Given the current state of the AI, do you really want them to die so much they'll rez into Scars by mission 4? :p
It seems raiders in general are less skilled than viper pilots, in nearly every case they have always gone with a large numerical superiority and yet the Colonials still seem to have relatively low losses. Scar would appear to be the exception in this, not the rule.
Also if you say it doesn't compromise balance, then who's to say you would even notice? Back in BtRL we had a lua script where you could theoretically shoot down bullets. It never got added because no one would notice the effects.
Given the current state of the AI, do you really want them to die so much they'll rez into Scars by mission 4? :p
It seems raiders in general are less skilled than viper pilots, in nearly every case they have always gone with a large numerical superiority and yet the Colonials still seem to have relatively low losses. Scar would appear to be the exception in this, not the rule.
Also if you say it doesn't compromise balance, then who's to say you would even notice? Back in BtRL we had a lua script where you could theoretically shoot down bullets. It never got added because no one would notice the effects.
The Raiders probably have trouble because they're packing FTL drives on those tiny little frames.
Given the current state of the AI, do you really want them to die so much they'll rez into Scars by mission 4? :p
It seems raiders in general are less skilled than viper pilots, in nearly every case they have always gone with a large numerical superiority and yet the Colonials still seem to have relatively low losses. Scar would appear to be the exception in this, not the rule.
Also if you say it doesn't compromise balance, then who's to say you would even notice?
- HARDCORE Mode
I'm pretty sure most people are familiar with Call of Duty 4's Hardcore mode, but for those who aren't, its a more realistic mode where bullets do realistic damage (a headshot will kill no matter the bullet size, 2 bullets take down a person, etc. Also, the HUD becomes completely emtpy, you can't tell ammo, location, or anything at that. Its just you and your gun with iron sights only. There is friendly fire as well.
I want something like that in Diaspora (Not necessarily first release), where in this mode usually 1 or 2 machine gun bullets will tear apart an enemy/friendly fighter like in the show. Also, there will be no crosshairs, and friendly fire. Missiles should take out a ship in one hit, but should also be limited to the number seen in the show. I noticed that not all fighters have missiles either, so that might be taken into consideration. Finally, if the "critical hit zones" are already implemented in Diaspora (cockpit hit does a lot of damage, engine hit reduces speed, etc) it should be exaggerated slightly.
This idea might need a little programming but I think its only Table Value editing, so I hope they can implement it. What do you guys think? Any improvements?
- HARDCORE Mode
I'm pretty sure most people are familiar with Call of Duty 4's Hardcore mode, but for those who aren't, its a more realistic mode where bullets do realistic damage (a headshot will kill no matter the bullet size, 2 bullets take down a person, etc. Also, the HUD becomes completely emtpy, you can't tell ammo, location, or anything at that. Its just you and your gun with iron sights only. There is friendly fire as well.
I want something like that in Diaspora (Not necessarily first release), where in this mode usually 1 or 2 machine gun bullets will tear apart an enemy/friendly fighter like in the show. Also, there will be no crosshairs, and friendly fire. Missiles should take out a ship in one hit, but should also be limited to the number seen in the show. I noticed that not all fighters have missiles either, so that might be taken into consideration. Finally, if the "critical hit zones" are already implemented in Diaspora (cockpit hit does a lot of damage, engine hit reduces speed, etc) it should be exaggerated slightly.
This idea might need a little programming but I think its only Table Value editing, so I hope they can implement it. What do you guys think? Any improvements?
A play mode with added realism? Sure, why not. however, consider that in Diaspora, you are flying in a Viper or Raptor, and shutting down the Targeting system certainly doesn't feel "realistic" to me. Oh, and you could already try that out by enabling cockpits and shutting down the Hud (Shift-O, IIRC).
The experience I have with playtesting can be quite different everytime I play. Sometimes I nail a raider within 5 seconds, sometimes its a 30 second duel. I can escape with 25% hull or 99%. That in itself would make it extremely difficult to tell if any AI changes are happening.
Staying behind in the asteroid belt is easy to do and see for yourself. Changing the AI is a ton more subtle and can be overwhelmed by anything else.
No HUD is an extremely bad idea. Fightercraft have always had some type of sights, even when pilots were shooting at each other's recon biplanes with revolvers in WWI. Aircraft technology has continually pushed towards making the controls and instrumentation for fighters require less and less staring around the cockpit and more looking out the canopy. Thats the entire point of HOTAS and MFDs; simplification and keeping the pilot's eyes searching for foes. Most importantly taking away required assistance does not make you more in line with the show's canon. In the context of the show Viper jocks are not handicapped by their lack of HUD, on the other hand playing the game without one makes you easy pickings. This is an very important distinction you need to make when considering gameplay options like this. Introducing a handicap that doesn't exist in the context of the show and negatively impacts gameplay does not make you more like Starbuck, it just makes you dead. Playing simple dogfights with a stripped down HUD is one thing but when you need to play an in depth mission, with multiple objectives ships to escort, required targets, etc. the lack of a HUD will make it impossible to keep track of what it is you are supposed to be doing. Crippling the pilot's ability to fly because of a production oversight in the show is not a viable gameplay option. That said FS2 certainly allows you to modify your HUD, so if you wish to do it yourself power to ya.
I do hope the bug fix team is a seperate entity from them though.
Anyone who cries about the circle fights obviously isn't very good at flying.
Yay, another opportunity to remind the Dev's of my personal wishes for a BSG sim.
Being a real pilot, and being interested in the actual "flight" experience of piloting a Colonial Viper, I'd have the following requests at the top of my list:
1) Full launch, landing, hangar ops cycle. What I mean by this is ability to land in the Landing Bay. Position yourself over one of the lifts. Engage maglock. Engage the lift that takes you down to the Hangar Deck and then have the option to park the thing (automatically) or re-launch. You press like 1 or 2, like giving a command to a wingman, and it either parks you or it places you in a Tube, at which point you give the Launch Officer the go ahead (press a key) and launch back out. The important thing would be to model the Launch Tube, the Hangar Deck and the Lifts and it to be seamless. For those who dont want to go through all of this and just want to "blow stuff up", give them the option to skip this entire procedure and end the mission or start in the Tube ready to launch.
2) BtRL did it, so perhaps you are also considering it, but it'd be nice to have TrackIR and an interactive cockpit like in F-16 Falcon or IL2 Sturmovik. The latter low priority on my wish list.
3) Make sure you doesnt take 8000 direct hits and 200 circles to kill a Raider ;)
4) I know this is really far fetched...but hey, that's why it's called a "wish list". Planetary flight and missions, with possibly seamless re-entry. Maybe in Diaspora: 2018 Platinum Edition? ;)
3) Make sure you doesnt take 8000 direct hits and 200 circles to kill a Raider
Taking advantage of slide and glide helps prevent this.
I actually have no problem with the circle battling, the control scheme introduced by the flight mechanics style of BSG really allows for some interesting maneuvering.
I kind of see what Adalla is saying, but I don't think it's entirely true. I think there were more relevant reasons that the MP side died out (after virtually a year of really good play, I know, I was playing), though I will admit, the host had a killer advantage in the matches.
YeahAll very good, but that applies to conventional aeroplanes maneovering in an atmosphere and gravity field, not to orbital or deep space manevering mechanics.
Well back on "Circle-Battles" as they're known as, if you use a maneuver known as the "High Yo-Yo" (and don't you make a reference about my sig) you can get the better of your opponent and rip him to pieces.
(http://library.thinkquest.org/3142/yoyo.gif)
As you can see, when your "Circle Battle" gets to the stage where he's just out of your firing arc and you're tailing behind him trying to get inside his "Circle", you engage your burners, hit opposite rudder and loosen your turn arc for half a second so if you look up in synch you'll see him flying away, then hit glide and get ready to hit burners as you turn towards him at the end of his turn (he should be heading up to the top left corner of your screen if you pull it off perfectly), then punch your burners almost as if you're trying to get in front of him and "Walk him" into your hail of fire. At least it should do about 5%-20% damage if you use the "Wall of Fire" approach, but if you get in a good enough position like in the diagram to wind up on his six, you should be able to put a hail of fire on his tail and tear him to pieces in a matter of seconds. Assuming the lag isn't so terrible. It only really works on n00b pilots who won't be trying to use the same maneuver on you, but in single player it works with some practice.
(http://library.thinkquest.org/3142/vertsciss.gif)
That would be pretty awesome as well, but if you don't have Track-IR/ the ability to pan in increments it would be hard to keep an eye on your opponent.
And BTW, "Dogfights/Circle battles" is what most modern air combat comes down to, trying to out-turn your opponent.
And BTW, "Dogfights/Circle battles" is what most modern air combat comes down to, trying to out-turn your opponent.Common misconception actually. The boom and zoom style has been the preferred method of pilots since the formation of air battles in World War I. The most successful fighter of WWI was the Sopwith Camel which was not as good at turning and the manuever battle as the Fokker Dr.I (the Fokker Tri-Plane or some people just call it the Red Baron plane :)). The Dr. I had a much tigter turning circle but it couldn't out run the faster Camel. As a result the Camel ultimately dominated.
Quote3) Make sure you doesnt take 8000 direct hits and 200 circles to kill a Raider
Taking advantage of slide and glide helps prevent this.
I was referring to the lag. In BtRL it was absolutely pointless to play in Multiplayer. There was more chance of the Earth to stop spinning than one of your rounds who actually hit the Raider to register it.
A lot of people deny it, but folks, besides the arrogance of some of the Devs in BtRL, the PRIMARY reason why the community fell apart was due to the endless circling, which was as a direct result of none of your hundreds of DIRECT HITS actually registering, which was a direct result of the multi-player lag.
It's more complicated than that. BVR combat is theoretically the norm, but the problem is getting a good ID on the target to make sure you're not targeting a friendly. The Gulf war was a great example, where most aerial engagements were made after visual confirmation because there were so many aircraft of so many different type, nationality and base involved that the simple IFF couldn't be relied on. This, unfortunately, did not prevent the Pheonix' only ever combat kill being against an A6 returning to the same carrier as the launching F14.And BTW, "Dogfights/Circle battles" is what most modern air combat comes down to, trying to out-turn your opponent.Common misconception actually. The boom and zoom style has been the preferred method of pilots since the formation of air battles in World War I. The most successful fighter of WWI was the Sopwith Camel which was not as good at turning and the manuever battle as the Fokker Dr.I (the Fokker Tri-Plane or some people just call it the Red Baron plane :)). The Dr. I had a much tigter turning circle but it couldn't out run the faster Camel. As a result the Camel ultimately dominated.
...
Very True. The F4U and most US Aircraft minus the P-51 Mustang lacked maneuverability and a tight turn circle, so they flaunted their speed advantages. As you said with Claire Chenault's "Flying Tigers", even though they flew P-40s, they used the P-40s speed and weight to Boom'n'Zoom Japanese Aircraft, and if ever a Jap plane was on the six of one of Chenault's fighters, that pilot could put his nose to ground and live to fight another day, as they outdived the Zeroes considerably.*Snip*And BTW, "Dogfights/Circle battles" is what most modern air combat comes down to, trying to out-turn your opponent.Common misconception actually. The boom and zoom style has been the preferred method of pilots since the formation of air battles in World War I. The most successful fighter of WWI was the Sopwith Camel which was not as good at turning and the manuever battle as the Fokker Dr.I (the Fokker Tri-Plane or some people just call it the Red Baron plane :)). The Dr. I had a much tigter turning circle but it couldn't out run the faster Camel. As a result the Camel ultimately dominated.
...
There is no definitive doctrine over combat tactics - you fly to your crafts advantages and the enemy's' weaknesses.
I know it's been potentially already pointed out in btrl wihlist in the past, but having g effect when turning too strongly for too long time would make the screen get red/black depending if you are on positive or negative g.G forces are completely independent of gravity, being due to inetria and momentum, so all g forces from accelerations (rotational or translational) would be felt as on Earth - the only big difference is that while flying straight and level, there would not be the "background" 1g from gravity; all other sesations would be the same.
I know some will point out that it should not happen into 0g environnement, i would say : that would happen, scientist plan to use ship's rotation to simulate gravity. With the same mechanics a very strong turn would produce g effect too.
That won't prevent ai with circle fight, but it would fix the multiplayer issue.
About cockpit view, it would be good to have some small headmove simulated (like you have in racing sims (rfactor/gtr/gtl ) it would give more sensation to be a pilot than a camera :p
for example : When you accelerate , the view get a bit backward and when you slow down the view get a bit forward too. (same for turning and afterburner)
I don't know how hard it would be to implemant, but i think it'll give qui good feedback to the player.
Is this the right place to request a couple of FRED functions?. (IRC is not an option rightnow). Thanks
I suppose ultimately the key will be for the Diaspora guys to give enough differences between the variations of Vipers and Raiders to allow for good pilots to leverage the advantage of their type and find weaknesses in the other type. Will still be difficult to use any of the conventional techniques...Very True. The F4U and most US Aircraft minus the P-51 Mustang lacked maneuverability and a tight turn circle, so they flaunted their speed advantages. As you said with Claire Chenault's "Flying Tigers", even though they flew P-40s, they used the P-40s speed and weight to Boom'n'Zoom Japanese Aircraft, and if ever a Jap plane was on the six of one of Chenault's fighters, that pilot could put his nose to ground and live to fight another day, as they outdived the Zeroes considerably.*Snip*And BTW, "Dogfights/Circle battles" is what most modern air combat comes down to, trying to out-turn your opponent.Common misconception actually. The boom and zoom style has been the preferred method of pilots since the formation of air battles in World War I. The most successful fighter of WWI was the Sopwith Camel which was not as good at turning and the manuever battle as the Fokker Dr.I (the Fokker Tri-Plane or some people just call it the Red Baron plane :)). The Dr. I had a much tigter turning circle but it couldn't out run the faster Camel. As a result the Camel ultimately dominated.
...
There is no definitive doctrine over combat tactics - you fly to your crafts advantages and the enemy's' weaknesses.
The F4F, having better maneuverability than the P-40, but still not being able to keep up with the Zero still stood a chance against the Zeroes, using maneouvres such as the "Thach Weave", which utilized close flying between a wingman and his leader or any two pilots to get the better of an opponent.
British Spitfire pilots used the tight turn circle of the Spitfire to their advantage against BF 109s, whose g-loading during tight turns was limited by the aircraft's paper thin wings. Thus Spitfire pilots would've utilized maneouvres such as the "Scissors" to easily get the better of the 109s.
It all depends on the aircraft and the skill of the pilots in utilising the advantages his aircraft presented to him and exploiting the weaknesses of his opponent. The Hurricane, a slower aircraft than the 109 but having slightly higher maneouverability in some conditions would generally avoid Boom and Zoom engagements (as an example, this is not necessarily true), whereas a well balanced aircraft such as the P-51 would've been able to hold its own in both styles, as it possessed high speed and reasonably good manoueverability.
RN Pilots flying the Harrier were most likely better trained and better informed about their opponents and had plenty of experience in exercises using Boom and Zoom tactics whereas Argentinian pilots most likely lacked training and the experience to compete.
Have you not watched the trailer? :p
Will there be an option to fly with something similar to the FreeSpace HUD
BoE Battles
Yes, you read the most un-utterable of words, "BoE". However, part of the joy of BSG to me was the kickass battle scenes, especially when the capships got involved and had themselves a slugfest. I want battle scenes so good I get blown to bits because I was watching the fireworks instead of my six.
thanks anyway...i'll try to simulate this effect followin your suggestions...i'll tell you if can work...(excuse me but i love a more realistc look) :cool:
...newman...try to pass your hand faster near your face or turning around yourself seeing a fix point behind you and tell me there's no shade...
excuse me :lol: i can't understand all the words you write... howevwer,do you know a good graphic card that cand offer this options?No. As we said, it's an engine problem, and that cannot be fixed by using another GFX-Card, no matter how advanced it may be.
On that note I'd like to put a penny in for the humble BoE- but not in the Star wars Style "Fifty ships loafing around, most not even going in the sme direction with fighters buzzing around". I'm not just saying this because I'm from BSG FC and like ordering cruisers around- I have some experiance at fredding and doing diverse cap-ship battles. It was always very difficult. particularily when the main different between capships was less firepower/less hitpoints, and more firepower/more hitpoints/less speed. Essentially floating hunks of metal shooting at each other (not to be too negative about fs/fs2 though!). No mention of manouverability, turing circles and firing arcs. it would be nice to be able to do several missions in a row (in theory- more than two in a row could be quite boring), with one involving a line ahead formation of battlestars approaching a line abreast of baseships with escorts covering the flanks. They will all retreat if the cover of their blind spots is lost- i.e.: the two escorts at the rear of the formation are lost. Thus, while there may be many ships, the outcome rests on only two= not too much coding. Another could involve some Cylon escorts trying to cross the T of a colonial line, while a line abreast of colonial cruisers try to intercept them. They are not your concern, but the small elite fighter group in front of you is. The point would be to give the sense that tactics are an important factor in capships duels and allow you to bring about a turning point in a battle without too much damage scripting or over-relliance on fighters (which I admit can be fun).
Perhaps ships that are more distinctive than they were in fs and fs2- if you feel like it you might want to look at some of our ships for inspiration- seeing as capshisp are our business and they have to be abit more different from "big-peice-of-metal"/"small-peice-of-metal". For example, we have a long-range-Cylon artilliary ship in the works (MVIIE's trying to destroy it before it can get a clear shot at an out-of-visual-range Theseus?) and the Strikestar, which is a small escort that's mostly bow-cannons.
Most importantly, it would be nice to see some curved waypoints (that possible?) and ships that don't turn on a dime or stop to do so after traveling at high speed. Perhaps a way to give ships formations in FRED without going over board with waypoints?
Perhaps asome missions in which the enmy retreats, and total anhhialation is not the goal. Perhaps some in which you inflict few losses on them, but they are very hard-earned. Heck, perhaps even some in which they fight better than you (i.e.: not fancy new weapons that you're not prepared for) and you have to retreat and survive.
for starters, I think that when you kill a cylon/viper it should instantly explode, with only rare ocassions spinning out and then explodiong...Not sure if that's possible, but I actually prefer the deathspin more than instant explosion. We'll have to see what others in the team think.
About flak explosions, add some smoke effect to the animation after the explosion finishes, it will give the battles a more hectic lookNot a bad idea, I think DB or I can look into it if we have the time.
Also, if it is possible, if you look on the show, when galactica's cannon/missiles hit a basestar, the explosion is much slower than the normal explosions, and lasts about 8 seconds... that way when round after round hits it gives the impression that the explosions are eating away at the basestar, and when the basestar is finally dead, it has a big and slow explosion, also lasting a long time.Problem is that fighters and capships use the same explosion effect. Dunno if there have been recent changes that allow ship specific explosions.
As we all know, in freespace mothership explosions are very fast and leave behind almost nothing, a big contrast to the show :(When a ship explodes, it leaves behind whatever debris model the artist has had time to create. I think our ships leave behind bigger chunks than the ships in FS2 did, but that's probably the biggest change you are going to see.
and finally, about the sockwave in freespace, as in BSG there are now shockwaves, its possible to use the 2d shockwave for extra sparks and debries flying off when a cap ship explodes, can be a nice tuch :)Actually, we have seen shockwaves from nukes in the show.
for starters, I think that when you kill a cylon/viper it should instantly explode, with only rare ocassions spinning out and then explodiong...Not sure if that's possible, but I actually prefer the deathspin more than instant explosion. We'll have to see what others in the team think.