Matrix Games Forums

Dimitris wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:31 pm

FifthDomain wrote: Wed Sep 25, 2024 6:56 pm a good opentopo and a google maps style map with good detail that is not fetched from online.

So, which address do we ship the 24TB HDD to?

Yer Google maps probably wasn't the best example but something more detailed and complete than Sentinel 2 which has parts missing from it. I really like the Opentopo but it doesn't look as detailed as it does on the website it comes from and it tends to distort when zoomed in close up. The tiles can take along time to load or just don't load at all.

Estimates on google earth are actually 20.5 petabytes so probably need an entire house just for storage on that one.

"complete tileset of zooms 0-18 to be around 342 Tb" (42TB). From opentopomap help. Obviously, less detail makes it smaller.

"The entire Sentinel-2 collection occupies 35.3 petabytes". from the Sentinel-2 site.

I'm very interested in what people think would be a good alternative to any of these.

thewood1 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:13 pm "complete tileset of zooms 0-18 to be around 342 Tb" (42TB). From opentopomap help. Obviously, less detail makes it smaller.

"The entire Sentinel-2 collection occupies 35.3 petabytes". from the Sentinel-2 site.

I'm very interested in what people think would be a good alternative to any of these.

I guess none are realistic looking at the size of those as well. Not to have on a home computer anyway.

I'm hoping after this discussion, players will have a little bit more realistic approach to the comments about lack of detail.

Also, the free version of opentopomap is at risk also. Its not being updated anymore. Its still available, but the small org. that was managing it stopped. At least thats what I heard.

Are there any plans to implement restrictions on ship-launched aircraft sorties for when there's little/no head wind? Such as no air ops are possible when a CV is only at "Creep" speed?

Of course, it may get rather complicated rather quickly if every single carrier or ship capable aircraft needs to have each individual loadout tailored to meet these restrictions.
IE, an F/A-18E can launch with x1 EFT, x2 BVR missiles and x2 WVR missiles at Creep speed but can't launch with its heavier weapons loadouts (or perhaps even a full fuel loadout) unless the CV is doing 25+ knots. So I would certainly understand if it was abstracted somewhat.
I also imagine this may also need the CMO weather model updating as, if I remember correctly, winds speeds and direction isn't currently implemented?

TempestII wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2024 3:24 pm Are there any plans to implement restrictions on ship-launched aircraft sorties for when there's little/no head wind? Such as no air ops are possible when a CV is only at "Creep" speed?

Of course, it may get rather complicated rather quickly if every single carrier or ship capable aircraft needs to have each individual loadout tailored to meet these restrictions.
IE, an F/A-18E can launch with x1 EFT, x2 BVR missiles and x2 WVR missiles at Creep speed but can't launch with its heavier weapons loadouts (or perhaps even a full fuel loadout) unless the CV is doing 25+ knots. So I would certainly understand if it was abstracted somewhat.
I also imagine this may also need the CMO weather model updating as, if I remember correctly, winds speeds and direction isn't currently implemented?

It seems that wind in C:MO has no direction. I've requested this feature a while ago (here), because it would have implications for landing/take-off direction on land as well, or on flight planning too. Carriers would be forced to turn windward during landing phase.
The idea to help heavy loadouts with additional v0 was not on my table, but it's very cool and very logical now you said it.
I am afraid this would not so easy to implement and gonna be quite ressource hungry in the end. But I would appreciate an opportunity to edit weather e.g. in a METAR like format.

Make units that are earmarked as cargo, visible in Order of Battle. IMHO it's the same principle like docked ships or planes.

Allow helicopters to be transportable as cargo in planes and ships. This will allow air assault forces to be delivered globally as they are in real life.

Example:

A C-5M Super Galaxy can carry 6x AH-64E, a C-17A can carry 2-3 AH-64E.

EDIT: Small drones as well.

Thank you

Request:

Allow Intercept missions to be defined by reference points or min/max distance this would allow for far better control over these missions, allowing sectors to be controlled.

Also allow a box to define the number of aircraft per target, currently as soon as one target is detected all allocated aircraft launch one after the other till they are expended or the mission cap is reached.

