Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Another possible solution for unrealistic shooting ranges ?


  • Please log in to reply
494 replies to this topic

#481 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:42

Atmospheric nitrogen is very inert. While ammonia and other nitrogenous molecules might be reactive, the triple bonds in N2 make it so stable that most organisms cannot break it down for their metabolic needs.
  • 0

#482 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 29 February 2012 - 03:31

The topic, I believe, is the sort of inert gas used in the Aldis sight, not: Can Gav please show off again? :roll:

Nitrogen is relatively inert but can be reactive under some conditions. Atmospheric nitrogen is used to produce ammonia, for example.

I was just correcting my own statement, noting that every source I can find says "inert gas" without specifying what gas it was. Nitrogen is commonly used in scopes today, so maybe it was nitrogen.

So, what gas was used in the Aldis?
  • 0

#483 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 3986

Posted 29 February 2012 - 03:46

So, what gas was used in the Aldis?

It's a military secret Tom. In fact, King George ordered the information be suppressed in the Murdoch press and google. :lol:
  • 0

#484 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 29 February 2012 - 03:53

The way the UK's Official Secrets Act operates, it may still be classified ;)
  • 0

#485 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 29 February 2012 - 07:05

And Schaefer, the reason the Hun sights fogged up and the Aldis didn't was the nitrogen gas sealed inside, which was a closely guarded British military secret. If you weren't so self-admittedly intellectually lazy, I'd say look it up…. :mrgreen:

So if:

The Huns grabbed every one they could from crashed RFC aircraft and strapped them to their own planes.

How was it a closley garded secret?? You mean to tell me that EVERY SINGLE captured sight was used by the new owner and not one went to a lab for testing ??? Tom Would you please provide the community with some sources that state it was a closely guarded secret :D


All joking aside, we ALL know about the nitrogen gas actually it was a sight tube that contained four hermetically sealed collimating lenses as the article Tom atached points to. I remember there were issues with the seals in early models. I think if you "reference" book Gunning for the Red Baron you will find that a Maj Degelow (who was an Ace) condemned the concept of the entire thing as being "falsely based" in part because the thing was not reliable for about 20 reasons to numerous to mention here. The book also points out when used alone it was a bit to "sensitive" but when paired with open sights it was accepted and found somewhat useful. Of course much of this is related to practical use as in it really is not a "magnification" sight and was also difficult to use as it relates to target acquisition. I have also (as I'm sure many of have) read comments on how Oil and smoke from rotary engines "clouded" it. It seems that vibration from the said rotary engines caused them to also "fail" which I presume means the seals went bad and the gas escaped. Aldis Brothers of Sparkhill insisted the sights should not be tampered with and had to be be returned to the factory in the event of damage or malfunction. This is largely due to the fact that it was vacuum sealed but the point is they did malfunction. It was claimed that this was the reason the Germans never copied the sight dispite the large numbers captured, which in my view (YES AN OPINION TOM) that it was not such a big secret. Rather it seems that the Germans AS WHOLE were doing just fime with iron sights and did see any reason to "copy" the Aldis Brothers model because maybe in part they felt the gas was a more of gimmick that worked only so well thus they were not that reliable in the end. ….in other words it was marginally useful. Tom sorry the run I took at you had a bit of an edge to it….it's all in "internet" fun


I think you can only assume they didn't know about about the gas inside the Aldis, after all if they had known about it would they not have put it in their own collimator sights ? They Germans didn't seem to appreciate the CC synchronization gear even though they had plenty of crashed aircraft to examine.

If there were problems looking through and using the sights from an an optical standpoint it's possible that it was from foreign body contamination (dirt to you and me). Didn't the Aldis have a metal flap at the front that flipped up when you wanted to use it ? to try and minimize this ?
  • 0

#486 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 29 February 2012 - 12:46

Just going on what choices are logical and available, my other guess would be Argon.
  • 0

#487 Gambit21

Gambit21
  • Posts: 486

Posted 29 February 2012 - 16:53

Son of Arthon
  • 0

#488 Capt.TeddyBear

Capt.TeddyBear
  • Posts: 577

Posted 01 March 2012 - 23:16

I do not recall seeing any real discussion around the lack of bullet drop in RoF and how this enables us to hit where we aim even at ranges of 600m. In addition we do not have wind blowing the bullet offline.

These along with the zoooooooom, the tracers and no platform vibration it is no wonder we can hit at unrealistic distances.

I am not a ballistic expert and I hope someone here can add to this; but I read in general about the effective range of a WWII rifle and it is often quoted at 500m for a rifle that can also shoot over 2000m. What exactly does that mean and what does the lack of 'effective range' in RoF mean in regards to making a hit at unrealistic distances?

I would also like to note for those saying it does not happen, I don't doubt you. I have had 3 months out of RoF and just came back last week and would you know it, no incredible 400-600m shots on the Oceanic or Helliguen servers as I believe it is a honour thing but the quick battle server almost every one flying the DR1 is a sniper and thanks to the range indicator I can say I was getting shot at and hit at ranges of 700m.

The fact this is happening on the newbie server is of great concern as this is where most newbies start and probably end their online careers as even I could not bear to be there for long.
  • 0

Free Krusty & Wodewick!

 

Verified Gaming JerkGT  


#489 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 01 March 2012 - 23:20

the lack of bullet drop in RoF

There is bullet drop in ROF.
  • 0

#490 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 01 March 2012 - 23:35

I am not a ballistic expert and I hope someone here can add to this; but I read in general about the effective range of a WWII rifle and it is often quoted at 500m for a rifle that can also shoot over 2000m. What exactly does that mean and what does the lack of 'effective range' in RoF mean in regards to making a hit at unrealistic distances?


"Effective range" may have a different translation in America as opposed to UK/Europe.

In the British Army "Effective range" is not the distance at which a bullet can have an effect, but the distance at which the person pulling the trigger can be expected to have an effect (hit the target usually). For example the "effective range" of an SLR (FN FAL) used by British soldiers was 300 meters (prone supported) but the bullet was able to kill or wound out to a far greater distance, it's just that a soldier couldn't be expected to hit anything further away.
  • 0

#491 JimmyBlonde

JimmyBlonde
  • Posts: 2346

Posted 01 March 2012 - 23:36

I think the best thing we could do is to get rid of the balloons. That would mean less frustrated people and everyone would be a lot happier to shoot at only close range.

The reason we see so much gamey sniping now is purely because of balloon rage.
  • 0

#492 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 02 March 2012 - 06:56

:zzz:
  • 0

#493 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 02 March 2012 - 07:23

I think the best thing we could do is to get rid of the balloons. That would mean less frustrated people and everyone would be a lot happier to shoot at only close range.

The reason we see so much gamey sniping now is purely because of balloon rage.


I think you are mistaking balloon rage for hot air. :lol:
  • 0

#494 Charlie_14

Charlie_14
  • Posts: 550
  • LocationUSA

Posted 02 March 2012 - 16:24

I am not a ballistic expert and I hope someone here can add to this; but I read in general about the effective range of a WWII rifle and it is often quoted at 500m for a rifle that can also shoot over 2000m. What exactly does that mean and what does the lack of 'effective range' in RoF mean in regards to making a hit at unrealistic distances?


"Effective range" may have a different translation in America as opposed to UK/Europe.

In the British Army "Effective range" is not the distance at which a bullet can have an effect, but the distance at which the person pulling the trigger can be expected to have an effect (hit the target usually). For example the "effective range" of an SLR (FN FAL) used by British soldiers was 300 meters (prone supported) but the bullet was able to kill or wound out to a far greater distance, it's just that a soldier couldn't be expected to hit anything further away.

Really? Well you should send them over if that's the case, we can fix that…
  • 0

#495 Cobra6

Cobra6
  • Posts: 126

Posted 02 March 2012 - 17:17

Please don't get damage quotas into this game, if the pilot gets killed with a well aimed hit, or a random lucky hit it's both fine.

The dispersion of the shots also makes it hard to hit at ranges over ~0.5 in game, my bullets certainly get dispersed.

Cobra 6
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users