Author Topic: HTC F6 question (Read 632 times)

LYNX · « **on:** February 12, 2007, 04:07:18 AM »

HTC this has probable been asked before but I can't find references.

I as do many others dislike the fact that heavy level bombers can drop bombs in a dive. Along with it being infeasible with the exception of the ju88's external load out, it's a tad gaming the game.

The question is ... is there any reason why this hasn't been coded out or put into F6 (auto level flight bomb site view) by default ?

Preemptive thanks for the reply.

DREDger · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2007, 10:04:15 AM »

Completely in agreement with this. Dive bombing lancs and B-24's is such 'gaming the game' these days. I

t detracts from the game IMO, historically you just wouldn't see a flight of bombers dive bomb in a suicide mision onto a CV (which is where it seems to occur most effectively)

Seems to be an easy enuf fix to me, just make it so you have to be in bombsite view to drop, not F3 view.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2007, 10:22:40 AM »

If I understood his previous response it was along the lines of " There are worse exploits than this so its not worth dealing with."

Simaril · « **Reply #3 on:** February 12, 2007, 11:08:57 AM »

Not only that -- it doesnt solve your problem at all. Zero. Period.

Here's why: Try setting salvo to 20, nose down as if to dive bomb, then rapidly hit F6/Fire2. Even without a macro or programmed button, that takes about a half second.

Point 1. Limiting to F6 drops would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to those who want to exploit

HT has said he wants to eventually do the 3D modelling of bomb bays and bomb physics. That is a big chunk of coding, but when implemented it would prevent steep dive, nose down bombing by heavies.

Do we want him to take resources away from upgrades and CT for this? Not me. The problem isnt big enough.

In the meantime, he does NOT want to implement kludge factor shortcuts that arbitrarily simulate the physics of bombing. For example, dive angle limitations, even if historical, don't account for toss bombing or other G-loaded drops that COULD be done in real life.

Here's an extensive discussion with HT's responses

LYNX · « **Reply #4 on:** February 12, 2007, 11:16:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
If I understood his previous response it was along the lines of " There are worse exploits than this so its not worth dealing with."

Thanks for that .... couldn't find it

Simaril · « **Reply #5 on:** February 12, 2007, 11:22:26 AM »

Its quoted in my link, near the bottom, with a link to the thread that has the actual post.

DREDger · « **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2007, 11:34:27 AM »

it doesnt solve your problem at all. Zero. Period

Well, however then. I would like to see no more dive bombing heavy bombers...period. Maybe make it so bombs won't release from heavy bombers at angles greater than 10 degrees...seems easy enough...essentially you would have to be level to bomb.

Do we want him to take resources away from upgrades and CT for this?

I would like to see something done about this yes.

DREDger · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2007, 11:39:30 AM »

Quite a long post Samaril, obvious you have put a good deal of thought and research into this.

Didn't notice that anyone from HTC acknowledged your effort on that.

skycaptn · « **Reply #8 on:** February 12, 2007, 11:42:34 AM »

While your at it take away the 3 gun LA-7 as they where almost no exsistant.. make the 163's have a 75% chance of randomly exploding on take off.. All spitfires should be non-exsistant outside of base defense.. Typhoons tails should fall off in any type of diving turn, Early models of P-38s should be prone to engine failure, P51's should at random loose collant pressure and drop out of the sky, Add gun Jamming to ALL aircraft fighter and bomber alike, Enable complex engine management, full weather conditions that include zero visability in storms, nightime with no gamma setting ability..

If your going to add realism to one group of aircraft.. why not all of them?

LYNX · « **Reply #9 on:** February 12, 2007, 12:32:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril
Its quoted in my link, near the bottom, with a link to the thread that has the actual post.

Thanks for that. I suppose everything comes to he who waits.

Ball · « **Reply #10 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:05:09 PM »

i think that level bombers should not be able to divebomb anywhere, with the exception of a 10 mile radius around tank town.

in fact, bombers should get an airstart over tank town.

SlapShot · « **Reply #11 on:** February 12, 2007, 03:40:06 PM »

Here's why: Try setting salvo to 20, nose down as if to dive bomb, then rapidly hit F6/Fire2. Even without a macro or programmed button, that takes about a half second.

Are you sure about that Sim ?

I don't fly bombers, but if you take an M3 or C-47 and hit the button to release to the troops, if you switch from the "1" view to any other view ... the troops stop deploying.

Sooooo ... make it so you have to remain in the F6 view to release bombs ... if you jump from that view ... bomb deployment stops.

Simaril · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2007, 03:52:14 PM »

I guess my point was that the high angle attack still happens. Troops are dfferent than bombs, because there is a AH-controlled limit to the per paratrooper delay.

On the other hand, you CAN actually get bombs to salvo with a 0.05 sec spacing. That means you can nose down, do the f6/drop sequence, and have all (9)x(1000lbs)x(3 bomber formation) = 27K pounds dropped in less than 0.5 sec (0.05 x 9 bombs).

In the required (maybe) 1 second, the auto level function engaged when you hit F6 won't make a dent on the dive angle.

So, I still dont think the F6 view requirement would have ANY effect on high angle dive bombing.

DREDger · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:06:15 PM »

Seems to me the attitude angle would be an easy enough solution.

If the heavy bomber attitude indicator is at 0 or very close too, then you can drop bombs.

If not, then they won't release.

Seems that would stop the 45 degree nose down lancs going after CV's or ahhmmm..TT gv's.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that heavy bombers should only be allowed to level bomb.

Simaril · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:27:27 PM »

Everyone but HT -- who quite reasonably feels that the effect of bomb bays on drop angles should be simulated rather than kludged. He wants to do a physics modelled bomb bay, that would include the effects of bomb inertia on pull outs. Inertial and gravitational effects DO alter the drop angles possible, and HT said

Quote

Originally posted by HiTech
....your proposition is arbtrary. I know about your tables but to only implement them with out implementing the real physics adjustements that those tables are generated from, would be a totaly arbitray adjustment.

2. people tend to greatly over state the angle of dive bombing buffs.

3. bombers can pull resonable g's, It all depends on how they are loading.

4. implementing the angles will not realy change game play lot, people will just learn to come down fast, level at 1k and drop that way.
So the next request will be (noden didn't work at that alt so it should be disabled) Followed by the next request ( for low level stuff they could use fixed sights so please implement that).

5. Implementing the F6 things would , make it so it is not posible to do mass formations drops. I.E. Drop when the lead does.

Finaly I do wish to do bombay modeling, But it is by no means just a quick simple implementation. Nore would it drasticly change game play. So hence it gets put low on the list. But to implement your request would go down an artifical limitation path.

HiTech

[HT quoted from here