Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on March 11, 2012, 04:24:26 PM
-
So long as the mission altitudes remain artificially high. I will no longer be taking part in any more FSO's.
Call it a rant. A whine or whatever you want. but the fact remains that these missions continue to be flown at altitudes they werent historically flown at according to 8th airforce records which show that missions during this time period for the targets attacked ranged from a low of 9,000 ft to a maximum high of 25,000 feet. with the average altitude being at around 20K Not 26-30,000 feet of which I encountered in the event
The unrealistic and un historical altitude limits only serve benefit of the allied side.
If we re going to do historical recreations. then Im all for it.
But if we are going continue to allow altitudes that only work to the advantage of one side and werent historically used and provide unfair advantage to one side. Then Im not interested.
I participate in FSO to have fun and recreate historical battles. Not to plod along like a drunken toddler struggling just to maintain a similar even if not equal altitude with that of my targets/opponents while they just zoom me at will.
http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/crews/crews1/musser.htm
http://www.8thairforce.com/44thbg/search/legacy.asp?perIdentification=19685
http://www.8thairforce.com/44thbg/search/legacy.asp?perIdentification=20498
http://www.303rdbg.com/missionreports/080.pdf
http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55
-
Maximum altitude for bombers in this FSO was set at 25K. I cant speak for the bomber groups in the south, but in the north our squads were at 24K to 25K... the whole time.
As for the links you provided... there is one instance mentioned of a bombing altitude of 9K as follows:
Mission No. 5. 16 November 1943. M-536.
Target: Kellar, Norway where there was an ore mine, which produced important quantities of manganese, plus an aircraft repair plant.
Bomb load 12 500 demos. Bomb altitude 9,000 feet. Lowest yet. Temperate at alt. -10C.
We took off before dawn and for some reason didn't get our formation together, so our pilot, 2nd Lt. K. G. Jewell, decided to go along. I almost had a fit. Then, about 100 miles off the English Coast, we caught up with a formation of 12 planes. On the Norwegian Coast, we picked up 11 more planes. We never met any fighter opposition. The primary target was closed in by clouds, so we went to the secondary, which was a power installation, bombing it at 9,000 ft. on the second run. Good results were observed. There was no flak whatsoever. We broke formation after bombing and headed for home alone. Our gas supply was low and we had to sweat it out. The navigator, with the help of our radioman, did a beautiful piece of navigation. We hit the field dead center on the ETA under an 800 foot overcast. The pilot and crew were congratulated by General Johnson and Col. Dent. Tomorrow we go on a four-day pass.
The way it reads... this was unusual to bomb this low. And, from the mission report they encountered no enemy fighters. I would guess that this was expected, and one of the reasons the altitude was allowed to be so low.
In another instance mentioned in your links... bomb altitude was 29K...
TARGET: WILHELMSHAVEN, GERMANY--(-44 DEGREES)--HEAVY OVERCAST--FLAK TRAILING FIRE AND CONTINUOUS POINTING--GOOD ESCORT--SOME ENEMY AIRCRAFT--BOMBED SUBMARINE PENS AND CITY--BOMBED AT 29000 FEET--BENDS IN LEFT SHOULDER--VERY HEAVY ENGINE CONTRAILS--VERY LONG TRIP;
This would also most likely be an extreme as well. The pilot noted he had "bends" in his left shoulder. And from other found resources, it has been noted that at 30K... the guns on the B-17 had a tendency to freeze up.
My point is... that the mission altitudes for heavy bombers had a wide range... and 25K was not uncommon at all in an attempt to get as high as possible to reduce the effectiveness of the opposing fighters. AAF planners were aware of the inaccuracy of bombing at high altitude... which is why such large numbers of bombers were went to destroy single targets as noted here:
from: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/October%202008/1008daylight.aspx
The planners were not misled by pickle barrel assumptions. According to data from training and practice bombing, a heavy bomber at 20,000 feet had a 1.2 percent probability of hitting a 100-foot-square target. About 220 bombers would be required for 90 percent probability of destroying the target. AWPD-1 forecast a need for 251 combat groups to carry out the plan.
