Hello Ivan,
I am not a member out at Flightsim. Actually I probably AM a member but can't remember the login or password.
The files are in the mail.
Here is the "Weight Issue" as I see it. Most fighters eject the spent case and link. Some do not. I believe the 37 mm cannon on a P-39 does not. Typical swivel guns do not toss the spent cases overboard. They end up on the floor of the aircraft. In this case (no pun intended), the weight of the ammunition should be taken into account when the aircraft is loaded. It is carrying the extra weight at Take-Off. The weight is not reduced when the ammunition is spent. I don't know we can do about that in CFS. I say that we should put in the full weight of the rounds and links so that ammunition loads are a distinct weight factor in performance. I go to a fair amount of effort to calculate the Basic Weight plus pilot.
I think that the AIR file should represent the aircraft weight minus fuel and ammo. Depending on the information we have, it may be a difficult task. We have to assume, in absence of information to the contrary, that "maximum load" means full tanks and full ammo. Ammo should be deduced by subtracting the weight of "spent" ammo. For ejected links and cases, then the hole cartridge and the link should be taken into account while, in the case of self-contained clips, drums, or guns on a swivel, only the projectile and the propellant should count.
This means that, for example, a B-17 without any ammo will have to take off with its floor littered with empty cases but, quite frankly, who leaves ground with an unarmed flying fortress?
BTW, Why are German pilots heavier than US Pilots by 20 pounds??? US Pilot weights are 200 pounds. German pilots are 220 pounds (100 Kilograms).
No idea. Must be a bit of census average mixed with a round number to simplify calculations.
With US fighters, often there is a selection of load conditions: Fighter, Fighter Bomber, and Fighter Overload. Funny thing, but as a "Fighter", the aircraft typically won't be carrying a full ammunition load or full internal fuel load. Fighter Overload has both at maximum.
As if "maximum load" was not fuzzy enough! LOL!
Also, I am not sure where you got the numbers for a .50 caliber round. The full round and link weight which I got from the P-50C loadout was 760 rounds == 228 pounds. That works out to 4.8 ounces per round.
The link was in the post. The "ounce translation" was done with a little app I have, as the site gives the weight in grains or grams. Here are some weight as they appear; M1 tracer - 1,785 gr or 4.08 oz, M2 ball - 1,813 gr or 4.144 oz, M2 AP - 1,812 gr or 4.141714 oz, M8 API - 1,764 gr or 4.032 oz, M10 tracer - 1,752 gr or 4.004571 oz, M20 API-T - 1,718 gr or 3.926857 oz... the list goes on. Some projectiles weigh are also given, but not for all types. I think that, with the addition of the link, we are in the same ballpark.
I also made an error in my calculations; the cartridge minus the projectile weight more than the projectile. The M2 AP weight is 1,812 gr, not 1,248. My mistake.
Regarding the damage from a .303, I really don't know. I believe they are too potent in the game. Some of the cannons like the 20 mm MG 151/20 and 30 mm MK 108 are not potent enough. The statistics I quoted were gathered by the Luftwaffe. If the AVERAGE number of hits needed to kill a B-17 is only 3 rounds, there were plenty of cases it took fewer. Check out wartime photographs for confirmation.
I think we should look more into normalizing DP boxes than damage points system. The latter was thought about pretty deep while damage caused is basically left to "artistic license".
I make no claims about a .50 caliber because I haven't done the research, but I would make an assumption that a single MK 108 hit should blow up the Jeep's fuel tank, right?
Right. According to ARMS_WW2.dat, the Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 108 has a "1d1*73" dice-point ratio, the jeep fuel tank goes boom at 50 points.
When flying against AI bombers, you would think you are flying against B-40s. Their gunnery is intense and extremely accurate. A single pass doesn't tend to kill all that often in my experience though perhaps I don't shoot very well. The following is yet another diversion from the topic, but I believe the bomber DP files should have reduced range for AI gunnery. You can't much alter their accuracy, but a fellow with a ring and bead sight or just a ring sight (often USAAF swivel guns didn't have a front sight), isn't terribly accurate at any range and certainly not past about 200 yards and certainly not to a thousand yards.
I don't want to boast (yes, I do!!!
), but I once downed 8 B-17 in the "Fat cars" scenario without using rockets. Granted, my Fw90 was a flying colander when I made an emergency landing at Guyancourt, but it is feasible if you know where to shoot. Next time, try the tip of the wings, or at least the portion between the tip and the exterior engines (#1 or 4). For some reason, they do explode more often than they should and, when they don't, they have a tendency to collide with their neighbors in the formation.
Yes, bombers gunners are all sharpshooters, Bf 110 included. But in QC, they tend to be more "human". Dropping distance at 183 meters would make missions look weird; gunners were shooting as soon as they "thought" they had a chance, hoping that the hail of bullets would make the attackers think twice before getting closer and, at least, would diminish the precision of their attacks. Le May's raids over Japan with unarmed B-29 showed no more casualties due to fighters' interception than "normal" raids, which says a lot about air gunnery.
We could diminish the accuracy for AI (humans do the job all by themselves...) by tweaking the "dice factor" from, let's say, "1d1*" to "1d4*". This would cut the hits by 75% while keeping the hail of bullets coming. Call me masochist, but I like the audio-visual effect.
