Jump to content
P40eWarhawk

Laseraccurate gunners

Recommended Posts

Is it only me or are the backgunners of most bombers just brutally overpowered. as soon as i get withing 300m i just get absoltley shredded regardless of how fast im approaching or how much im hitting the bomber they always seem to hit me really hard. its way easier to down ennemy fighters than bombers which in reality it was the opposite. in games like il2 1946 or cliffs of dover its way easier to get good aim on a bomber and give him hell. is it just the case that im dumb or do they need to tune them down quite a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno think the gunners in both of those games were very good at taking out my planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something about ai gunners. 

PE 2 gunners got most of the heat, but that is because they are most effective and got a good field of fire. 

But you see the same accuracy from ground aa 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Human controled gunners outperform the AI in general. On this point I can provide test data.

There may be certian circumstances in which the AI gunners outperform human gunners, but whilst that may be a reasonable asumption, I haven't seen any hard evidence of it yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Human controled gunners outperform the AI in general. On this point I can provide test data.

I agree. I am better than my ai gunner in PE 2 

infact I get shot down depending on warnings from him. Bullets fly around me when he warn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Do you just park yourself in the bombers rear? 

 

This is definitely not a good idea.  😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🐴🏏☠️

 

A bit rude I know, but this topic has been done to death.  If the AI level is novice (which IMHO is  more appropriate for bombers anyway) then the gunners are also novice and they perform in a pretty realistic manner.  If AI is ace then the gunners can be deadly accurate.  I admit that I do not know at what level AI gunners perform on a human piloted plane, so MP may have an issue that is not as common in SP.

 

IMHO - Ideally every gunner level moves down one or even two notches.  Current novice would be fine for common or veteran. Actual novice gunner should not be able to hit the broad side of a barn. 

 

One thing that might help is the new "fatigue" modeling.  That might limit gunners marksmanship during any sort of maneuvering.  We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

🐴🏏☠️

IMHO - Ideally every gunner level moves down one or even two notches.  Current novice would be fine for common or veteran. Actual novice gunner should not be able to hit the broad side of a barn.

 

I disagree.

I think the devs should look for circumstances where the AI regularly out-performs humans and adjust those.

Forexample: I suspect the AI is better at extreeme range, when makeing heavy manouvers and also at the edge of the traverse limit than humans. If such abilitys are negated, the gunners will perform more like human players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I disagree.

I think the devs should look for circumstances where the AI regularly out-performs humans and adjust those.

Forexample: I suspect the AI is better at extreeme range, when makeing heavy manouvers and also at the edge of the traverse limit than humans. If such abilitys are negated, the gunners will perform more like human players.

 

I agree with everything you just said. As much as possible AI behavior should correlate with human behavior.

Pure opinion on my part but I think reducing accuracy of gunners accomplishes that.  I should not have to set AI level to novice to get realistic results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, could you (or anyone else who can use the mission editor) possibly make a mission with several Pe2s, all 10km+ apart from each other, all with 4x109F4's each just next to them.

One Pe2 for each skill level and one Human one.

That way I can run the mission many times in succession and compare the effectiveness of each skill level against a human gunner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Human controled gunners outperform the AI in general. On this point I can provide test data

 

Bloody hell not when I’m doing the shooting.  😭

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Do you just park yourself in the bombers rear? Or do you make dashing attacks?

when i get on the rear then only when i use high caliber guns which i can use at longer ranges eg past 400m this works pretty good with the p 39 but with wingmounted machineguns its difficult. mostly i do fast strikes from 8 or 4 oclock high or low with which i have to get pretty close to hit something. they even track me if i do that with a me 262 with 700kph. In irl the gunners of B17 said they could hardly see them not to mention track and fire at them...

15 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Human controled gunners outperform the AI in general. On this point I can provide test data.

There may be certian circumstances in which the AI gunners outperform human gunners, but whilst that may be a reasonable asumption, I haven't seen any hard evidence of it yet.

well a human at a pc pointing his mouse at a virtual target so aaalot more accurate than irl which this simulation should simulate right? when i do fast passes in a me 262 from the sides even then they track me while the poor sods that actually had to fight the 262 said they could hardly see them not to mention track them with gunfire when they did fast approaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, P40eWarhawk said:

well a human at a pc pointing his mouse at a virtual target so aaalot more accurate than irl which this simulation should simulate right? when i do fast passes in a me 262 from the sides even then they track me while the poor sods that actually had to fight the 262 said they could hardly see them not to mention track them with gunfire when they did fast approaches.

 

Is a mouse more acurate than a physical gun? What makes you think that? I'm not claiming it isn't, but I don't know of any evidence that it is either.

 

Why not record a track ingame or (idealy) in tacview of your attacks in an me262. Then we can all see what you are talking about first hand.

 

Quote

In irl the gunners of B17 said they could hardly see them not to mention track and fire at them...

 

My grandfather was bombed by 262 whilst in the Rhineland. He claimed that the 262 was so fast that you could not hear it until it had already passed you.

He was entirely wrong about that. I'm lucky enough to live in an area where modern jets do low level training at speeds far in excess of the 262 and they can absolutly be heard as they aproach. He beleived what he said, but he was wrong. Subjective first hand acount can not be trusted.

 

Instead, lets look at an objective source; 262 losses from JG7 for March 1945:

 

They lost 3 to mechanical problems, 7 to bombers, 11 to US fighters, 8 to unknown aircraft and 4 to accidents. They destroyed between 37 and 48 bombers in the same period.

That means that against bombers, the 262 had a kill rate of between:

1 Me262 shot down by bombers for every 2.5 bombers shot down by Me262s

and

1 Me262 shot down by bombers for every 6.8 bombers shot down by Me262s

 

The true figure likely lies somewhere between the two at say, 4.5 bombers downed per Me262 lost to bomber fire.

Either way, it appears that Me262s where far from immune to defensive fire from bombers.

 

 

There is a speculative argument that could be made that the Me262's speed did not make it *any* less vulnerable to the gunners of bombers.
Attacking from the dead six of a bomber is by far the easiest method and from this aspect, the only difference speed makes is the amount of time both the bomber and fighter have to shoot at each other. It is hard to argue that either the bomber or the fighter get any advantage from having less time to exchange fire.
Attacking from positions other than the bombers six means that faster aircraft are harder targets as they require much more deflection from the gunners, but the bomber it's self is also a much more difficult target, especially if the fighter has less time to line up the attack due to it's speed. Such attacks ask much more skill from both the gunner and the fighter aircraft and it's not clear that speed benefits anyone.
Of course, the speed of the 262 does allow it to evade escorts with ease and it's firepower is well suited to attacking bombers, but I don't see much reason that it should be any harder for gunners to hit than any other plane.

Edited by [DBS]Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Human controled gunners outperform the AI in general. On this point I can provide test data.

There may be certian circumstances in which the AI gunners outperform human gunners, but whilst that may be a reasonable asumption, I haven't seen any hard evidence of it yet.

 

AI knows the solution for every shot, so no humans cannot match this.

The AI has to be programmed to miss, which is the challenge.

 

"low" setting most closely matches a very good real life gunner. (having tested many units, including all AA units etc)

Anything above that, even "normal" starts to breach what a human can realistically match, never mind ACE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

AI knows the solution for every shot, so no humans cannot match this.

The AI has to be programmed to miss, which is the challenge.

 

"low" setting most closely matches a very good real life gunner. (having tested many units, including all AA units etc)

Anything above that, even "normal" starts to breach what a human can realistically match, never mind ACE.

 

That does not match my tests. I could outperform a normal AI and my gunnery isn't that good.

 

Edited by [DBS]Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 1000+ hours in the editor building and testing missions disagrees right back - so I guess we’ll agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have understood correctly Browning tests were conducted against AI fighters.

 

I can believe that a human gunner can outperform AI gunners against AI planes or against someone that attacks from your dead 6 and parks there... and IMO this is a good thing!

But if the fighter pilot is a human that knows what he is doing I think the results would be quite different. 

AI gunners seems to be always able to calculate a firing solution on you no matter where you are or what you do and if you transit for a split second in their firing arc there is a good chance to receive hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 2:47 PM, [DBS]Browning said:

Is a mouse more acurate than a physical gun? What makes you think that? I'm not claiming it isn't, but I don't know of any evidence that it is either.

well i fired guns from helicopters in the army, with modern equipment and moderate speeds not exceeding 200 kph. on stationary clearly visible targets that i knew were gonna appear. fucking hard actually hitting them. how will it be if you are sitting a slingering bomber with crude slowfiring guns with limited field of few?.

 

On 7/8/2019 at 2:47 PM, [DBS]Browning said:

My grandfather was bombed by 262 whilst in the Rhineland. He claimed that the 262 was so fast that you could not hear it until it had already passed you.

He was entirely wrong about that. I'm lucky enough to live in an area where modern jets do low level training at speeds far in excess of the 262 and they can absolutly be heard as they aproach. He beleived what he said, but he was wrong. Subjective first hand acount can not be trusted.

again out of experience if its absolutley quiet around yes you can hear them from afar if there is an running artillery shooting tanks driving you cant even hear props until theyre on top of you so it might be actually true.

 

On 7/8/2019 at 2:47 PM, [DBS]Browning said:

nstead, lets look at an objective source; 262 losses from JG7 for March 1945:

 

They lost 3 to mechanical problems, 7 to bombers, 11 to US fighters, 8 to unknown aircraft and 4 to accidents. They destroyed between 37 and 48 bombers in the same period.

That means that against bombers, the 262 had a kill rate of between:

1 Me262 shot down by bombers for every 2.5 bombers shot down by Me262s

and

1 Me262 shot down by bombers for every 6.8 bombers shot down by Me262s

 

The true figure likely lies somewhere between the two at say, 4.5 bombers downed per Me262 lost to bomber fire.

Either way, it appears that Me262s where far from immune to defensive fire from bombers.

so thats only one jg in one month where the allies allies are aware of its existence a bit cherry picking the results isnt it? but please do provide links or sources if you got them to back them up because i do not have and on 262 specifically and even if do not like to be wrong i like to know the truth:) and thx as well for diving this deep in to subject

On 7/8/2019 at 2:47 PM, [DBS]Browning said:

The true figure likely lies somewhere between the two at say, 4.5 bombers downed per Me262 lost to bomber fire.

Either way, it appears that Me262s where far from immune to defensive fire from bombers.

this sounds plausible but its the wrong situation. a tightly packed big formation of of fortresses or liberators have alot of gunners  looking around and guns shooting at you. it works on the principle of throw enough sh*t at the wall and some of it is gonna stick. it not two pe 2 with each only 1 gun that can ever shoot an approaching plane at a given time. and i dont how to submit videos nor i have really much time to do it sorry about that but again thx alot for the support

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P40eWarhawk said:

so thats only one jg in one month where the allies allies are aware of its existence a bit cherry picking the results isnt it?
 

 

It's the only source I can find where 262's cause of faliure/destruction can be assigned to bomber gunners along with good estimates for bomber losses. I welcome other sources if you can find them.

I took data from the following locations:,

1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My beef with the AI gunners isn't necessarily their accuracy or inaccuracy but the fact that they can go from not being within 50 yard of your plane to 100% accuracy so fast it's like flipping a switch.  I've recently observed this and realized what part of the issue may be.  I will be posting a video on this soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...