PDA

View Full Version : An idea to solve the never ending debate



Bull_dog_
07-24-2004, 02:42 PM
The .50 cal conversation has become taboo due to the emotional aspect of it and few are willing to touch it again... I will share my views at the end of this post, but I would like to share an idea for Oleg to maybe put this to rest...although it may be hard to program.

I would suggest the addition of a tab that allows the fine tuning of gunnery variables. The interface would allow for % increases or decreases in certain weapon classes effectiveness and dispersion...some classes might be light MG's, Heavy Mg's, light cannons, heavy cannons, torpedoes, bombs, rockets etc...

The idea would be to tune weapons according to a persons likes or dislikes. Today, we have a button that takes us from "normal" to super, duper laser like howitzer weapons systems and I think that button is all but useless to anyone except very new users of the game.

2.04 HMG's seem about 25% weak to me...not 3x. I would like to be able to tune it myself. The German 20mm's seem about 15% too weak also. Since I am one consumer amongst thousands, you would not change this for me, so I ask you put the code in place to allow me to customize my game as I like.

Now why I suggest that. I had a copy of 2.02 and I was hoping the final release would model that...it does not. I fly all planes, but like British and US planes most of all.

I felt the killing power of the .50's were just about right in 2.01 at close range say 200meters. The German 20mm's were porked (and still not too good) and I really liked the .30 cals in 2.01.

I have felt that the dispersion thing was wrong from the beginning (especially relative to other similar weapons) so your target was too easy to hit, too little damage at convergence beyond 300 meters.... I was looking for the damage that 2.01 gave me out farther but being harder to hit.

I have the opinion, based primarily on combat reports and books I've read, that HMG's and light cannons were very capable of killing the opponent with not too much difficulty...the hard part was hitting the opponent. The factors like fear, adrenaline, sweat, target fixation, sun glare, g-forces, head bob and keeping track of dozens of cockpit variables is what made combat gunnery hard...the weapons themselves were very effective when brought to bear.

In order to deal with the issue, I have a second install with 2.02 for off line play and I'll use 2.04 for online play and will have to live with the current reality...back to sneaking up behind the enemy, opening up and having them break away...like in 2.00

Once additional patches come out with new aircraft, I won't want to have a second install so please consider the idea as a possible alternative to end the debate (offline anyways). I suspect the online crowd is a little more emotional about the topic since we compete directly and the weapons effectiveness really is a big variable in online success...especially in cockpit on servers.

Other ideas for BoB...allow custom ammo belting for tracers, incindiaries, AP etc...

Allow for field modifications to aircraft as a selectable on/off...like the nascar games...decide whether you want pilot armor, or extra boost, or guns added/deleted, different canopy, different ordinance configuration etc.

Model pilot fatigue and make it selectable so that jinking and g-forces reduce combat effectiveness/control effectiveness as the fight progresses.

High vis cockpits with pilots able to crane neck to increase visability behind

Stike force creation in FMB through application that allows for objects to be named/saved so a mission builder can create convoys, trains, vehicle columns, firbases, airfields, aircraft strike force packages etc...

Air/sea rescue, photo recon missions where you actually can photo and save an aerial picture to include in the next days misssion briefing.

enough for now...we'll see how many trolls I have attracted and how many people who want to explore the topic logically and unemotionally.

Bull_dog_
07-24-2004, 02:42 PM
The .50 cal conversation has become taboo due to the emotional aspect of it and few are willing to touch it again... I will share my views at the end of this post, but I would like to share an idea for Oleg to maybe put this to rest...although it may be hard to program.

I would suggest the addition of a tab that allows the fine tuning of gunnery variables. The interface would allow for % increases or decreases in certain weapon classes effectiveness and dispersion...some classes might be light MG's, Heavy Mg's, light cannons, heavy cannons, torpedoes, bombs, rockets etc...

The idea would be to tune weapons according to a persons likes or dislikes. Today, we have a button that takes us from "normal" to super, duper laser like howitzer weapons systems and I think that button is all but useless to anyone except very new users of the game.

2.04 HMG's seem about 25% weak to me...not 3x. I would like to be able to tune it myself. The German 20mm's seem about 15% too weak also. Since I am one consumer amongst thousands, you would not change this for me, so I ask you put the code in place to allow me to customize my game as I like.

Now why I suggest that. I had a copy of 2.02 and I was hoping the final release would model that...it does not. I fly all planes, but like British and US planes most of all.

I felt the killing power of the .50's were just about right in 2.01 at close range say 200meters. The German 20mm's were porked (and still not too good) and I really liked the .30 cals in 2.01.

I have felt that the dispersion thing was wrong from the beginning (especially relative to other similar weapons) so your target was too easy to hit, too little damage at convergence beyond 300 meters.... I was looking for the damage that 2.01 gave me out farther but being harder to hit.

I have the opinion, based primarily on combat reports and books I've read, that HMG's and light cannons were very capable of killing the opponent with not too much difficulty...the hard part was hitting the opponent. The factors like fear, adrenaline, sweat, target fixation, sun glare, g-forces, head bob and keeping track of dozens of cockpit variables is what made combat gunnery hard...the weapons themselves were very effective when brought to bear.

In order to deal with the issue, I have a second install with 2.02 for off line play and I'll use 2.04 for online play and will have to live with the current reality...back to sneaking up behind the enemy, opening up and having them break away...like in 2.00

Once additional patches come out with new aircraft, I won't want to have a second install so please consider the idea as a possible alternative to end the debate (offline anyways). I suspect the online crowd is a little more emotional about the topic since we compete directly and the weapons effectiveness really is a big variable in online success...especially in cockpit on servers.

Other ideas for BoB...allow custom ammo belting for tracers, incindiaries, AP etc...

Allow for field modifications to aircraft as a selectable on/off...like the nascar games...decide whether you want pilot armor, or extra boost, or guns added/deleted, different canopy, different ordinance configuration etc.

Model pilot fatigue and make it selectable so that jinking and g-forces reduce combat effectiveness/control effectiveness as the fight progresses.

High vis cockpits with pilots able to crane neck to increase visability behind

Stike force creation in FMB through application that allows for objects to be named/saved so a mission builder can create convoys, trains, vehicle columns, firbases, airfields, aircraft strike force packages etc...

Air/sea rescue, photo recon missions where you actually can photo and save an aerial picture to include in the next days misssion briefing.

enough for now...we'll see how many trolls I have attracted and how many people who want to explore the topic logically and unemotionally.

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-24-2004, 02:50 PM
Here is an idea stop posting threads like this. Even if you are trying to help.

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

Bull_dog_
07-24-2004, 02:57 PM
This is where things like this get discussed. Ivan does a good job of moderating so if the discussion turns sour then he will lock the thread.

Oleg will hear this or he won't.

Ivan, as far as I'm concerned, I've posted what I have to say and if you want to lock it, so be it.

I'll use 2.02 offline and the most current version available online and do what is in my power to bring forward opportunities, suggestions and offer what I can.

Enough said

Luftcaca
07-24-2004, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Here is an idea stop posting threads like this. Even if you are trying to help.

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

http://www.vmf-214.net
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Havok:

b4 you continue to play that lame game, mod wannabe, I suggest you learn to READ posts.

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

wants flyable:

early 110's
IL-10
Pe-3

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2004, 04:17 PM
This is not the way to go. The goal, is, just get the .50s *right*. It's got nothing to do with any person's wishes at the moment.

I don't know myself how "right" or "wrong" they are right now.... but I can say that the ultimate goal is to simply get them right. Is the dispersion pattern right? Do they deliver the energy they should on impact? Do they penetrate the various surfaces as they should? Do they "spall"? Stuff like that. And I'm fairly certain the US Army, at least, has invested millions on a now-declassified study that has all that kind of data in it.

Bull_dog_
07-24-2004, 05:08 PM
I would agree with you Stiglr...except, I nor anyone else, knows for sure what is "right" and I really doubt that things like that are terribly quantifiable...not like climb rates, speed, turning circle etc...

I will explain why I feel the way I do and hopefully others can explain similarly:

I do most of my benchmarking in the P-51B since it has the weakest firepower and is the aircraft that is most notable in the turn of events over Europe.

The P-51B/C was in Europe in squadron numbers in Jan 44 and from then until D-Day went on the offensive over Europe to take the skies away from the Luftwaffe in preparation for the invasion. Per Flight Journal...the Mustang has the second best "Ace in a Day" record behind the Hellcat. It saw combat for a fairly short period of time in Europe, 15 mos or so and racked up a most impressive score. In Early 44 the Luftwaffe still had many good pilots and plenty of fuel...they were flying primarily G6 models and A-5 and 6's. I've read accounts in Osprey line of books, flight journal, janes etc..about various combat records and it is obvious that in Feb, March, and April the US B Mustangs took it to the Luftwaffe and won...without huge numerical advantages or the same pilot/fuel issues.

Now I understand many combat records and such have a tendancy to sensationalize the extremes, but based on reasonable deduction, I figure the Mustang was a superb aircraft with good enough guns to kill opponents, but not so good that this was left alone...US went to 6 guns with the D model so they must have seen a good reason to...this makes me think the 4 gun configuration was not "more than adequate".

Fighter tactics of the day tended towards hit and run tactics where one pass kills were desirable...I think the 6 or 8 gun configuration was adequate, but the 4 gun over europe was not...incidently, 4 guns was deemed adequate in late war PTO because the bearcat was manufactured so due to the lightly armored opponents.

I also know for a fact that I can hit refly, I'm not pulling G's, I have thousands of hours of virtual flight and based on statistics on a particular server I must have fired over a million virtual bullets....my gunnery skills, along with others are very good compared to real pilots.

In the end, I expect that most often in QMB I should be able to "kill" 4 or 5 opponents occassionally more, occassionally less with the B model mustang...and I'm not talking about smokers that run out of coolent 15 minutes later...cause in real life a pilot had to have an eye witness to claim the kill or definitive gun cam footage. I say this because I believe most experience virtual pilots are better and cooler under pressure (there is little in a sim) than in real life.

In real life, based on what I have read, if a pilot could shoot like I do they too could and did score multiple kills...as I described earlier, I think it is hitting the target that is difficult to impossible to model.

Now in 2.04, I get at least one kill (I mean truly shot down opponent, not a smoker) often two and occassionally 3 in that aircraft. I have gotten 4, but I'm thinking it may only include smokers.

Simply doesn't match up to the opinions that I have formed based on books, etc... in addition, there are extreme examples of the great Luftwaffe pilots killing 8-10+ opponents in a single sortie...I've never done that in a 109G-6 with or without mk108's! I've read one of the great aces...can't remember which one, but I think he had the most kills on a single sortie didn't like wing cannons cause they negatively affected manueverability and jammed under high G loading...10 kills with a G-6 w/ 20mm's???? Those are the kinds of things that make me think the weapons are more than adequate, it is the gunnery of the pilot that is as question...or maybe some DM's of certain eastern front aircraft are overbaked...but truthfully, i really don't know for sure.

Anyways, there is no way I know of to make the community come together on a definative right or wrong and the game is closed architecture so the debate rages and if the weapons systems are too weak to get one pass kills on line, then the aircraft becomes very suspect and near useless in a cockpit only server. If enough of the fans get upset, then UBI is open to competition...right now Oleg has a great game and a great following and it will get much stronger with Asia when PF is released.

If I sneak up to an opponent 200 meters away, at convergence, and open up on target with my guns (no matter what aircraft), they should not just roll away....agreed? maybe, maybe not...so let me adjust my game the way I want. That would at least address the offline aspect. However we think the guns are, one pass kills didn't happen every time, but if a pilot was on target, for a short second, at convergence with any weapons system on 109, 190, La, spit, hurricane, Yak, Stang, Jug or lightning...the opponent was dead meat. Pilots often held the trigger for 2 and 3 seconds, because they missed alot!

Yes there were occasions when an aircraft came home with a hundred bullet holes, but there were as many instances of aircraft that didn't make it home with just a few bullet holes....even .50 cal bullet holes

WholeHawg
07-25-2004, 11:20 AM
Hey Bull_dog

I couldn't agree more, I have been an aviation enthusiast and amature histroian for 30 years and I have been playing IL-2 since the day it came out . Ever since I fired the game up, my #1 gripe has been the damage modeling. Now dont get me wrong I think this is an awsome sim, second to none !! However everything I have read lines up with what you have said.

A few years ago some people recoverd a P-38 that was locked under some 30 feet of ice. They recovered the aircraft and test fired its 20mm cannon into a 55 gal drum filled with water. It litterly ripped the drum in half. I have to think that if I pump 5 or 6 of these babbies in to the fuselage most normal fighters its going to tear the air frame apart! I like your suggestion of a Tweek so the player can adjust the model. I know there are those idealist or pureists out there that would lament having this sort of control, but it is a game after all.

