The new bomb fuzing needs to be an option.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by vparez

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

That picture is from the battle of the Bismarck Sea, and there where armed ships there:




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.

When General Kenney took command of the 5th Air Force, he explained to MacArthur that his primary mission was to take out Japanese air power "until we owned the air over New Guinea. There was no use talking about playing across the street until we got the Nips off our front lawn"1

Doing this with Japanese air power dependent on its Navy bringing supplies and reinforcements in a part of the world covered with wide-open sea required that Kenney devise effective ways of bombing Japanese ships, something that had been ineffective using high-altitude bombing. Imagine trying to hit a ship with a bomb dropped from an altitude of 25,000 feet! The standard technique was so ineffective that , for example, less than 1% of of bombs dropped by the 19th Bomb Group's B-17s hit their ship-targets2. The answer: low-altitude bombing. What may sound like an obvious thing was not so easy to effect in real life; the British tried minimal altitude bombing and couldn't make it work. Something more was needed, something was missing.

Discussing the situation with Major Bill Benn, Kenney suggested the idea of 'skip bombing': dropping a bomb such that it literally skipped off the water like a stone, hitting its target from the side. To do this, the bombs, set with delayed fuzes so the plane would have time to clear the detonation, must be dropped at an extremely (dangerously!) low altitude and at the right speed and from the right distance. The bomber for the job must have enough fire power in the nose to defend itself from enemy flak at such low heights. The man for the job of making it work was Major Bill Benn, so Kenney fired him as his assistant and assigned him to command the 63rd Squadron and undertake the perfection of 'skip bombing'.

Major Benn then gathered together some of the best pilots in the 43rd --1st Lt. James T. Murphy, Capt. Ken McCullar, Lt. Folmer "The Swede" Sogaard, Capt. Ed Scott, Lt. Glenn Lewis-- who set about the task. Many hours of practice taught them that approaching the ship from 2,000 ft., then dropping down to an altitude of 200 to 250 ft. (maintaining the air speed of 200 to 250 m.p.h.) and releasing the bomb --equipped with a 4 to 5 second delay fuze-- 60 to 100 ft. away from the target was the way to do it.2 Thanks to the efforts of these men, the percentage of targets hit increased from less than 1% to 72%.

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"

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wutz

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"

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.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

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.

Yes it does and it says also

60 to 100 ft. away from the target was the way to do it

that will not work with 4.10, as you have to release at a greater distance than that.

[vparez]

Originally Posted by Wutz

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.

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.

[JG52Uther]

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.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by vparez

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.

Not really my intent on getting personal, but I may quote

I mean really... funny...

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

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"

[KG26_Alpha]

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

[vparez]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

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

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!

[vparez]

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!

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?

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!

how did the kamikazes get through then ?

articles quote 3 - 5 sec time delay fuses

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!

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by vparez

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

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