Oleg for us to get here. All planes have a good gun recoil but that is not causing the wide firing patterns here but it does cause the gunsight to slowly move off the smokestack--very quickly in the case of Ki~84c cannons.

So, this is not a P~38 Problem but its a Hurricane problem, and its a IAR~80 Problem, and its an I~16 Problem --eh-- that last one means this thread may quietly die like the P~38 Gun Shake thread. Nobody wants to "fix" that little tubbie Rat I~16. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Gibbage1
03-23-2004, 11:50 AM
LEXX. Try the same with the P-39 Q-10. It only has two .50 cal, but gets the same spread as the P-38 or the P-47 for that matter. Every US aircraft gets the same spread no matter the gun config.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Not so SeaFire, testing FM using lab techniques is a fascinating thing to do, and can give insight into your favorite plane that most do not have. It was posted recently that some onwhine Noob Squads were keeping IL~2 Compare FM program for themselves but somebody made it pubic for the rest of the masses. Well that's what I heard anyway.

Well, I Deleted this from my post as it was not an objective statement, but the differences in dispersion most likely (?) will have no effect on THE GAME unless there is truth to the recent post I saw which claimed that to inflict good damage you have to (basically) keep hitting the same rivet or weld/glue joint time and time again. The dispersion I saw could affect this. But, most fascinating...

...the P~38L has same dispersion as Hurri~1 and IAR~80 and all have more dispersion than J8A. Perhaps this is the way it was I dunno. But its interesting cos I never thought much about it before.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish _"Gladiator"_ listed as _J8A_ _...in Aces Expansion Pack_

_"You will still have FB , you will lose _nothing"__ ~WUAF_Badsight
_"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..."_ ~Bearcat99
_"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age"_ ~ElAurens
:
_"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore_!_"_ ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

03-23-2004, 11:50 AM
LEXX, most folks have agreed that this isn't just a P-38 problem.

It is an M2 Browning problem that affects all planes armed with that gun.

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2004, 11:53 AM
Sorry fellas, we've now moved far beyond USA planes now.

Consider it a first step into a much larger world. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Gibbage1
03-23-2004, 11:59 AM
Note the position of the Hurricane and IAR-80's guns. They are FAR FAR out on the wing. Plus they are lighter caliber guns. They should not get the same pattern of say a P-39 with two nose guns firing at something 100M in front of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Sorry fellas, we've now moved far beyond USA planes now.

Consider it a first step into a much larger world. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish _"Gladiator"_ listed as _J8A_ _...in Aces Expansion Pack_

_"You will still have FB , you will lose _nothing"__ ~WUAF_Badsight
_"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..."_ ~Bearcat99
_"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age"_ ~ElAurens
:
_"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore_!_"_ ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron_GT
03-23-2004, 12:06 PM
As far as I know the definition for mils
is based on the angle subtended by 80%
of the rounds (i.e. diameter). For all
practical purposes that's diameter of
shot fall / distance to target (for small
angles theta ~= tan(theta).

Given that the distribution is uniform within
a square box it's a bit hard to say what
the diameter within which 80% of the rounds
fall actually is... so going with 3.6m,

mils = 1000*(3.6/200) = 18mils, about twice
what the USAAF rated fighter installations
as, as far as I know (roughly twice a ball
turret installation at 600m, but the dispersion
at 200m for a ball turrent might be the same).

If we can find a target big enough to hit
at 600m we could do a direct comparasion to
the ball turrent figures. (A camera placed
nearer the target would probably be required
to usefully measure the fall of shots).

AEP has arrived today for me, so in theory
I could do that, but, er... I'm going to play
with it instead, if you don't mind :-)

Gibbage1
03-23-2004, 12:07 PM
I got something back from Oleg. I have been taking it up in private E-mail with him, with limited result.

1 E-mail Oleg said the M2 was very similar to UB but UB has more velocity and range but should perform similar.

The next E-mail after I sent him a bunch of screenshots showing spread from a stationary P-39 and two tracks, he said

And really these Browings wasn't the best of WWII time... Be sure.

Also, the Ho-103 was a copy of the Browning, but its desity is 5-10X better.

He also told me to look up a USAAF test at 400M on a Zero profile. But in his own words, it "should" perform similar to the UB's, and in reality should perform similar to the Ho-103.

