Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Sat Mar 12, 2022 3:41 am**

I'm actually offering to do him a favor. I can easily find someone who'll buy it at a discount and appreciate it and not think the devs have been slacking for 10 years. He can take the money and invests in a game that does what he wants better.

Posted: **Sat Mar 12, 2022 3:47 am**

BrianinMinnie wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 3:45 pm Booga, what do mean when you say "when playing in CWDB", Thanks

Scenarios that use the Cold War Database (CWDB) covering the years 1946-1979. Scenarios taking place after about 1980 use the "modern" database, DB3K or DB3000.

You might want to read the manual regarding how the database system works...

Posted: **Sat Mar 12, 2022 5:33 am**

Booga sorry man, I wasn’t trying to be snarky, and your answer clued me in exactly what your context was when you originally said it in your reply to stww, and yes I do read the manuals. Please, don’t you go wood1’n me! Thanks.

Posted: **Sat Mar 12, 2022 5:56 am**

BrianinMinnie wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 5:33 am Booga sorry man, I wasn’t trying to be snarky, and your answer clued me in exactly what your context was when you originally said it in your reply to stww, and yes I do read the manuals. Please, don’t you go wood1’n me! Thanks.

Huh?

I gave a good faith answer to your question assuming that you were unfamiliar with Cold War Database. The recommendation to get familiar with database system if you are not is just honest. (If I were being snarky, I would have said "RTFM" instead of the much more polite thing that I said...)

Perhaps it was only the acronym that you were unfamiliar with, but I had no way to know that.

Posted: **Sat Mar 12, 2022 12:28 pm**

You don't have to read the manual, but a quick search in the manual would have answered the question quickly.

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2022 7:38 am**

IF one day we get (I hope) WW II version of CMO, gun combat routines would need some rewriting. I don't think this sim is yet ready for truly close-range aerial combat and it has not been meant to be flight simulator anyways.

Not sure if WW II version would be boring (no modern toys) or rather difficult to code, but I live in hope.

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2022 11:27 am**

Korean war air combat is very similar to WW2 also. I think the real point here is what level of abstraction is appropriate. Even DCS has a lot of abstraction outside some specific aircraft. For the longest time missile combat was very abstracted in DCS. It looked detailed because you saw the individual missile. But things like energy details and true lofting have only recently made it into DCS, and even then not on all missiles.

Posted: **Tue Mar 15, 2022 8:27 pm**

thewood1 wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 11:27 am PM me your venmo handle. Once I send the money, send me all the serial numbers.

Also, once the TX is completed, post here that its done. That should be the last time you need to post on the CMO forum.

Just sent you the price of the original game and all my DLCs. Please, check your inbox.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:01 am**

thewood1 wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 11:27 am Korean war air combat is very similar to WW2 also. I think the real point here is what level of abstraction is appropriate. Even DCS has a lot of abstraction outside some specific aircraft. For the longest time missile combat was very abstracted in DCS. It looked detailed because you saw the individual missile. But things like energy details and true lofting have only recently made it into DCS, and even then not on all missiles.

Right.

I think the 'issue' with CMO sometimes is that it has an intermediate level of abstraction. Units are somewhat resolved in 3D space and one has to be 'behind' another to hit it with guns, etc. So it kind of 'looks' like a flight sim-and people kind of expect it to be- yet, it is more abstract than that, and it really shows in the WVR. One could go the other end and totally abstract the WVR, like Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich. There, opposing aircraft in mere proximity of each other form a sort of combat bubble and have a minute by minute probability of damaging each other until they withdraw. Perhaps not as satisfying as CMO's style, but then again no one can complain about or seriously expects 'lead pursuit' and 'energy retention'...those details are totally absent. CMO does a lot of other stuff really well, it's just that WVR happens to be a weak spot.

I used my limited DCS mission building skills to set up essentially the same AI vs AI WVR fight in DCS and CMO (MiG-21bis vs F-5E, both with guns and rear-aspect heat seekers). In fairness, it's actually rather awkward in DCS as well.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:41 am**

"In fairness, it's actually rather awkward in DCS as well"

I think this is also a good point. DCS also abstracts a lot. They just show a lot more detail so it looks like they account for every variable in detail. Last time I played it, a couple years ago, AI pilots were pulling massive Gs and maneuvering in very unreal ways. Missile most had little energy simulation. They just followed a table-based flight model. I believe it changed around the time the F-14 came out. But even then, only certain aircraft and missile got the detailed treatment. Its why they have three different flight models you can basically buy for different aircraft.

If you are basing your knowledge of modern air combat on DCS and comparing it to CMO, you are trading one form of abstraction for another. CMO has an amazing level of detail when you consider it models between 15-20 different versions of the Mig-23, all their loadouts, different sensors, etc. DCS does one, and at a fairly abstracted level in flight modeling.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:59 am**

I had remembered reading this from last year. A good short run down on DCS flight models, the effort that goes into them, and if you read between the lines, the issue with the AI flight models.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ ... 021-12-03/

There are entire reddit threads on how the AI flight and damage models, especially in Migs, is very simplified and very difficult to play against. Granted it is reddit, but you see the same threads on Eagle Dynamics forums over the last couple of years. There are discussions on AI aircraft flying on one wing, Mig-21s going almost infinitely vertical, no stalling of spinning, incredible acceleration, lack of common air-to-air tactics, etc. It does look like they are starting to roll out a more standardized AI flight model earlier this year. But they are doing one plane at a time and not sure how far they have gotten. And even then, no one seems to really know what this new flight model will look like.

My point is that DCS only does WVR range really well in MP and with very specific matchups that are hard to determine.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:53 pm**

I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time on expecting WVR knife fights to turn out the way you expect for multiple reasons. The first is, if your opinions on what a dogfight ought to look like are informed solely by DCS or Falcon BMS, your vision is probably pretty foggy to begin with.

wyskass wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:30 pm 1. Attackers don't seem to lead to win a circle chase, even when it's painfully obvious and in good position to cutoff the defender.

If it comes to that, you don't want to cutoff a defender! You want to employ weapons on him. Real pilots in BFM use a combination of lead, lag and pure pursuit to manipulate their relative positions, most classically pulling lead just before they're getting ready for a gun shot. In a world of helmet mounted sights, and true all aspect missiles, though, all that is really just kind of academic most of the time. They'd probably just shoot each other in the face with a heater. Even so, would it be nice if CMO fighters saddled up by going into lag and then pulling lead to get in the bad guy's control zone, and do the whole in-plane, pierce the bubble thing? Sure. Is that essential? Not really in my mind.

2. Trying to manually control fight with plotting course often makes it worse. For example trying to go for a 2 circle, they seem to slow down in following course. Or if plotted too close, they will actually turn the opposite way, ruining any tactical position and plane.

So you're saying you're a bad fighter pilot? Roger. Maybe you should let the computer handle it?

3. Generally trying to control maneuvers with plotting, seems to be frustrating, so easier to let them fight automated and frustratingly watch the circle chases where they don't take opportunities for advantage.

Really, that kind of air fight isn't CMO's forte. CMO/CMANO is really about warfare in the missile age. Gun fights are almost secondary. I don't expect the outcomes to match up exactly.

(This was most evident on the tutorial with WW2 fighters and dogfights)

That's why in my opinion they never should have gone down that road, but they did it anyway. Oh well. I guess there's limits to how much my opinion counts.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:59 pm**

Sardaukar wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 7:38 am I don't think this sim is yet ready for truly close-range aerial combat and it has not been meant to be flight simulator anyways.

Exactly. Harpoon, the board game that inspired Command, ultimately, had FAR MORE abstracted WVR air to air combat. Air war in CMO/CMANO is more about attacking with or defending against gorilla packages in the missile age.

Posted: **Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:17 pm**

SeaQueen wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:53 pm I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time on expecting WVR knife fights to turn out the way you expect for multiple reasons. The first is, if your opinions on what a dogfight ought to look like are informed solely by DCS or Falcon BMS, your vision is probably pretty foggy to begin with.

Sure, I (and the others here) do not know what a realistic Cold War WVR knife fight is supposed to look like. However, I also know what it almost certainly is NOT, and that is a 25 minute mutual right-hand turn at constant altitude in full afterburner while fully mirroring one's opponent, only to smoke the first guy that has to RTB Bingo every time. So I don't think what I expect is too much. Any competent fight sim will be abstract, but probably to THAT abstract- and I believe that there are better than DCS (which is in the era of 'stunning graphics at all costs' flight simulation anyway).

I agree that there are MORE abstract ways to handle WVR very satisfactorily. Perhaps even putting a random modifier on the "agility" property- so that someone could gain enough of an advantage to take a shot within say 10 minutes- could help. Or, randomizing if they enter a right, or left hand turn so there is a chance of a second head-on encounter.

It get that CMO's "core" is "gorilla packages in the missile age", but some of us like earlier Cold War era scenarios as well, and CMO is still the best of its kind, even for that.

EDIT:
As an aside, here is my own reference point for WVR combat, from when I played Falcon 3.0 some 30 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCFMX5z-ed4

still a good watch, IMHO.

Posted: **Mon Mar 21, 2022 8:10 pm**

SeaQueen wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:53 pm
2. Trying to manually control fight with plotting course often makes it worse. For example trying to go for a 2 circle, they seem to slow down in following course. Or if plotted too close, they will actually turn the opposite way, ruining any tactical position and plane.
So you're saying you're a bad fighter pilot? Roger. Maybe you should let the computer handle it?

I'm certainly not going to say otherwise, but in this case no. It was the expectation that when plotting a course they will turn towards the line regardless of radius. It's a basic directive of turn right so as not to go towards the SAM on the left. But that is not what happens, and at times they indeed do the opposite. Or you see incoming fighters from the west, so I plot a course east.. But the computer decides to hang out for a while and do a 270 deg turn.. Doesn't require being a great fighter pilot to suggest this fancy maneuver.

Matrix Games Forums

WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?

Re: WVR dogfights.. no leading?