Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Nemisis on August 14, 2009, 03:57:48 PM
-
I think it would be nice to arrange it so rockets fire from left to right in a line. That way when I am in a P-38J I can set the salvo to 3 and it will fire off a nice shot gun spread of rockets at my opponet. I can see where some objections could arrise. If you complain that it will give the other guy an advantage then if you can carry rockets then you have the same advantage...probably. If you don't then I would guess that means he can't get you any other way and would vulch you if he could, so he would be cheap anyway he could get.
-
:huh
-
If we already have it then forget it and let the thread die. I have an old machine but internet dosen't work with it (no wifi, and the socket for an ethernet cable won't work for some reason. I got a new machine today, but I need to set it up) so if we got it I wouldn't know.
-
Rockets fire correctly as is.
The fire left wing, right wing, left wing, right wing, etc... as to evenly distrubute weight changes. Having 4 rockets on one wing and none on the other, well, you'd be rolling better to the weighted side. ;)
-
Rockets fire correctly as is.
The fire left wing, right wing, left wing, right wing, etc... as to evenly distrubute weight changes. Having 4 rockets on one wing and none on the other, well, you'd be rolling better to the weighted side. ;)
And that's the correct answer to the $64,0000 Question!
ack-ack
-
You get the same problem with bombs or having a DT on one side and a bomb on the other. Once DT runs dry then you drop it or even if you don't it is still lighter. I just think that with the rockets right under the fuselage that they would be pretty good at buff busting.
-
:huh
-
:rofl :noid :huh :eek:
-
You get the same problem with bombs or having a DT on one side and a bomb on the other. Once DT runs dry then you drop it or even if you don't it is still lighter. I just think that with the rockets right under the fuselage that they would be pretty good at buff busting.
Lol. 1.) the 38 carries both bomb/Dt CLOSE to the fuselage, like the F6F, therefore not affecting weight.
Do this...up a 38 with 1K bombs, climb to 3K and drop a bomb while diving.
Up a Jug with 1 1K bombs, climb to 3K and drop a bomb while diving. You'll notice a difference.
2.) only if the rockets were german would they be at all affective to carry with the drag ratio.
-
2.) only if the rockets were german would they be at all affective to carry with the drag ratio.
If you're talking about the WGr's, those have got to be the draggiest rocket installations in the game :lol
-
Lol. 1.) the 38 carries both bomb/Dt CLOSE to the fuselage, like the F6F, therefore not affecting weight.
Do this...up a 38 with 1K bombs, climb to 3K and drop a bomb while diving.
Up a Jug with 1 1K bombs, climb to 3K and drop a bomb while diving. You'll notice a difference.
2.) only if the rockets were german would they be at all affective to carry with the drag ratio.
Not suggesting it be for 38's alone, for all planes. Same as I said before.
-
Not suggesting it be for 38's alone, for all planes. Same as I said before.
So you're saying that we should move the rockets from their historical position (the ROCKET RAILS) to fit your newbieness?
-
Rockets fire correctly as is.
The fire left wing, right wing, left wing, right wing, etc... as to evenly distrubute weight changes. Having 4 rockets on one wing and none on the other, well, you'd be rolling better to the weighted side. ;)
If I remember rockets on p38 and p47 shoot 2 on each wing then other wing shoots 2
-
I don't know if this ever got fixed, and I think it's just graphics anyway, but I noticed during the beginning of the Beta:
I-16: Final rocket fired is on right wing outer but shows being fired from the left wing outer.
Fw190F-8; Mossie; P-47D-40: Only every other rocket shows as being fired. They are still on the rails until the next rocket is fired then both rails show as empty. This is for the last three rockets on the P-47D-40.
P-47N: Same as above plus it looks like the rockets are firing from the P-47D-40 wing positions. Not taking into account the placement further out on the N's wing.
P-51B; P-47D-25: All rockets fire from the Left side, then the Right side. Not L,R,L,R,L,R as on the P-38G and J.
P-38L: Final two rockets show on the rail until the last rocket is fired.
F6F: All rockets trails come from the innermost rocket rails on their respective sides.