Currently he is in a flight to China for that flight sim thing. So this is on pause till ge gets back. I will gather MORE proof. I think LeadSpitter has a P-38 guncam footage we can use. If its one I am thinking that shows a nice tight line of tracers snaking accross the ground, then that all the proof we need that the M2 did NOT spread out this much.

chris455
03-23-2004, 12:10 PM
Gib,
I think it's great that you are in dialogue with Oleg, I hope it bears fruit. It may take some time. Be patient. Good luck. We are with you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2004, 12:33 PM
Okay Gibb, did the P~39Q~10 machine guns. Pretty wide like the others but I still think somewhat less due to the fact that its only two guns and so less bullets involved...and the same result for G.50. Something you need to consider and look into before talking to Oleg about the M2 Browning by itself.

Fascinating:: Bf~109F~2 machine guns are right on target the best that I can see. Spot on Perfect.

MiG~3 nose mounted machine guns similar to M2 Browning...possibly very slightly tighter.

This is NOT an "M2 Browning" issue, although I can see where you (Gibb) thought of it as the P~38 was of most concern to you personally. P~38 and G.50 are both of equal concern to me and many others--well a few anyway. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

About nose guns verses wing guns...isn't that what the convergence setting is for to equalize any difference between the two at convergence range? It was posted earlier that one could set convergence to get as tight a pattern as one wanted at convergence range, well as far as one can anyway due to recoil which also effects nose mounted guns.

Now, what does a hit box of ~3m at ~200m range sound like for all M2 firing from P~38? Lesse, the M2 guns in the nose may occupy a max box of maybe 1.5 meter (help?). If anything, P~38 and P~39 should be left the same and Bf-109F-2 should be looked at. Have we considered the opposite "problem" may be happening. Or...the Bf guns may have been that accurate. I dunno.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

03-23-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I got something back from Oleg. I have been taking it up in private E-mail with him, with limited result.

The next E-mail after I sent him a bunch of screenshots showing spread from a stationary P-39 and two tracks, he said

And really these Browings wasn't the best of WWII time... Be sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I realize that the 12.7mm Berezin was a very good weapon. It was lighter than the M2 Browning and had similar, but perhaps better ballistics (meaning muzzle velocity... NOT accuracy).

For the Berezin to be more accurate than the M2 Browning, the Berezin would need to have properly tuned and balanced barrel and a very rigid mount. It is possible. However, it also seems just as likely for a properly mounted Browning to outshoot a Berezin in dispersion.

Anywyay, I don't wish to take anything away from the mighty 12.7mm Berezin.

However if Oleg determines that the Berezin's dispersion is too low, then he may wish to address it. The wiser choice is of course to revisit dispersion for ALL guns.

I find it hard to believe that mass produced Soviet gun mounts in wooden aircraft resulted in better accuracy than American gun mounts in all-metal aircraft.

03-23-2004, 01:43 PM
Hey, I just thought of something. Let's compare the UBT mounted on the rear of an IL-2 to the turret results for the M2 Browning.

Russian Aviation Museum lists УБТ as a different mounting. It is probably very similar to turret mounts for M2 Brownings. By testing this gun we can eliminate uncertainty of engine mounts, wing mounts, etc.

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/mgun-ub.html

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2004, 02:27 PM
&lt;CENSORED&gt; (to protect poster from Embarassment):: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I find it hard to believe that mass produced Soviet gun mounts in wooden aircraft...blah blah...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't try this stunt with Mosquito Fans buzzing around. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gibb, if you are here can you explain this poster's reasoning--I don't understand it. Thanks. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

BfHeFwMe
03-23-2004, 02:43 PM
This thread becomes more amusing with every page. It's getting quite silly, are you going to rely solely on 'benchresting' the guns for comparison. This is not the operational environment. I see no one even raising the issue of trackability and it's relation with an aircrafts flight characteristics. You whine about the P-40's killing easier with fewer guns than a P47, no brainer, it flys better, it should. Were not shooting at chimneys up there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Gunnery is a complex field, you can't assume a simular action type rebuilt to different specs by another nation will perform simular. There's no valid comparison, you can't even expect simular performance between two different manufacturers building the same gun to the same specs. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

03-23-2004, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
This thread becomes more amusing with every page. It's getting quite silly, are you going to rely solely on 'benchresting' the guns for comparison. This is not the operational environment. I see no one even raising the issue of trackability and it's relation with an aircrafts flight characteristics. You whine about the P-40's killing easier with fewer guns than a P47, no brainer, it flys better, it should. Were not shooting at chimneys up there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Gunnery is a complex field, you can't assume a simular action type rebuilt to different specs by another nation will perform simular. There's no valid comparison, you can't even expect simular performance between two different manufacturers building the same gun to the same specs. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you don't understand how gunnery works, don't post here.
If you don't understand how gunnery is simulated in the sim, don't post here.

