RoF-v-Flying circus

[HiIIBiIIy]

12 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

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 go about the calculation...

You're right, I had a dyslexic monument.?  

[Garven]

Dispersion is likely aircraft dependent due to different engine types.  http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13921

I imagine a rotary will vibrate quite a bit more than an inline especially if isn't perfectly balanced.

 

As far as gun rpm goes the allies had a considerable upper hand in 1918 thanks to disintegrating metal belting and muzzle boosters on the vickers.  A lot of good threads on this subject over at the aerodrome too.

[Chill31]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

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.

 

The gun is mounted with 2 brackets.  One at the front of the receiver and one at the back.  I have just noticed the gun barrel vibrating around up front, so my assumption (perhaps incorrect) is that the pivot point would be the front bracket.  I would also expect this to vary from aircraft to aircraft and plane type to plane type.  Definitely a ballpark number, but I think it is realistic and representative of what one would find in WWI.  

 

7 minutes ago, US103GarvenDreis said:

Dispersion is likely aircraft dependent due to different engine types.  http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13921

I imagine a rotary will vibrate quite a bit more than an inline especially if isn't perfectly balanced.

 

As far as gun rpm goes the allies had a considerable upper hand in 1918 thanks to disintegrating metal belting and muzzle boosters on the vickers.  A lot of good threads on this subject over at the aerodrome too.

 

For sure, there is some variability.  However, the Dr1 guns as modeled, are firing way too fast.  I can't even get to 720 rds/m with the guns firing using the correct "triggered" method of firing. Maybe if I misread the dial and it was 105 rds fired, then it would match with a 650 rds/m rate.  Even then, still too fast.

 

Interesting note here...I knew a guy who knew a guy who had some vickers set up on his Camel.  Fired blanks (and solid rounds on a demo occasion) using the real mechanism.  In flight, he said it had a nice pop, pop, pop to it.

[Garven]

Agreed, currently in FC and RoF the allies don't have as much of a rate of fire advantage they historically did with their 1918 twin gun scouts due to the Spandau firing too fast. 

Edited August 12, 2018 by US103GarvenDreis

[Guest deleted@83466]

Here's what I think.  I haven't read as many books on the subject of gunnery or World War One as most of you, but I did read one book by this dude named Leon Bennett, who I cited earlier.  This guy apparently knows his stuff when it comes to talking about guns mounted on WW-1 airplanes.   He is big on the subject because he did that sort of thing in the military, and he had an interest in the probabilities of who shot down Richthofen, and was writing books on it.  Somebody who is knowledgeable enough to understand (or maybe happens to own a DR1, and therefore has some implicit credibility, hint, hint ?)should email him with some questions about things like dispersion and rate of fire, because he probably has better answers than us people out in Simlandia.

Edited August 12, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[BadBud]

I am enjoy both the Spad and the DR1 and find them better flyers and gun platforms than those two in RoF. Neither are my favorites to fly, but I am getting better and feeling much joy with FC. Much prefer the Camel at least in RoF. 

I would like to see some improvement with the DM. I, like some others find that I am seeing many, many bullet strikes, but not enough damage in some fights. I am also hoping that the killing of a pilot will result in flopping over as in RoF............rather than the disappearing act shown in FC.

BadBud

 

 

[SeaW0lf]

28 minutes ago, BadBud said:

rather than the disappearing act shown in FC.

 

They disappear? How??

[ST_ami7b5]

13 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

They disappear? How??

If you kill an AI pilot instead of seeing a collapsed body you will see an empty cockpit.
Obviously dead pilot not yet modeled...

[BadBud]

Do have to revise my DM opinion: flew a lot today and now believe that damage is looking better than I originally thought. I do think that that the AI baddies could could spend more time engaging than flying away from you. It should be more of a dogfight with aggressive AI pilots. I have gotten to where I pull off trying to catch the AI, giving then an advantage so that they might engage. Works for me.

Was a good day of air combat. Looking forward to next time up and flying BoS.

BadBud

[LukeFF]

On 8/11/2018 at 1:53 PM, Chill31 said:

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.

 

It sounds like the game is not properly taking into account the effect of the synchronizer, since the video shows how the max rate of fire was around 700 rounds / min. If you've not already done so, I'd highly recommend sending this info up to Han and VikS.

[SeaW0lf]

On 8/11/2018 at 10:37 PM, Chill31 said:

For sure, there is some variability.  However, the Dr1 guns as modeled, are firing way too fast. 

 

The problem is, for you to report it and to be fair you have to test other planes to see if they all have inconsistencies to avoid being bias. You have to make a study to determine how the devs approached it and if the firing rate is inconsistent all across the board or not, or how it behaves with the nerfed planes and so on so forth. No to mention that the Oberursel could get above 1350rpm (tests were made at 1390rpm), not the 1280rpm cap that we seems to have today. The original Oberursel operating manual indicates the following rpm for best results: ground level 1360-1380. The Camel (Tripe?) was also capped in its rpm after the nerfing.

 

I'm all for realism, but it has to be for every aircraft, not just one or two. Then we need to have the nerfed planes back to their original max rpm and such.

Edited August 13, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[JG1_Vonrd]

On 8/11/2018 at 1:53 PM, Chill31 said:

 

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.

 

F

THIS!

The "Interrupter" method of firing a gun through the prop arc has been so oft repeated that it has been assumed as Gospel. Every video on this topic repeats the falsehood. It is actually a fallacy. I don't think there has ever been a successful "interrupter"  mechanism employed (cue the examples of my mistaken statement... ?... I can always accept enlightenment). All successful means of firing a gun through the propeller arc has been (for lack of a better word) a gun "sychronizer". In affect, the gun is semi-automatic and the cam "pulls the trigger"... loosely related to the infamous "bump stock".

 

I think Chili is correct as to the rate of fire. We may not like it when our guns go "Pop, pop, pop" as opposed to "Brrrap"... but it's the way it should be (across the board).

 

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by II./JG1_Vonrd

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

The problem is, for you to report it and to be fair you have to test other planes to see if they all have inconsistencies to avoid being bias. You have to make a study to determine how the devs approached it and if the firing rate is inconsistent all across the board or not, or how it behaves with the nerfed planes and so on so forth.

 

What in the world are you going on about? FC has two planes right now, and by all accounts the Vickers MGs are performing as intended. 

 

Quit bringing your claims of bias into every single post like this.

18 minutes ago, Plank said:

And the rate of fire on the hand guns is a bit slow. : -)

 

Try firing a handgun with one hand on the stick and the other holding said handgun while flying an open-cockpit aircraft, and tell us how fast you can fire it.

[Zooropa_Fly]

If RoF's realistic rate of fire mod is essentially accurate, being a Sim, I can't understand why it wasn't incorporated into the game ?

They allegedly switched from what is now 'Improved Gunnery' to the current firing model, to bodge an issue of over-deadly shooting.

Surely the above mod would have been the best way to fix that ?

 

If one thing ever made RoF 'arcadey', it's not flying with icons : it's the rates of fire ; lack of jams ; and not having to re-load. (DH2 excepted !).

[unreasonable]

18 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

If RoF's realistic rate of fire mod is essentially accurate, being a Sim, I can't understand why it wasn't incorporated into the game ?

They allegedly switched from what is now 'Improved Gunnery' to the current firing model, to bodge an issue of over-deadly shooting.

Surely the above mod would have been the best way to fix that ?

 

If one thing ever made RoF 'arcadey', it's not flying with icons : it's the rates of fire ; lack of jams ; and not having to re-load. (DH2 excepted !).

 

The gunnery in very early days had no ballistic trajectory at all IIRC, then they went to the current vanilla shotgun, the "improved gunnery" setting was introduced later as an option based on what the team thought was the most realistic dispersion.  (They are right). 

 

Realistic rate of fire mod only makes a big difference for the earlier planes: it is date dependent (at least the version I used) and by 1918 everyone is firing at pretty high rates, so it makes little difference by that time. 

 

I am in favour of jams at least for Sp - they were not uncommon and would make it more important to save your fire for good opportunities. One thing that would make RoF/FC less "arcadey" is to strengthen the wings: it is the constant wing shedding that made vanilla RoF unplayable for me, and looks as though it might end my interest in FC given the last "hotfix", unless we allowed to Mod DMs for SP.  

[Zooropa_Fly]

1 hour ago, Plank said:

PS Hello ZF !!!! Long time no shooty shooty!

 

 

BANG !

[Chill31]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

It sounds like the game is not properly taking into account the effect of the synchronizer, since the video shows how the max rate of fire was around 700 rounds / min. If you've not already done so, I'd highly recommend sending this info up to Han and VikS.

I will send them what I have and let them take it from there.

 

7 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

The problem is, for you to report it and to be fair you have to test other planes to see if they all have inconsistencies to avoid being bias. You have to make a study to determine how the devs approached it and if the firing rate is inconsistent all across the board or not, or how it behaves with the nerfed planes and so on so forth. No to mention that the Oberursel could get above 1350rpm (tests were made at 1390rpm), not the 1280rpm cap that we seems to have today. The original Oberursel operating manual indicates the following rpm for best results: ground level 1360-1380. The Camel (Tripe?) was also capped in its rpm after the nerfing.

 

I'm all for realism, but it has to be for every aircraft, not just one or two. Then we need to have the nerfed planes back to their original max rpm and such.

I suppose we could do that, as there are only 2 planes at the moment. The problem for me is that I have never seen how the interrupter works on a Hisso or a Mercedes, etc.  I have a couple of friends who may have seen it and can shed some light on that.  I will ask.  

 

Regarding the rate of fire vs engine rpm, the rate of fire at 1280 rpm should be a definite rate even if it was set up at 1360.  For example, a Spandau set to fire at 450 rds/m would fire 345 rds/m at 1380.  If the gun was set to fire at 650 rds/m, it would fire 640 rds/m at 1280 rpm and 460 rds/m at 1380 rpm.  More engine rpm doesn't necessarily mean a higher rate of fire.

 

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 

The gunnery in very early days had no ballistic trajectory at all IIRC, then they went to the current vanilla shotgun, the "improved gunnery" setting was introduced later as an option based on what the team thought was the most realistic dispersion.  (They are right). 

 

Realistic rate of fire mod only makes a big difference for the earlier planes: it is date dependent (at least the version I used) and by 1918 everyone is firing at pretty high rates, so it makes little difference by that time. 

I started with Rise of Flight from the very beginning, and they have made several changes to the guns over time.  At first, they fired slow.  Then for some reason, they changed the DM and rate of fire (I think it was in response to the idea that engine rpm should be changing the rate of fire).  

 

****** I just tested FC in the Dr1 and the rate of fire is fixed at 650 rds/m regardless of engine RPM.  This is an impossibility in the design of the gun/synchronizer.  Maybe they are unable to model the variable rate of fire...If that is the case and they picked 650 rds/m for the complete model of the rate of fire then it is ok.  For a Spandau set to fire at 650 rds/m and an engine turning 1280 rpm, the correct value should be 640 rds/m.  So if that is what they did, it is not too far off.  For a gun set to fire at 450 rds/min, it should be set no higher than 425 rds/m though. 

 

 

 

Vickers MG

 

 

This is a thread from the aerodrome forum regarding rate of fire...

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41918&page=2

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

I suppose we could do that, as there are only 2 planes at the moment. The problem for me is that I have never seen how the interrupter works on a Hisso or a Mercedes, etc.  I have a couple of friends who may have seen it and can shed some light on that.  I will ask. 

 

Cool, it would be interesting to know.

 

Here is a post of Jason explaining how they went about the rate of fire: https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/30921-few-words-about-synchronizers-and-version-1026/ Then you can build your case on top of what they thought at the time.

Edited August 13, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[Guest deleted@83466]

6 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

The gunnery in very early days had no ballistic trajectory at all IIRC, then they went to the current vanilla shotgun, the "improved gunnery" setting was introduced later as an option based on what the team thought was the most realistic dispersion.  (They are right). 

 

 

 

Are you talking about the "improved gunnery" option that is only ever used on Newby and basic training servers that basically turns the guns into laser beams?  I don't know the whole story behind that, but I thought it was introduced at the same time they introduced mouse control into Rise of Flight, to make the game more approachable for new players, not to increase simulation realism.  I've only seen that option enabled on one basic training server, and it makes shooting down enemy planes as easy as pie, even at extreme ranges.  You're saying you think that is more historically realistic than what is currently in use for the "full realism" (Rise of Flight) gunnery settings?   Don't know about that....

Edited August 13, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

49 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Are you talking about the "improved gunnery" option that is only ever used on Newby and basic training servers that basically turns the guns into laser beams?  I don't know the whole story behind that, but I thought it was introduced at the same time they introduced mouse control into Rise of Flight, to make the game more approachable for new players, not to increase simulation realism.  I've only seen that option enabled on one basic training server, and it makes shooting down enemy planes as easy as pie, even at extreme ranges.  You're saying you think that is more historically realistic than what is currently in use for the "full realism" (Rise of Flight) gunnery settings?   Don't know about that....

 

You thought  wrong, "improved gunnery" is newest and most realistic/historical according to 1C/777 Developers - found during research work with IL-2 BOS ballistics. Just current  ROF DM is not adapted to this - cutting wings in no time.

BTW Improved gunnery together with mods like improved lethality (stronger wings) and realistic rate of fire is where it shines.

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by 307_Tomcat

[Guest deleted@83466]

Tomcat, can you post the actual link to the original discussion, so I can read it, please?

 

"RoF nose guns in default have CEP 0.014 of range.." 

 

So at 250 yards, this would produce a CEP of 10.5 feet since it's .014 of range.  Is this, the "improved" or the one box-unchecked "full real" one?  My guess is that this value is for the "full real" that is currently used on most 1.5x servers in Rise of Flight.  So what is the CEP as a function of range for the "improved gunnery"?

 

(the real-world test I cited secondhand upthread said about a 5 foot CEP at 250 yards on a calm day, as quoted by Bennett, so I assume that the Improved gunnery option would put us in this ballpark?). 

 

If "improved gunnery", and a tighter pattern moves us closer to realism, all the better, and I'm all for it, but as you yourself alluded to, if DM (and possibly rate of fire if that's applicable) are not modified accordingly, then this could produce some decidely arcade-like gunnery...(that's what it does in Rise of Flight, with those DM's and rates of fire, it's like a buzzsaw).   I'm guessing that's why it's only enabled on WG basic training server right now, because it simply doesn't produce believable results when combined with other factors.   I would think that if all things remained close to the same in FC, it would produce more plausible kill rates to just stick with the current dispersion model used on 1.5x servers currently in Rise of Flight, even if that technically is creating a downrange CEP twice as large as could be expected. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by SeaSerpent
meant to write FC not IL-2

[Chill31]

Notice Voss' spring setting for the rate of fire.  Set about half way, so about 400 rds/m.

 

Here is Gontermann's Dr1, and you can see the knob on the side.  Compared to TVALs guns, Gontermann's appears to be set around 400 rds/m.

 

Here is a very clear picture of the spring setting on this Dr1

 

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/maxim-lmg-0815

 

Based on these photos, and strictly speaking about the Dr1, I think any rate of fire over 450 rds/m is purely fiction.  These pictures seem to indicate a rate of fire around 350-400 rds/min.

 

Regarding accuracy of the Maxim machine gun, here is a commentary on tests performed for the accuracy of a Maxim machine gun: http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=344

 

 

6 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Cool, it would be interesting to know.

 

Here is a post of Jason explaining how they went about the rate of fire: https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/30921-few-words-about-synchronizers-and-version-1026/ Then you can build your case on top of what they thought at the time.

Thanks for that link!  It seems like they have already covered the "variable rate of fire" ground, but they may have the rate of fire set incorrectly.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Chill31

[unreasonable]

7 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

 

If "improved gunnery", and a tighter pattern moves us closer to realism, all the better, and I'm all for it, but as you yourself alluded to, if DM (and possibly rate of fire if that's applicable) are not modified accordingly, then this could produce some decidely arcade-like gunnery...(that's what it does in Rise of Flight, with those DM's and rates of fire, it's like a buzzsaw).   I'm guessing that's why it's only enabled on WG basic training server right now, because it simply doesn't produce believable results when combined with other factors.   I would think that if all things remained close to the same in FC, it would produce more plausible kill rates to just stick with the current dispersion model used on 1.5x servers currently in Rise of Flight, even if that technically is creating a downrange CEP twice as large as could be expected. 

 

As Tomcat says: the Improved gunnery is a more realistic depiction of dispersion: and as you say the problem with RoF/FC is not just dispersion but rate of fire and the DM, especially the weakness of wings, and the lack of an incendiary round in the load out, which is needed in a 1918 scenario.

 

At some point the developers - and players - have to decide if they want FC to just replicate RoF with all it's faults, with better graphics, or is this an opportunity to improve realism.  While the few dozen people who still play RoF MP on a  regular basis might prefer the former, I cannot see that this is a viable strategy. Surely now is the time to get each of these components right. 

 

On another topic on the Rate of Fire issue: if the RoF rates of fire are not properly taking into account changes of rpm for guns firing through the prop, presumably this is also true of the BoX planes with nose mounted MGs that do the same?

 

Edit: Han's impatience can be refreshing at times....   

Edited August 14, 2018 by unreasonable

[JG1_Vonrd]

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

 

On another topic on the Rate of Fire issue: if the RoF rates of fire are not properly taking into account changes of rpm for guns firing through the prop, presumably this is also true of the BoX planes with nose mounted MGs that do the same?

 

Hmm... good point... I hadn't thought of that.

 

Wasn't Galland brought down by incorrectly synchronized gun(s) on a 109?

 

Russ and Italian planes also used synch.

[Chill31]

15 hours ago, unreasonable said:

On another topic on the Rate of Fire issue: if the RoF rates of fire are not properly taking into account changes of rpm for guns firing through the prop, presumably this is also true of the BoX planes with nose mounted MGs that do the same?

 

Edit: Han's impatience can be refreshing at times....   

 

Variable rate of fire based on rpm is likely not necessary due to the fact the you are going to go into combat with full power.  Giving up energy in favor of a few hundred rds/m is probably not a good tactic.  So I would understand if they didn't model the variable rate.  However, there is very clear evidence that the Spandau MGs (as depicted on those Dr1s) were not set any higher than 450 rds/m.

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, Chill31 said:

 

Variable rate of fire based on rpm is likely not necessary due to the fact the you are going to go into combat with full power.  Giving up energy in favor of a few hundred rds/m is probably not a good tactic.  

 

There are people online who did this in the Spad.  It dives so well that they could adjust RPM prior to shooting to get max rate of fire.  Not to mention that max power in a dive in many aircraft will blow up the engine.

[Cybermat47]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

There are people online who did this in the Spad.  It dives so well that they could adjust RPM prior to shooting to get max rate of fire.  Not to mention that max power in a dive in many aircraft will blow up the engine.

 

I wonder if that ever happened in real life, or if it’s just “gamey” behaviour? I am more inclined towards the latter, but you never know.

Edited August 14, 2018 by PB_Cybermat47

[303_Kwiatek]

Main thing which could kill immersion in FC like it was in ROF could be also rear gunners effectivness. In ROF it was absurd

Edited August 16, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek