Civ air traffic ?

[catchlov]

Hi all.
Just wanted to add that I would like to see civilian air traffic in the game. If I am going to take off from Italy on a bombing run to Iraq (or where ever I might be going) I would like to be able to see/pass airliner traffic coming from Isreal etc.. on the way to Iraq. What do you guys think?

[IxianMace]

Sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering how realistic it would be.

Wouldn't civilian traffic be diverted away from war zones, and some 'no fly zones' set up in the theatre of operations? I don't know how many wars have been fought with civilian/commercial air traffic operating normally in the vicinity. If this does get implemented, the option to turn it on/off would be nice as well.

[catchlov]

The war won't be going on all over the world. If I am flying from L.A. to NY I should be able to see civ air traffic if the war is in Europe don't you think?

[IxianMace]

Possibly, but I'm thinking that the military strike packages would take routes to their targets that should keep them clear of civilian air traffic. Aren't military aircraft supposed to keep a certain distance away from commercial flights? Might be wrong, but if a pilot got WVR of a commercial aircraft, wouldn't he/she get into some sort of trouble? Unless you're talking about being able to see civilian aircraft on your radar. :)

[Vlerkies]

I think it's the other way around bud, civilian A/C are the ones that need to steer clear of military A/C. Think of military A/C as the police, ithey have greater priority and authority over civilian A/C which increases during a war period :thumbsup:

:drink: :drink:

:military:

~S~

[IxianMace]

Either way, it brings us back to the original point I was trying to make.

What are the chances of a military aircraft coming within visual range of a commercial flight?

[Vlerkies]

To tell you the truth it would solely depend on the situation. The only military A/C during a war that has a slight chance of coming within visual range of an commercial flight will be CAP, BARCAP and HAVCAP flights, as they will issue warnings to commercial flights coming to close to the conflict zone as well as escort them from the zone


:military:


~S~

[nazih]

warn them ?? whyy ??? its fun using them for target practice, just sharpening my skills :p

[Vlerkies]

:lol: like the KC-135 tanker?
:drink: :drink:


:military:

~S~

[catchlov]

:mrgreen: 2 CF-18 escorted an Air Canada flight in to Vancouver the other day. Not that this is a war zone. Happens fairly often in the US too.
Since 9/11 anyway.

[spyro23]

Civ traffic is in my opinion very good idea but of course in war zone should be small.
By the way I wrote somwere here in forum about "special missions" One of this could be look that:escort civ plane/jet with goverment head who want make a little unit inspection or make clear way to civilians who want leave war zone. I wrote about this few post and I still think that is a good idea. Those specials could refresh sim with many ordinary missions.

[Charlie_VFP]

Wasting time.

Civillian Air Traffic (CAT) would not be in a war zone. When we were operating from the Indian Ocean for OEF, all civillian air traffic was kept clear of our AOR and ingress routes. One of the main situations we dealt with was terrorists using civillian aircraft to 'kamakazi' the battle group (I was with the Roosevelt BG) and that is why.

There were times when some CAT were in the area and we quickly intercepted and escorted out of the area.

In the states, unless it is a specific training or actual intercept due to a possible terrorist situation, all aircraft (CAT and Military) maintain the proper flight rules as designated by the FCC. A military pilot can not just intercept CAT for fun. Regardless of what the movies show.... :)

Because of that, putting CAT in Fighter Ops is a waste of time. Even if the 'war zone' city had news helecopters and such, they would be grounded during a period of war. If not, then they will be intercepted, forced to land, or shot down for fear of terrorist or military activities being carried out with them.

If you want to fly from LA to NY when the war is in Europe, then let me suggest Microsoft FS2004. It is very good for flights of this nature.

Taking the effort to model and code CAT for Fighter Ops would take away resources from better features that will directly impact the mission of Fighter Ops.... meaning.... CAT is a waste of time. :)

:thumbsup:

[rico]

If you want to fly from LA to NY when the war is in Europe, then let me suggest Microsoft FS2004. It is very good for flights of this nature.

Im not sure i agree with this viewpoint. one of the big features that Fighter Ops will bring is an entire virtual world. And if I remember correctly, it has already been mentioned that you will be able to do things like fly long inter-continental flights to get to your target areas. Just as any RL squadron flying to Iraq would have to do this very instance.

So...maybe the chances of running into CAT are still slim, but the idea of turning to another sim to do what RL squadron's have to do now, im not sure I agree with.

I think the better approach is, for the future of Fighter Ops, this could be implemented more and more. Otherwise, I would think something like this is not as high a priority as other important areas that need to happen for the first release.

cheers, o

[Charlie_VFP]

Then let me ask this: Do you think military flights fly the same routes as civilian airliners? Same altitude?

So you want to fly intercontenetal missions. This would be grand if there was a B-2, seeing as how it is the only aircraft that flies combat missions from state side.

But intercontental could mean flying from Turkey into northern Iraq. How many airliners do you think you are going to see flying from a base in south western Turkey into a war zone? Not very many, if any at all. Previous post explained that. Pakistan into Afghanistan? Same situation.

Unless someone is specifically looking for the ability to shoot down airliners, there really isnt a point to CAT. Judging from what G2I has said, Fighter Ops is a combat sim, not an all around general aviation flight sim (FS2004).

Now, as a discalimer.... dont get me wrong. Having the ability to simulate a terrorist hijacking of a plane would be ok...but I doubt I would ever want to do it. No point really. It would also be ok if, for that 1% chance it might actually happen, you would have to intercept an airliner in a war zone.

But, Im still of the opionion that it is a waste of time to develop this sort of thing where there are more important things to look at. Like you said, maybe in the future add ons by another 3rd party of something of the sort. But if we want to see this sim anytime in the next few years.... may want to stick to the combat related important things.

[Vlerkies]

I agree with you Terry, although there is a slim chance of encountering CAT during wartime, it will be a waste. If you don't fly in R/L and are able to view NOTAMS (Notice To Airmen) you will see that there are restricted areas where CAT can not operate under no circumstances, these areas are also in effect during a war period and are mainly used for military purposes. CAT will be aware of these restricted areas and the flight plans they log will steer them well clear of these areas, and CAT will not likely stray from a designated flight plan as, the following radar and radio centres keep track of all flights, departure, centre and lastly approach. During war time, CAT will log flight plans which basically runs in the opposite direction of where they need to go, for e.g. a British Airways flight needs to fly EAST from London to India, now the problem is that there is a war going on in IRAQ. British Airways will be aware of this and all flight plans will be logged to either go in a WESTERLY direction or to fly NORTH, then turn to NORTH EAST, then to EAST and then from there to it's destination, by doing this it steers well clear of the warzone, approximatley 1000 clicks plus, and can safely reach it's destination.

However if it does happen that CAT flights stray from their assigned routes, they will be intercepted by Airforce pilots quite far away from the conflict zone, say about 500 clicks? and then be told to divert to the proper or a new heading and for safety of the passengers as well as the country at war be escorted to safety.



:drink: :drink:


:military:

~S~

[spyro23]

You have right Terry but I remember that (at least in my country- Poland) all airspace belong to military forces. Only some parts-air corridors/routes(I dont know english word) are avaible to civ jets/planes. In near future goverments want change this situation and give whole airspace in civ hands (If I'm correct in whole europe). So thats way our Mig's-29, Su-22 are modernised to ICAO standard(new radios, transponders ect). Civ traffic I understand not only flying near civ planes but also controlled by the civ ATO in some circumstances f. ex when you fly from home base to new airbase in war zone or something like that.
P.S Distances between corridors are about few miles so if some civ pilot see other plane is quite anormal but sometimes happend. If FO will be all word sim those issues should be implemented. I want see all aspects combat flying in FO!

[Vlerkies]

That is true Spyro, there are countries like yours where CAT have to share airspace with Military A/C, in a case like that the Military has full say in who goes where. But in other countries airspace is devided so that sometimes CAT have a greater share tha Military A/C. For e.g. here in S.A. small portions of our airspace is dedicated to only Military A/C. And the rest of the airspace is open to CAT to use as they please. But the fact remains that Military A/C here in S.A. don't have airspace boundries, and can go anywhere they want, only CAT have boundries as to which airspace they can use


:military:


~S~

[FlyBoy01]

Both Vlerkies and Spyro are correct and I can add that during war time almost all countries involved would likely restrict CAT to avoid casualties after the initiation of hostilities.
Remember Sept 11 and the days following. Even commercial traffic was restricted by the government.

[rico]

Then let me ask this: Do you think military flights fly the same routes as civilian airliners? Same altitude?

So you want to fly intercontenetal missions. This would be grand if there was a B-2, seeing as how it is the only aircraft that flies combat missions from state side.


Terry, please re-read my post. I stated that I was in disageement with the fact that someone should go fly another sim to get intercontinental flying abilities. I agree that CAT modeling at this time is unecessary.

Again, it has already been stated that Fighter Ops will provide the ENTIRE world modeled. so clearly things like receiving your mission requirements and being stationed at a base in the US (or any other country), and then having to fly to your new base of operations in another country (with multiple AA refuelings) to THEN take on your real mission tasks will be possible.

cheers, o

[Charlie_VFP]

Random: I know exactly what you are talking about, but it seems like a perfect waste of 7 to 8 hours. Flying straight and level for 8 hours, even refueling 4 or 5 times along the way, would get exceedingly boring and I bet only a minute percentage of FO users would do it.

If the whole world is modeled, then this ability will be there. Maybe the mission editor will allow you to schedule refueling points. (Dang good idea there.... Buckshot, write that down!!!)

But now lets look at aviation. Aircraft flying in a certain direction fly at different altitudes. I am sure aircraft pilots see other aircraft. Looking out my small window on the hundred or so airline flights I have been on, I have never seen another aircraft except when just taking off or right before landing. This is typical as airplanes come from airpoirts. :)

Even if there were CAT modeled in FO, would a military aircraft get close enough to it to see it in good detail? No (excluding post 9-11 operations of course).

Still seems pointless.

[divot2001]

---

[jhook]

Terry, the Military use comercials all the time! Troop movements, supplies, ect. It isn't unheard of to see comercials flying near airports where military aircraft also use. I do agree that this option should be implimented down the line as we need to concentrate on the project at hand! By the way, I'm back!!!!! :mrgreen:

[Charlie_VFP]

Right... during take off and landings as I noted. :)

[Vlerkies]

Now that i think of it. The only sim i have seen so far that modelled CAT, was Empire Interactive and Graphic Simulations F/A 18: Korea, dang those were the days :shock:


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

For everybody

:military:

~S~

[whiskey]

Now that i think of it. The only sim i have seen so far that modelled CAT, was Empire Interactive and Graphic Simulations F/A 18: Korea, dang those were the days :shock:


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

For everybody

:military:

~S~
Think again. Microprose F-19 :smile:
Civilian 767 operating from Kuwait City, Bahrain, etc. while you flew from a USN carrier to targets in Iran.
Also, during the Iran/Iraq war the military planes crossing Shat Al-Arab in either direction would have a visual on the Kuwait City International airport, with its usual civvie traffic.

[Requiem]

The good thing about fighter ops is its continuous development if CAT is not implemented now it will be implemented later :)

[Corsair 8X]

warn them ?? whyy ??? its fun using them for target practice, just sharpening my skills :p

Or not. Here's a story I wrote a few years ago about when I decided to do such a thing:

-----------------------------------------
My Short-lived Career as an Air Pirate

It all started out innocently enough, a bright sunny day on the island of Oahu in the world of F/A-18 Hornet for Mac. It was a sunny day in the real world too, and I should have stayed there. I found this demo somewhere so I was eager to try it out.

After taking off I was eager to mix it up with somebody, but all I found were two DC-10s slowly rising into the air on their way back to the mainland. After choosing which airliner would be my unlucky victim, I pulled up behind the second jet, playing with the various radar controls.

I started out by peppering the airliner with my 20mm cannon. Soon, smoke began to appear from the body and one of the engines. Eager to try out one of the Sidewinders, I deployed my speedbrake to put some distance between us. Locking up the DC-10, I released one of my AIM-9s which quickly made up the distance between us - slamming into its fuselage just forward of the centerline engine.

After a short explosion, the airliner began to break up before my eyes. The entire aft section of the fuselage broke away from the rest of the aircraft, loosing the engine and vertical stabilizer as it began to tumble end-over-end. I sat mesmerized by this tail section, spinning through the air like a top on its side… right into my starboard wing.

"ENGINE ONE - OUT. ENGINE TWO - OUT."

Smoke was pouring out of the back and what was left of the wing of my stricken Hornet. Alert again, I looked around for somewhere to set it down but it was hopeless. By deploying my speedbrake to get some distance from the airliner, I had bled away much of my speed - and it was quickly dawning on me just what "speed is life" meant.

After fumbling with the controls for a time I decided to punch out and put this bad career choice behind me. I felt the jolt and as I hung beneath the silk I had a very good view of the aircraft plunging into the beach. There I swayed - thinking about irony, and how much poetic justice sucks when it happens to you.

So ended my career as an air pirate.

