Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thought we could collect thoughts on gunnery here. 
 

Do you think the puffs of smoke hit markers should be removed? I do. I’m reading Boelckes actual accounts of combat, and he didn’t get any noticeable feedback on hitting a target unless smoke came from engine or there was a sudden and violent dive.

 

in fact the French and British two seaters learned early on (late 1915 , early 1916) that if they were attacked and did a violent dive then the German fighter may assume the two seater was dead and leave them alone.

 

Any thoughts?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it offers valuable feedback in multiplayer where server latency is a reality, something that obviously didn’t exist back in the day.

 

As always, and as with almost everything in this sim that is open to interpretation (visibility, tolerance to G forces etc.), I think a user/server toggle would be nice.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the rate of fire on the guns on both sides might be too high. I haven’t “tested” this but it certainly seems high, which might be contributing to the heavy amount of damage we receive in short order. I watched videos of people firing restored vickers .303 machine guns on tripod and it has a really slow rate of fire.

 

does anyone know if the aviation versions had rate of fire increases or anything like that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

From what I've read on the The Aerodrome forum using muzzle booster and metallic links theoretically allows the Vickers to have a max of 1000rpm or so.  In RoF and this game I think it is either 750rpm or 850rpm which is probably a realistic rate of fire.  Theoretically the LMG 08/15 has a max rpm of 700.  650 is what it has in game IIRC, but it looks like based on photographic evidence posted by @Chill31 that it was only set to ~450rpm.  Also Forgotten Weapons has also stated that it was only set 450 rpm.

 

Edited by 94th_Vernon
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

I think it offers valuable feedback in multiplayer where server latency is a reality, something that obviously didn’t exist back in the day.

 

As always, and as with almost everything in this sim that is open to interpretation (visibility, tolerance to G forces etc.), I think a user/server toggle would be nice.

Yes I think a toggle would be great, like the other assists, since as you say the hit markers are clearly an assist. That way for single player funsies we can have our hit markers on to help us learn to aim but if we want to go more serious we can play a realism server with no hit markers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of the current carpet beating effect, although if you were firing explosive or incendiary bullets you would might get a flash and maybe visible debris in the former case. 

 

Currently we get about 1 in 3 shots with a smoke trail. In reality this would be the effect of a phosphorus incendiary.  All shots also have a tracer element according to the files, but easy to miss in daylight. As far as I can see the two types of rounds in the world objects/ballistics folder (.ap and . apsmk) are otherwise identical in the unpacked files for damage and ballistics. 

 

If the non-smoking rounds were modded to take out the hit effects (or make them much smaller) the overall effect would be more plausible to me. In theory you could also make the damage effects of the two different, but we would have to know which variables affect the probability of fire, which I do not think anyone has yet deduced.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesnt really matter either way honestly. 

 

if you remove the smoke trail, everything will be complaints of invisible bullets that do not hit targets. 

 

if you remove the puffs of bullet impact youll get complaints of bullets that cant damage aircraft, or how airplanes have somehow become indestructable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that these effects provide very valuble feedback but, if they did not exist in reality (the smoke trails did on incindiary rounds, but the puffs didn’t) we should have an option to turn them on or off, just like @=IRFC=Hbendersaid.  The current damage model issues do not come from too high a rate of fire (Fokkers prove this) but I think they are due to FC treating all airplanes as if they have cantaliver wings and calculates the effects of load on a damaged spar accordingly.  Wire-braced airplanes need much smaller spars as most of the flexing load is carried by the bracing.  This means that in FC, wire-braced airplanes are much more suceptible to catastrophic damage to their spars when relatively few rounds hit them.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

it doesnt really matter either way honestly. 

 

if you remove the smoke trail, everything will be complaints of invisible bullets that do not hit targets. 

 

if you remove the puffs of bullet impact youll get complaints of bullets that cant damage aircraft, or how airplanes have somehow become indestructable.

I’m aware you can’t make everyone happy, and this isn’t my goal here. I merely want this to be a simulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Miners said:

I do agree that these effects provide very valuble feedback but, if they did not exist in reality (the smoke trails did on incindiary rounds, but the puffs didn’t) we should have an option to turn them on or off, just like @=IRFC=Hbendersaid.  The current damage model issues do not come from too high a rate of fire (Fokkers prove this) but I think they are due to FC treating all airplanes as if they have cantaliver wings and calculates the effects of load on a damaged spar accordingly.  Wire-braced airplanes need much smaller spars as most of the flexing load is carried by the bracing.  This means that in FC, wire-braced airplanes are much more suceptible to catastrophic damage to their spars when relatively few rounds hit them.

 

Everyone says this but I have to say I do not understand the reasoning at all. If a very thin wooden spar - see the pictures of a skinless Camel for example - is splintered by a .303 round hit, and it really will be splintered, bullets do not pass through wood making a neat hole, it is going to lose most of its load bearing capacity.  It will fold up under gs: no amount of wire bracing will stop this, the gs are felt by the whole structure, spars and wires together. Similarly, if the wires are broken by a hit, the total load bearing capacity will be reduced. As I see it, the limit to the load bearing is set by the weakest part of the structure. The flexing load can only be carried by the bracing if the spar is not folding up.

 

In addition, these "loads bearing wires" are not objects in FC that can be hit and snapped. Arguably wire braced biplanes are getting a free ride because their hit-able area is too small. 

 

If someone with an engineering degree can explain to me how a wire braced biplane can fly under gs with a broken spar "because the wires take the load" I am willing to change my mind.  Historians, schoolkids, linguists etc need not apply. ;) 

 

The problem with FC (and CFS in general) is, IMHO, not due to technicalities of the DM - although I am sure some problems exist - but simply because it is much too easy for players, some of whom have hundreds of times more firing time than actual WW1 aces, to get on target without the issues of turbulence, cloudy goggles, stoppages, and raw fear. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Everyone says this but I have to say I do not understand the reasoning at all. If a very thin wooden spar - see the pictures of a skinless Camel for example - is splintered by a .303 round hit, and it really will be splintered, bullets do not pass through wood making a neat hole, it is going to lose most of its load bearing capacity.  It will fold up under gs: no amount of wire bracing will stop this, the gs are felt by the whole structure, spars and wires together. Similarly, if the wires are broken by a hit, the total load bearing capacity will be reduced. As I see it, the limit to the load bearing is set by the weakest part of the structure. The flexing load can only be carried by the bracing if the spar is not folding up.

 

In addition, these "loads bearing wires" are not objects in FC that can be hit and snapped. Arguably wire braced biplanes are getting a free ride because their hit-able area is too small. 

 

If someone with an engineering degree can explain to me how a wire braced biplane can fly under gs with a broken spar "because the wires take the load" I am willing to change my mind.  Historians, schoolkids, linguists etc need not apply. ;) 

 

The problem with FC (and CFS in general) is, IMHO, not due to technicalities of the DM - although I am sure some problems exist - but simply because it is much too easy for players, some of whom have hundreds of times more firing time than actual WW1 aces, to get on target without the issues of turbulence, cloudy goggles, stoppages, and raw fear. 

I hopped in an offline quick match with an SE5 last night. The first and only ai bullet that hit me severed both aileron rods. There has to be something wrong with the DM. To some degree. Also the player base has attempted to introduce the fear by playing with v-lives and leaderboards for streaks 

 

I think the DM problem is exacerbated by easy gunnery. Lack of some kind of dispersion, unrealistic hit markers, and probably the tracers are too visibile.


There has to be a reason all aces waited until 50-100m to shoot. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The control rods issue is one I will not dispute: IIRC RoF and FC used to have control surfaces that went floppy rather than jammed in place in response to certain kinds of damage, which I believe was altered by a global change that may reflect how WW2 planes worked but is wrong for WW1. Why these jams seem to occur so often I do not know: I do not think the "control systems" are modelled as a hit box, so there may be something funky with the way the DM calculates the probability of control system damage when a wing or fuselage hit box is hit. I have not thought of a way to test this yet. 

 

As I said - I do not think the DM is perfect. We also do not have explicit modelling of ball/AP/incendiary/HE rounds, which a complete ballistics/DM for WW1 would have. 

 

I just find this idea that wire braced biplanes can fly with damaged spars "because wires" faintly ridiculous.  It is true that something like a Camel can sustain ~5-6gs with such a thin spar because it is braced: without bracing the spar needs to be much thicker and/or a stronger construction.  But the consequence is that the damage caused by one bullet hit to the thin spar may well be a much higher percentage than the same hit to a larger spar.   I am yet to be persuaded that the overall wing DM is incorrect (except where specific planes have been given the wrong value like the Pfalz).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The control rods issue is one I will not dispute: IIRC RoF and FC used to have control surfaces that went floppy rather than jammed in place in response to certain kinds of damage, which I believe was altered by a global change that may reflect how WW2 planes worked but is wrong for WW1.


I don't remember there being any kind of control damage / loss in RoF / FC past having a control blown off by gunfire or having the pilot wounded.

 

 

9 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I am yet to be persuaded that the overall wing DM is incorrect (except where specific planes have been given the wrong value like the Pfalz).  


I'm not so convinced the issue is just the spars (if the spars are an issue) - it feels like any kind of wing hits will cause some kind of structural weakening - I.E. "canvas" hits that should be otherwise "harmless" and cause nothing but a hole in the fabric. 

I also came across an interesting part in one of the Osprey 'VS' books (I think Albatros D.III vs SPAD VII?) that talked about an Albatros having its spar broken by gunfire and continuing to come under attack by a SPAD but eventually escaping to make a forced landing. Unfortunately the book doesn't go into much detail about the finer points of the fight after the spar was broken, and it's always possible that the Alb pilot just got lucky, but I found it interesting anyway. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

I don't remember there being any kind of control damage / loss in RoF / FC past having a control blown off by gunfire or having the pilot wounded.


Ditto. I think your misremembering there @unreasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Just now, US93_Larner said:

I don't remember there being any kind of control damage / loss in RoF / FC past having a control blown off by gunfire or having the pilot wounded.

I'm not so convinced the issue is just the spars (if the spars are an issue) - it feels like any kind of wing hits will cause some kind of structural weakening - I.E. "canvas" hits that should be otherwise "harmless" and cause nothing but a hole in the fabric. 

 

 

You may be right about the first point - RoF seems years ago and it is a while since I played the FC scripted campaigns.

 

On the second, according to my reading of AnP's detailed description of the new DM, hits to a wing hit box roll an RNG and compare with the probability table for a "spar hit" for that wing hit box. The probability of a spar hit takes into account the dimensions of the spars and the angle of the hit. So it is impossible to test only non spar hits: there is no way of knowing the difference AFAIK. Even with the new visible damage effects on the N28 the rolls for spar hits are still unrelated to the visible point of impact, according to the DDs.

 

So you may be right that there is some cumulative generic damage, but I do not know how you could tell.

 

That probability of a spar hit is usually higher than some people would guess: I did a rough calculation for a Camel spar/wing somewhere, lost it now, can reproduce if people are interested.  From directly behind that probability is almost 1.00  As you increase the angle it reduces, but not as fast as you might think, because not only the rear of the spar but also the top surface is now visible, so at 45% the p of a spar hit is still quite high. Then at close to normal angle the probability becomes very low. Then the DM may also be taking into account the rear spar, again reducing the number of hits that are "pure canvas".  

Edited by unreasonable
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the devs must read these threads (because they do, even if you think that they don't) and think: "Not this, again."

 

There's really no need to reinvent the wheel here. What we're seeing is just a reflection of a more complex engine and how it affects the early RoF planes with varying degrees of complexity.

 

Basically, all we need are 3 things:

 

  • All wings built more or less the same way should behave more or less the same when it comes to g tolerance, before and after damage (most notably the Pfalz behaves differently)
     
  • All planes with similar engines, fuel tanks, radiators, control cables and other systems should react more or less the same when taking damage (most notably the control cables on British/Entente planes behave differently)
     
  • The relative performance between some planes should be corrected (most notably Albatros/Pfalz vs. S.E.5a and N28 doesn't appear to be accurate according to simulations), combined with giving planes their correct engines for the time period (200hp Mercedes)

 

Asking for more than that, and we really are entering NASA territory.

 

My only fear is that it will happen only partially, or not happen at all, and that people will keep thinking of RoF's (and even WOFF's) less complex damage/flight model as subjectively more representative of history, even if objectively less complex. Whereas in reality it's quite likely that control cables DID go fast, and that wings DID shed fast, also. It's the whole "some do, some don't" DMs and "some easy, some hard" FMs that break the immersion. For the most part it's clear that it's mostly earlier developed planes (Alb, Pfalz, N28) that have the least consistent behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don’t see how it’s nasa territory to turn off hit marker smoke puffs. This seems a very reasonable ask from a customer standpoint 

 

edit: ok I’ll try to make a summary of all of boelcke’s kills to get at least an idea of early war damage, because of his first 20 victories only one was due to destroying their controls (and what is particularly heroic about that one is the allied observer climbed onto the wing to attempt to control the ailerons manually)

Edited by US_Low
Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly if something can be altered by a modder changing a couple of entries in a text file, we are not in NASA territory. Read @QB.Rails mod thread on the .50 cals: he has altered both the visual impacts and the actual damage effects.  

 

 

But that does not mean that the developers have to give us all the options in the game: if lots of people in MP wanted some particular combination of visual effects and damage, they could agree on a mod incorporating these as a server requirement. (Good luck getting everyone to agree on what that should be....)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the damage feedback effects are a design decision I’m willing to defend, though it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on either. I really quite like them. I don’t think they’re very realistic, but they don’t truly matter all that much in the first place. It’s definitely something that’s the same for everyone, too, much like the fire effects.

 

That said, much like kill messages, it’s something that would be nice to have in the hands of server operators. For the record: I’m a big supporter of kill messages, and I think their absence on Flugpark is what leads to some of the questionable behaviour on display there.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, US_Low said:

I don’t see how it’s nasa territory to turn off hit marker smoke puffs. This seems a very reasonable ask from a customer standpoint 

 

edit: ok I’ll try to make a summary of all of boelcke’s kills to get at least an idea of early war damage, because of his first 20 victories only one was due to destroying their controls (and what is particularly heroic about that one is the allied observer climbed onto the wing to attempt to control the ailerons manually)

 

I'm blind in one eye so I just shut the other when I get tired of seeing the puffs.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Options are nice. The new player, or long term casual player, who is intimidated by the difficulties of full simulation can have the option of keeping hit markers, easy tracers, and no dispersion. Especially for single player fun. Or say someone on single player prefers more realistic gunnery but has bad eye sight so they turn off the hit markers, turn on dispersion, but keep the high visibility tracers. Say a multiplayer training sever wants realistic gunnery but needs visual aids for gunnery corrections, so they turn off high viz tracers, turn on dispersion, but keep the hit markers so people training can understand how to make corrections.

 

But if we wanted to have a full realism server and compete realistically, or play a full realism single player mission/campaign, we could turn gunnery to full realism.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite aside from the problem that there is not much agreement on what "full realism" means in the context of a CFS, options are nice, but they also cost money to implement. I suspect that the developers know how much people use the ones that are already in the game (mouse aim, simplified controls etc) and are best placed to judge whether the extra work involved of programming these into the game is worthwhile. There is already an option for aim assist.

 

Meanwhile if tracers, dispersion, hit visuals and damage can be changed with relative ease in a mod, why not try that? Who knows, if a mod for FC use gained a sufficient following, the developers could change the WW1 MGs to use the new modded files in the default game. (Currently the same files are used by the LMG guns in the WW2 crates which may need slightly different values). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, US_Low said:

But if we wanted to have a full realism server and compete realistically, or play a full realism single player mission/campaign, we could turn gunnery to full realism.

 

Yes, and this is a prime example of what I dub the Law of Universal Elitism. If given the choice, people will go fly on the "fullest realest" server with the hardest possible rules, regardless whether they reflect reality or not, as long as those rules apply to everyone.

 

A few examples of the law in action:

 

  • Look at how realistic this sim is, my plane can even pull its wings off in a dive!
     
  • Look at how unrealistic this sim is, his plane can't even pull its wings off in a dive...
     
  • Look at how realistic this sim is, my plane even has control cable failure modeled in!
     
  • Look at how unrealistic this sim is, his plane doesn't even have control cable failure modeled in...
     
  • Look at how realistic this sim is, my plane even has random engine failures modeled in! (actual quote heard while flying DCS)
     
  • Etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t even understand what you’re getting at here, bender. You agree that hit markers aren’t realistic but you want the assist because it’s easier and because it helps aid in kill confirmations.

 

I’m not trying to flex on anyone or shut down the online play to anyone but only the most “elite.” Most of you would probably still be better than me even with more difficult gunnery.

 

Cant i retort to your arguments for realistic damage or realistic n28 flight modeling in much the same way? That it’s some vain attempt to gatekeep?

 

I suppose at the end of the day once the campaign is released I can just download a gunnery mod and enjoy some presumed additional realism by myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, US_Low said:

I don’t even understand what you’re getting at here, bender. You agree that hit markers aren’t realistic but you want the assist because it’s easier and because it helps aid in kill confirmations.

 

I’m not trying to flex on anyone or shut down the online play to anyone but only the most “elite.” Most of you would probably still be better than me even with more difficult gunnery.

 

Cant i retort to your arguments for realistic damage or realistic n28 flight modeling in much the same way? That it’s some vain attempt to gatekeep?

 

I suppose at the end of the day once the campaign is released I can just download a gunnery mod and enjoy some presumed additional realism by myself.

 

The N28's flight modeling and its sustained turn in absolute terms wouldn't matter all that much if everyone on both sides was flying only the N28. You could still say: well, the sustained turn at sea level should be 9s or 10s instead of 11s and I have this or that calculation to prove it — but it really doesn't matter, as everyone is flying the same plane anyway. But of course that is not the case, hence what really matters is to compare its sustained turn to an enemy plane which we can assume it performed similarly to, and for which we have verifiable data in relative terms.

 

It's the same with the hit markers: they may not be realistic, but then how realistic is it to be glued to your aiming reticle? How realistic are snap views? How realistic is TrackIR compared to VR? How realistic are kill messages, or failing that, checking the scoreboard while in flight to see if you scored a kill?

 

You're right, it's possible that it makes the sim somewhat less realistic in absolute terms, though really, I have no verifiable data to either prove or disprove that little puffs of smoke come off a plane when you shoot at it. For all I care there might be some level of subtle visual feedback that we cannot experience in the sim, thus the hit markers are an alternative.

 

So again: I'm as always on board with giving players and server operators more choice and I wouldn't mind not having the hit markers, in the same way that I don't mind not having the kill messages. It won't keep me from flying. Other things that do affect all players differently, do keep me from flying more often.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can snap my head to a position in real life much better than with track ir,  but it’s true I can’t focus my aging eyes to see something better or turn my eyes into binoculars. But then real life is better than some crummy monitor or low frame VR headset isn’t it? 
 

Please don’t railroad me with the levels of realism thing. I’ve been simming my whole life and i swear there’s not a single realism debate that doesn’t have someone say “well we don’t refuel our own planes! Gotcha!”

 

Cant we just assume that we all know that there’s a sliding scale of gamey-> simulation, and we try to get as much simulation in general as possible while allowing convenience gamey things like not having to erase your game and   Re-buy it on every death, or heaven forbid having to pay the developer for fuel and ammo to simulate logistics (please never. Ever).

 

I don’t want to play spad mechanic. I want to have a simulation of what it was like up in the sky with a WW1 crate. That’s flight, ballistics, and damage modeling primarily. Also environment, ai, and some sort of single player campaign.

 

And to the point about lack of data, as far as I’m aware there’s no “data”proving that puffs existed either so ... 😛 

 

I just want the gunnery to be a little more realistic. Right now it seems like shooting arcade pew pew lasers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, US_Low said:

 

 

I just want the gunnery to be a little more realistic. Right now it seems like shooting arcade pew pew lasers.

 

How so?

 

The ballistics modelling of the game is actually pretty realistic: this can and has been be tested in game and compared to external ballistics calculators. The game calculates gravity drop and wind drag - frontal and side wind effects - as well as can be expected. Dispersion may be a little too tight, but at WW1 air combat ranges it makes very little difference. This is not a long range artillery simulator. 

 

Apart from the impact puffs and the rather generic all-in-one ammunition type, what else in the gunnery is arcade?  (I find fixed views "arcade" so I do not use them, I use TiR and move my head to line up the sights, but you cannot stop other people using them if they like that option).        

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I already mentioned multiple times, which has been agreed upon: tracer visibility, hit marker puffs, lack of dispersion.

 

All of which exacerbates the DM issues, seemingly.

 

i think you’re simply disagreeing that I said “arcade” instead of sim. But then we (rather myself and another) already agree that puffs are assists lol. 
 

And again, bringing up snap views is a type of diversion from the topic of gunnery realism. 
 

Heck I saw on another sim/game they modeled the decreased visibility due to wearing goggles. That’s a nice touch that I wouldn’t mind being added here.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I do not agree on tracer visibility at all. The smoke trails are not tracer - they are exactly what you would get from firing a phosphorus incendiary round, as used by both sides in late WW1.  Ammunition of this type was still used in early WW2 and there are a few gun camera films showing them.  The tracers are the points of light: again not in my view unrealistically bright - based on having fired machine guns with tracers by day and night. 

 

Lack of dispersion is also disputable: if the numbers used are a little on the tight side, they are not so tight as to make any significant difference at 300 yards range or less. Many people would get more hits if there was more dispersion.

 

The reason why gunnery is easy in the game is not due to faults in the gunnery systems as such, but down to things like the viewing system, not having real gs, no oil splattered goggles, endless practice at deflection shooting, etc. 

 

So I am not disagreeing because you said "arcade" - but because you have your facts wrong. 

 

edit: here is Mr Buckingham demonstrating his incendiary ammunition.

 

2102780654_MrBuckingham.jpg.b1c44a333e712cbb0eeeb92a71470911.jpg

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s interesting on ammunition. They all used that in the late war machines? How late? I’m unaware 

 

Is there any dispersion at all modeled in this game? “On the tight side” indeed. YouTube videos of people shooting vickers on tripods at 100 yds show 40 rds hitting a man-sized target out of 250 fired. I have to assume the vibration of the engine would increase this dispersion a bit, unless you know otherwise?

 

Then you have puffs of smoke as hit markers to make corrections. 
 

We can pilot snipe at 500m fairly easily, yet this as far as i imperfectly know completely unrealistic to how aces actually shot. Which was point blank.
 

Your explanation is in part due to oiled goggles? That seems plausible. I haven’t read pilot accounts specifically of that yet but I’d be interested to see. Boelcke has yet to mention this in his writings. When he knew he damaged a plane he described it. The only way he knew was from smoke, or erratic flying, or explosion, or parts falling off. This lack of assessment and feedback is due to the oiled goggles then? 
 

Perhaps then having a goggle view like woff, along with accumulation of oil smear, would be a better fix than ballistics since the fc ballistics are near perfect?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The smoke trails should be present only on tracer and incendiary rounds.  The only rounds the smoke trails should be present on in game is the tracers, since we don't have incendiary rounds modeled yet.  The tracers in Il2 are much to bright at long range and I think they can be clearly seen up to ten kilometers away.  Even then, not all squadrons used incendiary ammunition for aerial combat and instead only used them for balloon busting.  I do not think we should have things like goggles implemented unless they can be removed, as real pilots did take them off in combat to improve their visibility.  Finally, I also do not think much oil should ever get onto a pilot's goggles unless there is a large hole in the cowl.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Miners said:

The smoke trails should be present only on tracer and incendiary rounds.  The only rounds the smoke trails should be present on in game is the tracers, since we don't have incendiary rounds modeled yet.  The tracers in Il2 are much to bright at long range and I think they can be clearly seen up to ten kilometers away.  Even then, not all squadrons used incendiary ammunition for aerial combat and instead only used them for balloon busting.  I do not think we should have things like goggles implemented unless they can be removed, as real pilots did take them off in combat to improve their visibility.  Finally, I also do not think much oil should ever get onto a pilot's goggles unless there is a large hole in the cowl.

 

No, the smoke trails should only be modelled on phosphorus incendiary rounds, not on tracer - true tracer makes almost no smoke, just a point of light.  What we have now, seems to be a composite bullet than is incorporating to a degree the effects of ball, AP and incendiary, with a tracer element, a version of which also creates the smoke trail.  The early terminology of pilots was a bit fluid and they may on occasion have referred to the phosphorus incendiaries as tracer, but the official British term for tracers with a bright light element was Sparklets, later reduced to Spk. These are not incendiaries (except possibly by accident).   

 

Currently there are two types of MG rounds for each calibre in the files, labelled as ap and apsmk. For instance "bullet_eng_7-7x56_ap.bin for .303s and another _apsmk.bin version that looks as though it has all the same values.  Presumably the .apsmk files are used to create the smoke trail.   Both have tracer entries in the files, although I am not sure if every round fired shows the tracer light point or not: I think not in practise, but it is hard to test fire individual shots. Someone using a program to define button press length might be able to do it. Similarly the ratio of smk to non smk looks about 1 in 3 but not as a regular sequence, again that could be better tested if someone can reliably fire single shots.

 

I would be very happy if the difference between ball, AP, tracer, incendiary, HE and German composite incendiary/explosive rounds was explicitly modelled, both visually and in damage effects. Also that you could choose your own load out, perhaps with some limitations. (Too many incendiaries in the belt produces fouling, for instance). I do not know how practical that may be from a programming perspective. It is probably "cheaper" to bodge them together and have some kind of composite effect. I am not a programmer, so that is just speculation.

 

5 hours ago, US_Low said:

That’s interesting on ammunition. They all used that in the late war machines? How late? I’m unaware 

 

Is there any dispersion at all modeled in this game? “On the tight side” indeed. YouTube videos of people shooting vickers on tripods at 100 yds show 40 rds hitting a man-sized target out of 250 fired. I have to assume the vibration of the engine would increase this dispersion a bit, unless you know otherwise?

 

Then you have puffs of smoke as hit markers to make corrections. 
 

We can pilot snipe at 500m fairly easily, yet this as far as i imperfectly know completely unrealistic to how aces actually shot. Which was point blank.
 

Your explanation is in part due to oiled goggles? That seems plausible. I haven’t read pilot accounts specifically of that yet but I’d be interested to see. Boelcke has yet to mention this in his writings. When he knew he damaged a plane he described it. The only way he knew was from smoke, or erratic flying, or explosion, or parts falling off. This lack of assessment and feedback is due to the oiled goggles then? 
 

Perhaps then having a goggle view like woff, along with accumulation of oil smear, would be a better fix than ballistics since the fc ballistics are near perfect?

 

You can read up on the ammunition types used by the British here: https://sites.google.com/site/britmilammo/home

 

It gives most complete description of each ammunition type that I have found, including service dates when known.

 

German data is harder to come by, but we know that incendiary/HE rounds were in use by mid 1917 because MvR complained about his own malfunctioning in his combat report in August 1917, while the French and Americans used the Vickers 11mm designed to fire a large incendiary bullet in 1918 although I am not sure of the date of introduction.

 

As I have said on multiple occasions now, the reason why you can shoot more accurately than a real pilot has nothing to do with the ballistics curves or the dispersion, and everything to do with how accurately you can place a point of aim with correct deflection for a moving target on a screen. After a little practise, playing a shooter game is much easier than doing a live ammo CQB course for similar reasons. If you add artificial handicaps to the ballistics (eg that the bullets should vaporise after 200 yards) you really do create an "arcade" game.

 

The developers have put in their best estimate of the dispersion from test firings: if you have test fire information that supplements theirs send it to the developers. 

 

The problem with the alternate ways to make gunnery harder, eg not allowing fixed snap views, or enabling high turbulence, is that most people appear not want to use them, at least in MP. In Sp you can create whatever actual disadvantages you like: turn the aircon up (or heating down), wear unwieldy thick gauntlets, suck the oxygen out of your room, smear castor oil on your glasses - even drink some. ;)   I suppose the developers could program some of these effects in, like the black out mechanic, but I suspect most people would hate that. 

Edited by unreasonable
Link to post
Share on other sites

😵

 

Come on guys, its called having fun.....   What do we argue about next? What plane makes a bigger smoke trail when it gets shot down? What plane has a more realistic ground impact animation?

 

If your gunnery skills   SUCK..... get the option that gives you 1000 rounds of ammunition and keep your range short to make up for it. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

😵

 

Come on guys, its called having fun.....   What do we argue about next? What plane makes a bigger smoke trail when it gets shot down? What plane has a more realistic ground impact animation?

 

If your gunnery skills   SUCK..... get the option that gives you 1000 rounds of ammunition and keep your range short to make up for it. 

 

I mean if you want fun without any simulation isn't that what War Thunder is for? It even has a "realistic" setting I hear. And isn't it free-to-play as opposed to $80 for a partial map, a couple planes, and no campaign? (Btw I got FC on sale, through steam. No ragrets). 

 

I'm not asking for gamefied difficulty increases. I'm asking for things that are reasonably important to the simulation to be as accurate as possible, and given that gunnery in a WW1 is one of the primary ways you interact with the sim, I believe it's quite reasonable to offer some constructive criticism. 

 

 

In response to Unreasonable: "The developers have put in their best estimate of the dispersion from test firings: if you have test fire information that supplements theirs send it to the developers"

 

Isn't this just a dismissal because you don't have anything of substance (no offense) to offer in defense of dispersion and puffs? I do have test fire information that is publicly available on Youtube. In fact, the channel that has the video is posted above in this thread. That's just not right video. In the video I watched, towards the end, he fired 250 rounds of .303 through a vickers on a tripod at about 100 yds to a man-sized target. He scored about 40 hits. Meters and yards are relatively similar. Aces tended to fire at 50-150m (roughly the same yardage). That's a big deal when trying to pilot snipe or take out criitical components at anything other than point-blank range. But I will agree that with the tendency of control cables to magically break with one bullet, or with wings being absurdly weak, it could be problematic to have more rounds spread amongst the aircraft. This is why I'd prefer DM improvements first. But I also want some gunnery review. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, US_Low said:

 

In response to Unreasonable: "The developers have put in their best estimate of the dispersion from test firings: if you have test fire information that supplements theirs send it to the developers"

 

Isn't this just a dismissal because you don't have anything of substance (no offense) to offer in defense of dispersion and puffs? I do have test fire information that is publicly available on Youtube. In fact, the channel that has the video is posted above in this thread. That's just not right video. In the video I watched, towards the end, he fired 250 rounds of .303 through a vickers on a tripod at about 100 yds to a man-sized target. He scored about 40 hits. Meters and yards are relatively similar. Aces tended to fire at 50-150m (roughly the same yardage). That's a big deal when trying to pilot snipe or take out criitical components at anything other than point-blank range. But I will agree that with the tendency of control cables to magically break with one bullet, or with wings being absurdly weak, it could be problematic to have more rounds spread amongst the aircraft. This is why I'd prefer DM improvements first. But I also want some gunnery review. 

 

 

You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension: I am not in "defence of" anything. 

 

I have already said that I am not a fan of the impact puffs, except in the case of HE rounds. The Germans fired a composite incendiary/HE bullet, the British had the Pomeroy and Brock, not used in guns firing through the propeller.  These rounds would usually cause a visible flash and debris, so a "puff" would be appropriate.  We do not have specific, separate rounds currently: I would prefer that we did. Then the "puffs" can be made appropriate to the round rather than generic. It is up to the developers to decide whether this is technically feasible and financially worthwhile. 

 

We can, however, mod the current ammunition files to a degree. If you dislike the puffs so much that you are motivated to do something useful, you can modify or possibly remove them altogether by learning from the .50 cal mod thread I linked to earlier. Who knows, everyone might like the mod so much that servers will adopt it as standard.

 

As for dispersion: I am simply pointing out that what you want does not matter unless you can back it up with data. Dispersion has been talked about in detail for years now in this forum and the RoF forum.  Complaining here based on your interpretation of a YT video will have zero impact on the developers. If you want them to change something, you have to give them something that they find more compelling than the data they are currently using to determine their model inputs, which, IIRC from past developer posts, is based on technical reports of test firings from MGs mounted on aircraft.      

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I have to have data that's nearly impossible for me to obtain, on the off chance that it won't be dismissed, in order to expect reasonable review from people whom I'm paying money to (through steam. Thanks steam!)? I think a reasonable person can shoot these guns and get a sense of them being overly laser-like. And this can be backed up by some cursory review of Vickers tests on YouTube, and supplemented with known historical facts like aces shooting very close and not being certain of hits. 

 

I think you're erecting some impossible standard for me here, like I have to go obtain a fully authentic Spad that flew in WW1, load period ammunition, and fire the thing while in flight at another plane. Video record. Use other data gathering tools. And ONLY THEN can we even have any sort of semi-realistic gunnery in this game.

 

Why are the options "take it or leave it" or "teleport to 1918 and bring me data"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are the options because it is absurd to expect the developers to explain and justify their design decisions every time a new buyer arrives on the scene, making exactly the same comments that have been made over and over again for the last decade. They have discussed how and why they model gunnery as they do.  

 

In an ideal world there would be a  FAQ, with entries like "How was the dispersion model determined?", and people would read it before posting in the forum. In practise this does not happen, partly because maintaining such a thing is time consuming, but also because hardly anyone reads them. So we all rely on the collective knowledge of the forum: again collected over many years.

 

A little humility would be in order too. You might want to consider that the people who have been tackling these design decisions for years actually know a great deal more about the subject than you do after a cursory view of a YT video and reading a couple of books. If they are wrong in some specifics, changes can be and are made from time to time. But the technical evidence has to be presented.    

 

Now you are maintaining that the game's gunnery is not even "semi realistic": this is nonsense, pure trolling. I am putting you on my ignore list, so that I do not waste any more time. Complain away to your heart's content. 

Edited by unreasonable
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, US_Low said:

I think you're erecting some impossible standard for me here, like I have to go obtain a fully authentic Spad that flew in WW1, load period ammunition, and fire the thing while in flight at another plane. Video record. Use other data gathering tools. And ONLY THEN can we even have any sort of semi-realistic gunnery in this game.

 

Why are the options "take it or leave it" or "teleport to 1918 and bring me data"?

 

I hate to burst your bubble, but some people have built authentic WWI planes, done measurements, shared them with the developers and still not gotten through. And that was about mere performance in level flight, nothing quite so controversial as gunnery.

 

For the most part it's a take it or leave it affair, and unless you somehow find verifiable data of something that is incorrect or bugged beyond the shadow of a doubt, you'd better accept that nothing will happen. And even then it's not guaranteed. I realise this can be frustrating because this is the kind of game sim that tends to attract people who will go the extra mile (or way more than that) to properly research something, but again it's up to the developers and their bosses to decide. The gunnery model we have is most certainly realistic enough, or at least not any less than other aspects of the sim that are eventually all connected to the physics simulation, which is never going to be a 1:1 reflection of reality (see spin recovery).

 

Anyway, yes, building a time machine to 1918 or releasing your own competing WWI flightsim are, I think, the two most reasonable options if you must see something happen. One of them is probably less of a financial black hole than the other. There's a ton money to be made in the timetravelling business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...