Do We Need Air Support in SB.

[fritzgryphon]

Ok ok, I figured it out.

Change a helicopter model for an A-10.

Where the helicopter would be hovering, the A-10 does loops in place instead.

To simulate threat avoidance, the plane can only move in off-map areas. If it tries to fly onto the map it is stopped by an invisible wall. If the A-10 is attacked, it can go half under the ground like the infantry does.

Simulating new munitions is hard, so just make all enemy vehicles within certain distance in the plane's frontal arc explode. Edit: Do a LOS check first.

You're welcome.

[Grenny]

Ok ok, I figured it out.

Change a helicopter model for an A-10.

Where the helicopter would be hovering, the A-10 does loops in place instead.

To simulate threat avoidance, the plane can only move in off-map areas. If it tries to fly onto the map it is stopped by an invisible wall. If the A-10 is attacked, it can go half under the ground like the infantry does.

Simulating new munitions is hard, so just make all enemy vehicles within certain distance in the plane's frontal arc explode. Edit: Do a LOS check first.

You're welcome.

Yeah :-P

[Marko]

Ok ok, I figured it out.

Change a helicopter model for an A-10.

Where the helicopter would be hovering, the A-10 does loops in place instead.

To simulate threat avoidance, the plane can only move in off-map areas. If it tries to fly onto the map it is stopped by an invisible wall. If the A-10 is attacked, it can go half under the ground like the infantry does.

Simulating new munitions is hard, so just make all enemy vehicles within certain distance in the plane's frontal arc explode. Edit: Do a LOS check first or should I say

You're welcome.

LoL.

Now that's using your imagination.

but seriously you should give SB a chance its worth the money.

We could use a few more free thinkers and a few less stuffed shirts. LoL

[Ssnake]

I'm sorry that you consider me a stuffed shirt by giving you the reasons why we're not treating your suggestion with immediate priority. It's hard to suppress the urge to become scathing and sarcastic here, really. This is the kind of commentary that creates antagonism - I don't know if you wanted to say it, but the impression that you just created is that "everybody who disagrees with me is an idiot". I haven't seen you like this in past discussion and I suppose that the way this thread has been heading rubbed a few sore spots with you ... so I don't think that this is REALLY what you wanted to say.

But it may be a good opportunity to step back a little and review your own posts from the perspective of the other near 50% who happened not to agree with your proposal. Try to imagine how the way you tried to get your arguments across may have rubbed a sore spot with them.

As a rule of thumb, people don't like being called narrow-minded and unimaginative (not even those who actually are).

[Ssnake]

I mean, I seriously do not want to put more gasoline into the fire. The points have been made by all sides. I'm not certainy that continuing the debate is going to be very productive. But there is a serious risk that it may become rather damaging.

So for the sake of an amiable atmosphere, why don't we just stop posting in this thread - on a voluntary basis?

[Marko]

I mean, I seriously do not want to put more gasoline into the fire. The points have been made by all sides. I'm not certainy that continuing the debate is going to be very productive. But there is a serious risk that it may become rather damaging.

So for the sake of an amiable atmosphere, why don't we just stop posting in this thread - on a voluntary basis?

Agreed i will make no further posts on this issue.

The stuffed shirt comment was a jest and not directed at anybody directly.

But for the sake of harmony on the site I will apologise if it offended anybody

[Maj.Hans]

Well, I may as well put my two cents in...

I think it would be nice (but far from critical) to be able to have some kind of ground attack aircraft simulated in Pro PE. I don't think it needs to be a fully simulated part of the program - If a player/trainee sitting in the TC's hatch of his tank can't tell that the SU-25 attacking him is only half modeled and scripted, then it's good enough.

If we're going to spend time modelling anything of this sort more fully, my vote would be for the helicopters. More specifically I'd like to see players have the ability to control them a bit better, not necessarily to have them modeled realistically in terms of their systems and etc.

Even if we have to use WASD to move them and Q and Z to control altitude, if we can do this from a first person point of view in a simple cockpit, and if there can be a human gunner in control of the weapons, I think it's good enough for our purposes.

The helicopter isn't there for you to play a highly detailed and accurate helicopter simulator, the helicopter is there to provide additional realism and/or targets for the vehicle crews.

Edit to Add:

Of course, I do consider this all to be stuff that would be "nice to have". I'm not really concerned with it too much and if it can't be done, isn't feasible, there isn't time, whatever, I'm not going to get too worked up about it. We have plenty of other toys to play with already.

Er, and, sorry, I didn't read to the end before posting, so on that note I'm going to stop beating the dead horse like everybody else.