Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Another possible solution for unrealistic shooting ranges ?


  • Please log in to reply
494 replies to this topic

#81 BADMUTHA

BADMUTHA
  • Posts: 3535

Posted 22 February 2012 - 20:47

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.

I'll record a track with my view off center, using 1:1 setting in Track IR and turbulence set high, it doesn't change how incredibly accurate the guns are but if you need proof I'll make it.

But regardless I do agree with Vander that the hit boxes are just too weak and general and it allows damage to be done at long ranges easily.
  • 0

#82 BADMUTHA

BADMUTHA
  • Posts: 3535

Posted 22 February 2012 - 21:12

Another track, N17(super unstable)+2ms turbulence, +2ms wind and 1:1 settings in track ir.

Of course I wasn't hung over nor did I have wind blasting in my face but why dwell on things we can't simulate.

I say increase dispersion a little and then work on the hitboxes, make the engine more durable.
  • 0

#83 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1508

Posted 22 February 2012 - 21:22

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…

I am so sure of this because i have shot with MGs, and to directly tell you how i did it:
Lying on the ground, MG in a tripod, shoulder pressed firmly against the rear. You cannot even shoot at a certain target this way, it will wander away from the point you shot at in the first burst. You have to constantly counter the movement.
And this is for a fixed MG, on the ground, stabilized. You cannot sharp-shoot something at 300 or 400 meters that way, you can spray and kill all that is there, sweeping, but definitely not aimed.

Give me a "normal" rifle like a G3 i can shoot something at 400 to maybe (!) 700 meters with a special telescope on a well shot-in barrel in perfect condition, one aimed shot if i am lucky. Also firmly to the ground etc. while exhaling, between two heartbeats, dead calm.
But getting this lucky shot you do not make speed through the air at say 100 mph, slipping sideways, in a bouncing plane, trying to keep the whole bouncing 600 kg plane straight, instead of a 10 kg rifle on firm ground.

Now imagine 300 meter (roughly 900 ft) distance (stand on a street and look what 300 meters are really do it, it is FAR), and imagine yourself in a light kite of plywood and linen, being bounced around by wind and engine vibrations, going at 100 miles or faster, and try to keep the whole crate (not only an MG fixed to the ground) in a fixed direction over a few seconds (!)

I say Fieseler, Jentsch and Richthofen knew what they talked about. It is not even spraying roughly in one direction, it is virtually all over the sky.

Gretings,
Wels/Catfish
  • 0

#84 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 22 February 2012 - 21:26

I think the "Icy wind and all that" had a great effect on these guys, and let's not forget the "Is there some other bugger on my tail?" effect either.

We have the ability (because our lives are not on the line) of taking our time to set up an aimed shot.

That's part of the problem. Even if the MG dispersion is exactly what it was in the period we are looking at, our experiences when using these simulated guns are nowhere near what the real guys experiences were.

It does not matter to us if we take 5, 10, or even 30 seconds to line up an opponent for a long shot, we are not under extreme stress and in an alien situation (we are in our living rooms or our games rooms), we are not experiencing ANY g effects from manouvreing and we are not overly worried about some other guy trying to kill us 'cos we can simply respawn should the worst happen.
  • 0

#85 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1508

Posted 22 February 2012 - 21:34

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.

Hehe, this was exactly my problem in a TR4, and a TR Spitfire MkIII. Any little hole would make the foot bump at the throttle, it was impossible to drive slowly and controlled, on a bad street. I built in a stronger spring to steady the linkage system, but it even made it worse (elastic) … and the SU carburettors are very unforgiving, being treated that way (hiss, hiss) lol
:S!:
  • 0

#86 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 4710

Posted 22 February 2012 - 21:44

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…

I am so sure of this because i have shot with MGs, and to dirctly tell you how i did it:
Lying on the ground, MG in a tripod, shoulder pressed firmly against the rear. You cannot even shoot at a certain target this way, it will wander away from the point you shot at. You have to conatantly counter the movement.
And this is for a fixed MG, on the ground, stabilized. You cannot sharp-shoot something at 300 or 400 meters that way, you can spray and kill all that is there sweeping, but definitely not aimed.

Give me a normal rifle like a G3 i can shoot something at 400 to maybe (!) 700 meters with special telescope, one aimed shot, if i am lucky. Also firmly to the groud etc., while exhaling, between two heartbeats. But not in abouncing plane.

Now imagine 300 meter (roughly 900 ft) distance (stand on a street and look what 300 meters are), and imagine yourself in a light kite of plywood and linen, being bounced around by wind and engine vibrations.

I say Fieseler, Jentsch and Richthofen knew what they talked about. It is not even spraying roughly in one direction, it is virtually all over the sky.

Gretings,
Wels/Catfish

Indeed, that's why you need to fire very short bursts: you can't keep the gun steady when firing automatic. It's possibly a good argument why rear gunners accuracy is off in RoF . But if my memory serves me right it was not that hard to hit a man size target at the 200 m range with the FN MAG ( lying on the ground) so I'm still not convinced that you will totally miss ( no hits at all!) anywhere on a 30 ft aircraft at 300 m. All I'm trying to say is: what if RoF exagerates these sporadic hits?

And I will not argue with von Richthofen or other real experts, no argument there.

Hope the devs can shed some more light on how the damage models work or we will keep speculating forever…
  • 0

#87 Sartori23

Sartori23
  • Posts: 8

Posted 23 February 2012 - 00:07

I shoot a lot, 5000-10000 rounds a year. I handload my own ammunition. I've fired a couple thousand rounds through M-60s and M-249s. With an M-249 on a bipod I was easily shooting sub 2" groups at 100 yds. Hell, I can keep 80% or more of my rounds on a 20 inch square target at 200 yds. shooting my 4 and 5/8 inch barreled Super Blackhawk offhand.

But, that's just anecdotal evidence like everything said so far.

Here is a video of a fellow shooting a Vickers at a small target at about 200yds.


Nearly every round is on target. Even with excessive vibration a good portion of those rounds would hit a plane sized target at 300 meters.
  • 0

#88 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 23 February 2012 - 00:12

Another slight variation, how about just beefing up the critical areas rather than all of the hit boxes as distance increases.

I know this topic has been discussed before, mainly about dispersion, but I'm really surprised that this area of a combat flight sim doesn't get more attention, after all it is probably the second most important component after the FM.

For anyone who hasn't tried to hit a target at 300 yrds, trust me as someone who has spent time shooting military weapons on a military shooting range (Bloomin respirators), it's not simply just a question of aiming your weapon and pulling the trigger, a human sized target is about the same size as the central post on the foresight of a rifle, it preferably requires support, correct breathing, good technique and as few, if any, complicating factors. Try shooting, even with a machine gun, at a target 300 yrd's away, after taking some strenuous exercise and see what a little bit of mental distraction and bodily stress can do to your aim, it ain't pretty.

I can well believe the Red Baron's adage about even the best marksman being helpless at 300 meters when you take all the complicating factors involved in aerial gunnery into account, not to mention that your target has moved several feet from the time you depress the trigger to the time you release it. All the received wisdom from pilot accounts, not just from WW1 but also the WW2, indicate getting to a point that most sane people would consider suicidally close before firing your guns.

It is my belief that gunnery is just as important as Fm's, possibly more so, as what is and what is not possible has a profound effect on all other aspects of a combat flight sim. You can have the fastest plane in WW1 but the one thing that is guaranteed is that it can't fly faster than the bullets that are sent after it.

To a certain degree the methods that are imposed to engineer a realistic outcome that marries up the simulator experience to pilots accounts from the period are immaterial as long as they don't have any unintended consequences (I just wonder if increasing dispersion might do this which is maybe why the developers aren't very keen). Until near perfect FM's are developed with near perfect damage modeling then every aspect of a sim has to be tested and balanced until a level is found that most resembles, as far as we can ascertain, what it was like to fly and fight in those less than perfect aerial machines of nearly 100 years ago.

Personally I think we should take the Red baron's quote as a yardstick by which to measure the flight sims performance, even if it is only for a short test period to see what effect changes to shooting effectiveness might have.

As with the point from the original post I think that this method might prove as effective as any other in encouraging but not necessarily totally eliminating the need to get in close to shoot down an opponent.

Obviously it's not in our interest to make gunnery so difficult that it puts masses of people off as it's just to hard, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't endeavor to try and nudge people in the direction of realistic expectations of what was actually possible, as far as we can tell from actual pilots accounts.

So to sum up, increasing the number of hits required to do critical damage as distance increases (Hey it's not perfect, but then neither are hit boxes, however small) and we should, if nothing else, because it appears to be backed up by other Ace pilots accounts from the period, use MvR's adage about maximum effective combat ranges as a yardstick by which to measure what should be the norm for RoF.
  • 0

#89 Gambit21

Gambit21
  • Posts: 486

Posted 23 February 2012 - 00:43

I shoot a lot, 5000-10000 rounds a year. I handload my own ammunition. I've fired a couple thousand rounds through M-60s and M-249s. With an M-249 on a bipod I was easily shooting sub 2" groups at 100 yds. Hell, I can keep 80% or more of my rounds on a 20 inch square target at 200 yds. shooting my 4 and 5/8 inch barreled Super Blackhawk offhand.

