PDA

View Full Version : questions to the 109FM we get



Little_D
Feb-16-2013, 12:49
Hi gents,

I hope its the right place here to aks.

In the moment we have this stupit bouncing when we fire the 20mm and this big smoketrail, so you cant see the enemy plane when you fireing.
Do you plan to reduce the bouncing and the the smoketrails sometime?

By all the books i read about fighting in a 109 i never read something about this bouncing or that the pilot cant see the enemy plane when he opens fire.
All books tell me the 109 was about 400 KM/H a very stabel gunship. i think personaly when i open fire with the 20mm even with less than 400 KM/H i maby get some vibrations but not like this we have now.
I can remamber i read it too in other forums that this bouncing is not historical, same as this big smoketrails.

To the rest what you guys are doing i can only say:

Its fantastic !!!! And please hurry up, because i cant wait to get up to 9k+ and fight good red pilots up there. :-).
Big thanks for the time you guys invest in this mod to make the game better :thumbsup: :nw: :jump:.

regards

Little_D

Tvrdi
Feb-16-2013, 12:57
Very good question...

LG1.Farber
Feb-16-2013, 13:02
I agree on ALL accounts.

SlipBall
Feb-16-2013, 13:55
Bouncing is a part of flying, certainly on most days...turbulence from your target is also a factor. Personally I like the shaking it gives me an extra layer of a challenge. :D

LG1.Farber
Feb-16-2013, 13:58
Little D do you have an evidence of it? In video? I will try to make some, I remember a few patches ago it didnt happen.

SlipBall
Feb-16-2013, 14:05
Sure would be easy that way

Little_D
Feb-16-2013, 14:52
Hi Farber, Hi SlipBall,

@Farber, i will search for it in my books and try to translate it.

@SlipBall, i am not talking about the normal turbolence we have inflight, i am talking about this stupid bouncing when you fire your 20mm guns and that you cant see the enemy, because of the stupid smoketrail.

regards

Little_D

vranac
Feb-16-2013, 15:01
I'm not an expert on this but why then when setting convergece tehnicians were sitting on the wings?

Wings have some elasticity for shure and momentum when firing that cannon isn't small.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muDj4HT767Y


Only thing that bothers me a bit is muzzle flashes from MG. I think they are to big.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-16-2013, 15:13
Towards the end of this video is gun camera footage from a Hurricane firing 4 x 20mm cannon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-5mM4Iw5ds

There are not obvious smoke trails obscuring the forward view.

This footage of a run on a B17 (possible only with MG fire however) shows no obvious smoke trails either. However, the impacts on the B17 cause considerable obscuring of the forward view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIpdhi6Y7Lo

Robo.
Feb-16-2013, 15:33
The problem is that the Oerlikons are using the 'shake.ffe' and not 'autocannon.ffe' as it should be. I don't know if that's a genuine bug or a feature but that thing almost knocked my teeth out with my MSFF2. :-) I had to edit the file with FFedit, otherwise it was unusable and too jumpy. Can you specify if you use a FF joystick? With FF off I personally don't find any problem really, it's manageable. I wonder if the shaking effect is also too exaggerated no matter if you use the FF files or not.

I see you're also referring to the smoke trails, so is it the smoke tracers or shaking or combination of both you find wrong?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-16-2013, 15:43
.

I see you're also referring to the smoke trails, so is it the smoke tracers or shaking or combination of both you find wrong?

The minegeschoss ammo causes mid-air explosions which give off clouds of smoke and obscure the target/. But I think this is to be expected. It is explosive ammo after all.

I might try and get some videos of the various weapons (in aircraft on both sides) in action just to see how pronounced it is.

Robo.
Feb-16-2013, 15:54
The minegeschoss ammo causes mid-air explosions which give off clouds of smoke and obscure the target/. But I think this is to be expected. It is explosive ammo after all.

I might try and get some videos of the various weapons (in aircraft on both sides) in action just to see how pronounced it is.

All types 20mm grenades used in 109s do produce this effect, the ammo was fitted with a timer fuse and the grenade would explode after some time (distance) if it didn't hit anything. The effect is very nicely represented in the game imho.

SlipBall
Feb-16-2013, 16:26
Hi Farber, Hi SlipBall,

@Farber, i will search for it in my books and try to translate it.

@SlipBall, i am not talking about the normal turbolence we have inflight, i am talking about this stupid bouncing when you fire your 20mm guns and that you cant see the enemy, because of the stupid smoketrail.

regards

Little_D

Got ya

LG1.Farber
Feb-16-2013, 17:11
I'm not an expert on this but why then when setting convergece tehnicians were sitting on the wings?

Wings have some elasticity for shure and momentum when firing that cannon isn't small.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muDj4HT767Y


Only thing that bothers me a bit is muzzle flashes from MG. I think they are to big.


Thats not the same as doing it at over 200 miles per hour, the smokes not going to hang around like that but yes it is allot less than in the game. If you full screen it and hold your finger on the screen by the guys back he doesn't even move, he must be just leaning over to look down the sight / body weight. Not even a jarring motion. Incredible.

vranac
Feb-16-2013, 19:19
I think he was heavily leaned on the cannon to control it and that helped a bit when shooting single rounds,
but when he started to shoot in rafals, no control at all.

Momentum is very strong from this Oerlikon cannon. You can see that guy that was firing is strong and he was leaning
over trying to control recoil of the cannon.But he couldn't control it in rafal fire at all.

LG1.Farber
Feb-16-2013, 19:28
You cant even see the shock in his body... but the video is bad 240 :D I searched also, didnt find anything else... These cannons were used as AA guns though so maybe Der Wochenshcau is worth investigating?


What does that man weigh 100kg? A 109 according to clod is 2.2 Tonnes! The wings flex slightly but its no seagull! :)

VO101_Tom
Feb-16-2013, 20:29
Hi.
The 109 gun accuracy is terrible wrong in the current official patch of clod.

Perhaps many of you already saw this pictures, some guy shooting the canvas in the desert (the canvas was 100m distance. We know, because of the dimensions of the canvas marks).
http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/bugtracker/f195_shooting_range_2.jpg

http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/bugtracker/f195_shooting_range_3.jpg
Accurate enough? :D

Couple of months ago i made a small video, landed on the field (wheels up, flap open 30 deg, no minengeschoss. Head shake off, everything else is full real. I landed exactly 100m away from the target canvas (I shot next to the canvas, because the bullets tumble down the 3d object).
Here ist the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EBTP6IEUbU

Clearly see, there is no shake, the plane not even stirs. This inaccuracy a simple programming stuff, not related with the wind, the plane move, the stick shake, or any pilot error.
Compare with the first pictures, the difference is obvious...
Similar (but not this much) inaccuracy can be found with the british .303 and the MG17 too, not only the MG-FF infected...

Little_D
Feb-16-2013, 21:06
Hi gents,

to make it clear what i find wrong is not that the 20mm rounds explod after time in a smoke cloud, this is ok and historical , but when i open fire at 100m -125m distance to the enemy i cant see him, because of the big smoke from the guns and this at 400 KM/H. The smoke stays in front of me and let the enemy dissapire. the other thing is this wild bouncing when you fire the 20mm. in 1946 it was ok you had little bouncing, but still where able to aim, in CoD ist like pray and spray and hope you hit with the first bullets, because the rest will go everywhere but not to the target. it is to mutch from both.

regards

Little_D

ATAG_Colander
Feb-17-2013, 00:31
I guess you mean this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ELd0BVH7Nk

Sadly, all the gun cams I've seen are from a wing mounted camera so is hard to tell how the smoke affected the visibility.

About the shaking. Not sure either.

GerritJ9
Feb-17-2013, 03:11
Bear in mind that the B-17 was probably attacked with MG151s rather than MG-FFs- they used different ammunition, which may explain the lack of trails. We need to be certain that footage shows MG-FFs firing, so the idea of looking at 1940 newsreels of "Die Wochenschau" is a good one. There might be useful photos in 1940 issues of "Der Adler" as well.

Robo.
Feb-17-2013, 04:37
Couple of months ago i made a small video, landed on the field (wheels up, flap open 30 deg, no minengeschoss. Head shake off, everything else is full real. I landed exactly 100m away from the target canvas (I shot next to the canvas, because the bullets tumble down the 3d object).
Here ist the video:

Clearly see, there is no shake, the plane not even stirs. This inaccuracy a simple programming stuff, not related with the wind, the plane move, the stick shake, or any pilot error.
Compare with the first pictures, the difference is obvious...
Similar (but not this much) inaccuracy can be found with the british .303 and the MG17 too, not only the MG-FF infected...

I understand what you mean Tom and you might be right (I don't know), but shooting from a plane on the ground (on the jacks) is perhaps very different to firing in flight. I assume the devs modeled the projectile dispersion strictly for the in-flight situations because that's what matters in the sim. For this reason, any testing in game on the ground might appear as ridiculously inaccurate and not in match when comparing with the photographs (is that a E-3 on the desert pic?). I am just thinking, of course I don't know how much a .303 or MG/FF did disperse in reality, I would say the gun accuracy on the same canvas would be completely different when flying at 400+ kph. The accuracy seems to be alright for all planes I flew (RAF, LW and RI), ballistics seems to be very realistic, certainly better than RoF or Il-2 or DCS P-51 (imho), but that's maybe just what I am used to... I honestly like the shaking and the fact that if I shoot from 8 Brownings from a Spitfire it's more unstable like a Hurricane and that the cannons kick back - I find that awesome. I am sure you tried shooting the Oerlikons when one of them has been disabled due to wing damage. The kick is very strong indeed, maybe a bit overdone but what do we know.

The problem with the smoke trails - I know what Little_D means, I don't know if the smoke trails are realistic at all altitudes at all circumstances like we have them in game, but I have to say I have no problem hitting at the distance he mentiones (100-150m) which is very close and dispersion plays very little role imho. Maybe some effect settings (I play at medium effects) or something else is a problem as I can see hits and even the target quite alright.

