Developer Diary, Part 40

[SYN_Haashashin]

Closed for holidays untill futher notice.

[Cybermat47]

The 180 degrees automatic turn is retarded.

Please don't use terms like that. I know several people who would've been classified as that in a less politically correct time.

[Bearcat]

If there could be some sort of land formations past the edge. I could see it being left in. But if its an engine limitation. Or even a design decision. But they are giving you a map that you come damn near to running out of gas traversing why is it such a big deal?

 

Then of course it is what it is...

 

Flying off the map is basically cheating. It takes the player away from the common flight routes, and out of range of AA, essentially giving them a free pass to and from target.

 

So if the 180 turn around is disliked, what alternatives would be proposed to prevent this cheat from being utliized? Engine failure? Pilot bails out after x minutes? All guns jam?

 

It's not akin to flying into "new world" territory, it's more like flying in the sea or managing to fly in space - it's an area that shouldn't be flyable in but has to be present due to PC limitations.

 

Nonsense... in no way is it cheating and as for alternatives.. well I mentioned quite a few for those who are so paranoid about cheats ....

1-Mission designers could add additional flak batteries on the back side. If nothing else they would function as the canary in the mine.... Flaks going off!! We must have guests at the back door. LET'S GO GREET THEM.

2-Mission designers could design missions closer to the center...

3-Mission designers could set fuel limits or time limits for mission completion.

 

It kills me how so many people see cheats everywhere.. NEWSFLASH ..... It's only a cheat if you are the only one who can do it and no one else knows about it.

 

I'm torn on this one.

I would rather than make an automatic turn around they should do what Battlefield 3 does. Give a set time limit one can fly off map and then boom, you die or your mission ends right there.

This is a tough problem and we will just have to wait and see.

 

You sir are most certainly entitled to that idea.. but it is still arcadey. Regardless to how big the map is.

 

How is it cheating? if you fly away from the combat area then you have no advantage, if you want to be in the action then you have to be in the combat area, if you want to stop people flying around the edge of the map then put a time limit on how long can be spent outside of the map before a respawn.

 

Well there ya go...

 

It's not a rendered area, it's not a non-combat area - it's a no area. You can't even place objects out there. It's cheating to intentionally avoid fighters, and defensive objects. It's cheating.

 

That all depends... on how it is done... and I think it is wise to intentionally avoid fighters.... and defensive objects ... but if the fighters are doing their jobs correctly there should be no avoiding them if you have to get to the target.

 

All good points. But then you get to the exploiting. You cant set ground defenses off of the map. So if you do have a mission involving targets you get free reign into the target area. The real answer to if its a technical limitation or a design decision should steer this conversation. I can arguments on both sides with very valid points. As i never ran into this problem in either il2 or war thunder (which turns you around with a black screen) i can only say ive not experienced it to be an issue worth spending time on. JtD have you played WT? Granted you dont have a mission editor there to make missions where you see fit. But ive not run off the map. Nor ever had to chase anyone there.

 

Exactly... which is why I said that even if this feature is present .. the good things will still out weight the bad things .. and I am all in regardless..  but to me.. that "feature" is not a good one and does not belong in a sim.

 

What? It's a cheat, not playing on the map with everyone else while gaining altitude and then when they finally decide they want to be part of the game again (bomb an airfield, which they always inevitably do) they pop back in on the map at 20,000ft and drop their payload. Getting to the target completely unmolested because they cheated.

 

My proposition, rather than the instant turn around, is to display in chat the user's name and coordinates where they left the map: "Player <name> left map at x,y,z" and then repeat "Player <name> has been off the map for <x> minutes last seen at x,y,z and is heading <compass direction>"

 

That way not only can they be hunted down, everyone knows who is too timid to play with everyone else.

 

... wow...

 

 

 

You would not believe some of the PMs I have gotten over that post..  several.. on both sides of the fence ... but look guys.... this is just my opinion .. which I am entitled to as you all are to yours.

 

People going off the map has never been an exploit of any significance in IL2 .... as I said... SO WHAT if folks can go off the map..  if you place defenses appropriately and if you are flying cap do your job right  you will still be able to negate the exploitative nature of being able to go off the map. There are other wasy to deal with that issue that do not involve any of the truning the plane around silliness. It reminds me of Assassins Creed when you get to the edge of the map you can walk but you don't go anywhere.. Good mission building alone can thwart any of the cheat paranoia out there and just make it not worth someone's while to try to sneak around the back... where maybe they wont get spotted.. or blown up by flak... Goodness gracious gravy and bacon ... some of you guys KILL me with this stuff. There will always be someone who will try to game the game. Cheaters cheat .. it is what they do and they aren't cheaters because they cheat.. the cheat because they are cheaters... and they will find a way.. Unless this is a restriction based on the engine.. I really hope that it is not in the final product regardless to what we have in RoF but either way I am going to enjoy BoS to the nth degree and my support for it is as unwavering as it has been from the start. Just because I am an moderator here does not mean that I do not think for myself and have my own opinions. 

 

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Flying off the map is basically cheating. It takes the player away from the common flight routes, and out of range of AA, essentially giving them a free pass to and from target.

 

 

Cheating??????? Part of planning an attack in any combat flight simulation is to avoid "common flight routes" - The opposition fighters will be looking for you there - and avoiding AA. It is called common sense - not cheating.

 

Cheating, in my opinion, would be if you and your squadron couldn't normally catch a faster aircaft so you got together and herded the plane into the artificial boundary so that they couldn't use their natural advantage to get away. 

 

We all accept that for the early release we will have limitations, but I also think that many people would be offended at being labeled "cheats" because they want to fly past an artificial boarder.

 

I personally would like the system they used in the original Il2 series. It works fine in my opinion.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[Karost]

 

..... It's only a cheat if you are the only one who can do it and no one else knows about it.

 

 

 

That is very good definiton of cheat I'm agree

 

- No shoot at friends

- No steal kill

- No shoot while opponent taking off or landing if you not a bomber

 

- No.... if you do ....  and a member show evident or   admin see at site  .... he is kicked / ban  

all of this  I  like to call "server game rules" which every one agree to play for each server  .

 

 

in IL2 DF  ( no icon map , full switch ) flying out of map and come behind opponent air field is my most fun for me ( no server rule for this stuff ) if the map is

small but it is not easy  ... when first time I try this trick  I can not find the way back to the map area  .. keep  flying until my fuel out ....   

 

ps ( I nerver try in ROF )

S!

Edited November 14, 2013 by karost

[ST_ami7b5]

More cowardice than cheating...

[SKG51_robtek]

More cowardice than cheating...

Usually it's bombers who leave the map to reach the target mostly unhindered. 

The mission of the bomber is to deliver it's payload to the target and to get home again.

So the objective of the bomber pilot is to stay out of fights, aaa zones, etc. 

Nothing to do with cowardice, btw it takes more balls to fly a big slumbering bomber into known defences

than hurtling through the sky in a nimble fighter with a fair chance to be victorious in a fight.

IMO of course

Edited November 14, 2013 by robtek

[FlatSpinMan]

Enough.

Don't throw around words like cowardice or bravery - we're just talking about a game. And hunting down people who try to avoid combat - why say that?! It's a game! People can play it how they want.

You can try and do it seriously and historically accurately, but you're still just playing.

 

Fellow single players - what do you think about this?

 

 

H

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Its just simmers being simmers, anything to argue over, you find 5 flight simmers who like a feature and i will show you 5 that hate it and say it ruins the sim, its just what we do.

Its embarrassing.

[pilotpierre]

As a single player I have never been overly concerned wrt to flying off the map in either IL2 or RoF. You know its coming up and is easily avoided. I dont ever remember it affecting a tangle with the enemy in all the years since the original IL2 was launched, nor in RoF.

 

I think the map in BoS is going to be big enough not to worry about anyway.

[ST_ami7b5]

Enough.

Don't throw around words like cowardice or bravery - we're just talking about a game. And hunting down people who try to avoid combat - why say that?! It's a game! People can play it how they want.

You can try and do it seriously and historically accurately, but you're still just playing.

 

Fellow single players - what do you think about this?

 

 

H

 

That's exactly the reason why I don't understand such behaviour.

Apologies for the term "cowardice" though...

[DD_bongodriver]

Yes, exactly, it's just a game, why do people get so butthurt when somebody has a little complaint?

[piero_tasso]

If I have understood the behaviour in RoF correctly (I've never gone out of map), then it's okay for me.

 

But did anyone else notice that the names in the map are quite differents from the ones you can find in Google Maps? Things changed a lot! (or maybe devs put some creativity on it? )

[FlyingNutcase]

Yes, exactly, it's just a game, why do people get so butthurt when somebody has a little complaint?

 

I'd like to know why a suggestion gets labeled a complaint! Seriously, I just don't get it.

 

If I may digress, I gave some feedback to a business over the phone a while back and the person asked me to fill out an online complaint form. I wasn't whining - I was literally trying to give them some feedback that would help their business because they had given good service but was a bit short of expectations in one way. In the end I didn't bother as the it was just too weird and negative.

Edited November 14, 2013 by FlyingNutcase

[Zak]

But did anyone else notice that the names in the map are quite differents from the ones you can find in Google Maps? Things changed a lot! (or maybe devs put some creativity on it? )

The names of settlements as well as location of the airfields are fictional on this map. Only the landscape is true, and it was taken from the main game map.

[Marrond]

It's not akin to flying into "new world" territory, it's more like flying in the sea or managing to fly in space - it's an area that shouldn't be flyable in but has to be present due to PC limitations.

I kind of agree with FuriousMeow here but not with so furious argumentation ( ), anyway a rough translation for those who didn't get it at all (I would quote directly but it seems that these post were moderated or I simply can't find them for some reason?) since it seems that there are some major missunderstandings:

 

What Furious means here is that in real world, you know something you're trying to achieve when creating a simulator there was no "outter space" - there was no safezones and off the mission map area there were other battles, bases, units so there was really no safe place at all. For example if player left the map borders like he would do in old IL2, as someone suggested here already, and everyone on the screen would see coordinates and altitude where he was seen from time to time it would be more realistic than flying over the, as FuriousMeow called it, twillight zone. All because in real world if you're deep into enemy country and trying to get arround the problem, there would be other units which are non-existent outside of map corners. What infact is breaking immersion is ability to fly WW2 sim and avoid every other part of simulation other than flying the plane which is kind of funny since many people could argue about if Fw190 is needed or not in BoS (on the side note - it is since this will not start and end in Stalingrad, it will expand to other theatres and years featuring many aircrafts that served during the war, it doesn't matter if it served in Stalingrad at the time, it's combat flight simulator, not history simulator) Argumentation that you could add units outside of the map in IL2 manualy in text file is irrelevant to the case since RoF engine handles things differently. Also as many have stated before map will be big enough to not venture outside of the map unless one intentionaly want to gain alt advantage in this cheesy way. (wouldn't call it a cheat as Furious did but it certainly feels cheap)

 

I dont really have a problem with this, cant remember the last time I was even near a map edge in IL-2, RoF or Cliffs.

 

Also the positive side is that people cannot exploit (yes, exploit) the fact that they can go off-map and thus circumvent their opponents. This specifically happened quite a bit in the old online wars.

Exactly my thoughts!

 

I guess if this is not a technical limitation they could allow for IL2 playstyle with ability to lock map borders in the server settings with 100% accuracy flak or 180degree turnarround for those who don't want to participate in cheesy voidzone sneaking. This way both sides could be satisfied and they wouldn't have to ever interact with each other. Time would show which solution is more appealing to the players. Ofcourse that is if devs would want to bother over this low priority case.

 

I wonder how many .GB the map would be if if it modelled the whole globe?.....

I made a rought computing. height map only (resolution 25m x 25m x 16b) would be around 1.5 TB for the globe.

For the whole files you have to multiply at least by 2.

It all depends on the details of the certain area as well as overall quality of the maps. If I remember correctly X-Plane 9 worldwide maps are arround ~100GB. Not sure about X-Plane 10 though since it seems to be much more eyecandy. Edited November 14, 2013 by Marrond

[piero_tasso]

The names of settlements as well as location of the airfields are fictional on this map. Only the landscape is true, and it was taken from the main game map.

Ah, thank you, now it seems more reasonable

 

May I ask you whether the final map will be historically accurate or filled with fictional parts to fill the void?

[PA-Sniv]

As long as we're playing a game, rules must be given to allow fair play.

 

The IL2 trick was, to me, genius as it increased flying experience on little maps.

 

On the other hand, players had to agree to some "pilots rules" to maintain fair play in multiplayer coop/campaign: offmap route is unfair when it is purposely done (by bombers for example) to avoid opponent defenses.

