B29

[Kurt]

Originally posted by Kazaa
So let me get this stright.

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

I don't think it did, but it sure seemed like thats what Iron_Cross was saying.  I can't argue with certainty on that topic.

I believe it was simply a centralized system where a gunner in one of the view ports could dial in a distance and the guns would auto converge to the aim point at that range... Lead computing would require an active radar of some sort for the gun site and I don't think they had anything like that.

My point was simply that regardless how it worked, the game already has all it needs to simulate it so the argument that they cant find a way to code it seems kinda silly.

For the record, I don't think we should have a b29

[Bogie603rd]

Hallelujah, someone who agrees with my plot of "We dont need a B-29!"

[E25280]

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

It was, which is why I said it was the only position that would work.  Sorry if I made that unclear.

Some of the rest of you *cough* Kurt *cough* obviously skipped what I posted.  

Having player-managed and changable-on-the-fly convergence for the turrets is the issue.  We do not have it now, and without it the turrets are next to useless.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by E25280
*cough* Kurt *cough*

Yeah, I'm always the bad guy.  But I'm totally over it.

hey, e25280, did you notice I've not even referred to one of your posts in this thread?  Are you a shade?  Or are you one of those annoying people who thinks everything is about you? Why are you pointing at me?

I'm sure you've got thousands of hours in the b29 as a gunner, and I'm just poo.

Ahem, sorry.. I digress.

Without any kind of radar range finder on board, the gunner is only eyeballing the range anyhow, its just not all that fancy.  

Besides, why would HT worry about that... The Norden bombsite we use in AH is completely unrealistic and doesn't even approach the way the real one worked.  Further more it is present in even Axis bombers in AH.

Something like the specifics of the gun targeting system is not what keeps the 29 out of AH...

What keeps the 29 out is that it completely outclasses every plane in the game and would be nearly unopposed in its proper flight role.

[stephen]

so how was on the fly convergence figurd in ww2? by radar?, im sure that the technology to empliment the gunz is available, and if not it will be soon, im sure that you guys are by far brainy'er than me, but once again I must state that it is almost requierd by comon sense that this plane has a future here, perk it to death, I dont mind, but it SHOULD be in AH..... its just THE best american strategic bomber in ww2, and its place should be assured.

[FrodeMk3]

I don't think that the guns would be any problem, They would probably work something like the guns on drones.

     HTC could not put a nuke in the MA, It would utterly ruin the gameplay when It goes from furballing to global thermonuclear war.

     As to being too High and too fast, Most HQ raids are usually 25k plus. They are as high as the bomber pilots have time to climb. The solution is usually: Wads of 163's upping from the base closest to HQ, ripping the bombers apart,then landing a bunch of kills. The B-29 may be fast and High, But It won't be 550-600mph and 40-50k.

     All that the B-29 would be is a bigger and better bomber, that's all. It would probably have such a(n) low ENY that you would have to fly half a dozen missions to score any points with it:(

     So, in other words...Keep waiting, asking, and realize that If we do get a new plane, It might not be a B-29, The american planeset has 3-4 bombers already. HTC might go German with the next bomber(FW-200?He-111?)Maybe Italian(SM-79). These would not destabilize the MA as much as a B-29, So we actually have more of a chance of seeing one of these.

    -Frode

[Kazaa]

Well if enough where made and they where used a lot during WW2, then I would like to see B-29 in the game for sure.

The game really does need a perk bomber, the only one I can think of is the B-29 Super Fortress.

People say the bomber would be flown at 25K minimum, but in my book, if they want to spend a good 40 minutes climbing that high, then good luck to them. Hey, it might encourage people to fight higher battles.

As for perking this beast, I would say 45 perks per bomber (135 for the set)! Why no more I hear you say, because those things would get jumped on so bad if anyone saw a set and its still the price of 3 Hawker Tempest !!!

As for ranging the guns, would 2 buttons work ? One to set them further and another closer.

[RAIDER14]

Originally posted by stephen
so how was on the fly convergence figurd in ww2? by radar?, im sure that the technology to empliment the gunz is available, and if not it will be soon, im sure that you guys are by far brainy'er than me, but once again I must state that it is almost requierd by comon sense that this plane has a future here, perk it to death, I dont mind, but it SHOULD be in AH..... its just THE best american strategic bomber in ww2, and its place should be assured.

B-17 was best in WW2

[Bogie603rd]

I still say "NO". People don't believe me, yet when you get the B-29 we will be hearing these "Nuke" conversations popping up. Not just from the newer bunch, but from some bored veterans that want to spend their perks on something intresting.

Really, I don't mind the B-29, I know it had more than just a payload of a nuclear bomb. I would enjoy seeing it in the game. But you need to look ahead, and that's why I still say "No".

[E25280]

Originally posted by Kurt
Yeah, I'm always the bad guy.  But I'm totally over it.

hey, e25280, did you notice I've not even referred to one of your posts in this thread?  Are you a shade?  Or are you one of those annoying people who thinks everything is about you? Why are you pointing at me?

I'm sure you've got thousands of hours in the b29 as a gunner, and I'm just poo.

Ahem, sorry.. I digress.

Without any kind of radar range finder on board, the gunner is only eyeballing the range anyhow, its just not all that fancy.  

Besides, why would HT worry about that... The Norden bombsite we use in AH is completely unrealistic and doesn't even approach the way the real one worked.  Further more it is present in even Axis bombers in AH.

