The only way to be really accurate with guns is to get so close you can reach out and touch the enemy from your cockpit.
Could be 'cos the American kites use heavier ammo of course... try aiming slightly above the target from astern and don't forget to lead your target. Tis just practice Of course the Spitfire is a superior aircraft

Rear fuselage and wing tanks? Drop tanks? The Spit had 'em all

I flew the Hurricane, Spit and P51 as 'stock' aircraft in online dogfights for 5 years.

M$ introduced certain 'effect's to make each plane different and I found the P51 had a stronger recoil effect which made longer distance shots slightly (emphasis on slightly) harder but still possible with practice.

I used to teach people how to fly the 'stock' game, and then the aircraft, when the Zone was up and running. Now I'll have to resort to text advice via Simviation.

'Hosing' away with your guns is bad practice. Fly "100%" settings and use short, 1 second, bursts when you cannot miss the target to save ammo. You will have some left to use against your opponent when he ditches and has to get a new plane, which gives you a one plane advantage.

The Hurricane was my favourite as it's the aircraft I started learning and, for a long time, was the better performer online. Then people started perfecting different tricks with the P51 and it became a better performer.

With either aircraft the max range is 'around' 2000ft (depending on certain circumstances). If you're firing at a greater range than that, you're just wasting ammo. At that range your opponent will take damage from shots landed. However, the closer you get, the greater the damage will be from the same rounds because of the force it will carry with it (muzzle velocity, etc).

When I was still flying everyone would tell me to avoid the 'head-to-head' challenge. Instead, I flew more and more. I would fly into a head to head, letting opponents fire and waste ammo. I would open fire at around 1200ft. This is a much more accurate range although this tactic will not work against an experienced pilot and you always should adjust your tactics acording to what you know about your enemy.

At 1200ft I could put rounds into my opponent 99% of the time which then hindered his (/her) performance. I could then use the greater agility of the Hurricane to get onto their tail and put more rounds in from a closer range.

The best advice I could give any of my students is to concentrate on your flying skills and outmanuevering your opponents, then worry about shooting them. If you're behind them, you can take your time and they can't shoot you.
The best aircraft for that is the Hurricane. It has smaller rounds but, if you can get them into your opponent and he can't bring his weapons to bear on you, you should win the battle.

However, every aircraft has differen strengths and weaknesses and you should fly each accordingly; If you fly like that against an experienced P51 or spit pilot (or German aircraft, especially the fw), they should simply use their greater speed and horse power to get out of range, gain height advantage, and then come back and let you have it with spades. This is called 'zoom and boom' and is how the Germans fought the airwar.

If you're into one of these battles you need to learn how to fly 'injured', which involves mastering trim to counteract damage inflicted. If you are unable to fly injured, you will lose your maneuverability, and the advantage, and the heavier gunned aircraft will be able to pick you off at will.

The Spit was a very good Zoom and Boom fighter but I would not use one unless I was in a fight with other zoom and boom planes and, even then, I would normally take a P51.

The 'stock' aircraft in CFS1 are generally recognised NOT to be accurate flight models of the real thing but they did put everyone in a 'stock' game on the same footing which is why I preferred them to so-called '1%' or 'mod' aircraft. Unfortunately some children did start resorting to 'improved' aircraft and began to sneak them into 'stock' games pretending they were also 'stock' which did spoil the game towards the end.
If you're in a 'stock' game, fly 'stock' aircraft, otherwise fly whatever the host has advertised the game as.

[quote author=RAFAIR100 link=1167736527/0#0 date=1167736527]Ever since I started flying CFS1, I've found that it's very much easier to get accurate hits from a Hurricane or Spitfire than from a P-47 or P-51.        I can't think why this should be so but, with the latter two aircraft, you put the bead on the target, hose away with your 0.5s, and not a whole lot happens until you've been shooting for an unconscionably long time.      Has anyone else experienced this?[/quote]



Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Vermont
Age: 53
Posts: 490  Utility designed to adjust the shot convergence within an aircraft's dp.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi all,
Check this out.

[url]http://www.absquad.net/cfs_utilities.htm[/url]

And this is whats on that URL.
AIRCRAFT UTILITIES:
CFS1-CFS2 AimIt (38KB). Utility designed to adjust the shot convergence within an aircraft's damage (.dp) profile. By: Jerry Beckwith. NOTE: Use of this utility on CFS1 "stock" aircraft may result in the aircraft not being able to be used in "restricted" games.

