B-29 Super Fortress

[oakranger]

You can run down a formation of Ar 234s if you have some altitude. 234s to not have the endurance to climb to high altitude, thus most are seen below 15k. The two cannon in the 234 are fixed. You have to aim the entire aircraft. They can be attacked from a few degrees high, low or off-angle with impunity. Yes, some A/C may be able to catch the 234 but no diffrent than trying to get a 262.  If you where to attack the 234 from a few degree high or low, wouldn't that just slow you down some?

Lancasters have the weakest guns and durability of the heavy bombers. They also have the slowest climb rate. Thus, they get less use than the B-24 and B-17.  Yes, you are right about that.Maneuvering Heavy bombers gains you little, other than losing your drones. There's little need to maneuver a B-29 as it will be very difficult to intercept. Assuming you do intercept them, good luck facing those tail guns. Now your not going to just give up just because of the tail gunner?  Surly you can find a while around it.

If the bird was a high perk plane like the 262, i am sure you will not see if that offten. Tell me this, because i am not sure how to find this info.  Look how often the 262 and 234 in flown, how offten it is shot down and what the K/D ratio. 

[oakranger]

PS: If you're gonna post supporting something, at least know 1) What you're saying 2) How to say it 3) How to spell it...

Welcome to the internet. You know, that place where "ppl" just don't know how to learn grammar?

Thanks for you remarks about my spelling and grammar.  I am only human and will make mistakes.  That's why pencils have erasers.

[Anaxogoras]

Another reason is that except for the tail guns, all guns were remotely sighted and fired. To do that would really be a coding challenge.

Really?  You can fly the B-29 with one of the Il-2 mods and there's no issues with gun positions that I've heard of.  I'm sure that if a bunch of amateurs can code that, HTC can.  That's not to say that I want to see the B-29 in AH, but the above seems like a red herring.

[Denholm]

Have you ever heard of game engines? IL-2 has a completely different game-engine featuring a completely different structure of development. Meanwhile, if you look at Aces High, it could be a completely different story.

For example, One town was built in a, "square" format. Instead of simply placing structures or roads wherever it pleased them, they placed it in precise locations to ensure conservation of space. Another town of relative size decided to build wherever they felt a building would fit and simply, "built on the fly." Well, eventually both towns had a need for a new grand hotel featuring 35 stories of suites. No problem for the, "square" town. They simply demolished a neighborhood and started building. However, for the other town there were problems. Their structures were strewn all over the place to the point that they had no room to place the structure. Of course they could demolish some buildings, but it wouldn't allow the new hotel good access to main roads or government buildings. So the town had to demolish even more buildings and even had to relocate some roads before making a decent amount of room for the hotel.

While this may not be the situation with HTC, it does give you a little insight to programming in general. It's the very same hotel (feature), but one city (game engine) was better prepared to implement something new than the other city. Thus it reduced the amount of time to construct the hotel (feature) for one city while it caused nightmares for the other.

[Anaxogoras]

Goodness denholm!  That's a lot of speculation without any word from HTC as to whether it would be a genuine problem or not.  The gunsight for some of the CV guns is not in the same place as the guns themselves.  I may not be a programmer, but it would seem that the feature required for B-29 guns is already in the game.

The remote-gun "coding problem" is just another example of the predominant obsequiousness and irrational deference that's shown toward AH, even though it stands well enough on its own.

[Karnak]

20,000lb
Could be modded to carry 2x 22,000lb T-14 Earthquake bombs externally

That was post war only.

[Lusche]

Goodness denholm!  That's a lot of speculation without any word from HTC as to whether it would be a genuine problem or not.  The gunsight for some of the CV guns is not in the same place as the guns themselves.  I may not be a programmer, but it would seem that the feature required for B-29 guns is already in the game.

The periscopic gunsight can indeed be a problem. They tried to implement it for the Ar 234 long time ago, but ti didn't work. It's not so much a coding problem we do have remote controlled  turrets in AH already but a graphical one - Trying to put the point of view into that small periscope resulted in clipping errors. Of course it's all specualtion about how difficult that would be the fix - but after all those years, we still don't have the periscopic gunsight for the 234

[Lusche]

234s to not have the endurance to climb to high altitude, thus most are seen below 15k.

