PDA

View Full Version : Oleg: Please consider adjusting behavior of heavy bombers



XyZspineZyX
11-30-2003, 04:16 AM
Salute Oleg

The heavy 4 engined bombers in the game have a tendency to do maneuvers similar to fighters when engaged.

For example I commonly see B-17's do barrel rolls and steep turns which have them up on one wingtip. Plus zooms and dives.

The historical aircraft could not tolerate this type of high Gravity maneuvering.

Maneuvering versus attacking enemy fighters was limited to slight turns, dives or climbs.

The only 4 engined bomber of WWII which was capable of any kind of complex maneuvering was the Lancaster, but even it could not duplicate some of the actions I see from the B-17's.

A change would make our Luftwaffe friends happier, and would also reduce the chances of bomber collisions, which seem to happen very regularly now.


Thankyou for your patience RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
11-30-2003, 04:16 AM
Salute Oleg

The heavy 4 engined bombers in the game have a tendency to do maneuvers similar to fighters when engaged.

For example I commonly see B-17's do barrel rolls and steep turns which have them up on one wingtip. Plus zooms and dives.

The historical aircraft could not tolerate this type of high Gravity maneuvering.

Maneuvering versus attacking enemy fighters was limited to slight turns, dives or climbs.

The only 4 engined bomber of WWII which was capable of any kind of complex maneuvering was the Lancaster, but even it could not duplicate some of the actions I see from the B-17's.

A change would make our Luftwaffe friends happier, and would also reduce the chances of bomber collisions, which seem to happen very regularly now.


Thankyou for your patience RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
11-30-2003, 07:49 AM
Oh, the bombers can tolerate such maneuvers.

The question is, will the loosely strapped crewmen and all their gizmos, junkets and supplies tolerate the move.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-30-2003, 08:40 AM
I agree. Though I love her, I have to say my beloved B-17s tend to go all over the place. I seriously doubt this is correct.

<center>47|FC <img src="http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg"<

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 01:12 AM
bump to this!

GATO_LOCO

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 02:55 AM
i heard they stay in formation ridgidly irl


whineingu /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

T_O_A_D
12-01-2003, 03:15 AM
p1ngu666 wrote:
- i heard they stay in formation ridgidly irl


From what I've read and have seen in documetories this is true. Thier only real defence was #'s and the closer to gether they were the more guns to bare at the enemy. The ouside planes of the group wear the targets that usually got hit. Then when they strayed from the broup or fell behind they were sistamaticly picked off.

<Left>
131st_VFW_CO_Toad (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/index.htm)

<Left>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif MY Track IR Fix read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_ts&id=zwqtg)


<Center>http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/Mad_toad.jpg </a>
<Center>
http://home.mchsi.com/~tagalong/Soldieshooting.gif

<font size="0" color="#59626B">

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 04:39 AM
A similar thing about the large bombers that bothers me is how they sometimes spin when hit. You mainly see that when one loses a wing. I doubt that's realistic, and in all of the guncam footage i've seen bombers have never spun like that. Is it just me or does it really not look right?

248th_Vgamer
C/O IL-2 Forgotten Battles Division
248th VFS
http://www.248th.com

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 05:57 AM
And to top it off, the tailgunners are still sniper accurate as the bombers spin around like that, even when the bombers are spinning out of control with one wing missing.

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 07:58 AM
Vgamer_248th wrote:
- A similar thing about the large bombers that bothers
- me is how they sometimes spin when hit. You mainly
- see that when one loses a wing. I doubt that's
- realistic, and in all of the guncam footage i've
- seen bombers have never spun like that. Is it just
- me or does it really not look right?


Nah,I've seen plenty of pics and footage of striken bombers doing crazy things....I just think their flight behavior is a little off. They shouldn't be trying to do barrel rolls (and the like) when pursued and attacked by enemy fighters.

<center>47|FC <img src="http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg"<

Message Edited on 12/01/0310:36AM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 05:21 PM
necrobaron wrote:
- Vgamer_248th wrote:
-- A similar thing about the large bombers that bothers
-- me is how they sometimes spin when hit. You mainly
-- see that when one loses a wing. I doubt that's
-- realistic, and in all of the guncam footage i've
-- seen bombers have never spun like that. Is it just
-- me or does it really not look right?
-
-
- Nah,I've plenty of pics and footage of striken
- bombers doing crazy things....I just think their
- flight behavior is a little off. They shouldn't be
- trying to do barrel rolls (and the like) when
- pursued and attacked by enemy fighters.
-
-


Tell that to the bomber jocks! Are you afraid of being chased by a bomber shooting at you from 8 different angles? Take it as a challenge!

I can see the spinning gunners part tho.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid84/pcf14831e07273a1e01a33fb0e5650ffa/face10c7.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 06:47 PM
I am a bomber jockey, and I can't believe my eyes seeing another whining thread about "historical accuracy".

You guys want the game as historically accurate as a game can be? I have a proposal then:

How about playing this under the condition you only have ONE virtual life for both online and offline playing? No more "refly" button, no more rising from the dead, just ONE life to play? And once you get killed, the game quits working forever, wouldn't that be most realistic?
Or if you manage to bail out over enemy territory, you get captured and the game stops working for, lets say, 3 years (assuming your pilot survives his time as prisoner of war)?
And even if you bail and land in friendly territory, you would have to wait at least 5 days till you would be cleared to fly again?

Again, this posting shows only little true interest in improving the game and the experience of it. This is mostly just another thread of whining fighter jockeys who got shot down by something they underestimated and considered to be an easy prey.

I could start explaining in detail now -AGAIN, as I've done it several times- that reality in WW2 and FB are two different things.
But I just don't think some of you will ever get the point.


S! to those who know and understand what I'm talking about



- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Message Edited on 12/01/0306:47PM by Future-

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 07:01 PM
yep , fighter jocks wanting the bombers to be easy moving targets to shoot down to feed thier oversize egos and shocked and whine when they waxed by thier own stupid errors in tactics and flying. Want gratification go play counter strike.

Take it as a challenge and improve your tactics!

This ain't history this is FB, A GAME.

BTW I fly mostly fighters and blame myself for getting waxed by a bomber! It is also fun to hunnt down fighters and act as a flying cover to my side when I do fly a bomber.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid84/pcf14831e07273a1e01a33fb0e5650ffa/face10c7.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 07:10 PM
Well I rarely shoot down B-17s,being we're usually on the same side./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif If you don't see anything wrong with bombers trying to act like fighters,then more power to ya..../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<center>47|FC <img src="http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg"<

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 07:17 PM
Sniper and Future, you're both ALL WET.

It is not "whining" to want ANY aircraft to behave according to how it would.

The problem is not "fighter jocks not wanting a challenge". The problem is lone, low bomber pilots expecting to have a life expectancy greater than about 5 minutes.

And Sniper, you know as well as I do that if bombers are barrel rolling and making fighter-bomber type breakturns, it has nothing to do with inferior tactics when fighters can't shoot them down.

If you guys are real bomber fans, you'll surely recognize the value in getting together, forming some boxes for mutual defense and doing some regular bomber tasks. The idea is NOT for you to be able to go cruising through dogfights with your AI gunners getting your "kills" for you, while you toss off "S!"s like you actually did something to earn them.

===================

And thanks, Buzzsaw, for mentioning that, uh, trait of B-17s to maneuver like Beaufighters or Blenheims. It sounds better coming from an RAF virtual pilot than us "biting-our-tongues" Luftwaffe guys, who, as you can see, draw the usual "Whiner" cry whenever we bring up things of this nature.

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 07:54 PM
Yep,there are waaay too many people trying to use the bombers as gunships rather than their intended role. Then they get mad when people say this is inaccurate.But that's not the point. Offline I don't think the problem is the FM but is instead the AI(which is supposed to represent an average WWII pilot). The AI tries to do fighter-like manuevers in a bomber,which I'm fairly sure most normal pilots wouldn't and couldn't attempt.

<center>47|FC <img src="http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg"<

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 08:59 PM
Excuse me, but we're obviously not talking about the aircraft involved, but the pilots that use them.

If you would have paid close attention to my last posting, then you probably would understand that the main problem isn't just the B-17s doing fighter-bomber break maneuvers or the Pe-8 doing loopings, it's also the human players.

See, I would gladly fly tight formation with a few guys, fly in on high level and make just one bomb pass to score hits & fly back to base.

But 1.) most of the time I'm alone in my B-17, having only rarely some friendlys nearby that assist.
2.), I don't believe that the fighter pilots in WW2 were really that agressively and live-disregardingly attacking. The problem is you all know it's just a game, and your combat style reflects that in every turn. Who am I to fly "historically correct" (regarding the 17, that means level and in a straight line), while you guys run in on me like I'm giving away hot nights with he latest playmate of the month for free? Why should I fly in a way as if I'm part of a formation of 14 - 18 bombers when I'm just alone?
3.), unfortunately the B-17 is an ai plane, so I have to fly low and/or use a Stuka dive attack to hit a target.
4.) There are only a few objects worth being bombed, such as vehicles, static planes or human players. In real life I bet it also was worth something when you bombed fuel tanks or industrial facilitys. In FB, they just blow up, but noone cares and you don't get points.
5.) The process of readying a plane for take-off usually took a little longer than just hitting a button, starting the engine and rushing out without using the runway, especially when the pilot of that plane just had returned from a mission/ imprisonment/ medical care/ search and retrieval. I doubt after one got shot in his fighter and bailed that this very same pilot was able to return to his base which is kilometers away, get a new plane and attack the very same enemy again, all this within 5 - 10 seconds! (of course, that applies not only to fighters, but I think you get the point)



When I'm flying my Fortress, most of the time I fly straight to my target, try to bomb it (target = mostly human players on the ground, what else is there that would make sense to blow up?) & get out and back home again. Occasionally, I turn to engage fighters using my ai gunners. But these fighters either a.) have just taken off, b.) are chasing a friendly craft or c.) attack me and don't manage to get away from me again fast enough.
Usually, I try to fly 'round furballs undetected - leaving the dogfights to the fighters. I only fly close by when I think it would benefit my own run (such as helping to take out/damaging an enemy while passing by).
And if I get attacked and I see the attacker coming in, I naturally initiate evasive action, sometimes soft, sometimes really hard. Or would you (when flying alone) proceed on course while you see a 190 A9 coming in? I think not.


And, to add some personal thoughts, why the he** do you think the 17 was called "Flying Fortress"? I don't know about you, but for me that name equals "flying gun plattform" or "gunship" (of course, mainly used for self-defense, the real "Gunships" fought some other war -> refer to AC-130, modified Hercules Gunship for ground attack).

S!



- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 10:23 PM
Like I said, Future-, I don't mind that the B-17s are tough. I'm not expecting to take one down with a snapshot (unless said snapshot is scored with a Mk108 maybe)...

but the way they're able to pull off break turns (with gunners gleefully sniping away) is pretty laughable.

And, while much of the problem is due to player misuse of the platform, if the thing were modelled right, then "ackwagon" players would quickly get tired of getting blasted very quickly (something ALL bomber types had happen to them when they were encountered singly, especially low).

Furthermore, the use of B-17s as ackwagons is augmented by the failings of the AI code, which as we know gives gunners the incredible ability to "store" firing solutions and use them *instantly* after the bomber they're in ceases the kind of maneuvers that would leave crew incapacitated, if not thrown clear of the plane. The gunners should have to recalculate their gun solutions after EVERY bank, turn or maneuver of their plane, let alone factoring in what any attacking fighter is doing. Again, if this were properly modeled, these antics wouldn't help much, and you'd see bombers going down in flames while "dogfighting" instead of racking up AI kills and "windscreen oilings" left and right, even against fighters using historical gunpass tactics.

