Author Topic: Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance  (Read 1591 times)

Offline airspro

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1034
      • My Blastoff start page :P
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #45 on: September 19, 2001, 05:19:00 PM »
WTG HT , btw I love flying in my foxhole   :D

Ya I had it explaned to me , High Alt foxhole   :) yep thats were u will find me , for sure .

Thanks for making such a nice game , it just gets better and better , only time I hate it is I meet up with all these other bad assed v pilots that are better than me   :mad:

Please fix this for me asap   :p

take care
sprocket
My current Ace's High handle is spro

Offline Fariz

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1087
      • http://9giap.warriormage.com
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #46 on: September 19, 2001, 06:22:00 PM »
I spend 100 more times reading those "high buffs" threads than fighting high buffs.  :)

Actually, lot of high buffs were the issue during beta, now they are really rare. For the last 3 tours I fought only 1 buff over 22k, and saw only few more higher than 25k.  :)

At the moment taking buff very high is just unneccessary, because 20k normally does just perfectly.

Only reasonable compromise IMO is reducing zoom on buffs even more, so hitting ground targets from 30k will be much harder. It was reduced already around 1.04 I think, and it worked. Reduce it even more, not strongly, just a bit. Will do I think.

Offline MiG Eater

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
      • http://www.avphoto.com
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #47 on: September 19, 2001, 06:22:00 PM »
The basic problem is that the AH flight model is allowing bombers to be flown at full military power, at high RPM, ALL of the time - be it sea level or 39,000 feet+.  That was simply not the case in the actual airplane.  The engines would quickly seize due the high temps created with this kind of power output.  

Saying that the FM's aren't tweaked to provide one airplane with an advantage over another has proven to be a true statement.  However, the aircraft in AH are not subject to the same limitations as the airplanes that the data was taken from.   Since it is unlikely that anyone ever flew a B-17 at full power for 45 minutes at 32-39,000 while maneuvering with bombs, we'll probably never know if it could outturn and outrun an attacking Mustang.  

I spoke with an 8th Air Force bomb group commander last year about this topic.  He said rarely did the B-17 ever go above 32,000 feet and they would only do so alone on unarmed reconnaisance missions.  The highest he ever flew operationally was 29,000 feet.  He said the actual altitude they reached depended on the distance they traveled.  The further the target, the higher they could go as fuel was burned off.  But at 29,000 he said maintaining formation was nearly impossible since they were flying in a near stalled condition in the rarified air.

MiG

Offline DanielMcIntyre

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
      • http://None as yet
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #48 on: September 20, 2001, 02:16:00 AM »
I think putting the environmental factors into the equation would solve these types of problems.  Not sure whether the coding would be diffucult or not, too tired to figure it out atm.  

Damn those turbo supercharged engines, all four of em!!!!!


Chow <- Austspanglish for cya

  :D

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #49 on: September 20, 2001, 04:28:00 AM »
Didn't read all posts buy agree to what Buzzbait and some other say, leave the buff guns as they are, we'll never get enough dedicated buff drivers to have large formations so this is a good compromise.

The bombers shouldn't outperform fighters though, especially not the Big ones such as the B17 and and Lanc, the JU88 was used as a night fighter but wouldn't stand a single little chance vs a single engined fighter.
To see B17's and lanc roll and loop and split S, sometimes with bombs sometimes without is a bit anoying, they even outmanuver a TA152 at 40k (TA152 had a Max celing at 52k, best High alt fighter to see action during the war).

Mabe adding a little inaccuracy for the bombs  wich makes them go off a bit, at high alts this would be off alot and force people who want to bomb things and not just ackstarr (ie making fighters turn away from their attack by outmanuvering them) to bomb at maybe 20-25k.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Pepe

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1020
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #50 on: September 20, 2001, 04:33:00 AM »
I think MigEater could just nailed it, as for FM is concerned.

If you throttle back at 30k, your buff is gonna loose alt.

Nice one, MigEater.

