PDA

View Full Version : are 50 caliber guns UN-SYNCRONIZED?



marcCS
10-22-2005, 10:06 PM
are 50 caliber guns UN-SYNCRONIZED? If yes, now i get why some people are saying 50 cals are powerfull. Thank u 1C for fixing 50 cals http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VFA-25_Peckens
10-22-2005, 10:29 PM
they are synced they just fire faster

PBNA-Boosher
10-23-2005, 12:04 AM
What do you mean FIX?

Does it mean that you can hit targets now?

the .50's were fine before this patch, and before that previous patch, and even before that.

You have to hit your target to damage it, also, with MG's you have to concentrate that fire. Otherwise, a plane will just have a few holes in every some odd place, instead of a huge concentration of holes in 1 place.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-23-2005, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
What do you mean FIX?

Does it mean that you can hit targets now?

the .50's were fine before this patch, and before that previous patch, and even before that.

You have to hit your target to damage it, also, with MG's you have to concentrate that fire. Otherwise, a plane will just have a few holes in every some odd place, instead of a huge concentration of holes in 1 place.

Fine before? Oh no - it seems they wouldn't be happy until they had 6 or 8 151/20s fitted http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

HoneySeeker
10-23-2005, 05:11 AM
Wouldn't one expect them to remain pretty much in synch anyway? After all, the .50s on a plane are all the same model of gun, all having the same rate of fire (allowing for slight variations in manufacturing tolerances, wear, and cartridge loadings, none of which are modelled here), and all triggered off at the same time. In real life there might be a little wandering in rate of fire over the course of a long burst, but not a great deal to be seem in a 1-to-2-second squirt. Tracer placement is another matter - but if all belts have the same composition, then the same factors apply.

Friendly_flyer
10-23-2005, 05:55 AM
You€re absolutely right about synchronised guns, HonnySeeker, but the tracers are another matter. Unsynchronised tracers are very easy to achieve. You just take out 1-4 rounds at the beginning of some belts, and voila, you have unsynchronised tracers. If you're concerned about ammo-count, you could just at the rounds to the end of the belt. Since a continuous stream of tracers is easier to aim with, I guess pilots asked ground crew nicely to unsynchronise the tracers for them.

Some of the Mustang and Thunderbolt flyers seem to think that since a plane can pass between the groups of tracers, they can pass through the groups of bullets too, and that the guns was unsynchronised in real life. This argument seem a bit silly to me. There should be 4 bullet groups between the tracer groups, making the "safe zone" between bullets nonexistent. Also, a mechanism for unsynchroniseing the guns would have been very complex, and it would take away the instant volley of the initial firing. Until someone can point to the guns having such a mechanism, I think the synchronised guns are realistic. Unsynchronisieng the tracers would have been a good thing, though.

Kocur_
10-23-2005, 06:15 AM
Check 10th post here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/2231006943/r/4831080553#4831080553), and in fact...most of the thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
10-23-2005, 07:04 AM
They seem to hit harder...I don't think they fire faster. Or its just the DM's on the other end.

Otherwise just the same.

I find they finally go through things...they used to just seem to bounce off before. I wonder if they corrected the distance between packets of bullets and that it was a bug?

Friendly_flyer
10-23-2005, 07:15 AM
Kocur, I just read the thred and found yours and Hosebacks arguments convincing. Guns should be de-synchronised, though I don't know if it would really matter. The distance between bullet groups is too small for a plane to pass between them.

The tracers is another matter, have them evenly distributed throughout the bullet groups (€œde-synched€) would have been nice.

Kocur_
10-23-2005, 08:22 AM
My personal problem with .50s is Im never really sure if Im hitting at distances +200m, because "updates" on that are as rare as tracers and flashes on target.
Lets imagine three M2s at ROFs of 750rpm, 800rpm and 850rps. If the 800rpm is the reference point, the other two are 50/800=6,25% slower/faster. That means that with every shot projectiles from two other guns increace distance to projectiles from 800rpm M2 by 6,25% x ~60m = 3,75m. So when ~0,5s burst is completed distance between last rounds from all three M2s reaches 6 x 6,25m = 37,5m, i.e instead of "3 bullets from previous 'salvo'...~60m gap...3 bullets" we'd have "last-bullet-from-previous-'salvo'...~48m...bullet...~37m...bullet...~37m...b ullet". So as you say it wouldnt matter for really short bursts, but even for last shots of 0,5s burst would produce stream of bullets much denser than current synched.
So for everything longer than 0,5s burts we would see stream of tracers rather than packages, and if we were hitting flashes on target would be much more often. But as we see, cut&past code of M2s in P-40 field mod. must have been to difficult or time consuming...