Little_D
Feb-17-2013, 05:48
Hi Robo,

you think 100m-150m is close sometimes i am even closer when i open fire :)

i will make a short video and post it so you can see how its look on my system, hitting is not the problem, because the first bullets make enough damaged. but from an 1,5 second burst so around 20 - 25 bullets from each cannon, so 40 - 50 bullets compleat, there only maby 10 bullets from both cannons hit. but aiming when fireing to correct the leed is the problem, because your enemy is bouncing in the crossair like crazy and even at 100m or less the bouncing is a problem because most bullets go around the target and not there where you aim. so i hope when red gets his spit with cannons some time they have the same problems and not only the 109.

set the efects to high and tell me if you still can see the enemy or the hits.

i hope you get what i mean, its not easy to find the right words.

regards

Little_D

Robo.
Feb-17-2013, 06:03
I know, I often open fire from 50m. My point is the dispersion does not play such a big role on small distance like that. I might not understand entirely what you mean so yes please, make a video if you can. I try the same on high effects later on today. At high speed you come much closer to your target during this 1.5 seconds time so some shells will miss but I personally don't find it too difficult to hit on convergence distance, the cannons are very accurate for what they are and the dispersion and shaking is only a problem on longer range shots.

VO101_Kurfurst
Feb-17-2013, 06:06
A bit of a treatise of RPM increase. This was possible on the DB 601A, to increase RPM above the rated altitude to increase performance on 109E, 110C.

Now, I think somebody already found some source that pilots already did this during the summer, but it was also officially sanctionend in the automn, to increase rpm from 2400 to 2600 above rated altitde. (this would also increase the rpm of the supercharger, and therefore, restore boost which would otherwise start to fall off above rated alttiude)

A later paper from 1941 (useful for E-7, if modelled?) suggest that at some time the rpm was cleared to be increased from 2400 to 2800 above rated altitude, and it was in some way governed by the auto prop pitch system.

I've recently updated my site with some related 601A goodies.

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB601_datasheets_A1.html

LG1.Farber
Feb-17-2013, 06:53
The recoil from the cannons is so strong I do not bother with shots beyond 100 metre. This is why you also see so many people flying the E1, you dont do as much damage in an E1 but you can shoot accurately and you also have more ammunition.

As for the 109 being on jacks and weighed down by two men, the air effect on both side of the wing is the same thing if not better as it is spread over the whole surface of the wing.

SlipBall
Feb-17-2013, 06:59
There are few times when you would need more than 1 round...spray and pray is not wise

DaRat
Feb-17-2013, 07:47
First post here so hello!

Just thought I'd chime in on this one - the cannons on the 109 do not produce much recoil at all, the strong vibration effect is caused by the realism option 'Head Shake'. Turn it off and fire up a quick mission and you will see that they barely produce any more recoil than the machineguns.

@TF: Been lurking here for ages, fantastic work on everything you've done so far - keep it up!

Little_D
Feb-17-2013, 08:07
Hi gents,

hera a little offline video from an atack at 100m, i let the markinks on so you can see at least where the enemy is. Online it is much more worse than offline.
when you open fire at 150m - 200m than you will see nothing, because you fly in the stady smokeclode from the guns, i think the timer from the selfdestruction is to low too in CoD.



http://youtu.be/hLytm3cOYOo


@DaRat, you are right, mabe this must be turnd down.

regards

Little_D

9./ZG26Eicken
Feb-17-2013, 08:58
This footage of a run on a B17 (possible only with MG fire however) shows no obvious smoke trails either. However, the impacts on the B17 cause considerable obscuring of the forward view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIpdhi6Y7Lo


This footage is of a Bf 110 G2 firing on the B-17 not a Bf 109, just wanted to point that out. Also in the video bellow you can see plenty of impacts and lot's of smoke trails from the guns, I assume that's what you meant by smoke trails? or did you mean smoke trail's from B 17?

Footage starts at 01:55 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oA9zy-qtxA&list=FLbuFgBieG7kE-R8Yy42j2hQ&index=1

Robo.
Feb-17-2013, 09:41
Little_D - thank you for the video, I don't see anything unusual, this is how it looks like to me as well - the guns are hitting pretty well and straight, it's just your head is shaking. When I see the cloud I am actually happy for I know the target has been hit and probably destroyed. I fly on medium effects to keep my FPS smooth, I can't comment if it's realistic or not, but long range shots look just like guncams so I personally quite like the effects and ballistics. There was considerable recoil effect and shaking from the wing mounted cannons on the 109s, I recall some books where pilots mentioned teeth rattling when firing, these were 109Es as well as 109G-2/R6 of 13./JG52.

Eicken - these Viermots are all flying very high, I wonder if the same gun smoke contrails were present at lower altitudes in 'real life'...

9./ZG26Eicken
Feb-17-2013, 10:20
I would certainly say that they were present at lower altitude in 'real life' as you can see again in this video, it is a video of another Bf 110 firing at ground targets on the eastern front.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wTSx9rczoxA

You can see them clearly at around 02:48 and then again at 02:57 as the four machine guns fire.

On another video however, I do not see the smoke trails from the rounds. As can be seen in this video bellow from round 00:41 seconds in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpyoEaT5NwM

So a different round being used or something like that? I also see in a lot [not all] of allied gun camera footage the absence of tracer rounds, can anyone elaborate as to why?

Little_D
Feb-17-2013, 10:25
Hi Robo,

I dont think with 600 KM/H as in the video that the windscreen is full of smokeclouds so you cant see what is in your front. at least you still have to see the enemy plane. or all german aces in WW2 where blind-killing aces.
its the head and the plane that is shaking, look at the alt-indicator when i open fire!!! its both to mutch or maby only the headchaking. this is not a stable gunplatform ist pray and spray and 109 was a real stable gunplatform.
if this is normal what will it be in a FW190 with 4x 20mm guns?

if this stay i realy hope you guys get the same problems when flying Spit with 20mm !!! but i dont think red will ever get this problems, when flying 20mm spits.

to the guncams, there i can see the enemy plane even with the smoketrails, in the game the smoketrails cover the complet windscreen and the enemy plane and you see nothing.

regards

Little_D

VO101_Tom
Feb-17-2013, 10:44
I understand what you mean Tom and you might be right (I don't know), but shooting from a plane on the ground (on the jacks) is perhaps very different to firing in flight. I assume the devs modeled the projectile dispersion strictly for the in-flight situations because that's what matters in the sim. For this reason, any testing in game on the ground might appear as ridiculously inaccurate and not in match when comparing with the photographs (is that a E-3 on the desert pic?). I am just thinking, of course I don't know how much a .303 or MG/FF did disperse in reality, I would say the gun accuracy on the same canvas would be completely different when flying at 400+ kph. The accuracy seems to be alright for all planes I flew (RAF, LW and RI), ballistics seems to be very realistic, certainly better than RoF or Il-2 or DCS P-51 (imho), but that's maybe just what I am used to... I honestly like the shaking and the fact that if I shoot from 8 Brownings from a Spitfire it's more unstable like a Hurricane and that the cannons kick back - I find that awesome. I am sure you tried shooting the Oerlikons when one of them has been disabled due to wing damage. The kick is very strong indeed, maybe a bit overdone but what do we know.

The problem with the smoke trails - I know what Little_D means, I don't know if the smoke trails are realistic at all altitudes at all circumstances like we have them in game, but I have to say I have no problem hitting at the distance he mentiones (100-150m) which is very close and dispersion plays very little role imho. Maybe some effect settings (I play at medium effects) or something else is a problem as I can see hits and even the target quite alright.


I don't get it. The 20mm inaccurate on the ground. Much worse, than is should, and during the flying the plane shake (which should be the main reason) just increase this inaccuracy. This gun is useless from long distance (you need much more luck than aim), and ridiculous to think the gun was planned to use from 100 m only, if the "official" gun convergence (vertical) was 400 m. You can shoot the plane from 100 m. Great. But how can you hit a plane from 400 m?

Robo.
Feb-17-2013, 10:59
Hi Robo,

I dont think with 600 KM/H as in the video that the windscreen is full of smokeclouds so you cant see what is in your front. at least you still have to see the enemy plane. or all german aces in WW2 where blind-killing aces.
its the head and the plane that is shaking, look at the alt-indicator when i open fire!!! its both to mutch or maby only the headchaking. this is not a stable gunplatform ist pray and spray and 109 was a real stable gunplatform.
if this is normal what will it be in a FW190 with 4x 20mm guns?

if this stay i realy hope you guys get the same problems when flying Spit with 20mm !!! but i dont think red will ever get this problems, when flying 20mm spits.

to the guncams, there i can see the enemy plane even with the smoketrails, in the game the smoketrails cover the complet windscreen and the enemy plane and you see nothing.

regards

Little_D

I see what you mean, I was just trying to elaborate at what you mean exactly (cannon recoil? head shake? smoke trail? explosions on impact? or a bit of everything?), but unfortunately I don't know if what we have is realistic or not. The guncams suggest there was lots of smoke sometimes obstructing the view. If you believe there is a problem, I suggest you come up with some kind of hard data explaining what exactly is there to be fixed. The 109 is actually a very stable gun platform, it's just your head shakes within it imho. I think that is a bit unnatural because if you sit inside something that shakes, you tend to shake with it. I know it could be uncomfortable when you pulled the trigger on R6 MG151/20 wing mounted gondolas or even on Emil, there was a lot of shaking in real life (various pilot reports mention that). If the problem is the smoke trails, they were there and I don't think your speed of 600kph has anything to do with that :( I can't tell if the smoke trail was purely atmosphere dependent (humidity, temperature) or if it was always present, I simply don't know. I watched your video several times, nice attack with lots of good hits, there was some shaking but not too bad overall, something you would expect from a wing mounted cannons.

I don't know anything about Hispano equipped Spitfires but I'd say the modeling would be very much the same in CloD. I fly the Bf 109 very often and never found this a big problem to be honest, but I understand what you mean and it can be annoying.

