i still....

misson

misson

Charter Member
i still finding this in some bf109 dp:

[GUNSTATIONS]
; MG 17 7.92mm
gunstation.0=0,45,1,0.055,790,2,0.01,600,0,21,1d1*3.4,-0.15,0.38,1.44,-0.26378,0,0.02359,0,0,0,0,1.07

and must be:

[GUNSTATIONS]
; MG 17 7.92mm
gunstation.0=0,45,1,0.055,790,2,0.01,600,0,21,1d1*9,-0.15,0.38,1.44,-0.26378,0,0.02359,0,0,0,0,1.07

Many people confuse the MG17 with some ligth german machinegun.
The MG17 ammunition is 7.92mm and has more energy than 30-06 springfield (.303cal )more lighter bullet , less diameter but more speed. I am a hand loader (rifle and pistol), i make my owns bullets since 14 years , and i hunt with a 7.92 mauser bolt action rifle, i knew the .303 cal in the army and my shoulder know the diference between both cal.
 
lets see..

MG 17 machine gun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from MG17)
Jump to: navigation, search
MG 17 machine gun
.
Type Aircraft machine-gun
Place of origin Germany
Service history
Used by Germany
Wars WW2
Production history
Designed 1934
Manufacturer Rheinmetall-Borsig
Produced 1934-1944
Number built 24.271
Variants Modular design
Specifications
Weight 10.2 kg
Length 1175 mm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cartridge 7.92x57mm Mauser
Action Recoil
Rate of fire 1.200 rpm
Muzzle velocity from 855 m/s (Phosphor "B" round ) to 905 m/s (Armor Piercing Tracer "SmK L'spur" round)
Feed system 500 round
Sights Various types
The MG 17 was a 7.92 mm machine gun produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig for use at fixed mountings in many World War II Luftwaffe aircraft.
[edit] History
A mainstay fixed machine gun in German built aircraft (many of which were sold to other countries) well before WW2, by 1940 it was starting to be replaced with heavier caliber machine gun and cannons. By 1945 very few if any aircraft mounted the MG 17.
The MG 17 was installed in the Messerschmitt Bf 109, Messerschmitt Bf 110, Focke-Wulf Fw 190, Junkers Ju 87, Junkers Ju 88C Nightfighter, Heinkel He 111, Dornier Do 17/215 Nightfighter, Focke-Wulf Fw 189 and many other aircraft. Many MG 17s were later modified for infantry use as heavier weapons replaced them on Luftwaffe aircraft. Official numbers of conversions was about 24,271 by January 1, 1944, although additional conversions may have been done as well [1].
[edit] Specifications
Calibre: 7.92 +/- .04 mm
Cartridge: 7.92x57 mm Mauser
Round weight: 35.5 grams (cartridge 24 grams, bullet 11.5 grams)
Muzzle velocity: from 855 m/s (Phosphor "B" round ) to 905 m/s (Armor Piercing Tracer "SmK L'spur" round)
Rate of fire: 1200 rpm
Dimensions
Length: 1175 mm
Weight: 10.2 kg
Action: Recoil
Feed system: Belt magazine
Sights Remotely located, various types
[edit] See also
List of firearms
List of uncommon WW2 weapons
This firearms-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.v · d · e
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_17_machine_gun"
Categories: Aircraft guns | 7.92 mm machine guns | World War II German infantry weapons | Machine guns of Germany | Firearms stubs
 
Mission,

I do not know the reason for the Light 3.4 dice either. I tend to agree that 9 is closer to the 7.92mm as well as some other caliber weapons. Perhaps someone else would now why the dice is set so low in some of the DP files that I have run across also.
 
Muchas gracias por la informacion Mission.

I agree with you. The 7.92 (8mm Mauser or 8 X 57mm) is a very good cartridge and should get more respect in the DP file. I too reload and the 7.92 is a favorite of mine. As used in WW II, the 7.92mm was probably the best of the infantry and medium machinegun rounds.
 
ok..

im relaxed! (i do not demanding explanations!) but some times is difficult to make simulations adjusting so many things! . I think that is not honorable to say whos makes this dp's, but i can tell you that you have to pay for their aircraft in some case!:wavey:
 
Aye, It's annoying how there is no standardisation

I'm trying to standardise my planes as I go along, making adjustments when I notice anything too weak or strong. I generally have:

.303s - 8
.50s - 14
7.92 - 12
20mm - 20
30mm - 35

It's also the same with the health points with systems with some planes
 
Also, I could do with more of an understanding regarding Gun Entries

Say I have 6 wing guns, there seem to be two ways of doing it:

A) [GUNSTATIONS]
gunstation.0=0,24,1,0.08,839,2,0.01,500,2,40,1d1*14,-2.429,-0.66,0.815,0.119651268759032,0,0.463894691272955,0,0,0,0,1.6
gunstation.1=0,31,1,0.08,839,2,0.01,500,2,40,1d1*14,2.863,-0.594,0.749,0.119651268759032,0,-0.546776123639333,0,0,0,0,1.6

[guns.0]
gun.0=400,0,0,0,0,0,1,400
gun.1=400,-0.198,0.027,-0.022,0,0,1,400
gun.2=375,-0.403,5.80000000000001E-02,-6.59999999999999E-02,0,0,1,375

[guns.1]
gun.0=400,0,0,0,0,0,1,400
gun.1=400,-0.235,-0.033,4.39999999999999E-02,0,0,1,400
gun.2=375,-0.433,-6.60000000000001E-02,6.59999999999999E-02,0,0,1,375

Or
B)[GUNSTATIONS]
gunstation.0=0,-2,1,0.08,839,2,0.01,500,2,40,1d1*14,-2.2,-0.35,0,-0.41,0,0.3525,0,0,0,0,1.6
gunstation.1=0,-2,1,0.08,839,2,0.01,500,2,40,1d1*14,2.2,-0.35,0,-0.41,0,-0.3525,0,0,0,0,1.6
gunstation.2=0,-2,1,0.08,839,2,0.01,500,2,40,1d1*14,-2.2,-0.35,0,-0.41,0,0.3525,0,0,0,0,1.6
gunstation.3=0,-2,1,0.08,839,2,0.01,500,2,40,1d1*14,2.2,-0.35,0,-0.41,0,-0.3525,0,0,0,0,1.6
gunstation.4=0,-2,1,0.08,839,2,0.01,500,2,40,1d1*14,-2.2,-0.35,0,-0.41,0,0.3525,0,0,0,0,1.6
gunstation.5=0,-2,1,0.08,839,2,0.01,500,2,40,1d1*14,2.2,-0.35,0,-0.41,0,-0.3525,0,0,0,0,1.6

[guns.0]
gun.0=400, 0.244,-0.108,0.843,0,0,1,400

[guns.1]
gun.0=400,-0.244,-0.108,0.843,0,0,1,400

[guns.2]
gun.0=350, 0.050,-0.093,0.826,0,0,1,350

[guns.3]
gun.0=350,-0.050,-0.093,0.826,0,0,1,350

[guns.4]
gun.0=350,-0.122,-0.108,0.807,0,0,1,350

[guns.5]
gun.0=350, 0.122,-0.108,0.807,0,0,1,350


I prefer the results with B but in the case of A, would the damage dice have to represent the hitting power for 1 gun or 3?
 
D'acord mon ami!

Ok my friend! I think like you , but i mean in general terms, and you know when the performance is unreal. I suggest 1db*9 couse you find any where .303 as 1db*8, the .50cal : 1db*14. Microsoft set the scale, not me, we only need is to know the diference how much are between cartridges.:wavey:
 
Ian Astill said:
I prefer the results with B but in the case of A, would the damage dice have to represent the hitting power for 1 gun or 3?
Click to expand...

Well, I have noticed that the more gunstations that are on the same trigger that the sound is louder. So the B config would be louder.

Another thing I've noticed with my CFS2 is that the ammo count can not be itemized within the same [gun] section (A config). It takes the first gun rounds and applies them to all the rest, no matter where the rounds are set. If the rounds are different between guns then the B config is the best one to use.

I do not know about the dice (ldl*), good question though.
 
Made a small mistake there. Got the 50cals and 7.92s mixed up

It's a frustrating flaw with some designs but overtime Im getting all my planes tuned up!
 
i imagine

Ian Astill said:
Made a small mistake there. Got the 50cals and 17.92s mixed up

It's a frustrating flaw with some designs but overtime Im getting all my planes tuned up!
Click to expand...
I imagine a time that we all can play the game with really certified planes but for that we need to standard first, sorry if i could not wrigth a better inglish.
 
Ian Astill said:
Made a small mistake there. Got the 50cals and 17.92s mixed up

It's a frustrating flaw with some designs but overtime Im getting all my planes tuned up!
Click to expand...

I do not think I ever read of a 17.92 mm gun. Are you sure you don't mean 7.92?
 
The really frustrating thing for me is that I can't understand why some planes are released with flaws in them

For instance, there have been several planes I've recieved where the Gunstation entry for the Bombs is wrong and so when you release them they don't drop the weapon, it just disappears

I mean no disrespect to people who design and make these planes. I just don't understand why these issues aren't picked up on during testing before release.

I sound a bit spoilt here but it just marrs the enjoyment of the product when you have to go sifting through it correcting minor flaws

And I understand your English completely Misson! I know some people who state English is their first language who are less easy to understand!!! :jump:
 
thank u

And I understand your English completely Misson! I know some people who state English is their first language who are less easy to understand!!! :jump:[/QUOTE]

thank you ian ! , I see greats discussion about damage profiles, and many people trying to uniform, who can to leader this?

Is too late in my country and i need to sleep, the winter is comming. :sleep::sleep::wavey:
 
Ian Astill said:
Aye, It's annoying how there is no standardisation

I'm trying to standardise my planes as I go along, making adjustments when I notice anything too weak or strong. I generally have:

.303s - 8
.50s - 14
7.92 - 12
20mm - 20
30mm - 35

It's also the same with the health points with systems with some planes
Click to expand...

It's too much. The 7.92 mm and .303 has same balistic characteristics and were very similar. I create a sheet for DPED separating by country and weapon. I'm always updating it. I'm attaching it as txt. You need to rename it as DAT. I think it could serve as basis for a more complete work.View attachment 38698
 
Thanks Peperez. That sheet is a great reference tool and I shall be using it a lot in future

The reason I tend to make sure the 7.92 is slightly stronger than it may be in real life was purely to try and give some of the lesser armed German planes in the game a more sporting chance (For instance the Bf 109F. Once the cannon has run out of ammo it can be hard to knock anything down with just the two guns)

Because a lot of the aircraft are somewhat more resilient in the game than in real life the more lightly armed aircraft were struggling to shoot anything down

Now that I understand more about the hit points for damage I have been able to correct these issues so I will consider bringing the 7.92 down to a more realistic value

I've never really aimed for 100% accuracy with these kind of things. More of a ''As accurate as possible whilst still being a game'' approach
 
CFS 2 seems to model trajectory pretty well, but it does not compensate for aerodynamic drag of projectiles from what I can see or surmise. I think for accuracy, velocity needs to be dropped a couple of hundred feet feet per second to compensate for real life shock wave drag at supersonic velocities.

Given the 7.92's exellent spitzer-boat tail design, it was the most efficient of the rifle calibre cartridges in WW2, particularly in its 198 grain configuration at about 2500 FPS. The 303 British Mk 7 round used a 174 grain spitzer-flat base bullet at about 2400 FPS and the Cal 30 US (30/06) M2 round used a 150 grain spitzer-flat base bullet at about 2700 FPS at the muzzle.

You can figure muzzle energy or energy at range by knowing the velocity and bullet weight with this formula:

Bullet weight in grains X velocity in feet per second squared / 450240 = energy in foot pounds

7.92mm Mauser: 2500 X 2500 X 197 / 450240 = 2,734 Foot Pounds Energy (FPE)

303 British Mk7: 2400 X 2400 X 174 / 450240 = 2,226 FPE

Cal 30 US M2 Ball: 2700 X 2700 X 150 / 450240 = 2,428 FPE

Cal 50 BMG M33 Ball: 2910 X 2910 X 661 / 450240 = 12,432 FPE

By comparing the results, you can then give each cartridge a realistic number in the DP. In reality, you probably couldn't tell the difference between the rifle rounds (7.92-303-Cal 30 US) if you ever got hit by them, but the 7.92's heavier bullet would penetrate better and possibly do more dammage on engines or airframes. Of course the 50 Cal BMG is in a class by its self.

The Russian 7.62 X 54 Rimmed is virtually the same balistically as the Cal 30 US and the 12.7 DSHK round is very similar to the 50 BMG. The Japanese 7.7 Arisaka is also similar to the Cal 30 US.
 
you really know!

seems you are a real reloader jadg! and i see that you realy like 7.92cal, me too!:applause:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top