Bf 110G-2: Rocket tubes appear to still be full after firing.
wrongway
-
He's talking about R4Ms, which had quite a bit less drag then the WGr's. They also raped buff formations. In one of the few properly conducted missions for the Me-262, around 20-30 262's upped to intercept a B-17 formation. All were armed with the 24 rocket R4M racks. They lined up behind them at around 700-1000m, and opened up. The buffs were slaughtered.
Personally, I'd love to have R4M's. But they wouldn't be used often, seeing as they were mostly used on the already elusive jet, but I'm fairly sure that the 190 had a setup for them.
-
He's talking about R4Ms, which had quite a bit less drag then the WGr's. They also raped buff formations. In one of the few properly conducted missions for the Me-262, around 20-30 262's upped to intercept a B-17 formation. All were armed with the 24 rocket R4M racks. They lined up behind them at around 700-1000m, and opened up. The buffs were slaughtered.
Personally, I'd love to have R4M's. But they wouldn't be used often, seeing as they were mostly used on the already elusive jet, but I'm fairly sure that the 190 had a setup for them.
Ewww....Wiki:
Only a small number of aircraft were fitted with the R4M, mostly Messerschmitt Me 262s and the ground attack version of the Fw 190s, which mounted them on small wooden racks under the wings.
The weapon had excellent results. French ace Pierre Clostermann notes in his book The Big Show that in March 1945, six R4M-armed Me 262s flying out of the Oberammergau flight test center and led by Luftwaffe General Gordon Gollob claimed to have shot down fourteen B-17s in a mission. In April 1945, R4M-equipped Me 262s claimed to have shot down thirty B-17s for the loss of three aircraft. The Luftwaffe found the R4M missiles to have similar trajectory to the 30 mm MK 108 cannon in flight, therefore the standard Revi 16B gunsight was utilized effectively.
So, the rockets on the Fw190-F8.....
wrongway
-
He's talking about R4Ms, which had quite a bit less drag then the WGr's. They also raped buff formations. In one of the few properly conducted missions for the Me-262, around 20-30 262's upped to intercept a B-17 formation. All were armed with the 24 rocket R4M racks. They lined up behind them at around 700-1000m, and opened up. The buffs were slaughtered.
Personally, I'd love to have R4M's. But they wouldn't be used often, seeing as they were mostly used on the already elusive jet, but I'm fairly sure that the 190 had a setup for them.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about WGr's, as we don't have R4M's in game.
Also, source on that story? From what I understand, having 30 262's operational was not a small feat, let alone having 30 airborne at the same time.
So, the rockets on the Fw190-F8.....
wrongway
The Panzerblitz rockets on the Fw 190F-8, though developed from the R4M, are not the same thing.
Personally, I'd love to have R4M's. But they wouldn't be used often, seeing as they were mostly used on the already elusive jet, but I'm fairly sure that the 190 had a setup for them.
IIRC the Dora and maybe the A-9 were able to be fitted with R4M rockets, however I'm not sure that this was ever used on these aircraft operationally. I'd love to have R4M's, though.
-
So you're saying that we should move the rockets from their historical position (the ROCKET RAILS) to fit your newbieness?
Aw, crap. Who let you in here?
First off I am not newb unless you count that span where my computer was crap and wouldn't play the game or my new account when my originol when got screwed up. Second I am not suggesting we change there positions, I am suggesting that we have is so they fire L1, L2, L3, R1, R2, R3 (from the outside in) in such a way as to allow the planes with rockets mounted in clusters to fire off 3 in a shot gun like spread.
-
1. Rockets fire in a historical manner, for the reason given above
2. Shotgun pellets dont leave the barrel neatly arranged in order from left to right
3. Wanting rockets to fire in a way which makes pretty patterns is a newbie request
4. Aw, crap. Who let you in here?
-
1. Rockets fire in a historical manner, for the reason given above
2. Shotgun pellets dont leave the barrel neatly arranged in order from left to right
3. Wanting rockets to fire in a way which makes pretty patterns is a newbie request
4. Aw, crap. Who let you in here?
:aok great post !
-
1. Rockets fire in a historical manner, for the reason given above
2. Shotgun pellets dont leave the barrel neatly arranged in order from left to right
3. Wanting rockets to fire in a way which makes pretty patterns is a newbie request
4. Aw, crap. Who let you in here?
:rock
-
4. Aw, crap. Who let you in here?
Is trying to derail my B-29 thread. No that is not newb, it is awesome. Sorry, but a B-29 won't unbalance the game anymore than the 262 does.
-
Is trying to derail my B-29 thread. No that is not newb, it is awesome. Sorry, but a B-29 won't unbalance the game anymore than the 262 does.
262 doesn't unbalance the game, the B-29 will.
-
I just think that .....
Clearly thinking is not your strong point.
-
Clearly thinking is not your strong point.
...woah...
Never thought I'd agree with someone who only has 36 posts!!! <S>
Nemisis, my apologies for shooting down crappy ideas, you, sir, just seem to be chalk full of them.
You CAN fire rockets in a spread, it's called /.salvo 6
If you learn to actually AIM your ordy, well, nevermind, we all know that's above and beyond your ability. ;)
1. Rockets fire in a historical manner, for the reason given above
2. Shotgun pellets dont leave the barrel neatly arranged in order from left to right
3. Wanting rockets to fire in a way which makes pretty patterns is a newbie request
4. Aw, crap. Who let you in here?
:D
-
262 doesn't unbalance the game, the B-29 will.
:huh :huh :huh A near uncatchable fighter armed with 4 30MM CANNONS doesn't unbalance the game but a high perked bomber, a BOMBER, that means as near a STATIONARY TARGET as you will get for an airplane, will?
Never mind. This isn't the place.
Clearly thinking is not your strong point.
(disappointed back and forth head shake) *sighs* Well, I don't agree, and infact I think you are quite obviously lying. However I guess it may appear that way to someone who probably puts getting shadows in the cockpit ahead of a new plane.
However I shall let you have the last word. I take my leave of you gentlemen.
-
:huh :huh :huh A near uncatchable fighter armed with 4 30MM CANNONS doesn't unbalance the game but a high perked bomber, a BOMBER, that means as near a STATIONARY TARGET as you will get for an airplane, will?
Never mind. This isn't the place. (disappointed back and forth head shake) *sighs* Well, I don't agree, and infact I think you are quite obviously lying. However I guess it may appear that way to someone who probably puts getting shadows in the cockpit ahead of a new plane.
However I shall let you have the last word. I take my leave of you gentlemen.
What? :huh
Lanc: Maximum Speed: 280 mph (240 kn, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
B-17: Maximum Speed: 287 mph (249 kn, 462 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 182 mph (158 kn, 293 km/h)
B-26: Maximum Speed: 290 mph (250 kn, 470 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 215 mph (187 kn, 346 km/h)
B-29: Maximum Speed: 357 mph (310 kn, 574 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 220 mph (190 kn, 350 km/h)
Factor in a single B-29 with the Standard 20,000lb payload and the ability of a Formation should set in. I hope we NEVER get this in the game.
-
What? :huh
Lanc: Maximum Speed: 280 mph (240 kn, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
B-17: Maximum Speed: 287 mph (249 kn, 462 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 182 mph (158 kn, 293 km/h)
B-26: Maximum Speed: 290 mph (250 kn, 470 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 215 mph (187 kn, 346 km/h)
B-29: Maximum Speed: 357 mph (310 kn, 574 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 220 mph (190 kn, 350 km/h)
Factor in a single B-29 with the Standard 20,000lb payload and the ability of a Formation should set in. I hope we NEVER get this in the game.
You forget the fact that with the B-29, with its high alt and high speeds, it would pretty much FORCE any attacker into the twin .50s and the 20mm, making them mince meat...
-
Is trying to derail my B-29 thread. No that is not newb, it is awesome. Sorry, but a B-29 won't unbalance the game anymore than the 262 does.
It takes considerable talent to hijack one's own thread. :)
If we are going to change anything about rockets, please make them be selected before bombs when tabbing through secondary weapons. :aok (If this has already been implemented I apologize...haven't been on since the upgrade)
-
What? :huh
Lanc: Maximum Speed: 280 mph (240 kn, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
B-17: Maximum Speed: 287 mph (249 kn, 462 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 182 mph (158 kn, 293 km/h)
B-26: Maximum Speed: 290 mph (250 kn, 470 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 215 mph (187 kn, 346 km/h)
B-29: Maximum Speed: 357 mph (310 kn, 574 km/h) - Cruise Speed: 220 mph (190 kn, 350 km/h)
Factor in a single B-29 with the Standard 20,000lb payload and the ability of a Formation should set in. I hope we NEVER get this in the game.
I meant the bomber won't be manuvering. When was the last time you saw a lanc swerve to avoid you on it's final run. Or pretty much at all for that matter. The B-17 may be more likely, and the B-26 I would give a 40% chance of manuvering.
I doubt the B-29 would be manuvering to avoid you. That means you have a very easy shot. And yes, it could force most of our planes to attack from the rear. Which is why I will fly the best plane for the situation I am in. I'm sorry but a spit isn't going to be the best for all situations, nor will any of the F4U's. That is why we have multiple fighters.
-
Nemisis, no offense, but you have about as close to 'zero' combat experience in the game as you can get, and you have no clue what actually entails shooting down a bomber, with their childishly easy to aim and kill with guns. You really shouldn't be trying to argue with people who actually have in game experience.
-
While I admit I have limited fighter experience, I do know bombers. I admit the 20mm in the tail may pose some problems, and more than the 20mm in the Ki-67, but it is not an insurmountable problem. I have first hand experience that no matter how you gun, fighters will shoot you down. Oh, you may kill more attackers some days then others, but when I get jumped by 4 or more, I rarely make it back to friendly air cover. It maybe that my gunning sucks, and I need to improve as not to be an easy kill. But based on what I see when I fly with other bombers, my gunning is average, better than about half, worse than about half as well.
But this is not the thread to put this in. As you have booed my original thread topic, then LET IT DIE. I see no reason to keep something you all are so vehemently opposed to alive.
-
You have less than 40 hours of flying time with a grand total of two kills in fighters and like six kills in bombers. The vast majority of your flying time is in bombers. You have absolutely no experience to speak of.
Unless your Gameid is something other than Nemisis, like you claim...
-
40hrs? that dosen't sound right. I did have to get a new account just before Christmas this year. Did you inclued everything before that? I have no idea how you would get it but you may have. I know I have killed at least 15 in my bomber. I know, I'm not much in fighters so far, but what can you expect for how little time I spend it them. If it goes back to before about half way through November then you have the wrong guy.
-
Using the Aces High Pilots Statistics program that downloads all its data from the scores pages, running a search through tours 105-115 for GameID Nemisis, I got results for three tours (107, 108, and 111), about 25 (4 in fighters) hours total sortie time, 2 fighter kills and 7 bomber kills. Running up these amazing stats took you 48 fighter sorties and 269 bomber sories, of which you landed 14 and 70 respectively.
-
Is trying to derail my B-29 thread. No that is not newb, it is awesome. Sorry, but a B-29 won't unbalance the game anymore than the 262 does.
It takes considerable talent to hijack one's own thread. :)
But this is not the thread to put this in. As you have booed my original thread topic, then LET IT DIE. I see no reason to keep something you all are so vehemently opposed to alive.
If you admit the change in direction dictates letting the original one die, then perhaps you should not continue to post about b-29s in here. If you have other rocket requests, by all means...
-
As a matter of fact, I do: I want all MY rockets to be nukes, and all of yours to be duds. I also want them to be 1,000,000,000,000,000 megaton nukes. :D
:rofl
-
As a matter of fact, I do: I want all MY rockets to be nukes, and all of yours to be duds. I also want them to be 1,000,000,000,000,000 megaton nukes. :D
:rofl
I would like to redirect you to the pictures I originally posted in your b-29 thread.
Thank you.
-
You forget the fact that with the B-29, with its high alt and high speeds, it would pretty much FORCE any attacker into the twin .50s and the 20mm, making them mince meat...
The 20mm was rarely used as it was unreliable. However outside of the 262 and 163, by the time you climbed, gained on the 29's, they're almost landing. 357mph level ability is sickening with that payload.
-
As a matter of fact, I do: I want all MY rockets to be nukes, and all of yours to be duds. I also want them to be 1,000,000,000,000,000 megaton nukes. :D
:rofl
Thank God for teenagers.
-
Thank God for teenagers.
In case some of you slower people couldn't tell, I was joking.
-
In case some of you slower people couldn't tell, I was joking.
As was I.
-
Sorry masherbrum, I wasn't reffering to you. But your post made me think of that.