ZoomBoy27
-
Posts
631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ZoomBoy27
-
-
To be quite frank, I thought flight simmers were more sophisticated about complex software. A sim is a level of complexity above that of the ordinary game and there are less QA resources going around.
A lot of the distribution, especially the download system and the new VISA option, has to be rock-solid, has to work in the CIS financial system, has to have error recovery methods, and has to be tested.
We've already been through the deadline massacre that was 1.00. Do you really want to be chasing after ED for compensation if there are errors?
Show us, oh angry dead-line hunters, how a missed deadline will impact you. You haven't pre-ordered or given anything to ED. There's nothing significant about it except your emotional needs - not financial needs nor work-place needs.
Requests for Release Info - repeated experience with simmers has shown any date not met will start a fire-storm. The valid reasons for the delay are never accepted. And the secondary information(distribution mainly) is ignored until the actual product is available.
I'd like the distribution info. But as ED is building and testing that system right now, I want correct, tested and functional information.
Phew... glad I could vent.
-
looks like an interesting system to get into
-
However, your work isn't recognized by LOMAN. Is there some way you could make them LOMAN compatible? Would make it easier for us to use them.
-xylem
Never considered my missions to be "mods" and not big enough(9-10k) to even think of them as needing special handling. And for the casual users, I didn't want to put up an extra obstacle to play them.
Converting each individually to LOMAN doesn't seem worth the effort.
Campaigns maybe.
-
A-10 Mission Belogorsk Pincer
This is an A-10 single player CAS mission to allow the seizing of the southern Crimean coast.
Version 1.00
-
According to comments by developers in the Russian forums, the testing is pretty much complete and now they are finalizing the documentation and training material.
At least 1 more week.
-
Indications from the Russian forums say they are finished game-testing and are now working on the English translation, installers and documentation. Estimate it will be about 1 week(Mondayish - Tuesdayish)
-
I only have used Merge to Copy a Flight in the original Mission.
This is the workflow that I used
- Open the mission in the the Editor,
Save what you mission are working on e.g. tester.mis
Select or make a flight that has Player on it
Click on File | Merge
Up will pop a list of files
Double-click on the one you are working on e.g. tester.mis
On the map should be a Merged Group
Drag the way points around to look at the group and player should be client
The MergedGroup contains the same path as the Selected Airgroup
What it does not contain and what you have to fix manually is:
- You need to create the Attack points
You need to create the Land/Takeoff points
For each Waypoint you have to adjust the Altitude and Speed
If you have a 2-plane original flight, the MergedCopy becomes a 1-plane flight
Good news - you retain the payload
This is a very limited copy method - you can copy the player flight only.
==========
Further testing shows you can only import the Player flight from another mission
- Open the mission in the the Editor,
-
What a gawd-awful way to copy things. And having to select a file(why??) and you don't know what happens.
Glad I know it but yeeeesh!!
-
Is it easy to add to the Mission Editor a "Copy Flight" command?
When people convert a single player to co-op, they have to redo 2 or 4 flight paths. With "Copy Flight", users can quickly convert for on-line play.
-
Re: Campaign...concepts...
How do I setup the opposing force? What do they do for the 8+ hours while the carrier force manuvers...? There is a basic campaign design concept that I'm missing...Building a campaign is like taking photo snap shots(individual missions). Then you fill in time between with a plausible fiction.
You've got a guess how long each mission would take. And that depends on how close the group is to the enemy. How long does each CAP patrol last is a simple but interesting question. Are there layers of FLights around the CV group with various enemy flights trying to penetrate from different angles.
What are the ship events that could happen? - Damaged by Subs(slows arrival), Enemy CVs(carriers) on the move(send out strike groups), Standard enemy patrols.
At the beginning of the campaign, the enemy might stumble upon you or upon you CAP. Later on they'll be deep in planning. A fighter sweep to clear the air over your CV followed by an air group to bomb your CV escorted by fighters. Maybe cruise missiles that need to be shot down.
Besides the carrier, what are the other targets that are being attacked? What are the land goals? Taking of cities, taking of bridges, destruction of allied forces, encirclement of allied forces, preparation of amphibious landings. Protection of amphibious landings. Breakouts.
What are the enemy units that can be attacked? - Moving units, Supply convoys. supply depots(more useful in 1.1 FC as they'll have more stuff.), major theatre SAM complexes. Clearing a path for the allied advances.
Air Superiority questions. Is the enemy aware of you yet? What are their patrols like? Do they have AWACS to watch you? Do you go after their Air Defence network? their airbases? Their AWACS? Do they have command centres that can be taken out. Political targets taken from a list of priorities.
What type of airplane are you using. You can check the list of about 15 mission types to see if any ideas are generated.
-
So while I can't be totally sure in the end, my suggestion is clear: don't use missions from older versions even if all looks fine on firs sight :)
But we should be able to load them, modify them and save them in version 1.1?
-
Re: v 1.1 add on
Where can I get the v1.1 add-on? I didn't see it on the Lockon website.There's a very thorough list of features on the Lock-on site.
For the Avionics and weapons sophisticates, Cat at SimHQ has produced an in-depth preview.
There are also several stickies in this forum.
-
A-10 Encirclement
This is an A-10 single player mission that is to destroy 5 bridges to trap and cut off enemy forces. Clean-up afterwards.
Version 1.00
-
While I'd agrre it be cool if this was done across allsim,
does the actual A-10 have a different CCRP symbology?
-
Maybe we should reassign the Esc key to be an "Exit mission" function as it is now in Lock On, and move the "missile padlock" function somewhere else - or what do you think? Can we get away with mapping some other function to "Esc", and breaking the trend? Or it's too unintuitive?
-SK
One aspect of ESC is its use in Windows to get out of most dialog boxes and also used to Cancel Menus or Uncompleted Actions.
That use of ESC is consistent with a users Windows experience.
Where the padlock goes, I don't know off hand.
-
...The tank behind him also fired, and hit the 1st tank...
I've flown your mission Centre Punch. There is no real need for that tank unit to be in column on the road. Indeed if they are expecting opposition, they might well be in another formation. Try having them deploy off the road as they near the bridge (say at 3km) and changing to Rank or Cone...
The final version had them deploying off the road. I did learn about Cone formation in my next mission.
What does Rank formation do?
-
Levels of tactical awareness
There should be an operational level - one side deciding
and a tactical - one group deciding
Operational AI
Every 4 minutes the Operational AI counts loss and retreats and then decides if it's worth it to gain the objective.
The type of objectives - Destruction of a Enemy Target, Destruction of a Defended object, Arrival at a waypoint, Arrival with enough troups to hold an area, Defend a Target. We wouldn't have enough troops in the Ground war to take a look at the idea of surrounding or being surrounded.
Right now we have only 2 Objective states - SURVIVE and DESTROY. Maybe ARRIVAL should be added.
Leave the Objective calculation to the Operational AI as the loss of one group will not affect the gaining of the objective. Traditionally, there's a 3-1 numerical advantage that's built up before an attack(there are modern multipliers like air power).
Offensive objectives require more survivors while Defensive objectives can be held with fewer troops
Tactical/Group AI
Every time a Group loses a unit or has a 1 unit suppressed, it then decides if it can move forwrd to the next waypoint. Limit the Group decision to Retreat, Stop to Rally, or Go On.
Suppression
To be a Tactical/Group AI thingy
Every time a hit is made within a unit radius(by bomb or ground Attack) figure hits and proximity.
Figure out a group Suppression Value and then three value levels.
- Not Suppressed - keep moving
Partly Suppressed - moving/firing at half the rate
Fully Suppressed - not moving/firing
After 1 minute(or reasonable amount of time for an officer to rally the troops), reduce the figure by 30 percent(Rally Rate) and check the level again.
Varying troop quality
As this is a flight sim and Everything is an armoured vehicle, it be a waste of time to try and differentiate between troop types.
The best that could be done to differentiate is a Global variable of the Rally Rate(troop quality) for each side.
Elite - 40%
Veteran - 30%
Average - 20%
Recruits - 10%
Conclusion
One truism of game programming is - if you cannot SEE an effect, do not waste any CPU cycles on it. From 2,000 m in a flightsim, you cannot see anything but moving dots that occasionally fire.
The above thing that I stated should be the maximum for Ground AI. It's SEEable and CPU doable.
- Not Suppressed - keep moving
-
In Steel Panthers, they have a Retreat Hex or a retreat Edge flag that's placed on the map by the human scenario maker.
One flag for each side.
All units head back to that - it might be simpler to do that than a retreat hex for each unit.
Not perfect but few systems are.
-
In playtesting one of my A-10 missions(A-10_AleksandrovkaGap), I discovered that in a 6 or 7 unit group had the leaders destroyerd, the others are behind it stopped dead. Don't know why
When testing another mission(A-10_CentrePush) the T-80s and others were shooting each other in tha ass.
The lead tank crested the top of the bridge and had targets ahead of him. He fired. The tank behind him also fired, and hit the 1st tank blowing up the bridge and stopping traffic. Then the 3rd tank in line fired and hit the 2nd in the rear. Then all stopped including the BTRs who needed to go over the bridge to complete the mission.
I've diverted the T-80's off the bridge to provide covering fire for the BTRs and avoided the whole tank/bridge issue. I also moved the enemy units 45 degrees to avoids the bridge being hit.
-
We could still retain the proposed shortcut controls for individual wingmen via Shift-Ctl-Alt
-SK
Pilot 3 would be CTRL-W
Pilot 4 would be CTRL-E
or
Pilot 3 would be CTRL-W
Pilot 4 would be CTRL-W CTRL-W
(that Repeating thing again)
and then we'd get the Menus and flip through them with KEY_W
Buzz buzz Buzz ... I'll take a break for a bit and look at something else.
-
How about Q-W-E for Quad-Wingman2-Element2, and T for Talk Tower/AWACS/FAC?
That's better than my QWE because it eliminates sub-menues but it does lead to the question -
Is Element Grouping currently feasible? Will it be programmed in?