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 10:40 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=ztrai

Many of us are concerned about this problem.

Regards
Jib01 /i/smilies/16x16_man-happy.gif


"I thought you told me they would break formation if we pressed home a good frontal attack."

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 12:38 AM
Future- wrote:

-How about playing this under the condition you only have
-ONE virtual life for both online and offline playing? No
-more "refly" button, no more rising from the dead, just
-ONE life to play? And once you get killed, the game quits
-working forever, wouldn't that be most realistic?


-I could start explaining in detail now -AGAIN, as I've
-done it several times- that reality in WW2 and FB are two
-different things.
-But I just don't think some of you will ever get the point.


-S! to those who know and understand what I'm talking about


You better salute, I outrank you!

I can see your patheticly egocentric point of view. You fail to understand the concept of flight simulators I can see from your references to this "Game". These posts you poo-poo so quickly are good constructive input for a "flight simulator". No, in a simulator you don't really die, I think the rest of us understand that. So lets keep the refly button, lighten up, and take another look at the heavy bomber flight charicteristics modeling.

The United States Air Force....
When you absolutely, positively, have to have it blown up over night.

492FS 48th FW Lakenheath England
http://www.raflakenheath.homestead.com/files/F_15TaxingTakeoff.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 03:29 PM
*ding* We have a Winner! Oh wait, loser is more appropriate.....

- I can see your patheticly egocentric point of view.
- You fail to understand the concept of flight
- simulators I can see from your references to this
- "Game". These posts you poo-poo so quickly are good
- constructive input for a "flight simulator". No, in
- a simulator you don't really die, I think the rest
- of us understand that.

Sure, I understand that too. All I wanted to show was the double-standard some people apply. And the fact that it is almost totally ridiculous to try to make this game "full real", cause despite all the data put in, all the fine-tuning and modelling, it will still remain being a GAME. You will never have to truely worry about the dangers and troubles real pilots had to back in WW2, such as fear, doubts, the terror of death, getting injured, G-Forces, malfunctioning systems on your plane, etc. etc. .
As someone else said, "full real" actually only can be translated as "full hard" or "as close to reality as a PC game can get right now".

FB is a damn good game, sure, but "just" a game. It's not even a "real" flight simulator, if you think about it, cause a real flight simulator also simulates at least partially the physical plane movement and along with that, the movement of the pilot's body.


Now, before you jump me again, be sure of one thing: I always keep telling everyone who wants to know that FB is the most realistic and entertaining flight simulator ->for PCs available <- .


S!



- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 05:47 PM
Stiglr wrote:

snip

If you guys are real bomber fans, you'll surely
- recognize the value in getting together, forming
- some boxes for mutual defense and doing some regular
- bomber tasks. The idea is NOT for you to be able to
- go cruising through dogfights with your AI gunners
- getting your "kills" for you, while you toss off
- "S!"s like you actually did something to earn them.

just try to get 2 bomber pilots together. W/ u jocks wanting them to be paper targets alot of ppl think why bother. the ppl that fly bombers alot are a small minortiy. Also getting any help from jocks on your side in a df is difficult at best as alot of you jocks are lone wolves out for thier ego and scores. A lone bomber on a df map doesn't have to act like a sitting target to feed ur ego. If u want historicly accurate do like mentioned. Next time u die uninstsall the game and never play it again as U ARE DEAD. No respawn no, nothing.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid84/pcf14831e07273a1e01a33fb0e5650ffa/face10c7.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 06:07 PM
Stiglr wrote:
- Like I said, Future-, I don't mind that the B-17s
- are tough. I'm not expecting to take one down with a
- snapshot (unless said snapshot is scored with a
- Mk108 maybe)...
-
- but the way they're able to pull off break turns
- (with gunners gleefully sniping away) is pretty
- laughable.
-
- And, while much of the problem is due to player
- misuse of the platform, if the thing were modelled
- right, then "ackwagon" players would quickly get
- tired of getting blasted very quickly (something ALL
- bomber types had happen to them when they were
- encountered singly, especially low).
-
- Furthermore, the use of B-17s as ackwagons is
- augmented by the failings of the AI code, which as
- we know gives gunners the incredible ability to
- "store" firing solutions and use them *instantly*
- after the bomber they're in ceases the kind of
- maneuvers that would leave crew incapacitated, if
- not thrown clear of the plane. The gunners should
- have to recalculate their gun solutions after EVERY
- bank, turn or maneuver of their plane, let alone
- factoring in what any attacking fighter is doing.
- Again, if this were properly modeled, these antics
- wouldn't help much, and you'd see bombers going down
- in flames while "dogfighting" instead of racking up
- AI kills and "windscreen oilings" left and right,
- even against fighters using historical gunpass
- tactics.



who ever said a df map was historical? It is a street fight! Rules are use what you have available to survive.



http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid84/pcf14831e07273a1e01a33fb0e5650ffa/face10c7.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 07:03 PM
Sniper spat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>who ever said a df map was historical?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The joke ones aren't. But the well designed ones usually ARE. Yes, it's a question of taste, but there's no reason that a DF server *has to* be a stupid AirQuake game.

Plus, if bombers behave in a realistic matter, that would likely solve the issue. Right now, they turn much too well, and easily manevuer outside their parameters (barrel rolls, etc). You fix that, and then the ack-wagon idiots will discover that they're not all that effective in a dogfighting role. They'll tire of getting shot down all the time and either find a suitable fighter to fly in a competitive manner, or move on. Either way is good by me.

As for finding fighter escort, have you *asked* anybody to escort you? I know I have tagged along with bombers in a DF server; they tend to draw over-eager (and fixated) fighters.

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 12:41 AM
Well, especially when I start running into some considerable resistance (that means, when I can no longer avoid getting attacked and they hammer me down), I almost always ask for some fighter cover. So far, only with 40% that anyone at least responded. But on the bright side, of these 40% of responses, about 90% of them were positive.

Many fighter pilots are just beginning to understand that a successful bomber strike can be the key to victory on scripted servers.
Of course, I think support from the fighters would be even better if the bombers and fighters would communicate a little more with eachother and the few who use bombers as pure dogfight gunships would stop messing up.

To all fighter jockeys out there: if you see me on your team on a scripted server, you can bet I'll be glad for some cover! Thank you.

S!


- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 01:27 AM
Now we're in agreement. Every plane has its role. And as you say, on scripted servers, you can use a little strategy while the other guys are just playing grab@ss and clutchb*tt.

If you have a yen for He-111s, and see me on HyperLobby, give me a holler. I'll escort ya. Or, if it's Stukas, I'll go along in an -87 myself.

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 01:39 AM
Pe8 and B17 do great hammer heads ...............


Proud former member of Kelly Johnson's "SKUNK WORKS"
Pay Up Sucka..... Choppers for Life

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 02:49 AM
nt = No Text

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 09:57 AM
whats up future?

nice flyin with ya. hope so again real quick. get ready to practice, got a film comming up soon. tell ya bout it later. huh?... what do they want??????

(to whom it may concern)

anywho... some of these aircraft CAN be manuvered very hard. IN REAL LIFE. not that im saying they can do a full roll, loop or what have ya. but they ARE MANUVERABLE. required quite a bit of throw for the pilots. (and they werent supposed to subject them to that treatment.) but they sure as hell can do some hefty acro.

i have several books that tell the same story, one pilot was killed in the air, with his best friend abord another ship watched in horror. several days later, he got some ground crew to load 4-6 machine guns in the front bubble of the nose. that B-17 DOVE... on to the totally unsuspecting FW... several went down that way. no BS. she can dive.. dont belive me.. RESEARCH IT.

ever look at the surface area of those flaps, rudder, ailerons..big.... lots of area to move air around.

