Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Krusty on March 04, 2011, 09:24:49 PM
-
Question for HTC:
Is this plausible/do-able with current code, or would it take some doing?
Deselect other hangar loadouts based on clicking another loadout
For example, several things come to mind. The Me410 thread sparked it but it applies to current AH planes as well.
P-51Ds never flew with rockets and underwing bombs in WW2. If you select wing bombs, then rockets, can it automatically deslect the bombs (go back to "no loadout")?
Other thoughts that come to mind: Bombers with heavy loads. Based on the load of a bomber it historically could take only XXX gallons of gas... So if there's a situation where taking a big bomb load limits that bomber to taking off with 75%, for example, the code will drop that fuel selection down to 75% if it's at 100%.
Another example would be the gun pack nose on the B-25C. I'd like to see that be a single-plane element only like B-25H. Whether or not you agree, it's an example I'll list. Could you de-select the "formation" box if the player chooses the gun pack nose?
I'm pretty sure there was some sort of loadout restrictions on the P-47N as well (since many of them removed half or more of their 50cal guns to save weight) that might come into play.
What got me thinking about this is the 410 thread with the weapons suggestions I made. Some are for a "bomber" and some are for a "fighter" configuration. It's the same plane. However, if you mixed-and-matched you might come up with an unhistorical configuration, such as gunpods on the bomber version, or WGr21s on the wings with a full bombload under the fuselage and in the nose.
The same goes for our 110G I guess, with bombs and WGRs selectable.
In those examples if you select the bombs the WGrs de-select, and if you select the WGrs the bombs deselect.
Would like to know. Thanks.
-
Something like that just might change the whole dynamic of the game.
Interesting indeed.
-
Yes and no. The things that are exclusive must be in 1 column , whats in 1 box as you select it can be more then 1 type of item. It would be a royal PITA make items from different columns mutually exclusive.
Also
P-51Ds never flew with rockets and underwing bombs in WW2. If you select wing bombs, then rockets, can it automatically deslect the bombs (go back to "no loadout")?
If a plane did or did not do something is NOT the way we approach things. The question would be could a P51 carry both bombs and rockets. You get to make the choice just as they did in the war. We would not force someone to make the same choice just because they never made that choice in the war.
Think about what all falls under the thought of "They never did". Especially when it comes to mission types. Did 109's ever protect B17's on a mission? Did B29's ever do low level raids? .......
HiTech
-
Yes and no. The things that are exclusive must be in 1 column , whats in 1 box as you select it can be more then 1 type of item. It would be a royal PITA make items from different columns mutually exclusive.
Also
If a plane did or did not do something is NOT the way we approach things. The question would be could a P51 carry both bombs and rockets. You get to make the choice just as they did in the war. We would not force someone to make the same choice just because they never made that choice in the war.
Think about what all falls under the thought of "They never did". Especially when it comes to mission types. Did 109's ever protect B17's on a mission? Did B29's ever do low level raids? .......HiTech
yes B29s did but i get what your saying
-
yes B29s did but i get what your saying
DOH
-
How I wish that this meant we could e.g. get the option to remove rear turrets & associated equipment and "Standard" guns (e.g. nose 7.9mm MG17's) on the Me 410, or cowl guns on 190A-5.. :)
-
How I wish that this meant we could e.g. get the option to remove rear turrets & associated equipment and "Standard" guns (e.g. nose 7.9mm MG17's) on the Me 410, or cowl guns on 190A-5.. :)
+1 on this!
-
How I wish that this meant we could e.g. get the option to remove rear turrets & associated equipment and "Standard" guns (e.g. nose 7.9mm MG17's) on the Me 410, or cowl guns on 190A-5.. :)
wouldn't that be a field mod?
+1 anyways
-
Not semantics for semantics' sake:
I reckon it's right on the line between field mod and "just" pilot/crew choice. You are definitely "modifying" if e.g. you add some non standard guns (not even available in e.g. for germany the factory provided rüstsätze packages) or some innovative mod like taking propeller from a different plane, that happens to work even better on your plane. Or souping up your engine, or punching a hole in fuselage to fix an overheat problem that the rest of that model aircraft in the whole airforce are still plagued with, etc. All these are clearly mods.
But just omitting something, that's only borderline field mod IMO. Especially if removing it doesn't require changing the rest of the plane as a consequence. Many 410s removed MG17s when they used some of the standard rüstsätze, e.g. 6x 20mm. And it's understandable - not much sense for such a small firepower bonus at the cost of the extra weight, esp. if the 6x20mm was already heavy on its own.
Running with this same example, 8x 20mm as at least one (as far as there's reports of anyway) pilot used instead of the non-field mod BK5 50mm cannon, that's clearly enough a field mod. Not so arguable, even if all he did was combine two ordinary rüstsätze: 4x20mm in the bomb bay, and 2x20mm in a belly pack like on our 110G.
Another arguable case of field mod, as far as AH's criteria for what a field mod is: some 410 crews added a pair of 7.9mm guns, apparently where no guns are on any factory configuration (directly above bomb bay guns, below cockpit guns, it's not clear which compartment they're in) - they had to punch holes for gun ports. That's much more like a field mod.
But just removing things that don't require any reworking of the aircraft because of it.. I dunno, that's not in the same league as actual field mods where you've got a different plane as a result. Ideally I'd make it a perk loadout myself. Because the way AH deals with it is to ask - what was the standard configuration that most crews adopted? What would you have most commonly run into at the time?
It's not only whether something's a field mod.
-
I find it very interesting Hitech that you present it that way. Enlightening too. That does explain some questions I had with cross-matching loadouts.
It brings up another area, though, very related. Not cross-matching loadouts, but "could it do" vs "did it ever" loadouts.... Can we get into that for a minute as well?
For example, the Ta152 had the exact same inboard 20mm guns as the 190a and 190d series... Only they removed some of the ammo to save weight. They could still carry 500rpg like the earlier 190s. Also, the 190D could carry 30mm outboard, and this was even done on some models like the D11 or D12/13 (I'd have to look it up) to alleviate the lack of firepower issue. It was the same wing as a 190A8 and could carry the same loadouts. There were even plans to rig ground attack 190Ds based on F8 standards.
The war simply ended before that, but they could have done it all along.
The P-47s never carried the 425 rpg (they won the war on 267 rpg) but they "could" have carried 500rpg. They physically had the space, and I seem to recall on one ferry flight where they were (not in combat) being flown to fields in France they would bring ammo with them that way.
There are a number of cases where things were phyisically possible but never done due to operational limitations, orders from on high, or whatever you want to call it.
I would say (IMO) this opens a very large can of worms.
-
But then you've got planes that aren't like what you commonly had at the time. Consequently you've got people ignoring the historical standard for that optimal historical outlier. Like ditching the WGr21 rockets.
It'd have to be perked.
-
Well Hitech's said they won't stop a folk from mixing and matching what they could... the question then is what will he give them to mix and match? Where is the line drawn, I guess is my question.
-
Ammo and expendables carried or not carried, versus the available choice to carry or not carry them? That's still pretty vague.
If the 190D-9 never carried outboard 108s, and only later D-11s and so on carried them, that might be beyond the line.
I can't think of a clear way to draw that line.
-
Moot, see here:
Also
If a plane did or did not do something is NOT the way we approach things. The question would be could a P51 carry both bombs and rockets. You get to make the choice just as they did in the war. We would not force someone to make the same choice just because they never made that choice in the war.
Think about what all falls under the thought of "They never did". Especially when it comes to mission types. Did 109's ever protect B17's on a mission? Did B29's ever do low level raids? .......
HiTech
You're right.. I would like some clarification on the matter. More insight into where HTC draws the line. Clearly they do not on the ROLE of the plane. Clearly they do not on mixing and matching historical loadouts. But where is that line? If something is not a historically valid loadout, would they draw the line there, and not allow it as an option (to be mixed matched or used as we please)?
-
The WGr21s dont fit that rule. Could a WGr21 pilot ditch them? He could and yet HT (IIRC, correct me if Im wrong) said WGr jettison wasn't allowed because then everyone would do it, and it wouldn't match reality where it was only in emergencies. So, unless he changed his mind since he said that (IIRC), it could be that HT is strictly talking about pre-sortie loadout.
So you could test this hypothesis easily enough: e.g. if the A-5 cowl gun delete option really was something they historically "could" do easily enough. I don't know myself. But if it was doable readily enough, then either you've found an inconsistency in the game, or there's something about the A-5 cowl guns delete that sets it apart from P-51D bombs & rockets, and in that something should be a clue of what the rule really is.
Or maybe there's no rule and they do it case by case.
-
HTC's already commented on the WGrs. I'm more interested in loadouts that weren't historically common, or never used, but physically were possible. Specifically I'm interested in where he draws the line with them. It would concern me to see a B-17G with 10,000 rounds of 50cal ammo for the guns, but there are stories where some crews overloaded their B17s so badly they had to ballast themselves with bricks just to take off, then drop the bricks to begin climbing.
And similar situations like that.
I'm concerned it opens a massive can of worms and possibly will go in a bad direction for the game, so I would like more info on their thinking/their limits.
I would, quite frankly, want to use and to come up against historically accurate loadouts, rather than fantasy wishlist loadouts that never happened, so in my concern (selfish may it be) I seek clarification.
-
Krusty: It's not a rule, but a philosophy. Hence we already gave you all we can in choosing what goes in and what goes out.
HiTech
-
Hypothetical question: Could then the F8F ever be added, since a VF was operational in May 1945? Many would :pray for a positive answer. After all, it was just that the US Navy simply chose not to use it in combat, not because a squadron wasn't ready.
However, based on previous responses at the AH BB, the preliminary hypothetical answer to my own question is -- No! :lol So we have to admit that drawing boundary lines is not always a precise business. But Phlexible Philosophy is generally sufficient. :aok
Best regards.
-
If a plane did or did not do something is NOT the way we approach things. The question would be could a P51 carry both bombs and rockets. You get to make the choice just as they did in the war. We would not force someone to make the same choice just because they never made that choice in the war.
Well said. This gives me the chance to explore what the airplane could do, in addition to what the plane did do. It gives me the freedom to play "what if".
And to get the experience of what actually did happen, we have the historical scenarios. I, for one, think this is definitely the right way to go.