Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: infowars on August 01, 2011, 05:26:57 PM
-
The rails were jettison-able to reduce the horrible drag they cause...
Thanks
-
That was only a last ditch thing as I remember, same with the ejecting landing gear on the Stuka
-
this topic has already been beaten to death. we aren't getting jettisonable a2a 190 rawkets :aok
-
The rails were jettison-able to reduce the horrible drag they cause...
Thanks
Pyro said that it wouldn't be done due to it being intended for emergencies in reality and would be done almost every time the rockets were used in AH.
-
Pyro said that it wouldn't be done due to it being intended for emergencies in reality and would be done almost every time the rockets were used in AH.
exactly, and his point is a very valid one
-
Make them pay perks if they ditch it
-
The rocket tubes use explosive bolts to jettison! This is one of the reasons for "emergency use only",I would assume some damage could occur during this process or even the possibility that not all of the bolts would "release" and since random malfunctions arent modeled I personally dont think it should be included.
On the otherhand,it would be nice to not have the drag penalty for carrying the AA rockets, it just wouldnt be fair!
:salute
-
You want rockets with little drag penalty, lobby for the R4M rockets!
-
Pretty sure the Luftwaffe only had one incident (during testing) of catastrophic wing damage (broke in two). Most of the details we have on it are from Allied sources and they (we) have a tendency for spreading false propaganda.
The rocket tubes use explosive bolts to jettison! This is one of the reasons for "emergency use only",I would assume some damage could occur during this process or even the possibility that not all of the bolts would "release" and since random malfunctions arent modeled I personally dont think it should be included.
On the otherhand,it would be nice to not have the drag penalty for carrying the AA rockets, it just wouldnt be fair!
:salute
I agree (again) with Krusty on this one. PLUS.... If you are in an A8, do you really care about THAT part of your maneuver issues?
-
+1
We already do so much crap that never happened (or happened only rarely) on an hourly basis.
-
That actually makes yo a -1
just sayin :uhoh
-
its double negative day, so its still a +1 :).
Show me when carriers opperated within 6000yds of their target.
Show me when single lancasters flew at 4000ft into an area with air incapability.
show me when single tanks would assult an airbase
show me when an airbase was close enough to the front to come under ground attack
When you show me all those, I'll withdraw my +1.
-
Lets keep Aces High Realism at a level which allows us to still call it a simulation.
-
Tank: I could kill 2 of those birds with 1 stone, but that's another topic.
The explosive bolts were explosive, but they weren't blowing the wing off to get the job done. They simply blew out the bolts or the struts keeping the steel tubes in place. Then the tubes fell off. Explosive bolts were (I think) common and were used to blow off Luftwaffe canopies on some aircraft. That's not an issue really.
Llogan: The A8 is really the one that needs to worry the most. I'd much rather take WGr21s on the A5 or on a 110G simply because they don't suffer as much. The A-5 is lighter and the 110G has a larger wing area to take the weight. The A-8 is really over weight in this game now so those WGrs make it flounder badly. I'm against the wishlist of ditching these tubes, but if ever a plane needed it, it would be our A-8.
-
its double negative day, so its still a +1 :).
Show me when carriers opperated within 6000yds of their target.
Show me when single lancasters flew at 4000ft into an area with air incapability.
show me when single tanks would assult an airbase
show me when an airbase was close enough to the front to come under ground attack
When you show me all those, I'll withdraw my +1.
Oh, I bet all of those actually happened save for the "carrier within 6000 yards".
I know B24's flew in under 1000ft in at least 1 mission in the PTO. I know there were Soviet ad-hoc airfields within peein' distance of the front as they advanced. I'm willing to bet that single tanks were tasked with attacking an outpost or defended camps (with supporting infantry) as well. ;)
-
Operation Tidal Wave to Ploesti oilfields.
(http://ww2db.com/images/battle_tidalwave3.jpg)
Since the Russians and the Western Allies were both overrunning airfields during 44-45, it's entirely possible that
a single tank could attack an airfield, after all someone needs to be first. :rofl Not to mention almost every single island
the US attacked in the Pacific hosted an airfield or two...Iwo Jima anyone?
-
Oh, I bet all of those actually happened save for the "carrier within 6000 yards".
I know B24's flew in under 1000ft in at least 1 mission in the PTO. I know there were Soviet ad-hoc airfields within peein' distance of the front as they advanced. I'm willing to bet that single tanks were tasked with attacking an outpost or defended camps (with supporting infantry) as well. ;)
its double negative day, so its still a +1 :).
Show me when carriers opperated within 6000yds of their target.
Show me when single lancasters flew at 4000ft into an area with air incapability
show me when single tanks would assult an airbase. To amend, I should say where the goal was simply the destruction of the amunition and ordnance, or fuel, instead of the capture of the base.
show me when an airbase, not strip was close enough to the front to come under ground attack.
When you show me all those, I'll withdraw my +1.
To the adhoc airstrips, I have to say that we have hangers, a tower, and paved runways, all of which indicate a major airbase. If they were intended to represent small, adhoc forward bases of operation, they would have been given dirt runways at the very least.
-
You're being too literal. Hangars are an abstract representation of the base's ability to launch aircraft or GVs.
We also don't have a player base millions strong, so saying it isn't realistic unless 1000 Lancasters do it is being absurd.
-
Karnak, even simpler than that... The better example is the Desert Rats. GVs driving all over the airbases, guns blazing, destroying fuel, planes, anything they could find, and withdrawing safely.
Kills 2 of his list items with 1 stone, if you consider we have the Jeep as a GV in this game.
-
You're being too literal. Hangars are an abstract representation of the base's ability to launch aircraft or GVs.
We also don't have a player base millions strong, so saying it isn't realistic unless 1000 Lancasters do it is being absurd.
If we're sacraficing realism in one area, whats wrong with doing it in the other?
Also, P-51D's rarely carried 1000lb bombs AND rockets, but they do that hourly.
Most don't know how to use the WGr21's anyway, so its not like they're getting any use out of them. Its not going to negativly effect gameplay. All it will do is hamper the plane's preformance untill they make their initial attack on a bomber (or just salvo them off into a furball).
-
If we're sacraficing realism in one area, whats wrong with doing it in the other?
Also, P-51D's rarely carried 1000lb bombs AND rockets, but they do that hourly.
Most don't know how to use the WGr21's anyway, so its not like they're getting any use out of them. Its not going to negativly effect gameplay. All it will do is hamper the plane's preformance untill they make their initial attack on a bomber (or just salvo them off into a furball).
Wrong. It would negatively affect gameplay by giving people free throwaway rockets without any penalty. In real life you had the penalty.
Hitech has commented on the P-51 issue saying that the loadout combinations won't be restricted based on historic mission limits as long as each part of the combination is right. He's giving us the tools to mix and match as we see fit. [my paraphrasing of his response]
You didn't think that Bf110Gs took off with center bombs, wing rockets and used them to strafe towns, do you? As long as each part is correct, though, we get the tool to use as we see fit.
You only want the jettisonable tubes because you don't like flying slow. Simple: Don't take them. You get drag and weight with any bomb, DT, rocket, even internal guns. Why should you get a free "no penalty" option for this weapon? No double standards, please!
-
its double negative day, so its still a +1 :).
Show me when carriers opperated within 6000yds of their target.
Show me when single lancasters flew at 4000ft into an area with air incapability.
show me when single tanks would assult an airbase
show me when an airbase was close enough to the front to come under ground attack
When you show me all those, I'll withdraw my +1.
In that case, design your own game with 100% realism. That means flying for sometimes hours just to get to the enemy...wheeeee fun....
-
I have a compromise.
