PDA

View Full Version : How do you navigate with full realism?



VIIC
07-12-2005, 01:25 PM
I am almost at full realism but the only thing I have turned off is flight path. So how are you able to get to each waypoint? Don't tell me that all you need to do is look at land marks cos that ain't enough.

MEGILE
07-12-2005, 01:27 PM
I print off the maps, and draw on them the flight path, speed, altitude, and ETA of each way point.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lbhskier37
07-12-2005, 01:38 PM
You don't really need to be exactly on a waypoint. When I fly full real I navigate mostly by rivers and bodies of water. When flying online wars I often will print out a map and mark the known locations of any ground forces and airfields too.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-12-2005, 02:15 PM
Here's another one of those cases where "full realism" just becomes over-difficult.

In the case of a combat mission, a pilot is likely able to have spent much more than 3-5 minutes in planning. That's about the time you have in an online war mission to get your plane, arm up and hit "Fly" before people start getting (rightfully) impatient.

It's LUDICROUS to suggest you wouldn't be more familiar with the flight plan; that you wouldn't know a little bit more about the area; it's even conceivable that you would have an annotated map on a kneeboard or in the cockpit. A map with waypoints mapped on it, at the very least, is a decent "simulation" of all the things you could assume that don't actually take place in the mission you fly: you might have been stationed at this airfield for months; you might have just visited the same combat airspace earlier that day; you may have made familiarization flights in the area; etc. etc. etc.

So, I think it's highly unrealistic to "pop into" a map with nothing on it, nothing to mark your spot, flying over terrain that looks the same for the most part, enemy airfields (that are visible on the briefing) now missing, all for the sake of this idiotic idea of realism that's simply "over difficult" masquerading as realism.

I'm not suggesting a map with big plane icons for every plane; that gives a bit too much info! But at least give players waypoints for a mission, or a positioning guide for himself.

Slechtvalk
07-12-2005, 03:09 PM
You read briefing.
You look where you airfield is and you make a close guess at which heading you must fly to the target and you remember or write down the coordinates from your destination.

Then you fly hdg 140 for example from which you think is about the right course (you are mostly not more off then 5 degrees with a bit of experience). heading 0 is north heading south is 180, east 90, west 270.

You take off and you are going your closely guessed course and you draw a line to the target in your mind when looking at the map. Then you just orientate by the landscape and the map.

But I agree it would be nice if there was a pencil with wich you can draw waypoints and targets on your map and other info.

It would be even more nicer if you could project the whole map on a second monitor.

Dunkelgrun
07-12-2005, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by VIIC:
I am almost at full realism but the only thing I have turned off is flight path. So how are you able to get to each waypoint? Don't tell me that all you need to do is look at land marks cos that ain't enough.


It's enough for me. Mind you, I spent nearly 30 years as a mapmaker so I find it's second nature. Of course, I can't fly the aircraft for toffee... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cheers!

Capt_Haddock
07-12-2005, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Here's another one of those cases where "full realism" just becomes over-difficult.

It depends what you are looking for, really.

For me the navigation is one of the most enjoyable parts of a mission, specially when flying bombing runs. Print the map and pencil down grid coordinates and headings for maximum immersion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/F19bannerh2.jpg

Chuck_Older
07-12-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Here's another one of those cases where "full realism" just becomes over-difficult.

In the case of a combat mission, a pilot is likely able to have spent much more than 3-5 minutes in planning. That's about the time you have in an online war mission to get your plane, arm up and hit "Fly" before people start getting (rightfully) impatient.

It's LUDICROUS to suggest you wouldn't be more familiar with the flight plan; that you wouldn't know a little bit more about the area; it's even conceivable that you would have an annotated map on a kneeboard or in the cockpit. A map with waypoints mapped on it, at the very least, is a decent "simulation" of all the things you could assume that don't actually take place in the mission you fly: you might have been stationed at this airfield for months; you might have just visited the same combat airspace earlier that day; you may have made familiarization flights in the area; etc. etc. etc.

So, I think it's highly unrealistic to "pop into" a map with nothing on it, nothing to mark your spot, flying over terrain that looks the same for the most part, enemy airfields (that are visible on the briefing) now missing, all for the sake of this idiotic idea of realism that's simply "over difficult" masquerading as realism.

I'm not suggesting a map with big plane icons for every plane; that gives a bit too much info! But at least give players waypoints for a mission, or a positioning guide for himself.

While navigating can be a fun challenge, I agree with the above

In actual mission planning, it was SOP that in many cases, things like control towers could be used...radio beacons followed (this lead to tragedy in the well known case of the B-24 Lady Be Good, that was lost for over 20 years but found in the desert. It had made it's attack and was returning to base, got a radio beacon fix, and followed it...but had flown over the base already. The beacons give two headings- the true heading and one 180* off. Lady Be Good followed a reciprocal heading and ran out of fuel. All crew died of exposure in the desert and the plane was found, crash landed, by oil surveyors in the '60s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif) There are stories of radiomen 'following' a radio stations' signal, etc

In Fb/PF, the monotony of the landscape is a hindrance...in george Loving's book, he describes a quick local orientation flight to pick out dangers and landmarks. Unique geography abounds in real life and we don't have it in FB

Add to that the real pilots were very often trained very thoroughly in navigation techniques and theory, for weeks and weeks...and that's why FB/PF players find navigation difficult. Personally, I have made some training missions in which you are introduced to navigation the way USAAC/USAAF pilots were, including the National Airways Light Lines, beacons which flashed morse code messages. Of course, there's no morse flashing, but you get the idea. You fly such and such a course for X minutes at Y speed and you'll see the light line beacon

F16_Neo
07-12-2005, 05:16 PM
I understand people who enjoy the flying/shooting aspect of the game and dont want to bother with navigation.
For us "FR"-or rather full-immersion geeks:
Paper map in a clear plastic cover and a thin whiteboard marker helps alot. I also have a compass-protractor thingy to find out headings.
If over sea I often try to go by compass/clock http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but thats tricky.
Print-optimised maps here:
http://flygflottilj16.se/download.php?lng=en

Stigler_9_JG52
07-12-2005, 05:17 PM
In the case of bombing, the crew would actually have charts mapped out, on map tables in the cabin and to be referred to. The pencil even rolls in one of the VVS bombers! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Kneeboards were not unheard of.

Point is, a complex flight plan would not necessarily have to be remembered, and even if it were, you'd have hours of time to commit it to memory than we have when "arming up" in game.

That's why I say that the map device of havinig waypoints and a position marker for your own plane is not "less than full real"; it's the overall EFFECT on gameplay that should be the issue.

Especially when, with no icons, you can lose an entire flight of bombers that are directly under you! You should at least be able to reference a flight path that you can return to in hopes that MAYBE you'll see an "invisi-speck"

diomedes33
07-12-2005, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Slechtvalk:
You take off and you are going your closely guessed course and you draw a line to the target in your mind when looking at the map. Then you just orientate by the landscape and the map.


This is one thing that really helped me. I look along that path and mentally mark landmarks on the way. This river should be on the right, this town should be on the left, etc ... While you travel to your destination tally off the landmarks. After a few times this starts happening automatically.

For single player missions, you can follow around the radio compass to all the waypoints. If you are new to this, I'd fly the German planes. The instruments are a lot easier to read then most of the other aircraft. The US planes are good too, but sometimes have settling issues. UK planes are an absolute nightmare, I turn on the speedbar whenever I fly one of these (The stick is between you and the compass).

@F16_Neo
I've been looking for a good set of maps for awhile, thanks for the link.

RAF74_Poker
07-12-2005, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Here's another one of those cases where "full realism" just becomes over-difficult.


I don't get it .... why are you even posting on this thread ?
You obviously don't like full switch ... this post is not about whether you like it or not .. it's about HOW to do it.
The poster obviously WANTS to do it, but is asking for hints and tips.
Somehow I don't think his world of simming is dependent on you ratifying his choices !
Unless you have a tip for him ... it's not your dog to hunt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Serpentmaster09
07-12-2005, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by RAF74_Poker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Here's another one of those cases where "full realism" just becomes over-difficult.


I don't get it .... why are you even posting on this thread ?
You obviously don't like full switch ... this post is not about whether you like it or not .. it's about HOW to do it.
The poster obviously WANTS to do it, but is asking for hints and tips.
Somehow I don't think his world of simming is dependent on you ratifying his choices !
Unless you have a tip for him ... it's not your dog to hunt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its rare that I post on this forum but this post caught my attention because I was looking for answers to this very same question. I totally aggree with Poker. The original poster was asking about navigation and not if you like full real . If you dont like flying full real then dont clog up a good thead with I hate Full Real BS.

Bearcat99
07-12-2005, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by RAF74_Poker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Here's another one of those cases where "full realism" just becomes over-difficult.


I don't get it .... why are you even posting on this thread ?
You obviously don't like full switch ... this post is not about whether you like it or not .. it's about HOW to do it.
The poster obviously WANTS to do it, but is asking for hints and tips.
Somehow I don't think his world of simming is dependent on you ratifying his choices !
Unless you have a tip for him ... it's not your dog to hunt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont see anything wrong with what Stig posted..... I agree with him actually. It would be nice if there were:

A)One more option in the settings for map & waypoits without your plane. That would be helpful in navigation even if your plane wasnt in the screen like a GPS icon.

and also

B)Being able to pull up the brief like the map.. or at least a shortened brief.

but unfortunately for the moment at least that isnt the case.


VIIC I would suggest either :

A)Print out the maps.. but then you have to find the map, mark your waypoints... even with plastic & grease pen it is a bit much and will the other pilots wait while you plot this out.... or will some idiot be typing in "GO GO GO!!!!" in the chat window.

B)Fly in servers that have minimap path.. there are several good ones out there. Or servers you know that use limited maps....

C)Get on the comms of whatever server you are in.

Personally I think the whole elitist "full real" or "full switch or you are a noob" crowd are over the top anyway. This is a sim. Period. You can lock the pits.. have the best flight models out, with no frills at all.... but as long as you can hit refly, as long as you dont have to sit on a parachute for 8 hours... or even a really really bad chair... for hours on end.... in cold, cold temps... even in summer.... with a relief tube under your desk that will freeze up above 20k.... with a space not much wider than your shoulders to move in, with your life on the line or at least the prospect of a really bad paper cut coming your way if you mess up.... the whole "full real" nonsense is just that. Nonsense..... If it floats your boat and that is a part of what you like and want in your simming experience then go for it..... you will suck it up and find a way to make it work.. but if it is too much of a hassle or it takes away from enjoying the sim then..... why bother? Find a server you like and fly it... have fun... cause in the end you are going to shut off your PC and go to bed.... and there are no scholarships or Olypic Gold medals or prize money for "full real" flight simming......

Have fun man.... thats what this is all about.


Keep in mind that "real" pilots trained in navigation. Try to take that approach... but you will have to keep an eye on your speed and direction.... and the time.. thats how they did it in real life. You are above the clouds.... cant see JACK below... but you know if you fly on XX heading at XX speed for XX amount of time you will be at X marks the spot. Thats how they did it in real life. Heading , speed time... and doing the math. If it's worth it to you then... go for it. Some of these "full real" guys have been flying in these maps for years... or like Dunk.. they are familiar with maps...... most of us however look at road maps.... no interstates in the sim.

rnzoli
07-13-2005, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Have fun man.... thats what this is all about.


So then why certain people try to define for others, what "the ultimate fun" should be????

I find this a bizarre turn in this thread.

Someone wants to have fun with realistic settings, but obviously, it is more fun to do the navigation, when you receive good hints how to do it.

And then, someone else jumps in the thread and says "this is not your fun at all, don't even try to learn it".


Anyway, back to the original question: I really need to memorize the map, before taking off, and plan my route. I even try to learn the strange names of mountains and villages, so that I can call out for help quickly.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also when I run a DS, I don't rotate the map for weeks, so that people can get used to navigate in the combat theater. Only the weather is changed regularly.

VIIC
07-13-2005, 04:21 AM
Thanks for all the tips. I've downloaded those maps from F16_Neo. I 'll try out all your ideas and see what suits me.
I would like to say that the reason for asking about this topic is obvoiusly to be a better pilot. One part of simming is to keep getting better in sim cos remeber for example when the first time you were able to land a plane or get that first kill. That one of the main reasons why we like sims. I've flown sims for some time and good in all other aspects just wanted to solve that problem so I would be able to play a campaign with full realism for the first time.
I won't have time to try out the new tactics today maybe really late but I'll tell what I've done when I get the chance to try it out.
It's nice to know there are people that can help out but don't get worked over it.

Thanks.

PlaneEater
07-13-2005, 05:06 AM
Ok, here's another question--how do you navigate without map icons or waypoints over the ocean?

We're talking blue water carrier ops. Take off, flight to objective, engagement, possible deviations and other unplanned course changed, and return to your flattop, all without ever seeing land of any kind.

How do I do THAT?

I'd kind of like to learn how to pull it off.

VIIC
07-13-2005, 05:18 AM
Good question!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ho would you do that?

Bearcat99
07-13-2005, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Have fun man.... thats what this is all about.


So then why certain people try to define for others, what "the ultimate fun" should be????

I find this a bizarre turn in this thread.

Someone wants to have fun with realistic settings, but obviously, it is more fun to do the navigation, when you receive good hints how to do it.

And then, someone else jumps in the thread and says "this is not your fun at all, don't even try to learn it".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont know if you are referring to me or not but since you quoted me...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I am not trying to "define" anything for any one and I certainly didnt say anything even remotely resembling "This is not your fun at all, dont even try to learn it".. in fact I think I made some pretty good suggestions..... suggestions that would even apply to navigating over water..... so I dont know what you are talking about.

Badsight.
07-13-2005, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by RAF74_Poker:
I don't get it .... why are you even posting on this thread ?
You obviously don't like full switch ... this post is not about whether you like it or not .. it's about HOW to do it.
The poster obviously WANTS to do it, but is asking for hints and tips.
Somehow I don't think his world of simming is dependent on you ratifying his choices !
Unless you have a tip for him ... it's not your dog to hunt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

no no you dont understand

Stigler doesnt like FB much , he has a Long list of pet-hates with this sim

if you ever get the rare chance to see him in an actual online game you will be entertained by his constant complaining

if Stigler can find a way to complain about FB-PF here at this forum , even if its a off-topc point that diverts the thread . . . . .

. . . .. . he will , his main problem with FB is that it isnt Targetware

& he isnt in charge or has any influence like he has with Targetware

Friendly_flyer
07-13-2005, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by PlaneEater:
Ok, here's another question--how do you navigate without map icons or waypoints over the ocean?


Historically, it was done the same way as overland navigation by nigh: Keeping track of speed, direction and time. Getting a bomber to its target several hours away in pitch darkness was a job for specialists. If you ever see "The Dam Busters", you'll get the idea.

Now, as Stigler mentioned, no-one just went out with a map at two minutes notice and navigated to Berlin and back. Such a flight was prepared for hours. The navigator would pour over his maps, compute distances, speed and flying time between waypoints, factoring in known wind speed, and make note of any notable features etc. The pilot or nose gunner would have head ups like "You should be able to spot the coastline and a river mouth any minute".

This is very challenging to do ingame, but can be very rewarding when you pull it off. Naturally, it€s nothing suited to online flying, but offline missions give you the time to prepare all you like. A well written bomber mission with special notes on heading, waypoints etc is immensely fun!

Over territory covered by friendly radar, radio communication from tower was frequently used (e.g. "Head one-seven-zero, height twenty", I'm sure you have heard this ingame).

rnzoli
07-13-2005, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
[]...so I dont know what you are talking about.

Sorry for the confusion. Actually, I was referring to Stiegler's comments in the first place.

The reason why I quoted you (and not him) because while I fully agree with your "live and let live" proposal, I see more negative comments towards full difficulty settings, all the time, even in your post, despite your honorable attempt to strike a fair balance.

Measuring the time while on course to a waypoint with the planned speed & heading can be a funny sim challenge, so why call the whole "full switch" crowd ELITISTS? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I get lost on a regular basis anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Covino
07-13-2005, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by PlaneEater:
Ok, here's another question--how do you navigate without map icons or waypoints over the ocean?

We're talking blue water carrier ops. Take off, flight to objective, engagement, possible deviations and other unplanned course changed, and return to your flattop, all without ever seeing land of any kind.

How do I do THAT?

I'd kind of like to learn how to pull it off.


It quite simple actually...

To Target
TAB
"Ground Control"
"Navigation" (I'm not sure this subcategory exits)
"Vector to Target" (I believe this guides you to the next waypoint so it may even take you back home or...)

To Base/Carrier (straight line)
TAB
"Ground Control"
"Navigation" (again, not sure you need to enter this subcategory)
"Vector to Base"

EDIT: Also, most planes (especially American and German) have a repeater(?) compass that automatically directs you to your next waypoint.

mauld
07-13-2005, 06:38 AM
To navigate between waypoints use the radio compasses that are in the aircraft, I dont know how many have them but the ones that do (american mostly) are usually marked as repeater compass on the cockpit guides at http://free-st.htnet.hr/dvd/ just keep the solid neadle inbetween the two lines and you are flying towards the way point.

F10_Chainsaw
07-13-2005, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by mauld:
To navigate between waypoints use the radio compasses that are in the aircraft, I dont know how many have them but the ones that do (american mostly) are usually marked as repeater compass on the cockpit guides at http://free-st.htnet.hr/dvd/ just keep the solid neadle inbetween the two lines and you are flying towards the way point.

Most german airplane do have that to, Heinkel has an more acurate waypoint indicator as well (first the normal then an extra one)

But keep in mind Covino that if you play on online servers there will be NO waypoints AND on some servers the TAB function doesnt exist. so you cant ask tower for heading to target and home and so on.

so best way is to learn to navigate, and the tips that been given is the ones I know so I wont reapeat them...

Good luck with the navigation mate!

