Perhaps the last thread I ever start about Thirdwire avionics

[GwynO 16]

Below is a copy paste of a post I submitted to the Thirdwire boards a few minutes ago, I am sure it makes sense to some of you too. This is not in any way meant to stir up animosity, I think you all know by now that I mean well for the developer, the game and the community. However I am not one to withhold what I feel is of benefit ultimately to all involved just because the flow of the crowd is against it.

 

Having been playing the Thirdwire games for the best part of 7 years, I obviously like them. However it is no surprise to anyone who know me from CA that I am also flumaxed at the lack of fire control. To better explain what I mean, here is an example of my feelings. I am putting this up here as food for thought to the community and hopefully that by bringing it to the Thirdwire forums, TK might respond with his opinion on the matter.

With all my best intentions,

Gwyn.

 

Indeed by the Gulf War, the emphasis was very much on precision weapons as opposed to precision aircraft. That is why the Tornado was largely obsolete for the beginning of the conflict. The Tornado as with the F-111 had been designed from the onset as a precision platform with computers to do almost everything apart from emergency procedures. Having said that the Tornos can and will drop CM's automatically or steer the aircraft automatically to avoid CFIG. The crew would load a tape cassette into the avionics computer with all the waypoints, target location and so on so that all they had to do was sit there in case the auto nav failed etc. At the IP the pilot would follow instructions on the HUD to reach the point that the computer determined was right for the ordnance selected. The computer would then release the bombs automatically so long as the pilot had given the computer permission to do so. Likewise the F-111 had automated bomb release as standard and a basic HUD/ optical system to show flight cues to the pilot to get him to steer to the correct point.

 

Unfortunately we have absolutely nothing in any of these games to simulate this, perhaps the nearest is the waypoint needles in some cockpits. I have long thought these might serve a base for an ILS workaround but either way, there is provision for guided munitions in the games. All third party packs at CA include them as does SFP2 out of the box. For me though this is really a very hard thing to live with because the sim has sidestepped the 1950's and 1960's simulation in favour of the 1990's doctrine of cheaper, dumber planes, smart bombs. I just can't get the feeling of it "simulating" anything from flying a Phantom into the target area in direct mode (dive bomb or dead reckoning level bombing) it doesn't even have enough fun factor to make it rewarding as a game for me either now. I started playing these games in 2002 and stuck with the company, pouring money into the one man band that is Thirdwire in the hope that one day, I might at least be able to use the pipper as it was used in real life by Phantom pilots in Vietnam.

 

The preferred method for bombing in the Phantom by far was dive toss, that is the pilot comes in low towards the target area, pulls up a good few miles out so there is some stand off distance between him and AAA etc. pitches down and adjusts to get the target just under the pipper, now for the good part... in the games we would have to drop the bombs now but of course they wont travel that far, but in real life when the pilot pressed the button it told the computer to work out where the point he was looking at was in relation to the aircraft very accurately indeed through the onboard systems, radar altitude, ranging and speed etc. all calculated to plot the perfect release point, the pilot then continued his dive to pick up a bit of speed and initiated a shallow or steep pull up depending on the parameters, the computer would then release the bombs at the correct point automatically. The accuracy was phenomenal, much better than the first CCIP HUD's, the dive toss method in a F4 Phantom was accurate enough to get a 500lb bomb within 50ft of the target from 5 miles away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (source from ex WSO group, perhaps someone may have an alternative source http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3227/jargon.htm) If only we had even some hint of that kind of automatic fire control in these games, it would really increase the fun factor as much as the immersion factor.

 

I understand that TK wants to promote fun over realism but as I see it he can have both while not only satisfying both crowds (light gamers and simmers) but simultaneously removing the bug bears of both groups.

 

Now not to single anyone out but a members response on CA to my observation is typical of the type of poo pooing that this subject always gets, the goal posts are moved by people who know da@@ well just how crucial radar bombing was to the success of the Phantom in Vietnam. One of the key reasons they were there at all is that they had the much vaunted ability to drop bombs very accurately from stand off distances using for example medium altitude release via offset radar bombing. It really is not very complicated to model into the game, fly your aircraft over the area from up high, follow the line on the radar, then the bombs are released at the right time by the computer. With some built in error into the calculation we even simulate real life problems such as windage or radar glitches. But some insist to only discuss the issue in terms of LORAN A the very first radio beacon navigation and bombing system used by B-29's in Korea, this was replete with problems as it was actually a WW2 development, but it was how fire control worked in the 1950's and it was rapidly and completely revolutionised by the time the F4 Phantoms were doing their thing over SEA.

 

The Problem of this community to engage with the issue of what we do with aircraft in game as opposed to how they look, very much relies on the knowledgeable ones that know about the reality of 1960's - 1970's technology not to muddy the waters with descriptions of the very very early problems of fire control and accept that the game is lacking something far more integral to the F-4 generation than a carrier or a tail hook, of far far more importance than the placement of a few rivets.

 

Anyway, I encourage you continue to enjoy the games and take from them what you will but personally I am holding my breath for the day when such features are included, that would tip this game for me closer towards "sim lite" than what it currently is rather than the opposite.

[+Gunrunner 314]

It would be simple if there only was the F-4 to simulate...

But if you do it for the F-4, you'd have to do it for the A-6, and if you do it for them, why not for the F-104, F-105, F-16 etc...

Each of them with systems both close in essence and different in capabilities and behavior...

And you'd also have to rewrite the AI* so that it knows what flight pattern to adopt to take advantage of the onboard system (and adapt depending their actual loadout).

 

The actual compromise is to use the lowest common denominator, thus effectively offering only no fire-control or late 80's style fire-control as they are the easier to implement, as the AI always know how to deal with it (well, with LGB it doesn't do quite well, and you'd suppose it's not that hard to implement).

 

Until there's enough interest in the community and enough money to be made to cover the development costs (or TK's grand scheme involves small expansions increasing the simulation of a particular plane rather than a theater) I doubt you'll get what you're looking for soon, just as we all have a list of things we'd like to see implemented, for equally good reasons...

 

So... while in essence I understand your frustration and agree it would be infinitely better that way, I have to strongly disagree on the perceived simplicity of the task.

 

* I believe the AI is the main reason behind a LOT of design choices and compromises in TK's sim, I think he envisions his AI as as generic as possible, having as little code as possible for specific planes and situation, and that it does limit his options unless he had the luxury to spend most of his time working on the AI code and testing it.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Gunrunner

[GwynO 16]

It would be simple if there only was the F-4 to simulate...

But if you do it for the F-4, you'd have to do it for the A-6, and if you do it for them, why not for the F-104, F-105, F-16 etc...

Each of them with systems both close in essence and different in capabilities and behavior...

And you'd also have to rewrite the AI* so that it knows what flight pattern to adopt to take advantage of the onboard system (and adapt depending their actual loadout).

 

The actual compromise is to use the lowest common denominator, thus effectively offering only no fire-control or late 80's style fire-control as they are the easier to implement, as the AI always know how to deal with it (well, with LGB it doesn't do quite well, and you'd suppose it's not that hard to implement).

 

Until there's enough interest in the community and enough money to be made to cover the development costs (or TK's grand scheme involves small expansions increasing the simulation of a particular plane rather than a theater) I doubt you'll get what you're looking for soon, just as we all have a list of things we'd like to see implemented, for equally good reasons...

 

So... while in essence I understand your frustration and agree it would be infinitely better that way, I have to strongly disagree on the perceived simplicity of the task.

 

* I believe the AI is the main reason behind a LOT of design choices and compromises in TK's sim, I think he envisions his AI as as generic as possible, having as little code as possible for specific planes and situation, and that it does limit his options unless he had the luxury to spend most of his time working on the AI code and testing it.

 

Well I don't think it need be individual systems for each aircraft, rather like we have pretty generic radar modes between platforms is the way I see fire control. I don't think it would be much more difficult to add than guided weapons for example, but you seem like you know more than I about the complexities of coding. Myself I am little more than a curious mind, while I created a russian roulette program for a graphical calculator once (including blood effect) that was 10 years ago and since then I have no idea how to code anything!

 

I know that perhaps I sound like I am beating a dead donkey over this issue, just it wont ever go away from the moment I start the bomb run in a Phantom, my heckles raise to the point where I am eschewing the Phantom altogether.

 

I like the games still, for what they are warts and all and will no doubt continue to buy the products (I have every single Thirdwire title, SFP1 twice) but I don't want to do the math, based on the current rate of development it seems by the time such functions ever see the light of day, I would have spent way in excess of what I initially thought was reasonable for a crack at a bit of Phantom mud moving 7 years ago!

 

I just think it is sad if this series were never to include basic CCRP type calculations because everything else about it imho is great, especially the way that we get patch support, mod tools and so on direct from the source. Not many developers will do that, so I will continue to chip in for a Thirdwire title every now and then in the hope that one day it will. In the meantime, with all due respect, I would continue to point it out in the hope that more people realise the existence of such systems as the norm, not as the exception. I am a bit of a stickler for correct form in all things, comes with marking grammar

[+Julhelm 266]

I can't see how it could be so difficult to design a one size fits all type of divetoss/laydown system. Because every single system pretty much does the same thing, the only real difference as far as the player is concerned would be how the steering info is relayed to him via the instrument panel.

[orsin 160]

Well I don't think it need be individual systems for each aircraft, rather like we have pretty generic radar modes between platforms is the way I see fire control. I don't think it would be much more difficult to add than guided weapons for example, but you seem like you know more than I about the complexities of coding. Myself I am little more than a curious mind, while I created a russian roulette program for a graphical calculator once (including blood effect) that was 10 years ago and since then I have no idea how to code anything!

 

I know that perhaps I sound like I am beating a dead donkey over this issue, just it wont ever go away from the moment I start the bomb run in a Phantom, my heckles raise to the point where I am eschewing the Phantom altogether.

 

I like the games still, for what they are warts and all and will no doubt continue to buy the products (I have every single Thirdwire title, SFP1 twice) but I don't want to do the math, based on the current rate of development it seems by the time such functions ever see the light of day, I would have spent way in excess of what I initially thought was reasonable for a crack at a bit of Phantom mud moving 7 years ago!

 

I just think it is sad if this series were never to include basic CCRP type calculations because everything else about it imho is great, especially the way that we get patch support, mod tools and so on direct from the source. Not many developers will do that, so I will continue to chip in for a Thirdwire title every now and then in the hope that one day it will. In the meantime, with all due respect, I would continue to point it out in the hope that more people realise the existence of such systems as the norm, not as the exception. I am a bit of a stickler for correct form in all things, comes with marking grammar

 

you are right. the current carpet bombing is absolutely boring. And you don;t feel any achievement doing it.

 

my believe, TK can append this function while keeping the existing ones, so we can have a smooth transition for all the jets onward.

[+Gunrunner 314]

A generic system would not be too hard to implement for the player, it's the AI side of the thing for which I have doubts...

[column5 63]

As with all things related to these sims, you have to commit yourself to enjoying them as-is, and be satisfied with the new features and enhancements TK provides. If you obsess over one or a few missing features, you are just going to be frustrated.

[FastCargo 412]

I will also say that although your points are valid, continuing to bring them up over and over goes from being informative to being irritating.

 

It becomes the same as your kid in the car saying "Are we there yet?" every 30 seconds.

 

FC

[+Dave 2,322]

I have to agree with C5 on this one. It would be nice however I just don't see TK doing it because it will be out of his perview. Now if Stiglr was here he would say "You need to make your voices heard, take a stand, do not settle for anything less blah blah blah." My response to anyone who says this is, TK is stubborn, and when he has his sites on something he pretty much sticks to it. His thinking is (based on my experience dealing with him) that if you don't like that, do not fly his sim. Do not get me wrong though, he has been flexible on some stuff added things people requsted.

 

The flip side of this is practice. Been flying this a while I can put the bombs where I want them without CCIP or LABs counter etc. Improvise, adapt and overcome. I very much do support what you are saying though but the reaility is, that it is what it is. I got a list of stuff I would love to see in this sim, but I also have a better chance of making Admiral of the Swiss Navy. Still doesn't stop me from flying and modding it, because I have fun with it. In the end, isn't that what its all about?

[Rodent 0]

A generic system would not be too hard to implement for the player, it's the AI side of the thing for which I have doubts...

 

 

If the engine can calculate things well enough to show accurate enough guidance to the player, would it not be possible then to make the AI follow those instructions?

[GwynO 16]

I can't see how it could be so difficult to design a one size fits all type of divetoss/laydown system. Because every single system pretty much does the same thing, the only real difference as far as the player is concerned would be how the steering info is relayed to him via the instrument panel.

 

I agree. I have suggested to TK that one way to achieve something fun for everyone yet extremely simple would be if the game could make a waypoint on the fly corresponding to a calculated release point, that waypoint could be created and triggered by the pilot aligning the target under the pipper during the dive part of the dive toss, then we just follow the needles in the cockpit or better yet have it relayed through the avionics dll on the HUD.

 

I really don't think it would be all that hard to do, I take TK's points in his reply that a fully automated system that is not accurate wouldn't be fun for everyone, but surely dive toss is just as fun if not more so than CCIP or laser guided bombs.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Kopis n Xiphos

[Fubar512 1,350]

A bit off topic: I recall reading one naval aviator's take on bomb delivary via LABS, and his comment was something to the effect of "It was more of an attempt to turn pilots into halfassed artillarymen, than anything else".

[Leidgenosse 17]

but I also have a better chance of making Admiral of the Swiss Navy

 

Well, why don't ya wanna come then?

 

We have such strong naval forces, you would be surprised. We have 3 (read THREE) unarmed border patrol boats. So you have really a chance of getting our Admiral. I'm looking forward to it

 

Sort of : We're all a bunch of swiss marines, and Dave is our Admiral!

 

But as Dave said, after a couple of times in practising, you're getting used to it. In my very very humble opinion, I guess this feature is not implemented, because it's a nice to have. As long as the standart mud-moving works for almost everyone, it won't make sense putting a goodie in this series, that adds a little of more realism in relationship of the time needed for coding it. At least, that's like said above, my very very humble opinion.

[GwynO 16]

As with all things related to these sims, you have to commit yourself to enjoying them as-is, and be satisfied with the new features and enhancements TK provides. If you obsess over one or a few missing features, you are just going to be frustrated.

 

I have been frustrated for years But I have hope that with a little bit of a push, the game engine could easily throw out a dive toss or other ccrp mode without breaking the bank! I have thought it odd though that hardly anyone ever brings the issue up, or when it does come up it just gets swished under the carpet as if it wasn't there in reality, that is even more frustrating!

 

As for being satisfied with TK's provisions as is, sorry C5 but if the community was like that, it wouldn't exist! We all want different things that are not there out of the box whether it's an F-14 or an Israeli skin, we all are obsessed to a degree with what each of us think is missing or desirable to the series. Whereas aircraft, skins, ground objects, terrains, campaigns and effects all have myriad proponents all championing their list of desired missing extras, and multi play has its fair share of advocates; no one consistently rings the bell for fire control it seems other than me.

 

I wondered if it was because people were not bothered, but I doubt it. I think more and more people are realising that there is a sorely overlooked gap in the flight sim market between WW2 fixed gunsight games and modern smart weapon based sims, unfortunately what TK set out to address, the 1950's through 1970's era of precision strike platforms as opposed to weapons, just isn't there. Anywhere.

 

It is a gap that someone will one day plug I hope, I just hope it will be TK because he set up the groundwork already.

[+Dave 2,322]

Well, why don't ya wanna come then?

 

We have such strong naval forces, you would be surprised. We have 3 (read THREE) unarmed border patrol boats. So you have really a chance of getting our Admiral. I'm looking forward to it

 

Sort of : We're all a bunch of swiss marines, and Dave is our Admiral!

 

Well sir if you are offering the job then I accept.

 

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am the new Admiral of the Swiss Navy, as my first act, free chocolate and watches to all the sailors.

[+starfighter2 117]

...????????????????? NO FREE CHEESE?????

[+Dave 2,322]

Next week is Swiss Army Knife giveaways, buy your raffel tickets now.

[+Dave 2,322]

...????????????????? NO FREE CHEESE?????

 

Sorry we are suffering a "hole" shortage so no swiss cheese.

[+starfighter2 117]

No Cheese No Glory !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited February 12, 2009 by starfighter2

[+starfighter2 117]

[GwynO 16]

I will also say that although your points are valid, continuing to bring them up over and over goes from being informative to being irritating.

 

It becomes the same as your kid in the car saying "Are we there yet?" every 30 seconds.

 

FC

 

With the greatest of respect FC, I do not bring this up even once a week on average. I rarely bring it up and when I do it is usually because I notice someone else other than me for a change has noticed something that relates to it. If I am irritating to you because we don't share the same wants, imagine how irritating it would be to me if I had that attitude whenever someone starts a thread about wanting some extra high detail skin or other, personally I don't give two flips if the artwork is worthy of Da Vinci like as I am on a low end machine anyway, but I appreciate that others like it, and had I the means to enjoy it so would I.

 

Point is, just because you don't share the same outlook doesn't make it every 30 seconds, if I was starting a thread on this every other week even I could understand. As I said in the title of the thread, this is probably the last time the issue will crop up again for months, so I was hoping to advocate my case well and leave it at that. If other people however bring it up, I will not be shying away from answering questions or contributing to discussion, I think that is fair.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Kopis n Xiphos

[GwynO 16]

I have to agree with C5 on this one. It would be nice however I just don't see TK doing it because it will be out of his perview. Now if Stiglr was here he would say "You need to make your voices heard, take a stand, do not settle for anything less blah blah blah." My response to anyone who says this is, TK is stubborn, and when he has his sites on something he pretty much sticks to it. His thinking is (based on my experience dealing with him) that if you don't like that, do not fly his sim. Do not get me wrong though, he has been flexible on some stuff added things people requsted.

 

The flip side of this is practice. Been flying this a while I can put the bombs where I want them without CCIP or LABs counter etc. Improvise, adapt and overcome. I very much do support what you are saying though but the reaility is, that it is what it is. I got a list of stuff I would love to see in this sim, but I also have a better chance of making Admiral of the Swiss Navy. Still doesn't stop me from flying and modding it, because I have fun with it. In the end, isn't that what its all about?

 

Well thank you very much for agreeing with me in principle that it would be nice to see! I had been wondering if maybe you didn't see it as relevant at all. I brought this up on the Thirdwire forums specifically to see what TK thinks, at least I got a response and quick! I hold out that one day TK might just see that dive toss is not really that hard or different in fun factor to CCIP which he already added ages ago.

 

Swiss Navy! And I have more chance of unifying Greece and Turkey under the Byzantine flag, but dreams are dreams.

 

We do have fun with the game as is, yes that is what it is about, I'm just an addictive personality, I always want more fun!! Keep me away from the crack and the meth and all should be fine.

[GwynO 16]

Well sir if you are offering the job then I accept.

 

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am the new Admiral of the Swiss Navy, as my first act, free chocolate and watches to all the sailors.

 

Aye Aye Admiral!! And can you get us a reduction on beer prices? Swizerland is the most expensive place on earth for a thirsty Welshman. Make the chocolate a Toblerone Noir

[GwynO 16]

 

Delicious!!! What's for dessert?

Edited February 12, 2009 by Kopis n Xiphos

[+starfighter2 117]

SWEET CHEESE

For a delicious, traditional Easter dish that's also great for snacking, treat yourself to this Hungarian cheese.

Edited February 12, 2009 by starfighter2