Most of the instances which note altitude in the links you provided indicate many missions were at 22K, 23K, & 25K... and yes... some were at altitudes of 18K - 20K as well.
Again... my point is that 25K is not an unrealistic or non-historical bombing altitude at all. And when you compare the stats for each side...
Luftwaffe stats:
Pilots: 168
Kills: 113
Assists: 64
USAAF stats:
Pilots: 185
Kills: 118
Assists: 117
... I think the Axis did just fine.
-
I have to agree with AKP on this one DEADIOCK concerning bombing alt's. as far as the "real" war time missions were flown. And as the AAR's AKP posted indicate altitudes were adjusted based on the target type, location and threat. I don't have any references I can post here but if the target were an industrial center (meaning large target). And its late 43' (meaning the Luftwaffe is at good strength as compared to later on). And the targets are deeper inside Germany. Then any "real" ALLIED planner of the time would have sent in his AC as high as possible knowing the Luftwaffe AC shortcomings.
Having had some long conversations with 2 "real" aces from the 325th FG operating out of Italy at the time (44'). They both stated that during bomber escort missions the "AXIS" attacked them using the following tactics. NOTE - AXIS because they were dealing with German, some Italian pilots, Romanian squadron's.
109's would come up and stage with very little fuel load to make themselves as light and maneuverable as possible.
They also believed that they only carried enough ammo for one pass to further lighten the 109's.
The would position themselves ahead of the bombers and higher at 5-7K
They would make only 1 slashing attack through the front or frontal flanks of the bombers and continue down to the ground and back to their bases
Because of the mission ranges and durations every often the same AXIS squadrons would attack the bombers coming in, land and rearm /refuel and then position themselves for "one" outbound slashing attack
This AXIS tactic lead in a small part to the ALLIED pilots and squadrons turning and chasing them to the ground to finish them or CAP their bases as they could.
These 2 surviving aces of the 325th FG also stated they hardly ever returned with the bombers. They mostly chased the 109's down to the ground and finished them when they could.
So if you want to recommend changes to the FSO scenario then you should think about how to replicate what some of the AXIS squadrons did in real life. In this case the designers would have to allow multiple AXIS air spawns, limit AXIS AC to 25%, let the AXIS planes spawn in and where they want as they want, Any AXIS planes that can land would be able to rearm / refuel and then re air spawn in where and when they want until frame end.
As for the FSO. This is a game and we're not battlefield reinactors. At least I'm not I can tell you. I just want to enjoy myself on a Friday night. As the CM's have stated many times before as well. The FSO is a game and meant to have fun with just a little mix of realism so that we can all connect to the WWII battlefields and major engagements. Every FSO scenario should allow either side a "fair" chance to win. Regardless of the "real" life battle outcome.
DEADIOCK I would hope you would continue to fly. Your a good pilot and part of a good squad.
Personally: I think the AXIS CIC's are taking the wrong approach to winning this scenario. Instead of staying and fighting until your dead. Use what the AXIS really did. Make "a" slashing attack, get your kills and then quickly land and tower out. I suspect if the AXIS did this we on the ALLIED side would lose in points. But this is just my opinion here.
-
His name is Drediock.
I think that slashing attacks would be successful however having to climb to 30K is a chore. I'd love to go over 350 level, but we were in 110s...both frames. Woohoo, lots of opportunities to do "high speed slashing attacks" in 110s.
-
Drediock my apologizes for miss spelling your name sir. :salute
-
Personally: I think the AXIS CIC's are taking the wrong approach to winning this scenario. Instead of staying and fighting until your dead. Use what the AXIS really did. Make "a" slashing attack, get your kills and then quickly land and tower out. I suspect if the AXIS did this we on the ALLIED side would lose in points. But this is just my opinion here.
I agree...
I think that slashing attacks would be successful however having to climb to 30K is a chore.
And again... I agree.
I'd love to go over 350 level, but we were in 110s...both frames. Woohoo, lots of opportunities to do "high speed slashing attacks" in 110s.
But even though the 110's are pushing their max speed at about 22K and 360mph, and at 30K they struggle to do 340... they are faster than the bombers. Max speed on the B-17 at just over 300 fully loaded at 30K... and about 285 - 290 at 25K. The B-24 is even slower. The problem are the allied escorts. The P-47 & P-38 both outperform the German defenders at these altitudes.
So... the best tactic for the axis would be to hit the bombers... ignore the fighters if possible... get as many kills as they can and land as soon as possible. Thereby limiting their exposure to allied fighters and limiting their losses. Again though... the allied fighters are their problem. They arent just going to let them hit the bombers and get away. After re-reading the original post, and thinking about this some more... I think I understand Drediock's frustration. It's not with the heavies... those can be caught and killed. Its the escorts that can run circles around them at that altitude. Unfortunately... that is historical.
Personally... (and I am surprised no one has mentioned it) I think the thing that may have hurt the Axis more than anything this frame was their inability to see the buffs shooting at them due to the "bomber-tracer" bug. Their losses may have been a lot lower had they been able to avoid the bullet streams better. Some of the top killers on the Allied side this frame were bomber pilots. How often does that happen?
-
I came across the first group of bomber at 28k not 25, as for realism only two bombs were dropped at such altitude and both were dropped on japan. most bomber missions were between 19 k to 23 k (info came from 8th air force diary which has every 8th mission and bda reports) to be realistic. Whe you have a 30k fighter cap which did fly over 30k the bomber should not be at 27 to 29k alt. Before anyone says this is just sour grapes it is not, I enjoy FSO and even enjoy being killed in a fight and do not post complaints but if were going to call it realism lets try to be real, or this might as well be in the MA
-
I came across the first group of bomber at 28k not 25, as for realism only two bombs were dropped at such altitude and both were dropped on japan. most bomber missions were between 19 k to 23 k (info came from 8th air force diary which has every 8th mission and bda reports) to be realistic. Whe you have a 30k fighter cap which did fly over 30k the bomber should not be at 27 to 29k alt. Before anyone says this is just sour grapes it is not, I enjoy FSO and even enjoy being killed in a fight and do not post complaints but if were going to call it realism lets try to be real, or this might as well be in the MA
Both of the below entries came from the 1st link that the original poster provided... and both are 28K and higher. Of the 14 entries in this particular log, only two others list an altitude (12K). The other links list altitudes ranging all over the place.
SUNDAY, JANUARY 30, 1944 TARGET: BRUNSWICK, GERMANY--6 HOURS--(-40 DEGREES)--MEDIUM FLAK--HEAVY OVERCAST--GOOD ESCORT-- CONTRAILS VERY HEAVY, HAZARDOUS FLYING CONDITIONS--BOMBED AT 28000 FEET--DEVELOPED BENDS IN SHOULDER--BOMBED AN AIRCRAFT ENGINE PLANT.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1944 TARGET: WILHELMSHAVEN, GERMANY--(-44 DEGREES)--HEAVY OVERCAST--FLAK TRAILING FIRE AND CONTINUOUS POINTING--GOOD ESCORT--SOME ENEMY AIRCRAFT--BOMBED SUBMARINE PENS AND CITY--BOMBED AT 29000 FEET--BENDS IN LEFT SHOULDER--VERY HEAVY ENGINE CONTRAILS--VERY LONG TRIP;
As for encountering bombers at 28K in this frame, if that is where you met them, they were outside of their allowed altitude. They should have been no higher than 25K per CM rules. Would be no different than the axis crossing the "no fly line". Its a rules violation... albeit a hard rule to enforce.
Just to point out... I have no issue with being in bombers at 25K or 15K if that is what we are restricted to by the rules, or restricted to by the aircraft capabilities and/or the mission requirements. I am not arguing against a lower mission altitude... I am simply arguing that altitudes of 25K were not that uncommon or unrealistic.
-
Its not a hard rule to enforce. If you guys see bombers above the max alt film it using "alt-r" then send it along to the FSO Team. Violations will be noted and we will take action. If anybody has film of frame 1 or 2 bombers above 25k I would like to see it my email is glbold@telus.net
-
Is it historical accurate for Germany fighter outnumber the allied fighter escort? Not trying to flame on the issue, i understand the frustration. It is hard to bring all aspect of historic event of the air combat into AH. I recall flying A6M2 in an early war PTO where we had to take out the B-17G. How far is that to have a late war B-17 in an early historical war battle? Same with the Ju-88s in BoB.
I asked the CM of having 100 or so AI AC for each sides to make things interesting.
-
IMHO, if Aces High modeled high-altitude level bombing such that accuracy declined as altitude increased (as in real life), then this would be less of an issue.
Drediock, as for what constitutes "historical" bombing altitudes, just a small selection from the 303rd Bomb Group web site which you cited shows the following:
mission # 356
Bombing Altitudes: 24,000, 23,800 & 24,600 feet
mission # 357
Bombing Altitudes: 25,000, 24,000& 26,000 feet
mission #358
Bombing Altitudes: 26,500, 26,000 & 27,500 feet
-
IMHO, if Aces High modeled high-altitude level bombing such that accuracy declined as altitude increased (as in real life), then this would be less of an issue.
Wind layers might do the trick... not the hurricane force levels that are used to prevent people from flying over a certain altitude... but wind that is of different lower speeds and different directions as you go through the wind layers.
Have to make sure it is off on the deck though... or people will be flipping their birds on the runway... not much fun there.
-
Why not just have bombers max alt change from frame to frame.
-
If realism can be maintained via enviromental settings than that would be preferable, imo. Artificial limitations (one side or group of a side must maintain such and such altitude, speed, course, etc) is the unfortunate step-child of not having the tools or not knowing how to use the tools given. The more the arena enviroment can dictate practicality, the less whine about artificial limitations that really didn't have to be applied in the first place.
-
If realism can be maintained via enviromental settings than that would be preferable, imo. Artificial limitations (one side or group of a side must maintain such and such altitude, speed, course, etc) is the unfortunate step-child of not having the tools or not knowing how to use the tools given. The more the arena enviroment can dictate practicality, the less whine about artificial limitations that really didn't have to be applied in the first place.
Agree... if there is an alt cap in place... it should be for all aircraft... fighters and bombers... and it should be set by a 200mph downdraft from the cap alt on up. If the alt cap is set at 30K... then the bombers are going to need to be 4 - 5K under that for their escorts to be effective.
-
Agree... if there is an alt cap in place... it should be for all aircraft... fighters and bombers... and it should be set by a 200mph downdraft from the cap alt on up. If the alt cap is set at 30K... then the bombers are going to need to be 4 - 5K under that for their escorts to be effective.
I hear ya. But buffs flying at max alt with a supernatural downdraft also takes away an otherwise useful tactic from the interceptors, which is the ability to attack from above the formation. Altitudes of operation should be left up to the respective command tactical decision.
I would like the crosswinds at different layers to make it impractical to do precision bombing above (insert whatever altitude the community decides is historically accurate). This would exemplify arena enviromental controls dictating more realistic tactics and strategy. Alas, it seems like it's been tested and only the wind at the buff alt affects the bomb.
Which takes us back to the unfortunate necessity of setting alt limits in event rules and the invariable 'they cheated by flying a thousand feet too high' complaints in debriefs. Oy.
-
With the ability available to create and load custom cloud files, with some preparation cloud layers can be used to keep bombers under a certain altitude by making it very difficult to see the ground from above a certain cloud layer. Paired with strongish winds from certain directions, this would effectively limit the altitude that bombers would want to fly if they still want to have a chance of hitting their target. This would also do away with the need for a max downdraft and give defenders/escorts options for positioning.
-
With the ability available to create and load custom cloud files, with some preparation cloud layers can be used to keep bombers under a certain altitude by making it very difficult to see the ground from above a certain cloud layer. Paired with strongish winds from certain directions, this would effectively limit the altitude that bombers would want to fly if they still want to have a chance of hitting their target. This would also do away with the need for a max downdraft and give defenders/escorts options for positioning.
Now, that's what I'm talkin' bout.
-
I have seen too many designs that had a single downdraft as a limiter that see the bombers fly right underneath it to force interceptors to engage co-alt. Its better to have both a downdraft and/or a buff max alt to let the interceptors attack from above. There is no big issue with compliance that I have seen in FSO almost all players will abide by a buff max alt. Its worked well in our setups. Its not perfect but nothing is.
-
I have seen too many designs that had a single downdraft as a limiter that see the bombers fly right underneath it to force interceptors to engage co-alt. Its better to have both a downdraft and/or a buff max alt to let the interceptors attack from above. There is no big issue with compliance that I have seen in FSO almost all players will abide by a buff max alt. Its worked well in our setups. Its not perfect but nothing is.
But why should we have to set rules telling players they aren't allowed to fly above a specific altitude, complete with filming the cheaters, reporting the cheaters, complaining about the cheaters on the forum (even when the 'cheaters' are actually compliant) when we can actually set the enviroment in the arena to practically dissuade buffs from flying right below an artificial downdraft in order to force interceptors to attack co-alt? Set enough cloud layers and nothing but blind carpet bombing will happen from high altitude. Leave supernatural downdrafts out of it completely. All aircraft may fly to their top-end ceilings if they want. It won't be a feasible tactic to accomplish either bombing or intercepting buffs if the cloud layers obscure enough.
-
One drawback to a written bomber cap is that allows the opposing fighters to know where the bombers WONT be. And in cases like the current set up, it lets them know pretty much where they WILL be (as high as allowed).
Here is an example of what Arlo would be suggesting... I think:
2K - 10K: 0mph
10K - 12K: 5mph SE
12K - 16K: 10mph S
16K - 18K: 15mph SE
18K - 20K: 20mph S
20K - 22K: 25mph SE
22K - 24K: 30mph SE
24K - 26K: 50mph S (heavy cloud layer @ 26K)
26K - 28K: 75mph SE (additional heavy cloud layer @ 28K)
28K - 30K: 100mph S (additional heavy cloud layer @ 30K)
30K + 125mph SE
This would do two things.
1) make it harder to stay on course during the bomb run the higher you are.
2) make it harder to see the target the higher you go above 26K.
If a bomber squadron wants to go as high as they can before target... they are going to pay for it in accuracy. The drawback to not having a downdraft would be that after the drop, bombers could climb even higher to avoid opposing fighters with no penalty other than possibly flying into the wind depending on which way "home" is.
-
One drawback to a written bomber cap is that allows the opposing fighters to know where the bombers WONT be. And in cases like the current set up, it lets them know pretty much where they WILL be (as high as allowed).
Here is an example of what Arlo would be suggesting... I think:
2K - 10K: 0mph
10K - 12K: 5mph SE
12K - 16K: 10mph S
16K - 18K: 15mph SE
18K - 20K: 20mph S
20K - 22K: 25mph SE
22K - 24K: 30mph SE
24K - 26K: 50mph S (heavy cloud layer @ 26K)
26K - 28K: 75mph SE (additional heavy cloud layer @ 28K)
28K - 30K: 100mph S (additional heavy cloud layer @ 30K)
30K + 125mph SE
This would do two things.
1) make it harder to stay on course during the bomb run the higher you are.
2) make it harder to see the target the higher you go above 26K.
If a bomber squadron wants to go as high as they can before target... they are going to pay for it in accuracy. The drawback to not having a downdraft would be that after the drop, bombers could climb even higher to avoid opposing fighters with no penalty other than possibly flying into the wind depending on which way "home" is.
Yes. :aok
-
One of the best ways to keep mission altitudes for bombers not getting so high is for the design map utilizing opposing bases less then 3 sectors away.
This is an underlining issue that over the last couple of years in design that over time has created a standard approach to mission objectives. Each objective is spread out with enough distance from another that has facilitated one objective - one strike mission - one defensive mission. This way of design has created on average 5 to 7 sectors of distance to cross. Each strike mission has ample time to climb to high altitudes. Each defensive mission just circles and climbs on waiting for the approach.
Move the opposing bases close together and you change the way of bombing altitudes. Some will climb to low altitudes or NOE. Others will climb behind front lines to cross over and hit the target at high altitudes. Throw in fighters to defend, attack, and recon will create very real situations of fog of war.
But, it's up to each Frame CIC to create the orders for all of this to be implemented.
Adding wind layers for each FSO and manual calibration for bombers, this would improve FSO in the long run if every FSO CM agreed to do this. Running wind or manual calibration every once awhile only frustrates players who fly in MA's with pristine enviroment.
It's a balance thing. How many players have the desire to set up offline or custome arenas with FSO conditions to practice with winds and manual calibration? How many fighter jockeys actually have a desire to fly bombers when thier squad is assigned them? How many players want to learn the tricks of this?
Would FSO attendance increase or decrease with full time winds and manual calibration?
This is an issue that has two choices. Either full time with winds and manual calibration or always use MA conditions. There is no true middle ground. The middle ground choice just adds frustration to the average player that shows up for the squad and fly the event.
If the CM's want to go to full time winds and manual calibration for each and every FSO, then I'll have no problem with that because I know how to set-up both offline and custom arena to practice before each Frame.
Just my four cents.
:salute
-
One of the best ways to keep mission altitudes for bombers not getting so high is for the design map utilizing opposing bases less then 3 sectors away.
This is an underlining issue that over the last couple of years in design that over time has created a standard approach to mission objectives. Each objective is spread out with enough distance from another that has facilitated one objective - one strike mission - one defensive mission. This way of design has created on average 5 to 7 sectors of distance to cross. Each strike mission has ample time to climb to high altitudes. Each defensive mission just circles and climbs on waiting for the approach.
Move the opposing bases close together and you change the way of bombing altitudes. Some will climb to low altitudes or NOE. Others will climb behind front lines to cross over and hit the target at high altitudes. Throw in fighters to defend, attack, and recon will create very real situations of fog of war.
But, it's up to each Frame CIC to create the orders for all of this to be implemented.
:salute
Interesting comments. I completely disagree except for what I bolded. If you move the objectives within three sectors of fields you will have fights within minutes of the event start. FSO is one life event, nothing aggravates me more in FSO than a quick night under 20 minutes or less. Determining times to target is one of the biggest factors in designing FSOs.
Long distances between targets actually enforce altitudes better as it forces the attacker to worry about making it to the target within the 60 minute rule. I have used this method in the design of FSOs and it works.
As far was wind goes, we have tried it. It was said by many that it was unrealistically modeled. I stopped using it in my designs.
-
Interesting comments. I completely disagree except for what I bolded. If you move the objectives within three sectors of fields you will have fights within minutes of the event start. FSO is one life event, nothing aggravates me more in FSO than a quick night under 20 minutes or less. Determining times to target is one of the biggest factors in designing FSOs.
Long distances between targets actually enforce altitudes better as it forces the attacker to worry about making it to the target within the 60 minute rule. I have used this method in the design of FSOs and it works.
As far was wind goes, we have tried it. It was said by many that it was unrealistically modeled. I stopped using it in my designs.
For a few frames, yes. Then squads would learn to stop the quarterback sneak.
Then, you have one target mission then tower out and very few times is there a set-up that would allow second strikes. :old: argument that's been rehashed too many times.
If that's the case then this thread and the other one in FSO is really a moot point.
Nothing's perfect in this game other than we pretend that we know what we're doing and tell those who don't play the game that we're the experts who should travel back in time and be the aides to the generals and the admirals.
:salute
-
The cloud layers are a good idea, I kinda like that one :aok. Is it really needed, not really, simple enforcement of the 25k bomber rule would suffice. Substantial penalties for bombers caught over 25k should reduce this tendency, simply film and send in. I know last frame, I was on my guys about watching their alt, and we stayed right at that edge most of the time. BOG early frames, proved this German planeset can do damage to heavies before being torn up by escort fighters. So forcing the Allied escorts down to the German planes by giving them the same alt cap, is simply trying to make it easier for the Axis players. It's tough for the axis in this setup, it's supposed to be. Been there done that, the challenge is part of the fun.
:salute
BigRat
-
Cloud layers are a perfectly functional and reasonable limitation on the altitude, just as they are on operations.
The realism I'd love to see injected are proper formations, but not many players have the skill to do more than (or even) elementary station-keeping, and fewer squads have the drills and doctrine in place to get it organized.
-
But why should we have to set rules telling players they aren't allowed to fly above a specific altitude, complete with filming the cheaters, reporting the cheaters, complaining about the cheaters on the forum (even when the 'cheaters' are actually compliant) when we can actually set the enviroment in the arena to practically dissuade buffs from flying right below an artificial downdraft in order to force interceptors to attack co-alt? Set enough cloud layers and nothing but blind carpet bombing will happen from high altitude. Leave supernatural downdrafts out of it completely. All aircraft may fly to their top-end ceilings if they want. It won't be a feasible tactic to accomplish either bombing or intercepting buffs if the cloud layers obscure enough.
I have been told that clouds are not set via an environment variable. Clouds are controlled by specially hand-crafted environment files, and mere FSO Admin CMs (like me) are not allowed to meddle with such powerful juju.
BTW, I don't think many players would like realistic wind. if you want to see what real life winds aloft look like, browse on over to here: http://www.aviationweather.gov/products/nws/winds/
For example, later today over Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, this is predicted:
altitude in feet, true bearing, speed in knots
00-03k, 290, 15
03-06k, 310, 37
06-09k, 320, 52
09-12k, 320, 51
12-18k, 310, 52
18-24k, 310, 55
24-30k, 310, 54
30-34k, 310, 52
34-39k, 310, 46
-
I have been told that clouds are not set via an environment variable. Clouds are controlled by specially hand-crafted environment files, and mere FSO Admin CMs (like me) are not allowed to meddle with such powerful juju.
Are you saying that this variable on the map design, itself, cannot be changed and re-submitted?
-
Are you saying that this variable on the map design, itself, cannot be changed and re-submitted?
Clouds are not a plain vanilla "arena variable", like Fuel Burn Rate, for example. Clouds are controlled by some sort of "cloud files" which are created via some sort of "cloud editor".
-
Clouds are not a plain vanilla "arena variable", like Fuel Burn Rate, for example. Clouds are controlled by some sort of "cloud files" which are created via some sort of "cloud editor".
I didn't say that. What I asked was if you are claiming that the cloud files (created through some sort of cloud editor) cannot be edited on the map and the map resubmitted for current or future use with said clouds now giving us a practical enviromental limitation to practical bomber use. Wouldn't this not be even more preferable than it being an arena variable that can be changed on a whim?
-
We (the CM's) have relatively new commands available to upload and activate custom cloud files that are created with the Cloud Editor.
This editor is available with the content creators that anyone can download (like the terrain editor and object editor). A map designer can create and apply a cloud file as a default cloud system for his map.
With these new commands, any number of different cloud files can be created and applied for special events. HTC is working on (or maybe it's already done) having this ability available for the custom arenas.
-
We (the CM's) have relatively new commands available to upload and activate custom cloud files that are created with the Cloud Editor.
This editor is available with the content creators that anyone can download (like the terrain editor and object editor). A map designer can create and apply a cloud file as a default cloud system for his map.
With these new commands, any number of different cloud files can be created and applied for special events. HTC is working on (or maybe it's already done) having this ability available for the custom arenas.
Good.
-
FSO would be the perfect place to put in weather elements, would love to see targets possibly obscured and have to move to secondary objectives. Imagine snow and rain in the mix too. I remember in IL2 forgotten battles dealing with fighter bombing in the snow it was really cool.
-
While cloud layers can apparently be edited in, I'm not certain if scattered clouds are part of that (with the primary target obscured and the secondary not at the same altitude).
Can we get a cloud editing expert to add perspective?
-
I'm no expert, but yes you can. There are two types of "clouds": puffy and layers. The layers are across the whole arena. The puffy can be individually places (in groups) wherever you want.
You want a high layer of haze across the whole terrain? Can do.
You want low-level fog at P75? Can do.
You want scattered clouds around the Ammo Strat, but clear skies at the Radar Strat in the next sector? Can do.
-
I'm no expert, but yes you can. There are two types of "clouds": puffy and layers. The layers are across the whole arena. The puffy can be individually places (in groups) wherever you want.
You want a high layer of haze across the whole terrain? Can do.
You want low-level fog at P75? Can do.
You want scattered clouds around the Ammo Strat, but clear skies at the Radar Strat in the next sector? Can do.
Just sounding better and better.
-
Let's just keep something in mind here...
The purpose of FSO is to allow squads to fly and fight as squads. That's why the objectives are publicly published and the targets are known to both attackers and defenders. It's also why a target needs to be attacked within the first 60 minutes - to ensure people get to fight.
Sure, sometimes a group is stumbled upon and wiped out before reaching their target, or they hit the wrong target, and defenders are left circling for two hours with no enemy encounter. But let's not make it worse by obscuring the target area so a strike group has to divert to a "secondary" target...again leaving the defenders a boring night of circling a target that will not be hit.
The whole purpose of this discussion is to find a way, without enforcing artificial rules, to keep strike packages at a designer's desired altitude for his event. I think the best solution, albeit a little more work for the designer and setup CMs, is to have custom clouds and winds to make going above certain altitudes "undesireable" for bombers - either because of a cloud layer or winds aloft (not just a max downdraft) that would force them to work hard to stay on track and actually see the target during the bomb run - which would at the same time allow escorts and defenders the opportunity to position themselves for a chance of success.
-
Let's just keep something in mind here...
The purpose of FSO is to allow squads to fly and fight as squads. That's why the objectives are publicly published and the targets are known to both attackers and defenders. It's also why a target needs to be attacked within the first 60 minutes - to ensure people get to fight.
Sure, sometimes a group is stumbled upon and wiped out before reaching their target, or they hit the wrong target, and defenders are left circling for two hours with no enemy encounter. But let's not make it worse by obscuring the target area so a strike group has to divert to a "secondary" target...again leaving the defenders a boring night of circling a target that will not be hit.
The whole purpose of this discussion is to find a way, without enforcing artificial rules, to keep strike packages at a designer's desired altitude for his event. I think the best solution, albeit a little more work for the designer and setup CMs, is to have custom clouds and winds to make going above certain altitudes "undesireable" for bombers - either because of a cloud layer or winds aloft (not just a max downdraft) that would force them to work hard to stay on track and actually see the target during the bomb run - which would at the same time allow escorts and defenders the opportunity to position themselves for a chance of success.
Good points.