/CHainsaw

Tater-SW-
07-13-2005, 08:44 AM
I agree with stig/bearcat as well. In "full real" what map/navigation data you have should really be based upon your CREW. You are pilot in command, but on a bomber, you have a navigator that does nothing but navigation. If you want to deal with navigation on a B-25 with no game-aids, then the plane should be on autopilot while you plot out the position as navigator full-time. Having to 2 both is itself unrealistic, the pilot flies, the navigator navigates.

What would be idea are map settings for crewed aircraft that give position estimates based upon crew quality (probably for BoB or another sim, obviously). A "best guess" for the plane's position. in map view, the pilot could then take an "observed" position that the navigator AI plotted, and correct it based upon what the pilot observes to be the terrain below. Ie: you go into map view and ask for a position (tab->navigation->"check position"). The map gets an icon on it where the Average AI says you are, 4km SE of some small town. As pilot, you take the flight over a road crossing ahead, and check position, it shows you west of the crossing, so you grab the position estimate, and drag it to the crossing. This tells the navigator a recised position, improving his accuracy for the next estimate.

anyway, there are things like that that could be done.

tater

Stigler_9_JG52
07-13-2005, 09:41 AM
Mzoli, I don't have a problem with the "full real" concept; in fact, I embrace it. Provided it's actually "realistic".

"Full switch" I have a problem with, because it's just as unrealistic as "arcade", only on the other side of the easy/difficult continuum. Overly difficult is just as poor a simulation as dumbed-down easy.

The object for a simulation is to be accurate, and to translate real life phenomena and experiences through the various game systems. So, it doesn't have to be completely physically realistic (e.g., blackouts, Gs, burning alive in your cockpit), but the combination of the game systems should produce results similar to reality (e.g, in the case of blackouts your screen goes black, and your stick inputs are minimized or ignored; but you're still conscious in front of your monitor). If it doesn't produce results similar to reality (Exhibit A being the no-icon "invisi-specks" that stop you from using the historically proven tactic of patrolling at altitude and picking lower targets) then it's not good simulation: it's simply "hard", "medium" or "easy". "Accurate"... that is what the yardstick should be.

So, my point in this thread is, if you want to simulate navigational challenges, you can't realistically handicap the pilot with "no waypoints" when he has a mission he would have been planning for hours, or possible prior experience flying over an area; you can't expect him to successfully navigate a map where all forest terrains look exactly the same (except for the border contours of them), the rivers are identical, and there are a minimum of unique landmarks to follow below. But you CAN simulate this in the game with the kneeboard. I'd say whether you have a "your plane" icon is more optional and subject to debate: but some of our maps, like the Finland maps, the Russian "steppe" maps with no coasts, you can easily get completely lost in those, due to the "sameness" of the terrain.

Finally, I will say that my answer to the original question is, "If full realism is your aim, and not full switch hairshirt difficulty, you don't navigate with nothing on your map; you find settings that are closer to reality than that."

marmossel
07-13-2005, 01:19 PM
actually, a plotted course on the missions' game map IS realistical, as pilots would have it plotted for their current mission before getting into their birds.

what is not ralistical about it is having a curent aircraft's position beacon updated in real time showing your plane's exact position on that map.

the best aproach for this problem would be:
1) allow that current mission's plotted course to be diaplsyed on in game mission map
2) allow pilot to can make markings with his current estimated/guessed position (eventually automatically adding the current time at which that marking was made)
3) allow a key to ask for an AI made mark with the current estimated/guessed position (eventually automatically adding the current time at which that marking was made) from your plane's navigator ONLY on aircraft having a navigator position (different that the main pilot's one), with the possibility for the pilot to manually correct it via drag and rop (see point 2)
4) have friendly radio beacons marked on the current mission map (where IS the case, ie only on maps where these beacons did existed), each with it's own radio frequency and covered area
5) have the estimated course plot of your own carrier (take off position, eta and position route at take off, eta and position of landing area) and automatically updated with any eventual new course/landing area eta and position ONLY for the course updates transmited by the carrier AND received by your plane while in flight

Also, LEARN to read the map and identify it's features on the surrounding terrain. Is VERY difficult and discouraging in the beginning, but you'll get used with it in time. I had a lot of flights on HL server with full realism servers on all sort of maps, and even on the most featureless maps there are planty of land marking to be recognized for estimating your current aircraft's position and orientation. Is indded more difficult in the night, because of the increased difficulty in spotting terrian landmarks (as in reality), but is doable with a little training.

The most difficult situation would be a flight in the middle of the ocean, with no isles shores nearby to get oriented when your lost. That is called "blind" flying and can ONLY be done knowing the flight's plotted course, carriers' plotted course (updated with any course changes during between takeoff and landing) and a STRICT following of aircraft indicators (plane speed, clock and compass). In there the ONLY certain point you do know is the takeoff position and everything else you need to have it computed from this position. There are two ways to do this:
1) strictly follow the takeoff flight plan for your flight (which consists in a series of marked plots, each with it's own new changes in direction, altitude, cruise speed and time to follow):
- takeoff: point x0,y0 (takeoff point), TOH-30 hour, no compass, "0" altitude and climbing, "0" mph speed and increasing, for 30 minutes (the eta duration for this first flight mark is the time needed for the aircraft to reach the desired mark 1 point from "0" mph/"0" altitude to mark 1 point's altitude and speed, usually the cruise altitude and speed, also waiting for the other flight group members to take off and get into formations)
- mark 1 point: point x1,y1 (gathering point), TOH hour, 270 compass, 1200 m altitude, 200 mph speed, for 90 minutes (estimated course to target time duration - 5 mins attack preparing)
- mark 2 point: point x2,y2 (attack preparing point), TOH+90 hour, 270 compass, 3000 m altitude, 300 mph, for 5 minutes
- mark 3 point: point x3,y3 (estimated attack starting point), TOH+95 minutes, no compass, 3000 m alt, 300 mph, for 15 minutes (estimated attack duration)
- mark 4 point: point x3,y3 (estimated attack exit point), TOH+110, 90 compass, 100 m alt and climbing to cruise alt, 300 mph speed to cruise speed, for 90 minutes (estimated course back duration)
- mark 5 point: point x1,y1 (estimated home carrier contact point - stationary carrier in this case), TOH+200, 90 compass, 1200m alt, 200 mph, no estimated duration - start home carrier locating maneuvers

This is in fact a simplified flight plan, yet you can make an idea what it is about..

