PDA

View Full Version : Found possible bug that causes MG151 too weak and MGFF stronger, sorry new thread



Pages : [1] 2

SerpentBlade
01-20-2005, 07:18 AM
Done some testing and here's the somehow surprising findings

First fly a 109G6 with MG151 gunpods, then try to shoot at a friendly B-17 with CENTRE CANON ONLY, then you will notice all explosions look like this, fire balls about same size as propeller plane.
http://jackly.cpgl.net:8080/bbs/attachment.php?attachmentid=6083&stc=1

Then firing away with GUNPODS ONLY, you will notice some fire balls are now much bigger~! twice as big as the propeller plane~!
http://jackly.cpgl.net:8080/bbs/attachment.php?attachmentid=6084&stc=1

Just some graphic presentation difference? maybe not. turn on ARCADE=1 and you can see big and small explosions are different. bigger explosion got more arrows than smaller explosions.
http://jackly.cpgl.net:8080/bbs/attachment.php?attachmentid=6085&stc=1

Lets make some assumptions here, that bigger explosion=MG (thin shell high explosive similar to non-tracer rounds in MK108), smaller explosion=HE (high explosive) and no explosion=APIT (armor piercing incinary tracer), and if you count the sequence of GUNPOD rounds, you get APIT, HE, HE, MG, MG, exactly same as what Oleg posted long time ago.

But if you count the sequence of CENTER CANON rounds, you get APIT, HE, HE, and the more powerful MG ROUNDS ARE TOALLY MISSING! Only the gunpods seem to be correct and have MG rounds!

Maybe it is the reason MG151 feel even weaker than slower MGFF in game, coz in game MGFF we got APIT, HE, HE, MG...one MG round more than MG151 and it makes the difference!

For those interested in 190s, no the internal guns do NOT have MG rounds. havent test gunpods.

SerpentBlade
01-20-2005, 07:18 AM
Done some testing and here's the somehow surprising findings

First fly a 109G6 with MG151 gunpods, then try to shoot at a friendly B-17 with CENTRE CANON ONLY, then you will notice all explosions look like this, fire balls about same size as propeller plane.
http://jackly.cpgl.net:8080/bbs/attachment.php?attachmentid=6083&stc=1

Then firing away with GUNPODS ONLY, you will notice some fire balls are now much bigger~! twice as big as the propeller plane~!
http://jackly.cpgl.net:8080/bbs/attachment.php?attachmentid=6084&stc=1

Just some graphic presentation difference? maybe not. turn on ARCADE=1 and you can see big and small explosions are different. bigger explosion got more arrows than smaller explosions.
http://jackly.cpgl.net:8080/bbs/attachment.php?attachmentid=6085&stc=1

Lets make some assumptions here, that bigger explosion=MG (thin shell high explosive similar to non-tracer rounds in MK108), smaller explosion=HE (high explosive) and no explosion=APIT (armor piercing incinary tracer), and if you count the sequence of GUNPOD rounds, you get APIT, HE, HE, MG, MG, exactly same as what Oleg posted long time ago.

But if you count the sequence of CENTER CANON rounds, you get APIT, HE, HE, and the more powerful MG ROUNDS ARE TOALLY MISSING! Only the gunpods seem to be correct and have MG rounds!

Maybe it is the reason MG151 feel even weaker than slower MGFF in game, coz in game MGFF we got APIT, HE, HE, MG...one MG round more than MG151 and it makes the difference!

For those interested in 190s, no the internal guns do NOT have MG rounds. havent test gunpods.

SerpentBlade
01-20-2005, 07:23 AM
PS. I have emailed Oleg with this finding together with screen shots and trks.

Heard he's sick and not in office from this forum. Hope he gets well soon.

jurinko
01-20-2005, 07:27 AM
interesting finding, worth a new MG151 thread.But which kind of MG151 are modelled in Fw 190 then?

SerpentBlade
01-20-2005, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
interesting finding, worth a new MG151 thread.But which kind of MG151 are modelled in Fw 190 then? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

APIT, HE, HE, I believe

JG54_Steven
01-20-2005, 07:56 AM
we've already tested all kinds of aircraft with MG151/20
Arcade=1 and 1/4 game speed,firing 1 round each time.
and only the mg151/20 pod for the BF109G/K have MG ammuniation.
APITx1 + HEx2 + MGx2
All the other's only have APITx1 + HEx2

JG54_Steven
01-20-2005, 08:08 AM
Looks like the MG151/20 with the correct ammo load is ok on destruction power.
2 MG round hit a spitfire=== BOOOM
2 MG round hit a B17 on the wing=== rolling or on fire
2 MG round hit a La5FN on the wing=== cut off

tigertalon
01-20-2005, 08:21 AM
WOW, guys, that is cool! I hope now we FINALLY get a real Mg151/20 in place of Tokarev TT-33 on 109s and 190s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Good finding, SerpentBlade http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

clint-ruin
01-20-2005, 09:21 AM
At other patches weird things have gone on on this too - I remember running into a weird thing in 2.00 where the shell firing order seemed to get reset every time the trigger was pressed, which made it very hard to coax any specific round out of a gun.

The "more arrows do more damage" thing isn't necessarily true though AFAIK.

edit: after a few runs through now - the MG shells are definitely hitting harder - not a placebo or merely graphical effect in this instance at all like the weird ground hit effects for some guns.

SerpentBlade
01-20-2005, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The "more arrows do more damage" thing isn't necessarily true though AFAIK. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

clint-ruin
01-20-2005, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SerpentBlade:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The "more arrows do more damage" thing isn't necessarily true though AFAIK. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's interesting in this case is they now seem to be just as effective from 6 o'clock as APs, in some cases better, in some cases so much so that fragments below the fuselage and wing roots of the targets [spit 5 and spit 9 normal and clips] are causing the engines to catch fire and explode.

BBB_Hyperion
01-20-2005, 10:47 AM
Good finding , too good to be true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

crazyivan1970
01-20-2005, 11:07 AM
Try this test... take flight of 4 P-51
Take FW190 A6, fire external guns only from approx 300-350m dead 6(conv set to 350 on mine) note the effect
Take Spitfire9 do the same.

Replace Flight of P-51s with Flgiht of Spitfires, repeat the procedure

Replace Flight of P-51s with Flight of BF109s

Replace it with 190s, P-47...etc

I spent all night at this... conclusion... it`s more DM related then guns themselves. Faust, you were going to do the same, what`s your opinion?

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 11:35 AM
is funny, icefire said sumin like this ages ago, turns out its true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

gunpods would have more mg (mine badass thingys) for use against bombers. ( in thery anyways)

faustnik
01-20-2005, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:


I spent all night at this... conclusion... it`s more DM related then guns themselves. Faust, you were going to do the same, what`s your opinion? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to PM you about this because I didn't feel like getting torched. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

From one test session:

The DM for the Allied planes is more resistant to 20mm fire than the LW planes. Spitfires can be killed with a good wing root hit, but, can soak up rediculous amounts of 20mm fire across the rest of the wing and fusalage. There might be some missing elements of the DM like the P-63. Since this is a very common plane on many servers, it may be the cause of a lot of Mg151 questions.

The Yak9 is very vulnerable to 20mm fire. Its wings snap like twigs.

The P-51 is very vulnerable to engine hits, the rest of the fusalage is very tough.

The P47 is similar to the P-51, its engine is vulnerable, its structure is super tough.

The Fw190 is VERY vulnerable to 20mm fire. One or 2 rounds to the fusalage result in fire. One hit to the wing will cause radical lift loss or complete fuel loss.

Bf109s are paper planes. The are FUBAR when hit with 20mm.

THIS IS FROM ONE NIGHT OF TESTING ONLY. IT IS NOT CONFIRMED FACT. MUCH MORE TESTING IS NEEDED TO DRAW ANY USEFUL CONCLUSION.

crazyivan1970
01-20-2005, 11:41 AM
Agree with me on one thing tho faust.. MG151/20 comes very close if not equal to Hispano or Shvak when it comes to shooting at the same plane type. Wouldn`t you say so?

Gunner_361st
01-20-2005, 11:49 AM
Faustnik, my experiences flying pretty much every fighter we have in this sim reaffirms what you have said.

I call it "Concrete fuselage syndrome."

With the BF-109 G2's single 20mm cannon, only one round on the Spitfire's merlin engine will cause it to burn, and a few rounds in the wingroot will cause it to snap off, but the fuselage will soak up 20mm like candy.

The P-51 is the same way. As is the P-47 and FW-190 to a lesser extent. Now before you get antsy on the way the fuselage fuel tank burns in the FW-190, I've hit it repeatedly with 20mm shells and not had it burn, yet hit it with a burst of .303's and set it on fire before... So it really seems totally reliant on whether you hit it or not.

I think part of the problem is the simplified damage model of some the planes in respect to others. The BF-109 seems to have one of the most complex damage models in the game, especially in terms of structure. Get a hit in the wing, you see through the wing; get hit in the fuselage; you see through the fuselage.

Being able to see through the fuselage is not the case with many planes in this game, all of which, when damaged there, simply display black scarring on the skin, but no "see-through" holes.

Whether Minengeschoss shells are really not modeled for the default MG-151/20 cannon in BF-109 variants we have, I don't know. How were you able to tell which are HE and which are MG? How big the explosion was?

From what I've read, the german 5 round belt ammo belt for cannons consisted of APT/HE/HE/MG/MG or APT/HE/MG/MG/MG. Now, I don't know whether this is totally true or not, or whether Incedinary is mixed with the Armor Piercing tracer, but in either case...

It's of no doubt to anyone that if Minengeschoss rounds really aren't included in the standard ammo belts of BF-109's in this game, that including them with their historical loadouts would remedy any complaints about weakness or ineffectiveness of this cannon against any enemy aircraft.

Gunner

faustnik
01-20-2005, 11:50 AM
To be honest Ivan, I still stay Hispano is 150% as effective as Mg151.

Sorry, but, is what I have found. If that is correct or not is still a question!


check pms please

crazyivan1970
01-20-2005, 12:02 PM
Fair enough. Maybe my opinion is based on inconsistenly of MG151.. sometimes 1/2 sec birst of MG151 will take plane apart... sometimes 2-3 sec birst only causes lite smoke. But Hispano seem to have same effect most of the time. Even SHVAK is guilty of inconsistency.. or Vya - 23mm. Now big question is...what is inconsistent.. structure effect or weapon itself.

Gunner_361st
01-20-2005, 12:08 PM
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Here is what Tony Williams has to say about it. I was somewhat mistaken with the exact nature of the shells; the three were API (Armor Piercing Incedinary) HET (High explosive tracer) and HE(M) (High-explosive Minengeschoss)

Look at the damage values and High-explosive content in percentages listed for the 20x82 (The german MG-151/20 cannon) compared to the Hispano MK II.

API = 110 (3.1%) HET = 109 (3.2%) and HE(M) = 236 (22%)

Meanwhile, Hispano's HE round = 201 (8%)

I believe the Hispano's round mix was 50/50% AP/HE, and it seems the AP damage value is not listed here.

The fact remains though, the HE(M) shells, with their abnormally large HE content (Thin-walled mine shell, thinner skin with more HE materal inside) dramatically increase the effectiveness of what is an otherwise less-effective cannon. With these numbers, which are open to debate themselves, are mixed according in a standard german ammo belt of API/HET/HET/MG/MG, the damage value comes to... 110+109+109+236+236 = 800. With API/HET/MG/MG/MG = 110+109+236+236+236 = 927.

Now, compare that to the Hispano's damage values. Unfortunately the destructiveness of the Hispano's AP shell doesn't seem to be listed, but we can draw some basic conclusions from one of the paragraphs he wrote.

"To illustrate how this works: a typical cannon shell consists of 10% HE or incendiary material by weight. Multiplying this by ten gives a chemical contribution of 100%, adding the kinetic contribution of 100% gives a total of 200%. In other words, an HE/I shell of a given weight that contains 10% chemicals will generate twice the destructiveness of a plain steel shot of the same weight and velocity. If the shell is a high-capacity one with 20% chemical content, it will be three times as destructive. If it only has 5% content, the sum will be 150%, so it will be 50% more destructive, and so on."

So, A high-explosive shell that has 10% HE content will do twice the damage of a plain steel shot of the same weight. While there is no AP value listed here for the Hispano, we can make some basic calculations from here.

Assuming that the regular AP (which is not plain steel shot, but like I said, this is all I have to work with at the moment, more research needed) is approximately half as destructive as the HE shell of the Hispano, that would be 201 / 2 = 100.5.

Now, lets go through a 5-round clip of Hispano ammo. 201+100.5+201+100.5+201 = 804.

Undoubtedly an AP shell because of it's penetration qualities would be more effective than a plain steel shot shell, but still. The numbers would indicate that if the german cannon in FB/AEP/PF does NOT have the proper german ammo belt configuration, then its operating with shells that have less than half of the HE content of the Hispano shells at a lower muzzle velocity. This would seem to amply explain it's ineffectiveness compared to it.

Williams goes on to mention a different way of calculating the destructiveness of HE shells at the bottom of the link, if anyone is so interested as to read it.

My basic conclusion is if the ammo belt load for the MG-151/20 in FB/AEP/PF is indeed wrong, that with a proper ammo belt modeled for the MG-151/20 in game, this cannon would be just as destructive, if not a bit more so, than the Hispano cannon.

and I don't think anyone can keep a straight face and argue now that the german cannon's destructiveness in FB/AEP/PF is even remotely equal to the Hispano's. ;-)

Gunner

Gunner_361st
01-20-2005, 12:23 PM
http://free-st.htnet.hr/dvd/Weapons.html

According to PE_Mosor's notes on the weapon tables and configurations in FB/AEP/PF, the ammo belt for the MG-151/20 is reportedly APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG

According to this, it would seem the ammo belt configuration is fine. However, this doesn't prove that fact. Is there any way to tell how the german ammo belt truly goes in FB/AEP/PF? Other than asking the O-man himself of course, but perhaps it will come to that anyway.

If the german MG-151/20 in game is indeed missing the MG shell in it's ammo belts, along with some simplified damage models for some planes, than this obviously illustrates the ineffectiveness of the MG-151/20 compared to the Hispano, because it'd be operating with solely with shells that half half the HE content of the Hispano's HE shell being fired at a lesser muzzle velocity.

Food for thought. First things first though; we need solid proof of what the german ammo belt actually is in PF/AEP/PF.

faustnik
01-20-2005, 12:28 PM
Gunner,

In that same chart Williams does give the Hispano more overall power than the Mg151 but, that is with the 1AP/1HEi/1MgL belt load. In another chart in his book he gives them almost identical power with the 1AP/2HE/2MgL clip for the Mg151 which is the clip we have in IL-2 according to a list that Clint posted.

I'm sure there are Soviet tests of these weapons. The Soviets were great testers in aircraft armament as they were the world leaders in the field.

****************************

I think Ivan is on the right track though. Some aircraft DM issues are making the Mg151 look much worse than it really is. Solve that and the Mg151 may appear spot on.

(But what the hell do I know? I was an anthropology major. Anyone have any questions about Lucy?)

crazyivan1970
01-20-2005, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
(But what the hell do I know? I was an anthropology major. Anyone have any questions about Lucy?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do, who`s Lucy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG7_Rall
01-20-2005, 12:42 PM
Wow guys, awesome find! I hope we can get to the root of this problem, whether it be with DM's or a wrong ammo belt. I appreciate the work you guys are putting into this! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

faustnik
01-20-2005, 12:46 PM
Lucy is the fossil hominid discovered by the Leakys in West Africa. She was classified as Australopithecus afarensis. She was around about 3 million years ago and was bipedal.


http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusafarensis.htm (Lucy link)

HelSqnProtos
01-20-2005, 12:56 PM
I agree this is a terrific thread. I am quite sure that the proper solution lies somewhere between these two points of view. Clearly 151 hitting power online is not up to the Spit's Hispanos. I fly both and there is a SIGNIFICANT difference. As for damage models, there can be no doubt about bf109 being fubared when taking 20mm hits. Same thing for the supposedly well armored Fw 190. These two planes seem to take more than their fair share of damage from even 1 or 2 rounds. Trying to shoot down a Spit, P51 or 47 can often feel like an excercise in futility online.

I am thrilled to read a positive, objective post about this serious issue. I hope that by pooling our observations and test data that we may help the developers solve this troubling and contentious bug. Keep up the great work!

Matz0r
01-20-2005, 01:01 PM
Interesting find, but I wouldn't jump to conclutions since you can't tell what's happening in the fm engine by looking at the graphics only. The only way to tell what's really going on behind those graphics explosions is to look in the code, only 1c can do that and afaik they said they had already looked at the MG151 data and found nothing wrong.

(Still think MG151 is too weak tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

SerpentBlade
01-20-2005, 01:02 PM
We are not sure about the ammo belt composition unless Oleg's team can confirm it, however we can know this through easy testing:

- 109 MG151 gunpods, other than AP rounds, have 2 kinds of explosions graphically: small fire ball with less arrows (when turn on ARCADE=1), and bigger fire ball with more arrows.

- other MG151 guns have AP rounds and only type of explosion with less arrows (ARCADE=1).

- MGFF ammo same as MG151 gunpod graphically.

- We know that both MGFF and MG151 in real has 3 types of ammo, and in game MGFF have 3 types of ammo, MG151 gunpod have 3 types of ammo, other MG151s are missing one type of explosive ammo.

faustnik
01-20-2005, 01:04 PM
Yes, Serpentblade, that is a great find! Nice work. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Abbuzze
01-20-2005, 01:07 PM
The mainquestion is not the DM of some planes, but is the sequenz of bullets in the 151 correct?!?

Oleg allways argued that all is alright, cause they calculated the destrucive energy for every kind of bullet.
So if the sequenz is wrong... nothing is ok and it should be corrected!!!
Would be real great if 1C could check this and give us an answer...

crazyivan1970
01-20-2005, 01:08 PM
Incorrect belt loading might be a perfectly good explanation for inconsistency as well... Serpent, if you don`t get any responce tomorrow, e-mail it to me, i`ll make sure Oleg gets it.

SerpentBlade
01-20-2005, 01:12 PM
Thx CrazyIvan, will do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG54_Steven
01-20-2005, 01:47 PM
I got some more fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Here is a TRK I made from shooting a B24 at close range with accuracy &gt;=90%

download here:
http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?attachmentid=6086

Target: B24
Weapon used: single 20mm Shvak from Lagg3, single 20mm Hispano from P38J, single 20mm MG151 from BF109F4
Unlimited Ammo
Result: It takes Shvak and Hispano 10 sec to inflict sufficient damamge for B24 crew to bail out

MG151, 2 mins of continuous shooting, landed more than 1000 rounds and everyone on B24 still playing poker and drinking coffee till my very pissed 109 crashed into it....

Gunner_361st
01-20-2005, 02:16 PM
Yes, please if you can Ivan, make sure that Oleg sees these results, through email or perhaps a link to this thread.

I don't know about your results, Steven, but if it really worked out as you planned, and the test was done uniformly and appropriately, it would seem erroneous as well. According to Tony William's table, the Shvak, while being an efficient cannon (weight compared to its destructive power) its raw destructive power is rather unremarkable for a 20mm cannon, significantly less destructive than it's western european contemporaries, the Hispano and MG-151/20.

But anyway. I hope this thread starts a fire and gets some close analysis done; confirmation of standard MG-151/20 ammo belts in FB/AEP/PF by 1C:Maddox would be our goal right now.

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 05:23 PM
hm
suggest, do a map where theres a tall buliding, and fire at it, then take pics of explosions (and tracks)

ull get a fair test then, in the b17 pics its not 100% clear whats going on.

oh i find the 109's tougher than before
even when i hit em with 4 cannons in my beufighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

tigertalon
01-20-2005, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
Interesting find, but I wouldn't jump to conclutions since you can't tell what's happening in the fm engine by looking at the graphics only. The only way to tell what's really going on behind those graphics explosions is to look in the code, only 1c can do that and afaik they said they had already looked at the MG151 data and found nothing wrong.

(Still think MG151 is too weak tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, in this case run QMB, arcade=1, take Bf109 with 20mm gunpods, and one friendly B17 (or whatever you want). Set time to 1/4, go on his dead 6 and fire into his wing carefully, only one shot (one shell) after another. As you know the sequence is 1AP/2HE/2MG, so try to fire always only with shells number 4 and 5 and waste others into empty air. Count how many MG shells you need to down a plane. Repeat 10 times, always aim same spot on aircraft, calculate average number of bullets. And then try it again, this time only with shells no.2 and no.3. (or use central cannon and waste away only number one-tracer) On average you WILL need much more HE shells to down any target, but of course sometimes vice versa can happen. Simply, go and test it yourself. Also, try normal combat and you will see that Bf109G2 with gunpods has greater firepower than Fw190A6 (but both have 2 Mg17, Bf has 3 and Fw has 4 equal cannons!)

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2005, 06:58 PM
If the sim is not storing and using what the next shell type should be per gun or
set of guns then it must always start with the same shell type. Consistency then
would require firing and hitting with bursts longer than the ammo mix and hits in
the same places. Good luck! 2 shell mix would be more consistent than 5.

What are those big orange explosions? I see them as Incendiary when I look in
arcade mode playbacks at low speed and pause -- one arrow only with the big
orange puff and no orange puff with the arrow blossoms of fragments. Orange
puff bloom is phosphorus explosion which IRL is spectacular.

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2005, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
..............................(but both have 2 Mg17, Bf has 3 and Fw has 4 equal cannons!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but the 3 Bf109 canons are firing at their max ROF , the inner ones of the Fw190 are synchronisized. i dodnt know if that affect is calculatet on the Fw190. synchronisation costs around 200rpm !

BUT, its posibble in game engine ! look B-239 , all weapons have the same 250rpg ! but wingmounted are faster empty than the fuselage ones.

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2005, 08:51 PM
pingu:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>suggest, do a map where theres a tall buliding, and fire at it, then take pics of explosions (and tracks) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Static carrier. Place player plane on ground where gunsight sees target plane high up on carrier deck.

Would work only for side shooting though, and you have to do it before the plane takes off from carrier.

VW-IceFire
01-20-2005, 09:55 PM
Yeah I pointed out ages ago (and nobody said anything http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) that the gunpods on the 109s were causing more damage and larger fireballs than the nose gun or the guns on the FW190.

Interesting find.

I have noticed that as of version 3.04, that the global DM values have been altered. Aircraft break more now than before. All guns, all types that I can see so far. So things have changed a bit...Oleg has been listening. This would be a good one to check!

faustnik
01-20-2005, 09:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
..............................(but both have 2 Mg17, Bf has 3 and Fw has 4 equal cannons!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but the 3 Bf109 canons are firing at their max ROF , the inner ones of the Fw190 are synchronisized. i dodnt know if that affect is calculatet on the Fw190. synchronisation costs around 200rpm !

BUT, its posibble in game engine ! look B-239 , all weapons have the same 250rpg ! but wingmounted are faster empty than the fuselage ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mg151/20 inner fire at 650 rom, outer at 750.

Willey
01-20-2005, 10:22 PM
Cherrybump!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG54_Steven
01-20-2005, 10:50 PM
I said: ONLY the MG151 POD for 109G/K have the MG round.
it means we tested all kinds of aircraft equiped with MG151/20 in the same way.
Include:
BF109---engine hub 151/Gunpod
FW190A/D---Inside/Outside/twin151 pod
HE162
Ju87D5
ME110---nose cannon/twin151 pod
IAR81C
Ki61-Hei-1943

And the result is:MG round only find in BF109's MG151 pod.

CV8_Dudeness
01-20-2005, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
and I don't think anyone can keep a straight face and argue now that the german cannon's destructiveness in FB/AEP/PF is even remotely equal to the Hispano's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
paging mr HayateAce

mr HayateAce , would you come in please ?

Oleg_Maddox
01-20-2005, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Steven:
we've already tested all kinds of aircraft with MG151/20
Arcade=1 and 1/4 game speed,firing 1 round each time.
and only the mg151/20 pod for the BF109G/K have MG ammuniation.
APITx1 + HEx2 + MGx2
All the other's only have APITx1 + HEx2 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That to stop any other such speeches I need to tell that in our code is only one model of MG151/20 with only one type of ammo load. Please read twice.
By other words we have one cannon type in code and place it on different aircraft. the diferences in this case will be only in amount of shells for the selected aircraft, but the cannon and ammo load types will be one the same... So MG151/20 is one the same on all Bf109s, FW190, etc...

Simply other is impossible in code.

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 11:42 PM
hey oleg, good to see u http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif, would it be possible to tell us the ammo mix on the gun?

also, if u have time could u look at my threads? they are short http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

crazyivan1970
01-20-2005, 11:43 PM
Thanks for finding time to stop by Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Much appriciated

clint-ruin
01-21-2005, 02:11 AM
Nonetheless, in that case you have some sort of weird error that is drawing larger explosions, different arcade=1 drawn hits, and causing more damage, from the 109 gun pods.

anarchy52
01-21-2005, 03:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
That to stop any other such speeches I need to tell that in our code is only one model of MG151/20 with only one type of ammo load. Please read twice.
By other words we have one cannon type in code and place it on different aircraft. the diferences in this case will be only in amount of shells for the selected aircraft, but the cannon and ammo load types will be one the same... So MG151/20 is one the same on all Bf109s, FW190, etc...

Simply other is impossible in code. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S! Oleg
sir, I do not consider the widespread perception of MG151/20 ineffectiveness and difference in visual effects and arrows in arcade mode between gunpods and other MG151/20 instalations as some kind of mass halucination.
Community agrees that MG151/20 is indeed ineffective compared to other 20mm cannons. Poll shows it:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=9061059952&showpollresults=Y

Various technical aspects have been debated in this thread
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=1981019822&r=5211026552#5211026552
to come to the conclusion that there is no technical reason or historical evidence that MG151/20 was/shold be weaker compared to other 20mm cannons. Quite contrary, it should be VERY close to Hispano (MG151/20 should be superior in terms of chemical energy due to larger explosive mass per shell and more powerfull explosive). Thread contains a lot of data, screenshots, tests even real guncamera footage. One of the rarely polite and educated threads on ubi forum I might add.

We have been speculating a lot because we do not know how the game engine works. An explanation of arcade mode might clarify things. Effects shown in arcade mode ARE different no doubt about it.

I have proposed an inclusion of a new object in game - test gun: no cockpit, no external - just a flexible gun mount similar to bomber gunner's that could be used for testing.

I do not believe that fixing the issue would present a challenge to 1C - you said it yourself that the gun is the same object in all aircrafts that use it.

Your loyal fan (I really feel that "fan" is more appropriate then "customer")

tigertalon
01-21-2005, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
..............................(but both have 2 Mg17, Bf has 3 and Fw has 4 equal cannons!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but the 3 Bf109 canons are firing at their max ROF , the inner ones of the Fw190 are synchronisized. i dodnt know if that affect is calculatet on the Fw190. synchronisation costs around 200rpm !

BUT, its posibble in game engine ! look B-239 , all weapons have the same 250rpg ! but wingmounted are faster empty than the fuselage ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true. But:

Let's assume both pairs (on Bf and on Fw) of Mg17 fire at the same rate as they are both synchronised (OK, this even does not matter much as they are not much stronger than paintball gun) so let's leave them out of debate. Let's also assume that outboard cannons on Fw190A6 and gunpod Mg151/20 cannons on Bf109G2 fire with same ROF (there is no reason they should not: they are the same kind of weapon).

I hope you agree with me that in game Bf will have greater firepower than Fw. Ok, let's just say it is equal. This means, that single engine mounted cannon has more or equal power as two cannons of the same kind, that are synchronised (mounted in wing-roots). This means, that synchronised weapons have ROF divided with at least 2, so from 750 to 375 or less RPM (!!!), so in your case each root mounted cannon looses at least 375 RPM or more and not 200. Do you still believe that's the case? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tigertalon
01-21-2005, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
is funny, icefire said sumin like this ages ago, turns out its true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

gunpods would have more mg (mine badass thingys) for use against bombers. ( in thery anyways) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, but then I would expect something like this:

Ordinary cannon: 1AP-2HE-2MG
Gunpod cannon: 1AP-1HE-3MG or 1AP-4MG

but in each case I would put some MGs also in ordinary loadout... Just IMO.

OldMan____
01-21-2005, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
..............................(but both have 2 Mg17, Bf has 3 and Fw has 4 equal cannons!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but the 3 Bf109 canons are firing at their max ROF , the inner ones of the Fw190 are synchronisized. i dodnt know if that affect is calculatet on the Fw190. synchronisation costs around 200rpm !

BUT, its posibble in game engine ! look B-239 , all weapons have the same 250rpg ! but wingmounted are faster empty than the fuselage ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true. But:

Let's assume both pairs (on Bf and on Fw) of Mg17 fire at the same rate as they are both synchronised (OK, this even does not matter much as they are not much stronger than paintball gun) so let's leave them out of debate. Let's also assume that outboard cannons on Fw190A6 and gunpod Mg151/20 cannons on Bf109G2 fire with same ROF (there is no reason they should not: they are the same kind of weapon).

I hope you agree with me that in game Bf will have greater firepower than Fw. Ok, let's just say it is equal. This means, that single engine mounted cannon has more or equal power as two cannons of the same kind, that are synchronised (mounted in wing-roots). This means, that synchronised weapons have ROF divided with at least 2, so from 750 to 375 or less RPM (!!!), so in your case each root mounted cannon looses at least 375 RPM or more and not 200. Do you still believe that's the case? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I remmeber correctly.. MG151 looses 10% rpm while in sync. So would be about 670 rpm

clint-ruin
01-21-2005, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Steven:
I got some more fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Here is a TRK I made from shooting a B24 at close range with accuracy &gt;=90%

download here:
http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?attachmentid=6086

Target: B24
Weapon used: single 20mm Shvak from Lagg3, single 20mm Hispano from P38J, single 20mm MG151 from BF109F4
Unlimited Ammo
Result: It takes Shvak and Hispano 10 sec to inflict sufficient damamge for B24 crew to bail out

MG151, 2 mins of continuous shooting, landed more than 1000 rounds and everyone on B24 still playing poker and drinking coffee till my very pissed 109 crashed into it.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Steven,

I'm going through repeating a lot of old tests from 1.21 / 2.00 &gt; 2.01 gunnery at the moment.

I am just wondering if you have tried looking at the round-type vs damage inflicted in this situation.

Do you also notice anything strange going on if you only use Hispano HE and do not allow AP rounds to hit the target?

Tvrdi
01-21-2005, 06:51 AM
I thought before and Im thinking now that problem was in DM of allied planes.....with Mg151 u can blow any VVS plane but with allied its another story...their DM is wrong...those planes were durable but in the game theyr f tanks (mustang on ex. can take 3-4 mk108 hits sometimes, mg151 is almost unusable here)...

VW-IceFire
01-21-2005, 07:08 AM
Ok, even if things are identical in code. Why are the explosions bigger? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-21-2005, 07:12 AM
Russia was a member of Allieds.

tigertalon
01-21-2005, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tvrdi:
I thought before and Im thinking now that problem was in DM of allied planes.....with Mg151 u can blow any VVS plane but with allied its another story...their DM is wrong...those planes were durable but in the game theyr f tanks (mustang on ex. can take 3-4 mk108 hits sometimes, mg151 is almost unusable here)... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I did some testing to satisfy my curiosity only, I tried to fire first only MG shells from gunpods (I set time to 1/4 and fired only one shell per time), so only shells no. 4 and 5 (in the sequence 1AP/2HE/2MG) and I wasted shells no. 1, 2 and 3 away. Then I did the same for HE bullets only (no 2 and 3). I repeated the test several times. Targets were different, but always tried to hit the same spot. ALMOST EVERY TIME (no matter what the target is) I needed BY FAR less MG shots compared to HE ones.


After this testing I am pretty sure that MG shots are modelled only in Bf gunpods. And they are devastating for sure.

Try it out yourself (if you are patient enough -it will take a few hours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and try also MG shells on a mustang... With that, this baby goes down fast http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Abbuzze
01-21-2005, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

That to stop any other such speeches I need to tell that in our code is only one model of MG151/20 with only one type of ammo load. Please read twice.
By other words we have one cannon type in code and place it on different aircraft. the diferences in this case will be only in amount of shells for the selected aircraft, but the cannon and ammo load types will be one the same... So MG151/20 is one the same on all Bf109s, FW190, etc...

Simply other is impossible in code. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmm just one code for the Mg151/20- a guy in the german had a good questions, if there is realy just one neverchanging code- what about unsync and sync connons?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
So there are at least two sub-versions of the 151/20 code or am I wrong?!?

clint-ruin
01-21-2005, 08:27 AM
Hi Oleg,

The differences I have noted so far are:

a) different arcade=1 symbology

b) different linked shell explosion animation for the MG round linked in the gunpod belts

c) different round firing order

d) different effects upon the damage model of the target plane.

This is just a quick test - don't have space on my webspace for the NTRKs of per shell/dm tests, this is just a 109 with gunpods and without gunpods hammering Me323s. You can definitely see the increased damage effects from the MG shells and the different explosion sequence in this clearly though. This shell does not seem to suffer from anything like the problems MK108, NS45 HET and other rounds do with impacting thin parts of a plane and having the fragments fly away from the target, it seems just as effective hitting an aileron tip as a wing root as the engine.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/109gptest.zip

What is most interesting is that this round seems to act like a sort of super round, and has quite amazingly hard hitting fragments, which seem to penetrate any component going. In fact the MG shells, per round, are seemingly more effective than much larger / faster shells in the game, though I will wait until I have more tests done to be sure. Just from first impressions I would liken it to a kind of multidirectional 151/15 AP round.

Don't have a problem with the MG shell being a powerful round, but if you are unaware of how different the gunpods MG151/20 are to the nose 151/20 for the Bf109 are then you should take a look, Oleg. I know there have been some "placebo" effects before where the shell explosion graphic is inconsistent with the round, but this really seems to be a different round order and round type to the usual.

No comment whether it's right or wrong, or a bug or not, just think you should be made aware of it.

NVP1
01-21-2005, 09:39 AM
As Clint said ,no comment whether it's right or wrong, I just wanted to share that the guys on the Rusian sukhoi.ru forum which,unfortunately,is down at the moment, arrived at the same conclusion
Steven presented,i.e. there's no MG round found in the 109's internal cannon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Of course, Oleg knows better.I do want to believe,but it IS pretty hard to take for granted something that DOES contradict my own perception.Anyone willing to see it for himself should just spend 10 mins in the QMB with the Arcade mode on.
I feel really confused http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Blackjack174
01-21-2005, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
That to stop any other such speeches I need to tell that in our code is only one model of MG151/20 with only one type of ammo load. Please read twice.
By other words we have one cannon type in code and place it on different aircraft. the diferences in this case will be only in amount of shells for the selected aircraft, but the cannon and ammo load types will be one the same... So MG151/20 is one the same on all Bf109s, FW190, etc...

Simply other is impossible in code. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i only tested the nose mounted MG151, i placed a me323 in front of me and shot with 1/4 time to make sure single shopts where fired, arow symboligy was as following (and i did wait that until old arrows vanished and then shot again):
At the very first start there came some AP and HE rounds , the odd thing was that after 6-10 shots there where coming only HE rounds out of the gun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
How is that possible ?
until the very end the gun had ~10 AP rounds total , so either arrow and explosion symboligy/graphic effect is wrong or there is a belt with ~10 AP rounds and the rest is HE.
this (http://www.informatik.fh-wiesbaden.de/~kpaka001/data/!mg151.mis) is the mission file , feel free to test, im confused enough already now.

JG7_Rall
01-21-2005, 12:28 PM
S! Oleg

What about the MG151/20 for the G10 and G14? Thanks!

Gunner_361st
01-21-2005, 12:40 PM
"That to stop any other such speeches I need to tell that in our code is only one model of MG151/20 with only one type of ammo load. Please read twice.

By other words we have one cannon type in code and place it on different aircraft. the diferences in this case will be only in amount of shells for the selected aircraft, but the cannon and ammo load types will be one the same... So MG151/20 is one the same on all Bf109s, FW190, etc...

Simply other is impossible in code." - Oleg Maddox

Understood, Oleg. However, in FB/AEP/PF, what is the ammo load type and sequence in the MG-151/20 cannon?

In other words, what shells are used and in what sequence are they?

Gunner

chaikanut
01-21-2005, 02:55 PM
The only way to be sure about the relative strengths of each gun is to try it on soft and hard ground targets (trucks and light tanks). They have different damage models and in principle tanks should be resistant to HE and MG rounds and less so to AP(unless the DM for ground vehicles works completely differently)right ? In this way you will eliminate the biases from different and complicated DMs and aerial gunnery. My experience is that soviet and german 20mm is equivalent. Hispano FEELS more powerful. And obviously, packet loss in the internet should affect all cannon.

tigertalon
01-21-2005, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

That to stop any other such speeches I need to tell that in our code is only one model of MG151/20 with only one type of ammo load. Please read twice.
By other words we have one cannon type in code and place it on different aircraft. the diferences in this case will be only in amount of shells for the selected aircraft, but the cannon and ammo load types will be one the same... So MG151/20 is one the same on all Bf109s, FW190, etc...

Simply other is impossible in code. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello Oleg, nice to see you around here. There were rumors you were ill, I hope you are better.

I have played a bit with this Mg151/20 myself. For test I used Bf109G2 with gunpods, Fw190A6 with outer cannons, and to compare result with MgFF i used Bf109E4. I tested visual effect of shells on a concrete runway.

On each plane I used only outer cannons, so we avoid problems with synchronisation (if there are any). So I used only gunpods on Bf109G2, only outer cannons on Fw190 and only MgFF on Bf109E4.

First, Bf109G2 firing only with gunpods:
http://image32.webshots.com/32/4/69/61/256246961syNxYi_ph.jpg

Second, Fw190A6 firing only with outter cannons:

http://image32.webshots.com/32/4/80/0/256248000tzWhkd_ph.jpg

Now, it is clear that shells 4 and 5 in a sequence are different (at least they have different visual effect).

If we compare this with this:

Bf109E4 using only MgFF:

http://image32.webshots.com/33/4/85/47/256248547iyVCaE_ph.jpg
we can conclude following:

Visual effect of MgFF shell no.4 and of gunpod Mg151/20 shells no.4 and 5 are surprisingly similar, aren't they?

Since we know, that there are 3 different kinds of shells used in Mg151/20, and the first one in sequence is always APIT, we can conclude, that 4th and 5th in non-gunpod cannon must be the same as 2nd and 3rd, as there is no fourth kind of a shell.

If we take a look at the sequence in MgFF cannon: APIT-HE-HE-MG (which we all agree about, don't we?) and if we assume that same kinds of shells should have somehow similar visual effects (MG from Mg151/20 for sure doesn't look like tracer from MgFF), we can conclude following:

Sequence in Mg151/20 gunpod is APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG
Sequence in non-gunpod Mg151/20 is APIT-HE-HE-HE-HE

I will also repeat the test with flying targets and post the results, when I will have time. I hope this post shows clearly that something is wrong with ammo belts in Mg151/20, and that devs will be able to correct it.

Thanks

Atomic_Marten
01-21-2005, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Now big question is...what is inconsistent.. structure effect or weapon itself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that would be interesting to know among other things..

Gunner_361st
01-21-2005, 09:04 PM
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Check out the first table in this link and see what Tony Williams has to say about it.

Look 20x99R (Shvak shell) and 20x82 (German MG-151/20 shell)

Look at their damage values. IF only API (Armor piercing incedinary), HET (High explosive tracer) and HEI (High explosive incedinary) rounds are considered, then the cannons are approximately equal in destructive power, the MG-151/20 coming in at 219 damage (109 + 110) and the Shvak coming in at 206. (86+120)

However, take the german HE(M) (High explosive Minengeschoss) which basically is a 20mm shell that has a thinner wall, but more high explosive material packed inside. This means smaller, finer fragments, but considerably more pressure and heat when the explosion occurs, in the best case scenario, when the fuse works properly and it goes off inside the airplane.

Now, taking the Minengeschoss round into consideration, which was typically loaded as 2 or 3 of the shells in a 5-round sequence (API/HET/MG/MG/MG) or (API/HET/HET/MG/MG) then you have a much different picture. As you can see, the damage value of the Minengeschoss shell is a whopping 236, higher than even the Hispano's MK II's HE round, which comes in at 201. Counteracting the greater muzzle velocity and mass of the Hispano shell is this mine shell, meaning that the damage capabilities, according to the numbers that Williams uses, would make these cannons very similar in destructive power.

Williams says himself in "Comments on Table I" that...

"If we compare the values with the few data known from ballistic tests, we have some indications that the factors assumed in the calculations are realistic. The 20x80RB M-Geschoss and the 20x110 (Hispano) HE were rated as about equal; the greater blast effect of the M-Geschoss was countered by the greater penetration and kinetic damage inflicted by the Hispano. They do indeed emerge with similar scores."

Take into consideration the 20x80RB is the older MG-FF(M) 20mm cannon, not the improved MG-151/20 cannon. The same type of shells were used in both cannon, but the MG-151/20 features a slightly heavier cartridge that fires the shell at a greater muzzle velocity and rate of fire, making it an even more destructive weapon.

So really, the MG-151/20 cannon is a decent weapon in itself, but what makes it remarkable and gives it a destructive power at least equal to or perhaps even a little greater than the Hispano cannon are these Minengeschoss shells, thin-walled, high capacity high explosive rounds.

Food for thought, really. I just wish Oleg would comment on what the ammo loading and sequence is for this cannon in the game, he has not yet divulged this information; I wish he would.

Russian_Ivan
01-22-2005, 02:09 AM
Oleg, as the proverb says "There is no smoke without the fire...". I had the the same conclusion as SerpentBlade about the ammo belt loading when shooting TB-3 from the gunpods of G-2 and from the inner wing 151/20 guns of FW A4. I know that the rate-of-fire of these guns is different, but no so much to explain why the wing of TB-3 cutting off after a 2-second burst of G-2 gunpods almost everytime, but with FW's guns I wasn't able to do the same with 2-3 2 sec. bursts.
But I'm disagree with SerpentBlade about the G-6 and later Me109 nose guns ammo loading - they seems do have MG shells in their belts. But the rest of 151/20 (seems) doesn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif and that is really sad because I like FW190 very much...

OldMan____
01-22-2005, 03:39 AM
People, please.. it does not help to ress the same key after the developer said it is not like that. I am sure Oleg stated exactly how things are in game. But game code is much more complicated than most poeple think... I remember once when in www.taikodom.com.br (http://www.taikodom.com.br) when our guns where making different color effects when firing from different orders. It took time to discover was a missed initialization var. So do not try to explain everything in a software, based solely on real world stuff. Different visual effects may be happenign for different reasons.. that we do not even dream about.

tigertalon
01-22-2005, 04:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
People, please.. it does not help to ress the same key after the developer said it is not like that. I am sure Oleg stated exactly how things are in game. But game code is much more complicated than most poeple think... I remember once when in http://www.taikodom.com.br when our guns where making different color effects when firing from different orders. It took time to discover was a missed initialization var. So do not try to explain everything in a software, based solely on real world stuff. Different visual effects may be happenign for different reasons.. that we do not even dream about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Old Man, I agree partially on what you said (I would agree fully if it happened from time to time), but then please explain me following:

(and BTW believe me, I have done upper and many other tests MANY times)

Why do we ALWAYS get different visual effect when hitting concrete runway with shells no.4 and 5?

Why do we ALWAYS get different visual effect when hitting flying aircraft with shells no.4 and 5?

Why do we ALWAYS get different "bloom" of arrows in arcade=1 mode? (one of them very similar of HE and the other very similar to MgFF MG shell)

Why do we ALMOST ALWAYS (at least 95%!) need way less (I mean 3 times less!!!) shells no.4 and 5 from gunpod compared to other Mg151/20 cannon's shells no.4 and 5, to shoot down an aircraft? C'mon, test it yourself.

(I have done a test where I was hitting AC only with Bf109G gunpod shells no.4 and 5, and I wasted other 3 away - time 1/4 and patience. Then I repeated it for outter cannons on Fw190A6, again I used only shells no.4 and 5 - difference is enormous)

You don't fly LW planes (including Bf109 with MG151/20 gunpods) much, do you? Like somebody above said, just spend 10 minutes in QMB playing with gunpods...

tigertalon
01-22-2005, 05:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Russian_Ivan:
Oleg, as the proverb says "There is no smoke without the fire...". I had the the same conclusion as SerpentBlade about the ammo belt loading when shooting TB-3 from the gunpods of G-2 and from the inner wing 151/20 guns of FW A4. I know that the rate-of-fire of these guns is different, but no so much to explain why the wing of TB-3 cutting off after a 2-second burst of G-2 gunpods almost everytime, but with FW's guns I wasn't able to do the same with 2-3 2 sec. bursts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why then don't you use Fw190A6 (or A8, A9) and fire with outter cannons only? They are not syncronised, and also cowling machineguns will not fire at the same time. Those guns should, according to Oleg claims, be identical (outter on Fw190A6 and gunpods on Bf109G). Well, in the game they are far from that.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But I'm disagree with SerpentBlade about the G-6 and later Me109 nose guns ammo loading - they seems do have MG shells in their belts. But the rest of 151/20 (seems) doesn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif and that is really sad because I like FW190 very much... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are wrong. I tested it, nose Mg151/20 cannon for all Bf109s is the same. It also has 1APIT, 4HE and NO MG shells. Here are some pics, compare with my upper post:

1. Bf109G6
http://image34.webshots.com/35/7/76/51/256577651dljDCT_ph.jpg

2. Bf109G6 Late
http://image32.webshots.com/33/7/77/76/256577776oEgjIi_ph.jpg

and 3. Bf109G6/AS
http://image32.webshots.com/32/7/78/62/256577862gOIlOn_ph.jpg

Shells no. 4 and 5 are by visual effect, by damage effect, by visual "bloom" in arcade=1 mode identical to no. 2 and 3 and totaly different from shells no. 4 and no. 5 from gunpods.

I disagree with SerpentBlade only in one small thing: Gunpod sequence is 1xAPIT,2xHE,2xMG, but other Mg151/20 cannons don't have 1xAPIT,2xHE, but 1xAPIT,4xHE.

I will post also results of testing on flying targets.

OldMan____
01-22-2005, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
People, please.. it does not help to ress the same key after the developer said it is not like that. I am sure Oleg stated exactly how things are in game. But game code is much more complicated than most poeple think... I remember once when in http://www.taikodom.com.br when our guns where making different color effects when firing from different orders. It took time to discover was a missed initialization var. So do not try to explain everything in a software, based solely on real world stuff. Different visual effects may be happenign for different reasons.. that we do not even dream about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Old Man, I agree partially on what you said (I would agree fully if it happened from time to time), but then please explain me following:

(and BTW believe me, I have done upper and many other tests MANY times)

Why do we ALWAYS get different visual effect when hitting concrete runway with shells no.4 and 5?

Why do we ALWAYS get different visual effect when hitting flying aircraft with shells no.4 and 5?

Why do we ALWAYS get different "bloom" of arrows in arcade=1 mode? (one of them very similar of HE and the other very similar to MgFF MG shell)

Why do we ALMOST ALWAYS (at least 95%!) need way less (I mean 3 times less!!!) shells no.4 and 5 from gunpod compared to other Mg151/20 cannon's shells no.4 and 5, to shoot down an aircraft? C'mon, test it yourself.

(I have done a test where I was hitting AC only with Bf109G gunpod shells no.4 and 5, and I wasted other 3 away - time 1/4 and patience. Then I repeated it for outter cannons on Fw190A6, again I used only shells no.4 and 5 - difference is enormous)

You don't fly LW planes (including Bf109 with MG151/20 gunpods) much, do you? Like somebody above said, just spend 10 minutes in QMB playing with gunpods... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you payed more attention at other MG151 posts you would know I fly solely LW planes.. and never use Mk108. And I did probably the most extensive tests with MG151 anyone did.. including 180 planes shot down during comparative testst between 151, Shvaks and Hispanos. 20 times each cannon.. 10 times from ead 6 ..10 times from hish angles... all 3 times since made in 3 different targets.. Spitfires, Corsair and P47


I already stated.. that MG151 just have a bigger variance on damage probability and suffer from dead six thin surface hit. In the half of ny test I always shot from hihg angles and got almost same effectiveness for 151 and Shvak.. while hispano was still superior.


And I cannot repeat your test sine the slighest touch in the trigger fires at least 2 bullets.. at least here. But I do see the extra large blast effects in gondola cannons.. and this says NOTHING! As I stated.. probably a minor bug or glitch..

Gunner_361st
01-22-2005, 11:27 AM
"I already stated.. that MG151 just have a bigger variance on damage probability and suffer from dead six thin surface hit. In the half of ny test I always shot from hihg angles and got almost same effectiveness for 151 and Shvak.. while hispano was still superior." -Oldman

If thats the results you get from your tests, I'm not really surprised. The fact of the matter is, according to Tony Williams, a respected authority on 20th century firearms, the MG-151/20 and Shvak cannon, when looking at their respective scores, do have a very similar damage value WHEN German Minengeschoss shells are NOT used.

The issue is, 2x HE(M) Minengeschoss shells were standard in the german 5 round ammunition sequence, and there was apparently also a loadout where they constituted 3 of the 5 shells in the sequence.

What I want to know, straight from Oleg's mouth, is what the ammo sequence is for MG-151/20 cannon in FB/AEP/PF. He has already clearly stated the ammunition type and sequence for all planes that use this cannon are the same. Thats all well is good.

What I want to know is what is the ammunition load type and sequence in this cannon in the game. Oleg, could you answer this question for me please?

OldMan____
01-22-2005, 11:44 AM
Just keep in mind these assumptions are based in one model of damage calculation. Damage calculation is a science developed on observation and crfting of aproximation functions. There is no simple straight formulaes in the sense of formulaes we have on Rigid body dinamics.

You wil find out that different annalysis of destructiveness give different results. Especially mixing Kynatic energy damage with chemical one is a very complicated issue. All these calculations are GROSS GENERALIZATIONS.

I studied a lot of formulaes used in battleship armor penetration during WW2 while developing game I work on now. And each one gave different results.

tigertalon
01-22-2005, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
You don't fly LW planes (including Bf109 with MG151/20 gunpods) much, do you? Like somebody above said, just spend 10 minutes in QMB playing with gunpods... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you payed more attention at other MG151 posts you would know I fly solely LW planes.. and never use Mk108. And I did probably the most extensive tests with MG151 anyone did.. including 180 planes shot down during comparative testst between 151, Shvaks and Hispanos. 20 times each cannon.. 10 times from ead 6 ..10 times from hish angles... all 3 times since made in 3 different targets.. Spitfires, Corsair and P47 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OldMan, I appologise sincerely for provokative words above, and I respect the work you state above you have done, and experience you have gained during that. I also always fly LW and never use Mk103 or 108‚‚ā¨¬¶ (ok, from time to time in Bf110 against the bombers)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And I cannot repeat your test sine the slighest touch in the trigger fires at least 2 bullets.. at least here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cannot understand this. I have no problems‚‚ā¨¬¶ Set time to 1/4 and it should work‚‚ā¨¬¶ I think you can do it if you assign keyboard and use macros, as they simulate just a single, infinitely short press on a button. But I have no problems with my joysticks (MS Sidewinder Force Feedback pro 1 and MS Sidewinder pro 2). As a proof of what I'm saying I can post or mail you a track where I fire single shells one by one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But I do see the extra large blast effects in gondola cannons.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you also notice different ‚Ľbloom‚ę in arcade=1 mode? Did you also notice much greater (at least 2 to 3 times) destructive power of those shells? You claim you have done a lot of tests. In this case it will not be too hard for you to make some more, where you compare only outer Mg151/20 cannons on Fw190A6/8/9 with only gunpod Mg151/20 cannons on Bf109. You will see enormous difference. I can understand that it can happen one, two, three, ten times in a row, that by accident I need MUCH less ammo from gondolas than from outter cannons on Fw190 to down an opponent, but if it happens ALWAYS, and if we all can see different visual effect from gondolas when hitting aircraft or concrete surface or whatever else, and if we all can see different ‚Ľbloom‚ę in arcade mode, then I would be stupid not to assume that gondolas have different ammo load. There is not a single property that would be equal for those shells (shells no. 4 and 5 from gondolas and from outer Fw190A6/8/9 cannons)
Oh, no, maybe it is just me, being so **** lucky every time I fly with gondolas. If it turns out that ammo belts in all Mg151/20 are the same, I will, from now on, never fly without gondolas on a Bf109 on-line!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
and this says NOTHING! As I stated.. probably a minor bug or glitch.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, only thing I am saying is that ammo belt for Bf109 Mg151/20 gunpod IS DIFFERENT from the one used in all other Mg151/20 cannons. I don't know which is historically correct. In the latter, there are just 2 ammo types: A (tracer) and B in order: A-B-B-B-B-A-B-B-B-B‚‚ā¨¬¶ (at least I, after extensive testing, couldn't notice any difference between Bs) but in gondolas you also have C type: A-B-B-C-C-A-B-B-C-C‚‚ā¨¬¶. and those C are a reall punch, that is why I assumed those are the minengeschoss shells. And if destructive power of Bf109G/K Mg151/20 gondolas is comparable with TWIN Fw190 Mg151/20 gondolas, I would not be so sure it is just a minor bug or glitch.

Ok, I'm off now, to make some tests on flying targets. I will post results.

And, I would just like to add that I'm not in favor of idea that we would get the belt that is in gondola, in every Mg151/20 cannon. I would just like it to be correct and, as Oleg said, the same in all Mg151/cannons, whichever it is.

OldMan____
01-22-2005, 05:03 PM
Think you did not get my point. I agree that it seems more powerfull when in gondola pods. But this might be something else than loadout. You know many people states that corsair 6 .50 do more damage than p51 same 6 guns. I never saw this .50 effect.. but many guys state it is true. Maybe there is something else we can‚¬īt know. Maybe these extra BOOM effect are exactly because we hit something else than empity space inside plane? I really don‚¬īt know.

I would never go against the developer when it says they are identical, since as a developer I know how hard it is for non programmers to understand that many things are not intentional..and just putting exactly same code piece working in two different situations might not get same results always. So I think it might be something else.


Also something very important is to pay attention on distance when making tests. At &lt;300 m the shvak are stronger than mg151/20. At 200 meters there is no competition. But at 400 metsr the Mg151/20 is stronger. That is cause of 151/20 damage based on chemicals.


Also never comapare with planes with 2 of same weapon. Since for example mig3 shvak has a much more effective weapon positioning than fw190a outer cannons for example. So a single double hit by a mig3 will cut almost any fighter wing.. but you will get some time to hit 2 151/20 bullets so close to each other in a enemy wing.

Always use single weapon planes.

SerpentBlade
01-22-2005, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
I disagree with SerpentBlade only in one small thing: Gunpod sequence is 1xAPIT,2xHE,2xMG, but other Mg151/20 cannons don't have 1xAPIT,2xHE, but 1xAPIT,4xHE.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe you are RIGHT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-22-2005, 06:00 PM
I am sure that Old Man knows the details but a lot of you seem to have this idea that
explosives are some sort of magic that should work every time.

MG shells are thin wall HE. Same basic design as used in larger cannon and bombs for
anti-personnel and against soft targets. Fact is that against hardened targets like
armor and concrete, thinwall HE is much less effective. One reason being that thinwall
HE works by holding the detonation in while the shell itself expands up to 1.5x size.
The delay and holding of pressure is necessary for buildup to complete, high order
detonantion. High order detonation generates, inside the shell, pressures of up to
700 tons psi and temperatures 3000 to 4500 F in the case of modern explosives. That
is inside the shell if the shell remains intact. If a thinwall shell or bomb strikes
a hardened surface it may deform the casing or fuze and be unable to achieve high
order detonation resulting in a dud or much less blast.

Even a few mm of armor is enough to dent a shell. Or an engine block or any frame
member made of T6 heat treated aluminum (yes, it is as hard as steel). So will concrete.

There is a reason why gunners don't load HE going after hard targets.

MG works best on some things only, just as AP, just as fragment.

No magic. No every time it should do 100% more, etc.

Oleg has better material on all that when I sent to him years ago. Wouldn't it be funny
if the part that checks the strikes took what was struck and by what into consideration
instead of blindly adding 1 + 1? Don't look now but from development updates and Oleg
posts long ago, it does.

