Curious...Why is this game so hard to get right?
 

Why is it so hard for 1C to get the RAF speeds and flight models right? The numbers are all over the internet and various other historical references.

A simple google search I just did afforded me a plethora of information about early Spitfires performance in combat circa 1940. Where are the developers getting their information from?!??! What document or flight test reported that the max speed of a 100 octane Spitfire MK1a at sea level, 30 gallons of fuel, no bomb ordnance, and on a clear day is 280 mph?!?

Everything I've found states top speed at sea level of a MK1a/100 octane is 315 mph+...and even higher still up to 12,000 ft!

Hell, I even found information that the 87 octane topped out at ~280mph at sea level...that's what the in-game 100 octane variants are pushing now:confused: with their airframe shaking everywhere about to fall apart!!! I AM CONFUSE!?

A simple reference to the source that you, the CloD developers, took from and modeled this information into the game would be all that is needed to assuage the raging frustration from players...or just simply state that you "have not created a flight simulation, but a representation of a world where the WWII aerial theater never happened as it did."

This is getting ridiculous.

so are the posts

I think the difficulty comes from modeling a system of factors that influence a set of values, instead of modeling the set of values directly. If we were to simply have X top speed and Y service ceiling, things would be very easy. What we have however is the set of equations that govern these values.

Incidentally, that's more or less how sims in the early 90s worked. You had only a set of values that described each aircraft and they were constant.

The upside is that it always works. The downside is in the real world things don't remain as constant as that: a lot depends on atmospheric conditions, other parameters of flight, etc.
For example, in an older sim a developer could get away with modeling all fighters at their maximum turn rate. However, we know today that turn rates are not constant, they depend on things like available thrust and airspeed at the time of turn, etc etc.

It's just a case of how much you model. The more you do, the better the representation once you get it right, but also the harder it is to get it right because things are interconnected: you make a small change here and it influences 3-4 other parameters down the road, which forces you to go back and reevaluate the model you use itself.

On the matter of tests now, they reflect top performance most of the times. Top performance is rarely continuous in the real world though. It's what we had in the previous IL2 series, where all aircraft could be pushed to the limit and stay there all day long, which was equally inaccurate.

The current system is a better reflection, because it takes more parameters into account and makes for highly situational combat (like the real thing), with features like CEM and so on. But like i said before, it's harder to get right.

When all is said and done and the sim's FMs are finalised at some point in the (hopefully, near) future, i don't really expect our aircraft to be pushing their top speed 24/7 either.

One day you'll get jumped by a 109 that's been in another engagement previously and you'll survive in your Hurricane, because your engine was cool and his was hot, allowing you to to use emergency boost for bit longer than the enemy. The next day you'll have the superior aircraft and lose because you will be the one who's coming from a previous engagement and get bounced by a 110 that has been lazily cruising along 2km above you. Which is pretty much the kind of thing we've all been reading in pilot memoirs and historical documents ;)

P.S. It's not just the RAF models. The 109s are also slower. Plus, you'd be surprised but probably the fastest thing in the sim (at least around a specific altitude band) should be the 100 octane versions of the 110 that are currently missing. It would still accelerate like a brick and bleed speed like a pig (so it's dead meat anyway if it turns with you), but it's still missing some speed and the correct cannon shells :D
By the way, i was the guy in the 110 that you chased back to France today on ATAG, after i attacked the ships ;)

Dude, wow, thank you so much. That was a perfectly well written and satisfying explanation, and it really does put it into perspective. Thank you again.

I was extremely excited to catch up to your 110 today, I was yelling over comms in excitement as it was happening...I pulled out all the stops to get to you, my crate was shaking like you wouldn't believe! ~S

I don't think that's really the situation here. It's not a matter of sometimes you get the whale and sometimes the whale gets you. The situation here is that the actual Battle of Britain is not able to be modelled here and the conflicts that are being modelled here (the air conflict) are entirely not balanced.

If we had a sim capable of delivering a Battle of Britain with many many aircraft involved, we'd be seeing entirely different attitudes on the boards I think.

But we don't. We have basically a survey dog fight simulator, and as a survey dog fight simulator the summer 1940 aircraft are not a balanced group.

It's not the fault of anyone playing the game. It's just not what we were promised in the title.

I'm seriously getting tired of it. I tried going back to ATAG for PvP action, but it's just not there for me, or maybe I just am not good enough for it. Either way, it's not much fun.

I'm taking a break from the game for a while (going away) but when I get back I'm going to probably going to get hardcore back into designing and running co-op missions like I used to in 1946.

At least until the game is capable of giving us real Battle of Britain content that gives the Hurricanes and Spitfires something useful to do before being shot down.

When not having release notes done before slapping out a beta shows they don't work in a structural approach.

Like we've seen during more than a year of patching where same bugs come and go indicates they've lost control over the code.

Will Dover get better than this?


I honestly doubt it.

Another reason maybe from Blacksix:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32943

"We can't find a free programmers with knowledge of aviation in the Russian labor market. This is a very big problem.
Also, we lost a lot of employees from the old team. "

:(

I didn't start this thread to throw flames on the "let's bash 1C" fire.

I just wanted a logical reasoning behind the dev teams actions...and one was provided. I do believe there is a lot of fine tuning involved, and maybe it's a little more complicated for 1C to deal with given the state their presumably in with pressure from the community and lack of proper staff.

That being said, this patch has taken steps in an awkward direction. If these current specs are what 1C believes to be historically accurate then this is not a sim that is going to offer an equal or fun experience for half of the players (Red side).

Speaking in hyperbole, the current state of the game is akin to an "Ants vs Humans" simulator...and the humans have a can of bug spray.

@AbortedMan: Not having a bash at 1c , sure they are doing the best with what they have, but as title of your thread suggests "Why is this game so hard to get right?". As you correctly say there is much information to be found on WII flight models, but if there is not sufficient resource to use the information then you have a simple answer, easy to read too much into things "too complex to implement" etc, but if there are not just enough folk to do it you have another reason.

Hey AM you're not mixing up IAS with TAS righht ?
If you can reach 315 mph TAS at rated alt it does'nt mean you'll reach that TAS at ground level (woud be close rom IAS then).

Either way, the climb rate vs the 109 is garbage. Whether it's accurate or not, it makes for a *horrible* gaming experience.

There are certain games where it's fun no matter what, even if there is no reward for losing, imo...for example GTA 4, crazy stuff happens and whether you die, lose the match, lose the objective, it's still fun to watch...Team Fortress 2, it's hilariously funny when you die, they make it an experience with nemesis, snapshots, funny death animations and sounds. I've grown out of these games, and yes, I'm somewhat comparing apples to oranges, but the concept of entertainment is still valid.

In CloD, when you get pilot killed from the first round out of that 109's machine gun that you just watched pull away from you, skyrocket into almost vertical climb and Immelmann back (all starting from a co-alt contact engagement) with equal energy as you...after 25 minutes of climbing to 18,000ft, flight navigation and sweeping the channel, and planning with teammates...it's not fun. Correction, it's decent fun when you do all that stuff and it happens a couple times a day, but ask any Red pilot, it happens at least 10 times a day. To everyone. Frustration takes over and it goes from "oh he got me that time" to "OK, what am I doing wrong" to "HOW IS THIS A SIMULATION PEOPLE PAID FOR?!?!" I've been a witness to this frustration first-hand and watched even the most solemn and skilled players in the last two days lose their cool.

/rant

To me this is not true.
I've flow red alot and yes 109's are faster and outclimb you, but that doesn't mean they get an automatic kill.
Just keep an eye on him, without trying to follow him up.
Stay level or in a shallow climb and wait for him to come down again, then turn into him and force him to turn or go back up.
Just keep doing this untill he loses patience and/or makes a mistake.
Often they'll even stall and spin out at the top of their hammerhead and hand you the advantage on a platter.

Without being an ace pilot (which I certainly am not!) you can even keep 2 109's occupied in this way, spiralling down while dragging them along and giving your teammates a perfect opportunity to attack em.
And yes some will decide it's not worth it when you start throwing lead their way and run off...but that's just fine.
Fly away while keeping an eye on them and look for the next, easier target.

Flying like this I always end up with a higher kills than deaths ratio.
Rarely get PK'd, except by one certain 109 pilot who hasn't been online in weeks. More often than not the plane will be falling apart while I'm still alive.
I know many red pilots complain these days, but I just can't agree with them.. especially now red got 100oct planes that are faster than before.
They seem to want the old days of total spit IIa superioirty back but that's just not going to happen, nor was it historical.

Nicely written post blackdog...I was framing the same argument myself (I do process computer simulations) but I like your way of putting it. I suspect that the way they have coded FMs makes it hard to acheive a set of historical specs even when they know what they are.

Its not an IAS/TAS issue, Spits on +12psi make around 315mph at SL according to the RAE historical record. The original CloD Spit II (which could make 320mph at SL) was about right, except the 109s were slow on the deck so it was unfair.

It is a bit discouraging that a "professional" 109 pilot is fairly unbeatable unless he chooses to make mistakes..I have have had plenty of engagements like AbortedMan, I position for bounce, 109 sees me and turns away, uses superior speed to avoid me getting into guns range, uses climb to get above, then starts the immelman cycle. I can maybe defeat many passes, but will never get a guns position. Either he will damage me, or another aircraft will join and tip the balance either way. Lucky there is always a few 109s that will lose their cool, or will not see you in time :) There is of course that special 109 pilot who has never missed me in a full deflection shot, and never failed to cripple my plane or kill me with the first shot. Fully 4-5 times more effective than any other 109 pilot I have encountered :(

I think there is sufficient wiggle room within historically known performance to make 1v1s rewarding for both. You always get a lot of people yelling once you suggest addressing game "balance" but what do you do once within historical range and you must precisely specify the performance? Throw the dice?

camber

Warhound
What you describe as the current situation doesn't sound anything like I've read in any 'historical' account of the BoB either.

In fact, if that is the current situation online then it sounds like a total travesty of reality, with people 'gaming' the game.

Fair enough if that's what floats your boat and an understandable (unavoidable even) strategy for the 'competitively minded', online player if the FMs aren't accurate enough to make more reality-based tactics worthwhile.

I suppose my perspective (on combat flight sims) has always been about being able to recreate history as truthfully and accurately as possible, so the above account of what the game is like now doesn't sit well with me. In fact what is the point of finely modelled aircraft systems and detailed cockpits if the aircraft performance is a parody of the real thing?

I know people will say that it is work in progress, and there is truth to that, but it has been WIP for a long time now and progress on this (and many other fronts) is painfully slow. I suppose I've been on the verge of just writing this whole thing off for some time now. There is a point where you need to conclude that what you had looked forward to for so long just isn't going to be realised.

You mean everyones an Ace? There not gaming the game, there flying their aircraft at what it does best. Thats what pilots are supposed to do when their not terrorfied or inexperienced. Thats one of the problems with online flying, nearly everyone is an Ace. Its the pinicle of top fighter vs top fighter.

Can you imagine if people only had 10 hours flight training like some BoB British pilots?

In regards to OP I believe this dev team simply has no passion or interest in the Battle of Britain. It shows in the amount of glaring omissions and errors that have continued since day one and continue to go uncorrected despite overwhelming evidence presented by the community. Hopefully, an East front based sequel will be different.

I kind of agree, they dont seem to have research the aircraft included to well.

*facepalm* :rolleyes:

Just unbelievable...

I don't know about the German a/c but for the British a/c they have reams of documentation supplied by a member on this board.

I think if you add Blackdog's excellent post to B6's extraordinarily honest comment:
... I think you get the answer.

I've worked modelling supersonic flow for nearly 40 years and people who can program well and understand the physics are fairly rare. Remember, Oleg's history: he came out of the military aircraft sector at the end of the Cold War and started il2 (after a porno tetris game - unless I've got that wrong).

Which, despite all our frustrations, is why the moaners will only help destroy ww2 simulation. The market is small, the skills needed are rare, in demand and fairly expensive.

I think, though, that a comment like this earlier from B6 would have earned some sympathy from many here.

56RAF_phoenix

Also remember that the atmospheric modelling in the sim is not set at "standard day" conditions which are what most published performance numbers are corrected to. That in and of itself can skew the numbers generated by all aircraft in the sim.

Also have to remember that no online engagements on ATAG are taking place at 20K ft. plus, where the Spitfire and Bf 109 are more even. Not that I'm an apologist for the Huns, or the dev team, but it is a simple fact that online everything happens well below 15K ft. At these altitudes I'd rather have a properly modeled P40, but that's another story.

Please try to understand that in the current state of affairs, there is no way to simulate anything remotely like the air combat of summer 1940. It's one of the reasons I am looking forward to the sequel, at least on the Russian Front we know that the Russian planes are inferior to the German ones, unlike the BoB, where there was relative parity between the Spit and 109.

Somebody could read almost any military history on the battle and walk away with a basic idea of how the main fighters types should behave. Even a small amount of in-house testing would produce comparative results that would make the sim instantly more enjoyable. Take 2 devs and have them dogfight a 109 vs Hurricane. When the 109 pilot is easily able to turn with the Hurricane pilot, that should be an obvious red flag that something is not right. A Hurricane should be turning circle around a 109 yet this obvious FM error continues on, patch after patch. When you get a patch, yes even a beta patch, where one of the major fighters cannot even be started on the ground, you have to wonder how much testing is being done.

I honestly don't see how we can expect them to use actual technical documents to improve the FM's when basic errors continue to persist. IMO they should take some time and look at the data for these fighter types from HSFX 6 and copy/paste if necessary.

That's not it all really, but valid point. It's a game and people know that so there's no fear factor, but by "gaming the game" I think he means stuff like taking advantage of a misrepresented FM, *vulching*, ditching your aircraft do you don't have to be troubled with flying home, and other such dubious tactics that go against the way this game was meant to be played...the taking advantage of a FM flaw being the big point here.

The only way to simulate something similar to the actual BoB would be to force the fighters on the Blue side to burn half of their fuel on boring form-up with bomber formations, and force the red side to concentrate on the bombers and stop wasting time with enemy fighters. If people don't want to fly realistic missions, you won't have realistic missions.

The Eastern front is really better suited scenario for the kind of low level fighter-on-fighter air-Quake style of fighting that dominated the servers in IL2 1946. I look forward to go tank busting in the IL2!

Yeah, that was a intense run. It's funny that no matter what happens, you can 90% of the time get 1-2 ships in each run but you'll also get a bandit on your tail on the way back.

I'm generally not good enough in proper maneuvering in dogfights so i mostly fly ground pounders (or i fly high and careful when flying fighters) and that's probably why it took a while for you to catch up. I knew that sooner or later you'd catch me, so i focused on maintaining speed and postpone maneuvering for as long as possible: the nearer i could get to the friendly coast, the higher the chances of you breaking off or us running into more blue aircraft and turning the tables.

That's one of the things i like about the extra parameters we have at our disposal with this sim. It's now possible to fly not only by your skill in combat, but also your skill in engine management or your capability to plan ahead and the outcome can be influenced by all these factors.

Again, good fight and i'll see you again, maybe on the same team too (i do fly the Blenheim quite often). Cheers ;)

What you say has also a lot to do with mission design and how we use what we're given. Missions are a time consuming thing to get right because it's the modeling complexity thing once again: we can do a lot of interesting things with scripting now, but it requires players who are familiar with some basic programming principles.

I think the best we can all do is pick a field or two we are interested in and work on that. The way i choose to see it is that if i can successfully orchestrate and execute a bomber run with inaccurate FMs and bombsights, it will be even easier for me to do so when the bugs are corrected.

Like i said above, i'm not that much of a hot shot in dogfights so i mostly fly bombers. Other players may focus on something else. Some people do skins, some people design missions, some people do scripting, etc.

