Friday 2011-02-04 Dev. update and Discussion

[imaca]

Originally Posted by luthier

It depends on AI skill level. AI at any level checks the sky in segments, i.e scans the airspace. They also always take clouds and sun into the account.
Lower-level AI pilots have some periods when they don't scan at all. They scan a smaller overall area of the airspace. They focus on each segment longer - i.e. if he looks at his 8 o'clock you can attack him head-on and he won't spot you. Sun blots out a larger portion of the sky for them.
However the sun is not a 100% blind zone and there is a chance even the dumbest idiot will see you coming out of the sun, chances increasing the closer you are to his 12 o'clock high.

In the end, since you're rarely aware of your opponent's skill level, this results in a very realistic picture. You're never sure whether he breaks and turns into you from 3 miles away, or if you can keep sneaking up on him for a no-deflection shot at 50 yards. Very frustrating when you end up holding your fire just a second too long, and he spots you and breaks away after sitting dead square in your sights.

Best update info ever, the AI sounds like it's going to be a huge improvement over anything existing.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

Yes thanks for that, but can you not see where your answer is fundamentally flawed, in that we dont know how it runs on a high end system, we keep begging Luthier and Oleg to show us some video on a real high end PC, we want to wave the Cliffs Of Dover flag and say jeez look how good this game runs if you've got the the right kit, hundreds of people are waiting to buy or build new systems and spend thousands just to play this game, but for some reason the devs are holding back on showing us this game run on a top end gaming rig.

Actually, we are not all begging for this. Some are and others aren't.

From where i'm standing it looks good enough at its current state to the point that, especially after Luthier's explanations, i'm starting to think that any more graphical excellence would start detracting from the really important stuff. You know, things like AI or the new complex engine and systems management that Oleg Maddox told us tracks as much as 500 parameters for a single airframe, things that have an impact mostly on the actual gameplay.

Tastes can vary and it's all well and good and a difference of opinion should be acceptable by all of us. It's just that the requests for graphics features being the loudest or most common doesn't mean they are shared by the majority of mostly silent posters on this board or the people who prefer discussing issues that pertain to actually flying the simulated aircraft more than they discuss how these aircraft look. They are just being a bit quiet, but there's many of them too

It's not that i consider graphics unimportant, they are important. It's just that i agree with this poster.

Originally Posted by kestrel79

My brother brought up a pretty good point as well. We were talking about probably having to run the sim on lower settings on our computers...and he's like "even on the lowest settings I'm sure CoD will look just as good as IL2 currently does on our systems (unmodded)." And I was like yeah, that's a great point. CoD can't look any worse than IL2 right? That's positive right there as I still think IL2 looks great.

People who are wanting specs and videos of high end pcs, maxed graphics and whatnot just chilll out. Wait a few more weeks, get the sim yourself and fire it up on your super computer and test til your hearts content. I'm sure it will be FINE.

Is it looking better than IL2? Yes it is, in fact is seems like CoD at medium is better than IL2 at high settings. Let's chalk one up for improvement over the previous version in the graphics department and move to something else. Frankly, at this point i would be more interested in seeing some of Luthier's design documents with his ideas for the dynamic campaign, a tutorial on engine management and systems operation (in a somewhat complex aircraft like a twin engined bomber) that's representative of what the release build will look like, or some in-game sounds, because we already know the visuals are up to the job and we know what it takes to run them. There's so much substance under the hood in a flight sim, so let's see some of that for a change.


Finally,

Originally Posted by luthier

If I had a high-end PC, the recommended specs we've released a while ago would have been the minimum specs.

I'm using a mid-range PC for a very specific reason.

You have to understand that my job is to make a good game. It is NOT to market and advertise it. We're a tiny developer working on a shoestring budget. If I have to stop working for a day each week to make videos, we will end up with a kick-ass marketing campaign for a crappy game. I'd rather have it the other way around.

...this a thousand times over, because it's good old fashioned common sense. Also, thank you for the rest of your points and posts (very informative stuff the lot of it) your patience and most of all honesty.

It's not often you see a lead developer come forward and calmly say "we have a good game on the whole, but i also want to improve this and that because it's not on par with the rest of it" like discussing it over a drink in the local bar, most of them will just say "we have an awesome game".

I too would like a dynamic campaign and i'm a bit underwhelmed to hear it's pushed so far back, but seeing how much you want to do with it i'm having high hopes for the final result. As far as i'm concerned, i don't mind waiting if it's half as good as the ideas we all provided in that 40-page thread.


