Jump To Lightspeed Archive
Thread: Bombers Controlls STINK!
Sylia wrote:
Amuro0079 wrote:
X-Wing and TIE Bomber has the same maneuverability rating of 75 DPF, the X-Wing, however, has a speed rating of 100 MGLT opposed to the 80 MGLT of the TIE Bomber. The Y-Wing should be less maneuverable than the TIE Bomber since it only has a maneuverability rating of 50 DPF.
Ship handling in JtL is pretty much messed up, oh well.
Message Edited by Amuro0079 on 12-12-2004 04:55 PM
Huh?
(Tier 3) X-Wing: 60k Resources ~100k mass [SP: 3 Guns] 1 missiles[Spdx 0.95(Foils Closed) 0.90(Foils Open) Acc 25 Dec 30 Pitch 300 Yaw 200 Roll 150]
(Tier 1) Y-Wing: 15k Resources ~150k mass [SP: 1 Gun MP:+1] 1 missile[Spdx 0.85 Acc 15 Dec 25 Pitch 80 Yaw 80 Roll 40]
Official All 6 Textures
(Tier 2) Y-Wing LP: 30k Resources ~150k mass [SP: 2 Guns] 2 missiles[Spdx 0.85 Acc 10 Dec 20 Pitch 70 Yaw 70 Roll 35]
(Tier 2) Kimogila: 30k Resources ~110k mass [SP: 3 Guns] 1 missile[Spdx 0.92 Acc 35 Dec 35 Pitch 100 Yaw 100 Roll 50]
(Tier 3) TIE-Bomber: 60k Resources ~190k mass [SP: 2 Guns] 2 missiles[Spdx 0.85 Acc 10 Dec 15 Pitch 50 Yaw 50 Roll 25]
I don't understand the numbers you list, but these are the chassis stats, and you can clearly see the Bomber is the least manueverable ship in the game.The problem is that it's P/Y/R acceleration rates are beyond the point of slow and into "uncontrollable".
In other words if your yawing right to a target it yaws very slow, that's fine. Once you get close to your target point you stop yawing, however the craft continues to yaw past your target point. You correct with a yaw left, but by the time it starts to yaw left you have to allready be ordering a yaw right or it will once again overshoot the point your trying to aim.
NOTE: the mp ships while having a lower straight line acc/dec have the same P/Y rates as the Bomber, but actually have a better roll rate. These ships are more controllable than the bomber because they have a lower P/Y/R max speed than the bomber, this has the effect of making them more "stable" and "controllable" than the bomber.
Message Edited by Sylia on 12-12-2004 02:06 PM
I'm not talking about ships statsin this game. I have no idea how the hell the devs came up with those stats, as they're so off; and theYPRs, I have never seen those used indescribing a starfighter anywhere else. The numbers IIisted, however,are what the ships'real speed and maneuverability ratings in reality (if Star Wars is reality),and they're the indicatorscommonly usedwhen describing starship handling. Those numbers can be found all over the internet as well as official sources. Get that now? If you don't believe me, do a google search on "x-wing tie bomber maneuverability rating".
Message Edited by Amuro0079 on 12-13-2004 10:00 AM
For the same reason you forgot the word "do". Dont pick on peoples spelling if your grammar isnt up to snuff. BTW if spelling was all you could pick out wrong in my statment that is all the better.
Amuro0079 wrote:
Why("do" goes here)people keep calling capital ships 'capitol' ships?
MadcowwithSARS wrote:
For the same reason you forgot the word "do". Dont pick on peoples spelling if your grammar isnt up to snuff. BTW if spelling was all you could pick out wrong in my statment that is all the better.
Amuro0079 wrote:
Why("do" goes here)people keep calling capital ships 'capitol' ships?
The 'do' here is optional in informal conversation, got that?
And I don't think it's spelling. The 'a' in capital and the 'o' in capitol, are so far a part on the keyboard, so don't tell me it's a typo. It's a conceptual mistake people make,not just you.
MadcowwithSARS wrote:
For the same reason you forgot the word "do". Dont pick on peoples spelling if your grammar isnt up to snuff. BTW if spelling was all you could pick out wrong in my statment that is all the better.
Amuro0079 wrote:
Why("do" goes here)people keep calling capital ships 'capitol' ships?
The 'do' here is optional in informal conversation, got that?
And I don't think it's spelling. The 'a' in capital and the 'o' in capitol, are so far a part on the keyboard, so don't tell me it's a typo. It's a conceptual mistake people make,not just you.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
I'm sorry, but I found this funny enough to comment on. (Yes, I know, I'm ending a sentence with a preposition.) Informal conversation or not, I do believe the "do" is required simply to keep from souding like an ignoramus. Additionally, if this is an informal conversation, then the point you are trying to make about the homonyms "capital" and "capitol" being more than a spelling error, but a misuse of the appropriate word is moot. If the conversation is informal and spelling and grammar don't count, then it's all about conveying the message, which I'm sure everyone gets.
W-Axl wrote:
MadcowwithSARS wrote:
For the same reason you forgot the word "do". Dont pick on peoples spelling if your grammar isnt up to snuff. BTW if spelling was all you could pick out wrong in my statment that is all the better.
Amuro0079 wrote:
Why("do" goes here)people keep calling capital ships 'capitol' ships?
The 'do' here is optional in informal conversation, got that?
And I don't think it's spelling. The 'a' in capital and the 'o' in capitol, are so far a part on the keyboard, so don't tell me it's a typo. It's a conceptual mistake people make,not just you.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
I'm sorry, but I found this funny enough to comment on. (Yes, I know, I'm ending a sentence with a preposition.) Informal conversation or not, I do believe the "do" is required simply to keep from souding like an ignoramus. Additionally, if this is an informal conversation, then the point you are trying to make about the homonyms "capital" and "capitol" being more than a spelling error, but a misuse of the appropriate word is moot. If the conversation is informal and spelling and grammar don't count, then it's all about conveying the message, which I'm sure everyone gets.
But the thing is 'capital' and 'capitol' have entirely different meaning. It's not so muchof a spelling error than it is a semantic one.
And FYI, 'do' is indeed optional sometimes in a question; just like instad of of saying 'why are you doing this?', 'why you're doing this?' is also ok during a conversation. The usage part of a dictionary explains it all.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
W-Axl wrote:
I'm sorry, but I found this funny enough to comment on. (Yes, I know, I'm ending a sentence with a preposition.) Informal conversation or not, I do believe the "do" is required simply to keep from souding like an ignoramus. Additionally, if this is an informal conversation, then the point you are trying to make about the homonyms "capital" and "capitol" being more than a spelling error, but a misuse of the appropriate word is moot. If the conversation is informal and spelling and grammar don't count, then it's all about conveying the message, which I'm sure everyone gets.
Amuro0079 wrote:
But the thing is 'capital' and 'capitol' have entirely different meaning. It's not so muchof a spelling error than it is a semantic one.
And FYI, 'do' is indeed optional sometimes in a question; just like instad of of saying 'why are you doing this?', 'why you're doing this?' is also ok during a conversation. The usage part of a dictionary explains it all.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
...and I take the bait...
I understand the point you are making with the semantic error of "capital" and "capitol". I was just saying the semantics are a moot point if everyone can
infer the appropriate meaning of what the poster was trying to say. By the way, in you're example:
'why are you doing this?', 'why you're doing this?'
A form of the word "do" is in both. All you did was take the words "are you" and turn them into a contraction "you're"-meaning you are. So the second example
(if it were not a contraction) would read, "why you are doing this?"...also containg a form of the word "do" while being grammatically incorrect. Anyway, sorry all
for hi-jacking this thread.
Message Edited by Amuro0079 on 12-13-2004 03:10 PM
That and if a target is a bit far out and I'm with a group, I tend to arrive when the party is over.A better comparison than the B17 would be either the Stuka or the Dauntless I guess, defnitely a subpar craft for what they were up against.
Sylia wrote:
I simply don't understand this comparison whatsoever, if anything you're torpedoing your own views.
Anyone care to tell me how many anti-aircraft gun turrets B-17's carried? Bomber crews shot down plenty of fighters.
Anyone care to show me the massive ordinance that can be loaded on a TIE Bomber that can't be loaded on a fighter? (excluding master level equip)
Anyone care to show me the cities and facilities the TIE Bomber is supposed to be used to bomb?
Quite often Bombers do fly solo missions, and missions with no fighter cover.
Even the B-52 was designed with a tail gun, and though it was phased out it still maintains some anti-aircraft capabilities.
In this game 99% of the targetsare fighters, and your better off with a fast fighter even against the 1% of cap ship targets.
Not only that but at least the Storm squad missions easily 60% or more of the fighters are A-wings.
It's cool to have a TIE Bomber, though it's currently useless operationally.