Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: SirNuke on September 21, 2013, 04:56:17 PM
-
:furious
-
did someone get slapped by a bomber :noid
-
did someone get slapped by a bomber :noid
no, I was just observing the impossibility to recreate historical events that involve bombers. Didn't log in the MA this month.
-
Go back to when Scenarios had B-24s and B-17s above 25k going full speed.
Yeah, I don't like scenarios much because of it.
-
Go back to when Scenarios had B-24s and B-17s above 25k going full speed.
Yeah, I don't like scenarios much because of it.
Actually in my experience bomber groups typically don't fly at full throttle once they've climbed to altitude. Full throttle makes it hard to keep the groups together which is really important to survival. Once they level off you back off the throttle and keep everyone together to increase the defensive fire.
-
Actually in my experience bomber groups typically don't fly at full throttle once they've climbed to altitude. Full throttle makes it hard to keep the groups together which is really important to survival. Once they level off you back off the throttle and keep everyone together to increase the defensive fire.
%90+ throttle is still a long ways off from the typical 220 mph speed B24's bombed at in the PTO.
Aside from the B29, Mossi B Mk 16's, and Ar234's, I'm not sure which of the level bombers in AH dropped ordnance at speeds over 250. Sure, the bombers could do it but there were so many factors present in the real deal that prohibited them from going balls deep on the throttle and while in a bombing run. In AH, none of those factors are present and the bombers can abuse every inch of the throttle without hesitation.
I don't think it would be a bad thing to A> allow for bomb drops only in F6 mode; B> have a max speed allowed for most level bombers of X speed (250?).
-
Fighters didn't fly full speed either. Why just ask for bombers to slow down?
-
Since the fighters engines would be subjected to the same wear as the bombers, shouldn't the same restrictions apply to them as well ? :)
-
Fighters didn't fly full speed either. Why just ask for bombers to slow down?
Fighters did fly at full speed in combat, formation based bombers did not.
What percentage of its sortie do you think an He111 in Spet. 1940 spent at full throttle? What percentage do you think a Hurricane Mk I spent at full throttle?
Not everything was a P-51 doing long range bomber escort.
Mind you, bombers get slaughtered in the MA so I don't think slowing them down would be good for the game, but it is for game reasons that I hold that position.
-
Actually in my experience bomber groups typically don't fly at full throttle once they've climbed to altitude. Full throttle makes it hard to keep the groups together which is really important to survival. Once they level off you back off the throttle and keep everyone together to increase the defensive fire.
In my experience, leaders throttle back so the group gets back together until they get to a certain alt then floor it with a half a pack of cigarettes. This started in 2004 or 2005, if you cannot get together in the first climb out then you delay the formation, but I really don't recall in the past 10 years any formation of bombers being so out of wack they needed to throttle back (the leader) to keep a formation together, once everyone was in formation it was "FLOOR IT!".
/now I think about it, once or twice - it depended if people launched out of hangers instead of airfields, but that is so rare i cannot remember the last time buffs launched from hangers
this was in fact so long ago, ALT Caps started going into place where buffs got to a certain alt circling then proceeded to their target at full speed, before hand people just circled as far as they could go
-
In both the DGS events with the 17s and 24s they often were jockeying the throttles to keep the formations together. As an escort driver the full throttle call generally came on the way home as they started to let down. Considering the punishment those guys took, I don't feel real bad for the fighter drivers.
If running full throttle helps a bomber guy survive a scenario frame more power to them. They tend to get pounded.
-
Fighters did fly at full speed in combat, formation based bombers did not.
What percentage of its sortie do you think an He111 in Spet. 1940 spent at full throttle? What percentage do you think a Hurricane Mk I spent at full throttle?
Not everything was a P-51 doing long range bomber escort.
Mind you, bombers get slaughtered in the MA so I don't think slowing them down would be good for the game, but it is for game reasons that I hold that position.
I don't believe fighters flew full throttle from takeoff to landing like we do. For scenarios you can always tell the bomber pilots what speed to fly for historical accuracy. Since scenarios are scored and filmed you can deduct for speeding.
-
:furious
how about realistic deaths too? :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
semp
-
'Realist bomber speeds' is governed by engine endurance...
Russian mass produced generic aircraft seemsed to have had the most issues with overheating...
Guessing that German Engineering had precision and quality, so the least...
USA and then Britain probably between those two...
Our plane's WEP kinda covers this stuff...
Really though, the end result of keeping the pedal to the metal would increase the 'chance' of blowing an engine, hence something somewhere fails. Yeah though, temperature would have to do with it. Hunting down this type of info wouldn't be easy, since 'how long a plane could maintain its speed isn't usually recorded.
I agree that it can be frustrating if strugling to catch up to bombers when they seem faster and/or outclimbing a fighter.
See, wartime, bombers flew together going in one direction, in game though, independent 3-sets of bombers just turn a little and stuff. So, fighters trying to get ahead for the ideal head on attack isn't easy.
-
schlowy is that you bro?
-
+1 for bombers and fighters in historical events. However I am interested what the overall gain would be because the fighters could not fly at full throttle all the time, especially at lower speeds.
-
I'm a little confused about Sir Nuke's complaints. He's flying RAF in the BoB scenario. The bombers
are headed to him and he's being guided by radar operators right to them coalt or higher. He's not
being forced to chase them down and in fact the RAF seems to exercise excellent attack discipline in
not hanging around after the initial passes.
-
If you want to fix something in bombers... Fix the laser bombsite - these bombsites are too accurate for the real life, especially when semi automatic calibration is enabled.
-
I'm a little confused about Sir Nuke's complaints. He's flying RAF in the BoB scenario. The bombers
are headed to him and he's being guided by radar operators right to them coalt or higher. He's not
being forced to chase them down and in fact the RAF seems to exercise excellent attack discipline in
not hanging around after the initial passes.
my request applies to all aces high, bombers are too fast compared to their real life counterparts
-
my request applies to all aces high, bombers are too fast compared to their real life counterparts
The problem with this is that bombers are already easy to kill while bomber sorties are a larger time commitment than a fighter sortie. Because of this bombers are comparatively rare in the game. In addition many new players cut their teeth on bombers. Slowing them down would make them even easier to kill while also making the time commitment longer. New players would have even less success and be less likely to stick around.
In the MA even the tough, heavily gunned B-17G only manages about a 0.33 to 1 kill/death rate. The He111 was only at 0.1 to 1. Of all bombers only the heavily perked B-29 manages anything near a 1 to 1 ratio.
-
no, I was just observing the impossibility to recreate historical events that involve bombers. Didn't log in the MA this month.
:airplane: Just a suggestion about bomber speeds! What I do to try to keep the bombers together is this: Dot speed 120 for climb out, and if you are more than 1/2 mile behind, then do dot speed 130 until you catch up, then dot speed 120. I never make over a 30 degree change in direction in order to keep the formation together, it is difficult to "wheel" a formation in here because of different skill levels of pilots.
After going level, I use manifold pressure of 35 inches as a standard, it is much easier to keep the formation together, altho, I could be wrong about this statement, "but I think the different computers in use in the game may dictate to someone to use, say 38 inches to keep up, or 32 inches to stay in formation", not real sure about the different computer statement, but some of the old guys in here keep saying that.
The whole key to staying in formation is to use the auto-pilot function at all times except when turning and then sometimes, I call for the use of the "L" and "J" keys to make a small heading correction.
You have flown in serveral of my posted missions and you are welcome to fly with me anytime as you are a good pilot and I can count on you hitting your target! (If you are who I think your are).
-
my request applies to all aces high, bombers are too fast compared to their real life counterparts
:headscratch: what? where did you get that information?
-
The problem with this is that bombers are already easy to kill while bomber sorties are a larger time commitment than a fighter sortie. Because of this bombers are comparatively rare in the game. In addition many new players cut their teeth on bombers. Slowing them down would make them even easier to kill while also making the time commitment longer. New players would have even less success and be less likely to stick around.
In the MA even the tough, heavily gunned B-17G only manages about a 0.33 to 1 kill/death rate. The He111 was only at 0.1 to 1. Of all bombers only the heavily perked B-29 manages anything near a 1 to 1 ratio.
Sounds like a good argument for AI gunners :aok
-
:airplane: Just a suggestion about bomber speeds! What I do to try to keep the bombers together is this: Dot speed 120 for climb out, and if you are more than 1/2 mile behind, then do dot speed 130 until you catch up, then dot speed 120...
If the aim is to recreate historical events then I do not see that as a solution. I bet almost every bomber had a different takeoff, climb, cruise and formation flying power settings. If formation speeds would be reduced to historical then fighters would gain more than correct with present setup. Fighters had their own climb, cruise etc speeds also. If one would make a full throttle climb to altitude then the resource for combat would be small unless cooling the engine before. Same goes for cruise power. Complex engine management would be needed or some other speed appropriate to current fighter settings should be calculated. This other speed would be faster than historical to compensate for the current fighter performance. So I would like to know what this new formation speed should be.
-
why not make that if you spend too long at full throttle....the engine overheats. im not sure what happened in real life.maybe the experts can shed some light on this subject,please.
-
How long a plane can fly at a given power setting is governed by cooling, and it isn't just how much cooling you have, but how fast you cool (or heat) the cylinders. Descend too fast at a low power setting and you can crack the heads. Heat management is a big part of a pilots job, especially for this era, but simply isn't modeled here.
Nowadays a plane is rated for METO (max except takeoff power) and that's limited to a certain amount of time. Unlike WEP, it doesn't shut off automatically. You can keep right on exceeding it until your engine blows up.
-
If the aim is to recreate historical events then I do not see that as a solution. I bet almost every bomber had a different takeoff, climb, cruise and formation flying power settings. If formation speeds would be reduced to historical then fighters would gain more than correct with present setup. Fighters had their own climb, cruise etc speeds also. If one would make a full throttle climb to altitude then the resource for combat would be small unless cooling the engine before. Same goes for cruise power. Complex engine management would be needed or some other speed appropriate to current fighter settings should be calculated. This other speed would be faster than historical to compensate for the current fighter performance. So I would like to know what this new formation speed should be.
:airplane: Just remember, the G model B-17 was loaded to different fuel and ord requirements due to mission profile! I use the dot speed 120, because at 50% fuel and 500lbers, the best climb "rate" is 122MPH IAS, so I just round it off to 120. The engine cooling in here seems to be no problem, as I have tried different airspeed settings and it appears to make no difference. Another thing, you can't control the cowl flaps, these in the game stay open, instead of trail or 50% like the real one did. With no fuel flow controls, i.e., mixture controls, full rich is I guess what they programed into the B-17G, and with that much fuel going in the cylinders, they are not going to warm up very much anyway!
-
Actually, that's not quite right. METO power is NOT time limited. Take-off power is time limited.
-
Actually, that's not quite right. METO power is NOT time limited. Take-off power is time limited.
:banana: You sir, are correct, but we are talking about aircraft engine and performance in this game, not real life. Yes, in real life, you have MP limits to watch, WEP time, if engaged to watch and a host of other things which you have to pay attention to. I think Columbo could better answer this, but the 17 and 24 both had specific power reductions at a certain airspeed and altitude. That is where a good flight engineer was worth his weight in gold, if he could take care of your life blood, "Engines"!
Or, where you referring to WEP in this game being time limited?
-
I'd like to think that bombers flew really slow in ww2 to save fuel. after all they had to fly for hours on end and if they flew at max power well, they would run out of fuel 1/2 way there.
here in aces high we fly for 10 or 15 minutes so it's ridiculous to even compare our flight time to "historical" bomber flight times. as we simulate combat, not ww2.
semp
-
Sounds like a good argument for AI gunners :aok
make HT swear thsi will never happen.
the ai in AH in AvA hits from crazy angles jut like the retarded ai in WT and both are completely annoying crutches that change the bomber dynamic into an ai event with the human element removed.
-
both are completely annoying crutches that change the bomber dynamic into an ai event with the human element removed.
I assume you also believe that AI field guns and CV guns are taking away the human element?
The "human element" is still there because we all joined this game to "fly" not be gunners in a bomber. I don't even think they mention "manning the guns on a WW2 bomber" on any of their advertising for the game.
The key elements in flying buffs are bombing, strategic planning, execution of the attack and flying. Gunning is a novelty and a poorly executed one at that.
The AI can be de-clawed a bit.
-
I don't believe fighters flew full throttle from takeoff to landing like we do.
P-38s in the PTO didn't to maximize their flight time and distance.
ack-ack
-
Sounds like a good argument for AI gunners :aok
If you ever flew WB, you'd understand why HiTech decided to leave Otto at home when he made AH.
ack-ack
-
If you ever flew WB, you'd understand why HiTech decided to leave Otto at home when he made AH.
ack-ack
Are you saying he doesn't have the ability to reduce the accuracy of the gunners?
Sounds to me like the programming necessary to do it right was more than he wanted to do (or systems weren't up to the task), not more than he was capable of and priority was given to other issues.
-
Are you saying he doesn't have the ability to reduce the accuracy of the gunners?
Sounds to me like the programming necessary to do it right was more than he wanted to do (or systems weren't up to the task), not more than he was capable of and priority was given to other issues.
Saying it was more of a game play issue than a technical one. Which is why I prefaced it with if you had flown WB then you'd understand.
ack-ack
-
I flew WB, and I liked the autogunners.
I'm sure this is a perennial wishlist topic, but I'd like to see them here with...
1. Pilot and gunners can still take over guns
2. They aren't too laser-beam
3. They have settable parameters - for eg what range to engage, how aggressive to be with ammo, target priorities, etc.
-
Saying it was more of a game play issue than a technical one. Which is why I prefaced it with if you had flown WB then you'd understand.
ack-ack
Of course it's a technical issue! And it has nothing to do with game play other than the resulting complaints from the lack of fine tuning of the AI.
There are only two arguments against that I know of. The "game play" argument...... "it should be player skill that kills me even though I don't really care because I get killed by CV and field guns all the time."
The other half think if it we don't already have an acceptable AI lethality it must be impossible.
AI can be programmed to hit the bulls eye every time and it can be programmed to miss it. Hell they could program the AI to start out as rookies and get better the more success they had. Not saying that's what they should do. And you of all people should already know all of this.
So what's the deal? Why didn't they just tune the AI to have an acceptable level of accuracy back in WB?
-
So what's the deal? Why didn't they just tune the AI to have an acceptable level of accuracy back in WB?
they did...but it wasn't acceptable.
if they dummied it down too much...bomb****s complained. if they kicked it up so it would knock chunks off at 600yds if you hung around too long...fightertards complained. in reality the problem was a programable setting referred to as "buff tuff"...nobody could ever figure out how to make it more realistic. as durable as some bombers in ah are, especially against .50 cal., adding auto gunners would produce a high pitched whine everywhere.
-
they did...but it wasn't acceptable.
if they dummied it down too much...bomb****s complained. if they kicked it up so it would knock chunks off at 600yds if you hung around too long...fightertards complained. in reality the problem was a programable setting referred to as "buff tuff"...nobody could ever figure out how to make it more realistic. as durable as some bombers in ah are, especially against .50 cal., adding auto gunners would produce a high pitched whine everywhere.
They are whining already, that's nothing new. But just like the CV flak and field guns, they'll get over it and only the occasional rants will pop up. Assuming they don't remain laser guided guns of course.
It's a simple formula really. Take the top sticks in the game and let them go at AI formations. When they can take out all three with their best tactics about 30 to 40 percent of the time, (not including arcade style killings like rockets from 1200 yds) then the AI is just right.
Not easy at all for noobs and not excessively easy for vets.
-
P-38s in the PTO didn't to maximize their flight time and distance.
ack-ack
Could a P38 theoretically fly at max continuous power during climb, cruise and combat maneuvering with the reserve for wep usage and have no oil/coolant overheating problems? I have no idea how it was and how performance is modeled in the game. I am asking because it doesn`t seem logical to me. If those high performance fighters could fly full throttle all the time without overheating they would have reliable reserve to push the engine even further for a short time without the wep.
-
WEP >is< that reliable reserve - more or less.
But really, do we want to do full-out engine management here? It's a pain, and it's more buttons, and what does it add, really? The ability to blow up your engine because you forgot to open the louvres on climbout. Or crack the head because you didn't close them in a dive.
-
Could a P38 theoretically fly at max continuous power during climb, cruise and combat maneuvering
It is called "maximum continuous" for a reason. Yes you could do that but you're going to run out of gas pretty quick.
Engine overheating comes more from low airspeed than it does from high power settings.
-
they did...but it wasn't acceptable.
if they dummied it down too much...bomb****s complained. if they kicked it up so it would knock chunks off at 600yds if you hung around too long...fightertards complained. in reality the problem was a programable setting referred to as "buff tuff"...nobody could ever figure out how to make it more realistic. as durable as some bombers in ah are, especially against .50 cal., adding auto gunners would produce a high pitched whine everywhere.
Also it was rather abused in WB, people would just up bombers and fly them over the base and turn on Otto and use the B-17 as an air mobile AAA platform.
ack-ack
-
You'd also have to make people adjust the throttle more slowly to avoid overboosting the supercharger.
-
Could a P38 theoretically fly at max continuous power during climb, cruise and combat maneuvering with the reserve for wep usage and have no oil/coolant overheating problems? I have no idea how it was and how performance is modeled in the game. I am asking because it doesn't`t seem logical to me. If those high performance fighters could fly full throttle all the time without overheating they would have reliable reserve to push the engine even further for a short time without the wep.
:airplane: I don't know of any "real" aircraft which are operated at full throttle all the time! Personally, in any twin or four engine aircraft which I ever flew, I wanted to get 20 knots above VMC speed as quickly as possible! What you are concerned about more than anything else is taking care of those engines where they will get you home again! I would think the guys flying 38's in the SWPAT, "baby" those engines for all their skill. I would imagine that if an airbase was getting a air raid warning, then everyone would climb out at full power to get as much altitude as quickly as possible. But other than that, I can see no reason to abuse engines climbing to altitude because you are not running a race. I would guess also that in aerial combat, yes, they were probably full power at least most of the time, another reason to take care of your engines so that you could have full power available to you when you needed it. There are two instances that you must consider when climbing out: Best rate of climb, most altitude gained in shortest amount of time, or standard cruise climb, which is developed by the test pilots at the factory, which take into account, engine heating, fuel consumption, pilot work load, and mission profile.
-
Just spitballin here but, why not make flying at historic throttle settings an optional risk/reward thing. the time a player ups a new bomber sortie and the time that sortie ends (in whatever way it ends) is recorded in the game code right? Using that data make it so that if a player flies a certain % of their bomber sortie at historic power settings then his perk reward is increased by a small %. Of course this is absolutely optional as players could still fly the entire sortie at max throttle, so it would be easy to opt out of it for those players not concerned with perks. Several throttle and rpm settings are listed in the E6B for each aircraft, so designate the "max cruse" setting as the threshold.
I have know idea how complicated this would be to implement, and I know this wouldn't work outside of the MAs but it seems like it might be a good compromise solution to get some players to fly at historic speed.
-
Also it was rather abused in WB, people would just up bombers and fly them over the base and turn on Otto and use the B-17 as an air mobile AAA platform.
ack-ack
What's one more abuse in AH going to hurt?
-
Just spitballin here but, why not make flying at historic throttle settings an optional risk/reward thing. the time a player ups a new bomber sortie and the time that sortie ends (in whatever way it ends) is recorded in the game code right? Using that data make it so that if a player flies a certain % of their bomber sortie at historic power settings then his perk reward is increased by a small %. Of course this is absolutely optional as players could still fly the entire sortie at max throttle, so it would be easy to opt out of it for those players not concerned with perks. Several throttle and rpm settings are listed in the E6B for each aircraft, so designate the "max cruse" setting as the threshold.
I have know idea how complicated this would be to implement, and I know this wouldn't work outside of the MAs but it seems like it might be a good compromise solution to get some players to fly at historic speed.
because you will find guys flying in the rear at "historical speeds" doing nothing just to get the perks.
semp
-
because you will find guys flying in the rear at "historical speeds" doing nothing just to get the perks.
semp
Maybe you don't get the perks if you don't hit a target.
-
I don't get this thread. Buffs = 260+ Fighters = 350+ Why this thread?
-
Maybe you don't get the perks if you don't hit a target.
what i mean is fly at historical speeds in the rear for hours while watching movies. then rest of tour earn extra perks for doing nothing extra.
semp
-
what i mean is fly at historical speeds in the rear for hours while watching movies. then rest of tour earn extra perks for doing nothing extra.
semp
I get what you are saying. But I was just suggesting a modifier % to perks earned on a bomber sortie. You don't get any perks if you don't either bomb something or shoot something down. So if a player just flew around at historic speed settings behind friendly lines they still wouldn't earn any perks, just like how it is now.
-
what i mean is fly at historical speeds in the rear for hours while watching movies. then rest of tour earn extra perks for doing nothing extra.
semp
I got what you meant.
He suggested creating an incentive for flying at historical speeds. You suggested someone will game it when a simple solution would put a bosh on that perk farming worry.
I could care less if they implement it or not, but I don't support the simplified version of the OP.