Fixed or dynamic flight ceiling in PS2?

[TerminatorUK]

So whilst playing PS1 last night, it struct me in certain locations (e.g. top / edge of the crater in the middle of Searhus) that mountains are so high that the static flight ceiling doesn't permit you to fly over them.

In PS2, will the flight ceiling have a dynamic height (based on the land below) in order to be able to fly over any mountain or has it simply been designed that all objects/terrain in the world is lower than the flight ceiling?

[Klockan]

It is fixed but much higher than PS1, Last I saw it was 1 km high so it shouldn't be noticeable relative to the ground.

[EisenKreutzer]

One kilometer high? That is fucking awesome! Source on this?

[maradine]

One of the TB videos. They flew it to the ceiling.

I'd prefer more than that, so that there's a bit of separation on the air-superiority fight before people get down into the weeds, but 1km is better than before. :)

Edit: found it. Around 33:20.


Planetside 2 - Dual Commentary Livestream with Matt Higby and TotalBiscuit - YouTube

[Mechlord]

Source on this?

Flight ceiling demonstrated. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=onvySU5NkFo&t=1990s)

[kaffis]

1 km is plenty high enough to give dogfights some space without creating "safe zones" beyond the reach of ground AA fire.

Remember, ground AA can't have a *too* long a range, or else they can cover too broad an area close to the ground. Combine that fact with the notion that you don't want the flight ceiling to be risk-free from ground threats, and you create a practical limit on how generous a flight ceiling you can create.

Consider this: when it comes to hunting low altitude air support, anything with range to hit the flight ceiling and a position that affords it a clear horizon (say, on top of a tower) can currently cover a 3+ sq. km low-altitude kill zone. That's nearly a sixteenth of the 64 km total continent size. Bump the flight ceiling up to 1.5 km, for instance, and the AA range accordingly, and now it's a 6.75 sq km low altitude kill zone -- now it's over 10% of the map!

[LegioX]

1 km is plenty high enough to give dogfights some space without creating "safe zones" beyond the reach of ground AA fire.

Remember, ground AA can't have a *too* long a range, or else they can cover too broad an area close to the ground. Combine that fact with the notion that you don't want the flight ceiling to be risk-free from ground threats, and you create a practical limit on how generous a flight ceiling you can create.

Consider this: when it comes to hunting low altitude air support, anything with range to hit the flight ceiling and a position that affords it a clear horizon (say, on top of a tower) can currently cover a 3+ sq. km low-altitude kill zone. That's nearly a sixteenth of the 64 km total continent size. Bump the flight ceiling up to 1.5 km, for instance, and the AA range accordingly, and now it's a 6.75 sq km low altitude kill zone -- now it's over 10% of the map!

Explain to me why "the higher you go up" the possibilty of you getting hit by AA should decrease. I say make the flight ceiling 2km. That way the air war can have some sense of purpose, without having to worry about aa all the time.

[EisenKreutzer]

Explain to me why "the higher you go up" the possibilty of you getting hit by AA should decrease. I say make the flight ceiling 2km. That way the air war can have some sense of purpose, without having to worry about aa all the time.

At some point you'll end up crashing head on into the draw distance though. Might knockout some lower end systems.

[Charred]

At some point you'll end up crashing head on into the draw distance though. Might knockout some lower end systems.

Crashing into the draw distance? Draw distance is how far you can see from your current position, not some border that lower-end systems can't go through.

[EisenKreutzer]

Crashing into the draw distance? Draw distance is how far you can see from your current position, not some border that lower-end systems can't go through.

Dude, it was a figure of speech. ^^

[Mirax]

Will they fix the altimeter? It's basically useless. Whether you start on top a mountain or in a valley, it starts at your height from some arbitrary point (sea level?). Its not measuring distance to the ground. So it is useful for knowing how close you are to the flight ceiling (which I would argue needs another 500m or so to be up above some of the higher points of the map)

Maybe 2 numbers - 'height from top' and 'altitude' which reads your height from ground. I do not care about this stupid 'height from sea' level crap. I should be able to fly at 5 m from ground not in the dirt at 200m altitude according to my gauges. What good is an altimeter if it doesn't tell you how close you are to crashing? Let alone figuring out how to drop the new bombs and stuff effectively.

[maradine]

Radar altimeter would be more than sufficient.

[Baneblade]

The flight ceiling can't be too high, else there would need to be radar in the game.

[Forsaken One]

Well as long as they can't fly so high they can't be hit or locked onto by AA and the AA missiles/beams/flak/whatever it fires moves fast enough to decently reach them up there I'm fine with it.


