Flying Low

[Antler]

I was wondering. I know it's very early days at the moment, but are we going to get any low flying missions in FO? For example, a mission where we would have to fly through a canyon and then blow something up somewhere down the line. Or, flying very low across water, possibly under a few bridges. That would definitely show off any special effects of low flying, but even if there are no special effects, it would still be quite fun.

[Vlerkies]

That Antler is a very good idea and i for one would love to see it in FO. Just imagine flying low over the water, water spraying up because of your wing vortex and wakes. And then all of a sudden as you get close to a bridge to fly under you encounter a hot air pocket which pushes your A/C up, what do you do? Eject and fail? Die and fail? or do you pull up hard and bank hard to avoid the oncoming bridge. Immersion :thumbsup:

:drink: :drink:

:military:


~S~

[Antler]

Well, my advice would be not to either eject or pull up if you encountered a hot air pocket when under the bridge. :mrgreen:

Seriously though, I hadn't thought about the hot air pockets. Good thinking!

:drink: :drink:

[Charlie_VFP]

Remember this is going to be a sim based on realism.....

For those that want to deviate from realism, thats what a mission editor is for. :mrgreen:

Either way, it can be done. :thumbsup:

[Vlerkies]

That is very true Terry. One of the reasons it will also be great to implement these missions, is because i watched a documentary on Discovery channel about Dambusters. Look those guys have knickers of steel. :thumbsup:

:drink: :drink:

:military:


~S~

[Buckshot]

Low level attacks are pretty much a thing of the past, so in keeping with realism I don't think that we will be having missions forcing you to fly low level (except with the A-10 of course). However you would be free to load up some HD bombs and go 'old school', lol.

[Bladehawk]

The Low level flight is very demanding...

The graphics start losing quality and almost ever the sensation of speed is lost. Maybe because the scale of objects like buildings, the lack of detailed streets things that pass very very fast when flying at low altitudes.

[Vlerkies]

I agree it's old school, but it would be great to experience what the pioneers of bombing experienced years ago :thumbsup:

I also agree with you on that Bladehawk
:drink: :drink: :drink:
for everyone


:military:


~S~

[Lowblow]

The Royal Air Force still fly very low altitude ground atack training sorties,
as most of the civilian population of the North East of England will confirm.
The R.A.F also perform low altitude sorties through the hills and valleys of Wales that are especialy hair raising.

James McDine London/ England.

[Bladehawk]

The Royal Air Force still fly very low altitude ground atack training sorties,
as most of the civilian population of the North East of England will confirm.
The R.A.F also perform low altitude sorties through the hills and valleys of Wales that are especialy hair raising.

James McDine London/ England.

Exactly !
I saw a film of a tornado flying low an FAST, and from the cockpit the river and roads pass very very FAST. :thumbsup:
Why can´t film footage like this be used for Comparison to improve the sensation of speed at low altitude in sims? :wink:
Still today its one of the things that is so poor in flight sims...
:cry:

[jhook]

Old school?,
Creeper attacks are still a part of attack methods use by the US. So, your jet isn't stealth, and you need to get in deep hostile territory, the good thing is you have mountain ranges. It's time for some terrain masking! :shock: That's right, terrain masking is still used by most (if not all) nations under certain conditions. We discussed the "blur" effect at low level flight as well. Believe me, if I have a mountainous terrain, I will certainly use it, or if I got a SAM heading up to greet me, I will head for the weeds!, chaff/flare and accelerate. Also, if I'm hunting sams, I will get painted, go "magnum", and head for the weeds before they can get a launch. Old school is still the best in some cases. :thumbsup:

[spyro23]

Right guys :thumbsup:
Someone should try flight at med/high altitude in f.ex. S-300 kill zone. Good luck :mrgreen: :thumbsup:
Low level / profile flight is the best way to stay undetected.
Stay low, be fast and you will be back home alive :thumbsup:

[Vlerkies]

Yep that's true Spyro. Unless that AAA you missed back there doesn't get you :wink:


:drink: :drink:

:military:

~S~

[jhook]

Vlerkies,
That's why we have sat photos and Intel. Use them in your mission planner and fix the right waypionts so you don't get the AAA, or the GRAIL 2C up the exhaust! :lol: Remember, you had best plan for such an ingress to the target though. 8)

[Vlerkies]

Yeah that true too. But intel sometimes can stuff up and if it's mobile AAA it depends on how old the sat image is. But all in all what are the chances for intel to stuff up on a critical mission :lol:

And i totally agree with you on what you said :thumbsup:

:drink: :drink:

:military:

~S~

[Charlie_VFP]

Actually, in todays world we mainly stick to ingress at high altitude, drop a JDAM from many miles out, turn around, and go home.

There are obviously other cases, such as the A-10 and the US Marine Corps Close Combat Support missions. But even the CCS ingress at higher altitudes.

During OEF, we would just fly straight and level while they launched missiles at us because they failed to realize we were much higher than their equipment could go. Once they figured it out and started doing it from mountain tops, we just went up 10K. They also failed to realize that there was a second plane about 10 minutes back looking for them. None of them lived to warn the rest about the tactic. :)

I can probably say this with a large measure of truth to it.... low level flying, except CCS missions with the A-10 and USMC aircraft, are a thing of the past.

If it is done, it is very rare and probably for the sole joy of the pilot, not due to any specific military doctrine.

[Vlerkies]

Ok then it is so in R/L. But there still are countries without advanced weapons that use the low level tactics. Even if it doesn't get implemented as tactics in the campaign. The user can create a single mission for low level flight. It's purely to the users discresion whether or not he would want to fly low level missions. I for one don't want to have to get into an A-10 just to do low level missions, i want to do it with the F-16 and F-15 strike eagle.

:drink: :drink:

:military:

~S~

[Charlie_VFP]

There will be nothing keeping you from creating your own mission with the mission editor or just flying low on all the normal missions.

Buckshot was just saying that he doesnt think there will be any missions specifically forcing you to fly at low levels or you fail.

[Vlerkies]

That is fine, i don't want to be forced to fly low anyway. I'll be happy to just create a mission in the editor where i can fly low. I really don't mind if it doesn't get put into the campaign
:drink: :drink: :drink:


:military:


~S~

[spyro23]

Yeah that true too. But intel sometimes can stuff up and if it's mobile AAA it depends on how old the sat image is. But all in all what are the chances for intel to stuff up on a critical mission :lol:

And i totally agree with you on what you said :thumbsup:

:drink: :drink:

:military:

~S~
We should remember one thing: Wy will fly during war! Combat loses are obvious to me when you fight aginst someone. I never heard about war without any loses. Sometimes Intel screw his work, sometimes enemy is very smart (more then we are).
In one sentence: Every, even perfect, fight plan fail when you go on fight (I can't remind who say this :? )
For me it would be great if some "easy" or "routine" mission will become kind of mission where you suddenly will be "sitting duck in shooting range"
No one can say that only your side have rights to be the smart one :mrgreen:
Little ambush aginst me-that could be avesome :mrgreen:
Imagine: adrenaline in your vains, fear, hudge uncertainty, every second can decide about you and your wingmens live and dead. I really want see this in FO

[Vlerkies]

Now that is an idea that will make a tremendous leap in the sim world
I like it I like it alot

:drink: :drink:


Check your PM Spyro


:military:


~S~

[Bladehawk]

I like this guy ideas !!!

Hey Vlerkies, I Will be honored to join you in FO.
Im going to install a Fast Internet connection just because FO.
And let me say... "The name of our squadron will be famous..."
My mind, heart (and hope) is now with FO...
Falcon4... yea... "its like an old girlfriend" ... :wink:


:drink: :drink: :drink:

[Vlerkies]

Great stuff bud, it will be a good thing to have a fast connection i think.
I'm installing ISDN that should be fast enough

Yeah F4 is like an old girlfriend. Although you don't see her that often there is still that little bit of magic :thumbsup:

And yes we are going to make our squad be known and famous
And once we get there, our squad is going to be one not to be reckoned with lightheartedly :lol:


:drink: :drink:



:military:


~S~

[Antler]

We should remember one thing: Wy will fly during war! Combat loses are obvious to me when you fight aginst someone. I never heard about war without any loses. Sometimes Intel screw his work, sometimes enemy is very smart (more then we are).
In one sentence: Every, even perfect, fight plan fail when you go on fight (I can't remind who say this :? )
For me it would be great if some "easy" or "routine" mission will become kind of mission where you suddenly will be "sitting duck in shooting range"
No one can say that only your side have rights to be the smart one :mrgreen:
Little ambush aginst me-that could be avesome :mrgreen:
Imagine: adrenaline in your vains, fear, hudge uncertainty, every second can decide about you and your wingmens live and dead. I really want see this in FO

I remember seeing a different quote somewhere as well: "The attack you are ignoring is the main attack". Just thought I'd slip that one in :lol:

[jhook]

Spyro 23 said,

Imagine: adrenaline in your vains, fear, hudge uncertainty, every second can decide about you and your wingmens live and dead. I really want see this in FO
woow

I'm already scard. If we have all of this and an aggresive "smart and self learning" AI, we all could have a very big problem! :shock: Anyway, we will deal with them. For example; yor tasked to hit a railway bridge, all of a sudden, 5 sams head your way that you though had been cleared out by the previous SEAD strike! :shock: you turn to evade them, and here comes 6 enemy fighters from a hastily constructed airbase 20 miles out! I think "Brave Sir Robin, Brave Sir Robin ran awaaayyy!" :lol:

[Vlerkies]

Now that is thinking jhook.

Great stuff :thumbsup:

:drink: :drink:

:military:

~S~

[Bladehawk]

VERY NICE JHOOK !

:drink: :thumbsup:

[divot2001]

Crosses fingers..

Let's just hope they include birdstrike. Nothing like eating a migratory bird at 1200 m/s. Tastes like victory.

[Vlerkies]

Want some Tobasco with that duck? :lol:


:military:


~S~

[nazih]

the reason its hard for devs to simulate this "speed you feel" is because, when you are in a real cockpit, your FOV is much wider than on a computer screen, the only 3 possible ways to counter that (even so, it wont be perfect) is to dump in ALOT of detail in terrain textures, so you'd actualyl feel them zip by. Another way (LOMAC) is to increase the FOV, but again its still limited. And finaly, still related to FOV, you can go Fisheye.

The problem with adding loads of detail is processor speed. You'd need something like a super computer to run the sim.

Atleast, thats how I see it :) Anyone ?

[Sehm]

You made a good point nazih. That is the only ways I can think of. :drink:

[jhook]

Nazih wrote,

the reason its hard for devs to simulate this "speed you feel" is because, when you are in a real cockpit, your FOV is much wider than on a computer screen, the only 3 possible ways to counter that (even so, it wont be perfect) is to dump in ALOT of detail in terrain textures, so you'd actualyl feel them zip by. Another way (LOMAC) is to increase the FOV, but again its still limited. And finaly, still related to FOV, you can go Fisheye.


The point of view is very much at the heart of how buring effects and rushing objects are viewed. This can be done though advanced instructions used on most newer video cards. (such as shader and alpha blending using a geometry based lighting to object reference) But when your dealing with hundreds, perhaps thousands of objects coming at you at once, this can slow performance down. I think this option should be scaleable as a low altitude high speed view is certanly one to behold! :shock: :shock: :shock:

[Antler]

The slight advantage of using a blur effect would be that you might not need as much detail on things. You wouldn't really notice the really fine detail once it becomes a blurry line.

While on the subject (though it might require a fairly powerful machine), could you imaging flying through a city at night? Light trails coming from all of the windows of the buildings? I am allowed to dream aren't I?...

[Vlerkies]

Ofcourse you are bud :thumbsup:


:military:


~S~

[jhook]

Antler wrote,

While on the subject (though it might require a fairly powerful machine), could you imaging flying through a city at night? Light trails coming from all of the windows of the buildings? I am allowed to dream aren't I?...

I remember when Falcon 4.0 was just a dream and after 3.0 was released, that dream went on, and on.
It comes down to speed v's altitude. The graphics will have to modle things well enough to create this effect, but personally, I don't think the dream is far fetched. :thumbsup: 8)

[Antler]

This post is mostly a semi-off topic rant


I remember when Falcon 4.0 was just a dream and after 3.0 was released, that dream went on, and on.

That is until those idiots at Atari decided to screw it over and shake us dreamers so violently that we woke up. I don't get Atari - they screw Falcon OIR, they fail to support Unreal 2 XMP, and they allegedly shut down Legend Entertainment because Unreal 2 wasn't as good as it was hyped to be. I personally thought Unreal 2 was quite good. There was something not quite right about it (maybe the player moved too slowly) but it was enjoyable. There are rumours that Microsoft want to buy Bioware, and if they do, I hope they buy the Neverwinter Nights code from them as well (they certainly have the money). It's not a thing about giving Atari more money, but about taking quality products away from them. It's not as if Atari care about quality PC products anyway.

[jhook]

Antler wrote,

That is until those idiots at Atari decided to screw it over and shake us dreamers so violently that we woke up.

That's right! 7 Fu*&$@# figures! Just to get to oun the F4 code! Last year, I thought G2I was the problem. I though they were a huge hold out because the F4UT could get SP4 authorized unless "ok" ed by G2I. Come to find out, (talk to Claude,.... I mean SHADOW :shock: about this very thing) G2I was trying to make sure that the SP4 code could accept OIR. That way, the hole thing could mesh and we would be all swimming in joy! 8) :mrgreen: :thumbsup:
Turns out, Atari made a power play by obtaining the F4 codes and hold G2I and F4UT hostage for there unreleased work. What a bunch of Boogers!!! :evil:
Now, we have a dedicated team, a code that just woun't quit, and a community that will support this project for years to come! :o 8)

[Vlerkies]

Well said buds, I just hope there won't be people coming to start a flame war.

But other than that

:punk: :punk: :punk:

Rock on Buds :thumbsup:


:military:

~S~