Edge of the map - in reality

[=38=Tatarenko]

I hope all the people who whined to high heaven about map edge behaviour have now tried it and seen how elegant the solution is!

[FlyingNutcase]

Or re-phrasing: "I hope all the people who cared enough to offer an opinion or make a suggestion about map edge behaviour have now tried it and seen how elegant the solution is!"   

 

I'm about to start downloading so a little waiting to go.

[Jaws2002]

Actually it's pretty bloody silly. There's nothing but wasteland there anyway. When first time it happened I was 4500+meters and busy checking my dials and temps. It took me out of the cockpit straight into that gamey U-turn.

I didn't know what happened first. The biggest immersion killer so far. If you are at altitude you have very short view distance and you can barely see the edge.

 

Biggest Immersion killer so far. 

 

[Rigsby]

I hope all the people who whined to high heaven about map edge behaviour have now tried it and seen how elegant the solution is!

Why is it moaning when the Devs have asked the community to give as much input as possible? 

Edited November 19, 2013 by Rigsby

[Finkeren]

Not a fan of the solution either, but not a deal breaker.

 

What I really wish for is a map, where we don't have to worry about the edges at all. It seems to me, that most flight sims always have maps, where a lot of stuff is happening around the edges of the map: Airfields, major settlements, large infrastructure etc. This propably stems from a desire to stretch the map as far as the engine will allow to include as much content in the map as posible, but it has the effect, that often times, especially with computer-generated missions, much of the flying/action takes place right along the edge of the map, killing immersion.

 

Why not instead make a 10 - 20 km "buffer zone" along the edge of the map, where everything is modelled, settlements, roads, rivers and canals, forests, even airfields (which have to be static and inactive)? In this zone nothing much really happens but gives us something to look at in the distance, while the major action happens a bit further in towards the center of the map.  

[Bearcat]

I hope all the people who whined to high heaven about map edge behaviour have now tried it and seen how elegant the solution is!

 

Whined to high heaven? Who did that .. ? It is a solution to a problem that does not exist. and not only that .. there is nothing elegant about it. As far as I am concerned it still does not belong in this sim and is the only immersion killer  have found so far.. but like Finkerin said.. and as I said in my I will admit rather verbose post on the subject a while back it isn't a deal breaker.. there are no deal breakers in this sim and I didn't expect any but that is as hokey in BoS as it is in RoF.

 

Actually it's pretty bloody silly. There's nothing but wasteland there anyway. When first time it happened I was 4500+meters and busy checking my dials and temps. It took me out of the cockpit straight into that gamey U-turn.

I didn't know what happened first. The biggest immersion killer so far. If you are at altitude you have very short view distance and you can barely see the edge.

 

Biggest Immersion killer so far. 

 

My take as well and I still hope that at some point it is removed .. unless of course as I said it is built into the engine.

[FlatSpinMan]

I stumbled across that the other other in that night mission. I was low flipping and twisting and dipping all over the place unintentionally when I noticed artillery and flak. Thinking it was cool I staggered over to have a closer look. There were no ground objects so I had a suspicion it might be the edge. Sure enough I was soon booted out and had to fly in 3rd person view to get back on the map. With no course info on the HUD (is there?) that was easier said than done - finding north in the dark on a snow-covered map.

[=69.GIAP=STENKA69GIAP]

From my experience in rise of flight it is built into the engine.

 

Effectively a map bottom left is X=0 Z=0.

 

From that point each coordinate of the map is a positive X and Z value.

 

What the map edge routine is doing is preventing you from going into "negative space". This means they don't have to test the code for using negative values.

 

Now I can assure you that this is not a problem. I know this because I've been building campaigns in this engine for 4 years now.

 

Here you are merely using a tiny postage stamp map to test with, so you easily bump into the sides of your box.

 

The campaign maps are huge. When you are setting up a campaign you choose an area, which is never right at the edge of the map.

 

The whole of the map is populated with towns, villages, bridges, airfields. Once you have defined your campaign sector on the map you delete the objects that are outside. This means they don't take up memory and that the area outside of your sector is "unpopulated".

 

So if the mission/campaign designer has done his job right you can fly for hours without hitting the edge.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

I still believe that if this series is to take on theatres of war such as the Pacific, where the vast sea is an immense threat to survival... bad navigation will get you killed.. they HAVE to open up the border into the endless out of bounce area outside the actual map. If we can "cheat navigate" by hitting the end of the map and that way figure out current position over an empty wasteland of water.. then the ocean will never feel as threatening as it should.

 

As for now, I am ok with it: there are more urgent things at hand

Edited November 19, 2013 by F19_Klunk

[Karost]

Jaws ,  U-Turn Solution is the big hit  to IL2 friends ,

 

and we know that from poll  how Founder thinks about this.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/558-implementation-map-borders/

 

may be IL2 friends get used to the "old" IL2's engine with out U-Turn sigh.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Karost

[Bearcat]

I still believe that if this series is to take on theatres of war such as the Pacific, where the vast sea is an immense threat to survival... bad navigation will get you killed.. they HAVE to open up the border into the endless out of bounce area outside the actual map. If we can "cheat navigate" by hitting the end of the map and that way figure out current position over an empty wasteland of water.. then the ocean will never feel as threatening as it should.

 

As for now, I am ok with it: there are more urgent things at hand

 

Exactly.. and for those who are creative enough to make them I always thought it was great to do missions where home plate was off the map.. That way you had to watch everything to make sure you were going in the right direction.. Especially in the Navy fights..

[Marrond]

My take as well and I still hope that at some point it is removed .. unless of course as I said it is built into the engine.

Don't want to kill your hope here but it seems like an engine limitation. It looks the same as it is in RoF.

I still believe that if this series is to take on theatres of war such as the Pacific, where the vast sea is an immense threat to survival... bad navigation will get you killed.. they HAVE to open up the border into the endless out of bounce area outside the actual map. If we can "cheat navigate" by hitting the end of the map and that way figure out current position over an empty wasteland of water.. then the ocean will never feel as threatening as it should.

 

As for now, I am ok with it: there are more urgent things at hand

Pacific map full of sea shouldn't be hard to render, hence it could be MUCH bigger without serious impact onto resources... afterall it's just repeating texture animation with bumps and alphas attached, not a fluid simulation or physical terrain. Should eat way less resources in the end.

 

I don't think they will ever change it, I guess it's just an engine limitation - we need official statement on that, Jasooooooooooooooooooooon we need you here (just don't put it arround in pillows, the sooner you kill or confirm hopes the better since people will face it way earlier before release)...

Edited November 19, 2013 by Marrond

[Mingan]

Biggest Immersion killer so far. 

 

True. And also a cheat. Not good at all. Really the only bad thing I can say at this point!

[JtD]

Reminds me of this:

 

[FuriousMeow]

 And also a cheat.

 

What?

[Mingan]

As F19_Klunk pointed out, we can no longer get lost when playing without the game map. Worried getting lost when navigating at high altitude? No problem, this magical autopilot we installed on our new LaGG will make u-turn if you make a mistake!

[Bearcat]

It'a fuunny because there are those among us who feel that having the ability to go off the map is a cheat.

[FuriousMeow]

As F19_Klunk pointed out, we can no longer get lost when playing without the game map. Worried getting lost when navigating at high altitude? No problem, this magical autopilot we installed on our new LaGG will make u-turn if you make a mistake!

 

Or you could hide off the map out of the combat zone avoiding fighter patrols to go bomb planes taking off and not having to worry about being intercepted or hit by flak until near your target. Kind of opposite of what you should be doing in an air combat simulator.

 

And yes, you can get very lost. Go play RoF on the Western Front map. The map we will be getting is so large that if you are going off of it, it's intentional to avoid being intercepted.

 

And as a matter of fact, just because you got turned around, that still does not help you understand where you are on the map. You still have a compass, and if a u-turn helps you find your locale then you already knew where you were. That argument is silly in the most extreme.

Edited November 20, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Mingan]

The map we will be getting is so large that if you are going off of it, it's intentional to avoid being intercepted.

 

And you could also say that if the map is very large, then you are only going to waste all your fuel while doing nothing useful when flying off-map. And no matter how the borders are done, no objective should be near it, that would be stupid in any case. I guess that also means that this is not a big problem. It just feels wrong. One experienced game designer said in his blog that every time player loses control of the game, the immersion is broken. That is very true at least.

[FuriousMeow]

I think a better solution was just to announce that a player left the map and where they did it. Then until they come back on the map, it announces how long they have been off, and the coords they left the map at. Maybe they'll be shamed to come back and join everyone else in the actual rendered map where everything is taking place, but at least it can be acknowledged that they intentionally left the map to avoid combat which typically means it's either a bomber avoiding combat to bomb a target or a squadron planning an airfield vulching raid and the last coords could give a decent indication of what the nearest field or target is and could be met. Also, when they come back on the map it announces the player returned to the map and their coords. Prevents gaming the lack of a borderless map.

 

Of course, the whole issue could be technologically driven - so wanting the effect removed could all be moot since it can't be due to some technological issue and since it's present in single player I'm inclined to think that it might be a technological issue/limit.

Edited November 20, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[SKG51_robtek]

Be it as it may, it is a restriction and as such it should be removed if possible!

If it isn't possible, the discussion is irrelevant except it could lead to a, imo, better option that the pilot

gets a earlier warning, while still in the cockpit and in control, and can avoid to be turned back into the fangs

of his pursuer.

The landscape should visually extend beyond viewing distance from the border.

[=IRFC=Jorri]

You used to be able to leave the map in Rise of Flight.

[Jaws2002]

Or you could hide off the map out of the combat zone avoiding fighter patrols to go bomb planes taking off and not having to worry about being intercepted or hit by flak until near your target. Kind of opposite of what you should be doing in an air combat simulator.

 

And yes, you can get very lost. Go play RoF on the Western Front map. The map we will be getting is so large that if you are going off of it, it's intentional to avoid being intercepted.

 

And as a matter of fact, just because you got turned around, that still does not help you understand where you are on the map. You still have a compass, and if a u-turn helps you find your locale then you already knew where you were. That argument is silly in the most extreme.

Wait a few weeks until we get 109s, multiplayer and guns, then see the horors of the U-turns on this 50x50km map. You'll see plenty of cases where enemy planes will be herded in a corner of the map and picked off during the Uturn, with no chance to escape not even in your own side of the front, behind your base.

While the main map will be bigger, I'm sure some hosts will run dogfight servers on smaller maps because of better performance. And since the front line moved into the map, you'll have historical scenarios with bases close to the edge on that one as well.

This fps/arcade "come back here and fight me" attitude is so silly. I thought it was cured in ww2 flight sims, but looks like it's not the case.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jaws2002

[Jaws2002]

 

You used to be able to leave the map in Rise of Flight.

 

Then, is this u-turn the result of a minority whine?

[FuriousMeow]

Most RoF servers run the full western front map, the performance hit is negligable. Even the small dogfight map with a lake in the middle is big enough that you have to intentionally go off the side of the map.

 

Mountain out of a molehill.

[Emgy]

While the main map will be bigger, I'm sure some hosts will run dogfight servers on smaller maps because of better performance.

Have you tried cliffs of dover with 4.0 patch? Old, unoptimized engine but still no problems in big furballs using the big channel map.

 

The AX dogfight server uses a small map, but those maps give better performance from having very little ground clutter/buildings, not simply by being small.

 

And even on the AX dogfight server with small maps (the combat area is much less than 50x50km) the furballs are always near the center of the map. No one gets close to the edge.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Calvamos

[SKG51_robtek]

Why there are people arguing to have a restriction is beyond my horizon.

But at least i can try to reach my horizon without being turned back.

[Rivet]

In that warning the turn direction is 180 degrees out too,  according to the aircraft instruments. I was flying north, got to the edge of the map and the message came up wanting me to turn NORTH to get back to the map. I assumed it meant the south north, so I turned South instead. Seemed to work. I too join the ranks of those who are not fans of this solution.

[FuriousMeow]

Why people need to go off the modelled terrain to circumvent defenses is beyond me. Actually it's not, they want to exploit a weakness so they don't get shot down before they bomb their target and hiding off the map is the best way to do it.

[Jaws2002]

Have you tried cliffs of dover with 4.0 patch? Old, unoptimized engine but still no problems in big furballs using the big channel map.

 

The AX dogfight server uses a small map, but those maps give better performance from having very little ground clutter/buildings, not simply by being small.

 

And even on the AX dogfight server with small maps (the combat area is much less than 50x50km) the furballs are always near the center of the map. No one gets close to the edge.

 

The big important difference between battle of Britain (CLOD) and eastern front is dynamics of the ground war. Static front line (the chanel) for Clod (similar to rof) and very dynamic front line in the east.

 

This is the huge diference. How can you force planes and players to not get to the border of the map, when the front line passed that border twice in a year?

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jaws2002

[FuriousMeow]

This only covers a small portion of the war, not even a full year but a few months. Additionally, objects can't be placed outside the boundaries of the rendered map - and there's nothing out there to fight over.

[Jaws2002]

Why people need to go off the modelled terrain to circumvent defenses is beyond me. Actually it's not, they want to exploit a weakness so they don't get shot down before they bomb their target and hiding off the map is the best way to do it.

 

Your argument is only valid for a very small part of the online community. The game has no online, guns, or big map yet, so what is this silly U-turn doing in the game exactly?

This restriction should never be implemented at any higher level than server host.

[FuriousMeow]

Your argument is valid for no part of the community, because you can't place objects out there so you can't possibly have any reason to leave the map other than the reason I stated.

[BraveSirRobin]

I understand why people should not be allowed off the edge of the map.  It's an unfair way to sneak behind enemy lines.  Can anyone explain why I should care what method is used to stop those people?

[Emgy]

The big important difference between battle of Britain (CLOD) and eastern front is dynamics of the ground war. Static front line (the chanel) for Clod (similar to rof) and very dynamic front line in the east.

 

This is the huge diference. How can you force planes and players to not get to the border of the map, when the front line passed that border twice in a year?

 

While I am not necessarily a fan of the turn-around mechanic, I find this argument a little odd . How long did it take the Soviet ground forces to push the frontline say 100km, during Operation Uranus?

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Operation_Uranus.svg

 

Here you see it took the Soviets 4 days to push ~50-60km on the southern front.

Plenty of time for an ATAG-style mission of 5 hours, without Soviet ground forces pushing Luftwaffe airbases off of the main BoS map!

Edited November 20, 2013 by Calvamos

[Jaws2002]

I understand why people should not be allowed off the edge of the map. It's an unfair way to sneak behind enemy lines. Can anyone explain why I should care what method is used to stop those people?

I don't care about those people. I care about those people who want to climb away from the fight, behind their own base, in their teritory, when their team is short on players, their base close to the edge being vulched.

If you played ww2 combat sims online, you ran into this situation plenty times.

 

Why shouldn't you be allowed to extend, inside your teritory, on your side of the front line, if your close to the edge base is being vulched or suppressed?

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jaws2002

[BraveSirRobin]

I don't care about those people. I care about those people who want to climb away from the fight, behind their own base, in their teritory, when their team is short on players, their base close to the edge being vulched.

If you played ww2 combat sims online, you ran into this situation plenty times.

 

Why shouldn't you be allowed to extend, inside your teritory, on your side of the front line, if your close to the edge base is being vulched or soppressed?

 

It should be up to the mission designer to prevent situations like that.  If that fails, just exit the mission.  No shame in that if someone is unrealistically chasing you all the way to Siberia.

[Jaws2002]

While I am not necessarily a fan of the turn-around mechanic, I find this argument a little odd . How long did it take the Soviet ground forces to push the frontline say 100km, during Operation Uranus?

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Operation_Uranus.svg

 

Here you see it took the Soviets 4 days to push ~50-60km on the southern front.

Plenty of time for an ATAG-style mission of 5 hours, without Soviet ground forces pushing Luftwaffe airbases off of the main BoS map!

I'm not talking about pushing the front line in a mission, but about making/playing historical missions from times when ghe front line was close to the edge of the game map.

[SKG51_robtek]

For the fans of "herding the bombers to known shoot down areas" , if bombers can fly outside of the map, so can fighters!

There was no limitation in reality(except fuel and daylight time), and aaa was only where there was something to protect, not all over the plains.

Really no need for artificial limitations.

[=IRFC=Jorri]

Most RoF servers run the full western front map, the performance hit is negligable. Even the small dogfight map with a lake in the middle is big enough that you have to intentionally go off the side of the map.

 

Mountain out of a molehill.

 

At the same time, both maps in RoF have Ypres almost at the very edge of the map...meaning any mission near this historically very important town will leave you constantly looking to and flying at the border.