Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

[Video] Unrealistic gunnery in RoF - NEW VID!


  • Please log in to reply
225 replies to this topic

#81 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:00

Wow, you acn nicely see his plane shaking about there..I'm sure he felt nothing of that in the cockpit :?
  • 0

#82 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:06

What do you mean? I still got sniped and it happens all the time :(
  • 0

#83 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:10

I am trying to figure out why some people constantly have to drag the DR1 into debates that have no goddamned thing to do with the plane. We all have the same god damned guns on each of our planes barring the lewis gun. So please stop even bringing up the DR1(clown wagon for those less that retarded people). Keep the discussion on the guns, not the planes, unless you are going to compare how unstable or stable the gun platform is, which in any case throttle off or blip on all planes seem to be equally stable.

The only thing I can add is, stop flying in a straight line. If somone is leading you as you say and being sniped in the head from great distance you are obviously not manuevering enough to create a difficult target. If somone flies/drives/runs in the same direction for long enough even a forrest gump could get lead on target with enough rounds and time.
  • 0

#84 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:15

It's not my fault it was a DR1! We're not talking about those, but gunnery in general. Check the first vid, I wasn't flying straight there…

I could make such a video every day, but I'm really fed up as it will never be good enough for some…
  • 0

#85 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:15

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

Lol…'fully zoomed out' meant not zoomed in at all…not sure you understood me? No Zoom, nada.

I should have just said 'not zoomed in' lol.
  • 0

#86 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:22

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).

Indeed, "normal" zoom level is 0 so -1 is actually even better. I use -0.8 and -0.2 for shooting so I always use "negative magnification" :)

@greg, you are making it really easy there to be honest, you are just flying straight with almost no rudder or elevator variations. And if you had been hit in the head you would have been dead I think.
  • 0

#87 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:31

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).

Indeed, "normal" zoom level is 0 so -1 is actually even better. I use -0.8 and -0.2 for shooting so I always use "negative magnification" :)

@greg, you are making it really easy there to be honest, you are just flying straight with almost no rudder or elevator variations. And if you had been hit in the head you would have been dead I think.

Ahh, I was unaware of the negative zoom. Ffs just get rid of it all!

How is negative zoom an advantage over RL? It surely gives you less magnification than RL but is only an artificial means of approximating RL FOV?
  • 0

#88 hq_Neca

hq_Neca
  • Posts: 282

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:33

@imp, well he got shot from quite a distance, and it's happening to all of us all the time, that's just a situation. I'll check my video with a fight with Parazine, to see distance he got me there.


@Viper69, mate, this isn't about Dr1, guys that are snipers usually fly 90% of the time dr1s ;)
  • 0

#89 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:33

I doubt you are still using "0" zoom, you can check by looking at the last numbers in your snap views.
  • 0

#90 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:35

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).

Indeed, "normal" zoom level is 0 so -1 is actually even better. I use -0.8 and -0.2 for shooting so I always use "negative magnification" :)

@greg, you are making it really easy there to be honest, you are just flying straight with almost no rudder or elevator variations. And if you had been hit in the head you would have been dead I think.

It wasn't that "easy" inreal life apparently. BTW I threw my kite around in the last video, it didn't help either. I won't be making another video every day just to grab a "perfect situation"…
  • 0

#91 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:35

It's not my fault it was a DR1!

Not talking about you reflected :) I am talking about HT who was talking about the DR1 not even having a gunsight, which it does if you slide to the left or right. Its guns areexactly the same in trajectory and ROF as the belt fed guns on every other plane.

Guess I should have been more clear.
  • 0

#92 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:37

I certainly agree that it is too easy but knowing how easy it actually is in ROF you did rather little to throw him off. But that's besides the point, just an observation I could not keep to myself :?
  • 0

#93 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:37

@imp, well he got shot from quite a distance, and it's happening to all of us all the time, that's just a situation. I'll check my video with a fight with Parazine, to see distance he got me there.


