Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

[Video] Unrealistic gunnery in RoF - NEW VID!


  • Please log in to reply
225 replies to this topic

#41 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 20 June 2010 - 21:20

Miggs,

You infer all kinds of things I've never said. I guess you have to make up a straw man to whack at since you can't make a rational argument with what I've actually said. :lol:

If you have read my many posts on the topic:

I prefer Coops and Dead is Dead (at least for that mission).

I have never been an advocate of respawning but I do recognize it was a major desire (a demand, actually) of the majority of MP players.

So, what we got with the last patch was the absolutely silly CTF formate.

And the TDM format, which is still just a dogfight venue but at least can be expanded (as you know) into more realistic HS (Historical Scenario) missions.

The coop format doesn't even work in the latest patch. And, it appears from the problems with multiple AI in TDF, I'm not sure it would be possible to put up a proper Coop in RoF because a Coop requires a large number of AI (unless a human pilot takes the aircraft).

So, yes, you will find me on line (even hosting) in HS (TDF) missions because that's all there is available that appeals to me at all.

In fact, you found me yesterday at a very great distance in a TOW mission (Para accused you of shooting down friendly balloons and you responded you were chasing the Brit pilot shooting down your loons – that was me – I would be willing to bet you had your view zoomed all the way out :lol: )

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to trash my game if I get killed. I don't mind having to sit out the rest of the mission. I go wash the dishes, take out the trash, always stuff to do around here :?

The penalty (DID) of not being able to immediately return to a mission is sufficient to end at least some of the recklessness we see in dogfight missions with respawn.

And I think that adds to the realism.

This is wandering a long way from the "unrealistic gunnery" topic of this thread….My comments all had to do with abolishing the use of zoom as an aid in aiming (I sometimes use a very small amount of zoom with fairly close targets and it helps) and abolishing the ability to lock a sight view.

S!

HT
  • 0

#42 unknwn

unknwn
  • Posts: 119

Posted 20 June 2010 - 21:23

OK HT, you want realism?

Next time you get "killed" in-game, please delete your copy of RoF, your dead in the sim world, that way you will only ever see one more extreme range sniper shot (unless the death is caused by a crash on landing or a "proper" close-in kill by an opponent on your tail, but you are still dead, no?). Tou continue to insist that you want no more than the historic pilot might have had, well he only had one life, you can respawn when desired.

Did you not read ANY of my posts in this thread and the other related "sniper" threads?

Yeah, Zoom can aid AIMING, it does jack-sh#t for ACCURACY.

Getting your sights onto the target is merely the start of the process.

I can keep planes in my sights at massive distances, but my bullets will get nowhere near them by anything other than sheer luck, especially when zoomed in, because my plane moves, the target moves, and the "aim" becomes irrelevant due to having to lead yhe target.
"Refly" button is unrealistic, however this is the main advantage/disadvantage of computer games over real world. I doubt someone would buy simulators if you had to put it to trash after getting killed. :lol: The point of simulator is to simulate real world with ability to "restart".

I like Jays idea about server sided realism option which would turn on head/sights movement caused by bumps,forces and etc. And i believe that would be more realistic than it is now.

SOW:BOB http://www.youtube.c...feature=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"> … re=related
  • 0

#43 winger2

winger2
  • Posts: 1056

Posted 20 June 2010 - 21:29

Yesterday and today, I was shot from some unreal distances, and unreal situations, I've got a video of a dogfight with J2 Parazine who got me from some nose up position shooting only 1-2 bullets. I know that you could always say it's due to zoom or so, but this must be fixed, it's just not WWI situation we try to simulate, don't we? Boom and Zoom planes just can't take advantage they usually had back then.. I know you aimming experts would say you don't have low temperatures and so on, but I'm saying that back then, this was IMPOSSIBLE.

Winger, you said by yourself MvR said some great things about Dr1, and he also said you can't fire from more than 100 meters distance, and you're doing that, so don't use things from him that you like, and ignore those that you don't like.

