I have a question about the accuracy of the human aimed machine guns in Rise of Flight.

I jump online every now and then and fly the fast climbing allied machines that I love. Despite almost constantly having a good altitude advantage, I'm brought down in about one mission in two by long range gunfire from much lower German fighters. The Aus Server displays icons and ranges on many of its maps and I was often able to watch the lower German fighters as they stood on their tails to shoot up at me and note the ranges they were firing at. I noted that the good shots were able to get a hit or two per burst from between 250 and 300 meters distance with relative consistancy. The record for the longest critical hit being a Fokker D.VII which nailed the engine of my SE5a at 550 meters!

Having never fired a machinegun mounted in a biplane at an another, my opinion on the accuracy of them doesn't count but the opinions of these blokes certainly should

'Mick' Mannock 61+ claims
In his rules for air fighting
"Rule 1. Pilots must dive to attack with zest, and must hold their fire until they get within one hundred yards of their target."

Oswald Boelcke 40 Claims and the father of German fighter tactics
He advocated to his pilots to get within 100 meters before openning fire. In his rules for air fighting (Dicta Boelcke) he states,
"Rule 3. Only fire at close range, and then only when the opponent is properly in your sights"

Manfred von Richthofen 80 Claims and leading WW1 Ace
"I calmly let him shoot, for even the best sharpshooter's marksmanship could not help at a distance of 300 metres. One just does not hit."


Many of the top aces (such as Dallas, Little and Bishop) note in their combat reports about getting to point blank before opening fire. A typical (but chilling) example of this is taken from a letter from René Dorme to his parents,
"I murdered him in cold blood, by surprise; and I sent ten rounds into its arse at a range of less than ten meters, under his tail. The devil take his soul!"

All I pointing out is the top WW1 flyers all though it neccessary to get close (preferably less than 10 but definately less that 100 meters/yards) for a victory yet I'm constantly being shot down at three times that maximum range in Rise of Flight.

It is my opion based on the quote from the guys who were there that the machine guns in Rise of Flight are far too accurate and hence destroys the historical accuracy of the game.

LOL

First theres AI sniper complaints, now there's Player sniper complaints?

Heh, in all seriousness though... I've been known to get a few "magic BB" shots at extreme ranges. And while I completely follow your line of logic, please consider ONE thing...



In ROF where I have no threat of actually "dying" and ending my life, I take bigger chances, mainly longer range, higher deflection shots....with no consequence other than starting a "new life".

...now were I actually in a real DR1 with an SE5 high above me, no, I'd hold that shot and wait for him to get close.


I can't see your examples as proof of saying it "cant" be done...more just IT SHOULDNT BE DONE.


Set up your views correctly, become very familiar with your "sight picture" and it becomes easier to get those long range high deflection shots.

S!

Wasn't that MvR quote made just before a rear gunner, with a little pop gun, shot and injured him at 300 yrd's +.

I'm sure they wouldn't shoot unless they knew they had a good chance to hit. Want to save ammo, and energy, and not want to get the guns jammed with useless shooting.

I bet that for 95% of the players, especially the casual players, shooting down an enemy plane at more than 200 meters without unlimited ammo, is so unlikely that it does not worth trying.

For a large majority of players, RoF is difficult enough. You cannot set the difficulty of a game according to the ability of 1% of them.

It could be a problem online, but this is a general problem of online games. Some people are so skilled and well trained that it kills the fun.

About mg dispersion: MGs never killed infantry over 300m as it was imbosible to hit,right?

The reason for long range sniping by players is unrealistic zoom feature.
It's pathetic seening in videos how players use terminator zoom to observe and correct aiming.
This trend of including zoom should die already. We are way past 320x200 resolutions...

I think that anything over 150 meters is going to be a fluke hit.

Ill sometimes chance a long range burst to try and force an enemy to dodge so I can catch them up. The vast majority of times i hit nothing.

From what i can see the ballistics in ROF are modeled well, and you do get dispersion and bullet drop.

Also I dont find anything gamey about the zoom feature. I real life your vision has a much greater resolution than anything a computer can churn out.

