AAA - Halftrack AAA Zoom to Gunsight - Snap View Not Modeled

[Horizon123]

Wondering why the snap-views are modelled for the GAZ when zoomed to gunsight in Allied AAA - but the feature is not modeled when zoomed to gunsight in the halftrack AAA?  

When designing multiplayer play, AAA vs AAA, the GAZ has the half track beat on every single count except fire rate, which is pretty moot when the rounds from the halftrack lack the muzzle velocity to make it to target.

The halftrack is a wonderful gun - but it is woefully underpaired against the GAZ for multiplayer consideration.  If we add the Bofors, which has been mentioned, to the allied side - what are the axis getting, so that we can match these in scenarios?

[LLv44_Damixu]

Axis had the same the Bofors AA gun licensed as (4 cm) FlaK28 gun. It was very widely and numerously used during the war.

[Avimimus]

Well the Bofors isn't planned to be playable, correct?

 

I also believe the halftrack has a lower visual signature (lower profile)?

 

Honestly, my main issue with both of these is the lack of a cargo option to replace the turrets entirely

[LukeFF]

On 11/23/2022 at 9:54 PM, ShipsBosun said:

If we add the Bofors, which has been mentioned, to the allied side - what are the axis getting, so that we can match these in scenarios?

 

The Bofors is not being made playable. Please read the accompanying text with those screenshots. 

[Horizon123]

On 11/26/2022 at 11:44 AM, Avimimus said:

I also believe the halftrack has a lower visual signature (lower profile)?

 

The visual signature is pretty moot, as the halftrack has a paint scheme that doesn't match any of the terrain well, so it's well more spottable than the OD green bedford, which matches the green textures of the fields quite well.  Further, the halftrack's camo pattern and winter wear are only applied to the outside of the truck - and when the gun is deployed, the truck isn't visible, only the top of the platform, which has no camo or winter wearing.  So it's well more visible.  

All in all, the AAA gun just feels underpowered and the texture options undermodelled, comparatively.  For online play, it has very few redeeming qualities.  YOu've got to lead the targets in to next week.  Many times, from off screen of where you can see, even at closer ranges.  Couple that with the fact that the ball sight is not any kind of transparent to give credit to having two eyeballs, and you cannot shoot at targets directly coming at you, because the ball obscures them, and you can't track your tracers.   

So you can only shoot at deflection reliably, and that isn't reliable because of the low muzzle velocity and very wide variance of grouping.  Out of decades of playing sims, it's the most frustrating and ineffective AAA modelling I've ever seen.  

Edited December 4, 2022 by ShipsBosun

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Well, I personally prefer an underwhelming but historically correct vehicle to one that is equally good as the GAZ but which belongs in the realm of fantasy.

[Horizon123]

3 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Well, I personally prefer an underwhelming but historically correct vehicle to one that is equally good as the GAZ but which belongs in the realm of fantasy.

I personally prefer the snap and pan views to be modelled for a gunner that could surely turn his head, as well as modelling the gunsight to be at least a little transparent - as I have a hard time believing that the sight was designed so that German gunners would have their tracers and targets obscured while firing with a blindfold over their other eye?  Especially because the gunner in the GAZ, in the same view, has the ability to move his head, allowing tracking on moving targets while in the gunner position.  

I also find that, historically, I doubt the gunner locked his head in a vice while sitting at the gun, not nestled to the sight.  I don't see a vice modelled, and all the reference photos of the gun had no vice in them either.  I can pan while using the mouse-  but that doesn't help, as then I have to move the gun with the joystick, while panning with the mouse.  Not really feasible for gameplay.  The head of the gunner tracks with the turret horizontal - presumably because he's in the seat, but can't look around?

The only way they would fire the gun accurately at that point would be targets heading straight in to them.   Are you suggesting that the gun was designed only to properly deter a plane that was directly targeting or flying right at it, with the afterthought that maybe it would have to shoot deflection later? 

Right now, to shoot at a target, I can see them with the zoomed out view, panning with the mouse.  Swing the turret around to it.  If it's coming head toward me, I switch the gunsight toggle once.  Twice.  Then fire through the scope.  If it's long enough range, I can't follow my tracers because the scope is too small a field of vision.  As he closes, I have to toggle out of the scope, cycling through the ground view, then through the entirely zoomed out, head locked view, to the deflection reticle, and hopefully reaquire the target, which by then is likely so close the targeting reticle doesn't have enough field of view to offer high deflection tracking.  

It's unplayable as a defensive weapon, except for scenarios where the target is almost approaching head on.   Historical?  Debatable.  A unit worth spending development time and resources to implement into game in it's current configuration?  Probably not.  You aren't going to play a campaign with it, and in multiplayer, it's next to worthless when you're trying to shoot with it.  

