Bomb dispersion: what is it, exactly

[Wotan]

I made my point in countless other threads

Search

heres a link to the bbs search.

you could try "fluffer whines" but you'll have more searching for posts by Lepaul

you will see the point or go back and read your whiney thread about how thankless fluffing is.

[lazs1]

sunchaser.. you have not softened tho.   you still feel that it is yur duty to destroy the ability of fighters to get into the game.

If you will only be happy when you can take out all the "furball" fields then I am afraid that it is yu who will be bummed not I.  It just ain't gonna happen.   This won't become a bomber game in the MA.

So long as you are in the background you will be able to fly your over the top, concession ridden and boring fluffs.  If you have a problem with that or... if someday you realize that what i am telling you is true... you can allways quit and join an online bus drivers sim.   Imagine how much attention yu would get as you flew right by the bus stop without picking up passengers!
lazs

[Keez]

Originally posted by lazs1:

If you will only be happy when you can take out all the "furball" fields then I am afraid that it is yu who will be bummed not I.  It just ain't gonna happen.

Hole crap! Someone catch me, I think I'm gonna faint. Lazs has seen the light, brothers! He has come to the conclusion that Bombers CANT ruin all yer fun!

Lazs by having said this, you made every possible argument of yours AGAINST buffs useless. Thank you very much.

[lazs1]

keez... you really don't get it do you?   I don't believe that they are going to keep the same fluff tardness.... times 4..  that ain't gonna happen.  they are not going to make it 4 times easier for a skilless lone fluffer to ruin the gameplay.   They may make it four times harder to attack a lone fluff weinie but if they do, it will simply make it that much more sensible to simply ignore the embarassingly unrealistic and unfun fluff engagements.  

The fluffs depend on the fighters for their fun (if you can call what they do "fun")... not the other way around.   We can live without you but you can't live without us.

BK's ambassador of good will (we are not recruiting)
lazs

[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: lazs1 ]

[Sunchaser]

I heard that HTC is not going to fix the firing arcs of bomber turrets but they are going to implement self damage.

Hey lazs I need a gunner, want the job?

[CavemanJ]

Originally posted by Rojo:
My guess on what HiTech meant by dispersion was that the bombs would not simply follow a parabollic trajectory, with each one hitting exactly where the bombsite crosshairs indicated at the moment of release.  I suppose I could have asked for more detail when I interviewed him, but it was late and there was a lot of ground to cover.  In any event, each bomb will probably have a small random velocity component added to it, different for every bomb released, such that it will impact a little long/short/off to the side from the previous bomb.  The range of values for the magnitude of that dispersion velocity component will likely be determined by CEP for that munition/bombsite combo.  At least that's how I'd do it.

I've watched those old combat footage scenes too, and if you watch real close you'll see the bombs fall roughly in line, but not perfectly.  The same thing went for the spacing between blasts.

So you're saying you'd set it up with a shotgun pattern and make each drop a pure crap shoot.  If bomb 2 falls short it could land behind bomb 1, add a sideways component to that it's totally random, negating any effective use of bombers.

And I never said perfectly straight lines, I said fairly straight lines, but all exploding in a forward moving line.  No bombs falling short and exploding 'out of sequence' before a bomb that had already hit the ground.

The random velocity component is fine as long as the exact same component is applied to each bomb released at that time, so all are affected the same way.  As was posted above the eggs are not verra far apart in time nor space and pass through the same atmospheric conditions.

[Rojo]

CavemanJ, have you ever done the physics experiment were you roll the ball bearings down a ramp that is placed a certain distance above the ground and plot the scatter pattern where they impact? The higher the fall, the greater the CEP circle (CEP, for those not familiar with the term, means the size of the circle where 50% of the rounds/warheads/bombs will impact if all launched from the same point).  That's what dispersion is. Each identical ball bearing (and bomb, in AH) has it's ballistic trajectory subtly altered as it falls, even though it was launched and fell under what appear to be identical conditions.  That's the essence of "chaos theory" in mathematics.  A crap shoot? In a manner of speaking.  But one where you have some control of the odds, either by dropping from lower altitudes or by dropping on area targets.

Remember the other things HiTech said in the interview?  They're starting to place more densely packed targets on the maps, such as depots, stations, and cities.  These are the targets the bombers are meant to be most effective against.  Get enough buffs dropping on an airfield or base, and you'll get lucky and take out a lot.  Drop all those tons of bombs on a depot, and you'll devastate it.

[Tumor]

Weapons (bombs) are subject to delivery and ballistic error. These error's are/can be both internal and external (pilot error, a bent fin, weather etc).

  There is a tremendous amount of time and effort on the part of mathmaticians, ballisticians, and statisticians that goes into figureing the dispersion (or error) of bombs...even with our modern day PGMs (GBU, LGB, etc etc).  

  All bomb/target combinations (today) whether it be single or multiple weapons, guided or unguided against point, unitary and or linear targets, end up with a "Probability of Damage" that incorporates weapons effectivness and target "hardness" (and target location with todays PGMs) that is not always as entirley precise as some folks would think.

  Simply put, there are many approaches HTC could take to figureing "bomb dispersion". I would guess there will be some kind of general pattern in which bombs (multiples or "sticks") will fall while single bombs will have some randomness (for lack of better word) added for the sake of realism.  

  Someone said earlier in this thread that even in World War II we had a relatively high capability for "precise" weapons delivery.  I have to disagree.  Even today's so called "Precise Guided Munitions" or PGMs don't always get where they are supposed to...this is error in a more technical sense but error (or dispersion) either way you look at it.  With dumb bombs...and I've seen this, all the science and technical details really help the situation, but as often as not, good ole' Kentucky Windage render's the same results  

Tumor

[Voss]

Dawning of counter viewpoints!

Fluffers vs. Huffers!  

Cave, I think most of the historical precedence for missing the target by (up to) miles was not an inaccuracy in the bomb sights, but lack of visual identification of the target area, clouds covering the area, and misjudgment of wind over the target.

It is my understanding that the way they did things was the lead buff ID'd the target and setup the initial release point. All of the other buffs, whether in perfect formation alignment or not, dropped at the same time or shortly thereafter.

Under sterile conditions (and absent the unknown variables) the Norden sight had the reputation of being able to put bombs in a pickle barrel, but that kind of performance was never realized in front line conditions.

Hmm, I'll have to check into the salvo question...