editing a/c loadouts
Moderator: MOD_Command
editing a/c loadouts
Besides from switching between the listed loadouts, is there any possibility to edit these or add some own customized loadouts?
Would be nice for the player to decide, which external tanks and and what kind of weapon mix is needed. The prefab loadouts offer nice selections for generic missions but still are quite rigid.
For example, with the given selection it is impossible to depict any of the observed RuAF loadouts shown at Latakia.
Would be cool to be able to tweak this, to simulate "what ifs" close to the real situation.
Would be nice for the player to decide, which external tanks and and what kind of weapon mix is needed. The prefab loadouts offer nice selections for generic missions but still are quite rigid.
For example, with the given selection it is impossible to depict any of the observed RuAF loadouts shown at Latakia.
Would be cool to be able to tweak this, to simulate "what ifs" close to the real situation.
-
- Posts: 2418
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:53 am
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
RE: editing a/c loadouts
+1
I understand why from a game design and AI POV, but it would be great to have some more flexibility.
I understand why from a game design and AI POV, but it would be great to have some more flexibility.
RE: editing a/c loadouts
+2
A savable and shareable custom loadouts would be very nice.
A savable and shareable custom loadouts would be very nice.
- wild_Willie2
- Posts: 2934
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:33 am
- Location: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
RE: editing a/c loadouts
+3
This would allow much higher flexibility in mission loadout.
This would allow much higher flexibility in mission loadout.
In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
RE: editing a/c loadouts
Message received. Technical hurdle is to determine how to do this while keeping within the physics and fuel logistics models. This is not easy and there are literally millions of loadout combos from those that make sense to just plain bad that we would have to account for. Not an easy one.
Mike
Mike
RE: editing a/c loadouts
Mikmyk,
I was wondering would you be able to give a layman's explanation of how the fuel and logistics model works in CMNAO? I know that the old harpoon classic was a database in effect, but I have no idea of how this game works, it works brilliantly BTW.
The physics model
When you say this is this the part that gives a platform an agility modifier for example against a missile shot? I am trying to think through how customised load outs could be added to the game. Am I right in assuming that the physics model does not influence the speed at which say a F18 completes a 180 deg turn?
I have a few more questions Ill post later
[:)]
I was wondering would you be able to give a layman's explanation of how the fuel and logistics model works in CMNAO? I know that the old harpoon classic was a database in effect, but I have no idea of how this game works, it works brilliantly BTW.
The physics model
When you say this is this the part that gives a platform an agility modifier for example against a missile shot? I am trying to think through how customised load outs could be added to the game. Am I right in assuming that the physics model does not influence the speed at which say a F18 completes a 180 deg turn?
I have a few more questions Ill post later
[:)]
RE: editing a/c loadouts
Right now the calculation are done based on the loadout itself and not what's in the loadout. Rag precalculates everything when he builds the loadout. So if you modify a record by adding or subtracting components it doesn't actually change the fuel/range it uses but it remains what was calculated when the unmodified loadout was added by Ragnar. If and when we decide to implement this we want this to happen because we want a smart game rather than a bunch of database fields that actually mean nothing or are not involved in any calculation whatsoever (like those old legacy games). When we do this the challenge is actually telling the player when they're adding too much etc. rather than just a straight fail (crashed aircraft etc). Huge people oriented challenge:)
One of the big features of 1.10 is adjustments to aircraft kinematics and agility based on weight. This is a great add but further complicates adding the edit functionality. It will all be worth the wait though.
M
One of the big features of 1.10 is adjustments to aircraft kinematics and agility based on weight. This is a great add but further complicates adding the edit functionality. It will all be worth the wait though.