Hank/Rall

ozzy72 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2007 at 6:18am:


Nope, the US guns have a much higher muzzle velocity & a flatter trajectory so they should be easier to aim.  The stock guns in all the CFS series are porked.   

Or you can get it directly from those who actually designed it;

http://www.mudpond.org/Aim_it.ZIP

¤§¤ Jeph.
I take, and accept, your points.

CFS1 realism is a debate I saw often within the chat rooms of CFS1 on the Zone during my time in the game from October 2001 onwards.

I also had the pleasure and honour to fly the game with many 'real world' pilots.
Some civilian, some military, some teachers.
The military officers I flew with had modern and historical combat and command experience within the RAF (including some of the honourable RAF662 squadron you mentioned, whom I had the pleasure of meeting up with in 2004 at RAF Duxford. RAF_Pagan in particular was a respected friend of EURO in CFS1 days), USAF, RAAF, RCAF, and other countries air forces.

I would agree with all the experience of those people in that CFS1 was as close to 'real' as it could get.., "in its' day", but that that is still nothing like the real thing and very inaccurate.

Nowadays, there are better, more realistic flight sim's available but they are still a long way from accurate (how long would you spend in a 'real world' WW2 combat aircraft staring into a 19" square area of your forward viewing position?).

The realism debate that raged in CFS1 was, in my view, irellevant because none of the 'realism' settings in CFS1 are anywhere close to the 'real thing'.

I could do things with a Hurricane in CFS1 including a deliberate spin stall which would have ripped its' wings off, had it been tried in a real one. And yet, in the real world, I suffer from acute vertigo and couldn't even climb the steps to get in one. That's not too realistic.

I hope I did not convey the impression that 100% is the most realistic setting in CFS1.
I did not mean to.
It is merely the most difficult setting for CFS1.
The reason I taught people to fly 100% is because it is the best and fastest way for them to learn how learn how to play CFS1, and compete successfully against others.
It's not the best way to learn to fly a real aircraft or get the most realistic flying experience from CFS1.

I split CFS1 games online into 3 groups of game and player.
Stock:
Those who flew the 'stock' game (those who used the aircraft as they came on the cd, with no file alterations or "improvements"). These players tend to prefer the quick rush of a combat dogfight scenario.
Downloads:
Those who tried to improve the performance of the stock aircraft (to try and provide a more realistic experience). These players tend to prefer the more thought out mission style of game (which I also enjoyed but only in a locked room with other members of 607 Squadron, the 'EURO Group').
Mod's:
Those who modified their aircraft performance to gain an advantage over their opponents (I always considered this unfair and could never understand what was to be gained by it but the mod community always defended it strongly so I bow to their special preferences and do not pass judgement on it). As far as I could make out, these people tended towards flying UFO's and Muttley's biplane. Definitely not very realistic, but it takes all sorts.

I trained people to play CFS1, not to fly.
I taught them to improve themselves to better compete in a game environment.
I would prefer they stayed with the stock version rather than the 'download' or 'mod' version but that was their choice to make after I'd taught them how to improve their abilities.

As with most things, there were some people who were better than me at it and some people who were not. I was able to learn from both and tried to help anyone who was in my game and appeared to want to learn how to play it better.

On Sundays I would actively look for people who seemed to warrant the kind of help I could offer.
That might involve me going in a room whose settings were 100%, 95%, or even 40%.
I could enjoy each game on its' merits and varied my performance accordingly (not wishing to insult my game hosts or their guests).
I never knowingly taught cheats, poor sports, or those who enjoyed ruining someone else's experience of it. I would not even go into the same rooms as those people as it is possible to learn from someone just by being in the same game and I didn't want them to learn anything from me.

Despite everything, I still prefer playing CFS1 to any of its', more "realistic", competitors that can be found today.

Your friend may be right.
It may be more realistic at 95%.
I did fly 95% as my second game choice and a lot of folks didn't know how to fly at 100% and I always like to accomodate my guests / hosts.
As long as everyone in the game agrees and is playing the same version of the game, it will be a fairer, more enjoyable game.
I flew the 'stock' version of the game because it's a game, and I liked to match my CFS1 skills (and wits) with like-minded people, not my equipment.

I never listened to anyone who said one way of playing it was better than another, or more realistic than another, because the game itself was not realistic enough to support the debate (certainly not by the time I joined it in 2001 when CFS2 had been released and was "more realistic"). My own opinion and preference is that CFS1 is best enjoyed at 100% settings (95% on Sundays because it's less taxing. lol). But that's for my own pleasures.

CFS1 was, and is, just a game.