2) if you're not following the flight plan, from the beginning or from any other point of it, you'll need to mark the new course for yourself (all new plots, each with it's all flight plan's characteristics from the last modified ones and the duration of time you kept these new flight characteristics unmodified), and try to match it with the mark 5 point from the previous flight plan (OR in case of a moving carrier, the new mark 5 plot considering carrier's "know" course and your new modified flight plan).. also, you'll need a good amount of prayers like:
- "god help me to have all the flight instruments working properly"
- "god forbid all made-by-me-mistakes when i've noted them down on the map"
- "god help me to not have the carrier change it's "known" course"

and so on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bearcat99
07-13-2005, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by buerebistas:
actually, a plotted course on the missions' game map IS realistical, as pilots would have it plotted for their current mission before getting into their birds.

what is not ralistical about it is having a curent aircraft's position beacon updated in real time showing your plane's exact position on that map.


By Jove man!!!! I think you just invented a new word!!!!!!! BRAVO!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

rnzoli
07-14-2005, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Mzoli, I don't have a problem with the "full real" concept; in fact, I embrace it. Provided it's actually "realistic"."

Maybe worth to mention: realistic in what aspect?

I expect the sim to deliver me realistic CHALLENGES. Example: if I don't prepare well for the navigation over unknown territories, as opposed to real-life pilots, then I shall be hopelessly lost, period.

You expect the sim to deliver you realistic RESULTS. Example: if you don't prepare for navigation over unknow territories, you still want to find your way with other aids, just like the real-life pilots who always prepared themselves.

"Overly-difficult" and "dumbed-down easy" are relative terms that compare a certain difficulty settings to someone's own capabilities. So let's not forget that the solution to an overly-difficult setting can be 2 ways:
A) get some more aid from the game, e.g., the map icons
B) get yourself more capable, e.g., spending more time with nav preparations.

Both are fine solutions from my perspective. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A "third" solution is a compromise, e.g., get more, but subtle aid from the game, in the form of a kneeboard, or an AI navigator, so that you can reduce some of the preparation requirements for being successful, but not all.

These suggestions are also great from my perspective http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
07-14-2005, 12:18 PM
Good questions.

From my viewpoint, the game system has to reconcile "sim realities" and "player realities" and balance them with game devices that produce the most realitic results.

Planning and navigation are hugely important, no question, but it is not reasonable to suggest a player see for the first time and remember a detailed flight plan and landscape map from a Briefing Screen in 3 minutes, so he can ready for the mission along with 15 other impatient people who want to get on with it. Even printing out game maps isn't something that can be assumed; by now there are so many of them in the sim as to be kind of expensive to assume everybody can print their own charts. These are GAMEPLAY realities that have to be addressed.

However, we can make a reasonable assumption that the pilots the mission is simulating have had time to prepare and have had time to memorize some landmarks: to simulate that in game form, ta-da! You have a handy dandy kneeboard to refer to in game, in flight.

And, since it is not totally unreasonable to suggest that it was possible for some pilots and some crews to actually have a mission map on a plane, it's not really bending the reality illusion that far.

A more "unclear" example of game aids vs. reality would be the use of icons, since we know avatars with letters and numbers don't float around objects in real life; but, planes don't disappear in plain view as much as they do in this sim, either. With icons, the EFFECT on combat is closer to real life: at close range and maneuver range, a combat pilot will usually be able to track at least ONE, and possibly a small number of contacts very well. Icons do this better than not having icons (at least imo).

NonWonderDog
07-14-2005, 02:47 PM
I've just got one question...why is it that any thread asking about realism invariably devolves into the same 4 year-old icon debate?

I agree with Stigler on this one, though. Navigating in "full real" is NOTHING like navigating in real life. VFR is horribly difficult because all the terrain looks the same. I'm not sure what night- or ocean-flying should be like in WWII, but while I don't expect modern VORTAC coverage while flying on instruments, there were at least a few radio nav-aids around. At the very least we would be told bearing, range, and time-on-waypoint in the briefings!

Jetbuff
07-15-2005, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by VIIC:
How do you navigate with full realism?
Badly...? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Jetbuff
07-15-2005, 01:56 AM
Stigler, while I am of the same opinion that planes should not disappear as readily as they do in the game, I think icons go too far in the other direction. It is true that icons are configurable so one could theoretically implement something that more closely matches their expectations of simulation. Indeed, my own preference, when I have to use them, is black, range-only icons at 4km. (no IFF)

However, there are a number of things that prevent this from being the ultimate solution:

(a) everyone likely has a completely different opinion on what constitutes realistic icons settings so the chances that there will be a universally accepted setting are pretty slim. I mean look at the hulabaloo over icons vs. no icons and imagine how many more words would be wasted arguing the exact distance at which range, colour, dot, type, id and name should kick in.

(b) For those who wish to maintain padlock as the trackIR equalizer (which I sympathize with) icons in conjunction goes well beyond simulating RL esp. in the IFF department.

(c) I have the sneaking suspicion that when icons are turned on but limited to short ranges this actually adversely affects any LOD's that lie outside the maximum setting of your "range" value. This is a subjective feeling I admit but one I've experienced ever since icons became configurable in this game.

(d) There are other ways of improving visibility without using icons. e.g. the DOT setting takes effect regardless of whether icons are on or off and setting it to 25km seems to work wonders for me. Another example is designing missions over good visibility maps or in good visibility conditions - far too often it appears that map builders (perhaps in pursuit of atmospheric ambience) almost go out of their way to cripple visibility in their missions. This latter issue appears to be more common in DF servers btw. To test this, go into your FMB and set a few planes in the air or objects on the ground, then just play around with the time of day and watch how much it affects visibility.

Badsight.
07-15-2005, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
From my viewpoint, the game system has to reconcile "sim realities" and "player realities" and balance them with game devices that produce the most realitic results.

Planning and navigation are hugely important, no question, but it is not reasonable to suggest a player see for the first time and remember a detailed flight plan and landscape map from a Briefing Screen in 3 minutes, so he can ready for the mission along with 15 other impatient people who want to get on with it. Even printing out game maps isn't something that can be assumed; by now there are so many of them in the sim as to be kind of expensive to assume everybody can print their own charts. These are GAMEPLAY realities that have to be addressed. what is the point of posting that . if you expect to see a ingame set of waypoints then enable it . the highest difficulty setting is all aids off , but that doesnt mean you have to play the game with it off

if you like to have it on then switch it on !

the WP being abled to be turned off is essential to online wars & is necesary to play with them off , if you dont like the full real setting then joy ! you dont have to use it & can play the way you want to

its not hard or requireing post after post of what FB does wrong according to Stigler


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
And, since it is not totally unreasonable to suggest that it was possible for some pilots and some crews to actually have a mission map on a plane, it's not really bending the reality illusion that far. or you do what they did in RL & print the map out & have it sitting right there in front of you !

just think , you wouldnt be stuck with the tiny in-game map ! you could have it so much better & relieve the forum of some whining !

of course navigation in this game is pretty easy on almost all the W/ETO maps as most have rivers & forests , seriously

yes i mean seriously , it doesnt take long before you can get around these maps like they are the back of your hand , almost all qualified online war players do it by second nature , it what comes from pratice Stigler

its not some leet skill only the best have

prokhorovka excepted , that ones doable but a pita

rnzoli
07-15-2005, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
I've just got one question...why is it that any thread asking about realism invariably devolves into the same 4 year-old icon debate?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ...even though we have our very own private difficulty switches off-line, and we can can select from a variety of servers on-line.... so why, really? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

karost
07-15-2005, 01:42 PM
when I radio to my home base where it is.. :P I never miss a home when play coop, that look realism..?

but on carrier and sea... for offline... well it more realism when I can not find a mama ship and fuel are going out... that it is look realism. but ... but hey we have auto pilot... Oh thank god! :P

if one of you played old game like LW Commander ... "for navigate flight" ... that is realism... IMHO ( of cause )


S!

Stigler_9_JG52
07-15-2005, 02:51 PM
Badsight wrote:

what is the point of posting that . if you expect to see a ingame set of waypoints then enable it . the highest difficulty setting is all aids off , but that doesnt mean you have to play the game with it off

if you like to have it on then switch it on !

We're talking about "full realism", and if you are talking about the online war hairshirt version of this, you don't get a CHOICE of whether it's on or not. I thought that was rather obvious.

And yes, I have expressed my opinions on what truly constitutes "full real" if realism is one's goal. That's part of the reason for a question like this; you know, discussion? Debate? Exchange of viewpoints and ideas?

What is it you're so truly bothered by, Baddy? That I actually have a viewpoint? If that's your problem, well, sorry, I'm not going to stop thinking and having an opinion for you.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-15-2005, 02:57 PM
Jetbuff wrote:

...I think icons go too far in the other direction. Indeed, my own preference, when I have to use them, is black, range-only icons at 4km. (no IFF)

Well, the black icons are just as likely as the dot to simply disappear in plain view against forests and against other terrain types too. I'd agree with you if you could set the color of the "neutral" icon; as it is now, it doesn't solve the problem at all.

As for icons going too far, again, I believe it DOES come down to "an icon system" and not the default, billboard-length variety.

Another thing you mentioned also enters into the discussion: "good visibility maps". Another wonderful example of the overall visual problem of IL-2's graphic system. Some maps are easier to see on than others (if weather is constant). Problem. You can't see diddly-squat on Finland maps or summer Normandy maps. Somewhat better on Russian maps. The sim should have a universal visual solution which clearly it does NOT. Because vision and tracking are so integral to air combat, this becomes a MAJOR knock against the entire sim. When you can't readily use real-life tactics (once again, I'm referring to hunting at alt and selecting targets below, RELIABLY), then the simulation fails.

Badsight.
07-15-2005, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
We're talking about "full realism", and if you are talking about the online war hairshirt version of this, you don't get a CHOICE of whether it's on or not. I thought that was rather obvious. then dont fly there !

simple hay ?

run it down all you want , but the settings in online wars shouldnt be relaxed so you get to catch up to everyone else , if you cant get on with those settings then step back down , dont play the poor-me-these-settings-are-BS here

its called whining , not debate or discussion !

Tater-SW-
07-15-2005, 03:54 PM
Ah, yes, the game is perfect with no flaws, and no room for improvement, eh, badsight.

A better icon/dot system would certainly improve the simulation. I see planes against the ground from a few to about 15 miles away all the time (my house is 1500ft above town on the side of a mountain). They don;t get lost as randomly as it seems in il-2.

tater

Badsight.
07-15-2005, 04:02 PM
this is what you call RL view ~~~> http://xs36.xs.to/pics/05273/RLview.jpg

never to me has dot hunting been as hard as it is now , we got vanishing dots & planes

but Stigler is just a crybaby , have you ever seen him flying oline ? a non-stop river of crying thru the chat , that & the fact he's just not very good at the game yet says how "everyone" has the same difficulties he does

Stigler ONLY posts to run down this game , his views are based on "FB should be how i like & called Targetware"

if you hadnt noticed what Stigler does in threads this one is a good example , he posts his whines where they are related , but yet have nothing to do with the threads topic , divets discussion from the topic so he gets to spurt he pet-hate crybaby whines , here in this thread the started asked for how you nav in full real , not what is wrong with the full real setting in FB

yet here he is obviously not able to nav in full switch very eaisly but boy does he have an opinion about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
07-15-2005, 05:16 PM
Badsight spat:

run it down all you want , but the settings in online wars shouldnt be relaxed so you get to catch up to everyone else , if you cant get on with those settings then step back down , dont play the poor-me-these-settings-are-BS here

its called whining , not debate or discussion !

That's funny; I thought I went to great lengths to compare the effects of the maps features (or lack of same) and icons to real life conditions, visuals, tactics (and the ability to use them); sounds like debate and discussion to me. Naturally, you have little to add to that discussion, pro or con. What little you did add, I think I refuted pretty well.

