Oleg and Team.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

2. We're not talking about new sounds being added to the game. The so-called soundmod includes modifications to the FM, cockpits, effects, physics, view-system, etc.

I'm going to have to correct you on this. Your research is not very thorough. The sound mod changes only sounds, adds cockpits to a few AI planes to make them flyable, and that is ALL. No FM's are touched in sound mod, no physics, no effects, no view system, just what I listed. There are many mods, most are confused and think the sound mod does all but it doesn't. There are mods for visual effects, some for maps, some cockpit retexturing (these are amazing), some view mods (6dof), but there are NO FM MODS and no physics mods. There are some new AC with new FM but these are tottally new aircraft that have thier own slot therefore cannot be used online unless the host specifically add them to the missions so in this case new FM is not cheating. Those in charge at AAA have been very careful to avoid afecting online play and have walked a very fine and difficult line to do so. This is why it is upsetting when folks get thier facts wrong because all the effort to do this right goes down the drain when people who don't look for themselves hear these things and assume we are cheating by default of using the soundmod.

[tater]

One, I think that the notion that cheating is new is... naive.

Two, as to csThor's post (no mention of my reply before regarding maps? ), there is a place for mods in the online world in the aspect of reality that you allude to.

One problem we see is that planes have a wide array of loads available, and the servers really don;t have a good way of controlling player load CHOICE.

So we have Zeros with 250kg bombs, even though that load was simply not used except for suicide planes. As a result, online (DF) you see bombed up Zeros all the time at the expense of Vals. The US planes are worse since they all had HUGE (by japanese standards) bomb loads. Why take a bomber when you can take more bombs (and rockets) in a fighter bomber?

Heavies? Not even possible without having cockpits off, which is far worse "cheating" than the theoretical plane with the HP increased a few % for an "edge" that is talked about (but unavailable as a mod).

Mods could add variant planes that are unchanged except deleted loads. Pure fighter US planes, for example, naught but their guns and drop tanks. Ditto japanese planes (or whatever side). Sticking a b-25 cockpit in a B-17 allows cockpits-on servers to have heavies. Given good mission design, targets can be set up for a sort of area bombing that requires loads of bombers (ZvW has messed with this, and you see bettys used).

There is certainly room for online improvement with careful additions, IMO.

The trust factor is still there, use honorable squads as a baseline, and play with them.

<EDIT> well said (and entirely true), Urufu!

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by Urufu_Shinjiro

I'm going to have to correct you on this. Your research is not very thorough. The sound mod changes only sounds, adds cockpits to a few AI planes to make them flyable, and that is ALL. No FM's are touched in sound mod, no physics, no effects, no view system, just what I listed. There are many mods, most are confused and think the sound mod does all but it doesn't. There are mods for visual effects, some for maps, some cockpit retexturing (these are amazing), some view mods (6dof), but there are NO FM MODS and no physics mods. There are some new AC with new FM but these are tottally new aircraft that have thier own slot therefore cannot be used online unless the host specifically add them to the missions so in this case new FM is not cheating. Those in charge at AAA have been very careful to avoid afecting online play and have walked a very fine and difficult line to do so. This is why it is upsetting when folks get thier facts wrong because all the effort to do this right goes down the drain when people who don't look for themselves hear these things and assume we are cheating by default of using the soundmod.

The crack was made public as "soundmod" and it replaced the original sound mostly by sounds taken from CFS (and EAW IIRC). Considering the latest Engl. Soundmod (v.093) includes 14 flyable AI-planes with modified FMs (copied from the flyable counterparts), I just wanted to point out, that it is no longer just a replacement of ingame-soundfiles, but a key to the programming-structure itself. I didn't mean to advertise all components you can install additionally.
It's true, that over at AAA people are VERY carefully what mods they support and which they ban or delete. However, in the beta-section are a couple of new posts now and then, that have a direct effect on FM, munitions-loadout, etc. Increasing dot-range and Icon-Range is also freely available.

What the modders don't want so see or simply ignore is the fact, though, that there are other websites, squadrons and groups offering a whole lot of very much different modifications, that go far beyond that.

As I posted before: I don't think the modders at AAA are cheating or intending to lead other to that aspect of online-gaming, but they opened the Pandorras Box and the more popular the modifications on AAA get, the more people get attention to the ability to change the code and will use that for their own purpose.

[tater]

The FMs are copied from the NON-flyable planes that had the cockpits added. The FMs are not changed at all. Ie, add a flyable B-17 by sticking a cockpit in it. FM remains the same as AI B-17.

[csThor]

tater - I did not respond to it as I am not "in the know" about the mapping tool (= I never saw it) nor do I know (and care) about the way "your" maps are being made. I know part of the legit process and so I said how things look from my perspective.

Regarding the rest of your post: I do not care for the operations of the "heavies" as my prime area of interest is the eastern front (so I see no need for additional planes). Basically what the Il-2 engine does best (tactical operations in a limited area). It's certainly true that there are no elegant ways of limiting user loadouts - the way SC and FBD do it is rather clumsy IMO but at least they offer the chance. IMO a player has to update himself/herself on the latest "rules and regulations" regarding the maps played on the server. Those who ignore the briefing and complain about kicks because of wrong loadouts or planes do not deserve any sympathy. I'm certainly not in favor of catering to the "most brain-dead users". You want to play? Then RTFM!

[tater]

To me, and I'm strictly talking online for the moment, it requires a cost/benefit analysis. What is the actual incidence of cheating compared to the benefits?

Try as they might, DF maps (even on good servers) are simply not terribly historical. The spawn at will paradigm is inconsistent with realistic play, as is the lack of many types of planes required for context that we can only see in coops.

tater

[LEXX]

Falke, perhaps tater says it better than I...

tater::

The trust factor is still there, use honorable squads as a baseline, and play with them.

Granted, there is something to be said for wide open anonymous Online gaming without a fear of cheating; for one thing that's where I'd guess Newbies would go first before they find friends in the private squads. One of the problems with private servers with trusted people using mods nor not is schedule timing among the people -- but that leads us back to the best things in life take time and effort. However, so far Oleg has not been able to allow, as tater says, the best of both worlds.

Thanks Thor. The whole kill score system seems to encourage fighter vs fighter Dogfight. Oleg has always favoured Online Dogfight, at least until recently as far as I know. I think a good Online War, or Lowengrin's Offline dynamic campaigns, give primary importance to destroying opposing forces or supplies on the ground, of which fighters are useful in either enabling or preventing these ground attacks. The whole issue is confused in the community by Oleg's personal favoritism toward simple Online Dogfight shooter gaming. About 2 years ago, Oleg poasted at ubi that "dynamic campaigns are arcade" but I hope he is learning new things for his new sim. Simulating air warfare through a dynamic campaign depends on success or failure of ground attack or heavy strategic strike aircraft. It seems to me that a static campaign, either Online or Offline, does not require bombers to succeed or fail in their missions.

Oleg or 1C could pay me a Monthly Fee and I still would not join a static Online War with a fixed outcome.

[csThor]

My opposition is not about the cheat-discussion but because of personal experiences and a somewhat "sarcastic" outlook on people in general. Meaning I do not trust "the people" not to mess up everything in the worst possible way. I like centralization and combined efforts under a sensible and responsible management and do not like the "watering can" of "everything goes". Having said that I think the cheater issue is less about cheating itself but about the impression of someone cheating, the suspicions and the resulting bad blood. That could (and will) crack "the community".

Since Lexx posted while I was typing:

Actually I have some serious issues with the way DCG portrays a "dynamic campaign". Namely the influence players have on the frontline. I find that part way overdone, a simplification of factors which are outside the scope of a simple flight simulation. Most of these have to do with strategical decisions of a high command, of wartime economics and supply on a much broader scale.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by tater

Bearcat, I mean maps that started from NOTHING, not retextures of existing maps.
Some of the maps alluded to are not based AT ALL on any stock maps. They were created from whole cloth (and space shuttle radar topography mission data).
they are not stretching existing maps, they are not redecorating existing maps, they are... NEW MAPS.
The only stuff reused are textures/objects since there is already a substantial library of decent textures and objects. Reusing stock textures (most all the stock maps, do, too) is desirable since it increases compatibility for anyone who wishes minimal changes. You can absolutely ONLY load new maps as mods, for example.

Thanks for the 411 Tater.. I did not know that. That sounds interesting and IMO opens up even more reasons for some kind of resolution oriented discussion.

As for the whole offline v s online , cheating or not BS.. well I think we all have heard enough of that cr@p over the past few months to last me a while and frankly I don't think that nonsense even belongs in any discussion of the subject, particularly with the hindsight of the past few months. The online world has not collapsed upon itself into a frenzy of UFOs and the online community has not abandoned the sim due to it's "ruin" by being hacked.

[tater]

True, csThor, but then again, the people willing to RTFM and actually try to play in a historical way (waiting to fly in a group, etc) are also unlikely to cheat. It's not about the winning, it's about the simulation/immersion.

My very favorite missions (online or off) are those where I have to nurse my plane back with some damage. I'd rather be killed in a realistic mission than live with a bunch of pelts in an unrealistic one.

tater