Let's do some basic arithmetic. Imagine a spherical area containing N planes. Each plane can see N-1 planes. Therefore, there are N*(N-1) position updates necessary to support the sphere of planes.
I suspect the number N*(N-1) controls the costs of maintaining a furball arena (or an area artifically constrained to consist of nothing but furballs.)
Now, let's look at this furball arena/area. What's going to happen? Will you have 4 or 5 furballs distributed across the area? Nope, furballs being what they are, will have a tendency to move to a central location (within the confined area.) In other words, there will be one large furball.
In my very limited way of thinking, something like this would be unworkable with WW1 planes. You would have too many planes in an area with too few leaving the area.
With WW2 planes, the situation is somewhat better. However, if you have a large group of early planes, say 109E4s, F4Fs, A6M2s and so on, it's going to aggravate the situation.
With the network code necessary to support the type of activity associated with aerial combat, basic calcuations convince me that approximately 100 early war (ww2) planes operating in a confined area will totally saturate a T1. In other words, is a furball area economically feasible if we require minimal warping?
Furthermore, it's just not that damn simple. The type of mentality (not an insult) associated with furballs guarantees that it will move to a base. Vulching will become an enormous problem. I suppose guns could be disabled in a spherical area about each airfield ... like I said, it's not as simple as you guys are proposing.
Now, I imagine Hitech knows the answer to these questions and I would like to hear his response to 1) Suppose you have N slow moving (200mph or less) airplanes in a confined area. Is a furball area economically feasible? How large can N be if we require minimal warping? And 2), how will the vulching problem be resolved?
curly
