Dude that’s would be a scientific test, not a historical document. You need much more. You need the methodology, the math. This is insufficient for a scientific claim.
There is sooo much information missing that it isn’t really useful. The original documents about the german tests are also lost to time, so there is no way to validate this.
While we do have an actual scientific research paper. How can a history book trump that in any way?
Nope they shot at a b-25 to test it.
It is in the document. If you can’t open it how do you know their methodology?
But you trust a quote from a historian over what should be a scientific assessment without knowing the methodology of the test and without the historian telling you the methodology?
How can you compare if you cannot recreate the Experiment?
For example if the historian says 20hits, does he mean 20 hits in the same location, does every hit strike a differen random Location? We don’t know so we have no way to verify if the WT DM is correct with that statement. So how can you make a Statement that WT doesn’t fit the historians statement. Since in wt a burst usually hits the same general area but we do not know if the german test meant 20random hits or 20hits in the same area, we don’t know if they looked at cumulative damage… See how this is completely unusable?
Wtf is wrong with you, do you just assume anything that comes to your mind as true?
Dude, what I’m talking about is result of Luftwaffe investigation about effectiveness of their air defense platforms against US heavy bombers.
I don’t know what was their methodology back then, if they interviewed pilots and captured crews, reviewed gun cams or examined wreckages (probably all of it).
But what we know was their conclusion (20x 20mm from the rear).
Now you are arguing with American test which tried evaluate potential resilience of B-25 in combat.
Not just it is a medium 2 engine bomber vs heavy 4 engine bomber but most of all it was test/forecast, unlike Luftwaffe investigation which worked with real combat results.
EDIT: WT pilots rarely attack bombers properly, it requires time and patience, which is not really in nature of this game.
When the attack is executed properly bomber has 0 chance and not even 3rd person view with hive-mind gunners won’t save it.
Gee… I wonder why that is… Maybe because the bomber pilot has a BS 3rd person gods eye view that allows them to avoid proper engagement in a timely fashion, or entirely in some cases
I would love the barrel collisions, it would change the game dramatically.
Collisions with environment would be enough to distinguish SIM further from other SIM modes.
Excuses, excuses, excuse…
3d person god eye has nothing to do with fighter unwilling to climb to attack from proper angle.
3d person god eye does not affect fighters pilot lack of knowledge about target bomber fire arcs.
3d person god eye gives situation awareness, which a bomber would have anyway if the defensive gunners/stations were implemented.
i get that, i am trying to tell you that this information is useless because the methodology is missing and i am baffled this is the information you rely on when there is much better information available. You do understand why this isn’t usedful to judge WT on do you?
Do you know what extrapolation is?
yes you can use that to judge WT in general the same way you are trying to use the B-17. However, the US information is actually usable unlike anecdotal evidence you want to use.
Sure, but that doesn’t make the rd person view or hive mind gunners ok. You don’t seem to understand the issue with these things.
It is not a test, it is a data collection. Methology is well known. Just think a bit…
I’m curious to see your formula for the extrapolation from the 2 engine to 4 engine.
I know very well what the issue with 3rd person view is, mostly it is a scapegoat for players with a poor tactics, otherwise it is workaround for Gaijin, to safe work on defensive stations.
It is a less then ideal solution but bit more realistic then dream of some pilots that bomber pilot would be locked in cockpit with with no way to figure out what is behind the A/C, with gunners sitting silently waiting to be slaughtered from 201+ meters.
no what you are doing is imagining things and assume them eas true…
it is just a statement, you do not know how the conclusion was drawn. so just don’t assume.
seriously? that is a problem for you?
spo you have date for a single engine plane and a 2 engined plane. if both can take more damage in WT compared to real life, you can extrapolate that the methond gaijin is unsing for the durability will aslo create a DM that is too durable for a 4 engined plane.
I mean if you think this can’t be done, then you also can’t extrapolate from the b-17 any other bombers DM…
then you are mistaken, the problem is the inability to realistically operate the bomber. it’s why a lot of people don’t play them.
when it comes to attacking the bomber the main issue isn’t the 3rd person view per se, but the stabilization… something you left out. Something that is implemented more realistic even in a game like GTA V which is embrassing for gaijin
no 1st person view gunners without stabilization and even more important a manual bombsight is what bombers need. so you can play them as bombers
Seriously you believe that every single/twin/quad engine plane has the same damage resistance ?
That for example Spitfire and P-47, IL-2 and Swordfish or B-17 and Lancaster has the same battle damage resistance ?
That the wing construction, fuselage construction, engine type and placement, system placement in a fuselage(oxygen, fuel, electric, hydraulics, controls), system redundancy, single point of failures, ammo placement, armor etc does not have an effect ?
I don’t extrapolate anything. For above mentioned reasons I think it is not a great idea to do that.
But DM is botched on all bombers, as I mentioned at the beginning, mainly because DM has to few, and large hit boxes.
To be exact, bombers has the same number of hit boxes as much smaller single engine fighters.
B-17 has just 3 fuselage hit boxes. So it is fairly easy to hit such large hitbox and deplete HP pool quickly, effectively destroying the section.
The same goes for the wing spar.
Except there is nothing as, I quote “perfect stabilization”. There is and gun traverse speed so guns can’t really keep up with the Aim point.
Lets be realistic, perhaps bomb sight because it was already done in IL2, but gunners? To much work for to few…
No i don’t, my text also doesn’t imply that.
How did you read that into my post? These are some serious mental gymnastics.
Sure it does… But my idea how these things work do not exclude that. Soooo what’s your point?
Noone says that the DM should be the same for the b-17 and b-25. This is something you imagined i have said while i never did.
I said it is possible to extrapolate. For example what effect differen materials have on survivability.
But since extrapolating seems to be a difficult concept for you, i do not know how to explain it to you.
Technically as long as the one hit kill chances are correct, this doesn’t matter. It does matter in the sense that it makes the game more realistic. But on the size of the hitboxes alone you cannot make an assessment if the DMs are too weak/strong, all you can do is say that they aren’t complex, then i would even agree with you. But complexity=/=durability.
And even if gaijin introduces more complex DMs those still would only be correct of they comply with actual research.
Sure but if the fuselage has HP that take that into considerqtionnthen the median number of hits needed would still be correct. Which seems to be the case.
Of course there is. But you misread. It’s not the guns that are stabilized but the players aiming recticle. So you as a player do not have to do any corrections. The guns do but the player don’t…qnd as i said even gta v doesn’t hold your hand this hard.
Ok you really lack reading comprehension. This was a list of what is needed, for bombers to be ready for sim. Not a list on what gaijin might implement… Can’t you just take statemens as they are? Why do you have to warp them into something they are not?
Younare arguing against stuff that has never been said.
No, I said it’s even worse in VR, but bombers having mouse aim is acceptable because they have so many disadvantages but that flying a plane with a mouse is absurd in sim.
To make bomber gunners work as a sim we’d need shared cockpits (but not really cockpits) and that’s just never going to happen. I’d also be okay with increasing the effectiveness of the AI gunners and locking sim pilots out of controlling the guns.
They have an autopilot so they don’t even have to fly. Mouse joystick isn’t too bad either.
O don’t see how this is acceptable. At least not with the current views. The view is worse than the fact Oubaim with the mouse per se. It’s gaijins concept of mouse aim and the instructor that even works woth the gunners that is the issue.
And manual bomb sights. But again my post is for the wishlist, not the expectations list.
