PDA

View Full Version : PETITION: Keep the AIRSTART "bug" for testrunways!



F16_txmx
01-06-2005, 03:42 AM
Hi all,

This is a petition to keep the AIRSTART "bug" for the testrunways in the coming 3.04 version as well as in any future patch releases, if any.

Let me explain why i would like to keep it.

The AIRSTART "bug" gives missionbuilders the ability to create runways or rahter, as i would like to call them, spawnpoints for bombers. At these "spawnpoints" the bombers spawn in the air which allows missionbuilders to simulate that the bombers acutally are coming, at altitude, from England and in over Normandy as an example. It would also, imho, drag more bombers pilots to online dogfight servers as they have a better chanse to actullay stay alive and use the bombers as they were intended to be used, at altitude.

As is today most bombers stay at 3000m or lower which makes them sitting ducks and they seldom reach their targets on our server and i guess that the situation is likewise on many other servers as well. This does, once again imho, not encourage more players to use bombers online.

If you agree that keeping the AIRSTART "bug" is a good thing, then please respond to this thread with a simple Yes. Thank you for time.

Regards,

F16_txmx
01-06-2005, 03:42 AM
Hi all,

This is a petition to keep the AIRSTART "bug" for the testrunways in the coming 3.04 version as well as in any future patch releases, if any.

Let me explain why i would like to keep it.

The AIRSTART "bug" gives missionbuilders the ability to create runways or rahter, as i would like to call them, spawnpoints for bombers. At these "spawnpoints" the bombers spawn in the air which allows missionbuilders to simulate that the bombers acutally are coming, at altitude, from England and in over Normandy as an example. It would also, imho, drag more bombers pilots to online dogfight servers as they have a better chanse to actullay stay alive and use the bombers as they were intended to be used, at altitude.

As is today most bombers stay at 3000m or lower which makes them sitting ducks and they seldom reach their targets on our server and i guess that the situation is likewise on many other servers as well. This does, once again imho, not encourage more players to use bombers online.

If you agree that keeping the AIRSTART "bug" is a good thing, then please respond to this thread with a simple Yes. Thank you for time.

Regards,

Lukki
01-06-2005, 05:01 AM
Usually the problem with flying bombers is that the runways might be quite close together and there is this urge to fly directly to the enemy. The bombers are crummy at gaining altitude yet people want max load to do some damage.

More runways for both sides. Not only will this make landings more easier, it will also enable the server to allow vulching (which is great fun) and all whiners can just change their base. Bombers can take from far away bases if they like. But no one wants to fly long distances, so maybe your idea is better.

Less flak would be nice, too, in maps. Flak kills bombing. Today I was flying at 4200+ m with a Me262 and I got pilot killed and I was doing like 500 IAS at least. That's unbelievable but it happened. My nickname actually used to be BadLuck... ^^

Ctrl+F2 view should be banned on externals servers. Bombers are easy targets and this "radar" gives them away. Many people like externals though, myself included. Long distance icons are also bad for bombers. A K4 sees your faint icon on the horizon? Well you're out of luck then, he'll turn and speed to you at 500 km/h and shoot the living cr.... There's no running away. When there are no icons, you can be real sneaky.

p1ngu666
01-06-2005, 05:17 AM
nah its good bug, didnt b17s used to circle over england for 45mins or more gaining height?
same with lancasters too (maybe less time)

lukki ya those things help, but starting at 2k helps too, plus your in proper bombsight altitude...

b25 takes 3000lbs or so, which isnt that much really

westcoastphil
01-06-2005, 08:26 AM
Keep this bug, keep this bug, keep this bug http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gates123
01-06-2005, 10:42 AM
Yes its a GREAT addition to online bomber action. Keep it!

Kootenai
01-06-2005, 10:44 AM
Yes, this is a great option for map builders. Please keep it in the sim!

EAF602Flowbee
01-06-2005, 11:08 AM
Yes, keep it!

Daiichidoku
01-06-2005, 11:22 AM
The problem is, when the runways have fighters as well

Now any figher can start with 2,000m right away, and perhaps an enemy fighter must start on ground and climb

If server hosts are responsible and make only bombers airstart, thats fine...but its an easy exploit to, well, eploit by fighters, giving them an unfair adv



I have played around with test runways, and find that if they intersect a roadway on a map, anything that spwans there is airstart
A test runway that is clear of roadways will act normally

JG53Hunter
01-06-2005, 11:44 AM
@ EAF602Flowbee:

Can you reduce the size of your sig a bit, pls?
Its 340kb in total. That makes a loading time of
over one miniute for one modem user...

thx

xTHRUDx
01-06-2005, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
The problem is, when the runways have fighters as well

Now any figher can start with 2,000m right away, and perhaps an enemy fighter must start on ground and climb

If server hosts are responsible and make only bombers airstart, thats fine...but its an easy exploit to, well, eploit by fighters, giving them an unfair adv



I have played around with test runways, and find that if they intersect a roadway on a map, anything that spwans there is airstart
A test runway that is clear of roadways will act normally <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the mission maker can choose not to have fighters spawn there by not giving the player the option to select one.

i used the airstart "bug/feature" to simulate the IJA land planes that were coming from Rabual to attack Guadalcanal. in this case, the whole blue side, fighters and bombers, spawned at altitude near the edge of the map. the reds still had to take off.

the best case scenario would be to have Oleg fix the test runways as they were meant to be used and give us a second type of home base marker in the FMB, like an "air start" home base. then give us the option to not only select the types of AC but also select the altitude of the "air start" home base.

with this option, i could spawn fully loaded carrier planes at altitude and have them land back on a carrier with having to have this random runway out in the water. the land based planes would still have to take off.

if we can't get all of that, just keep the bug.
maybe Oleg will see this post when he gets back from vacation on the 11th.

F16_Petter
01-06-2005, 12:29 PM
yes keep this bug, or even better... oleg should learn by this and add it to the core instead.. like a function

If not, the bombers will be usless on maps that are not gigantic, and where the bomber base is quite far from the nearest enemy fighter base.

F19_Orheim
01-06-2005, 01:13 PM
Haven't thought about this possibility but when you say it txmx it certainly has my support. I vote YES
xTHRUDx has a point too, why not make an Air start airbase?

Daiichidoku
01-06-2005, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If server hosts are responsible and make only bombers airstart, thats fine <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>the mission maker can choose not to have fighters spawn there by not giving the player the option to select one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, that what I said, in other words....

Ketalar
01-06-2005, 02:20 PM
I'll get in line for this one. I think it's a good idea, but then I'm a sucker for multi-engined aircraft in general and bombers in particular. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Willey
01-06-2005, 02:39 PM
Fix it. But make some kind of "airstart" homebase with setting for altitude and start speed, just like a waypoint. That's even better and it also enables high alt dogfights without the climbing stuff initially. I'm a friend of realism, but this one is mandatory for DF maps IMHO. I always wanted to have airstart at 8000m or so instead of 1000m, and anywhere, not just over an airfield.

Daiichidoku
01-06-2005, 03:05 PM
Then it better be a random airstart location, cuz other wise, instead of vulchers, you can bet the more enterprising ppl will soon zero in on the spawn point, and simply wait for a spawn and bounce him before he even knows what hit him

But if its a random start location, the host must be able to designate an area within which the airstarts can spawn....sure, you may be at 8,000m, but who wants to have to fly for 20 minutes or more just to get to where any action is, let alone, a particular tgt?

TheGozr
01-06-2005, 09:10 PM
It is always better to have more choices. Keep it.

And also change the thickness of the runway make it flat, it's aweful with this elevated runways.

Daiichidoku
01-06-2005, 10:18 PM
Would also be nice to have them flatten the terrain footprint where the runway stands automatically....runways floating in mid-air or half-buried is not very realistic

p1ngu666
01-06-2005, 10:34 PM
what about a floating runway, with balloons above a landing strip holding it up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

now its not historic, but it is **** cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

u could have wires like a carrier for landing...

and if u where being fancy, drop points where u taxi over a ledge and zoom downwards http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

make 2 basic models (allied/axis) and have them in object viewer for 1000,1500 2000 2500 3,4,5,7,8,10k http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Daiichidoku
01-06-2005, 10:36 PM
Have random sections of the runway at alt swing open like a trapdoor at random times

stathem
01-07-2005, 10:27 AM
Yep, I'd like to see it kept.

TAGERT.
01-07-2005, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F16_txmx:
Hi all,

This is a petition to keep the AIRSTART "bug" for the testrunways in the coming 3.04 version as well as in any future patch releases, if any.

Let me explain why i would like to keep it.

The AIRSTART "bug" gives missionbuilders the ability to create runways or rahter, as i would like to call them, spawnpoints for bombers. At these "spawnpoints" the bombers spawn in the air which allows missionbuilders to simulate that the bombers acutally are coming, at altitude, from England and in over Normandy as an example. It would also, imho, drag more bombers pilots to online dogfight servers as they have a better chanse to actullay stay alive and use the bombers as they were intended to be used, at altitude.

As is today most bombers stay at 3000m or lower which makes them sitting ducks and they seldom reach their targets on our server and i guess that the situation is likewise on many other servers as well. This does, once again imho, not encourage more players to use bombers online.

If you agree that keeping the AIRSTART "bug" is a good thing, then please respond to this thread with a simple Yes. Thank you for time.

Regards, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I vote to keep the bug

Hetzer_II
01-08-2005, 02:28 AM
yes,yes,yes keeeeep it

rbstr44
01-08-2005, 09:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
Fix it. But make some kind of "airstart" homebase with setting for altitude and start speed, just like a waypoint. [elided] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

Kaiser_5SM
01-09-2005, 01:35 AM
Yes, but doit like functionality, documented and do random start point over the base, separating them at least 50 meters in any direction.

Daiichidoku
01-10-2005, 09:31 AM
The problem with an airstart "site", is when ppl discover just where, with in small circle, the respawning take place...then just orbit this "airspawn" and "vulch" or bounce like theres no tomorrow

You can keep normal vulching at bay with copious amounts of AAA, or stated rules about no vulching...but how can you keep ppl from flying into certain airspace, and adjudicate just when they are "airvulching" or just happen, by the wild circumstances of air combat, to be in that place and time when ppl are "airspawning"?....this of course, is assuming that the "airspawn" isnt at random throughtout the map, which isnt very good in of itself

a great boon to P 47 and Fw 190 pilots, who, while not vulching, technically, can at present, score relitivly easy kills online with little precious altitude lost once they know where the "airspawn" point is....
"what? big bombers spawning HERE at 2,000m? YEE-HAW!...let sgo there and kill us some bombers...if they get any help, we will retain lots of E and alt to start with, so we got thier balls in a sling"

TAGERT.
01-10-2005, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
The problem with an airstart "site", is when ppl discover just where, with in small circle, the respawning take place...then just orbit this "airspawn" and "vulch" or bounce like theres no tomorrow <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What? Your kidding right? Given a choice (which is what this bug does) I would rater get vultched in the air then on the ground any day of the week! This bug feature does not stop or start vultching.. vultchers are going to vultch no mater what.. At least with an air start it is not clear where the exact start point it.. Where as with a ground start you know exactally where they will appear.. And with an air start my motor is running and Im moving.. unlike a ground start. In short.. Dont blame the air start for vultchers.. two totally unrelated things.. But given a choice.. I would rather be up and moving when there is a vultcher around.

Bill_Door
01-11-2005, 01:38 AM
Keep it!

It is (at the moment) the only way to use the Zero-seaplane at every map!

Otherwise you are limited to the few maps with "seabases" or you have to watch a nice explosion at the respawn point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

xTHRUDx
01-12-2005, 12:13 PM
hiccup

LeadSpitter_
01-12-2005, 01:24 PM
I dont like them myself especially online, defeats the purpose of having to climb in the bombers but why not leave them in for those who like them as a choice.

Also why doesnt the a20 and b25s carry 5000lbs of bombs with 50 fuel. We just have 2500lbs which was max payload for fully fueled long range mission. It makes more sense to fly a p38 or p47 with similiar payload. And the payload on the p-47 is still incorrect all this time. Also why cant the other b25s be made flyable only difference is a armored plate over the left hand side window only. gun and cannon also do nothing to enemy ships and they should damage them.

for the p47 Wing Mounted 1000lb 500lb or 250lb. and centerline max 500lb bomb for the p47s or drop tank.

