Trees

[Woodstock]

I knew that in DCS: Black Shark Version 1.0 trees would be fly/drive/shoot-through and see-through for AI units and sensors. I knew it because ED were so kind to announce it beforehand and I thought: ok, no big deal, if they have their reasons and they feel they can release without tree collision model and sensor blocking then I can live with it as well.

I was wrong.

 

I´ve got BS on my harddrive for less than 2 weeks and already after only around 25 hours in pit I have to admit:

I´ve got (tree) issues.

 

The :doh:-thought occurrs to me in each and every mission I flew so far:

- My Shkval shouldn´t be able to continue tracking that BTR disappearing into the woods.

- That BTR shouldn´t be able to continue straight ahead at 50 km/h through the dense forrest.

- My Vikhr shouldn´t be able to reach it, nor my designating laser.

- The AA units in the middle of the forrest he was racing towards shouldn´t be able to see, sense, lock, track and shoot upon me with neither shell nor missile at a near horizontal angle through +200 m thick woods.

- A multiplayer opponent shouldn´t be able to hide from my view inside a tree or race literally through vegetation.

 

Helicopter combat is about hide and seek; the skilled pilot who is able to sneak up on his target by hopping from clearing to clearing, by sideslipping into a new position for a well-timed pop-up, he should be rewarded. In the current release of BS it is even worse than if there were no trees at all: everybody sees you while you cannot see them.

 

With this I have found a huge dent in my perception of this in many other ways awesome piece of software. Huge enough that I have to vent it here in public and that I feel the quality of the simulation would more than double with this single issue fixed.

 

I am not seeking nor expecting any explanations from anyone. I can imagine myself a huge number of reasons why things are as they are and I don´t want to start a time-wasting speculation. I also don´t ask for any information about future proceedings on this issue.

 

I guess I´m not telling anything new to those in charge, nevertheless, please still regard this posting as constructive criticism.

Forgive my rant, I just felt the urge to voice my opinion, to make sure nobody felt the current state was "ok"...

 

Kind regards,

Woody

Edited December 4, 2008 by Woodstock

[masonator]

Yes, you're right. But, despite how good this sim is; despite the talent of the developers; despite the MASSIVE gains the flight sim world has seen with this sim...

...they can't do everything.

 

It's not real life. We're getting close, and titles like DCS:BS bring us closer to reality than we've ever been. But modeling everything isn't possible...yet.

 

Yes, you are right. Is it a big deal? Not really. Why? Because so much else is great, and when you measure this sim on its merits, it is a massive leap forward in airborne combat simulation.

 

Try not to see what DCS:BS is missing, but what DCS:BS has gained, and you won't sweat the smaller details.

[Shrubbo]

...or wait for the new engine :)

[Litjan]

I am sure most of us feel the same way about this issue, but I also trust the developers when they say that it wasn´t feasible to have it otherwise with this incarnation of the engine. I would have preferred "big blocks" of woods, that are just giant "no flythrough - no seethrough - no shootthrough" boxes. Just like invisible huge flat buildings, with lots of trees planted where they are. But I am sure this was considered by the developers, too, and they had their reasons.

 

In some other thread it was suggested to turn of trees altogether in some config-file (grapfhics.cfg?). If having trees like this is worse for you than having no trees at all, that might be worth a try. Maybe there should be an option for this in the options-menu?

 

As the OP said, all in the spirit of constructive criticism. I love this sim!

 

Litjan

 

Edit: Just read in the FAQ, don´t use Windows Notepad to edit config files.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Litjan

[Feuerfalke]

I agree that the old engine was not capable to simulate collidable forests and vegetations and that the DCS-team just tried to get as close to the real thing, as the engine permitted and did a great job with it! :thumbup:

 

Honestly though, I totally agree with Woodstock.

 

We have an extraordinary simulation of operating and flying the Ka-50. Really, really, many details and work were put into the simulation of the physics, systems, equipment and avionics and I can only salute the devs for presenting us civilians such a detailed simulation. You won't get much closer.

 

BUT, BS is not a simulation of how the Ka-50 is flown in a hostile environment. The thrill of sneaking from cover to cover, to get into optimum range, a most important feature of helo-combat is almost completely missing.

 

And besides that, I still wonder why those deficiencies from LockOn 1.0 have to be implemented in the release-version of BlackShark, almost 10 years after the initial release. FPS-killers like the all present water and FFB-routines, the puffy flare-smoke and the original overcast-clouds are back in, as well as the flickering on the mountains and trees. At least options to switch them off ingame would have been really nice. :music_whistling: Well, the wishlist is full of these comments, as well as the reviews on www.LockOnFiles.com.

 

It's just my personal opinion, but to me, DCS:BS feels a bit like a Corvette C6 built on a BMW Isetta-chassis.

 

Hopefully we will see a new engine, soon, so we can learn to fly and operate the BS now, and learn how to use it in a combat then.

 

Disclaimer: It doesn't mean I think DCS:BS is bad. Infact it's really great, I love it and I can only recommend it for newbies and pro-helo-fans alike. It's just that you soon realize this game-engine was developed for high-flying jets. :smilewink:

 

(On a sidenote: I'm really amused by the different levels of details: The skins of the vehicles you rarely ever see from close enough are simply stunning. The textures of the FARPs, though, will cause you instant eye-cancer. LOL)

Edited December 4, 2008 by Feuerfalke

[Renato71]

I'm not happy to admit that I'm not happy with trees. They should be the key static element in helicopter tactics, but they are like smoke screen - FPS eater without any physical importance. I did expect more realistic and 3D trees, but... (shrug). I realy do not see the reasoning for HiDef vehicles which I cannot (and should not) see in great detail when flying, while IRL one could see birds nests and defoliate/shorten tree tops. The importance is even more obvious after few hours in ArmA. There, vehicles are of less detail, but trees are "real" and you cannot trash all of them with UAZ.

In many ways I've expected more :(

[Groove]

Yes, it's a pity that trees are like they are.

 

But let's talk about the myth of sneaking around behind trees.

 

Or simply lets check real combat footage from Chechnya:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEHJc1pTkHc

 

From Tajikistan:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN2cKb7Y7kQ

 

Afghanistan:

 

[EvilBivol-1]

BUT, BS is not a simulation of how the Ka-50 is flown in a hostile environment. The thrill of sneaking from cover to cover, to get into optimum range, a most important feature of helo-combat is almost completely missing.

When did you ever hear of real Ka-50s (or any other Russian combat helo's) sneaking from cover to cover to get into optimum range? Usually, they are flying over mountain tops at high altitudes and struggling for control, carrying either half the fuel or half the payload to even get up there. That is the tactical reality of the last 30 years of combat helicopter operations, at least for the Soviet and then the Russian military. Being able to convey that experience while breaking the habits of classic Longbow followers is one of the things I most love about DCS: Black Shark.

 

Personally, although I certainly agree that any helicopter sim has to have solid trees to do it justice (this was one of my three gripes with Black Shark... the other two got completely or nearly fixed), I can't say I agree with the above sentiment that they impact the tactical environment in the sim. I find that the terrain contours and, when necessary, the city buildings provide ample cover. The other day I was watching a friend in MP move from hill to hill as he followed a convoy until he found his sweet spot. Worked very well for him and was fun to watch. Then he flew into a couple of ZSU-23s... :)

Edited December 4, 2008 by EvilBivol-1

[Feuerfalke]

Well, Groove, there are not many large forest areas in Tajikistan and Afghanistan and I honestly doubt that either of the above, not even daring to speak of the terrorists in Chechnya had airborne radar surveillance, air-superiority, EWR and radar-guided-SAMs.

 

So of course you always fly according to the combat environment - and against small-arms, AAA, shoulder-launched IR-missiles and thrown stones, flying high and fast IS the best strategy.

 

I doubt though, that this would have been the doctrine for an engagement with the equipment you face in BlackShark.

 

@ EvilBivol-1

 

LOL - yeah.

 

You shouldn't underestimate the Russians, though. Sending a helo above a mountain-peak makes sense in Afghanistan, but I honestly doubt that was the common tactics planned for a potential European battlefield.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Feuerfalke

[Groove]

QFT EB-1!

 

Black Shark gives you the opportunity to fly in a hostile enviroment a real Ka-50 usually wouldn't fly in. Don't overestimate the tactical use of trees in real life engagements.

 

Especially if we speak about AWACs, air-superiority and EWR.

[EvilBivol-1]

Well, Groove, there are not many large forest areas in Tajikistan and Afghanistan and I honestly doubt that either of the above, not even daring to speak of the terrorists in Chechnya had airborne radar surveillance, air-superiority, EWR and radar-guided-SAMs...

Sending a helo above a mountain-peak makes sense in Afghanistan, but I honestly doubt that was the common tactics planned for a potential European battlefield.

What about Georgia? Looks like a pretty hostile environment against a technologically equipped opponent, with plenty of trees to supposedly hide behind and yet... ;)
Edited December 4, 2008 by EvilBivol-1

[Groove]

Please bear in mind that the high details of vehicles might have something to do with the military branch of TFC/EDs simulations.

[Feuerfalke]

What about Georgia? Looks like a pretty hostile environment against a technologically equipped opponent, with plenty of trees to supposedly hide behind and yet... ;)

 

Yeah, I'm convinced. The picture says it all. Silly me. Ka-50 is uber and won the war - all wars infact, from 10.000ft and above. Thanks for enlighting me.

[Groove]

No need for such comments in here.

 

FYI: Ka-50 wasn't used in the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

[EvilBivol-1]

Thanks for enlighting me.

There's no reason to get upset. I too and I'm sure most on the test and even Dev team had to make some serious adjustments when learning Black Shark. But hey, that is reality. In real life, Russian combat helicopters don't usually fly under the tree tops. They don't have RWRs and they don't use chaff. I know - weird.

 

As I said, the learning experience and the ability to convey it is what I most love about this sim.

Edited December 4, 2008 by EvilBivol-1

[Feuerfalke]

No need for such comments in here.

 

FYI: Ka-50 wasn't used in the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

 

I knew that. ;)

 

 

@ EvilBivol-1

 

Not upset at all, but it was getting way off topic, IMHO. :smilewink:

 

And I always thought that especially because the KA-50 had no RWR, it would be the doctrine to stay invisible. At least that was the conclusion of earlier threads.

 

 

But well, since hiding behind trees is only part of the story, we should get back to the topic: It's a pitty we can't hide behind trees, but the enemy can!

[EvilBivol-1]

Yes, it is. :)

[Gary]

I'm no expert but it would seem to me that flying so low, and so slow (i.e. behind trees) is blooming dangerous!

 

Groove,

 

I like the real life footage, not seen anyone come back with lots of real life examples of heli's playing hide and seek in the woods

 

If you want to do it all properly, the hills are your best friends

 

Just my 2 cents

 

Regards,

 

Gary

[Feuerfalke]

I'm no expert but it would seem to me that flying so low, and so slow (i.e. behind trees) is blooming dangerous!

 

Groove,

 

I like the real life footage, not seen anyone come back with lots of real life examples of heli's playing hide and seek in the woods

 

If you want to do it all properly, the hills are your best friends

 

Just my 2 cents

 

Regards,

 

Gary

 

There's a difference between using woods as cover and "sneaking" forward and flying low and SLOW.

 

If you want a video of what I mean:

 

This is not exercised for pure fun, I'm pretty sure, looking at the dangers shown in this video.

 

Or this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U27qmT7TqYw

 

 

ever tried to use a river-valley in BS? ;)

IMHO GUNSHIP and GUNSHIP2000 were excellent examples in this regard.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Feuerfalke

[Gary]

Good vid.

 

Was that at night? or just the display contrast?

 

Regards,

 

Gary

[Groove]

The only hiding and sneaking around video i would remember directly is that Apache Longbow Commercial. You can find it on youtube.

[Renato71]

Ehm... There is no real infantry in DCS, just some crash test dummies with painted beards. There are no Toyota pick-ups with Ayrton Senna driving logic. There is no guerilla whatsoever, hiking over the mountains, shooting at you with AK, DŠK or Igla. Ther is no AI behaviour for "dug in", "hide in a cave" or "send SMS to Adbulah on next hilltop and ask him for spare Igla battery or a car charger". As a matter of fact, there is very little of "I" in "AI". Any example and tactics related to anti-guerilla usage of helicopter is completely irrelevant to DCS.

Ka-50 was primarly used in Chechnya as a point-strike weapon, not in open conflict. Unlike Mi-17 and Mi-24. But, both details are also irrelevant, as Ka-50 was too dear to risc it in open conflict, and Mi-17 and 24 are not avaialbe in DCS.

Therefore, one has to adapt tactics around existing threats and their capabilities (which are moddeled for classic, frontal military conflict). But, non-existent trees narrow all options down, and it is very unrealistic not to have real trees with realistic helicopter. Situation is not balanced.

Suggestions like hiding behind buildings is poor. Only small percentage of the map is covered with cities. Unless ther will be a RTS mod where you will be able to make some villagers that will build tall, tall building.

Also, usual flight plan of flying high with half of the fuel is no solution for a map that has big regions bellow 1000 m ASL. If thats the key, than the map should cover Caucasus only, no Black Sea at all. Or one should wait for that horribly boring map of Nellis. And, half a payload is boring as well.

Key factor that is missing in DCS are surveilance platforms, airborne or ground. There is no Ka-31, correct? And it was a must for Ka-50 in Chechnya. Can AI in BRDM communicate with me?

Ka-50 can only be used if you are sneaky bastard, flying with other sneaky bastards. If trees are non-functional, then you are in the open. But, I guess that is colsely related to graphic engine that allows you to set up trees density? If you eliminate that, it will be easier to code functional trees.

[Groove]

Wow Renato71, you have awesome ideas!

 

Ever thought about realising them in a game?

 

Military is usually boring imho.

 

You dont want that exciting close combat fights, you want that boring stand-off weapons on your side ;)

Edited December 4, 2008 by Groove

[Feuerfalke]

Good vid.

 

Was that at night? or just the display contrast?

 

Regards,

 

Gary

 

 

I read on some military site that this was an exercise for a deepstrike nightmission of an AH-64A.

 

It's been a while, though, since this was originally posted.

[EvilBivol-1]

Ehm... There is no real infantry in DCS, just some crash test dummies with painted beards. There are no Toyota pick-ups with Ayrton Senna driving logic. There is no guerilla whatsoever, hiking over the mountains, shooting at you with AK, DŠK or Igla. Ther is no AI behaviour for "dug in", "hide in a cave" or "send SMS to Adbulah on next hilltop and ask him for spare Igla battery or a car charger". As a matter of fact, there is very little of "I" in "AI". Any example and tactics related to anti-guerilla usage of helicopter is completely irrelevant to DCS.

Having both built and played numerous missions in Black Shark, I have to strongly disagree. Especially with the triggers now available in the ME, many elements of COIN operations can be simulated quite well. Most importantly, transport missions, ambush tactics, and the random threat of small arms and MANPAD fire enroute, in the target area and even around your airbase.

Suggestions like hiding behind buildings is poor. Only small percentage of the map is covered with cities. Unless ther will be a RTS mod where you will be able to make some villagers that will build tall, tall building.

The suggestion was to use terrain and buildings. Most of the map, in fact, is hilly. Hills offer great cover. The one largely flat area on the map, the central plain in western Georgia, is very densely populated with cities, which is where buildings come in. Almost everywhere else, there are hills.

Key factor that is missing in DCS are surveilance platforms, airborne or ground. There is no Ka-31, correct? And it was a must for Ka-50 in Chechnya.

This is true.
Edited December 4, 2008 by EvilBivol-1