One of the most bullshit patchs in BF2142 raised the flight ceiling. Not only did it take away any and all cool "low flying skill" (many people as well as me could zoom through buildings and under bridges to avoid and break lock ons or missiles following us so they hit walls and stuff.) and it took great flying ability and skill.

Then they raised the flight ceiling so now its pretty much. "oh I got a lock on or missile flowing me? " Guy flies straight up till hes out of range even through hes right over the AA then use's the TV missile from all the way up there to kill the AA guy in pure safety. Its fucking retarded.

[Knightwyvern]

The flight ceiling can't be too high, else there would need to be radar in the game.

What's the minimap? Currently there is a "defense" utility item for at least the reaver, mosi and scythe that stops your aircraft from automatically appearing on enemy minimaps, instead requiring direct spotting. I believe it's called the "radar jammer" or some such. This implies that all of those aircraft will be visible on all minimaps unless they have that item equipped. It's in the same "defense" category as flares, which I assume will be used very often; I believe that most enemy aircraft will show up on the "radar" minimap.

[WorldOfForms]

1 km is plenty high enough to give dogfights some space without creating "safe zones" beyond the reach of ground AA fire.

Remember, ground AA can't have a *too* long a range, or else they can cover too broad an area close to the ground. Combine that fact with the notion that you don't want the flight ceiling to be risk-free from ground threats, and you create a practical limit on how generous a flight ceiling you can create.

Consider this: when it comes to hunting low altitude air support, anything with range to hit the flight ceiling and a position that affords it a clear horizon (say, on top of a tower) can currently cover a 3+ sq. km low-altitude kill zone. That's nearly a sixteenth of the 64 km total continent size. Bump the flight ceiling up to 1.5 km, for instance, and the AA range accordingly, and now it's a 6.75 sq km low altitude kill zone -- now it's over 10% of the map!

In PS1 the AA MAXes had a range that was effectively a cylinder. The range extended outward in a limited radius along the horizontal axis, but vertically there was no limit.

So no, increasing the vertical range of AA doesn't have to increase horizontal range.

[kertvon]

Where's the volumetric clouds?

[kaffis]

In PS1 the AA MAXes had a range that was effectively a cylinder. The range extended outward in a limited radius along the horizontal axis, but vertically there was no limit.

So no, increasing the vertical range of AA doesn't have to increase horizontal range.
That's not the way I remember it. By my memory, something could get a lot closer before getting into range so long as it was high enough.

That said, it's been a good five or six years since I did any serious AA play, so it could've changed or my memory may simply be glitching. Given the conflict between my memory and what you said, though, I think I'd probably just agree to disagree (and indicate that with things like true ballistic physics and such, a "cylindrical" range is unlikely to fit in with PS2) or ask for some demonstration of the cylinder at work before conceding it.

[Kayos]

AA should have a max range so you can fly above it. Maybe have a cert to extend the range.

[WorldOfForms]

That's not the way I remember it. By my memory, something could get a lot closer before getting into range so long as it was high enough.

That said, it's been a good five or six years since I did any serious AA play, so it could've changed or my memory may simply be glitching. Given the conflict between my memory and what you said, though, I think I'd probably just agree to disagree (and indicate that with things like true ballistic physics and such, a "cylindrical" range is unlikely to fit in with PS2) or ask for some demonstration of the cylinder at work before conceding it.

When did you play PS1? AA MAXes early on had spherical shaped range, meaning they couldn't hit aircraft at all if the MAX was on low ground, where the flight ceiling was particularly high. Sometime after the introduction of Liberators, the devs realized that immune Libs weren't fun, so the MAX range was changed to have no vertical limit.

[SnipeGrzywa]

AA should have a max range so you can fly above it. Maybe have a cert to extend the range.

Problem with that is then bombers can just go to flight ceiling and be immune to Ground based AA. They could camp till out of ammo.

[Arcticus]

1 km is plenty high enough to give dogfights some space without creating "safe zones" beyond the reach of ground AA fire.

Remember, ground AA can't have a *too* long a range, or else they can cover too broad an area close to the ground. Combine that fact with the notion that you don't want the flight ceiling to be risk-free from ground threats, and you create a practical limit on how generous a flight ceiling you can create.

Consider this: when it comes to hunting low altitude air support, anything with range to hit the flight ceiling and a position that affords it a clear horizon (say, on top of a tower) can currently cover a 3+ sq. km low-altitude kill zone. That's nearly a sixteenth of the 64 km total continent size. Bump the flight ceiling up to 1.5 km, for instance, and the AA range accordingly, and now it's a 6.75 sq km low altitude kill zone -- now it's over 10% of the map!

