The new bomb fuzing needs to be an option.
 

Sorry, but it does.

I've been trying for some time to come up with a speed/altitude/distance/aircraft combination that works for skip bombing ships and for me it's a bust. this was a tactic that was used and worked, but now you are sentencing those that say they can do it to certain death.

If the stated reason for doing it is true, to stop folks from dropping bombs from parked aircraft, then code the bomb releases not to drop at all with aircraft that are on the ground. End of problem.

Right now I just am getting the feeling that someone else is trying to force their style of game play on me.

It's not making me happy.

My personal guess is that it is relatively inappropriate for some weapons. In particular, some of the small bombs (2kg-20kg) should probably have simpler fuses and be able to detonate with low altitude release.

IMHO, it would be great to have fuses which malfunction (eg. a certain percentage of time-fused bombs detonate prematurely, or a certain percentage of bombs fail to detonate at all). Against ground targets the British RP-3 / 60lb rocket had a 25% failure to detonate rate. This would add a lot to gameplay.

So, basically I agree that it is forcing a certain style of play and also may be too simplified and inappropriate in some cases (even if I personally don't mind people being prevented from planting time-fused bombs at 5 meters altitude, having to use PTAB from height is rather cool). These things should be choices though - and more historically accurate.

I'd be very interested to find out more about fuses (eg. how safer were those converted artillery rounds dropped from U-2/Po-2?)

Btw. Adding correct probabilities for gun jams would also be great. It would give a different perspective on which guns are the best ones, balancing out guns like the Mk-108.

It would also create more "chance" in a fight - with gun jams potentially turning the tables or forcing an abort.

I think making a problem switchable isn't a working solution.
The 2 sec. arming delay is a step from game towards simulation.
This option switchable in the online world would only lead to "always set to off" because the servers try to attract ALL players.
As 25 m altitude in horizontal flight are enough to allow arming of the bomb i believe that skip-bombing is still quite feasible.

Funny, last time I checked, we arcade as well as f-r servers. ;)

Your picture shows a torpedo attack, and the two planes flying low are not up to release altitude yet.

The bombs have a two seconds arming time, if you dive bomb vertically with Mach1, then yes, you're going to need considerably more than 25m of altitude.

Yep, honestly I think they raised the the bar too much.
Just think of newbies, I takes them forever for the least bit of success.

For the US bombs, the arming spinner required a set number of revolutions, not a set rpm.

That means the arming is about the distance the bomb has traveled, not the time it has traveled.

TD have been generous with their bomb timing of two seconds. Three to four seconds may have been closer to a historical figure. It was an essential precaution to prevent bumps in flight or bombs hitting each other just after they have dropped causing an explosion.

The idea is that the bomb will never explode when it is close enough to the plane to do damage (i.e. 25m away!)

Isn't this why we have bomb delay?
Anyway,if its correct,I am happy to have it,as skip bombing always seemed too easy in il2.If however it is not correct,then it should be looked at again.

Nope, a bomb delay is a delay on the impact detonation fuse. The spinner delays
the arming of the bomb. Until that spinner spins it's 'x' number of revolutions, the
bomb is safe and can not be detonated at all.
Some spinners work by gearing down and rotating part of the arming mechanism
to line up, ready for detonation, other spinners work by screwing in a screw that
completes the arming mechanism once it is screwed in all the way.

Thanks for the explanation Letum! So the new system is more accurate that 409? If so,I will be happy with that.

Sorry El, but then you're doing something wrong. I loaded up a B-25 and set up a few transports and tankers to test.

1st run, 50ft - No dice. Bombs did not fall far enough before hitting water to arm*

2nd run, 100ft - Bingo! Good drop and strike, target sunk.

3rd run, 100ft - Bingo! Good drop and strike, target sunk.

Details? I've got a reference that has it that B-17s of the 5th Air Force in New Guinea skip bombed at night from 150ft with repeatable accuracy. The Mitchell strafer units were renowned or going in at 'Masthead' height but that can be anywhere from 50 - 100ft. The TD team are gonna want some hard facts mate, not just rhetoric.