Muzzle velocity aside, as I'm sure it sucked in real life too - at least let the gunner move his head around with tracking.  That'd fix a lot of the "I have to cycle 3 different views, in one cycle order (forward), to engage an active target close to me."   That's, of course, after I finish swapping back and forth to the commander, to have SA, because the gunner's head is viced when zoomed out.  So you find the target with your commander, swap THROUGH THE DRIVER to the gunner....then through sometimes two other gunsight views to get to a view where you'll get one or two shots, before cycling through views again to get to another view, to shoot more.  It's maddening.   Again - the GAZ gunner allows for this tracking from the gunner station, along with a sight that open and usable.   Why would we model something that players will not be able to use to any effect?  Don't get me wrong - I get why the Stuka is in game - it's a flight sim and an iconic aircraft - but the Germans had other AAA platforms that may have had better sighting and design.  Being this isn't an AAA sim - why develop this particular AAA, spend time doing it, and money, only to have it be utterly irrelevant as a useful platform for multiplayer?  Because, as I said, you're not going play a lot of single player with it, and even in single player, it suffers the same heartaches.  

Play them both - let me know how far you make in it the flak.  I could be wrong here, but, I'm willing to put money on the GAZ being more enjoyable, and playable time for you.  Muzzle velocity and round size aside, just based on the fact that the gunners are able to see their targets through the sights, and track their targets.  

Sure, the commander would normally track targets too - but we're in a sim.  For playability's sake, let the gunner track targets.  That's not a detriment to any historical accuracy.  

 

5 minutes ago, ShipsBosun said:

 

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by ShipsBosun

[LukeFF]

Slow down with the essay, please. ?

 

First off, if you're using the scope to fire at aircraft, you're doing it wrong. That device was meant to be used on ground targets, not air targets.

 

Secondly, that fancy ring sight was just meant to give the gunner a rough estimate of the initial lead necessary to properly aim the gun. After that, the gunner aimed by tracer fire - nothing, more, nothing less.

 

These wartime reports goe into a lot of good detail about how the gun was to be used:

 

https://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/german-ring-sight.html

 

https://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/german-aa-sight-30-38.html

 

Quote

b. Method of Operation

 

As stated above, the pivoted ring sight is used for "firing with AA sight without rangefinder" (formerly called "firing by observation of tracer"). When laying through the pivoted ring, fire is opened at a maximum range of 1,320 yards, which is the limit of effective fire. The section commander observes the position of the bursts and orders that different deflections, if any, are to be set in. The pivoted ring sight is not used for the engagement of ground targets. For these targets the telescopic ground sight is used; if this has not been issued the gun will be laid through the rear and foresight of the pivoted ring sight.

 

(1) For good laying with the pivoted ring it is essential that the layer be seated correctly so that at angles of sight from about 10° to 60° his eye can rest comfortably on the eyeshield.

 

(2) It is the responsibility of the troop commander from his experience of the normal speeds encountered in his particular area to order which of the three pivoted rings is to be fitted into the sight. The speed scale appropriate to the ring chosen must then be inserted in the drum. It is essential that the correct speed scale be set in, since during the engagement no alteration of this scale can take place.

 

(3) To lay on the target the layer presses his eye to the eyepiece, through which the aperture rearsight will appear only as a hazy circle. This rearsight must exactly cover the foresight. By operating the traversing gear he displaces the bead of the foresight in the apparent line of flight of the target to a point so far in front of the target that the nose of the target cuts the rim of the pivoted ring, which appears at this moment to be an ellipse. The amount of tracking-off and the sighting of the target along the rim of the ring must be so chosen that the target always seems to be flying from that position towards the foresight bead. If in the case of a surprise attack there is no time to align the target exactly with the pivoted ring the layer must at least keep the foresight bead in front of the target and in the apparent line of flight.

 

(4) Fire is opened on the order of the section commander after the gun has been laid on the target by means of the pivoted ring. After fire has been opened the layer opens his other eye and continues firing after observing his bursts. Even in this case the pivoted ring acts as a guide for the deflections to be set in.

 

(5) At angles approaching 0° the pivoted ring appears to be a line and the bead to be a thickening of this line. In this case the line of flight is sighted along the lower edge of the line. The lateral deflection must be estimated and the following is a guide for this estimation:

 

Complete fuselage visible: aiming point on the outer edge of the pivoted ring (maximum deflection);

 

Half fuselage visible; half the above deflection;

 

Fuselage invisible (direct approacher or receder); aiming point through the bead.

 

(6) With changes of height, sighting takes place exactly as described in paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), except that with diving approachers the bead becomes the aiming mark instead of the pivoted ring.

 

The idea that the bead should be partly transparent is IMO just silly. I dunno what experience you have with iron-sights , but I've yet to encounter a weapon that has sights that look semi-transparent when looking through them. 

 

Quote

If, in the case of a surprise attack, there is no time to align the target exactly along the ring, the layer must at least keep the foresight bead ahead and in the line of flight of the target.

