Turret gunners accuracy

[Guest deleted@134347]

4 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

It doesn't.

 

There weren't 30mm hits to the tail. Watch the replay in .25 speed. I could find the original track and play it even slower in the game, but why bother. The Pe-2 flips after the explosion when the Fw-190 is hitting it, and I only had 20mm at the time. The explosion is causing the pitching.

 

my bad, linked the wrong video. The one below is the correct one, look at 0:11.  If it's not a 30mm it's even worse.. The amount of stress the round introduces to the airframe it should break in half from such a violent 'push'.

 

 

[Luftschiff]

Stay on topic... Stay on topic!

 

[oc2209]

48 minutes ago, 30speed said:

my bad, linked the wrong video. The one below is the correct one, look at 0:11.  If it's not a 30mm it's even worse.. The amount of stress the round introduces to the airframe it should break in half from such a violent 'push'

 

Honestly, the jolt the plane takes from 3x30mm impacts in quick succession doesn't look unreasonable to me.

 

In 1/32 speed:

 

 

One impact to the left wing root near the waist gunner (who was uninjured evidently, or he wouldn't have shot me a few seconds later); another impact on the right wing root, and the final impact is evident in the flash in the mid-wing.

 

If a B-17 bucked that hard after taking multiple 30mm hits, yeah, I'd say that would be dodgy. But this is a smaller plane.

 

9 minutes ago, Luftschiff said:

Stay on topic... Stay on topic!

 

Will do!

 

You know, after this post.

[oc2209]

Just doing some more testing.

 

The P-47D-22 absorbs damage from a Pe-2's gunners exceptionally well. Oddly enough, the D-28 didn't protect my pilot as reliably.

 

In a series of tests (8) using the D-22, I attempted to outsnipe the Pe-2's gunners. They never killed me (in the D-22) but would usually cripple my engine. I was pretty safe up until the 350-400m range. Unlike my previous approaches, I made zero effort to evade.

 

With several different gun convergence settings used (up to 600m), I found 400m was the best by far:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I should've broken off after the engine fire was achieved, but I wanted to try to kill the crew. It appears as though 1/3 were dead by the end of the clip (the turret gunner behind the pilot).

Edited September 9, 2021 by oc2209

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The problem is that often times they have insane deflection shot precision, and if you pass a certain threshold in range, they will pretty reliably hit a full burst of dozens of rounds into the fighters center of mass, even if you are fast and coming at an angle.

These B-25s are in Veteran level, the level between Average and Ace. I approach the formation and fly past at around 750 km/h  true air speed.  You can see that once inside a certain range you get hit quite hard even with such geometry that would imply a hard deflection shot by part of the gunners.
 

For just a simple fixed reflex gunsight system this is too much, this is more of what I would expect from a B-29 which had a computed lead system, and in the case of 1:45 not even for that imho, maybe if radar guided and automatically slewed guns, like a modern CIWS ?

In multiplayer this often interacts with netcode/ping resulting in hits outside the arc of firing, most of the times during the exiting phase of the attack:
 

The AI is not good enough for straight approaches in some situations yet much better than it should be for deflection, this is what makes it rather frustating in multiplayer for both fighter and bomber pilots.

[oc2209]

5 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

The AI is not good enough for straight approaches in some situations yet much better than it should be for deflection

 

This isn't entirely true (the straight approaches part). Certain guns, especially with high rates of fire, like the German twin MG81s--those things will obliterate you on a dead six approach.

 

The more I'm testing, the less consistency I'm finding. I mean, yes, obviously the AI is too accurate in many instances; but my question is why it isn't more consistent.

 

For example, the Pe-2 was, in my experience, much easier to approach than the He-111. Despite the fact that both planes (the later 111) have .50 cal equivalents in their dorsal gun position.

 

Observe the following:

 

 

Here's a close-up of me getting hit:

 

 

That's a 700m shot right there. Granted, I'm really slow at the moment, but still. The hits weren't fatal, but I was lightly wounded.

[oc2209]

It appears as though speed by itself won't save you (as  -=PHX=-SuperEtendard demonstrates above), and maneuvering alone won't save you, but a combination of the two is your best bet. I'm not saying the current AI gunnery is okay just because it doesn't kill me every single engagement. Rather, I'm trying to figure out what confuses it, and from that, maybe we can better ascertain what could be done to improve it. Just generally dumbing the gunner AI down isn't really the best solution.

 

Here's a 1v8, all B-25s on Ace level:

 

Spoiler

 

 

All things considered (like how lazy and direct my approach was), I think I got off lightly. A curving approach seems to throw off its aim considerably. Then I have a tiny firing window before I need to break.

 

Here's a 109 vs He-111:

 

Spoiler

 

 

The dorsal gunner tries to hit me just as it did in my earlier P-47 attempt. The 109 proves to be a more difficult target at long range; I only start to get hit under 400m.

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

There’s a good video on YouTube somewhere showing how they trained gunners (at least US crews) during WW2. It involved the same sort of ring sights and lead angles, taking advantage of geometry that arises out of one airplane trying to shoot down the other, pretty much the same way that the non gyro gunsights are used in a fighter. The key point in all this being that the gunners had a method to more or less reliably know how much lead was necessary when an attacking aircraft was flying an attack trying to pull lead on the bomber, but not in other situations/attitudes. Understandably when the fighter doesn’t constrain itself to flying down a pursuit curve to maintain a gunshot the equation gets much more difficult: shooting at a moving target whilst moving yourself all of which at changing angles as the aircraft move in relation to each other.

 

IMO one of the biggest issues with AI gunners both here and in other games is that they seem to be able to estimate lead extremely well more or less no matter what you are doing/how you are flying.

Edited September 10, 2021 by 9./JG27DefaultFace

[Luftschiff]

I'd love to see the AI's reaction times tweaked (added?) in some way or form. Especially when handing over targets to other gunners.
We cannot actually keep the AI from knowing the perfect lead, but if say, reaction and traversal times are lowered, you can change their ability to act on that knowledge.

I'd wager you'd get much better odds with high-speed slashing passes, maneuvering etc. You can also introduce some small error to the lead calculation but I feel like forcing the AI to aim worse is not actually ideal in this scenario. The problem isn't being hit by gunners, it's when and how we're hit by them.

 

Someone coming in slow and steady should get torn to shreds. Someone that keeps coming back into firing position with target fixation should get punished by ready gunners. We don't want that to change, I think - but we want to get rid of the "How the fudge was he able to hit me in that situation????" moments of being tagged at 850 km/h in a 0.3 second window of opportunity by a maneuvering plane.

 

Problems (as I see them)

• Insane snapshots at tiny windows of opportunity (inhuman reaction times)
• Perfect lead calculations on targets at extreme speeds or extreme distance (dist/speed seemingly not affecting accuracy)
• Perfect knowledge (able to 'see' targets outside field of vision and 'prepare' for shooting at it)
• Gunner hive mind (perfectly sharing that information with each other without delays)

 

Possible solutions

• Making accuracy ramp up over time while a gunner fires at a target.
• Making accuracy be affected by speed, range and G's, and a combination of these things.
• Adding artificial penalties to AI reaction times to more accurately simulate human reaction times and communication.

Obviously these are just my thoughts on the matter, and I may have overlooked something important - but I think it's good practice to try to think about the actual situations we want to solve/prevent.

 

 

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, 9./JG27DefaultFace said:

IMO one of the biggest issues with AI gunners both here and in other games is that they seem to be able to estimate lead extremely well more or less no matter what you are doing/how you are flying.

 

It is a problem, yes; but I think the greater problem is how quickly the AI 'locks on' to you.

 

What it boils down to, is that at a range of +350m, you can fly with a little (really, not much) evasive technique and avoid taking serious damage. There are always exceptions, but by and large it holds true. 

 

The AI's tracking ability becomes overwhelming at closer ranges. While one possible solution would be to simply reduce its accuracy across the board, I think that would have the negative side effect of making conventional rear attacks too easy. 

 

At Ace and Veteran difficulty levels, we should be punished, especially against a formation of bombers, if we choose to attack from behind with a relatively low speed differential. High speed slashing attacks should be rewarded with a significantly lower probability of getting hit. This resembles the conundrum all fighters face when intercepting bombers: overtaking the bombers from behind gives the fighter the most time to aim, but also gives the defensive gunners the most time to aim. High speed (especially frontal) attacks favor the fighter, as the Germans learned by trial and error. This doesn't necessarily increase the probability of shooting a bomber down, but at least it keeps you as safe as possible so you can make multiple passes.

 

A slower AI lock on speed would keep attacking fighters reasonably safe so long as they kept their speed up and slashed through bomber formations erratically. But once the AI did lock on, you'd be in ever greater danger the closer you are to the formation. I think that'd be the best balance of realism versus difficulty.

 

In other words, let the AI keep its ridiculous tracking skill, but have it take significantly longer to zero in on you.

 

3 minutes ago, Luftschiff said:

I'd wager you'd get much better odds with high-speed slashing passes, maneuvering etc. You can also introduce some small error to the lead calculation but I feel like forcing the AI to aim worse is not actually ideal in this scenario. The problem isn't being hit by gunners, it's when and how we're hit by them.

 

Someone coming in slow and steady should get torn to shreds. Someone that keeps coming back into firing position with target fixation should get punished by ready gunners. We don't want that to change, I think - but we want to get rid of the "How the fudge was he able to hit me in that situation????" moments of being tagged at 850 km/h in a 0.3 second window of opportunity by a maneuvering plane.

 

Eerie that we said almost the same thing at the exact same time. Now my post feels redundant.

 

Especially because I lack your bullet points.

Edited September 10, 2021 by oc2209

[Luftschiff]

15 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

In other words, let the AI keep its ridiculous tracking skill, but have it take significantly longer to zero in on you.

 

 

Eerie that we said almost the same thing at the exact same time. Now my post feels redundant.

 

Especially because I lack your bullet points.

 

Haha, I was just thinking the same - Uncanny!
I'm glad that we seem to be on the same page, lack of bullet points does not make your post reduntant in the slightest, I value the contribution immensely - the more we agree on, the better the chance of solving it!  I just tried to make it as clear as possible, on the off chance a developer decides to take a look at this issue. Bullet points is a work injury

[[DBS]Browning]

For those wanting to work within the system we currently have, if you want to avoid the gunners, make sure that whenever you are in range, you are constantly increasing your rate of turn, i.e. pulling harder and harder on the stick all the way through the attack.

If this is done, and a reasonable range is maintained, the AI never hit you, however, not being able to relax the ever increasing elevator pull means that you might never hit the bomber either, and if you do, it will be only briefly as your gunsight swings past.

 

Another option is to slowly approach the bomber from it's 4-5 or 7-8 o'clock with a few hundred feet altitude difference. At a certain range, the gunners will open fire, but constantly miss you by many tens of meters if you match the bomber's speed. If the bomber is flying in a straight line, you can wait in the golden area quite safely until the gunner has no ammo.

 

Blind spots also work well and you can also open fire outside of the gunners range and still score many hits, so long as you don't mind using a lot of ammo.

Edited September 10, 2021 by [DBS]Browning

[haltux]

On 9/8/2021 at 11:02 AM, LuseKofte said:

As I said devs know this. They have not yet managed to dumb them down.

The software know where you are. Ai is part of that software.

This is a issue known since the birth of this franchise.  No need for any further input

 

The problem is not that they have not managed to dumb them down, the problem is that they do not want to. Reducing the accuracy of the gunners raises no technical difficulty.

 

Why don't they want to, I am not sure. I guess that they tried it and the resulting game was too easy.

 

To make it challenging with realistically accurate gunners, you would need to have either bigger formations of bombers benefiting from heavy defensive crossfire, of to have fighters efficiently protecting them. The first solution raises performance issues and the second raises complicated AI issues. And both are difficult to solve.

 

[[DBS]Browning]

7 minutes ago, haltux said:

Reducing the accuracy of the gunners raises no technical difficulty.

 

Reducing accuracy in a way that makes sense is enough of a technical challenge to require a programmer to devote some, not insignificant, time to it.

Making an AI gunner miss in the way a human might miss is not a case of quickly tweaking a few numbers.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

18 minutes ago, haltux said:

Reducing the accuracy of the gunners raises no technical difficulty.

I'm sorry, but that's just total bollocks.

 

I know what I'm talking about. I've got years of experience programming and I'm halfway an MSc that's about 50% neural networks and 50% "traditional" signal processing (and calculating firing angle based on the enemy's apparent position, speed etc. is just that). Improving AI is no walk in the park, whether you're increasing or reducing accuracy. Especially if it has to behave in a way that's as human-like as possible, and also has certain CPU limits it needs to take into account.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done. It can definitely be done. But it does also raise a lot of technical difficulties. With all the diagnosing, designing, testing, adjusting, testing, re-adjusting and so forth it wouldn't surprise me the slightest if it'd take a dedicated programmer and tester a full week, if not more. Double the time if you want to make sure there are no bugs. And if you've been following the Dev blogs lately, you'll know that time is something the Devs don't have right now.

Edited September 10, 2021 by AEthelraedUnraed

[CountZero]

jedi quick reaction times and aperant telepathic conection betwen gunners in airplanes should be checked out, for all skill levels, even on lowest that happends.

[[DBS]Browning]

On reaction times: it appears to me that both gunners and AA guns have a very slow initial reaction time.They take a long time to react to a plane in the area at all and won't begin to fire until an enemy has been in their area for some time. However, once they have been 'activated' by an enemy in the area, their reaction time is instant for subsequent shots.

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

It is a problem, yes; but I think the greater problem is how quickly the AI 'locks on' to you.

 

What it boils down to, is that at a range of +350m, you can fly with a little (really, not much) evasive technique and avoid taking serious damage. There are always exceptions, but by and large it holds true. 

 

The AI's tracking ability becomes overwhelming at closer ranges. While one possible solution would be to simply reduce its accuracy across the board, I think that would have the negative side effect of making conventional rear attacks too easy. 

 

At Ace and Veteran difficulty levels, we should be punished, especially against a formation of bombers, if we choose to attack from behind with a relatively low speed differential. High speed slashing attacks should be rewarded with a significantly lower probability of getting hit. This resembles the conundrum all fighters face when intercepting bombers: overtaking the bombers from behind gives the fighter the most time to aim, but also gives the defensive gunners the most time to aim. High speed (especially frontal) attacks favor the fighter, as the Germans learned by trial and error. This doesn't necessarily increase the probability of shooting a bomber down, but at least it keeps you as safe as possible so you can make multiple passes.

 

A slower AI lock on speed would keep attacking fighters reasonably safe so long as they kept their speed up and slashed through bomber formations erratically. But once the AI did lock on, you'd be in ever greater danger the closer you are to the formation. I think that'd be the best balance of realism versus difficulty.

 

In other words, let the AI keep its ridiculous tracking skill, but have it take significantly longer to zero in on you.

 

 

Eerie that we said almost the same thing at the exact same time. Now my post feels redundant.

 

Especially because I lack your bullet points.

I think on a basic level we are saying many of the same things. The issue is that the gunners fundamentally do not act like a human being.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

16 minutes ago, 9./JG27DefaultFace said:

I think on a basic level we are saying many of the same things. The issue is that the gunners fundamentally do not act like a human being.

Yes they don't,  how many times I landed perfect  head on HE rounds on bombers canopy,  or hit the gunner turret from above,  but occupants where just fine, no wounds , perfect flying or shooting.  

[[DBS]Browning]

21 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Yes they don't,  how many times I landed perfect  head on HE rounds on bombers canopy,  or hit the gunner turret from above,  but occupants where just fine, no wounds , perfect flying or shooting.  

 

I strongly, strongly dispute this.

You can test the vulnerability of gunners on the ground by shooting at them with cannon or MGs from another bomber. The take damage exactly how you would expect, every time.

 

I suspect that you don't have this impression for one of several reasons:

1. It's hard to tell exactly where your shots hit when flying at speed

2. Network lag (even on an excellent connection) can cause shots to appear to hit one place, when they actually hit another

3. The burst/fire effect from hits is not representative of where the bullet/shell actually hit. The bullets land in once place, and as the fire sprite plays, the plane moves forwards, leaving the sprite behind the point of impact when it is at it's most visible. This is more pronounced for cannon.

Edited September 10, 2021 by [DBS]Browning

[Luftschiff]

Agreed,

12 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

I suspect that you don't have this impression for one of several reasons:

1. It's hard to tell exactly where your shots hit when flying at speed

2. Network lag (even on an excellent connection) can cause shots to appear to hit one place, when they actually hit another

3. The burst/fire effect from hits is not representative of where the bullet/shell actually hit. The bullets land in once place, and as the fire sprite plays, the plane moves forwards, leaving the sprite behind the point of impact when it is at it's most visible. This is more pronounced for cannon.

 

Very much this. Gunners taking damage is easily verifiable. Seeing what you hit in MP combat is not.

Moreover, let's try not to conflate the issue of gunner Ai behaviour and accuracy with other issues.

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

41 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I strongly, strongly dispute this.

You can test the vulnerability of gunners on the ground by shooting at them with cannon or MGs from another bomber. The take damage exactly how you would expect, every time.

 

I suspect that you don't have this impression for one of several reasons:

1. It's hard to tell exactly where your shots hit when flying at speed

2. Network lag (even on an excellent connection) can cause shots to appear to hit one place, when they actually hit another

3. The burst/fire effect from hits is not representative of where the bullet/shell actually hit. The bullets land in once place, and as the fire sprite plays, the plane moves forwards, leaving the sprite behind the point of impact when it is at it's most visible. This is more pronounced for cannon.

For me the multiplayer is important,  I can see recording but any way you are saying that  I can't aim , I don't see impact in place,  and just some approximation do to network latency and net code which should fix that as in other games.  I tell what I see , aim at canopy and see explosion on it so I should have wound crew,  if not this is broken if happened frequently. You are wrong if you saying that multiplayer results are not important and only single player are. 

BTW trailing impact sprites were fixed some time ago. 

Edited September 10, 2021 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[[DBS]Browning]

I'm not saying multiplayer isn't important (I don't play singleplayer) and I'm not making comments about your aiming.

I'm just explaining why you might be incorrectly thinking you have hit a gunner.

When Gunners are actually hit enough to kill them, they die every time. This is simple to test.

Impact sprites do still trail, not as much as in the past, but it's still a thing. That isn't a bug; dust and debris should not keep pace with the plane they came from, they should get blown back in the air.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

My tailgunner name is Klaus!

All gunners in my Junkers and Heinkels and 110’s named Klaus!

The unborn tailgunner name of the 410 also will be Klaus!

All blue gunners in the world named Klaus!

Klaus is very successful because he is industrious hard working on the shooting range!

Klaus got many confetti parades on Berlin street „Unter den Linden“ because his successful heroic work.

Klaus is highly decorated 

Don’t mess with Klaus!

Long live Klaus!

 

 

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

My tailgunner name is Fritz.

 

Gunner accuracy is ok.

 

I can hit targets at distances greater than Fritz but the problem is Fritz can't properly fly the plane when I am shooting.

Thus pilots can consider themselves happy not to have to face humans players on tailgunner position.

 

My final advice is stay away from bombers and ground attackers and look for other Hartmanns ???

[oc2209]

6 hours ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

The unborn tailgunner name of the 410 also will be Klaus!

 

I'm strangely excited to see how the current gunner AI handles the 410's unusual defensive arrangement. It should be... interesting. As a human gunner, the sight and mechanism to use the guns will also be novel.

 

7 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

When Gunners are actually hit enough to kill them, they die every time. This is simple to test.

 

 

I find the Ju-88's compact crew compartment makes testing pretty easy: 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Lusekofte]

14 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

On reaction times: it appears to me that both gunners and AA guns have a very slow initial reaction time.They take a long time to react to a plane in the area at all and won't begin to fire until an enemy has been in their area for some time. However, once they have been 'activated' by an enemy in the area, their reaction time is instant for subsequent shots.

This is correct

Often they realt when I am already shot down. I wish for a more human gunner in both accuracy and spotting.

It would be more beneficial for a bomber to have a good spotter

[NN_Razor]

I’d like to get a developer’s perspective here on that. I don’t fly anymore partly because of that and I refuse to buy Normandy because of that

[354thFG_Leifr]

8 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

This is correct

Often they realt when I am already shot down. I wish for a more human gunner in both accuracy and spotting.

It would be more beneficial for a bomber to have a good spotter

 

The AI are excellent spotters. The problem (amongst many here), is that they're incredibly slow to react to incoming enemy aircraft. Gunners are prone to wasting precious seconds in their desire to gently manipulate their guns in to position, and then out of position, and then back in to position, and then...

 

It would be nice if the pilot (player) could issue a command to ensure that the stations are manned and alert when required, rather than waiting for the AI to switch itself on.

[[DBS]TH0R]

2 hours ago, Leifr said:

It would be nice if the pilot (player) could issue a command to ensure that the stations are manned and alert when required, rather than waiting for the AI to switch itself on.

 

Seconded. This is no. 2 suggestion from my list of suggestions:

 

 

[FTC_Zero]

I already feel the rising anger of the community when the Me410 with 360 no scope 13mm tail gunner comes out ? I mean, i Just hade a game where I made a B25 explode, just with 13mm of a G6.

[Luftschiff]

On 9/12/2021 at 10:44 PM, ZeroCrack01 said:

I already feel the rising anger of the community when the Me410 with 360 no scope 13mm tail gunner comes out ? I mean, i Just hade a game where I made a B25 explode, just with 13mm of a G6.

 

I feel like the guns of a 410 would be a 180 PeriScope ?

Edited September 14, 2021 by Luftschiff

[Gora_]

If Devs decided to take a closer look at 0,5'' bullets than maybe  they will look at AI gunner accuracy which is far, far older problem in this simulation... It was mentioned so many times and to this day non of the Devs decided to give it a proper attention ;(  The best WW2 sim as Ił2 should have such a basic stuff sorted out.  

[JLean]

I have a feeling that I got what I ordered ?. Since last update I have done 3 attacks against Pe-2 from behind and 3 times my engine has been killed but pilot has stayed alive (at least till ground impact). 

For me this is looks like a sign of a good improvement...but let's continue to gather more data.  

 

 JLean

Edited September 22, 2021 by JLean

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

From a combat report (summer 1944) some things to consider. 2 x Bf109G-6 took off from Kymi airfield to defend Kotka harbour against a raid by Pe-2's escorted by La-5FN and Yak-9 fighters. As the alarm came a bit late only 2 interceptors were in the vicinity and climbed from below to attack. 

 

These 2 planes shot down 7 of the attacking Pe-2 before they had to disengage due escorts waking up and low on ammo. Not a single hit by defensive fire was found on the 109's even they attacked from behind, well within gunner arcs. Not a single hit. 

 

Now do the same in game and see what happens. 

[[DBS]Browning]

3 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S! 

 

From a combat report (summer 1944) some things to consider. 2 x Bf109G-6 took off from Kymi airfield to defend Kotka harbour against a raid by Pe-2's escorted by La-5FN and Yak-9 fighters. As the alarm came a bit late only 2 interceptors were in the vicinity and climbed from below to attack. 

 

These 2 planes shot down 7 of the attacking Pe-2 before they had to disengage due escorts waking up and low on ammo. Not a single hit by defensive fire was found on the 109's even they attacked from behind, well within gunner arcs. Not a single hit. 

 

Now do the same in game and see what happens. 

Could you post the original source please.

[Yo-Yo_Kirby]

On 9/12/2021 at 1:44 PM, ZeroCrack01 said:

I already feel the rising anger of the community when the Me410 with 360 no scope 13mm tail gunner comes out ? I mean, i Just hade a game where I made a B25 explode, just with 13mm of a G6.

How about A-26 Invader? Pretty fast on the deck. It has dorsal and ventral remote-controlled turrets. Might be held back by inconsistent 50 cals’ performance though. But I can see it being really annoying if it snipes your pilot. That gunner operating the turrets from a certain compartment could be having field days with the current AI gunner accuracy.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Yo-Yo_Kirby

[CountZero]

Yes Yes in game we have thouse masive formations of bombers, its so realistic to see, so we need realistic gunners... LOL

Give player who takes bomber to spawn with atleast 7 AI bombers that he can give comands and we can have stupid gunners, reducing gunners abilitys more and more will just resoult in more fighters players, and no point in making more bomber airplanes in DLCs, as why bather no one plays with bombers... but god forbid i as fighter get shoot down by some lucky hit from gunner when i do risky attacks just to get easy kill, that bomber player (who dosent have benefit of big numbers incresing his chances of serviving) needs to get shoot down every sortie so he dosent come to play any more, so i get more fighter airplanes made for game. And then we wonder why devs make only fighters or GA airplanes with forward guns latly. B-25 lol whos gona play with it, torpedo bomber lol he needs to fly low and strait, why bather no one gona play with it it aint gona servive to even get close to ships... we give you Spitfire 9c and Bf-109G5, players play with thouse types of airplanes our data shows, they gona sell.

Edited September 24, 2021 by CountZero

[FTC_Zero]

3 hours ago, Yo-Yo_Kirby said:

How about A-26 Invader? Pretty fast on the deck. It has dorsal and ventral remote-controlled turrets. Might be held back by inconsistent 50 cals’ performance though. But I can see it being really annoying if it snipes your pilot. That gunner operating the turrets from a certain compartment could be having field days with the current AI gunner accuracy.

Nasty of course, but not relevant for know. Unlike the ME410 it is not announced yet.

[[DBS]TH0R]

7 hours ago, lmaoyutalkin said:

yea, real life gunners weren't effective at all, maybe some data can be found from the big B-17 raids over germany, how they fared against the interceptors

 

Except about half of the LW planes shot down were by US gunners in western Europe air war. They were not effective as expected, as in to prevent bomber causalities and not needing escorts, but they were effective otherwise. Just not superhuman as they are in certain scenarios in-game.

 

There are several factors at play here, some of which being actual areas defensive guns cover, type gunsights used and defensive gun caliber - the latter where US bombers had the advantage. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by [DBS]TH0R