Author Topic: You know you want it (Read 669 times)

Krusty · « **on:** December 08, 2006, 01:54:32 PM »

You've even mentioned it would be cool to model the weapons packages on it! C'mon HTC, you've admitted it, no take-backs!

The Me 410.

So go ahead and start planning it, even if work won't start right away (or for some time, even). Which weapons packages? It could carry 2 2x20mm gunpods, if I recall, or was that 1 2x30mm and 1 2x20mm?

I'd love the 6-pack of WGrs, but apparently they were only tested and not really used.

So, thoughts?

Lusche · « **Reply #1 on:** December 08, 2006, 02:35:27 PM »

Hmm I may be wrong, but I vaguely remember reading on this BBS that one difficulty on modelling the Byouknowwhatplaneimean are the remote controlled gun turrets - well, the 410 has remote controlled defensive guns too.

nirvana · « **Reply #2 on:** December 08, 2006, 03:02:53 PM »

I'd throw out total historical accuracy and change the remote control guns for our standard human operated ones and get the 410.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 08, 2006, 03:20:09 PM »

I don't see how the gun turrets would be an issue on the 410 any more than they would be on a B-29. All your doing is creating an offset aimpoint and we already have that in the game. The chin turret on the B-17 is an offset aimpoint. The guns are 3ft or better lower than the gunsight is. That is a remote turret. It's already coaded for all guns that can see a target to fire on that target in essence giving remote turrets all over a plane equipped with defensive guns.

Should be real easy to do.

sluggish · « **Reply #4 on:** December 08, 2006, 04:28:39 PM »

The problem is with convergence on MULTIPLE remote guns and it's been rumored forever that that IS one of the problems with the 29.

Krusty · « **Reply #5 on:** December 08, 2006, 04:56:58 PM »

I'd say screw the guns altogether. They left out the ventral on the A20s because they lacked info on how it looked, they can leave these off because they can't implement 'em!

Also, if they ever fix this, there's no reason NOT to do a b29, or a Blenheim, or various other things with remote guns.

Krusty · « **Reply #6 on:** December 08, 2006, 04:59:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by sluggish
The problem is with convergence on MULTIPLE remote guns

You know what, you've got a great point there!!!

Each side "barbette" would rarely ever aim in the same direction as the one on the other side. I think only when aimed straight back would they be able to match each other's angle. That should be a piece of cake, too! Because they're only about 2 feet apart from each other, why converge? Just move the aim that-a-way and fire!

Hornet33 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 08, 2006, 07:56:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
You know what, you've got a great point there!!!

Each side "barbette" would rarely ever aim in the same direction as the one on the other side. I think only when aimed straight back would they be able to match each other's angle. That should be a piece of cake, too! Because they're only about 2 feet apart from each other, why converge? Just move the aim that-a-way and fire!

Exactly!!!! Also why can't it be coded in such a way where you can set your convergance for gun turrets on bombers???? Say from 200 - 1000yrds?? The game uses the standard convergance setting already except it can't be changed, it's just maxed out all the way at 600yrds.

I wonder if planes equipped with these types of remote turrets were able to set their convergance?? Never bothered to look it up but I'm going to now.

Ball · « **Reply #8 on:** December 09, 2006, 05:16:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lusche
Hmm I may be wrong, but I vaguely remember reading on this BBS that one difficulty on modelling the Byouknowwhatplaneimean are the remote controlled gun turrets - well, the 410 has remote controlled defensive guns too.

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
I'd say screw the guns altogether. They left out the ventral on the A20s because they lacked info on how it looked, they can leave these off because they can't implement 'em!

some groups had them removed in an attempt to make the 410 faster, we could get those ones modelled

Rino · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2006, 12:45:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hornet33
Exactly!!!! Also why can't it be coded in such a way where you can set your convergance for gun turrets on bombers???? Say from 200 - 1000yrds?? The game uses the standard convergance setting already except it can't be changed, it's just maxed out all the way at 600yrds.

I wonder if planes equipped with these types of remote turrets were able to set their convergance?? Never bothered to look it up but I'm going to now.

Possibly because in real life they wouldn't bother trying to get all the
different gunners to fire at one specific target at one range? I doubt
convergence would work even with a single twin gun turret as they were
not fixed mounts

EagleDNY · « **Reply #10 on:** December 09, 2006, 03:18:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
I'd say screw the guns altogether. They left out the ventral on the A20s because they lacked info on how it looked, they can leave these off because they can't implement 'em!

Also, if they ever fix this, there's no reason NOT to do a b29, or a Blenheim, or various other things with remote guns.

Just lock em straight back down the tail. Once you got used to it, you'd be popping rounds into anyone behind you just like the Ar-234 drivers. Only problem I see is that you'd need a 3rd weapon fire button mapped.

EagleDNY
$.02

Krusty · « **Reply #11 on:** December 09, 2006, 03:23:03 PM »

I've got it!!!

Make them like the chin gun on the B17G. By that I mean put a gun in. Then slave 2 more guns on each side (the cheek guns) so that, IF they can, they point in the direction of the gunner.

THEN, just remove the gun. Now you have the 2 cheek guns, firing IF they can, but only 1 position that needs to aim.

Just a thought. They're so narrowly spaced that convergence really isn't an issue, especially considering the guns are pretty close to the gunner's position.