Jump to content

ATAG_Bliss

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

About ATAG_Bliss

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

340 profile views
  1. You need the TF patches. They fix the Win10 issue. See here: http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5058&p=52711
  2. The ROF engine is essentially the same one used for BOS. That was developed for years before ROF was released. ROF has been out for almost 5 years now? Just because you change the map and planesets doesn't mean it's foundation is something brand new. That is exactly why the same limitations that ROF has is currently in BOS as well. So your statement about creating a completely new flight sim in the shortest amount of time isn't exactly accurate. You've essentially created more content from the same engine you have been using. And when you put it like that, IL2 did the same thing every few years as well (with new planes, new maps, hundreds of objects added to the FMB to use etc.and added new features all the time -- The same you are doing to the ROF engine). A brand new flight sim engine would be using current technology - aka DX11 - and not graphics technology from the Windows XP era. I'll give you credit for talking a great game, but the facts of the matter don't support a lot of what you say. If your game isn't selling like you want it to, the last thing you do is blame the community. Perhaps look at the reasons why? And I can tell you when a 14 year old flight sim is more capable in features, usability, MP, SP, campaigns etc., that what a brand new offering is doing people don't like going backwards. With your current game engine, you've essentially made squad play obsolete. IL2 in 2001 could have 90 players on a server with everyone on a server on 56K modems. Here we are in 2014 and you aren't getting 1/2 that atm. Nor is that number achievable with ROF. And that's with a baron wasteland of a map with hardly any objects on it at all. Other sims out there do this. And when you realize placing objects, creating action etc., is the core behind mission building, when your game engine can't handle doing much of that, how do you expect it to sell well? It's been done in the past. Other games do it right now with better graphics etc. So when developers realize why the original IL2 did so well and incorporate those same abilities into their sims, you'll get the sales. But threatening people that it's the communities fault for your own development choices and priorities isn't the way to get them. People that play these sims want accuracy. They want a dev team that wants a correct flight model. Look how many people got fed up with ROF because you guys would never fix some of the most glaring FM problems. So I don't see anyone throwing bombs around. What I do see is a producer saying the community is to blame for his product sales. The blame lies 100% in the product itself. If it's good, word will travel extremely fast. If it's not it will have a stale life cycle. The original IL2 didn't sell millions of copies because of some sort of advertising. In fact there was hardly any advertising at all other than by the players themselves. Instead it sold well because it was capable and good to begin with.
  3. With this comment, I just have to chip in and say something. As far as online and complex combat flight sims are concerned, looking at the online numbers from DCS, IL246, ROF, and IL2COD, IL2COD still has far more people online than all the rest of them. So I don't really get what you're trying to say here. But to the rest of what you were saying earlier you're pretty spot on. The only way the glory days of old IL2 are going to ever even attempt to come back is when the developers of flight sims make a game just as good, easy to get into (from open pits to full CEM) easy setup, and easy play, and above all, a sandbox that allows you to create whatever you want in it. Personally, if a paid group took over IL2COD in it's TF state now, and made more planes, theaters, etc., (obviously much faster than a 3rd party team could), that would be / could be the next IL2 (the glory days all over again). MP code is pretty good. Obviously it can handle tons of objects and airplanes, and even do it with DX10 / high resolution graphics. Plenty of stuff to still fine tune and sort out though. But the entire point I'm trying to make is; there's been a growing trend where developers have been blaming the market (it's consumer base) for low product sales etc. The reality is the product is to blame. If every single thing that was done in the original IL2 with regards to features, content, and ability (core engine and MP capability) yet the graphics were made at a DX11 level and the FM further improved to the CPUs we use today, it would sell like it's going out of style. And the reason is because of everything I already mentioned. It already did it once. It already sold millions of copies because of it. One day the devs are going to look back on the original IL2 and go "you know, maybe we should just copy that same recipe for our flight sim, have the same features and ability, the same sandbox, a powerful mission builder that's easy to use, a lobby where everyone can chat join, talk, and quickly join user created missions in seconds, and on top of that, have not one fricken gimmick, unlock, or any other BS type stuff, and you know, we might just get a whole bunch of people buying our flight sim" The point I'm trying to make is; People are getting disinterested in flight sims because the stuff old IL2 could do (core engine abilities and features) aren't there anymore in the new flight sims (cliffs of dover being the exception of course). So when some developer FINALLY realizes it needs to be able to DO everything old IL2 did (not concerned with the