Tracers

[SUBS17]

Listen to this guy. Not only does it sound like he's seen the stuff firsthand, but it makes good sense and conforms to almost everything I've found by researching the subject as an internet armchair ballistics expert.

 

The problem here is you are assuming that WW2 ammunition behaves the same where in fact it might not entirely in some areas. Modern ammunition performs better than the older ammunition from ww2 since it has been improved over the years.:smilewink:

[Merlin-27]

Does the bullet trajectory look right to you because IMO it is too low maybe the muzzle velocity for those bullets is wrong or something because they are very low.(to low to really hit anything if you are in a turn)

 

I believe you are fighting the g-forces while firing in a turn. What is the pipper on the K14 telling you?

 

Many fighter pilots from WWII tell stories of having to lead the target below the sightline. If the guns fire straight with the correct convergence during straight and level flight, then the guns are not your problem.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Merlin-27

[WildBillKelsoe]

I think eagle dynamics should first fix that slideshow, then we can talk semantics...

[SUBS17]

I believe you are fighting the g-forces while firing in a turn. What is the pipper on the K14 telling you?

 

Many fighter pilots from WWII tell stories of having to lead the target below the sightline. If the guns fire straight with the correct convergence during straight and level flight, then the guns are not your problem.

 

If you switch from sim to game mode it gives an indication of the predicted rounds it is well bellow the gun sight. Compare it to the F-15 if the mfd is broken even in a turn the tracer can still be seen. With the P51 the bullets in a turn fall well below the sight and the enemy tgt AI P51 is near impossible to hit.:doh:

 

1 The predicted trajectory is well bellow the sight

2 When engaging another aircraft in order to get lead you need to be aiming somewhere below the propeller.

3 In a vertical pull in low/med G the trajectory is still very low so aiming at another aircraft you are aiming near where the clock is.:doh:

 

Proof of this is the Game mode so try that vs the AI and you'll see what I mean.

[SUBS17]

I think eagle dynamics should first fix that slideshow, then we can talk semantics...

 

Have you managed to beat the AI in the campaign mission with 2 P51s?

[Echo38]

With the P51 the bullets in a turn fall well below the sight and the enemy tgt AI P51 is near impossible to hit.

When engaging another aircraft in order to get lead you need to be aiming somewhere below the propeller.

In a vertical pull in low/med G the trajectory is still very low so aiming at another aircraft you are aiming near where the clock is.

 

Sounds right to me. It's known that they sometimes had to pull so much lead that they couldn't actually see the target below the nose. Hence that one ace mentioning that, in a turning dogfight, you're okay if you see his nose pointing at you, but if you see the underside of his airplane, you're in trouble. (That was on the Dogfights series--normally not a great source of information, as the show's creators tend to get stuff wrong, but this was the pilot himself talking. Regardless, it isn't the only instance of extreme lead being referenced.)

[Merlin-27]

If you switch from sim to game mode it gives an indication of the predicted rounds it is well bellow the gun sight. Compare it to the F-15 if the mfd is broken even in a turn the tracer can still be seen. With the P51 the bullets in a turn fall well below the sight and the enemy tgt AI P51 is near impossible to hit.:doh:

 

1 The predicted trajectory is well bellow the sight

2 When engaging another aircraft in order to get lead you need to be aiming somewhere below the propeller.

3 In a vertical pull in low/med G the trajectory is still very low so aiming at another aircraft you are aiming near where the clock is.:doh:

 

Proof of this is the Game mode so try that vs the AI and you'll see what I mean.

 

I don't fly the F-15 but I think there is proof enough in the fact that some of us don't notice this "innacuracy" after many many engagements. Are you positive your ranging is correct? Is your position inside the cockpit correct? Maybe try playing with those a little. Do you have TrackIR? If a bullets flight path does not severely drop during a moderately hard turn then something is wrong. As Echo and I have said, it comes straight from them mouths of the guys who were there that this was an issue they too had to contend with.

 

If that is the only point you are pulling the trigger, and you aren't getting hits, you may need to wait for another firing solution.

[SUBS17]

The predicted flight path of the bullets in game mode shows that the lead is extreme to say the least to hit a target whilst its in a turn or climb. So try this set to game mode, and check the predicted path on the sight incomparison to the tgt which must be an AI P51. And there you will see that compared to an F-15 the lead is well below HUD/Sight level. So the MV of the bullets or drag on the projectiles is making the predicted path well below what it should be. Range on the sight in this case is N/A as we are talking about what the actual bullets trajectory is doing. And for you expert P51 pilots, lets see any of you actually beat this unbeatable campaign.:doh:

[SUBS17]

Heres an example of what I'm getting at:

 

 

 

 

 

F-15s HUD

 

 

The P51 in game mode reflects what the gun does in sim mode from what I've seen in these examples in order to get a hit the red circle has to be on the red triangle. As you can see the Lead is quite large like well below the HUD. Compared to the F-15s sight which is 20mm gun the reticle and lead are both in the Hud picture. Eventhough the F-15 has a bigger gun my question is should the lead be this big?

 

Armament 6 x 0.50 in (12.7mm) Browning machine guns

MV 2,910 ft/s (890 m/s) for M33 ball

 

BTW in MP I hit other P51s better than what I do vs the AI(and I do not use game mode in MP, I'm using that as an example).

[SUBS17]

Regarding tracers there is some good footage here:

 

[Echo38]

Heres an example of what I'm getting at

 

Again, that looks right. Notice that the P-51 gunsight is much smaller than the F-15's HUD, and set much lower compared to the nose of the aircraft as well. Put the P-51 gunsight on the F-15, with the sight and your head located so that the view out of the F-15 looks similar to the view out of the P-51, and you'll have just as much of a problem seeing the target below your nose (making an exception for differences of the nose shapes). In other words, the velocities of the two guns in those screenshots is fairly similar. The large differences you are seeing is coming about from the size, shape, and position of the gunsights; the position of the pilot's head; and the shape & size of aircraft's nose & cockpit.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Echo38

[Merlin-27]

I also agree that the shape of the fuselage/cockpit has an effect on where the target becomes obstructed. And, despite the larger round, the M61 has a significantly higher muzzle velocity than the Ma Deuce/M2. (3,450 Vs. 2,910 feet per second) which I'm sure helps a bit.

[OutOnTheOP]

I have many years with the US Army Infantry and have fired or have seen M2's, 25mm Bushmaster from a M1a1 Brady, 5.56 Nato, 7.62 Nato, both Apache's and Cobra's engage Insurgents in Ar Ramadi, Iraq and finally A-10 during training on Fort Campbell

 

Ok, I am also US Army, combat deployed, etc. I respect that, but experience with new-production .50 cal tracer has little bearing with how SECOND WORLD WAR .50 cal ammunition performed. Without doing the research to say for certain, I would STRONGLY suspect that the chemical composition of the tracer compound was different in WW2. It certainly was for other items: for example, next time you're at the M67 hand grenade range, you might note that when the spoon comes off and the fuze starts burning, it produces no visible smoke. The fuze compound used in the WW2 Mk2 grenade, however, makes a quite visible smoke trace

 

1) The ricochet effects for the .50 is pretty close but the round also tend to "spin" / "loop" sometimes and not just "float" away from the impact. The "Streak" does slow down and it appears to be a single bright ball even in day light which you have modeled right now.

 

Totally agree. Rounds tend to start tumbling when they ricochet, and that makes them into kind of wild curveballs. Ricochets do NOT fly straight.

 

3) Gun smoke is a little extreme, but I have not seen a M2 fire at altitude so I cannot say if that is correct, but on the ground it is way too much.

 

Again, I suspect (actually, very close to KNOW) the propellant mix was not the same in WW2 as in new ammo- mostly the changes have been in kernel coatings- things like flash suppressants. Modern powders tend to also burn a lot cleaner. Next time you go to the rifle range, go shoot some Warsaw Pact surplus 7.62x39mm (or even that Wolf Russian commercial import)- notice how much more flash and smoke there is than US-made commercial ammo. You'll also note it smells like cat piss; there's a lot of ammonia in their powder compounds.

 

4) Bullet impacts, Yes you can on occasion see flashes as the round impacts a metal surface, this is because the AP round carries a small amount of explosive change to propel the steel penetrator though the hardened object.

 

Yes, agree that the flash from rifle-caliber ammo impacts (.50 cal and smaller) is only visible when striking hard targets, but disagree regarding why. For 7.62x51mm AP and SLAP (and similar), it's not an explosive- it's just that if you have steel striking metal at high speeds, it turns the kinetic energy into heat, and turns the steel into dust, which burns (if you don't believe that iron/steel can burn, go take a match to a piece of steel wool. I guarantee it will burn. In fact, put a 9 volt battery to it, and it makes an awesome, easy firestarter for camping). With tracers, you additionally have any unburned tracer compound powdering and burning rapidly on impact.

 

My concern with tracers in DCS is less the shape (though skinnier, longer lines would be kind of nice)- rather, the tracers for the Mustang need to have that smoke trail. Every gun camera footage I've seen has it, and, hey: there's something BURNING in the tail of those rounds, it makes sense that it would leave smoke... but not newer ammo, which has better tracer compounds, and virtually no visible smoke.

[SUBS17]

Again, that looks right. Notice that the P-51 gunsight is much smaller than the F-15's HUD, and set much lower compared to the nose of the aircraft as well. Put the P-51 gunsight on the F-15, with the sight and your head located so that the view out of the F-15 looks similar to the view out of the P-51, and you'll have just as much of a problem seeing the target below your nose (making an exception for differences of the nose shapes). In other words, the velocities of the two guns in those screenshots is fairly similar. The large differences you are seeing is coming about from the size, shape, and position of the gunsights; the position of the pilot's head; and the shape & size of aircraft's nose & cockpit.

 

I agree it is the sight view from both aircraft, I've been looking at some WW2 videos on Dogfights as to exactly how to dogfight with the P51D. The amazing thing is ED has done such a good job that we can do all of these manouvers. The major problem then is the AI which needs a serious adjustment to make it possible for any player to win the missions/fights and campaigns.

 

[gavagai]

The major problem then is the AI which needs a serious adjustment to make it possible for any player to win the missions/fights and campaigns.

 

You mean an option for weaker AI? Sure, but I like the AI the way it is now.:thumbup:

[Echo38]

I'm with Gav. An option of a less-formidable AI would be a good thing, because even intermediate-level VFPs have a problem with the DCS: P-51D AI. However, the present AI is very much defeatable (even when handicapping oneself), and it's good for skilled VFPs to practice on.

[SUBS17]

You mean an option for weaker AI? Sure, but I like the AI the way it is now.:thumbup:

 

The AI flys unrealistically and does not have the same performance as the player, it flys/climbs and turns better than the human flown P51 and it is very good at shooting down people. The campaign is technically unbeatable even for a person who is average at flying because of the AI. :doh:

[Echo38]

The AI [...] flys/climbs and turns better than the human flown P51

 

Last time I flew against it, the AI did not climb or turn better than a highly-skilled human opponent. Indeed, the AI is considerably easier to beat than the best human VFPs I've faced. The AI does have a few shortcomings in terms of realism--notably, it doesn't have to deal with torque & gyro effects, which gives it a bit of an edge if you take the fight to stall speeds--but its abilities to turn and climb are humanly possible to match. I expect it to take one a few years to learn how to, however. Took me at least three years of daily practice to get to that level, back in the day--these days, I can't quite do it, because only being able to fly ~once a month leaves me horribly out of practice.

 

So, the DCS: P-51D AI is a bit below the level of the best human VFPs, but is a good deal above the level of even intermediate VFPs. This is why I say that the AI is good for an ace-level AI, but much too hard for a rookie or veteran-level AI. Unfortunately, last time I checked, all AI settings in DCS have the same flying abilities. Hence my observation that the addition of an easier AI would be a good thing for those who aren't quite at ace level.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Echo38

[Merlin-27]

The AI flys unrealistically and does not have the same performance as the player, it flys/climbs and turns better than the human flown P51 and it is very good at shooting down people. The campaign is technically unbeatable even for a person who is average at flying because of the AI. :doh:

 

I don't see this. Yes, like you said, if you are fighting two AI pilots the second will usually get an easy kill as any good wingman should after he works his way onto your six. But this is due to the incredible gun accuracy of the AI NOT the aircraft performance. If you fly with decent energy conservation techniques you will find, like Echo said, the AI is much easier to outfly than a good human pilot.

[Yob]

I don't see this. Yes, like you said, if you are fighting two AI pilots the second will usually get an easy kill as any good wingman should after he works his way onto your six. But this is due to the incredible gun accuracy of the AI NOT the aircraft performance. If you fly with decent energy conservation techniques you will find, like Echo said, the AI is much easier to outfly than a good human pilot.

 

Amen to that went onto the Theme park private server and faced some guy, he was really good the ai is easier then him, But then he made a mistake, so i would like to see the ai be a bit easier and also make mistakes like we all do.

[SUBS17]

I don't see this. Yes, like you said, if you are fighting two AI pilots the second will usually get an easy kill as any good wingman should after he works his way onto your six. But this is due to the incredible gun accuracy of the AI NOT the aircraft performance. If you fly with decent energy conservation techniques you will find, like Echo said, the AI is much easier to outfly than a good human pilot.

 

Can you post a track of your winning against the AI.:joystick:

[Merlin-27]

Can you post a track of your winning against the AI.:joystick:

 

Roger. I am by no means the authority, but I will post a track when I am home. I personally think the AI would be pretty amazing if there was just a little random error factored in to the tactics, positional acuity, and gunnery perfection. This would give them the appearance of a human opponent. Maybe in the future we can purchase digital versions (Modules) of historical figures that we could face? It could possibly be a way to fund AI refinement?

 

Also, I would still like to see AI wingmen stay with their leader. They almost never do this, unless I am setting up my missions incorrectly.

 

What is your biggest concern with the AI flight model? Is it that he kills too fast or moves in a way that you cannot pursue?

 

And sorry, don't mean to derail the OP away from the tracers discussion if there is more to discuss.

[SUBS17]

The AI moves in a way that he cannot be pursued, there needs to be an AI which is less perfect and easier for new players to destroy. Also the campaign needs to have an easier AI for players to engage and maybe the training missions could use a BFM mission or two and a how to get the best performance with the P51.

 

Maybe in the future we can purchase digital versions (Modules) of historical figures that we could face? It could possibly be a way to fund AI refinement?

 

This would be cool and also stuff like videos of Topguns real dogfights would be cool. IMO the AI script is predictable but in certain conditions with regard the P51 AI it can still beat me eventhough it is predictable. In an F-15 its another story 8 x AI(ACE) and I'll win sometimes but with the P51 the initial part of the dogfight I still have yet to be able to hit him and win the fight. :pilotfly:

[Merlin-27]

The AI moves in a way that he cannot be pursued, there needs to be an AI which is less perfect and easier for new players to destroy. Also the campaign needs to have an easier AI for players to engage and maybe the training missions could use a BFM mission or two and a how to get the best performance with the P51.

 

Ok, I found a custom mission of mine to show that the AI boogie man isn't really that scary. This mission is one I created where you are faced with one High Skill level AI FW190D-9 (This seems to be even better than Excellent from my experience) at first... once you do any damage to him, another unit of the same type spawns a few miles away heading towards you at full speed. And the same thing applies to him, subsequently spawning a 3rd bandit from the direction of the enemy airfield. So, if you are not quick to kill, you will find yourself very busy. I attached the mission file as well to serve as a training tool if you like. It places a good emphasis on killing fast and efficiently. Now, as my disclaimer, my track displays less than perfect flying and my accuracy would make any self-respecting AI pilot wet itself laughing, however all three of these fellows enjoyed a nylon let-down as they watched their craft fall burning towards the sea. :D Enjoy.

 

Oh, and amongst all of my little side projects, is an idea to work on some combat tutorials of some kind. I may have to collaborate with our communities finest.

 

 

EDIT: Also you will notice my throttle handle jumping like it is very nervous. Please disregard. My custom USB throttle project is acting up. That is not intentional.:(

Fw190shootout-triplekill-Merlin.trk

190-triplefaceoff-HIGH.miz

Edited July 16, 2013 by Merlin-27

[SUBS17]

Good flying Merlin-27, thanks for the track and mission.:thumbup: