How to Make High Altitude Interesting

[Wolfram-Harms]

Calibrate your humour, guys!

[BraveSirRobin]

6 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

Calibrate your humour, guys!

 

It wasn’t that funny.

[busdriver]

14 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

Calibrate your humour, guys!

 

I thought it was funny...but then again I'm easily amused. 

[LukeFF]

9 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

What dividend? What, in the long run, was accomplished? 300 Allied aircraft were destroyed. Replacements were already being flown in the next day. Ninth Air Force and 2ND Tactical Air Force were airborne the next day. 8th Air Force, of course, wasn't even afftected. Europe was experiencing it's worst winter in 20 years so much of the flying had to be curtailed, anyway. Losses or not. And if, say, the Tactical Air Forces on the Continent had been very badly hurt, 8th Air Force Fighter groups could have flown tactical missions until all of their losses had been replaced. I don't see this as a great victory because I just don't see that much was accomplished by it. 

 

Exactly. In the end, Bodenplatte was one massive fool's errand. 

8 hours ago, sevenless said:

The Luftwaffe’s success, won at the cost of 280 or so machines, succeeded in nearly paralysing the tactical air force for more than one week

 

And it's been explained why that's not an accurate assessment. 

[1_Robert_]

Give me a flyable B25 and I’ll fly at 10k all day long. And while they’re at it, maybe throw us a flyable Lancaster or Halifax..

 

*edit* forgot to mention, good suggestion OP. 

 

I love this game

Edited April 22, 2018 by 1_Robert_

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

WW2 forum discussions: Anything that didn't win the war was a fool's errand edition.

 

Probably not wrong, though....

[sevenless]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

And it's been explained why that's not an accurate assessment. 

 

Tell that Pierre Clostermann

[Gambit21]

Based on his memoir?

[LukeFF]

12 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Tell that Pierre Clostermann

 

Oh my goodness. It's been explained above why his statement about the 2nd TAF being "paralyzed" is simply false. Most squadrons that were hit hard were up and running again within a few days, and heck, some 2nd TAF units flew missions on the afternoon of January 1st. Air units that are "paralyzed" simply don't function like that.

Edited April 22, 2018 by LukeFF

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Oh my goodness. It's been explained above why his statement about the 2nd TAF being "paralyzed" is simply false. Most squadrons that were hit hard were up and running again within a few days, and heck, some 2nd TAF units flew missions on the afternoon of January 1st. Air units that are "paralyzed" simply don't function like that.

 

Read his quote again. He never said 2nd TAF was paralyzed.

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, sevenless said:

Read his quote again. He never said 2nd TAF was paralyzed.

 

I know how to read, thank you very much. 

[Gambit21]

He says 'nearly' paralyzed (BS) never mind that the snow also nearly, and often completely paralyzed the 9th and 2nd TAC for most of December.

Clostermann makes a much better pilot than he does insightful historian.

 

 

[Wolfram-Harms]

Wasn't this thread about "high altitude fighting"?

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

Pierre Clostermann is absolutely certain in his review of ’Bodenplatte’

 

Clostermann is not a factual source. What he says is either demonstrably wrong, a very personal opinion or totally unsupported by other 2TAF pilots.

 

He says one thing, facts suggest quite the other.

[Wolfram-Harms]

I was surprised to see so much detail listed on WIKI here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodenplatte

[Flamboyant_Flamingo]

On 4/20/2018 at 8:30 AM, itsthatguy said:

This is just what I have thought of, and I would love to hear any other ideas.

 

Descend.

[kurtj]

To the OP, generating decent-sized formations of high-altitude AI medium bombers would probably be the best way of drawing the fight online higher. High-altitude AI reconnaissance flights could be another. I will continue patiently waiting for more medium and heavy bombers, but we could have the AI bomber flights effective immediately. 

I've personally made several 20,000ft-plus bomb runs online in the A-20, including overflights of multiple active enemy airfields, without being intercepted, on servers with 50-plus aircraft. Being intercepted at that height or higher seems to be rather rare, which tells me it will take massed formations of bombers requiring cover to draw players high-alt en masse.

 

Another tactic, without AI, would be to create strategic targets as primary mission objectives that are so well-protected by flak that it's nearly impossible to deliver a strike without significant altitude. Limits in coordination would probably result in more of an RAF bomber stream effect rather than large formations, but the altitude would be there.

 

 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Yeah, they're going to be pretty rare, when they aren't even rendered.  By the time you see them, too late to intercept any way.

[kurtj]

2 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Yeah, they're going to be pretty rare, when they aren't even rendered.  By the time you see them, too late to intercept any way.

If you're at altitude between the target and frontlines, strategic bombers and their contrails should be the easiest to intercept. Give yourself every advantage.

 

The devs are constantly improving the engine; I look forward to all sorts of features that aren't yet here, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying and appreciating everything that's already here. Fly a bare-metal A-20 through scattered clouds at sunrise sometime and consider all the complex work that went into that beautiful photorealistic sight. It will all come in time, just like the horizon draw distance did, and the A-20, Spitfire, P-39, etc. etc. 

The point of this post is how to draw the fight upstairs, not reasons why the fight can't be had upstairs. Work the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by kurtj

[[CPT]Crunch]

Oh, I have no problem with the sim as is now, low level east front.  But one can't honestly say the two issues in the future aren't going to be directly intertwined and than look at ones self in the mirror either.

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Yeah, they're going to be pretty rare, when they aren't even rendered.  By the time you see them, too late to intercept any way.

 

I don't know.

I can spot aircraft when they're basically a pixel on my 4K monitor.

I wasn't spotting at this distance in the old sim and never had a problem.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Nobody in a multiplayer environment who isn't up there to begin with will be drawn there by AI bombers.  People playing online by and large can't be bothered to shoot down AI.

 

The only way you're going to draw people up there in multiplayer, is if you make the AI be high-altitude recon flights *which reveal the location of enemy planes within a certain radius*.

 

You do that, and you bet your ass people will be going up to shoot them out of the sky (and the people who escort these flights will have a big advantage if they put in the effort to protect them).

Edited April 25, 2018 by hrafnkolbrandr

[kurtj]

15 hours ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

The only way you're going to draw people up there in multiplayer, is if you make the AI be high-altitude recon flights *which reveal the location of enemy planes within a certain radius*.

 

You do that, and you bet your ass people will be going up to shoot them out of the sky (and the people who escort these flights will have a big advantage if they put in the effort to protect them).

Sounds interesting. I imagine these wouldn't be required to be AI, either, as it would encourage players to take on the recon role, as has already been set up on some servers. Good concept!

I think it'd be fantastic to have 30 bombers with around 30 enemy interceptors and 30 escort fighters. Open up gunner spots on the AI bombers, along with ground-based flak guns and you've got it all there. A single MP map with a strategic bomber force traveling across the map and back could easily last an hour or so, and have some of the most concentrated dogfighting yet. One could build the whole map scenario around this.

 

Perhaps an option of "floating" spawn points could keep things manageable - have escort / interceptor spawns a constant standoff of perhaps 20-30 km away from the bomber stream on their respective sides of the front, at altitude. This could be adjusted until a good balance is achieved.

Edited April 25, 2018 by kurtj

[stupor-mundi]

maybe it's somewhere in thread and I overlooked it ...

The visual contact distance mentioned here, which I take it is the same thing as 'plane draw distance', how much is it in IL-2 BoX?

Or is it dependent upon things, like altitude, so that it can't easily be stated?

[falle96]

I have to wonder to what degree we should factor in temperature into high-altitude flight and fighting. Surely it wasn't inconsiderable.

[Wolfram-Harms]

27 minutes ago, stupor-mundi said:

The visual contact distance mentioned here, which I take it is the same thing as 'plane draw distance', how much is it in IL-2 BoX?

