Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

[Video] Unrealistic gunnery in RoF - NEW VID!


  • Please log in to reply
225 replies to this topic

#201 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 26 June 2010 - 17:45

I think it is proven (for my money) that being "accurate" at anything over 200m is a fallacy using these guns on these planes in this simulation.
I'm not clear on what you mean here.

I mean that there is a difference between accuracy and precision.

You can get your bullets to a region distant from you, but you cannot do this with any accuracy, hence there is little point using a zoomed gun sight view. At distance the bullets will be in an area around your aim point, very few will actually be accurately where you have aimed them.

They will be precise, in that the vast majority of them will be in the same area, but not accurate is all I am saying.

Getting back to the original problem, it is percieved that players are intentionally aiming at, and hitting, their targets with zoom view.

There are hits, yes, but they are random hits.
  • 0

#202 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 26 June 2010 - 18:02

You are missing my point over this. The abscence of evidence is not the same as evidence of abscence s all I am saying.

This isn't an argument about metaphysics, and that I that I do not have evidence that there is not an alien civilization under the ice of Europa is hardly a reason for me to entertain the possibility. The absence/evidence bit is a tired cliche that gets trotted out when we want to violate the burden of proof. Enough of that.

I didn't think you had understood my point the first time, and this tells me you still think I want to believe things that are not proven.

Without the data in our hands we only speculate.

From your example the fact there is no evidence for a civilisation on Europa is EXACTLY why you SHOULD entertain the possibility of something being there. Until proven otherwise we simply cannot say one way or the other.

Similarly, without the data about frequency of historic pilots shooting at long range we simply do not know.

What we need to deal with in the sim are the consequences of not knowing.

I've been banging on about this too long anyway.

I give up, you win. I am totally wrong about it all. Nice debate.
  • 0

#203 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4145

Posted 26 June 2010 - 18:26

You are missing my point over this. The abscence of evidence is not the same as evidence of abscence s all I am saying.

This isn't an argument about metaphysics, and that I that I do not have evidence that there is not an alien civilization under the ice of Europa is hardly a reason for me to entertain the possibility. The absence/evidence bit is a tired cliche that gets trotted out when we want to violate the burden of proof. Enough of that.

I didn't think you had understood my point the first time, and this tells me you still think I want to believe things that are not proven.

Without the data in our hands we only speculate.

From your example the fact there is no evidence for a civilisation on Europa is EXACTLY why you SHOULD entertain the possibility of something being there. Until proven otherwise we simply cannot say one way or the other.

Similarly, without the data about frequency of historic pilots shooting at long range we simply do not know.

What we need to deal with in the sim are the consequences of not knowing.

I've been banging on about this too long anyway.

I give up, you win. I am totally wrong about it all. Nice debate.

Don't lose heart Miggins old chap. You're tackling experienced serial complainers here so logic doesn't enter into it. Chin up old fellow! :lol: .
Cheers all.
  • 0

#204 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 26 June 2010 - 20:10

From your example the fact there is no evidence for a civilisation on Europa is EXACTLY why you SHOULD entertain the possibility of something being there.

The example was that there is no evidence against there being a civilization under the ice of Europa, but, nonetheless, you do come off as a charmingly credulous fellow. ;)

In all seriousness, Miggins, there is a huge chasm between things that are possible, in the logical sense of the word, and my having reason to entertain their being true. Think about it for a while and maybe we'll have this conversation again someday.
  • 0

#205 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 28 June 2010 - 18:50

Maybe long range shots are made easier by the amount of lead ROF lets you put in the air?

Weren't early mg's limited to short bursts. I think I read that longer than 5 round bursts would heat up the gun barrel causing quite horrible inaccuracy after that. ROF lets you spray your whole ammo load in one go with no accuracy penalty.

Just a thought.
  • 0

#206 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 28 June 2010 - 18:56

Actually, I have tested this. If you hold down your trigger for long periods of time your dispersion widens up greatly, even to the point of the bullets shooting out at obtuse angles from the barrel. I dont know about historically what was practical for air MGs but the ground ones were water cooled and could fire indefinetly. The plane mounted ones were air cooled obviously that is going to play a part in heat build up, not sure on what is modeled.
  • 0

#207 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 28 June 2010 - 19:07

Actually, I have tested this. If you hold down your trigger for long periods of time your dispersion widens up greatly, even to the point of the bullets shooting out at obtuse angles from the barrel. I dont know about historically what was practical for air MGs but the ground ones were water cooled and could fire indefinetly. The plane mounted ones were air cooled obviously that is going to play a part in heat build up, not sure on what is modeled.