But, that's just anecdotal evidence like everything said so far.

Here is a video of a fellow shooting a Vickers at a small target at about 200yds.


Nearly every round is on target. Even with excessive vibration a good portion of those rounds would hit a plane sized target at 300 meters.

Great, now mount it on an light, primitive airplane getting kicked around by turbulence and add deflection to the mix as well as the other factors discussed so far. :|
  • 0

#90 EclecticRazor

EclecticRazor
  • Posts: 631

Posted 23 February 2012 - 03:55

A simple solution might be the inability to fire the gun when zoomed in. The view for being zoomed in is absurdly close to the sight, as if laying on your belly on top of the machine guns with your nose pressed to the sight.

I know the actual argument for zoom - proper resolution in reality, etc. It may still be the easiest solution. My bet would be that those sniper shots are most often the result of zooming-in to acquire a much larger target and simplify an accurate burst.

Try it in quickmission both ways and you'll see the point I am making.
  • 0

#91 BADMUTHA

BADMUTHA
  • Posts: 3535

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:13

Easiest solution is to change a line of text that alters the dispersion.
  • 0

#92 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 23 February 2012 - 07:19

Easiest solution is to change a line of text that alters the dispersion.

You might well be right, but the developers haven't shown any interest and because we don't know exactly how the game is set up, we don't know if this may simply have the perverse effect of a shot gun without the down side of the the limited range and power of a shot gun. That is of course unless the developers choose to respond, after all it has been discussed several times, you would have hoped the developers might have noticed and taken note.

Sartori23, I don't doubt what is possible and just how effective these guns can be, however we have a quote from the foremost WW1 Ace that says that despite that, effective ranges in air combat were actually very limited. I suppose if you set up your range to have the target moving slightly , your sights several inches from your eye and your cheek not firmly clamped to the butt of the gun and the only way to aim the gun is to use your arms and legs, in combination, and every movement of one control likely to have an complicating effect on the other controls. Dispersion may be the answer to the problem, if not the root cause.
  • 0

#93 BADMUTHA

BADMUTHA
  • Posts: 3535

Posted 23 February 2012 - 07:32

One of the team members has posted in a previous thread asking for more information or something.
  • 0

#94 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 23 February 2012 - 08:01

A simple solution might be the inability to fire the gun when zoomed in. The view for being zoomed in is absurdly close to the sight, as if laying on your belly on top of the machine guns with your nose pressed to the sight.

I know the actual argument for zoom - proper resolution in reality, etc. It may still be the easiest solution. My bet would be that those sniper shots are most often the result of zooming-in to acquire a much larger target and simplify an accurate burst.

This proposal–all other objections to it aside–would handicap people with smaller monitors more than those with larger ones. On my old monitor, at the distance I sat from it (roughly two feet), 90% zoom gave the real-life image size on the monitor. Forcing 50% zoom while shooting would mean giving people with a 17" monitor several major unrealistic handicaps: a much smaller image size than reality, and a much smaller image size than people with a 21" monitor would have at the same distance.

Even tossing aside from my other points on the subject (some of which Jorri expounded on), it's important to understand all of the effects of requested changes. If people don't realize that Proposal X would result in some players being given an (unrealistic) advantage over others, then they might be inclined to push for it, and its possible that they might eventually get it–and then regret it as they discover that the realism problem has been made worse, not better–ruining it for everyone (except for those who do not care about realism in their flying games).
  • 0

#95 startrekmike

startrekmike
  • Posts: 526

Posted 23 February 2012 - 10:02

As a person who uses a 17" monitor, I would really like to not be handicapped any more than my poor gunnery skills cause me to be already.

I know realism is a big issue and I agree that sniper shots are not realistic, but I think this is something that needs to be solved in another way, restricting zoom will only hurt players who are used to it and that will probably thin the community a bit.

Don't really know enough about WWI era machine guns and the accuracy rate that even the best pilots had, but I imagine that the gun was pretty accurate, as accurate as the pilot and aircraft would allow. I believe that a solution to this problem may not increase realism because as I said in a earlier post, this is not a problem with the flight models as much as the nature of flight simulation Vs. reality.

For the record, I have never felt like I was sniped, I expect that bullets will hit me or the plane when enough are fired at me from long range, I don't really sweat it too much.
  • 0

#96 1PL-Sander-1Esk

1PL-Sander-1Esk
  • Posts: 94

Posted 23 February 2012 - 10:49

Making something less realistic to achieve a more realistic result somewhere else is arguable unless you know that what you have got now IS realistic.

I do not know if dispersion in RoF is right or wrong but something is definitely off there… To the point that one actually should not shoot at distances closer than 50 meters. For some reason shooting at very close distances (those advised by WWI pilots) won't do you any good. You will usually spend much more rounds just to make it trail something while from a distance of 100-200 meters a short burst would often cause a fire, explosion or pilot kill. One more thing if you happen to explode somebody at a distance of less than 100 meters then you are most likely scr..ed - damaged or killed by debris.

I don't think it's a packet loss 'cause it does happen in single player as well and generally on the regular basis. Packet loss might be a factor but that's not the explanation imho. What is the reason for that? My guess would be that it might be due to dispersion value. At very close range (10-40 meters) there is actually hardly any dispersion hence one has to aim very precisely to hit a critical part. Otherwise one is just drilling holes in non-important parts of a plane.

On the other hand at let's say 200 meters one doesn't have to aim that carefully and just point at the general direction of a target and at that distance the area covered by bullets is big enough for them to repeatedly hit one or more critical parts.

In other words we might miss a shotgun effect at very short ranges which would make shooting at that distances devastating and hence rewarding. But possibly due to the present dispersion value we have the deadliest bullet scatter level at medium distances which makes 100-200 meters the most effective range to shoot at. And beyond that distance the bullets scatter is still low enough to cause critical damage to a target.

For planes that wobble in turbulence like Spad7/13, Nieuport 17, Alb3 it is somewhat harder but in some planes that seem more immune to turbulence like D.VII or Alb5 it is (with some practice) very easy to effectively hit at distances beyond 300 meters.
  • 0

#97 Fenrir

Fenrir
  • Posts: 38

Posted 23 February 2012 - 11:13

I still don't see why anyone won't consider the Cliffs of Dover way of doing it. Just make the head lag on turns which will mis-align the sights and make it more guesswork rather than using sights.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=lATCBPgfhNE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">
  • 0

#98 =CfC=FatherTed

=CfC=FatherTed
  • Posts: 993

Posted 23 February 2012 - 11:26

I think we're effectively having two different discussions here. One is about the accuracy of the gun, ie how small a grouping will it produce when sighted correctly and fixed. The second argument is about how accurate a shot is the pilot. This means how good is his knowledge of deflection, bullet-drop and so on, but also (especially in game terms) how good is his hand-eye coordination - pressing the trigger when he sees the target in the right, as he judges it, place?

Personally, I think (subjective, I know, but others have posted real-world experience) that the guns were pretty accurate. Remember that they were fixed to something heavier than a man (not talking observers' weapons here) so recoil would not be much of an issue. So the accuracy comes down to the pilot.

I think it's possible that the Devs have done a good job on the ballistics (maybe why they won't entertain the idea of changing) but that it's easier for some of us (not me!) to hit distant targets than we think is "realistic" because of the absence of real world factors as outlined by several previous posters.

Having said that, I don't think this is something we'll ever get to the bottom of. I say this because we can never have definitive data about what constitutes "realistic" and "unrealistic" shooting ranges in terms of what actually happened in WW1.

They didn't have a way to measure the ranges at which combat took place and they didn't have a way to record hit percentages.

In the end, I think I'm in accord with startrekmike - don't make it any harder!
  • 0

#99 ZaltysZ

ZaltysZ
  • Posts: 1638

Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:20

I still don't see why anyone won't consider the Cliffs of Dover way of doing it. Just make the head lag on turns which will mis-align the sights and make it more guesswork rather than using sights.

Because 90% of sniping cases happen when shooter is in stable (not pulling Gs) flight. If you further break those 90% cases, you will see that over half of them happens when target is in stable flight too and even in line with shooter. :mrgreen:
  • 0

#100 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1508

Posted 23 February 2012 - 13:18

Here is a video of a fellow shooting a Vickers at a small target at about 200yds.
[…]
Nearly every round is on target. Even with excessive vibration a good portion of those rounds would hit a plane sized target at 300 meters.

Well i shot with the "MG1", which is a redesignated MG42, and you CAN hit something, but this is WW2 technlogy.

Now regarding the video and your 200 yards, let's see:

200 yd = 182.88 m.
200 meters = 218 yards.
300 meters = 328 yards.

So in this video with an MG placed on terra firma with 200 yards away from the target (= 182 meters) you are well within the 300 meters margin all those pilots mention.
And on firm ground, without making 100 mph through the air etc..
How would that be on more than 328 yards, in the air ? I don't know ..

Anyway how much bullets do the RoF MGs fire, per minute ? (Data for RoF were derived from the pre RoF former team, using data of a WW2 MG i heard ?)

As well what is most annoying, is the ability to zoom in on your target, which is nonsense.
Take this away and most things will sort out.
I repeat that once more, the visual zoom-in in RoF is unrealistic and makes sniping possible in a complete overdone fashion.

And take away any fixed view. Make it harder so you WILL have to be close, to hit anything.

Greetings,
Wels/Catfish
  • 0

#101 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 23 February 2012 - 13:32

What's more unrealistic in ROf, the ability to zoom in or the ability to zoom out? ;)
  • 0

#102 Dughor

Dughor
  • Posts: 85

Posted 23 February 2012 - 13:37

The ability to look at 180 deg behind you? (Must have a rubber neck then)

I don't think the weapon behavior is far off. The main problem we have is our "bolted to the sight" view. - As already mentioned and repeated over and over again.
  • 0

#103 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1508

Posted 23 February 2012 - 13:40

What's more unrealistic in ROf, the ability to zoom in or the ability to zoom out? ;)

Both.
And the 180-view is equally nonsense, at least when you are strapped to the seat - not all pilots did that.

I say move full out, then advanc the position in the cockpit (still zoomed out) going forth a tiny bit (!) so you cannot see your own seat, close to the instruments. And then lock this view. No zoom in and out.

And then take away fixed view through crosshairs .. :D
  • 0

#104 GrassGuy

GrassGuy
  • Posts: 193

Posted 23 February 2012 - 13:45

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!

Ya well that is kind of a silly statement in part anyway. I think you might start by telling that to Richthofen, possibly he was not so worried on April 21st of 1918. It is an even bet that the shot that hit him was every bit of 200m and possibly more. I am pretty sure that dozons (if not a few hundred) airmen where killed with "strays' and "lucky shots" fired from other aircraft from great distance. If you figure in ground fire I bet the 300M "lucky shot" percentage is even higher. The gunnery FM debate that rages here is ALWAYS grounded on conjecture and speculation.Truth be told, none of you guys have any real proof to back up all this stuff. What kills me is the fact that the gunnery FM is way better then most any sim out there in a side by side comparison. I have fooled around with IL II a bit and that is way easy compared to this. The other thing that NOBODY takes into account here is the fact that no matter how it is this is tweaked it will always be "off" because of ping. It's a game guys, not prefect, but good. These debate's rage, thread after thread after thread….and in the end we all go in and play and live with what we have. In closing there a great deal of things on most people's wish lists in the pipe for a fix before all this BS.
  • 0

#105 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 23 February 2012 - 14:44

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!

Ya well that is kind of a silly statement in part anyway. I think you might start by telling that to Richthofen, possibly he was not so worried on April 21st of 1918. It is an even bet that the shot that hit him was every bit of 200m and possibly more. I am pretty sure that dozons (if not a few hundred) airmen where killed with "strays' and "lucky shots" fired from other aircraft from great distance. If you figure in ground fire I bet the 300M "lucky shot" percentage is even higher. The gunnery FM debate that rages here is ALWAYS grounded on conjecture and speculation.Truth be told, none of you guys have any real proof to back up all this stuff. What kills me is the fact that the gunnery FM is way better then most any sim out there in a side by side comparison. I have fooled around with IL II a bit and that is way easy compared to this. The other thing that NOBODY takes into account here is the fact that no matter how it is this is tweaked it will always be "off" because of ping. It's a game guys, not prefect, but good. These debate's rage, thread after thread after thread….and in the end we all go in and play and live with what we have. In closing there a great deal of things on most people's wish lists in the pipe for a fix before all this BS.

:zzz:

The threads aren't going to cease until something is done. It's pretty simple. :roll:

  • 0

#106 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 23 February 2012 - 14:58

It's a game guys, not prefect, but good. These debate's rage, thread after thread after thread….and in the end we all go in and play and live with what we have. In closing there a great deal of things on most people's wish lists in the pipe for a fix before all this BS.
The debate is legit, Schaefer. Just because you don't see it as a priority doesn't mean it should not be discussed. Despite how good the game presently is, it is entirely valid to look for ways to make it better, where possible. Clearly, there is a lot of interest in this topic as it comes up over and over again.
  • 0

#107 Gambit21

Gambit21
  • Posts: 486

Posted 23 February 2012 - 17:02

The ability to look at 180 deg behind you? (Must have a rubber neck then)

Turn around in your seat right now and let me know if you can see what is 180 degrees from your computer monitor - then report back.
  • 0

#108 GrassGuy

GrassGuy
  • Posts: 193

Posted 23 February 2012 - 17:32

It's a game guys, not prefect, but good. These debate's rage, thread after thread after thread….and in the end we all go in and play and live with what we have. In closing there a great deal of things on most people's wish lists in the pipe for a fix before all this BS.
The debate is legit, Schaefer. Just because you don't see it as a priority doesn't mean it should not be discussed. Despite how good the game presently is, it is entirely valid to look for ways to make it better, where possible. Clearly, there is a lot of interest in this topic as it comes up over and over again.

