Disable F3 view

[E25280]

See Rule #4

[shreck]

See Rule #4

[Anaxogoras]

Even in the case of a TBM or JU-88, the rear view of the top and bottom gunners are very different.  Your system would force them to choose one or the other as their default rearward view, thus (again) restricting their view beyond what the crews would have experienced.

0 or 0+2 for ventral view, 2 or 5+2 for dorsal/rear gunner view?

But at least you are attempting to offer alternatives rather than straight whining about it, which is rather refreshing.

Well, thank you for noticing!  I'm doing my best to stay on topic and ignore the distractions.

[Larry]

See Rule #4

[Motherland]

It would be nice if, at least for planes like the Il2, they disabled the rear view (tbh I don't think the cockpit views are that bad, but I have TrackIR so it's easier to work around, though I can't go straight to 'perfect positions'...), and they enabled some kind of automatic warning to account for the tail gunner.

This could be added to be kind of like a radar system, which could then be implemented on night fighters, which would rock

Though I have to say I doubt it would happen...

It would be awesome to around in a 110G in pitch blackness, shooting down Lancasters with my Schraege Muzik

[Widewing]

Okay guys, does anyone have any idea how many threads have been devoted to F3 external view since the Aces High Beta?

Hundreds.

Does anyone know how many of these asked for it to be turned off for various aircraft?

Most of them.

Does anyone know what percentage of these threads HTC has ignored because they have repeatedly explained why F3 exists?

100%.

There have been many ideas articulated over the years (not yours shreck, I doubt that you could clearly articulate a fart). None have been able to come up with an alternative that doesn't negatively impact bombers and 2 and 3 man attack aircraft. Thus, you can rest assured that F3 external view will continue.

My regards,

Widewing

[shreck]

See Rule #4

[SmokinLoon]

Does anyone know what percentage of these threads HTC has ignored because they have repeatedly explained why F3 exists?

Widewing

Then PLEASE either link those threads (I did the multitudes of searches and found nada) OR go ahead and recite what you can about what and why HTC and Co. decided to give the IL-2 the ability to have F3 and the ability to be scored as a bomber when it is an attack aircraft in the purest of forms???

SHOW US THE MONEY!  

Ya know... a quick post by HTC himself, Pyro, Skuzzy or anyone from the AH2 inner circle would at least give reasoning for their applications.  If these things keep coming up time and time again, then maybe it is time for a "This is why" in a Read Me file somewhere.  I'll volunteer to write it up and keep it updated.

[Anaxogoras]

Ya know... a quick post by HTC himself, Pyro, Skuzzy or anyone from the AH2 inner circle would at least give reasoning for their applications.  If these things keep coming up time and time again, then maybe it is time for a "This is why" in a Read Me file somewhere.  I'll volunteer to write it up and keep it updated.

Smokinloon, widewing has accurately presented HTC's reasons for enabling F3 view on bomber/attack aircraft: that it makes up for the SA and visibility provided by a gunner or crew of gunners.

I find those reasons unconvincing because they are (probably verbatim) the same reasons they gave in the mid '90s for a sim that had a viewing system with very limited capabilities in comparison to what we have now.  With Aces High's architecture, HTC could implement a viewing system for bomber/attack aircraft with a point-of-view from the gunner's position and the ability to control the aircraft, as I  have outlined above.  I believe it would create a greater sense of immersion, more historical tactics, and less skepticism about game mechanics in the typical subscriber.

The current viewing system is good, but it's very possible it leaves room for improvement.  At a minimum, I think we all agree that bombing from F3 should not be possible, nor should you be able to fire guns from the external view.  So, even if many of you disagree with me on other points, the common ground on those two issues is so solid there's no reason not to collectively ask for action.

Thank you for considering my opinion.

[trotter]

The current viewing system is good, but it's very possible it leaves room for improvement.

It's not "very possible". It's absolutely true. Everything in this game (and any game) has room for improvement. But especially in a game such as this where many game functions have been unchanged for 9 (!) years. Of course there is room for improvement. Now, where that improvement is and when it will arrive, I have no idea.

[BnZs]

Here is how I see it...

The primary problem with the formation buffs is that in game they are given a perfectly steady gun platform from which to fire as opposed to what the fighter pilot aiming firing forward has to deal with, multiple gunner positions to focus on a spot, and oh yeah, unlike any other aircraft or vehicle in the game, they get two spares. (Be nice to have two AI wingmen I could call in to clear my six whenever, or send into the ack for me, etc. ) In any case, nothing to do with F3 IMO.

The primary problem people are having with the attack planes is that they are not absolutely helpless, and people who do NOT treat every Il2, A-20, etc, they come across like it *might* be flown by Batfink or Widewing. Thus they screw up and get shot down. If there is anything gamey that tends to get done with these planes alot, it might be some iffy Neg G defense, but 1. Fighters can also do the "porpoise" and 2. This issue is better addressed via modifications to the red-out model. Again, IMO nothing that is really traceable to F3.

[Yossarian]

Yes, I don't see what bomb bay doors has to do with the issue, though I see room for reasonable disagreement over which planes should have F3 view.  If I were to prefer a compromise, I like Rebel's idea the best.  Keep F3 view for the 4 engine heavies,  but disable it for the rest.

What about the B-25C?  With only 1 gun turret (IIRC), it would be completely screwed more than it is already if a fighter comes across it.


A balance needs to be reached between realism and playability.  IMO removing F3 view from any bomber would tip this balance too far in favour of realism.

[SmokinLoon]

Here is how I see it...

The primary problem with the formation buffs is that in game they are given a perfectly steady gun platform from which to fire as opposed to what the fighter pilot aiming firing forward has to deal with, multiple gunner positions to focus on a spot, and oh yeah, unlike any other aircraft or vehicle in the game, they get two spares. (Be nice to have two AI wingmen I could call in to clear my six whenever, or send into the ack for me, etc. ) In any case, nothing to do with F3 IMO.

The primary problem people are having with the attack planes is that they are not absolutely helpless, and people who do NOT treat every Il2, A-20, etc, they come across like it *might* be flown by Batfink or Widewing. Thus they screw up and get shot down. If there is anything gamey that tends to get done with these planes alot, it might be some iffy Neg G defense, but 1. Fighters can also do the "porpoise" and 2. This issue is better addressed via modifications to the red-out model. Again, IMO nothing that is really traceable to F3.

Great point.  That is about half of a this controversial subject right there: The IL-2 and A20 are not flown like traditional bombers, they are flown as if they were Mossie's or 110's wich is hardly tipping the scales in favor of the enemy fighters.  Besides, neither should really be flown without some sort of fighter cover/support so if one takes either of those up without support they are rolling the dice and taking the gamble.

So here we have it: #1: Those aircraft didnt have those views to begin with (360d view with an emphisis placed on *below* the aircraft) and #2: they are not completely helpless as they are highly menouverable for their size and/or role).  Another arguement is that the application of the F3 view is highly inconsistant.  If the IL-2 is graced, then why not the bf110 or even the Mossie.  Both had rear gunners or a second set of eyes able to watch the rear at all times.  Inconsistant.

And as far as the lack of remedies for the current application of F3, I repectfully disagree.  If a plane doesnt have 2 or more defensive gunners (that could be top/front, top-rear/low rear, etc.  Any combo of 2), then it doesnt get F3 capability.  That is a legit and sound parameter that can be applied universally.  Besides, there is no reason an aircraft as menouverable as the IL-2 needs it.  Few will disagree that the IL-2 is highly menouverable and can go toe to toe in a up close turn fight with most fighters.

 

[Anaxogoras]

Don't forget that F3 also has offensive uses in attack aircraft: it is nearly impossible to hide a tank from an Il-2 or A-20, because not only do you have an icon over your head, but they also have the God's eye view to visually inspect 360 degrees around them in a matter of a second.

[BnZs]

  Besides, there is no reason an aircraft as menouverable as the IL-2 needs it.  Few will disagree that the IL-2 is highly menouverable and can go toe to toe in a up close turn fight with most fighters.

 

What about the fact that you absolutely cannot see anything behind you in an Il2?

Il2 "highly maneuverable"?  The best you can say about the Il2's maneuver capacity is that it has a tighter turn radius than some high-wing loaded fighters. Which none-the-less will easily E fight the Il2 to death, if we were talking about fights occurring between two individuals in a vacuum. What lets the Il2 somewhat survive under hostile fighters is that it is hard to kill with one firing pass and fighters simply do not want to spend the time and E to mess around with a dodging Il2 on the deck when there are actual enemy fighters in the air, upping, or potentially coming from one base over.