[The E]

Well, FS2's netcode has been rewritten, we'll have to see whether or not that improves matters.

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[Dilmah G]

Yeah

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.



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.



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.

[On_Your_Six]

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.

[Dilmah G]

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.

Yeah, that's prevelant with the engine in general however. Which is why stand-a-lones are/should be the staple of FS2 online gaming.

[Snagger]

Yeah

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.



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.



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.

All very good, but that applies to conventional aeroplanes maneovering in an atmosphere and gravity field, not to orbital or deep space manevering mechanics.

If you want to avoid circling fights in this game, either slow down or do high speed slash n' dash attacks, or make more use of the glide function.

[IceFire]

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.

In World War II the Hellcat and Corsair dominated over the Zero by being faster in the dive and climb.  The Flying Tigers squadron showed that their largely inferior Hawk (P-40) could best the much tighter turning Japanese fighters by using the hit and dive (P-40 didn't have the climb capability to rejoin the fight that often) through a formation technique. The 109s decimated their Russian I-15/I-153 biplane and I-16 monoplane (all of thoes were agile dogfighters) opponents early on and the Focke Wulf was a plane to be feared by the Spitfire squadrons until equally fast versions came online.

In Vietnam, once the art of the aerial battle was learned once again, the F-4 Phantom favoured a BNZ style of fight.  BNZ doesn't preclude getting in close but it does mean fighting a more strict energy management game.  The High Yo-Yo is actually a great move for a fighter with a wider turning circle to use their energy to convert to the vertical and use their lift vector to roll around ontop of the turn and come back down the other side.  But ultimately thats still energy style tactics rather than endlessly out turning the opponent.  That would be the last resort.

Don't get me wrong either....turning is very much a key aspect for any fighter but really you want to use that only sparingly.  Hit from above and behind while the enemy doesn't have a chance to engage.  If they do see you and attempt to engage keep the height and make fast passes.

None of which can really be applied for a space combat game except using extra momentum to kind of blast through a fight and then come back at it on the other side.  Even look at BSG's fight where Galactica and Pegasus face off....that ended up with a swirling mess of dogfighting rather than any sort of other more sophisticated technique.

Sorry to make it a long one. ACM is sort of my thing these days

[Rainman]

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 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.

I completely disagree and want to argue this post.


No not really actually you're dead on the money. The thing that used to happen with BTRL is that my shots would always hit, and I'd see the enemy trailing smoke. Then I'd hit him 20 more times. Then I'd start firing WAY ahead of him and it would finally start doing some real damage. I ended up playing against AI only just because they would fly straight for a little bit, giving me an opportunity to actually get some hits. This made me get bored of the game and stop in a month or two.

Even though I played from Egypt (So the distance factor to the US Servers caused a pretty big lag, something like a 300 ping) Lag is what kills a game. I've played games in Egypt with 50 to 60 ping, which is tolerable.

Now there is one game, called Kuma War, which takes your lag into account and calculates if your shot was a hit or miss, which instantly pleased everyone. Even though the Lagged person would still be at a disadvantage in timing (until his shot gets to the server), he could still play and enjoy the game. This is what made it an instant hit for me.

[Snagger]

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.
...

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.

However, closer in than BVR, pilots will play to the advantages of their own aircraft.  A classic example is how the RN Sea Harrier pilots lured the Argentine Mirage III pilots into a turning fight during the Falklands Conflict (not allowed to call it a war).  The SHar didn't have the speed or height capability for slashing attacks, but had great manoeuvrability down low.  The Mirage was just the opposite, with good high speed, high altitude capability but poorer manoeuvrability.  The SHar pilots would slay lower down and refuse to engage the Mirage on it own turf, while the less disciplines and less savvy Argentine pilots would get frustrated and drop down and slow down to engage on the SHars' terms.  Big mistake.  The other problem the Argentines had was the fact that they flew "welded-wing", just like the USN and USAF doctrine, where the lead and wingman are nearly on top of each other (like in Top Gun).  The British only use close formations in transit, but in combat areas fly "battle", which is a one mile lateral spacing at the same level, so as well as the wingman being able to look around and engage targets, instead of just concentrating on not colliding with his lead and being relegated to human shield, they were also able to visually and electronically check each others' blind spots.  This meant that the attacking A4s and Super Etendards were shot down without ever knowing the SHars were right behind them, and the subsequent naming of the SHars by the Argentines the "Muerta Negra". 

There is no definitive doctrine over combat tactics - you fly to your crafts advantages and the enemy's' weaknesses.

[Dilmah G]

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.
...

*Snip*

There is no definitive doctrine over combat tactics - you fly to your crafts advantages and the enemy's' weaknesses.

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.

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.

[Reprobator]

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.
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 

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.

[Snagger]

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.
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 

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.