The increased dispersion sounds right to me. Infact on aircooled barrels if you fired enough you would "Blue" the barrel meaning the steel got so hot it lost its interigty and accuracy flew out the window.

Vickers Gunners would fire a burst, nudge the gun left or right and continue. The barrels got hot enough just doing that. I dont think they could withstand sustained fire for too long without over heating.

Miggins, whilst the difference of having an engine on or off may be there, I would expect it to be small. However the difference in accuracy between a stationary plane, and one flying should be much larger. Mainly due to tubulence. Its going to give you a much larger range of movement. The details of which can be seen in my earlier post.

We need to figure out a way to set a plane up so that its guns are facing a target whilst its on the ground and see what the dispersion pattern is like. Ming had an idea of using a hill for this. Only then can we measure how dispersion is modelled and to what degree.
  • 0

#208 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 28 June 2010 - 19:14

Interesting, so even in ROF holding down the trigger too long is bad, something to note.

Stuff like this should be documented.
  • 0

#209 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 28 June 2010 - 20:06

If Jams where modelled it would be even more of a no no. ;)
  • 0

#210 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 29 June 2010 - 10:00

Thinking more deeply about this Viper, the barrel is not composed of identical molecules arranged in a perfect lattice. So different parts of the dense in parts/less dense barrel will be affected by a given increase in temperature and there will no longer be the straight end-to-end bore of the barrel. The classical bimetallic strip-switch thermostat for example in the extreme. The tip of the barrel will wander in an offset circle looking from the pip. Predicting that shorter barrels' accuracy will be affected less by temperature (less metal to warp pip-to-tip)

Does the diameter of the bore of a steel barrel shrink or widen under increasing temperatures. Someone must know do we have any metallurgists in :)

Ming
  • 0

#211 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 29 June 2010 - 13:48

I know that the molecules in steel arent aranged in a perfect line. My question was is this modeled in game. It must not be because permanent barrel warping is not modeled. Once you let the gun cool down it fires just as accurately as it did when you spawned in so this tells me the warping and dispersion modeled in are only temprary penalties for long trigger pulls. Under heat though instead of shrinkage the barrel should expand and open up the tolerance thus the increase in dispersion in the same way you can use a propane torch to heat up a seized nut to cause it to expand around the threads of a bolt to unscrew it. Also is air temp modeled in the effectivness of cooling the weapons down? If ambient air temp effects engine temp surely it would effect the effectiveness of air cooling on the machineguns.(I am a welder metals will expand under heat but when they cool depending on their density they will shrink slightly.)

On a parralell note, My father was telling me a story of when he was in vietnam. A new machinegunner got scared in a firefight and held sown the paddles on the .50 for much longer than he should have. The barrel started curving to the right and it got white hot at the point where the barrel and reciever meet. He said you could see the bullets make white rings as they flew out the barrel. As long as the guy kept fireing he was ok but as soon as he stopped the gun started cooking rounds off and basically fired on its own till they broke the belt.

My point is we need catosrtophic failures in these machineguns to put some sort of realistic penalty in place for spray and pray tactics using extremely long and unrealistic trigger pulls.
  • 0

#212 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 29 June 2010 - 15:44

On a parralell note, My father was telling me a story of when he was in vietnam. A new machinegunner got scared in a firefight and held sown the paddles on the .50 for much longer than he should have. The barrel started curving to the right and it got white hot at the point where the barrel and reciever meet. He said you could see the bullets make white rings as they flew out the barrel. As long as the guy kept fireing he was ok but as soon as he stopped the gun started cooking rounds off and basically fired on its own till they broke the belt.

My point is we need catosrtophic failures in these machineguns to put some sort of realistic penalty in place for spray and pray tactics using extremely long and unrealistic trigger pulls.

:lol:

"When the going gets tough, the tough go cyclic!"

Didn't your daddy learn that saying in Vietnam? I sure did :shock:

And if you don't know what "cyclic rate of fire" means: It's the rate (in rounds per minute) at which an MG will fire if you just hold down the trigger.

The first part of your post is correct.

Fire long bursts in an air-cooled MG and the heat will warp the barrel. "Bursts of six" is the way gunners are trained.

But…

I disagree with your last sentence because long bursts will not cause a "catastrophic (or catosrtophic – another US public schools spelling bee winner :lol: ) failure".

Heat just makes the gun very inaccurate. Which is why most machine guns these days have quick change barrels. Even the venerable Ma Deuce recently was modified so you can throw a lever and switch barrels.

For some bizarre and totally incorrect reason, folks who play combat flight sims think heat causes stoppages and jams.

It doesn't. It just messes up the barrel, as you noted.

What causes stoppages and jams (and they are different, a stoppage is a bullet stuck in the barrel while a jam is ruptured casing stuck in the chamber :shock: ) is poor quality control in the manufacture and storage and transport of ammunition.

And it doesn't appear anyone in WWI kept track of how often it did that and how often it could be fixed in flight.

Insensitive bastids probably never gave a thought to those of us forced to fly cartoon versions of their airplanes 100 years later. :lol:

My personal opinion is jams and stoppages are much, much too frequent in RoF and much, much too easy to clear (one push of a key).

Bottom line: Long bursts do not cause jams.

Bad ammo causes jams.

"My father was telling me a story of when he was in vietnem…."

Sheesh! :?

I'm playing with children here…. :lol:

S!

HT
  • 0

#213 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 29 June 2010 - 15:53

haha HT, I know what cyclic rate of fire is, as you stated its the rate of fire that if the weapon could be continuously fed with ammo it would fire. IE even magazine fed guns have a cyclic rate of fire rating as if they were belt fed. I do suck at spelling mostly due to my dyslexia I have to re-read things multiple times and even then it looks normal to me. I thank you for your service HT, I am by no means a young guy I just have a real appreciation for veterans and for history. My father used his brothers birth certificate to get into the army. He was driving APCs in Vietnam before he could have a civilian drivers licence. He was 15 when he joined and 16 in country.

ISnt head spacing really important on the .50 I know they have a quick change barrel but you still have to shim the headspace or the rounds jam, or so I am told. My brother 82nd Airborne uses a 240 Bravo but he was trained as most infantry are on the .50.
  • 0

#214 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 29 June 2010 - 16:06

It's called the M2E2 and the quick change barrel has a fixed head space:

http://www.defensein...g-strong-03539/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.defensein...rydaily.com/ma- … ong-03539/

Good on your dad. Hope he stuck around long enough to retire. The benefits are great (I can testify to it :lol: ).

I had a 14-year-old kid in my company at Fort Carson in the early 70s who made it in the national news after the Army had thrown him out for the third time because he had stolen orders from real soldiers and went to Vietnam three times starting when he was 12 (he was a BIG kid and he was a good soldier).

S!

HT
  • 0

#215 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 29 June 2010 - 19:01

My personal opinion is jams and stoppages are much, much too frequent in RoF and much, much too easy to clear (one push of a key).

This is part of the probelm HT, these are all simple mis-fires, not a stoppages or a jams, so the simple reload proceedure works to clear them. I think Han mentioned this a while ago.

What I think we are after (correct me if I'm wrong) are modelled jams and stoppages, some of which will be terminal for the gun in that sortie.
  • 0

#216 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 29 June 2010 - 19:09

My personal opinion is jams and stoppages are much, much too frequent in RoF and much, much too easy to clear (one push of a key).

This is part of the probelm HT, these are all simple mis-fires, not a stoppages or a jams, so the simple reload proceedure works to clear them. I think Han mentioned this a while ago.

What I think we are after (correct me if I'm wrong) are modelled jams and stoppages, some of which will be terminal for the gun in that sortie.

Miggs,

That's exactly what they act like in the game: Dud round, probably dud primer. Just rack the charging handle, spit out the dud round, load a new round and continue to fire.

And that's realistic and should be modeled.

As you say, what's missing is real jams and stoppages that can't be fixed.

And, absolutely, those should be modeled (but not very frequently and not as the result of long bursts).

Have a great vacation!

