Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Boxboy on March 01, 2006, 12:55:55 AM
-
1. same random roll for engine hit as to wheather or not it covers cockpit with oil. (not all engine hits resulted in a covered with oil cockpit)
2. Less than FULL gas loads to be a perked option, the lower you go the more it costs for that flight. (most REAL WWII sorties never took off with 1/4 fuel load) This would be rated by how the lighten load helps a fighter and Bombers would be exempt from this perk requirement.
3. Jets removed from the MA, these are obivious enclusions for particular historic setups but in the MA they are just unbalancing rides that serve no real purpose IMHO.
4. Bomber guns leathality to be lightened up a bit, right now it seems as tho the .50 cals are hitting like 20mm cannon from d 800 yrds??? I know that in a formation you getting numerous guns to bear and that is why I think the leathality should be reverted to the regular .50 cals. (I maybe out on limb on this one and there has been NO increase in .50's on the bombers???)
Jim "Boxboy" Harrison
-
1. Ok
2.You take off with full fuel everytime? Why not just perk every plane. Do we get extra points for taking DT's?
3.Jets are a fun ride as a way to spend perkies. You must be expecting everyone to burn all their perks on taking <100% fuel
4.I get ripped apart enough as it is. Fly the Ki-67 and you will see what a 20MM does at 800 compared to the regular 50.
-
Boxboy, we just need to make it so drop tanks are not enabled unless main tanks are at 100% capacity.
Jets are perked, its rare enough to see one, and its really not that hard to avoid them. Just takes decent SA, and turn into them about 3k out.
Last, buff guns are just fine, if you have a problem, well its your problem. :)
Don't sit dead 6, in fact don't make a straight in pass at them from any angle.
Keep mixing it up, left to right, top to bottom, get and keep them busy jumping from gun to gun trying to get on you. Don't give them a steady shot inside of 600 yards.
-
1. Good idea.
2. We are not flying REAL WWII sorties in the MA. Donīt think taking less than 100% fuel should be perked.
3. I donīt find jets that unbalancing. I fly alot and see rarely jets. And they are only dangerous to the unaware and buffs. Pretty easy to deny a 262 a gun solution in a fighter. And 262s are anice way to throw away your perks (did it last night for the first time :D )
4. 50cal on bombers are deadly because most pilots attack the bombers six and give the gunner a steady and predictable target.
-
Thanks for the input guys, I was not sure on the Buff guns so that one I guess can be removed :D As for the fuel, it was just my idea for making some the more popular rides abit less competitive. The one on Jets is just my own feelings about them in the game (they really don't bother me that much)
-
the reason buff guns are so powerfull is because the rounds have the velocity of a bullet + the velocity of the aircracft they are hitting. they are not too uber, just dont attack from the rear like a moron. frontal attacks on heavy bombers are the only safe bet.
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
the reason buff guns are so powerfull is because the rounds have the velocity of a bullet + the velocity of the aircracft they are hitting. they are not too uber, just dont attack from the rear like a moron. frontal attacks on heavy bombers are the only safe bet.
Sorry, have to be anal for a moment . . .
I am tired of seeing posts like this to explain why bomber fire is more leathal. The guns on the buffs are firing from a MOVING platform, not a stationary one. The relative velocity of the bullet is therefore the velocity of the gun and the DIFFERENCE IN velocity of the gun platform and target.
So, your statement is true if you are diving on an M16 and he is firing at your front. The M16 is stationary, you are diving at 300mph, the impact of the bullets is "enhanced" by your 300mph speed.
If you are creeping up on the buffs at 300mph and they are traveling at 250mph, the bullets are "enhanced" by only 50mph.
The added lethality is that they are firing 12 MGs or more at the front of your plane (where your engine is) while you appear to them to be an almost stationary target and therefore easy to hit.
Attacking the buffs from the FRONT as you suggest makes it more difficult for the buffs to hit because you now appear to be a target moving at 550mph instead of 50mph. By the "added velocity" definition, attacking from the front would actually be a BAD idea since the bullets are so "enhanced" by the closing speed.
Smidsy, this is not directed at you personally -- I have seen this "reasoning" posted several times from different people, and since I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, I decided to rant. :furious
Your overall message is still sound -- don't attack bombers from dead six and your odds of survival will increase. :aok
-
E25280: Gunns firing reward are more lethal at range, not do to the resone given above, but because they are travling at a slower rate threw the air at launch time, and hence less drag, hence they are travling faster at impact time.