On the other hand, your post, now that looks like whining based on personal dislike.

So, it's not about "if you don't like it, don't fly there"; that's the typical cop-out, limit discussion approach. Since the topic is REALISM, and the online wars have an expressed goal of providing realistic environments (as opposed to merely "the most difficult settings"), it's all relevant.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-15-2005, 05:17 PM
FR navigation?

Outbound, ask the tower for a vector to target?
Inbound, ask for a vector to home

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Who says radar (or, at least, radio triangulation/fixing) isn't modelled in Il-2?

Alternatively, you could always do what I do and fly #3 in the vain hope that the person who picked the lead spot knows what they're doing/where they're going and, if they don't, at least you may have an AI wingman to boss about.

Ta,
Norris

Badsight.
07-15-2005, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
So, it's not about "if you don't like it, don't fly there"; that's the typical cop-out, limit discussion approach. Since the topic is REALISM, and the online wars have an expressed goal of providing realistic environments (as opposed to merely "the most difficult settings"), it's all relevant. ha ha Stigler , you so badly want to compete in these online wars , but your lack of skill keeps you from being competitive

in no way should the best of these be relaxed just because you find it hard to compete in , the whole point isnt to make it easy

btw the topic ISNT realisim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif (your just trying to hijack YET ANOTHER thread) which your lack of full real flying ability isnt qualified to dicuss anyway , the topic is "How do you navigate with full realism?"

how about you either shut up or stick to the topic

Stigler_9_JG52
07-15-2005, 09:11 PM
I dunno about all that, Baddy. I have been flying a little Czech War, and have only died once, and bailed safely once, while getting 5 or 6 kills and RTBing 4 times, if memory serves. Including the successful Stuka mission, with a target hit and rtb. Given the mortality rates of the average CW mission, I'd say I was being fairly "competitive".

Of course, you wouldn't know that from if I was 0-10 sorties with no kills, seeing as you haven't even bothered to check any stats, just rant and shoot off at the mouth with no support whatsover. To each his own.

By the way, your kvetching is doing more to derail the thread than any of my comments, which have actually stimulated it.

Badsight.
07-15-2005, 11:19 PM
i couldnt give a stuff about your stats , every coop ive yet seen you in you were a easy kill & then you got the nerve to spout off like your an expert

any time you want to hijack peoples threads , which is all you ever do , dont be surprised if your called out about

Tully__
07-16-2005, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by Dunkelgrun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VIIC:
I am almost at full realism but the only thing I have turned off is flight path. So how are you able to get to each waypoint? Don't tell me that all you need to do is look at land marks cos that ain't enough.


It's enough for me. Mind you, I spent nearly 30 years as a mapmaker so I find it's second nature. Of course, I can't fly the aircraft for toffee... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cheers! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do this also, after making appropriate notes in the briefing. It does take some practice to become comfortable with how map representations of forests, roads & rivers correspond to what you see from the cockpit, but except in really poor weather it can be done without too much difficulty.

Tully__
07-16-2005, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by PlaneEater:
Ok, here's another question--how do you navigate without map icons or waypoints over the ocean?

We're talking blue water carrier ops. Take off, flight to objective, engagement, possible deviations and other unplanned course changed, and return to your flattop, all without ever seeing land of any kind.

How do I do THAT?

I'd kind of like to learn how to pull it off.


Originally posted by VIIC:
Good question!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ho would you do that?
Time/speed/heading and lots of luck.

When calculating distance from speed & heading, you also have to keep in mind altitude because the speed shown on the cockpit guage is Indicated Air Speed. At anything but "sea level" this varies considerably from true airspeed (and if winds were modelled more accurately, groundspeed would be different again).

Bearcat99
07-16-2005, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
We're talking about "full realism", and if you are talking about the online war hairshirt version of this, you don't get a CHOICE of whether it's on or not. I thought that was rather obvious. then dont fly there !

simple hay ?

run it down all you want , but the settings in online wars shouldnt be relaxed so you get to catch up to everyone else , if you cant get on with those settings then step back down , dont play the poor-me-these-settings-are-BS here

its called whining , not debate or discussion ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Badsight I dont think it is that simple either... Stigler is right in this instance...... however I have found that having limited icons and better dots works better for me... that way you can see the bogie a ways off and ID the bandit/friendly at a distance that is reasonable enough to be fair for people who DONT have the best rigs or viewing solutions....


The solution to the navigation problem in online wars and to add realism overall would be to have an added setting..... as I said above.... Right now we have map icons/no map icons/minimap path..... we need map icons/no map icons/minimap path/no minimap path/and..... waypoints only ...... a setting with waypoints on the map and NO ICONS at all except the take off and landing ones and the target icons... and a brief that is viewable within the sim while on a mission... this feature could be added like the LIAS/ENGLISH/METRIC toggle on the speed bar... but added to the same window that the map uses... hit it once up pops the map... hit the same button again... up pos the brief.... hit it once more.. and the window closes..... I think this is also doable and not very dificult at all. I could be wrong of course. IMO the above solutions aren't that hard to implement either.

LEBillfish
07-16-2005, 09:09 AM
Well, I'm not going to reply directly to any of you, in fact, after breezing through 3-4 posts it's clear many are simply posting their usual BS/Bluff/Bluster......Personally I think you're all whiners, you're males after all aren't you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I love flying by navigating via landmarks/time/direction here.......Unfortunately other then poor trim we don't have drift due to crosswinds which makes all your claims about navigating "full real" bunk.

However, I cannot imagine and know it to be untrue any pilot not plotting out a course on a map or at the very least listing waypoints...It's how it was done, we've all seen it in the newsreels, heard it from real pilots, and anything contrary is simply rediculous.

As said often enough above, we need another option where in the route is shown on the kneeboard map minus the plane OR need a secondary chart that comes up listing waypoints........ As point blank, in a coop mission most will not take the time for you to fill in a map or list out the points. It would be easy enough to institute, why it has not is beyond me.

However, what I suggest is to those that have them in your planes practice following your radio compass...Though it is not fool proof.

Lastly, to all the "Sky Masters" out there, I would be more then happy to build you a mission we would all fly together...Each team will get 20 waypoints zig zagging looking for the enemy...Encounters insure you will be pulled off course and you MUST find the enemy....Heavy Weather.....and you will only get 10 minutes extra fuel for the trip.....Coral Sea Map......The big one, not the quick trip version.

So how good are you now?

Stigler_9_JG52
07-16-2005, 10:45 AM
In that last case, Billfish, I bet we ALL suck.

One thing we really haven't discussed is...

What happens when you actually spot enemy, get involved in a 5 - 10 minute furball from hell? You get a nice kill, look around to get your bearings, maybe find a wingman or two and....

Then what? Look at your compass, see what direction you're headed. Maybe note a road or a river nearby.

Then you whip out a map and see if you can't find a combo of terrain features close to the last known position that matches what you're seeing now.

Here's where there's a problem. Because most sims use standard terrain textures, there are few unique landmarks; that one extra-dark patch of farmland, that rock quarry in the middle of nowhere...they aren't there. Just standard IL-2 forest, standard IL-2 river, standard IL-2 road sections, etc. On some maps this is enough, but you try navigating on some Russian Steppe maps and you can find 4 areas on the same map that pretty much reflect what you see out the window. It's much easier to get lost.

LEBillfish
07-16-2005, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
......Russian Steppe maps and you can find 4 areas on the same map that pretty much reflect what you see out the window. It's much easier to get lost.

As it "should be easier to get lost"....However, no waypoints or path equals one thing here...Eventually folks start bee-lining everywhere....

Now that's good and fine if a DF server, however Coops and the like there are reasons to follow paths...Do not follow the paths and everyone get's cheated of the experience...and no it is not clever to cheat a planned mission as that is not its point unlike in a "war scenario" where tactics are the point to win.

So point being, navigation without the little icon showing you on the map where you are is great fun, and not that hard once you practice it...and even the best will get lost occassionally AS THEY SHOUD...and did r/l.

However, lack of written coordinates or a waypoint path is unrealistic and rediculous.

So in this case, the sim needs to be fixed in that regard...I've asked often for this in ORR, time more of you did.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-16-2005, 01:20 PM
I think we agree, billfish; I'm willing to dispense with the "you are here" plane on the map, provided you can also have some flight plans displayed on the map. This also comes in handy if you decide not to even follow the flight plan (which often is not very smart or expedient, and leads you into the enemy without enough chance to get alt, or to strike from a position where egress is easier).

Bearcat99
07-16-2005, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
In that last case, Billfish, I bet we ALL suck.

One thing we really haven't discussed is...

What happens when you actually spot enemy, get involved in a 5 - 10 minute furball from hell? You get a nice kill, look around to get your bearings, maybe find a wingman or two and....

Then what? Look at your compass, see what direction you're headed. Maybe note a road or a river nearby.

Then you whip out a map and see if you can't find a combo of terrain features close to the last known position that matches what you're seeing now.

Here's where there's a problem. Because most sims use standard terrain textures, there are few unique landmarks; that one extra-dark patch of farmland, that rock quarry in the middle of nowhere...they aren't there. Just standard IL-2 forest, standard IL-2 river, standard IL-2 road sections, etc. On some maps this is enough, but you try navigating on some Russian Steppe maps and you can find 4 areas on the same map that pretty much reflect what you see out the window. It's much easier to get lost.

Thats when youcall the tower and ask for a vector to the ship. Or even better... the base.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-16-2005, 07:57 PM
That might help you get home, but not find your bearings when you're completely lost. Or to find an alternate base (since home vector sends you to where your mission says you will land).

Covino
07-16-2005, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
That might help you get home, but not find your bearings when you're completely lost. Or to find an alternate base (since home vector sends you to where your mission says you will land).

Actually when asking the tower for the vector to target, and the vector to base, you can do some triangulation to find your coordinates, if you really want them. However, most simmmers like to pretend to be full real pilots... without doing any of the extra work. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
07-16-2005, 11:30 PM
Really? Now how does that help if, for instance, you don't have a target marked on your map (seeing as there's no mission route on it)? Not a lot of triangulation to do when your map only shows you one point.

Tater-SW-
07-17-2005, 12:08 AM
How does the base know where you are in the first place http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I guess you use you satellite commo system to download your position to base, then they parrot back an RTB heading.

tater

Fehler
07-17-2005, 12:18 AM
Here is what I do/have...

I made a clear plastic compass that I can throw on the monitor over the in-game map.

Prior to flying, look at the map, and pick the land points you want to fly over enroute to your target.. (Things you can remember easily like a huge body of water, town, etc.) Slap your clear compass up on the map and record the directions to these landmarks on a piece of paper.

Now, once the game starts (After the briefing) DONT OPEN THE MAP!!! There is a helpful bug in the game that when you open the map for the first time, the center of it will be your corrent location. This only happens the very first time in a coop mission, so use this as a "fail safe" to determine your location if you get really really lost! If you have a couple buddies you are flying with, it is a great idea to have one guy open his map at each waypoint to verify you are on course.

Once to target, you can simply ask the control tower for a vector home.

That's how I do it in online wars where you dont really want to fly straight to target. (After all the other humans will be expecting you to come directly from your base, right? It's a lot of fun, and it really works! Anyone that has flown with me in a coop or in an onlone war will tell you I never ever get lost, even with lots of clouds, by using this cheap little tool I made, and the method outlined above.

Over water, you are more limited, naturally, but flying straight to target is not really a bad thing since the enemy doesnt know where you are coming from on your mobile carrier base... But honestly, I have yet to fly a coop from a flattop, so I never had the opportunity to develop a strategy for navigation other than vectoring from the tower... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

jugent
07-17-2005, 02:16 AM
Print the map, make a flightplan, use the clock, speedometer and the compass in the cockpit.
The map is very correct.
Full realism is the most demanding way of flying, but sometimes you dont spot the enemy.
The perfect way would to get technically correct info from the groundcontrol like "A5 2500 two contacts". In 1945 it would be more exact for USAF/RAF over the ocean, but JN had no radar I think.