amount of content as that comes later mind you), then the foundation of it all is strong and you really have something to build upon. But if we're playing a game in 2014 and beyond that might only allow 65 players in a CFS, when a game from 2001 allowed 90, and a game from 2011 now allows 100, it's all just going backwards to me. So again, one day I hope the developers realize people will buy their stuff, throw wallets at the screen, you name it etc., if they make it good. And when I mean good, a good start is at least having the sim be able to do 90% of the stuff another flight sim from 2001 could (the one that just so happened to sell a few MILLION copies of). My .02c . My dream. My hope. People are leaving flight sims because they are getting worse. And until someone picks up the ball and decides to finally make another flight sim that has that sort of replayability, featurelist, or ability, I don't see big numbers EVER in flight simming. So I agree with much a bunch you have to say on the issue, but in BOS's case IMO, while changing up the way MP is now (autobalance, clouds etc.,) may help some in the short term, unless it has all that ability I was talking about earlier, in the long term, it won't be around long.
  4. TS: Server: Forum: http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/index.php What are you having problems with? Everything has always been up 24/7.
  5. But see, the issue is you think this is just like device link for old IL2. I guess it should have been named something different than "TF device link type interface for IL2COD". So yes, you can exploit the one for old IL2 based on how that was made. But the pictures/videos you show aren't happening with the TF version of an interface. It's quite impossible. The only way you could ever do something like that was to hack into the game in the 1st place. Which, that aint happening either. About the video proof, I just call people out on their BS. If you say it's so easy to do "2 lines of code" then you better be able to back up your statement with some sort of evidence. If not, you just have an opinion that isn't based on reality. And it's just like your preconceived notion that TF's version of displaying gauges is somehow the same way for the old game. Show me that same concept with IL2COD. If not, you might as well be comparing the engine of a Mercedes to a block of wood. It's not even remotely the same.
  6. Ah so now I gather it's not just 2 simple lines of code or something easy to accomplish? No video? I think you misread what I wrote. Asking for a video for you to show me these buzzers and warning while using it online is not asking you for some code. It's asking you to prove exactly what you tried to say earlier was so easy to do that it only took 2 lines of code. So why don't you show everyone this "easy to do" exploit in the form of a video? So basically what I gather from your response and your lack of proof is its easy to do if you're a programmer, but it's just too difficult for you to prove it to me it can be done in the 1st place. So it's easy but you can't do it and you are a programmer? Makes sense
  7. In your case you're at a huge disadvantage. But your second paragraph describing looking back and to your gauges etc, with track IR I can look at my gauges (what needle I want to see) and snap right back to where I was looking, no kidding, probably 2 or 3 times a second. When you only have to turn your head an inch and a 1/2 to get 180 degrees of virtual movement, you easily get used to repeating this task literally 1000's of times per sortie. To me it's all memory. To fly with the ext gauges is actually much tougher for me because I have 1000's of hours with a track ir, always scanning gauges and back again. Trust me, as an observer, you would get sick watching (that's how fast I go back and forth) but to say one method is faster or more advantageous than the other can only really be measured in milliseconds, or as I would say, hardly a big advantage. And when I'm saying this, I'm assuming both people have head tracking
  8. 2 lines of code? Cool. Please go ahead and prove this one to me while flying in an online server. Just take a simple video showing all these neat exploits and wrap it all up in a video. Sounds like it should be super easy for you to do with only 2 lines of code and hitting the record button. Can't wait! About the other issues I suggest re reading my last response that already responded to someone else that thinks their RL head is turned backwards while playing a flight sim. Looking forward to seeing all these easy exploits!
  9. Think about your 1st sentence really hard. That pretty much sums up why it's not a cheat. And turning your head with track ir isn't really anything close to reality. You know where you were looking from muscle memory. Again, the point being you lose a contact from not looking at it anymore. As again, you even said it in your 1st sentence. About the buzzers and warnings, I have no idea what you are talking about. If it's not in game, it's not in the interface and CANT be added in. The software doesn't send data. It only receives it from the game. How people want to view that data is also restricted to what the sim transmits to everyone.
  10. Yes, most people resort to changing the subject, pointing fingers at the other person instead of the subject, or trying to poke fun of the other person when they've realized they don't have a leg to stand on. I believe it is proper to call them upset Thankfully I actually enjoy a good discussion and don't have to resort to such tactics on forums if I'm shown that I'm wrong.
