rob kemp That would invite heavy ECM and jamming trying to get the hostile drones to loose signal. Otherwise it would be similar to online-games... for a ~40ms lag you'd be limited to a range of 6000 km by signal lag alone not even taking the time for your systems to translate it into human-readible images.
I was really underwhelmed overall by this video... and then he dropped that bomb on me and I just couldn't stop laughing. I think he realized that he needed a little something extra to make this video resonate with his audience, and threw that gem in... gotta say... it definitely worked.
lancer737 lancer737 No, the TIE fighter does have a terrible field of view, it does have two massive slabs of metal welded to the side that is easy to hit, it isn't shielded to compensate and was shot down by a heavier, but infantry carried weapon in Rogue One. Just look at when a TIE pursues the Falcon in episode V and tries to slip into the same crack as the Falcon. It gets *screwed* because it is so wide that the slit a passenger-freight ship can slip through a TIE cannot. It is wider than the Falcon is tall. That is atrocious design.
lancer737 1. No, you're completely wrong on the point of them having 360-degree vision. In no Canon or Legends source has it ever been stated that the TIE pilot can do that. 2. ECM is also not mentioned a single time in any of the cross sections of the ship. 3. The handheld weapon in question was based off a bowcaster except weaker, which is a kinetic weapon, aka, it fires an actual projectile. Projectiles don't have different energy settings. 4. The reason weapons on A-wings and B-wings are more powerful is because they have a power source that feeds them that power. The larger the reactor, the larger the damage they can do. 5. The TIE interceptor flew through gases that weren't volatile until shot at, we were told that directly within the episode, so that's not impressive. Nebulae are in a realistic scenario, completely harmless swirls of gas that are as dangerous as your own atmosphere. The TIE interceptor close to the forming star exploded in *6 seconds* whereas the other one lasted about 11 before it had to break off, whereas the Ghost, a ship that was shielded as well as its two Y-wings survived for a *full minute* with the Ghost taking substantial damage but still being capable of flight. The Y-wings showed zero negative effects from the star. The only TIE that managed to survive even close to that long was the Defender that was present, a *shielded* variant that is highly advanced. 6. I'll concede on that point, they did collide with each other, but a clever pilot in that situation would've flown over the obstacle in question, not into it. HOWEVER. The reason why that collision between a USN submarine and a Japanese fishing boat happened was that the personnel in the said ship were not who should've been in there, they were supplementary. The sonar operator was unqualified to stand watch. There were also civilians aboard that distracted the personnel further. Standard procedure wasn't followed either. (Edit here) To add onto that once more, the submarine was performing an emergency surfacing action, which is *impossible to stop once it's commenced.* The submarine rises so quickly that it flies out of the water slightly from the sheer force. A small, agile, fast fighter craft is *not an enormous, sluggish and emergency diving submarine.* (Edit ends) None of those things is true about the pilots in that collision. They drove into a tight space in a formation that was far too close and crashed with each other. That just means that TIE fighter pilots are undertrained and shouldn't be put in the seat of anything. (Another edit) So what I know is that a TIE fighter will explode from heat like that in less than 6-11 seconds seeing as its armour is weaker (That a Y-wing survived in for over a minute) any claims you have on ECM and 360-degree vision I can't find *any proof for,* plus that it is a massive target. (WOO EDITS) "The design choices of the TIE/Ln could arguably be explained by Imperial military philosophy, which viewed the starfighters and their pilots as an expendable asset. Though Imperial pilots were of an elite stock, they were also expected to consider themselves expendable, in accordance with their ideological training. Other Imperial pilots considered TIE Fighter pilots to be suicidal due to how expendable the starfighters were." When the pilots of your *own army call TIE pilots suicidal* it's hard to defend the craft in *any way.* (God damn there's so much editing) To add EVEN FURTHER, the Canon TIE/mg had intentionally removed 4 of the panels on the front which gave them less speed and firepower but *"increased visibility".* If you have 360-degree vision, what the hell would you need increased visibility for?
I always assumed the "locking on" function you see in dogfights was to gimbal the guns to converge on the correct distance to hit the target all at once, since it never seems to nail the target on the first try like actual tracking would do.
Most fighters don’t have gimbaling guns. Usually the “lock on” feature just means the radar is tracking and providing HUD symbology to aid in aiming the craft and hence, the guns. At least that’s how it works IRL; and it seems it’s the same in most SciFi franchises. But if craft did have gimbaled guns, convergence wouldn’t matter. The guns just have to point in the right direction.
Ayyyyye yeah i made a comment trying to explain this though i know this video is pretty old now, i just rewatched it and re found my comment and i think its still very relevant: 4:59 i feel like with these types of videos people try to put real life physics or other universes physics into the StarWars universe when its just simply not how it works in SW but that's a different subject, in this situation i just want to point out that blasters are able to converge onto a target somewhat and even lock on to it and aim outside of the straight line so really what your seeing is a cone of influence in front of the fighter so spreading them out on the edges of the wings (like the X-Wing for example) would help that cone of influence, do u remember the death star run when Vader was messing with buttons to lock onto Luke that wasn't just to launch missiles (which the fighter does not have) he was locking on with his blasters.
Real life WWII fighter planes with main guns in their wings eliminated the problem by pointing the guns slightly inwards, so there's a crossing point somewhere around 300-500m in front of a plane. That's where the enemy usually is during the dogfight.
Id Think the X-wing has some sort of Computer system that slightly changes the alignment of the quad lasers to focus on what is in-front of the ship based on the distance.
If anyone plays Elite Dangerous... This is why using Flight Assist off, even temporarily, is so crucial in battles. This advice is actually relevant in Elite.
Elite Dangerous is the big one, but there's a few other games where it's extremely helpful as well. The I-War duology springs to mind as a big example, since your default ship in both games is a *corvette*. Learning when to turn and how is essential to keeping yourself alive.
also when runnign away, heck i do quite well doing corkscrews in my cutter to avoid fixed fire form FDL and the like. if i am in my combat anaconda and trying to escape i will retract hardpoints and start piloting to buy time and force opponent to maneuver as well, minimizing time on target
I tend to fight players with FA off. Main reason is because I fly the Cutter (2nd largest ship), while it's turning speed is shit, it's speed and shields make up for it. Flying with flight assist off and boosting around tents to keep the enemy in my line of sight even if I'm vsing a FDL, Krait, FedGunship ect (smaller more maneuverable ships). When it comes to running I just keeping boosting and turning into the enemy until my FSD is ready to go then I boost away and jump.
until you get drafted into the Space Corps and have to go up against alien saucer ships.....then some of this will be like maybe Spacedock was on to something lolz
Spacedock: "You will certainly never use this information." Some random dude from the future, who decided to watch a 1000 year old video and aspires to a space pilot: "Funny, everything you just said is utterly wrong."
“Don’t go head to head in a space dogfight”. Learned this lesson decades ago playing the very first Wing Commander game. Went head to head against a Dralthi in a Hornet in one of the first missions. We both died. Good memories.
Learned quite the opposite in the X-Wing series. When the enemy has weaker guns, weaker hull, better speed, better maneuverability, an AI that has unironically laser perfect aim, and numbers on its side to boot, you actually take less damage by going for a head to head pass and taking out an enemy fighter before the dogfight begins.
Depends on the ship myself and the enemy have, but I often go head to head in Wing Commander. Put it on full guns, fire at max range, than as soon as my shields start taking hits break off and try to get behind them. It helps for my style as in a turn fight I often over lead my target and end up hitting near the front of their ship, where their shields are already weakened from the first pass.
Yeah, you can get away with a joust one-on-one against most Kilrathi fighters as you generally have more shields and often more powerful guns. Don't try it with a Jalthi, though, you're gonna have a bad time.
You can get away with it if you have a rapid fire gun and start shooting as soon as the opponent is the size of a dot. I think it is probably a bug in the code. Fun game.
The most realistic dogfight in science fiction is in the book “The Forever War”. The starship detects a missile that is weeks away from impacting it. They put everybody into high G force chambers and let the computer make evasive maneuvers. Bottom line, humans cannot dogfight in space versus automated missiles.
Gonna have to Disagree here too. Stealth/vs detection is gonna be the real game at long range. it's entirely possible that space combat will be relatively short range simply because of how easy stealth may be in space. for all we know. missiles will end up almost useless against a target that can turn and dog fighting may end up being the best course of action... I don't think its likely. but it is entirely possible.
why put them in G-force chambers when there's no gravity to give you any G? the ship's artificial gravity exists but that's the only one affecting the crew
@@piscessoedroen I have no way to know if you have ever studied physics. I do not mean to be condescending. If a spacecraft accelerates or turns (which is another form of acceleration) it will induce G force on everything inside. Just think about sitting in the back seat of a car when the driver makes a high speed turn and you fly to the other side. In space, at high speeds, these forces would crush a human. Most science fiction films ignore this or have a “artificial gravity field” to make the plot work. Forever War tried to handle it realistically
@@OhNoNotAgain42 i know physics, atleast up to just before stuff you learn at university. It's just that space is something that i have difficulty to grasp on to, especially when literally every space scifi i know have some sort of local gravity in their crafts. Thanks for the explanation and reminding me stuff in space still acts like earth
@@awesomeonejess no stealth in space A. Engines are pretty bright, especially when theirs no atmosphere or curvature of the planet to block light, you could detect the space shuttle engines out from Pluto, you could detect the space shuttles maneuvering thrusters from the asteriod belt. B. Everything on a ship is hot, especially when compared to vacuum, engines are basically a flamethrower/nuclear meltdown pointed away from your ship, and even life support Temps are gonna make your ship pop out like a skyscraper in a empty desert. C. Just look up Nicoll's law for me
As a Tie fighter pilot in squadrons, I did realize an advantage of the Tie fighter (I use interceptor mostly). The way the cockpit may be set up you cant see around you but you can much better see what is in front of you. In a X-Wing or any other Rebel ship, you can basically only see the top half of the screen. Ties don't have this problem. This is useful when going fast around big astroids or trying to escape. There are sensors to tell you if someone is behind you so I think it's a good trade-off. You're not going to look backward or at least you should not cause you may hit something ahead of you.
Following your rules, it seems like Babylon 5's Starfury is the best dogfighting fighter. Close mounted guns, doesn't present a large silhouette from most angles, engines allow it to turn very quickly on a dime ...
The first time I saw a Starfury evading enemy fire, turning around while still going in the same direction and fireing at the pursuing raider is still burned in my memory.
I'd agree that Babylon 5's Starfury (and its derivations) are really the top 3 best space dogfighter if not the best. They can move forward, move backward, move sideward, move in an angle and pretty much anything else you can think of. Weapons not so great but for years that was the only thing B5 station had.
I would agree that the Starfury is one of the best but The Gunstar from “The Last Starfighter” would be just a little bit better except for the silhouette but if I remember it did have shields.