Realistically your eyes would produce an image closer to full zoom with the feild of veiw you get fully zoomed out. As our monitors cant reproduce this the variable zoom is a good work around.

Many versions of the mainstay heavy MG of the time (Maxim.) Mainly the German MG 08 and the Vickers machine gun, With a calm shooter (Depending on training, which indeed reduced as the attrition went on.) was indeed capable of bringing down enemy infantry at large, in the open at about 700 meters.
But during those mass infantry assaults, the defenders usually held their fire until the usual 250-300 yard mark in order to preserve ammunition and increase efficiency, as sick as it sounds.
Most MG gunners simply set their MG tripod elevation trim for chest/abdomen shots at this aforementioned range mark, and when the order unfortunately came, simply rake fired along the front of the assault...

The 7.92x57mm IS regular ammunition type has the ability to inflict mortal wounds from 0 to 4000 meters, and indeed, some MG 08`s were equipped with sights giving a well trained and confident gunner the ability to land some hits or at least give the allied blokes a reason for discomfort at almost 2000 meters. The MG08/15 used on german fighter planes of ww1, all though having a smaller barrel load (For weight reduction.) and sitting on relatively unstable platforms in comparison, had a slower rate of fire (Increasing accuracy a tad again). In a simulator where theres no real fear of death (And thus increasing the chance and even temptation of taking risks). And with an experienced bloke behind the stick, landing hits at 300-500 meters during the conditions described here, does not sound impossible, allthough knowing he/she wont be able to kill you, the theory is probably to make you do a mistake or simply be awed by his ability, but if you really were that far above and away from him at such an angle, you wont have the time to dive down on him before he counters your move anyways, dogfighting is science

I have played ww1 sims since 6 years of age and dare say I know how to handle any virtual crate with a bit of practice.
I get nervous playing online (Sudden adrenaline rush during a fight.) so my accuracy isnt as good as in single player, but the first kill I ever got online, I started firing and landing consistent raking hits with almost no misses along his entire fuselage at about 200 meters whilst rapidly closing on his SE5a (He was stalling and was sideways so he presented me with a larger target.) I simply kept firing and hitting until it was time to avoid hitting him with my DR.1

And last night, with a bottom left wing missing on my DR.1, I could only turn stable to the right, but still got hits and eventually downed a Spad 13 during many deflection bursts in that turning fight, at a range of about 250+-. So 500 with a perfectly healthy and stable bird really doesnt sound unlikely if the pilot really knows how to handle his crate imho

I wonder how those Aces back in these days could be so sure about not being able to hit on long ranges. They didnt have replays. Non-lethal hits can't be recognized at that distance - a problem you can even encounter in ROF (also on close ranges). I often hear friends complaining they don't hit anything but I was watching their victim and they did it.... they just didnt kill it.
(non-counted air kills, especially opponents pressing finish also have a big impact on the personal oppinion here).
And as someone said. The Aces recommended to shoot at close range maybe just because of saving ammo, avoiding jams (I guess the guns were more difficult to unjam in reality) and not alerting their opponent.

The German K98 Mausers(7.92x57mm) have settings on their iron sights for up to 2000 meters.

Yeah, back then, jams were harder to clear than the game gives us the impression of. So mostly they would wait until they got really close, and simply pull the triggers and hope the guns didnt jam.
Rickenbacker himself states (In writing.) That he started firing whilst slowly closing on a Pfalz D.III, at about 300 yards distance and kept trashing it until it lost control.

Indeed, but this involves the spinning of the earth, on top of that, wind affects the bullets flight path. Without a scope and because of bad eyesight, no sniper training, and because I`d like to keep my shoulder intact, with such a rifle I`d hold my horses until about 800 meters.

You compare max effective range between ground MG fire, that was primarily one of supression, to air to air combat gunnery. The setting of 2000 meters is not used for anything but supression fire, if at all. Realistic ranges for 7.92x57 ammo are between 400, for direct shooting, to a max of ~800/1200 m for supression. Even German snipers said that sure shots were achievable only below 600 m...

