PDA

View Full Version : Number One Needed Item for Dogfight Servers Online



Recon_609IAP
01-16-2005, 11:46 AM
Is the need for moving objects in Pacific Fighters.

1. you could having moving carriers - which would improve the issues with taking off - static carriers are just plain wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This idea of fake wind off a static carrier is the wrong direction in thinking imo. I don't want hokey fixes - give us moving carriers! ( no offense to the suggest, but I think it's a hack).

And, if you can do moving carriers, let's have chief's in dogfights...which leads to:

2. online campaigns and immersive dogfights with DCG and FBD would finally have true ground war. I know our Forgotten Skies online war, which now supports dogfight modes would be greatly enhances by having moving convoys. Tanks, convoys, etc.. moving down roads into frontline battles would allow for historical recreations as well as many reenactments and fun 'what if's'

This alone would open the door to greater game play type senario's.

If not in PF, then hopefully for sure in BoB.

Others want more work in FM, DM, new planes, etc... me - I want improvements in gameplay types online.

To me, again, this is the biggest number one improvement I see in this game.

Sure, it would take more resources, but I'd be happier with less people on a server with moving objects.

That is my 2005 wishlist for 1C and Oleg to consider. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I can wait for BoB for this, but if it could be done for PF while we wait... wow - that would be great!!!

New_York_Flyer
01-16-2005, 11:56 AM
By the way, Moving Carriers are online in-game.

The server you were on just didnt have a proper mission set up where the carrier was moving.

There are online campaigns such as the Bellum Wars and the Pandora Wars, which include full ground campaigns.

Bellum War - http://il2fb-bellum.com.ar/
Pandora Wars - http://war.pandora.ru/

Moses

IVJG51_Dart
01-16-2005, 12:25 PM
He's talking about moving carriers in DF servers, not coops. Everything in a DF server is static, therefore making any decent attempt at carrier ops pratically worthless since you get no wind down the deck to help heavies of the boat. That is my biggest complaint with PF so far and a huge short coming IMO. I know for us in our squad we'd LOVE to fly more PF stuff, and having this available in a DF server would be the greatest addition to this already fantastic game.

PF_Coastie
01-16-2005, 12:49 PM
I agree Recon. This has been one of the biggest let downs for me about this game. I have always been disappointed in the restrictions of the dogfight maps. I have just never understood these restrictions either.

IVJG51_Dart
01-16-2005, 01:18 PM
Bump http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BM357_Hitcher
01-16-2005, 06:42 PM
Yeah, that has always puzzled me. Does anyone know why it can or cannot be done? Is it an fps consideration or what?

ElAurens
01-16-2005, 08:39 PM
Moving carriers might be possible if they all have a standard "racetrack" pattern that they would move in. Moving ground vehicles would not work I fear because of the inability to repeat in a DF environment. I know this may not be clear, but, in a large open area (the ocean) it would be quite easy to put an object that moved in a set pattern, but on land, with all the differences and irregularities in the topography, I don't think it would be possible.

PF_Coastie
01-17-2005, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Moving carriers _might_ be possible if they all have a standard "racetrack" pattern that they would move in. Moving ground vehicles would not work I fear because of the inability to repeat in a DF environment. I know this may not be clear, but, in a large open area (the ocean) it would be quite easy to put an object that moved in a set pattern, but on land, with all the differences and irregularities in the topography, I don't think it would be possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you just set the vehicles to timeout in a given time. Same with carriers. With FBD it would be very easy to create a map with moving everything. Then change maps in a given time if no objectives are met.

Sure it would not work for the same map to run 24/7. But thats an easy work-around.

IVJG51_Dart
01-17-2005, 08:44 AM
Maybe this post should be over in ORR? Just thinking Oleg might be more inclined to read it there. Anyway, I think moving carriers in a race track pattern, or otherwise, is the single biggest addition we could have to this sim. Without it we essentially can't utilize half the sim in DF server.

Mjollnir111675
01-17-2005, 01:04 PM
AGREED!!
I brought this up in a previous thread.

Have the carriers steam in a clock like pattern.

Have one at 12 and the other at 6 and they steam counter/clock wise. The only user variables that would be present would be the distance between the carriers and the speed(both matching of course or after about an hour or so one would be on the stern of the other.
Heck just make one map like that and alot would be gained by the on-line crowd.Then if that pans out smoothly you could get more creative.


Hey 1-C: PIMP OUR TORP PLANES!!! Shaft told me to tell you!!

georgeo76
01-17-2005, 06:41 PM
I don't believe dynamic objects were included in DF mode because it simplifys the net code. When you have a bunch of objects (static or otherwise) they must be updated periodically to all the machines connected to the server. Too many, and lag city. Now dynamic objects are even worse, cuz they must be updated more often.

I imagine this decision was made back in IL2 days and just hasn't been changed. I doubt that a single carrier would make that much difference.

Besides, if the DF area is too restrictive, you always have coops.

