Author Topic: Some ideas about buffs.  (Read 694 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Some ideas about buffs.
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2001, 10:53:00 PM »
Firing from a turning Buff in AH is almost impossible already.  It throws your aim to hell.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Some ideas about buffs.
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2001, 11:45:00 PM »
I think we can do without zoom, really the icon rangefinder gives us far more info than even in RL anyway. Basically Im saying the icons more than make up for any visual loss due to monitor limits.

Here is what I think could be done to buffs as a start.

1. No more shooting thru fuselages and tails. Ill admit I think its great fun to fire thru an Il2s tail and see hit sprites on fighter on my low 6 behind and slightly under the tail. BUT this is very very unrealistic. If you fire thru ur plane you damage ur plane, this should be VERY simple for HTC to do.  Because we know that in AH a fighter CAN kill itself with its own bullets. If you dont belive me drive a cannon armed plane up real close against a hangar wall and fire. You will kill urself.
Buffs should be able to damage themselves with their own guns. If you fear that some amazinhunk will try to kill ur buff if u let him gun, well it can be very easy for HTC to add a quick ".ejectgunner" feature if nothing like that exists allready .

2. No more zoom in gun positions of buffs and fighters gunsights. The perfect icon rangefinder is more than sufficient.

3. A consistently gradual reduction of bombing accuracy above a "certain" alt. I have no idea what that should be, but the goal is to eradicate the 35K perfect 100% hit ability. I would suggest that maybe we can start this slowly after 15K, but thats certainly up to debate.

4. Some useful improvement in blast effect of bombs.

5. A new buff bombsight that requires some greater level of the buffs attention. I hear that WB has some time period "straight and level" requrement to calibrate the bombsight. I can understand if HTC is less than enthusiastic in seeming to copy WB features, but they allready found a way to have quick "6calls", another reported WB feature without directly copying. I trust they can do the same here.

6. HTC should look into buff manuverability at all alts and especially high alt abilities and great manuverabilty without loosing altitute at extreme alts.
 
A note on this. I have the same feeling (yes feeling, so go ahead and call me names and make fun) about buff high alt ability as I did with the CHOG, NIKI, and 47D11 FMs. Basically it seems something is off with respect to other planes abilities at alt. My intial instincts about CHOG, NIKI, and 47D11 FM issues have been borne out by HTC either in outright admitting there was a great weight error in the FMs or stating  that there were other areas of concern. Now I run the risk of coming off self a righteus salamander in this last paragraph, but many of my inital FM concerns have pretty much been agreed to by HTC in the past few months. Basically I said they performed wierd compared to other planes. Then HTC announces the CHOG is whopping 600lbs too light, and the 47D11 is at least 300lbs too light and that NIKI has issues.

Again all hope with my posts is to draw light to various FM issues I see and hope that HTC takes a closer look if something is indeed wrong. The reactionaries among us need not take offense or see these notes as demands.

7. Something must be done about buff guns. Here is how I see it.

Some real shaking must be given to buff guns.
especially pintle mounted positions.

The perfect convergence of every single gun on one aimpoint no matter how extreme the angle should also be redesigned to increase dispersion.


I do however have a question for HTC that I would really love to have answered.  

Recently HiTech said buff guns are just regular 50cals as in fighters, but ever since I started AH in tour 7 I have been told by everyone that buff guns had been given extended range by HTC in order to deal with some "lag" issue. So HTC can you please clarifly this?

8. Finally I think I know a surefire way to make buffs more important for any of you buff pilots who fear that buffs will dissapear if they have any new challenge or difficulty in use. The recent ack model has largely reduced buffs to a secondary role of bombing fuel and killing barracks. The new ack model is so dumb and so easy to kill by fighters even with only a handful of bullets
that the new field capture model is mostly an instant deack by any decent jabo or other plane with long range guns, followed by a vulch and a drawn-out battle against many many many M16s and FLAKS that got out before the VH was killed. We all know just how true and common this scenario is today in AH. Anyway I strongly feel that if the field ack model of several versions ago before V105 was retured to AH, a much better buff/fighter balance could be achived again in AH. Buffs culd again resume an important

Thats bout all for now.  

In conclusion I think buffs are an important part of the AH system however they can really use much more refinement.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Some ideas about buffs.
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2001, 12:38:00 AM »
GRUNHERZ,

There is no "perfect convergence on one point" for Buff guns in AH. Thus speaketh HiTech:

 
Quote
Originally posted by HiTech:
One more myth to destroy.
Hazed states perfictly converging guns. There is no covergance on the buff guns, they just all shoot parallel. i.e. if you are shooting to the side, and the tail gun and nose gun are 40 ft appart, they will be each shooting at a point 40 feet apart.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Westy MOL

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
Some ideas about buffs.
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2001, 08:06:00 AM »
Good post Anarky. As for "I find this whole buff discussion very interesting, because I saw the whole thing happen in AW, extremely similar to what people are saying here." I wonder why?  ;)

I agree that in emergencey evasives a gunner shouldnot nor could shoot as shown in the eyewitness acount.

 But folks are talking about turning and banmking the plane like normal and being able to stil lshoot the guns. I think a blakcout or rendering useless of guns for xxxx amoutn of time during and just after such maneuvers would be well called for as an implementaion in the AH code.

 But there are many stories and first person accounts of B17 and B-24 pilots maneuvering thier planes while thier gunners tried (and quite often succesfully) shoot down attacking enemy aircraft.

 Here's a good one (and also only because it's the one I can find right off the bat on the 'net):

Flying Fortress soon entered a rain squall. The windows were
black with clouds and rain and the plane was buffeted by strong
winds. Emerging from the squall at low altitude into blinding
sunlight the B-17 emerged only fifty feet from their adversary.
 Immediately every gun on both aircraft began firing in a broad-
side exchange reminiscent of age old sailing ship battles.
Thousands of bullets crisscrossed the narrow spread of air and
the Fortress shuddered from the impact. Tracer bullets from the
B-17 pelted the Mavis like darts with many ricocheting off its
armor. The Mavis made a tight turn and Loberg turned inside him
to avoid the mortal sting from the Mavis tail guns. In and out
of rain squalls this interesting dogfight continued for 45
minutes. The Mavis kept very close to the wave tops to protect
its vulnerable under belly. Several times during the fight
the Mavis disappeared for three or four minutes into clouds,
but each time as it reemerged Loberg's B-1 7 resumed the attack.
 Twice the B-17 passed over the H6K so close that the jagged
bullet holes in the Mavis and the round glasses on its two
pilots could be seen clearly. Finally, the Mavis began smoking
and the Japanese plane dropped into the sea and exploded in a
large ball of flame. In the words of Ira Wolfert, a war
correspondent, who was on the flight, "During the duel, the
Fort that I was on, with a bullet in one of its motors and two
holes as big as Derby hats in its wings, made tight turns with
half-rolls and banks past vertical. That is, it frequently stood
against the sea on one wing like a ballet dancer balancing on
one point and occasionally it went over even farther than that
and started lifting its belly toward the sky in a desperate
effort to keep the Jap from turning inside it
... Throughout
the entire forty-four minutes, the plane, one of the oldest
being used in the war, ran at top speed, shaking and rippling
all over like a skirt in a gale, so many inches of mercury
being blown into its motors by the superchargers that the
pilot and copilot, in addition to their other worries, had to
keep an eye on the cowlings to watch for cylinder heads
popping up through them."
 Others on Loberg's crew that day were B. Thurston the copilot,
R. Spitzer the navigator, R. Mitchell the bombardier and E.
Gustafson, E. Jung, G. Holbert, E. Smith and R Bufterbaugh who
manned the guns during this unusual dogfight. Both Mitchell and
Spitzer were wounded during the battle."

 

 - Westy

Offline lazs1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
Some ideas about buffs.
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2001, 10:09:00 AM »
karnak... i believe that we have missunderstood the buff convergence issue as HT explained it.    Although the guns are 40 feet (or whatever) apart, they do indeed have "perfect convergence) each gun is aimed at the same point no matter what the distance.   On a fighter the convergence is set, it will be different at different ranges for each and every gun.

 Still... it would possibbly change point of impact if the bullets had to go through parts of your bomber first.

toad... wouldn't a bank without a turn throw all the gunners around violently?  the old flip flop?
lazs

Offline Nifty

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Some ideas about buffs.
« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2001, 10:41:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs1:
karnak... i believe that we have missunderstood the buff convergence issue as HT explained it.    Although the guns are 40 feet (or whatever) apart, they do indeed have "perfect convergence) each gun is aimed at the same point no matter what the distance.   On a fighter the convergence is set, it will be different at different ranges for each and every gun.
lazs