If this is fixed, the super-duper-laser-bombsight could be next, alongside blast radius and proper crater & field damage (I'm thinking on rnwy damage). Then, if we get rid of aircrafts/dune-buggies, able to cross-country at 80+mph, the picture would be perfect. How I miss buff times in WB!   :)

Cheers,

Pepe

Offline Pepe

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1020
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #51 on: September 20, 2001, 04:53:00 AM »
On a side note, a buff crew in WWII needed some things to be successful:

a) Some serious guts, to face their survival odds.

b) Pilot ability. Not to jink, bank and roll the plane, but to manage engines efficiently. This meant not overheating them, taking care of consumption, and, finally, able to take the bird back home.

b) Some serious navigation skills, to arrive to target in time and avoid enemy flaks and fighter concentrations, along the way, if  known and possible.

c) Some seriously good bomber, to manage Norden properly.

d) Some serious luck, because targets could not be effectively pinpointed. They relied on carpet bombing, and heavy eggs.

I feel those guys must be made of some special alien material. It must have been really scary, to put it mildly, to board one of the 8th. buffs in those hard times, especially the early days.

Now, if we turn our view in current AH situation, tell me which of these points are modelled.

I would like to make it clear that I LIKE buff tasks. What I deeply dislike is the sense that, being buff driving one of the hardest tasks (both in terms of raw skill and determination) perhaps with the exception of close ground support missions in WWII, in AH buff driving is only a matter of patience and, maybe, some sort of gunner skills.

IMHO, and it's my own oppinion, no pun intended to people flying buffs in MA as of now (to each its own), buff modelling should give a flavour of what buff drivers faced in WWII. It would improve respect to buff flyers in MA, and will show more of it to RL crews.   :)

Cheers,

Pepe

Offline Apar1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 169
      • http://gruenherz.carnimaniac.pronym.org/
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #52 on: September 20, 2001, 05:17:00 AM »
Quote
c) Some seriously good bomber, to manage Norden properly.

That mostly applied to the lead bomber, they operated in large formations where the lead bomber determined release point and rest of formation dropped on his signal. Many bomber crews had toggliers only, who knew how to prep salvo settings and to release the bombs.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Apar1 ]

Offline Apar1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 169
      • http://gruenherz.carnimaniac.pronym.org/
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #53 on: September 20, 2001, 05:38:00 AM »
HT,

That doesn't cover the realistic operating ceiling with respect to bombing accuracy and other mentioned restricting issues.

If the bombing accuracy would be adapted to realistic figures and there be a penalty on lateral movements during and just prior to bomb release that would restrict used alt of bombers and maneuvers of bombers in AH.
Now that in turn would not favour the single bomber sorties and therefore not balance gameplay with realism.

How about adapting bombing accuracy to more realistic figures and restricting the use of bombers through missions only with a minimum (say) 5 bombers. This would enable (force)the bombers to fly in formation and have better survival rate at ideal operating altitude. It would also cover the inherent lesser bombing accuracy by the need of bombing in formation. It would be more realistic and at the same time it would prolly be more fun for both bomber pilots and bomber sweeper pilots. Furthermore I think that bomber formations are more inviting to bomber escorts than a single bomber. In my opinion that would change the whole use of bomber tactics for the better and somewhat be more realistic and fun too.

Just an idea,
  :cool:

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Apar1 ]

Offline Grayarea

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #54 on: September 20, 2001, 05:39:00 AM »
Just a couple of points that I want to get off my chest  :)

Why should bombers have to use realistic engine managment when the fighters don't?

When you attack a bomber from dead six then the following may happen;

The bomber is 500yds from you so your bullets have to fly 500yds + what ever distance the bomber has moved in the meantime.

As you are 500yds behind the bomber the bombers bullets have to travel 500yds - the distance you have travled.

This obviously leads to the bombers bullets impacting the fighter with a energy advantage. Now I am not the best at maths so I will leave it as a test for the interested reader to work out exactly what the differance in hitting power would be.

As I fly a bomber about 1/3 of my online time (over months) I can say that a bandit comming directly for me from dead six seems to take less bullets to stop then someone that makes a high 2/8 attack (hit sprites BTW not my lousy shooting).

There you go, pust on flame proof flight suit   :D

Grayarea.

Offline Pepe

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1020
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #55 on: September 20, 2001, 07:35:00 AM »
Grayarea,

Totally agree on your first point. Fighters should use realistic engine management (please make me some room under your flame-proof umbrella   :D)

On your second point:

I'm not into physics too, but AFAIK the only important thing regarding this point is relative speeds of objects involved (aircrafts' and bullets' i.e., rate of closure). Let's assume same speeds, same guns (both .50's) Bullet speed is 1000fts/sec. and aircraft speeds are 250 fts./sec. relative to surrounding air.

Buff fires:

Buff's bullet speed in relation to surrounding air is 1000-250 ft/s=750 ft/s

Fiter receiving speed= 250 ft/s

Net result (speed of the buff bullet relative to fiter speed)= 750 + 250=1000 ft/s

Fiter fires:
Fiter's bullet speed in relation to earth is 1000+250 ft/s=1.250 ft/s

Buff receiving speed= -250 ft/s (he's getting away)

Net result (speed of the fiter bullet relative to buff speed)= 1.250 - 250=1000 ft/s

So kinetic energy is equal, given same bullet.

If aircraft's relative speed is 0, relative distance is constant. Given equal guns and bullets, kinetic energy should be the same on each receiving end. Maybe there is a slight advangate in the fiter's side, because although its bullets are suffering more drag, the trajectory should be more tense, if you take into account different muzzle velocity with regards to surrounding air. Not sure about this last thingy.  :)

Anyone physics-literate feel free to correct me.   :)

Cheers,

Pepe.

Offline R4M

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #56 on: September 20, 2001, 08:02:00 AM »
absolutely correct, Pepe. From start to end. The myth of the "the buff hits harder than fighter because the fighter comes to the buff" is that, a myth.

The buffs in AH are screwed because the auto-converging syncronized turrets, because the "I shoot thru my fuselage and do none damage to me", because the "run at 100% power,engine, run that you'll never burn", because the "point that bomb and hit that HQ from 30K", the "no mater how much do I bank I will hit", the "look a con at 1.3 at my three. Look how I fire. Look how he falls", the "35K and my gunners still havent fingers frozen", the "3G turn with heavy bank. NO prob, I'm hitting that con at 1K"

etc etc etc

Sorry but the buff model in AH is a joke. THe only one resembling something like realistic is the Ju88. Even the lancaster can climb to 27K with 14 1000lbs and outturn a C205 (ask AcId what did I do to him the other day at 29K, and I still had 5K of bombs)

Is sad but laughable.

Offline Grayarea

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #57 on: September 20, 2001, 08:11:00 AM »
Pepe,

I agree with your evaluation assuming no drag.

However you show that the fighters bullets will enter the air at a higher speed and thus be effected more by drag.

The bombers bullets suffer less drag over the same distance because of there lower speed.

Drag is propotional to speed is it not?


Oh and RAM, lancs operationally operated upto 35k although 22-27 was the norm.

Grayarea.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Grayarea ]

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #58 on: September 20, 2001, 08:14:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pepe:

lotsa number and physic formula I don't understand  :D
But now I'm sure ... I know the truth ...I've seen the LIGHT ... I can believe !
BRING THE DEFIANT IN AH  :D

rotfl ...  :)

Offline Pepe

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1020
Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance
« Reply #59 on: September 20, 2001, 08:56:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Grayarea:
Pepe,

I agree with your evaluation assuming no drag.

However you show that the fighters bullets will enter the air at a higher speed and thus be effected more by drag.

The bombers bullets suffer less drag over the same distance because of there lower speed.

Drag is propotional to speed is it not?


Oh and RAM, lancs operationally operated upto 35k although 22-27 was the norm.

Grayarea.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Grayarea ]

On the drag issue, fiter bullets will suffer more drag, but they have more kinetic energy. So they will suffer more, but will have more to spend, too   ;)

On the Lanc's ceiling figure, I'm seeing ranges from 7.330 to 7.470 m. (roughly 22-25k). Where did you find that 35k limit, pls?

Cheers,

Pepe

P.S. Please, bring the Defiant to straffo...errmmm to AH   :D