IVJG51_Dart
01-17-2005, 07:20 PM
Well, the coops are more restictive IMO, but that is another matter. I still maintain that this would be the best addition to PF and would no doubt increase online PF activity, which at this point is pretty much just a novelty. That's been my experience. Too bad too considering what the game's title is.

LEXX_Luthor
01-17-2005, 11:33 PM
Motionless aircraft carriers on a dogfight server sounds realistic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Number One needed item...Total Side Kill scores, and a Patch to disable individual "ace" Brownie Point scores from the sim.

Idea...a side gets negative points when a friendly kill happens. mmmm

IVJG51_Dart
01-18-2005, 02:22 PM
Moving carriers in DF servers. Additonally they should be moving at their max speeds to facilitate take offs and landings. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

e5kimo
01-18-2005, 03:33 PM
i d still like to see AI planes in dogfight servers. or a refly option for coop missions. but apparently this can not be done as it would open the doors to cheating ??!!
dont ask me how thats just what i was told when i asked months/years ago.
though begging on my knees i never got an explanation as to how this would allow cheating.
it is probably the same reason why there only static objects in DF missions.

Clan_Graham
01-18-2005, 04:58 PM
Now, you see...I would have thought that the number one needed item for dogfight servers online would be..........airplanes.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WTE_Grendal
01-18-2005, 06:43 PM
My thoughts are to make the mission building similar to OFP.

You could make any "map/mission" a DF map by turning on respawning at the editor level and creating spawn points. A cycle option for way points allows a unit to cycle back to the nearest waypoint.

Irish_JG26
01-20-2005, 08:03 AM
S~

I like the idea of having the ability to program moving ground, sea and AI aircraft in the dogfight mode. That does not need a racetrack route either. The mission builder would set the start location, start time and set waypoints for each just like you do for a coop or campaign mission. The difference is that the live pilots can now take off, fly, return, land, rearm and take off again. The real risk of the live pilots being attacked on the ground exists for them in subsequent missions. Usually such DF missions would end after 3-4 hours, although some would like to see it running 24/7 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif (Oh my Gawd, I'll never get any sleep then)

To do that, I could envision using waypoints that loop back and then repeat in the "racetrack" mode. I know that adding moving AI affects the amount of data being processed and the playability. Still, their might be creative ways to overcome that by uploading all of the AI data at mission launch? or some other way.

Irish

TacticalYak3
01-20-2005, 09:15 AM
To a layperson this issue is very puzzling. Why can one host a COOP mission with various moving objects and lots of human-controlled planes (plus even more AI-controlled planes) online with great performance?

If we can't have moving objects in a DF mission, can we have re-spawning in a COOP mission? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Krt_Bong
01-20-2005, 10:00 AM
I'd love to see moving carriers but, If that were'nt possible for whatever reason, re-arm and refuel without having to hit re-fly. Land, taxi back to the spawn point and shutting down the engine a mssg saying re-arm complete, then start up and taxi back to the runway and take off. I think this would add to the immersion of the game. I mean we're not talking BF1942 with ammo boxes and repair stations but would even that be so bad?

VF-51-Dart
02-01-2006, 03:46 PM
If moving carriers in a DF server are out (as in a race track pattern) then how about modeling wind DOWN the deck at 34knts? Static carriers in DF servers are just about useless and is a real shortcoming for the sim. You can't get off the deck with any decent load of ordinace/fuel for a mission. Something should be done to rectify this if possible.

LEXX_Luthor
02-01-2006, 05:22 PM
Some people experimented with putting static carriers end-to-end thus making a much longer takeoff run...you have two or three carriers length to take off with. I think the experiment worked. Not sure. If it does work, you have working static carrier air operations for dogfight shooter servers.

xTHRUDx
02-01-2006, 06:02 PM
the #2 thing for DF servers is an altitude selectable airstart

VF-51-Dart
02-01-2006, 06:46 PM
Not much of an answer Luthor. It may work, but talk about hokey! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Not attacking you, just making an observation.

bogusheadbox
02-02-2006, 06:24 AM
Doubling up carriers is possible and does give a much longer run off. One of our squad members has showed me his "supercarrier".

The only problem i see with this is when the carriers are attacked the following problems arise.

1. A lot more guns will now be modelled on the carriers and will be innacurate.

2. If the supercarrier is attacked (and assuming it is 2 carriers attached) it looks very arcady to see the supercarrier split in two and have one section start to sink while the other remains afloat to reveal a single solitary carrier.

I can understand that moving objects will cause a performance hit. But running a large co-op with many moving objects, plus many planes, plus AI planes works very well on todays good computers.

Surely a lot of the processing power could be reduced by client side detection. In the sense that when you load the map, all moving items planned routes and spacial timing are downloaded onto your map.

So no matter at what time you fly or spawn, the moving objects are handled client side and not pushed out constantly by the server.

