Developer Diary, Part 40

[DD_bongodriver]

it's not a big deal hooves, why does it bother you?

[71st_AH_Hooves]

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.

MAybe thats where cloud computing steps in. But then there would be a problem for those needing an internet connection faster than dial up.

it's not a big deal hooves, why does it bother you?

Doesnt, just getting some ones point of view.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Rama
Removed provocative comment

[OBT-Psycho]

Anyway. As someone already tested out the barrier and warning zone. I guess the only real thing to do would be to make it a bigger area to account for the much higher speeds of WWII aircraft. I mean were barely subsonic in some of these dives. I would hope i have enough time to evade the "black line". But that whole solution seems just as realistic as droning into a featureless abyss. I think its actually doing you a favor and saving you some time and frustration. That is IF you ever need to be there to begin with. I cant say i have ever gone off the map on purpose.

^^this

 

I never flew out of the map on purpose either. I happen to find myself out of the map a very, VERY few times, and ever then it is just the results of really poor navigation. So why all this argument?

 

The map will be huge, and all the action will mainly take place in the center of the map. There sure will be some fender bending arount, but come on...200km off Stalingrad? what is the point of calling it Battle of Stalingrad then?

 

I have to say that the solution brought by the old Il-2 was genius. It was subtile, not perfect but still good. This is an other solution, maybe not perfect but still good.

 

Anyway, if you ever encouter the "end of the map stuff" once, questions are to be adressed to navigational skill, nothing else. you may want to destroy everything screaming that it's totally unrealistic, but at the end the pilot is the first to blame.

 

once again this all conversation will be long forgot once we'll have a bone to chew on...6 days so

[ATAG_Slipstream]

I have a feeling people on dial up need not apply for current games where you have to D/L from the internet the game, patches, expansions, log in online to play offline...

[71st_AH_Hooves]

And this is assuming the whole globe is covered in snow and with Russian architecture?

Have u seen outerra? It does the whole globe (minus buildings) it even has some kinda flight mod built in. (Basic basic basic flight model)

[DD_bongodriver]

Dunno, Bongo, but someone mentioned some map in DCS as being 22.GB already. Dont think its as big an area as this either :/

Well it's going to be a trade off between eye candy and hard drive space.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

^^this

 

I never flew out of the map on purpose either. I happen to find myself out of the map a very, VERY few times, and ever then it is just the results of really poor navigation. So why all this argument?

 

The map will be huge, and all the action will mainly take place in the center of the map. There sure will be some fender bending arount, but come on...200km off Stalingrad? what is the point of calling it Battle of Stalingrad then?

 

I have to say that the solution brought by the old Il-2 was genius. It was subtile, not perfect but still good. This is an other solution, maybe not perfect but still good.

 

Anyway, if you ever encouter the "end of the map stuff" once, questions are to be adressed to navigational skill, nothing else. you may want to destroy everything screaming that it's totally unrealistic, but at the end the pilot is the first to blame.

 

once again this all conversation will be long forgot once we'll have a bone to chew on...6 days so

Agreed. Im more interested in stall recovery of that lagg. Pretty sure ill have bigger worries than the end of the map lol.

[DD_bongodriver]

With so little to initially test I guess I will it will be sooner rather than later that we are reaching the end of the map........but now there is a dilemma, if I find something I don't like will I be able to speak freely about it?

[JtD]

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?

Because flying across the map isn't the idea of the game, is it. For instance, the test map we're getting is the point in the front where the Russian break through in the North occurred. According to the developer statements, it is also the north edge of the full sized map. Therefore, some historical missions of high historical relevance will take place in the immediate vicinity of the maps edge, and if you take off from a base like 'Rodnik', you won't need to fly 2 minutes to be off map, same goes for any Il-2 attacking the northernmost German positions. You can't evade a fighter patrol by withdrawing into friendly territory in case one shows up, autopilot will take control and send you right back into their jaws. That's really limiting.

Quite a few battles will take place in the vicinity of the map borders, so that feature won't be rare, and it will be very annoying. If you want to avoid it, by placing action say 50 km from the maps edge, you effectively lose 60% of the map area for scenario making. That's a lot.

So, if it is a design decision, it's a bad decision, imho, and if it is an engine limit, it's best addressed now instead of later, when it might require changes in already existing contents.

[Rama]

if I find something I don't like will I be able to speak freely about it?

You know you will.

Stop the provocation, please.

[DD_bongodriver]

It's really not a provocation, just seems like an obvious point, we are expected to test this game out to find problems but it seems one mans problem is another mans feature.

[FuriousMeow]

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.

Edited November 13, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[ATAG_Slipstream]

It's really not a provocation, just seems like an obvious point, we are expected to test this game out to find problems but it seems one mans problem is another mans feature.

Well hopefully there will be a simple bug thread, where people can post bugs without being jumped on, and where discussion is deleted so the devs can see bugs instantly and clearly.

That is in everyones best interest.

[thx1138]

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.

[DD_bongodriver]

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.

[FuriousMeow]

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.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Because flying across the map isn't the idea of the game, is it. For instance, the test map we're getting is the point in the front where the Russian break through in the North occurred. According to the developer statements, it is also the north edge of the full sized map. Therefore, some historical missions of high historical relevance will take place in the immediate vicinity of the maps edge, and if you take off from a base like 'Rodnik', you won't need to fly 2 minutes to be off map, same goes for any Il-2 attacking the northernmost German positions. You can't evade a fighter patrol by withdrawing into friendly territory in case one shows up, autopilot will take control and send you right back into their jaws. That's really limiting.Quite a few battles will take place in the vicinity of the map borders, so that feature won't be rare, and it will be very annoying. If you want to avoid it, by placing action say 50 km from the maps edge, you effectively lose 60% of the map area for scenario making. That's a lot.So, if it is a design decision, it's a bad decision, imho, and if it is an engine limit, it's best addressed now instead of later, when it might require changes in already existing contents.

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.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

I noticed the name

 

Komarovo...... are we in zombieland?

 

(anyone in cherno?)

[DD_bongodriver]

it's not a cheat if there is a time limit imposed before a respawn is forced, this game should be available to everyone.....even the chickens.

[FuriousMeow]

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.

Edited November 13, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[DD_bongodriver]

could work.

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

I think I am ready to take a vacation.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

pros and cons with limited map.. as an avid IL2 simmer, limitless borders are kind of a rule to me as I know nothing else.

 

IF this series ever venture to a sea-map.-e-g the pacific theatre, I really hope there won't be autoturns.. navigation over water is one of my favourite challenges; trying to find my way back to the taskforce, ...navigation challenges! I want the vast sea to feel like it's endless..scary. If there is an autoturn when out of bounce so to speak, I will loose that feeling and it will also give me a hint where I am... a hint which I don't want.

 

Anyway.. if there are limits in the engine, then focus on other things.

Edited November 13, 2013 by F19_Klunk

[JtD]

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.

No, I haven't played WT. I ran into issues with Il-2 plenty of times, though, but admittedly these were mostly smaller dogfight maps. Even though I've seen people fly off map en route to targets, I never felt that to be an exploit, as I can fly off the map as well, and AI doesn't care about map borders at all. In Il-2, with a text based mission file, it is possible to set objects on the outside of the map, you just need to manually edit the objects coordinates.

But if you think flying off map to be an exploit, what do you think about not following the laid out flight plan in a single player mission (fly higher, later, elsewhere)? This in Il-2 was the best way to avoid enemy patrols - is it mandatory for bomber pilots to always chose the most difficult way?

[FuriousMeow]

The map is going to be very large, even on Il-2 maps if a bomber pilot couldn't lay out a flight plan that would avoid the concentrated furballs between bases while staying on the map then they should probably stick to games like Farm Simulator or Train Simulator.

 

It's just a lazy exploit, which is cheating, to have the most direct route that takes you out of ALL defenses because you are flying in an alternate universe of endless green terrain and nothing else.