Generalizations are all very nice, but only in a general sort of way.

tigertalon
01-22-2005, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Think you did not get my point. I agree that it seems more powerfull when in gondola pods. But this might be something else than loadout. You know many people states that corsair 6 .50 do more damage than p51 same 6 guns. I never saw this .50 effect.. but many guys state it is true. Maybe there is something else we can‚¬īt know. Maybe these extra BOOM effect are exactly because we hit something else than empity space inside plane? I really don‚¬īt know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, repeating it for the very last time: Isn't it strange, that the difference happens ALWAYS with exactly 4th and 5th shell in a Mg151/20 sequence, if we start counting from the tracer? The first 3 shells are always equal. So what else on Earth could it possibly be?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also never comapare with planes with 2 of same weapon. Since for example mig3 shvak has a much more effective weapon positioning than fw190a outer cannons for example. So a single double hit by a mig3 will cut almost any fighter wing.. but you will get some time to hit 2 151/20 bullets so close to each other in a enemy wing.

Always use single weapon planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree with you completely, this is exactly why I do not use engine mounted Mg151/20 to compare it with gondola. I choose Fw190A6 exactly because its outer cannon has the most similar position to gondola cannon on Bf109! Of course I could use twin Mg151/20 in the nose of Bf110, and, contraty to what you said, gunpods (not way of converge distance) on Bf109 will still be WAY more effective than twin Mg151/20 in the nose of Bf110.

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2005, 03:51 AM
1st three shells equal. One API and 2 HE fragmenting.

And in those screenshots, the differences noted in 4 & 5 are not so clear.
Smoke will be rising and spreading quickly from time of impact. There is
also angle of view differences each impact. I am not so convinced but not
totally unconvinced... it is like bad photos I see.
Does arcade show arrows for ground hits?

tigertalon
01-23-2005, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
1st three shells equal. One API and 2 HE fragmenting.

And in those screenshots, the differences noted in 4 & 5 are not so clear.
Smoke will be rising and spreading quickly from time of impact. There is
also angle of view differences each impact. I am not so convinced but not
totally unconvinced... it is like bad photos I see.
Does arcade show arrows for ground hits? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, WWMaxGunz

well, try it out yourself and see it from any angle you want. From any angle you see it, shells no 4 and 5 are different to shells no 1,2,3. It is also different when hitting water. I'm not sure about arcade mode showing arrows for ground impacts, but I'm affraid it doesn't. I will try, however.

tigertalon
01-23-2005, 06:13 AM
Hello guys

I made some tests on flying target in arcade=1 mode. Target was always (empty) Me323, my planes were Bf109G2 + Mg151/20 gunpods (of course I was using ONLY gunpods), and comparative Fw190A6, where I used ONLY outer Mg151/20 cannons (because position of those cannons are most similar IMO). I always tried to come as close as possible, and always aimed at the very same spot on Me323. Me323 was friendly, so it did not take evasive maneuvers. I was always using only single pair of shells (from each cannon one shell), and for each shot I took fresh new undamaged Me323 as a target. Convergence was set to 1000m so hits were as far as possible so the result is more visible. I think (hope) that we all agree that in Mg151/20 there are 4 invisible shells after each tracer, so all together 5, and then the sequence starts repeating. I counted the shells from the tracer on, so tracer is number 1. I have repeated those tests for 5 times for each shell! The result was always the same (meaning that it NEVER happened, that once 3. shell would cause little explosion, and other time just piercethrough or a large explosion).

The results are:

First shell from Bf109G2 Mg151/20 gunpod:
http://image34.webshots.com/35/3/87/29/257238729trmmRH_ph.jpg

First shell from outter Fw190A6 Mg151/20 cannon:
http://image28.webshots.com/28/4/40/89/257244089qIhkAC_ph.jpg

They both just pierce through the target without any explosion. NO DIFFERENCE.

Second shell from Bf109G2 Mg151/20 gunpod:
http://image34.webshots.com/35/4/2/36/257240236xkaRBB_ph.jpg

Second shell from outter Fw190A6 Mg151/20 cannon:
http://image30.webshots.com/31/4/48/33/257244833ALHitk_ph.jpg

They both induce a small explosion. NO DIFFERENCE.

Third shell from Bf109G2 Mg151/20 gunpod:
http://image30.webshots.com/30/4/9/84/257240984vsGmRE_ph.jpg

Third shell from outter Fw190A6 Mg151/20 cannon:
http://image34.webshots.com/35/4/54/72/257245472eHdckC_ph.jpg

They both induce small explosion. NO DIFFERENCE.

Fourth shell from Bf109G2 Mg151/20 gunpod:
http://image28.webshots.com/29/4/16/91/257241691fHwLaR_ph.jpg

Fourth shell from outter Fw190A6 Mg151/20 cannon:
http://image30.webshots.com/30/4/65/16/257246516QJOROA_ph.jpg

Shells from gunpods induce LARGE explosion, while those from Fw190 pierce through without explosion. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Fifth shell from Bf109G2 Mg151/20 gunpod:
http://image28.webshots.com/28/4/25/56/257242556pHtGyw_ph.jpg

Fifth shell from outter Fw190A6 Mg151/20 cannon:
http://image28.webshots.com/29/4/72/68/257247268UfETEH_ph.jpg

Shells from gunpods induce LARGE explosion, while those from Fw190 induce small explosion. MEDIUM DIFFERENCE!

For refference I tried the single Mg151/20 cannon on Bf109G2:
http://image32.webshots.com/32/8/50/21/257485021CfUbWX_ph.jpg



Then I tried also cannons on He162 here: (those shells were all obviously fired in one burst ‚‚ā¨" you can see that obviously again sequence is the same as with outer cannons as there are small explosions with shells no. 2, 3, 5 and just a piercethrough with shells 1 and 4)
http://image28.webshots.com/28/6/99/17/257469917zifgxB_ph.jpg

Conclusion: Shells no.4 and no.5 in gunpods obviously are not of the same type as those in outer cannons. We can see that sequence in gunpods is A-B-B-C-C, while that in outter cannons is A-B-B-A-B. Let me repeat one more time: I have done this test 5 times for each of 5 shells and THE RESULT WAS ALWAYS THE SAME (which cannot be a coincidence)!

We can just ASSUME that C shells in gunpods are minengeschoss shells, which are missing in outer Mg151/20 cannons.

Only my assumption: Whenever cannon is fired, program checks, which shell should be fired. It should take sequence: A-B-B-C-C-‚‚ā¨¬¶ and it does, but ONLY in gunpods. But for unknown reason when firing with other Mg151/20 cannons, at shell 4 it just resets itself, starting with no.1 again, followed by no.2, then it resets again (because one 5-shell step is over).

I know that in this case there should also be tracer at 4th place, which isn't. But in code it is probably like that, that only 1.,6.,11., etc. shells are tracers, so 4 is not.

Let me just say that I only tested following Mg151/20 cannons: Bf109G2,G6,G6late,G6/AS - engine mounted cannon AND 20mm gunpods, Bf110 (pair in the nose together with 2xMk108), Bf110 gunpod, Fw190A6 outer, Fw190A8 2xtwinMg151/20 gunpod, He162. C shells are only in Bf109 gunpod.

I will also e-mail Oleg about this.

anarchy52
01-23-2005, 04:37 PM
bump

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2005, 06:09 PM
Tigertalon --- that is as convincing to me as anything.

Looks like the pods are ABBCCABBCC... and the others are ABBABBABB...

Same code for guns but maybe different "code" guns synchronized and unsynchronized,
more than one 151/20?

I saw none of the big orange flashes there either, what I take to be incendiary flash.
Maybe only get that if the burst is outside.

tigertalon
01-24-2005, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Tigertalon --- that is as convincing to me as anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, sorry, now I logged on on different computer (in office) and I see that you probably cannot see the pictures, because I can't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif. I will try different server with enabled external linking.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Looks like the pods are ABBCCABBCC... and the others are ABBABBABB... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, gunpods are ABBCC-ABBCC-... all others Mg151/20s are ABBAB-ABBAB-ABBAB-... (not necessarily starting in this order)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Same code for guns but maybe different "code" guns synchronized and unsynchronized,
more than one 151/20? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I tried ONLY unsynchronised guns (compared Bf109 gunpods and outer cannons on Fw190A6), then I also tried He162, Bf110 (nose and gunpod), all versions of Bf109 nose cannon and gunpods, Fw190A8/9 outer cannons. I tested NO synchronised weapons. C type of shell is only in Bf109 gunpods.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I saw none of the big orange flashes there either, what I take to be incendiary flash.
Maybe only get that if the burst is outside. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the big orange flash appears ONLY with gunpod shells no4 and 5, so type C, which is missing everywhere else. They also cause the biggest "bloom" in arcade mode - it could be seen clearly on upper pictures. It is just my assumption those are minengeschoss rounds and I may be wrong about that.

WWMaxGunz
01-24-2005, 05:52 AM
I hope you understand that my last post, I had seen the pictures and they looked good.
I was not being sarcastic.

I did only see 5 shot sets however so ABBAB makes me wonder if 12 shots in a row would
get ABBABBABBABB given the way the sim does ammo mixes, ABB then A looks like starting a
new cycle of 3 shot mix.

For what you have, even dud MG hits (failed fuze from angle or other strike reason) are
counted out because the last B hit did go off and was not MG thought #4 with one arrow
could have been a dud hit... that would not be consistant anyway so your pictures are
great to have and I hope Oleg sees.

I also wonder if not firing for so many seconds or so few may reset the mix back to first
ammo type. Code -can- be like that. You gotta be tricky but I think you are up to it.

The code is a team effort. What are the chances Oleg coded the guns part or filled in the
data which is where? Very small to nothing I think. So when questions are asked, he is
the boss who turns to the ones who did that part and gets the answer back. By the time
the question is heard, it may mean slightly different anyway. And code... the things that
make the behaviour "wrong" are more often not the direct things you could name and look at
but something 2 or 3 steps away. Pictures like these however! Let them find out why when
they duplicate the results, not quick look or remember where someone says problem is. The
pictures show a problem is somewhere, that should be enough.

JG54_Arnie
01-24-2005, 06:46 AM
Looks good Tigertalon! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Good job on that test!

The only way I could get your pictures to work is to copy their link into a new window and do that for all of them and then to reload this page, so its something with indirect linking that is your problem here it seems.

tigertalon
01-24-2005, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
Looks good Tigertalon! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Good job on that test!

The only way I could get your pictures to work is to copy their link into a new window and do that for all of them and then to reload this page, so its something with indirect linking that is your problem here it seems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thnx Arnie. I will try to upload to permitted indirect linkign in the future.

Heh, can you imagine how would a P-39 in your sig look like if you would have the same cannons on your Fw190 as they are in Bf109 gondolas?

"P-39? What P-39???" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jurinko
01-24-2005, 08:11 AM
good pics tt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oleeeeg!!

faustnik
01-24-2005, 10:02 AM
Holy cr*p. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif I tried the Bf109 wing gondolas. If I can payoff some of the ground crew to swap those out for the guns in my Fw190, some serious damage is going to be done. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Impressive pair of minengebombs those gunpods shoot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

anarchy52
01-24-2005, 11:13 AM
With the risk of being labeled as lunatic I ask you to do a test:

TEST A
1) Start FB, select 109G2 and shoot a bunch of B-25s, LaGG-3 and P-47
2) Without exiting the game select Focke Wulf A6 and repeat the test

TEST B
3) Now exit FB and start it again
4) Now choose 190 A6 and repeat step 2) from TEST A (shoot a bunch of planes with 190A6)

Did You notice anything?

NorrisMcWhirter
01-24-2005, 12:50 PM
Hi,

Very nice work; those pictures say a thousand words.

Regards,
Norris

JG54_Arnie
01-24-2005, 02:36 PM
http://home.student.utwente.nl/a.j.vansteenwijk/IL2/boomie.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

tigertalon
01-24-2005, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
http://home.student.utwente.nl/a.j.vansteenwijk/IL2/boomie.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLMAO

Atzebrueck
01-24-2005, 03:04 PM
Thx for your work. That definately has to be fixed.

JG7_Rall
01-24-2005, 03:38 PM
Awesome tests! Now we need Oleg to acknowledge this and fix our 20mm's! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-24-2005, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
Well, the big orange flash appears ONLY with gunpod shells no4 and 5, so type C, which is missing everywhere else. They also cause the biggest "bloom" in arcade mode - it could be seen clearly on upper pictures. It is just my assumption those are minengeschoss rounds and I may be wrong about that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pictures linked and showed for me fine since Sunday. Same pictures as now.
Your post Sunday January 23 2005 05:13 (my time?)
None of those pictures at all shows big orange explosion, not even the 7th and 9th
which are the ones with gunpod MG shell hits.
Is my computer on drugs? Who else sees them and is not schuckin me?

Only times I've seen shells make the orange cloud explosions in arcade is with one arrow.
Planes make bigger orange blooms, but easy to tell apart.

tigertalon
01-24-2005, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

The pictures linked and showed for me fine since Sunday. Same pictures as now.
Your post Sunday January 23 2005 05:13 (my time?)
None of those pictures at all shows big orange explosion, not even the 7th and 9th
which are the ones with gunpod MG shell hits.
Is my computer on drugs? Who else sees them and is not schuckin me?

Only times I've seen shells make the orange cloud explosions in arcade is with one arrow.
Planes make bigger orange blooms, but easy to tell apart. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have taken screenshots after a few seconds, where there were no more debris and smoke, just that the arrows are be more visible. Gunpods shells no. 4 and 5 (pictures 7 and 9) do big orange explosions.

tigertalon
01-25-2005, 05:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
With the risk of being labeled as lunatic I ask you to do a test:

TEST A
1) Start FB, select 109G2 and shoot a bunch of B-25s, LaGG-3 and P-47
2) Without exiting the game select Focke Wulf A6 and repeat the test

TEST B
3) Now exit FB and start it again
4) Now choose 190 A6 and repeat step 2) from TEST A (shoot a bunch of planes with 190A6)

Did You notice anything? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tried it, but I saw no difference in the power of outboard Fw190 cannons... What exactly do you think we should see?

And the "code" is sometimes so tricky, that it is imperative to do "lunatic" things in order to find a bug... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Matz0r
01-25-2005, 05:48 AM
Having tested the damage by MG151 gondolas vs FW190A6 wing cannons several times against many aircrafts, I no longer doubt they differ in damage - not only in visual. Interesting, if the code is the same how can they be?

anarchy52
01-25-2005, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
With the risk of being labeled as lunatic I ask you to do a test:

TEST A
1) Start FB, select 109G2 and shoot a bunch of B-25s, LaGG-3 and P-47
2) Without exiting the game select Focke Wulf A6 and repeat the test

TEST B
3) Now exit FB and start it again
4) Now choose 190 A6 and repeat step 2) from TEST A (shoot a bunch of planes with 190A6)

Did You notice anything? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tried it, but I saw no difference in the power of outboard Fw190 cannons... What exactly do you think we should see?

And the "code" is sometimes so tricky, that it is imperative to do "lunatic" things in order to find a bug... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I used 4 LaGG-3, 4 P-47 and 4 B-25 friendlies because of their outstanding toughness. I fired from dead 6.
In test A with gondolas I was breaking wings of LaGGs and setting them on fire, torching B-25 and breaking their wings with short bursts. similar with P-47. Then I chose FW190A6 and let loose the four cannons. To my surprise with surprisingly good results. I might have scored accidentally lucky shots.

Then I closed the game and started it again, choosing FW-190. Fired on LaGGs - nice fireworks but no flame no smoke no wings falling off, racking P-47s no tails falling off no wings breaking no fires, no loss of control...the MG151/20 as we know it.

I might be wrong because I did not have time to test it extensivelly to come up with numbers but 190A6 felt subjectively very different in B compared to A...
I know it sounds crazy...I do not know if test is repeatable. I will attempt to repeat it as soon as I find some time.

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2005, 07:00 AM
The code is the same per gun... fact.

But a *program* is code +plus+ data.

Data would be 'what plane' and 'what gun', 'what shell', etc.

Frankly, I am amazed there would be more than one code for all guns if there is!
Maybe something about saving speed? More like one data set per gun.

Anyway if there is a problem where the data gets loaded/initialized or some other
routine writes over that data then anomalies happen. No amount of simple checks
to see the code or data will tell of that, only debugging to find when, where and
why there is a problem.

I think we all owe these guys for finding this out and sticking with it. Hopefully
1C takes a better look soon enough to fix it before the patches run out.
Just maybe they have been cranking the MG rounds up and up to try and fix things so
I hope they check those out too and we don't have 151/20 for 3 shots and 151/50's
for the next 2!

Jaws2002
01-25-2005, 08:04 AM
Great find guys. I just hope 1c will look into it. For some time now if i have a chance to chose between A5 and A6 i go for the A5. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
those MG/FF make a difference.
Ah btw, to test the synchronized MG151/20 cannons on the FW 190 use the long range jabo FW 190 A5/6 U2. it has only the synchronized canons, no outer Mg151/20, and more important no machine guns.

Ruy Horta
01-25-2005, 08:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Steven:
we've already tested all kinds of aircraft with MG151/20
Arcade=1 and 1/4 game speed,firing 1 round each time.
and only the mg151/20 pod for the BF109G/K have MG ammuniation.
APITx1 + HEx2 + MGx2
All the other's only have APITx1 + HEx2 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slightly off topic, but please do not use MG to describe Minengeschoß (M-Geschoß), since MG already means Machine Gun or Maschinengewehr.

APIT, HE and HET are all english, so MG would mean Machine Gun if applied correctly within context.

M-Geschoß has been translated to Mine shell, but I do not have my reference material here (at work) to give a more correct english anachronim.

It may be nitpicking, but still...

EDIT:

Found M-Projectile (lit. M-Geschoß) and HE, however that would lead to misunderstandings when comparing with regular HE rounds. So one way to look at it would be to call this HEM or HE-M.

arrow80
01-25-2005, 09:28 AM
well my tests finished similarly. In five trials I was able to thrash a ME 323 always in a single pass with Mg 151/20 gunpods mounted on G6. After this I tried 5 times FW 190 A6 - U2 and from 5 trials I was able to kill the 323 only 3 times, other trials left it flying even after I emptied my whole amno into it...It felt like shooting with amno: 1xAPIT, 2xHE, 2x PT (paintball)

JG54_Steven
01-25-2005, 11:30 AM
Re: Ruy Horta
Someone told me that the HE round called MG,so... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Thank you anyway
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2005, 12:52 PM
Find the Guns and Ammo Table from Oleg... it says MG.
Best to refer to that by a name he knows?

P-38 is big airplane with two engines.
It is also a very small can opener for c-rations.
There is M-60 tank and M-60 machinegun.

MG is also for Maddox Games.

pain.......
01-26-2005, 01:59 AM
well, I just tested the dual mg-151/20 pods and guese what, no HEM rounds in there also.
I dont have time to take pics and post them because of exams, but I'm sure someone will confirm it after they test it also.

it appears the dual 20 mm pod only kils because of large quantity of HE shells is being shot at same location.

edit. I tested it with Fw-190A9 + dual MG151 pods only

anarchy52
01-26-2005, 02:57 AM
bump!
So what we need now is Oleg's opinion on the matter in light of new evidence.

