Jazzed about Flying Circus - Thoughts on Plane Set

[Cpt_Cool]

12 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Ambient small arms?     You are right - difficult to implement in a game in a way that players would accept, partly because of the absence of soldiers on the ground other than defined weapon teams, and also there is the fact that hardly any of the ground fire - with the exception of dedicated AA-HMGs would have been using tracer.  

 

One simple way would just have a lowish probability of taking a randomly located rifle calibre hit at some short time interval whenever you are below a certain height. This probability would be variable by height and location: highest near to the enemy front lines, but also near enemy columns. It would also progressively increase by date and at the times of big offensives.   This will usually just ding your wing or fuselage: but there is a real risk of a pilot or engine hit. As MvR found to his cost.  You could even make it non-zero low over your own lines.

 

That would work, and probably make the game more historical, but man I just think it would make things less fun overall.

[Gambit21]

Here’s the thing, it’s easy to just place an AI rifle guy here and there, and have it actually shoot at you. Now and then you’ll take a hit. I have MG-34’s placed my in the A-2O campaign that take shots at the player flight.

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Cool said:

That would work, and probably make the game more historical, but man I just think it would make things less fun overall.

 

I don't think it would affect the fun of the game. It would be another element to take into account. Red Baron had more ground fire over the front, and if you went to the deck in a fight, it was advisable to climb back to some height before the crossing. Or else you had to be very careful when crossing the mud and be bobbing and weaving all the time. 

 

I think it adds more fun to the game and it is realistic. You have to think twice before going to the deck over enemy territory. Some missions at Syndicate force you to that by flak alone in some instances, but a more realistic ground fire would be welcomed. Especially taking into account columns, offensives and such. That would be fun for sure!

[Garven]

24 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Here’s the thing, it’s easy to just place an AI rifle guy here and there, and have it actually shoot at you. Now and then you’ll take a hit. I have MG-34’s placed my in the A-2O campaign that take shots at the player flight.

Would it be too hard to fill the trenches with soldier models in a way that mission makers don't have to every-time a mission is being created?  Have them spawn in every time an aircraft gets within a certain distance kind of like how soldiers suddenly appear running away from vehicles being strafed.

[unreasonable]

27 minutes ago, US103_Furlow said:

Would it be too hard to fill the trenches with soldier models in a way that mission makers don't have to every-time a mission is being created?  Have them spawn in every time an aircraft gets within a certain distance kind of like how soldiers suddenly appear running away from vehicles being strafed.

 

Problem with that - and Gambit21's idea - is just the sheer number of individual models that would be needed, each with it's own AI. However simple you made it, there would still be lots more objects to process.  The game already starts to seize up if you place large numbers of AA guns.    Attaching ground fire as a random chance of taking a rifle hit depending on circumstances means just one calculation per aircraft, rather than one per soldier and one per bullet that he fires.

 

As to whether it is fun: that is in the eye of the beholder.  I agree with SeaW0lf that Red BAron was actually better than RoF in this respect: it made you want to stay above MG range near the front.  

[KoN_]

Not sure about this I have Rise of flight and nearly all content . And I love it . I don't think I could pay for another . 

[Gambit21]

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Problem with that - and Gambit21's idea - is just the sheer number of individual models that would be needed, each with it's own AI.

 

Nope.

First,  I said "a rifle guy here and there"

Not "trenches full of soldier models with AI firing at you"

Secondly, I think you missed the part where I said that I already implement this.

 

It works, and eliminates the need for some kind of arbitrary "you just took a bullet" Dungeons and Dragons dice roll under the hood.

For WWI, 2d soldier, static objects with an active, AI rifle here and there will work fine.

 

 

 

[unreasonable]

I was bundling your comment with Furlow's comment about filling trenches with soldier models.

 

My question about your idea is how can you implement the reality that the front contained about a thousand men per kilometer even in defense in quiet areas:  while they would not all fire their rifles at every aircraft, it was more than the odd rifleman who posed a danger. Likewise troops marching in battalion strength.  In which case, to get any sort of realistic chance of being hit, you have to make the individual riflemen many orders of magnitude more accurate than any real person could ever have been: almost a D&D magical sniper.     Is that not arbitrary? It is certainly not realistic.

 

The issue is how to get a game mechanic that creates a risk when flying low over enemy territory especially, near troop concentrations, other than that from AA-HMGs, which can be modeled by the fire teams in the game, complete with tracer.  I do not see my proposal as being any more "arbitrary" than yours: what matters is whether the risk is modeled to a reasonable degree of accuracy.  

 

I would be more than happy with a more realistic depiction of the ground activity - I just do not believe that the engine can handle it, based on my own experience of modelling flak. 

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

I was bundling your comment with Furlow's comment about filling trenches with soldier models.

 

My question about your idea is how can you implement the reality that the front contained about a thousand men per kilometer even in defense in quiet areas:  while they would not all fire their rifles at every aircraft, it was more than the odd rifleman who posed a danger. Likewise troops marching in battalion strength.  In which case, to get any sort of realistic chance of being hit, you have to make the individual riflemen many orders of magnitude more accurate than any real person could ever have been: almost a D&D magical sniper.     Is that not arbitrary? It is certainly not realistic.

 

The issue is how to get a game mechanic that creates a risk when flying low over enemy territory especially, near troop concentrations, other than that from AA-HMGs, which can be modeled by the fire teams in the game, complete with tracer.  I do not see my proposal as being any more "arbitrary" than yours: what matters is whether the risk is modeled to a reasonable degree of accuracy.  

 

I would be more than happy with a more realistic depiction of the ground activity - I just do not believe that the engine can handle it, based on my own experience of modelling flak. 

 

Ahh...the reply bundle.

I get what you're saying now...you want multiple, multiple, multiple very small chances.

I think functionally, that comes out the same as very few actual guns, (never-mind static infantry with no AI) with slightly elevated accuracy.

 

From the player perspective, you won't know the difference/how the hit occurred...you just know that you're flying over a piss-load of soldiers, and your luck finally ran out and you caught a round in the engine. It's just handling it one way, with logic already present, vs inventing another type of logic that will basically yield and identical end result.

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Gambit21

[unreasonable]

7 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Ahh...the bundle reply bundle.

I get what you're saying now...you want multiple, multiple, multiple very small chances.

I think functionally, that comes out the same as very few actual guns, (never-mind static infantry with no AI) with slightly elevated accuracy.

 

From the player perspective, you won't know the difference/how the hit occurred...you just know that you're flying over a piss-load of soldiers, and your luck finally ran out and you caught a round in the engine. It's just handling it one way, with logic already present, vs inventing another type of logic that will basically yield and identical end result.

 

 

I agree it could be functionally the same: provided that the engine can handle all the extra objects, target prediction and ballistics calculations etc:  for a reasonable sized map you would need a lot of the rifleman objects to give any coverage at the front and a kilometer of two behind, given the effective range of a rifle.   

 

In my scheme no objects are required: just an RNG roll per plane every set time interval per plane in the qualifying area. The zones' area and intensity could be set in the ME much like an AA gun's engagement zone.    My hypothesis is that this would be easier for the program to handle and have less risk of reduced performance.   If that is not the case of course I am perfectly happy with your method.

[Gambit21]

Are we talking single player or MP?

For single player it's an easy matter to only have AI units within a certain radius of the player active, thereby eliminating the concern of AI overhead.

Which is single player is of less concern, at least from an "AI brain" standpoint...so long as the mission is construction with some care.

[SYN_Vander]

It’s already been done guys.... In RoF I created a soldiers object: A couple of guys together for which I defined one ‘logical’ gun with 1 bullet per clip and a high reloading time. This simulates the guys firing every now and then. You can also set the engage distance and accuracy to inluence the chance you get hit. Secondly - and Gambit will know this also- you can turn off objects if a player is not within visible distance which greatly reduces the performance hit. So you can already fill the trenches with lots of soldiers and have them fire at you.

 

P.S. I’m not suggesting to re-use this mod, RoF models have aged quite a bit! ?

P.P.S. Just read Gambit’s last post saying the same

Edited June 15, 2018 by SYN_Vander

[unreasonable]

It looks like a great idea but, I never used that because I flew only in Career: you could mod some properties of some standard objects (like AA accuracy) in career but not change what or how objects were allocated to missions.    I assume the same must be true in BoS Career, given that the missions are generated in the Kremlin by a system we cannot alter.  So this kind of object needs to make it into the base game or it will not be much use for anyone except those flying SP missions, stand-alone or in a scripted campaign.

[Feathered_IV]

I like the idea of one AAA "object " firing what amounts to a scatter of individual shell bursts.  That way the real world  concentration of fire can be convincingly represented without squandering CPU cycles on scores of individual guns tracking and firing on a target independently.  Sometimes you need to simulate and stop trying to replicate.

[J2_Oelmann]

13 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Problem with that - and Gambit21's idea - is just the sheer number of individual models that would be needed, each with it's own AI. However simple you made it, there would still be lots more objects to process.  The game already starts to seize up if you place large numbers of AA guns.    Attaching ground fire as a random chance of taking a rifle hit depending on circumstances means just one calculation per aircraft, rather than one per soldier and one per bullet that he fires.

 

As to whether it is fun: that is in the eye of the beholder.  I agree with SeaW0lf that Red BAron was actually better than RoF in this respect: it made you want to stay above MG range near the front.  

If it would be a 2D sprite like the forests you could fill a whole front of trenches with soldiers. You won't get so near them anyways because of the random chance of getting hit. The "trench-soldiers" don't have to move and would be hidden in the trenches anyways. From the air it would be just a helmet sticking out of the trench. Small arms won't use tracers so no need for actual rounds getting shot at you.

Lothar von Richthofen got wounded while flying over the trenches.

[Feathered_IV]

You'd need 3D trenches to put the 2D sprites into though.  Currently trenches are just a dark stain on the ground texture.

[J2_Oelmann]

Half bodied 2d sprites would still work if they are put on the trench texture randomly.

The benefit of having some sort of living front would outweight the awkward look from close distances.

[ST_ami7b5]

Very interesting debate.
Go on guys, go on!
?

[unreasonable]

22 minutes ago, Oelmann said:

If it would be a 2D sprite like the forests you could fill a whole front of trenches with soldiers. You won't get so near them anyways because of the random chance of getting hit. The "trench-soldiers" don't have to move and would be hidden in the trenches anyways. From the air it would be just a helmet sticking out of the trench. Small arms won't use tracers so no need for actual rounds getting shot at you.

Lothar von Richthofen got wounded while flying over the trenches.

 

I have no issues with sprites if they are done well - at least seen from the air at speed they could work, but they would start to look odd for people making movies.   That is not really the issue: it is how do you simulate the effect of ground fire from small arms.  My experience is that a large number of ground AA units means a sufficiently large number of calculations that the game starts to stutter - even if the player does not see the bullets because they are not tracers the AI still has to do it's target acquisition, prediction and ballistics calculations for every single firing object. Hence the idea of abstracting the results - as Feathered says, the point is to simulate the outcomes, not duplicate the processes.

[J2_Oelmann]

By simply calculating a hit propability taking speed and height and change of heading into Account.

[Arfsix]

9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Hence the idea of abstracting the results - as Feathered says, the point is to simulate the outcomes, not duplicate the processes.

 

     As to the results of aimed small arms fire: In Viet Nam, American helicopter pilots found that altitudes of 1500 feet or higher were sufficient to protect the aircraft from small arms and light machine gun fire.

     The rule of thumb for the other guys (Victor Charlie) was to extend your arm towards the aircraft target and raise your thumb as in giving a "thumbs up". If your raised thumb covers the aircraft, the target aircraft is too far away to be hit by small arms (rifle) fire.

     Another tactic was to slowly fly your "little bird" (OH-6 Light Observation Helicopter or LOACH) just above the jungle tree tops to try and draw small arms fire to determine where the bad guys were hiding. This small arms fire was rarely effective or harmful to the helicopter because of the masking effect of the surrounding trees (no clear target} and the sudden appearance of the aircraft (the element of surprise panics the ground troops).

      The above information is null and void in the vicinity of 12.5mm (51 Cal.) or heaver automatic weapons.  

[unreasonable]

I think a common rule of thumb in WW1 was a minimum of 3,000ft to avoid small arms fire, which would include dedicated AA-HMGs.    I would expect VN era ground fire, from a given number of men, to be significantly more dangerous than in WW1 at lower ranges due to the automatic fire of common weapons like the AK-47  - say up to the 1,500ft Arfsix mentions.  The WW1 section weapons had higher MVs and heavier bullets than most VN era equivalents, so would have been able to score hits at ranges impossible for an AK,  these would be pure flukes: but if you expose yourself for long enough flukes will happen. 

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

... but if you expose yourself for long enough flukes will happen. 

 

Yep - we lost Morgan "Morg" McPherson this way.

 

Edited June 16, 2018 by Gambit21

[Stryker07]

On 6/15/2018 at 11:44 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

Yep - we lost Morgan "Morg" McPherson this way.

 

This movie is the reason I love the A-6.

[PatrickAWlson]

One thing to consider about the effect of ground fire on WWI planes: these planes weren't flying much faster than a fast car.  If you are coming in for a strafing run at 120 MPH and there are hundreds of men on the ground, including a few post mounted MGs, you are in their range way longer than your WWII counterpart.  Even if you get away with it once or twice that has got to be near suicidal in the long run.  

[unreasonable]

I agree they must have been in range for at least twice as long. Doing anything, however,  that imposes any risk of death is suicidal if you keep doing it long enough.   

 

I expect that, dangerous as it was, the risk from rifle fire in particular was less than one might think by just looking at the number of shots fired, for the simple reason that everyone under estimates lead unless they have had specialized training. Impossible to tell of course, but I would bet that 99% of small arms fire passed behind the target aircraft.  But it might be possible looking at accounts of ground attacks during the March offensives to come up with some reasonable estimates.  What is important though is to take a record of a sequence of ground attacks and look at the overall casualty rate, rather than look at one or two missions when there were severe losses and extrapolate from that.  

 

For instance, a 10% probability of each plane being shot down per sortie, means that a unit of ten aircraft will suffer 3 or more losses on 7% of missions. If you cherry pick data from those high loss missions, your estimate of the loss rate will be way off.   

[SeaW0lf]

Rickenbacker on ground fire and archy.

 

To score a fatal hit these invisible missiles of death have a great space to fill when a small aeroplane and a still smaller pilot are at a height of ten or twelve thousand feet above earth. Even when flying through the defensive fire of a balloon battery at two or three hundred feet elevation or when cruising along the trenches but fifty feet above the rifles and machine guns of the enemy we learned to disdain the furious fire that was turned upon our swift flying planes. Experience had taught us that the non-flying sharpshooter is woefully ignorant of the rapidity with which we pass his aim when we are traveling at the rate of two miles a minute—exactly 176 feet each second! It requires a second or more for him to steady his aim. How many riflemen can compute the exact point 176 feet ahead of their gun-muzzle where the bullet and the pilot's head must meet in order to bring down the prize? Not one! 'Occasional hits are made at random, but the percentage is ridiculously low. When tracer bullets are fired at one's aeroplane it is amusing to see how far behind the tail of the machine the streams of bullets are passing. When hundreds of Archy shells are bursting about one's vicinity one of the flying fragments may, of course, happen to take the path that coincides with that of the pilot. Upon this problem no scientist would dare to assume a position of authoritative knowledge as to the chances or percentages of possible hits. To the pilot who has actually experienced these daily strafing by Archy the whole danger resolves itself into a question as to whether or not he will permit his imagination to terrorize him into fleeing away from so appalling but so futile a menace. In other words, he knows that the actual danger is almost nil. If a flying fragment of shrapnel happens to strike him it is bad luck. There is no way to avoid it. A hundred to one no hits will be received. Thus comes the fatalism that saves the experienced airman from worry. [Fighting the Flying Circus - Edward V. Rickenbacker].

 

He was no ground attacker, so we have to take it as the experience of scouts who occasionally went to the deck for strafing, dogfighting and such.

[TP_Sparky]

So why is there no info on when we might see the first early release Flying Circus aircraft?  They say July for two tanks in Tank Crew.  I'd love a SPAD to fly around the Kuban map.  IIRC there's "engine testing" on at least one FC aircraft.  What's that mean?  I'm ready to preorder whenever they want but I'd just like their present ballpark guess as to first early access a/c availability on our presently used BoX maps.

[Gambit21]

They don’t know for sure and don’t want to end up making a “we need a bit more time” announcement if they run into delays, or they’re simply pacing their announcements. In either case they’re being smart about it at this stage.

[TP_Sparky]

12 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

They don’t know for sure ....

 

But the said something about at least one Flying Circus being in the (IIRC) "engine testing" stage or some such language with no explanation as to what that means for the development progression.  In the past when we see basic cromate green colored aircraft we have seen early access release of the same a/c about seven weeks later.  That's probably true for the next FW-190 release but the P-47 will lag quite a bit later I expect.  

 

Anyway, they should translate WTF "engine testing" stage means for the first Flying Circus a/c.  I assume aircraft engine but do they mean game engine?  We've had a good deal more news released from time to time about Tank Crew than we have for Flying Circus.  Why the love for TC and none for FC?

[Gambit21]

Pacing dear Sparky

A little tidbit here and there, keeping you chomping at the bit for more.

 

It's smart like I said.

[SeaW0lf]

18 hours ago, TP_Sparky said:

 

But the said something about at least one Flying Circus being in the (IIRC) "engine testing" stage or some such language with no explanation as to what that means for the development progression.  In the past when we see basic cromate green colored aircraft we have seen early access release of the same a/c about seven weeks later.  That's probably true for the next FW-190 release but the P-47 will lag quite a bit later I expect.  

 

Anyway, they should translate WTF "engine testing" stage means for the first Flying Circus a/c.  I assume aircraft engine but do they mean game engine?  We've had a good deal more news released from time to time about Tank Crew than we have for Flying Circus.  Why the love for TC and none for FC?

 

I would also imagine that they got to a rhythm with WWII planes regarding controls and physics. They are doing this for a few years now and Kuban patch brought a lot of improvements on this regard. It might happen that WWI planes need a different approach, a different control response, etc, etc. It might take much more time than if they decide to release a beta version of, for example, the P-51D.

Edited June 24, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It wad mentioned that considering the time frame RoFs FMs might as well be ported over directly to BoX pretty much unchanged. Whatever the outcome I hope that some of the issues with RoF aircrafts can be adressed in the process.

 

It will be great fun regardless.

 

[TP_Sparky]

I know the Flying Circus Western Front map will be far off but I'll be super happy if I can get a 1918 fighter to fly on a BoX map this summer.

[falle96]

2 hours ago, TP_Sparky said:

I know the Flying Circus Western Front map will be far off but I'll be super happy if I can get a 1918 fighter to fly on a BoX map this summer.

It would allow to see what would happen if you put a Fokker against a Messerschmitt...

[PatrickAWlson]

On 6/24/2018 at 12:04 AM, TP_Sparky said:

 

But the said something about at least one Flying Circus being in the (IIRC) "engine testing" stage or some such language with no explanation as to what that means for the development progression.  In the past when we see basic cromate green colored aircraft we have seen early access release of the same a/c about seven weeks later.  That's probably true for the next FW-190 release but the P-47 will lag quite a bit later I expect.  

 

Anyway, they should translate WTF "engine testing" stage means for the first Flying Circus a/c.  I assume aircraft engine but do they mean game engine?  We've had a good deal more news released from time to time about Tank Crew than we have for Flying Circus.  Why the love for TC and none for FC?

 

For BoBP planes they have an existing engine into which they can release the new planes.  The maps may not be there but you can still fly a P47 over Moscow.  FC is a whole new product.  There is no infrastructure in place into which content can be released.  The first drop is going to have to contain not only some planes but also a fair amount of that infrastructure.

[ST_ami7b5]

I think I'll buy/pre-order FC1 before (maybe) TC

[TP_Sparky]

28 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

For BoBP planes they have an existing engine into which they can release the new planes.  The maps may not be there but you can still fly a P47 over Moscow.  FC is a whole new product.  There is no infrastructure in place into which content can be released.  The first drop is going to have to contain not only some planes but also a fair amount of that infrastructure.

 

They are bringing WWI a/c into the BoX engine.  I am guessing they can early-release one or two a/c which could fly on existing BoX maps.  Same game engine.  No reason they couldn't fly on BoX maps just like early release BoBp a/c fly on currently-released maps while all other BoBp content is developed.  

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

39 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

For BoBP planes they have an existing engine into which they can release the new planes.  The maps may not be there but you can still fly a P47 over Moscow.  FC is a whole new product.  There is no infrastructure in place into which content can be released.  The first drop is going to have to contain not only some planes but also a fair amount of that infrastructure.

 

Huh..? ?

[PatrickAWlson]

43 minutes ago, TP_Sparky said:

 

They are bringing WWI a/c into the BoX engine.  I am guessing they can early-release one or two a/c which could fly on existing BoX maps.  Same game engine.  No reason they couldn't fly on BoX maps just like early release BoBp a/c fly on currently-released maps while all other BoBp content is developed.  

 

Same engine but different product entirely.  I doubt that they are going to mix MiGs and Fokkers, but hey, not my call

43 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

 

Huh..? ?

 

They don't have a WWI map or WWI objects or anything else WWI.  They need to make a little bit of the world for the planes to fly in.  Sparky points out that they could just inject the planes into BoX - I doubt that they would do that but who am I to say.