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 like the idea of the first-person perspective shifting slightly with hard movements of the craft - it would make things far more realistic.  How easy it would be to implement I have no idea.  The thing is, it would need to be proportionate to the amount of control input.  That's no problem for using "turbos", thrusters or reverse thrust, because they are all binary in application, but roll, pitch and yaw inputs are variable, so their reactions would need to be proportionate.  It could also get out of hand where a high g loop results in several head movements, including a slight rotational head down movement from the vehicle pitching before the head starts moving and the sunsequent translational movement of the head downwards towards the seat under the g from a turn with forward velocity, while a pitching movement while in glide or stationary would require only the head tipping movement, but no vertical movement, and yaw and roll movements would need the perspective not only to shift slightly towards the outside of the turn translationally, but also a little rotationally to simulate the bottom of the pilot's head being attached to the neck while the top is more free to move.  Complicated...  As for black/red outs and g-LOC, they should be mandatory on multi-player, but again, the g-forces have to be related to pitch/yaw rates and speed together, not just rotation rates as you don't get any g-forces from a pivoting craft with no speed/in glide unless the cockpit is a long way from the CoG.

Less shake from the "turbos" would be good, too - it was much too rough on BTRL (and unlike any view on the show), and a small percieved head **** and tilt aft would be far more convincing and less distracting.

Anyway, I'd like to hear less inane chatter on the radio than the BTRL demo.  Plenty of operation chatter, warranted expletives (frack) and some banter is fine, but BTRL laid it on far too thick.

[On_Your_Six]

^

I was actually pretty well fine with the "inane banter".  It will be an important aspect of moving the story (whatever one we may not know about) and adding cool details to what we do know already. 

Having said that, I did find that the animosity between all the pilots was a little too heavy, there didn't seem to be any sort of camaraderie whatsoever between any of the pilots (well, except two, but still).  You would think (at least until the Pegasus arrived) the pilots would have been a tight knit group, only talking to each other that way to "razz" each other, or as the situation (at such and such a point in the storyline) merits.

I definitely wouldn't want it strictly down to operational transmissions, that would be beyond dry.

Returning very briefly to the (overly heavy) debate on the "circle fighting", I should have gone with the more apt description of what I actually witnessed of it (elasticband fighting).   The issue, as I saw it was people would get locked into the head on head engagements, kick in glide on the pass by, spin and try and get a few more shots in as they're gliding backwards, unlock glide and do it all over again (hence my suggestion for proximity mines in the MP component). 

It was a rare thing for me to witness circle fighting as some folks here are describing.

[General Battuta]

I loved the banter. Intensely.

On_Your_Six, the pilots in the demo were largely from Pegasus, and it is well established that nearly everyone from Pegasus is a jerk.

[On_Your_Six]

I'm aware of that, but even in training it was laid on a little thick, besides which, even the crew of the Peg seemed tight knit, if not high strung, with each other.  The animosity was more towards any of the Galactica crew.

[karajorma]

The banter occurred during the quieter parts of the mission and you'll probably notice from the show that pilots like Starbuck and Kat are pretty much just like that.

The banter was that way because this was shortly after Cain had died and a lot of the effect she's had on her crew was still present. We played up the aspect of Pegasus pilots competing for kills as a contrast to the way you saw it happen in Scar. For them killing toasters was all important and in some cases there wasn't much love between the pilots since Cain's hard edged attempt to make her crew into razors wouldn't help build that. Had we done Galactica based missions when we were in BtRL things would have been very different.

When it comes to Shattered Armistice you'll be seeing something different yet again. Since the setting is basically mini-series/33, you're probably not going to hear much friendly banter between the pilots, we're dealing with people trying to come to terms with a massive attack on their homeworlds after all.

Of course the mission chatter is going to be dependant on us getting some good voice actors to put some lines in for us.

[On_Your_Six]

hehehe, definitely caught the Starbuck inspiration (whoever that voice actor was sounded like a dead ringer for Katie).

Nice jab for voice actors too, I would love to help out with that, but my equipment is definitely not up to par, even with Comm Relay distortion over it.

Good luck!

[ArthurKing]

Hi. Just registered. (Wanted to register in the run-up to the first release, which I've heard we may see in the next few months). I followed both the BtrL project (the downfall of which broke my heart) and now this project. Big BSG fan; hope all your hard work succeeds!

Don't mean in any way to bring up old stuff / bad blood. However, I have to say: to this day, the main female voice actor in the BtRl demo just absolutely shocked me (in a good sense) in terms of the quality of her work. If I didn't know better--i.e., if I hadn't know that it was a fan-developed project--I would have thought that she had done work on the actual show. To this day, I haven't come across better indie/fan developed voice work. Her acting was beyond convincing: it was immersion at its finest. I felt like I was listening to a weary hard-as-nails-but-still-cares-for-the-nuggets instructor. Great stuff.

Anyway, not sure if bringing her on is a possibility at this point, but, if it is--even minutely--you might keep it in mind. I think it would be an asset to your project.

Best of luck!
AK

[karajorma]

There's absolutely no hope.

Give up the idea now.

[Deckard]

Is this the right place to request a couple of FRED functions?. (IRC is not an option rightnow). Thanks