Gamescon 2010 HEROES videos

[LemoN]

...posting low-rez screenshots of a town @ 300 meters is not valid.
Spotting MOVEMENT is a lot easier then spotting stationary targets.

That pic is showing 200m, not 300.
Anyway, even thought it's blurry, it does give you a nice impression what the look would be like and this town is no bombed down urban environment with craters, wrecks and litter all over the place with dusty guys that have adopted the colour of their surroundings by not being able to wash for months.

Spotting people with white polo shirts on a green field is a different task than spotting dirty soldiers in an urban environment.

 

[Peter.Steele]

That pic is showing 200m, not 300.
Anyway, even thought it's blurry, it does give you a nice impression what the look would be like and this town is no bombed down urban environment with craters, wrecks and litter all over the place with dusty guys that have adopted the colour of their surroundings by not being able to wash for months.

Spotting people with white polo shirts on a green field is a different task than spotting dirty soldiers in an urban environment.

Bear in mind, though, that the aerial photography in question was probably taken from a significantly higher altitude than 200 meters, and with a fairly wide-angle lens. Google Earth (or whoever) zooms in and shows you things the size they would be if you were looking at them from that height. You're not seeing the original size of the image.

 

[Floyd]

I routinely hire pilots flying Air Tractor AT 502's with turbine engines to spray my crops. These guys are flying far faster than the recon planes being discussed. They are single crew planes, flying just feet (or meters) above the ground at 120-150mph. I can see their faces and can tell who the pilot is. They'll wave as they fly by with their wheels just inches off the crop canopy. Before they spray a field, they will routinely circle it and make sure there are no persons in the fields or along the borders. I have some video here somewhere. I'll post if I can find it. They see me well enough.

I'm not a pilot, but have flown in my neighbor's J3 Piper Cub many times. We take off on pontoons from the small man-made water runway by his house. Its not hard to spot people from 100 meters up. Its not even hard to tell who they are. I have not doubt that a small plane flying low and slow and with a spotter could tell the difference between friend and foe.

Having said that, I would much prefer to see a number or range of numbers within the general area of where the troops were spotted as opposed to specific dots. Unless perhaps it is a known landmark like a fountain or the town hall, etc.



Not my footage but it'll suffice.... (watch how he handles the pole at around 5:00 )
YouTube - Crop Duster Negotiating Power Lines

 

[Reise]

That video is just fun to watch on its own

I also agree that numbers alone would suffice, possibly with an indicator for the SL to show where the highest concentration is.

Gotta remember though that we have relaxed and normal realism to think about.

 

[Mormegil]

It's completely possible that a more vague system is planned, but hasn't been coded yet, and putting up exact location is easier to implement in this Alpha stage / press demo.

 

[Bobdog]

Yeah, the only real problem I have with the recon system is that having INDIVIDUAL soldiers popping up is too specific. If the plane could relay "small group heading north from church" and "large group, moving towards town square" or something, so you get small-ish dot by the church and a large-ish dot by the town square, I'd be completely happy with it.

Also, telling friend from foe shouldn't really be all that hard. The spotter is going to have a lot of information to help him. First, the pilot and spotter are going to have some general idea of which army is coming from where. If he sees a group of guys advancing from the west end of the city when he knows that his guys are coming from the east, he can assume the guys coming from the west are enemies, the same way you assume someone running at you from the other side of the map is probably an enemy. Secondly, soldiers are going to be wearing some sort of uniform, so the spotter only really needs to distinguish what color the dot he is looking at is. On top of that, there's a lot of other information the spotter could use to aid in identifying the side of the people he is looking at. For example, if he happens to see a halftrack helping out the soldiers, he can assume they are German, etc.

 

[fiftyone]

I wave at the planes and helicopters that fly over my house, if they can't see me, why do I bother? Because I'm convinced that they can see me and that they wave back.

 

[Attilaken]

How about the idea that ALL enemy infantry don't get spotted as long as they stay still and don't fire their weapon? I can imagine in a realistic situation, looking down from a recon-plane, soldiers firing their weapons or running around would be very much visible compared to the ones moving not at all (even in an open field).

I think it would add to the tactical and immersive elements of the game. Knowing you probably won't get spotted when you stop moving/shooting could give players, depending on the situation and morale, either a feeling of being in an underdog position or being sneaky as a fox.

Point is with this idea we would make it far less like a UAV and even more importantly: we are giving every infantry soldier a choice on how to react when a recon-plane comes over. When an anti-tank-soldier is crawling towards a tank in open field, he would rather lay still to prevent getting spotted (he knows he will die when the tank knows about him first). But an MG might rather choose to continue giving cover for its comrades or even try to take the plane down, getting spotted in the process.

Even if it would not be completely realism, I personally would love the immersion that comes with this. Imagine a small group of soldiers getting orders from their leader to stay put. If one of them keeps moving, the whole group gets spotted and they lose their tactical advantage. Sounds lovely to me

 

[Dwin]

New topic!

I noticed a lack of "resting" icons in the videos. I really hope weapon resting hasn't been removed from the game, and I don't need to explain why it was one of RO:OST's greatest features.

 

[Stormer]

New topic!

I noticed a lack of "resting" icons in the videos. I really hope weapon resting hasn't been removed from the game, and I don't need to explain why it was one of RO:OST's greatest features.

same question with leaning

 

[primalheretic]

@DWIN

Since RO:HoS will have your first person weapon collide with objects in the gameworld, theres imho no need for a resting icon. You can put your weapon on objects and probably will "feel" when it rests on it.

greetz
primalheretic aka McSChwoartZ

 

[Das Bose]

I noticed that the reload animations are a good deal quicker. the AVT-40 looks pretty cool no doubt, but it tended to be a very unrealiable rifle and was not made in large enough numbers to be worth portraying I think. The videos show you have a choice between the Nagant pistol and TT-33, I think most will choose the TT-33. The Nagant fired a relatively week cartridge and was slower to reload compared to the TT-33.

I am becoming thoroughly sodding tired with this nonsense! Who gives a damn if it wasn't used in any numbers in the real war...?? Did people respawn in the war? Did they have a map floating in front of their face? Did they zoom in when they looked down their iron sights e.t.c?

This is a game and compromises will be made for the sake of keeping the game fun for the maximum number of people. Instead of compromising fun and variety for historical accuracy as some of you would prefer.

I hope Tripwire stick to their guns and we get a nice broad playerbase, then those of us who play games because they are fun can ignore all the whining in here and play the game.

Honestly, some of you have told us you don't like the recon plane like 50+ times already, in the space of a few hours. That's not constructive it's incessant

 

[Switchblade]

This is a game and compromises will be made for the sake of keeping the game fun for the maximum number of people. Instead of compromising fun and variety for historical accuracy as some of you would prefer.

I hope Tripwire stick to their guns and we get a nice broad playerbase, then those of us who play games because they are fun can ignore all the whining in here and play the game.

Honestly, some of you have told us you don't like the recon plane like 50+ times already, in the space of a few hours. That's not constructive it's incessant

hear hear

only history learns us that "realism" topics will be chewed to death, spit out and chewed again on this forum,
there is probably a topic already where this or that bolt or nut is placed 2,7mm off the stock of a gun or that the track of a tank has one segment to many... OMG it's not realistic..............

So I am sorry to disappoint you but this is only the beginning, trust me

 

[Das Bose]

Oh god I know, I remember what it was like with the previous game. That rant just forced it's way out, for all the good it will do

 

[Oldih]

I routinely hire pilots flying Air Tractor AT 502's with turbine engines to spray my crops. These guys are flying far faster than the recon planes being discussed. They are single crew planes, flying just feet (or meters) above the ground at 120-150mph. I can see their faces and can tell who the pilot is. They'll wave as they fly by with their wheels just inches off the crop canopy.

It's quite common psychological phenomena that if you know for sure how certain person looks like, how he\she moves around or some other things even if you're looking at great distance you can probably tell who the person is. Considering the amount of soldiers involved E.G. in Stalingrad it's impossible for a pilot to distinguish invidual faces just like that, as we're talking easily tens of thousands inviduals to look for.

Spotting on clear weather and on proper altitude is not really impossible. It's possible to spot someone running on a street even in somewhat ruined city if the lightning is right and the plane flies in proper angle, and add somewhat open area where it's easier to distinguish basic silhouette of a 'target'. Now here comes the problem: identification. Considering alot of soldiers are probably dirty, there might be smoke coming out from every possible hole if it was recently engaged, if the lightning is not good, and especially during late evening\night time if there's tracers flying around it annoys the **** out of your eyes (try to see in moderately dark area when there's a some sort of light flashing easily 3-6 times per second, even only once per second can make it more difficult to keep track of your supposed 'target' of interest) and there's still some other variables you could probably add.

Basically for me it's as Bobdog said, I can live with the recon plane but the invidual soldier spotting is just somewhat stupid even if the information is for SL only.

 

[Devil_Inside]

From one point of view it is unrealistic that the plane spots individual soldiers, so I hope it will be changed to group spotting.
From another point of view, it might be fun to try and hide from the plane

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

New topic!

I noticed a lack of "resting" icons in the videos. I really hope weapon resting hasn't been removed from the game, and I don't need to explain why it was one of RO:OST's greatest features.

same question with leaning

All still there. I think John pointed out to people that weapon resting is now simpler/more intuitive...

 

[LemoN]

All still there. I think John pointed uot to peolpe that weapon resting is now simpler/more intuitive...

Nice.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I hope we can still dive to prone. I find it absolutely necessary when running across open ground to dive into a shellhole or behind cover when I get fired upon

 

[FlyXwire]

I hope we can still dive to prone.

Wouldn't that sorta be like crop dusting too?