Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Major Biggles on February 09, 2008, 12:07:03 PM
-
what's the deal with these things? i've been doing some testing in the TA and managed to figure out that their range is just under 1100 yards for a target moving at your speed (the .target target for instance)
when shooting at buffs that are slower than you, you need to shoot at about 1.2 instead.
i have two questions... 1st, has anyone really had accurate and regular success with these things in the MA? if so, what kind of damage do they usually do? is it possible to get all three drones with a single rocket?
2nd, for the more historically wise, i've heard that after firing, the tubes which massively reduced speed could be jetisoned? is this true? if so, it would be great to have that modelled in AH. losing the drag would be great.
cheers guys :)
-
I tested them in the TA was in the 110G and going about 250ish. Dead 6 on the bomber when it hit 1.5k i counted to three and let them go one by one maybe 2 per sec. They were able to jetisoned in an emergency but HT said "we wouldnt use them historically" which I think it total BS. When was the last time you saw spits killing P51s in guncam footage.:rolleyes:
-
Bombers exploding have no explosive damage of their own, so you're only going to damage what's in the rocket detonation's proximity. The blast radius isn't that much smaller than the bombers' formation distance, so I'm pretty sure that one hit on the middle bomber, while they're shuffling around near each other during maneuvers, would damage all three and probably take out all of them.
I've gotten two B17s with one rocket's direct hit a few times, but it's been a long time so I don't know if it's still valid statistic today.
-
Krusty has a film of him killing with them somewhere around here.
-
Talk to Baumer, he has a sight he's put together for them in the 110.
It is would say the second hardest thing to do in AH, only torpedo's are tougher to hit consistently.
-
Do they explode on a timer or when they hit something?
donkey
-
Timer.
-
Originally posted by Larry
Timer.
Thank you.
donkey
-
They explode on impact too. Back in AH1 a rocket within about 10 feet could kill M16s and M3s.
-
There's nothing more fun than going into a furball in a 110 with rockets (sidewinders) loaded. The damage they induce is wierd though. Sometimes what looks like direct hits do nothing, while misses sometimes blow a guy up.
It's great when a guy tries to run from ya and you lob one at 800 yards, he goes boom, says wtf, calls you a haxxor and the like exploding on 200. Good fun.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
It is would say the second hardest thing to do in AH, only torpedo's are tougher to hit consistently.
Ever see Goaly's film of him flying a JU88 taking out a set of Lancs with bombs? That looks harder.:D
Obie
-
I have had no such luck with them. I've read up on them here but can't seem to get them to explode...
-
I've only had one success with them and it was slightly unconvential. High speed, slashing rocket attack.
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i253/plague_06/Aces%20High/109G-14Rocket1copy.jpg)
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i253/plague_06/Aces%20High/109G-14Rocket2copy.jpg)
Only one exploded and I believe it was a direct hit that caused the explosion as I was doing at least 320+ at D800 yards
-
I'm sure I've got a post or 3 about 'em, including a film.
They're powerful rockets. Even with totally reduced lethality I still killed a bomber with one in an AVA test run for DGS.
-
They were able to jetisoned in an emergency but HT said "we wouldnt use them historically"
Explain?
Without a doubt they should be jettisonable.
-
I don't think they were jettisoned very often at all in real life... perhaps that's why...
Actually, if you could jettison them and there was no penalty for doing so how many people would just up Gustavs and hammer into a furball, set salvo to 1 and get six kills from D1.0k? Lobbing rockets into furballs would be irresistible for some, I think.
If there is no penalty for taking the rockets as there would be no drag (as I assume the detach point was where the support beams for the tubes attached to the wing), it would be a normal Gustav after the tubes were jettisoned and everyone would take them, lob the rockets hoping for some freebies, ditch the tubes and then carry on as usual.
Disadvantages outweigh the advantages, unfortunately.
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
Explain?
Without a doubt they should be jettisonable.
Because they would always be jetisoned in AH whereas in reality they would only be jetisoned in an emergency.
From your posts it seems you don't give a damn about proper use or how things were, you just want absolutely maximized German equippment. Try reading some history books and growing up a bit.
-
Karnak, we simulate emergency scenarios every time we fly in this game. In fact, we seek out emergency scenarios. In some other flight sim created by Pyro and HT air-to-air rockets did not create drag after they were fired (at least, in the 1.x and 2.x versions), but you did not see people abusing them simply because they are so hard to aim at anything except bombers.
Why read history books if we don't respect what they tell us?
From your posts it seems you don't give a damn about proper use or how things were, you just want absolutely maximized German equippment. Try reading some history books and growing up a bit.
