Gun is still weak

Not a real world hog pilot, but will say I have witnessed the beauty of that gun on the ground. Granted I haven’t went up against tanks lately but the gun runs I have done on apc and the like it does really well in my opinion.

But the accuracy is most dependant on the pilot, I am sure Snoopy has better info than I have, but nothing will fix a bad gun pass, and in my experience, a bad run can make a huge difference on the results.

They are mistakenly saying accuracy when they mean dispersion.

The primaryvquestion here is, what is the circular error supposed to be? Assuming straight pass with PAC, dispersion should be x mils. In game, we think we see y mils. Actual numbers have been discussed and referenced many times.

Yes, I have seen that thread, and in the sim, the gun seems pretty effective to me unless I mess up.

anecdotal evidence is all well and good, but can you tell us:

is the gun supposed to be 5mil

is the gun 5 mil in game?

if the second one is not true (as a bunch of smart people seem to be) why has ED not corrected this for literal years as it is apparently a one-line change in a lua file?

i kill stuff with the gun all the time but it's supposed to be a simulator isn't it? why not correct the gun dispersion if it is wrong and it is easy to do?

I did some testing, and just did a quick search on the GAU-8 as far as optimal range and dispersal expectations, and I honestly dont see much wrong besides the damage states of ground vehicles. If I flew a nice clean pass In could kill a T-55 with no issue if I wobbled at the wrong time, or didnt line it up smoothly, my hits would fall short or I would over shoot. Unless someone can show me something really good to test against, I am not seeing a problem. The GAU-8 is a powerful gun, no doubt, but you still have to fire it the way its meant to be fired.

Damage states, exactly my point, the gun is properly modeled it has always been, it's just that the way the damage model was built in the engine back then was never intended to model disabling or damaging different systems of the tank like the canon, sensors etc, anyone that thinks any MBT would drive away like nothing happened after being shot at properly with 200 rounds of 30mm AP/HE combat mix from the high rear lives in a dream :megalol:

They are mistakenly saying accuracy when they mean dispersion.

The primaryvquestion here is, what is the circular error supposed to be? Assuming straight pass with PAC, dispersion should be x mils. In game, we think we see y mils. Actual numbers have been discussed and referenced many times.

From wikipedia: "The GAU-8/A accuracy when installed in the A-10 is rated at "5 mil, 80 percent", meaning that 80 percent of rounds fired will hit within a cone with an angle of five milliradians; this equates to a 40-foot (12-meter) diameter circle at the weapon's design range of 4,000 feet (1,200 m).[16] By comparison, the M61 has an 8-milliradian dispersion."

Did a 30 deg, 0.7nm(1296m), 200 rounds burst using the gun cross with PAC just in front of that middle truck which are spaced at 40ft in the editor, this is properly modeled, 80% of the rounds at 1200m in a 40ft circle, did many runs some were better than others but this one is the cleanest one I have done and it's pretty much what you should expect... The pilot has a lot to do with the gun accuracy

With the new DM I think you will get to see an improvement on the effectiveness of the GAU-8 with the proper damage state being modeled, like I said before even with no hull penetration, anything will sustain heavy damage from a burst like that and will be very likely disabled if not destroyed.

Squibs? Pyro? Have you ever hit a piece of metal with a hammer? Haven't you seen HEI rounds before?

Have you ever seen a movie before? Because that's what that footage is from. A bad movie about Red Flag. There are no actual impacts in that sequence. In fact, there are "hits" in places that are facing away from the approaching planes. Tell-tale puffs of smoke followed by slow gouts of sparks - that's not what it looks like when HEI hits steel. Not to mention the Hollywood fireball that springs from the ground. And the planes are Eagles, not Hogs, so asserting the footage is "real" is asserting (taking into account the context that this footage has been used in this topic) that the Vulcan is more effective against armor than the Avenger.

Have you ever seen a movie before? Because that's what that footage is from. A bad movie about Red Flag. There are no actual impacts in that sequence. In fact, there are "hits" in places that are facing away from the approaching planes. Tell-tale puffs of smoke followed by slow gouts of sparks - that's not what it looks like when HEI hits steel. Not to mention the Hollywood fireball that springs from the ground. And the planes are Eagles, not Hogs, so asserting the footage is "real" is asserting (taking into account the context that this footage has been used in this topic) that the Vulcan is more effective against armor than the Avenger.

This footage is less realistic than Armageddon

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't know the true to life info, but GAU-8 accuracy on the interwebs states 5 mil but the DCS World files is set to 17 mil... we changed this to 5 mil in our squadron since it's correcting (I think) a wrong value that is exacerbated by the lack of damage modeling right now.

scripts/database/weapons/shell_table.lua

Da0 value...

Don't know the true to life info, but GAU-8 accuracy on the interwebs states 5 mil but the DCS World files is set to 17 mil... we changed this to 5 mil in our squadron since it's correcting (I think) a wrong value that is exacerbated by the lack of damage modeling right now.

 

scripts/database/weapons/shell_table.lua

 

Da0 value...

Did you see my test run I just posted? 17 mil? Would be something like 150ft radius at 1200m, which is ridiculously large...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you see my test run I just posted? 17 mil? Would be something like 150ft radius at 1200m, which is ridiculously large...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Take the information or don't and try to prove it wrong. It makes no difference to me. This isn't a new issue as has been stated in this and many other threads. Many tests have been done showing dispersion radius in game verses values in the files and the conclusion is that the Da0 value basically equals mils. The gun on the F-5 is another serious offender...being rated at 8 mil and set at 22 mil in game (iirc). You can watch many videos of real F-5 doing gun runs, then test in game and see that 8 mil is about right...not 22.

As you'll see this is a 1 minute fix, so ED has obviously decided they like these values and are unlikely to change them. Change them yourself with the above if you want.

Edit: Your test looks interesting and might mean this is worth revisiting. It certainly did not yield those results in the past.

Take the information or don't and try to prove it wrong. It makes no difference to me. This isn't a new issue as has been stated in this and many other threads. Many tests have been done showing dispersion radius in game verses values in the files and the conclusion is that the Da0 value basically equals mils. The gun on the F-5 is another serious offender...being rated at 8 mil and set at 22 mil in game (iirc). You can watch many videos of real F-5 doing gun runs, then test in game and see that 8 mil is about right...not 22.

 

 

 

As you'll see this is a 1 minute fix, so ED has obviously decided they like these values and are unlikely to change them. Change them yourself with the above if you want.

So how do you explain my runs that had a consistent 40ft radius at 0.7nm? According to your post I should be doing close to 150ft which is obviously not happening

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Edit: Your test looks interesting and might mean this is worth revisiting. It certainly did not yield those results in the past.

There is a lot a variables caused by the pilot and gun employment/modes, it's really easy to spread the grouping just by engaging PAC when the aircraft is not stable or when it's submitted to control input wobble or bounce, I also seen a lot of pilots engage targets while the airbrakes are deployed which disables PAC, all those things can reduce accuracy and grouping tightness by a large margin.

I always had those results even in the past, to me nothing or very little has changed gun wise since I first flew it on beta years ago, if you use the gun cross with PAC at proper angle and range it will yield groupings of around 40ft which is right on par with the specs of that weapon

So how do you explain my runs that had a consistent 40ft radius at 0.7nm? According to your post I should be doing close to 150ft which is obviously not happening

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have also tested this, with PAC engaged I also get consistent 40ft radius at 0.7nm. I think that it is quite correctly modeled. I can hit any target with A-10C gun very reliably. On the other hand Su-25A/T have guns with very low dispersion, I have a very hard time to hit anything , because a small aiming error or wind makes all rounds go near the targeted vehicle. Controlled dispersion is in my opinion a very good thing in employment of high caliber guns in A/G or A/A shooting.

Have you ever seen a movie before? Because that's what that footage is from. A bad movie about Red Flag. There are no actual impacts in that sequence. In fact, there are "hits" in places that are facing away from the approaching planes. Tell-tale puffs of smoke followed by slow gouts of sparks - that's not what it looks like when HEI hits steel. Not to mention the Hollywood fireball that springs from the ground. And the planes are Eagles, not Hogs, so asserting the footage is "real" is asserting (taking into account the context that this footage has been used in this topic) that the Vulcan is more effective against armor than the Avenger.

Here's the thing. I've been downrange when calling in CAS. We called it the "million dollar minute" as we went cyclic with every weapon. And at times, the AF FACs attached (now called JTAC) to me would call in F16s with 500lb bombs or A10s. The mixed munition A10C made a showing from time to time. And it looked pretty much exactly like the footage. Maybe the footage was hollywood, but they sure made it look realistic.

The mixed munition A10C made a showing from time to time. And it looked pretty much exactly like the footage.

Exactly like the F-15s and their 20mm cannon? And no visual evidence of any kinetic energy being expended anywhere? Weird.

Exactly like the F-15s and their 20mm cannon? And no visual evidence of any kinetic energy being expended anywhere? Weird.

LOL You're giving military PR way too much credit. But what can I tell you. I saw it for real, and it looked like the video. Maybe that was squibbed too. After all, I was just a dumb infantry platoon leader. Also, I doubt anyone could tell the difference between 20mm impact vs 30mm HEI. I've never called in an F15 strike in my life so no clue what that looks like.

But I've go no dog in this fight. Fake F15/20mm video it is. Out here.

What is footage of a couple of F-15s flying over a tank covered with bad pyro supposed to prove?

The 2nd Video, are light Tanks, like m21 or so, not Heavys