Gun Settings

[DukeIronHand 8]

...range around 150 yards (range was excessive he says) as the bullets were totally inaffective.

 

I am sure that with all the movement and elevation variables that needed to be taken into account that aerial gunnery was very tricky when compared to ground gunnery and I suspect that the "150 yard" limitation is certainly more of a comment on the gunnery skill of his observer and not a gun or ammo issue.

150 yards is "point blank" for any MG on the ground. In the air banking, climbing, diving not so much!

Edited February 17, 2011 by DukeIronHand

[Bullethead 12]

I am sure that with all the movement and elevation variables that needed to be taken into account that aerial gunnery was very tricky when compared to ground gunnery and I suspect that the "150 yard" limitation is certainly more of a comment on the gunnery skill of his observer and not a gun or ammo issue.

150 yards is "point blank" for any MG on the ground. In the air banking, climbing, diving not so much!

 

This quote was talking about an observer's gun, not a fixed gun. That makes a HUGE difference. IMOH, they're totally apples and oranges. So please note that everything I've said so far has just been about fixed guns.

 

One of the major differences between fixed and free guns is that with fixed guns, whatever throws them off has to move the entire airplane, whereas with free guns, moving only the gun and/or gunner is sufficient. Obviously, the former takes considerably more force to accomplish than the latter. Thus, there are more patches of turbulence that will affect a free gun than a fixed gun. Also, the bumps that affect the whole plane will usually produce a smaller divergence than those affecting the free gun and/or gunner.

 

This was compounded by how an the observer's gun was mounted. The gun was attached to the airplane by a pivot point at or near the center of gravity of the gun, to make it easier for the gunner to pivot the weapon and hold it at any given angle. This ease of movement, however, also made the gun easy to move with external forces like turbulence. Now combine this with the fact that the gunner, who wasn't rigidly mounted to the airplane, either, was holding 1 end of the weapon. Anything that moved the observer in his cockpit--turbulence, G forces, etc.--therefore moved the gun. I figure this was worse for Entente gunners who held Lewis spade grips in their hands, so that only their arms needed to be bounced around, not their whole bodies. The German Parabellum had a shoulder stock precisely to damp out relative motion between the gunner's body and his arms.

 

Another significant difference between fixed and free guns is that free guns are affected by the airplane's own forward motion and fixed guns aren't. The futher a gunner aimed to the side, the greater the force exerted on the weapon itself by the wind. This not only made it hard to keep the weapon aimed on target, at high enough speeds it prevented the gun from being brought to bear at all. Remember, we're talking about gale- or even hurricane-force winds here, due to the speed of the aircraft. And even when it was possible, the air hitting the gun was usually rather turbulent due to having just passed through the struts and wires in the cabane area, so was shaking the weapon as well as trying to push it back in line with the fuselage (an issue the Parabellum's stock also helped deal with). These factors were the primary reason for the development of turrets and, in their absence, the very limited rear gun arcs (no more 360^ Scarff rings, etc.) in post-WW1 aircraft.

 

What amazes me, however, is that despite these limitations, 2-seater gunners were often able to put up an effective fight. The best source I know of about this is Independent Force, by Keith Rennles. This book summarizes and quotes the actual mission reports from all the raids of the daylight bomber squadrons. Over and over again, you read of the bombers having long battles with attacking fighters. The defensive fire from the formation usually kept the Germans at long range (several hundred meters), at least after the 1st clash, from where they'd lob bursts into the formation hoping for a lucky hit. Individual Germans would sometimes try to get closer but would usually pick an angle from which many gunners could bear, so would get hammered. A 10-ship bomber formation might expend 4000-5000 Lewis rounds in the course of a mission, mostly fired a very long range at sniping Germans, and often returned with few or even no losses. But periodically, a more determined group of Germans would meet them and use better tactics. They'd dive in from the flanks, where it was hardest for the gunners to aim at them, and break up the formation. Once scattered, the 2-seaters were much easier prey and losses were often heavy in such cases.

 

So, having read this book several times, I try to set things up in OFF where 2-seater formations are formidable foes requiring proper tactics. Problem is, none of the rear gunner arcs in OFF can shoot below the horizontal even off to the sides where the fuselage isn't in the way (I assume this is a hold-over from the WW2 game engine--see above). Also, they can't shoot upwards more than about 45^. This robs the 2-seaters of their historical ability to cover each other, which was the whole reason for being in formation at all. Thus, the only way to compensate for fewer guns facing you is to make each gun pretty accurate. The drawback to this, however, is that it makes individual 2-seaters more formidable than they should be, and Brisfits extremely dangerous. So I really hope that P4 gives us gunner arcs that are closer to WW1 than WW2.

[Hasse Wind 46]

So I really hope that P4 gives us gunner arcs that are closer to WW1 than WW2.

 

This has been on my wishlist for a long time. The devs must know about it, as it has been mentioned every now and then in threads about two-seaters. Some formation flying improvements would be welcomed too, so that your favourite Fees would be more dangerous opponents to human pilots.

[TaillyHo 2]

Well aside from half a dozen shots with an air-rifle as a kid, I know nothing about real world gunnery - and I've just a couple of months with OFF (not a couple of years like many here - certainly not a veteran of a couple of decades of combat flight simming!). So I've no expertise to bring to this very interesting thread. But I have been dipping into a WW1 aviation book called The Years of the Sky Kings by Arch Whitehouse (1959) and a passage I recently read seemed pertinent to this discussion.

Quoting 'Jimmy' McCudden, flying DH.2s with RFC-29 in the late summer of 1916:

"The astounding thing to me ... was the number of rounds we would fire and still have nothing happen. Once six of us got in a fight and we battled away from 10,000 feet to 800 feet. We fired every round we had, but no one seemed to bring back a bullet hole. We all must have been awful duds as marksmen."

 

I have been running the 'normal' (default) settings, but intend to shift to less accurate settings soon, as like P-W, Hassewind and others, I feel it would be more realistic if I had to work a bit harder to be able to make a 'claim'. I realise there are a number of components in OFF that also contribute to being able to hit what you're aiming at - and Creaghorn's tracer mod as well as the 'range' settings should be the next things I try. But from my limited experience - and reading the wisdom of contributors here - I support P-W's 'research' and would certainly be keen to try an adjustment of this kind.

[+Polovski 458]

I don't think anyone is doubting that guns themselves are accurate. Or doubting that fixed guns are going to be more accurate in that they fire bullets with less spread (if the thing it is strapped to stays still).

The main issue with accuracy is that it is the aircraft the gun is strapped to that is not accurate. not the gun as such.

 

So when Bullethead says ".. free guns are affected by the airplane's own forward motion and fixed guns aren't." This very fact that they are fixed means that although internally the guns may not be affected, the aim and affectiveness is, maybe even more so than the free gun.

 

If your craft is moving off target due to all the natural forces, so are your fixed guns. A rear gunner can redirect his gun against the change in direction of the craft - the pilot has to try to regain direction control and get the craft back on his needed line, whilst also trying to get his head in position to aim better or watch for tracer angle.

 

Also don't forget the pilot too is affected by forces and wind whilst he tries to aim and fly.

The craft is being affected by 100 mph wind from the airspeed with G forces applied, random air pockets and so on. So your effective direction of the craft, and therefore of the gun itself, will certainly not always be where it needs to be to hit effectively.

 

For WW1 craft we also have other forces such as torque and gyro being applied which affects the craft directional control and therefore the aim of your fixed gun. Whilst trying to fly this quirky high drag vice ridden WW1 craft ;) your aim tools (head and Mark.I eyeball) are also checking your shoulder every few seconds in a dogfight. There could also be swirling from the air vortices caused by the craft ahead of you too which will push your craft and therefore your gun off target. Another point is this swirl would not affect a rear gunner (when the pilot is not directly chasing the enemy) who is aiming at a rear target instead.

 

In all this we also would usually have a dodging enemy so getting in close would help ensure that when you did press fire, he is so big in your vision that bullets are bound to hit something.

 

There are plenty of references to getting in as close as possible in WW1 craft many aces did so this cannot have been without good reason.

 

No sim reproduces all forces applied so in sim is not the same, it's impossible to model everything.

[Hellshade 110]

Don't start shooting until you can see the color of their socks and accuracy is rarely a problem. Mid-air collisions, yes. Gun accuracy. Not so much.

 

Hellshade

[Hasse Wind 46]

TaillyHo, that quote from McCudden is excellent. And it doesn't come from some random, mediocre pilot, but one of the leading aces of the war. Also Polovski is absolutely right about the environmental effects on the pilot, which are not very well simulated in any flight sim that I know. WW2 pilots at least had some protection from the wind and weather, thanks to the canopy, but things were not so in WW1.

[Creaghorn 10]

i think one of the biggest differences of RL shooting and shooting in a sim is the missing g-forces.

ever beeing in a car as a co-driver while trying to read a book? it's possible, but you have to concentrate. ever tried reading a book while on a sharp turn? probably not. that's why most people would stop reading, wait for the g-force or turn to be over and then try to refocus again. now imagine doing the same in a rollercoaster.

i think the principal is the same in a buffeting aircraft while trying to aim, probably lot worse. also that's the reason why deflection shooting while curving has to be mastered because you have to fight against g-forces and still align with your guns and aim at the enemy. why surprise was the main weapon while when a dogfight occured, then it was mostly too late for a kill

in a sim it's very easy compared to RL because your head is always still. you don't experience g-forces. your vision is always the same, even if the screen tries to convince you that you are in a turn.

 

 

 

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Interesting notes and contributions from Bullethead, Hasse Wind, Polvoski, and Creaghorn.

 

A few post ago, BH mentioned shooting from a moving vehicle on the ground. He said, if I recall correctly, that he was able to learn fairly quickly how to adjust for the bumps and ruts and still maintain accurate fire on his target. One difference I just thought of between ground bumps and air turbulence is that air turbulence tends to be more unpredictable than the effect you get from travelling over the ground. At least with being over the ground, you can get a pretty good idea of the general "bumpiness" of the terrain and adjust your fire accordingly. You can also eyeball the terrain and get a good idea of how rough it is going to be. Since air turbulence is invisible and unpredictable, you should have a much harder time compensating your aim. Plus, as pointed out above, you are moving at a higher rate of speed in the air as opposed to the ground. Finally, I imagine the aircraft engines of the period were not as smooth running as today's engines--even in military vehicles.

 

For all of the above reasons, I still think it is harder to aim and shoot accurately from these WWI aircraft than from a ground vehicle. However, I do agree that the difference is probably not too dramatic. I also agree with the discussion about the rear guns. If the arc can be improved, than the spread should probably also be adjusted to reduce the lethality of the rear-gunners just a bit.

[Creaghorn 10]

what also should be considered is the completely different feel in the air. IMO it's lot tougher to estimate distances and to have a good feel for aiming in a 3 dimensional enviroment, where your never had the same chance to develop them over the years, like on the ground.

as an example, i can rocket baseballs (catcher) pretty accurately to all bases and 9 of 10 times i'll hit the others chest or better say the correct side of the base in tag out height without even to think about it. but when i'm standing on a balcony and have to throw the car keys down or snowballs or whatever, even if it's just several meters, then it will land anywhere miles away, just not near the intended target. i simply have not the feeling for the distance when it's getting 3 dimensional.

i think with aiming in the air it might be similar to a lot of people. harder to estimate the deflection etc.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

One thing I have noticed in OFF (or any flight sim for that matter) is that you and your opponent's aircraft do not do a lot of "bobbing" up and down in the air. I imagine that that would add a lot to the difficulty of in the air shooting as opposed to that done on the ground.

[Lewie 7]

I don't think anyone is doubting that guns themselves are accurate. Or doubting that fixed guns are going to be more accurate in that they fire bullets with less spread (if the thing it is strapped to stays still).

The main issue with accuracy is that it is the aircraft the gun is strapped to that is not accurate. not the gun as such.

 

So when Bullethead says ".. free guns are affected by the airplane's own forward motion and fixed guns aren't." This very fact that they are fixed means that although internally the guns may not be affected, the aim and affectiveness is, maybe even more so than the free gun.

 

If your craft is moving off target due to all the natural forces, so are your fixed guns. A rear gunner can redirect his gun against the change in direction of the craft - the pilot has to try to regain direction control and get the craft back on his needed line, whilst also trying to get his head in position to aim better or watch for tracer angle.

 

Also don't forget the pilot too is affected by forces and wind whilst he tries to aim and fly.

The craft is being affected by 100 mph wind from the airspeed with G forces applied, random air pockets and so on. So your effective direction of the craft, and therefore of the gun itself, will certainly not always be where it needs to be to hit effectively.

 

For WW1 craft we also have other forces such as torque and gyro being applied which affects the craft directional control and therefore the aim of your fixed gun. Whilst trying to fly this quirky high drag vice ridden WW1 craft ;) your aim tools (head and Mark.I eyeball) are also checking your shoulder every few seconds in a dogfight. There could also be swirling from the air vortices caused by the craft ahead of you too which will push your craft and therefore your gun off target. Another point is this swirl would not affect a rear gunner (when the pilot is not directly chasing the enemy) who is aiming at a rear target instead.

 

In all this we also would usually have a dodging enemy so getting in close would help ensure that when you did press fire, he is so big in your vision that bullets are bound to hit something.

 

There are plenty of references to getting in as close as possible in WW1 craft many aces did so this cannot have been without good reason.

 

No sim reproduces all forces applied so in sim is not the same, it's impossible to model everything.

 

The RE8 had both an additional throttle control and elevator stick for the gunner, I assume that when you jump to the gunner's position the ability to throttle back or override the pilot 's elevator inputs aren't there. I'm not sure what the Royal Air Factory's reasons for these additional controls, but for maybe if the pilot became injured or killed?

[Bullethead 12]

I don't think anyone is doubting that guns themselves are accurate. Or doubting that fixed guns are going to be more accurate in that they fire bullets with less spread (if the thing it is strapped to stays still). The main issue with accuracy is that it is the aircraft the gun is strapped to that is not accurate. not the gun as such.

 

I think most of us have ridden in rather light aircraft enough to know that most of the time, they fly along smoothly. They hit the occasional "bump in the road", but they don't stagger around constantly like drunks unless the pilot is himself drunk or they've suffered major damage, or both. Also, when they do hit a "bump", they pretty much self-correct immediately due to their weathervane effect. That's the whole reason for wing dihedral and tail surfaces--to keep a plane flying straight and to self-correct back to the intended flight path. Sure, some WW1 planes were horrible fliers but others were notoriously TOO stable. Most were somewhere in between, like almost all aircraft ever built. Besides that, fixed guns were at or near the aircraft center of gravity. Thus, they weren't affected that much but whatever bumps were encountered.

 

IIRC, in my 1st post in this thread, I stated that about 80% of kills were scored by surprise against non-maneuvering targets. That was the case in WW1 and WW2. IOW, deflection wasn't much of an issue, if it was necessary at all, and the shooting plane was flying just as straight and smoothly as the target. Anybody can hit in such situations, and what separates the aces from the Fokker Fodder is being able to achieve these conditions.

 

I also said that when it came to a real dogfight, kills were relatively rare. After all, these comprised at most 20% of all kills. Either the shooter couldn't achieve a lethal position on the target, or couldn't do deflection shooting. Dogfights seem to have happened fairly regularly and little harm was done. Thus, I consider McCudden was correct: they were "duds" at shooting at hale fellows well met.

 

So when Bullethead says ".. free guns are affected by the airplane's own forward motion and fixed guns aren't." This very fact that they are fixed means that although internally the guns may not be affected, the aim and affectiveness is, maybe even more so than the free gun.

 

I have to disagree here. As I tried to explain when I said this, throwing a fixed gun off target requires a force strong enough to throw the entire aircraft off its path. That is, not only its mass but also its bult-in stability and weathervaning forces. And in most planes, such divergences were but momentary. However, a much smaller force was required to toss a pivoting gun off target.

 

No sim reproduces all forces applied so in sim is not the same, it's impossible to model everything.

 

I wasn't complaining about the way OFF handles this. I was merely stating that I disagreed with folks who wanted to make guns less accurate than they really were. If I achieve a good kill position, I should be able to kill relatively easily. After all, the tools at my disposal are more than adequate for the task. My guns are some of the most accurate ever made,my aircraft is (usually) relatively stable, and I've been doing this for decades, mostly in multi-player against oppenents of equal skill and experience.

[+Polovski 458]

Interesting debate but at the end of the day players have variable talents and preferences, so we research and build it how we feel it should be then add some extras for people to customize some that is all we can do of course.

 

that most of the time, they fly along smoothly. They hit the occasional "bump in the road", but they don't stagger around constantly like drunks ...

 

Sure, I didn't say dramatic large drunken ;) movements, but all the forces I mentioned will contribute sometime or other. Just a few small movements (1 or 2 inches even) would be enough at range. WW1 craft are also definitely worse and more effort to keep lined up than modern light craft.

 

I also said that when it came to a real dogfight, kills were relatively rare.

 

Yes too many forces and distractions. However the main point is getting in close is usually more effective. For most situations hitting the craft is not the point - hitting a vital areas is. Cecil Lewis and pilots came back most times with at least 30+ holes in the craft from combat and ground fire, mostly nothing vital hit.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

I've been doing some additional testing at various bullet dispersion settings and think I am about ready to come up with some "alternative" gun setting values. Generally speaking, the settings will make the bullet dispersion slightly wider at all difficulty settings, with "Easy/Accurate" set slightly tighter than the current "Normal" setting, the new "Normal" setting set almost exactly midway between the current "Normal" and "Hard" settings, and the new "Hard" setting about 25% more difficult than the current "Hard" setting. I've found that I don't notice that much difference between the OFF Hard setting and my new Hard setting, but I do notice a difference between the new hardest setting and the old OFF Normal setting. Also, at the two highest settings (the OFF Hard and my Hard setting), the AI is not as good at shooting down a lot of planes in one mission as it is at easier settings. This should result in fewer whole flights being wiped out in one single mission--although it can still happen occasionally, even at the hardest setting.

 

In my next post, I will give you the detailed differences between OFF's settings and my settings, so if you want to maintain the "mystery," DO NOT read the next post. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

WARNING! DO NOT READ THIS POST IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THE BULLET DISPERSION SETTINGS USED IN OFF AND IN MY REVISION!!!!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

OFF Settings: Easy = 0.2 Normal = 0.5 Hard = 1.0

 

My Settings: Easy = 0.4 Normal = 0.75 Hard = 1.25

 

Personally, I think my Normal setting of 0.75 represents the best compromise between realism and fun. In the past, I have used the OFF setting of 0.5, and was still able to get multiple kills in one mission (and I am not a good shot)! The setting of 1.25 is for hard-core players who want to limit their kills to somewhat more realistic levels (still can get multiple kills). However, at this setting, the AI (except for Aces) will have much more difficulty getting kills.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Finally, I'm also working on a small revision to the AI rear-gun dispersal settings, because if you use the harder front gun settings, you will find it even more difficult to shoot down the two-seaters without also adjusting the rear-gun dispersal settings somewhat. Again, this will not be a major alteration to the current settings and should not cause too noticeable a difference in gameplay.

 

In the end, I'm just trying to offer a few more options for some OFF'ers to try. Not everyone will agree with or will enjoy my additional options, nor do I expect them.

 

It will probably take me up to another week or so before I am ready to post all of my gun setting changes. Until then, fire way!

[Pawgy 0]

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.

 

I like everything easy for me and more difficult for the AI. I do not see a separate rear gun setting for the human and the AI.

 

Also in the AI gun range (Air) Does that mean if set to (Easy AI gun range) the AI is better or worse?

 

Pawgy

[Pawgy 0]

A better question for me would be ,,,,What should the settings be for the easiest for me and the hardest for the AI? I am a little confused by the wording.

 

Pawgy

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

There are separate rear-gun settings for the AI and human, but no separate setting for the front-guns. With the front guns, you make BOTH the human and AI better shots by setting the front-guns to Easy, and worse shots by setting it to Hard. With Easy, you can get more kills, but you won't survive as long. With Hard, you will have a harder time getting multiple kills in one mission, but you are also likely to survive longer. You might try setting the guns to Normal, Pawgy, for a compromise between the Easy and Hard settings.

 

Fortunately, there is a way to get seperate rear-gun settings for the human and AI, but you have to do a little file editing. Find the WW1_Scenery/Difficulty/(Easy, Normal, Hard)/RearGuns folder. Inside this folder you will find files for the Vickers, Lewis, Parabellum, and Maxim machine guns. The AI files are the ones that look something like this: "Lewis_air_obs.xdp." The files for the human rear-gunner looks like this: "Lewis_air.xdp." Inside each file is a setting named "Noise." To make the human rear-gunner a better shot, lower the number. To make the AI rear-gunner a Mr. Magoo, increase the number to at least 2.0.

 

Hope this helps answer your question. Good luck!

[Pawgy 0]

Wonderful. Every time I get a tip like this I copy and paste it in a tips folder in an OFF saved folder.

 

Thanks Herr Prop-Wasche

 

 

Pawgy