Take the most extream case both planes are travling at 1000 fps and the bullet is shot straight back with a muzzle vel of 1000 fps.
Hence relative to the ground and air it is not moveing other than it is starting to fall.
Now 2 secs later the plane impacts the bullet at 1000fps, notice the bullet did not slow down at all relative to the trailing plane.
This is why reward guns of bombers seem more lethal.
HiTech
-
Attacking the buffs from the FRONT as you suggest makes it more difficult for the buffs to hit because you now appear to be a target moving at 550mph instead of 50mph. By the "added velocity" definition, attacking from the front would actually be a BAD idea since the bullets are so "enhanced" by the closing speed.
True enough.... But, remember also that the differential works both for attacker and defender, so projectile velocity does make the 12 o'clock attack better than your comparison implies.
The 6 position fighter's ordnance decelerates with distance travelled, and its impact on the target is reduced by the targets relative velocity away from the guns. Also, the attackers bullets ahve to travel FARTHER than the buffs, becasue of relative flight directions -- so there's effectively less kineteic energy damage from the fighters guns and more from the bombers when atttacking form 6. SO, the fighter has to get more hits to do the same damage as the bomber can, whcih means longer exposure to the defensive fire, which means......significant advantage to defender.
When attacking from 12, the kinetic energy advantage shifts to the fighter. Whats more, the tougher firing solution favors the fighter, since the bomber will move less and change vectors more predictably.
From the 12 oclock, the fighters guns are more effective, and with equal aiming skill the fighter has a big advatage over the bomber. The chief disadvantage is that it takes significantly longer to set up a 12 oclock attack, and a good buff driver can continually adjust flight angles to almost copnsistantly deny the forward pass. And even under ideal conditions, it takes even longer to set up a second 12 attack than the first one did becasue the reset starts with attacker and defender flying in opposite direcgtions.
-
EDIT: I mis-read the post
-
EDIT: yep, that would explain it
-
I'm sorry, I read it as "that's the situation with the defending bomber" not "the attacking fighter".
-
hehe
NP, done that myself...I think it even was with a post you did about the PBY and i jumped in about the catalina (wrong PBY)
-
Originally posted by hitech
E25280: Gunns firing reward are more lethal at range, not do to the resone given above, but because they are travling at a slower rate threw the air at launch time, and hence less drag, hence they are travling faster at impact time.
Take the most extream case both planes are travling at 1000 fps and the bullet is shot straight back with a muzzle vel of 1000 fps.
Hence relative to the ground and air it is not moveing other than it is starting to fall.
Now 2 secs later the plane impacts the bullet at 1000fps, notice the bullet did not slow down at all relative to the trailing plane.
This is why reward guns of bombers seem more lethal.
HiTech
Love the "hovering bullet" analogy.
I admit, I did not consider drag. In an airless environment, I believe my rant still holds.
Using your extreme example, the planes must start 2000 feet apart for the plane behind to be hit in 2 seconds. So, assume the plane behind fires back. In an airless environment, his gun velocity of 1000fps has a "ground speed" of 2000 fps. In one second it crosses the "hovering bullet", but the target is now 1000ft away due to its speed. After second number two, the 2000fps bullet hits the target which is now 2000 feet from the original position. The impact is still at 1000 fps.
So I guess I need a physics lesson. I tend to think of deceleration as a time-dependent variable. Is deceleration due to drag purely dependent on distance traveled? That is, a bullet fired at 2000 feet per second decelerates more rapidly than a bullet fired at 1000 feet per second?
At real-life speeds and when talking about a spinning, aerodynamically designed projectile, is the difference in deceleration all that significant when time-to-target is less than a second?
That is to say, I understand (now) that there is a difference. I still have a hard time believing that the difference could be so great as to be a more determinant factor than those I cite (multiple guns firing at a relatively easy target at its most vulnerable part (engine)).
Waiting patiently for my smackdown . . .
Until then, as once stated on Mythbusters; "I reject your reality, and choose to substitute my own." :D
-
Originally posted by Boxboy
1. same random roll for engine hit as to wheather or not it covers cockpit with oil. (not all engine hits resulted in a covered with oil cockpit)
Yer totally agree.
Originally posted by Boxboy
2. Less than FULL gas loads to be a perked option, the lower you go the more it costs for that flight. (most REAL WWII sorties never took off with 1/4 fuel load) This would be rated by how the lighten load helps a fighter and Bombers would be exempt from this perk requirement.
No way. Real life never had any like the vulchers and cherry-pickers either. If you want to defend a base while being vulched i sure as h*ll dont want to use up perks so i can go up light. And i doubly dont want to go up fully juiced in some kites to defend either. AH2 aint real life.
Originally posted by Boxboy
3. Jets removed from the MA, these are obivious enclusions for particular historic setups but in the MA they are just unbalancing rides that serve no real purpose IMHO.
Nah, Jets arent that much of a threat.
Where should we draw the line between balanced/unbalanced? Not easy. Your in favour of the "in real life" argument, well jets were part of "real life" in WW2. You cant have "real life" for fuel conditions, and not "real life" for jets.
Originally posted by Boxboy
4. Bomber guns leathality to be lightened up a bit, right now it seems as tho the .50 cals are hitting like 20mm cannon from d 800 yrds??? I know that in a formation you getting numerous guns to bear and that is why I think the leathality should be reverted to the regular .50 cals. (I maybe out on limb on this one and there has been NO increase in .50's on the bombers???)
This one is an old issue, that HTC swears they are identical to normal fighter 50 cals. If your getting taken out by them, then try different attack profiles? Most bombers bellies can be attacked fairly well. Also try front quarter slashing attacks (ive never been hit doing that).
-
hay, E25280 listen up. there is anecdotal evidence from both sides in the vietnam war concerning this very thing. various MiGs tried to creep up on the 6 of B-52s armed with .50 cal tail guns while the MiGs had 20mm cannon with a higher muzzle velocity and longer range. however, due to the physics that HiTech so perfectly described, the MiGs were shot down by the tailguns of the B-52 before they could get in range. nuff said.
also, in responce to the "but SMIDSY!! i still get blasted even when i attack from the side" argument, the B-17G model that we currently have ingame is equipped 12 .50 caliber machineguns. if you are at the plane's 9 or 3 there are a total of 9 of those guns that can hit you. everyone who knows how to fly a P-47 knows how lethal all those ma duces can be.
-
You guys have it all wrong. The reason some guys think bomber guns are too lethal is because they start at 1000 away and come straight in and sit at 400 away straight and level firing their guns.
-
Originally posted by E25280
Love the "hovering bullet" analogy.
So I guess I need a physics lesson. I tend to think of deceleration as a time-dependent variable. Is deceleration due to drag purely dependent on distance traveled? That is, a bullet fired at 2000 feet per second decelerates more rapidly than a bullet fired at 1000 feet per second?
Waiting patiently for my smackdown . . .
Until then, as once stated on Mythbusters; "I reject your reality, and choose to substitute my own." :D
:) I watch that show also, anyway what your missing is deceleration (or more properly drag ) varies with the sqaure of vel.
The baisic equations forms are (combining constants all into BulletDragCO ).
Drag = Vel^2 * AirDensity * BulletDragCO.
and
Acceleration = Drag / BulletMass
So the end result is the drag is Zero in my case is Huge in the case you described.
Or more more precisly take the same muzzle vel in our sample case.
With a Total drag of 4 out the barrel if the gun was not moving.
In my case drag would be 0, in your case drag would be 16.
HiTech
-
***Head explodes***
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
You guys have it all wrong. The reason some guys think bomber guns are too lethal is because they start at 1000 away and come straight in and sit at 400 away straight and level firing their guns.
RIGHT!!!! Come on guys 1 time a week someone complains about bomber guns...not includeing boxboy b/c i likes his other suggestions... but if your going to attack buffs you cant come in right from the back...get killed...curse...log off...come on bbs...and post about it. Every buff has its blind spot or a spot where it will be hard to shoot at a plane from. Ive done it before =)
<~V{Viper215}V~>
-
Originally posted by hitech
The baisic equations forms are (combining constants all into BulletDragCO ).
Drag = Vel^2 * AirDensity * BulletDragCO.
and
Acceleration = Drag / BulletMass
So the end result is the drag is Zero in my case is Huge in the case you described.
Or more more precisly take the same muzzle vel in our sample case.
With a Total drag of 4 out the barrel if the gun was not moving.
In my case drag would be 0, in your case drag would be 16.
HiTech
At the risk of losing another AH member . . . .
Originally posted by Saxman
***Head explodes***
I tried to do a "real world" example in AH land (a contradiction, I know).
Without a lot of time to browse, I quickly found one site (wikepedia, I believe) that listed the muzzle velocity of a WW2 Browning .50 Cal MG to be 3,050 feet per second, or about 2,080 mph. :O
I also assumed that the deceleration would not be linear, but would rather be an inverse curve (not sure if that is the proper term), which is a fancy way of saying that the rate of deceleration goes down as time goes on. This is because as the bullet slows, drag resistance decreases, thus although the bullet is still slowing, it is slowing at a lesser rate. Um, . . . clearest way to say is that drag slows the bullet the most immediately after it leaves the barrel.
Anyhoo, with this in mind I created a scenario where a 300mph bomber is flying 3000 feet in front of a fighter (D1000 in AH) also traveling 300mph (440 feet per second). They both fire a single .50cal bullet. What is the true difference in damage this single bullet can inflict?
One problem is that I have no idea how quickly a bullet will slow down IRL if fired from a stationary platform. Tried to find a quick note on the internet, and patience ran out before the 3,000,000 pages relating to the drag of a bullet ran out. So, I took a WAG at 300 feet per second per second at the muzzle.
Did a spreadsheet -- I'll spare the details.
Interesting was that I found the bullet fired from the fighter decelerates relative to the ground at an initial rate 1.8 times faster than the bullet fired backwards (3,490 feet per second vs 2,610 feet per second)
The approximate result is that the bullet fired from the bomber hits the fighter at a velocity of 2,843 feet per second after 1.02 seconds. The fighter's bullet hits the bomber at 2,680 feet per second after 1.05 seconds. The difference in velocity is 6.1% in favor of the bomber.
Redid the results if initial drag was 200ft and 100ft per second instead of 300. Differences were smaller, of course (3.9% and 1.9% respectively), but still bomber-favorable.
Changed the speed of the bomber to 250MPH. Difference in hitting power at the 300ft/sec^2 deceleration fell to 5.2%, but the hitting power of both went up.
Cut the distance between bomber and fighter, and the difference in damage goes down.
So, what's my point? :huh
I am totally wrong in my initial statement that the hitting power of a bomber's guns are not enhanced vs the fighter's guns because it fires backwards:o
However, if (granted, BIG IF) my 300ft/sec deceleration is anywhere near true, each bullet is only about 6% more effective at D1000, less as distance between target and shooter decreases. Or, you get about an extra bullet impact effect for every 20 bullets that hit.
In other words, if you fire 20 rounds from each of your 6 .50 cals into a bomber, and he fires 20 rounds back, the reason he is flying on while you go crashing to earth a flaming wreck is more because he is firing 12 or more guns back at your much smaller single engine while you hit a rudder instead or perhaps took out one of his four engines. It shouldn't be SOLELY because he has 6% faster bullets.
(For those of you wondering, NO, I am not Crumpp)
All the Best, :lol
-
Seriously, though . . .
THANK YOU, Hitech, for taking time to teach me something I didn't know. :aok :) :aok
-
So by that rationale, attacking a bombing from the front aspect would be more effective, as the bomber's return fire wouldnt hit as fast as it would as if it was fired from the back downwind?
-
Originally posted by Spatula
So by that rationale, attacking a bombing from the front aspect would be more effective, as the bomber's return fire wouldnt hit as fast as it would as if it was fired from the back downwind?
No -- just that there would be no difference in the impact speed / effectiveness of either the fighter's or the bomber's bullets.
In my 3000 feet, single bullet, 300ft/sec WAG instant deceleration scenario, the following would be the impact speeds when both planes are traveling at 300mph:
Fighter flying behind bomber:
Fighter's bullet: 2,680 ft/sec impact at 1.05 seconds
Bomber's bullet: 2,843 ft/sec impact (6.1% higher than fighter) at 1.02 seconds.
Head On Shot, again fired at exactly 3000 feet distance.
Fighter's bullet: 3,645 ft/sec impact at 0.79 seconds
Bomber's bullet: 3,645 ft/sec impact at 0.79 seconds
This makes the Fighter's shot 36.0% faster at impact than when shooting from behind, but the bombers shot is also 28.2% deadlier than when you approach from behind.
The survivability advantage, therefore, is simply the difficulty of the bomber hitting you when coming from the front. Any "single bullet" is actually deadlier -- but the odds of and number of hits would be greatly reduced.
-
E25280: Intial deacceration on the 50cal would be in the 1400 FPSPS Range
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
E25280: Intial deacceration on the 50cal would be in the 1400 FPSPS Range
HiTech
:O My WAG was Way off And Generally useless.
Recalc (assuming the rest of my math isn't whacked):
Bomber and Fighter traveling 300mph, single bullet at 3000 feet range:
Bomber bullet impact: 2,231 feet/sec at 1.16 seconds
Fighter bullet impact: 1,586 feet/sec at 1.37 seconds
Difference: +40.7%
Range 1500 feet:
Bomber bullet impact: 2,592 feet/sec at 0.54 seconds
Fighter bullet impact: 2,232 feet/sec at 0.58 seconds
Difference: +16.1%
Notice the fighter bullet needs to start at 1500 feet to have the same power as the bomber bullet at 3000 feet?
Range 600 feet:
Bomber bullet impact: 2,859 feet/sec at 0.20 seconds
Fighter bullet impact: 2,702 feet/sec at 0.21 seconds
Difference: +5.8%
Now, assume Bomber is at 240mph and Fighter is at 300mph, single bullet at 3000 feet range:
Bomber bullet impact: 2,287 feet/sec at 1.13 seconds
Fighter bullet impact: 1,719 feet/sec at 1.30 seconds
Difference: +33.1%
Range 1500 feet:
Bomber bullet impact: 2,666 feet/sec at 0.52 seconds
Fighter bullet impact: 2,353 feet/sec at 0.55 seconds
Difference: +13.3%
Range 600 feet:
Bomber bullet impact: 2,935 feet/sec at 0.20 seconds (but 8 feet through fighter)
Fighter bullet impact: 2,805 feet/sec at 0.20 seconds (but 5 feet through bomber)
Difference: +4.6%
Spatula's HO question:
Single bullet HO at 3000 feet would impact both planes at 2,798 feet/sec at 0.91 seconds, 76.4% more power than the fighter bullet fired 3000 feet from behind and 25.4% more power than the bomber's return fire.
All "impact velocities" account for target movement. That is, in the first case the bomber's bullet impact speed is actual ground speed of 1,791 feet per second plus fighter's speed of 440 feet per second (2,231 total), while the fighter's bullet impact speed is 2,036 feet per second ground speed minus the bombers speed of 440 feet per second (1,586 total).
By the way, the same wikepedia sight that gave me the muzzle velocity of 3,050 feet per second gave an "effective range" of 2000 meters, or 6,600 feet. By my math and Hitech's initial deceleration, a bullet from a stationary platform would hit that target 6,600 feet away in 3.7 seconds with a velocity of about 1,128 feet per second, and still be "effective" (by whatever definition they use).
Restating the obvious, I WAS TOTALLY WRONG :o and bow to the superiority of HiTech.
(Next, someone will point out I forgot to carry the two, and I'll have to calculate all over again . . . )
Once more, THANK YOU HiTech for teaching me.:aok
-
What's amazing to me is how many B-17's we lost to fighters before we got fighter cover for them. In one raid alone we lost 60 bombers and I find it VERY hard to believe that NONE of those were lost due a 6 oclock attack.
-
I hosted several heavy bomber missions in my room. A group of 4/5 bomber pilots (with drones, so 12/15 bombers in total) against a group of 4/3 attackers (usually FW-190's)
The outcome was VERY realistic, I believe Raptor calculated the loss percentage, and it came close to real life.
I don't think the .50's should be lowered in lethalty.
-
E25280, you are arguing with minds that are able to cause your mind to explode. just like we did to Kenedy.
-
Don't let how Hitech spells fool you... Anyone who programs flight sims is going to have a pretty firm grip on physics and especially lift/drag/power/gravity formulae.
It comes as no surprise to me that he's a little smarter than the average bear on this.
-
Originally posted by E25280
No -- just that there would be no difference in the impact speed / effectiveness of either the fighter's or the bomber's bullets.
Yer, that was kinda my point. As a fighter your better off attaking a buff front on - as if you get hit, its no where near as bad as being hit approaching it from the rear.