Better realism in P3 – AMMO %

[Morris 2]

Gentlemen and Crumpets,

Well, over the last few months a lot has been mentioned that we are shooting down to many enemy aircraft during mission or DID campaign and that P3 AI is up to “KAK”.

 

I love shooting down LOTS of EA with the DID settings.

 

BUT

 

The answer to our immediate problem is only to select less AMMO % during the aircraft setup before takeoff.

 

Start with 50% (but that might still be to much) and go down as low as 30% of ammo.

 

The strange thing is we will all shoot down less aircraft and be more careful not to get into a big dogfight with the Crumpets.

 

Cheers

 

M

 

 

 

[Hasse Wind 46]

It should also make the plane lighter and more maneuverable. A simple but effective solution.

[carrick58 23]

DID plays Hardcore:salute:

[Hellshade 110]

A marvously simple but effective solution. Well done sir!

 

Hellshade

Edited July 15, 2010 by Hellshade

[carrick58 23]

Morris is spot on. Planned a long flight behind the lines to attack an airfield. Filled up the tank in the Spad VII but, I cut the ammo by fifty percent. I had more then enough to get there and back.

[Flyby PC 23]

Sad but true, we have all had more time in our OFF cockpits than many of the real pilots. We shouldn't be surprised if our kill rates are superior, we have had longer to practice and our mistakes have never been fatal...

 

I couldn't quote a source, (I read too much these days without really paying attention), but I'm sure most of kills of WW1 and WW2 were made by the more experienced pilots, and at the wrong end of all that was the other side of the story, most of those killed were novices. As I recall, this was a phenomenon which occurred naturally, and didn't arise from any 'kills' being set up for the coup de grace from an ace trying to inflate his score.

 

I don't think for a minute we're better pilots, nor do I think the sim is too easy. We have time to develop our skills.

 

What I really wonder is how many of those real pilots would have lived a little longer if they'd had some combat hours on BHaH before heading for the front. Impossible to know, but simulators are central to modern pilot training. What I really mean is whether BHaH is close enough to real combat that the skills it teaches you could have saved real lives flying in genuine combat. I'm actually fairly certain it would....

[Bullethead 12]

I couldn't quote a source, (I read too much these days without really paying attention), but I'm sure most of kills of WW1 and WW2 were made by the more experienced pilots, and at the wrong end of all that was the other side of the story, most of those killed were novices.

 

...

 

What I really wonder is how many of those real pilots would have lived a little longer if they'd had some combat hours on BHaH before heading for the front. Impossible to know, but simulators are central to modern pilot training. What I really mean is whether BHaH is close enough to real combat that the skills it teaches you could have saved real lives flying in genuine combat. I'm actually fairly certain it would.

 

The numbers I've seen show that in WW1, WW2, and Korea, 20% of the pilots scored 80% of the kills in a standard Pareto distribution. However, IMHO it's equally important to remember that about 80% of all kills were shots that the victim never saw coming. Most of these were surprise bounces against non-maneuvering targets. Even in dogfights, most kills were scored against victims who were fixated on other friendly planes and not checking their 6s often enough.

 

Thus, the overwhelmingly significant attribute that separated the aces from the cannonfodder was situational awareness. Mad skills at flying and shooting, while naturally the stuff of legend, were only really useful in the small minority of historical cases. Those who checked their 6 every few seconds, spotted the enemy first, and were able to keep the enemy from seeing them, usually emerged victorious while the others usually died. If you can do these things, then you don't have to be a particularly good pilot or marksman.

 

In this regard, no flightsim ever made is very accurate. All such things are for entertainment purposes, and it's MUCH more entertaining to win through superior skill than to snipe sitting ducks. Therefore, in games the importance of situational awareness is minimized by giving the AI and the players much more SA than their real-life counterparts had, so that there are much fewer cases of surprise and many more duels. So, I really don't think that exposure to OFF would have made that much difference to WW1 pilot survival.

 

But back on topic.....

 

I agree. I often take less than 100% ammo myself.

[Flyby PC 23]

....Mad skills at flying and shooting, while naturally the stuff of legend, were only really useful in the small minority of historical cases. ...

 

 

I remember WW2 B of B veteran, Wing Commander Bob Doe put his survival down to his bad flying. He reckoned he couldn't complete most manouvres, and would fall out a roll half way through etc or fly off in a wierd direction. He reckoned this helped him survive the Battle of Britain. Those who could execute point perfect manouvres would instictively do so, but this made them more predictable fliers, and for just a second or two in combat the enemy pilot could predict where their target aircraft was going to be.

 

Interesting too, and sorry it's WW2 again, but RAF heavy bombers flying at night were told to corkscrew every now and again, just in case there was a night fighter tailing them. Many pilots would do so, as drilled, but didn't have much faith it did them any good. After the war, a bomber pilot met face to face with a night fighter pilot, and during their discussion, the nightfighter pilot confirmed the corkscrew did work. For one thing, it meant the bomber pilot was alert, and additionally, the NF pilot didn't know if it was a random corkscrew or whether his own aircraft had been spotted. Furthermore, by diving away, the nightfighter pilot had to decide whether he should forfeit altitude chasing an alert bomber, or just bide his time to find another target which wasn't so alert. The bottom line was the random corkscrew did work and kept many aircrews alive, even if they didn't know how close they'd come to death.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Flyby PC

[Guest British_eh]

Hi there,I will consider myself somewhat well read and I will add to BH's note.

In WWI, two seaters were the most common source of "kills" for

the scouts. Check the top pilots and you will see that a very large percentage of the kills are thus represented.

 

In WWII, the EA was on you so fast, (such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109) who provided escorts for the German bombers. They would have the height advantage as the Spits and

Hurricans had to climb to meet them. Thus the Dicta Boelcke was in effect for the Germans. This was the rule rather than the exception for the Britsh engaging the Germans, as pure hunting

patrols by the British proved ineffective.

 

Cheers,

 

British_eh