Bombsight calibration accuracy - involve the human

[BnZs]

Stall limiter is a different animal.  It doesn't, at a blow, render useless the entire flight.  Some aircraft, such as the P-51 and Fw190D-9, really aren't even impacted by the stall limiter as it has its effect in parts of the flight envelope where those should never be.

Hmmmph? What is this? If either plane has to fight to against a competent opponent aware of their existence, they will need every bit of AOA available.

[bozon]

Almost reads like you are asking Hitech to factor in a dispersion cone that gets worse the higher you drop the bombs from. Thus requiring more bombs the higher you are flying to hit a single object. Sounds like the actual dispersion problems they had in WW2. And why it took so many bombers to hit one target.

Close, but with a few finer points. This is not a dispersion of the bombs - it is an uncertainty in the calibration. The difference is that if you drop a salvo, the dispersion will scatter the bombs into a wider pattern. Calibration uncertainty will shift the center of your pattern, but not widen it. Most of the calibration error will shift the pattern either short or long. Shifts sideways are very small unless there is a strong side wind and the altitude is very high. Thus a bomb pattern (release delay) covers that uncertainty at the cost of more bombs per pickle.

I in no way suggest to make the accuracy as bad as it was in real life. The way I see this implemented, hitting a hangar from 25k will still be quite easy , but will require dropping a few extra lbs because some of the bombs may miss by a hair. Drop from 15k and you are much more likely to get all the bombs on the target. Hitting ords bunkers from 25k with a single bomb will not be a sure-fire thing unless bombs are dropped in 2-3 salvo.

There is today absolutely no reason not to bomb from as high as possible, except for the time investment. Eating dinner while the bomber is on auto-climb should not be a winning tactic.

[BnZs]

So you are suggesting that one be allowed to have JDAM-like accuracy with high bombers sans any particular skill...why exactly? To increase the number of bomber flights? By the same logic, we should equip the P-40C with 20 millimeter Gatling guns as incentive. After all, peeps hardly fly it and they need a little encouragement that their sortie want be a waste of time, even if it is unrealistic. Right?

In reality level bombers were imprecise tools that often proved next to useless in trying to hit individual small targets, like bridges. They were used en masse to devastate large areas. In the semi-precision role, the dive bomber was realistically the proper tool. Why object to this fact?

You were requiring a reduction in accuracy.  That has the same effect.  If one puts an hour into a flight only to have their bombs miss when they were as calibrated as they could get, they won't waste their time going forward.  For those of us who can use the manual calibration it isn't a big deal (I missed the patch notes where it was changed and kept doing the manual calibration method for three years after it had been easier), but for those who never grokked it, it was the kiss of death for their use of bombers.

[kvuo75]

is it even possible to calibrate with manual calibration over water anymore?

[Hap]

I don't recollect the old method being more accurate or less accurate.  Establishing one's alt in the bomb site was another step merely.

[Scca]

see rule #5

[ImADot]

is it even possible to calibrate with manual calibration over water anymore?

You could, I suppose, turn off the detailed water to remove the animation which would make it just a static texture.

[kvuo75]

You could, I suppose, turn off the detailed water to remove the animation which would make it just a static texture.

that's what I was figuring.. so with the animated water on, bombers would be essentially useless unless calibrated over land first..


someone could probably make an argument that's a good thing for cv survival..

[earl1937]

Currently in the MA we have the semi-auto calibration method. This calibration involves holding the "Y" key for a few seconds and nothing else. There are two issues with this method:
1. Player skill comes down being able to hold down a button and maintain speed after that. Even the latter can be nullified by holding "Y" again a few seconds before the drop.
2. Accuracy of the calibration is not a function of altitude, thus bombers can snipe individual structures with a single bomb from 25,000.

Let me expand a little about #2:
When the full manual calibration method is used, the player has to hold the crosshair on a spot in the terrain for a few seconds. The higher the plane, the less accurate this becomes. Thus, bombing accuracy becomes increasingly inaccurate with altitude due to offsets in the calibration (beyond bomb dispersion). Player skill comes in the ability to spot, track, and point accurately at a moving (relative to the plane) point on the ground. The semi-auto calib. method does not simulate this alt-dependent source of inaccuracy, which allows the laser-guided accuracy in bombing.

Suggestions:
1. Include in the semi-auto method a random inaccuracy in the calibration that increase linearly with altitude.
2. Allow players to switch between semi-auto and full manual calibration on the fly.

