TBF Avenger and other planes

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Not so true. On the Bismarck attempt at crossing between Iceland and Britain, when it was spotted by a PBY, (if I remember well), the registry relates that the Arado on board was launched on an attempt to give chase

There were some situations where catapult-launched recon planes were used for purposes other than recon and artillery spotting, but those missions were their primary duty.

Mind you, I'm not against catapult-launched aircraft, but it would take a lot of development work required to provide the necessary planes and ships, as well as catapult take-off capacity.

Also, not that many sim pilots are into flying slow, vulnerable planes, calling out fire missions while dodging flak and fighters, even if your primary weapons system is a battery of 16 inch guns.

Originally Posted by RPS69

Well, it depends on the waters you are flying over. On clear waters they don't look like a shadow. They clearly looks like a distorted ship, at least at periscope depth. Planes used to straffe this shapes underwater, and they were very vulnerable even to heavy machine gun fire.

True, but IL2's ability to model water clarity and texture is extremely primitive. In IL2, you've got a choice of shallow water texture and deep water texture "painted on" to the water's surface, rather than the sea bottom being textured and water opacity being modeled as a function of ambient light conditions, water turbidity, bottom depth and so forth. So, realistic modeling of light on sub-surface objects isn't an option.

That means that the only option for a periscope depth submarine is a "shadow" - which could be a suitably distorted texture of the submarine's hull. My ignorant guess is that the simplest fix would be to tweak the submarines' shadow models so that the periscope makes a submarine-shaped shadow on the water's surface.

But, that means you just get a dark, hazy submarine-shaped thing that doesn't alter its size or visibility with depth. Also, it's exactly the sort of short-cut that modders love and TD seems to hate, so it might not be good enough to ever be an official fix.

Originally Posted by RPS69

A nice attempt unto this was made in CLOD. Just with ships I must say. I didn't played enough with it to judge how well was it implemented. But this is a thing asked once and again from IL2, way before TD took the flame.

1c completely rewrote their graphics engine for CloD, and took their sweet time doing it. In terms of graphics capacity and appearance, CloD is several generations more advanced than IL2. Say what you will about game play, but CloD is a gorgeous to look at.

To get all the pretty effects you see in CloD or BoS, you'd need to entirely rewrite IL2. That means an entire development team working full time for years to create a brand new simulation. That's way beyond the limits of a couple of dedicated hobbyists.

Originally Posted by RPS69

Your other suggestions are excellent, but just the possibility of attacking a periscope depth submarine is a huge change.

You can attack submarines at periscope depth, but remember that it's actually almost impossible to get a kill against a sub using guns. The angle of bullets striking the water and water resistance means that even a 20mm cannon shell isn't going to have the force required to penetrate a sub's pressure hull when it's more than about a meter deep. At best you get a periscope hit, which forces the sub to surface.

Originally Posted by RPS69

BTW, you must add that depth charges clocked to higher depths, don't make a big water flush as seen on films.

Good point. So, a quick and dirty fix might be to make depth charges more powerful with depth (like the next larger size of bomb) but with a proportionately smaller bomb splash effect. For example, a depth charge fuzed for 30 meters might have the damaging power of a 250 kg bomb, but produces the "medium bomb splash" effect when it goes off. One fuzed for 200 meters would have the damaging power of a 1,000 kg bomb, but just the "small bomb" splash effect.

Realistically, though, new splash effects for mines and depth charges would need to be created. For simplicity, you'd need large, medium and small depth charge/mine effects at shallow, medium and deep depths. That would give the "mound of water" effect, followed a few seconds later by a fountain of water.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

True, but IL2's ability to model water clarity and texture is extremely primitive. In IL2, you've got a choice of shallow water texture and deep water texture "painted on" to the water's surface, rather than the sea bottom being textured and water opacity being modeled as a function of ambient light conditions, water turbidity, bottom depth and so forth. So, realistic modeling of light on sub-surface objects isn't an option.

I have some experience with another game, no less old than Il2, and with similar texturing effect. In that game, a workable solution would be:
To duplicate the water’s surface.
To place the second one at some depth, 20 meters – 60 feet would probably be a good compromise.
To reduce opacity of both surfaces (a different way to say “To augment transparency”). I would guess 80% opacity for the upper surface and 20% for the lower should work, correctly representing the effect of clear waters.
Done that, the submarine would be visible at periscope depth, and disappear at a realistic depth.
There’s another possible solution, if I’m not mistaken.
Again: to reduce surface opacity.
Then, to place a continuous dark cloud under water surface.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Furio

I have some experience with another game, no less old than Il2, and with similar texturing effect. In that game, a workable solution would be:
To duplicate the water’s surface.
To place the second one at some depth, 20 meters – 60 feet would probably be a good compromise.
To reduce opacity of both surfaces (a different way to say “To augment transparency”). I would guess 80% opacity for the upper surface and 20% for the lower should work, correctly representing the effect of clear waters.
Done that, the submarine would be visible at periscope depth, and disappear at a realistic depth.
There’s another possible solution, if I’m not mistaken.
Again: to reduce surface opacity.
Then, to place a continuous dark cloud under water surface.

Do you know how they were capable of showing under the water line of ships on IL2?

To my knowledge, if they can do that, they can do a ship that just go on that line and show it.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Do you know how they were capable of showing under the water line of ships on IL2?

To my knowledge, if they can do that, they can do a ship that just go on that line and show it.

I just took a ride in a Rufe floatplane around Pacific Island map. For what I saw, water surface has 100% opacity. Not an inch of submerged ships, submarines and floats shows through. The feeling is confirmed by plane’s shadow on water. My guess is that the shallow water effect is simply “painted” on, with a texture applied to water surface near beaches. Of course, I have no idea if the methods I suggested are applicable to Il2.

[sniperton]

The method you suggested sounds primising, at least for me. A transparent upper layer could only be a problem if you watch waves from close to sea level, so that you can see through them, but this could be resolved by fine-tunig opacity.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

To duplicate the water’s surface.
To place the second one at some depth, 20 meters – 60 feet would probably be a good compromise.

A bit more work, but either of your solutions is better than mine.

And, as long as the game allows the option for actual submersible operations, then IL2 could ditch the periscope version of the submarines and just use one submarine model.

ASW operations are an area of the WW2 operations which are is potentially fascinating, historically important, and barely represented in the game.

Its post-WW2, but this video has some cool ideas as to how ASW aircraft did their work. Just about all the technologies shown in the video were developed during WW2.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Also, not that many sim pilots are into flying slow, vulnerable planes, calling out fire missions while dodging flak and fighters, even if your primary weapons system is a battery of 16 inch guns.

Il2 fans, aren't limited to dogfighters. We played a short campaign as the crew of a B17, and believe me it was enormous fun!

1c completely rewrote their graphics engine for CloD, and took their sweet time doing it. In terms of graphics capacity and appearance, CloD is several generations more advanced than IL2. Say what you will about game play, but CloD is a gorgeous to look at.

What I was talking about have nothing to do with graphics, on CLOD ships under air attack DO take evasive maneuvers!
The problem on IL2, is that ships have no AI at all. They are just mindless robots that follow the line. Even ground vehicles got a lesser AI capacity, but ships got no AI at all.

Once I did a mistake while text editing a CV path, and it made a 180° turn over it's center. They don't event interpret that as a round turn.

You can attack submarines at periscope depth, but remember that it's actually almost impossible to get a kill against a sub using guns. The angle of bullets striking the water and water resistance means that even a 20mm cannon shell isn't going to have the force required to penetrate a sub's pressure hull when it's more than about a meter deep. At best you get a periscope hit, which forces the sub to surface.

Yeah, but on real life the sub will submerge anyway, and stop being a threat. A submerged sub can´t follow no convoy. Success don't always need a kill, a kill is just a bonus, seeing it as long term suppression.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Il2 fans, aren't limited to dogfighters. We played a short campaign as the crew of a B17, and believe me it was enormous fun!

Agreed, but the most accessible planes in the game are the fighters and single-engined attack planes, since that's what IL2 was originally designed to simulate, and that's what most players seem to want.

There are so many aspects of the air war during WW2 that aren't well modeled in IL2. You're lucky that you had a group of friends willing to play an unusual mod campaign.

Originally Posted by RPS69

The problem on IL2, is that ships have no AI at all. They are just mindless robots that follow the line. Even ground vehicles got a lesser AI capacity, but ships got no AI at all.

Completely agreed, but, it would be a big programming task to give ships any degree of AI. I'm not sure it's an area that TD wants to tackle.

Originally Posted by RPS69

Yeah, but on real life the sub will submerge anyway, and stop being a threat. A submerged sub can´t follow no convoy. Success don't always need a kill, a kill is just a bonus, seeing it as long term suppression.

True. You use the weapons you have, but unless you've got surprise on your side and/or the submarine tries to fight it out on the surface (Kreigsmarine doctrine from 1943 on) then it's not an effective tactic to use guns. Rockets, bombs and depth charges are the weapons of choice.

Realistically, an ASW patrol plane would also try to keep contact with the submarine and try to summon reinforcements if their attack failed.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Agreed, but the most accessible planes in the game are the fighters and single-engined attack planes, since that's what IL2 was originally designed to simulate, and that's what most players seem to want.

What do you mean by accessible?
Most players maybe, but campaign designers? what do they want?
Take a good look on HSFX and you will see a thing or two about what it is wanted.

There are so many aspects of the air war during WW2 that aren't well modeled in IL2. You're lucky that you had a group of friends willing to play an unusual mod campaign.

Unusual? it seems that I came from a really different world.

Completely agreed, but, it would be a big programming task to give ships any degree of AI. I'm not sure it's an area that TD wants to tackle.

I don't think so. Ships don't need a whole AI, we are not talking about developing huge tasks of attack formations, nor the need to dock perfectly when arriving into a port. I don't expect destroyers to be launched on patrol trough a convoy, nor putting themselves as a torpedo screen protecting a capital ship.
This could be done by setting a main sheep, and associate it with a set of ships to mimic it's behavior. This main sheep may only be programmed to react upon air attack by moving on zig zag, or doing whole turns to avoid bombing runs. The ability to evade collisions with semi sunk ships will be appreciated too!

The difficult task would be if it is decided to do it historically correct, by limiting every type of ship to it's historical maneuver limits. That would be too much, a generic behavior would be enough. Anyway it will be 1000% more than we have today.

True. You use the weapons you have, but unless you've got surprise on your side and/or the submarine tries to fight it out on the surface (Kriegsmarine doctrine from 1943 on) then it's not an effective tactic to use guns. Rockets, bombs and depth charges are the weapons of choice.

Yeah... you sure got lots of them on the first two years of war... I mean rockets, and depth charges thrown from a plane. Do you know that uboots, at the beginning of the war harassed convoys with their deck canons? Also, the British got a whole procedure to strafe submarines on those years. It was deemed an effective tactic, mostly developed on the gulf of biscay. Still, I must admit that the submarine was expected to be on surface to do that.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by RPS69

What do you mean by accessible?
Most players maybe, but campaign designers? what do they want?
Take a good look on HSFX and you will see a thing or two about what it is wanted.

Accessible = easiest for a new player to understand. Multi-engined and multi-crewed planes require extra commands, and a bit more understanding of how aircraft work in order to fly.

HSFX and other online sites represent a community of very committed fans and modders, with an emphasis on online and squadron play. They're a good representation of what "advanced users" want.

There aren't enough mission/campaign designers to really figure out what they want. My guess is that they're a subset of "advanced users".