I'm more inclined to say: the 234's pilot don't have the endurance to climb above 15K

Taking off in a Ar 234 with 3x500kg bombs and rear guns, you have about 36mins of fuel left (at the moment you reach autoclimb speed). But if you now use autoclimb, you will reach 15k after about 14 minutes - and have 40(!)mins of endurance left. When you reach 20k after 22 mins total, it's still 38mins. So climbing climbing to that altitude is basically "for free" (and you will have covered 5-6 sectors during that climb)

Climbing past 20-22k however, is not advisable due to the anaemic climb rate at that altitudes.

[Swatch]

Another reason is that except for the tail guns, all guns were remotely sighted and fired. To do that would really be a coding challenge.


My regards,

Widewing

I don't know about this...  We sorta already have remotely sighted and fired guns.  Think about the other guns that fire when you are in a position.  If anything, this would actually help nerf the B-29 a bit, as you would have to wait until enemy is at the convergence range of the remotely operated guns.

*can't believe I actually defended this topic... I ban myself from this topic*

[Castle51]

That was post war only.

No, actually that WAS its loadout in WWII

[AWwrgwy]

I don't know about this...  We sorta already have remotely sighted and fired guns.  Think about the other guns that fire when you are in a position.  If anything, this would actually help nerf the B-29 a bit, as you would have to wait until enemy is at the convergence range of the remotely operated guns.

*can't believe I actually defended this topic... I ban myself from this topic*

How about this, because I thought the same thing?  Not only were they remote controlled but they also used a Lead Computing Sight.

Not only are you pointing the guns from a remote spot but you also have the green + to show you where to shoot.  

With the revolutionary Central Fire Control System (CFCS), the B-29 had four remote controlled turrets, each armed with two .50 cal M2/AN machine guns. Four gunners were able to control these turrets with the use of four General Electric made analog computers, one above the Norden bombsight in the nose and three in a pressurized compartment in the rear fuselage which incorporated clear blown sighting blisters. The gunner manning the sight in the upper rear station was the "Central Fire Control gunner" whose job was to allocate turrets to each of the other three gunners, avoiding confusion in the heat of battle. The CFCS had (at that time) a highly advanced analog computer which corrected for the B-29's airspeed, the target's speed, target lead, gravity, temperature, barrel wear, and humidity. Because of this, the .50 caliber machine guns of the B-29 had a maximum effective range of 1,000 yards (910 m), double the range of the manually-aimed machine guns of the B-17 Flying Fortress. The tail gunner could only control his own weapons (two M2/AN Brownings plus, in early production B-29s, a 20 mm M2 cannon) and the lower rear turret.

No LCS.  No B-29.

Oki Doki?

No, actually that WAS its loadout in WWII

If you're talking about the Tallboy, never used in combat and only possible from a modified bomb bay. 


wrongway

[Karnak]

No, actually that WAS its loadout in WWII

I've never seen anything mentioning the two 22,000lbers except in post war British service as the Washington.

[Denholm]

Goodness denholm!  That's a lot of speculation without any word from HTC as to whether it would be a genuine problem or not.  The gunsight for some of the CV guns is not in the same place as the guns themselves.  I may not be a programmer, but it would seem that the feature required for B-29 guns is already in the game.

The remote-gun "coding problem" is just another example of the predominant obsequiousness and irrational deference that's shown toward AH, even though it stands well enough on its own.

I think you missed this part which was the clue that this had nothing to do with Aces High or HTC but programming in general:

...While this may not be the situation with HTC, it does give you a little insight to programming in general...

I was pointing out that things aren't always as simple as they may seem.

[Anaxogoras]

...While this may not be the situation with HTC, it does give you a little insight to programming in general...

I prefer to stay on topic rather than replying to smoke screens.

[Denholm]

So you refuse to accept that just because one person can do something not everyone else can or will do the same thing?