Reasoning:
The increased calibration inaccuracy with altitude will make bombers trade safety (altitude) for accuracy. So, if a bomber climbs to 25k to bomb a CV or a FH he should be prepared to spread the bombs a little to ensure a hit, or drop from 15k with a much higher accuracy. Alternatively, the player is given the option to manually calibrate and rely on their skill instead of the alt-dependent randomization in calibration. A skilled player may still be able to snipe a target from 25k with careful calibration. The ability to do either a full manual or semi-auto calibration allows a player to choose given the situation - if he is busy with the defensive guns he may opt for semi-auto which is much faster, or if safe, to opt for the potentially higher accuracy of a full manual.

Not the most urging issue in AH, but perhaps worth considering for a future patch.

If you are going to do anything with the bomb sight, I would offer removing, at the pilots request, the delay time from .005 to .000...real bombers have that choice and that way, if you did that, you would have to learn quick how to calibrate correctly, or you are going to miss a lot of targets. I made a suggestion in the "wish" section about a bombardier as a third crewman on bombers, maybe require your suggestion to this position!

[FLOOB]

Manually calibration wasn't inaccurate, it's just that many players couldn't be bothered to learn how to do it. The way I remember it, what really drove people out of bombers to jabos was the wind effects starting at 15,000ft. Basically bomb dispersion started to grow at 15,000ft, and got worse with altitude. So a lot of people simply wouldn't climb above 15k in a bomber, because above 15k level bombing was much less effective against point targets.

So the choice presented to the player became A: Take level bombers in at 14k and probably get shot down. B: Take level bombers in at high altitude and probably miss the target. C: Take a fighter-bomber instead. D: Fly a heavy bomber as if it were a fighter-bomber.

[BnZs]

This is all very realistic, and I see no reason it should not be this way.

Manually calibration wasn't inaccurate, it's just that many players couldn't be bothered to learn how to do it. The way I remember it, what really drove people out of bombers to jabos was the wind effects starting at 15,000ft. Basically bomb dispersion started to grow at 15,000ft, and got worse with altitude. So a lot of people simply wouldn't climb above 15k in a bomber, because above 15k level bombing was much less effective against point targets.

So the choice presented to the player became A: Take level bombers in at 14k and probably get shot down. B: Take level bombers in at high altitude and probably miss the target. C: Take a fighter-bomber instead. D: Fly a heavy bomber as if it were a fighter-bomber.

[FLOOB]

Because it's bad for the game. It presents a no win situation to the players in heavy bombers. It makes heavy bombers irrelevant and useless. With that system the player in the heavy bomber at 20k can do everything right and still fail. Gamers generally don't like that.

[BnZs]

Because it's bad for the game. It presents a no win situation to the players in heavy bombers. It makes heavy bombers irrelevant and useless. With that system the player in the heavy bomber at 20k can do everything right and still fail. Gamers generally don't like that.

You are arguing that we should *highly* warp the accuracy of level bombing from high altitudes to please gamers. Essentially, what we have good be called arcade-mode level bombing accuracy. By the same argument, we could relax the physics, get rid of spins and blackouts make the gunnery easier, etc. One iteration of arcade-mode is as good as another.

Hell, P-40C pilots are kind of in a "no win situation" in the LWMA. They can do everything right and still fail. So let's give P-40Cs Gatling cannons and RATOs...

[Serenity]

You are arguing that we should *highly* warp the accuracy of level bombing from high altitudes to please gamers. Essentially, what we have good be called arcade-mode level bombing accuracy. By the same argument, we could relax the physics, get rid of spins and blackouts make the gunnery easier, etc. One iteration of arcade-mode is as good as another.

Hell, P-40C pilots are kind of in a "no win situation" in the LWMA. They can do everything right and still fail. So let's give P-40Cs Gatling cannons and RATOs...

I think you're not only taking this to the extremes, but to the wrong extremes. I read his request as asking that we make calibration a little more work so that level bombing from high altitude isn't just a game of who has more patience, the bomber or the fighter. Adding a bit of skill necessary to make the bombs hit their targets. He's not saying we should make it LESS accurate. He's saying let's RETAIN the current bomb-accuracy, but make attaining the current level of bombsight accuracy require some degree of work.

[FLOOB]

Im not arguing that we should "warp" the accuracy of level bombing, you are. I think it's fine the way it is. If a p40c pilot fails then he certainly didnt do everything right. You want strategic bombers to comply with realistic standards before aces high has strategic targets that resemble anything in reality?? Why are you trying to make bombers the square peg? What motivates this? You guys whats BNZ's deal? Fill me in.