This is only true of the horizontal plane at the same altitude as the ground AA. If you compare the AA's half-sphere of range (at 1 km range) to the 64 cu. km of continental battlespace, it's 3.27% or 1/30.

[TAA]

Then they raised the flight ceiling so now its pretty much. "oh I got a lock on or missile flowing me? " Guy flies straight up till hes out of range even through hes right over the AA then use's the TV missile from all the way up there to kill the AA guy in pure safety. Its fucking retarded.

In BF2142 conquest mode we often used to have a squad leader in a transport and keep the transport so high it couldnt even be seen from the ground. We then used it as a mobile spawn point to rain down men directly over every contested point anywhere on the map.

Raise the ceiling to the point where you cant see craft up there and people will be doing the same thing with Galaxy transports.

[Wahooo]

That's not the way I remember it. By my memory, something could get a lot closer before getting into range so long as it was high enough.


There are draw distance issues there. Continents such as Hossin where the bases are at sea level and the fog reduces draw distance makes it so an aircraft at flight ceiling is only visible when it is nearly straight over head. They are in range for a little longer than you can see but it effectively turns the range cylinder of an AA max into a cone. This gives a taste of what happens when aircraft have a flight ceiling above AA range. Max altitude libs on Hossin are enough of a pain, to think they would be immune to AA would be beyond frustrating.

[QuantumMechanic]

In PS1, some maps were much higher above sea level than others. This was a design decision. We have no idea if this will be the case for PS2 or not.

On some continents (like Searhus as the OP points out) the map is so high above sea level that there are mountains that you simply cannot fly over (their peak is above 400km). This also meant that aircraft were almost always very easy targets against ground-based anti-aircraft fire.

On other continents the map was far closer to sea level, and you could easily hover your liberator at flight celing above a base and bomb the living hell out it - without fear of any ground-based AA being able to hit you (hostile aircraft was another issue though).

I think they did this to provide some variation in the strategies that were applicable on different continents. But with the flight celing being at 1,000km in PS2, I'm guessing we won't be seeing this type of gameplay anymore.

[Brusi]

I've mentioned it in previous threads about aa and dogfighting...

I think different AA types should be implemented with different (and overlapping) ranges.

I.e. phalanx style hi-rof aa cannons are better for defending against low flying aircraft, flack-style burster AA dominates the mid-altitude range and SAM-style lockable missiles dominate the high altitude zone.

Of course these are only examples. One of the main ideas is that dogfighting aircraft have to "come down" if they want to damage ground targets, but using countermeasures, can be more or less safe from the odd AA soldier by escaping to high-altitude, where the main threat is enemy fighters.

If the most efficient way of dealing with enemy aircraft is lots of ground based AA, then i think having a nice, high flight ceiling that provides a niche for dogfighting is a good idea :)

[maradine]

I agree with all of that.

That said, I lament that those range brackets would be ridiculous. Even a Phalanx (little brother among the global CIWS family) can do almost 4km accurately. And don't get me started on SAMs. We are led to believe that, somehow, in the future, BVR combat is impossible. :)

[meiam]

In BF2142 conquest mode we often used to have a squad leader in a transport and keep the transport so high it couldnt even be seen from the ground. We then used it as a mobile spawn point to rain down men directly over every contested point anywhere on the map.

Raise the ceiling to the point where you cant see craft up there and people will be doing the same thing with Galaxy transports.


I really hope we get to be able to do that in PS2. That would change having air superiority and fighter from "a nifty things" to a requirement, with real battle happening in the sky.

Bombing run would still be fine, because it would just be blind bombing (I'm assuming there's no carpet bombing), so hitting something would be just luck, plus the infantry would need to find cover, which would make base/roof more useful and desirable strategic position.

As someone pointed out the flight ceiling seems to be a flat 1000 M from arbitrary sea level, in the video he take off from a position at 400 m, so the air space is only of 600 m. It's going to be interesting if the AA have limited set range, so you'll have zone where the flight ceiling is high enough to avoid them, and risky zone with no safe spot.

[Baneblade]

What's the minimap? Currently there is a "defense" utility item for at least the reaver, mosi and scythe that stops your aircraft from automatically appearing on enemy minimaps, instead requiring direct spotting. I believe it's called the "radar jammer" or some such. This implies that all of those aircraft will be visible on all minimaps unless they have that item equipped. It's in the same "defense" category as flares, which I assume will be used very often; I believe that most enemy aircraft will show up on the "radar" minimap.

My bad, I meant RADAR.

In PS1 the AA MAXes had a range that was effectively a cylinder. The range extended outward in a limited radius along the horizontal axis, but vertically there was no limit.

So no, increasing the vertical range of AA doesn't have to increase horizontal range.

Lol no. PS1 does not and never did have anything other than the straight forward range sphere. AA MAXes have the same range no matter which way they are aiming.

[Knightwyvern]

My bad, I meant RADAR.

What I mean is, the minimap is basically RADAR. It's at least "DAR" (lol) for Detection And Ranging; that's what the minimap does. Fill in the "RA" and make it LADAR (Laser instead or Radio) for a little more sci fi fluff and there you go.

[ZaBa]

One of the TB videos. They flew it to the ceiling.

I'd prefer more than that, so that there's a bit of separation on the air-superiority fight before people get down into the weeds, but 1km is better than before. :)

Given that even with afterburners activated the Mosquito struggles to break 220mph (space future jets that are literally biplanes with boosters, holy lol), 1km should be plenty to keep things separated.

3-5km with volumetric clouds in the middle would be so much better though. :D

Problem with that is then bombers can just go to flight ceiling and be immune to Ground based AA. They could camp till out of ammo.

Bear in mind that flying so high is a tactical choice that also has downsides, since it means you're out of the range of friendly AA if any enemy fighters show up, and you can't use terrain as cover in the same situation.

Even if AA does extend that far, a) there may be cloud cover and b) even something as big as a Gal is going to look pretty small at so great a distance.

Also the vast majority of people suck at target leading even at normal range, let alone thousands of metres. Obviously the only "fair" solution to this is long range SAMs :lol:

[Tatwi]

One kilometer high? That is fucking awesome! Source on this?

The sky was 8Km high in Star Wars Galaxies. The maps were 16Km x 16Km as well.

I'm not really impressed by the size of the "maps" in Planetside 2. Sure, they seem big compared to FPS games, but compared to a SOE MMO made a decade ago they are small. What's the innovative part of PS2 here? I don't see it. And I am not "being negative" by saying this, it's just logic - a 10 year older product had maps twice as large, which is crazy given the huge leap in technology since then.

I am just disappointing because, I was hoping that "seamless on a level you've never seen before" (Smed, Fan Faire 2011) actually meant that Planetside 2's planet would be seamless on a level I had never seen before. You know, because seamless has already been done on a level I've never seen before...

Infinity The Quest For Earth: Pre Alpha Tech Demo HD (in game) - YouTube

Here's the website (http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=26) for this game engine. It's really quite an amazing creation, the combination of procedural on the fly content creation with persistence (meaning everyone see the same universe even though it's only "created" when someone is there to see it) and real physics/scale. Many people assumed that this was impossible, but clearly it's not.

[EisenKreutzer]

The sky was 8Km high in Star Wars Galaxies. The maps were 16Km x 16Km as well.

Hm. Well, I'd never heard of Star Wars Galaxies until people started comparing PS2 to it, so I know next to nothing about that game.

[LegioX]

If they decide to raise flight ceiling, they need some sort of energy retention rate. As of right now, if you dive down from 1km to the surface you gain no extra speed due to diving. The sycthe is maxed out between 181-185 speed. You cant even break 185 in a dive. Thats sad :(

[Tatwi]

The sycthe is maxed out between 181-185 speed. You cant even break 185 in a dive. Thats sad :(

Hopes... dashed! :cry:

[TAA]

Infinity The Quest For Earth: Pre Alpha Tech Demo HD (in game) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43eIjvoYfos)

Here's the website (http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=26) for this game engine. It's really quite an amazing creation, the combination of procedural on the fly content creation with persistence (meaning everyone see the same universe even though it's only "created" when someone is there to see it) and real physics/scale. Many people assumed that this was impossible, but clearly it's not.

I never get tired of looking at the tech demos for Infinity. I was and still am willing to pay good money to just explore the stunning universe that their engine can build. Just so pretty. I hope that somebody picks this up one day and hires the small army of developers that it deserves.

[lolroflroflcake]

It's good that the flight ceiling is much higher now, although it would be nice if we weren't arbitrarily stopped by the plane at the flight ceiling even though the whole your to high turn back thing is the only real solution.

After all I highly doubt that a VTOL jet fighter/gunship has a normally aspirated engine, if it did the empires would have to seriously consider redesigning their engines. Maybe the core of the planet itself is some sort of crazy power source that remotely powers the nanites up to a fixed distance away. Hence only being able to get 1km above sea level, if you go any higher then your aircraft would deconstruct around you as the nanites lose power and you'd be stuck trying to fly by flapping your arms so they are pre-programmed aircraft to return you to a safe altitude before that happens.

