F3 view

[Larry]

Then in this example every plane that has poor rear views, has a gunner, and labeled '-bomber/attack' should be  F3 capable?

Yes.

[AKP]

[SmokinLoon]

Then in this example every plane that has poor rear views should be  F3 capable?

My thoughts exactly.  An aircraft should not receive a "gift" because it has a sub-standard attribute regardless of what it is.  The IL-2 has a poor rear view and possible the worst rear view of any single engine aircraft in the game, but it has a most awesome ability to destory GV's and absorb damage.  The IL-2 should not in any way shape or form be able to do what it does now (dogfight) as well it as it does and it only able to do that due to the obscene ability of F3 views.  Otherwise... it is a sitting duck.  Hmm... I guess that means it needs to have fighter cover to be safe enough to work against gv's.  Now THERE is a concept.    

There is no ryhme of reason as to why the Il-2 has the F3 views and not the 110x.  They have the exact same capabilities (dive bomb and direct fire).  Yet... for some odd reason the IL-2 is afforded the bonus and the 110x is not. 

I've said before that for an aircraft to have the F3 views it should meet 2 criteria: level bombing capability (a legit bomb sight), and a low/rear gunner.  Just because an aircraft has a HTC designation of a "bomber" shouldnt denote that it has F3 view capability, imo.

Also, it is quite odd that the Il-2 is able to be scored as bomber or attack, yet the TBM is a bomber only when it too has direct fire/dive bomb capability (rockets are for level bombing???).     

[mechanic]

I agree with the argument to disable the IL-2's F3 mode...to some extent, if forced to have an opinion. Mainly in accordance with my opinion on F3 mode being available at all, especialy in the DA (there are no bombers in the DA, why have F3?)

However, I would much rather HTC worked on something that actualy matters.

[hammer]

Then in this example every plane that has poor rear views,has a gunner, and labeled '-bomber/attack' should be  F3 capable?

Yes.

If I understand the reason for the existence of the F3 view, this argument is not valid.

As I understand it, F3 is available to simulate the SA available from the entire crew. Now, I am NOT in favor of giving any fighter F3 views, but logically, any aircraft with a crew on board should have the same capability. Where I think the simplified every-bomber-gets-F3 solution loses its applicability is on the planes with only 1 other crewman, i.e. the dorsal gunner. Why would a SBD have better SA than a 110, a Boulton Paul Defiant, or a Fokker G1 (if they got added)? They have the same, or in the case of the Fokker, more crew than a SBD, D3A, Il-2, etc etc.

Again, I'm not in favor of giving any fighter an F3 view, but I think something besides the generic F3 view should be applied to planes with only a dorsal gunner.

Regards,

Hammer

[Rich46yo]

I agree with the argument to disable the IL-2's F3 mode...to some extent, if forced to have an opinion. Mainly in accordance with my opinion on F3 mode being available at all, especialy in the DA (there are no bombers in the DA, why have F3?)

However, I would much rather HTC worked on something that actualy matters.

You mean you dont think dog fighting, F3 view, IL-2s at 15,000' matter?

[BaldEagl]

I haven't read all the posts but I would think the F3 view in a two gun plane with a rear gun position would simulate the rear gunner calling con positions for the pilot.  IMO it's not much different than the Linda Blair effect in fighters which simulates rear-view mirrors.

If the F3 view were eliminated I think you'de see far fewer of these planes (IL2, TBM, A-20, D3A, Bf-110, Ju-87, etc.) being flown and they aren't exactly dominating the arena now.

[mechanic]

You mean you dont think dog fighting, F3 view, IL-2s at 15,000' matter?

 Well, I think the number of trees that were turned into paper to type this thread is of slightly more importance than external view dogfighting IL-2's are at any altitude.   

[Oleg]

I would like to see, why bomber/attacker with tail gunner must have external view, but fighter/attacker with same tail gunner must not.

imho, only planes which actually have full all around view should have external view available.

[Widewing]

While I believe this statement is true for the large bombers bristling with gun positions, I think a better option for those planes with only a dorsal turret / rear gunner might be to have certain views able to be set from the gunner's position. In the Il2, for example, you could have the ability to set the pilot's 6 view as coming from the gunner's position. You would still have to switch to the gunner's position to use the gun, but you could see from it as if you were sitting there. This would, IMHO, better represent a single additional pair of eyes in the plane feeding information to the pilot. This same system could apply to 110s, B5Ns, D3As, A-20s, etc etc.

Regards,

Hammer

Remember that the A-20 and Boston are hampered by HTC not including the ventral gun position. There should be a gun facing down and back, covering a 90 degree arc from dead six to straight down. It was omitted, however, the ability to see that blind spot is permitted by F3 view.


My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

There is no ryhme of reason as to why the Il-2 has the F3 views and not the 110x.  They have the exact same capabilities (dive bomb and direct fire).  Yet... for some odd reason the IL-2 is afforded the bonus and the 110x is not.      

Of course there is. It's either outside of your reasoning skills, or you're just ignoring the obvious. 

Concentrate. Go fly a 110 and IL-2, tell us what the difference is to the rear. If you can't see the difference, then you are simply not trying.


My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Then in this example every plane that has poor rear views should be  F3 capable?

Is there something odd in the water where you live?

It's a simple concept, the IL-2 is blind to the rear due to armor. Originally, the IL-2 was a single seat aircraft. However, because the pilot had no rear vision, it was an easy plane to attack and destroy. Thus, a gunner position was added, with an intercom system. Therefore, the gunner could fire at enemy aircraft and inform the pilot of their presence.

Some stated that since the Bf 110 has a rear gunner, it should have F3 view as well. Wrong. The Bf 110 has excellent views to the rear.


My regards,

Widewing

[shreck]

I haven't read all the posts but I would think the F3 view in a two gun plane with a rear gun position would simulate the rear gunner calling con positions for the pilot. 

Hmm try this--> get a bud to fly tail gunner for you, now go find some cons and have him call out threats to you and see if is remotely close to using F3 views! I think you will be frustrated

Besides in a violent turning fest do you think those gunners can do anything other than try not to vomit while trying to stay oriented?

[R 105]

Yes limit F-3 in bombers and get rid of it in the DA. People use it all the time in DA to make deflection shots they could not possibly make in any other arena. Then all claim innocents if you call them on it.

R-105

[Widewing]

Yes limit F-3 in bombers and get rid of it in the DA. People use it all the time in DA to make deflection shots they could not possibly make in any other arena. Then all claim innocents if you call them on it.

R-105

I agree that it should be off in the DA....

However, if you film your fights, you can establish who is using it.


My regards,

Widewing