Originally Posted by RPS69

I don't think so. Ships don't need a whole AI, we are not talking about developing huge tasks of attack formations, nor the need to dock perfectly when arriving into a port. I don't expect destroyers to be launched on patrol trough a convoy, nor putting themselves as a torpedo screen protecting a capital ship.

I agree, but the problem are that ships in IL2 have no AI at all, and their maneuvering physics is really bad (e.g., your example of a CV being able to turn on its axis). Upgrading ship physics and AI to even a basic level would require a huge amount of work. My impression from TD members public comments is that they don't want to do it.

Originally Posted by RPS69

This could be done by setting a main sheep, and associate it with a set of ships to mimic it's behavior. This main sheep may only be programmed to react upon air attack by moving on zig zag, or doing whole turns to avoid bombing runs. The ability to evade collisions with semi sunk ships will be appreciated too!

This is what I've described as "station keeping" and ability to move in formation.

Your ideas are similar to suggestions made in the past on different threads, and represent the sort of basic AI that ships should have.

1) In the FMB, it should be possible to set formations of ships, with other ships keeping station around a ship in the the center of the formation.

2) In the FMB, it should be possible to set standardized ship behavior, like zig-zagging.

Neither of these fixes requires any AI work. Just additions to the FMB.

Basic Ship AI would require:

1) Collision Avoidance - so that ships slow down and/or turn to avoid land, shallow water and other ships.

2) Torpedo Defensive Maneuvers - so ships will turn into, or away from, a spread of torpedoes to "comb" (i.e., sail in between) the torpedo formation. All this requires is a 90 degree turn in the direction of the largest formation of torpedoes (or a 90 degree turn away from it).

Slightly more sophisticated AI would require the ship to speed up or slow down to avoid torpedoes.

3) Bomb/Kamikaze Defensive Maneuvers - Ships attacked by bombers or kamikazes will make the tightest turn they can to left or right, possibly randomly alternating left/right turns, to spoil bombing/suicide attacks.

Originally Posted by RPS69

The difficult task would be if it is decided to do it historically correct, by limiting every type of ship to it's historical maneuver limits. That would be too much, a generic behavior would be enough. Anyway it will be 1000% more than we have today.

Again, agreed. But, it's somewhat difficult to find data for things like turning radius or acceleration. Also, like aircraft, a maneuvering ship is affected by things like centripedal force and inertia. It's a whole different area of engineering/physics.

Originally Posted by RPS69

Yeah... you sure got lots of them on the first two years of war... I mean rockets, and depth charges thrown from a plane. Do you know that uboots, at the beginning of the war harassed convoys with their deck canons? Also, the British got a whole procedure to strafe submarines on those years. It was deemed an effective tactic, mostly developed on the gulf of biscay. Still, I must admit that the submarine was expected to be on surface to do that.

WW2 era submarines were intended as surface vessels that could submerge (vs. modern doctrine where submarines are designed as true submersibles), and this heavily influenced early war submarine design and doctrine.

The big issue for the mid/late war anti-submarine planes was anti-submarine/anti-shipping radar. That allowed ASW planes to detect subs and ships dozens of miles away. Some radars were sensitive enough that they could even sense sub periscopes.

Not surprisingly, submarines were quickly fitted with radar detectors allowing them to detect and avoid snooping aircraft, so there was a "technical war" with each side developing better radar systems (and, later in the war, MAD systems) and defenses against radar.

The "Battle of the Atlantic" from 1940-43 was not unlike the RAF's Night Bomber Campaign from 1942-44, with each side gaining a temporarily advantage based on some new gadget being developed.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see a simulation of aerial and naval operations in the Bay of Biscay from 1940-44. Lots of really interesting ships and aircraft. Plenty of desperate small actions. Historically quite important. Utterly ignored by any sim to date. Sadly, doing it right would require massive amounts of work that's far beyond my limited skills.