Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Simaril on January 05, 2006, 07:07:45 AM
-
Aces High 2 rightfully prides itself on accurately representing flight characteristics of its subject aircraft, and it dedicates nearly equal attention to the modeling of fighter weapons systems. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for ordnance modeling in level bombers.
No personal computer program can “simulate” what it would be like to fly in an aircraft; true aircraft training simulators have dedicated controls instead of keyboards, hydraulic motion systems, and enough high tech interfaces and graphics to bankrupt all but millionaires. All PC games, whether considered “simulations” or “arcade games,” necessarily require compromises from reality to be usable on the platform.
Simulation computer games like AH are, however, clearly distinct from their themed arcade brethren. When designers need to make compromises, the arcade game will consistently move in the direction of fun – leading to such traditions as inertia free “movement on rails,” endless ammo belts, and glowing power ups. The simulation designers, however, make their choices while trying to respect the essence of the platform they’re simulating. So, to choose an example from AH2, the fields are artificially close for the sake of game play; but, to maintain the disadvantage owed to short ranged aircraft, the fuel burn rate is doubled. Neither the close fields nor the 2x fuel burn are realistic, but the combination of choices means that the P-51 feels like it can go anywhere and the La-7 still feels like it has a beer can for a gas tank.
Weapons systems are simulated in AH2 with the same high respect given to flight models – unless we consider ordnance delivered from a bomb bay. As far as AH is concerned, the bomb bay doesn’t exist. Bombs fall from a point source in the aircraft, and will “pass through” the visible plane regardless of its attitude, with out any damage or limitation. Bombs will fall through the fuselage sides, through the forward bulkheads and the pilot compartment, or out the tail. In fact, you can drop thousands of pounds while 100% inverted – and take absolutely no damage to spars, wings, or other obviously vital structures. Bombs are the core weapons system for level bombers, but the model shows absolutely no respect for the real delivery system.
For level bombers, AH is an arcade game.
-
Understanding the Problem
In the B-17 there were four bomb racks, with two facing out from a center support and two facing in from the plane’s outside walls, as can be seen in this photo.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/gallery2/data/media/33/b-17_bomb_bay_3_2.jpg)
Note that these were not “chutes” with bombs stacked on top of each other. Each bomb was firmly attached by a shackle system, that included a hard inverted U welded to the bomb, a bracket with clips to lock into the bomb’s U, and the anchor brace that attached the bracket to the bomb rack itself. Bombs were then braced with tensioning screws that kept them from shifting.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/gallery2/data/media/33/bomb_bay_with_shackles_redbox.JPG)
Bombs were released mechanically or electrically when the shackle bracket was allowed to pop free of the bomb rack. They could be salvoed with defined delay, or dropped singly – just as is modeled by AH2. Bombs were not guided out of the aircraft – they went into “free fall” from the time they were released.
Consequently, it should be obvious from the photos that bays were designed with essentially level drop angles in mind. If the bomber was angled too sharply, the bomb would strike the bulkhead as it left the aircraft. This would likely cause structural damage, proportional to the weight of the bomb and the forward vector of movement. (I.e., the steeper the angle, the more of the weight would be directed into the structure.) Bombs from upper racks would strike bulkheads when flying at less severe angles, since they had farther to fall before leaving the plane. To give an idea of the clearance needed, the photos above show 250lb bombs shackled in place. Also, larger and heavier bombs required more clearance – and could do more damage if dropped inappropriately.
How much damage could be done? Remember that these aircraft were largely made of aluminum, and not armor plate. For example, look what A SINGLE 20mm shell did to a B-24 over Balikpapan.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/gallery2/data/media/33/b-24_Shell_hit_over_Balikpapan_2.jpg)
Just imagine what 1000lbs of free falling iron could do!
The concept of drop angle limitation applies to every bomber with a bomb bay, though I have not been able to yet track down the equivalent data tables for other bombers. None the less, here’s an illustration from the cavernous bay of the Lancaster.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/gallery2/data/media/33/lancaster_full_load.JPG)
The anterior bombs would clearly do damage if dropped steeply.
But enough of the qualitative description. Here is the actual Bomb Release Angles Chart from the 1948 version of the B-17 Flight Operations Instructions AN 01-20EG-1. (I also have the 1944 version, but though it has the same data its presented less clearly and over 2 pages.) I left the file big for readability – my apologies to those with slower connections.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/gallery2/data/media/33/B17G_climb_and_dive_angles_sharp.jpg)
Does the potential damage matter? Obviously in real life the pilots wanted to keep their planes 100% intact, but that restriction does not apply to Aces High. All the same, at LancStuka angles a 2000lb bomb could realistically end up plowing into the pilot’s back rather than dropping magically from its current point source, and we shouldn’t tolerate that either.
-
Suggestions for AH2
This complexity of the “real” table would seriously raise the frustration quotient and drop the fun quotient for bombing, and should NOT be incorporated into the game. However, the current bombing model cannot continue if Aces High is serious about being a simulation of air combat. After all, bomb dropping, as the essential function of the heavy bomber, needs to be modeled with the same respect give to, say, the rate of fire and muzzle velocity of the Hispano 20mm.
I’d suggest the following for consideration.
1. Planes with bomb bays should be treated as if the bomb bays really exist. There must be some limits placed, beyond which bombs will not drop – no more dropping through the top of the fuselage!
2. Once the limits are passed, one of two things should happen. Either the bombs simply will not drop (my preference), or they should be allowed to drop with both airframe damage being incurred AND with failure to arm/detonate. Remember, the fuses had spinners that needed to rotate before the bombs would arm. Getting plastered by airframe structural elements would reasonably be expected to damage the fuse spinners and prevent arming.
3. Pitch angle limits should be incorporated, but they should be simplified for playability’s sake. For example, using the B-17 data above, I’d suggest taking the average angle for all shackle positions and all bomb weights and applying it to the airframe as the limit for all situations. Considering all bomb rack positions for the extremes -- 100lb and the 1000lb bombs -- that average comes out to roughly 20 degrees “glide angle” (downward). EDIT Ooops. The posted table includes a 10 degree safety factor in all entries. I forgot to allow for this when doing the averages, so the corrected average would be 30 degrees glide angle.
4. Roll angles for successful bomb drops should also be limited. In real life, the limitation in roll angle was so obvious to anyone that stepped aboard a bomber that no one even talked about it. Look at how little side–to–side room there is in that bay! Aces should include roll restrictions as well.
5. I have been unable to get detailed data about the other level bombers in AH, though I am still trying. (NASM, which currently is the repository for flight manuals in the National Archives system, has a huge backlog and hasn’t even responded to my initial query after 6 weeks. The Lancaster Manual from the RAF Museum does not include bomb aimer notes.) Even without the exact numbers, it remains very clear that the current model is incorrect. I’d suggest that the same angle limitations be applied to all bomb bays – even if the numbers turn out to be off some, they’d be FAR better simulations than are currently in place! Also, it would be clearly unfair to penalize the B-17 just because it’s the only airframe that has hard data available at the moment.
6. Planes that had both internal bays and external ordnance should have these restrictions applied to the internal bays only.
Aces High is a tremendous simulation overall with excellent balance between accuracy and game play. It deserves far better than its current bomb bay model, and this aberration deserves to be corrected promptly.
Respectfully Submitted,
Simaril
-
Good post, well thought out, with data to back it.
Simaril, you running for sainthood??
10 out of 10
Make it so!
-
To many people mistake "Diving to target" as Dive Bombing.
This is the best post against dive bombing level bombers I've seen. There can be no argument against the data provided. Well done!
-
Simaril
Outstanding post!
