Bomb physics

[=Hun Hunter=]

Originally Posted by =Boche Buster=

I only bombed my self a couple of times when I started flying in bf... Now, It's almost impossible to bomb myself, even in the middle of a dog fight.. Just learn to fly properly, not like a noob.

yeah noobzor

[Solo4114]

Why would you be bombing in the middle of a dogfight? Anyway, it's not a question of being able to avoid it. I know what causes it and it hardly ever happens to me anymore, but it's still a stupid aspect of the engine. As for bombers with bomb bays, they wouldn't be diving anyway. Usually those types of bombers were flying straight and level when they dropped their payload.

It's not something that'll ever be fixed, because DICE doesn't really care. I don't think it's anything that can be fixed through a mod, so it's something we have to live with. But that doesn't mean it isn't a bunch of crap.

[Beast of War]

Originally Posted by Solo4114

Why would you be bombing in the middle of a dogfight?

Right......air supremacy/escort fighters aren't even supposed to have bombs.....impossible to dogfight due to drag and even the weight ripping your wings off due to the stress of dogfight wingloading and the weight of the bombs !

Only in a fighter/bomber role should fighters be equipped with bombs, and as such they cannot dogfight untill they release those bombs. Escort fighters had to let go of external tanks too before engaging enemy fighters, wether they were empty or not.

Due to the engine of bf1942 not permitting to make a diffrence between flight physics with bombs and with bombs released, fighters with bombs are not really a good choice.

Then you get a poor performing P51 with bombs ( wich is correct in that case ) like in FH 0.5 that cannot be used for dogfighting, because there is no differece when it dropped it's load or a P51 with bombs acting like it doesn't even carry bombs while it does. Both ways is unrealistic, i would say no bombs for fighters, unless they are dedicated attack planes like the Typhoon.

Dive bombers and light bombers should be the ones equipped with bombs, they were desigend for that purpose. BF110, Mosquito, Beaufighter, Stuka, SBD, and numerous russian, jappanese, american, german, french and many light bombers that are not all in FH (yet) When such light bombers are added nOObs should feel less urge to kamikaze fighters in tanks "because they are useless", if they still do they simply took the wrong plane to attack tanks, it is a fact airsupremacy/escort fighters wich is the purpose of a fighter were not designed to attack tanks. It is true that bombers also should feel a diffrence with or without load, but not that they suddenly are capable of dogfighting, like a fighter would.

That a bomb explodes when you dive inmidiatly after realease....well annoying but you can prevent that easily. Pulling negative G's is something pilots din't do much anyway, the aircraft react less fast on it and you can take less negative then positive G's aswell. Spitfires and other planes with carburators the engine would stutter or stop aswell doing that, not good.

I think in reality a bomb would just bump against the wing wich migh or not do damage to airflow controls or wing structure but not detonate, but bombs underneath the fuselage cold hit the prop with the detoantor pin and explode or at least wreck the prop, an aicraft isn't supposed to dive more when it drops something, you would find it hard to do in real life because the plane will jump up when you release the weight of the bombs. Stuka's even had a rack that extended the centre bomb away from the aircraft before it actually released, that made it's path down free of the propellor.

All in all i think FH should let go of fighters with bombs in all maps, and only in specific maps ( i mean all P51 have no bombs, exept optional a P51 in a Normandy maps, all FW 190 have no bombs exept optional on Late war Eastern Front maps ) and i am pretty sure US aircraft carrier fighters didn't carry bombs on carrier/air battles. Maybe when they attacked islands in a support role...

[Stuka_Geschwader]

The Corsair was made to carry bombs. That's why the Japanese called it "Whistling Death" because of the noise it made and it dropped bombs, because lets face it being strafed when on the ground unless in a vehicle would be scary but most likely you would not be hit. I think the Corsair was the first aircraft to drop napalm as well. Many fighters had the option of putting bombs on them so I dont think it should be removed. But with the drag issue I completely agree, but it's another physics problem and I dont think the bombs should be sacraficed because of DICE's stupidity.

[Solo4114]

Well, most of the planes in FH now don't actually have bombs. Only a few do. the rest have guns or guns and cannons. That's all fine by me, since I'd prefer to dogfight anyway. As far as DICE's vanilla BF game, the whole thing's so arcadey that I see no reason to include the blow-up-on-your-own-bomb bug, especially when people claim it's more realistic that way. From what I've seen in FH, it's almost impossible to run into your own bomb anyway since the planes just don't respond that quickly. Not sure what 0.6 will bring, though.

[mondogenerator]

I think this is at a dead end, the BF1942 engine was never designed to represent accurate flight physics, just enough to allow an arcade type game with planes to run on it. It seems a little pointless debating things like weight, airflow, compression, negative and positive g's when the BF1942 cannot account for any of that. If you want accurate plane physics with all these factors etc i think you need to go play a proper flight sim like IL2 Sturmovik FB or CFS3BOE.

The one thing thats yet to be pointed out is that even the largest map size BF1942 can take will just about be long enough for a runway for some WW2 planes to take off like the Il2M fully laden. A fully laden P47 is 20,000lbs and under full power takes about 2000 meters to take off and even then its not combat ready cause its under full take off flaps and needs to gain height and speed before it falls out the air.

Also being blown up with your own bomb is totally unrealistic. Bombs had timers on them to avoid unpleasent incidents like blowing up after release or catching the plane in the explosion radius. P47D's and Tempest would carry 1000lbs bombs on low level raids over France and they would have serious delay times on there weapons because they would fly so low. A 1000Lbs bomb has a shock wave that reaches over 400 meters up that could rip a plane apart.

[Solo4114]

My thoughts exactly. You're just not gonna blow up on your own bomb, but at this point, it's just an engine problem that we have to accept. DICE won't fix it because, well, they don't really care. And it's painfully obvious that this game is NOT a flight sim, but it's not really supposed to be either. Still, i'm looking forward to seeing how planes perform in 0.6.

[Anlushac11]

Arrrggghhhh.....!!!!!

Unless its a A-36 please do not put bombs on the P-51.

P-38, P-47, Typhoon, and Beaufighter if we get one should be the ground attack aircraft.

Merlin engined Mustangs werent used in a dedicated ground attack role til RAAF and SAAF P-51's were used in Korea and it was a dismal failure. Apparently someone forgot to tell them of the USAAF experiences of P-51's doing strafings on way back from Germany.

[mondogenerator]

The P51 B and C were good mid alt fighters but as soon as the P47 and Typhoon were available there was little need for a relativly fragile plane like the P51 to carry out ground attack, they were more suited, and better yet needed for daylight raid escorts. A nice Tempest would be good to add to FH, the Typhoon had a relativly short life and was superceeded by the Tempest which was similar to the typhoon but had a thinner wing with enclosed MkV Hispano cannons (some of the most destructive guns mounted on a WW2 plane) and its tail didn't fall of in a steep dive.