PLease I asked for this once, and I ask this again.

[RAM]

PLease, this is being sorely missed in Fw190!...

We lack the historical electrical switch that  made possible to fire internal cannons only,external cannons only, or both linked. That switch was present at the cockpit of the real Fw190A, but it's not here.

So far we can fire an all out volley only, and that is simply not fair because:

1-if I want to keep ammo by firing only a couple of cannons, I can't. Ammo lasts much less in Fw190 than it should because we can't save ammo like F4Us or Nikis can do.

2-Fw190A5's MGFF have a very different ballistics than MG151, making accuracy rough.  I'd like to fire first the FFs and after finishing the ammo,then the 151s. I can't do it.

3-Fw190A8's MK108s are completely unnacurate with linked fire. It is a mess to fire, and with a gun that requires so much accuracy this switch is a MUST BE!.

The Switch was there in all (and i mean ALL) the simulators I can remember flying so far modelling the Fw190A8. From SWOTL to EAW.

This is a historic and REALISTIC feature.

 In fact I'd like to know if Niki's ,Tiffie's and Chog's Cannons could fire unlinked in RL...because 190s could do it only because the electrical system they used (the 190 was the first "electrical" fighter in the world).

And that system AFAIK wasnt present in the japanese,british or US planes.

So PLEASE put this switch for the 190 on in 1.05...Pretty pleaseeeeeee

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-20-2000).]

[StSanta]

<PUNT>

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[fats]

Well since there's only two triggers, what if we were able to _remove_ the cowl MGs and at least then we could fire the cannon sets separately?

A novel idea...


// fats

[RAM]

So to win a realistic feature we have to give up firepower?

no way.

MGs wont we very effective, but I want all the firepower I can get. Put the switch, please.

[Vermillion]

RAM I don't think it has to do with any anti-190 conspiracy, but the simple fact that the game engine is setup to fire with only 2 banks of guns.



------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Vermillion:
RAM I don't think it has to do with any anti-190 conspiracy, but the simple fact that the game engine is setup to fire with only 2 banks of guns.

I didnt say a word about conspiracy. I asked it to HT once online and at first he didnt know what was I asking about. He told that he would look into it.

I asked him another time a couple of months later and he told me that it was impossible to do...

But I can't understand why. See, SWOTL had it, Aces over Europe had it, EAW had it...all the WWII ETO fighter sims I have flown have it...and it was only to click ONE button to change the setting (one pull, internal cannons, two, external, three internal&external four back to one)

So I ask...is REALLY that difficult?...I know nothing of programming, but I dont see how can be so difficult  

and we 190 pilots miss a lot of things due the lack of the switch...ammo endurance, aiming, etc.

It is unrealistic, and,you will agree with me, unfair.

And I still ask...did Nikis, F4U1C and Tiffies have the option to fire they cannons selectively in WWII?...because if they didnt this is going to be really annoying  


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-20-2000).]

[Lephturn]

It seems to me you asked HT and he answered you.  Obviously it is difficult enough not to be worth taking time away from other parts of the game development right now.

If the game is only designed with two banks of guns, adding another set can't be a trivial thing.  You have your answer, and straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs  http://www.flyingpigs.com


"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
 - Steve Earl

[RAM]

Lephturn, it is a simple question to make it sure. I dont think is bad to ask if there is any way to do it, and I have given an idea on how to do it.

I asked HT, and he answered me. Three months ago. Many thing have changed in AH in the meantime, and I think that ask once each 2 or 3 months isn't too much. More if we know that 1.05 is coming and maybe there is a way to fit that fix in the new release...or at least make them think if it can be done.

You seem to say to me "you asked HT once and you got your answer so now shut up". And I answer you that "I asked him and got an answer. but things have changed and that answer may change too. So I ask. And I dont hurt anybody for doing it".

Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear about Nikis, Hogs and Tiffies.

[straffo]

 

So I ask...is REALLY that difficult?...I know nothing of programming, but I dont see how can be so difficult

Oh god  
I love users   they allway make me have fun  
Btw RAM it depend perhaps heavily of implementation ,if HT made some hardcoded choices he cannot make some "light"(for you) modification without rewriting all or parts of AH and frankly I prefer seeing Carrier and LA7 than yetanotherbetatest  

And it's perhaps sad but if HT said it's impossible ...well it should be ...

Regards

------------------
"Real man fly Yak!" A.Nonymous

[This message has been edited by straffo (edited 10-20-2000).]

[RAM]

Straffo, that quote must be read as:

"I am so ignorant that I dont know why such a simple thing can't be easilly modelled".

Of course I know that programming is a different world, I was stating with that quote my annoyement seeing that such an important and relatively minor thing is negating us some of 190's advantage, not that I did not believe in HT's words.  

As I said in my answer to Lephturn, this thread is a reminder..like "hey you remember this?...maybe now you can do it, or maybe in some time or...but at least look into it again, pretty pliz?".

If we don't ask questions, be sure that we never get what we want.  

Maybe they look into this in next versions, who knows  

(BTW 190 is NOT the only plane suffering from the lack of the switch, Me109 had it for gondolas, IIRC)  

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-20-2000).]

[straffo]

Well just a few minute before I've read your post I been surrended by 1 'user' (that's a lot for me  )

To make a long story short I will resume briefly his though : you could...you should...you would... it's simple no ? and the result : about 3 month work to do explained in 3 minutes  
I've to see my project manager now   for a complete new project called "the complete rewrite of the not so good previous project which doesn't correspond to what the 'user' believed he need (there's 3 month) now that he had completly changed his mind  "

That's why I try to avoid at all cost contact with users I try to build UserProof software   without great success the 'user' is a strange phenome able the break everything even the more robust code  )


------------------
"Real man fly Yak!" A.Nonymous

[Karnak]

I can see how it could be implimented as an ordance "Backspace" option.  Default would be all cannon on button 2, hit backspace once and its inboard cannon only, hit back space again and its outboard cannon only, hit bacspace again and its your bomb, droptank or back to all cannon.

That probably wouldn't be too hard to program.

Sisu
-Karnak

[Pyro]

Lots of planes had the ability to turn off individual guns.  Many did not have dual triggers either.  The system we have is basically a middle ground.  It would up the complexity of the system greatly to model every plane's armament system exactly.  The gain of doing that, while a nice touch, doesn't outweigh the costs in our opinion.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[Nath-BDP]

Even WW2F has the option to fire outboard cannons only in 190.

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Pyro:
Lots of planes had the ability to turn off individual guns.  Many did not have dual triggers either.  The system we have is basically a middle ground.  It would up the complexity of the system greatly to model every plane's armament system exactly.  The gain of doing that, while a nice touch, doesn't outweigh the costs in our opinion.

Pyro, with the outmost of my respects, I have to disagree with you.

Fw190A has now a disadvantage in this aspect. We can't economize ammo and hitting with some weapon sets is highly difficult.

One thing is to do a big work to accomodate a relative minor change to the fire control of some planes, other is to give the best German plane of WWII its impressive flexibility that was one of its biggest strenghts. The ability to fire selective weapons with only changing a switch is NOT a minor thing, it is (was) one of the biggest advances in Fw190. And here we don't have it.

Fw190A was as versatile as was because its weapons flexibility. The switch was a bassic part of it.

Pyro Fw190A is so underdog here because it lacks most of its strong points, some that are very hard to simulate in a PC game.

Its improvements were mostly to give a pilot a friendly plane to fly so he could concentrate on combat. Kommandogėrat, exceptional stability and maneouverability thanks to a very advanced flight control system, and an intuitive way to fire the weapons required in each moment.

Here all planes have kommandogėrat,and all planes are pilot friendly (and with good reasons, I can't disagree)...but I see planes that I doubt that could fire their weapons individually doing it while my favorite plane ,the Fw190, the one that more easily could do it, can't. Sorry if I find this absolutely annoying, but I do.

You have the last word in this, though.And seems that your point of view is clear. If you say it's not worth the effort I can't make you change your mind. But, again, I deeply disagree.

I can agree that give all planes all their fire control minor qualities is highly complex. But this is not a minor issue, is a major enhancement on the pilot's choice in a fight. This is not a minor issue, is a major need, from my point of view. And if you ask any dedicated Fw190 driver, you will find that all agree on this.

I hope that someday you change your point of view at this problem.Thanks for your time, anyway  


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-20-2000).]