Gunstars are a whole other beast because they're covered in turreted guns, even on the back. You can't dogfight against them because your positioning is largely pointless; a starfury can quickly spin to point at you, but a gunstar can be pointing in one direction while shooting in another, facing largely doesn't matter. The starfury's engine layout was also probably also copied from the gunstar; even the thruster nozel arrangment on each engine is identical.
@@alonelyperson6031 fun fact: sentient TIE fighters were a thing in Legends. Their existence was equally horrible, if not more so, compared to a pilot of a more ordinary TIE.
"A-Wing would slip right between the shots" Err, except most every Star Wars snubfighter with mirrored blasters has them turned slightly inwards so that they converge on a target, and the distance to that point of convergence can be fairly easily altered to suit the pilot's preferences.
At around 4:50 when you're talking about the convergence zone, that's a real life problem that was faced by fighter aircraft in WWII called gun harmonization. This was the trade off for having more guns in the wings meant having a limited zone where all the bullets fly through. The P-38 Lightning got around that problem by concentrating it's armament in the nose which had been freed from carrying an engine. This, combined with it's cannon armament, made it better at what you called 'jousting' since it was able to put rounds on target far further out than lighter aircraft with wing mounted weapons.
The top WWII American Flying Ace, Richard Bong (credited with 40 kills), flew the P-38 in the Pacific. He stated that he had poor aim, and as a result, would engage most planes straight on (in a joust attack). Thanks to the P-38's nose mounted weapons and the weak armor of the Japanese A6M Zeros he was facing, he quickly racked up a lot of kills. One time he got so close to a Zero that he crashed into it, his P-38 survived, but the Zero did not!
If you played homeworld you should remember how the dogfight between fighters look like: vessels fly towards each other firing (joisting) the after they flew past each other they do 180 turn and continue firing and after distance between surviving fighters become big enough they turn on their engines and cycle repeats. Looked pretty cool)
If you play any newtonian space dogfight games (Babylon 5 I Found Her for example), jousting actually happens quite a lot due to momentum. Every time you miscalcuate the relative velocity between you and your target - which is ALWAYS because squishy human brains suck at that sort of thing, your momentum carries you past them and them past you. So you both turn around... and do it again. Because squishy human brains suck. Trying to stop the joust just ends up matching velocities with the target, which gives the games AI a perfect shot at you... also bad, because the AI has better aim then you (did I mention squishy human brains suck?). The ideal situation is actually jousting in a ellipse so you have angular momentum vs the target to dodge incoming fire with, but still gives you a close range window to fire accurately in. So jousting is totally a thing that would actually happen, notwithstanding inertia dampening magic that lets you decelerate stupidly fast. Also -"Bravery and stupidity" I lol'd at the screencaps for that comment.
Allen Helmer even in void warfare, you would still receive g-force when sudden change of speed, inertia dampening magic better have a g- dispersor or everyone inside is space slime.
wich means you can't accelerate faster than 100m/s^2 unless you want to pass out, heck that's 10G and even that is extreme and probably makes anyone unable to function as a human being like aim, or drive the spacevessel... let me rewrite: 10G will knock out anyone not fit for piloting, and will knock out some of the fit for piloting guys as well...
In space there can be NO sci-fi Star Wars like WW2-style dogfight. Think more like "Asteroids". Spacecraft can freely rotate around all axes x,y,z and always keep weapons on target no matter what direction they are moving. Engagement distances can be over 100s or even 1000s of kilometers, kinetic weapons have unlimited range (no friction) although the projectilres fired would be abysmally slow to reliably hit anything far out while energy weapons (laser beams?) score instant hits since laser photon particles travel at the speed of light. Dogfighting-esque Air Combat Maneuvers would only take place within atmospheres or ultra-dense gas clouds (which do not exist), and in such a setting spacecraft would most likely resemble warplanes as they would need wing like structures to provide lift, counterbalance gravity, and provide control surfaces such as ailerons, rudders and flaps.
With the exception that it just makes you more likely to get hit, unless you spin responsibly. Spinning is a hard art to master, you want to spin fast enough that it matters, and slow enough that you dont just end up getting hit more
"You never want to go head to head against an enemy fighter" Reminds me of the time playing Tie Fighter when I learned that an X-wing has a blind spot in its cannon spread at dead center of the fighter that's just slightly larger than the ball cockpit of the Tie Fighter. So there I am in an unshielded flying coffin going head to head against a rugged, high firepower fighter and having no problem whatsoever......Yeah. Don't ever do that in real life.
WWII fighters with wide mounted guns usually were set to converge at a specific range. This was done on the ground. With advanced spacecraft a gimbled system with a constantly adjusting range would be more likely. If you could fly though it through the X-wings weapons spread that was most likely bad programming because of them not knowing how guns were used IRL.
Can't really speak about the programmers knowledge, but at least some of the book writers for the X-Wing book series knew about the convergence point of the weapons. There are a few times when adjusting the focal distance is mentioned, including when Wedge is discussing the adjustments made prior to the attack on the first Death Star. (They were adjusted for a higher range than usual so they could hit surface targets from a safer distance. Which might also explain why only a few TIE fighters were taken out on screen...) It's possible that the X-Wings don't have gimbals on their weapons, given the integration of the weapon mounts into the S-Foils of the ship.
Wide-apart weapons only miss small target if the shooter's aim is perfectly on your center. Human player's aim would wiggle slightly, so the guns on one side would hit you.
2:16 This happens in War Thunder a lot. It’s called ‘Heads Upping’, and is high-risk, high-reward. It tends to end either with both sides dead via gunfire or ram, or neither side dead. It takes a lot of skill ( that i don’t gave ) to have a successful heads-up.
Same happens in free space.... recommended to not use afterburners at a close range when doing this... trust me... unless you are skilled an know when to turn... don't
If the enemy has superior power and agility, a head-on engagement will rule out thier advantage. A stuka D5 will always prefer the head-on while a me 109 will want to avoid it.
The first space flight sim game I played that had dogfighting that I liked was Tachyon: The Fringe. The "Slide" feature allowed for crazy strafing attacks with very high angular velocity and flipping around "backwards" to easily attack an enemy that was attacking you.
(4:31) If I remember correctly, real world fighter craft have their projectile weapons slightly canted inward so that the fire converges at some distance ahead. I seem to remember seeing a WW2 training film that talked about that. I'm not sure if weapons mounted toward the centerline of the airframe still employ a bit of angling. We need someone with expertise to comment on that. ;) I think sci-fi ships would have a targeting computer that would align the weapons automatically so that the bolts would converge on the target, like the gimbaling you mentioned. Still, it is a factor! Thanks for another great vid! :)
CybershamanX you are correct WW2 planes had thier guns angled towards a center point for maximum hits it did lower maximum range though. Some planes like the P-38 Lightning had a diffrent setup since it had two propellers so it had all it's guns in the nosecone so to say and that was a bit terrifying for the enemy pilots since the P-38 was able to open fire before you did.
CybershamanX I forget which book in the X-wing series, but they (X-wing’s cannons in this case) are set at a convergence and don’t make slight adjustments in flight. I believe for rouge squadron in this book it was 250 yards (or meters, don’t remember which really).
real world fighters would also have no crew and be computer aimed anyway, you could just as well use a sporadic guidance software to properly saturate a target with rounds. And hey iv everything else fails your expendable gun bot can always use the mass of its body to double as a missile
If the plane had its guns on the wings then yes, you could set the convergence distance to a set range but obviously not while in the air, thats why many fightesr like the BF109, P38 lightning and rhe soviet yaks had all orost of their guns in the nose, like the ties and naboo fighters
And that is when a starfury is so very deadly. Very small cross section especially at the rear. Good pilot visibility. Very maneuverable and can kill you fine backwards
Also another thing we learned: put turrets on your fighters. Seriously, frontal facing guns are good and all, but only when you are not constantly turning without air decreasing your target manouvrability. So instead of having 3 frontal guns have 1 frontal gun, 1 in the dorsal turret and 1 in the ventral turret. You might think it makes no sense at first, but if you look at it we commonly think of spacefighters as, well, fighters in space, when instead they should be gunboats/helicopters in space. Edit: and about balls, there's a War Thunder April Fools event where they did space fighters marvelously. Two turrets each side, many manoeuvring thrusters, very little armour.
Turrets add weight and cost, if your ship can already turn on a dime with RCS why weigh it down with turrets? Maybe some gimballing for precise adjustments, but fully rotating turrets seem wasteful. If you need to hit someone chasing you, turn around and use thrust reversers. Anyone smart will break off, anyone dumb gets a face full of lead or plasma. (EDIT) I actually like your helicoper/gunship analogy, aimable guns and missles make more sense than either fixed or fully rotating turrets.
You need to have a crew of 2-3 for turrets. With the fact that a space dogfight is fully 3D with the pilot required to pull stupid Gs and fly the ship with both him and his target able to turn on the spot, you can't ask that pilot to do more than fly and shoot things in front of them. AI turrets would work, but then you've added something that can go wrong.
@@stephens7136 non-turreted craft would consume more fuel just to get their weapons on their target. Sure it can turn on a dime, but that doesn't mean it should do it all the time, considering that maneuver, if done incorrectly such as doing it too fast can disorient the pilot. Plus you also have to be mindful of your environment. You absolutely cannot turn on a dime in tunnels. Do a turn to shoot at the enemy chasing you and what happens when there's a sharp corner around? Turreted fighters also give them anti-missle/torpedo capability and made them multifunctional too. They can just hang around their ship to act as anti-torpedo role.
This is definitely the way to go. Bolt a CIWS to a star-fighter, slave it to a simple targeting computer, and you and your gunner (who just sits there telling the CIWS what to shoot) are the best dang team in the galaxy, at least if you're in most of these IPs.
Another piece of advice from our Aldebarani colleagues: don't be afraid to switch targets when fighting a swarm of enemies. Chasing a single enemy fighter will not only make you miss a lot of opportunities to deliver destruction to their allies, but will also leave you oblivious to their fire, potentially turning you into a very simple target. On fact, as an extension of that, I'd recommend engaging in short runs, in the following pattern: run at the enemy while shooting -> sudden sharp turn in a random direction (do not wait for a reason to do it - they are not supposed to expect it. You may be tempted to finish him off, but don't. He's going down further down the line anyway.) -> While flying in that random direction, look out for opportunitiesvto engage. Once you see an opening - go for it. You are at stage one again. Repeat until left with 1-2 enemies.
I heard somewhere a theory that the x-wings open up into attack position as a way to help dissipate heat. If that is the case then the guns on the end of the wings makes sense as the heat has to travel over half the ship to get near the pilot, with this in mind the b-wing design actually makes sense. So although it makes it easier for a tie to shoot it also might create heat problems that limits how long they can fire.
Turn into the attack and don’t run (unless you have vastly superior acceleration and speed and don’t have to worry about high speed missiles; like F4s against MiG17s in Vietnam where the F4s could extend away and turn around for “boom and zoom” attack tactics) is Basic Fighter Maneuver training for fighter aircraft. The same principles apply in Battlestar Galactica fighter maneuvers.
That BSG episode "Scar" is my favorite. It, more than any other, dealt with combat pilots and tactics realistically. Starbuck's advice came strait from the bible of dogfighting, "Dicta Boelcke". It was a manual on dogfighting written by Oswald Boelcke, the guy that taught the Red Baron everything he knew. Anyway, another great video guys. Keep up the good work.
The being a TIE pilot sucking reminds me of what Katarn said of them once. "Your generic TIE grunt is just plain suicidal. And the TIE Defender jockey is bloodthirsty. But the TIE Interceptor pilot, he's suicidal and bloodthirsty. When you see a squad of those maniacs flying your way, you'd better hope your hyperdrive is operational."
I made a drone that had a railgun that shot mini nukes at mid-short range (only about 10 shots can be carried unfortunately) so the plan is you put your mothership in an eccentric orbit close to an interception, send out the drones and correct the course, thanks to the high interception speed, very few drones can be taken out, and you don't have the problems with missiles at high interception speeds where you cannot correct your course in time. As long as your vernier thrusters are good enough, you can always nuke your target multiple time! I also made a version with a conventional nuke firing gun which can launch heavier nukes at the cost of reload speed and mass of the gun itself.
Something id like to see in space dogfighting more is orbits, since setting up a good orbit to attack means you can dodge shots and still let your orbital speed " carry " you up to them and then away, at whcih point you can turn around and keep firing while dodging as you zip away and eventually behind the planet
Wouldn't one assume that ships like the X-Wing would have an adjustable "zero" for their cannons? I've assumed that would be the role of an automated targeting system, which would theoretically increase the odds of a hit as long as the targeting system gets the distance and lead time correct within a few kilometers.
One thing on jousting though: In a realistic setting, jousting would likely be the primary type of combat, since you will likely see one ship on intercept orbit and charging towards the other ship, with both ships facing each other and trying to saturate the space around each other with so much fire that it can’t be dodged anymore. Either that, or it’ll just be two ships on the opposite side of a planet lobbing missiles/ dipping in and out of the horizon line firing lasers. And if you ever get close enough for “dogfight” combat in interplanetary space, then somebody has screwed up big time. Unless you are passing each other, on separate orbits and just so happen to get into gun range, in which case you’ll just default back to single pass jousting.
Why would you face the ship, giving it a steady target, when otherwise you would be harder to hit? And realistically there would be a huge difference between space battles in open space and space battles in orbit.
You would face the enemy to get all of your weapons to bear, while still providing the smallest silhouette possible. And don't forget that in space, real space, you can move laterally, so that you can dodge incoming fire, while always facing the enemy.
Effective laser range is likely limited to a few thousand kilometers, efficient kinetics range to a few hundred, provided you dont have 100m long multi thousand ton guns. Missiles will ahve theoretically infinite range, but only so much delta v and acceleration to plot an intercept. Unless we are talking fusion torches it will likely be at most 100kmps dv, with a few dozen g peak acceleration. Missiles will be lobbed in immense opening vollies, and faced with point defence drones, immense flak clouds and laser weaponry. The few that make it through will wreak untold havoc on single targets with their nuclear HEAt warheads or nuke pumped grasers, and the debris of these vessels may cause some follow up damage to nearby friendlies. Depending on the propprtion of pd to missile spam, the remaining ships may or may not be combat effective, and close to within a thousand kilometers for the deadly game of bingo, trying to saturate all possible manouver vectors of their opposite number with fire. Lasers likely wont be a one hit weapon, but require prolonged time on target, unless we are talking insanely huge focusing mirrors pumping hundreds of gigawatts through. These would also have greater range, but would likely be planet bound to manage the truly insane amount of waste heat.
Enjoying the new editing of things you doing, tossing them in there a bit and such makes it funny and get your point across when the mood is right. Nice.
Jao Jao - Yeah but currently anti-space missiles are meant for slower moving targets like satellites. A fighter craft like a Viper might be a harder target to hit.
The next space race will be who can gain military control of Earth's orbit first. Whoever can get a military space vessel up there first will be able to take out the satellites of other countries with virtual impunity should the next World War arrive.
"Your generic TIE grunt is just plain suicidal. And the TIE Defender jockey is bloodthirsty. But the TIE Interceptor pilot, he's suicidal and bloodthirsty. When you see a squad of those maniacs flying your way, you'd better hope your hyperdrive is operational." ~Kyle Katarn
LOL!! I love your T.I.E. Fighter breakdown... From a design standpoint, I really like it. It was in fact the first true 'space fighter' I'd ever seen in film. However the Japanese Zero aspect does make it a dual wing suicide ball.
That's really unfair, the A6M had excellent visibility and was one of the first planes with a cockpit that gave the pilot such a wide field of view. It was a good plane, and just like its immediate predecessor (the A5M) was probably one the better planes out there at its inception... Unlike the TIE that's actively trying to get the pilot killed for no good reason and having accomplished nothing.
@@harmen2456 There is two advantages the tie has that everyone over looks. Those huge wings all but disappear in the top and rear profile leaving only the cockpit as any target. More importantly though ties in addition to lacking shields also have no life support, so the pilot is flying in an eva suit, making it possible to survive if the craft is lost. Unlike the pressurized cockpit of other fighters, where the pilot is in an open faced helmet. Not sure if it is canon, but every tie toy even going back to the original ‘77 tie depicts them having ejection seats.
You can "joust" at a target in a spiral pattern, making it very hard to hit you. This works pretty well in Star Citizen, but i can assume in other games as well. You fire the maneuvering thrusters on 2 adjacent sides of the ship and that makes the ship "circle-roll".
I love your content and this is your best video. I don't care that is it 2 years old. I can watch this over and over and I just love every second of it. Thank you.
1:00 Thats why B5 star fury's are so awesome in battles. Same with whitestar warships 3;40 its the same thing on the game Fractured Space... you need to focus the weaker armor points and broken armor on ships.
Funny you should mention the widely spaced cannons... I distinctly remember in Michael Stackpole's X-Wing series, Wedge was talking with his crew chief about how his new X-wing was set up and he mentioned not only a convergence point, which I seem to recall as being somewhere around 400 meters, where all four bolts meet up, but also that the cannons are on shock mounts that lock up if a certain amount of load is applied, such as during maneuvers, or when Wedge hangs off of one to check the give.
I just want to congratulate you on an excellent channel and excellent material. In a world of youtube saturated with scifi monologuers you've managed to present interesting content in a stylish and concise manner. Thanks and keep up the good work
The TIE interceptor at least tried to rectify the TIE's problems by making a cut-out in the solar panels but then it places the blasters farther apart...
As far as i remember, when flying a Tie Interceptor ot Advanced/Avenger, it was recommended to set the fire controls to quad fire, slower rate of fire, yes, but larger chances to hit and good chance of hitting a target at least three times with a single shoot. It was also recommended that when flying a tie fighter, never go on a fight alone, allways try to have at least two Ties on a single target, always check on the targeting indicator that warns you of an enemy fighter locking on you and meneuver out of it asap.
@@spiceracksargent0014 That's part of the imperial doctrine, rookie pilots get cheap-expendable tie fighters, if they are still alive after a few combat missions, then let them fly bombers, then interceptos, if the pilot insists on being alive, then probably is skilled enough to be a valuable asset and so move on to play with the expensive shielded fighters.
Actually, even in Star Wars, where shields are heavily "evolved" compare to other Sci-Fi universes, Missiles are still used, like concussion missiles. Even if shields were very powerful, you could either have a EMP missile (basically a mini-nuke) to take it down or simply fire more missile. It doesn't really take a advance AI to lock onto a target from km away and fire a missile, in fact, it would be easier because you don't have to account for drag and turning radius. Point Defense guns aren't typically found on fighters or bombers, while the Point Defense on the larger ships would be more oriented towards targeting ship busting Missiles/Torpedoes instead of the small, anti-fighter missiles since the larger missiles/Torpedoes will be more of a threat to the ship then the fighter missiles.
Several things : First, many fighter aircraft mount their guns far out on the wings for ease of design, avoiding the mentioned problem by having the shots not fire quite straight so they "converge" at a particular range. Second, while maybe not the most obvious thing to think about, having the guns mounted in the same axis as your only strong thrusters is a mistake. This does not allow you to move laterally relative to your target while firing at them, basically meaning you will have a constant bearing while you aim at your target. The way to get around this is to mount strong engines at the bottom of your fighter to allow you to strafe while holding an angle, and an equal engine on the rear to allow you to cancel outward motion (holding your nose on target while strafing means you go in a spiral out.) Rolling on the long axis of a fighter is the easiest, meaning you can strafe in any direction relative to the target by rolling. It's important to remember you can always aim at them and they can always aim at you - it's just a matter of whether you NEED to point somewhere else.
In discussing the guns spacing issue, you've overlooked that aircraft guns have a mechanism to set a convergence point with its guns. In the WWII fighter planes this had to be done since the .50 cal machines guns in the wings needed to hit enemy aircraft within the same space to be effective. Convergence was typically set between 200 and 300 yards at the pilot's preference. In those days it had to be adjusted and set before flight, but could be done. It is not difficult to imagine that some micro-servo could set the convergence to some fixed range at the push of a button in modern, or future dog fighters.
'Don't go head to head in a dog fight' Me after what must be at least 200 head-on-collisions with other players in War Thunder at this point; 'Why not?'
The thing is that head on's are pretty good if you have the weapon superiority, like a spitfire vs a quad 7.62 109, you can dish out more damage without risking giving the enemy your side, just make sure to pull out of the joust when under 200m
Very good video. Two points I want to make: 1. You're absolutely right about disengaging being a suicidal maneuver. The only way to escape, other than outrunning them (if you're faster), is to do a quick hard burn, then power off, in the hopes that you disappear from sight, and you lose all heat and EM signatures. But that's not guaranteed, and you're leaving yourself wide open. 2. I'd imagine spacecraft of the future have some kind of gimble to automatically bring your guns to focus on one point, AKA convergence factor. Hell, StarCitizen models this, if you have gimbles attached.
There really isn't enough space series out there that cover this fact. I think Halo does it pretty well, BSG, obviously...but everything else, not so much.
Thanks for the information this will surely come in handy when I find my space fighter again. I just don't get why they always go for the whole world war 2 dogfight. I think every single sci-fi shows should stop using the "WWII Dogfight Rule" instead they should use the more accurate "Starbucks Rule". Because that way it will make the dogfights in Space even more better. Also the Colonial Viper Mark II is my absolute favourite because it doesn't fall for the "WWII Dogfight Rule".
