Zuti MDS Still Not Ready For Prime Time.
 

DT crew, I suspect you are already dealing with this show stopping issue, and also suspect that it will probably kill inclusion of the Zuti MDS in an official release.

I am speaking of the problem of time synchronization for all players, especially those that join a map in progress that has been running for some time, as is the case for most "dog fight" servers online.

This issue is not apparent for players that join a map when it is launched, as would be the case in a traditional co-op, or in the case of a "dogfight" server as used in an online war scenario when all plays must join at the beginning.

However if you come in to a server that has been running for some time you will have issues with moving objects not being where others see them as your time reference with the server (or whatever it is called) is not synchronized with the sever or other players. This is especially apparent for vehicles moving on the ground, and for ships.

This has been a problem since the introduction of the Zuti Moving Dogfight Server "modlet", and it has still not been properly addressed in the latest version of that code.

It's a genuine pity too, as the inclusion of the MDS into the official versions of the sim would be a bonanza for mission builders, as when it works it totally changes the join when you want dogfight server by giving a quantum leap to immersion.

I hope this can be worked out, as if it would work, it would be a big nail in the coffin of mods for me, and many others.

I can't say I've ever experienced the issue myself ElAurens, despite having played on UK3_MDF (90 minute maps, usually) very frequently up until shortly after the release of MDS 1.13. How long does the map have to be running before this lack of synchronisation becomes apparent? Is it related to players having poor connections, etc.?

I have much admiration for Zuti and the effort put into MDS series.

Unfortunately I never found it to be 100% stable for inclusion into an official IL2 1946 update/patch.

Synchronization issues after 90 mins seems to to still be a problem.

Also the novelty of RRR wears off quickly, most pilots simply hit refly as they cant be bothered to wait for the RRR timer to finnish.

I wonder if making it possible to RRR in a Coop mission would have been easier :)

Well, that rrr-timer problem is easily fixed, just have 10 min. flighttime from spawn to front :-D
Closer to the front one can rrr.
That also leads to better care for ones plane!!!

S!

Zuti works hard on MDS and I have not had any issues with it. This 90min problem can be avoided by making missions 90min as not many even have the patience to play any longer :roll: The furball of death forms within 5min of the start and stays there until end :D

I haven't experienced the synchronisation problem (probably just coincidence) but RRR is a big attraction where the base, 'fly from', fields are in the rear and there are forward fields for RRR. I wish that was used more :)

Historically for instance, RAF Manston was used as a forward fighter field but not much as a base field as the BoB wore on because it was too near the enemy and getting hammered. Still, probably getting a bit off-topic.

Hm, author of this topic is correct, actually. Such things can happen. The reason for this are spikes in network traffic. Won't go into details. But 1.2 is fine. All new solution.

Just a note about RRR: it is entirely mission builder decision. If he enables refly, well, even I would not do an RRR then. But I prefer missions that have refly disabled entirely. Forces people to think how they fly. Real tactics come alive on such servers/missions. Otherwise it's just: if I am out of ammo, I'll ram you. I can always refly. Fun, but hardly realistic (since must enthusiasts here strive to reach that).

So this is the v4.10 official release version ?

I tested many versions of the MDS in beta form upto v1.1 v1.11 v1.12 v1.13 and the statement " is fine. All new solution" is one I have heard before, but incorrect.

I really hope this v1.2 is 100% fixed for v4.10.

I am sorry you have such bad experience with MDS. Honestly, I don't recall any issue reports from you. If I missed them, I apologize. :\ I also noticed that you are under the impression that RRR does not work with coops. It should. May I ask on how you tested this? Perhaps I can help.

As for official release, I'm not the one to disclose such things. I hope you understand.

Thank you so much , Zuti MDS is awesome.

Just
Tested v1.13 in Coop with small RRR bug sometimes forcing unchock spring back ( probally used for carrier re-arming ) otherwise its working ok :)

Originally
Testing was done at our end for server side compatibility, input was left at "you know where".

For me
As far as bad experiences I have none with MDS except the 90 minute sync one.

Keep up the great work Zuti.

Zuti, I appreciate the personal reply to my original post.

Thank you.

Alpha: the force chock release is there to release chocks in case they "jam". And they usually jam if you fire your guns while chocks are in. In normal circumstances, you'd have to refly. Guns produce "negative" energy so this is the reason you were going backwards after you forcibly removed chocks.

ElAurens: if there is a problem I'm always glad to hear about it so I can investigate. No need to thank me.

I can confirm RRR works well in coop mode, thats the way we (my squad and me) use it most, and I think it's the best way to use it...
Or, we do dogfights but with everybody in at the start, and a (very) limited number of lives per pilot

A good example was a mission were we took off in Bf109s, half of us had an empty load, we had to find a improvised landing field in the middle of the forest and mountains, land, load a bomb and ammo, and attack a train. While armed 109s were covering our asses.
Some of us failed on landing (it was a hard and short one), so they respawned at our first base, where they could only take stukas to go for a completely different mission of bombing tanks in another place...

It was great, nobody was bored because he died in the beginning and that made an awesome mission with not much combat but still a lot of interest !!!

So in these case we don't have 90min sync problems too ;)

Anyway thank you for your mod Zuti, it's one that makes a real awesome advance in gameplay and it's pretty rare ! so keep up, 1.2 features look even better and better !

MDS is ground breaking and a natural evolution,

because it actually completes the IL2 code

joining the two modes (DF / Coop).

It could even evolve to an autonomous system
where the map is actually alive so to speak..
but that's another story ..

At any rate, i never had any kind of problems

with sync and the ability to actually RRR,

has added dramatically to imersion.


Actually ZUTI's work is so important that in my opinion,

MDS should be incorporated also in SOW.

http://www.zg52.com/Tmp/yourock.jpg

Are there any articles/tutorials that describe the MDS mod and how these differ for the player/mission compared to a standard server experience? I know its partly co-op but thats about it! I went on one and enjoyed it but wasn't completely sure I understood everything that it had to offer.

S!

ZUTI 's MDS has user documentation at the page "not to be told here"..can just give a tip: UP :-P

I love the MDS it's about the coolest thing that has been incorporated into IL-2 but there are some instances of odd behavior when you use it compounded by how much stuff you have programmed into it (vehicles, planes etc) I've learned new Mission Building techniques as a result of it but I'd be willing to wait till 4.11 for a bug free version of it in exchange for triggers (aircraft scrambling because you overflew an enemy base). Even as great as some of the user made content is, and the squashing of the idea that it would be bad (mods) it is proving problematic to have so many different groups working in different communities separate from each other and then trying to make all these different things come together after the fact. Perhaps it was the impetus for Oleg allowing DT to continue. I mean there were things the community wanted but for legal reasons couldn't be done by 1C but the community can really just thumb their noses at *cough*Grumman*cough* and not much can be done to stop them. But on the other hand it's not bringing all of it together under one house that's killing it for me and though I might play with it, incompatibility is taking all the fun out of it. I will always have Il-2 installed but SOW is probably going to take a lot of my time over it eventually and I sure hope Oleg takes to heart that all the stuff that has been done to his venerable sim has been like showing some love to an old car that has been restored and repainted and proudly paraded around.

DT cannot thumb their nose at Grumman, get that notion out of your head. DT makes official add ons and are bound by every legal point that Oleg is.

An attempt was made to unifiy the modding communities. It failed utterly because of all the juvenile inflated egos involved, and a not small amount of Red vs. Blue fanboyism as manifested in heated FM debates that made the Ubizoo look like a kindergarten.

I'm hoping that the subsequent add ons done by DT can suffice on their own, without mods, till SoW comes out.

Then I will gladly close the books on IL2 and never open them again.

I was referring to the modding community not DT of course DT would be a target for lawsuits if they tried to do that, but the modding community is everywhere and wouldn't be as easy to do anything to and I completely agree with you there has become a philosophy of cheat to win across all genres of gaming if the MOH beta releases have shown anything. The desire of the modding community to create speculative and pure BS WM and FM just are typical of it. I can see some use for them but how can you really trust it online, I'm all for DT wiping the slate clean and making it all proper again.

IF the MDS makes so much proplems - at least to release it as an official feature - leave it to the MODs.

the most dogfightservers will use MODs anyway and will stay at 4.09 till the MODs can be used with 4.10 , again with the MDS in the MOD "package",...........................
i guess the most players will NOT skip the sounds, FMs, objects,6DOF & flyable planes the MODs brought to them ;)

Daidalos does development for the official Il-2 version. We do not fights mods but we don't roll out the red carper, either, and we also don't make decisions on "release policies" with regards to the mods. If someone uses them it's their very own personal decision ... but they aren't a factor in what DT makes or doesn't make.

Like Caspar said MDS might lose a feature or two because they're too troublesome but we want it in 4.10 and we will deliver the core features for those people who have no use for mods.

There are two major (like in "giant") mods for IL-2 (in historical order)

1. sHr's 6DoF mod
2. ZUTI's MDS

Both have small bugs and limitations but both get IL-2 to a new level. The 6dof mod development had been stopped shortly after its release (and needs one good coder for revamp) but ZUTI is still working on his MDS hard.

I find this topic a bit insinuatory. ZUTI basicaly did what "Maddox Games" couldn't. And by reverse ingeneering mind you. Sure maybe he had a time/knowledge base advantage and maybe Maddox cancel such idea for IL-2 at some point... but he did it and he still works hard on it and deserves a lot of appreciation for this and not back-words like... "you know... this MDS is kinda fishy... unstable... maybe we should scrap it...". People that don't know exactly the "enormity" of MDS and its huge importance could take words of L'Aurens and KG Alpha for good (based on their reputation here) and march on this false track.

4.10 as far as I care is MDS. the rest is just bonus.

I wanted 6DOF and had to install UP but as a newbie didn't know much about 'modding'. I was selective about which of the additional mods to install but have to agree that some are very good and expand the standard game to a higher level.

My favourite server is the Battle of Britain and having a modded game is essential in order to have the early Spits and Cannons excellent 'Channel' maps. From what I can see, the most popular servers all require a modded game anyway.

Zaelu

Read Thors post

Some features are removed due to problems.

This is what I'm interested in removing bugs or non compliant features.

There's too many bugs already in v409m, keeping adding content that potentially has problems just makes a bigger mess.

Just because a few people like MDS (myself included) don't mean it has to be forced into the game, as someone else already pointed out v4.10 wont "heal" the online community either due to the mod packs out there that have MDS in them and a whole lot more.

V4.10 will be released and the mod pack will go on top of that with all its extras so back to square one.

Exactly.

I have not said anything untrue or made a personal attack at Zuti or his MDS.

Does it improve the IL2 experience? Yes.

Is it problematic and sometimes buggy? Yes.

zaelu, the reason that these features are not, and were not included in the orginal game is not beacuse Maddox games could not put them in. You act as if Oleg held these things back to somehow punish the community. They were not included because they are indeed troublesome, and would have probably held back the release of the original game two full years. Just look at how many versions the MDS has been through, and all the time that has been put into it, and it still has problems. Now we have an entire crew of developers, DT, working on it, and it still proves troublesome.

It's a difficult piece of work, and all that I have done is said that. I'm not making personal attacks on anyone here. Unlike yourself, who it seems cannot see the forest for the trees.

EDIT: just noticed where the idea that 4.10 is delayed because of MDS came from. CURRENT delay. Won't say anything more.

I just want to add that I wasn't attacking you two guys I was just trying to defend ZUTI's work that was trivialised with too much ease imho... true, I wasn't asked to do so, I just felt to.

Isn´t discussing mods in this forum against its own rules?

It's being discussed as one component of the 4.10 patch Team Daidalos is working on.

MODs are "bad", but one MOD will be included in one official patch.

Maybe the "bad" 6DOF can be included too? And please, can we have at least 100º of FOV for us with widescreen monitors? I don't have one single real major bug with 6DOF, so I don't understand wht it isn't never included as one official patch. Just need to revamp some official cockpit models.

These 3 points will be all I and a great amount of community wants in a new offical patch: Moving Dogfight Server, 6DOF and full view in widescreen monitors, without the need to use the most buggy "mod".

I don't like to use hundreds of mods, but I can't fly without 6DOF anymore, and like to have decent FOV in my 22" monitor, and is cool to attack some moving column of cars in a DF server. These points are a must, and I don't care if they will be delivered "officially" or as "bad mods". Just want to use my hardware to improve my experience.

Yes, I second that. Ability to set custom FOV for single monitor would be great. I use 106 for 16/9 aspect. The game grants this ability for triple head so why not for single wide screen?

I play now using San's FOV Changer (drinks on him!) but sometimes gets into trouble. It's nice that I can have the zoom on a anolog axis through it though.

You have answered your question yourself. ;) That work isn't so trivial, that usage of word "just" could be justified.

Not only the word "just", but also the word "some" does not fit in there. It's more like, "All existing cockpit models should be remodeled, most of them quite extensively". Which is equal to several hundreds (if not thousand) of man-hours.

Well, I saw the great work of DT, and its WAY more complex than revamp the cockpits, that's because why I don't understand not priorize this kind of thing.

I don't said it's "so trivial", I'm just priorizing things. But even with the original pits, isn't great trouble with 6DOF, by the way. No need so big work to do today. It's fully functional in "mods".

Not true at all, sorry. Today pits can be used without so much trouble, the sim looks OK.

And minor glitches don't bother at all if the "solution" was not have 6DOF at all. IL2 is an "old" sim and we all will replace it by SoW series someday, and this "tweaks" don't need to be totally perfect, if perfection means don't have fundamental functionalities.

Yeah, tell me more about IL-2 3D models, please.

We'd leave so called "minor glitches" to the mods. While they may not bother mod-maker wanna-bees, they do bother both original developers and DT.
Call it official position of both.

Oleg said some time ago that 6DOF would never be implemented because of the MASSIVE amount of work that would be needed to redo the cockpits.

LOL, Vladimir. Them KeWl Haxxor dudeZ know da shiznit, right? http://msnsmileys.net/r/smileys/ROFL/Rofl_3e.gif

Well, "massive work" if you want no glitches at all, and I can understad that. He's a perfeccionist. And his team is working in a NEW TITLE WITH FULL 6DOF SUPPORT. Keep this in mind. DT is working in an "old" sim engine. And this "old" engine can handle 6DOF, but at some cost.

To the folk who said about 3D models, please don't assume everyone who talks with you is an idiot about some subject you believe you are some "mastermind" of universe, be more humble.

It's just a point of view issue:

- Some people believe isn't up to IL-2 standards have 6DOF with glitches, because the cockpits was moddled with 3DOF parameters in mind;

- Some people believe isn't up to IL-2 standards don't have 6DOF at all.

And I DOUBT any serious simmer like to fly without 6DOF. Please make official patches but stop assuming that peole are stupid. I'm the final user of the sim, the customer. If the "official opinion" goes opposite of the final consumer, it's a really strange marketing strategy.

Thanks!

By the way, we still have some "minor glitches" in official patches, as in any other game. I will never understand the need to reduce others works, in this case "mod-maker wanna-bees"...

Some of they are great and helps A LOT the games industry. If Oleg has bad memories about this, is something, but not recognize the great technical work of some modders (or hackers, if you want...) do in IL-2, I'm sorry, but I think it's wrong.

And some people are flying IL-2 untill today in great part because can have 6DOF, MDS and use larger FOV, like myself. I'm not an IL-2 modder, patcher, but I fly this sim since 2001, I'm the final user of all the great work of developers, modders, official patchers... And I fly IL-2 until 2010 and tell newbies in flight sims to buy IL-2 because we can use 6DOF, etc. So, this kind of "attitude" is really strange...

IL-2 last until today greatly by the "unofficial" modding comunity, at least with the hardcore simmers. But I'll let all "official patchers" doing the vital work to keep IL-2 up to date and will fly now with 6DOF. Thank you very much for your efforts! At least can change the maximum FOV setting, but maybe some gigantic glitch prevent doing such thing. Well, I can live in "device link" world...

This point could be accepted, if those "minor glitches" of the mods wouldn't look, like a HUGE BUGS next to the "minor glitches" of the official patches. So, well, excuse me... Point is NOT taken.

As for the mod influence on gaming industry... Sorry again, but you tend to exaggerate things by a large margin.

95% of unpaid user mods are total crap, or next to it. For any game, I've seen so far. There are, certainly, few outstanding examples, but, that is, they are outstanding and rare. And most of them eventually turn into a commercial way.

Some examples of 5% not "total crap":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Combat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Defeat

Those "5% wanna-be-modders" usually will someday be employed by some major software company...

By the way, 95% of life itself can be "total crap". I aim for the 5%, and this 5% worth the patience.

I really don't get the point to say that the major part of free mods are not so good. It's pretty obvious.

But if I think just about Half-Life and Battlefield franchises, those "95% of total crap" are obliterated by the GREAT 5% of OUTSTANDING free mods, and they are not so rare at all!

So, point not taken at all by me too.

S!

I was in belief TD does not get paid or does not pay for this further IL-2 development or the patches would be "pay to get"..or has something changed? Wasn't the agreement between TD and Oleg emphasizing this: FREE. So how does this paid/monetary thing step in here on IL-2, SaQSoN? With all respect.

Modders, on any game, make it for free and do not claim bug free products/additions, but most of them fix mods to their best ability from user feedback. And later can become commercial ones as you stated. Gotta start somewhere ;)

Find it a bit arrogant to state that 95% is crap because statements like that can backfire on your own product as well. I would rather use "quality of varying levels". And again those mods are free and you can freely choose to use or not to use them ;)

IL-2 has "minor glitches" or should we use a term "features" that have been there since 2001 and still not fixed..some never will. TD does good work bringing new stuff to IL-2, that is appreciated by everyone and not bashed. Modders bring too which is also appreciated by many, opposed by some. In my eyes a win-win.

Just Counter-Strike make your point not valid.

Thanks God Valve looks at the modding community as some good resource of ideas and professionals.

But maybe Valve was "exaggerated" things a bit! Thank's to clarify that!

Why you do not offer helping hand to correct those "minor glitches" and include such mods into official patch ?

And for the 5% - Carrier catapult mod, Bomb Bay Doors mod - will we ever see them "official" ?

What do you think Daidalos is? The salvation army? :roll:

The modus operandi is quite clear: If someone thinks his mod is a worthy addition he is to contact TD and then gets a reply if that mod has a chance to make it into a patch or not and what might have to be changed. TD will most certainly not browse modding sites and try to offer technical support there. That's not why Daidalos was founded.

So, Daidalos was founded for some reason but can't deliver 6DOF and wider FOV?

Those two aspects are beyond Team Daidalos, and that's OK. Daidalos don't need to be the salvation army, but mods either have to be the evil in earth or modders a bunch of amateurs doing trivial stuff.

If 6DOF (even with glitches) and wider FOV don't "worthy addition" to some official patch, I don't know what must be into these patches. Those two simple things (yes, it's SIMPLE, you can have glitches - not major bugs - in first person view into cockpits, but that's all) change the way people with head tracking devices and widescreen monitors fly in IL-2.

The only trouble I have with 6DOF and wider FOV is the fact that the mod to change FOV are subject to freezes. By God, why TD can´t put some better control to FOV in IL-2? Because we maybe can see "holes" in one wing, a "missing" panel edge, or some minor distortion?

I'll never get this point, sorry. Even you try to ask for the customers/community if they can live with these glitches? I can.

Ok Back on topic :)

Zuti or DT

If you are still looking in this thread, is it possible you can have a look here.

http://forums.oesau.jg1.org/viewtopic.php?t=17383

Paul Lowengrins DCG in-conjunction with the MDS would be a great immersion addition.

As 4.10 is on the way perhaps a info heads up for him to get started on the project ??

Thxz

LoBiSoMeM

Since you have apparently some troubles understanding what was posted here's the short form (again):

1.) Part of the agreement between Daidalos and 1C Maddox Games was that Daidalos sticks to official limits and standards.
2.) No, 6DOF in its current form does not fulfil standards because of what you call "glitches".
3.) To remove those "glitches" (said in the spirit of euphemism you hardcore mod fans seem to like so much) would require to rework every single cockpit in Il-2 which is far beyond the resources of TD.

Is that simple enough for you?

Because things are not done in this way. There is quality control and it won't be passed on things, which are expected to cause glitches if they are to be implemented half baked. They will either be done right or won't be done at all.

Yes, very simple. IL-2 will never have official support for 6DOF. The "quality standards" today say it's OK to have a dated sim engine in a discontinued project without 6DOF. IL-2 will last forever without it, people even not like to have 6DOF at all.

And we widescreen users will never have minimum decent official support, we will live with a "chop" screen up and down, something that accomplish the "quality standards" of TD and 1C Maddox Games.

I can be sarcastic too. I really like the work of Maddox Games in IL-2 and BoB will be fantastic, but after 1946 the support for IL-2 is over. That's fine, but the posture of the "official patching team", who can't delivery nothing really important, is a shame. Maybe the lack of widescreen support can be a good trade for better skis on planes or assign radiator control to an axis. Daidalos can deliver great ADDON material, but "patch"? Without solving ancient issues? What is a mod and what is a patch?!?!

I paid for IL-2, at least I want decent widescreen support. But if I can't have it "officially", it's a shame and the "official" support maybe have to think a little about all the time talking about "standards"... Cut a lot of my default view to use widescreen resolution is YOUR standards, and a really low one, not mine or others. By the way:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/15320

People still buying IL-2 1946. Can please put in big letters in those sites that IL-2 1946, in 2010, don't have real widescreen support? Make it "official". And rename the "patch" 4.10 as the "official MOD" 4.10, please.

Thanks! Keep the good work!

Hello,

I approached Lowengrin about replacing DGen/NGen with DCG in a future DT patch a few months ago and he seemed receptive to the idea. I also requested the same thing in DT's request thread but I have yet to hear back from them (no doubt they are busy getting 4.10m ready for release). If anything comes from this, we will hear about it after 4.10 is released.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Quality control is everything to a successful project, no matter what it is.

That is a pretty simple concept, that few, not all mind you, but few none the less, modders cannot grasp.

Quality third party work is a wonderful thing. But it is indeed rare.

I hope that the major bugs that I still find in the MDS, now that I'm using it more and more, can be worked out. Properly implemented it can be a wonderful addition to the sim. But if it means banging my head against the wall every time I try to make a new mission, well, then it's better to skip it.

Now that I've stepped up my mission building I find that saving my work in the FMB is FUBAR if I have more than three airbases on the map. Any base added after the original three will not have their info saved. This happens in 1.12 and 1.13.

I hate bugs.

That makes it a patch or an addon not a mod anymore.
I see.
:grin:

Pointless. Just pointless. I can finally see what some users here are all about.

This why MDS version 1.2 exists.

+1 regards my easy request - and always ignored as point of discussion - of bigger than 90º FOV implemented in IL-2 core for widescreen users... Maybe a gigantic bug will jump out of my screen and kill me if this change was made, I don't know.

I give up! Gimme cool skis!

Hello,

Please don't let it get to you. The vast majority of mod users love your work and soon stock IL-2 users will love it too.

Cheers & respect!

Fafnir_6

Yes

Lowngrins DCG is as important as Zuti's MDS

Would be cool to have both working together :)

Agreed :). It would likely be a pain to get this debugged, though. We can always hope. With 4.09m, DT delivered in a big way. 4.10m will rule as well. In the future, the sky is the limit and it is a good time to be a flight simmer :).

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

That is how: the core DT programmers and 3d artists either currently are, or were at some point professional IT industry workers and have related commercial projects experience. Though their work for DT is free, they use during this work their professional skills and aim for the same quality, they would, should the DT project be commercial and they get paid for their work.

I didn't grow up in a politically-correct environment, so, fortunately, I use to call things what I see them be. So, when someone would poop into a jar and bring it to an art exhibition, I wouldn't run around and shout "Oh, what an amazing piece of art! Good job!". I'd just call it a "crap in a jar". :grin:

Yeah, whatever, he knows better anyway. If he says "minor glitch", that it is so. Who do we think, we are to argue? Pft... :roll:

While i partially agree with you, you are also making a mistake yourself. Just because you, me and a lot of other people want an official 6DOF implementation and would be happy to live with the occasional glitch, it doesn't mean that this opinion is shared by everyone ;)

I think the current situation is very good. We have officially produced and tested content being released which we know will always work well. If we want to make some compromises in quality or resource use, we also have the chance to use other, non-official content as well. However, just because i am willing to read documentation to try to make it work and live with the occasional glitch, it doesn't mean that this view is shared by everyone in the community.

Like i always say, choice is a good thing. Just like i would be disappointed if suddenly TD locked the game and made mods non-working, i believe there are thousands of users who would be disappointed as well if they were forced to learn the technicalities of maintaining a mod installation or had to live with features that are not done to an industrial standard. Forcing my opinion on them is just as bad as them forcing it on me.

In that sense, i believe TD is doing the right thing. They spend their time on implementing changes that need access to original coding resources to work well and fluidly, like mission triggers, radio navigation, guided weapons and radar.

I'm sure some prodigy modder could do it too, but it's better if you have the game's developer helping you. Doing it on your own would present more problems and the solution would be harder to achieve due to the lack of official resources.

Since this is what this thread is about let's use this example, just look at the progression of Zuti's awesome work. It's not that Zuti can't deliver a flawless MDS version, the guy is obviously a very smart and dedicated fellow and i believe he can. So why are people having problems with MDS? Simple, because when Zuti started working on MDS he didn't have Oleg Maddox to tell him all the inside info and little secrets of the game engine's code.
If he had access to that information, i bet we'd have an all-in-one MDS version with dynamic online campaigns by now. Adding a new flyable might be time consuming, what with the 3d modelling and flight model research, but now people know how to do this. Adding new features and mechanics the original engine was never intended to support however is a totally different type of work, the more help you have from the people who originally wrote that code the better you will do.

That's the advantage of DT, they have access to the developer. And since the developer asks for something in exchange, they have to stick by the standards he asks of them, or they would risk losing that channel of communication.

So, TD is focusing on implementing new game mechanics, with the occasional new flyable or fixes to an old one done at a very high standard thrown into the mix.
They are also open to making mods official, as long as the modders are willing to bring their work within the specs requested by Oleg Maddox. Finally, they leave the door open to the rest of the modding community to do as they please and the users to choose what they want to run in their installations. This gives us users total freedom of choice to tailor our installations to what we want to do with IL2, which is not only downright awesome, but also contrary to the way most gaming software companies treat their customers today. We get all this stuff for free, while other people have to pay for individual units in a strategy game, individual maps in an FPS, individual armor sets in an RPG or individual aircraft in their sims. Wanting more is good, it's what drives the hobby forward, but let's have some perspective here as well, shall we? :-P

I think this is the best compromise. I'm not saying TD or the modders are better/worse codders. All i'm saying is that TD has access to in-house development tools and data, so it makes sense for them to work on the stuff that need these resources more, as well as use these resources to help modders "transform" unofficial game mechanics enhancements like MDS into official ones.

You don't need Oleg Maddox to tell you how a 109 looks like if you know where to look for technical drawings, but you need him to tell you how he coded that part of the game 10 years ago if you want to add new game mechanics, because it might conflict with what you are trying to do.
It's one thing to create a new slot flyable and another thing to cram new gameplay mechanics and features into a 10 year old engine, doing the second one benefits much more from having the "secret" knowledge of the developer himself than the first one.

I wouldn't mind at all if TD released updated cockpits, in fact i would be grateful, but i don't need them to . If i want to fly a fw190 with high resolution cockpit textures, 6DOF and no cockpit bar i already have that with the mods. It's better to let them work on the things that modders won't do due to a lack of the necessary in-house resources, or use their insider information to help transform the best of these mods, like MDS, into official additions to the core game engine.

I don't see this situation as competition between TD and modders, i see it as making the best allocation of those talented community members, both TD and modders, according to the tools they have at their disposal.

Remember, just because some features are important to you and me doesn't mean they are important to everyone. Or they might be, but others are even more important for them. Sure, widescreen support would be a very good feature, but i believe there are hundreds of people out there who would like it but still consider something else a bigger priority. For example, i have a 16:10 monitor and a TrackIR, so for me, it's not such a big deal to lose some of that vertical rendering. However, for someone else who flies without a TrackIR, it is going to be a big deal and guess what, we would both be right :-P
When you say that TD's priorities are wrong, it looks like you are trying to speak on behalf of the entire community and that is in poor taste because frankly, there are other people around here that have totally different priorities than you and me.

Widescreen support, MDS, new flyables, new game mechanics, we all agree that all these things are desirable new features. This is the part of the argument that's based on logic and we can more or less say what is "true" and "false".
However, deciding the priorities of what feature should come first at the expense of the other ones is the "personal opinion and taste" part. Right and wrong doesn't apply to this, because even when all of the people here will like these features, the majority will like different things the most and other things not so much. ;)

I fly using FreeTrack and all the others folks who fly online with me believes wider FOV into IL-2 core will be great. Widescreen monitors are default today.

And the point here is: IT'S SIMPLE TO DO, if you have access to code and dev support.

Why don't include that? And why the subject is always ignored by TD? I don't understand.

I'm OK if something will cause a big trouble and work to be putted in IL-2, but simples things, it's beyond reason.

In what world better skis on some plane are a priority in a patch and widescreen full support isn't?!?!

Well summed up BD.

The restrictions placed on TD means they will never deliver in IL-2 the wider expectations of a 'current Simming community', too much work is involved. That community is served by the modders in the rare circumstances of even being able to blend in TDs work.

Those vehemently anti-mod are trapped between what TD are able to deliver (for the reasons BD gave) and what they may be enjoying in other sims. Their choice.

You only have to look at Hyperlobby to see the extent of interest in the mods and that is a fact of life even Oleg has to live with albeit without his blessing. It would be churlish of him/TD to lock out the modders because of the offence it would cause his future customer base for SoW so the wiser thing is for everyone to just quietly accept the situation, make our choices and wait for SoW. We have the best of both worlds.

Who says that's true? do you code, or are you just guessing? Coding is not simple.

So after the *piles* of work that TD is putting into 4.10 on their own free time, for the community, and trying to implement a high level of quality control, it's all useless if they can't get 2 features working to a certain level of stability? There have got to be at least 20 new features in 4.10, and I can't imagine it was ever a choice between "cool skis" or a completely different topic like widescreen support. For the record I have a widescreen, its works okay, and I'll live if it isn't in 4.10, because I am looking forward to all the other unique features.
I really don't understand the problem with these Mod debates, it's **not** about whether DT or the community likes this one and not that one, or if modding is good or bad, or if it's works well or is buggy etc. It's all about copyright violation and intellectual property, its in the EULA and everywhere you see the © symbol.
If DT represents 1c Maddox games, then they cannot endorse modding no matter however good they may be, end of story. So if people want mods to be incorporated into official patches, the creators will have to approach the dev. team, and I hope some of them do.

So your complaining that a 10 year old game that hasn't been updated 3 years and is being sold for 10 bucks in the bargain bin because of that doesn't have all of the features you want? Really? Really? Then you insult the people who are spending their own time and resources to make improvements to said game because you aren't getting what you want? Really?

Pull your head out of your ass and take a look around, you'll find it refreshing. Really.

@ Tempest:

And it seems to be about pride and arrogance, judging by some post here.

Let us bear in mind the exact nature of the "glitches" in 6DOF for IL2. The ones some people claim users will happily tolerate apparently. These include:

- gaps or holes that you can see right through when you view a cockpit from a different position

- many cockpits are just flat 2D textures which using a trick to look 3D with switches etc basically drawing them as viewed as they would appear from a center position. These look wrong when viewed from a different position.

Simple story is the mod is a good one and works, but the IL2 cockpits are not suitable for 6DOF and people WILL whine about the "bugs" if its released officially without fixing all those cockpits.

Plus its no great problem for people wanting to get 6DOF to install the mod anyway, so why bother.

A good point, and I can live without "official" support for 6DOF. The "mod" support does great.

But the FOV issue NOT. And YES, it's really simple with access to code. I'm "assuming" nothing, I'm tired to change FOV settings in a lot of games, some in configs, and some OLD titles. And this feature isn't up to IL-2 because of nothing. It's just changing some parameter.

All the problem is in the "thin" line about the "standards"... I can read all the fanboyishm over TD, they do a great job... But people don't give customers the right to decide what are most needed and desired.

It's plain wrong. Live with that. If "officially" we have 6DOF as it is right now, in the case someone dislikes the "holes", simply don't use it. IL-2 isn't "Counter-Strike" for mature simmers, we don't cry all over the place about "hacks". With wider FOV, same thing.

Raise the "standards" to not deliver some nice features is wrong to this customer here. And I will not endorse the chorus for "please gimme more free content". I'm just assuming TD have the "official" support by Maddox Games to do improvements in IL-2. Well, a lot of people here I believe uses 6DOF and FOV Changer, but have some illogical afraid to put some points over light.

But if Maddox Games don't give more support for IL-2, don't solve the old widescreen support, why care at all about the talking about "mods" and "official patches"? Are all mods, but some of them gives really new functionalities and others are bounded to "standards"... The "non-standard" crew make IL-2 sell untill today.

I'm not "insulting" anybody. Please read all the posts and look CAREFULLY who starts the attacks.

Be a fanboy, but don't make inversions. I spend my time and resources doing other things besides modding IL-2, and I deserve respect too.

You have low quality standards. It's not "work ok", you need to go with notepad to edit a configuration file in IL-2 root and lost A BIG (by my high standards) of up/down view to maintain 90° of FOV and uses all monitor resolution.

I don't think it is "works okay" by high quality standards. If TD don't want to give this, it's really OK, but stop all the "we are the best", "the gitches/bugs are huge" and all this kind of thing. Do the work for free, be bounded to restrictions, but don't say a word about the modding community, because these guys deliver MDS, 6DOF and wider FOV. For me, 3 musts in IL-2, and more money to Oleg's pocket, even if he dislikes mods.

I'm out of this discussion. I did mods myself, by the way, for free, but for some other old title. I follow the mod scene, but here, in IL-2 world, peole "tend" to believe everybody "unknow" is a "pretensious idiot". Be more humble here.

My 2 cents.

Respect is earned.

Not given on face value. Dwell on that.


Actually I'm kind of unhappy that I started this topic. I thought that after all this time, that we could discuss problems with the sim, and future additions to it, like adults. I guess I was wrong. I see that the childish attitudes that prevailed at that original mod site still exist. They would not listen to constructive criticism then, and apparently still expect to be adored for their work, no matter how incomplete, trouble prone, or otherwise problematic it may be. Not that it all is, because that isn't true either.

The MDS, if it can be seamlessly integrated into the official versions will be a great addition. But It has to work better than it does now.

That's all I wanted to say initially, so if a moderator would lock this thread, I'd sure appreciate it, because it is spiraling out of control.

:rolleyes:

Now this guy is attacking for nothing ZUTI to - maybe - "earn respect"...

Marvelous...

By the way, I'm not an IL-2 modder, not a MOD fanboy", just like to have 6DOF in sims, likes to have decent FOV in sims to keep my SA, and really likes to see "moving things" in IL-2 DF servers...

But I don't deserve respect! Great!

Son, I'm not attacking anyone.

I started the thread to point out issues with the MDS, that is all.

I didn't come in here demanding features, acting like a 13 year old, and pouting about not getting respect.

Grow up.

I still don't see what's wrong with having 6DoF as a difficulty setting (2DoF being "on", 6DoF "off"), so users and servers can choose if they enable it.

Maybe i didn't explain it well enough, so let's go again. The planned features are desirable by everyone. It's the sequence these features are implemented that people disagree about. Again, just because a lot of people feel widescreen support is a priority doesn't mean that all of them feel the same.

EVERYONE wants widescreen support, but some want triggers or radio navigation or the regiane 2000 even more.

What TD does is work on things that are hard to do without official help (like triggers), while adding a few extras that can be done without official help in order to spice things up and add some variety (like the skis).

What we do is decide how badly we need certain features and then install what we need. If 6DOF is more important to me than the gladiator's skis, i will keep flying 4.09+mods, if the skis are more important to me than 6DOF i will go to 4.10 and wait until the 4.10 compatible mod pack is released. Everyone can choose for themselves, everyone is happy.

I still don't understand why you seem to think your opinion carries a bigger validity or represents the majority of the community. What if it doesn't? What if the rest of the community has a totally different opinion than the people you know? The guys here are not arguing with you because they want to disrespect you, they do it because what you say effectively sounds like this: "the features that i thik are a priority and my personal opinions carry a bigger weight than the rest of you". Maybe you don't mean it and it only seems that way due to the way you say it, but that's how it looks like and some people will find it a bit offensive.

I agree with you that for a 10 year old game i wouldn't mind to have a few extra features even with some glitches. What i disagree with is thinking that everyone feels the same way with us, because a lot clearly don't.

I think your main issue is the widescreen FOV support because you say it is prone to freezes. Well, it's not TD's job to fix that, but the guy's who released the widescreen mod. If that guy wants to he can contact TD, tell them how he does it and ask for their help and TD may decide to help him. However, in order for that to happen he would have to work under TD's quality control standards. Correction, not TD's, but Oleg's standards. It's very simple, mr Maddox says "i can help you make mods into official patches, but if you want my help you'll make it in a way i like too". You either agree to this and get his help in return, or you don't agree and do it by yourself.

Well, your posts could read as attacks. This is why:

- this is not the official forum of MDS
- you complain that it does not work fine but never specify what exactly. You never did on proper forums. 90min sync issues are not such a big problem and mission saving that you said is problematic for you has at least workarounds but should not happen in 1.13.
- would you report your issues to me when you discovered them, be sure they would have been fixed.

To be an adult, you should report your issues on the proper forum or just shut up. And please don't hide behind "it's an official 4.10 feature". It's not out yet and so you can't complain about that too. You started a topic about a MOD. You failed to be constructive. Just destructive. Worse than 13 year old.

To be constructive, an adult and respectful to original IL2 authors you should:
- go to MOD forums
- start a topic there
- explain your problems
- add some missions or log files if the problem can not be easily reproduced.

Period. And don't worry, I did not take any of it personally. This topic should have been locked as soon as it was started. It serves nothing and is completely useless.

You still did not understand the quality control thing. It is not about the end result only. It is about doing things in proper way too. If "fix" improves one thing, but introduces obvious bugs/glitches, it won't see the daylight until everything is resolved. Or in other words: Oleg won't approve what you are asking without fixing the cockpits first and period.

I am sure TD wants to give widescreen and 6DOF support, however the problem is that they can't do that properly with available resources.

And there wouldn't be much comments regarding mod community, if some people stopped constantly using "Look, there is a mod, which does that. So I don't see why you can't do the same." as arguments.

No, it's Maddox Games the job to fix that. The "guy who released the widescreen mod" has to use a "not so ellegant" approach using [DeviceLink] to change the FOV, but someone with free access to code can achieve the same thing with a simple and stable solution. The mod for FOV change runs in a background process, a lot of trouble.

My simple point is: have 6DOF and larger FOV are very simple to put into IL-2 as "official", and the FOV issue can be easily solved by someone with dev support. But I know what happens: larger FOV = bigger distortion in image, cockpits made just for smaller FOVs and 4:3 monitors or 3 displays in mind.

But I, the humble customer, will like to have the CHANCE to suffer with all the bigger distortion in my 16:10 monitor, but I can't have this opportunity, because someone tell me that it's violate some "quality standard" stataments.

I don't think it's right. If people never will revamp the IL-2 cockpits, what's the problem to give people the CHOICE of have some features at some cost "officialy" and without the need to run some troublesome process in background?

It's not "quality control". It's not to do at all a simple thing. I wasn't ask for some that will give a lot of trouble, but simple thing that's already functional (6DOF) and something simple (bigger than 90º FOV setting). If someone make "official" just another option in "CONTROLS" as "100º FOV" a lot of mine and others virtual pilots problems are solved, and if you dislike 100º FOV, just don't use it.

Excuse me all the official patchers, but it's not difficult at all to put some new FOV setting. With that, I can use one mod less.

No it isn't. They are under no obligation to 'fix' anything. Particularly if it involves modifying 10-year-old software to suit more recent hardware, when they are already working on a successor to the application.

You purchased IL-2 as working software. It works, and by the standards of the computer games industry, it works well. That 1C:Maddox have continued to upgrade (for free) is a bonus, not a contractual obligation. If they decide that any upgrades they offer (via official third parties) must maintain the same standards as the existing software, that is their choice (though they may possibly be under contractual obligation to publishers over this). They have a reputation to keep, and may well consider this significant.

Here's some code I knocked up that might help:

10 print "user says - fix the widescreen, it's easy to do and it's your job to do it"
20 print "dev says - no it's not"
30 print "user says - yes it is & you're not respecting me"
40 goto 10

Looks basic. ;)

But isn't. If some dev can point all the difficulty of have a FOV larger than 90º (or "wide" in IL-2 now), I'll be glad.

I'm seeing people assuming that this requires a lot of work, but it's all about we have the same "gitches", "bugs" or whatever you like to name the visual problems of "3DOF/90ºFOV" cockpits... And the "quality standards" of IL-2. And all the crying about "exploits" and "online experience".

I dislike to fly with my virtual face stick to windscreen, without propper SA. But that's just me, people are OK with that, and it's a free world. If I had money I can buy 3 monitors and some GPU to have some l bigger side view... IL-2 can handle 3 monitors...

To people that just don't get the point and keep saying again the same old statements:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/200...n-and-fov.html

Bye! Isn't a technichal issue.

I have read your posts, and my head already hurts from it, so I won't read them carefully.

I don't care who started anything, your still acting like an ungrateful child (and your not alone, just a particularly good example).

Don't bother answering me, as your time is so valuable, I doubt it's worth it and besides, your going directly on my ignore list as you have nothing of any value to say to me.

Line numbers and goto a linenumber? that is definitely in the style of the BASIC programming language.

If you don't understand something, for you it's not easy. Please don't try to judge what you don't have the slightest clue about.

I agree that it's ok to have a choice. However, having a choice to do things the way you personally like means mods, because none of us has a private, individual contract with the developer.
So, official patches are about having the choice to use what the developer wants to give you within the compromises that have to be made due to a variety of factors, from cost and time involved that is taken away from other projects, right down to the developer's personal opinion of what he wants to include and how it should be done.

If i go to a gallery and start looking at paintings to buy i decide based on what's being offered, i don't go to the painter and tell him to use a wider brush or a different colour. This is like the official development process and marketing of the software.
If i want to change it myself i can buy the painting and make changes to it, this is like modding.
Finally, if i want a custom painting exactly the way i like it, but i can't paint it myself and need someone else to do it, then i hire the painter to do a custom job. This is not like buying a mass marketed product off the self, but like finacing a developer to make my personal dream simulator, which i'm sure you can realize none of us can do.

If this was a game where you have to buy every single flyable or map separately, i would agree that the customer is being wronged. However, IL2 has had loads of free add-on content, both official and unofficial. In that sense, both we and the Maddox team are better off moving on and working towards SoW.

It's all a matter of content and support vs dollar when we are talking about the customer value of a product and IL2 is pretty damn cheap for what it offers. Just like i said before it's not about "right" and "wrong" features, but about perspective. It's perfectly fine to like and want thesε features. Where you go wrong is thinking the developer can be held responsible for providing what each one of us personally requests, instead of focusing on the bigger picture.

Take a close look at the game itself then you know that, by your statement, some of Olegs programmers either didn´t get paid or were no programmers.

In I-185 71A the spawn temperature is beginning at 110°C and when heating up and when running up the engine the temperature runs down to 20°C and stays there.
NO OVERHEAT!
It´s fun to have such a bug-free/perfectionist plane on your six.

In the Bf-110 G2 the ATA pressure is with 73% throttle indicating your are in the war-emergency-power. Which is nonsense.

Some of the Instruments put into German planes were not available at the time the plane was produced.

The list goes on.



It doesn´t make a too good impression for people officially involved in Il2 developement to point at others while these basic things are not fixed.

Without wanting to pull up older postings (additionally in a wrong direction in case of the threads initial topic), I want to make a statement to 6DoF:

The problematic part of 6DoF is not only the 'glitches' - its about gameplay and fairness. We are still internaly discussing this and are looking for a good way to implement a kind of realistic head movement - useable for ALL players, also those, who do not own a tracking device. This contains two major points:

1. realistic head movement: 6DoF as it is in mods, is far from realistic. Without going too much into detail - its generally too moveable.

2. 6DoF for everyone: Whatever solution we may find for pt.1, it must be possible to use this with a normal device, that every player has (much probably mouse and/or keyboard)

Its not just about enabling a few more axis.



As for the initial topic, I (we, TD) did agree with the thread starter and we are fighting the bugs. We see no need of blaming Zuti for sloppy work or anything, in fact, its simply a difficult issue and Zuti worked with us as good as he could to get the feature flawlessly into the game. The MDS in 4.10 will be much different in some details than the version available in mods.

Ok, so besides stating that my work is sloppy you are also officially claiming that the 6 month delay is because of MDS bugs?

Do restrain yourself a little bit, will you?

Read again Zuti. Caspar said there's no need to accuse you of sloppyness. :)

It is been a while I haven't seen so much evil in single line. :-)

No, I think I got it just as anyone will. To put that statement apart he said:

"Zuti made a sloppy work on MDS. But we don't see a reason to publicly blame him".

You see, "for sloppy work" translates to "his work is sloppy".

But since I am not a native English speaker, some native English bloke can explain this. The point is: such stupid statements are best avoided. Since he seems to be your official spokesman now, I would also like to get the "6 month delay" reason. From what can be read, it's MDS fault.

So in actuality "4.10m" is delayed so "TD" can find someone/modder to blame discrepancies on lower level "Modder/s" meaning Game user Modders. That is one hell of a lame excuse, 4.10m's problems/bugs are those of the creators and those alone. "xxxx or get off the pot". You can do it, if not for your selves. for IL2 community who still want to enjoy this all time epic "OLD" Sim.
Thank You Sir Oleg.:)

Neither Caspar nor myself are native english speakers as well. I do not read an accusation into what he wrote at all. Language barrier at its best. :rolleyes:

If that is the problem (language barrier) then best to avoid such statements. He chooses not to. That is my problem. I, for now, choose to do so.

Gents, you are allowing the idiots that post here to lead you into arguments that you would not have and that would not exist but for the stupid, ungrateful posts that some members make.

Any misunderstanding is arising because of posts made by the public, NOT by Zuti or TD.

Please lock this, admins, and also please reconsider moderating more heavily. I would be delighted to moderate this forum, as I have stated before.