Turret Gunner Controls

[sd_stout]

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

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

What does everyone else think about this issue?

Originally Posted by sd_stout

What does everyone else think about this issue?

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

[SAC_Crapper]

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

[B25Mitch]

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

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

[MadBlaster]

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

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

[Robotic Pope]

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

[Wutz]

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.

[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.

[Blackdog_kt]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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