No, the point is that there is inherent bias towards allied aircraft in AH just because the game is made in the United States (He111 is one of the last?). For this reason, extra criticism and advocacy is needed sometimes to make sure things are as they should be.
One can easily make the same immaturity accusation against you for the naive assumption that there is no inherent bias, but I like to shy away form that kind of rhetoric because I am so well read and mature.:lol
Seriously, let's not let things get nasty. If you have a point to make, then argue about its merits instead of making ad hominem attacks.
-
I believe that the tubes jettison, but the supports are left on the wing.
From another thread:
Originally posted by TUXC
Found this on another forum. Has links to several 190A-5/A-6 manuals:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/fw-190-manual-5046.html
"In an emergency, the launching tubes can be released by severing the carrier struts with explosive charges. To fire charges, activate toggle switch. . . To prevent accidental actuation of the toggle switch, it is held in the safe position by a spring-loaded plate."
pp32-34 are on the rockets (translated to English)
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/other-mechanical-systems-tech/33563d1157723088-fw-190-manual-fw-190.pdf
this one (in German) is also on the rockets
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/other-mechanical-systems-tech/40653d1173737340-fw-190-manual-fw-190-part-8-c.pdf
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
No, the point is that there is inherent bias towards allied aircraft in AH just because the game is made in the United States (He111 is one of the last?). For this reason, extra criticism and advocacy is needed sometimes to make sure things are as they should be.
One can easily make the same immaturity accusation against you for the naive assumption that there is no inherent bias, but I like to shy away form the kind of rhetoric because I am so well read and mature.:lol
Seriously, let's not let things get nasty. If you have a point to make, then argue about its merits instead of making ad hominem attacks.
If you were a fan of Russian, Italian or Japanese aircraft I could see your bias comment. As a fan of German aircraft, no. You have the second largest set in the game. I like British aircraft and there are lots of those too. I have been involved in this game for a long time now and have seen these accusations over and over. Is the game perfect, no, but it is pretty good. And there are plenty of things out there that could be seen as "bias" against other sets, such as the P-51's poor handling, the Mosquito being saddled with speed reducing dampers and the Ki-61 turning like a P-47 when it should turn like a FM-2.
He111 will be useful for scenarios and the Early War Arena only. Given your focus on the most potent of German stuff I am surprised you even care about the He111. Personally, given we have the Ju88A-4, I'd much rather see a Ju188A-2, Do217E or He177A-5 as the next German bomber. Something useful in mid and late war settings.
I would also like to see a Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS added to give the German set something to engage with at B-17 altitudes before the Bf109K-4 comes into it in October of 1944.
But take your blinders off and look at the big picture for a bit. We need Russian and Japanese aircraft badly. Compared to the US, UK and German sets they are incomplete and anemic. You see problems with the German set, but think about fighting the Americans using a 1937 dive bomber and a 1938 torpedo bomber because nothing more modern has been modeled. The US dive bomber and torpedo bombers are from 1943, FYI.
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
No, the point is that there is inherent bias towards allied aircraft in AH just because the game is made in the United States (He111 is one of the last?). For this reason, extra criticism and advocacy is needed sometimes to make sure things are as they should be.
You're making things nasty yourself by saying just that, when in fact there isn't any such bias, which you'd know if you'd been around long enough or had read up on the past threads before coming out and saying that.
Saying that sorta stuff will ruin it for those of us looking forward to (e.g.) german stuff, because there's a real trend in whining about it, whether it's too little, or undermodeled, or whatever.
-
The only definitive bias is on the part of the players. Using how Warbirds modelled drag on ordnance (or opted not to) as proof of bias in AH is really a stretch, no matter which country you claim.
Conspiracy theories aside, I wonder if HT would consider allowing us to jettison the tubes if they carried a perk cost once the perked ordnance system is introduced. That would at least encourage retaining the tubes, while still allowing us to drop them in a pinch. Anyway, just a thought.
-
Also, all rocket launching systems in AH leave draggy mountings behind after being used. The WGr 21, tube rockets on US fighters and the rails on the Typhoon and Mosquito are particularly bad dragwise.
Don't act like this is a bias against German stuff.
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
No, the point is that there is inherent bias towards allied aircraft in AH just because the game is made in the United States (He111 is one of the last?).
As they say on Wikipedia, "citation needed".
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Because they would always be jetisoned in AH whereas in reality they would only be jetisoned in an emergency.
From your posts it seems you don't give a damn about proper use or how things were, you just want absolutely maximized German equippment. Try reading some history books and growing up a bit.
