Jump to content

Trees


Woodstock

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

An interesting question however is this: what tactics did US Army and Marines attack helicopters use during Desert Storm and OIF?

 

In Desert Storm the Army helos operated at night, when the Iraqi armor crews were sleeping...in their tanks. :eek: Seriously, it was something they adopted during their war with Iran to keep them safe from attack at night. Boy, did that ever backfire for them...

 

BTW, if I could rep EvilBivol for his first post in this thread, I would.

 

I wonder if we'll see people complaining in DCS: Hog and DCS: Viper about the dangers of flying low.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry ... who got crucified for discussing trees?

 

If I was not to care, I would not bother to point out defficiencies. Why is it that each time some issue come under discussion that those who brought it out are crucified?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must agree with Renato here, cause if there's a Tunguska hiding from FAC birds in the forest I doubt it would shoot it's missiles thru the tree top. At least not IRL. On the other hand, we all remember AH-64 "Yeah of little faith" video showing what an adversary a tree may be! So, since we fly helos NOE most of the time I believe those trees deserve a proper collision model.

 

 

I've been looking for that video everywhere, and I can't find it! Do you know where I can?

"A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all." -Richard S. Drury

http://www.virtualblueangels.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wait for Fighter Ops if you are wanting something next gen simulation. DCS gets boring pretty fast.

 

Can you explain what you mean please in more detail?

 

Perhaps try taking the simulation out of "game" mode and try the "real" mode instead?

 

Or

 

Just stick to the xbox

 

lol.....sorry, couldnt resist!

I5 - 1TB SSHD, 256 SSD - Nvidia 1070 - 16gb ram - CV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol.....sorry, couldnt resist!

 

Oh for the love of god, ever heard of the word "troll"? Yes, it's the guy who craves your attention :D Congrats on that post ;)

 

Have mercy on me, i whish more people knew what usenet is.

 

oh and blacknemisis, have one of these:

><o(((°>


Edited by sobek

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sobek,

 

Actually to be honest, no I didnt know what a troll was. I also have no idea what usenet is or the funny shape you sent blacknemisis

 

But hay, actually I'm comfortable with that really....

 

I spend time here pursuning my hobbie and if I feel like replying to someone I quiet often do...never felt the need to qualify who they were or what their motives might be.....its just a bit of fun really...and id rather keep it that way, but thanks for enlightening me anyway.

 

Regards,

 

Gary

I5 - 1TB SSHD, 256 SSD - Nvidia 1070 - 16gb ram - CV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We get "you have to wait for new XYZ" because this is the a Fact - nothing more or nothing less.

No ones seriously believes here that it's absolute OK how the trees are simulated.

But what would be the consequence?!

Should ED hold back BS until the engine is ready ? ... and wait another couple of month or even years?

Keep in mind that the A10 is already in the completion...

and it will also fly in a environment without solid trees until there is a fix(probably not) or a new Engine without this restrictions is released.

So should ED stop the A10 until the fact that you can not collide with trees is solved?...

Would it really make the people happy to wait another couple of years for a finished engine...(keep in mind that ED probably would go bankrupt in the meantime because they are selling no product!)

So there is nothing left for us to enjoy what we have and wait for a better engine.

Discussing about it again and again will help not changing this.

:)

Just my 2cents

Hopefully you all get my point.

 

Exactly what I think about!:thumbup:

Deutsche DCS-Flughandbücher

SYSSpecs: i7-4790K @4GHz|GA-Z97X-SLI|16GB RAM|ASUS GTX1070|Win10 64bit|TrackIR5|TM Warthog/Saitek Pro Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sobek,

 

Actually to be honest, no I didnt know what a troll was. I also have no idea what usenet is or the funny shape you sent blacknemisis

 

But hay, actually I'm comfortable with that really....

 

I spend time here pursuning my hobbie and if I feel like replying to someone I quiet often do...never felt the need to qualify who they were or what their motives might be.....its just a bit of fun really...and id rather keep it that way, but thanks for enlightening me anyway.

 

Sorry, i meant no offense, i often stand ignorant to the fact how troll free this forum actually is. However, given the fact that i visit other fora that are not as lucky, i usually react quite allergic to people feeding trolls because, as mentioned earlier, with users that are not knowledgeable, the thread deteriorates and the discussion is led ad absurdum.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sobek,

 

Thank you for the reply. Although i did initially take a little offense to your post, your reply clearly shows you meant none.....so again, thank you.

 

I wouldnt consider myself a complete novice but neither do I understand all the terms used either.

 

I can well imagine it being very frustrating to see a post like blacknemisis posted only for others to feed their egos....but I honestly took my reply to him as a bit of fun.

 

As a simmer for many years it struck me that blacknemisis obviously enjoys the xbox type games more....as Imho this is the best software release since f4 (which I thought was great) and quoting FO as better before its released was ill advised

 

Hope your enjoying BS half as much as me

 

Kind Regards,

 

Gary

I5 - 1TB SSHD, 256 SSD - Nvidia 1070 - 16gb ram - CV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Official explanation

 

Hello guys!

 

The biggest reason for trees to be non-collidable is because they consist of large 'blocks', 1-2km in size. We can make these blocks obstacles, with individual trees collidable, and get these results:

 

1. AI surface units get confused when these blocks intersect roads, they will not be able to move through or near forests areas at all.

 

2. Impossible to place surface units into the forest. Even if we force them there, they can't shoot from there.

 

3. AI aircraft & targeting get confused by corners of these blocks going beyond mountain slopes, they will see obstacles where there isn't one.

 

So, all in all, forests become just 'elevated' mountain slopes. With this block representation AI will not see clearings in the forests etc. To effectively model trees we have to keep them separate objects and then, with our huge territory, there are too many of them.

 

There are ideas on how to make trees work well, but it's not a quick fix, and I can't give you any time estimate. Really sorry about that.

 

Best regards

Grisha

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Grisha has given a clear technical explanation of the tree collidable problem.

You will just have to live with this situation, whether you like it or not.

I really do not think any further posts on this subject are necessary.

Go and enjoy flying Black Shark. Most military sims are not up to the fidelity that you have in this consumer product.

Having problems? Visit http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Main_Page

Dell Laptop M1730 -Vista- Intel Core 2 Duo T7500@2.2GHz, 4GB, Nvidia 8700MGT 767MB

Intel i7 975 Extreme 3.2GHZ CPU, NVidia GTX 570 1.28Gb Pcie Graphics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additional thoughts after reading all 7 pages (Based on personal experience):

 

1: The only time an apache hovers is when it is at a controlled firing range. In real combat they keep moving. In open areas, stay high, and in tighter areas stay low. The reason for this is that in open areas they have wider views and seek to maximize them while giving themselves ample opportunity to identify and evade threats. In tighter areas where it is harder to see individual threats, stay low to bypass the threat's line of sight as quickly as possible OR use scout helicopters (OH-58D) to identify threats low while you stay (really) high and wait for a lase to shoot at.

 

2: Whoever said (can't remember and don't feel like going back to find out) that a hellfire wouldn't/shouldn't be used on a toyota pick-up doesn't surf youtube enough. If ya got 16 of 'em and the enemy doesn't have any real armor and just cars/trucks, then you use them on trucks. Does $58k per shot sound reasonable for 3 terrorists and a $10k (usd) truck? Maybe it's overkill but I'll let the generals and supply clerks decide that. I'll just stay in my own lane.

 

3: Someone posted a video (again can't remember) of ah-64s in afgahnistan and said there was no killing...I suggest you watch it again...

 

4: As far as hiding behind trees, the tactic is dangerous and stupid in more ways than one. Those who romanticize the tactic should think about the fact that the woodline they are hiding behind is the most likely spot for an enemy general to see and say, "I bet they'll attack from there...I should put some manpads there." Sadly, ground generals (infantry generals) often romanticize hovering as much as rotorheads. "Everybody wants their own personal elevator"...

 

5: I DO however think that tress should be collidable simply for realism reasons (NOE flying) and for the simple fact that you shouldn't be able to track/lase/fire upon an enemy hiding inside deep woods. They might fire on you as you fly overhead (preferably at high altitude and speed), but they shouldn't fire THROUGH trees...That's just rediculous...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really sorry about that.

 

Best regards

Grisha

 

Hey! Don't be sorry - this game is fantastic and more than I hoped it would be; by far EDs best release yet! I'm so glad you took the time to release the product you have. I was concerned about the trees, but I know you guys are working on it, and so I'm more than happy to enjoy what we have now until we get something new! :D

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

"Great minds think alike; idiots seldom differ.":pilotfly:

i5 3750K@4.3Ghz, MSI Z77A GD55, 8GB DDR3, Palit GTX 670, 24" Benq@1920*1080, X52 Pro, Win 7 64bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly.

 

Thank you, Grisha and Jim!

As I said in the opening post, I didn´t expect you to reply, so it is appreciated even more.

I just wanted to let you know that I am feeling strongly about the issue. I can do that and still love the package for all it´s good points, being the best there is.

For years we have been praying for a combination of LockOn´s and Falcon´s strong points.

BS is a huge leap towards the right direction, but we aren´t there yet, and as a matter of fact, most of us never will feel completely satisfied because the hobby is about a substitution for a (mostly broken) real-life dream.

As long as the developers regard all the whining about whats missing as constructive criticism and display of passion,

and as long as we consumers keep up our enthusiasm and active community work, there might be a brighter future for the PC-Mil-Flightsim-Hobby after 10 years of near starvation.

 

All is said, and I´m gonna try not to be a nuissance about trees in the future.

Who knows, I might even manage to refrain myself from writing:

"Hey Andrey, Happy Birthday, how´s the tree solution coming along?"

on Chizh´s next anniversary...

:smilewink:


Edited by Woodstock

"For aviators like us, the sky is not the limit - it's our home!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question about hovering and the pop-up attack is an interesting one. I have lately seen various questions about the employment doctrine of the Ka-50, but no really satisfactionary answers. When talking about combat helicopter tactics, most people now seem to look at the lessons learned of least 20 years of real conflicts. While this is certainly correct, it only addresses one half of the medal. We should not forget that the super-powers for the last decades have "only" fought limited wars on a relative low threat level. Don't get me wrong, those wars are full of dangers and people get killed. Yet it is no comparison to the threat level to be expected against a similar equipped enemy. The tactics learned in the Caucasus, Afghanistan or Iraq could quite certainly not be applied against a modern mechanized army under strong air cover.

 

The US combat helicopter doctrine in such a scenario is well known (and would certainly be reapplied should the need arise), unfortunately the Russian one is still a mystery to me. To hover or not to hover seems to be the question.

 

The little I have heard, is that the Mi-24 would have used NOE, high speed, unguided rocked attack runs in the classic Fulda Gap scenario. The Hind was no tank hunter, it was primary armed with rockets to attack defensive positions and troop concentrations. I guess the 4 AT missiles of the Hind would mostly have been used against hardened defensive positions or stationary tanks in battle positions. To me it seems for most of the cold war the soviet doctrine for gunships was to quickly put a large amount of firepower on a specific point and then get the hell out of there. While the Hinds would stay close to the ground in order to survive in such a hostile environment, they would keep their speed high.

 

The Mi-28 and Ka-50 seem to indicate a shift in the way the Soviets/Russian wanted to use their attack helicopters. Both have a strong anti-tank missile armament. In order to use all these missiles, it almost seems necessary for me to do so out of a hover. In in order to hover on a hostile battlefield, pop-up attacks from behind cover (and/or concealment) and a frequent shift of the battle position almost seems like a most for me. While I have no real knowledge about the late Soviet/Russian attack helicopter doctrine (in a mechanized warfare environment), to me it sound plausible they came to the same conclusion as did NATO. I would certainly love to hear more about it, because I plan to fly such scenarios in Black Shark a lot more than the COIN type.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additional thoughts after reading all 7 pages (Based on personal experience):

 

1: The only time an apache hovers is when it is at a controlled firing range. In real combat they keep moving. In open areas, stay high, and in tighter areas stay low. The reason for this is that in open areas they have wider views and seek to maximize them while giving themselves ample opportunity to identify and evade threats. In tighter areas where it is harder to see individual threats, stay low to bypass the threat's line of sight as quickly as possible OR use scout helicopters (OH-58D) to identify threats low while you stay (really) high and wait for a lase to shoot at.

 

2: Whoever said (can't remember and don't feel like going back to find out) that a hellfire wouldn't/shouldn't be used on a toyota pick-up doesn't surf youtube enough. If ya got 16 of 'em and the enemy doesn't have any real armor and just cars/trucks, then you use them on trucks. Does $58k per shot sound reasonable for 3 terrorists and a $10k (usd) truck? Maybe it's overkill but I'll let the generals and supply clerks decide that. I'll just stay in my own lane.

 

3: Someone posted a video (again can't remember) of ah-64s in afgahnistan and said there was no killing...I suggest you watch it again...

 

4: As far as hiding behind trees, the tactic is dangerous and stupid in more ways than one. Those who romanticize the tactic should think about the fact that the woodline they are hiding behind is the most likely spot for an enemy general to see and say, "I bet they'll attack from there...I should put some manpads there." Sadly, ground generals (infantry generals) often romanticize hovering as much as rotorheads. "Everybody wants their own personal elevator"...

 

5: I DO however think that tress should be collidable simply for realism reasons (NOE flying) and for the simple fact that you shouldn't be able to track/lase/fire upon an enemy hiding inside deep woods. They might fire on you as you fly overhead (preferably at high altitude and speed), but they shouldn't fire THROUGH trees...That's just rediculous...

 

Your post hit the nail dead on. That said, as a veteran of Desert Shield and OIF3 I can say I saw changes in helo tactics first hand. In OIF we are fighting an insurgency meaning there are no front lines so yes, the helos move constantly in order to minimize their chance of gettin hit, at least most of the time. And, the Apache pilots would not hesitate to use a hellfire on a toyota if it meant destroying the enemy's ability to fight. Heck, hellfires were used on dismounted insurgents. That saved American lives, so cost was not an issue.

 

In Desert Storm Apaches would generally hover at a moderate altitude and pick off tanks at their leisure. Plus, the Iraqi armor did not generally have night vision capabilities and their maximum effective range was approximately 2500 meters give or take compared to the Hellfires 5000 meters.

 

Now, one option in black Shark could be to edit the enemy ai visibility distance, or edit their competence.

 

Regards.

An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tactics learned in the Caucasus, Afghanistan or Iraq could quite certainly not be applied against a modern mechanized army under strong air cover.
What about Georgia? At least in general terms, it was a conventional conflict of technologically equipped regular formations with approximate parity in capability. From what we can tell, there was nothing particularly different in the way the Russians flew their helicopters. They appear to have generally stayed low, but not so low as to be popping up behind tree lines. IMHO, this difference of scenarios is fictional. In reality, I believe that at least Russian helicopters would have been used in the Fulda Gap no differently than they are used today.

 

How the Ka-50 and/or the Mi-28 might have altered these tactics is pure speculation. Even today, in the 21st Century and with both the Ka-50 and the Mi-28 formally in service, we are yet to see any evidence of specialized tactical employment for these types. I do think such employment will be developed in time, when either of these helicopters is more thoroughly employed by the military, but to guess on it now, especially looking backward, is to engage in a grand hypothetical. For the Ka-50, the original idea was to develop "wolfpack" tactics using the datalink, where one helicopter acts as an A-FAC and the rest fend out to attack. How this concept would have turned out nobody really knows, probably not even the Russians. Today, it would appear that both the Mi-28 and the Ka-50 merely add their specific capabilities to previously developed tactics.


Edited by EvilBivol-1

- EB

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer.

The Parable of Jane's A-10

Forum Rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...