Model the explosive bolts to drop the rockets, but if they get used the outer part of the wing gets blown off as well.
-
You want rockets with little drag penalty, lobby for the R4M rockets!
If this was directed at my post I ask both you and Logan exactly where in my post I asked for this? I gave a reason why not to have them and then made a personal comment that it would be nice to have but unfair......
:salute
-
Explosive bolts were used to remove the launcher tubes from the WGr21 rockets. They were used. There was minimal risk of blowing your own wing off.
Nothing besides the people going "oh god, you mean the A8 can shoot ineffective rockets at me AND keep its mediocre acceleration and top speed at 25k?!?!?!" that would give any reason not to model this.
So how about either give me removable bolts, or correctly model the weight of my 190. If the P-51 or spitfire were 800kg overweight, it would be a catastrophe. But its not a sptifire, a P-51, or other allied plane, so the lemmings just say "meh... its only the 190. I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually. But first, we need *x plane* so I can fly it untill the new wears off and then ignore it"
-
Even if they do not jettison, maybe they can just model the drag to go away.
-
Model the explosive bolts to drop the rockets, but if they get used the outer part of the wing gets blown off as well.
There's almost no chance of that ever happening in real life.
If this was directed at my post I ask both you and Logan exactly where in my post I asked for this?
I'm not picking on you, simply offering a better alternative than changing things around. You suggested it would be nice to have the rockets without the drag, my suggestion was "these do that for you!"
Explosive bolts were used to remove the launcher tubes from the WGr21 rockets. They were used
Were they? Can you cite one instance, EVER, in ANY kind of emergency, where these were ever blown and the tubes dropped? In this game they would be fired and then dropped immediately EVERY TIME with no penalty. In real life they kept them. There are a number of gun camera "kills" on German planes that still had the tubes onboard. They didn't drop them. They needed them. They didn't have instant respawns and fresh equipment in a virtual hangar like we have. I'm pretty sure they NEVER blew the bolts on the tubes. One of those things on paper somebody is getting carried away with because he wants better performance. The solution is simple: DON'T TAKE WGR21S WHEN YOU FLY THE 190!
It really IS that simple.
Even if they do not jettison, maybe they can just model the drag to go away.
And maybe they can model retro thrusters, anti-gravity generators, warp drive, and X-Wing blasters, too? :rolleyes:
-
make them pay like 20 perks to jettison the tubes
-
Uhhhh... no.
Not unless you also want to pay 50 perks to remove DT weight and drag from P-51s. What about removing gas weight from P-47Ns for 100 perks? What about matter/antimatter powered sheilds for La-7s that stop all incoming rounds for 10,000 perks?
So no perks for this. It wasn't done. It shouldn't be done in the game. No matter how many perks you put on the suggestion.
-
Krusty, stop being melodramatic. No one is suggesting anything unrealistic except for infowarz.
Did the P-51 and P-47 have explosive bolts that could remove the hardpoints after ordnance has been expended?
Krusty, the 190A8 is around 1000lbs overweight, and that causes significant problems all by itself, especially at high altitude, where the WGr21's would be most usefull. Why are you suggesting that we keep our 190 nerfed?
-
You are wrong on 2 points:
1) It is 500lbs overweight
2) What you propose has nothing to do with the weight issue. You propose magic when science is needed. The weight issue is totally separated from this wish. If it's ever done, it will fly better. I will enjoy that day. However, removable tubes won't change that problem nor resolve it.
P.S. This wish would only lead to abuse of the weapon system. There is no other way to describe it. Like I said you're harping no some footnote you read somewhere rather than the actual history.
P.P.S. Hitech already said flat out "no" to this anyways.
-
Krusty, I believe your thinking of kg, not lbs.
No it won't reslove the weight issue, but it will keep from piling more issues on top of it.
Mind showing me where Hitech said no?
-
I don't think they're very effective. I'd trade them for extra cannons or extra speed any day. :airplane: