how about turning ON wind???

[Roadblck]

Winds are predictable most of the time.

The reason why B-29 were having trouble over japan is because japan has a jet steam over it, most paces do not. Even if HTC makes a jet stream when was the last time you seen a bomber over 30K in AH2?

I don't know if they had the same kind of technology back in ww2 that we have today, to measure winds aloft.  I would disagree with you and say they aren't always so predictable.  They often vary a great deal depending on altitude.

For example:  current winds aloft above Birmingham, AL.

Altitude   Heading / Speed (knots)
3000       240 / 6
6000       210 / 11
9000       210 / 11
12000     light & variable
18000     170 / 14
24000     240 / 20
30000     290 / 10
34000     010 / 7
39000     040 / 17

I would imagine bombing in these conditions could be pretty tricky.

Honestly, I don't know that modeling winds like this in the MA would be all that much fun.  Maybe in one of the scenario-based arenas.

[hitech]

It should not be possible for 1 pilot (plus formations) to accurately hit targets in a high speed bomber cruising at high altitudes.

Case in point.  

Japan in 1945.  B-29 bombers were forced to drop altitudes because they can't accurately hit targets at high altitudes.

This is a classic case of trying to solve a non existent problem with selective realism. First the MA bomb sight completely compensates for wind so just turning wind on would do nothing to change things.

2nd you are only looking at one sided realism, how many targets were hit with just 3 bombers? How do you compensate for representing the damage done by a group of bombers? It's easy to say they should just have more people to bomb, but that is also not a real solution simply because how and what people like to fly.


3rd the out come of your desire (less  precise bombs) would then need another complete change on the damage side.
Another words how many bombs it takes to destroy a structure and how how many structures would all have to be changed to maintain the same amount of outcome per bomber.
4th before we added some precision and less difficulty back into bombing (I.E. to calibrate you had to hold a cross hair on 1 point of the terrain) bombers where not seen very often.

So is your desire to make bombing more difficult? Or is it simply to make it appear more realistic, i.e. more spread on bombs but we could then add a bigger blast radius so the out come was the same.


The largest issue with adding wind, is that you can only turn it on at higher alt's or you completely mess with people landing and taking off.
Again you could say that taking off in a cross wind is more realistic but the take off and landing part of AH is not something extremely important to the fun/combat of AH.

HiTech

[Ruah]

just a quick fyi here - the reason the bombers came down so low over japan was because they switched from explosive to incindiary munitions.  while its true that accuracy was relativly poor at the higher altitudes, the low loss of life more than justified it (it was not like civilian casualties was an issue) - however when they changed to firebombing, then the planes had to come down to be effective.

to the topic - it takes a lot of patience to line up a target right even in AH2, why gimp bombers more?  If anything, its the death-star formations that really get to me.

[Infidelz]

This is a classic case of trying to solve a non existent problem with selective realism. First the MA bomb sight completely compensates for wind so just turning wind on would do nothing to change things.

2nd you are only looking at one sided realism, how many targets were hit with just 3 bombers? How do you compensate for representing the damage done by a group of bombers? It's easy to say they should just have more people to bomb, but that is also not a real solution simply because how and what people like to fly.


3rd the out come of your desire (less  precise bombs) would then need another complete change on the damage side.
Another words how many bombs it takes to destroy a structure and how how many structures would all have to be changed to maintain the same amount of outcome per bomber.
4th before we added some precision and less difficulty back into bombing (I.E. to calibrate you had to hold a cross hair on 1 point of the terrain) bombers where not seen very often.

So is your desire to make bombing more difficult? Or is it simply to make it appear more realistic, i.e. more spread on bombs but we could then add a bigger blast radius so the out come was the same.


The largest issue with adding wind, is that you can only turn it on at higher alt's or you completely mess with people landing and taking off.
Again you could say that taking off in a cross wind is more realistic but the take off and landing part of AH is not something extremely important to the fun/combat of AH.

HiTech

Mr. HiTech,

I for one would like to have wind play apart in landings and takeoffs. Just because its real pilot er stuff.

Infidelz.

[gyrene81]

just a quick fyi here - the reason the bombers came down so low over japan was because they switched from explosive to incindiary munitions.  while its true that accuracy was relativly poor at the higher altitudes, the low loss of life more than justified it (it was not like civilian casualties was an issue) - however when they changed to firebombing, then the planes had to come down to be effective.

Actually, in the case of the B-29s over Japan it was more due to the higher losses of aircraft and lower accuracy at high alts from winds and heavy clouds. I believe it was orders from General Lemay when all B-29 bombers were assigned to the 21st bomber group (?) in the Mariana islands.




I'd rather see more random weather effects in the main arenas...not just wind to keep bombers from hitting something on the ground.

[SmokinLoon]

I believe that if there was a CONSTANT wind speed (5-10mph) on a directional rotation, say switch 45 degrees counter clockwise (to be opposite the sun movement, just because) every 30 minutes (top and bottom of hour to be predictable for bomber pilots), the players would adapt accordingly with a minimal learning curve.  We've done it for dropping on a CV (every 10k = 1 full length ahead for aim point), so why would we not do the same thing for wind vs stationary targets???

IMO, I think adding wind would add a bit more realism to the sim-game, and it would cause all players to think a wee bit more.Instead of taking a week to learn the basics on how to bomb, it would take a week and a day.  We all know that after a month or two Looshy would produce a graph showing speed, altitude, and wind drift tables. 

I say go for it in one of the LW arenas and see how it goes.  The other major aspect many people are forgetting is how the wind speed will effect turn and climb rates. 

[Ardy123]

The largest issue with adding wind, is that you can only turn it on at higher alt's or you completely mess with people landing and taking off.
Again you could say that taking off in a cross wind is more realistic but the take off and landing part of AH is not something extremely important to the fun/combat of AH.

HiTech,

How do you feel about adding a simple air-turbulence model to clouds, such that if you flew under certain clouds you could hit thermals, etc... or maybe have several winds at different alts within a tight alt band that randomly change in force and direction when inside of a cloud? This would make clouds have more of an impact on combat.

[kvuo75]

The other major aspect many people are forgetting is how the wind speed will effect turn and climb rates.  

it would do nothing to climb or turn rates.

you are "remembering" something imaginary.


airplanes fly through the air.

[waystin2]

Buy a fan!  Problem solved...

[Ghosth]

I have one of those blowing into the side of my computer case.
I figure that's why my plane always wiggles on takeoff, getting crosswind from the fan.

[SmokinLoon]

it would do nothing to climb or turn rates.

you are "remembering" something imaginary.

Oh really?  That isn't what my flight instructor says, especially in the short term.  If you are nose into the wind and roll the plane 90 degrees and pull back on the stick, you are going to claim that the oncoming wind will not change the rate in which your aircraft turns?  Likewise, at certain speeds the rate in which the air flows over the wing wont be affected by the oncoming wind (if going nose into the wind) for rate of climb (or effect drag)?  What about having a tail wind for TAS and fuel efficiency?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on aero-physics, I'm just saying that having wind in the game would effect FAR more than having to adjust when dropping ordnance.

[Dichotomy]

I have one of those blowing into the side of my computer case.
I figure that's why my plane always wiggles on takeoff, getting crosswind from the fan.

but does yours have those way cool red blades?

[Ghosth]

As a matter of fact it does!

[Dichotomy]

always a step ahead of me aren't you? 

[kvuo75]

Oh really?  That isn't what my flight instructor says, especially in the short term.

I'd lose that instructor.

If you are nose into the wind and roll the plane 90 degrees and pull back on the stick, you are going to claim that the oncoming wind will not change the rate in which your aircraft turns?

I do claim that. exactly.  If you're going 200 IAS, you're going 200 IAS.. Doesn't matter which way the air is going.

simplified:

wind is nothing more than a mass of air moving relative to the ground. airplanes fly through the air. in flight, the airplane doesn't care if the air is calm, moving 20mph over the ground, or 200mph over the ground..

Likewise, at certain speeds the rate in which the air flows over the wing wont be affected by the oncoming wind (if going nose into the wind) for rate of climb (or effect drag)?  What about having a tail wind for TAS and fuel efficiency?

You have an instructor, but still do not understand IAS/TAS/GS ?


lemme guess, you think a plane on a treadmill can fly?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on aero-physics, I'm just saying that having wind in the game would effect FAR more than having to adjust when dropping ordnance.

if it was a surface wind, it would make landings and takeoffs more interesting. because that's where the interface happens between air and ground.