Jump to content
migkillertwo

Draw distance and jets

Recommended Posts

Hi all, 

I think we can agree that the huge draw distances of the UE4 engine will be a welcome change from the (incredibly) dated draw distance of the Refractor (BF2) engine. I am concerned, however, about the effect that this will have on jet gameplay. 

In real life, jets are often far beyond visual range of soldiers on the ground manning anti aircraft weapons. In fact, they can be so far that they will be below the horizon (and thus invisible to radar). Project Reality models this, if only accidentally, by the short draw distance. In Arma, this isn't a problem as maps are over 100km squared. However, Squad probably will not (and rightly so) deliver such large maps. So how can the devs make aircraft at all survivable, given that they are seen by every other player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question. I also wonder how the map size in Squad will require jets don't fly as fast as in real life. For example F35 top speed 1900 km/h. That's a km every 2 seconds. If a map is 4km^2, it would take a jet 4 seconds to cross the map. I'm thinking that the maps will have to be larger. Perhaps the maps will have larger flying areas and maybe that would address your concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I don't think that jets ever really made much sense even in PR. Even on 4km x 4km maps, the scale of the warfare is just far too small to justify bringing in jet aircraft to shoot at infantry, jeeps, and helicopters.

 

Wouldn't they be more suitable for 50km x 50km vehicle warfare (no infantry, only crewmen and pilots) style maps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they focus first on vehicles (tanks,apc,jeeps,...) and helicopters.

Jets are not needed in Squad or PR gameplay, buts thats just my opinion :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jets added a lot of value to pr. Have you ever had trouble with a tank and lased it for the cas to get rid of it? This is some of the features that make up pr's unique feeling.

Anyway, i think jets will be the last asset which will make it into the game, but i'm pretty sure there is a way to get them into the game. Maybe the cas maps will just be available with some clouds in the sky or something similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If jets are added it won't be an F-35. It would be a CAS aircraft like the A-10 or SU-25 at first. If squad becomes able to make 8 or 16 km^2 maps it would really make jets interesting. There's a huge view distance in squad, but things like clouds could be added to prevent AA's simply aiming on the aircraft until it gets within range. PR's current model of Jets needing a lase to use their weapons and AA's to be within a certain range to engage the CAS is really good in my opinion.

 

If you add radar capability jets will just go hunting on their own, we don't want this. Also, how small would an A-10 be on the sky if it was flying on the allowed limit? If it's just a tiny little dot that is hard to notice from the ground then you might not even need clouds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ground-attack aircraft have always been a huge asset in PR, whether they be choppers equipped gatlin guns or if it's a MEC mig knocking out an abrams

 

The biggest problem though, is that they are very constricted in their own way due to the itty-bitty maps. 4km is huge on foot, but when you fly 300+ miles per hour you hit the edge of the map in a matter of seconds. It makes it really unwieldy trying to fly an aircraft in such limited air space. In later Battlefield games the aircraft get this absolutely enormous playing field to fly around on while the actual combat zone is just a little segment on the map itself. It makes flying a helluva lot easier, but with Squad you definitely have a much more limited playing field due to the edge of the map being just that: the edge of the map. You don't get to fly around in the skybox too like in battlefield 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If jets are added it won't be an F-35. It would be a CAS aircraft like the A-10 or SU-25 at first. If squad becomes able to make 8 or 16 km^2 maps it would really make jets interesting. There's a huge view distance in squad, but things like clouds could be added to prevent AA's simply aiming on the aircraft until it gets within range. PR's current model of Jets needing a lase to use their weapons and AA's to be within a certain range to engage the CAS is really good in my opinion.

 

If you add radar capability jets will just go hunting on their own, we don't want this. Also, how small would an A-10 be on the sky if it was flying on the allowed limit? If it's just a tiny little dot that is hard to notice from the ground then you might not even need clouds.

Do you mean 8 km * 8 km or 16 km * 16 km  [(8 km)² or (16 km)²]... That since the latest SQD map is already 4 km * 4 km which makes 16 km²...

 

I see no point of modern supersonic aircrafts in these games, if modeled even closely correctly they are just playing their own game and everyone in water-, landcrafts or helicopters are just moving targets to them when they come and go to play area. If there is effective AA weapons introduced the jet pilots start to cry that they are sitting in the spawn. In some BF1942 style game where attack planes were still relatively slow in made more sense in many ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they focus first on vehicles (tanks,apc,jeeps,...) and helicopters.

Jets are not needed in Squad or PR gameplay, buts thats just my opinion :P

 

 

this........ :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I don't think that jets ever really made much sense even in PR. Even on 4km x 4km maps, the scale of the warfare is just far too small to justify bringing in jet aircraft to shoot at infantry, jeeps, and helicopters.

 

Wouldn't they be more suitable for 50km x 50km vehicle warfare (no infantry, only crewmen and pilots) style maps?

Agreed, I just get the feeling jets are still in PR because they were already in BF2 so they ended up rolling with it. The only resolution I can see to this without gimping jets is making the area outside the "playable space" huge but that brings its own problems with it, ie navigation and whether jets at that point are even relevant to everything else going on. I'd prefer not to see CAS in general much less anything in the vein of A10s, outside of conventional v conventional scenarios anyway; it's either too powerful an asset which would further upset balance and therefore fun, or must be gimped sacrificing authenticity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAS is fun, I imagine they could counter it by making the physical map much larger. Something similar to the ARMA maps that are land instead of islands - the terrain is just bare but still present (same with islands, just water instead). This would be an easy way to give aircraft more room to fly around instead of being confined to a small space which could be covered quickly.

