Logistics Nightmare

[Charlie_VFP]

It is hoped that Fighter Ops will not become like so many other titles out there that are total failures in the logistics department. Many developers tenbd to think along the lines that good graphics, good flight models, and good avionics are all you need. Well, that would be true if players just wanted to fly around and not do much.

Logistics are highly important. Everything from mission building to actual realism rely heavily on the logistics side of things.

I hope that you have someone qualified to research this aspect so that Fighter Ops does not fail like so many others have.

Not being pesamistic, just realistic.

[spyro23]

Good one Terry_VFP!!!
Can you imagine a good campagin without logistics issues?? I don't!
I imagine this that:
When conflict start both sides have let's say 150 jets(laso could be here ships, SAM's ect.) each. If you destroy 10 jets in air in first mission in second enemy will be have 140 jets. After let's say 40th mission enemy could be without jet and then you must be fly only A-G missions. When you destroy enemy runway-each plane on this airfield must stay on the ground until enemy repair runway. If you lost AWACS you will be fly blind (quite challanging :D ). If enemy destroy fuel transport/storage you will be unable to fly or fly quantity will be much less (only defend missions). If you destroy comunications system/ HQ all enemy operations should be more haotic. ECT.
Of course both countries will be able to buy some equipment during war but not everything (international sanctions, money reserves, politicalantiphaty ect. )

[Sehm]

thats a great wish list. Never been implemented in a sim before, or am I wrong? Anyway I'm with you guys on this :D

[spyro23]

I think that some elements were in F-22 Total Air War.

[Charlie_VFP]

Good points but I am thinking on an even more deeper level. The actual logistics in the game itself.

Meaning:

If an American Carrier is to be in the sim, then ALL of her support ships should be modeled as well. Everything from the cruisers, freighters, re-suppliers, ect.

If there are to be terrorist interdiction missions in the sim, then all the equipment that a terrorist would use needs to be in the sim. Meaning, personal yachts, non-military helicopters, ect.

In regards to the above: we need to have the ability to insert buildings of all sorts in the mission editor for creating camps in remote areas to simulate a terrorist training camp.

I could go on and on but I think you are beginning to see the jist of what I am getting at. The sim needs to be logistically correct for every aspect or else it will be just another title that will have a few fan boys and a lot of disappointed people.

[Sehm]

VERY interesting.... :thumbsup:

[Charlie_VFP]

Spyro:

I think what you are describing there is the idea of a dynamic campaign. The idea behind that is that the results of each mission are carried over into the next.

Meaning:

On mission 3, you bomb bridge A. Over the next 5 missions (1 week game time or so) all conveys into the area serviced by that bridge will be re-routed. Meaning, the ground vehicles will be low of fuel, supplies, ect. If they use their alloted rockets, they will not fire until restocked.

If a runway is destroyed, until the alloted time to repair it has been completed, that airfield is inop for fixed wing aircraft.

Basically, mission results will be directly carried over into all future missions.

This leads to a very realistic environment where a true "campagin" can actually exist.

Rigth now, if you destroy a sam placement at location X, the next mission it is back again. Or, if you fail to destroy it in mission A, it is still missing in mission B.

Dynamic campaign is a must.

[spyro23]

Yes and No Terry_VFP
Maby I was a little unprecise. Some elements were in dynamic campagins. I see now what you try to say.
I see this issue that:
Whole this equipment/logistic should be in game because sometimes is better to destroy for example fuel reserves and immobilise few tahks battalions than attak directly. After this, those battalions are easy target to other units. (because this Germany loose II w.w.)
You can put this equipment/logistic without relationships but you simply make more targets
But why do this???
I think you can't separate dynamic campagin and logistic issue!

P.S. I know few sim's with dynamic campagin but I didn't notice this kind "unmilitary/strategic/economy/political" dependences. Or maby I'm wrong??

[Vlerkies]

Sounds good to me


:drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: for everyone



:military:


~S~

[Bladehawk]

Good Terry !!!
I can´t imagine FO campagin without a good logistic engine :thumbsup:

[Charlie_VFP]

Spyro:

You're correct, I think. However, I think that these numbers should be a mission editor thing. That, or selectable to determine realism / skill level.

I think it should be a mission editor selection. I think that, because of this.

If I were designing a mission where US begins operating in, say for example, Russian. The old Blue vs Red campaign. I would probably want to set it up where the US has much LESS units than the Russians. As the campaign goes on, two things can happen. The US can win battles and more units show up to resupply and such. Or, the Russians win battles and the US is unable to resupply - get new planes quickly - ect.

Then, if I wanted to setup a new campaign where the US invades Canada.... The US would have more units.

No politics here... just examples!! :)

If it were more of an in game built logitics thing, it would be hard for a mission / campaign creator to set things up exactly how he/she would like.

I think we are in agreeance though.

[jhook]

This is a simple fact, "logistics wins wars" period! :) A good engine will have an effect on the campain and the way it's conducted. For example; You've got enemy supplies on the move, if they manage to get to that tank colunm, our frount is doomed, but for now, they are out of fuel/ammo. Time for a cluster party! :lol: This will also work in the reverse as well. For example; a night hop strike on a truck convoy, and all you have are slicks!, because the supply C-130 was shoot down the night before. :shock: You see, logistics wins wars! :thumbsup:

[Bladehawk]

This is a simple fact, "logistics wins wars" period! :) A good engine will have an effect on the campain and the way it's conducted. For example; You've got enemy supplies on the move, if they manage to get to that tank colunm, our frount is doomed, but for now, they are out of fuel/ammo. Time for a cluster party! :lol: This will also work in the reverse as well. For example; a night hop strike on a truck convoy, and all you have are slicks!, because the supply C-130 was shoot down the night before. :shock: You see, logistics wins wars! :thumbsup:

RIGHT ON !

There isn´t by chance that railroads, factories, fuel depots etc... are always primary targets during a war.
Let´s hope that the hyper "brains" of G2i&GenAv can implement this "engine" too, Jesus I´m sorry for this guys, everybody wants everything :thumbsup:

[spyro23]

Yes Bladehawk! Everybody wants everything!!
Like I wrote few days ago you simply can't make everyone happy!
Solution-make scalable and wide sim and you make happy a lot people!

[jhook]

This is true, that we all are demanding soo much of G2I/Gen AV. :roll: This sim will grow and expand with time. I know this project isn't behind yet, they need all of the infomation that is pertinent for the base mod "fighter ops" and leave code access for future additions/mods! :thumbsup: Buck, Pacman, I bought some asprin by the gross! :wink: The headaches you guy's must have should be very painful by now. :lol:

[Charlie_VFP]

I think you guys are off track.

Read again what they want to integrate into Fighter Ops on the official thread.

To me, it sounds like they want FO to be the greatest sim yet.

That will take a lot more than a 'pertinent base' if they will live up to those claims.

[Vlerkies]

If they say they can do it, i have faith in them. This is going to be the best sim to hit the market

:drink: :drink:


:military:


~S~

[jhook]

Terry, data platforms (the code) has become soo complex just over the last year or so, 8) and depending on the number of programers, renderers (graphic artists), and engeneers (they basically put everything together, wave a wand, and like magic, it works) put this sim together. You do have to wonder though, how many people are working on the project. If you have, say, 10 programers editing the codes, 20 graphics engeneers, this sim could be done in 3 months! :shock: :shock: :shock: That's how fast technology has evolved in the past two years! :thumbsup: 10+ years ago, it took about 50 people working on Falcon 4.0 for over 5 years to kick that old girl out the door. Now, games are created in months, not years. :mrgreen: Just ask Buckshot or Pacman how technology is allowing them to create such a sim in a short period of time! And by the way, Buck will release something within the 2 weeks or so. He mentioned some snipits heading our way this month! :D :mrgreen: :thumbsup:

[Bladehawk]

OK !
" Buckshot or Pacman how technology is allowing them to create such a sim in a short period of time ? "

There I´have made the question... :mrgreen:

[Vlerkies]

:lol: impatient one

:drink: :drink:
Have a few drinks first


:military:


~S~

[Bladehawk]

:drink: :drink: :drink: ummmm down the hatch !

[Buckshot]

Just to clear one thing up, this sim will not be done in 3 months, that is clearly impossible.

What is planned for Q4 is a limited demo, to give you guys an idea of where we at and a taste of what is to come. The full Fighter Ops sim will not be complete at that time.

[Vlerkies]

Some good info at a great time.
Shot Buckshot


:drink: :drink:

:military:


~S~

[Bladehawk]

I don´t mind waiting...
I just want my son can "fly" F.O. and say :
"Dad... F.O. is the Best Flight Sim until today !!!" :thumbsup:

Vlerkies ...

:drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink:

[Vlerkies]

Shot bud

:military:


~S~

[jhook]

Sorry Buckshot, I didn't mean to put any words in anyones mouth. :oops: But I was giving an example of how technology and codes have evolved over the years. The (I assume playable) demo is something I, and everyone else, is waiting for. Again, I was hypothetical in the previous post. We are all being hypothetical with our views, but I hope you understand that when you know alot more than we do, there's bound to be assumed guessing and hypothetical questions. :mrgreen:

[Juggernaut]

Spyro:

I think what you are describing there is the idea of a dynamic campaign. The idea behind that is that the results of each mission are carried over into the next.

Meaning:

On mission 3, you bomb bridge A. Over the next 5 missions (1 week game time or so) all conveys into the area serviced by that bridge will be re-routed. Meaning, the ground vehicles will be low of fuel, supplies, ect. If they use their alloted rockets, they will not fire until restocked.

If a runway is destroyed, until the alloted time to repair it has been completed, that airfield is inop for fixed wing aircraft.

Basically, mission results will be directly carried over into all future missions.

This leads to a very realistic environment where a true "campagin" can actually exist.

Rigth now, if you destroy a sam placement at location X, the next mission it is back again. Or, if you fail to destroy it in mission A, it is still missing in mission B.

Dynamic campaign is a must.

Hi,

Well, wouldn't it be cool to actually have "repair" battalions that actually could be seen doing the repair work - or at the very least simply being located where the repair work is happening?

Then you could actually disrupt the repair by attacking that battalion.

IMHO, this would be much better than simply having the runway come back online after "x" period of time.

Juggernaut

[Buckshot]

Sorry Buckshot, I didn't mean to put any words in anyones mouth. :oops: But I was giving an example of how technology and codes have evolved over the years. The (I assume playable) demo is something I, and everyone else, is waiting for. Again, I was hypothetical in the previous post. We are all being hypothetical with our views, but I hope you understand that when you know alot more than we do, there's bound to be assumed guessing and hypothetical questions. :mrgreen:

No problem bud, just wanted to make sure nobody got the wrong impression :)

[jhook]

Buckshot, once again thanks for the understanding. But maby you could give some insight on the codes being more advanced in that building this sim will be much faster (at least on paper) than the 5+ year run around that Faqlcon 4.0 caused! :evil: I was posting to some in the forums that technology with the codes allows a evolved 10 fold since Falcon 4.0! :thumbsup: I was hoping you could confirm, at least, the new code being much more adaptible and easier to work with. That way, some of the skeptics might reconsider a Q4 release is in fact possible. "Thanks Master Buckshot, I know, Iknow, if I walk the path of the rice paper without leaving a mark, then I will have learned!" :lol:

[Buckshot]

lol, well there are several issues to look at here, Falcon was started from scratch. We have access to a code base that in itself could form a complete simulator (just not with the features that we need). It is certainly going to take time to create a sim that is of the standards we have set, things like the dynamic campaign engine being one of the biggest tasks, how long will that take? no idea at this point, and we won't know until other things are finalised, but I am certain it won't take 5 years :wink:

[Vlerkies]

:drink: :drink: :drink:

For you Buckshot. Because of the great info and communication you give to the people on the forums. Just please don't drink and fly :lol:


:military:


~S~

[Charlie_VFP]

The times I flew IL-2: FB the best were when I had a few drinks in me.

There is no other way. :)

[jhook]

Thanks Buckshot for clearing up a little bit of the code question. I know that new codes are being developed almost on a daly basis. G2I/Gen Av codes are certainly one of the more modern codes available. And it's good to see a "dynamic campain" will be part of the platform. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Buckshot, please give us info like this from time to time, you may think that it is boring and mundane, but we, in the forums, like to peek inside a little and get excided over it! :shock: For example; "Buckshot just realeased a second release of his first release of his latest release of his famous :thumbsup: (and the forums goes wild!) Yeaaaaaa, wahooo, huray for Buckshot! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[spyro23]

holy words Jhook :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[Charlie_VFP]

Gee, and I was about to tell Buckshot to stop goofing off on the forums and get his butt back to work so we can see the demo in Q4. :mrgreen:

I am kidding btw. :-p