Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

258 Excellent

About [DBS]TH0R

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

750 profile views
  1. The photo from Wiki is actually mirrored. The right element should fly lower than lead, and left higher. Reason being the pilot is sitting on the left side. Though, in theory both are possible to fly with US bombers. I do hope we get a proper formation tools to set up historical bomber formations with AI. Both for LW, USAAF and RAF.
  2. Subject of the discussion and my raised question is the effectiveness of the belly turret. No, I will not change the subject. Nice try though, almost fell for it. Does anyone have any info whether RAF has done any modifications to eliminate some of the difficulties USAAF encountered when using the belly turret in combat? Seeing how they kept it on their models.
  3. Yet it was heavily used in the MTO, and we do have a USAF skin in-game: Though Devs did put "(RAF)" next to the bomber description. Here is an extract from the Garrett Middlebrook's book (primary source): Clearly explaining the reasons why the belly turret was not used, and was thus removed in the later variants.
  4. FYI "Air combat at 20 feet : Selected Missions From A Strafer Pilots Diary" describes how they either didn't use or removed the turrets well before the switch to strafing tactics. The book describes how and why they moved from level bombing to strafing, one of the first groups that did that (38th BG, 405th sq, flying B-25C). One of the best, well documented and most thrilling books people interested in B-25s can read. Relevance of this book is on the subject of my question - (un)effectiveness of the belly turret. Additionally, USAF removed belly turrets - current B-25 in-game is correctly representing only the RAF variant. Do you need help distinguishing a difference between an assumption and a question? Or is question mark not enough?
  5. Truth be told, I am not reading every thread here but I do try to stay in touch with discussions - I haven't seen one request to be able to see contacts at 40km. Can you link me one such request please? Because I have missed them. If that is true, than it is even more weird that devs tried to implement it, only to come back with a hotfix and "Expert" system that still inherits old visibility problems sub 10km (pixel hunting and disappearing targets), backed up by a wall of text explaining how it should be in real life. What was the purpose of beta testing then if they reverted to the old system with extended rendering in just 3 says after the release? It doesn't add up... Unless they are still looking for a solution.
  6. Please don't put words into my mouth. I have made no assumptions about limiting gunner source of information and width of the periscope lens. Had you actually read what I linked, you would realize they added scanning windows on both sides to help the gunner acquire targets. Think of that as the clue something was off with the design and implementation of the belly turret on that position of the plane, thus requiring further investigation on its effectiveness. I am sorry, did not realize someone was forcing you to reply and read my posts. Feel free to move on if not interested. 😁
  7. What assumptions? Please re-read the documentation from the first post: Under right photo: It is entirely possible the adjustments to the turret control design were made. That again, until some info is presented on the matter, is just an assumption.
  8. @Pict Do you even understand what I have posted here and the problem in question? Apologies if linking the DBS sounds like "self perceived importance", it was merely to do the "let me Google for you" since you did not show the interest or care for what I posted. All with keeping the fun part of the discussion. You are focusing on entirely wrong part of my post, whilst I have presented here historical facts of how ineffective belly turret was in the practice. From periscope dirt during take off to extreme vertigo and nausea it caused when used, to the removal in the later models and in the field. Not to mention poor situational awareness the operators had - all of this being completely opposite from the top turret. The first 4 facts you presented are irrelevant to this discussion as no one but you are questioning them here in this thread. 1. The first test is just that, a test to show that both top and belly turrets are equally effective in-game. 2. This is just one of the recommended solutions to the problem. It is not my problem, it is backed by historical data. Let me try to rephrase the statement then: belly turret can track and engage targets as easily/effectively as the top turret. This simply wasn't possible in RL, with bendix belly turrets operated through the periscope prism. What kind of tests would you like to see or would be useful to explain this? Maybe I am simply not doing a good job of presenting this problem...
  9. I have nothing against Expert option - as long as they fix the pixel hunting shown in this thread. Because like many here, I can't see stuff relatively close around me when in real life I would perfectly be able to. I can though with ALT visibility. Like @SeaSerpent said, I don't care how they get there - but neither of the systems are entirely believable or work for the majority of users, thus we need a new spotting system or modifications to both. IMHO there shouldn't be two options. I think we should get a fix in near future. Simply because it is splitting up the already small MP community, which is not what I'd want as a project leader.
  10. The first comment about changes for the better was mainly aimed at the ability to spot stuff with wide view thus increasing your peripheral vision. I am not the only one who likes that feature. I think we can all agree that the stupidly long distance spotting needs to go away, especially from ALT spotting. The bombers are hurting the most from this "feature", fully agree with you on that one @6./ZG26_Custard. I too genuinely hope that they offer us some compromise between the two systems we have now.
  11. And therein lies the biggest problem, of not understanding the problem in the first place. I will re-post again, here is one example of "pixel spotting" we currently have in-game: This example is why some people (me included) stick to the ALT system even though we do not like its rendering range and huge blobs in the distance. And at the same time, harder does not equal near impossible. Where does this request of seeing contacts at 40K come from, who asked for that??? Hell, I'd be happy with 15km if only I could see things around me. And I know what I can and cannot spot with my own two eyes. Before you jump on me for not being able to spot, mind you I have over 15 years of experience flying flight sims on full difficulty settings. And I am perfectly aware of the techniques of how to track and spot aircraft, and most of the time I have good SA. Who is stopping you from using zoom? It can still be used after a certain range when the target gets closer (for ID). The ALT version where the dot stays the same size no matter the zoom level is a very nice compromise to bridge the gap of featuring peripheral vision you get in real life. As a real pilot (I am assuming here) yourself - why do you oppose the novelty feature trying to simulate more realistic in-game visibility system? Why do people oppose changes for the better? The fact it didn't go as planed from the first attempt, doesn't mean devs should abort their attempts at fixing the problem.
  12. Never did I say it wasn't correctly depicted, quite the opposite. Just that the turret was ineffective in practice - for which I have linked here 3 sources, the last one is the book I own myself. Did not miss the fun part, hence my return with TL;DR which is nothing more than internet slang. Poor technique being a head on pass, just slightly lower than the bombers nose? How so, when I dove to pick up even more speed after we started at the same altitude? Belly turret was simply ineffective, it was removed in the field and in later models for a good reason (fun fact: those turrets were then used as cheek guns in B-17s). There is plenty of evidence online how ineffective / useless the turret was. I'd rather be interested in the opposite claim - want proof of how much use did the RAF get out of them. Hell, if it stays like this - as a bomber pilot myself I will enjoy the bomber even more if we do get it as a flyable one day, just won't consider it realistic. 🍻 Dedidated Bomber Squadron:
  13. Rest assured I have no problems with shooting down B-25D bombers. Be it solo or with formation of AI planes to help me out. Last but not least, I don't need a 30mm to do it. I am primarily a bomber pilot myself, fighter pilot second. I know the strengths and weaknesses of formation flying and how to attack one. Also, the B-25D is relatively early variant of the B-25, without the proper tail gunner. Thus, depending on the year/scenario it would have been engaged by planes not equipped with 30mm. My attacks were focused around the effectiveness of the belly turret. TL;DR: Definitely not another Luftwhine, google DBS if you will / want. I love the defensive power of the B-25 and the .50s. Back to the topic. With skill set on average, engaging a group of 4 bombers in a Dora with only one wigman - I was shot in my engine several times during the first head on pass (bombers low 12 OC so that the top turret cannot track me).by the belly turret (not the nose gunner). Setting the belly turret AI gunner skill to permanently novice would do the trick as a stop gap measure IMHO.
  14. Can you please link me the poll in question. Thank you. KOTA poll I have linked here is showing a nice 50/50 split. Which IMHO is a clear evidence neither offered solutions are doing their job. Why do people bring up ED's attempt at solving the problem. First, it is an unsuccessful example of solving it. Second, one should compare to the successful / better solutions, not trying to replicate un-successful ones. For the example, next to BMS scaling there is one more sim that doesn't have a problem with spotting - Cliffs of Dover. With as many wrong things in that sim, IIRC they got the spotting right. Also, it has a forum section of this very forums. Recently I've been talking with people about this spotting issue, either over VOIP or through forums and Discord. Before anything else, most important thing is to first accurately identify the problem in question. Only then can devs try to fix it / will there be incentive. First problem I see is the quote from AnPetrovich that "people wanted to see planes past 30 km". No we didn't, where did that information come from?! Ships yes, planes - hardly realistic. The spotting / visibility problem is mostly present at ranges up to 15 km. And no matter how certain people here stubbornly try to ignore it or are simply incapable of critical thinking (let alone out of the box thinking), the fact of the matter is that some resolutions and hardware combinations simply do not not simulate believable visual rendering of planes that should be easily visible in real life with a naked eye. This post is just one example (1440p resolution): Because of this, people are also using all sorts of tricks to help themselves spot planes in near vicinity around them. Last trick that have learned about is forcing 0.65 gamma through read only startup.cfg in order to increase in-game contrast values so that planes can be rendered / spotted more easily. This is usually combined with reshade. TL;DR: The game still has glaring issues with visible spotting of planes, either nearby or far. And no, most people here aren't looking for a more "fun", "gameiy" or "unrealistic" way to spot targets at unrealistic ranges, rather that the game renders what they would realistically see with their own two eyes if they were flying for real. Pixel hunting simply isn't realistic / believable.
  15. Don't change the subject. I am asking you, not AnPetrovich or ED forum users. Please answer the question if you can. Thank you.
  • Create New...