Moving Dogfight Sever

[TexasJG]

Does "Moving Dogfight Server" or some similar variation of this function exist in any of the 4.xx versions?

(The ability to place moving AI objects, aircraft, vehicles, ships on a "dogfight map")

If not, is it included in HSFX 6.xx?

[Malkav]

Does "Moving Dogfight Server" or some similar variation of this function exist in any of the 4.xx versions?

(The ability to place moving AI objects, aircraft, vehicles, ships on a "dogfight map")

If not, is it included in HSFX 6.xx?

Since 4.10

[IceFire]

Works like a charm too. Although we find in practice that too many AI objects can slow things down a bit.

[TexasJG]

Thanks for the quick response :)

[TheGrunch]

Worth pointing out that several MDS related things will not work the same in the FMB "Play Mission" option as they will once you start a server so it's best to actually host a game in the MP interface to test properly.

[Bearcat]

I thought the MdS was not working in 4.11. Is it working but with limited functionality or does it only go as far as 4.10?

[TheGrunch]

Hi Bearcat, I think it is only some of the more advanced features that aren't yet added, such as refuel/rearm/repair and radar. Certainly using AI flights as in a normal SP mission works on dogfight servers. The 4.11 and 4.10 readmes would have all the info on this, so they're worth a quick look.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk

[KG26_Alpha]

IMHO

It was too buggy in its nod pack representation.

Zuti wanted an end to traditional CooP mode replaced by MDS,(according to the forum where I asked the questions about CooP support).
Removing CooP netcode meant only DF mode was supported correctly in tracking pilots especially multi engined ones.

RRR is ok but gimmicky most will take a new fresh ac everytime.

I gave up with it after a couple of years and went back to building normal CooP missions.


.

[IceFire]

I thought the MdS was not working in 4.11. Is it working but with limited functionality or does it only GA as fast as 4.10?

The basic stuff works just fine. Every day Battlefields1 runs with MDS features like moving convoys, ships, tanks, some AI aircraft and so forth. There are other more advanced features like the ability to capture airfields and radar but those aren't something that we employ. I'm sure some servers do.

I still don't understand what the point of refuel/rearm/repair is. Just get a new plane. It's the same thing isn't it? In a COOP where you can't otherwise do that I do understand.

[Bearcat]

IMHO
It was too buggy in its nod pack representation.
Zuti wanted an end to traditional CooP mode replaced by MDS,(according to the forum where I asked the questions about CooP support).
Removing CooP netcode meant only DF mode was supported correctly in tracking pilots especially multi engined ones.
RRR is ok but gimmicky most will take a new fresh ac everytime.
I gave up with it after a couple of years and went back to building normal CooP missions.


Do you mean Mod pack? Is that a typo? Why was it buggy .. because of the RRR?

The basic stuff works just fine. Every day Battlefields1 runs with MDS features like moving convoys, ships, tanks, some AI aircraft and so forth. There are other more advanced features like the ability to capture airfields and radar but those aren't something that we employ. I'm sure some servers do.
I still don't understand what the point of refuel/rearm/repair is. Just get a new plane. It's the same thing isn't it? In a COOP where you can't otherwise do that I do understand.

That is great to know..!!

I never was onto RRR either.. I always thought that it was kind of hokey.. like clickable cockpits (as long as the function is available to be mapped to my stick who gives a $ if it's clickable from my PoV ;) ) for me just the ability to have AI in a DF server was good enough..

That is fantastic news.. !!

All this time I thought the MDS was no longer functional in 4.11.. I will have to revise the Nugget's Guide yet again.. but first I think it is time to try my hand at making a few MDS missions.. so I can know WTH I am talking about ..

So just to be absolutely clear on what I understand the situation to be here.. as long as RRR and some of the more advanced features of the MDS are not employed or expected.. I should be able to create a nice DF server mission with AI flights that spawn.. fly around a predetermined area on patrol to defend a base or just look for trouble .. and they will attack if you get close enough .. and if they survive .. they will land and disappear.. on either side red or blue .. and I can do that with as many flights as I have the patience to create.. again on either side.. red or blue..

Is that correct?

Also.. if the triggers feature that TD had been talking about is ever released then theoretically .... I could make a mission so that when X amount of AI on X side is reached .. more will spawn .. but not until .... as long as I have the patience to think that far ahead .. Yes?

[IceFire]

Do you mean Mod pack? Is that a typo? Why was it buggy .. because of the RRR?



That is great to know..!!

I never was onto RRR either.. I always thought that it was kind of hokey.. like clickable cockpits (as long as the function is available to be mapped to my stick who gives a $ if it's clickable from my PoV ;) ) for me just the ability to have AI in a DF server was good enough..

That is fantastic news.. !!

All this time I thought the MDS was no longer functional in 4.11.. I will have to revise the Nugget's Guide yet again.. but first I think it is time to try my hand at making a few MDS missions.. so I can know WTH I am talking about ..

So just to be absolutely clear on what I understand the situation to be here.. as long as RRR and some of the more advanced features of the MDS are not employed or expected.. I should be able to create a nice DF server mission with AI flights that spawn.. fly around a predetermined area on patrol to defend a base or just look for trouble .. and they will attack if you get close enough .. and if they survive .. they will land and disappear.. on either side red or blue .. and I can do that with as many flights as I have the patience to create.. again on either side.. red or blue..

Is that correct?

Also.. if the triggers feature that TD had been talking about is ever released then theoretically .... I could make a mission so that when X amount of AI on X side is reached .. more will spawn .. but not until .... as long as I have the patience to think that far ahead .. Yes?
I have no idea where anyone got the impression that MDS was in some way broken. What's there works.

I haven't tried recon planes or capturable bases but that's it. The key things for BF1 have always been the AI moving ships (including carriers), vehicle convoys, etc. From experience I don't recommend large numbers of AI aircraft... especially heavy bombers as its a load on the server and causes lag as a result but small numbers of AI fighters haven't been a problem at all. I think the problem may be exacerbated by it being a 64 player server. So a smaller server or one with more CPU/bandwidth might be just fine. As a result we don't use them a lot but we do sprinkle them in here and there. With fighters we've had up to 4-5 wings going with no problem. Also at least a couple of scenarios have over 20 ships on the move or large numbers of vehicle and armor convoys without issue.

We're running around 60 objective based, semi-historical, dogfight scenarios of which nearly all are using some MDS feature at this point. It works just fine! The biggest problem is that although its a stock server, we do allow HSFX (many of our players do use it... no problem!), but there are bugs that HSFX has introduced... particularly around spawn points... but none of that is caused by MDS.

Seriously... I'm curious... who said it didn't work? We've been doing this since 4.10. That was... 2 years ago?

[Bearcat]

I don't recall where I heard it from.. but I was under the impression that it no longer worked in 4.11.. so you are saying the same functionality for the MDS that was in 4.10.1 is in 4.11.1.. It may have even been from someone from UP now that i think of it..

[IceFire]

I don't recall where I heard it from.. but I was under the impression that it no longer worked in 4.11.. so you are saying the same functionality for the MDS that was in 4.10.1 is in 4.11.1.. It may have even been from someone from UP now that i think of it..

Yep... 4.10.1... 4.11.1... MDS works!

[KG26_Alpha]

Do you mean Mod pack? Is that a typo? Why was it buggy .. because of the RRR?



That is great to know..!!

I never was onto RRR either.. I always thought that it was kind of hokey.. like clickable cockpits (as long as the function is available to be mapped to my stick who gives a $ if it's clickable from my PoV ;) ) for me just the ability to have AI in a DF server was good enough..

That is fantastic news.. !!

All this time I thought the MDS was no longer functional in 4.11.. I will have to revise the Nugget's Guide yet again.. but first I think it is time to try my hand at making a few MDS missions.. so I can know WTH I am talking about ..

So just to be absolutely clear on what I understand the situation to be here.. as long as RRR and some of the more advanced features of the MDS are not employed or expected.. I should be able to create a nice DF server mission with AI flights that spawn.. fly around a predetermined area on patrol to defend a base or just look for trouble .. and they will attack if you get close enough .. and if they survive .. they will land and disappear.. on either side red or blue .. and I can do that with as many flights as I have the patience to create.. again on either side.. red or blue..

Is that correct?

Also.. if the triggers feature that TD had been talking about is ever released then theoretically .... I could make a mission so that when X amount of AI on X side is reached .. more will spawn .. but not until .... as long as I have the patience to think that far ahead .. Yes?

Its an obvious typo.

Just one bug thread and you see where Zuti falls out with TD over misinterpretation.
> http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17329

Its been working fine since v4.10 as Icefire's already mentioned.

There's a comprehensive read me for the MDS stuff in the installation folder of your IL2 1946 HSFX v6.0 ie:

X:\IL2 1946 HSFX 6\HSFX V6 Tools & Read me's

Also.

Download the attached Documentation that come with v4.10 for MDS guide.
Also a separate guide from UP website.
Remember though not all the features are available in v4.11.1 as they are in the UPv1.2 pdf.zip guide., but it will give some extra insight into the base friction set up.

Best you make sure you know what your talking about in your nuggets guide, you don't want to look like a nugget.

[Bearcat]

Lol. Yeah .. but it does happen..

[IceFire]

To be fair the nuggets guide is massive :)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Would be strange for us to release some new feature in a patch, just to break it in the next patch, right? :D

Bearcat, what you describe regarding MDS combined with triggers sounds very reasonable and I think, thats what our programming guys had right in mind. I hope, the trigger stuff will soon make it (I personally don't know the status).

Have fun with the features!

[KG26_Alpha]

Hopefully the trigger stuff will be "point n click" :)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28487

[Fenice_1965]

+1 Icefire.
Mds features worked correctly from the beginning. In Skies of Valor we had better results with ships than planes. Planes have an higher tendency to introduce lag. A lot has changed Imho with Increased computer power. In our experience those having higher lag were people with slower computers.
Maps that seemed laggy two years ago (410) now are considered smooth by most if not all players, even if left untouched. This is because players have changed their rigs.
With ships we've been able to reproduce the real numbers of Operation Vigorous (about 60) with no problems. Only a certain spacing of ships, care of AAA, and distance from coast tweaking needed.
+1 also on Hsfx bugs at spawn points with stock server. We had same issues.

[IceFire]

+1 Icefire.
Mds features worked correctly from the beginning. In Skies of Valor we had better results with ships than planes. Planes have an higher tendency to introduce lag. A lot has changed Imho with Increased computer power. In our experience those having higher lag were people with slower computers.
Maps that seemed laggy two years ago (410) now are considered smooth by most if not all players, even if left untouched. This is because players have changed their rigs.
With ships we've been able to reproduce the real numbers of Operation Vigorous (about 60) with no problems. Only a certain spacing of ships, care of AAA, and distance from coast tweaking needed.
+1 also on Hsfx bugs at spawn points with stock server. We had same issues.
Absolutely! We've found similar where most maps are now accessible. Do you guys have any maps that use NW Germany? We find that it's still not something we can use because despite the smaller size there are just too many objects on the map and players get stuttering and lag. Even my rig (Core i7, 4GB ram, etc.) has trouble online... it's likely the server causing the stutters but any scenario with that map is a problem.

Ships and vehicle convoys are no problem. Heavy bombers are more problematic while single engine fighters are ok in small numbers.

[Bearcat]

To be fair the nuggets guide is massive :)

A 7 year labor of love... :)

Would be strange for us to release some new feature in a patch, just to break it in the next patch, right? :D
Bearcat, what you describe regarding MDS combined with triggers sounds very reasonable and I think, thats what our programming guys had right in mind. I hope, the trigger stuff will soon make it (I personally don't know the status).
Have fun with the features!

Yeah that was what I was thinking but I was somehow under the impression that there was a falling out bet6ween TD & Zuti and Zuti split with his ball.. That is excellent..

