Carpet beater Relegation

[HagarTheHorrible]

Are the carpet beater hit effects in any way realistic and if not why hasn't more been done to try and have them relegated to a server selectable difficulty option ?

 

I rather wonder if, when shooting, we get far too much feedback, that skews how people play the game, a positive feedback loop that encourages long range and high aspect snap shooting ?   Would we still be as happy to blast away if, unless we hit a major component, we recieved no feedback as to how effective our shooting was ?  Would the psychological balance shift between hunter and victim if the hunter wasn't sure if the hunted was injured ?

 

If a bullet hit the airframe wouldn't any debris, blast effect, that might be visible, be on the opposite side to the entry hole and thus probably out of sight ?  Sure there might be indications of a hit, such as a shudder or a lurch, but clouds of debris and dust ?   Do they not clean these things ?

 

One wonders why De Wilde even had a notion to invent a bullet that "sparkled" when it hit a target, it seems all you had to do was fire a house wife, with a dust beater, every few rounds, to slap the target to show where your bullets were hitting.

 

I'm not suggesting the hit effects are totally without merit, i just wonder if they, more fittingly, should be put into the same category as icons and map trackers ?

[Zooropa_Fly]

This may be counter balanced by how hard pilots and gunners are to kill in-game. If that was modelled realistically I expect worries about wing strength would be a secondary conversation. 

[SeaW0lf]

They could tone it down (there is no option for that in the poll), because the realistic talk never accounts for the fact we play with a cockpit the size of those amusement park toys for kids. Look at the screen and think about it. With 0% zoom, I'm flying a plane that doesn't even have the span of my table (Talbot's explanation). It is basically a Wingnut Wings model on steroids. That’s the spotting we have. I did some approximate calculations and it would require a 130 inches monitor to reproduce the real thing for me. In other words, we spend most of the time with no visual clues, no spatial awareness, nothing (and people think the zoom feature is a cheat...).

 

So I think the smoke hits and tracers are important, but at the present moment we could say it is overdone, but it does not bother me. To remove it altogether is a mistake in my opinion for the reasons I mentioned. ROF has some nice tracers. I don’t recall from the top of my head how the smoke hits are, but it could be a middle ground perhaps?

 

But like I said, it does not bother me and they could focus on more important things.

Edited June 9, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

I do like them, Helps me see I'm actually hitting something, But I do like more realism as we can get, until they come up with something better I say keep it, 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

They need to hire special FX employee ASP 

????

Edited June 9, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[slug_yuugen]

15 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

This may be counter balanced by how hard pilots and gunners are to kill in-game. If that was modelled realistically I expect worries about wing strength would be a secondary conversation. 

 

I mean to match them we should have big bloody clouds fly out on hits to people and when they die they explode into pieces and fall out of the plane. ?

[HagarTheHorrible]

Well !  Are they realistic ?  They're certainly useful, but then so would a predictor gun sight.  If they aren't realistic then why aren’t they relegated to the practice aids or game’y end of the difficulty settings ?

 

It’s a long time since I’ve fired military calibre weapons, so my memory is quite hazy.  However I don’t particularly recall any obvious puff of debris when shooting at plywood backed NATO standard paper targets.  Maybe a little dust from the back of the butts, but not the target itself.  Even when firing 50 cal, over open sight using tracer as the guide I don’t recall obvious visual feedback if I hit the  wooden target.  Although it was really quite exciting firing the 50 cal’s, especially using tracer, the lack of obvious effects on the, moving, target board was kind of disappointing.

 

Toning them down might certainly be an option, even if only for the game’y shooting aids end of the difficulty spectrum, but if shooting at an airframe, in reality. doesn’t cause obvious visual impact effects then why should the simulation end of the spectrum be any different ?

[vonrickenbecker]

I happen to own a rifle chambered in .303, if it would be of interest I could fire a few rounds through a 2x4 (as an approximation of a wing spar) and film the impact.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Cheers, but I think this slo-mo video is probably adequate, although the muzzle smoke is all intermingled with any thing that might show from the wood being hit.

 

https://youtu.be/ysB-SH19WRQ?t=294

 

Not best seen as a still, but even then nothing really obvious.

 

 

However, the video also shows the bullet hitting the earth bank behind the target (3.32) with a result that looks all too familiar.

 

 

 

If the initial poll response is anything to go by however it would appear that while everyone might argue, until they're blue in the face, about whether the correct sparkplugs have been fitted to the engine of their favorite mount, when it comes to shooting we would mostly prefer hollywood effects to anything that might pretend to be realistic, even if it might make the finer points of all the other aspects a bit of a waste of time.

[No.23_Triggers]

Yep - honestly, I'm more interested in the progressive work on the DM...the puffs might be a little over the top but I don't mind em. 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I usually don't even see them.  I'm usually just looking through the gunsight.

[Zooropa_Fly]

12 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

I usually don't even see them.  I'm usually just looking through the gunsight.

 

Where's your gunsight pointing, is the question ?

[unreasonable]

Not answered the poll since as usual the leading questions (BBC style) do not capture my views.  I do not see them as very realistic for standard ball rounds.  Although you might sometimes get debris or sparks if you hit a metal part, you would have to be very close to see them.   I just imagine that I have explosive/incendiary bullets in my loadout, which makes the effects more plausible.

 

The hit effect on wood and canvas does seem to be toned down considerably from the initial version - which I complained about. I can live with them until or if we get more detailed ammunition options.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I'd bet a hundred dollars that it would very much be noticed if they weren't there.

 

I'm not saying I dislike them, or that they don't have a place in the game, I just think they're probably not even vaguely realistic and probably have a rather profound impact on how people play the game.  If it was demonstrated that it was even remotely realistic I wouldn't be unhappy, I'm just a little surprised that, given the lengths some/many people seem to go to to try and have as an authentic experience as possible, that it hasn't been either changed, relegated to the water wings training department or MOD'ed out.

[unreasonable]

Why would they have a profound influence on how people play?  I do not think they have changed how I play at all.

 

They give positive feedback when you are hitting, but you can usually see that anyway from the tracers.  What has a much greater impact on gunnery accuracy is people using any kind of fixed gunsight view or forwards snap view.  I switched to using a free TiR view all the time, and it makes lining up the shot much harder in a fight, while giving more immersion.  I do not suppose many people would agree with banning those views, not that it is enforceable anyway.

 

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

Where's your gunsight pointing, is the question ?

 

It's pointing at the target, but I'm not looking to see where the shots land.  I don't usually see the tracers either.

 

I would presume that all this topic is really doing, is revealing how much Hagar uses them to (he thinks) bolster his accuracy.

Edited June 10, 2020 by US63_SpadLivesMatter

[HagarTheHorrible]

6 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

 

It's pointing at the target, but I'm not looking to see where the shots land.  I don't usually see the tracers either.

 

I would presume that all this topic is really doing, is revealing how much Hagar uses them to (he thinks) bolster his accuracy.

 

Actually it does three things;

 

1)  It provides feedback as to whether your bullets are falling short, long or hitting at all, when shooting at distance and trying to account for bullet drop.

 

2)  It provides feedback as to whether the amount of lead you are using is too much or too little in angle off, deflection, shooting,  Often allowing sufficient time to absorb the result and adjust accordingly.

 

Yes, tracer does help with both of the above, but it pales by comparison to positive hit effects feedback.  Real pilots, talking about the limitations of relying on tracer are not a rarity.

 

3)  Knowing that you have definitely hit a target gives a big psycological boost to the attacker

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

41 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

Actually it does three things;

 

1)  It provides feedback as to whether your bullets are falling short, long or hitting at all, when shooting at distance and trying to account for bullet drop.

 

2)  It provides feedback as to whether the amount of lead you are using is too much or too little in angle off, deflection, shooting,  Often allowing sufficient time to absorb the result and adjust accordingly.

 

Yes, tracer does help with both of the above, but it pales by comparison to positive hit effects feedback.  Real pilots, talking about the limitations of relying on tracer are not a rarity.

 

3)  Knowing that you have definitely hit a target gives a big psycological boost to the attacker

 

1.  I use a 400m zero.  This keeps my trajectory relatively flat out to any range I would be shooting (450 or less).

 

2.  Lead is much less important on these planes than on the WW2 side of the game.  Aim for the prop, and far more often than not, you'll hit.  Though I will concede that if you are pulling wing-sheddingly high G's finding correct lead could be a problem.

 

3.  I get that feedback through the target's reactions.

 

As I said, I don't really notice the poofs, or the tracers for that matter.  If I do, I am filtering them out so that I can see the important feedback such as the target's attitude and reactions, so as to plan my next movements.  I think this is probably quite normal for those who have played games like this that do not have the poofs. 

 

I personally would not miss the poofs; but neither do I think they are a big deal like some do.

Edited June 10, 2020 by US63_SpadLivesMatter

[unreasonable]

There is a joke in there about enjoying a game with poofs on bristols and vice versa, but I am too chicken to make it.

[Trooper117]

Carpets were in regular dust ups with Hun machines in 1917... here's one on patrol in the Arras sector.

 

[unreasonable]

So the Russians were involved on the Western Front after all - someone tell the developers, it might increase the chance of a FC volume 2.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Surely it's Turkish and therfore on the Central side ?

 

Having done a little more testing, it only reinforces my notion that it gives an attacker a big advantage.  They clearly indicate good hits , rather than near misses, even if firing on target.  It allows the attacker to gauge how effective and to what part of the victims chariot that the bullets have driven home, especially with regard to snap shooting.  It is effective, even at short range, at informing the shooter if his bullets, that might appear from the tracer and smoke trails, to be hitting, are actually falling just short.  I can't imagine, although I might be wrong, that anyone in the sim is totally unaware of, or doesn't use tracer/smoke trails and hit effects to inform thier aim, even if unaware of the fact.  Unless that is they are in the habit of bouncing their prey and shooting from very, very, close  and at the most advantageous angles.

Edited June 10, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[unreasonable]

Vasnetsov Viktor Mikhailovich (1848 — 1926)
Flying Carpet, 1880
Oil on canvas
165x297 cm
Art Museum of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia

 

Search Google for image is a really useful thing. Pro-tip (so to speak): when choosing purveyors of services based on photographs alleged to be of the service provider, which is, of course, not something that I would ever do, a quick "Google search for image" may reveal dozens of identical pictures from sites all over the world.  Similarly, sites that do not allow search for image are certainly providing false advertising. 

 

I have found it useful even when looking for technical information, since you get pages of small pictures easily scanned rather than a list sorted by how much the site pays Google.  (Actually that is different - just using the "image" tab in regular search rather than right mouse on the picture).

 

But back on topic: most of my FC experience to date suggests that very few hits are needed to down an aircraft, and that not just because wings fall off, although they do, but due to fires or the target simply rolling over and heading straight down.  That is based on finishing the Camel Campaign and two missions into the Dr1 Campaign.  So I am not convinced that the poofs make much difference to me.  I would have no issue if they were an option - but that is probably just another complication that the developers do not need.  So I suspect they are here to stay, as part of the integration with BoX.  Perhaps toning them down would probably need to be done BoX wide rather than for FC alone?    

 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by unreasonable

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I highly doubt it makes much of a difference, except in the case of the biggest newbies or the worst shots.

 

People had no trouble hitting targets for years in RoF without it, afterall; and I doubt many of the old hands (pretty much most of this community) rely on them.  As already mentioned, having gunsight snap views and fixed forward views contribute more to accuracy in this game than the puffs ever will.

 

If as @unreasonable says, they were to reduce them BoX wide, I can say that'd make my life a lot easier when slinging mineshells at Pe-2's.  I often can't even see the target after the first few shells strike home!

Edited June 10, 2020 by US63_SpadLivesMatter

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

I can't wait until they put in the poofs of blood when you smoke a pilot in the head.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Just now, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

I can't wait until they put in the poofs of blood when you smoke a pilot in the head.

 

Imagine seeing blood spatter on your instruments when your observer gets hosed!

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

1 hour ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

 

Imagine seeing blood spatter on your instruments when your observer gets hosed!

No I couldn't. ObserversLivesMatter too.

[ST_Catchov]

7 hours ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

 

As I said, I don't really notice the poofs

 

7 hours ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

I personally would not miss the poofs

 

7 hours ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

games like this that do not have the poofs.

 

7 hours ago, unreasonable said:

There is a joke in there about enjoying a game with poofs on bristols and vice versa, but I am too chicken to make it.

 

Yes, let's not be unreasonably juvenile. Say, I haven't seen Talbot's rainbow skin flying about yet?

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

Wait! who's a poof on a Bristol. 

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, catchov said:

 

 

Yes, let's not be unreasonably juvenile. Say, I haven't seen Talbot's rainbow skin flying about yet?

 

It could be worse, SpadLivesMatter  might have said pomfs, then we would be in more trouble. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by unreasonable

[Trooper117]

7 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

It could be worse, SpadLivesMatter  might have said pomfs, then we would be in more trouble. 

 

Plenty of strange pomfs around mate...