I agree 100% with the "dive bombing level bombers vice dive bombing" ! I for one tend to be a level bombing pilot (all be it low level for which I pay the price for...i.e. don't land much).
HiTech can you make this happen without a huge re-write of code?
I know there are a lot of GVrs especially that would appreciate not haveing to worry about the flight of LANCs in a 45 degree dive dropping 4000# bombs.
V/R
NAVCAD
----------------------------------------------
Remember, as John Wayne said in "The Sands of Iwo Jima"...."...Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid...."
-
Excellent. Well communicated, concise and on-point.
I agree completely. Some basic limitations to eliminate Lancastukas would only benefit the game.
Dive bombing in heavies is gaming the game.
I Have Spoken. :D
-
Just curious, I wonder if Simaril has his Ph.D. in aeronautical engineering?
-
Good post :aok
-
:aok
-
Originally posted by DaYooper
Just curious, I wonder if Simaril has his Ph.D. in aeronautical engineering?
Dont imagine it for a minute. I'm not an engineer at all, and though I have a science background I get lost in the AoA, load factor, and torque discussions. I'm just an aviation history geek with (hopefully) a knack for logical writing.
Thanks for the kind words, all.
Simaril
-
I don't think it'd be a terribly hard re-write of code. A simple if-then statement would suffice. Obviously, when you pickle off bombs, it checks to see if the bomb bay doors are open. If they're not, it gives you a message. Just add a simple "and (AoA < 13.5)" or whatever to the bomb drop function. If AoA is over 13 degrees or whatever is decided, just display the message "Unable to drop bombs, Angle too steep."
That's the simple way. A slightly more complex way would be to turn on self collisions and allow you to hit your own bombs.
edit: allowing for Yooper's post, he made a good point. Would also have to check for roll position. My way wouldn't be dead accurate taking into account all of the phsyics, but it'd fix the gameplay issue, and save on a bunch of cpu cycles.
-
:aok
GREAT POST, GREAT ARGUMENT, GREAT SUGGESTIONS!
j00 r teh win!
-
No, no, no. That was a very obtuse insult in that I was comparing you with Straiga. He would nit-pick AH and make all sorts of claims about his credentials. He got away with it for a very long time till he strung himself out to dry on his own ego.
The kicker is he is probably still here, under a different name.
Your humility tells me that you do not have the bloated ego and need for self glorification that he has.
I apologize for the insult.
And yes, it is a very good post.
My boss (KAOS1, mechanical engineer, Air Force Veteran with AF pilot training) and I (mechanical engineer with aerospace experience) have discussed this topic briefly (we discuss all the good forum topics) and agree with you.
More than once, I've been in Mosquitoes and dropped, only to have the bomb pass through the cockpit, like a ghost. Seems that they have the forward momentum modelled in some craft, but not the damage it would do.
Maybe HT could model the bombs as sprites and have them do damage if they hit aircraft sprites. Same as getting hit by bullets or being rammed (then it would be a small step to model the German planes that towed a bomb on a cable as an anti-bomber tactic).
Although you should be able to drop while inverted or banked if the centrifical force would pull the bombs out of the bomb bays in the direction they were designed to go.
-
Originally posted by DaYooper
Although you should be able to drop while inverted or banked if the centrifical force would pull the bombs out of the bomb bays in the direction they were designed to go.
For sure. My High School Physics teacher was a Marine fighter pilot. He used to tell us the stories of how they would fly over their targets, roll inverted and look at the target straight down through the top of their canopies. Then they would pull up (pulling into a dive), release the bombs while they were still inverted, and then pull though the rest of the maneuver.
Esencially, it was an immelman with a bomb drop added in.
-
This has been discussed before, but thumbs up for a great post AND backed up with data too :aok
Bozon
-
:O :aok :D
-
Sweet post.
Anybody like to place bets as to this post hopefully fixing the issue of dive bombing level bombers?
