Is it just me or did anyone else notice a slight change in gunnery?

[Finkeren]

I must admit that I'm not sure, if I'm just imagining this, but it seems to me, that gunnery feels slightly different from last week.

 

It feels as though dispersion has been reduced. I seem to have an easier time missing when not perfectly aligned with the target and I also seem to get more "clusters" of hits in a single burst, which could indicate more concentrated fire.

 

I kinda like the way it feels now. It feels like I actually have to aim carefully now.

 

I don't know if there has been a change, or if I'm just aiming differently from last week.

[=38=Tatarenko]

I think there's something it that. I feel the same.

[WindyCityZeke]

Same here, not as easy to score hits it seems.  Also, the engine sound of the 109 in cockpit sounds much better to me.

[Finkeren]

I actually find it easier to shoot planes down.

 

Once you get used to it, the more concentrated fire means, that you can much more reliably get a kill in a single pass.

 

It conserves ammo as well. I got my first 6 kill streak tonight.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Finkeren

[HagarTheHorrible]

Totally blown out of the sky twice in a row by the novice A.I from positions that I thought I would have just taken damage last time around, flying either side (just trying out the new bullet impact sounds). I don't think I was ever more than damaged or injured in the last build.

[Finkeren]

I have yet to be killed by enemy bullets in BoS, but tonight I was shot down twice and severely wounded a couple of times. All together taking more damage than last week, even though I'm pretty certain, that my flying is much better now. I actually genuinely outflew a 109 in the LaGG today, starting on the same level, gaining the initiative and just staying on top of the fight without him ever getting a shot at me. Just about every single 109 kill I got last week was due to either forcing an overshoot or through an ambush with a significant altitude advantage. 

Edited December 13, 2013 by Finkeren

[-MG-Cacti4-6]

Also file this under the "is it just me or" category

 

but does it seem like spotting other a/c has gotten easier...like an increase in LOD spotting distances or something. I am finding it much easier to pickup opposing AI this go round (my flightfx was off first couple of flights).

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

I agree on the spotting, need more time on the shooting.

[FlatSpinMan]

It's so hard to know 'if it IS just me', isn't it? I always think something's changed with a patch or whatever, but then usually find I've inadvertently turned some vital setting on or off.

Looking forward to trying it later today.

[Finkeren]

It's so hard to know 'if it IS just me', isn't it? I always think something's changed with a patch or whatever, but then usually find I've inadvertently turned some vital setting on or off.

Looking forward to trying it later today.

No settings different here.

 

But, having that half a week between sessions makes it really hard to judge what percieved differences are actually real.

[-MG-Cacti4-6]

No settings different here.

 

But, having that half a week between sessions makes it really hard to judge what percieved differences are actually real.

ahh the JOY of instant replay. I confirmed that lods are now MUCH easier to spot at distances up to 2.5km

[KStyle]

Spotting is easier? The only thing I've noticed is easier the 109 AI. They don't attack. I had one behind me. Did a split S, lost sight of it then flew around looking for it. It had flown away. 

 

Flying the 109 I got by my own team mate. I was on a Lagg's tail and my team mate did a head on pass...

 

Edit: 

Welp, a 109 just got me. I only saw him at the last minute. It might help if I fly directly towards their airbase instead of missing it. 

Edited December 14, 2013 by KStyle

[-MG-Cacti4-6]

Spotting is easier? The only thing I've noticed is easier the 109 AI. They don't attack. I had one behind me. Did a split S, lost sight of it then flew around looking for it. It had flown away. 

 

Flying the 109 I got by my own team mate. I was on a Lagg's tail and my team mate did a head on pass...

its deff easier to pick up the LOD . When watching replays, after I actually spotted the guy (expert settings) the handy dandy little tag showed me that I was able to track him up to and past 2.5km pretty easily, with an a/c outline rather than a dot. otherwise i would not be able to say yes or no. 

[KStyle]

its deff easier to pick up the LOD . When watching replays, after I actually spotted the guy (expert settings) the handy dandy little tag showed me that I was able to track him up to and past 2.5km pretty easily, with an a/c outline rather than a dot. otherwise i would not be able to say yes or no. 

 

Yeah. I am noticing that now. They weren't attacking me because I was a long way off on my navigation. So they were pretty much approaching from the side every time but seem to stop attacking if you are a certain distance from the airfields. Spotting them early didn't help me so im about to jump back into a 109. 

