Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
With all respect, vfp, I don’t think it’s greed that moves you forward in your life, I’d rather call the factor ‘an urge to make progress’. Greed, in turn, often leads to highly condemnable actions, including crime…
Just my 2c. -
Heuuu there are many things i WILL as a dev, but so many i can’t (for many reasons) !!!
There is only ONE detail everyone misses in this discussion: STATIC aircraft are not meant to move.? by definition they are STATIC
Whatever is done on the ATC side of things shouldn’t prevent STATIC things to be Added. After all we even have completely useless STATIC things on airbases , so why not considering to have STATIC USEFULL things as well.That would be at least a start in the right direction
The dynamic thing is pretty well covered already
either by flying Campaign or by flying TE and creating other flights in the TE and adjusting spawn time accordingly
Been working for ages, but requires a bit of work at the TE edition. Nothing comes ever free anyway -
(you can check Ikaros theater for static objects and aircrafts… check docs folder )
-
Good simulation needs good abstraction. Calcurating whole real life process does not often provide accurate result. My 2 cents.
-
well at least instead of moving spawn aircraft the code could display static ones only according to the sqdrn repository and moving only the ones that are ready to go like 2 minutes before flight TO.
What I mean the code will kick in as it does now like 2 minutes before T.O.
Before the 2 minutes kick in, display only static at the empty slots. meaning no engine starting and heat blur or moving surfaces or WOW or whatever the code calculates for the AI during ramp. just place it there and show it, nothing else, except damage.
If bombed before the 2 minutes and after the ramp start 20 minutes (during ramp I mean) then they must be removed from the squadron stores.
So if there was a flight of 4 AI to go and one was destroyed then either the flight must be canceled or to TO with 3 aircraft, or kick in another one that will take off later on and join in the air at the holding point. For the last time limiters can be set, like if replacement time to TO is less than x minutes of Flight TO allow it, if not leave it with 3.:lol:
some dev’s are steaming right now… :lol:
but doesn’t that reflect kinda a more realistic approach that is and less intense resources wise?
Edit: Just for the record I’m fine with current solution.
-
Sometimes i am just amazed by the problem of communications we have !!
Arty : You just wrote exactly what i wrote before. Make all aircrafts spawn “dead” , and make them active asigning them to the scheduled flight 20 minutes before take Off (ramp start time). Dont despawn them at come back but set them dead again and continue the loop.
Ideal scenario : YES but
- huge FPS hit since all AC are spawned
- extremly difficult to manage traffic, since all aircrafts of a same flight MUST be side by side , and moving those dead aircraft will be necessary (for instance returning aircraft will be parked nose in in the hanger, but we will need to turn them 180 deg for the next flight).
- we need to rearm them while in 3D
so, will it be done => no clearly no as it is a 100% change of the architecture of the campaign engine / ATC engine / Aicraft Engine / airframe engine / Weapon engine . totally unrealistic. So you can continue blah blahting about it during 10 years, it will not be done.
Alternative scenario i propose : increase spawning / despawning time with possibily some polishing to make it interact better with campaign engine.
Result is the same, only difference is that in case spawned aircraft is bombed , the generated flight will be aborted and the mission needed rescheduling ( we could make sure to reschedule the exact same flight by making a copy of the mission , this will be better to avoid breaking packages, but this requires auomatic abort of the already scheduled next to free some slots and effect boule de neige must be considered for packages)
. For waiting despawn aircraft, some code should be written so that the ATO can understand they can use them to plan a mission before their despawning. This kind of code is doable .RD : about STATIC stuff.
noeone said that static aircraft should not be done.
I am just saying that in case static aircraft are put in place
- this will have more or less the same fps impact of a normal AC
- be careful, it will “steal” some parking PT so that will reduce the number of parkingPt available for the normal operations (unless you want to see all AC in the grass at the end of the main trunk ;))
- the interaction of those static aircraft with the squadron aircraft numbers and with the campaign engine is debatable but ertainly not easy task.
I dont think we should work in that direction.
Again, making full use of the existing architecture makes more sense, we are FAR from using it to its maximum potential. I am 100% convinced we can provide an incredible airbase experience with our current architecture, and you know you cand trust i know what i can do here
I am confident though that the next update will please most of the people in term of airbases activity (in campaign obviously)
About other STATIC objects on airbases having interaction with campaign engine, YES YES YES and YES we should improve this drastically
- control Tower damage / detroy having impact on the Traffic
- reducing the capabilities for IFR types landing
- reuducing some approach types
etc etc…
-
munition depot on airbases: should interact with squadron stores directly and not just act as a global “supply” value for the Team
-
fuel depot should affect capability of squadrons to schedule flights… same that above, not beeing treated as a “global fuel value”
-
Office bombing : reduce flights scheduling
etc etc…
EDIT : in fact
-
I Love this thread when this gives us some ideas / features that we can develop, and it worked for that , thank you , this is very constructive stuff
-
i hate this thread when people that do not know ANYTHING about Falcon Architecture try to explain how to do it and start arguing based on nothing. This is waste of energy
-
As a fellow developer I can feel your pain Mav-jp:-)Also completely understand your approach and why!But also I am a bit amazed to read that this ammo bunker destroyed has influence on thing is not in yet?Not pointing to BMS, but reading for example original Falcon manual, things like that were actually the most important thing about how they saw the dynamic campaign?I remember reading about electricity being shut down when bombing power supply objects for this region for example.Those are the things that actually should get the most attention in my opinion.Because it gives the sense of importancy for destroying certain targets and why.Cheers Obi1
-
As a fellow developer I can feel your pain Mav-jp:-)Also completely understand your approach and why!But also I am a bit amazed to read that this ammo bunker destroyed has influence on thing is not in yet?Not pointing to BMS, but reading for example original Falcon manual, things like that were actually the most important thing about how they saw the dynamic campaign?I remember reading about electricity being shut down when bombing power supply objects for this region for example.Those are the things that actually should get the most attention in my opinion.Because it gives the sense of importancy for destroying certain targets and why.Cheers Obi1
yes,
all depots, fuel stuff etc if bombed will reduce the fuel and supply of the team.
What i mean , is that it could be done on a more local level.
Like bombing the weapons depot or fuel tank of OSAN airbase will reduce the availibility of OSAN based squadrons.
At the moment and AFAIK this is on a Team level, not local level, except when the airbases is shut down, obviously
-
hmmm one must put the Jan-Has model in a heavy (kimbo?) airbase like 30-40 times as static and lets see the impact… Jan Has model cause it has more tris, let’s push it a bit…
and at the same time a full package flight…Ain’t Kimbo the one with the buildings-appartments near by?
Anyone for the job?
-
some code should be written so that the ATO can understand they can use them to plan a mission before their despawning.
The mission planning would need to take the despawn time into account to avoid the problem of having to re-group and to re-arm in 3D.
Despawn time should remain reasonable anyways to save frametime.Anyways. Great post(s).
Keep going! -
The mission planning would need to take the despawn time into account to avoid the problem of having to re-group and to re-arm in 3D.
Despawn time should remain reasonable anyways to save frametime.Anyways. Great post(s).
Keep going!As i said , Regroup, is absolutly necessary code wise. the whole architecture can not work without it.
the point is to teach ATO that those AC WILL be free at the time they need because they would have regroupe before
ANYWAY ….
-
yes,
all depots, fuel stuff etc if bombed will reduce the fuel and supply of the team.
What i mean , is that it could be done on a more local level.
Like bombing the weapons depot or fuel tank of OSAN airbase will reduce the availibility of OSAN based squadrons.
Which drives me to wonder if there is an actual effect of EWR and Radar sites in general on AI’s awareness. As far as I know, only AWACS gave me informations about enemy flights (and overflown battalions), and if so, I supposed the same for a AI controlled side. Hence the queston about how it matters to aim for a specific EWR site.
-
Which drives me to wonder if there is an actual effect of EWR and Radar sites in general on AI’s awareness. As far as I know, only AWACS gave me informations about enemy flights (and overflown battalions), and if so, I supposed the same for a AI controlled side. Hence the queston about how it matters to aim for a specific EWR site.
yes, this is taken into account , units / vechicles get a “SPotted” flag , and ATO can not task missions on something not spotted (non static targets of course)
-
@Red:
1. BMS is not only about campaign
2. Fix the overpowered J-Sows1 - It is mainly about campaign … since is it for now one the “rare” assets keeping Falcon4 alive. Could be afford to break the balance? … even temporarily? => No. And it is not ONLY about JSOW. JSOW is just an easy example.
2 - Why not. On my to-do list. But some references would be appreciated.
…
3 - Jp answered …I would add : Provide me some usable static models (including destroyed LODs) … I place few of them tomorrow.
However … don’t expect to see something different from one scenario to another. Some F-16 on Kunsan will remains F-16. Some MiG-17 on Wonsan will remains MiG-21 … so I expect the next complain => Consistency on captured airbases (and still not speaking about the fact that some generic airbases are used on both camps. Yes we can change that, it is actually WIP … but it is not instantaneous).At present, I would consider that it simulates the F-16, rather than the pilot or the campaign. So destruction of the aircraft need not be the end of the campaign, either.
…I was speaking about Campaign balance.
AIs flights can not compete against an coordinated attack by humans yet (manual tasking). Auto ATO (OPFOR) is not yet effective enough neither.…
Step by step guys.
hmmm one must put the Jan-Has model in a heavy (kimbo?) airbase like 30-40 times as static and lets see the impact… Jan Has model cause it has more tris, let’s push it a bit…
About Jan-Has’s GSE … If Jan-Has would kindly offer us an unrestricted clearance to include them on main (stock) BD, I would be more than happy and integration on DEV would be done tomorrow. … !!!
-
Putting static ac on airbases is a bad idea , please DJ don’t do that else you will be obliged to revert
One exception could be civil aircrafts on civil airports
-
Putting static ac on airbases is a bad idea , please DJ don’t do that else you will be obliged to revert
I know.
One exception could be civil aircrafts on civil airports
… I know.
-
Putting static ac on airbases is a bad idea
Not if you do it correctly - they don’t have to conflict with branches and PT or Taxi point …
Suggest you install Ikaros and have a look, much more immersiveBut if you have plans for the future with that in mind, I’ll gladly wait
-
… yep … forgot to add (Red Dog has a point here) … I could put few static a/c on some places where I didn’t set any PkPoint for (whatever) reasons.
However … otehr remarks still stands.
1 - Need those static models.
2 - … will remains there. Whatever airbase’s actual “Owner”. -
Reading this gets me to the post Mav had with a vid from Apollo 13.
I get it that things have to be done in steps. Since in “Camps” were are either spooling up the jet, taxing to the runway, taking off and landing or flying the mission. I think the first thing that would need to be done is the airbase overhaul. Better SP PT. With better spawn point areas, a lot of agg/deagg issues could be addressed. Since we are also discussing hit points for parked aircraft, you would also have to include support aircraft and there destruction consequences. But, I think revamping the airbases (area and space allocation, along with better spawn management) would certainly set up the path for such features. Also AI taxi instruction would need an overhaul as well. This being a “busy” airport during a fictional time of war.
I can certainly see how difficult this would get. How cluttered the code can get and drop FPS like flys. But I think in general, if the team works on “1 step at a time”, the over all progress will get there. At least, the light at the end of the tunnel will get a little brighter.
-
@Red:
Not if you do it correctly - they don’t have to conflict with branches and PT or Taxi point …
Suggest you install Ikaros and have a look, much more immersiveBut if you have plans for the future with that in mind, I’ll gladly wait
So the static aircraft will be considered as trophy for captured airbases ??
The best will be when you will want to create a 80’s scenario with some static f22 on The airbases
Very immersive indeed
Time to rename BMS in funcking funny sim