Author Topic: B-29 Super Fortress  (Read 115558 times)

Offline texastc316

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1774
      • Mighty 316th
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #960 on: February 05, 2009, 07:19:47 PM »
my apologies to the kittens (lost one 2 weeks ago grrr) but how in rl did the remote turrets work?
TexsTC-CO/Court Jester-Mighty 316th FS "CREEPING DEATH"  in MA/FSO

The eager pilots are not experienced. And the experienced not eager.

S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning In A Bottle)

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #961 on: February 05, 2009, 07:40:50 PM »
More to the point, the way the gun positions in bombers work now basically ALREADY does the same job as the B-29's remote turret stations.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #962 on: February 05, 2009, 08:41:03 PM »
Really... umm drones already do that now do they not?
Not really.

The guns and drones all fire in the same direction and converge at a set distance -- 600 yds?  Don't recall, let's pretend 600 for purposes of this discussion.

So, a target at 600 vaporizes and is gone.  No question.

Let's say the target gets in close, say 100 yards.  In today's buffs, where you are sitting at a gun position, if nothing else the gun you are firing should hit the target at that distance.  However, MG fire from all the other guns will go over, under, and around the target and converge at 600 yards.

The remote firing position in the B-29 has no gun.  There was a simple fire control computer with which the gunner set convergence of the remote turrets.  If he wanted to set it for 1000 yards, or 200 yards, or slide it as the target came in, that is what he did.  No such mechanism in currently in AH.

So in current AH terms, the gunner looking out the side blister fires his 4 remote turrets at a target flying straight and level 100 yards off his wing, with the pipper directly on the target -- will completely miss as all his fire goes over, under, and around his target.  It is even worse than with the 17s or 24s because the 29 is so friggin huge and the turrets are quite far apart compared to these other bombers.

Similarly, if he is firing at a target flying 1000 yards above him, his fire converges at 600, and diverges sufficiently by 1000 that again he will miss.  From a B-24, at least your personal top turret twin 50s will shoot where you aim them.

Now, the B-29 had a "standard" tail gunner, and this would work just fine.  Trying to hit anything from anywhere but the tail gunner position, however, I see as very problematic given current game mechanics.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #963 on: February 05, 2009, 08:49:20 PM »
never mind.....
« Last Edit: February 05, 2009, 08:51:57 PM by Bronk »
See Rule #4

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #964 on: February 05, 2009, 09:11:17 PM »
my apologies to the kittens (lost one 2 weeks ago grrr) but how in rl did the remote turrets work?

APG-15 Radar.   
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #965 on: February 05, 2009, 09:26:33 PM »
You'd basically need a .converge command in-flight for the B-29's gun positions.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #966 on: February 05, 2009, 09:30:06 PM »
You'd basically need a .converge command in-flight for the B-29's gun positions.
No we wouldn't we already get distance to target AC from Icons ( we just see the edited numbers I'm sure the whole number is in the packet). That number is fed to the remote turrets to converge at.  Kinda like apg-15 radar ehh. ;)
Edit : and that is just another reason when/if the 29 is introduced it will be perked heavily. 262 lvls or higher.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2009, 09:36:13 PM by Bronk »
See Rule #4

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #967 on: February 05, 2009, 09:36:09 PM »
HTC could auto-converge the guns for you, but then everyone would want that for all bombers, making them all extremely lethal, and the resulting whines would be epic . . . no, I don't think he would go that route.

Auto convergence would actually make more sense in the 24 or 17 -- after all, there are supposedly gunners there actually aiming the guns, right?  So, the convergence for remote turrets would have to be player-controlled to introduce the real-life inaccuracy that existed, lest they be more accurate and more lethal than actual gunners aiming the gun from the point of attack.

So, having to set gun convergence from several remote firing turrets on the fly (i.e. not set in the hanger) would have to be the goal, and that, I believe, would take quite a bit of programming.  Of course, I am not a programmer, so I could easily be all wet.

Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #968 on: February 05, 2009, 09:40:07 PM »
The auto convergence would be to simulate the radar and only for the remote guns on one plane. Drones and tail would still converge at 600.

As I just added to the edit above. Thats why you pay the perkies.  :aok
Edit: as to what people want well ... we know HT is pretty set in his ways. He doesn't appear to be swayed easily.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2009, 09:42:26 PM by Bronk »
See Rule #4

Offline simshell

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 786
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #969 on: February 05, 2009, 09:41:51 PM »
the B29 would make the best perk bomber


and would be used alot in the LW arena and would fit perfectly in that arena of late war monsters

but we have alot of holes in the planeset for many other bombers
such as Russia who has no level bomber

and many other bombers that saw alot of combat are not included

I would prefer that we have a few Russian bombers and Japanese bombers first and then maybe german
known as Arctic in the main

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #970 on: February 05, 2009, 09:46:07 PM »
BRING ON T3H BEE-29/TU-4 B0MB3R!!!!!
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline lilvader

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #971 on: February 05, 2009, 09:56:36 PM »
We could use the Russian Tu-4, which is essentially the B-29 that the Russian's stole, dissected, rebuilt, and mass produced.

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23971
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #972 on: February 05, 2009, 09:58:00 PM »
We could use the Russian Tu-4, which is essentially the B-29 that the Russian's stole, dissected, rebuilt, and mass produced.

But not during WW2. And that's the end of this request ;)
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #973 on: February 05, 2009, 09:58:31 PM »
The auto convergence would be to simulate the radar and only for the remote guns on one plane. Drones and tail would still converge at 600.

As I just added to the edit above. Thats why you pay the perkies.  :aok
Edit: as to what people want well ... we know HT is pretty set in his ways. He doesn't appear to be swayed easily.
Been a long time since I really dug into this, but my recollection was that the radar hardly ever worked and was only for the tail gun.  For the turrets, it was the gunner who manually tracked the approaching fighter and adjusted some knobs on his sites to correct for speed, lead, convergence, etc.

Hmm . . . since I am going by memory, which in my case has as many holes as swiss cheese, maybe I should shut up and do some reading this weekend . . .
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: B-29 Super Fortress
« Reply #974 on: February 06, 2009, 09:25:44 AM »
But not during WW2. And that's the end of this request ;)

I figured mine would've been the last one.    :D
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC