Russian guns balistics...

[Holtzauge]

While we are at it, let's not forget the Swedish contribution to the war courtesy of our dear neighbours the Finns.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Holtzauge

[LLv24_Zami]

While we are at it, let's not forget the Swedish contribution to the war.

Okay, sorry about that  . We are so much the same that we can make fun of each other 

 

Let`s get back on the topic, complaining of the cannons

[=RvE=Windmills]

If you don't find the Yak-1S127 to be the equal of 109&190, then you need to work on your tactics. There's a reason it is in the top spot for K/L, K/S and K/S by a huge margin in the stats Tripwire recently posted. Planes that are as dominant are rarely inferior.

 

It's impossible to draw conclusions like that from as generic data as this. The numbers are interesting and can be debated about, but they say absolutely nothing about individual match ups.

[StG2_Manfred]

Hitting fast and agile flying fighter planes (in WWII) regularly at ranges beyond 600m is just phantasy. People make demands to behave like simmers and at the same time such a nonsense is defended? Really?

 

1) Fw-190 started attack at 1850m against a bomber (means slow and steady flying) , but only did obtain 6 hits between a distance of 400m to 50m.

http://www.germanluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/a/Alliierte/US%20Air%20Combat%20Records%20WW%20II.pdf

 

2) These factors limited the effective shooting range to around 400 m against bombers (longer in a frontal attack) and against fighters more like 250 m.

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

 

[Holtzauge]

Sure, reality and what we have in the sim in terms of how people fly and fight is probably quite different. Most likely due to the missing "replay" button IRL but it is anyway important how things are modeled in relative performance in-game. So if one cannon is more accurate at long ranges than another and some ammunition types and makes more effective than others then that still needs to be mirrored by how it was IRL or else be fixed IMHO.

[unreasonable]

edit replying to Manfred - I just wonder how often fast and agile fighter planes were hit by ground or ship based light anti aircraft cannons at ranges like that. Lots of those were in the 20-40mm range.  Put enough shells in the general direction and you will get some hits.

 

It makes no difference how fast or agile the plane is if it is located within the spread at that range. Fast and agile does not make the target any smaller. People hit flying away from you at 600m are hardly more difficult to hit than people flying towards you at that range, and I recall sources saying that Fw190s in formation looked for head on attacks and opened fire at 1000m+.  They must have been getting hits sometimes or presumably they would have stopped the practice.

 

The game is not simulating fatigue, fear, cold hands, or I understand in MP any kind of turbulence in an aircraft's wake.  In addition, people are (usually) not behaving like actual pilots. And I do not think we have any statistical evidence.  There may be nothing wrong with the game's modeling at all.

Edited September 17, 2017 by unreasonable

[Guest deleted@83466]

I fear that you might be trying to use reason to reason with the unreasonable, Unreasonable.

[StG2_Manfred]

I fear that you might be trying to use reason to reason with the unreasonable, Unreasonable.

 

You be at the ready to jump in of course Better read those links, something to learn...

 

 

@Hotzauge / Unreaonable: It wasn't meant against you. Of course, lot of things are not simulated (fatigue, fear etc.) but this applies to all pilots. And guns are different in their efficiency of course, but this doesn't change the fact that shooting with a (fast moving and shaking) fighter plane towards another fast moving fighter plane was higly inefficient beyond 400m. The regularly hits which occurs in BoX are completely implausible, no matter how hard the usual defenders try to justify.

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Aim in 2d monitor is nothing like aim in real word - for example you can't focus on more than one object at the same time.

[LLv24_Zami]

Aim in 2d monitor is nothing like aim in real word - for example you can't focus on more than one object at the same time.

True. In VR aiming is much easier.

[Holtzauge]

Guys, I don't think anyone is saying that what we do here is like in reality but I think we all agree that the equipment we have in-game should be as true as possible to the real thing. So in that vein I think the roll performance hit that the Me-109 got in the last release was a step in the right direction. OTOH I also think the increase in the Fw-190's Clmax that was done a few patches back was also a step in the right direction. Now the question is is the ShVAK IRL so much more accurate than the MG151 as we have in-game now and is the Mingeschoss IRL as poor compared to AP as it is right now? For me the answer to both those questions is no I don't think so.

[Guest deleted@83466]

You be at the ready to jump in of course Better read those links, something to learn...

 

 

I jump in because I disagree with your "feeling", along with several others of your ilk, that VVS pilots are making incredible 800 meter shots on some routine basis with guns like the Shvak.  Maybe Rambo makes a greater proportion of shots like this with his VYa-23 in the Lagg, but other people just aren't making these kinds of shots with any kind of regularity.  At least I'm not seeing it when I'm observing fights every night, and I'm sure as heck not achieving any success with shots like that myself.  I'm not the worlds greatest shot by any means, but I'm not the worst either.

 

If the Russian guns are overpowered than I'm going to be the first one to insist that they be fixed.  But these anecdotes from people who never fly VVS, and in some cases don't even appear to know what a Yak even is, mean nothing to me compared to my own experience actually flying them.

 

In fairness, I've spent far too much time flying VVS, because I didn't want to be part of the side-stacking problem.  But I'll tell ya what.  After my current streak ends, I'm going to start flying LW for a while.   When I flew LW before, which was months ago, I mainly had the impression that every time I got shot down that it was my own fault, not that the VVS had laser cannons.   I certainly got zinged many times by those sprayer types who chase you for 20 km expending every round of ammunition they have to get a couple of hits, but the result was not unexpected if people are going to do that.   I don't expect this impression to change, but I'll be more than willing to put that impression to the test once again. I'm sure it will take a couple days of a re-familirization period and workup since I've been so concentrated on VVS, but I have no fear of flying Luftwaffe fighters against these "magical" Russian guns.  Are you afraid of flying VVS? 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Iceworm

[BraveSirRobin]

You flying on both sides of the war, must have a kill +500 meters with Bf109 or Fw190. Share with us

I actually have very little online experience in the 109 or 190. Usually the sides are stacked with people flying German, so I'm usually forced to fly VVS. Obviously, that isn't a problem for you. In any case, when I do get to fly the 109/190, I always wait until I'm close before I shoot. Why waste ammo from 500m when it's easy enough to wait until you're close enough that you can't miss?

[BraveSirRobin]

If you don't find the Yak-1S127 to be the equal of 109&190, then you need to work on your tactics. There's a reason it is in the top spot for K/L, K/S and K/S by a huge margin in the stats Tripwire recently posted. Planes that are as dominant are rarely inferior.

Those stats don't actually prove that the Yak-1b is superior. The best way to show which is the best fighter is to limit the stats to the top 50 best pilots in each type. Lots of noobs fly the 109 and 190, and they tend to get seal clubbed.

[ITAF_Cymao]

 

 

You have been shot down many times from 700m?, are you speaking for yourself Cymao ?

I always speak for myself, and for the experience I have done. And I like to think that everyone speaks for themselves.

Several times I have been damaged by firing from far away even over 700 mt.

The real problem isn't that such a thing can happen but it is the frequency with which it happens.

Perhaps, as I said in a similar discussion, I would remove the zoom.
It would be harder for aircraft ID but it would be even more realistic...

 

S!

[BlitzPig_EL]

First off, does anyone have actual, from the day ballistics test data for all the guns involved in this pissing contest?

 

If not, then how do you propose that your opinion, no matter which side you fly for, can be taken as anything but opinion?

 

The only way to settle this nonsense is with repeatable, scientific (as much as the game allows) testing of all the weapons in question, and then comparing the data to the data from testing the actual weapons.

 

And that's all the further you can go.

 

You cannot compare or argue about outcomes of engagements in the sim, as this is a freaking video game and cannot be compared to real air combat, and anyone that thinks it can is daft.

[BraveSirRobin]

but it would be even more realistic...

 

S!

No, it wouldn't.

[AndyJWest]

First off, does anyone have actual, from the day ballistics test data for all the guns involved in this pissing contest?

 

If not, then how do you propose that your opinion, no matter which side you fly for, can be taken as anything but opinion?

 

The only way to settle this nonsense is with repeatable, scientific (as much as the game allows) testing of all the weapons in question, and then comparing the data to the data from testing the actual weapons.

 

And that's all the further you can go.

 

You cannot compare or argue about outcomes of engagements in the sim, as this is a freaking video game and cannot be compared to real air combat, and anyone that thinks it can is daft.

 

This.

[LLv24_Zami]

First off, does anyone have actual, from the day ballistics test data for all the guns involved in this pissing contest?

 

If not, then how do you propose that your opinion, no matter which side you fly for, can be taken as anything but opinion?

 

The only way to settle this nonsense is with repeatable, scientific (as much as the game allows) testing of all the weapons in question, and then comparing the data to the data from testing the actual weapons.

 

And that's all the further you can go.

 

You cannot compare or argue about outcomes of engagements in the sim, as this is a freaking video game and cannot be compared to real air combat, and anyone that thinks it can is daft.

Well, if the Hispanos on Spitfire would have been that effective in real life, they would have won the war by themselves.

 

No matter how the pissing contest goes.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

 

 

I actually have very little online experience in the 109 or 190. Usually the sides are stacked with people flying German, so I'm usually forced to fly VVS. Obviously, that isn't a problem for you. In any case, when I do get to fly the 109/190, I always wait until I'm close before I shoot. Why waste ammo from 500m when it's easy enough to wait until you're close enough that you can't miss?

 When you come to fly 109/190 and fight for the map and not for Kill, then you will know that not always your plane will be with the greatest energy to be able to approach and then will shoot from further distance and will pray also for the miracle to happen

[BraveSirRobin]

When you come to fly 109/190 and fight for the map and not for Kill, then you will know that not always your plane will be with the greatest energy to be able to approach and then will shoot from further distance and will pray also for the miracle to happen

I've flown the 109 and 190. When I get shot down it's because I did something stupid, not because I got "sniped". Maybe you should try flying the Yak occasionally. We could use the help. Just don't be shocked when you're not killing everything is sight from 800m.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

I've flown the 109 and 190. When I get shot down it's because I did something stupid, not because I got "sniped". Maybe you should try flying the Yak occasionally. We could use the help. Just don't be shocked when you're not killing everything is sight from 800m.

I never said that I was killed by a Yak at 800 meters. Much less is easy. I wrote that I had the fuel tank ripped by a yak at 760 meters. Then when damaged the final speed degrades, and the yak can get close enough to finish the job. I've provided you a video of mine with a spitfire where I get an instant kill on a 109. I've tried 109/190 but I did not succeed. Maybe I need to train more. That's what I was trying to explain to you. I will not answer any more

Edited September 18, 2017 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[BraveSirRobin]

I never said that I was killed by a Yak at 800 meters. Much less is easy. I wrote that I had the fuel tank ripped by a yak at 760 meters. Then when damaged the final speed degrades, and the yak can get close enough to finish the job. I've provided you a video of mine with a spitfire where I get an instant kill on a 109. I've tried 109/190 but I did not succeed. Maybe I need to train more. That's what I was trying to explain to you. I will not answer any more

 

Congrats on getting 1 kill in a Spitfire.  It would be great to see you on WoL in the Yak occasionally.  You know, when the VVS is badly outnumbered and you jump into a 109 anyways.

[JG13_opcode]

First off, does anyone have actual, from the day ballistics test data for all the guns involved in this pissing contest?

 

If not, then how do you propose that your opinion, no matter which side you fly for, can be taken as anything but opinion?

 

The only way to settle this nonsense is with repeatable, scientific (as much as the game allows) testing of all the weapons in question, and then comparing the data to the data from testing the actual weapons.

 

And that's all the further you can go.

 

You cannot compare or argue about outcomes of engagements in the sim, as this is a freaking video game and cannot be compared to real air combat, and anyone that thinks it can is daft.