on the game side. i love climbin to 5-6 k. droppin my presents off. sometimes im not in a "realism mood", or the base is SO close together, that i cant get the alt before being shot down. we adapt to what we have available as a resource to stay alive in game.

future, BP, republicoftex, coops, and several others actually do try to get "close to real" quite often. its HARD trying to lumber up 9-12 B-17s , form up, stay in box formation.(especially with no cockpit) many times when its just one bomber per server, a lot of you dont care. (some of you do,THANK YOU!) but most of you dont give a hoot..

lemme get this strait.. you all want us to have LESS aim, LESS firepower, LESS MANUVERABILITY,.....?

..... "F.O. YOU!... you got yer uber 900000 kph waffenwaffle....learn how to use it!

ive said it before, and ill say it again...

FRONTAL ATTACK
FRONTAL ATTACK
FRONTAL ATTACK

let it sink in...
ok again............ FRONTAL ATTACK!


watch the pros. THEY get us. they NAIL the CRAP out of us!(two nights ago,2 A/C wiped out 5 of 7 B-17S in under 20 seconds.... many times, its a single shot affair. (btw,gkls! S~ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

the real aircraft can MOVE...they werent allowed fly with that kind of stress on th AC. but it will do it.

the one here (game version), we learn to use our limitations, just like you do your aircraft. you cant tell me that all of you whiners about us use your aircraft to "exact military specs" F no!... you take advantage of it.. same here. 13 gun stations per plane, get4~8 planes close up......it not the aim that killin you, its also the SHEER NUMBER of BULLETS .

to those that understand, THANKS!.. no REALLY thanks (you make it fun)

to those that dont... F off , we aint yer "target bitshes"

smile for the birdy.

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 11:11 AM
Two things to keep in mind:

1) Only empty bombers could do moderately wild /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif maneuvers. Almost only when separated from the combat box. Lancasters sometimes did corkscrew maneuvers when engaged by night fighters. A fully loaded B17 barrel-rolling or wing-overing is game-ish like a Tie fighter.

2) The AI flight model is simplified. The average CPU simply cannot manage 12-24-32 flight models all togheter. AI controlled bombers and fighters fly under simplified parameters.

Simply enjoy the *game* when you fly offline, dont try to find the realism into it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Message Edited on 12/04/0311:14AM by Saetta

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 11:51 AM
http://www.msnusers.com/MingsThingsAtRAF92SquadronAirfield/Documents/Files%2Fthatyouvenotseen.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 11:56 AM
That's right, proof here:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/338967/bomberblues3.gif


Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 12:15 PM
Sure, the 4-engined bombers are not supposed to be flown like fighters, be it by AI or online pilots. I've never seen the big bombers flown by AI performing the wild maneuvers discribed in this thread though. Perhaps it's a new behavior introduced in 1.21 (I 've not flown against B-17 or Pe-8 in the new version). In 1.11, I've always seen them performing like they should, sometimes climbing/diving and turning moderately in order to offer a more difficult target, but never I've seen AI perform a barrel roll so far. I experienced that most of the time they try to stay in formation like they should.

As for the gunners being very good snipers, that is true if one attacking fighter is coming from the rear and make an easy target of himself. But bombers are not supposed to be attacked from rear quarters succesfully. The way to do it is like in RL: attacking from a head-on position and aiming at the cockpit area. If all virtual fighters pilots where using this tactic (and it is not only to be used against B-17s), the bombers pilots will "whine", asking for more accurate gunners, and the fighters will cease complaining about the "supernatural" accuracy of the gunners.
Attacking a B-17 (or any other bomber) from the front in FB means an easy kill 90% of the time: it requires only one short burst to send the bomber spinning toward earth.

Attacking from any other angle or shooting at an area other than the cockpit would only make the task of shooting down the bomber more difficult: more deflection, and less vulnerable part being hit means less chances of disabling the A/C. And in the case of the B-17, sturdy as it is, it's a daunting task to shoot one if the pilot is not killed: an engine on fire can burn for more than 20 minutes without causing damage to the airframe or fuel tanks, and with one or more disabled engines, it can takes a long time before the airplane is forced to do a belly landing.

If attacked from head-on, even a B-17 is an easy kill. All it requires is a small burst in the cockpit area and it goes down immediately. The attack must be done as much as possible from the front; attacking slightly from one side is OK too, but from 90? to one side, it is not producing much result. Attacks from 11 to 1 o'clock are the most effectives.

Any attack from the front or the sides will be met by very little response (or noone at all) from de gunners, whereas attacking from the rear will be met by very strong defensive fire with the predictable results for the attacker: he'll be shot down very quickly.

-Knokke

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 02:47 PM
Heinz,

be careful when you talk about RL. What you are saying is true mainly for flight sims. In the RL *many* if not *most* allied bombers have been shot down with rear quarter attacks, even tho the first passes were usually from 11 to 1 o'clock high. And mainly in the "purple hart corner", the less defended in the combat box.
Those first attacks usually broke the formation and left some stragglers, then came the fatal attacks.
I've been watching for hours real Luftwaffe gun cameras showing rear/low attacks, against lone bombers and loose formations. Sure, you can now see gun cameras only from successful attackers /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , but you can clearly see that those tail/ball gunners (even in formation) were considered not a big threat. And bomber gunners were famous for overclaimimg victories.

The point is: AI gunners are deadly robots, much more than their real life counterparts. They track you even when you flash into the box, whereas real gunners would have stopped shooting at you earlier. They dont suffer the same "g" limits as humans.

BUT, I find very challenging to be obliged to lead my fighter formation way ahead of the box and then order them to attack head-on, then regroup them and begin the attack again.

Sorry for my english ....



Message Edited on 12/04/0303:45PM by Saetta

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 03:16 PM
As I've said before, while the ai gunners are often more accurate than humans could be, they also often tend to do... nothing.

Just last night I was attacked (flying B-17) from the rear by a single fighter, and I only did light evasive maneuvers. That guy was at about 0,6 - 0,4 for more than 30 seconds. But my ai gunners didnt shoot! Only a few single shots, but they missed.
And you can bet, if I would have been one of those gunners, I would have hammered away on that fighter like mad!!

Point is in this case, the ai guys sometimes do killer shots, and sometimes just dont react. So my proposal would be making them a little less accurate (hit rate should be about 5%, current is between 6 - 8%) while they also should fire a lot more, especially when a target gets close.

I watched "Memphis Belle" these days. Get it and have a look. Just as an example for that gunner case.

S!


- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 07:47 PM
Saying that the gunners are too accurate and quoting a hit % number is WAY oversimplifying the problem.

The problem's more complex and nuanced than that.

Consider:

1) the % of the time that the very first hit from a gunner damages the engine or oils the windscreen

2) the relative lack of wing and fuselage hits overall: they get you in the engine or in the head almost invariably.

3) the ability of gunners to *keep* gun solutions, even while the bomber is in high-G evasives, and the lack of a "readjustment time" once the bomber is stable enough for them to attack. The way it is now, if the gunner can't fire because of G, the very instant the G is released, he's spot on target and fires with can't miss accuracy, instead of having to *totally recalculate* his gun solution after the maneuvering or Gs become manageable again.

4) Gunner handoffs: because the AI fire as a team, they "hand off" solutions like Borg. You can do a high speed pass from the bomber's 11:00 to his 7:00, and the 7:00 gunner will nail you within one second of your coming into his view. He should have to see, acquire and then swing the gun before he begins firing, although, due to intraplane communication this might be a little faster than a totally new acquisition.

Windows 98SE
Athlon 1700+ 1.4GHz
Mobo: FIC AU13 (TFA42 BIOS)
nVidia onboard sound
1GB of 2100 DDR memory
Video Card: ATI Radeon 8500 128MB w/Catalyst 3.5
Cougar HOTAS
CH Pedals