Turret Gunner Controls

[sd_stout]

I am curious if the turret gunner is going to be controlled by mouse in CoD as it is in IL-2. In my opinion the rapid movement and "point and click" aiming system with IL-2 could fetch some more realistic qualities if it actually took the proper amount of time to turn the guns to aim at incoming targets.

Slowing the scroll of your mouse to imitate turning guns would however cause things to feel a little sluggish and awkward so my thought is to use the joystick to move your gun turret. I think this would feel much more realistic, (turning the gun with what feels like a gun handle and firing with a trigger), add immersion, and get away from the errattic point and shoot madness of using the mouse.

What does everyone else think about this issue?

[speculum jockey]

What does everyone else think about this issue?

A lot of the people will still be flying the plane with their joysticks if it's anything like IL-2's setup.

[SAC_Crapper]

Don't have much to add to this. Other than, now that you have pointed it out, I agree 100%.

[B25Mitch]

I agree, and I also had been thinking about this. It seems unusual that the turret should be the only part of the aircraft controllable with the mouse. This is one of those features where merely having an option to use the joystick would be pointless, since it's more difficult than using the mouse.

Personally, I think everyone should be forced to use the joystick in gun turrets - it would help the immersion, and prevent people from opting for the super-easy mouse controls.

[MadBlaster]

I think it is a terrible idea. You must not fly dogfight servers. It is hard enough having to jump back and forth from the pilot station to the gunner station, switch hands to fly the plane backwards with my left hand, grab the mouse with my right hand, get a deflection shot in a plane without a level stabilizer without crashing the plane or getting shot and killed cuz all you have is an itty bitty machine gun to defend yourself. Now you want to make it harder by slowing the turret??? Super easy??? You have got to be kidding!!! It's one of the hardest things in the game!!! Considering that in real life the rear gunner wasn't having to fly the plane at the same time like we have to do in game...I think the faster mouse movement is acceptable. Also, I have experimented with using a joystick and it doesn't work. The response is too slow and the movement not precision enough to work. You won't hit anything.

Edit:
You can emulate a mouse with a joystick in Glovepie. Try it and you will see what I mean.

[Robotic Pope]

If you didn't want to use the joystick for the gunner, there could be an option to use a mouse directed turret. So you would move a small mouse curser to where you want the turret to move to and the actual gun would lag behind and fire at the correct speed for that aircraft. I understand the OP's point, It is rather unrealistic to have huge motorised turrets that you can move around like you're firing a pistol.

[Wutz]

If you didn't want to use the joystick for the gunner, there could be an option to use a mouse directed turret. So you would move a small mouse curser to where you want the turret to move to and the actual gun would lag behind and fire at the correct speed for that aircraft. I understand the OP's point, It is rather unrealistic to have huge motorised turrets that you can move around like you're firing a pistol.

So you fellows seriously think that a aircraft builder or a airforce would use slow cumbersome turrets to defend their bombers? I mean what are the turrets for? Additional targets for fighters or for defence?? I think some are mixing these turrets up with cumbersome tank or ships turrets that weighed a few tons.
Can it be those complaining about the turrets are not very skilled in attacking bombers and need to hobbel their targets so that they have a chance of any success? Also turret is not turret there are very differant kinds, and dumping all in one pot, does give the feeling that those complaining seem to be inexperianced fighter jocks.
How about doing some training then complaining that your target is not asleep?

[MadBlaster]

I think most of these machine gun turrets are simple ball bearing type mechanisms? The movement is controlled by the physical movement of the gunners arms and body, not a motor. So, moving the gun directly with your mouse would be more similar then moving a mouse pointer to a location and waiting for the gun to get there because there would be no lag in that type of design. It's point and shoot. True, some turrets are motor driven. But I'm with Wutz. Have a hard time believing the designers would make a laggy imprecise turret to replace the ball bearing types.

[Tvrdi]

I am curious if the turret gunner is going to be controlled by mouse in CoD as it is in IL-2. In my opinion the rapid movement and "point and click" aiming system with IL-2 could fetch some more realistic qualities if it actually took the proper amount of time to turn the guns to aim at incoming targets.

Slowing the scroll of your mouse to imitate turning guns would however cause things to feel a little sluggish and awkward so my thought is to use the joystick to move your gun turret. I think this would feel much more realistic, (turning the gun with what feels like a gun handle and firing with a trigger), add immersion, and get away from the errattic point and shoot madness of using the mouse.

What does everyone else think about this issue?

Did you ever saw a ww2 turret moving with your own eyes? Nope. Well I did and it moves very fast...

[winny]

The British electric turrets had a traverse speed (left to right, 180 degrees) of about 4 seconds so it should be laggy with a mouse. I got this info from a contemporary report made by the Germans on a captured Blenheim.

I've also seen a figure of 35 degrees a second, either way not exactly fast.

For comparison : The ball turret on a B-17 could only do 30 degrees a second, nose turret could do 40 degrees a second.

[swiss]

Personally, I think everyone should be forced to use the joystick in gun turrets - it would help the immersion, and prevent people from opting for the super-easy mouse controls.

Again: People fly the plane with stick while at THE SAME TIME control the gunner via mouse.

Should they use the stick for the gunner and fly the plane with mouse?





For comparison : The ball turret on a B-17 could only do 30 degrees a second,


Only?

That's 5times faster than a modern battle tank.

[Robotic Pope]

So you fellows seriously think that a aircraft builder or a airforce would use slow cumbersome turrets to defend their bombers? I mean what are the turrets for? Additional targets for fighters or for defence?? I think some are mixing these turrets up with cumbersome tank or ships turrets that weighed a few tons.
Can it be those complaining about the turrets are not very skilled in attacking bombers and need to hobbel their targets so that they have a chance of any success? Also turret is not turret there are very differant kinds, and dumping all in one pot, does give the feeling that those complaining seem to be inexperianced fighter jocks.
How about doing some training then complaining that your target is not asleep?

What's your problem? This was not about skill but about realism, I was only giving another idea on the subject. So your attack on our skill was uncalled for, and the only complaining here came from the guy that would be against joystick control.

Now, when I said huge turrets I was actually thinking of a B-17 dorsal turret and imagining it spinning around at mouse speed made me laugh. From external view it would look quite comical. Although now I think about it, I really don't know how fast that thing would look spinning at full speed.

Of course all the planes would have to have different speeds of turret/gunner positions. It would be stupid to have, say a stuka gunner taking more than a split second to aim and fire.

[Wutz]

What's your problem? This was not about skill but about realism, I was only giving another idea on the subject. So your attack on our skill was uncalled for, and the only complaining here came from the guy that would be against joystick control.

Now, when I said huge turrets I was actually thinking of a B-17 dorsal turret and imagining it spinning around at mouse speed made me laugh. From external view it would look quite comical. Although now I think about it, I really don't know how fast that thing would look spinning at full speed.

Of course all the planes would have to have different speeds of turret/gunner positions. It would be stupid to have, say a stuka gunner taking more than a split second to aim and fire.
What is your problem? So allied planes go for all planes during WWII? And realism, yeah, try again.....why don´t you openly say Bombers only AI and only at rooky level. Talking about narrow minded!
Reading posts like yours gives me always the feeling keep everything one knows for yourself, no point in sharing anything with these kind of people.

[winny]

Only?

That's 5times faster than a modern battle tank.

Only compared to a mouse.. I'.m pretty sure that 4 seconds would seem like a lot longer if there was a 109 bearing down on you and you needed to go from one side to another
There is a slight difference in weight between a Tank turret and a MG turret btw.

[MadBlaster]

Need to distinguish the electric turrents. Think these were often remotely controlled with computer assistance in aiming (i.e., no human at the gun). But maybe not all electrics? I can't think of any stock plane, but mod planes like the Hornisse, I think they usually put these types under AI control only. Page of interest:http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=19907 I think also, isn't this is late war stuff? So, not sure if electric will be relevant to CoD planes.

[winny]

Need to distinguish the electric turrents. Think these were often remotely controlled with computer assistance in aiming (i.e., no human at the gun). But maybe not all electrics? I can't think of any stock plane, but mod planes like the Hornisse, I think they usually put these types under AI control only. Page of interest:http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=19907 I think also, isn't this is late war stuff? So, not sure if electric will be relevant to CoD planes.

There were no Auto Guns in the BoB era. The auto guns in that link were never actually used. It says the project was cancelled in 1944.

If CoD is going for realism then you would have to point your mouse at where you want to shoot and wait for the turret to catch you up.

[MadBlaster]

If CoD is going for realism then you would have to point your mouse at where you want to shoot and wait for the turret to catch you up

I hope you mean for motor driven only.

[Robotic Pope]

What is your problem? So allied planes go for all planes during WWII? And realism, yeah, try again.....why don´t you openly say Bombers only AI and only at rooky level. Talking about narrow minded!
Reading posts like yours gives me always the feeling keep everything one knows for yourself, no point in sharing anything with these kind of people.

I know your problem now. You are the same kind of person as a certain ex-member of the 1c forums, I won't mention their name but I am sure the mods know who I am talking about. Oh and by the way please do keep all that you know to yourself in future, it would be very helpfull.

[Wutz]

I know your problem now. You are the same kind of person as a certain ex-member of the 1c forums, I won't mention their name but I am sure the mods know who I am talking about. Oh and by the way please do keep all that you know to yourself in future, it would be very helpfull.

