Me410 Gunner is Far Too Accurate

[CountZero]

27 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

@Alonzo

Yes the 410 gunner is more lethal than the 110 gunner. Simply because the 110 gunner is useless, as in complete useless. A 110 pilot would be better of not have the dead weight of an ai gunner on board. I have made a suggestion to the devs to add an option, to not having him on board. 

Also 410 has 2x 13mm shoting from back, and 110s have 2x7.92mm shoting from back, no wonder one is more deadlyer.

Its same BS talk that was when ppl complained ah pe-2 gunners are to op, no it was only airplane that had 12mm insted 7mm shoting... if anything gunners need to be more deadly not less... but its fighter players game so prepare your self for nerf of 410 also, if there will be any big updates to this game... devs probably already fully switched to new project and can this game when it comes to FM/DM "fixes".

[Alonzo]

35 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

Yes the 410 gunner is more lethal than the 110 gunner. Simply because the 110 gunner is useless, as in complete useless.

 

The 110 has 1,235 air kills across 9,576 sorties, in our data.

 

You would seem much less of a bomber apologist if you avoided obviously-false statements. I take no side in the fighters/bombers debate that seems to be happening, but I will say whenever someone argues solely from one corner, it becomes very obvious and very easy to ignore what they say. Same with red/blue debates.

[BigGinger]

@357th_KW - Thank you for taking the time to do some testing/research on this subject.

 

6./ZG26 - I don't understand why you all feel the need to have the same argument over and over.  There is exactly one factor that should determine whether a bomber survives: effective fighter escort.  If an enemy fighter gets his guns on your bomber, the likelihood of your defensive gunners saving you should be extraordinarily slim, just as it was in real life.  I would be sympathetic to your complaints if they were backed up by actual testing and data, but simply repeating ".50 cals are lasers" and "gunners are useless" over and over again doesn't convince me, nor should it convince the devs.  Regardless, if you've even gotten to the point where one of those factors is at play, you've already lost the fight as a bomber, and the odds of surviving at that point should be infinitesimal.  You continue to insist that your tactical failures are the result of poor modeling, and it simply isn't true.

[Denum]

Personally I think the other gunners need a small bump up and the 410 a bump down in terms of effectiveness. 

 

We aren't doing historical missions and making the gunners completely useless misses the mark for me. 

No point including twin engine attackers for online play at that point. 

 

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

Exactly!! It is a late war design which addressed defensive field of fire and low caliber guns problems, just like the american B29, using state of art technology in remote turrets. 

 

It is more effective than classic designs because it was designed to be. 

 

#EndAntiBomberCultureNow

 

 

Yes, youre right: it was so advanced and effective that it had an astonishing 12:121 kill/death ratio vs. Allied fighters. That's some ground breaking stuff right there.

Edited January 6, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, BigGinger said:

I don't understand why you all feel the need to have the same argument over and over.  There is exactly one factor that should determine whether a bomber survives: effective fighter escort.

I really don't understand why some people think it's perfectly acceptable to think that fighters can line up on your six without any worries. The AI for all bomber gunners bar the 410 is laughable. 

1 hour ago, Denum said:

We aren't doing historical missions and making the gunners completely useless misses the mark for me. 

That is the problem we keep getting the "real life" argument. This is a game, we will hardly ever see mass bomber formations with large numbers of escort fighters. However, depending on each individuals idea of realism, some think its perfectly acceptable to park behind bombers without a care in the world.  

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, BigGinger said:

"gunners are useless"

I'll just keep leaving these here.

 

 

They are "useless" 

 

 

Yes...useless.

 

 

[357th_KW]

17 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'll just keep leaving these here.

 

 

They are "useless" 

 

 

Yes...useless.

 

 

 

None of which pertain to the topic of this thread.   Please stop trying to derail the discussion.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

15 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

 

None of which pertain to the topic of this thread.   Please stop trying to derail the discussion.

I'm not, this is to do with AI gunners. The only one that has any defensive capability at this point is the 410. You can quote real life as much as you want but we're not dealing with real life we're dealing with a game that is supposed to entertain. There is so many things I wish  were more realistic but they're not.  

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

53 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'm not, this is to do with AI gunners. The only one that has any defensive capability at this point is the 410. You can quote real life as much as you want but we're not dealing with real life we're dealing with a game that is supposed to entertain. There is so many things I wish  were more realistic but they're not.  