We would lose direct control of Pilot4. Do we want it? or accept we can't peel off Pilot 4 or 3 by himself to stop doing something or to do a particular job?
-
I also like the idea of using the nearer "1234" for menu selections instead of "F1 F2 F3 F4".
-SK
Agreed - highest priority to the 1,2,3,4 keys in the menu choices.
Hmm... Do you think three keys would be enough for a similar system?I think we could remap Q "Mission Goals" elsewhere to free it up for a combined "Query" AWACS/GCI/FAC menu,
"W" (change weapon) could be moved to "P" (change pylon) for a combined "Wingmen" Wingman/Element2/Flight menu,
I'd like to keep "E" for ECM and "R" for radar/RWR,
but "T" for wingtip smoke could be de-prioritized to make room for "Tower".
Tower:
I'm tempted to combine Query with Tower
Tower is the lowest priority comms and an extra key-cycle is not too bad.
But T is acceptable if we are going to get ANY really complicated AWACS/FAC activity. But right now it's a joke with only 4 AWACS commands.
Elements:
Currently I do not see any Element AI used. In the current LOMAC version it would just be > Wingman/Flight Menues
Individual Pilots:
There is also the Need to dealing with Pilots individually:
KEY_Q - AWACS/FAC/TOWER menues
KEY_W - Flight/ Wingman/Pilot3/Pilot4 menues(containing QUIET commands)
or maybe
KEY_Q - AWACS/FAC/TOWER menues
KEY_W - Flight/Wingman menues(containing QUIET commands)
KEY_E - Pilot3/Pilot4 menues(containing QUIET commands)
If we have Element AI in the future, an extra key is needed not optional
KEY_Q - AWACS/FAC/TOWER menues
KEY_W - Flight/Wingman menues(better to silence the whole flight) or Wingman/Flight
KEY_E - Element2/Pilot3/Pilot4 menues
For safety's sake, we should move ECM to 'J' for Jamming
Exiting The Comms
To Exit all menues/menu mode, hit ESC
It's easier to Cycle back in with Q,W,E than to search for the Backout keys F11 or F12
Though our pathways are different, We've decided to at least preserve QW for comms. I think mine better handles the Pilot 3 and 4 situation.
But for full expandibility, the 'E' should be kept available.
So your choice is QWT
I'm QWE with a possible QWET in a complex AWACS
------------------
In the F4 Comms menu there are no Sub-Menues - the smoothest ever.
I think here we've decided the AI is weaker and need more control - therefore 1 Submenu is acceptable and the slight clunkiness is acceptable.
Until we get Element Grouping programmed into the Sim, we have to have submenues.
With Elements programmed in we can toally flatten the menues by adding an extra Key
KEY_Q - AWACS/FAC/TOWER menues
KEY_W - Wingman menues(No sub menues)
KEY_E - Flight menues(No sub menues)
KEY_R - Element menus(No sub menues)
How easy is it to hook up Element grouping and AI. And is it feasible for ED?
-
The proposals I would be most interested in debating, are the "Pageup" and "PageDown" shortcuts. When flying, I found many situations when my wingman would employ radar, ECM or afterburner
I think afterburner use can be on a submenu. The wingman using AB for the extra time it takes to menu switch is not going to make a difference.
RADAR?ECM is very different
If the radar needs to be turned off, can it be done before the mission starts?
In my testing I had not started a mission, but was waiting on the runway and could access the Comms Menu. But I don't remember getting any responses
If the menu system Functions before MIssion Start(before we hit the S key), you can put QUIET RADAR/ECM in a Comms menu.
Preferably Flight|Quiet
It's that instant AI Intercept-On thing I'm concerned about.
With even QUIET key short-cut, you can't do it in time.
That's a flaw that the programmers have to deal with and can't be solved on the Comms.
They can either make Comms Menus Functional before mission start or put a delay on that Instant AI Intercept-on.
Another idea - what if the aircraft has two cockpits? How many keys should we reserve to handle that situation? Would jumping between cockpits be better as an on-screen menu function?
Key Short-cut.
When you hop to another position, it's usually at a critical time - you want to see something or do something.
When you're normally flying along, your SA is usually good enough in 1 seat.
-
I sent you a PM with details about where to find F4 Commands
SP3 Falcon4 Key card and Commands List - In PDF form
There is also the original F4 command list as well - in .BMP format
Wingman AI Discussion
in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2
Posted
I agree in the narrowing of the airplane choices but just not to one plane.
In terms of what's going to be on the post-LOMAC sim for ED, I think we're going to see a Red plane and a Blue plane.
For the extra headaches modelling 2 planes provides, it taps a market for the CIS that ED seems to like.
And as multi-role is more common in western planes, the more likely it is that the multi-role is what it is going to be.(F16/F18)
There also the online aspect - The ED preference has to be Air to Air - that's what the majority of fans expect - take a look at IL2 as well.
The marketing wants drives the AI needs.
It's a shame they're not able to do a full AFM Russian fighter as one of the paying expansions to LOMAC. The work in that could be done and polished long before they did work on the Western follow-up.