"thrice to slay the slain"……Maybe when all of the ballistic experts resolve this, they could give the US State Department a call and get them to start a forum on the magic bullet in the Kennedy assassination, very entertaining stuff.

I am nearly positive that the developer's are really tired of having endure this over and over again…….If it makes you all happy to continue to regurgitate the same old same old on thread after thread then who am I to stand in your way. Did you guys ever think that when someone's eyes glaze over the importance of such things is forgotten ??? With that carry on, I will go back to doing something more constructive, like watching my grass grow.

Salute
  • 0

#109 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 23 February 2012 - 18:05

Because 90% of sniping cases happen when shooter is in stable (not pulling Gs) flight. If you further break those 90% cases, you will see that over half of them happens when target is in stable flight too and even in line with shooter. :mrgreen:

This is why I said "static" head shake–a head shake that occurs at all times, not only when there is acceleration in some direction or another. I.R.L., we have to deal with static head shake when flying and shooting; in the sim, we don't. I'd say it's a big factor in open-cockpit aircraft.

On the other hand, it wouldn't make any difference with the collimator and reflector sights.
  • 0

#110 Gunsmith86

Gunsmith86
  • Posts: 842

Posted 23 February 2012 - 18:08

Because 90% of sniping cases happen when shooter is in stable (not pulling Gs) flight. If you further break those 90% cases, you will see that over half of them happens when target is in stable flight too and even in line with shooter. :mrgreen:

This is why I said "static" head shake–a head shake that occurs at all times, not only when there is acceleration in some direction or another. I.R.L., we have to deal with static head shake when flying and shooting; in the sim, we don't. I'd say it's a big factor in open-cockpit aircraft.

thats right.

At 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

#111 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 23 February 2012 - 18:13

"thrice to slay the slain"……Maybe when all of the ballistic experts resolve this, they could give the US State Department a call and get them to start a forum on the magic bullet in the Kennedy assassination, very entertaining stuff.

I am nearly positive that the developer's are really tired of having endure this over and over again…….If it makes you all happy to continue to regurgitate the same old same old on thread after thread then who am I to stand in your way. Did you guys ever think that when someone's eyes glaze over the importance of such things is forgotten ??? With that carry on, I will go back to doing something more constructive, like watching my grass grow.

Why even comment at all?

Plenty of people acknowledge that there is something wrong with effective engagement ranges it could be through any or all or some of the following:

1. Vibration/dispersion
2. Head position and ease of holding a sight picture steady
3. Lack of effect on the bullets
4. Tracers being exactly accurate
5. Zoom
6. Ease of manoeuvring the planes with pixel perfect accuracy
7. Probably other things that I have forgotten

Something is wrong and without debating it how do we come up with the root causes and potential solutions?

A quote from an email from Requiem which I hope he won't mind me reproducing (Req email me or PM me if you want me to remove this):

I'll make a track of me shooting stuff from far away and post a video. I'll do my best to have it done by the end of this week. I actually did a quick test of it last night in a SE5, and was hitting Spad 13's at 600m+, 2-6 bullets at a time…No that was not while they were flying straight, but while they were in a turn at approx 20deg bank, so I actually had to apply lead and account for drop at the same time.

Does that sound correct WWI gunnery physics to you?

The top rifle marksmen in the world would struggle to do that with a moving target (especially with iron or even a 1x zoom sight) yet Requiem can do it consistently from a WWI plane famed for having to have close up engagement distances?

Is there or is there not something wrong at present?

We pretty much all agree that there is something 'off'. This is a WWI combat flight simulator - it is not acceptable to simulate planes and have lasers instead of guns.

So either bring something constructive to help us debate it or don't comment. Where it becomes bogged down and tiresome is people posting to tell people to shut up or that it is 'trivial' when all they are doing is discussing options and possible solutions.

Contribute or stay silent.

If you have evidence towards it being correct as it is then than that is contributing.

If you have f*ck all to bring to the table then don't bother posting.

Let's debate like adults and not derail another thread.
  • 0

#112 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6525
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 23 February 2012 - 18:27

So either bring something constructive to help us debate it or don't comment. Where it becomes bogged down and tiresome is people posting to tell people to shut up or that it is 'trivial' when all they are doing is discussing options and possible solutions.

Contribute or stay silent.

  • 0

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

Free Plank!

 


#113 Dughor

Dughor
  • Posts: 85

Posted 23 February 2012 - 18:29

The ability to look at 180 deg behind you? (Must have a rubber neck then)

Turn around in your seat right now and let me know if you can see what is 180 degrees from your computer monitor - then report back.

Press your back into your seat as if you are buckled up to not fall from your chair. Keep your hand at the joystick between you legs (no not THAT stick). Try to look behind you. Then report back. ;)

You will not be able to see a full 180deg behind you.

You might have some glimps visibilty in the corner of your eye. But not a full 180 deg as if sitting backwards in your seat.


But the main discussion here is about gunnery…
So don't let it drift away too far.
  • 0

#114 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 23 February 2012 - 18:45

Anecdotes - I know but I'm yet to find 600 metre (or even 300-400m) hits from fuselage guns. Not as in pilots seeing hits register at extreme ranges (you obviously wouldn't expect that there is no visual confirmation other than maybe tracers) but in terms of pilots being hit from extreme ranges by others shooting at them and reporting it.

Samuel Kinkead RNAS (Pup):

"We went up to practice our gunnery the next morning… The targets were laid out a mile or so from the aerodrome in a field - sail cloths measuring twenty feet on each side and pegged to the ground. We approached from 500 feet, 'blipped' and dived down to 150 feet firing the whole way. I fired 100 to 200 rounds at each of four targets but, when I landed was disappointed to discover only about a score [20] of hits on each; and this despite aligning my guns and sight at the butts the day before"

"At a distance of 300m…the best marksmanship is helpless. One does not hit one's target at such a distance" M. Richthofen

Arthur Cobby 4 AFC (Sopwith Camel) and Australia's leading ace on lining up for a shot:

"I had to ease off my engine to steady the vibration down, otherwise I might shoot my prop off owing to the way it was shaking, and what's more my bullets would have gone all over the place"

Some fuselage gun based fighter combat reports (it's not a myth they really were getting in very close):

http://riseofflight....26992&mode=view" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">download/file.php?id=26992&mode=view

http://riseofflight....26786&mode=view" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">download/file.php?id=26786&mode=view

http://riseofflight....26710&mode=view" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">download/file.php?id=26710&mode=view

http://riseofflight....26711&mode=view" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">download/file.php?id=26711&mode=view

http://riseofflight....26712&mode=view" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">download/file.php?id=26712&mode=view

http://riseofflight....26713&mode=view" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">download/file.php?id=26713&mode=view

In game in my experience it's actually harder to get a kill from really close in.

Is this damage model issues?
  • 0

#115 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 4710

Posted 23 February 2012 - 20:10

Is this damage model issues?

No, you've convinced me at least! :) You will not hear me say the current gun dispersion is correct. But the fact that you can't kill a pilot from 50 m, sitting on his low six does seem to indicate a problem with DM? Both problems should be adressed.
  • 0

#116 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 23 February 2012 - 20:38

A simple solution might be the inability to fire the gun when zoomed in. The view for being zoomed in is absurdly close to the sight, as if laying on your belly on top of the machine guns with your nose pressed to the sight.

This is not directly to do with the OP and dispersion.

During 2010 I spent a good three months trying to reproduce aimed sniper shots using zoom in multiplayer.

After the three months I compared my stats (admittedly through the stats available in-game, Vaal's stats were not available and the RoF stats were unreliable at the time).

The three months previous (zooming to spot targets nut normal view when shooting) I made 21 aerial kills, the three months using zoom (when target was distant) I managed 11, and the three months post (normal again) I managed 18.

Getting kills when using zoom is not purely linked to the zoom, it's no sure-fire way to snipe people, and for me trying to use zoom against distant targets actually made me less likely to make the kill.

If you are a good shot normally you will be a good shot when zoomed, but if you are a poor shot, trying to use zoom will not improve matters.
  • 0

#117 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 23 February 2012 - 21:10

Some McCudden ones suggesting that these guns were hardly lasers and having sights on target did not necessarily mean kills even at 100-50 yards.


