Object Limit

[Crow]

I would love to see the developers respond, but I'll shoot this out to the peanut gallery at least:

 

In Rise of Flight it is well known that multiplayer servers are generally only capable of handling approximately 60-100 ground units maximum. However, the old IL-2:1946 and DCS both support hundreds of ground units in a mission (IL-2 can even handle over 1000). Many multiplayer communities that are looking at potentially migrating to IL-2: BoS will be unable to do so if the object count can't rise above at least 200-300 units. Even the popular IL-2: 1946 dogfight servers in Hyperlobby had object counts in excess of that in their dogfight mission rotations.

 

Let's look at some rather vague, generalized numbers. Each airbase typically has 10+ AAA guarding it. If there are 2-3 airbases per side, almost 60 units are used just to arm the airbases. If you create a factory complex to bomb, you're looking at between 20-40 units to make up the buildings and targets at that site. Each ground column will be between 10-20 vehicles and there would tyipcally be 2-4 for each side to destroy. So all told:

 

40 (2 airbases per side) + 40 (1 factory for each side) + 120 (3 columns for each side) = 200 units

 

So just for a very bare bones mission we are already double RoF's limit. That's just the bare bones objectives in your typical dogfight mission without any pretty objects to make them look nice and realistic.

 

This presents a real problem. I've seen some nice looking ground units and the tread marks they leave behind , but I haven't heard anything about increasing the very low (frankly unusable) object count limits found in RoF.

 

What say you?

[VeryOldMan]

That is a relevent concern, but I would  be happy if there was some improvement now  even if not to old Il2 levels,  but with constant work on that area. I prefer less  ground units than some huge nubmer of ground units but a game sufferinc performance and syncronization wise because of them.

[Crow]

That is a relevent concern, but I would  be happy if there was some improvement now  even if not to old Il2 levels,  but with constant work on that area. I prefer less  ground units than some huge nubmer of ground units but a game sufferinc performance and syncronization wise because of them.

Obviously, yes. I would prefer that detail be reduced on individual objects in order to bring the overall count up to higher levels without hurting performance levels if that is what is necessary. The current level of detail isn't necessary when the closest you'll ever get to a target is well over 100m away (longer than a football field). I just want to know if this is even possible or if RoF has some serious engine limitations that prevent the number of objects from exceeding 100.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Crow

[VeryOldMan]

I would bet my lunch that the limit is not related to graphical issues  but simmulation wise, so the details of the models are not likely  relevant. Specially in  AI, the number of  objects that you need to check , annalyse and pass to the AI routines can  become abottleneck very fast.

[FuriousMeow]

I would bet my lunch that the limit is not related to graphical issues  but simmulation wise, so the details of the models are not likely  relevant. Specially in  AI, the number of  objects that you need to check , annalyse and pass to the AI routines can  become abottleneck very fast.

 

This is pretty much it, but also that each plane part becomes an object when it separates from a plane with it's own calculations and collision detection unlike previous titles where the part just became generic without any complexities as it fell away.

 

I prefer that over 2000 tanks, of which I'll maybe destroy 5.

Edited September 24, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[=69.GIAP=STENKA69GIAP]

From what I've been told the BOS Engine is closely based on the ROF engine.

 

No doubt the developers might give you an opinion but I can give you a fact.

 

last night we flew the first mission of the 1916 multiplayer online campaign in ROF

 

There were :

 

62 Piloted positions - yes that's human pilots

100 flak positions

202 ground vehicles

8 Airfields

2 Hospitals

56 Hangars

 

and thousands of decorative ground objects like houses, churches, bridges etc.

 

26 train elements

6 HQ Elements

2 Hospital Elements

56 Hangar Elements

 

There were thousands of ground decoration elements (bridges,churches,houses)

 

The server was in Europe, we had pilots from Europe, USA and South Africa and gameplay was smooth.

 

Now maby IL2 can have 'thousands' of ground units but the missions tended to disconnect in multiplay untill we spent years of testing and modding. In fact until the first mods

we couldn't even get more than 32 pilots off the ground in multi user co-op. Now I'm not a proponent of modding it was important to break the 32 player limit.

 

Why not get involved with pushing the limits?

 

www.69giap.com

[Sturm_]

That looks promising, and as hardware improves, so will the limits I believe.

[Crow]

From what I've been told the BOS Engine is closely based on the ROF engine.

 

No doubt the developers might give you an opinion but I can give you a fact.

 

last night we flew the first mission of the 1916 multiplayer online campaign in ROF

 

There were :

 

62 Piloted positions - yes that's human pilots

100 flak positions

202 ground vehicles

8 Airfields

2 Hospitals

56 Hangars

 

and thousands of decorative ground objects like houses, churches, bridges etc.