 

I wouldn't like to see fighters. However, ground attack aircraft such as the SU-25, A-10, Q-5... maybe even the Tornado, I would definitely like to see those but maybe as an option for the servers or limited to certain maps / game modes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean 8 km * 8 km or 16 km * 16 km  [(8 km)² or (16 km)²]... That since the latest SQD map is already 4 km * 4 km which makes 16 km²...

You're wrong though. 4 Km * 4 Km is not equal to 16 Km² while 4 Km * 4 Km is 4 Km². If the latest map is really 16 Km² then it would be very very big and the time before you can engage an enemy will be longer than what we see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong though. 4 Km * 4 Km is not equal to 16 Km² while 4 Km * 4 Km is 4 Km². If the latest map is really 16 Km² then it would be very very big and the time before you can engage an enemy will be longer than what we see.

 

Not related to the discussion, but I can't let this slip by... Thing is, your units act just as if they were parameters or numbers. If you multiply two [km] values you will always get [km2]. 16km2 = 4km * 4km is completely correct.

 

On topic: I don't see the problem. Just like every weapon, AA also has an effective range. And a few km-s up, the pilot has plenty of time to respond to SAMs, unlike in BF where you live or die based on a split second. If jets can fly outside of the "ground area", they could be a great addition in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure no ones mentioned this in this post, unless ive missed one..

 

Random idea based of pilot games: A possible solution too this would be the use of moving clouds in the levels, not too many for the desert maps tho. This could help with blocking the line of sights from players too jets if they simply add just a few clouds into the level. Jets could use these too fight above some larger clouds, while at the same time it can hide jets from jet, players from jets and jets from players.

It might not be a key fix for this but im pretty sure with clouds and there level design they can make areas of cover for jets too.

 

How the DEVS are fixing this issue: Ive seen some overviews of maps there working on (these are public images). They seems too have great terrain with mountains and hills throughout.. Im not saying jets need too fly low at all. However even just simple terrain variation can help jets hide away from in coming attacks. From a players view a mountain from the ground floor, even from a distance can cover a big area of the map. Also the use of foliage like trees can block a players view from the sky's above, thus helping jets live longer in that way too.

 

Hope this helps and made sence XD I 'Rush' type so sometimes i make no sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a few things some of you are forgetting here;

1. Cruising speeds and top speeds are VERY different from the speeds achieved when engaging. Most aircraft would be unable to dodge an incoming projectile at top/cruising speed; it would rip the air frame apart. So don't stare yourselves blind at these speeds. They're achieved by flying in a straight line for minutes accelerating.

2. Ground attack craft fly much slower than fighter jets, at least when engaging. Look at an A-10 gunrun; the aircraft flies slowly at high alt., visually identifies the target, then extends flaps and brakes to fly even slower, and dives down to unleash the BRRRRRRT. Most ground attack craft also get fairly close to their target before engaging.

3. "Visibility" is irrelevant to engaging an aircraft from the ground. What dictates whether you're able to shoot is effective range and lock range. Thus, there won't really be a drawback with a long view distance.

4. Extending a low res out of bounds map for aircraft to fly on would be fairly easy and would allow for larger air spaces.

5. Volumetric clouds would solve the non-issue of jets being seen as small, unreachable dots at the other end of the map.

6. I'd really miss watching the dogfights from PR, or soaring around doing my pilot voice, or the awesomely co-ordinated lased gun-runs, etc.

 

Please, there is no reason to not add jets, and every reason to add them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyway to add haze or dust of some sort

Also Rain, check your math 4km x 4 km is 16km^2.

Also, someone link me to where latest map is 16km^2. I believe the latest is in fact only 2km x 2 km = 4 km^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oohhh. You got me. Silly me, I was doing Math backwards :P. I was starting at the product then going to the multiplier and multiplicand. I was thinking: "How would 1 Km² be? 0.5 * 0.5?". When I saw the post of WARti0k0ne -BG-, I suddenly lost my knowledge. IDK why. Lol.

Anyway, I doubt that there is a 16 Km² map this early. The size would be noticeable to us if it's that large, even 8 Km² is already big.

I haven't seen the KS page, so I thought that the latest is 4 Km² only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyway to add haze or dust of some sort

Also Rain, check your math 4km x 4 km is 16km^2.

Also, someone link me to where latest map is 16km^2. I believe the latest is in fact only 2km x 2 km = 4 km^2

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/offworldindustries/squad/posts/1256735

Question is what that 4 km across does mean on Kohat Toi .. if it is corner to corner diagonally the one edge would be then aprox. 4 (km) / sqrt(2) = 2.8 (km) if I recal geometry shortcut correctly and Kohat is square map .

 

 

..And for Raini:

1 km = 1 kilometer = 1 * 1000 * m = 1000 meters and 1 km² = 1 000 000 m² So:

4 km * 4 km = 4 * 1000 * m * 4 * 1000 * m = 4* 4 * 1000 * 1000 * m * m = 4^2 * 1000^2 * m^2 = 16 * 1000000 * m^2 = 16 km^2

 

I accept your apologies :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondered whether you could handle jets by having a map within a map, aka have a main 4km x 4km map accessible on foot, with a large less detailed area not accessible to infantry or light vehicles. Seems like it could ease the burden on the mapper to huge detailed maps as well as ease performance concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the FAQ:

 

 

What size will the maps be?

During our earlier releases we plan to have maps that are between 1 and 2 kilometers squared in size, largely because of technical and resource limitations.

 

As we progress [further] into development we plan to support a wider range of map sizes, ideally up to 4-6 and possibly even up to 8 kilometers squared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just hope that the view on big ranges will worke finde. Not like in Arma an all other games. 10-15m is everything fine, but after it you have sick animations. this is why i dont play Arma it just looks so stupid.  i dont need super graphik with no working distance view. look at BF2 old graphik, but i can see people on 1000m and the animation is still fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×