Gun Settings

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

We haven't had a poll recently, and I have been fiddling around with the gun settings a bit, so I thought I might see what the consensus is. After we get some results, I will post my impressions of the various front and rear gun settings.

 

Note that the front gun settings control the spread of bullets for both human and AI pilots, while the rear gun settings can be set separately for human and AI observers. This results in some practical implications for the front and rear gun settings.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[+elephant 36]

I use hard settings for both to simulate ineffectiveness of early mg guns and to make air killing harder so to have more realistic kill tallies for my pilots.

Of course in addition to your great damage mod...

Edited February 6, 2011 by elephant

[Hasse Wind 46]

I have exactly the same reasons for using the less accurate settings as elephant. And I also use the DM mod.

 

Speaking of you mods, HPW, when can we expect to see some new FM mods? As you know, I enjoy flying the modified N.28.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Thanks, elephant. Glad to hear that you got your OFF download and that you enjoy using my DM.

 

HW--Glad to hear that you enjoy my N28 FM mod. I'm afraid that my other FM modding has slowed down quite a bit. Tweaking the FM of just one plane is a MAJOR undertaking, and I have recently found myself spending most of my available time just trying to make a living so I can afford the hardware upgrades I will need when P4 comes out (my current rig just barely has enough juice to run P3)! I may be able to come out with a more limited in scope FM mod for a few planes, but even that is a ways off, I'm afraid.

[Hasse Wind 46]

No problem, take your time. It's good to know you are still in the modding business.

[gaw 5]

you may wish to discount my vote entirely as I NEVER fly backseat..........so my ballot is strictly a fighter campaign perspective....my guns......the way they're "supposed to be"....and rear guns on the bombers.....well, nobody likes being pinged just when the kill was close but maybe that's the deal...........

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

C'mon guys! Only 16 votes so far!

 

I have some ideas about setting/changing the bullet spread settings in order to cut down the number of kills for experienced pilots without making it impossible for the AI to also get some kills, but first I need a little more feedback about how the settings are currently being used. If you fly BHaH, you have to choose your gun settings, so please vote!

 

Ultimately, I want to adjust the settings so the difficulty ratings actually have some meaning for every type of pilot--new, experienced, and even ace pilots. Currently, I think the Easy and Normal front gun settings are a little too easy, and allow both human and AI kill tallies to be too high; and the Hard setting a bit too hard for both humans and the AI. For the rear guns, I think the bullet spread for the human is about right, while the spread for the AI might need to be increased a little bit in order to slightly increase the survivability of scouts going up against those nasty two-seaters.

 

Any thoughts on these issues?

Edited February 7, 2011 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[Guest British_eh]

Hi there,

 

Good stuff as usual Herr PW. Should you wish to modify or change your gun settings, and gun loadout to a historically based and alternate configuration then visit the Over Flanders Fields Subforums - OFF - Survival In the Air Series - Gun Loadout and SIA - Realistic Survival Settings for OFF Workshop.

 

Cheers,

 

British_eh

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Will do, British_eh!

 

I looked earlier for the Survival in the Air settings, but didn't see it. Thanks for pointing out where to look.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

I have just edited the poll so the wording more accurately reflects the wording for gun settings in Workshop.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Looking at the results of the poll so far, it is interesting that no one voting apparently flies with easy/accurate settings for either the front or rear guns. This makes me think the easy setting may perhaps be a little too easy. Currently, the front-gun settings for bullet spread is 0.2 for Easy, 0.5 for Normal, and 1.0 for Hard.

 

I propose changing the setting for Easy to .5, the setting for Normal to 1.0 or 1.25, and the setting for hard to 1.5 or 1.75. This will have the effect of making your bullet "stream" wider or more random, resulting in less accuracy and lower kill tallies per mission. The drawback to changing the settings for the front-guns is that the changes will also effect the AI. Setting the spread too wide causes the AI to have trouble shooting each other down. One solution for this would be for OBD to create a separate front-gun setting for the AI and human player. There are already separate settings for human and AI observers using the rear-guns, so this should not be too difficult for them to implement in P4.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Sounds like a good idea. But one must be careful with the rear gunner settings, as it shouldn't be too easy to shoot the two-seaters down. Many of them are already pretty much helpless against fighters. (No, I'm NOT talking about the deadly Brisfit gunners!)

[carrick58 23]

I loss a N-17 and DH2 pilot to rear gunner s on normal setting.

[Bullethead 12]

I use Normal/Normal for all cases except when I fly a Fee, in which case I do Normal/Hard so my gunner has a harder time due to my sometimes un-Fee-like aerobatics.

 

I've shot a number of MGs in my life, including some of WW1 vintage, and I do not at all subscribe to the belief that MGs of that time scattered rounds hither and yon. In actual fact, they were more accurate than most MG's today, due to being heavier. That is to say, as accurate as a long-range, high-power rifle. Which is exactly what an MG (especially a WW1 MG) is, except it fires relatively faster. Sure, during a burst, an MG will bounce a bit and thus not all bullets will go down the same path, but the scatter cone is really quite small--small enough to still shoot at point targets and hit most of the time within a few hundred meters. It's only at extremely long ranges, like several thousand meters, that the scatter cone will cover a company's frontage. Hell, in single-shot mode, you can use the ancient M2 .50cal (a 1918 design IIRC) as a sniper rifle and kill folks at 3000m, if you put a 30x scope on it. To be honest, I continue to be shocked that the ghosts of Maxim, Browning, and even Lewis (not to mention all the 1st of July ghosts from the Somme) haven't risen up and struck dead those who believe WW1 MGs were inaccurate.

 

So that's how I roll for fixed guns. And I usually put rear guns on Normal as well, or 2-seaters are too easy to kill. But I put rear guns on Hard when I fly a Fee, leaving the opposition on Normal fixed guns. This is for 2 reasons. First, you don't have to aim in a Fee due to the front gun swiveling, so if you use Normal killing Albatri is way too easy. Second, I do ACM in a Fee that probably would have tossed the gunner out in real life, so I figure my gunner should be shaking from fear and thus inaccurate.

 

 

[Creaghorn 10]

if you watch it from about 6 minutes, then you'll know about how accurate a mg was on an AC.

 

[Hasse Wind 46]

When rifled firearms became common in the late 19th century, the accuracy of fire increased tremendously. Even the 1850's and 1860's era rifle muskets are pretty accurate weapons, and they used black powder, unlike the magazine rifles of WW1, which were even more accurate and deadlier at extremely long ranges. Same goes for machine guns.

 

The main reason for my use of inaccurate gun settings in OFF is that otherwise it's far too easy to get kills, no matter how realistically I try to fly. I like the challenge.

[DukeIronHand 8]

I've shot a number of MGs in my life, including some of WW1 vintage, and I do not at all subscribe to the belief that MGs of that time scattered rounds hither and yon. In actual fact, they were more accurate than most MG's today, due to being heavier. That is to say, as accurate as a long-range, high-power rifle. Which is exactly what an MG (especially a WW1 MG) is, except it fires relatively faster. Sure, during a burst, an MG will bounce a bit and thus not all bullets will go down the same path, but the scatter cone is really quite small--small enough to still shoot at point targets and hit most of the time within a few hundred meters. It's only at extremely long ranges, like several thousand meters, that the scatter cone will cover a company's frontage. Hell, in single-shot mode, you can use the ancient M2 .50cal (a 1918 design IIRC) as a sniper rifle and kill folks at 3000m, if you put a 30x scope on it. To be honest, I continue to be shocked that the ghosts of Maxim, Browning, and even Lewis (not to mention all the 1st of July ghosts from the Somme) haven't risen up and struck dead those who believe WW1 MGs were inaccurate.

 

Amen!

Edited February 9, 2011 by DukeIronHand

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

I use Normal/Normal for all cases except when I fly a Fee, in which case I do Normal/Hard so my gunner has a harder time due to my sometimes un-Fee-like aerobatics.

 

I've shot a number of MGs in my life, including some of WW1 vintage, and I do not at all subscribe to the belief that MGs of that time scattered rounds hither and yon. In actual fact, they were more accurate than most MG's today, due to being heavier. That is to say, as accurate as a long-range, high-power rifle. Which is exactly what an MG (especially a WW1 MG) is, except it fires relatively faster. Sure, during a burst, an MG will bounce a bit and thus not all bullets will go down the same path, but the scatter cone is really quite small--small enough to still shoot at point targets and hit most of the time within a few hundred meters. It's only at extremely long ranges, like several thousand meters, that the scatter cone will cover a company's frontage. Hell, in single-shot mode, you can use the ancient M2 .50cal (a 1918 design IIRC) as a sniper rifle and kill folks at 3000m, if you put a 30x scope on it. To be honest, I continue to be shocked that the ghosts of Maxim, Browning, and even Lewis (not to mention all the 1st of July ghosts from the Somme) haven't risen up and struck dead those who believe WW1 MGs were inaccurate.

 

So that's how I roll for fixed guns. And I usually put rear guns on Normal as well, or 2-seaters are too easy to kill. But I put rear guns on Hard when I fly a Fee, leaving the opposition on Normal fixed guns. This is for 2 reasons. First, you don't have to aim in a Fee due to the front gun swiveling, so if you use Normal killing Albatri is way too easy. Second, I do ACM in a Fee that probably would have tossed the gunner out in real life, so I figure my gunner should be shaking from fear and thus inaccurate.

 

 

 

Those are all good points, Bullethead. However, keep in mind that shooting a machine gun from an emplaced ground position is somewhat different than firing it from an airplane, of course. In addition to shooting at a moving target that has more degrees of freedom of movement, you are also firing from a platform that is itself moving about in all directions. Additional factors that WWI pilots had to deal with that ground gunners did not are: vibrations due to engine and propeller, buffeting caused by travelling forward in the air at speeds over 100 mph in some cases, wind turbulence and propwash, aircraft movement due to input to control surfaces, swift moving targets with unpredicatable changes of direction, etc. We also don't know how much the game settings translate into real world behavior and can only make estimates. Finally, as Hass Wind says, the main reason I am suggesting we consider increasing the spread is to reduce the number of kills we virtual pilots get to more historical levels. Hellshade says that even on the hardest settings, he can sometimes shoot down 4 or 5 planes in one mission. To some people, that is an immersion killer.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[Hasse Wind 46]

Exactly, HPW. A machine gun firing from an airplane is not as stable as a gun that is firing from a fixed position on the ground. And the majority of WW1 airplanes were anything but stable as gun platforms. They were often so light and underpowered that having a single extra MG could have a major negative impact on their performance. Things were much improved by WW2, when aircraft began to have plenty of power and were of much sturdier construction in general, making it possible to arm them with multiple MG's - even heavy MG's - and also 20 or 30 mm guns.

[Hellshade 110]

Hellshade says that even on the hardest settings, he can sometimes shoot down 4 or 5 planes in one mission. To some people, that is an immersion killer.

 

That's true, but if you watch the videos you'll see I also do most of my shooting from very short range. Literally 5 to 15 yards away. Not much scatter at all at that range. Aim for the pilot or the engine and they really don't stand much of a chance. So shooting down that many planes is less of a statement about gun accuracy and more a testimate to my flying in a way that, in real life, I doubt few pilots every would because they had the real fear of running into the enemy plane and dying. Granted I'm pretty good at missing EA by a few feet or inches, but any one of the crashes I have had would have ended my career PDQ in real life.

 

Hellshade

[Lewie 7]

if you watch it from about 6 minutes, then you'll know about how accurate a mg was on an AC.

 

 

Does anyone have a link to the original English language show this was made from? It looks like they were researching the actual area Richthofen was shot down at, isn't this somewhere between Corbie and Villiers Bretonneux?

Edited February 9, 2011 by Lewie

[Creaghorn 10]

Does anyone have a link to the original English language show this was made from? It looks like they were researching the actual area Richthofen was shot down at, isn't this somewhere between Corbie and Villiers Bretonneux?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsGMmaSAFW8&feature=related

 

 

personally i use mostly the no-tracer mod, sometimes the tracers only mod. together with the hard front guns setting and no visible effects from the distance. so that's hard enough. since i don't see the bullets and there is a wide spread, i have to get very close or shoot from long distance with missing a lot. also i break from the fight when sensing a disadvantage because survival comes first. it's mostly not the empty guns or the kill which ends a fight, but the disadvantage in which i can get and so i retreat to live another day or make a second pass.

it's easy to get many kills and die soon. so the problem is not that the killing is too easy, but also surviving long enough. not knowing when to retreat works for some hours, but sooner or later it kills your pilot. rather soon i think.

my current pilot (i always have just one campaign, all others are just for sound testing etc.) has now 20 kills in virtual 1,5 years of combat, and when i attack it is, at least for me, hard enough to get one kill, mostly none, and also beeing able to retreat without getting into situations in a disadvantage.

[Hasse Wind 46]

In my current early war career I'm using your no tracers mod, Creaghorn. As I'm flying a BE.2, I'm not looking for a fight, but if I must shoot at something, it's very dificult to hit compared to the normal tracer settings. I hope your mods will be official in P4.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

it's easy to get many kills and die soon. so the problem is not that the killing is too easy, but also surviving long enough. not knowing when to retreat works for some hours, but sooner or later it kills your pilot. rather soon i think.

The front-gun bullet settings affect both the human and AI pilots, so increasing the bullet spread will decrease both your accuracy AND the accuracy of your wingmates and AI opponents. With the current normal setting, life up in the skies seems a little too lethal for both human and AI pilots. I've found that many of my missions on normal setting wind up with almost all of the aircraft getting knocked out of the sky. The trick is getting the settings just right so that it's more difficult for both humans and the AI to get multiple kills, but not making the setting so tough that humans have difficulty getting kills and the AI can't get any kills! A separate setting like there currently is for human and AI observers would help to solve this problem in P4, IMO.

[Hellshade 110]

Hellshade says that even on the hardest settings, he can sometimes shoot down 4 or 5 planes in one mission. To some people, that is an immersion killer.

 

I might add that now that I have less than a weeks practice under my belt, I am also accomplishing the same results in a different WWI flight sim when flying certain planes (DR1s and Pfalz IIIa). In fact I have posted a video of shooting down 8 EA, assisting in a 9th and a 10th decided to apparently commit suicide by ramming his crate into trees rather than swing around and fight. I think being able to accomplish the same feat in different sims says that OFF isn't necessarily getting anything wrong. It just can't prevent a player from flying virtually nose to tail on an enemy craft to make sure the maximum number of rounds strike home. The real aces also often remarked about the need to get very close to get so many kills, but I couldn't say they flew as aggressively as I do and live very long. I get a lot of "white knuckle" kills, but I have no doubts that Creaghorns pilots live far, far longer than mine. He flies the sim realistically (as I am sure others do). I fly and shoot more like Maverick in Top Gun. Looks great on video but not very realistic for anyone wishing to live. For that reason I don't think it would be a fair critique of OFF to use my flying and shooting style as an example of a possible flaw in OFFs presentation of the war.

 

Hellshade

Edited February 9, 2011 by Hellshade