[Fenice_1965]

Absolutely! We've found similar where most maps are now accessible. Do you guys have any maps that use NW Germany? We find that it's still not something we can use because despite the smaller size there are just too many objects on the map and players get stuttering and lag. Even my rig (Core i7, 4GB ram, etc.) has trouble online... it's likely the server causing the stutters but any scenario with that map is a problem.

Ships and vehicle convoys are no problem. Heavy bombers are more problematic while single engine fighters are ok in small numbers.
Icefire,
Dear Colleague :)
Do you mean Northwest europe or Berlin ?. Northwest europe has been out of rotation from long. We had problems with Berlin map with some lag problems and people autodisconnected. Also Bessarabia map itself caused lag on many computers.
I still need to make refinement tests with Berlin map, because the mission I'm referring to is with a lot of targets inside buildings (the scenario is Berlin bombing spring 1945). I tried to remove targets two times, restricting target areas, with no significative results. Then I suppose it is a problem of the map itself in dogfight scenarios.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Problems with these maps may be caused by the ground objects population. I case of Bessarabia I suggest to try one of the less heavier ones - Odessa or Iasi.

[IceFire]

Icefire,
Dear Colleague :)
Do you mean Northwest europe or Berlin ?. Northwest europe has been out of rotation from long. We had problems with Berlin map with some lag problems and people autodisconnected. Also Bessarabia map itself caused lag on many computers.
I still need to make refinement tests with Berlin map, because the mission I'm referring to is with a lot of targets inside buildings (the scenario is Berlin bombing spring 1945). I tried to remove targets two times, restricting target areas, with no significative results. Then I suppose it is a problem of the map itself in dogfight scenarios.

Berlin is fine so long as you avoid the entire city of Berlin. Anything over the city will destroy any computer. We did it once years ago and it wasn't pretty :)

But the map itself is fine. We have three or four scenarios that use it and all have no problems.

NW Germany is another map altogether and it's too object dense.

[IceFire]

Problems with these maps may be caused by the ground objects population. I case of Bessarabia I suggest to try one of the less heavier ones - Odessa or Iasi.

Definitely. Odessa and Iasi work perfectly!

How hard would it be for someone to go through the NW Germany map and remove all of the objects except for the major cities and towns on the map for an online specialized version? There are a lot of farm houses and other objects all over the map and I presume this is why there is such a high object count.

Is it a selection box option to remove all of these like the FMB or much more difficult? Hrmm... I should probably have a look at how to build maps sometime :D

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Hm... its not so hard for us to remove all objects from area on the map. Most easiest way is to make it like on Iasi - to leave a populated box left. Thats made in seconds.

Your FMB idea sounds impossible to me. That would mean a dynamic objects file, delivered over network to each player.

[IceFire]

Hm... its not so hard for us to remove all objects from area on the map. Most easiest way is to make it like on Iasi - to leave a populated box left. Thats made in seconds.

Your FMB idea sounds impossible to me. That would mean a dynamic objects file, delivered over network to each player.

Hi Caspar. Sorry, what I meant was if removing segments of objects was as easy in the map builder as it now is in the FMB. I didn't mean (although what I wrote was highly confusing :)) editing map objects in the FMB.

If NW Germany map could have all countryside objects removed and all cities and airbases remaining that would be a great compromise I suspect. There's a farmhouse every few hundred meters in places and they add up. But it'd be nice to have the whole map accessible.

If not. Boxes would be great too. We're tuning into a problem where every multiplayer useful map has been used 5-6 times. New territory is always appreciated! :)

[IceFire]

Actually... on further thought, if it's possible to do the box thing with objects inside that box there... then some boxes on the Lenningrad map would be absolutely amazing. We can't use that map at all online but it's the site of so many battles.

A north box with Vyborg/Viipuri (Karelian Isthmus battles) and another box south and to the east of Leningrad would cover sites of some major battles.

Possible? :cool:

[Fenice_1965]

Agree,
Boxes are a great idea. The idea can be' extended to a lot of the actual maps.

[JtD]

I'd rather have the code optimized so that many objects no longer cause problems. :)

I used to play Il-2 with 256MB RAM, now I've got 4GB. Graphics memory's probably increased by the same margin, as well as processing power. I'd like to believe that this could help alleviate some of the notorious problems, and if it doesn't, there must be something that can be done in the code.

I really like the NW Europe map, because it is nicely populated. I'd rather have more maps like that than less.

[Nicholaiovitch]

Could someone confirm whether the "Friction" setting in HB "properties" is working as in the original MDS mod?

Laying runways and building new airstrips on reasonably flat ground is a great feature of the original MDS.

The size and length of the available "invisible" runways in 4.11 frequently results in inability to lay a new airstrip whereas in the original MDS using the "Friction" setting it is possible to lay a new airstrip in close proximity to uneven ground and surround the flat area with objects to achieve a taxi and parking area.

This feature also provided the RRR function, but as indicated in above posts, this has considerable issues....but could you confirm if the "Friction" command does actually command the friction within the HB circle as originally intended?

Nicholaiovitch

[IceFire]

Yep it does work. If you turn friction down it does work within the homebase circle. I know it does because I've used the feature recently.

[Nicholaiovitch]

Yep it does work. If you turn friction down it does work within the homebase circle. I know it does because I've used the feature recently.

Many thanks IceFire.

Nicholaiovitch:)

[Bearcat]

I imagine that once 4.12 is released with it's new runway design features some of that will become moot...

[AirWarriorVet]

Repair/Rearm/Refuel ? ahh, just get a new plane?

As you can see from my handle, I've been MMO WW2 siming along time. Back when Confirmed kill became Warbirds (Interactive Creations Inc.) and later IMagic Online, and Eidos bought up the old Confirmed Kill project. I beta tested this new CK project. The lead was a fella named Mike Gilmartin. He disclosed an idea he had for a totally new style of online game play.
You have to remember that Air Warrior (late 1980's) actually had a strategic game play aspect to it, but a poor flight model and graphics. Others that followed that improved the FM and visuals but only had dogfight mode (pure) and or capture the base ( close the airfield ).
Enter Gilmartins idea. (btw google his name to see a long list of accomplishments in computer gaming) Over the phone one evening he revealed to me his idea of a "Limited Resource Engagement" This LRE would be perfect for Aerosquadron play.
The problem with MMO WW2 gaming is direction. Players will game the game so to speak. Not given good structure, they will resort to bad styles of game play.
Back to IL2 Sturmovik for abit, I was around early on, getting Olegs ear ( which was incredibly easy back then) long before the first version went gold.
I argued for many options on a now defunct message board (dogfighter.com) against a sea of opposition. 3 realism options I finally got Oleg to agree to were: No Icons, No Icons on Mini Map, and No Padlock view allowed.
Back then Padlock view was a bad option to sticky view keys.( no track IR back then ) The main opponent to these options back then was a guy named Luthier ( who you may know ) Seems he's redeemed himself these days.
Not long after IL2 was released, ideas for enhancing styles of game play emerged, scorched earth was one I believe and mud movers another?
Just my observations over many years, as an end user, not a programmer, just lending my ideas and hoping they're heard.
When computer gaming was in its infancy, flight sims accounted for almost 1/2 of the mix of available games, but not even close today. I don't believe anything is too blame, except the structure of the game play itself, and the failure to be innovative.
Enter "Zuti's MDS" and its many accomplishments. Kanal uporabnika veqlargh81 is his youtube account name. KUV has breathed life into a neglected aspect of the industry. Something Gilmartin tried to do years ago. Girlmartins CKII never made it out of beta, never went gold, axed by Eidos presumed to be over budget and under developed to continue.
But Gilmartins ideas of an LRE were very aligned with KUV's MDS. And still, to this day, I have not seen it incorporated into IL2 as it could be IMO and this lies with what I would call, improper use of R/R/R.
Sorry for all the back story telling, but I believe its important to understand the past, to help improve the future.
I myself have been INACTIVE as far as gaming, for some time, but peruse the message boards for signs progress in this specific area. I've long lost interest, for the very reasons stated above, the lack of structured game play.
Others have engaged ideas that are again IMO a step forwards, but not in direction Gilmartin wished to implement, which if done properly might restore some of that MIX on the gaming shelves back toward FlightSims.
If any of you gentlemen would like to know more of this concept of LRE and how Zuti's MDS and R/R/R could provide a yet UNtapped mode of structured game play that would provide constant heart pounded decision making and sweating flight stick palms back into the game, let me know.

[Aviar]

AirWarriorVet,

Since you have been "...INACTIVE as far as gaming...", you may not be aware of all things IL-2.

For instance, there is a program called SEOW (Scorched Earth Online War System). It is quite detailed. I'll post a couple of links so you can take a peek.

http://seowhq.net/seowforum/viewforum.php?f=5&sid=1040f72581ddf0c2eb065a08bea4e3d3

http://wiki-seow-en.swil.fr/index.php/Main_Page


Aviar

[idefix44]

About heavy maps like Northwest Europe,
Since I use IL-2 Selector 2.3.0, I'm able to run on the same PC the 4.11.1m Dedicated Server and Client together without any problem playing missions based on this map.

My PC:
AMD Athlon 64x2 4200+ @2.5 GHz.
RAM 2 GB DDR2.
OS Windows XP Home SP3.
Video Card ATI RADEON HD 4650 1 GB DDR2 for a 22'' wide screen 1680x1050

Here's the link to downlaod this MUST have.
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,16403.0.html

All people using it can join and fight, the others are disconnected by the server.

I was about to forget, I run also TeamSpeak 3 Server and client on my Old Mule to more enjoy IL2 with my team mates... :-P

[IceFire]

About heavy maps like Northwest Europe,
Since I use IL-2 Selector 2.3.0, I'm able to run on the same PC the 4.11.1m Dedicated Server and Client together without any problem playing missions based on this map.

My PC:
AMD Athlon 64x2 4200+ @2.5 GHz.
RAM 2 GB DDR2.
OS Windows XP Home SP3.
Video Card ATI RADEON HD 4650 1 GB DDR2 for a 22'' wide screen 1680x1050

Here's the link to downlaod this MUST have.
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,16403.0.html

All people using it can join and fight, the others are disconnected by the server.

I was about to forget, I run also TeamSpeak 3 Server and client on my Old Mule to more enjoy IL2 with my team mates... :-P

I can run the map fairly well but have you truly given it a good shake?

Battlefields1 used to have two or three scenarios with the NW Germany map but we've had to take them out of rotation. There are a lot of objects on the map and for some players they get large amounts of stutters (note: Not low FPS, it's smooth and then it stutters). All players get stutters over time as the scenario plays out. After an hour it doesn't matter what your system configuration is... everyone is getting periodic stutters. On my Core i7 it's just a blip but you can see others having longer pauses.

It was too unpleasant so we pulled all scenarios using the map from rotation. I'd love to see a lightweight version of the map. All cities intact but no countryside objects - in mutliplayer they would not be missed.

[Pursuivant]

I'd love to see a lightweight version of the map. All cities intact but no countryside objects - in mutliplayer they would not be missed.

That would be extremely welcome. Alternately, have the option of having different levels of scenery for various maps. "No objects," "Light Objects (City Objects only) and "Standard Objects" (the current standard). Another possibility would be "no trees" (no trees or woods), "light trees" (just "Oleg Forests") and "standard trees" (the current situation).


It also seems to me that some cities would benefit if they were populated using large, simple objects which represent and entire block of apartments or row-houses. That would reduce the number of objects, the polygon count and improve the look of certain cities.

For example, rather than lots of blocks of row houses with a rectangular "footprint" which are placed to make entire blocks, just have a big hollow rectangular object which represents the entire block plus a park or courtyard in the middle. It would really help the look of European cities with pre-20th century architecture, especially cities which still had medieval-style or "Parisian-style" blocks of buildings.