Edge of the map - in reality

[FuriousMeow]

I suppose Jorri, but I didn't even know the turn around existed in RoF until the Channel map when I inadvertantly flew to an area that told me I was leaving the map. I'm not sure when it was introduced, was it with the channel map? Up to that point, I had never run into the turn around thing, and since then I never have - especially online - that's how often I fly off the map or was even close enough to the edge to accidentally fly off the map.

 

So in four years of RoF, again not sure when the turn around was introduced - so since whenever it was introduced, I've seen the turn around pop up once.

[Karost]

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.

 

That is my most favor   ..... some guy said  "That is cheating"

So That mean IL2 friends cheating for over 10 years of fun     

[Karost]

oh so no dragons at the edge of the world

 

in the old il2 i chased some guy 50 km off the map

 

that is fun , in IL2 old day when my friends chased me out of the map I drag him a far away from the map and he loss for navigation could not fly back to the base

[jaydee]

Hi all I am not a fan of the U-turn. I remember another "game' when I was flying a 190D9,being chased by a bunch of rabid Il 153's(who were gaining on me ) !

Suddenly I am ,disoriented and  flying towards them !...

As regards (especially Bomber) pilots flying off the "Edge" of the map to circumvent Fighters,AA etc,I got no problems with that ! As long as they have to Fly and Navigate in the "Barren" Wilderness for a tactical "Surprise",to me its all good !

BUT,if I was releasing a "Sim" in alpha ....I would want a Small Map !..I am looking for Bugs. I would want all players in the "Controlled" Enviornment(Map) to report their "Bugs"...

The bigger the Map,the more Variables are added...ie,Textures for the Horizon have to be loaded into Ram !..= More Varible data for the Devs.

I think if the Devs are usin a "Small Map" with U-turns to gather data.,Im ok  with that !

[III/JG11_Tiger]

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?

I don't like the solution but your argument makes no sense, off the map is off the map, it is not a part of your territory?

 

I have to say I have flown ROF since day one and never ventured off the map, as others have said if you are going off map you are circumventing the rules, think of it as if you were flying into Swiss territory to be interned for the rest of the war.

 

Maybe they could put heavy static defences on the border to discourage people crossing.

[FlatSpinMan]

If you check the edge of the BoS map, they have - in the one point I crossed the border at least. There was flak and artillery.

[Emgy]

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.

 

Are you worried about not having good historical missions for the IAR80 in your avatar(if we get it)? If you look at the battle map at 9:44 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFf1kIw5ulk&feature=player_detailpage&t=9m44s

You see there are ample opportunities for Romanian-themed scenarios.

The closest to the edge you can get with a historical scenario would be at Kletskaya which is 32km from the northern map edge. But the LW&FARR really did not have time or resources to penetrate 32km past the Soviet assault lines during Operation Uranus. They were desperately trying to defend their own ground forces!

 

It's maybe easy for us to forget that the map is tailored for Operation Uranus. This is not IL2:Fall Blau, after all.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Calvamos

[Matt]

I wasn't even aware this feature exists in RoF or BoS, because i simple never flew outside the map. Not even on this small test map.

 

But if people want to fly over an empty area, i don't mind. I will simply avoid servers which runs missions that focus on areas right at the border of the map. You can't have a map that covers everything, so that's just what people have to live with and mission creators/server admins should try to avoid this from becoming an issue in the first place.

[Bearcat]

that is fun , in IL2 old day when my friends chased me out of the map I drag him a far away from the map and he loss for navigation could not fly back to the base

 

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.

 

Exactly and that is my whole problem with that feature. I would rather have to be more alert and thwart anyone trying to do an end around than have a situation like what we have.

 

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.

 

All of those "solutions" are solutions to a problem that does not exist. The best way to prevent this is to have the mission designer either put fuel limits or flak in the mission or design the mission with bases not close to the edge.. but in any case being able to fly off the edge of the map should be a no brainer. We have had this discussion you and I before, and I know where you are coming from.. but I just totally disagree with you and I think that placing restrictions like this in a sim.. especially one of this caliber (even at 32% BoS looks like it os going to be an outstanding, game changing sim) is a mistake, a step backwards after a leap forward and I hope that regardless to how big the map is the final product does not have that feature. Since this sim bears the name and appears to be the successor to IL2 it should, in my opinion not step backwards in an area as critical as this and with all the moves forward even in this Alpha, a feature like that in the final product out of fear of people exploiting it just does not belong there.. Of course it is not a game changer.. but it is counter immersive..

 

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.

 

+1

 

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

 

It has been known to happen ...

 

I don't like the solution but your argument makes no sense, off the map is off the map, it is not a part of your territory?

