Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Urchin on September 19, 2001, 01:55:00 PM
-
Ok, since everyone knows how I feel about em, I won't bother recapping it. Here are some ideas that I feel are good compromises-
1. Lessen the zoom feature (on ALL planes). If possible, make it so a buff at 25k or lower can zoom in all the way while in bomb mode (so it can see fuel and stuff), but a bomber above this height will not be able to pick out individual targets smaller than the hangers.
My next idea will probably be somewhat tough to put in the game, but I think it would be an excellent compromise between removing all ability to fly the plane from the gunners stations and keeping it the way it is (i.e. all the buff guns can still fire at a particular spot in the air, even while the plane is in a 45 degree bank). I actually had this idea while I was putzing around in a Panzer. I had climbed up a hill near an enemy base (my god what a climb to, at 4 mph the whole way :eek: ). After I stopped at the top to kill the acks, I attempted to descend the hill to get into the enemy base and really tear some stuff up. As I was going down the hill, I came under attack by a particularly persistant LA7. He never hurt me, and I never really hurt him, but I wanted to keep moving so I'd give him a harder target. There were some planes taking off from the airfield, so I decided to try to shoot them with the main gun. I shot at 4 or 5 planes, and I only managed to hit 1 (but boy did that hit hurt!). The sight was moving and shaking all over the place as the tank rolled (at only 10mph) down the hill. So I thought my idea #2.
If the buff exceeds a certain angle in a bank, the gunners sights start moving and shaking (mildly at first, but more as the bank gets steeper). I think this would be valid, because the gunners would be concentrating more on maintaining their balance and their grip on the gun, rather than just maintaining a rock solid lock on the enemy airplane. I don't think it would effect the ball gunner, but every other station I can think of would be effected by the planes "evasive" manuevers. How hard would this be to put in, and moreso, do you think it is fair to the buffers? I do, but I'm hardly what you could call unbiased.
-
Item 1: You going to ask for an increased blast radius on the bombs then?
Item 2: Bob Hoover, a stunt pilot, mounted a video camera in his cockpit, set an empty glass on the instrument panel, and poured himself a soft drink while flying full rolls....how'd he do that, anyway?
-
#1. Absolutely. The bombs SHOULD have a larger blast radius than they do, at least it looks a lot bigger in all the footage I have seen from WW2.
#2. I'd wager that the guy was strapped into a seat, although he'd have to have very good aim to pour that soda in a cup held in place by centrifugal force. That'd be neat to watch, you wouldn't happen to have a clip of it, would you? Anyway, he is essentially in a "stable" position, being strapped into a seat that effectively negates most of the force that would be present on a human standing or kneeling in a plane that is manuevering.
-
Well, the glass on the dashboard isn't strapped in. It's just sitting on the glare shield. The CG of the glass is continually changing as it fills. How does it stay there?
Wouldn't the exact same forces be acting on the pilot?
I saw the clip a long time ago... it might be in this video, but I'm not sure.
http://www.flyrightproductions.com/BobHooverVideo.htm (http://www.flyrightproductions.com/BobHooverVideo.htm)
-
I'd have to guess (and it is only a guess, I'm no physicist) that it actually doesn't matter what the CG of the glass is- it is effectively "glued" into place by the centrifugal force. Now, if the man had held a 45 degree banking turn and still managed to pour that soda into the glass without making a HUGE mess, I'd buy the argument that the gunners in the B17s wouldn't be affected by the same type of force.
-
When your airline flight goes into a 30 degree banked turn and holds it for 180 degrees, are you thrown all over the cabin?
Does the meal tray slide on to the floor?
Can a flight attendant refill your wine glass while the aircraft is in a turn?
If you're wizzing in the john at the moment, do you spray all over the walls?
(Story would be the same at 45 degrees, btw. G load would be a bit higher. In fact, you can go all the way to 50 degrees with only about 1.5 G. Just used 30 because that's about the max you'll ever see on an airliner. 20-25 is more common.)