Attached File  McCudden Hard to hit each other.jpg   53.8KB   196 downloads

Attached File  McCudden vs 2 Seater 1.jpg   125.73KB   196 downloads

Attached File  McCudden vs 2 Seater 2.jpg   41.81KB   196 downloads

Attached File  McCudden Shooting match.jpg   121.3KB   196 downloads

'Shooting match'

Also note the effect of a turn on the observer's ability to return fire.
  • 0

#118 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 23 February 2012 - 21:14

I've been thinking about this today and it occurred to me that concentrating, as many of us have, on dispersion has become an end in and of it's self when really, at least to me, it's only be a means to an end (wood for the trees), much like my theory about introducing an increasingly severe penalty as range increases. They are pretty much two sides of the same coin. At the risk of boring people by repeating myself, because we don't know the exact mechanics of how RoF calculates certain things we don't know if simply increasing dispersion might have unintended consequences, less deliberate aimed hits and more spray and pray hits, a shot gun effect as it were without the downsides of limited range and power.

It made me smile when I thought about those people demanding empirical data to back up assertions about bullet dispersion, possibly in the full knowledge that a definitive answer is pretty well non existent, when really increasing bullet dispersion is not really about that at all but simply a method of (a game mechanism, much like hit boxes are a game mechanism) making up for short comings in other areas of the game or computing power.

The accuracy of the gun itself is always going to be far greater than the ability of the person pulling the trigger.

I'm really surprised that more is not made of MvR's quote, it is as close as one is going to get to any sort of hard data on what was and was not possible. The leading air Ace of WW1 says trying to shoot at an aircraft that is 300 meters or more away from you is beyond even the best marksmen (luck aside) and we dare, in our warm comfy chairs, with digital joysticks in our hands, dare to question him, it's beyond belief. It's a rock solid statement that includes a definitive goal post (300 meters) not only that but it is backed up time and time again in anecdotes by other Aces and pilots from the period. This should be the aiming point for RoF, however it is achieved, if it pretends to try and recreate WW1 air combat.

The methods on what is the best way forward are open to debate but it should be debated, essentially however they all have the same goal, whether it's dispersion, view zooming or even as I have suggested, penalties, the pro's and con's should be discussed in the hope that 777 might take note and do something about it.

Shooting another aircraft in flight is about so much more than simply a set of numbers plucked from some statisticians chart.
  • 0

#119 =CfC=FatherTed

=CfC=FatherTed
  • Posts: 993

Posted 24 February 2012 - 00:11

I'm really surprised that more is not made of MvR's quote, it is as close as one is going to get to any sort of hard data on what was and was not possible. The leading air Ace of WW1 says trying to shoot at an aircraft that is 300 meters or more away from you is beyond even the best marksmen (luck aside) and we dare, in our warm comfy chairs, with digital joysticks in our hands, dare to question him, it's beyond belief. It's a rock solid statement that includes a definitive goal post (300 meters) not only that but it is backed up time and time again in anecdotes by other Aces and pilots from the period.

It's not a definitive goal post, it's one man's estimation. And we have the same problem with the quotes Tom Cundall uses. For sure they are expert eye-witness reports, and more useful than our guesses, but no one made actual measurements.
  • 0

#120 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 24 February 2012 - 00:22

In the absence of hard data (non-existent) is it better to stick with what we know to be wrong than to try and improve on what we have to bring it closer to what was actually experienced?

Why not (since current data is based on a guess) either allow a 'mods on' test of dispersion settings or a small group of beta testers to test it on their version of the game. Or add some more head shake or move and generally try to made it harder to aim if the consensus is that people think that the guns we have should be as accurate as they currently are.

What shouldn't be possible is this:

A quote from an email from Requiem which I hope he won't mind me reproducing (Req email me or PM me if you want me to remove this):

I'll make a track of me shooting stuff from far away and post a video. I'll do my best to have it done by the end of this week. I actually did a quick test of it last night in a SE5, and was hitting Spad 13's at 600m+, 2-6 bullets at a time…No that was not while they were flying straight, but while they were in a turn at approx 20deg bank, so I actually had to apply lead and account for drop at the same time.

The top rifle marksmen in the world would struggle to do that with a moving target (especially with iron or even a 1x zoom sight) yet Requiem can do it consistently from a WWI plane famed for having to have close up engagement distances?

Why are people paralysed with indecision about trying something new? It's not like it is an accurate representation now of WWI combat.

Hell if it's not tested then it can't be fixed. If it doesn't have the desired result then put it back to how it was or don't implement it in 'mods off' or outside of testing. What have you lost?

Gav knows how to adjust the dispersion in the file it's just locked at present for scouts etc but open for two-seater turrets. We can do the testing if 777 let us - why are people scared of it being experimented with?

The reason to start with dispersion and not head shake etc is that it is an easy mod to make if 777 allow us to adjust the code for scouts or adjust it themselves for a test environment. It requires minimum of time and commitment form the devs. All we want to do is try it out and see whether it gives better results - if it doesn't then nothing ventured nothing gained.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users