Author Topic: Fixing heavy bombers (Read 2456 times)

Simaril · « **Reply #90 on:** February 23, 2006, 06:26:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
I'm not going to bother reading this entire (-ly too long) thread, but I skimmed through and saw this.

Angle means nothing. That has to be pointed out. What if you're theoretically pulling up from a near vertical dive? Your angle may be steeper than "x" degrees, but the pull on the bomb only is pulling it directly "down" from your bomb bay -- thus in a dive you could release the bombs (without precision aiming) and still do it safely. It depends on forces and which way the bomb is dropping/being thrown at the time of release.

Angle alone won't dictate that.

Now we currently have no gamey system. You would rather we institute an arbitrary gamey system? No arbitrary limits is better than arbitrary limits.

Have to keep looking, that idea won't work.

Krusty,

the limits arent arbitrary - they're historical. They were included in training manuals and were precisely defined.

Second, while the "pulling up" G-force displaced drop is correct from the standpoint of physics, from an engineering standpoint it doesnt apply in AH. Bombers with bays werre not phycially capable of pulling out with enough G's to make a meaningful difference in the bomb angle. (With the probably eception of the Ju-88, whcih was also intended fro dive bombing.) For example, a B-24 travelling over 275 mph could snap off its empennage by ADJUSTING VERTICAL TRIM. Theres simply no way it could do "toss bombing" the way you suggest.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #91 on:** February 23, 2006, 10:02:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MadSquirrel
Jackal1:

So why not correct something that is unrealistic so that it is available at any particular time?

Yes, I spend a lot of time on the ground. And for those that don't see Dive Bombing Buffs every night, I can tell you that it happens EVERY night. Dive Bombing buffs appear at almost every V-Base that has vehicles defending and a nearby enemy base with ords up. Last night alone, at one base I witnessed multiple dive bombing attacks with both Lancasters and B-24s. Don't even assume I am limiting this to one side. All sides do it. And it is wrong.

To say, , well wouldn't that be the same as letting the buff bomb us. The result is no defense at the base. I get bombed by Jabos all time. And though I may not like it, it is in line with actual events and the Jabo is doing what it was designed for. Instead of me ditching my vehicle and upping a fighter to look for those dive bombing buffs, shouldn't the question be, why doesn't the Dive Bombing Buff up a heavy fighter to drop bombs on vehicles?

All I am asking is that "Unrealistic Dive Bombing" by heavy buffs be corrected so that they are used the way heavy bombers were used in WWII.

Don't go to the extent of reading more into this post than there is. Don't dissect each word and sentence to find fault and put specifics to it. The simple fact is this. Dive Bombing Buffs are wrong and inaccurate. Let�s try to fix it.

LTARsqrl <>

HeHe! Well I had you a big ole longwinded reply, but lost it on login. (That shoud be a relief.)
Dive bombing buffs are wrong, inaccurate and unrealistic.................. .in your opinion. When the Doolittle raid was suggested it was also viewed that way by some in WWII.
To fix something it first has to be viewed as broken by the one who counts. Why not approach him directly?
I don`t know exactly who the "Let`s" is supposed to be in "Let`s try to fix it".
Don`t have to read anymore into your statements. They pretty well speak for themselves. You are unhappy with this part of the game and think it is incorrect. What does HT think? That is what counts. Ask him.......directly. It`s been on the boards over and over.
I`m all for ya bud. Go for it.

ChopSaw · « **Reply #92 on:** February 23, 2006, 01:07:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
I'm not going to bother reading this entire (-ly too long) thread, but I skimmed through and saw this.

Angle means nothing. That has to be pointed out. What if you're theoretically pulling up from a near vertical dive? Your angle may be steeper than "x" degrees, but the pull on the bomb only is pulling it directly "down" from your bomb bay -- thus in a dive you could release the bombs (without precision aiming) and still do it safely. It depends on forces and which way the bomb is dropping/being thrown at the time of release.

Angle alone won't dictate that.

Now we currently have no gamey system. You would rather we institute an arbitrary gamey system? No arbitrary limits is better than arbitrary limits.

Have to keep looking, that idea won't work.

Krusty,

Check out this link to another thread. http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168118 Simaril placed some neat photo's and tables from the real thing there. They and he explain the restirictions in a fashion easily and quickly read.

hitech · « **Reply #93 on:** February 23, 2006, 02:14:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril
Krusty,

the limits arent arbitrary - they're historical. They were included in training manuals and were precisely defined.

Second, while the "pulling up" G-force displaced drop is correct from the standpoint of physics, from an engineering standpoint it doesnt apply in AH. Bombers with bays werre not phycially capable of pulling out with enough G's to make a meaningful difference in the bomb angle. (With the probably eception of the Ju-88, whcih was also intended fro dive bombing.) For example, a B-24 travelling over 275 mph could snap off its empennage by ADJUSTING VERTICAL TRIM. Theres simply no way it could do "toss bombing" the way you suggest.

I disagree Simaril, putting in what your proposition is arbtrary. I know about your tables but to only implement them with out implementing the real physics adjustements that those tables are generated from, would be a totaly arbitray adjustment.

2. people tend to greatly over state the angle of dive bombing buffs.

3. bombers can pull resonable g's, It all depends on how they are loading.

4. implementing the angles will not realy change game play lot, people will just learn to come down fast, level at 1k and drop that way.
So the next request will be (noden didn't work at that alt so it should be disabled) Followed by the next request ( for low level stuff they could use fixed sights so please implement that).

5. Implementing the F6 things would , make it so it is not posible to do mass formations drops. I.E. Drop when the lead does.

Finaly I do wish to do bombay modeling, But it is by no means just a quick simple implementation. Nore would it drasticly change game play. So hence it gets put low on the list. But to implement your request would go down an artifical limitation path.

HiTech

ChopSaw · « **Reply #94 on:** February 23, 2006, 02:24:36 PM »

Guess that's the final word. Can't say we didn't try, guys.

Simaril · « **Reply #95 on:** February 23, 2006, 03:04:13 PM »

Fair enough, HT. Thanks for the response.

I know many have focused on the dive bombing heavies issue, and I'd joined in that chorus a year or so ago. Since digging up the data sheets, though, I've repeatedly said that implementation of bomb bay modelling woudl not impact that infrequent problem.

I had suggested the fixed angles without full physics for simplicity's sake...and honestly, if you guys expect to implement full physics modelling that's even better than I'd hoped for. WIth so many major tasks on the "to do" list, I can surely understand why this sits lower down.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue is closed. It'll be done when its done, and when its done it will be done right. Thats more than good enough for me.

P.S. check out the new sig

louman · « **Reply #96 on:** February 23, 2006, 04:03:15 PM »

Folks.....This is a simulation of course....but it also is a game...realistic yes, but a game.......reality is: .....going up and risking everything you have and are ever going to have in life! The only real solution to all of this is having a relaxed realism arena like there was in AW. The pros will gravatate towards full real and the kids and less serious players of which I am one......will (play) in the rr arena. You are always going to have people that will HO, vulch, dive in with a 17 at 200 feet.....crash a plane to get a fully loaded one quicker

bascally some people like to bust chops sometimes of the more serious and experinced players ...I know I do right REN? lol

Tilt · « **Reply #97 on:** February 23, 2006, 07:07:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
5. Implementing the F6 things would , make it so it is not posible to do mass formations drops. I.E. Drop when the lead does.
HiTech

What we have now allows for this..............

IMO your 3d modelling of the various positions allows for players to "look out" from the bomb aimers position............

from the bomb aimers position views allow the player to look out of the aircraft to aircraft ahead................ even the B24 with its restriction of the sight blocking most of the dead ahead view can be circumvented by moving the front quarter views up.

They can see aircraft to the front and to the front quarter views dropping bombs and can trigger their own release ................

The reality is that they are dropped off vox any way when this is done "in game"

I would also note that tanks guns (the Gv equivalent) are only accessable from the appropriate position.......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

even so...............

F6 is a strange method of access................all other positions on the rides are accessed by numbers............ the bomb aimer from a function key suggesting it is a unique form of view like the other "F's"...a player can only move to the bomb aimers position from the pilots position yet jump around the aircraft to other positions quite happily.

the bomb aimers natural view is thru the sight............. not looking forward.

What we have now ............. works(so why fix it?)

However it would be more logical to give the bomb aimer a position number (0?) which would put the player looking forward in the bomb aimers seat (even with access to the gun he may have had)

F6 then presents the bomb sight.........

F6 would be only available from the bomb aimer position...........

Bombs can only be dropped from this position (0?)............(where applicable)......... whether the bomb aimer is using the sight or not.

AC goes level in F6.....................

ChopSaw · « **Reply #98 on:** February 23, 2006, 07:44:43 PM »

What is the CM Staff anyway?

MadSquirrel · « **Reply #99 on:** February 23, 2006, 10:42:04 PM »

Hitech:

Quote

5. Implementing the F6 things would , make it so it is not posible to do mass formations drops. I.E. Drop when the lead does.

How often does "Mass Formation Drops" occur verses the dive-bombing?

In Formation drops, even though very rare, they have Voice between them. Range Channel, Mission Channel, Squad Channel. So get in formation, when the Lead Bomber says go to sights, y'all go the F6, and then the Lead Bomber says "Bombs Away" and everyone drops. Solves the Mass drop dilemma. Also fixes the mass Dive Bombing Dilemma.

LTARsqrl <>

ChopSaw · « **Reply #100 on:** February 24, 2006, 01:37:28 AM »

Perhaps he's thinking mass formation drops will be used in ToD. Could be a clue as to how things are going to be arranged there.