Ok so straight out of the gate, this isn't just to stir up controversy, Its just my opinion. Cannons have 3 better cases:
- Customization
- Capability
- Realism
Customization:
Guns have two models that do not reflect most models of weapons, and if you want an accurately scaled gun with correct proportions, you have to do it yourself with the scaling system, which is annoying in Fine Tuner and gets progressively slower in Overload with every time you do it. I have spent totals of ~5 minutes merely with Overload loading.
In and of itself, the Gun customization is kinda weird. They've got one color for tracers, one 3d vector for the bullet scale, and the bullet doesn't scale with the scale factor previously mentioned. There is also the issue of the problematic measurements, that being the "spread" value. the value itself is associated with the rate at which the bullet itself deviates from the original point at which it was fired.
Let me say that again.
The bullet itself moves at a constant rate, rather than moving in a slightly different direction by angle. It also moves like this in a sphere, I don't see any sense with this. While this may make sense for very early guns mounted on MAYBE biplanes, It really doesn't in WW2, and spread might as well be ZERO in anything past 50s.
Cannons, however, do not work on this nonsense, and disregard spread entirely. Some people argue this ruins dogfights, but I have seen minimal issue with dogfighting with cannons.
Not only this, but the "burst" system doesn't seem sensible to me. There are 3, count them, THREE VALUES used for gun rate customization; that being roundsPerSecond, the obvious one that generates a certain number of bullets every second by this value, burstCount, which changes how many bullets(???????) you fire in one burst, and timeBetweenBursts which gives an amount of time after which the bullet can be fired again. HOWEVER, this VALUE is COMPLETELY DISREGARDED, if you SPAM THE GUN BUTTON AS FAST AS YOU CAN. It completely ruins the concept of rate of fire.
Get this though. Cannons have ONE. VALUE. that is the "firingDelay" value, which is the number of seconds between each bullet. This is completely unsubvertable, and makes it much more fair and uncheatable compared to guns. While it would make a bit more sense to make it a reciprocal value (roundsPerSecond style), the Value is still easy enough to use.
Capability:
The Cannon is debatably more capable compared to the Gun value. It can be Explosive or Conventional, can be (aesthetically) changed to look like a slug or sphere, and can be delegated to specific roles, like Missiles. The Cannon, which doesn't have a "damage" value, uses the "impactDamageScalar" factor, which is multiplied by the (arbitrary but necessary) damage value calculated- actually, do you mind if I go on a tangent about damage?
WHY IS DAMAGE ARBITRARY?
If I put a gun with a damage value of 100 behind a fuselage part that has 100 health, how many bullets should it take? one? ten? Well, here's the answer: 5 or 6. WHY? I honestly Do Not Know. the Health and Damage values feel so arbitrary that the impactDamageScalar feels more sensible, whether it is or isn't. It gives a nice factor you can use and over scale so you can easily figure out where exactly you should put it.
As I was saying, the Cannon feels more capable, and more like an end-all, be-all weapon, for cannons, tank guns, and air guns alike.
Likewise, the Quality of Life features are better. In the third person views, there is no gun reticle, but cannons have the luxury of having universal reticles.
Realism:
TL;DR The Cannon is a more realistic weapon.
If you want a better explanation, here:
The Cannon, while not factoring in drag, still follows a parabolic trajectory, as opposed to the very massless, very energy-less, "bullets", and can physically influence the aircraft itself, as the real bullets have mass and can be interacted with on their own. Realistically, projectiles follow projectile motion. I give this distinction because bullets in this game do nothing but stringently fly in one direction.
The Cannon is also more realistic in that you have to specifically choose to use it as a weapon, like any real aviator which chooses to use the gun. They treat it as a separate weapon and that is more realistic, period.
I would agree with this, although the problem is that cannons are limited on their rate of fire. In testing, I found that how quickly cannons can fire seriously depends on processing power. For a rate of fire akin to a GAU-8, no matter how many cannons you have, you cannot reach the fire rate as specified by your firingDelay value. This is extra problematic, as the fire rate will get closer when in slow mo, due to the reduced simulation speed.
The only benefit is that you can make the guns more realistic
Without special care taken, a creation controlled by AI armed with Cannons are unable to fire their cannons
.
And i sure do wish this wasn't the case because i use 30mm a lot
@Tookan sorry if those comments were stupid
But i still... support guns
@Tookan bruh
@xNotDumb
skill issue
@Tookan Actually...No
@xNotDumb
Ever heard of lowering the impact damage on a cannon? If you had a 999mm non-explosive shell with zero impact damage being shot at something, the shell will most likely do almost nothing aside from either bouncing off or pushing an object.
@rexzion Thats fair.
both are pretty bad tbh
@Stanmich yeah tru
@ReinMcDeer I mean lets be fair the sound design in game sucks.
@xNotDumb Nice point. this can be subverted with the previously mentioned IMPACTDAMAGESCALAR.
The sound of the rapid fire cannon kinda sucks. Then again, the gun sounds also kinda suck but imo it sucks less.
Also spread is still a thing on actual cannons? If you play DCS, the M61 and GAU-8 spread at least is pretty considerable.
@Stanmich also... heavily armoured ships dont explode from 1 single hit, they can bear minimum 25 100mm shells and maximum 100 200mm shells
@Stanmich that spread value is necessary for realism, its very uncomfortable seeing a straight line of cannon shells being shot. Try playing ww2 dogfights in SP for atleast 2-3 weeks then come back again, you'll know what i mean.
@xNotDumb The only advantage that guns have over cannons is the impactForce value.
@Inuyasha8215 Yeah ships really only benefit from cannons. Tanks too. Aircraft, IMHO, do too. Cannons just have a better range of damage options and capability.
@xNotDumb Spread isn't necessary as you get closer to the further end of aircraft ordnance. Most modern, even cold war rotary cannons are nothing like the minigun in game. Not only that but the 'spread' value makes absolutely no sense.
@Stanmich cannons dont have that 'spread' with guns have
I only use cannons for ships
if you want REALISTIC weapons, make a 7.62mm gun part. then, try it with the cannon.
It is SIGNIFICANTLY EASIER with the CANNON, as its values have a conversion rate (In the designer it rounds to the nearest mm of what your value is).
@xNotDumb I can tell you're adamant about it, because you're completely disregarding the advantages cannons have, and even downright ignoring certain aspects. cannons ARE designed for tanks, but you can make them BEHAVE like guns. ImpactDamageScale lets you do that. Guns in the game are designed for dogfights, but really in a superficial "ignoring gravity and energy" sort of way. the "bullets" HAVE NO MASS, are UNLIMITED BY DEFAULT, and are INHERENTLY UNREALISTIC.
Guns can also change tracers. Cannons are accurate because they are made for tanks while guns aren't because aren't supposed to be, they are made fir air to air combat. Guns can also use that firing delay thing if you know how to edit them, its your fault if you dont know how to edit guns you cant say that cannons are better than guns because they can be edited and guns cannot. If you think that guns cannon change their bullet shape then see this.
@Tookan Bro
The size of the bullets can also be changed and
also 0.1mm cannon shell acts as a 999mm shell when it hits an aircraft.