Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

air warfare & close combat

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> air warfare & close combat Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
air warfare & close combat - 12/23/2016 6:17:19 AM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline 		the game does a pretty good job of simulating BVR combat (approach high speed & altitude, shoot and crank etc)

one area where i think it could be improved though is dogfight mechanics. in general, i think it works okay so don't jump on me for calling it 100% awful, but in general there are a few things that could maybe be improved:

aircraft perpetually stay at about 36,000 feet (or cruise altitude setting, i suppose) in air combat there is strong incentive to lose altitude quickly in a fight. descending turns are faster, and most aircraft maneuver like horrible slugs at 30+ thousand feet due to very low airflow over wings and thus the high speed requirement to pull off anything like a max G turn. i think it would be good for aircraft in close combat to lose altitude, down to a hard deck (settable?)

i'm not sure maneuverability is as important as it is in real life. an F-16 does not really seem to outperform much lower instantaneous turn aircraft (f-4 and other 3rd gens)

visual tally and cockpit obstruction is not modeled. now, there's no way it would be feasible to really model this in exhaustive detail with the amount of "stuff" in C:MANO but a very general three to five grade system might be nice to have. the difference between knife-fighting in a bubble canopy'd superiority fighter vs a radar interceptor is night and day, and mk1 eyeball is still the most important sensor in close combat.

likewise with nose authority playing less (no?) role, higher sustained turn / climbing ability is not really represented either (as far as i can tell.. don't hurt me)

there are no 2 ship tactics for the AI either; it treats WVR combat for all intents and purposes like BVR; come in fast and high, nose to nose then crank. while this is not a terrible strategy it could do with a little makeover to allow it to employ envelop or delayed commitment tactics (especially important in RQ-only fights!)

keep in mind this is me throwing things at a dartboard. for some of this stuff it's hard to determine if it really is there or not. if it isn't, maybe we can see it someday, and if it is then we can all learn some more about game mechanics.

thanks for your consideration
Post #: 1
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/23/2016 7:16:14 AM   
Rory Noonan

 

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline 		I think the manoeuvrability/ generation / agility value abstracts a lot of things you mentioned like cockpit visibility etc, which in a sim of this scale is probably the best approach.

It sure if turn rate is affected by altitude (in the sim), if it's a significant difference it might be worth adding.

I know next to nothing about AI programming but I imagine getting the AI to use some of the tactics you describe for aircraft groups without breaking other missions would be pretty difficult. What specific behaviours do you think should be added?

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 2
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/23/2016 8:19:27 AM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85

It sure if turn rate is affected by altitude (in the sim), if it's a significant difference it might be worth adding.



it's significant, to the point where a great deal of jets probably have trouble executing a max-G sustained turn unless they are at M1.2 or so while at 36,000+ feet. this varies i'm sure by airframe, but all the jets i'm familiar with will do one of two things if you yank on the stick at high altitude like that

1. depart
2. deliberately dampen your input to prevent departure, but what you get is a very sluggish response instead

as of latest patch, jets often seem to fly .61 mach in close combat at high altitude. you'd have physical trouble actually getting the jet to do anything without going into a nose-up stall in alot of cases. and this is MUCH worse for older jets who don't have very smart fly-by-wire systems

quote:



I know next to nothing about AI programming but I imagine getting the AI to use some of the tactics you describe for aircraft groups without breaking other missions would be pretty difficult. What specific behaviours do you think should be added?



without throwing a bunch of jargon at you, the idea is to just split into a mutual support formation, that is a few mile spacing, so that if a target blows by your friendlies' nose or gets on their tail, you can quickly start a nose high or nose low turn to attack whatever's attacking them. there's lots of ways to do this, spacing yourself vertically or laterally, having one pilot turn out to the beam and then recommit (so he can catch the bandit after the merge-turn)

if you have two guys that go directly through the merge it's pretty useless. worst case they'll both get stuck out of parameters (which happens in the game) while the more agile opponent can maintain shots on both of them (in case of high boresight)

this sort of maneuvering is a bit more relevant in older fights (up to the 80s or so) because "baiting" the enemy into a turning fight and then pouncing them was extremely effective (they wouldn't have the situational awareness or energy to maneuver against the pouncer's missiles, and since it was very difficult for the merging pilot to ever get into parameters due to low maneuverability of aircraft & missiles)

it's still pretty relevant in a modern arena though. the best way to shoot down an airplane is ambush; that way very few of their defensive systems will ever interfere with your shot.


(in reply to Rory Noonan)
Post #: 3
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/23/2016 8:33:45 AM   
Rory Noonan

 

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline 		Interesting point with altitude vs manoeuvrability, makes sense and would be interesting to see the effect on air combat.

I've used the tactics you describe, Khark Island Raid is particularly good for practicing these as it's fairly small scale with older airframes that necessitate tactics like this due to lack of BVR and HOB. It would be cool to see the AI use these tactics but I suspect it would be a challenge to program.

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 4
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/23/2016 12:23:05 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks for this input. We'll take a look and see what can be done.

Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to Rory Noonan)
Post #: 5
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/23/2016 1:08:52 PM   
kevinkins


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		All good points Cik. Would the intent be to use manual control to implement more realistic dog fighting? Or have the AI logic enhanced and capable of performing it without player interaction? The reason I ask is I think Mike et. al. would need to know what players expect. They could, for example, have a system where players alt-right click on an a/c unit to bring up a "dog fighting" menu. That level of detail might be outside the scope of Command however. But something in between what's available now perhaps not.

Kevin

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 6
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/23/2016 2:10:31 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline 		in terms of tactics you can already perform a few of these things yourself. i'd like the AI to handle it in some respect though; it handles BVR tactics well enough. i think with some work it could implement 2 ship tactics on a reasonable level. "simple" delayed commitment and things of that nature could probably already be handled by the AI as it currently is (it knows how to crank, beam, etc. already)

perhaps having the AI choose based on it's chosen enemy (and ID state) exactly what tactic to use is a bit much though. i'd be okay with a mission-specific (or side specific, group specific etc) setting that just instructs it to use a certain tactic when in WVR. that way, if you expect flankers you can tell it to posthole, to exploit SARH tracking problems, and if you are in the 60's you can use delayed commitment for a fast path to WEZ on your second ship.



the tactics are sort of detached from the rest of the request though. having aircraft be more tightly (and realistically) "energy-bounded" with what they are capable of doing is an entirely different goal. it was a dartboard post like the OP says. if anything, i think the physics are more important than the tactics, at least initially. the "vortex" of planes diving towards the ground to retain speed is a very important part of close air combat, and especially in the early days before T/W got to 1+

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 7
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/23/2016 2:37:24 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline 		I've seen some a/c change altitude during dogfights, but it's not common. AI a/c tend to cut power to Loiter in close combat to get smaller turning circles and force overshoots. I find I'm doing lots of manual throttle manipulations while dogfighting to get into good firing position and avoid return fire.

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 8
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/23/2016 2:48:01 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline 		you never want to loiter in a dogfight though. you can keep your airspeed around corner speed while running afterburner all the time, even if you happen to be in a very high-thrust airframe by going nose-high.

if you need to lose speed, you go nose high to lose speed while still retaining energy.

going loiter is suicide because after a turn you will have zero chance of getting your nose to the horizon and anyone who goes high on you will get you.

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 9
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/23/2016 4:25:52 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cik

you never want to loiter in a dogfight though. you can keep your airspeed around corner speed while running afterburner all the time, even if you happen to be in a very high-thrust airframe by going nose-high.

if you need to lose speed, you go nose high to lose speed while still retaining energy.

going loiter is suicide because after a turn you will have zero chance of getting your nose to the horizon and anyone who goes high on you will get you.


I understand that. But the game doesn't use energy fighting to any significant degree, it's nearly all angles. I'll chop to idle to get a good turn radius and often causes an overshoot, or at least prevents me from doing that, in very close quarters. Then I'll boost to AB for better positioning when the the situation warrants. Those are the tactics that have worked well for me in Command, at least.

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 10
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/23/2016 4:50:50 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		This isn't a tactical flight simulation but we'll look and see what we can do. Think a command level up where the Commander expects the pilots to handle certain things. Likewise we think about the models we use the same way. AKA We don't have to model the windshield wipers actually wiping but produce a reasonable outcome that accounts for it.

With all this in mind could you put together a list of specific issues and some actionable suggestions? We'll definitely take a look.

Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 11
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/23/2016 8:58:42 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline 		Excellent point, Mike. For anyone who's played the Harpoon P&P game, this is light years better. In those days you mated up aircraft approaching dogfight range and randomly seeded them around the battlefield in little furballs with general ATA ratings dictating who was getting shots off. The Harpoon computer game was better but still pretty primative. Command has come further still. You really can't expect flight sim fidelity out of an operational-scale game but I think Command gives us a pretty good analog.

And, as we've seen, this team keeps putting out fantastic improvements. IMHO it's just a matter of time before we're all goggling at new air warfare improvements.

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 12
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/24/2016 2:19:04 AM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline 		yeah, cheers mike. i probably sound more critical than i intend to. here's a list:

aircraft should lose altitude while turning (to represent slice turns) while in close combat

agility / turning ability should increase as aircraft lose altitude (more engine power, thicker air so better control surface response)

game should handle up/down boresight limits, as well as side/side(if it doesn't already, that is)

aircraft should have trouble attacking things above them if they are at a low energy state (to represent nose-above horizon problems at low airspeed)

aircraft should run afterburner more in close combat, and climb/dive to maintain energy, rather than chopping to loiter.

some sort of thrust modelling to make sure that some aircraft climb faster than others, a noticeable advantage of some airframes in certain eras.

some sort of sustained turn modelling so that some planes will turn noticeably better in close combat. (may already exist?)

a basic angle limit on mk1 eyeball; many aircraft have extremely limited visibility, especially radar interceptors before 4th gen. in many cases it would be impossible to spot infrared shots from high 6, for instance. in the game i think it's essentially 360 which gives a lot of advantage to certain airframes which should be far more limited in spotting missiles from a defensive posture.

when aircraft beam or crank, it's often a good idea for them to also lose altitude to "drag" the enemy's missile through the lower atmosphere, and extend both their own airspeed and the range the missile has to travel. this is another avenue where some planes are better than others. they can move through the cycle (burn, climb, shoot, descending crank, turn nose-on, burn, climb, repeat etc) than others due to higher engine power, climbing rate etc.


i don't mean to demand comprehensive wiper simulation, so i tried to limit my enthusiasm and ask for things that only would really effect the close combat environment without being extremely high-overhead (i think)




< Message edited by Cik -- 12/24/2016 2:45:48 AM >

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 13
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/24/2016 11:45:02 AM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks, there's some really good stuff in these suggestions. I've added them to our internal issue tracker and I want to elaborate on a couple of them.

quote:


agility / turning ability should increase as aircraft lose altitude (more engine power, thicker air so better control surface response)


More specifically, there is an ideal "Q"/Mach number that allows maximum effect of aerodynamic surfaces, correct? The oft-quoted "corner speed" (which we already model) IIRC assumes a low-altitude figure.

quote:


game should handle up/down boresight limits, as well as side/side(if it doesn't already, that is)

I _think_ we do something about this already but we'll check again.

quote:


aircraft should have trouble attacking things above them if they are at a low energy state (to represent nose-above horizon problems at low airspeed)

Tricky :). Have to also allow for the far greater slack allowed by HOB weapons.

quote:


aircraft should run afterburner more in close combat, and climb/dive to maintain energy, rather than chopping to loiter.

We're talking about yo-yo essentially, right?

quote:


some sort of thrust modelling to make sure that some aircraft climb faster than others, a noticeable advantage of some airframes in certain eras.

This is already implemented (and in fact it also varies dynamically with the exact weight, see here: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=4091) but there was a bug in the code that reduces its effect. The fix should be part of the next release.

quote:


some sort of sustained turn modelling so that some planes will turn noticeably better in close combat. (may already exist?)

Yes, in fact the turn rates are both different per aircraft nominally and also affected by weight (and also aircraft & engine damsge in the future).

quote:


a basic angle limit on mk1 eyeball; many aircraft have extremely limited visibility, especially radar interceptors before 4th gen. in many cases it would be impossible to spot infrared shots from high 6, for instance. in the game i think it's essentially 360 which gives a lot of advantage to certain airframes which should be far more limited in spotting missiles from a defensive posture.

This is in fact something we very much want to do as it ties-in with something else we have in the pipeline (you'll know it when you see it), and since you're interested in this you may be able to help us bring it to life.

We are leaning towards codifying the cockpit-visibility properties of different aircraft in discrete enumerable values. So you would have something like:
#1 - 1960s missile interceptor canopy (F-4, F-104, MiG-21/23/25 etc.) - good front coverage, average side + down coverage, poor rear coverage
#2 - 1970s Teen fighters canopy (F-14/15/16 etc.) - Excellent 360 coverage + strong down-look angle; also applies to Su-27, F-22 etc.
#3 - Typical airliner & derivatives - good frontal coverage, poor side coverage, abysmal down & rear

Having these enumerable values, and applying them to each aircraft individually, would then allow us to define spotting rules for each of them.

Would you be interested in undertaking this? (The data part, that is)

One other thing we want to model is the tendency of pilots to fixate on their primary target during a WVR engagement, leading to "tunnel vision". This would allow modelling both the surprise opportunities endemic in a dogfight ("the one you don't see is the one that kills you") also also magnify the benefit of a two-man crew, since the second pair of eyeballs would be available for scanning around the aircraft while still prosecuting the primary target.

quote:


when aircraft beam or crank, it's often a good idea for them to also lose altitude to "drag" the enemy's missile through the lower atmosphere, and extend both their own airspeed and the range the missile has to travel. this is another avenue where some planes are better than others. they can move through the cycle (burn, climb, shoot, descending crank, turn nose-on, burn, climb, repeat etc) than others due to higher engine power, climbing rate etc.

This makes sense, and we'd gladly implement it if we were able to cross-confirm it as a RL practice. Is there any authoritative source we can consult?

Thanks again.



< Message edited by Sunburn -- 12/24/2016 11:46:27 AM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 14
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/24/2016 12:16:32 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline



quote:


More specifically, there is an ideal "Q"/Mach number that allows maximum effect of aerodynamic surfaces, correct? The oft-quoted "corner speed" (which we already model) IIRC assumes a low-altitude figure.


right.


quote:


Tricky :). Have to also allow for the far greater slack allowed by HOB weapons.


very tricky. it seems like a hard problem. the solution i guess is to just track the aircraft's nose position, and then draw some sort of line along it's boresight limits, but that seems like a rabbit hole to go down that may never end. it was why i was hesitant to ask for that in the first place. honestly, i didn't really have HOB in mind when i made the thread, because it makes a total mess of dogfight tactics in general honestly. HMS + HOB means delayed commitment and all sorts of neat tactics essentially stop working entirely.

quote:


We're talking about yo-yo essentially, right?


aye, yo-yo and some lookalikes.

quote:


This is already implemented (and in fact it also varies dynamically with the exact weight, see here: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=4091) but there was a bug in the code that reduces its effect. The fix should be part of the next release.


neat! i figured at least some of this would be. because of the nature of the game it's sometimes hard to say.

quote:


Yes, in fact the turn rates are both different per aircraft nominally and also affected by weight (and also aircraft & engine damsge in the future).


neat x2

quote:


This is in fact something we very much want to do as it ties-in with something else we have in the pipeline (you'll know it when you see it), and since you're interested in this you may be able to help us bring it to life.

We are leaning towards codifying the cockpit-visibility properties of different aircraft in discrete enumerable values. So you would have something like:
#1 - 1960s missile interceptor canopy (F-4, F-104, MiG-21/23/25 etc.) - good front coverage, average side + down coverage, poor rear coverage
#2 - 1970s Teen fighters canopy (F-14/15/16 etc.) - Excellent 360 coverage + strong down-look angle; also applies to Su-27, F-22 etc.
#3 - Typical airliner & derivatives - good frontal coverage, poor side coverage, abysmal down & rear

Having these enumerable values, and applying them to each aircraft individually, would then allow us to define spotting rules for each of them.



this is exactly right, and i'm glad it was already on the table. visual restrictions are ESPECIALLY important in WVR, but they apply to pretty much every air scenario. restrictions on LoS are extremely important to realistically modelling certain aircraft (i guess less so as you go forward in time, thank goodness for bubblecanopy)

quote:



Would you be interested in undertaking this? (The data part, that is)


i say yes, perhaps not knowing the magnitude of the task.

quote:


One other thing we want to model is the tendency of pilots to fixate on their primary target during a WVR engagement, leading to "tunnel vision". This would allow modelling both the surprise opportunities endemic in a dogfight ("the one you don't see is the one that kills you") also also magnify the benefit of a two-man crew, since the second pair of eyeballs would be available for scanning around the aircraft while still prosecuting the primary target.


also an excellent idea.

quote:


This makes sense, and we'd gladly implement it if we were able to cross-confirm it as a RL practice. Is there any authoritative source we can consult?


well, i can look but i don't have anything terribly authoritative offhand i'm afraid. i get the feeling USAF doesn't just post their tactical manuals for all to read. :^)
quote:


Thanks again.


yeah no worries i write forum posts to beg for features, it's what i do






< Message edited by Cik -- 12/24/2016 12:17:05 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 15
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/24/2016 12:44:18 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Here's a site with some reference info that may/may not be of interest. If I find some more I'll post it.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=fighter+combat+tactics+and+maneuvering+pdf

-Wayne Stiles

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 16
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/24/2016 1:01:31 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		Yes we have that book too :)

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 17
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/24/2016 1:33:48 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline 		i do too, and though i love it it only really features WVR, not BVR missile evasion.

which is what we're talking about. in WVR you're simply never really going to have the time to drop 10,000 feet and run. if you're trying to dodge heatseekers you're lucky if you can make it into the beam or a defensive break. forget actually doing a descending beam and then turning out to run. takes too long.

< Message edited by Cik -- 12/24/2016 1:38:07 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 18
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/24/2016 2:08:19 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cik
quote:


Would you be interested in undertaking this? (The data part, that is)


i say yes, perhaps not knowing the magnitude of the task.


"And that was the last time the subject was observed in a sane state of mind, your honor".

Check your PMs!

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 19
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/24/2016 2:41:16 PM   
DrRansom

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/14/2013
Status: offline 		BVR missile evasion is something I'd like to know more about too. From what I have seen, high energy maneuverability is key, see the F-22 and SU-27/35 family and PAK-FA. But how that plays a role is unclear.

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 20
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/25/2016 8:05:18 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cik
quote:


This makes sense, and we'd gladly implement it if we were able to cross-confirm it as a RL practice. Is there any authoritative source we can consult?


well, i can look but i don't have anything terribly authoritative offhand i'm afraid. i get the feeling USAF doesn't just post their tactical manuals for all to read. :^)
quote:




Cross-confirmed from another source. Added to our stack.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 21
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/30/2016 5:45:55 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn


We are leaning towards codifying the cockpit-visibility properties of different aircraft in discrete enumerable values. So you would have something like:
#1 - 1960s missile interceptor canopy (F-4, F-104, MiG-21/23/25 etc.) - good front coverage, average side + down coverage, poor rear coverage
#2 - 1970s Teen fighters canopy (F-14/15/16 etc.) - Excellent 360 coverage + strong down-look angle; also applies to Su-27, F-22 etc.
#3 - Typical airliner & derivatives - good frontal coverage, poor side coverage, abysmal down & rear


Perhaps one more?

#4 - Spherical assisted vision - such as the F-35's AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System


(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 22
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/30/2016 5:48:12 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		These are handled separately, the above categories deal strictly with the Mk1 Eyeball visual sensor device.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 23
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/30/2016 6:09:55 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cik
agility / turning ability should increase as aircraft lose altitude (more engine power, thicker air so better control surface response)


Just checked our relevant code and you'll be happy to know we already do this.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 24
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/30/2016 8:39:32 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn


We are leaning towards codifying the cockpit-visibility properties of different aircraft in discrete enumerable values. So you would have something like:
#1 - 1960s missile interceptor canopy (F-4, F-104, MiG-21/23/25 etc.) - good front coverage, average side + down coverage, poor rear coverage
#2 - 1970s Teen fighters canopy (F-14/15/16 etc.) - Excellent 360 coverage + strong down-look angle; also applies to Su-27, F-22 etc.
#3 - Typical airliner & derivatives - good frontal coverage, poor side coverage, abysmal down & rear


Perhaps one more?

#4 - Spherical assisted vision - such as the F-35's AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System




Any thoughts on a bonus for fighter a/c with a second crew member (NFO, etc)?

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 25
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/30/2016 8:53:48 PM   
DrRansom

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/14/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cik
agility / turning ability should increase as aircraft lose altitude (more engine power, thicker air so better control surface response)


Just checked our relevant code and you'll be happy to know we already do this.


How much does this affect maneuverability? I ask because most of the dogfights I've seen have been at altitude.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 26
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/30/2016 9:11:06 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline 		above 25,000 feet subsonic aircraft maneuver like slugs. without pushing mach 1.2+ (which carries it's own problems) you get maybe one turn at altitude before you're out of energy.

staying high may have worked in the old days, when you could leverage increased engine power to fight exclusively in the vertical, but modern day here's what's going to happen:

1. you stay high

2. opponent turns nose-low for speed and agility

3. he gets his nose around into parameter first because of the inherent advantages of diving turns

4. you eat a HOB missile which you can barely defend against due to you having little energy.

other problems include: it's bad to eject a high altitude (i think)
missiles go much farther at high altitude
defending is harder due to little maneuverability

20,000 feet and under planes are just way more responsive. on the deck you can fly bordering 0 degrees AoA, at 36,000 most planes will struggle to get under 5, even at a decent speed.

(in reply to DrRansom)
Post #: 27
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/30/2016 9:15:55 PM   
DrRansom

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/14/2013
Status: offline 		CiK from what I get, the model doesn't penalize high altitude maneuvers nearly as much as it should?

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 28
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/30/2016 9:34:57 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline 		it's hard to say exactly about that, the problem i think is that it retains energy too well. even at afterburner, many aircraft will struggle to retain altitude in a fight at 25,000+ feet. the aircraft in the game don't seem to. they do hug a low speed (.61 mach, or so) but many airplanes will be essentially falling out of the sky at that speed at high altitude, at least. forget fighting anything. just avoiding a lethal stall will take up most of your attention span.

< Message edited by Cik -- 12/30/2016 9:36:01 PM >

(in reply to DrRansom)
Post #: 29
RE: air warfare & close combat - 12/30/2016 10:08:28 PM   
Rory Noonan

 

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline 		I don't want to derail the thread but why is ejecting at high altitude bad? I thought emergency life support systems came with?

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> air warfare & close combat Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.953