Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Aussie on July 27, 2006, 11:53:47 AM

Title: B29
Post by: Aussie on July 27, 2006, 11:53:47 AM: Yeah id like a b29 in the game.Never saw a pic. of a b29 but my friend wants one in aceshigh2.b19 please hitech!!!:)
Title: B29
Post by: Kermit de frog on July 27, 2006, 12:18:40 PM: :rofl

Woot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRING ON THE PAIN TRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: B29
Post by: RAIDER14 on July 27, 2006, 12:23:30 PM: (http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g284/Michael75229/nook.gif)
Title: B29
Post by: Iron_Cross on July 27, 2006, 12:43:44 PM: HITECH has stated on several ocasions that he will not put the B-29 in game. So stop asking for IT. PERIOD!!!!!!!!
Title: B29
Post by: Karnak on July 27, 2006, 12:58:18 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Iron_Cross
HITECH has stated on several ocasions that he will not put the B-29 in game. So stop asking for IT. PERIOD!!!!!!!!

HiTech has never said the B-29 will not be put in AH that I have seen. In fact, it was an example of what the perk system was for.

HiTech has said there will never be a bomb heavier than the 4,000lb in AH now, so no nuke.

That is all fine by me too.
Title: B29
Post by: Kazaa on July 27, 2006, 01:18:48 PM: I don't care to much for the nuke, because all the stat padders will just keep nuking tank town for points.
Title: B29
Post by: Kev367th on July 27, 2006, 01:37:44 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
HiTech has never said the B-29 will not be put in AH that I have seen. In fact, it was an example of what the perk system was for.

HiTech has said there will never be a bomb heavier than the 4,000lb in AH now, so no nuke.

That is all fine by me too.

So no "Tallboy" or "Grandslam" ? BOOOOOOOOOO
Doesn't rule out a "Cookie" though :) YAAAAAAAAAY
Title: B29
Post by: Iron_Cross on July 27, 2006, 01:45:20 PM: Yes HITECH has stated that the 4000Lb "Cookie" will be the biggest bomb. I also believe that they are having trouble trying to figure out how to code the remote fire control system on the B-29. They will not code the B-29 untill they can work out how to implement the remote fire control system, and I believe that is not even on a "back burner" for the forseeable future.

I will make a prediction tho: The B-29 will take as long to develop and code as the CT, but will not be started untill after CT comes out, AND the Pacific planeset is filled out.

Four years after the implementation of CT. In other words Permanant "TWO WEEKS".
Title: B29
Post by: Karnak on July 27, 2006, 02:16:10 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
So no "Tallboy" or "Grandslam" ? BOOOOOOOOOO
Doesn't rule out a "Cookie" though :) YAAAAAAAAAY

The 4,000lb in AH is a 'Cookie'.

Iron_Cross,

I wouldn't expect to see a B-29 anytime soon either.
Title: B29
Post by: Kev367th on July 27, 2006, 02:18:16 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
The 4,000lb in AH is a 'Cookie'.

Iron_Cross,

I wouldn't expect to see a B-29 anytime soon either.

Yup, I was thinking in regards to the Mossie though, not the Lanc, I should have been more specific.
Title: B29
Post by: skycaptn on July 27, 2006, 02:35:22 PM: Why do you have to code anything special for the b-29 gun turrets?
The guns on our current buffs are practically autoaim already hell most of the turrets turn and fire in reaction to the users command already as a matter of fact I would argue that the b-29's turret views would be easier to make than any other bombers. this is why.
Instead of a graphic associated /w the gunners position all you would need is a set of crosshairs and the exterior veiw of the bomber minus the bomber. thereby simulating the effect of looking closely thru a tv screen or sight.
The question is rather one of priority's how do we who want the B-29 convince HTC that it should be a higher priority... when you can answer that question you will have your B-29.:aok
Title: B29
Post by: VooWho on July 27, 2006, 03:17:59 PM: Yea just like what skycaptn said. The turrets don't have to be special. If there remote, y not just make it to where u hit key 3 switch to the top turret, and u see like a GV circle with a crosshair on it. Its so simple. It just like the usually B17, B24 turrets, just not in a class bubble, instead just pops up a screen that looks like video camera with the cross hairs. If your confused let me try this. Imagine you are gunning in a B-17 like the top turret. When you press your botton to hop into that gunner posistion you see 2 .50cals, a crosshair, and glass all around you. Will take the current turrets we have, cover the class all black, hide the .50cals, and add a tv screen with a cross hair on it, and you have your remote turret. That simple.
Title: B29
Post by: SuperDud on July 27, 2006, 03:42:36 PM: I'll tell you guys what. I've been trying to ease off being a smart *** on these boards. But when I see post like this, it's very hard to do. It's like an inner instinct in me. But I shall resist the urge a simply say, good luck with your request.
Title: B29
Post by: Iron_Cross on July 27, 2006, 04:10:18 PM: Listen the remote firing guns in a B-29 was a complex system that took into efect the speed of the aircraft, the angle the sights were pointed, the distance the targeted aircraft was at, and various other factors witch computed lead and put the bullets on the attacking plane.

There was no TV gudance, you had guners in the bubbles looking through sights witch sent signals to an early computer, and the computer did its calculations pointed the turrets and fired the guns when the gunner pressed the trigger. The only gun(S) in the B-29 that were not hooked up to the computer were the tail guns, operated by the lone gunner in the tail. Twin .50s, a single 20mm, or a broomstick with a beer can stuck on the end painted black like some giant flash suppressor.

That last one was used to great efect. Japanese pilots were seen keeping a respectfull distance from that fearsome looking thing. :lol
Title: B29
Post by: skycaptn on July 27, 2006, 04:40:10 PM: I think most of us are aware of the system that was in place to opperate the turrets in the b-29's the point of my post however was to point out that for the purposes of flying little pixelated aircraft thru the sky in a simulator its not required to have a fancy setup.. I dont think the people at HTC lack the imagination to cercumvent this problem. I would rather consider it a lower priority. The objective to those who really really want the B-29 is simply this... Find out how to make it a priority of HTC.. all companys rely on income from their consumers thereby feedback from consumers should get their attention. If those who desire the B-29 badly enough get HTC's attention and they make up a large enough number of the general "income population" there should be some feedback.
Goodluck bomber boys
Title: B29
Post by: RAIDER14 on July 27, 2006, 04:44:14 PM: Quote
Originally posted by RAIDER14
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g284/Michael75229/nook.gif)
Title: Re: B29
Post by: Meatwad on July 27, 2006, 04:56:00 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Aussie
Yeah id like a b29 in the game.Never saw a pic. of a b29 but my friend wants one in aceshigh2.b19 please hitech!!!:)

You want it but never seen a picture. Try searching next time before posting :rolleyes:
Title: B29
Post by: mussie on July 27, 2006, 06:03:07 PM: Quote
Originally posted by skycaptn
all you would need is a set of crosshairs and the exterior veiw of the bomber minus the bomber. thereby simulating the effect of looking closely thru a tv screen or sight.

Ya know skycaptn... Thats the smartest solution to a problem I have heard in a long long time...

Simple
Straight Foward
Effective

I would like the B-29 but it could not have any nooks..... Talk about being unbalanced.

I would think around 250 Perks for B-29's...

Mind you how many fighters would have any real chance of catching the B-29 IIRC She was pretty fast and had a fairly massive cealing.....
Title: B29
Post by: E25280 on July 27, 2006, 07:12:07 PM: Quote
Originally posted by VooWho
Yea just like what skycaptn said. The turrets don't have to be special. If there remote, y not just make it to where u hit key 3 switch to the top turret, and u see like a GV circle with a crosshair on it. Its so simple. It just like the usually B17, B24 turrets, just not in a class bubble, instead just pops up a screen that looks like video camera with the cross hairs. If your confused let me try this. Imagine you are gunning in a B-17 like the top turret. When you press your botton to hop into that gunner posistion you see 2 .50cals, a crosshair, and glass all around you. Will take the current turrets we have, cover the class all black, hide the .50cals, and add a tv screen with a cross hair on it, and you have your remote turret. That simple.
Yes, you could set it up like you describe, and you would never hit anything.

In the b-17 et. al. currently in the game, you are firing guns actually attached to the sight. All other guns firing from all other positions converge at roughly 600 yds IIRC. Unless the fighter is actually close to that distance from you, you are either hitting with only the guns you are firing, or are "missing" at just the right angle that some of the other guns are hitting.

Said another way, when a fighter is in close or is far away, the only guns that have a decent chance at hitting are those you are actually aiming.

So, a "gunless" turret, one that is set between your four actual gun turrets, firing at an object at any distance other than approx 600 yards away, have next to no chance of hitting anything. The safest place for a fighter to be against your setup would be right next to the plane six feet off your aiming bubble -- you would never hit him.

Rear gun would work properly. Forget about the rest. Personally, I don't see the point taking a target that large up without the ability to fire effectively at interceptors.
Title: b29
Post by: stephen on July 27, 2006, 09:25:10 PM: you cant deny that if this game is to continue as a front runner in ww2 sim, that a b29 is neccesary, purhaps perked, purhaps making the HQ even further away from nme bases, either way these post are going to continue intil a way is found to impliment it... sry just reallity kicking me in the buttocks....:confused:
Title: B29
Post by: Kurt on July 27, 2006, 09:32:15 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Iron_Cross
I also believe that they are having trouble trying to figure out how to code the remote fire control system on the B-29.

:huh

Um, Pardon my making sense, but we already have 'remote fire control' in EVERY BOMBER IN AH.
Title: B29
Post by: Kurt on July 27, 2006, 09:35:14 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Iron_Cross
Listen the remote firing guns in a B-29 was a complex system that took into efect the speed of the aircraft, the angle the sights were pointed, the distance the targeted aircraft was at, and various other factors witch computed lead and put the bullets on the attacking plane.

AH Has a lead computing gunsite... You can see it in the T.A.

Ctrl-tab to allow you to lock friendly (unnecessary if you can find a red in TA)..

Shift-Tab to track.

So, this plus the auto tracking guns on the bombers already and whiz-bang.. They aren't having any trouble coding it.

The game already completely supports all the technology (I know, its unimaginable that a computer game run on a Pentium 4 in the year 2006 is smarter than the gunsite in a B29 in 1944... WOW, can you believe that stuff?).

HTC probably just doesn't want a bomber running around at 32k feet dropping huge bomb loads at speeds the fighters will have a hell of a time matching...

Its not the guns, its the speed and altitude the B29 runs at. It would run mostly unopposed. Thats what they don't want.
Title: B29
Post by: Midnight on July 27, 2006, 10:13:26 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Kurt
HTC probably just doesn't want a bomber running around at 32k feet dropping huge bomb loads at speeds the fighters will have a hell of a time matching...

Heck, the way the MA works now, I would think people would be praising cod to see a bomber actually flying up high and dropping bombs from the level sight.

As to the remote gun system, why should that be included to begin with? There are several RL features, in many of the planes we already have, that have been omitted for gameplay purposes. (I.e. no K-14 gunsights, no G-suits, automatic cowl flaps, automatic retracting flaps, etc.)

I would love to see the B-29 in game simply to be able to do a virtual tour inside of one. The new standard for the B17 and B24 make being in an AH bomber a pretty close comparison to the real thing.

I just had a new idea for an observer position... see a new thread..
Title: B29
Post by: Kurt on July 28, 2006, 12:01:17 AM: Quote
Originally posted by Midnight
automatic cowl flaps

:huh

Engine cooling is a big issue for you??

Thats the wierdest remark I've ever seen...

No G-suits? My guy doesn't go stupid till sustaining something like 8G... I'd say he's wearing something...
Title: B29
Post by: Kurt on July 28, 2006, 12:03:42 AM: Quote
Originally posted by Midnight
Heck, the way the MA works now, I would think people would be praising cod to see a bomber actually flying up high and dropping bombs from the level sight.

I don't know about you, but I fly, and see B17's and B24s flying 10K and above all the time.

In MA the complaint is that they are too high, in the board the complaint is that they are too low.

For the record I have never seen a lanc dive bombing, so maybe I'm just dumb.
Title: B29
Post by: SD67 on July 28, 2006, 02:08:46 AM: I've both seen and participated in Lancaster dive bombing.
There used to be a guy on called lancdive that did it all the time. Haven't seen him on for ages now.
Title: B29
Post by: mussie on July 28, 2006, 03:54:22 AM: Quote
Originally posted by E25280
Yes, you could set it up like you describe, and you would never hit anything.

In the b-17 et. al. currently in the game, you are firing guns actually attached to the sight. All other guns firing from all other positions converge at roughly 600 yds IIRC. Unless the fighter is actually close to that distance from you, you are either hitting with only the guns you are firing, or are "missing" at just the right angle that some of the other guns are hitting.

Said another way, when a fighter is in close or is far away, the only guns that have a decent chance at hitting are those you are actually aiming.

So, a "gunless" turret, one that is set between your four actual gun turrets, firing at an object at any distance other than approx 600 yards away, have next to no chance of hitting anything. The safest place for a fighter to be against your setup would be right next to the plane six feet off your aiming bubble -- you would never hit him.

Rear gun would work properly. Forget about the rest. Personally, I don't see the point taking a target that large up without the ability to fire effectively at interceptors.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the B-29 tailgun manned... ?
Title: B29
Post by: Bogie603rd on July 28, 2006, 01:49:23 PM: I have said it before, I will say it again. NO TO THE B-29! Even if it does not have a nuke, the moment the B-29 shows up in the hangar list of bombers, all the noobs and perk point earners will put in the wishlist: Nuke

Nuke:

We want a nuclear bomb for our B-29, why not, I mean we have nothing else to do with our perk points. PLEASE???

I will guarante you, that is exactly what will happen. It would be nice having a B-29, yet once it appears we have the "nuke-moochers" pop-up.
Title: B29
Post by: Kazaa on July 28, 2006, 02:33:46 PM: So let me get this stright.

The turrets in the B29 would aim the deflection for you ? :huh
Title: B29
Post by: Bogie603rd on July 28, 2006, 06:50:19 PM: WHOAH! No way, would be too easy to shoot anyone!
Title: B29
Post by: Kurt on July 28, 2006, 07:14:36 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Kazaa
So let me get this stright.

The turrets in the B29 would aim the deflection for you ? :huh

I don't think it did, but it sure seemed like thats what Iron_Cross was saying. I can't argue with certainty on that topic.

I believe it was simply a centralized system where a gunner in one of the view ports could dial in a distance and the guns would auto converge to the aim point at that range... Lead computing would require an active radar of some sort for the gun site and I don't think they had anything like that.

My point was simply that regardless how it worked, the game already has all it needs to simulate it so the argument that they cant find a way to code it seems kinda silly.

For the record, I don't think we should have a b29
Title: B29
Post by: Bogie603rd on July 28, 2006, 07:18:42 PM: Hallelujah, someone who agrees with my plot of "We dont need a B-29!":lol
Title: B29
Post by: E25280 on July 28, 2006, 07:30:57 PM: Quote
Originally posted by mussie
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the B-29 tailgun manned... ?
It was, which is why I said it was the only position that would work. Sorry if I made that unclear.

Some of the rest of you *cough* Kurt *cough* obviously skipped what I posted.

Having player-managed and changable-on-the-fly convergence for the turrets is the issue. We do not have it now, and without it the turrets are next to useless.
Title: B29
Post by: Kurt on July 29, 2006, 12:17:26 AM: Quote
Originally posted by E25280
*cough* Kurt *cough*

Yeah, I'm always the bad guy. But I'm totally over it.

hey, e25280, did you notice I've not even referred to one of your posts in this thread? Are you a shade? Or are you one of those annoying people who thinks everything is about you? Why are you pointing at me?

I'm sure you've got thousands of hours in the b29 as a gunner, and I'm just poo.

Ahem, sorry.. I digress.

Without any kind of radar range finder on board, the gunner is only eyeballing the range anyhow, its just not all that fancy.

Besides, why would HT worry about that... The Norden bombsite we use in AH is completely unrealistic and doesn't even approach the way the real one worked. Further more it is present in even Axis bombers in AH.

Something like the specifics of the gun targeting system is not what keeps the 29 out of AH...

What keeps the 29 out is that it completely outclasses every plane in the game and would be nearly unopposed in its proper flight role.
Title: B29
Post by: stephen on July 29, 2006, 12:31:47 AM: so how was on the fly convergence figurd in ww2? by radar?, im sure that the technology to empliment the gunz is available, and if not it will be soon, im sure that you guys are by far brainy'er than me, but once again I must state that it is almost requierd by comon sense that this plane has a future here, perk it to death, I dont mind, but it SHOULD be in AH..... its just THE best american strategic bomber in ww2, and its place should be assured.:)
Title: B29
Post by: FrodeMk3 on July 29, 2006, 12:48:04 AM: I don't think that the guns would be any problem, They would probably work something like the guns on drones.

HTC could not put a nuke in the MA, It would utterly ruin the gameplay when It goes from furballing to global thermonuclear war.

As to being too High and too fast, Most HQ raids are usually 25k plus. They are as high as the bomber pilots have time to climb. The solution is usually: Wads of 163's upping from the base closest to HQ, ripping the bombers apart,then landing a bunch of kills. The B-29 may be fast and High, But It won't be 550-600mph and 40-50k.

All that the B-29 would be is a bigger and better bomber, that's all. It would probably have such a(n) low ENY that you would have to fly half a dozen missions to score any points with it:(

So, in other words...Keep waiting, asking, and realize that If we do get a new plane, It might not be a B-29, The american planeset has 3-4 bombers already. HTC might go German with the next bomber(FW-200?He-111?)Maybe Italian(SM-79). These would not destabilize the MA as much as a B-29, So we actually have more of a chance of seeing one of these.

-Frode
Title: I would like to see the B29 added in time
Post by: Kazaa on July 29, 2006, 05:35:56 AM: Well if enough where made and they where used a lot during WW2, then I would like to see B-29 in the game for sure. :D

The game really does need a perk bomber, the only one I can think of is the B-29 Super Fortress. :confused:

People say the bomber would be flown at 25K minimum, but in my book, if they want to spend a good 40 minutes climbing that high, then good luck to them. Hey, it might encourage people to fight higher battles. :aok

As for perking this beast, I would say 45 perks per bomber (135 for the set)! Why no more I hear you say, because those things would get jumped on so bad if anyone saw a set and its still the price of 3 Hawker Tempest !!! :eek:

As for ranging the guns, would 2 buttons work ? One to set them further and another closer. :aok
Title: B29
Post by: RAIDER14 on July 29, 2006, 07:07:55 AM: Quote
Originally posted by stephen
so how was on the fly convergence figurd in ww2? by radar?, im sure that the technology to empliment the gunz is available, and if not it will be soon, im sure that you guys are by far brainy'er than me, but once again I must state that it is almost requierd by comon sense that this plane has a future here, perk it to death, I dont mind, but it SHOULD be in AH..... its just THE best american strategic bomber in ww2, and its place should be assured.:)

:rolleyes: :o B-17 was best in WW2
Title: B29
Post by: Bogie603rd on July 29, 2006, 12:02:28 PM: I still say "NO". People don't believe me, yet when you get the B-29 we will be hearing these "Nuke" conversations popping up. Not just from the newer bunch, but from some bored veterans that want to spend their perks on something intresting.

Really, I don't mind the B-29, I know it had more than just a payload of a nuclear bomb. I would enjoy seeing it in the game. But you need to look ahead, and that's why I still say "No".
Title: B29
Post by: E25280 on July 29, 2006, 01:10:27 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Kurt
Yeah, I'm always the bad guy. But I'm totally over it.

hey, e25280, did you notice I've not even referred to one of your posts in this thread? Are you a shade? Or are you one of those annoying people who thinks everything is about you? Why are you pointing at me?

I'm sure you've got thousands of hours in the b29 as a gunner, and I'm just poo.

Ahem, sorry.. I digress.

Without any kind of radar range finder on board, the gunner is only eyeballing the range anyhow, its just not all that fancy.

Besides, why would HT worry about that... The Norden bombsite we use in AH is completely unrealistic and doesn't even approach the way the real one worked. Further more it is present in even Axis bombers in AH.

Something like the specifics of the gun targeting system is not what keeps the 29 out of AH...

What keeps the 29 out is that it completely outclasses every plane in the game and would be nearly unopposed in its proper flight role.
:lol :lol

No, Kurt, I am not a shade. This is the only BBs ID I have ever had, and the two names I have used in game play are both in my sig.

No, the reason I picked on you (and continue to) is because I have explained and repeated why the automatic turrets will not work in the current AH without some significant "Coading" on HTCs part. And for some reason, you choose to ignore it and say it would work as it is now.

And it isn't really picking on you in particular, but you make a good proxy for all the others as well. Like this guy:
Quote
Originally posted by Frode
I don't think that the guns would be any problem, They would probably work something like the guns on drones.

:lol

Seriously, nothing personal (to either of you).:aok

So I will try one last time, then I am done.

Say you are firing from a B-17 from the waist gunner position at an interceptor coming in at a high, oblique angle. You put your crosshairs on him and fire. Your gun fires in a straight line in the direction your crosshairs point. All other guns that can be brought to bare on the target fire too. IIRC, these guns converge on where your crosshairs are pointing at a SET distance of 550 or 600 yds. I also believe (someone will correct me if I am wrong) all the gunfire from the two drones also converge at this distance.

So, at convergence, the target vaporizes. . .

But you missed. The little jerk comes right at you, coming inside of D100. At this point, you still have your crosshairs on him and fire. Your single 50cal at the waist hits him. But because of the SET convergence of other guns, everything else fires above, below, or around him because they are trying to hit where you are pointing at a farther distance.

Clear so far?

B-29's gunner positions (except tail gunner) are near the middle of the aircraft. There is a bubble dome of glass to look through and fire the guns. But the four turrets are set two near the front of the aircraft and two near the rear. They are locked to your firing controls. You fire, if all four turrets fire. Sounds on the surface to be like we have in the game now.

Here is the extremely important difference. IRL, the gunner can change his convergence. In AH, we have no mechanism to do so while in flight. It is set at about 600 yds.

Rerun the B-17 scenario above. Again, at convergence, the target will vaporize. UNLIKE the b-17 scenario, if you miss at convergence and he gets to within D100, you do not have even a single 50cal to hit him with. Add on top the fact that the guns on the B-29 are farther apart than on the B-17, and on the top and bottom of the aircraft (nothing "in line" with your waist gunner) the problem caused by the SET convergence is exacerbated.

Bottom line, HTC has to "Coad" something new for the B-29 guns to be effective from any position other than the tail. From what I have read on the B-29 subject in the past, I have gathered this is the major hang-up.

And the more I think about it, if the convergence issue was solved, I wouldn't want to come within three miles of them. After all, IRL the gunner had to estimate the distance he was firing and set the convergence. In AH we have the nice red DXXX to tell us what the distance really is. Noooo . . . it would be too unbalanced IMO.

