|
FoxZz -> RE: Low altitude penetration / tactical flight (6/4/2016 4:43:47 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thewood1
Again, as pointed out before now in writing; low-level is relative. You are simply dismissing the impact of loadout, fuel, range, and mission needs. Anecdotal stories of people flying at 100 ft don't cut.
I understand what you mean, but the automated terrain following system would have the same minimal altitude than the one we have today, what would change is if the plane goes manual, or doesn't have a terrain following system, all that would be dependant of all those factors that are already included ingame (high fuelconsomption at low altitude, impact of weight on agility). I will expplain more clearly what I mean later in the post.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thewood1
Information on crashes are not useful at all unless you can show hours flying at low-level vs normal flight and what the definition of low-level is. What if the the Mirage 2000 only flew 20 missions at your definition? Now you are talking 20% crashes at low-level. Even 2% would be enough to make running at those levels only in the most extreme cases.
Well I don't know the exact statistics, but this gives us an overview, and I can assure you that the planes I quoted did a lot of low flying. For example the Mirage 2000N squadrons only mission was low level penetration to deliver the nucler armement, and they do almost only this. Anyway, my point is, if there is a crash chance variable, it should not be too high.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thewood1
My point is, that anything below 100 ft is most likely an abberation and should have severe penalties on payload, range and risk.
It's not anecdotical, I have produced in the OP many evidences that flying under 100feets isn't a fantasy, but an operationnal, a survival necessity. Go tell the skyhawks or the Jaguar pilots that it was an aberration to fligh this low. If they did it means that they thought it was necessary, people don't take risks for nothing. To me those experiences are very significant, we're talking of the last two conventional wars. And again, with training this is very much achievable, look at the videos. It should be doable ingame.
Anyway, this brings me to the core of this post : Let's say that Nap Of the Earth (NOE) flying is a doctrine option that can by enabled or disbaled, like the jettison option. From this, we have a minimal theorical value, the lowest altitude value of the game for airplanes. From this value, many variables will inflict maluses, interact between themselves : (agility/weight/plane size, weather, period of the day, experience of the pilots and number of crewman, relief, aircraft properties, speed, base), the interaction will set the plane it's lowest altitude.
OPTION 1 : detailed flying mode system with crash risk
Let's take an example : F15E, thanks to its Terrain Following System (TFS) and flight enveloppe, it can fly in any conditions at heights of 100fts above water/flat terrain 200 feets above relief, without the crash risk roll dice. Now if the NOE doctrine box is checked and that the player decides to go under this limit, he can set a manual altitude up to the "minimal theorical altitude", than there is a random crash dice roll, the chance of crashing is set by weather, agility, pilot experience, period of the day, etc. So if there is two pilot which have an ace training, that the plane has a terrain avoidance system (included in the terrain following), that the weather is good, the chance of crashing is almost inexistant.
Now let's take a B29 with a bad base agility and heavy bomb load, no terrain following/avoidance capabilities, with a trained crew, in terrible weather conditions, at night and at maximum speed, than he chances to crash are much higher than the B29 (but he still has good chances of surviving).
OPTION 2 : simple flying system without crash risk
Let's take the same F15E, its advanced terrain following property act as an insurance, he is sure to be able to fly in any weather conditions, day or night, with a rookie crew and at max speed. If the NOE box is checked, than its minimal altitude can go below than the level of the TFS, but the extent of how low he can go will depend of the weather, agility, terrain avoidance system (if there is no terrain following), crew experience, etc. In the end, if all the parameters are green, he will ultimately be able to reach the "minimal theorical altitude".
If the plane doesn't have advanced avionics, than he does not get the insurance and thus the minimal altitude he will be able to reach will always be dependant of all the variables, but if all the variable are green, then he can reach the minimal theorical range. If the NOE box is not checked, the plane minimal altitude will be limited and even in perfect conditions he won't be able to reach the minimal theorical altitude, he will be blocked by a "glass floor", like it is today.
This OPTION 2 is pretty much what Dysta proposed at the begining of the thread.
Than we could set different type of terrain following system, like regular and advanced, which would have different insurances.
To sum up, what changes from the current situation is that in OPTION 1 planes can get as low as they want but are exposed to a crash risk, if NOE is unckecked, situation stays the same as currently basically. The player evealuates the risks by himself.
In OPTION 2, player cannot set manually the minimum altitude, the AI calculates the risks for him, but the AI is more daring than currently. If NOE is unchecked, then nothing changes for the sides concerned.
The NOE doctrine setting allows the scenario editor to simulate security measures in the airforces depending of the context he wants to set. A guerilla mission might not need to take risks, but a total war means that pilots can do whatever is necessary.
Also, it might be interesting to look at the minimum release altitude of some weapons, especially air-to-ground missiles, most of them are designed to be fired from very low altitude. I think many release altitude are too high, it might be interesting to look into it.
|
|
|
|
