Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

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.


The devs ignored level flight performance data on actual recreations of WW1 planes? What even is this product. Why... lol. I may have made an error in my purchase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a product,  and they have made decisions that do not always jive with reality....  like the P40 engine bull S.....

 

 

Gunnery examples based upon period correct machine guns being fired from a stationary object is NOT going to do anything for the game. Why you ask?  EVERYONE knows that a burnt out machine gun barrel is NOT going to give the same results it did the day it left the factory. 

   Meaning,   the accuracy you get today isnt going to match what it was in 1917...

 

The accuracy is better documented for World War 2 for ALL sides.   The British even broke down and gave a basic dispersion of "it stays in a 8' tall by 12' wide box at specified convection distance".   We DONT have that at all from world war ONE. 

 

We DO on the other hand have a gunnery test done by the US army signal corp using a lewis gun mounted on a two person Wright Flyer where they managed to keep about 70% of a single drum onto a 30'x30' or 50'x50' tarp.

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

The devs ignored level flight performance data on actual recreations of WW1 planes? What even is this product. Why... lol. I may have made an error in my purchase.

 

It's an artisanal product made for a very niche market using what limited data was available at the time with no promises to make corrections. That shouldn't stop you from enjoying it for what it is, and keep both researching and sharing data — but manage your expectations. What we have is still a great product overall, even if it suffers from a few well-documented issues that have been acknowledged by the devs, with the DM in particular. I'm sure that gunnery plays a part in it, but probably not to the extent that we think, since it is more or less the same for all planes.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

It's an artisanal product made for a very niche market using what limited data was available at the time with no promises to make corrections. That shouldn't stop you from enjoying it for what it is, and keep both researching and sharing data — but manage your expectations. What we have is still a great product overall, even if it suffers from a few well-documented issues that have been acknowledged by the devs, with the DM in particular. I'm sure that gunnery plays a part in it, but probably not to the extent that we think, since it is more or less the same for all planes.

ww1 gunnery aside, the things it does are good. FC brought us back the cooper bombs, and not the generaly derided "bomb" they gave in the last version in Rise of Flight.... 

 

At least FC  handles right in a modern system. Had 40 minutes in RoF tonight, it was bad....... really bad.. I thought mouse control on my old system was bad...... sheeeet.... this was horrid. To the point when my wrist feels better this weekend ill need to spend time testing my joy stick in il2 to make sure i didnt break it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

This is a product,  and they have made decisions that do not always jive with reality....  like the P40 engine bull S.....

 

 

Gunnery examples based upon period correct machine guns being fired from a stationary object is NOT going to do anything for the game. Why you ask?  EVERYONE knows that a burnt out machine gun barrel is NOT going to give the same results it did the day it left the factory. 

   Meaning,   the accuracy you get today isnt going to match what it was in 1917...

 

The accuracy is better documented for World War 2 for ALL sides.   The British even broke down and gave a basic dispersion of "it stays in a 8' tall by 12' wide box at specified convection distance".   We DONT have that at all from world war ONE. 

 

We DO on the other hand have a gunnery test done by the US army signal corp using a lewis gun mounted on a two person Wright Flyer where they managed to keep about 70% of a single drum onto a 30'x30' or 50'x50' tarp.

 

You mean here that the WW1 accuracy would be better than modern tests with old guns because the guns were all new in WW1? I would agree that barrel wear makes a difference, up to a point, but millions of these guns were made so there is no reason to believe that the ones used in modern tests are necessarily burnt out.  The consistency of the ammunition will also make a difference, and I expect modern tests are done using ammunition made comparatively recently. More modern ammunition can be expected to give tighter groups.

 

So I do not think that modern tests are not useful at all. Contemporary test are best of course: source for the US Signals Corps test please? I cannot find it. The only similar thing I can find is this, which I think we would agree is not terribly helpful...

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/did-you-know-the-wright-flyer-was-the-first-airplane-to-perform-a-brrrrrttttttt-run/

 

Bur all of this discussion is still missing the point: it is easy to hit targets in FC (or any CFS, or any shooter) for reasons completely unconnected to the dispersion of the guns, ballistic behaviour of the rounds or even the "puffs". 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

You mean here that the WW1 accuracy would be better than modern tests with old guns because the guns were all new in WW1? I would agree that barrel wear makes a difference, up to a point, but millions of these guns were made so there is no reason to believe that the ones used in modern tests are necessarily burnt out.  The consistency of the ammunition will also make a difference, and I expect modern tests are done using ammunition made comparatively recently. More modern ammunition can be expected to give tighter groups.

 

So I do not think that modern tests are not useful at all. Contemporary test are best of course: source for the US Signals Corps test please? I cannot find it. The only similar thing I can find is this, which I think we would agree is not terribly helpful...

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/did-you-know-the-wright-flyer-was-the-first-airplane-to-perform-a-brrrrrttttttt-run/

 

Bur all of this discussion is still missing the point: it is easy to hit targets in FC (or any CFS, or any shooter) for reasons completely unconnected to the dispersion of the guns, ballistic behaviour of the rounds or even the "puffs". 

 

 

A LOT of modern ammunition has been watered down, hell you really cant get full pressure 8x57 mauser unless you reload or buy PPU branded.  And well, yeah barrels burnt out. Bad care, corrosive ammunition..... it happens. 

 

The HOTCHKISS machinegun weighed 45 pounds empty, and came on a 45 pound tripod. It was USED as a sniping weapon in the trenches, theyd aim it in on a spot the germans liked to stand at to take a look, theyd load a spaced round on the feed strip, when theyd see someone at the "window gap" theyd pull the charging handle and pull the trigger. 

 

Also you forget a sad truth of the "dispersal cone". Bullets stay in the rough circle diameter at a specific range, there is no way to compute the actual impact spot for a single round, or even a concentration of the rounds.  Youd have to fire 1000 rounds to even have a chance to say "hey accordign to this firing test 20% will stay in a zone comprising 20% center of the dispersion circle"

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

 

A LOT of modern ammunition has been watered down, hell you really cant get full pressure 8x57 mauser unless you reload or buy PPU branded.  And well, yeah barrels burnt out. Bad care, corrosive ammunition..... it happens. 

 

The HOTCHKISS machinegun weighed 45 pounds empty, and came on a 45 pound tripod. It was USED as a sniping weapon in the trenches, theyd aim it in on a spot the germans liked to stand at to take a look, theyd load a spaced round on the feed strip, when theyd see someone at the "window gap" theyd pull the charging handle and pull the trigger. 

 

Also you forget a sad truth of the "dispersal cone". Bullets stay in the rough circle diameter at a specific range, there is no way to compute the actual impact spot for a single round, or even a concentration of the rounds.  Youd have to fire 1000 rounds to even have a chance to say "hey accordign to this firing test 20% will stay in a zone comprising 20% center of the dispersion circle"

 

I did not forget anything. I know all about worn barrels: the first L1A1 SLR I was issued was older than I was at the time, still with wooden furniture. After a year it was retired and I got a new one: the grouping to zero was much tighter. 

 

The game's dispersion values are based on the team's interpretation of the firing test results that they have, done on aircraft mounted machine guns. I think we all accept that this may well be only an approximate guide to the results using WW1 weapons and ammunition: (and even of those of WW2). It looks, for example, like the game uses the same projectile file for rifle calibre bullets as it does in GB, so all likelihood WW2 era some data is being extrapolated to WW1, although the basic ball round had undergone some design changes just before WW2.  

 

Nevertheless, the point is that at up to 300m or so, realistic differences in dispersion due to either the gun design and mounting or ballistic variations in ammunition type and quality cannot account for the perceived ease of gunnery in FC. It is just much easier for us to fly the sights over a chosen point of aim, and nearly all of us with some CFS experience have more deflection shooting experience than any real WW1 pilot, including MvR.  Even bodging up the gunnery - as in RoF shotgun dispersion - will not change the fact that if players are behaving differently to real WW1 pilots, they will get different results. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

I did not forget anything. I know all about worn barrels: the first L1A1 SLR I was issued was older than I was at the time, still with wooden furniture. After a year it was retired and I got a new one: the grouping to zero was much tighter. 

 

The game's dispersion values are based on the team's interpretation of the firing test results that they have, done on aircraft mounted machine guns. I think we all accept that this may well be only an approximate guide to the results using WW1 weapons and ammunition: (and even of those of WW2). It looks, for example, like the game uses the same projectile file for rifle calibre bullets as it does in GB, so all likelihood WW2 era some data is being extrapolated to WW1, although the basic ball round had undergone some design changes just before WW2.  