  11. It's not about the last word. I give examples and explanations to what I'm talking about. You try and compare real life (head turned backwards) to a flight sim where our head is not turned at all. I don't mean to sound condiscending. But the test I provided can be done by every single person on the planet. It's pretty definitive on how a real life human eye ball works. You will not look at the flap indicator and know much fuel left is in the plane in my example posted earlier. Stare at it all you want, try to defocus your eyes, while looking at the flap indicator or w/e you are trained to do, but regardless of all that you won't see the amount of fuel unless your eyeball looks and focuses on the amount of fuel in that particular guage. Regardless of how much training and experience you have, that doesn't change the reality of biology of a human being. So your whole argument that it's an advatage to be able to look in one spot compared to another spot to see the same information does not apply. And the reason for this is in both instances you actually have to look at both to process the information. So once again, when you realize that looking at both, (as your head is facing forward in both instances), you'll realize the time to do either process is marginal and comparison - aka not really an advantage, let alone one you called a "cheat". You can turn the whole thing into you being upset that you were proven wrong. I get that a lot. But I actually back up what I say with evidence, and in this case, even a test anyone can do. I don't need to say I'm a professional anything to understand biology 101 nor to realize the way your eyes process information. So don't turn this around on me and cry wolf. The weight of this conversation is entirely on your the 2nd you tried to claim this was somehow cheating.
  12. Of course not, as I already stated, the only way you see them is by looking at them. So regardless to where those guages are, your eyes must focus on them to process the information from them. And when your real life head is always looking towards the front, towards your 2d monitor (because that's where the game is and because that's how you setup track ir etc.) the only difference between seeing guages on your monitor, compared to seeing gauges on your 2nd monitor with gauges is simply either a head movement change and an eyemovement change, both, or just adjusting your eyes. The amount of time difference to see those gauges with either setup is marginal at best. As stated earlier, you can actually move your head faster than you can move your eyes. And when your head is already facing forward (because of track IR etc), it's not much difference to see both. But the point you must realize is in order to see the guages in either case, you must actually focus on them. That's how our eye's work as human beings. So advantage over another player? No Immersion for your simpit? You betcha.
  13. I'm sorry, but I trust science. What does scanning the instrument panel have to do with how the eye ball works? There is no denying biology. And in human being, regardless of training, the only way your eye can process a needle, a guage, a dial etc., is if the eye can actually see it and focus on it. Some people will obviously do that better than others. Some people can probably do it faster. But the process and the ability of your eyeball is still the same. And in no, way, shape, or form can ANY person on the planet read a guage without actually looking at it. Just do the test I asked and you'll find out for youresel. So I addressed every one of your points and even did so with a test any human being could do to see what I'm saying is 100% correct. You are correct about 1 thing though, there is no need to continue. There was a never a need to start such a pointless argument in the 1st place. Hopefully you can do the simple test I asked you to do and find out for yourself. Probably would have avoided all the confusion on your end in the 1st place.
  14. So having your instruments already in your field of view doesn't really mean anything because in order to see them/read them, your eyes have to focus on them. And in the virtual world of Track IR with the afforementioned 20 degrees of movement (some probably less), regardless of how much you have to move your head to see the guages on screen, it's essentially the same movement of your head having to see a panel placed elsewhere besides the screen. And when you consider that head movement in our bodies is actually faster than eye movement (for the large percentage of human beings) you'll also realize the difference between having to perform both process (head movement / eye movement) to look at a guage is marganial at best, and hardly something to be called a "cheat" or not historical.
  15. I think you are failing to realize how our eyes work. 1st of all, most human beings can move thier heads back and forth faster than they can move thier eyes back and forth. 2ndly, just as a test for you so you might understand the Mk1 eyeball. Take the screen shot above in Sokol's post and look at the flap indicator position, and while looking at that, tell me the amount of fuel in the plane? You'll notice you can't do that because the only way you'll see that information is focussing your eyes on the individual guage you want to see. 3rdly, Any track IR profile can be setup (or actually should I say this is how they "are" setup) to not have to turn your head 100% 1:1 to scan the entire 360 degrees range of movement. For instance I only need about 20 degrees of total head movement to see 360 degrees of virtual movement in game. This is probably not that far off of many people's setups. So again, as already stated, the only way you see what the guage is outputting, regardless of it's real or virtual position your eyes have to focus on it. It's simple biology really. So I really have no idea what you are talking about with regards to how your eyeballs work in reality.
×
×
  • Create New...