I agree on that the new bomb fusing could be an option. More choise for people. That said, I gladly took more difficult to use bombs since the previous bombs were just ridiculous. Just a pity that it seems skip bombing possibly took a step in the wrong direction.

In 4.09m I could Fly 3m above the target and drop the bomb, get direct hit, and escape from the blast. From what I have read that would not had been possible in real. If the arming mechanism works as explained here, that is the bomb gets armed if the arming propeller turns enough, then this 2 secs wait appears to be like good enough implementation if it took about 2 secs in real for the propeller to arm the bomb.

Anyway I am pretty sure TD is not surprised about all complaining. If a game is much liked any changes into it will cause yelling and uproar somewhere.

Now I want to hear what the Bomber Girl says about all this :)

http://coffeescholar.files.wordpress...-sillsbury.jpg

Oh she said to me ignore them and come be my rear gunner :lol: Will do.. :lol:


Edit: Photo by Cindi Broome photography.

Right peanuts, why bother as long as the fighter jocks are happy right, and peanuts because a silly change has been made, where not a single referance has been produced showing that skipping on the water stopps the arming process. With your point of view one can then say the whole sim is peanuts.
If you can not read or have understanding difficulties, I am certain there are forums that can help you with your problems.http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...pillepalle.gif

Yeah, because skip-bombing is the ONLY thing that bomber jocks can do, and making it any less difficult than previously (i.e., even easier than ramming) is a fatal mistake, despite the fact that in reality it was a very rare and dangerous tactic that required a lot of practise. :rolleyes: It's still really f***ing easy, jeez!

I imagine that it might be possible, and if someone had bothered asking nicely instead of throwing a fit (and I'm not talking about you, I actually think well of you), we might have the answer from the horses mouth. The simple fact is that releasing your bombs from any height a reasonable, non suicidal pilot would have IRL gives them plenty of time to arm. It really is that simple.

Agreed. Fundamentally, I don't think the points being made are unreasonable...I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that arming should continue based upon the bomb's speed until it is no longer moving (i.e., it has hit something). It's just that this could easily have been posted in a bug thread as a small and unremarkable issue, or as a request in the Daidalos Team thread. It's the fact that certain posters have made out that:
a) DT have made skip-bombing impossible - demonstrably untrue
b) DT have made skip-bombing harder than it was in reality - laughably incorrect, even ignoring the effects of the sea surface, bomb reliability etc., it's still easier in game than any other kind of bombing activity to hit ships with it, which is the ONLY use it saw in reality anway.
c) DT and the occupants of the forum who don't find this change ghastly have some kind of conspiracy against/don't care about bomber pilots - wait, what? For me at least I understand why the change was made (to stop people from using bombs to kill low alt pursuers, to stop skip bombing from being really f**king easy, because bombs actually DO have an arming delay) and I can cope with it even if I don't think it's quite perfect yet. As for DT, radio navigation, analog axis control of up to 4 engines(!), new Ju-88 and He-111 models, the Hs-129, Fritz-X, etc., etc. Even the MDS is an absolute boon for bomber pilots. Oh, except you can have moving vehicles now? Heaven forbid that there might be moving vehicles in a dogfight server! That would make life much too difficult for ground-pounders!

It's just embarrassing and childish for anyone to say that DT ruined skip-bombing or have ruined the game for ground attack pilots.

Did you guys all love skip-bombing before simply because it was so easy? Is that any way to decide whether a game has been ruined, the easiest activity has been made infinitesimally more difficult?

Perhaps now we can get somewhere? Naaaaaaah. :)

TheGrunch, you have no clue why I am questioning this apparently, Oh and I have been attacking moving vehicles for some time now. And yes it is difficult, as it should be.

Always make it a personal attack don't you? Anyone that questions something is portrayed as a lazy player or ungrateful for the work of the dev team or whatever else you rant about.

I have nothing against bomb fusing per-se, but they way it is currently implemented is just flat out wrong.

Note I have not said anything about the new torpedo drop parameters. It is far more difficult, but torpedo bombing was very difficult and risky, far more so than skip bombing, which is why skip bombing of ships became the preferred method of attack.

So please stop the personal slagging. There is no reason for it.

I don't see how my post could be construed as a personal attack against you so much as bafflement that anyone would think that this change "ruins" anything. My apologies if you took it that way. I apologise if I am often quite sarcastic. I'm British, it's a national past-time. :confused: In any case my post is not directed at you, but at Wutz and his fanatic belief that DT and other forum members are peddling an "alternate history" that panders to fighter pilots/funds piracy and destroys our video industry, and indeed at Ubi you'll notice I was replying to Uther's comments about no longer being able to skip-bomb moving land vehicles at 30ft meaning that the world of online wars has been irrevocably ruined.
Certainly I have no beef with your aim - I agree that this mechanic could do with tweaking, but I don't see what Wutz's outraged ranting and other such hysteria has to do with achieving that aim other than to insinuate that the unpaid volunteers who provided this free, non-compulsory patch have some kind of sinister agenda. This could easily have been a short simple enquiry in a bug reporting thread.

Time we ahd some actual data with a source...

My source for this data is "Ordnance Pamphlet 1548" Bomb Fuse Data 1945 October 5th.

In this document arming delay is measured by "Air travel to Arm".

I will give both the 'air travel to arm' and vertical fall required to reach that speed at a TAS of 100, 200, 300 and 400 Knots with a dive angle of 0 degrees (the document provides a handy conversion chart). I won't give data on fuzes that do not apply to IL2, but I will list them.

