Author Topic: I like this.  (Read 3969 times)

Offline Maniac

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3817
I like this.
« on: November 02, 2000, 05:52:00 AM »
"In terms of game play itself, a small random factor has been added to the fall of bombs. The higher the height from which they are dropped, and, consequently, the longer they are in the air, the more they may drift off target. The very high altitude unrealistic pinpoint accuracy of the past is no longer possible. Lower altitude offers increased accuracy, but a greater risk of being intercepted by the defending force. "

This snip above is from AW, i would like this very much in AH.

Regards.

------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
Warbirds handle : nr-1 //// -nr-1- //// Maniac

Offline Jekyll

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 89
      • http://www.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
I like this.
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2000, 06:02:00 AM »
Don't hold your breath.  This has been asked for since buffs first started dropping bombs in AH.

Maybe its too realistic?

Offline Andy Bush

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 153
      • http://www.simhq.com  (Contributing Editor - Air Combat Corner)
I like this.
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2000, 06:24:00 AM »
One note about bomb trajectories...

Once the weapon is released, its trajectory is simply a matter of the vector the bomber was on at the time of release. Once the weapon is free falling, wind will no longer have any appreciable effect on its trajectory. The only wind that has any effect on bomb delivery is the wind that the bomber was flying in at release.

Time of fall is irrelevant. The problem in manual bombing is knowing the magnitude and direction of the air mass that the bomber is flying in prior to release. The air mass is moving over the ground and the bomber is moving along with that air mass...the direction and speed of the wind must be compensated for by aiming not at the target, but at what is referred to as a 'wind offset'. Knowing what the wind offset should be is probably the biggest unknown in dive bombing!

Andy

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4051
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
I like this.
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2000, 07:32:00 AM »
That Andy feller sure does think he's smart!
 

Thanks for that interesting information Andy. I woulda thought the wind would have a small effect on the bomb in the air. Guess ya learn something every day. That oughta make for some good conversation.

 


Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
I like this.
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2000, 07:36:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Andy Bush:

Time of fall is irrelevant. The problem in manual bombing is knowing the magnitude and direction of the air mass that the bomber is flying in prior to release. The air mass is moving over the ground and the bomber is moving along with that air mass...the direction and speed of the wind must be compensated for by aiming not at the target, but at what is referred to as a 'wind offset'. Knowing what the wind offset should be is probably the biggest unknown in dive bombing!

Andy


Andy that can be true or not. If the Bomber is flying at ,say, 25K and there is a wind layer from earth up to 13K and other different from 13K to 25K, the bomber will be displacing to one direction, but when the bomb crosses the 13K layer, it will suffer from a desviation.

Your example is only right with an uniform wind layer. In AH with its succesive layers (10K each) its simply not true,.


Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
I like this.
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2000, 07:39:00 AM »
And, while we are on this matter, remember that Coriolis acceleration also is a matter on high level bombing...

Offline -lynx-

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 340
I like this.
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2000, 07:49:00 AM »
Andy - are you saying that an airmass is homogenous all the way from 35,000 feet down? I have to disagree... The different layers may not only have different speed - they might have different directions giving you bomb dispersion which is impossible to predict when dropping from high altitude - we need randomiser...

------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF

arhurb

  • Guest
I like this.
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2000, 07:53:00 AM »
Being an homogeneous effect, Coriolis has no effect on accurate bombing, since it can be calculated by Norden.

Different wind layers should have effect, however. Maybe we can have a weather report to calculate deviations, etc.

Of course, correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers,

Pepino.

Offline Westy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2871
I like this.
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2000, 08:17:00 AM »
 Sounds like a good feature huh?   I'm sure that if AH implemented this it would KILL the bomber people off.

 We do not have armadas of bombers that can carpet bomb an area and therefore hopefuly destroy if not heavily damage the intended target.
 What we do see solo efforts, sometimes two and maybe three bombers get togther if you're lucky to hit a target. I think you would kill of bomber interests if a B17 with only xx bombs is only able to deliver a certain percentage due to a gaming factor.
 This is a crude form to curtail land grab in the main arenas in AW. It is a start  (just like the FW was the grandpappy of all WWII fighters- gratuitous jab    ) but it needs much more refinement so not to turn people off from bombing, but we also need to move away from the "perfect drop every time" gameplay we have now.
 
   -Westy

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
I like this.
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2000, 08:22:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Westy:

 We do not have armadas of bombers that can carpet bomb an area and therefore hopefuly destroy if not heavily damage the intended target.

Just make bombing under 20K as accurate as it is now. Make it a bit more difficult to up to 25K, very unnacurate at 25-30K, and absolutely unnefective over 30K.

That way, everyone will be happy, and teh 35K uberdweebs will be gone -forever-


Pepino...yep Norden sight historically calculated the coriolis effect...but I was answerin Andy Bush's state that a freefalling bomb will behave as it does in AH...

and in AH we have no rolling earth under the B17, yah know  



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 11-02-2000).]

Offline Replicant

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
I like this.
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2000, 10:51:00 AM »
On a similar note, I've noticed shell fall to go wide when using the pnzr.  I kinda like the having to aim off more.  Be fun with buffs....

'Nexx'
NEXX

Offline Andy Bush

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 153
      • http://www.simhq.com  (Contributing Editor - Air Combat Corner)
I like this.
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2000, 11:14:00 AM »
RAM, -lynx-, and others...

I know this sorta defies conventional thinking...and I know you feel pretty sure of your positions...just as I once did as a new F-4 student sitting in my A2G class. I can still remember it...

"Well, look at it this way", I asked the instructor. "Let's say I'm in a helicopter, and I'm hovering right over the target at 5000'....the wind varies from different directions and velocities between me and the target. Do you mean to stand there and tell me that those winds aren't going to affect the bomb in its fall?"

Then I sat back with a smug expression on my face, thinking I had belled the cat.

"That's right, worm. That's exactly what I'm telling you.", replied the instructor.

And then he proceeded to explain about such things as fineness ratio and other stuff that I can't remember anymore (this was before many of you were born).  

Later on, when I was a Fighter Weapons School instructor, I had the same question every so often. What it boiled down to was that a typical bomb is a very small but large mass object, and as such, given the relatively short time of fall, is very resistant to having its velocity vector affected by changes in the air mass through which it is falling.

Now, under extreme wind shear conditions, it is probable that the weapon's ballistics might undergo a deviation from the original velocity vector...but the magnitude would be relatively small and of only academic interest. Operationally, it would be of no significance.

Andy

Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
I like this.
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2000, 11:31:00 AM »
RAM, lynx, others.

It depends on whether the bomb is LW or not.

If it is, it has to be a much better bomb to compensate for the poorer performance.

And LW bombs hit too, so LW bombs are smarter than allied bombs.

Now, allied opportunists, bow to the superior egg  .



------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

Offline -duma-

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 41
I like this.
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2000, 05:54:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by StSanta:
Now, allied opportunists, bow to the superior egg   .

The real question is, which came first, the chicken or the Fw-190?

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
I like this.
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2000, 08:27:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by -duma-:
The real question is, which came first, the chicken or the Fw-190?

My superior eggs