 

Nevertheless, the point is that at up to 300m or so, realistic differences in dispersion due to either the gun design and mounting or ballistic variations in ammunition type and quality cannot account for the perceived ease of gunnery in FC. It is just much easier for us to fly the sights over a chosen point of aim, and nearly all of us with some CFS experience have more deflection shooting experience than any real WW1 pilot, including MvR.  Even bodging up the gunnery - as in RoF shotgun dispersion - will not change the fact that if players are behaving differently to real WW1 pilots, they will get different results. 

 

ROF was supposed to have used a calculation included an aspect for barrel dispersion caused by over heated barrel. Just like it does in real life. 

 

Did you forget that in ww2 there were what, 7 versions of .303 rifle ammunition being used for different purposes. And only a few were authorized for aircraft use due to chamber pressure and muzzle velocity requirements for air plane use.

 

Done forget the 7.62x54r chambered machine guns on russian aircraft used a cartridge with a far higher chamber pressure then the standard infantry rifle and machine gun.  And NO way to test the aircraft guns with real aircraft ammunition as NOBODY seems to know the correct recipe for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

ROF was supposed to have used a calculation included an aspect for barrel dispersion caused by over heated barrel. Just like it does in real life. 

 

Did you forget that in ww2 there were what, 7 versions of .303 rifle ammunition being used for different purposes. And only a few were authorized for aircraft use due to chamber pressure and muzzle velocity requirements for air plane use.

 

Done forget the 7.62x54r chambered machine guns on russian aircraft used a cartridge with a far higher chamber pressure then the standard infantry rifle and machine gun.  And NO way to test the aircraft guns with real aircraft ammunition as NOBODY seems to know the correct recipe for it.

 

Not quite sure what you are getting at here, since wartime firing tables for all these weapons - whether WWI or WWII - exist in one form or another. It's not like we have to go out to the Mojave desert to find out what sort of dispersion a Vickers MG has - I have mountains of those tests on my computer. 

Edited by LukeFF
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pocketshaver said:

ROF was supposed to have used a calculation included an aspect for barrel dispersion caused by over heated barrel. Just like it does in real life. 

 

Did you forget that in ww2 there were what, 7 versions of .303 rifle ammunition being used for different purposes. And only a few were authorized for aircraft use due to chamber pressure and muzzle velocity requirements for air plane use.

 

Done forget the 7.62x54r chambered machine guns on russian aircraft used a cartridge with a far higher chamber pressure then the standard infantry rifle and machine gun.  And NO way to test the aircraft guns with real aircraft ammunition as NOBODY seems to know the correct recipe for it.

 

What on earth are you on about? FC has the same heated barrel mechanic - clearly visible after sustained firing.

 

But all this is irrelevant: the ease of game gunnery is not due to the dispersion and ballistics model, just as the difficulty of real WW1 aerial gunnery was not due to the real gun dispersion and ballistics of the rounds used. it really is as simple as that, and if people cannot grasp that, there is no helping them.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

What on earth are you on about? FC has the same heated barrel mechanic - clearly visible after sustained firing.

 

But all this is irrelevant: the ease of game gunnery is not due to the dispersion and ballistics model, just as the difficulty of real WW1 aerial gunnery was not due to the real gun dispersion and ballistics of the rounds used. it really is as simple as that, and if people cannot grasp that, there is no helping them.   

 

 

And at the same time, people have been getting shot in the head with rifle rounds and surviving, when physics says it should be impossible. 

 

You really should watch Battle of Britain a few times, the original that had actual ww2 aces from both germany and england as consultants. Youd learn alot on real world bullet effect and such like when they show the insides of planes being shot.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right on, man.  Everything I ever needed to learn about virtual air combat, I learned from watching Battle of Britain. 😜😜😜 Taka taka taka.  They could train monkeys to do that.  Oh, and never fly straight and level in a combat zone for more than 30 seconds.

 

yes, you could learn a lot about gunnery, unreasonable, I’m sure you’ve never seen it 🤢

Edited by SeaSerpent
repeat please, repeat please, repeat please
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

What on earth are you on about? FC has the same heated barrel mechanic - clearly visible after sustained firing.

 

But all this is irrelevant: the ease of game gunnery is not due to the dispersion and ballistics model, just as the difficulty of real WW1 aerial gunnery was not due to the real gun dispersion and ballistics of the rounds used. it really is as simple as that, and if people cannot grasp that, there is no helping them.   


Bullets are lasers confirmed.

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