PDA

View Full Version : Room for further weapons/ballistics improvement?



XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 02:10 PM
Hi!

This sim has the best and most immersive weapons/ballistics modelling I´ve seen so far. Still I´m curious on how it could be done even better. What do you all think could be improved even further?

It may include the damagemodelling too...

And to Oleg, do you have any dreams in this department you still would like to realize? Maybe something not possible now, but in future sims? Would be interesting to know.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 02:10 PM
Hi!

This sim has the best and most immersive weapons/ballistics modelling I´ve seen so far. Still I´m curious on how it could be done even better. What do you all think could be improved even further?

It may include the damagemodelling too...

And to Oleg, do you have any dreams in this department you still would like to realize? Maybe something not possible now, but in future sims? Would be interesting to know.

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 02:26 AM
I'm sure that ballistics can always be improved and damage modeling against different types if materials can always be improved...but there's a point where it ceases to be within the perception capabilities of most people.

In both cases, it needs to be believable...

I'm sure Oleg will take advantage of continuing increases in computer performance to further improve both in the next major game he puts together.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 03:27 AM
I´m sure every step towards realism would add to the immersionfactor, it´s all the small steps...

Someone mentioned the speed that the aircraft would add to the bullet, that it could make a difference when it comes to armourpiercing. If I make a pass in 700km/h from behind in my 109K4 those mg´s should hit you harder than if we both were flying at 300km/h or any equal speed. Not to mention the headon scenarios.

BTW, do you have a link where the specs for the russian guns (v0, rof etc.) is displayed?

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 01:36 PM
Well some improvements are always ossible, even if FB is already a great great game.

About airplanes guns :
http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html


Keep in mind that gun effectivness is not meant only by rof, bullet velocity and wheight, but also for a very important part how are designed and made the bullets/shells. ( ie just a mass of soft steel or a higly explosive incendiary round, many fragments or a sophisticated armour piercing core or design. )
This is very important for judging the dammages effects.


Then, about ground warfare and ground attack, just visit those sites :

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20010814060934/http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/index.html


Again, armour thickness is not the only thing to think about.
If an armour is made of cast steel and not RHA, how many hardenning elements are in and what sort, as for all others many possible adds to coumpare to a simple cast iron...

Also, take care while reading datas : perforation and penetration datas are not equal.
By the rear mass resistance of the penetretated object, for example a shell credited of 300mm penetration ( in a 360mm thick plate ) may perforate a 330mm plate of the same material, and vice versa, a given value of perforation of a 300mm thick plate may very well show that shell to be stopped after 270mm travel in a plate thicker than 300mm.
( Numbers given to illustrate, no exact propotions intended. )

Just go to FB, and see what could be improved, tweaked or fixed ! /i/smilies/16x16_robot-very-happy.gif

P.S : Maybe some tanks are too resistant, some ground and airborne weapons too weak... search for the Yaks 12.7;108 and 20x99R effects, accuracy and rof coupared to some others ; how strong some T tanks are dammage resistant, if the anti tank ammo for various tank busters looks correct etc ... /i/smilies/16x16_robot-wink.gif


About gunnery, AI could be improved also. Coumpare how ZIS3 gun and all others units performs against tanks on a perpendicular course, at different speeds ( mean some objects go faster ).




Message Edited on 08/31/0310:45PM by Maraudeur

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 01:58 PM
Thanks for the link.

Looking at this table...
http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html

MG 131 rof: 900 mps: 730

UBS rof: 800 mps: 860 (not UBK since the one in FB fires through the prop)

..the mg131 should have higher rate of fire than the UBS. Don´t know, but my impression is the opposite?? The higher v0 of the UBS and also much heavier projectile makes perfect sense on the other hand, since it´s so powerful in FB.

Or do you think the mg131 fires faster than it´s counterpart on the yak1b and yak3?



Message Edited on 08/31/0301:12PM by F16_Filur

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 05:04 PM
It is evident that UBS is ballisticaly a more efficient weapon.

But first, some points have to be taken to moderate some of the perceived characteristics of the weapon and ammo.

Reduction of rate of fire applies to both MG131 and UBS due to synchronisation.

The superior points for the UBS are higher bullet velocity and bullet weight, so kinetic energy.

About terminal ballistic, basically the UBS bullets looks like FMJ with solid core bullets, counting on the remaining tracer powder to play an improbable incendiary role after bullet hits and - maybe - disintegrated its body enough.

Kinecting energy is interesting only for detroying structural parts of the airframe ( how many rounds necessary to reduce stuctural strenght and break a wing ? ) or perforate some others parts.

MG131 rounds were more sophisticated, one of them beeing a true HE/I round. - along AP rounds -
Bullet weight is lower ? yes and then ?
bullet weight is more important when for the same bullet space explosive fills the core while in another bullet it's a classical design. But the more effective maybe, well, the HE/I round rather than the classical one relying mainly on kinetic energy, thinking of the considered target and ways to disable it, just as a plane frame and components.

Think about, how on a bigger scale, the MK108 effects is relying on blast effetcs ( + incendiary, for the MG131 rounds ).

Considering the bullet types, it seems that FB dammage model offers , until you reach MK108 rounds, much more importance to kinetic energy wherever it hits.

Secondly, observe the density of impacts you can obtain with UBS, and it seems - as we have no tools to clearly mesure it - that the rof and accuracy, dispersion of the UBS are very optimistic, to say the least.

Same considerations about bullet design and quality, accuracy, rof and dispersion applies to the Shvak and its 20x99R ammo.

Strangely, it seems the weapons mounted on other planes than Yaks are less affected by this sort of over modelisation.

May the dev team have a look at this.

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 05:08 PM
-- forgot...

BTW this is a minor problem coumpared to the armour and weapons values against ground units and between themselves. Here stands major and big tweaks needs.