Improve realism of the Norden bomsite

[artik]

The current "Norden" bombsite calibration procedure gives us almost pinpoint accuracy.

Ki-67 or Boston formation to 20K can easily take out any "light" target on the map
and run away before anybody catches you. In Boston or Ki-67 you can kill several
radars in one flight and RTB safely.

You can also sink non-maneuvering ships relatively without big problems from the same safe altitude.

It is quite fun for the MA where flying bombers becomes fun and quite easy, and what is important
that it seems that level bombing from safe altitude is much more accurate than dive bombing.

However in Historical perspective it is not quite so. It seems that AH model is closed theoretical
(or advertisement)  accuracy:

we do not regard a 15-foot square ... as being a very difficult target to hit from an altitude of 30,000 feet

Which wasn't actually even nearly true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden_bombsight#Entering_combat

And of course sinking ships with Norden was very rare.

It it possible to improve its model so it would be close to real? And make it is as "arena option"
such that it would be possible to select the needed realism level?

[olds442]

We have realistic tank sights this just seems logical
+1

[Latrobe]

I'm not a bomber guy, but I heard that out bombsights automatically compensate for the wind. Why did they add wind in the first place then?? Why not have wind affect your bombs so you have to plan your approach and manually adjust for the wind? You can either come in below 12K and risk fighters, or come in at 20K+ and risk bombs missing due to wind.

[ImADot]

They already have an arena option for a more manual calibration, but choose to use the more automatic one in the main arenas.

[artik]

They already have an arena option for a more manual calibration, but choose to use the more automatic one in the main arenas.

Can you please provide explanation?

How "more manual" calibration works? What flags enable/disable it?

[artik]

Actually looking back to release of AH 1.20:

Aces High Version 1.10 Readme


The bombsight now must be calibrated prior to achieving a successful bombing run.  Once in the bombsight, use U to enter calibration mode and Y to mark a point on the terrain to measure speed.  Click a point on the clipboard to measure the altitude of the target, and press U again to exit calibration mode.  If you have remapped any keys in Aces High, you'll need to map the U and Y flight keys to calibrate your bombsight.

I actually remember this calibration procedure, it was quite hard to do when I returned back to AH about a month ago I thought that I misunderstood
the calibration procedure and it is actually much simpler, now I understand that it had changed...

When had it changed? It is on MA only?

[Myg]

I don't agree, I would say to revert it back to the simpler method that existed before (as was mentioned above) for the MA, so that bombers have an easier time in general.

[Bino]

Actually looking back to release of AH 1.20:

I actually remember this calibration procedure, it was quite hard to do when I returned back to AH about a month ago I thought that I misunderstood
the calibration procedure and it is actually much simpler, now I understand that it had changed...

When had it changed? It is on MA only?

The bombsight calibration mode is controlled by an arena setting.  FSO setups often specify "manual" (the procedure you outlined).  The MA is usually set to "automatic".

[Karnak]

The manual calibration was similar to what we have now, but instead of just holding your targeting key down for so many seconds you had to hold the crosshairs steady on a point on the map (I used a point of coastline or hill top mostly) and also had to click on your target on the map to set target altitude.

The problem was that most players couldn't do it and simply resorted to using all heavy bombers as suicide dive bombers or low altitude carpet bombers.  Use of bombers plummeted as they were simply less effective that P-51s, P-47s, P-38s, Typhoons, N1K2-Js and Bf110Gs.  If a realistic sight were added I would expect the same result now.

[Arlo]

I get the genius of this wish. Players who like to bomb things may well appreciate it becoming
a chore so hard that they hardly ever successfully bomb things therefore enjoying the game
so much that they become fiercely loyal, even going so far as to recommend it heartily in person.

Um. No.

(I use the old manual method in all arenas, still, apparently. Silly me.) 

P.S. From an historical perspective, the Ki=67 didn't have a Norden bombsight.

http://www.twinbeech.com/norden_bombsight.htm#9-22-10

[SmokinLoon]

HTC has to balance what the device (be it bomb sight, plane, gv, gun, etc) could actually do, vs what actually happened, vs game play. In WWII, bombers carpet bombed for a reason: human error was too big of a factor.

I understand the wish, and I actually agree with it.  The bombers that used the Norden bomb sight should get a more accurate bomb drop as compared to those that did not.  However, there will be repercussions that HTC and the players would have to take in to consideration.  First, it would effect OBJ scores.  Second, would it finally warrant in the eyes of HTC a slight perk value to those more accurate bombers (I think the Lanc, B24, and B17 all deserve a small perk price as it is)?  Thirdly, HTC would have to open up the spectrum of bomb accuracy quite a ways, imo.  IMO, bombs are simply too accurate now, from level bombing to dive bombing it is simply too easy to destroy stuff with ordnance.  The Norden bomb sight should be the pinnacle of bombing, and even then it should not be as accurate as it currently is, imo.

Carpet bombing should have a larger effect in AH, imo.

[Karnak]

The Norden sight was not uniquely accurate, fyi.  I can't speak to German and Japanese sights, but the British had bomb sights that were at least as accurate.  That may not have been until 1943 or 1944 though.  At the very least we'd get the B-17G, B-24J, B-25C, B-26B, B-29A, Lancaster Mk III and Mosquito Mk XVI as being more accurate than the others.

[Arlo]

And TBM.

However, event balancing becomes just that much harder.

[mthrockmor]

I've recently been thinking of how easy it is to kill buffs in one pass. How many B-17s flew from central Germany to the land of tea and crumpets on two engines. Yet, you get one engine to flame and you get the kill, one pass.

Maybe we make the bomb site more realistic and also make the buff damage more realistic. Maybe they have to calibrate for 60-secs or more and they can live with only 2 engines.

boo

[Lusche]

I've recently been thinking of how easy it is to kill buffs in one pass. How many B-17s flew from central Germany to the land of tea and crumpets on two engines. Yet, you get one engine to flame and you get the kill, one pass.

Maybe we make the bomb site more realistic and also make the buff damage more realistic. Maybe they have to calibrate for 60-secs or more and they can live with only 2 engines.

We can live on two engines. I brought a few bombers home on 2 in my time.
As a matter of fact, we do not have any engine fires in AH. Any fire you see there on bombers is a actually a wing fuel tank burning. I guess the number of bombers survivng such a fire was quite low...