Edit:
It seems it's my lucky day

Originally Posted by luthier

It depends on AI skill level. AI at any level checks the sky in segments, i.e scans the airspace. They also always take clouds and sun into the account.
Lower-level AI pilots have some periods when they don't scan at all. They scan a smaller overall area of the airspace. They focus on each segment longer - i.e. if he looks at his 8 o'clock you can attack him head-on and he won't spot you. Sun blots out a larger portion of the sky for them.
However the sun is not a 100% blind zone and there is a chance even the dumbest idiot will see you coming out of the sun, chances increasing the closer you are to his 12 o'clock high.

In the end, since you're rarely aware of your opponent's skill level, this results in a very realistic picture. You're never sure whether he breaks and turns into you from 3 miles away, or if you can keep sneaking up on him for a no-deflection shot at 50 yards. Very frustrating when you end up holding your fire just a second too long, and he spots you and breaks away after sitting dead square in your sights.

No, it's much more advanced. We have different customization options for different axes. For example you can not only adjust the curves but also set your idle, 100% and WEP positions for the throttle axis. I'm pretty sure this could be seen in some Igromir videos.

and there's more

Originally Posted by luthier

Yes. Moreover, it reacts to damage and especially losses to other planes, and may decide to run for home even if his plane is intact. Whole formations of newbies may scatter and run if you shoot down their leader etc.

Not staying to fight till death was one of the most important requirements for me for the AI. They do use real-world tactics more than in Il-2. You'll see them working in group a lot more for instance.

AI engine model is greatly simplified compared to that of the player plane, but we do try to make sure it doesn't give them an advantage.
You can study this in detail when flying the real sim. Autopilot is very verbose, you can see exactly what levers they move etc.

Well they try to extend away and take it from there, but generally even most humans would be doomed if caught in a situation like that.

We did a huge technical interview for a print magazine, where our FM programmer wrote like two pages of stuff on it. I'll see if we can publish it here, because that would be a much, much better answer than anything I can type up.

Our engine model is insanely compelx. I dare say it's the most complex engine model in any game of any genre by far. There's multiple points of interest for every piston, every cylinder, every hose, every exhaust, etc. The guy who wrote it can build an internal combustion engine from scratch in his garage. Working on engines is a huge hobby of his.
So rest assured that cooling, overheating, combat damage, or normal operation of our engines is as precise and as detailed as you'll ever see in any game in the next several years.

Originally Posted by luthier

The systems we do model are crucial however. Watching the gauges and controlling mixture, prop pitch and radiator is essential. Our office is obviously filled with Il-2 online veterans, and for a while we could only play online with Complex Engine Management disabled completely. We could barely fly the Spitfire, and the 109 not at all. We fly with CEM on now, but we still to this day fly with Overheating disabled because damn it is hard!

That's just awesome features right there, now that's what i'm talking about!
I can't wait to see all this in action, it will force us all to fly and fight in a much more similar way to how it really happened. (Plus, we 190 drivers will have a better chance at high altitude fights in future add-ons...we'll have our kommandogerat and the radiator while they'll have 4-6 different engine controls )

Sure, i like looking at all the pretty airplanes but most of all i'm interested in actually flying them and this avalanche of information answers most of my questions about it that i've had all these years.

[NSU]

hello luthier
you say it does not give dynamic weather in the release version
you make 1/12 to 12/12 clouds like in IL2 Sturmovik 1946 as Placeholder?

[luthier]

Originally Posted by HFC_Dolphin

I once kindly asked Oleg to have a view of the airport and our plane's position when we get into the mission. Something like a fly-by/helicopter view, where we see where we are and where should we go to get into take off position.

That's actually a cool idea, but we probably can't do it at this point. We do plan to expand the pre-flight experience a lot either in day-1 or the first immediate patch. We'll keep it in mind.

Originally Posted by klem

By the way the A2A actually models engine wear against the use and abuse it gets (and gear etc) and it is carried over to the next flight unless you repair it. I can imagine it would add a big new dimension to fighting in the aircraft.

This was all planned as part of our dynamic campaign - mechanics, repairs, etc. Most of the components needed for it are there, it's just there's no top-level repair functionality or wear carry-over.

Originally Posted by Heliocon

As for the smoke vortexes, isnt it a similar mechanic to water physics/movement which is in alot of games, direct compute could hack it (it was made for that type of simulation).

Well that would require a completely different visual technology for smoke and clouds. Clouds obviously get the same exact wake vortex as a smoke column.

Right now our clouds and smoke are just big puffs, either 2D circles, or 3D spheres. They're pretty large. You can only turn a puff into a smoke vortex if the plane flies directly through a predetermined point at its center or at its edge, only if it flies wings level, and only if only one plane flies through that puff at one time. That, of course, is never going to happen.

To allow for dynamic vortexes anywhere the plane flies, and that interact with each other if more than one plane flies there, would require us to break the puffs into tiny parts hundreds of times smaller than our current puffs. That means that each smoke column and the edge of each cloud would be a thousand times more resource-intensive, i.e. it just can't be done. Or at the very least we can't think of a way to get it done.

Originally Posted by Chivas

I wonder if the LOD of objects (buildings) will be about the same as IL-2? The pop up buildings are an immersion killer, but I understand that its sometimes necessary for fps issues. Will there be a user option to increase the LOD distance. In IL-2 right now a high end system can get many hundreds of frames per second, so it would be a nice option to have, when the new IL-2 series goes forward and people have strong enough systems.

It's hard to imagine a system in which we can have unlimited building visibility coming in the next 3 to 5 years. You'd need to constantly resort the relative positions of millions of objects.

Originally Posted by Zorin

1. Regarding the Bf-108. As you concieved it as a AI only plane so far, is its internal model inferior to a flyable plane?

All external models are built to the same standard. All are potentially flyable with no changes to the outside model.

Originally Posted by Zorin

2. If that should not be the case and I would pay someone to build the cockpit to your standards, how long would it take you guys to get it implemented? I believe that is a crucial questions for all third party developers who want to have their work approved and implemented by you.

The plan is to allow 3rd party developers to approve, implement and release their own work once we release the SDK. We do not plan to implement anyone's work before or after the SDK is released.

Originally Posted by Zorin

3. Can you estimate the number of planes that will be missing from CoD when it reaches IL-2s current stage? Are we realisitically looking at 1/3 of the number of flyables or even less?

What do you mean by IL-2's current stage? 10 years after release? Hopefully with the 3rd party SDK it will be much bigger than Il-2.

Originally Posted by Zorin

4. On the Bf109 screens you posted, the markings are not part of the weathering process. Is that about to change in the future?

Maybe.

Originally Posted by Zorin

5. Oleg mentioned some time ago that the organisation of ground units, vehicles columns etc, is entirely up to the mission designer. For example, being able to recreate a typical "leichte Panzerkompanie c" and saving it as a preset for future missions. Is this still the case for CoD on release?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Chivas

Will we be able to map Zoom View to a Rotary. I find the Wide, Normal, and Gunsight view less than ideal.

We have smooth POV zoom, but right now you can only adjust it to a button. We'll see if we can make it an axis as well.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by luthier

...The plan is to allow 3rd party developers to approve, implement and release their own work once we release the SDK. We do not plan to implement anyone's work before or after the SDK is released.

Thanks for all your answers.

Yet this one raises another two questions.

1. How will 3rd party developers know if the plane they want to bring to the game is already worked on either by 1C or another 3rd party developer?
2. You have said before that the 3rd party tools for the implementation of planes will be limited and simplified so will that always result in 3rd party developed planes that are less complex than the official 1C developed ones?

[JVM]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Thanks for all your answers.

Yet this one raises another two questions.

1. How will 3rd party developers know if the plane they want to bring to the game is already worked on either by 1C or another 3rd party developer?
2. You have said before that the 3rd party tools for the implementation of planes will be limited and simplified so will that always result in 3rd party developed planes that are less complex than the official 1C developed ones?

I would like to know more on these subjects myself as this position is somewhat contradictory with what I hd understood (from OM inputs) so far:

- OM would like to create a business around COD similar to what exists around FSx...
This means that the SDK and FM tools would need to be complete, otherwise what's the point?

- To be allowed online (that I translate by integrated in the official game/patch whatever) any third party work (at least the A/C) would need to be vetted by OM's team.
This would probably mean only this, vetting, no completion/modification error correction: I understand OM's team will not reproduce the Il2 problems there...

In any case this a policy matter, and some time (an the SDK) will probably pass before some final decisions are made in this domain, and this can always change later on...I would stay optimistic!

JV

PS Zorin you never told me if you were interested by the (french) magazine dedicated to the Nord Pacific?

[Jaws2002]

Originally Posted by Zorin

....About the Bf-108

About the BF-108.
Maybe we can somehow convince Mathias from Classic Hangar to make an addon to turn the 108 into a flyable plane.
He's working on it for FSX right now:

http://www.classics-hangar.de/phpBB3...&sd=a&start=40

And it looks bloody gorgeous.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

About the BF-108.
Maybe we can somehow convince Mathias from Classic Hangar to make an addon to turn the 108 into a flyable plane.
He's working on it for FSX right now:

http://www.classics-hangar.de/phpBB3...&sd=a&start=40

And it looks bloody gorgeous.

That looks really nice!

[CharveL]

Looks good until he has to make a damage model for it too.

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

About the BF-108.
Maybe we can somehow convince Mathias from Classic Hangar to make an addon to turn the 108 into a flyable plane.
He's working on it for FSX right now:

http://www.classics-hangar.de/phpBB3...&sd=a&start=40

And it looks bloody gorgeous.

Yeah...It does..But this image looks way better than the in-game one !



Salute !