Author Topic: B29  (Read 3486 times)

Offline RAIDER14

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
B29
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2006, 04:44:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by RAIDER14

Offline Meatwad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12797
Re: B29
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2006, 04:56:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Aussie
Yeah id like a b29 in the game.Never saw a pic. of a b29 but my friend wants one in aceshigh2.b19 please hitech!!!:)


You want it but never seen a picture. Try searching next time before posting :rolleyes:
See Rule 19- Do not place sausage on pizza.
I am No-Sausage-On-Pizza-Wad.
Das Funkillah - I kill hangers, therefore I am a funkiller. Coming to a vulchfest near you.
You cant tie a loop around 400000 lbs of locomotive using a 2 foot rope - Drediock on fat women

Offline mussie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
B29
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2006, 06:03:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by skycaptn
all you would need is a set of crosshairs and the exterior veiw of the bomber minus the bomber. thereby simulating the effect of looking closely thru a tv screen or sight.  


Ya know skycaptn... Thats the smartest solution to a problem I have heard in a long long time...

Simple
Straight Foward
Effective

I would like the B-29 but it could not have any nooks..... Talk about being unbalanced.

I would think around 250 Perks for B-29's...

Mind you how many fighters would have any real chance of catching the B-29 IIRC She was pretty fast and had a fairly massive cealing.....


Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
B29
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2006, 07:12:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by VooWho
Yea just like what skycaptn said. The turrets don't have to be special. If there remote, y not just make it to where u hit key 3 switch to the top turret, and u see like a GV circle with a crosshair on it. Its so simple. It just like the usually B17, B24 turrets, just not in a class bubble, instead just pops up a screen that looks like video camera with the cross hairs. If your confused let me try this. Imagine you are gunning in a B-17 like the top turret. When you press your botton to hop into that gunner posistion you see 2 .50cals, a crosshair, and glass all around you. Will take the current turrets we have, cover the class all black, hide the .50cals, and add a tv screen with a cross hair on it, and you have your remote turret. That simple.
Yes, you could set it up like you describe, and you would never hit anything.

In the b-17 et. al. currently in the game, you are firing guns actually attached to the sight.  All other guns firing from all other positions converge at roughly 600 yds IIRC.  Unless the fighter is actually close to that distance from you, you are either hitting with only the guns you are firing, or are "missing" at just the right angle that some of the other guns are hitting.  

Said another way, when a fighter is in close or is far away, the only guns that have a decent chance at hitting are those you are actually aiming.

So, a "gunless" turret, one that is set between your four actual gun turrets, firing at an object at any distance other than approx 600 yards away, have next to no chance of hitting anything.  The safest place for a fighter to be against your setup would be right next to the plane six feet off your aiming bubble -- you would never hit him.

Rear gun would work properly.  Forget about the rest.  Personally, I don't see the point taking a target that large up without the ability to fire effectively at interceptors.
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 stephen

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 744
b29
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2006, 09:25:10 PM »
you cant deny that if this game is to continue as a front runner in ww2 sim, that a b29 is neccesary, purhaps perked, purhaps making the HQ even further away from nme bases, either way these post are going to continue intil a way is found to impliment it... sry just reallity kicking me in the buttocks....:confused:
Spell checker is for Morrons

Offline Kurt

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1149
      • http://www.clowns-of-death.com
B29
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2006, 09:32:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Iron_Cross
 I also believe that they are having trouble trying to figure out how to code the remote fire control system on the B-29.  


:huh

Um, Pardon my making sense, but we already have 'remote fire control' in EVERY BOMBER IN AH.
--Kurt
Supreme Exalted Grand Pooh-bah Clown
Clowns of Death <Now Defunct>
'A pair of jokers beats a pair of aces'

Offline Kurt

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1149
      • http://www.clowns-of-death.com
B29
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2006, 09:35:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Iron_Cross
Listen the remote firing guns in a B-29 was a complex system that took into efect the speed of the aircraft, the angle the sights were pointed, the distance the targeted aircraft was at, and various other factors witch computed lead and put the bullets on the attacking plane.  


AH Has a lead computing gunsite... You can see it in the T.A.

Ctrl-tab to allow you to lock friendly (unnecessary if you can find a red in TA)..

Shift-Tab to track.

So, this plus the auto tracking guns on the bombers already and whiz-bang.. They aren't having any trouble coding it.  

The game already completely supports all the technology (I know, its unimaginable that a computer game run on a Pentium 4 in the year 2006 is smarter than the gunsite in a B29 in 1944... WOW, can you believe that stuff?).

HTC probably just doesn't want a bomber running around at 32k feet dropping huge bomb loads at speeds the fighters will have a hell of a time matching...

Its not the guns, its the speed and altitude the B29 runs at.  It would run mostly unopposed.  Thats what they don't want.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2006, 09:39:21 PM by Kurt »
--Kurt
Supreme Exalted Grand Pooh-bah Clown
Clowns of Death <Now Defunct>
'A pair of jokers beats a pair of aces'

Offline Midnight

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1809
      • http://www.brauncomustangs.org
B29
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2006, 10:13:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurt
HTC probably just doesn't want a bomber running around at 32k feet dropping huge bomb loads at speeds the fighters will have a hell of a time matching...


Heck, the way the MA works now, I would think people would be praising cod to see a bomber actually flying up high and dropping bombs from the level sight.

As to the remote gun system, why should that be included to begin with? There are several RL features, in many of the planes we already have, that have been omitted for gameplay purposes. (I.e. no K-14 gunsights, no G-suits, automatic cowl flaps, automatic retracting flaps, etc.)

I would love to see the B-29 in game simply to be able to do a virtual tour inside of one. The new standard for the B17 and B24 make being in an AH bomber a pretty close comparison to the real thing.

I just had a new idea for an observer position... see a new thread..

Offline Kurt

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1149
      • http://www.clowns-of-death.com
B29
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2006, 12:01:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Midnight
automatic cowl flaps


:huh

Engine cooling is a big issue for you??  

Thats the wierdest remark I've ever seen...

No G-suits?  My guy doesn't go stupid till sustaining something like 8G... I'd say he's wearing something...
--Kurt
Supreme Exalted Grand Pooh-bah Clown
Clowns of Death <Now Defunct>
'A pair of jokers beats a pair of aces'

Offline Kurt

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1149
      • http://www.clowns-of-death.com
B29
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2006, 12:03:42 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Midnight
Heck, the way the MA works now, I would think people would be praising cod to see a bomber actually flying up high and dropping bombs from the level sight.


I don't know about you, but I fly, and see B17's and B24s flying 10K and above all the time.

In MA the complaint is that they are too high, in the board the complaint is that they are too low.

For the record I have never seen a lanc dive bombing, so maybe I'm just dumb.
--Kurt
Supreme Exalted Grand Pooh-bah Clown
Clowns of Death <Now Defunct>
'A pair of jokers beats a pair of aces'

Offline SD67

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3218
B29
« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2006, 02:08:46 AM »
I've both seen and participated in Lancaster dive bombing.
There used to be a guy on called lancdive that did it all the time. Haven't seen him on for ages now.
9GIAP VVS RKKA
You're under arrest for violation of the Government knows best act!
Fabricati diem, punc
Absinthe makes the Tart grow fonder

Offline mussie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
B29
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2006, 03:54:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by E25280
Yes, you could set it up like you describe, and you would never hit anything.

In the b-17 et. al. currently in the game, you are firing guns actually attached to the sight.  All other guns firing from all other positions converge at roughly 600 yds IIRC.  Unless the fighter is actually close to that distance from you, you are either hitting with only the guns you are firing, or are "missing" at just the right angle that some of the other guns are hitting.  

Said another way, when a fighter is in close or is far away, the only guns that have a decent chance at hitting are those you are actually aiming.

So, a "gunless" turret, one that is set between your four actual gun turrets, firing at an object at any distance other than approx 600 yards away, have next to no chance of hitting anything.  The safest place for a fighter to be against your setup would be right next to the plane six feet off your aiming bubble -- you would never hit him.

Rear gun would work properly.  Forget about the rest.  Personally, I don't see the point taking a target that large up without the ability to fire effectively at interceptors.


Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the B-29 tailgun manned... ?

Offline Bogie603rd

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1563
      • http://603sqdrn.collectivelyspaced.com
B29
« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2006, 01:49:23 PM »
I have said it before, I will say it again. NO TO THE B-29! Even if it does not have a nuke, the moment the B-29 shows up in the hangar list of bombers, all the noobs and perk point earners will put in the wishlist: Nuke

Nuke:

We want a nuclear bomb for our B-29, why not, I mean we have nothing else to do with our perk points. PLEASE???


I will guarante you, that is exactly what will happen. It would be nice having a B-29, yet once it appears we have the "nuke-moochers" pop-up.
No. 603 Squadron... Visit us on the web, if you dare:
http://603sqdrn.collectivelyspaced.com
Join our TeamSpeak server, Click Here.

New forum ID: Denholm

Offline Kazaa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8371
      • http://www.thefewsquadron.co.uk
B29
« Reply #28 on: July 28, 2006, 02:33:46 PM »
So let me get this stright.

The turrets in the B29 would aim the deflection for you ? :huh



"If you learn from defeat, you haven't really lost."

Offline Bogie603rd

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1563
      • http://603sqdrn.collectivelyspaced.com
B29
« Reply #29 on: July 28, 2006, 06:50:19 PM »
WHOAH! No way, would be too easy to shoot anyone!
No. 603 Squadron... Visit us on the web, if you dare:
http://603sqdrn.collectivelyspaced.com
Join our TeamSpeak server, Click Here.

New forum ID: Denholm