Hmm, I interpreted HT's remarks as the guns were aimed in parallel, which would mean absolutely no convergence, the paths of the bullets (not counting dispersion) would never intersect.  Perfect convergence would only be possible if the turrets took into account the ROC of the target to the plane, as well as the velocity of the bullets, and the position of each turret and guessed so that the bullets would converge where the plane SHOULD be for each and every round fired.  They're not doing that.  The turrets are slaved to each other.  If you point the ball to bear 135 degrees, and say 2 degrees down, every turret/position will bear 135 degrees (relative to the plane's 12 oc position) and 2 degrees down or to their maximum deflection if the position can't face that direction.  For convergence, the right waist would have to bear a little more or less than 135 (I can't remember if the waist is farther back on than the ball or not) and a little more down than 2 degrees.  the tail would have to bear less than 135 and more than 2 degrees.  These values would change as the bandit got closer (even if the ball turret never moved) for convergence.  This is not the case with the AH bombers, according to HT.
proud member of the 332nd Flying Mongrels, noses in the wind since 1997.

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12314
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Some ideas about buffs.
« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2001, 10:58:00 AM »
Nifty you stated it correctly.

HiTech

Offline AN

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 218
Some ideas about buffs.
« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2001, 11:11:00 AM »
Yep, Toad, I brought up violent maneuvers, partly because I hadn't seen people mention it yet, and mostly because I like posting that story  :)

It's surprising to me that, as good as the maneuverability of the B17 is in AH, I don't see many violent evasives in the MA.  Maybe people don't evade because the guns seem to be the best defense.  

Also, since the guns seem to be so lethal, I'm surprised I don't see B17s going offensive in a furball.  Maybe the guns aren't as lethal as they seem.

And thanks for your post, Westy--it makes me feel less guilty about the way I fly buffs in the MA.  

Personally, I don't have a problem with the way buffs are modeled.  Since the AH B17 seems to perform so similarly to the old AW B17, maybe both sims got it right.  At first, it does seem strange that a B17 at alt can outmaneuver and outclimb a P-51, but then again, the B17 *does* have a lot more wing (and more props) in that thin air.  

Then again, if I remember correctly, the AW B17 ended up being neutered quite severly just after I left, because of maneuverability and alt ceiling issues.

As far as the guns, here's another area where AH and AW 'feel' very similar to me.  AW didn't have the 'every gun firing at once', but they did have a much greater gunner lethality.  As far as I can tell, the guns on an AH buff are almost exactly as lethal as the one(s) on an AW buff were.  Definately they both have the frequent 'one ping death while attacking' phenomenon in common.

The only things I really don't like about AH buffs is the F3 view, and the AW-type bombing accuracy.  

The F3 view makes dogfighting buffs possible in AH, but since I almost never see a dogfighting buff (unless I'm in it), that's not really an issue.

But the pinpoint bombing accuracy?  Well, I'll consider that part of MA gameplay, instead of buff modeling.  And since I dislike soooooooo many things about MA gameplay, I can just lump this one on the list, and not even notice it.  ;)

anRky

Offline Apache

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1419
Some ideas about buffs.
« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2001, 11:16:00 AM »
Quote
Also, since the guns seem to be so lethal, I'm surprised I don't see B17s going offensive in a furball. Maybe the guns aren't as lethal as they seem.

You aren't looking hard enough. Just lastnight during my 1 hour of flight time, the enemy was sending b17 after b17 from a field close by. No problem so far, but they were sending them to there own field straight into the furballs. What were they gonna do, bomb thier own hangars? I think not.

highflyer

  • Guest
Some ideas about buffs.
« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2001, 11:19:00 AM »
hehe urchin, That LA7 happend to be a fellow by the name of DeezCamp who later shot you with a Gun on the Field  :D

 ;)

Offline AN

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 218
Some ideas about buffs.
« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2001, 12:43:00 PM »
Apache:
------------------------------------------
You aren't looking hard enough. Just lastnight during my 1 hour of flight time, the enemy was sending b17 after b17 from a field close by. No problem so far, but they were sending them to there own field straight into the furballs. What were they gonna do, bomb thier own hangars? I think not.
------------------------------------------

Actually, while flying for Rook last night, I saw that.  Or at least, I saw two B-17s heading at low level from one of their fields towards a field of thiers that was extremely heavily capped.

First time I'd seen it in AH, though.

anRky

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Some ideas about buffs.
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2001, 01:52:00 PM »
Hehe Deez, the Tank vs. La7 duel was rather fun.  I was very surprised you didn't hurt me with your 20mm cannon though.  I absolutely hosed you with that dinky little 7.92mm MG on the turret, but I'm not surprised that didn't hurt you lol.

The 20mm surprised me though, I've had Spitfires strafe me on several occasions and kill the turret, both tracks, the turret MG, and the engine in one pass.  The .50 planes usually get the tracks on a strafing run.