Eicken - nice videos, I also spend a lot of time watching WWII guncams and they are all different. It might be different ammo or different humidity, but I am only guessing here for I don't know :(

re: allied videos, vast majority I've seen had tracers visible (.50 cal), but some, especially end of the war (P-51 or P-47 gun cams) had no tracers. The ammo belts were often modified per unit or even per pilot and some preferred to keep the tracers out so the target had no warning only keeping tracer ammunition for the last few seconds of the belt so they knew they were about to go Winchester. They changed the belting to APIT during he later phase of the war and that round was very effective, you see lots of it in Pacific especially. One famous ground attack video shows a Jug setting a train on fire from long distance with APIT rounds - awesome blast. I believe the problem was also the camera with very few 'FPS'.

Robo.
Feb-17-2013, 11:03
I don't get it. The 20mm inaccurate on the ground. Much worse, than is should, and during the flying the plane shake (which should be the main reason) just increase this inaccuracy. This gun is useless from long distance (you need much more luck than aim), and ridiculous to think the gun was planned to use from 100 m only, if the "official" gun convergence (vertical) was 400 m. You can shoot the plane from 100 m. Great. But how can you hit a plane from 400 m?

What I meant is that perhaps the shake effect is only programmed with the in-flight use in mind. The game does not know or distinguish if your plane is in-flight or static on the ground, hence the vast inaccuracy on the ground. I hope you see the logic in there...

200-300m is still OK with a 109

Furious
Feb-17-2013, 11:48
Would love to have a Cannon problem. My peashooters are real stable.

VO101_Tom
Feb-17-2013, 11:49
What I meant is that perhaps the shake effect is only programmed with the in-flight use in mind. The game does not know or distinguish if your plane is in-flight or static on the ground, hence the vast inaccuracy on the ground. I hope you see the logic in there...

200-300m is still OK with a 109

Hmm, maybe you're right, its possible, although I doubt the devs programming the gun "shake" without the plane shake, the revi shake, etc. It would be too lazy, does not even fit in precision ot the a game... IMHO...
But doesn't matter the technical part, I think the inaccuracy is too much. See this video, and you understand what i mean (2:30):

http://youtu.be/rnZhdAqFFI4?t=2m22s

LG1.Farber
Feb-17-2013, 12:17
200-300m is still OK with a 109

You cant hit the broad side of a barn at that range. Robo all you are bringing to this is your thoughts, maybe you have some evidence too? Why would the convergence be set as Tom said if it wasn't even possible. Clearly these weapons are over modeled in there effects and recoil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riJXEF7kerE

4:30 (firing starts with inside and outside views) Note the patch number at the beginning of the film!
This one done in single player, the AI hurricane is set to 0 on all skills so he doesnt move.


I think it would be resonable to expect that when the air was colder and when it contained more water than usual then the smoke would be thicker, also at different altitudes.

Robo.
Feb-17-2013, 13:24
Hmm, maybe you're right, its possible, although I doubt the devs programming the gun "shake" without the plane shake, the revi shake, etc. It would be too lazy, does not even fit in precision ot the a game... IMHO...
But doesn't matter the technical part, I think the inaccuracy is too much. See this video, and you understand what i mean (2:30):

I honestly don't know how is it modeled (recoil vs. head shake), perhaps someone from TF can shed some light on that. Maybe you're right, I was mainly thinking about the reasons as I already asked and I though Little_D suggested this was FM related (see the topic name) but I don't know. He was complaining about two things - recoil effect making the ReVi dance and the smoke trails covering the target.

Maybe the inaccuracy is overdone, what do we know - the gun cams are always a but tricky though because they don't show what the pilot sees necessarily - e.g. actual camera is part of the airframe that shakes with recoil, you can see it on wiggly tracers on many guncams but when you watch it as a movie you don't percieve the vibrations as shaky picture, because the camera shakes with everything. But if the pilot does I don't know, I guess the brain would compensate for that better than we see it in CloD and that is the problem, not the actual recoil (which might be right after all).

The video of Galland (I know it very well actually) does not show much of cannon gunfire as far I can see (no HE hits and it looks like nose gun to me although I know that was December '40 and his E-4/N) and the footage is mixed up (Hurricane / Spitfire) and edited to match the narration. There is one from BoB showing a Spitfire in the ReVi of H. Wick:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDuggc_0cq8

The cannons are shooting more or less like this in CloD with head shake off - and that's why I believe it might be that and not actual recoil - that's all I am saying.

farber- I had lots of fights on Repka server and I often scored good long range hits at 300+m at steady targets and I was often shot down on that range myself so I know it's possible. And I usually used the E-3 with lower muzzle velocity. I watched that video, you missed your burst from 200m which is definitely a good range for the MG/FFs, ReVi a tad too low. Of course the closer the better.

LG1.Farber
Feb-17-2013, 13:42
Im just an average 109 pilot first and foremost. However do you think that all the 109 pilots that are raising this concern are just bad shots then? If someone can show me on full real themselves downing a human pilot consistantly at 300 metres + I will buy them a drink!

SlipBall
Feb-17-2013, 13:52
If I'm not mistaken the German pilots preferred a range to fire at below 100m, 70m is my preference but my settings are set for much further out.

Robo.
Feb-17-2013, 13:56
However do you think that all the 109 pilots that are raising this concern are just bad shots then?

Oh no, not at all. I just made an observation on the video you posted, on that one particular shot (at 200m). High deflection shots are easier than pure 6 o'clock situations imho.

VO101_Tom
Feb-17-2013, 19:51
I don't say it's impossible to get a score from 300m, but you need a long burst, and you need luck, because of the gun inaccuracy.
I have found this video now, pls see this from 2:09:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nMc_HJO0RU

Do you see any similarities with the clod? I don't. You should see two tracer-line, even if the plane shake a little. What you got in clod is a mess compare to this...

ATAG_Headshot
Feb-17-2013, 22:37
I can't comment on the smoke trails from my reading but I can shed some light on the cannon shake. I have a very old book all about 109's that had a bit to say on that. Unfortunately I cannot find it since my last move, but I will look through my stuff here to see if I can track it down so that I can properly cite it and give quotes. What I do remember it saying specifically in relation to the 109 E models was that the wing cannons rattled and shook the plane terribly, to the point that many pilots were advocating to have them just taken out completely. I believe that that was fixed a bit in later models of the 109, but the E's had some serious cannon shake issues. I will try track down that book so I can put in the whole quotes.

Robo.
Feb-18-2013, 00:54
I don't say it's impossible to get a score from 300m, but you need a long burst, and you need luck, because of the gun inaccuracy.

You're right there Tom, a longer burst is needed (1,5 - 2 sec) at such range but you'll get lots of solid hits if your deflection is correct. You probably remember that Russian DF server with the icons on - perfect for practice and you see the range you're shooting from, that's why I know. Many pilots in there (myself included) were able to get very consistent results even at the range between 200-300m, even 300+ with a bit of luck (but not too much of it mind you) and that was an E-3... The reason was there were 109s vs.109s and often with the same speed, you had to shoot from a very long range sometimes. Your opinion or experience may vary, I am not arguing with you as I have no hard data to support my claim. I am writing this based on my experience online and I honestly think they got the ballistics (and gunnery as such) very well done in this sim, including the MG/FF dispersion. The shaking is something I read a lot about but I believe it's exaggerated in the sim because your brain would compensate for some of that. Smoke trails I have no idea, my uneducated opinion is that it depended on temperature and humidity, but I might be wrong here...


I have found this video now, pls see this from 2:09:

Do you see any similarities with the clod? I don't. You should see two tracer-line, even if the plane shake a little. What you got in clod is a mess compare to this...

I see what you mean, the problem is the smoke trails are present on some videos and not on some others. Same with .50 cal gun cams at various altitudes, some left that swirly trace behind, some did not. The thing is it looks like a mess because the smoke trail in game is curly, but the trajectory is straight, Perhaps the TF can do a evaluation of that by removing the smoke trails so the actual paths would be better visible (should look like on that video). Is there any hard data on MG/FF dispersion and inaccuracy available at all? I would prefer having the Oerlikons without smoke trails like in old Il-2, too.


I can't comment on the smoke trails from my reading but I can shed some light on the cannon shake. I have a very old book all about 109's that had a bit to say on that. Unfortunately I cannot find it since my last move, but I will look through my stuff here to see if I can track it down so that I can properly cite it and give quotes. What I do remember it saying specifically in relation to the 109 E models was that the wing cannons rattled and shook the plane terribly, to the point that many pilots were advocating to have them just taken out completely. I believe that that was fixed a bit in later models of the 109, but the E's had some serious cannon shake issues. I will try track down that book so I can put in the whole quotes.

Yes mate, this is what I read about the MG/FFs and even G-2/R6 - teeth rattling. I did find that quote but it's not in English unfortunately.

VO101_Kurfurst
Feb-18-2013, 04:49
Is there any hard data on MG/FF dispersion and inaccuracy available at all?

I have such data, will post it later. The MG FF was a very accurate cannon (ballistics were of course poor - but that's another respect), in fact it had the least dispersion of all German cannons. The reason to this is the relatively short barrel, low RoF and not too powerful rounds. Most of the inaccuacy/dispersion is usually rooted in the barrel flexing during bursts.

SlipBall
Feb-18-2013, 04:51
Im just an average 109 pilot first and foremost. However do you think that all the 109 pilots that are raising this concern are just bad shots then? If someone can show me on full real themselves downing a human pilot consistantly at 300 metres + I will buy them a drink!

Farb stop firing at 300m lol

LG1.Farber
Feb-18-2013, 06:20
I dont slipball, it is a waste of ammo over 100 :lecture: Ask the red pilots what thier wing mounted weapon convergence is, they say things like 200, 300, even 400! :ind:

Osprey
Feb-18-2013, 06:49
My convergence is 250 yards on the Hurricane, so I fire from 300 inwards, usually pretty close though. I set it to that because we attack a lot of bombers which require a bit more of a squirt. 400 is the game default and the RAF default which was proved wrong during the BoB. Most RAF set between 150 yards to a furlong (he he!)