Something like the specifics of the gun targeting system is not what keeps the 29 out of AH...

What keeps the 29 out is that it completely outclasses every plane in the game and would be nearly unopposed in its proper flight role.

No, Kurt, I am not a shade.  This is the only BBs ID I have ever had, and the two names I have used in game play are both in my sig.

No, the reason I picked on you (and continue to) is because I have explained and repeated why the automatic turrets will not work in the current AH without some significant "Coading" on HTCs part.  And for some reason, you choose to ignore it and say it would work as it is now.

And it isn't really picking on you in particular, but you make a good proxy for all the others as well.  Like this guy:

Originally posted by Frode
I don't think that the guns would be any problem, They would probably work something like the guns on drones.

Seriously, nothing personal (to either of you).

So I will try one last time, then I am done.

Say you are firing from a B-17 from the waist gunner position at an interceptor coming in at a high, oblique angle.  You put your crosshairs on him and fire.  Your gun fires in a straight line in the direction your crosshairs point.  All other guns that can be brought to bare on the target fire too.  IIRC, these guns converge on where your crosshairs are pointing at a SET distance of 550 or 600 yds.  I also believe (someone will correct me if I am wrong) all the gunfire from the two drones also converge at this distance.

So, at convergence, the target vaporizes. . .

But you missed.  The little jerk comes right at you, coming inside of D100.  At this point, you still have your crosshairs on him and fire.  Your single 50cal at the waist hits him.  But because of the SET convergence of other guns, everything else fires above, below, or around him because they are trying to hit where you are pointing at a farther distance.

Clear so far?

B-29's gunner positions (except tail gunner) are near the middle of the aircraft.  There is a bubble dome of glass to look through and fire the guns.  But the four turrets are set two near the front of the aircraft and two near the rear.  They are locked to your firing controls.  You fire, if all four turrets fire.  Sounds on the surface to be like we have in the game now.

Here is the extremely important difference.  IRL, the gunner can change his convergence.  In AH, we have no mechanism to do so while in flight.  It is set at about 600 yds.

Rerun the B-17 scenario above.  Again, at convergence, the target will vaporize.  UNLIKE the b-17 scenario, if you miss at convergence and he gets to within D100, you do not have even a single 50cal to hit him with.  Add on top the fact that the guns on the B-29 are farther apart than on the B-17, and on the top and bottom of the aircraft (nothing "in line" with your waist gunner) the problem caused by the SET convergence is exacerbated.

Bottom line, HTC has to "Coad" something new for the B-29 guns to be effective from any position other than the tail.  From what I have read on the B-29 subject in the past, I have gathered this is the major hang-up.

And the more I think about it, if the convergence issue was solved, I wouldn't want to come within three miles of them.  After all, IRL the gunner had to estimate the distance he was firing and set the convergence.  In AH we have the nice red DXXX to tell us what the distance really is.  Noooo . . . it would be too unbalanced IMO.

I'm done now.  I will check back later and I am sure someone will say "it isn't any different than what we have now".

[stephen]

lets just say for a moment {i live in fantasy land so please forgive me} that the B-29 was introduced dispite the considerable work it would take to do so....what would be a reasonable perk price?

and as for the guns being so terribly accurate that no one would approach..., well i read book where a gunner on a B29 confirmed the acuracy of the guns..
he stated that as long as the gunner computed the distance correctly you could "stitch em up good" as for the distance being constantly coputed in AH currently, well I allready have a problem with that,,lol its very usefull when aiming gunz on ANY airplane we currently have.....and mabey a little cheap:( , perhaps within D1000 the counter could just dissapear and only show plane type.......I just thought of this so i havent considerd every little problem that might be apparent to others, let the hate mail begin:lol

[Bogie603rd]

That's another problem. Everyone would wanna fly the B-29 because of the accuracy of the guns. Relating back to a previous post, they would literally be flying the plane getting more perks than was required in the first place to buy the plane. Simply because of accuracy. And, no, the low ENY won't help. You can always land, re-arm, and re-up. I still say "No".

[stephen]

ok luckily you arent the one that has to be convinced, of course everyone would want to fly it, everyone is slobbering to fly the 262 and 163 as it is,, what im saying is that a heavy perk would eliminate it as an every bombing run ride, of course there would be hq raids but who is gonna risk 110 perks to fly it?,,,i could kill the best bomber pilot 5 outta ten times, and so could anyone that has flown for over 6 months,,perhaps an experiment is in order...

and as for the H-bomb requests, well allready there are numerouse threads about adding features/planes that are not being fullfilled and yet keep appearing....its the nature of the beast dude:cool:

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by skycaptn
The objective to those who really really want the B-29 is simply this... Find out how to make it a priority of HTC.. all companys rely on income from their consumers thereby feedback from consumers should get their attention.  

HTC listen up! I am a consumer and have been for a while. I DON'T want the B-29. Don't make it a priority. Ignore all such requests.

The objective of those who don't want the B-29 is simply this. We don't need a super bomber in the game. The Bombers we have already outgun a large airfield. Attacking an airfield is a cakewalk compared to attacking 3 bombers flown by one person with all guns slaved to one position.

Concider this feedback for HTC.

[bkbandit]

auto guns??? i can go from one gun on a bomber and fire every gun that can look in that direction, thats enuff auto, attacking a set alone is tuff enough, unless u got a good angle tons of speed or the guy flyin cant shoot for nothin u wont get them.