New Recon Kit pick up style -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Degtyarev14.5

GF Pwns Me!

50 XP

18th August 2004

0 Uploads

56 Posts

0 Threads

#11 14 years ago
Mr.MuFfyeah even if it doesn't change team play dramatically it will look insane :) I agree Bombers defenitly need a bombing or nose cam so that they can bomb accuratley maybe with even a little marker on it saying were u should drop them depending on how high u are for instance: |--------O--------| 300 Feet |--------O--------| |--------O--------| |--------O--------| 200 Feet |--------O--------| |--------O--------| |--------O--------| 100 Feet |--------O--------| |--------O--------| so u judge what height your at then use the marker on that height for instance....im at ruffly 230 feet so ill use the one just above the 200 marker etc. u guys understand what im talkin bout?

No good. Such a sight would have to change almost constantly to take into consideration your current vertical velocity. This, of course, is closely related to one's current vertical acceleration, which is dependent upon the heading of the aircraft. (This is simple calculus at work here.) The root of the problem is that this sighting system is dependent upon gravity always pulling in a set direction with respect to the motion of the plane. It may be straight down, or slightly forward of straight down (when in a shallow dive), or almost in front of the plane (in a steep dive), or anywhere, but it must be fixed - it can not move. Every time you nudge that nose up or down even just a few degrees, the sight would need to be re-calibrated. On the other hand, you could just accept that it applies only when you fly at a certain, fixed elevation with respect to gravity's downward pull, but then its usefulness is severely diminished. A. Oh, another solution would be to have it auto-calibrate constantly, but for World War II this is unrealistic: forget it. :( I can give you another reason it wouldn't really work: you would have to accept that the sight uses height above sea level. You, as the pilot, would have to make a judgement when to release your precious cargo with respect to variances in the difference between ground level and sea level, hills, river beds, etc. Kind of defeats the purpose of the sight.




Arisaka

Staff suffers from PCD

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

1,495 Posts

0 Threads

#12 14 years ago

JagdJust dive when bombing you can plink your ordnance down a tank hatch every time. With the obvious exception of strategic bombers.[/QUOTE] you don't always want to dive bomb an AAA/AA-battery. and especially not with heavy birds.

[QUOTE=Mr.MuFf]yeah even if it doesn't change team play dramatically it will look insane :)

I agree Bombers defenitly need a bombing or nose cam so that they can bomb accuratley maybe with even a little marker on it saying were u should drop them depending on how high u are for instance:

|--------O--------| 300 Feet |--------O--------| |--------O--------| |--------O--------| 200 Feet |--------O--------| |--------O--------| |--------O--------| 100 Feet |--------O--------| |--------O--------|

so u judge what height your at then use the marker on that height for instance....im at ruffly 230 feet so ill use the one just above the 200 marker etc. u guys understand what im talkin bout?

yeah, i think i've got it. it's based on roughly the same concept as an idea i posted for large naval artillery.

the panzerfaust in Red Orchestra also uses a similar system (ref: the public movie).

on some maps the nosecam should also include some weak optics, like 1.5x or something.




Arisaka

Staff suffers from PCD

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

1,495 Posts

0 Threads

#13 14 years ago
ArseClownNo good. Such a sight would have to change almost constantly to take into consideration your current vertical velocity. This, of course, is closely related to one's current vertical acceleration, which is dependent upon the heading of the aircraft. (This is simple calculus at work here.) The root of the problem is that this sighting system is dependent upon gravity always pulling in a set direction with respect to the motion of the plane. It may be straight down, or slightly forward of straight down (when in a shallow dive), or almost in front of the plane (in a steep dive), or anywhere, but it must be fixed - it can not move. Every time you nudge that nose up or down even just a few degrees, the sight would need to be re-calibrated. On the other hand, you could just accept that it applies only when you fly at a certain, fixed elevation with respect to gravity's downward pull, but then its usefulness is severely diminished. A. Oh, another solution would be to have it auto-calibrate constantly, but for World War II this is unrealistic: forget it. :(

for some reason it wouldn't copy the text, so i'll have to make a new post.

when using big bombers you are probably flying straight and level at maximum speed, so it should work. of course, you would have to compensate for any deviation from optimal.

when they flew bomber missions they did fly at constant speed, they did fly with a fixed pitch, and they did fly as steady as they could manage, in order to hit the target. this sighting system is not primarily for the stuka, but for the B17, Ju88 and so on.




Degtyarev14.5

GF Pwns Me!

50 XP

18th August 2004

0 Uploads

56 Posts

0 Threads

#14 14 years ago

Please refer to the edit I made while you were composing your last post. :) But yes, it is certainly more applicable to the large strategic bombers that the tactical dive bombers. ... I'm not sure such large bombers really have much purpose on such small maps, to be honest. Wastes their potential, just as the map sizes also waste the potential of the Tiger and Tiger II. A.




Arisaka

Staff suffers from PCD

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

1,495 Posts

0 Threads

#15 14 years ago
ArseClown I can give you another reason it wouldn't really work: you would have to accept that the sight uses height above sea level. You, as the pilot, would have to make a judgement when to release your precious cargo with respect to variances in the difference between ground level and sea level, hills, river beds, etc. Kind of defeats the purpose of the sight.

no, it does not. the sight uses AGL - altitude above ground level. it would be impossible to make an MSL-based static sight. all you have to do is to estimate your own altitude AGL, fly straight and level, align your sight and drop cargo.

edit: quit editing your posts while i reply to them! :rolleyes: ;) yeah, but i think we'll see more large maps with increased view distance. i don't remember who was working on it, but if you look in one of the huge threads in the mapping forum you'll see some very nice screenshots. that map in particular will not have large bombers, but other maps of the same size may implement objectives where the bombers are usefull. the pearl harbor map should also have this kind of bomber sights (IIRC)




Degtyarev14.5

GF Pwns Me!

50 XP

18th August 2004

0 Uploads

56 Posts

0 Threads

#16 14 years ago

Pearl Harbour?? Oh my God... And is the US supposed to have a chance to win that one? Wouldn't an AGL system bring us back to what I've already said about it needing to auto-calibrate constantly? To account for hills... and stuff... Again, I'm brandishing my realism banner. However, if you have sources indicating clearly that such an auto-calibrating system based upon AGL was indeed used in WWII, please bring it to my attention. Provided you have reliable sources, I won't dispute them, and I may just learn something. :D Pearly Harbour aside, larger maps with a longer line of sight sound just like what the doctor ordered! :) A. If Pearl Harbour has your bomber sights, surely they would work with relation to sea level, not ground level? It is a Hawaiian harbour, after all...




Jagd

{TDB}MajGen.Jagd AA

50 XP

16th March 2004

0 Uploads

720 Posts

0 Threads

#17 14 years ago

This really seems ludicrous in a game/mod with such simplistic controls. You have nothing to worry about throttle, pitch, roll and rudder, so making it even easier to do one of the few things that is actually still skill dependant in flying would seriously unhinge the game. There are enough plane campers as it is, no need to give them smart bombs.




Arisaka

Staff suffers from PCD

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

1,495 Posts

0 Threads

#18 14 years ago

ArseClownPearl Harbour?? Oh my God... And is the US supposed to have a chance to win that one? [/quote] well, i think i read in a previous thread that it is actually in the works.... at least a loading screen or something was up and running. i guess it will be an objective based map, where for instance the japs have to destroy some very important ships, while the US try to fend them off

Wouldn't an AGL system bring us back to what I've already said about it needing to auto-calibrate constantly? To account for hills... and stuff... Again, I'm brandishing my realism banner.
don't see why it would need to be auto calibrated - you have the calibration scale printed into the sight. you fly high enough to be clear of any obstacles, and as high as you can get to avoid flak. then you estimate your altitue over the target. there could also be placed a strich-like system like the tanks has got. if the width of an ordinary road is one strich/line then you're at altitude level 4 (equivalent to say 2000 ft, but we don't need to get specific values). at level 4 you use circle no. 4.
However, if you have sources indicating clearly that such an auto-calibrating system based upon AGL was indeed used in WWII, please bring it to my attention. Provided you have reliable sources, I won't dispute them, and I may just learn something. :D

they calibrated the aims for the altitude they inteded to bomb from i guess, or they turned a knob or something. the aircraft was automatically stabilized, i think, with the navigator/bomber doing slight adjustments to heading.

If Pearl Harbour has your bomber sights, surely they would work with relation to sea level, not ground level? It is a Hawaiian harbour, after all...

the sights don't work relative to the ground at all, they work relative to the trajectory of the bomb, and relative to the target. if the target is at 50ft and you yourself is at 600 ft then use the 550ft-hit circle. that's why i wrote AGL (above ground level - but the ground level constantly changes, so it means above whichever object/target you are above) could of course create a small drawing of this.

[QUOTE=Jagd]This really seems ludicrous in a game/mod with such simplistic controls. You have nothing to worry about throttle, pitch, roll and rudder, so making it even easier to do one of the few things that is actually still skill dependant in flying would seriously unhinge the game. There are enough plane campers as it is, no need to give them smart bombs.

it's not that easy to adjust direction without banking. banking totally ruins your aim. so this would require one more skill. now it only requires the dive bombing skill.

it increases realism, increases options and increases the variation in tactics. this is not making a bomber more noob-friendly. rather the opposite - yet another thing the noobs have to learn before they can master the plane. dive bombing with a B17 is what's ludicrous. - and it is in no way smart bombs - if you have only a slight bank then you miss. the bombs won't home back in. they follow their ordinary road to the lowest land.




Jagd

{TDB}MajGen.Jagd AA

50 XP

16th March 2004

0 Uploads

720 Posts

0 Threads

#19 14 years ago

HINT: Use the rudder to adjust aiming while on a bombing run.

And it is not very difficult to level bomb even in a B17. The reason you have so many bombs is so you can drop them in bunches of 2 or 3, and if you can't hit with that much ordnance you should probably consider life as a tanker.




Arisaka

Staff suffers from PCD

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

1,495 Posts

0 Threads

#20 14 years ago
JagdHINT: Use the rudder to adjust aiming while on a bombing run.

hint: side slip!

And it is not very difficult to level bomb even in a B17. The reason you have so many bombs is so you can drop them in bunches of 2 or 3, and if you can't hit with that much ordnance you should probably consider life as a tanker.

still not very usefull, is it. that's not how it should be used (well, not 100% of the time). it should be used to bomb buildings, etc. now if it really is not that difficult, would it then be so bad to add a proper sighting mechanism? it increases the diverisity of the plane!!




  • 1
  • 2