Author Topic: Snowflake  (Read 1821 times)

Offline Esme

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 318
Snowflake
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2003, 02:04:40 PM »
Wolfgang.. the reason is also clearly stated in one of my earlier posts above.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Aces High is supposed to provide us with reasonably realistic simulations of flight models for WW2 planes, yes?  Well, those planes were designed to fly from airfields most of which were under 1000ft above sea level (ASL), never mind 6000 or more!  

The atmosphere a couple of miles/three kilometres up is greatly different to that nearer sea-level. Colder, less dense, lower pressure - all of which affects both the amount of power which can be generated by a piston engine and the amount of lift generated by a wing up there as against down here.

Now, OK, so the MA isn't ever likely to be anything other than walloping each other with simulated WW2 weaponary (rather than a good simulation of WW2 combat - for that you need good organised scenario games), BUT - think about game balance. Fighters have higher performance than bombers in the first place, and so can more easily take off from high altitude than bombers can. The MA has classically been fighter-bomber heaven and a pretty pointless place to fly bombers bar once in a blue moon for a number of reasons - the more fields at ridiculously high elevation that a terrain has, the greater the advantage given to fighters.   The bombers - if they can take off at all - cant climb much higher, and the fighters dont have to claw their way up to them if they do manage to survive to get up to 25 or 30,000ft.

In a nutshell, putting in very high altitude fields just exacerbates fighter dweebery, and makes anything else even more pointless.
Isn't it about time we got away from that at least a little? If terrains can be designed so as to encourage more GV action and more bomber action, thus giving us all more variety, isn't that a good thing?

Esme

PS: "6K isnt even that high" - in relation to what? What's the altitude of the highest airfield you can find in the real world? (It's in S America, IIRC) What are the retrictions placed on aircraft visiting that field, and why?  6K isn't all that high to FLY (although 1930's airliners often flew at about half that altitude - no cabin pressurisation), but it's damned high to TAKE OFF from!
« Last Edit: January 05, 2003, 02:11:01 PM by Esme »

Offline Wlfgng

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5252
      • http://www.nick-tucker.com
Snowflake
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2003, 04:39:27 PM »
we have three fields over 6k that are serviced by United and are mostly private planes.  pipers, gliders, jets, etc..

it's usually much cooler up here (20deg or cooler) than nearby lowlands so it's easier for them to take off loaded.
On very hot days they do limit takeoffs however.

oh.. and there's a Corsair pilot that drops in now and again.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/ASE

Offline Wlfgng

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5252
      • http://www.nick-tucker.com
Snowflake
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2003, 04:40:44 PM »
thanks for the info though.  HT's point about loaded bombers is well taken.

Offline Kevin14

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
Snowflake
« Reply #33 on: January 06, 2003, 07:03:46 PM »
In the next TE couldn't there be a type of field for bombers only that had extra long runways and no FHs?

Offline Bullethead

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1018
      • http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller
Snowflake
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2003, 08:50:32 PM »
Kevin14 said:
Quote
In the next TE couldn't there be a type of field for bombers only that had extra long runways and no FHs?


No need.  You can build one yourself--you're not limited to the pre-defined field groups.  All the pieces to build fields are included as individual objects.  So just put them down in the configuration you want and save it as your own custom shape group, so you can then plunk down the whole lot just like one of the included airfields.

But you'd have to be very careful with extra-long runways because objects can't be on or cross grid lines.  So to make a runway longer than those currently available (some of which are longer than 1 mile and only fit inside a grid square at an angle), you'd have to use 2 runway objects very carefully placed so the grid line was on the seam between them.

Offline Kevin14

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
Snowflake
« Reply #35 on: January 07, 2003, 07:38:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bullethead
Kevin14 said:
 

No need.  You can build one yourself--you're not limited to the pre-defined field groups.  All the pieces to build fields are included as individual objects.  So just put them down in the configuration you want and save it as your own custom shape group, so you can then plunk down the whole lot just like one of the included airfields.

But you'd have to be very careful with extra-long runways because objects can't be on or cross grid lines.  So to make a runway longer than those currently available (some of which are longer than 1 mile and only fit inside a grid square at an angle), you'd have to use 2 runway objects very carefully placed so the grid line was on the seam between them.


Gatso why not trying this?

Offline Esme

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 318
Snowflake
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2003, 01:33:18 PM »
Regarding high-alt airfields (for the last time)..
1. A Corsair is a fighter, not a bomber
2. Light aircraft are just that - light. Bit different to fully laden Lancasters, eh?

Regarding Kevin14s query about longer runways... I'd love to see more variety in airfields, particularly I'd like to see some well-camouflaged ones (which were common), and aye, some larger ones for large buffs trying to take off in overload condition. I'm curious as to why you'd like to see 'em, Kevin... not because you are thinking they'll make high-alt takeoffs easier for buffs, I hope? (They would in those cases where the terrain off the end of runways cant sensibly be taken off from, but as pointed out earlier, high-alt fields help fighters a darned sight more than they help buffs, overall. A point I havent made earlier is that if a buff is to attack one of those high alt fields outsuide of light flak range, it has to climb even higher than it would over a sea-level base. yet another disadvantage for buffs).

Esme :-}

Offline Dux

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7333
Snowflake
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2003, 02:20:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bullethead
...use 2 runway objects very carefully placed so the grid line was on the seam between them.



I did this on a test map several months ago (just to see if it could be done) and it works very nicely. It makes getting a formation of Arados into the air a whole lot easier!

As far as strat goes, they were still just two separate abutting fields. I'm sure someone who knows what they're doing can turn them into one big field.
Rogue Squadron, CO
5th AF, FSO Squadron, Member

We all have a blind date with Destiny... and it looks like she's ordered the lobster.

Offline Kevin14

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
Snowflake
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2003, 06:17:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Esme
Regarding high-alt airfields (for the last time)..
1. A Corsair is a fighter, not a bomber
2. Light aircraft are just that - light. Bit different to fully laden Lancasters, eh?

Regarding Kevin14s query about longer runways... I'd love to see more variety in airfields, particularly I'd like to see some well-camouflaged ones (which were common), and aye, some larger ones for large buffs trying to take off in overload condition. I'm curious as to why you'd like to see 'em, Kevin... not because you are thinking they'll make high-alt takeoffs easier for buffs, I hope? (They would in those cases where the terrain off the end of runways cant sensibly be taken off from, but as pointed out earlier, high-alt fields help fighters a darned sight more than they help buffs, overall. A point I havent made earlier is that if a buff is to attack one of those high alt fields outsuide of light flak range, it has to climb even higher than it would over a sea-level base. yet another disadvantage for buffs).

Esme :-}


Well thats not my main arguement, just an idea, but as far as I can see making fields for bombers only could help a great deal.

Offline Exile

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2045
      • http://www.simladder.com/
Snowflake
« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2003, 07:51:16 AM »
This map shows alot of promise.

How are things coming along?

Offline gatso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1279
Snowflake
« Reply #40 on: January 26, 2003, 11:07:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Exile
This map shows alot of promise.

How are things coming along?


Nice to have a vote of confidence :) Check back in say... oh I dunno...

2 Weeks

;)

Gatso

Offline gatso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1279
Snowflake
« Reply #41 on: March 11, 2003, 03:17:33 PM »
OK... 2 months maybe  ;) Factories next followed by roads & convoys :) Then it's just cosmetic stuff :)

Gatso

Offline fffreeze220

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1033
Snowflake
« Reply #42 on: March 14, 2003, 02:49:51 AM »
and then u host a H2H or will we get a fair chance to see it in the MA ? :):D

(crossing fingers)
Freeze