Navy Fuzes

Fuze: AN-mk 219
Type: Instant impact
Bombs: GP bombs from 100lb to 1000lb
Air Travel to Arm: 1000 ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 440 ft
200kn - 140ft
300kn - 60 ft
400kn - 40 ft


Fuze: mk 221
Type: Impact, 0.01 second delay
Bombs: GP bombs from 100lb to 1000lb
Air Travel to Arm: 850 - 1100 ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 350-500 ft
200kn - 95-160 ft
300kn - 40-75 ft
400kn - 23-40 ft


Fuze: mk 223
Type: Impact/inertia, 0.01 second delay
Bombs: GP bombs from 100lb to 1000lb
Air Travel to Arm: 850 - 1100 ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 350-500 ft
200kn - 95-160 ft
300kn - 40-75 ft
400kn - 23-40 ft


Fuze: mk 227
Type: Anti-aircraft bomb

Fuze: mk 228
Type: Impact/inertia, 0.08 second delay
Bombs: GP bombs from 1000lb to 1600lb
Air Travel to Arm: 1100 ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 500 ft
200kn - 160 ft
300kn - 75 ft
400kn - 40 ft


Fuze: mk 224, 229, 230, 231, 234, 240
Type: hydrostatic

Fuze: mk 235 & 236
Type: 2 - 30 hour delay

Fuze: mk 239
Type: Impact, 0.01 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs except navy 100lb
Air Travel to Arm: 850 - 1100 ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 350-500 ft
200kn - 95-160 ft
300kn - 40-75 ft
400kn - 23-40 ft


Fuze: mk 243
Type: Water discriminating

Fuze: mk 244
Type: Impact, 4 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs except navy 100lb
Air Travel to Arm: 450 ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 110 ft
200kn - 25 ft
300kn - <20 ft
400kn - <20 ft


Army Fuzes

Fuze: AN M100,101,102
Type: Impact/inertia, non-delay up to 0.24 second delay
Bombs: GP bombs from 100lb to 4000lb
Air Travel to Arm: 2000ft or 445ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees: (445ft version only)
100kn - 100 ft
200kn - 25 ft
300kn - <20 ft
400kn - <20 ft

Fuze: AN M103
Type: Impact, non-delay up to 0.1 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs - Restricted to non-naval use
Air Travel to Arm: 1140ft with delay, 1710ft without delay or 510ft with delay, 765ft without delay
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees: (510 version only)
100kn - 140 ft
200kn - 37 ft
300kn - <20 ft
400kn - <20 ft

Fuze: AN M104, 120, 170
Type: Para-Frag

Fuze: AN M106
Type: Impact, delay 4-11 seconds
Bombs: All GP bombs - Restricted to non-naval use
Air Travel to Arm: None. Armed by safety wire

Fuze: M106, 147, 152, 153
Bombs: target ID and incendiary

Fuze: M110
Bombs: 20lb

Fuze: M11, 146
Bombs: flare

Fuze: m112,113,114
Type: Impact/inertia with 4-15 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 100ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 10 ft
200kn - < 10 ft
300kn - < 10 ft
400kn - < 10 ft

Fuze: m115,116,117
Type: Impact/inertia with 4-15 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 450-650ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees: (500ft ATtA)
100kn - 130 ft
200kn - 30 ft
300kn - < 20 ft
400kn - < 20 ft

Fuze: M123,124,125, 132, 133
Type: Long Delay

Fuze: M126, 127, 128, 158, 159
Bombs: Chemical

Fuze: M129, 130, 131
Bombs: Butterfly Bomb

Fuze: m135, 136, 137
Type: Impact or 5-92 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 1300ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - over 500 ft
200kn - 180 ft
300kn - 80 ft
400kn - 43 ft

Fuze: m139, 140
Type: Impact or 0.01 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 510ft with delay, 765ft without delay
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 130 or 265 ft
200kn - 30 or 68 ft
300kn - < 20 or 28 ft
400kn - < 20 or 20 ft

Fuze: 142,145, 151, 155
Type: Cluster bomb

Fuze: 143
Type: Smoke bomb

Fuze: 148
Type: to fit captured Japanese bombs

Fuze: m149
Type: Impact or air pressure
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 250ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 25 ft
200kn - < 20 ft
300kn - < 20 ft
400kn - < 20 ft

Fuze: 157
Type: Napalm

Fuze: m160, 161, 162
Type: Impact inertia, non delay or up to .24 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs 100lb to 4000lb
Air Travel to Arm: 2000ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - over 500 ft
200kn - ~400 ft
300kn - ~200 ft
400kn - ~140 ft

Fuze: m160, 161, 162
Type: Impact inertia, non delay
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 1500ft or 2200ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees: (1500ft)
100kn - over 500 ft
200kn - 300 ft
300kn - 140 ft
400kn - 80 ft

How does this data compare to IL2 4.10?

IL2's new bomb fuze system works like modern mechanical fuzes with governors on the arming vane.
They arm after 2.5 (or 2?) seconds, regardless of aircraft speed.

After a little testing in IL2 I found that this means you must be at or above 29.5m / 97ft for the bomb to detonate after it is released in level flight. This is regardless of speed.

The fuze in IL2 acts like many wartime fuzes do when they are dropped in level flight at 200knots TAS. At 200knots it acts as if it where a fuze with a 850 foot air travel to arm distance

There are, however some fuzes that armed faster and some fuzes that armed slower than this at 200knots.

Below 200 knots IL2's bombs arm too quickly compared to most second war fuzes and above 200 knots IL2's bombs arm too slowly compared to most second war.



Facts end here, opinion starts below.

It's unreasonable for IL2 to model all fuzes. There are too many for US bombs alone and US bombs are only a fraction of the bombs ingame. We need to use ball-park figures for IL2's bombs.

From the data above, we can see that IL2's current arming delay is well within the ball park for speeds between 100 knots to about 250 knots. Above these speeds IL2's bombs start to leave the ball-park a little as the two seconds become too long.

The B25 has a top speed of about 200 knots and the A20 has a top speed of about 250 knots. At these speeds IL2's bomb arming delay compares well to real data for US bombs.
The P47's top speed of about 300 knots means the bomb arming delay is going to be too long, even more so if it is in a dive.

Ideally, the arming delay would be a result of the distance the bomb has traveled, but that kind of data may not be easy to calculate for the game.
If you had to have a time based arming delay, IL2 4.10's delay is about the best you could pick. For most speeds it's about right, for some speeds it's too short, for other too long, but it is about in the middle.
Certainly a huge improvement on having no delay.



edit: I forgot to mention about what fuzes where most common. I have no idea what fuzes where most common.

Thanks Letum. Great to have some solid data!

From the German sturmovik forum:

http://www.abload.de/thumb/mindestabwurfhhefqhj.png

Zünder: fuze
Entsicherungszeit: arming time
Waagrechtflug: level flight
blind: blind/disarmed
teilweise: partly
scharf: armed

Did anyone manage to attack a single tank with the 2 sec arming delay?

Dudes! we are in a world of pain !!! LOL

I guess we have to adapt eh?

Yes, moving tanks with 4 x SC 50
fifty/fifty chance to hit and destroy the moving tank in 4.10

@wutz:
I´m preferring Bomber / Jabo flights, so don´t call me a fighter jock please:)
and: no need to get personal!:cool:

u need 2 l2p

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously, I would myself appreciate ground pounding more if it would not be so ez. The same goes with ww2 flight sims in general - I can appreciate the real pilots more if the sim at least even tries to simulate how hard things was in real. So making realistical hard sims would be perhaps the best favor devs can do to the vets. It can help peeps to understand it was not ez in real.

I flew a few campaigns using the realistic bombs and torpedo fusing mod, it made bombing much more challenging and entertaining.
I found that it was easier to bomb ships in a 45deg dive than sjip bombing, having practice with that mod i could bomb succesfully in my first 4.10 jabo mission.
To me it made Jabo more atractive, it just harder and demands more practice, you have to focus more, but when you hit the target is much more rewarding

I started yesterday DCG Luftwaffe pilot in Eastern Front campaign in 1./JG5 with Bf 109 E-7/B. Jabo Rules!

Sure but:
As far as I know(haven't tried yet), they didn't change the damage model of the German bombs.
Now, if I get a 2sec delay, but on the other hand an increased blast radius, I'll be fine with that.
Still, expect our kill/sortie ratio will be changed for ever, at least minus 20%.

Something else I fear is the comparison to the IL2.
In 4.09 this bucket could kill about 12 Tiger in a single attack, thanks to their cluster ammo.
I don't know if this is historical correct, I would guess not, as in the other case there must be a Russian "Rudel" pendant with thousands of tank kills...
Wiki says: with PTAB you could kill about 2 tanks in average.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTAB
I have no problem flying home with a few kills less - but I feel castrated in comparison to the uber-IL...

Maybe we are just supposed to use the Henschel for ground attack now.
Operation 'Certain Death'...
;)

Until as i known and reading books (Air Combat Manouvres) this was the right tactic. They flew very near to the deck to evade enemy fire then climb when approaching the target to release the bombs cause bombs may not explode if dropped too low. I see nothing wrong with the new bomb fusing. I do not understand, what is the real thing then? If its possible to improve, do it in next patches but now is better than 4.09 way.

But this i described above is true, pilots flying very low climbed a little to release the bombs. Instead to be complaining you must develop new tactics.

This because in IL2 tank commanders are idiots :-) They do not use terrain advantage, camouflage, do not use evasive tactics, stay close and aligned under enemy attacks.

All this complains are just because a correct change that turns more difficult to the reds take out the blue armor divisions hehehe... Stop complaining and start to train my puppies.

So, from two to six seconds?

Wouldn't it be better to decrease/randomise all bomb damage effects?

This is only true if you line up the tanks perfectly and are very lucky (and even then I don't get 12 tigers). I tend to average one or two Panzer IIIs, with occasionally larger numbers if they are lined up on a road.

You will also find that Il-2 pilots have to drop bomblets from higher altitudes.

P.S. If anyone has information on the fusing of the smallest Polish, Czech and Russian bombs - it would be very interesting.

I'm surprised this thread hasn't derailed into a debate about grass colour yet.

1.7s/~17m
There was thread about German SC, especially the bigger ones are castrated - and the USSR pendant ueber.

Speaks for your skills. ;)
I've seen IL2 take out whole columns all the time on QL2.

Is that so?

S!

Read a HSU IL-2 pilot's memoirs and he said that the accuracy/performance of the bomblets left a lot to desire as an average IL-2 pilot was not capable of accurately hitting with them. Required precise flying and as losses were high pilot material was very varying. His book gave a pretty different picture of the IL-2 as a plane and pilot training than the game, even he said it was a sturdy and suitable plane for it's job. But in IL-2 it is very much "easy mode" compared to the real deal if this HSU pilot is to be believed.

Oh god not another red vs blue bias whine.

Did you not read Ernst's post last page? Il2 tank commandrs (and truck drivers and ship captains) are all robotic retards and easy to kill by vets. Funny story I recently purchased Steel Fury and was mesmerised the first time I was attacked by a Sturmovik while commanding a Panzer-IV as it dove at me head on firing rockets and I watched the smoke trails head to me. Then black screen and outside view with the message "you have been heavily wounded" (the crew screamed "the commander is dead" actually) as I like a dummy was watching and forgot to button up. So while my tank got a bit of damage I bet I got my head blown off. ;) All Il-2 tanks are as smart.

Did you not read Letum's post??

Hmm

The 2 second delay is not the problem.

Its the casing touching the scenery within those 2 seconds that disarms the bomb that's the problem and not realistic.

The bombs velocity should decide its arming if its skipped or bounced into the target ship or tank the arming vane should be the deciding factor.

If this route is being taken for mud movers/bomber/Jabo to make it realistic etc etc, then start giving the fighters realistic mg/cannon jamming in the wings under G load.

We will soon see some reaction for that one :)

Good point and yes I would love to see g force jamming effects. Still the limitation of the casing touching is not that bad if you use historical tactics as Fruitbat, Dkoor and others have shown.

Well lets give the fighters G load jamming and see how the discussion goes

I will come here and tell them

"Its not that bad just learn how to use it and practise more with it"

The fact is the bombs at the moment are not realistic with the casing being a deciding factor on its arming there are better ways to do this as already mentioned in this thread.





.

I wouldn't think that would be a problem outside the inevitable low-alt furball on arcadier servers. I don't think most tend to make shots in tight turns anyway. :)

@KG26_Alpha

The difficulty to adapt to the new circumstances is so minimal that i regard your post close to trolling.

I was just online on my Test Center map with Monguse and several other experienced pilots.

Yes we could kill ships via skip bombing on occasion, but the randomness of it is just so wrong. Same bomb dropped from different aircraft even at equal speed/altitude failed to arm. I lost count of how many bombs I saw make good hits and not go off. A failure rate so high that it is beyond belief.

Once you add in enemy fire, which we did not have, and air opposition, there is no way you will even begin to approach historical success rates in the sim.

And all because the bombs stop arming if they hit the water too soon. It's the wrong approach. It needs to be changed.

On the other hand, torpedo drops can be gotten down to an utter science, nearly 100% success rates for drops and arming. Now this will go down with enemy action of course, as it should.

Errrrmmmm which post would that be ??

Absolutely agree, as it has become so random, I guess the aim is to stop skip bombing all together?
Just wondering what other curbing of flying styles will be installed in future....

Yes, I've seen the values. I'm not sure if it is historical or not.
What I was proposing was to castrate them both! I like the lower blast effects (one has to aim more).

The overall probability of a PTAB knocking out a tank may be slightly elevated over the historical (eg. the shaped charge may not have been effective if it hit sloped armour) - but I think pilot quality and the layout of the ground targets are the main factors in any excessive effects.

Try making a few runs against tanks which aren't on roads or are only driving down roads in pairs (instead of groups of eight).

Regarding having to drop bomblets from higher altitudes - yes it is the case. My effectiveness has dropped by almost 40% since 4.10 (although I expect I'll improve). It is funny to release the AO-10 at low altitude - they don't fuse, but they skip along the road like little fishes.

It took a few tries. I found heavier bombs were more likely to skip. I even managed to skip reliably using an Il-2. I just never dumped bombs while in even a shallow dive or under 90 metres and tried to keep my speed up.

I don't think it was necessarily easy in real life. If you've ever been in the ocean - it is hard to imagine throwing a several hundred kilo high-explosive device and expecting it to bounce several times is ever going to be perfectly reliable, predictable and undemanding of skill.

As for torpedo bombing - science perhaps - but I'm having an awfully hard time meeting the release requirements (speed and altitude)!

I've actually come to like skip bombing and releasing bomblets in 4.10

My personal concern is regarding individually dropped small bombs (eg. AO-10 on the I-15, not on the Il-2). These are already hard enough to use!

It might also be nice to have early war missions in American aircraft where the delay has been shortened (I remember some stories of P-47 pilots killing themselves while attacking trains). It would be cool to have as an option in the mission file instead of in the menu screen.

It's quite hard to get the A-20 to even fly slow enough for a good drop. The SM 79 on the other hand is a gem.

Yes, I've been mainly testing on the Il-2T and the Ju-88. The latter has ruddy auto-retract on the flaps: I press "combat flaps" and the plane says "flap retracted" five times in a row (at which point I'm too low or too close to the the target to make the run). ;)

Has anyone tested how this New fuze influences the german AB bombs?
Do the bomblets also Need These 2 seconds after they are released from the AB , what already takes 3 seconds.....
I cant Test it, im on vacation. Im just curious

oh well ... at least it stops people spawn grieving online with FAB 5000's :D

IL2 1946 - 4.10

2 second fusing delay, bomb drops.
All bomb drops are done in real time, time delay is applied
during playback for attention on details as Height, Scope,
aiming e.t.c.

www.zg52.com

ThankS! for watching



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KLT8Fm8tdU

Your assessment.

Out of interest I found an interview with fighter pilot Richard Lee, 94th Fighter Squadron that flew P-38s from Tunisia in 43/44. In it he talks about Skip Bombing and the technique they used.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEu0oLmjiI0

100 feet would be about 30 meters!

Cheers!

The Bomb Fuzing INCIDENT
In IL2 :cool:


Many pages about Bomb Fuzing LOL :grin:

And de FM s .. ????
Many planes too slow ...or too fast… or all bad in FM

Many fly like UFOs :o




Bomb Fuzing INCIDENT

LOL :rolleyes:



And the guns incident???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZZGaEEi8Ek

Wow, just wow. I want to be as good as you are!


Edit: Is there just a bug in Bf 109 F-7/B? You have taken 250kg bomb and dropped it, yet graphics show you carry it.

Edit: (Or actually I want to be better, but for starters I want to be as good as you are :lol:

I assume he has unlimited ammo selected.

Cheers!

I think it was done with Unlimited Ammo, for training purposes. That's why the bomb's always there.

Off course :)

Patch 4.10 seems to be just fine. Bads will be continue to be bads, and pros will continue to be pros. What changed was that it is not possible for bads to faceroll bombs at targets anymore :lol: However I have said a long time ago that there were in real bads in WW2 too :lol: That is actually my motto :) So everything is just fine.

Anyway you Sir should join in New Alliance against The Red Menace :) After doing some research I though saw that you have already been contacted :cool: Anyway I seriously hope to fly on your side* soon in SEOW.


Edit: *As long as it is Axis.

+1

DT, please fix it!

I'm not sure what you're saying .. :) could you please pm me a link of the of this "New Alliance" :)

All the best!

I PM you details.

I wouldn't know the RL situation .. but the game situation became a Real bitch ...

Even an enemy seagull can throw you off your imelman routine and send the bomb to a

henn house near by, if not to hell lol

I'm beginning to wonder whether this is an issue with online play and the effect of lag on the fusing or something odd like that...I experience none of the randomness you describe. Either I drop too late or too early and miss, or I drop too low and it doesn't go off, and I can almost invariably identify what it was that I did wrong. That attitude of the aircraft at the drop is important as well. Do you have such obvious issues with the fusing offline?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8whPv...layer_embedded


Old Times

No more .....:(

He says he is releasing at 150 feet in a slight climb.

With the new delay, the bomb will detonate when dropped at just below 100ft flying level.

150ft in a slight climb will work perfectly with plenty of room for error.
The events in that video will work just as well now as they did before.

:-P

Doesn't seem to be a big complication. Skip bombing still rulez!

I'm beginning to wonder if the online component is indeed a part of this.

One of the guys made several drops from the recommended altitude/speed, got no "torpedo failed" text, yet his torps never were seen to run in the water and never exploded either.

I'm beginning to think that the MDS is a culprit here.

Maybe, because in all my offline tests all OK, just need to respect the "2 sec rule". I can do all kinds of bombing runs, even skip bombing.

But online, I don't know. Will test tonight!

I think it should be added as the bomb delay, but with a one sec armed delay min. this way if TD manage to simulate the problem of two bombs hitting each other in the middle of the air and exploding we, the people's that like to fly big bombers, wolud have the posibility to set it to more than two seconds ...

Bombs falling from the same plane would have the same relative velocity. Any impact would not be very forceful. Especially just after release.

How sensitive are the fuses of Aerial bombs? What sort of impact would be required to set them off?

That's a question for which I suspect there is no definitive answer.


Fuze designers could make a fuze that exploded with anything from 2G of
acceleration to 500G and they bomb would still work the same in most
cases, so I would be surprised if there was a drive for accuracy.
However, even if they did aim for an accurate figure, it doesn't look like
they achieved it on a regular basis.
Some bombs detonated mid air because they bumped into another bomb
on the way down or hit a patch of turbulence. Other bombs crashed
through three floors of a house, buried them selves 6ft underground and
are still there today, unexploded.

When skip-bombing, a time delay was used to prevent the bombs
exploding when they bounced off the water. That's one way in which
skip bombing is easier than it should be in IL2.

Alas, 4.10m Safety Fuse Prevents Skip Bombing!
 

You said it well! Yes, I too got the impression that someone else is trying to force their style of bombing on others - and what is the worst, in an unrealistic way. In recent 4.10m mission I was advised to drop from minimum alt of 500 meters..! For precision bomber, denying 'jabo' bombing this is like denying fighter pilot from shooting closer than 500 meters to target..! :mad:

In reality, bombs were fused for each mission bombing style. Original makers of IL-2 flight sim have made very fine bomb bounce modeling to enable low accuracy bombing styles like ground 'slide bombing' and ship 'bounce bombing' or 'skip bombing'. Now all these low bombing styles are denied from us because of the 410m safety fuse! No more work for a precison bombing pilot in 4.10m, I have to go back to 4.09m again...

If there are bomb salvo settings, please let pilots set them like it was done back then! Safety fuse style forced 'idiot bombing' modes are good for AI pilots, but many human pilots like to learn precision bombing the real way - low! So please either remove that 4.10m safety fuse from the next patch or let people set it with other bombing salvo settings -quite like in reality..! :grin:


Bomb SALVO Fix to Consider for the Next Patch?

The otherways very realistic IL-2 has got from its beginning one great bomber reality flaw: The bombs are always dropped as forced pairs only. There is no chance to set bomb SALVO for bombing drops individually, one by one, as in reality.

It may seem a laborious job to set all bombers for one by one bomb SALVO. However, there are good news: It already has been done!

There already is a 'Weapon Control Mod' to fix IL-2 bomb SALVO built by ZloyPetrushkO that has proved to work well. I have test flown with it for months and have only good to say about it. The Weapon Controller lets pilot set into IL-2 conf.ini file the SALVO to drop any number of bombs individually at desired intervals! Now this is like it was done by the bomber crews!


Bomber Pilot's Wish Nr.1

Maybe it could be considered to add this 'Weapon Controller' bomb SALVO fix to next IL-2 patch..? If not yet to 4.10m, maybe the one after it? This is a shy bomber pilot's wish who would like this flight sim keep and improve its fine feeling of reality! More about the 'Weapon Controller' to fix the IL-2 flight sim bomb SALVO on another thread.


All the Best,

- J. Hartikka -

IL-2 Virtual Bomber Pilot

Finland

@JHartikka

i wish that you've read all posts regarding this.
Then you would have seen that it is still possible to do those skip / bouncing attacks successfully.
It is slightly more difficult to drop from 30 m instead of 10 m or less, but hey, we were spoiled!
It was much too easy till now.
Successful earth moving was always more demanding and less glamorous then shooting at planes, imho.

S!

I read this whole thread now, and all I can say: THANKS LETUM! Your posts are really nice and useful texts to read.

I can add only this: due to limitation of the game engine, in several aspects, skip bombing of ships is much easier in IL-2 than in RL. This fact leads to very unrealistic outcomes of anyone trying to play a convoy protection or naval battle scenario.

So, even if this bomb fuzing solution is not 100% realistic, its impact on the style of combat in such scenarios is definitely increasing the realistic feel, if by nothing else, then at least by bringing the outcome of such battles to much more realistic levels.

Maybe the means are not 100% perfect, but the end justifies the means!

Thank you TD!

Now take the I-153, FAB 50 bombs and show us some skill in destroying PzIV... because with SC250 its noob job.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ismarckSea.jpg

US A-20 Havoc of the 89th Squadron, 3rd Attack Group, at the moment it clears a Japanese merchant ship following a successful skip bombing attack. Wewak, New Guinea, March 1944.




Skip bombing was a low-level bombing technique refined for use against Imperial Japanese Navy warships and transports by Major William Benn of the 63rd Squadron, 43rd Bomb Group (Heavy), 5th Air Force, United States Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific Area Theater during World War II. General George Kenney has been credited with developing skip bombing.[1][2]

The first time skip bombing was used was at the base of Rabaul on New Britain. The United States 5th Army Air Force used B-25 bombers to attack and destroy Japanese ships. It proved to be very effective and received growing popularity. The only drawback was that it took a lot of skill to perfect. Sometimes the bombs would detonate too soon, or in some cases, sink.[3]

The bombing aircraft flew at very low altitudes (200–250 ft (61–76 m)) at speeds from 200–250 mph (320–400 km/h; 170–220 kn). They would release a "stick" of two to four bombs, usually 500 lb (230 kg) or 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs equipped with four- to five-second time delay fuses at a distance of 60–300 ft (18–91 m) from the side of the target ship. The bombs would "skip" over the surface of the water in a manner similar to stone skipping and either bounce into the side of the ship and detonate, submerge and explode under the ship, or bounce over the target and explode as an air burst. All outcomes were found to be effective. Unlike "Upkeep" or "Highball", this technique used standard types.

Various aircraft types were used for skip-bombing attacks, including B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bombers, B-25 Mitchell medium bombers, and A-20 Havoc attack bombers. These were supported by heavily-armed Royal Australian Air Force Bristol Beaufighters, which would suppress Japanese antiaircraft fire with their machine guns and cannon. Soviets used lend-leased A-20 Havoc and P-40 Tomahawk as well as Il-2 sturmoviks (also used for air defence suppression). Skip bombers were often used by aviation of the Soviet North Sea Fleet in combination with torpedo bombers (usually the same A-20, skip bomber and torpedo bomber operated in pair). Skip bombers were called "topmachtoviks" (топмачтовики) in Russian, because they were flying "at the level of ship mast tops".

A notable use of this technique was during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea (March 2–4, 1943), off the northern coast of New Guinea.

- Wiki




popular mechanics article => http://books.google.com/books?id=hd8...epage&q&f=true



Skip Bombing - James T Murphy

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...wolfboutique#_

".... very low altitudes (200–250 ft (61–76 m)..."

:D

Yes, and how many escort ships were there around it?

A typical skip bombing action is much like a torpedo run, only you have to come in very, very close to the target. We all know how usually torpedo runs ended up against heavily defended warships, and that's even when the torpedo planes released their payload a long way away from the target (thus a very poor hit ratio).

What we have now in IL2 is that you can fly in the middle of a convoy of 10 merchants + 10 warships (from DD to CV), you can jink like crazy and evade the naval gunfire, and during a jink you can just throw your bombs, when you are close enough, and you'll hit the target.

At the moment of release, you may be jinking quite hard and still your bombs don't care... if you hit the target they will explode, no matter what you altitude or pitch was.

Now, the bomb fuse of 2 seconds forces you only to have a stable level flight until release, which doesn't make it almost at all harder to hit a lone merchant (which was a realistic attack method as in the picture); but when that merchant is a part of the convoy, with escorts, it gets much harder, but still not impossible.

Anyway, the objective of this fix is to make it hard for players to use this attack profile in the situation when it wouldn't be used in RL (i.e. against defended targets).

Maybe this is too much realism for some people, indeed.

EDIT: so how will you suppress the AA gunners from the ships in IL-2? That is an engine limitation that TD had to work around to bring more realism, and they found a very good solution. So if the fusing needs to be an option, then I guess ships firing needs to be an option too ;)

vparez wrote
perhaps even a quick scan of some the articles of the attached links could there?... skip bombing was apparently used on land as well

I am re-posting this very interesting text, from my squadron forum:

I don't know where the text comes from, but the sources are listed below.

Now, if that text is even remotely true, I feel that the IL-2 engine and the state of the game as it is now, really allow for much more efficiency in ground attack than it was (apparently) obtained in the realistic conditions of WW2... And note that the text above focuses on weapons which are supposed to be more effective at tank busting than fragmentation bombs!

That picture is from the battle of the Bismarck Sea, and there where armed ships there:
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...e/wwii1331.jpg
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...arcksea002.jpg


Also have a look at this article, at what distance to the target bombs where released? Try that with 4.10 bet you it won´t work. as that is no 2 sec falling time at all.
But I am certain some "smart" people are going to disagree, and one can only say "sure you are right, and I have my peace"

oh good, you've heard of propaganda then...



how did the kamikazes get through then ?

articles quote 3 - 5 sec time delay fuses

OK if we want realism:
Please DT remove the 'refly button' in D/F servers option in the next update.Once people are dead,they lose all their precious points,and have to leave the server and rejoin as a 'new pilot...
Thats got to be more realistic than a refly button surely?

Failing that,please make the bomb fuse either:
User changeable,like bomb delay OR
A difficulty option,like almost everything else in the game.
Please don't force 'your' style of gameplay on everyone else.

But Wutz, it says in the quote that you posted right above this that the altitude used was 200 to 250ft, which is perfectly fine for 4.10. :confused:

Wutz, the only thing you and others succeed in this argument is to show that current bomb model is not 100% accurate.

However, you did not prove, nor can't (because it is not true) that the 4.09 bomb model was any more accurate than this!

Why? If you revert to the previous fusing, I can tell you that this is not realistic because the engine doesn't model the air burst if the bomb skips over the ship, it doesn't model the keel braking if the bomb sinks, or how the hell does it model the event of the bomb possibly striking the superstructure above the deck? It doesn't model deaths of AAA gunners, nor does it model waves.

The simulation of hitting a ship in IL-2 is a big black box. If you look at the release distance from your text, as an INPUT into the black box, and the damage to the ship as the OUTPUT, I can tell you that in 4.09 the INPUT may be better, but the OUTPUT is terribly exaggerated in therms of easiness of ship killing.
In 4.10 the INPUT is maybe less than historically 100% accurate, but the OUTPUT gives you much more historical results.

And by the way, in every single text quoted so far, the drop altitude that they used in RL matches exactly the drop altitude that we have to use now in 4.10. You stress here a drop point of 60ft to 100ft away from the ship, but I really have no idea what is the distance I use in IL-2 4.10 now, but I can tell you id doesn't measure in thousands of feet, rather I would say it is in the ball park of what you mentioned, which is damn good for a simulator from 2001.

But you know what? I gues TD should make this an option... I like the bomb fusing mod in HSFX and we are using it all the time in SEOW... for me to go back now to 4.09 bombing is too easy. But if people have to be able to deposit a bomb on top of a tank in order to have fun in this game... well let them do it! People who appreciate realism and challenge (and tehre are plenty of them) will still use this option and will appreciate all the good work from TD!

That is how we fly in SEOW. Only you can't rejoin, you have to wait until the next week's mission in order to fly again. It is the best thing in any flight sim since Falcon dynamic campaign!

Kamikazes usually didn't get through mate; check their success ratios... And anyway, aiming for a precision bomb release and aiming your whole plane to hit something isn't the same. Terrorists who hit the WTC in 2001 didn't need to have military training; if you want to hit something with a fired weapon you do need this training, even if it is a big building.

Cheers!

Wuts,
the bomb/torpedo launching in the stock IL2 was TOO MUCH simple.

If we talk about realism we had something like a 20%, probably now we are at 70%.

Do you want a 90%? Even a 100% is possible. They need only somebody to develop the code.
I think that TD would be happy to have a new member in their group: I'm quite sure that the guys of TD are not payed for improving IL2 so you should prepare yourself to work in your free hours.

Have fun implementing the detonator models and so, improving IL2 stock bombs. I can assure to you that software development is really rewarding if you are doing something you have interest in.

of course that is correct, but it also applies to every facet of every sim ever developed, and likely to be developed in the future.
...even real world science modeling is no different and not without estimations
The best to hope for it a realistic approach based on numbers and something representational for the various dynamics - air/ water/ damage/ flight/ AI


[QUOTE=vparez;209695]

Kamikazes usually didn't get through mate; check their success ratios... Cheers!

[QUOTE]

sport... the ones that got through, got through, the same as the torpedo bombers that got through, got through, the same with navy dive bombers and other attack aircraft.

you also need to remember... il2 started off as a single plane study sim many many years ago and has beeen expanded on and extended because of its simmer interest. BoB has come about because of the recognition of the need for a new sim engine

And the loss of an airplane is a minor penality respect to the loss of the pilot, speaking of campaing results.

the working window in 4.10 is actually small.................
loaded a B-25 with 500lb bombs (unlimited ammo) and tried to skip (just to see IF the bombs are skipping and donating) with level stabilizer:
20m, skipping yes, exploding no , hence the 2 sec fuze
30m, both ok
40m, ok
50m, ok
60m, not skipping anymore !!!!!!!
thats around 195feet

one have to learn to estimate/calculate the distance to target new, true. in 4.09 you were so low to have the target always in your Revi sight ;)

60ft (18m) ~ 300ft (90m) out seemed to be the real world value for the drop

I finally found enough motivation to train my BK skills as I'm not going to relearn everything - at least not in the same game.
No more bombing for me.

Stopped bombing too, as long as blast effect, shockwaves and crew modelization is not done. I wait next patch.

Try skip bomb a DD with full AA with your method now. I personnaly want to play and have fun, not to fly 20 minutes to get killed instantly, and hit refly to have a second try 20 minutes later.

indeed , thats a proplem on Dogifhgtservers.... at MOST times you are flying alone in your bomber/assault plane :(

the the good old times of many COOP online wars looks like to be over :( a real pitty , as the game is as its best in this mode - IMHO !
attacking ships succsefully (read, to win the mission ;) ) with bombers needs in 4.10 not only teamwork bewtween the bombers, also close fightercover is needed more than ever with the new approach limits you have to care about flying your crate :D.

i get it now.

people want to be able to sink a DD all on there own, and its just not fair that you can't now:cry:

No you don t have it Fruitbar. Most people don't have 3 hours per day to fly. I personnaly have only 30 minutes to 1 hour the day, and most time only one or two days per week because of other issues. As I said, I want to simulate AND to have fun. I have not the time to learn procedures again that I learned for 6 or 7 years for bombing.

I am ok to have it more realistic, but in the real world, strafing a cargo ship with 20mm and 30 mm guns would set it on fire (HE, AP and incendiary rounds mixed), and droping 1 ton of bomb between 1 cm and 20 m next to it would cause massive damage to the hull integrity.

In real life, when you strafe the deck of a DD, the crew at the machine guns and light AA guns tend to get transformed in hamburgers.

Today, you may have the realistic bombing, but not at all realistic effects on the ships, where you have to glue your bomb to the ship to have it to work.

I find it sad that for the sake of a few "I'm a geek hardcore WWII nerd that want to have it realistic because I'm an ueber armchair pilot", lots of pilots lose the fun side of online war.

I still see this game as a free time fun, not as an "I need to plan everything from A to Z to have a 1% success rate instead of 0%, and this is fun!"

Did you actually try to skip bomb in 4.10? You make it sound like the new fuse requires a college degree to master it...

I mean really... funny... :rolleyes:

In the time it took each person to post their complaints here, they could have learned how to skip bomb in 4.10!! :grin::grin::grin:

Couldn't agree more.

Yes it does and it says also that will not work with 4.10, as you have to release at a greater distance than that.

Exactly.No more bombing for me either until its fixed.

So:

4.09 state: 1st parameter is not at all historical (you can bomb from a lower alt than historical) , 2nd parameter is not at all historical (you can release as close as the target will allow you to clear it)

4.10 state: 1st parameter is exactly historical (you have to be in altitude limits published), while the 2nd parameter is a bit off, but in a ballpark (you have to release, let's say, 150-300ft instead of 60-100ft)

If I want a WW2 flight sim, I would definitely choose 4.10.

If I want an airplane arcade, I would go with 4.09.

Maybe indeed TD should make this an option to go with the "easy" realism setting.

BTW why do you always go personal, mate? I am no uber flier, I crash a sissyfire on takeoff all the time, not to mention Bfs and FWs... But skip really isn't that hard, even for me, just give it a try, without prejudice, and you'll make it in no time. C'mon, be positive.

vparez,I,like I suspect a few others here,have been flying il2 for nearly 10 years,and even after 2 hours of trying,I can no longer skip bomb.
Its ceased to be fun,and become work,and I have enough of that in my real life.
As for arcade settings,that is of course your view,but personally I don't even use the speedbar when flying usually.Personally,I would be quite happy with way of altering the timer myself,like with bomb delay.That was done in real life,and,after all,we want realism don't we!
With the current ship/tank DM, the bomb fuzing has made it harder than it was in real life,because you didn't have to be bang on target to cause major damage with a 500KG bomb.

So now,because of a DT decision,I have had a large part of my il2 fun removed,and will have to fly fighters,and go round and round in ever decreasing dogfight circles like the majority.

Not really my intent on getting personal, but I may quote That be littles everyone who does not see things from your point of view?
Up to 4.10 I almost solely flew bombers, but a half hour to 3/4 of an hour flight for a less than 10% chance that you will hit anything is, a boost to furballing if anything! Since 4.10 is out and trials have shown you can just as well dice on hitting something or not. I have changed to late war fighters, so mission accomplised you could say. Not my choice, but I get more enjoyment now out of fighters than bombers, and if we had reconnaisance seaplanes, like a Do24 I would completely skip combat missions.
How much are you willing to bet that newbees who have just bought the game are going to take up a bomber once they find out how the settings are?
Call it what you like this is a clear swing away from mission objective flying to furballing and arcade flying.
If you have endless amounts of time to adjust to these so called realistic settings good for you, I don´t have that much time, if I am lucky maybe a hour or a hour and a half.
The settings are realistic to hobbeling the bombers, and thats it, as if you are talking about realistic there is still a lot to be desired, as others have listed already. Also be happy no one has yet decided to go "realistic" on the fighters yet. I am certain you would applaude gun failures, radiator leaks on liquid cooled aircraft which is not modeled at all, only oil leaks, puntured tires, I think if some one made a real effort they could make the life of fighter pilots also really "challenging"

There's nothing historical or realistic about making the bomb casing decide the arming of the bomb as it does now in v4.10.

It was done to stop dogfight server idiots friendly killing with bombers at the spawn points. IIRC

I don't think this should be a surprise.
Consider the precision the dam-busters had to use when getting their
altitude correct, even when using a bomb the perfect shape for skipping and
with back-spin applied.

That said, it's very speed dependent. You will find it possible to skip bombs
from 200+m in IL2 with the P-51 and a dive from 1-2k.


It's true that distance traveled after a bomb has hit the water should count to
the Air Travel to Arm, however, with a ~850ft AtTA distance, I doubt the distance
traveled after first impact is going to amount to 10% of that.

Perhaps more importantly, impact with the casing and the ground/water should
cause explosion of the bomb if it is armed and unless it has a delay, even if it does skip.

the bomb delay, as with rocket dispersal and wind affecting munitions, should be an option like the advanced pilot wounding.

as it is, someone else has decided that the game should be played in a certain way.

ftr, the realistic fusing and dispersal has been an option for some for a while, i turned that "option" off because frankly i have little time to play, and taking the time to get to target only to have things fail is frustrating, irritating and ultimately the entire opposite of what i play the game for - fun.

if you want fully realistic, then fine, turn it on. if you don't you should be able to turn it off. if folk go online then they will go with whatever the server settings are. however making it so casual bombers are discouraged from bombing will make a lot of servers fighter-only fests, and that is nearly as dull as flying for 20 minutes only to have your munitions fail.

Quite agree.
The options page is already large and a little unwieldy, but another realism option for this would be good.

"realistic munitions", sure there's space for that
:D

1. Yes Alpha, there is something historical: this mechanism forces you to use an attack profile that is quite close to what was historically used. Even if it is not 100% perfectly simulated.

2. Completely wrong, so don't push that "theory".

I can really understand that someone wants "easy" settings, like when you pick "easy" flight model or unlimited ammo, or such. But to claim that the 4.09 is more real, more historical, or that 4.10 is a complete fabrication, is just wrong and ignorant.

So you guys should maybe argue on the basis of game difficulty scalability, but to claim that it is not contributing to realism is just plain wrong.

Is this fusing model incorporated in "Realistic gunnery" option? If not, it should be, so who wants an easier model, they can switch off realistic gunnery altogether.

But if you fly with full real and even no speedbar, then I really don't see any argument for fusing not to be used.

Cheers!