PDA

View Full Version : Gauges in multiplayer



Black_Ops7
07-06-2007, 12:59 PM
Why is it after many guys asking , the devicelink is not patched to work in online matches so wonderfull progs like these software gauges works in multiplayer?
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2511087684/p/1

Then we could all fly cool looking simpit like this:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/3821084134/p/4

or cover our 2e monitor like this:
http://www.simmeters.com/products.html

Is this not what every Il2 player whants?
Cheap simpit with working gauges and play online?

I dont see the problem in activating this devicelink data online.
If it can somehow be exploited then make a server option to have it turned on and turned of. So everybody with simpits can play on seperate server if it would be so unsafe somehow.

Black_Ops7
07-06-2007, 12:59 PM
Why is it after many guys asking , the devicelink is not patched to work in online matches so wonderfull progs like these software gauges works in multiplayer?
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2511087684/p/1

Then we could all fly cool looking simpit like this:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/3821084134/p/4

or cover our 2e monitor like this:
http://www.simmeters.com/products.html

Is this not what every Il2 player whants?
Cheap simpit with working gauges and play online?

I dont see the problem in activating this devicelink data online.
If it can somehow be exploited then make a server option to have it turned on and turned of. So everybody with simpits can play on seperate server if it would be so unsafe somehow.

Urufu_Shinjiro
07-06-2007, 02:48 PM
W3RD!


+1

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

striker-85
07-06-2007, 02:50 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Yes. I have posted for this also many times.

Urufu_Shinjiro
07-06-2007, 03:17 PM
Ivan, I know Oleg is pretty busy but can you ask him to at least give us a detailed explanation as to why he thinks this is a bad idea? Most of us here are fairly reasonable and would be perfectly willing to let this slide along with the other things we'd like but oleg has said no to, if only we had a reason. I know it's been stated that cheating is the reason but that doesn't seem to make sense, maybe things have changed since he came to that conclusion. Anyway, the point remains that we simply don't understand why this awesome feature would be limited online to such a degree.

Black_Ops7
07-06-2007, 03:28 PM
Did oleg himself say that cheating whas the reason to leave this out of multiplayer or was that a assumption?

Did he ever reply on the topic of devicelink not working fully in multiplay?

on/off option on server = no cheating on most server. Not muth players have simpits anyway so only a few servers with this option on would be good enought.

And what use could it be if somebody would hack the airplane data out of the data stream? What use is it to see a other mans plane speed data,hight,oil plessure etc on a 2e monitor?

FritzGryphon
07-06-2007, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">cheating is the reason but that doesn't seem to make sense </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's simple enough. With devicelink, you can get information from the game that you couldn't realistically get from the aircraft's instruments. For example, most planes don't have a load meter, but it is in devicelink.

If it were allowed, you could even write external software that would give you a HUD like in a modern jet. You can see how this would give a player an advantage over other people not exploiting devicelink.

Black_Ops7
07-07-2007, 03:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">cheating is the reason but that doesn't seem to make sense </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's simple enough. With devicelink, you can get information from the game that you couldn't realistically get from the aircraft's instruments. For example, most planes don't have a load meter, but it is in devicelink.

If it were allowed, you could even write external software that would give you a HUD like in a modern jet. You can see how this would give a player an advantage over other people not exploiting devicelink. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont understand (I am a flight sim noob).
It does not give you modern raderguided missle or heatseaking missle.
How is a modern HUD going to make dogfighting with guns more easy?
How is extra info from meter that does not exist going to make dogfighting more easy?

Its still about plane + pilot performance and getting the gun reticle on your target , right?

Tronickod
07-08-2007, 10:07 AM
And how about using the devicelink pitch - bank data to use them on your motion simulator? I don't think that this would give you an advantage if you have to dogfight while you are shaken in the cockpit. No cheat in there for me as I see it...



Regards, Thanos


--------------------
DYI Home Motion Simulator:
www.motionflightsim.eu.tp (http://www.motionflightsim.eu.tp)

ddpairborne59
07-10-2007, 11:50 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Hey Black_Ops7,Thanks for bringing up this topic.
I would love online DLink capability,even though I fly offline mostly. If not possible, then I hope Oleg continues Device Link with SOW (I have asked before with no response).
The fact that the gauges are right there with other controls at your finger tips is trully fun stuff, for me anyways.

VW-IceFire
07-10-2007, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Black_Ops7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">cheating is the reason but that doesn't seem to make sense </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's simple enough. With devicelink, you can get information from the game that you couldn't realistically get from the aircraft's instruments. For example, most planes don't have a load meter, but it is in devicelink.

If it were allowed, you could even write external software that would give you a HUD like in a modern jet. You can see how this would give a player an advantage over other people not exploiting devicelink. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont understand (I am a flight sim noob).
It does not give you modern raderguided missle or heatseaking missle.
How is a modern HUD going to make dogfighting with guns more easy?
How is extra info from meter that does not exist going to make dogfighting more easy?

Its still about plane + pilot performance and getting the gun reticle on your target , right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep...and any advantage...any extra information you can get means you have a leg up on the other guy. A load meter would be great for say a Mustang pilot (in theory lets say he was dueling another Mustang for simplicity sake) who would know what the G load was by the meter and then would know how hard to pull out and not break his wings. The other guy would have to use his brain and feel for the right pull out. The guy with the G load meter with a HUD like display on his screen now has an advantage that the other guy, not using Devicelink, simply does not have.

Thats a problem...and sure you can always say "nobody would do that" but they will and do. There was a nifty little cheat years back that has since been fixed where if you were piloting a bomber and you switched stations (turret to pilot or bombadier or something) the information would get passed around in a non-obvious format that told the other people what the grid position of the person doing this was. So every time you swapped positions you gave yourself away...some online competitions were in a nasty spot for a while because teams would be using that to track bombers down from half a map away. Not saying that Devicelink is supposed to give that kind of functionality but to illustrate that people will use any means to get a leg up on the other guy.

If you offer a tool and its to be used in MP then it has to be very carefully implemented.

Devicelink seems to be a great tool and maybe it will be expanded to be configurable in certain ways for multiplayer but for it to be a fair tool it has to be restricted in some logical fashion and it has to be checked out to ensure that it doesn't do something its not supposed to.

Black_Ops7
07-11-2007, 12:07 AM
like i and other sayed:
server option to have it turned on and turned off.

That would be the quicked way to implement it without the developer putting mutch time in it to make it cheat free.

If you see a server running the option and you dont have a simpit or other setup to give you "extra info" then dont enter that server.Leave it for the simpit players only.
And how many of the Il2 player do you think are capeble of programming something to display something not in the game? verry verry small percentage.

Urufu_Shinjiro
07-11-2007, 04:23 PM
Ok, hold on, as I understand it devicelink Does send out limited info in multiplayer correct? Then does that not imply that it is capable of limitting it's output to certain types of data? If that is the case then instead of crippling it in multiplayer just limit it to the standard guage information and leave out the stuff like g load and things that a normal person would not have access to. I understand it's possible that the way devicelink was coded it might not be that easy, but if that is the case then we need to hear that from oleg and co.

Black_Ops7
07-11-2007, 11:45 PM
I check www.simkits.com (http://www.simkits.com)
They dont sell G-Meters.
Other hardware gauge maker for simulators also did not have it (Forgot the brand name)

If its only blocked because of somebody having a software G-Meter gauge in a simpit... then allow all gauges in multiplayer except the G-Meter!!!
Beter to have a working simpit in multiplayer without a G-Meter then no simpit at all.

HitchHikerHSDWG
07-12-2007, 03:20 PM
I too second this request. I have hopes to build a more complete simulated cockpit going into the future and thought of putting all the work in for it to only work with MSFS or X-Plane makes it worthless. I'd also like to see seperate throttle controls (built in) and an option to center the cockpit for us pit builders like MSFS. That way you can make a two seat pit or make a fully enlosed pit with no need for the cockpit to be shown on screen. Since I play on a projector that option is a huge bonus.

striker-85
07-13-2007, 09:49 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

rnzoli
07-16-2007, 02:54 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Manos1
07-17-2007, 04:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The other guy would have to use his brain and feel for the right pull out. The guy with the G load meter with a HUD like display on his screen now has an advantage that the other guy, not using Devicelink, simply does not have.

There was a nifty little cheat years back that has since been fixed where if you were piloting a bomber... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand your point Icefire and respect it but, on this principle we should ban:
- TrackIR (huuuge advantage)
- Soundblaster Audigy cards (the famous model with build in sonar sound)
- MS SW2 Force Feedback joystics

I believe that Device Link should be on because it gives people additional things to play with.
Besides, I do not understand why this device link saga continues (thanks to Oleg's stuborness) since anyway, other games (Lock On) already have it!


Something OT: Are you sure the bomber plot thingy has been corrected?

~S~

Urufu_Shinjiro
07-17-2007, 09:46 AM
Another anomalous item in olegs anti-advantage logic, we don't have widescreen support supposedly because of advantage issues but we have usethreerenders=1???

FritzGryphon
07-18-2007, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">we don't have widescreen support supposedly because of advantage issues </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know that isn't true but you wrote it anyway.

Urufu_Shinjiro
07-18-2007, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">we don't have widescreen support supposedly because of advantage issues </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know that isn't true but you wrote it anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm glad you're in my head and know what I know. I in fact do not know that isn't true. If there is an official reason as to why we don't have widescreen support then there's a whole bunch of people in several widescreen request threads that would like to know.

EDCF_Rama
07-18-2007, 01:06 PM
Don't your widescreen display the game correctly with the correct horizontal FOV angle you choose?

Yes it does... so you can't say "we don't have widescreen support"
You could complain not beiing able to use larger horizontal FOV... but it has nothing to do with widescreen support.... and it has nothing to do with advantages issues... since larger horizontal FOV would be available for everybody in any case.

Urufu_Shinjiro
07-18-2007, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
Don't your widescreen display the game correctly with the correct horizontal FOV angle you choose?

Yes it does... so you can't say "we don't have widescreen support"
You could complain not beiing able to use larger horizontal FOV... but it has nothing to do with widescreen support.... and it has nothing to do with advantages issues... since larger horizontal FOV would be available for everybody in any case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree with that point of view (no pun intended). If we had true widescreen support we would not have a cropping of the top and bottom of the screen. Also there are other issues with useing a non 4:3 aspect in this game, in no-cockpit view the arrows will sometimes disappear at the top or bottom, the inability to move the map and other display items farther out, etc. Don't get me wrong, I do understand that we have the same horizontal FOV, but I don't see why the FOV is locked horizontally no matter the resolution, if you have a 4:3 or 6:9 or 6:10 you should be able to have a full screen without loosing the bottom of your instrument panel.

P.S. I'm more of a supporter for multiplayer guages than widescreen, I didn't mean to get this thread OT.

EDCF_Rama
07-18-2007, 02:31 PM
Because it's a design choice to have a range of fixed horizontal FOV, each one can be choosen by the player.... just take a look at the command menu, and you'll understand.
With this choice, it's clear that the vertical FOV will depend on your resolution (4/3 or what else...) you can't have at the same time the cow, the milk and the farm (it you want a non-distorded image)
Again... what you really ask for, isn't a "widescreen support", but a wider horizontal FOV (since a 120? FOV could be displayed on a 16/10 without too much distortion).

For the red arrows, OK... maybe it's a bug... I really didn't know... since I allways fly full switch.

DDastardlySID
07-20-2007, 11:35 AM
I'd love to see the proposed addition of a server setting so that admins can choose whether or not to restrict devicelink in multiplayer. That way everyone would be happy and anyone worried about their opponents having an advantage from devicelink can just choose to play on servers which restrict its use.

Personally, I think any advantage devicelink might give you in combat is orders of magnitude lower than the benefit of having a TrackIR, or even just a faster PC and it seems a real shame to cripple the efforts of home cockpit builders (at least in multiplayer) when devicelink would make so little difference to the outcome of a fight.

It is true that you can make non historical gauges like the G-force gauge in my BF-109K UDPSpeed set (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2511087684/p/1), but devoting your attention to that gauge in a dogfight rather than looking out for enemy planes is a recipe for defeat, not an unfair advantage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
Cheers,
DD

P.S. Another idea for the server variable would be to have three settings rather than just two:

0=Devicelink completely disabled

1=Devicelink enabled but only info to which a real pilot would have access is transmitted i.e. readouts from each gauge in the plane you're flying plus acceleration info the pilot would feel IRL (to allow motion platform stuff).

2=No restrictions on devicelink at all.

EDIT: Just noticed that Urufu_Shinjiro suggested something similar already. Note to self: read the whole thread before posting lol

Manos1
07-21-2007, 02:26 PM
Nice post DDastardlySID http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

About the previous posts, look guys, we do not have wide screen supoort but we have ultra-wide screen support!

It is not my fault if your widescreens do not do 3072 x 768 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

http://www.e-335thgr.com/Athos/TripleHead2Go_01.JPG

So, let's park that widescreen saga aside and let's concentrate on the important part: How to get Device link running online...

~S~

sully_pa
03-08-2008, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DDastardlySID:
I'd love to see the proposed addition of a server setting so that admins can choose whether or not to restrict devicelink in multiplayer. That way everyone would be happy and anyone worried about their opponents having an advantage from devicelink can just choose to play on servers which restrict its use.

Personally, I think any advantage devicelink might give you in combat is orders of magnitude lower than the benefit of having a TrackIR, or even just a faster PC and it seems a real shame to cripple the efforts of home cockpit builders (at least in multiplayer) when devicelink would make so little difference to the outcome of a fight.

It is true that you can make non historical gauges like the G-force gauge in my BF-109K UDPSpeed set (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2511087684/p/1), but devoting your attention to that gauge in a dogfight rather than looking out for enemy planes is a recipe for defeat, not an unfair advantage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
Cheers,
DD

P.S. Another idea for the server variable would be to have three settings rather than just two:

0=Devicelink completely disabled

1=Devicelink enabled but only info to which a real pilot would have access is transmitted i.e. readouts from each gauge in the plane you're flying plus acceleration info the pilot would feel IRL (to allow motion platform stuff).

2=No restrictions on devicelink at all.

EDIT: Just noticed that Urufu_Shinjiro suggested something similar already. Note to self: read the whole thread before posting lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

albertafox
03-09-2008, 05:27 PM
Add my vote to the yes side. That is if there are some rules/limitations put in place on the use of it.ie: not being able to view opposing players stats, but friendlies yes.(I like to watch pro's fly and look at the gauges to see what they are doing)

What are people looking for, equality or fairness when playing online ?

Equality would be everyone has to play with the same everything. Not going to happen when you have Hotas, TrackIR, variable flaps, variable PP on fixed props....
Fairness would allow everyone the same chance as anyone else to use the same programs and equipment. Which imo is the honest route. I can care less if someone spends 10K on gear and shoots me down. He has spent more time and dedication to the game than I have, and as such they should be rewarded for it! not punished because "John Doe" cannot/will not spend any time/money to make things easier/better for his flight experience.

By trying to enforcing "equality" you will make a "unfair"(cheat) playing field. Unless your trying to cater to the lowest common denominator to be rewarded for the least effort.

sakai2005
03-14-2008, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Black_Ops7:
Why is it after many guys asking , the devicelink is not patched to work in online matches so wonderfull progs like these software gauges works in multiplayer?
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2511087684/p/1

works in coops that i host.

http://gallery.filefront.com/baronvonluger/130951/

fine pit my friend built with guages that work.

Then we could all fly cool looking simpit like this:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/3821084134/p/4

or cover our 2e monitor like this:
http://www.simmeters.com/products.html

Is this not what every Il2 player whants?
Cheap simpit with working gauges and play online?

I dont see the problem in activating this devicelink data online.
If it can somehow be exploited then make a server option to have it turned on and turned of. So everybody with simpits can play on seperate server if it would be so unsafe somehow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CarpeNoctem43
03-28-2008, 09:03 AM
Here is the problem. All possible aircraft parameters are available through device link. As an example given before, not all aircraft have a load meter in the cockpit. With device link this aircraft 'simpit' now has the ability to have a load meter. Just because a physical gauge is not available - is no reason to suspect it won't be used as all you need is another screen for these gauges.

Yeah, a solution would be to further develop it so only proper parameters can be interfaced - and only when not damaged. But the key concept is, "FURTHER DEVELOPED."

At this point in the IL-2 life-cycle this is not prudent and SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. Original IL-2 was developed about a decade ago, FB was to be an add-on to that. A little perspective will go a long way here. 1C has other fish to fry.

bolox00
03-29-2008, 09:16 AM
i agree some perspective is needed, this being a revived thread- probably with the intention of prodding Oleg not to forget this for SOW as much as a last gasp for this restriction to be lifted at the end of support for the game. personally i'd like to see it happen, but as you say 1c have bigger fish to fry. removing the restriction on the few limited parameters (30-74 inclusive from a set that runs to 449) should be a very minor job, the server side setting to allow this or not takes more work but has generally been accepted as the way to go if- it ever happens.

Flight sims for some time now tend to have some form of datalink to do this kind of thing and is highly immersive imho and likely to become more common- all those multicore cpu's begging for some numbers to crunch.

while i can understand concerns that a (minute) advantage may be obtained by having 'more toys' isn't there always the argument 'head in the office in combat= 20mm nipple piercing'?

anyway, i'm looking forward to the 'better be sure' devicelink in SOW, online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
03-31-2008, 06:23 AM
I hadn't tried but isn't there supposed to be LIMITED devicelink in MP?

Skoshi Tiger
04-01-2008, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolox00:
while i can understand concerns that a (minute) advantage may be obtained by having 'more toys' isn't there always the argument 'head in the office in combat= 20mm nipple piercing'?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that the data doesn't have to be displayed on a guage.

Once you have the data from devicelink you could program a beeper signal too much load , or a sexy female voice to tell you to stop pulling on your stick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Either way your attention doesn't have to be out of the cockpit! Now in a tight contest that may just be enought to give you and advantage.

FCIProject3
05-02-2008, 09:19 AM
I agree, we need multi-player support in DeviceLink.

I am getting closer to releasing my FCIProject software. One of the problems that will stop people considering building a SimPit with simulated instruments is the fact that they wont work online.