RoF-v-Flying circus

[taffy2jeffmorgan]

Hi, Although i have not purchased Flying circus, i was wondering for those who have flown both RoF and now Flying circus, is there any comparison, with the look and feel of the aircraft [better or the same] 

 

Cheers.

[tvcasualty]

I didn't really play RoF (other than very early demos) but I can say that in VR Flying Circus is just spectacular!

I am very excited for the full product and I see myself playing that more than any other version of IL2.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Rise of Flight is and has been for a long time a superb simulation but its gradually being left behind and the recent updates to the IL-2 Digital Warfare Engine leave the Digital Nature Engine pretty far behind.

 

The aircraft absolutely look better. Higher poly count, small details are better modeled (I really notice it on the bracing between wings), and the 4K textures make a huge difference in the look. The aircraft "feel better" in the IL-2 engine too. I know that's not awfully descriptive but I like the SPAD here better than in Rise of Flight for whatever that's worth. It's a subtle difference in flight.

 

 

I wrote more about early access with Flying Circus just today: https://stormbirds.blog/2018/08/05/first-impressions-of-early-access-flying-circus/

 

It has a long way to go yet but it's a good start.

[pilotpierre]

Good review on stormbirds.

[SharpeXB]

The guns in FC sound really cool. And the pilot models are superb

[Dutch2]

18 hours ago, taffy2jeffmorgan said:

Hi, Although i have not purchased Flying circus, i was wondering for those who have flown both RoF and now Flying circus, is there any comparison, with the look and feel of the aircraft [better or the same] 

 

Cheers.

 

I keep my lips sealed on that point,  just avoid another basher assault on me, but just take a look at this video using the high resolution settings and do your own judgement. 

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by Dutch2

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

FC will be far better than ROF down the road, especially if you have better resolution. content is lacking but that's because it's only early access. once we get the rest of the planes and a map of our own it will replace ROF quickly. I do hope the editor will be better than what we have in ROF. It' will be so much better to fly in. I still love ROF and still fly it often and will not stop until it's completely done. So if you have the money get FC, will help the developers, the more that get it the more we will get and quicker.    

[SeaW0lf]

21 hours ago, taffy2jeffmorgan said:

Hi, Although i have not purchased Flying circus, i was wondering for those who have flown both RoF and now Flying circus, is there any comparison, with the look and feel of the aircraft [better or the same] 

 

Cheers.

 

The question is: if you like ROF or if you like the genre, you need to buy it regardless the differences. FC is the future on this studio and there no other studios working on WWI as a simulator as far as I know. 

 

Regarding the differences, the aircraft will behave differently from map to map in BOX (performance wise), when in ROF they have the same data no matter if you are flying during the winter or summer (as far as I know). So there is new atmospheric factors being applied in FC and some people are reporting a different feel, reportedly better than ROF. So the tendency is that we will get used to it on the detail level in the god sense and complain every time we go back to ROF.

 

Regarding spotting, dots are much smaller and you need to constantly use zoom to see where they are. Kind of makes you want to buy a 50" monitor if you could. Lapino map lacks sun reflection a great deal and you seldom see a glare, a common feature in ROF, when we can see planes lit their wings down on the deck depending on the sun position. You pretty much won't see that on the Lapino map, and whatever is below you tend to be stealth, and people were also complaining about it (that they could not see contacts). But the Kuban map resembles ROF. I think it has to do with the new shadows they introduced with the Kuban patch. Or it is just the engine of the map itself. Someone should do some tests to determine where the catch is, and if only the Kuban map has a better reflection, but this is my initial impression and the difference is clear, something that I noticed even before the FC release. On this regard, we should expect the same work they did in the Kuban map on the FC map. And in this case I think we would be covered on this regard.

 

Graphic wise, I think the maps are an upgrade and there are some new shadows on the first person view, most notably shadows on the guns, nose of the plane. The rest is a tossup. I think ROF has a more detailed / cared cockpit, with more contrast, and the FC cockpits are a bit of a far cry from the WWII cockpits, which gained a nice facelift with the Kuban patch, when the cockpits / gauges got just gorgeous. So on this regard the Dr.1 and the Spad was underwhelming to me even compared to ROF, which I think has more believable / contrasted gauges. But they have a third party studio doing FC and they might be just getting up to speed, because we all know that detailed graphics is one of the strongholds of 777 Studios, and this new studio / crew have big shoes to fill. But they might update the Dr.1 and the Spad as they go along. I just hope they keep up the same standard as the Kuban map on the FC western front, because that part of Europe and the ROF maps are gorgeous and it should be (I hope so) a blast with the new engine.

