It ain't the graphics that are bad, its the way the game is made

[moot]

but do you really think 4 engined bombers were capable of the things they are in here?

I dunno, but I think your intended point is now clearer than in the previous posts 

[Shuffler]

In real life the dive angle was usually offset by the will of the crew to live.

Air frames tend to self destruct when not oriented as design intended.


In AH they get a brand new plane. 

[gyrene81]

Some of you folks take yourselves, and the game, way too seriously.

    

There is a lot of them too...

[hitech]

Rebel: You are mixing 2 issues.

1. Airframe limitations. These are already modeled as accurately as information we have on the planes.
2. Accuracy. I would find it very hard to believe that a lanc can be more accurate dive bombing then level bombing. I would agree that low level vs high level is more accurate.

So assume for 1 sec that we limit to angle of dive to drop bombs, If I was a player, I would find a method to calibrate the sight for high speed come diving down as before, jump in the bomb sight and then still hit the same target at the same speed.

So now if we would make this change, what would the outcome be? Nothing, people would just then be asking for the bomb sight to be disabled at low level.

Now think about the desire to remove F6 view bombing, ok how long does it take to press F1 and then B? I.E. again no net effect. So what will the players be asking for next. Ok now we need to be in cockpit for a given period of time before droping bombs. But this then starts to mess with defending yourself.

Now if your speaking of suicide dive bombing runs, yes they may be more accurate method of bombing, Im not sure I have never really tried that, but with that issue you have the same issue with any plane not just the lanc or big bombers.

And rebel , Im not jumping on you, these are the type of discussions that are fun for all and I also enjoy.
HiTech

[gyrene81]

I checked again and its 30deg for diving. a bigger restriction for the cuban-8/yoyoing lancstuka might be the 10deg roll limitation. BTW these are RL limitations, from the book, not artificial limits to tweak gameplay.

Release in F3? I cant see any justification for this at all. Personally I'd disable firing of any weapons in F3 mode.

Release in F5? Of course not. In fact, why is this even enabled in the MA?

From HiTech's last post...those 3 suggestions might be the easiest, least offensive and toughest things for the "gamers" to overcome.



I've never seen a dive bombing Lanc but I know how to rip the wings off one trying to do it. 

[SlapShot]

2. Accuracy. I would find it very hard to believe that a lanc can be more accurate dive bombing then level bombing. I would agree that low level vs high level is more accurate.

Dive bombing Lancs, anytime I have seen them, are always delivering their load at a very low level ... 1.5K and below ... hence the accuracy would be very good ? ... and the amount of ordinance on the target is really concentrated ... like 20 F6Fs in a very close formation all dropping ord at the same time on a target.

[Rebel]

First off, thanks for responding.  I enjoy yakkin' with ya, and it's been a pleasure watching your game grow over the years.

Rebel: You are mixing 2 issues.

1. Airframe limitations. These are already modeled as accurately as information we have on the planes.

I understand that, and really they indeed may have been capable of the dives we sometimes see.

However, I think that this issue dovetails with the ability of the pilot to change direction and/or perform radical maneuvers in such a large aircraft.  I've never flown a B-17 so I can't say with any certainty if it was capable of performing barrel rolls, loops, power dives and hammerheads.  It seems that it really shouldn't be able to, but then again, we don't have to worry about becoming pancakes for buzzards if we screw it up

2. Accuracy. I would find it very hard to believe that a lanc can be more accurate dive bombing then level bombing. I would agree that low level vs high level is more accurate.

 

Actually, it really and truly is.  If you come in over a base, set your salvo, pitch up to near stall speed,  and cut the engines,  you can shove the stick forward until you're going damn near straight down.   From that point you let it stabilize for a second or two, and then using roll and yaw, you can aim bombs MUCH easier, and attack multiple targets with much more accuracy then if you were level.  

So assume for 1 sec that we limit to angle of dive to drop bombs, If I was a player, I would find a method to calibrate the sight for high speed come diving down as before, jump in the bomb sight and then still hit the same target at the same speed.

I think we're crossing wires here.  The issue is not at what speed the bomber is dropping it's eggs, it's the method of delivery that's being called into question.  Limiting the angle of bomb release in heavy bombers would simply remove the capability of the method I described above.    

Now think about the desire to remove F6 view bombing, ok how long does it take to press F1 and then B? I.E. again no net effect. So what will the players be asking for next. Ok now we need to be in cockpit for a given period of time before droping bombs. But this then starts to mess with defending yourself.

I assume you're talking about limiting bombing to F6 and just crossed your keys here.  Agreed- there is no net effect as there is a hundred different ways to go around that function.  Macros, buttons on any programmable stick could easily sidestep it with ease.  No, limiting dropping bombs to the f6 position is NOT a fix.  

Now if your speaking of suicide dive bombing runs, yes they may be more accurate method of bombing, Im not sure I have never really tried that, but with that issue you have the same issue with any plane not just the lanc or big bombers.

Right you are, but you have to remember- the firepower being delivered is vastly different between the different aircraft.  A suicidal divebombing B24 will cause many times more damage then a suicidal bombing F6F Hellcat, and with the same accuracy.  

And rebel , Im not jumping on you, these are the type of discussions that are fun for all and I also enjoy.
HiTech

I've been yakkin at ya since WB's 2.0, dude.  It's all good.  

[Yeager]

Dive bombing Lancs, anytime I have seen them, are always delivering their load at a very low level ... 1.5K and below ... hence the accuracy would be very good ? ... and the amount of ordinance on the target is really concentrated ... like 20 F6Fs in a very close formation all dropping ord at the same time on a target.

Couple that with the fact that two out of the three Lancs will almost always survive  the first low level pass over a fully armed town (usually all three will survive the first pass) makes the Lanc a superb town destroyer when employed by a player who cares not whether he lands the sortie and in fact fully intends not to.  Now get two or three guys to do this concurrently and the targeted town is down in 30 seconds easy.

It is gamey as hell but the truth is having 9+ lancs to kill in a hurry is a lot of fun

[Rich46yo]

yea thats 

im just saying that what most ppl call "lankstuka'ing"  or otherwise "dive bombing lancs" may in fact be historically accurate. i.e. just cuz he aint in his bomb sight doesn't mean hes necessarily gaming the game..

"Historically accurate" when? and Where?

The closest thing to it would be the skip bombing mostly used in the PTO, against shipping, and mostly using medium bombers. The A-20, B-25s. The B-17s were used but not as much. Even then the bombers came in level, hosing their targets with forward guns, releasing their bombs and then gaining altitude as they went over their targets.

There was no real life comparison to dive bombing GVs in heavy 4 engined bombers.

And it is easier and more accurate dive bombing from Lancs from low Alts then in using the bomb sight. Not just that but your SA is far better cause your in F3 most of the time. Thats how I bomb in IL2s. I set the IL2 a set distance in F3, line up the target at the speed I want, and when the target is exactly at the point I want it in F3 mode I pop into pilots seat and finish the release. Thats how guys bomb so well out of A-20s and its the very same procedure that allows accurate Lanc-stuka'ing.

The difference being the 2 engined jobs really were/are dive bombers that took out GVs. The heavy 4 engined jobbies didnt.

An A-20 holds 8 500lb bombs. The single IL2 4 200lb bombs. A set of Lanc-stukas 42 1,000lb bombs. The 1,000lb cookies are the real GV killers in the game.

I once killed a tank thru the bombsight from 10,000' up. I just happened to see the glare of it in the sun. But generally? Its the far better situational awareness/views that makes it easier to dive bomb heavies from low ALT instead of sitting in the bomb sight. You can see the GVs, in F3, from a long ways off and then line them up far easier cause the controls are far more responsive using the stick then in bomb sight mode. Where basically you have reduced views and no more then rudder control, and even that only horizontal.

[bustr]

May I request that a party trusted by the community test Lancasters offline for their structural breaking point. Attack your own CV.

1. Test for what point in a dive from 10k pulls the wings off as you pull out of the dive with no bombs and 50% fuel.
2. Test for what point dive bombing from 10k will pull the wings off, same fuel.
3. Replicate these tests again at 7k, 5k, and 3k.

I trust HiTech's data for constructing his virtual Lancasters. We use all of his planes in ways the real pilots from WW2 probably would not and they survive. This is a tribute to the genius of those past Engineers who sent our grandfathers out to war. When we know the structural limits from these tests inside of the game, then at that point you will have a conversation. As of yet the argument is about personal bias to how the game should or should not be played.

[toonces3]

<snip>  

...makes the Lanc a superb town destroyer when employed by a player who cares not whether he lands the sortie and in fact fully intends not to.  

<snip>

This is what you guys should be concentrating on (IMO) rather than whether or not a lancaster can "stuka" or not.  

The problem here, as I've stated 3 times now, is that there is no real incentive for the player in the lancstuka to care whether he lives or dies...unless he cares about his a) score or b) perks.  I can guarantee you here can't be but 10 guys in this game that care about their bomber perks.  So that leaves score.  I have no idea if anyone at all cares about their bomber score.

The GAME rewards this type of behavior because it's far more efficient to kill yourself in bombers than to fly them in any sort of "survivable" manner at all (except to get to target and actually deliver the bombs), like Anaxagoras said pages ago.

There was a game I read about a long time ago, I think it was Everquest but it might have been some other game.  In it, you built up your character with all sorts of gucci armor and weapons and such.  But, when you got killed in the game, you respawned at the nearest town and you had 30 minutes to go find your dead corpse and recollect your belongings.  After that, any player that walked by could pick up your stuff that you've invested however many days/months/years accumulating.  

Think about that.  You had an investment in your character and you had an incentive to not needlessly throw your life away.

Like I said before, this game (IMO) sorely misses some aspect like this.  If you invest some sort of...something...in your virtual life that encourages you to LIVE, you'll see a lot less of this type of stuff.  At the risk of other adverse behavior perhaps...like timidity I suppose.  

Perking ordnance would somewhat improve (IMO) bomber behavior...if you don't land your bomber sortie, you don't get any perks.  Without perks you can't grab formations or can only carry a light bomb load or something.  I'm sure somebody has posted eloquently on this in the last month.  

And so on.

[moot]

"At the risk of other adverse behavior perhaps...like timidity I suppose.  "
Key words there. 

[Grind]

 "At the risk of other adverse behavior perhaps...like timidity I suppose"

Biggest problem in the game IMHO. 

<S>

[bustr]

See Rule #4

[Yeager]

the people at HTC have been doing this MMO gig as long or longer than anyone in the business.  They know the deal.......

this game is the way it is because of nearly twenty years of compromise.  You can tell because 100% of the matured customer base is 50% satisfed all the time.

Thats how they have achieved such longevity.  By making damned sure NO ONE is 100% satisfied all of the time.  Because if someone were 100% satisfied all the time, there would be someone 100% equally disatisfied all the time.  Thats the way it works, if you have been around long enough to see the broader trends.