[maradine]

You think that's air you're breathing now?

[Broadside]

When flying over Hvar yesterday I had about 400-450m of breathing room. The tech plant in the e3 videos has about 800m in clearance.

[Tatwi]

When flying over Hvar yesterday I had about 400-450m of breathing room. The tech plant in the e3 videos has about 800m in clearance.

That's only 15 and half seconds before hitting the ceiling at 185Km/h. That's not a lot of time or space for game that has dog fighting with many aircraft.

The ceiling could be 10Km and not be an issue, because it would be very hard for a bomber to see the target, let alone hit the target with the epic amount of drift that their bombs would have. Also, it's not like it would be impossible to fly up there and shoot them down. Remember, everyone will have the certs for all vehicles right away.

The flight ceiling should be a technical limitation rather than something that limits the fun of flying. Why limit fun?

[EisenKreutzer]

I still think the draw distance plays a large part in dictating the flight ceiling.

[Landtank]

I still think the draw distance plays a large part in dictating the flight ceiling.

Agree 100%

On a cloudless day you could potentially see the whole continent, that could melt computers >.>

[Broadside]

Who knows, maybe if they here enough feedback they will raise it. I'm fine with even just 2000 m.

[Klockan]

The sky was 8Km high in Star Wars Galaxies. The maps were 16Km x 16Km as well.

I'm not really impressed by the size of the "maps" in Planetside 2. Sure, they seem big compared to FPS games, but compared to a SOE MMO made a decade ago they are small. What's the innovative part of PS2 here? I don't see it. And I am not "being negative" by saying this, it's just logic - a 10 year older product had maps twice as large, which is crazy given the huge leap in technology since then.

I am just disappointing because, I was hoping that "seamless on a level you've never seen before" (Smed, Fan Faire 2011) actually meant that Planetside 2's planet would be seamless on a level I had never seen before. You know, because seamless has already been done on a level I've never seen before...

Infinity The Quest For Earth: Pre Alpha Tech Demo HD (in game) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43eIjvoYfos)

Here's the website (http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=26) for this game engine. It's really quite an amazing creation, the combination of procedural on the fly content creation with persistence (meaning everyone see the same universe even though it's only "created" when someone is there to see it) and real physics/scale. Many people assumed that this was impossible, but clearly it's not.
There is a huge difference between what is required of the typical mmorpg and a real fps that has proper vehicle and projectile physics, attacks that has longer range than 30m etc. The hard part isn't making the world big, the hard part is having tons of fps players together. Then the amount of fps players you feel comfortable having together on the same server indirectly limits how big the available playing area can be without making the game really stale.

Also increasing the flight ceiling is free, they could have it at 80km if they wanted and it wouldn't cause any problems at all, except gameplay issues with air being able to hide up there. It is not like you need you design the airspace...

[Zedek]

Will they fix the altimeter? It's basically useless. Whether you start on top a mountain or in a valley, it starts at your height from some arbitrary point (sea level?). Its not measuring distance to the ground. So it is useful for knowing how close you are to the flight ceiling (which I would argue needs another 500m or so to be up above some of the higher points of the map)

Maybe 2 numbers - 'height from top' and 'altitude' which reads your height from ground. I do not care about this stupid 'height from sea' level crap. I should be able to fly at 5 m from ground not in the dirt at 200m altitude according to my gauges. What good is an altimeter if it doesn't tell you how close you are to crashing? Let alone figuring out how to drop the new bombs and stuff effectively.

What you want is not called altimeter.

But it absolutely should have a display for how high above the ground you are. See, pilots get the altimeter from where they take off, and then their height is automatically derived from that plus their current altimeter setting (once they are in the air).

[Baneblade]

Many planes have two altitude meters: The 'sea level' altimeter and the ground range laser/radar.

[lolroflroflcake]

Many planes have two altitude meters: The 'sea level' altimeter and the ground range laser/radar.

Actually as far as I am aware the only thing on planes that could automatically tell you your altitude above the ground is the GPS maybe if you have a newer one or are flying an airliner.

[maradine]

Radio altimeters were invented in the '20s, perfected in the '30s, and you'd be hard-pressed to find even a '70s Cessna without one. Anything today with a glass cockpit is also running GPS/INS. This is a Solved Problem.

For the record, the barometric altimeter is frequently zeroed to your field of origin, not sea level.

[Superbus]

delete

[Nemises]

....listen, a limited flight ceiling == compressed airspace for "action air fighting"..they are not trying to build a sim here..it is an action shooter.