Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: TheWobble on February 06, 2001, 02:23:00 AM
-
I noticed that yesterday, I dropped a few 1k eggs from my 26 (soon to be arado (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) and they landed EXACTLY under my plane, they didnt drift back a bit.. I later tried it from 20k..same, its rather odd methinks. this could explain why I constantly overshoot my divebombings..and or get killed by the eggs. IRL wouldent the bombs drift back due to the lack of a power source? In fact they are traveling further than the bomber because they are moving downward and foreward yet they stay even with it...so they are actually moving FASTER than the bomber when dropped...am I missing something??
-
Yep, bombs does not have drag so airflow does not affect them at all.
It makes implementing bombsight and actual bombing easier. It will not be altered in near future.
------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski
Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
-
Yea, I know, it kinda bugs me that HTC goes to such great lengths to get everything as realistic and accurate as it is, yet the bombs couldent be not more UNrealistic than they are unless they fell UP.
yup, bombs that outrun the bomber that dropped them, yay (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-06-2001).]
-
Originally posted by TheWobble:
Yea, I know, it kinda bugs me that HTC goes to such great lengths to get everything as realistic and accurate as it is, yet the bombs couldent be not more UNrealistic than they are unless they fell UP.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-06-2001).]
Well, I disagree with you...HTC strives to combine realism with gameplay, thus making the sim enjoyable for everyone...a good business decision IMO. If you made this game realistic in every aspect, you would have a very small community (some would like that) but from a financial standpoint, it wouldn't last long unless it was someone who is rich and just doing this for recreation.
-
Rip said
If you made this game realistic in every aspect, you would have a very small community (some would like that) but from a financial standpoint, it wouldn't last long unless it was someone who is rich and just doing this for recreation.
Compared to all other online gaming communities this is already a small one. IMHO
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Acid,you are correct...anyone remember when Warbirds was just over a year old? I'm venturing to guess (with fading memory) that the WB community was about the same size, if not less...and boy, did the AW folks ever whine about WB's....hehehhehehe!
-
Yup. The parallels between now and 1996 and now are amazing imo. Just not AW vs WB's it's now WB's vs AH (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
AW isn't even in the picture anymore, nor even able to be as, it's so decrepitably old. And the subscriber base is but a fraction of what it used it be.
- Westy
-
Last time I checked they were landing behind the bomber. Was I on crack?
-
Set the time to 12 noon so that the sun casts a shadow directly under the airplane. Go to the outside view so that you can see the shadow on the ground. Line up on target and pickle a bomb. You'll find that the instant the shadow and the target intersect, the bomb explodes on the target.
MiG
-
Bombs here don't bother me- the P38's dive flaps is another matter.
-
AW's subscriber base is still larger than AH's, unless the RR people don't coun't (and perhaps they shouldn't, since AH has no RR in it).
Doesn't FA have the largest customer base of ANY online MMP WW2 flightsim? Or did WB's pass them?
J_A_B
-
FA is mostly (read: almost ALL) relaxed arcade and doesn't count either. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-Westy
-
Originally posted by TheWobble:
IRL wouldent the bombs drift back due to the lack of a power source? In fact they are traveling further than the bomber because they are moving downward and foreward yet they stay even with it...so they are actually moving FASTER than the bomber when dropped...am I missing something??
Yep, you are missing something: IRL the bombs will travel with the same HORIZONTAL velocity as the plane that dropped them unless they have drag slowing them down. IRL bombs have very low drag so they do not slow down very much at all (that's why so many low flying planes got fragged by their own bombs irl). Gravity makes the bombs accelerate VERTICALLY but they still retain the same horizontal velocity. IMO the fact that AH bombs have no drag is pretty darn close to real life physics.
-
Bertie, WW2 bombs don't have a very good shape for low drag. You are correct that the drag effect on horizontal velocity is not that large. But it is still significant and should be modeled.
-
Funked is correct, ww2 bombs were "fatter" than todays ord, but even at VERY low e-loss to the bomb i know it would lane EXACTLY under the plane from 30k, like I said before I know its a "gameplay" thing..but cmon.
-
Originally posted by TheWobble:
Funked is correct, ww2 bombs were "fatter" than todays ord, but even at VERY low e-loss to the bomb i know it would lane EXACTLY under the plane from 30k, like I said before I know its a "gameplay" thing..but cmon.
Yep, you guys are both correct, though my opinion is that the drag effect would be very small even on WW2 profile bombs... Really all it would mean though is that the bomb release time from 30k would have to be later than it is now by a second or so.
(Sorry, my $0.02 buys more and more drivel these days.)
-
Which leads to another question concerning drag/wind effects. The airplanes are greatly affected by wind layer changes (wind shears) as evidenced by course and climb/descent rate changes.
Are the bombs in any way affected by multiple wind shears as they fall from high altitude? I haven't seen evidence of this but a strong wind shear from 90 degrees should affect the direction of fall as well as stability if it starts wobbling.
