Turret Gunner Controls

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Flying Pencil]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Flying Pencil

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...)

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

[Robotic Pope]

Originally Posted by Wutz

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]

Originally Posted by Robotic Pope

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.