Making distance and deflection shots

[Creaghorn 10]

i don't know how you see it, but IMHO it's too easy to shoot down aircraft from the distance. in BHAH you don't really have to get really close to the target as everywhere mentioned (dicta boelcke etc.) . deflection shooting is also not as hard as it should be. i was wondering what the reasons are.

 

IMHO main reason for it is you can SEE those impact effects when hitting the enemy from far distance. those brown smokepuffs when hitting wings or fuselage and those little debris particles flying away. so you can easily adjust your aim.

in real you didn't see smokepuffs and dust when hitting an enemy on this distance and so well, like it was in WWII or later the case (much bigger calibre and tracers etc.). you simply did not know wether you hit him or not till the moment he burst in flames or fells apart. only if you were very near you were sure you hit him (ripped canvas, bulletholes) .

as Bullethead once told, it was more like stabbing with a very little knife. afterwards when examining wreckages or your own plane you saw just little fingersized holes.

right now in BHAH you can easily adjust your aim even when distant shots or deflection shots because you alway see some effects.

ok, of course people want to have also some hollywood, but on the other hands it makes killing easier. i'm sure even later bullets with small explosive projectiles didn't make it too visible at a distance.

 

i deactivated every bullet impact effect and i must say, it's really hard now to get a good aim because you can't see if you hit him when further away, as it was in real. only when hitting the engine or petroltank i can see some sparks. or when you get really close you can see the holes in the canvas and some little debris particles (so it's not completely off). i'm forced now to get really close . with deflection shots or from further away i simply didn't know wether i hit him or not so i had to get very close. feels so real.

 

i went a step further and deactivated my bullets and tracersmoke. so i see nothing. no own bullets, no impact besides hitting his engine (sparks etc.), to the moment he fells apart or burst in flames. when he burns or fells apart, the effects are as usual of course. that makes hunting more realistic IMO.

so i'll use the setting without seeing bullets and tracer till mid 1917, and then add the visible tracers, when it became more and more common.

 

i will try out a while with different settings. since i'm forced now to get really close (wich imo has to be), i'll try the enemies normal setting and enemies close distance setting and see which feels more accurate when he's attacking because same rules for everyone.

 

what do you say?

[Rickitycrate 10]

Creaghorn, very interesting what you've done. You must be in an elite group. I find I need those visual clues even if they are a little exaggerated. It's a good thing for you that you are able to go in and adjust the program. I say more power to you. Enjoy.

[+Polovski 460]

Good points Craighorn, we think that is true too that the hit effects help experienced pilots. They become super efficient at it with practice and can hit using the indicated damage effects.

 

If it was really as it really was it could be quite dull and a lot harder like we used to have the effects. Also sound effects would be much duller (hence the options in the manager).

 

We can look at for a future update anyway.

[Olham 164]

I find myself half way between Rickitycrate and Creaghorn there - more realism contra more fun, so to say.

Would have to try it, to make a decision. If it could be switched off in "Workshop", that would make it an

addition to the range of experiencing OFF.

[Creaghorn 10]

thank you sirs,

 

i'm trying, at least for myself to get the feel as realistic as i can and make kills as hard as it was in real.

it's always said the best aces were also hunters or at least had from childhood lot to do with rifles etc.

 

with my tweak i tried to get a twoseater (and everybody knows they have not the greatest AI regarding beeing evasive). i was behind and under him. i fired several long bursts into him, not knowing if i hit him or not. then i got really close (i really had to if i wanted to get him down) and crouched over to align with my right spandau to have an idea where the bullets are probably going. then i aimed for the cockpitarea (i REALLY had to aim, not halfhearted looking and shooting) and pulled the trigger. after a while i saw sparks from his engine, so i must have hit him. then he descended in flames.

afterall i found out i wasted half my ammo for a sitting duck. and that gave me the feeling what it means when they said, you have to get close. when you think you are close enough, then get even closer, then aim well and open fire. that really felt damn realistic.

against scouts it was also tough because you really have to hunt him and get close. otherwise you're shooting yourself out of ammo while snapshooting.

still have to try what's enemies distance setting is better.

[Flyby PC 23]

I don't agree 100%, but respect other peoples pursuit of highest possible immersion factor.

 

There is a lot of truth to what you're saying Creaghorn, but this is a simulator, and even with the best monitor, you're going to see a pixelated image greatly inferior to 'true' eyesight.

 

It's the same argument over whether the TAC is radar, or the aid which compensates for the lost definition of your eyesight which you can't avoid using pixels.

 

I don't doubt you wouldn't know whether evey bullet strike was hitting, but very little of the supporting evidence is possible at the moment. It's highly unlikely you're going to see buttet strike, but nor will you see the enemy pilot panic to see where the rounds are coming from, nor indeed do the AI aircraft take appropriate evasive action when under effective fire.

 

It may be true that the amount of debris we see is a bit too much, but if it is, I'm happy to let it be, if only to compensate for the other visual clues which cannot be replicated.

 

I do know exactly where you're coming from though... I recently went clay pigeon or skeet shooting. I haven't shot for years, but never with a shotgun. With rifles on targets or tracer in a machine gun, you get feedback to correct your aim. I found it very frustrating using a shotgun for the first time, because when you miss, there's nothing to guide you to correct your shots onto the target. Did I miss by a mile or a few inches??? I always dismissed shotguns as 'grape shot' weapons to take out moving targets, and a bit 'easy' to count as true marksmanship, but I've a lot more respect for shotguns now. Be lucky if I hit 10%, but good fun.

 

(But recoil? - Please! Try an SLR with the gas cranked up! - That's recoil).

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

thank you sirs,

 

i'm trying, at least for myself to get the feel as realistic as i can and make kills as hard as it was in real.

it's always said the best aces were also hunters or at least had from childhood lot to do with rifles etc.

 

with my tweak i tried to get a twoseater (and everybody knows they have not the greatest AI regarding beeing evasive). i was behind and under him. i fired several long bursts into him, not knowing if i hit him or not. then i got really close (i really had to if i wanted to get him down) and crouched over to align with my right spandau to have an idea where the bullets are probably going. then i aimed for the cockpitarea (i REALLY had to aim, not halfhearted looking and shooting) and pulled the trigger. after a while i saw sparks from his engine, so i must have hit him. then he descended in flames.

afterall i found out i wasted half my ammo for a sitting duck. and that gave me the feeling what it means when they said, you have to get close. when you think you are close enough, then get even closer, then aim well and open fire. that really felt damn realistic.

against scouts it was also tough because you really have to hunt him and get close. otherwise you're shooting yourself out of ammo while snapshooting.

still have to try what's enemies distance setting is better.

 

There has to be some tradeoff between Ultra Realism, for the few Hardcore...and a Sim that anyone can play.

I think the Devs have got it pretty spot on!

[Tanyrhiew 0]

Creaghorn, how did you deactivate the effects?

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Yes Creaghorn, I'd like to know how you managed that as well. I would like to not see bits and pieces flying off the plane I am shooting at. I'll keep the tracers though as they were used in the war.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

[almccoyjr 7]

Creaghorn, how did you deactivate the effects?

Please, count me in as well.

 

I'd like to "screw around" with the effects to maintain tracers up to distance, but not be able to see impacts from a distance. The tracers would only be an indication of direction at distance. Up close, seeing the the tracers to target and visually seeing the impacts would be more realistic for me.

 

Excellent post Creaghorn!

[Hasse Wind 46]

I'd also like to see something like this, but with the option to turn it off in the workshop if I don't always want to go all the way to the extreme hardcore. There's a fine line between an enjoyable flight sim and an excercise in masochism. OFF is not the same as the real world, and in a sim there are many limitations that you won't have when flying a real aircraft - the visibility for example. Even though TrackIR is a great help, it cannot be compared to what you can see with your own eyes in the real world.

[Creaghorn 10]

I'd also like to see something like this, but with the option to turn it off in the workshop if I don't always want to go all the way to the extreme hardcore. There's a fine line between an enjoyable flight sim and an excercise in masochism. OFF is not the same as the real world, and in a sim there are many limitations that you won't have when flying a real aircraft - the visibility for example. Even though TrackIR is a great help, it cannot be compared to what you can see with your own eyes in the real world.

 

you might be right hasse wind, but IMHO the graphics are good enough and the limitations are probably not worse than beeing in cold air wearing goggles

[Siggi 10]

you might be right hasse wind, but IMHO the graphics are good enough and the limitations are probably not worse than beeing in cold air wearing goggles

 

With castor-oil smeared on them (and soot/cordite/bugs).

[Creaghorn 10]

here and idea how impact of bullets with WW1 guns looked like. especially through canvas and wood.

from about minute 7 on you can see it.

 

[MikeDixonUK 5]

I've tried afew quick combats with the tracers and long range damage effects off and so far I like it, it makes getting kills that much more hazardous and rewarding and it makes it seem as though the combat is more primitive as if they haven't worked out how best to kill eachother yet, which is one of the interesting things about WW1 air combat for me.

 

Also makes attacking two seaters an interesting event when you can't see where they're shooting, I imagine it will be the same with ground attack also.

 

Great idea Creaghorn.

 

(It also makes it seem like one of those old war films where they didn't have all those CGI tracers and the like, which is fun.)

[Tanyrhiew 0]

Agreed on the old war film effect, just been playing the se5 v d7 quickshot mission - very Blue Max!

 

Strange thing is I think its had an inverse effect on my accuracy - I am closing to a range where I cannot miss and the other other fellow falls

...

Edited November 21, 2009 by Tanyrhiew

[Creaghorn 10]

same here. i think it's because you now go really close. taking out twoseaters is also more thrilling. now i'm dancing more behind him and make shorter passes before turning away and preparing for the next attack. glad you like it.

 

one more thing. i think in the new addon there will be a new effect file included with better visible allied AA. the other effects are probably as before. so with the new addon effect file, i will have to tweak it again to shut the distant bulletimpact effects down.