Ruy Horta
01-26-2005, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Steven:
Re: Ruy Horta
Someone told me that the HE round called MG,so... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Thank you anyway
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, was nitpicking...

But HE-M as in "High Explosive - Mine" does look alright, doesn't it?!

I've asked Tony Williams the gun/ammo guru what he thinks, but his answer will most likely be HE - High Explosive.

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2005, 06:32 AM
When it's artillery and tank shells the thinwall explosive shells are commonly called HE.
But so is the fragment explosive. HE-blast/HE-concussion vs HE-fragment/Shrapnel. All
as opposed to HEAT, HEAP, HEI/Incendiary and various AP/APDS types.

Fun reading is the FAS pages, search on 'Bombs for Beginners' and work that site back and
forth, then there's links.

faustnik
01-26-2005, 11:19 AM
I'd sure like to read an official answer on this question please 1C.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Mg151gunpods, the Holy Grail of German 20mm found? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ruy Horta
01-26-2005, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
When it's artillery and tank shells the thinwall explosive shells are commonly called HE.
But so is the fragment explosive. HE-blast/HE-concussion vs HE-fragment/Shrapnel. All
as opposed to HEAT, HEAP, HEI/Incendiary and various AP/APDS types. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately there is no difference between regular High Explosive rounds and Mine Shell when using anachronims (at least when discussing WW2 a/c ammo), both are simply HE.

I think Tony Williams gave a nice answer when he described them as HE(M). It has the orthodox HE description, yet the M within parethesis somehow looks clear and elegant at the same.

between

HE
HEM
HE-M
HE(M)

HE(M) looks best http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

OTOH, HE-mine could be used judged by your example...

Bussard_1
01-26-2005, 07:03 PM
Gentlemen,
Excellent work and great find!
Faustnik,
The way I see it there are two options,either; Oleg and his crew are busy at this moment debugging MG151/20 code and including HE-(M)rounds as 4 & 5.
or Oleg has spoken on page 3,
-----------------------------
That to stop any other such speeches I need to tell that in our code is only one model of MG151/20 with only one type of ammo load. Please read twice.
By other words we have one cannon type in code and place it on different aircraft. the diferences in this case will be only in amount of shells for the selected aircraft, but the cannon and ammo load types will be one the same... So MG151/20 is one the same on all Bf109s, FW190, etc...

Simply other is impossible in code.
---------------------------------
and we're all howling at the moon.
I hope I'm wrong on the moon howling side of things.

Pauke,
Bussard

faustnik
01-26-2005, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bussard_1:

and we're all howling at the moon.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, it is a full moon out, and I feel like I have even more back hair than normal. I think you're right about the howling exercise, but, it has been a fun one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

karost
01-27-2005, 02:47 AM
Gentlemen,

I would like to say "thank you" for all of you who contribute your time for knowledge, information, idea, gun cam, a lot of test, pilot stories from many country


How long it take for .50 to put to the right place compare to 151/20?
Where is information they use for coding this gun?

IMHO, is the developer who makes this game seem trying to cheating a history for a German stuff? (I hope I‚‚ā¨ôm wrong about this) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I believe 90% of our friends here who help hand by hand to put 151/20 to the right are not a German and I wonder why? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BOB still face the same problem like this?

IL2 still are my a good sim/game and I am happy to read anything about a true story about wwii air-combat knowledge

151/20 story will be a long story for over three year and it's seem more and more people will come to join this discovery

Regards

Karost

Glen44
01-27-2005, 03:52 AM
mg151/20 is Luftwaffe's "main" gun,if there is sth. wrong with mg151/20,50% IL2er will become lame. MK108? That's not a candy for VVS fighters,but for B17,B24.

anarchy52
01-27-2005, 08:32 AM
Bump for Oleg's attention

anarchy52
01-27-2005, 03:21 PM
so?

NorrisMcWhirter
01-27-2005, 05:02 PM
bump

anarchy52
01-27-2005, 05:45 PM
Maybe if someone would mail those screenshots and tracks to 1C?

pain.......
01-28-2005, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:


I spent all night at this... conclusion... it`s more DM related then guns themselves. Faust, you were going to do the same, what`s your opinion? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to PM you about this because I didn't feel like getting torched. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

From one test session:

The DM for the Allied planes is more resistant to 20mm fire than the LW planes. Spitfires can be killed with a good wing root hit, but, can soak up rediculous amounts of 20mm fire across the rest of the wing and fusalage. There might be some missing elements of the DM like the P-63. Since this is a very common plane on many servers, it may be the cause of a lot of Mg151 questions.

The Yak9 is very vulnerable to 20mm fire. Its wings snap like twigs.

The P-51 is very vulnerable to engine hits, the rest of the fusalage is very tough.

The P47 is similar to the P-51, its engine is vulnerable, its structure is super tough.

The Fw190 is VERY vulnerable to 20mm fire. One or 2 rounds to the fusalage result in fire. One hit to the wing will cause radical lift loss or complete fuel loss.

Bf109s are paper planes. The are FUBAR when hit with 20mm.

THIS IS FROM ONE NIGHT OF TESTING ONLY. IT IS NOT CONFIRMED FACT. MUCH MORE TESTING IS NEEDED TO DRAW ANY USEFUL CONCLUSION. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well I spent some time testing also and your conclusions are wrong IMO.
I did the same test as u did and came to the same conclusion as u when firing with outboard mg151 in Fw A6 A8 and A9 models. but I did the same test when flying spitfire and the results are that I snap off wings a lot easier with the hispano's while shooting at randon places on the wing. there is no need to aim for wingroots like when firing with a 151. I also did the same test with I-16 and it's Shvak and came to same conclusion, wings come off easier even when shooting at randon wing sections.

so your conclusion about it being damage model related is wrong.
your whole test method was wrong from the beginning ( testing destructive power of a cannon who's destructive power is questioned in the first place with-out having a diffrent cannon to compare it against )

out!

tigertalon
01-28-2005, 03:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pain.......:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:


I spent all night at this... conclusion... it`s more DM related then guns themselves. Faust, you were going to do the same, what`s your opinion? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to PM you about this because I didn't feel like getting torched. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

From one test session:

The DM for the Allied planes is more resistant to 20mm fire than the LW planes. Spitfires can be killed with a good wing root hit, but, can soak up rediculous amounts of 20mm fire across the rest of the wing and fusalage. There might be some missing elements of the DM like the P-63. Since this is a very common plane on many servers, it may be the cause of a lot of Mg151 questions.

The Yak9 is very vulnerable to 20mm fire. Its wings snap like twigs.

The P-51 is very vulnerable to engine hits, the rest of the fusalage is very tough.

The P47 is similar to the P-51, its engine is vulnerable, its structure is super tough.

The Fw190 is VERY vulnerable to 20mm fire. One or 2 rounds to the fusalage result in fire. One hit to the wing will cause radical lift loss or complete fuel loss.

Bf109s are paper planes. The are FUBAR when hit with 20mm.

THIS IS FROM ONE NIGHT OF TESTING ONLY. IT IS NOT CONFIRMED FACT. MUCH MORE TESTING IS NEEDED TO DRAW ANY USEFUL CONCLUSION. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well I spent some time testing also and your conclusions are wrong IMO.
I did the same test as u did and came to the same conclusion as u when firing with outboard mg151 in Fw A6 A8 and A9 models. but I did the same test when flying spitfire and the results are that I snap off wings a lot easier with the hispano's while shooting at randon places on the wing. there is no need to aim for wingroots like when firing with a 151. I also did the same test with I-16 and it's Shvak and came to same conclusion, wings come off easier even when shooting at randon wing sections.

so your conclusion about it being damage model related is wrong.
your whole test method was wrong from the beginning ( testing destructive power of a cannon who's destructive power is questioned in the first place with-out having a diffrent cannon to compare it against )

out! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you pain.... but I simply cannot understand, why don't you guys test Bf109 gondolas Mg151/20 versus Fw190A6/8/9 outboard cannons (which should be the same) on the same target (stang, spit or whatever you want), like I did on Me323? This gives you a clear proof that it has to be something connected with a cannon, not a target.

pain.......
01-28-2005, 09:36 AM
I did test that tiger and I absolutly agree with your previous posted thought about the built in 151 in the Fw and Bf nose miss the HEM round for some reason.

my last post was about Faustniks and Ivan's test method and how my test proves there test is done wrong.

I cant believe non of the dev team is giving any atention in this post since it is a major bug if it's true, and by the look of the evidence it seems true.
atleast it is worth there time to investigate this since the evidence is so overwelming but by there lack of intrest or response I'm afraid this will be shoved away. wich we should not allow to happen as a community IMO.
I'll keep writing e-mails till they get sick of it.

WWMaxGunz
01-28-2005, 09:50 AM
pain... (those dots mean 'in' 'the' '****')

Why you bring up a post from way back in the thread before Tiger showed his screen pics
and start a fight? Minds change, people learn, threads EVOLVE. And then people like
you who don't follow or maybe bother to read come in do things like that?

How about you ask Ivan and Faustnik if they still feel the same instead of telling them
they are full of it? I don't see them arguing Tigers' conclusions, do you? Not at all.

pain.......
01-28-2005, 10:06 AM
first of all, if u want to get insultive then I can start also,

second this thread from way back is only 1 week old

third some of us have an actual real life and dont spend all there time posting at forums and flying this game ( ****, did I get insultive )

last: I have worked in the media sector and there, if u wrote something wich was untrue or wrong u posted a new message where u rectified your thoughts or claims. I read all messages in this thread because it was one of the few that intrested me and have seen no such message from either hence my post about them being wrong.
I'm not looking for a fight but am using my right as a customer to post my thoughts so things will improve in this game.

faustnik
01-28-2005, 10:24 AM
Mr. Pain,

Ivan and I did not post anything that was "untrue or wrong". We compared DMs of various aircraft and posted our impressions of those comparisons. Ivan had an idea, I examined it and dicovered that Ivan's idea had some merit.

Please post exactly what I posted that was "wrong".

Badsight.
01-28-2005, 12:49 PM
soooo , the NOSE 151/20 in Bf's is missing the most explosive round ?

& that round is present in the 151/20 wing cannon option ?

faustnik
01-28-2005, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
soooo , the _NOSE_ 151/20 in Bf's is missing the most explosive round ?

& that round is present in the 151/20 wing cannon option ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only in the 109 wing gun pods Badsight.

arrow80
01-28-2005, 01:12 PM
Badsight: exactly, but it's not only the nose gun, but in fact also wing mounted mg151/20 in FW's Only the gunpods really work...

Badsight.
01-28-2005, 03:50 PM
it explains a LOT

how long has it been ? , FB released 2002 ?

pain.......
01-28-2005, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Mr. Pain,


Please post exactly what I posted that was "wrong". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you where wrong to conclude that the shooting down allied planes with onboard 151 cannon was only damage model related. because thats what u and ivan said in your posts.

"The DM for the Allied planes is more resistant to 20mm fire than the LW planes."

this is what u said, it's only partially true, they are more resistent to 151 20MM, but they fall apart as easy as Fw and Bf's do when fired on by hispano's or Shvaks.

faustnik
01-28-2005, 11:27 PM
Test my conclusions on DM and see what you come up with. I also told Ivan that I still think there is an issue with the Mg151, or did you miss that? I'm not going to lie just to make a point, I listened to Ivan and partially agreed with him.

Hetzer_II
01-29-2005, 12:29 AM
Maybe Oleg should give us some feedback if he/his crew is searching for something in this issue (searching in code)or if he still believes that it is impossible and we are wrong as always....

;-)

Greets

quiet_man
01-29-2005, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Test my conclusions on DM and see what you come up with. I also told Ivan that I still think there is an issue with the Mg151, or did you miss that? I'm not going to lie just to make a point, I listened to Ivan and partially agreed with him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just read this thread the first time

If you go back to page 1 and carefully read the first posts you will see that this thread is about:
difference between FIX INSTALLED MG151 and GUNPOD MG151

and SerpentBlade shows perfect evidence that there is a difference that has nothing to do with DM

In fact crazyivan1970 started to "SPAM" this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif with info from youre discussion

youre tests are valid but have nothing to do with this thread
maybe ivan should get a warning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regards,
quiet_man

faustnik
01-29-2005, 01:53 PM
Yes, I see what you are saying Quiet Man, the Mg151 standard mount vs. gun pods is a seperate issue. Discussions from other threads got carried over, but, there was no deliberate attempt to spam.

tolwyn.com
01-29-2005, 06:54 PM
Mr. Pain.
Please see the PF manual.

Look for Faustnik's name. It's there.

He cares about the game and the accuracy of the representation of the parts and pieces that make up the sim.

He's hardly biased.
Of course, you being in the media kind of partly accounts for your tone.

Atzebrueck
01-30-2005, 06:31 AM
bump
(I just want to see my D9 get some real 20mm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

pain.......
01-30-2005, 08:09 AM
I'll bump for that atze,

Franzen
01-30-2005, 09:19 AM
you guyz are missing a very important fact. The nose cannon is closer to the propeller than the wing cannons. Therefore the wind created by the propeller slows down the bullet giving it less punch. If this weren`t a fact Oleg would have no reason to not fix the nose cannons, right Oleg. Oleg,........Oleg,.......are you there to support my finding?

Fritz Franzen

WB_Outlaw
01-30-2005, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franzen:
you guyz are missing a very important fact. The nose cannon is closer to the propeller than the wing cannons. Therefore the wind created by the propeller slows down the bullet giving it less punch. If this weren`t a fact Oleg would have no reason to not fix the nose cannons, right Oleg. Oleg,........Oleg,.......are you there to support my finding?

Fritz Franzen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have any info to back this claim up? The muzzle of the cannon is forward of the prop disk and the round is only in the proximity of the aerodynamic effects of the prop for a VERY short time.

-Outlaw.

Willey
01-30-2005, 11:53 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

smoub73
01-30-2005, 01:16 PM
http://gamemax.com/IL2/info.html (http://www.idpz.net/smoub/curieux/home.fr)

Franzen
01-30-2005, 01:42 PM
It was just a little joke with some added sarcasm Outlaw. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif My guess is that if Oleg does make a patch to resolve this issue it will be to weaken the gunpods and then no one can complain about the inequality.

I must admit that I know very little about this issue but after reading the posts it seems there is a lot of validity. I make this assumption based on the evidence provided but more on the opinions of the posters. Most of these guyz know a lot about it and they all seem to agree. Now it`s just a matter of waiting to see what is done, if anything.

I don`t mean any disrespect to Oleg and the crew. After all, they brought us a great game/sim which inturn created a really interesting community but this issue seems very logical to solve.

Oleg and the crew can easily test this for themselves in as short a time as 1 day and either post an answer to show why everyone is wrong or post an approximate date for a new patch, if a patch is possible. How old is this thread? It‚¬īs Oleg`s responsibility. After being part of this community and watching these sort of issues come and go I must admit my faith is weak. Details matter but maybe not to all.

Now, I sits here and waits. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz Franzen

arrow80
01-30-2005, 02:50 PM
Well I hope that some of the devs will put some attention to this topic and they won't end up with the statement, that there is only one model for all mg151/20 and this can't be wrong...

NorrisMcWhirter
01-30-2005, 02:53 PM
Hi,

I do hope your fears are unfounded, Franzen. Like you say, it shouldn't take too long to work out if there is a bug or not.

Cheers,
Norris

Badsight.
01-30-2005, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
it shouldn't take too long to work out if there is a bug or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>you sir are an optimist , & the world needs more of them

Franzen
01-30-2005, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
it shouldn't take too long to work out if there is a bug or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>you sir are an optimist , & the world needs more of them <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight, we don`t need optimists, we need patches. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz Franzen

WB_Outlaw
01-30-2005, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franzen:
It was just a little joke with some added sarcasm Outlaw. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fell for it but only the hook. In my own defense I was suspicious but since you asked Oleg if he could confirm I thought you might actually have some data so I had to ask.

I'll shut-up now.

-Outlaw.

anarchy52
01-31-2005, 02:39 AM
Has anyone mailed this to Oleg/1c?

tigertalon
01-31-2005, 03:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
Has anyone mailed this to Oleg/1c? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I haven't done it yet (exams...), as i would like to make a complete test (with all Mg151/20s in game), which would exclude all possible other effects, and that would take some time. I can do it in a month or sth... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
Somebody else maybe?

Franzen
01-31-2005, 07:43 AM
Olegs been and gone. He's even posted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz Franzen

Franzen
01-31-2005, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franzen:
It was just a little joke with some added sarcasm Outlaw. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fell for it but only the hook. In my own defense I was suspicious but since you asked Oleg if he could confirm I thought you might actually have some data so I had to ask.

I'll shut-up now.

-Outlaw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s all good Outlaw, I`ve seen some crazier postings in the past that were meant to be serious.

Don`t shut up though, everyone`s opinion or input is important, after all, we are a community. Oleg is far away so it seems to be hard to hear us. Power to the buyers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz Franzen

tigertalon
01-31-2005, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franzen:
Olegs been and gone. He's even posted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz Franzen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, he has been, but that was before I posted the test screenshots.

crazyivan1970
01-31-2005, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pain.......:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:


I spent all night at this... conclusion... it`s more DM related then guns themselves. Faust, you were going to do the same, what`s your opinion? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to PM you about this because I didn't feel like getting torched. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

From one test session:

The DM for the Allied planes is more resistant to 20mm fire than the LW planes. Spitfires can be killed with a good wing root hit, but, can soak up rediculous amounts of 20mm fire across the rest of the wing and fusalage. There might be some missing elements of the DM like the P-63. Since this is a very common plane on many servers, it may be the cause of a lot of Mg151 questions.

The Yak9 is very vulnerable to 20mm fire. Its wings snap like twigs.

The P-51 is very vulnerable to engine hits, the rest of the fusalage is very tough.

The P47 is similar to the P-51, its engine is vulnerable, its structure is super tough.

The Fw190 is VERY vulnerable to 20mm fire. One or 2 rounds to the fusalage result in fire. One hit to the wing will cause radical lift loss or complete fuel loss.

Bf109s are paper planes. The are FUBAR when hit with 20mm.

THIS IS FROM ONE NIGHT OF TESTING ONLY. IT IS NOT CONFIRMED FACT. MUCH MORE TESTING IS NEEDED TO DRAW ANY USEFUL CONCLUSION. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well I spent some time testing also and your conclusions are wrong IMO.
I did the same test as u did and came to the same conclusion as u when firing with outboard mg151 in Fw A6 A8 and A9 models. but I did the same test when flying spitfire and the results are that I snap off wings a lot easier with the hispano's while shooting at randon places on the wing. there is no need to aim for wingroots like when firing with a 151. I also did the same test with I-16 and it's Shvak and came to same conclusion, wings come off easier even when shooting at randon wing sections.

so your conclusion about it being damage model related is wrong.
your whole test method was wrong from the beginning ( testing destructive power of a cannon who's destructive power is questioned in the first place with-out having a diffrent cannon to compare it against )

out! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was on vacation...so catching up now. I don`t think you read the whole discussion carefully, but i`ll clear it up for ya....
My findings are based on testing external MG151/20 in D9, A6 and 20mm Hispanos in Spitfire9 against P-51, FW190, BF109, P-38...etc. Basically same type of weapon (20mm) against LW and Allied planes. My primary consern was that weapon effectivness is inconsistent and my assumption was that it was rather DM related then weapon itself. The point of my test was to see effects of various weapons on the same type of aircraft. Not just 20mm MG151 vs allied planes.
Make a simple test, take Spitfire9 and go against Spifire9 friendly 10 times, see the effect of Hispanos on it.
Then take FW190A6or9or5 , against Spitfire9 10 times, external guns.
Then FW190 against FW190.... and so on. Then you will see what i am talking about. It`s not only guns hitting power, it`s alot of things.

Cheers!

quiet_man
01-31-2005, 01:57 PM
@crazyivan1970:
...
I was on vacation...so catching up now. I don`t think you read the whole discussion carefully, but i`ll clear it up for ya....
[/QUOTE]

hmm, did you read the first post of this thread?

It was about the difference of FIXED MG151 and GUNPOD MG151

what does youre test tell about this???

Regards,
quiet_man

crazyivan1970
01-31-2005, 02:43 PM
@quiet_man:
Did you read the whole discussion?

Shot2Pieces
01-31-2005, 06:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
It`s not only guns hitting power, it`s alot of things.

Cheers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may be 'a lot of things', but if one of those is an incorrect ammo load for the 151/20, then shouldn't that be addressed?

crazyivan1970
01-31-2005, 10:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shot2Pieces:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
It`s not only guns hitting power, it`s alot of things.

Cheers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may be 'a lot of things', but if one of those is an incorrect ammo load for the 151/20, then shouldn't that be addressed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said that it shouldn`t... but what about this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

That to stop any other such speeches I need to tell that in our code is only one model of MG151/20 with only one type of ammo load. Please read twice.
By other words we have one cannon type in code and place it on different aircraft. the diferences in this case will be only in amount of shells for the selected aircraft, but the cannon and ammo load types will be one the same... So MG151/20 is one the same on all Bf109s, FW190, etc...

Simply other is impossible in code.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Badsight.
02-01-2005, 01:47 AM
that Ivan is the opposite of these tests

WWMaxGunz
02-01-2005, 08:30 AM
Ivan.....

One code and one 151/20 to use.

Maybe something is not working like thought and could be 'lots of places' for just one wrong?

Certainly they have shown something repeatable in the sim? That should be all they need to do.
Maybe it is, if it is being looked into or will be. Now it is down to getting attention, will
this be taken serious? So... noise of 50 page thread if need be.

crazyivan1970
02-01-2005, 09:04 AM
Alright, i think we completely misunderstood each other. So lets get in the same page.
1) I locked about 5 MG151/20 related threads and asked everyone to continue in this one.
2) Based on Oleg`s statement, all MG151/20 in the sim Are THE SAME and code does not allow it to be any different.
3) My personal opinion, MG151/20 is a capable weapon, but suffers from inconsistency - unlike other 20mm weapons.
4) Me, personally, just like everyone here would like this issues discussed and investigated.
5) I asked Oleg to drop by and look at this thread, he did and DID not confirm findings of initial poster. Therefore, i offered you different perspective on MG151/20 issue but apparently you stuck in initial post.
6) Chewing over gunpods vs wing/nose mounted guns probably will not get us anywhere, so it`s up to you guys.
7) I am done http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anarchy52
02-01-2005, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Alright, i think we completely misunderstood each other. So lets get in the same page.
2) Based on Oleg`s statement, all MG151/20 in the sim Are THE SAME and code does not allow it to be any different.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cannons should be the same but ammo belt certainly is not (as indicated by arcade mode).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
3) My personal opinion, MG151/20 is a capable weapon, but suffers from inconsistency - unlike other 20mm weapons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It isn't inconsistant at all - it is consistantly ineffective (It doesn't mean you can't shoot stuff with it only that it usually takes much more to so compared to similar weapons in the game) with the exception of gunpod mounted version. Inconsistency as you call it comes from "golden bullet" hits when you hit the "sweet spot" in DM.
MG/FF is pretty consistant - it is very powerfull yet it uses the same projectiles (although different cartridge) as the MG151/20.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
4) Me, personally, just like everyone here would like this issues discussed and investigated.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I, on the other hand, would like the issue solved, since there's been quite anough investigation AND guesswork.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
5) I asked Oleg to drop by and look at this thread, he did and DID not confirm findings of initial poster. Therefore, i offered you different perspective on MG151/20 issue but apparently you stuck in initial post.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oleg said GUNS are the same. The original poster was referring to ammo belt composition. Regardless of my respect for Mr. Maddox if he claims that grass is pink and sky is green I will choose NOT to belive him.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
6) Chewing over gunpods vs wing/nose mounted guns probably will not get us anywhere, so it`s up to you guys.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On the contrary - I think we're finally getting somewhere. If You ever tried it You'll easily feel the difference. Using the arcade mode You can obtain evidence of different ammo belt composition (the phantom M-geschoss shell). Basic logical reasoning: MG151/20 is sucky except gunpod version, only gunpod instalation is observed to have M-geschoss in ammo belt. Notice the correlation?
7) I am done http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]

faustnik
02-01-2005, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:

7) I am done http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey! Where do you think are you going? You got me into the DM discussion here. You're not going anywhere!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


********************************


Everybody here should do two sets of tests.

- Try the Bf109 gunpod vs. nose cannon test and note the difference in damage effect.

- Try the aircraft toughness test as laid out by Ivan. Test Mg151/Hispano/ShVak vs. Bf109, Fw190, SpitIX, Yak 3 and judge the toughness of both.

I did all these test and honestly feel that the Mg151 is missing something and certain Allied and Soviet a/c are too tough. Not a Luftwhine, just a report of test findings.

Instead of accusing Ivan of diversion, why not listen to what he says on the issue? He probably knows better than most of us how best to get the issue examined by 1C.

crazyivan1970
02-01-2005, 11:26 AM
@anarchy
Please read this again:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By other words we have one cannon type in code and place it on different aircraft. the diferences in this case will be only in amount of shells for the selected aircraft, but the cannon and ammo load types will be one the same
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

@faust
Naww mate, not going anywhere... i`ll stick around http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Russian_Ivan
02-01-2005, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Alright, i think we completely misunderstood each other. So lets get in the same page.
1) I locked about 5 MG151/20 related threads and asked everyone to continue in this one.
2) Based on Oleg`s statement, all MG151/20 in the sim Are THE SAME and code does not allow it to be any different.
3) My personal opinion, MG151/20 is a capable weapon, but suffers from inconsistency - unlike other 20mm weapons.
4) Me, personally, just like everyone here would like this issues discussed and investigated.
5) I asked Oleg to drop by and look at this thread, he did and DID not confirm findings of initial poster. Therefore, i offered you different perspective on MG151/20 issue but apparently you stuck in initial post.
6) Chewing over gunpods vs wing/nose mounted guns probably will not get us anywhere, so it`s up to you guys.
7) I am done http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ivan (√Ď"ö√Ďė–∑–¬ļ–? –¬ļ√ϬĀ√Ď"ö–?√Ď"ö–¬ł http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif),

Please take a look these (http://luzyanin.pisem.net/tracks/records.zip) records (v3.04) and you'll see "consistant" result. Also you should see the visual difference between the g2 gunpods and fw's outer wing cannons.

crazyivan1970
02-01-2005, 12:22 PM
I`ll look at it √Ď"ö√Ďė–∑–¬ļ–? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But once again... you saying visual... what about physical?

Russian_Ivan
02-01-2005, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I`ll look at it √Ď"ö√Ďė–∑–¬ļ–? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But once again... you saying visual... what about physical? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Both - visual and physical http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

arrow80
02-01-2005, 12:33 PM
I think that anyone who has 10 minutes of time, can easily test how consistent and effective are the gunpods with mg151/20 contrary to the wing mounted ones. I think Oleg should drop in at some time and test this by himself...or does he think that all people here are FOOLS and have halucinations and it really can be wrong? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif This would be a very sad approach from him and I think anyone from the devs team should find a bit of time to test it and tak in account that claims of so many people that posted here cannot be ignored...but I get a feeling that this will be the case and what we can do is only to try really SHOOT from the gunpods and dream of how great would it be to have this weapon wing mounted

WWMaxGunz
02-01-2005, 12:46 PM
Screenshots showing hits in arcade mode the shells are not the same one to the next.
Same code, same gun, gunpod to others? Or is the gunpod one a different cannon?

This is something people have been trying to figure out since the beginning.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-01-2005, 02:08 PM
Hi,

Can we have Oleg come in and tell us straight why the test is false and prove to us that it is our imagination?

He didn't mind replying to Copperhead's drunken rant about lack of late war US planes right away so why can't he spend a few minutes publicly replying to this respectfully raised problem which has been the cause a lot of speculation and debate for a considerable amount of time now.

Regards,
Norris

crazyivan1970
02-01-2005, 03:04 PM
Uncalled for Norris... tsk tsk tsk...

Atzebrueck
02-01-2005, 03:12 PM
I ran another short test:
While flying at 1/4 speed, I fired every 4th and 5th shell at the rear of the A20, until it brakes off.

109G2 with gunpods needs 2 bursts (=4 projectiles):
http://www.vow-hq.com/files/jg51_atze/20mm_1.TRK

110G2 needs 6 bursts (=12 projectiles):
http://www.vow-hq.com/files/jg51_atze/20mm_2.TRK


If you are interested, please watch the tracks at slower speed and with arcade=1.

I've fired at more planes and I think it's quite clear that we need three shells of the "weaker gun" to inflict the same damage as one 20mm thin walled high explosive grenade.
In my opinion it's yet another proof that the belt of the MG151/20 doesn't contain one single Minengeschoss where we are told that between the two guns there is no difference at all.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-01-2005, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Uncalled for Norris... tsk tsk tsk... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

What was the problem with that? No disrespect was meant but I thought it would be reasonable to put things into context. *shrugs*

Cheers,
Norris

crazyivan1970
02-01-2005, 03:41 PM
Ahem... he did reply to this thread... what else do you need? I`m lost, someone please find me.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-01-2005, 03:48 PM
Hi,

Yes, but not in response to the most recent claims.

That's the end of it, then? I'd hardly be surprised if it were.

Norris

crazyivan1970
02-01-2005, 03:52 PM
No Norris, it`s not the end of it. If it was i`d lock this thread a while ago.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-01-2005, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
No Norris, it`s not the end of it. If it was i`d lock this thread a while ago. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not the end of it in terms of Oleg, I trust that you mean? I truly hope so (not the end) as this apparent problem at least warrants a second look IMO.

Cheers,
Norris

Atzebrueck
02-01-2005, 04:31 PM
Just to get back on topic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
bump http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
I ran another short test:
While flying at 1/4 speed, I fired every 4th and 5th shell at the rear of the A20, until it brakes off.

109G2 with gunpods needs 2 bursts (=4 projectiles):
http://www.vow-hq.com/files/jg51_atze/20mm_1.TRK

110G2 needs 6 bursts (=12 projectiles):
http://www.vow-hq.com/files/jg51_atze/20mm_2.TRK


If you are interested, please watch the tracks at slower speed and with arcade=1.

I've fired at more planes and I think it's quite clear that we need three shells of the "weaker gun" to inflict the same damage as one 20mm thin walled high explosive grenade.
In my opinion it's yet another proof that the belt of the MG151/20 doesn't contain one single Minengeschoss where we are told that between the two guns there is no difference at all.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
==&gt;
109 gunpod MG151/20:
APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG

all other MG151/20:
APIT-HE-HE-AP(I)-HE

I hope to see the "other" MG151/20 being modeled the same way as the "gunpod"-MG151/20, soon.

WWMaxGunz
02-01-2005, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
==&gt;
109 gunpod MG151/20:
APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG

all other MG151/20:
APIT-HE-HE-AP(I)-HE

I hope to see the "other" MG151/20 being modeled the same way as the "gunpod"-MG151/20, soon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And when you fire shots #6 through #10 from non-gunpod 151/20... what you get?

crazyivan1970
02-02-2005, 12:29 AM
Well, i`m going to talk to the boss, will see what he says. You guys....

pourshot
02-02-2005, 12:42 AM
Atzebrueck while I am a supporter of the MG gun fix I am surprised that it only takes 4 cannon shells to de-tail a A20 bomber. If the 109‚‚ā¨ôs main gun is set to this standard the complaints will roll in like never before, nobody will ever need to use the mk108 ever agian. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JuHa-
02-02-2005, 02:01 AM
As pointed out earlier by WWMaxGunz, it could
be worthwhile to check what code is inside the "mysterious" mg151/20-gunpods (for Me109).
The pics suggest that they act differently compared to the plane mounted mg151/20s - the logical start point is examining the pods, what's different in them?

If nothing is different, then an explanation for the pictures taken with "Arcade" mode would be
greatly appreciated, for closing this thread
in a appropiate & informative way.

BR,
Juha

JG54_Arnie
02-02-2005, 03:21 AM
Doesnt tails breaking off happen a little bit too often in this sim anyways? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
But thats not the point of this thread.. Sure hope Oleg gives a good look at this newly discovered, massive, difference between the gunpods and normal guns. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

tigertalon
02-02-2005, 05:04 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 Atzebrueck:
==&gt;
109 gunpod MG151/20:
APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG

all other MG151/20:
APIT-HE-HE-AP(I)-HE

I hope to see the "other" MG151/20 being modeled the same way as the "gunpod"-MG151/20, soon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And when you fire shots #6 through #10 from non-gunpod 151/20... what you get? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for replying on question for Atzebruecks post, but like I mentioned in my posts, you get: ABBDB-ABBDB-ABBDB-..., you don't get ABB-ABB-ABB-ABB... for non gunpod cannons. With ALL Mg151/20 you get 5 shell sequence. This new D has the same effects on any targe a A, it is just not tracer, so if A is APIT then D is API.

For gunpods you get ABBCC-ABBCC-ABBCC-....

Marc-David
02-02-2005, 06:05 AM
I did a few tests, here my findings: Me G6/As, convergence 100m, distance ca 150-50m on He 111. Aim motors.
I took me 3 one gondola shot bursts in 1/4 speed to get the He down, but with motorgun I didn't succeed after 10 bursts.
In additon, with Gondola MG 151/20, sometimes big pieces of the He 111 flew off, never so with the motorgun.
So I second, that it might be the absence of the Minengeschoß, wich causes a little weakness in the Me's motorguns.

Just for information: The "Schießfibel" (Little shooting guide) from 1944 gives the following belt-combination advices for MG 151/20:
Against 4mot bomber: 1 Minengeschoß - 1 Brandgranate=Incendary - 1 Panzerbrandgranate=ArmorpiercingIncendary
Against ALL (!) other planes: 3 Minengeschoß - 1 Brandgranate=Incendary - 1
Panzerbrandgranate=ArmorpiercingIncendary
So the Minengeschoß is a basic and most often used ammunition.

Yours, MD

tigertalon
02-02-2005, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marc-David:
I did a few tests, here my findings: Me G6/As, convergence 100m, distance ca 150-50m on He 111. Aim motors.
I took me 3 one gondola shot bursts in 1/4 speed to get the He down, but with motorgun I didn't succeed after 10 bursts.
In additon, with Gondola MG 151/20, sometimes big pieces of the He 111 flew off, never so with the motorgun.
So I second, that it might be the absence of the Minengeschoß, wich causes a little weakness in the Me's motorguns.

Just for information: The "Schießfibel" (Little shooting guide) from 1944 gives the following belt-combination advices for MG 151/20:
Against 4mot bomber: 1 Minengeschoß - 1 Brandgranate=Incendary - 1 Panzerbrandgranate=ArmorpiercingIncendary
Against ALL (!) other planes: 3 Minengeschoß - 1 Brandgranate=Incendary - 1
Panzerbrandgranate=ArmorpiercingIncendary
So the Minengeschoß is a basic and most often used ammunition.

Yours, MD <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, this means

MG-I-API sequence against bombers (33% of MG shells), and

MG-MG-MG-I-API for all other targets (60% of MG shells)? Isn't it maybe switched?

Werre_Fsck
02-02-2005, 07:08 AM
Great find and good job ppl.
This would explain it all.

tigertalon
02-02-2005, 07:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
Atzebrueck while I am a supporter of the MG gun fix I am surprised that it only takes 4 cannon shells to de-tail a A20 bomber. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I understood Atzebrueck, he fired only with shells no. 4 and 5 from a sequence (assumed to be MG shells). Firing with all shells I'm sure it would take more shells on average. Can you imagine cannon with the composition APIT, HE, MG, MG, MG, which was used IRL? Now gunpods are devastating and they have one MG less: APIT, HE HE MG MG... and MG is approx. 2-3 times stronger than HE.

Marc-David
02-02-2005, 07:41 AM
Hi ,

I found time to look up here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-am.html

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

20 mm (MG-FF, MG 151/20)

* 2 Minengeschoß m. Zerl.
* 2 Brandsprenggranatpatronen L'spur m. Zerl
oder Brandgranatpatronen
* 1 Panzersprenggranatpatrone o. Zerl
oder Panzerbrandgranatpatrone (Phospor) o. Zerl.

Here the Minengeschoß appears for the first time. A version of the 20mm M-Geschoß with tracer did not exist, so tracer was used on HE/I (Brandsprenggranatpatrone) or pure incendiary (Brandgranatpatrone) rounds. The latter was apparently a new development in 1944, intended to replace the less effective HE/I. The fifth round was a semi-AP projectile, explosive or incendiary. Apparently the main reason this was used instead of a solid AP round was that a solid projectile would have been too heavy.

It was recommended that more AP or semi-AP ammunition would be loaded when the probable targets were well-armoured attack aircraft such as the Il-2. On the other hand, against the four-engined bombers of the RAF and USAAF the high explosive types were more effective. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if the composition of the 151/20 belt is slightliy different, the M-Geschoß is very prominent here, too.

2 Mine
2 HeI with tracer or I
1 ApHe or ApI

Yours, MD

arrow80
02-02-2005, 08:27 AM
bump!

Atzebrueck
02-02-2005, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
Atzebrueck while I am a supporter of the MG gun fix I am surprised that it only takes 4 cannon shells to de-tail a A20 bomber. If the 109‚‚ā¨ôs main gun is set to this standard the complaints will roll in like never before, nobody will ever need to use the mk108 ever agian. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you start to comment the damage they inflict, you have to take the DM of the target into consideration.
With certain other targets, all 20mm guns would have seemed to be totally undermodeled.
Initially I've run the test with a "Flying Fortress" as the victim. I've recorded one, where I need 500-1000 20mm grenades to bring all three B17s down (of course I didn't only fire shells #4 and #5 at them ... that would have been a bit time consuming http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).
Even then they didn't suffer from a broken rear section, but from burning fuel tanks etc. (I've fired at the tail, only).

So the test only makes sense with a target with which I'm able to reproduce the same structural damage over and over again --&gt; A20.

My main goal was to prove that shells number 4 and 5 (the sequence contains 5) of both guns are completely different.

quiet_man
02-02-2005, 02:49 PM
A story to make this discussion a bit lighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I had joint an dogfight server when I recognized it was a P39 squad training against BF109 F and G2

three members of the clan where flying P39, one off them a beginner. Two beginners where flying BF109G2 and where constantly shoot down.

I though what the h*ll, you got into the game now play it and joined the poor 109 fellows

as I could forgot my fellows best tactic would be triple G:
Get in -&gt; Get one -&gt; Get out
so on loadout I selected gunpods http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I came in high and I shoot down all three P39 in a row, repeatedly! I felt like an ace http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

hmm,
...
by the way!!!
...
THIS THREAD IS DAMAGING MY REPUTATION http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards,
quiet_man

Werre_Fsck
02-02-2005, 03:20 PM
Just a little test.
Four of the near-indestructable LaGG-3 series 29's vs 109G2 wingpods. Almost dead six, 100m convergence.

http://www.iki.fi/werre/wingpods.zip (small file, 65k).

Would have taken one pass to take them all if I haven't been dumbfounded - usually it takes third to half the ammo from the nose cannon to down one of these friggin LaGGs unless the wingroot catches fire or a lucky PK occurs... series 4 and 35 are easier.

pourshot
02-02-2005, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
Atzebrueck while I am a supporter of the MG gun fix I am surprised that it only takes 4 cannon shells to de-tail a A20 bomber. If the 109‚‚ā¨ôs main gun is set to this standard the complaints will roll in like never before, nobody will ever need to use the mk108 ever agian. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you start to comment the damage they inflict, you have to take the DM of the target into consideration.
With certain other targets, all 20mm guns would have seemed to be totally undermodeled.
Initially I've run the test with a "Flying Fortress" as the victim. I've recorded one, where I need 500-1000 20mm grenades to bring all three B17s down (of course I didn't only fire shells #4 and #5 at them ... that would have been a bit time consuming http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).
Even then they didn't suffer from a broken rear section, but from burning fuel tanks etc. (I've fired at the tail, only).

So the test only makes sense with a target with which I'm able to reproduce the same structural damage over and over again --&gt; A20.

My main goal was to prove that shells number 4 and 5 (the sequence contains 5) of both guns are completely different. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totaly understand mate, I was just saying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
02-03-2005, 05:54 AM
Important to notice that with gondola cannons the Bf109 is a better FW than the FW itself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


I do not doubt anymore something IS different among these cannons. But I really agree that gondola cannons are IMPRESSIVE at least. They are as good as a Hispano!!! FW190A with 4 of these weapons would rule!!! Even the 190A4 with oly 2 of them loaded would be a nice thing to fly.

jurinko
02-03-2005, 06:40 AM
IMHO even the present sequence API-HE-HE-AP-HE should be pretty effective - more than it is now.

faustnik
02-03-2005, 11:48 AM
Is it my turn to bump this thread to the top yet?

NorrisMcWhirter
02-03-2005, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Important to notice that with gondola cannons the Bf109 is a better FW than the FW itself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


I do not doubt anymore something IS different among these cannons. But I really agree that gondola cannons are IMPRESSIVE at least. They are as good as a Hispano!!! FW190A with 4 of these weapons would rule!!! Even the 190A4 with oly 2 of them loaded would be a nice thing to fly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I came to this conclusion, also, after having a brief stint with using the G2+pods as, almost by magic, I could take down Yaks and Lagg3s with half as much effort as with the A4.

Cheers,
Norris

WWMaxGunz
02-03-2005, 03:50 PM
And a better gunsight view, too!

faustnik
02-03-2005, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And a better gunsight view, too! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't start with that Neal, you know where that conversation goes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Besides, the view is fine.

KGr.HH-Gotcha
02-04-2005, 02:50 AM
Raise your banners high !!


**BUMP**

Fehler
02-04-2005, 04:14 AM
Hmm, still not fixed?

Been this way since Ver 2.0... do you think it will be resolved... ever?

Still good entertainment reading the posts.

Keep 'em coming!

I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone that the German 20mm's are like this on purpose? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tigertalon
02-04-2005, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Hmm, still not fixed?

Been this way since Ver 2.0... do you think it will be resolved... ever?

Still good entertainment reading the posts.

Keep 'em coming!

I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone that the German 20mm's are like this on purpose? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He he, well, taking into a consideration, that first Il2 was planned only as a close support sim with only Il2 series flyables, this would not be so strange. And after, maybe somebody just "forgot" to change the code http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

But sincerely now I do believe it will be resolved, because we finally found exactly what the bug is. It is 4th and 5th shell in a sequence.

Thank you, SerpentBlade, and longlive! I owe you a beer! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Badsight.
02-04-2005, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Been this way since Ver 2.0... do you think it will be resolved... ever? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
id say that the MG-151 code in this game has been this way since day dot

there was the time of FB v1.2x , those patches boosted the hit power of the MG151 in some way , it was really noticable

apart from those breif months , its been a poor performer before that & ever after , especially stright after AEP , v2.0 was down right atrocious

NorrisMcWhirter
02-04-2005, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone that the German 20mm's are like this on purpose? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely you are not suggesting this is done for marketing reasons? No, I can't believe that for one minute - I mean, it's not like changes are made for allied aircraft as soon as they are suggested http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Whoops..must stay on topic.

Cheers,
Norris

JG52_Meyer
02-04-2005, 09:43 AM
Don't think it will be fixed.... the day we got the 50 extra rounds (AEP), they lowered the power as a compensation.

It's a "balance" issue, the Lw can't have such a powerful weapon, wouldn't be fair for the allies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Russian_Ivan
02-04-2005, 11:16 AM
The crazy question just came in to my mind... Does Bf109-F2 has Minengeschoß in their ammo belt too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
It would be awesome! %)

jagdmailer
02-04-2005, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Russian_Ivan:
The crazy question just came in to my mind... Does Bf109-F2 has Minengeschoß in their ammo belt too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
It would be awesome! %) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too bad it appears we are not getting Harti's Ta 152C-1 with 4 X MG151/15 and 1 X MK103....

Jagd

JG7_Rall
02-04-2005, 11:43 AM
Maybe the reason for the patch delay is because Oleg's toning down the gondolas??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
02-04-2005, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Well, i`m going to talk to the boss, will see what he says. You guys.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bump?

Fehler
02-04-2005, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone that the German 20mm's are like this on purpose? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely you are not suggesting this is done for marketing reasons? No, I can't believe that for one minute - I mean, it's not like changes are made for allied aircraft as soon as they are suggested http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Whoops..must stay on topic.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, actually I am not. As in all data, interpretation is as important as raw numbers. For example, some people believe the 45ACP is the best all-around police round (Speaking as a cop here) But in practice, the .357Sig is my preferred round because of the penetration power versus knetic energy. Since I work the interstate, the odd that I will have to fire through a windshield are greater than the odds of me shooting at a person standing 25 yards away. I need a little extra punch so there is less deflection through glass. But as a man-stopper, the 45 ACP is probably a little better. However, almost 80% of the homicides I have worked were caused by .25 cal or less!

What I am getting at is this. Whomever decided the coding of the various weapons in this game took raw data and made his/her interpretation of it. This interpretation is very visible in the game, especially with the 20mm cannons. The real truth is probably not as cut and dry, as there was probably an unnoticeable difference between the guns in real life. I have watched interviews with gun experts that seem to agree that the 151/20 and the Hispano were very good guns for their era. Of course they didnt mention the SHVAK's but these were western experts. The cold war really put a damper on information sharing after the war. Too bad for history's sake. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

The Hispano and the MG151 went through it's development stages. Both were deemed suitable weapons with excellent anti-aircraft characteristics. I find it hard to believe that any nation would have put into service a cannon that was only marginally stronger than a heavy machine gun. What would be the benefit? In other words, there was probably not so much a difference in real life between the Hispano and the MG151/20, at least not as huge a margin as seen in the sim.

Was it done intentionally? Probably, based on data and the ability to code various damages caused by different rounds. Was it done to sway favor toward one side or another? I seriously doubt that!

The challenge here is to have the knowledge and ability to present facts to Oleg that the 151/20 should not be so different from the Hispano. Since none of us here have any real life, first hand, testing information, that task will be hard to accomplish.

Therefore we are left to the interpretation of the developers. Weather we agree or disagree. But I conclude that if things were going to change, they probably would have already. Remember, the 20mm cannon was looked at specifically a few patches ago.

So what has come to light that is so earth shattering now? Not much in my opinion. Perhaps a wrong round in the belt? OK, so all the other 20mm rounds were popcorn? Get what I am saying?

It's like the obvious difference between tracer and non tracer AP ammo in the game. In real life after firing, oh.. probably 300000 rounds or better of 5.56, 7.62, and .50 cal I have never noticed any observable difference between tracer and non tracer rounds at effective ranges of the respective guns. Not have I noticed any difference in penetration power. Although, on paper there looks like there would be a difference. In practice, there is not. I remember we even used to goof around and load up entire belts of 7.62 tracer for a fireworks display during night firing. We shot light armor vehicles (Trucks, cars, and an old APC or two) at 500-100 meters and the rounds went right through just like they did in the daytime without tracers or a 1-4 belt. Tracers in this game seem to have less than 1/2 the power of normal rounds. That is a great example of data interpretation.

RusskiyeVityazi
02-05-2005, 12:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52_Meyer:
Don't think it will be fixed.... the day we got the 50 extra rounds (AEP), they lowered the power as a compensation.

It's a "balance" issue, the Lw can't have such a powerful weapon, wouldn't be fair for the allies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-05-2005, 08:39 AM
They are supposed to have broken down gunnery into external ballistics components.
Muzzle velocity, shell mass and drag all calculated step by step into trajectories.

In the DM the angle and velocity of impact to being used, penetration and damage.

ALL guns working the same ways with parameters filled in from historic values.

But yes, there is room for interpretation when making computer models. Much room.
We have been posting for many months so far that it seemed the blast of explosions
is not modelled or modelled weakly and now we find that the MG rounds do have big
effect, it's just we don't GET them in all German 20mm's. But that extra effect
may be due to intensified fragment effects perhaps to make up for blast itself.

Have they been turning up the 20mm MG effect in response to feedback, screenshots,
etc, only to be adjusting something rarely used? What happens if they fix the mix
on the non-gunpod 20's and the Russian Betas don't like it?

Yes, it is not just Oleg working alone there. But what he sees, I am sure he puts
his foot down on what he does not like or what he wants for sure.

LeadSpitter_
02-05-2005, 10:06 AM
fix all types not just 20mm, dont cator to fanboys only please, you have been for so long and all the whines for fixes you have listened to correct or not and have changed them to make the customer happy any they still think all their ac are severly undermodeled.

Im sure you realize most of the community fly the german side only, i really agree with them on this with 20mm but not the .50 range accurate 108 cannons or accurate shvak cannon to 1.4 range with exploding power while US cannon of the p38 p63 p39 is only accurate at .20 range or less. Hispano is deadly accurate at ranges of .40 with 1 burst stopping power as well and browning can only get kills at .20 distance after that its like shooting wet tissues.

Also no one mentioned it here how you reduced rudder effectiveness of the ki-84 ki43 zeros p51 wildcat p40s to go into a flopping hard to recover from stall if going over the edge which is so great and penality for over using the stick. Please bring this back to all aircraft, this is why planes such as the yaks lagg la 109 spit are dubbed UFOS by opposing side. It seems to be from how much rudder they can use and not stall while others can use fast full 100% very quickly and not be effected and go into a flopping hard to recover stall.

Some air I feel it should be added to is the 109s 190s yak lagg la mig spitfire p47 and many others.

By reducing the rudder effect of the zero ki84 ki43 it has stopped thier ufo manuevers and causes them to go into a hard to recover from stall.

in PF 3.0 the corsair rudder was extremely effective and did not cause stalls from fast 100% rudder use and after your changes the aircraft handles much more realistic this really is the solution to the spit 109 190 yak la lagg3 mig p47, the funny thing is I have never seen anyone speak of this on the forums but I have noticed it.

Please bring back the original hard to recover from stalls you seem to be phasing out to make the game easier for the first time user.

There is no penalty for stick yanking or flopping around instant recovery with many ac from the stalls and floating, more E bleed is needed in alot of aicraft.

Please use your own judgements Oleg and what you feel is correct, dont listen to the "Wah my favorite plane crowd"

thank you

anarchy52
02-05-2005, 10:41 AM
Hijacking the thread are we?
Penalty for that should be 2 week ban if you ask me

LeadSpitter_
02-05-2005, 10:51 AM
how compairing, agreeing with 20mm and compairing them to other cannon Hijacking a thread. I agree with the 20mm debate as well asking for other weapons historical changes to guntables to be more historically accurate, especially the cannon accuracy very long ranges

Im not catoring to one side like most in here even tho I definatly agree with the 20mm debate. But why should just 20mm be corrected becuase more people complain about it?

Im also speak of the rudder effectiveness and the rudder effectiveness inducing stall behavior which has corrected some aircraft like the zeke ki84 corsair p51 ki43 and now fast rudder movement will put this ac into a hard to recover from flipping stall which is great and took away the ufoness of the fm. If your all against it in 109s and 190 why might I ask? Im sure you would be happy to see it done to the russian ac and spitfire which need it as well.

Maybe you dont fly the PTO sets enough to have noticed the changes but it stopped the ufoness of those which have less sensative rudders and which will cause a flopping E bleeding stall if over using without insta catch recovery.

And why should 20mm only discussion be allowed but cant compair it to all weapons effectiveness ?

Sig.Hirsch
02-05-2005, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Im sure you realize most of the community fly the german side only <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the commuity fly US side only , especially on this forum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Also no one mentioned it here how you reduced rudder effectiveness of the ki-84 ki43 zeros p51 wildcat p40s to go into a flopping hard to recover from stall if going over the edge which is so great and penality for over using the stick. Please bring this back to all aircraft, this is why planes such as the yaks lagg la 109 spit are dubbed UFOS by opposing side. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

UFO's i don't think ...
there were planes better than others , you know it , though it's not perfect , relative plane strength IMO are well done in FB , if you except some russian aircraft performing more like prototypes than combat service planes , but it's ok for me , it's a game , some tend often to forget it .

DM have bigger issues IMO , i touched in real life an I-153 among others , i can tell you i have never seen a more fragile plane , i even could break the ailerons by kicking it lol .
now you can see ingame that this plane takes a lot of 20 mil damage (it's all made in fabric and weak wood ) .

This is just an example among others , but after all , it doesn't prevent me from having a great time with this game , cause evrything in it is compromise , not real life .
for example sometimes , i whine on my own about JU-87 being sooo weak ingame , while it was one of the most solid plane we had in WWII , or the Dora losing all his fuel within 1 minute after being hit in the fuel tanks by a couple of small MG rounds (revi problem fixed) , or the daimler benz engine catching fire like no other engine ingame which makes the Bf 110 ( a groud attack plane ) a unusable plane for ground attack etc..

I doubt a single issue will be corrected , cause Oleg will work full time for BoB now , and even with these flaws (axis plane flaws , because i mainly fly axis ) FB is still a very good sim/game for our small comps , i think IMO .

I Just hope BoB will Really be an evolution in terms of FM , DM , cause i really don't care about good water graphics rendering or nice emergency trucks and shallow things like that .

faustnik
02-05-2005, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:

And why should 20mm only discussion be allowed but cant compair it to all weapons effectiveness ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because its a thread about the Mg151/20 Leadspitter. Why don't you start a different rudder thread?

The Mg151/20 effectiveness has been a problem for a long time we should focus on that issue in this thread.

Badsight.
02-05-2005, 03:21 PM
that rant belons in a rant thread leadspitter

this is a Mg151 shell thread about a real & proveable problem , i.e. it isnt a FM perception discussion

WWMaxGunz
02-06-2005, 12:25 AM
Leadspitter, you start with Oleg should do what he thinks and then ... well.

Most of the online community flies German only? Are you serious? I bet you are!

And the rest... hey Oleg, listen up! LS is gonna lay it out!

Not that I don't agree on some points, but not all and that's just me; one of many!

Besides -- you don't say anything about the gunpods ammo mix compared to other 151/20's!

Report to Anarchy for a spanking, LS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
02-06-2005, 09:10 AM
most of the guys are americans, flying american planes or german planes. on this forum anyways.

wonder how many here have flown g50, val, or even a zero?

wonder how many have multiengine controls set?

how many can use a bombsight? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fehler
02-06-2005, 10:12 AM
Some of you need to check out this from Dictionary.com

Embellish n

To add ornamental or fictitious details to: a fanciful account that embellishes the true story.

I know a couple of people here that need to change their callsign to this! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LeadSpitter_
02-06-2005, 11:52 AM
Most of the online community flies German only?

I never said that just most who post in these forums do, american german finnish dutch fly german mainly and nothing wrong with that. The difference is one guy will write something about a US or british fm and you all stick to gether and bash him in the thread becuase there is more of you in these forums. You all constantly harp on german probs only and all stick together and repeatedly keep talking about it as it will change olegs view.

I dunno I think 11 pages discussing one problem for a certain plane type makes everyone think its more harping on one problem and it oleg will fix it simply by sticking together and keep on speaking of the problem daily.

Dont you think one thread speaking all weapons effectiveness's would be more relevent? Screens data and tracks with arcade mode on at all distances up to 1.5m,

On another note the slowing of rudder effectivess and putting ac into a unrecoverable stall, not just a wing dip a flop and instant catch. I would like to hear your opinions on it is why I posted it here.

The rudder effectiveness is a change on the ki84 zeke and ki43 3.04 oleg made but no one in here
seems to have realized it, this was also done to the hellcat corsair mustang wildcat p40s very fast rudder which causes the so called ufo looking manuvers which doesnt happen anymore becuase it will throw the plane into a flopping difficult to recover from stall none of the instant catches.

I just think its a great solution to stop the UFOness and should be done to many ac spit 109 190 russian ac.

You guys remember the corsair mustang @ ki84 in 3.0 the ufo moves they were able to perform, same as the spit 109s 190s and russian fms are performing now. Oleg came up with a solution that worked very well.

You guy just dont want to hear me suggest it should be done to the 190 109 yaks and spitfires. Im sure everyone in here would be happy to see it done to the spit and russian fms but bashing me for saying it should be done to the 190 and 109 shows me your biasness to me.

Im american and fly german ac more then i do the others specifically the 190a and d is one of my favorite planes.

I do hope the german 20mm does get stronger as well as many toher weapons especially the correct accuracy and destroying power at ranges past .20 distance and other ac having the accuracy reduced to someone reasonable ranges with the shvak 1 hit anti bomber/anti tank cannons.

This plays a huge roll in online fighting and give an enormous advantage to some ac

this is what i see in 3.04 one burst killing ability and accurateness

Shvak 1.20 range and got 1 shot wing tears off on 109s and 190s at 1.30
Hispano .40 range
108 cannon .50 range
german 20mm .20 range
browning .50cal .20 range
US 20 and 30mm .15 range
.303 .10

there also seems to be no difference in 2 108 wing cannons vs 1 nose mounted 108 on the late 109s. the 103 gunpods seem the same strenght as 108 cannon

there seems no difference in 6 8 12 .303s
hardly no difference in 4 6 or 8 .50 cal
shvak

Japanese zero cannon seems incrediably weak as well compaired to the two mgs on the ki43iic and vals nose guns.

flame away, anyone who sees the same thing let me know.

