Fuse delay for bombs

[Seagoon]

AKD,

Firstly, Bombs designed to explode after a delay, whether it be the 11 second delay bombs designed to allow a bomber to safely exit the blast zone, or the purpose-built UXBs used by the Germans (and later the allies) where a historical fact of the Second World War, there were far more of them than say Ostwinds, and apparently they did not totally disrupt gameplay there.

Secondly, having bombs that "stick" is not as unrealistic as you maintain. Fuse delayed bombs dropped from altitudes over a 1000 ft tended to bore into soft ground, also we already have bullets that do not ricochet and bombs that are gloriously unaffected by the wind (the same goes for bullets/shells) so maintaining absolute real world ballistic purity is obviously not our prime directive.

Lastly, the parafrags that I mentioned would address all the concerns you've mentioned. When they hit the ground (or target), they explode, the delay is only in the amount of time it takes them to actually reach the ground. Why would this be difficult or unrealistic to model?

- Seagoon

[Revvin]

A percentage of bombs will either skip or stick and there is no hard and fast rule to say what percentage this would be, as Seagoon says we have bullets that do not ricochet so are you now going to lobby to get those modelled correctly?

Count 11 seconds, now consider each bounce or skip shaving off alot of energy and add an 11 sec fuse...how far away do you think an unhindered plane will be flying at 250-300mph? its your argument that is flawed. Not once did I ask for a bomb that sticks in the ground every time so kindly stop trying to put words into my mouth or are you so short of a valid reason for not having this feature that is all thats left for you to do?

[AKDejaVu]

Originally posted by Seagoon
AKD,

Firstly, Bombs designed to explode after a delay, whether it be the 11 second delay bombs designed to allow a bomber to safely exit the blast zone, or the purpose-built UXBs used by the Germans (and later the allies) where a historical fact of the Second World War, there were far more of them than say Ostwinds, and apparently they did not totally disrupt gameplay there.

Firstly, these bombs were also dropped from a high angle of attack... divebombing.  If its not going to detonate on impact... there needs to be a manner of ensuring it is dropped on target.  Once again... what would happen to these bombs if dropped by a plane NOE?

Secondly, having bombs that "stick" is not as unrealistic as you maintain. Fuse delayed bombs dropped from altitudes over a 1000 ft tended to bore into soft ground,

Ah.. so now we have to bump it over 1000 ft to prove the point?  Doesn't that make the issue kinda moot once again?  The bombs aren't currently a problem over 1000 feet.

also we already have bullets that do not ricochet

Are you sure about that?  They sure as hell seem to be modeled to ricochet off of armor.

and bombs that are gloriously unaffected by the wind (the same goes for bullets/shells)

Ah... we need to pop this one up again.  A fun one that hasn't been brought up in a while is just how little the wind affects a bomb's trajectory.  But throw it in there anyway.

so maintaining absolute real world ballistic purity is obviously not our prime directive.

Who is our?  I do believe it is HTC's objective to keep it as close as possible.

Lastly, the parafrags that I mentioned would address all the concerns you've mentioned. When they hit the ground (or target), they explode, the delay is only in the amount of time it takes them to actually reach the ground. Why would this be difficult or unrealistic to model?

I don't believe it would be difficult or unrealistic.  I don't believe I've adressed it at all.  I do know that parafrags were primarily for anti-personel and anti-aircraft-parked-on-runway missions primarily... neither of which we currently have.  Not a whole lot of them were used to destroy structures... which we primarily have.

Revvin said:A percentage of bombs will either skip or stick and there is no hard and fast rule to say what percentage this would be, as Seagoon says we have bullets that do not ricochet so are you now going to lobby to get those modelled correctly?

Actually that isn't necessary.  HTC seems to be concerned with that aspect of the game moreso than those posting in this thread.  They've already introduced ricochet effects on GVs.  What you are asking is for a step backwards.

And... as you get lower... the "chance" becomes less and less of a factor.  If you are flying NOE... bombs don't have the vertical velocity to slow enough.  If you've been around them.... this would be very clear.  Once again... the fuze would work for a dive bomb... but just what would it do in ANY other circumstance?

Count 11 seconds, now consider each bounce or skip shaving off alot of energy and add an 11 sec fuse...how far away do you think an unhindered plane will be flying at 250-300mph? its your argument that is flawed. Not once did I ask for a bomb that sticks in the ground every time so kindly stop trying to put words into my mouth or are you so short of a valid reason for not having this feature that is all thats left for you to do?

Next time you are flying.. count how long it takes a bomb dropped from 600 feet to impact (if you are flying level).  Now.. accept that it is possible that the bounce or skip can result in launching that bomb 600 feet back in the air with a very slight reduction in velocity.  Now you have a bomb impacting right where you are.

Snakeyes were invented for a reason.  Para-bombs were invented for a reason.  There is zero reliable ways to drop a bomb at low level if the bomb is not slowed via drag.  ZERO.  Damn dude... you just have to do a little research to learn this.

AKDejaVu

[AKDejaVu]

BTW... when I refer to parafrags.. I'm refering to bomblets.  If you are refering to a parachute-drag bomb.. then fine.  It could be used without a problem.  Though... I'd say good luck hitting anything with it.

AKDejaVu

[Revvin]

Now.. accept that it is possible that the bounce or skip can result in launching that bomb 600 feet back in the air with a very slight reduction in velocity. Now you have a bomb impacting right where you are.

A bomb dropping 600 feet then bouncing straight back up at a slight reduction in velocity...I've not come across such bombs that defy the laws of physics.

The percentage of bounces will go up if you drop extremely low but if you drop at 100ft or less then you take the chance that you will perish to your own bomb but this percentage rises as your altitude increases, as it stands now you will ALWAYS perish and that can be reduced by adding the fuse.

bombs don't have the vertical velocity to slow enough. If you've been around them.... this would be very clear

And basic high school physics would say that any friction between the bomb and any surface in say a bounce or richochet will reduce its energy state.

Mosquito pilots flew low and level at convoys, to get the ord on target they would put the mast in front of them as it was about to dissappear under the nose they released, a standard 11 sec fuse allowed the bomb to hit the hull and sink below the water linewhere the compression of the explosion woulddo the most damage, but of course the Mosquito pilot must have been lying.

[AKDejaVu]

A bomb dropping 600 feet then bouncing straight back up at a slight reduction in velocity...I've not come across such bombs that defy the laws of physics.

Your laws of physics must vary from those taught at most schools.  That seems to be the root of the problem.

A bomb that is moving at 250-300mph forward prior to impact has a ton of inertia.  Depending on what happens at impact.. that can result in it actually being launched back in the air (skips.. hits rock) and it doesn't loose much energy in the action.  This isn't going "straight up" as you seem to have decided it must... it is going forward and up.  Once again... this was a known result of bombs being dropped at low altitude level runs.

The percentage of bounces will go up if you drop extremely low but if you drop at 100ft or less then you take the chance that you will perish to your own bomb but this percentage rises as your altitude increases, as it stands now you will ALWAYS perish and that can be reduced by adding the fuse.

Sigh... gaining altitude is how you reduce the effect.  You do what you want with the fuse... and you simply eliminate it.  That is wrong.  It is very unrealistic.  And it is totally perverting the rational behind the delay in the first place.  There needs to be drag induced... delay just doesn't help enough.

And basic high school physics would say that any friction between the bomb and any surface in say a bounce or richochet will reduce its energy state.

Yep.. but how much it is reduced is completely random.  If it skips back into the air.. its energy is not reduced much at all.  The issue is not what happens when its skidding across the ground... its just how little time it spends doing that.  Experience tells you that.

Mosquito pilots flew low and level at convoys, to get the ord on target they would put the mast in front of them as it was about to dissappear under the nose they released, a standard 11 sec fuse allowed the bomb to hit the hull and sink below the water linewhere the compression of the explosion woulddo the most damage, but of course the Mosquito pilot must have been lying.

Yep... the time delay is all that is necessary there big guy.  I love the way you take something completely out of context to prove other points.

Like I said in my first post.  This would involve modeling what happens when a bomb hits water, when it hits an object in the water, and what happens to said object after it hits the object.  But you can just sit back and pretend that's really easy to do.

AKDejaVu

[Revvin]

A bomb that is moving at 250-300mph forward prior to impact has a ton of inertia. Depending on what happens at impact.. that can result in it actually being launched back in the air (skips.. hits rock) and it doesn't loose much energy in the action

Of course it loses energy and more than you are trying to infer and with each bounce/skip its totally energy is substantially less than when it started its flight.

Sigh... gaining altitude is how you reduce the effect. You do what you want with the fuse... and you simply eliminate it. That is wrong. It is very unrealistic. And it is totally perverting the rational behind the delay in the first place. There needs to be drag induced... delay just doesn't help enough.

It was used in RL so why is it so unrealistic now? ever tried toss bombing? low alt or toss bombing often leads to the aircraft being lost or damaged and approaching ack or GV's at anything over a few hundered feet where they can easily catch sight of you and you die, a fuse delay gives another option.

Yep... the time delay is all that is necessary there big guy. I love the way you take something completely out of context to prove other points

I used the example in my origianl post, how am I taking it out of context? I am reiterating what I posted at the start of this thread as you appear to have a comprehension problem.

[AKDejaVu]

Revvin... you used an example in your original post that has nothing to do with AH.  Absolutely nothing to do with it.. unless you feel you can do this with any of the current fleet vestles and survive the attack.

Now.. you take that "suggestion" based on a single scenario and disect how it affects virtually every aspect of the game.  How does it affect bombing over land?  Afterall.. 99% of the bombs are dropped there.  Now you have a bit of a quandry... cause it doesn't really solve anything... it doesn't really add anything... and its a squeak to impliment.

You want a bomb to sink when it hits a ship before it explodes.  My god.

AKDejaVu

[Revvin]

I used that as an example, its not the only example I've read about or saw in documentaries you're just being pedantic now because you've run out of excuses.

Again you attempt to put words in my mouth:

you take that "suggestion" based on a single scenario and disect how it affects virtually every aspect of the game"

EVERY aspect? that's rather misleading and quite an exageration of the truth but if thats all you have left then so be it.

You want a bomb to sink when it hits a ship before it explodes. My god

Have you not read the thread? if you had then you'd surely know this is not what it is all about at all...just a facet. I never said it would be easy, I never even insinuated that, what I did do was make a suggestion. So just to recap this was the question I asked:

"Would it be possible to either select a bomb load with a preset fuse delay in the hangar or maybe have a .fuse command so you could set it in flight or maybe have to set it before take-off?"

[Seagoon]

I just don't get it. This wouldn't be as hard to implement as is being made out. We clearly have two historical ways of attacking the problem:

1) Retarding the fall of the bomb via fins or a chute
2) Delaying the explosion of the Bomb via a fuse

AKD, all of your arguments seem to center around the difficulty of modeling what happens to a bomb when hits the ground and doesn't explode. I think most of us wouldn't have any problems with the idea of it "sticking". You argue this is horribly unrealistic, but then again many WW2 bombs were duds, others were designed for detonation over the target (air blast), many bounced at least once before going off anyway, certainly not all were designed to detonate on impact as our bombs always do, so what the big deal is about providing delayed fuses escapes me.

- Seagoon

[Revvin]

seems like they will be getting fuse delays over in that 'other' online sim why not Aces High?

[ccvi]

What is car-bombing? What is it good for?

[AKDejaVu]

Originally posted by Revvin
seems like they will be getting fuse delays over in that 'other' online sim why not Aces High?

Do you have a link?

AKDejaVu

[AKDejaVu]

LOL! Found it.  Man revvin.. you sure are liberal with the use of "seems like they will be getting fuse delays over in that 'other' online sim".

From http://agw.warbirdsiii.com in a thread titled Mossie Loadouts:

Target Said:

Naw, he's talking about 7 second fuse delays... not do-able just yet. We'd have to make the bomb stop at the terrain, and bounce around and wait for the 7 seconds to end and we just don't have the code to do that yet. Maybe down the road.

Of course... Hotseat was a little more optimistic, though not as informed:

Hotseat said:

"Why can't you just model the 7 second delay for Mossie bombs on the currently available skip bombs (a la B-25H)? Just make the bombs skip across the terrain (instead of water) and make the skips really, really, really small."

^ there is an interesting hack.... let me figure out HOW they work first...thats spocky Dale code

So the best you got was a "we'll look into it" from someone that keeps blaming Dale for every delay while insisting that WB3 is all new code.

AKDejaVu

[Revvin]

This is not about 'because another sim is getting it' or about cheap shots at the WB team it's about a feature which has many uses and was used in WW2.