MiG
-
"Are the bombs in any way affected by multiple wind shears as they fall from high altitude? I haven't seen evidence of this but a strong wind shear from 90 degrees should affect the direction of fall as well as stability if it starts wobbling."
Bombs are not affected by ANYTHING, accept gravity (sort of) they come out of the plane perfectly straight and no matter what they will land that way. (hence my discontent)
-
OK, I did a bit of testing and took some pics to show My point...
the first pic is of craters from a 12 bomb salvo at 5k at .10 second delay.
the second pic is the same as the first accept the bombs were dropped from 15k
the third pic is what I think 12 bombs dropped from 15k SHOULD look like, its just My opinion though.
(http://www.geocities.com/thewobblepage/5k.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/thewobblepage/15k.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/thewobblepage/should.jpg)
Notice that the bombs landed EXACTLY the same dispite the 10,000 ft altitude difference.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-09-2001).]
-
Ya know... I'd just love to be able to even see my bombs hit. Can someone PLEASE tell me what view I need to be in to actually SEE my bombs hit the target? That's half of the fun of bombing!! Only from a B17 ball turret have I been able to see the bomb impacts. From the bombardier position, you've flown past the target to far to see anything hit (i.e. you can't view backwards) and you haven't flown far enough to view it from the tail gunner position.
-
F4, F5, F8, Then use your key pad to rotate so you're looking straight down, then use ZOOM key (Z) and bracket keys to go in closer. Or, use the bottom turret in the B17.
------------------
(http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/Mag33-Blank-Sig-4.gif)
VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~
Member of 'MAG-33' (Click here) (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/M3.html)
Click here for VMF-323 Death Rattlers info (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/vmf323inquirer.html)
Click here for interviews with other Aces High Squadrons (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/SPOTLIGHT1.html)
Click here if you must whine about the F4U1-C (http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb185663&TL=)
"My squddies will follow me anywhere, but only out of morbid curiosity.
(http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/net5/uzi.gif)
-
Thanks Ripsnort. From one Hog lover to another :-)
I'll check it out.
-
Wobble shut up about that damn dispertion toejame already. Go watch actually footage from WWII of sticks of eggs impacting/exploding and then please explain me to why you think they should disperse as you show in your third picture. Every bit of footage I've seen (and the TV is on history channel when the wife isn't home) shows nice straight lines of eggs going BOOM.
And the B-17s operated between 25 and 28k right? That's just a wee bit higher than yer opinion of what it should look like at 15k lad.
-
Cave, maby YOU should watch them, so basically yer telling me that in real life they DONT lose E they ARE NOT affected by anything at all other than gravity? You can tell me that the pictures above (especally the one from 15k) look right? BTW I would have done one from 35k aswell but it would look exactly the same as the one from 5k,
"sticks" of bombs dropped from 20k plus would scatter wildly, upon the intal departure from the bay the bombs would literally slam into eachother (which is why they didnt arm till more than half way down) all that banging and clanging and wind and the drag and atmospheric effects cause much separation of bombs.
I tried to find pictures of craters, but all the results that came up were
A: from the Murrah federal building bombing
B: Nukes.
C: F-117 LGB strkies in the gulf (looked similar to AH footage. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
If anyone can find, some pictures that eithe support or reject my opinion PLEASE post them, as cause I cant find nuthin.
"Wobble shut up about that damn dispertion toejame already"
You may wish to be more courteous in your future responses as to not make people think you are 12.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-09-2001).]
-
Does this matter at all? Bomb falls... target blows up either way.
<S>IC
Iculus CO
576(Bomber) Squadron-RAF
(http://home.earthlink.net/~ryanridge/5765.jpg)
"...her belly loaded with the rain of destruction."
iculus_576th@yahoo.com
-
"Does this matter at all? Bomb falls... target blows up either way.
<S>IC
"
Well Iculus try to look at it this way..
What does a bomber pilot live for?? dropping bombs of course. The whole boring ride over there the fighters attacking all of that is a chor, the actual bombing is the apex of the trip, its what make the trip worth while..so when we drop bombs that fall all odd and dont behave as it should it pretty much undermines the whole reason we are there, just like fighter folks, when their planes are not modelled right or dont behave as they hisorically did, they get upset, as they should, well to bombers the bombs we carry are more of an extension of our plane..so when they dont look/feel/behave they way they did in real life, it lessens the enjoyability of the mission. I would compare it to having the guns on the fighters shooting 30k with no bullet drop and every round hitting in the EXACT same place.
Get what im sayin?
-
I wouldn't mind a LITTLE bomb dispersion, but NOT that much! I've seen quite a lot of footage of bomb impacts on the History Channel. If you watch carefully you'll see some variation in bomb strikes, but not as much as you say there should be Wobble. With your dispersion you'd be lucky to hit a field at 15k. I prefer something with a tighter spread that has a little dispersion. That would give you a pretty good chance of hitting something, yet not be the laser guided ord we hate.