-----------------------------------------

[Playloud]

So you want to fly intercontenetal missions. This would be grand if there was a B-2, seeing as how it is the only aircraft that flies combat missions from state side.

After reading Vipers in the Storm, I thought it might be fun to try the 15 hour flight to the Middle East one time. However, it would really suck to be on a B-2 mission from the states, and you get a CTD 13 hours into the mission :cussing:

[Kack911]

I don't understand why some are so adament that civilian traffic NOT be added. I see that the devs have stated that is not necessary in the near-term, and thats fine. But if the entire world is going to be modelled, then I sure would like to depart from Wright-Patterson AFB in my F-16 and fly a low level ingress to the Brush Creek MOA via published MTR's, all the while keeping up my scan for all the low altitude VFR traffic. Thats how it is real life, so why exclude it from the sim? Perhaps asking for VFR GA traffic is too much, in which case, I'd be content seeing some 737s/767s etc, higher up in the Flight Levels.

Of course civilian traffic is rare in a warzone, but its not non-existent. DHL and other cargo carriers fly into Baghdad (I'm sure you've all see the pics of the A-300B4 that got tagged by an SA-16). I don't thik anyone expects to see a DC-10 cruising over the FLOT at FL350, but as one fellow pointed out: If you depart from Aviano headed for the Balkans, or depart from Bahrain or the UAE headed to Kuwait, I'm sure you will be in close proximity to civilian traffic.

My point is, maybe adding traffic shouldn't be the priority, but there's no reason to completely exclude it either.

Regards,

Nick

[Buckshot]

Hi Nick, welcome aboard. Actually none of the devs or management have commented on this yet as it is really too early to say. My personal opinion is very much in line with what you said, it's something that should be added, but it isn't at the top of the priority list.

[kodak]

@ Terry

From your comments I must conclude that none of your hundreds of airliner flights ever took you to Europe! If you would have had a flight over here, you would have seen alot of traffic enroute - not just before landing etc.!

And for what concerns fighters flying a long route to the theater: this is not just the case with B-2s! When in 1999 there was the war in the Kosovo, F-117s were operating from Spangdahlem AB, Germany. As I live just 15 minutes away from that base, I could see them depart in the late evening and hear them coming back in the night. As much as I know, they were escorted by F-16CJs on most of their way (of course not within the theatre itself, else they wouldn't have had to send the Stealth). So the trip from Germany to Kosovo requires them to cross some other countries as well - e.g. Austria, Italy, France or whatever. I'm sure that on these routes there was also CAT somewhere.

Go a couple of years back in time: the strikes against Lybia included F-111s which operated from their homebases Upper Heyford AB and Lakenheath AB in the UK. So these missions also took quite some hours and required them to cross the airspace of several countries...

I'm glad that the FO team is not so quick in saying NO!!! :thumb:

[mihi4]

Yes, Kodak - I completely agree!

Looks like everybody is thinking only of the U.S. and MiddleEast as theatres...
But there's more space on earth available, a nice Europe scenario would make a great experience, and here you will find CAT for sure!

greetings
michi

[jhook]

Yes,
I do agree that when the devs say the whole world will be modeled, that includes Europe. As I have a take on it, it would seem that the campain will be a sort of "Dynaverse" campain system. Once every main theater is modeled, a "dynaverse" engine will rotate all of the campains to impliment them (with new catches to each campain as well) and create a world in chaos (as was disscussed on these forums recently). I'm looking forward to seeing this sim in about 2 to 3 years! Woooooooooow!

[Charlie_VFP]

We do operate from many different airports / bases and those are centered around civillian occupied areas.

I was arguing this point long before I found out that FO was going to use the X-Plane engine. I argued this point because, from scratch or from a F4 or close based code, it would have taken more resources to model civillian air traffic.

Now that I know they are using the X-Plane base, which already has civvie traffic in it, I will say this idea has merit and should be able to be implimented with very little resources. So I see no issue at all with agreeing that I would find it neat to be in the game.

Now, we have to find out why you would want it in the game. In real life, unless you were on a specific mission to intercept a civilian flight (which is actually a little more common now after 9-11), you would never get close to one. So, it would simply be for 'distance' viewing unless you violated the rules. For a realistic simulator, this is not the norm unless your just 'joofing off'.

So, is it worth really putting in a TON of air traffic to fly around just so you can see them in the distance?

Now that I think it is very easy for them to impliment due to the X-Plane code, I would say it is. You would hear the civvie traffic on comm channels when you are doing XCountry. You could also stop at civvie airports, which is sometimes common to refuel, and see them around there.

I would also say that I would like to have it as a selectable feature so that users can turn them off if they do not want it. Then they can just add one to the mission with a mission editor if they want to simulate a terrorist intercept.

So, as new information comes out, it is quite possible that I will change my point of view. Where as I thought it was a waste of resources before (due to the code base), I now know it wont be. So, I would like to see the possibilities of doing this.

[Bladehawk]

And Please don´t forget to have an OPTION for world travel in real time from one country to another (for the mad guys...) :thumb:

[Charlie_VFP]

You truely are mad.

If they model that, then darn sure need piddle packs.

[stallfighter]

You guys got this settled already i see. But hell, Ill add some more of the same.
As pc pilot of x-plane for the past 4 years, ya all the navs in the world are represented, so I will be able to take off from Lemoore Navel base (one of 2 f/a18 bases in the US i believe) that I live by and fly over to their training air space. They fly right over my house, around 4000 or more feet it seems as they climb out, so I imagine they see civilian traffic sometimes. Or the national guard that flys out of the bay area in california, they definitely do.
The great thing about Fighter Ops is (because of the x-plane code), you can fly to where the war is and no civilian traffic, or you can fly around the bay area, and take out the golden gate bridge. All automatic, already coded, done.

These guys were very smart to purchase the base code for x-plane, it will allow all of us to do what you can do in the real world, well without consequenses at least.

[Charlie_VFP]

I agree on the code purchase. The FO team is attempting something that has never been tried before.... I bet that in a few years, we will see two things... a very awesome Combat Sim (FO) and a very awecome Civvie Sim (XP).

There are more than two Hornet airbases. Let me see if I can get most of them.

USMC
Miramar, CA. (Active & Reserve)
Beaufort, SC. (Active + 2 USN Squadrons)
Atlanta, GA. (Reserve)
????, LA. (Reserve)
????, NY. (Reserve)

TRAINING
Lemoore, CA.
Oceana, VA. (May have active units there but I do not think so... not since VFA-82 & VFA-86 moved to Beaufort in March 2000). (The RAG squadrons from Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Fl. moved to Oceana Q1 of 2000)

Just some good FYI for you there. :smile:

[Charlie_VFP]

I've actually been thinking a bit more on the civ traffic and the X-Plane engine.

One of the more enjoyable moments in FS2004 is that awesome F-16 model that is getting to be a favorite. I've also downloaded add-ons for the F-14, B-2, and more.

With FO having the real life world modeled as in X-Plane to a highly realistic degree, and the presence of Civ Traffic.... this has the potential to be very cool.

You could actually have your virtual squadrons assigned to a base and that is where you run all of your training missions. We need to ensure that bombing ranges are modeled correctly so that we can really make good training. Avon Park, FL is pretty close to where I am and I pick up F-16's, F-15's, and F/A-18's using the bombing range there all the time on my scanner.

Again, now that FO has secured the X-Plane code.... this could be pretty awesome.

[stallfighter]

Hey Terry_VFP,

I believe wrong, thanks for the correction.

And excellent thinking on the squadrans assigned to an virtual base that actually exist! How cool is that.

[Charlie_VFP]

Stallfighter: You we're not wrong... just only half right. :bigsmile:

Again, there may be a few other bases that have a Bug squadron at them, remember that list does not include Super Bug squadrons.... that I have forgotten.

Maybe someone will correct me.... :thumb:

[Bladehawk]

You truely are mad.

If they model that, then darn sure need piddle packs.

Like I had already said, Hope FO will have a fantastic manual and good piddle packs. :bigsmile:

[Intruder_USVN]

I would like to throw in a few points.

First I would think as it has already been mentioned several times that since the entire world is pretty much implemented with 1000s of Airports and such that CAT becomes an almost essential element for the sim. Other wise the sim should just be split up into various regions with its own specific theater like all the previous flight sims to exist in the past.

Granted Fighter Ops is a combat sim but I can promise you that every Fighter Pilot has had to share air space at one time or another with a Civ.

What CAT does to the sim is add various degrees of reality. One of the most important issues being situational awareness. I will throw in a few examples here...

Lets say there is some sort of dispute that escalates and before civ traffic has a time to clear the area of operation air strikes are launched. Well presto you have a situation where you will have to have a positive ID on your target before engaging. Granted this is UNLIKELY to happen in the real world but it CAN happen and it is something any fighter pilot worth his salt will have to be able to deal with.

Another example is keeping your engagement out of civilian airspace. Air Combat is a fickle beast and unpredictable at best and chaotic at worst. It is possible however unlikely in the real world that this should happen but it can happen.

Also it has been assumed that the only targets that an enemy would target would be military targets. Who said that ever had to be the case? It maybe that an enemy may not have hijacked a plane but has decided to shoot one or several down and you would have to intercept that enemy and defend that civ aircraft. Again unlikely but possible.

What this leads to is the ability to design campaigns and scenarios with worst case parameters which would be the endagerment civilian lives.

Also it allows for degrees of error made by the pilot ( who said everyone flying this sim will be a pro? Beware the overeager nugget!! ) which could be very detrimental to his/ her military's actions.

So CAT goes far beyond the possible Terrorist Hijacking and the added element to realism in X country flying.

I do not think it should be at the top of the list, but it should be on the important list if this sim is going to be at the degree of realism it wants to be at.

[kodak]

@ Intruder...

IMPORTANT: Have a look at your website (HOME) - it appears as if you have had a hacker there! :bigeyes:

[Intruder_USVN]

Yeah Kodak I saw that,

The boys over at R&D are working on it. I haven't been around there much as I am/was going through OCS (looks like I am going to get rolled due to a cracked tooth and the resulting Oral surgery) ...sorry not like its relevant just a bit bitter about it.

But thanks for having a look at us. Its a nice page normally. Should be fixed now.

[Pacman]

One extra thing to consider is CPU and memory usage.
Flightsims are very intensive on this and they usually are a bottleneck.

If we have some of it left hell yeah why not.
It opens an enormous amount of possibilities.

If we run short... then civvies are not a priority.
After all it is a combat flightsim.

Best,

[Intruder_USVN]

@Pacman

I will agree with you. I would rather have a nice smooth running sim. If that means no civs then I can live with that. I imagine that civs would eventually be added one way or another anyway.

But for it being a combat sim, I think my previous arguments suggest that it will actually enhance the fighter pilot experience as a pilot will have to know where and when to fly so as not to take combat into the civilian traffic and should it happen to go into civilian traffic it is just one more element to deal with. Also flight planning becomes a major and much more serious issue. Plus all that other stuff I yacked about before.

But like I said I can handle not having the civ traffic. As long as I can have a platform that is flexible at that will bring in a wide range of pilots to test and enhace my skills with I am sold.

[SUBS17]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/ScreenShot_020.jpgOne thing that looks good is civilian ground traffic e.g. boats, cars trucks and buses. These things feature in Lock On but slow the frame rate down on less powerful machines. It'd be nice to have though, certainly looks good for screenshots and when flying offline, but it'd also be good to turn such things off in the options(including Civilian air traffic).
cheers
Subs

[SUBS17]

Another examplehttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/ScreenShot_138.jpg

[SUBS17]

Maybe even trainshttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/ScreenShot_025.jpg

[GR101]

Well I think cars/traffics is not difficult but not worth. Civ/traffic object is very huge-number in real world, if you just put just 2 cars into a city ,you will have little chance to see it and you can't say its realistic.And if you put 10000+ cars into it then you will have troubles on Frame rate.

But, maybe we could use some special skill to process this(and just disable this before we have a 5G level CPU). Perhaps we dont need 10000+ real 3D cars,we can just draw 50 cars on a 2D moving band, and this band moving on a street. And give some main streets this effect.Perhaps we can make city lively and avoid to make a FPS hit.(Oh just my thought,maybe doesnt work)

[a.m.i]

guys...

if any car/buiding will be 4 polys...
which is if im not wrong a basic rectangle...
then 1000 cars will be just like having another airraft in the formation and the frame rates wan't go so down...

we really don't need more then basic rectangles when looking from the sky...
and the fps in this way will stay in good place

[Bladehawk]

I agree Gr101.

I like the idea of transfoming 50 cars on a 2D moving band, and this band moving on a street.
Maybe during a strike to a city if the alarm is given problably the civilian traffic is greatly reduced (run for shelters or homes)And we just have a few cars moving at hi speed,Ambulances or firemen.

Other way of maybe reducing the frame hit is for ie
If we "lock" one of the 2d cars with a laser guided weapon that "object" becomes 3D in that moving band, when the weapon hits everything inside the Weapon Damage box becomes 3D also for damage effects.

This is just an Idea I don´t now if it possible to implement or not.

It was good to ear more ideas how to drop the frame hit in things like civ traffic.
A good simulator must show the importance of AVOIDING civilian casualties and the Political Pressure that they can generate.
Not so long ago we saw the human shields, military units standing next to dense populated areas.
Another thing is give the pilot the liberty of targeting and destroying on purpuse a civilian object "just for fun" and have to assume the the consequences for is actions. "with power comes responsability".
Little details like this give a sense of responsability to the virtual pilot, making him choose more carefully the targets to avoid colateral damage.
It´s a matter of realistic education, formation, and simulation. :thumb:

[GR101]

guys...

if any car/buiding will be 4 polys...
which is if im not wrong a basic rectangle...
then 1000 cars will be just like having another airraft in the formation and the frame rates wan't go so down...

we really don't need more then basic rectangles when looking from the sky...
and the fps in this way will stay in good place

hmmmmm......not that easy I think, if a car is a 3D object, it also need its own AI traffic logic. And 10000 AI cars will use many CPU resource...

[jhook]

I think that ground objects are a good idea, but the problem with any moving ground objects is it's pattern, or AI logic. This is a "never-ending" sim though. Maby, just maby, in a few years (code extensions, compression factors v's altitude, ect.) something like this could come about, but for now, we have an enormus task at hand. And for me, I'm trying to have a conversation with "Goose" about creating a cardboard box, with wings and a tail, and teach it how to fly! Cheers!!!

[SUBS17]

Its not as difficult as you might think. The code would be similar to the ground targets only much more simlified. By using this in a campaign you would get the AI traffic to spawn at particular points on the map in relation to your vector in flight. So no there isn't 10000 cars, trucks, trains, boats and aircraft. There would in fact be less than 10% of that required. It adds alot more to the game whats more the only complicated part would be if the road is blocked. Maybe the car does a u-turn, car stops or car crashes into debris. For online gaming I'd suggest turning such a feature off to increase FPS, but for a campaign it would be cool. Plus you could use such a feature in an airbase for fuel trucks etc maybe even emergency vehicles in the event of a crash etc The main reason I'm pointing out the good that CIV traffic adds to a game is that such features already exist in other games e.g. FS2004 and LOMAC

[Buckshot]

This is only a personal comment, I don't know if this sort of thing will make it into fighterops at this stage, or probably more to the point when it will make it in, as being an on-going development all good ideas will make it in eventually. The thing you have to remember though when comparing to FS2004, and LOMAC, is that neither sim has a dynamic campaign engine, this is something that takes up a lot of CPU cycles and is infinately higher on the priority list than things like civilian vehicle traffic, sims like FS2004 don't even have the complex AI that you will find in combat flight sims like Fighter ops, so you can't really compare the requirements of the two sims. It's something we won't know if we can implement till way down the track, and a lot of low priority things of this nature may not make the first release simply due to time constraints and will be added down in future releases.




Its not as difficult as you might think. The code would be similar to the ground targets only much more simlified. By using this in a campaign you would get the AI traffic to spawn at particular points on the map in relation to your vector in flight. So no there isn't 10000 cars, trucks, trains, boats and aircraft. There would in fact be less than 10% of that required. It adds alot more to the game whats more the only complicated part would be if the road is blocked. Maybe the car does a u-turn, car stops or car crashes into debris. For online gaming I'd suggest turning such a feature off to increase FPS, but for a campaign it would be cool. Plus you could use such a feature in an airbase for fuel trucks etc maybe even emergency vehicles in the event of a crash etc The main reason I'm pointing out the good that CIV traffic adds to a game is that such features already exist in other games e.g. FS2004 and LOMAC

[GR101]

This is only a personal comment, I don't know if this sort of thing will make it into fighterops at this stage, or probably more to the point when it will make it in, as being an on-going development all good ideas will make it in eventually. The thing you have to remember though when comparing to FS2004, and LOMAC, is that neither sim has a dynamic campaign engine, this is something that takes up a lot of CPU cycles and is infinately higher on the priority list than things like civilian vehicle traffic, sims like FS2004 don't even have the complex AI that you will find in combat flight sims like Fighter ops, so you can't really compare the requirements of the two sims. It's something we won't know if we can implement till way down the track, and a lot of low priority things of this nature may not make the first release simply due to time constraints and will be added down in future releases.

Quite right!

[SUBS17]

This is only a personal comment, I don't know if this sort of thing will make it into fighterops at this stage, or probably more to the point when it will make it in, as being an on-going development all good ideas will make it in eventually. The thing you have to remember though when comparing to FS2004, and LOMAC, is that neither sim has a dynamic campaign engine, this is something that takes up a lot of CPU cycles and is infinately higher on the priority list than things like civilian vehicle traffic, sims like FS2004 don't even have the complex AI that you will find in combat flight sims like Fighter ops, so you can't really compare the requirements of the two sims. It's something we won't know if we can implement till way down the track, and a lot of low priority things of this nature may not make the first release simply due to time constraints and will be added down in future releases.
True, it is a low priority, but it would be nice to see if it were added in a later version.
cheers
Subs

[Buckshot]

True, it is a low priority, but it would be nice to see if it were added in a later version.
cheers
Subs
Absolutely, and I guess this goes for any good idea that is presented, if it's worthwhile, and possible, it will be added at some point.

[pellelil]

Saying that "the entire world is going to be modelled" probably only goes for coastlines and "hight-date", so don't expect FighterOps to include a lot of world wide airports to be added to the scenery data. It you want to see CAT and flying around your nearest airport go for MSFS in stead.

There is so many things we all want to see/have in FighterOps however CAT has to be WAY DOWN on the list (I don't even suggest it should be on the list in the first place). If eyecandy should be added I'd rather see C-5,17,130,141 takeing off/landing transporting supplies/troops/eqiupment.

[rjetster]

Saying that "the entire world is going to be modelled" probably only goes for coastlines and "hight-date", so don't expect FighterOps to include a lot of world wide airports to be added to the scenery data. It you want to see CAT and flying around your nearest airport go for MSFS in stead.

There is so many things we all want to see/have in FighterOps however CAT has to be WAY DOWN on the list (I don't even suggest it should be on the list in the first place). If eyecandy should be added I'd rather see C-5,17,130,141 takeing off/landing transporting supplies/troops/eqiupment.



I believe that one of the most incredible things about Fighter Ops will be its astonishing ability to expand. I would envision this: “to be careful what you wish for.” As long as communities continue to support this development, many things could happen. The enthusiasm and passion in this project will soon spread like wildfire.

rjetster

[Buckshot]

Absolutely, that's the biggest advantage we have, we are setting this up from the start to be an ongoing development, so things will just continue to be added from release to release. On the question of the whole world being modelled, the answer is that yes all major airports are modelled and most of the smaller strips don't have the numbers on me but the number of airports/airstrips and navigational devices that are already modelled in our code is huge.

[Edit] just checked the specs over 18,000 airports are already modelled.

[Sehm]

Well, that is most impressive. I think this project is going to be huge :thumb:

[jhook]

Gee, let me think, the last time I checked that how many other games are being devoloped for the sole purpose of adding to it as they go. :geek: At last count...:director: "None"

[Red Gold and Green]

Hey great posts to fire the imagination.
Regarding civi aircraft, they are great for context in a game, making the pilot feel the power of his/her/its aircraft.
I remember when i was about 10 or so flying over the gulf towards Hong Kong or someplace. We had to make a detour. So i pressed the customer service button for the 100th time for more lemonade, and the lovely asian gal delivered on queue,, yes all was well above the arabian skies... Then BANG hit by a missile ,
Nah only joking
The all of a sudden whilst sipping on my beverage and gazing out of the starboard side of the 747, an F-16 raced by WOW!, afew seconds later another WOO!
Holy crap a boy's wet-dream,
then after a couple of minutes the drew up off the wing by a few hundred metres or so and cruised with us for about an hour. That was a pearler of a moment.
Well it adds a great element having civi flights involved, escorts over areas etc.
Later............

[fatb0y60]

hey guys/girls
i'm from newcastle australia and our RAAF base at williamtown is actually shared by the civillian airlines.
so if your going to fly from newcastle to sydney for example you may have to hold short to allow a flight of F/A-18's take off or a flight of hawks or vice versa.
i'm sure that williamtown isn't the only airport that is shared by both military and civi
this could be included if a "virtual world" is to be included and that way you would definately encounter civi traffic during training or general flying around base. i think it would be cool to be lining up for take off and look to your left and oh theres a 767 holding short of the runway or having to enter a circuit pattern to allow a 717 to land.

[Luis Javier]

Civs planes.....that would be a good thing!!!!

Perhaps, time after the final release of FO, some MSFS add-on boys would do something similar for it, to step by step completing our FO world. :clap:

cheers! (Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorm!!!!)