HS-129 30mm cannon and fire group 1

[Yogiflight]

9 hours ago, CAFulcrum said:

I think it might be too much to ask them to start modeling individual weapons arming systems according to their real life behavior, as then you're getting into selector switches and toggles and such.  If they wanted to though (depending on how much weapons systems are modeled) they could at least provide a command for weapons arming/dearming in the same vein as separate engine control that would more or less accomplish the same thing.  That would be extra coding though and if it's a matter of time/money investment I'd think a simple reassignment of weapons groups would be a lot easier/cheaper. 

I keep beating this dead horse because I'm particularly fond of ground attack aircraft and not being able to even see where the 30mm is going really un-funs the entire experience of flying the HS129 against tanks.  At the least they could change the weapons groups to get the MG and cannon onto group 2 and 30mm onto group 1 (or whatever works).

I absolutely agree with everything you said. I don't think seriously the developers would implement the system I suggested for the reason you named.

And yes, binding the machineguns and the MG151 (15/20) to one button and the 30mm to the other one, would make a lot of sense and surely would be the easiest way to improve the current (since 3 or 4 years) situation of the weapon assignement.

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

17 hours ago, CAFulcrum said:

I think it might be too much to ask them to start modeling individual weapons arming systems according to their real life behavior, as then you're getting into selector switches and toggles and such.  If they wanted to though (depending on how much weapons systems are modeled) they could at least provide a command for weapons arming/dearming in the same vein as separate engine control that would more or less accomplish the same thing.  That would be extra coding though and if it's a matter of time/money investment I'd think a simple reassignment of weapons groups would be a lot easier/cheaper. 

I keep beating this dead horse because I'm particularly fond of ground attack aircraft and not being able to even see where the 30mm is going really un-funs the entire experience of flying the HS129 against tanks.  At the least they could change the weapons groups to get the MG and cannon onto group 2 and 30mm onto group 1 (or whatever works).

 

I agree with this. I love the duck, but I seldom fly it because we cant shoot the heavy cannon without the 20mm's. The muzzle flash of the cannon alone should be bad enough, but add in the 4x 20mm and I find it nigh impossible to see where I'm hitting. This is one of those pretty old "bugs" that really, really, really needs to get squashed.

 

#UNLEASHTHEDUCK!!

[Blutaar]

At least, let us remove the MG ammo preflight like a weapon mod option.

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, =EXPEND=CG_Justin said:

, but I seldom fly it because we cant shoot the heavy cannon without the 20mm's. The muzzle flash of the cannon alone should be bad enough, but add in the 4x 20mm and I find it nigh impossible to see where I'm hitting.

The 30mm is shooting with the 2x7.92mm machineguns on weapon group 1, the MG151/15 (or MG151/20) is shooting on weapon group 2. And you can't see the muzzle flash of the 30mm, because the gun is under the fuselage. You might get this issue, when shooting at night, but defintely not on day. And there is no 4x20mm for the duck.

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

6 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

The 30mm is shooting with the 2x7.92mm machineguns on weapon group 1, the MG151/15 (or MG151/20) is shooting on weapon group 2. And you can't see the muzzle flash of the 30mm, because the gun is under the fuselage. You might get this issue, when shooting at night, but defintely not on day. And there is no 4x20mm for the duck.

I stand corrected.

[frosen]

On 12/15/2021 at 6:43 PM, Blutaar said:

At least, let us remove the MG ammo preflight like a weapon mod option.

If it's so hard and not worth the time invested to get a real fix, @LukeFF can you please give us the option to start without MG ammo? It cannot be that complicated, right?

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, frosen said:

If it's so hard and not worth the time invested to get a real fix, @LukeFF can you please give us the option to start without MG ammo? It cannot be that complicated, right?

 

That's not something I can do on my own.

[frosen]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

That's not something I can do on my own.

Ok thanks for answering, maybe you can pass on the message? Would be really nice to be able to fly tank busting missions properly.

 

Btw, sorry if I sounded rude in my previous post, it wasn't my intention.

Edited December 31, 2021 by frosen
Happy new year all!

[LukeFF]

47 minutes ago, frosen said:

Ok thanks for answering, maybe you can pass on the message? Would be really nice to be able to fly tank busting missions properly.

 

Btw, sorry if I sounded rude in my previous post, it wasn't my intention.

 

No worries - I'll pass along the request when the holidays are over. 

[Avimimus]

On 12/15/2021 at 2:53 PM, Yogiflight said:

And there is no 4x20mm for the duck.

On 12/15/2021 at 9:24 PM, =EXPEND=CG_Justin said:

I stand corrected.

 

Well... technically speaking MG131 and MG151 gunpods were considered, along with a variety of types of rockets - they just never reached production (or even reached prototype) - but technically there are documents showing that it was an option... just one that would have had to have been picked by the people deciding what should be developed

 

Probably the most interesting option would have been 2xMk-103 firing downward obliquely (in order to shoot through the roof armour of the tanks).

[Yogiflight]

10 hours ago, Avimimus said:

On 12/15/2021 at 8:53 PM, Yogiflight said:

And there is no 4x20mm for the duck.

On 12/16/2021 at 3:24 AM, =EXPEND=CG_Justin said:

I stand corrected.

 

Well... technically speaking MG131 and MG151 gunpods were considered, along with a variety of types of rockets - they just never reached production (or even reached prototype) - but technically there are documents showing that it was an option... just one that would have had to have been picked by the people deciding what should be developed

My post was an answer on Justin's post about his experiences in game. He mixed the MG17s with MG151/20 and I corrected him, that the Hs 129, we have in game doesn't have 4x20mm. It might well be, that there were thoughts of fitting such gunpods, but, especially on German side, there were plenty of such thoughts. There is not much you could exclude. I wouldn't wonder, if some guys were thinkung about fitting the 8.8cm under an aircraft.

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

My post was an answer on Justin's post about his experiences in game. He mixed the MG17s with MG151/20 and I corrected him, that the Hs 129, we have in game doesn't have 4x20mm. It might well be, that there were thoughts of fitting such gunpods, but, especially on German side, there were plenty of such thoughts. There is not much you could exclude. I wouldn't wonder, if some guys were thinkung about fitting the 8.8cm under an aircraft.

 

For all intents and purposes your original response was helpful, informative, and made sense

 

Even if we think about it technically there *is* no 4x20mm option for the Henschel in-game... and there never *was* historically either (not operationally). 

 

[Korton]

So he still a hope for got the 30mm on groupe 2 or 3 some day  ? ?

[Mightyrobert]

I can't believe this is still going on (4 years??). For God's sake, allow 30mm in a solo group or remove machine gun ammunition.

[Blutaar]

Hi, there is still no possibility to remove MG ammo as a modification? I imagine this would be a cheap and easy solution to implement which would fix this long standing issue instantly. Unfassbar!

[MAJ_stug41]

I hope that after all these years they will fix this simple issue on this collector plane. 5.002?

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, stug41 said:

I hope that after all these years they will fix this simple issue on this collector plane. 5.002?

 

I think that would require a rework of weapon systems (something not mentioned for 5.002). Maybe if they someday decide to rework guns to have more realistic options for convergence (and maybe some other features like jams?) they'll take a moment to provide this option. Who knows? I don't think it is in the immediate future though.

 

Still, I kind-of think necroing this thread was a noble act.

[MAJ_stug41]

15 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I think that would require a rework of weapon systems (something not mentioned for 5.002). Maybe if they someday decide to rework guns to have more realistic options for convergence (and maybe some other features like jams?) they'll take a moment to provide this option. Who knows? I don't think it is in the immediate future though.

 

Still, I kind-of think necroing this thread was a noble act.

Weapon group 3 is available in the keymap now, they could simply separate the 20s from the belly gun and let us map it like anything else.

[LukeFF]

16 minutes ago, stug41 said:

Weapon group 3 is available in the keymap now, they could simply separate the 20s from the belly gun and let us map it like anything else.

 

That's not a valid solution, as explained elsewhere in this thread. The 20mm cannons and 7.92 mm MGs were fired together in one group and the 30 mm gunpod in another group when the Hs 129 was outfitted as such.

 

Weapon Group 3 was added solely because the Sopwith Dolphin has the option for 3 Weapon Groups.

[MAJ_stug41]

5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

That's not a valid solution, as explained elsewhere in this thread. The 20mm cannons and 7.92 mm MGs were fired together in one group and the 30 mm gunpod in another group when the Hs 129 was outfitted as such.

 

Weapon Group 3 was added solely because the Sopwith Dolphin has the option for 3 Weapon Groups.

Oh, well in that case they should simply pair the 20s and mgs together, and let the belly gun be group 2. I dont see why this must be so particularly challenging. It has been many years, and this is a collector plane, people paid specifically for it.

[Avimimus]

7 minutes ago, stug41 said:

Oh, well in that case they should simply pair the 20s and mgs together, and let the belly gun be group 2. I dont see why this must be so particularly challenging. It has been many years, and this is a collector plane, people paid specifically for it.

 

The thing I wondered about is why it couldn't be added as a separate field mod (it might require duplication of some assets or something depending on how it is coded). But we do see an ability to attach different guns/gun-pods in field mods to different triggers elsewhere in the game - so just having two completely different arrangements of guns could be feasible... at least in theory. There might be something I'm missing about how weapons implemented in the game though... The modder in me keeps thinking there might be a kuldge/bodge though.

[quintarus1794]

On 10/11/2022 at 11:23 AM, stug41 said:

Oh, well in that case they should simply pair the 20s and mgs together, and let the belly gun be group 2. I dont see why this must be so particularly challenging. It has been many years, and this is a collector plane, people paid specifically for it.

 

Please! This would be infinitely preferable. Alternatively, using the third weapon group has to be an easier interim fix. The 7.92mm MGs and the 30mm being stuck firing at the same time is already ahistorical, so we might as well have something that is ahistorical and functional.

[MAJ_stug41]

Just a reminder that after more than five years they still refuse to correct the weapons groups on a $20 collector plane.

[ZachariasX]

57 minutes ago, stug41 said:

Just a reminder that after more than five years they still refuse to correct the weapons groups on a $20 collector plane.

You must understand that the correct weapon group is more important than your immature desire to FFS have the cannon on a separately mapped button. In Russia, the weapon loadout groups the pilot, not vice versa.

[MAJ_stug41]

6 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

You must understand that the correct weapon group is more important than your immature desire to FFS have the cannon on a separately mapped button. In Russia, the weapon loadout groups the pilot, not vice versa.

In what way is the mgs being paired with the mk103 correct?

[ZachariasX]

55 minutes ago, stug41 said:

In what way is the mgs being paired with the mk103 correct?

That is not the point. ?

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, stug41 said:

Just a reminder that after more than five years they still refuse to correct the weapons groups on a $20 collector plane.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with refusing to correct it but how the plane was built and coded. Believe me, I asked about this more than once. ?

[frosen]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

It doesn't have anything to do with refusing to correct it but how the plane was built and coded. Believe me, I asked about this more than once. ?

What about adding a "no ammo" option for the machine guns? Would be an ok work around without putting in a lot of work from the devs.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, frosen said:

What about adding a "no ammo" option for the machine guns? Would be an ok work around without putting in a lot of work from the devs.

 

Not likely they would go for that, but I can always ask. ?

[86Cheese]

This is pretty egregious honestly. Refusing to implement a mildly historically inaccurate fix for an issue that makes a $20 collector plane virtually unusable in its intended role in a game where engine management is based on arbitrary timers is so unbelievable stupid its kind of baffling.

[ZachariasX]

As in everyday corporate life, if „it is a software problem, there is nothing you can do about it“.

[Lusekofte]

This plane is one of the gems and what makes this game special. 
I do understand why people ask for this change. But after five years with the same answer, it can’t be done. 
Guys it is time to accept it. For me it is a minor to not a problem , it is a lot of other changes I want. I am still grateful for the investment and bravery the dev’s showed by building this plane

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

Guys it is time to accept it.

If it is more important to have weapon groups suiting the manual for a case that is largely irrelevant to the aircraft rather than just say f*ck it and set (e.g.) 7mm to group 1, 20 mm to group 2 and 30 mm to group 3 and let the player assign the button combinations in the controls menu (you are free to find a combination to let the player fire just the 30 mm, choice yours, and if you can’t make up one, I gave you one) as he pleases when he absolutely MUST have them according to how it was in the aircraft, then one has a very limited imagination. You can also make any belly mouted gun its own group, if that is what is required. But if it doesn‘t work the way they thought it and then they are fine to have a having the lesser solution, that is not ok.

 

Again, for everyone to read out loud: The duck needs the 30 mm belly gun on an exclusive and specific button. We don‘t care much about the rest.

 

Really, the bar is not that high. Remember, the duck was made in a tome where we couldn‘t do aircraft specific control assignements. Then, sue things could turn out odd with the gun combinations the duck offers. I understand that. But now we can map them on the right button for each aircraft. So no, I don‘t accept it. Not for 20 bucks.

[Zooropa_Fly]

13 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Not for 20 bucks.

 

Not addressing the salient argument here, but considering the research and work involved in bringing a new model to market - I don't think the $20 argument gets much traction.

A packet of Marlborough Reds costs $20 these days.

 

S!

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

A packet of Marlborough Reds costs $20 these days.

But they are fully functional in terms of making you an addict and then killing you in a miserable way. I am talking about reds that only burn when lit on both sides.

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

So no, I don‘t accept it. Not for 20 bucks.

 

Well, sorry, but like I said, it's a complicated/complex situation having to do with all the mods the plane has and the way those mods are tied to animations in the cockpit. If it was a simple task to fix it, I'm sure it would have been done long ago.

[Zooropa_Fly]

5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

But they are fully functional in terms of making you an addict and then killing you in a miserable way.

 

More in common with the '129 than I thought ! 

[Lusekofte]

This airplane have a tendency to survive initial attacks from behind. And it is very an accurate weapon platform. I shot the tail off from climbing LA 5 and Yaks several times in the past with it. 
Well one of each to be exact. I like it no matter what weapon group is arranged

[ZachariasX]

I just use it to zap other planes in MP. It makes other players careless. Like the Stuka or the P40.

[Avimimus]

16 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Well, sorry, but like I said, it's a complicated/complex situation having to do with all the mods the plane has and the way those mods are tied to animations in the cockpit. If it was a simple task to fix it, I'm sure it would have been done long ago.

 

Ah, it makes sense now! Yes, if there are complications with the animations for the gauges it could be a substantial amount of reworking. Without knowing that, it looks like changing a single character might be enough!