|
IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Were P-51 guns harmonized to different ranges? Or P-40 guns?
The game has mechanism to set 2 ranges per plane. Hard to imagine the howling if planes with 4 MG's had those split up. They're not uber together! I want *sprinkles* on the chocolate on my cookie now. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As with any proposed change to armaments, I believe that there should be an option in the GUI to turn off elements which are "excessively realistic" or "not fun" for some people. So, if TD were to actually implement realistic flexible or fixed gunnery, sticking to the current standard would be as simple as clicking on a difficulty setting. Quote:
Quote:
Those of us who like those realistic fiddly bits find it annoying that they aren't properly modeled, especially since IL2 tries so hard for realism in other respects. And, in fairness to online bomber and attack pilots, it would only be fair to implement realistic flexible and fixed gunnery at the same time, so both sides are equally disadvantaged. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
The fixed guns on any plane could be set so that individual guns converge with the sight reticule at a certain range. Typically, however, pairs or sets of guns on opposite sides of the plane were set so that they converged, so that the recoil of the guns didn't throw the plane off course when maneuvering or aiming.
At least for the USAAF, it wasn't that uncommon to have one pair of wing-mounted MG set to converge at 300 yards, another pair at 350 and yet another pair at 400 yards to create a "beaten zone" where at least some of the bullets were likely to hit. I don't think that it was just the P-47. I believe that the P-51 and P-40 could have the same option. The problem is that, in the game you've got just two convergence settings - "cannons" and "machine guns." Furthermore, some planes had the ability to shoot single guns, or just pairs of guns, rather than the current "guns or cannons" option. So, for realistic fixed gunnery, you need to add the option of setting convergences for each pair of guns (or single gun), and the option of shooting just single guns or pairs of guns. Neither option seems like it would be that much work, mostly just reworking key bindings and some messing with the GUI. |
#134
|
||||
|
||||
That is one of the things CloD got correct.
You can/could even choose the ammo belting for each gun.
__________________
Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 08-20-2013 at 01:35 PM. |
#136
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
CloD is dead. Time to move on.
__________________
Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I read about bullet scatter and so much of it is empty speculation that I just laugh. I've fired M-60's on bipod which is more scatter prone than the fixed guns on planes and got nowhere near the scatter often mentioned even out to 800 yards. Planes do vibrate in a mostly parallel way, not twisting. Some bullets will get an up-down vector (you can figure out why sideways is more constrained) but that's inches per second where in 1 full second the bullet goes how far? Imperfections in the bullet will cause less to more, they were not shooting modern match ammo. The tracers especially aren't even and still --- in less than a second they only get so far off the mark. Look at the convergence geometry not as the out-of-scale diagrams used to emphasize the concept but as about 5 meters wide (for outer guns) at the wings versus 200 to 300 meters out to 'convergence' and figure out from how far to how far you get a 2 or 3 meter wide pattern of 'beaten zone'. Answer is about halfway to convergence to about the same distance beyond. Convergence is about rise and drop and how much below the line of sight is as well. Spend time reviewing tracks made in gunnery practice and see how often the tracers go just above or below where you thought they were aimed. Know your range and when to shoot high or low. I find closing speed affects aim. The faster I close the shorter the range effectively becomes. I like to shoot deflection, coming in not from six and that does make my closing speed higher. I trigger at 400 meters while aiming as if 350 meters to start my fire when I will be within 200 meters very soon. It lets me see where the first burst goes to get in one more before I have to avoid ramming. If I am shooting horizontal I get more drop than shooting either up or down at more than a few degrees. Shots aimed in steep dive or climb, more than 10 degrees, will go high compared to the pipper but only by a fraction of the drop when horizontal. That changes with range. A tail gunner firing at a following target has an easier task than a nose gunner. It's the side gunners who have the hardest job. That is just from moving geometry. With practice you can still get good but when the attrition gets high your average gunners won't be so experienced. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
By the way Max, an M-60 has much less recoil and is lighter & far more user friendly than the older Browning MGs; that's what it was designed for and why it replaced the old-style .30 MGs in squad use and on Helos. No sprinkles for you. cheers horseback |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes I think I'm playing a different game.
I've acquired quite some experience in shooting at allied heavys/medium bombers, and those are among the best armed/armored in this game IMHO. I guess in about 40 missions I got shot out of the sky 8 times. Much? Yes. But only two times when I got nailed (pilot dead) from below while turnig away and up (moving in all three planes of maneuvre) from the already dead bomber and from a landing B-17 about 400m below me on opposite course(thus the shooter had to lead a heck) that felt wrong. All the other times I got bored/greedy and decided to do a 6'o clock approach and forgot to break at 300m. So I'd say that my own poor choice of tactics fried my there. Doing head-ons, side attacks, high attacks, even fast six o clock attacks with breaking of at ~250-300m regularly works for me. Degrade the (rookie) gunners so they don't do the seemingly impossible shots that would be good, if it is not only pure luck but some kind of random deliberate ace gunnery. But do not degrade the gunners in general, they are fine IMHO. And as a part-time mud-mover I can only say whenever you encounter an enemy fighter (AI) that you cannot outrun or outmaneuver and there is no clouds to hide in you are screwed. At least 19 out of 20 times. The most interesting idea in your post IMHO is to be able to advise different levels of AI to different position, that would be useful. Could depict scenarios, where an all veteran crew got a member KIA and replaced by newbie, or splitting up an ace crew and mixing with regulars to get two useful crews. Or for formations mission builders could use an ace bombardier/navigator/pilot for flight leader, and an all ace gunner crew for tail end, as surprise for anemy fighters. And for offliners you could create enemy flights that have rookie skill at all gunner positions - but are pilot/bombardier able enough to bomb the broadside of a barn from three metres away. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|