 

26 train elements

6 HQ Elements

2 Hospital Elements

56 Hangar Elements

 

There were thousands of ground decoration elements (bridges,churches,houses)

 

The server was in Europe, we had pilots from Europe, USA and South Africa and gameplay was smooth.

 

Now maby IL2 can have 'thousands' of ground units but the missions tended to disconnect in multiplay untill we spent years of testing and modding. In fact until the first mods

we couldn't even get more than 32 pilots off the ground in multi user co-op. Now I'm not a proponent of modding it was important to break the 32 player limit.

 

Why not get involved with pushing the limits?

 

www.69giap.com

Interesting, I've never seen anyone else report those numbers. That's really promising. Do you guys have some secret method or super powerful server to handle the load? Perhaps all the people complaining about 100 objects or less that I've seen just don't have the hardware to make it happen. Out of curiosity, how many of those objects were placed in the mission editor and how many are part of the map natively? I wonder if people are referring to the number of objects they placed in the editor.

 

Also, it's not fair to compare a title from 2001's shortcomings with one developed in 2013. At the very least, compare IL-2 in its current state to RoF/BoS because that's what they are competing with for customer's attention/money.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Crow

[SCG_Neun]

So far the transition from ROF to BOS does indeed look promising.  Taking everything I've been able to absorb both the positive and negative, BOS is simply going to be an awesome sim in an equally awesome theatre of War.  Counting the days........

[FuriousMeow]

Also, it's not fair to compare a title from 2001's shortcomings with one developed in 2013. At the very least, compare IL-2 in its current state to RoF/BoS because that's what they are competing with for customer's attention/money.

 

So 14+ years of development is comparable to a little over 4 years (for RoF, less than one for BoS)? 

 

There are so many divergent courses of development one can't be compared to the other because one will do most things better, while one will have thousands of ground objects.

[Crow]

So 14+ years of development is comparable to a little over 4 years (for RoF, less than one for BoS)? 

 

There are so many divergent courses of development one can't be compared to the other because one will do most things better, while one will have thousands of ground objects.

Yes, because:

 

1. The technology, techniques, and knowledge of how to properly develop games has progressed significantly since 2001.

 

2. 14 years of "development" is a bit misleading because the game didn't have a full production studio working on it for most of those 14 years and a lot of the improvements came from modders/enthusiasts who don't work at the same pace or technical level as a professional.

 

3. Battle of Stalingrad is competing for people's time and money with those older games. If they aren't offered some improvement over what they have, they will choose to keep playing the older game.

 

Certain features are simply important for the success of a game. IL-2: 1946 isn't a success because of one particular element, it's how it combined all of the various little things into a cohesive whole that made it fantastic. If you lose one or two of those features it would be a totally different game.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Crow

[Matt]

400 units in one spot is still possible, but it will cause lots of slowdowns.

 

If you use triggers to spawn and despawn units, based on the proximity of planes etc., 300 units are not that problematic. 200 units should work without the use of triggers.

 

Of course, more would be better. But i read that they did make improvements in that area (don't remember where, but it was shortly after the pre-order became avaliable).

[FuriousMeow]

Yes, because:

 

1. The technology, techniques, and knowledge of how to properly develop games has progressed significantly since 2001.

 

2. 14 years of "development" is a bit misleading because the game didn't have a full production studio working on it for most of those 14 years and a lot of the improvements came from modders/enthusiasts who don't work at the same pace or technical level as a professional.

 

3. Battle of Stalingrad is competing for people's time and money with those older games. If they aren't offered some improvement over what they have, they will choose to keep playing the older game.

 

Certain features are simply important for the success of a game. IL-2: 1946 isn't a success because of one particular element, it's how it combined all of the various little things into a cohesive whole that made it fantastic. If you lose one or two of those features it would be a totally different game.

 

1) Technology has progressed, yes. Techniques and knowledge differ from development house to development house, and none of it is shared because no one wants to help another person make money they aren't making in the software development world. Software is developed from the ground up each time, and each time the pieces fit together differently or are completely different pieces.

 

2) It's not misleading. It's 14 years of development. I don't care if since 4.09 to 4.12 it's been TD, they've had the source code and it's development.

 

3) It's not competing for anyone's money against a title no longer commercially sold. It's also going to be a massive improvement in every single category over the old title, minus "thousands" of ground objects most will never see and I still don't ever recall seeing thousands of tanks/vehicles in the wars I played in.

 

1946 is an evolutionary success. Il2 2001 was the start, 1946 couldn't exist without it obviously and there were tons of issues at the start - torque for all planes (including jets), requiring back pressure on the stick to hold the plane airborne after achieving speed that generated lift , no lateral traction on the landing gear (still exists to this day), high altitude FM was completely bugged/didn't exist (still didn't exist up to 4.09), and many other features that were either eventually corrected or weren't at all and even made it into CloD.

 

So if you think the game hinders on thousands of ground objects, think again, Il2 succeeded well before those thousands of objects could ever be placed - that's why time in development matters and something with 14 years under it's belt can figure out some solutions in that time frame to some of the lesser concerns - which clearly it was due to Il2's success well before those object numbers were ever feasible.

Edited September 24, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Requiem]

Interesting, I've never seen anyone else report those numbers. That's really promising. Do you guys have some secret method or super powerful server to handle the load? Perhaps all the people complaining about 100 objects or less that I've seen just don't have the hardware to make it happen. Out of curiosity, how many of those objects were placed in the mission editor and how many are part of the map natively? I wonder if people are referring to the number of objects they placed in the editor.

 

Also, it's not fair to compare a title from 2001's shortcomings with one developed in 2013. At the very least, compare IL-2 in its current state to RoF/BoS because that's what they are competing with for customer's attention/money.

 

All those objects would be in the mission, but I don't believe they could not all be "active" at once unless I'm mistaken. For BoS the devs have said they increased the amount of objects you can have "active" at once, but exactly how high they have raised this limit we don't know yet.

[Crow]

1) Technology has progressed, yes. Techniques and knowledge differ from development house to development house, and none of it is shared because no one wants to help another person make money they aren't making in the software development world. Software is developed from the ground up each time, and each time the pieces fit together differently or are completely different pieces.

 

2) It's not misleading. It's 14 years of development. I don't care if since 4.09 to 4.12 it's been TD, they've had the source code and it's development.

 

3) It's not competing for anyone's money against a title no longer commercially sold. It's also going to be a massive improvement in every single category over the old title, minus "thousands" of ground objects most will never see and I still don't ever recall seeing thousands of tanks/vehicles in the wars I played in.

 

1946 is an evolutionary success. Il2 2001 was the start, 1946 couldn't exist without it obviously and there were tons of issues at the start - torque for all planes (including jets), requiring back pressure on the stick to hold the plane airborne after achieving speed that generated lift , no lateral traction on the landing gear (still exists to this day), high altitude FM was completely bugged/didn't exist (still didn't exist up to 4.09), and many other features that were either eventually corrected or weren't at all and even made it into CloD.

 

So if you think the game hinders on thousands of ground objects, think again, Il2 succeeded well before those thousands of objects could ever be placed - that's why time in development matters and something with 14 years under it's belt can figure out some solutions in that time frame to some of the lesser concerns - which clearly it was due to Il2's success well before those object numbers were ever feasible.

#1 has always been true and yet techniques have still progressed. I chalk it up to academia or better education.

 

#2. When you say 14 years, you make it sounds like a dev studio was hard at work, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week with a full team of 20-30 people working on the project. The truth is extremely different from that. Even so, it is still a specious point.

 

#3. It is competing for people's time and money. If they think that IL-2: 1946 still offers them more enjoyment they will not pay and they will not play the new game. You don't seem to understand opportunity cost. The object count is only a small piece of that whole idea. The unfortunate reality for the BoS developers is that they will have to do better than 1946 in order to get them to switch. IL-2 didn't have the same problem because it was easy for it to match or exceed the capabilities of its contemporaries in all the ways that mattered. The pretty graphics in BoS simply aren't enough on their own to draw people away from a sim that has incredible depth. They have to match depth of gameplay with depth of gameplay if they expect the hardcore IL-2 fans to come.

 

Also, I never said "thousands" of objects were needed (as usual you love to put words in my mouth). I said IL-2 was capable of at least 1000. I've seen it working and I've played in missions often in Dead-is-Dead campaigns. What I DID say is that 200-300 active units with functioning AI are the minimum I see as necessary for many communities to be able to switch to BoS and still run their campaigns. Having read their forums, I can tell you that many people will not purchase BoS until it is capable of being a replacement for their online campaigns in IL-2: 1946.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Crow

[FlatSpinMan]

The original question is interesting and important. Some of the responses, especially concerning numbers from an RoF mission, were really helpful. The points-scoring squabble over semantics is not.

[SYN_Jedders]

This is an example of misinformation about object limits in RoF from outside its community. We run multiplayer missions every night of the week on the SYNDICATE RoF server with hundreds of ground objects aswell as ai planes. Just dont believe everything you read on certain forums.

 

BoS will be an improvement over RoF in object terms aswell. It takes a bit of knowhow to get it all running right but it will all be there for people to see and use.

[Crow]

This is an example of misinformation about object limits in RoF from outside its community. We run multiplayer missions every night of the week on the SYNDICATE RoF server with hundreds of ground objects aswell as ai planes. Just dont believe everything you read on certain forums.

 

BoS will be an improvement over RoF in object terms aswell. It takes a bit of knowhow to get it all running right but it will all be there for people to see and use.

 

When you say "ground objects" are these units with AI? How many ground units with AI do you think the server can support?

[SYN_Jedders]

All ground units have ai. Im not talking about houses or hangers here. There is a balance between ai and human players with an upper limit. You would need to ask SYN_Vander for an exact figure but taken as a whole it is well into the hundreds.

 

We all remember IL2:1946 before moving dogfight servers where there were several hundred non ai objects. RoF never was the same but then it didnt need to be, There wasnt the same focus on aerial bombardment in WW1 as WW2. If BoS go down the same route as IL2:1946 and include non ai objects with a "score" attached to their destruction then it will be exactly the same. This remains to be seen.

[Crow]

All ground units have ai. Im not talking about houses or hangers here. There is a balance between ai and human players with an upper limit. You would need to ask SYN_Vander for an exact figure but taken as a whole it is well into the hundreds.

 

Great, thanks! I've PM'd him. Hopefully he'll check that or see this thread.

[SYN_Jedders]

What is cool about RoF is that if you join one of our SYNDICATE server missions or other servers missions you will then have them on your harddrive. You can then open em up in your RoF Mission editor and see exactly how it was done. We cater our missions for a human server population of 75. If you dont want that number you can add to other ai units.

 

I will give Van a nudge for ya )

[leitmotiv]

lots of flys in vide no2  

 

and let's not forget about large group of ground units fighting and moving on map at same time that was problem in old il2 on some servers

[=69.GIAP=STENKA69GIAP]

Interesting, I've never seen anyone else report those numbers. That's really promising. Do you guys have some secret method or super powerful server to handle the load? Perhaps all the people complaining about 100 objects or less that I've seen just don't have the hardware to make it happen. Out of curiosity, how many of those objects were placed in the mission editor and how many are part of the map natively? I wonder if people are referring to the number of objects they placed in the editor.

 

Also, it's not fair to compare a title from 2001's shortcomings with one developed in 2013. At the very least, compare IL-2 in its current state to RoF/BoS because that's what they are competing with for customer's attention/money.

 

Server is a hex i7 running on a dedicated symetric 10mbit professional data line using Windows server O/S.

All those objects were placed and/or activated in the mission builder except the thousands of ground decoration elmements.

which are part of the map.

 

We have no secret method except reading the manual.

 

Ground objects (particularily flak) are only activated when planes are a certain distance away, this allows more objects without saturating CPU and memory.

 

I don't care about "fair", I use IL2 1946 as the benchmark as we in parralel fly large multi user campaigns in 1946 and in ROF (and will in BOS) so I know exactly what they do in comparison.

 

It took many years and serious modding to get IL2 to handle large ammounts of planes and ground objects. Many many missions crashed, aborted and became unplayable. 

 

Today IL2 will handle significantly more ground objects than ROF. Each campaign in ROF we increase the number of static and moving objects and the sophistication of our mission building. This means each campaign we are pushing forwards the limits and I'm not sure where we will hit the memory constraints in the software design and need to wait for the core development team to give us extra headroom.

 

Currently the GIAP are building a multiplayer campaign generator and I'm cutting the code to generate complex triggered objects which are read into the ROF/BOS mission editor. This automation will mean that we will be able to generate large quantities of optimised ground units very quickly and once it's ready we will start benchmarking. 

 

Effectively there will be complex static objects and complex moving objects.

 

For example a static object will be 1-10 different artillery pieces which lie dormant until and enemy plane or ground unit enters a perimeter. It then wakes up, starts shooting then goes back to sleep after X minutes.

 

A moving object will be for example 10 tanks that hide in a wood until x minutes or an enemy vehicle approaches. The then wake up and start heading for a predefined waypoint.

 

In another month we will be able to saturate the mission builder with more optimised objects than it can handle so will probably discover exactly where the limits are.

[MrNoice]

is that still a thing ?

[ShamrockOneFive]

Necrothread

 

No idea if its still a thing. I suspect that things have gotten somewhat better as several AI routines have been optimized and the engine itself has received an update. I'm sure the guys running servers with complex scenarios know how far they can push things without it coming to pieces.

 

Also I'd like to push back a little on the IL-2 dogfight servers with thousands of objects. That was not true when it came to AI objects of which for the first several years of its life were limited to fixed AAA emplacements and static ships. A single fleet carrier or battleship set to full gunnery levels could stop all play on a dogfight server single-handedly. So could 30-40 flak batteries. It was improved over time but we had a terrible time with just 20 players and lots of heavy flak batteries. The calculations ground the servers to a halt.