If you want gamey "balance," Warthunder sim mode has gunships (i.e. bombers) so maybe it'd be a better idea to play there where bombers win more dogfights than fighters do?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

12 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

If you want gamey "balance," Warthunder sim mode has gunships (i.e. bombers) so maybe it'd be a better idea to play there where bombers win more dogfights than fighters do?

This is not the first time I've heard the warthunder argument and to be honest I expected more from you. We will never get full realism in this flight sim it's something I've wanted for years. But if you seriously think it's fine for fighter aircraft to stroll up behind bombers (in a game) straight and level with no worries whatsoever then you are going to end up fighting AI bombers only. The demand for realism has been going on for years but we don't see mass formations of bombers flying online with huge escort swarms protecting them. I know how vulnerable bombers are and should be, the problem now is 95% of people flying fighters (in game) don't have to use tactics of any kind when attacking bombers unless they are fighting a 410. I know it's embarrassing for fighter jocks to be shot down by bombers but if the gunners are nerfed anymore that will completely destroy the bomber game. Enjoy flying against AI I suppose?

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

3 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

But if you seriously think it's fine for fighter aircraft to stroll up behind bombers (in a game) straight and level with no worries whatsoever then you are going to end up fighting AI bombers only. 

I fully agree with this statement, but the question is how can we achieve this without having a gunner like the current 410 or bombers before the gunner efficiency was drastically reduced? 

 

It seems we don't have enough variables factored in/modeled to create realistic gunners.

 

What I'm fully against is this endless "buffing" and "nerfing" process. The solution is additional complexity IMO where gunners are useless if the bomber is maneuvering under high g loads or if the fighter is using slashing techniques, but the gunners are effective against lazy players who sit behind and blast away without dodging.

Edited January 6, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[6./ZG26_Custard]

3 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

fully agree with this statement, but the question is how can we achieve this without having a gunner like the current 410 or bombers before the gunner efficiency was drastically reduced? 

I agree the 410 gunners are too accurate but the rest of the gunners are diabolical to the point that they struggle to hit targets directly behind them straight and level. The original iteration of gunner ai was absolutely ridiculous and they were far too effective. I would like to see a happy medium where players get punished for using stupid tactics, or no tactics at all when attacking bombers, but if the correct tactics are used then that's all well and good. It's very rare to see mass formations of bombers flying online, it does happen but not very often at all these days. I would certainly hope the people can at least agree that if someone is creeping up behind a bomber straight and level they should expect to be shot at and hit. I have flown in this  sim for years and until recently have always enjoyed it. I been supporter of it too and I yearn for realism. There are so many things in this game that are unrealistic and I would love to see fixed but I think it's probably a fools hope. Hopefully somewhere down the line we will reach that happy medium but knowing the flight sim community it's probably not going to happen.

[6./ZG26_Loke]

3 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

The 110 has 1,235 air kills across 9,576 sorties, in our data.

 

You would seem much less of a bomber apologist if you avoided obviously-false statements. I take no side in the fighters/bombers debate that seems to be happening, but I will say whenever someone argues solely from one corner, it becomes very obvious and very easy to ignore what they say. Same with red/blue debates.

These airkills, does it say anything about it being reargunner or pilot, does it say aynting about it behind ai gunner or human gunner? 

 

I can tell, that when we flew 4 to 5 in a group in close formation, our reargunners shot nothing down, didn't even hit anything in the end. 

Before gunners being nerfed, we could get an ai kill from time to time, and a few of us could limp home. Today it is impossible. 

 

One chap did tonight on Finnish ask. Why is no one flying bombers? 

Yeah, I wonder why. 

 

Most be kind of boring for the fighters. 

[Stonehouse]

Some background info for you. All turret definitions point back at the same file for accuracy calculations TurretControllerAI.txt. The only strictly accuracy related value held in the turret definition file is the lines

Spoiler

AttackDistance   = 1500.0        //AI max aim distance versus ground point
AttackDistanceTrgGnd = 1500.0    //AI max aim distance versus ground target
AttackDistanceTrgAir = 1200.0        //AI max aim distance versus air target

AIStartAimErrModifier = 0.1        //Modifier for AI initial bracketing aim error (reduced twice with each shot)

AIAimDelayModifier = 0.1        //Modifier for AI delay before start to aim to a new target at 1000m range

 

Every turret definition has these 5 lines set to the same values. 

 

The turret definition also holds the weapon definition. In the ME410s case this is GunType = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Weapons/MG_GER_MG131.txt"

 

All turrets in the game that use this weapon share the same weapon definition. eg the HE111 H16 top turret also uses the same weapon definition.

 

The weapon definition contains dispersion angle, impact of barrel temperature etc but every turret that shares the same weapon gets the same weapon data.

 

You can see details of the accuracy calculation in TurretControllerAI.txt in this post https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/78388-ai-gunnery-mod/ , however the point is that all turrets use the same accuracy calculation. TurretControllerAI.txt also holds things like how long to wait between bursts, how long to shift to a new target, burst length, search values, targeting and attack distances (not the same thing) etc.

 

Usually these are a min and max value and so I believe that a value is randomly chosen between these limits for each gunner when firing so as to make them feel more "human" rather than all be exactly identical.

 

 

So, for the same skill level the Me410 gunner is generally speaking no more accurate or less accurate than the He111H16 top gunner. 

 

The points of difference between the two gunner positions would be:

• Ammo supply amount
• The reload time if they have reserve ammo. If reloading they obviously cannot shoot, and turrets have different reload times.
• The available arcs of firing for the position.
• The angular speed of the turret/flexible mount - how fast they can shift the turret to a new aim point.
• How much armor the turret has in game terms.

 

My observation while testing the AI gunnery mod is that point 3 is the major factor in how well a turret position does in combat accuracy/skill aside. Followed closely point 4 and 1 & 2. The last point is obvious in that a weakly protected turret position is quickly shutdown by incoming fire killing the gunner while a well-protected turret position stays in the fight longer.

 

The other major point is that distance between gunner and target is the final multiplier in the accuracy calc and that gunners are allowed to open fire at 3x normal range if they meet an ammo availability condition. The stock amount of ammo for this condition is 150 rounds. Therefore, the gunner will typically fire at longer ranges where accuracy is low until they run down to 150 rounds. No idea for sure but possibly the Me410 feels more accurate to people because they are firing at the Me410 from a closer range due to its smaller size and ability to maneuver like a fighter and as range is a multiplier in the accuracy calc for the gunner the closer you are to the Me410 the more accurate the Me410 gunner will be.

 

Anyway, the overall thing to take away is that in the stock game each gunner uses the same calculations for accuracy and there is no special Me410 case to consider from a gunner accuracy point of view. It is more about how much opportunity to fire each gunner position has and the number of weapons in that position.

 

In my experience from testing the AI gunnery mod particularly Luftwaffe and early war aircraft have poor fields of fire that don't overlap and single weapons in each gunner position and smaller amounts of ammo than later aircraft. They also tend to have lighter caliber weapons which are less effective. If you look through the change log on my mod page you will see that recently I gave a different burst length to each turret based on ammo supply and that while testing this I found that lighter caliber weapons were pretty ineffectual against fighters armed with 20mm cannons (think of how hard it is to shoot down things with the Hurricane II when only using 303s compared to when using cannons) and that for playability reasons I made lighter weapons a special case and increased their gunners overall accuracy to try to ensure that they were still a credible threat to fighters.

 

 

PS Should also have listed firepower available at the position in my bullet points. The Me410 has 2x MG131s under the same gunner's control. Typically, other German turrets only have a single gun. Testing the AI Gunnery mod I usually use the B25 as an initial baseline test to check gunner performance as it has powered turrets with twin 50 cals and good, overlapping fields of fire.

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by Stonehouse
spelling plus clarification

[Barnacles]

5 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I really don't understand why some people think it's perfectly acceptable to think that fighters can line up on your six without any worries. 

Counterpoint, I think it's because people think you're advocating that it should be perfectly safe to have fighters line up on your six without any worries, because your gunner will shoot them down.

I know that isn't exactly what you're saying but I think that's what people are getting out of this discussion.

 

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

11 minutes ago, Barnacles said:

I know that isn't exactly what you're saying but I think that's what people are getting out of this discussion.

 

I'll try and make my point clearer. The original iteration of AI gunners was absolutely ridiculous and they were far too accurate. Gunner AI has now been nerfed to the point whereby in an online environment you can have fighters flying straight and level behind you and the gunners can't hit for toffee, no tactics, no angle of attack just sat there. The gunners are dead weight. And yes I know that bombers are extremely vulnerable to fighter attacks and I know that large formations of bombers offer much more protection than 3 or 4 bombers. Having said that, I would expect at least some level of defense capabilities particularly when fighters don't even have to try. It's frustrating that people are asking for "realism" when so many aspects of this sim are far from reality. I personally think we need a major overhaul of the damage model/ FM to Include ballistics effects, wake turbulence, bullet drop/spread, the list goes on. Are we going to get it? Probably not. And whatever other may say or think, the "laser beams of death" are just another problem that flies in the face of reality.