It's relatable by everyone and you don't have to explain anything. That's why they always go to the WWII Dogfight. On the other hand, if you think your universe through, you get something like the Expanse or the so-callen 'Honorverse' with exiting space battles that look unique. Not like Star Trek: Discovery with ships that fly around without any visible sense or tactic making 'pewpewpew'.
@@grayscribe1342 also the expanse has starship designs which actually make some kind of sense, no sheilds, no magic artificial gravity and apart from the epstein drive the majority of the technology is stuff we can build or have primitive versions of already which helps give the universe a good grounding for veiwers
Freespace 1 and 2. I learned abourmt jousting the hard way. And yes you ALWAYS try to position yourself above your target even if it's a 5 degree angle. As soon as your targets profile widens it's game over for them
Solid advice. Play Tie Fighter on highest difficulty. The first mission proves all of this true and necessary to continue. Especially if you try for achievement of the 16 bonus objectives as waves of rebel fighters and assault shuttles that can one shot your poor Tie Fighter if you don't use every advantage you can.
I remember a line in one of the X-Wing novels about pilots being able to set the zero-points of their laser cannons (that is to say, angle them slightly inward so the four X-Wing laser bolts converge a set distance away, maybe 1km or so). I think this mechanic was in the game X-Wing Alliance too. That helps negate the laser cannon distance issue.
Nope, definitely was NOT in XWA. You're actually close, though. XWA and XVT (if I'm remembering correctly) both had this mechanic where, if you had your crosshair lined up for a shot, your projectiles would *automatically* converge at the right range for the target. In other words, they'd be set to converge closer for a nearer target and farther away for a far-off target. I was absolutely *fascinated* by that shit back in the 90s. I did, however, find a source that stated that the original X-Wing and TIE Fighter games did NOT have that feature, so it could be that's what you're thinking of? Annnnnd I seem to recall there being a keybind to deactivate automatic convergence, so that could also be it.
Just one thing on the placement of guns. World War II aircraft that had their weapon replaced on the wings actually had a system we're by the guns would be mounted on slate angles that could be adjusted for range. as such each aircraft had an optimal range at which to engage a target where the rounds would converge. I always assumed that that was how the X-Wing and the arc-170 ETC worked
AKTUALY, blasters on wing pylons wouldn't affect the accuracy of the ship as viewed from the pilot, because they would be angled to cross at a certain distance. WW2 fighters had the same thing and their machine guns were angled to fire inwards so that at 500-300 m (depending on the pilot) all guns hit the same area. The advantage is that you clear up the fuselage volume for much heavier sensors of fuel to be closer to the COG of the ship.
Jousting is favoured tactic of Cobra mk3 and Cobra mk4 pilots in Elite Dangerous because they both have very slim forward cross sections and ok shields with all their armaments facing forward. The best tactic to counter this is to boost in same direction as the enemy and turn flight assist off so you can flip your ship 180 degrees and continue going in the same direction as the enemy then let rip with your weapons. The Cobra pilots then have a choice of exploding quickly or changing their tactics from jousting to a turning fight which exposes their larger dorsal or ventral cross section and makes them an easier target. You were right on point in this video.
There is a reason why we called ties flying coffins. That said the common imperial tactic of out numbering everyone else in a dogfight could make up for this for at least the first minute or so. On a side note slave 1 or the Firespray class cutter as it is known was never intended as a dogfighter. Its a customs enforcement ship dealing with bulk freighters carring at most a half-dozen popgun lasers spread over the whole ship.
Anyone that played Jumpgate: The Reconstruction Initiative learned all of this very quickly. Dogfights were always "circle fights" that involved trying to outpace your opponent's rate of turn to get behind, or at least have the highest angular velocity, since the most difficult target to lead was one that was orbiting. Pilots that jousted head-on, or drifted while rotating ("turreting") were annihilated quickly.
That second point about the wider profiles and the example you used amused me a bit because it's one of the main reasons I always considered dog fighting Y-wings in Star Wars Galaxies and TIE fighter to be something of a joke--all I had to do was stay on their tail and bait the other pilot into turning and I'd win. Their slow speed and bad handling only made things worse, because it meant once they'd exposed that angle they had a hard time correcting it than I would in a TIE or similar. That said, this all gave me a shitload of respect for any pilot in canon that made a name for themselves as an ace in a Y-Wing, because I knew exactly how hard that was to pull off.
All that aside, I loved the "Tie Fighter" game. Especially the mission where you cleared a minefield in an unshielded craft while being shot at by... well, everybody.
As far as your comment on the ARC's wing mounted guns, one way to remedy that problem is to set the guns at an angle so the blasterbolts will hit at the same spot at a specific range (also known as 'gun convergence') with wing mounted weapons, you could also bring more firepower then nose or chin mounted weapon systems
Random bit of information: Fighters have a convergence distance, this basically positions the guns in a way that if you wanted to fire a target at 500 meters that the rounds will hit that point if you have it zero'd to it. Which is why you see rounds cross each other in games like warthunder. So basically weapon positioning doesn't matter in any fighter as you can make them work.
I have played X-Wing,TIE Fighter,and Wing Commander 1 and 2. and all you say works. Just one thing on jousting, in all four games I have played, I have found that it is best to duck under when they start firing so you can hit there under side (this is better done in X-Wing and TIE Fighter,but can be done in Wing Commander 1 and 2 when timed right)
Another, even more crucial piece of advice, is that since there is no drag in space, 6DoF is everpresent. Use it! You can fly up, down, strafe, and fly backwards. Keep moving as Daniel said, but use 6DoF to keep your guns and smallest-silhouette pointed towards the enemy.
On WWII fighters, like the P-51 Mustang, the 6 machine guns were not mounted so they fired absolutely straight. The 2 inner-most guns (on left & right) were canted inward, slightly. For example, their rounds would converge at 300 meters. The 2 middle guns would converge at 325. The 2 outer guns would converge at 350 meters. These points of convergence were adjustable to the pilot's preference. In your video, the space guns, or lasers would probably have a convergence point as well, and be able to hit targets with a small width.
You know that actually reminds me of the pilot training in X-wing Alliance. The instructor actually tells you not to go head to head and instead maneuver to evade and get in on the tail of your target. That's literally the only time in any space flight combat sim that I can remember where that advice was given.
I used to play Elite Dangerous a lot. Jousting is a big thing in that game and indeed as said here the best approach is always to learn to fly using maneuvering thrusters and get a shot through the top of an enemy as its turning. I always felt that game lead to the logical conclusion that the most important weapon for a fighter is maneuverability.
Small editing mix-up at 0:30. The pilot Starbuck gives that advice to was BB not Kat. Our bad!
How much of this video was inspired by watching Alasdair play Wing Commander on the stream?
Space is very big and space ships are very small. What it comes down to you can't have a space battle unless both parties agree to it.
For point 2 if you break away from a head to head does that not give more opportunity to get behind you rather than the other way round.
rob kemp
That would invite heavy ECM and jamming trying to get the hostile drones to loose signal. Otherwise it would be similar to online-games... for a ~40ms lag you'd be limited to a range of 6000 km by signal lag alone not even taking the time for your systems to translate it into human-readible images.
rob Kemp that's smart and could work, in fact they pretty much did that in GOTG2 lol it was cool as hell there too
I died of laughter the second you said that being a TIE Fighter pilot sucked! It was just perfectly timed in the video. Good stuff!
Yeah the video was OK up to that point then he just goes off on a rant about how much the tie fighter sucks and it's glorious,
I was really underwhelmed overall by this video... and then he dropped that bomb on me and I just couldn't stop laughing.
I think he realized that he needed a little something extra to make this video resonate with his audience, and threw that gem in... gotta say... it definitely worked.
I enjoyed the fact that I felt he was about to burst into laughter during that tirade because it was honestly hilarious
lancer737 lancer737 No, the TIE fighter does have a terrible field of view, it does have two massive slabs of metal welded to the side that is easy to hit, it isn't shielded to compensate and was shot down by a heavier, but infantry carried weapon in Rogue One. Just look at when a TIE pursues the Falcon in episode V and tries to slip into the same crack as the Falcon. It gets *screwed* because it is so wide that the slit a passenger-freight ship can slip through a TIE cannot. It is wider than the Falcon is tall. That is atrocious design.
lancer737
1. No, you're completely wrong on the point of them having 360-degree vision. In no Canon or Legends source has it ever been stated that the TIE pilot can do that.
2. ECM is also not mentioned a single time in any of the cross sections of the ship.
3. The handheld weapon in question was based off a bowcaster except weaker, which is a kinetic weapon, aka, it fires an actual projectile. Projectiles don't have different energy settings.
4. The reason weapons on A-wings and B-wings are more powerful is because they have a power source that feeds them that power. The larger the reactor, the larger the damage they can do.
5. The TIE interceptor flew through gases that weren't volatile until shot at, we were told that directly within the episode, so that's not impressive. Nebulae are in a realistic scenario, completely harmless swirls of gas that are as dangerous as your own atmosphere.
The TIE interceptor close to the forming star exploded in *6 seconds* whereas the other one lasted about 11 before it had to break off, whereas the Ghost, a ship that was shielded as well as its two Y-wings survived for a *full minute* with the Ghost taking substantial damage but still being capable of flight. The Y-wings showed zero negative effects from the star. The only TIE that managed to survive even close to that long was the Defender that was present, a *shielded* variant that is highly advanced.
6. I'll concede on that point, they did collide with each other, but a clever pilot in that situation would've flown over the obstacle in question, not into it. HOWEVER. The reason why that collision between a USN submarine and a Japanese fishing boat happened was that the personnel in the said ship were not who should've been in there, they were supplementary. The sonar operator was unqualified to stand watch. There were also civilians aboard that distracted the personnel further. Standard procedure wasn't followed either. (Edit here) To add onto that once more, the submarine was performing an emergency surfacing action, which is *impossible to stop once it's commenced.* The submarine rises so quickly that it flies out of the water slightly from the sheer force. A small, agile, fast fighter craft is *not an enormous, sluggish and emergency diving submarine.* (Edit ends)
None of those things is true about the pilots in that collision. They drove into a tight space in a formation that was far too close and crashed with each other. That just means that TIE fighter pilots are undertrained and shouldn't be put in the seat of anything.
(Another edit) So what I know is that a TIE fighter will explode from heat like that in less than 6-11 seconds seeing as its armour is weaker (That a Y-wing survived in for over a minute) any claims you have on ECM and 360-degree vision I can't find *any proof for,* plus that it is a massive target.
(WOO EDITS)
"The design choices of the TIE/Ln could arguably be explained by Imperial military philosophy, which viewed the starfighters and their pilots as an expendable asset. Though Imperial pilots were of an elite stock, they were also expected to consider themselves expendable, in accordance with their ideological training.
Other Imperial pilots considered TIE Fighter pilots to be suicidal due to how expendable the starfighters were."
When the pilots of your *own army call TIE pilots suicidal* it's hard to defend the craft in *any way.*
(God damn there's so much editing) To add EVEN FURTHER, the Canon TIE/mg had intentionally removed 4 of the panels on the front which gave them less speed and firepower but *"increased visibility".* If you have 360-degree vision, what the hell would you need increased visibility for?
I always assumed the "locking on" function you see in dogfights was to gimbal the guns to converge on the correct distance to hit the target all at once, since it never seems to nail the target on the first try like actual tracking would do.
good point.
the computer calculating the right distance, speed and trajectory, so that the course of the shot and the enemy ship meet.
Most fighters don’t have gimbaling guns. Usually the “lock on” feature just means the radar is tracking and providing HUD symbology to aid in aiming the craft and hence, the guns. At least that’s how it works IRL; and it seems it’s the same in most SciFi franchises. But if craft did have gimbaled guns, convergence wouldn’t matter. The guns just have to point in the right direction.
Ayyyyye yeah i made a comment trying to explain this though i know this video is pretty old now, i just rewatched it and re found my comment and i think its still very relevant: 4:59 i feel like with these types of videos people try to put real life physics or other universes physics into the StarWars universe when its just simply not how it works in SW but that's a different subject, in this situation i just want to point out that blasters are able to converge onto a target somewhat and even lock on to it and aim outside of the straight line so really what your seeing is a cone of influence in front of the fighter so spreading them out on the edges of the wings (like the X-Wing for example) would help that cone of influence, do u remember the death star run when Vader was messing with buttons to lock onto Luke that wasn't just to launch missiles (which the fighter does not have) he was locking on with his blasters.
Real life WWII fighter planes with main guns in their wings eliminated the problem by pointing the guns slightly inwards, so there's a crossing point somewhere around 300-500m in front of a plane. That's where the enemy usually is during the dogfight.
in WW2 and in air combat and at these speeds ..... this makes sense. in space at higher speeds and vastly greater distances this gets irrelevant.
Psych Olocke It doesn't. You hust have to set your guns for the expected engagement distance.
Wedge says the same thing in one of the X-Wing series of books (I forget which)
Id Think the X-wing has some sort of Computer system that slightly changes the alignment of the quad lasers to focus on what is in-front of the ship based on the distance.
You can manually set the gun convergence in some planes. No reason why you shouldn't be able to do this with advanced space fighters.
If anyone plays Elite Dangerous... This is why using Flight Assist off, even temporarily, is so crucial in battles.
This advice is actually relevant in Elite.
Elite Dangerous is the big one, but there's a few other games where it's extremely helpful as well. The I-War duology springs to mind as a big example, since your default ship in both games is a *corvette*. Learning when to turn and how is essential to keeping yourself alive.
Good to see another Elite player. o7!
also when runnign away, heck i do quite well doing corkscrews in my cutter to avoid fixed fire form FDL and the like. if i am in my combat anaconda and trying to escape i will retract hardpoints and start piloting to buy time and force opponent to maneuver as well, minimizing time on target
you misunderstood the whole purpose of the video... it was supposed to not really be relevant don't you dare find usefull stuff in it!
I tend to fight players with FA off. Main reason is because I fly the Cutter (2nd largest ship), while it's turning speed is shit, it's speed and shields make up for it. Flying with flight assist off and boosting around tents to keep the enemy in my line of sight even if I'm vsing a FDL, Krait, FedGunship ect (smaller more maneuverable ships). When it comes to running I just keeping boosting and turning into the enemy until my FSD is ready to go then I boost away and jump.
Thanks! I won't use this advice in the near future
until you get drafted into the Space Corps and have to go up against alien saucer ships.....then some of this will be like maybe Spacedock was on to something lolz
The Scryve Empire is coming and the Earth Defence Force fighter corps need *YOU!*
But you will use it in the not-too-distant future
If the Galactic Empire came to Earth, I'd join them.
Here I thought the Imperial navy was recruiting, I’d anything to fly a TIE hunter/defender/phantom
Spacedock: "You will certainly never use this information."
Some random dude from the future, who decided to watch a 1000 year old video and aspires to a space pilot: "Funny, everything you just said is utterly wrong."
That honestly puts a smile on my face , wholesome
Even know
“Don’t go head to head in a space dogfight”.
Learned this lesson decades ago playing the very first Wing Commander game. Went head to head against a Dralthi in a Hornet in one of the first missions. We both died. Good memories.
Learned quite the opposite in the X-Wing series. When the enemy has weaker guns, weaker hull, better speed, better maneuverability, an AI that has unironically laser perfect aim, and numbers on its side to boot, you actually take less damage by going for a head to head pass and taking out an enemy fighter before the dogfight begins.
Depends on the ship myself and the enemy have, but I often go head to head in Wing Commander. Put it on full guns, fire at max range, than as soon as my shields start taking hits break off and try to get behind them. It helps for my style as in a turn fight I often over lead my target and end up hitting near the front of their ship, where their shields are already weakened from the first pass.
Yeah, you can get away with a joust one-on-one against most Kilrathi fighters as you generally have more shields and often more powerful guns. Don't try it with a Jalthi, though, you're gonna have a bad time.
You can get away with it if you have a rapid fire gun and start shooting as soon as the opponent is the size of a dot. I think it is probably a bug in the code.
Fun game.
The most realistic dogfight in science fiction is in the book “The Forever War”. The starship detects a missile that is weeks away from impacting it. They put everybody into high G force chambers and let the computer make evasive maneuvers. Bottom line, humans cannot dogfight in space versus automated missiles.
Gonna have to Disagree here too.
Stealth/vs detection is gonna be the real game at long range.
it's entirely possible that space combat will be relatively short range simply because of how easy stealth may be in space.
for all we know. missiles will end up almost useless against a target that can turn and dog fighting may end up being the best course of action... I don't think its likely. but it is entirely possible.
why put them in G-force chambers when there's no gravity to give you any G? the ship's artificial gravity exists but that's the only one affecting the crew
@@piscessoedroen I have no way to know if you have ever studied physics. I do not mean to be condescending. If a spacecraft accelerates or turns (which is another form of acceleration) it will induce G force on everything inside. Just think about sitting in the back seat of a car when the driver makes a high speed turn and you fly to the other side. In space, at high speeds, these forces would crush a human. Most science fiction films ignore this or have a “artificial gravity field” to make the plot work. Forever War tried to handle it realistically
@@OhNoNotAgain42 i know physics, atleast up to just before stuff you learn at university. It's just that space is something that i have difficulty to grasp on to, especially when literally every space scifi i know have some sort of local gravity in their crafts. Thanks for the explanation and reminding me stuff in space still acts like earth
@@awesomeonejess no stealth in space
A. Engines are pretty bright, especially when theirs no atmosphere or curvature of the planet to block light, you could detect the space shuttle engines out from Pluto, you could detect the space shuttles maneuvering thrusters from the asteriod belt.
B. Everything on a ship is hot, especially when compared to vacuum, engines are basically a flamethrower/nuclear meltdown pointed away from your ship, and even life support Temps are gonna make your ship pop out like a skyscraper in a empty desert.
C. Just look up Nicoll's law for me
Jousting. The first five minutes of every war thunder match
I immediately thought of War Thunder when Daniel mentioned jousting...
Ditto
What do you mean I shouldn't fly head on at an enemy in my Zero?!?
Mmm...delicious idiot...
This made me remember WT too
As a Tie fighter pilot in squadrons, I did realize an advantage of the Tie fighter (I use interceptor mostly). The way the cockpit may be set up you cant see around you but you can much better see what is in front of you. In a X-Wing or any other Rebel ship, you can basically only see the top half of the screen. Ties don't have this problem. This is useful when going fast around big astroids or trying to escape. There are sensors to tell you if someone is behind you so I think it's a good trade-off. You're not going to look backward or at least you should not cause you may hit something ahead of you.
Following your rules, it seems like Babylon 5's Starfury is the best dogfighting fighter. Close mounted guns, doesn't present a large silhouette from most angles, engines allow it to turn very quickly on a dime ...
The first time I saw a Starfury evading enemy fire, turning around while still going in the same direction and fireing at the pursuing raider is still burned in my memory.
I'd agree that Babylon 5's Starfury (and its derivations) are really the top 3 best space dogfighter if not the best. They can move forward, move backward, move sideward, move in an angle and pretty much anything else you can think of. Weapons not so great but for years that was the only thing B5 station had.
I would agree that the Starfury is one of the best but The Gunstar from “The Last Starfighter” would be just a little bit better except for the silhouette but if I remember it did have shields.
Gunstars are a whole other beast because they're covered in turreted guns, even on the back. You can't dogfight against them because your positioning is largely pointless; a starfury can quickly spin to point at you, but a gunstar can be pointing in one direction while shooting in another, facing largely doesn't matter.
The starfury's engine layout was also probably also copied from the gunstar; even the thruster nozel arrangment on each engine is identical.
Somewhat large profile, though.
This advice is extremely useful. I was in a space dogfight just yesterday, so this advice will definitely prove useful.
"Being a tie fighter SUCKS!!!" I almost died laughing since Daniel is normally very stoic and clinical.
He was talking about piloting one, not being one.
@@JackVermicelli Though it doesn't change the fact that if you are a sentient Tie Fighter. Pray that the force itself is on the side of your pilot.
@@alonelyperson6031 fun fact: sentient TIE fighters were a thing in Legends. Their existence was equally horrible, if not more so, compared to a pilot of a more ordinary TIE.
@@nickmalachai2227 Huh. Wait, you mean it in the droid sense or the spiritualy alive but dead logically.
@@alonelyperson6031 in the "lobotomised skilled pilots and put their brain inside customized TIE fighters controlled through the dark side" way.
"A-Wing would slip right between the shots"
Err, except most every Star Wars snubfighter with mirrored blasters has them turned slightly inwards so that they converge on a target, and the distance to that point of convergence can be fairly easily altered to suit the pilot's preferences.
That is because they are actually WWII fighters in space, carrying out WWII dogfights and attack runs.
Yeah, the movies and games all support this. The guns are always on gimbals that always make sure the guns fire at the center of the reticle.
At around 4:50 when you're talking about the convergence zone, that's a real life problem that was faced by fighter aircraft in WWII called gun harmonization. This was the trade off for having more guns in the wings meant having a limited zone where all the bullets fly through. The P-38 Lightning got around that problem by concentrating it's armament in the nose which had been freed from carrying an engine. This, combined with it's cannon armament, made it better at what you called 'jousting' since it was able to put rounds on target far further out than lighter aircraft with wing mounted weapons.
The top WWII American Flying Ace, Richard Bong (credited with 40 kills), flew the P-38 in the Pacific. He stated that he had poor aim, and as a result, would engage most planes straight on (in a joust attack). Thanks to the P-38's nose mounted weapons and the weak armor of the Japanese A6M Zeros he was facing, he quickly racked up a lot of kills. One time he got so close to a Zero that he crashed into it, his P-38 survived, but the Zero did not!
If you played homeworld you should remember how the dogfight between fighters look like: vessels fly towards each other firing (joisting) the after they flew past each other they do 180 turn and continue firing and after distance between surviving fighters become big enough they turn on their engines and cycle repeats. Looked pretty cool)
If you play any newtonian space dogfight games (Babylon 5 I Found Her for example), jousting actually happens quite a lot due to momentum. Every time you miscalcuate the relative velocity between you and your target - which is ALWAYS because squishy human brains suck at that sort of thing, your momentum carries you past them and them past you. So you both turn around... and do it again. Because squishy human brains suck. Trying to stop the joust just ends up matching velocities with the target, which gives the games AI a perfect shot at you... also bad, because the AI has better aim then you (did I mention squishy human brains suck?). The ideal situation is actually jousting in a ellipse so you have angular momentum vs the target to dodge incoming fire with, but still gives you a close range window to fire accurately in. So jousting is totally a thing that would actually happen, notwithstanding inertia dampening magic that lets you decelerate stupidly fast.
Also -"Bravery and stupidity" I lol'd at the screencaps for that comment.
I played that game and that was only a problem for me in the first couple of hours when I was getting a feel for the controls
Inertia dampening magic? Have you never heard of gravity (in Star Wars it's called repulsor tech)? I'm pretty sure that's not magic.
Allen Helmer even in void warfare, you would still receive g-force when sudden change of speed, inertia dampening magic better have a g- dispersor or everyone inside is space slime.
wich means you can't accelerate faster than 100m/s^2 unless you want to pass out, heck that's 10G and even that is extreme and probably makes anyone unable to function as a human being like aim, or drive the spacevessel...
let me rewrite: 10G will knock out anyone not fit for piloting, and will knock out some of the fit for piloting guys as well...
In space there can be NO sci-fi Star Wars like WW2-style dogfight. Think more like "Asteroids". Spacecraft can freely rotate around all axes x,y,z and always keep weapons on target no matter what direction they are moving. Engagement distances can be over 100s or even 1000s of kilometers, kinetic weapons have unlimited range (no friction) although the projectilres fired would be abysmally slow to reliably hit anything far out while energy weapons (laser beams?) score instant hits since laser photon particles travel at the speed of light. Dogfighting-esque Air Combat Maneuvers would only take place within atmospheres or ultra-dense gas clouds (which do not exist), and in such a setting spacecraft would most likely resemble warplanes as they would need wing like structures to provide lift, counterbalance gravity, and provide control surfaces such as ailerons, rudders and flaps.
You should also "try spinning, that's a good trick."
With the exception that it just makes you more likely to get hit, unless you spin responsibly.
Spinning is a hard art to master, you want to spin fast enough that it matters, and slow enough that you dont just end up getting hit more
"You never want to go head to head against an enemy fighter"
Reminds me of the time playing Tie Fighter when I learned that an X-wing has a blind spot in its cannon spread at dead center of the fighter that's just slightly larger than the ball cockpit of the Tie Fighter. So there I am in an unshielded flying coffin going head to head against a rugged, high firepower fighter and having no problem whatsoever......Yeah. Don't ever do that in real life.
Raving Nutter Never a good idea to really head on anything with more guns than you
WWII fighters with wide mounted guns usually were set to converge at a specific range. This was done on the ground. With advanced spacecraft a gimbled system with a constantly adjusting range would be more likely.
If you could fly though it through the X-wings weapons spread that was most likely bad programming because of them not knowing how guns were used IRL.
Can't really speak about the programmers knowledge, but at least some of the book writers for the X-Wing book series knew about the convergence point of the weapons. There are a few times when adjusting the focal distance is mentioned, including when Wedge is discussing the adjustments made prior to the attack on the first Death Star. (They were adjusted for a higher range than usual so they could hit surface targets from a safer distance. Which might also explain why only a few TIE fighters were taken out on screen...)
It's possible that the X-Wings don't have gimbals on their weapons, given the integration of the weapon mounts into the S-Foils of the ship.
"Unless you're in a TIE Defender. Then go head to head all you want."
Wide-apart weapons only miss small target if the shooter's aim is perfectly on your center. Human player's aim would wiggle slightly, so the guns on one side would hit you.
2:16
This happens in War Thunder a lot. It’s called ‘Heads Upping’, and is high-risk, high-reward. It tends to end either with both sides dead via gunfire or ram, or neither side dead. It takes a lot of skill ( that i don’t gave ) to have a successful heads-up.
I think you mean head-on.
Same happens in free space.... recommended to not use afterburners at a close range when doing this... trust me... unless you are skilled an know when to turn... don't
If the enemy has superior power and agility, a head-on engagement will rule out thier advantage. A stuka D5 will always prefer the head-on while a me 109 will want to avoid it.
Imagine thinking head-ons require skill.
It's not hard to imagine why a significant number of the Rebellion's pilots are former TIE pilots themselves.
Fuck TIE fighters
@@alejandroelluxray5298 All my homies hate TIE fighters.
Survivors* of tie fighters.
"Styrofoam balls"
TIEs in a nutshell.
The first space flight sim game I played that had dogfighting that I liked was Tachyon: The Fringe. The "Slide" feature allowed for crazy strafing attacks with very high angular velocity and flipping around "backwards" to easily attack an enemy that was attacking you.
yup, that is proper space fighting. an object in motion stays in motion on a straight path.
(4:31) If I remember correctly, real world fighter craft have their projectile weapons slightly canted inward so that the fire converges at some distance ahead. I seem to remember seeing a WW2 training film that talked about that. I'm not sure if weapons mounted toward the centerline of the airframe still employ a bit of angling. We need someone with expertise to comment on that. ;) I think sci-fi ships would have a targeting computer that would align the weapons automatically so that the bolts would converge on the target, like the gimbaling you mentioned. Still, it is a factor! Thanks for another great vid! :)
I'd put them on a turret like base with a little less than 45 degrees of rotation and a lock-on/AI system.
CybershamanX you are correct WW2 planes had thier guns angled towards a center point for maximum hits it did lower maximum range though.
Some planes like the P-38 Lightning had a diffrent setup since it had two propellers so it had all it's guns in the nosecone so to say and that was a bit terrifying for the enemy pilots since the P-38 was able to open fire before you did.
CybershamanX I forget which book in the X-wing series, but they (X-wing’s cannons in this case) are set at a convergence and don’t make slight adjustments in flight. I believe for rouge squadron in this book it was 250 yards (or meters, don’t remember which really).
real world fighters would also have no crew and be computer aimed anyway, you could just as well use a sporadic guidance software to properly saturate a target with rounds. And hey iv everything else fails your expendable gun bot can always use the mass of its body to double as a missile
If the plane had its guns on the wings then yes, you could set the convergence distance to a set range but obviously not while in the air, thats why many fightesr like the BF109, P38 lightning and rhe soviet yaks had all orost of their guns in the nose, like the ties and naboo fighters
And that is when a starfury is so very deadly. Very small cross section especially at the rear. Good pilot visibility. Very maneuverable and can kill you fine backwards
Also another thing we learned: put turrets on your fighters. Seriously, frontal facing guns are good and all, but only when you are not constantly turning without air decreasing your target manouvrability. So instead of having 3 frontal guns have 1 frontal gun, 1 in the dorsal turret and 1 in the ventral turret.
You might think it makes no sense at first, but if you look at it we commonly think of spacefighters as, well, fighters in space, when instead they should be gunboats/helicopters in space.
Edit: and about balls, there's a War Thunder April Fools event where they did space fighters marvelously. Two turrets each side, many manoeuvring thrusters, very little armour.
that is why the Gunstar from the Last Starfighter is the PERFECT space combat vehicle
Turrets add weight and cost, if your ship can already turn on a dime with RCS why weigh it down with turrets? Maybe some gimballing for precise adjustments, but fully rotating turrets seem wasteful. If you need to hit someone chasing you, turn around and use thrust reversers. Anyone smart will break off, anyone dumb gets a face full of lead or plasma.
(EDIT) I actually like your helicoper/gunship analogy, aimable guns and missles make more sense than either fixed or fully rotating turrets.
You need to have a crew of 2-3 for turrets. With the fact that a space dogfight is fully 3D with the pilot required to pull stupid Gs and fly the ship with both him and his target able to turn on the spot, you can't ask that pilot to do more than fly and shoot things in front of them.
AI turrets would work, but then you've added something that can go wrong.
@@stephens7136 non-turreted craft would consume more fuel just to get their weapons on their target. Sure it can turn on a dime, but that doesn't mean it should do it all the time, considering that maneuver, if done incorrectly such as doing it too fast can disorient the pilot. Plus you also have to be mindful of your environment. You absolutely cannot turn on a dime in tunnels. Do a turn to shoot at the enemy chasing you and what happens when there's a sharp corner around?
Turreted fighters also give them anti-missle/torpedo capability and made them multifunctional too. They can just hang around their ship to act as anti-torpedo role.
This is definitely the way to go. Bolt a CIWS to a star-fighter, slave it to a simple targeting computer, and you and your gunner (who just sits there telling the CIWS what to shoot) are the best dang team in the galaxy, at least if you're in most of these IPs.
Another piece of advice from our Aldebarani colleagues: don't be afraid to switch targets when fighting a swarm of enemies. Chasing a single enemy fighter will not only make you miss a lot of opportunities to deliver destruction to their allies, but will also leave you oblivious to their fire, potentially turning you into a very simple target.
On fact, as an extension of that, I'd recommend engaging in short runs, in the following pattern: run at the enemy while shooting ->
sudden sharp turn in a random direction (do not wait for a reason to do it - they are not supposed to expect it. You may be tempted to finish him off, but don't. He's going down further down the line anyway.) ->
While flying in that random direction, look out for opportunitiesvto engage. Once you see an opening - go for it. You are at stage one again. Repeat until left with 1-2 enemies.
That’s exactly what fighter pilots in WWII said about fighting in fur balls.
I heard somewhere a theory that the x-wings open up into attack position as a way to help dissipate heat. If that is the case then the guns on the end of the wings makes sense as the heat has to travel over half the ship to get near the pilot, with this in mind the b-wing design actually makes sense. So although it makes it easier for a tie to shoot it also might create heat problems that limits how long they can fire.
Turn into the attack and don’t run (unless you have vastly superior acceleration and speed and don’t have to worry about high speed missiles; like F4s against MiG17s in Vietnam where the F4s could extend away and turn around for “boom and zoom” attack tactics) is Basic Fighter Maneuver training for fighter aircraft. The same principles apply in Battlestar Galactica fighter maneuvers.
That BSG episode "Scar" is my favorite. It, more than any other, dealt with combat pilots and tactics realistically. Starbuck's advice came strait from the bible of dogfighting, "Dicta Boelcke". It was a manual on dogfighting written by Oswald Boelcke, the guy that taught the Red Baron everything he knew. Anyway, another great video guys. Keep up the good work.
The being a TIE pilot sucking reminds me of what Katarn said of them once.
"Your generic TIE grunt is just plain suicidal. And the TIE Defender jockey is bloodthirsty. But the TIE Interceptor pilot, he's suicidal and bloodthirsty. When you see a squad of those maniacs flying your way, you'd better hope your hyperdrive is operational."
children of a dead earth: Slaps a railgun turret on a drone
this thing can kill everything and you don't waste life
Well technically you would waste a life but not in the same way you're thinking. >:)
In CoaDE, 250km range is basically where jousting starts. All meaningful maneuver are done far beyond that.
Or just let the drone work without radio control. Jamming made useless. Also, good luck jamming anything thousands of km away.
I made a drone that had a railgun that shot mini nukes at mid-short range (only about 10 shots can be carried unfortunately) so the plan is you put your mothership in an eccentric orbit close to an interception, send out the drones and correct the course, thanks to the high interception speed, very few drones can be taken out, and you don't have the problems with missiles at high interception speeds where you cannot correct your course in time. As long as your vernier thrusters are good enough, you can always nuke your target multiple time! I also made a version with a conventional nuke firing gun which can launch heavier nukes at the cost of reload speed and mass of the gun itself.
Something id like to see in space dogfighting more is orbits, since setting up a good orbit to attack means you can dodge shots and still let your orbital speed " carry " you up to them and then away, at whcih point you can turn around and keep firing while dodging as you zip away and eventually behind the planet
Wouldn't one assume that ships like the X-Wing would have an adjustable "zero" for their cannons? I've assumed that would be the role of an automated targeting system, which would theoretically increase the odds of a hit as long as the targeting system gets the distance and lead time correct within a few kilometers.
This video's advice on always turning has saved me a few times in Star Wars Squadrons since it first released
One thing on jousting though:
In a realistic setting, jousting would likely be the primary type of combat, since you will likely see one ship on intercept orbit and charging towards the other ship, with both ships facing each other and trying to saturate the space around each other with so much fire that it can’t be dodged anymore. Either that, or it’ll just be two ships on the opposite side of a planet lobbing missiles/ dipping in and out of the horizon line firing lasers.
And if you ever get close enough for “dogfight” combat in interplanetary space, then somebody has screwed up big time. Unless you are passing each other, on separate orbits and just so happen to get into gun range, in which case you’ll just default back to single pass jousting.
Why would you face the ship, giving it a steady target, when otherwise you would be harder to hit? And realistically there would be a huge difference between space battles in open space and space battles in orbit.
You would face the enemy to get all of your weapons to bear, while still providing the smallest silhouette possible. And don't forget that in space, real space, you can move laterally, so that you can dodge incoming fire, while always facing the enemy.
But then it's not jousting anymore.
Effective laser range is likely limited to a few thousand kilometers, efficient kinetics range to a few hundred, provided you dont have 100m long multi thousand ton guns.
Missiles will ahve theoretically infinite range, but only so much delta v and acceleration to plot an intercept.
Unless we are talking fusion torches it will likely be at most 100kmps dv, with a few dozen g peak acceleration.
Missiles will be lobbed in immense opening vollies, and faced with point defence drones, immense flak clouds and laser weaponry. The few that make it through will wreak untold havoc on single targets with their nuclear HEAt warheads or nuke pumped grasers, and the debris of these vessels may cause some follow up damage to nearby friendlies.
Depending on the propprtion of pd to missile spam, the remaining ships may or may not be combat effective, and close to within a thousand kilometers for the deadly game of bingo, trying to saturate all possible manouver vectors of their opposite number with fire.
Lasers likely wont be a one hit weapon, but require prolonged time on target, unless we are talking insanely huge focusing mirrors pumping hundreds of gigawatts through.
These would also have greater range, but would likely be planet bound to manage the truly insane amount of waste heat.
Enjoying the new editing of things you doing, tossing them in there a bit and such makes it funny and get your point across when the mood is right. Nice.
Well the USA is apparently getting a space force so you may just save some lives with this advice!
As long as there is nobody else having a space force, there is just nobody to dogfight with :)
@@entylsa there are anti-space missiles thought
I was about to mention that.
Jao Jao - Yeah but currently anti-space missiles are meant for slower moving targets like satellites. A fighter craft like a Viper might be a harder target to hit.
The next space race will be who can gain military control of Earth's orbit first. Whoever can get a military space vessel up there first will be able to take out the satellites of other countries with virtual impunity should the next World War arrive.
"Your generic TIE grunt is just plain suicidal. And the TIE Defender jockey is bloodthirsty. But the TIE Interceptor pilot, he's suicidal and bloodthirsty. When you see a squad of those maniacs flying your way, you'd better hope your hyperdrive is operational." ~Kyle Katarn
LOL!! I love your T.I.E. Fighter breakdown... From a design standpoint, I really like it. It was in fact the first true 'space fighter' I'd ever seen in film. However the Japanese Zero aspect does make it a dual wing suicide ball.
That's really unfair, the A6M had excellent visibility and was one of the first planes with a cockpit that gave the pilot such a wide field of view.
It was a good plane, and just like its immediate predecessor (the A5M) was probably one the better planes out there at its inception... Unlike the TIE that's actively trying to get the pilot killed for no good reason and having accomplished nothing.
@@harmen2456 There is two advantages the tie has that everyone over looks. Those huge wings all but disappear in the top and rear profile leaving only the cockpit as any target. More importantly though ties in addition to lacking shields also have no life support, so the pilot is flying in an eva suit, making it possible to survive if the craft is lost. Unlike the pressurized cockpit of other fighters, where the pilot is in an open faced helmet. Not sure if it is canon, but every tie toy even going back to the original ‘77 tie depicts them having ejection seats.
You can "joust" at a target in a spiral pattern, making it very hard to hit you. This works pretty well in Star Citizen, but i can assume in other games as well. You fire the maneuvering thrusters on 2 adjacent sides of the ship and that makes the ship "circle-roll".
4:31
I remember quickly noticing that flaw in the X-wing's design the first time I played Rogue Squadron.
I love your content and this is your best video. I don't care that is it 2 years old. I can watch this over and over and I just love every second of it. Thank you.
1:00 Thats why B5 star fury's are so awesome in battles. Same with whitestar warships
3;40 its the same thing on the game Fractured Space... you need to focus the weaker armor points and broken armor on ships.
Military doctrine: If the ambush is distant, go to cover and withdraw. If the ambush is close, charge forward and through the ambush.
Spacedock: You don´t want to be jousting
WWI and early WWII soviet fighter pilot: laughs in "taran"
Funny you should mention the widely spaced cannons... I distinctly remember in Michael Stackpole's X-Wing series, Wedge was talking with his crew chief about how his new X-wing was set up and he mentioned not only a convergence point, which I seem to recall as being somewhere around 400 meters, where all four bolts meet up, but also that the cannons are on shock mounts that lock up if a certain amount of load is applied, such as during maneuvers, or when Wedge hangs off of one to check the give.
I will endeavor to use this knowledge to some extent in War Thunder, flying prop planes against other prop planes.
Mostly avoid engaging head-ons unless you are in planes with more time that their opponents.
I just want to congratulate you on an excellent channel and excellent material. In a world of youtube saturated with scifi monologuers you've managed to present interesting content in a stylish and concise manner. Thanks and keep up the good work
Of course, to avoid showing your ventral and dorsal sides, you can just spin with a gyroscopic turn.
WW2 air combat tactics, defined. These tactics serve me well in the FPS-MMO _Aces High 3_ WW2 fighter combat simulator. Well done sir.
You take a Starfury and use its awesome maneuvrability.
Just started playing Avorion and found myself binge watching all your vids.
Thanks for all your hard work and insight.
The TIE interceptor at least tried to rectify the TIE's problems by making a cut-out in the solar panels but then it places the blasters farther apart...
Isn't the Tie interceptor's turbo lasers can also be outfitted at the chin of the ball?
@@CosmicIceBerry some have both but i imagine the wing blasters are inverted slightly inward.
TIE Fighter pilots are suicidal. TIE Defender pilots are bloodthirsty. TIE Interceptor pilots are suicidal AND bloodthirsty.
As far as i remember, when flying a Tie Interceptor ot Advanced/Avenger, it was recommended to set the fire controls to quad fire, slower rate of fire, yes, but larger chances to hit and good chance of hitting a target at least three times with a single shoot. It was also recommended that when flying a tie fighter, never go on a fight alone, allways try to have at least two Ties on a single target, always check on the targeting indicator that warns you of an enemy fighter locking on you and meneuver out of it asap.
@@spiceracksargent0014 That's part of the imperial doctrine, rookie pilots get cheap-expendable tie fighters, if they are still alive after a few combat missions, then let them fly bombers, then interceptos, if the pilot insists on being alive, then probably is skilled enough to be a valuable asset and so move on to play with the expensive shielded fighters.
Well the advice has come in handy in Space Engineers. Problem is balancing armour, maneuverability and firepower when designing ships.
lol love the tie fighter rant. so true. WHO DESIGNED THIS?
designed by a committee
The point about not running makes a lot of sense. Good stuff!
I may be wrong but I think in Stargate Atlantis the 302s sometimes hit a reverse thrust and got behind enemy Wraith darts?
Videos like this are why I watch your channel
The thumbnail though
Don’t use Y-Wing, use Y-Wing
Great delivery and outstanding dry comment!
how to dogfight in space: you don't. Seriously, just tank a Missile boat and stay far, FAR away.
Actually, even in Star Wars, where shields are heavily "evolved" compare to other Sci-Fi universes, Missiles are still used, like concussion missiles. Even if shields were very powerful, you could either have a EMP missile (basically a mini-nuke) to take it down or simply fire more missile.
It doesn't really take a advance AI to lock onto a target from km away and fire a missile, in fact, it would be easier because you don't have to account for drag and turning radius. Point Defense guns aren't typically found on fighters or bombers, while the Point Defense on the larger ships would be more oriented towards targeting ship busting Missiles/Torpedoes instead of the small, anti-fighter missiles since the larger missiles/Torpedoes will be more of a threat to the ship then the fighter missiles.
But you loose because you are not a cool ace dog fighting pilot, which is much better than actually trying to survive or win a battle in space.
Electonics can be hardened against EM bursts.
You've never seen a swarm of drones massace a ship in eve, have you?
@@SirAroace Poor AI actually facilitates the use of missiles, since good PD requires really good targeting computers.
Several things :
First, many fighter aircraft mount their guns far out on the wings for ease of design, avoiding the mentioned problem by having the shots not fire quite straight so they "converge" at a particular range.
Second, while maybe not the most obvious thing to think about, having the guns mounted in the same axis as your only strong thrusters is a mistake. This does not allow you to move laterally relative to your target while firing at them, basically meaning you will have a constant bearing while you aim at your target. The way to get around this is to mount strong engines at the bottom of your fighter to allow you to strafe while holding an angle, and an equal engine on the rear to allow you to cancel outward motion (holding your nose on target while strafing means you go in a spiral out.) Rolling on the long axis of a fighter is the easiest, meaning you can strafe in any direction relative to the target by rolling.
It's important to remember you can always aim at them and they can always aim at you - it's just a matter of whether you NEED to point somewhere else.
A dogfight in space, with it's speed and unpredictablity, might only be fought by advanced drones, if ever.
I really enjoy your repeated anger at the TIE-Fighter. I feel the same way. Iconic ship. Corpse pinata 99.9% of the time.
If you want to experience a decent space fight, just play Elite: Dangerous with flight asist off.
In discussing the guns spacing issue, you've overlooked that aircraft guns have a mechanism to set a convergence point with its guns. In the WWII fighter planes this had to be done since the .50 cal machines guns in the wings needed to hit enemy aircraft within the same space to be effective. Convergence was typically set between 200 and 300 yards at the pilot's preference. In those days it had to be adjusted and set before flight, but could be done. It is not difficult to imagine that some micro-servo could set the convergence to some fixed range at the push of a button in modern, or future dog fighters.
'Don't go head to head in a dog fight'
Me after what must be at least 200 head-on-collisions with other players in War Thunder at this point; 'Why not?'
The thing is that head on's are pretty good if you have the weapon superiority, like a spitfire vs a quad 7.62 109, you can dish out more damage without risking giving the enemy your side, just make sure to pull out of the joust when under 200m
Very good video. Two points I want to make:
1. You're absolutely right about disengaging being a suicidal maneuver. The only way to escape, other than outrunning them (if you're faster), is to do a quick hard burn, then power off, in the hopes that you disappear from sight, and you lose all heat and EM signatures. But that's not guaranteed, and you're leaving yourself wide open.
2. I'd imagine spacecraft of the future have some kind of gimble to automatically bring your guns to focus on one point, AKA convergence factor. Hell, StarCitizen models this, if you have gimbles attached.
My name is
Starbuck, but you can refer to me as GOD
Or Angel of God
CMDR. Shepard - but the Colonies of Kobol didn’t believe in a single god... she should’ve said “Zeus” or something.
Love your sense of realism & humour!!!
There really isn't enough space series out there that cover this fact. I think Halo does it pretty well, BSG, obviously...but everything else, not so much.
Babylon 5 did it first, and is also one hell of a space opera.
The Expanse :D
Babylon 5.
nothing I have seen in film or television. but Elite Dangerous has interesting space combat with realistic physics.
there was when the Roci took on that Amun-Ra-class stealth ship.
the first fighter photo he showed in this video i believe is from GOF2 which is a space dogfighter game. honestly kinda cool
Thanks for the information this will surely come in handy when I find my space fighter again.
I just don't get why they always go for the whole world war 2 dogfight.
I think every single sci-fi shows should stop using the "WWII Dogfight Rule" instead they should use the more accurate "Starbucks Rule".
Because that way it will make the dogfights in Space even more better.
Also the Colonial Viper Mark II is my absolute favourite because it doesn't fall for the "WWII Dogfight Rule".
Colonel Frontline most use the ww2 style because it’s more stylish and cinematic. George Lucas watched actual ww2 footage to base his dogfights on.
@@luckynumber1059
Well that was awesome back then, but now it's getting too annoying.
A bit of realism wouldn't have hurt.
It's relatable by everyone and you don't have to explain anything. That's why they always go to the WWII Dogfight. On the other hand, if you think your universe through, you get something like the Expanse or the so-callen 'Honorverse' with exiting space battles that look unique.
Not like Star Trek: Discovery with ships that fly around without any visible sense or tactic making 'pewpewpew'.
@@grayscribe1342 also the expanse has starship designs which actually make some kind of sense, no sheilds, no magic artificial gravity and apart from the epstein drive the majority of the technology is stuff we can build or have primitive versions of already which helps give the universe a good grounding for veiwers
They're more emulating WW1 dogfights. WW2 aircraft battles were a lot faster than what we see in films.
That oppening had me hooked so hard. Well done daniel.
why'd you ruin the immersion
"that will never come in handy"
we have battlefront buddy
Love the y wing and b wing, best SW fighters
Freespace 1 and 2. I learned abourmt jousting the hard way. And yes you ALWAYS try to position yourself above your target even if it's a 5 degree angle. As soon as your targets profile widens it's game over for them
Solid advice. Play Tie Fighter on highest difficulty. The first mission proves all of this true and necessary to continue. Especially if you try for achievement of the 16 bonus objectives as waves of rebel fighters and assault shuttles that can one shot your poor Tie Fighter if you don't use every advantage you can.
I remember a line in one of the X-Wing novels about pilots being able to set the zero-points of their laser cannons (that is to say, angle them slightly inward so the four X-Wing laser bolts converge a set distance away, maybe 1km or so). I think this mechanic was in the game X-Wing Alliance too. That helps negate the laser cannon distance issue.
Nope, definitely was NOT in XWA. You're actually close, though. XWA and XVT (if I'm remembering correctly) both had this mechanic where, if you had your crosshair lined up for a shot, your projectiles would *automatically* converge at the right range for the target. In other words, they'd be set to converge closer for a nearer target and farther away for a far-off target. I was absolutely *fascinated* by that shit back in the 90s.
I did, however, find a source that stated that the original X-Wing and TIE Fighter games did NOT have that feature, so it could be that's what you're thinking of? Annnnnd I seem to recall there being a keybind to deactivate automatic convergence, so that could also be it.
Just one thing on the placement of guns. World War II aircraft that had their weapon replaced on the wings actually had a system we're by the guns would be mounted on slate angles that could be adjusted for range. as such each aircraft had an optimal range at which to engage a target where the rounds would converge. I always assumed that that was how the X-Wing and the arc-170 ETC worked
I love the Naboo Starfighter. It's silhouette is really well-thought imo.
AKTUALY, blasters on wing pylons wouldn't affect the accuracy of the ship as viewed from the pilot, because they would be angled to cross at a certain distance. WW2 fighters had the same thing and their machine guns were angled to fire inwards so that at 500-300 m (depending on the pilot) all guns hit the same area. The advantage is that you clear up the fuselage volume for much heavier sensors of fuel to be closer to the COG of the ship.
Jousting is favoured tactic of Cobra mk3 and Cobra mk4 pilots in Elite Dangerous because they both have very slim forward cross sections and ok shields with all their armaments facing forward. The best tactic to counter this is to boost in same direction as the enemy and turn flight assist off so you can flip your ship 180 degrees and continue going in the same direction as the enemy then let rip with your weapons. The Cobra pilots then have a choice of exploding quickly or changing their tactics from jousting to a turning fight which exposes their larger dorsal or ventral cross section and makes them an easier target.
You were right on point in this video.
There is a reason why we called ties flying coffins. That said the common imperial tactic of out numbering everyone else in a dogfight could make up for this for at least the first minute or so.
On a side note slave 1 or the Firespray class cutter as it is known was never intended as a dogfighter. Its a customs enforcement ship dealing with bulk freighters carring at most a half-dozen popgun lasers spread over the whole ship.
Anyone that played Jumpgate: The Reconstruction Initiative learned all of this very quickly. Dogfights were always "circle fights" that involved trying to outpace your opponent's rate of turn to get behind, or at least have the highest angular velocity, since the most difficult target to lead was one that was orbiting. Pilots that jousted head-on, or drifted while rotating ("turreting") were annihilated quickly.
That second point about the wider profiles and the example you used amused me a bit because it's one of the main reasons I always considered dog fighting Y-wings in Star Wars Galaxies and TIE fighter to be something of a joke--all I had to do was stay on their tail and bait the other pilot into turning and I'd win.
Their slow speed and bad handling only made things worse, because it meant once they'd exposed that angle they had a hard time correcting it than I would in a TIE or similar.
That said, this all gave me a shitload of respect for any pilot in canon that made a name for themselves as an ace in a Y-Wing, because I knew exactly how hard that was to pull off.
All that aside, I loved the "Tie Fighter" game.
Especially the mission where you cleared a minefield in an unshielded craft while being shot at by... well, everybody.
As far as your comment on the ARC's wing mounted guns, one way to remedy that problem is to set the guns at an angle so the blasterbolts will hit at the same spot at a specific range (also known as 'gun convergence') with wing mounted weapons, you could also bring more firepower then nose or chin mounted weapon systems
Daniel, I'm not sure if you meant for this to be funny, but it was hilarious. Thank you for your brutal honesty!
Random bit of information: Fighters have a convergence distance, this basically positions the guns in a way that if you wanted to fire a target at 500 meters that the rounds will hit that point if you have it zero'd to it. Which is why you see rounds cross each other in games like warthunder. So basically weapon positioning doesn't matter in any fighter as you can make them work.
I have played X-Wing,TIE Fighter,and Wing Commander 1 and 2. and all you say works. Just one thing on jousting, in all four games I have played, I have found that it is best to duck under when they start firing so you can hit there under side (this is better done in X-Wing and TIE Fighter,but can be done in Wing Commander 1 and 2 when timed right)
Another, even more crucial piece of advice, is that since there is no drag in space, 6DoF is everpresent. Use it! You can fly up, down, strafe, and fly backwards. Keep moving as Daniel said, but use 6DoF to keep your guns and smallest-silhouette pointed towards the enemy.
On WWII fighters, like the P-51 Mustang, the 6 machine guns were not mounted so they fired absolutely straight. The 2 inner-most guns (on left & right) were canted inward, slightly. For example, their rounds would converge at 300 meters. The 2 middle guns would converge at 325. The 2 outer guns would converge at 350 meters. These points of convergence were adjustable to the pilot's preference. In your video, the space guns, or lasers would probably have a convergence point as well, and be able to hit targets with a small width.
The editing on the Tie fighter rant was glorious.
Thankyou Daniel, I thoroughly enjoyed this.
It's now been 5 years... and I still occasionally come back to this video just for "...and you won't."
Thank you.
You know that actually reminds me of the pilot training in X-wing Alliance.
The instructor actually tells you not to go head to head and instead maneuver to evade and get in on the tail of your target.
That's literally the only time in any space flight combat sim that I can remember where that advice was given.
What you said about tightly packed guns is kinda true. When I was young, I always thought an X-Wing's bolt would fly right past the target.
I used to play Elite Dangerous a lot. Jousting is a big thing in that game and indeed as said here the best approach is always to learn to fly using maneuvering thrusters and get a shot through the top of an enemy as its turning. I always felt that game lead to the logical conclusion that the most important weapon for a fighter is maneuverability.