Jump to content

[REPORTED]Gun Dispersion


shaunwallis21
 Share

Recommended Posts

You probably won't get any, 'cause it not ED that programmed the weapon, so they'll tell You to get back to BST.

 

As for the "ignoring" part, maybe they did, maybe they didn't. BST guys are generally not very active in English section of the forum and more often than not we know if the bugs have been acknowledged only when the fixes pop up in the game updates a couple of months later.

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly BST is using ED's Weapon physics model. I am pretty sure the russian goverment is telling them not to make the american weapons good because all the Russian guns have way better accuracy then the american ones witch is the exact opposite of real life statistics.


Edited by shaunwallis21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case of the Sabre, the problem is caused by guns being incorrectly boresighted and overheating too fast, which causes the spread. Guys have been editing relevant files to remedy both these problems for offline and closed online use, so I'd guess You could try doing same for F-5, if You are an offline player only.

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly BST is using ED's Weapon physics model. I am pretty sure the russian goverment is telling them not to make the american weapons good because all the Russian guns have way better accuracy then the american ones witch is the exact opposite of real life statistics.

 

Hello, I've got a tinfoil hat going spare, I'll sell you it for just a small fee :)

 

Seriously though, keep posting documents and do a verifable test to prove it's wrong, and it'll get picked up.

Just saying it's wrong doesn't often result in much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly BST is using ED's Weapon physics model. I am pretty sure the russian goverment is telling them not to make the american weapons good because all the Russian guns have way better accuracy then the american ones witch is the exact opposite of real life statistics.

 

 

You know....I'm not interested in opening a can of worms here but I have often thought of something very similar to this myself. As have people I have talked to on TS, in the servers. I'm not saying that I believe that it's likely true but the thought has occurred to me. But you must understand that I am in the United States where we hear that this is common in Russia. It's how we are programmed in a sense. Just like other cultures are predisposed in many of their beliefs about Americans and our way of life. This kind of led me to not think too much about it until I started hearing Europeans saying similar things on TS.

Whether it is true or not, I cannot say, but I believe that it is planted any many people's minds.

Again....I'm not saying it's fact, I'm just saying that it crosses many people's minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You probably won't get any, 'cause it not ED that programmed the weapon, so they'll tell You to get back to BST.

 

As for the "ignoring" part, maybe they did, maybe they didn't. BST guys are generally not very active in English section of the forum and more often than not we know if the bugs have been acknowledged only when the fixes pop up in the game updates a couple of months later.

 

oh yea i remember when i filed a bug report that the F86F was missing the M117 ( it historically used it)

 

took them ages to for it to get acknowledged, ( and many sources on my part) before they implemented the M117 in patch last year. I think my last post of "M117s already an Assets in DCS on the Ai F5" finally pushed them to add it, but they still didnt develop the AN-M65 1000 pound bomb. ( too much effort to make from scratch i guess, an d it could have been shared with the P51 mustang ( or upcoming P47), since it was of ww2 vintage


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh yea i remember when i filed a bug report that the F86F was missing the M117 ( it historically used it)

 

took them ages to for it to get acknowledged, ( and many sources on my part) before they implemented the M117 in patch last year. I think my last post of "M117s already an Assets in DCS on the Ai F5" finally pushed them to add it, but they still didnt develop the AN-M65 1000 pound bomb. ( too much effort to make from scratch i guess, an d it could have been shared with the P51 mustang ( or upcoming P47), since it was of ww2 vintage

 

before we go to far off topic. about the bombs there are all sorts of fuzing and delay options that the current bombs need to get before they work on new bombs probably.ED has to give the NATO bombs that functionality before the 3rd parties can do anything.

I am sure once they finally get 2.5 out we will see the small things like this get implemented.


Edited by shaunwallis21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It's great to see Belsimtek is going to be addressing the accuracy of the F-5's guns. The current 20-30ish mil performance is unrealistic in the extreme- to have that level of inaccuracy, rounds would have to be failing to stabilize and tumbling through the air or the guns would have to be very loose in their mounts.

 

8 mils = 8cm at 100m and 80cm at 1000m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

before we go to far off topic. about the bombs there are all sorts of fuzing and delay options that the current bombs need to get before they work on new bombs probably.ED has to give the NATO bombs that functionality before the 3rd parties can do anything.

I am sure once they finally get 2.5 out we will see the small things like this get implemented.

 

You only ever need instant fuze. one does not need to have delayed fuzes for low level delivery when youve got snakeyes.

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You only ever need instant fuze. one does not need to have delayed fuzes for low level delivery when youve got snakeyes.

 

No the there are too many variables within combat CAS missions such as terrain and weather the mission dictates the necessity and the pilot makes the decision what kind of ordnance and fusing he requires. I have read that they used many types of fusing even mixed fuse load-outs where common in vietnam from late exploding fuses that where set from 5 minutes all the way to fuses that where activated by magnetic triggers too explode at a later time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iirc, 8 mils means 8 meters at 1000 meters ...

 

there is a problem with this the calculations are 100% wrong. if it is 8 meters then it is 30 inches at 100 meters and no cannon or firearm can be made purposely that inaccurate thats probably why whoever made the dispersion on the f5 made a mistake.

 

this needs more explenation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, 80cm at 100 meters sounds almost absurdly large for any firearm...

I've found two quotes that mention the accuracy of the M39

 

I assume this is where the 8 mil comes from ?

 

'Flying Guns – the Modern Era: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations since 1945'

The F 100 with four M39 cannon could get all of the shots within 8 mils and 75% within 4 mils.

 

Source: http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9642&p=106325&viewfull=1#post106325

 

and this for the gun it's self

 

'The Machine Gun Volume 5', Chapter 46 20mm M39 (T160) Revolver Gun, page 404

Accuracy .... The radial dispersion (standard deviation) shall not exceed 1.5 mils in a burst of 50 rounds when mounted on a structure having a rigidity of 250,000 pounds per inch deflection

 

Source: https://ia800207.us.archive.org/5/items/The_Machine_Gun_V5/The_Machine_Gun_V5.pdf

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 64GB DDR4, RTX2070 Super 8GB, 1TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 1+1TB SSD, MSFFB2 joystick, X52 Pro Throttle, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the there are too many variables within combat CAS missions such as terrain and weather the mission dictates the necessity and the pilot makes the decision what kind of ordnance and fusing he requires. I have read that they used many types of fusing even mixed fuse load-outs where common in vietnam from late exploding fuses that where set from 5 minutes all the way to fuses that where activated by magnetic triggers too explode at a later time.

 

 

i will only repeat IMO see no practical use for it in game with timed or advanced fuses except for very niche type scenarios. basically in my expereince 99% of the time instant/ standard fusing is enough.

 

the only real reason i see this is if you undershoot bombs against a moving target, and its timed so say a driver of a vehicle moves forward closer to it ( in that case you just need more practice with manual bombing) and alternatively for low delivery to not blow yourself up. This is only relevant for ww2 or korean era fighters as anything more modern has access to mk82 snakeyes high drag bomb which was specifically designed for low altitude delivery thus further negating the need for timed fuzes on a low drag general purpose bomb.

 

Perhaps this may get added, but its understandable for me why this is not on a top priority to do list, where ED is busy with much more important things. If anything a rework for bomb fragmentation/ splash radius would offer a much greater impact for the efficiency of ground attack than any additional fusing options ever would.


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the timed fuses are not as needed for modern aircraft because they have high accuracy with CCIP and CCRP bombing Vietnam aircraft and post vietnam aircraft that only have gun sights will benefit greatly from fusing and fusing will give them greater accuracy. i agree ground units damage model is more important but fusing is a elementary feature probably still used today

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14313_ch1.pdf

 

this post covers most fusing options for the MK 80 series of bombs and by the look of it there is really a lot of different timed fuses for all different types of bombs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...