 

You could just try that out in a Quick Combat flight.
Switch on LABELS. The far away planes will not be shown as blue or red - they will just be grey (= not yet identifiable).

There will not be any identification LABEL, but just the distance.

 

Higher altitude will be a bonus for any attacker, as we do not tend to check our high-up-6, or the spot vertically above our head.
There is no need to simulate visibility of EA differently there.

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Wolfram-Harms

[stupor-mundi]

22 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

You could just try that out in a Quick Combat flight.
Switch on LABELS. The far away planes will not be shown as blue or red - they will just be grey (= not yet identifiable).

There will not be any identification LABEL, but just the distance.

 

Higher altitude will be a bonus for any attacker, as we do not tend to check our high-up-6, or the spot vertically above our head.
There is no need to simulate visibility of EA differently there.

 

Just tried this out, at 4k, face to face at maximum distance, 10 km. took me a little to align properly and be zoomed in, so it was 7 to 8 km and the plane was already visible. The plane might have already been visible at 10km, I was just too slow.

 

I think the visibility in single player will be different from what happens in multiplayer, I'm under the impression that planes in multiplayer disappear completely wayyyyy closer than that.

 

When I tried this just now with a 190, it was just barely visible, fully zoomed in, at 7 to 8 km. If it was like that in multiplayer I'd be very content and wouldn't even have asked about it. What seems to happen in multiplayer is that planes are at a distance where you can still see then very well when fully zoomed out, yet they disappear. And what's more relevant, re-appear when they are already close.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by stupor-mundi

[Wolfram-Harms]

Just now, stupor-mundi said:

...I'm under the impression that planes in multiplayer disappear completely wayyyyy closer than that.

 

No idea if that is correct - you could also test that. There are MP servers which allow LABELS.

[56RAF_Roblex]

1 hour ago, stupor-mundi said:

maybe it's somewhere in thread and I overlooked it ...

The visual contact distance mentioned here, which I take it is the same thing as 'plane draw distance', how much is it in IL-2 BoX?

Or is it dependent upon things, like altitude, so that it can't easily be stated?

 

it is 9.5k for everyone at any altitude (unless there are clouds in the way of course)   That has always been the distance but I re-confirmed this only a few days ago while having a debate with a squad mate on whether bombers were just as easy to see at treetop level as when they are at altitude. I made a track showing some bombers at treetops and saw them vanish then re-appear a little later. 'Aha!' I said, 'There is proof that bombers can be impossible to see against the ground!'  then I turned on the icons and played it again and they vanished at 9.5km and re-appeared when I got within 9.5k of them again :-)   ( Note: I did also manage to show bombers being to all intents 'invisible' at 5K but that is about getting lost against certain types of terrain rather than a 'draw distance' issue. You can see the short video if you want https://youtu.be/NF5eSO6FNTI   )

 

[stupor-mundi]

22 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

No idea if that is correct - you could also test that. There are MP servers which allow LABELS.

I'll do that. The only one I know that gets a few players in the EU official 1 CGS ... by DED.

Thinking about this though:

Since I usually get the impression that something is 'off' with regards to viewing planes at a distance, on very populated servers like WoL, or rather, on those, but in very populated locations on the map, it will have something to do with the server's ability to keep up.

On EU official ... , the labels always pop into existence at a comfortably large distance. I've not paid too much attention to the actual plane visibility there. On 'empty' servers with only a few planes overall, I've also never got the impression of planes popping into existence at a small distance.

1 minute ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

it is 9.5k for everyone at any altitude (unless there are clouds in the way of course)   That has always been the distance but I re-confirmed this only a few days ago while having a debate with a squad mate on whether bombers were just as easy to see at treetop level as when they are at altitude. I made a track showing some bombers at treetops and saw them vanish then re-appear a little later. 'Aha!' I said, 'There is proof that bombers can be impossible to see against the ground!'  then I turned on the icons and played it again and they vanished at 9.5km and re-appeared when I got within 9.5k of them again :-)   ( Note: I did also manage to show bombers being to all intents 'invisible' at 5K but that is about getting lost against certain types of terrain rather than a 'draw distance' issue. You can see the short video if you want https://youtu.be/NF5eSO6FNTI   )

 

Thanks for that info! I think 9.5k is plenty.

There seems to exist an unrelated issue in practice in highly populated map areas, on highly loaded servers, which work towards giving me the impression that in such a situation, you seem to fly in a much, much smaller visibility 'bubble', maybe around 1-2k.

[56RAF_Roblex]

3 minutes ago, stupor-mundi said:

I've also never got the impression of planes popping into existence at a small distance.

 

I don't know if it is something that was fixed in he last patch but after the 3.00 update there was a very obvious issue with the A20s in particular where you could be escorting a formation of six A20s and then suddenly three of them would vanish for 10 seconds.  It was not because they were at 9.5k because half the formation was still clearly visible and also zooming in the remaining three made the missing ones re-appear.   Probably something to do with how they draw the aircraft at certain ranges.   I have not seen that happen for a while so maybe it was fixed.

[stupor-mundi]

 

2 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

I don't know if it is something that was fixed in he last patch but after the 3.00 update there was a very obvious issue with the A20s in particular where you could be escorting a formation of six A20s and then suddenly three of them would vanish for 10 seconds.  It was not because they were at 9.5k because half the formation was still clearly visible and also zooming in the remaining three made the missing ones re-appear.   Probably something to do with how they draw the aircraft at certain ranges.   I have not seen that happen for a while so maybe it was fixed.

If that's specific to A20s it's not what I mean. I have this when engaging other fighters, they are usually 109s and 190s.

[Wolfram-Harms]

27 minutes ago, stupor-mundi said:

Since I usually get the impression that something is 'off' with regards to viewing planes at a distance, on very populated servers like WoL...

...it will have something to do with the server's ability to keep up.

 

I am no tech-boy, so I cannot tell if that could be possible, that such things get delayed on servers.
But I'd rather think, it is not so.

What definitely IS the case on populated servers without LABELS: there are the "Ubersoldat-Zombie-Pilots".
And those guys know ALL the tricks and then some.

Cause they resurrected from their graves some hundreds of times, preserving all the important experiences from other lives.

 

When you fly on servers like Wings of Liberty or Coconut Expert or Tactical Air War, your chances are VERY high

that you may get killed without even ever seeing your attacker.
Not because the planes are shown too late - but simply because those "aces" approach with high speed from angles you never thought of.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Wolfram-Harms

[stupor-mundi]

45 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

I am no tech-boy, so I cannot tell if that could be possible, that such things get delayed on servers.
But I'd rather think, it is not so.

What definitely IS the case on populated servers without LABELS: there are the "Ubersoldat-Zombie-Pilots".
And those guys know ALL the tricks and then some.

Cause they resurrected from their graves some hundreds of times, preserving all the important experiences from other lives.

 

When you fly on servers like Wings of Liberty or Coconut Expert or Tactical Air War, your chances are VERY high

that you may get killed without even ever seeing your attacker.
Not because the planes are shown too late - but simply because those "aces" approach with high speed from angles you never thought of.

 

 

 

I don't mean to abduct this thread, which is really about another topic, but I need to answer.

 

I've flown on warbirds for many years, in the late 90s and early 00's. Back then, I mostly flew 190s and P51s, I was quite successful at the energy fighting game, and at staying alive. I was able fairly well to stay out of trouble in very populated map areas, to keep my distance and to engage opponents when I judged the energy situation to be advantageous and when I could avoid to engage a group of them at once.

Since I started flying on IL-2, I've now already spent a fair amount of time, I've struggled, fairly unsuccessfully, to translate my tactical skills to this sim. One reason why I've become convinced that there is a visibility issue on WoL (and maybe other servers), is that, when I fly around at 6, 7k looking for opponents, I usually end up meeting none before my fuel runs out. Once I sacrifice altitude, I usually encounter a group, and I never manage to keep my distance in such a way that I keep contact and can see what they're up to.

This would all make perfect sense to me, without a technical issue, if I were a newbie, but I have thousands of flying hours on earlier sims, just not this one.

[RedKestrel]

45 minutes ago, stupor-mundi said:

 

I don't mean to abduct this thread, which is really about another topic, but I need to answer.

 

I've flown on warbirds for many years, in the late 90s and early 00's. Back then, I mostly flew 190s and P51s, I was quite successful at the energy fighting game, and at staying alive. I was able fairly well to stay out of trouble in very populated map areas, to keep my distance and to engage opponents when I judged the energy situation to be advantageous and when I could avoid to engage a group of them at once.

Since I started flying on IL-2, I've now already spent a fair amount of time, I've struggled, fairly unsuccessfully, to translate my tactical skills to this sim. One reason why I've become convinced that there is a visibility issue on WoL (and maybe other servers), is that, when I fly around at 6, 7k looking for opponents, I usually end up meeting none before my fuel runs out. Once I sacrifice altitude, I usually encounter a group, and I never manage to keep my distance in such a way that I keep contact and can see what they're up to.

This would all make perfect sense to me, without a technical issue, if I were a newbie, but I have thousands of flying hours on earlier sims, just not this one.

It could very well be your graphics settings. There's a couple of active threads right now, and while there's some shall we say heated discussion in one, they both have good tips to make contacts 'pop' a little better than before. Look for Stalingrad Autumn Visibility - its the most recent one with links to the other discussion. I've tried a couple of the things in there and found it improved my spotting somewhat.

[stupor-mundi]

2 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

It could very well be your graphics settings. There's a couple of active threads right now, and while there's some shall we say heated discussion in one, they both have good tips to make contacts 'pop' a little better than before. Look for Stalingrad Autumn Visibility - its the most recent one with links to the other discussion. I've tried a couple of the things in there and found it improved my spotting somewhat.

thanks for tip, I'll have a look

[ATA_Vasilij]

Battles moving higher requires a groups of bombers flying there. Yes, now many call for heavy bombers, me too :D BUT, some times ago many called for Ju52, for A20. And even the standards like He111 you see on the servers very rarely. 

Tell me when for last did you see a group of bomber flying to the target. Or even at least two bombers in group with at least one air cover.

Germans dont go into the He111, they are scarred of it. They are only in Bf anf Fw.  The same on the opposite. One IL2 or One Pe2, but no groups. They are so vulnerable. 

Yes they are vulnerable also if they have a cover, one precise strike can get them down.. 

 

So no interest. Perharps something changes new COOP mode in game, since 3,001, but I didnt try it yet.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I see 111's regularly on WoL; but yes, blue pilots by and large (rightfully) consider them deathtraps.  They are more numerous than Stukas, but not nearly as popular as 110's.  I occasionally see a formation of two 111's over red targets.

 

The situation is the same with the Pe-2.  Occasionally I see a flight of two.  However the overall number of Pe2's is much higher.  Part of this I think has to do with the lack of variety in attackers on the red side; the other part I think is related to how dangerous it is for somebody in a 109 to try to take them out.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

The situation is much better on TAW.  I saw a flight of five stukas last week, a similar flight of Ju-88s shortly after, and have often been in a group of ~6 IL-2s.  The amount of preparation and groundwork it takes to be effective in a bomber(or attacker) is much greater than in a fighter, you can't expect to see them in fast-food servers because there's no payoff for the bomber pilots.

Edited April 30, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[D3adCZE]

On 4/22/2018 at 5:46 AM, 1_Robert_ said:

Give me a flyable B25 and I’ll fly at 10k all day long. And while they’re at it, maybe throw us a flyable Lancaster or Halifax..

 

*edit* forgot to mention, good suggestion OP. 

 

I love this game

No you won't  It's service ceiling is ~7 400m