HT
  • 0

#217 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 29 June 2010 - 19:30

Also high g-load on belts should cause issues as well. Turning hard in my DR1 should have some kind of hinderance on the feed mechanism on the spandau.
  • 0

#218 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 29 June 2010 - 22:33

http://redwing.hutma...m/centurion.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://redwing.hutma...t/~mreed/warrio … turion.htm

Ming
  • 0

#219 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 30 June 2010 - 08:29

Correct me if Im wrong but the result of a sustained burst cooking the barrel is a perminant loss in accuracy? Would be nice if this happened in ROF.

Ive long been campaigning for stoppages to be modelled. I think it would change the way we fight considerably.

The result of both would be to hinder long range gunnery. As would having to reload a Lewis.

(Model this the same way RB3D did, you fire 48 rounds, and then it takes 30 seconds before you can reload. Maybe you have to engage auto level to allow you to do this, if you disengage the auto level inside the 30 seconds, you have to start all over again).
  • 0

#220 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 30 June 2010 - 08:39

Correct me if Im wrong but the result of a sustained burst cooking the barrel is a perminant loss in accuracy? Would be nice if this happened in ROF.

Ive long been campaigning for stoppages to be modelled. I think it would change the way we fight considerably.

The result of both would be to hinder long range gunnery. As would having to reload a Lewis.

(Model this the same way RB3D did, you fire 48 rounds, and then it takes 30 seconds before you can reload. Maybe you have to engage auto level to allow you to do this, if you disengage the auto level inside the 30 seconds, you have to start all over again).

96 rounds, and maybe 20 seconds…
I'd rather see something like restricted sick movement (like when you're heavily wounded) after pressing reload.

So we all agree that there are some factors that are not taken into account in RoF which lead to this unrealistic gunnery we have now?
  • 0

#221 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 30 June 2010 - 08:53

I'd rather see something like restricted sick movement (like when you're heavily wounded) after pressing reload

Doh! Ok 96 then :oops:

Ref, from all the accounts Ive read, it was a case of holding the joystick between the knees as it was a two handed job?. :shock: Certainly any manuveurs would be impossible. Your also having to fight the slipstream.

But yes the more realism we get in ROF the more realistic players will behave.
  • 0

#222 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 30 June 2010 - 09:02

I'd rather see something like restricted sick movement (like when you're heavily wounded) after pressing reload

Doh! Ok 96 then :oops:

Ref, from all the accounts Ive read, it was a case of holding the joystick between the knees as it was a two handed job?. :shock: Certainly any manuveurs would be impossible. Your also having to fight the slipstream.

But yes the more realism we get in ROF the more realistic players will behave.

Did they really have to stand up? There's that famous pic about the pilot reloading the Lewis (can1t find it now). It wasn't mounted on a rail for nothing :roll:
  • 0

#223 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 30 June 2010 - 09:34

I think you would have to undo your seat belt at least. Also you need two hands to do the job. Add some mild tubulence, freezing cold tempratures, and fighting the slipstream its going to be tricky at best.

You have to unpin the lewis in the foster mount

Attached File  207%20RAF%20SE5a.jpg   41.49KB   252 downloads

Look at the distance that pin is from the pilot in the above picture.

Now slide it down, take the drum off (not easy with massive gloves and frozen fingers), stow the empty drum somewhere or chuck it over the side (dangerous if it hits your tail) get a new drum out, load it back onto the lewis, Slide the gun back up the mount (Difficult, its heavy and your pushing against the airflow) Rengauge the fixing pin and your good to go! Simples ;)



I think the most you could hope for would be to keep your kite level. Obviously in the DH2 it was probably a fair bit easier

(I read an account somewhere that the slipstream caught a pilots hand whilst he was holding the drum mag and slammed it back into the fusulage nearly breaking it. Of course he also lost the drum).
  • 0

#224 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 30 June 2010 - 10:27

I found it!

Image
  • 0

#225 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 30 June 2010 - 10:46

Looks like he is using both hands to me ;)

Also he now has to slide it back up the rail. It looks like his right arm is fully extended to reach the barrel. How can he move the gun further up the rail and engage the locking pin without standing up?
  • 0

#226 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 30 June 2010 - 13:11

YEah unless there is some kind of collapsing pushrod he would need t ostand up to push it back up. I hope all that time is modeled if they model the reload right. Not to mention having to be in level flight.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users