Photo Recon altitude

[HagarTheHorrible]

Why is it set at the height it is ?

 

Is it a server setting, that can be adjusted ?

 

I ask, because it seems to me that, doing several passes over the same point, at 6 - 8,000 ft is pretty suicidal, especially if near any center of map activity.

 

12 - 15,000 ft seems much safer.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

You should ask  in what time period, assuming for FC 1918?

[Matthias_PDX]

I believe the context was the Thursday Night event on Jasta 5 Flugpark. No one seemed to be able to complete it.

 

If so, maybe this should be in the specific thread.

Edited December 13, 2019 by MatthiasAlpha

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Recon height in J5 server is between 1400-2900m with sweetspot at 2100m. Recon A,B and C must be performed by matching plane.

[Matthias_PDX]

Yeah, I knew I wasn’t going to do that. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

As a two-seater pilot my recommendation is simple: don’t do it. It’s not worth any points (game engine doesn’t support it), Central doesn’t have a high altitude recon plane, and the Bristol is D.VIIF fodder at that altitude anyway.

 

Instead, do low level ground attack with the CL.II and Camel, or mid-altitude (1000-1500m) bombing/escort fighting with the Bristol and CL.II 200hp.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Yes, I was stooging around on the J5 server last night (Thursday night fly-in).  I think doing photo recon from 12 -15,000 ft is less suicidal because, few people can be arsed going that high.  It also allows for a good dive for home, if an enemy is spotted in time.  Six to eight thousand is just too common an altitude to loiter about for any length of time, so far over.

 

Arty spotting is different, 6 - 8,000 ft is a good altitude and being in the vicinity of the mud helps for a possible escape.  Talking of which, I think it would be a good idea for mission makers to put several mg’s at the “establishing contact with the gun battery” point, then the Arty spotter can dive across the mud for the relative safety of the ground AA, rather than relying on some friendly assistance from other players.  It might make their lot, slightly less SHORT.

 

 

[RNAS10_Oliver]

6 hours ago, MatthiasAlpha said:

I believe the context was the Thursday Night event on Jasta 5 Flugpark. No one seemed to be able to complete it.

 

If so, maybe this should be in the specific thread.

 

I completed the Entente Recon C some time between 20:30 GMT and 23:00 GMT on the Thursday Night event.

 

Same parameters as was given for Black September. Using the matching Recon aircraft make successive passes over the Recon target at somewhere between 5,000 and 9,000 feet. The sweet spot where the minumum passes are required is 7,000 feet. And you need to get your aircraft back to base intact without any damage otherwise you fail the mission.

 

4 hours ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

As a two-seater pilot my recommendation is simple: don’t do it. It’s not worth any points (game engine doesn’t support it), Central doesn’t have a high altitude recon plane, and the Bristol is D.VIIF fodder at that altitude anyway.

 

Instead, do low level ground attack with the CL.II and Camel, or mid-altitude (1000-1500m) bombing/escort fighting with the Bristol and CL.II 200hp.

 

I do agree that during normal evening sessions Recon seems to be an somewhat suicidal task. Unless luck is on your side as was for me on Thursday and you manage to complete the task unnoticed. And also agreed about the points, which is a shame. Chances were much better during Black September from what I remember. Consider the reasons the greater area of operations to hide and skirt around combined with the greater cooperation between players (providing escort basically) in trying to achieve those objectives to gain the win for the team.

 

But as to what to do instead there is no other mission available to conduct prior to someone succeding on some Recon targets. At least thats been the case for any sessions I've come online for this past week or two? So seems that when wanting to use two seaters your between a rock and a hard place at the moment. Want to go do some bombing or artillery spotting well then you need to go succeed on this this somewhat suicidal task first.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Oliver88

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

7 hours ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

As a two-seater pilot my recommendation is simple: don’t do it. It’s not worth any points (game engine doesn’t support it), Central doesn’t have a high altitude recon plane, and the Bristol is D.VIIF fodder at that altitude anyway.

 

Solid advise, yet of you like this sort of missions and to answer your question about mission heights....

 

Mission completion heights are generally consistent with current understanding regarding maximum picture resolution for cameras of the period.

 

Additional tips:

 

1.  Rollover two-seater mission icon on map with mouse to see mission requirements.

 

2. If applicable , be sure you take the plane that is assigned to the mission.  Check ALL fields and review available two-seater planes to see if one is assigned to your mission.

