warp and enemies

[thewoo1 0]

when one warps do you miss out on spotting the enemy?

[Wels 2]

Hello,

 

when one warps do you miss out on spotting the enemy?

 

No, action around you is the same or so i think. But if you warp you will be thrown out as soon as enemies or unknown planes are in the vicinity (or you are near the target/waypoint). So without TAC on and without warp (like in reality) you will probably miss more enemies than with warp.

 

HTH,

greetings,

Catfish

[Bullethead 12]

So without TAC on and without warp (like in reality) you will probably miss more enemies than with warp.

 

I don't think so. It's pretty obvious that the AI flies like it not only uses TAC, but also the external target view to identify you. I say this because I use both, and whenever I spot unidentified dots at max TAC range and they turn out to be enemy, they're usually already diving towards me. So, whether you use these tools or not yourself, you're not going to miss many fights because the AI usually will come to you regardless.

 

Where warping DOES impact you as concerns enemies is in altitude. When you warp, you do NOT climb at your best rate. It looks like instead, the game divides your flight altitude at the objective by the number of miles of your path to get there, and has you climb at a rate to get you to the assigned altitude when you arrive there.

 

It's really more like going up stairs than a constant climb, though. At each outbound waypoint, you usually teleport up several thousand feet, then warp along practically on the same level, climbing very slowly. Usually, you'll still be thousands of feet below your assigned altitude right up to the objective waypoint, then once you get there you'll suddenly be at the final height.

 

Either way you slice it, this almost always puts you at a lower altitude than you would have had if you hadn't warped. By a considerable amount. So if you're in a place and time where meeting the enemy on your side of the lines is common, you're certain to be bounced from above.

 

The worst part about this, however, that the warping way of gaining height is set in stone, and takes no account of your actual altitude when you start warping. Suppose you come out of a warp well short of your objective, and naturally at a low altitude, due to high enemies deep in your territory, and for some reason they don't immediately attack. So you spend a lot of realtime staying away from them while climbing as best you can. Say you even reach your patrol altitude or higher, but by the time this happens, the enemy has gone away and you can warp again. If you enter warp at this point, it will slam you back down to where you were when this all started, wasting all that altitude you so laboriously gained. Thus, when you meet the same enemies again slightly further along, it's a repeat of the initial situation, you low and them high.

 

For this reason, NEVER warp in the SPAD on ingress, and think twice before warping on egress. That plane HAS to start with the fight an altitude advantage or it's toast. But you will ALWAYS be lower than the enemy if you warp, at least on ingress.

[Duce Lewis 3]

...whenever I spot unidentified dots at max TAC range and they turn out to be enemy, they're usually already diving towards me.

Interesting Post Bulletthead

Answers some of the questions I just posted in Olham's "Outnumbered Poll"

 

I do disagree owith the above statement though

It's been my experience that Bogies pop-up at 4 mile range

It's not til 2-3 miles that they seem to take increasing interest in my presence

Inside of that is when attack mode is taken in ernest

 

I've often fled superior numbers, climbed, then returned to bounce them

Usually keep them at roughly 3 miles the whole time to keep an eye on 'em

 

Anyways Warp doesn't seem to limit engagement opportunities

[Dej 17]

It's been my experience that Bogies pop-up at 4 mile range

It's not til 2-3 miles that they seem to take increasing interest in my presence

Inside of that is when attack mode is taken in ernest

 

I've often fled superior numbers, climbed, then returned to bounce them

Usually keep them at roughly 3 miles the whole time to keep an eye on 'em

 

That's been exactly my experience too, especially the 3 mile mark and maybe not the 'returned to bounce them' bit... I've settled for keeping my distance

 

I haven't used warp since early on, mainly because of DiD but now it'd be because it robs me of tactical initiative... or even reactiative , come to that...

[Bullethead 12]

It's been my experience that Bogies pop-up at 4 mile range

It's not til 2-3 miles that they seem to take increasing interest in my presence

Inside of that is when attack mode is taken in ernest

 

Interesting. I always spot the enemy 8 miles away on TAC, or so I think. I could be wrong, but it sure seems like 8 miles to me, looking at the range labels. It's just that the TAC is 2D and the 8 mile radius is spherical. Thus, you only see enemies near the edge of the TAC if you're co-alt with them, but that does happen. The closer in towards the center they are when they 1st appear, the greater the difference in altitude between you, but it won't tell you who is higher.

 

As to how they act, I suspect that the AI makes decisions based on the situation. I'm sure it considers the numerical odds, the altitude difference, and the relative performance of the planes at least. In most of my careers, all 3 of these are usually much in favor of the AI, which probably puts it into attack mode from the get-go. Maybe if the odds were different, the AI would be more cautious?

[Duce Lewis 3]

Interesting. I always spot the enemy 8 miles away on TAC, or so I think. I could be wrong, but it sure seems like 8 miles to me, looking at the range labels. It's just that the TAC is 2D and the 8 mile radius is spherical. Thus, you only see enemies near the edge of the TAC if you're co-alt with them, but that does happen. The closer in towards the center they are when they 1st appear, the greater the difference in altitude between you, but it won't tell you who is higher.

Yes, I agree on the spherical distance bit

2 dimensional example was just a more simplistic way of explaning it

 

Airbases, buildings, etc are viewable to the full 8 miles

Probably because they're larger than a little kite

AC are the only TAC object that doesn't show til 4 miles

[Duce Lewis 3]

I haven't used warp since early on, mainly because of DiD but now it'd be because it robs me of tactical initiative... or even reactiative , come to that...

Me bleury eyes are getting opened here to that little tidbit

No wonder I'm always playing the pheasant role to the HA's peregrinn falcon

[Hasse Wind 46]

Ever since I practically stopped using the TAC, I've had A LOT fewer enemy encounters. I've just had about 5 patrol missions in a row (MFJ I, January 1917) during which I had absolutely no contact with the enemy. I do use warp and when it deactivates and tells me there are enemies near, I don't use TAC anymore to see where they are. I continue flying on the planned course and search for the bad guys with my eyes only (I do have TrackIR). Most of the time it seems I don't find anybody and neither do they find us.

 

But I agree the AI vision should be reduced.

[Bullethead 12]

Ever since I practically stopped using the TAC, I've had A LOT fewer enemy encounters. I've just had about 5 patrol missions in a row (MFJ I, January 1917)

 

IIRC, there's not a whole helluvalot going on right at the coast at that point in time. Not only is the weather generally crappy, which limits how many planes are in the air, but there are only a few RNAS squadrons in the area, and most of them are 2-seaters. AI 2-seaters with the benefits of TAC and external target view (which IMHO is the bare minium that the AI uses) will almost certain run away from a flight of scouts. Because you're not using TAC, you never know they're there, because they run away long before they come within "visual" range without TAC.

 

Just my POV, so don't take offense, but I find NOT using TAC to be very unrealistic. I have somewhere between 20/10 and 20/15 vision beyond arm's length, depending on how much I've slept, how hung-over I am, and how much coffee I've had when I take the eye test. I can usally read the bottom line of the chart at 20 feet, but if I've only slept 2 hours and am really hung-over, I can only read the 2nd-to-the-bottom line. It's my understanding that this was the usual long-range vision acuity of any flyboy who lived long enough to write memoirs. Even though I'm a middle-aged old fart who needs reading glasses sometimes to see this forum from a range of 2 feet (especially when it's way late at night and I'm drunk), I can read it with ease without glasses from there out to about 6 feet, at 1680x1050. I can see Piper Cubs (about the size of most WW1 aircract) quite easily well beyond the 4-8 mile range that TAC shows dots (depending on who you believe on that), and even that is WAY further than even the 1-pixel dots for distant aircraft appear in OFF.

 

So as I see it, not using TAC is the same as playing a totally myopic pilot who would never have been cleared by the MOs for flight duty .

 

But I agree the AI vision should be reduced.

 

Don't misunderstand me . When I said the AI uses TAC and external views, I wasn't implying that was a bad thing. I use them myself, because I KNOW I can spot airplanes much further away than they become 1 pixel wide in any game. The whole reason such aids (not cheats) exist is to give you the visual accuity of a typical successful pilot, which cannot be duplicated on computer screens. Not using them is therefore unrealistic, unless you desire to play a myopic pilot who shouldn't be flying in the 1st place .

[Barkhorn1x 14]

The whole reason such aids (not cheats) exist is to give you the visual accuity of a typical successful pilot, which cannot be duplicated on computer screens. Not using them is therefore unrealistic, unless you desire to play a myopic pilot who shouldn't be flying in the 1st place .

 

Amen brother Bullet, amen. :yes:

[Hasse Wind 46]

Bullethead:

 

Actually there WAS a lot of air combat up there before I stopped using the TAC, and not just two-seaters but fighters also (Brit Nupes and Bristols). I find it more realistic not to have combat each and every time I take off from the homebase. And the TAC screen is really bad for immersion, in my opinion. But that's just my way of enjoying OFF, and you have your own way. I have no problem with that. :yes:

[Olham 164]

I agree with Hasse Wind there. When I used TAC set to 2 miles, I still saw distant aircraft before the TAC showed them.

When I had TAC on 4 miles, I saw the distant craft at the same time they appeared on the outer edge of the TAC.

So my vision is alright, I'd say, it's about 4 miles on a clear day. And four miles is enough distance to make decisions.

So you can fly without TAC, and it is definitely much more immersive, as you now feel the insecurity of such a pilot -

he had to check the whole space around him constantly, and might still get surprised!

Yesterday, I managed to sneak up on a flight of 6 Tripes. I had seen them far away, and manoeuvered so, that I had the

sun behind me. It seems to be simulated here, cause they didn't notice me, until I was only 300 feet away.

 

On the other hand, my neighbour has TAC on 1 mile, saying, that the wingmen in real life would also check around,

and might see a distant flight before him, and then warn him. As they don't do it here, he has a limited TAC on.

Makes sense to me.

Then there is UncleAl, who has "one inch thick glasses" - so for him it is inevitable to have TAC on.

 

But if you want the "real feel", switch TAC off. Create an extra pilot for that "full DiD cmapaign" and see how long he'll last.

In my case no longer than 5 missions yet, to be honest. But I'll try to tame my fighting temper and get on with it.

[Creaghorn 10]

IMHO the biggest cheat in using tac is not the fact you can spot the enemy for miles, but to know where to look at. IMHO you can see distant specks good enough when you know where to look at. but if you would scan the skies without knowing the very same speck is much easier to overlook. and that's what makes it real and is very well done here. especially with the very good lightreflections of the crafts. tac kills it completely.

it's easy to overlook near formations because you focus the distance, or vice versa. how often it happens in real you can hear some engine in the air, you look up and for some seconds see nothing, and then suddenly at the same spot you see a plane flying quite visible and near. quite realistic for me.

what also helps me, without tac is when i scan the skies, and notice a little stuttering when looking to a certain spot, there is a chance of aircraft beeing there in the distance.

 

p.s. even as a kid when watching the bionic man, i wondered how lee majors always knew before where he has to look at before using his bionic eye.

[Olham 164]

An good help, when flying without TAC, but over own grounds, is the Flak.

It will sign there are some enemy craft near you. You'll still find it hard to

spot them, sometimes.