For me the important thing is to just pick what i like and can be moderately good at, then work on it a bit to identify how it works. This has a double benefit, because on one hand i can identify bugs and workarounds for them, on the other hand i can help other players get up to speed much faster than they would if they had to repeat the same process on their own. I think it's safe to say that i've spend much more time testing and researching the sim, than simply flying it.

What i'm trying to say with all this is that as we are building up our collective knowledge base, we are getting closer to what you describe as a "proper" BoB environment to fly in.

To get the "real BoB", we need bombers that work, triggers for area bombing (by the way, they added those in this beta) and missions that use them by setting the appropriate objectives. Then, mission design will move to LW attacking and RAF defending, so we'll be getting more of what we read in the books and less of a furball between Calais and Dover. ;)



That is very similar to all my years of flying 190As in the previous IL2 series: go low and the Spits will get you, climb above them and the P47s/P51s will BnZ you, climb above the ponies and jugs and you don't have the performance to fly properly :-P

If you think about it, this also falls within the realm of mission objectives. The 109s can dominate because they are on a constant freijagd. They choose when and how to engage. That can't happen when you have bombers to escort.

Like i've been saying for some time, the easiest way to get accurate fighter matchups (in terms of situational conditions, not arbitrary balancing) is to ask 1c to get the bombers fixed first and make it easy for mission designers to factor them in their servers.

Of course, nobody will fly the way Goering ordered the real LW to fly and we'll see variations, but still there will be changes in how people fly. I don't expect to see 109s burning all their fuel zig-zagging above the bombers as close escorts. In fact the most possible thing is that they'll be timing their departures, taking off after the bombers, overtaking them about mid-channel and doing a forward fighter sweep to tie up the defences, cruising to target and back at their own best cruise speed.

But still, they will have an objective to perform and other players to cover, so they won't be able to just pick and choose when and what to engage. If they get tied up with a group of Hurricanes and get dragged low, then spot a group of Spits sneaking by them at higher altitude, they have no choice to duck and run because those Spits will tear through the bombers. They will have to follow and engage them, starting at a position of disadvantage.

And this is more or less how things become fun and balanced, without placing artificial constraints. We just need to have something to do as players, something that other other players will depend on to get their own mission completed ;)

In other words:

a lot depends not only on what we're given, but how we fly it.


P.S. Interesting thread and i want to thank you all for being articulate, polite and intelligent in this discussion. This thread is a perfect example of how we can disagree on things, but still get something useful and interesting out of it.

I hope we get more threads like these, because that's how ideas form that we can use to enhance our enjoyment of the sim. Carry on gentlemen ;)

Well said BD.

In retrospect, I imagine an easier fix would be to eliminate the "deathmatch" condition that is inherent on server missions, talking about ATAG here as there's is the only server I can play on.

Perhaps proper mission design that caters to proper gameplay should be the goal/request here. I'm off to seek the proper channels accordingly...

Well I'm all ears to "proper mission design" with what is currently working in this sim atm. We've spent a few 1000 hours of our own time trying to make reliable missions (reliable meaning something with objectives that is fairly stable for the masses) with "what we have to work with".

I'm sure most think that even this air quake type missions you feel is happening on our server is accomplished in a matter of minutes. I cordially invite any one of you that has a scenario in mind to, by all means, make the mission having win scenarios/objectives, test it (spawn points, AI timing, objectives, handle 50 players etc.,) then and only then might some of you guys realize just how much is screwed up in the dedi server environment.

I know some of you think that this sort of thing is easy and are probably flabbergasted as to why we don't have 100% historical BoB scenarios going. Well, quite simply, 2 reasons. 1st one, the game can't do it yet. 2nd one, we try to cater to everyone. There are some people in timezones that hardly have anyone to fly with. Regardless of what side they fly for, regardless of the amounts of players on the server, they will always have something to shoot at or bomb. We are 1st and foremost a public server that caters to everyone in any timezone.

I'm sorry that we can't please everyone. We never thought we could, but until you have a very serious understanding of the problems in the dedi server environment compared to the SP/lobby portion of this game, you might be a little more understanding of the situation.

I don't think we remain one of the most popular servers because of mission design at all. I believe it's because they work. Again, it's taken quite a bit of time to figure this out, and it takes quite a bit of time to test old things that didn't work (to see if a particular patch has fixed them) and so forth, especially without any sort of read me telling us what has been fixed.

I'm sorry we can't please everyone, but (I've said this 100 times) many of the things we do in mission design go hand in hand with what the game is capable of. I'm sure anyone can slap a mission together, but it's only when you start getting a crowd of players in do you really know the limits/problems/slideshows etc that we try to avoid entirely.

I'm aware of ATAG's efforts and accomplishments regarding mission structure and I'm extremely grateful for what has been provided. I didn't mean for my post to seem derogatory or lacking of respect.

By my post I meant I would be seeking the avenues of communication and suggestions to address glaring problems that players have taken advantage of with the current mission setup. This is not ATAG's fault. I do not participate in scripting, planning, or building missions, so I want to research what the possibilities are by communicating with the proper people.

I feel the issue with ATAG's mission isn't with always having something to do, but with not encouraging enough discipline and consequence for players to not engage in iffy tactics and strategy...or "gaming the game." The concept is simple, take focus off of finding a dot and killing it, be it taking off, landing, or completely alone and effectively useless...but the execution is obviously difficult, perhaps so difficult it's completely out of my scope of comprehension at this time.

First things that come to mind are coming under contact at casual altitudes; not giving enough motivation to climb, more emphasis on escorting or piloting bombers, effectively creating "no-fly" zones around bases as it is not realistically/historically accurate that 2 fighter aircraft would be strafing an operational/primary airbase with little to no consequence for 30 minutes, and stressing the preservation of assets such as preferred aircraft.

These are not criticisms, but ideas and suggestions of which I'm almost sure have been brought up before, but in case they haven't, there it is.

Yep, i don't think anyone here considers the ATAG guys responsible for the state of the game. It would be foolish on our part to do so. I mean, they provide a public server out of their own pocket and what they have works 99% of the time, it would be terribly ungrateful on our part if we were going "ATAG fix me some missions i like better, k thnx bye" :-P

Like Bliss says, things go hand in hand. As the game improves, the community as a whole will be able to do more. What i'm proposing is that all of us chose a field we like and stick to it, so that as time goes by we can all do the same or better in less time.

I think that we are getting a good exchange of ideas here and maybe we can gather some proposals to submit to 1c, so that they focus on them once the graphics and stability optimizations are finished and contained in an official patch.

The consensus seems to be that we need the proper "setting" first and foremost, something that will coerce players to fly the scenario and cooperate to make it happen. To do this it must be enjoyable for players and possible for mission builders to construct.

This implies having suitable mission types, which in turn implies a historically plausible relationship between the aircraft in the sim. What i mean by that is that even though it's impossible to get FMs 100% correct, as long as the relative strengths and weaknesses between individual aircraft are modeled, along with having the missions to make them useful, things will get a lot better.

Overall, from where i'm standing this means 2-3 specific things, starting from the easier fixes and moving to the more difficult ones.

1) Fix the bombers once and for all.

This makes people fly them more, which in turn gives the fighter pilots more interesting things to do, even with the current state of the dedicated server and without needing to construct new missions.

It's one thing to fly solo in an 88 and dive bomb or go skimming the tress in a 110, both against heavily protected targets in suicide runs, it's a totally different thing to have 4-5 people in bombers along with a few escorts.

The missions remain the same, but the way to accomplish the objectives becomes more realistic and more fun. Bomber pilots coordinate among themselves, the fighter pilots can join in to give an escort, the other team will try to organize a defence, etc.

So, even when flying the exact same missions under the same dedicated server code, we now have more things to do and more interesting gameplay.
This will keep us all busy until the following happen, plus it builds up a core of players that can then train more into the whole idea of making an ad-hoc sortie in a semi-realistic manner.

Even if the bomber FMs are not 100% correct yet it's ok. What we urgently need is the simple stuff: working autopilots, working bombsights and a new AI mode that simulates the bombardier talking the pilot through the bomb run (so that people can level bomb even when their bomber has no autopilot).

In other words, i don't mind for now if the service ceiling on the 88 is a bit too low or the 111 is a bit too slow, as long as they can be used to aim through the sight and drop bombs on target.

2) Debug the FMB and the methods (aka scripting commands) supplied with the interface.

If the previous is happening and they also fix the FMB and scripts, the mission designers then have an incentive to build on top of their existing missions. If it's streamlined, well documented and possible to get results, more and more people will do it. And since it's reusable pieces of code, after a while we'll be able to mix and match.

Say i'm coding a script that takes stock of fuel levels in an airbase, adding and subtracting fuel to the base fuel dump whenever aircraft spawn or land back to it. No fuel = no flying from that base. I give the code to the server admins, they test it, like it and use it, possibly even improve it and correct a couple of bugs.

Another guy comes along and wants to take this further, he gets my code and another person's code that spawns AI convoys and combines them: now, when your airbase is low on fuel an AI truck convoy will spawn to resupply the base. Suddenly, the RAF pilot has something to protect and the LW pilot something to bomb.

Yet another guy comes along and expands this whole idea. Why not do the same with the amount of aircraft and pilots (virtual lives) for each team?
And another one with an even better idea...why not expand this to make a complete supply chain?

Before you know it, we now have a chain of events upon which hinges our ability to fly our favorite aircraft from our favorite airbase. If the base is low on fuel and the convoy doesn't reach the base i can't fly, if the refinery where the convoy spawns is low as well then an AI ship convoy spawning at the edge of the map must make it to port, if the Supermarine factory is bombed my team gets -X% replenishment rate for Spitfires and the same for spare parts (damaged planes get in the "hangar" queue and return to action once repaired), similarly bombing the training airfields affects how many virtual lives your team replenished per day. And so on and so forth.

Well, if we have all this it's pretty clear we don't need specific mission objectives anymore and this will also be easier on the mission designers. What we'll have at that point is a set of starting conditions for each team and a set of victory conditions. Et voila, here's the dynamic online campaign.

But for all of this to work, we need to have the FMB and the scripting tools debugged. Otherwise, it's like Bliss says: fighting around the bugs to make the simple stuff work doesn't leave time to make more complex missions.

3) Dedicated server and netcode optimizations.

Pretty self explanatory. The previous two are a combination between 1C fixing bugs and us doing something with the tools we're given. This final one is squarely on 1C's lap to fix.

Best of all, if this course of action is pursued the offline players benefit too: corrected flyables and more people dabbling in mission design and scripting is good for both offliners and onliners.

So what do you guys think? If this sounds a good course of action to you, we can ask 1C to fix these things in the mentioned order (from easiest to hardest) once they are done with the upcoming patch.

Blackdog,

Your work in progress looks like good stuff. I am not sure about the fuel shortage model that you put forward for the RAF though, if it is for the BoB. As far as I understand, it was pilots that the RAF was short of, not fuel. I am not aware of an historical account of an airbase closing due to no fuel. The ROYAL AIR FORCE WAR MANUAL, AIR PUBLICATION 1301 for the period covers organisation and administration in part II . It covers many things, including policy to be followed for reserves of supplies (inc fuel) and ammunition. Chapter XV states:

"The main reserves of supplies and ammunition are held in depots. Owing to the bulky nature of supplies and the vulnerable nature of ammunition and fuel, only a limited amount of these commodities is held by units. A definite amount of supplies and ammunition is normally in transit between depots and units, and this may be regarded as a further reserve. In principle, in addition to the complete or partly expended day's requirements held at units, there will be two day's full supplies in transit beween the railhead and the unit. This two day's supply may in certain cercumstances be kept on wheels or may be dumped at a convenient place."

From this, it would appear that as one would expect, fuel and other supplies are constantly being delivered by trucks and tankers, not necessarily in convoy. I suspect that the location of a tanker on the road or the location of a "convenient place" will rarely be known in advance by the enemy. I believe German intelligence was very limited, or they would have known to take out all of the radar stations.

The RAF was on home ground for the BoB with a very short logistics chain. RAF expiditionary operation later in the war meant a longer logistics chain, but RAF War Manual policy still appled. The availability and re-supply of fuel (including 100 Octane) and ammo on the UK mainland was very well managed I believe. For example, Manston was under constant attack and did not close as far as I am aware. I believe sqns did become non operational for short periods due to loss of pilots though. I think it was losses of aircrew and aircraft in the air and on the ground that effected the BoB more than anything else.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Ehrm...sorry ElAurens but I think that there is not a good mindset going in to BoM, I-16 anyone?:cool:

Actually I think ATAG do a pretty good job of trying to balance realism and entertainment within the current limits of the game. After all, you don't have to fly out on the deck and engage likeminded players.

May I suggest you could threaten map closure by both sides towards the end by spawning ai bomber raids aimed at player targets, forcing each side to defend.

I'm afraid the real flaw in this game from a df server point of view is the asymmetric (but actually somewhat equal) nature of the real bob, which lends itself to campaigns rather than dfing. Mapmaking that satisfies both sides is never going to be easy, or be quite like bob.

It also cruelly exposes the British lack of close air support capability and the German concentration on it.

Incidentally, Manston was almost abandoned as a permanent base, a bit like I've abandoned Hawkinge for similar reasons, so actually ATAG has got it sort of right!

56RAF_phoenix.

Most of the conditions DO exist on ATAG..the problem lies largely with the players themselves.
Get 10 players together on the British side and deciding on what to do always ends up in one single thing... "Let's go to the 3 airbases in France and strafe em!"
Similarly if you ask on Teamspeak if anyone wants to fly bombers, you're lucky to get 1 or 2 guys who join.
And asking for escorts for those 3 bombers might get 1 fighter..who often forgets about you before even joining up ("oooh a shiny contact ,let's go investigate").

I think if people bothered to fly in more historical ways before asking others to do it we'd be a long way towards seeing more engrossing situations develop online.
Heck even the "Storm of War" campaign stuggles to find 8 guys willing to fly bombers out of 100+ signups from what I hear.
Would love it if we could get a weekly event going on ATAG where people join up with the intention to fly bombers and escorts as a team.
Right now most pilots just fly fighters, join furballs and don't see the inside of a bomber even once a week.
If we can't change this there is no way to get more truthful BOB-scenario's (except coops I guess...) and the best place as always is to start with yourself and your squaddies.

note : I'm fine with and can hugely entertain myself on ATAG as is, even if I'd love a weekly or 3x a week time where more organised flying is attempted.
There is no need to force people to fly in such and such way, limiting fighters and forcing people to fly bombers fe. will just result in an empty server.
But if nearly noone wants to fly bombers ,escorts or "real" missions I don't see the point in pointing fingers at others when they don't fly in the way you want em too.

The above post is mostly true. Sure, there are difficulties with many aspects of the sim, but even those that work don't see that much use on the grand scheme of things.

I'm not saying that we should make this a default setting. What i'm trying to propose is something that will let us fly dynamic campaigns, both offline and online. So for example, if blue team keeps successfully bombing the red team's fuel supply on a base and/or the fuel dumps around it, then the base would have to be resupplied. Same if the Blenheims start attacking bomber airfields in France, blue bomber availability would decrease. Or cratering runways would make airfields unusable for a certain amount of time, forcing players to spawn at different ones, and so on.

My aim is not to recreate a day to day recap of the battle, but let the players influence the outcome themselves by giving them a sandbox with parameters that can be tweaked. Then, it will be the server admin's job to set the starting conditions right for each team (amount of aircraft of each type, pilots, fuel, etc, along with their replenishment rates).

I'm talking about a strategic aspect, which is more or less possible with the scripts, so that we have goals to achieve even when there are no missions explicitly built for that. Essentially, this would create a 24/7 campaign with semi-realistic outcomes: if the players have the same starting and victory conditions as the LW and RAF did and they fly the same, then most probably the outcome will be the same, if the players do things differently then maybe the outcome will be influenced.

It's the essence of what the developers intended to do for multiplayer (that's why we have scripts), making it possible to join the persistence of a DF server environment with the realism of coop missions. Only this time, it will actually depend on the players to plan their own missions and fly in a way that helps their team. There will still be room for simpler fighter sweep type missions and there will be lulls in the action where players can simply roam, but essentially my thoughts are creating a sandbox environment and letting the players chose what to do with it. They can still do whatever they want, but winning such a mini-campaign or even having their favorite aircraft to fly from their favorite airbase will depend on how well they also protect their team's assets.

I am busy with various other things and can't devote the necessary time (plus it's summer), but i've had this idea for a while and i want to develop it into something that can be used at some point. Mind you, i'm not part of 1C and i don't speak in any official capacity. It's just a potential project of mine that i've had in mind for while ;)

Understand what you are saying Blackdog, but I thought that BoB airfields were well established military air bases with dispersed and protected underground storage tanks which could not be easily spotted from the air. In other words, not a neat pile of drums on the airfield for the LW to take pot shots at. I guess the underlying point I wish to make is that I would prefer to fly the BoB, as near as the sim allows, rather than a made up battle. My thinking is that battle maps focused more on the attrition rate of aircrew and aircraft could be a way to achieve that. I had hoped that the specific nature of the BoB would offer maps a little different from the same old IL2 1946 maps, especially as sequels on the Eastern front, etc, are likely to offer up more of the standard ground war support scenarios.

Just my thoughts Blackdog. I am grateful to all server hosts and map/mission makers that are trying to make sense of CloD.

Happy landings,

I can't say I'm interested in dynamic scenarios for multiplayer, especially on a public server. Those things are best served for online wars between squads in something like SOWC. A very small portion of the community reads the forums so they have no idea to use the radio menu to call for a supply convoy to restock an airfield with their desired plane. Instead the chat window begins to fill-up with "why are there no E-4's?" & "when is this mission over?".

Many people simply want some online scenarios that make some historical sense fought during normal hours of operation. For BoB that means targets like convoys, ports, radar stations, airfields, & aircraft factories with some decent sized bomber formations.

That is the point where you answer politely and help those folks out.

What is lacking in these scenarious are rewards. Ppl look for success when flying online, not for historical missions out of pure principle.

You need incentives to have people fly those missions, some kind ongoing reward system.

For example, moving frontlines, or mission rotations based on outcome. Let's say we have a Dunquirke scenario starting with some Bf109E1s and Hurricanes. Red Wins this scenario , the Dunkirque Area is held and on top of that red recieves the Rotol Hurricane.
Or the Blue side wins and gets the 110C7 or the E3, depending on what is more useful for the next mission and moves on the channel battles. Now here it depends if red is capable to recieve reinforcements via ships or blue is able to sink them fast enough. In this way you can develop quite a bit of dynmaic gameplay.

Stuff like this will even get the fighter jocks thinking in what way to deploy their fighters...or to switch to bombers so they can have more fun later on in other scenarios.

Naturally, this does not follow historical developments, but then again we are also not in a life and death struggle whose outcome will effect the fate of whole people, a rather strong incentive. If you want people to contribute in those servers in a meaningful way, simply reproductions of environments and expecting ppl to fly accordingly won't work.

I agree with Bewolf. We can't force people to fly a certain way, only provide incentives. Incentives means dynamic outcomes, which means we can have either one but not both:

1) We force people to fly a certain way and recreate the battle itself

2) We "nudge" players to fly in a realistic manner by giving them incentives, but naturally the battle will take a different course each time, according to what the players do.

From that point on, it's a choice of what the server admins want for their environments.

I agree in principle with what you say, but when practicality is concerned we the users can't achieve something like this in one go.

Theoretically speaking, even if the RAF fuel reserves are hard to get to on the base and they have the historical amount of fuel with an non-historically low amount of players (so more than enough fuel for everybody), the blue team could hit the fuel supply lines (AI ship and truck convoys) and the main storage areas (refineries, etc in industrial areas) and still strangle the red team out of the game, or vice versa. At some point the amount of fuel on any field will be low and it will need resupplying, attacking those resupply convoys will prevent topping up the tanks and effectively close down the field.
That's especially true if most of the team is busy flying furballs between Calais and Dover and the other team is bombing targets of value.

But of course opinions differ. You prefer to fly the BoB itself and there's nothing wrong with that.

I would prefer a more dynamic nature to such a campaign so that players can influence the outcome, that's why i would code it that way if i ever got to it.

Come to think of it (and thanks for the discussion, this is how ideas come along ;) ), it just dawned on me that the amount of available aircraft, supplies and pilots should also reflect the average number of players on a server, otherwise it defeats the whole purpose of such a campaign.

Even if we had a server with 100 players on every night, they are still few compared to the size of a real air force. So, having the historical number of aircraft and pilots on each side might mean that there's 150 available aircraft and 70 virtual lives available to each player. If on the other hand we adjusted the amount of available planes on the server to match that ratio with the given server population, it would be much more realistic (ie, it's a scaling issue).

Resupply would be handled automatically via scripts and triggers that spawn the AI convoys. The players would simply receive a status update via the "radio" so that they know what to protect (just like the on-screen messages on ATAG that inform us of AI bomber spawns asking for escort), while the other team would have to discover the convoys on their own. But yes, like you say, what i'm after is a sort of online war module so that each server can run a mini-campaign every second week or so if they choose to.

I must say that I like the historical context and that is why I fly this sim and mostly historical servers if possible. If I was not concerned with the historic context I would probably fly a combat sim/server that had the same aircraft on each side. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

You can't "coerce" players to do anything, they will do what they want anyway. Players play the game as a pasttime, to derive enjoyment. Which is why no kind of "coercion system" will do anything but drive players away.

Wishful thinking. Sorry to be so blunt but IMHO only 1 to 5% of the player base would be willing to fly bombers. That has to do with several aspects - limited free time (not everyone can dedicate an hour or more for a bombing sortie), lack of interest (most people are fighter-centered players), lack of "gratification" (some people need tangible rewards to motivate themselves) etc. Even with heavy AI use you will never get more than a fraction of the people into bombers - certainly not enough to actually reach the historical force ratios of bombers vs fighters.

IMHO you're aiming too low, although the number issue I desribed above makes that more plausible. IMO bombers should not appear below squadron strength, meaning 12 aircraft at least. Better (for the Luftwaffe) would be Gruppe strength (max 36 aircraft). This would depict history, this would make interception more difficult and it would allow for a much more plausible bombload per target.

Talking about 109 and 110 fighter-bombers in the BoB one should not forget that it was a single Gruppe at first which flew such sorties - a tiny minority. Only late (September and October 1940) this was enhanced to one Staffel per Gruppe of 109s operating as Jabos but given the targets they were given (London as a whole) that use doesn't make much sense to me gameplay-wise.

The abundance of fighter-bombers around is yet another sign for the fighter-centric view of most players and the utter lack of realistic force ratios and bomber target categories.

The problem of the BoB as historical background for such a "dynamic campaign" is that it was essentially an ad-hoc attempt at fighting a war of attrition, a war of economics. This can't be depicted in the game because the important industrial areas of central England and the major port cities are outside the map. That means strangling the RAF's fuel supply isn't going to be possible - the main reserves and the "source" of the fuel/oil (the ports where the tankers docked) are untouchable. The same is true for basically any war-relevant industry - aircraft, armaments, ammunition, oil refineries etc.

So what's left? Well, the airfields and the lines of supply and communication which are on the map (ports for coastal convois, London, all railway lines and stations, important roads and bridges etc). With these limited possibilities a dynamic depiction of the BoB is not possible and trying to develop an abstract version is IMO a waste of time and effort since it will always leave a sour taste behind.
All that could be done with this set of variables is a much more limited "campaign", perhaps one in which the Luftwaffe has to force the RAF to give up operating from forward airfields such as Manston or Hawkinge and damaging at least one or two Sector airfields (i.e. Biggin Hill or Kenley) to such a degree, that they cannot fulfill their role (in aircraft maintenance, as fighter controller etc) anymore. But for this to happen the airfields themselves would have to have pretty intricate damage states - a downed hangar lowers the maintenance capacity of the airfield, a damaged runway will be unusable until the craters are being filled up, a blown up ammo dump lowers the amount of ammunition available (same for fuel if that's realistic), ... All that is difficult to do right.

It's true that a tactical war such as on the Eastern Front is easier since it provides a much more flexible environment with a load of tactical targets the BoB doesn't provide. Just saying ...

Well said. You can't even get players to follow way points in IL2 co-op missions.

I flew a campaign where my squad was always tasked with capping a certain airfield. 2 hours of endlessly circling while the action took place way on the other side of the map. After two weekends of that we were done. Was our job important and historically accurate? Yes. Was it fun and worth the two hours spent out of our weekend? NO.

Anyone who thinks they can re-create WW2 in total historic fidelity is kidding themselves. If I've learned anything in my 10+ years of playing this sim, it's that.

The problem for me, is not the game itself, is how the Russians do the things. Look the "IronFront 44" for ARMA2, he was released the game without a demo and full of bugs. I don´t know how manage the projects in Russia, but apparently they do so in a quite different way from our "western minds".

Holy WTFs Batman....

Quite honestly it's the other way around. The only sims worth the title that have come out in the past decade were mostly done by teams originated in Russia. Western publishers have mostly dropped out of that market or have butchered promising concepts in favor of a quick buck. If anything has happenend then it's that western ideas about management have contamined the previously productive environment of software development in Russia. Or, even shorter, western greed (aka total capitalism) has come and it's showing its ugly face.

Ups!! Guys, sorry if you misunderstand my comment, i didn´t mean it as "bad critic" ... i said it because the title of the thread ... sometimes we (or at least in my case) can´t understand how the devs manage the things. I think this is because a different idiosincracy between the west and the russian ideas.

+1
true words.

Question..why is is so hard to get particle effects right...EVEN on those with very high end machines?

What do you think,they can't even patch the damn sim,they simply lack the knowlidge!

Now to put these sort of posts hopefully to an end, here is the flight model and engine model from an aircraft in IL-2 1946:
And yet Oleg himself stated that the models in CoD are calculated at many many more points, and these calculations are also more complicated...

And then we can take a look in the java files, and we have a plethora of calculations that all work together, this one being a rather simple example for engine inertia:

So take all of that, complicate a few times and this is what the devs are dealing with, the 3d model has no effect on the flight dynamics. So I am sure you can imagine just what they are working with here. ;)

Not hard to understand when, quite often, you'll see some idiot fan pipe up and say; "I'll gladly pay $500 for a > insert no particular plane name< xyz variant" or model, or "I'll quite happily pay for this or pay for that"