[Charon]

8 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

Yes the 410 gunner is more lethal than the 110 gunner. Simply because the 110 gunner is useless, as in complete useless. A 110 pilot would be better of not have the dead weight of an ai gunner on board.

Well the problem isn't the poor shooting, because they very rarely shot down anything IRL. The problem is that he's non-communicative, like all the AI gunners. The Mosquito has the same problem but worse, as the observer won't even call bandits in firing range.

 

Have you ridden in back of a 110, and how often do you find you get kills that way?

[357th_KW]

46 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Gunner AI has now been nerfed to the point whereby in an online environment you can have fighters flying straight and level behind you and the gunners can't hit for toffee, no tactics, no angle of attack just sat there.

But this is EXACTLY what the historical record is telling us should happen in the case of the 410.   There’s a reason the Zerstorer were continually withdrawn outside the range of escort fighters, until that was no longer possible and they were removed from service.  There’s a reason they weren’t employed as daylight bombers on the western front.

Heck, look at the Luftwaffe gun camera film that’s out there - they routinely attacked lone B-17s and B-24s from the rear, with low closure rates and no attempt to throw of the gunners.  The Sturmgruppe concept was based around slightly up-armoring an FW190, up-gunning it, and then attacking in a line-abreast formation, with a slow closure rate from the rear.  Using the formation to dilute the mass firepower of the bomber box.

 

And with other gunners, this kind of setup works - a lone B-25 or B-26 at any skill level is dead meat.  But if you put together a tight formation of 15+, it’s now quite dangerous to try a rear attack.  But just a single 410 can somehow defend itself quite effectively in this scenario, despite ostensibly having the same gunner code, as @Stonehouse shared with us.

 

The whole reason I started this thread is because I want to build scenarios with 410s, employed in their historical daylight role as bomber destroyers.  But the scenario is immediately bankrupt if the 410s can largely ignore any escorts attacking them.  The whole reason for playing a WW2 simulator is to simulate WW2 scenarios.  It’s hard to do that when unrealistic aircraft behavior immediately throws the historical tactics out the window.
 

If you just want perfect balance, there are numerous games of every variety, set in various fantastic settings, with 5 star engines and massive development resources that fit the bill.  If you want a WW2 bomber scenario, then you’re faced with the reality that from the mid war point onward, nearly every fighter possessed adequate firepower to make unescorted bomber flying unsustainable.  Even the most durable and most heavily armed bombers of the war, flying in large formations couldn’t get away with it.  So it’s not surprising that a couple light or medium bombers can’t.  So build and host a scenario with no fighters - or maybe a couple low skill AI fighters for spice.  That’s the environment where these bombers were successful - either escorted or unopposed.

[Real_NBD]

What's really annoying from a multiplayer perspective is the variance between gunners. Sometimes you get a sniper and sometimes they don't even shoot, or shoot in completely wrong directions. Gunner skill should be a server setting/difficulty, this way everyone could be happy.

[=RS=EnvyC]

13 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

This game is dying online because fighter pilots can't stand being shot down once a while and losing his stats to a tail gunner. You already got all the possible buffs to your fighters, now learn how to intercept a fast bomber with decent defensive power.

 

This anti bomber culture must end now.

 

Realism isn't a buff or a nerf.

It is most amusing seeing the same people who demanded copious amounts of historical evidence for Allied weaponry (who got it and still don't believe it) suddenly defend unrealistic gunnery in the name of "gameplay" because it benefits themselves. If thats what you want go play warthunder.

Edited January 7, 2023 by =RS=EnvyC

[6./ZG26_Loke]

@=RS=EnvyC

You want realisme? Show me evidence of fighter pilots getting 50 kills with in 3 hours, as is possible in MP in IL2 now. 

I think it's you who should play wt. 

[Stonehouse]

5 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

But just a single 410 can somehow defend itself quite effectively in this scenario, despite ostensibly having the same gunner code, as @Stonehouse shared with us.

