Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals

[B@tfinkV]

a 3 second burst follow by a 3 second interval from all unmanned drone's guns when the trigger is held from the manned possition.


how about it?

[Airscrew]

I guess I should ask why?  I realize IRL gunners were supposed to fire in short bursts to prevent buring out the barrels too quick (i think) but I dont think they had any sort of mechanizim that prevented them from just laying on the trigger until the guns were empty.    

any more than that and we'll soon be talking about adding realizm like burnet out barrels and jams, and then if we apply that to bombers then we need to apply it fighters also.

[dedalos]

Nop.  Why should I have to wait 3 seconds after my first kill before I can deffend myself against the next guy that comes in.  He does not have that limitation so why punish us buff drivers with it?  Sounds like another lame furballer atempt to get rid of the hystoricaly acurate bombers.

[B@tfinkV]

you can fire a fully automatic unlimited stream from the one you are manning.


if you have a gunner also then you get two full streams available.




what i mean is, when you are in the tail holding the fire on constantly the baall turret and waistgunners will only be firing in bursts. This will make them less accurate, as you might only get fire at times when you're missing with the manned gun.

Then manned gun should be the only one that has your skill level and the ability to track a target perfectly for minutes on end, whilst holding down the trigger on automatic fire the whole time.

[frank3]

Why would you want the guns to be less accurate?

[B@tfinkV]

awhh well, ok, forget it

[DoKGonZo]

People would optimize their attacks on the bombers around the 3 second timer too. Which would produce a weird artificial effect.

Better to model barrel burnout ... and maybe reduce the ammo load so that bombers need to hold fire for good shots instead of spraying lead like some spastic garden sprinkler.

[frank3]

If this is because of 'the bombers being too hard to kill'.....

They're quite easy with a well thought-trough attack (headons, swift attacks)

[B@tfinkV]

it was more about bombers being too easy to kill in.


the main reason i though it ocured whilst in a b26 after my 7th kill.


if you're in the ball turret, then you've still got two 50cals to spray constantly with. just the unmanned gun will shoot in bursts, still directly on crosshaired target of the manned gun, as they are now.

[frank3]

Haha, those aren't bursts Batfink
What you see are the tracer-bullets. The normal bullets you can't see.
It looks just like it's shooting in bursts though

[B@tfinkV]

im not suggesting thats what it is in game now, suggesting changing it to that....my god is my typing so bimpossible to understand?

[E25280]

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
People would optimize their attacks on the bombers around the 3 second timer too. Which would produce a weird artificial effect.

There would not need to be a three second timer.  Each gun could be on a slightly staggered fire pattern.  The end result is that instead of 18 guns firing a constant stream of bullets at an attacking fighter, only the 2 guns fired by the manned gun would be firing the constant stream.  The other 16 would be firing in 3 second bursts, staggered so that the lead from 8 of these guns would be out at any given time.

Bat -- I had thought about this too, but never suggested it, making it an automatic good idea as far as I am concerned.  But part of my reasoning was that overall the ammo would last longer, giving the bombers more time to defend themselves.  I see this as an advantage to the bombers, not the furballers.

The only additional thing is that disabled / out of ammo gun positions should not be manable -- i.e. once the tail position in the lead bomber is out of ammo, you should not be able to continue to use it as the aiming point of the remaining guns (this has been suggested in the past, I know).

[DoKGonZo]

In general I agree that there are a lot of mechanical and human dynamics which are missing; and which could make a big impact on the MA.

Barrel burn-out on AAA and turrets, cannons jamming (boy that'd be a popular feature, huh?), the phsyical difficulty in pulling consecutive near-black-out manouevers without respite, mechanical fatigue from high-G or high-speed manouevers (more jammed guns maybe), the infinitesimal likelihood that a pilot would remain in a burning fighter (let alone keep dogfighting), etc. etc.

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
a 3 second burst follow by a 3 second interval from all unmanned drone's guns when the trigger is held from the manned possition.


how about it?

No freaking way.

[Krusty]

On the one hand I can see your point. On the other I want the SOB to run out of ammo faster, so I'd say in general I'm against it. It's still got 36 guns all aiming for 1 players's pipper (not all at once, but still, 36-frikkin-guns), even if some of them staggered, it would still be way more lethal than it ever was in real life.

I think the problem with bombers isn't their guns, at the moment. I think the problem with bombers is their constant 300mph speeds and the fact that they outrun most fighters in this game. If we impose stronger fuel burn on bombers (only bombers, like fighters still have 2x but bombers have 4x or 6x) then they HAVE to conserve gas, which means cruising, which returns bombers to a more historical footing.

If bombers cruise fighters actually become a threat, because they are now travelling much faster. In this situation bombers would NEED 36-frikking-guns.

So I say the problem is not the guns, but the "ludicrous speed!" setting they all fly at 100% of the time. Hell the only time any bomber EVER throttles back is to stay in formation or to land (if they even bother to do either).