Jump to content

Realism Issues Center: Lets make this game make more sense


Recommended Posts

The technical designation is M61 Vulcan, but saying M61 autocannon or M61 Vulcan cannon will get the point across.

I have made some suggested edits to your F-17 Condor description. Please click the link below to view them.

The F-17 Condor is the primary Xenonaut interceptor aircraft, principally utilised in a general-purpose dogfighting role. Derived from the F-16 Fighting Falcon, it has broadly similar performance to its parent aircraft but uses a modified airframe that incorporates significantly larger fuel tanks, greater resilience, and the Adaptive Radiation Detection Array (ARDA), designed by yours truly.

The result is a tough and manoeuvrable aircraft capable of long-range interception missions as well as detecting and tracking extraterrestrial craft without the assistance of additional aircraft. Fitted with a craft cannon in the nose and a light missile hardpoint at the tip of each wing, it is currently configured to carry the M61 Vulcan autocannon and two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. Unfortunately, due to the large amount of space required by drop tanks and the ARDA, the Condor's weapons payload has been significantly reduced. If the firepower available does not prove sufficient to down an enemy, one could simply employ multiple Condors against the same target.

Concerning survivability; my team has studied the damage sustained by F-4 Phantom aircraft involved in the Iceland Incident. To avoid a similar loss of aircraft, we have developed and installed a variety of redundant systems, designed to allow the pilot to remain in control of the aircraft even after sustaining heavy damage. Even after taking damage that would normally prove crippling to a comparable aircraft, the Condor can still be flown home under its own power. Of course, this does not mean one can be lax about being shot. The Condor is very manoeuvrableand can make an evasive roll to dodge incoming fire. I recommend that in a combat situation this be utilized to it's fullest extent.

Of course, it is impossible to know how it will measure up against extraterrestrial craft unless they return. If they do, one hopes it will prove itself to be a capable combatant.

I changed the word "maneuverable" to "manoeuvrable" to maintain the British flavor.

Did I seriously get another "its/it's" wrong?!? Ha, man, this just isn't my day. ;)

Personally, I don't feel the need to include the "drop tanks" bit. Also, telling the player that the payload has been reduced isn't quite the best idea; they may get frustrated about it being "less good" or something. However, telling them that the hardpoints aren't available conveys the same thing without telling them explicitly "your plane is less good in one area". In fact, mine is more descriptive, so I don't see the need to change it.

Other than the "droptanks" and the "payload reduced" bits, I like the changes. :)

I'll update my own post with the fixes.

EDIT: Eh, changed my mind. Droptanks sound good. ;)

Edited by GizmoGomez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made some suggested edits to the Foxtrot entry, too. See below for details.

The MiG-32 "Foxtrot" is a derivation of the experimental Soviet MiG-31 "Foxhound" interceptor. Originally designed to intercept supersonic NATO bombers, the Foxhound has the immense speed and climb rate we will need to catch fast UFOs and the additional firepower required to deal with heavier alien craft.

Naturally, we will be modifying the Foxhound to make it more effective against extraterrestrial craft, hence the updated "Foxtrot" designation. The aircraft will be equipped with several new system redundancies similar to those added our Condors to make them more resilient to damage. The fuel tanks will be enlarged to increase the range of the interceptor and the ARDA sensor system will be installed to increase its extraterrestrial-detecting capabilities. In order to reduce drag, we've decided to use the space normally allocated for the aircraft's autocannon for the ARDA system. This should allow us to use the wing hardpoints more effectively. We will also have to replace some of the avionics; the requirements for intercepting human aircraft and extraterrestrial vessels are rather different. In all, this takes the production time for a Foxtrot up to roughly 30 man days.

Once successfully converted, the Foxtrot will be a formidable tool in our battle against the aliens. It has two heavy missile hardpoints under its wings. Each hardpoint can carry either a light missile such as the Sidewinder, or a heavy air-to-air "torpedo" we've designated the Avalanche. The Avalanche torpedo can inflict devastating damage on anything too slow to avoid them. Sadly, the newly redisgned internal ARDA system means the Foxtrot does not possess a cannon slot. It also does not have the agility to perform the Evasive Roll combat maneuver. It will be defenceless once it has fired both its missiles, easy pickings for any alien craft nimble enough to avoid them - so accompany it with more capable dogfighters if the target has an escort.

You can begin fabrication of the Foxtrot in our workshops immediately. I would avoid spending too long down there, though - I feel like my IQ drops a dozen points every time I visit our resident ogres.

Remember, we're trying to tell the player about the compromises made to the aircraft to fight UFOs. That means sacrificing payload, in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wouldn't work; the ARDA system needs area under the wings to work. I mean, it needs to be able to search for and track UFOs in all directions, not just to the front. (The little sensor range on the geoscape supports this). I dunno, maybe that wouldn't matter. If it didn't, then your change would work quite nicely.

(It's nice to have a proof-reader to catch all the stupid easy mistakes one makes. ;))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it was the best reason I could come up with for not bringing an autocannon along with your plane. :D

Perhaps actual sensors are situated around the aircraft, while the processing gear is located where the cannon mount is...

Notably, a lot of the original writing uses parentheses too often!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wouldn't work; the ARDA system needs area under the wings to work. I mean, it needs to be able to search for and track UFOs in all directions, not just to the front. (The little sensor range on the geoscape supports this). I dunno, maybe that wouldn't matter. If it didn't, then your change would work quite nicely.

(It's nice to have a proof-reader to catch all the stupid easy mistakes one makes. ;))

Simple. Needs an enhanced sensor package for the new "torpedo" they developed. BAM, in for the win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GizmoGomez, you should put the actual "spoiler" versions in your first post. That way you don't have to hunt around for it. I know it's linked in the first post, but why not just have it there, I'm thinking.

EDIT: I just read both the reread both the Condor and the Foxtrot descriptions. They both loo very good!

EDIT2: Pretty soon we might need a Xenopedia mod. ^^

Edited by Ishantil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that wouldn't be a bad idea. There is a link to the applicable posts in the first post, but I could put it up there as well.

EDIT: Right, I put the proposed Condor and Foxtrot entries into the OP.

Once we've decided on the other things (Sidewinders, for one) I'll put it in the OP as well.

Also, yeah, if Chris doesn't like the proposed changes (though I can't see why he wouldn't, honestly, though I may be a wee bit biased ;)) we should definitely release a "Lore Realism" mod or something. It'd be pretty small, considering the writing for basically everything else is stellar.

Edited by GizmoGomez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@GizmoGomez

One more thing... on the dropships...

The "supersonic" Shrike and the alien superwarp astroplasma hypertechdrivemotor Valkyrie? Their engines are apparently the stuff of legend, moving them at least at "supersonic" speeds; none of them go faster than the (obviously subsonic, without saying) modified assault helicopter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still unhappy about the pseudoscience of the anti-gravity generator. Can we toss it up and see if we can come up with something better if there aren't any more pressing concerns? If we can't work up something that we agree on we haven't lost anything. To be honest, I'd even rather have an explanation that's meaningless than one that is actively incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still unhappy about the pseudoscience of the anti-gravity generator. Can we toss it up and see if we can come up with something better if there aren't any more pressing concerns? If we can't work up something that we agree on we haven't lost anything. To be honest, I'd even rather have an explanation that's meaningless than one that is actively incorrect.

You can always play off of something like this:

[video=youtube;5vLs2LxdokY]

Just call it an "advanced version of" that generates a localized magnetic field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still in favour of a highly refined diamagnetic field generator. But someone else suggested Higgs Boson manipulation and that's entirely plausible given the theory. It's be mass adjustment.

That video is awesome. The possibilities blow my mind. I'm going to skip off to investigate that phenomenon further.

Let's not get too lost in the technobabble though. This is an exercise in writing, not tech. We need something plausible, not necessarily feasible. I'll go with The Coconut Effect if necessary, but currently anti-gravitons would make anyone with a grounding in particle/quantum physics go "wait, what?"

Edited by Elydo
Expanded thought processes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I've been lurking around for the past couple of days and I'm liking this tread and feel like throwing in my two cents... or twenty (sorry going to be a little nit-picky, but going to keep it as painless as possible, albeit still going to end up with a wall of text).

In the Condor description for its improved survivability it mentions the F-4 Phantom (II) which was involved in the Iceland incident. If this is the same Iceland incident as the one in the novella set in late 1959 than the F-4 wasn't in service at the time, unfortunately entering service in December of 1960 a year later. For the time period the USAF would of probably used the F-102 Delta Dagger and possible (very slim chance but it just happens to be in the USAF inventory at the time before it was moved to the Air National Guard's inventory) F-104A Starfighter and the USN would of been using the F8U Crusader (F-8), F11F Tiger (F-11), and the subsonic (but AAM-N-2(AIM-7) Sparrow armed) F3H Demon (replaced by the F-4 by the time Tri-Service designation system was adopted in 1962). That should be it for that bit, just pick one (probably go with the F-102 or the F8U).

As for why the Condor only has two hard points and gun exploitation, a further explanation could go along the lines of the fact additional ordinance would have cut into it's range and speed due to the additional weight and drag and that two wing mounted missiles and it's internally mounted gun was deemed sufficient without significant re-designing the aircraft. And when I say significant I mean pretty much a whole new airplane. But as is, I think the description is sufficient (once again just trowing in my 2 cents).

On to the Foxtrot, Ishantil's suggestion for explaining the deletion of the gun does have merit. The part of the ARDA system that interprets and processes the data gathered by the sensors is moved inside the airframe to reduce weight and drag imposed by the original implementation of the system on the Condor and too the annoyance of the pilots who fly the aircraft for losing the gun (or something along those lines).

Good job so far and my apologies for rambling. I kind of take researching aircraft seriously (a bit of hobby for me, as well as small arms. Which reminded me, going to make a post asking for a Ballistic Carbine or why it wasn't implement in this version).

As for the speed of the later transports being the same as the modified Chinook that EFD brought up, ya I have nothing. The best I could think of is it's either an over sight on the dev teams part or they intended it to be that speed so when you send it on a intercept with a UFO that has already landed you don't accidentally lose it if the UFO takes off suddenly before the transport gets there and they intercept without a chance for the player to react to cancel it.

TL;DR I'm rambling on about jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I've been lurking around for the past couple of days and I'm liking this tread and feel like throwing in my two cents... or twenty (sorry going to be a little nit-picky, but going to keep it as painless as possible, albeit still going to end up with a wall of text).

In the Condor description for its improved survivability it mentions the F-4 Phantom (II) which was involved in the Iceland incident. If this is the same Iceland incident as the one in the novella set in late 1959 than the F-4 wasn't in service at the time, unfortunately entering service in December of 1960 a year later. For the time period the USAF would of probably used the F-102 Delta Dagger and possible (very slim chance but it just happens to be in the USAF inventory at the time before it was moved to the Air National Guard's inventory) F-104A Starfighter and the USN would of been using the F8U Crusader (F-8), F11F Tiger (F-11), and the subsonic (but AAM-N-2(AIM-7) Sparrow armed) F3H Demon (replaced by the F-4 by the time Tri-Service designation system was adopted in 1962). That should be it for that bit, just pick one (probably go with the F-102 or the F8U).

As for why the Condor only has two hard points and gun exploitation, a further explanation could go along the lines of the fact additional ordinance would have cut into it's range and speed due to the additional weight and drag and that two wing mounted missiles and it's internally mounted gun was deemed sufficient without significant re-designing the aircraft. And when I say significant I mean pretty much a whole new airplane. But as is, I think the description is sufficient (once again just trowing in my 2 cents).

On to the Foxtrot, Ishantil's suggestion for explaining the deletion of the gun does have merit. The part of the ARDA system that interprets and processes the data gathered by the sensors is moved inside the airframe to reduce weight and drag imposed by the original implementation of the system on the Condor and too the annoyance of the pilots who fly the aircraft for losing the gun (or something along those lines).

Good job so far and my apologies for rambling. I kind of take researching aircraft seriously (a bit of hobby for me, as well as small arms. Which reminded me, going to make a post asking for a Ballistic Carbine or why it wasn't implement in this version).

As for the speed of the later transports being the same as the modified Chinook that EFD brought up, ya I have nothing. The best I could think of is it's either an over sight on the dev teams part or they intended it to be that speed so when you send it on a intercept with a UFO that has already landed you don't accidentally lose it if the UFO takes off suddenly before the transport gets there and they intercept without a chance for the player to react to cancel it.

TL;DR I'm rambling on about jets.

A lot of more modern aircraft actually have improved flight characteristics with "aftermarket" conformal packages and certain weapon loads; the weight of the weapon systems are almost insignificant compared to the rest of the aircraft, especially relative to fuel loads. The F-15 is a shining example of this, with its FAST pack systems and associated hardpoints; they can actually go faster than an F-15 without similar systems in place, despite the added mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is true (and good point) but as is, the F-17 doesn't appear to have a conformal weapons bays (I would start drooling if they added that for it) Although I don't know if they've marketed that for the F-16 other than CFTs for the Block 60/F-16E/F. As a side note the F-102 and F-106 had internal weapons bay to reduce drag, although that approach had it's own drawbacks. Maybe I should have put more emphasis on the reduction of drag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this is largely an issue of writing not science. I'm far from a physics guy, other than a pretty good grounding in the overall understanding of general physics. I don't want to really mess too much with the "inventions" the original writing has made, but rather correct the deficiencies I see in the physics and writing with the Earth based technologies. Often, there's no reason for handwavery, since it can actually be explained rationally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've entirely reworked the original Sidewinder text to reflect the changes in the earlier aircraft descriptions. Generally the intent was to expand on the original text with more background. Please look it over and tell me what you think.

The AIM-9L Sidewinder is a medium-range air-to-air missile that began production in 1977. It features a 9.4kg explosive warhead with an active infrared seeker and flies at Mach 2.5. The AIM-9L Sidewinder platform is quite maneuverable and ideally suited to form the basis for our first weapon designed to engage alien spacecraft. We've dubbed the Xenonauts version the AIM-9X.

The original warhead has been replaced with a heavily modified version that is a shaped charge rather than a blast fragmentation warhead. The fuzing has also been adjusted to compensate for the reduced blast radius of the shaped charge. Available data suggest that the aliens use extremely strong materials to build their spacecraft. Our best hope is designing air-to-air weapons systems better suited in defeating heavy armor rather than traditional aircraft.

While conventionally operating as a heat-seeking missile, analysis of the data from the Iceland incident has led Xenonaut technicians to replace the infrared system with a radiation seeker developed in tandem with the Adaptive Radiation Detection Array (ARDA) project. Due to the smaller size of the seeker, the missile mounted ARDA seeker has a much shorter range than the array on our F-17 Condor aircraft.

The ARDA seeker the AIM-9X to target the distinctive radiation patterns emitted by the extraterrestrial craft and successfully achieve a target lock. Unfortunately, the largest unresolved weakness in the detection of these emissions means the engagement envelope is about eight kilometers.

Yes, I'm aware that the real AIM-9X was available November 2003, but I couldn't resist using the X designation for both X-COM and Xenonauts. :D

Here's what I came up with for the Avalanche:

After more detailed research into alien spacecraft observed in orbit, our team knew we would soon need much larger weapons system. The Sidewinder is a great platform, but simply doesn't carry a large enough warhead to inflict enough damage on larger craft. The Avalanche Project was started in tandem with our MiG-31 Foxhound redesign project.

After extensive analysis of existing missile platforms, we chose the AIM-54A Phoenix missile the basis for our new weapon. The Phoenix is rather large for an aircraft mounted missile system, weighing 470kg. It is fitted with a powerful 58kg explosive warhead.

Similar to our problems with the original AIM-9L Sidewinder, the Phoenix needed extensive modifications to be effective against alien spacecraft. The redesigned missile is named the AIM-54X Avalanche Torpedo.

Our first task was to replace the active radar homing seeker to with the ARDA system. We scaled up and adapted the ARDA seeker from the new AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles used on our F-17 Condor aircraft. With the larger missile, the we were able to use a larger more effective scanning array, so the Avalanche can be used at longer distances than the Sidewinder. Unfortunately, the ARDA system requires extensive on-board processing which isn't fast enough when the missile flies at Mach 5, so we had to slow the burn rate of the propellant used in the engines.

While slower and not as maneuverable as the Sidewinder, the Avalanche should prove much more effective against larger alien spacecraft. Like the new Sidewinder, it features a redesigned 58kg shaped-charge warhead which can be devastating when it does find its mark.

Edited by Ishantil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"With the larger missile, the we were able to use a larger more effective scanning array, so the Avalanche can be used at longer distances than the Sidewinder. Unfortunately, the ARDA system requires extensive on-board processing which isn't fast enough when the missile flies at Mach 5, so we had to slow the burn rate of the propellant used in the engines."

My brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...