Please put many types of test runways. But sink them a bit so they can be taxied onto or off.

Some with 4 spawns some with 2 spawns only, for me262 bases so everyone and their mother dont pick me262s and komets in some of the scripted dogfight servers.

Also different types are needed dirt, concrete, grass, grate, and SEA dock BASEs for the float planes.

xTHRUDx
01-12-2005, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I dont like them myself especially online, defeats the purpose of having to climb in the bombers but why not leave them in for those who like them as a choice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lead, we have found that more pilots will fly bombers when they don't have to use their valuable gaming time to climb to altitude in the slow climbing bombers. This is how we encourge more combined force attacks on Greater Green. We have some maps in our rotation that have air starts for bombers only.

Other uses isn scripted DF maps;

planes coming from an off map location

getting fully loaded planes off of a carrier

TAGERT.
01-13-2005, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
Lead, we have found that more pilots will fly bombers when they don't have to use their valuable gaming time to climb to altitude in the slow climbing bombers. This is how we encourge more combined force attacks on Greater Green. We have some maps in our rotation that have air starts for bombers only.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>EXACTALLY! This BUG is one of the BEST FEATURES to come along! Anyword on if they plan to fix it? I mean break it by fixxing it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jambock__01
01-15-2005, 02:41 PM
BUMP for the BUG!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

xTHRUDx
01-16-2005, 11:35 PM
just saw another positive effect of the airstarts, many more tb3's in the air.

xTHRUDx
01-18-2005, 02:17 PM
air starts bug/feature is still there in version 3.04. weeeee!

F16_txmx
01-20-2005, 01:24 PM
http://members.cox.net/saeinc/bump.gif

xTHRUDx
01-25-2005, 05:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

269GA-Maxmars
01-26-2005, 02:46 AM
Yes - bump!

xTHRUDx
01-26-2005, 02:55 PM
and how about under homebase properties a value to set the # of spawn points, instead of a slider that we are supposed to guess the # of spawns. just let us put in a # like, 4 spawn points, or 20. That slider bar / circle thing is too hard to use.

F16_txmx
01-27-2005, 08:28 AM
^agreed. And if I understand it correctly the number of spawnpoints differ from different types of bases and of course the size of the circle.

If we could set a number it would be possible to include high performance planes, like the Me-163, in very limited numbers so they don't destroy the "funfactor" of the missions. Today that is either impossible or very hard to achieve.

TgD Thunderbolt56
01-27-2005, 08:43 AM
Kepp the opportunity for airstarts...and by all means ADD a function to regulate the number of spawn points at a given base.

Having bomber airstarts is very cool. Although, I'd like to keep the spawn altitude at 2k (a decent starting height...they can still go higher if they choose).

The second suggestion of adding a function to readily limit spawn points at a given base is one of the only ways to get some of those 'banned" birds back into the game. I'd love to see a 262 base with a limit of 2-3 or a late war map with the same for the La7. The absence of these birds is really too bad, but as long as people think one of the only ways to combat them is to match them, they will be absent more than not.

TB

TAGERT.
01-27-2005, 09:00 PM
Keep the bug and add another bug.. The ability to set the alt of the first bug. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Or put another way.. BUMP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

rookie66
01-30-2005, 07:45 AM
Great "bug"!
Keep it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

xTHRUDx
02-08-2005, 03:24 PM
arise! little post!

IKP_Congo
02-10-2005, 02:09 PM
Love the Bug!

TooCooL34
02-12-2005, 12:25 PM
God.. anyone call it a bug?
It is best feature I've ever seen in patches!!

xTHRUDx
02-22-2005, 08:30 PM
arise again, little post

Manos1
02-25-2005, 04:06 PM
YES! please keep it!


Very few bomber pilots (ehemm "Bullet magnets" that is; I never saw a bomber return for landing in a dogfight server) are prepared to circle for 10min (Stuka pilots = 20min) to gain altitude.

Can someone please explain how it must be programmed ?

xTHRUDx
04-13-2005, 03:29 PM
i sure hope Oleg has heard our plea and kept the bug or did the correct thing and has gaven us an altitude selectable air-spawn point for version 4.0