Author Topic: Low level flying?  (Read 1856 times)

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Low level flying?
« on: August 22, 2000, 12:22:00 PM »
As the squad gets together to do some base busting more and more often.. we've discovered a few things in regards to the C47.

Mainly, it is virtually impossible to defend a low-flying C-47.  Everything has to go just right to pull this off.  The problem is.. even a C-47 100 ft off the deck is visible from 5 miles away via the "black dot".  Anyone even remotely expecting a C47 will be looking for it.  I know I do when defending a base.

We've found it much easier to bring the C47 up with the bombers and protect the whole group.  As the bombers do their thing.. the C47 decends and captures the field.  We are carefull not to exploit the invisible troop bug... tho we are more than happy to exploit the "Destroy the whole fricking base to prevent launching" bug

The advantages gained by the low-level flying are taken away by the enemy-status bar and by the black dot.  It takes something away from the game in my oppinion.

What would I change?  Any aircraft under 500 feet would be invisible to dar and the enemy-status indicator for that sector (at the very least).  Change the black dot for low aircraft (below 500 feet) to the aircraft color.  It can still be a dot.. just silver for the shiny birds... green for the camo ones... and blue for the really cool ones.

AKDejaVu

funked

  • Guest
Low level flying?
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2000, 12:38:00 PM »
I agree.  Also I would like some terrain masking for the radar.  I think right now the radar visibility is based on AGL altitude.  It would be cool if line-of-sight were a requirement for the radar to detect a plane.

Offline Zigrat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
Low level flying?
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2000, 12:50:00 PM »
too much strain on the host funked.

LOS would be processor intensive to impliment (why do you think janes FA-18 is so slow?)

funked

  • Guest
Low level flying?
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2000, 01:36:00 PM »
Those calcs wouldn't have to be done on the host Zig.

You are generally only in the range of one emitter at a time, and because the emitters are stationary and the terrain is static, HTC can do all the LOS calcs offline to determine regions of blindness for each emitter.  

So then all the FE has to do is compare your current position to the blindness regions for the nearest emitter(s) to see if you are getting painted are not.  

This doesn't need be done every clock cycle obviously.  Nor does the spatial resolution of the blindness regions need to be very high - they could be a combination of rectangular prisms, which makes the algorithm very simple.

And don't forget that LOS determinations are already being done by the graphics engine.  There is almost certainly a way to adapt that algorithm to this purpose.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 08-22-2000).]

Offline snafu

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
      • http://www.btinternet.com/~snaffers
Low level flying?
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2000, 01:51:00 PM »
I really like this idea, All of it  

TTFN
snafu

Offline sourkraut

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 329
      • http://www.riverrunne.com
Low level flying?
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2000, 04:06:00 PM »
I like the idea of the plane color being used for the dot color. This would simulate (at a rudimentary level) the effects of plane camo on various backgrounds. I think low flying aircraft should also have ranges of visible dots further reduced.\

Radar masking by land masses (eg hills/ mountains) should be simulated. Also should be able to go under high field Radar by going  through valleys. Radar should be unmasked LOS.

I still think that the enemy activity bar is required. I would suggest that it have some sort of delay for updates to simulate observation/reporting time. I dont like having the bar update immediately upon a con crossing into a sector.

Ground vehicle dot ranges for non-moving vehicles is fine right now. I think that moving vehicles should have dot range increased. This would simulate the kicking up of dust and obervers detecting "noise" generated by engines under load.

I think all of these could be simply modeled and contribute to better gameplay. Just my two cents worth....

Thanks
 

------------------
Sour
JG-2 Richthofen

"Hey - someone has to be the target...."

 

[This message has been edited by sourkraut (edited 08-22-2000).]

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
Low level flying?
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2000, 04:40:00 PM »
Lisunov Li-2G

Soviet built DC-3 with dorsal turret and side mg's. Just add mg to c-47 and modify engine nacelles.

Offline Vulcan

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9853
Low level flying?
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2000, 05:35:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Staga:
Lisunov Li-2G

Soviet built DC-3 with dorsal turret and side mg's. Just add mg to c-47 and modify engine nacelles.

Ahh when did the infamous 'Puff' become operational? Mebbe we could get one of those 8-)


Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
Low level flying?
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2000, 06:00:00 PM »
I tryed to find those years but didn't find them.
Civil versions came late thirties (-39?)  but I'm not sure when G-model came.

Lisunov Li-2 in Poland

[cut]
Lisunov Li-2:  Russian licence-built version (of C-47).
PS-84:  First version with M-62 radials  
Li-2G:  Shvestov ASh-62 radials, armed with turreted armament, freighter version
Li-2P:  Same as Li-2G but Personnel transport  
Li-2PG  Same as Li-2G but convertible model  
Li-2V:  Same as Li-2G but high altitude model  




[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 08-22-2000).]

Offline Citabria

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5149
Low level flying?
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2000, 07:01:00 PM »
just make the friggin dots transparent grey

problem is the dots are too easy to see...

vis aquizition at 9 miles is a sure thing in AH thanks to the dots.


btw if HTC is so inclined they could model a japanese version of the c47... it was armed  



[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 08-22-2000).]
Fester was my in game name until September 2013

Offline milnko

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 995
      • http://www.cameltoe.org
Low level flying?
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2000, 07:13:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Any aircraft under 500 feet would be invisible to dar and the enemy-status indicator for that sector (at the very least)

I agree!

IN FACT Slim Pickins said it best:
Radar  

 


------------------
CyberPilots have bigger Joysticks
BANDITS ON MY SIX!!!!

<< MILENKO >>
ACES HIGH ASSASSINS Website
WB/AH ASSASSINS Website

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Low level flying?
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2000, 08:27:00 PM »
Dang Milnko.. now I'm going to have to break out Dr. Strange and watch it this weekend

Thanks for the .wave

AKDejaVu

Offline Jochen

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 188
      • http://www.jannousiainen.net
Low level flying?
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2000, 03:39:00 AM »
Somehow far away C-47 is much more easier to see before it enters icon range and it blends to ground. I have many times tracked low dot I knew was a C-47 only to lose sight to it when it comes to icon range.

Cannot be right?

------------------
jochen
Jagdflieger JG 2 'Richthofen' Aces High
Geschwaderkommodore (on leave) Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen'  Warbirds

Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people?

Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief
Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight
Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free
But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski

Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.

Sieg oder bolsevismus!

funked

  • Guest
Low level flying?
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2000, 08:22:00 AM »
Nice Milenko!  I love to get on RW and say those lines when flying on a low-level raid.  



------------------
Major Mike "FunkedUp" Waltz
Officer Commanding, 308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
Northolt Wing (1st Polish Fighter Wing)
Goldie, how many times have I told you guys that I don't want no horsing around on the airplane... Now let's get this thing on the hump -- we got some flyin' to do!

Offline milnko

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 995
      • http://www.cameltoe.org
Low level flying?
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2000, 09:47:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by funked:
Goldie, how many times have I told you guys that I don't want no horsing around on the airplane...

And the tailend of that Slim Pickens quote is...I've been to a Rodeo,

Just in case ur wondering, I got that ASUS V7700 Geforce2 GTS video card last weekend, it has video in/out, so I made some short Dr.Strangelove clips, they are kinda big so I haven't uploaded em, but I did strip the Audio and uplinked those, here is MY Personal ALL TIME Favorite audio clip from that movie by George C Scott: depending on the breaks

And then theres this clip from Heavy Metal The Movie

Working on some more AH movies, when I get em compiled, and small enough without quality suffering greatly I'll post the links, as a teaser here my first AH movie:  Intro One

 

------------------
CyberPilots have bigger Joysticks
BANDITS ON MY SIX!!!!

<< MILENKO >>
ACES HIGH ASSASSINS Website
WB/AH ASSASSINS Website