View Full Version : [REQ] Japanese aircraft loadouts are SCREWY
OK, this is BS. The zero in game carries 3x500kg bombs or 5x250kg, LOL. How about 2x60kg.
How does one release a mod? I can tweak this, or supply someone with changes to very japanese plane (heck, allied too) with proper bomb loads, etc. Who do I PM the data to?
[Unit]
ClassName=A6M2Zero
3DModelFileName=data/Air/AFB_A6M2_Zero/AFB_A6M2_Zero
UnitType=300
MaxSpeed=275.000000
MinSpeed=70.000000
MaxRadius=600 ;750
Length=11.5
Width=13.8
RenownAwarded=50
CrewComplement=1
SurvivalRate=80
SurvivalPercentage=50
[Loadout 1]
Name=3x500Kg Bombs
Type=3
[Loadout 2]
Name=5x250Kg Bombs
Type=2
How does it choose between loadouts? 50/50? Can you add more loadouts? Can I simply delete loadouts? Tell me how to do it, and I'll go through every plane an make them right.
Add it to the bug report though I doubt it will have high priority.
I can mod the loadouts, what does "Type=3" mean? Can I pick any value for the bombs in kg, or must it be from some list of values, if so, where is the list (I can't find it in the cfgs, just looked). Seriously, get me started and I'm all over this.
tater
nvdrifter
03-28-07, 11:16 AM
OK, this is BS. The zero in game carries 3x500kg bombs or 5x250kg, LOL. How about 2x60kg.
How does one release a mod? I can tweak this, or supply someone with changes to very japanese plane (heck, allied too) with proper bomb loads, etc. Who do I PM the data to?
[Unit]
ClassName=A6M2Zero
3DModelFileName=data/Air/AFB_A6M2_Zero/AFB_A6M2_Zero
UnitType=300
MaxSpeed=275.000000
MinSpeed=70.000000
MaxRadius=600 ;750
Length=11.5
Width=13.8
RenownAwarded=50
CrewComplement=1
SurvivalRate=80
SurvivalPercentage=50
[Loadout 1]
Name=3x500Kg Bombs
Type=3
[Loadout 2]
Name=5x250Kg Bombs
Type=2
How does it choose between loadouts? 50/50? Can you add more loadouts? Can I simply delete loadouts? Tell me how to do it, and I'll go through every plane an make them right.
Whoah.. calm down there Tater old boy. :rotfl: It's just a game. We all know there are serious realism problems in SH4 (not to mention all the bugs). Sometimes we do need people pointing out realism mistakes, but please no 'realism police' patrolling everyone's mods. It's still just a game, remember? I worry that some modders might eventually become scared to even post new mods due to patrolling realism police criticisms and rants. A lot of realism comments are subjective opinion. But not all. Your hard data is always welcome.
Whoah.. calm down there Tater old boy. :rotfl: It's just a game. We all know there are serious realism problems in SH4 (not to mention all the bugs). Sometimes we do need people pointing out realism mistakes, but please no 'realism police' patrolling everyone's mods. It's still just a game, remember? I worry that some modders might eventually become scared to even post new mods due to patrolling realism police criticisms and rants. A lot of realism comments are subjective opinion. But not all. Your hard data is always welcome.
Errr he didn't criticise anyone's mods...just found some mistakes in the stock game. Plus as you said, it's based on hard fact...look at the links I posted on the sticky thread, can't get more basic than the USN technical mission to Japan after the war. All the data is there. That said, I love all the mod efforts, "real" or not... loved the uberboot mod for SH3 for example.
nvdrifter
03-28-07, 11:26 AM
[quote=nvdrifter
Whoah.. calm down there Tater old boy. :rotfl: It's just a game. We all know there are serious realism problems in SH4 (not to mention all the bugs). Sometimes we do need people pointing out realism mistakes, but please no 'realism police' patrolling everyone's mods. It's still just a game, remember? I worry that some modders might eventually become scared to even post new mods due to patrolling realism police criticisms and rants. A lot of realism comments are subjective opinion. But not all. Your hard data is always welcome.
Errr he didn't criticise anyone's mods...just found some mistakes in the stock game. Plus as you said, it's based on hard fact...look at the links I posted on the sticky thread, can't get more basic than the USN technical mission to Japan after the war. All the data is there. That said, I love all the mod efforts, "real" or not... loved the uberboot mod for SH3 for example.[/quote]
I know he wasn't criticizing anyone's mods, but there seems to be a different attitude in this forum than in the SH3 modder forum. A lot of new members and much less friendly feeling. Of course, we had the 'modder wars' before in the SH3 forum. Just don't want to see that happen again here.
I'll make my own mod/tweak, point me in the right direction. The cfg files are easy, and I just realized I can open the eqp files as well. They seem to have bomb types and sizes, is there a master list someplace? Some of us LIKE things to be right, if it was a mod, then people could pick the level they wanted, and install it or not. Pointing out a gross historical inaccuracy in their code is not deserving of a derogatory "realism police" crack. Having huge bomb loads on planes incapable of holding them affects gameplay. I looked at the planes, and they all hold virtually the same loads. That also makes the air attacks boring since they are all the same with different planes.
So it's one thing if the game (or a mod) has a slight inaccuracy in the name of making gameplay work, but 3 1000lb bombs on a plane that was capable of carrying two 120lb bombs---and virtually never even carried those---is way beyond nitpicking. It also goes to the danger of air attack. Strafing by fighters, sure, dangerous enough to a sub. Worried that each of the countless zero horde will drop 3 bombs that were what SBDs dropped on the Kido Butai at Midway (1 per plane), that's crazy. It also might have to do with their behavior of hanging around. If a plane has the proper load, it might make a pass or two, then RTB.
People can chose vanilla SH4, they can also pick and chose mods/tweaks. Help me figure this out, and I'll make an accurate one. Anyone else wants to mod that and make one tweaked for another form of gameplay, that's fine too.
Just trying to make myself useful.
nvdrifter, I guess the problem is some folk's expectations were dashed, and as moddders or those who support them it was a bit disheartening to see the same darn bugs as in SH3. Or maybe we have short memories. :lol:
nvdrifter
03-28-07, 11:30 AM
I'll make my own mod/tweak, point me in the right direction. The cfg files are easy, and I just realized I can open the eqp files as well. They seem to have bomb types and sizes, is there a master list someplace? Some of us LIKE things to be right, if it was a mod, then people could pick the level they wanted, and install it or not. Pointing out a gross historical inaccuracy in their code is not deserving of a derogatory "realism police" crack. Having huge bomb loads on planes incapable of holding them affects gameplay. I looked at the planes, and they all hold virtually the same loads. That also makes the air attacks boring since they are all the same with different planes.
So it's one thing if the game (or a mod) has a slight inaccuracy in the name of making gameplay work, but 3 1000lb bombs on a plane that was capable of carrying two 120lb bombs---and virtually never even carried those---is way beyond nitpicking. It also goes to the danger of air attack. Strafing by fighters, sure, dangerous enough to a sub. Worried that each of the countless zero horde will drop 3 bombs that were what SBDs dropped on the Kido Butai at Midway (1 per plane), that's crazy. It also might have to do with their behavior of hanging around. If a plane has the proper load, it might make a pass or two, then RTB.
People can chose vanilla SH4, they can also pick and chose mods/tweaks. Help me figure this out, and I'll make an accurate one. Anyone else wants to mod that and make one tweaked for another form of gameplay, that's fine too.
Just trying to make myself useful.
You have a good attitude because at least you are willing to fix it yourself instead of ranting about other people's unrealistic mods and doing nothing to fix it.
I'd also add that this theater is the one I am interested in personally. I have a large library of ww2 books, and the large majority are PTO. I like the game, I like that it can be tweaked by players, and I like to tweak games---though most of that I have done was board and minaitures games, lol.
I used the [REQ] in the title only because I have questions about what I can mess with. Point me at a mod faq, and i'll do it myself, I'm not tryng to be demanding of others' time.
nvdrifter
03-28-07, 11:33 AM
nvdrifter, I guess the problem is some folk's expectations were dashed, and as moddders or those who support them it was a bit disheartening to see the same darn bugs as in SH3. Or maybe we have short memories. :lol:
I totally agree. The realism in SH4 is a joke. I love realism, but I hope anyone who criticizes other's mods (Tater wasn't criticizing) try and remember how much voluntary time we put into these mods.. realistic or not.
nvdrifter
03-28-07, 11:35 AM
I'd also add that this theater is the one I am interested in personally. I have a large library of ww2 books, and the large majority are PTO. I like the game, I like that it can be tweaked by players, and I like to tweak games---though most of that I have done was board and minaitures games, lol.
I used the [REQ] in the title only because I have questions about what I can mess with. Point me at a mod faq, and i'll do it myself, I'm not tryng to be demanding of others' time.
I think we all want the same thing, a more realistic, more fun SH4. But then again, there are frustrating limitations to SH4. We'll all do the best we can.
castorp345
03-28-07, 11:37 AM
You have a good attitude because at least you are willing to fix it yourself instead of ranting about other people's unrealistic mods and doing nothing to fix it.
indeed he does (kudos tater!), and it's nice to see someone using actual data to support the work they're doing (ie thinking about what they're doing before diving-in and hashing away without a thought beyond "gee, this feels right")...
[edit:grammar]
OK, the loadouts are listed in each plane's cfg. Then each plane has a eqp that looks like this:
;equipment cfg file, loadout definitions are in the platform cfg file
;1,2,3,4 wing pylons, 5 center pilon
;Basic Loadout values
[Equipment 1]
NodeName=B01
LinkName=NULL
[Equipment 2]
NodeName=B02
LinkName=NULL
[Equipment 3]
NodeName=B03
LinkName=NULL
[Equipment 4]
NodeName=B04
LinkName=NULL
[Equipment 5]
NodeName=B05
LinkName=NULL
;3x500Kg Bombs loadout definition
[Equipment 6]
NodeName=B01
LinkName=NULL
Loadout=3x500Kg Bombs
[Equipment 7]
NodeName=B02
LinkName=Bomb500Kg
Loadout=3x500Kg Bombs
[Equipment 8]
NodeName=B03
LinkName=NULL
Loadout=3x500Kg Bombs
[Equipment 9]
NodeName=B04
LinkName=Bomb500Kg
Loadout=3x500Kg Bombs
[Equipment 10]
NodeName=B05
LinkName=Bomb500Kg
Loadout=3x500Kg Bombs
;5x250Kg loadout definition
[Equipment 11]
NodeName=B01
LinkName=Bomb250Kg
Loadout=5x250Kg Bombs
[Equipment 12]
NodeName=B02
LinkName=Bomb250Kg
Loadout=5x250Kg Bombs
[Equipment 13]
NodeName=B03
LinkName=Bomb250Kg
Loadout=5x250Kg Bombs
[Equipment 14]
NodeName=B04
LinkName=Bomb250Kg
Loadout=5x250Kg Bombs
[Equipment 15]
NodeName=B05
LinkName=Bomb250Kg
Loadout=5x250Kg Bombs
[Equipment 16]
NodeName=P01
LinkName=Pilot_Plane
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231
[Equipment 17]
NodeName=P01
LinkName=Pilot_Plane
Loadout=3x500Kg Bombs
[Equipment 18]
NodeName=P01
LinkName=Pilot_Plane
Loadout=5x250Kg Bombs
It says loadout defs are in platform.cfg, but I cannot find that file.
Hmmm.
castorp345
03-28-07, 11:40 AM
I hope anyone who criticizes other's mods (Tater wasn't criticizing) try and remember how much voluntary time we put into these mods.. realistic or not.
i fail to see what one has to do with the other.
'last time i checked, "criticism" (when well informed) is generally considered a valuable thing and a stepping stone to improvement...
nvdrifter
03-28-07, 11:41 AM
I hope anyone who criticizes other's mods (Tater wasn't criticizing) try and remember how much voluntary time we put into these mods.. realistic or not.
i fail to see what one has to do with the other.
'last time i checked, "criticism" (when well informed) is generally considered a valuable thing and a stepping stone to improvement...
It's not what people say, it's how they say it.
castorp345
03-28-07, 11:45 AM
It's not what people say, it's how they say it.
i suppose that's true for sensitive egos.
personally, thanks to many years in academia, i've learned the value of having something of a thick skin and learned to look more towards substance than towards tone... ;)
Regarding research and games, this is my attitude: Start with accuracy, THEN tweak.
I realize it's a game, and even tot he extent it is a sim, the OUTCOMES are what is important to simulate. So start with the bombs on the planes that are right. Start out with a realistic chance of air attack, and when it happens, have a realistic number of planes. In this case 1xflying boat might be seen, but even with a single 250kg bomb, you'd not see 1 Val, but 3, 6, or 9 (IJNAF/IJAAF planes operated in chutais of 3 grouped into sentai of 3 chutai).
If that turned out lame frm a game standpoint, THEN I'd mess with it. They way it is now is about like putting 1945 torpedos on a 1941 US sub (with multiples of the real loadout).
Anyone who can grok the whole plane loadout thing is welcome to chime in, I'll happily mess with the files, I just need to know what I can change without breaking stuff (I BSOD and CTD enough with SH4 as it is).
Regarding "tone" I reserve the "this is BS" for stuff made by the DESIGNERS since getting it right in the first place is their job, IMO. I'd never be so harsh towards a mod, that's voluntary work that people can chose, or not chose, to install.
If a modder claimed that a purpose of their mod was more realism, I'd offer constructive criticism on that basis. If a mod was for fun, or gameplay at the expense of accuracy, I'd likely not comment at all (since I'm interested primarily in accuracy, at lkeast as a baseline to start from).
<S>
tater
Hey, is there a way to open the .sim files?
notepad sees them, and I get taunting text, then control characters...
nvdrifter
03-28-07, 12:11 PM
It's not what people say, it's how they say it.
i suppose that's true for sensitive egos.
personally, thanks to many years in academia, i've learned the value of having something of a thick skin and learned to look more towards substance than towards tone... ;)
thanks to many years in academia..
Ohhh, that explains a lot. I also worked in acadamia for a long time and had to put up with the same know-it-all, egotistical attitude such as yours for years which is institutionalized in such places. :nope:
Well, this forum isn't high school or college. You may be used to talking down to people there, but here we are equals.. ok? ;)
castorp345
03-28-07, 12:19 PM
Ohhh, that explains a lot. I also worked in acadamia for a long time and had to put up with the same know-it-all, egotistical attitude such as yours for years that is institutionalized in such places. :nope:
really?...
if i may so, you seem to have some peculiar attitudes considering...
Well, this forum isn't high school or college. You may used to talking down to people there, but here we are equals.. ok?
indeed. who's been talked down to here?
(and as i've suggested to you before, pm might be a better way of adressing whatever issues you might have than cluttering up the public threads with this silliness)
Anachronous
03-28-07, 12:20 PM
In before lock.
I think many people expected more for a sequel, than some flashy graphical effects. They at least expected bugs from SH3 not to show up and I think when making a SIM, it should be a priority to get number and stats right. If we can do it, they can too.
Turning down of realism could then be done via settings or mods.
I believe that is why the attitude here is different.
bigboywooly
03-28-07, 12:25 PM
@ tater
Not got SH4 yet
Damn couriers
Anyway the platform cfg is basically the ships.cfg
In the same folder as the Eqp file
You can change any loadout you like PROVIDING the actual weapon is ingame
Use Pack3d - version 3 will be ok
http://files.filefront.com/P3dAllVersion7z/;6422266;/fileinfo.html
The Bombs.dat should be in the Library folder
Open with Pack3d and you can see the available bombs you can use
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1544/bombsne3.jpg
SH3 bombs.dat shows 100/250 and 500KG bombs
VERY helpful, thank you.
If the min is 100kg, I guess I'd make a rare A6M loadout with those.
The val would get 1x250, the B6N could get 1x500, 4x100, maybe 3x250 (racks will be wrong, but so be it).
Betty also holds only 800kg of bombs, H6K 1000kg, and H8K has 2xtorpedo, 8x250, or 16x60kg bombs as well as DCs.
Will DL that can-opener and have a look. I will take a peek at the airbases (already have) and look at the amounts of planes as well, they also seem screwy.
tater
bigboywooly
03-28-07, 12:46 PM
As I said that dat is from SH3 so it may be different in 4
Hopefully by the weekend will have the game
Dont forget to back up any files you alter first
Just in case
Have fun :up:
OK, my first tests. I decided to start simple, and instead of trying any alternate loadouts on the Zero's cfg, I altered the loadout descriptions on the zero's .eqp file since I could do it while changing fewer names. I changed 3x500 to 2x100 (bonus for the usually unbombed zero, lol) and I changed 5x250 all to null. Cruised around on surface looking for planes, and got mostly zeros without bombs, a couple with 2 bombs.
So far I didn't get strafed. Need to check and see if the strafing behavior is tied to having bombs... anyone know? Will "pure" fighters strafe a sub in game, or is there another tweak.
I have to admit it was interesting, the radar sees planes, and you might dive to find they were just fighters, OTOH, as soon as I saw the first one, more kept coming even though the 1st was unarmed bomb wise. My next test will involve altering the H8K I think. With real loads that would be scary perhaps, big bombs, medium bombs, and DCs...
I think this has promise---remember also that 3x500kg bombs is easily enough to shatter a large fleet DD. The IJN lost a CV with ONE 500kg (1000lb, actually, so less than 500kg) bomb at Midway. I'm hoping to do more tonight, I just bcked up the entire Air folder, so i might go ahead and change all of them to the closest RL fit with the weak bomb selection (100, 250, 500, DC).
tater
akdavis
03-28-07, 07:16 PM
It's not what people say, it's how they say it.
i suppose that's true for sensitive egos.
personally, thanks to many years in academia, i've learned the value of having something of a thick skin and learned to look more towards substance than towards tone... ;)
thanks to many years in academia..
Ohhh, that explains a lot. I also worked in acadamia for a long time and had to put up with the same know-it-all, egotistical attitude such as yours for years which is institutionalized in such places. :nope:
Well, this forum isn't high school or college. You may be used to talking down to people there, but here we are equals.. ok? ;)
Huh? Forming your opinion of people based on their tone or style and ignoring those that don't meet your standards is egoism at its worst. He's saying to not worry so much about perceived criticism and simply take what is useful from it and don't let the tone and style bother you. It is only a *****ly ego that prevents someone from seeing past tone and understanding actual content.
Anyways, if Tater is who I think he is, and if he tells you that your claim to realism is contradicted by a source he has at hand, then you should probably listen to the facts contained within and ignore how they are delivered. Tater knows his stuff.
And Tater, thanks for the effort on this important issue. The Japanese may not have been experts on ASW, but they had air cover over a huge portion of the theatre, which should be a constant concern and problem to deal with in the game. Personally, I don't want to face challenges that are implemented with a degree of absurdity, such as they currently stand.
Thanks AKD. I think there are more than a few Il-2 guys around here :D
The aircraft are limited, and the loadouts are also very limited. I think for air stuff (assuming no new bombs, etc), the trick is a balance that makes air appropriately dangerous, with out being either overly lethal, or just annoying.
BTW, all this talk about tone... I know many people who I talked to for ages on the net before I ever met them in person. In general, written communication—particularly the quickly authored internet forum post—isn't the best way to decide if you'd like someone in person. I imagine the vast majority of folks that are interested enough in a given subject/game/etc would have a great time talking and throwing back a few beers with each other.
<S>
tater
Another Il-2 guy here from SimHQ. Hey tater and akdavis. :D
I would go with 1x250kg for the Zero. Not saying that Il-2 is the best reference to go by, (those in the know realize many planes there have loadout "issues") ;) but it shows no loadouts for 2x100kg for any Zeke variant. Unless, perhaps, there's evidence 2x100 was used?
-B5N Kate: loadouts should be 3 x 100 kg bombs, 1 x 250 kg bomb, 1 x 500 kg bomb, and of course 1 x torpedo.
-Q1W1: http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/q1w.htm says it could carry 2 x 250 kg bombs or depth charges. Do we even have depth charges in SH4?
-The "US Fighter" (a Buffalo) shouldn't even have bomb loadouts, right?
-F1M Pete: way overdone in SH4. Apparently all it could carry was 2 x 60 kg bombs.
-G4M Betty: way off again. Too many correct loadouts to list, other than to say it should carry a torpedo.
-H6K: not sure on this one
-H8K: way, way off. Corrected loadouts should include depth charges and torpedoes.
No, 2x100 instead of 2x60kg. The 250kg bomb was for kamikaze zeros, it was not used operationally as a fighter bomber with 250s.
Yeah, there are air-dropped DCs, but they are listed under their description as 450kg bombs. IN RL the air-dropped DCs were 250kg.
You are right on the F2A, no bomb shackles. If it did it would likely have been like the F4F, 2x100lb.
Yeah, the Pete is fubar, too. By a lot.
Yeah, betty has 5 bomb points in game, 4 wing, m1 center, like a fighter. It can only hold one torp, or 800kg bombs. 3x250, 1x500, 5x100, etc.
H6K holds 1000kg in RL.
H8K holds 2000kg or so. Best IJN bomber of the war, lol. Yeah, on the DCs and 2xtorpedo.
tater
No, 2x100 instead of 2x60kg. The 250kg bomb was for kamikaze zeros, it was not used operationally as a fighter bomber with 250s.
Ah, OK. I didn't realize that.
Was the SB2C ever used as a torpedo bomber? I've seen sources state it carried a torpedo, but did it ever really do any torpedo bombing? Here's to hoping an Avenger is in the works for the next patch.
nimitstexan
03-29-07, 01:44 AM
No, 2x100 instead of 2x60kg. The 250kg bomb was for kamikaze zeros, it was not used operationally as a fighter bomber with 250s.
Ah, OK. I didn't realize that.
Was the SB2C ever used as a torpedo bomber? I've seen sources state it carried a torpedo, but did it ever really do any torpedo bombing? Here's to hoping an Avenger is in the works for the next patch.
Yes, there is at least one mission I know of where the SB2Cs carried torpedo operationally. In fact, I want to say that during that same mission some TBMs were carrying bombs . . . I could be confusing things, though.
I am pretty sure the A6M2s at Philippine Sea carried 250kg bombs; irregardless, those were special dive bombing units using A6Ms because of insufficient modern dive bombers being available and were used in a select set of special circumstances; they should not carry such weapons in game. In fact, I would argue that the A6Ms in game maybe should have no loadout besides their guns. I am not aware that they were specifically used as ASW aircraft (a role normally reserved for Rufes, Vals, Petes, and Daves, and later on Kates); Zeros encountered in game would be those on CAP or reconnaisance patrols, which would have a standard loadout of an external fuel tank only.
For some of the other planes mentioned here (such as the Betty and H8K) one should be careful to remember the differences between patrol/ASW loadouts and anti-shipping loadouts. Aside from the Americans (using various specialized ASW torpedos), I believe most nations used bombs and depthcharges, rather than torpedos, on aircraft engaged in surface or ASW patrol. If nothing else, torpedos tended to be heavy (range limiting), only useful against surfaced/shallow running subs, and somewhat expensive overkill on a thin-skinned submarine.
Another SimHQ Pacific Fighters dude. Interesting who alot of us show up in this thread . . .
Sorry if I was confusing, the real Zero held 2x60kg. One under each wing. The 2x100 I suggested was to be able to give SOME load to the zekes since 100 is the min in game. The question really is one of gameplay at a certain point. I'd tend to prefer bombless zeros, and adjust the air difficulty by making more maritime patrol bombers instead of by adding bombs to fighters.
If pure fighters will strafe a sub, so much the better. I'm with you on no bombs being ideal.
As for the Betty, the only reason to give it a torpedo load in game would be if they will actually attack shipping. You could have a mission where you find yourself in the sealark channel when a bunch of them sweep in to torpedo the AKs off guadalcanal. Be fun to watch them get slaughtered---except in SH4 they'd burn, drop anyway, and fly around burning, lol.
Aha, a lot of Il-2 guys here...:cool:
Another thing that's off with just about every aircraft are their dimensions and top speeds. Using Hardball's Aircraft Viewer, I've tweaked (so far) the dimensions and top speeds (at sea level) of the Zero and Betty, with no ill effects. I don't know how much (if any) effect the dimensions make on the aircraft models, but at least the changes are there.
castorp345
03-29-07, 02:14 PM
I don't know how much (if any) effect the dimensions make on the aircraft models, but at least the changes are there.
i wonder if the dimension values affect the hit probability of the ai aa??
:hmm:
i wonder if the dimension values affect the hit probability of the ai aa??:hmm:
That's what I was thinking.
akdavis
03-29-07, 03:02 PM
No, 2x100 instead of 2x60kg. The 250kg bomb was for kamikaze zeros, it was not used operationally as a fighter bomber with 250s.
Yeah, there are air-dropped DCs, but they are listed under their description as 450kg bombs. IN RL the air-dropped DCs were 250kg.
You are right on the F2A, no bomb shackles. If it did it would likely have been like the F4F, 2x100lb.
Yeah, the Pete is fubar, too. By a lot.
Yeah, betty has 5 bomb points in game, 4 wing, m1 center, like a fighter. It can only hold one torp, or 800kg bombs. 3x250, 1x500, 5x100, etc.
H6K holds 1000kg in RL.
H8K holds 2000kg or so. Best IJN bomber of the war, lol. Yeah, on the DCs and 2xtorpedo.
tater
Regarding the F2A and SBC2, I wouldn't change their loadouts as they are essentially acting as placeholders for the correct aircraft. Certainly, I saw both B-24s and PBYs in pre-release game footage, but these are mysteriously replaced by the Lancaster in the release. I think us Il-2 folks have a pretty good idea why there are only British and defunct US manufacturer aircraft in the game as of now.
Perhaps something wasn't worked out in time for release, or maybe they are just waiting to drop them into the next patch. Regardless, I wouldn't worry too much about their accuracy at this point.
sandbag69
03-29-07, 03:16 PM
No, 2x100 instead of 2x60kg. The 250kg bomb was for kamikaze zeros, it was not used operationally as a fighter bomber with 250s.
Ah, OK. I didn't realize that.
Was the SB2C ever used as a torpedo bomber? I've seen sources state it carried a torpedo, but did it ever really do any torpedo bombing? Here's to hoping an Avenger is in the works for the next patch.
I added the Sh3 Avenger to Sh4 with no probs.
Attacks and gets shot down perfectly.
Regarding the F2A and SBC2, I wouldn't change their loadouts as they are essentially acting as placeholders for the correct aircraft. Certainly, I saw both B-24s and PBYs in pre-release game footage, but these are mysteriously replaced by the Lancaster in the release. I think us Il-2 folks have a pretty good idea why there are only British and defunct US manufacturer aircraft in the game as of now.
Perhaps something wasn't worked out in time for release, or maybe they are just waiting to drop them into the next patch. Regardless, I wouldn't worry too much about their accuracy at this point.
Well, I wasn't even thinking of the US planes as a priority, but even a a placeholder the Brewster is a little over bombed for early war, anyway. Odd that the US planes have halfway decent loads (for average US planes later in the war at least), but all the IJ aircraft are totally wrong.
It might be an error, or it might be an attempt at playbalance. Perhaps the devs are trying to encourage submerged behavior during daytime? Dunno.
akdavis
03-29-07, 04:23 PM
Regarding the F2A and SBC2, I wouldn't change their loadouts as they are essentially acting as placeholders for the correct aircraft. Certainly, I saw both B-24s and PBYs in pre-release game footage, but these are mysteriously replaced by the Lancaster in the release. I think us Il-2 folks have a pretty good idea why there are only British and defunct US manufacturer aircraft in the game as of now.
Perhaps something wasn't worked out in time for release, or maybe they are just waiting to drop them into the next patch. Regardless, I wouldn't worry too much about their accuracy at this point.
Well, I wasn't even thinking of the US planes as a priority, but even a a placeholder the Brewster is a little over bombed for early war, anyway. Odd that the US planes have halfway decent loads (for average US planes later in the war at least), but all the IJ aircraft are totally wrong. I think the loadouts are a carry over from SH3, thus they are more appropiate for US/British aircraft.
nimitstexan
03-29-07, 06:19 PM
Regarding the F2A and SBC2, I wouldn't change their loadouts as they are essentially acting as placeholders for the correct aircraft. Certainly, I saw both B-24s and PBYs in pre-release game footage, but these are mysteriously replaced by the Lancaster in the release. I think us Il-2 folks have a pretty good idea why there are only British and defunct US manufacturer aircraft in the game as of now.
I'd hope that is not a player here, since the most reliable reports implied that problem arose in Pacific Fighters due to a very specific set of circumstances; I would not think that would be a player here.
It would explain some other things, though, like the placeholder Wasp class representing all US carriers.
castorp345
03-29-07, 06:29 PM
it might be an attempt at playbalance.
that'd be my guess as there's plenty else both in sh3 and again here in sh4 that's been fudged for 'playability'...
:shifty:
Was looking at CVs fixing the air groups.
The Akitsu Maru should have NO air groups. It was a transport. PLanes flew off to island bases, they did not operate it as a CVE since it was actually an ARMY carrier. From a sub standpoint that means ZERO chance of air attack from her deck (or her sister's). Unlike the IJN CVs, she'd have embarked planes on deck, so it should be crowded with planes (aft).
tater
akdavis
03-29-07, 07:10 PM
Regarding the F2A and SBC2, I wouldn't change their loadouts as they are essentially acting as placeholders for the correct aircraft. Certainly, I saw both B-24s and PBYs in pre-release game footage, but these are mysteriously replaced by the Lancaster in the release. I think us Il-2 folks have a pretty good idea why there are only British and defunct US manufacturer aircraft in the game as of now.
I'd hope that is not a player here, since the most reliable reports implied that problem arose in Pacific Fighters due to a very specific set of circumstances; I would not think that would be a player here.
It would explain some other things, though, like the placeholder Wasp class representing all US carriers.
Oh, the US carrier being the only ship not bearing a class name is pretty much all the confirmation I need. Please note that some things have been very specifically excluded here. ;)
Barkhorn1x
03-29-07, 07:15 PM
Regarding the F2A and SBC2, I wouldn't change their loadouts as they are essentially acting as placeholders for the correct aircraft. Certainly, I saw both B-24s and PBYs in pre-release game footage, but these are mysteriously replaced by the Lancaster in the release. I think us Il-2 folks have a pretty good idea why there are only British and defunct US manufacturer aircraft in the game as of now.
I'd hope that is not a player here, since the most reliable reports implied that problem arose in Pacific Fighters due to a very specific set of circumstances; I would not think that would be a player here.
It would explain some other things, though, like the placeholder Wasp class representing all US carriers.
Oh, the US carrier being the only ship not bearing a class name is pretty much all the confirmation I need. Please note that some things have been very specifically excluded here. ;)
Quite correct!
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.