Just my .02$

LEXX_Luthor
07-25-2004, 11:39 AM
WholeHawg:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I like your suggestion of a Tweek so the player can adjust the model.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why Bulldog suggests Tweaking teh Model:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the end, I expect that [B]most often in QMB I should be able to "kill" 4 or 5 opponents occassionally more, occassionally less with the B model mustang...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One Ace Air Force http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif


______________
"The American Browning .50 M2 is an undistinguished performer, particularly when compared with its closest competitor, the 12.7 mm Berezin. The relatively small incendiary content in the .50 API (0.9 g instead of 2 g) gives the Soviet round a flying start, which it adds to by its usefully higher rate of fire, then finishes off in style by being lighter as well, and thereby almost twice as efficient overall."
~~&gt; http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Tony Williams has been published many times and is a recognized authority on all forms of WWII weaponry, in particular the automatic weapons used by aircraft of that era. ~~ RAF74BuzzsawXO

Snuffy Smith
07-25-2004, 12:38 PM
You know, it is not surprising that the M2 is not as efficient as more modern weapons. It is part of a family of weapons designed at the end of WW-I. It is also still in active service today with almost no change from the original design. I played with the things for years: and they are reliable, indistructable, resistant to all weather and climate conditions, easy to use, easy to maintain, and cheap to build and operate. They also can be carried on almost any platform: from a jeep to a jet fighter. They are not the best of all possible weapons, but they good enough for the job. That is why they were used and are still in use. Remember, the best is the enemy of the good. Their effective fire power is only half the reason for using them.

B-29 Snuffy & The Skunks
676th Bombardment Sqdn (Very Heavy)
444th Group, 58th Wing, 20th Air Force
http://mysite.verizon.net/b29/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/676bs240.jpg

[This message was edited by Snuffy Smith on Sun July 25 2004 at 02:40 PM.]

ZG77_Nagual
07-25-2004, 12:40 PM
I thought FN redid the rifling awhile back.

In any case this is a 'newtonian solution' - that is an attempt to accomodate various viewpoints by increasing complexity. There'll allways be debate about different aspects of a simm. The developers have shown remarkable willingness to alter the modeling when evidence of sufficient rigor is presented to them. As it has been regarding the .50 disperion modeling.

I don't think there is anything really wrong with these ideas as long as they are intended for offline implementation only. But it does add a level of complexity to an allready pretty complicated product - translating into more time - more possible bugs etc. Plus you'd be in for a nasty shock when you got online where your adjusted guns don't apply.

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Sun July 25 2004 at 11:54 AM.]

Bull_dog_
07-25-2004, 01:14 PM
I find the online efficiency of all weapons to be different offline than online... At first I thought that it was because the enemy (humans) push their aircraft to the limits...and then I learned about packet loss and I suspect it is both now.

Either way, on line weapons on all aircraft are less effective and enemy aircraft harder to hit than offline.

Anyways...as a developer...more interface and tweaking by the customer (learning) increases the life of the sim...if the developer can create enough life between versions he is able to bring with him a huge group of devote followers. If boredom sets in too sone or another, more advanced competitive product is released then there is trouble...ala CFS series.

I think Oleg will really add to his customer base with PF by bringing in Asian customers interested in the PTO and the additional aircraft keeps us all interested until BoB...but there needs to be something different this time around in terms of interface because Il-2 was so similar to Fb in many ways that I think he compromised his position in the market. Fortunately, CFS 3 was a bomb and he has kept us interested with new planes, maps etc...

Anyways, we enjoy a great game with closed architecture that helps reduce online cheating. The closed architecture has its limitations though and my second favorite sim (CFS 2) allowed unlimited tweaks and kept me interested for years...along with the very powerful mission builder and third party aircraft. I hope Oleg builds more tweaks and interfaces with the upcoming PF release and even more so with the BoB...that is what makes the game interesting to me.

The guns just seem like a good place to start to me...those on/off buttons can be maddening.

Another idea! Let us tweak our Arrows, icons etc like in online play...except the computer illiterate like me need an interface...then if I want arrows, different colors, change my visibility...with cockpit on or off I can.

Situational awareness is one of the most important aspects of a simulator and needs to adjustable as much as is possible or I'll feel like the all seeing eye or the guy staring at a 2-D screen instead of flying an aircraft.

Da_Godfatha
07-25-2004, 02:28 PM
Has anyone here ever, really FIRED a .50 cal machine gun??

I have in the Army, and when it will cut through BMP armor at 500 yds.(the M2 .50cal is the only US weapon that still use yards as a measurement), it should do a better job than it does in the game.

This is no complaint on my part, but if you have never fired this weapon before, you should maybe shut up.

Nuff said.

DaGodfatha http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2004, 03:34 AM
A drum filled with water....