-
those are good arguments toad but........they don't take into account many things... only 1 i need to mention: roll rate. when a 17 yanks and banks, the roll rate is much greater(its not sustaining g's)than the lazy, sustained g turns of a liner. if you were to mount a 50 cal out the back of a liner, of course you'd be able to acquire a target. now add tracking a moving target with non-sustained g's and bam, you get spray n pray. there is no argument to that so ya don't need to reply<BFG>
-
before ya get bent out of shape--the not needing to reply comment was a joke/;^/
-
Originally posted by Toad:
When your airline flight goes into a 30 degree banked turn and holds it for 180 degrees, are you thrown all over the cabin?
No, but again, we are seated- not standing. I suspect the turn would have more "force" if you will if the passengers were standing up. Also, when they bank they are applying a constant force backwards on the stick, pushing you back into your seat. If you were standing, you would feel a force pushing you backwards (I think, if this is not the case please let me know, I have not been on an airplane in a very long time).
Does the meal tray slide on to the floor?
No, but there are little grippers on them from what I remember, to add friction between your little tray on your lap and the dinner tray.
Can a flight attendant refill your wine glass while the aircraft is in a turn?
This, I actually don't know. I've never drank on an airplane, nor paid much attention to anyone drinking. I'd assume yes, since you asked it.
If you're wizzing in the john at the moment, do you spray all over the walls?
Man.. why'd you have to bring THAT up?! It was only the ONE time, OK?! :). Actually, good question, never been going to the bathroom when the plane turned. I imagine if you werent careful you could end up with a little "spray and pray" action.
(Story would be the same at 45 degrees, btw. G load would be a bit higher. In fact, you can go all the way to 50 degrees with only about 1.5 G. Just used 30 because that's about the max you'll ever see on an airliner. 20-25 is more common.)
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Urchin ]
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Urchin ]
-
I find this whole buff discussion very interesting, because I saw the whole thing happen in AW, extremely similar to what people are saying here.
In that light, I'll post something I posted at one time during that 'other' discussion...
From the book Air Command -- Fighters and Bombers of WWII by Jeffrey L. Ethell
"Bob Kennedy B17 tail gunner, 303rd Bomb Group
...Suddenly, all hell broke loose! A '17 to our rear began belching flames rrom number two engine and started peeling off. All this time there was no radio warning of attack. I stared in amazement as what looked like a hundred blurry shapes came in, all (in my mind) aiming directly at us. I was trying to get my helmet on when little firecrackers began breaking around the tail and the blurry shapes turned into fighters with wings and cowlings flickering with little lights. I tried to get my guns unlimbered; then some reflex action, probably terror, made me yell to the pilot, 'Curley, the whole damn Luftwaffe is out here--pull her up!' What happened then took me and the waist gunner completely out of the action, but very probably saved our lives!
Neither I nor any of the crew had ever been on a '17 being yanked up and down--twice. Imagine the most vicious roller coaster ride possible, take off the restraints, load a bunch of goods around you, and you're in a loose but confined space. That's it! I was smashed up and almost through the roof. Everything loose--flak suit, escape bag, shoes, helmet--all flew up and down with me and ended up in a heap flopping with me on the floor. Then before I could do much of anything, up, then down again! I fell over backwards, narrowly missing the seat horn with my crotch. This time, to give an idea of the sheer violence of the whiplashes, the ammunition on the right storage bin somehow jumped out and about five feet of heavy .50-caliber ammo added to the mess.
On my hands and knees, I tried to free my oxygen tube (caught in the ammo mess), get a glove back on (torn loose by the gun butts), and get the flak suit off me, along with the ammo, all at the same time. I glanced for a second out the right window and saw the crew coming out the waist of the nearest '17 off our left horizontal stabilizer. Still frantic to be able to move and breathe, in the next second I glanced up again and there sat--and I mean sat--an Fw 190 right off our left stabilizer, so close I could have wing-walked over to him. He must have just finished firing, because a yellow-white cloud of smoke came back from somewhere front like..."
just sayin'
anRky
-
Toad.......
-
If you will note from my very first post, you'll see I've said nothing about violent maneuvers. Nothing.
Someone here, however, is trying to make the case that bank angle and G load... any G load... makes it impossible to stand up or aim or whatever.
This is simply incorrect and the replies show it.
Urchin, do this: put " bank angle G load" in any search engine. Look at the G load at 30 degrees of bank in a level turn (the charts are for a level turn).
Then come back and tell me if you could withstand that immense force while standing up.
Forgive me for not just giving you all these answers.
Grun, I'm not making any case for shooting from a buff or otherwise. I'm trying to impart a basic understanding of the relationship between bank angle and G load so he can come to better understanding of what he's discussing.
... and you'll note I'm doing it without foul-mouthing anyone. ;)
-
Will do Toad. I'm sorry if I seem ignorant, I really don't know much about physics and stuff like that.
Bank Angle Acceleration
10° 1.02 G
20° 1.06 G
30° 1.15 G
40° 1.31 G
50° 1.56 G
60° 2.00 G
70° 2.92 G
80° 5.76 G
85° 11.47 G
87° 19.11 G
I found this chart. Yes, I think I could probably "withstand the G force" up to about 60 degrees, but you also have to take into account maintaining your balance. Could I stand on a 60 degree slope (which the "floor" of the plane would be at a 60 degree bank), and maintain my aim on an attacking fighter? I don't know, honestly. I'd weigh 400 pounds, and all 400 pounds would be wanting to pull me away from my gun. That could make it tough to aim, I think at least.
Even at a 30 degree bank- I'd be 230 pounds of gunner that was trying to stand on a 30 degree tilted floor, all the while trying to maintain my aim on a fighter and fighting the 230 pounds that is trying to pull me away from my gun.
I'm not trying to sound antagonistic (and I probably sound stupid), I honestly think that maintaining your balance on a 30 degree slope and aiming at a moving target would cause problems- especially with gravity attempting to pull you away (or force you into) your gun.
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Urchin ]
-
Originally posted by Urchin:
1. Lessen the zoom feature (on ALL planes).
Urchin,
That zoom (non-bombsight) is to allow us to see things the size they really wold be.
Normally in AH we have 90 degrees of vision crammed into a 15" to 21" area, depending on your monitor. I absolutely assure you that my monitor does not occupy 90 degrees of my vision. We need that wide angle view to have any SA at all. We need the zoom to, what is it, about 15 degrees in order to see things in size perspective. To be able to see details and fine tune our aim. My 19" monitor occupies about 15 degrees of my vision.
-
Just trying to point out that it depends on the type of maneuver.
Violent maneuvers will bounce you all over the place.
Co-ordinated turns are a different matter. Remember too that the feet are on the floor and both hands are on a gun that is firmly attached to the airplane. Your basic three-point stance.
I'm not making the case that the buff maneuvers that we often see in AH wouldn't beat you to death.. they probably would.
I'm making the case that... "it depends". It all depends on what the airplane is doing. And a co-ordinated turn wouldn't be that bad.
That's all.
-
Firing from a turning Buff in AH is almost impossible already. It throws your aim to hell.
-
I think we can do without zoom, really the icon rangefinder gives us far more info than even in RL anyway. Basically Im saying the icons more than make up for any visual loss due to monitor limits.
Here is what I think could be done to buffs as a start.
1. No more shooting thru fuselages and tails. Ill admit I think its great fun to fire thru an Il2s tail and see hit sprites on fighter on my low 6 behind and slightly under the tail. BUT this is very very unrealistic. If you fire thru ur plane you damage ur plane, this should be VERY simple for HTC to do. Because we know that in AH a fighter CAN kill itself with its own bullets. If you dont belive me drive a cannon armed plane up real close against a hangar wall and fire. You will kill urself.
Buffs should be able to damage themselves with their own guns. If you fear that some amazinhunk will try to kill ur buff if u let him gun, well it can be very easy for HTC to add a quick ".ejectgunner" feature if nothing like that exists allready .
2. No more zoom in gun positions of buffs and fighters gunsights. The perfect icon rangefinder is more than sufficient.
3. A consistently gradual reduction of bombing accuracy above a "certain" alt. I have no idea what that should be, but the goal is to eradicate the 35K perfect 100% hit ability. I would suggest that maybe we can start this slowly after 15K, but thats certainly up to debate.
4. Some useful improvement in blast effect of bombs.
5. A new buff bombsight that requires some greater level of the buffs attention. I hear that WB has some time period "straight and level" requrement to calibrate the bombsight. I can understand if HTC is less than enthusiastic in seeming to copy WB features, but they allready found a way to have quick "6calls", another reported WB feature without directly copying. I trust they can do the same here.
6. HTC should look into buff manuverability at all alts and especially high alt abilities and great manuverabilty without loosing altitute at extreme alts.
A note on this. I have the same feeling (yes feeling, so go ahead and call me names and make fun) about buff high alt ability as I did with the CHOG, NIKI, and 47D11 FMs. Basically it seems something is off with respect to other planes abilities at alt. My intial instincts about CHOG, NIKI, and 47D11 FM issues have been borne out by HTC either in outright admitting there was a great weight error in the FMs or stating that there were other areas of concern. Now I run the risk of coming off self a righteus salamander in this last paragraph, but many of my inital FM concerns have pretty much been agreed to by HTC in the past few months. Basically I said they performed wierd compared to other planes. Then HTC announces the CHOG is whopping 600lbs too light, and the 47D11 is at least 300lbs too light and that NIKI has issues.
Again all hope with my posts is to draw light to various FM issues I see and hope that HTC takes a closer look if something is indeed wrong. The reactionaries among us need not take offense or see these notes as demands.
7. Something must be done about buff guns. Here is how I see it.
Some real shaking must be given to buff guns.
especially pintle mounted positions.
The perfect convergence of every single gun on one aimpoint no matter how extreme the angle should also be redesigned to increase dispersion.
I do however have a question for HTC that I would really love to have answered.
Recently HiTech said buff guns are just regular 50cals as in fighters, but ever since I started AH in tour 7 I have been told by everyone that buff guns had been given extended range by HTC in order to deal with some "lag" issue. So HTC can you please clarifly this?
8. Finally I think I know a surefire way to make buffs more important for any of you buff pilots who fear that buffs will dissapear if they have any new challenge or difficulty in use. The recent ack model has largely reduced buffs to a secondary role of bombing fuel and killing barracks. The new ack model is so dumb and so easy to kill by fighters even with only a handful of bullets
that the new field capture model is mostly an instant deack by any decent jabo or other plane with long range guns, followed by a vulch and a drawn-out battle against many many many M16s and FLAKS that got out before the VH was killed. We all know just how true and common this scenario is today in AH. Anyway I strongly feel that if the field ack model of several versions ago before V105 was retured to AH, a much better buff/fighter balance could be achived again in AH. Buffs culd again resume an important
Thats bout all for now.
In conclusion I think buffs are an important part of the AH system however they can really use much more refinement.
-
GRUNHERZ,
There is no "perfect convergence on one point" for Buff guns in AH. Thus speaketh HiTech:
Originally posted by HiTech:
One more myth to destroy.
Hazed states perfictly converging guns. There is no covergance on the buff guns, they just all shoot parallel. i.e. if you are shooting to the side, and the tail gun and nose gun are 40 ft appart, they will be each shooting at a point 40 feet apart.
-
Good post Anarky. As for "I find this whole buff discussion very interesting, because I saw the whole thing happen in AW, extremely similar to what people are saying here." I wonder why? ;)
I agree that in emergencey evasives a gunner shouldnot nor could shoot as shown in the eyewitness acount.
But folks are talking about turning and banmking the plane like normal and being able to stil lshoot the guns. I think a blakcout or rendering useless of guns for xxxx amoutn of time during and just after such maneuvers would be well called for as an implementaion in the AH code.
But there are many stories and first person accounts of B17 and B-24 pilots maneuvering thier planes while thier gunners tried (and quite often succesfully) shoot down attacking enemy aircraft.
Here's a good one (and also only because it's the one I can find right off the bat on the 'net):
Flying Fortress soon entered a rain squall. The windows were
black with clouds and rain and the plane was buffeted by strong
winds. Emerging from the squall at low altitude into blinding
sunlight the B-17 emerged only fifty feet from their adversary.
Immediately every gun on both aircraft began firing in a broad-
side exchange reminiscent of age old sailing ship battles.
Thousands of bullets crisscrossed the narrow spread of air and
the Fortress shuddered from the impact. Tracer bullets from the
B-17 pelted the Mavis like darts with many ricocheting off its
armor. The Mavis made a tight turn and Loberg turned inside him
to avoid the mortal sting from the Mavis tail guns. In and out
of rain squalls this interesting dogfight continued for 45
minutes. The Mavis kept very close to the wave tops to protect
its vulnerable under belly. Several times during the fight
the Mavis disappeared for three or four minutes into clouds,
but each time as it reemerged Loberg's B-1 7 resumed the attack.
Twice the B-17 passed over the H6K so close that the jagged
bullet holes in the Mavis and the round glasses on its two
pilots could be seen clearly. Finally, the Mavis began smoking
and the Japanese plane dropped into the sea and exploded in a
large ball of flame. In the words of Ira Wolfert, a war
correspondent, who was on the flight, "During the duel, the
Fort that I was on, with a bullet in one of its motors and two
holes as big as Derby hats in its wings, made tight turns with
half-rolls and banks past vertical. That is, it frequently stood
against the sea on one wing like a ballet dancer balancing on
one point and occasionally it went over even farther than that
and started lifting its belly toward the sky in a desperate
effort to keep the Jap from turning inside it... Throughout
the entire forty-four minutes, the plane, one of the oldest
being used in the war, ran at top speed, shaking and rippling
all over like a skirt in a gale, so many inches of mercury
being blown into its motors by the superchargers that the
pilot and copilot, in addition to their other worries, had to
keep an eye on the cowlings to watch for cylinder heads
popping up through them."
Others on Loberg's crew that day were B. Thurston the copilot,
R. Spitzer the navigator, R. Mitchell the bombardier and E.
Gustafson, E. Jung, G. Holbert, E. Smith and R Bufterbaugh who
manned the guns during this unusual dogfight. Both Mitchell and
Spitzer were wounded during the battle."
(http://www.neam.org/images/58dogfight.jpg)
- Westy
-
karnak... i believe that we have missunderstood the buff convergence issue as HT explained it. Although the guns are 40 feet (or whatever) apart, they do indeed have "perfect convergence) each gun is aimed at the same point no matter what the distance. On a fighter the convergence is set, it will be different at different ranges for each and every gun.
Still... it would possibbly change point of impact if the bullets had to go through parts of your bomber first.
toad... wouldn't a bank without a turn throw all the gunners around violently? the old flip flop?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
karnak... i believe that we have missunderstood the buff convergence issue as HT explained it. Although the guns are 40 feet (or whatever) apart, they do indeed have "perfect convergence) each gun is aimed at the same point no matter what the distance. On a fighter the convergence is set, it will be different at different ranges for each and every gun.
lazs
Hmm, I interpreted HT's remarks as the guns were aimed in parallel, which would mean absolutely no convergence, the paths of the bullets (not counting dispersion) would never intersect. Perfect convergence would only be possible if the turrets took into account the ROC of the target to the plane, as well as the velocity of the bullets, and the position of each turret and guessed so that the bullets would converge where the plane SHOULD be for each and every round fired. They're not doing that. The turrets are slaved to each other. If you point the ball to bear 135 degrees, and say 2 degrees down, every turret/position will bear 135 degrees (relative to the plane's 12 oc position) and 2 degrees down or to their maximum deflection if the position can't face that direction. For convergence, the right waist would have to bear a little more or less than 135 (I can't remember if the waist is farther back on than the ball or not) and a little more down than 2 degrees. the tail would have to bear less than 135 and more than 2 degrees. These values would change as the bandit got closer (even if the ball turret never moved) for convergence. This is not the case with the AH bombers, according to HT.
-
Nifty you stated it correctly.
HiTech
-
Yep, Toad, I brought up violent maneuvers, partly because I hadn't seen people mention it yet, and mostly because I like posting that story :)
It's surprising to me that, as good as the maneuverability of the B17 is in AH, I don't see many violent evasives in the MA. Maybe people don't evade because the guns seem to be the best defense.
Also, since the guns seem to be so lethal, I'm surprised I don't see B17s going offensive in a furball. Maybe the guns aren't as lethal as they seem.
And thanks for your post, Westy--it makes me feel less guilty about the way I fly buffs in the MA.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the way buffs are modeled. Since the AH B17 seems to perform so similarly to the old AW B17, maybe both sims got it right. At first, it does seem strange that a B17 at alt can outmaneuver and outclimb a P-51, but then again, the B17 *does* have a lot more wing (and more props) in that thin air.
Then again, if I remember correctly, the AW B17 ended up being neutered quite severly just after I left, because of maneuverability and alt ceiling issues.
As far as the guns, here's another area where AH and AW 'feel' very similar to me. AW didn't have the 'every gun firing at once', but they did have a much greater gunner lethality. As far as I can tell, the guns on an AH buff are almost exactly as lethal as the one(s) on an AW buff were. Definately they both have the frequent 'one ping death while attacking' phenomenon in common.
The only things I really don't like about AH buffs is the F3 view, and the AW-type bombing accuracy.
The F3 view makes dogfighting buffs possible in AH, but since I almost never see a dogfighting buff (unless I'm in it), that's not really an issue.
But the pinpoint bombing accuracy? Well, I'll consider that part of MA gameplay, instead of buff modeling. And since I dislike soooooooo many things about MA gameplay, I can just lump this one on the list, and not even notice it. ;)
anRky
-
Also, since the guns seem to be so lethal, I'm surprised I don't see B17s going offensive in a furball. Maybe the guns aren't as lethal as they seem.
You aren't looking hard enough. Just lastnight during my 1 hour of flight time, the enemy was sending b17 after b17 from a field close by. No problem so far, but they were sending them to there own field straight into the furballs. What were they gonna do, bomb thier own hangars? I think not.
-
hehe urchin, That LA7 happend to be a fellow by the name of DeezCamp who later shot you with a Gun on the Field :D
;)
-
Apache:
------------------------------------------
You aren't looking hard enough. Just lastnight during my 1 hour of flight time, the enemy was sending b17 after b17 from a field close by. No problem so far, but they were sending them to there own field straight into the furballs. What were they gonna do, bomb thier own hangars? I think not.
------------------------------------------
Actually, while flying for Rook last night, I saw that. Or at least, I saw two B-17s heading at low level from one of their fields towards a field of thiers that was extremely heavily capped.
First time I'd seen it in AH, though.
anRky
-
Hehe Deez, the Tank vs. La7 duel was rather fun. I was very surprised you didn't hurt me with your 20mm cannon though. I absolutely hosed you with that dinky little 7.92mm MG on the turret, but I'm not surprised that didn't hurt you lol.
The 20mm surprised me though, I've had Spitfires strafe me on several occasions and kill the turret, both tracks, the turret MG, and the engine in one pass. The .50 planes usually get the tracks on a strafing run.