I like this.

[Hamish]

 

Originally posted by -duma-:
The real question is, which came first, the chicken or the Fw-190?

LMAO!

Hamish!

[Dinger]

In other words, your plane is flying, so its ground vector (sorry for incorrect terminology) is its in-air vector (speed and heading on the instruments, adjusted for altitude) + the vector of the wind at that altitude (the speed and direction the airmass in it is moving relative to the earth).  You drop the bomb and it falls according to the ground vector.
The bomb isn't flying, so when it crosses a boundary layer, its ground vector is its original ground vector plus whatever puny effects a breeze has on the (very heavy and very streamlined) object.

[Andy Bush]

Dinger

Exactly...with the understanding that the effect of differing winds at altitudes below the release altitude is insignificant.

Andy

[Rickenbacker]

Maniac, don't you remember? HT breaks out in hives at the mention of the word "random".

 

------------------
        Rickenbacker (Ricken)

                -ISAF-
the Independent Swedish Air Force

[tshred]

Great post Maniac! Regardless of wether the wind effects the bomb or not, I still think it's a good idea. And if you look, Maniacs post mentioned nothing about what causes the 'randomness'. It merely stated they "drift off target" from higher alt. We all know they didn't have our(HTC's) Smart Bombs in WWII. Sounds like a good compromise for gameplay sake. Also might help to keep the fighters at a reasonable alt in Scenario's. If the bombers limited their attack alt, then the attacking fighters wouldn't have to climb to 30k to make sure they are above the incoming bombers for an attack run, also reducing the alt of the escorts. Theoretically.

ts

[BlackHammer]

 

Originally posted by Andy Bush:
RAM, -lynx-, and others...
...
Then I sat back with a smug expression on my face, thinking I had belled the cat.
...
Andy

anyone who has belled the cat knows that the cat can move just as silently with or without a bell if it chooses to (and can therefore catch and bring just as many dead rodents into the house).

Black Hammer

[Vermillion]

Overall I think its a good idea.

Our current Norden/Bomb combo is more accurate than the real life Laser Guided bomb system.

But I would also like to see more realistic blast effects to go with it.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Graywolf]

While I can see why people think they want this, I'm with Westy. If implimented kisss goodbye to any real interest from any of the hard core bomber people.

Right now there are NO area targets for people to bomb, the largest taget there is in the HQ building, which is still a single building. SO we have no realistic targets for the bombers to attack. At this point we have to ask the question, "do we want bombers". If we do then we have to make them useful for hitting the point targets that we do have. If we don't then go ahead, make bombing realistic as possible, but don't expect to see anyone flying them, just just won't be able to contibute.

Most of the hardcore would like to see more realistic bomber. Hell, we used to carpet bomb the cities in Warbirds in 617 Squadron, all dropping on the leader's signal.

Believe it or not, it is already harder to bomb from high altitude. It increases your true airspeed giving you less time to line up and spreading salvos out.

People seem to want bombers at low level, pureply so they are easy targets for their fighters. If bombers are going too high, then let's look at why and resolve that problem rather than try and bring them domn artificaly.

If your plan is to make bombers easy targets for fighters or make them miss then you will just lose the bombers. This is my opinion based on my time flying in Warbirds, first tagging along with the Wildcards, then joining the Red Raiders, then forming 617 Squadron with kfsone. In Aces HIgh I rarely fly bombers, mainly due to the limitations of the 'point all guns at single target' gunnery and the fact that formations just never happen. Solo bombing is boring.

Anyway, I'll shut up now  


------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>

[Duckwing6]

Oh btw graywolf there's cities with quite a few buildiigns in AH too .. also the barracks make real nice area targets

DW6

[RAM]

And this is asked in the grounds of playability. I am sure that noone has anything against 20K bombers. But 95% of the people is against the 35K uberdweebish stratobuffs...

SImple, make bombing over 25K so unnacurate that you have nearly zero chances to hit anything by pin-point bombing. That way the bombers will be at realistic altitudes and the problem will be over  

And the dedicated bomber pilots (the good ones, not the uberdweebish stratopilots) will be as happy as anyone  



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 11-03-2000).]

[sling322]

"In Aces HIgh I rarely fly bombers, mainly due to the limitations of the 'point all guns at single target' gunnery and the fact that formations just never happen. "

This statement confuses me.  What exactly do you mean by the above statement?  You can currently only have one gunner in your bomber so why should the guns not all track on a single threat?  I am sure it happened in real life so why is it a limitation?  

[SKurj]

Add a cloud layer at a random altitude somewhere between 15 and 30k.  If the host could add the cloud layer during the night cycle on a moderate percentage of days.  50% of the time for example

This would save many of us the hassle of dealing with the more altitudinous amongst us.

SKurj

[-lazs-]

Actually... I never liked the fact that the bomber war affected the fighter war so directly (bombing fields)   I don't know what a realistic or historical bomb accuracy was but.. seems they were off by hundreds of yards or even more.  

No... I say bombing airfields from high alt is way too easy but... There should be huge cities that take massive bombing raids to kill.   When a countries cities are killed... the war is over.  fields will still be captured by jabo, low alt bombers and ground troops.   the way it is set up now just piss's people off.

With large cities taking a lot of raids to kill... bomber formations can be escorted and attacked bringing the bombers into the community rather than having them nothing more than an anoyance.   Some may never wish to attack bombers or escort and that will be fine.  They can attack or defend airfields.   The "war" will be more layered and realistic with something for everyone to do.   Getting a low fuel or unable to take off message from a field that has been hi alt bombed just adds  animosity and a phony feel.
lazs

[Westy]

 Part of the problem might be that with the bomb sight the bombardier can focus in TOO closely to the ground target when at alts above 20- 25k.

 Bombing is one segment that NEEDS playability. There are not enough people to make an 8TH AAF here and if it was too easy we'd all be pissed trying to take off from closed or damaged bases and if it was too hard we'd nary see a bomber in the skies of AH.

 -Westy

[-lazs-]

Maybe I am alone in this westy but.. I find that the fields are far enough away from each other as it is.   It seems that every night, the closer fields are closed or partially closed making getting to the fight much too time consuming.   The bombers seem willing to sacrafice everything simply to spoil the game for the fighters.  "winning" does not seem to be an issue in most cases so far as I can tell.

Addmitedly, i am not a particularly patient man but.... i don't think new players will be thrilled with the lack of action and extremly long flight time either.   I do admit that I would not care if I never saw another large bomber in AH tho.
lazs