flak 36

[messtin]

The dispersion on the 88 gun is outrageous.

Firing at something acurately at anything especially at ranges of 2km is is near impossible.

Needs looking at

[bronco78]

The dispersion on the 88 gun is outrageous.

Firing at something acurately at anything especially at ranges of 2km is is near impossible.

Needs looking at

when i started 3 1/2 years ago the 88 was very accurate and a deadly weapon. now the dispersion is way too high. every 3rd round misses a Sherman or other tank at 1k distance !!

the 88 has the longest barrel in this game ... and should be quite accurate because of that fact. same with Tiger

88 guns or barrels were able to kill allied tanks in RL up to 3-4k distance.

go to training server. test the axis 20mm AAA and then allied 25mm AAA. you will laugh

the 25mm rounds barely descend ... and are very accurate on distance. the 20mm is a bit like a catapult... doesnt surprise me why ppl dont hit/kill allied planes

[Hinfoos]

noticed the same with stug when i played 100% axis in the beginning, i hit alot of stuff.. then i played allied and came back after 1 year then i missed alot of stuff, weird.

[hchris]

Can anybody post controlled testing results?

A way to replicate what you say here?

If not, this thread is totally worthless...

We need hard facts, not subjective opinions....

[messtin]

Why do people always come up with " controlled testing"?

There is more then 1 person here saying the 88 dispersion is too much.

I play the 88 quite a bit and its always the same, dont need to go to the training server and re-test it.

[DOC]

I'll tell you why we need controlled testing:

... because we haven't changed any of the guns in this post dispersion values at all. We cannot change the game, or even test claims about the game, based solely on memories or opinions. We have 1 or 2 guys who can do that and they also have to do 1,000 other things, we just cannot meet every claim with time spent towards validating the accuracy of the claim.

We want to, but we aren't allowed to. We have to employ a "worth the time" filter in front of that work so that we don't waste a single minute of a single hour of a single day. We just have too much to do with not many to do it.

That's why.

[messtin]

Well something has changed the dispersion of the 88 becuase it happens every time I fire the 88

[DOC]

I don't say you are wrong. I said "you have to prove it so that I don't chase a ghost when I could be fixing something that was already proven to not be a ghost".

You might think I'm being tough on you. I'm not. I'm doing what I have to do to get ANYTHING done so that you get a better game. This isn't dreamland where everything we need is available to get things done. This is hell where NOTHING we need to get the job done is avaialble.

You should try it some time. It's a hell of an education.

[messtin]

I quickly tested the 88 at 1700m on the training server and every other couple of rounds it seems to go off target by around 10 or 20m then re-aquires the target.

The range finder has not got a problem but you can fire a dead on shot once then it seems to go way off for a couple then another dead shot.

When I have more time on the weekend I will fraps it and put it on youtube if you like.

[DOC]

gun has to settle completely for any subsequent shot test to be valid after firing the previous round

just a reminder, you can make the dispersion worse than it is if you are not careful about that

when used in the AA role, rapid firing and subsequent dispersion was a desirable attribute, in the AT role, rapid firing was not, accurate firing was more important

also remember that the claim here is "the dispersion was changed, and you should change it back" and that this is a different claim to "it is worse than it should be"

we didn't change the dispersion at any point in time, and I have no evidence that we did in the data record or subsequent testing to say that we did. If we didn't change it we cannot "change it back" so it's an important clarification to keep in mind

[messtin]

I know how to fire a gun platform mate, I was in the British army for 22yrs.

I didn't say you have changed the code at any time, I said the dispersion on the 88 is too much and needs looking at.

[nobipure]

Yea mate, read the OP... It is exactly what he said, never claimed it was changed, just that it is too much.

Bronco came in here and stated all the bias garbage about CRS sneaking around the back code and changing stuff... As a friend of Messtin and a squadmate, I take offense at him being mistaken for Bronco.

But joking aside, the dispersion does in fact seem to be too much from my times using it. And like Messtin says, it does not feel like random dispersion, it seems buggy like it is really accurate and then just way off for a couple shots, then exactly on target, then way way off a few shots.