This is a shot from an aircraft flying over rural Kosovo. These were obviously dropped from modern aircraft, and if you look closely there is a little dispersion to them. I'm still looking for more shots of bomb craters. When I find more I'll post them.
(http://kosovo.info.usaid.gov/dt062799/990627_1.jpg)
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
-
Tough to find arnt they flak? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) let look at this photo and analize a bit...
Ok 4 bombs obviously, that means they were most likley dropped from a fighter, from that you can assume the alt of drop was below 8000 feet probably much so,
Also this photo looks fairly recent, indicating the bombs that did this are of modern make and thus more aerodynamic than the ww2 brethren.
I think they were all the same size bomb the larger one just probably hit softer ground(not its next to a ditch of sorts) and broached further and thus created a slightly larger crater.
NOTE: local of craters: Kosovo.
My best guess is that these are creaters from Mk82 dumb bombs dropped from below 8000 feet at a rather slow speed, a faster speed would result in a spear shaped creater as would an approach from lower than 2000 feet.
To sum up..
Modern ord (more aerodynamic)
dropped from between 2000 and 8000
more dispersion that AH's fat ww2 bombs falling from 45,000 feet.
Excellent photo, where did ya get it?
EDIT:
(http://www.bombs-away.net/screenshots/051800/UboatAftermath.jpg)
here is a Photo that was taken in B-17 2, I know its not real life but I figured since this game was designed specifically around teh 17 that they would do the bomb modeling pretty well.
Oh my, not every single bomb exactly hit a target...that cant be right. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-13-2001).]
-
Wobble, you need glasses bad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) . That's not a ditch near the far right crater it's a one lane road. In the upper left you can see some small buildings. That means the house-sized crater on the far right was caused by a Mk. 83 1,000 pound or larger bomb. Big sucker huh.
As for bomb dispersion, I don't think "minute-of-field" accuracy at 25k should be put in. Minute-of-V-hangar maybe, but not so bad to the point you NEED a massed bomber formation to hit anything. Solitary BUFFs are the norm in the main; you can't change that by throwing dispersion to hell. So you stick in a relatively light form of dispersion, just a little randomness to the drop pattern. It'll give you rather nice resuts when carpet bombing, but not allow you to hit acks from 35k.
And yes, these things are DAMN hard to track down! I got that one from the Kosovo info site put up by USAID.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
-
So you stick in a relatively light form of dispersion, I was refering to the ditches on either side of the road, ya cant see them per say but im sure they are there. plus damp ground and all that crap...but yea it may be a mk83...probably is.
So you stick in a relatively light form of dispersion
THANK YOU GOD!
REDEMPTION!
I agree that to much dispersion would not be practicle due to lack of mass numbers, but not as ridiculus as they way there are now, AS IS dropping a salvo does very little damage because the straight line, some drift/dispersion would spread the love a bit and actually do more damage, plus single buffs shoud not be able to drop a field by themselves, at least not by hitting every ack and hanger with precision that would rival a F-117.
-
A couple things:
First of all a bomb has so much mass it wouldn't slow down much in the horizontal direction. The lower the alt the less it will be effected.
Secondly, the Norton bombsight corrected for this IRL.
That said, the bombs would not land in a perfectly straight line for sure. They wouldn't be that far off though. All the bombs are going to have basically the same forces acting on them, thus they will tend to fall in a straight line.
It is kind of a gameplay issue, but IMO we should increase the blast radius a little and build in some dispersion for very high alt bombers.
About the only thing that currently really bugs me about bombs is the difficulty in killing Osties with them. You have to get REALLY close to kill (or even hurt) them. Osties have an open turret, a bomb would easily kill or wound the gunner if it landed anywhere nearby. The treads would also be blown to bits and the thing would probably get flipped over. I've driven the ostwind to protect bases from time to time and I don't think I've ever had my gunner wounded by a MG armed aircraft. Even a 30 cal bullet should be able to kill the gunner.
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
All the bombs are going to have basically the same forces acting on them, thus they will tend to fall in a straight line.
Actually thats only true if you drop the 1 at a time, a salvo of bombs will almost always clang and bang into eachother causing some more drift (thats why they dont arm till well after being released) plus each bombs had a bit of wobble upon leaving the bay, that oo effects them all differently.
plus there is no way they would land directly under the plane, wind resistance by itslef would cause them to drop back abit, much less the other factors.
-
It's been a long time since physics class for me but how can bombs loose energy when they are accelerating toward earth? Yeah they could be affected by wind etc but they are gaining E not loosing it.
-
's been a long time since physics class for me but how can bombs loose energy when they are accelerating toward earth? Yeah they could be affected by wind etc but they are gaining E not loosing it.
Ok lets see here <try to explane> they stay RIGHT under the bomber when you drop them right.. ok so they are going foreward at the same speed the bomber is going..correct..ok they are also falling downward at the same time..ok so they are staying even with the bomber while they are traveling at an angle away from it..so not only are they not losing ANY foreward momentum they actually gaining some, in other words the bombs are going faster foreward than the bomber that dropped them. Ya see what I mean ill illustrate..
(http://www.geocities.com/thewobblepage/bomber.jpg)
A= The foreward distance the bomb travels before it hits the ground.
B= The downward distance the bomb travels before it hits the ground.
C= The total distance the bomb travels both horazantally and vertically before striking the ground.
D= the comparison to total distance traveled by the bomb as compared to the total distance traveled by the plane.
The bomb cannot gain and energy becasuse it has nothing pushing it foreward(engine), it mearly trades its foreward momentum for downward momentum, therefore the bomb staying even with the plane the whole way down means the the bomb was going farther than the plane and yet stayed even with it, and thus was outrunning it. The laws oh physics prohibit this. A+B cannot = D even if there was absolutly NO resistance from wind or anything whatsoever the bomb still could not land directly under the bomber because it would have to go faster horazantally than the object that dropped it, which is impossible because it has no power source giving it more horazontal speed and the object that dropped it does.
Comprendo?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In AH A+b=D (and to a large extreme)
The Laws of physics prohibit this.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-17-2001).]
-
Seems to me that it's a gameplay issue.
In RL they flew hundreds of bombers and tried to carpet the targets. Online the most bombers I see in formation at one time is 3 ships. Very rarely is there more.
Thats why you can pickle barrel eggs in from 20K. Otherwise it's 40 minutes to target, and 1 bomber misses the whole field, and noone flys them anymore.
You can pick apart every tiny detail, but there has to be some leeway or it all doesn't gell.
Just like you using Combat Trim. Sure isn't real, but it helps folks without the extra HOTAS.
-
even if there was absolutly NO resistance from wind or anything whatsoever the bomb still could not land directly under the bomber
In that case the bomb would fall EXACTLY under the bomber. You are forgeting gravity, the bomb is not trading forward momentum for downward momentum, it's accelerating toward earth at 9.8 m/s2 (?), while traveling forward at the same speed as the bomber minus drag.
-
In that case the bomb would fall EXACTLY under the bomber. You are forgeting gravity, the bomb is not trading forward momentum for downward momentum, it's accelerating toward earth at 9.8 m/s2 (?), while traveling forward at the same speed as the bomber minus drag.
The bombs are staying even with the bomber and yet they are also traveiling down at that same time, so they are staying even with it while also moving away from it, making teh distance they have to travel to stay even with the bomber greater, therefore they are somehow going faster then the bomber horazontally, not possible. they gain speed going DOWNWARD yes, but there is no way they should gain any foreward speed at all, yet they would have to to stay even with the bomber because they are not flying straight. (shortest distance between 2 objects= straight line)
(http://www.geocities.com/thewobblepage/bomber2.jpg)
A: direct route from bomber to ground.
B: the path a bomb takes when it is dropped.
C: the un-accounted gained energy we see in ah.
Line's A and B: are the same length, what they show is that the bomb could not land directly because it would somehow need more FOREWARD speed (C).
Here is the tajectory of a REAL bomb with both air resistance removed and resistance calvulated.
(http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann/math/Ballistic/Ball-1.02.gif)
not it is a curve, not straight line as in AH, the curve shows (and proves) that the bombs cannot land directly under the bomber. because of the greater speed they would have to attain.
NOW here is the one that REALLY proves my point.
(http://www.megalink.net/~wejones/bombtraj.jpg)
Notice how at the top it says the at 25,000 feet the bomber drops the bombs at approxamatly 3 miles out from it.
3 Miles = 15840 Feet
therefore the bombs are being dropped from 25,000 and only travelling foreward 15,840 before they hit the ground.
If they stayed even with they bomber {as they do in AH} the numbers would match, the bomber would have to drop them when he was 4.73 Miles from the target (25000 Feet = 4.73500 Miles)
CONCLUSION: the laws of physics prohibit the bomb from staying directly under the bomber after dropped.
<short bow> thank you
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-18-2001).]
-
Note: the above doesent address the issue of bomb drift and despersion, but it hasnt really been contested, I agree dispersion is a "gameplay" issue for those who will call it that so I wont object, however addressing the non-loss of E issue would do nothing to gameplay other than moving the bombs a little further towards something vaguely realistic and believeable.
It still bugs me though that people who want soo much for things to be REAL in this game will chalk up the bombs being a total joke to "gameplay"
Also Notice the size of the 2000 pound bomb in the graphic, isnt it safe to assume that a bomb that size would be more than sufficent to destroy a hanger of any size, yet it wont even scratch the Hangers in AH, that being the way it is is what makes it soo necessary for us to be able to put the bombs EXACTLY on a target.
So basically we have bombs that are so underpowered (un-realistic) they are compensated for by making them super duper accurate (more un-realistic)
2 wrongs making a right...???
-
they gain speed going DOWNWARD yes, but there is no way they should gain any foreward speed at all, yet they would have to to stay even with the bomber because they are not flying straight. (shortest distance between 2 objects= straight line)
They don't need to gain any forward speed to stay even with the bomber... we are only adding a downward vector to the bombs, it doesn't have any impact in forward speed, wich remains the same (minus air resistance of course)
Here is the tajectory of a REAL bomb with both air resistance removed and resistance calvulated.
(http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann/math/Ballistic/ball-1.02.gif)
not it is a curve, not straight line as in AH, the curve shows (and proves) that the bombs cannot land directly under the bomber. because of the greater speed they would have to attain.
This graphic don't prove anything, because it don't show the bomber position in relation with the bomb travelled distance, and in AH, the line IS curved too.
Notice how at the top it says the at 25,000 feet the bomber drops the bombs at approxamatly 3 miles out from it.
3 Miles = 15840 Feet
therefore the bombs are being dropped from 25,000 and only travelling foreward 15,840 before they hit the ground.
If they stayed even with they bomber {as they do in AH} the numbers would match, the bomber would have to drop them when he was 4.73 Miles from the target (25000 Feet = 4.73500 Miles)
The distance traveled by the bomb is speed dependant, the fastest the bomber is flying, the farther the bomb will travel. So, again, it doesn't prove anything.
CONCLUSION: The only thing that prevents a bomb from staying directly under the bomber is wind drag.
[This message has been edited by DA98 (edited 02-18-2001).]
-
So basically we have bombs that are so underpowered (un-realistic) they are compensated for by making them super duper accurate (more un-realistic)
The bombs are fine, even a 250lbs can destroy a city or factory building, the problem is with hangar hardness. Yes, a gameplay issue, but a necessary one. The alternative would be to have a greater number of hangars, but more vulnerable (nice alternative IMO (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
-
It has been said that some bombs like the tall boy 12,000lb type broke the speed of sound-they had to be gaining energy as they accelerated toward earth at 32ft per second/second.
-
Here is the tajectory of a REAL bomb with both air resistance removed and resistance calvulated.
(http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann/math/Ballistic/Ball-1.02.gif)
not it is a curve, not straight line as in AH, the curve shows (and proves) that the bombs cannot land directly under the bomber. because of the greater speed they would have to attain.
ROFLMAO TheWobble, I visited the website where you found that nice graph, and:
A.- The graph is NOT of a REAL bomb. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
B.- If you READ the text, it's PERFECTLY clear that without air drag, the bomb falls EXACTLY under the bomber. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann/math/Ballistic/Ball-1.00.html (http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann/math/Ballistic/Ball-1.00.html)
Just look at the XSpeed (horizontal speed) column at the first table (with drag removed). It's 100 all the time.
<short bow> Thank you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Is Wobble correct that bombs should slow down their forward velocity from air drag: YES!
Would that change the nature of this game: NO!
Why? The Norden bombsite would have to be readjusted to aim in a curve, instead of a fixed value (altitude + forward velocity = angle to aim F6 viewpoint).
All it would do to add air drag to the bombs is make the math the game has to do for the bombsight more complicated. It wouldn't change its accuracy.
And the side to side dispersion isn't big. Bomb hit patterns do end up in practically straight lines. The film I can picture in my head is a strike on an orchard by B-26s in Normandy. The bombs hit in a line.
I have absolutely no expectations that this feature would ever be implemented. It doesn't affect the gameplay enough to warrant it.
Hans.
-
The distance traveled by the bomb is speed dependant, the fastest the bomber is flying, the farther the bomb will travel. So, again, it doesn't prove anything.
That is true, but no matter how fast the bomber is going the bomb could never stay directly under it, yet it would travel farther based on speed, but it would never be able to maintain the speed of the bomber.
the picture is just an example..lets dowuble the altitude and see what happens
make it 50'000 feet, then the bomber will drop from 6 miles out (about)
guess what 50'000 feet is alot less than 6 miles, its a simple ration. the numbers can get bigger YES but they can NEVER be equal, the speed or alt are irrelevent because the ratio will hold true. no matter how fast or high the bomber is the bomb it drops can NEVER land directly below it, it will just be avarible in the ratio.
ALT= A
Distance from drop to impact =B
in the given example I posted A= 25,000
and B= 15840,
so the ratio of A to be is
25,000/15840
lets say we double the alt.
A= 50,000
if A= 50,000 be MUST = 2xA or 31680
50,000/31,680
NEVER can A=B (50,000/50,000 or 1/1)
because that would ignore the ratio,
As far as SPEED influencing the distance the bomb travels YES definatly true,
you drop a bomb from a bomber going 300mph@ 35,000 feet, it goes a certin distance,
then drop a bomb from a bomber going 600mph at the same alt will the bomb go FARTHER? YES, BUT so will the bomber. the bomber and based on the ratio above the despite even an ungodly speed of any bomber the bomb will not and cannot land even with the bomber. because of the A/B ratio above.
IN FACT
The faster the bomber is going the FURTHER behind it the bomb will land because the faster an object is going the more air resistance is acting on it. which is why a plane needs a bigger angine and more power to go faster(or a car) because the faster it goes the more resistance it is going through. When the Space Shuttel hits the atmosphere, (air and its resistance) it is going so fast and the air creates so much restance and friction (friction is what resistance is) thast the skin on the front becomes RED hot.
bottom line, no matter the speed or altitude of a bomber its bomb cannot land directly under it.
The only thing that prevents a bomb from staying directly under the bomber is wind drag.
Look, its so simple, the bomb is not traveling the same direction as the bomber once it is dropped, it is moving foreward, and downward. therefore it cannot stay even with the bomber because the bomb is taking a longer route than the bomber, the bomber is going straight, the bomb is traveling at a downward angle. Did you see the drawing? it makes it pretty obvious.
the bomb does not and CANNOT gain foreward speed, it would have to gain FOREWARD speed to stay even with the bomber, because it is taking a longer route to reach the same point. that doesent even factor in the preasence of air resistance, which would push it back even further.
They don't need to gain any forward speed to stay even with the bomber... we are only adding a downward vector to the bombs, it doesn't have any impact in forward speed, wich remains the same (minus air resistance of course)
YES it is traveling DOWNWARD AND FOREWARD, therefore it is taking a longer path than the bomber. the bomber is going FOREWARD the bomb is going DOWNWARD AND FOREWARD, thus making it have to travel a further total distance to stay even with the bomber, now unless it has more FOREWARD speed than the bomber it will..MUST drop behind it.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-19-2001).]
-
On a side note, AIR RESISTANCE, by itself would make the bomb fall behind the bomber, even if everything else above was wrong (which its not)
so regardless if you believe the fact's above or not just air resistance by itself would make it impossable for the bomb to land directly under the bomber...but then again why would something as trivial as air resistance be important in a flight sim (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Please, go and find a high school physics textbook, read the section on projectile motion - and only then come back, when you might have some idea of what you are rambling on about.
-
Man, I wonder how did the USA put a man on the moon... Is the educational system REALLY that bad??? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
[This message has been edited by DA98 (edited 02-19-2001).]
-
Ok well since you all think I am a total IDIOT,(ironic) i went ahead and wrote a question to a Mr.Harold Brochmann. he is a retired professor and quite adept in the ares's of Fractals, Nonlinear Dynamics, Data Mining, in other words he knows his toejam.
I am sending him the following question:
If a WW2 bomber traveling around 220mph drops a bomb weighing around 500 pounds from an altitude of around 22,000 feet will the bomb land directly below the bomber that dropped it, or will it land behind it?
ALSO, would the lack of ANY drag or air resistance at all enable it to land DIRECTLY under the bomber? reason?
when he sends me the reply I will post it here, I will ALSO post a TEMPORARY password to access my hotmail account so that you can look at the answer and see that I am not making the reply up.
that should settle it eh?
EDIT:
BTW, when am I going to see some chats graphs and formulas that disprove what I have posted, all I see so far is hot air.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-19-2001).]
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-19-2001).]
-
OK, I have a better question:
"If a bomber drops a bomb weighting X lbs from Y feet and we IGNORE the bomb air resistance, will it land exactly under the bomber or slightly behind?"
I NEVER said that a bomb should fall DIRECTLY under the bomber, but it's due to air resistance, nothing else. Did you ever heard the phrase "movement is relative"?
-
OK, now I undestand your theory, and I must accept that it's correct... but there is a problem... if it's true... THE BOMB SHOULD IMPACT DIRECTLY AT THE DROP POINT!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
[This message has been edited by DA98 (edited 02-19-2001).]
-
movement is relative
Yes i know, but when the distance A (bomb) is traveling to get to a given point is longer than the the the path that B (bomber) is taking B will reach the destination befoe A will. hence the bomb landing behind the bomber.
I edited the question I seny him btw.
EDIT: if it's true... THE BOMB SHOULD IMPACT DIRECTLY AT THE DROP POINT!!!
LOL! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
only if it was a cotten ball (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
The laws of physics do not allow it to land directly athe the point of release or for it to land directly under the bomber, but depending on the weight, or more importantly how aerodynamic the object is i could land almost anywhere inbetween thos 2 extremes.
BTW, this is the best argument I have ever been in, even if I end up being wrong, this was a blast(no pun intended) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-20-2001).]
-
Just a little example to make you understand it: If you're inside a train that is travelling at 50 mph, and you drop an object from a 5 feets height to the floor, where will it fall? In that example the air resistance is eliminated in the horizontal axis because the air inside the train is inmobile respect you, the object, and the floor, so the only thing that can influence the impact point is your theory. Having said that, are you saying that the object will not fall at the exact same point where you dropped it?
I'm having a great time too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Damn DA98, thats the best argument i have seen yet (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
the only problems i have with it are.
