Do We Need Air Support in SB.

[Captain_Colossus]

I think the problem with jets is adapting the current waypoint system to them.

For example, a tank with stay orders at waypoint 1 can be given retreat orders if it comes under fire. A helicopter can also be adapted to this, assuming it's hovering at waypoint 1.

A jet on the other hand, which is always on the move, and always moving at high speed, doesn't simply stop at waypoint 1 for more than a fraction of a second, so the only time it can react to a condition like (retreat if under fire) would be that tiny instant it reaches waypoint 1 and comes under fire (or does a low fuel check, as another example).

[Volcano]

I don't think it is worth everyone getting worked up over this topic, or trying to "explain" how it will work, or whether or not it is a good idea or not.

Rest assured, we know well enough how to enhance things in this area without breaking gameplay. The problem, like I said, is that there never seems to be enough time to do anything air related. Everything can be enhanced, and should be enhanced, time permitting.

[Mogwa]

Can I vote twice for "No we don't?"

[Marko]

Can I vote twice for "No we don't?"

Please elaborate as to why you are against it.

No problem with your objection would just like to know why.

[Tacbat]

Can I vote twice for "No we don't?"

My vote's for sale.

[TankHunter]

From my own perspective, I would love to see SU-25s doing rocket and gun runs on targets, but I can imagine that it would be an AI nightmare to make sure that tanks and other vehicles would respond appropriately to the aircraft. I can easily see it turning into how things work with helicopters now without setting aside significant time to sort it out.

Also you probably will only see the A-10 if it is doing gun or rocket runs. If it is using Mavericks I'd expect it would be effectively off the map. If you don't have decent AD then you will lose at least a company to just one. If you have F-16s, 15s, Tornadoes, etc, then it would be well above the envelopes of any AD that we have. After all, it probably wouldn't be very fun to be on the receiving end of

or

or something else which you can't hope to counter, no matter what. We kind of have that with airstrikes already, granted without seeing a nice flyby (which you probably wouldn't see anyway with modern technology).

Its probably more work than its worth.

[RogueSnake79]

My vote's for sale.

I will offer you two shits for it. :men_ani:

We all want more better, more everything.

Reality is a bitch. I learned that about 2 1/2 years ago when I started working here. Same everywhere in this industry. You want to reach for the stars, but have to reach for whats at arms length instead. That is if you want to catch anything at all.

It would be awesome to see an A10 making gun runs, firing off mav's. Sure, who wouldn't want that? The reality is, we can't do that. Not because we don't know how, or don't want to. But because the amount of time(and that is money, real dollars) is too high. And we have obligations, and priority's. Everyone who post here knows this.

If you want something, you need not reach for the stars. Smart people ask for something like "hey, how about another bomb type", or "how about a giant crater on the ground for airstrikes".

[EasyE]

A simple way to do it would be just simulate different weapons. Want an A-10 strike, Click drag area on the map, select weapons and the AI selects a few targets, request weapons, high angle 30 mm rounds, mav, CBU-97, etc. Do the same from Su-25, Rockets, guns and, their own 30mm and 23mm gun pods.

Good enough for most people I would think

[Marko]

Tankhunter and Rougesnake you both make valid points.

But IMO you can not represent a modern battlefield with out CAS

I fully understand that its not a priority for esim.

SB in a Armour centric training simulation this has been made very clear.

The thing I have learned from starting this poll is if you step outside the boundaries.

Or make suggestions to improve the PE edition you will be meet with Hostility from all Directions.

[Tacbat]

I will offer you two shits for it. :men_ani:

I figure that for someone who is full of BS, you could have at least offered three. :men_ani:

But IMO you can not represent a modern battlefield with out CAS.

SB does have CAS. Helicopters.

[RogueSnake79]

But IMO you can not represent a modern battlefield with out CAS

.

This is not the case. I mean I understand what your trying to say, but, the reality is not every battle is fought with CAS. So not having does not equal not having a representation of a modern battlefield. You want A10's, and Su-25's, and anything less would not be CAS.

We have Apache's in SB, that is the some of the best CAS that has ever existed on a "modern battlefield".

Your not under attack, this is a discussion. You see this is a problem when people unjustly equate these two things to each other.

[Grenny]

...

Or make suggestions to improve the PE edition you will be meet with Hostility from all Directions.

I've read through the whole thread again after that post.

I don't see it?

But I admit my questioning of the polls "value" could be seen as such.

My post was not as descriptive as it should have been.

Let me put it this way:

If you ask someone if he wants to pay less taxes most people would say "Yes", more thoughtful people would say "Yes but..." or "Yes if...".

Nearly nobody would say "Hell no".

Asking players here if they want additional features is bound to end the same way(and it did, not by the poll per say, but just look at the reply posts), and I suspect you already knew that when posting the poll.

[Marko]

I've read through the whole thread again after that post.

I don't see it?

But I admit my questioning of the polls "value" could be seen as such.

My post was not as descriptive as it should have been.

Let me put it this way:

If you ask someone if he wants to pay less taxes most people would say "Yes", more thoughtful people would say "Yes but..." or "Yes if...".

Nearly nobody would say "Hell no".

Asking players here if they want additional features is bound to end the same way(and it did, not by the poll per say, but just look at the reply posts), and I suspect you already knew that when posting the poll.

Well there was one comment I had to ask the person responsible to remove said comment Because I found it offensive. maybe hostility is the wrong use of a word shall we say Negativity. There is a lot I would like to say but have decided I wont because it would Probably start a Flame war.

Just to clarify.

Just because I think a certain vehicle or Feature would make a good addition does not mean I expect to see in the next update all at all for that mater.

I have never served in the military or run a business.

Like many others who frequent this site I am just a enthusiastic user of SB and the SB Community.

But of late it seems that any suggestion posted by me or other members meets with a Virtual barrage Of negative responses

by people who have been involved with SB for a long time I will not name names.

But I will say I have spoken to people on TS who hold a similar view to me

What's the point in posting a topic you will only be shot down for doing it.

Of course you will get conflicting views on any subject try to get two guys to agree never Mind hundreds. but as I say there is a core or click who immediately dismiss any idea or View. because it does not match there requirements for what there organisation or personal Or professional opinions are.

PS No I have not had a drink nor am I under the influence of narcotics. LoL

Edited June 28, 2014 by Marko

[DarkLabor]

Well there was one comment I had to ask the person responsible to remove said comment Because I found it offensive.

You took it too personally. When I wrote it, it was a personal observation.

Anyway, you asked for removal; I removed the offensive part; problem solved.

But of late it seems that any suggestion posted by me or other members meets with a Virtual barrage Of negative responses

by people who have been involved with SB for a long time I will not name names.

This is a problem of perception.

You consider SB as a game not a trainer.

As a game, you want it to improve visual fidelity, things that are far from the necessity of people treating it as a trainer.

In that case, CAS is just some visual animation. At best you fill an arty-like support form. But when CAS addition makes SB close to the reality, the training value behind it doesn't change at all (unless you make the aircraft crewable...).

The opposition to your suggestions is maybe linked to the fear of people that doesn't want to see SteelBeasts to turn into ArmA (

).

[dejawolf]

having properly working CAS in SB is a bitch.

check the texture folder. you'll find a texture for an F-16.

at one point in time, there was an attempt to put a working F-16 into SB, based on a military request i believe, but the SB engine lends itself so poorly to a decent flight model, it was just left out entirely from the PE release.

it might seem simple. "just make them fly over and drop bombs".

thats a bit like saying "push the gas pedal on the car to make it move forward",

which ignores everything that happends inbetween the gas pedal being pushed,

before the power is transfered to the wheel.

in reality there's some pretty complex things that need to happend,

which could end up eating months of programming time.

the AI needs to be able to calculate at what point to drop the bomb, so it will land on target. this is actually a pretty nasty piece of calculus since the path of a bomb is not straight, but curved. and to make things even more painful, the problem is not 2 a 2-dimensional graph, but 3d.

so for every step of the simulation, you have to generate a dynamic curve that changes based on the airspeed of the plane, which when converging with the target, causes the AI to drop the bomb. then there's the problem of getting the AI onto the correct bombing path. and remember that the target is not stationary. so you'll have to add a bit of lead to this path. and this amount of lead would also depend on the flight height of the plane. so you have that piece of trigonometry as well.

then you have the issue of target selection. if the AI is based on LOS to target, it might become confused when new targets appear, and do silly things.

and now we have just a simple model of a dumb plane flying directly to a target and dropping a bomb on it. it's not avoiding AA, it's not trying to avoid getting shot.

it'll fly directly into the bubble of a tunguska and get shot down.

and this is just the math and concept. then comes the SB engine, which is about 500 000 lines of code. you have to spend weeks just finding all of the correct variables to use, with the constant petrifying fear that you might cause a ton of unknown bugs.

you most definitely need to delve into the collision detection algorithms, and make a special exception for the bomb. maybe you'll find some clever way to modify the bullet trajectories of tanks into bomb trajectory, only to find out this causes tanks to no longer hit their targets. then you'll have to dig through thousands of lines of code to try and understand what you did wrong. so.. yeah.

[Lt DeFault]

in reality there's some pretty complex things that need to happen...

I don't think someone can fully understand the work involved unless they've tried making even a simple program themselves. But you did a good job of explaining it. The devil really is in the details.

[Ssnake]

The F-16 model was added to allow an external simulation to create a jet fighter entity in SB Pro (there are simulation protocol gateways to allow for that). Fro our perspective that's the primary way to go. Be able to connect to both a flight sim (if you want a human player to perform the air support) and a forward air controller simulation (to talk the plane one target), then resolve the results of the mission with the help of these other simulations.

It can be done; it HAS been done. From a training perspective this delivers more than anything that we could develop, and this required only minimal effort on our end.

There are many different forms of air support. A-10 strafing runs are the most spectacular one, but by far not the only one. Often the bomb would be release from a height/distance that the jet is neither seen nor heard. Even the addition of a sound effect that plays back screaming jet turbines with heavy Doppler effect everytime would actually create a wrong image/representation of what close air support could look like.

The fact that we're discussin most of this thread about a single form - low, direct passes of the target by SU-25 or A-10s - is an indicator how much games have shaped the expectations. I have always said that Steel Beasts Professional will include entertainment elements as long as they do not stand in the way of (good) training. But training value is still our core determinant when deciding whether or not to start working on a certain aspect.

In the past years we have started too many "construction sites" within the code, and finished too few of them. We cannot afford to go two or three years into hiatus just to consolidate what we have, so we will have to do both - consolidation and renewal. But what has been proposed so far as simple solutions doesn't offer discernible training value, and what would offer substantial gains in this aspect is a huge area.

Whether CAS is an important element of combined arms warfare is a moot point. Of course it is! But the involved effort-to-benefit ratio appears unfavorably high. Current and recent US operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are not necessarily representative of our military customers' capabilities and procedures. Yes, the current helicopter-centric approach is only a partial implementation at best. Let us do some more work here, refine a number of details, then review if it's still necessary to introduce jets and strafing runs.

[Marko]

You took it too personally. When I wrote it, it was a personal observation.

Anyway, you asked for removal; I removed the offensive part; problem solved.

You made some ridiculous statement about my posting a poll not being the act of a man

So yer I did take it personally.

In relation to me trying to turn SB in to Arma clone and have no interest in to turning SB in To WOT Balkans on fire, M1TP or any other so called simulation.

I also happen to C/O SVU where game tactics are not practiced we play by soviet doctrine.

I suggest you check you facts before posting such comments.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply dejawolf

I will not pretend to understand all the technical details that goes in to making a comprehensive simulation . I have researched a little and fully accept its way above

My understanding.

My statement in relation to negative responses still stands though

It was not made because I felt the poll was not going in the direction I wanted it too.

The poll and CAS issues are irrelevant to me now.

Its about certain members on this site who think there opinion and only there opinion Maters. and the sad thing is this may well be true.

[Lt DeFault]

...the sad thing is this may well be true.

Don't start thinking that way. You know eSim listens. Like Volcano said, they'd like to enhance everything, they just need more time.

[DarkLabor]

You made some ridiculous statement about my posting a poll not being the act of a man

So yer I did take it personally.

I said :

In other words, you create a poll just to see people sharing your very same point of view.

Others' are just needless votes...

First time I see that kind of behaviour...

Since you didn't answered the question regarding the "not needed votes", I tried to recentered your focus on the "not needed votes" thing.

The last phrase was nearly a note to myself, because, you can expect women to brush aside the "negative" (or at least the opposing idea to their's) side of a poll/question/note. Wich is astonishing from a man.

In relation to me trying to turn SB in to Arma clone and have no interest in to turning SB in To WOT Balkans on fire, M1TP or any other so called simulation.

I never said such thing.

Since, you don't understand my intent through my posts, this discution, is totally non-sens.

So let me end it.

I also happen to C/O SVU where game tactics are not practiced we play by soviet doctrine.

I suggest you check you facts before posting such comments.

Off topic.

[fritzgryphon]

Fast-mover guided bomb strikes could be simulated like very brief and accurate artillery strikes.

Don't play SB, but I don't believe the game has any SAM missile systems outside of ATGMs and manpads.

[Hedgehog]

Fast-mover guided bomb strikes could be simulated like very brief and accurate artillery strikes.

Don't play SB, but I don't believe the game has any SAM missile systems outside of ATGMs and manpads.

Well you have the SA-19/2S6 Tungska and the ZSU-23-4

2S6 is a Gun & Missile System and the ZSU is a Anti Air Gun

[Gibsonm]

Fast-mover guided bomb strikes could be simulated like very brief and accurate artillery strikes.

Well yes if you want a "quick and dirty" solution with little or no fidelity.

The previous page is full of posts as to why it is not that simple/easy.

Don't play SB, but I don't believe the game has any SAM missile systems outside of ATGMs and manpads.

Well if you don't play the game, why post?

If you did, you'd know that is not the case.

[MDF]

Don't play SB, but I don't believe the game has any SAM missile systems outside of ATGMs and manpads.

It has the 2S6, which is equipped with SA-19/9M311 SAM, in addition to 30mm cannons.

[Grenny]

Fast-mover guided bomb strikes could be simulated like very brief and accurate artillery strikes. ...

Well, in this sense, "unguided" bombs are already there.

The trick would be to make the strike more accurate on a moving target without making it and über-tank-killing ahm thingy.

I mean the targeted unit should have some chance to avoid the strike... for example by breaking line of sight with the spotter or finding concealment so the plane can not find them.