PDA

View Full Version : Realitic Gunnery may not be realistic



slimbill
01-31-2010, 04:03 PM
Hey guys, ive just been watching some old ww2 gun camea footage and it looked as if realistic gunnery in il2 switched off may be more towards how it realy occured. in the footage, aircraft sustaining a milisecond of mg fire belch smoke and fall or their wings snap off. how come in il2 you have to fire for a full five seconds with your mgs and need multiple cannon hits to score a kill?
I'm not being critical here, the game pushes the bounds of realism bu im really curious about thisone aspect.

Romanator21
01-31-2010, 04:32 PM
That depends on what you're looking at. Most footage is pruned for the most interesting shots only. Not every tracer in those films are totally obvious either. There is a lot more behind what you are seeing.

SeaFireLIV
01-31-2010, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
That depends on what you're looking at. Most footage is pruned for the most interesting shots only. Not every tracer in those films are totally obvious either. There is a lot more behind what you are seeing.

Exactly.

What happened BEFORE the scene we see? Was he previously damaged? What exactly is he being shot with? Is he in a stressed manouever? WHERE exactly is he being hit? And of course, we only see the tracer, not ALL the shells. Etc, etc.

Funny, we old hats have gone through all this years before. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Choctaw111
01-31-2010, 05:57 PM
The guncamera film that we see is typically the best stuff to watch, meaning that the Army Air Corps, or whoever the job belonged to, selected the films where there was a lot of destruction going on.
I have seen films where pilots were shooting their guns and blew up entire ships with them.
How often do you think that happened, but yet I have seen several films like this.
I have reasons to believe that the gunnery in Il2 is really not that far off.

SeaFireLIV
01-31-2010, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
The guncamera film that we see is typically the best stuff to watch, meaning that the Army Air Corps, or whoever the job belonged to, selected the films where there was a lot of destruction going on.
I have seen films where pilots were shooting their guns and blew up entire ships with them.
How often do you think that happened, but yet I have seen several films like this.
I have reasons to believe that the gunnery in Il2 is really not that far off.


yep. Though in those cases it would be that something volatile such as ammo or fuel or even engines had been hit causing the destruction. I certainly never saw a ship being cut in half by 0.50s which used to be a discussion of 50 page threads!

Reminds me of the guncam of a B17 being torn to pieces from the rear. The German plane saunters up ridiculously close to its 6 without being hit. This caused a few people to insist that getting behind a bomber`s dead 6 should be easy.

Of course, what they failed to realise on closer inspection was that the B17s guns were slack and it had been obvious that before the film bit we see that the bomber had been hit hard and the rear gunner (as well as other gunners) were incapacitated or dead.

ImMoreBetter
01-31-2010, 07:13 PM
If you want to compare gun cam footage with the game you need to find raw, unedited, and rare footage. Not montages. Not the most common shots. Those were selected because they were exciting, not because they were typical.

LEBillfish
01-31-2010, 07:33 PM
Actually, most I've seen where there were wings off shots come quite a while into the clip....More so, what we do here is much less realistic in that we take split second snap shots and get massive kills conserving our ammo....Watch the old films, they spray the sky using tons of ammo as they try to make lead. Once they make lead even the Japanese aircraft taking quite a few hits.

Much of that coming from the heat of battle...The excitement alone wasting loads of ammo.

It's my understanding the .50 cals were recently upgraded. That's actually sad in that it took a lot more then we (mostly the allied pilots) want to acknowledge. Quite often folks not taking the time to think about what they're seeing........Now I watched a film the other day where you could tell the trigger was pressed the entire time. Once the Zero was hit streaming fuel, they still kept shooting it taking even more to light it up.

Now it did not have a time lapse counter on it....Yet I'd "guess" due to how violently the Japanese aircraft was moving that it may have been half speed perhaps?....Yet all toll I'd suppose there were 10 seconds of footage, so lets call it 5 seconds. Lets also say 10% of it was hits......5 seconds firing at what? 780RPM? x 6 guns = 390 rounds+ fired of .50 caliber, 1/2 seconds worth hitting would mean 39 rounds.

......and that on an unarmored, very lightly constructed A6M.....

Unless explosive rounds and even then, in most cases you're perforating the structure so much the wing then buckles....and that few rounds doing so meant you were a good shot.

You're right....It is unrealistic here....Aircraft get shot down too easy.

