Trees

[Cyb0rg]

IMHO better have this trees than no trees.

 

Besides, its very nice flying around with all this eye candy. They really looks nice and doesnt seem have too much impact in FPS.

[Kula66]

IMHO, 'Collidable' trees in BS are a bit like missiles that obey physics in FC ... pretty fundamental!

 

Watching TOW missiles fly through forrests and hit a BMP ... just looks silly.

 

There are dozens of videos showing attack helicopters skirting along tree lined roads/rivers etc ... NOE is again fundamental. Afg/Irq are not conventional environments and I'm sure what is considered convention attack helicopter is different there. Against a mech army with lots of AAA/SAMs you'd have to either neutalise (SEAD/ECM) it or go low into the trees.

 

I guess we await the new engine ...

Edited December 7, 2008 by Kula66

[BoneDust]

If you're using an IR sensor trees are useless :)

[MBot]

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.

 

I do not know very much about the fightings in the last Georgian war and appreciate your input. What helicopters have been used by Russia there, new Mi-28 and Ka-50 or classic Hinds? If you could point out some good reading on the subject, it would be much appreciated.

 

The thing is, I have problems to see Mi-28 and Ka-50 to use the low and fast, one pass rocket attacks tactics used by the Mi-24 in high threat environments. The strong ATGM armament of the Ka-50 makes that tactic sound implausible. Why load 12 ATGM on your helicopter when you can only launch 1-2 missiles per attack run? And why keep closing on the target to guide your missiles when you can keep distance to do so?

[RedTiger]

The strong ATGM armament of the Ka-50 makes that tactic sound implausible. Why load 12 ATGM on your helicopter when you can only launch 1-2 missiles per attack run? And why keep closing on the target to guide your missiles when you can keep distance to do so?

 

A better question is to ask why you would load this same weapon system on an aircraft, which the Russians did. If you take this into account, the tactics of the Ka-50 become easier to realize and understand.

 

This is akin to the gent who said that you wouldn't use a hellfire on a Toyota truck. Well, yeah, you would if it meant life and death for you or the infantry you are supporting. You don't think about "wasting" weapons. They're there for a reason and you use them to get the job done.

 

In the case of the Ka-50, you're launching 1-2 missiles per strafe, but those missiles will have a greater PK and accuracy than probably anything else. Instead of showering the area with rockets while strafing, you're choosing to kill one target, all the while retaining the benefits of a strafe. In the same way it isn't about wasting missiles, it isn't about employing them in a way that guarantees one shot, one kill at the risk of everything else. I would consider 12 Vikhrs for 3 kills to be a satisfactory result (think about how much more difficult it might be for infantry to get those kills without taking casualties vs. the difficulty for you). If you can take your 12 Vikhrs and get 6 kills, I would consider that a perfect result.

[Shrubbo]

Heh tactics, real, not real, who cares. I just hope in the new engine that I am realistically punished for stuffing up big time.

 

Black Shark to me feels and looks like the genuine article. It "feels" real and I have clocked up quite a few hours just flying the thing around and finding it's limits.

 

BUT....screwing up and flying thru a tree and nothing happens shatters the whole feel of the thing but that is ok. I knew this before I bought it so that's the way it is. No tears there.

 

However I would like to see the virtual world that this virtual machine flies thru to one day seem as real as the chopper itself seems..... Regardless of what tactics are right or wrong.

[MBot]

Today I just realized how much we really miss with those trees. Somehow I always had those trees from Lock On in mind. Now with my new system and the details turned up to the max I have to say, the forests look fantastic! I was flying in the region north-west of Tskhakaya and had so much fun sneaking around in the woods. You can hop from clearing to clearing, hover over the branches to do a Shkval search and there was even a road to follow through the forest. If you fly like to trees are solid, it feels so much like Gunship!

 

I know, I know, it wont help but now I just have to think about how great it would be to hunt in these grounds.

[DarthElvis]

However the collisions themselves work, the "dealbreaker*" for me is the enemy can see me , but I cant see him. I may have misread, this seems to be the gist of what part of the issue is. For me - collisions are secondary.

Don't know about anyone else, but I cant see Jack-sh*t when I'm walking through the woods and something flies over (lots of logging helo's, etc.). I sure as hell wouldn't know where to aim or point the seeker on a manpad - if the missile would even make it through the tree canaopy.

 

*not really dealbreaker in the classic sense, still gonna buy it. But there's always something pretty major in an ED product that never gets addressed, not a slam - a fact(aamram in lomac anyone ?). Wouldn't surprise me if this was one of them.

[MBot]

Well yes, seeing, shooting and flying through trees goes hand in hand. It has been explained and known for months and years, but now that I can actually fly in the woods and see what exceptional fun it is and how great it looks, it hurts even more that we can not (yet) do combat in these regions for the above reasons.

[LIONPRIDE]

.

 

 

With the knowledge of being able to fly through trees ... I'm going to exploit the hell out of it ... SORRY ... :D

 

 

.

[d0ppler]

With the knowledge of being able to fly through trees ... I'm going to exploit the hell out of it ... SORRY ... :D

sorry?

 

tell me HOW can you exploit this please.

[aledmb]

i don't understand why trees can't be like buildings (with respect to visibility and collision detection).

[deviletk]

i don't understand why trees can't be like buildings (with respect to visibility and collision detection).

 

Explained before many times. As the engine is now, make all trees collidable will take too much performance from your computer. The DCS world is BIG and have quiet a lot of trees. If its possible to make it work somehow i dont know, but this is the explanation.

[Weta43]

I didn't think it's as simple as 'everyone's computer would come to a standstill' though there would probably be a hit, but perhaps as much that you'd lose a big chunk of the graphics scalability during online play.

 

Say you have a great computer & fly with full graphics - loads of trees.

Now you go online & fly against s/one w/ a minimum spec machine - lower graphics settings, hardly any trees.

 

Who's collision model do you use ?

 

Do you have it that the minimum spec player take what appears to be a 'clear' shot only to have the round/missile explode in mid-air on a tree that only exists on the other player's machine?, or that that only some of the trees in the higher spec'd players world are 'solid' (?) - how do they tell which ones ?

 

Maybe you could put a collision 'box' around all forested areas, but then there's no hiding in the forests - or sending units in there at all, individual trees around buildings would still be as they are, and players with graphics turned down would be forced to fly above treetop hight even outside of forests in case there's a forest collision box that they can't see because they have most trees turned off.

[Swebeast]

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

 

I agree. Eagle Dynamics has done a wonderful job and a fantastic product in Black Shark!

 

Black Shark surprises me every day with little details that makes it even more realistic as I fly it.

 

I remember when Falcon 4 came....that too was(/is) a wonderful sim but with lots of bugs in the beginning (I became a member of iBeta at the time trying to make it better and better). Black Shark, in my opinion, isn't near other "Bug releases" when it comes to stability, realism and quality.

 

Sure, there are a number of fixes needed but nothing drastic and I am sure that BS will become an even greater sim during the year 2009 (much thanks to the communities, costumers and Eagle Dynamics Test Team)!

 

Nuff lickin' up ;)

(I'm visiting Moscow in March...maybe I can come visit the Test Team after this very positive post :music_whistling:)

[AlphaOneSix]

sorry?

 

tell me HOW can you exploit this please.

 

I'm thinking the only way ot exploit this is in multiplayer against enemy helicopters, and using the trees to hide. Not sure it would work very well to me, though. Seems like it would harm your own vision more than the enemy's.

[LIONPRIDE]

I'm thinking the only way ot exploit this is in multiplayer against enemy helicopters, and using the trees to hide. Not sure it would work very well to me, though. Seems like it would harm your own vision more than the enemy's.

 

It has a lot to do with angles ... line of sight. Knowing that you can skim the turf only watching for buildings is easier then having to worry about all the vegitation too. I know it hinders my ability to see for the travel but it keeps my cross-section down to a minimum and I'm not freaking out every time I fall below tree level.

 

.

 

It's a crying shame that it's not modeled correctly ... but just like many sims/games these days ... the enemy has a pair of x-ray vision goggles that can see for 20 miles and a sniper-qual'd grunt on every stinger.

 

.

Edited January 10, 2009 by LIONPRIDE

[hitman]

sorry?

 

tell me HOW can you exploit this please.

Why are you interested in exploiting it? The exploit is that there isnt a tree there.

[LIONPRIDE]

Why are you interested in exploiting it? The exploit is that there isnt a tree there.

 

 

See my second half of response above ...

 

 

 

.

[Bucic]

The most obviousness filled thread I've seen for a while starting from the very first message. What's this all about? If trees are not needed for Ka-50 tactics then they are needed for other reasons i.e. LOS obstruction of ground units.

 

If ED will not go even for a robust solution then forget about trees until the next DCS engine, EOT.

[d0ppler]

Why are you interested in exploiting it? The exploit is that there isnt a tree there.

I am not interested at all exploiting it, I was just interested to see Lionprides answer.

[hitman]

ED explained as to why they cant make trees collidable, so why debate it?

[Dropbear]

I'm quite suprised they couldnt get the graphics hardware to pick up when you're flying through a tree and implement a collision detection that way.. shrug...

[d0ppler]

I'm quite suprised they couldnt get the graphics hardware to pick up when you're flying through a tree and implement a collision detection that way.. shrug...

Collision detection is not graphics hardware dependent, but CPU dependent. You need a CPU to compute whether you have hit an object or not. Believe me, you will not be able to get close to any smooth FPS if DCS should compute collision detection on trees even if you have a cutting edge computer.

[hitman]

The reason why we dont have a collision model is because the trees arent modelled as individual units, but as massive terrain blocks. You can think of them as flat, small plateaus whos edges are defined as trees. To get the trees to be collidable you would need to recreate the entire terrain from scratch and use a newer engine like speed tree. Now think of 16+ million trees that now have to be rendered individually.