|
|
#21
07-01-2012, 02:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
 Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov 
|
|
#22
07-01-2012, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#23
07-01-2012, 07:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#24
07-01-2012, 07:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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!
|
|
#25
07-01-2012, 08:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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  Quote:
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. Quote:
 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: Quote:
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
|
|
#26
07-01-2012, 08:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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...
|
|
#27
07-01-2012, 09:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#28
07-01-2012, 09:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#29
07-01-2012, 11:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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"
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.
|
|
#30
07-03-2012, 03:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
|
 |
|
|
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 
Linear Mode