[-MG-Cacti4-6]

Yeah. I am noticing that now. They weren't attacking me because I was a long way off on my navigation. So they were pretty much approaching from the side every time but seem to stop attacking if you are a certain distance from the airfields. Spotting them early didn't help me so im about to jump back into a 109. 

yeah it takes a special kind of suicidal to go toe to toe consistently and effectively in a lagg versus a 109

[-MG-Cacti4-6]

Yeah. I am noticing that now. They weren't attacking me because I was a long way off on my navigation. So they were pretty much approaching from the side every time but seem to stop attacking if you are a certain distance from the airfields. Spotting them early didn't help me so im about to jump back into a 109. 

yeah but i will also add that it is still pretty dang tough to spot a target, ESPECIALLY when doing a head on pass. Maybe a little more tweaking could be just right....too much though and its just too easy.

[ll./JG77_JadeBandit]

I saw you mentioned reflections from the canopy and propeller in another thread, that would really help with spotting those head on passes, I wonder if they also plan to include high alt contrails.

[senseispcc]

Is it just me or is the engine sound of the Lagg-3 completely different in the "normal" setting and in the "expert" one ?!

[LukeFF]

Is it just me or is the engine sound of the Lagg-3 completely different in the "normal" setting and in the "expert" one ?!

 

It's you.

[Fifi]

Yes Finkeren, less dispersion here too.

 

But gunnery is far too powerful to me. Way too easy to down planes. How many real pilots were able to down 10 planes with same ammo load, same flight?

Just a burst, and paf, the plane is dead! 

It goes for our plane as well. If one burst of AI is hitting you, it's game over 90% of time...

This needs some serious adjustment, or BOS could lean slowly toward arcadish game IMO.

[Fifi]

It's you.

 

Yes, but something has changed on my rig too since last update. Mainly on the sounds volume. Had to set it to 80% before to be comfortable, and now even 100% it's barely the 80% volume!

 

Not to mention i was really in love with the 109 incokpit sound of first release, and since the last 2 updates, all is broken...why did devs changed radically the 109 incokpit sounds??

Actually, 109 lost all its attraction to me 

[Finkeren]

Is it just me or is the engine sound of the Lagg-3 completely different in the "normal" setting and in the "expert" one ?!

There has been no change to engine sound, but the may be another explanation:

 

In 'normal' mode the player does not control the constant speed propeller, it is simply kept at 2700 rpm.

 

In 'expert' mode you have full control and can adjust engine rpm through the CSP governor. If you are running your prop at any other rpm setting than is set in 'normal' mode, the engine will sound different.

[Finkeren]

Yes Finkeren, less dispersion here too.

 

But gunnery is far too powerful to me. Way too easy to down planes. How many real pilots were able to down 10 planes with same ammo load, same flight?

Just a burst, and paf, the plane is dead!

It goes for our plane as well. If one burst of AI is hitting you, it's game over 90% of time...

This needs some serious adjustment, or BOS could lean slowly toward arcadish game IMO.

I somewhat agree that the guns feel very powerful, but I won't go as far as saying, that it's wrong across the board. The DM in the old IL-2 didn't strike me as particularly punishing, and I have still achieved more than 10 kills on just the normal Bf 109F ammo load.

 

Have you tried to down a LaGG with the 7.92mm only in the Bf 109? It's very much a different experience from using the MG 151.

 

Also, when we are firing at a target, we may well be scoring more hits than we can actually see. Just as not every round is a tracer, not every 20mm shell is an HE round (which is what I guess makes the large black puff when it hits) for every black cloud we see, we can easily have made 3 - 4 cannon hits.

[Fifi]

Haha...didn't even know we had separated buttons for machineguns/cannon actually    always firing both!

 

Was saying because i'm usually terrible bad shooter with WW2 birds, and actually i can down almost everything in BOS quite quickly, even when comes the AI ace.

That's a good way for me to see if something is wrong! 

[Finkeren]

Also when you actually look at the numbers it's not really that amazing. The Bf 109 has 200 rounds of 20mm for a total of almost 20 sec of continous fire (double what the LaGG has). If we assume accuracy rating of 25% (meaning 1 out of every 4 rounds fired actually hit the target) which is a high number for a real combat pilot but perfectly achievable for a sim pilot (I guess your accuracy in RoF was often above 30%) that's still five (5) cannon hits to down a fighter, if you shoot down 10 in a row.

[Fifi]

Yah, my best scores ever in flight sim were in ROF. Don't remember the % though. But actual BOS is surprising me, because in CloD for instance, i have hard time shooting down something unless it's homing base    

It seems planes can take tons of punishment there...

DCS P51 vs FW is quite hard too, Doable, but harder than with BOS gunnery.

Or maybe it has something to do with DM hitbox?

Edited December 16, 2013 by Fifi

[Finkeren]

Honestly, I think some of it has to do with convergence. In both ClOD and DCS-P51 the planes has most or all of their weaponry in the wings, which makes it essential to hit the enemy at close to convergence distance. In BoS so far we only have fighters with weapons concentrated in the nose and concergence more or less irrelevant.

 

It'll be interesting to see, how gunnery is with the IL-2 once we get it.

[Matt]

I totally agree with that.

 

With the centered armament of the F-4 and LaGG, convergence just doesn't play a huge role and you don't have to worry about the distance as much as when you're flying a 109 E in CloD or similar.

 

Also it usually takes quite a few cannon hits to actually down a LaGG (not just make it smoke or lose parts). The 109 is noticably more fragile, i tested that with some friendly fire experiments (which also showed quite clearly, that the 109 likes to really EXPLODE from time to time, which looks absolutely fantastic ).

[Finkeren]

There is a reason why many aircraft designers struggled to cram as much firepower under the cowling of fighters as posible in the years leading up to the war. It's interesting though, that British and later American designers went in the opposite direction. I don't know the reason for that, but perhaps it had something to do with RAF expecting their pilots to fly and fight "by the book" to a larger extent and actually worry about things like convergence distance in a combat situation.

Maybe it was just because the British and American designers relied more on the firepower of a multitude of MGs, which were light, cheap and in ample supply, rather than heavy, expensive cannons early in the war, which offset the need for concentrated firepower?

[DB605]

 

 

Not to mention i was really in love with the 109 incokpit sound of first release, and since the last 2 updates, all is broken...why did devs changed radically the 109 incokpit sounds??

Actually, 109 lost all its attraction to me 

 

Current cockpit sounds are much closer to real ones than first version, compared to "Checkflight Gustav" cd onboard recordings from real 109 (Black 6).

In my opinion, it only needs to some more "balls" on higher revs and it's pretty close to perfect. Exterior sounds needs more tweaking imho, expect idle sounds wich are great now.

[Emgy]

. It's interesting though, that British and later American designers went in the opposite direction.

Would be interesting to interview designers from Bell, NA, Supermarine and Hawker on the subject. Bell would have a good case

for their nose-heavy weaponry, considering the Airacobra was the highest scoring western fighter in WWII.

(Then again, if Mustang had been the primary lend-lease aircraft instead of Airacobra...)

 

Personally I wonder; if, by chance/initiative, had RR designed the Merlin to accept a motor cannon, would not Supermarine have added that to their design?

Did Hispano-Suiza design the 12Y engine (progenitor of the Klimov engines) with moteur canon on their own initiative or because the military formed that requirement?

Edited December 16, 2013 by Calvamos

[Rama]

Did Hispano-Suiza design the 12Y engine (progenitor of the Klimov engines) with moteur canon on their own initiative or because the military formed that requirement?

Hispano-Suiza started to design Moteur Canon (HS 8Ba, then 8C) in 1917. This engine was used the SPAD XII "Canon". The idea to have a gun firing between the cylinders was first from the army. Then the design was common (HS initiative, backed by army and followed by some aces like Guynemer who experimented them).

The HS 12Y is a descendant of these engines. The idea of a moteur canon was never abandonned between the 2 wars.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

I can spot bandits better but I still can't shoot. I swear all my gun barrels are bent!

[Emgy]

Hispano-Suiza started to design Moteur Canon (HS 8Ba, then 8C) in 1917. This engine was used the SPAD XII "Canon". The idea to have a gun firing between the cylinders was first from the army. Then the design was common (HS initiative, backed by army and followed by some aces like Guynemer who experimented them).

The HS 12Y is a descendant of these engines. The idea of a moteur canon was never abandonned between the 2 wars.

Thanks bcp, exactly the info I was looking for.

So the decision time line was like this? Military command takes initiative -> sends idea/requirement to engine makers -> HS designs the engine and fits a cannon -> aircraft companies designed some planes around this new moteur+canon unit?

Edited December 16, 2013 by Calvamos

[Rama]

So the decision time line was like this? Military command takes initiative -> sends idea/requirement to engine makers -> HS designs the engine and fits a cannon -> aircraft companies designed some planes around this new moteur+canon unit?

In fact the design was common between Marc Birkigt (working for HS) and Louis Béchereau (SPAD design ingeneer). At that time plane designers and motorists were working closelly together.

If I remember well, the first idea proposal was from Guynemer himself.

[Emgy]

Thanks, really good info.

 

My impression in general on early military developments; there was no "grand plan", there were creative individuals that drove these developments. And if you find something that works OK, then you keep using it... whether it's MGs in the wings or cannon in the spinner and cowling.

In an alternate universe: Guynemer is born in the UK, British interwar engines are designed with a motor cannon, and Hurricane & Spitfire are fitted with a central 20mm.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Calvamos