 

 

+1 for a reasoned post

[BraveSirRobin]

I'd also love to see some actual non-feeling based evidence that the ballistics are wrong.  Unfortunately, that will probably be difficult to do without some help from the devs. 

[CUJO_1970]

It's easy to compare relative weapons effectiveness in this sim. We have tracks to watch and we have statistics to observe from online sorties.

 

The weapon effectiveness in this sim is appallingly in favor of the Russian side. 

 

When it takes 50-96 hits while I'm flying an FW-190 (as recorded by online stats and observed by watching online tracks) to take down a Pe-2 vs only 6-12 hits to take down an He-111 or 110 or Stuka (as recorded by online stats and observed by watching online tracks) then there is a glaring problem in this sim, and that is exactly what is happening online.

 

You see a similar, but not so glaring, disparity with fighters.

[CUJO_1970]

http://72ag-ded.ru:8080/en/pilot/7606/CUJO1970/?tour=25

 

My stats page if anyone on here doubts me. You can click on the sorties tab and see exactly that I'm hitting Pe-2 50-96 times with FW-190 guns to get a kill.

 

You may also see that the last two sorties I was shot down flying He-111 it took just 12 hits and 6 hits respectively to destroy the He-111.

[BraveSirRobin]

It's easy to compare relative weapons effectiveness in this sim. We have tracks to watch and we have statistics to observe from online sorties.

 

 

Not really.  You need to know the details of the armament which caused the damage and what it actually hit.  The stats don't provide that sort of detail.

 

In addition, you also need details on the structural strength of the aircraft being damaged.

 

Right now we've mostly got feelings. 

[CUJO_1970]

http://72ag-ded.ru:8080/en/sortie/479740/?tour=25

 

96 hits from FW-190 to take down Pe-2.

 

(this is in addition to 66 hits delivered separately by two 110s)

 

http://72ag-ded.ru:8080/en/sortie/log/479916/?tour=25

 

But it only took 6 hits to destroy my He-111

 

These sorties are not anomalies. They are business as usual online.

Edited September 18, 2017 by CUJO1970

[CUJO_1970]

Not really.  You need to know the details of the armament which caused the damage and what it actually hit.  The stats don't provide that sort of detail.

 

Wrong.

 

The stats and tracks tell us exactly what armament is used and in what quantities it was used and exactly what aircraft are involved.

 

The tracks are nice, "because the big eye don't lie" - you can even watch it unfold at 1/16 of the speed it actually happened.

 

What's currently happening with the damage model in this sim - none of it is a mystery. It is quite measurable and it is quite observable.

[BraveSirRobin]

Wrong.

 

The stats and tracks tell us exactly what armament is used and in what quantities it was used and exactly what aircraft are involved.

 

I just looked at one of your links.  I saw percentages of damage.  There was absolutely no info on what armament cause the damage or what was hit.

[CUJO_1970]

I just looked at one of your links.  I saw percentages of damage.  There was absolutely no info on what armament cause the damage or what was hit.

 

You know the armament because you know the aircraft that fired the weapon. It isn't rocket science.

 

And you can watch exactly what is hit by observing and studying recordings of your online flights. In slow motion.

 

There is no mystery as to whats happening with the damage model right now.

Edited September 18, 2017 by CUJO1970

[BraveSirRobin]

You know the armament because you know the aircraft that fired the weapon. It isn't rocket science.

 

And you can watch exactly what is hit by observing and studying recordings of your online flights. In slow motion.

 

There is no mystery as to whats happening with the damage model right now.

 

Great.  Fill in the details for your links with the exact armament that cause every instance of damage and the exact part of the aircraft that was damaged.  That should be interesting to see.

[Guest deleted@83466]

There are hundreds of combats in this game every day, and lots of people recording videos of themselves.  Sometimes you shoot down a guy with a quick burst, sometimes you are hammering away at him endlessly and can't believe how this guy is still flying.   You can look through anybody's stats to show that your favorite plane is made of granite, or that it is made of balsa wood, or that the other guy has laser beams, and you have pea-shooters.   Look through anybody's stats, and I virtually guarantee that someone can find a sortie that "proves" whatever claim they feel like making.  But of course it doesn't.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Iceworm

[unreasonable]

What this thread shows is how difficult it is to analyse what is going on when we do not have the underlying facts of the data and variances built into the game, or in most cases real world data.  Just a jumbling of what should be entirely different topics, from an analytical point of view.