Multiplayer shared bomber is unlikely in this game…
Perhaps graphically simple positions of the gunners would be enough, as they are in attacker planes… In addition, the dorsal position of the gunner, there was often a so-called gunner-observer, or in some bombers there was a special dome for the navigator… But then again, some bombers had a high dorsal dome, another low, so probably Gaijin, the view from 3 people united to the same height and I think that the view from the position under the plane is quite lacking. For many reasons, I think the shooters’ 3rd person view is a compromise, but sometimes too generous…
Controlling the plane, in the view of the shooters is unstable… Maybe an update to the pilot training would help, depending on the pilot’s training level, in the view of the shooters-player, the pilot would be able to automatically maneuver into the counter movement of the fighter… There are many articles where it is explained that in reality, the whole crew communicated a lot when their plane was under fighter attack and the pilot was trying to maneuver the bomber. So if they weren’t flying in the bomber box, here they relied on the firepower of all the planes.
Your text imply that it is easy to extrapolate from the P-47 and B-25 test damage model for any plane.
Therefore I asked for the formula, algorithm if you will, for such extrapolation.
Since I cant read the damage data from the doc, it would be nice if you can extrapolate number of shells needed do down B-17 so we can compare with Luftwaffe findings and in game values.
Ok and do you have some numbers to back it up ?
Point is that gun is shooting where the barrel is aiming, not where the reticle points, so you can have super stabilized reticle and still hit nothing because a barrel is directed somewhere else. Have you ever shoot a gun before ? Any gun ? Did you have a problem to keep your eyes on a target or did you need to compensate with your head movement ?
You are not controlling a guns you are telling gunner where to shoot.
Likewise. Because I did not say they are not needed, I sad lets be realistic, such features are not coming.
I said it is possible to do yes. I never said i have done it. But all you would need it the materials and construction plans. Like seeing the difference in thickness of structs and the aluminum skinnof the p-47 compared to the B-25 and then you can approximate the b17 by linear extrapolation. This can be done for other materials and parts as well.
Then you have burning fuel tanks. Those do not really scale since a fuel fire kills a plane regardless of size.
Of course i am not going to do that in detail, because why would inwant tonrecreate a b-17 dm?
But in principle this is easy. Alot of work but it isn’t complicated.
Why focus on the b17 anyway? Gaijin needs to extrapolate all DMs of other planes that aren’t the p47 or b25, because those are the only ones were viable information exists for. How even validate any other DM? Since for that you need the methodology and the results. Even if the results of the historian is corrects, the methodology is still missing.
Are you dumb? That’s an “IF” statement. It’s a hypothetical… You lack reading comprehension.
It is important since it reduces the workload of the player and makes the player more accurate. It’s also extremely unrealistic, less realistic than gta in that regard.
Look you are not responding to what i say but what you want me to have said. This is useless. Stop assuming and respond to the words as written.
During one of the many previous discussions on this topic, someone posted screenshots of the interior of some bombers at the gunner stations, and they’re actually moderately well detailed. As good as the placeholder cockpits most multi-engine aircraft still have. Before those placeholder cockpits Gaijin were happy with nothing at all - just a pilot’s view point with the ‘no cockpit’ view. They could do the same for gunner positions, although I doubt ‘no cockpit’ view is really necessary in most cases, as the current interiors seem perfectly adequate as placeholders.
You would still need to double the range at which AI gunners open fire, so that positions not manned by the player behave more realistically.
Games that (almost) always end up being a 6v1 because of people who left / cannot afford too many deaths
Cause
Paying for each death which is not “beginner (or looser…) friendly”
Solution
I think that having a fixed cost to enter a lobby, that would be more expensive than the current spawn cost (let’s say something like 3 times ?) while keeping the current system of reward/15m. This would mean that when you enter the game, you know how much you can totally loose, and how much you can win.
For good players, it would not change much. I have a good experience, I rarely die more than 3 or 4 times per game and I quite often cap the rewards. But for beginners it will be much more friendly. They know they might not get any reward or very few, but they know they can die 10 times in 30 minutes without loosing 200k SL and never touch SIM again.
I think it can be a good way to attract new players and increase the SIM player base.