A: train only going 50 (not very fast)
B:dropping it from 5 feet (extreamly low)
between the extreamly low height and the low speed even if you were trying to notice it it would be kinda hard to, a bomber going over 200mph at over 20,000 feet gives the effect alot of time to take effect, 5 feet in a slow train is barley enoigh to get the effect going. it would fall behind the drop point (in theory) but not by much
I really cant wait to get that guy's answer to this, its really got me thinkin, (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
lol!, when I saw "train going 50mph" i had this horrid highschool math flashback (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
lets apply the above ratio to this
(25,000/15840) at say 250mph (ballpark)
ok here goes
FIRST we must guess what the ratio would be without air resistance, so without it the bomb would go further..lets say 20% farther (modest guess)
15840x.2 = 3168
15840 + 3168 = 19008
New ratio 25,000/19008
ok lets convert
25,000/5000 = 5 feet
19008/5000 = 3.8016
now to factor in speed
250/5 = 50mph
3.8016/5 = .76032 feet or 7 tenths of a foot.
actually thats more of a difference that I would have guessed, but still only about 8 inches from 5 feet. I cannot use this as much proof because the number used for the orignal ratio are VERY un-precise, plus there was no given speed of the bomber, which is a required variable. I wish I had more solid numbers to work with on this, not because i really wish to prove you wrong, but because this is so damn interesting, im having fun either way (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I would say that, without air resistance, bomb would drop EXACTLY under the plane. Both are moving at the same speed, and air is the only force opposing. IIRC, Newton says that unless a force is opposing, or applying, everything is moving at a constant speed, forever. A bomb drop is a freefall movement in a fluid, where you have 3 forces acting. Gravity, that points right towards the center of the Earth; drag, generated by the speed of the bomb; and flotability, based on Archimedes' principle and neglectible in this case. So the trajectory of a freefall is a parabolic curve determined by the combined effect of initial speed (same as bomber) and gravity. Drag will certainly have an effect but given the fusiform shape of a bomb, its effect would not be great, and it will be quite easily predictable, since Drag would transform the constant speed into a uniformly deccelerated movement with regards to the X-axis of the freefall movement.
That's what I can recall without reading any book, so I welcome corrections.
OTOH, and sorry for not sticking to the thread, I think the main problem with buffs in MA is the lack of a more realistic Norden sight. You should have to spend a good time flying straight after it gives you an accurate reading. So no jinking buffs, and more navigational skills.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Right on the head pepino, everything you said is correct, however remember that the bomb is moving AWAY from the bomber aswell as foreward, the bomber is moving foreward in a straight line, the bomb is moving foreward in a curve, therefore the bomb has to travel faster to maintain its evenness with the bomber becasue its takind a less direct path than the bomber is, ofcourse the bomb cannot gain any foreward speed so based of the fact that it has to travel farther than the bomber to reach the same point and it is going the same speed as the bomber (which is unrealistic), it will reach the point after the bomber.
the old addage, the shortest distancebetween 2 points is a straight line, the bomber is going in a straight line, the bomb is not (downward curve) so it cant land directly under it.
-
Wobble, the bomb has a combined movement. 2 axis. The vertical one is moving the bomb away from the buff. The horizontal one keeps the bomb steady with the buff. Let's say the buff flies at 250 kts. . Everything inside the buff is moving at 250 kts. Inside the plane, lift counters gravity, so vertical speed of everything inside equals zero (i'm not counting falling pencils from navigator's desk (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ). Now you open doors, release the bomb. At this time, the bomb is still moving at 250 kts. on the X axis. Only thing that changes is that now, unattached to the plane, the bomb generates practically 0 lift force, so besides the 250 kts. in the X-axis, it's building speed on the vertical axis. Given the 9'8 m/s^2 gravitational constant, each second the bomb is falling, it gains 9'8 m/s in vertical speed. The now freefalling bomb is moving on the path determined by the resultant of 2 vectors. One is horizontal and paralell to the Earth, the X-axis speed that, if we forget about drag, is constant at 250 kts. The other one is vertical, perpendicular to the Earth, and determines a uniformly accelerated movement. So, in the second zero, the bomb is moving 250 kts. on the horizontal, and 0 kts. on the vertical (flat trajectory). The first second X-speed is 250 Kts., and Y-speed is 9'8 m/s. The second nr.2 X-speed is 250kts. and the Y-speed is 19'6 m/s. and so on. So the resultant for the freefalling bomb is a parabolic movement. This does not mean that the bomb will fall behing because it travels farther as, with regards to the plane, the bomb is not moving in the X-Axis (equal speeds) while it goes down.
So, if we do not put drag into the equation, relative X-position of the falling bomb and the buff, given the buff does not changes its course, speed or altitude, remains constant. If we introduce the drag, we alter the X-axis component of the freefall movement. Instead of a straight, constant speed movement, we have a straight, uniformly deccelerated one. The magnitude of the decceleration relates to the drag, and this aspect relates to the shape & mass of the bomb. Given the bomb is a fusiform object (close to the ideal aerodinamic shape, which is the one the drop of water adopts in a freefall), and very massive (thus neglecting the flotability - lift issues), I would say drag forces can be safely neglected without affecting hardly the "sim" side of this game.
So, as a conclusion, and correct me if I'm wrong, the bomb would fall exactly under the buff, if we negate drag's influence, and slightly behind the buff, if drag is modelled.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
And, as Hans says, the norden would calculate the drift related to the drag, and compensate accordingly.
Again, IMHO, the only thing that is severely distortioned is the Norden ability to stay perfectly aligned. IIRC, Norden sights were dependent on gyroscopes, and these were VERY sensible to course changes. So if you move your heading even slightly, Norden lecture would be wrong, and ruin your aiming.
Cheers, and thks for an informative thread (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Pepe
-
Go to this website (http://library.thinkquest.org/2779/) and click the "History of projectile motion" link at the bottom. There's even a game at the end where you drop water bombs from a building rooftop onto some poor sap! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Still waiting on the reply from Mr. Brochmann, he's prolly out fishin or something (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)..I wish I was (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
EDIT: At least I have already won the battle so to speak, everybody keeps admitting theat they would only fall directly under the bomber if there was no drag, so even if i am TOTALLY wrong in my theory, the bombs still are not modeled correctly. I know some say that there wasnt much drag on the bombs but.
A: 25,000 fett is a long way for it to take effect, at that distance even a small amount of force will creat a very visable result.
B:250mph creats alot of drag aswell (faster ya go the more drag ya have)
C: WW2 bombs were far from the aerodynamics bombs we have today, they were rather blunt ESPECALLY the lanc's cookie ( it looks like a hot water heater}
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-20-2001).]
-
Ah not to query the physics, but I had a talk with my sister (US Air Force Ord specialist) She said there are no differences between bomb cases from WW2 and today a Mk 82 is the same case as the Mk 41 used in 1940, most changes have been in the area of fusing, Also, she said forward motion of bombs is a definite factor, that's why modern A/C use CCIP (continuously computed impact point) sights to allow for that.
And last, on WWII bomber bomb dispersion, my mother cracked up on the nice straight lines comment, she says "yes very straight on film from way up there, covering 2 city blocks long and a block wide down here"
(My mother survived the bombing of Mannheim in WW2, she might not know physics but she does know a little about bombs)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
THE REPLY IS HERE!
I WAS WRONG! sort of.
Well you guys got me, something was wrong with my formula about the dynamic curve so in a atmosphereless space they would land directly under the bomber, but with air resistance, they would not (duh)
Here is the Reply I got.
>From: Harold Brochmann <hbrochmann@saltspring.com>
>To: Jason Seiler <jinx_311@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Ballistics of falling bombs...a question
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:16:35 -0700
>
>on 19/02/01 23:07, Jason Seiler at jinx_311@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > my question is this:
> >
> > If a WW2 bomber traveling around 220mph drops a bomb weighing around 500
> > pounds from an altitude of around 22,000 feet will the bomb land directly
> > below the bomber that dropped it, or will it land behind it?
> > ALSO, would the lack of ANY drag or air resistance at all enable it to land
> > DIRECTLY under the bomber? reason?
>
>Situation 1: There is no air resistance. This is always the situation
>imagined when this sort of question is posed in physics/math classes. It's
>entirely imaginary of course. For starters how could the plane be flying up
>there if there was no air? Anyhow - There are two motions to consider... the
>forward motion of the bomb which at the beginning is the same as that of the
>plane and then the downward motion due to gravity. In actual fact these are
>independent of eachother. The downward speed increases. The effect of the
>constant force of gravity is to cause downward *acceleration*. After every
>second the bomb falls 32 feet per second faster than it did at the end of
>the previous second. At the end of 1 sec. 32 ft/sec; after 2 sec 64 ft/sec
>and so on. Speed after x seconds is 32 ft/sec times x.
>The forward speed is not affected. It continues at a constant rate.
>Therefore when the bomb hits the ground it is exactly under the plane.
>
>Situation 2: The real one. There is air resistance. The bom falls downwards
>faster and faster; but it does not speed up as much as in situation 1. The
>bomb continues forwards.... but its forwards motion is being slowed down.
>When it hits the ground it is behind the plane.
>
>So - you want imaginary or real situation?
CHEERS SMARTGUYS YA GOT ME. but they still shouldent land directly under the bomber in AH.
Thanks for all the stimulating and fun argument, i wish all threads could be as fun as this one was.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
in case any of yall missed this...
on WWII bomber bomb dispersion, my mother cracked up on the nice straight lines comment, she says "yes very straight on film from way up there, covering 2 city blocks long and a block wide down here"
from someone who was actually on the ground where the bombs were hitting mind you.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-20-2001).]