Trees

[Renato71]

Wow Renato71, you have awesome ideas!

Ever thought about realising them in a game?

 

Yes, I have thought about that. But I will not claim anything until I will be able to produce it.

 

I hope you are NOT sarcastic.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Renato71

[EvilBivol-1]

P.S. Just realized - the Mi-24 (you know, the main Russian attack helicopter) can't even hover for the most part! I wonder what that does to Longbow-style sneak and peak tactics? :D

Edited December 4, 2008 by EvilBivol-1

[Feuerfalke]

P.S. Just realized - the Mi-24 (you know, the main Russian attack helicopter) can't even hover for the most part! I wonder what that does to Longbow-style sneak and peak tactics? :D

 

Who said you need to hover to use vegetation as cover and sneak in and out undetected? :huh:

[EvilBivol-1]

Just an observation on tactics. Hover behind a hill, pop-up, recon, pop back down, prepare to engage, pop-up, fire, pop back down. (Also) irrelevant to Russian combat helicopters.

 

It's been fun guys, but it's time for me to punch out. I don't mean to detract from your points. I understand you only want the best possible and I promise you that your general sentiments are shared by myself and the Devs. I can see that you are overall pleased with the product and we appreciate that above all. As soon as there is an opportunity to implement better trees, I'm sure ED will jump on it. I mostly got involved out of interest in tactics and the way Black Shark presents them, which is where I do disagree, because I think the sim does a much better job than this thread would imply.

 

Happy flying, through trees and otherwise!

Edited December 4, 2008 by EvilBivol-1

[Woodstock]

It has been said why the Ka-50 has been employed in the way shown on pics and videos, but this is not the typical Fulda Gap scenario it was drafted for.

Another great video of helo low flying, this time in an environment similar to our Georgian woods:

 

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=mRt5mvk-2iw

 

I´ve personally seen German Army PAH-1 choppers (Bo-105 with 6 TOWs) practicing like that near their base at Roth, their pilots stating that below-treetop-level flight was your only protection in an unarmed flying machine on a cold-war scenario.

 

Enjoy the video! - And then imagine a barrage of 23 mm coming out of that third tree on your left - and then you know you´re in BS again...:smilewink:

[kaos.dll]

I also like to cover with a helo but there's a difference between the american and the russian millitary ideology of an attach helicopter.

 

You can start an endless discussion what the better idea is. You can start a endless discussion if a cheap Vikhr is better that an expensive Hellfire etc.

 

I'm not sure if this is important for us... We can start this discussion after the release of the Apache module :-)

[Feuerfalke]

Very cool video.

 

 

That's exactly what I was hoping for in BS.

 

 

And as a small side-note to that excellent example: The Bo-105 initially didn't have an RWR either, due to more urgent threats in the mission parameters shown in the video. :D

[EagleEye]

@Woodstock and Feuerfalke:

Sorry guys, it was well known that BS would have the same none solid trees like in Lockon. That was covered in the DCS FAQ long time before release and was discussed more than a hundred times.

 

Yes, in a perfect helicopter simulation we would have solid trees but we dont have it yet, so we should arrange with that fact and make the best of this situation.:smilewink:

[Feuerfalke]

@Woodstock and Feuerfalke:

Sorry guys, it was well known that BS would have the same none solid trees like in Lockon. That was covered in the DCS FAQ long time before release and was discussed more than a hundred times.

 

Yes, in a perfect helicopter simulation we would have solid trees but we dont have it yet, so we should arrange with that fact and make the best of this situation.:smilewink:

 

Discussing this issue with first hand gaming experience doesn't mean that we didn't know before, didn't read the FAQ or don't recommend the game. Please don't mix them up.

 

As you perfectly put it: "we should arrange with that fact and make the best of this situation."

But arranging is an active process ranging from saying "AMEN!" to "what can we do about it?" to "naaah, Russians don't need trees" :D j/k

[Acedy]

Just an observation on tactics. Hover behind a hill, pop-up, recon, pop back down, prepare to engage, pop-up, fire, pop back down. (Also) irrelevant to Russian combat helicopters.

 

I wonder if this is only true for the Russians or for the Army Aviation of other nations as well, at least to a certain degree. To me it seems that NOE flying, pop-up tactics, hovering fire at stand-off range from masked positions and the like are largely 80s/90s standard tactics of the US Army and maybe Britain (?) and Germany, as Woodstock suggested.

 

Naturally each tactic has its preconditions, and those for pop-ups and hovering fire from stand-off range include: hilly terrain (with lots of forests) intersected by wide, woodless valleys, plus clear frontlines. I.e. German midlands in the 80s. Woodless valleys in order to use your sensors and fire weapons from maximum range. Clear frontlines because you need an absolutely safe place to hover, preferably above/behind or at least close to friendly lines, otherwise you are extremely vulnerable. The underlying idea of these tactics of course is to provide close air support against enemy tanks (which have to move through open areas), not to fly independent (long range) missions into remote territory where enemy positions are unknown.

 

Now ask yourself if these two preconditions are still met on today's battlefields where western forces are engaged? Afghanistan: mountainous terrain, but no real frontline and no tank battles, but enemies with small arms or MANPADS that can hide anywhere along your flightpath. Iraq: I don't have a good idea about the terrain there, sure a lot of desert, dunes, but then there are also the Euphrates and Tigris valleys and the mountains in the north, so it's probably a mixed bag. Plus most of the missions are counter insurgency above urban areas, so again no clear frontlines.

 

Conclusion: it seems that today there are quite a lot of occasions where you probably don't really want to hover, but keep moving all the time and maybe even fly high. I wouldn't think that hovering fire techniques are obsolete, but that current circumstances often demand the development and use of other tactics.

 

An interesting question however is this: what tactics did US Army and Marines attack helicopters use during Desert Storm and OIF? How do USMC Cobras operate? Did they ever adopt the hovering fire techniques, or do they mostly stick to run and gun tactics from the Vietnam era?

 

In regard to these questions it is also interesting to look at attack helicopter design and especially the mounting of sensors. There doesn't seem to be a clear cut decision though, as mast, roof and chin mounted sensors are equally common.

[Legolasindar]

Iraq: I don't have a good idea about the terrain there, sure a lot of desert, dunes,...

 

For this terrain US Army changed tactics. Use packages of 4 AH64 or more packages, go fast and low, shoot all and return to back, all this quick. Obviously this is for the Desert Storm, in actual irak without combat airplanes, tanks, AAA, SAMs, etc... no need this tactis, fly with radar all the time, and attack with calm. Iraq soldier with a rock (joke) not is AAA:megalol:

Edited December 4, 2008 by Legolasindar

[EagleEye]

....But arranging is an active process ranging from saying "AMEN!" to "what can we do about it?" to "naaah, Russians don't need trees" :D j/k

There are several threads about that trees thing after BS RU release, so we don`t say AMEN to this. ED knows about.:)

[Drav]

I am making some new trees but would like to know the polycount of the old ones (high, mid and low LODs) If anyone could find out, that would be lovely....

 

 

As for current theatre tactics, I believe the Brits in Helmand fly their Apaches very low and fast when enroute, but high for fire support.

 

 

PS Check this video out for some amazing views of Taliban AA (Theres no killing)

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SL2ECPC4_RA&NR=1

Edited December 4, 2008 by Drav

[Renato71]

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? As far I know, LUA and programming is not religion, DCS is not a church, and therefore there are no priests. That means that thre are no "blessed" individuals and ther are no those "that need to be converted".

It is very weird to see that only worshipers are welcomed, and those that question true age and authors of the Bible are dismissed with "yes, we know, but it is irrelevant, it is the faith and the Word that counts." I want to spread His Word, but not if critics are subjected to Inquisition.

 

Many things were mentioned beforehand, but in most cases any discussion on any topic either strayed away or was promptly cut with "you have to wait for new XYZ". Now, we have the option to discuss some things openly, as we are no beta testers with their obligations. Sorry to say, but we are paying customers, and we have the right to ask for more chocolate on donuts and to discuss it quality. Yes, the baker said that the chocolate will only be smeared over the top of the donut, but I like this bakery and I have to say that bakery next door dunks thier donuts in Swiss chocolate in full and for a long time. Yes, their donuts are smaller, but I love chocolate. Enough of hyperbolae...

 

It is very simple - if we are allowed to openly discuss (and occasionally remind) about some issues, it could help programmers/developers/producers to steer this project into commercially sensible path. And, in a path that will make this simulation well balanced when simulating certain objects or behaviors.

 

Trees need to be functional, Ai needs to be fixed, there is no need to overmodel invisible and unusable things, this is still the game that need gameplay, and the King is naked.

 

I'll take a long break from discussions. Thanks and best regards to all.

[DiabloSP]

Nice, concise points, Acedy. Irrefutable.

 

Battlefield situation has changed much in the last 15 years. Apart form desert storm front-line battles and tank plinking, there's no use today for radars and RF Hellfires. Most insurgent groups in every theatre are not well equipped, and consist mainly of foot soldiers with AK and RPGs. I would even dare say the most useful weapon in today's wars is the cannon. Nobody in their sane mind would use a hellfire against a Toyota Pick-up.

 

So... yes, hovering behind a mountain rift in enemy territory sounds pretty stupid to me. It's not like helicopters are silent machines. They can pick you up from two miles away, and you never know if there's a man waiting for you under the next bush.

[urze]

Dear Renato71,

Please don't take following as offence against you!

 

 

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.

Edited December 4, 2008 by urze

[Groove]

That was a funny posting Renato. Rep incoming.

 

Knowing about limitations of the engine, still buying it and than complaining about it that it should be fixed because you are a paying customer, thats epic!

Edited December 4, 2008 by Groove

[Madog]

Hey there, some random thoughts:

 

are trees a cover at all? In the Bundswehr i was taught that trees generally suck as cover since even a MG 3 can punch through up to 70 cm of wood. Never mind 20 or 30mm rounds. So trees probably do not hold of anything.

But then again, trees can be used for concealment (as mentioned - hovering behind trees). This would not real protect a helicopter but delay detection, since as soon as you pop up or shoot you would probably be detected anyways, due to smoke trails or being visible against the sky background. As for lasing... well if i would sit inside a tank of some sort, and suspect someone wanting to kill me behind a tree 1.5 km away, i would lase something near that area and shoot the damn tree :)

 

Another thought on concealment: wouldn't the downwash make you more visible, because it strongly moves the trees around you?

 

So, to implement this in the sim, the trees do not need to be solid at all (since most times trees would not stop rounds or missiles / rockets), all that needs to be added is a modifier to the visibility of the helicopter. For example: being near a forested area (not single standing trees - i think of the light green shaded areas in the overview map), lets say 10, 20m outside from the treeline, or 5 or more meters inside, and below 10 m in height, the heli visibilty should be considerably reduced.

 

Since we already can not see through the trees no modification needs to be added to not be able to see outside. For the AI being inside a forested area (lets say 30 m inside or something like that) the ability to visually aquire targets should be reduced to a fixed range (100 - 200 m maybe?).

 

Of course the problem of being able to fly drive through trees would not be solved, but things would get fairer. It still would be hard to see enemys between the trees, but thats all right i thing because in real life, someone covering inside a forest would indeed be hard to spot - so thats realistic in a way.

 

Since BS already offers the possiblity to trigger situations depending on the location of a player, this might not be so hard to implement, but would only be a variation of the existing trigger model (i've got no clue of programming, just guessing)

 

What do you guys think?

Edited December 4, 2008 by Madog
typo's

[morsmortis]

 

An interesting question however is this: what tactics did US Army and Marines attack helicopters use during Desert Storm and OIF? How do USMC Cobras operate? Did they ever adopt the hovering fire techniques, or do they mostly stick to run and gun tactics from the Vietnam era?

 

 

I've seen quite a bit of CAS from Cobras and Hueys. They tend to run into attacks at low altitudes well within MANPAD range. The only times I've a Cobra hover was to fire a hellfire albeit it was very rare.

[ZaltysZ]

It is easy to break sticks one by one, but it is very hard to do the same when they have been placed into bunch.

 

Surely single tree is week cover, but whole forest isn't. I am not talking about some garden or park, but about nice and dense forest, which could not only block sight but fire also. Look at forest like at very flat topped "hill", because it would have the same effect.

[Jg2001_Rasputin]

Just as a statement: I´m reading Ed Macy´s "Apache" at the moment and I was very surprised that he´s always telling they were running in at an attack. He never mentioned something about hovering.

[GGTharos]

Because hovering makes you an immobile target. Even if you're 'hiding' behind a treeline, an M-1 will see you and a SABOT will happily reach you.

 

Running in makes you a moving target = less % of being hit when you are shot at, plus you enter and exit the threat area faster.

Hovering makes sense when you are standing off, your target cannot hit you, and your target is clearly available for you to strike.

 

Once your target starts using cover/terrain/cityscape, all bets are off.

 

Edit: also, US Army still often uses hover from battle positions while USMC tends to use more run-and-gun.

 

BP's are cased to begin with - ie. BPs will be at known spots good for defensive fires.

Edited December 4, 2008 by GGTharos

[Madog]

It is easy to break sticks one by one, but it is very hard to do the same when they have been placed into bunch.

 

Surely single tree is week cover, but whole forest isn't. I am not talking about some garden or park, but about nice and dense forest, which could not only block sight but fire also. Look at forest like at very flat topped "hill", because it would have the same effect.

 

You are right, but if you are not discovered because you are inside the forest, or the enemy can not see you because he is, the problem of shooting through many trees would not arise. At least not commonly. I grant there are situations where the above mentioned idea fails, but at least it would reduce unrealistic situations.

[Vekkinho]

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.

[A.S]

...

 

Question:

Why simulating or rendering Tress if they dont work?

What sense makes it at all to put these graphical errors in the game (are they anything else under given circumstances)?

 

Eyecandy only? give me a break.

 

Pitty it is, wish they would work. Over.