 

The fact that all gunners use the same code implies that the efficiency you talk about comes from the turret itself. The Me410 does have two MGs and the pods do have a pretty high angular rate. The guns have overlapping fields of fire in some directions so both guns can engage a target at times. I don't know the specs for an Me410 turret so can only assume that the values are correct in game according to the research the dev team did to create the aircraft. That could be an avenue to get it changed - ie if you can come up with reference info that indicates the turret has the wrong field of fire or turns too fast etc. The AI side in the stock game is all via the same code so I don't think that will help you as if the devs make the gunners less accurate it impacts all gunners and ditto making them more accurate. I definitely see some gunner positions do better than others and hence the bomber/heavy fighter does better too when I test AI gunnery.

 

I'm thinking I will run a stack of QMB 4 escorts v's a single Me410 to try to see if something obvious can be seen in case I need to tweak something in my mod, but I don't recall the Me410 being especially deadly during AI gunnery testing. Very 110 like is how I remember it, but it has been a while so perhaps I am forgetting something.

 

One thing though I want to ask - are the aircraft in your scenario all AI? eg AI escorts attacking an AI Me410? Can you please advise what skill levels are being used if they are AI so I have a start point to start doing QMBs? Thanks.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Stonehouse

[6./ZG26_Custard]

5 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

unsustainable.  Even the most durable and most heavily armed bombers of the war, flying in large formations couldn’t get away with it.  So it’s not surprising that a couple light or medium bombers can’t.  So build and host a scenario with no fighters - or maybe a couple low skill AI fighters for spice.  That’s the environment where these bombers were successful - either escorted or unopposed.

What you want and what you are asking for will be the death of human piloted bombers, you see that don't you? If you are seriously thinking you are going to get mass formations of bombers with a large escort package then it's time to look towards 1946, because you ain't going to get it in the current iteration. You keep asking for historical accuracy from your point of view. The shiny CGI cockpit your sitting in is a pale reflection of reality. I'm absolutely gobsmacked that we've got people posting here that they want the gunners to remain exactly as they are now, nerfed to oblivion with no defensive capability whatsoever to speak of, yes that is seriously killing the bomber game, if that is what you want it's what you are going to get. If you want historical accuracy so much I don't know why the developers created the 410, or other aircraft for that matter in the first place because while you've roving those CGI skies looking for juicy targets you wouldn't see any 410's at all. You said it yourself they were withdrawn. The allies would also enjoy almost complete their superiority. What a sterile, boring environment that would be in a game. Those calling for historical accuracy to be changed to suit what they think is real life (in a game) seemingly are also unconcerned about how realistic things are in other aspects of this game because it doesn't matter to them. We were flying last night online on the Finnish server and in the group chat someone actually said why isn't anybody flying bombers anymore? Go figure I suppose.

2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

You want realisme? Show me evidence of fighter pilots getting 50 kills with in 3 hours, as is possible in MP in IL2 now. 

Realism is ok when they do it.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Also on the subject of gun camera footage and pilot reports while useful, they are not always the complete picture. Yes, we can look at gun camera footage of lone B-17's and other bombers  being attacked using a lazy approach and no tactics but who's to know what went on inside the aircraft. Most of the crew could be dead or wounded or the aircraft severely damaged. And remember all gun can footage that we see today was cherry picked to show the "best" examples.

[6./ZG26_Loke]

Hehe Custard.

Makes me think of a German soldier talking about the different Air Forces during the Normandy campaign. Who said:

The American aircraft you see and hear. 

The British you only hear. 

The Luftwaffe you don't hear nor see. 

 

Yeah well, if it is 100% realistic people want when talking history, it is gonna be most boring to fly. As there will be only one side. So forget about the dogfights and the 50 kills per evening. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

25 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

Yeah well, if it is 100% realistic people want when talking history, it is gonna be most boring to fly. As there will be only one side. So forget about the dogfights and the 50 kills per evening

I completely understand the strive for realism. We have flown long enough to know that yourself and I always want a more realistic sim. Unfortunately we cannot create a completely realistic WWII simulation with the current engine. The game is easy mode when it comes to flying and fighting in a CGI aircraft and doesn't even come close to what it must have been like in WWII for real. As I said above if we had absolute realism the online servers would be stuffed with allied flyers due to almost complete air superiority whilst the Germans do piecemeal flying. And a fair few of the aircraft would not even be on the frontline. Those striving for absolute realism are not going to get it and if (like some of our fighter friends want) the defensive fire of bombers stays the same, whereby fighters don't have to use any tactics whatsoever and there is literally no defensive capability at all am, I'm fairly confident it's going to more less completely end the bomber game for good. I'd love to see 40 human control bombers in the air with a fighter escort but you and I know that's not going to happen. We shall have to wait and see I suppose?

Edit: It's a very rare occurrence these days to see organised bomber formations of more than 4 to 6 aircraft but I think at some point more and more servers are going to have to facilitate AI bombers. I suppose then at least those wanting realism can have a single fighter sweep through the formation and shoot down 5 of them in one pass.

Edited January 7, 2023 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[CountZero]

There is more of them then you, so change to nerf 410 will happend if devs continue to do fixes to game like before. But good news for you is i highly doubt devs will waist time on fixes for GB when their focus is new game. Wont API, buy new game , wont better AI gunners , buy new game, wont more bombers, buy new game, wont what ever... buy new game... why fix things for free here when you can sell it as atraction for new game project.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

30 minutes ago, CountZero said:

There is more of them then you, so change to nerf 410 will happend if devs continue to do fixes to game like before.

Of that I have little doubt. The game is almost completely fighter centric at this point. It's fully invested either by accident or design in the E-Sports mentality.

 

30 minutes ago, CountZero said:

buy new game... why fix things for free here when you can sell it as atraction for new game project.

I honestly don't know what to make of what will be produced moving forward. I know it is going to have to be something pretty special. The cries for realism in this game do tend to rather ironic when so much of the game play is easy mode. The whole point of a game is to entertain, and if you can create relatively historically accurate scenarios and maintain an entertainment value for all players concerned then you are probably on to a winner.

 

Fortunately, we are not dealing with real life because WWII was hell for so many. In terms of game play, removing the ability to have even a small level of defensive capability from fighters who are straight and level and sitting on your six will only lead to the unfortunate outcome that a substantial level of folk will just stop flying bombers. As I said previously it would be wonderful to see mass formations of bombers, with escort regularly but that is just not going to happen. And for all those hardcore realists out there, I would also hope that your focus isn't just limited to how unrealistic the 410 gunnery is, as there are a fair few other unrealistic aspects in the "game" that should be looked at too.

[Cpt_Siddy]

I got 99 problems but back gunners ain't one.

4 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

there are a fair few other unrealistic aspects in the "game" that should be looked at too.

Like the complete lack of fear and respect towards incoming bullets from back gunners from the fighter pilots whining about said bullets hitting? 

 

Shocked, shocked i say, good sir!

7 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Of that I have little doubt. The game is almost completely fighter centric at this point. It's fully invested either by accident or design in the E-Sports mentality.

 

 

This is true, the campaign mod that dont record your planes mechanical durability and instead simplifies mechanical durability and endurance in to simplified timers...

 

I far more want to have a time to overhaul instead of timers, and more you abuse your engine the more likely it can just quit on you... but alas, this is game first and sim second. It does not simulate war time logistics and other issues outsides the planes in the air, and assumes every time you leave airfield you fly a 100% brand new plane, with timer. 

[Cpt_Siddy]

Regardless, the gunner AI is very very simplistic because anything else will put very big strain on the game engine.

It is simple predictive gunnery script with some setting for randomized inaccuracy. It has some set time after what it will update the predictive gunnery and re roll the artificial inaccuracy. 

 

If you are very close to a plane when the update happens, it will snap to new, accurate lead where your change in velocity will not matter, and the induced inaccuracy will not matter. This will feel very unfair at times. To avoid this, dont fly close, and have appreciable change in velocity and direction to throw off the AI. Once you learn how the AI work you will mostly escape unharmed. Just see how XJammer cleared AI arifields from flak solo. 

[-SF-Disarray]

It strikes me as odd that the standards have shifted so very far for some of the people in this thread. When it came to Allied weapon effectiveness they talked endlessly all about "evidence" and "historical realism" and about how "this is a sim not a game, if you want fair go play a game." But now these self same people, Custard first and foremost, deeply concerned about game balance; and a tester no less. Even when presented multiple kinds of data showing that something is wrong they still insist that a change should be made to make the "game" "more fun" for them.

 

Oh! I know! Is it ok when they do it? Is that it? Did I solve the puzzle?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

30 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

Oh! I know! Is it ok when they do it? Is that it? Did I solve the puzzle?

Absolutely it did ?

There is very little that is historically accurate we are all flying easy mode 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

The other thing that is so wonderful about this forum these days is it's very rarely lets attack the argument, it's attack the person instead. I'm just waiting for @dogefighter to pipe up again ?