I would like to make 2 points to LW guys on this.

1. Please consider that the smoke trails may be tracers smoke? This is a feature of the cannon rounds. Note I am not saying what is in game is correct! Which leads to point 2
2. I notice that many of the LW complaints tend to start with a complaint and a claim but a lack of evidence in support. This often comes in later once questioned by others leading to arguments and off topic claims of bais yadda yadda, waste of time, blah blah. - I believe that Robo is advocating a supply evidence as his main aim. The OP should really have provided some guncam footage and in game footage with some supporting evidence of the same, or if lacking evidence projected the point as a question rather than a claim. ie, it appears that this is a headshake problem?

Good luck with it and I hope that the 109 gets the realism you are seeking just as long as it is realism. I tried my best to patronise you all during this broadcast, thanks for reading ;)

LG1.Farber
Feb-18-2013, 07:13
LoL Osprey,

We are bringing the evidence. I dont remember red bringing all their evidence in the first post of their 900 page quest for 100 oct fuel... :-P but that was a good thread and got the correct fuel for the red fighters... Shame the Bf110 was mentioned there but didnt get its 100 oct fuel.

These seems to have been closed down to just the cannons aswell but if we all revisit the OP title its about some quirks of the flight model.

Interestingly enough one of these quirks I found out last night also effects the 110! When you have a target in your sights and you need a small adjustment you push the stick forward just a touch and the whole aircraft lurches in an exaggerated motion and then snaps back and lurches the other way as it snaps to your actually position of the stick.

As you requested here is some evidence :thumbsup:

1:10 (notice this is not cannon related, this is a Bf109E1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im_qpk_UR_g

8:35 (bounce is at 8:43, not when I fire and the aircraft lags)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEmbJUpAzDI


Reducing the sensitivity of the elvator to around 0.85 dampens this somewhat however reducing the sensitivity further just makes the controls quite slow and gets you you bum blown off...


On the plus side one of the quirks that should be and is actually modeled is the port wing always stalls first. :thumbsup: There are many accounts of this.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 07:50
As you requested here is some evidence :thumbsup:
1:10 (notice this is not cannon related, this is a Bf109E1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im_qpk_UR_g
.

I don't get it? what's the problem?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 08:15
On this one, at 8:43 you can see the "smoke" trails behind the rounds, it's most obvious on the ones that fire high, over the target.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEmbJUpAzDI

The "explosions" that obscure the view are the rounds actually hitting the spitfire. It's no wonder that an explosive round causes a smoke cloud that obscures the target. I wuold expect that.

You'll see however, at 8:50 - 8:51 that the canon rounds which miss and drop below the spitfire blow up in mid air.

Here's the main problem with those explosive rounds - you cannot set the distance at which they detonate. It looks from the video as though they detonate around 100m in front?

So, let's see some non-explosive cannon rounds in action, just to see if they can fire more than 100m away.

Osprey
Feb-18-2013, 08:26
LoL Osprey,

We are bringing the evidence. I dont remember red bringing all their evidence in the first post of their 900 page quest for 100 oct fuel... :-P but that was a good thread and got the correct fuel for the red fighters... Shame the Bf110 was mentioned there but didnt get its 100 oct fuel.


Point taken, but that was a ludicrous and obvious omission, very poor research on behalf of 1C. It only went to 100 pages+ because of a couple of people argued the toss anyway. Still, indeed that did produce some superb data in the end.

I agree on the Bf110, populist vote of course, the understudy, the ugly sister, like the Hurricane, like the Halifax, like the P47........I think they'll have a lot to smile about with COD this year though.

SlipBall
Feb-18-2013, 08:51
I dont slipball, it is a waste of ammo over 100 :lecture: Ask the red pilots what thier wing mounted weapon convergence is, they say things like 200, 300, even 400! :ind:

Ha ha I know but it boils down to hit percentage, they have awesome firepower, all those guns...the boots on the ground had it much worst!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36315676/TR-240-15-Machine-Gun-Technique-of-Machine-gun-Fire-Indirect-Laying-USA-1925

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 09:06
its the head and the plane that is shaking, look at the alt-indicator when i open fire!!! its both to mutch or maby only the headchaking. this is not a stable gunplatform
if this stay i realy hope you guys get the same problems when flying Spit with 20mm !!! but i dont think red will ever get this problems, when flying 20mm spits.


Have you even fired the guns in a spitfire Little_D?
We already get shaking when we pull the trigger. We don't need to wait for Canons.
When firing the MG's we also get some torque effects too. This is most obviously demonstrated when you fire the weapons from the ground, when parked.
You can also see how much force the RAF aircraft weapons exert back on the RAF aircraft by firing with one wing damaged.

Only difference is, as far as I can tell, no-one has yet complained about it .

Robo.
Feb-18-2013, 09:12
I have such data, will post it later. The MG FF was a very accurate cannon (ballistics were of course poor - but that's another respect), in fact it had the least dispersion of all German cannons. The reason to this is the relatively short barrel, low RoF and not too powerful rounds. Most of the inaccuacy/dispersion is usually rooted in the barrel flexing during bursts.

Great news mate, I am looking forward for anything guns related. I have only seen some basic ballistics tests, but not from the actual wing-mounted cannons. That makes a bit of difference regarding recoil and shaking - and therefore dispersion, or so the pilots claimed. The gun cams posted by Tom looked more like old Il-2 though with light tracers (rather than smoke tracers we have) and a straight trajectory - that makes me really wonder.

The claims I mentioned before come e.g. from Slovak pilots using the Bf 109E-4s and E-7s during Op. Barbarossa all the way to 1944, this particular one was regarding the /R6 MG151/20 used on some of their Gustavs and they were like ''oh no this will shake the Dickens out of me just like the old Emil'' and ''watch out for your teeth mate''. I know this is just anecdotal evidence.


I dont slipball, it is a waste of ammo over 100 :lecture: Ask the red pilots what thier wing mounted weapon convergence is, they say things like 200, 300, even 400! :ind:

That does not mean they're shooting at that distance though, it's really not easy to hit anything at long range but it is not impossible, you can get quite consistent result with practice. I would say 250+ is wasting ammo, you can still snipe though with the cannons or even better, the nose MGs. 600+ meters and solid hits on steady target. 200 yards is 183 meters, that's just perfect for bombers or fighters. You can still come in closer and aim at the fuel tank with just one wing, hitting the fuselage under an angle. My convergence on the 109 is 400 for cannons and 500 for MGs (incl. E-1 wing mgs), with RAF you run out too fast when you waste it on long range pot shots, but I tested 600 and it was sort of OK against 109s zooming back up, but impractical against the bombers or closer targets and you wasted ammo anyway by hosing the bugger down.

I just watched your videos, fly smoother and you can shoot from longer, I guarantee you good cannon hits from 200+ are absolutely possible, and even more with practice.

Osprey - I am just genuinely interested in this topic, I am a bit LW you know, but this thread confused me because it suggests 'FM issue' in the title but then it's game effects (smoke, shells exploding on impact) or head shake or even the dispersion as modeled in game, probably as random element for every gun. I honestly don't know if it's depicted correctly and I would like to know. As a keen 109 pilot I personally don't find this too problematic (or I got used to that) but there might be something in what Tom says so fair enough.

Pstyle - all cannon shells explode after some time (or distance), it's about 600-700m as far I can tell. This is apparently historical for all types of MG/FF ammo used in the game,

Osprey
Feb-18-2013, 09:28
if this stay i realy hope you guys get the same problems when flying Spit with 20mm !!! but i dont think red will ever get this problems, when flying 20mm spits.

Little_D



Have you even fired the guns in a spitfire Little_D?
We already get shaking when we pull the trigger. We don't need to wait for Canons.
When firing the MG's we also get some torque effects too. This is most obviously demonstrated when you fire the weapons from the ground, when parked.
You can also see how much force the RAF aircraft weapons exert back on the RAF aircraft by firing with one wing damaged.

Only difference is, as far as I can tell, no-one has yet complained about it .


I can see that these posts are just going to antagonise and promote the whole 'them and us' style arguments. I am interested in history, prove it and you have it, if not make it as best as is reasonable or acceptable. Comparing with RAF guns is irrelevant because they are different, if you think the shake and rattle of the Brownings is incorrect them let's hear and see why.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 10:41
Comparing with RAF guns is irrelevant because they are different,
Agreed. And I'm intending to make such a comparison. I'm simply stating that the assertion that RAF aircraft do not shake (the comparison which was made earlier in this thread) is fallacious.


if you think the shake and rattle of the Brownings is incorrect them let's hear and see why.
Which I don't. And therefore I will not, and need not.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 10:43
Pstyle - all cannon shells explode after some time (or distance), it's about 600-700m as far I can tell. This is apparently historical for all types of MG/FF ammo used in the game,

Cheers, I'm setting up a map tonight to test this very idea.
Hopefully I can get some nice static camera footage from above the gun range to help us work out what is going on in the game.

LG1.Farber
Feb-18-2013, 10:55
Stlye, its about 700 metres. All ammunition falls away at around that distance. Which is for a new thread but seems short to me.

Osprey
Feb-18-2013, 11:08
I don't think that is short tbh Farber, those MG/FF cannon are a relatively low muzzle velocity for a start, I would expect any round to be falling away by then quite significantly. I can't imagine it would be too hard to find out what the actual drop should be.

Which leads me to perforate this into another question. I recall that the horizontal and vertical convergence settings in game are reversed. Is this true?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 11:11
Stlye, its about 700 metres. All ammunition falls away at around that distance. Which is for a new thread but seems short to me.

OK thanks. Not sure why hitting something at 300m with Canon is any more difficult than with MG weapons? - which I presume is 50% of the discussion going on in this forum.

Mind you, I try to only open up when the enemy aircraft's wing-tips are touching either side of my gun-sight recticle (<150m). Any hits beyond that distance are lucky ones.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 11:12
Which leads me to perforate this into another question. I recall that the horizontal and vertical convergence settings in game are reversed. Is this true?

On the English version of the game, for Allied aircraft, YES this is true.

LG1.Farber
Feb-18-2013, 11:20
OK thanks. Not sure why hitting something at 300m with Canon is any more difficult than with MG weapons? - which I presume is 50% of the discussion going on in this forum.

Mind you, I try to only open up when the enemy aircraft's wing-tips are touching either side of my gun-sight recticle (<150m). Any hits beyond that distance are lucky ones.

No its coause the cannon rounds look like they are fired out of a blunderbuss, one goes high, one low, some left and some right... In real life videos they are much straighter.


On the English version of the game, for Allied aircraft, YES this is true.

That is not the case, I think you will find:

On the English version and some other select languages of the game, for all aircraft, YES this is true.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 11:28
Stlye, its about 700 metres. All ammunition falls away at around that distance. Which is for a new thread but seems short to me.



Does anybody know if this statement is true:

The MG FF had a muzzle velocity of only 580 metres per second ** compared to 870 metres per second for the British built Hispano cannon (and the Bwoning .303 which was 850m/s). The shells of the MG FF would detonate as soon as they contacted the airframe of the target and hence would usually not penetrate any armour

If that's true, it's no wonder that the 109 Canon rounds drop so short, so quickly.

It would be good to see some ballistics curves for the various weapons in consideration.
Gravity will exert 10 m/s/s of acceleration on any fired bullet. In level flight, an MG bullet fired from the spitfire will be travelling 10 metres per second toward the ground after travelling 850m forwards.

The 109 Canon rounds should be falling away at that same speed (10m/s) after travelling only 580 metres from the aircraft.

** Wikipedia is more generous, stating 600m/s

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 11:29
On the English version and some other select languages of the game, for all aircraft, YES this is true.

I suggest you take some grammar lessons. At what point did I exclude these other languages?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 11:33
No its coause the cannon rounds look like they are fired out of a blunderbuss, one goes high, one low, some left and some right... In real life videos they are much straighter..

OK Cheers.That does sound odd.
I suppose that either the aircraft recoil is causing that (which maybe it should, or maybe it shouldn't) or the rounds themselves are just badly modeled.

I'm guessing from the "109 is supposed to be a stable gun platform" comments that folks think the recoil should not impact on the aircraft's flight path. Personally I wouldn't take that kind of comment as conclusive evidence. If I did that, I'd also have to take the word of Al Deere who says the Spitfire could easily out climb and out-pace the 109. :P

I hope I can test the modelling of the rounds quite easily by firing from a static aircraft and reviewing the flight path of multi-colored tracer. Do the canons have coloured tracers?

Osprey
Feb-18-2013, 11:33
That is correct grammar for northerners Pstyle :D I read it that you said only the RAF aircraft are affective for users of the English version of the game. Farber extended this is all aircraft in English + some other language versions.

Also, as to the why they don't hit? It's because MG/FF fire at about half the rate of those LMG's

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 11:36
Also, as to the why they don't hit? It's because MG/FF fire at about half the rate of those LMG's

And it seems they might have only 65% of the muzzle velocity too.... All the more reason to get right up close and personal before pulling the trigger!

VO101_Tom
Feb-18-2013, 12:03
You probably remember that Russian DF server with the icons on - perfect for practice and you see the range you're shooting from, that's why I know. Many pilots in there (myself included) were able to get very consistent results even at the range between 200-300m, even 300+ with a bit of luck (but not too much of it mind you) and that was an E-3... The reason was there were 109s vs.109s and often with the same speed, you had to shoot from a very long range sometimes.

Yes, I remember. Sometimes i shoot extremly long hits (near 400m), but it is very rare, and I had to use too many 20 mm... only 60/barrel, it's not too much :D


I see what you mean, the problem is the smoke trails are present on some videos and not on some others. Same with .50 cal gun cams at various altitudes, some left that swirly trace behind, some did not. The thing is it looks like a mess because the smoke trail in game is curly, but the trajectory is straight, Perhaps the TF can do a evaluation of that by removing the smoke trails so the actual paths would be better visible (should look like on that video).
I agree, some word from TF would be superb.


Is there any hard data on MG/FF dispersion and inaccuracy available at all?
There is a picture mate. The dispersion (in a shooting range) is +- 5-10 cm from 100m distance! The majority of the hits are in the ~10 cm diameter circle... it's accurate enough... :D
But here is the original canvas pattern, if you need:
http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/bugtracker/Anschiesscheibe.jpg

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 12:09
Further to my earlier post,

All objects fall 4.9m after 1 second in the air.


A round fired from the browning .303 will travel 750m forward and 4.9m downward within 1 second after being fired. This represents 0.3 degrees off-target. With the tiniest of corrections, you should be able to hit something at that range, provided it remains level, and does not turn or accelerate.
A round fired from the MG FF will travel 600m forward and 4.9m downward within 1 second after being fired. This represents 0.46 dgrees off target. Also, with the tiniest of corrections you should be able to hit something at 600m, provided it remains level, and does not turn or accelerate.


However, we all know that our targets seldom/ never remain perfectly stable with respect to our aircraft for a whole second. Any change in their speed, or attitude (or our speed or attitude) will throw the shot off.

So let's go to a more respectable range: 300m.

The .303 round will cover the distance to 300m in 0.375 of a second. Enough time for an aircraft to move from your ballistics, but not so far than an unsuspecting target could conceivably be fired upon. During this 0.375 seconds the .303 round will have dropped 0.68m (68cm). The amount of drop is so tiny at this range, that there's almost no point in aiming high, unless your aiming for the wing, blade-on - most parts fo the aircraft (fuselage in partiality) give you plenty of play over 0.68m . (you could get away with not correcting)
The MGFF round will take 0.5 seconds to cover that distance. During this time, the round will have dropped 1.2m (120cm). This is enough to significantly affect your aim with respect to the fuselage of a WW2 fighter. In order to get the same accruacy from MGF as the browning delivers, you'd need to open up at 222 metres. Yu would have to correct (albeit a small amount)



So, even at these ranges, you have to open fire with the Canon at three quarters the range of the browning in order to get the same accuracy.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 12:32
There is a picture mate. The dispersion (in a shooting range) is +- 5-10 cm from 100m distance! The majority of the hits are in the ~10 cm diameter circle... it's accurate enough... :D
But here is the original canvas pattern, if you need:
http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/bugtracker/Anschiesscheibe.jpg

This seems to be the key issue in the game - the 20mm canon dispersion!

But, let's be sure we compare apples with apples. I don't think you can compare like-for-like between a single ground-mounted gun to a pair of aircraft mounted guns.


A single 20mm canon mounted on the ground will fire 8 rounds per second. In this 1 second period neither the gun, NOR the target will move, relative to each other, the only change will be in the movement of the barrel upward due to any recoil that is not compensated for by the mounting,or the human aimer. The recoil which is not absorbed by any dampening mechanism within the gun will be partly transferred to the ground and partly transferred into the body of the aimer/ firer. Depending on Where the weapon is fixed/ mounted to the ground, various amounts of the weapon recoil will transfer into the mount, and the rest into the aimer. We cannot know what proportion this will be based simply on photos from a shooting range.
A pair of 20mm Canon mounted to the wing of an aircraft will each fire 8 rounds person. During this one second however, the flying aircraft will have moved significantly relative to it's target. Even if the aircraft is static, the recoil of the weapon is almost entirely moving into the aiming mechanism (after any dampening has occurred) which is the aircraft. The aircraft if not fixed to the ground, it's on flexible pillions on top of even more flexible wheels. The aircraft has to manage the recoil of not just 1 canon either.



I would expect to see a dispersion pattern that is different between a ground mounted canon and a single-engine aircraft mounted cannon. Even when that aircraft is parked on the ground.
However, I'd still like to test this in game (if it's possible.....) to see what the hit pattern looks like. But it would be VERY hard to see that, because you'd have to erect an object 100m from aircraft, at and angle equivalent to the angle of attack of the aircraft when parked.

Wing mounted canons would be slightly better (less overall impact on aim) than nose mounted canons, given the fact that nose mounted canons are froward o the aircraft's Center of Gravity.

LG1.Farber
Feb-18-2013, 12:41
Further to my earlier post,

All objects fall 4.9m after 1 second in the air.

Do you mean gravity?

9.81 m/s2

However this object is not simply hanging in the air, it has velocity. What is this figure and what do you mean?






A round fired from the browning .303 will travel 750m forward and 4.9m downward within 1 second after being fired. This represents 0.3 degrees off-target. With the tiniest of corrections, you should be able to hit something at that range, provided it remains level, and does not turn or accelerate.
A round fired from the MG FF will travel 600m forward and 4.9m downward within 1 second after being fired. This represents 0.46 dgrees off target. Also, with the tiniest of corrections you should be able to hit something at 600m, provided it remains level, and does not turn or accelerate.



If the same values apply according to you, why is the round that travels 150 metres less more off target? - that makes no sense at all. Nor does it take into account mass, volocity, the accuracy of the weapon, drag, centroid of the projectile and probably many other things.



However, we all know that our targets seldom/ never remain perfectly stable with respect to our aircraft for a whole second. Any change in their speed, or attitude (or our speed or attitude) will throw the shot off.

So let's go to a more respectable range: 300m.

The .303 round will cover the distance to 300m in 0.375 of a second. Enough time for an aircraft to move from your ballistics, but not so far than an unsuspecting target could conceivably be fired upon. During this 0.375 seconds the .303 round will have dropped 0.68m (68cm). The amount of drop is so tiny at this range, that there's almost no point in aiming high, unless your aiming for the wing, blade-on - most parts fo the aircraft (fuselage in partiality) give you plenty of play over 0.68m . (you could get away with not correcting)
The MGFF round will take 0.05 seconds to cover that distance. During this time, the round will have dropped 1.2m (120cm). This is enough to significantly affect your aim with respect to the fuselage of a WW2 fighter. In order to get the same accruacy from MGF as the browning delivers, you'd need to open up at 222 metres. Yu would have to correct (albeit a small amount)



So, even at these ranges, you have to open fire with the Canon at three quarters the range of the browning in order to get the same accuracy.


So the MGFF just got allot faster all of a sudden...

What?! I dont think any of this true, sorry.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 13:00
Do you mean gravity?
9.81 m/s2
However this object is not simply hanging in the air, it has velocity. What is this figure and what do you mean?
Yes, in one second, all objects will drop 4.9m due to gravity. Gravity acts on all objects near earth.


If the same values apply according to you, why is the round that travels 150 metres less more off target? - that makes no sense at all. Nor does it take into account mass, volocity, the accuracy of the weapon, drag, centroid of the projectile and probably many other things..

It travels 150m less horizontally, but it's TIME that acts on the bullet, not distance. Acceleration towards the ground is in meters per second, PER second.
If gravity acts over the same time, the amount of drop will be the same (4.9m in a second), irrespective of how far away the bullets are from each other. So the bullet that travels furthest in that same time will have deviated the same in vertical terms, but not in terms of angle off target.



So the MGFF just got allot faster all of a sudden...
What?! I dont think any of this true, sorry.
If you're basing that on a single typo (0.05s as opposed to 0.5s - which if you had checked did not carry over into the rest of the calcs) then you're just being petty.

LG1.Farber
Feb-18-2013, 13:10
Yes, in one second, all objects will drop 4.9m due to gravity. Gravity acts on all objects near earth.


I dont get it, 9.81 metres per second squared. Not 9.81 devided by 2 per second = 4.9


It has an approximate value of 9.81 m/s2, which means that, ignoring the effects of air resistance, the speed of an object falling freely near the Earth's surface will increase by about 9.81 meters (about 32.2 ft) per second every second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

What about Newton:

Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.



It travels 150m less horizontally, but it's TIME that acts on the bullet, not distance. Acceleration towards the ground is in meters per second, PER second.
If gravity acts over the same time, the amount of drop will be the same (4.9m in a second), irrespective of how far away the bullets are from each other. So the bullet that travels furthest in that same time will have deviated the same in vertical terms, but not in terms of angle off target.

This doesnt make sense.


If you're basing that on a single typo (0.05s as opposed to 0.5s - which if you had checked did not carry over into the rest of the calcs) then you're just being petty.

Science good sir is not petty! :idea: We all make mistakes, I cant spell. We all have flaws.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 13:17
I dont get it, 9.81 metres per second squared. Not 9.81 devided by 2 per second = 4.9

Here' some children's maths for you. See the second "Example Calculations"
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1dkin/u1l5d.cfm
All objects fall a total distance of 4.9m from t=0 to t=1 second.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth
What about Newton:
Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.
I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest here. Are you proposing that objects with different mass fall at different rates of acceleration?



This doesnt make sense.
Yes, it does.
Falsify it.

Robo.
Feb-18-2013, 13:25
Yes, I know, I am aware of that canvas pattern, but again, you would shoot in it with a plane jacked to the ground and the canvas itself is 100m away from the aircraft. If the diameter circle is 10cm at 100m as you say, it will be much more at 150, 200, 250m as the cone grows bigger with the distance. You could calculate that or even get the dispersion in degrees...

pstyle - mind you the muzzle velocity of the MG-FF/M (E-4) was different to the older MG-FF (E-3), hence the various numbers you find.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 13:29
pstyle - mind you the muzzle velocity of the MG-FF/M (E-4) was different to the older MG-FF (E-3), hence the various numbers you find.

Cheers Robo, I'm using this: http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html
There is a 20mm canon section down near the bottom

LG1.Farber
Feb-18-2013, 13:30
Here' some children's maths for you. See the second "Example Calculations"
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1dkin/u1l5d.cfm
All objects fall a total distance of 4.9m from t=0 to t=1 second.


I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest here. Are you proposing that objects with different mass fall at different rates of acceleration?


Yes, it does.
Falsify it.


OK, this Childrens maths concerning
Free-falling objects are in a state of acceleration. .... NOT objects shot out of a cannon mounted in an aircraft... its the wrong formula. :goofy

Robo.
Feb-18-2013, 13:34
Cheers Robo, I'm using this: http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html
There is a 20mm canon section down near the bottom

I see, good link mate, thanks for that.

It's not as easy with ballistics though, you're not observing a free falling object here, the muzzle velocity, ballistic coefficient of the round etc etc all come into play...

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 13:35
OK, this Childrens maths concerning .... NOT objects shot out of a cannon mounted in an aircraft... its the wrong formula. :goofy

No it's not.
Gravity acts on bullets.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10773/how-does-gravity-affect-bullets

If it's the wrong formula (which it isn't) then please provide the correct one.

Robo.
Feb-18-2013, 13:41
No it's not.
Gravity acts on bullets.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10773/how-does-gravity-affect-bullets

If it's the wrong formula (which it isn't) then please provide the correct one.

The formula is correct, but for more accurate calculations you need a proper ballistics calculator like:

http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi

.303 mark VII has got 740 m/s, 174gr (11,3grams), BC of 0.467 - try that...

LG1.Farber
Feb-18-2013, 13:42
If it's the wrong formula (which it isn't) then please provide the correct one.


That level of mathematics is beyond me.


Damn Robo, seems they dont have MGFF ammo in the drop down menu.... :doh:

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 13:44
The formula is correct, but for more accurate calculations you need a proper ballistics calculator like:

http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi

.303 mark VII has got 740 m/s, 174gr (11,3grams), BC of 0.467 - try that...

Yes. A more accurate formula for the entire ballistic will take account of the bullet's friction though the air both horizontally and in relation to any friction which would slow the gravity fall too, (which would be greater for bullets of higher calibre).

However my formula is ONLY for the drop associated with gravity. That's the only thing I was intending to calculate.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 13:44
That level of mathematics is beyond me.

yes... clearly.

ATAG_Colander
Feb-18-2013, 14:02
Guys,

Please do not turn this forum into the banana forum.

Abstain from finger pointing and keep the discussions constructive.

ATAG_Colander.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 14:23
In my opinion, 99% of this conversation is moot anyway because we are unable to properly test the weapons in game.

Until we can fire from a static aircraft on the ground with the tail wheel raised (so the AoA is 0 to the horizon), we can't really make any confident and testable statements about how the weapons are firing in the game.

-Sven-
Feb-18-2013, 14:55
I do not know where all you guys are headed in this discussion, but it was about head shake and excessive smoke trails from cannon rounds on page 1. Which I totally agree with, sometimes I can barely see what I'm shooting at, that plus the head shake makes firing the cannons a real pain. Of course, you could fire 1-2 round burst in order to preserve some visibility, but that isn't the cure to the problem.

I can't find much E4 camera footage, but BF110 firing smoke rounds with camera in the cockpit shows quite clearly he remains good visibility throughout the shooting. The trails of smoke are much more vivid. Now, this may be the wrong cannon, but it's 2 of them under the nose, which should make things worse.

And from a logical point of view I can't comprehend why the Germans would fill their cannon rounds with such excessive smoke whilst it should be an aid, not a pain.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wTSx9rczoxA

From 2:14 and onward is some cockpit footage

Some more in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0LeuA0uCQs

Robo.
Feb-18-2013, 15:22
Yes Sven, but no one here knows much about the smoke trails - is it correct or overdone in the game? Every guncam is different and that does not make things any easier (watch the Galland footage and then the Wick gun cam above in this thread.) The game seems to be very well researched regarding ammunition used, ammo belts, ballistics so I would not be surprised if they got it correct with MG/FFs, too. I remember when I played this sim for the first time how surprised I was with the smoke tracers on the 109 (being used to Il-2). Other sims do have this on machine guns (RoF, DCS) so I really don't know and I was often wondering the same thing like you - is that how it's supposed to be? Until some expert on aerial gunnery with some RL experience shows up we simply won't get anywhere.

SlipBall
Feb-18-2013, 15:23
Yea why do the Brits have the good gun's :grrr:

1960

ATAG_Bliss
Feb-18-2013, 15:23
As someone who's job involves working and firing military heavy assault/automatic weapons (amongst a plethora of other weapon related things), I feel I have plenty of experience to form a very good theory about weapon shake.

To give you an idea, one system I work with is mounted on heavy military vehicles (MRAPs). The soft mount (where the weapon goes) is designed in such a fashion (bushings, seals, springs, electronic disc brakes) that it will absorb 90% (yes 90%) of the weapons recoil alone. For instance, lets say we are dealing with a M2 .50 cal machine gun. 90% of the violence of the weapon is absorbed directly in the soft mount. But one step further - the weapon system is mounted to a 30 ton armored vehicle. It is mounted directly in the middle of this vehicle. This system is mounted using 3" armor bolted to 3" armor. It is heavy and not going anywhere.

Even with all that said, I can still feel the vibration of the 50 when it's fired inside the cab. Because of the soft mount design, a 50 can easily hit targets the size of softballs at well over 1km away.

So to imagine a solid mounted cannon (nothing to absorb the recoil) in something as light as a WWII prop fighter, especially mounted in the middle of wings that will flex (obviously by design) just from the body weight of a human standing/walking on top of them, I could not even begin to imagine the violence felt by the pilot as they were fired, but also the effects it had on the plane while firing in flight. It mush have been horrific - hence the real pilot accounts saying the same thing.

To give you an idea, a GAU-8 avenger that is mounted in the A10 Warthog (yes it fires 30mm and 3000+ rounds a minute), but while firing it the recoil is so bad that it will pull negative 2g's just with the weapon alone while in flight. And this is with a fast, modern, heavy duty, twin engined jet fighter.

