Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Anaxogoras on February 17, 2009, 11:02:09 AM
-
I'd like to humbly request that F3 view be disabled for all aircraft in the main arenas. The gunner positions are sufficient for representing the actual field of view available to an aircrew, so they are enough.
Thank you.
-
I second this request. :aok
-
I'd like to humbly request that F3 view be disabled for all aircraft in the main arenas. The gunner positions are sufficient for representing the actual field of view available to an aircrew, so they are enough.
Thank you.
First of all, its easy enough to kill a bomber.
Second, if you're BOMBING, how the **** do you look behind you in a gunner position while still bombing?
Third, its pointless, many times new pilots in bombers don't even notice a fighter behind them with F3 or not.
-FYB
-
Here Here!!!
A voice vote should do!!
-
Let me guess. You never fly bombers?
And how realistic is one pilot instantly transporting between gunners positions and the pilots chair?
This will never happen. You couldn't track 2 IB fighters at all this way and would have a hard enough time with 1. Might as well get rid of the bombers all together. I know I would never fly them. In real life they had individuals sitting at all positions with a 360% view and they kept in touch with comms. This is most accurately reproduced with F3, "tho I suppose you could talk to yourself as you jump from gunner to gunner".
-
Negative! Bombers of all types need all the help they can get. I can already shoot down all three bombers of even the best gunner without taking a single hit and its not hard just takes a little patience.
-
4 engines- keep it, but anything 2 engine or single, take it away. Being abused to the point of arcadey lameness.
-
I think all we need is a reclarification of which ones are the bombers. I think some of the issues come from the IL2 being able to use F3 as well as a few others. I think if the plane has bombay doors it should have the use of F3, if it doesn't, you don't.
-
I think all we need is a reclarification of which ones are the bombers. I think some of the issues come from the IL2 being able to use F3 as well as a few others. I think if the plane has bombay doors it should have the use of F3, if it doesn't, you don't.
TBM has bomb bay doors. She shouldn't need F3. IF we were to ever get the SB2C, which ALSO had an enclosed bomb bay, should she have F3 as well?
-
Yes, I don't see what bomb bay doors has to do with the issue, though I see room for reasonable disagreement over which planes should have F3 view. If I were to prefer a compromise, I like Rebel's idea the best. Keep F3 view for the 4 engine heavies, but disable it for the rest.
-
Why? Are you upset because you are using a little too much ammo? I dont understand what the problem is! What advantage does changing views give them? They know when to 'bunt?' It wont save them anything!
Much worse is the Bostons ability to snap-roll over and over and never lose the drones and because of warping drones that can be dangerous to attack but even then you can make adjustments or film it and send it in to HTC.
-
4 engines- keep it, but anything 2 engine or single, take it away. Being abused to the point of arcadey lameness.
I like this idea, or another approach could be to allow F3 mode for only planes with more than 3 gun positions including pilot position!
-
I remember some time ago reading HiTech's reason for enabling F3 view in bombers. Something to the effect that since one person pilots a bomber, (and sometimes you have ONE gunner), it is more difficult to do all the functions of a bomber yourself as opposed to having a full crew compliment watching all angles all the time. I could be wrong. :uhoh
-
Fine then I want to be able to load all 3 of the formation planes with gunners. Then I will fly to your base and go DeathStar on your arse.
If the plane has a gunner postion it has the F3 view. That is the price you pay for not being able to load up on gunners. This game (remember it's a game) will NEVER be perfect and it's the compromises of the programmer to make it playable for everyone. Yes there are things that suck that make it gamey (remember it's a game) but F3 veiw is way down on the list of things that need fixed or even looked at. Heavy bombers dive bombing should be at the top...should make it so you can only drop bombs from the F6 view.
Times I use F3:
A20= to take a quick look around to spot GV's or incoming enemy AC....for SA so to speak. I don't bomb from that position. and to see how pretty that bird is!
IL2= same thing as A20 (don't think it's as pretty though)
Heavies= SA to find bad guys. You'll 99.9% of the time never find my bombers in enemy territory below 10k. If I am lower I am on some idiots NOE mission that I didn't know was going to be NOE.
-
Sorry I would also have to say no to this. As others have said in realistic circumstances you would have all gunners watching all angles at the same time and calling out the bandits so that the whole crew would have a mental image as to what and where all cons were at. The F3 view is a trade off for not being able to do this. You would also be decreasing the possible effectiveness of a bomber crew with only 1 gunner position available, since you would have 1 looking back and pilot looking forward at same time and again calling out cons to each other.
Now I would agree with disabling F3 for bombers that have all gun positions filled by other players. This means that under present options available only single gunner bombers would have F3 disabled if you had a gunner present. This would cause HT to create some new coding to determine whether or not all gunner positions are filled before disabling the external view. Probably would be very difficult and require more than a few lines of code I am sure.
-
Times I use F3:
A20= to take a quick look around to spot GV's or incoming enemy AC....for SA so to speak. I don't bomb from that position. and to see how pretty that bird is!
IL2= same thing as A20 (don't think it's as pretty though)
Heavies= SA to find bad guys. You'll 99.9% of the time never find my bombers in enemy territory below 10k. If I am lower I am on some idiots NOE mission that I didn't know was going to be NOE.
The IL2 is the main case of those who abuse this to the point of absurdity. They're used as fighter platforms, using VERY powerful gun packages in a point defense role. A role in which they NEVER served- they had tail gunners for a damned reason.
I'd like to make it case by case, but the subjectiveness would prove it's undoing.
To stick to a principle, I'll stick with my original case. 4 engine heavies have it, everything else you're on your own.
-
Rebel are you telling me that a fighter has problem getting behind an iL2 and shooting it down?
How is that view helping him? He can't defend himself in it. Its not as accurate for targeting ground vehicles as the cockpit view.
(And if you argue this point I'll expect film to prove it)
So what is the problem? All you have to do is NOT let him get on your 6.
They don't climb, they turn like a pregnant cow.
Put yourself in the iL2's shoes, you up to help repulse a GV attack an get buzzed by a bunch of fighters.
You saying you wouldn't take any shot you could take in that situation?
Granted, F3 view gives him better SA, lets him see who's coming in on his 6 and who's not a threat.
But the plane has so many faults compared to any fighter that its truly no contest.
-
The IL2 is the main case of those who abuse this to the point of absurdity. They're used as fighter platforms, using VERY powerful gun packages in a point defense role. A role in which they NEVER served- they had tail gunners for a damned reason.
They way a plane (in this case the Il2) is used is a result of the tactial circumstances. Which in our MA's are completely different from real world: Planes are free, pilots aren't valuable at all, you don't die, when you get shot down you can immediately spawn again and usually ot'S the fighter hangars that go down, not the BH.
So it's not the fine performance of the Il-2 that's the reason for people using it as a fighter, but it's just available when true fighters disabled.
And in a fighter role - it sucks, but that was already pointed out by Ghost. All the fighters I see getting shot down by Il-2s in this game completely messed it up first. Me included.
BTW, last tour the Il-2 had a k/d of 0.74 vs all planes (including low level buffs!). That's not very impressive ;)
-
The IL2 is the main case of those who abuse this to the point of absurdity. They're used as fighter platforms, using VERY powerful gun packages in a point defense role. A role in which they NEVER served- they had tail gunners for a damned reason.
I'd like to make it case by case, but the subjectiveness would prove it's undoing.
To stick to a principle, I'll stick with my original case. 4 engine heavies have it, everything else you're on your own.
Yes they did......
It was the punitive assignment, punishment duty, or s%*t burning detail, if you prefer.
It was the job you DIDN'T want.
-
I'd like to humbly request that F3 view be disabled for all aircraft in the main arenas. The gunner positions are sufficient for representing the actual field of view available to an aircrew, so they are enough.
Thank you.
Anax: Sorry, no. F3 in planes with at least a pilot and a gunner somewhat compensates for all the extra eyes that would be available, and thus is not terribly unrealistic. The only thing I don't understand is why the 110 is the only plane in the game with a rear gunner that can't use F3 view.
There are some...absurdities...with buffs in this game perhaps, but F3 view is not one of them.
-
Even pressing all gunner position keys at light speed, you're still only seeing one pair of eyes at a time. That's less than they had.
Pressing the trigger should toggle back to F1 view, though.
-
Ghost and Lusche together- here we go :)
IL2's are certainly capable of defendng themselves, but not in a conventional sense. You see them upping from capped bases w/o fighter hangars all the time, utilizing the F3 view to time wierd neg-G maneuvers, and maneuver as though they could look through the airframe itself.
The point of the F3 view is to enhance SA, and is generally defendable as you have a gunner looking behind you, thus you should have some kind of multiplier as saying something to the tune of "well, Boris is back there, and he's telling me we have 3 guys blah blah blah". What Boris *couldn't* do was turn the IL2 into Wonder Woman's airplane, allowing the pilot to look straight through it.
Let's be practical here. Everybody knows that even the heaviest of AH a/c are capable of some pretty astounding feats not possible in real life. Snap rolling bostons, and outside looping IL2's are just 2 examples of this.
Certainly, the IL2 isn't a zero or a spitfire, damned far from it. But, if you can look through your airframe and as a result of that, maneuver to gain a snapshot (or even a HO attempt) with 23mm or 37mm fire, you have an advantage, and more importantly an ability that can be abused to more or less delay the inevitable.
The desperation of IL2's being caught by 109's as they were fighting off GV's is just that- it's a desperate situation, IL2 pilots often fought for their lives. With those 23mm's, and the extensive armor protection, I myself would move for a HO shot and DARE that 109 to merge.
As Lusche says, it's the fact that the IL2's are being used as fighters that's a big part of the issue, but it's more a sign of MA play, then abuse of the F3 view.
**Edit**- I will admit, shooting down IL2's isn't exactly hard or rocket science. But they shouldn't be doing what they're doing at all. This isn't a rivet-counting grognard realism stick, this is a legitimate gameplay concern.
-
What if.... instead of the standard rear-view on aircraft like the Il-2, A-20, SBD, etc., looking to your 6 o'clock gave you the gunner's view, but with the ability to still control the aircraft? I can already think of a super-easy way to code this: allow the point-of-view to move extra far to the rear, just as we adjust our views now. It would give the pilot the SA he should have with a gunner's view, but not the God's eye view of F3.
-
You're still restricted to a small fraction of the SA that a full bomber crew had.
-
You're still restricted to a small fraction of the SA that a full bomber crew had.
Remember that they didn't have a telepathic link, as well. It wasn't exactly the hive-mind flying the plane ;)
-
Were they gagged? Was there no way for information to trickle thru across the crew?
-
I can't remember which plane it was (SBD or TBM), but the rear gunner only had radio comms. They were in a separate compartment from the rest of the crew, physically.
-
Were they gagged? Was there no way for information to trickle thru across the crew?
Hey...thats what we'll go with. When in pilot position and a bandit gets within 400 of your six, you'll hear a sound effect of the tail-gunner shouting "Oh *&^%$#@$#%&**%^#@#!!!!"
-
Were they gagged? Was there no way for information to trickle thru across the crew?
We're getting rather sidetracked here. No they weren't gagged, yes, there were radios, but think about this:
You have say an IL2 (or a Pe2, if ya wanna get creative), tooling along at a nice leisurly 160 mph, at 5,000 feet, looking for ground targets around a bridge or something.
Out of the clouds comes an FW190, doing well over 350mph. He's 1000 yards astern.
Call it a 200 mph closure rate, and he's 1000 yards behind and above, in a diving attack.
Now how quickly can that tail gunner forward that information, and how accurate will it be? Chances are he'll shout something like "Jeus Christ, break right NOW!" and try his best to shoot the badguy with his machine gun.
In AH, the IL2 can time the break perfectly, and even force an overshoot, and throw the plane into a maneuver that can gain angles on the badguy.
-
4 engines- keep it, but anything 2 engine or single, take it away. Being abused to the point of arcadey lameness.
Ding ding.
There is no reason the IL-2 needs to have the F3 view. It is being abused and it allows the IL-2 to be that much more effective. If the IL-2 is able to have it, then why not the Hurricane IID?
-
Ding ding.
There is no reason the IL-2 needs to have the F3 view. It is being abused and it allows the IL-2 to be that much more effective. If the IL-2 is able to have it, then why not the Hurricane IID?
How many rear gunners does the HurriIID have?
-
Rebel I was only half kidding. I figure the drone of engines and lack of radio eqpt on top of air masks and headset on the crew and/or pilot would really get in the way of comms. If they could talk to each other, esp if by radio rather than mouth (shout) to ear telegram, then having external views is closer to reality than not having them. That's for larger crew bombers, though. I don't think Il2s ought to have it. Ju88s should, so should TBMs.. etc.
-
IL2's are certainly capable of defendng themselves, but not in a conventional sense. You see them upping from capped bases w/o fighter hangars all the time, utilizing the F3 view to time wierd neg-G maneuvers, and maneuver as though they could look through the airframe itself.
IL2s are so absurdly helpless to well flown fighter planes. Or, they should be. The fact that they aren't in the game points more to laziness and terrible ACM on the part of fighter sticks then it does the capability of the IL2. Any maneuver performed in the IL2 can be done in any fighter as well, less the fighter "stick dance". The IL2 doesn't stick dance well, "otherwise known as stick jerking". I have a couple of tricks to evade fighters, "and I assume they did in real life to". But the truth is you might have one tight roll in them and then they are to slow. And you cant fight them to far off the deck because they dont fight in the vertical well at all. When slow they wallow like pigs, which is why I never take internal ords up in them. It makes a bad situation worse.
Boy if your having a hard time fighting IL2s ATA then you seriously need some T/A time. The things are so slow yesterday I pointed one at a GV base, then shaved, downloaded, showered, AND, clipped my nails. Finishing in plenty of time to grab the stick as it puttered in and killed a bunch of GVs.
9 out of 10 fighters I shoot down are done so because "they" choose to HO an armored, heavily armed, attack plane. And no doubt as they fell to cartoon earth they decried the bloody, commie IL2 and its F3 views.
-
F3 view ABSOLUTELY helps with SA by far!!!!! and timing. Yes! crews had radios to alert others as to the threats, BUT it was not nearly as valuable as having the pilots eyes on the situation. fear, stress, fatigue all contributed to the intercrew comunications. F3 view allows a very unatural advantage to SA and if it was bisabled for all but 4 engine bombers, you would find far less uber IL2s and A20s! the way it should be!!
-
Rebel I was only half kidding. I figure the drone of engines and lack of radio eqpt on top of air masks and headset on the crew and/or pilot would really get in the way of comms. If they could talk to each other, esp if by radio rather than mouth (shout) to ear telegram, then having external views is closer to reality than not having them. That's for larger crew bombers, though. I don't think Il2s ought to have it. Ju88s should, so should TBMs.. etc.
So maybe planes with a crew larger then 2? Would that make sense? TBM's had 3, JU88's had 3 (maybe 4? I forget), SBD's don't need it, IL2's don't either.
-
It'll have to be HTC's arbitrary. I would say a good rule of thumb is just how much sighting coverage the crew could manage, of the full sphere around the plane.
-
No matter how you slice it, with F3 view Any bomber has better views than Any fighter--<------something just not cool with that!
-
Even pressing all gunner position keys at light speed, you're still only seeing one pair of eyes at a time. That's less than they had.
Pressing the trigger should toggle back to F1 view, though.
I'm all for this idea. Either switch to F1 when the trigger is pulled, or at least disable the ability to fire any weapon at all, while in F3 view. IMO, F3 should be for SA only, not dropping ords.
Coogan
-
I'd like to see f3 removed from attack/bombers.
-
4 engines- keep it, but anything 2 engine or single, take it away. Being abused to the point of arcadey lameness.
Why? Does a Ki-67 or Ju88 not have guys looking out from multiple positions?
-
It sounds like the redout model is what needs tweaking, not F3 view.
-
I'm all for this idea. Either switch to F1 when the trigger is pulled, or at least disable the ability to fire any weapon at all, while in F3 view. IMO, F3 should be for SA only, not dropping ords.
Coogan
Spot on Coogan no gunfire in F3 mode
-
I don't know how anyone could accurately drop ords from the F3 view. Unless it was in a lanstuka carpet bombing...which is a whole new thread and lame as well. I don't do it because I don't like it being done to me. Goes back to what Mom and Dad taught me..."treat others like you want to be treated"...thought They were lame then but it makes alot of sence now. I need the gun sight to line up my target...because I use the one target one bomb method.
-
How many rear gunners does the HurriIID have?
Point being, both planes are flown the same as air vs GV attack aircraft in the same manner. Last I knew, most IL-2 pilots dont even take up ord anymore since there is no reasosn to as the 37mm opens up any and all gv's like a sardine can. The rear gunner on an IL-2 is no different than the rear gunner on a Bf110: worthless. The rear gunner position gives the aircraft it's 360d view, the F3 mode shouldnt.
I used to have the stance that only 4 engine aircraft should be able to F3, but now I am more about if the plane is level bombing capable. IMO, if the aircraft has the capability to level bomb via a bomb sight then it should be able to have the F3 view. If not, then it is a direct attack or fighter aircraft only and the pilot and the single rear gunner view is all it gets. That means the IL-2 and the A20 would both lose the ability to F3. (I can hear the snifflin' and cryin' beginning now). Neither of those 2 aircraft need the F3 view and both are afforded advantages in their realm by having the capability to F3. Neither have more than 1 guy looking out the rear angles so why give them F3 capability???
-
GO jump in an A20 and look back! If you jump to gunner your a sitting duck because you can't control the AC from there and the gun is useless.
-
The A20 had a bottom belly/rear gunner. It's not modeled because they didn't have the refs for the position. Given that, it certainly has enough coverage to deserve external views.
Going into gunner position is still seeing just 1 pair of eyeballs at a time. In the Il2, the pilot and gunner seeing simultaneously would mean more than half the full sphere of possible vision.. It's definitely arguable. I'd have it removed, myself, though.
-
And fromt he pilot position you can see out the back on an IL2. Taking away the F3 view on the A20 would make it easier prey that it already is.
-
Point being, both planes are flown the same as air vs GV attack aircraft in the same manner. Last I knew, most IL-2 pilots dont even take up ord anymore since there is no reasosn to as the 37mm opens up any and all gv's like a sardine can. The rear gunner on an IL-2 is no different than the rear gunner on a Bf110: worthless. The rear gunner position gives the aircraft it's 360d view, the F3 mode shouldnt.
From this quote I can conclude you have no clue what you are talking about. If ord are up I will always take the bombs and rockets in the IL2. I know a few people that do this when defending a base. The four bombs with kill a panzer and the rockets will track any tank if you know how to use them. As for the rear gunner, again no clue what you're talking about, I have gotten countless kills with it when making people over shoot. If you would have searched the forum you'd know why bombers have external views.
-
Disable F3, I've seen enough dive bombing twits. :salute
-
Disable F3, I've seen enough dive bombing twits. :salute
Easier way would be to make it so you can only release bombs from F6 view. If the plane has that it was never intended to dive bomb.
-
I'd like to humbly request that F3 view be disabled for all aircraft in the main arenas. The gunner positions are sufficient for representing the actual field of view available to an aircrew, so they are enough.
Thank you.
I Vote NO!
Helm ...out
-
I'd like to humbly request that F3 view be disabled for all aircraft in the main arenas. The gunner positions are sufficient for representing the actual field of view available to an aircrew, so they are enough.
Thank you.
I disagree, -100
-
Easier way would be to make it so you can only release bombs from F6 view. If the plane has that it was never intended to dive bomb.
sounds good to me :aok
-
Easier way would be to make it so you can only release bombs from F6 view. If the plane has that it was never intended to dive bomb.
Your premise is false.
Ju-88s have a level bombsite and were definitely designed to dive bomb as well. TBM-3,B5N2 and Ki-67 all have bombsites and also dropped torpedoes without using it.
-
Actually, I find the TBM's sight can be pretty handy for torpedo drops. Much more so than the gun sight, in fact.
-
From this quote I can conclude you have no clue what you are talking about. If ord are up I will always take the bombs and rockets in the IL2. I know a few people that do this when defending a base. The four bombs with kill a panzer and the rockets will track any tank if you know how to use them. As for the rear gunner, again no clue what you're talking about, I have gotten countless kills with it when making people over shoot. If you would have searched the forum you'd know why bombers have external views.
I stand by my statement that the majority of players do not take up ords in an IL-2 because there is no need to with the 37mm AT can openers, if you do then great, I dont blame you. I know quite well how to use rockets and bombs and it isquite rare that a rocket from any aircraft, especially the ones from the IL-2 because they are weak when compared to the other rockets (save for the German PB1), do much of anything to a tank. If you're that good with rockets maybe you should be a trainer? Hold fast your tongue and try not to be so condescending.
What does the rear gunner have to do with forcing over-shoots? The pilot and the rear gunner offer the IL-2 its 360d view (almsot) from side to side and up, it shouldnt be able to look as freely as it does below the aircraft as it can w/ the F3 view. The IL-2 is a flying tank, it is well armored and as such the downside to that should be the reduced capabilty to see all around like a fighter (or a bomber in F3 mode).
Oh, and the IL-2 isnt a level bomber, it is an attack aircraft meant for low level strikes vs armor and static defensive positions.
I know what bombers have the F3 view and the IL-2 not only doesnt need it but it also doesnt deserve it, especially since it is flown like a zeke as you so graciously have pointed out. Perhaps maybe you can tell us why bombers have the F3 capable views? Lets see jsut how informed you really are. :rolleyes:
-
And fromt he pilot position you can see out the back on an IL2. Taking away the F3 view on the A20 would make it easier prey that it already is.
The rear view from the pilots positoin in an IL-2 is hardly worth mentioning. The IL-2 is heavily armored especially around the pilot and the downside to that is the much poorer view than one would have in a typical fighter and that is exactly the way it should be. I believe it is very difficult for anyone to make the case to allow the IL-2 the ability to have the F3 view and not the 110G-2/C-4, and all other similar aircraft that have rear gunners and currently not the F3 view.
The A20, if it did have a belly/low-rear turret then perhaps my thoughts on the A20 being a non-F3 plane would probably change.
-
Like sands through the hourglass.................... ......
so are the days of our lives
-
I stand by my statement that the majority of players do not take up ords in an IL-2 because there is no need to with the 37mm AT can openers, if you do then great, I don't blame you. I know quite well how to use rockets and bombs and it isquite rare that a rocket from any aircraft, especially the ones from the IL-2 because they are weak when compared to the other rockets (save for the German PB1), do much of anything to a tank. If you're that good with rockets maybe you should be a trainer? Hold fast your tongue and try not to be so condescending.
What does the rear gunner have to do with forcing over-shoots? The pilot and the rear gunner offer the IL-2 its 360d view (almsot) from side to side and up, it shouldnt be able to look as freely as it does below the aircraft as it can w/ the F3 view. The IL-2 is a flying tank, it is well armored and as such the downside to that should be the reduced capabilty to see all around like a fighter (or a bomber in F3 mode).
Oh, and the IL-2 isn't a level bomber, it is an attack aircraft meant for low level strikes vs armor and static defensive positions.
I know what bombers have the F3 view and the IL-2 not only doesn't need it but it also doesn't deserve it, especially since it is flown like a zeke as you so graciously have pointed out. Perhaps maybe you can tell us why bombers have the F3 capable views? Lets see jsut how informed you really are. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
You're not worth my time.
-
Lets not allow it to get away :uhoh
-
Personally I could care less but i'm curious about the underlying issue. F3 view has no value (IMO) in any type of a fight. While it does have some significant value with regard to SA that will only really prevent a bounce. So is the issue I cant sneak up on someone like I think I should be able to (a valid point possibly) or a feeling that F3 view is somehow an edge in an actual fight (which IMO its not)...
-
Personally I could care less but i'm curious about the underlying issue. F3 view has no value (IMO) in any type of a fight. While it does have some significant value with regard to SA that will only really prevent a bounce. So is the issue I cant sneak up on someone like I think I should be able to (a valid point possibly) or a feeling that F3 view is somehow an edge in an actual fight (which IMO its not)...
Well it is an edge! Imo it is far less work to maintain "far better" SA in F3. Also it is imo "asteroids mode" just turning part of the game into lame shooter category! Not to mention allowing a bomber to have far superior visibilty than any fighter in the game is quite silly. The proof could be in the pudding, IF F3 were dsabled for 1 tour the stats for IL2s and A20s would be dramatically worse "proof of the lameness of F3
Any plane with F6 bombing view should be the only ones with F3 capability IMHO
Oh lets not forget about the twirling, looping D3As in fighter town, all using F3 view lol ! also very lame. Hehe FUN ! but quite pathetic and lame!
Also, please please disable F3 in the DA :aok
-
Well it is an edge, Imo it is far less work to maintain "far better" SA in F3. Also it is imo "asteroids mode" just turning part of the game into lame shooter category! Not to mention allowing a bomber to have far superior visibilty than any fighter in the game is quite silly. The proof could be in the pudding, IF F3 were dsabled for 1 tour the stats for IL2s and A20s would be dramatically worse "proof of the lameness of F
Any plane with F6 bombing view should be the only ones with F3 capability IMHO
Oh lets not forget about the twirling, looping D3As in fighter town, all using F3 view lol ! also very lame. Hehe FUN ! but quite pathetic and lame!
Also, please please disable F3 in the DA :aok
Quite frankly, you gents haven't quite figured out why F3 exists....
Aircraft with multiple crew benefited from their vision. Aircraft like the IL-2 have virtually no rear view. They are easy to kill now, how much more of an advantage do you need? Ditto for the A-20 and Boston.
Any aircraft with no rearward vision and multiple crew should have the F3 option.
Disable bombing from F3? Absolutely.
But, to make pilots who fly those aircraft blind is not a solution at all. It seems to me that we have a substantial number of guys who have been waxed by A-20s and IL-2s and feel they must blame something other than their own ineptitude. If you are in a fighter and can't beat an A-20 or and IL-2... The problem is you, not F3.
My regards,
Widewing
-
hehe this is a cute thread :lol anyone who thinks that f3 makes a il2 or A20 a superior ride is lost in space
i dont fly il2 but i fly A20, probly more then anyone else in this game. and i never dogfight in f3 mode. it is compleatly wothless for dogfighting. a good set of headphones is all you need to let you know wher enemy plane is when you cant see them. i do use it when cruising to scope for targets and to check my 6 but for dogfighting NO . but i totally agree on disabling the bomb release,and firing of guns when in f3 i think that would help :salute
-
I say just disable it for single-engined planes.
-
How about allowing F3 mode only when on autopilot (straight and level or autoclimb) and it turns off if the guns are fired, even if you are on autopilot.
This will mimic a bomber crew without allowing the gamey crap to go on.
-
A very clear line hasn't been established here yet.
Apparently, many people don't get the original purpose of the thread.
What it is NOT about is "uber" IL2's and their incredible dogfighting ability.
What it IS about is arcade whack-a-mole gameplay brought on by some aircraft spawning and being used as fighters that really, in all honesty, have no business being up at that point in time.
NOBODY claimed the IL2 was impossible to bring down, or even difficult for that matter. It's when you get a dozen of them free wheeling around as point defense fighters that it gets to the point of being absolutely ridiculous.
Without the F3 view, this would cease to be an issue- guaranteed.
Maybe it's not the correct fix, but it sure seems like a legitimate gameplay issue is being discounted by people claiming it as a "whine" by "crybabies who suck".
-
It's when you get a dozen of them free wheeling around as point defense fighters that it gets to the point of being absolutely ridiculous.
Many mediocre historic and modern aircraft would (and still do) 'wheel' around in a Luftberry to intice fighters to come join the circle. Even a pack of Vals can be vicious if you play their game...
If you think that is bad, wait until the Beaufighter comes around. I can't wait to see the forums when that happens.
-
A very clear line hasn't been established here yet.
Apparently, many people don't get the original purpose of the thread.
What it is NOT about is "uber" IL2's and their incredible dogfighting ability.
What it IS about is arcade whack-a-mole gameplay brought on by some aircraft spawning and being used as fighters that really, in all honesty, have no business being up at that point in time.
NOBODY claimed the IL2 was impossible to bring down, or even difficult for that matter. It's when you get a dozen of them free wheeling around as point defense fighters that it gets to the point of being absolutely ridiculous.
Without the F3 view, this would cease to be an issue- guaranteed.
Maybe it's not the correct fix, but it sure seems like a legitimate gameplay issue is being discounted by people claiming it as a "whine" by "crybabies who suck".
Um yes this thead and the origanal post was about how people don't know how to attack a plane and get owned by it when they blow their pass. Those who want them disabled pretty much are "whining cry babies who suck" and disabling the F3 wont wont fix you getting shot down by Il2s because last time I looked the big guns fire forward where theres a big windshield they has a great view of exploding tards.
-
Um yes this thead and the origanal post was about how people don't know how to attack a plane and get owned by it when they blow their pass. Those who want them disabled pretty much are "whining cry babies who suck" and disabling the F3 wont wont fix you getting shot down by Il2s because last time I looked the big guns fire forward where theres a big windshield they has a great view of exploding tards.
According to who?
Who said shooting down IL2's was hard? Who complained of being shot down by an IL2?
-
A very clear line hasn't been established here yet.
Apparently, many people don't get the original purpose of the thread.
But it is a whine thread, make no mistake about that.
What it is NOT about is "uber" IL2's and their incredible dogfighting ability.
What it IS about is arcade whack-a-mole gameplay brought on by some aircraft spawning and being used as fighters that really, in all honesty, have no business being up at that point in time.
So, P-38s strafing Spitfires on the runway is less arcade than trying to get airborne in an IL-2? Why do you think they take IL-2s?
1) The fighter hangers are down.
2) IL-2s can survive a vulching pass, Spitfires will not.
If players want to defend their field with the best available option, why deny them that by making them blind to the rear. They weren't blind to the rear in RL, they had a gunner who would report what he was seeing, oh and he would be shooting too. That's something you can't do unless flying level, and who would fly level in that environment? So, those flying the IL-2 are handicapped to some degree. Why not ask for AI operated rear guns if you don't want them to see behind? Yep, an AI death laser in the back of the IL-2 would start a dozen more whine threads. Same thing for A-20s and Bostons. These are actually missing the ventral gun, which would protect their low 6 O'clock. Give them their missing gun and let it aimed and fired by AI.
NOBODY claimed the IL2 was impossible to bring down, or even difficult for that matter. It's when you get a dozen of them free wheeling around as point defense fighters that it gets to the point of being absolutely ridiculous.
Without the F3 view, this would cease to be an issue- guaranteed.
What issue? There's no real issue, is there. That is, other than whining about a dozen IL-2s defending their base. I find that to be an opportunity rather than a problem.
My regards,
Widewing
-
How about allowing F3 mode only when on autopilot (straight and level or autoclimb) and it turns off if the guns are fired, even if you are on autopilot.
This will mimic a bomber crew without allowing the gamey crap to go on.
Actually Del, the bomber crew wouldn't stop reporting enemy location, even if maneuvering. I'm all for restricting bombing from F3 as this is the real negative effect towards the game.
My regards,
Widewing
-
What does the rear gunner have to do with forcing over-shoots? The pilot and the rear gunner offer the IL-2 its 360d view (almsot) from side to side and up, it shouldnt be able to look as freely as it does below the aircraft as it can w/ the F3 view. The IL-2 is a flying tank, it is well armored and as such the downside to that should be the reduced capabilty to see all around like a fighter (or a bomber in F3 mode).
Oh, and the IL-2 isnt a level bomber, it is an attack aircraft meant for low level strikes vs armor and static defensive positions.
I know what bombers have the F3 view and the IL-2 not only doesnt need it but it also doesnt deserve it, especially since it is flown like a zeke as you so graciously have pointed out. Perhaps maybe you can tell us why bombers have the F3 capable views? Lets see jsut how informed you really are. :rolleyes:
Listen ladies, stop referring to the gunner position as one for viewing behind. You cannot maneuver and be in the gunner position at the same time. Thus, F3 simulates the gunner's view and allows the pilot to maneuver the aircraft.
What is so hard about that to understand?
And, why are you guys so terrified by a 270 mph, poor turning lump of steel? No need to answer, I already know.
My regards,
Widewing
-
But it is a whine thread, make no mistake about that.
Funny- I didn't see it as such.
So, P-38s strafing Spitfires on the runway is less arcade than trying to get airborne in an IL-2? Why do you think they take IL-2s?
1) The fighter hangers are down.
2) IL-2s can survive a vulching pass, Spitfires will not.
If players want to defend their field with the best available option, why deny them that by making them blind to the rear. They weren't blind to the rear in RL, they had a gunner who would report what he was seeing, oh and he would be shooting too. That's something you can't do unless flying level, and who would fly level in that environment? So, those flying the IL-2 are handicapped to some degree. Why not ask for AI operated rear guns if you don't want them to see behind? Yep, an AI death laser in the back of the IL-2 would start a dozen more whine threads. Same thing for A-20s and Bostons. These are actually missing the ventral gun, which would protect their low 6 O'clock. Give them their missing gun and let it aimed and fired by AI.
What issue? There's no real issue, is there. That is, other than whining about a dozen IL-2s defending their base. I find that to be an opportunity rather than a problem.
Actually, I believe that IL2's upping by the dozen is EXTREMELY more arcadish then a bunch of Spitfires upping because Spitfires acutally had a history of doing just that in the Battle of Britain. Maybe no Spit XIV or XVI's, but still!
Fact of the matter is, IL2's are being upped as point defense interceptors and being used as such, and in my opinion, that's EXTREMELY arcadey.
I mentioned the rear gunner argument in a previous post. Otto in the back seat would indeed cause nightmares.
For the record, I've *never* been shot down by an Il-2. I have *no* problem shooting down IL-2's.
Call it whatever you want, but in my opinion IL2's jumping up to defend a base, and being used BECAUSE of their F3 ability is right up there with beach storming CV's.
-
According to who?
Who said shooting down IL2's was hard? Who complained of being shot down by an IL2?
Hmm the first post is about how he got killed by an IL2 because he didn't know how to fight it. It may not say it but that's what it was about no doubt about it.
Actually, I believe that IL2's upping by the dozen is EXTREMELY more arcadish then a bunch of Spitfires upping because Spitfires acutally had a history of doing just that in the Battle of Britain. Maybe no Spit XIV or XVI's, but still!
Really? Spitfires upped out of fields being vulching by P38s in the BoB? I must have missed that part.
For the record, I've *never* been shot down by an Il-2. I have *no* problem shooting down IL-2's.
Lie.
Call it whatever you want, but in my opinion IL2's jumping up to defend a base, and being used BECAUSE of their F3 ability is right up there with beach storming CV's.
How do you know that? When I find myself in a dogfight in the Il2 I use the F3 mode only when looking for the enemy but when I get into the dogfight I stay in the canopy so I can use the gunsight to shoot him.
The F3 mode isn't going to change no matter how hard you guys cry about it. Its there to simulate having a whole crew, and until my rear gunner can track, shoot at, and call out enemy planes you're going to have to deal with it. So grab a tissue and dry those tears and play the game how it is or go play IL2. You can make your own server where external views are all disabled and the Il2s with fly level and let them shoot you down. :rolleyes:
-
Negative! Bombers of all types need all the help they can get. I can already shoot down all three bombers of even the best gunner without taking a single hit and its not hard just takes a little patience.
:rofl
-
I asked for F3 view to be removed in full understanding of all the arguments for its availability. If someone disagrees with you, it's not always the result of a character flaw.
-
For the record, I've *never* been shot down by an Il-2. I have *no* problem shooting down IL-2's.
One cannot be shot down by what one never engages. You've shot down a total of three (3) IL-2s in the last year. 3-0 is pretty good. :aok
wrongway
-
Hmm the first post is about how he got killed by an IL2 because he didn't know how to fight it. It may not say it but that's what it was about no doubt about it.
Really? Spitfires upped out of fields being vulching by P38s in the BoB? I must have missed that part.
Lie.
How do you know that? When I find myself in a dogfight in the Il2 I use the F3 mode only when looking for the enemy but when I get into the dogfight I stay in the canopy so I can use the gunsight to shoot him.
The F3 mode isn't going to change no matter how hard you guys cry about it. Its there to simulate having a whole crew, and until my rear gunner can track, shoot at, and call out enemy planes you're going to have to deal with it. So grab a tissue and dry those tears and play the game how it is or go play IL2. You can make your own server where external views are all disabled and the Il2s with fly level and let them shoot you down. :rolleyes:
You're just being inflammatory at this point.
Nobody is that dense.
Surmoviks are NOT spitfires, and should NOT be flown as such- FIN.
One cannot be shot down by what one never engages. You've shot down a total of three (3) IL-2s in the last year. 3-0 is pretty good.
wrongway
Heh. Good point. Any field capture I have been involved in (admiteddly fewer then most, as is shown by my limited online time) that has resulted in IL2's upping like the Spits of yore, I just shake my head, wheel my P47 around and back to where I came from. The few kills I *do* have of IL2's came from them doing, you know, Sturmovik stuff- like killing my buddies in tanks. :)
-
Anax, all of the possible valid reasons you could want for removing F3 view (buffs are death stars, some people use stick-stirry extreme negative G guns defense in Il2s) could be better addressed by examining the buff gunnery setup and the red-out modeling. F3 view IMO is perfectly fair in gunned planes, the only thing I question is why the 110 can not use it. Its simply not logically consistent for it to not be able to.
-
One cannot be shot down by what one never engages. You've shot down a total of three (3) IL-2s in the last year. 3-0 is pretty good. :aok
wrongway
LOL!!! I love it when someone claims greatness and they are quickly and easily put in their place. :lol
The thing with the IL-2 and the F3 view is as much of a defensive issue as it is an offensive issue, imo. Since the IL-2 is so well armored it is tough to be able to see as well say vs a Hurricane IID performing the same mission. The F3 mode isnt going to help the IL-2 in defensive mode as well as it does in offensive mode, it is much easier to keep the bead on the gv for the 2nd or 3rd pass while in F3 view AND it is MUCH easier to find the gv to begin with while in F3 mode.
-
Um yes this thead and the origanal post was about how people don't know how to attack a plane and get owned by it when they blow their pass. Those who want them disabled pretty much are "whining cry babies who suck" and disabling the F3 wont wont fix you getting shot down by Il2s because last time I looked the big guns fire forward where theres a big windshield they has a great view of exploding tards.
Disagree all you want, but state facts and reasons and back it up. You dont have to be so rude and crude. Calling someone a cry baby or a whiner because they are looking for HTC to back up their "realism" claim is hardly whining. You are reading far too deep in to why some of us believe the F3 view in the IL-2 (and other single engine aricraft) should be disabled.
-
Sturmoviks are NOT spitfires, and should NOT be flown as such- FIN.
They often did have to defend themselves by maneuvering on the Eastern front...if something is modeled wrong that lets them maneuver more effectively than they should, fix THAT.
-
it is much easier to keep the bead on the gv for the 2nd or 3rd pass while in F3 view AND it is MUCH easier to find the gv to begin with while in F3 mode.
Heres another example...you might have a valid argument if you said the new Il2's guns are perhaps a little deadly against tanks for an unperked vehicle. You might even have an argument if you said something ought to be done with the icons to make GVs harder to spot, although I would disagree vehemently for reasons of logical consistency. But handi-capping the views of planes that historically had multiple sets of eyes looking in multiple directions ain't a fair answer, and it ain't an effective answer.
-
I say just disable it for single-engined planes.
So you're vouching that unless a bomber has multiple turrets and/or gun points AND 2 engines or more, it shouldnt have F3 view?
Hmm... I was going to lean in the direction of "F3 view for level bombers only".
I'm now starting to narrow my opinion of what planes should have F3 view more and more. I'm beginning to think that only the aircraft with 3 or more turrets and/or defensive gun points, regardless of the number of engines, should be able to afforded the F3 view. Here is why:
What gives a plane the ability to look in all directions in almost a simultaneous fashion? Multiple set of eyes in multiple defensive positions and levels on an aircraft. An IL-2, B5N, Bf110, A20 (the A20 is debatable since it was reported to have a low-rear gun point but yet it isnt modeled in AH2), SBD, D3A, Stuka, Boston, B25C, etc, and the rest of the aircraft with only a single rear gunner are NOT going to see below them (unless the planes banks) or in all directions at once like the F3 mode provides. From the pilots position and from the rear gunner position and the view that those 2 positions afford should be all that those aircraft are allowed, imo. For a bomber like the B17, B24, Lancaster, B26, etc, when an enemy aircraft approaches at minimum there are at least 2 sets of eyes from any level and sometimes 3 sets.
If the "no F3 view for single engine planes" view is taken, then the TBM is left behind and it had a high and low rear gunner.
My thoughts. :)
-
Heres another example...you might have a valid argument if you said the new Il2's guns are perhaps a little deadly against tanks for an unperked vehicle. You might even have an argument if you said something ought to be done with the icons to make GVs harder to spot, although I would disagree vehemently for reasons of logical consistency. But handi-capping the views of planes that historically had multiple sets of eyes looking in multiple directions ain't a fair answer, and it ain't an effective answer.
Good point, but one has to wonder just how effective the rear gunner was in an IL-2 in getting the pilot vectored onto a target when the rear gunner had a worse view of the killing field (vs gv's) than the pilot did, especially since there was no low rear view. The rear gunner in an IL-2 couldnt even stick his head out, at least according to the AH2 model, and take a look directly down and to the side. I'm not doubting that the rear gunner in an IL-2 had some usefulness in assessing damage, assessing AA fire, defense vs incoming enemy aircraft, etc, but spotting enemy gv's that the pilot already didnt see is debatable.
On the issue of the IL-2 37mm guns or gv icons, I dont have an issue with either. I cant really comment on the historical effectiveness of the IL-2's 37mm guns vs enemy tanks, I'll leave that for the stat pullers and those who are more versed in that aspect of the war (maybe the IL-2/37mm did have a extremely high success rate vs German armor???). As for the icon range, I wouldnt wimper a bit if the icon range for enemy gv's were reduced to 1.0, but the fact remains that planes with the F3 view can spot enemy gv's easier/quicker vs those without and when and IL-2 can fly directly over a gv that it may not otherwise see but only due to the F3 view that affords it a direct low view that it would otherwise not have both in the real deal and in the F3 mode... it is being given an advantage that it wouldnt nornally have.
btw... I'll be the first to step up and say that the "auto-auto pilot" when going into the rear gunner mode would need to be adjusted or removed if these changes are made. While in a sharp turn in a Boston, to hop from the pilot to the rear gunner in hopes to get a shot off on the pursuing plane only to have it level off and hide the enemy plane behind the tail is... annoying. Either have it adjusted so the recovery time to level flight is greatly lengthened or disable it altogether.
-
Phew! Buff pilots can never catch a break. Ok so you want to remove my F3 view? No problem. I want Auto-Gunners to counter the loss of my SA, and I KNOW you'll love that.
Now lets clear up some myths. Gunning from F3 view. If you can gun from F3 view and actually hit things on a regular basis, then you are the uber gunner. And don't say you center the mouse cursor on the screen and then hit F3 as the whole plane would be in your way when you fired, and moving the view around would throw the arc off.
There are many times, even with F3 view, that I get caught off guard in buffs simply because I'm focusing on to much stuff like whats my speed, whats my heading, am I high enough to clear the ack, etc etc etc. Most of our bombers have crews of 3+ men and at least one of them is looking to the rear, so at the least bombers have a 360° field of view on the horizon and a 90° view above them.
Now about F3 view giving IL-2s an unfair advantage vs GVs. If you're a true GV hunter you don't use F3 view to find your targets, you use sound. I fly over an area where I suspect GVs might be approaching from and kill my engine. If I hear something I check it out, if there is no friendly icon where I hear the sound then I know an enemy GV is there and to begin hunting. Now F3 view does help me zone in on the GV, but most of the time I already know it's there by the sound, or because the guy starts shooting at me from 6k out.
Removing F3 view from buffs would only serve to make them even weaker than they are now. If you're dying to IL-2's or buffs in general then it's not a problem with the bombers, its a problem with your tactics. Bombers can only fly defensively. Almost every fighter in AH can catch our prop driven buffs, even the full power B17's flying at 25k. This means that buff pilots are at the mercy of fighters and have to rely on them making mistakes, one of which is NOT taking the time to setup for an attack and coming in dead six. I get the idea from suggestions like this that alot of pilots are just to lazy to do anything and just want silver platter kills.
Sorry for the rambling rant...I just had to vent.
-
btw... I'll be the first to step up and say that the "auto-auto pilot" when going into the rear gunner mode would need to be adjusted or removed if these changes are made. While in a sharp turn in a Boston, to hop from the pilot to the rear gunner in hopes to get a shot off on the pursuing plane only to have it level off and hide the enemy plane behind the tail is... annoying. Either have it adjusted so the recovery time to level flight is greatly lengthened or disable it altogether.
Why man the rear guns in a Boston? That thing will hold it's own with fighters. Trim out the high-speed control heaviness and you can brawl with almost anything. Inasmuch as the average MA pilot isn't very good 1v1, a good stick in a Boston will tear up most MA adversaries.
Batfink and I flew a bunch of duels, Boston vs Mossie. Mossie is faster, accelerates and climbs better (until WEP is gone), but the Boston turns considerably better and holds E better in hard maneuvering. It's a great match up. Don't man the rear pop guns, break into the enemy. Force a merge and suck him into a maneuver fight. Use its E retention, use flaps carefully. Fight in the vertical if you have the speed going in. Even if you're flying a formation of Bostons, maneuver fight the beastie. You'll lose the drones anyway.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Phew! Buff pilots can never catch a break. Ok so you want to remove my F3 view? No problem. I want Auto-Gunners to counter the loss of my SA, and I KNOW you'll love that.
Now lets clear up some myths. Gunning from F3 view. If you can gun from F3 view and actually hit things on a regular basis, then you are the uber gunner. And don't say you center the mouse cursor on the screen and then hit F3 as the whole plane would be in your way when you fired, and moving the view around would throw the arc off.
There are many times, even with F3 view, that I get caught off guard in buffs simply because I'm focusing on to much stuff like whats my speed, whats my heading, am I high enough to clear the ack, etc etc etc. Most of our bombers have crews of 3+ men and at least one of them is looking to the rear, so at the least bombers have a 360° field of view on the horizon and a 90° view above them.
Now about F3 view giving IL-2s an unfair advantage vs GVs. If you're a true GV hunter you don't use F3 view to find your targets, you use sound. I fly over an area where I suspect GVs might be approaching from and kill my engine. If I hear something I check it out, if there is no friendly icon where I hear the sound then I know an enemy GV is there and to begin hunting. Now F3 view does help me zone in on the GV, but most of the time I already know it's there by the sound, or because the guy starts shooting at me from 6k out.
Removing F3 view from buffs would only serve to make them even weaker than they are now. If you're dying to IL-2's or buffs in general then it's not a problem with the bombers, its a problem with your tactics. Bombers can only fly defensively. Almost every fighter in AH can catch our prop driven buffs, even the full power B17's flying at 25k. This means that buff pilots are at the mercy of fighters and have to rely on them making mistakes, one of which is NOT taking the time to setup for an attack and coming in dead six. I get the idea from suggestions like this that alot of pilots are just to lazy to do anything and just want silver platter kills.
Sorry for the rambling rant...I just had to vent.
You're trying to vouch to let the IL-2 be able to keep it's F3 view because a "true gv hunter will use SOUND"??? I just want to make sure of what you're saying... SOUND? The Soviet IL-2 pilots in WWII shut their engines off and listened for German armor while flying over top? Is that a true GV hunter? Someone else help confirm that I am interpreting what he said correctly... seriously.
Again... the point is the IL-2 didnt have the 360d view like those aircraft with the multi turreted aircraft. The IL-2 should have 2 views: pilot and rear gunner. Someone explain how the IL-2, 110, stuka, etc should be able to see beneath it regardless of the angle of attack/flight.
Regarding the Boston vs fighters: Oh, believe me I do my best to get turned around in the Boston and maneuver vs fighters. I've caught more than one fighter in a turn. The quad .303 British MG's in the nose dont do too bad if you can keep them on target long enough. But still, if I am in a flight of Bostons I will first try and out run those fighters if conditions permit (the Bostons do roughly 320mph at 12k alt), but if they catch me I'll hop into the far Boston from where the enemy is approaching from and usually can get some pings on him to make him think twice about an easy kill. Once he is upon me I'll jink and swap planes in the rear gunner and usually get some dmg delivered before he takes out 1 or both of my drones, THEN it is 1v1 time in a maneuvering Boston. :)
-
Disagree all you want, but state facts and reasons and back it up. You dont have to be so rude and crude. Calling someone a cry baby or a whiner because they are looking for HTC to back up their "realism" claim is hardly whining. You are reading far too deep in to why some of us believe the F3 view in the IL-2 (and other single engine aricraft) should be disabled.
Because you got shot down by one, or couldn't shoot one down because your incompetence and know you want something changed because you want everyone to play your way. HTC (HT, Skuzzy, pyro) has said why bombers and attack aircraft have external views and its not anyone elses fault if your to slow or dense to do a search and read why. So keep crying and whining here because it isn't going to change anything.
-
What if.... instead of the standard rear-view on aircraft like the Il-2, A-20, SBD, etc., looking to your 6 o'clock gave you the gunner's view, but with the ability to still control the aircraft? I can already think of a super-easy way to code this: allow the point-of-view to move extra far to the rear, just as we adjust our views now. It would give the pilot the SA he should have with a gunner's view, but not the God's eye view of F3.
I'm curious to know why no one has commented on this idea. Is it that bad? Giving the pilot the same view as the gunner when he uses the rear-view would seem to offer all of the SA that he should have plus the ability to control the aircraft (no autopilot), without the God's eye view of F3.
Extending the seat position range could be applied to all bombers. Those with a ventral gunner could have the "0" view looking through the floor. Anything with a dorsal gunner could look up without obstruction. Aircraft with tail gunners could have the gunners view with keypad "2" and "2+5," but retaining the ability to maneuver the aircraft.
As for auto gunners, tankers who have complained about Il-2s have been told in no uncertain terms to stop complaining and bring a friend in a Wirbel or Ostwind, i.e. use teamwork. Bomber pilots are also at liberty to bring a friend who can help gun and call out bandits. In fact, I've done this with a friend numerous times and it can be a lot of fun. :)
-
See Rule #4
-
HT/Pyro has given the F3 view (or its equivalent) to all bombers since their earliest versions of Warbirds. Back then you had auto-gunners that could target multiple bandits with good accuracy, and they still gave you the God's eye view...but you could not occupy the gun position yourself, so the God's eye view was the only way to see the action.
That is the origin of the F3 view. It was included in their earlier sim when you could not view outside the aircraft from the gunner positions, and it has been retained despite all the new innovations with the same explanation that they used in 1995.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
I have yet to see one dropping eggs.It is always as a ground strafing machine-I like the idea of the rear gunner view like the 110 or tbd-You can protect yourself with the rear gun-I have even shot down planes with rear gun.I have found for bombers it is best to have a escort.
-
It's already been said,disallow firing of guns and ords from F3.
:noid
-
As far as the "bomber"' classification goes... ever think it is classified incorrectly, it did go through a series of changes (from 6 to 4 bombs and less bomb options, addition of 37mm guns, remodel, etc)? If you or anyone else thinks the IL-2 should have the F3 view simply for having a "bomber" classification when there are other planes that do exactly as it does (dive bomb [no level bomb sight], attack gv's, has rear gunner, etc), how consistant is that? Classify based on a single set of parameters and apply it to all. Matter of fact, Larry, please tell me and ther others as to how the IL-2 is different, in performance, to the 110, Mossie, A20, or any other dive bomber/attack plane. Seriously. Back up your statements.
You mean besides being slower and less agile? There's a lot of room for interpretation in your request. But here is a stab . . .
Not sure why you think a bomber classificiation is inaccurate for the IL-2. It was always supposed to be a ground-target strike aircraft, which is generally what a bomber does. It's classification as a bomber is therefore completely accurate.
The A-20 was always a light bomber as well. It was designed to be used as a light bomber, was employed as a light bomber, and evolved from a more or less level-bomb role (as our Bostons do) to a very effective strafer attack platform.
The 110, by comparison, was a "heavy fighter", was always considered a fighter, and, although occasionally employed in an attack role, retained it's fighter status by becoming primarily a night-fighter/interceptor.
You want one that is mis-classified, it would be the Mossie. It was designed to be an unarmed, but fast-thus-uninterceptable light bomber. I can only assume it gets its fighter classification because the version HTC decided to give us is the night-fighter/interceptor version, as evidenced by the slower speed due to the exhaust covers (do a search and see the complaints); or perhaps because it didn't have a rear-facing gun position, as the more "traditional" bombers do. Thus an F3 view for the Mossie would not be logical in any event, and since F3 view is likely tied to that "bomber" button, the Fighter classification is understandable even if not entirely consistent.
These f3-enabled planes are already at a large disadvantage vs. true fighters. F3 view slightly levels the playing field, but they are still very disadvantaged. F3 is a modest concession to prevent the disadvantage already experienced by these planes from becoming catastrophic. I suppose the true goal of the complaint is to relegate them to hanger-queen status, but I don't see how that would be good for the game.
-
I like the, (If it has F6 bombsite) then it can have F3 view--> Otherwise, NO :aok This would work nicely
-
These f3-enabled planes are already at a large disadvantage vs. true fighters. F3 view slightly levels the playing field, but they are still very disadvantaged. F3 is a modest concession to prevent the disadvantage already experienced by these planes from becoming catastrophic. I suppose the true goal of the complaint is to relegate them to hanger-queen status, but I don't see how that would be good for the game.
:rofl :rofl Why on earth is leveling the playing field tween these planes so importent? It wasn't level in R/L I bet the IL2 pilots in russia would have been in favor of better visibility while the Blond Knight was around :aok But I don't believe Russia had quite developed F3 mode yet!! Maybe they have it now :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The russian IL2 drivers rarely altered course even when under attack, as most hvys of the day relied on their defensive armament to protect them, Not flailing about like wounded carp. F3 really is for gay twittleberries!
If you want a level playng field up a fighter!!---> easy as that!
-
:rofl :rofl Why on earth is leveling the playing field tween these planes so importent? It wasn't level in R/L I bet the IL2 pilots in russia would have been in favor of better visibility while the Blond Knight was around :aok But I don't believe Russia had quite developed F3 mode yet!! Maybe they have it now :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yes, I wasn't clear, thanks for pointing it out.
As has been stated by many in this thread already, the planes in question had crew members to mitigate the rearward near-blindness experienced by the pilot. The F3 view is a modest concession to attempt to compensate. Is it better than what the pilots had in real life? Sure. But the alternative is to make it worse for these aircraft than it was in real life.
Given the two options (better SA than actual or worse SA than actual), and given the already-disadvantaged status of these aircraft due to raw performance, erring on the side of better SA is the better option IMO. Others would prefer to take an already disadvantaged plane and handicap it further. I see no benefit in doing that.
-
Yes, I wasn't clear, thanks for pointing it out.
As has been stated by many in this thread already, the planes in question had crew members to mitigate the rearward near-blindness experienced by the pilot. The F3 view is a modest concession to attempt to compensate. Is it better than what the pilots had in real life? Sure. But the alternative is to make it worse for these aircraft than it was in real life.
I disagree that the alternative is to make it worse than it was in real life. See my proposal above and let me know your opinion. Thanks!
-
I know, how bout we put the DB605A in the zeke! This would level the playing field a bit :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Oh and please take more of my earned money and give it to those who don't work, just to level the playing field :aok
Things are NOT level and fair for a reason!!
-
This is a sim. If the aircraft didnt have it in the read deal then why allow it to have it for the AH2 sim ESPECIALLY is accuracy is the name of the game? The IL-2 and a few other aircraft are being graced with a luxury they did not have in WWII.
Regarding classification of the IL-2: the "bombing" part can be divided up 2 ways. Level bombing and dive bombing. The IL-2 does nothing different than the Mossie, Bf110, D3A, SBD, etc. It needs to dive in order to attack. It is a direct fire attack aircraft, it doesnt level bomb from afar. Debate all one wants, but the IL-2 is not a level bomber. The IL-2 is an attack aircraft in the most purest form. One could debate the A20 is such as well since it is a "nose on target" aircraft too.
-
This is a sim. If the aircraft didnt have it in the read deal then why allow it to have it for the AH2 sim ESPECIALLY is accuracy is the name of the game? The IL-2 and a few other aircraft are being graced with a luxury they did not have in WWII.
Regarding classification of the IL-2: the "bombing" part can be divided up 2 ways. Level bombing and dive bombing. The IL-2 does nothing different than the Mossie, Bf110, D3A, SBD, etc. It needs to dive in order to attack. It is a direct fire attack aircraft, it doesnt level bomb from afar. Debate all one wants, but the IL-2 is not a level bomber. The IL-2 is an attack aircraft in the most purest form. One could debate the A20 is such as well since it is a "nose on target" aircraft too.
:rolleyes:
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Even in the case of a TBM or JU-88, the rear view of the top and bottom gunners are very different. Your system would force them to choose one or the other as their default rearward view, thus (again) restricting their view beyond what the crews would have experienced.
0 or 0+2 for ventral view, 2 or 5+2 for dorsal/rear gunner view?
But at least you are attempting to offer alternatives rather than straight whining about it, which is rather refreshing.
Well, thank you for noticing! I'm doing my best to stay on topic and ignore the distractions. :salute
-
See Rule #4
-
It would be nice if, at least for planes like the Il2, they disabled the rear view (tbh I don't think the cockpit views are that bad, but I have TrackIR so it's easier to work around, though I can't go straight to 'perfect positions'...), and they enabled some kind of automatic warning to account for the tail gunner.
This could be added to be kind of like a radar system, which could then be implemented on night fighters, which would rock :aok
Though I have to say I doubt it would happen...
It would be awesome to around in a 110G in pitch blackness, shooting down Lancasters with my Schraege Muzik :devil
-
Okay guys, does anyone have any idea how many threads have been devoted to F3 external view since the Aces High Beta?
Hundreds.
Does anyone know how many of these asked for it to be turned off for various aircraft?
Most of them.
Does anyone know what percentage of these threads HTC has ignored because they have repeatedly explained why F3 exists?
100%.
There have been many ideas articulated over the years (not yours shreck, I doubt that you could clearly articulate a fart). None have been able to come up with an alternative that doesn't negatively impact bombers and 2 and 3 man attack aircraft. Thus, you can rest assured that F3 external view will continue.
My regards,
Widewing
-
See Rule #4
-
Does anyone know what percentage of these threads HTC has ignored because they have repeatedly explained why F3 exists?
Widewing
Then PLEASE either link those threads (I did the multitudes of searches and found nada) OR go ahead and recite what you can about what and why HTC and Co. decided to give the IL-2 the ability to have F3 and the ability to be scored as a bomber when it is an attack aircraft in the purest of forms???
SHOW US THE MONEY! :aok
Ya know... a quick post by HTC himself, Pyro, Skuzzy or anyone from the AH2 inner circle would at least give reasoning for their applications. If these things keep coming up time and time again, then maybe it is time for a "This is why" in a Read Me file somewhere. I'll volunteer to write it up and keep it updated.
-
Ya know... a quick post by HTC himself, Pyro, Skuzzy or anyone from the AH2 inner circle would at least give reasoning for their applications. If these things keep coming up time and time again, then maybe it is time for a "This is why" in a Read Me file somewhere. I'll volunteer to write it up and keep it updated.
Smokinloon, widewing has accurately presented HTC's reasons for enabling F3 view on bomber/attack aircraft: that it makes up for the SA and visibility provided by a gunner or crew of gunners.
I find those reasons unconvincing because they are (probably verbatim) the same reasons they gave in the mid '90s for a sim that had a viewing system with very limited capabilities in comparison to what we have now. With Aces High's architecture, HTC could implement a viewing system for bomber/attack aircraft with a point-of-view from the gunner's position and the ability to control the aircraft, as I have outlined above. I believe it would create a greater sense of immersion, more historical tactics, and less skepticism about game mechanics in the typical subscriber.
The current viewing system is good, but it's very possible it leaves room for improvement. At a minimum, I think we all agree that bombing from F3 should not be possible, nor should you be able to fire guns from the external view. So, even if many of you disagree with me on other points, the common ground on those two issues is so solid there's no reason not to collectively ask for action.
Thank you for considering my opinion. :)
-
The current viewing system is good, but it's very possible it leaves room for improvement.
It's not "very possible". It's absolutely true. Everything in this game (and any game) has room for improvement. But especially in a game such as this where many game functions have been unchanged for 9 (!) years. Of course there is room for improvement. Now, where that improvement is and when it will arrive, I have no idea.
-
Here is how I see it...
The primary problem with the formation buffs is that in game they are given a perfectly steady gun platform from which to fire as opposed to what the fighter pilot aiming firing forward has to deal with, multiple gunner positions to focus on a spot, and oh yeah, unlike any other aircraft or vehicle in the game, they get two spares. (Be nice to have two AI wingmen I could call in to clear my six whenever, or send into the ack for me, etc. :devil) In any case, nothing to do with F3 IMO.
The primary problem people are having with the attack planes is that they are not absolutely helpless, and people who do NOT treat every Il2, A-20, etc, they come across like it *might* be flown by Batfink or Widewing. Thus they screw up and get shot down. If there is anything gamey that tends to get done with these planes alot, it might be some iffy Neg G defense, but 1. Fighters can also do the "porpoise" and 2. This issue is better addressed via modifications to the red-out model. Again, IMO nothing that is really traceable to F3.
-
Yes, I don't see what bomb bay doors has to do with the issue, though I see room for reasonable disagreement over which planes should have F3 view. If I were to prefer a compromise, I like Rebel's idea the best. Keep F3 view for the 4 engine heavies, but disable it for the rest.
What about the B-25C? With only 1 gun turret (IIRC), it would be completely screwed more than it is already if a fighter comes across it.
A balance needs to be reached between realism and playability. IMO removing F3 view from any bomber would tip this balance too far in favour of realism.
-
Here is how I see it...
The primary problem with the formation buffs is that in game they are given a perfectly steady gun platform from which to fire as opposed to what the fighter pilot aiming firing forward has to deal with, multiple gunner positions to focus on a spot, and oh yeah, unlike any other aircraft or vehicle in the game, they get two spares. (Be nice to have two AI wingmen I could call in to clear my six whenever, or send into the ack for me, etc. :devil) In any case, nothing to do with F3 IMO.
The primary problem people are having with the attack planes is that they are not absolutely helpless, and people who do NOT treat every Il2, A-20, etc, they come across like it *might* be flown by Batfink or Widewing. Thus they screw up and get shot down. If there is anything gamey that tends to get done with these planes alot, it might be some iffy Neg G defense, but 1. Fighters can also do the "porpoise" and 2. This issue is better addressed via modifications to the red-out model. Again, IMO nothing that is really traceable to F3.
Great point. That is about half of a this controversial subject right there: The IL-2 and A20 are not flown like traditional bombers, they are flown as if they were Mossie's or 110's wich is hardly tipping the scales in favor of the enemy fighters. Besides, neither should really be flown without some sort of fighter cover/support so if one takes either of those up without support they are rolling the dice and taking the gamble.
So here we have it: #1: Those aircraft didnt have those views to begin with (360d view with an emphisis placed on *below* the aircraft) and #2: they are not completely helpless as they are highly menouverable for their size and/or role). Another arguement is that the application of the F3 view is highly inconsistant. If the IL-2 is graced, then why not the bf110 or even the Mossie. Both had rear gunners or a second set of eyes able to watch the rear at all times. Inconsistant.
And as far as the lack of remedies for the current application of F3, I repectfully disagree. If a plane doesnt have 2 or more defensive gunners (that could be top/front, top-rear/low rear, etc. Any combo of 2), then it doesnt get F3 capability. That is a legit and sound parameter that can be applied universally. Besides, there is no reason an aircraft as menouverable as the IL-2 needs it. Few will disagree that the IL-2 is highly menouverable and can go toe to toe in a up close turn fight with most fighters.
-
Don't forget that F3 also has offensive uses in attack aircraft: it is nearly impossible to hide a tank from an Il-2 or A-20, because not only do you have an icon over your head, but they also have the God's eye view to visually inspect 360 degrees around them in a matter of a second.
-
Besides, there is no reason an aircraft as menouverable as the IL-2 needs it. Few will disagree that the IL-2 is highly menouverable and can go toe to toe in a up close turn fight with most fighters.
What about the fact that you absolutely cannot see anything behind you in an Il2?
Il2 "highly maneuverable"? :rofl The best you can say about the Il2's maneuver capacity is that it has a tighter turn radius than some high-wing loaded fighters. Which none-the-less will easily E fight the Il2 to death, if we were talking about fights occurring between two individuals in a vacuum. What lets the Il2 somewhat survive under hostile fighters is that it is hard to kill with one firing pass and fighters simply do not want to spend the time and E to mess around with a dodging Il2 on the deck when there are actual enemy fighters in the air, upping, or potentially coming from one base over.
-
Don't forget that F3 also has offensive uses in attack aircraft: it is nearly impossible to hide a tank from an Il-2 or A-20, because not only do you have an icon over your head, but they also have the God's eye view to visually inspect 360 degrees around them in a matter of a second.
Remember that the aircraft obscures your view when in F3 mode to some degree. GVs are as easily found in a fighter as in an IL-2 or A-20. Simply bank over and gently spiral down until within icon range. What I prefer about the A-20 is its load of eight 500 lb bombs, as opposed to 1, 2 or 3 (P-47s) on fighters. Moreover, what is significantly different about the B-25H? Less maneuverable, but the same general criteria applies.
My regards,
Widewing
-
................................or a second set of eyes able to watch the rear at all times.
Valid point for the Me110, Mossie and A20G............
Note that these are basically attack ac in their primary roles
other (primary role) attack ac
IL2m3, Ju87, Val, SBD...........
I continue to feel that a pure attack class with a different set of F3/F6/Formation rules would resolve inconsistancies in this area.
-
What about the fact that you absolutely cannot see anything behind you in an Il2?
Il2 "highly maneuverable"? :rofl The best you can say about the Il2's maneuver capacity is that it has a tighter turn radius than some high-wing loaded fighters. Which none-the-less will easily E fight the Il2 to death, if we were talking about fights occurring between two individuals in a vacuum. What lets the Il2 somewhat survive under hostile fighters is that it is hard to kill with one firing pass and fighters simply do not want to spend the time and E to mess around with a dodging Il2 on the deck when there are actual enemy fighters in the air, upping, or potentially coming from one base over.
The fact that the pilot can barely see out the rear window is the downside of being so well armored. That is the design of the aircraft. As it is, the IL-2 is far more armored at least around the pilot as compared to the Bf110, Mossie, all fighters, AND has the far superior 360d F3 view. The IL-2 doesnt need F3 to find gv's.
I may have mistated my point about the IL-2 being maneuverable, but you did hit the nail on the head. It can turn quite tight at all speeds, but if the attack enemy fighter is paying attention he can simple accel, climb, and out "E" the IL-2 to death. No arguement from me. The point is that the IL-2 not helpless vs fighters defensively, it can jink and perform some funky menouvers just as well as a fighter.
-
Valid point for the Me110, Mossie and A20G............
Note that these are basically attack ac in their primary roles
other (primary role) attack ac
IL2m3, Ju87, Val, SBD...........
I continue to feel that a pure attack class with a different set of F3/F6/Formation rules would resolve inconsistancies in this area.
The difference is; the Bf 110 and Mossie are primarily fighters, and have adequate view to the rear. Their roles (in the incarnations seen in AH2) are as fighters. Certainly both offer better rear views than the F6F and P-39s. Attack is a secondary role for fighters.
Attack aircraft are certainly different, and their primary mission is not air to air combat. Look at the B-25s. You can select the H or a C model with solid nose. You can take a glass nosed B-25C or a Boston. How could your hope to differentiate between those when it comes to F3? Both are effective in ground attack.
What I do not yet understand is; what is driving this crusade? Who cares if an SBD or IL-2 pilot can use F3? They are still extremely vulnerable aircraft, lacking speed and vertical performance. This entire discussion resembles the whines about handicapped parking spaces.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Then PLEASE either link those threads (I did the multitudes of searches and found nada) OR go ahead and recite what you can about what and why HTC and Co. decided to give the IL-2 the ability to have F3 and the ability to be scored as a bomber when it is an attack aircraft in the purest of forms???
You keep saying this. Do you not understand that the attack role is a bomber role? That you can sometimes use fighter aircraft in a bomber role (all you jug fans) and vice versa (all you P-38 fans ;)) does not erase the fact that aircraft specifically designed to hit ground targets (as the IL-2 was) are employing a bomber function.
-
i think any plane with fixed forward firing guns should have a "fighter" option,and f3 disabled when flying it when in "fighter" mode :pray :pray :pray
-
The difference is; the Bf 110 and Mossie are primarily fighters, and have adequate view to the rear. Their roles (in the incarnations seen in AH2) are as fighters. Certainly both offer better rear views than the F6F and P-39s. Attack is a secondary role for fighters.
Attack aircraft are certainly different, and their primary mission is not air to air combat. Look at the B-25s. You can select the H or a C model with solid nose. You can take a glass nosed B-25C or a Boston. How could your hope to differentiate between those when it comes to F3? Both are effective in ground attack.
What I do not yet understand is; what is driving this crusade? Who cares if an SBD or IL-2 pilot can use F3? They are still extremely vulnerable aircraft, lacking speed and vertical performance. This entire discussion resembles the whines about handicapped parking spaces.
My regards,
Widewing
The Mossie and Bf110x serve more time against other aircraft than they do vs ground targets??? I am not sure of the ratio but I am willing to bet that the number of times that a Bf110 and a Mossie are taken into the air as an air to ground attack vs an air to air fighter is at minimum 10 to 1 in favor of attack role. They serve far more to level buildings/OBJ or take out gv's than they do to take out enemy aircraft.
Again... it seems to me Windwing that the view you're taking is to bend the perameters per individual planes vs having a set of guidlines applied universally based on commonality without regard to aircraft performance. If the aircaft didnt have the ability to view below via a turret or low-rear gunner in the real deal then why does it receive that luxury in this sim? That is what "active/defensive piloting", wingmen, and escorts are for.
I have yet to hear WHY the IL-2 is different than the other aircraft that have the rear gunner and no F3 view other than A> It was classified as a bomber from the onset (imo, is as incorrect as it is inconsistant), B> the pilot really cant see to the rear worth a hoot (bad rear view = very good pilot protection), and C> change/updating is bad. Really, those three are it.
This isnt my crusade, I've just jumped on the badwagon. I've always wondered as to why the IL-2 received a choice to score as a bomber/attack vs fighter/attack. By definition, at least according to the RAF, a "bombing mission" is for area effect and a "strike mission" (see AH2 "attack") is for specific target engagement. I'd be willing to bet the IL-2 performed as it was deisgned: vs gv's and static defenses (direct attack) and not as a level carpet bomber (no level bombsight). I guess I can ask the same question to you: Why are you defending it so dearly? Do you not agree that it is no different in how it performs vs true bombers and vs other ground attack aircraft (actually, it has advantages in armor and firepower vs other attack aircarft)? Just curious. :)
-
You keep saying this. Do you not understand that the attack role is a bomber role? That you can sometimes use fighter aircraft in a bomber role (all you jug fans) and vice versa (all you P-38 fans ;)) does not erase the fact that aircraft specifically designed to hit ground targets (as the IL-2 was) are employing a bomber function.
I meant for the ending part of my previous thread for you: regarding the bomber/attack/fighter roles. I'll state them here again. According to RAF doctrine (yeah, the IL-2 is a Soviet plane but the practice is universal), the term "bombing mission" was defined as an "area effect" while "strike missions" (the AH2 attack role) were meant for target specific with precision in mind. I believe that it is safe to say that the IL-2 didnt fly over spawling industrial complexes and carpet bomb in level fashion. ;) The IL-2 went after individual gv's and static defensive positions.
The A20 and the IL-2 are the only aircraft that are afforded the ability to be scored bomber or attack and not have a level bomb sight. Which, I may add that the ability to score as a "bomber" should have no bearing on an aircrafts ability to use the F3 view. If HTC really thinks the IL-2 is a level bomber then so be it, but that aircraft in WWII did not have the ability to see below it as it does in AH2 via the F3 view. It didnt fly in true and unbreakable bombing formations like the B17's, etc, and it was able to menouver defensively so the need for it to have the F3 view is moot. But... HTC gave it that capability so long ago and it shall probably stick for who knows what reason. *shrugs*
Myself and others have made our points time and time again... and imo very well thought out arguements have been made to modify the use of the F3 view in AH2 (especially in the case of the IL-2). Not only are there inconsistancies in the application of the F3 ability, the reasoning at least thus far as been unsatisfying as to why it is the way it is, at least for me.
**washes hands and walks away**
-
Why are you defending it so dearly? Do you not agree that it is no different in how it performs vs true bombers and vs other ground attack aircraft (actually, it has advantages in armor and firepower vs other attack aircarft)? Just curious. :)
Why? Simple. You are asking a portion of the game population to take a hit to their game play simply because you don't like F3 in certain aircraft. You guys are simply being selfish, "I want it my way!"
Having an opinion does not equate to being right. Indeed, I have yet to see an argument that supports the contentions voiced. Clearly, you haven't figured out that the IL-2 was classified as a light bomber by the Soviets and later by the western Allies. The US Army divided its classes as Heavy Bombers, Medium Bombers and Light/Attack Bombers. All were still classified as "bombers" and still are. Today the USAF defines the A-20 as the "A-20 attack bomber". Note the term "bomber". Clearly, you don't understand what a bomber is. The USAAF defined a "bomber" as any aircraft whose "primary purpose is to place bombs or other ordnance on the enemy's war making assets" (General H. Arnold, June 1943). You seem to want to define an entire new class of WWII aircraft because it fits your opinion. The reality is, there is no such thing as a "true bomber". If the goal is to stick to historical precedent, level bomb sights are not a basis for classification as a bomber. The definition provided by the USAAF should be sufficient for classification.
To cut to the chase, your argument is without merit because your classification is flawed.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The Mossie and Bf110x serve more time against other aircraft than they do vs ground targets??? I am not sure of the ratio but I am willing to bet that the number of times that a Bf110 and a Mossie are taken into the air as an air to ground attack vs an air to air fighter is at minimum 10 to 1 in favor of attack role. They serve far more to level buildings/OBJ or take out gv's than they do to take out enemy aircraft.
I doubt it is 10 to 1. Maybe for the Bf110 due to the Bf110G-2's use in low alt sneak raids, but when I was playing I certainly saw quite a few in the air-to-air role. While I may have taken bombs or rockets on my Mossie on occasion, the vast majority of the time I lifted it for pure air-to-air and I saw quite a few other Mossies used that way as well.
-
The difference is; the Bf 110 and Mossie are primarily fighters, and have adequate view to the rear. Their roles (in the incarnations seen in AH2) are as fighters. Certainly both offer better rear views than the F6F and P-39s. Attack is a secondary role for fighters.
Attack aircraft are certainly different, and their primary mission is not air to air combat. Look at the B-25s. You can select the H or a C model with solid nose. You can take a glass nosed B-25C or a Boston. How could your hope to differentiate between those when it comes to F3? Both are effective in ground attack.
What I do not yet understand is; what is driving this crusade? Who cares if an SBD or IL-2 pilot can use F3? They are still extremely vulnerable aircraft, lacking speed and vertical performance. This entire discussion resembles the whines about handicapped parking spaces.
Well firstly I have to confess that my view re the creation of proper attack classification, perks and use of the same within AH extends to an area greater than just the discussion regarding the inappropriate use of F3..........
IMO the AH Mossie/110G are primarily attack ac whilst they are also able to perform some fighter/interceptor functions. Yes I have seeen them perform very adequately as fighters in the hands of some.
One of your points above poses the question of how we would differentiate between a bomber such as the B-25C or the Boston or the same ac when used in an attack role. Internationally the definition is blurred but actually with AH's game play role it can be more clearly defined in ways that would even out inconsistancies in game play.
My view would be that when chosen as Bomber its method of use is defined by enforced access to the F6 view for bomb release and access to the F3 view for defensive SA. Equally when chosen as a Bomber formations are enabled. The limited manouverability caused by formations IMO requires greater SA, and F3 is not an offensive view from this point as its clear that when in it bombs cannot be released (only in F6).
Actually the game play "win" here is the reduction of the effectiveness of low level ground/ship attacking formations (whether in suicide mode or not) releasing from the F3 view point. This stuff can of course be attempted from the F6 view but stuff can be put inplace to make rapid switching to F6 without calibration somewhat ineffective.
When choosing attack these attacker/bombers can be used differently. F6 is indeed dissabled, as would be F3 and bombs could only be released from the F1 pilot view. Pure Attack ac would be similarly configured as are fighter/attackers any way. So any aircraft in attack mode (whether it be Fighter/attacker, attacker or bomber attacker) would have no access to formations, f3 or f6 and require bomb release from the pilots position.
The game play win here is the ability to use such attacker/bombers in their attack role (dive bombing {single} Ju88's, B25's etc)whilst also not making fighters out of aircraft which historically had poor SA (Il2M3) via F3.
It then goes one step further when used in conjunction with an attack perk classification and a place in AH where certain ordinance is perked. Fighter pilots would not pay (place deposits on) heavy ordinance with fighter perks they would use attack perks.........the 37mm cannon on the Il2 would be paid for with attack perks not bomber perks (same for the mortar on the B25).
Attack is a confused classification within AH. A fighter in Attack mode wins perks differently and scores points differently yet has no attack perks to play with. Actually (and presently) the point would be that there is nothing to spend attack perks on. We could say much the same for bombers (ignoring the 234).
As I see this F3 discussion it would be a component of a general "clear up" which would only really work well in conjunction with other stuff however I do believe the net result would be benefisial to game play
-
My thoughts on bombers have been, and remain as follows:
Heavy Bombers: Bomb release from F6 only.
Medium Bombers: Bomb release from F6 or F1.
Attack bombers: Bomb release from F1 only.
This will generally cure the issues related to dive bombing Heavies, while allowing for release from F1 only for attack bombers. No bomber can release bombs from F3.
Any Bomber with fixed forward guns: No firing from F3 view. My reasoning for this is that hitting with deflection shots from F3 is easy to learn.
This restricts the functional use of F3, limiting it to simulating the multiple crew members visual input as intended.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I meant for the ending part of my previous thread for you: regarding the bomber/attack/fighter roles. I'll state them here again. According to RAF doctrine (yeah, the IL-2 is a Soviet plane but the practice is universal), the term "bombing mission" was defined as an "area effect" while "strike missions" (the AH2 attack role) were meant for target specific with precision in mind. I believe that it is safe to say that the IL-2 didnt fly over spawling industrial complexes and carpet bomb in level fashion. ;) The IL-2 went after individual gv's and static defensive positions.
You are confusing mission with the aircraft that perform them. Unless you are claiming bombers did not perform strike missions?
The A20 and the IL-2 are the only aircraft that are afforded the ability to be scored bomber or attack and not have a level bomb sight.
I am sure this statement is a surprise for anyone who has ever flown a D3A, SBD, or B-25H.
Myself and others have made our points time and time again... and imo very well thought out arguements have been made to modify the use of the F3 view in AH2 (especially in the case of the IL-2).<<===There is that true nature of the complaint breaking through again. Not only are there inconsistancies in the application of the F3 ability, the reasoning at least thus far as been unsatisfying as to why it is the way it is, at least for me.
I still do not see any inconsistencies, and the reason they are not inconsistent has been explained several times -- it just seems like you are unwilling to accept the reasoning.
The mossie version we have is a fighter/interceptor.
The 110 was always a fighter first.
The IL-2 was a bomber.
The A-20 was a bomber.
The above are true regardless of how they are used in the game. That HTC is trying to keep the Fighter vs. Bomber categories somewhat historically relevant is a good thing IMO.
-
:aok I also like this idea.
-
I like this idea, or another approach could be to allow F3 mode for only planes with more than 3 gun positions including pilot position!
Didnt save me from you shreck :) B6Pacman = Target practice
-
4 engines- keep it, but anything 2 engine or single, take it away. Being abused to the point of arcadey lameness.
I like the idea. Tired of trying to sneak troops into a base/town and getting spotted by an IL2 using the F3 or F5 then F8 pan option to locate me.
Formations or 4 engines would work!
My vote is yes!
:rock
-
I am a B25H "frequent flyer"... and here is how I use the F3, and my thoughts on its use in general.
I use F3 to get a look around my plane while flying. To spot aircraft around me and to spot vehicles on the ground. I have NEVER used F3 when on a bomb run, or when firing any of the guns, whether it be the forward MG's and cannon, or the turrets. I dont even see how anyone can aim that way. I am sure there is a way... and perhaps it is easier, but I have never tried it, nor do I care to. And didnt know you could use F5 + F8 in the air :huh Hehe... learn something new every day!
Anyway, if I am on an attack run, or engaging in air to air combat, I am always in F1 mode. Call me crazy, but those gunsights are there for a reason.
I fully agree that no guns should be able to be fired, or ordinance dropped from the F3 view. But restricting the F3 to "4 engine bombers" as opposed to "2 engine" doesnt make sense to me. There is no way to fly the B26, B25, the Boston, or the A20 in F1 and be able to tell what is around you the way a fighter can.
F3 is available to planes with multiple gunner positions to simulate the ability for other crew members to see what is around the aircraft. Without this capability, the A20, B25, B26, and Boston would become hangar queens, and for no reason. They are outstanding aircraft.
So... here is my opinion (for what it is worth) on the F3 view and its limitations in the Main Arenas:
1) Can only be used to look around the aircraft
2) Weapons will not fire and ordinance will not drop in F3 View
3) No zoom or ability to alter field of view should be enabled for F3 view.... make it a fixed point of reference.
4) F3 should only be available on aircraft with more than one gunner
Now... I can hear the SBD and IL-2 drivers already screaming about #4. So... here is what I propose:
Give them the ability to have their "rear views" to be seen from the rear gunners point of view instead of the pilots. This can be done by allowing them to "zoom in" past the pilots seat into the gunners seat when they are setting up their views. Then they save the view and they then have the ability to see what is directly behind them (and on their rear quarters) without the wings or the back of the pilots seat being in the way.
Doing this would still give the 2 seat planes a better view than a single seat, but they would not have "multiple sets of simulated eyes" looking around the plane as a bomber with multiple gun positions does.
Anyway... those are my thoughts.
-
4) F3 should only be available on aircraft with more than one gunner
Now... I can hear the SBD and IL-2 drivers already screaming about #4. So... here is what I propose:
Dont bother checking. Most of you can probably tell he only flys the B-25 and never the IL2. And only in midwar. :neener:
Thats what gets me about the entire F3 thing. Its the hypocrisy.
Hey I have an idea. Lets disable F3 in the B-25 cause it has so many gunner positions you can change up to. :D
-
My thoughts on bombers have been, and remain as follows:
Heavy Bombers: Bomb release from F6 only.
Medium Bombers: Bomb release from F6 or F1.
Attack bombers: Bomb release from F1 only.
I'd add F1 for the heavies too, entire boxes releasing on the mark of the lead bomber was commonplace IRL (and something Ive done plenty of in AH too :))
Lancstuka bombing can be fixed by modelling release angle limits.
No aircraft or vehicles should be allowed to release/fire in F3 mode.
F5 should be disabled for everything, except possibly towers.
Personally I'd enable F3 for any aircraft with a crew rather than just a pilot, including 110s and mossies, although it would be good if the F3 view was restricted to whatever the crew could see (ie no down view for aircraft without a ventral position)
-
Dont bother checking. Most of you can probably tell he only flys the B-25 and never the IL2. And only in midwar. :neener:
:neener: Back atcha Rich :D
Thats what gets me about the entire F3 thing. Its the hypocrisy.
Yeah... I was kinda thinking the same thing. :noid
Hey I have an idea. Lets disable F3 in the B-25 cause it has so many gunner positions you can change up to. :D
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/photo_08_hires.jpg)