I already stated that pilots off that time didnt shot that distance maybe because they had limited amount of bullets and were aware that they would be sitting ducks if they wasted those precious gems. It was hard to hit over a range of this distance and it IS hard and needs a good portion of luck. What you say about BnZ not possible is just not right. Allied planes have the advantage regarding speed and climbrate in most cases over the german planes.
It is very well possible to BnZ most planes even the DR can be BnZed IF you dont get cocky, loose your height and come down too far. You dont have to wonder if you get your *piep* kicked when making such a mistake.
I mean what do you want? Shooting from 100m not doing any damage? Should i tell you who would be really messed up when this would happen? the BnZers that have to shoot from greater distances most of the time. Or should we ask the devs to just reduce the effective range of guns only for the german side?
Both sides can have lucky shots over those distances. Not only germans. But its the germans that have the slower, worse climbing planes in this game and there for sometimes those shots are the ONLY chance to fight back. Reducing the effective range of guns would not only be unrealistic but also result in all germans being even more of sitting ducks than they are already.
If neoqb would ask me then i would say "go on make aiming harder - for BOTH sides" but dont reduce effectiveness of guns wich would result in an even bigger advantage of the allied side over the germans."

BTW: Where did he say you cant shoot from more than 100 meters? I dont remember where that was. At least not in "Der rote Kampfflieger" nor in "Der rote baron" from Joachim castan. Those are the 2 books i read about his as of yet. Only things like that i remember was "dont waste bullets on the machine - shoot the man" or something like "getting really close on the tails is the best way to do". I mean cmon MvR himself was severely wounded from a luckshot over huge distance that almost cost his life.
Getting close is the BEST way to do it but not the only one! I already stated above that i do my most kills being close up.

Winger
  • 0

#44 unknwn

unknwn
  • Posts: 119

Posted 20 June 2010 - 21:58

There are a few reasons why it is too easy to snipe.
For example:
most missions don't have turbulence or wind turned on(can be easily solved),
there is no head/view movement caused by forces which would make it harder to align sights(Jays idea),
zooming(which can't be solved easily and i wouldn't like to have it removed).

It would be too complicated to remove zoom view. If you want to make 1:1 view as in real world on small monitor you would have a tunnel view. If you reduce magnification it will be really hard to see things(not talking about clipping problem in ROF). That's why games have zoom magnification.
  • 0

#45 winger2

winger2
  • Posts: 1056

Posted 20 June 2010 - 21:59

A couple of guys have "Buttkicker" running here don't they?

Does the use of TIR in combination with Buttkicker make things harder when "free" aiming?

I got one running. Even though it helps bigtime with the immersion simply because you can feel engine and gunfire or flakfire it doenst kick your but THAT hard. So no, it doesnt make the aiming any harder.

Winger
  • 0

#46 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1892

Posted 20 June 2010 - 22:13

Accuracy by the numbers…

Lets say your airplane is 100mph through the air. Thats 528000 ft per hour. 8800 ft per minute. 146.7 feet per second.

A single machine gun averages 600 rounds per minute. 10 rounds per second. 1 round every .1 seconds.

so for ever bullet fired, you travel either 14 feet or 7 feet (two guns). So between every bullet you fire, there is 14 or 7 feet between it and the bullet behind it.

Now we look at "dispersion"…

1 degree is 100 feet at 1 mile. 250m (a long shot?) is 820 feet which is .155 miles. So 1 degree of pitch change by your airplane moves the bullet point of impact by 15 feet. Most fighter aircraft in the store are under 10ft tall.

Modern sniper rifles are expected to hold 1/2 minute of angle or better. In one degree, there are 60 minutes. 1 minute of angle at 1 mile is 1.7 feet (about 17 inches). These are WWI machine guns, so 1 minute of angle is probably optomistic, but we will use that for arguements sake here. (NEOQB, what do you use for the accuracy of these guns)

So if we say you have a 3x3 square cross section for an airplane (9 sq feet). We say that you control your pitch to +/- 1 degree (2 total degrees) and your yaw to +/- 1 degree. It takes you 2 seconds to go from -1 degree to +1 degree. Your target is 250m (.155 miles). You have twin machine guns for 1200 rounds per minute. your target is non manuevering.

In 1 second you will fire 20 bullets. You move 1 degree verticall and horizontally in that second. You will have just stretch a 3 foot swath (1 minute of angle gun accuracy is 1.7 feet which is about 3 feet if you go +/-) of machine gun bullets over 21 feet. (15^2+15^2=21^2) 3*21=63 sqaure feet. 20 rounds distributed over that area is 1 bullet per 3 square feet. 3 square feet is a container with 1.7 ft sides. If you were trying to hit a fuselage cross section of 9 square feet, you should have 3 bullets in that area. So worst case scenario, you get 3 hits. Look at the amount of space your body takes up sitting in your chair. How many square feet is that? If you think that it is about 3 square feet, you are saying that you have a 30 percent chance of getting shot!

Suppose 1 second of shooting isnt enough for you. In 2 seconds of shooting, you will reach your total area of shooting (+/- 1 degree) which is 127 square feet. If you oscillate in that area and fire continuously, you will disperse bullets in the following area.
2 seconds = 40 rounds per 127 sq ft = 1 bullet per 3 sq ft
3 seconds = 60 = 1 per 2 sq ft
4 seconds = 80 = 1 per 1.5 sq ft.
5 seconds = 100 = 1 per 1.2 sq ft!

I dont know about you guys, but i have no problem spraying for 5 seconds…Id say the probability for wounding is high. For flaming an airplane…dunno. 1 hit to the gas tank is going to leak gas all over if its full. MvR was shot through the fuel tank at least 2 twice…1 hit to the engine…i suppose it depends where…but engines have a lot of curved surfaces, so I imagine it would take some amount of abuse before it really gets your engine.

Given the options available and a rear aspect shot, I'd say wounding is almost a certainty and a fuel leak is probable. Engine damage likely with a good bit of shooting. Wing damage unlikely due to small profile. BUT one hit to the spar on such a thin wing would probably be significant for structural integrity.

Now be aware that closer than 250m, the accuracy will only increase
  • 0

#47 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 20 June 2010 - 22:23

I am abusing the snap views quite a bit myself to be honest but I, too, would like to see something akin to what Jay suggested :)
  • 0

#48 hq_Neca

hq_Neca
  • Posts: 282

Posted 20 June 2010 - 22:28

@Imp, I think snap views should stay, with my freetrack, that is pretty unprecise, I must use it to see through gunsight.

@Winger, lucky shots were possible, but not EVERY time, that's why they are called lucky, not precise shots.
Allies don't have advantage over Germans. I rarely see a server that has more Allies than Germans, it's usually opposite.
What I'm saying is that problem is when I see a small plane far away and tracers that go around me, after a few seconds I usually get wounded, and pretty soon shot down. I just can't believe that it was possible in WWI.

About the 100m shots, I read about that on this forum, not sure where, but I think it's from the Gunning for the Red Baron book.



Jay's idea is great, maybe that should work out :)
  • 0

#49 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 20 June 2010 - 22:30

I am not saying that they should go, have a look at what Jays suggestion actually entails.
  • 0

#50 hq_Neca

hq_Neca
  • Posts: 282

Posted 20 June 2010 - 22:32

Yep, I saw, maybe to add more and more oscilations after time, for a long snap view holding, guess it's real. You could always try it yourself
  • 0

#51 unknwn

unknwn
  • Posts: 119

Posted 20 June 2010 - 22:36

Yep, I saw, maybe to add more and more oscilations after time, for a long snap view holding, guess it's real. You could always try it yourself
It should be about adding view movement caused by forces, but not about how long you hold snap view.
  • 0

#52 hq_Neca

hq_Neca
  • Posts: 282

Posted 20 June 2010 - 22:38

Yeah, I understand about that, but when you hold that concentrated and steady for a long time, your muscles that high would be overstressed probably.
  • 0

#53 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 20 June 2010 - 22:40

Yesterday and today, I was shot from some unreal distances, and unreal situations, I've got a video of a dogfight with J2 Parazine who got me from some nose up position shooting only 1-2 bullets. I know that you could always say it's due to zoom or so, but this must be fixed, it's just not WWI situation we try to simulate, don't we? Boom and Zoom planes just can't take advantage they usually had back then.. I know you aimming experts would say you don't have low temperatures and so on, but I'm saying that back then, this was IMPOSSIBLE.

Winger, you said by yourself MvR said some great things about Dr1, and he also said you can't fire from more than 100 meters distance, and you're doing that, so don't use things from him that you like, and ignore those that you don't like.

That was a fluke, I can assure you. I dived to gain enough E for a pitch up snapshot and yes, it was only a few shots but I was fully zoomed out and just very lucky.
  • 0

#54 hq_Neca

hq_Neca
  • Posts: 282

Posted 20 June 2010 - 22:42

Oh, OK then, but you fired like 5 shots at me, first time you wounded me, second one you flamed me. That sounds like too much really
  • 0

#55 unknwn

unknwn
  • Posts: 119

Posted 20 June 2010 - 22:53

Yeah, I understand about that, but when you hold that concentrated and steady for a long time, your muscles that high would be overstressed probably.
In that way those oscillations should be permanent as is snapped views(permanently aligned sights) unless sights is in the middle of the cockpit. Of course there would be a difference based on how tall pilot is but i don't think we need that. :D
  • 0

#56 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1892

Posted 20 June 2010 - 22:59

Ok, for those of you advocating head "bobble"…try this

drive in your car and find a bug spot on your windshield. Now hold your head kind of still and see if you are able to maintain the bug spot on the car in front of you…thats how it is with airplanes too. The one area I would say taht does present some difficulty is in open cockpit planes with NO windscreen.

Reports of people on the ground watching MvRs last fight said that they could see him lean in and aim when he would fire. But of course his firing was cut short due to a broken firing pin and a broken ammo casing in the breach. Reference "who killed the red baron?"

If anything is wrong here, my guess is damage model…

Another note: in MvRs Jastas it is said by his fellow pilots that his typical question for the guys claiming a kill was "In flames?" as if to say that the enemy should be falling in flames. One guy even said that he felt kind of sad when MvR asked him that since his plane had not fallen in flames…I provide this story for the evidence that planes on fire crashing to the ground was not an abnormal occurance. It was almost expected from MvR…
  • 0

#57 unknwn

unknwn
  • Posts: 119

Posted 20 June 2010 - 23:10

Ok, for those of you advocating head "bobble"…try this

drive in your car and find a bug spot on your windshield. Now hold your head kind of still and see if you are able to maintain the bug spot on the car in front of you…thats how it is with airplanes too. The one area I would say taht does present some difficulty is in open cockpit planes with NO windscreen.
I doubt there will be forces in family car going on a straight road as in "paper" plane flying 200km/h through turbulence. :roll:
Even if this doesn't make sniping harder head movement would be a nice realism addition to the game.
  • 0

#58 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 21 June 2010 - 00:23

Guys, instead of moaning about the percieved gunnery problems, try and reproduce it, go on, I dare you. Prove me wrong, I have no real problem with the state of affairs as they stand now, but I have at least tried to find out if there is any basis in fact for the gunnery accuracy "problem".

Please?

I have been trying for the last month. In all that time I managed to hit Necaramone once to wound him, and that's flying for around 40 hours, possibly more, an the Neca hit happened at WAY closer to 200m than 500m.

Is it because I'm a really poor pilot and poor shot, or is it because there isn't actually a problem with the gunnery? Don't give me "I think" or "in reality", it's quite obvious to me that thought does not enter into a great many forum posts, and this is NOT reality, it is a simulation.

From the FM threads…..show me the data….or at least the tracks where you get reliable hits at long range. I almost filled my 500G HDD with tracks trying to reproduce this effect, and I have 1 pilot wounded for my trouble.

I think Chill's calculations are a little off myself, not in the actual numbers but in the initial asumptions or barrel deviation, and you worked out the numbers for 250m Chill.

The whole "sniper accuracy" thing started with players mentioning 500m+ for these shots, so what would the calculations give us at that 500m range?

The game view distance has been covered to death, and I for one don't want my game crippling further by limiting my view to a maximum of 2.5km, and as it's technically not feasable within RoF to give us a realistic view distance, zoom has to be there.

@HT - I'm reading all the words you wrote in your posts, not just the ones I care to address.

You don't want anything in this sim that the real pilots didn't have…..

….well they didn't have a new life at the start of every mission either, regardless of DF mode introducing respawning into RoF.

Why not complain about that? I'd agree you were right on that point, but then I would have stopped playing RoF around 40 minutes after installing the game as I crashed on takeoff and died.

And the other night on SYN I was zoomed in to see you, but you never saw me did you, because you choose to cripple your own game with this 2.5k view distance. Well that's fine, cripple your own game, leave me to my game.

Maybe another visit to my profile page is in order.
  • 0

#59 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 21 June 2010 - 00:46

you choose to cripple your own game with this 2.5k view distance.

I think that's neoqb's choice, not ours.
  • 0

#60 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 21 June 2010 - 00:59

And the other night on SYN I was zoomed in to see you, but you never saw me did you, because you choose to cripple your own game with this 2.5k view distance. Well that's fine, cripple your own game, leave me to my game.

Maybe another visit to my profile page is in order.

Miggs,

I zoomed all the way out looking for you. I'm not adverse to using zoom as long as it's there and others are using it.

I just don't think it should be there.

It's just my opinion and this is a forum for presenting our views.

I may say my piece passionately but rarely personally.

You seem to be taking this very personally.

I don't. But as a lifelong professional writer, usually on controversial topics, I have a pretty thick hide.

And I've never yet argued anything to anyone who then slapped their forehead and said: "Wow! You're right! I've been wrong all along!" :lol:

It's just a discussion.

And I would be stunned if anyone at neoqb agreed with me. :shock:

S!

HT
  • 0

#61 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 21 June 2010 - 02:52

Ok, for those of you advocating head "bobble"…try this

drive in your car and find a bug spot on your windshield. Now hold your head kind of still and see if you are able to maintain the bug spot on the car in front of you…thats how it is with airplanes too. The one area I would say taht does present some difficulty is in open cockpit planes with NO windscreen.

Try it on a motorcycle, on a dirt road, and you might be getting close :roll:

(And I know a thing or two about how motorcycles handle)

The video of SoW:BoB which Unknown posted is exactly how the pilots head movement should be modeled in any flight simulator. Realistic, immersive, and it would solve the sniping problems that absolutely do exist in this sim. Thanks for posting it!
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#62 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1892

Posted 21 June 2010 - 03:16

Jay,

That video (just saw it for the first time) is really close to how it is in real life. Those "bobble" heads in that video are G induced. When he is in level flight, there is no random head bobbling which is what I thought you guys were advocating.

If RoF could reproduce those effects, it would be incredible. But I would be surprised if they could change that feature at this point. I imagine we are stuck with the zoom to see clearly (snap views or not) for a good while into the future.
  • 0

#63 unknwn

unknwn
  • Posts: 119

Posted 21 June 2010 - 07:56

Jay,

That video (just saw it for the first time) is really close to how it is in real life. Those "bobble" heads in that video are G induced. When he is in level flight, there is no random head bobbling which is what I thought you guys were advocating.

If RoF could reproduce those effects, it would be incredible. But I would be surprised if they could change that feature at this point. I imagine we are stuck with the zoom to see clearly (snap views or not) for a good while into the future.
From 0:40 there is strong vibration at level flight. I don't know if it was cased by high speed, turbulence or both.
Even if this doesn't change aiming it is a realism feature which should be implemented in all modern simulators.
  • 0

#64 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 21 June 2010 - 08:17

As someone suggested on Youtube, it might come down to a historically accurate amount of Turbulence. Dear mission makers, please take care of this ;)
  • 0

#65 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 21 June 2010 - 08:31

I have no problem with the zoom. However I do think that dispersion is a bit off

The test data I have using a WWI vickers suggests a large dispersion radius.


Quote:
When fired from the ground at a target 660 yards, 83% of the rounds fired landed within a 7ft by 3ft square around the aim point. In the air firing at a target at 200-300 yards, only 60-70% hit within a 10ft by 10ft square around the aim point.




This is from "Gunning for the Red Baron by Leon Bennett" Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 1-58544-507-X

The data qouted in the above book is from actual tests by the RFC during WWI.

For the Lewis Gun it seems its even worse.


Quote:
Testing at a range of 250 yards, it was learned that under the best of conditions (expert shooter, fixed gun calm day) shots would group within a 5 foot radius. However upon adding a "moderate" level of turbulence, and introducing a average shooter, the group diameter expanded to 45 feet.

Now, use the mission posted below to test what you can get, trust me it will be much smaller

Attached File  TEST-GUNNERY.zip   1.75KB   24 downloads

Okay, so whats the cause for that? Turbulence is a big factor. IIRC the vast majority of missions Ive played online have no turbulence. Anyone who has flown knows it can get rather bumpy up there.

I also think the dispersion pattern in inherently too small. And as Ive mentioned our guns never jam. (Stoppages obvioulsy dont affect accuracy, but if you had a chance that your guns could suffer a perminant jam you would probably wouldnt take long range pot shots due to the risk of losing your guns).
  • 0

#66 winger2

winger2
  • Posts: 1056

Posted 21 June 2010 - 09:24

I also like what i ssee in the youtubevideo. I wouldnt mind if something like that would be added.
BTW. Can storm of War be preordered somewhere?:)

Winger
  • 0

#67 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 10:50

Keep in mind that it won't have a Dr.I winger ;)
  • 0

#68 winger2

winger2
  • Posts: 1056

Posted 21 June 2010 - 11:21

Keep in mind that it won't have a Dr.I winger ;)

:) DR is my favorite but its not the only plane i fly…

Winger
  • 0

#69 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1892

Posted 21 June 2010 - 12:17

My vote has always been to fix this with greater dispersion…

In the example I did by the numbers, 1 MOA would be superb from a machine gun. Squids data suggests it was MUCH worse than that…
  • 0

#70 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 21 June 2010 - 14:53

Watched the youtube video, and got motion sickness….
  • 0

#71 unknwn

unknwn
  • Posts: 119

Posted 21 June 2010 - 15:31

Watched the youtube video, and got motion sickness….
Now that's a problem. You won't be able to fly BOB or will have to get used to it. :? :D
  • 0

#72 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 21 June 2010 - 15:36

That was a fluke, I can assure you. I dived to gain enough E for a pitch up snapshot and yes, it was only a few shots but I was fully zoomed out (HT's emphasis) and just very lucky.

Thank you, Para!

You just proved my point.

Why were you "fully zoomed out"?

More accurate to aim that way.

Now, would you please show me a zoom capability for actual WWI pilots?

It is bogus. And it results in much too accurate sniping.

Chill, interesting analysis. The logical conclusion of your post is: If you spray and pray, you're going to get hits.

Probably true but they would not be in a tight group and the whole plane would be full of holes. I keep getting hit in the head at very long ranges. The only holes are in me, not the airplane :?

I'm not sure how you would factor in all the plane movement in your analysis.

I collect and shoot sniper rifles (you can find me at the range at least two mornings a week) and I can whack a 10-inch steel plate all day without missing at 200 yards from a bench rest.

Why (other than my extraordinary innate skill and excellent training by the US military 8-))?

Magnification (I can do it with iron sights but my hit rate declines considerably at 1x and when I need to line up rear sight, front sight and target) and a very stable gun platform.

But if I try that from a standing (offhand) position, the safest place to be is right in front of that plate.

The gun platform (me standing) isn't very stable.

Neither is a WWI fighter.

Dispersion isn't as simple as the limitations of a gun on a tripod with sand bags holding it down.

You have engine vibration, wind turbulence, wind direction and speed and whatever gun vibration the mounting system allowed (probably quite a bit to keep from tearing apart the airplane).

My problem (on the receiving end) is the hits I've taken at 1,000 yards are too often from very short bursts and too often are PKs (pilot kills) with zero visible damage to the airplane. And they are often from a Dr.1, which doesn't even have a proper gun sight.

I also shoot 1,000 yard targets with a 7.62 NATO (.308) rifle and iron sights and even from a supported position. It ain't easy to get tight patterns.

My solution would be more dispersion (not due to the limitations of the gun itself – which is what Chill addressed – but instability of the gun platform in all axes from vibration and turbulence) and (surprise!) lose both zooming and the ability to lock the sight view.

Combine magnification and a locked sight view and you have a sniper scope.

Sorry, but they didn't have those in WWI (the Aldis was only 1x and was designed to aid in crossing or deflection shots, not at shooting planes extending away from you).

S!

HT
  • 0

#73 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 21 June 2010 - 16:09

My problem (on the receiving end) is the hits I've taken at 1,000 yards are too often from very short bursts and too often are PKs (pilot kills) with zero visible damage to the airplane. And they are often from a Dr.1, which doesn't even have a proper gun sight.

I call bogus on this one 8-)

Reflected showed us a very nice video from one of the best Dr1 pilots ROF knows, and

- He did not get show at from beyond 500 meters
- We see many bullets are NOT hitting his plane, even though the Dr1 is firing pretty long bursts
- Winger himself noted that he does not use much zoom (and when Para says "zoomed out" he means not using zoom as well, you seem to be interpreting it exactly the other way around)

About having zero visible damage to your plane: one bullet in the fuselage doesn't always mean a tear and it often takes more bullet in a single location for damage to show. The engine or pilot on the other hand, will have a very visible response when being hit by one bullet.

If you're constantly being shot through the head from distances like that, it will be easy enough for you to make a video for proof the way Reflected was nice enough to do for us.
  • 0

#74 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 21 June 2010 - 16:39

My problem (on the receiving end) is the hits I've taken at 1,000 yards are too often from very short bursts and too often are PKs (pilot kills) with zero visible damage to the airplane. And they are often from a Dr.1, which doesn't even have a proper gun sight.

I call bogus on this one 8-)

Reflected showed us a very nice video from one of the best Dr1 pilots ROF knows, and

- He did not get show at from beyond 500 meters
- We see many bullets are NOT hitting his plane, even though the Dr1 is firing pretty long bursts
- Winger himself noted that he does not use much zoom (and when Para says "zoomed out" he means not using zoom as well, you seem to be interpreting it exactly the other way around)

About having zero visible damage to your plane: one bullet in the fuselage doesn't always mean a tear and it often takes more bullet in a single location for damage to show. The engine or pilot on the other hand, will have a very visible response when being hit by one bullet.

If you're constantly being shot through the head from distances like that, it will be easy enough for you to make a video for proof the way Reflected was nice enough to do for us.

Jorri,

Zoomed out means full magnification.

Think about a camera with a variable zoom lens.

At 28mm, the focal length is short and it's a wide angle lens with a no magnification. The lens is zoomed "in".

At 200mm, the focal length is long and it's it's a telephoto(magnified image) lens. The lens is zoomed "out".

Something about you Hellequins seems to make you distort and exaggerate every post you argue with (maybe it's in your by-laws). Your squaddie Miggins wants me to set fire to my desk every time I get shot down simply because I argue for realism and he, too, infers all sorts of things I never said or implied and then proceeds to work himself into a lather over something he imagined :lol:

Quote: If you're constantly being shot through the head from distances like that, it will be easy enough for you to make a video for proof the way Reflected was nice enough to do for us.

You are very sloppy with quotes and paraphrases, using things I've never said.

I have never used the word "constantly." But "now and then," yeah ;)

Actually, this happened most often on the ToW server before the last patch FUBARed all Coops.

Many of the missions required the Allied fighters to bomb ground targets such as bridges and factories and trains (never happened in the real WWI BTW; no fighter ever blew up a train and the German factories weren't in France :lol: ).

The Huns in their Clown Wagons simply orbited above the targets and would sniper shoot my SE after I dropped and while I was extending. They didn't always hit me but they quite often did and it usually was a head shot at long range. No icons so I'm guessing at the ranges. (I concede RoF does not show holes in the fuselage for some bizarre reason).

Those missions don't exist any more (since the last patch make Coops unflyable) and I'm not inclined to spend many hours flying as bait just to spend even more hours to make a movie for your entertainment.

Either you believe me or you don't.

Unlike you guys, I don't make stuff up :lol:

S!

HT
  • 0

#75 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 16:47

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/zoom in" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/zoom in

"zoomed out" -> -1 zoom
  • 0

#76 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 21 June 2010 - 16:50

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/zoom in

"zoomed out" -> -1 zoom

Would you state that in a sentence without the hieroglyphics, please?
  • 0

#77 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 21 June 2010 - 17:12

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/zoom in

"zoomed out" -> -1 zoom

Would you state that in a sentence without the hieroglyphics, please?

It means zoom out = less magnification.
  • 0

#78 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 21 June 2010 - 17:22

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/zoom in

"zoomed out" -> -1 zoom

Would you state that in a sentence without the hieroglyphics, please?

It means zoom out = less magnification.

You are correct, MiG and I was wrong.

Thus Para, if we was "fully zoomed out" was using no magnification.

I tend to think of it in terms of the length of the lens, which is what I am usually adjusting. If it is physically "out" it "magnifies more."

The correct definition defines the view. "Out" is pulling away from the object being viewed and thus magnification is less.

My bad.

My apologies.

But if they did away with zoom as they should, we wouldn't have this definition problem, would we? :lol:

Quote: "Winger himself noted that he does not use much zoom"

I still maintain we shouldn't be able to zoom at all.

Sri, couldn't resist the commercial :shock:

S!

HT
  • 0

#79 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 21 June 2010 - 17:28

To add that max zoomed out view in game has actually less zoom than normal mk1 eyball (I think default view is "normal" zoom). It is there to get larger FOV what you cannot achieve with single monitor (compared to mk1 eyeball).
  • 0

#80 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 21 June 2010 - 17:56

OK, you want more? Still don't believe me? There you go:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Nq8KS65eCBc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">

I was shot from 350-370 meters. It only took him a 1 sec burst and it wasn't even Winger!

I don't care how, but it has got to be solved. It ain't fun. :|
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users