Lacking ground targ... assets !....

[Flashy]

29 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I haven't found the object limit yet, as I've been able to place everything that I want to (that will contribute to the mission design) without issue.\

Sorry, I meant to respond to this in my previous reply. The object limit is pretty easily reached - just look at that 50 bomber mission IckyAtlas did a while back. That was 170 AI entities (far less than 170 objects) and it broke the matrix completely. I wouldnt ever consider 170 objects to be a high number, dunno about anyone else 

[Gambit21]

I did my own bomber test long before he did. Bombers are bombers -,not the same as trucks.

[Flashy]

19 minutes ago, csThor said:

I don't think Flashy's logic is absurd, it would actually solve part of the problem of lacking "mass" for ground targets. I have barely any time to actually fly the game, let alone try to get back into online flying but I watch enough videos and when some twenty tanks are labeled a "Panzer Division" my left eyelid gets twitchy with disbelief. A real Panzer or Tank Division back then had hundreds or even thousands of vehicles, a number the engine cannot depict, but we can use Flashy's logic to show the progress of such a unit on the march - regardless of player intervention. A few planes may be able to take out a bunch of vehicles and tanks, but never an entire battalion, regiment or especially division. 

 

This way one could attempt to simulate a greater mass without the performance issues.

 

well yes, sort of   It would be possible to have lots of these convoys stacked along a road simulating a long stream of vehicles, BUT each convoy of 8 vehicles would need to be quite far in front of the last one (about 5km in front) so as not to "trip over" the one behind when the spawning and despawing happens. So it would still be mostly empty space i'm afraid, but there would be vehicles every 5km all along the road for pretty much as far as you wanted..

[Gambit21]

45 minutes ago, csThor said:

I don't think Flashy's logic is absurd, it would actually solve part of the problem of lacking "mass" for ground targets. I have barely any time to actually fly the game, let alone try to get back into online flying but I watch enough videos and when some twenty tanks are labeled a "Panzer Division" my left eyelid gets twitchy with disbelief. A real Panzer or Tank Division back then had hundreds or even thousands of vehicles, a number the engine cannot depict, but we can use Flashy's logic to show the progress of such a unit on the march - regardless of player intervention. A few planes may be able to take out a bunch of vehicles and tanks, but never an entire battalion, regiment or especially division. 

 

This way one could attempt to simulate a greater mass without the performance issues.

 

That logic doesn’t really solve the problem you describe - no time to get into it right now though. 

[Juri_JS]

41 minutes ago, csThor said:

I don't think Flashy's logic is absurd, it would actually solve part of the problem of lacking "mass" for ground targets. I have barely any time to actually fly the game, let alone try to get back into online flying but I watch enough videos and when some twenty tanks are labeled a "Panzer Division" my left eyelid gets twitchy with disbelief. A real Panzer or Tank Division back then had hundreds or even thousands of vehicles, a number the engine cannot depict, but we can use Flashy's logic to show the progress of such a unit on the march - regardless of player intervention. A few planes may be able to take out a bunch of vehicles and tanks, but never an entire battalion, regiment or especially division. 

 

This way one could attempt to simulate a greater mass without the performance issues.

The number of tanks that can be displayed in the game without performance issues is actually quite high, as long as they are the old AI-only tanks.

 

To test the performance impact of large numbers of tanks I've build a test mission with 100 Panzer IVG vs 100 T-34 on the detailed part of the Prokhorovka map. To my own surprise fps were still OK on my four year old PC and there was no slowdown effect during normal time acceleration, that can happen when the CPU needs to do lots of AI calculations.

 

The problems only started, when I replaced the AI-only tanks with the new player controlled versions created for Tank Crew. This caused huge problems for the CPU and the slowdown effect was very noticeable, although fps were still acceptable.

 

We can only hope that the devs will also release simplified AI-only versions of the new tanks, otherwise recreations of large tank battles like Prokhorovka will be impossible.

[Gambit21]

Yep

Not to mention we have static tanks which allow even more objects.

[SovietAce]

This game needs simplified AI asap and not only for tanks. Whats the point of having super complex AI, when it just dont work and creates tons of issues in process. 

[Gambit21]

Back off son and let the professionals handle this.

[ACG_KaiLae]

Doesn't DCS have infantry?

[Lusekofte]

7 minutes ago, ACG_Kai_Lae said:

Doesn't DCS have infantry?

Yes and a bumpy road for it to work. 

