Jump to content

Super slow .50 caliber rounds


unltd

Recommended Posts

In the meantime edit your own shell.lua. You will see the laughable disconnect between M2 ball and M2 APIT. Go ahead and jack them up to 900 m/s and see the laser sniper awesomeness of a sincere effort to make a difference. That's too high honestly but that's all it takes. You can also dial down the barrel warp because that is crazy too. Jetting around at 500 kts and 30,000 feet is plently of cooling for your close packed 50s just like in the P-38 and A-26.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

It's perfectly ordinary banter Squiffy, "Bally Jerry, pranged his kite, right in the 'how's your father.'" - Monty Python, RAF Banter Sketch.

Squiffy, a. slang. 1. Intoxicated; drunk. 2. Askew, skew-whiff. - OED

 

"Put that sucker in a 4G turn and keep it there!!" - Maj. Gen. "Boots" Blesse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one issue that really upsets me. I have waited for YEARS for this to be corrected. I get that barrels warp. But having fired many a .50 cal Browning, and even the 7.62 M60. I know that they over heat and that there is a cool down period. In DCS it stays warped for eternity. It's useless once it goes into that warped stage. I know from experience that this is wrong. Plus...It takes a few seconds in DCS for the barrels to become hopelessly inaccurate. Again....Not true. I have fired many .50 cal Brownings and ED has this completely wrong. Yet for reasons I cannot understand they seem to be uninterested in correcting this issue.

Granted the .50 cals I have fired were turret mounted on Tanks and trucks but they were accurate for longer and would correct after a cooling period, Not so in DCS. I would think that an aircraft traveling at 300 MPH would cool those .50 cals pretty quick. But no such luck.

This is why I get so frustrated with this sim. It's just one of dozens of issues that DCS seems to not be interested in correcting.

 

Agreed even just having watched F86 strafing runs... in DCS fire the guns even for a few seconds and they become hopelessly inaccurate when in gun cam footage where you can see F86's firing for long periods of time there is no apparent change in accuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys missed the part where 9L said "the guns are coded based on what information they have, and that it's accurate to that". So why not provide some verifiable and quantifiable data they can base the changes on instead of complaining?

 

I don't know or care what some person on the other side of the earth says they researched. I personally have seen and fired the weapon. I know from my personal experience that you can fire this weapon on full auto for quite some time before the barrel over heats. I also know from experience that the barrel goes back to it's original configuration after a short period of time. I have changed over heated barrels and switched them back when the secondary got too hot.

Their research doesn't mean much at that point. I know beyond a doubt that this is fact. They are wrong. It doesn't bother me so much that the guns overhead immediately, but it really bugs me that they stay messed up. This is not at all correct. Not even a little bit.

It doesn't take much to dial up some gun cam from the F86. That footage in and of itself speaks volumes. All you have to do is watch it and it tells a completely different story than what our F86 does. Not even remotely close.

So between what I know beyond a shadow of a doubt from having my hands on the weapon and others just like it and what I see in those gun cams. ED's research doesn't mean much to me.

Maybe if they'd provide me with their research results......Until then, I know what I have seen and experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Can you guys supply clean tracks in the latest version, showing the exact issue? I have just done a few gun runs and I am not seeing 'hopeless inaccuracies'. I am doing some reading on the F-86 gun usage now as well. If you have good gun camera footage you know shows how much better than it is in-game I welcome it as well, I did look at some today and will continue to review.

 

With your tracks, etc, feel free to be descriptive if you like, such as range, burst length, etc. You know tracks can be tricky, especially if we get a version change, so any and all info would be great.

 

Again, I did ask the team about the settings and they were confident in them. But as I stated before, I am willing to look at them as well.

 

PS, it's not helpful to guess stuff like it was copied and pasted from another module. So let's try and keep the thread as clean as possible. Insulting the dev team doesn't get the desired effect in most cases.

 

Thanks guys.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- 5:00

 

He holds down the trigger for a small burst of 4sec at 5:01. Then he has a 10sec burst at 5:09. Followed by a 6sec burst at 5:23. Now the next small clip I don't think it is the same aircraft but if it is there is a final 2sec burst at 5:42. And throughout this whole period the amount of dispersion doesn't change and is very very very tight.

 

This is my track and well by the middle of the 10sec burst well.... the dispersion is very bad. Hec of note I actually was 1 sec short in terms of trigger time for the first burst and .5sec short for the last one.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wm7fu1eos3u20yl/1.trk?dl=0

Video:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Ok I flew around in circles for a longer time than anyone should fly around in circles, this is what I have reported so far:

 

1. Dispersion is crazy bad with overheated or heated up guns, I can't say if they are overheated because;

2. Overheating seems to be overdone somewhat, but what seems worse is the cooldown of the guns, I can get them to cool down BUT they heat up/overheat even faster then.