 

3.  There is nothing wrong with taking a few escort planes with you....advantage of using comms ....you can ask for help.

 

4.  Generally you should assume you need to return back to the take off field pretty much undamaged (some enemy aircraft inflicted damage generally ok) to get credit for mission completion.....crash landings on field can break photo plates.

 

Additional considerations:

 

In some missions it can be necessary to compete recons/mapping in order for other tasks to unlock....for instance, you have to take photos of a target before you can go bomb it, etc. This is a consideration in trying to complete them.

 

The lack of points for recons is a developer imposed limitation that also existed in RoF.  However some creative minds continue to problem solve the issue.  A few are getting closer to a viable, yet imperfect, solution.

[US103_Baer]

S! to the guys who do recon. We saw that rarest of birds on Thursday - a Halberstadt CL2 at 2000m! Honestly we felt awful attacking given how long it must've taken to get up there! In the end he was saved by the map roll anyway.

 

Agree, we really do need DFWs and RE8/DH4s plus points (or more ROI) for Recon success.

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by US103_Baer

[J99_Sizzlorr]

From a mission builder point of view there is not much you can do about photo recon tasks resulting in zero points for the pilot. To somehow negate that problem you can give benefits to the team completing the recon tasks.

 

On DoulCambxxxArras running on J5 Flugpark there are multiple benefits for the side which completes their recon objectives. First a successful photo recon task unlocks serveral targets to bomb in that sector of the front, which is necessary to win the mission and second if all 3 recon tasks are successful, the recon airfield will have better fighter planes available. Third there are secondary objectives tied to the completing of each sector leading to your team getting more points at the end of the mission.

 

There are furthermore benefits to the balloon busting tasks as well. If you down a balloon by destroying it or force it to the ground AAA AI in that sector will be lowered by one skillset until the balloon is up in the air again. Therefore the balloons a currently fortified a bit, so they aren't so easy to destroy in one pass.

 

These benefits should also enforce team play a bit. Because fighter pilots and Schlasta pilots should have some interest in the recon and balloon busting tasks to succeed leading to them escorting the recon and balloon busters. 

 

But my observation is that somehow the recon and balloon busting tasks despite the benefits for the team aren't that popular. If the recon altitude is increased, the time to complete the recon tasks is increased as well. It is a daunting task and i don't see it getting more popular making it last even longer than it currently is. Also the sweet spot of altitude is nonsense you have to do the same amount of passes no matter the altitude. You just have to be in the triggering sphere. So best would be to enter the lowest or the highest part of the sphere to shorten the time over the recon target. 

 

We don't have an operational photo camera and radio as for now. So scripting these events is the only thing left to do. Same with artillery spotting tasks. It is all scripted. And by the way there are some AA MG's in the trenches able to provide cover for diving to safety two seater planes in the DoulCambxxxArras mission. 

 

Mission builders could build in some random elements, like the amount of passes you have to do over a recon target or the amount of barrages the artillery needs to destroy the ground target. But then luck will be a big factor and maybe tip of the balance for these tasks. That's why it is as it is now there are no random elements scripted in these tasks.

 

Back in the days recon tasks were pretty dangerous as well and recons often brought high escort in the later days of the war. Balloon hunting was pretty dangerous as well because of the deadly AAA fire. The guys profiting from the success of these task were mostly the infantry in the trenches. 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by J99_Sizzlorr

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

Ok so I did recon on the last Thursday fly in at 14'000 and nothing happened, I'm guessing I was too high. 8,000 ft is way too low, I did recon or tried to any way @ 9,000 ft and was taken out very quickly by AAA all 3 times. That's a big discouragement for anyone who wants to do recon. Bad enough the flak gives you way as soon as you hit the mud.

 

By the way the #20 squadron will be doing objectives recon/bombing and hopping we will receive escorts. 

[RNAS10_Oliver]

14 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Also the sweet spot of altitude is nonsense you have to do the same amount of passes no matter the altitude. You just have to be in the triggering sphere.

 

Interesting. Then I must ask what is the reason for optimal altitude 2100m being stated on the tooltip (for want of better word) on the Recon missions? Interesting as thats been counter to what guys informed me on during Black September and what the Flugparks changelog stated when recon missions were added;

 

On 1/2/2019 at 3:29 AM, J5_Matthias said:

Happy New Year everyone!

We're kicking 2019 off in style with a revamp of our Flugpark.

 

Change list

- Both sides get new non moving vehicle dummy target ranges in the backfield.  IFFs changed to neutral.

- Aerial drone and vehicle dummy range locations moved into the backfield.   IFFs changed to neutral.

- Patrol airstarts moved and added to encourage centralized combat and allow bouncing of enemy pilots attacking rookies in the backfield.

- Defenses added to the airfields to discourage attacks on traffic in the pattern or on the field.

- Aerial patrol zones against AI fighters moved to not encroach on either PvP or rookie target ranges.

- Ship bombing targets moved to encourage centralized PvP combat

- AAA defenses added over the center to assist with spotting enemy aircraft.

- Camel, U-2, and Pfalz D IIIa now available at the airfields as appropriate.

- Central Tank Hangar moved to prevent tank being flooded on spawn in.

- New photo recon mission added in the center for PvP.  Utilizes the new U-2 biplane.  Entente only for the time being.  This mission does NOT use the ROF style Photo Recon script (not yet revamped for FC) , but requires multiple straight and level passes.  Optimal altitude to minimize passes is 2100m, but you can run it between 1400m and 2800m.

 

Have fun and feel free to report any bugs or issues in this thread.

Salute,

Matthias

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Oliver88

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

S! Oliver,

Re the changelog quote from almost a year ago:  Generally mission builders employ a "sphere" suspended in the air over targets which is intended to represent the minimal and maximal altitude ranges for photographic equipment of the period to be useable.  Too low and your field of view is not effective.  Too high and resolution is not sufficient.  So, if you stop and think about Matthias's recommended altitudes you can see he is essentially describing a sphere.  The minimal level is 1400m (radius near the bottom of the sphere with very little travel by the plane "in the photo sphere"); 2100m (widest radius of the sphere at the second quartile of the sphere (alternatively the 50th percentile or equator); 2800m at the top of the sphere.  Below 1400m or above 2800m there is not enough space to effectively take pictures. 

 

Sizzlor seems to suggest he is using not a sphere but a cylinder and while the same heights would apply, you could complete the mission at any level with the same result between the minimum and maximum altitude. 

 

Update:  Despite suggesting in a post earlier that he might be using a cylinder, Sizzlor confirms below he is not using a cylinder but a sphere.  He would prefer to use a cylinder but is unable due to mission editor limitations.  Nonetheless, one can see by the illustrations below, why when a sphere is used, a preferred altitude is mentioned for obtaining the most pictures in the least number of passes over a target. 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by J5_Baeumer
Updated based on Sizzlors comments below

[HagarTheHorrible]

I’m not convinced, by the argument, that we should be constrained by the straightjacket of what was, to inform our decisions of what should be, however much we might hope, FC will never achieve the complexity of flying over the Western Front in 1918.  Certainly, we should try to mould our role playing, as far as is practically possible, to the SOP’s (military term meaning “Standard Operating Procedure”) but at the same time be aware of the limitations that the game imposes on us.

 

If the intent, of Photo Recon, is to force confrontation, because if there’s one thing I’ve noticed about combat flight sims and that is the reluctance of combatants to get stuck in, then by all means carry on having photo recon aircraft loiter around at predictable and usually suicidal altitudes.  Photo recon aircraft, in the main, avoided combat where at all possible and as such the German experience is maybe a better exemplar for what should happen in FC, greater flexibility of operational altitude by the pilot, who should operate with the understanding that support will probably be limited, to the point of non existence and that salvation lyes with good observation and a dive for friendly lines when disturbed (a lack of a strong East/West direction wind is helpful in this regard although it might help even out the differing chances offered by the Brisfit and Halb and also conform, a little, to how it was).  As to time to altitude, especially for the Halb, (that’s the ideal use for air starts, much better than Scout air starts that just emphases an air quake mentality) putting them in at mid altitude and letting them decide for themselves to risk it, where they are, or to spend time gaining extra insurance (altitude).

 

As to Arty spotters, I still like the idea of “safe bases” just like in a game of tag (or at least some versions).  It gives vulnerable aircraft flying in predictable areas, at predictable altitudes , a safe (er)  base to which to retreat rather than relying on the whims of other players or hoping that they fly over a friendly machine gun nest, that you don’t know is there, until it starts firing.  A safe zone for Arty spotters to retreat to (opened up at the same time as the shoot becomes available, it might even be an added incentive to get photo recon accomplished) might help limit open ended pursuits, all over the map, of vulnerable aircraft.  It would add to the drama, I think, the attacker knowing that they have a limited window to attack their victim, before becoming more vulnerable themselves.  It also fits the “reality” criteria, as a certain Mr Baron knows only too well.

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by HagarTheHorrible

[J99_Sizzlorr]

5 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

It is possible that Sizzlor is using not a sphere but a cylinder and while the same heights would apply, you could complete the mission at any level with the same result between the minimum and maximum altitude. 

 

I'm using the sphere same as Matthias, because the complex trigger cylinder is bugged right now.

 

It should work like this according to the excellent ME Manual from @JimTM: Put the bottom of the complex trigger cylinder at the desired height lets say 2000m that should be the minimal altitude for it to trigger. The top of the cylinder should reach limitles into the sky. But right now the bottom of the cylinder is limitles too. No matter at which altitude you put it.

 

That leads to stupid things as balloons get winched down even if you are 1000m below it when you enter the complex trigger cylinder. Which is stupid, but nothing I can do about it. If i would use the cylinder on recon tasks you could basically complete it at ground level which is not what we want. @1PL-Husar-1Esk Maybe some beta tester could forward this to the devs.

 

1 hour ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Photo recon aircraft, in the main, avoided combat where at all possible and as such the German experience is maybe a better exemplar for what should happen in FC, greater flexibility of operational altitude by the pilot, who should operate with the understanding that support will probably be limited, to the point of non existence and that salvation lyes with good observation and a dive for friendly lines when disturbed (a lack of a strong East/West direction wind is helpful in this regard although it might help even out the differing chances offered by the Brisfit and Halb and also conform, a little, to how it was).

 

 

If i remember correctly fighter aircrafts were invented to hunt down photo recon planes. That was their only purpose. It wouldn't be a big thing to change recon altitudes, it's just a number you have to change. There are other problems here at play. If you enlarge your sphere for higher altitudes it enlarges to the bottom as well. So if you just make the sphere bigger minimal altitude decreases as well. Not only that but time over target rise up as well because the diameter of the sphere gets bigger. You can however just place the sphere higher into the sky but then minimal altitude increases. It is a double bladed sword.

 

Regarding wind direction, wind was blowing mostly from West to East making it harder for entente pilots to fly back to their lines after a fight. In my mission wind is blowing from East to West to reflect that.

 

Just get together at Teamspeak or Discord to get a fighter escort going, isn't that why we fly multiplayer? To get together and play a game?

 

In the DoulCamb mission there are besides some AA MG's in the trenches 3 balloons on each side which are pretty good defended by AAA. Use the balloons as your point of retreat and pursuing scouts will regret their decision to follow you over your lines. 

 

About airstarts: Not a fan of them. Not for scouts nor 2 seaters.

 

7 hours ago, Oliver88 said:

Interesting. Then I must ask what is the reason for optimal altitude 2100m being stated on the tooltip (for want of better word) on the Recon missions?

 

Optimal is in sense of having the biggest chance to hit the sphere, because at this altitude it has the biggest diameter...

Edited December 15, 2019 by J99_Sizzlorr

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@J99_Sizzlorr I posted issue of the complex trigger cylinder at beta FC forum

Edited December 15, 2019 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[J99_Sizzlorr]

3 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

@J99_Sizzlorr I posted issue of the complex trigger cylinder at beta FC forum

 

Thanks mate 

[HagarTheHorrible]

Subject matter peeked my interest, which is what these forums and the game in general, is all about (for me) so I‘ve just invested in “Shooting the front” by Terrence Finnegan, all about the evolution of photo recon during WW1. 

 

Hopefully the Dev’s can fix the cylinder trigger zone and have a separately adjustable lower and upper limit.

[RNAS10_Oliver]

11 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

S! Oliver,

Re the changelog quote from almost a year ago:  Generally mission builders employ a "sphere" suspended in the air over targets which is intended to represent the minimal and maximal altitude ranges for photographic equipment of the period to be useable.  Too low and your field of view is not effective.  Too high and resolution is not sufficient.  So, if you stop and think about Matthias's recommended altitudes you can see he is essentially describing a sphere.  The minimal level is 1400m (radius near the bottom of the sphere with very little travel by the plane "in the photo sphere"); 2100m (widest radius of the sphere at the second quartile of the sphere (alternatively the 50th percentile or equator); 2800m at the top of the sphere.  Below 1400m or above 2800m there is not enough space to effectively take pictures. 

 

It is possible that Sizzlor is using not a sphere but a cylinder and while the same heights would apply, you could complete the mission at any level with the same result between the minimum and maximum altitude. 

 

 

 

 

Yes I get that but was rather more the "optimal altitude to minimize passes is 2100m, but you can run it between 1400m and 2800m" part the in the changelog (continued to be reinforced by the maps tooltips and other players prior advice) as that mentions that optimum being to minimize the passes required. But as its now being said this is all nonsense then the closer to 2800 meters is instead the optimal for minimizing your time (so long as one can be accurate) over the target area. I shall adjust my own conduct of recon missions accordingly then.

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Oliver, you might want to reread my post, look at the update notes I added, and look carefully at the diagrams I made.  They all describe and illustrate why, when a sphere photo zone is used over a target, the optimal altitude results in fewer passes over target area to obtain necessary pictures of the target.

Edited December 15, 2019 by J5_Baeumer

[RNAS10_Oliver]

Sorry no, I no longer understand.

 

I read and checked out the diagrams when you posted them, and have done so again to be sure. I understand the things you are saying there. And I've always understood these things to be behind the reasons for having the missions in game include an optimal altitude where you need to do fewer passes to complete the mission. But Sizzlorr has stated that this is not a factor in the missions, this seemed to contradict other information and is reason I quoted the changelog.

 

So for the missions in game which is the case;

 

On 12/14/2019 at 1:10 PM, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Also the sweet spot of altitude is nonsense you have to do the same amount of passes no matter the altitude. You just have to be in the triggering sphere. So best would be to enter the lowest or the highest part of the sphere to shorten the time over the recon target.

 

2 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

Oliver it's clear you need to reread my post and look carefully at the diagrams I made to illustrate why the optimal altitude results in fewer passes over target area to obtain necessary pictures of the target.

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Oliver88

[HiIIBiIIy]

What actually triggers the completion of taking photos?  Time spent in the sphere, or number of passes.

[HagarTheHorrible]

2 hours ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

What actually triggers the completion of taking photos?  Time spent in the sphere, or number of passes.

 

Hmmmm !  Good question.

 

Does flying slowly reduce the number of passes ?

[HiIIBiIIy]

@HagarTheHorrible   I opened a J5 mission in the ME, and in the recon logic there is a "counter" set  to 5, now my assumption is to make 5 passes.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I'm sure I've done it in three, but maybe I mis-remember.  So It's not length of time in the trigger area, but a select number of passes.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

6 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

I'm sure I've done it in three, but maybe I mis-remember.  So It's not length of time in the trigger area, but a select number of passes.

 

On DoulCamb it is 4 passes....

[JG1_Butzzell]

S! All

 

Regarding the Cylinder, I thought it was always ground height to heaven. Did they change it?  I did not see anything in the ME.

[jollyjack]

On 12/13/2019 at 5:19 PM, HagarTheHorrible said:

Why is it set at the height it is ?

 

12 - 15,000 ft seems much safer.

 

If you can get your out dated plane so high, and the Russians won't aim a buk rocket at your *ss ..

PS the height ting seems to be related to sea level, so n a mountain range you'll need some adjusting maybe.

Edited December 24, 2019 by jollyjack

[HagarTheHorrible]

1 hour ago, jollyjack said:

 

If you can get your out dated plane so high, and the Russians won't aim a buk rocket at your *ss ..

PS the height ting seems to be related to sea level, so n a mountain range you'll need some adjusting maybe.

 

 

??????, I'm sure there is supposed to be some humour in there, somewhere (I'm a bit thick).  !5,000 isn't really that high, Biggles swore by it.  Flanders also isn't really that much above sea level, approx 250 ft, while, if Gollum's had been around in the day even they, I suspect, would have struggled to reach Wipers from the distinctly disturbed, if not revolting, Russia.

[jollyjack]

must be confused ... feet and meters ..