Says the guy who wants every mossie variant the RAF ever thought of modelled.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Says the guy who wants every mossie variant the RAF ever thought of modelled.
Really? When have I ever asked for that?
Oh, that's right, I haven't. You're performing an ad homme attack to try to discredit me.
Well, you're full of bull****. I have suggested that two additional Mosquitoes be added, the B.IV and B.XVI (perked). Believed me you that there were far, far more versions of the Mosquito than three.
EDIT:
While we're at it, I'll also mention that I advocated for the Spitfire Mk V to be changed to an early Mk Vb with lower boost and half the cannon ammo because it would fit into the Spitfire progression better than the one we had at the time. Yes, a Spitfire fan advocated to get one of them seriously gutted. I also asked for the Mk IX to have the option to take the .50 cals, wing bombs or rockets removed because no Merlin 61 Spit ever had them.
My point is that I want things to be accurate. I don't care whose hardware it was.
-
Looks like the veils of politeness have been removed.
I've seen HT and Pyro develop their product since 1996 at least...
Given your focus on the most potent of German stuff I am surprised you even care about the He111
I'd love to see a complete BoB set. I'm in favor of everything else that makes for a well-rounded planeset, but sort of biased toward seeing the 109 set complete (I've been waiting for 10+ years). Regardless, the A6m3, Ki43, He111 and Do117 are probably needed before my beloved 109 series. The russian types are needed too; LaG3, Mig1-3, etc.
We get the American lineup before anything else-- yes save the P-39....panic!!!!! Is that really what represents WW2?
You're making things nasty yourself by saying just that, when in fact there isn't any such bias, which you'd know if you'd been around long enough or had read up on the past threads before coming out and saying that.
Again, I've probably been watching HT and Pyro's developments for a much longer time than you've been posting at the AH boards. In their previous flight sim (even the earlist versions) their was bias toward allied aircraft. Heck, the Yak series didn't even exist in the wb lineup until the company was bought out by iEN (as hideous as they are).
As they say on Wikipedia, "citation needed".
It's called 'sociology.' Bias always exists for the victor when recounting history. If this were a flight simulation created by russians I assure you that every russian aircraft would be included in the planeset before the Tempest or P-47N (which I love to fly, shhhhh!)
-
Do everyone a favor and can the bias BS.
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
It's called 'sociology.' Bias always exists for the victor when recounting history. If this were a flight simulation created by russians I assure you that every russian aircraft would be included in the planeset before the Tempest or P-47N (which I love to fly, shhhhh!)
:lol
If you're going to make the bias argument, at least pick the side that lost to give your bull**** any relevance.
-
Haha, stang you're right. I should have chosen Japan or... Romania!:lol
Do everyone a favor and can the bias BS.
But the above is not a reasoned argument. It's just a proverbial fist-pounding on the table.
-
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/24/1013733/1.ahf
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/24/1013733/2.ahf
Some of the best ones Iv done with the guy on the other side wanting to kill me back.
-
Theoretically the 190D could carry these (and outboard guns as well). It was almost the same wing.
The only thing I can say, if you want to become good with the WGr 21s, is this:
PRACTICE! Nonstop. That means looking for bombers in high bomber-traffic-areas. That means climbing up and not wasting your WGrs on fighters that try to HO you.
Film your attacks. Just the attacks (no need to film the setup). When you hit OR miss, stop the film. Review later. In the film viewer slow down the playback just before you fire. Note the distance to the bombers, your aim point, then pause the playback and switch to the bombers. Go to external view, zoom out, and rotate sideways if you can, and unpause. Now watch where the rocket explodes.
In front of bombers and you fired too late. Behind them too soon. Below them, and it means you didn't pitch up enough when you fired. You really have to "lob" them towards the bombers.
Just film all your rocket attacks, and review the films.
Average distance is 1.4-1.3 at alts around 12k+, at decent 190a8 closing speeds.
Oh, and here's a tip: Do NOT set up for a good "guns" attack. Come up right behind them, slow down (don't dive in) because that gives you more time between 1.5 and 1.0 distances to fire your rockets. After you fire BREAK OFF and climb out and THEN set up for a "guns" attack.
Diving in at speed throws too many other angles into the equation, not the least of which is 2 relative closure rates on non-parallel courses. Come in behind and co-alt for WGr attacks, and you'll get the best chances to hit.
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
But the above is not a reasoned argument. It's just a proverbial fist-pounding on the table.
If you had any sense you'd realize arguing for something false isn't reasoned. Insisting that you do have a point when you don't is what's fist-pounding.
-
Heres one more.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/24/1013733/3.ahf
-
Anaxogoras, Moot, This is a respectable forum. Please take it to PM's. You both can vent your nerd-rage someplace else, this is not the place for it.
Larry, those are some nice films. Thank you for sharing them with us.
-
No nerd rage buddy.. Don't even put me in the same box as him.
-
A two-fer!
http://www.nakatomitower.com/Film98.zip
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/wgr21-1.jpg)
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/wgr21-2.jpg)
Took out 2 of his drones, check the film.
-
Originally posted by Larry
When was the last time you saw spits killing P51s in guncam footage.:rolleyes:
If this game was meant to recreate World War II, I'm sure there wouldn't be any Spitfire vs. Mustang matchups in the game. However, since this game only aims to recreate aerial combat and not the war, whether or not these two planes faced each other in real life becomes irrelevant.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Because they would always be jetisoned in AH whereas in reality they would only be jetisoned in an emergency.
Just like how the WGr21's were used in AH1 as A2G rockets by a lot of players when we first got the option.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
Again, I've probably been watching HT and Pyro's developments for a much longer time than you've been posting at the AH boards.
Please keep in mind that some of have been watching HiTech's and Pyro's "development" far earlier than that. So please don't try and use that as any sort of validation for any of your posts.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
Looks like the veils of politeness have been removed.
I've seen HT and Pyro develop their product since 1996 at least...
We get the American lineup before anything else-- yes save the P-39....panic!!!!! Is that really what represents WW2?...
Actually the P-39 truely fills about as wide a niche as exists in the game. It was singularly important to the russians and was Stalins #1 lend/lease priority by a wide wide margin. It also played a critical role in the PAC and did admirable service in the MTO. It also happens to be a plane particularly well suited to game play style in AH and even the D should see widespread use in AH...
-
I have been working on a sight for the WRg21 rocket.
(http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh248/emaybaum/DefaultwWGr21.jpg)
Just hold the bar slightly above the wings of the center bomber and shoot when the wingspan matches the width of the bar. This is set for the B-24 which has the largest wingspan, the B-17 and Lancaster are just about 10 feet narrower.
Just line up and approach like Krusty posted and you'll be close.
On a side note, I have a copy of the Fw190 A-8 Aircraft Handbook from rareaviation.com. This is an English translation of D.(Luft) T. 2190 A-8 issued September 1944 and effective July 1944. In section 8C Special weapons systems subsection D outlines the operation of the emergency release system.
There is an explosive bolt in the carrier strut that would sheer and the launch tube and the 4 bracing struts would fall from the aircraft leaving only the small single half of the carrier strut.
The first line of the section says "In an emergency".
So you close circuit breaker P1 and safety switch I complete the circuit. Then actuate toggle switch P801 marked (Absprengung Gerat 21") located on the right side of BR armament panel. P801 is held in the safe position by a spring loaded plate.
I was rereading "Half a Wing, Three Engines and a Prayer" by Brian D. O'Neill
Which covers the combat tour of a crew with the 303rd Bomb Group in the 8th
Air Force and the crew speaks of often being attacked by rockets. One thing I noticed was that most of the time they were talking about rocket attacks, they were not protected by escorting fighters.
So I can see that in real life the tubes were not ejected that often. However, the way Aces High is played (in the main arenas) bares little similarity to the actual events as well. So it would make sense to me that the option to jettison the tubes should be available in the game. But that's just my opinion.
Good luck with the sight it works in 109's, 190's and the 110. You just need to hold it a little higher in the 109 and 190's.
-
But if you were to jettison them in game, they'd just turn into bombs.
ack-ack
-
No more so than drop tanks now.
-
I would think it would work like Ar234's RATO units. Press the button once to fire and then, when all tubes are empty press again to jettison. And like Krusty said, it would just be like a drop tank.
-
I was pegged by one once.
I can't hit air with them.
-
Because we wouldnt use them "historically". They were only droped if in an emergency. HT says once we fired them we would just drop them and have little or no drag. Only way I see making this happen and making it historical unlike what we have now is paying a perk price to dump them. if you take them up and die or land with them still on you dont loose anything, but if you wish to drop them make it cost 5 perks. Some is going to be smart and say 5 is to little and everyone will drop them because it is. To these people I say go to an arena and look at the m4 then come back to me.
-
last night. If I told you how, I'd have to kill you. :)
-
I hit about 30% of the time, closure speed is the biggest problem in my book. I have a little sight similar to Baumer's. I dont like taking them due to the drag but love to shoot them.