M
RE: editing a/c loadouts
[never mind...I think my question was already answered in another thread]
RE: editing a/c loadouts
Personally, I think the way the devs have done it is a) fine, and b) realistic. Commanders in the field don't get to just strap on whatever they can fit under the wings and go screaming of into the wild blue. There's a LOT of engineering (analysis and usually flight test) that goes into clearing weapons, and specific weapons combinations, for an aircraft. Stores separation is about the most dynamic and complex aero problem that exists.... Really really bad things can happen when a bomb or missile doesn't separate cleanly. Bombs hitting each other is bad, hitting the launch aircraft is even worse.
I think the guys have been very responsive to requests for new loadouts or adjustments to existing, when there's evidence that it has been used. The Russians joining the party in Syria will probably provide plenty of fodder for that sort of thing!
That said, it would be nice when "playing in the sandbox" to be able to use reasonable combinations that make sense. NSM/JSM on US F-35Cs comes to mind as a great "what if"... It's going to be integrated on Norwegian A-models, which have identical weapons bays. But that's a slippery slope directly to the complexity Mike was talking about.
I think the guys have been very responsive to requests for new loadouts or adjustments to existing, when there's evidence that it has been used. The Russians joining the party in Syria will probably provide plenty of fodder for that sort of thing!
That said, it would be nice when "playing in the sandbox" to be able to use reasonable combinations that make sense. NSM/JSM on US F-35Cs comes to mind as a great "what if"... It's going to be integrated on Norwegian A-models, which have identical weapons bays. But that's a slippery slope directly to the complexity Mike was talking about.
Formerly cwemyss
RE: editing a/c loadouts
Stores separations gone bad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPTnmZ_HPAs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_uvEQNtSXs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zBUqzo_qPw
(the Paveway bomb even comes apart in the last vid!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPTnmZ_HPAs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_uvEQNtSXs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zBUqzo_qPw
(the Paveway bomb even comes apart in the last vid!)
Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!
RE: editing a/c loadouts
ORIGINAL: cf_dallas
Personally, I think the way the devs have done it is a) fine, and b) realistic. Commanders in the field don't get to just strap on whatever they can fit under the wings and go screaming of into the wild blue. There's a LOT of engineering (analysis and usually flight test) that goes into clearing weapons, and specific weapons combinations, for an aircraft. Stores separation is about the most dynamic and complex aero problem that exists.... Really really bad things can happen when a bomb or missile doesn't separate cleanly. Bombs hitting each other is bad, hitting the launch aircraft is even worse.
I think the guys have been very responsive to requests for new loadouts or adjustments to existing, when there's evidence that it has been used. The Russians joining the party in Syria will probably provide plenty of fodder for that sort of thing!
That said, it would be nice when "playing in the sandbox" to be able to use reasonable combinations that make sense. NSM/JSM on US F-35Cs comes to mind as a great "what if"... It's going to be integrated on Norwegian A-models, which have identical weapons bays. But that's a slippery slope directly to the complexity Mike was talking about.
CF_Dallas
Cf_dallas
I agree that the developers have done an excellent job, I love the fact that I can influence the game and ask for things to be added , and I have personally always acknowledged the work the developers do to satisfy our continual requests.
Now I accept that in normal circumstances yes it takes months of clearance tests to get a weapon into service on a specifc platform and commanders don’t get to just strap on 28 mk.82’s and fly off to the wide blue yonder, but you have to concede that there are many many times when armed forces “bodge” together a new weapon or use an existing weapon in a way it wasn’t intended to achieve a specific effect in the heat of battle, that doesn’t take months of testing that is done very very quickly. I’ll give you a few examples Desert Storm, F111s tank plinking using initially 2000lb Paveways then later GBU-12s , IRRC that there was a plan to put GBU-12s on TERs F111s to double the number of PGMs but the war ended before their use. Falklands 1982 Sea King AEW’s were fitted and flown with radars in weeks and were on their way to the Falklands when it ended. RAF Vulcans using shrikes in the Black Buck sorties. Tornado F3 were fitted with decoy pods and chaff dispensers within 18 days to go to the gulf for the second round. So there is scope for rough and ready load outs. F15Es over 5 years carried I think 8 or 9 different CAS loadouts in Afghanistan sometimes substituting one JDAM for a Paveway ect, so I don’t think its realistic to ask the developers to cover every CAS load out.
I understand that there’s the issue of the slippery slope of hypotheticals this that and the other, however the game already includes AIM-152’s which never entered service and IRRC crazy bobs tomcat load out, which was never used operationally, so we are on that slippery slope already it’s how far down the slope we go, personally I am a very what if kind of person, I often use my game as a sandbox to test out various scenarios rather than as a pure game, so maybe that’s where I get it from.
IMHO if this could be made work then it would free up the developers time to work on other aspects to the game or even have some time off lol
Regards
RE: editing a/c loadouts
ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Right now the calculation are done based on the loadout itself and not what's in the loadout. Rag precalculates everything when he builds the loadout. So if you modify a record by adding or subtracting components it doesn't actually change the fuel/range it uses but it remains what was calculated when the unmodified loadout was added by Ragnar. If and when we decide to implement this we want this to happen because we want a smart game rather than a bunch of database fields that actually mean nothing or are not involved in any calculation whatsoever (like those old legacy games). When we do this the challenge is actually telling the player when they're adding too much etc. rather than just a straight fail (crashed aircraft etc). Huge people oriented challenge:)
One of the big features of 1.10 is adjustments to aircraft kinematics and agility based on weight. This is a great add but further complicates adding the edit functionality. It will all be worth the wait though.
M
Thanks Mikmyk
That actually answers my other questions too.
So Ragnar sits and manually calculates the figures for each platform? Can I just say I am happy to help with these in any way I can , I submitted the data for a hypothetical FB22, worked out the ranges and weapons load just using the database viewer in the game and the web, it was a lot of work but enjoyable. If I can ease the workload on the developers in any way, I am more than happy to help. [:)]
Regards
RE: editing a/c loadouts
He has a tool to help do this although I'm sure he's had whip out the TI-80 now and again.
The best path to get a DB request is to provide info in the DB strings.
Mike
The best path to get a DB request is to provide info in the DB strings.
Mike
RE: editing a/c loadouts
I would also like the ability to edit loadouts. I understand the issue of calculating correct ranges with the different loadouts. But in my humble option it's ok for a user edited loadout to potentially have inaccurate corresponding ranges. After all, users currently can use the scenario editor to create unrealistic platforms- I could add 16" guns to LCS if I wanted:)
We would still be able to make requests to be added to the official DB. The developers would of course ensure any loadout added to the official DB would be accurate.
We would still be able to make requests to be added to the official DB. The developers would of course ensure any loadout added to the official DB would be accurate.
RE: editing a/c loadouts
Problem with inaccuracies is that the AI, automatic mission planner, bingo/shotgun logics, etc etc, use these stats.
Also, once we get the day/night and weather limitations properly implemented, those flags need to match sensor and navigation packages, as well as weapon capabilities. So in addition to an in-game loadout editor we'll have to add validation check & player feedback to avoid ten thousand support tickets due to user error [:D]
Also, once we get the day/night and weather limitations properly implemented, those flags need to match sensor and navigation packages, as well as weapon capabilities. So in addition to an in-game loadout editor we'll have to add validation check & player feedback to avoid ten thousand support tickets due to user error [:D]
Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!
RE: editing a/c loadouts
Thanks for reply and can see that would be complex. And there are definitely many other things you are working on that have a greater beneficial impact on the game. But if you were ever to implement the validation checks for aircraft loadouts, a similar check for adding weapons and FCR/datalinks to ships would also be nice. Either way thanks again for this beautiful game. Can't wait for v1.10.
RE: editing a/c loadouts
There is no real incentive for us to do this. We think keeping the focus on the scenarios is better because we at least get a scenario out of it.
That being said we may just look at away to modify load outs in scenarios which fits our model. This won't happen too soon though as we have a ton of stuff we want to add.
Harpoon2/3 database modification methods sucked or didn't work at all. It was an add hoc add instead of a thought through design. Everybody that does smart design work knows this.
Our plan is to do everything better. This will make more sense the further we get and we absolutely do care what are game looks and plays like even if others think we shouldn't'
Mike
That being said we may just look at away to modify load outs in scenarios which fits our model. This won't happen too soon though as we have a ton of stuff we want to add.
Harpoon2/3 database modification methods sucked or didn't work at all. It was an add hoc add instead of a thought through design. Everybody that does smart design work knows this.
Our plan is to do everything better. This will make more sense the further we get and we absolutely do care what are game looks and plays like even if others think we shouldn't'
Mike
RE: editing a/c loadouts
ORIGINAL: mikmyk
There is no real incentive for us to do this. We think keeping the focus on the scenarios is better because we at least get a scenario out of it.
That being said we may just look at away to modify load outs in scenarios which fits our model. This won't happen too soon though as we have a ton of stuff we want to add.
Harpoon2/3 database modification methods sucked or didn't work at all. It was an add hoc add instead of a thought through design. Everybody that does smart design work knows this.
Our plan is to do everything better. This will make more sense the further we get and we absolutely do care what are game looks and plays like even if others think we shouldn't'
Mike
+1
As much fun as it would be to able to plug in new weapons and sensors on aircraft the way you can with ships, etc., it's rare that one needs it. (Even I don't modify platforms that often.) There are a lot of other things (more complex weather options, more lua script options, the ability to ram opponents, etc.) I would prefer to see get priority.
In terms of what would have to be done to the game to permit it, and the time involved for the developers, it probably makes more sense to just add new loadouts on a case-by-case basis by just modifying existing database entries (or maybe adding new ones) when specific requests come in. And, as Mike said, then you get a new scenario out of it.
-
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am
RE: editing a/c loadouts
ORIGINAL: Mgellis
ORIGINAL: mikmyk
There is no real incentive for us to do this. We think keeping the focus on the scenarios is better because we at least get a scenario out of it.
That being said we may just look at away to modify load outs in scenarios which fits our model. This won't happen too soon though as we have a ton of stuff we want to add.
Harpoon2/3 database modification methods sucked or didn't work at all. It was an add hoc add instead of a thought through design. Everybody that does smart design work knows this.
Our plan is to do everything better. This will make more sense the further we get and we absolutely do care what are game looks and plays like even if others think we shouldn't'
Mike
+1
As much fun as it would be to able to plug in new weapons and sensors on aircraft the way you can with ships, etc., it's rare that one needs it. (Even I don't modify platforms that often.) There are a lot of other things (more complex weather options, more lua script options, the ability to ram opponents, etc.) I would prefer to see get priority.
In terms of what would have to be done to the game to permit it, and the time involved for the developers, it probably makes more sense to just add new loadouts on a case-by-case basis by just modifying existing database entries (or maybe adding new ones) when specific requests come in. And, as Mike said, then you get a new scenario out of it.
I worked logistics planning for ground combat vehicles in the research and development acquisition phase for US the military.
There are significant engineering considerations that go into deciding what a platform's role should be in a combat situation, and how to address that role within the constraints of weight, maneuverability, crew operational burden, available power, combat range, and system maintenance among others when deciding what weapons should be added to the platform.
In addition the allowable ranges for quantifying those parameters are significantly more constrained for aircraft than for a ground based system.
I'd only hope that when the requests come in, the addition of weapons to the platform models reflect a combination of what is known from historical / current capability information, or what might be derived from weapons system developer marketing information.
The relatively recent discussion on adding Harpoons to Spanish Naval AV8 platforms is a good example of what should be considered before simply updating the database to reflect a presumed or requested capability, if Command wants to maintain a link back into the real world combat capabilities that make it so appealing to military gamers.
Take care,
jim
jim
RE: editing a/c loadouts
Since database does mention weapon's weight and diameters, why not to apply the pylon limits so they will not allow overweight and/or oversized weapons to be mounted?