Hyperlobby compatibility?

[II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33]

I know there is an in game server browser but I'd like the ability to connect via hyperlobby is this planned?

[Bearcat]

I don't think so at the moment.

[Shogun33]

I confirme, I tried yesterday, and it didnt work

[KoN_]

We need hyperlobby surport ..

[FuriousMeow]

Hyperlobby adds nothing. There is already an in-game browser for the servers. If you want to chat before hand, use Hyperlobby to talk and chat. You can alt-tab between programs these days, so you can have BoS minimized while in HL and alt-tab between the two to figure out which server to join when it gets that far along. We don't need hyperlobby support, the old Il-2 series needed it because it's in-game browsing functionality was terrible.

[ESCOMM_Viper]

We need hyperlobby surport ..

 

I agree.

 

Hyperlobby adds nothing. There is already an in-game browser for the servers. If you want to chat before hand, use Hyperlobby to talk and chat. You can alt-tab between programs these days, so you can have BoS minimized while in HL and alt-tab between the two to figure out which server to join when it gets that far along. We don't need hyperlobby support, the old Il-2 series needed it because it's in-game browsing functionality was terrible.

 

Adds nothing? 

 

YOU dont need, not WE

 

HL support will be good for dynamic campaign like AFW. You are talking this because you never flew it before!

[Feathered_IV]

Hyperlobby adds nothing. There is already an in-game browser for the servers.

 

 

The advantage of Hyperlobby was that you could have that little widget running on your desktop while you were doing other things.  You could keep an eye on your favourite servers to see how many were in-game and if any of your mates had joined.  You didn't need to use the wasteful practice of leaving a high end simulation running in the background (!) to periodically check if there was a suitable game.

 

It also had the side effect of having the temptation to play right there in front of you.  Many times I would quit a game an ten minutes later, be like "Oh okay, just one more..."

[FuriousMeow]

Well, when someone says "we" that includes all of us. We don't need it, and also it isn't needed. It may be wanted, but it is not needed. It is not a necessity to play BoS, at all. It was for Il-2.

[Sparrer]

S!

 

in hl you can see online people, chat with them, leave message, see who is in the server, make friends list, its a off game plataform so you can surf anywhere(and perfect for online wars), cost low cpu process, you can see the server options....etc ....etc

Its very important...the devs should link hl to game and provide it in a single setup/update with the game setup, so even newcomers will meet hl services


some guys just argues for the taste to be against everyone, its funny

[ESCOMM_Viper]

Well, when someone says "we" that includes all of us. We don't need it, and also it isn't needed. It may be wanted, but it is not needed. It is not a necessity to play BoS, at all. It was for Il-2.

Yea, thats why I said "you". Because I and more pilots need HL to see good campaigns and not only dedicated servers.

[I/JG7_Leo]

Hyperlobby is a 3rd party server browser. We definitely don't need some self-proclaimed "community admins" or people who tell you how to behave and stuff.

 

If there should be something like this it should be developed and made by BoS developers. Or they could simply add some features on the multiplayer surface (e.g. a Chat).

[Dakpilot]

.  You didn't need to use the wasteful practice of leaving a high end simulation running in the background (!) to periodically check if there was a suitable game.

 

 

With all respect having BoS running in the background uses about !-2% of my processor while Alt/Tabbed out

 

While Hyperlobby was good for IL-2 personally I would prefer to have just a few of the useful features be included in the BoS multiplayer and not use third party software, and to keep everyone happy a feature to run a small window on desktop like H/lobby

 

Also surely it is better to have the game running in the background and just click and jump in

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Mikey]

Hyperlobby is a 3rd party server browser. We definitely don't need some self-proclaimed "community admins" or people who tell you how to behave and stuff.

 

If there should be something like this it should be developed and made by BoS developers. Or they could simply add some features on the multiplayer surface (e.g. a Chat).

 

I agree, i dont think that would be quite a good thing for the game let alone new players who find out they have to use a 3rd party browser to get in a server

[Gambit21]

Hmm..odd point Leo I never had a single issue with anyone telling my how to behave (and stuff) in the old Hyperlobby days - not one - ever.

Maybe because I behaved like a respectful adult and thus it was never an issue?

 

Nor did I ever notice it being "bad for the game" nor did I ever hear of any issues with new players - ever. Not once.

Hyperlobby was a great thing for IL2 online for multiple reasons - period.

 

That said I have no attachment to whether or not this sim is Hyperlobby compatible - I've moved on.

[I/JG7_Leo]

Hmm..odd point Leo I never had a single issue with anyone telling my how to behave (and stuff) in the old Hyperlobby days - not one - ever.

Maybe because I behaved like a respectful adult and thus it was never an issue?

For me as an online (only) virtual pilot multiplayer is the reasons why i play sims / bought BoS.

I don't like seeing this depending on some 3rd party organisation making own rules and terms of service.

 

Why we need such a thing if we could have it in BoS already?

[Gambit21]

For me as an online (only) virtual pilot multiplayer is the reasons why i play sims / bought BoS.

I don't like seeing this depending on some 3rd party organisation making own rules and terms of service.

 

Why we need such a thing if we could have it in BoS already?

Needing it or now is a whole different point - I don't think we need it either.

I'm just saying it worked great back in the day - there were no "issues"

[JG26_lee45]

+ 1 for hyperlobby.

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Haven't missed HL with ROF as there is a website with (most of) the on-line servers that are up, the mission info, plane sets, and who is in them.

 

http://online.riseofflight.net/en/

 

I hope at least something like this is available for BOS also.

[FuriousMeow]

Yea, thats why I said "you". Because I and more pilots need HL to see good campaigns and not only dedicated servers.

 

What?

 

HL was a necessity for the old Il-2 series because of it's lack of in-game MP browsing. This does not apply here. HL won't do anything to "see good campaigns" over what BoS' server browser already provides.

 

This isn't the old Il-2 series. Time to dump any of that thinking on the way side, this is a different product.

[FuriousMeow]

Hyperlobby was a great thing for IL2 online for multiple reasons - period.

 

 

Absolutely, the prior Il-2 title needed Hyperlobby. It's MP environment thrived because of it, because it needed it. The in-game browser was terrible, it was never designed for the MP capabilities that the Il-2 series evolved into. It was designed for small coop/hosted DF servers or LAN. Kali was initially required for online participation for Il-2 online prior to HL's support of the early Il-2 series, and Hyperlobby wasn't something revolutionary - it was simply an air combat sim dedicated version of Kali (kali.net). The in-game browser couldn't do anything to allow anyone from the internet to randomly link up to join them. Kali filled that requirement. Same with the small DF servers, Kali filled that requirement.

 

Hyperlobby was the next evolution of Kali, dedicated to air combat sims - it wasn't just Il-2's lobby, there were tons of air combat games/sims there that needed that because their in-game browsing capabilities were insufficient. Most were developed for IPX/LAN, not internet play. There's a whole history there, but that is just it - Hyperlobby is a part of history like the entire Il-2 series that culminated in 1946, like IPX and Kali (Fighter Duel, Red Baron II, EF2000, etc). HL and Kali filled a need because the products had insufficient MP browsing capabilities that led to the 3rd party necessity.

 

That is not the case with BoS, and wasn't/isn't the case with RoF. All servers are advertised, and all servers running wars or "campaigns," will be advertised. HL has its place in history, it is not needed or necessary for RoF or BoS.

Edited August 10, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Feathered_IV]

A desktop app then that is not titled Hyperlobby, but allows you to monitor online activity of Il-2 BoS while doing other things, but is not actually Hyperlobby.  Would that be okay? 

[Sparrer]

S!

 

Please, someone teach me how to :  see online people, chat with them, leave message, see who is in the server, make friends list, in atual BoS new generation browser

And please, someone help me to figure, why is better load the game to see all those features instead of just opening up a light windowed app ?

thanks

[SeriousFox]

I think this topic is more appropriate for Hyper Lobby forum(I don't even know that thing exists....) not BoS forum.

 

HL should update their client to support BoS. 

[LizLemon]

Since Co-Op isn't supported by Bos, I don't see hyperlobby as much of a loss. Although there are features that hyperlobby has that BoS clearly wont support in its current state. 

 

The lack of Co-Op is the much more egregious issue. 

[=VARP=Cygann]

Since Co-Op isn't supported by Bos, I don't see hyperlobby as much of a loss. Although there are features that hyperlobby has that BoS clearly wont support in its current state. 

 

The lack of Co-Op is the much more egregious issue. 

 

This is spot on. HL is great, but without Co-Op is it just Ok.

 

BOS MP on the other hand will be much like ROF, airquakes with exceptions here and there due to lack of proper and easy to create co-op missions. Well unless we get them at one point after release. 

Still puzzle me how IL2 sequels (ClOD and BOS) came without proper support for the best feature of the original game. Quite odd decision by game designer(s).

[Dakpilot]

S!

 

Please, someone teach me how to :  see online people, chat with them, leave message, see who is in the server, make friends list, in atual BoS new generation browser

 

And please, someone help me to figure, why is better load the game to see all those features instead of just opening up a light windowed app ?

 

thanks

 

Please someone just do all this for free....

 

and make sure its quick!.........

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Froddi_VR]

+1 for Hyperlobby! 

[Eldur]

We don't need hyperlobby support, the old Il-2 series needed it because it's in-game browsing functionality was terrible.

 

I can't even remember an ingame server browser in Il-2... I think there was a list of Il-2 hosts in LAN, but nothing more

 

 

The advantage of Hyperlobby was that you could have that little widget running on your desktop while you were doing other things.  You could keep an eye on your favourite servers to see how many were in-game and if any of your mates had joined.  You didn't need to use the wasteful practice of leaving a high end simulation running in the background (!) to periodically check if there was a suitable game.

 

It also had the side effect of having the temptation to play right there in front of you.  Many times I would quit a game an ten minutes later, be like "Oh okay, just one more..."

 

+1

 

I think it was great in it's time, with some very nice features (buddy list, chat, PMs, those rooms where you could sit in until the hosts starts his mission) - that should be taken as an example how to do it right. I'd suggest the devs to do something similar out of their BoS Launcher. But I wouldn't want to see the HL necessarily. It was down quite some times, Jiri couldn't be contacted for months repeadedly if there were any problems, and the worst thing, many people may don't even know of, it was completely limited to just a bit aboce 1000 connected users. I often couldn't even log in because it was full in Il-2's best times

[ST_ami7b5]

Haven't missed HL with ROF as there is a website with (most of) the on-line servers that are up, the mission info, plane sets, and who is in them.

 

http://online.riseofflight.net/en/

 

I hope at least something like this is available for BOS also.

 

This.

[FuriousMeow]

This is spot on. HL is great, but without Co-Op is it just Ok.

 

BOS MP on the other hand will be much like ROF, airquakes with exceptions here and there due to lack of proper and easy to create co-op missions. Well unless we get them at one point after release. 

Still puzzle me how IL2 sequels (ClOD and BOS) came without proper support for the best feature of the original game. Quite odd decision by game designer(s).

 

This pining/whining over "coop" needs to stop. There are several servers operated that run a mission oriented map, it is just up to the individual to choose their mission. They can recon, or bomb a target, or fly a scout to intercept the recon/bombers/scouts. That will be possible in BoS after some time as well. The only thing coop does is force people into a certain plane by taking a slot and force them to fly waypoints and force them to hit targets appointed by the mission maker. In RoF you have the option to hit whatever target you want, and fly the route you want. That is better than coop. Coop is an old mode, a throwback from the early days of LAN gaming. The future is perpetual wars with bombing targets influencing the number of aircraft and the type of aircraft available per side, and amount of fuel or weapons available. Coop is a set template, always the same and always predictable. Always going back to the old ways stifles progress, and limits innovation.

 

This is better than coop ever could be, it's a perpetual war: http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=347&t=41828

Edited August 10, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Gambit21]

This pining/whining over "coop" needs to stop. There are several servers operated that run a mission oriented map, it is just up to the individual to choose their mission. They can recon, or bomb a target, or fly a scout to intercept the recon/bombers/scouts. That will be possible in BoS after some time as well. The only thing coop does is force people into a certain plane by taking a slot and force them to fly waypoints and force them to hit targets appointed by the mission maker. In RoF you have the option to hit whatever target you want, and fly the route you want. That is better than coop. Coop is an old mode, a throwback from the early days of LAN gaming. The future is perpetual wars with bombing targets influencing the number of aircraft and the type of aircraft available per side, and amount of fuel or weapons available. Coop is a set template, always the same and always predictable. Always going back to the old ways stifles progress, and limits innovation.

 

This is better than coop ever could be, it's a perpetual war: http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=347&t=41828

I hear ya, but CoOps allows a flight to all take off at the same time on a strike mission say - that doesn't happen on a server wither everyone coming and going at odd times.

In the CoOps of old we had a synchronized team effort on both sides. I miss it.

 

6 human pilots taking off from a carrier at the same to to strike an airfield or carrier - mucho fun. 

[FuriousMeow]

Well, that depends. We (as in everyone) have a TS server and a few weeks ago I was on it with Hooves, AbortedMan, and I think MIHKA was there but may have left before this and there may have been another person but I can't recall. Took all of 2 minutes to get organized and take off together. We flew Pe-2s and bombed an airbase (no points because we just hit the runway, that would be an awesome feature to do if enough damage is dealt to the runway the airfield closes for repairs and landing/taking off on it can break your gear off) but we all took off close to the same time (staggered), formed up, flew formation, bombed, rtbd and landed. It was a lot of fun. Coop stuff like that is totally possible, just use TS to coordinate.

 

The only true need for coop is to force people to do things, which sucks. I never cared for that style of gameplay. So many want dynamic offline campaigns/careers but online, everyone has to be forced into roles and to hit targets to "make it less quake" when, in reality, it isn't just air quake. There might be areas where dogfights are occuring - like the reality was - there are areas where bombers are making their run and only one or two are CAPing to protect, like reality, etc.

 

It's funny reading people bitch about flying bombers and not getting escorts, but just re-reading Lipfert's diary and he himself has an entry about being forced to escort Stukas and how they loathed it -  they prefered fighter sweeps(free hunts) as well. It is the reality, mostly chaotic air combat which so many call "air quake" with less organization and strict adherence to planned out OOBs. Most who want the coops want it because it is the "play my way" type of activity. I'd rather everyone play their own way.

Edited August 10, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[LizLemon]

The only true need for coop is to force people to do things, which sucks. I never cared for that style of gameplay. So many want dynamic offline campaigns/careers but online, everyone has to be forced into roles and to hit targets to "make it less quake" when, in reality, it isn't just air quake. There might be areas where dogfights are occuring - like the reality was - there are areas where bombers are making their run and only one or two are CAPing to protect, like reality, etc.

 

Absolutely wrong.

 

Co-op does not "force" people to do things. It is simply another way of organizing online combat, one that happens to serve the ground pounders very well. One that allows the mud slingers to get together with other like minded people and have fun in doing what the Il-2, the plane this game is named after, is meant to do. There are many merits to offering co-op missions, and its a damn shame that a game with the Il-2 name would forgo such a popular feature. 

 

Maybe that isn't your bag, maybe you don't care for ground attack missions... but don't discount the many who do. Don't discount the merits of blasting truck columns into the ground because you prefer dogfighting. 

 

 

It's funny reading people bitch about flying bombers and not getting escorts, but just re-reading Lipfert's diary and he himself has an entry about being forced to escort Stukas and how they loathed it -  they prefered fighter sweeps(free hunts) as well. It is the reality, mostly chaotic air combat which so many call "air quake" with less organization and strict adherence to planned out OOBs. Most who want the coops want it because it is the "play my way" type of activity. I'd rather everyone play their own way.

 

 

Completely baseless assumptions. A flight sim should not be made based off of the diary of one individual. The best flight sims are sandboxes that allow the community to create the types of missons and ways to play that match what enthusiasts want. Sometimes this means mindless air quake servers, other times it means very historically accurate missions based on real reports that just happen to be co-op.

 

You can argue all day about journal entries that endorse air quake, but I for one, see the merit in co-op missions. If this is simply beyond the types of missions you like to fly then so be it. But don't pretend that there aren't people who think and feel differently then you.  

 

 

 

 

PS; don't take my use of "many" literally as you have done so before. Arguing semantics like that only cheapens your argument. 

Edited August 11, 2014 by LizLemon

[FuriousMeow]

Nice, totally wrong, pretentious and presumptuous.

What does a Pe2 do? Its not a fighter, so I guess my "ground pounding" wasn't because?

And you're "ps," no idea what you are referring to - you already cheapened your response with that.

Coop adds nothing above the capabilities already present.

 

You can either use historical memoirs as an example, or never use them so don't complain about it - I have history on my side and WWI was full of fighter patrols, and only bomber/recon intercepts as a response later on. On the Eastern Front during WWII, free hunts were the norm - especially in late '42/early '43. Historical evidence supports me.

 

You're entire response is just sour grapes that you don't have something that does force people to play according to the mission designer's design. That's the whole point of coops, it is designed to be played one way by the mission designer's way - not a fluid and dynamic environment at all - the opposite of a dynamic battle/war. So online needs to be scripted and the set - but offline campaign/careers should be unpredictable. Maybe you should just stick to offline.

Edited August 11, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[SYN_Mike77]

I still don't get what old IL2 co-op mode did that isn't possible in RoF and I can only assume in BoS once it gets to that point?  For example what does co-op mode add to what the syndicate server runs on the weekdays?  Or for that matter, vintage mission sundays?  Just today I participated in squadron wide fighter sweeps, a recon mission and two bombing missions (as a gunner in the last 3).  We dueled mainly J2 and J5 all day long.  There were however plenty of other people playing and they could do what ever they wanted to do. 

[=VARP=Cygann]

Nice, totally wrong, pretentious and presumptuous.

 

This is your shortcomings in most discussions I have seen you at that you are now pinpointing to LizLemon. Noticed that quite a few times reading your responses to others so I will simply try to ignore you in the future and not respond to your posts, but I will still read them because it just entertains me sometimes to see that attitude where you think you know what is best, needed or should be wanted by everyone here.

 

But back to the topic. HL and IL2 co-op were great experience to almost every IL2 player I spoke to over TS to this day. It is feeling of SP mission brought to MP to fight against human opponent and AI together instead of just AI. In my opinion, if ROF/BOS mission designer was not as complicated compared to original IL2, co-op missions would be in the game and would be main game mode for many of us. 

 

@SYN_Mike77

I really like SYN ROF setups, but to answer your question what is missing there. Actually it is what I miss, you may not miss it as I do. I am missing that "1 mission 1 life/attempt feeling".

In co-op you got this one chance, whether you mess up on take off, combat or any other way, you're done for and your side is weaker. In continuous ROF MP missions I have never felt that regardless how you implement them or how you limit resources. If my wingman can die, and then join me minutes later. it just kills half of tension and immersion for me.

Imagine if in SP mission you would just take off in another plane on your own every time you die on your IL2 strafing run and just rush back in to finish that last mission objective? Would not really 'feel' right for SP mission would it?

 

I think there is place for everything, MP needs airquake servers (for me it's for gunning practice and fast fun if don't have time for better), it needs SYN alike ongoing scenario for something in between where some players will go for objectives and some won't, and it definitely needs co-op missions as they are closest thing to the SEOW experience in casual evening game time because most players will focus on task at hand as real pilots tried.

And then there are online wars that are class of their own and heavy relies on custom missions that you still get to do whatever you think is best in, just everyone starts at same time as someone pointed out already.

 

We don't need co-ops to replace things we have, we need them (or at least some of us do) sometimes in future on top of everything we have now to enjoy this game even more. The fact that 777 probably can't do it easily in their engine and thus likely won't implement them is another story. But lacking any type of content or having less options can't ever be best thing for us customers/players, anyone saying different is either slightly selfish thinking only about what he likes, or has other agenda in mind, but that sure isn't what is best for person asking for some feature whatever it may be.

[LizLemon]

Nice, totally wrong, pretentious and presumptuous.

 

Excellent way to start off a discussion. I try to give you a fig leaf of respect and this is how you respond. Can you please act like an adult, a person who considers and weights the opinion of others before you start opining in this way? Or at least pretend for common courtesies sake?

 

 

What does a Pe2 do? Its not a fighter, so I guess my "ground pounding" wasn't because?

 

 

Literally the first time you've brought up the Pe-2 in this discussion. Please give some relevance. 

 

 

And you're "ps," no idea what you are referring to - you already cheapened your response with that.

Coop adds nothing above the capabilities already present.

 

I was referring to the way you love to end posts, and by that I mean disregarding the opinion of those you argue against. Since they made the mistake of using "we" to refer to their squadron, which you seem to have take literally to mean every person who has purchased BoS, even though it is clear that those peoples posting meant nothing of the sort.

 

I believe that creating such straw men is the last resort of someone who has lost an argument. But please remember that this is my opinion only. Do not throw other individuals under the bus, as you seem so prone to do. 

 

You can argue semantics all you want, but it wont change that fact that you have misinterpreted what was written at a very basic level.

 

 

You can either use historical memoirs as an example, or never use them so don't complain about it - I have history on my side and WWI was full of fighter patrols, and only bomber/recon intercepts as a response later on. On the Eastern Front during WWII, free hunts were the norm - especially in late '42/early '43. Historical evidence supports me.

 

 

I find it rather entertaining that you now fall on the "historical accuracy" argument, yet you are completely unwilling to acknowledge the basic and true fact of refraction. Something that is a well understood and basic fact of physics you argue against, yet you claim historical fact is in your favor when it suits you. I think this is a good demonstration of historical bias at its most basic level. 

 

Additionally you have not cited, let alone sourced any of those "history on your side"

 

I don't pretend to be a professional historian, but I did have a minor in history - principally cold war studies and aviation history. It would serve you well to cite your sources, rather then making statements that your view is true without backup. Especially so when what you are espousing has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

 

You're entire response is just sour grapes that you don't have something that does force people to play according to the mission designer's design. That's the whole point of coops, it is designed to be played one way by the mission designer's way - not a fluid and dynamic environment at all - the opposite of a dynamic battle/war. So online needs to be scripted and the set - but offline campaign/careers should be unpredictable. Maybe you should just stick to offline.

 

 

I'm sorry if your interpretation of my post was "sour grapes". That was not the intent of what I wrote, and if that is the way in which you happened to interpret it, then that is my fault.

 

I am glad that the Il2 name lives on, and I am glad that Olegs work lives on. You mis-interpreted that post which is my mistake, and for that I am sorry. I did not realize that I have to make things super simple for people to understand, but I guess this .is the burden of a native english speaker writing to non-native speakers This is short sightedness on my part, and I hope you can forgive me. 

 

 

As to what you wrote about co-op campaigns, I don't even know where to begin. I question whether or not you actually took part in co-op campaigns in Il2. Because what you say is so far off base that I do not even know where to begin. You should not approach BoS with a Rise of Flight attitude, thats the best and shortest way I can put it, I think.

 

 

 

 

Lastly, please tone down the hostility. Jason Williams, the owner of 777 and creator of Rise of Flight recently said that the combative community is harmful to BoS. That peoples responses drive off new customers. I think your behavior is exactly what Jason was talking about, and if you toned things back a bit then you would be doing a much better service to BoS.

 

As is I think you are too divisive and destructive, and you are causing more harm to this small flight sim community then you are helping. Please change your behavior. 

[SYN_Mike77]

I have this vague memory of us setting up dead is dead missions some time in the distant past.  If memory serves most people did not like that and so we quit.  Anyway, I am pretty sure you could set up a mission where dead would essentially be dead in RoF.  I may of course be wrong.

[Rama]

I really like SYN ROF setups, but to answer your question what is missing there. Actually it is what I miss, you may not miss it as I do. I am missing that "1 mission 1 life/attempt feeling".

In co-op you got this one chance, whether you mess up on take off, combat or any other way, you're done for and your side is weaker.

It isn't missing in ROF, it can easilly been done within RoF dogfight by applying limited time period for limited plane set on a given base (let's say 10mn for example). Every coop features and limitations can be recreated in RoF dogfights... and much more. That's why the few online campaigns played with RoF use the dogfight mode and not the coop mode (that also exists in RoF).

What is missing in RoF isn't the features, but the mission creators to use them, and the player crowd to stimulate the mission creators.

Most people in this thread asking for Il2 style Coops simply don't know the RoF editor and what can be done with (everything that they want). So the real problem isn't to get "coops" in RoF, but to get the RoF like mission editor.

 

And please, stop the personnal disputes and name calling, no more will be tolerated in this thread.

[Matt]

I thought they were just testing the coop mode on one of the servers?

 

Anyway, setting up coops is generally possible with the dogfight mode, but if you want to have something like 30 planes and each of those planes either piloted by a human player or automatically piloted by the AI instead (if no human player is avaliable) and want them all start at the same time and flying in formation, then that's almost impossible to do properly (especially that flying formation thing, unless that was made possible in one of the recent RoF updates).