The only time the server needs to spit out information about moving objects is when the client registers a hit on a moving object and any re routing info sent. Then the client will inform the server which will in turn inform all other clients. (just the same way it does on stationary items)

This way constant information on moving items is not needed to be sent by the server as all clients will know the route at start of map load and the exact referrence point the moving objects are at the clock time.

Take a very old game like Plannetside. It uses client side hit detection and in its hey day had over 1000 moving objects on any given server (not including every single projectile fired which has its own individual calculation).

Worked very well for what it is.

But maybe its a limitation of the engine. Who know?

JG53Frankyboy
02-02-2006, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by TacticalYak3:
To a layperson this issue is very puzzling. Why can one host a COOP mission with various moving objects and lots of human-controlled planes (plus even more AI-controlled planes) online with great performance?

If we can't have moving objects in a DF mission, can we have re-spawning in a COOP mission? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

becasue all is starting at the same time.

try it and let some plaes spawn in a COOP after beginning of mission - it will be a more or less huge stutter when they spawn.

nerverthless, that carriers cant move on dogfight map is realy a pitty, make carrieroperations there more than trickey http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

a second item i would like to see for dogfightmaps would be the weaponrestriction.

but i doubt the maddox team will put any time in this big items. we will see that in BoB..........

LEXX_Luthor
02-02-2006, 05:49 PM
box::

Doubling up carriers is possible and does give a much longer run off. One of our squad members has showed me his "supercarrier".

The only problem i see with this is when the carriers are attacked the following problems arise.

1. A lot more guns will now be modelled on the carriers and will be innacurate.

2. If the supercarrier is attacked (and assuming it is 2 carriers attached) it looks very arcady to see the supercarrier split in two and have one section start to sink while the other remains afloat to reveal a single solitary carrier.
1. You cut the rate of fire (rof) by one half for each carrier, or whatever fits the situation on the server (ie...less players, lower AA rof.

2. Two or better Three/Four carriers end-to-end can provide huge gameplay features that simulate damage to carrier. If one carrier sinks, the other 2 will have to do. If 2 carriers sink, then you have greater difficulty. If the middle carrier sinks, you also have a problem. This sounds like a good idea to make gameplay more interesting, and simulates damaging a carrier making air ops more difficult, when the "real" carriers don't offer this feature.

Its your ONLY option today. That said, a single moving carrier would be sweet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

VW-IceFire
02-02-2006, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by PF_Coastie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Moving carriers _might_ be possible if they all have a standard "racetrack" pattern that they would move in. Moving ground vehicles would not work I fear because of the inability to repeat in a DF environment. I know this may not be clear, but, in a large open area (the ocean) it would be quite easy to put an object that moved in a set pattern, but on land, with all the differences and irregularities in the topography, I don't think it would be possible.

So you just set the vehicles to timeout in a given time. Same with carriers. With FBD it would be very easy to create a map with moving everything. Then change maps in a given time if no objectives are met.

Sure it would not work for the same map to run 24/7. But thats an easy work-around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats a very good point indeed. I mean if you take a larger map and tell a vehicle convoy to travel from one side to the other it may take several hours to complete and stop.

Carriers could be setup in a racetrack pattern...yes.

VF-51-Dart
02-04-2006, 10:55 AM
Bump http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Covino
02-04-2006, 11:22 AM
I think dynamic spawnpoints are an engine limitation. In coops, it works since its like an offline mission where the INITIAL carrier position and spawn points are known. Online, moving carrier needs dynamic spawn points and a moving 'airfield selection icon' in the briefing screen map and in-game map--again perhaps engine limitation.

Tully__
02-05-2006, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by BM357_Hitcher:
Yeah, that has always puzzled me. Does anyone know why it can or cannot be done? Is it an fps consideration or what?
While technically possible, it's not been implemented due to a netcode decision. The game uses the core game engine and netcode (with some improvements) from the original IL2 Sturmovik. The entire game series was designed to be robust in multiplayer even in countries where the communications infrastructure is not conducive to good network connections. Part of this is approach was minimising the data transfer for players joining and participating on DF servers.

In the current mode, when you join a DF server the host needs to transfer to your machine:
- The mission file
- The indentity of the other players
- The aircraft being flown by the other players
- The current location of the other players
- Damage states for all objects on the map.

If we had moving objects as well, this load would be increased by the current location/speed information for all moving objects on the map.
While this usually isn't a huge impact for the connecting user (it would simply increase connection time), the increased load may push the server connection over its limit, causing lag for all other players already flying. It would be especially troublesome on servers where there are lots of players joining/leaving all the time.

Further, for players connected on connections that are near their limits, the extra load of getting position updates for lots of moving objects may push them over the ping/timecheck limits for some of the popular servers. Also remember that DF servers have connection limits higher than Coops, 64 v 32 for the game and up to 128 for the ded server IIRC. Part of the reason this is possible is the reduction in traffic achieved by not having moving objects in DF servers.

RxMan
02-05-2006, 10:59 AM
Localized weather would be a great addition also. Set in the FMB as desired by the mission builder.