Your attitude is not welcome.

Gibbage1
03-23-2004, 02:57 PM
Double post

Gibbage1
03-23-2004, 02:59 PM
Oleg said the gun dispursion is dependend on gun moun and recoul. We eliminated those factors in the static bench test to show that its not. The 2 M2's in the nose of a P-39 have the same spread as the 8 in the wing of a P-47 at convergance.

We also show that all HMG's for Soviet and Russian aircraft have 5 to 10X less spread then the M2 when recoil and mount is not an issue.

I showed a field test first that a light aircraft (LAGG-3) firing MORE guns thne the heavy aircraft (P-38) firing less has a much better spread.

We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the M2 is programmed to spread wildly compaired to other guns of the same class. Even the Ho-103 copy of the M2 is firing like a sniper rifle.

#1, its not the mount. All US aircraft have this spread.

#2, its not the recoil. Very short birst's dont induce enough recould to effect aim.

#3, its not the gun. M2 is proven to be as effective in real life as other guns of its class. Even by Olegs own words, it should be just as good as the UB's.

So its eather a programming error, or a purposful error. Only Oleg knows for sure. I asked him to check into the programming of the M2 to check to see if there is an error. He thinks I am questioning his physics or his game. No. Im questioning human error. Bugs happen. And this bug has been happening since the beginning of IL2. But only recently have I seen the proof to convince me to stake my reputation on it. I am fighting the good fight here. I may not be approaching it in the best of way, but thats my own problem. The thuth is there, and its ovious to anyone who looks and has an open mind that the M2 is programmed wrong. And this cripples every single US aircraft in the game.

Im still suprised there are no Luftwhiners here arguing against making the M2 more accurate since it means only bad for them. But I guess even they know its a battle that they cant possibly win.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
This thread becomes more amusing with every page. It's getting quite silly, are you going to rely solely on 'benchresting' the guns for comparison. This is not the operational environment. I see no one even raising the issue of trackability and it's relation with an aircrafts flight characteristics. You whine about the P-40's killing easier with fewer guns than a P47, no brainer, it flys better, it should. Were not shooting at chimneys up there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Gunnery is a complex field, you can't assume a simular action type rebuilt to different specs by another nation will perform simular. There's no valid comparison, you can't even expect simular performance between two different manufacturers building the same gun to the same specs. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
03-23-2004, 03:01 PM
Oleg said the gun dispursion is dependend on gun moun and recoul. We eliminated those factors in the static bench test to show that its not. The 2 M2's in the nose of a P-39 have the same spread as the 8 in the wing of a P-47 at convergance.

We also show that all HMG's for Soviet and German aircraft have 5 to 10X less spread then the M2 when recoil and mount is not an issue.

I showed a field test first that a light aircraft (LAGG-3) firing MORE guns thne the heavy aircraft (P-38) firing less has a much better spread.

We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the M2 is programmed to spread wildly compaired to other guns of the same class. Even the Ho-103 copy of the M2 is firing like a sniper rifle.

#1, its not the mount. All US aircraft have this spread.

#2, its not the recoil. Very short birst's dont induce enough recould to effect aim.

#3, its not the gun. M2 is proven to be as effective in real life as other guns of its class. Even by Olegs own words, it should be just as good as the UB's.

So its eather a programming error, or a purposful error. Only Oleg knows for sure. I asked him to check into the programming of the M2 to check to see if there is an error. He thinks I am questioning his physics or his game. No. Im questioning human error. Bugs happen. And this bug has been happening since the beginning of IL2. But only recently have I seen the proof to convince me to stake my reputation on it. I am fighting the good fight here. I may not be approaching it in the best of way, but thats my own problem. The thuth is there, and its ovious to anyone who looks and has an open mind that the M2 is programmed wrong. And this cripples every single US aircraft in the game.

