Jump to content

TheTacticalCat

Members
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About TheTacticalCat

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK
  • Interests
    Aircraft (especially design), history (especially WW1/2), German culture (besonders die Geschichte des Deutschland und Deutschsprache), Music (especially EDM).

Recent Profile Visitors

1079 profile views
  1. I'd like to point out that the BF110 is an absolute delight to fly, and has better offensive armament once you've ditched those pesky bombs
  2. What is this in reference to? I've seen this but not sure what the joke is
  3. This is my rough estimate of length of Kuban Area (322.4km) vs the length of Western Front Area (470km). It's about 1 and 1/3 times the length alone. She'll be a chunky one alright. I measured the length of WFA as best I could on google maps referencing the linear forest and those to the east of it in the northeast (the east map border cuts Hannover), and a rough guestimate on the French coastline near dunkirk (it should be visible from the western map border).
  4. Could have sworn that it was the exact opposite, stagnating around the 38th parallel. Maybe wrong tho.
  5. Collision speed is typically slower than that of the birds (canopy just came off a p47 close to you that was going similar speeds typically, so it may have only slowed by 40mph in the air, making it a 40mph collision, vs a 180-200-ish mph bird strike. Saying that, 40mph collisions are no joke Also, turbine blades are MUCH thinner, making them far more fragile to bending forces such as a stray bird/ canopy. However, I do not have any idea of the strength of plexiglass vs a metal or wooden prop. I would assume something like a D9 would get a fair chunk bitten, whereas a thicc prop such as a p47's getting hit by some axis bubble canopy would fare a little better.
  6. Well I actually do hate birds (fear of loose feathers, don't ask)
  7. Honestly, I just want actual bird strikes, I'm sure it would be a great little side project for a dev who wants to, just adding: model of birds, noise of impact (a dull thud, distinct from a metallic bullet impact) collision detection within a small radius of vulnerable parts (radiators, props, air intakes, cockpit glass, deployed gear legs*) damage to said parts, for example: Radiators: significant leaks, plus the insulative effect of a bird carcass causing less cooling (so cooling effectiveness goes down almost instantaniously, and degrades faster than a typical battle wound) Props: wooden ones shatter, metal ones bend slightly, engine failure due to bending forces on driveshaft Air intakes: Seconds of spluttering and then total failure Cockpit glass: Bird remains and shattered glass Gear legs: Fairing removal, structural weakening, possibly tyre damage, I do not know the pressure required to damage a tyre to bursting semi-realistic flight patterns (they'd probably best be implemented to "navigate" randomly as a group, with an animation of each bird moving up and down and forward and backwards a bit to give the illusion of independent but co-ordinated flight) beautiful squawking *I'm particularly interested in this because it would add a VERY jarring landing in most fighters that you would have to prepare for in about 2 seconds, whereas in things like an IL-2 with it's truss gear minimal significant damage would be dealt, leading to more soviet bias and finally evening out the obvious german bias /s)
  8. i thought they landed 21st nope
  9. wololololololololololollolloololo
  10. So, to preface this, I have minimal experience in AI, but, I love to think about these kinds of problems. The following is in reference to a quote (quote is in this post too) this post in the general discussions section. I thought I'd put it here too. I think it would introduce a really awesome aspect if we had functioning early radar systems, but the problems with this are: Difficulty of implementing the system (though I have absolutely no doubt the fantastic devs will work it out eventually!) Radar was ineffective against smaller targets, and was mainly used to find bomber targets, which leads me to point 3: In its current state, the IL-2 engine cannot handle large amounts of AI. This means that night campaigns would be lackluster, and the only places you'd find realistic simulation of the actual usage, would be in well co-ordinated MP missions with many players manning bombers. However, they'd be manning night-bombers, the gunners could hardly see a thing, and the only person really enjoying SHOOTING would be a radar equipped mossie/Me 410. So unless the devs find a way to produce cohesive and communicative AI bomber formations, not much we can hope for. On the point of the AI, perhaps a hive-mind-esque steering AI? I don't know much about programming AI, but maybe formations could be placed in the editor specially (or could be connected with some kind of flag saying "these bombers are supposed to be formation controlled" with their own sort of hive-mind AI that steers and directs all the bombers at once, then a separate, hopefully less taxing AI/section of code can be used to convert these directions into control surface movements on individual planes (thus you have multiple instances of less taxing conversion and collision avoidance AI, and one more taxing AI that steers the entire formation together, directing aircraft into box formations and closing the box up if a bomber falls by instructing another bomber to move into this new gap.) You could also then separate the large AI down into a non-intelligent NAV section, that instructs the formation to follow a course set by the mission maker (in QMB, this could be an AI made course, since this instance of AI is not being used at runtime of the actual simulation, just in the menus, meaning it is running separate from all the other AIs that run in the sim of the formation), and an intelligent "formation controller" who instructs planes relative to a coordinate "box" that the formation is controlled in. Bombers are then ordered to co-ordinates within this box. The NAV code moves this box across the map, and is essentially the "bomber formation", for all intents and purposes in the backend. Movement within the box is actuated by the AI of each plane as each plane then uses AI to construct a path to a co-ordinate set that it is given by the formation controller, with the requirements that the path must not collide with any other bomber. Then the other part of the AI converts this path into a set of control surface movements and power changes, and the bomber slots itself into place within the formation. However, once in formation, each plane's overall mapwide movement is controlled by the formation controller, which instructs planes directly (e.g. all planes climb, all planes throttle 75%). For turns, it would be a little more complex, as in a (for example) right hand turn, the leftmost bombers will turn a wider circle than the rightmost. This is (I believe) solved by a circular motion expression utilising the box co-ordinates. The expression could state that as your x-coordinate (assuming the box is oriented such that the Y axis is vertical in relation to the bomber roofs, the X axis spans from left to right, and the Z axis from front to rear, meaning 0,0,0 is at the bottom front left of the box) increases, your turn rate increases linearly (since all the bombers need the same angular velocity, which is a product of their linear velocity and distance from the focus of the turn). Then each plane AI can interpret this and fly the turn correctly, just like a formation. This is a gross oversimplification, since the bomber could be slotting in with a loitering formation, meaning it has to take the curve of the box's flight path into account, but this is my idea of a solution to the problem. It almost certainly won't work, because I have no idea how taxing this is, or how taxing it is relative to the current implementation of bomber AI. Again, just brainstorming and practicing thinking about algorithms. I should probably do my CS coursework instead but oh well!
  11. I think it would introduce a really awesome aspect if we had functioning early radar systems, but the problems with this are: Difficulty of implementing the system (though I have absolutely no doubt the fantastic devs will work it out eventually!) Radar was ineffective against smaller targets, and was mainly used to find bomber targets, which leads me to point 3: In its current state, the IL-2 engine cannot handle large amounts of AI. This means that night campaigns would be lackluster, and the only places you'd find realistic simulation of the actual usage, would be in well co-ordinated MP missions with many players manning bombers. However, they'd be manning night-bombers, the gunners could hardly see a thing, and the only person really enjoying SHOOTING would be a radar equipped mossie/Me 410. So unless the devs find a way to produce cohesive and communicative AI bomber formations, not much we can hope for. On the point of the AI, perhaps a hive-mind-esque steering AI? I don't know much about programming AI, but maybe formations could be placed in the editor specially (or could be connected with some kind of flag saying "these bombers are supposed to be formation controlled" with their own sort of hive-mind AI that steers and directs all the bombers at once, then a separate, hopefully less taxing AI/section of code can be used to convert these directions into control surface movements on individual planes (thus you have multiple instances of less taxing conversion and collision avoidance AI, and one more taxing AI that steers the entire formation together, directing aircraft into box formations and closing the box up if a bomber falls by instructing another bomber to move into this new gap.) You could also then separate the large AI down into a non-intelligent NAV section, that instructs the formation to follow a course set by the mission maker (in QMB, this could be an AI made course, since this instance of AI is not being used at runtime of the actual simulation, just in the menus, meaning it is running separate from all the other AIs that run in the sim of the formation), and an intelligent "formation controller" who instructs planes relative to a coordinate "box" that the formation is controlled in. Bombers are then ordered to co-ordinates within this box. The NAV code moves this box across the map, and is essentially the "bomber formation", for all intents and purposes in the backend. Movement within the box is actuated by the AI of each plane as each plane then uses AI to construct a path to a co-ordinate set that it is given by the formation controller, with the requirements that the path must not collide with any other bomber. Then the other part of the AI converts this path into a set of control surface movements and power changes, and the bomber slots itself into place within the formation. However, once in formation, each plane's overall mapwide movement is controlled by the formation controller, which instructs planes directly (e.g. all planes climb, all planes throttle 75%). For turns, it would be a little more complex, as in a (for example) right hand turn, the leftmost bombers will turn a wider circle than the rightmost. This is (I believe) solved by a circular motion expression utilising the box co-ordinates. The expression could state that as your x-coordinate (assuming the box is oriented such that the Y axis is vertical in relation to the bomber roofs, the X axis spans from left to right, and the Z axis from front to rear, meaning 0,0,0 is at the bottom front left of the box) increases, your turn rate increases linearly (since all the bombers need the same angular velocity, which is a product of their linear velocity and distance from the focus of the turn). Then each plane AI can interpret this and fly the turn correctly, just like a formation. This is a gross oversimplification, since the bomber could be slotting in with a loitering formation, meaning it has to take the curve of the box's flight path into account, but this is my idea of a solution to the problem. It almost certainly won't work, because I have no idea how taxing this is, or how taxing it is relative to the current implementation of bomber AI. Again, just brainstorming and practicing thinking about algorithms. I should probably do my CS coursework instead but oh well!
  12. I have run the calculations on all the Wolololo It is clear: 262 NEXT TUESDAY BE SURE
×
×
  • Create New...