Also add some end of mission scripts for units on intercept missions, currently unless you shoot something down the aircraft just fly around until there fuel state is reached and they RTB or if you have refuelling allowed they will just fly till you manually RTB them.

HOSTILE intercept > Identify > Shoot > RTB or Opportunity Scrambling till weapon/fuel state reached > RTB (This is pretty much how it works currently)

UNFRIENDLY Intercept > Identify > Follow Aircraft till it leaves intercept zone or Fuel State Reached > RTB (Currently just fly [Engaged Offensive] until fuel state reached)

FRIENDLY/NEUTRAL Intercept > Identify > RTB (Currently just fly [Engaged Offensive] until fuel state reached)


For Patrol Missions add a max time on station feature so aircraft can be cycled to avoid fatigue.

Make the keep units on station actually keep them on station currently one aircraft leaves as the other takes off leaving gaps in coverage. On long distance missions this gap can last a while. Making the old one RTB when the new one arrives on station would be better here.

Thank you

+1 specially on intercept and mission relieve
regards GJ

"HOSTILE intercept > Identify > Shoot > RTB or Opportunity Scrambling till weapon/fuel state reached > RTB (This is pretty much how it works currently)
UNFRIENDLY Intercept > Identify > Follow Aircraft till it leaves intercept zone or Fuel State Reached > RTB (Currently just fly [Engaged Offensive] until fuel state reached)
FRIENDLY/NEUTRAL Intercept > Identify > RTB (Currently just fly [Engaged Offensive] until fuel state reached)"

I am pretty sure you can do all of these in the Ops Manager now. I know the last one I have played with before. You can obviously trigger the intercept mission from the mission editor. To have the units RTB just set mission satisfied/deactivate with the lua condition as on getcontact.posture or getcontact.side. That will tell the unit to RTB as soon as side is confirmed. You can use simple doctrine to tell it to kill it or not.

Those simple lua checks are available to a player, not just an editor. The OP is the only place a player (not an editor) can effectively use the power of lua. I am no lua freak, but simple single lines of lua are very simple and useful. Whats also kind of cool is you can have multiple no fly zones with units cross-attached and use the triggers to populate the various missions (and lua not needed). Its a very under-unutilized feature. Mainly because the documentation is basic. I've made it my life's short-term mission to understand and use it more.

Of course, this assumes I understand what you are asking for.

I'm not very good with lua beyond editing existing code. I don't want my missions turning off either i want it to fly out intercept and then RTB then repeat every time a new contact happens.

A) a simple lua function that even I can do.

B) It can run as many times as you like.

Instead of dismissing it and asking for a new function, I'd suggest at least looking into it. The devs give us some pretty easy to use tools to do a lot of the automation.

I want to play the game not write code. Just because you can do something doesnt mean others can. If i want to make a request that's my choice that what this section is for.

I don't write code. Far from it. But I take advantage of the tools the devs built just for such occasions. Obviously the devs can prioritize anything they want. I just want them to know that there others that can use the tools we are given. Not every issue requires dev resources.

How about every time someone does/says something you don't like on this forum you just don't reply. Not every issue require your opinion or input. You started out been helpful with a solution, but because it not the one for me, it's all i'm wasting the devs resources now.

I'm afraid I'm allowed to post counter-arguments where I think they are relevant. There might be other forums that don't allow it, not sure.

edit...The more I think about the above response, the more I wonder.

What if someone came in and suggested that you should be able to adjust the speed on an aircraft in flight? Would no one come in and say that its already part of the game? As a player-driven forum for players helping other players, would you not point that out? Should no one post the counter-argument that the game is capable of doing that?

Yer i know you can post what you want the forum is littered with post of you giving people flack because they do something you don't like my very first post on here had you moning because i want to play a different way than you. This is a request section and my requests don't require your input.

Something to agree on. It doesn't require it. Its optional. But any request thread has to have a heavy discourse on if something can be done with a workaround. If the request is it just isn't important enough to do the workaround, then the devs can do what they do. Thats why I rarely post requests without first asking something on the main forum. So the discussion doesn't happen here.

Just a low priority QoL request...

Either a command line start up to open a specific scenario in the editor or the game or a button on the main start screen that says edit/play last open game.