PDA

View Full Version : A couple of questions for Santa Luthier



Bull_dog_
04-01-2004, 07:05 PM
Don't know if you'll be able to answer but here are a couple of things I was interested in...

1. Not everyone will get their particular plane so do you intend to continue third party add-ons via patches or will BOB take away from it?

2. Great distances and time involved in flying...do you intend to alter the time compression or add warping to help cover long distances in short time?

3. Are there any planned changes for the Mission builder? I love building missions, but have found FB's lack of triggers, lack of spawning and 4 plane limitation to be less than handy...again long distances will make timing harder.

4. Frame rates dive in FB due to AAA and it is very hazardous to ones health to attack... are there any changes in this department to allow a squadron of Vals to go after a carrier task force? This one along with damage modelling really worries me because gameplay would not be enjoyable given current modelling.

5. On line...will we get open ocean, two opposing carriers as bases... along with some escort aircraft... a little distance between them and see red team try to sink blue teams carrier? A Pacific Fighters version of "Battleship" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

6. What role will you have in Flight modelling, damage modelling and other key characteristics of the aircraft? What I'm asking is do you have final say or is Oleg going to have final say.

Thanks...I used to fly CFS 2 religiously before FB and I am looking forward to returning to the Pacific...hope to take part in the battle of Bismark Sea or the defence of Rangoon...battle of Coral Sea...destruction of Truk.... I do miss CFS 2 mission builder but I really like the flight modelling, complex engine management and the difficulty of gunnery....

Bull_dog_
04-01-2004, 07:05 PM
Don't know if you'll be able to answer but here are a couple of things I was interested in...

1. Not everyone will get their particular plane so do you intend to continue third party add-ons via patches or will BOB take away from it?

2. Great distances and time involved in flying...do you intend to alter the time compression or add warping to help cover long distances in short time?

3. Are there any planned changes for the Mission builder? I love building missions, but have found FB's lack of triggers, lack of spawning and 4 plane limitation to be less than handy...again long distances will make timing harder.

4. Frame rates dive in FB due to AAA and it is very hazardous to ones health to attack... are there any changes in this department to allow a squadron of Vals to go after a carrier task force? This one along with damage modelling really worries me because gameplay would not be enjoyable given current modelling.

5. On line...will we get open ocean, two opposing carriers as bases... along with some escort aircraft... a little distance between them and see red team try to sink blue teams carrier? A Pacific Fighters version of "Battleship" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

6. What role will you have in Flight modelling, damage modelling and other key characteristics of the aircraft? What I'm asking is do you have final say or is Oleg going to have final say.

Thanks...I used to fly CFS 2 religiously before FB and I am looking forward to returning to the Pacific...hope to take part in the battle of Bismark Sea or the defence of Rangoon...battle of Coral Sea...destruction of Truk.... I do miss CFS 2 mission builder but I really like the flight modelling, complex engine management and the difficulty of gunnery....

JG7_Rall
04-01-2004, 08:06 PM
My question:

How big will the maps be? I know that FB/AEP's maps are so small due to every single house being modelled, but since its mostly water on some maps, can those maps be a lot bigger?

Thanks

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/InGallantCompany.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

luthier1
04-01-2004, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1. Not everyone will get their particular plane so do you intend to continue third party add-ons via patches or will BOB take away from it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's definitely the plan. Il-2 and FB are what they are at least 90% because of the extensive developer support and all the freebies that follow. Would be a huge mistake for us not to follow suit with PF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2. Great distances and time involved in flying...do you intend to alter the time compression or add warping to help cover long distances in short time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We've been talking all this over for a very long time. All of these things create lots and lots of problems, but we'll definitely come up with some solution. It's too early to tell what it's going to be - but believe me, this was one of my earliest concerns. Pearl Harbor attack, battle of Midway - they'd be the worst missions ever if you just had to sit there for 30-40 minutes of real time as your plane flies in a straight line towards the target in 8x acceleration.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3. Are there any planned changes for the Mission builder? I love building missions, but have found FB's lack of triggers, lack of spawning and 4 plane limitation to be less than handy...again long distances will make timing harder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly no triggers will be added, and we won't change the 4-plane flights - that would need at least six months of dedicated programming effort to change all AI and online code.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>4. Frame rates dive in FB due to AAA and it is very hazardous to ones health to attack... are there any changes in this department to allow a squadron of Vals to go after a carrier task force? This one along with damage modelling really worries me because gameplay would not be enjoyable given current modelling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't know

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>5. On line...will we get open ocean, two opposing carriers as bases... along with some escort aircraft... a little distance between them and see red team try to sink blue teams carrier? A Pacific Fighters version of "Battleship" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see why not?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>6. What role will you have in Flight modelling, damage modelling and other key characteristics of the aircraft? What I'm asking is do you have final say or is Oleg going to have final say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I definitely will have a say, but I really don't have Oleg's expertise or knowledge in any of those areas to even want to have the final say in those matters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How big will the maps be? I know that FB/AEP's maps are so small due to every single house being modelled, but since its mostly water on some maps, can those maps be a lot bigger? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The map size will be proportionate to the landmass areas there, and the amount of buildings and other objects there. Still we can't make them significantly larger than FB maps - they'll be enough to model individual battles like Pearl Harbor or Midway, but certainly not enough to say have Rabaul and Guadalcanal on the same map.


http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Bull_dog_
04-02-2004, 05:16 PM
Thank you Luthier!

One thing we all have to be thankful for is the opportunity to speak to the developer of a product we intend to purchase...this mean alot to me... I feel good about the time and distance answer, but the AAA/framerate answer doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling so I'll wait to see.

Thanks again

luthier1
04-02-2004, 05:53 PM
The reason I said "I dont' know" to the FPS/AAA question is because until you've asked it I was not aware at all of any negative effect on FPS that flak might have. I just tested this by loading regular FB and setting up a quick mission in FMB with 12 Stukas bombing an airfield protected by twenty 75mm and around fourty 25mm Soviet flak guns, all arranged in neat rows as they'd be on a carrier.

The only FPS drops I saw was when the bombs exploded on the ground. The flak, which was literally thick enough to walk on, had no effect. I have a pretty modest year-old 2 GHz machine with 512 RAM and a Radeon 9500 running at 1024x768 with all settings maxed out. I also had 3d studio max and photoshop running in background.

What are your PC specs? How much of a drop do you get? Is this a common problem?

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Fennec_P
04-02-2004, 06:13 PM
It doesn't seem to be with heavy flak, but rather with the rapid fire light flak with smoke tracers. The smoke adds up, big time.

Imagine Tirpitz firing all of its flakvierlings at once. Each smoke filament is say, 6 sided, with 10-15 segments. Times about 500-2000 visible smoke trails at any given time... it could be as much as 50,000 triangles for smoke alone. Now imagine ships much better armed, and more of them, shooting smoke tracers into the sky http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Even parking just 2 Tirpitzs together, and letting them have at me, knocks my FPS down by at least half. The instant they start shooting, you can see the FPS counter go down.

Eliminating smoke for light flak shells would solve a lot.

DONB3397
04-02-2004, 06:15 PM
Your engagement with us here is extraordinary! Thank you. Having said that, and knowing that decisions are still being considered, I'd like to encourage as much support as possible for the modeler working on the F4U & variants (I seen screenshots posted by Snowpipe). You know the bias here for this aircraft in a Pacific setting.

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BC6hOaABCyZcLZQo
There is no 'way' of winning;
There is only Winning!

Fennec_P
04-02-2004, 06:27 PM
I just tried that 2xTirpitz thing to see what the exact FPS hit is for it.

At 1000m I'm cruising in a He-111 over water. In external camera, looking forward and down toward the ships I am approaching. 1280x960, settings high, except for low terrain.

Record avg FPS as new guns start firing at me.

Ships not in sight yet, no flak: 110fps
Heavy flak bursts: 105fps
Ships appear: 100fps
Medium flak bursts: 95fps
37mm: 90fps
20mm: 25fps
20mm, as flying overhead: 15fps

Pretty harsh.

necrobaron
04-02-2004, 06:33 PM
Wow! Those 20mm really cut it down! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

Bull_dog_
04-02-2004, 06:35 PM
I would agree with Fennec...and I never looked at framerates, but rather stuttering that starts to occur...

My system specs are

P4 2.4Ghz
Nvidia Ti4600
374mb SDRRam...could use some more
I tend to run the game on excellent..

I think the issue is really related to the tracers and especially the smoke trails...seems like when the sky gets filled with them, I have trouble...this is with a few ships.

I am imagining a convoy of maybe 20 ships and lots of flak.... as a solution, elimination of smoke trails and some of the tracers and possibly some tweaking of the LOD's to help but your the expert on what can and can't be done.

An idea for LOD... if I were a software designer, I'd probably not ever display the highest level of detail during game play cause you just can't notice it at game speed.... When the game is pause or maybe with certain views...the High level of detail is displayed. Maybe this is how you do it, maybe not ... just a thought from a non-designer from a conceptual reference.

My interest...pure and simple... is to be able to roll into a convoy in my Dauntless and not get choppy display... I am concerned because the game is so focused on anti-ship missions. You see my system is not state of the art, but its not bad either...although I need more ram and a new OS. Crimea map on QMB...when the ships get to firing heavy i get the stutters so I don't use that map.... I die alot from ship AAA too.

Thanks for the reply... I really wasn't expecting one. I hope this addresses the issue clear enough.

necrobaron
04-02-2004, 06:42 PM
Are tracers or smoke trails for the flak all that necessary or vital to have? It seems that in the footage I see from time to time,I just see the grey and black "poofs"....

If it's historically correct to have the trails,then I guess they'll either have to stay or a compromise must be found. If it's in inaccurate(like the huge muzzleflashes),I'd say chunk 'em.

"Not all who wander are lost."

RedDeth
04-02-2004, 09:49 PM
this becomes even more of an issue online with 15 or more pilots connected and all that flak in the air.

same with dropping troops out of a transport in a dogfight. it literally freezes everyones game online if someone does that.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

luthier1
04-02-2004, 10:18 PM
Ahh it's the tracers, got it. We'll look into this.

P.S. Please notice that I said "look" and not "we'll definitely have it fixed on the double, no problem" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
04-02-2004, 10:33 PM
About flying over the Pacific in a Zero (and its NOT Saburo http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )... <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"In that situation, the only thing I could do was trust my vague instincts like an animal. Finally I made the judgment that if I flew directly south I would meet up with my side. Despite that, the only thing I saw was the the empty horizon in all directions. There was not a single solid object to see anywhere on the ocean surface. This is it, this is going to be the end, I concluded.

Dusk began to fall. Fuel too was getting low. My time is up I thought, and unconsciously turned my gaze to the sinking sun. At that moment, silhouetted in the sinking orb of the sun I could see two or three tiny bean-like objects. Those were ships!

~ http://www.danford.net/komachi.htm

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FltLt_HardBall
04-02-2004, 11:50 PM
One thing I'd like to see is a more detailed in-cockpit map. Some are OK in FB, but the Finland map is so low-resolution that it's almost impossible to navigate with. All those little islands just end up being fuzzy blotches. It's a symptom of the large map = low resolution, I guess, but it'd be nice to see it addressed if possible.

luthier1
04-02-2004, 11:54 PM
Actually all in-game maps in FB are the same exact resolution, I believe 1 pixel = 100 meters. It won't change in PF.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg