|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Speaking of Bomber Crew: I don't remember the art style making the original bomber that stumpy.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:I don't remember the art style making the original bomber that stumpy. The game looks awesome, but I'd honestly pay them for a 'Realism' pack that made the graphics more realistic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:I don't remember the art style making the original bomber that stumpy. The 'lumpy' aspect is from the Mk4 armored fuselage sections. Ardeem posted:It's almost too bad that the radio operator is so nessisary at their post during combat, I really want that extra dorsal gun... and would kill so many of my own pixelmans for the B-17g chin turret. Assuming you're talking about the B-17, I trained my mechanic and my bombardier as gunners. The mechanic is lightly armored to allow for quick movement around the plane. I put the bombardier in the dorsal turret until he/she's needed in the nose. Also, when you're jumped, get the next waypoint update, then move your navigator to the front cheek turret the attack is coming from. He might not be trained for gunnery, but every bullet counts. Here's how I have my B-17 crew trained (back to front) with regards to secondary skills: Tail-gunner: Mechanic. Reason: he's really close to the electrical system. Rear waist gunners: 1x Mechanic, 1x Medic. Reason: they're close to the hydraulic system. Whichever side is getting the most action, shift the medic-trained gunner back and forth to the busier waist turret while the other repairs the hydraulics. If it's too busy, use the main mechanic. And with the medic, he's reasonably close to the other three rear section gunners. The ball turret should always make use of the rest bed, though - it's trivial to just press "F" and have him take a short walk. Ball gunner: Radio Operator. Reason: he's really close to the RO station, and shouldn't be wandering far from that general vicinity between the ball turret and RO station. Mechanic: Gunner: Reason: he's really close to the dorsal turret. Pilot: Who cares, they should be locked in the seat. Navigator: Medic. Reason: he's really close to the bombardier, pilot, and mechanic. You don't want to have to rely on one of your rear waist gunners hiking up the length of the fuselage. Bombardier: Gunner. Reason: en route to the target and once the bombs are gone, it's a shame to waste a crewmember who should be heavily armored and more survivable than the mechanic. Also, learn to love "LEAN." "LEAN" is LIFE, since it allows you to take indirect paths that don't send you face-first into plane swarms. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Oct 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
Not to derail too much but here’s some good general Bomber Crew best practices: Your most critical stations to man are, in order, pilot, radioman, navigator, engineer. Bombardier only needs to be in their chair over the target, have them in a nose turret otherwise (you can save a bit of workload by selecting bombs as you take off). Pilot never leaves their chair ever. Radioman & navigator only to revive downed crew. Engineer can initially cover a nose turret and repair systems but as you get sent on longer missions keeping your mixture leaned out gets more important—fortunately this happens concurrently with getting more reliable systems and other means of fending off fighters. Have one gunner (waist on B-17, top on Lanc) as 2nd engineer/tail systems repair, everybody else gets first aid. On the B-17, I think flying with top/bottom gunners and one waist who switches sides as necessary is the best arrangement for mid/low altitude; 2 waist 1 bottom in high. Upgrade priorities are guns first, then armor, then engines to carry more guns and armor, then systems (except for self-sealing tanks, which are worth getting as soon as they become available). You should usually be OK with 1-2 fire extinguishers and 2-4 medkits—parachutes are a waste of space. Use the radioman’s Radio for Recon ability in conjunction with the navigator’s custom course plotting to slip around hazards and defenses and the game gets a lot less hectic. Always fly at the maximum altitude possible until you’re on your bombing run and boost back up ASAP. Prioritize getting armor and cold-weather gear—O2 is a bit less of a priority; crew can usually get whatever needs doing done and be back at their station on only the basic bottle. As a player, your attention priorities are, highest to lowest, spotting fighters, keeping systems operational, keeping crew healthy, and navigating/fuel/whatever else. Save auto-tag for when you’re over the target and have to focus on that to the exclusion of all else. The best gunner ability is defensive fire—not getting hit is better than racking up kills. It’s a time-management/worker-placement game masquerading as a sort-of-flight-sim so figuring out how to prioritize, minimize, and distribute the workload is key to success. also if you do even a little bit of grinding you very quickly hit a point where you’re never, ever in danger of losing a bomber. You might have to abort occasionally, but you’ll make it back tactlessbastard posted:I don't remember the art style making the original bomber that stumpy.  as hell
HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Oct 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:The proportions are honestly pretty good—main departures are no copilot and highly compressed bomb bay that only fits one column of 500lb bombs. The P-51 model is also They missed a sterling opportunity to troll racists by making the Mustang's tails red.  There are already locked posts in the game's discussion forum on Steam asking for the next DLC to focus on German bombers, which prompted my lettering exercise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:They missed a sterling opportunity to troll racists by making the Mustang's tails red. Aren't stuff like the He-111 and Ju-88 a bit...small to be effectively modeled in the same way as the B-17 and Lancaster?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 03:00
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Aren't stuff like the He-111 and Ju-88 a bit...small to be effectively modeled in the same way as the B-17 and Lancaster? You underestimate the zeal of Wehraboos to masturbate about SUPERIOR GERMAN
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
Bomber Crew: B-29 You have to win a minigame of solitaire in between nav updates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:They missed a sterling opportunity to troll racists by making the Mustang's tails red. Agreed, absolutely, on both points. As is we get a dumb luftwaffe livery instead of any of several significantly cooler options. E: also next bomber crew should be Porco Rosso fantasy golden age Med/Aegean islandhopping HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Oct 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Bomber Crew: B-29 It'd probably be the first game banned in Japan in a long while. Imagine a cutesy cartoon Curtis LeMay crowing about burning down half of Tokyo with incendiaries. "Now remember, unlike the bunker buster bombs, incendiaries need to be dropped at low level to maximize their effect!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
What should I train as the secondary skills on my navigator and radioman in the Lancaster? I’m considering cross‐training them in case the other one takes a bullet. Seems more useful than medic or engineer since they’re needed at their stations most of the time. e: But “lean” is so important maybe I need that on someone else. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Oct 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 03:47
|
|
|
First aid on both IMO. Crew loss is grounds for an automatic abort & the better healing will be useful all the time rather than redundant skills, which are useful only in situations you’re aiming to avoid as much as possible anyway. Train your top gunner in engineer for repair & backup lean.
HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Oct 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
https://imgur.com/sPmjGvA.gifv
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 13:46
|
|
|
I've read that taking a second skill slows down progression of their original skill because XP gets split (100xp to gunnery becomes 50xp each to that and first aid) so not cross-training is a viable strategy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
I can't get into it because I hate cartoony looking games. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
UAV getting up in them guts, yeah you like that you little slut.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
Hmm, never actually thought about this but at typical approach / landing speeds and in a typical flaps configuration how much of a typical airliner's leading edge could you take out before the wing stalls?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
Assuming the wing held together and the only damage was the hole in the leading edge, I believe that only the section in line with the hole (plus a little more for disrupted airflow) would stall, while the rest of the wing would continue to fly. You'd lose the lift in that area of the wing, but that just means the aircraft would descend more quickly. To maintain your approach speed and descent rate, you would have to increase the angle of attack (and power) to add more lift, and that's what would bring you closer to a stall. Approach speed is around 1.3 times the aircraft's stall speed in landing configuration; you need the specific aircraft performance charts to work it out exactly, but for a first approximation you might say that you could lose enough of the leading edge to correspond to 25 or 30% of the wing's area and still have enough lift "headroom" left over to bring the plane down in a proper approach, riding right on the edge of a stall the whole way. Of course, this doesn't address issues like how actually your wing probably would start to tear off if 30% of its internal structure was exposed to aerodynamic forces, or the loss of control you'd get from having one wing producing far less lift than the other, or even just the disruptions to the control surfaces behind the damaged section, but you get the idea. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Oct 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Or you know, the damage to internal systems and structures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
If the quadcopter pieces are mostly captured in the wing, then at least accident investigators will be able to get the operator's UAS certificate number out of the wreckage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Wanna see the cannon they shot that DJI out of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
That test was so full of holes that DJI is suing them. That was "maximum speed of the Mooney" Plus "maximum theroetical speed of the Phantom". At 400' that mooney would be more like 100mph. And that Phantom wouldn't likely be going straight at the mooney. Real numbers would be more like half the test speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Even as a worst-case scenario it's pretty damning. That's "immediate danger to life" kind of damage. Also, there are tons of videos on YouTube of people taking these things (and much bigger, heavier ones) up to 5000 ft or higher, almost certainly without filing a flight plan or NOTAM. Up there you could absolutely encounter light aircraft at cruise speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:That test was so full of holes that DJI is suing them. That may be if you only consider approach speeds, but then consider the situation where Speed Racer Mooney pilot is showing off his airplane at or near Vne at low level. Maybe with his friend filming it with his drone... And of course DJI is going to sue them because all Silicon Valley tech companies have their heads so far up their own asses that they literally can't accept that they could ever do anything wrong or bad, ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That may be if you only consider approach speeds, but then consider the situation where Speed Racer Mooney pilot is showing off his airplane at or near Vne at low level. Maybe with his friend filming it with his drone... DISRUPTIVE
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
MrChips posted:And of course DJI is going to sue them because all Silicon Valley tech companies have their heads so far up their own asses that they literally can't accept that they could ever do anything wrong or bad, ever. DJI is Chinese 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Dà-Jiāng Innovations
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:DJI is Chinese Chinese government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:North Dakota is the only place I've ever seen anyone drive 100mph. One time driving up I-65 in Indiana I ended up in drat near bumper-to-bumper traffic that was doing 105. We got passed by a cop on the right, and he didn't even glance over at us. I don't know how the hell that all happened, all I can surmise is that no one wants to be in loving Indiana.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
MrChips posted:And of course DJI is going to sue them because all Silicon Valley tech companies have their heads so far up their own asses that they literally can't accept that they could ever do anything wrong or bad, ever. Beyond that, SV seems completely unwilling to accept that airspace actually has and/or should have rules. See Uber's wondrous autonomous flying drone idea which will totally happen in five years or so and be affordable, nope, the FAA won't have anything to say about that, no sir! I mean sure a WAAS-capable GPS can easily run $20,000 but I'm sure that can be easily replaced with the GPS in an iPhone, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
i liked the little animation they made showing the uber flying taxi saving you tons of time by flying a quick direct path from san francisco to san jose!!! right through the center of SFO's class B approach paths
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:i liked the little animation they made showing the uber flying taxi saving you tons of time by flying a quick direct path from san francisco to san jose!!! right through the center of SFO's class B approach paths and several class D airports and SJC’s class C lol You aren’t even saved by going east because OAK is also a class C airport
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
What do you think the odds are anyone at Uber has any loving clue what "airspace classes" are? I'm guessing very, very low indeed, except for a few aviation specialists who are staying silent because they've realized they can rob Uber blind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
they might be aware of the concept, but the response is always either 1) "we just need to remove those outdated government regulations that stifle our innovation!!" or 2) ~AI~
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:they might be aware of the concept, but the response is always either 1a) Blockchain!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:Hmm, never actually thought about this but at typical approach / landing speeds and in a typical flaps configuration how much of a typical airliner's leading edge could you take out before the wing stalls? Well the trailing edge can handle quite a beating...  Nerobro posted:That test was so full of holes that DJI is suing them. When they test for bird strike, they don't say well its usually just like a couple of sparrows and on takeoff and landing, it's pretty drat unlikely they're going to hit a goose at cruise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Well the trailing edge can handle quite a beating... They test for bird strike at Mach .8 and 36,000 feet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:They test for bird strike at Mach .8 and 36,000 feet? Well, that photo is of a missile strike at more like 8000 feet. Test results for that at cruise altitude and speed has not gone well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
Several (at least three) B-52s made it back to their bases after being hit by SAMs over Vietnam, though 17 or so were shot down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Several (at least three) B-52s made it back to their bases after being hit by SAMs over Vietnam, though 17 or so were shot down. The BUFF is kinda like the B-17 in that regard. They just refuse to die. The entire loving vertical stabilizer fell off of one of the prototype B-52s, and it landed safely. Edit:  Photo of the above-mentioned airframe flying without a tailfin/rudder. No big deal, they can steer with the throttle levers. Also that's the prototype/testbed of the current model. Some changes were made before the ones currently in service were put into production. Things like, "Maybe we should make it so the tail doesn't fall off." The production H-model is still flying 55 years after the last one left Seattle, and are expected to keep going into the 2040s or later (with some major overhauls including better engines and replacement of wings along the way, but still, the basic airframes are now being flown by the grandkids of the original pilots.) Edit: On a similar note, B-17s would get back to England with horrific damage (GIS "B-17 battle damage", warning: no gore, but some stations are just ... gone in some of the photos, where two men were vaporized by a lucky shot from a flak shell, people who died in that incident were once there), and there are multiple anecdotes of radial-engine fighters making it back to base with entire cylinders shot off the engine, a conrod or two just flapping in the breeze. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Oct 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 03:52
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!