Cold war pack: should it include jet fighters?

[Mr War]

The cold war pack is semi-realistic with mostly real life unit types. It's not ultra-realism because it is just an alternative battle set for glest.

It will include helicopter gunships but not every country had them so there's some balancing. British will have Harrier jumpjets no matter what. But they really can hover.

Should we further suspend reality have have hovering A-10s and hovering Su-7s?

[John.d.h]

You could have an A-10 strike as an attack launched from an air base, working some magic with MG's multiple projectiles.

[will]

You could even have them return, if they drop some kind of standoff or retarded bomb

[Mr War]

nice idea but new functionality. Currently the Spawn attack is disabled - you can spawn units, and even give them reducing lives to ensure they aren't present too long, but you cannot specify their target until after they have spawned and you select them. Otherwise, agree that'd be cool.

[will]

I think John was only thinking in terms of an animated projectile, right?

[John.d.h]

I think John was only thinking in terms of an animated projectile, right?

That is correct.  The plane itself would be a projectile, and its missiles and gunfire would also be projectiles.  That should be possible, right?

[Ishmaru]

You could have an rto unit (radio telephone operator) that calls in a a10 or f4. And draw the plane flying over in the attack animation of rto unit then have projectile come from where plane is in animation. This seems easier than doing whole thing as a projectile...

[Mr War]

very interesting, yeah that sounds like a good idea. Will try it and see how it works

[Omega]

Not sure how well that would work without GAE's ability to choose the starting point/ending point of a projectile (for example, you could set both the start and end point to be the target, so a lightning bolt starts over them and hits them). With a plane, I'd imagine that would be necessary to make it look good, otherwise we have a plane coming from the unit directly. So in other words, half the stuff needed is on one engine, the other half on the other.

[Mr War]

Not sure how well that would work without GAE's ability to choose the starting point/ending point of a projectile (for example, you could set both the start and end point to be the target, so a lightning bolt starts over them and hits them). With a plane, I'd imagine that would be necessary to make it look good, otherwise we have a plane coming from the unit directly. So in other words, half the stuff needed is on one engine, the other half on the other.

with animated projectiles the aircraft could come from different direction, even in a diving attack from left to right etc

[Omega]

Not sure how well that would work without GAE's ability to choose the starting point/ending point of a projectile (for example, you could set both the start and end point to be the target, so a lightning bolt starts over them and hits them). With a plane, I'd imagine that would be necessary to make it look good, otherwise we have a plane coming from the unit directly. So in other words, half the stuff needed is on one engine, the other half on the other.

with animated projectiles the aircraft could come from different direction, even in a diving attack from left to right etc

Yes, exactly, but in MegaGlest, the center of the projectile is ALWAYS a path between the attacker and its target. Only in GAE can you center the attack on the target.

For example, we have our plane swooping in from the side, but at the same time, the center point of this animated plane is moving from the attacker to the target. Ideally, it will always be centered on the target and depend on the animated projectile to look good. As well, because the splash only takes effect when the projectile hits its end point, MG's method will screw the timing up depending on the unit's distance from the target.

The part in particular you would want would be:

Code: (https://docs.megaglest.org/XML/Projectile_Particle) [Select]

<start value="target" />
<end value="target" />

Should there be jet fighters? Maybe, but currently the engines are pretty mismatched to allow this. Don't like it? Copy my signature.

[wciow]

I voted yes 

[will]

It'll be interesting to see if what Omega says will be an issue in practice; I rather imagine the swooping and dropping and exit of the A10 being an animated projectile will work just fine.  Its just an animated G3D, it has no impact at all on the actual logical position of the projectile nor the flight of it.

[Mr War]

Agreed Will, the only challenge will be my animation skills. I see swooping attacks. The forward observation officer or forward air controller could also call on artillery from off-screen but that might not be so clear to players what's going on.

The only real prob I see is that you cannot shoot down the incoming jet. These forward controllers are just superweapons like an industarons heavy missile, but animated to look like an air strike. Cool though.

[Omega]

By the way, the solution to the stop animation may be to have them circle around, though you'd have to make them a larger size (not necessarily a bad thing, as they'll be more spaced out, limiting the numbers more).

[Mr War]

Yeah I thought about circling, but transition to steady flight would be ugly and attacks would have to either hover or circle somewhat. O think it could work ok for biplanes or even WW2 aircraft but might not look so good for jets

So the general approach will be to only have helicopters and jumpjets as regular units, but to have specialist units which can call in airstrikes representing fast jets.

Additionally, for some factions instead of longer ranged SAMs, they could have fighter controllers (I'm thinking buildings) which can call in air defense fighters, again using same principle.

[wyvern]

I think circling would be be the best idea, since hovering and one shot attacking seems weird as well, or maybe put patrolling as its basic standing motion/animation. Plus, there should be a way to shoot down the jet when it attacks.

[will]

I think circling would be be the best idea, since hovering and one shot attacking seems weird as well, or maybe put patrolling as its basic standing motion/animation. Plus, there should be a way to shoot down the jet when it attacks.

That's what's not possible; treating the jet as a unit is not possible as per the conversation above; or have I missed something?

[Mr War]

Circling wouyld just be the idle animation Will. Problem would be too tight circles for jets, plus the bigger the circle, the worse the transition to level flight would be.

The animated projectile sort of works, although model appears to show inside out in-game (might be my model, or fact I'm using PNG skin not TGA - will PM Will)

Mirage F1 seen banking and climbing after releasing two bombs in swooping attack, directed by the FAC (test model of the AMX-13 SS-11 tank on right) against an AMX-30 tank partially hidden on left. Animation and models just test, woyuld be infantry FAC.

(click to show/hide)

The two screen shots are not from same attack run

[wyvern]

In the case that attack aircraft are introduced, I compiled a list for some of the factions w/ strengths+/weaknesses-
USA:Douglas Skyraider->F-4 Phantom->A-10 +large and devastating payloads, good resilience/-lower speeds(f4 is an exception), high cost.
GBR:Blackburn Buccaneer/Supermarine attacker etc->Harrier I->Harrier II +decent payloads, good speed, good resilience, good air to air ability/-High costs
FR:Various Mirage's from basic models to newer types +Cheap, good speeds/-terrible payload, low resilience, low damage
USSR:Su-7/17->Su-25->Il-102 +Cheap, good speed, reasonable payload, decent resilience/ not stellar in any aspect and not many specific advantages
GER:F-4/F-104, they didn't really have homemade products at the time so I'm not sure what to say +good speed/payload/resilience/-high costs, not much advancement ability

[Mr War]

Good list. Still not sure how the circling idea will pan out, I quite like the idea of FACs

I'd add hawker hunter for UK, gR91 for Germany, super mystere for France and maybe corsair II for USA, F4 is a big plane

[titi]

better check out how the AI behaves with so many different types of airplanes. Beside of this, I would like to see all those planes 

[wyvern]

I'd disagree with the corsair because its from the phantoms period of operations and far less well known, but it doesn't really matter, the more the merrier, maybe give it a close in air to air ability .
If there was a really early cold war point (1949+) you could have WW2 stuff and old(though powerful fighter  bombers like the Fury and Corsair)
BTW:The advantages/disadvantages I wrote above are based on what the physical payload, speed, survivability, combat record and cost is for each plane

[Mr War]

I've uploaded a test pack with french faction using all three basic choices for Jets. MediaFire Download - Mod requires MegaGlest 3.5.3-Alpha1 which can be downloaded here (Windows) http://www.soft-haus.com/glest/temp/megaglest3.5.3-alpha1_i386_win32_bin.exe

1. Animated Projectile method. Unit is called Forward Air Controller (looks like tank without turret, just temp g3d). Has issues and Will is unlikely to change code
2. As circling aircraft - unit is called Mirage F1 Circling. Bad animation aside, unit flies around when static. Not very smooth, transitions jump. Very small turning radius for fast jet.
3. As hovering air unit as per default in Glest - i.e. like helicopter. Unit is called Mirage F1 hover. Unanimated hover but could bob around a bit.

I don't think any are particularly good approaches. Just stick to helicopters and jumpjets?

[wyvern]

Too bad it can't be done like it is in Spring 144 where aircraft fly around unless you give them a target, I'd stick to the heli and jumpjet method for now, though honestly, even the jumpjet is kinda awkward since the harrier only takes off vertically when it has a small payload and usually acts like a normal fighter, so you could even knock it down to just helis