Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

290 Excellent

About ACG_Cass

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

321 profile views
  1. Awesome stuff @Yak_Panther! Thanks for putting this all together. I'll admit it took a few reads through as maths isn't my strong point (angular maths especially so). Bit of guess work and testing. I wasn't sure whether more than 1 decimal place would be accepted and just wanted to see if a quick solution is possible. I only did the mils test on the deck during the evening so the tracers were more easily visible. The only effective way I could find to measure this was by utilising the convergence settings. The dev notes state 4 mils at 2000ft, so I set the conve
  2. @jollyjackyou'll need to unzip them. If you're using JGSME you'll have to create a new folder structure. Something like "Dispersion Mod/data/luascripts" and then put the unzipped world objects in there.
  3. @jollyjack Did you download from this comment? This was created by another user for 30 cals. The ones in the original post are both for .50s. Completely agree, although point convergence was used it was as pointy as we have. I actually originally set out to try and create a more complex harmonization but you don't seem to be able to edit the plane files without the game crashing.
  4. May need to buff it out even more to get it realistic, will take a look later today:
  5. Don't want to just post the same post but additional info has come up showing an example of dispersion levels in the same document that show a typical cone:
  6. Someone has kindly pointed out that there is a a direct example of a typical dispersion cone for the M2 AP ammunition, please see below. This means that in terms of total dispersion the current implementation is roughly 50% of what it should be historically in the BoBp planes. Completely understand as we can see from the notes in the code that this was either taken from a direct test with a P40 or an earlier piece of documentation and has been applied to all other M2 equipped guns, so no fault from a development perspective. Without understanding the way
  7. I think it's the better option, but thought I'd add the other one in case someone has a preference for it as it helped with the AI Gunnery. In terms of convergence, the additional dispersion actually gives you more freedom to go with what you prefer. 200-250m is usually the best area but if you want some more elevation for deflection shots, 300-400m still works fine. I'd always recommend testing out a few settings in Quick Mission to see what you prefer.
  8. Could we look at updating the dispersion levels for planes that rely on wing mounted guns? I created the below mod by slightly changing 1 value in the M2 weapons txt file and it had a significant impact on the weapons effectiveness. I tested all other M2 weapons including the Sherman, A20 rear gunner and the M2 AAA emplacements. There seems to be no detrimental effect to slightly increasing this. The data that is being used appears to be incorrect for the BoBp planes. The reference in Air Forces Manual No. 64 states that the expected accuracy for a Cal .50 fighter machine gu
  9. They may have had the guns at different ranges with 4 guns. I doubt it would have been overly done though. You need more guns to ensure a large box area still hasn't decent levels of concentration in it. What we have in sim is perfect point convergence, so every single gun is aiming at the exact same pixel in the sky. So it exacerbates the issue even more.
  10. So I originally put this in the suggestions thread a while ago and another one in the FM/AI Discussion section. It doesn't appear that the M2 .50 gun dispersion is correct. This further exacerbates the issues with the weapon as you need excellent gunnery to use them effectively, even when the platform was specifically designed to mean gunnery was less important. Also the difference between a 6 and 8 gun configuration is barely noticeable. I've created a mod that addresses this and increases the gun dispersion to what appears to be more realistic levels. I've also included
  11. How come the choice of span loading here? Wing loading tends to be more relevant to sustained turn performance and in this configuration it's significantly lower on the 51.
  12. I mean we have. There was a long post comparing AP to HE with a dev response. I can post it but if the response is that 12.7mm AP leaves 1 12.7mm hole, then I'm assuming 20mm AP leaves 1 20mm hole. We've been told time and time again, despite the glaring issues that the DM isn't getting changed. We're running up to a year now either keep highlighting the issues or just deal with it. I get the feeling that the devs misunderstand our criticisms sometimes. The damage model is great. It has its faults and limitations but the fact it spans across two generations of aircraft and a ground
  13. The test I did on the P47 show this is very much an AP/HE issue rather than a specific .50 issue. Other than 1 gun on the P38 the fact US planes have no HE makes them at a much more significant disadvantage than others. For an FF 20mm AP round to take 15 rounds to a single section of wing to have an appreciable effect is a massive oversight in the modelling. I've wondered why Hispanos can sometimes seem a little lackluster. I assume their AP round is similarly affected.
  14. Oof, I forgot to record the track on most of them so a bug report means a redo... @-DED-Rapidus Sorry to tag. Is it worth me deleting this thread and putting up a thread with recordings in the bug report section? I'm assuming this isn't by design if it differs from all the other planes.
  • Create New...