 

- 180 turn / auto respawn looks odd to me, but could be applied in dogfight mode;

- In campaign / "coop-like" mode, auto-kick after some warning (a la RoF) should be applied to maintain conditions of fair play.

 

Hope this can be set by server...

 

Cheers,

Edited November 14, 2013 by PA-Sniv

[Bearcat]

That is very good definiton of cheat I'm agree

 

- No shoot at friends

- No steal kill

- No shoot while opponent taking off or landing if you not a bomber

 

- No.... if you do ....  and a member show evident or   admin see at site  .... he is kicked / ban  

all of this  I  like to call "server game rules" which every one agree to play for each server  .

 

 

in IL2 DF  ( no icon map , full switch ) flying out of map and come behind opponent air field is my most fun for me ( no server rule for this stuff ) if the map is

small but it is not easy  ... when first time I try this trick  I can not find the way back to the map area  .. keep  flying until my fuel out ....   

 

ps ( I nerver try in ROF )

S!

 

My point.. especially on larger maps ... being able to fly off the map adds another tactic that must be dealt with.. It was never a real problem in IL2. If you had a server with a map that small where it would matter just put flak on the back side.. to this day I use flak as an indicator as to where the enemy is...

 

More cowardice than cheating...

Enough.

Don't throw around words like cowardice or bravery - we're just talking about a game. And hunting down people who try to avoid combat - why say that?! It's a game! People can play it how they want.

You can try and do it seriously and historically accurately, but you're still just playing.

 

Ya know.....

 

I'd like to know why a suggestion gets labeled a complaint! Seriously, I just don't get it.

 

... and an opinion....  One I stand by...

 

There are ways around the off the map exploit that should not involve any of the other things mentioned.. the penalty should come from within the sim either in an alert cap... AI on the back side, extra flak as an alarm or something of that nature...  it self but not some pre set event like blacking out or being "gently turned" or an engine failure penalty..  That was always a strong point of IL2 .. it's realism for the day.... That you could actually use the config file to place objects off the map and force true navigation to the target.. that even on small maps you could set bombers off the map and give them time to get to altitude before they were pounced on.. IMO that "feature" would be imposing an unnecessary  limitation on game play.. Now if it is a matter of the engine limitations then so be it.. but if it is just a matter of preventing "cheats" .... it's hokey as hell and has no place in what this sim promises to become.. even if it is in RoF... Hell it shouldn't be in RoF either.. and given the slowness of things one would think that the speed of the aircraft in RoF would make something like going off the map to go around the edges to sneak in behind enemy lines a time prohibitive venture anyway.. You'd be there all friggin night put put puttering around the edges of the map.....

 

Too many of us should spend more energy enjoying the game rather than worrying about someone gaming the game.. because no matter what it is someone will always try to game the game and this gaming of the game is not worth trying to prevent. and could offer even more options for gameplay .. unless as I said it is an engine limitation that would be too costly time wise or energy wise at the moment to change..

[Karost]

Marrond  Thank you for point out . and I see the point.

 

(imho)  they have request to set  combat area look like a fighter boxing stage for a small map right ?  ( please correct me if I wrong)

 

if yes then they may have other reflection idea like :

 

- that will no game for seek and hide  ( no icon gsp )

- turning fighter can eat the energy fighter at the corner of the map.

- if the air field target setting at cornor of map ... that will be the dead corner for the bomber.

- etc...

 

if they have a group  need that feature of boxing let Dev. make it happend like an option setting.

but I believe that  old hand friends will not join that server for setting boxing option. 

 

S!

[Marrond]

All I wish is the freedom of choice. I don't particulary like IL2 style in this regard, but I don't mind it being available as long as one could define how he would like to play. All in all it comes down to personal prefference.

 

I felt it was necessary to describe the problem since many seems to miss the point while arguing over "immersion" or "realism" while BOTH solutions have nothing to do with realism either way, and immersion is really defined only by personal taste. For me personaly more immersion breaking is dog barking outside the window or couple having really noisy body interaction behind the wall rather than borders in computer game, whether it's simulator or not. But that's just me

 

Too many of us should spend more energy enjoying the game rather than worrying about someone gaming the game...

You should understand that noone is worrying about someone gaming the game as long as it's singleplayer experience. If it comes down to multiplayer your experience directly affects others experience, therefore their (i.e. FuriousMeow) concern over that matter. Wise man said something along these lines "freedom of one man ends at the point where freedom of another starts" (sorry, not sure if it's correct since English is not my native language, so a merely rough direct translation) Edited November 14, 2013 by Marrond

[Bearcat]

I understand that .. but in this case IMO it is a non issue. The first time I saw that "feature" was in WoP. It was hokey as all get out there and maybe it is because I have been flying in IL2 so long but it just seems arcade as all get out to me and unnecessary. Especially on a large map. As I said if it is because of an engine limitation then so be it.. and also as I said.. with or without this feature BoS will be a game changer... but I really hope that this feature is not in the final release or if it is it is server settable.

[SYN_DerHesse70]

Senseless...RoF is that way and its seems it gonna be the same way in BoS. It never bother me because in 4 years of flying RoF I never end up in the map borders.

 

 

Same here!

 

@Jaws2002:

 

ROF paper aircrafts are not 100km/h fast. Please read some books before you type such an BS. Even the slowest aircraft reaches 120km/h@2km height. The fastest reaches 220km/h!!! Better stay at WT with this knowledge!

Edited November 14, 2013 by DerHesse70

[Marrond]

I get it but I'm just reffering to how it sounds (to me atleast) in regards to discussion which went to what's realistic and what's arcade:

 

That all depends... on how it is done... and I think it is wise to intentionally avoid fighters.... and defensive objects ... but if the fighters are doing their jobs correctly there should be no avoiding them if you have to get to the target.

 

People going off the map has never been an exploit of any significance in IL2 .... as I said... SO WHAT if folks can go off the map..  if you place defenses appropriately and if you are flying cap do your job right  you will still be able to negate the exploitative nature of being able to go off the map.

In perfect sim environment there would be no borders as well as no players limit. Sadly we're limited by the hardware and network capability. Oh and in case of flightsims we're also limited in numbers but anyway. It is wise to intentionaly avoid fighters but you have to do that in the limited area so everything is fair and square. Let me draw some rough image to give you a comparision why someone would dare to call IL2 way a cheating (I guess you understand it but I will do it anyway since it's not PM but a public thread):

 

Legend:

Green and Purple starting bases and their flightpaths to the targets

Red and Blue elipses - targets

Black squares AAA

Black circles other are with stationing troops

Black triangles with lines - sky patrol with their flightpaths

Black semi-broken lines - let's say convoy or other kind of moving ground force

Green/Purple X mark is the place where attackers would've been spoted and/or intercepted by the defending forces

Red square are the map borders where players participate in an online battle

 

1) Current BoS situation:

 

 

 

2) "Real world" style (in quotation because in real world you wouldn't obviously have airfield behind enemy lines):

 

 

 

 

3) IL2 1946 style:

 

 

 

 

In 3rd example there is no chance that anyone would spot attacking forces, because world outside of red square doesn't exist, there is just flat desert of nothingness, while in real world going arround would make you to meet enemy forces one way or another (or atleast passing the message to alied units that would immediately head your way) - there was very little chance that you would've went through unnoticed. While current BoS design limit number of ways you can approach your target it's far more realistic (which was the case of discussion here, maybe not by you but by other posters). Fact that doesn't allow any argumentation is that both solutions have their pros and cons and none of them is perfect in every kind of approach but this is no way immersion breaker or unrealistic. Perfect solution would be IL2 style with dynamicaly rendered terrain (so each time it's unique in each battle, not flat nor the same pattern) with random AI notifications about your appearance outside of the map. This way game would be both realistic, immersive as well as keep the fluid gameplay in place. Since it's afterall a game, fluid gameplay is more important than realism (but what people are describing here there's no realism either so I believe it's still bearable compromise)

 

 

In my opinion best coment in this thread over that particular matter:

As long as we're playing a game, rules must be given to allow fair play.

 

 

 

ROF paper aircrafts are not 100km/h fast. Please read some books before you type such an BS. Even the slowest aircraft reaches 120km/h@2km height. The fastest reaches 220km/h!!! Better stay at WT with this knowledge!

In WT we have rocket Chaikas that reach the stratosphere in vertical climb at 500km/h (it's an overexaggeration but WT is not at fault of one's knowledge about WWI planes) Edited November 14, 2013 by Marrond

[Blooddawn1942]

I don't remember that I ever crossed the edge of a map in any flightsim over the years. This simply did not happened and I never intended to do this on purpose. why should I? I barely can understand how much time and energy some folks around here are willing to spend just to support their point of view in such an trivial aspekt of the game...I couldn't care less if my plane flips around due to a magical touch or if I fly above never everland.