@Viper69, mate, this isn't about Dr1, guys that are snipers usually fly 90% of the time dr1s ;)

I wouldnt use me to prove or disprove sniper shooting lol. I would estimate I was no further than 200m away, possibly closer and as I have already stated, it was a fluke. I can count the number of times I have pulled off shots like that on one hand.

Have you people flown a DR1? If you had, you would realise it's not the most stable firing platform…that award goes to the Camel lol.
  • 0

#94 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:39

@Viper69, mate, this isn't about Dr1, guys that are snipers usually fly 90% of the time dr1s ;)

I know its not. ;) Some people however need to constantly add it to the equation. DR1 is the new boogie man for people is all.

As I said in my previous thread. If you dont fly in a straight line you dont get sniped. Any half wit can send enough lead down stream to hit a non maneuvering target. its not rocket science. Stop blaming people who hit you, blame yourself for not getting out of the way. In theory a shotgun cant do you much harm with birdshot at 100yds but would you let somone shoot at you? No you would move out of the way. So the story holds true with the gunnery in this game. just because you think you are at a safe distance dont stop maneuvering. Take some responsability for your lack of action and stop blaming the game.
  • 0

#95 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:42

With due respect Greg, we still can't say that is unrealistic.

It may be an artefact in RoF that we see because we don't die the first time it happens to us, and we are able to go on another sortie to have the same thing happen again, but this is about players zooming in to increase their accuracy also, and we cannot tell if the Dr1 pilot did that unless we see the footage from his cockpit and see him use zoom to make the shot.

The claim that "this never happened during WW1" is rather moot too, as you would not have seen this event happening because you would have been killed last week by Winger, you simply would not be around for it to happen to you again.

I accept that it's a bugger for this to happen, but I'm still pretty sure that the munitions have been modelled OK in RoF, at least as far as NQB did model them, I have yet to manage to find evidence that the bullets can travel 4000m, I have a sneaking suspicion the barely travel 1000m, and with the way I understand RoF works I would be amazed it I could see anything relating to the munitions at anything over 2500m from the gun firing them anyway.

If the data is correct for the munitions are we just going to accept that we can change things to suit our requirements valuing gameplay over simulation?

That being the case can I please have a DVII that matches up with the reports of it performance and a N28 that can at least hold its own in a turn fight, you can have an SE5a engine do whatever you want it to as well.

Would the assertion that "it's not right" carry any weight without hard data? You yourself have spent many hours researching data for the SE5a, why bother? Just get enough people to agree with you when you say it is wrong and NQB will change it, but that's not how things work I think.

None of us want "fixes" put into FM of the planes merely by heresay, that's been the case for a long time with the "show me the data", but it's simply not possible to get the data relating to how common long rage kills were because those who are capable of reporting it were killed in the incident, and since the pilot doing the killing didn't have a sidebar message telling him of his success, all he sees is a plane diving away from him or the engine begin to flame, he can't know it was HIS bullets did the deed.

So to the realism fans out there, we have to deal with it. I have no problem with adding head bobbing, it should be there, but nobody has satisfied me that there is actually a "problem" with the zoom and the gunnery accuracy.

Why are people wanting to fudge things like gunnery when those same people are so strident in the calls to change things away from the data they have been based upon?

It's been shown that NQB will amend things if you can prove your case, so rather than just continue the posts about "snipers keep killing me, this is not right" why not try to gather data about it (but I'm pretty sure there simply won't be any for previously stated reasoning), rather like the data that is "missing" to explain why the N28 does not concur with contemporary reports about it's performance?

I have said before, this maybe because I am simply a very poor pilot and marksman, so one of you guys try to show me how these long range shots are anything more than luck.
  • 0

#96 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:45

@imp, well he got shot from quite a distance, and it's happening to all of us all the time, that's just a situation. I'll check my video with a fight with Parazine, to see distance he got me there.


@Viper69, mate, this isn't about Dr1, guys that are snipers usually fly 90% of the time dr1s ;)

It's simply not true! Try flying against Vaal or Viks (who usually fly SE5a's and other entente aircraft) or other entente pilots I could name.