 

The sight is only intended to be used to direct the opening rounds; after that, fire is continued in accordance with observation of tracer. The sight is not used for the engagement of ground targets.

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by LukeFF

[Horizon123]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Slow down with the essay, please. ?

 

First off, if you're using the scope to fire at aircraft, you're doing it wrong. That device was meant to be used on ground targets, not air targets.

 

Secondly, that fancy ring sight was just meant to give the gunner a rough estimate of the initial lead necessary to properly aim the gun. After that, the gunner aimed by tracer fire - nothing, more, nothing less.

 

These wartime reports goe into a lot of good detail about how the gun was to be used:

 

https://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/german-ring-sight.html

 

https://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/german-aa-sight-30-38.html

 

 

The idea that the bead should be partly transparent is IMO just silly. I dunno what experience you have with iron-sights , but I've yet to encounter a weapon that has sights that look semi-transparent when looking through them. 

 

 

Luke, 
I realize how the gun was designed to be used.  What I'm saying, is that in the world of a video game, where you cannot shift your eye slightly aside of the bead - the bead itself makes aiming at targets headed right for you impossible.  It's too big on the screen to see your tracers - ergo, you cannot aim with them.  You cannot even see the plane.  

That means, in order to shoot at targets coming head on - you MUST use the scope.  Yes, I realize that's not how it was designed.  What I'm telling you is how it is practical to use, as modelled, in game.    In real life - again - I doubt that I would place my eyeball up against the bead to the point that it obscured both target and tracers - I imagine I would use it as a rough guide, allowing my vision to still track tracer and target.  For head-on approaching aircraft in the game - you cannot do that.   You must allow the bead to obscure your tracer tracking and the target itself, if you're to use that reticle, in head on approaches. 

Using that reticle for lead-shots is ok - provided the target is under 200 meters distant.   That's the limit and effective range of the reticle.   Not the gun.   The reticle.  Because firing at further than that, due to the low muzzle velocity of the gun, often necessitates leading the target outside the bounds of the programmed game-view for the reticle, where you cannot see it (the target) or the tracers (to track them).  Again - I highly doubt the gunner put a paper cone around his vision while looking at that reticle, and viced-gripped his head to it.  

I could be wrong - you're welcome to point me to where the historical documents say that was the case. 

Further still - that isn't how the allied gunsight is modelled.  The gunner, when nestled to the allied gun sight, can still use head tracking, and see peripherally.  So please explain why they have necks, but the german soldiers don't? 

I wouldn't be using the scope, designed for ground fire, at air targets, if I could help it.  But you can't.  It's the only gunning view that gives you clear line of sight on a target to fire head on, that will also allow you to track the target.   Zoomed out view only tracks horizontal, not vertical.  Zoomed to reticle tracks, but is only good for deflection shooting within a certain, narrow margin of AoA and distance from target, and the Scope View tracks, but can't be used for deflection easily.  

Meanwhile the allied gun can head track with Track IR on the Zoomed out View.   You can swivel and fire.  And have a reasoable indicator of where your rounds go.  

All I'm pointing out is the disparity between the two zoomed-out views.  And the fact that a real gunner could shift his eye position to see his tracers behind the reticle.  You can't do that in a video game programmed view.  How do you get around that?  Making the reticle slightly transparent.  Is it gimmicky?  Sure.  But again - unless you can provide proof the gunner zip tied his head in place, and blindfolded his other eye, so that he couldn't see past that bead - my point stands.  

It's as if, for instance, you were flying a Bf110 in a flightsim that only had forward views modeled - and you couldn't see the gauges for your engines (since they're on the nacelles to your sides).  Without some gimmicky modelling of the instruments in a heads up display on screen, you've got no fair chance to manage the aircraft.  When you point it out and offer that it should be allowed for those instruments' data to be seen somehow on screen, you get players arguing that it's historical that you shouldn't see it.   Well, no.  It's historical that you shouldn't see it in the forward-view of the cockpit - but not historical that you shouldn't see it.  

Just because the sight is accurately modelled - doesn't mean that the limitations of the video game camera views need to allow it to be unusable.  

As for the 'essay' - I shortened it in the first post.  No one got the point.  I explained further, and people still commented on aspects that weren't quite what I was getting at (I never suggested the sight was historically inaccurate - I was commenting on it's playability.  The game constantly balances aspects of making a model playable against it's historical nature, due to the limitations of the game-world in recreating conditions in which was operated) If reading is an issue, than I cannot help you there.  These are forums.  We write, because this isn't telephone.

And apologies for sounding snarky - it's just frustrating to say something like, "I should be able to turn my head when zoomed out" and have people (most likely folks who don't use it on a regular basis, or haven't ever spawned it in) argue that everything is fine with it - while the counterpart GAZ has that function already.  Imagine, for example, if, when flying a Spitfire, you weren't allowed to turn your head, but flying a 109, you were.  Wouldn't you think that was odd?