Author Topic: The problem with longer runways  (Read 190 times)

Offline flakbait

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
      • http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6
The problem with longer runways
« on: October 08, 2001, 01:32:00 PM »
HTC can't add in runways that are much longer than current ones due to the terrain editor. If a runway crosses the grid reference lines you get the bumpy runway bug. Plus there's a good chance every landing would end up resulting in a ditch. So, in order for longer runways to work, HTC needs to make the TE grids variable in size. That way they can throw on runways any length they need. Instead of the current TE texture grids that are fixed, they could code in a variable which would allow them to set the desired grid size. Better yet, they could make certain grids bigger by giving the option to remove several small grid squares. In effect, making one large grid square.

Another idea is this. Texture mode would leave the grids their current size, but object mode would double the grid size. Terrains could only be compiled in object mode, thus preserving the larger object grids. Since the larger grids give more area, you could create runways double the current length. No more running out of room in a B-17, or leaving skid marks for 10 miles in a Lanc. Plus, you wouldn't hit anymore trees. I'd propose that Forward fields have a 15% increase in runway length, Medium fields get 20% more, and Large fields get 30% more. Confine heavy bombers to medium or large fields, while medium and light bombers could be had anywhere.

Thoughts?


-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think my maker wants to hear from me right now. I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond

 

Offline sling322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3510
The problem with longer runways
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2001, 01:40:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by flakbait:
Confine heavy bombers to medium or large fields, while medium and light bombers could be had anywhere.

Thoughts?


-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think my maker wants to hear from me right now. I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond

  (Image removed from quote.)

While I understand the call for longer runways, I am against the idea of limiting bombers from any fields.  If you do it right, you can take a bomber off of any field....and I am gonna shoot a film to Skurj tonite to prove it.   :D

Offline jpeg

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 441
      • http://www.steveo.us
The problem with longer runways
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2001, 04:28:00 PM »
I think the answer is a simple one which has already been brought up:
Chop the trees down in front of the runways.

I read here or online that this will be done in next patch (dont know if that is true or not)

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: jpeg ]

Offline DanielMcIntyre

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
      • http://None as yet
The problem with longer runways
« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2001, 05:53:00 AM »
Think limiting larger buffs to medium and large fields is an interesting idea.  Would mean different size fields would have a strategic impact on the game.  A large field would be more desireable to capture then a smaller field.  At the moment field size is kinda inconsequential except for a couple of extra acks.

Offline MadBirdCZ

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
      • http://home.worldonline.cz/~cz088436/
The problem with longer runways
« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2001, 06:57:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zygote:
Think limiting larger buffs to medium and large fields is an interesting idea.  Would mean different size fields would have a strategic impact on the game.  A large field would be more desireable to capture then a smaller field.  At the moment field size is kinda inconsequential except for a couple of extra acks.

I agree... Seeing Lanc taking off a small field seems odd anyway...

Offline BlauK

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5091
      • http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/
The problem with longer runways
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2001, 07:31:00 AM »
I can understand that N-S or E-W (vertical and horizontal on map) directions for runways can be limited by the "grid" (??  :) )

...but howabout extending the diagonal runways on medium and large fields to max length??? They could be 1.4 times the length of the small runway!!! The layout would have to be changed though.

This would also make the med and large fields natural (better) takeoff fields for large buffs without excluding them from small fields.


  BlauKreuz - Lentolaivue 34      


Offline Kratzer

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
      • http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/
The problem with longer runways
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2001, 09:33:00 AM »
Throttle those buffs up and drop a notch of flaps (or 2 or 3 in a lanc) when you are about 3/4 of the way down the runway, and they should take themselves off... just keep off the elevators, and you shouldn't have much trouble.

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
The problem with longer runways
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2001, 11:03:00 AM »
i think the NE-SW runway on large fields is longer and patch 2 had the seebee's cut down the trees