[bronco69]

Yea mate, read the OP... It is exactly what he said, never claimed it was changed, just that it is too much.

Bronco came in here and stated all the bias garbage about CRS sneaking around the back code and changing stuff... As a friend of Messtin and a squadmate, I take offense at him being mistaken for Bronco.

But joking aside, the dispersion does in fact seem to be too much from my times using it. And like Messtin says, it does not feel like random dispersion, it seems buggy like it is really accurate and then just way off for a couple shots, then exactly on target, then way way off a few shots.

where did i say in my post that CRS changed it ??

i said that it changed AT ALL

if CRS did it or it happened because of various other coding stuff as a a side-effect ... nothing mentioned

[messtin]

Thanks for the support nobi, I thought I was going nuts for a bit when he said I was claiming the code had been changed.

This is the bugs reporting thread is it not?

[messtin]

I agree with you bronco that you did not say it was bugged or changed by CRS, you just stated it has changed over time and it's not like it use to be.

I think DOC has opened up a can of worms for no reason here and dismissed it too easy by saying what he did, is it arrogance on his behalf? I'll let other people decide that.

[messtin]

To be fair on doc though Bronco the part were your comparing the axis bofor to the allied bofor probably got his back up.

Still, the response off him was not called for.

[bronco69]

To be fair on doc though Bronco the part were your comparing the axis bofor to the allied bofor probably got his back up.

Still, the response off him was not called for.

its more like a comparison. im playing all axis guns for long time now. and imo they all got more dispersion

when i was on training server yesterday we tested a bit the 25mm AAA and it seems like that thing has absolutely no dispersion. test it... and then plz reply to me

it seems like alot of guns have more dispersion ... some not. so it cant be a common error with dispersion at all. just certain things/guns

Edited January 13, 2012 by bronco69

[messtin]

I understand your findings on the bofor guns mate but maybe that should be on a different thread as this is soley about the 88 dispersion

[DOC]

the point was simply to clarify if this was a big report or a complaint, the differance is important in terms of how we prioritze developmnet time here (as explained previosuly)

1. Bug report requires tracking down what broke or changed, and why ... and then determining a fix and a priority to go with the fix itself

2. complaint requires design review to determine if a change to something that was modeled ->this<- way needs development time devoted to modeling it <-that-> way instead, and then a development schedule made to accomodate that new work

The process for each of the above points is quite different, and involves different people to follow it through.

Since this was not completely clear in the original series of posts (where you weren't talking about a change, but remember, your post may be taken in conjunction with a dozen other similar reports or messages you are unaware of that we have already taken into account here that have claimed vehemently that it WAS changed) so I wanted to make sure you knew what the methodology here was, since we have to take this into account and whether or not the reporter cares to do so is up to them.

You may not like that methodology but that's a different issue.

Just so there is no confusion. I understand you are saying that you think the dispersion as modeled needs to be changed, and that this is not a bug. Amongst all the things I have on record here ... said about the Flak.36 88mm gun, it was not originally beyond doubt that the claim was that it had changed, rather than "never was right" to begin with.

The first step is not to take a response as a personal message to you, as more often than not there are many similar reports or claims from many different being answered in that response. If you take it personally, we will never get along. In general you may be talking to one of us, but we are talking to dozens, hundreds or thousands of people with a single response.

[hchris]

I think DOC has opened up a can of worms for no reason here and dismissed it too easy by saying what he did' date=' is it arrogance on his behalf? I'll let other people decide that.[/quote']

Please lets not go into this direction again.

Please understand that CRS are just a few people having a workload of like 100 people. They try to work as fast as they can, fix bugs, test while also trying to move the game forward with new features.

There is no arrogance, just a bunch of people trying to do the impossible...

Don't take this personally. It simply isn't.

[DOC]

thanks mate

we do the best we can, we know it's not enough but it's all we got!

cheers

[messtin]

DOC you should have been a politician bud because you can never get a straight short answer from them either