-
Originally posted by indy007
I don't think it'd be a terribly hard re-write of code. A simple if-then statement would suffice. Obviously, when you pickle off bombs, it checks to see if the bomb bay doors are open. If they're not, it gives you a message. Just add a simple "and (AoA < 13.5)" or whatever to the bomb drop function. If AoA is over 13 degrees or whatever is decided, just display the message "Unable to drop bombs, Angle too steep."
AOA refers to the wings angle to the reletive wind caused by forward movement. I could be diving vertically and have 0 dg AOA.
You need to check the pitchand bank angle of the plane. The AI (Attitude indicator) in the planes dash already shows this, which means its calculated by the FE already.
-
A similar tactic was used by A6 intruders for Nuke deployments (not that I can confirm or deny the presence of nukes on U.S. aircraft or installations...).
In order for the A6 to have the time to depart the blast area, it would release the weapon (bomb) in a high angle climb. This would allow the bomb to continue climbing forward utilizing the ballistics and would allow the A6 enough time to finish an emmelman and depart (not that "I" would EVER want to try this...).
Just some extra and probably usless info..:).
NAVCAD
-------------------------------------
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when your stupid"
-
Any comments from the Peanut Gallery owners?
:noid
-
Good read , cant argue with the data . I hope this will get it's due attention
38
-
Sim, well done.
hap
-
great post but I doubt it matters. Last time I saw HT comment on it he said to the effect that there were many ways to game the game so there is no need to fix this one.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
great post but I doubt it matters. Last time I saw HT comment on it he said to the effect that there were many ways to game the game so there is no need to fix this one.
It only matters if HTC is serious about making this a simulation.
AH2 is an excellent simulation of fighter combat. If that's all it claimed to be, then it would be perfectly reasonable to cheat on bomber and GV modelling.
But, AH2 claims to be a WW2 combat simulation.
I'm not picking at some petty detail. Fighters exist to bring guns to bear on enemies. Tanks are designed to get their main guns into combat.
And bombers are designed around their bomb bays. Its what the whole platform is about, carrying large ordnance loads long distances. HTC wouldnt deliberately cheat on the ammo load for an MG151, or the penetrating power of the M8s 37mm. Why is it OK to pretend bombers dont have bomb bays?
To reference an allegory from another thread, why should HT demand Pi be "3.14159" for fighters, and "about 3" for bombers?
-
Great post Simaril, very nicely done. I'm with you! :)
-
Excellent post, sir.
A good example of why this should be a reasonably accurate simulation with respect to game play. It should be fun, but also it should reflect a "living history" of how and why things were done in WW2.
-
Simaril nice post, BUT
First off, the bombs / shackles are not attached to the bomb rack by inverted U's. You are thinking about the retainer on the bomb itself which simplified looks like an eyelet with wings cut down. The shackles the bombs are attached to are attached to the bomb racks HSS Hooks that have a retainer that holds the shackle in place with a very small spring. It was adequate to hold the bomb there and did not allow travel outside the hook unless disengaged. The bombs are not held in place with any screws. You are thinking of an external mount for a jabo. Bombs in the bomb bay do move, if you tried to hold them in place, they would just get jammed because of the way they travel.
Secondly, the entire shackle mechanism does not release from the bomb rack. Instead, a eltromechanical servo actuates a release mechanism which in turn moves a small arm that is engaged to a lever which extends out of the shackle mechanism. This lever mechanically turns the two hooks engaged to the bombs eyelets and drops them. There is no easy mechanical way to disengage the bombs on the 17 mechanically if the electrical circuit fails. It was done individually and involved an individual hanging out over the open bomb bay from the cat walk while using something other than his finger (imagine the snap when those levers release) and actually actuating a trip spring on the release mechanism arm to mechanically release the lever and allowing the bomb to drop free.