K2

DuckyFluff
01-31-2010, 09:10 PM
How often does it have to be said: guncam plays back at QUARTER SPEED what you are seeing is typically a half second clip which in playback runs for two seconds, any guncam you see has been EDITED massively you have NO IDEA what has happened to the enmy aircraft prior to the clip you are watching.

Chivas
01-31-2010, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by slimbill:
Hey guys, ive just been watching some old ww2 gun camea footage and it looked as if realistic gunnery in il2 switched off may be more towards how it realy occured. in the footage, aircraft sustaining a milisecond of mg fire belch smoke and fall or their wings snap off. how come in il2 you have to fire for a full five seconds with your mgs and need multiple cannon hits to score a kill?
I'm not being critical here, the game pushes the bounds of realism bu im really curious about thisone aspect.

I agree slimbill...I've read alot of first hand accounts and rarely do aces talk about having to chase aircraft around the air putting accurate burst after accurate burst into the aircraft. The fight was over after the first accurate burst.

That said most sim pilots arn't very accurate. They don't have a feel for deflection shooting and when to fire at their convergence setting. The fifties will do amazing damage when you hit at your convergence setting, but I don't think the damage model is doing enough to disable the aircraft. I believe the damage model in SOW will be detailed enough that your aircraft will become disable much quicker than it currently is in IL-2.

Maybe this is why I gravitated to the German aircraft with the 20mm and 30mm with nose firing cannons that convergence firing wasn't quite as important as it is in Allied aircraft.

BillSwagger
01-31-2010, 09:18 PM
I think it always depends on which end of the gun you are, and results vary quite a bit.

Much of what we see in Il2 also goes off of pilot accounts and damage reports as well as the consideration given to the structure of the plane when its being modeled. Yet, i think the films are useful if you are looking to recreate an effect.
There are always exceptions, i suppose, but i'm not sure the game is capable of modeling exceptions when quite often the opposite occurs.

A while ago, i posted an "Ace in Day" article and it really shows how vulnerable those planes were. Its actually a neat little read, considering the story behind it and the fact that all the aircraft he shot down caught fire. You can read his descriptions of the events, and i think it becomes quite clear how vulnerable those aircraft were.
http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/oscarp.htm (http://www.neta.com/%7E1stbooks/oscarp.htm)


BTW, i think some of the footage seen of planes firing into ships may actually be rockets, or at least the footage i saw it appeared that way. It might be machine guns, and possibly the pilots knew exactly what to target for an explosion, though i don't see war ships being that frail.

Bill

ImpStarDuece
01-31-2010, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:

I agree slimbill...I've read alot of first hand accounts and rarely do aces talk about having to chase aircraft around the air putting accurate burst after accurate burst into the aircraft. The fight was over after the first accurate burst.

That said most sim pilots arn't very accurate. They don't have a feel for deflection shooting and when to fire at their convergence setting. The fifties will do amazing damage when you hit at your convergence setting, but I don't think the damage model is doing enough to disable the aircraft. I believe the damage model in SOW will be detailed enough that your aircraft will become disable much quicker than it currently is in IL-2.

Maybe this is why I gravitated to the German aircraft with the 20mm and 30mm with nose firing cannons that convergence firing wasn't quite as important as it is in Allied aircraft.

Conversely, I just read a first hand account, in a book no less, of a Spitfire Mk V pilot over Malta who took 20+ hits in this port wing and fuselage from a MC 202 while climbing into position to attack some Ju-88s.

He apparently didn't have major damage, so then proceeded to conduct an attack on the bombers, claiming a damaged in the process, and then got jumped by some 109s.

He took more hits, this time in the starboard wing, and pointed the nose for the earth and fled for home. He landed with better than 30 MG and cannon holes in his aircraft, including some 20mm hits, and a cut on his heel, after the lower portion of his boot was shot away http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

LEBillfish
01-31-2010, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by DuckyFluff:
How often does it have to be said: guncam plays back at QUARTER SPEED what you are seeing is typically a half second clip which in playback runs for two seconds, any guncam you see has been EDITED massively you have NO IDEA what has happened to the enmy aircraft prior to the clip you are watching.

at what speed?....Say it again....

K2

BillSwagger
01-31-2010, 10:27 PM
i think il2 does it best to model tendencies. Again, you start trying to incorporate the exception and it gets a bit complicated and misleading. For every plane there is a story like the one above, and then there are ten more that ended in tragedy that most likely you would never hear about, and if you do, its simply mentioned as a loss. Who knows how many, or how few hits those planes took.

Outside of speculation you could try and look at the mass and volume of the aircraft, and i would guess that bigger and heavier was generally tougher and more resistant to gunfire. Save fuel tanks, and engines.

There was also an interesting read, i don't have readily, but it mentions Chenault's (AVG) refusal of using P-43s over P-40s for the simple fact it lacked self sealing tanks, despite having a better rate of climb and higher altitude performance. To me, that speaks volumes.


Bill

Romanator21
02-01-2010, 12:40 AM
From what I could research, guncamera footage is played at 1/2 speed.

Billfish is definitely right about the "excitement" factor. Most pilots just held down the trigger for their entire belt. It's impossible to appreciate how frightening it really is when we are just sitting in our chairs yanking a fly-by-wire aircraft around, feeling no G's, feeling no stomach-in-the-throat sensations, etc.

I find that when I'm cool, I do incredibly well. At the risk of making this a 20 pager, I will say that 50 cals are extremely effective. In online DF maps I can make up to 4 kills per sortie in a Mustang.

If I ever get excited, which I do in FR missions that are an hour or two long (long and boring sorties punctuated by moments of extreme terror) then all my gunnery skills go out the window and I end up doing everything but hit the plane that is flying straight and level and hasn't noticed me yet, lol! I'm happy enough just to survive.

That all said, I don't believe there is anything wrong with the weaponry in the game, save for that it may even be too strong.

M_Gunz
02-01-2010, 06:30 AM
There was a whole range of pilot-gunnery-effectiveness so what a few picked examples proves means just what?

How many shots did Hans J. M_a_r_s_e_i_l_l_e (let's see the censor get that) average per plane downed and
what was he shooting? Not so many. How many others were such or just had a good day or so? More than enough
to fill a room but 1 in 10 or (actually) less overall.

Where you hit is far more important than counting hits. One bullet can ruin a whole day and yet 1000 may not
be enough. It's not random except to those who rely on luck or just don't understand what's happening, ie the
great majority which makes for some really fine quotes.

I wonder how many planes went down because of bad maneuvering or overstress of the airframe or some part
breaking that was never hit and a shooter thinking it was his guns that did the job? How would he know any
different, it's still his kill if he pushed the other that far anyway!
If I'm uselessly strafing a tank as it hits a mine or takes a killing shot from elsewhere, what do I see?

The things that happen in war, don't believe 90% of what you hear or 50% of what you see.

BillSwagger
02-01-2010, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
There was a whole range of pilot-gunnery-effectiveness so what a few picked examples proves means just what?


That well placed shots got results.

There were two skills to flying in combat, one was knowing how to fly and the other was knowing how to shoot.
An average pilot who was above average in gunnery was seen as superior to an above average pilot with average gunnery skills. Simply put, missing the target or hitting it in an ineffective spot means you need to make repeated passes which only decreases your odds of survival.

I know there are "aces" capable of hitting targets more consistently than others, with the ability to hit in the right areas of the aircraft. Why should i not be able to duplicate an "aces" actions in simulation?
In other words, if i'm shooting like an "ace", should i not see similar results?


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Where you hit is far more important than counting hits.


+1

I have to also think that using 6 or 8 separate beads of machine gun fire probably greatly increases the odds of hitting an airframe in the right spot.

Here's where i try to put my guns on an FW190. Hitting anywhere is good, but i find it more effective to focus on the shaded areas.
http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/fw190a8copy.jpg


Bill

HayateAce
02-01-2010, 12:47 PM
The non-realism actually pertains to the 20mms in this game being too powerful. Wing severs and entire fuselages being snipped in half are a little too common.

K_Freddie
02-01-2010, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
The non-realism actually pertains to the 20mms in this game being too powerful. Wing severs and entire fuselages being snipped in half are a little too common.
FWs getting to you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Actually it's the same with the Tempest..
But you're probably talking about what has already been mentioned.... that if the wing is under g-stress and gets a cannon shell.. well that's the wing gone.

I've cut off many a wing like that with a short burst, yet have spent a 'lifetime' sinking 20mm s into a wing from the 6 with seemingly no effect.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

HayateAce
02-01-2010, 02:15 PM
If you'll re-read my post, you will find I simply said "the 20mms."

I haven't been downed by a FW in ages. My last several kills were in the Tempest.

109 cut in half
109 port wing off
190 cut in half
190 engine out
190 disabled to glider status, which was the most realistic looking kill, in that it took a few bursts to down.

