PDA

View Full Version : AI suggestion (Re: formation flying)



XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 07:24 AM
We've all seen the cartwheeling AI trying to avoid collisions when the leader does a drastic change of course. I was wondering, wouldn't spacing out the formations just a bit more, e.g. double current spacing, allow AI more time to react to such abrupt course changes by the leader? It really destroys the immersion factor if every sudden turn you are reminded you are flying with AI and stupid AI at that. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 07:24 AM
We've all seen the cartwheeling AI trying to avoid collisions when the leader does a drastic change of course. I was wondering, wouldn't spacing out the formations just a bit more, e.g. double current spacing, allow AI more time to react to such abrupt course changes by the leader? It really destroys the immersion factor if every sudden turn you are reminded you are flying with AI and stupid AI at that. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 09:11 AM
Great idea! Yeah, and it may be more realistic to have them spaced further apart. Did Germans fly four aircraft so close together, especially over frontline? I dunno but I would split up so the pilots could watch for each other. Of course I guess AI can't watch for anything except the default 7km automatic enemy aircraft detection, but they could fly a looser formation.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 05:57 PM
No, I don't think any airforce flew that close apart except possibly for the RAF early on, what with that Vic-formation fiasco thing.

The whole point of a formation is mutual support, at 50m you can hardly do anything but maintain position. Besides the absolute minimum for separation between elements in a formation is usually one turn radius, so even 100m is probably too close unless you're flying an I-16.

As for bombers, yes they want to bunch up for covering fire but at their current proximity it is a dangerous proposition. Too high a risk of collision if one of them goes down.

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 06:37 PM
The reason why planes collide is that people using the FMB set the angle from the waypoint to the next too sharply ... e.g. an accute angle. Try increasing the angle to more than 90 degrees.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 06:44 PM
If one is the flight leader this can be corrected to a degree.

Press "Tab" + 2 or 3 (the number of your Zveno) + 8 (tactics) + 5 (change formation) + 7 (line astern). This is especially useful when while snaking back and forth when escorting a slow recon plane or bomber.

Usually I also use Tab + 8 + 4 (loosen formation) several times during flight and especially at the end of the flight to try to avoid the cluster **** on landing approach (although the other AI flights seem to get Very creative here and some seem to think that they are at the Reno Air Races or they gotta pee real bad).

If I am not the leader I break formation and position myself above the confusion.

I have noticed that my wingie usually ignores the "loosen formation" order.

I have also noticed that the navigation order "next waypoint" and "previous waypoint" has, with the patch, become a rather random thing. Any waypoint could come up.

It will all be sorted out. Perhaps even the aircraft disappearing after landing.

Cheers

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 09:40 PM
This happens in missions created by Starshoy's DGen too. I'm not looking for a workaround, I know them all...

If you ask me it's not even that important to me personally as I rarely fly offline. I brought it up because increasing default formation spacing would appear to be a simple and straightforward solution to implement in the final patch. It may not solve the problem but I'm betting it will greatly alleviate the current state of affairs.

Besides, if you want realism, 50m spacing is not a realistic combat spacing. It would be a good idea to double or even triple that distance even if the AI didn't exhibit the weird aerobatics.

I'm surprised not too many offliners are excited by such a possibility since they are the ones primarily affected?

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 01:27 PM
Hi Jetbuff,

I'm all for your idea. The trouble is that I've sort of lost faith in FB ever being that realistic. Sure the graphics are great and there's a lot of good aspects to the game, but the game-play for offliners seems to come in a very distant second place - in spite of what Oleg has said about the ratio of offliners to onliners.

There are other suggestions out there about comms, way-point selection, views and so on that would IMO vastly improve the offline game, but I fear that these ideas will never be implemented. The major problem I feel is that the effort needed just to fix the basic problems and bugs make it virtually impossible to change any of the fundamentals or even smaller details of the game-play before the game has become old and the next project takes precedence. Just look at the original IL2. It's all a case of priorities. Overdone gun flashes for example are IMO more important to fix than implementing dust on take-off. A non-sticky pan system or the ability to look over your shoulder is, again IMO, more important than minute adjustments of FM, some of which are a bit iffy anyway. But that's just what I think.