Thirdly, level bombers are ONLY limited to dive angles of release while they are flying in a straight line. As soon as they pull back on the yoke / stick, they induce positive G's thereby allowing those bombs to release as they should, straight down from the bomb bay regardless of attitude of the airframe. While I see what you are saying, and like the idea of preventing divebombing lancs / 17s / 24s /26's, and totally agree those airframes could not handle a dive bombing situation like we see in the MA. The fact remains that more shallow dives than the MA were used on a lot of occasions in just about all airframes that drop bombs.
Either way, good post for the most part. Thought you might like some facts to clarify those issues.
-
Originally posted by NAVCAD
A similar tactic was used by A6 intruders for Nuke deployments (not that I can confirm or deny the presence of nukes on U.S. aircraft or installations...).
In order for the A6 to have the time to depart the blast area, it would release the weapon (bomb) in a high angle climb. This would allow the bomb to continue climbing forward utilizing the ballistics and would allow the A6 enough time to finish an emmelman and depart (not that "I" would EVER want to try this...).
Just some extra and probably usless info..:).
NAVCAD
-------------------------------------
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when your stupid"
But they were on an external rack and not in a bomb bay, right? The A6 only had wing hard points IIRC.
The Vigalante had its bomb bay horazontal in between the engines and lunched its weapon aft.
-
Well written post. :aok
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Simaril nice post, BUT
First off, the bombs / shackles are not attached to the bomb rack by inverted U's. You are thinking about the retainer on the bomb itself which simplified looks like an eyelet with wings cut down. The shackles the bombs are attached to are attached to the bomb racks HSS Hooks that have a retainer that holds the shackle in place with a very small spring. It was adequate to hold the bomb there and did not allow travel outside the hook unless disengaged. The bombs are not held in place with any screws. You are thinking of an external mount for a jabo. Bombs in the bomb bay do move, if you tried to hold them in place, they would just get jammed because of the way they travel.
Secondly, the entire shackle mechanism does not release from the bomb rack. Instead, a eltromechanical servo actuates a release mechanism which in turn moves a small arm that is engaged to a lever which extends out of the shackle mechanism. This lever mechanically turns the two hooks engaged to the bombs eyelets and drops them. There is no easy mechanical way to disengage the bombs on the 17 mechanically if the electrical circuit fails. It was done individually and involved an individual hanging out over the open bomb bay from the cat walk while using something other than his finger (imagine the snap when those levers release) and actually actuating a trip spring on the release mechanism arm to mechanically release the lever and allowing the bomb to drop free.
Thanks for the clarification. Didn't find as clear a description of the system anywhere, and honestly had to guess from the appearance. Thanks for the extra info.
Originally posted by Bodhi
Thirdly, level bombers are ONLY limited to dive angles of release while they are flying in a straight line. As soon as they pull back on the yoke / stick, they induce positive G's thereby allowing those bombs to release as they should, straight down from the bomb bay regardless of attitude of the airframe. While I see what you are saying, and like the idea of preventing divebombing lancs / 17s / 24s /26's, and totally agree those airframes could not handle a dive bombing situation like we see in the MA. The fact remains that more shallow dives than the MA were used on a lot of occasions in just about all airframes that drop bombs.
Either way, good post for the most part. Thought you might like some facts to clarify those issues.
Completely agree that "centrifugal" drops possible, within the limits of airframe tolerance. For the some buffs, that tolerance is VERY tight -- according to the B-24 pilot manual and associated documentation, pulling up at speeds greater than 275mph was VERY dangerous. In fact, the "backbone" of both the 17 and 24 had trouble handling rapid elevator TRIM changes, and pilots were told that even release of up elevator after dives of over 275mph could cause structural failure.
In the MA, this means that centrifugal delivery is almost irrelevant. If an MA pilot is under 275, he's not "dive bombing" at all -- and if he's over 275, when he pulls back to get the centrifugal drop the elevators should break and the planned "centrifugal" drop would fail.
_____________________
Please note that while others have focused on this information's implications re: lancstukas, that is NOT my central point at all. SInce making my first post, I've focused on the Lancaster -- and this bay is radically different than the 17's. In fact, implementation of bomb bay modelling in the Lancaster would likely have absolutely no effect on the dive bombing "problem," since the bay's long and relatively shallower dimensions would on average result in very generous pitch restrictions. (I'll post this when I have enough hard data to make it worthwhile; I'm also researching information on the bay dimensions for the B-26, the A-20, and the B-24.)
I just think that a simulation of AH2's quality should have SOME modelling of bomb bays. As I've said, the bomb bay is the entire reason this class of aircraft exists, and failing to model the bay at all is akin to ignoring the ballistics of the Tiger's 88mm.
I'm also trying to find out about airframe tolerances of actual airspeed, which I feel shuold be modelled better as well. For example, the B-17's de-icer boots should begin to lift from the wing and resonate enough to "cause structural failure" above 305mph; the engine cowl rings would fail at 420mph; the pilot's windscreen would fail at a speed above 305mph. In my early tests, the AH B-17 doesnt even show any "strain sounds" now until well over 360mph.
In any case, I appreciate the help of those with deeper knowledge than mine as I begin this search. I'm a realtive newb at aircraft research, and though I'm enjoying it I'm finding it is a very long and slow process.
-
no that is all wrong ..
KEEP THE DIVEBOMBING LANCS ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!1
for the children!!!!!!!
-
Bodhi...since youre here in the thread, a question.
Where do yuo guys find this stuff? I've got a moderate (if poorly focused) aviation library, and my local library is tied in to a loan system with several million books available. I've squeezed these resources fairly dry, but there are big holes in the info I can find. I've started looking more deeply in flight manuals, but even there some things arent readily available. Any tips on good resources?
I whipped my original post together over a day or two, and got sloppy on peripheral issues like the shackle system. From now on, you've reminded me to only say what I KNOW, and dont fudge to fill in teh blanks. (That attitude, i suppose, may disqualify me from posting on the intardnet -- but so be it.)
With regards,
Simaril
-
It's easy to calculate the drop angle of the bomb in the plane's frame of reference using g, G, plane forward acceleration and the dive angle (assuming it changes little in the time scale it takes the bomb to clear the bay). So this angle can be used for the restriction if "drop while pull" matters that much.
Bozon
-
"It only matters if HTC is serious about making this a simulation."
IMO the simulation aspect was abandoned back in 2001.
But a respectful for your work and efforts on this issue which has been a serious gameplay problem (for a WWII aircombat pay-2-play game) for years.
Hope you don't end up feeling like Don Quixote as many other have on this issue and several others. Cause the dweeblings (who FAR outnumber sim minded players now) keep paying thier $14.95 to make dive bombers out of this games "four eng. heavy bombers" and IMO nothing is gonna interfere with that $$ flow.
-Westy
-
im all for it!!:aok
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Bodhi...since youre here in the thread, a question.
Where do yuo guys find this stuff? I've got a moderate (if poorly focused) aviation library, and my local library is tied in to a loan system with several million books available. I've squeezed these resources fairly dry, but there are big holes in the info I can find. I've started looking more deeply in flight manuals, but even there some things arent readily available. Any tips on good resources?
Simaril,
While I generally do not state it, I do work on and rebuild WW2 aircraft. 4 years ago, I worked on a B-17, quite extensively. One of my tasks was to recreate the bomb bay from one that had been stripped bare years prior. Spent a ton of time in the drawings, IPB, E+M, and Boeings processes manual. You learn a ton while working on this stuff.
Currently, I am working on an F4u-4 QEC and components for a P-38. My job is to know what I am working on, so, chances are, if I say it, I have seen it in writing.
-
Nice post. Here's to hoping that they implement at least some changes.
-
very good post.
here is a very sad, yet rather important example of the damage a bomb would do to an aircraft, admitedly not the craft that dropped the bombs, but still only after a few feet of free fall.
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/tail3.htm
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/bombed_tail1.jpg)
1st pic: bad time to drop bombs.
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/bombed_tail2.jpg)
2nd pic: oh crap, sorry mates..
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/bombed_tail3.jpg)
3rd pic: bail out! bail out! the bomb that hit the friendly aircraft can clearly be seen knocked off course by the collision, silouetted against the clouds.
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/bombed_tail4.jpg)
4th: tragicly, this striken aircraft never made it home.
Bring realistic bombing methods and bomb damage to AH2!
Simiril for president!
-
Holy Moly..... Well done Sim.
Give Us Bomb Bays
-
:aok
-
To close out this issue from my standpoint, I'll quote from another thread in which HT responded. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157378)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Simaril
Krusty,
the limits arent arbitrary - they're historical. They were included in training manuals and were precisely defined.
Second, while the "pulling up" G-force displaced drop is correct from the standpoint of physics, from an engineering standpoint it doesnt apply in AH. Bombers with bays werre not phycially capable of pulling out with enough G's to make a meaningful difference in the bomb angle. (With the probably eception of the Ju-88, whcih was also intended fro dive bombing.) For example, a B-24 travelling over 275 mph could snap off its empennage by ADJUSTING VERTICAL TRIM. Theres simply no way it could do "toss bombing" the way you suggest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree Simaril, putting in what your proposition is arbtrary. I know about your tables but to only implement them with out implementing the real physics adjustements that those tables are generated from, would be a totaly arbitray adjustment.
2. people tend to greatly over state the angle of dive bombing buffs.
3. bombers can pull resonable g's, It all depends on how they are loading.
4. implementing the angles will not realy change game play lot, people will just learn to come down fast, level at 1k and drop that way.
So the next request will be (noden didn't work at that alt so it should be disabled) Followed by the next request ( for low level stuff they could use fixed sights so please implement that).
5. Implementing the F6 things would , make it so it is not posible to do mass formations drops. I.E. Drop when the lead does.
Finaly I do wish to do bombay modeling, But it is by no means just a quick simple implementation. Nore would it drasticly change game play. So hence it gets put low on the list. But to implement your request would go down an artifical limitation path.
HiTech
_____________________________ __________________
Fair enough, HT. Thanks for the response.
I know many have focused on the dive bombing heavies issue, and I'd joined in that chorus a year or so ago. Since digging up the data sheets, though, I've repeatedly said that implementation of bomb bay modelling woudl not impact that infrequent problem.
I had suggested the fixed angles without full physics for simplicity's sake...and honestly, if you guys expect to implement full physics modelling that's even better than I'd hoped for. WIth so many major tasks on the "to do" list, I can surely understand why this sits lower down.
As far as I'm concerned, the issue is closed. It'll be done when its done, and when its done it will be done right. Thats more than good enough for me.
P.S. check out the new sig
-
Okay, its been a long time since the last post, but i have a question. Im never in the ball turret when the bombs start to drop, but a freind of mine told me if you shoot the bombs, they detonate and kill you. Does that really happen? I thought this was relevant, because if thats true, it obviously shows that bombs have collisions already modelled.
-
Great post. I took the time to read all the responses before making mine, and I am impressed with the wealth of knowledge this community has when it comes to aircraft in general and WWII aircraft in particular.
All that being said, how hard would it be to code the game to only allow the bombs to be dropped from the CALIBRATED BOMB SITE. In the game as soon as you go to the bomb site it auto levels the plane. It does allow for limited roll of the aircraft to allow for line up, but that's about all.
If it could be coded so that the calibration MUST be completed and all parameters in the "green" and the FE must be in the bomb site mode before the bombs would be allowed to drop, this alone would remove the dive bombing game the game aspect in the MA.
Obviously there would be a few acceptions to this rule such as the Ju-88 and the TBM which were able to dive bomb. Simple matter of not adding the code to those aircraft.
Would this idea work or am I talking out of my butt here? I ask because I'm NOT a programer and I don't know what would be involved to do this. It just seems a logical idea to me.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Okay, its been a long time since the last post, but i have a question. Im never in the ball turret when the bombs start to drop, but a freind of mine told me if you shoot the bombs, they detonate and kill you. Does that really happen? I thought this was relevant, because if thats true, it obviously shows that bombs have collisions already modelled.
Bombs have enemy collisions modelled, but friendly collisions (and bullets) off. Occasionally you'll see someone burst out laughing on 200 because they cant believe they just got killed by a bomb hitting them in the air....
Originally posted by Hornet33
.....All that being said, how hard would it be to code the game to only allow the bombs to be dropped from the CALIBRATED BOMB SITE. In the game as soon as you go to the bomb site it auto levels the plane. It does allow for limited roll of the aircraft to allow for line up, but that's about all.....
It wouldnt be hard, but it wouldnt solve anything either. We gamers are more than clever enough to get a work-around for that rule. A BBS search would show you how this suggestion could be defeated.
More importantly, HiTech has said that dive bombing buffs are not a big issue for him. He has talked of putting in a penalty for suicidal bombing, reversing some of the damage if players die too soon after dropping, but that's about it.
In any case, the issues that I raised in this thread have been addressed, as the last few posts before yours outlined. HiTech wants to model bomb bays as real, physical objects (with walls, angles, gravity effects, bomb inertia, and everything) -- but that modelling project is farther down the list of tasks, and will not be addressed in the near future.
When it is addressed, I am certain it will be done right.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Bombs have enemy collisions modelled, but friendly collisions (and bullets) off. Occasionally you'll see someone burst out laughing on 200 because they cant believe they just got killed by a bomb hitting them in the air....
Yeah. Ive killed an La-something with a 1000lb-er from a B17. I missed all the huge bomber hangars, missed the VH, but hit a tiny La that was moving about 300mph. Now THAT was lucky!
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Simaril,
While I generally do not state it, I do work on and rebuild WW2 aircraft. 4 years ago, I worked on a B-17, quite extensively. One of my tasks was to recreate the bomb bay from one that had been stripped bare years prior. Spent a ton of time in the drawings, IPB, E+M, and Boeings processes manual. You learn a ton while working on this stuff.
Currently, I am working on an F4u-4 QEC and components for a P-38. My job is to know what I am working on, so, chances are, if I say it, I have seen it in writing.
SO are there any job openings there?
-
Is HTC going to code the game so that 4 engine bombers have to be leveled to bomb? This will help the dive bombing but it will not help the low level on the deck noe bombing. It will at least be a start.
Edit:
Oh and maybe you must have calibration done and only drop from F6 view.
-
What an old dead topic. This won't happen soon.
-
Yeah, I'm kinda surprised it keeps getting resurrected.
The "Dive Bombing Heavies" IS a dead issue, Kermit and Krusty. First, HT doesnt think its a problem at all. Second, there arent any available solutions that would work. The F6 solution would make absolutely no difference, since with full salvo you can hit f6 and drop ord in about 3/4 sec.
Requiring level drops is both unrealistic -- see the detailed angle tables, based on the position of the bomb in the rack -- and (in HT's words) arbitrary.
HT has said he plans to eventually implement modelling for bomb bay structures, with realistic physics for drops and inertia. That will involve a fair amount of coading, I'd bet, and it will require a limited reworking of the friendly collision model (since bombs are now technically friendly objects and thus cannot collide with part of a friendly aircraft, so you cant damage your plane by releasing too steeply).
I could concieve of this being done as part of CT, but if it isnt done there, I dont expect it to be high on the priority list for a good while.
So, it isnt impossible that it wont be left undone for an infinitely unlimited time, but no way to be sure.
-
Sim,
Are there any particular texts you're looking for? I can look around locally to see if I can find them.