Cool, just had a Bear kill a S3 Viking with guns

[wild_Willie2]

I was playing around with my Bears and suddenly had the idea to let it attack a patrolling S3, it took five salvos from the Bears rear guns, but the Viking went down

Now I have to ask of course why the AI did not make the S3 do evasive maneuvers

W.

[HaughtKarl]

Heh a kill's a kill.

Did you check to see if auto-evasion is enabled for the opposition? I wonder if the sim would even take into account the option to evade if under attack by a tail gun.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

I was playing around with my Bears and suddenly had the idea to let it attack a patrolling S3, it took five salvos from the Bears rear guns, but the Viking went down

Now I have to ask of course why the AI did not make the S3 do evasive maneuvers

W.

Added to our list of annoying stuff[;)]

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Added to our list of annoying stuff[;)]

I'm sure it's always the "Why would anyone think of testing that?!?!?" stuff that annoys you the most.

[Casinn]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Added to our list of annoying stuff[;)]

I'm sure it's always the "Why would anyone think of testing that?!?!?" stuff that annoys you the most.

On the flip side, some of the people testing really odd things have found some of the better bugs I think!

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Casinn

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Added to our list of annoying stuff[;)]

I'm sure it's always the "Why would anyone think of testing that?!?!?" stuff that annoys you the most.

On the flip side, some of the people testing really odd things have found some of the better bugs I think!

Actually people that take digs at us for no reason is the most annoying, We try our best to be pretty responsive on just about everything.

Mike

[Dysta]

To be fair, even a tiny scratch of any aircraft in CMANO will becomes a fatal crash, we really need damage points implemented.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Actually people that take digs at us for no reason is the most annoying, We try our best to be pretty responsive on just about everything.

If it's any consolation, I think you guys have done excellently.

[thewood1]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

To be fair, even a tiny scratch of any aircraft in CMANO will becomes a fatal crash, we really need damage points implemented.

Games used to have these things called abstractions. I assume you have heard of it.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Games used to have these things called abstractions. I assume you have heard of it.

Presumed that none of a pilot would want to continue the mission with a damaged plane, sure, it is imaginable. But when it is instantly disappeared with a message of "XXXXX has been crashed!", I have difficulty to think that way.

In such circumstance, those planes are also 'crashed', and people who piloted them are 'dead':

[mikmykWS]

Creating an aircraft damage model is on the list but the current impact of not having isn't huge by any stretch. Aircraft damaged like the one's above are mission killed (more or less) and if they make it back to base are rarely back in the fight before the duration of any current scenario expires. As far as long term design goals it is something we should add though.

Mike

[thewood1]

Again, its called abstraction. There are many things that can take a plane out and not have an actual kill. Its just a threshold of damage that makes it become a non-factor in the battle.

[mikmykWS]

Wood. We designed it. We get it. I totally agree.

Dysta isn't though so we have to over articulate our rationale in the hopes that he does[:)]

Mike

[NakedWeasel]

The only reason I'd want planes with a critical damage level, is to make combat rescue missions to be made possible and more realistic. Of course, we also need personnel (that are deployable from, and to- aircraft). I know that it's really beyond the scope of the title, but I think that aircrew and maintainers should be a reloadable "munition" or resource like fuel, stored in barracks and bunkers. These resources are necessary for the operation of aircraft, (and ships?) And are lost from the players inventory permanently once their numbers in the bunkers and barracks are depleted, or those facilities are destroyed. If the editing software is as robust as it seems to be, it should be fairly easy to implement.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

The only reason I'd want planes with a critical damage level, is to make combat rescue missions to be made possible and more realistic. Of course we need we also need personnel (that are deployable from, and to- aircraft). I know that its really beyond the scope of the title, but it think that aircrew and maintainers should be a reloadable "munition" or resource like fuel, stored in barracks and bunkers. These resources are necessary for the operation of aircraft, (and ships?) And are lost from the players inventory permanently once their numbers in the bunkers and barracks are depleted, or those facilities are destroyed. If the editing software is as robust as it seems to be, it should be fairly easy to implement.

Good idea. Will add to our list.

Thanks!

Mike

[NakedWeasel]

Really? You think so? That would make my whole day if you meant that sincerely. [8D]

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Really? You think so? That would make my whole day if you meant that sincerely. [8D]

Sure.

Thanks!

Mike

[NakedWeasel]

that's awesome! Actually, its conversations about the simulation with my brother- who is an active duty aircraft hydro-specialist and crew chief with AFSOC, was a bit put off that there was no representation of aircraft maintainers in the game, and had made the statement "If you kill the maintainers who is going to generate the aircraft? You kill me and my troops and that entire squadron of aircraft is going nowhere." I extrapolated and realized the same issue existed with pilots/crew for aircraft and ships, and personnel to operate, (and repair) grouped land facilities.

I don't know how the idea of an aircraft resource/muntion or sub-section of the complex called, "Crew" would function as a deployable/controllable/recoverable units on the ground if the unit reached a critical level of damage, or that unit's "Crew" subsection was completely destroyed. Perhaps no survivors? (Obvious)

Perhaps the "Crew" munition has an "engine: parachute", with a "fuel type: controlled descent air-time" to reach the ground within a short range of the aircraft point of destruction. Once the "munition" reaches the ground it deploys "warhead: USAF Pilot". I don't know how to load "warhead: USAF Pilot" to a rescue aircraft and return it to a bunker or barrack inventory, however. This all becomes very complex.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

that's awesome! Actually, its conversations about the simulation with my brother- who is an active duty aircraft hydro-specialist and crew chief with AFSOC- He was a bit put off that there was no representation of aircraft maintainers in the game, and had made the statement "If you kill the maintainers who is going to generate the aircraft? You kill me and my troops and that entire squadron of aircraft is going nowhere." I extrapolated and realized the same issue existed with pilots/crew for aircraft and ships, and personnel to operate, (and repair) grouped land facilities.

I don't know how the idea of an aircraft resource/muntion or sub-section of the coplex called, "crew" would function as deployable/recoverable units on the ground if the unit reached a critical level of damage, or that unit subsection was completely destroyed. Perhaps no survivors? (Obvious)

Ok. We've added this to our list.

Thanks!

Mike

[NakedWeasel]

Im happy to contribute. Thank you!