Im still suprised there are no Luftwhiners here arguing against making the M2 more accurate since it means only bad for them. But I guess even they know its a battle that they cant possibly win.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
This thread becomes more amusing with every page. It's getting quite silly, are you going to rely solely on 'benchresting' the guns for comparison. This is not the operational environment. I see no one even raising the issue of trackability and it's relation with an aircrafts flight characteristics. You whine about the P-40's killing easier with fewer guns than a P47, no brainer, it flys better, it should. Were not shooting at chimneys up there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Gunnery is a complex field, you can't assume a simular action type rebuilt to different specs by another nation will perform simular. There's no valid comparison, you can't even expect simular performance between two different manufacturers building the same gun to the same specs. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

chris455
03-23-2004, 03:02 PM
Not true, BfHeFwMe

The M2 was made by no fewer than 9 different manufacturers in WWII. All were made to a specific, measurable specification. All had to meet established quality control standards. All released to the Armed Forces were excellent weapons.

BfHeFwMe says,
"You whine about the P-40's killing easier with fewer guns than a P47, no brainer, it flys better, it should. Were not shooting at chimneys up there".

I will refrain from commenting on this one. But the temptation to do so is almost overwhelming. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

BfHeFwMe
03-23-2004, 03:06 PM
Yup, build and tune my own rifles, do custom glass bedding on occasion, a few trigger jobs, roll my own loads, shoot an occasional sanctioned match. Don't noo nathaang bout nah gunz.

But ya'll experts got it covered. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Gibbage1
03-23-2004, 03:15 PM
Do you not agree with my above statements and findings?

Dont you think that compairing all guns in the same way is still a fair comparison?

Dont you agree that the Browning M2 should not have 5-10X the spread on a static platform then all other HMG's on the same static platform?

Dont you agree that there is a rather nasty spread programmed into the M2 .50 cal?

The only thing your saying is our test's are not proper or "field" test's. We are saying there is no real way to accuratly field test because there are so many variables. Static test's helps us eliminate all variables.

If you are into guns, dont you also put your guns into a mount and fire them to ajust the aim? If you did, and the gun was NOT hitting the same mark every time, is ther not a problem with the gun?

Please answer these questions and refrain from blanket statements like you have. That may give you a little bit of credibility then "your all dumb for doing static test's and not field test's"

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Yup, build and tune my own rifles, do custom glass bedding on occasion, a few trigger jobs, roll my own loads, shoot an occasional sanctioned match. Don't noo nathaang bout nah gunz.

But ya'll experts got it covered. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ucanfly
03-23-2004, 03:15 PM
BfHeFwMe, for a gun expert you don't seem extremely logical. These guys are doing the closest they can get to bench testing a set of guns and find a big difference in spread between the 50 cals and other guns which seems independent of aircraft

If you do your own reloads (as I've done for many years) and glassbed, etc. than I suppose you spend countless hours at the range testing your newfound accuracy on your bench rest.

Saying we don't shoot at chimneys is as ludicrous as telling a deer hunter to not waste his time shooting at paper targets when testing his rifle for accuracy.

BfHeFwMe
03-23-2004, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
Not true, BfHeFwMe

The M2 was made by no fewer than 9 different manufacturers in WWII. All were made to a specific, measurable specification. All had to meet established quality control standards. All released to the Armed Forces were excellent weapons.

BfHeFwMe says,
"You whine about the P-40's killing easier with fewer guns than a P47, no brainer, it flys better, it should. Were not shooting at chimneys up there".

I will refrain from commenting on this one. But the temptation to do so is almost overwhelming. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And same with the Garand, had multiple manufactures, yet only certain of them are desireable to build a match rifle out of. What was the spec and how much latitude was allowed, and which manufacturers exceeded spec. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'll take a Yak3 with one browning over your custom P-47 with twenty in wings guns, and do more air to air killing than you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

VW-IceFire
03-23-2004, 03:18 PM
Gibbage: Good point. Programming error could be a factor to be sure. I think we've established that such a thing existed for the P-47's....Oleg told us that the D-22 and the D-27 had exactly the same variables for roll rate and yet it was obviously not. No idea what the issue was but something wasn't adding up there and perhaps its not adding up here.

I think sometimes everyone takes it a bit too personally...on all sides of the argument. Everyone should approach this with two things in mind: 1) Limitations of simulation 2) Human error and bugs do happen. The obvious solution is to test, test, test and then present as much test data as possible.

Meanwhile, I flew .50 cal equipped aircraft exclusively last night and I still had a blast. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

BfHeFwMe
03-23-2004, 03:23 PM
Take the guns out of the wing, fire one type each from the same point and you may have something for a true simulated benchrest comparison. Until you can do that, you really can't get a truely accurate comparison, even simulated.