Fresh stuff from sukhoi.ru (Discussion)

[David198502]

yes but all the campaigns made by the communtiy are only semi-dynamic.
i would like to have the real thing like in 1946, with moving frontlines,...destryed buildings and targets stay destroyed on the map,your success influences the outcome,the possibility of getting medals and new ranks.

i agree that this could be done by the community, and i think that this would be even better for both, the devs and the customers.the community could possibly create dynamic campaigns in less time, while the devs can focuse on other things.but we would need the tools for it.
to my knowledge its not possible yet.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by David198502

yes but all the campaigns made by the communtiy are only semi-dynamic.
i would like to have the real thing like in 1946, with moving frontlines,...destryed buildings and targets stay destroyed on the map,your success influences the outcome,the possibility of getting medals and new ranks.

i agree that this could be done by the community, and i think that this would be even better for both, the devs and the customers.the community could possibly create dynamic campaigns in less time, while the devs can focuse on other things.but we would need the tools for it.
to my knowledge its not possible yet.

I can assure you that the tools are there and it is already possible to create a fully dynamic campaign with all the features you have listed and that is even way ahead of what was possible in Il-2: 1946. It simply takes time to implement it.

The missing bridges and roads through cities are the biggest problem right know for a dynamic campaign because the ground units can't reach certain areas of a map.

[David198502]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

I can assure you that the tools are there and it is already possible to create a fully dynamic campaign with all the features you have listed and that is even way ahead of what was possible in Il-2: 1946. It simply takes time to implement it.

The missing bridges and roads through cities are the biggest problem right know for a dynamic campaign because the ground units can't reach certain areas of a map.

ok...i was only assuming, cause there isnt one dynamic campaign available yet.
are you sure that its possible?...i hope so.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by David198502

ok...i was only assuming, cause there isnt one dynamic campaign available yet.
are you sure that its possible?...i hope so.

Yes absolutly sure. The current source (not compiled release version) of IL2DCE has moving ground war where tanks capture enemy front markers to move the front line. Tanks that are destroyed (by air or ground) remain destroyed or respawn at a "factory" building (if available) somewhere else on the map.

The ground units use roads and find their way to the next front marker on their own, no need to provide a road network for each map (like in Il-2: 1946).
I can store the current position of each ground unit when the mission is closed so the next mission they will be at this position. This is not implemented yet but it's really a piece of cake and could be added to the current source with 10 lines of code (just hat more important stuff to do so far).

It simply takes time to implement all this (in ones free time) ...

For some more advanced features I'm sure there might be missing some functions (e.g. recording destruction of "static" objects and "buildings").

[Sokol1]

I'd also like to ask about navigational lights please on planes, - these would add a lot to the sim.

In the end navegational lighs only remit to problems of 1946:
Users using online as "Morse code"... some flying with landing light on like UFO... servers proibing use of then...
IA that dont turn lighs of in the night over combat zone...

Sokol1

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

The missing bridges and roads through cities are the biggest problem right know for a dynamic campaign because the ground units can't reach certain areas of a map.

I witnessed this issue in naryv's examples and hc-wolf's missions when run on Repka servers and I think the best solution is to respawn the groundgroup 500 m. further on the way to their next waypoint if it is stuck for 3-5 minutes and not in combat. Just an idea.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by Ataros

I witnessed this issue in naryv's examples and hc-wolf's missions when run on Repka servers and I think the best solution is to respawn the groundgroup 500 m. further on the way to their next waypoint if it is stuck for 3-5 minutes and not in combat. Just an idea.

Has anyone gotten spline roads to load in the -server environment yet? I think the disappearance of some of the ground objects/bridges/land marks between SP/FMB and the dedicated server exist because of the spline road problem we have in the dedicated world.

@BlackSix,

Thanks for taking the time to answer many people's questions here. It is much appreciated!

I have several suggestions, but I'll leave the more complex out for now. My suggestion is to have a server sided option that makes players not able to leave their aircraft unless landed/crashed/died/bailed out. (Similar to what we had in the old IL2, via the "refly" button). Currently an online player can hit escape and simply spawn into a new plane any time he/she wishes, even in the middle of combat. This is annoying to say the least.

Thanks!

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Ataros

I witnessed this issue in naryv's examples and hc-wolf's missions when run on Repka servers and I think the best solution is to respawn the groundgroup 500 m. further on the way to their next waypoint if it is stuck for 3-5 minutes and not in combat. Just an idea.

Yes this is possible and will solve the problem. An additional check against the ground type could prevent spawning within an ocean.

[jimbop]

Originally Posted by Peril

Without depressing you, I spent 6 years doing nothing but FMs, they are never 'fixed' in one patch hehehe.

But they do change for the better over time as more data presents itself and the game engine evolves.

-------------------------------------------

Thanks BlackSix, the offer is no guarantee I can help, but I will search what I have if asked.

I mustn't understand this properly... surely there were hundreds of pages of debate and records dredged up etc during late IL-2 development - is there still not broad consensus of what the model windows should be? If not I doubt there ever will be.

[Peril]

Originally Posted by jimbop

I mustn't understand this properly... surely there were hundreds of pages of debate and records dredged up etc during late IL-2 development - is there still not broad consensus of what the model windows should be? If not I doubt there ever will be.

Jimbop, I can say 100% from experience that not everyone will agree on an end result from a FM build. Your last comment is correct, there will 'never' be a 100% agreement on which data to use. If I dig up data for an A6M that has it at 358mph @ 15000ft, and also data that shows a test of the same plane as 325mph on the day of testing, which is correct?

Just one example of the quandary.

Of course if you aim to only use calculated data, it's equally a problem. You can't win the data source argument, only do your best to ensure it's 'consistent' criteria data, and that all aircraft are treated equally and with parity. The coffee table books most often used as a source of data by newer sim users looking to help, are a constant source of aggravation for those who have studded the topic for many years and invested lots of money buying original source material. There will always be arguments over this plane verses that based on stories, books, and even opinions.

My only advise, and the way I tackle it, is to gather as much original data, then use this as your basis for determining performance. It should be original source data but more so you need to understand aerodynamics, research any differences in the data, to understand why any variations exist so you are better armed to make a judgement call of which data is more likely accurate. Yes, unfortunately it required lots of study and experience to be able to do a good job in building FMs, and many 'sim builders' don't have the background or the spare time to do justice to this area.

I remain hopeful that some of the hard core FM guys that stalk these places can offer their help and vast collections of data and experience to what is most often (understandably) an under financed (in time and money) aspect of any commercial simulation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If they ever release the core engine for us to build a game around, I'm first on board to build a Pacific Simulation. I have a few mates that may also be interested in working for nothing just to battle over the pacific.

IL2-BOP (Battle Over the Pacific)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hang in there BlackSix, you're doing a great job, I know how hard it is to manage a community of passionate people