LStarosta
10-23-2005, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
What do you mean FIX?

Does it mean that you can hit targets now?

the .50's were fine before this patch, and before that previous patch, and even before that.

You have to hit your target to damage it, also, with MG's you have to concentrate that fire. Otherwise, a plane will just have a few holes in every some odd place, instead of a huge concentration of holes in 1 place.

Do you not understand what was wrong with the M2? Instead of making condescending and obvious remarks (i.e. to damage the target, you need to hit it), why don't you acquaint yourself with the threads that clearly showed that the M2 functioned like a shotgun where a plane could actually slip in between the "shot" being fired, all because the machine guns were synchronized in relation to each other. That makes it a bit DIFFICULT to do what you suggest. Then again, you wouldn't know since Yaks and their armament are modelled just fine.

Copperhead310th
10-23-2005, 10:32 AM
I wouldn't know. i can't get on any server to try em out. I'm timing out on all the good ones that would even have a Jug. Warclouds is No GO.
PF loads like I'm on a Texas Int. TRS-80 with a 14.4k connection in Siberiea.
Any other server no prob. but WC. uh uh. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

maybey i'll try Greater green.

but now you LW guys know how we felt when Oleg juced the 151/20's with a shot of steroids last patch. lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
PERSONALLY I HOPE THEY LEAVE THE .50'S JUST LIKE THEY ARE. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Copperhead310th
10-23-2005, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
What do you mean FIX?

Does it mean that you can hit targets now?

the .50's were fine before this patch, and before that previous patch, and even before that.

You have to hit your target to damage it, also, with MG's you have to concentrate that fire. Otherwise, a plane will just have a few holes in every some odd place, instead of a huge concentration of holes in 1 place.

Do you not understand what was wrong with the M2? Instead of making condescending and obvious remarks (i.e. to damage the target, you need to hit it), why don't you acquaint yourself with the threads that clearly showed that the M2 functioned like a shotgun where a plane could actually slip in between the "shot" being fired, all because the machine guns were synchronized in relation to each other. That makes it a bit DIFFICULT to do what you suggest. Then again, you wouldn't know since Yaks and their armament are modelled just fine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah honestly Boosher i'm surprised at you for making that kind of a statement with out any forthought to what you're writing. Not like you all ol' buddy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here if your gonna troll...let me give ya some pointers.
1. Call every one in the thread a hitler loving jackbooted nazi scumbag.

2.totally tick off an insane hungairan lawyer.

3.Curse out the entire moderating staff. even calling one a "lizerd liped homosexual with a bad attitude, and a stong passion for getting carpet burns on his knees."

4. Call Oleg a biased goosestepping pr*ck who couldn't moddel the FM of a paper airplane.

Now THAT'S TROLLING. ;-) LOL just trying to help man. looked like you could use some pointers.

<span class="ev_code_RED">***NOTE ITEMS 1-4 ARE ONLY MENT AS A JOKE AND DO NOT REPRESENT MY TRUE BELEIFS OR OPINIONS.****</span>
Now laugh d@mn you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Friendly_flyer
10-23-2005, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
acquaint yourself with the threads that clearly showed that the M2 functioned like a shotgun where a plane could actually slip in between the "shot" being fired,


I remain unconvinced about this. Could you post links to some threads where this is proved, in-game or in real life? The .50 rounds typically travels 850 meters in a second, the average rate of fire is a little bit bellow 10 rounds per second. This means that there is 8 to 9 meters (24 to 27 feet) between each bullet. Considering the speed of the bullets, I can't quite see that a plane "slipping between the bullets" would be possible, except from a very steep angle.

A little bit about the .50 Browning cartridge:
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

A little bit about the M2 HMG:
http://www.nisat.org/weapons%20pages%20linked/US/m2_browning_machine_gun.htm

Kocur_
10-23-2005, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer: The .50 rounds typically travels 850 meters in a second, the average rate of fire is a little bit bellow 10 rounds per second. This means that there is 8 to 9 meters (24 to 27 feet) between each bullet.

Im affraid you must have made a mistake in your calculation. Having ROF at 800prm we have 800/60=13,3 rounds per second, so next round leaves muzzle every 1/13,3= 0,075s. Lets assume average muzzle velocity of M2 projectiles is 870m/s, so since S=V x t, there is 870m/s x 0,075s=65,25m between projectiles. In fact its less, because we used here muzzle velocity, which was simple, instead of average speed at distance. But that distance was rather short for such a weapon, so I think error is small. Anyway we can safely think there is ~60m gap between M2 projectiles.

airdale1960
10-23-2005, 02:35 PM
.50 M2 Question: Is overheating barrels and locking breaches modeled in the sim? I've always used short bursts. I am away from the sim and can't test this. That round has good velocity, so long bursts would do some damage if not allowed to cool off. Of course I'm sure burned out rifling would be a modeling night-mare. Just Currious.

SithSpeeder
10-23-2005, 03:24 PM
marcCS asked:
are 50 caliber guns UN-SYNCRONIZED? No, they are still synchronized in all planes except the P-40E Field Mod.


VFA-25_Peckens said:
they are synced they just fire faster No, THERE IS NO RATE OF FIRE INCREASE. Same duration of firing, same syncronization.

I have no more to say to Friendly Flyer from Norway--we agree to disagree. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kocur references the thread in Oleg's Ready Room (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/2231006943/p/1) that grew to 23 PAGES before the patch came out.

I started a thread after the patch to see if anyone noticed a difference: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8031073863

Icefire's comment about them seeming to hit harder may be true, but there has been no response from the developers to say this. And as he adroitely points out, it may be a general weakening of the DMs instead.


airdale1960 asked:
Is overheating barrels and locking breaches modeled in the sim? No, never has been.

Hope that helps.

* _54th_Speeder *

Friendly_flyer
10-24-2005, 02:51 AM
****ur wrote:

Im affraid you must have made a mistake in your calculation. Having ROF at 800prm we have 800/60=13,3 rounds per second

Hm, the M2 of my army days had a RPM of 450/600 rpm, that is from 8 to 10 rounds per second. I remember we would always spot the M2 positions from the sound. The other MGs in use (LMGs) had about twice that rate. It may be that the aircraft version of the gun had a lighter bolt and hence a faster rate of fire?

Anyway I concede to having made a math blunder. Mean distance between bullets (With Kocurs data) should be 65 meters, which will make high deflection shots difficult. Yes, I agree that desynchronising the .50 will make a difference, especially to the P-47 with it€s 8 guns.

SithSpeeder wrote

I have no more to say to Friendly Flyer from Norway--we agree to disagree.

Thinking a bit, reading Horsebacks arguments and redoing the math has led me to the conclusion that you are right and I where wrong. There you see, I€m a reasonable guy after all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
10-24-2005, 03:29 AM
Hm, the M2 of my army days had a RPM of 450/600 rpm

That must've been M2HB (heavy barrel) or perhaps M2HB QCB (quick change barrel), i.e. land M2. And we are dealing here with the original air cooled M2 for aerial use, with higher ROF coming from lighter barrel, numbers quoted from 750rpm to 850rpm, 800rpm most commonly.

Gibbage1
10-24-2005, 03:39 AM
Kocur_ is a little wrong.

The field gun or "ground" gun had a lighter spring and thus only had about 450-500RPM. Those guns you find on tri-pods and on top of Hummers today. They dont NEED to spit out 750+ rounds! Just waisting ammo, and on a tripod, the added recoil is not good. The aircraft gun had a much stronger spring in it and could for "up too 850 RPM" but the "average" was around 700-750. Each gun had its own ROF ranging between 650-850RPM due to many many factors. I also think all US fighters had the M2HB in WWII.

I have done a lot of research, and found that some crew members even put a few quarters behind the spring to increase the RPM by quite a bit. Some P-51's had ammo feed systems that would increase the RPM beyond 900RPM, and the M3 that was a little late for WWII could fire at 1200RPM. The M2 was used on F-80 and F-86 aircraft.

As you see, there was a lot of differant RPM's and many factors.

Friendly_flyer
10-24-2005, 03:49 AM
So, it's the spring! I guess that figures.

Gibbage1
10-24-2005, 04:06 AM
Well, its MANY factors.

Belting and weight of ammo as it feeds into the reciever. Hence why a powered feeder system would add 100RPM.

Spring on the recoil system is a huge factor.

tollerances of all mecanical parts is a small factor.

Berral weight is also a small factor when dealing with the forces of recoil on the .50 cal round.

The temperature is also a big factor.

dirt, dust, wear and tear, bad service crew, and so many other little factors.

Thats why the .50 cal SHOULD NOT BE SYNCED!!! With all these factors, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY ALL GUNS IN AN AIRCRAFT CAN FIRE AT THE SAME EXACT TIME!!! Its simply not historical, and its a feature that is in IL2, but not implamented on aircraft.

The Hurricane IIB's 12 .303 guns are not synced. Also the P-40E Field Mod guns are not synced. So it can be done, and simply by programming each aircraft with its own ROF. The P-51D has 1 of its 6 guns with its own ROF so thats further proof that IT CAN BE DONE!

Why is it not being done is the question at hand.

jimDG
10-24-2005, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Well, its MANY factors.

Belting and weight of ammo as it feeds into the reciever. Hence why a powered feeder system would add 100RPM.

Spring on the recoil system is a huge factor.

tollerances of all mecanical parts is a small factor.

Berral weight is also a small factor when dealing with the forces of recoil on the .50 cal round.

The temperature is also a big factor.

dirt, dust, wear and tear, bad service crew, and so many other little factors.

Thats why the .50 cal SHOULD NOT BE SYNCED!!! With all these factors, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY ALL GUNS IN AN AIRCRAFT CAN FIRE AT THE SAME EXACT TIME!!! Its simply not historical, and its a feature that is in IL2, but not implamented on aircraft.

The Hurricane IIB's 12 .303 guns are not synced. Also the P-40E Field Mod guns are not synced. So it can be done, and simply by programming each aircraft with its own ROF. The P-51D has 1 of its 6 guns with its own ROF so thats further proof that IT CAN BE DONE!

Why is it not being done is the question at hand.

if theres a valid reason, it must be on the computation time side. 3-4 bullets flying together are easy to compute - its as if its one object. Its either that the DM that cant handle too many hits in one small area at a (very short) time, or the bullet FM cant handle independantly too many bullets close to each other (computing drop/disperssion), or, most likely, the a/c FM cant handle recoil (wing rocking in the yaw plane) from 8 guns with different and very high ROF.

The difference with the hurry is that the guns there are placed wider appart, the damage they deal is smaller, the range/flight time/comp. time is shorter, and the recoil is much smaller.
It makes sense to offset the phase of one of the .50 cals in the p51 (its still sync-ed. but firing with a small delay). This provides a bit of uneven recoil, to get a realistic wing rocking - yaw back and forth due to uneven recoil due to slightly different ROF in the real world.


A neater compromise solution for the .50 cals would have been to model the 4MG as one MG with a very high ROF. But then the p51/p47 would have been the steadiest gun platforms in the virtual world, and better than uber; there would be no way to make the wings rock, had it been done this way.

Setting different ROF for 8 guns is no good: then you get "beats". they are together when they start firing, then they fire at different times, then at some point they fire together again (800 rpm times x = 850 rpm times y).

The realistic solution is to vary the ROF of each gun a bit - randomly in time as it is firing, and that I guess, also comes with a computation time penalty, i.e. a noticable frame rate and ping drop, when you press the trigger.

The time gap between fired bullets can never be smaller than the time it takes to compute what a bullet does to the airplane that fired it, how the flight of the bullet changes, and what that bullet does to the a/c that receives it.
Thats what its all about.

nakamura_kenji
10-24-2005, 04:50 AM
agree gibbage only gun that gear drive fire through prop show have same fire rate.

be interest plane that mix ki-61-I-ko/otsu with gun prop and wing as two sync two not should be

Friendly_flyer
10-24-2005, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by jimDG:
The time gap between fired bullets can never be smaller than the time it takes to compute what a bullet does to the airplane that fired it, how the flight of the bullet changes, and what that bullet does to the a/c that receives it.
Thats what its all about.

The Hurricane produces little noticeable stutter when I press the trigger, so why should the Mustang? The computation needed should be a result of the number of objects in the air. I believe the .303 Browning and .50 M2s have about the same rate of fire, which means that there should be more bullets to keep track of from the 8 or 12 guns of a Hurricane, than from the 6 guns of a Mustang.

Perhaps it is a question of the damage model of the .50? Do they do damage that require extra computation? As for complex damage, I have noticed that quite bad stutter sets in when flack opens fire.

Kocur_
10-24-2005, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Kocur_ is a little wrong.

The field gun or "ground" gun had a lighter spring and thus only had about 450-500RPM.

HEY! Im the guns-guy round here!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But seriously: if we are talking about difference in FOR between WW2 aerial M2 and M2HB, it would be more than just spring. We must have in mind, that spring is there both during recoil and counter-recoil, i.e. returning parts will experience less slowing force from "lighter", i.e. softer spring, but during counter-recoil that softer spring will give back less force to push moving parts forwards and less force means slower speed.
Much more important factor for ROF is weight of moving parts (for all automatic weapons). In case of Brownings mgs those are barrel with barrel extension and bolt, that are in move during movement of projectile through barrel. Since ammo momentum is the same for all M2 variants, one with lighter barrel will have higher ROF, because force from gun gas will have to overcome smaller inertia of lighter moving group, thus speed of moving group will be greater.
There were many M2 variants before WW2: the original aerial gun, the US Army M1921, some US Army and USN water cooled guns, improved M1921 standarised as M2, and finally M2HB. I have no idea derivative of which was aerial WW2 M2. I also have no idea what was ROF of original US Army M2 (non-HB). If it was the same as M2HB's it would mean the gun went through some serious redesign, i.e. there was change in geometry of accelerator and/or geometry of barrel extension/bolt surfaces connecting with accelerator. Accelerator is basically a lever to transfer energy of barrel group to bolt: as long as bolt is locked with barrel extension (which is fixed with barrel), it has the same speed as barrel group. Once bolt is un-locked, it has only as much energy as its weight and speed determine. That energy might not be enough to operate gun, so bolt has to receive some more energy, i.e. speed. Luckily barrel group has plenty of that, and actually it would be good to decrease it. So there is accelerator acting between barrel group and bolt: lets imagine a lever on horizontal axis crosswise to barrel axis. Barrel group touches that lever at point, say 10mm from axis, and end of the lever, which touches bolt, is 40mm from axis. So when barrel group pushes accelerator, its end travelles (40-10)/10 = 3 times faster than point where acelerator is pushed by barrel extension, thus bolt is accelerated at cost of speed of barrel group.
So assuming weight of bolt remained unchanged through M2's history, changing weight of barrel and changing geometry of accelerator, so that bolt would receive more/less speed from barrel group, would be main means of increasing/decreasing ROF. If I had M2HB @ 550prpm and wanted to increase its ROF I would replace barrel to lighter one, so that initial speed of barrel group with bolt would increase and I would incerace gear ratio of accelerator, so that bolt would be speeded up more.



But those are technical details unrelated directly with our beloved game.
I see no reason not to make all wing guns unsynched! P-40E field mod. is already exising solution and it works! Even if 12 unsynched .303s of Hurricane IIb create some minor lag, it would be much much smaller even for P47: those .303 fire at 1200rpm, while .50 M2 at 800rpm (presumably). So unsynched P47's M2s would produce at least (12 x 20 / 8 x 13,3 = 240 / 106 = )2,25 less lag..."At least" because .303 belting is "APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API" and M2s "APIT - AP - HE - AP", so tracer round is every fourth round in M2 and every THIRD in .303, so in terms of graphics .303 is "heavier" than M2.

Friendly_flyer
10-24-2005, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
.303 belting is "APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API"

Do .303 belts alternate between AP and API between tracers, or was that a typo?

SithSpeeder
10-24-2005, 08:29 AM
I find it odd that after all this discussion (ok, really speculation), we have not had anyone from the development team (in ORR or in GD forums) comment on the .50s.

It would be nice to divorce our speculation from the reality of the sim.

* _54th_Speeder *

"Instead of making others right or wrong, or bottling up right and wrong in ourselves, there's a middle way, a very powerful middle way...... Could we have no agenda when we walk into a room with another person, not know what to say, not make that person wrong or right? Could we see, hear, feel other people as they really are? It is powerful to practice this way....... true communication can happen only in that open space."
--Pema Chodron, Buddhist nun

Kocur_
10-24-2005, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
.303 belting is "APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API"

Do .303 belts alternate between AP and API between tracers, or was that a typo? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If a typo, not mine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Its taken from very old Oleg's post on beltings.

jimDG
10-24-2005, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
The time gap between fired bullets can never be smaller than the time it takes to compute what a bullet does to the airplane that fired it, how the flight of the bullet changes, and what that bullet does to the a/c that receives it.
Thats what its all about.

The Hurricane produces little noticeable stutter when I press the trigger, so why should the Mustang? The computation needed should be a result of the number of objects in the air. I believe the .303 Browning and .50 M2s have about the same rate of fire, which means that there should be more bullets to keep track of from the 8 or 12 guns of a Hurricane, than from the 6 guns of a Mustang.

Perhaps it is a question of the damage model of the .50? Do they do damage that require extra computation? As for complex damage, I have noticed that quite bad stutter sets in when flack opens fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe the hurry has the same problems, but the workaround solution has been to remove the virtual mass from the .303 bullets, so that neither shooting or receiveing A/C gets rocked about (eliminating the need to compute force effects on both a/c). That would be logical, as .303s dont have much mass and kinetic energy anyway - so the effect is close to zero.
A way to check this (theory) would be to shoot a big hole in one of the hurrys wings and see if firing the remainig guns on the other wing produces any yaw.
An alternative explanation is that since the range of the 303s is limited - much less comp. time is needed for the bullet flight part of the whole shooting affair, so, overall 2x6 .303s is more doable - less objects in the air at any time. And possibly, the fire from 2x6 .303 MGs is more dispersed and strikes different damage parts of the a/c DM (mid wing, base wing, fuselage), rather than one and the same (base wing)..mm dispersing the computation as well to different DM objects? Somehow? Hand-wavy this bit is, admit must I http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm just using deduction and working backwards from the facts assuming oleg strives for maximum (possible) realism - of course it could be smth mundane, such as lazy programmers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I really have no explanation for the p40 field mod, but I must say I have flown it only once and wasnt paying much attention, I guess I have to do more research..
Maybe the p40 field mods are just never flown in large numbers - so there is never a need to take care of 20 p40s shooting their guns in the air at one time, so the problem with desynced guns (whatever it might be) never manifests itself?

Gibbage1
10-24-2005, 04:49 PM
I have spend some time in early war servers with many Hurricane IIB's flying. Once I was on the tail of an He-111 with 4-5 Hurricane IIB's all firing at it. It was a red tracer nightmare!!! But no lag.

P-47 with 8 .50 cal's is not the norm. I would say they get less airtime in late-war servers then the Hurricane IIB does on early-war servers. A LOT LESS!! Typical loadout of .50 cal armed aircraft is 6 .50 cals. 6x750= 4500RPM. Sounds like a lot, but then it works out to 75 RPS (rounds per second). Remember, if your on a server with a 100MS ping, that means a packet every 1/10th of a second. That means your computer is feeding the server about 7-8 rounds per packet. Thats rather minimul info. Now lets look at a Hurricane IIB. 12x1200RPM = 14400RPM or 240RPS. Thats about 4x what a P-51 spits out!!!!!! So in reality, 1 Hurricane firing feeds the server the same ammount of info of 4 P-51's firing, and even with 5 Hurricanes chewing on an He-111 in front of me PLUS MY OWN FIRE! I did not have any problems. That means that at least 20 P-51's can be firing at the same time on the server in the same area with unsynced guns and it will be about the same traffic as 5 hurricanes doing the same.

Now can you see why I think its fully possible within IL2's network?

jimDG
10-25-2005, 08:11 AM
on your computer -maybe, but how about on the minimum specs? (its about the processor calculating where things go and what they do, not the grafix card having to draw tracers´-thats easy)
the.50s have 4 times the range of .303s, - so, with the same ROF, 12 .303 MGS put the same number of objects in the air as 3 .50s, at any time. in other words - the objects from the .50s take longer to reach their extreme range and "dissapear"

Bandwidth is not the issue here. Telling a server where an object is , is much faster than calculating where an object should be, before that info is sent to the server.

The ultimate question is - how much lower is the FPS on a min specs computer where 20 hurrys are shooting at 20 Dakotas, compared to 20 p40field. m.-s shooting at 20 Dakotas. (if lower at all)? We are making the assumption that modeling of the hurry´s MGs and the p40FM is one and the same. How do those 2 cases compare to 20 p51s shooting 20 Dakotas?

Kocur_
10-25-2005, 08:47 AM
RAF's Browning .303 fired at about 1200rpm top, thats 1,5 times more than .50 M2 (~800rpm). And yes, .50BMG projectile can travel about 7km, while ~8mm mgs, say ~4km. But thats just ballistic range, which far far more than effective range. I dont see any point in modelling projectiles of any weapon at distance beyound, say, 1,5km, where they should just disappear. Probability of hitting the target at such distance is low enough to model it like that.

I still see no reason whatsoever not to model all wing mounted guns as they are modelled in cases of P-40E field mod. or Hurricane Mk.IIb.

jimDG
10-25-2005, 09:09 AM
hm, you are right. so, scratch the projectile FM behaviour - firing a/c and DM on receiving a/c is whats left to disprove. Would you care to test the 3 proposed scenarios? (im not very experienced with the mission builder)

Gibbage1
10-25-2005, 03:18 PM
BTW, in IL2, .50 cal's vanish at about 850-900M. So its not calculating a 7KM path.

FritzGryphon
10-25-2005, 06:14 PM
BTW, in IL2, .50 cal's vanish at about 850-900M. So its not calculating a 7KM path.


It's 2km+ km, now, anyway. And that's firing from stationary.

The UB gun, on the other hand, vanishes at about 1.2km from stationary firing.

It's very hard to see, but here's a comparison video. Red dot is M2 tracer, white dot is UB. Fire point is 100m alt. Each marker is 250m, for total of 2km.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/compare.mov

Grey_Mouser67
10-25-2005, 06:16 PM
What would be really aggrevating if you only new the bullet drop to 300 meters is measured in inches and the drop at 500 meters is less than 2 ft.

Big game hunters have a saying when firing at furry animals from long distance...no matter how far you are, make sure there is hair in the cross hairs!

What this means is that even though the distance might be 400 or 500 meters, you will miss your animal high if you try to shoot above them...the ammo is that flat shooting! If you have to aim above the plane in order to hit it at anything under .5km, there is something wrong with the ballistics calculations....these guns aught to fire like lasers to at least .4 km...after that they drop at an increasing rate and you should really notice it from .6km and beyond.

FritzGryphon
10-25-2005, 06:22 PM
the drop at 500 meters is less than 2 ft

The bullet takes about 3/4 of a second to reach the 500m mark. MV is 880m/s, but average velocity from start to 500m is merely 650m/s or so.

That'd mean drop of 5.5m in a vacuum. Maybe 5m taking air resistance into account (negligable; bullets are dense and smooth).

To drop the whole 100m, would take merely 3.5 seconds in a vacuum, maybe 4 or 5 including resistance.

Hunting rifle, maybe less. They have higher MV and better drag ratio, don't they?

Kocur_
10-25-2005, 10:07 PM
FM 23-65, i.e. M2HB user's manualhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, says maximum ordinate, i.e. highest point of trajectory is 1m at 600m, 3m at 1000m, 10m at 1500m and 25m at 2000m.

Generally target of flat-trajectory guns designers, no matter rifles or tank guns, is to increace distance at which maximum ordinate is less than height of target. As far as it is so, errors is estimation of distance to target are negligible - bullet will hit the target somewhere anyway.
Maximum ordinate of:
7,92mm x 57 Mauser "S" projectile at 300m is 0,22m, at 500m - 0,74m,
7,62mm x 39 M43 at 300m - 0,34m, at 500m - 1,3m,
5,56mm x 45 NATO SS109 projectile at 300m - 0,18, at 500m - 0,69m.