The air layer should be higher.

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by tehtrekd, April 11, 2014.

  1. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    Density of the atmosphere is not constant. Higher you go, thinner on average the air gets. Additionally, at any particular altitude the air pressure isn't constant, but varies.

    [​IMG]
    This is concorde. If you have never heard of concorde, that's a great shame.

    Concorde has a sweptback wing design - the sweptback wing design is because Concorde was supersonic. The wings are more streamlined. Oddly, at higher altitudes, you don't need as much lift. Which is why there is the funny bubble at the back of the wings - to increase surface area for performance at low altitude.

    Concorde flew at an altitude of 60,000 feet, compared to a 787, which has a service ceiling of 43000.

    Why does the supersonic aircraft fly at a higher altitude? Because the air is thinner, it can apply the same thrust as the subsonic aircraft and go faster. The engines are therefore more efficient.

    upload_2014-4-13_14-15-12.png
    On the other hand, the reason that an F35 has so much control surface area is so it has a high aerodynamic performance. That provides a solid base for super-manoeuvrability, involving vectored thrusts. Obviously vectored thrusts are better at higher altitudes, while aerodynamic manoeuvrability is better at lower altitudes.


    The problem is this - while you're doing your amazing low altitude manoeuvrability, I fly in at an altitude that forces you to lift your nose more than 70 degrees to engage me.

    Assuming an aircraft of the same design as the F35, but with engines that can operate in vacuum, that means you are now gaining no benefit from your aerodynamics and gravity is working against you, while gravity is working with me. If you lift your nose that high, you lose manoeuvrability, while I gain it.
    Remy561 and tatsujb like this.
  2. brianpurkiss

    brianpurkiss Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    7,438
    That is a very good point. :-(
  3. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    I was talking game mechanics dude, the real world is bloody huge, and quick.
    In the game, aircraft can shoot missiles 90 degrees sideways, but can always shoot at any height angle, as can AA defences.

    Now I know you put a lot of work into your post, so I do fee kinda bad (I have heard of concord).
    stormingkiwi likes this.
  4. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    Oh don't worry, it wasn't that much work :) The prereq knowledge was already there, I never say anything shortly

    I'm glad, some people my age haven't.


    I like game mechanics that are closely simulating the real life situation :) like firing a missile at 90 degrees should result in a slower relative missile speed.
    igncom1 likes this.
  5. tatsujb

    tatsujb Post Master General

    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    5,385
    that's so true! couldn't quite place it but there it is!

    orders should be given according to the ground! otherwise they always don't go where you want them to!
  6. GoodOak

    GoodOak Active Member

    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    244
    That's the thing though, I'm not interested in what's best for the robots of the future. I want what's coolest and most fun for the human player right now. So do robots need to fly at different altitudes? Maybe not. But I personally need it just because it's more fun.

    I want to see fighters flying low and fast through a canyon and strafing vehicles, but I also want them to rocket way up into the air for a dogfight or to take on strategic bombers. And the SAM vs AA dynamic is a good reason to use all that air volume.

    I don't think that PA should be trying to do what TA and SupCom did with air, since neither was all that great at it. TA was understandable. SupCom looked a little silly but was better than TA. Now with PA (SupCom vs PA budget issues aside), I'm thinking "why the hell are we still stuck with this?"

    The exact same issue exists with submarines too. The underwater layer should be WAY lower. PA is so ground combat focused that the water, air and orbital feels like obligatory add ons.
    stormingkiwi likes this.
  7. MrTBSC

    MrTBSC Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,857
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    depends .... that issue may matter for satalites like ssx but units like the avenger dont have any relationship to ground whatsoever .. so ordering needs to be worked out to the layer of matter ... posibly both orbital and groundrelated depending on what you want to scout attack or build on
    aevs likes this.
  8. aevs

    aevs Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    1,150
    Yeah, I was going to say this after tatsujb's comment. The fact that the move icon can appear on the ground at the X location even when you are really going to mvoe to Z (IIRC this does happen, could be mistaken however) is my biggest beef with it. It's very misleading no matter what unit you're moving when the icon appears in the wrong spot.

Share This Page