What ever you say.....another armchair specialist, you have just been added to the ignore list.

[Avimimus]

Did you ever saw a ww2 turret moving with your own eyes? Nope. Well I did and it moves very fast...

It really depends on the turret. Is it ring mounted? How much additional weight? Is it motorised? Is it pintle mounted? Is it turning against the airstream? Do the vibration absorbers increase friction at the bearing?

[winny]

I hope you mean for motor driven only.

Sort of.. If CoD wanted to model hand moved MG's realistically then weight and momentum would come into it. So if you move the gun rapidly then it would go slightly further than you intended because of the momentum, G would also come into it especially for the smaller planes.

I don't think there's a way to do it 100% accurately because it would probably end up with it feeling unresponsive and fuzzy.

[Robotic Pope]

Sort of.. If CoD wanted to model hand moved MG's realistically then weight and momentum would come into it. So if you move the gun rapidly then it would go slightly further than you intended because of the momentum, G would also come into it especially for the smaller planes.

I don't think there's a way to do it 100% accurately because it would probably end up with it feeling unresponsive and fuzzy.

Yes, adding momentum and Gs would probably be trying to take the realism too far.

[41Sqn_Banks]

I may be wrong but my impression is that the horizontal movement of "large" turrets in Il2:1946 is already slowed down a bit and sluggish (e.g. A-20G and B-25J). I didn't check it specifically... though.

[MadBlaster]

I guess they would have to know the weight of the gun and its platform type. Then model the motion of that relative to what the plane is doing G wise. Actually, it would probably be easier to shoot that way. It would add some smoothness to your shot I think. As it is now, you grab the mouse and make a bunch of little hand/finger movements to get your shot dialed in. It's a jerky type movement. Very easy to go over/under where you need to be and not natural. It should be smooth and fast, maybe like (lol) Call of Duty when your walking/running.

Maybe the only hydro/electric turret in the list of CoD flyables is the Blenheim under the nose?

[Blackdog_kt]

If you didn't want to use the joystick for the gunner, there could be an option to use a mouse directed turret. So you would move a small mouse curser to where you want the turret to move to and the actual gun would lag behind and fire at the correct speed for that aircraft. I understand the OP's point, It is rather unrealistic to have huge motorised turrets that you can move around like you're firing a pistol.

Exactly. It's not a question of interfacing, it's a question of how fast a human being can rotate a 15kg machine gun and at what angular velocity the mechanically driven turrets operated historically.

I don't care if it's mouse or joystick, the problem lies in the fact that the gun feels completely weightless.

As for balancing reality with gameplay, hopefully we'll get some competent AI that can be ordered to do a few things, instead of doing what the IL2 gunners do: wait until the bandit fills you full of holes, then sniper-kill him with a single shot.

The gunners are not meant to shoot down planes (although it's desirable), but to damage and deter them from pushing the attack.
In that sense, having the ability to give certain commands to the gunners would take away the need for us to fly the aircraft with one hand on the stick and shoot the defensive guns with the other on the mouse.

Imagine this menu in the radio/commands interface, you press tab, then the number corresponding to gunners. Then you get the following commands, some with extra sub-menus:
1) Range submenu: Fire at close/medium/short range
2) Firing Mode submenu: Fire for effect (barrage fire to deter attackers) or fire aimed shots (to actually score hits)
3) Closure rate submenu: Prioritize incoming targets, targets who are moving away or don't prioritize at all
4) Fire at will (cancels all previous modes)
5) Hold fire (puts the gunners on "pause" without canceling previous modes)
6) Resume fire (gunners start firing again according to their previous commands)

It might look complicated, but it's very versatile. You are on a low level Blenheim raid and you see 109s up high but they haven't seen you. A lonely, unarmed Fieseler Storch passes by, what happens?
In IL2, your gunners will fire and give your position away. With this system you issue a hold fire command.
Before you reach the French coast, you already have your gunners set-up to ensure maximum defence with the least amount of exposure, by issuing the orders to fire for effect at close range on incoming targets. So, when the Storch is away again, issue the resume fire command and they keep doing that.

If a bunch of 109s see you and are out to attack you, the gunners will fire when they need to, but they won't give your position away for miles with their tracers.

Different scenario now. You are flying a high altitude raid with lots of bombers and you're streaming contrails, so everybody knows you're there anyway. You set them up for barrage fire at long range to make sure the interceptors don't get close.
Another one, you are in a fight flying a 110. In this case you want the gunner to be somewhat accurate, since you are in an aircraft that maneuvers anyway (as opposed to a straight and level bomber group) and if an enemy is onto you he'll probably be right on top of you at minimal range. So, you tell him to fire aimed shots at incoming targets. ;)

[robtek]

What ever you say.....another armchair specialist, you have just been added to the ignore list.

It takes one to know one!

[whatnot]

What ever you say.....another armchair specialist, you have just been added to the ignore list.

That's quite an ingore list you got going there Wutz! ;-)

[whatnot]

A system that works pretty well in my experience is something like in World of Tanks: You can look around as quickly as your mouse allows (your head turning around in the turret) and then the turret follows your eyes with the speed that particular turret can.

[Wutz]

Oh there are eight candidates that are in that club.
But back to the topic, when thinking of the twin 20mm flak guns used during my military service those could swing around really fast, that is why I would like to see hard evidence that turrets where slow or laggy, and not just some fighter jocks wet dream to easy successes.

[GnigruH]

There are videos on YouTube showing for example b-17 where you can see how fast the turrets were.
Like this one (from 0:17 to 0:29).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe36UMRkRbk

[MadBlaster]

@ Blackdog_kt
"In that sense, having the ability to give certain commands to the gunners would take away the need for us to fly the aircraft with one hand on the stick and shoot the defensive guns with the other on the mouse."

Flying backwards while shooting the guns, it's one of the best parts of the game imo. Wouldn't want to give it up to AI. Only thing I need AI for is tracking bandits.

[Robotic Pope]

@ Blackdog_kt
"In that sense, having the ability to give certain commands to the gunners would take away the need for us to fly the aircraft with one hand on the stick and shoot the defensive guns with the other on the mouse."

Flying backwards while shooting the guns, it's one of the best parts of the game imo. Wouldn't want to give it up to AI. Only thing I need AI for is tracking bandits.

You could still have the option to do both at once if you wanted. What Blackdog is saying is with better AI and AI commands you wouldn't absolutly NEED to.

Blackdog, A crew radio menu like that would be awesome, cool idea. It would bring a lot more tactics to the fight.

[Blackdog_kt]

Oh there are eight candidates that are in that club.
But back to the topic, when thinking of the twin 20mm flak guns used during my military service those could swing around really fast, that is why I would like to see hard evidence that turrets where slow or laggy, and not just some fighter jocks wet dream to easy successes.

Mate, there's no need to be aggressive, it just detracts from the point you are trying to make.

Not all of us are looking for easy kills against bombers, but if a particular turret was slow in real life then the simulation should reflect that and that goes for guns in swivel mounts too, depending on their weight and other factors.

Before you draw any conclusions
a) yes, i used to fly bombers online all the time whenever a mission came up with fighters that i didn't know how to fly well (i flew Fw190s almost exclusively, so in maps without 190s i was always taking a bomber) and
b) back when i was spending a lot of time with IL2 i would routinely setup a high altitude QMB mission (7500 or 10000m) with me in an early model Fw190A against four B-17s at ace AI settings...no big guns or heavy armor, not even a full Mg151 loadout, just 2xMg151,2xMgFF and the machine guns and i could kill them all just fine.

Some of the people reading this will obviously think "what does this guy's bragging have to do with the topic at hand?" and guess what, they will be right because what we like to fly and how well we do it in the simulator is not a criterion of how realistic certain aspects of the simulator are. Unfortunately, it does tend to be a criterion of what kind of changes we tend to ask for in the sim ;)

Well, i can defeat AI gunners just fine because i've found out exactly how to create blind spots for them by taking advantage of their simplified logic. In fact, if the gunner AI was reworked i would have less difficulty with the unrealistic sniper kill-shots, but i would have more difficulty with them tracking me in a realistic manner and shooting when it would be reasonable to do, which they currently don't do.
Just fly abeam some bombers and turn into them for a side slashing attack to see this. Ok, you might get some hits on the first run but if you repeat this from the other direction at high speed guess what happens...they are still facing the way you came from in your first pass! By the time they turn around they will be shooting in empty air and you can repeat that all day long.

Like i said before, i don't want to make it harder than it should be for the bombers. I like bombers and if the complex engine management and systems modeling in CoD is all it's rumored to be, then i'll be flying them a lot. However, i don't want to make it easier than it should be either.

I would just like to have historical gun traverse speeds for all defensive guns, so that flying a proper pursuit curve will give me an advantage over another pilot who just parks at their six and steals the kill i've been working on for the past few minutes, just like i would want a gunner AI that doesn't take sniper pot shots at 800m distance and then takes a break until the attacking fighter approaches to point blank range before he really starts to spray some gunfire at him, so that i can have a better chance of survival when flying a bomber. ;)

[Wutz]

Mate, there's no need to be aggressive, it just detracts from the point you are trying to make.

Not all of us are looking for easy kills against bombers, but if a particular turret was slow in real life then the simulation should reflect that and that goes for guns in swivel mounts too, depending on their weight and other factors.

Before you draw any conclusions
a) yes, i used to fly bombers online all the time whenever a mission came up with fighters that i didn't know how to fly well (i flew Fw190s almost exclusively, so in maps without 190s i was always taking a bomber) and
b) back when i was spending a lot of time with IL2 i would routinely setup a high altitude QMB mission (7500 or 10000m) with me in an early model Fw190A against four B-17s at ace AI settings...no big guns or heavy armor, not even a full Mg151 loadout, just 2xMg151,2xMgFF and the machine guns and i could kill them all just fine.

Some of the people reading this will obviously think "what does this guy's bragging have to do with the topic at hand?" and guess what, they will be right because what we like to fly and how well we do it in the simulator is not a criterion of how realistic certain aspects of the simulator are. Unfortunately, it does tend to be a criterion of what kind of changes we tend to ask for in the sim ;)

Well, i can defeat AI gunners just fine because i've found out exactly how to create blind spots for them by taking advantage of their simplified logic. In fact, if the gunner AI was reworked i would have less difficulty with the unrealistic sniper kill-shots, but i would have more difficulty with them tracking me in a realistic manner and shooting when it would be reasonable to do, which they currently don't do.
Just fly abeam some bombers and turn into them for a side slashing attack to see this. Ok, you might get some hits on the first run but if you repeat this from the other direction at high speed guess what happens...they are still facing the way you came from in your first pass! By the time they turn around they will be shooting in empty air and you can repeat that all day long.

Like i said before, i don't want to make it harder than it should be for the bombers. I like bombers and if the complex engine management and systems modeling in CoD is all it's rumored to be, then i'll be flying them a lot. However, i don't want to make it easier than it should be either.

I would just like to have historical gun traverse speeds for all defensive guns, so that flying a proper pursuit curve will give me an advantage over another pilot who just parks at their six and steals the kill i've been working on for the past few minutes, just like i would want a gunner AI that doesn't take sniper pot shots at 800m distance and then takes a break until the attacking fighter approaches to point blank range before he really starts to spray some gunfire at him, so that i can have a better chance of survival when flying a bomber. ;)

Don´t get me wrong if hard facts state certain aircraft turrets where slow by all means, but the original post reads very much, that all turrets should be slow and that I do not quite believe. And when I think of that twin 20mm anti aircraft gun although a ground stationed gun and weighing a lot more than any aircraft gun, how fast that moved. I just get the feeling some one is hoping to push an advantage to make up for his own lackings.
If there are referances by all means then have the proper turning speeds, but please no guess work or what some one thinks it should be, that will only start flame wars. Also it seems some are forgeting that compared to a fighter a bomber is a fairly stable gun platform. I just have to smirk how many times I have taken a gunners position in a bomber and bagged a fighter, and then read a comment from that pilot about darn sniping AI gunners, that really makes me laugh.

[Robotic Pope]

Don´t get me wrong if hard facts state certain aircraft turrets where slow by all means, but the original post reads very much, that all turrets should be slow and that I do not quite believe. makes me laugh.

No it Didn't, The OP clearly said that it would be more realistic if the turrets had their PROPER speeds, Nobody can swing a machine gun around at point and click speed. He just wants more realism, not an easier bomber to shoot down. As I am now ignored by Wutz, I write this to show others I support the original poster and don't apreciate the defensiveness and agression that Wutz has brought to this thread.

[MadBlaster]

You could still have the option to do both at once if you wanted. What Blackdog is saying is with better AI and AI commands you wouldn't absolutly NEED to.

Blackdog, A crew radio menu like that would be awesome, cool idea. It would bring a lot more tactics to the fight.

Here's why I lean against it. It is a crutch leading you down the wrong path. It also could give bomber pilots a bad reputation. Frankly, I wish it was true that AI gunners could not give you EAD. It's a freebie kill. They should only be allowed to inflict damage on an enemy fighter, but no EAD. Fortuneately, I can't remember the last time I had EAD from AI gunner, so maybe they fixed it in a patch. The flip to what Blackdog is saying about QMB: I can go to QMB, load up 4xp51 or 4xspit on ace mode (one in each slot for independent treatment) fly a Stucka or 110 in the QMB and I smoke/EAD each one from the rear gun position. If I left it to AI gunners, not going to happen. What I'm really saying it is a skill that should be learned by all bomber pilots. I think it is okay to use AI gunners in the begining when your learning the ropes of bombing. But at some point, you gotta dump the AI to get better defensively. If CoD does what Blackdog suggests, I fear that the incentive to improve defensive skills would disappear and that would be detriment to gameplay in the long run. If you want these commands as option, I guess that is okay. But they don't belong on full-switch/full-real servers.

[winny]

Don´t get me wrong if hard facts state certain aircraft turrets where slow by all means, but the original post reads very much, that all turrets should be slow and that I do not quite believe. And when I think of that twin 20mm anti aircraft gun although a ground stationed gun and weighing a lot more than any aircraft gun, how fast that moved. I just get the feeling some one is hoping to push an advantage to make up for his own lackings.
If there are referances by all means then have the proper turning speeds, but please no guess work or what some one thinks it should be, that will only start flame wars. Also it seems some are forgeting that compared to a fighter a bomber is a fairly stable gun platform. I just have to smirk how many times I have taken a gunners position in a bomber and bagged a fighter, and then read a comment from that pilot about darn sniping AI gunners, that really makes me laugh.

I already said that the powered turrets in 1940 had a traverse speed of 30-40 degrees a second. There are loads of references to this all over the internet.


Funnily enough I've never seen a reference to a pilot leaving his seat to go off and fire the guns whilst still flying his plane. If you want the full real experience then you shouldn't be able to switch seats, but it's a game and you can and nobody complains about it.

[pupo162]

things to note:
-not everyone has a joystick
-speeded up turrets are far batter than laggy turrets... also, msot bombers in this first realease are german, and germans seem to not like turrets.

keep the mouse has it is... why fix what aint broken?

[Wutz]

I already said that the powered turrets in 1940 had a traverse speed of 30-40 degrees a second. There are loads of references to this all over the internet.


Funnily enough I've never seen a reference to a pilot leaving his seat to go off and fire the guns whilst still flying his plane. If you want the full real experience then you shouldn't be able to switch seats, but it's a game and you can and nobody complains about it.

So really for all aircraft from 1940 from all countries?? Or just your prefered ones....as to the rest well have you seen anywhere that after a accident you could hit a refly button? http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Comics/pillepalle.gif

[winny]

So really for all aircraft from 1940 from all countries?? Or just your prefered ones....as to the rest well have you seen anywhere that after a accident you could hit a refly button? http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Comics/pillepalle.gif

Pretty much, it seems like the optimum speed and I don't have a preffered bomber. If you find out any that are quicker then by all means let me know, I'm here to learn..

As for the refly option, no of course not, and it's the same argument that I just used.. ie, it's a game and there have to be compromises when it's gameplay vs. reality (I'm not crazy). I have never said that it should be a certain way, I'm just adding to the thread so we can have a discussion about it. I also said that if the turrets were modeled 100% realistically then it would make it unresponsive and fuzzy.

It's just interesting to see what peoples ideas on realism are. Personally I'm all for options.

Stop judging people by your own standards, I'm here to pass the time, spark conversation and try and add some facts to a forum that has been plagued , like most, by negativity, speculation and down right rudeness. (not aiming that one at you Wutz, just in general).

[Moggy]

I've been sent a link (thanks Handsome) to a couple of videos on youtube which explains the Defiant gunner's duties and operations. Interestingly enough, the gunner controlled his turret by means of a joystick with a button on top for the guns. He also had a switch to make the turret motor move at a greater speed but was discouraged from doing so unless it was important. Also interestingly you'll see the switch which switches control of the guns between the gunner and pilot. Of course the pilot couldn't fire directly forwards as the rounds would take off the propeller (there was an interrupter gear to prevent this), the gunner had to elevate the guns to 19° or 20° to fire above the propeller arc. The pilot also did not have a reflector sight.
The section for the Defiant starts at 6:55 in this video and goes on for the next 2 videos after in the series, enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTLCs5OXY1w

[Richard]

Interesting thread. If people want realistic turret speeds etc, Oleg & Co should also implement G-forces on the gunner as well (will obviously more relevant in aircraft such as the SBD, Beau, Defiant etc etc) ...

If anyone of you have seen the Dogfights episode where Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa shot down 2 Zeros (or perhaps 3?) with his SBD Dauntless dive-bomber, you notice that his rear gunner didn't fire a shot at all. Why? Because the heavy G-forces of Vejtasa's maneuvering of the SBD kept the rear gunner pinned to his seat, unable to train his guns on the marauding Zero's..

[kendo65]

That's quite an ingore list you got going there Wutz! ;-)

I knew that Wutz's attitude reminded me of someone, but I couldn't quite remember who....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1HwKA0J-gU



...expect my name also will be 'added to the list'...

:);)

[Moggy]

To be fair though Richard, Vejtasa's gunner had to move and aim his guns manually. How much affect would G-forces have on a gunner moving a joystick in his right hand in a powered turret, would they prevent him from moving an inch or 2? Honestly I don't know but I have my doubts.

[winny]

I read an account from an RAF BoB pilot who said that it was quite common to see Stuka rear gunners 'go floppy' as they passed out due to the G, especially comming out of a dive. He even described being able to see the guys limp arms rising and falling as the Stuka made an attempt to get away from him.

That is definitley one job I wouldn't want.

[Richard]

To be fair though Richard, Vejtasa's gunner had to move and aim his guns manually. How much affect would G-forces have on a gunner moving a joystick in his right hand in a powered turret, would they prevent him from moving an inch or 2? Honestly I don't know but I have my doubts.

If the gunner in the powered turret was subjected to the same g-forces, I guess he'd be able to move it around if the stick controlling the turret was placed in a "proper" position, but he would still be just as useless since he'd be suffering from G-induced blackouts.. If he can't see, he can't shoot ;)
(This would be different for the pilot, since he's obviously in control of the airplane)


But planes with power-operated turrets tended to be heavier aircraft, so I guess it wasn't that "normal" to expect high g-forces in a Blenheim, B25 etc, compared to the SBD Dauntless for an example.

[Blackdog_kt]

Here's why I lean against it. It is a crutch leading you down the wrong path. It also could give bomber pilots a bad reputation. Frankly, I wish it was true that AI gunners could not give you EAD. It's a freebie kill. They should only be allowed to inflict damage on an enemy fighter, but no EAD. Fortuneately, I can't remember the last time I had EAD from AI gunner, so maybe they fixed it in a patch. The flip to what Blackdog is saying about QMB: I can go to QMB, load up 4xp51 or 4xspit on ace mode (one in each slot for independent treatment) fly a Stucka or 110 in the QMB and I smoke/EAD each one from the rear gun position. If I left it to AI gunners, not going to happen. What I'm really saying it is a skill that should be learned by all bomber pilots. I think it is okay to use AI gunners in the begining when your learning the ropes of bombing. But at some point, you gotta dump the AI to get better defensively. If CoD does what Blackdog suggests, I fear that the incentive to improve defensive skills would disappear and that would be detriment to gameplay in the long run. If you want these commands as option, I guess that is okay. But they don't belong on full-switch/full-real servers.

What you say is partially true and i don't necessarily disagree. In fact, it's always better to do it manually and with the new mutlicrew feature for multiplayer i'm sure i'll prefer having actual humans on the turrets.

However, keep in mind that just because what you describe is harder and leads to a heightened gameplay skill, it doesn't make it realistic since a real pilot wouldn't have to to fly the bomber and shoot the rear facing guns at the same time ;)
He had his "crutches" too, only he used to call them "my crew". That's what an improved AI would simulate and together with the complex systems modeling it would breath new life into flying bombers in offline campaigns. I'm not expecting AI gunners that have similar results to a manually controlled turret, but i'm expecting some that, with varying degrees of effectiveness according to AI skill levels, can create the illusion of a human sitting in that seat and follow a reasonable routine of selecting/tracking targets and firing the guns in a realistic manner. For online, i bet most people would prefer to use human crewmen anyway.

In IL2 the gunners will either give you a one-shot sniper kill, ping you a few times or be firing into empty air at the direction the attacking fighter came from instead of the direction it's going to be in the next couple of seconds. In reality, even an inexperienced gunner would know to point the gun ahead of the fighter's flight path, eyeball the deflection and let off a burst, or actually lay down some barrage fire in short bursts if the fighter was silly enough to park at a certain position and not vary it's flight path.

Overall i guess the end result is pretty much the same, because the pros and cons of both methods tend to even out, but it still looks silly when i'm PKed 800m away by the same AI gunners who are totally useless and easy to fool against an attacking fighter at 200m. All you have to do is approach from the sides at a high enough speed and by the time you "register" on their "AI sense" chances are you'll already have executed your firing pass while they are casually turning their turrets around and firing in an arc of empty space :-P

[Flying Pencil]

I think most of these machine gun turrets are simple ball bearing type mechanisms? The movement is controlled by the physical movement of the gunners arms and body, not a motor. So, moving the gun directly with your mouse would be more similar then moving a mouse pointer to a location and waiting for the gun to get there because there would be no lag in that type of design. It's point and shoot. True, some turrets are motor driven. But I'm with Wutz. Have a hard time believing the designers would make a laggy imprecise turret to replace the ball bearing types.

In BoB era, all LW aircraft was manual, and the RAF the only powered one I can recall is the Blen's (Wellington with powered was just being installed at that moment.

Some vids of 111 gun positions (top gun being worked on, when I get time...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBhGp23NS_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlJlOQcDAhE

[Flying Pencil]

Oh, ANOTHER thing to consider!

The WIND FORCE on the barrel of the gun can be VERY strong.

I must upload the video of me moving the gun on a B-24...

[Novotny]

Oh, is that your good self, Mr Pencil? I've watched those vids before - thanks for making them :)

[MadBlaster]

Thanks for posting those FlyingPencil. I have seen your videos before and actually had them in mind when I posted that comment. Though, I guess I should have said "gimble" instead of "ball bearing".

[Flying Pencil]

Oh, is that your good self, Mr Pencil? I've watched those vids before - thanks for making them :)

Yes it is,
Your welcome :)

Thanks for posting those FlyingPencil. I have seen your videos before and actually had them in mind when I posted that comment. Though, I guess I should have said "gimble" instead of "ball bearing".

Thanks. :)


I was amazed by how much detail the books missed.
You can find bits and pieces, but have yet to find a really good book on these things.

[Flying Pencil]

The British electric turrets had a traverse speed (left to right, 180 degrees) of about 4 seconds so it should be laggy with a mouse. I got this info from a contemporary report made by the Germans on a captured Blenheim.

I've also seen a figure of 35 degrees a second, either way not exactly fast.

For comparison : The ball turret on a B-17 could only do 30 degrees a second, nose turret could do 40 degrees a second.

From 45* to 30* a second, still fast enough to turn to EA.
I seen film of B-17 top TG go much faster, but not sure if it was on "High Speed" setting.

But all the German bombers had hand held/moved guns, which could go much faster.

[Flying Pencil]

There were no Auto Guns in the BoB era. The auto guns in that link were never actually used. It says the project was cancelled in 1944.

If CoD is going for realism then you would have to point your mouse at where you want to shoot and wait for the turret to catch you up.

What do you mean by "Auto Guns"??

A lot of Remote Controlled and Computerized Control guns did exist and was used by all sides. Even Radar Ranging equipment was installed on B-29's and used before end of WW2.

[winny]

I was refering to the link posted and specifically during The BoB.

The link was to small automatic electric MG turrets that never made it past testing. Fitted to a shackleton (so that gives you some idea of the date!) Computer cotrolled.. I think. I know they had them later. I wasn't aware of anything like that being around in 1940.

And when I said 'not exactly fast' I was comparing it to pointing and clicking with a mouse, not compared to other turrets. It gets confusing when you mix reality and sim :)

Something of interest I found out when looking at Aerial guns/gunners. USAF Aerial Gunners (in most cases) weren't credited for kills individually, the kill went to the Group. So even if you shot down 5 you'd never get Ace status. There's a list somewhere of the top Aerial Gunners in WWII. 17 kills is the highest I've seen. Most seemed to get 4 or 5.
Can't have been easy.

[Flying Pencil]

I was refering to the link posted and specifically during The BoB.

The link was to small automatic electric MG turrets that never made it past testing. Fitted to a shackleton (so that gives you some idea of the date!) Computer cotrolled.. I think. I know they had them later. I wasn't aware of anything like that being around in 1940.

And when I said 'not exactly fast' I was comparing it to pointing and clicking with a mouse, not compared to other turrets. It gets confusing when you mix reality and sim :)

Something of interest I found out when looking at Aerial guns/gunners. USAF Aerial Gunners (in most cases) weren't credited for kills individually, the kill went to the Group. So even if you shot down 5 you'd never get Ace status. There's a list somewhere of the top Aerial Gunners in WWII. 17 kills is the highest I've seen. Most seemed to get 4 or 5.
Can't have been easy.

Yes, I looked at the site. What it proposed already existed on B-29's.

I think the correct term is "Compensating" targeting sights, and I am pretty sure (not positive) the Americans had them first (and sold to UK), not sure when it started (I would guess 1940, but not in service till 1942??).
Not sure if Germans developed something like that, but they did have remote controlled guns.

It was an analogue computer, and was surprisingly complex and accurate, as long as the gunner knew exactly the range, the target was hit.


Not easy at all, but not by todays standards (sims give us hours of practice). Still, those TG's caused damage to attacking fighters no matter what side.

[KG26_Alpha]

What would be interesting is an appraisal/comparison of IL2 1946 gunner positions with the information you have from the He111 videos.

Its a rare chance to get "actual" data to input for the sim.

IIRC you did do something along those line before on one of the gunner stations.

The only He111 I have been in had no armaments at all being a late Casa version :(

[Richard]

In BoB era, all LW aircraft was manual, and the RAF the only powered one I can recall is the Blen's (Wellington with powered was just being installed at that moment.

Some vids of 111 gun positions (top gun being worked on, when I get time...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBhGp23NS_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlJlOQcDAhE

Ahh, Brings back memories! The He-111 is the only German WW2 aircraft I've ever sat my foot in :P