[FIXED] M-61 Vulcan and Gau-8 Avenger dispersion values

What i'm trying to show is the dispersion of the gau-8 in game is significantly higher than irl. That's what i've been trying to show for quite some time now.

The shots in game for the red circle are fired at around .2nmi out from the target (active pause on). This is to line up with the tail end of the shots from the video where he stopped firing around .2nmi.

I still have some issues with the comparison, in that if you take both passes into account, just based on flashes alone, the dispersion is much higher in the real-life video than what you are showing. This is also an active gun run in a war zone, he isn't trying to check how well his dispersion his.

I don't see how that is possible. I've looked at both passes frame by frame several times now. To me it seems your seeing the whole dust cloud and/or the whole pattern as one. Since this is a real jet where the pilot can't be 100% steady we can't use all of the shots (the whole area of effect) as representative of the guns dispersion (this is why they test this on a test bench). The only way to gleam information is to take it from very short periods of time where the amount of movement in the jet is going to be minimal. But lets say for a moment its actually 50% bigger than what i've shown here..... well that'd still be a massive improvment over what it is right now and i'd be glad if they (ED) even improved it that much

If you consider for a moment, what the target is, I am not so sure you are seeing the entire. What is the target? Is it a flat ground? A hillside? Buildings? Bushes? You have to consider this if you are trying to use it as a comparison vs what is a clear flat spot in the screenshot from DCS. Flashes could be hidden passing through dust, buildings, bushes. If the angle

I don't see how this is relevant.

Also consider, DCS isn't real life, those craters, dust, flashes are created not by actual explosions in the ground that are moving dirt outwards, they are decals basically, so that takes us back to what the devs have calculated the settings based on the available information they have.

Also how is this relevant? In DCS when the shell hits where it hits it applies the bullet crater decal and the hit X type of surface efeect.

Also what available information??? All of the information I have found points towards the dispersion being 80% for 5 mills and 13 mills for a 100%. Also keep in mind the majority of those remaining 20% will still fall close to 5 mills with just a few outliers falling near the 13 mill mark.

I am not sure unless you can get some Hi-def HUD film of multiple passes under the same conditions you are testing in the game if you are ever really going to visually match up, and even then, its real-life vs computer rendered images.

Well the Harrier does a good job of this.... and we don't need the visual effects to be the same those are irrelevant to this discussion we just need the dispersion fixed pls.

And I am not doing this to be mean, or disregard your work, I do appreciate the effort, but I don't see quite enough yet to get too excited. I have passed it on to Wags, he does still feel it's pretty close to the sim, but has a lot of contacts, so if he can, he will try and get some feedback there.

Good, hopefully you will talk to Habu23. He and I have talked on this extensively and we are in full agreement; that dcs's gau8 is essentially a sawed off shotgun when compared to rlf's its a laser. Not my words his.

I don't know what to say then if you think you are seeing every hit made with that grainy lo-res video, I can't really even explain it then.

We don't need to see every hit in order to extrapolate what the dispersion is likely to be. We can still see dozens of hits in a very short span of time which is more than enough to verify if the numbers that are out there are true or not.

And if you can't understand that game effects may not sync up with the actual path the bullets, and how effects can make different hits look different in-game, its not one crater per one bullet, I mean if you can't see how that is relevant to your images, I don't know what else to say.

Yes maybe its not exact but still could the small discrepancies in the bullets position and where it lands add up to as much of a difference as is seen. I think not; that would require such a huge discrepancy in positional values that its hard to even comprehend that this could be the cause.

As for relevant information, ED has the information it models all these things on, they don't just pull them out of a hat, I mean we have talked about this before, I don't know how many different ways I can say it. If another team is doing the adjustments based on visual cues, and forgoing actual information, then I am not sure you are getting the most accurate representation.

I mean I have also included documentation in my first post as well.

You ask for it to be fixed, but nothing is proven to be wrong yet. Sorry. I am trying to work with you here, but you are set in your beliefs. Dunno what else I can say.

I'm set in these beliefs because they are in line with reality. Not only is there documentation that shows this and videos. But a very good friend of mine Habu23 and I fly and talk regularly. He is a no shit real life active duty A10 pilot. And he agrees the dispersion in DCS can be likened to a "sawed off shotgun" compared to what it should be.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=117686&highlight=gun+dispersion

This has been around for quite some time this thread is from 2013... not only that but there are older threads linked that were deleted that were older...

Additionally, i'm not just guessing i'm anylizing video footage we have and that is a totally reasonable source of information. Beyond this I included documentation from tests conducted in the mid to late 60's in my first post that includes measured dispersion values and photos of the targets they shot at. I've also included the tests on the GAU-8 against tank targets and what we could gleam from that. And all of this points to the fact that the stated dispersion values for these guns is around 5mills for 80% of the shots. Ontop of this these numbers were confirmed by a rlf A10 piolt. And when we look at what the dispersion pattern in game looks like compared to the documents I posted and also at the size of the dispersion it is blatantly clear that DCS's values are way to high.

EDIT:

you know whats funny I actually just found this:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=6082&highlight=gun+dispersion

from 2004 where it seems it was once correct!!!

Will we get the other ammo types, like in the Viper for the Hornet too? I mean SAPHEI, AP, and others?

That sounds a little like guessing. You end up cherry-picking the best results, you dismissed my point about not seeing every hit on that poor quality video, and that is an important point, the dispersion could have been much larger than shown.

As i've said before you don't need to see every single one of the hits there are still dozens dozens of hits that we can use. Additionally lets say it is larger, say 50% larger, there is still a huge difference between what i've shown and DCS. Not only that but when you set the values in DCS to what the documentation shown earlier indicates it matches almost exactly with the video.

Now onto your example lets look at it so you circle this flash and a lot of smoke up towards the top (this smoke has been there for 40+ frames) but lets go frame by frame and see what we get. I went and examined the next 7 frames in the video. Note that at the 7th after the frame you picked there were no more flashes. This makes sense as considering the range he finished firing at the appropriate amount of time (2ish seconds) had passed for all the bullets to have hit. Now for the analysis:

-to expalin this a bit more, I overlayed all 7 frames (including the initial one) over each other, the current background is the last frame. From there I aligned them based off of ground features I could pick out and then drew arrows to where each flash or possible flash was.

As you can see after this all of the flashes fall within the circle size I had made earlier. Except for that initial flash which would falls well outside of it. Now also going frame by frame from before the frame you chose its obvious that the flashes where moving from the top of the reticule down towards where the flash in your frame ended up. Additionally the amount of flashes in this section of the first strafe is no where near as much as earlier on just a second or two before this frame in terms of cockpit recorded time.

But lets be reasonable and give the benifit of the doubt here and just say my circle to be more accurate would need to be increased by say 30% even 50%... its still SIGNIFIGANTLY smaller than the what is seen in DCS.

But its really not, it feels like you are ignoring or dismissing what I am saying about the effects in the sim, they are not accurate measurements of the dispersion, so you really cannot do any visible comparison without being unsure if what you are seeing is what you are getting.

How are they not accurate? Do you have any proof that the bullets and where the effects are placed are radically (and it would have to be a very radical difference) different to the point it could explain the rather large discrepancy between both the video and the modded values?

Yes, and again and again we have talked about this, and again, we haven't been shown anything that has stated that the current numbers in DCS are wrong, even when it came up with the Hornet, the dev went in and checked the numbers once again. It has been brought up by military people before, you are not travelling new ground on this.

Well we've been trying and trying and trying. And where did they get those numbers from like what are your guys sources? I mean all we've really got as answers are we like the numbers we have and get gud... like your not even really debating why my numbers or documents are wrong your just ignoring them.

The biggest issue with weapons in DCS currently is how damage is modelled. Even then, guns have been shown to be more than effective, I flew the A-10C tonight and ran down a ton of tanks, and the only thing I saw was the occasional pilot error and the fact that the DM for vehicles is 100% to 0% health bar.

For this conversation this is irrelevant, not that I don't care about the damage model but were talking dispersion here not DM in this case just the dispersion. Lets keep it on topic here.

Even with all that...

 

 

 

This very example is very viable in the sim.

This is irrelevant were not talking about how effective the gun is just the dispersion.

Back in June we signed an agreement with the 355th FW (three A-10C squadrons) for 20 VR training stations.

That’s interesting. So they’re using the suite 3ish A-10C modeled in DCS world when we’re actually upgrading our real jets to suite 9?

Hey everyone,

 

Thank you for the very interesting and important topic. Given the role of the gun in the A-10C, it’s naturally important that we get this as close to real as possible.

 

Back in June we signed an agreement with the 355th FW (three A-10C squadrons) for 20 VR training stations. So, I’ve been down there several times over the past few months. In fact, I was just down there today, and I asked three seasoned A-10C pilots what they thought of the gun dispersal in our DCS: A-10C. Their responses were “fine”, “looks good”, and “I don’t see an issue”. When I pressed if they thought the dispersal was too great, they all answered in the negative.

 

While we very much want this to be as accurate as possible, in the case we don’t see the logic in “fixing” what ain’t broke.

 

Thanks

Right... I'll give you the befit of the doubt here but still... There have been several pilots (I remember seeing it from two A10 pilots and a tornado piolt) who have talked about this in multiple threads/hoggit including this one that say the 100% 180 of that. Additionally the documentation and video evidence does not support DCS being accurate at all either. Leading me to either (truly believe) that either these pilots weren't able to do a full check on the dispersion and were more focused on other aspects of the sim or just didn't specifically test this. In the end I can't prove or disprove what you've said I can only say what the documentation, videos, and talking to pilots has shown me. Now of course there is also the possibility that the gun is correct in the version they have / has been adjusted by them.

Okey.....

Don't see the point of this argument with videos...

Take an A-10 on the ground, put a tank or some big vehicle behind it (everything set to immortal). Back up the A-10 with the gun or just place it good enough in the editor. Take some kind of a building or structure you can find and set it at the required distance.

Would have been nice if the A-10 had the chocks option

I am sure that even if you can't do it with such a simple setup, something can be done in the mission editor and luas to setup a consistent test and compare ?

I got a question how come the F-15, Hornet/Falcon and F-14 dispersion are all different ? Why does the Hornet have limited options to ammo, compared to the Falcon ?

Okey.....

 

Don't see the point of this argument with videos...

The argument i'm trying to make is based off of footage we have (hud tape in this case) we can see that the disspersion irl is much lower than in game.

Take an A-10 on the ground, put a container in front of it at the desired distance (set it to immortal). Back up the A-10 into another container and record your shots ?

Yeah should do it for the A10 someone did do it for the hornet though: (note make sure to open the original and zoom in a bit. And that the red bar is what 8mills would look like and the purple bar is what it is right now.

If the A-10 has the options to put on chocks even better.

actually using active pause is even better 0 force effects are applied and the jet is stationary yet the projectiles shot will still go out and hit whatever is in the way.

 

I got a question how come the F-15, Hornet/Falcon and F-14 dispersion are all different ? Why does the Hornet have limited options to ammo, compared to the Falcon ?

Good question.Maybe it’s correct due to different installation positions in the airframes,resulting in different vibrations during firing?

Or it’s not correct as maybe this is compensated for in reality and should be the same for all

vulcan carrying fighters.

I don’t know..

Regards ,

Snappy

The 15,16, and 18 all have the same dispersion and gun just different shells available (hard to say if the 18 had access to all the shells the 16 currently does I don't have any info on that). The F14 has its own custom gun setup that HB added in for their module.

If the real pilots say something is right, it still can be question type that is causing confusion. As it needs to be very specific question that does the spread need to be much tighter or little tighter. Of course I believe now that Wags did question it like that, so he got them to think about it in realism point of view that spread is tight enough, instead that they think it like "hey it is a game, it got those targets go away" kind a reply.

But that is then waking a other question in me.

If the spread is now right, then:

1) is there a problem in the spread values in files that affects everyone?

2) is there a misunderstanding that what those values does really mean?

Well, okey.... if his approach was "inaccurate", what is the accurate one ? We have the methods to do it.... lets do it accurately

Why not make a test and be done with it ?

Is there a different reason ? Does it just HAVE to be like that ? If so, I think people will understand, but they have to know...

How come when people "feel" that something is not right, the typical answer is that hard data and documentation is needed, but when people start posting videos, documentations, tests..... the answer that a pilot gave of a "it's fine" is good enough ?

Using the same evidence, how come some pilots (real A-10 pilots like Habu) say the opposite ?

If the test are not done correctly, tell us what we are doing wrong.... nobody looses in this situation..... everyone wants the best for this brilliant simulation. Lets not just discredit someones work, but actually give feedback to it

There was a question some time ago that even in the lua, the mil number was different from what it was real spec wise and when it was modified to the same number, it actually performed as expected. What happened with that ? The only answer I've seen from yoyo, is that we don't understand what the value in the lua means

Does "It's fine" mean it is good enough for the procedural simulations they do ? Or it actually means it is accurate ? Really depends how you put the question.

Agreed with shadow if its wrong why and how?

also that building is 100ft wide...

and when I tried to replicate it I pretty much got the same result, I just couldn't quite get my nose down far enough so for the building so instead I put a btr80 up there (25.3ft in length).

bassed on this i'd say its not unreasonable to say that 80% or so of the shells landed in-between the central hub of the first wheel and the front of the third wheel. Which according to the ruler in the ME is just under 10ft. With the maximum being somewhere in the realm of near the front of the vehicle to just after the central hub of the third wheel or just under 17ft maybe 15ft being more reasonable.

Now lets mod some of those values:

In the end the best way to be able to tell would be if we had a target like in aces high where it would spawn locked in front of your jet and whenever it was hit by gunfire it would draw a black dot where the bullet hit. From there we could compare to the pictures from the earlier documentation.

In the end if you want a fixed gun for SP or just to try it out here's the file I use:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qgtzrbjy9q4gv56/NHawkGunMod.zip?dl=0

I have watched a10 shoot up ground targets at RAF donna nook, plenty of times. back in the cold war.

and I can say that watching a10 shoot up ground targets in dcs from a similar position is remarkably similar.

good enough for army work..

I probably still have a 30mm spent brass case somewhere in the attic. they used to get washed off the range by high tide so you could get them without trespassing.

although playing with spent munitions is definitely a bad idea..