 

And we will be able to mod the planes, change engines, etc. In general, it is a better package per se.

[JG1_Vonrd]

I think Dutch's video just emphasizes what a stunning Sim... erhm "game" ... ROF was and continues to be. The differences between ROF and FC are actually pretty minor. IMHO, the exterior and landscape graphics on FC are better for the most part. The sounds... I have no preference. The bullet strikes in FC... not so much but I think the devs plan on changing it. The DM... I do recall seeing (and experiencing it myself) DR1s continuing to fly with only one wing in ROF. Hopefully that will change.

 

As SeaWolf said:

 

FC is the future on this studio and there no other studios working on WWI as a simulator. 

 

I will "endeavor to persevere" - Lone Watie ?.

[Dutch2]

1 hour ago, II./JG1_Vonrd said:

I think Dutch's video just emphasizes what a stunning Sim... erhm "game" ... ROF was and continues to be. The differences between ROF and FC are actually pretty minor. IMHO, the exterior and landscape graphics on FC are better for the most part. The sounds... I have no preference. The bullet strikes in FC... not so much but I think the devs plan on changing it. The DM... I do recall seeing (and experiencing it myself) DR1s continuing to fly with only one wing in ROF. Hopefully that will change.

 

As SeaWolf said:

 

FC is the future on this studio and there no other studios working on WWI as a simulator. 

 

I will "endeavor to persevere" - Lone Watie ?.

 

 I think TOAGs video is an important video, because  it shows all the aspects of (not)improvements RoF vs FC.  

 

 that other studio is OBD they make an WW1 flysim called WoFF-UE,  as can be read at: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forums/372/1/Wings:_Over_Flanders_Fields

It is based on an highly modificated CFS3 engine, only the WoFF game does not need an CFS3 disk.  Ankor is now trying to get DirectX11 shaders into the game engine and was even trying to get it on VR. 

 

And, never did try it also the IL2-1946 seems to have an Free WW1 department. 

[Archie]

FC is a no brainer if you have VR. Hooning around in the DR1 is probably the best fun I've ever had in a flight simulator to date. And I hated the DR1 in RoF. As we have an actual DR1 owner on the forum who is impressed with how it is modelled in the SIM I think the future is very bright.

Edited August 7, 2018 by 6./ZG76_Archie

[Spaaanky]

17 hours ago, Dutch2 said:

 

I keep my lips sealed on that point,  just avoid another basher assault on me, but just take a look at this video using the high resolution settings and do your own judgement. 

 

 

 

I have played ROF back in the day and I have some 3 years of experience with it. Now I play BOS mostly... I must say I am a bit concerned about FC with regards to how bullet impacts are modeled here. Just look at the video... To me, it seems it takes way fewer hits to bring the plane down in FC. And the bullet impacts are way to exaggerated... Just imagine... canvas, wood, and 8x57 Mauser round... it shouldn't make so much "puff". But I see where it comes from. If you look at BOX, impacts are modeled just like this way...Which makes sense for ww2 sim. I think ROF got bullet impacts modeled rly good. It would be a shame not to have ROF more realistic bullets impact in FC.

 

Yeah, graphics look amazing in FC, 4k, VR and all that good stuff. But... let's not get lost in that and overlook one of the core dynamics in the game like how the bullets impact the aircraft

Edited August 7, 2018 by J2_la00ecrivain

[Zooropa_Fly]

You might find tracers / bullet impacts have been temporarily borrowed from WW2 and will change.

It is just at the start of early access, maybe they should have got half the game sorted before EA release..

 

Off the bat I'm getting many pilot kills which I can never do in RoF, plus the Dr1 falls to bits much easier than RoF.

[JG1_Vonrd]

9 hours ago, Dutch2 said:

 

 I think TOAGs video is an important video, because  it shows all the aspects of (not)improvements RoF vs FC.  

 

 that other studio is OBD they make an WW1 flysim called WoFF-UE,  as can be read at: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forums/372/1/Wings:_Over_Flanders_Fields

It is based on an highly modificated CFS3 engine, only the WoFF game does not need an CFS3 disk.  Ankor is now trying to get DirectX11 shaders into the game engine and was even trying to get it on VR. 

 

And, never did try it also the IL2-1946 seems to have an Free WW1 department. 

I have WOFF but it seems really dated to me. The main negative is that there is no online capability.

[Hellshade_68]

I think FC is off to good start.  Of course there are lots of improvements that need to be made (bullet impacts, DM balancing, etc) but its Early Access, so I expect those things.    In time they will get more planes in the sky and iron out the wrinkles.   I hope someday they revisit the AI and also put a serious SP campaign in it but I will only expect what the devs promise.  

[ShamrockOneFive]

15 hours ago, J2_la00ecrivain said:

I have played ROF back in the day and I have some 3 years of experience with it. Now I play BOS mostly... I must say I am a bit concerned about FC with regards to how bullet impacts are modeled here. Just look at the video... To me, it seems it takes way fewer hits to bring the plane down in FC. And the bullet impacts are way to exaggerated... Just imagine... canvas, wood, and 8x57 Mauser round... it shouldn't make so much "puff". But I see where it comes from. If you look at BOX, impacts are modeled just like this way...Which makes sense for ww2 sim. I think ROF got bullet impacts modeled rly good. It would be a shame not to have ROF more realistic bullets impact in FC.

 

Yeah, graphics look amazing in FC, 4k, VR and all that good stuff. But... let's not get lost in that and overlook one of the core dynamics in the game like how the bullets impact the aircraft

 

Well for a start, we don't have the high dispersion of the machine guns that Rise of Flight has so fire time is much shorter right now because you can literally put more lead on target with fairly narrow dispersion. I assume that they will be working on that over time.

 

So too do I expect them to probably work on things like bullet impact visuals and sounds.

 

It's very early days and I wouldn't judge too much on these small but important details just yet because of that. Still worthwhile bringing them up though!

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I assume that they will be working on that over time.

 

The catch is: I've heard that the developers consider "improved gunnery" the real thing. And we all know what improved gunnery does (you shoot down planes like flies). I would not be surprised. At least they could give us the option to use a more realistic dispersion on the servers.

[BladeMeister]

3 hours ago, Hellshade_68 said:

I think FC is off to good start.  Of course there are lots of improvements that need to be made (bullet impacts, DM balancing, etc) but its Early Access, so I expect those things.    In time they will get more planes in the sky and iron out the wrinkles.   I hope someday they revisit the AI and also put a serious SP campaign in it but I will only expect what the devs promise.  

 

Keep your eye on this guy and check 6 often if he is in the MP room. He is a WOFF UE ringer. Make no bets with him lest you relinquish yourself of all your resources.?

 

S!Blade<><

[US103_Baer]

2 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Well for a start, we don't have the high dispersion of the machine guns that Rise of Flight has so fire time is much shorter right now because you can literally put more lead on target with fairly narrow dispersion. I assume that they will be working on that over time.

 

Assumptions and all that... 

Would be nice to have a bit more clarity on the road map in this area. I had an AI Dr1 hit me hard from near 600m while I was turning.

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

The catch is: I've heard that the developers consider "improved gunnery" the real thing. And we all know what improved gunnery does (you shoot down planes like flies). I would not be surprised. At least they could give us the option to use a more realistic dispersion on the servers.

 

I hadn't heard that and it would be interesting to know more if that's the case. I don't know for a fact that the dispersion values are accurate either way... But I'd love to know more.

 

24 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

 

Assumptions and all that... 

Would be nice to have a bit more clarity on the road map in this area. I had an AI Dr1 hit me hard from near 600m while I was turning.

 

At this point we do have to make some assumptions and have a little faith that the devs will get things sorted out by the end. I know from experience that the devs are listening to our comments and anything well brought up tends to be looked at if not outright addressed (even if the lead time on the addressing is measured in months - nature of the beast).

 

I definitely agree that some more clarity on the roadmap would be great.

[SeaW0lf]

24 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I hadn't heard that and it would be interesting to know more if that's the case. I don't know for a fact that the dispersion values are accurate either way... But I'd love to know more.

 

I think this is it:

Improved gunnery is relatively new option for more realistic dispersion (tight) - based more on real life data (research made by devs during creating a new game)...

 

Link below:

https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/45735-newbe-gunnery-question/?p=633448

 

He's a veteran and I don't recall him posting anything controversial or rude, so at the time I took it as true. The 'new game' might be the passing over to the new studio.

Edited August 8, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[Garven]

2 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

 

Assumptions and all that... 

Would be nice to have a bit more clarity on the road map in this area. I had an AI Dr1 hit me hard from near 600m while I was turning.

Doubt Shooting Stars has any turbulence in their mission which does increase the difficulty of holding the sights on target.  Not sure if turbulance would effect AI though.

Edited August 8, 2018 by US103GarvenDreis

[T_oll]

Comparing RoF to FC is like comparing a ripe and sweet watermelon, to a seed

RoF was a beautiful flightsim that matured over several years, due to the loving care of its devs, and the support of the fanbase.

FC is just a small plant. Yes, it was planted with seeds from RoF, and it’s being cared for by the same devs that gave you RoF, albeit with reinforcements to the team.

Any gripes you have with it today must be viewed in the context above.

FC is definitely the future, and it certainly has the potential to outgrow RoF, in every aspect.

Edited August 8, 2018 by T_oll

[Zooropa_Fly]

2 hours ago, US103GarvenDreis said:

Doubt Shooting Stars has any turbulence in their mission which does increase the difficulty of holding the sights on target.  Not sure if turbulance would effect AI though.

 

Not sure about FC yet, but Shooting Stars' RoF servers had more turbulance than any other !

[Hellshade_68]

7 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

 

Keep your eye on this guy and check 6 often if he is in the MP room. He is a WOFF UE ringer. Make no bets with him lest you relinquish yourself of all your resources.?

 

S!Blade<><

 

Kind words but in reality it is more than likely I would simply be gunned down like a stray dog.   

[haltux]

On 8/7/2018 at 12:10 PM, J2_la00ecrivain said:

I have played ROF back in the day and I have some 3 years of experience with it. Now I play BOS mostly... I must say I am a bit concerned about FC with regards to how bullet impacts are modeled here. Just look at the video... To me, it seems it takes way fewer hits to bring the plane down in FC. And the bullet impacts are way to exaggerated... Just imagine... canvas, wood, and 8x57 Mauser round... it shouldn't make so much "puff". But I see where it comes from. If you look at BOX, impacts are modeled just like this way...Which makes sense for ww2 sim. I think ROF got bullet impacts modeled rly good. It would be a shame not to have ROF more realistic bullets impact in FC.

 

Yeah, graphics look amazing in FC, 4k, VR and all that good stuff. But... let's not get lost in that and overlook one of the core dynamics in the game like how the bullets impact the aircraft

 

I might be a terrible gunner but I don't think it takes fewer hits than in RoF to bring the plane down. Shots on wings and wood are very inefficient. Several times I sprayed plenty of bullets on my enemy without much success and I finally won by killing the pilot (or so I guessed considering the behavior of the plane and the fact that victory was confirmed before the crash).

 

About bullet impact graphical and sound effect, I have no doubt the game currently uses the basic default IL2 behavior and I have no doubt it will change.

On 8/7/2018 at 12:52 PM, Zooropa_Fly said:

Off the bat I'm getting many pilot kills which I can never do in RoF, plus the Dr1 falls to bits much easier than RoF.

 

In my opinion pilot kills where way too unlikely in RoF. WW1 planes are really small, pilots are not protected at all, so if you shoot at a WW1 plane and hit the fuselage with a significant number of bullets, especially from its 6, the probability to hit the pilot should be high. Which was not the case in RoF were pilot kills (at least against AI) were very rare. 

 

I already complained about it once on the RoF forum and was taken for a noob that can't shoot. Now that I see that in FC it is actually much more common I am considering the idea that I was right.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Salute haltux !

It's a double edged sword really.

I don't know if you play MP, but there are pilots who can switch your lights off in under half a second, and in a deflection situation. (not just that hunting rubbish ;)).

So I'm not sure making it any easier is a great idea !

 

Maybe the bullets are currently a bit heavier than they should / will be..

Seeing hits as we do in FC1 certainly helps hone in the gunsights.

The new Dr1 feels a little less flighty if you know what I mean. More solid shooting platform.

I find myself using the zoom more in combat for FC1 than RoF for some reason.

 

S!

[haltux]

I don't play in MP... I have no doubt I would be a sitting duck there. 

 

On a different topic, I did not see much reviews of FC in VR so far, I have to say it is an amazing experience. Like I expected, FC fits even better to VR than IL2 with WW2 birds. Distances are smaller between planes so you suffer less from low resolution and stereoscopic vision is more convincing, when you see your opponent you can immediately feel the volumes, your and his trajectory into this volumes in a much more direct, tangible way than an a screen. The cockpit feels great as well, I love the way you can lean to look at the ground.

 

 

[Chill31]

On 8/5/2018 at 6:39 PM, taffy2jeffmorgan said:

Hi, Although i have not purchased Flying circus, i was wondering for those who have flown both RoF and now Flying circus, is there any comparison, with the look and feel of the aircraft [better or the same] 

 

Cheers.

Yes, the aircraft feel is night and day different.  I think it is much improved in FC.

[ShamrockOneFive]

20 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

I think this is it:

Improved gunnery is relatively new option for more realistic dispersion (tight) - based more on real life data (research made by devs during creating a new game)...

 

Link below:

https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/45735-newbe-gunnery-question/?p=633448

 

He's a veteran and I don't recall him posting anything controversial or rude, so at the time I took it as true. The 'new game' might be the passing over to the new studio.

 

Interesting. Thanks for digging that post up...At the very least its something to keep in mind. I don't know if RoF had this but FC definitely inherits the overheating feature that was programmed into IL-2. Fire your guns for an excessive period of time and they start to have more problems and fire less accurately. I rarely see that with the WWII aircraft but have seen it more than a few times flying here.

 

I guess we'll see over time.

[SYN_Haashashin]

Hi all,

 

I would recomend to forget what happened back at the RoF forum between some of you guys and do not bring it here. Nothing good will come from it.

After some "cleaning" I unlocked it.

Also, do not label members of this forum in any form.

 

Haash

[=IRFC=NakedSquirrel]

On 8/7/2018 at 10:38 PM, SeaW0lf said:

 

The catch is: I've heard that the developers consider "improved gunnery" the real thing. And we all know what improved gunnery does (you shoot down planes like flies). I would not be surprised. At least they could give us the option to use a more realistic dispersion on the servers.

 

 

RoF used to have more accurate gunnery way back when.  I feel the patch that increased dispersion helped gameplay.

 

Im not sure if increased dispersion is more or less “realistic.”  I wish I could find the old clip of a Nieuport zeroing its gun.  The target wasn’t very far away and there was still a sizable spread of bullet holes on the paper target.

 

It is likely a mix of recoil, the Lewis mount, and how well the plane was held down.  To think these MGs are as accurate on an open cockpit fabric and wood plane as they are on a tripod mount for infantry seems unlikely.

 

Still... Its still very early access so a lot is bound to change.  RoF changed quite a bit over the years I look forward to see FC develop and mature.  WW1 has a lot to gain from the upgraded game engine.

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by NakedSquirrel

[Hellshade_68]

2 hours ago, NakedSquirrel said:

Still... Its still very early access so a lot is bound to change.  RoF changed quite a bit over the years I look forward to see FC develop and mature.  WW1 has a lot to gain from the upgraded game engine.

 

 

+1

[Chill31]

On 8/9/2018 at 3:57 PM, NakedSquirrel said:

 

 

RoF used to have more accurate gunnery way back when.  I feel the patch that increased dispersion helped gameplay.

 

Im not sure if increased dispersion is more or less “realistic.”  I wish I could find the old clip of a Nieuport zeroing its gun.  The target wasn’t very far away and there was still a sizable spread of bullet holes on the paper target.

 

It is likely a mix of recoil, the Lewis mount, and how well the plane was held down.  To think these MGs are as accurate on an open cockpit fabric and wood plane as they are on a tripod mount for infantry seems unlikely.

I wish I had some video of the guns vibrating in flight on my plane!  I will find my GoPro eventually...

 

I ran some numbers in MS excel, and I think it is in line with what I see the barrels do while I fly.  One is for 1/8 inch vibration and the other is for 1/4 inch vibration at the muzzle and gives the ammunition credit for holding 1 MOA (1 inch at 100 yds).  You can see by this comparison, at 200 yards, your rounds would be landing somewhere inside a 3-6 feet diameter circle.  At 500 yards, it would be an 8-16 feet circle.  For perspective, the wingspan of the top wing on the Dr1 is 23 feet. 

 

Without seeing the vibration from other Dr1 gun mounts, I think this is a fair representation of the amount of shaking the guns feel.

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

Those numbers align pretty well with some contemporary test data of a Lewis gun mounted on a light aircraft cited by the author Leon Bennet.  In that test the circle was 5 feet to contain 75% of the shots at 250 yards on a calm day.  He goes on to calculate that on the "bumpy" day that Brown fired at Richthofen, the spread would have been estimated at about 30 feet.  It seemed to me that Rise of Flight had it about correct.

[Chill31]

40 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

  It seemed to me that Rise of Flight had it about correct.

ROF used 2 dispersion models.  One where it is wider (what is in effect now) and one where it was tighter (the way the sim started).  Which one do you mean being correct?  I have not tested ROF for such a thing, though I doubt it really needs testing since the Devs know what it is (I assume).

__________________________

On a separate topic, I just tested the rate of fire of the Dr1 Spandaus in FC, and my results were surprising to me.  I fired a 10 second burst, no gun jams, at 1280 propeller rpm.  Each gun fired 120 rounds which equates to 720 rounds per minute!!!  I don't think that is possible to achieve with a Spandau.  My conclusion is that the machine gun rate of fire is almost double what it should be.

 

So what should it be??

A normal setting for the Spandau was between 400-500 rounds per minute.  I am using 450 rds/m for my calculations here.

 

The way the firing mechanism works on the Rhone and Oberursel URII is via a cam lobe on the back of the engine.  There is only one high spot on the cam, which is where the gun fires (if it were an "interruptor" which only stopped the gun from firing when a blade was in front of the gun, there would need to be two lobes).  There is a little mechanism fitted to the engine that rolls around on that cam as the engine turns.  Each time the lobe goes in front of the guns, it fires the guns (as opposed to preventing the firing of the guns).  This means that the MOST the gun can fire is once per engine revolution.  However, between the time the gun ejects the last round and fires the next, the engine will turn two full revolutions, firing the gun again on the third pass.  This results in the gun firing at 426 rds/m when the engine is turning 1280 rpm.  As engine rpm decreases to 1100, the rds/m drops to 366.  Our guns in ROF/FC are firing waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too fast.

 

I would have brought this forward a long time ago...but I am just now getting a chance to see how the engine/firing mechanism works since I have it in my possession now.

 

For your Spandau entertainment...

 

[Cynic_Al]

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

I ran some numbers in MS excel, and I think it is in line with what I see the barrels do while I fly.

 

 

Leaving aside the accuracy or otherwise of that visual estimate, I suggest it would be better to measure the vibration along the entire length of the gun. Even with such data, the unknown effect of forces generated during firing of ammunition would render the calculations meaningless. Only practical experimentation using activated guns and live ammunition can hope to yield a figure worth entertaining.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Quote

ROF used 2 dispersion models.  One where it is wider (what is in effect now) and one where it was tighter (the way the sim started).  Which one do you mean being correct?  I have not tested ROF for such a thing, though I doubt it really needs testing since the Devs know what it is (I assume).

 

I'm talking about the more dispersive of the two.  Not talking about the less realistic "Enhanced Gunnery" or whatever it was called.  The latter was like a laser beam.

 

Also, maybe earlier instead of me saying "Rise of Flight got it right", I should have said that observation with the unscientific eye of where the tracers were bracketing a non-manuevering target at 3 or 400 meters, using his wingspan as a measuring stick, seemed to be in the ballpark of those numbers I quoted earlier. 

Edited August 11, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[HiIIBiIIy]

3 hours ago, Chill31 said:

I wish I had some video of the guns vibrating in flight on my plane!  I will find my GoPro eventually...

 

I ran some numbers in MS excel, and I think it is in line with what I see the barrels do while I fly.  One is for 1/8 inch vibration and the other is for 1/4 inch vibration at the muzzle and gives the ammunition credit for holding 1 MOA (1 inch at 100 yds).  You can see by this comparison, at 200 yards, your rounds would be landing somewhere inside a 3-6 feet diameter circle.  At 500 yards, it would be an 8-16 feet circle.  For perspective, the wingspan of the top wing on the Dr1 is 23 feet. 

 

Without seeing the vibration from other Dr1 gun mounts, I think this is a fair representation of the amount of shaking the guns feel.

 

 

I think your math is a little off, if your gun moves a 1/8 inch in 24 inches the angle is close to 2 degrees(120 MOA) and at 100 yards it is a 120 inch circle. 

Edited August 11, 2018 by HiIIBiIIy

[Guest deleted@83466]

47 minutes ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

I think your math is a little off, if your gun moves a 1/8 inch in 24 inches the angle is close to 2 degrees(120 MOA) and at 100 yards it is a 120 inch circle. 

 

I'm not sure where you are getting your 2 degree angle.  I think the way Chill31 is doing it, is that he is essentially "hinging" the back of the gun barrel, and rotating the muzzle of the barrel up 1/8 of an inch, which produces a .3 degree angle.  So at 300 feet, this is going to produce about a 1.6 foot difference.  That said, I don't know that simply rotating the muzzle up around a circle is the correct way to model the vibration of the gun and the expected dispersion, but it's probably good enough for a back of the napkin, ballpark figure.

Edited August 11, 2018 by SeaSerpent