Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: AKP on March 12, 2012, 01:49:05 PM
-
Part of FSO is going after a more realistic combat experience. With this in mind, I would like to see the regular use of the 15 wind layers used in every FSO. How often is there no wind at all from the ground up to 30,000 feet in real life? Never.
I am not talking about hurricane force winds... although PTO secenarios could make use of the jet stream at high altitude. I am talking about minor winds, in 2K layers... starting at 2000 feet. Each layer would have a different speed, and slightly different direction... based on the direction of a "prevailing wind" for that frame.
This would add several aspects to FSO:
1) Bombers would lose more accuracy the higher they are... since the bombs have to fall through more wind layers, and fall farther. This would add more realism and force mission planners to allocate more resources for each target, since overall accuracy is lessened... or fly at a lower altitude. Want to fly and bomb at 30K... fine, but your bombs are going to be off target.
2) Aircraft can use tailwinds to gain more speed at certain altitudes (if they pay attention to the wind in the arena - aka weather forecast)
3) Mission planners will have to take into account prevailing wind speeds and directions for any given altitude. This will affect time to target, time to return, fuel consumption, etc.
Im not looking for TOTAL realism. Just a little more challenge, and to level the playing field. There is really no reason why my bombs should hit exactly where I want them to... every time... from 25,000 feet. As it is now... I know that if my calibration is good, when I drop... my bombs are going to hit exactly where I want them to hit from any altitude.
Oh and keep the manual calibration to go with it. :salute
-
Second!
-
I believe there was a few FSO that wind was a factor for both fighters and bombers. It seemed that we got away from it.
-
(http://www.transair.co.uk/products/images/large/transair_TPS1FlightComputer.jpg)
(Not yet modeled - only owned by some players)
-
This thread has my approval.
-
As far as I know, wind only affects your plane's flight and does NOT affect bomb trajectory once they leave the plane - your bombs will hit what's under your crosshairs at the time you drop (if you have correctly and accurately calibrated the bombsight).
As far as your other points, I'm all for wind at altitudes.
-
As far as I know, wind only affects your plane's flight and does NOT affect bomb trajectory once they leave the plane - your bombs will hit what's under your crosshairs at the time you drop (if you have correctly and accurately calibrated the bombsight).
...
I believe you are right: wind has an effect on airplanes, not bombs.
-
I believe you are right: wind has an effect on airplanes, not bombs.
Well that stinks... but I still wish for some wind :)
-
Well that stinks... but I still wish for some wind :)
Give the co-pilot an extra ration of beans pre-flight.
-
Give the co-pilot an extra ration of beans pre-flight.
Somehow I knew that was coming...
-
As far as I know, wind only affects your plane's flight and does NOT affect bomb trajectory once they leave the plane - your bombs will hit what's under your crosshairs at the time you drop (if you have correctly and accurately calibrated the bombsight).
As far as your other points, I'm all for wind at altitudes.
Unless it's changed, I don't believe this is correct. I know we used to do preliminary tests where the bombs fell way downwind of the crosshair'd target.
Now, there may have been a couple of different wind layers, but here is the net effect.. way back when...
(http://www.ka4zzq.com/Nightmares/Screenshots/ahss423_marked.jpg)
(http://www.ka4zzq.com/Nightmares/Screenshots/ahss425_marked.jpg)
-
Motion carries now make it so.
Seriously even though I hate bombing in the FSO I would be all for this since it would fit right in with the historical portion of the game.
-
I know in BOG wind did affect bomb drop.
-
Unless it's changed, I don't believe this is correct. I know we used to do preliminary tests where the bombs fell way downwind of the crosshair'd target.
Now, there may have been a couple of different wind layers, but here is the net effect.. way back when...
(http://www.ka4zzq.com/Nightmares/Screenshots/ahss423_marked.jpg)
(http://www.ka4zzq.com/Nightmares/Screenshots/ahss425_marked.jpg)
I will have to set up a custom arena and check this out to be sure. Would be nice if it really works that way.
-
I guess then, if anyone has time to set up another test. have crosswinds from 4k-16k, no winds from 16k+. Fly straight and level at 20k and see what happens. Then perhaps adjust winds to bring them up to 25k so you're flying in them too. If I have time in the next couple of day, I'll try it and we can compare results...
-
Let's throw this in, if it's realistic enviroment that's the issue:
Is the Norden bombsight accurately modeled?
"To improve the calculation time, the Norden used a mechanical computer inside the bombsight to calculate the range angle of the bombs. By simply dialling in the aircraft's altitude and heading, along with estimates of the wind speed and direction (in relation to the aircraft), the computer would automatically, and quickly, calculate the aim point. This not only reduced the time needed for the bombsight setup, but also dramatically reduced the chance for errors. This attack on the accuracy problem was by no means unique, several other bombsights of the era used similar calculators. It was the way the Norden used these calculations that was different.
Conventional bombsights are set up pointing at a fixed angle, the range angle, which accounts for the various effects on the trajectory of the bomb. Looking through the sights, its crosshairs indicate the location on the ground where the bombs would impact if released at that instant. As the aircraft moves forward, the target approaches the crosshairs from the top, and the bombardier releases the bombs as it passes through them. One example of a highly automated system of this type was the RAF's Mark XIV bomb sight.
The Norden worked in an entirely different fashion, the "synchronous" or "tachometric" method. Internally, the calculator continually computed the impact point, as was the case for previous systems. However, the resulting range angle was not displayed directly to the bombardier or dialled into the sights. Instead, the bombardier used the sighting telescope to locate the target long in advance of the drop point. The calculator used the inputs for altitude and airspeed to determine the angular velocity of the target, and then used a rotating prism to attempt to keep the target centred. So while conventional bombsights waited for the visibly moving target to approach the fixed range angle, with the Norden, one waited for the visibly fixed target to approach the (hidden) moving range angle.
It was the difference between the two calculated values, the current range angle (to the impact point) and the current angle to the target measured from the telescope, that determined the direction and distance the aircraft had to travel in order to take it over the proper drop point. As the bomber approached the target, the difference between the range and target angles would be continually reduced, eventually to zero (within the accuracy of the mechanisms). At this moment the Norden automatically dropped the bombs.
The reason for this additional complexity was that the target generally did not stay centred in the sighting telescope when it was first set up. Instead, due to inaccuracies in the estimated wind speed and direction, the target would drift out of the crosshairs in the sight. To correct for this, the bombardier would use fine-tuning controls to slowly cancel out any motion through trial and error. These adjustments had the effect of updating the measured ground speed used to calculate the motion of the prisms, slowing the visible drift. Over a short period of time of continual adjustments, the drift would stop, and the bombsight would now hold an extremely accurate measurement of the exact groundspeed and heading. Better yet, these measurements were being carried out on the bomb run, not before it, it helped eliminate inaccuracies due to changes in the conditions as the aircraft moved. And by eliminating the manual calculations, the bombardier were left with much more time to adjust their measurements, and thus settle at a much more accurate result. Conventional systems would estimate wind speed using a drift telescope or dead reckoning, but this was time consuming to calculate, and did not offer anywhere near the accuracy of the Norden.
The angular speed of the prism changes with the range of the target; consider the reverse situation, the apparent high angular speed of an aircraft passing overhead compared to its apparent speed when it is seen at longer distance. In order to properly account for this non-linear effect, the Norden used a system of slip-disks similar to those used in differential analysers. However, this slow change at long distances made it difficult to fine tune the drift early in the bomb run. In practice, bombardiers would often set up their groundspeed measurements in advance of approaching the target area by selecting a convenient "target" on the ground that was closer to the bomber and thus had more obvious motion in the sight. These values would then be used as the initial setting when the target was later sighted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden_bombsight
-
I believe winds effects bombs, but if you use manual calibration it corrects for it. The MA type bombsight does not.
-
I did a quick test tonight offline (was having issues with custom arena tonight). Saw no difference between crosswinds and no winds. Was in a B-17 and dropped a single 500lb bomb. The bomb exited the plane to the left of the centerline in both cases, and hit the ground pretty much the same amount to the left as when it left the plane. Calibration was MA automatic and calibrated speed was +/- 1mph of actual speed.
(http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll239/ViperDriver/AcesHighII/BombWind.jpg)
-
Ok... I loaded up the Training Arena terrain in a custom arena and did the same test as Dot... got the same results. With wind a constant 25mph, direction 270, from 2,000 ft up to 20,000ft, and with the bomber at 21,000 feet... I was right on target.
So I dropped the bomber down to 19,800... into the wind layer. And while the bombs were still on target, I did notice it was harder to keep the bomber on course during the drop due to the crosswind... but still, the bombs hit where I wanted them to.
So I tried a third test. I varied wind speed from 25 - 50 mph, and varied direction ranging from NW - SW from 2K up to 20K. I flew the in the wind layer again... and these were the results.
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/WindTest_001.jpg)
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/WindTest_002.jpg)
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/WindTest_003.jpg)
With the wind coming at me diagonally, it was even harder to stay on course. It also "appeared" to have an effect on the bomb strike location each time. I am assuming (and I may be wrong) that the bombsight can compensate for steady wind, from one direction in all layers... but it cannot compensate for wind that varies in speed and direction through the layers.
Would be interesting to see if anyone else gets the same, or a different result.
IF... it does affect bombing in this manner, I would love to see this in FSO. Even if it doesnt... the difficulty in just keeping the bombers on target to the drop is enough to make it worth an add. Now that I think about it... the constant, and last second corrections I had to make to put the crosshairs on the center of the pad may have been what threw the bombs off alone.
I propose we add wind set up in this fashion to all FSO events... just as 3K icons have become a standard... slight and varying wind should be a standard as well. Let's kick it up a notch.
Any thoughts?
EDIT: *note that manual calibration was used for all 3 tests*
-
With the wind coming at me diagonally, it was even harder to stay on course. It also "appeared" to have an effect on the bomb strike location each time. I am assuming (and I may be wrong) that the bombsight can compensate for steady wind, from one direction in all layers... but it cannot compensate for wind that varies in speed and direction through the layers.
EDIT: *note that manual calibration was used for all 3 tests*
A properly calibrated manual bombsite will compensate for wind drift of the wind layer in which you're flying. Since you can only be flying in one (and only one) wind layer at any given time, any other wind layers are not a factor. Since wind appears to have no effect on bomb drops, the apparent affect on bombs that you saw from the lower wind layers was most likely caused by your need to constantly adjust your flightpath to keep on course.
You can get to the target with your crosshairs slightly off to the side, but just because you jam your stick (or rudder) to the side and your plane rolls and gets the crosshair on target, your plane is still off to the side and you bombs will probably miss.
I still like the ideo of having wind in FSO (as long as it's aloft and won't affect ground ops like takeoff and landing), but many will complain that manual bombing is hard enough without having to fly in a wind layer. I am of the opinion that FSO should require something more of the participants than just the same push-button game that you get in the main arenas.
-
Yup... thats what it was. I just re-ran the test again. This time, varying wind layers and speeds again, flying in both a head/cross and tail/cross wind at different times, and they all landed right in the pickle barrel. I am pretty sure my last minute adjustments to stay on course during the first test is what threw me off.
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/WindTest2_001.jpg)
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/WindTest2_002.jpg)
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/WindTest2_003.jpg)
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/WindTest2_004.jpg)
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/WindTest2_005.jpg)
I agree with you Dot... wind layers would add a level of difficulty in just staying on target alone. Add in the need to compensate for fuel consumption differences, flight times, etc... it would make FSO even more of the premier event than it already is.
-
All good for enthusiasts. Majority of FSO players prefer not to fly bombers at all though unfortunately. Making it harder than it needs to be just sours the experience for those particular people even more when their turn comes around. Nobody likes to become incompetent at the stroke of a pen. Making it harder about once a year is plenty for the afficionado.
We've had ruckus' in the past on this board about squads being assigned buffs too often. We've had plenty of experiences of squads not even turning up at all when they've been assigned bombers. I like flying bombers and I am well aware there are people and squads that fully revel in it. Reality check comes when you're the nominated frame CO and you're trying to dole out rides according to the stated preferences. Face it- they just aren't the popular ride. Making the task harder isn't going to make it more popular.
Whilst my buff flying hours in the MA exceed my knucklehead hours by quite a factor, I don't fool myself into thinking that my enthusiasm for multi-engine heavies is broadly shared.
If some lad/lass has fought their way through to a target, for gosh sake let them have a chance of actually hitting it. Nobody really suffers.
-
< I am one of the Non-bombers. So if there is wind only do it on the setups without manual calibration. For us non bombers its difficult enough hitting our targets from 20-28k in the first place...
-
< I am one of the Non-bombers. So if there is wind only do it on the setups without manual calibration. For us non bombers its difficult enough hitting our targets from 20-28k in the first place...
Are you sure? Rumor has it that your the Phantom when it comes to the CAG's coffee mug. Only a real bomber pilot can hit that target. :devil
-
Are you sure? Rumor has it that your the Phantom when it comes to the CAG's coffee mug. Only a real bomber pilot can hit that target. :devil
:rofl :rofl :rofl