Some info cross posted from the Russian Forums

[Pilotasso]

any new info regarding theatre and/or terrain updates?

 

 

Judging by reports that BS has introduced skeletal new map areas than the one announced for the helo makes me suspect the map is going to be the same but expanded, adding more detail to the flat grass areas. :D

[GGTharos]

The list is what they have considered for now, it is certainly amendable, but remember it is ONLY a list of possibilities :)

 

BTW, look again the F-14 is listed :D

 

A couple of strike aircraft that weren"t listed that should be considered in my book:

 

 

- F-111 (Must be plenty of info available by now);

- Tornado; and

- A6

- F14 :) Fingers crossed

[tflash]

Is there any idea they would model a laser targeting pod? For good F-16 - F/A-18 modelling we would need something like the Lantirn AN/AAQ-14 or Loral AN/AAS-38 Night Hawk pod.

 

Currently, there is a real explosion in advanced pods:

 

USMC F/A-18D Hornets carry centerline AN/AAQ-28 Litening AT, even British Tornado GR.4 over Iraq are now fitted with Litening III instead of TIALD.

 

Not to mention ATFLIR or Sniper XR!

 

Since there are these very nice models of GBU-12, GBU-16 and AGM-65E in Lockon, this would be a good complement.

 

No need to say it would leave F4:AF with its MSDOS-graphics (who remebers the Hercules card?) lightyears behind!

[GGTharos]

Tflash, they'll eventually model an F-16 ... I leave it up to your imagination :)

[JaNk0]

I wanna see AH-64A/D :joystick: hell of a heli!!

[EvilBivol-1]

any new info regarding theatre and/or terrain updates?

ED is working on expanding the map further south/south-east to the Georgia-Turkey border.

 

Is there any idea they would model a laser targeting pod? For good F-16 - F/A-18 modelling we would need something like the Lantirn AN/AAQ-14 or Loral AN/AAS-38 Night Hawk pod.

 

Currently, there is a real explosion in advanced pods:

 

USMC F/A-18D Hornets carry centerline AN/AAQ-28 Litening AT, even British Tornado GR.4 over Iraq are now fitted with Litening III instead of TIALD.

 

Not to mention ATFLIR or Sniper XR!

 

Since there are these very nice models of GBU-12, GBU-16 and AGM-65E in Lockon, this would be a good complement.

 

No need to say it would leave F4:AF with its MSDOS-graphics (who remebers the Hercules card?) lightyears behind!

By way of their work on the A-10C, they've become, erm... very familiar with some of the above... :)

[MBot]

ED is working on expanding the map further south/south-east to the Georgia-Turkey border.

 

Is there any word what the detail level will be on the expanded map areas ? Will it be the same as the rest or with a higher terrain mesh ? The terrain of Lock On is great for aircraft, but frankly for helos the mesh is very rough ( riverbeds anyone ? )

[Anytime]

Ya just in case it slips hehe :)

 

The list is what they have considered for now, it is certainly amendable, but remember it is ONLY a list of possibilities :)

 

BTW, look again the F-14 is listed :D

[GGTharos]

Is there any word what the detail level will be on the expanded map areas ? Will it be the same as the rest or with a higher terrain mesh ? The terrain of Lock On is great for aircraft, but frankly for helos the mesh is very rough ( riverbeds anyone ? )

 

It is my -impression- that it is a little denser, but in general it is similar. Despite this you will find that it won't detract a whole lot ... the terrain is -definitely- dense enough to execute helicopter tactics, so I would thing the only criticism you might level against it is visual.

 

But it is -absolutely- detailed enough for heli ops, and not just that - I tried it all over the place, including the low mountains on the south of the crimea.

 

Even the flat lands aren't quite as flat as you might think :)

 

It should be adequate, especially if the landscape is not naked.

[MBot]

the terrain is -definitely- dense enough to execute helicopter tactics, so I would thing the only criticism you might level against it is visual.

 

Good to hear.

 

I guess this also means that now trees are blocking visuals and fire ?

[GGTharos]

No, sadly - probably not in BS. There is more to it than just making trees solid. As you recall, speedtree was dumped (and with good reasons, but I can't go into them) so we'll see the same trees, just better looking for now.

 

Naturally, this might change, but that's how it is now.

[MBot]

Hmmm, if it tuns out that way this will be a -major- bummer for helicopter realism. Honestly I can't think of realistic attack chopper tactics without tree cover.

 

Or does the Ka-50 in russian service follows the Mi-24's that were more oriented on Sturmovik tactics as far as I know ? Speed and firepower rather than employing ATM while poping out of cover.

I would be glad to be educated by proper soviet/russian attack chopper doctrine.

 

 

Anyway, let's hope the best for trees in BS.

[GGTharos]

Oh ... believe you me. You'll find good enough ridges and/or buildings to hide behind ... trees are nice, but not strictly necessary to conduct pop-ups.

 

EB has been looking into doctrine so he might be better versed in this. One big thing he found out is that NOE in valleys = bad.

[golfsierra2]

No, sadly - probably not in BS. There is more to it than just making trees solid. As you recall, speedtree was dumped (and with good reasons, but I can't go into them) so we'll see the same trees, just better looking for now.

 

Naturally, this might change, but that's how it is now.

 

Why do you think that speedtree was dumped ? Or was it only dumped for Lock-On ? And if so, why ? Other simulations are running fine with it...

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeedTree

[GGTharos]

I already said I can't discuss it. There will be a solution, but I don't know if it will be for BS or later.

[golfsierra2]

Why do you think that speedtree was dumped ? Or was it only dumped for Lock-On ? And if so, why ? Other simulations are running fine with it...

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeedTree

 

And just making trees solid (making them part of the collision model) would be better than it is now...

[GGTharos]

No, it wouldn't. There's a lot of AI work that would have to be done to deal with it, I'm sure.

[golfsierra2]

No, it wouldn't. There's a lot of AI work that would have to be done to deal with it, I'm sure.

 

Trees don't need AI, they are static objects. It would be enough to include them into the collision routine. They don't move, they don't shoot, so there is no AI involved whatsoever. They not even influence radar pick up.

 

I can't see your point, sorry....

[GGTharos]

That's fine, you don't have to - the problems are there, and that's that. :)

[golfsierra2]

In Lock On (1.0x) you could make the trees "solid". This caused a problem for the AI choppers and ground vehicles getting from point A to point B. That's what he means by AI problems.

 

Thanks, ruggbutt, why couldn't GGTharos tell me so ? :disgust:

[GGTharos]

Because I have my tongue tied and I don't have the time to go around checking for what's been said/known publically before every time I want to answer a question :P

[Ukr_Alex]

Whilst politicaly I am pro western, western aircraft just dont excite me :( Its hard for me to admit to liking anything Russian, but their jets just have that air about them...

 

To me its like german efficiency vs italian passion, I go for the latter.

 

If ED went ahead with making an FM F16 and do nothing to improve or balance out the Mig/Su side of the sim Id be dissapointed.

 

 

Yea Im a Viper hater :P

[GGTharos]

I think ED have an idea of what they want to do, and how they do it will likely be dictated by their resources and other responsibilities ... I sure hope we start seeing aircraft come in pairs as much as possible though, basically counter-parts :)

[Pilotasso]

Whilst politicaly I am pro western, western aircraft just dont excite me :( Its hard for me to admit to liking anything Russian, but their jets just have that air about them...

 

To me its like german efficiency vs italian passion, I go for the latter.

 

If ED went ahead with making an FM F16 and do nothing to improve or balance out the Mig/Su side of the sim Id be dissapointed.

 

 

Yea Im a Viper hater :P

 

Im sure you wont be disapointed by the mig ED chooses to be on the F-16 SIM. If they arrive to the conclusion they cant model at least the SM version, they can still go for the flanker. I would like the later best. :)

[MBot]

I sure hope we start seeing aircraft come in pairs as much as possible though, basically counter-parts :)

 

I don't know if that is such a smart idea. Creating only one aircraft takes up big resources, I don't think it is wise to create two at a time. The creation of the ( relativ simple ) avionics for various planes seems to have soacked up considerable resources in the development of the original LOMAC. The creation of the Ka-50 takes very long aswell.

I know that with the set foundation in the sim, the process of modeling aircraft will speed up. But I think we should not kid ourselfe, every aircraft is full of unique features that have to be built first. And flightsim history has also showed that there will always be progress and improvements in systems modeling and I doubt ED will now stop and stick with the set templates. Developing those foundations will ever continue.

 

Creating two or more airplanes per product will bind resources that could have been spend on various aspect of the sim, like the editor, AI, comms, campaign etc. If there are no resources left to create the envoirment to fly the two airplanes in, it will ultimatly cut down the realism of operating them and in the end question the realistic simulation of the planes themselfe. What is the point of having the most realistic radar modes while your AI wingmen and enemys don't behave realistic ? One means nothing without the other.

If the goal of ED's sim is realism - by judging their aircraft modeling approach it seems so - they have still a long road ahead in modeling the envoirment. 'Mutual support' is the corner stone of NATO air doctrine - not radar modes - and we still haven't seen a sign of that most basic A-A combat principle. And this is just a tiny example out of many. If ED realy wants to go the realism road they have loads of work ahead and require loads of resources, wich IMOH cannot be spend on a multitute of aircraft. I for my part would prefere to have only a F-15 with a true AI mutual partner than have a F-15 and a Su-27 to select from.

 

Personaly I would even go so far and only model a aircraft with limited roles. Multirole fighters are very popular, but it broadens the envoirment you have to simulate. I would prefer to have only a plane of limited roles like intercept, CAP and escort and have those aspects done right. But I know the majority might prever less in depth multi roles.

My motto with limited resources is: Limite the scope, increase depth.

 

 

 

Personaly I don't realy get this whole X vs. Y approach that seems so popular. Everyone seems to think in pairs when it comes to aircraft selection. But this view seems to be dominated by the hyperlobby crowd, wich admitting is quite vocal on that forum. But apart from the open dogfight servers I see little need for 'pair-aircraft'. For the helos and ground pounders it matters little. Those aircraft will hardly interact with each other in multiplayer. In single player it doesn't matter at all, as you onlce fly one plane at once. If it's counterpart is flyable aswell doesn't realy have an impact on the game exirience. Thousends of singleplayers have flown JF-18 without thinking "man, flying the F/A-18 doesn't feel right without beeing able to fly it's counterpart".

For flying online having counterparts doesn't have such a huge impact aswell. I guess a large number of players fly online only in coop sessions with your friends. In coops you usualy fly together, with the same plane. At least the online community I fly in wont have much use for pair-planes. We try to fly serious mission together as a flight.

This whole X vs. Y realy comes down to the open online servers where people duke it out against each others. It's just that I think that the people doing this are actualy a very small percentage of overall players, they are just very vocal. At least that is what Oleg Maddox said about Il-2 FB, wich btw has a very large Hyperlobby community.

I can't see having X vs. Y makes such a huge impact for the majority of players. I would rather have only X, but this done right.

 

 

Wow, this turned out a little longe as expected :) Who reads till here has patience to endure my never changing monologes ;)