PDA

View Full Version : Maps: the most annoyingly limiting factor in FB, AEP and BoE



CraytonRoberts
05-17-2004, 04:48 PM
If the ridiculous Microsoft arcade flight simulation games can have (in the case of Fs2004, at least), the whole planet avaialable, why in the world can't the best flight simulation games there are,Ubisoft combat flight, have, at the least, southern England, Paris, the low countries, etc? Even in the primitive CFS 1 you could fly over the Eiffel Tower!
I've heard various explanations as to why this is the case, but it still beats me and it's very limiting.
Bob Roberts.

CraytonRoberts
05-17-2004, 04:48 PM
If the ridiculous Microsoft arcade flight simulation games can have (in the case of Fs2004, at least), the whole planet avaialable, why in the world can't the best flight simulation games there are,Ubisoft combat flight, have, at the least, southern England, Paris, the low countries, etc? Even in the primitive CFS 1 you could fly over the Eiffel Tower!
I've heard various explanations as to why this is the case, but it still beats me and it's very limiting.
Bob Roberts.

LeadSpitter_
05-17-2004, 09:38 PM
or realistic dive accelaration,

I think they could have milked il2fb/aep a bit longer, different theaters which include new planesets, all flyable and no ai onlys and maps all in one game.

bob
battle for france
pacific
med
north africa
malta
spanish civil war
aleutians
burma
japan/china

and work on making a cockpit pack so theres no AI nonflyable aircraft.



Pacific fighters looks ggreat Im just hoping they have the sense to add all aircraft and maps from fb/aep into PF Keeping us all in one game offline and online HL.

I would rather see that then a new game engine with bob higher poly aircraft and ground models.

I would rather see them work on massive online player games like warbirdsIII 2000 and wwii ol where you have 1000 people playing. But we would need alot larger maps.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
05-17-2004, 10:38 PM
you might not like the map sizes in FB but your PC just isnt powerfull enough to have them bigger

well i mean a lot bigger ..... the entire enviroment is created on spawning & i held in existance by your CPU & RAM

if they were a lot bigger you would need a lot more powerfull CPU & RAM

CFS & FS2004 maps are not bigger ........ you merely fly into a scrolling enviroment

its not the same as FB

ucanfly
05-17-2004, 11:41 PM
In other words the maps are done that way by design, not because of the limitations of our PCs. I hope it is not that way in BOB.

clint-ruin
05-18-2004, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
In other words the maps are done that way by design, not because of the limitations of our PCs. I hope it is not that way in BOB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Berlin alone apparently has something like 650,000 objects placed on it. There is always a compromise between detail [both number of objects and their complexity] and performance. I hope that Maddox works out some way of doing dynamic loading of the maps for BOB too, but it's not as simple as just flicking a switch and making a program suddenly start loading scenery in from around the edges. Doing it in such a way that the world is consistent everywhere, and that other objects can still interact with each other at a distance, and to be able to load in scenery/models in the background and shuffle them into memory/video memory .. not simple. Most games that attempt anything like this tend to use either very small worlds, or only keep a very small portion of it viewable at a time. It's really something you have to design for from the start.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Jasko76
05-18-2004, 12:37 AM
I don't think we need bigger maps. We need MORE maps! Maps that cover more areas of the world. I don't need to fly from Moscow to Berlin to London all at once. But it would be nice to have entire Europe covered, split into smaller maps.


Regards,

Jasko
http://www.zoro.hr/filipovic/filipovic-slike/sarajevo-16.jpg

Formerly known as Rajvosa

LEXX_Luthor
05-18-2004, 02:02 AM
Wrong, think of navigating across Europe in P~51 or Ju~88.

How? Simple....the developers have stated that the buildings are the most time consuming and difficult part of map making AND the most harsh on computer performance. All we need is Huge maps with no buildings. We can place our own Building Objects in FMB where our mission or missions will take place, or good 3rd Party people can make building populated mission files available for download with buildings located in the proper region for mission.

With no buildings they could map all Europe in one map, all Easter Front from Poland to Ural mountains, all The Meds from Gibralter to Suez, and we could load these mega maps and run them faster than our Finland Map we have now. Yes, its all the buildings that both kill computers and crush humanoid map makers.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Aztek_Eagle
05-18-2004, 02:13 AM
and what quality are the maps of ms? i could land on the sea at mscfs............ the land and the beaches looked ly drawn by a 5 years old............ what detail of the citys....... ho never mind no point in discussin this subject... u need to undertend the diference on how fb works and the ms sim works...

http://www.angelfire.com/art2/robertosgallery/AztekEaglesig.JPG

Persecutor_352
05-18-2004, 08:36 AM
One could NOT land in the water in CFS, unless one had modified the sea textures (there was a third party mod available for that. Unless the mod was added, touching the sea texture in CFS resulted in a fiery crash.

One CAN land in the water in IL2, doing so is much more realistic.

I agree with the initial thoughts in this thread (which got me contributing, I generally don't). The CFS world, however primitive it now looks in comparison to the revolution produced by IL2, provided a much richer flight environment than the far more limited world of the FB maps. Cities and buildings are nice, but the detail provided in them adds very little to dogfighting and mission building in comparison to the ability to fly great distances on long missions. No doubt it's all a trade-off.

However, I'd rather have the limited world provided by FB now than NOT.

Oh to wish ...........

352nd Persecutor
A proud member of the
352nd Fighter Group
http://www.352ndfg.com/Home/
http://www.352ndfg.com/Home/Images/352ndfg.gif

Ki_Rin
05-18-2004, 09:16 AM
I agree with Lexx, if buildings kill frame rates, et al, havce done with them, let a mission builder put them on if he wishes...
Buildings are nice eye candy, but at least as far as OL DF goes, who needs these things?
Anybody with anemic systems like myself knows this, much better to consolidate what we already have in il2/FB...FIX the too-long list of FM/DM issues, get the AIs flyable...
I also hope sinscerely that PF will be compatible with FB,lets not have the community split...

CraytonRoberts
05-18-2004, 09:24 AM
Very, very informative and interesting comments. I'd personally like a scrollling map-series, like FS 2004, but of course I understand that that's a completely different engine. Still. . . . . The aircraft in IL2/FB are splendid. SO maybe the task is with some of these great Mision Builders we have, see their website. For eaxample, there's a great map of Malta and a dandy series of missions evolving to go with it. The same could be done by these creative folks for S England, N France, so we could take off from Kent or Sussex and tear all around France. Perhaps a Dieppe campaign. My dad was in on that. Awful for the Canadians.
Bob Roberts

Metallicaner
05-18-2004, 09:40 AM
Forgotten Battles' main "focus" is quite simply the forgotten air battles at the eastern front.. almost all the other WWII flight sims you can fly over the Eiffel tower, but how many flight sims is it possible to fly over this catherdral in St. Petersburg, or atleast St. Petersburg or Moscow at all, flying the forgotten WWII aircrafts like the LA or Yak???

Metallicaner
05-18-2004, 09:42 AM
Another forgotten air battle is the battle for Norway, they used the Glosters and got some help by the Brit's with Hurri's and Spit's

F16_Petter
05-18-2004, 09:43 AM
I absolutely agree with the author of this thread!


Ive tried posting ideas described such as the ones above, but seems like there is always "besserwissers" that seem to know what is possible and not possible in computer simulations.

Read here for more details..
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=776109363&r=495102463#495102463

"Oh I wonder if it would be possible to write a script that can count score, and control the gameplay? wouldnt that be cool??"

"Yea, but thats impossible you see.. this is IL2, and that cannot be done.."

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://img41.photobucket.com/albums/v127/F16_Petter/sig_petter.jpg (http://flygflottilj16.se/)

JG46_Max
05-18-2004, 09:48 AM
well il2 was a simulator for a close support aircraft in the first place, hence a much more detailed ground environment.

F16_Petter
05-18-2004, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Metallicaner:
Forgotten Battles' main "focus" is quite simply the forgotten air battles at the eastern front.. almost all the other WWII flight sims you can fly over the Eiffel tower, but how many flight sims is it possible to fly over this catherdral in St. Petersburg, or atleast St. Petersburg or Moscow at all, flying the forgotten WWII aircrafts like the LA or Yak???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ehhrmm as much as Id love to agree with you I cannot... IL2 Is not about eastern front IMO, Once it used to be... but then it got out of hand...
YP80, Zeros, X24s, X52s, experimentalplane1 with experimentalplane2 attached to experimentalplane1, and so on, and so on... I can go on for all evening.

I wish Oleg would have sticked to eastern front only, then maybe things wouldnt be so messy like they are..

Claiming this sim (in its current state) is about Eastern front, and in that way dismissing the ideas described above is something I see to be very sad.

However, its your opinion and you are entitled to it, like I am to mine. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

http://img41.photobucket.com/albums/v127/F16_Petter/sig_petter.jpg (http://flygflottilj16.se/)

Bearcat99
05-18-2004, 04:11 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif..................
FB is not, never has been an Eastern front sim... IL2 was the Eastern Front sim... FB from the beginning was going to move west.

As far as maps go... yeah.. I too would like to see more in the way of locations..but one thuin you have to realize... the level of detail down low in FB is incomparable to CFS3 IMO.
In CFS3 the objects may look OK... but the textures or the ground has the same mottled texture that CFS is famous for. IMO its all a trade off... Id rather have the type of maps we have with thier detail as opposed to bigger maps with less detail. We will see what the final face of FB will be.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

USE THAT X45 STICK AS A BUTTON BAY!

mariskal
05-18-2004, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Metallicaner:
Another forgotten air battle is the battle for Norway, they used the Glosters and got some help by the Brit's with Hurri's and Spit's<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Metallicaner,

Check on the Netwings site. I have just finished a campaign of the RAF 46 Sqn (Hurricanes) in Norway. Currently I'm working in another one for the RAF 263 Sqn
(Gladiator) flying out of the frozen water of Lake Lesjaskog

Zeus-cat
05-18-2004, 04:54 PM
I believe there is a reason we are not seeing maps of Britian or other European countries near the English Channel, this is where Oleg will go in BoB.

There is also a rumor on this forum that a sim for the Med will follow that. Probably a reason we won't see that theater in FB.

Pacific Fighters will get us over a dozen maps of the Pacific. Again, we won't see maps made for FB of that theater.

Oleg is simply protecting his turf, you can't blame him for that. If he puts effort into building maps for FB that cover areas he will go in future sims, he runs the risk of people saying "I already have that, why should I buy BoB?"

Many people on this forum also insist that these upgrades and maps are free. There is not much incentive for Oleg to put time and effort into free add-ons when he can be putting his people to work making a product that people will buy.

Zeus-cat

TacticalYak3
05-18-2004, 05:02 PM
I personally find it odd that folks seem content in flying in the same maps as long as they have a new plane once in a while.

Putting aside all the issues about size and detail, there is really no reason why we couldn't at least have some more online maps prepared.

Aren't folks getting a little bored of flying in the few maps we do have?

‚"Throughout the story of air fighting runs the quest for height, for the fighter on top had control of the air battle.‚"Ě (Air Vice-Marshal J.E. ‚"Johnnie‚"Ě Johnson, RAF)

:FI:TacticalS!

WUAF_Badsight
05-18-2004, 05:13 PM
FB is based around the battles duing WW2 between Finland / germany / russia

ForkTailedDevil
05-18-2004, 05:30 PM
I love the game of course more maps are nice but what I want is more planes. I am a big car buff and one of my favorite games is Gran Turismo the reason I like it is it has hundreds of drivable cars. Then newest release is supposed to have over 500. It is a very realistic simulator. That is why I bought FB is because it had so many different aircraft to fly and I hope for even more.

"You can teach monkey's to fly better than that"

TacticalYak3
05-19-2004, 07:24 AM
To each their own mate. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I refer to use less planes (and learn how to fly them well) with more maps and gaming options.

‚"Throughout the story of air fighting runs the quest for height, for the fighter on top had control of the air battle.‚"Ě (Air Vice-Marshal J.E. ‚"Johnnie‚"Ě Johnson, RAF)

:FI:TacticalS!

bazzaah2
05-19-2004, 07:33 AM
should have bigger maps in PF as less ground objects? (unless Oleg is going to include some fish as well).

Will just have to wait - quality/quantity tradeoffs are a pain. Would rather have fewer bigger maps, or at least a map with Southern England so can do some realistic pre D-day strafings.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Metalarms
05-19-2004, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TacticalYak3:
Aren't folks getting a little bored of flying in the few maps we do have?
!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree !

bird_brain
05-19-2004, 08:03 AM
The problem with the existing Western Front maps is that they are just a little too small to create an entire mission with any semblance of realism. That goes for the offline maps as well unfortunately.

You can make missions with air starts all day long, but it kills the immersion factor when you can't set up your home base, don't have to make it back and the mission ends with "Mission Complete" while you have barely cleared enemy airspace. Even though alot of people just kick on autopilot & 8x to get home, it would be nice if we had the option of flying all the way.

The ideal map or maps wouldn't have to be 3000 miles wide, because noone would use the entire space anyway. They should, however, cover an entire battle area so both sides of the conflict can be represented. What would be better than to fly a campaign with the same missions from both sides?

Oh well...maybe they will read this & make some kind of effort to improve the playability of upcoming maps. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

I agree with the statement that we could lose alot of buildings too.

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/Aces_Banner.jpg
Download the missions here; http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-16.html

Skullin
05-19-2004, 09:55 AM
Simple solution.. Allow us to make 3rd party maps from scratch !
You know, something like the "course architect" in golf games !!!!