Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: ShivanSpS on July 20, 2006, 12:05:56 am
-
Yes, well, this is nothing new, but... Someone noticed the some missiles are too dumb compared to the same missile in retail?? Rockeye and Hornets especially, Tornedos some in the third place and Harpoons in the Four...
OK, the Harpoons are acceptable, But the Hornets cant hit anything (I just miss a Faustus!), Rockeye lost its retail accuracy... For esample in the Trinity Mission I able to destroy about 6 Dragons which Rockeye in retail, and How.. well.. 1 which luck.
-
I've noticed the missiles are basically worthless at range, but I haven't played retail in nearly ten years so I don't remember how they used to be.
-
it would be nice if instead of chasing the enemy, the warhead would position itself to come in at a prependicualr angle relative to the ships velocity vector, then turn in for the kill.
-
Yes, well, this is nothing new, but... Someone noticed the some missiles are too dumb compared to the same missile in retail?? Rockeye and Hornets especially, Tornedos some in the third place and Harpoons in the Four...
What build are you using as the comparison?
There was an issue where countermeasures were far better than they used to be, which greatly impacted the accuracy of missiles. That was fixed about a month ago though. When I was testing the fix I ran it against retail and didn't see much difference between retail and the fixed code. That's not to say that there isn't possibly some remaining issue with missile accuracy itself however. If you can get a good and reproducable comparison of accurary between retail and one of the RC builds then let me know and I'll take a look.
But, I seem to remember that Hornets always sucked. :)
-
Yeah.. i think i almost never hit anything with Hornets in retail FS2... Harpoons roxor though
-
Hornets were good in FS1, in FS2 I could never hit things with them
-
Tornadoes and Harpoons FTW!
-
i remember when i was playing retail, all of my tornados hit dead on, now they hit 50% of the time or less...
hmmmm
-
With soem of the later builds, i've noticed that all missiles I use simply don't track about 20% of the time. I have a good lock, nice range, and great target, and yet the missile will just go straight and ignore the target. Anyone else seen this, or am I going crazy?
-
Its stil lack accuracy, but is better now... I the last builds (9, 17th and later) I almost 100% using Harpoorns and Tempets :P
But you Right, in FS2 the Hornets dont hit almost anything In FS1 the hornets are just great. But in FS2 the Hornet are used to Kill freighters, Cruisers, Faustus :P, Even those can "evade" it if you dont take some caution :O
Buy I still Remember that In FS2 retail I can use Hornets Vs Bombers from the rear.
-
Yeah, well...
There are differences in homing and approach techniques in missiles, of course.
The more advanced missiles (Harpoon and Torpedo) use lead homing technicue quite well... that is, they fly towards the point where the enemy craft will be when the missile has traveled to that point. If the target changes its velocity vector, the missile's homing system counts a new lead point and heads there instead. These missiles are much more difficult than Rock-Eyes and Hornets to evade without use of countermeasures, because it's more difficult to get inside the missile's turn radius.
Getting inside a missile's turn radius is an effective way to evade any missile, but with the leading missiles it demands a very fast and maneuverable ship with even faster afterburner speed. It's quite difficult to try and avoid a Harpoon without CM's if you are in an Ursa, but on the other hand, a Perseus does it quite well (or even a Herc 2).
The Rock-Eye and Hornet, on the other hand, use direct homing system. That is, they are always steered towards the target's current position. While this works quite well for targets that have slow angular velocity from the missile's point of view, this technique naturally makes it easy to avoid these missiles with fast velocity vector changes - that is, position your craft so that the missile approaches from side, top or bottom, then hit the burners so that you get inside the missile's turn radius and the missile swoops past your back and loses the target lock.
I myself don't think the missiles are too weak, or that the AI would be too smart. I actually think that the reason why the ships are equipped with so many space-to-space missiles (developed for taking down fighters) is that it's not easy to destroy enemy ships with missiles always. The counter-measures are effective as long as the enemy has them, and if the pilot is good and has a fast maneuverable craft, they should be able to avoid missiles.
Oh, and the best missiles against fighters (in this order) are the Harpoon, the Tempest and the Tornado.
-Harpoon has good homing devices, it's fast and when it hits it shreds.
-Tempest is dumbfire of course, but you get s***loads of these in, say, Myrmidon or a Herc 2. They can be effectively used against fighters in close perimeter combat, in conjunction with primary weapons. Against bombers they are better, and they can also be used to take out freighters, cruisers or larger cap ships' sub systems or weapons.
-Tornado... upgraded Hornet. Not really good against fastest fighters IMO, but of course when you get it to hit, it kills or at least badly damages a fighter, and nicely lowers a bomber's shields. If your wingmen manage to stay alive, they can kill cruisers easily with either Hornets or Tornados, not to mention freighters.
By the way, have you noticed that if you fire a Cyclops or a Helios towards an enemy fighter or bomber, it doesn't lose the lock when it inevitably passes the target? It turns back, slowly but surely, and starts chasing the target... I've managed to kill a few Basilisks with Cyclops, actually. Or perhaps they were Helioses... Can't remember. :lol:
-
To kill a fighter with a Cyclops or a Helios you first need to take out the shields...
ShivanSpS just said what's true.I started playing with SCP just 1 or 2 months ago,and I can see with my blue eyes how those enlisted weapons work better in the retail.
They don't hit targets when they're too close...in the retail,once you launch a warhead,it starts chasing the enemy.Now I notice this happens a bit later. I enjoyed taking out Basilisks with Hornets,now I must use the Tornado or my favourite,the Tempest,to succeed on this.
-
I've always used FS2 Hornets primarily for killing large ships like freighters, science vessels, or some of the lightly-armored cruisers such as the Fenris/Aten/Cain.
-
i got killed by a helios once, even with shields up :wtf:, i have no idea wat happened...
-
They don't hit targets when they're too close...in the retail,once you launch a warhead,it starts chasing the enemy.Now I notice this happens a bit later.
Yes! This is exactly what happens. I can't use missles up close anymore, because they go straight instead of at the enemy.
-
Missiles are supposed not to home for the first 250 milliseconds of their 'life'
-
that was only supposed to apply to swarmers, bombs, and corkscrew weapons, missiles such as tempests, rockeyes and harpoons i dont remember ever seeing them using the free flight time.
-
Well.. to me it looked it was supposed to apply to all homing missiles (leaving tempests unaffacted).. But then again i'm not that familiar with C/C++ or the method used in the code for the missile homing system. However according to these it looks like all homing missiles are supposed to have different 'initial velocity' for the first 1/4 seconds and then change that into the 'real' set velocity.
-
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Weapons.tbl#.24Free_Flight_Time:
-
Yeah... but that doesnt exactly explain the possible change from the retail behaviour (if there ever has been one). I havent really seen any significant different apart from the recent countermeasure problem but then again i havent played retail version for a while. Setting $Free Flight Time: to 0 would solve the the issue.
WMC... please move the ':' in the end of the link inside it...
-
Setting $Free Flight Time: to 0 would solve the the issue.
But then it would actually deviate from retail behavior. Retail waits the 0.25 seconds, and that is the default value for $Free Flight Time:.
I haven't seen any change though. When I was trying to fix the countermeasure affectiveness issue I played FS2_Open and retail side-by-side to work out the differences. Once I was done I didn't see any difference from retail to the missile handling (I was testing Harpoons) or countermeasure effectiveness. There has already been several long discussions on what retail did or didn't do for a supposed AI bug, only to find that the behaviour was nearly, if not exactly, identical between the two versions. Someone will have to provide a test mission that can demonstrate the differences from retail to current FS2_Open for all of this before any dev is likely to spend time on it.
-
Setting $Free Flight Time: to 0 would solve the the issue.
But then it would actually deviate from retail behavior. Retail waits the 0.25 seconds, and that is the default value for $Free Flight Time:.
I haven't seen any change though. When I was trying to fix the countermeasure affectiveness issue I played FS2_Open and retail side-by-side to work out the differences. Once I was done I didn't see any difference from retail to the missile handling (I was testing Harpoons) or countermeasure effectiveness. There has already been several long discussions on what retail did or didn't do for a supposed AI bug, only to find that the behaviour was nearly, if not exactly, identical between the two versions. Someone will have to provide a test mission that can demonstrate the differences from retail to current FS2_Open for all of this before any dev is likely to spend time on it.
They don't hit targets when they're too close...in the retail,once you launch a warhead,it starts chasing the enemy.Now I notice this happens a bit later.
Yes! This is exactly what happens. I can't use missles up close anymore, because they go straight instead of at the enemy.
We have sufficient proofs to demonstrate that this problem exists,and solving it will be better.
How'd you kill Dragons at close distance now? Or you try to take them down with lasers,or you use the tempest dumbfire.
Anyway this "killed" the original FreeSpace 2.
I also noticed(this is a bit off-topic)that when playing the main campaign missions something strange happens.
1)The Phoenicia always goes down.
2)In High Noon,the Colossus strangely moves on the side of the Sathanas.I remember it was a fluid movement in the retail,now it shakes.
Maybe there's something else I didn't notice.
-
We have sufficient proofs to demonstrate that this problem exists,and solving it will be better.
How'd you kill Dragons at close distance now? Or you try to take them down with lasers,or you use the tempest dumbfire.
I've never had a problem with firing missiles in close. The only times the missiles misfire for me is when I've launched them too close or at a bad angle where they would have been useless anyway. All that's necessary to kill a Dragon is to swing on its tail for even a few seconds, lock a pair of Harpoons onto it while softening its rear shields, and then let them loose.
-
I played with the reatail until about 1/2 months ago,my mind is fresh. I remember everything and I continue to say that there's something bad-fixed with those secondary weapons.
You give for sure that a Dragon continues to fly straight with the player on its tails. Dragons are capable..ehm..we now that.
In the retail I could take a Dragon down it a small amount of time,when it was close and appeared without warning on the center of the HUD. in the retail I had sufficient time to gain a lock with a little maneuver and launch missiles. Now I gain a lock,but then..you know.
I think fizing this won't require so much time.
-
I haven't noticed any difference with this, although it might just be because I tend to use tempests most of the time anyway.
-
In regards to tempests and AI, I just played through FS1 on an older machine (one that could actually run it, since my XP box cannot) and I do know that when the Shivans first arrive for you to combat (When escorting the Plato) it was a good bit easier to actually KILL a shivan vessel. In some occasions, I'd even manage to kill TWO (though never three. My roomate managed it through a fluke of nailing the first two in conjunction with two of his "wingmates" but I never got that lucky..)
Now, I have one HELL of a time killing one and that's on EASY, and usually involves deliberatly ramming it a few times and more often than not I'm killing it _just_ as it's trying to warp out.
Though, I have noticed that missile aiming/leading behaviour is significantly better in the multi_test.rar build and in the light_test.rar builds that were posted to target specific (other) issues, I'm going to see how well they bear out on a full FS1/FS2 run now that I have something live right next to me to compare them to.
I suspect (though I could be wrong) that what ever was keeping the missiles from spinning on their centers in the loadout/techroom screens may have caused for anomolies in thier flight behavior as well, especially if it was looking at turning controls in conjunction with thrust delivery being focused on the nose instead of the "center of gravity" for the missile.
Just a guess, though.
-
I once managed to kill all of them on easy, in the FSport... it broke the mission.
-
There is nothing defined in the mission to cause it to "break" in the event they all die. Unless the plato was still around at which point you have to kill it yourself.
-
I think fizing this won't require so much time.
That's something you never say in the SCP forum. At all.
The deal is unless you know the exact part of the code that needs fixing and you know how to fix it, don't diagnose the problem as easy or not.
I haven't noticed any difference with this, although it might just be because I tend to use tempests most of the time anyway.
I habitually use Harpoons/Interceptors and I always seem to have an easy time in taking down fast ships like Manticores, Valks, Hors, etc. on the first pass with both ships moving in with afterburners. The missiles seem to work just fine for me at least.
-
I think fizing this won't require so much time.
That's something you never say in the SCP forum. At all.
The deal is unless you know the exact part of the code that needs fixing and you know how to fix it, don't diagnose the problem as easy or not.
According to what I understand, there's something wrong on the weapon entries(0.25 secs of inactivity).
Several members said simply that this "bug" exists,other say the contrary. I have no intention of fixing this all by myself(I don't know how).
What we want is to to adjust this,a thing only SCP members can do.
-
According to what I understand, there's something wrong on the weapon entries(0.25 secs of inactivity).
Nope.. Thats not wrong. It has been there already in the retail FS2.
-
The 0.25 seconds of inactivity is NOT a bug, retail does exactly the same thing. It is not going to be changed.
As I've already mentioned, for those who see the problem in game, provide us with the exact steps/mission/everything needed to reproduce the same effect in retail and FS2_Open. We aren't going to change anything until there is a way to replicate and continuously reproduce any AI issue. With as many people saying there is a problem as there are saying there isn't, and with no developer seeing a problem, this is a total non-issue until there is true evidence to the contrary. No one has shown that there actually is a bug to fix yet, and until that happens we aren't going to give this a second thought.
-
According to what I understand, there's something wrong on the weapon entries(0.25 secs of inactivity).
Nope.. Thats not wrong. It has been there already in the retail FS2.
0.25 is what it should be with SCP too,but isn't.
The 0.25 seconds of inactivity is NOT a bug, retail does exactly the same thing. It is not going to be changed.
As I've already mentioned, for those who see the problem in game, provide us with the exact steps/mission/everything needed to reproduce the same effect in retail and FS2_Open. We aren't going to change anything until there is a way to replicate and continuously reproduce any AI issue. With as many people saying there is a problem as there are saying there isn't, and with no developer seeing a problem, this is a total non-issue until there is true evidence to the contrary. No one has shown that there actually is a bug to fix yet, and until that happens we aren't going to give this a second thought.
First you have to check who says that there's a bug on who says not.
I prefer not to call it a bug,the game doesn't crash because of it. I'm new here,and only a month ago(approx)I got SCP.If I notice some kind of bug with SCP but people who play with it since 2002 or at least two years say that no bug is present...
Maybe it's something that grew up with SCP,they didn't noticed its presence when they played the first time and now don't remember how it was with the retail.
What should I do now?Provide two different videos so you can notice the difference?
FS Open doesn't remove the old retail launcher. You can try it every time you want.
See also the previous posts here. There are many members on my side.
-
0.25 is what it should be with SCP too,but isn't.
Yes it is. And I have the code to prove it.
I prefer not to call it a bug,the game doesn't crash because of it.
A deviation in default behavior, which isn't a fix for a bug in the original code that produces a known and acceptable deviation, is a bug.
What should I do now?Provide two different videos so you can notice the difference?
FS Open doesn't remove the old retail launcher. You can try it every time you want.
See also the previous posts here. There are many members on my side.
Provide a test mission, or test case, so that we can replicate the problem. A simple video of it is of absolutely zero use to us. We have to replicate it to fix it and we won't just go changing things on a whim, especially with the AI, unless we can actually test that it works or not.
And as I have already said, I HAVE tested it in retail. I don't see a problem. I spent 3 days just testing missile and countermeasure behavior against retail not 2 months ago. I did see, and fix, a bug with countermeasures but I did not see any problem with missiles.
I don't give a crap about sides or who says what. Either there is a bug or there isn't and that's all that matters. But I don't see it, and none of the other devs have come forward to say that they see it. If I can't find it, I can't fix it. Period. Provide a test case so that I can replicate the problem on my machine and I'll take a look at fixing it. Until then there is nothing we can do about it.
-
I've noticed the missiles are basically worthless at range, but I haven't played retail in nearly ten years so I don't remember how they used to be.
:confused:
But FS2 is only 7 years old?!
-
FS1 = 8 YO ~ 10 YO
:D
-
@taylor:
Hello. There was a mention of your tests with Harpoons during a bugfix of countermeasure code. This thread appeared to centre on alleged "Hornet dumbness / inaccuracy / poor tracking ability". If you could clarify, i'd be thankful--is it necessary at all, to specifically compare the code / behaviour of 'retail Hornets' versus 'SCP Hornets'? Did your earlier tests already cover such a comparison?
-
@taylor:
Hello. There was a mention of your tests with Harpoons during a bugfix of countermeasure code. This thread appeared to centre on alleged "Hornet dumbness / inaccuracy / poor tracking ability". If you could clarify, i'd be thankful--is it necessary at all, to specifically compare the code / behaviour of 'retail Hornets' versus 'SCP Hornets'? Did your earlier tests already cover such a comparison?
I didn't test Hornets at all while I was working on that code fix. I tested Harpoons mainly, but also Tornados a bit. The code for all of them is the same though, only the tbl entries make the difference.
... Just did a quick test though, and Hornets appear to work the same in retail and FS2_Open with my standard AI fire test mission. And by the same, I mean equally useless. :)
-
Perhaps there could be some differences in missile handling in FreeSpace and FreeSpace 2 (and not between FS2 and FS_Open).. That might explain why people think that there is something wrong with the missiles. That is i dont know if the FS used the free flight time that is in FS2.
-
Perhaps there could be some differences in missile handling in FreeSpace and FreeSpace 2 (and not between FS2 and FS_Open).. That might explain why people think that there is something wrong with the missiles. That is i dont know if the FS used the free flight time that is in FS2.
There are deffinitely differences between FS and FS2 in the weapons code. I'm still trying to figure them all out for the icculus.org FS port. I haven't tried retail FS in a while though (at least not in a mission) so I can't remember whether it did the whole free flight thing or not.
-
@taylor:
"I didn't test Hornets at all while I was..."
Ah. Seems i was forming quite the wrong impression about the code. Thanks much for clarifying.
"... Just did a quick test though..."
Mm, very amusing on the 'uselessness'. i do agree, Hornets seem rather ineffective, specifically against fighters and light bombers, in both FS and FS2.
However, the trait didn't strike me as being a problem of accuracy or tracking delay. i perceived the issue to hinge on the acceleration of the individual warheads. Most of the time, a salvo of Hornets simply fails to even catch up to an enemy fighter / light bomber. As others have pointed out, large, slow targets obviously are easier to hit, either by locking-on or by just dumbfiring.
So, from that discouraging factor (plus another--the Hornet lock-on time feels like an eternity compared to most other ship-to-ship missiles) i stopped using Hornets a long time ago. Now that i've read this thread, my impression is that they are basically a "shotgun" version of the Fury / Tempest dumbfires. The Hornet has a slower acceleration / slower rate of fire, but fires a spread with a higher chance to hit; the Fury / Tempest has a higher acceleration / higher rate of fire, but doesn't shoot a spread and has a lower chance to hit.
Usefulness may therefore boil down to a question of playing style; either pelt a big slow target with a rifle, or else wallop it with a sawed-off. And, this may have some relevance to why Tornado missiles fail to operate properly without a lock. Perhaps Volition intended categories of 'weapon style', like this:
Vs. fast, small ships Vs. slow, large ships
| |
Rifle ------ Harpoon ---- Tempest
Shotgun -- Tornado ---- Hornet
At any rate, thanks for taking a moment to test and report the facts. i do hope it helps to settle the issue.
-
... Just did a quick test though, and Hornets appear to work the same in retail and FS2_Open with my standard AI fire test mission. And by the same, I mean equally useless. :)
Maybe you should just post that mission and let people prove it to themselves. I suspect ]C[rusader may have hit on the actual problem. People could just be remembering the hornet from FS1 or the Tornado.
-
I only moved to SCP two months ago, playing retail for several years before.
In general, I don't see there any change in missile behaviour. Hornets sux equaly hard in SCP and Retail againts fighters. But Harpoons and Tornados are 90% hit proved.
Hell, you can shot down a perseus flying right againts you, I don't know what better guidance you want ::)
-
Maybe you should just post that mission and let people prove it to themselves.
Ok.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
@karajorma:
"I suspect ]C[rusader may have hit on the actual problem. People could just be remembering the hornet from FS1..."
Truth be told, i didn't suggest that. Wanderer did. To me, Hornets seem identically 'slow' in all versions--FS, FS2 retail, and FS2 SCP--so my opinion is therefore different than his suggestion.
It does bring up an interesting question... if there IS a difference between FS Hornets vs. FS2 Hornets, then do the FSPort Hornets reflect that? Suppose that FS Hornets -are- found to be faster in flight, faster to lock, more accurate, or somesuch; does that mean they should be likewise in the FSPort?
-
As Taylor said there are definite code differences between the two. What that means for the tracking etc is something that could probably be tested by comparing FS1 against FS1Port.
-
With soem of the later builds, i've noticed that all missiles I use simply don't track about 20% of the time. I have a good lock, nice range, and great target, and yet the missile will just go straight and ignore the target. Anyone else seen this, or am I going crazy?
I have exactly the same problem, maybe my build is too old.....
-
However, showing us an AI test isn't enough.
The opinion about this problem changes from person to person,we someone says "short distance between you and the target" everyone thinks something different. For short distance,very short distance,I intend less than 130 meters....I have no choice but to do this.....
80's Screenshot 1
/ \ <---- HUD
XXX <---- target,pointing left on this example, fast but still lockable with a meneuver.
Y <----- warhead
\ /
80's screenshot 2
/ \
XXX <-------- target locked,your meneuver puts him close to the center of the reticle.
Y <----- warhead, once launched it takes a few before going after the target.
\ /
80's screenshot 3
/ \
XXXX <----- target, you think it's doomed and you slow down or try to engage another hostile.
Y <----- warhead,it starts moving too late....
\ /
The result is that,even without going at high speed, the target escapes because the warhead started moving after a century.
Please note that the time between screenshots 1 and 3 is very short:the lock triangle(I don't remember its name) was already on the way,all I need to do is to maintain the lock and fire.This is a tipical pursuit situation:you follow an enemy,then it moves left,right,up,down,you gain lock in the meantime and you try to shoot.
All the situations described by you were completely different,taylor was talking about a general AI problem...
Sorry if I can't explain it well,I'm not English....
-
The important point however is whether or not this is any different from the way it was in retail.
-
The important point however is whether or not this is any different from the way it was in retail.
Ehm,the difference is that in the retail missiles are more affidable...
With the SCP,warheads become active after an higher amount of time.
There's something strange with weapons,however.How could you explain the destrcution of the GTD Phoenicia?In the retail,it happens sometimes.With the SCP,she's always destroyed!
-
Actually, I've had the GTD Phoenicia survive. Several times. However, if I ever have to quick start the mission (either quick start or return to briefing and relaunch) it is destroyed, always. I know this because "Bearbaiting" is one of the missions I use alot to test various things in. On a clean launch of the SCP and going straight in to the mission in the Tech Room, first run through will have the Phoenicia jumping out 70% of the time.
-
User: "SCP Hornets don't chase soon enough. I want them to act like retail Hornets."
Coder: "We haven't seen any bugs in the SCP missile code, please provide evidence."
User: "Somebody mentioned 0.25 secs of inactivity, and that sounds bad. Also, other people agree with me about the Hornets, so that's enough proof. I want them to act like retail."
Coder: "0.25 seconds of inactivity is the default setting of Hornets in retail and in SCP. And people agreeing with you isn't proof of anything. Please provide evidence."
User: "The SCP Hornets need a change from 0.25 secs of inactivity, it's too long. I want them to act like retail."
Coder: "I said, 0.25 seconds of inactivity is the default. It isn't broken. Retail and SCP Hornets are the same."
User: "The SCP Hornets need a change to 0.25 secs of inactivity, it's just right. I want them to act like retail."
Coder: "You've contradicted yourself, but I'll humour you with a test, here--and guess what? I've found no difference between Hornets in retail vs. in SCP."
User: "The SCP Hornets need a change from 0.25 secs of inactivity, it's too long. I want them to act like retail."
Coder: "#$!@$!#!!11!"
-
people just need to learn to use their guns :D
-
Or the king of secondaries for SP missions, Tempests.
-
Or the king of secondaries for SP missions, Tempests.
Tempests rock! I always have a my smaller bank with Harpoons and the larger one with Tempests.
-
the first time i played the game i think i used tempests pretty much half the game
-
I love the Tempests too,and often use the harpoons.
Although I've been playing FS2 for just one year and 8 months,I'm a very experienced pilot(42000 kills do not come out from nothing! And remember that several games I played haven't a kill record database,so...).People who see me playing love my meneuvers and how I anticipate the enemies' actions. I don't know why in FS2 SCP warjeads are tricking.
If you all use mostly the Tempests and the Harpoons,however,you can get the problem.One goes straight,the other is launched without swarming....
Actually, I've had the GTD Phoenicia survive. Several times. However, if I ever have to quick start the mission (either quick start or return to briefing and relaunch) it is destroyed, always. I know this because "Bearbaiting" is one of the missions I use alot to test various things in. On a clean launch of the SCP and going straight in to the mission in the Tech Room, first run through will have the Phoenicia jumping out 70% of the time.
That's curious. With two campaigns is the making I play single missions i need to test and campaign missions I like.
I hope this is a coincidence,but if the behaviour of the Fate with the Phoenicia changes if you're playing Bearbaiting as a single ms or in the campaign,it's a point to our teory.
There's something that doesn't go as we expect...
-
I have noticed something quite interesting about some swarm missiles.
The AI has seemed to be written to make fighters try to get in the turning radius. In most cases that this happens, the swarm of 4 or 8 missiles follow the target. I had discovered that these most of the individual swarming missiles actually blow-up, causing a chain explosion of the other 3-to-7 missiles while they are out of range. I noticed this while attempting to use the Hornets against a Mara. The Mara turned sharp right, and the missiles followed. One missile of my 8-missile swarm had hit (I noticed because I was watching the target's shields), and then the other 7 exploded in a chain reaction, too far to cause damage, but close enough to the other missile to destroy the others.
-
If memory serves...
Fratricide:
a.) Latin-based noun built of the terms fratri- (brother) and -cide (slaughter of), originally used to describe the killing of a brother, or brothers, by his / their own sibling(s)
b.) English noun used by military personnel to describe any case where a group of two or more explosive devices are prematurely detonated by the nearby explosion of another device in the group
@Bob-san:
It could very well be that the fratricidal behaviour you just described seeing, is perhaps an intentional part of FS2, so i'm not surprised to hear of it.
What does puzzle me, is the notion that one Hornet out of a swarm could somehow outrun the others, so as to cause the fratricide in the first place. Since i don't use Hornets or Tornadoes, i can't recall seeing that happen.
-
Studying Latin at school wasn't enough?!?! Are you going to kill me?
LieutenantGeneralMobius mortuus est
LieutenantgeneralMobius รจ morto
LieutenantGeneralMobius is dead
That's not something new,this "fratricidio".This makes the Hornet almost useless against agile fighters.
-
I think all the hornets are variable speeds upon launch, becoming uniform in 1 or 2 seconds after launch...
Sometimes I give my wingmen all hornets and watch them try to fire from different angles. I do noticed that most of the time, when the enemy moves left or right, that possibly the more maneuverable fighters make the individual missiles collide and explode... a chain explosion, like your fraticide. However, its usually most of them are targets after one or two of the missiles explode upon contact of the shield...
-
OH. After that last description, things seem clearer.
Side view, four Hornet warheads after launch, with target:
----direction of launch---->
1-->
2--> <target>
3-->
4-->
Warheads after target abruptly veers down:
1-->
2-->
3-->
4-->
<target>
Warhead 4 becomes closer to the target than the other three; it therefore reaches the target first, and then detonates; the other three run into the explosion, thus causing fratricide.
Is this a reasonable explanation of why one or two Hornets appear to outrun the rest?
@LieutenantGeneralMobius:
i agree, the behaviour does seem to make Hornets even more useless, versus agile fighters, than they already are.
And no, i certainly don't want for you, or anyone, to die. Especially not for the sake of my extremely poor understanding of Latin.
-
You can't destroy missiles with explosions.
-
The destruction of the swarm missiles is because their lifetime ends.
The self-destruct in the order they are launched, causing the phenomenon where a swarm chasing an enemy craft starts exploding from the first in the line.
-
Lifetime ends? Not quite... I have noticed a chain reaction explosion... one hits, and then the rest detonate in sequence away from the target...
If you were right about this, then it all depends on the way the enemy fighter went... left ends in fraticide-like behavior, and right ends in a uniform explosion...
Well the problem I see with this is the fact that swarm missiles last alot longer then most of us think they would.
I've launched against a target 300 meters away that banks left. The missiles travel about 500 meters before the catch up, ending in a chain explosion from left to right...
Other tests have concluded Fraticide is still what makes the explosions... I've launched anywhere from 100 to 800 meters away from my target, and notice that even the slower bombers at distance cause the same fraticide as fighters at distance.
I conclude that each missile either collides or is detonated by a nearby explosion...
I think i've seen some in-flight collisions with other missiles when I went AWAL in a extrememly maneuverable fighter... I was looking back and banking hard right, and I think I saw some of the missiles destroyed while others survived.
-
Hornets are made for hitting hard cruisers,freighters and transports. I loved the fisrt time I engaged the Behemoth...one hundred yellow lanes pointing to that Rakshasa...I like it when I hit a Cain with Hornets and my wingmen are doing the same:you see its integrity falling so rapidly,till 0....Oh how good is this!
The Tornado is better suited to take out fighters.Just see how it's launched,its capability of quickly move and hit Maras,Dragons, everything!
-
Agreed that the Hornets are horrible against fighters... you need to target their engine with a double-shot of hornets... if you are lucky you have just taken out their engine... and they're sitting ducks.
I use the hornets because I have to... I usually just use tempests because I'm a good dog-fighter... though harpoons are my favorite for medium-range (400m).
-
Yup.
(Depends on where the engine subsystem is housed...)
I enjoyed disabling Shingles with the Akheton too...
-
Hornets are made for hitting hard cruisers,freighters and transports. I loved the fisrt time I engaged the Behemoth...one hundred yellow lanes pointing to that Rakshasa...I like it when I hit a Cain with Hornets and my wingmen are doing the same:you see its integrity falling so rapidly,till 0....Oh how good is this!
See, I don't get why you wouldn't use Tempests for that... it's far more efficent (fewer support ships)
-
Hornets are made for hitting hard cruisers,freighters and transports. I loved the fisrt time I engaged the Behemoth...one hundred yellow lanes pointing to that Rakshasa...I like it when I hit a Cain with Hornets and my wingmen are doing the same:you see its integrity falling so rapidly,till 0....Oh how good is this!
See, I don't get why you wouldn't use Tempests for that... it's far more efficent (fewer support ships)
Unless it's a Cain you are dealing with,using Tempests while you could use them for the fighter escort isn't the easiest way to take the cruiser down.Hornets are much effective,as well as any other warhead(except subsystem disruption ones).
-
I hate when I give a wingman in a Herc Mk II a loadout of tempests (400), and then they never use them!!! I have watched it so many times! The only missiles they use are rockeyes, hornets, and harpoons (in FS2C). Every so often I might see them use their Helios when in bombers, but i rarely see them use anything... useful... the best thing they use are harpoons on fighters and hornets on bombers and capships.
-
The AI occasionally fires Tempest, just in single fire mode, and very occasionally.
-
There seems to be an AI profiles option to change that... But its not enabled by default.
-
There seems to be an AI profiles option to change that... But its not enabled by default.
In fact in FRED there is an AI profile option,but I can only select the retail one.Where I can get this?
I never give tempests to my wingmen.Hornets,Harpoons and Tornado are my choices(not in bombing missions,however).
Some bombers also launch one torp at time while other launch two of them.
-
Well its possible for modders to use the improvements made to the basic AI by creating new AI profiles for the game, Ai profiles.tbl in FSwiki (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Ai_profiles.tbl). As these options may break the game balance they are not enabled by default.
Easiest is probably to use *-aip.tbm files (modular table files).. for example
alternate-aip.tbm
#AI Profiles
; -------------------------------------------------------------
$Profile Name: Alternate
; -------------------------------------------------------------
$allow rapid secondary dumbfire: YES
#End
That ought to create an AI profile that is almost identical to the FS2 standard AI except that behaviour of AI using dumbfires should have been changed.
-
Are you sure that only the game balance could break?
How'd I open/modify tbm?Opening them with notepad?
-
Yep. Notepad is all you need.
Using AI profiles will change the game balance but it doesn't exactly break it cause you only need to use an alternate profile if you specify it in FRED.
-
Let's hope it will work.
Which features can be changed,for example(excluding the dumbfire option)?
-
Reread Wanderer's post.
-
That should work to make my wingmen kill more enemies. I usually lose all of them by the time I finish the mission... rarely I still have a few of my fighters.
-
That should work to make my wingmen kill more enemies. I usually lose all of them by the time I finish the mission... rarely I still have a few of my fighters.
When enemy fighters and your wingmen have all the same AI level,a rapid "death" exchange is what you have at the end of the mission.
Reread Wanderer's post.
There could be many other features:for example in table diting,I don't know what the zadd,or zedd value changes in beams.
Goob did you try my mission?I don't want you to grammar check it,just to Delta test.
-
Well some of the tables that can be modified are found from here http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Tables each with short guidelines how-to use them. And if you edit the tables DO NOT use word or wordpad or Open Office equivalents or similars. Use either notepad, or some other generic editors like Crimson Edit, Araneae etc..
I can add more if it is needed or include more tutorials on how to do things if those are needed.
-
Well some of the tables that can be modified are found from here http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Tables each with short guidelines how-to use them. And if you edit the tables DO NOT use word or wordpad or Open Office equivalents or similars. Use either notepad, or some other generic editors like Crimson Edit, Araneae etc..
I can add more if it is needed or include more tutorials on how to do things if those are needed.
I changed something and created some new ships time ago,but modifying the AI seems more unbalancing.
-
I'm new to SCP, but I've been playing FS2 more or less consistantly for over 6 years. This is what I've noticed about using missles. Getting the missles to work requires finesse. A lock doesn't guarantee a hit. You have to have some good distance between you and your target and the target needs to be heading either away from you or straight towards you. There's a sort of 'sweet spot' were the enemy is in a prime position. If he's turning sharply, the missles will lose track. What I usually do is follow behind. The target is usually turning in one direction, but eventually the AI will stop turning for a brief second before it starts another manuever. This it does to throw you off. If it's turning upwards, you'll pull your joystick upwards hard to keep up. Then it'll do a quick stop and turn the other direction. If you're not paying attention, you'll be thrown off and he'll go off screen and you'll lose missle lock. If you're quick, you'll stop too and the instant he's transitioning from turning one way to turning the other he's relatively flying straigh for a brief instant. If you fire your missles here, when both you and the target are flying straight your missle are pretty much guaranteed to hit. He'll try to evade, but he usually won't be able to gather enough angular momentum to be succesful. I tried with both my harpoons and hornets just today and while hornets are slower and not as effective as tornadoes, they still seem to work fine like this. However, I've never really used the rockeye. They were always useless except against bombers.
-
I think everyone here is aware of what you just said... they have all been playing for a long time too, what they were saying was that the missiles seem less effective in FSO than they do in Vanilla. You underestimate the addiction of many people here.
-
I think everyone here is aware of what you just said... they have all been playing for a long time too, what they were saying was that the missiles seem less effective in FSO than they do in Vanilla. You underestimate the addiction of many people here.
Oh I know. Sorry. I guess I should have added "as I'm sure you're aware." So far, I haven't noticed any drop in the effectiveness of my missles. Perhaps what they should do is deinstall everything, and do a fresh install. I have the contents of the original disc saved to hard drive so I can install without the CD. Reinstall, install the new version of SCP so you're not using a patched older version, and I bet it'll work fine. I'd guess the problem with the missles was an issue with the older versions, but the new one seems to work perfectly IMO. Anyway that's what I think. You can ignore this SCP newb if you wish.
-
I'm just in a running bad mood this week, sorry about biting your head off
-
I'm just in a running bad mood this week, sorry about biting your head off
Sure, no problem, uh...can I have it back? :P
-
After some interesting glitches with the OEM Enif Station mission (read more by looking at "Mini-campaign Proposal", page 2), I have noticed the increased effectiveness of Hornets after installing parts of SCP (I think) 3.6.9 (I think). I was in a bomber (my favorite, the Ursa) on the Ravana mission. I had a 90% hit rate with hornets against Shivan Fighters. Even while they were about 800m out, I was able to easily hit them. Two hits and they were instantly dead. I also noticed this with harpoons on single-fire mode while on my glitchy Enif Station mission. I would launch one at 600m and the other at a smaller distance. The shields buckled and the second harpoon tore through the hull of the fighter. Interesting because it always took me about 3 or 4 hits to destroy and fighter. This time it took 2 or 3 harpoons.