 

We start out with a discussion of trajectories - essentially which cannon has the flatter average trajectory. This is dependent on muzzle velocity, shell mass and all the bits and pieces that define the drag on the shell, including air density, shell shape and finish and the presence of tracer.

 

Then it morphs into a discussion of the spread. Which is an entirely different variable from the trajectory, since it relates to the variation of individual trajectories around the average. Some of it may be down to variations in shell characteristics, but mostly it is down to how the barrel vibrates, a function of how it is mounted and cooled. 

 

The we get into the destructive power of various shells - which of course is partially range dependent - or more properly velocity at the point of impact, as well as being dependent on the fuse type and the amount and type of HE used.

 

Now we are onto how strong is the construction of different aircraft, depending on where they are hit.

 

People have done some heroic attempts to separate and analyse these variables, but without a firing and test range in game you can never really be sure that you have isolated any one of them.  

 

As Iceworm says, cherry picking individual cases may be rhetorically effective in the forum, if only in increasing the sense of victimization of those who feel they are on the wrong side of the alleged imbalance, but it will  cut no ice with the development team. (Or at least I hope it will not....)

[3./JG15_Kampf]

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/sortie/log/2302756/?tour=26

Ice, in your last comment here (later edited), you used this link to say that the bf 109 sometimes looks made of titanium. You got 66 shots on the Bf109, (huge amount) but the 109 only lasted 3 seconds

[CUJO_1970]

Please don't pretend like it's an isolated occurrence.

 

It is not.

 

This He-111 took 6 rounds of ammunition and was destroyed:

 

 

This Pe-2 took 162 rounds of ammunition and was destroyed:

 

 

 

This is reproducible. It is not some random, cherry-picked aberration. It happens constantly online.

 

[JG13_opcode]

I think what you're seeing there is not related to ballistics, but related to poor quality control in the damage model, combined with (probably) a simplistic model overall.  I use the term "simplistic" because of the way certain aircraft always break in exactly the same place, or where shooting a Yak in one wing will cause a hole/fuel leak in the other wing, etc.

 

Examples of poor QC:  I seem to recall a recent bug where you could take the Bf 110G's wing off by shooting it in the tail with its own turret gunner, and there was definitely the one where the outer wing panels of the 110E would come off at the slightest provocation.  It seems to me like a lack of standardization, or perhaps where different people built different aircraft, or perhaps used different standards for different aircraft.

 

Probably that's what's going on here.

Edited September 18, 2017 by JG13_opcode

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I always speak for myself, and for the experience I have done. And I like to think that everyone speaks for themselves.

Several times I have been damaged by firing from far away even over 700 mt.

The real problem isn't that such a thing can happen but it is the frequency with which it happens.

Perhaps, as I said in a similar discussion, I would remove the zoom.

It would be harder for aircraft ID but it would be even more realistic...

 

S!

Looking at yours stats on WOL where you spend most of you time (btw you held tops positions since months, lots of accomplished sorties) I hardly imagined you were damaged at all or ok maybe in hainkel 111 - joke aside. Sorry if I judge you wrong.

s!

Edited September 18, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[Venturi]

Come on. You have to admit the Pe-2 is pretty ridiculously tough.

 

It takes far more to destroy a Pe-2 than any other plane... from behind.

 

I do not find other Soviet planes to be thus affected. Yaks, LaGGs, IL-2s, P-40s - they all die OK. Only the Pe-2 takes a humongous number of hits and keeps flying. Fighters do not usually have a chance unless using slashing attacks and hitting the engines or fuel tanks at an angle not passing through the superstructure first.

 

I do not know what the Pe-2 is made of, but I suspect it is very durable stuff in the game...