Please.

Ok, but I imagine that the reason it's been coded in is because this is a prototypical safety feature - and not just for on the ground, but as Letum states, to prevent detonation to close to the carrier a/c for a number of reasons. It's not there just to make your life difficult.

Wow. So your gamers human rights are under threat? Lol! It's a bloody game chum! The indignance round here is laughable!

*Regards the arming function, should the bombs be rendered inert by the first bounce on the water is, I think, the key issue here - I don't know much about the fuses used and I am sure there are as many different types as there are applications.
From some rudimentary internet searches, it seems, for example that the US 500lb GP could be armed by vanes in the nose or the tail - I guess the low level ones would have been tail armed, but would the initial bounce impact have stopped the vane? If so, did a reduced number of turns arm the bomb? Or did they have a different type of arming and detonator entirely?

Perhaps if special fuses were required for low level skip attacks then TD could program a new loadout option for each plane to have a certain loadouts with low level fuses?

Let's try to get some productive evidence instead of stamping feet and whining.

Guys are using that mod in SEOW for months.

You need only a little practice and all will be fine.

A few nice examples of the arming can be seen at that "famous movie with Ben Affleck" Pearl Harbour.

It's certainly how it was in reality for all US GP bombs and most British bombs. Much more accurate.

Some British bombs used a long wire that got pulled out of the bomb as it dropped to arm it, but I don't think we have these bombs in game anyway.

I know nothing about Soviet, German and Japanese bombs.

of ftopic question then:

if the silly boy who had a bomb next him in the ditch and stood there watching the spinner had steped in wi th his and and stoped it ( assuming it can be done ) would he have stopped the bomb?

Well, this tactic was show wrong in RL too, since almost of G4M Betty are shot down, and the only ship hit - USS George F. Elliott (AP-13) - was for collision. :)

Sokol1

Concerning Soviet bombs, see the link below, the drawings show the spinner clearly.

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/O...AB50/index.php

The B26 had six forward facing MGs and para-frag bombs. Just the kind of kit you need for tree-top attacks.

I don't understand you Wutz...It's a fact that bombs worked like this.
You can look at old bombs or blueprints and see the mechanics. This is how they worked. how can you disagree with such a plain fact?

1) The bomb is dropped
2) The spinner spins for 'x' revolutions (US bombs usually had two spinners front and rear; one for each fuse)
3) The bomb is now armed
4) The front or rear impact detonator is activated by impact
5) The bomb explodes

OR

4) No fuse is placed in the front so only the rear impact detonator is activated by impact
5) A pre-set time limit passes
6) The bomb explodes

@ wutz
You are mixing different issues her!
The bomb delay might work or not, haven't tested it now, but thats for another thread!
Is it really so difficult to understand that there is NO collision detection for casing and fuse???
There is a collision detection for the BOMB! Thats it!
Regarding this limitation the bomb arming we have now is the best possible solution to get closer to reality!
And i've done quite a few successful drops from 30m (100ft) height, tough 40m works even better.

Wutz we have used this in SEOW for months, a lot of ship were sunk, no one ac destroyed by his own bomb.
Skip bombing before 4.10 was a joke for children, with 100% success, how can you call that situation more realistic than now?

this thread is pure gold.

people complaing they want more realism, then when they get it, throwing a hissy fit, big lol's:grin:

Bomb delay works, at least for me. Skip bombing a freighter sized ship from 40m altitude is still easy, against small ships however it is a bit difficult. Rockets and heavy guns are of better use here, or, if you lack that, a larger number of smaller bombs.

make it a dififculty setting or incorporate it on one of the already exiting ones ( realsitic gunnery pheraps). done

It does not matter what part of the bomb takes the impact.
The fuse at the rear of the US bombs would never actually touch the ground at all, but it just as capable as the front fuse when it comes to causing detonation.

It's not like the bomb has a button at the front and when the button gets pressed by the ground it goes off. These kind of "protruding striker" bombs where used for special bomb types (i.e. para-frags use a protruding striker), but it is the exception with GP bombs.

The majority of US bombs of this era used an inertial detonator. The detonator fired when a sufficient inertial force was put upon the bomb.
With inertial detonators, it doesn't matter if the ground strikes the fuze head, the bomb case, the tail fins or anywhere else. Just so long as it hits hard enough.

And what would happen when the detonator was triggered while the fuse wasn't armed, yet? Take skip bombing, the detonator would be triggered by each hit on the water. If it wasn't armed at the first impact, would the detonator be broken or could it still be set off with the second impact?

Wutz makes a simple and as far as I can tell valid point:

The game should count the time between bomb release and the bomb hitting the ship. If I understand correctly the game currently measures the time between bomb release and the bomb hitting the water!?

Typically, the vane completes the detonator, either by completing the
electronic circuit (electronic vacuum tube detonators where common, even in
ww2) or by completing the mechanical device that was the detonator.

In other words, impact before arming by the vane will do nothing to the bomb unless the vane is damaged.

edit: A requirement of all US fuses (bomb and shell) was that they had to be able to make them selves permanently safe by safe self destruction of the fuze, but I have no idea under what circumstances they would do this.


Wow...that's his point? If it is, he has confused it a bit.

Assuming the vanes are still working after they hit the water, yes, they should continue to spin and arm the bomb if they continue to have air passing them.

It took me some time to figure it out but I think thats what he means with "the casing doesn't matter, it's all about the detonator". I'm sure he will clarify soon.

Hmm...if his point is that impacts to the casing won't cause detonation after the bomb is armed, he is wrong. that's how I read it anyway.
If his point is that the arming vane will continue to arm the bomb after the bomb takes impacts that don't damage the vane, he is right.

It was making this and being in the DBS that got me interested in US bombs.
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/5672/bombv.jpg
You can see part of the rear fuze there. The vane is on a long spindle so that it isn't in the dead air directly behind the bomb.
The rear fuze is both a back up, in case of failure of the front and also because time delay fuzes where fitted to the rear fuze only to protect the time delay from impact damage.

Jesus... all this talk about going back, deactivating a good thing just because that old story of "...my grand father told me".

How about you ask for the proper solution? How about an option to set the detonator(s) arming delays in "arming screen"? This way the paranoids can set 10 minutes of delay so they can relive the spinner sceene from "Pearl Harbour" over and over and the schizoids could set it to zero and fly with a sadistic grin on their face.

DOOOH...


...I like those people with so wide views that always when in problem they go for the "fall back" option... "disable Antialiasing and your problem goes away", "Unplug your HOTAS and play with keyboard... no reversal bug there" etc etc etc... many of us have to know this... type.

One more thing that might be of interest....

At the start of the war, ground crews used to turn the spinners/vanes round a few turns so that the bombs would arm more quickly for low-level attacks.

However, fuze designs where soon changed to prevent the ground crews doing this. I suppose someone thought it might be dangerous.

well, i've just been messing around offline practising skip bombing.

It took me about 5 go's to learn the new technique needed to skip bomb in 4.10.

its still easy, you just need to adjust what you used to do a little a bit.

I just hit 5 times in a row.

Wow, the sky is falling in:rolleyes:

Sounds like the perfect solution to me.For now,skip bombing (such as bombing tanks in online wars) is kaput.

Not a historical solution tho.

I am sure not all the bombs had 2seconds delay set for detonators.

Also... the old "delay" in the arming screen... was it historical? No irony here... I mean... if we have the delay of arming... is it historical to have a second delay after impact?

I wouldn't mind 3 options there for delay... 1 for delay after impact, one for delay front detonator, one for delay rear detonator... if available for that bomb.

I would'n mind some "choice" of ammo belts either but Christmas is over ain't it? ;) :P

Why don't you come off your high "I've worked with those bombs and know more then all of you geeks"-horse, properly read other peoples posts and join the discussion here? You make yourself look very stupid here.

Everybody who sees only black and white has a limited intellect, in my eyes.
As i've already posted in this game there are no detonators and cases modelled, only bombs!
Why not assume that any impact before arming destroys the arming mechanism -> inert bomb.
And for the bomb-delay, that works as it should, at least when i tested it.

Bingo.

The problem is that if the bomb skips on the water before the 2 second arming time is up it won't go off even if it takes longer than 2 seconds for the bomb to hit the target. So the bomb touching the water stops the arming.

This is just another case of armchair "pilots" who think that increased difficulty equals increased realism. It is not always the case.

I strongly doubt that this is the case when skip-bombing and that's what this thread is all about.

Frankly, I don't believe you and i would be surprised if many here do, not because such a claim is so extraordinary, but because your post's content doesn't show it to be true.
you are using it as a prop for arguments you don't have. It makes you look silly.


well, no bombs had a two second delay. the delay was a result of the number of revolutions the vane took.

Some 'direct' fuses used the vain to wind the hammer back, out of the bomb. both the hammer and the vain would move out, away from the bomb. Once it had wound back enough, the detonation charge would move by spring into the hole that the hammer used to occupy. The bomb is then live. On impact, the hammer would be forced back into the bomb and strike the detonator.

The hammer moves back because it is threaded like a bolt. the number of turns it takes to arm the bomb depends on the thread of the hammer and can not be adjusted.


More commonly, the vain would turn a set of gears. The gears had a ratio of either 20:1 or 60somethig:1 (I forget). The gears spin the hammer to line up with the detonator and make the bomb live. It takes one full rotation to line up the detonator (so 20 or 60sum turns of the vain). The number of turns it takes can no be adjusted.

I do not know how the electronic fuzes that became popular mid-late war worked.

As I said earlier in this thread; at the start of the war, ground crews used to turn the spinners/vanes round a few turns so that the bombs would arm more quickly for low-level attacks.

However, fuze designs where soon changed to prevent the ground crews doing this. I suppose someone thought it might be dangerous.

Yes, very much so.
The delay was caused mechanically, pyrotechnically or chemically and could be set to a wide variety of times. It had nothing to do with the arming part of the fuze.

I can imagine that the impact with the water would bend or rip off the delicate fins on the front fuse of the American bombs, but if the rear fuse also got damaged, then the bomb probably wouldn't bounce anyway.

To damage the rear fuse, you would have to seriously damage the fins that surround it. I suspect that would send the bomb spinning in a different direction or stopping in the water anyway.


I don't know, but I doubt that skip bombing could damage the rear arming mechanism, even if it did mess up the front one.

Of course, that only applies to US bombs.

Did few test in QMB - Pacif Islands against friendly moving cargo ship.

A-20, P-40, P-39, He-111 - dropping from 30 to 80 meters and got good hits - some miss due wrong angles I think, since I test with keyboard (no Jstick plugged).

At 20 meters bomb dont explode.

Bomb delay 2 s. No one case of blew my plane.

Sokol1

Fruitbat's demo.

lol, i was going to post that here, you saved me the trouble!!!!!!

One more video I do now:

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

I don't need to change a thing in my bombing runs over ships. And is good to newbies with 0 sec delay to don't blow their aircrafts...

Interesting documents for those who can read german:

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/arc...Bombenwurf.pdf

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/arc....Dv.%208-5.pdf

No problem fruitbat, I'm gonna have to try it out now :)

For a cargo ship, go down to 40-50m/150ft, drop when the ship's masts are either side of the reflector gunsight. That was in a Spitfire, though. I'll have a go in a bomber of some description, now. B-25 I think.

EDIT: Same deal in the B-25. In a shallow dive, go down to about 50-60m and drop when the ship's masts fill the whole reflector gunsight frame. Bomb delay 2s in addition to the arming delay for both. The angle you drop at is quite important. Better if it's shallower, but too shallow and it'll bounce too far.

BTW, fruitbat, LoBiSoMeM, which recording software are you using? What settings for recording? :)

I use Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 10.0. It's do everythig for you and publish in YouTUBE after rendering. Very intuitive. Just use FRAPS to make a video and edit in Vegas. Less than 30 minutes to do all, even upload to YouTUBE.

Thanks! I'll have to look into it.

fraps recorded at 1920*1200, 30fps and then virtualdub (which is free) with xvid codec compression.

Really now? Then YOU tell me what we salvaged and defused at the airbase in Memmengen? I really would like to know Mr. Smart-Alec!

Thanks fruitbat, seems like a significantly cheaper option.

As posted earlier I can repeatably hit ships in a B-25J from 100ft (30.48m) 240mph from cockpit instuments and with 1 sec bomb delay. 150ft feels a bit high, 100ft, IMHO seems a bit safer and somewhat more prototypical.

Hi Fruitbat, thank you for your vid! Did a few test runs, changed my delay which was causing my plane being blasted, and dropping my bomb a bit earlier and it worked.
Only amusing thing is though that where in 4.09 3 sec delay was fine for a 800kg bomb, it is now deadly at 4.10. But with the delay changed and now releasing the bomb roughly at the same distance as in your vid and things are o.k. So it is doable.

Only thing not changed is my opinion of a certain smart alex.

Good thing about Letum is that he knows and understands stuff. Can't be said about everybody.

+ he knows how to communicate!

:confused: My bomb delay was 2 seconds, even with the G4M1. How slow are you guys going?! :)

I have survived with a 0 second bomb delay and been blown to pieces with a 3 second bomb delay,in the same plane,doing the same skip bombing,in 4.10.

There are bugs in this patch,maybe the way bomb fusing works is one of them...

Well, the new fuse arming delay, as I understand, just put an arming delay of 2 seconds before the bomb is armed. In the period between the launch and the final arming, the bomb can't touch anything, or the bomb simply don't explode. After the bomb was armed, when it touches something the delay set in your options do the rest.

How this can kill someone is something beyond my imagination. I tried a lot of bombing and all OK. What exactly happens, Uther?

No idea.Will just have to relearn skip bombing for 4.10 I suppose,not for realisms sake,with a fixed 2 second fuse delay,but because a modder at DT decided this is the way we should skip bomb now...
Personally,I feel like I have just installed a new buggy mod pack.

Why on earth is the bomb casing having anything to do with fusing of the device ?

The bomb should be allowed to bounce/skip without turning off the fuse within 2 seconds of release.

The arming should be done on bomb velocity to arm it not altitude or casing sensitivity limitations.

If this has been done to stop Dogfight Server idiots killing at airfields with static bomb drops from the spawn points,
cant it be done instead with the speed of the bomb to fuse/arm it rather than the 2 seconds from release ?

Hopefully it will be re-thought :)

I'm not sure how you did it in Memmengen, But here's the Standard bomb disposal technique in Papua New Guinea!

http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/.../Kokoda284.jpg

Notice the 'Safety' bucket over the fuse!

To be fair the bomb (500lb or 1000lb it was quite big, near Myola) was safe in the bomb bay of the plane when it ended up here and the US Team that rendered it safe were more interested in recovering the Crew from the wreckage. It had been burried but it was uncovered years later by the locals for tourist purposes.

Cheers!

Thank you Uther and Alpha for seeing my point in this.

There is nothing historical about picking a 2 second arming time, and certainly nothing historical about the arming being stopped by the bomb skipping on the water before impact with the target ship.

This is a case of making something more difficult in the misguided belief that higher difficulty always equals higher realism.

This needs to be optional, just like the new pilot health, structural damage, and engine damage selections (All of which I approve of by the way).

Whilst you are quite correct about skipping, I don't see why a two second
arming time is wrong.

It's wrong in so far as the arming is dependent on the number of revolutions
the vane must take, but two seconds sounds like a reasonable length of time
for the vane to make those rotations.

The problem is the casing deciding the fusing on contact with scenery.

Velocity should decide the vane arming the bomb on release.

The vane still turns on bounce or skipping due to velocity of the bomb.

But if it was done as suggested to stop DF server airfield killing at spawn perhaps a velocity solution would be better than 2 sec arming delay ?

+1

Absolutely agree on that, as that was what I was trying to say the whole time, given the velocity and time till impact the bomb should arm normally, reguardless of any bouncing or skipping happening to the casing.

It has been done to get a more realistic fusing.
This has been done with the possible features in the game.
Since there is no such thing like a seperate fuse within the bomb IN GAME it has to be determined with the bomb object interacting with other in game objects (instead of a fuse object which simply isn´t there).

Despite the correctness when compared to real bombs it is an improvement.

You never mind really dying when being shot down. This feature also is a lack of realism, like the not real complex fusing of the bombs in game. ;-)

There always will be constraints in implementing features when one considers
- game engine features
- amount of work
- schedule


And there is IMHO no necessity to make this an option. If you cannot cope with the feature, take an hour or two and practise how it´s done.
This is not a game for Johnny Joystick, you won´t succeed in Dogfight without practise, why should you succeed in bombing then?



just my 2ct!

This is an argument that time and again pops up to the surface. If you’re happy with maximum difficulty level, why other people should not have the option to tailor difficulty level to their own tastes and needs? As long as it’s not cheating online, where’s the problem?

IMHO, “option” is a magic word. I would like to have much more options, as many as possible within the limits imposed by engine game and by developers’ (read TD) available time.

how many people do you think you will get online one server with options 1-100?

Just do some training and hone your skills. It´s as easy as that.
Same like if you fly a fighter: no skill, no success

I’m not sure to understand this point. Are you worried to have too many different servers? Or are you saying that most people would prefer maximum difficulty level? In any case, minorities should be tolerated (by the way, talking of majority, most Il2 users fly offline).

As for the training, I train as much as I like. Also, I believe that El Aurans, KG Alpha and others are trained well enough, so, why should they not have their options with bombs?

Just to summarize: many people on this thread feel that the new fusing system is unrealistic. Some are asking for corrective action, others to have the option to restore the old system (if I’m not mistaken). I agree with both, and believe that an option does not subtract anything to anyone, you included.

There is only minimal training needed to learn the procedures for successful bombing runs.
But then, most fighterpilots fly by the seat of their pants and only care fore the most essential procedures like take off and sometimes landing. :-D :-D :-D

Stop being condecending robtek.

There is nothing realistic about this approach to bomb fusing and DT has provided no info to the contrary. It was one person, or group of persons decision on what they felt was better. Not more historic, not better for the sim in general, just a method picked out of a hat to change something just because they could, to suit their personal vision of what the sim should be like.

Scalability has always been the hallmark of IL2, but I see now that the sim will be pushed into an even smaller niche of uber difficulty for the sake of it.

Good luck with that.

It's amazing to me that it took so long for someone to realize that there are limits to what can be done within the game engine. Congratulations Blaster!

I'd only add out that the accusations that DT have some agenda other than to make the game more realistic are ludicrous, why not just take it at face value?

Probably because DT have the entire source code of the game, so it's not a feature that is in any way out of their reach? There are some things which are very difficult to achieve, but I'm pretty sure that starting and stopping the running of a timer based upon the interactions of an object in the game is not one of them.

Rofl Yappers can't even do takeoffs and especially landings right :lol:


Edit: The word "Yapper" refers to typical fighter pilot. I can only imagine how a voice echoes in their head "ME MUST SHOOT STUFF NOW ME GO NOW ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MY STATS MY STATS ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MY STATS ME ME ME ME". They know nothing of team work and imagine air warfare is like in some µ$ Aces High or whatever shitty sim where they can shoot in ez mode 10 - 20 planes down each mission and feel they are aces.

@ElAurens
Me? condescending?
Man, you have a chip on your shoulder the size of Manhattan :-)
I stated that it takes minimal, additional training to cope with that delay.
I really don't understand the reason for you, to get so agitated about something so minor.

Why are you so pissed?
Why so catastrofic?
The game will finish for a difference of few second or few meter in skip bombing?
No one of TD sayd "you are totally wrong, we have the only true", probably both the solution, the old and the new, are not perfect, but be sure, the guys did it with good intention, for sure not against you.
I think that now FEEL more realistic, but i will not cry if the group may decide to go back to the stock feature and i will not exult if remain as it is now.

Man, I am so angry right now. SO ANGRY DABNABBIT!§!! Mah bombs won't work!!!"

It was your comment about fighter pilots robtec.

I mostly fly bombers and fighter/bomber types these days, but I've seen this argument used a lot and never understood where it comes from.

Chip on my shoulder? Not really. I just don't understand the need for this change, especially with so many other things that I would have prioritized ahead of bomb fusing. And the fact that it really is poorly implemented, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many many folks that I know that fly the sim.

It's all a balance between enjoyment and difficulty. Make it too difficult and it becomes a job, and hence less enjoyable.

Like I said, I do this for fun. If it becomes no fun then why do it? I love ground pounding, but if it becomes a job, well, then I'll just go back to fighters.


I've also noted that high altitude bombing accuracy seems significantly degraded in 4.10. Any reason for that?

Wind now affects bombs.

biggest prob imho. I wonder if fighter jocks still go for a casual bombing run on the servers, just for a bit variety.

let's hope online bombers dont become an endagered breed thanks to 4.10

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh boy, that comment gave me the very best laughs this a week or even maybe a month :cool:

@ElAurens

You didn't quote the smileys -> ironic
also it is "common knowledge" (again: ironic) that the attitude of fighter pilots is "up in the wild blue yonder"
and: "fighter pilots do movies, bomber pilots make history" and so on and on...

and its robtek, with a "k".

I think you will find that 'Most' successful pilots achieve that status by disregarding their 'seat of the pants' feelings and rely on their training and their knowledge of system that they operate, the instruments that they rely upon and what they know of physics and how they expect their aircraft to react in the situations that they put them in.

Following your seat of the pants feeling will find you in a tight spiral dive into the ground once you lose your visual reference in a cloud or some such!

cheers!

like I said: Fighter Choks do training to hone their skills.
Why should it be plain easy to succesful hit targets with bombs?!

Yes, there is, it has been demonstrated repeatedly in the previous pages. Besides, where is your evidence to counter DT's decision? In all your posts I have seen nothing, no links, not a single scrap of video, photographic reference or document. You have a duty to verify the veracity of your claims too you know.

And how is that any different from your stance?!?! You seem like an intelligent guy El, surely you're aware of the hypocrisy of this statement?

Ok, the "let's make it an option" stance would seem like the easy way out, and in some regards I agree but it would seem like a lot of work to implement, when all it requires is for some folks here to adjust there technique - a challenge, sure, but that's what keeps us on our toes and keeps us playing the game. Pushing you out of your comfort zone and providing you with an impetus to improve and adapt to new problems.

Geez it took me 4 or 5 goes to test and then adjust my technique sufficiently to hit ships regularly. Read back through the posts El, you'll see plenty of people able to manage this 'impossible' task.

But then I suspect you aren't reading the posts. Cos you seem to keep repeating the same old line without having addressed any other posters - unless they agreed with you; naturally.....

I vote moar xxxx in the cockpit. I'm sick of those xxxless pin-ups.

they were standard that time.

The four X'es or the three X'es?

three X'es, 4 didn't become standard until the '50's

I'm all for options personally. As far as I have read and understand 2 seconds is about right although obviously in some cases it's not working quite right in regards to skip bombing. But some aren't going to like it... so option!

Well stock 4.10 is not the last word, and not the only option thank god there are also others, that do a bit of research, and don´t dig into alternative reality as is the case with 4.10. Those that like it fine, for me 4.10m has been removed due to this "wonderful, and very realistic" change on the bombs.
Just hope that certain tinkers keep their fingers out in SoW.

This is hilarious, you have not discussed with TD, you have discussed with forum users, you dont know what TD think, as a group, about all the debate here.

Look, Wutz, you're just being such a prima-donna about such a small (and indeed likely realistic) change. I've posted in a similar topic on Ubi:

Why do you think that turning skip-bombing from the easiest ground-attack method in the entire game at which players can easily have a 100% hit ratio against ships right from their first try is somehow an unfair alternate-reality representation of history? Do you only read Biggles books? :confused:

Good decision, since it might stop your complaints about peanuts here.
Sorry for being direct but I just don´t get your message.