What should the altitude for recon tasks be on J5 Flugpark Server?

[J99_Sizzlorr]

I want your opinion on the recon tasks altitudes on J5 Flugpark. Currently the recon altitudes are between 2000m and 3400m which is a compromise so that those tasks which are vital for mission success don't take too long. Poll is open for 1 month. Thank you for voting. Grab a pint and a Bratwurst.

Edited August 21, 2021 by J99_Sizzlorr

[US103_Baer]

I'd want to see it higher as anything that helps players to better utilise the vertical airspace component is advantageous to simming rather than gameplaying.

I have good memories of altitude being an excellent defence in RoF recon missions just as it was irl. Both the DFW and Breguet were excellent in that regard (in game). It's a shame that the mechanics of FC Recon missions don't promote high altitude the way that photographic coverage did in RoF.

 

As such I voted for highest option of 3000-4400. The 'optimal' height would only be 1000 higher than now and with decent climbing 2 seaters coming i doubt the overall time to complete would be more, in fact it could well be less.

You could implement it when the new planes are available.

Edited August 22, 2021 by US28_Baer

[Hellequin13]

Definitely a case of 'the higher, the better'. When flying recon, I prefer to go over the front as high as possible (to avoid being tagged by Archie - typically above 3km/10,000 ft) and then descend to the "optimal" recon altitude. This puts the recce kites back in Archie's range, marking them for the opposing craft. Add in the fact that the lower alt is also within grasp of anyone taking off from the rearward aerodromes and its just makes the recon missions a setup for failure more times than not (bagged two this Sunday past, spotting them via the AA shortly after taking off - in a recce of my own, no less!). Considering the time investment they already ask, the extra time to altitude would be well worth it if it increased the likelihood of success.

 

Also, having higher altitude targets might give cause for higher altitude patrols, which can only be a good thing.

 

Perhaps, if you are concerned with the climb times of the current plane set, it might be prudent to first introduce the slightly higher altitudes, and then bump them up again when the DFW and 'Baguette' drop.

[ZachariasX]

You need lots of players to make high altitudes fit average gameplay. If you host squads, then going high shound be no issue. After all, they should be as high as they can fly.

[No.23_Triggers]

went for the middle choice (not that I usually fly recons) - but I think 2600m - 4400m might be an interesting choice...leave it up to the recce pilot if they want to go low and risk scout interference or go high and potentially be a bit more safe...! 

[=IRFC=kotori87]

My biggest concern is the solid cloud layer at the top of rain maps. It is already very difficult to punch through solid cloud cover, and effectively impossible to navigate once you do, so it is absolutely vital that you ensure the recon altitude is lower than cloud level for such missions. Furthermore, if you get high enough then the rain will block your view of any useful navigation aids, cloud or no cloud. This should go without saying, but.... do keep in mind weather limitations when designing a specific mission.

 

Other than that, I like the idea of getting a little higher to get away from the @#% flak.

EDIT: just noticed the thread that spawned this one. There was some discussion about different trigger shapes, both cylinder and sphere. Are you limited to a single trigger for the mission? Would it be possible to have two or more overlapping spheres, for example? One above the other, producing a lumpy cylinder-like effect covering the desired range of altitudes? Another possibility would be to use a cylinder, but spawn several high-accuracy machine guns when the recce enters the cylinder and starts taking photos. Fly too low and you get punished, but you're free to go as high as you want.

 

Ultimately, I don't fly the recon missions because of historical accuracy. I fly the recons because they tend to cause fun and interesting fights. They are one of the best incentives on the Flugpark to fly at high altitude and in large groups.

Edited August 22, 2021 by kotori87

[US41_Winslow]

The recon height seems to me like it should be a bit higher than it is currently, especially once the Germans get a more capable reconnaissance machine.  Historically, Bristol Fighters were used for long-range reconnaissance as they were better able to defend themselves without scout cover than other types employed, such as DH.4s.  The Germans, not possessing a two-seater as capable as the Bristol, turned to altitude to protect unescorted two-seaters, which lead to the creation of several types to intercept them, such as the Dolphin.  So, increasing the recon night wouldn’t only make the recon itself more realistic, it would also allow high-altitude interceptors to perform their intended role, resulting in a more realistic overall representation of the war in the air.

[J2_Seya]

I would vote for 2000-4000. I don't want the lower limit changed. I won't just like the ability to come in higher when I feel like it.

[US103_Baer]

Just a note on weather.  

I was surprised at the extremely limited options rain options that Sizzlor identified.  

Limited to 100% overcast and rain across the whole map is crazy. 

I imagine there must be engine limitations or something but is it worth trying to ramp up the discussion on this? Has it come up before on BoX forums?

Is DCS all or nothing when it comes to rain?

It would benefit all users so there's plenty of 'discussion generation' scope ?

 

Squalls and passing fronts,  areas of broken to heavy cloud,  light rain vs heavy rain,  rain without haze. Just a thought

Edited August 22, 2021 by US28_Baer

[US41_Winslow]

24 minutes ago, US28_Baer said:

 

Just a note on weather.  

I was surprised at the extremely limited options rain options that Sizzlor identified.  

Limited to 100% overcast and rain across the whole map is crazy. 

 

I’ve looked at the weather options for the mission editor and they are quite limited.  There is no option to have rain without the whole map being fully overcast, but there can be overcast without any rain.  There is also no way to make the weather change over time.  Regarding the visibility in rain, I looked at one of the Flugpark missions in the editor and the haze was set at 0.6 I think.  I then tried lowering it to 0 and the visibility was noticeably increased, though I didn’t spend much time looking at so there may have been issues that I didn’t catch.

 

27 minutes ago, US28_Baer said:

Is DCS all or nothing when it comes to rain?

When DCS got its’ new clouds, my brother flew around them a bit and it wasn’t that much better than Il2, though you could have broken clouds causing rain.  Still, I don’t think there was a way to make the weather change over time or across the map.

[=IRFC=Gascan]

50 minutes ago, J2_Seya said:

I would vote for 2000-4000. I don't want the lower limit changed. I won't just like the ability to come in higher when I feel like it.

I would also be interested in trying that. The only issue, as Sizzlor pointed out in the initial thread, is the trigger is based on a sphere. If you make it taller, you also make it wider. This means you have to fly longer to cross the sphere if your altitude is right in the middle of it. It also means you can start taking photos from further away from the target. I mostly just want to bump up the max altitude and see how that affects the recon flights on both sides (mostly to get above the flak). I'm not too particular if this is by making the sphere bigger or simply by raising it up.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

12 hours ago, Miners said:

[...] Regarding the visibility in rain, I looked at one of the Flugpark missions in the editor and the haze was set at 0.6 I think.  I then tried lowering it to 0 and the visibility was noticeably increased, though I didn’t spend much time looking at so there may have been issues that I didn’t catch. [...]

 

The haze on the Lens noon mission aka the "rain map" is set to 0 since the last update...

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Question:  Does anyone know what the historically based altitudes would have been optimal/for the cameras of the period to produce usable plates (resolution, in-focus etc.)? 

 

[JG1_Vonrd]

More important to me than the assigned altitude (the current 2K to 3.4K is fine for me. Trying to get escorts willing commit to the time needed to climb any higher might be difficult) is to have much more variety / randomness of where the recon targets are from one map to the next. The enemy soon figures out where they are and just CAP them. This was a problem in ROF on New Wings as well.

 

Of course, the relatively small size of the current map is somewhat limiting.

Edited August 23, 2021 by JG1_Vonrd

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Randomizing the location of recons has been suggested before (ahem).  In response, it has been pointed out that the maps have certain limitations to natural features that would make for good recon candidates, keeping in mind the need for fairness to both sides for time/distance etc.  Placing various ground objects (such as troop tents, motor pools, reserve balloon and artillery depots, etc.  in various places that meet time/distance criteria might solve those problems (ahem).  

PS Related to the topic at hand on altitudes, however, is:

 

Question:  Does anyone know what the historically based altitudes would have been optimal/for the cameras of the period to produce usable plates (resolution, in-focus etc.)? 

[US41_Winslow]

1 hour ago, J5_Baeumer said:

Question:  Does anyone know what the historically based altitudes would have been optimal/for the cameras of the period to produce usable plates (resolution, in-focus etc.)? 

The late-war German two-seaters were able and regularly did go well above 20,000 feet.  Here is a link to an interesting article written by a German observer.  https://www.overthefront.com/over-the-front-journal/sample-articles/fierce-days-and-nights-in-flanders

@US213_Talbot posted some information regarding American operations in the DH.4 thread that showed they didn’t fly any lower than 3500 meters.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

9 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

Randomizing the location of recons has been suggested before (ahem).  In response, it has been pointed out that the maps have certain limitations to natural features that would make for good recon candidates, keeping in mind the need for fairness to both sides for time/distance etc.  Placing various ground objects (such as troop tents, motor pools, reserve balloon and artillery depots, etc.  in various places that meet time/distance criteria might solve those problems (ahem).  

PS Related to the topic at hand on altitudes, however, is:

 

Question:  Does anyone know what the historically based altitudes would have been optimal/for the cameras of the period to produce usable plates (resolution, in-focus etc.)? 

They were usually between 12000 and 18000ft

[J2_Bidu]

Where do I collect my prize for guessing the one guy who voted for more rain?

[No.23_Gaylion]

For infantry contact they were literally on the deck, about 250-500 meters.

11 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

 

Question:  Does anyone know what the historically based altitudes would have been optimal/for the cameras of the period to produce usable plates (resolution, in-focus etc.)? 

 

I'll take a closer look in my books. Give me a day or two.

[US41_Winslow]

On 8/22/2021 at 5:31 PM, J5_Baeumer said:

Question:  Does anyone know what the historically based altitudes would have been optimal/for the cameras of the period to produce usable plates (resolution, in-focus etc.)? 

When I was reading Aces Falling yesterday, I came across a quote by a Bristol Pilot who mentions their squadron flying both long-range recce. and patrols at 20,000 feet.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Miners

[US103_Baer]

On 8/23/2021 at 2:21 AM, J99_Sizzlorr said:

The haze on the Lens noon mission aka the "rain map" is set to 0 since the last update...

 

FYI

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

You can't go to high with recon. But, once you are in last hour of the mission, having to climb a Halberstadt over 3k would be race against time, so voted slighly higher.

BTW, can the mission triggers be combined using and / or / not logic? Say, there is a 2k radius sphere A on the deck on top of target, a cylinder B over the target, and recon plane must be in B and not be in A?

[JG1_Vonrd]

On 8/22/2021 at 5:31 PM, J5_Baeumer said:

Randomizing the location of recons has been suggested before (ahem).  In response, it has been pointed out that the maps have certain limitations to natural features that would make for good recon candidates, keeping in mind the need for fairness to both sides for time/distance etc.  Placing various ground objects (such as troop tents, motor pools, reserve balloon and artillery depots, etc.  in various places that meet time/distance criteria might solve those problems (ahem).  

PS Related to the topic at hand on altitudes, however, is:

 

Question:  Does anyone know what the historically based altitudes would have been optimal/for the cameras of the period to produce usable plates (resolution, in-focus etc.)? 

Just curious... what are the (ahem)s about?

[No.23_Gaylion]

Enjoy @J5_Baeumer. 

 

If you want to know specifics on other tasks such as arty spot, infantry contact I can dig that stuff up too. These books are very detailed with first person accounts, orders, and experiences while at the front. 

[No.23_Gaylion]

I think that there are other tasks that you guys could do that isn't the ol'photo recon mission we've always known. 

 

The arty observation mission was really cool that you guys had with flares and what not. 

 

You could do an infantry contact mission: specific plane "A" must fly 200m or less in front of the lines once to "report our troop advances." He lands after running that mission. The lines morve up a little. Now do it again with the lines moved deeper. He lands, and then lines move again. Have him "run the gauntlet" by increasing MG aa in area to simulate ground fire. Do it three times or whatever to have the overall objective completed.

 

Reconnaissance sketch: similar to photo but maybe lower and not as deep. He just passes through an area once or twice. He lands and those targets are now bombing objectives, or one of the three is random generated as objective. 

 

Balloon protection for arty spot: similar to the arty spot on operation Michael.  Activate by firing flare. Protect balloon or guns as arty fire the mission. Obviously make it long like operation Micheal, defend for 15 mins.

 

 

[Hellequin13]

In all honesty, not only could the altitude be raised up, but the size of the zone could be extended as well.

 

At optimal altitude both the DH.4 and the Brisfit indicate about 100 mph (160 kph), while the Halb sits a little lower at 155 kph. At these speeds, if you were to manage a perfect run at 2700 meters alt, dead center through the target area, it takes about 30 seconds to traverse the 1.4 km zone. Based on the number of passes I tend to have to make, I am guessing that the time requirement is two minutes?

 

That means there will be a minimum of 4 passes required. Even if you slow down to approximately 120 kph (where maintaining altitude becomes a chore) it'll only extend a perfect pass to 42 seconds, for 3 passes. Add in the time it takes to come around each subsequent pass and you are looking at least five minutes over the target zone. All the while being painted by Archie.

 

In an empty server you may get away with a successful run, but on a full server, with eyes all around, fat chance.

 

Now I understand, the idea is to try to get escort to protect you, but when you consider a typical run is an hour investment, the odds of getting anyone to commit is pretty low (it is a rare breed that will commit to the recce flight, let alone shepherding them along - perhaps if you're in a squad, but Les Hellequins have been defunct for quite some time now ?).  While a higher altitude will improve the odds of a solo run, reducing the time over target would be a more optimal improvement.

 

What if you extended the zone to 2000 meters, which would give a one minute pass at 120 kph, and raised the optimal altitude to 3500 meters? This would reduce the minimum possible passes to two, but require the pilot to maintain altitude and speed to accomplish. Minimum time over target could be reduced to approximately three minutes, and the boost in altitude would make the recce a harder target to reach, improving the odds of success.

 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

13 minutes ago, Hellequin13 said:

In all honesty, not only could the altitude be raised up, but the size of the zone could be extended as well.

 

At optimal altitude both the DH.4 and the Brisfit indicate about 100 mph (160 kph), while the Halb sits a little lower at 155 kph. At these speeds, if you were to manage a perfect run at 2700 meters alt, dead center through the target area, it takes about 30 seconds to traverse the 1.4 km zone. Based on the number of passes I tend to have to make, I am guessing that the time requirement is two minutes?

 

That means there will be a minimum of 4 passes required. Even if you slow down to approximately 120 kph (where maintaining altitude becomes a chore) it'll only extend a perfect pass to 42 seconds, for 3 passes. Add in the time it takes to come around each subsequent pass and you are looking at least five minutes over the target zone. All the while being painted by Archie.

 

In an empty server you may get away with a successful run, but on a full server, with eyes all around, fat chance.

 

Now I understand, the idea is to try to get escort to protect you, but when you consider a typical run is an hour investment, the odds of getting anyone to commit is pretty low (it is a rare breed that will commit to the recce flight, let alone shepherding them along - perhaps if you're in a squad, but Les Hellequins have been defunct for quite some time now ?).  While a higher altitude will improve the odds of a solo run, reducing the time over target would be a more optimal improvement.

 

What if you extended the zone to 2000 meters, which would give a one minute pass at 120 kph, and raised the optimal altitude to 3500 meters? This would reduce the minimum possible passes to two, but require the pilot to maintain altitude and speed to accomplish. Minimum time over target could be reduced to approximately three minutes, and the boost in altitude would make the recce a harder target to reach, improving the odds of success.

 

There is no time requirement for being the the target zone, the amount of passes are counted. If I would make the target zone bigger than it would contradict the thing you want. Recons would take longer with bigger target zones.

[Hellequin13]

Ah, well that's odd, as I have had a range of required passes. Most times 4 will do it, sometimes 5 or more are needed, and I seem to recall at least one run where 3 sufficed. Is there some other factor that affects this?

 

Perhaps a network issue, as I am pretty sure any run with more than 4 passes involved me not getting the prompt when leaving the zone.

 

In lieu of changing the zone size, perhaps cut the number of passes down? I am pretty sure the time over target is the bigger factor in success/failure. Five+ minutes of circling in a cloud of Archie is plenty of time for an enemy scout to climb up to greet you. At the current altitudes, at any rate.

 

Three passes through a 2000 meter zone is less than four through 1400. Plus that's one less turn required. And if you can do it at full throttle...

[=IRFC=Gascan]

Gotta read the subtitles and count the number of times it says you have exited the area and need to make another pass. I have noticed that sometimes it will not properly detect that I have left the area and will not give me the message, which means it hasn't taken the photo yet. I have to turn around and make another pass over the target, and it will then give me the subtitle. I have had to do up to 7 passes over the target to complete the recon, though usually 5 or 6 will do the trick if I get this error. Usually things work fine, and 4 passes gets the job done. I don't know why the game fails to detect that I have left the area. I don't think its an issue with the map, just an intermittent bug with the game.

 

It is entirely possible to run the recon even on a busy server, it just takes coordination. While I usually fly with a group on Discord, I also post in the team chat that I am running a recon. I usually get a few fighter pilots who are willing to come help who are not on Discord with me. They usually get into a fight with whoever climbs up to intercept me, and I get the recon done safely, even with 20-30 players on the enemy team. My average time for a recon flight is 30 minutes. That's still a big time commitment, but much better than an hour.