I will definetly not get close to such an situation...

[Bearcat]

I get it but I'm just reffering to how it sounds (to me atleast) in regards to discussion which went to what's realistic and what's arcade:

 

 

In perfect sim environment there would be no borders as well as no players limit. Sadly we're limited by the hardware and network capability. Oh and in case of flightsims we're also limited in numbers but anyway. It is wise to intentionaly avoid fighters but you have to do that in the limited area so everything is fair and square. Let me draw some rough image to give you a comparision why someone would dare to call IL2 way a cheating (I guess you understand it but I will do it anyway since it's not PM but a public thread):

 

Legend:

Green and Purple starting bases and their flightpaths to the targets

Red and Blue elipses - targets

Black squares AAA

Black circles other are with stationing troops

Black triangles with lines - sky patrol with their flightpaths

Black semi-broken lines - let's say convoy or other kind of moving ground force

Green/Purple X mark is the place where attackers would've been spoted and/or intercepted by the defending forces

Red square are the map borders where players participate in an online battle

 

1) Current BoS situation:

 

 

 

2) "Real world" style (in quotation because in real world you wouldn't obviously have airfield behind enemy lines):

 

 

 

 

3) IL2 1946 style:

 

 

 

 

In 3rd example there is no chance that anyone would spot attacking forces, because world outside of red square doesn't exist, there is just flat desert of nothingness, while in real world going arround would make you to meet enemy forces one way or another (or atleast passing the message to alied units that would immediately head your way) - there was very little chance that you would've went through unnoticed. While current BoS design limit number of ways you can approach your target it's far more realistic (which was the case of discussion here, maybe not by you but by other posters). Fact that doesn't allow any argumentation is that both solutions have their pros and cons and none of them is perfect in every kind of approach but this is no way immersion breaker or unrealistic. Perfect solution would be IL2 style with dynamicaly rendered terrain (so each time it's unique in each battle, not flat nor the same pattern) with random AI notifications about your appearance outside of the map. This way game would be both realistic, immersive as well as keep the fluid gameplay in place. Since it's afterall a game, fluid gameplay is more important than realism (but what people are describing here there's no realism either so I believe it's still bearable compromise)

 

 

In my opinion best coment in this thread over that particular matter:

 

 

 

In WT we have rocket Chaikas that reach the stratosphere in vertical climb at 500km/h (it's an overexaggeration but WT is not at fault of one's knowledge about WWI planes)

 

Well this is the last I am going to say on this because the point has been made if it is it is if it isn't it isn't either way I will be enjoying BoS.......... but even with the examples you gave... considering where the bases are located.. it would still be impossible to sneak up on a base even if you went around the map.. If the CAP guys are doing what they should be doing and the base gets "surprised" by an end around.. then they deserve what they get...

 

There is something to be said for being in a flight sim where you can pick a heading or a series of headings  .. and fly to it for an hour... and then fly back ... without the gentle nudging...

 

I don't remember that I ever crossed the edge of a map in any flightsim over the years. This simply did not happened and I never intended to do this on purpose. why should I? I barely can understand how much time and energy some folks around here are willing to spend just to support their point of view in such an trivial aspekt of the game...I couldn't care less if my plane flips around due to a magical touch or if I fly above never everland.

I will definetly not get close to such an situation...

 

I have .. especially in early FB when some of the maps were smaller..  I didn't go far off the map .. but I went off the map.. and I had to turn around.. I wasn't forced to turn around or flipped 180 .. and that is all my point is. If that is fine with you .. and a bunch of other folks then .. for me .. and a bunch of others it is counter immersive ... some like mustard on their hamburgers and ketchup on their hot dogs...

[StG2_Manfred]

I don't remember that I ever crossed the edge of a map in any flightsim over the years. This simply did not happened and I never intended to do this on purpose. why should I? I barely can understand how much time and energy some folks around here are willing to spend just to support their point of view in such an trivial aspekt of the game...I couldn't care less if my plane flips around due to a magical touch or if I fly above never everland.

I will definetly not get close to such an situation...

 

First, I don't want participate in the argument, but sorry, it doesn't happened to you probably because you follow just the beeline right into the action, as so many does. When our squadron plan a coordinated bomber attack in IL-2, escorted by a number of fighters, then we quite often fly along the edge of a map and avoid the obvious way. So for me you're experiences are not representative! 

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Seeing how BoS is based on the Digital Nature engine, I thought it would be interesting to see what would happen when you went off the edge in RoF. I've never had to go there before. Here is the result.

 

In RoF you are forced out of your plane but you still have control over the plane. Once you cross back into the map you regain control over the plane.

 

 

I'm not saying this is how BoS will work, but if it does the good thing would be if any one was pursuing me, they would be forced out of their plane too (or decide to stand off), giving me a chance to reverse and get out of Dodge City in a hurry.

 

I guess some might call that cheating as well but it's how the game works.

 

Personally I prefer the old Il2 method.

 

One big question is how will weather react at the edges of the map. Will clouds exist outside of the (final) map, then move through and off the other side or will they appear at a point and then disappear?

 

Cheers!

Edited November 14, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[Marrond]

I have .. especially in early FB when some of the maps were smaller..  I didn't go far off the map .. but I went off the map.. and I had to turn around.. I wasn't forced to turn around or flipped 180 .. and that is all my point is. If that is fine with you .. and a bunch of other folks then .. for me .. and a bunch of others it is counter immersive ... some like mustard on their hamburgers and ketchup on their hot dogs...

I was just commenting on the "realism point of view" of either of the solutions. I'm fine with whatever arrives and personal taste on this matter, it's not like we have any choice afterall, do we?

 

 

Btw. about hamburgers and hotdogs - god, I've been allways doing it wrong :O (doing it exact way you've described, mustard into burger, ketchup on hotdog)

Edited November 14, 2013 by Marrond

[Bearcat]

Seeing how BoS is based on the Digital Nature engine, I thought it would be interesting to see what would happen when you went off the edge in RoF. I've never had to go there before. Here is the result.

 

In RoF you are forced out of your plane but you still have control over the plane. Once you cross back into the map you regain control over the plane.

 

 

I'm not saying this is how BoS will work, but if it does the good thing would be if any one was pursuing me, they would be forced out of their plane too (or decide to stand off), giving me a chance to reverse and get out of Dodge City in a hurry.

 

I guess some might call that cheating as well but it's how the game works.

 

Personally I prefer the old Il2 method.

 

One big question is how will weather react at the edges of the map. Will clouds exist outside of the (final) map, then move through and off the other side or will they appear at a point and then disappear?

 

Cheers!

 

.......... so yeah .. about that weather... Good question...

 

Btw. about hamburgers and hotdogs - god, I've been allways doing it wrong :O (doing it exact way you've described, mustard into burger, ketchup on hotdog)

  ........................

[Blooddawn1942]

Didn't meant to offend anyone arround here. This is of course my personal point of view. Because I've always been an offline flyer and never took part in organized online squad based flying, this problem simply never crossed my way. I was just wondering how passionate You chaps are discussing this particular point. I can't and won't imagine how it will be the upcomming week, wheen the FM of the Lagg is beeing discussed...

[Blooddawn1942]

And why should my point not be representive. I guess the majority of simmers are the lonewolfs like me.

Organized squad and online flying appears to be a minority, a very loud minority when it comes to forums, but after all a minority. So I could easyly take it personal if some is telling me that my oppinion is not representive...

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Seeing how BoS is based on the Digital Nature engine, I thought it would be interesting to see what would happen when you went off the edge in RoF. I've never had to go there before. Here is the result.

 

In RoF you are forced out of your plane but you still have control over the plane. Once you cross back into the map you regain control over the plane.

 

 

 

 

Well that is clearly not workable! The icon at the top of the screen clearly indicates a right hand turn, but the plane actually makes a left turn to get away from the map edge.

 

[Karost]

Hi Marrond
3rd example is what we ( IL2 friends ) play almost 10 years online for small map and is the most of fun .
Do you know why ?

1. I like to fly out site of the map when my team is out number like: blue:3 and red:12  
   ( can you imagine 12 red fly over the map hunting a 3 bad guys ... )     
   and do you think  3 blue will head on with 12 red ....?    

2. when I manage to come close to  south red  base all damn flag shoot at me and IL2 server
   sent message to all red:12 that "enemy closing(attack) a south base...."  
   now you can see the picture what will have happen in next 2-3 min.
   ( this is WWII a red friends who fly over 5000 meter high can drive to south base with in
   2-3 min. with drive speed over 600 km/h.)
3. I just drop a bomb  near 1:red who accident show up and taking off .... ( you can imagine what my red friend
   yelling at TS server ... while pissed off  )
4. now I have to run like he11 heading 180 down to the deck (100 meter) and keep looking back to see 2-3 black dot
   closing and closing if they see me I am finish... my hand is wet while holding a joystick..
5. and Yes...  they not saw me   then make turn at 270 with speed 400kM/h ( I'm a bad guy FW190     ) 4 min. later
   I made turn 000 and next 3 min I made turn 090.

6. Do you think my red fiends is stupid ? No.. they smart and cool they know I have to landing soon or later.
7. before  my gear touch down 1x spit and 1xP-51 shoot me down in flame.

Now In HyperLobby still have many IL-2 friends playing DF server
When IL2:SOB show up most of them will come .... I'm sure (but not in boxing server)

S!


 

Edited November 14, 2013 by karost

[FuriousMeow]

I called it a cheat, because cheat and exploiting weaknesses in a system are very interchangeable.

 

If it offends you that exploiting a weakness can be labelled cheating, in this case playing outside of the game map for reasons to clearly circumvent defenses, then don't do it.

 

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2009/12/microsoft-difference-between-cheat-exploit-none-banned/

Edited November 14, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[StG2_Manfred]

And why should my point not be representive. I guess the majority of simmers are the lonewolfs like me.

Organized squad and online flying appears to be a minority, a very loud minority when it comes to forums, but after all a minority. So I could easyly take it personal if some is telling me that my oppinion is not representive...

Pls don't take it personal, it's not worth and I didn't meant it that way. But hey, you stated it would simply not happen and that is matter-of-factly wrong as I explained with my example. And pls stop with this minority, majority, quite, loud - things. Why people always use these terms? Have you count them? Or are you they voice of they minority? Each opinion is justified, no matter of minority or majority...

 

Btw I don't care about the game behaviour at the map edges at all :-)

[Heywooood]

Its just simmers being simmers, anything to argue over, you find 5 flight simmers who like a feature and i will show you 5 that hate it and say it ruins the sim, its just what we do.

Its embarrassing.

exactly - onliners who wail for 'accuracy' do the darndest things in these simulations

its not a problem for offline play and you dont have to deal with the constant wailing about the various exploits...for or against

its issues like this that create the most friction in the comunity and theres no reason for it ultimately...

and terms like cowardice and bravery really only apply to actual consequences like injury or death in reality - not in a simulator lol

 

this is all about points for gamers - won or lost due to an exploit of a games' limitaions or a coders choice on how to implement in this case, a map boundary

but to read the level of vitriol you would think it WAS life and death - really sad...and funny at the same time

 

*couldnt server admins just kick players who log too much time off the map area? put 'em in time out so the other kids can play nice?  - I dont know, dont care - but I'm sure theres a way to fix it so we dont have to read this complaint every day once the game is released.

[Marrond]

I'm sure theres a way to fix it so we dont have to read this complaint every day once the game is released.

You could also say: "I'm sure theres a way to prevent military conflicts in the world" or "I'm sure theres a way to prevent tribe wars and starving children in Africa". Some things are unfixable with current technology and man's mentality available today Besides what would be point of having forums if everyone agreed? It would be boring!

[LukeFF]

Is it the 19th yet?

[Blooddawn1942]

Pls don't take it personal, it's not worth and I didn't meant it that way. But hey, you stated it would simply not happen and that is matter-of-factly wrong as I explained with my example. And pls stop with this minority, majority, quite, loud - things. Why people always use these terms? Have you count them? Or are you they voice of they minority? Each opinion is justified, no matter of minority or majority...

 

Btw I don't care about the game behaviour at the map edges at all :-)

 

Don´t worry comrade. I won´t take it personal. I could never. No use to. And of course I´m aware that You didn´t meant it this way.

I was just speaking for myself and my own experience. I never intended to be the voice of whatever group.

Maybe my statement was some kind of generalization.

But in this regard everyone has his own opinion, so how could anyone be presentable in this way??

None here should claim to be it. Everyones opinion is justified as You said. Absolutely right.