It's a 'problem' that knows no allegiance or plane type.

Some aircraft are more stable to fire from and the DR1 isn't even near the top of the list.

I am with the people that say 'there is no spoon' …no problem. There are just some very good shots out there (and I'm NOT one of them)
  • 0

#97 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:46

Exactly, we can learn from our mistakes and adapt. Even if Neqb added some false swaying and or other nuesance people inherently adapt. Sure shot accuracy will fall off at first then we will adapt and it will go right back up. We have that ability that real WW1 pilots dont of learning from our mistakes.
  • 0

#98 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:48

It's not my fault it was a DR1!

Not talking about you reflected :) I am talking about HT who was talking about the DR1 not even having a gunsight, which it does if you slide to the left or right. Its guns areexactly the same in trajectory and ROF as the belt fed guns on every other plane.

Guess I should have been more clear.

Because the Dr.1 is the only plane that snipes me effectively in the SE.

For reasons I do not understand (since the Dr.1 is supposed to be about 30 mph slower than an SE), it manages to keep me in firing range for a very, very long time.

If I get sniped extending away from a target, it's invariably a Dr.1.

And no, I ain't gonna make you videos :lol:

S!

HT
  • 0

#99 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:53

I certainly agree that it is too easy but knowing how easy it actually is in ROF you did rather little to throw him off. But that's besides the point, just an observation I could not keep to myself :?

Good point. However, if I keep maneuvering I can't extend away. It's not a problem for TnB planes, where you don't try to extend away just keep turing. Extending away is a vital part offighting in BnZ planes and it cannot be done as it's supposed to be. I made plenty of maneuvering in the first vid as I've said before..

I'll pay a beer to anyone who finds a book that says you didn't absolutely have to get within 200m.

Also, we're not talknig about an exceptional case here.
  • 0

#100 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:55

It's not my fault it was a DR1!

Not talking about you reflected :) I am talking about HT who was talking about the DR1 not even having a gunsight, which it does if you slide to the left or right. Its guns areexactly the same in trajectory and ROF as the belt fed guns on every other plane.

Guess I should have been more clear.

Because the Dr.1 is the only plane that snipes me effectively in the SE.

For reasons I do not understand (since the Dr.1 is supposed to be about 30 mph slower than an SE), it manages to keep me in firing range for a very, very long time.

If I get sniped extending away from a target, it's invariably a Dr.1.

And no, I ain't gonna make you videos :lol:

S!

HT

It's invariably (did you mean always? because that's what the word means!) a DR1 because it's about the only Central plane that can climb anywhere near fast enough to engage an SE5a at altitude (except, obviously, the DVIIF) and even then you have to use tricks of the trade to fire at the SE unless he dives too low and then extends.

You have stated elsewhere that you dive THROUGH enemy formations. Perhaps you should consider pulling up sooner?
  • 0

#101 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:55

Well, having a proper fight at altitude should allow you to make some speed by diving before you are far enough away to climb back above him. Having a proper engine in the SE5a might help there as well.

And of course we are talking about the Dr1 here, Anyone who can pull off shots like this is obviously an experienced and skilled ROF player, and 90% of them fly a Dr1 when on the German side…
  • 0

#102 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:56

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

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

No, I think "Moore's law" has more to do with it than a pure NQB decision. NQB have done the best they can with the current technology.

Maybe in 6 or 7 years we can get a system that could approximate a 10km view distance using the RoF engine, but there isn't one out there now that doesn't live in a major research lab or the basement of M$.
  • 0

#103 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:57

I am with the people that say 'there is no spoon' …no problem. There are just some very good shots out there (and I'm NOT one of them)

I don't like zoom in general, but I have to agree with the above.

It does make MP frustrating when you come up against someone that is really at the top of the tree for gunnery. It's like meeting MvR every time you take an aircraft up. But when you do come across such a crack shot there's not much you can do but accept they've put the time in to be able to make such shots.
  • 0

#104 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 21 June 2010 - 18:58

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

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

No, I think "Moore's law" has more to do with it than a pure NQB decision. NQB have done the best they can with the current technology.

