Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Another possible solution for unrealistic shooting ranges ?


  • Please log in to reply
494 replies to this topic

#41 Finkeren

Finkeren
  • Posts: 2475

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:13

I must be living in some kind of parallel dimension, because I see these threads pop up time and again, and I just can't relate it to anything I experience in RoF.

As long as we're ONLY talking about fixed guns (the flexible ones are a different matter) I've just never seen the "sniping" that people talk about. I myself have never been able to reliably hit moving target at distances exeeding 300m. When using collimator sight and with FOV zoomed in, I've often tried to take long distance shots at easy targets like big bombers from 500m, but the dispersion is such that it's more or less useless.

What I do see a lot of online is people employing the good old "spray and pray", which works rather well at distances between 200 - 600m, because of the rather high chance of getting that single hit that takes out your opponents engine or wounds him. The sniping I've never ever seen.

Give us realistic gun jams and reloading for the Lewis/Parabellum, and you'll remove most of the incentive to shoot at impropable ranges.
  • 0

#42 =CfC=FatherTed

=CfC=FatherTed
  • Posts: 993

Posted 21 February 2012 - 14:02

What I do see a lot of online is people employing the good old "spray and pray", which works rather well at distances between 200 - 600m, because of the rather high chance of getting that single hit that takes out your opponents engine or wounds him. The sniping I've never ever seen.

I know I feel that I've been sniped when hit from distance, but as you say it's probably a result of a hopeful shot. Also it's a subjective experience - it's only the round that hits that you notice, not the hundred that miss.

I guess most people have a beef with the AI doing it, but then I think writing code for semi-accurate shooting is a lot more difficult than for accurate, so it's not a simple problem
  • 0

#43 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6525
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 21 February 2012 - 14:13

I must be living in some kind of parallel dimension, because I see these threads pop up time and again, and I just can't relate it to anything I experience in RoF.

Same here. I can't reliably hit anything at that range, and no one is sniping me from that range.
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#44 Finkeren

Finkeren
  • Posts: 2475

Posted 21 February 2012 - 14:15

I guess most people have a beef with the AI doing it, but then I think writing code for semi-accurate shooting is a lot more difficult than for accurate, so it's not a simple problem

Simple dispersion is easy to model and even easier to scale up and down. The hard part is correctly modelling all the little things that make aerial gunnery so difficult. The shaking of the aircraft (and in return the shaking of the gunners head), the overall stability of the mounting of the guns, the difficulty of using iron sights (which is why collimator sights doesn't make half as much difference in RoF, as they do IRL) are all factors that have to be taken into account if you want realistic gunnery, and atm they're only partly covered in RoF.
  • 0

#45 =CfC=FatherTed

=CfC=FatherTed
  • Posts: 993

Posted 21 February 2012 - 22:32

I see what you mean about the dispersion. I also agree with what you put about the other factors.

What I was really getting at, though, is the difficulty in modelling the mistakes a human pilot may or not make in guesstimating deflection, bullet drop, wind shear and so on. And the fact that sometimes even the worst of us get it right and the best of us get it wrong.

It's all a bit academic anyway
  • 0

#46 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 22 February 2012 - 08:01

777 did not create the current gunnery snafu. It was neoqb, but we do know how they did it (because they told us). They took data from a WW2 small caliber machine gun (its dispersion pattern at range), said "wow, that looks like a frickn' laser beam," and guessed at a value for increasing its deviation for a WW1 scout.

As I recall, Han or Loft said that they took the dispersion pattern from a tripod-mounted Vickers and used that. Not exactly the same as an aircraft mounted one, but it's the best data we have, as far as I know.

As a real-life shooter (as well as someone who has flown real airplanes), I think that the major missing elements are the lack of static head shake and focusing on multiple objects. It isn't easy lining up three things when your eye can only focus on one of them at a time, but on a computer monitor, all three can be focused on at the same time.

But, as has been pointed out here already, this is a very old horse and all of it has been said before in many other threads.
  • 0

#47 Finkeren

Finkeren
  • Posts: 2475

Posted 22 February 2012 - 08:47

As a real-life shooter (as well as someone who has flown real airplanes), I think that the major missing elements are the lack of static head shake and focusing on multiple objects. It isn't easy lining up three things when your eye can only focus on one of them at a time, but on a computer monitor, all three can be focused on at the same time.

Bingo! That's exactly right. Now the focusing part we can't do anything about, at least until we get more complex 3D technology. But static head shaking and perhaps a larger degree of head movement during maneuvers would be the easiest thing to implement and would open up a lot of interesting new aspects to the game.

For one thing collimator sights would become highly valued, where they're now more a matter of personal preference. It is also likely that people would start employing different tactics to get better shooting positions rather than just firing at any given opportunity, since deflection shooting would become much harder. It's also possible, that people would start using different techniques to "work around" the new features, such as blipping the engine when taking long range shots to reduce vibration and in return static head shake.

All of this I think would largely eliminate the suppossed problem with snipers (which I don't experience myself, but hey) and it would add a whole new level to playing RoF with greater immersion, a more level playing field and some interesting creative work arounds (which won't bother me, even if they're not historically accurate :o ) All this would come at the price of a very minor addition to the game, and one that should be very easy implement, since we already have headshaking and G-effects.
  • 0

#48 BADMUTHA

BADMUTHA
  • Posts: 3535

Posted 22 February 2012 - 08:52

Even with ridiculous turbulence it's still easy to snipe in ROF. Why not experiment with some slightly bigger spread.
  • 0

#49 Finkeren

Finkeren
  • Posts: 2475

Posted 22 February 2012 - 08:59

Even with ridiculous turbulence it's still easy to snipe in ROF. Why not experiment with some slightly bigger spread.

Redpiano, would it be possible for you to post a video of you doing the sniping? I've honestly never seen it. All I have ever seen is people spraying a lot of lead out at long distances, hoping to score that one crucial hit, which they often do. This has nothing to do with sniping, and the pilots I see doing it usually have gunnery accuracy around 3 - 5%. Dispersion isn't really gonna help against these guys. If you pour enough lead in the general direction of an enemy you will invariably hit something at least half the time.

If real sniping is going on, I'd really like to see it in action.
  • 0

#50 BADMUTHA

BADMUTHA
  • Posts: 3535

Posted 22 February 2012 - 09:01

Yeah no problem, I'll make a track and post it shortly.
  • 0

#51 -bbob

-bbob
  • Posts: 1331

Posted 22 February 2012 - 09:53

777 did not create the current gunnery snafu. It was neoqb, but we do know how they did it (because they told us). They took data from a WW2 small caliber machine gun (its dispersion pattern at range), said "wow, that looks like a frickn' laser beam," and guessed at a value for increasing its deviation for a WW1 scout.

As I recall, Han or Loft said that they took the dispersion pattern from a tripod-mounted Vickers and used that. Not exactly the same as an aircraft mounted one, but it's the best data we have, as far as I know.

As a real-life shooter (as well as someone who has flown real airplanes), I think that the major missing elements are the lack of static head shake and focusing on multiple objects. It isn't easy lining up three things when your eye can only focus on one of them at a time, but on a computer monitor, all three can be focused on at the same time.

But, as has been pointed out here already, this is a very old horse and all of it has been said before in many other threads.

Absolutely agree, clod-esque headshake perhaps as a server option would make things very interesting. Although I also think that increased dispersion may also have a place in the discussion. To my mind, a gun mounted on top of an engine would probably be less precise than a terrestrial tripod. But again, that is of course only speculation.
  • 0

#52 BADMUTHA

BADMUTHA
  • Posts: 3535

Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:06

Download, unzip, put both files in your "tracks" folder located in /777/riseofflight/data/tracks, then load up your game and watch it.

It's pretty easy to get deflection kills with engine hits at 400m+ although I killed the pilot in this case shooting from 700-400m.

I think it happens most commonly in multiplayer when someone is trying to get away from a dogfight and the pursuer basically gets free reign to sit and shoot as the guy tries to get away which would put them in a situation like in that track. But I don't know, I don't play a ton of multiplayer but I get a lot of real easy kills in single player with very long range deflection shots. It's also super easy to damage an engine in ROF which just makes matters worse, I wish they'd maybe increase engine hit points a bit.
  • 0

#53 BADMUTHA

BADMUTHA
  • Posts: 3535

Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:07

Absolutely agree, clod-esque headshake perhaps as a server option would make things very interesting. Although I also think that increased dispersion may also have a place in the discussion. To my mind, a gun mounted on top of an engine would probably be less precise than a terrestrial tripod. But again, that is of course only speculation.

Are you talking about the way you sway around the cockpit in turns and such? I never noticed an actual headshake..
  • 0

#54 Sartori23

Sartori23
  • Posts: 8

Posted 22 February 2012 - 11:02

I think getting kills at distance has more to do with the amount of experience we get, rather than any unrealistic accuracy. If pilots in WWI could have spent the amount of time shooting at moving aircraft and racking up the hundreds of kills we all have, we would have records of kills at much greater distances.

Could you regularly hit a plane at 300 meters prior to the first time you were shot down? I know I couldn't have unless I got lucky.
  • 0

#55 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:24

What about after two years, 80 victories and well over a hundred combats?

They practiced shooting at moving targets and from moving targets, they spent a long time zeroing guns and practicing marksmanship including thousands of rounds fired from the air into targets to practice gunnery and test guns. They even trained with camera guns air-air.

And yet… Read my signature.

It's a fallacy and a cozy opinion to think that we can do it as we are more practised or understand gunnery better than they did - the reality is these fuselage mounted guns were not accurate enough after 100m to be effective.

Most pilots as they gained experience got closer, not further away and recommended 30-50m - this doesn't jive with the experience making you accurate argument does it?

Why if experience allowed you to hit from further would you consider long shooting an amateur mistake and preach 'Ever closer' as a litany like Degelow and others did?

Answer: Because these guns when mounted on an aeroplane fuselage couldn't hit the back-end of a barn at over 100m with any consistency whatsoever.
  • 0

#56 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 4710

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:43

My theory is that it's not so much the dispersion that is the problem, but the way the "hit boxes" are modeled and how it will affect the aircraft being hit.

Richthofen says you can't hit an aircraft from 300 m. What he means is you can't seriously hit an aircraft, ie damage it/ taking out of the fight. There are also numerous accounts of how pilots check their crates after a fight and they will always find a couple of bullet holes. I'm convinced that if you fire from 300 m with twin MG's some bullets may actually hit the aircraft. But what are the odds they will do actual damage? Very slim indeed.

It seems that in RoF, as soon as one of those bullets hit a fuel tank hit box or engine "hit box" this immediately results in some sort of damage (fuel leak, engine oil) and after some time result in a "kill" while in reality they may not have penetrated or bounced off or just didn't have enough energy to do much damage.

This is just speculation, I hope the devs could tell us how this works and if it may be improved.
  • 0

#57 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:45

Exactly TC. The "we're more experienced" argument is the opposite of what actually happened. The most experienced pilots fired from the shortest distances, even those who grew up shooting rifles and who were terrific shots.

————

Vander, the big mystery to me is why I can't kill a gunner from 50m through the fuselage, but, as you say, I can readily explode a fuel tank from 300! :lol:
  • 0

#58 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:46

- theirs might not have, but my shooting in ROF certainly does get more accurate with experience
- I also consider 300m to be a bad distance to open fire at in ROF because the chance of landing a hit is just too small for it to be worth it, and then the chance for the few hits you land to do critical damage is even smaller.
- I don't think it's realistic to put the difference between ROF and WWI entirely down to a difference in bullet dispersion, and I'm very much against overcomensating something (making something unrealistic on purpose) just to get a so-called more realistic result, especially when you don't actually know for surewhat this result should be and you can't measure it either.
- the way this argument is being fought by supporters of either side makes me reluctant to agree with anyone involved, it seems to have become an argument between extremists who are less and less wiling to listen to eachother and to reasonable arguments simply because disagreeing with eachother has become a purpose in itself and some of you seem too far in to agree with something the other says even if they know it's true.
  • 0

#59 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1508

Posted 22 February 2012 - 13:52

Hello,

Richthofen says you can't hit an aircraft from 300 m.
Right, he was one of the best marksmen in WW1. He regularly trained with his colleagues to shoot at targets, and he was the only one who had a hit accuracy of 95 put of 100 shots. Not one came near - best was 70, rest was around 40 to 50, if at all
What he means is you can't seriously hit an aircraft, ie damage it/ taking out of the fight.
Stop interpreting - he meant exactly that. From Jentsch, Fieseler, Udet and v.Richthofen you did not hit a plane at more than 300 meters. Not at all.

There are also numerous accounts of how pilots check their crates after a fight and they will always find a couple of bullet holes.
Yes, there are accounts from "lesser" pilots finding bullet holes. If any of his Jasta came back with bullet holes, he was in for treat by MvR, personally.
As well Fieseler wrote he had not one bullet hole in his plane, and if he had he had made a big mistake, letting the enemy come too near.

I'm convinced that if you fire from 300 m with twin MG's some bullets may actually hit the aircraft. But what are the odds they will do actual damage? Very slim indeed.
I am not convinced. Jentsch writes that the plane (Alb. D.III or D.V, not clear in the book) vibrated so badly that you would not hit a barn door at more than 200 meters. Which is why he liked the (captured) SPAD VII, its V-engine vibrated much less and made deadly aiming possible even in a fast dive. Fonck used this to make his kills, as did Guynemer.

It seems that in RoF, as soon as one of those bullets hit a fuel tank hit box or engine "hit box" this immediately results in some sort of damage (fuel leak, engine oil) and after some time result in a "kill" while in reality they may not have penetrated or bounced off or just didn't have enough energy to do much damage.
I agree -
1. the impact at a longer distance is too hefty, in RoF.
2. the guns do not spray enough/or the plane does not vibrate enough to let the bullets spray more - this is what i read from the scrapping reports in all of those books
3. The trajectory of the bullets is much too straight - while they do indeed "fall" vertically, it seems they do not do that when you fly side-slipping. Her they should fly in a horizontal curve, being slowed by the wind and therefore flying anything else than straight.
Imho the guns are much too laser-like here.

Greetings,
Wels/Catfish
  • 0

#60 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6525
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 22 February 2012 - 14:09

Stop interpreting - he meant exactly that. From Jentsch, Fieseler, Udet and v.Richthofen you did not hit a plane at more than 300 meters. Not at all.

What is the range of these weapons? I'm pretty sure it is greater than 300m. Therefor, with 100% certainty, if you fire enough bullets you will get hits at over 300m.
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#61 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6525
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 22 February 2012 - 14:12

We don't even know if "sniping" is common right now. I would like to see 777 add "distance" to the hit statistics. It would give us some stats to see how often sniping occurs, and it would be a pretty cool thing to know.
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#62 Aiobhill

Aiobhill
  • Posts: 60

Posted 22 February 2012 - 14:29

I'm not even convinced that this sniping problem is as big as people make it out to be.


For me it is. Surprise hmm.

Supersimple solution: give me an AI option "gunners will not fire if more than 150 meters from target" that I can check and be happy, and you people can gank each other in multiplayer when your crates are 2 pixels high and 3 pixels wide. :roll:
  • 0

#63 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 4710

Posted 22 February 2012 - 14:45

What he means is you can't seriously hit an aircraft, ie damage it/ taking out of the fight.
Stop interpreting - he meant exactly that. From Jentsch, Fieseler, Udet and v.Richthofen you did not hit a plane at more than 300 meters. Not at all.

Why are you so sure of this? Did you ever fire a machine gun in real life? I did when I was in the army. 300 m is not very far away for a machine gun. Now double the amount of bullets by two. I just don't buy it that no bullets will hit at all, I just can't believe it.

I totally agree with the aces that 300m is not a distance you will secure accurate hits and thus no "kill", specially from a vibrating aircraft as you say.

It will be interesting to see what others think with more real life MG experience than I have…
  • 0

#64 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 22 February 2012 - 14:52

I have never fired a machine gun, but I agree with you Vander, with one caveat: the probability of taking a serious hit from someone at 300m was so low that experienced pilots did not fear someone shooting at them from that distance in level flight!
  • 0

#65 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 4710

Posted 22 February 2012 - 15:02

I have never fired a machine gun, but I agree with you Vander, with one caveat: the probability of taking a serious hit from someone at 300m was so low that experienced pilots did not fear someone shooting at them from that distance in level flight!

Ay, I'm totally familiar with MvR's thoughts on this… until some Fe2b gunner put a bullet through his head, almost killing him!
My view on this: Those pilots felt pretty confident because the risk of getting killed by a bullet from 300 m was probably lower than the risk of shedding a wing! but it was still a risk.
Now a thought experiment: mount two MG's on a vibrating chassis, position yourself 300 m in front of it and ask a friend to pull the trigger for 2 seconds. Would you dare? I for sure, would not! ;)
  • 0

#66 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 22 February 2012 - 15:10

Richthofen wasn't shot from anywhere close to 300m.

They started a head on pass at about that range closing at 80-90m/s (just over a 3 second firing window) he was 75-50m away and under control when the Fee gunner reported seeing bullets 'splashing around' Richthofen's guns.

It's a fallacy that he was hit at long range within the first second of the merge. It isnt even known if he was hit by the Fee at all it could have been a triplane of 10 Naval, friendly fire or a different Fee.
  • 0

#67 Finkeren

Finkeren
  • Posts: 2475

Posted 22 February 2012 - 15:21

I've said it before, but here goes again:

Why are people always talking ballistics and dispersion, like that is the only factor influencing gunnery accuracy?

Isn't it possible that the reason for the short ranges pilots fired at historically had to do with the difficulties involved in actually aiming the guns rather than the accuracy of the guns themselves?

In RoF we enjoy the ability to maneuver our planes with pin-point precision, and we don't have to concentrate on lining up the iron sights, because we have snap views that does it all for us. I've never flown a WW1-era plane or anything close to it IRL, but I'll bet a Channel Map upgrade that it's not possible to aim the entire aircraft with such precision as we can do, we're talking in the area of 1/100 degree precision here, and much less keep it completely steady in one position while firing.

Even with the greatest dispersion it's always possible to "spray-and-pray" at long distances and still have a reasonable chance of hitting something, as long as you are able to keep your sights square on the target. If, on the other hand, you have relatively little dispersion, but the plane is so shaky and your controls so imprecise that your aim is bobbing all over the place, then you could easily epty the entire ammo belt and never come even close to hitting anything.

With all this pedantic discussion about dispersion, it's amazing that noone seems to be adressing the obvious question if it isn't our ability to aim that's too accurate.
  • 0

#68 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6525
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 22 February 2012 - 15:28

Finkeren crushes it.
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#69 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 22 February 2012 - 15:35

Finkeren, we focus on dispersion and vibrations because that's what the pilots said made their aim so lousy. It's a pretty straightforward idea.
  • 0

#70 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6525
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 22 February 2012 - 15:42

Finkeren, we focus on dispersion and vibrations because that's what the pilots said made their aim so lousy. It's a pretty straightforward idea.

At the same time you are completely ignoring the things that make our aim so good. You need to consider both.
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#71 Finkeren

Finkeren
  • Posts: 2475

Posted 22 February 2012 - 15:58

Finkeren, we focus on dispersion and vibrations because that's what the pilots said made their aim so lousy. It's a pretty straightforward idea.

Most quotes I've read talks about it general terms that makes it very hard (at least for me) to determine, if they're talkingabout ballistic dispersion or general difficulty of aiming. I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong, but I really have trouble believing that a WW1 crate can be piloted with the same precision we can achieve in RoF, and that thiswouldn't havemuch greater impact on accuracy than dispersion.

I'd really like the oppinion of someone who's actually flown an old wood-and-canvas plane, cause I'm not at all sure about this. It's possible that the controls are just as precise IRL as they are in RoF. Historical accounts that are open to interpretation aren't guaranteed to sway me though.
  • 0

#72 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 22 February 2012 - 16:13

I've not heard of any difficulty in aiming as opposed to hitting.

My only biplane experience is in a Tiger Moth technology from 20 years later and built as a stable, safe basic trainer. Hard turns and rolls push your head onto your shoulders. According to the Shuttleworth report posted a month or so ago by piecost [?] the SE5a is very similar to fly and in handling.

IMHO from the Moth it would be easy enough to use an Aldis not sure about iron sights though that would be trickier.
  • 0

#73 Finkeren

Finkeren
  • Posts: 2475

Posted 22 February 2012 - 16:54

What is your oppinion TC, would it be possible in a Tiger Moth to make extremely fine adjustments in the order of 1/10 or 1/100 of a degree? And would it be possible to keep the aim steady within the same range?
  • 0

#74 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 22 February 2012 - 17:04

No real aircraft are somewhat twitchy and bumpy even on calm days to a surprising extent you can fly smoothly but not to
minute levels of course and stability.

Incidentally the vibration even from a gypsy major at decent throttle is enough at times to make you move involuntarily on the rudder or controls in small increments enough to spoil 'pixel perfect' aiming but not to visibly see the control surfaces move.

That said the rudder on a tiger moth is both firmer and less authoritative than in ROF as in all planes since WWI and up to the present day the focus on the importance of the rudder has decreased - it is an essential but certainly secondary control surface nowadays (and even by the 30s) it was primary and essential in WWI.
  • 0

#75 JiltedJock

JiltedJock
  • Posts: 79

Posted 22 February 2012 - 17:14

I have a Triumph TR4 with a rod linkage throttle control (ie as opposed to cable). Over anything other than perfectly smooth surfaces, it is difficult to maintain exactly the same throttle opening as with each bump and bounce your foot unintentionally makes adjustments to the pedal.

I would imagine that there would be circumstances where the same would be true of aircraft controls in this period. Not just the obvious like turbulence, but the affect of vibration on the rudder bar for example, which might make micro adjustments in aim difficult.
  • 0

#76 Finkeren

Finkeren
  • Posts: 2475

Posted 22 February 2012 - 17:33

No real aircraft are somewhat twitchy and bumpy even on calm days to a surprising extent you can fly smoothly but not to
minute levels of course and stability.

Incidentally the vibration even from a gypsy major at decent throttle is enough at times to make you move involuntarily on the rudder or controls in small increments enough to spoil 'pixel perfect' aiming but not to visibly see the control surfaces move.

That said the rudder on a tiger moth is both firmer and less authoritative than in ROF as in all planes since WWI and up to the present day the focus on the importance of the rudder has decreased - it is an essential but certainly secondary control surface nowadays (and even by the 30s) it was primary and essential in WWI.

Thx for the insight. Your statements actually bolsters my belief that the precision of controls we have in RoF is simply not possible IRL. The effects you describe would seem to be much more of a hinderance to accuracy than ballistic dispersion. And as you say: Your experience comes from a more modern design built for stability and smooth controls.
  • 0

#77 Gunsmith86

Gunsmith86
  • Posts: 842

Posted 22 February 2012 - 17:46

should be no problem with Aldis and distance up to 200m
But on a long distance of 300m with your eye 30cm from the aim piont a move from your head of only 5mm means 5.00m (8.30m) movement on the target at 300m (500m) and all that just from the way you look through your side!!!
A small move of the head from the pilot while aiming on a target more than 300m make a big difference.
  • 0

#78 Finkeren

Finkeren
  • Posts: 2475

Posted 22 February 2012 - 18:49

should be no problem with Aldis and distance up to 200m
But on a long distance of 300m with your eye 30cm from the aim piont a move from your head of only 5mm means 5.00m (8.30m) movement on the target at 300m (500m) and all that just from the way you look through your side!!!
A small move of the head from the pilot while aiming on a target more than 300m make a big difference.

And not only that. A miniscule change in heading or attitude of the aircraft will have greater impact with distance.
  • 0

#79 Gunsmith86

Gunsmith86
  • Posts: 842

Posted 22 February 2012 - 19:03

Would be best to integrate head movement for pilot and gunners while aiming and after that lets see how things have changed and if there is more to do or not.
:S!:
  • 0

#80 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 22 February 2012 - 19:52

I believe the solution might simply be increasing the aircrafts resistance to hits abit, and esp. the engine which seems abit too sensitive to hits atm.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users