I'm done now. I will check back later and I am sure someone will say "it isn't any different than what we have now". :lol
Title: the 262 of bomber A/C
Post by: stephen on July 29, 2006, 01:25:33 PM: lets just say for a moment {i live in fantasy land so please forgive me} that the B-29 was introduced dispite the considerable work it would take to do so....what would be a reasonable perk price?

and as for the guns being so terribly accurate that no one would approach..., well i read book where a gunner on a B29 confirmed the acuracy of the guns..
he stated that as long as the gunner computed the distance correctly you could "stitch em up good" as for the distance being constantly coputed in AH currently, well I allready have a problem with that,,lol its very usefull when aiming gunz on ANY airplane we currently have.....and mabey a little cheap:( , perhaps within D1000 the counter could just dissapear and only show plane type.......I just thought of this so i havent considerd every little problem that might be apparent to others, let the hate mail begin:lol
Title: B29
Post by: Bogie603rd on July 29, 2006, 02:42:31 PM: That's another problem. Everyone would wanna fly the B-29 because of the accuracy of the guns. Relating back to a previous post, they would literally be flying the plane getting more perks than was required in the first place to buy the plane.:eek: Simply because of accuracy. And, no, the low ENY won't help. You can always land, re-arm, and re-up. I still say "No".
Title: ww2 flight sim /Bogie603rd
Post by: stephen on July 29, 2006, 03:32:59 PM: ok luckily you arent the one that has to be convinced, of course everyone would want to fly it, everyone is slobbering to fly the 262 and 163 as it is,, what im saying is that a heavy perk would eliminate it as an every bombing run ride, of course there would be hq raids but who is gonna risk 110 perks to fly it?,,,i could kill the best bomber pilot 5 outta ten times, and so could anyone that has flown for over 6 months,,perhaps an experiment is in order...

and as for the H-bomb requests, well allready there are numerouse threads about adding features/planes that are not being fullfilled and yet keep appearing....its the nature of the beast dude:cool:
Title: B29
Post by: Lye-El on July 30, 2006, 01:25:05 PM: Quote
Originally posted by skycaptn
The objective to those who really really want the B-29 is simply this... Find out how to make it a priority of HTC.. all companys rely on income from their consumers thereby feedback from consumers should get their attention.

HTC listen up! I am a consumer and have been for a while. I DON'T want the B-29. Don't make it a priority. Ignore all such requests.

The objective of those who don't want the B-29 is simply this. We don't need a super bomber in the game. The Bombers we have already outgun a large airfield. Attacking an airfield is a cakewalk compared to attacking 3 bombers flown by one person with all guns slaved to one position.

Concider this feedback for HTC.

:t
Title: B29
Post by: bkbandit on July 31, 2006, 12:55:37 AM: auto guns??? i can go from one gun on a bomber and fire every gun that can look in that direction, thats enuff auto, attacking a set alone is tuff enough, unless u got a good angle tons of speed or the guy flyin cant shoot for nothin u wont get them.
Title: B29
Post by: Meatwad on July 31, 2006, 06:46:36 AM: It wouldnt matter if the B29 would be released

There would always be someone crying how it isnt "accurate"
Title: B29
Post by: RAIDER14 on July 31, 2006, 08:15:45 AM: Game would not be historically accurate if B-29 wasn't added , How would they end the Pacific Combat Tour without it????
Title: B29
Post by: bkbandit on July 31, 2006, 08:26:10 AM: b29 and betty bomber need to be added
Title: B29
Post by: red26 on July 31, 2006, 03:47:50 PM: Give it up its not going to happen I have:O
Title: B29
Post by: fart11 on August 01, 2006, 02:05:50 AM: please it would be cool
Title: B29
Post by: fart11 on August 01, 2006, 02:09:38 AM: i will take care of it
i will pet it and name it and feed it please
i will take it for a walk, and give it a bath every day
i will even take it out side to do its stuff
can we please get a b29 daddy
Title: B29
Post by: Bogie603rd on August 01, 2006, 10:27:52 AM: You idiots still don't get it do you? Once we get a B-29, we will have the "Nuke" discussions!:furious
Title: B29
Post by: bkbandit on August 02, 2006, 02:37:35 AM: they should just bann nuke threads if we get it. "IF". incedairy bombs should come first. but frame rate i heard wont allow it but if frame rate wont allow incedairy bombs how can we take a big bang from a A bomb. But still i think we need tall boy and the grand slam for the lacs .
Title: B29
Post by: Bogie603rd on August 02, 2006, 10:24:09 AM: Yes, please bann B-29 threads and nuke threads. Incedniary devices would be neat, since the only real advantage would be charring the barracks and blowing up the ammo bunks!:D
Title: B29
Post by: bkbandit on August 02, 2006, 11:26:01 AM: incedairy bombs were droped by bombers and fighters so it will be an extra goodie for everyone.

I would like to see b29, but we cant have the atomic bomb, it "ended" the war. pacific fighters has b29 and they dont have the A bomb. And for the auto guns....... cmon, we already have close to it wit our regular bombers. i aim from one gun and fire them all.... and i have 3 of them on top of that. For now just upgradse the bombs, incedairy, tall boy and grand slam(grand slam and tall by would be carryed by a single bomber, no formations dropin nothin but tall boy or grand slam)
Title: B29
Post by: Mr No Name on August 02, 2006, 01:23:35 PM: Check out BOEINGs official website, these guys built a few of each model.

B-17 flew at 35,600 http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html (http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html )

B-29 flew at 31,850 http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b29.html (http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b29.html )

The greatest advantages the B-29 had were payload and speed. Yes it would be difficult but NOT impossible to kill B-29s. The bad thing about bombers in AH is that their fuel supply far outstrips the fighters with the 2:1 fuel burn ratio meaning that fighters must often take poor attack tactics when tackling 30K+ bombers due to fuel. Also it was not typical for bombers to run wide open throttle during the bomber mission thus making it more difficult to catch them.

Historically the B29 often ran raids at 6-10K I would hate to see these beautiful beasts used like SBDs as I know they would be in the MA. I know a perk of around 30 to 40 per plane would be sufficient because even as 'awesome' as this machine is, it is still a 141.25 foot wide, 99 foot long target to hit.

There were over 3,000 built and delivered before the end of the war with a total production of around 4,000. The B-29 saw about a year and a half actual combat time even though it's first flight was September 1942.

It earned a place in the game just due to the numbers and length of service. Those who believe a "Nuke" request would actually be well received are simply dilusional. It's a great bomber, nothing more... We have 262s, 163s, Tempests, TA152s and ponies (Maybe others) that can "reach out and touch" this plane with great ease.

Having a great, perked bomber like this might actually bause bombers to fly higher as they often did in the war so they are more protective. I dont forsee many people crashing these into the sea attempting to divebomb a CV just as I rarely see this being done with AR234s... Usually these guys WANT to live!

Bomber Reform:

I'd love to see all HEAVY bombers restricted to F6 view bombing. Now that we have reverted to easy-mode bombing (Done to bring bombers back into the game) There is no excuse to miss a target unless someone is steadily chewing your 6.

Although I am primarily a bomber pilot, I would like to see bombers operate in a more realistic envelope. (Altitudes AND operating speeds)

I think gunnery is good with one exception, I believe .50's, particularly twin mounts whould have significantly more muzzle jump. Gunners fired in very short bursts not only because of ammo supply but also because they had to re-aim. The 7mm on some guns jump a lot more than the .50's!

It is said that fighters have a 3:1 advantage over bombers with existing gunnery but I dispute this for ONLY 1 reason, it does not take into account how low to the ground most people use bombers, that is suicide! If you give a fighter an advantage like that, he will kill you if he has half a clue, if HE doesnt, one of his 2 dozen buddies WILL... So, if you were to check these numbers above say.... 20K I am sure you would find it a different story up there. I have made many raids at 20-25K and on many runs I am never intercepted. On some raids when I see a con coming up, if I have already dropped, I simply start a slow climb to 32K (Lancs) and watch the con fall far behind.... OR I light him up as he struggles along... A 262 is even dead meat at 32K+ So, at altitude away from 163 bases the bomber gunners have a HUGE advantage!

Will write more later but My stomach is growling!

Cyaz!!!
Title: B29
Post by: Aussie on August 02, 2006, 06:23:27 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Kermit de frog
:rofl

Woot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRING ON THE PAIN TRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i like the movie :aok
Title: B29
Post by: VooWho on August 02, 2006, 09:01:06 PM: I don't think Atomic Bombs would not be added anyways. No one will request Atomic weapons for the B29 if it was added why. HTC would say this.

CONGRATS AH2 PLAYERS THE B-29 IS FINISHED!
No nukes becuase why? Will the nuke was only droped 2 times in WW2. This only say action towards the end of the war, and is like a fighter that either entered service to late, or right at the end of the war. The Atomic Bomb showed up to war towards the end, and was only used twice, so it won't be added.

Think of the Nuke as a fighter that everyone wants but came out to late. Like the F8F Bearcat, or the Messerschmitt Me 328.
Title: B29
Post by: bkbandit on August 03, 2006, 12:32:22 AM: hi alt bombers, nobody has the patience to climb, and if they do they normally stay about 10 to 15K, a big factor that bombers dont deal wit in this game is wind. i figured we would have it, i forgot why they didnt add it.

b29 would be somethin that the bomber guys can spend there perks on, wit the millions of requests i dont think ah was a choice. and yes voowho got it right, if they add A Bomb i want all the planes that came to late for the war. Add the b29 and add it as a rule on the forums, no request for A bombs.
Title: B29
Post by: SD67 on August 03, 2006, 12:45:18 AM: We do have wind *toot* :confused:
It's just not enabled in the MA because ppl will not be able to hit stuff without having to T-H-I-N-K about it. It is enabled in most scenarios and FSO's however.
Title: B29
Post by: bkbandit on August 03, 2006, 02:05:05 PM: i have been in rooms wit wind, it makes dive bombers more air time since its more accurate then a 15k b17
Title: B29
Post by: Connery on August 03, 2006, 02:29:04 PM: To protect the Superfortress, Boeing designed the most sophisticated remote-controlled, defensive weapons system yet fitted to a military airplane. Engineers placed five gun turrets on the fuselage: a turret above and behind the cockpit that housed two .50 caliber machine guns (four guns in later versions), and another turret aft near the vertical tail equipped with two machine guns; plus two more turrets beneath the fuselage, each equipped with two .50 caliber guns. One of these turrets fired from behind the nose gear and the other hung further back near the tail. Another two .50 caliber machine guns and a 20-mm cannon (in early versions of the B-29) were fitted in the tail beneath the rudder. The really novel innovation was in the sighting system. Gunners operated these turrets by remote control. They aimed the guns using computerized sights, and each gunner could take control of two or more turrets to concentrate firepower on a single target, making the system flexible and effective.

WTF
Title: B29
Post by: Panzzer on August 03, 2006, 05:27:43 PM: Time for some Loose Rivets, eh?
(http://www.jtsystems.demon.co.uk/duma/images/cartoons/looserivets/030800.gif)
(August 3rd, 2000), Loose Rivets (http://www.jtsystems.demon.co.uk/duma/images/cartoons/looserivets/).

:D
Title: B29
Post by: Latrobe on August 16, 2006, 04:20:55 PM: mussie tell me how u made that beaver thats COOL:cool:
Title: B29
Post by: mussie on August 16, 2006, 04:41:38 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Latrobe
mussie tell me how u made that beaver thats COOL:cool:

n__n_
/ = =\
/ ._Y_)
___________/ "\________________________________
(_/ (_, \ o!O
\ ( \_,--""""--.
__..-,-`.___,-` )-.______.'
<' `-,' `-, )-' >
`----._/ ( /"`>.--"
"--..___,--"

I Love Beaver's
[/B][/SIZE]

Just Quote this post to get what you need.

I got the ASCII Beaver off the net.
Title: B29
Post by: SuperDud on August 16, 2006, 05:23:48 PM: NO0OooooOOOOOOOOOOOOooo0000KK KKKKKZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIIES!#$@$@$!@#!@ OmFG#$@#$Q%$TE$T$$QW^ OmQUAHg@$%@#%TTW$RG AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH

BIG BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOM$@@Q@#$#@$
Title: B29
Post by: Latrobe on August 16, 2006, 11:09:55 PM: :lol they wouldn't live that long to scream all that
Title: B29
Post by: red26 on August 16, 2006, 11:47:51 PM: :rofl :rofl :O :O :lol :lol :aok :aok
Title: B29
Post by: Yeager on August 17, 2006, 11:07:06 AM: Dear HTC,

Please add the:

B29 Superfortress

P61 Black Widow

P39 Airacobra

AND THEN, everything else ;)
Title: B29
Post by: Latrobe on August 17, 2006, 05:47:43 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Yeager
Dear HTC,

Please add the:

B29 Superfortress

P61 Black Widow

P39 Airacobra

AND THEN, everything else ;)

first one-NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

second one-maybe

third one-YYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS
Title: B29
Post by: Yeager on August 18, 2006, 09:26:15 AM: As far as Im concerned there is no reason not to have a B29 in this game.
Other than Dale or Pyro personaly not caring to add it to their game.

Once the Me262 was added, the path was cleared for EVERY plane ever fielded in squadron strength during the conflict.

But I doubt the honchos at HTC will add a B29 simply due to the complexities of the gunnery system.

Even so

ADD the B29!

:D
Title: B29
Post by: bkbandit on August 18, 2006, 11:54:46 PM: make trhe gun system just like the other bombers. The are remotely controled from one location and so are the ones we have now, example, i sit in the tall and shoot at a con i start fireing and my gun goes off aswell as every other gun that can get a visual on the con, so i would have the tail top bottom and maybe on of the sides depending how hes moving. The p51 had the k14 gun sight, its not in the game and nobodys crying.