Maybe in 6 or 7 years we can get a system that could approximate a 10km view distance using the RoF engine, but there isn't one out there now that doesn't live in a major research lab or the basement of M$.

That's patently not true. Unfortunately a certain poster has succeeded in throwing smoke on this issue, and people have fallen for it.
  • 0

#105 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 21 June 2010 - 19:01

However, if I keep maneuvering I can't extend away. It's not a problem for TnB planes, where you don't try to extend away just keep turing. Extending away is a vital part offighting in BnZ planes and it cannot be done as it's supposed to be. I made plenty of maneuvering in the first vid as I've said before..

By manouvreing you don't need a lot to be fair, at range you need only move the pilot body/engine bit of your plane a few feet in any direction to be outside of the targetted aim point for your opponents bullets.

If we increased the dispersion of the guns you would need to move further outside this danger zone to ensure you don't get hit by a random off-target bullet.
  • 0

#106 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 19:03

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

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

No, I think "Moore's law" has more to do with it than a pure NQB decision. NQB have done the best they can with the current technology.

Maybe in 6 or 7 years we can get a system that could approximate a 10km view distance using the RoF engine, but there isn't one out there now that doesn't live in a major research lab or the basement of M$.

That's patently not true. Unfortunately a certain poster has succeeded in throwing smoke on this issue, and people have fallen for it.

I have seen at least one post that proposed several different possible solutions for extending the view distance (with current systems). Not being a programmer, I couldn't say if they were actually feasible but they certainly sounded like they were.

I think I may know who you are referring to. A shy individual of a modest nature lol.
  • 0

#107 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 19:04

(refering to miggins:) Exactly. And it's not like I never fly BnZ planes myself greg ;)
  • 0

#108 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 21 June 2010 - 19:06

That's patently not true. Unfortunately a certain poster has succeeded in throwing smoke on this issue, and people have fallen for it.

Why not refute the false assertion then?

I'm more than willing to change my opinion on lots of things whe given reasoned arguments. It may take me a while to understand them, but I get there in the end.

It took me several weeks to finally understand what was going on the An.Petrovich's post about the SE5a elevator and why it was like we have in RoF.

Please enlighten me. I'm a nice guys, honest.
  • 0

#109 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 21 June 2010 - 19:25

That's patently not true. Unfortunately a certain poster has succeeded in throwing smoke on this issue, and people have fallen for it.

Why not refute the false assertion then?

I'm more than willing to change my opinion on lots of things whe given reasoned arguments. It may take me a while to understand them, but I get there in the end.

It took me several weeks to finally understand what was going on the An.Petrovich's post about the SE5a elevator and why it was like we have in RoF.

Please enlighten me. I'm a nice guys, honest.

Well, I'm not a part of neoqb's programming team, and have never seen a line of their code, so I'm looking at it from the following programming position: you need to perform calculations for aircraft whether they're visible or not. You don't start making calculations when they're on screen. Imagine coming across a 5v5 fight with aircraft swirling all over the screen - there had to be ongoing calculations to get them there. From a basic coding perspective it's about when you draw something, and what you draw. Two alternatives are aircraft use less complex algorithms when out of sight, which isn't really an issue because you couldn't see with enough detail to appreciate that, or aircraft are put into place magically as they become visible, but that would blow a hole in the whole "living world" concept.

Again, that's my supposition, and there might be some actual coding reasons for neoqb not moving on this issue, but not for one second do I buy the argument put forward by outside individual/s.
  • 0

#110 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 21 June 2010 - 19:43

or aircraft are put into place magically as they become visible, but that would blow a hole in the whole "living world" concept.

The Philip K Dick largely-paranoid world, where things stop existing when you aren't looking at them

As long as planes do not spawn in sight, doesn't matter if they are spawning rather than living in there. How would you know :)

What I mean is, planes do not appear magically. It's only because you know about 'spawning' that you feel they're appearing magically

The whole living world concept is one of things magically appearing and disappearing. Close your eyes :)

Ming
  • 0

#111 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

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

Posted 21 June 2010 - 19:47

Oi. This thread has really gone off-track.

There is a problem with unrealistically easy sniping in ROF. Look at SoW:BoB for a decent implementation of pilot head movement that would recreate a more realistic experience. If you don't see the difference between what's going on there and what we have in ROF, I don't know what to tell you :?

As a professional programmer with game engine programming experience, I can say:

1) There are two reasons why NeoQB would push back on increasing the plane draw distance.
-First and foremost is if the Level of Detail (LOD) system in ROF is incapable of drawing planes at sufficiently low levels of detail, then more planes in your view frustum = non-trivial performance hit.
-Second, more objects in your scene also means more network data needs to be transmitted at each frame. Depending on the implementation details of ROF's network protocol, this might also be something they're afraid to push further.

2) Both of the above issues could be remedied with development effort. I don't care what any beta tester or non-developer says on this issue; it's all fixable. It really just comes down to resources, i.e. time and developer salary. It could be that we won't see the draw distance issue addressed because its not a high enough priority for the business, but it's not like these things are technically impossible to overcome.

3) Leave the Dr.I and other planes out of the equation. The Entente are likely the victims of sniping more often than Central because of how they are intended to be flown, but the problem is global. Please guys, don't take this thread or this defect personally. It's a shortcoming of the game and it should be corrected; that's all.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#112 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 21 June 2010 - 19:50

This is going off topic a bit, but with a living world you still need to make calculations. For example a flight takes off, follows a route, hits a target and returns. You need to make calculations about all those sequences so as to compute losses, kills, etc. And those events have an impact on other events. It all needs to be calculated to some degree.
  • 0

#113 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 21 June 2010 - 19:53

2) Both of the above issues could be remedied with development effort. I don't care what any beta tester or non-developer says on this issue; it's all fixable. It really just comes down to resources, i.e. time and developer salary. It could be that we won't see the draw distance issue addressed because its not a high enough priority for the business, but it's not like these things are technically impossible to overcome.

Bingo.

The network side of things is something I hadn't considered. But I got out of programming - at least non PHP/MySQL coding - before I picked up any practical experience with that.
  • 0

#114 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 21 June 2010 - 19:58

First and foremost is if the Level of Detail (LOD) system in ROF is incapable of drawing planes at sufficiently low levels of detail, then more planes in your view frustum = non-trivial performance hit.

Isn't it possible to have a one-pixel plane JD? With varying transparency to indicate closure?

Surely the lowest LOD must be one pixel?

Sounds good in theory but I bet it gets complicated fast :)

Ming
  • 0

#115 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

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

Posted 21 June 2010 - 20:09

Uh, of course. Replace the little plane icon we have now (for the icons helper) with a 1px .png and you're done. :lol:

(Really)

Of course, there are potentially several levels of detail you would want to capture between 1px and full-blown lit / shadowed aircraft. There should likely exist 2-5 "versions" of each aircraft model at different levels of geometric complexity. And for aircraft greater than 0.5km away or so, the lighting routines could be dramatically simplified as well. No need to render full shadows on a plane that's occupying 10px squared on your screen.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#116 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 21 June 2010 - 20:29

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).

One last attempt.

Please try this Tom, I really don't like putting people into the foes list on my profile page, but I am close with doing that for you.

Go to QMB and pick any 2 gunned plane for a skirmish mission from a scramble take-off and put 0 enemies in all three opposing flights.

Turn on friendly icons.

Turn on unlimited ammo.

Start mission.

Go to F11 and put the camera right in from of the guns (hitting the keypad "0" key when using W A S D slows the motion down).

Pull back to 200m and fire the guns to get back into the tracer tracks, pull back to 500m and repeat.

This is where it gets tricky as the tracer tracks stop at around 750m, but you got unlimited ammo so carry on in small stages to 1000m trying to keep the sound of the bullets passing by your view point as a guide.

Not only will this show you the bullets do fall off somewhat during their travel, but also that at 1000m you can barely hear even 1 on 20 bullets passing the viewpoint.

From this position start the engine. Now the plane is still on the cround and as stable as it's possible to be but with the engine running.

Fire your guns now, and the 1 in 20 that you heard before now become 0 in 20. Got back to 500m and you will see a different between engine off and engine on.

Now, what was it you were saying about people being able to AIM when ZOOMED at such distances when FLYING to get you "time and time again"? Yet you want more dispersion making it harder to manouvre out of the bullet-cloud danger zone as well?
  • 0

#117 hq_Neca

hq_Neca
  • Posts: 282

Posted 21 June 2010 - 20:43

Sorry Para, you were right, you shot me from 200m, but I am flying zoomed out so I can see more on my six, and then planes are quite smaller.
Sorry again.

But, does anyone know how could I switch to other player's plane in recording? When I press ctrl+f2 it switches throught the balloons, and it switches me to two seaters.
  • 0

#118 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 21 June 2010 - 20:51

There is no spoon!
  • 0

#119 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 21 June 2010 - 21:02

Sorry Para, you were right, you shot me from 200m, but I am flying zoomed out so I can see more on my six, and then planes are quite smaller.
Sorry again.

But, does anyone know how could I switch to other player's plane in recording? When I press ctrl+f2 it switches throught the balloons, and it switches me to two seaters.

That should do it Neca, though you can't get into the cockpit of the other planes, only the external views, that's why I keep asking for some "better shot" pilots to record zoomed-in sniping, I simply can't do it.
  • 0

#120 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 21 June 2010 - 22:19

It's not my fault it was a DR1!

Not talking about you reflected :) I am talking about HT who was talking about the DR1 not even having a gunsight, which it does if you slide to the left or right. Its guns areexactly the same in trajectory and ROF as the belt fed guns on every other plane.

Guess I should have been more clear.

Because the Dr.1 is the only plane that snipes me effectively in the SE.

For reasons I do not understand (since the Dr.1 is supposed to be about 30 mph slower than an SE), it manages to keep me in firing range for a very, very long time.

If I get sniped extending away from a target, it's invariably a Dr.1.

And no, I ain't gonna make you videos :lol:

S!

HT

It's invariably (did you mean always? because that's what the word means!) a DR1 because it's about the only Central plane that can climb anywhere near fast enough to engage an SE5a at altitude (except, obviously, the DVIIF) and even then you have to use tricks of the trade to fire at the SE unless he dives too low and then extends.

You have stated elsewhere that you dive THROUGH enemy formations. Perhaps you should consider pulling up sooner?

Para,

I cannot recall another plane chasing me after I bombed a ground target and shooting me down at long range other than the Dr.1. So, I guess that constitutes "invariably." :lol:

We're not talking at altitude here. These are the TOW "bomb the bridge," "bomb the train," "bomb the factory" missions that no longer work properly with Coop kaput.

NOE stuff.

Why the phrase "diving through a formation" seems odd to anyone I can't figure out.

It doesn't apply to this discussion, but since you ask:

In an SE or a SPAD, if I have altitude and lateral separation on a formation of EA, I dive on them (VERY shallow dive in the SE or I'll be without an engine), take what shots I can with a minimum of turning and maintaining a maximum of speed and keep going right through their formation.

The trick is to maintain speed.

Extend, climb, do a wingover and attack again.

If I pull up sooner I'm an easy target for the planes I just "dived through."

That's exactly the same way I flew the P47 and the Corsair and the Mosquito FB and the FW190 in IL-2.

That's kind of B&Z 101 to me :lol:

None of which has anything to do with this topic because I almost never get hit on those passes. And I never do them at low levels.

My complaint (and experience) with the sniper gunnery is limited completely to ground attack situations when I am trying to extend away and EA are circling over the target and manage to pick me off at extreme ranges (icons are off so I don't know how far but they are just little dots behind me).

I've been hit many times, both pilot and engine, in those situations.

S!

HT
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users