As far as the shake, I'd have to say the game is as close to what I think reality would actually be. If you don't think the airframe will shake with those wing mounted cannons, then I would say you haven't fired too many heavy assault weapons/machine guns.

As far as the smoke, some rounds will always emit smoke while other rounds will do so entirely based on the air temperature, density, and humidity of what they are traveling through. This varies day to day in real life, but not so much in the channel map in Clod.

SlipBall
Feb-18-2013, 15:30
The guns are fine, need to shoot between the shake and don't fill the air with smoggy cannon dust :D

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 15:33
And from a logical point of view I can't comprehend why the Germans would fill their cannon rounds with such excessive smoke whilst it should be an aid, not a pain.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wTSx9rczoxA


Pause it at 1:59. The target is almost completely hidden by the smoke coming from the ammo.

9./ZG26Eicken
Feb-18-2013, 15:39
From the camera's perspective, not the pilot's.

5./JG27 Max Schneider
Feb-18-2013, 15:50
As someone who has fired the same weapons as Bliss has, both on vehicles and on simple ground A-frames, I believe that the recoil of the 20mm cannons would not have been as bad as it is in the game. Airframes are pretty stable, particularly at speed. That being said, I think there would certainly have been some juttering around during firing, no doubt about that. As for the smoke, I think its a bit excessive, particularly since the cannons are mounted in the wings on the 109, not the nose.

edit:
All that being said, its not 100% unmanageable. Out of curiosity Bliss, what do you do? work for Oshkosh? probably get to do some pretty cool, fun stuff.

VO101_Kurfurst
Feb-18-2013, 15:54
Regarding dispersion of the MG FF.

"Die Dauerfunktionspr&#252;fung fand bei vier St&#252;ck des MGs FF, in dem Bug der DO 217J montiert, statt. 125 000 Schuss wurden ohne St&#246;rung verfeuert. Die Treffgenauigkeit erreichte die Standardentfernung von 100 m mit 15 x 15 cm eine bemerkenswerte Leistungs, die auch der Grund f&#252;r die Verwendung dieser Waffe als "Schraege Musik" war.

Translation.

The sustained functionality testing was made with four pieces of MG FF, which were installed in the nose of a Do 217J, and apprx. 125 000 shots were fired without fault. The hit probability measured at a standard distance of 100 meter with 15 x 15 cm (spread) was a noteworthy performance, which was also the basis of use of this gun as a "Schreage Musik" installation.".

Fritz Hahn: Deutsche Geheimwaffen 1939 - 1945, Flugzeugbewaffungen. pg. 38 1963, Erich Hoffmann Verlag, Heidenheim.

And furthermore, an ancient post from butch2k.

Originally posted by Butch2k on AAW :
http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forum...&hl=dispersion

Here are the results of a lenghty research into dispersion data, which is quite hard to come by...
The data is based on 100% diameter dispersion with 1 mil = 1/1000th of rad, the kind of mount is precised next to the weapon. 75% dispersion diameter is supposed to be half the 100% diameter which seems quite true for most weapons, this value is provided when quoted in the source (M2 data for instance).

We can clearly see the impact of the wing mounting compared to engine mounting, the later seems to have absorbed recoil and vibration much better... indeed dispersion is at least 2 times greater with wing mounted weapons.
Engine mount are the most efficient but nose mounting or cowling mounting does not provide the same amount of precision the mount being much more prone to vibration it seems.

Note that US data on the M2 is confusing since the reference data comes from a P-38 nose mounted M2, but the US manuals use the same dispersion data for wing mounted weapons. Either the P-38 mounts are really up to no good or the manuals make a wrong assumption when it comes to wing dispersion. I tend to believe the later, i think the wing mounted M2 would have had a dispersion of at least 12mils and probably more.

If you quote this data on other sites/bbs please precise the source being AAW. TIA

H means Height (or max dispersion diameter) as i previously used vertical and lateral dispersion values.

D means distance.

Units are metric.

German Weapons
-----------------------
MG-17 Cowling mounted (Bf 109F-2 / Bf 109F-1 actual tests)
H = 0.60 / 0.8 m
D = 100 m
R/D = 60/10000 80/10000
= 6 mils / 8 mils

MG-131 Cowling mounted (Fw 190A - theorical max)
H = 1m
D = 100m
H/D = 100/10000
= 10 mils

MG-151/15 Engine mounted (Bf 109F-2 actual test)
H = 0,35 m
D = 100 m
H/D = 35/10000
= 3.5 mils

MG-FF Engine mounted (Bf 109F-1 actual test)
H = 0,2 m
D = 100m
H/D = 20/10000
= 2 mils (very tight patern)

MG-FF Wing mounted (Bf 109E-3 actual test)
H = 0,35 m
D = 100m
H/D = 35/10000
= 3.5 mils

MG 151/20 Engine mounted (Bf 109G-6 - theorical max)
H = 0.3m
D = 100m
H/D = 30/10000
= 3 mils

MG 151/20 Wing mounted - inner (Fw 190A - theorical max)
H = 0.7m
D = 100m
H/D = 70/10000
= 7 mils

MG 151/20 Wing mounted - outer (Fw 190A - theorical max)
H = 0.8m
D = 100m
H/D = 80/10000
= 8 mils

MK 108 Engine mounted (Ta 152 - therorical max)
H = 0.35
D = 100m
H/D = 35/10000
= 3.5 mils

Allied Weapons
------------------
M2 Nose mounted P-38 (USAAF 1944 Gunnery manual)
H = 1.88 m
D = 229 m
H/D = 188/22900
= 8.2 mils (75% = 4.1 mils)

Hispano 20mm Nose mounted P-38 (USAAF 1944 Gunnery manual)
3 mils 75%
6 mils 100% assumed

ATAG_Bliss
Feb-18-2013, 16:03
All that being said, its not 100% unmanageable. Out of curiosity Bliss, what do you do? work for Oshkosh? probably get to do some pretty cool, fun stuff.

I'm a GS13 with USSOCOM sublet from the US Tank and Armament Command (TACOM). Not a contractor.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-18-2013, 17:18
From the camera's perspective, not the pilot's.

indeed. and if the weapons are calibrate to hit the target somewhere between the gun-sight and the target, will there not be points at which the very same trails obscure the view from the pilot's perspective?

92 Sqn. Folmar (QJ-F)
Feb-18-2013, 20:49
+1 To Bliss. Coming from the same career field and area of expertise I would have to agree completely with Bliss in his comments. Well done!

ATAG_Colander
Feb-18-2013, 21:13
I would think that the wings, being flexible, would absorb some of the vibration (unsure of the percentage). Of course this would mean that the pilot would feel less vibration but also would mean that there would be more dispersal.

Robo.
Feb-19-2013, 01:06
Yeah thank you Bliss :thumbsup:

Max I don't think it makes any difference if the cannons are nose- or wing mounted. You will end up flying through their trajectory anyway, depending on the convergence. The OP is using very short convergence settings so maybe that's why.

Kurfurst - thanks very much, very interesting! 15x15 at 100m from nose mounted guns in a heavy bomber on the ground and 35x35 from the wing mounted E-3 MG/FF -that's very good for a 20mm cannon and certainly better than what we see in the game. I guess the dispersion is modeled in flight (a/c not jacked, more shaking), I'd estimate it is at least 70cm at 100m with the 109 cannons in clod (7mils). Do yo happen to have some data on the actual tests quoted in that AAW thread?

Little_D
Feb-20-2013, 05:34
Hi gents,

i get now a little confused by a video i saw from ATAG-Server, because there is no shaking when the pilot fire the 20mm guns !!!!

here is my video i post before, it a offlinevideo but i get the same headshaking online:


http://youtu.be/hLytm3cOYOo

and here is the other one it was post today 20.02.2013 from Herr Laca in an other post:
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?2476-COD-Videos&p=32840#post32840

and as far i understand it is from yeasterday on ATAG-Server and there is no headshaking:


http://youtu.be/I_eDZH0uPag

so please can sombody explane to me how he dit this, that his head dont shake? Or how i have to set the settings in game?
and look at the smoketrails they look not so big too!!! I know in my video its from the 6 but online even in a deflectionshot i have bigger smoketrails, so what i make wrong on my settings?

regards

Little_D

56RAF_klem
Feb-20-2013, 06:21
Yes. A more accurate formula for the entire ballistic will take account of the bullet's friction though the air both horizontally and in relation to any friction which would slow the gravity fall too, (which would be greater for bullets of higher calibre).

However my formula is ONLY for the drop associated with gravity. That's the only thing I was intending to calculate.

I don't want to extend this discussion but it is not just a matter of muzzle velocity. Projectile weight and shape (drag) come into it.

The projectiles were different weights which affected their kinetic energy at the muzzle.
They were different shapes which affected their retardation due to drag.

In short they were different on a number of levels.

There are various data sources but the ones I used (I forget the websites now) gave:

MG FF. 20mm. Projectile weight 115 gms. Muzzle velocity 570 m/s.
0.303 inch. Projectile weight 11.3 gms. Muzzle velocity 745 m/s.

Drop is related to time over distance. Time over distance is related to Muzzle Velocity and form factor/drag.

At 300yds
MG FF (109E) drops 1.8m
MG FF/20 (109F, G etc) drops 1.0m
.303 drops 1.0m

At 600 yds
MG FF drops 11.5m
MG FF/20 drops 6.6m
.303 drops 6.7m.

Might be a bit out but you get the general idea.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-20-2013, 06:25
The projectiles were different weights which affected their kinetic energy at the muzzle.
They were different shapes which affected their retardation due to drag.
Drop is related to time over distance. Time over distance is related to Muzzle Velocity and form factor/drag.


Cheers Klem.
Yep, the basic formula is used for distance (drop) covered due to gravity does not include air resistance. The drop over distance will, in fact be greater once you factor in the additional time to range associated with the air slowing the bullet down after it leaves the muzzle.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-20-2013, 06:26
so please can sombody explane to me how he dit this, that his head dont shake? Or how i have to set the settings in game?
and look at the smoketrails they look not so big too!!! I know in my video its from the 6 but online even in a deflectionshot i have bigger smoketrails, so what i make wrong on my settings?
Little_D

Servus Little_D

Do you have "force feedback" enabled on your joystick? This might be part of the problem.