[-SF-Disarray]

Homie, I did attack your argument. I attacked the very foundation of your argument. Maybe you missed it, I'll admit it was very subtle what I did. You see earlier when people were pointing out that things didn't seem quite right you got all up in arms demanding data to prove the point. Fine, data was presented and you still ignored it and told me and others to quick crying and go play a game if we wanted things that are fare because this is supposed to be a historically accurate simulation. Now the same situation is cropping back up except the data was presented first and foremost. The data presents a reality you do not like and so you have dismissed it and instead argue in favor of game balance, data be damned. This is what we like to call hypocrisy in the biz. Look it up, I'm sure you'd be a fan.

 

It is so very rich that you accuse people of wanting to play on "easy mode" when you are simultaneously arguing for the defensive capabilities of bombers of any kind to be far and away more effective than historic data would suggest. You can't have it both ways. You can either have your cake or eat it. So what is it, Custard? Are we playing a game that should be balanced for fun of all involved or is this an attempt to simulate historic realities? I know what side you thought you were on when it came to improving Allied weapons. But maybe where you sit is where you stand.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

21 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

Homie

First off I'm not your Homie and second I am entitled to my own to my own opinions just like you are, regardless if I'm a tester or not. I never said I wanted "easy" mode or balance what I have said is that the idea of fighters being able to sit on the six of a bomber without any worries is ridiculous just like 50 kills in one online session is ludicrous too. I think that the changes that have been made to armour penetration values and other changes have created a situation where it has made things less realistic, because the DM needs a major overhaul, just like so many other things. No bullet drop, no real ballistics effects to speak of, no wake turbulence. Without a second look at what needs fixing I guess you "can" have your cake and eat it can't you Disarray? 

 

Edit: Just so I'm crystal clear and can't be misinterpreted, I still believe it was a terrible idea to change the ammunition penetration values without a look at the damage model.   

Edited January 7, 2023 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[-SF-Disarray]

No, how could I have been so foolish! You don't want easy mode for one kind of plane. You just want bomber defensive armament to be wildly overperforming when compared to historical accounts and data. Now that you have pointed that out so clearly I feel so very foolish for having missed your point in the first place. Thanks for clearing that up for me, homie.

 

I am glad that you've come around on the whole DM needing fixing thing. Back when I and others were pointing out that something was up with it you were quite the stick in the mud about that. I'm sure it was just a temporary thing though. Not at all connected with some of the changes that have been made effecting you negatively in the game. Or is it a sim? I'm still a little fuzzy on that point.

Edited January 7, 2023 by -SF-Disarray

[6./ZG26_Custard]

8 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

Or is it a sim? I'm still a little fuzzy on that point.

It's a game trying to be a sim at this point, nothing fuzzy about it.

9 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

You just want bomber defensive armament to be wildly overperforming when compared to historical accounts and data

And again, I don't want in you words "wildly" over over-performing gunners, but what we have in game at this point is ludicrous to the point that Fighter aircraft can "sit" straight and level and not get hit at all because the AI has been nerfed into oblivion.

13 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

I am glad that you've come around on the whole DM needing fixing thing. Back when I and others were pointing out that something was up with it you were quite the stick in the mud about that.

I have never deviated from that point and the main reason to my objections to changes in penetration values was because of the limitations of the damage model in current state.

 

15 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

homie.

And I'll say it again......I'm not your Homie.     

[357th_KW]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The other thing that is so wonderful about this forum these days is it's very rarely lets attack the argument, it's attack the person instead. I'm just waiting for @dogefighter to pipe up again ?

This is a hilarious double standard.  You’ve made no attempt to refute my argument through research, testing or logic.  You’ve instead repeatedly tried to change the subject, with your straw man that toning the 410 gunner down to realistic levels would somehow end bomber flying in the game across the board.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

4 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

This is a hilarious double standard.  You’ve made no attempt to refute my argument through research, testing or logic.  You’ve instead repeatedly tried to change the subject, with your straw man that toning the 410 gunner down to realistic levels would somehow end bomber flying in the game across the board.

There is no double standard about it, an I have already said that the 410 gunnery is too accurate, having said that you seem to want completely defenseless bomber aircraft with no defensive capabilities whatsoever? Is that what you want?  

8 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

testing or logic

Here is some testing for you, not good enough? 

 

Not one hit