The maximum zoom in RoF probably equates to something like 20x or so magnification and will present a more detailed picture of the target than what the human eye can perceive at greater distance, therefore increasing accuracy. If in RoF one uses max zoom out when aiming the resulting engagement ranges are much more realistic and it is still possible to shoot out to 400 m with some hopes of hits. With max zoom available in RoF one can easily achieve good shots on target from 400 m, which is simply not reflecting the real life situation.

Aside from the magnification, in the actual combat the pilot has to use some strength to move the aircraft about, fighting the wind and the natural instability of the aircraft, which by itself adds to the difficulty of getting good shots at a distance.

If that was not enough, aiming through the gunsight is not as easy as on the ground and aiming with tracers at a distance will produce misses because of the different ballistics of the tracers. Unlike real life, in RoF aiming with tracers works too well and there's no problem whatsoever in aiming your guns because everything on the screen is always in focus and perfectly stable...

This is a good point. We dont get "hard jams" in rof currently. In fact with a quick press of a button on my joystick any jam is cleared instantly.

Now if i knew i ran the risk of my guns permanently jamming (regardless of how unlikely) id certainly choose my shots more cautiously.

Ive spent a lot of time spectating in MP due to my own demise, and I cant honestly say ive noticed these long range potshots accomplishing anything. Given their overall ineffectiveness, perhaps a deterant of hard jams would put a stop to the practice.

All good points. Real pilots operated under pressures that don't impact a sim player. I guess these include:

1. Hard jams. We can clear our guns every time, even while while pulling 3g and inverted. So there's no disincentive to taking long range low-odds pot shots.

2. Many real-life attacks were on an unsuspecting opponent - why give away surprise by firing from long range? In RoF MP games, you know the bad guys are about and surprise is difficult to achieve (they can also hear you coming, which can't be right). In RoF single player, you can't surprise the AI at all, so why not blast away?

3. Our combats are short and we can respawn, so no need to preserve ammo for self-defense on the way home.

4. RoF engines seem very fragile (shades of IL-2 Bf-109 engine syndrome). Even one bullet at long range seems to be able to knacker the engine, so why not pelt the enemy from a distance?

5. Our gunsight views are very stable - no bouncing around to put our aim off.

6. Experienced sim players have probably experienced hundreds or even thousands of air-to-air shooting matches to learn from. Real pilots had far fewer. We have had far more practice at shhoting in our sims than they had in shooting in real life.

Squid and Red are right. RoF would change sigificantly and for the better if hard jams were introduced.

Cheers,

RD.

A-ha, so this is why this thread exists:

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=129&t=4311&start=0

One bullet in real life to the engine can bring a plane down. The Albatros in the NASM is proof of that.

Busted!

TBH Its something Ive wanted to see for a while, and this tread bumped it subject into the forfront of my confused mind

Okay, many people seems to become "fans" of this ever more increasing belief that a well-proven (Besides the jams.) and accurate (Compared to others of the time.) ground-ground weapons system became so inaccurate that one, to quote the exact words of the myth "had to get as close as 50 meters to the foe before firing." Just because it was fitted with air cooling jacket and screwed onto a aircraft..

This escalating matter intrigues and annoys me a bit, (No offense.) mainly because that over the years in which I repeatedly heard the myth, except quoting MvR who says to hold fire until 50 meters, nobody has actually presented the scientific and definite wrap-up proof on this.

I guess most of us are experienced in deflection shooting because we do it in sims on a day to day basis, but back then, as mentioned, there werent many second chances, we can afford to experiment around in a pretty much state of the art ww1 simulator, but these fellows would do what they were told and get close for the kill for efficiency and surprise, and this is where I think actual accuracy vs advices for greenhorns chance to get air-air kill anno 1915-1918 collides big time, and heres why:

Most of us seems to agree that our particular weapon system "of choice" is not the most accurate during sustained fire from a vibrating and moving platform to a likewise target, agreed, accuracy would decrease by (Undocumented so I cant say.)

Recoil Jump? The barrel jumps because of the recoil when a round fired, and does prove long range long burst accuracy a tad harder, seeing as one has to compensate for the recoil. But I don`t think it would make or even contribute in any particular sort to as immense inaccuracy as in the myth, or NeoQB would have modeled in this inaccuracy, right?
In fact, I believe the interrupting gear and propeller slowing down the rate of fire a notch or two helps a bit

Barrel fouling? Firing a weapon means microscopic bullet and cartridge fragments sticks onto the walls of and edges of the rifling inside a barrel, at first this increases and settles accuracy at a certain point unless, if barrel is not cleaned at a regular basis, fouls the barrel to such an extent that accuracy decreases and cannot be maintained even if one starts cleaning it once one notices considerable drop in accuracy, I averagely fire a few hundred bullets during each dogfight, 1000 rounds fired within a few minutes way up in the freezing air might or might not make this an apparent problem, so maybe it depends on the user and the lifetime of his/her aircraft vs maintenance?

In any case it has ?(Dont know.)? been modeled in yet, realistically one would have to fire quite the amount bullets from the same MG`s on the same plane before theres any noticeable difference on the relatively short range we are talking about (500 meters.) I doubt Rickenbacker or MvR fired millions of bullets with the same MG`s, on top of that they switched aircraft (And MG`s accordingly.) quite a few times, besides, even if the barrel started fouling for the worse, all you need to do is replace it...


I have never read the books or diaries of any ww1 pilot actually say the bullet spread is so large that one must get so close, but rather for their subordinates to have the chance to, even if not being the greatest of marksmen, to land max amount of lead put on target before weapon jam, as well as giving the element of surprise. I think we can agree, scientifically, that this is completely different?

Engine vibration and fluttering? All though your body can feel the vibrations as if they were pretty intense, I thought people who already flew prop planes gave their blessing to the feel and vibrations of the aircraft in RoF, assuming they are modeled correctly, they certainly don`t seem to contribute to an inaccuracy so immense that one cant hit anything at over 50 meters, heck, if they were, we could assume it would have to vibrate something fierce, I`d go as far as to say that plane ought to be grounded



Bottom lines:
Most of us feel more confident of making a kill the closer the distance (Naturally.)
I can certainly hit at 4-500 yards if given enough time to aim and consolidate my groupings, but if the weapons were to hard jam I would certainly make sure to get a bit closer, however, with the facts one often hear that people use to prove this myth, I refuse to believe that a MG 08 or Vickers or Maxim with a rifled barrel and rifle ammunition, fitted with air cooling jacket and put on an airplane, all though accuracy definitely suffering as a consequence of such, would have trouble cutting up an aircraft at about same range as a 1700`s flintlock smoothbore musket would start to have trouble hitting a man sized target...
All though I gladly welcome anyone from anywhere to prove NeoQB and OFF team wrong, I`d happily participate in trying to convince NeoQB into modeling it into the game. Until I`m proven wrong I still think Neoqb, and OFF team (Pretty much same accuracy except the AI hit consistently at 1000 meters.. now thats a problem!) did a great job on this

One factor making ground machine guns fairly effective at long range, while airborne guns are somewhat more hit-and-miss, is that the ammunition supply is much more limited for the airborne case, and the failure to achieve anything is much more measurable too...

A company of 12 machine guns may fire several 100,000s of rounds in a single shoot. There are recorded instances of the guns firing well over a million rounds in a single day (again IIRC a company, rather than a single gun...)

These shoots were intended to disrupt attacks, or suppress defenders/disrupt counter attacks - they could be for ranges of several thousand meters, but were predominantly a harassing rather than killing tool when employed in this form on the ground. The use for closer range direct fires is also common, but the risk to the gunners is much higher, and on-target effectiveness doesn't seem to be much higher (given the much lower ammunition counts involved).

By contrast a single aircraft only carries between 47! and 1000 rounds theoretically ready to fire.

Aircraft move in three dimensions, rather than the ideal ground targets (oblique grazing fire, indirect fire into known choke-points defiles etc. controlled by direct sighting or by observers or other 'artillery' techniques.) Failure to shoot down can involve the firer in protracted manoeuvring, whereas a quick kill allows immediate disengagement with fewer threat aircraft to deal with. Add in the risk of jamming after a relatively few rounds have been expended...

Failure to achieve the immediately desired results are far more obvious with an aircraft that escapes or turns to engage, forcing you to break off, than it is for an infantry group that goes to ground.

Don't forget that you are all alone in that drafty/cold/fragile machine (even if you have a wingman or gunner he isn't right there...) and it is an awfully long way to fall if you mess it up...

I agree with the "it's the training, not the gun" of conventional wisdom of getting in really close.

If ever there was a group of machineguns that saw really good maintenance, it was the ones at the aerodrome. Never carried through the mud, rarely fired, stored under cover, stripped and cleaned almost as soon as it was fired.

Forget tripods - it was bolted down in several places against an airframe. Yes, the rounds dispersed with the vibration of the airframe, but this wasn't really any worse than dispersion on the ground.

Now, let's consider our pilots. Almost no training in gunnery, no way to really perform anything but the most of immediate action on stoppages, and the tendency that all gunners have of firing too early. "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" was military advice well before the Great War.

Heck, I've found more times than not that playing the low percentages game of shooting at deflection often costs dearly later on when I'm at 50 feet with an almost guaranteed hit - but out of ammo.

Yeah but you fly a kite that only has room for a six shooter

Exactly

Mostly I fire at deflection when I have a good chance of hitting, sort of like telling the fellow that he should not let me get in more deflection shots, then he starts a turning fight, and we turn and twist, blasting away at each other until one kite fails or is otherwise incapable of continuing the fight.
If he continues his zoom & boom game, I continue my deflection game, and on it goes until either technique prevails, one kite fails or is otherwise incapable of continuing the fight.

My observation is that some people (Not all of course.) Get on the experienced players nerves as they keep zooming and running away (Different game from Zooming and booming.) and thats why they experience long range deflection shots. Mainly because they have seen HC Dogfights - The First Dogfighters and misjudged the content, and are running away from the fight and taking pot shots now and then, rather than actually Zooming & Booming, practically inviting for a excellent long range shot opportunity whilst giving the pissed bloke (And impatient spectators.) perfect excuses IMHO.

Spoon,

I wasn't attempting to laugh you down...




It just seemed silly to base your argument using those quotes as a "cant be done" argument instead of a shouldn't be done argument. Heck I get MvR kill tallys in a few days of playing, doesnt that make my opinion count for even more?



Point is. As a real pilot, they couldn't afford to take the chances we do in a video game. Of course we can learn from our mistakes with the next life....they didnt have that luxury.

Put another way....if you were to fly Rise of Flight, with a single life, I too would advocate all that is said by the Aces of old....

...but since we have multiple lives, I say screw Dicta Boelcke, and blast away on your guns!! How else are you going to get better at shooting unless you learn what a good sight picture looks like!?

Over-simplified example: If it takes shooting 1,000,000 rounds before becoming a sniper-shot in ROF. And all you do is shot off 200 or 300 - but only when you get within 100m...how long do you think it will take to get past that learning curve compared to flailing away on your guns at every opportunity and seeing your target getting ripped to shreads at 300, 400 and even 500+ meters.

Is it real? No, of course not, but neither is re-lifing.

Welcome to Rise of Flight!

The speedometer in my truck goes up to 140 MPH.

Even more impressively the speed calculator on my bicycle can register 999.9 mph

The 'engine' on that must be damned impressive...

Why try killing your enemy with a hammer by throwing it, when you can sneak up behind him and just thump him with it.

Most air combat kills involved an unseen opponent striking out of the blue, why chance it, however good your gunnery. Lets face it, if your quarry might turn around and try an get his own back if you miss you're not going to take any chances.

There were probably plenty of pilots who could have scored hits at long range, there were probably individuals who where in a completely different ball park, who could do it consistently and even with all the limitations, regularly and without much effort or thought.

But why bother, why chance it ?

Most kills were by assassination, not extended combat and fancy flying.

Simmers don't have to live with the consequences, so they take chances.

We shoot more down because we've had more practice, we don't have the fatigue, stress and fear of real life deadly encounters that affect our aim, but most importantly we engineer situations that specifically end in combat. Any airman worth his salt in WW I would have buggered off at the first opportunity if the situation looked unfavourable and he had an exit path. Most encounters were both sides had seen the other ended with the disadvantaged withdrawing unless the mission demanded continuation.

In the rarefied air of flight sims 300+ yrds is not overly extraordinary, just given different circumstances a more acceptable cost/benefit outcome.

Given the high scores in combat flight sims, therefore not realistic scenario. I wonder what total front line flying hours a pilot typically flew and what percentage of flights by real WW I pilots ended in actual combat with an advantage to the specific pilot/attacker, rather than no contact or, contact but at a disadvantage and resultant get out of Dodge exit.

I agree on your sentiments sir, flying online, many a time have I been fired upon from a long range, the enemy mostly misses, or misses all together, and I get the time to turn around and bring my guns to bear, or vice versa. Other times I get shot from behind at close range by a patient fellow, falling victim to a well planned ambush!

If you have a choice of two enemies, always shoot the one who seems to be leading/know what he is doing if he is unaware of you specifically - otherwise kill the one that isn't aggressively manoeuvring against you, then bug out. Twiddling around in small circles looks nice, but is guaranteed to attract lots more aircraft, all of whom are likely to be gunning for the one who 'isn't manoeuvring aggressively against them'... being 'fixed' in space and everyone's obvious choice is a bad idea

Once you are clubbing seals, you might as well do it from in close.

Every time I've been killed online it's been very close and personal.

The long shot that hits is just a fluke....or the result of flying a very nice, coordinated, predictable turn on my part.

And never, ever hammerhead or Immelman when an enemy is behind you.

...I would even go so far as to change this to read: "...when an enemy is around you"


Those BnZers make great targets when they're in the middle of a Hammerhead type maneuver.

Very true, and it's noticeable that this is often how Wolf-13 will pick up his kills.

I've watched him pretty carefully and he applies a very consistent approach with co-alt or near-alt enemy aircraft.

First he'll go into a flat turn. If you follow, he'll keep chasing you around and around until you've lost airspeed and can't easily disengage. Then it's simply a case of putting his Albatros on your six - pretty easy.

If you don't follow into the turn and take the fight vertical, he'll turn into your attacks and start some well-timed, very aggressive nose-up attacks as you begin hammerhead-type turns on him. He can land very accurate shots from about 100-250m below, vertically; VERY well timed usually.

If you don't provide him with a high target turning hard and instead do fast, boom/zoom/extend attacks and get well out of range, he'll often disengage as you extend away, as that kill becomes much harder to earn.

I reckon air gunnery is a lot like golf (I don't play, to many nasty 70's flash backs).

I think it's a good analogy because a lot of people can understand and relate to it and it involves many of the same factors.

However good you are (mere mortal) you just know that if you tee'd off against the likes of Tiger Woods, you're stuffed, he's so far removed he could be from a different planet. However good you are, it's only when you play against these God like beings that you appreciate for all you're skill it just not even in the same league.

So there you are on the putting green, playing for a million dollars, You can place you're ball anywhere on the green but obviously the closer you get to the hole the further you have to walk, the longer it takes to place you're ball and take you're shot. If you play against a pro, he might just place the ball down at the edge of the green and take his shot straight off, but then even Tiger might miss. If you're a normal person, you're going to try and get as close as possible to the hole, the trouble is the longer you take the more opportunity Tiger has, the more nervous you become the more rushed you're final shot etc etc. The further you are from the hole the more you have to take other factors into account, wind, slope, distance, spin etc etc. Now add in the factor that your opponent is playing on a different green that you can only just glance at behind you, you're only advantage is that you've got a couple of mates also trying to get a ball into the hole.

So like I say, I reckon air to air gunnery is just like golf.