 

I am still doing some reading on the drop on the rounds, but that right now doesn't feel as bad to me based on what I am reading right now. But feel free to keep the info coming.

 

I will report back what I hear from the team. It might be as fast as everyone hopes, but not that I have some reports active, I will see what they say.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah its quite bad and as can be seen in the guncam video the dispersion after quite a bit of firing has no to negligible increases in dispersion. This again appears to be due to the gun having the same heat capacity(?) as the other guns identified (quite literally the same numbers). Each shot adds less heat, 52% less than the mig's cannons, but it fires at significantly higher rates and has a lot more rounds as well.

 

As far as i'm aware the drop of the rounds is largely because of the lower initial shell velocity, this post, I think quite conclusively puts the Vi at ~880-890m/s where as in game right now its 823.5m/s for one round and 875 for the other type. Of course drag could always be an issue but I have no sources to run a ballistics calculation on so for now we'll just say it's probably alright but should be checked of course.


Edited by nighthawk2174
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Ok I flew around in circles for a longer time than anyone should fly around in circles, this is what I have reported so far:

 

1. Dispersion is crazy bad with overheated or heated up guns, I can't say if they are overheated because;

2. Overheating seems to be overdone somewhat, but what seems worse is the cooldown of the guns, I can get them to cool down BUT they heat up/overheat even faster then.

 

I am still doing some reading on the drop on the rounds, but that right now doesn't feel as bad to me based on what I am reading right now. But feel free to keep the info coming.

 

I will report back what I hear from the team. It might be as fast as everyone hopes, but not that I have some reports active, I will see what they say.

 

I would not say it's overdone significantly... Probably a bit tweaking. If 150 rounds was the limit, so, the suggestion could be that it is without noticable degrading ballistics (muzzle velocity). Dispersion is not so important (sometimes it is helpful), that's why it can increase a bit at the end of this 150 limit.

 

So, 1200 rdm for M3 gives about 7.5 seconds of the max burst with noticable increasing of dispersion at the end. But ballistics must remain intact.

1069106030_Bookexcertion1.thumb.gif.6214fd45d73e6d8210fd67568e34cba1.gif

1149839943_Bookexcertion2.thumb.gif.aa719fb9a50cc9a69c1be2a39982ca3d.gif


Edited by Yo-Yo

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
The TM-9-2190-AN-M3-Browning field maintenance document produced by the Department of the Army in 1955 states that the max number of rounds that can be fired without danger of overheating is 200 rounds not 150. You can view this document on Scribd.

 

Yup, and it says without danger of overheating, so maybe our onset of heat is too much too soon.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
I would not say it's overdone significantly... Probably a bit tweaking. If 150 rounds was the limit, so, the suggestion could be that it is without noticable degrading ballistics (muzzle velocity). Dispersion is not so important (sometimes it is helpful), that's why it can increase a bit at the end of this 150 limit.

 

So, 1200 rdm for M3 gives about 7.5 seconds of the max burst with noticable increasing of dispersion at the end. But ballistics must remain intact.

 

Yeah, we should look at it for sure I think. 200 was no worries of overheating, then overheating should come on after this, and I think we need to look at cooling as well, I don't think because they are embedded in the fuselage means they get 0 cooling from the air, when in fact, they seemed more worried about cooling of the ammo at higher temps, and that some aircraft with these guns would have heated ammo compartments.

 

As you shared, this guy gives zero fudge about barrel overheating :D

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not say it's overdone significantly... Probably a bit tweaking. If 150 rounds was the limit, so, the suggestion could be that it is without noticable degrading ballistics (muzzle velocity). Dispersion is not so important (sometimes it is helpful), that's why it can increase a bit at the end of this 150 limit.

 

So, 1200 rdm for M3 gives about 7.5 seconds of the max burst with noticable increasing of dispersion at the end. But ballistics must remain intact.

 

So, are you saying we aren't changing the velocity for the rounds fired BY the F-86? If so, there's an issue there. As I posted earlier, .50 caliber round muzzle velocity is correct if the rounds used were WWII M2 Ball ammunition. Early Sabers did draw from that pool of ammunition and it was probably something they'd have in reserve, but the USAF had moved on from M2 Ball to M33 Ball. The different ammunition type meant a higher muzzle velocity. I posted a few pages here:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4098251&postcount=77

 

It's not 'unrealistic' for the F-86F to be using the slower velocity ammunition, but it is to not allow it access to the higher performance M33 ammunition. Ideally, we have the option to use both. If ED were modeling F-86As, then yeah boys, suck it up. That's what the A Models used. But, the F was a late model F-86, used past 1951. 1951 was when the USAF adopted the M33 round.

 

We seriously do need the M33 round.

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
So, are you saying we aren't changing the velocity for the rounds fired BY the F-86? If so, there's an issue there. As I posted earlier, .50 caliber round muzzle velocity is correct if the rounds used were WWII M2 Ball ammunition. Early Sabers did draw from that pool of ammunition and it was probably something they'd have in reserve, but the USAF had moved on from M2 Ball to M33 Ball. The different ammunition type meant a higher muzzle velocity. I posted a few pages here:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4098251&postcount=77

 

It's not 'unrealistic' for the F-86F to be using the slower velocity ammunition, but it is to not allow it access to the higher performance M33 ammunition. Ideally, we have the option to use both. If ED were modeling F-86As, then yeah boys, suck it up. That's what the A Models used. But, the F was a late model F-86, used past 1951. 1951 was when the USAF adopted the M33 round.

 

We seriously do need the M33 round.

 

Ammo choices and such are another issues for sure, I am working us through them all. Many aircraft could do with more ammo choices for sure, seems the F-86 is one of them.

 

I am looking at the AFM 335-25 dated 1956 ANd it has this page in it:

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=229622&stc=1&d=1583800971

2020-03-09.thumb.png.5a5ddae9ee82a50f5cc989408ad51bc8.png


Edited by NineLine

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ammo choices and such are another issues for sure, I am working us through them all. Many aircraft could do with more ammo choices for sure, seems the F-86 is one of them.

 

I am looking at the AFM 335-25 dated 1956 ANd it has this page in it:

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=229622&stc=1&d=1583800971

 

Absolutely, it seems the current performance would be fairly accurate to that M2 round, just not the M33. A ground-attack operation might prefer to use the older and slower velocity M2 as to save the M33 stocks for air-to-air engagements. This is something that is, honestly, pretty important to address if ED's going to continue with these old gunfighters. It's paramount for the experience in these warbirds.

 

To be clear, from what I could dig up, the model is pretty damn close to what you can expect with an M2. We just need the option to switch ammo types as needed. I wouldn't be surprised if the MiG-15 were in need of such attention, as well.

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Can you reference where it stated that the M33 was used in the F-86? Because this manual doesn't show it. I need ammo to get you different ammo beyond what is listed here. The document from your previous link talked about M33, but it also talked about a number of different uses for the guns, which included the F-86, but did not specifically say the F-86 used it, and this is key as it listed other ammo types that weren't used on the F-86 as well.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you reference where it stated that the M33 was used in the F-86? Because this manual doesn't show it. I need ammo to get you different ammo beyond what is listed here. The document from your previous link talked about M33, but it also talked about a number of different uses for the guns, which included the F-86, but did not specifically say the F-86 used it, and this is key as it listed other ammo types that weren't used on the F-86 as well.

 

Gimme a bit. I know from my uncle who maintained the F-86 during the war they were loading M33 ball, but that's hardly a source. I'll go try and hunt one down.

 

EDIT: I could be wrong about the round designation, as well. While it's clear that we had a faster round in the F-86F at the time, it could have been another round entirely. Uncle was an old fart, at the time, after all.

 

Second Edit: The AF Manual Vol. 335, issue 25 (what you're looking at) does list some nice tables for the M20 API-T and M8 API. It clocks the M2 at 2,700 feet per second. That seems well inline with what we're currently useing. It clocks the M8 at 2,870 and the M20 API-T at a blistering 2,900 feet per second. That's 823m/s, 875m/s, and 884m/s respectively and rounded up for Metric-heads. It's honestly a resource well-worth a glance at for both developer and F-86 player alike:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=81krAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Still looking for info on the M33.


Edited by MiG21bisFishbedL

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I found a lead, at the very least:

This is the Index of Specifications and Related Publications Used by U.S. Air Force Military Index Volume IV

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=DrF5d8OwIkcC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

On Page 474, it references the same publication as I posted earlier, a publication on the M33 Ball .50cal cartridge. The difference this time is that this is a US Air Force publication and it's dated to the 25th of January, 1951.

 

It's a bit specious, but it's a start. I'll continue to do some searching when I can.

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In MIG Alley the author mentions that early in 1950 the A models were changed from M2 guns to M3 with the M33 ball and it’s HV Tracer and it remained the standard for the rest of the war.

 

Who is the author?

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need to look at cooling as well, I don't think because they are embedded in the fuselage means they get 0 cooling from the air, when in fact, they seemed more worried about cooling of the ammo at higher temps, and that some aircraft with these guns would have heated ammo compartments.

 

The early F-86A that they tested had closed gun ports which would open when the pilot fired the guns. This design was to help cruising speed & range. However they found that this caused issues with cook-offs due to reduced cooling of the barrels and reduced barrel life overall. As a result they quickly switched back to open gun ports and the issue was resolved. So I think it's clear that there should be a reasonable cooling effect operating on the guns in the Sabre. Also, as you pointed out, when you read the flight manual they seemed more concerned with heating the ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...