I have also noticed that some videos online there is no (or not very much) 20mm cannon head-shake, and on others there is a lot.
I wonder why.....

VO101_Tom
Feb-20-2013, 11:48
so please can sombody explane to me how he dit this, that his head dont shake? Or how i have to set the settings in game?
regards
Little_D

Hi.
There is no headshake, when you play a recorded track. It's a bug (an old one)...

Little_D
Feb-20-2013, 15:40
Hi Tom,

realy? do you see my video? i record it with fraps from an ingametrack.

Hi 92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P),

no i have a x52 no force feedback on this stick.

Hi gents,

thanks for the nice discusion on this thread, i think we can go on for more pages, but will never come together of what it should be or what is an historical fact. but i still have some question to the spit/hurri FM we get, so it is better to open a new one or can i ask it here? hope on this question red and blue can come together :)

regards

Little_D

VO101_Tom
Feb-20-2013, 16:49
Hi Tom,
realy? do you see my video? i record it with fraps from an ingametrack.
regards
Little_D

I have tried recording a track offline/online today, but I have no headshake, same as Laca's video... I don't know why.

Edit:
Here is the two track file, which i recorded today. Please play them, and we'll see, the headshake disappear during the record or during the playing...
http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/Records/20test01_online.trk
http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/Records/20test02_offline.trk

Little_D
Feb-21-2013, 08:09
Hi Tom,

i will test it later when i come back from work :-)

hi gents,

i find this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AWoj0TWEQY

So what from this you here and see we have in CoD?

regards

Little_D

ATAG_Septic
Feb-21-2013, 09:04
Hi Tom,

i will test it later when i come back from work :-)

hi gents,

i find this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AWoj0TWEQY

So what from this you here and see we have in CoD?

regards

Little_D

Hi Big D old chum.

Thanks for posting this.

I watched the whole documentary and whilst I suspect there are plenty of well-informed folk here and elswhere able to offer criticism and counter argument, it did seem well researched to my less well-informed ears!

This is one of the reasons I fly the 109 much less, I feel I should win and it hurts even more when I don't!

Cheers,

Septic.

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-21-2013, 09:39
Hi Tom,

i will test it later when i come back from work :-)

hi gents,

i find this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AWoj0TWEQY

So what from this you here and see we have in CoD?

regards

Little_D

Hi Little_D,

This clip was discussed in some detail here already a few months ago:

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?2473-Bf-109E-3-model-climb-rate&highlight=Neil

Some interesting viewpoints were expressed.

Salute,

Snapper

102.VO_Herr_Laca
Feb-21-2013, 11:08
Hi gents,

i get now a little confused by a video i saw from ATAG-Server, because there is no shaking when the pilot fire the 20mm guns !!!!

here is my video i post before, it a offlinevideo but i get the same headshaking online:


http://youtu.be/hLytm3cOYOo

and here is the other one it was post today 20.02.2013 from Herr Laca in an other post:
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?2476-COD-Videos&p=32840#post32840

and as far i understand it is from yeasterday on ATAG-Server and there is no headshaking:


http://youtu.be/I_eDZH0uPag

so please can sombody explane to me how he dit this, that his head dont shake? Or how i have to set the settings in game?
and look at the smoketrails they look not so big too!!! I know in my video its from the 6 but online even in a deflectionshot i have bigger smoketrails, so what i make wrong on my settings?

regards

Little_D

Hi. The plane shake is visible on the fraps record.


http://youtu.be/Puk1Sy8z4dU

VO101_Kurfurst
Feb-23-2013, 05:13
A quick question though, will the 109e finally have its 8 mm bulkhead armor finally implemented?

20062007

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-23-2013, 05:15
A quick question though, will the 109e finally have its 8 mm bulkhead armor finally implemented?

20062007


I hope so!
Finally something for my Armour Piercing rounds to go through.

LG1.Farber
Feb-23-2013, 07:16
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/collisionmodeldm2.jpg

Armour^

I expect all the ammo types will be visited by TF. At least I would expect it.

Osprey
Feb-23-2013, 12:38
A quick question though, will the 109e finally have its 8 mm bulkhead armor finally implemented?

20062007

I hardly ever get PK's, I figured it already had it! ;)

ATAG_JTDawg
Feb-23-2013, 13:41
I hardly ever get PK's, I figured it already had it! ;)

I get 1-3 per day ,:devilish: but i never set up wing span or convergence on pickle. as i use the force :)

VO101_Kurfurst
Feb-24-2013, 06:34
I hardly ever get PK's, I figured it already had it! ;)

I am not 100% wheter it has it or not... the initial DM pictures Oleg posted certainly do not show it. The current 3D model does not have the armor headplate (neither did all BoB era 109Es either!) and you of course cannot see whats inside the fuselage. The 3D model is just eyecandy anyway.

I very often get wounded/PKd but then again, it just might be that the bullets bypass the armor plate, which was quite possible in RL life too. However I did a couple of quick tests with friendly AI 109, and tried to shoot them dead astern with normal munition, and PK happened almost instantly. So IMHO the 8mm armored bulkhead of the 109E is not modelled in Clod, even though it was introduced in late 1939, and a great number of British-made crash reports of 109E during the Battle I have found definitely mentions it.

This is IMHO something the modding team should definietely look into...

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-24-2013, 07:08
This is IMHO something the modding team should definietely look into...
And of course, it goes without saying that you would also like them to check that the Spitfire 2a has the behind-pilot armour plating modeled too... while they're at it ;)

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Feb-24-2013, 07:20
Kurfurst, this armor was standard beginning with the E-4, correct? Also, was the fuel cell protected as well?

Also, I believe the armour piercing in the sim is far too effective considering it's historical performance.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm


Tests by the RAF indicated that both the .303 and 7.92mm AP bullets had some problems penetrating the structure of the relatively small and light Blenheim bomber. Both guns were fired at a range of 200 yards (180m) through the rear fuselage at the 4 mm armour plate protecting the rear gunner, which was angled at 60&#186; to the line of fire. The results were poor; only 33% of the .303" rounds reached the armour (the rest being deflected or absorbed by the structure) and 6% penetrated it. In contrast, only 23% of the 7.92 mm bullets reached the armour, and just 1% penetrated.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-24-2013, 08:45
Kurfurst, this armor was standard beginning with the E-4, correct? Also, was the fuel cell protected as well?

Also, I believe the armour piercing in the sim is far too effective considering it's historical performance.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm

interesting find notafinger, quite a nice website that.cheers.

I wonder if the AP feels overly powerful in the game because the armour is not implemented properly, or if is that the rounds themselves are too strong... or a combination of both from the above? Of course, we seldom (if ever) get an exact record of how many bullets hit the target, and where the impacts occurred.

If 33% of .303 rounds would penetrate structure and 6% would go on to penetrate armour that means that in a half second burst from the 8 .303 brownings one would expect 25 rounds to pass thought eh structure and hit the armour, and 5 rounds to penetrate the armour.

In a half-second burst from an all-MG armed 109 we would expect only 6 rounds (23%) to pass though the structure to the armour and, less than 1 bullet to penetrate the armour, in a burst of the same length in time (0.5 seconds).


The problem with working to these kinds of "probabilities" is that we only have our anecdotes from the game to compare it too. Sure, I've been PK'd from behind many times in the Spitfire 2a, but some very short bursts from MG-only fire. BUT, how many rounds went through he armour? I have no idea. They might have been slight side-shots... or maybe the armour isn't even modeled. It could be the same for the 109s?

I'd be interested to know...

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-24-2013, 12:25
I'm not a member of Team Fusion and I do not hold them under any obligation to do anything. They are about to offer a patch, free of charge. No one is forced to use it. If you have a problem with the Flight Modelling as Team Fusion will be presenting it, don't use it.

If this sounds harsh, it's meant to be. Team Fusion is made up of volunteers who have generously donated their time and effort to producing this patch, and no one on this forum is about to start dictating terms on how this FREE patch should be administered.

Your inference of other forum members acting dishonourably on this forum is offensive. Fortunately you did not make specific reference to any individual(s), otherwise you would immediately have been removed permanently from this forum.

Forum members who know me here and on Teamspeak may be surprised by my direct tone here, however, your aggressive and arrogant tone is highly offensive and will not be tolerated.

I trust I have made myself clear on this.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-24-2013, 12:48
there are also some forum posters who glorify all things *** and are perpetual historical ** revisionists.

Dear mods, can this statement be removed from the forum. This is a dangerous accusation, perhaps badly worded, but dangerous nonetheless.

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-24-2013, 13:04
Dear mods, can this statement be removed from the forum. This is a dangerous accusation, perhaps badly worded, but dangerous nonetheless.

The post in question has been removed pending further review. Slipball's response as well, temporarily, only because it quoted the post in question, not for anything Slipball himself posted.

SlipBall
Feb-24-2013, 13:14
Wipes my brow :-P

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-24-2013, 13:15
Wipes his brow :-P

Back atcha, buddy! :-P

:)

SlipBall
Feb-24-2013, 13:19
See now thats disgusting :P

SlipBall
Feb-24-2013, 13:56
Luthier??
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=498335#post498335

Catseye
Mar-01-2013, 12:05
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/collisionmodeldm2.jpg

Armour^

I expect all the ammo types will be visited by TF. At least I would expect it.

Hi Farber,
Yes they will be and currently are.
Cheers

Broodwich
Mar-01-2013, 16:46
Hmm, maybe you're right, its possible, although I doubt the devs programming the gun "shake" without the plane shake, the revi shake, etc. It would be too lazy, does not even fit in precision ot the a game... IMHO...


I'm pretty sure thats how it works in game. You may call it "lazy", but programmers call it "efficient" :D