PDA

View Full Version : Artilllery ranges - why not actual



nearmiss
02-16-2004, 03:10 PM
It sure would make a difference in the Il2-FB if Artillery ranges could be implemented for close to realistic ranges.

150MM artillery only rangeing about 4 KM, in lieu of 17 KM. Artillery should also be able to shoot over hills and mountains to designated target areas. As it is now, you not only have to have the target within range. You have to be able to visually see the target object or at least have line of site if you had an Eagle's eyes.

If you have Artillery firing at targets and there is a small hill in front of the artillery piece it will not fire.

Users can work around it, but it is strange.
It also requires a lot of zoom downs in the FMB to see if line of site on artillery will fire on targets.


Why do I say this. I think it would make a huge difference in frontlines and how objects are used if the ranges were closer to realistic.

So, I'm wondering...

Why can't actual artillery ranges be applied with trajectory matching instead of line of site and diminished range of fire.

nearmiss
02-16-2004, 03:10 PM
It sure would make a difference in the Il2-FB if Artillery ranges could be implemented for close to realistic ranges.

150MM artillery only rangeing about 4 KM, in lieu of 17 KM. Artillery should also be able to shoot over hills and mountains to designated target areas. As it is now, you not only have to have the target within range. You have to be able to visually see the target object or at least have line of site if you had an Eagle's eyes.

If you have Artillery firing at targets and there is a small hill in front of the artillery piece it will not fire.

Users can work around it, but it is strange.
It also requires a lot of zoom downs in the FMB to see if line of site on artillery will fire on targets.


Why do I say this. I think it would make a huge difference in frontlines and how objects are used if the ranges were closer to realistic.

So, I'm wondering...

Why can't actual artillery ranges be applied with trajectory matching instead of line of site and diminished range of fire.

Renegade_50
02-16-2004, 05:41 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Well as a EX Artilleryman of Alpha Battery 1st 35th FA Mech, if youll notice in the game there is no trajectory. shells fly nearly level . in order for realistic arty fire you would need 3D maping of the target in realtime. and the firing gun. then using the appropriate artillery calculations for Azimuth and Deflection. obtain the correct powder charge for firing solution. they obviously got around this by using line of sight fire. which is why the ship and cannon fire is so powerfull they are using all the kinetic energy they can to make sure it travels its max distance before falling to earth. i dont know what its called in the program but thats what it represents... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Hell's Angel 50
303rd BG (H) 358th BS
"Might in Flight"

clint-ruin
02-16-2004, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
It sure would make a difference in the Il2-FB if Artillery ranges could be implemented for close to realistic ranges.
_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry if you already know this, but the key to using artillery is spotting.

Use the german observation balloons [set side to russian if need be] or use forward scouting vehicles/boats/etc really boosts their range a lot.

It should be mentioned that a great deal of early war - or any defensive use, really - of artillery was simple direct-fire at things in the line of sight.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

GvSAP_Dart
02-16-2004, 10:27 PM
That and only direct fire with the guns is modeled - sure, some of them will go a bit short or long and hit the ground, but they only use ballistic solutions IIRC.

____________________________________
http://www.darts-page.com for more foolishness

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2004, 04:32 AM
No need to figure bags of powder. Just have the ballistics of the shells tabled or even use a simple curve function then apply slight deviations to the shots. Very slight unless rockets and then only slight. No need to compute at all if the shells aren't modelled as visible unless you want to make flying through the trajectories an iffy kind of hazard. Very iffy unless it's beaucoup guns all firing together. Possible but is it worth your framerate?

Clint? Spotters allow indirect fire in FB? Can you tell how to set it up or post a .mis file?


Neal

clint-ruin
02-17-2004, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
No need to figure bags of powder. Just have the ballistics of the shells tabled or even use a simple curve function then apply slight deviations to the shots. Very slight unless rockets and then only slight. No need to compute at all if the shells aren't modelled as visible unless you want to make flying through the trajectories an iffy kind of hazard. Very iffy unless it's beaucoup guns all firing together. Possible but is it worth your framerate?

Clint? Spotters allow indirect fire in FB? Can you tell how to set it up or post a .mis file?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[MAIN]
MAP Prokhorovka/load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1000.0
army 1
playerNum 0
[NStationary]
1_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$TuranII 2 41994.85 50898.94 360.00 0.0
2_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ML20 1 35999.93 51009.85 360.00 0.0
4_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$StudebeckerRocket 1 35999.86 51000.20 360.00 0.0
5_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Katyusha 1 36000.21 50989.89 360.00 0.0
6_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$ObservBalloon_90m 1 35989.05 51000.21 360.00 0.0
[Buildings]
[StaticCamera]
35979 51000 15
42013 50894 15
[Bridge]
[House]

______________
36000 firing to 42000 seems to be about it unless you want to stick objects facing up a hill. Spotting seems to work differently to how I remember it working, the observation balloon there is mainly just in for fun.

The 152mm seems to be doing about its max stationary elevation from that .mis, but still probably well within the max theoretical range. As with everything in FB we are dealing with a compromise of realism vs what's reasonable performance wise on any current day machine. Giving artillery awareness of the whole map in its bubble is likely to be a real killer.

One other alternative I've used - if you don't mind your mission looking silly - is to use the soviet Destroyer as a stationary ship for very long range artillery barages, since last I checked this had by far the longest range in game [12+km?]. Seems to use very much less CPU to get the same job done, and if you want to run missions where the artillery isn't going to be attacked or defended it can be useful.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Aviar
02-18-2004, 12:26 AM
I just wanted to correct a few errors I saw posted on this thread.....we mission builders need to stick together...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

clint-ruin,

those numbers you mentioned ("36000 firing to 42000 seems to be about it unless you want to stick objects facing up a hill.") have nothing to do with firing range. They are actually part of the coordinates which show the location of objects on the map. The numbers toward the end of the info line (Example: 5_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Katyusha 1 36000.21 50989.89 360.00 0.0) denote the actual orientation of the object. For example, '360.00' means that the object is facing due east (450.00 would be facing due south).

The other misconception is that observation balloons somehow interact (increase arty firing range, for instance) with friendly artillery or armor. This has been shown to be untrue a long time ago but is brought up as a topic of discussion periodically by new players. This can be proven quite easily, but I won't waste your time here with a lengthy explanation. As a matter of fact, I just tested this again with FB version 1.22 and the results are still the same.....observation balloons do not interact with friendly artillery.

The following was also stated: "The 152mm seems to be doing about its max stationary elevation from that .mis, but still probably well within the max theoretical range. As with everything in FB we are dealing with a compromise of realism vs what's reasonable performance wise on any current day machine. Giving artillery awareness of the whole map in its bubble is likely to be a real killer."

The first and last sentences in that paragraph are incorrect. The map coordinate numbers have nothing to do with, as you put it, "...its max stationary elevation..." the gun elevation of the 152mm (ML-20). One way to easily prove this is to view the object up close in the 3D map mode.

As a matter of fact, I copied and pasted the 6 static vehicles and their coordinates (from your last post) onto a clean map (level area) and placed a static camera so I could watch the action. The 3 artillery units were indeed firing on the enemy armor (Turan II). But when I removed the observation balloon, all 3 units were STILL firing...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So as you can see, even in the example you posted, the observation balloon had no effect on the friendly artillery.

Clint, I hope there are no hard feelings on your part. I just like to keep the information flow here as accurate as possible. Of course, if you have some hard evidence to refute any of my statements, feel free to post them here. I would be happy to test them out.

Happy Flying!


Aviar

[This message was edited by Aviar on Tue February 17 2004 at 11:41 PM.]

clint-ruin
02-18-2004, 12:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aviar:
I just wanted to correct a few errors I saw posted on this thread.....we mission builders need to stick together...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

clint-ruin,

those numbers you mentioned ("36000 firing to 42000 seems to be about it unless you want to stick objects facing up a hill.") have nothing to do with firing range. They are actually part of the coordinates which show the location of objects on the map. The numbers toward the end of the info line (Example: 5_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Katyusha 1 36000.21 50989.89 360.00 0.0) denote the actual orientation of the object. For example, '360.00' means that the object is facing due east (450.00 would be facing due south).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know.

I actually edit most missions from Notepad.

Thanks.

I know what the facing/degrees value does.

Height data works in metres.

Amazingly enough if we subtract 36000 from 42000 we are left with 6000.

How many 1km marks are there between the artillery and the Turan?

Um - 6.

What do you think the coordinates system corresponds to?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The other misconception is that observation balloons somehow interact (increase arty firing range, for instance) with friendly artillery or armor. This has been shown to be untrue a long time ago but is brought up as a topic of discussion periodically by new players. This can be proven quite easily, but I won't waste your time here with a lengthy explanation. As a matter of fact, I just tested this again with FB version 1.22 and the results are still the same.....observation balloons do not interact with friendly artillery.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This was actually mentioned in my post, don't know if you missed it.

Unless you have new information to bring to the table - line of sight is the critical factor in artillery and is discussed in every single mission building guide for Il2 that features artillery use.

It should be mentioned that gun ranges vary a lot - 76mm craps out at shooting long before the Studebaker, obviously.

I am wondering if Oleg has used 'maximum aimable' firing ranges rather than 'maximum area effect' ranges for a lot of the guns.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

The following was also stated: "The 152mm seems to be doing about its max stationary elevation from that .mis, but still probably well within the max theoretical range. As with everything in FB we are dealing with a compromise of realism vs what's reasonable performance wise on any current day machine. Giving artillery awareness of the whole map in its bubble is likely to be a real killer."

The first and last sentences in that paragraph are incorrect. The map coordinate numbers have nothing to do with, as you put it, "...its max stationary elevation..." the gun elevation of the 152mm (ML-20). One way to easily prove this is to view the object up close in the 3D map mode.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Um, no.

The comment was from looking at it in 3d mode. As it fired.

You know how the little guns turn left and right, up and down, when they track a target?

That's actually what I'm talking about, right there.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

As a matter of fact, I copied and pasted the 6 static vehicles and their coordinates (from your last post) onto a clean map (level area) and placed a static camera so I could watch the action. The 3 artillery units were indeed firing on the enemy armor (Turan II). But when I removed the observation balloon, all 3 units were STILL firing...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So as you can see, even in the example you posted, the observation balloon had no effect on the friendly artillery.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here is what I typed:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Spotting seems to work differently to how I remember it working, the observation balloon there is mainly just in for fun.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you miss that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Clint, I hope there are no hard feelings on your part. I just like to keep the information flow here as accurate as possible. Of course, if you have some hard evidence to refute any of my statements, feel free to post them here. I would be happy to test them out.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the FMB is totally underappreciated as a tool in the game and any information in its use is great to put out there on the net.

However I can't help but feel that you would have had better luck surmising my post if you'd read it blindfolded. I mean - are you trying to piss me off here or what?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

SeaFireLIV
02-18-2004, 05:37 AM
I think you guys are missing the fact that ground artillery, etc are actually simplified. They are there to give the impression of ground stuff going on. I`m no Mission Builder, but I`ve watched ground forces a lot using DCG, and they are definitely simplified.

I think to make them more complex (firing over hills, etc) would increase CPU workload a lot more.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LAlowblue.jpg

nearmiss
02-18-2004, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I think you guys are missing the fact that ground artillery, etc are actually simplified. They are there to give the impression of ground stuff going on. I`m no Mission Builder, but I`ve watched ground forces a lot using DCG, and they are definitely simplified.

I think to make them more complex (firing over hills, etc) would increase CPU workload a lot more.

SeaFireLIV...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry SeaFireLIV, but I don't think extending artillery range will affect the workload on the CPU.

As a mission builder I generally prefer to have aircraft as the core of my missions. In other words the ground objects are principally to enhance the air engagements. The placement of front lines and the current way you have to place artillery to even get them to fire is too difficult, and rather nonsensical.

I'd like to build mission scenario where the aircraft would go behind frontlines appx 10KM to strike enemy artillery, which is more realistic. When you have to have the artillery within a kilo and then within line of site it is very lame. Placement of frontlines is just not even close to viable, except as a marker and whether you are captured or not if you bale.

Remember...we're constantly getting improved computer hardware, and software. What was an issue 5 years ago for hardware is unheard of today.

So...I'm for improved artillery and armour shooting at more realistic ranges. Even if we did get FPS hits now for realistic artillery firing ranges, the choice of not having as much artillery is always available.

------------------ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

plumps_
02-18-2004, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't think extending artillery range will affect the workload on the CPU.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it does. The area around each artillery piece that has to be continuously checked for enemies to shoot at will grow enormously if you extend the range.

As this is a flight sim I'd rather have the CPU power used for AI checking for mountains in their flight path.

I often find that (often invisible) ground battles are the main reason for unexpectedly low frame rates in missions.

What about letting the mission maker decide about the range? Give us a new input field for "Range" in the Full Mission Builder. Then we can choose a short range to get good FPS or a long range for special purposes.

But IMO improving the aircraft AI is far more important in a flight sim.

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)

Kampagne für IL-2 1.2: I-16 - Kampf im Kaukasus (Deutsch) (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/kampagne.html)

nearmiss
02-18-2004, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't think extending artillery range will affect the workload on the CPU.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it does. The area around each artillery piece that has to be continuously checked for enemies to shoot at will grow enormously if you extend the range.

As this is a flight sim I'd rather have the CPU power used for AI checking for mountains in their flight path.

I often find that (often invisible) ground battles are the main reason for unexpectedly low frame rates in missions.

What about letting the mission maker decide about the range? Give us a new input field for "Range" in the Full Mission Builder. Then we can choose a short range to get good FPS or a long range for special purposes.

But IMO improving the aircraft AI is far more important in a flight sim.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think improving the FMB is a lot more important than artillery ranges and I can live with the AI programming as it is.

Everyone has priorities for what they think this sim needs. LOL

Also, your suggestion about selecting the range is not a bad idea.

I don't think FPS is going to keep being the issue it is with newer more powerful hardware being introduced. I remember when hardware moved from 8 bit to 16 bit...and then 32 bit.

64 bit with the right peripherals is going take the gamer world into another dimension.

------------------ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2004, 07:01 PM
You don't need to check the area. You go down the list of enemy ground objects for targettables and then check the ranges. Assume spotters if it helps or have spotters and status bits or bytes. Not much of a load. Having each gun store its current target along with if it is stationary or mobile can cut wayyyy down on checking for targets too. If spotters were made for batteries of guns then the spotter could keep target status and do searches for targets, even less load although a visibility check from the spotter would have to be made as occurs from each gun now anyway. In such a system the guns would not all fire at one point but rather the shots would fall as a group similar to the positions of the guns.

No, Hels-Angel, I don't think that sheaf, box, and other types of battery fire would be within the game scope for the AI FO's or AI FDC to decide on.

The big payoff though would be if the spotters could be planes, AI or players. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif We'd even get a whole added depth mode to missions since recon or taking out recon would make a real difference. But could FDC reassign the guns to another spotter?


Neal