 

I've flown bomber and strike aircraft plenty of times online, I don't go pussy footing about off the map because it's scawwy - I want to play with everyone else, and if that means being attacked, oh noes - this is about air combat, not "hiding off the map because you don't want to get shot down."

 

Those guys that do that are like snipers in shooters. They're scared to play with everyone else, but they still want to act like they are playing with everyone else.

Edited November 13, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[LukeFF]

Is it the 19th yet? 

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

I had an airfield close to the edge of the map in RoF, and I seem to recall that there wasn't drama assiciated with it, just a boring area....

[Uufflakke]

Dunno, Bongo, but someone mentioned some map in DCS as being 22.GB already. Dont think its as big an area as this either :/

 

The WIP map Nevada  is 22 GB. And when I think of Nevada I see desert. And Vegas.

Probably they modeled every sand grain?

[DD_bongodriver]

The WIP map Nevada  is 22 GB. And when I think of Nevada I see desert. And Vegas.

Probably they modeled every sand grain?

No, but it does look like they modelled Vegas pretty dam good, and Nellis airbase, and the textures, and the objects......

[Jaws2002]

The map is going to be very large, even on Il-2 maps if a bomber pilot couldn't lay out a flight plan that would avoid the concentrated furballs between bases while staying on the map then they should probably stick to games like Farm Simulator or Train Simulator.

 

It's just a lazy exploit, which is cheating, to have the most direct route that takes you out of ALL defenses because you are flying in an alternate universe of endless green terrain and nothing else.

 

I've flown bomber and strike aircraft plenty of times online, I don't go pussy footing about off the map because it's scawwy - I want to play with everyone else, and if that means being attacked, oh noes - this is about air combat, not "hiding off the map because you don't want to get shot down."

 

Those guys that do that are like snipers in shooters. They're scared to play with everyone else, but they still want to act like they are playing with everyone else.

 

"Cheating, exploit, etc.........."

Are you guys for real? Do you realize how many times pilots in ww2 flew into other coutries airspace in order to escape enemy fighters?

US fighters and bombers, during the Ploiesti missions, would many times fly east, over the front line into russian airspace, in order to escape.

WW2 was not a static battle like ww1. The map is only good for a very limited time period. There was a lot of fighting close to the edge of that map, both, before and after operation Uranus. If you wnt to expand the timeframe to recreate other historical battles, that didn't happen in the middle of the map, you have to allow planes to exit the fully modeled map for many reasons.

 

The 180 degrees automatic turn is retarded.

[DD_Arthur]

I think I am ready to take a vacation.

 

Yeah.  I know.

[FuriousMeow]

"Cheating, exploit, etc.........."

Are you guys for real? Do you realize how many times pilots in ww2 flew into other coutries airspace in order to escape enemy fighters?

US fighters and bombers, during the Ploiesti missions, would many times fly east, over the front line into russian airspace, in order to escape.

WW2 was not a static battle like ww1. The map is only good for a very limited time period. There was a lot of fighting close to the edge of that map, both, before and after operation Uranus. If you wnt to expand the timeframe to recreate other historical battles, that didn't happen in the middle of the map, you have to allow planes to exit the fully modeled map for many reasons.

 

The 180 degrees automatic turn is retarded.

 

A) This map is very large.

 

B) No pilots ever flew into a void, the Twilight zone, an ethereal environment separated from the real world sitting in a vast expanse of nothingness.

[DD_bongodriver]

A. not relevant if his points are taken into account.

 

B. whaa?

[FuriousMeow]

A) Is relevant, what operations can be conducted off the map? None, no objects can be placed out there and no landmarks exist outside the rendered map. So you can't utilize anything off the map except for intentionally avoiding combat or defensive objects.

 

B) There's nothing off the map, it's a void. No pilots have ever flown into neverland to avoid the enemy - and in many cases of actually flying over other countries those pilots would get shot down (Switzerland).

 

Also, I think Jaws is perfectly capable of responding himself.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Rama
removed provocative comments

[71st_AH_Hooves]

No, I haven't played WT. I ran into issues with Il-2 plenty of times, though, but admittedly these were mostly smaller dogfight maps. Even though I've seen people fly off map en route to targets, I never felt that to be an exploit, as I can fly off the map as well, and AI doesn't care about map borders at all. In Il-2, with a text based mission file, it is possible to set objects on the outside of the map, you just need to manually edit the objects coordinates.

But if you think flying off map to be an exploit, what do you think about not following the laid out flight plan in a single player mission (fly higher, later, elsewhere)? This in Il-2 was the best way to avoid enemy patrols - is it mandatory for bomber pilots to always chose the most difficult way?

fair enough, but the bit about flying higher than intended is taking it for a stretch, we arent flying modern era jets that can reach the limits of the atmosphere.  Again whats getting misinterpreted here is the actual vastness of the map were to be given at release.  Byt the comments you'd think people are flying in a 10k x 10k box.   when in reality when they get the game they will most likely NEVER reach the ends of the map. 

 

As a map designer (given that the limit stays) why would you make a map that sits 2 k from the border?  Doing so, with the knowledge of how actually large the map is is a bit self defeating dont you think?  Again not knowing if its a limitation or a choice is really what is going to finish this conversation.

 

But if we are boxed in its more like an atrium not a rats cage.

[DD_bongodriver]

A. you end up in combat at the edge of the map (why not?) and find yourself being bounced off an imaginary rubber wall and turned 180 is more realistic?

 

B. No pilot ever flew into an invisible rubber wall.......I don't think Switzerland is on the edge of that map.....but I'll have to check.

[Jaws2002]

A) This map is very large.

 

B) No pilots ever flew into a void, the Twilight zone, an ethereal environment separated from the real world sitting in a vast expanse of nothingness.

 

A) the battles on eastern front started from the middle of eastern europe, went east all the way to Moskow, stalingrad, caucasus and then back all the way to the middle of Germany. Only a map that cover all this area is "very large". The front line came into and then exited this map in less than a year.

 

B) It's not empty space, nothingness, twilight zone.

It's a featureless landscape. Same aerodynamics, same athmosphere, same flying conditions.

[SYN_Haashashin]

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.

 

I personally dont like the idea of someone climbing out of the map and then head for the rear objetives without a way enemy planes can see him (no flak no nothing) and I wont be patroling outside the map so...is gaming the game. Call it like you want, to me is a perfect solution to prevent gaming the game. Also its not an instant turn around, as said before its a time for that and actually turns you around, not an instant turn around. Anyways Im not worry or nothing about it so I will take a holiday untill the release next week.

 

cheers.

[Jaws2002]

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.

 

I personally dont like the idea of someone climbing out of the map and then head for the rear objetives without a way enemy planes can see him (no flak no nothing) and I wont be patroling outside the map so...is gaming the game. Call it like you want, to me is a perfect solution to prevent gaming the game. Also its not an instant turn around, as said before its a time for that and actually turns you around, not an instant turn around. Anyways Im not worry or nothing about it so I will take a holiday untill the release next week.

 

cheers.

Again. The front line moved in and out of the map in less than a year. This is not ww1, where the trench line barely moved and this is not ROF, with 100km/h paper planes.

if you are chasing an enemy plane, you can kill it just as easy on or off the map. Gamey, is having some artificial force bringing that fleing plane back into your gunsight. That's gamey. If you make an earlyer scenario and based on the historical map, you have to put the bomber base closd to the edge of the game map, I don't see a problem to ha e the bombers use the airspace they need to climb and get to the target.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Jaws2002

[BFsSmurfy]

Perhaps if people read the last post in "Questions for developers" there`d be more interesting posts in here, rather than the usual gotta have the last word suspects trying to have the last word in an endless circle of crap, shame they can`t meet in a pub where`d there`d be no internet safety shield to protect them.