I fly mi 8 often and transport them , before when they departed the chopper they ran over it and flipped the multi ton chopper over 

now they ghost through it

[ACG_KaiLae]

Honestly for our uses that's better than nothing.

[LLv34_Temuri]

14 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Yep

Not to mention we have static tanks which allow even more objects.

I'd be happy with the static tanks if the distance from which they are visible was a bit better.

[Flashy]

1 hour ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

I'd be happy with the static tanks if the distance from which they are visible was a bit better.

Yep yep, statics are great (despite many missing from the game - another story), but the low draw distance makes them less useful than they should be. They are awesome for placing around airfields where the players are stationary, but they dont work so well as stand-ins for normal vehicles because they only pop-in at around 500 meters or so, which is far too late when pilots are flying around at 300+ km/h ..

[Juri_JS]

Static tanks are good as eye candy, but not as targets, because of their simplified damage model that uses a hitpoint system.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

You guys are right , but IMHO having them (more assets) is not enough , without believable damage model and destruction types, smoke and dust this is not fun to watch,  30 second letter and area which was attacked by 5 Pe2s look again quiet just replaced with  some black  looking (destroyed) objects. 

[Flashy]

12 minutes ago, 307_Tomcat said:

You guys are right , but IMHO having them (more assets) is not enough , without believable damage model and destruction types, smoke and dust this is not fun to watch,  30 second letter and area which was attacked by 5 Pe2s look again quiet just replaced with  some black  looking (destroyed) objects. 

 

Well, you can get around that to a certain extent with objects that dont move by activating one of the fire or smoke effects in the same place as an object when it is killed, so you end up with a smoking or burning hulk of a building or vehicle instead. It looks fairly convincing, but too many effects can cause FPS issues so you have to be careful how much you use it

 

[Georgio]

F4 campaign seems to be able to handle a ton of assets and that was how many decades ago.

Really in this day and age we should be able to generate a believable multi-layered battlefield where there's 'stuff' happening from ground to space.

If it can be done for the fight scenes in Lord of the Rings and the gaming industry is supposedly worth more then it's time to buy in the expertise to make it happen.

[KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82]

Agree on Threadopener's opinion 100%

 

Also, we need smoke columns with a much longer duration.

Just a few seconds after you drop a 500kg or 1000kg bomb, nothing is burning, no smoke is up in the air.

Well, the smoke does not have to be there if you hit a corn field, but after destroying factories or even fuel tanks, it is necessary.

[LeLv30_Redwing-]

Mission builders are the most important people to keep pilots flying this game. Giving creative individuals tools to build interesting targets, letting their imagination create sceneries and missions is the key for this game series not getting bored. I'm pretty sure we all have seen our share of targets made of depots and I'm sick of seeing those same damn potatoes all the time. Where is the "wow"-effect of seeing someone build a realistic defensive line with active supply centers? Where is the joy of finding random company of enemies, maybe building a runway, gathered in front of their tents and campfires for the night? There is no limit to imagination,  we could have so much "life" and interest playing around it, if the editor would have more objects.

 

I'm sure Bodenplatte will bring us more options but Devs please, do not concentrate so much on graphical bling-bling, beauty is only skin deep.

[Leon_Portier]

Gimme all the static "block" objects!!!   ?️?️?️?️

[Gambit21]

I do a lot of “I wish I had this, I wish I had that” when building missions, again almost exclusively with regard to static objects. I’m hoping for an influx of things appropriate for BoBp. Lifts, tractors, bulldozers, tow vehicles, work areas/equipment,  junked aircraft, and general airfield stuff.

 

A change in logic to get rid of the pulsing smoke columns would be most welcome.

[KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82]

@Gambit21

In that regard, Battle of Bodenplatte has for me, as a ground attacker pilot, nothing to offer btw.

I've most fun at blowing things up at the ground and in BoBp we will only get fighter stuff.

No Ju87D5, no Ju88C6 or other aircrafts.

Also, if some towed stuff and things like you mentioned should/would come, than please also for the other scenarios.

[Gambit21]

16 minutes ago, KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82 said:

@Gambit21

In that regard, Battle of Bodenplatte has for me, as a ground attacker pilot, nothing to offer btw.

I've most fun at blowing things up at the ground and in BoBp we will only get fighter stuff.

No Ju87D5, no Ju88C6 or other aircrafts.

Also, if some towed stuff and things like you mentioned should/would come, than please also for the other scenarios.