There are still big problems with FB, the sound being just one, that shouldn't really have been there in the first place. I'm afraid that by the time these are fixed Oleg and Co will have moved on to greener pastures.

By the way. I hope I'm wrong.

Cheers

Tom

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 02:27 PM
I agree with you Tom.. Gameplay (offline gameplay, if you will) has always been on the back seat with this game and with the original IL-2 also.

But that is probably because the "sim" part is as detailed as allowed by current technology limitations, therefore it didn't leave much room for anything else.. If we have a look at the amount of posts by the community devoted to FM issues (or struts thickness for the 190!! Goodness!!) probably that was done on purpose.

What we can do now is try to bring in one single list the most simple additions/corrections for gameplay, and try to have them implemented for the addon that will be sold somewhere in the near to mid future. I do think that if we had four-five simple "fixes" the offline experience would be much more enjoyable.

Current situation is strange.. We have great sims that are poor games, and good games that are poor sims.. Hope that one day we will have everything in one piece.

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 03:16 PM
Jetbuff wrote:
- We've all seen the cartwheeling AI trying to avoid
- collisions when the leader does a drastic change of
- course. I was wondering, wouldn't spacing out the
- formations just a bit more, e.g. double current
- spacing, allow AI more time to react to such abrupt
- course changes by the leader? It really destroys the
- immersion factor if every sudden turn you are
- reminded you are flying with AI and stupid AI at
- that.

I don't suppose it would be very difficult for AI formations to "read" eachother. In other words, plane 2,3 and 4 would look at what lead plane is doing, and with very little delay, follow lead plane's maneuvers with like maneuvers. Therefore it wouldn't be too difficult to implement something close Blue Angels' precision in AI formations.

I think the biggest problem with the AI is that they have veyr little "plan ahead" ability, which is why they usually end up going into drastic maneuvers instead of smoothly transitioning.

--------------------------------
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 03:17 PM
maxmars wrote:
- But that is probably because the "sim" part is as
- detailed as allowed by current technology
- limitations, therefore it didn't leave much room for
- anything else.. If we have a look at the amount of
- posts by the community devoted to FM issues (or
- struts thickness for the 190!! Goodness!!) probably
- that was done on purpose.
-

I think you nailed it on the head right there. Too much work devoted to realistic FM - which isn't bad, quite the contrary - leaving little overhead for other stuff.

Regarding my current suggestion, the reason I made it was because, in theory at least, it appears to be a simple and possibly a very effective solution to a very annoying phenonemenon.

Better comms, esp. adding the addressee, addresser portion, more realistic AI behaviour and other suggestions are all great but are likely hard to implement as a simple patch. Changing formation spread may be as easy as changing a couple of global variables and recompiling.


BTW, I have to admit that I am one of the online junkies myself but it did strike me as odd that such AI behaviour had still not been tackled.

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 03:22 PM
Jim, there are many aspects where the AI fall short. Their world-awaredness is lousy as shown by their last minute collision-avoidance routines, all-seeing 360? vision when it comes to bandits and general incompetence in responding to new bandits when they are focused on a task. So is their decision-making, (escorts leaving their assigned bombers after a lone bandit anyone? how about shooting through you at a bandit when you have 6 more on your tail?) and general combat-abilities but I digress...

I see the potential difficulties in trying to revise these more complex issues for FB. Without a major overhaul and/or incredible increase in processing power we're just not going to get it. Maybe in the next sim? For now, I'll settle for the most accessible fixes like widened formation spacing.

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

Message Edited on 08/21/0310:24AM by Jetbuff

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 05:30 PM
Hi Maxmars.

Yes, it would be nice with one simple list. I wonder if it will do any good though? Most of the weaknesses in FB off-line gameplay were present in the original IL2. As far as I can tell the view system and comms system are as good as exactly the same.

It could be as you say that the 'sim' part didn't leave much room for anything else, but that depends somewhat on what you mean by that. To me a simulation is more than flight models and effects. For me it's important that a simulation of this type should simulate the whole experience. As usual I suppose it's a case of give and take.

As you say, we have great sims but poor games. I think it's time the producers of sims took a long hard look at the older generation of sims out there. I don't remember pages and pages of posts complaining about the sounds in EAW, view system in BOB, or flight models in AOTP? Do you?

Cheers

Tom

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 06:18 PM
Ciao Tom,

You wrote:
- Hi Maxmars.
-
- Yes, it would be nice with one simple list. I wonder
- if it will do any good though? Most of the
- weaknesses in FB off-line gameplay were present in
- the original IL2. As far as I can tell the view
- system and comms system are as good as exactly the
- same.

And, don't forget about the QMB: it was already bad in IL2 for AG missions (they are always the same, never change position / mix of targets), and it was not changed for FB. Needless to say, when I saw that I was pretty unimpressed to say the least.

- It could be as you say that the 'sim' part didn't
- leave much room for anything else, but that depends
- somewhat on what you mean by that. To me a
- simulation is more than flight models and effects.
- For me it's important that a simulation of this type
- should simulate the whole experience. As usual I
- suppose it's a case of give and take.

Exactly my feeling. Seems that with sims, in the past few years, we've come to a situation where a (minor? I don't have data to back this up) part of the community, the online one, is very vocal and seems to be happy just playing hairsplitting with FM, and another part, mostly comprised by offline players, silently accepts the final product, whatever it is in terms of gameplay.

Probably having a "perfect" FM and nice graphics seems to us offliners enough to justify the price of the bill, until we actually use the sim and find it uninspiring. We should be more vocal, but frankly I don't think I could put up a fight like the 30-pages-and-counting fw190 views thread.

Developers, also, should pay more attention to what Oleg himself defines as the majority of buyers (offline players), in terms of features, but then again with so few sims coming out, they already know we will be buying them anyway. The only important thing is not having their product classified as "arcade" (whatever that means), because when your game is marked as arcade, the community will simply walk away from it (see Gunship 3).

To back up this assertion, please recall the Spanish interview, link appeared here some weeks ago, where Oleg simply stated (more or less) that until there are other sims better than this, then this is the best. Seems an obvious sentence but it's very meaningful of his stance.

[However, he isn't wrong on this.. He managed to put out such a great product, kudos to him! I just wish he used his position of preminence to steer the community away from the simple exchange of charts and graphs, on to more interesting stuff like a truly dynamic environment]

- As you say, we have great sims but poor games. I
- think it's time the producers of sims took a long
- hard look at the older generation of sims out there.
- I don't remember pages and pages of posts
- complaining about the sounds in EAW, view system in
- BOB, or flight models in AOTP? Do you?

Nope, of course. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I also had high hoped on the CFS series when Leon Rosenshein (I think he had to do with falcon campaign code) joined MS, it was at the time CFS 2 development started, but unfortunately the serie just lost its steam.

Probably there is a misconception in sim developers and marketing guys.. They think that if a sim is fun it won't sell well. But then again, it was us that made them think this way. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 07:30 PM
Well, I've got nothing to add, just a little comment.

Maybe some of you remember Lucasarts' Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe. It had nothing of what simmers think as necessary and desirable. No ultra-realistic 3D models, the simpler FM and DM you can imagine, no magnificent views, no surround sound, no collision routines. No visible landing gear! But it was a h**l of fun. You flied and after that you REALLY had the sensation of having done your bit in WWII.

Naturally, the standards have changed. No one would accept a product so "arcade-like", even if it had almost no bugs at all. But my gameplay experience has degraded a lot. Now, I'm uncapable of finishing a single campaign, just because one of my stupid IA mates have always to decide to run through me while we were getting back from an hour long mission. Yes, I can refly, but I simply don't want to repeat it completely, knowing also that it will likely happen again.

Maybe there were tight, rigid formations in VVS during the early stages of war. But the fact is that I think that they are in the game just because they are more spectacular and eye-catching. Maddox seems to employ all efforts in relieving the lacks of gameplay with special effects.

I'm not a bad loser. But when I'm down, I want to feel that it's been my fault. As in SWOTL.

- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:16 AM
Heh yeah thats always nice when they are lining up on the target as well, next thing you know half the flight is off course, diving, climbing etc etc.

May you not become a dirt torpedo.

PlatinumDragon...

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:58 AM
Offline gameplay issues in FB may have not received as much attention as it's online counterpart, but it was by no means ignored. You can still enjoy a properly designed campaign or mission. Trouble is it's hard to get those, and even when the designers do do their best, a change in the FM could render it all useless. Eg. I've noticed the inertia-modeling, while good, may have compounded the cartwheeling as AI can no longer stop in mid-air (which was very unrealistic too btw) like they used to.

Whatever improvements are to be made should IMO included in the "final" patch so that no more tweaks to the FM can throw everything off again.

I've already suggested one nice possibility. (increased formation spacing) Lets make more "simple" fix suggestions here. Things that would be low effort but significant impact.

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:18 AM
Jetbuff wrote:
- Offline gameplay issues in FB may have not received
- as much attention as it's online counterpart, but it
- was by no means ignored. You can still enjoy a
- properly designed campaign or mission. Trouble is
- it's hard to get those, and even when the designers
- do do their best, a change in the FM could render it
- all useless. Eg. I've noticed the inertia-modeling,
- while good, may have compounded the cartwheeling as
- AI can no longer stop in mid-air (which was very
- unrealistic too btw) like they used to.

Yes, agreed. You can of course have fun playing FB (I certainly am).

- I've already suggested one nice possibility.
- (increased formation spacing) Lets make more
- "simple" fix suggestions here. Things that would be
- low effort but significant impact.

1) When you become leader during a mission (e.g. leader was killed and you were pilot #2 of, say, 4), you should be transferred command. Now all pilots form on you but you can't give orders to them. Landing this way is very fun, mind you.

2) Possibility to ask a vector to your flight (this is easy, ATC already does this).

3) "break left/right" command for your leader (when you're a wingman), possibly in the main "tab" menu.

4) Better ATC, that takes in consideration emergencies.

5) If we really have to wish, ask a vector to ground control for the nearest / prioritary enemy flight.

6) Ask ground control for "picture" (current situation, as seen from GC of course).

Those, or part of those, would do wonders..

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:33 AM
I have followed this interesting discussion and agree and support wwhat has been said here.

The offliners are not loud enough by far it seems, and I know several without Internet, so that seems a slight part of the problem.

Sadly I don´t have too much hope for changes. However it´s weird to see formation flying AI behavior looking worse than in five year old sims when everything else is so detailed. Takes away from the immersion which is very good from an optical standpoint.

Offline play has improved from IL2 but it´s still lacking.

Being unable to warn someone else of bandits when you´re
not leader etc also is not satisfying. Regarding radio comms and AI-player interaction I still think that Mig Alley and BoB are first even if not perfect.

The waiting to be allowed to land can also be a little bit
frustrating when there´s two squadrons about to land before you.
And of course friendly collisions happening simply to often for my taste.

This is not an unfair criticism to this outstanding sim, I´m just wondering as these seem more basic isues which might be however difficult to fix.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:15 PM
Bump.

An important question posted by Jetbuff, and concerning offline gameplay.

Subject: Since the flying IA seems to be so defective, why not spacing out the formations? It would reduce friendly collisions among other improvements.

Please, don't let this die. It's important.

- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 07:20 PM
Jetbuff wrote, interestingly:



"We've all seen the cartwheeling AI trying to avoid collisions when the leader does a drastic change of course. I was wondering, wouldn't spacing out the formations just a bit more, e.g. double current spacing, allow AI more time to react to such abrupt course changes by the leader? It really destroys the immersion factor if every sudden turn you are reminded you are flying with AI and stupid AI at that. "



Totally agree. I was gonna bring this up ages back (but other things took over). I fly offline alot and found if I spaced my Squad by at least ONE, then re-enter AutoPilot, crashes were much less frequent. It`s a simple fix.

Funny how hard it is to get Olegg to listen to the SIMPLE fixes that would take an hour to implement as opposed to FM`s whines that would take to weeks (?) to do.

p,s, I still think AI`s pretty much as good as we can get in most sims today...

"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 11:51 PM
Thanks for bumping this up guys. I really think Oleg notices but I don't expect him to reply personally to every post. Let's just keep bumping and hope for the best.

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 07:44 AM
*bump*

Thank you and everybody for a wonderful thread.

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 08:39 AM
good suggestion!

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:24 PM
Bump.

- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:12 AM
*slap*

Formations larger than 4 aircraft, in staggered altitude sub-formations of 2 aircraft each (or 3 for early "Allied" aircraft). Would that be a difficult thing to do?

I could live without the fancy landing pattern dance. Flanker AI aircraft competed to land--first come first serve with the others turning away. Don't laugh; the Flanker AI landed and despawned fast enough so that new AI aircraft could take off without crippling Flanker performance with too many unarmed aircraft playing above the airfield.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 07:32 PM
Bump


I had a campaign mission escorting low-level Ju87G-1s to the Prokorovkha area and we lost 3 of the Stukas when they tried to do the anti-collision cartwheel at an alt of 50m or so. Very discouraging as it was before I could take off. We got the rest of the stukas home safely.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 05:27 PM
I've played two stuka missions post patch & lost 4 escorting fighters due to midair collisions.
Two problems with escorts. the first, as many have pointed out is the formation spacing, 35 meters is too close. 60 or 70 meter spacing would eliminate many midairs I think. The second is they always fly balls-out as fast as they can go, regardless of the speed set for them in the mission file or the speed of the escorts.

As for the cartwheeling "collision avoidance" I don't think widening the spacing will help. I've seen Stukas do this even when they're spaced 150 meters apart. Like in landing approach & letting down from altitude & such. It seems like it happens anytime they drift closer together than they want to be. So in order to fix the cartwheeling AI problem they would have to dig much deeper into the code. But widening the spacing would definitely cut down on the collisions.

Oh ya & BUMP!

P.S. Can we please get the AI formation spaceing increased!!??

Cheers.......Smokin256



Message Edited on 09/06/0309:30AM by Smokin256

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 11:05 PM
ive often had wingmen and myself on autopilot slam into the ground for no reason/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif once was when i had shot down a a il2 in my stuka :O. oh btw i do love seeing my shots deflect of the il2 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
the ai dont seem tobe able to cope with elevation change in the land
and gliders head to water like its full of nakkid ladies

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 11:35 PM
Make that four Stuka missions post patch & six dead escort pilots!

GRrrrrrr!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Third mission was a relocation mission & it had us flying 40km at 250 meters over hills that were 500 meters high. Amazingly all six Stukas made it in one piece. Despite more or less constant aerobatics for 40km!

Double GRrrrrr!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 03:05 AM
Finally back online after one hectic week.


Smokin256 wrote:
- As for the cartwheeling "collision avoidance" I
- don't think widening the spacing will help. I've
- seen Stukas do this even when they're spaced 150
- meters apart. Like in landing approach & letting
- down from altitude & such.

That may be due to the fact that they were landing (it's the same routine to avoid lawn-darting) or because of inertia modelling making following the lead in a dive without overshooting more difficult than it needs to be. Ideally, there would be some sort of communication between AI elements of intentions etc. but barring that kind of a complex solution I really do believe that for most intents and purposes spacing the formations to 3 or 4 times the current distance may alleviate most of the problems.

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 03:28 AM
Jetbuff wrote;


-"Finally back online after one hectic week."

Good thing you're back, I had to rescue this thing from six pages back this morning! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-"I really do believe that for most
- intents and purposes spacing the formations to 3 or
- 4 times the current distance may alleviate most of
- the problems."

Agree 100% This is desperately needed!

Cheers.....Smokin256

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 07:08 AM
*SLAP*

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:01 AM
Good suggestion,
i was killed two time at the end of 2 missions by my wingman, this stupid AI is very too close when i want to
land, and result " collision" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Next time, i will kill him before landing /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:13 AM
Bumpety Bump.

Formation spacing has to change for combat flying, we are not a stunt flying team.

Also why can't we have flights taking off in multiples and landing as such as well. At least 2 planes at a time and I know there were instances of more planes landing and taking off. This follow the leader stuff at the moment is a time wasting joke and can be very tedious even with time accel.

Now also bumping the idea of flight control moving down the line as leaders get taken out in combat.

And last some decent comms so we can advise flight leader of bandits and wing leaders of situation awareness.

Oh and BTW, some ground observers and flight commanding would be nice so we can have a blind no icon map but have the chance of finding some action on fighter sweeps.

(-:

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:57 PM
Enhanced comms would be great, as would the loosening of the formations. Respectfully submitted from:


The few, the proud, the offliner whiners!!!

"Bunch of monkeys on the ceiling, sir! Grab your egg-and-fours and let's get the bacon delivered!"

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 07:08 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Bumpety_Bump wrote::
-- Also why can't we have flights taking off in multiples and

You can if they take off on flat terrain--whole flights take off at once. Its real sexy in the valleys between the mountains of the south-east corner of Kuban map.

As of FB 1.0, the aircraft that cannot start engines off airfield (both AI and player) are... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I~153
I~16....in Patch 1.1beta too.
Ju~87
Me~262...in Patch 1.1beta three.
He~162
He~111
G~50
Me~323
....and possibly several other non combat aircraft as well.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:09 AM
Just got v1.11 all set up & started a new Stuka campaign. One mission.....Two dead Escorts! Jesus H Christ this is frustrating!

Cheers anyway.......Smokin256

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 07:07 PM
*bump* /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

If we saved 1.1beta, we may have a better time with it in offwhine missions than 1.11.

Any word on I~16 damage?

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 08:16 PM
Good thread guys. I've tested the cartwheeling thing a bit. A formation of AI a/c will happily fly along in tight formation over the sea or flat land, until you set them at an altitude of less than 83m. 82m and lower and all hell breaks loose. Bizarre number but that seems to be the case.

Idea for the comms - Would it be possible for the AI gunners to actually say something when there's a bandit coming up behind? Just a simple 'Break!' or 'Bandits at 6 o'clock' would do. Sometimes the first thing I know about it is a few pops and the Gunner Killed message appearing.

Cheers!

<CENTER>


<IMG SRC="http://www.apqa16.dsl.pipex.com/airplane1.3.jpg"


Ladies & gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. Thankyou for choosing to fly Mandarin Airlines. Those passengers sitting on the left-hand side of the aeroplane please make yourselves comfortable. Those sitting on the right... please look to your left!

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 06:22 AM
Dunkelgrun Wrote;

"Idea for the comms - Would it be possible for the AI gunners to actually say something when there's a bandit coming up behind? Just a simple 'Break!' or 'Bandits at 6 o'clock' would do. Sometimes the first thing I know about it is a few pops and the Gunner Killed message appearing."

Yes I agree! I've been wondering about this myself. I noticed a while ago that there is a sound for it in the game. http://home1.gte.net/res0rrxk/files/Maneuver_immediately_Enemy_on_our_tail.wav .
It's in the Actor5 directory for all nationalities along with all the other tailgunner messages but I've never heard it in the game.

Cheers......Smokin256

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 04:35 AM
bumpy

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 05:50 AM
^BUMP^

Two threads are better than one...

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)