Rear Gunner Questions

+**Winder** · October 14, 2011

While I'm very happy to hear that gunners in P4 will be different, I don't expect we'll ever be completely satisfied with how gunners work. I mean, we're never satisfied with anything . But the subject is more complex than we probably give it credit for. Right now we're concerned mostly with fields of fire. OK, those get fixed, but then somebody will say that the slipstream above a given speed, or the G-forces during a maneuver, would have prevented the gunner shooting in a given direction or even at all. And what about the aerodynamic effects on the plane itself as the gunner alternately squats low and stands tall in the airstream? So then we'll have to hunt down old Viet Nam door gunners for their opinions on those subjects, and they won't agree, so the argument will go on .

Dont be so sure on the G forces and maneuvering effects not being implemented.....

:-)

WM

**Creaghorn** · October 14, 2011

Dont be so sure on the G forces and maneuvering effects not being implemented.....

:-)

WM

:yikes: :good:

**Olham** · October 14, 2011

Dont be so sure on the G forces and maneuvering effects not being implemented.....

:-)

WM

Short answers like direct Flak hits.

Man, you know how to raise the level of expectations! :good:

**Hasse Wind** · October 14, 2011

I think I'm reaching a point where nothing regarding P4 surprises me. Everything seems to be possible! :drinks:

**Olham** · October 14, 2011

And I bet, you'll still be surprised. :yikes:

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 14, 2011

Yeah, but will P4 be able to model the G forces of the observer falling out of the airplane?? :grin:

**33LIMA** · October 14, 2011

I don't know why these changes in gunner arcs weren't applied to human-crewed planes (and flights), but that's the way things are.

I would be seriously interested in hand-editing into player-flown or player-led planes the less-limited fields of fire enjoyed by the 'AI only' ones, for the sake of bringing their current dismal performance up to that of the the 'AI-only' gunners, which I think should be the case.

Any idea where one might find the parameters to change the 'human-tainted' gunners, so they operate like the AI-only ones? There is some stuff on gunner positions in each plane's .xdp files. Unlike CFS3, there seem to be 6 versions of each plane, suffixed _QC1, _SQ1-4 and _Sqd. From looking at two of the .xdp files for the RE8, the section for the Lewis in all of these seems to be the same, as below; this looks like where the relevant limits are set.

Assuming they are indeed the figures which limit gunner traverse & elevation, and assuming they are also the ones which affect player-flown or led planes...well, I don't know what the figures for up, down, left and right limits are in - maybe or maybe not degrees - but either way, it may be significant that the 'uplimit' is no less than 3 times the 'downlimit'. So perhaps making the 'downlimit', say, 20, would help, or increasing uplimit from 30 to 50 and the downlimit from 10 to 30, that sort of thing. Maybe also increasing the left and right limits from 70 to, say, 80 or 90, to give increased traverse as well.

I could try this but it would help if anyone can tell me (a) whether these are indeed the relevant settings and (b) whether I need to make any changes to all 6 'clones' of a 2-seaters .xdp files. I expect I need to delete the .bdp files afterwards too, and let them be regenerated based on the new .xdp file.

If this works, it could be a mod of interest to all of us who play 2-seater campaigns, but are on poor terms with our observers due to their reluctance to earn their pay, especially if the rear-seaters in the squadron's other flights can do a lot better.

Edited October 14, 2011 by 33LIMA

**DukeIronHand** · October 14, 2011

Any idea where one might find the parameters to change the 'human-tainted' gunners, so they operate like the AI-only ones?

I am hardly a programming pro, and I will bow to the Devs and BH's expertise if they say either way, but I would be amazed if there are actually two different files - one for an AI gunner with an AI pilot and another for an AI gunner with a human pilot.

I will say the issue, if there is one, lies elsewhere.

Edit: Double post

Edited October 14, 2011 by DukeIronHand

**33LIMA** · October 14, 2011

Update:

Well I made the above edits to all 6 RE8 .xdp files and deleted the .bdp files. To recap, the edits were:

'increasing uplimit from 30 to 50 and the downlimit from 10 to 30.................... also increasing the left and right limits from 70 to...90, to give increased traverse as well. '

And the results...well I should have done a 'before' flight for comparison, but from 2 QC flights of 4xRE8s led by me against 4x Alb DII's, here's what I think I can see.

1. manning the Lewis gun myself, I now get arcs of fire which look to correspond exactly to the changed values in degrees - ie plus 50 degress elevation, minus 30 depression (where zero=level), and 90 degress left and right (where zero = fully aft). They certainly do not correspond, in degress anyway, to the former values. So the edit appears to have taken effect.

2. with this, I tried to shoot off my own tailplane and rear fuselage and the rounds went thru without damaging anything, and carried on (IIRC CFS3 has always had certain minimum ranges under which the rounds have no effect, possibly specifically to prevent gunners hitting their own aircraft). I suspected that before I had seen some AI 2-seaters fire thru their rear fuselages, like Gothas. This may be why; ie like BulletHead said, pure AI gunners have wider arcs than player-manned, player-flown, or player-led gunners, because the latter's arcs were restricted to avoid making the absence of self-damage that results, visible to the player. I think there should not be a difference between AI-only gunners, and gunners in the player's plane and flight, so whatever is best should apply to both. What's sauce for AI, should be sauce for player. I do need to have another, longer go at shooting off my tail tho, as I fly with hi-res skins and it may be I didn't try quite hard enough. But I saw no damage, nor any damage effects eg debris, and I did put a good few rounds into the tailplane and rear fuselage; even I could not miss, at that range.

3. cannot yet say if the AI-flown RE8s in my player-led flight benefitted too; maybe; hope so, just too soon to say

4. my gunners ammo runs out too fast - no way has he fired anything like 8x97*-round drums; must look into this, too, I thought Lewis-armed planes had the full ammo load, in effect loaded into the drum that's fitted, as proper drum changes are not possible. *RoF figure, can't find anything else at the mo

The original arcs were possibly put in to prevent a player-manned rear gun being visibly able to fire thru parts of your own plane - I say this, because my new arcs bring the rear fuselage, fin/rudder, tailplane/evevators and trailing edges of the wings into my arc of fire, while the stock arcs look to have been specifically designed to prevent this. I would much rather have it as it is now (with my edits) and rely on myself avoiding 'abusing' the ability to fire thru tailplane etc, than have my arcs of fire (and that of my flight mates) seriously curtailed, below what's available for 'pure' AI gunners.

Another minor downside is that the gunner figure doesn't crouch or otherwise adjust his stance as the gun elevates and depresses, so at the higher/lower gun angles he doesn't look quite right in external view, at least from angles/ranges where this is visible. Again, a small price to pay.

I need to fly with this for a while to test it out, obviously. I think I will increase the traverse angles again, from 90 (stock, 70) up to about 120, so player gunners and player-flown or -led gunners can shoot slightly ahead of 90 degress left and right. and see how that goes. If it still seems good, then I will extend it to other 2-seaters I fly or plan to (which means all of them, except the current fixed-gun BE2c, as this doesn't need it).

As I didn't check the angles before I made the edits, it's possible all this is exactly as it was before! However, Bullethead evidently knows his stuff, and he was clear that player-manned, led or flown guns could mostly not reach the angles my RE8's Lewises can now reach. It is still a mystery to me tho, how it could be that pure AI gunners could achieve angles beyond the ones in these files. I do know that their FMs ignore weights for fuel, ammo and maybe pilot, so there is a precedent of sorts, for this sort of thing

Will report back in due course. Wait out.

Edited October 14, 2011 by 33LIMA

**Bullethead** · October 15, 2011

Dont be so sure on the G forces and maneuvering effects not being implemented.....

:-)

WM

SCHWEET!!! When flying the Fee, I've been trying to be easy on my gunner (the poor bastard doesn't even have a seat, let alone a seatbelt). And even so, I've found him not liking to fire when I've got more than about 30-45^ bank on. I look forward to seeing what happens in P4.

**Bullethead** · October 15, 2011

Another minor downside is that the gunner figure doesn't crouch or otherwise adjust his stance as the gun elevates and depresses, so at the higher/lower gun angles he doesn't look quite right in external view, at least from angles/ranges where this is visible. Again, a small price to pay

Yeah, I'd like to see that, too.

While we're on the subject, one thing that's always bugged me is that currently gun mounts don't function as they did in real life. They function like WW2 turrets in that the only point of rotation is the center of the ring mount. In WW1 mounts, however, the rotating ring just put you in the general area and carried with it the actual pivot point of the weapon, with which gunners actually aimed. That is, the guns themselves could pivot on the edge of the ring, with say a +/- 45^ or more useable angle of traverse off the ring's facing, depending on elevation and how far the gunner wanted to lean out of his cockpit. German 2-seaters typically had very wide rings (often the widest part of the fuselage), which reduced the amount of leaning the gunner had to do, thereby making it easier to fire down beside the fuselage. Entente planes (as shown in the RE8 diagrams above) typically had tapering tail sections for the same reason.

This is how gunners shot under their tails. They'd rotate the ring to move the actual gun pivot out beyond the edge of the fuselage, then swing the gun back towards the tail. This enabled them to shoot downwards close alongside the fuselage, although this entailed leaning out over the edge of the cockpit so had its practical limits. But when shooting sideways and down, the gunner didn't have to lean over, so the arc that way ways rather bigger. This is what enabled members of a formation to cover each other's blind spots and is currently lacking even for AI-only flights.

Shooting low also required the gunner to stand up. In this situation, having the elevation pivot point right down on top of the ring made it easier to shoot down more steeply. But the opposite is true when shooting upwards, so elevation is limited by how far down the gunner can get in his cockpit relative to the elevation pivot point. German 2-seaters seem in general to have had deeper fuselages than Entente planes, so the gunner could squat lower. Where this wasn't the case, they often raised the ring mount above the fuselage top in the form of a tubular framework. Thinner-sectioned Entente planes, OTOH, had Scarff rings, the distinguishing feature of which was the ability to raise the elevation pivot point above the ring, so that the gunner could get higher elevation for the same limited amount of squatting. However, the Scarff rings in OFF don't change in elevation. Maybe P4?

**33LIMA** · October 15, 2011

Posted this in the '2-seater campaign' thread as well as it's relevant there, too.

Just to provide some background, cut and pasted below are extracts from most OFF 2-seaters' .xdp files; specifically, the sections which appear to me to define the arcs of fire of the observer/gunner. Relevant (?) lines are in bold. At bottom is the same extract for the RE8, but modded in my effort, which I'm currently testing, to increase these arcs of fire, both vertically and laterally.

Note that - exactly as BulletHead had said - the Brisfit has MUCH wider arcs laterally, to the extent the observer can fire nearly 360 degrees, with but a small arc ahead 'blind'. Note also that all have MINIMAL depression - 10 (degrees) downward. I repeat - this is all untested (by me) but it corresponds to BulletHead's observations. I believe these restricted arcs may well be designed to stop the player firing, or seeing his observer firing, thru his own plane's tail or rear fuselage or wing trailing edges. I'd rather have more realistic arcs of fire, than a 'kludge' to prevent firing thru tails, because the latter seems to impose a very serious and unrealistic restriction of arcs of fire, which are not also applied to other, 'pure AI' gunners..

If this is validated, I think the resultant mod will on balance make 2-seater campaigns more realistic and more satisfying for those of us who enjoy them, by giving our observers much more realistic fields of fire, at least comparable to those already enjoyed by AI flights.

As stated above, this effort is based on the observation that 'pure AI' observers in most types of plane have wider fields of fire than these limits, which apply to the player when manning a gun, and to the player's observer, and to the observers in the player's flight. The aim is to give player-manned, -flown or -led guns a wider field of fire, to correspond more closely with the superior and seemingly more realistic arcs of fire reportedly enjoyed by 'pure AI' observers.

Brisfit stock

RE8 Stock

Strutter stock

DFW stock

Hannover stock

RE8 modded

**33LIMA** · October 15, 2011

I'll continue to post on my fiddling about with 2-seater arcs of fire on the 2-seater campaign thread, as the topic has moved further ahead there, following some helpful information posted there by Polovski:

http://combatace.com...gn/page__st__20

In short, it IS possible to improve significantly your gunner's performance - by increasing his currently-quite-curtailed arcs of fire in 2-seaters' .xdp files. I don't know yet how to make him fire at longer ranges (which may or may not be necessary or desirable anyway). Observers do seem to have the correct amount of ammo; stoppages may account for any impression to the contrary. If so I would like to find out how to prevent stoppages occurring, not in all guns as per the Workshop setting, but just in Lewis guns, given they could probably be got going again more easily than a fixed Vickers eg cock gun, drum off, new drum on. Maybe Parabellums, too.

Edited October 15, 2011 by 33LIMA

**Bullethead** · October 16, 2011

I don't know yet how to make him fire at longer ranges (which may or may not be necessary or desirable anyway).

That's a function of Workshop settings: AI gun range. Problem is, there's only 1 option for AI gun range, although there are separate accuracy options for front and rear AI guns. In reality IMHO, most bomber/recon gunners were long range/low accuracy, but you don't the enemy scouts shooting at that range. Because you meet more scouts (given the current shortage of 2-seaters), you should set the range to what you think is best for them, then make up for that with the 2-seater accuracy setting.

Observers do seem to have the correct amount of ammo; stoppages may account for any impression to the contrary. If so I would like to find out how to prevent stoppages occurring, not in all guns as per the Workshop setting, but just in Lewis guns, given they could probably be got going again more easily than a fixed Vickers eg cock gun, drum off, new drum on. Maybe Parabellums, too.

Stoppages weren't any easier for observers to deal with than pilots. Stoppages fall into 3 categories: failure to load, failure to fire, and failure to extract. Each type can be caused either by the gun or the ammunition.

Failure to Load

Generally this is an ammo problem. Manually working the action is your best bet here, to get the bad round or kink in the belt out of the way. If that doesn't work, then it's probably because something broken in the gun or a piece of a bent round stuck in the chamber. You can't fix that while flying. Might be caused by overheating of the gun, and might go away if you let it cool down.

Failure to Fire

This is usually a gun problem; something in the gun broke. As such, it will never fire again until the broken part is replaced. Less often, it's a dud round, and working the action will fix that.

Failure to Extract

This is very bad. Either the extracting hook broke or the case separated and the extractor pulled the head off, leaving the tube in the chamber. Neither is fixable in the air.

So at the bottom line, if your "immediate action" (manually cycling the action) doesn't work, you're usually out of luck, regardless of what type of gun you've got. MGs, especially those that fire long bursts and get hot, break frequently. Springs, firing pins, all the small moving parts involved in moving ammo through the chamber, etc. Such breakage caused most of the stoppages, then and since.

BTW, a German 2-seater rear gun, the Parabellum, was a modified Maxim.

**33LIMA** · October 16, 2011

Thanks for the tip about ranges. The reason I was thinking of tinkering with this if poss, was that on a test flight against DFWs, their observers were shooting at 400-500m whereas in RE8s, I had the impression my gunner was waiting for that 'whites of the eyes' moment, at whatever cost to my somewhat frayed nerves. Possibly there is no difference and other factors were at work.

The reason I think it's gonna be that bit easier to clear a stoppage for the observer is nothing to do with the mechanism or model of weapon; he can get at the gun's breech and its ammo supply rather better than a pilot, who - assuming his gun(s) are actually placed where he can reach the breech(es) - will have to work at or near full stretch, reach past a windshield, and fly at the same time, possibly with one hand while he's doing the IA with the other. Granted an observer might have had difficulties of their own, like their pilot deciding it might not be a good idea to fly straight and level while he tried to do the necessary. 'Cock, hook and look' is probably a bit harder if you're upside down, never tried it myself.

Edited October 16, 2011 by 33LIMA

**themightysrc** · October 16, 2011

"BTW, a German 2-seater rear gun, the Parabellum, was a modified Maxim."

A little known fact, but absolutely true.

The history of the machine gun is filled with weird and wonderful personalities, but apparently many of them saw the machine gun as the way of reducing casualties on the battlefield on the basis that there would be far less need to commit so many men into battle to achieve a level of firepower.

And, of course, the history of the device is replete with tales of how it was ignored by the authorities - including, inevitably, the Briddish - until German militarists and theoreticians had thoroughly grasped and absorbed the implications of what machine guns might do on the (then) modern battlefield. The rest, of course, is history, and amounts for a significant number of dead on both sides of the trenches, as well as those above.

**33LIMA** · October 16, 2011

OK I've now tried out the 'Arcmod', using JGSME, and all the arc of fire adjustments work as now re-set (for all the tractor 2-seaters; I left the Fee alone as it looked ok, even the 20 degree depression for the front Lewis).

I had increased all elevations from 30-40-odd degrees to 50, and all depresions from 10 degrees to 30. Traverse I had left alone in some cases. After test flying, I think I will set elevation limit at 45 instead of 50 (stock, 30-40-odd), and depression at 25 instead of 30 (stock, 10), and traverse at 90 degrees for those whose observers sit near a wing's trailing edge (for some like the Strutter and DFW this is a slight decrease, for the RE8 it is a slight increase). And set the Brisfit's and Hannover's traverse to be the same, at whatever the former's is now (as both can fire forward over the upper wing to similar degrees from what I can see) keeping the Roland's traverse slightly better and still the best of them all.

From the standpoint of attacking a 2-seater, even with 30 degrees depression, there is still a considerable blind spot. Even attacking two 2-seaters in close formation it's still possible to stay our of their arcs of fire; it's just more diifficult. Coming up behind and just slightly below will no longer keep you safe. But I think 25 degrees depression rather than 30 (and 45 elevation rather than 50) will be a better balance, overall. Slightly reducing my original settings will certainly somewhat reduce the visual effect caused - when you are looking the right way - by the observer figure not changing stance as the gun elevates or depresses. The Strutter's observer's hands are rendered higher (maybe since he looks to have a French Etevée mount not a Scarff ring) and they impinge on your field of view at high angles of elevation but it's not bad and will be less obtrusive at plus 45 degrees.

I think this mod will make 2-seater campaigns a lot more fun, especially manning the Lewis/Parabellum, and hopefully more realistic, on balance (observers could shoot thru tails and rear fuselages before, too, even at the 'stock' limit of 10 degrees depression).

If this does make scouts too vulnerable for individual tastes, the easiest thing to do would be to change the rear gun accuracy in Workshop, to one or two notches below the front gun setting, whenever you're flying a scout campaign, and back to a more accurate setting for rear guns, when you're flying 2-seaters. Assuming it's necessary at all, which it might not be.

I'll make the final adjustments, do a readme, zip it up and upload, over the next few days, for anyone who's interested.

Incidentally, can anyone confirm which way the 'AI Gun Range' scale in Workshop, operates? I'm assuming 'Easy' gives the AI the shortest range (ie easy for the player) and that 'Hard' gives them the longest range (ie hard for the player). Is that right?

Edited October 16, 2011 by 33LIMA

**DukeIronHand** · October 16, 2011

Incidentally, can anyone confirm which way the 'AI Gun Range' scale in Workshop, operates? I'm assuming 'Easy' gives the AI the shortest range (ie easy for the player) and that 'Hard' gives them the longest range (ie hard for the player). Is that right?

HPW is the one to ask here.

I remember trying to install a mod and the "Easy", "Normal", and "Hard" was quite counter-intuitive to me - so much so I hate to hazard a guess.

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 17, 2011

HPW is the one to ask here.

I remember trying to install a mod and the "Easy", "Normal", and "Hard" was quite counter-intuitive to me - so much so I hate to hazard a guess.

I believe that is correct, although I haven't looked closely at the gun settings for awhile. Also, don't forget to consider "noise" or spread of the bullet pattern when adjusting the lethality of observer gunnery. :smile:

**33LIMA** · October 17, 2011

Thanks guys! At this stage, I'm not planning to package any other gunnery adjustments with this, given some can be made in Workshop if it seems necessary. We'll see how this goes in gameplay for a while.

Cheers!

**33LIMA** · October 18, 2011

Well 'ArcMod' is now uploaded at CombatAce, pending clearance:

http://combatace.com/topic/68251-arcmod-for-off-phase-3-2-seaters/

**DukeIronHand** · October 19, 2011

Well 'ArcMod' is now uploaded at CombatAce, pending clearance:

http://combatace.com/topic/68251-arcmod-for-off-phase-3-2-seaters/

Sweet!

**Wayfarer** · October 19, 2011

Well 'ArcMod' is now uploaded at CombatAce, pending clearance:

http://combatace.com...se-3-2-seaters/

Thanks Lima. I and my RE8 need all the help we can get!

**Hasse Wind** · October 19, 2011

I'm very interested to try this mod, but first I'd like to know if it works with Herr Prop-Wasche's FM and DM mods?

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 19, 2011

HW, I don't know of any reason why they would not work with my DM or FM mods. They may conflict with one of my gun settings mods, if you have them installed.

If you have JSGME, try loading Lima's mod on top of one of my mods. If you get a warning message about file conflicts or files being overwritten, that is a sign that the mods may be in conflict with one another.

Salute :salute:

Rear Gunner Questions

Recommended Posts

+Winder 32

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Creaghorn 10

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Olham 164

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hasse Wind 46

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Olham 164

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Herr Prop-Wasche 7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DukeIronHand 8

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bullethead 12

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bullethead 12

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bullethead 12

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

themightysrc 5

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DukeIronHand 8

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Herr Prop-Wasche 7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post