GUNSHIP!: First Look

Hover.

Are the only people who post on this board hardcore simmers? I am sick to death of everyone whinging about ultra-realism on these boards. With this kind of repeditive negative feedback I am not surprised about how Sim developers are fleeing this genre....
If the sim is more accessable to a larger audience then I am all for it so long as the following are not compromised:
* realistic 3D cockpit (no it doesn't have to have a million switches that are all clickable)
* realist flight model
* realistic warfare - no me against the world, if this is achieved via intelligent scripted missions I still will be happy
* good wingman commands and AI
* Realistic weather, clouds and trees
* 1024x768 resolution in D3D

I think Gunship may just have these qualities , with the option to dumb down things like the Flight model and enemy AI.

I'm crossing my fingers because 2000 is looking real lean for believable simulations!

Bring on the flames!!!

But it's still a case of 'Missouri Your Horse and then we'll talk teeth'.

Viking, as usual the weapons system modes are the most interesting to me. Can you tell me what goes into making the various rocket/gun/missile systems 'different'?

Specifically:

Do the brits get the CRV-7 HV rocket with multidart? A better APC killer there isn't.

Do they get the Hellstreak AHM?

Do the TRIGAT/OSIRIS links operate on an 'inertial tag' system like say the Comanche's ability to assign weapon footprints and then loft the missile on very short or even no (MMS) re-bore acquisition?

How do things like weather effect the FLIR and CCDTV? I know people tend to think 'no cockpit visibility means no EO visibility' but having seen some of the stuff coming out of the civillian sector on all weather approach aids for airliners, I can honestly say that near-IR/viz based CCD's can image quite well in conditions where the eyeball or FLIR are both down to tens of feet if not actual whiteout.

Do we get more sophisticated defensive aids modelling? Jammer Arcs and DIRCM and ASTE-type 'safe' IR expendables? What about smoke mortars?

Do we get the Longbow system with both the K and L Hellfire support?

Do we get some kind of team datalink? Image or 9-line only?

Do we get a Pioneer or similar 'you go first' drone?

Are there /any/ 'residual' SACLOS weapons like HOT or TOW? I thought I read once that this was to be a backup-optional type system on the German Tiger at least. I know they're complex to emulate, I know they suck tactically, but there is NO 'satisfaction' like a TOW kill behind the hill...

MAWS: Missile Approach Warning. With ranging capability so that the razorback of the fuselage doesn't make me just instantly dead if I can't literally see the incoming.

Advanced Threat/Other Weapons:
Polypheme (Fibreoptic Guided longrange)
AHM (The Mines that hunt helos)
External Air (LDSD and active radar threats)
EOCG/Laser Guided 'Flares Mean Nothing To Me' MANPAD/SHORADS
Main Tube (Kobra, MPATS etc.)
Potential for Soviet Stuff (Mi-25FN, KA-50/2, Mi-28N etc.)
Threat Camouflage. MMW 'pyramid enhancers'. IR defeating nets and 'mobility camo applique distempers which match the background, possibly actively.
Ideally this would be _layered_ from
'expectation' (mission briefs/GPS markers on 'glowie spots' that are in fact deceptive decoys; to include SAR maps and overhead of FALSE targets)

to

'Seduction' as deliberate weapon-draw seduction ('misplaced' camo net on a decoy)
and

'Terminal/Circumferential'
As walk-in killsac logic (where the enemy doesn't engage until you're deep in his envelope).

Laser Threats. Eyeball and Especially Aperture Burnout (part of the reality of DIRCM and counter DIRCM warfare).

Lastly, I -want- the option to fly the machine myself but the questions must be asked:

1. How smart is the guy in front (errr, back if it's the Tiger I guess)? Can HE shoot the ducks if I row the boat?

2. How well integrated are the flight controls? I would shoot-steal-or-smooch for an:

_AI Collective_

Capable of button-select 'blending' my movements to maintain altitude or airspeed or nose point within a certain range of envelope and torque limits.

Press Button 1 and the 'expert system' (ex AAH driver) collective helps me hold height or set a new one -at the existing airspeed- and/or with minimal rotation of the fuselage.

Press Button 2 and the 'expert system' helps me point the nose (including torque pedal 'rudder') -independent- of airspeed.

Press Button 3 and I get an 'Approach to Hover' command that helps me adjust airspeed without bottoming out/blooming as I transition to the lift cushion.

Now I /know/ this 'isn't real' (yet, ADOCS emulated some of it in a 4-axis sidestick back in like 1987). But then again, I don't have a spare stick or rudder pedals and so I can't say _I_ am, either.

But the alternative is either a mindnumbing 2D 'pitch=speedbrake' repeat or throwing the novice player into an Awfully Deep Leap off the Niagara Falls of full rotary wing aerodynamics.

Indeed, if I had to pick ONE improvement I'd like to see in any new COMBAT helo gaming system, it would be what I just said. So I can fight the good fight and not just fight to stay out of the dirt and the trees.

Kurt Plummer

LINKS-
Tiger http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tiger/index.html http://helicopter.virtualave.net/tiger.htm

TRIGAT http://www.army-technology.com/projects/lr_trigat/index.html#specs http://www.defencejournal.com/feb-mar99/trigat-lr.htm http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/trigat.htm

I am not sure I see the point of a helo sim that doesn't model the helo. I think GUNSHIP! has the right idea for the newbie with the you play the front seat mode. We will have to see what happens with the back seat AI but the FM can't be dumbed right down or it realy isn't a helo sim any longer.

Z

Having said that, I agree with Oystein about good scripted missions being more enjoyable than a poorly implemented dynamic campaign. As long as the actual flying is demanding and varied enough, what's the problem? You get given a "canned" mission with an objective, but are left alone to plan and execute with a given set of parameters (wingmen, ordinance etc. availability), seems good enough to me.

As for not being aimed at the hardcore crowd, hmmm... apart from getting flight models, avionics and weapon modelling right, where do you draw the line? How far can you, (and whether you want to or not you will) alienate the more casual gamer (always hated that term) whilst not impacting sales. And if you do, how can you justify, etc. etc. I know we've all been through that before but it has never been such a fore-front issue as now.

A knotty one this...

------------------
------------------
Tally Ho

as realistic a graphics engine as we can get at this time. Graphical realism is half the needed piece of the puzzle for adding the immersiveness to a game, the other half is obviously "gameplay".
force feedback
and a realistic flight model<---- this one has me worried for Gunship.... I d like to see as close to LB 2s FM as possible.

So microprose, AT LEAST DO THE FLIGHT MODEL TOP NOTCH!!!
Lets pray for the rest of the features...

SHOULDN'T BE SO DIFFICULT?

This is such BS. Wouldn't it be nice if the damn company got it's act together and released "Gunship! the Sim". Not "Gunship! the half-ars@ attempt at a game".
I'll wait for the next couple of reviews to see whether they give the option for more realism, otherwise i'm not buying it.

Another thing is, they are calling this "game" Gunship!, but the main screen has "Gunship III" in the header, so either the build that CSIM got is really old, or they are not paying attention to detail.

HASBRO SUX!!!!!

I spoke with Gunship!'s producer yesterday, and they are sending a current build of the game up ASAP. Please remember that the version we currently have is PRE-ALPHA, and many of the features aren't working right in it. Once we receive the new build, we'll have a closer look at the weapons systems, damage modeling, flight modeling, and other gameplay issues.

GUNSHIP!'s units and terrain look like a souped up version of M1 Tank Platoon II, and the folks working on the game have told us that while the avionics may be dialed back a bit, the outside world will be REAL.

To answer a couple of Kurt's questions, the HOT 3 missile is the variant of the HOT in the pre-alpha, however I haven't found the CRV-7 yet (same goes for the TOW) but it could be in the next build.

If you gents can hang on another few days we'll do our best to cover your questions and concerns once the new build arrives.

Well... I for one feel that game companys can make a hard core sim and give everyone the option to tone down the game. That would give them a broader audience and generate more sales. The problem with your statement about Hard Core Simmers IMHO is that many people forget that the hard core sim pushes the technology to it's limits... and therefore increases suspension of belief better with each new game. I have been flying simulators for over 18 years and there is no way I want to go backwards with the Sims I fly. I will not spend my hard earned dollars on sims that don't push the envelope not only in graphics but realism.

Hangtime 388th VFW

[This message has been edited by Hangtime (edited 02-08-2000).]

I don't get it guys, comments or agreements welcomed...

Dear Mr Cornish,
I was wondering, when you give us your previews of this sim and other sims if you could look into the games directory and give a brief run down or summary of any components that can be customized- that is sound files ,camo ,GUI, perhaps even mission scripts like in M1TP2. This would be helpful and give some idea of the exstensibility of the game.
thanks

I'll be happy to answer both of these questions once the updated build arrives, as I don't want to make any assumptions, particularly with this alpha we currently have.

Clanmaster, I know that GUNSHIP! will connect with Tank Platoon once it is released. Tank Platoon should be out before the holiday season this year, so we'll have to wait and see on that one, but we'll get into GUNSHIP!'s multiplayer features in the next article. Many of your questions are the same ones I've asked/I'm asking the developers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shataan:

and a realistic flight model<---- this one has me worried for Gunship.... I d like to see as close to LB 2s FM as possible.
reading. :0(

---

Now you just have to make up your mind. What do you want? A realistic FM or one that is like LB2? I wish people would quit putting the two together, while it was a not bad FM a few years ago (though HIND was better in every way) it has a very poor FM by any standard today.

Yup, LB2's felt good, and that's the secret of good game *design*. Making it all feel good is a skill.

But I can tell you if a real attack helicopter handled as poorly as they do in LB2 then no army would fly them. Kinda glad LB2 doesn't have trees, everyone would be bumping into them all the time.

TimG like AndyH is a good designer, that in itself inspires some confidence in the product - not pre-alpha speculation or sensationalisation.

Take McDonalds burgers, even sh¦t can sometimes taste good.

For single player gaming I think A-H is the best out there now, to bad the multiplay didn't work out too well. Best game is really something that can only be decided on by the individual player. To each his own and all that stuff

Thanks for the heads up. My apologies to Garra Cornish. When I saw 'moderator'...

As for FM, I'm all for 'feeling' the flight motions (there is bob and tilt of the airframe the helo sinks dangerously or somebody bitches at you when you command too much, too close etc.) but /under control/. With perhaps some kind of indication on too-close/too much for the given choice of helo or airplane style maneuver control.

While I was able to master Mi-24, finally, as a 100' AGL strafe-ship with 'safe VTOL' landings in full-FM, I was always uncomfortable with the on-off cushion and NOE movement drills in Apache and LB1.

This could get tricky if you're racing an ATGM solution vs. an enemy popping arty on 'suspected hides' across every ridgeline or if there is a serious air threat and you need to skedaddle without delay.

To me, much of the challenge and thrill in any 'stalking sim' (which is what an AAH comes down to really) is the thought behind how you 'win the war before the other guy starts fighting'.

While this cannot happen without an awareness of your machines limits, I find that the fluidity of execution just isn't there, for me, in slow speed situations and such a narrow sense of peripheral/vertical movement.

So for part timers at least, the option to ditch the (terrible) 'go slow/go fast, hi/lo' (2D) novice FM cyclic and collective would be worth a lot.

I have no problems with keeping the 'Real Deal', with perhaps a slight performance edge as well, for the hardcore types and even 'requiring it', for online play.

Of course having a joystick with an onboard throttle now may help too...

Garra,

Again my apologies Sir. Thanks for the weapons data, have you had a chance to try the HOT on a 'testrange' sample basis? How hard/fun a weapon is it? Have you noticed any major difficulty modifiers between a subsonic wire-rider with MMS and (mildly) supersonic MMW/Laser system (enemy reactions times platoon refusing main tube and/or popping smoke with the laser or MMW warning vs. 'visual' acquisition of the SACLOS weapon?)? Are there in fact variables of white/black/'metal' smoke to deal with?

The reason I ask all of this is because one of the many things I despised about LB1 (I was probably the only guy who thought it incredibly lame) was the way the enemy could be 'counted on' to react within a given proximity/time radius, no matter how well you masked your approach nor how widely separated your targets.

One instance in particular sticks with me in that I had to take out a bunch of tanks and there was a group of AAH 'just sitting there', not even rotor-spun and as soon as I got within XX range I had about 20 seconds before they launched, regardless.

This is Just Plain Dumb.

OTOH, the world is not the same either. With Thrush/Shtora/Arena and now SLID/Galix/POMALS, we're no longer /forced/ to say 'he who gets the first lick in, will win' because quite honestly, the unit which illuminates and possibly fires weapons will be the unit that has compromised itself.

A /layered/ 'RISTA-CM plus Terminal GM' defense that _starts_ at the "Can't see to shoot" but also /continues through/ actual defense against the missile or missile guidance assemblies (shoot the arrows).

This would force a player to MASS his fires, (salvo/emission timing) with possibly more than one or even two per vehicle type/era (T-90 has twin-jammer plus Arena II defences as standard, T-80U only has one jammer and azimuth-limited Arena I except for the C&C tanks)

Before SATURATING the fire /lane/ azimuths (spread hunting groups) to get the most from his onboard as well as weapon seeker and ultimately warhead yields.

So... To me this is a fantastic opportunity to remove the 'ho hum, I'm a press-button bum' aspect as well as the utterly unreal target reaction modelling by integrating high level CM (also 'visually pretty') into the game as a 'new feature' (never before done son... .

It also gives the (later LINK'd) MBT more utility in that there ain't much but really thick DU that will stop a Sabot. Hence a tank driver could get MORE kills, at the front line than the Apache driver could deep-kill, 20-120nm behind it (and the opfor might actually get to the front to begin with).

Add to this single-pulse quick range and a team datalink massive maintube counter refusal engagement with dedicated, mile-per-second 120-125mm fire and BINGO!

All of a sudden it's no longer 'turtle hunter part two the long yawn' but rather 'now the turtles have guns too, how quick are /you/?'...

Please Pass it On? Thanks- Kurt Plummer

LINKS-
FAS T-90/Leopard http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-90.htm http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/leopard2.htm

FAS Coyote/Wolf/Lynx Smart Smoke http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m56.htm http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m58.htm http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1059.htm http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astm
p/aA/A3K4.htm

Army Tech HOT-3 http://www.army-technology.com/projects/hot/index.html
(note the 'antijamming' features)

Janes Active Tank Defense http://www.janes.com/defence/editors/idr9603/dr963con.html http://www.janes.com/defence/editors/idr9603/dr96328.html http://www.janes.com/defence/editors/idr9603/dr96333.html

Reading these posts, it is quite clear to me, that most of the readers here would prefer a hard core sim to an arcade rip-off.
I was wondering if it would be possible to set up a survey to get a vote on what MPS should do with GS!.
I know that it is probably too late to make them change the entire FM, but at least they could look at preparing it as a 1.01 patch or something.
If this game does come out and is dumbed down, then it will be too late to voice any opinions. Rather get a semi-early word in, to give some indication of what the public wants from this release.
I know it is early days and that the new build will be arriving soon, so i would assume that you would want to wait before submitting something like this to the developers, but it may be good practise to get the survey up on the board in preperation.
I'm not talking of an extensive wish list.
We have all seen the eye-candy in the screen shots. All we need to know is:
Should GS be (a) Hard Core (b) Dumbed Down (c) Scalable

IMHO Scalable would be the best solution, and if i remember correctly the earlier versions of GS all had options to turn off realistic landing, avionics, weapons etc... so MPS does have the basic code for these options. (You can't tell me that they never referenced (cut-and-paste) the old code).
Anyway, just my 2cw.

I hate to see the guys from MPS regret handing out preview copies because of reactions to a pre-alpha. Knowing what kind of work goes into one of these projects lets just give them some time and polite requests and see what happens from there

1: I loved how LB 2 "felt"... it may not be the best game out there, but I love how it felt when I was piloting.
2: I really liked the KA 52 demos solid and realistic looking terrain engine. All the vehicles, buildings ,mountains, and moving sky.
3: I liked the force feedback of the Team Apache demo and the Team Alligator demo. Add in a rotor vibration force feedback effect, and that part would be awesome, totally over the top for me..
4: virtual cockpits are cool, loved Longbow 2s.

I want a sim where I have to press a dozen things just to take off (ok maybe half a dozen). Sucks about the arcade mode. FM should be relistic and arcade. Switch if on and off, if someone wants all the great things that happen to them while flying noe at 140 one should be able to have options on, others can leave em off to have their chopper 'bounce' off the ground, trees and buildings when they hit it.