Water is non-compressible and will transmit shock with virtually total efficiency.
Way back when I was a kid we would shoot .22's at open soda cans filled with water.
The sides would blow out at the seam and the metal would rip, water went all over
and it looked great.

Fighters however did not have the fuselage filled with water. If you don't hit
anything good with AP then it just passes on through. It may get deflected off
something stronger than the skin but still not critical. Note that the tailwheel
structure is back there as is the wheel if it raises. There's other things too.
An exploding shell may or may not cause telling damage as well. This sim models
things that way although how perfect that is I can't say. NO SIM CAN BE PERFECT
OR NEARLY SO AND RUN ON A DESKTOP PC AT DECENT FRAMERATE. That is true even with
just two planes or maybe just one. Perfect will never happen but some day maybe
people will not be able to tell.

When I shot empty soda cans with the .22, they barely rattled.


Neal

Hoarmurath
07-26-2004, 05:54 AM
Thank you for allowing me to continue speaking about the .50 godfatha...

neal, i think he just said you to shut up...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Warlordimi
07-26-2004, 06:24 AM
Well, I see that Havok hasn't changed during the week-end! He's still open-minded...

WELCOME ON UBIZOO!!!

Anyway, what a lot of fun for a weapon describe by the pilots themselves as a "poor weapon". The best thing in it was it's standardisation, not is accuracy, nor it's destructive power. Why would them place 6 or 8 M2 in a single plane? Just because 2 are not enough. Where a British/Russian/Japanese/German plane had enough with one or two HMG, US planes needed 6 M2. The point was to send the same weight of steel in the air per second as does only one HMG. I do not say, that those guns are bad, or that HMG(whatever their country) are better. It's another idea. It proved enough effective againts lots of targets, planes or ground targets, I couldn't agree more. But shooting down a plane half a mile! May God bless you!!!

Anyway, I'll keep opening my big mouth, because I (we) have a lot of laugh with you. Everytime some that I won't name, but they will be easily reacognized, starts over with the .50 being correctly moddeled, I just do a simple copy/paste towards specialized Guns forums.

Please gon on, we want to laugh more and more...

Where are the cheerleaders here??? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://users.skynet.be/warlordimi/BanniereWarlord.jpg http://cbal.free.fr/timbrerwarlordII.gif

"Laissez les ├╝ber-planes ├ la VVS. La Luftwaffe, elle, ├ les ├╝ber-pilots!"

"Quand les allemands volent, les alli├ęs tombent. Quand les britanniques volent, les allemands tombent. Et quand les am├ęricains volent, tout le monde tombe!!!"

Hoarmurath
07-26-2004, 06:41 AM
http://www.anniescostumes.com/cal00113red.jpg

here they are http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Blutarski2004
07-26-2004, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warlordimi:
Well, I see that Havok hasn't changed during the week-end! He's still open-minded...

WELCOME ON UBIZOO!!!

Anyway, what a lot of fun for a weapon describe by the pilots themselves as a "poor weapon". The best thing in it was it's standardisation, not is accuracy, nor it's destructive power. Why would them place 6 or 8 M2 in a single plane? Just because 2 are not enough. Where a British/Russian/Japanese/German plane had enough with one or two HMG, US planes needed 6 M2. The point was to send the same weight of steel in the air per second as does only one HMG. I do not say, that those guns are bad, or that HMG(whatever their country) are better. It's another idea. It proved enough effective againts lots of targets, planes or ground targets, I couldn't agree more. But shooting down a plane half a mile! May God bless you!!!

Anyway, I'll keep opening my big mouth, because I (we) have a lot of laugh with you. Everytime some that I won't name, but they will be easily reacognized, starts over with the .50 being correctly moddeled, I just do a simple copy/paste towards specialized Guns forums.

Please gon on, we want to laugh more and more...

Where are the cheerleaders here??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... You will no doubt be pleased to know that I found your above-quoted post exceedingly amusing. Did you happen to post those 31 pages of USA/USAF documentation on the 50cal to your other gun forums? What was the reaction?

BLUTARSKI

Hoarmurath
07-26-2004, 05:09 PM
you know Blutarski, our main problem is not convincing Oleg that we are right, as he said himself he was convinced that the .50 were more realistic in version 2.01

Our main problem is convincing him that we, its customers, are more interested in historical accuracy than in propaganda for any country.

We have actually the support of some historians, but it is of no use if we can't convince Oleg that we don't want the sim to be changed without him being convinced by evidences brought to his attention. The .(├ debate is no longer of actuality, we are not debating over the facts of the .50, we are debating only to make sure that Oleg get our point, and will only consider the facts, and not the pressure or the blackmail... If you want, we can even drop all the .50 question immediately, and start about another subject. It will be the same for us, we want Oleg to take in consideration only the facts and evidences at hand, nothing more, nothing less...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2004, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Thank you for allowing me to continue speaking about the .50 godfatha...

neal, i think he just said you to shut up...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the best you got, troll? Pestering?

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2004, 06:03 PM
&gt;&gt;Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
&gt;&gt;you know Blutarski, our main problem is not convincing Oleg that we are right, as he said himself he was convinced that the .50 were more realistic in version 2.01

He was convinced they had the modelling right. Was. Weeks before 2.04. Was.

&gt;&gt;Our main problem is convincing him that we, its customers, are more interested in historical accuracy than in propaganda for any country.

And you have data to back your mouth? You show no data, ony noise.

&gt;&gt;We have actually the support of some historians, but it is of no use if we can't convince Oleg that we don't want the sim to be changed without him being convinced by evidences brought to his attention.

Where is your "evidences"? Besides unqualified opinion words? "Poor performer" means
exacly what? Oleg gave the initial bullet masses and velocity. People have shown the
original documents of the use of the weapon. You yourself quoted part of one then tried
to cut it down on the basis it was missing ***what was stated directly in the part you
quoted*** and still, you do not admit your own mistake.

Oleg answered about the ground tests and how they were done by Gibbage and others in the
series of posts about how people got their way in 2.02. He pointed out that the original
tests were done by planes held in place and the sim tests were not. He said that the
differences between M2's tested and others was due to M2's being in newer modelled planes
that had moving struts with recoil modelled. It was given back that the P-39 used in
the grounded plane tests is not a new model and has the same width of pattern as the P-38.
No answer since... do you THINK it might be possible that upon checking the model of how
the guns are that MAYBE they found something not right or just done differently than the
others in the sim that are still tighter than the M2's with no objection from anyone? Do
you bother to think at all or are you like a struck knee, kicking out of reflex? The M2's
are still not the best, what is your objection to the M2's now on a factual basis?

&gt;&gt;The .(├ debate is no longer of actuality, we are not debating over the facts of the .50, we are debating only to make sure that Oleg get our point, and will only consider the facts, and not the pressure or the blackmail... If you want, we can even drop all the .50 question immediately, and start about another subject. It will be the same for us, we want Oleg to take in consideration only the facts and evidences at hand, nothing more, nothing less...

YOU have never been debating the .50's "of actuality" yet you write as if you have been.
YOU have always been arguing about pressure on Oleg -- while pressuring Oleg with nothing
more than whining which you say at the same time you don't want Oleg to give in to!

Please drop the .50's issue until you get something better than what you have.

Does any of you whiners understand lasers go straight? Does any of you understand that
if the M2 bullets did not drop that once they cross the sight line of the pilot they
would keep going up and not recross that sight line? You understand what "sight line"
means? It is a line from pilots' eye out through gunsight crosshairs and forward.
All planes have it. Wing gun bullets fire upward to meet with that line at the range
of convergence. If they had no drop, they would continue on going up. They do not,
none of them for any gun including M2's. They arc over and drop back across the
sight line. So the crosshairs are correct at convergence and a farther range with
the bullets hitting higher in between and lower both inside and outside those points.
But whining, ignorant, babies say LASERS in their emotionally loaded cries, then call
those "facts". Ballistics is beyond babies as is logic. Want is all babies know.

UB's have less drop over long range but there has been no whining about them since
over a year now. back then there was only a few of us who defended the trajectories.
One person posted screenshots to "prove" the Russian guns got better treatment and
yes, the word LASER was used. It was shown that the screenshots of the Russian planes
firing was done from closer, far closer that the ones of German planes by comparing
the height of the trees in the backgrounds. It was shown to be a dishonest HOAX.
That is the lengths that whiners will go to. Fix the game or put the "fix" on it?
It was the same then as now, the last argument was about online game balance and
"nobody wanted to fly German because it was unfair". People flew German but many
switched sides in VEF while others changed to Blue. Then it was forgotten. Put
4 UBS guns on a plane, that is equal to 6+ M2's and we would hear a howl like now.
Well maybe not since UBS is not American and we know the emotional response so many
people have against Americans.


Neal