 

Dude - the whole thing is about tactical, air to ground ops.

[Banshee]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

A change in logic to get rid of the pulsing smoke columns would be most welcome.

+1 !...

This few seconds pulsating/dispearing effect on smoke felt like an untested bug since BOS launch day 1 !!... It has been reported many times and at every patch I'm always surprisingly disapointed that it's still in the game ... When you know that it's in the smoke effect logic it feel ever more ... "surprising" !!... 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Banshee

[Gambit21]

It's not a bug, just the way the smoke works.

We basically have a logic work-around in the editor to restart it after it's hard-coded "stop" behavior kicks in each time.

[Banshee]

5 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

It's not a bug, just the way the smoke works.

We basically have a logic work-around in the editor to restart it after it's hard-coded "stop" behavior kicks in each time.

I know !..  bad french thinking - english writing  !... I was trying to say that's it was ever more surprising that's it's still present because it's not a bug !... 

[Gambit21]

2 minutes ago, Banshee said:

I know !..  bad french thinking - english writing  !... I was trying to say that's it was ever more surprising that's it's still present because it's not a bug !... 

 

I got ya.

I think it requires some under the hood code change that understandably just hasn't been a priority. 

However it would make life a bit easier and increase the immersion level when/if it changes.

[KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Dude - the whole thing is about tactical, air to ground ops.

 

It wont work like that ingame, I predict.

Without newer Attacker planes, we are likeley to see the usual stuff aka dogfights, dogfights and more dogfights.

I know, difficult enough to understand, but not so few of us prefer dedicated Attacker planes.

 

[Gambit21]

Just now, KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82 said:

 

It wont work like that ingame, I predict.

Without newer Attacker planes, we are likeley to see the usual stuff aka dogfights, dogfights and more dogfights.

I know, difficult enough to understand, but not so few of us prefer dedicated Attacker planes.

 

 

???

 

P-47

P-38

P-51 (with a few squadrons)

Tempest

Me-262

Spit IX

 

Are all "newer Attacker planes"

 

Just because they can also be dedicated fighters, or were dedicated fighters earlier in their operation history (Jug/P-38) doesn't minimize the fact that they're also dedicated attack aircraft in the context of this release. 

 

 

[KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82]

There is still a difference between a Mosquito and a Jug.

U want deny that?

[Gambit21]

33 minutes ago, KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82 said:

There is still a difference between a Mosquito and a Jug.

U want deny that?

 

...and? 

 

There is also a difference between a Jug and a B-17, and a Mosquito and a B-17, and a Jug and a jeep...so what?

While doing their job there is no difference between a Mossie and a Jug.

The guys in the trucks on the ground are just as dead in either case.

 

A Jug can drop 2x 1000 lb bombs plus pass after pass of 8x .50 cal.

That's an ass-ton of ordinance. A Jug or P-38 or Tempest who's only job is to support the 3rd Army or British army on that day is no different than any other aircraft that has the same job - the end.

 

 

Yes you can defend yourself if need be in a Jug...that doesn't change the job that the squadron was assigned to do.

The fact that a Jug Group might also be tasked to a sweep mission now and then also does not change the overall job of the unit and aircraft.

 Just because a Mosquito never would have a sweep mission somehow this means the Jug is less of an attack aircraft on the days (most days) when this is it's only job and it's so well equipped to do so?

 

I think you need to check your logic.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Gambit21

[LukeFF]

15 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

???

 

P-47

P-38

P-51 (with a few squadrons)

Tempest

Me-262

Spit IX

 

Are all "newer Attacker planes"

 

Just because they can also be dedicated fighters, or were dedicated fighters earlier in their operation history (Jug/P-38) doesn't minimize the fact that they're also dedicated attack aircraft in the context of this release. 

 

You can also add the Fw 190 A-8 to that list, which is a dedicated ground attack plane in the form of the F-8. And yes, if people are saying there aren't any new ground attack planes in the game, then I submit they don't know that much about the nature of air warfare over France and the Low Countries in the latter half of 1944.

[KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82]

I get what you both are saying.

I dont deny the fact of multirole planes.

 

But its very simple - not few of the players want actual pure attacker and bomber planes. Period.

Because we have a joy in those old machines, several engines, bulky and with more crew personal.

 

So, you missed my point, it has nothing to do with logic, but what bomber pilots will miss.

Again - BoBp has not much to offer for me.

[ShamrockOneFive]

4 minutes ago, KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82 said:

I get what you both are saying.

I dont deny the fact of multirole planes.

 

But its very simple - not few of the players want actual pure attacker and bomber planes. Period.

Because we have a joy in those old machines, several engines, bulky and with more crew personal.

 

So, you missed my point, it has nothing to do with logic, but what bomber pilots will miss.

Again - BoBp has not much to offer for me.

 

You were actually arguing a different point above or perhaps we're all using different words. Nearly ever aircraft in the IL-2: Battle of Bodenplatte was used as an attacker. Yes, even the Spitfire IX and most German bombers were grounded by late 1944.

 

I know you think that it means that online activity will then be purely limited to dogfights because all of those aircraft are also fighters but I don't think so and I have some experience with this. Back in the IL-2 1946 days I was one of the server admins for the UK-Dedicated series of servers and we ran multiple scenarios (many that I created) that used almost the exact same aircraft set as Bodenplatte. We had objective based gameplay with both teams trying to take out targets before the other. What did I see? FW190F-8s flying low and fast trying to hit targets and escape on engine boost. P-38 and P-47s unloading rockets and bombs on target. There were a few A-20Gs and Mosquitos sprinkled in but the faster flying fighter-bombers ruled the day.

 

A completely different point to make is if we all want some late war bombers. I think you'll find in a couple of other threads that were active recently that the answer is: Yes! Mosquito, A-20, Do217, Ar234, Me410, the list goes on. Lots of folks are hoping to see some of those and IMHO I've laid out a case in a few places that jumping back several months to Normandy opens the door to more than a few of those. So do other scenarios so I won't limit the thinking here too much.

 

TL;DR: Attackers good and will be used. Bombers also good and almost nobody is arguing against having more of them in the future.

[=27=Davesteu]

Regarding the bombers, let's not forget about the Ju 87 D-3 used by NSGr. 1 & 2.

That said, I still wish the forthcoming P-38J-25 (105 delivered) would be a J-15 (1200 delivered) or J-20 and include a 'Droop Snoot' modification.
I know, the J-25 comes with boosted ailerons and compressibility flaps, but, let's face it, most players are going to use this aircraft as a fighter-bomber anyway. The unique Droop Snoot modification (no J-25 were converted) would have greatly enhanced its versatility and pleased many virtual bomber pilots. Let's hope that the Mitchell II and Ar 234 B-2 will be added as collector aircraft.

 

 

But we are digressing... 

New (German) rolling stock and a reworked rolling stock damage model would be much appreciated.

[Gambit21]

8 hours ago, KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82 said:

I get what you both are saying.

I dont deny the fact of multirole planes.

 

But its very simple - not few of the players want actual pure attacker and bomber planes. Period.

Because we have a joy in those old machines, several engines, bulky and with more crew personal.

 

So, you missed my point, it has nothing to do with logic, but what bomber pilots will miss.

Again - BoBp has not much to offer for me.

 

 

No - you miss the point.

Just because an aircraft can also defend itself does not make it less of an “attacker”. 

 

Furthermore the Mosquito that you hold up as an example of a "pure attacker" is also capable of defending itself just as the Jug is...probably better at it given it's low level speed

[Venom]

On 7/20/2019 at 9:25 PM, Gambit21 said:

I'd like to see a wide array of object, including just miscellaneous airfield junk like I said. Those little  pieces really add to immersion.

Absolutely agree. It's the small things, mostly unconsciously, that make a "real" world. Some fisherboats off the shore. A flock of seagulls near a port. In DCS I always watch out for them and let them make me smell sea salt.☺️ To me they bring more "life" and immersion into the game than a train or a truck platoon. Hopefully BoN brings some of that ─ before we finally get the SDK.

[Avimimus]

I agree... the complexity of ground targets is a significant weakness of the game. The updated Velikie Luki map is now my favourite to fly in because it is a bit more complex.

I would love it if they developers would let us crowd fund a team to produce more 3d models and update some of the existing maps with more complex targets!

 

The only other thing I'd value as much is AI improvements (e.g. disengaging, more realistic visibility handling, maybe time-period dependent maneuvers or maneuvers reacting to the opponent type ...which is planned for DCS).

 

P.S. The fact that these are my main two wishes... along with possibly a more complex photo-recon mode (and seaplanes)... goes to show just how great the sim is in every other area!

[EAF19_Marsh]

Out of interest, is there a ‘river barge’ object or similar?

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Out of interest, is there a ‘river barge’ object or similar?

 

Yep!