project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: 2 questions on human aircraft designs  (Read 23163 times)

Serrax

  • Guest
2 questions on human aircraft designs
« on: March 01, 2008, 10:17:55 pm »
Hi,

I have two thoughts and questions on human aircrafts. Maybe these are discussed elsewhere, where I couldn't find them, so I made this thread.

1. Armed combat dropships

I saw that you're planning to introduce some advanced dropships like the 'Hyperion-class Armed Dropship' and the 'Raptor-class Combat Dropship'.

So my question is: Why should I use these dropships? I would never risk my squad in a poorly armed dropship to shoot down a dangerous UFO. For this task I have interceptors... Even in the case of success - why should I use a dropship with less soldiers than my 'Firebird-class Dropship?

2. The 'Dragon-class Interceptor' (v2.2)

This interceptor imho merges all disadvantages of both, the Stiletto and the Saracen interceptors. It is slow and weakly armed - even though it looks damn cool. So, shouldn't it be somehow... 'more advanced', like the Stingray is?

cu

Offline eleazar

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2008, 12:44:31 am »
So my question is: Why should I use these dropships?

Because they are better than the firebird.

The fact that you arm a dropship doesn't mean you have to seek out and attack UFOs with it... but if you are attacked, it's nice not to be a sitting duck.

Starship_Yard

  • Guest
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2008, 03:55:21 am »
Hope this is as good of a thread as any to start fleshing out the "new" craft in the list.  I've started editing in the Wiki to bring the Aircraft/UFO section up to date (I hope).

1) Armed Combat Dropships
  In the short term allowing Phalanx to develop a faster and better protected dropship in the Hyperion is a good progression.  In my first game I lost one of my Firebirds to a Harvester as it was hanging around my base while the Firebird was returning from a mission.  The Harvester continued on it's merry way while my Interceptor arrived to find a smoking hole in the ground.
  In the long term, following the X-Com theme, the most effective craft developed is the Avenger and it is superior to any other craft we produce in any role.  Hence a similar evolution towards the Raptor.  In addition a single craft could sneak in on interstellar missions much more easily than a fleet of craft (dropship plus escorts).  And to make matters tougher,  we are limited in our supply of antimatter to what we capture from the aliens so maximizing the potential of any craft that use antimatter is a key requirement.

2) Dragon Interceptor
  I get the impression that the 2nd generation fightercraft are just beginning to be fleshed out.  By the numbers the Dragon replaces the Saracen at a cheaper cost while the Stingray will be more optimized toward space operations.  V2.2 has the first actual aerial combat/fighter implementation so the details are still a little sparse on how the differences between all four craft will fit together.  Right now the impression from playing is that I can get away with largely a force of Stilettos versus Saracens as there is little difference in speed with the Saracen trading the 3rd weapon space for a longer range.

Brett

Serrax

  • Guest
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2008, 09:30:40 am »
Thanks for the quick answers....

@eleazar:

Quote from: eleazar
Because they are better than the firebird.
That depends on what you consider as 'better'...

'Better' for a dropship is imho 'faster', 'bigger' and more ECM.

Ok, I confess: I've just played standard-campaigns yet. My Firebirds were never ever attacked by UFOs.


@Starship_Yard:

Quote from: Starship_Yard
1) Armed Combat Dropships
  In the short term allowing Phalanx to develop a faster and better protected dropship in the Hyperion is a good progression.  In my first game I lost one of my Firebirds to a Harvester as it was hanging around my base while the Firebird was returning from a mission.  The Harvester continued on it's merry way while my Interceptor arrived to find a smoking hole in the ground. 
Sorry, but no interceptors in combat-range? No base-defence?

And over all - you can alternate the flightpath of every aircraft as long as it has fuel - for example to avoid an intercepting UFO.

Quote from: Starship_Yard
In addition a single craft could sneak in on interstellar missions much more easily than a fleet of craft (dropship plus escorts).  And to make matters tougher,  we are limited in our supply of antimatter to what we capture from the aliens so maximizing the potential of any craft that use antimatter is a key requirement. 
Ok, that's a valid reason.

But even then I believe the best tactics for a dropship is to sneak in or to run like hell - for both tactics I don't need weapons, but ECM, speed and maybe armor.

Quote from: Starship_Yard
  2) Dragon Interceptor
  I get the impression that the 2nd generation fightercraft are just beginning to be fleshed out.  By the numbers the Dragon replaces the Saracen at a cheaper cost while the Stingray will be more optimized toward space operations.  V2.2 has the first actual aerial combat/fighter implementation so the details are still a little sparse on how the differences between all four craft will fit together.  Right now the impression from playing is that I can get away with largely a force of Stilettos versus Saracens as there is little difference in speed with the Saracen trading the 3rd weapon space for a longer range.
Hm, ok. Did you ever think of an additional bay for additional ECM?

cu

Guildenstern

  • Guest
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2008, 09:38:41 am »
One of the thoughts I had about the dropship is that if it had a weapon it could be used as the ship landed in a tac mission.  This would not be relative to the player, but something that is computed automatically.  As I understand it(could be wrong) pilots are going to be put into game at some point, so putting a descent pilot into your dropship could up the chance for a dropship killed alien.  If you think about this logically, the dropship is not going to just plop down into the LZ and not fire (at least suppressive) on aliens that your guys turn a little bit and spot.  The final mechanic on this would likely look like this, pilot skill would increase the chance for a dead alien, likely placed right there near the LZ (I shot him and landed on him for extra insult!) and the higher the pilot skill the more likely the aliens are to be on the other side of the map (Thus providing your troops better time to get to cover).  It would also be nice to have some sort of return fire in this phase as well from the aliens.  This way, if your pilot sucks, the aliens can hit the ship and cause you issues after mission.  While obviously we don't want the dropship destroyed or your troops hurt, it would be possible to make the ship run slower back (lost an engine) or have the aliens start closer (ship already under fire).  Just as a side note, I could also see it work if the pilots had multiple skills that some sort of recon skill could make the aliens (some of them) show up on overflight to the LZ, thus granting first turn LOS.
  Let me know what you guys think,
  Guildenstern

Offline Doctor J

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2008, 04:32:44 pm »
Sorry, but no interceptors in combat-range? No base-defence?

This has happened to me right at the beginning of a campaign: you get the 1st mission to Wellington, and you have no other bases to provide radar coverage, and definitely no defense missiles.  About halfway back from the mission, a Harvester suddenly appeared.  I suppose i could have tried changing course, but the speed differential between a Firebird with 2 extra tanks and a Harvester is enough that i couldn't avoid it if it decided to chase me.  And it all took place far enough away from HQ that an interceptor wouldn't have made it in time.  About the only thing i could see doing differently would be to send a Stiletto along with.  And lacking an 'escort' command, it's just too much of a PITA to keep a combat craft alongside a loaded Firebird.  Also, it is a rare enough occurrence to not make it worth the effort [most of the time].

@ Guildenstern:

I'm not sure it would be logical for a military craft in 2084 to have a human pilot.  Even now, the U.S. Air Force is flying unmanned craft in combat operations.  The expectation is that within a generation all military aircraft will be unmanned, and i would expect other developed nations to follow suit.  Plus it sounds too much like a teeter-totter: if the pilot is good, the mission will be too easy.  If the pilot is bad, it becomes too hard. Plus the whole *point* of the missions is hide-and-seek, not set-piece battles.

Guildenstern

  • Guest
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2008, 04:57:07 pm »
  Until the ufopedia get updated I'm going to assume that they are using all pilots and no remotes.  If you look at some of the entries about the engine techs it talks specifically about problems with the flight mechanics due to the pilot factors.  It also stands to reason that with advanced ecm the aliens could simply jam your remote and have the ship crash.  In addition, if we want to suppose that the aircraft are all automated then the game has no purpose, with that level of tech you'd just pop out a bunch of automated robots off your automated jet and they they'd proceed to shred the aliens with inhumanly accurate fire.  The only plausability to a war between humans and aliens is that each side has a composed force of individuals with assorted skill levels.  Otherwise its an engineering problem and not a war, because if its just robots duking it out its a matter of exploiting design flaws in the other side's toys.
  This is not to say that the idea I proposed is a good one (being an idea that makes the game more immersive OR more fun), but pilot class is on the way from the tone of the other discussions and it would be nice to have a class that has more depth than assign to ship>shoot down ufo>return to base.  Its just a logical assumption that if your troops were deploying from the air and the dropship was armed the pilot or AI if you'd like would attempt to at least suppress the hostiles, if not killing some.  I would agree as well that it can become an either or problem, but if the pilot skill progresses like the soldier skill, the one you hire for the dropship detail would likely be selected for that particular ability.  Only a pilot that should not be used for that mission would make it too hard.
  I'm just of the opinion that we need to make the most immersive experience possible,
  Working with the lore as it gets added,
  Guildenstern

Offline Doctor J

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2008, 06:41:50 pm »
  Until the ufopedia get updated I'm going to assume that they are using all pilots and no remotes.  If you look at some of the entries about the engine techs it talks specifically about problems with the flight mechanics due to the pilot factors.  It also stands to reason that with advanced ecm the aliens could simply jam your remote and have the ship crash.  In addition, if we want to suppose that the aircraft are all automated then the game has no purpose, with that level of tech you'd just pop out a bunch of automated robots off your automated jet and they they'd proceed to shred the aliens with inhumanly accurate fire.  The only plausability to a war between humans and aliens is that each side has a composed force of individuals with assorted skill levels.  Otherwise its an engineering problem and not a war, because if its just robots duking it out its a matter of exploiting design flaws in the other side's toys.

Pilot factors in flight mechanics are all the more reason to not have a pilot.  No matter how good your pilot is protected against G-forces, an unmanned craft will be able to go faster and make tighter turns without blacking out.  As far as remotely piloted vehicles vs. jamming, i totally agree.  I had assumed that robotics technology would improve somewhat in the next 74 years.   ???  Anyway, having self-thinking robotic planes does not equate with having man-sized self-thinking robots [I don't think those should exist in the scale of this game.].  As it is, the only thing for the pilot to do is to vector his/her flight path to intercept the moving UFO [How is this happening if jamming is preventing communication between the Command Center and the plane?] and press the fire button when practical.  Then either he/she dies, the UFO goes down, or both.  It just seems a waste to have to hire disposable jockeys, and they would take up valuable bunk space in Crew Quarters...

Guildenstern

  • Guest
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2008, 11:55:59 pm »
  I would realistically have to agree that by the timeframe of the game AI should be advanced enough to pilot a ship, but for our purposes I would disagree that it would be used by the humans in the game.  The idea I had in mind was that the ecm the aliens used would somehow destabilize the AI.  The AI for the planes would likely be instrument driven, using radar and the like to navigate and control the craft.  If the ecm disrupts the "senses" of the plane it would likely make mistakes because it doesn't know what to do with limited data.  This would be modeled in the structure for the AI to compensate for equipment failure, but with that many inputs down it might becomes less effective than human pilot.  I'm thinking that the best way to figure out how that would work is to refer it to the story department.  Like I said earlier, from what I have read it looks like medics are getting replaced with pilots, so some explaination is needed on why the planes are not remote piloted or AI driven (as I do agree with you that hopefully by that time tech would exist to make both common)
  On the second question that the thread was actually started on, the two interceptors could perhaps have different roles?  One could serve as a "light" fighter/interceptor and the other could serve as a heavy weapons platform/ecm/eccm.  For instance, I could see aircraft combat coming back in line more with the X-Com series in that it is more of a mini-game than a geoscape event.  With that the ships could assist one another so that the equipment is able interact across a formation.  Something like one ship shoots down alien missiles and deals heavy damage while the others engage fighter escorts and the like.  Definatly proposes making ship combat a more complex beast, and would likely detail alterations to base buildings to accomidate a larger air force (perhaps some sort of carrier lift that has been suggested before making base defense more interesting as aliens could enter the launch pad and attack the base from the lower hanger levels as well)  But back on topic, specializing the craft so they have different roles would really make it a more useful ship overall, particularly if the ability to go out and buy them is removed(for the researched craft).

  My thoughts on both topics,
  Guildenstern

Serrax

  • Guest
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2008, 05:01:28 pm »
@Doctor J:

Quote from: Doctor J
This has happened to me right at the beginning of a campaign: you get the 1st mission to Wellington, and you have no other bases to provide radar coverage, and definitely no defense missiles.  About halfway back from the mission, a Harvester suddenly appeared.
Bad luck. I expect this situation even less in the advanced game - I have at least 5 bases than... and nearly global radar coverage and a lot of interceptors.  ;D


@Guildenstern:

Quote from: Guildenstern
The idea I had in mind was that the ecm the aliens used would somehow destabilize the AI. 
Well, how should that work?

Quote from: Guildenstern
The AI for the planes would likely be instrument driven, using radar and the like to navigate and control the craft.  If the ecm disrupts the "senses" of the plane it would likely make mistakes because it doesn't know what to do with limited data. 
What's the difference to any human pilot in that situation? I assume that most interceptions take place under extrem circumstances - by more than 5,000 kilometers per hour and a flying altitude of 10 to 50 kilometers.

The g-forces are extreme - even today with 'just' 2,000 kilometers per hour. No human pilot can bear g-forces at 5,000 kph or more. Furthermore, the life support systems for these aircrafts have to be much more powerful than today.

You depend completely on your instruments by this speed and altitude.

Quote from: Guildenstern
This would be modeled in the structure for the AI to compensate for equipment failure, but with that many inputs down it might becomes less effective than human pilot. 
I suppose, in most situations human pilots are worse than an AI pilot.


Furthermore:

Quote from: Guildenstern
On the second question that the thread was actually started on, the two interceptors could perhaps have different roles? 
Yes, that is what they say. But up to 2.2. there was no information about that - and so I asked.

But if I understand kracken correctly, they'll change the balance of interception anyway dramatically.


Quote from: Guildenstern
One could serve as a "light" fighter/interceptor and the other could serve as a heavy weapons platform/ecm/eccm.   
It is said, that the dragon-class interceptor should replace the scarazene-class interceptor and the stingray-class interceptor will become a new, special roll in combat - the first 'trans-atmosphere'-class interceptor.

cu

Offline shevegen

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2008, 11:46:11 pm »
Quote
I would never risk my squad in a poorly armed dropship to shoot down a dangerous UFO.

I think he makes a point here. Let's think from a different point of view - what if, the earlier you start a mission, the higher the chance that you find "useful" things? I.e. 2 days later, the aliens might have fled to some other area (and 14 days later, they might even help terror attacks on some other area or something like that)

Guildenstern

  • Guest
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2008, 10:12:29 am »
@Serrax
  I think I might need to expand my statement as to make it more understandable.  When I talked about the ecm destabilizing the AI, the following statements were the logical proof why.  We know that pilots are being added to the game and most players seem to assume that by the game's time period AI will be highly developed.  Thus we must either explain why A) Advanced AI doesn't work on aliens or B) AI never got developed to that functional level.  The logical proof I had in mind to make both A and B work is as follows: From what we've seen in the game universe the wars actually served to slow down technology development (remember what the folks in the 50's and 60's thought the year 2000 was gonna be, well that is what we got in the 2080's too apparently), so the AI's would be more or less advanced state systems(my assumption), so they work best when all the data is available for them to run against their rules system(perfect world the AI works best), Aliens are very good at jamming and ecm reducing the amount of available data while making it impossible to control the craft from base within X distance of UFO so something on-board must control the plane(If you're having trouble seeing as to why you'd be able to give instructions to it in this state, we can attack that later, it does have logical means to explain this).  Faced with lack of data, the state machine we've got available to pilot the craft makes bad choices, this can be overcome with a playbook (I.E. the thing chess computers use to look ahead at every possible move without extrapolating them on the fly) but the playbook is slow for more complex situations even with blazing fast hardware.  Faced with an indecisive machine, the human pilot running on a combination of swagger, adrenaline, and gut feeling preforms better (the choices they make might be risky, but no pain, no gain)
  That is why I'd say pilots are being used in game.  From the gameplay side of it I'd say that while this is a turn-based game, it still has a heavy role-play side to it.  You units become better and players naturally are hesitant to lose the entire team they've had from day 1.  For me, having troops that run from rookies up to crack veterans over the campaign is part of the addictiveness of the original xcom series and having a set of pilots that become better as the game progresses would enhance that.  Granted that it is going to be a PITA to figure out a mechanic to recover your pilots when they get shot down that is plausible, I believe it can be done (or at least willing to beat it to death to find out)
  We certainly need some sort of technical advance or system to explain out the high g-maneuvers as the alien dropships that are being downed are full of critters that are subjected to those forces too.  I can see two routes to this to make it work.  We could have A)an input governor such that it is simply impossible to cause those accelerations that are lethal or B) Some black-boxed tech to remove the physics from the equation.  I think A is a better idea because its simply an addendum slipped into the craft descriptions in the ufopedia.  Certainly possible to add some sort of alien research that can open up high-g maneuvers, but those craft at the start need something to make this a non-issue other than believing that the pilot just knows when to stop (this is certainly true that they really know when to stop, but there are accidents all the time because people in similar situations don't)
  I hope this clears up what I was getting at.  I am trying very hard to keep within the constraints of existing game lore and stated direction, but I have a sense that sometimes this becomes an issue of threading a jet out the eye of a needle.
  Guildenstern

Serrax

  • Guest
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2008, 02:07:52 pm »
@Guildenstern:

Quote from: Guildenstern
We know that pilots are being added to the game and most players seem to assume that by the game's time period AI will be highly developed.   
Are you sure? In this case, the discussion would not be worth it.

Quote from: Guildenstern
From what we've seen in the game universe the wars actually served to slow down technology development (remember what the folks in the 50's and 60's thought the year 2000 was gonna be, well that is what we got in the 2080's too apparently), 
Wars might slow down civil technology development - but they boost military technology. This can be seen by every bigger war - since WW1.

Furthermore:

AI pilots are today's technology. Ok, hardly competitive to human pilots - but this will change. The new JSF F35 is probably the last interceptor with a human on board. The development of drones is fast advancing - the predators are in use yet, and far more advanced systems are in the pipe.
 
Quote from: Guildenstern
so the AI's would be more or less advanced state systems(my assumption), so they work best when all the data is available for them to run against their rules system(perfect world the AI works best)   
There's no difference to human pilots.

Quote from: Guildenstern
Aliens are very good at jamming and ecm reducing the amount of available data while making it impossible to control the craft from base within X distance of UFO so something on-board must control the plane(If you're having trouble seeing as to why you'd be able to give instructions to it in this state, we can attack that later, it does have logical means to explain this). 
Ok, let's have a look on the jamming effect:

- no radar
- no radio (remote control, GPS)
- no laser tracker to the UFO

What else Do you believe is jammed?

Imho are following sensors are not jammed:

- TV systems
- laser rangefinder to everything but the UFO's hull
- speed, altitude and flight attitude
- inertial guidance
- all internal systems

As TV-tracking works today on 40 km, I assume no problem to track the UFO if the interceptor was guided in that area by the ground control.

The fight itself is quite simple - you belong completely to TV-tracking.

Quote from: Guildenstern
[...] Granted that it is going to be a PITA to figure out a mechanic to recover your pilots when they get shot down that is plausible, I believe it can be done (or at least willing to beat it to death to find out)
Sure.

Another point:

Interceptors are extremely cheap compared to other equipment - to a machine gun the ratio for an interceptor is something like 20 to 1. The interceptor is 'just' 20 time more expensive than a machine gun.
PHALANX interceptors are the state-of-the-art human technology - so I compare them at least with the price of the F22 fighter (150,000,000 $ flyaway). I assume that today a quality machine gun costs 5,000 $ - so the ratio is 30,000 to 1.
The Predator costs less than 40,000,000 (complete system) (ratio: 8,000 to 1) and the advantages of mass production are in favour of the F22 - up to now.

Effectively, drones are much cheaper than fighter with human pilots. I assume that an interceptor would cost not 30,000 credits, but maybe 500,000,000 credits - based on a realistic ratio to other equipment.

Quote from: Guildenstern
We certainly need some sort of technical advance or system to explain out the high g-maneuvers as the alien dropships that are being downed are full of critters that are subjected to those forces too.  I can see two routes to this to make it work.  We could have A)an input governor such that it is simply impossible to cause those accelerations that are lethal or B) Some black-boxed tech to remove the physics from the equation.  I think A is a better idea because its simply an addendum slipped into the craft descriptions in the ufopedia.  Certainly possible to add some sort of alien research that can open up high-g maneuvers, but those craft at the start need something to make this a non-issue other than believing that the pilot just knows when to stop (this is certainly true that they really know when to stop, but there are accidents all the time because people in similar situations don't) 
Imho UFOs are not much faster than human interceptors. They have some kind of "jump drive", but for atmospheric flight they're similar to interceptors. However, aliens could bear more g-forces than humans.

But I cannot imagine aliens sitting on their g-force chairs in their g-force suites like astronauts - or human pilots. Including all mobile stuff inside the UFO locked. In my opinion, they have no problems with g-forces - or zero gravity in space. The walk around in their UFO, doing their business, despite high speed manoeuvre.

I suppose, g-compensation and artificial gravity are linked technologies and work together in a 'black box'. Maybe, UFO Scouts and UFO fighters don't have these components, as they're quite small and not very important to the UFO fleet.

As the aliens have some interesting technology based on gravity (the gravity sensor), I don't expect this technology as to exotic for an realistic explanation.

cu

knightsubzero

  • Guest
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2008, 02:53:01 pm »
inertial dampeners should be a research item.

inertial dampeners negate g forces.

Offline Doctor J

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: 2 questions on human aircraft designs
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2008, 08:35:47 pm »
I think he makes a point here. Let's think from a different point of view - what if, the earlier you start a mission, the higher the chance that you find "useful" things? I.e. 2 days later, the aliens might have fled to some other area (and 14 days later, they might even help terror attacks on some other area or something like that)

There should be more incentive to get there soon, and [as discussed in this thread http://ufoai.ninex.info/forum/index.php?topic=1569.0] a strong disincentive to wait before starting the mission.  Perhaps a simple mechanic that every few hours the aliens wander the mission area unmolested increased civilian deaths, plus more 'booty' for completing the mission earlier.