Paperkite29
02-01-2010, 02:27 PM
Takes a lot to be acurate at gunnery, mediocre pilots loose out all the time to pilots that are good at gunnery. The two are quite possibly mutually exclusive. You do not need to be a good gunner to be a good fighter pilot , but you darn sure need to be a good fighter pilot to stay alive....no matter how good the guns are on the ship you are flying. So if you rely on your guns to keep you alive .... at some point they too will fail and all you will have left is your wits.
make any sense????

Erkki_M
02-02-2010, 11:49 PM
My yesterday's and Monday's shots in AFW flying

FW190:
1) La5: high deflection, explosion in engine and wingroot; smoke(very likely immediate power loss), holes in wing root
2) low bounce to 5 o clock low, 200m away about a second's burst, smoke, tail and starboard wing ripped off
3) P39 high deflection, 2 explosions in fuselage, fuel leak(at least)
4) same P39, high deflection, two explosions in port wing, light smoke
5)again same P39, high deflection, 6-7 explosions in port wing and fuselage, thick smoke
6) once again the same from high deflection(he always turned to the left), 2 explosions in fuselage, tail ripped off
7) P39 dead six, light smoke and control surfaces from tail ripped off
8) P39 dead six, caught fire
9) P39, dead six, caught fire and lost half of port wing

Bf109G6:
10) P39, high bounce on a climbing cobra, quick burst removed half of port wing
11) P39 from high deflection bounce, no visible damage(holes?)
12) same P39, high deflection bounce, thick smoke, caught later fire and bailed
13) P39 high deflection in turnfight, light smoke
14) same P39, dead six, thick smoke
15) again the same dead six, no added visible damage
16) same P39 high deflection, multiple hits in hull and wings, yet caught fire a few seconds after hits and exploded nearly immediately
17) Jak-9, high six on a pulling up Jak, hits in port wing and fuselage, fuel leak
18) same Jak, a few hits to fuselage from dead six, no visible damage
19) Jak pulled up, shot a 3-sec burst into his belly when he stalled out, both wings ripped off, no engine damage


Yeah I know I'm a bad shot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Now what is a realistic looking kill? Should one miss 99% of the fired shots like they do in guncams? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Tully__
02-03-2010, 01:12 AM
Regardless of the amount of damage done, with realistic gunnery turned off there's no balistic trajectory and the bullets travel in a straight line. That is absolutely wrong if you want a realistic shooting experience. One of the things I like most about the gunnery in this game is that you must allow for bullet drop and time of travel to target and half of that is missing without "Realistic Gunnery".

T_O_A_D
02-03-2010, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Paperkite29:
Takes a lot to be acurate at gunnery, mediocre pilots loose out all the time to pilots that are good at gunnery. The two are quite possibly mutually exclusive. You do not need to be a good gunner to be a good fighter pilot , but you darn sure need to be a good fighter pilot to stay alive....no matter how good the guns are on the ship you are flying. So if you rely on your guns to keep you alive .... at some point they too will fail and all you will have left is your wits.
make any sense????

+1

Sillius_Sodus
02-03-2010, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Tully__:
Regardless of the amount of damage done, with realistic gunnery turned off there's no balistic trajectory and the bullets travel in a straight line. That is absolutely wrong if you want a realistic shooting experience. One of the things I like most about the gunnery in this game is that you must allow for bullet drop and time of travel to target and half of that is missing without "Realistic Gunnery".

Don't forget the triple effectiveness of the ammunition either. Turns those light mg's into cannons.

SeaFireLIV
02-03-2010, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Tully__:
Regardless of the amount of damage done, with realistic gunnery turned off there's no balistic trajectory and the bullets travel in a straight line. That is absolutely wrong if you want a realistic shooting experience. One of the things I like most about the gunnery in this game is that you must allow for bullet drop and time of travel to target and half of that is missing without "Realistic Gunnery".

yep. One of the things I love about IL2 as well. In fact, it feels as if every single realistic element is factered in when shooting at a flying aircraft on Realistic, but it doesn`t have everything. I just love how shooting in this sim is not just `point and shoot`.

Ba5tard5word
02-03-2010, 01:09 PM
When I first got Il-2 and was messing around until I got good at the game I turned realistic gunnery off. You can make enemy planes explode with tiny bursts of any weaponry, and you can easily kill an entire flight of 4 planes in a single head-on merge. Moving to realistic gunnery was quite a challenge, you actually have to be good at aiming and firing.

M_Gunz
02-03-2010, 01:26 PM
If you can't fly well you won't find yourself in a position to shoot as often. You're more likely to
find yourself looking above and wondering how he got up there? Clue: it's not the plane.

K_Freddie
02-03-2010, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
If you'll re-read my post, you will find I simply said "the 20mms."

I haven't been downed by a FW in ages. My last several kills were in the Tempest.


Actually it's the same with the Tempest.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
02-03-2010, 02:10 PM
"Realistic Gunnery" ain't realistic because the planes' hitboxes are simplified.
That's what makes planes either over-sensitive or rather tankish.

IRL, there are many more systems to puncture, render uneffective, jam, drain, set afire or die down.

Whle de-winging is propably a bit overdone, damage by overstressing after being hit isn't modelled, so it's pretty much balanced-out again.

SeaFireLIV
02-03-2010, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
"Realistic Gunnery" ain't realistic because the planes' hitboxes are simplified.
That's what makes planes either over-sensitive or rather tankish.

IRL, there are many more systems to puncture, render uneffective, jam, drain, set afire or die down.

Whle de-winging is propably a bit overdone, damage by overstressing after being hit isn't modelled, so it's pretty much balanced-out again.

Well it maybe `simplified`, but it`s a lot less `simplified` than previous Sims i`ve flown. Even BOBWOV (the next best war sim) doesn`t have a model as complex as IL2`s and all the rest are painfully simplified as you can literally see when you shoot at an aircraft it`s just hitting the whole `box` of the aircraft and taking a guess at what`s hit.

With IL2 you can literally aim and shoot bits off a plane and even then effects from damage may vary concerning part hit, quite realistically.

But this is really goung away from realistic shooting to realistic modelling.

K_Freddie
02-03-2010, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
But this is really goung away from realistic shooting to realistic modelling.
One and the same for this topic, and game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
02-03-2010, 02:50 PM
With heavy machine gun fire its always been an issue of effective range, for me. Under 200m they seem to be historically accurate, however beyond that their effectiveness seems to taper off much too rapidly. This subject has gone round and round already, and that's the conclusion i came to.

Using un"realistic gunnery" seems to give MGs better range. At least i can get an engine smoking at 500 meters with a well placed burst, but the realism stops there. I don't use un"realistic gunnery" because it lets me take wings off planes at 700 meters.

Cannons are a bit different. I've always thought they were a bit overpowered, specifically the 20mm/15mm although it has more to do with the DMs involved.


Bill

M_Gunz
02-03-2010, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
"Realistic Gunnery" ain't realistic because the planes' hitboxes are simplified.
That's what makes planes either over-sensitive or rather tankish.

IRL, there are many more systems to puncture, render uneffective, jam, drain, set afire or die down.

Whle de-winging is propably a bit overdone, damage by overstressing after being hit isn't modelled, so it's pretty much balanced-out again.

Well it maybe `simplified`, but it`s a lot less `simplified` than previous Sims i`ve flown. Even BOBWOV (the next best war sim) doesn`t have a model as complex as IL2`s and all the rest are painfully simplified as you can literally see when you shoot at an aircraft it`s just hitting the whole `box` of the aircraft and taking a guess at what`s hit.

With IL2 you can literally aim and shoot bits off a plane and even then effects from damage may vary concerning part hit, quite realistically.

But this is really goung away from realistic shooting to realistic modelling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EAW has hit bubbles but there are many more than one per plane. The thing is they are bubbles and you shoot a wing
from behind then you can be high or low and still hit. I have the file layout, I wrote a program to change the bubble
radius and armor the same for all planes in one pass which helped some. Below 71% radius the AI would get almost no
kills, 75-80% was enough to cut down on golden BB's. That sim will run on 300Mz K62 with 4MB video card, mid 90's tech.
I first ran IL2 demo on a 1Gz Athlon with 512MB RAM and a Voodoo 3 with 64MB. I don't compare the two as equal terms.

Bremspropeller
02-04-2010, 10:09 AM
But this is really goung away from realistic shooting to realistic modelling.

No, as realistic shooting-damage requires realistic DMs in the first place.

jamesblonde1979
02-05-2010, 11:06 AM
It's a pretty hard call, I've seen plenty of evidence to favour both sides so I guess that leaves the median at somewhere near realistic.

SeaFireLIV
02-05-2010, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But this is really goung away from realistic shooting to realistic modelling.

No, as realistic shooting-damage requires realistic DMs in the first place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. We`re talking gunnery. I could get into along argument and I`m really tempted to with you (and a few years ago I would`ve gone 10 pages with any argument), but it`s not worth my time.

Let`s just remember, we are talking `realistic` not real. On a PC computer sim, you`ll never get as real as real life simply because the user is not in that real life situation himself.