PDA

View Full Version : Navigation over water.



munnst
09-21-2004, 06:15 AM
In full real how will it be possible to navigate over water?

In reality the last known position of the carrier would be marked on your knee map along with course bearings etc.

I wonder if we will be allowed the option of marking the map?

Dog.

munnst
09-21-2004, 06:15 AM
In full real how will it be possible to navigate over water?

In reality the last known position of the carrier would be marked on your knee map along with course bearings etc.

I wonder if we will be allowed the option of marking the map?

Dog.

IV_JG51_Razor
09-21-2004, 08:06 AM
Time, Distance, and Heading! That's how you get around over the water.

Razor
IV/JG51 11/12 Staffelkapitan
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)
Forgotten Skies Online War
http://www.forgottenskies.com/ForgottenWars/default.aspx
"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2004, 09:20 AM
Yes, basic, everyday waypoint navigation.

olaleier
09-21-2004, 09:33 AM
I haven't heard about the magic compass needle not being included in PF.

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby

Baco-ECV56
09-21-2004, 09:39 AM
Well With no Minimap enabled:

Graba pice of paper and a stopwatch.

Take note where you are (the map shows you once where you are)
Now note where the carrie is going to be.
Note where the target or intende CAP zone is.
(Ideally this should be given in the Briefing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Now calculate the beraing to the target, and once in flight turn the stopwatch on and mantain speed and heading.

Every time you turn to a new heading note the time and speed you traveled in the same heading.

When you want to know where you are, do the math: speed x time = distance (Now if we get the impirial system you will have to convert Knots(N. Miles) into Kilometers (since the map is measured in Km. - 1.8 Km = 1 nautical mile = 1 knot) And voila you know where you are...

Yes when in combat its hard to track time and heading, so take a note where you start your combat and then go back in the general direction to your carrier or base until you: see a visual clue to get a reference on where you are, or you are in range to get a vector to base...

Or you can leave Minimap Path on http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Don´t tell me it doesn´t sound thrillig http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

initjust
09-21-2004, 09:53 AM
All good stuff and it would be even more interesting if there could be wind, mag deviation and a properly modeled atmosphere to deal with.

Baco-ECV56
09-24-2004, 10:05 AM
Yes, yes.. It would be grate to have wind an other weather efects but it won´t happen OK?

Maybe in 2006 we´ll get the perfect PTO sim, but I am not planning on waiting that long...

And That would be complicated indeed, since I don´t know How would you measure the drift.

We would need to know the wind intensity in every layer, and hace a chart to correct acording to altititude, headind and speed...

initjust
09-24-2004, 11:07 AM
Yes, yes, yes. It's called real world navigation. Just like they really did it in the PTO.

The carrier would lanuch a weather balloon and measure the wind, the fleet meteorologist would pass the info along to the pilots/navigators. The pilots/navigators would then do their nav calcs and take off hoping they got it right

Of course the wind between them and the target would not be exactly the same so they would have to deal with that as well.

Yes, yes, yes. You would need to adjust for each layer of wind that you flew in.

The wind information would need to be part of the mission briefing and, as such, you would know the wind layers and their velocity and direction.

You would need to do your own nav calcs for each leg of your flight and take into account the wind and its relative impact on your flight.

Complicated? You bet it is. Immersive? Absolutely. Not for everyone? It sure is starting to look that way isn't it?

By the way. You don't have to wait 'til 2006 to get a well modeled atmosphere in the PTO. It has been available for about 5 years now.

You may be willing to settle for something less but I am not.

There is no good excuse for a game that represents itself as a PTO "simulator" to ignore the most basic of all flight conditions; wind, air density and mag deviation.

Yep. To deal with this you would need to do some flight planning and know a bit of trig.

Certainly possible for anyone who has an interest in having a truly immersive PTO experience.

If all you want is a game that allows for some great combat then you will apparently be satisfied with what is coming.

If you are not interested in really immersing yourself in the total PTO experience then you should not be concerned that PF will not offer a true 'simulation' of flying and fighting in the PTO.

You may be satisfied with less but I expect more from a company that claims to be the premier in offering "realistic" WWII flight simulation.

chris455
09-24-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vagueout:
Yes, basic, everyday waypoint navigation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Waypoint Navigation? Over the Pacific?
If it were that easy Amelia Earhart could tell us how to do it.

VF-3Thunderboy
09-24-2004, 03:42 PM
You will need a protractor device to plot your course back, to get the proper heading. I posted an actual ww2 type protractor used for this very purpose a while back for printing, but you can buy one at a good supply store for 6.00 bucks or so.

Adding wind drift etc, would be great, but thats M$ territory.They can do that for the combat flight series because theyve been doing flight sims for 12+ years,and are the leaders in that area.They just added that to CFS2 becuase it was there. This is not designed as a "flight sim" I guess.2 different animals. Flight sim guys are into the time thing.

It will be interesting to see if we can even standardize the map deal here. How many people are going to print out clear maps to navigate with, and use the tools? I will be doing a real WW2 naval plotting board for use with 1/2 scale maps or so.But I wonder if it will be used by more than a handful of people.

Map reading is very complicated, meridian lines etc...You need to actually pass a test to be able to do this. You have to want to be a navigator.It IS done in CFS2 for you, but I would like to see an in game plotting board with all the tools to plot course back. Barring that, having one on your knee is more realistic.We need to see if the maps in this sim can be standardized. Then you upload your missions/campaign/map somewhere for those who like to navigate.

Bikewer
09-24-2004, 06:56 PM
All fascinating stuff, and the prospect of finding your way back to your group over huge stretches of water in a shot-up plane must have been daunting indeed.

Most of us can't really afford to put many continuous hours in a sim, however. I'll take the mini-map....

VF15_Muto
09-24-2004, 06:57 PM
Init, you hit the nail on the head. Air combat between opposing forces rarely lasted more than 5 minutes, with individual pilots rarely participating for more than 2 minutes. Most of the time in the air was spent navigating, observing, positioning, striking, and getting the hell out of the combat zone before you were killed and then figuring out how to get home.

So what do you get on smaller maps where everybody just wants to shoot-die-spawn-shoot-die-spawn? Absolutely nothing resembling simulated WW2 air engagements. The conditions of these games creates totally unrealistic behavior. Why did only a couple of the dozens and dozens of torpedoes dropped by USN aviators hit their targets at the Battle of Santa Cruz? Because they all knew what happened to torpedo pilots at Midway and released their fish from very far distances because they wanted to live. Not gonna happen in a respawn environment ... every pilot's gonna bore right through hopeless circumstances to try and generate a visually cool explosion on the side of a ship.

The dilemmas pilots faced on real-time missions are what simming is all about to me ... wind drift, fuel calcs, COSINE function for net effect of wind on airspeed, figuring out whether it makes more sense to burn fuel in a climb from the deck to 22k to catch better winds (?) and thinner air or whether to grind it out on the deck at a low prop pitch to stretch fuel to the limit. God forbid you received damage in the combat zone. But if you stay low, your Zed Baker won't pick up your carrier until youre almost on top of it. Too high, and the Zed Baker unit won't read the YE beacon signals correctly (if it receives them at all) ... then you're just hoping visibility holds above 20 miles so you can pick up the friendly boats.

The Battle of Midway tells it all ... the dilemma those Hornet pilots faced on both outbound and return legs, and the tragic non-combat losses of many planes and pilots due to wind and pilots who made the wrong navigation decisions. They were so disoriented, they even spotted their fleet and mistook it for Japanese and continued heading east on fumes and eventual ditches in the unforgiving Pacific.

I can't wait to fly PF for fun, but I'm afraid without the elements above, it will fall short of my requirements to earn the 'simulator' designation.

S~!
VF15_Muto

VF-3Thunderboy
09-24-2004, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can't wait to fly PF for fun, but I'm afraid without the elements above, it will fall short of my requirements to earn the 'simulator' designation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im sure Oleg is crying about that.Did you inform Oleg "BEFORE" he made the sim, of your requirements?? You HAVE to tell them BEFORE its out of BETA. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Most simmers want to "get some shootdown". As you just stated, even a small navigational error will result in disaster.

Unless they are going to have a full navigation course, (and I have a few of the actual books used to train PTO naval pilots), which includes how to track a moving target over water, etc, which requires hour and hours of reading, etc, then how to use the plotting board, which takes hours, then practice navigation courses which takes hours, then go back and learn how to track a moving (target) ship, which takes hours,then set up the campaigns so that your now "professional"highly educated flight simmer is going to play a simulator.Then throw in surface winds/ top winds, etc...All very good, I love it, but if your average flight simmer cant figure out how to fly FORMATION, thatch weave for Americans, mixture,Altitude,and how to set up an online game other than cruise at 1500 ft and "get me some shootdown"...why would UBI spend thousands to put it in the sim when 4 people use it. M$ put it in cause its already there. Id work on M$ NOW, so in 3 years CFS4 will be all that. Tell them you have to take an actual TEST to pass the Navigators School. Not sure if thats before you learn the 10-12 or so steps to start the average ww2 engine or not. P-40s have a clutch for the prop like a car. Prime the engine by handpump, very cool.

Alot of the "big shooters" in the Pacific, like Bong, were "put into" tactical range of the enemy, so they could get some shootdown. Being an ACE in the PTO was determined alot by politics- at least with army. Most sim pilots dont want to fly a mission for 1 hour or more on the "chance meeting" the enemy.There were alot of fighter pilots who never saw the enemy, and resented the "McGuires" of the war. There were shooters, and there were SHOOTERS. There is little market for that kind of detail.Navigation is "just" navigation, the JOB of the combat pilot is to shoot down/bomb the enemy,in aerial combat, and risk having his plane being shot down. I agree that its way more fun to calculate this and that and have to hit the carrier (group) etc, the feeling of watching the gas, etc, but it looks as this is a mainly a first person shooter sim, not a "flight simulator" sim. We will be lucky to get advanced flight models that handle altitude.

CFS4 is your best bet for real navigation, but I doubt there going to put an actual military course in the sim, unless they combine the FS an CFS4, but I doubt they will have that level of detail, - They SHOULD, you could have a little medal that says you earned your "nav" wings,etc...wheich means you took the test, which would make more people want it...

This thing is being printed. Its done. CFS4 Is not even ALPHA yet. Go for it!!!

TAGERT.
09-24-2004, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by munnst:
In full real how will it be possible to navigate over water?

In reality the last known position of the carrier would be marked on your knee map along with course bearings etc.

I wonder if we will be allowed the option of marking the map?

Dog. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you guys are missing his point.. if the ship is out at sea.. And the ship does not show up on the map.. And your aircraft does not show up on the map.. As I assume will be the case in full real.. Then you dont know your START POINT! You can be the best nav guy in the world.. But you have to have a start point. Another thing.. If the mission does not tell you the current heading of the ship and it's speed.. And any planed corse changes.. How are we to find it on the way back? I just hope the RADIO guy can give us a vector home... But what about finding the target?

Pentallion
09-24-2004, 11:07 PM
Look at your briefing Tagert. Even with minimap disabled your briefing shows your start point and intended flightpath.

Too bad you can't print it.

initjust
09-24-2004, 11:36 PM
Thunder,

I expected you to be more interested in as realistic experience as possible particulary in light of the comments you have made in the past regarding behavior of "sim" pilots and how they engage in air combat.

It surprises me that you are willing to settle for less in the area of realistic flight conditions. Of course, if you are not interested in really 'simulating' what it was like to fly and fight in the PTO then I suppose your willingness to accept less is understandable. To each his own.

True, the job of the combat pilot is to engage and destroy enemy AC in the air and targets on the water and land. How will they do their job if they can't find their assigned target area? How will they ever fly more than a single sortie if they can't get home?

Also, learning how to navigate well enough to get along in a PTO simulator does not require hours and hours and hours as you indicate.

It does require some time investment and a basic understanding of certain trig functions and how/when to apply them but it is certainly doable in a few hours and it is no where near as extensive as you indicate. I know several people who have already done it.

You said, "They SHOULD, you could have a little medal that says you earned your "nav" wings,etc...wheich means you took the test, which would make more people want it..."

We have done just that. Developed a short course with tutorials and a final test for those who want their "nav wings". It works quite well and really only requires a few hours of time.

In fact it requires much less time than it does to learn to really fly the AC of your choice and learn all its strengths and weaknesses.

At the end of the day it simply boils down to what you want out of the games you participate in. I want a PTO simulator not a game and if PF isn't it I am content to use what I have until something else comes along.

And, it is a question of trying to balance playability with so called 'realism'. For some that means an entirely different set of conditions than it does for others.

TAGERT.
09-25-2004, 12:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pentallion:
Look at your briefing Tagert. Even with minimap disabled your briefing shows your start point and intended flightpath.

Too bad you can't print it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah yes.. been awhile sense I played offline.. I forgot it shows you that.. Im so use to online DF.. I guess the online df will show the carrier much like it shows the basses now.. And the carier wont move like other ships in a DF unless they chaged that in pf... I hope! DF missons with no gnd tgts moving is pretty dead.. LockOn does a nice job of it.. I hope PF does.

Resident_Jock
09-25-2004, 03:31 AM
The issue here is that most of you forget what PF and CFS games are based on. PF is based on the IL2 engine, which was intended for short range, low altitude CAS missions in ground attack planes on the russian front (which had a much lower combat ceiling than other fronts). CFS games, on the other hand, are direct decendants of games on engines which are built to allow intercontinental flights over thousands of miles, landing on true-to-life modern airports.

In simpler terms, IL2 never needed extensive navigational modelling because of it's nature as a short-hop "go to this map grid and drop stuff on targets" game. CFS games inherit all those cool goodies that some people drool over because, hey, FS2002 or 2004 would be considered a joke if it were called "as real as it gets" without them, and also because they are totally relevant for long distance trips.

initjust
09-25-2004, 09:54 AM
I agree and those are some good points.

I guess amid all the hype of being the "best WWII aircombat sim available today" I musta missed the point that IL2 and its decendants were never really intended to do more than provide a low level mud moving environment on short range maps.

This being the case it would seem reasonable that it will only provide the same level of experience in the PTO, never mind that the distances involved might actually make the IL2 engine totally unsuitable for the PTO. Unless, of course, the opposing fleets/forces are never more than a few nm apart so there is no need for any real navigation or conditions that would influence long distance flights.

Resident_Jock
09-25-2004, 10:02 AM
I have faith that Oleg knows what he's doing, whether it's making the maps decidedly larger (which I have heard rumors of) or possibly even just having the mission end and the next one air-start on a different map when it reaches a border (which would be hokey but better than nothing).

initjust
09-25-2004, 10:21 AM
Sure. Larger maps will definitely be a plus but still, a flight of over 500nm from Henderson to Rabaul needs to be subjected to the influences that would really affect a flight of that length.

The truth is that you can get horribly, hopelessly, disastrously lost after a much shorter flight if that flight is subjected to a real world flight environment and you don't take those influences into account. There were probably more pilots lost to these influences than there ever were to enemy fire during WWII in the PTO.

I guess time will tell how well PF fits the bill and how well Oleg really understands the requirements of an honest PTO simulator.

Zmir88IAP
09-25-2004, 10:28 AM
tab+8+2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VF-10_Snacky
09-25-2004, 11:04 AM
Anyone consider radio directional finders? There was primative versions of ADF back in the 1940s.

The F4U for instance has:
Transmitter- RT-18/ARC-1
Reciever, LF- R-23a/ARC-5
Reciever, VHF- R-4a/ARR-A
IFF- RT-22/APX-1

initjust
09-25-2004, 12:04 PM
Absolutely!

A well modeled YE/ZB radio beacon transmitter/receiver system would be a big plus!

Although the early war systems were notoriously unreliable and only worked at relatively short distances, broke down a lot, were used infrequently because they could guide an enemy as well as a friendly and several pilots were lost due to malfunctions of these systems or damage to one component or another but they would certainly make a nice addition if done with some degree of how they really worked, or didn't.

LEXX_Luthor
09-25-2004, 05:05 PM
Yes, need wind in combat flight sim. One can always turn off the wind and its not as fundamental as turning "off" a flight model part like stalls. Icing too would be sweet--the Whinig that would cause until the Ace dogfighters find the Icing OFF button.


More important, need large towering cumulus clouds. Been reading up on Black Sunday and A~20, make a post later about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This visible satellite image, taken shortly before sunset, shows the long late-day shadows of a line of towering cumulus. Each tall cloud tower cast its own shadow eastward across the lower clouds and ground.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/coolimg/shadow/pic_main.gif

~ http://www.spc.noaa.gov/coolimg/shadow/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Realistic large clouds are a Feature that both the flight sim Newbie and old timer flight sim Noob would both have Fun with...equally.

Better, the flight sim Newbie would be attracted to a sim with visual effects like posted below. More important than ground grafix because with the exception of takeoff and landing you do not want to interact with the ground (see "Stranger to the Ground" book by F~84 pilot).

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/historic/nws/images/wea00085.jpg
~ http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/historic/nws/images/wea00085.jpg

Note the [probable] photo imperfections that could someday be flight sim target dots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

VF15_Muto
09-25-2004, 06:24 PM
Absolutely Lexx! Clouds were as important a factor in how PTO pilots fought and flew as any ... so many pilots got separated from their formations in clouds never to be seen again ... so many lives on ships were saved because the clouds obscured their wakes from snooping recce's and marauding dive bombers overhead ... so many lives on ships were lost because bombers ducked into the clouds before attacking so the enemy CAP could not intercept them before their attack runs ... so many pilots ditched in the water because clouds obscured the view of their fleet ... so many pilots' (especially recce drivers) had their lives saved by ducking into the clouds as bandits closed on them ...

And flight sims with the level of detail and quality per your screenshot should soon be possible with 64-bit platforms and software and PCI Express hardware ... PC-based flight sims in five years will be truly amazing.

S~!
VF15_Muto

Resident_Jock
09-25-2004, 06:51 PM
The best clouds were the big bricks that we got in AOTP, lol. At least they took up sizable parts of the map, unlike the whispy popcorn puffs we have in FB.

Bikewer
09-25-2004, 07:26 PM
Way back when, the lads from the RAF662 squadron put together a lovely ADF system for Combat Flight Simulator. Worked quite realistically. You had to change frequencies to get the right NDB, get within range, and so forth.
They also had a nicely modeled Sperry autopilot for the big bombers, complete with all the inputs.

VF-3Thunderboy
09-25-2004, 09:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Way back when, the lads from the RAF662 squadron put together a lovely ADF system for Combat Flight Simulator. Worked quite realistically. You had to change frequencies to get the right NDB, get within range, and so forth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume youve tried to do something like this in CFS2, with no go? was this old FS98 programming that made it available? Not sure if there are secrets left in CFS2. Ive found one in the CFG file, but there may be alot of FS 2000 stuff left untouched in CFS2. If PF could include something like this it would be great.
Id get started now on CFS4, or maybe the next UBI flight sim. (64 bit). But Im not sure UBI wants to compete with M$ in that arena.Weather is one thing, Realistic weather is another.

M$ wind in CFS2 is very drafty and bumpy,not sure if you can program in winds aloft without the pony ride...

LEXX_Luthor
09-25-2004, 10:48 PM
Resident_Jock:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The best clouds were the big bricks that we got in AOTP, lol. At least they took up sizable parts of the map, unlike the whispy popcorn puffs we have in FB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tell more about large AOTP clouds. Pretend we don't know what AOTP is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
09-25-2004, 10:52 PM
Right Muto....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
http://www.10697sqn.com/ND840%20Memorial%20card%201.JPG


From the Operations Record Book: (consolidated squadron report of daylight attack on Bois de Cassan--6 th August, 1944.)

WEATHER----- Clear break over target, but cumulus tops to 15,000 to 20,000 ft. in target area

RESULTS----- Crossing English coast Controller's GEE and Intercom failed. As planned to home to target on GEE handed over to Q/83 (F/LT. Drinkall - Missing) Controller and Deputy changed positions. Controller having fixed up poor intercom on 1196 (after 7 minutes) stood by in advisory capacity. About 40 mile inland a big cumulus cloud was lying across track. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Deputy descended to 16,000 ft. and broadcast that he was going to take force below cloud. Controller warned him not to go below 15,000 ft. and next advised him to turn to starboard. Deputy ordered force to diverge and dive through cloud. On emerging, Main Force were scattered over many mile of sky, there was some attemp to gather into a bunch (or bunches) but impossible to regain proper formation; as a result some aircraft appeared to bomb the primary. The number bombing was not large enough to impede daylight bombing runs and the other bombing of the target that did occur was believed accurate. Other aircraft bombed as best they could with some mistaking pinpoints owing to icing troubles and the rush. Attack scattered over a wide area.

ABORTIVE:---- S/97 abandoned mission, unable to identify target.

MISSING:---- J/97 (ND840).

OPPOSITION ENCOUNTERED:---- Moderate heavy flak seen. Fighters in target area attacked aircraft which were most dispersed on breaking cloud.

~ http://www.10697sqn.com/Web%20Page%20Last%20Mission.htm
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

initjust
09-26-2004, 01:05 AM
"M$ wind in CFS2 is very drafty and bumpy,not sure if you can program in winds aloft without the pony ride..."

Not sure what you are referring to here Thunder.

It is entirely possible to program winds aloft, as many layers as you want (there may be a practical limit to the wind layers but I have not found it yet), with no turbulence at all and they are smooth as silk as long as you are in the layer.

Boundaries between layers will jostle your ride a bit (more depending on direction and velocity differentials between the layers) but it is an instantaneous bump just like it ought to be.

Turbulence, shear and gusting are all completely programmable and controlable in a wind layer (surfqace or aloft) as is turbulence, rain and icing in a cloud layer.

I have a breakdown of all the parameters (that I have been able to decipher) for the weather section in a CFS2 mission file and would be happy to send it to you if you are interested in seeing it.

Fliger747
09-27-2004, 01:17 AM
Hard to say if weather will be of any factor in the GAME. However in real life items such as the prevailing direction of the tradewinds, presence of squall lines and fronts in the intertropical convegence (constipation) zone etc were very major items around which the flow of the battles turned. To be hidden in a coldfront replete with showers while the enemy was searching for you or trying to organize an attack could determine the fate of nations. To have to steam away from the enemy to launch or recover planes could be another real minus!

Pilots are aeronauts, even those of us that frequently fly above 40,000 ft have to pay a lot of attention to it! Slugging along down in the cu's over the Pacific and trying to keep an eye out and not loose your way either could be a major adventure. many more Naval Aviators were lost due to operational challenges than enemy action!

VF-3Thunderboy
09-27-2004, 01:58 AM
Yes Id like the Paramater Init, if you could PM me that would be great.

Given that you have to hand edit M$ CFS2 missions to get weather, you should start now with CFS4 to get it included. With proper weather and landing patterns via the FS series, they could sell more CFS4 to the FS crowd also.

Thanks

jeroen-79
09-27-2004, 02:30 AM
If modeling navigation aids is out of the question, how about using devicelink for 3rd party applications?

If we can get the plane's latitude and longitude (or x and y) then we can make navigation aids ourselves.

People who don't want to use devicelink or difficult instruments can stick to the game's default map with the plane's position toggled to on.

munnst
09-27-2004, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by munnst:
In full real how will it be possible to navigate over water?

In reality the last known position of the carrier would be marked on your knee map along with course bearings etc.

I wonder if we will be allowed the option of marking the map?

Dog. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you guys are missing his point.. if the ship is out at sea.. And the ship does not show up on the map.. And your aircraft does not show up on the map.. As I assume will be the case in full real.. Then you dont know your START POINT! You can be the best nav guy in the world.. But you have to have a start point. Another thing.. If the mission does not tell you the current heading of the ship and it's speed.. And any planed corse changes.. How are we to find it on the way back? I just hope the RADIO guy can give us a vector home... But what about finding the target? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi TAGERT,

that's kind of the point I was trying to make.
I'll be flying over a featureless ocean with an equally featureless map to guide me.
It would be nice to have some form of reference, ships last known location, my last course deviation, speed, alt, fuel and be able to mark this on the map.
In a real aircraft the pilot or nav would literally draw a line from takeoff to target and return with any deviation. If you passed over a landmark or ship that too could be plotted.

Dog.

Fliger747
09-27-2004, 11:24 PM
This subject has been gone around a couple of times. Pilots were issued a Lat/Lon for the EXPECTED position of the ship on their return and the current LAT/LON at plaanned departure point.

The pilots were issued a (LARGE) USN Mk2 plitting Board on which to work out their best guess of where they went and how to get back to the ship. True airspeeds, true courses, wind drift etc all had to be worked out from the available data for each leg as best as could be done. It was and is still an art.

The last time you really knew where you were (more or less) was when you were #1 for takeoff.

VF15_Muto
09-28-2004, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:

Given that you have to hand edit M$ CFS2 missions to get weather
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The hand editing can be quite minor if you wish ... Go to Free Flight, set your weather parameters, launch FF, then exit, then go to your cfs2.cfg file and copy the weather entry, then paste it under a [weather] heading in your mission file, et voila! You have whatever weather parameters your heart desires.

S~!
VF15_Muto

VF-3Thunderboy
09-29-2004, 12:27 AM
Ok thanks Muto, that really looks like M$ did release it "early", before all the work was done.YOu can also get some weather in QC, but not in M/B? that sounds incomplete.

In 3 years UBI will release a new sim, so now is the time to get started, but M$ will already have the weather. Thats the best bet. Unless warping could be made "instantanious" So a 2 hour flight could automaticly be compressed to 5 minutes or so. Then you could see your nav calcs instantanioulsy, but smoothly over a selected period of time, which would make for a good inbetween, as most pilots are not going to want to fly 2 hours out. YOu acan do that by selecting waypoints, but auto select would be a great middle option.

LEXX_Luthor
09-29-2004, 01:32 AM
You really can't use HyperSpace Jump in a air combat sim cos unless you are the only plane in the sky. One Ace Air Force. QMB works for quick missions you don't have to wait for.