Also check this
http://www.stats.war-clouds.com/wf/search.php?sort=3&name=

check greatergreen stats and check BW stats as well to see what im talking about.

WWMaxGunz
02-06-2005, 12:34 PM
LS the screenies showing the problem clearly didn't appear till PAGE SEVEN.

Going on 2 pages is just for your mostly unrelated and no proof claims and replies.

How about you start some other threads and maybe after 6 or 10 pages you do or don't
show anything to back it up beside kill counts from servers which doesn't count.

Get up a 50's have rubber bullets thread and see how many not German only members agree.
I can think of at least 4 right quickly off the top.

Ivan locked all the 151/20 threads and told to combine in the one so this many pages is
not some horrendous whine considering the history of the issue and the clarity of the
findings shown on page seven top post.

Please contribute or go start threads on your other topics.
Don't play at shooting this one down.
I hope Ivan has you vacation tickets to SimHQ if you keep pushing!

And go ahead, call ME a luftwhiner! ROFL!

LeadSpitter_
02-06-2005, 12:57 PM
Nah im not calling anyone a luftwhiner and why would you want me to get banned for stating problems with all gunnery not just german 20mm?

I have the German Air gunnery Guide Schiessfibel.pdf which is in german if anyone in this thread is interested. It also shows 200m for best accuracy.

The p51 pilots manual shows 290m for best effectiveness although many pilots used staggered convergences outer guns at 200m and inner 4 guns at 300m.

Atzebrueck has some good tracks on page 6 whiche show what i have said about the difference of 1 2 and 3 vs 1 20mm as well as other weapons, wwiimaxgunz in all your posts in this thread I have not seen you type anything that could possible help this situation. I just see alot of others say look at this poll which shows german 20mm is weaker then all guns and like I said earlier because of the majority in the forums who fly mainly german is why the results came out like they did in the poll which means nothing and certainly is not a valid resource for oleg to make a change. I did not see any difference with the screens that had arcademode on compaired to screens of the hispano, us 20mm or japanese 20mm which are all very close strength and have the same explosion arrows as the others.

Dont get me wrong I still think they are incrediably weak at .20 range but just making 20mm only stronger is not the solution which is everyones intent posting on this topic and not caring about the other ballistics cannon mg as well as ammo types, accuracy, and effectiveness at close mid and long ranges.

Is anyone willing to host the pdf file for me which is 4mb?

quiet_man
02-06-2005, 01:11 PM
@LeadSpitter_
please calm down
1. This thread is about the difference of fixed and gunpod MG151 in the game. I would be happy to see your points discussed, but not in this thread

2. the one "calling" for a ban did it just for one reason and this reason was not constructive, youre long enough with this forum to know it

I hope for youre understanding

quiet_man

WWMaxGunz
02-06-2005, 01:16 PM
Not banned... just a day off perhaps IF you keep saying like this thread is too long.
Really, it ain't. Check out page seven and if Oleg is reading then; Hello, page 7
top post! What is wrong with these pictures? How did he do that? Not cheating?

Really LS, this is legitimate questions being asked in this thread at least I and a
bunch of others believe so strongly.

So please take the other things to a new thread and show what you tell. Please?
I will even back of yours what I believe, but you gotta be tighter than what you gave
here and it needs to be where it has its own title, nudge-nudge, hint-hint, c-ya.

LeadSpitter_
02-06-2005, 01:19 PM
Im perfectly calm here, I dont let this stuff get to me.

faustnik
02-06-2005, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
because of the majority in the forums who fly mainly german is why the results came out like they did in the poll <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This simply is not true. Many members of this forum and others, who fly Allied, are in agreement the there is some issue with the Mg151/20. Gibbage himself, who is as far from a "Luftwhiner" as you can get, has said so many times.

Also, you can't lump all German 20mm into different catagories. MgFF and Mg151 are very different weapons. "Hispano" and "American 20mm" are the same thing. What "American 30mm" are you referring to?

chaikanut
02-06-2005, 09:06 PM
I recently saw the track of someone flying the FW 190 and complaining that german 20mm is horrible. Well, his gunnery was awful. He was chasing a spit for 5 minutes but could only get 1/10 of a second hits on the wings and dead 6. He never tried to anticipate where the other guy was going, he was just trying to follow and he probably had high convergence too. Couple that with the need for constant rudder for the Bf109 and the wide spread of the 20mm cannon (especially in low speeds) and you have people complaining on gun effectiveness. I suggested a while ago that using cannon of landed aircraft on various parked vehicles and tanks can identify relative cannon effectiveness and the effects of AP rounds. If anyone still doubts the German 20mm, you should see the video Legend from the movie forum. Most of that gunnery is due to the ball being always centered. And correct me if I am wrong but shouldnt shells exploding nearby simultaneously do increased damage from shells at different times? It is the blast shockwave that rips off aluminum surfaces, right? My only reservation is that this may not be moddeled in the game.

Badsight.
02-06-2005, 09:59 PM
**warning **

thread hijack taking place , where are the forum police

Badsight.
02-06-2005, 10:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
but just making 20mm only stronger is not the solution which is everyones intent posting on this topic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>if thats what you think , then its easy to see bias in this forum

but if you understand what this thread actually is about , youll see its to do with a proveable bug that hinders a weak weapon in this game

faustnik
02-06-2005, 10:04 PM
chaikanut,

The reason we use "arcade" mode offline for testing is that it eliminates accuracy as a factor. We can use the hit arrows to track shots and discount "misses". The questions abou the Mg151/20 came about because of relative differnces in weapon effectiveness tracking only hits. I did use a method similar to the one you laid out, firing against parked a/c from a parked a/c, and posted pics a while back. Firing against tanks isn't going to help us that much with aircraft damage discussion because the effects would be so different.

I agree with you that there is no doubt that the Mg151 works, it is just relative differences that raise questions.

BBB_Hyperion
02-07-2005, 12:31 AM
Note to Mods clean up thread again.

@chaikanut most of the regular 190 flyers do know how to aim and how to use deflection and as well they know how to use 20 mm like it is now that is not the point.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/Mine.JPG

Here we see that the Mine Shell should explode on impact. That is not 100 % correct cause it depends on the AZ Model used (Impact Fuze).

The Sprenggranate is not a M-Geschoß .

The Sprenggranate is a thick walled round.
(Only to mention cause it gets mixed often)

For the M-Geschoß(thin walled) needs with AZ1502 with VC normal fuze takes middle value 3.5 cm (flightpath) until its completely detonated. Now with AZ 1502 with VC Kapsel its middle value 16,4 cm . Conclusion from this test was that the normal Kapsel was not in all cases effective cause it detonates too early and could do more damage if delay was higher, on the other hand control surfaces better to hit with less delay.

Spreading of fragments 130‚? to 160‚? in a cone shape to flight direction.

Fragment speed 1700 - 2000 m/s reducing by about 25 % per meter

Detonation delay.
Normal 36 mikroseconds
VC 275 mikroseconds

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/151_20_mine.jpg
Note the text left bottom which reads with VC or VD Kapsel 40 % more effective.

There are 2 things to consider now the graphical repesentation of the damage and the dm used for calculation. The GFX representation of the damage is like a power bar it shows nothing but the same damagepoints at different stages in other words useless for dm analysis. I wouldnt exspect a 20 mm hit shown when hit by mk108 .).

One thing is surely noteable the radial distrubition of fragments if that is the distribution in arcade mode . Most rounds with explosives would form a cone of fragments.

At last for those who like to calculate a little around pressure distribution of M-Geschoß.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/Minepressure.JPG

chaikanut
02-07-2005, 03:02 AM
Faustnik

It doesnt matter how different the effects are since you will be looking for relative differences between cannon. The only thing you need for that is some info on how exactly this simple damage model works. Aircraft have different damage models with each other and shooting them in the air wont help give good consistent results. Otherwise you are merely showing diferences in the damage model, not differences in cannon potential. Testing the effects on tanks and soft vehicles, as well as parked aircraft (with the flyables DM) from consistent angles WILL prove that. Any differences in the effects on ground targets will be due to different loadouts in the ammo belt and the effect of those can be seen by testing at armor.

Taking a few screenshots as absolute proof of weakness will not help since they are just screenshots not proving that ie 10 seconds of german 20mm is needed for 6 seconds of hispano. And even if the above is proved for aircraft, it could be due to the COMPLEX damage models and therefore only shows the effects of belt composition (AP vs MG).

Oleg has said that german cannon is fine and will not fix it. I personally wouldnt fix it based on some screenshots alone.

tigertalon
02-07-2005, 03:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chaikanut:
I recently saw the track of someone flying the FW 190 and complaining that german 20mm is horrible. Well, his gunnery was awful. He was chasing a spit for 5 minutes but could only get 1/10 of a second hits on the wings and dead 6. He never tried to anticipate where the other guy was going, he was just trying to follow and he probably had high convergence too. Couple that with the need for constant rudder for the Bf109 and the wide spread of the 20mm cannon (especially in low speeds) and you have people complaining on gun effectiveness. I suggested a while ago that using cannon of landed aircraft on various parked vehicles and tanks can identify relative cannon effectiveness and the effects of AP rounds. If anyone still doubts the German 20mm, you should see the video Legend from the movie forum. Most of that gunnery is due to the ball being always centered. And correct me if I am wrong but shouldnt shells exploding nearby simultaneously do increased damage from shells at different times? It is the blast shockwave that rips off aluminum surfaces, right? My only reservation is that this may not be moddeled in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi chaikanut

Page 5, top post, my pics. Explain them please.

EVERYONE: THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN Bf109 Mg151/20 GUNPODS AND OTHER Mg151/20 IN GAME.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF 20MM CANNONS!!!!


Thank you for taking this into consideration.

Devs claim that code is the same, but obviously it is not, so this is a bug. I don't care how Mg151/20 performs compared to ShVAK or HISPANO in this thread. Here I want just this bug to be solved.

And, please, everyone, this thread is important, so before posting it would be advisable to at least briefly take a look at previous pages and pictures of it, as otherwise we are not moving anywhere...

Thank you.

anarchy52
02-07-2005, 03:24 AM
Hipocrisy is big on this forum

tigertalon
02-07-2005, 03:28 AM
I suggest we put a rule to this thread:

The thread is about different ammo load in 109 20mm gunpods and other Mg151/20 cannons. As we clearly figured out, different shells are no. 4 and no. 5.

The rule is: Everyone please comment on this difference (between shells no. 4 and 5 in gunpods compared to 4. and 5. in other Mg151/20 cannons)

Do you agree? Because that is what this thread is exactly about.

arrow80
02-07-2005, 03:50 AM
BBB_Hyperion: the pictures about mine shells are really nice, but the point is that we don't get any mine shells with current model of Mg151/20, it seems as shown by tigertalon at page 5 or 7 that those shells are modeled but only with mg151/20 gunpods, or at least they seem to be...

WWMaxGunz
02-07-2005, 03:53 AM
Since Ivan shut down every other 151/20 discussion thread and directed all those
discussions here, is that right to limit the discussion or should another thread
be allowed unlocked to continue other discussion?

Really the title of this thread is not to the point so could the good posts be
moved to another about the ammo mix problem, this one locked and a different
generic 20mm thread be started rather than "all you guys shut up"?

Well, just a thought. I don't want to see the ammo mix topic derailed and I don't
want to see the 151/20 in general discussion just ended although...

If they Fix the Mix then maybe there won't BE a problem to discuss!

tigertalon
02-07-2005, 04:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Since Ivan shut down every other 151/20 discussion thread and directed all those
discussions here <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was not aware of that... At the moment (exams) I don't have much time to follow all the threads... Yes, in this case I agree with you. I still think this thread should be solely for the ammo mix (like it was from the very 1st post from SerpentBlade), and another Mg151/20 thread should be allowed. But, like you said, after we resolve ammo mix, there may be nothing to discuss in the Mg151/20 thread... At least I hope so.

BBB_Hyperion
02-07-2005, 05:49 AM
Some Calculations based on this Data.

It takes about 4000 j Energie to penetrate Aircraft skin thats about the same as a body armor.

With this information we can find that after .

Simpliefied calculation !

Maximum inital energy.
1/2* 0.092 kg * 800 m/s^2 = 29440 J

Minimum speed for 0.092 round to penetrate aircraft skin.
1/2 * 0.092 kg * vmin^2 = 4000 j

Over 600 m the minimum is reached see rechlin test.

vmin &gt; 295 m/s

http://www.munavia-21.org/abon03.jpg

When we add angles we need to increase Energy needed.

When someone has free time can try this. I exspect a exponential increase about double every 30 degrees and a likelyness of deflection from surface when the angle is below 35‚?.

We could see in this calculation the it is possible to get into the plane when it uses no armor plate .) Cause for that as estimate every 1 cm is 10000 j needed.

Now to fragmentation calculation. As we know there will be a cone like destribution to the flight path of 130 to 160 ‚? we can exspect damage in this sections.

Damage sample categories (When you have more accurate post em)
for Aircraft

Light
4 kj
Moderate
10 kj
Heavy
20 kj

Fragment Speed (1700+2000 m/s )/2 = 1850 m/s

The round has a mass of 92 g.

What is the minimum Fragment weight to cause heavy damage.

1/2 (m) *1850 m/s^2 = 20000 J

m = 116 g.

What is the minimum Fragment weight to cause moderate damage.

1/2 (m) *1850 m/s^2 = 10000 J

m = 58 g


What is the minimum Fragment weight to cause light damage.

1/2 (m) *1850 m/s^2 = 4000 J

m = 2 g

We can exspect damage category somewhere between light or moderate. But that are sample categories but at least reasonable ones .

Now we could analyse the deforming effect.

Drag Loading .

PSI to At√ľ
1 psi = 7 kPa
1 bar = 10^5 Pa
1 at√ľ = 0,981 bar
1 bar = 14,50 psi

There are 3 example categories for parked aircraft
light 0.7
moderate 1.5
heavy 3 psi.

But i cant find any comparsion that state the same or similar values therefore before guessing too much here this data is needed for correct damage analysis .Cause of lack of other data i use these. A correct 3d Model and Material properties of 194n airplane structure material would help to calculate the effect.

At least we can see that at 40 cm range we have about 15 at√ľ value that equals about 213 psi which looks a little high as value .
(Note pressure distribution chart in post above)

2,0m 3 psi

Merge to round tnt
(0.0196*1.4)^1/3 = 0,30 m

radius = 2 * 0.30 m = 0.6 m

Within 60 cm of the impact area high deforming effects can take part. Cause there is most likely more than aircraft skin in the wing the deforming effect can be reduced or increased and can be exspected at maximum around 3.5 cm from ignition point.

Hopes that helps a little in the analysis of this problem at least thats as far as i got with it. Wouldnt mind when someone rechecks calculations http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OldMan____
02-07-2005, 08:15 AM
I am sure you know ballistics is not so simple. Specially armor effect. Armor basically protecst in the following possible ways. It may deflect the bullet, ussually in angle impact. Homogeneous armor is good for that. It may also BREAk the bullet. That is the most effective way of protection and usually is performed by hardened face armor.


When your armor is capable of breaking the bullet. It does not matter how much E your bbullets has... It will break anyway.

That is why Bullet penetration increases with momentum.. not kynetic energy.


Alluminuim is not a good hardened armor, so It can be effective as deflection armor.

LeadSpitter_
02-07-2005, 09:00 AM
BBB_Hyperion great posts, contact me on HL so i can send you some stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

quiet_man
02-07-2005, 02:18 PM
@BBB_Hyperion

impressive!!!

leaves just the question asked many time in this thread:
Why are the BF109 Gunpod MG151/20 much stronger then the fix mounted once?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

quiet_man

BBB_Hyperion
02-08-2005, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
I am sure you know ballistics is not so simple. Specially armor effect. Armor basically protecst in the following possible ways. It may deflect the bullet, ussually in angle impact. Homogeneous armor is good for that. It may also BREAk the bullet. That is the most effective way of protection and usually is performed by hardened face armor.


When your armor is capable of breaking the bullet. It does not matter how much E your bbullets has... It will break anyway.

That is why Bullet penetration increases with momentum.. not kynetic energy.


Alluminuim is not a good hardened armor, so It can be effective as deflection armor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I excluded armor for this reason http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif and the 10000 j / cm is a standard steel assuming that it is a armor piercing round that we dont have as we talk about mine shells. I was quite surprised that armor and duralois was that damage resistant ,so the mine round wouldnt help much to hit a il2 cockpit . Mine is only good for soft skin or damage on impact(more effective when inside the plane). Thats why it is ineffective against armor of any kind. So the 50 % AP rounds sounds reasonable against il2s on eastern front.

You can do a more complex calculation with drag , round spin momentum , attack under 45 degrees etc which reduces effective range by factor about 3/10 etc . Looking forward to it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But what i found out shooting wings off at &gt;800 m with a 20 mm with ap rounds needs more than luck.Something to look into .) As well as 50s long range effective. There are lot of inconsistences you will find .)

But as we are searching for the mine shell in il2 i neither found it with gondolas or without .)

WWMaxGunz
02-08-2005, 01:30 AM
Striking angle is critical and IL2 has always included it.

I have a collection of documents looking very much like the one above is from.
The shots are supposed to have been fired from level gun barrels as near as I can tell.
One of my interests at the time was in the comparative drop of shells and lloking one
to the next I found out that some things of those tests or the reporting is sloppy.
Look at the times and the drops, many are not right somewhere. Perhaps the gun barrels
were not held level or the measurements were not right somewhere (maybe reference mark
at the targets, it would have been surveyed optical and eyeball) or calculated elements
may be off but something is.
I do feel that taking whole tables and re-analyzing them might serve to find the true
situation and correct for it if the problem is barrel not level or just one or two
targets at distance set at wrong height.
Energy/speed of projectile determination depends on those drop measurements unless they
had used ballistic pendulums. If they had then I don't know where the errors got from.

BBB_Hyperion
02-08-2005, 03:11 AM
Point out the excat data which you think is inconsisting in that standard shooting table. I may be able to simulate such a shoot and compare results.

This table is recalculated from 91 to 92 g and 780 m/s to 775 m/s stands below it not that it effects the results much about 2 % .

WWMaxGunz
02-08-2005, 05:54 AM
Just do a check between times of flight and drop.
The time is short so 9.98 m/s/s for gravity should do?

x = 1/2 gravity x seconds x seconds --- should give drop for level barrel shots?

x will be the drop when you plug in seconds of flight.

I first noticed when comparing charts couple months ago I think it was, things did not
match so I pulled up the calculator. Only conclusion is that something is wrong.
I don't have a spreadsheet but I expect that one of those could make the job easy after
all the data and programs are entered. But it may not, depending on why the error.

You have fun, I have other projects to use up my time.