 

I have to say I have flown ROF since day one and never ventured off the map, as others have said if you are going off map you are circumventing the rules, think of it as if you were flying into Swiss territory to be interned for the rest of the war. Maybe they could put heavy static defences on the border to discourage people crossing.

 

That would be up to the mission designer...

 

I have said this before .. but we use the term and worry to much about "cheats" I saw a post where someone had a screenshot of him looking over his shoulder with TIR and he said something like "I wouldn't use it to cheat.." and I was like... really... ? An exploit maybe .. but a cheat? Even in IL2 the print screen exploit was not a true cheat because anyone could do it.. it was an exploit.. and un honorable exploit.. and there will always be dishonorable people who will try to game the game to do what ever they can to win. I guarantee you that someone will find a way to exploit this one as well if it comes up..  The ability to fly off the map .. endlessly until you run out of fuel even with a full tank is IMO one of the things that added to the revolutionary level of immersion that IL2 brought to simming in it's redefinition of the genre.. That "feature" may work fine in RoF .. because let's face it.. put putting around the edge of any map in RoF would be boring as h@ll given the speed of the aircraft and their limitations ... but WWII is a different theater and things need to be more wide open.. I hope the devs can and decide to change that with regards to that feature.

[FuriousMeow]

I've seen it happen plenty of times in wars, where preventing an attack and flying sweeps to prevent bases or factories being bombed is important and does matter. Not the average dogfight or COOP. You patrol every route, keep up a steady  defense and then they come in the back door because they took advantage of a weakness that allowed them to circumvent all defenses and easily bomb the field. I've quit playing wars when that happens, it's simply futile to setup a patrol route when you can't cover all of the map that is modelled let alone the lands that rendering forgot beyond the borders.

 

So it is a problem in "competitive" scenarios such as wars where protecting targets do matter.

[Lord_Haw-Haw]

I've seen it happen plenty of times in wars, where preventing an attack and flying sweeps to prevent bases or factories being bombed is important and does matter. Not the average dogfight or COOP. You patrol every route, keep up a steady  defense and then they come in the back door because they took advantage of a weakness that allowed them to circumvent all defenses and easily bomb the field. I've quit playing wars when that happens, it's simply futile to setup a patrol route when you can't cover all of the map that is modelled let alone the lands that rendering forgot beyond the borders.

 

So it is a problem in "competitive" scenarios such as wars where protecting targets do matter.

Well heck any bomber pilot taking the direct route is pretty much dead meat, as the defenders usually know from which direction to expect an attack. Only rookies would fly that way, unless you got a large amount of escorts that know what to do. Any bomber pilot who knows how things are in a sim, will all ways take a longer route to make a attack from a not expected approach.

Sure takes a lot longer, but you hit the target, avoid the mob that is half ways the direct route waiting for you, and you have good chances of making it home. As on most servers you have very few bombers and masses of fighters, and no bomber in their right mind is going to volontarily tangle with fighters if it can be avoided!

[FuriousMeow]

Of course they should fly a route that takes longer to avoid fighters, I'm not saying they shouldn't. I do that all the time, but it can all be done without going off to non-rendered land.

[Lord_Haw-Haw]

Of course they should fly a route that takes longer to avoid fighters, I'm not saying they shouldn't. I do that all the time, but it can all be done without going off to non-rendered land.

Most times that is right, but thinking of some servers that would have fighters and bombers, but the map being so ridiculeuosly small, you either leave

the server or take unorthodox measures.

[BraveSirRobin]

Most times that is right, but thinking of some servers that would have fighters and bombers, but the map being so ridiculeuosly small, you either leave

the server or take unorthodox measures.

 

If the map is ridiculously small it means that mission designer intended to make you fight your way to the target.  

[Lord_Haw-Haw]

If the map is ridiculously small it means that mission designer intended to make you fight your way to the target.  

Yeah dogfight with a bomber right...........

It means if you followed the mission designers thoughts, as a bomber you are only to play easy target with no hope of reaching your goal.

Wonder how many would volontier for that? Certainly not me.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Lord_Haw-Haw

[BraveSirRobin]

Yeah dogfight with a bomber right...........

 

I'm pretty sure I said "fight your way to the target".  You either assign escorts to the bombers, try to divert the defenders, or hope you have very good gunners.

[Jaws2002]

Most people who fly bombers start the way you guys want. Take a heavy loaded, lumbering bomber and head straight for the targer. After geting killed over and over, with no chance of makeing his hard work pay off, they come to two inevitable choices. Fly the most sneaky route to the target, to avoid intercept or quit flying all together.

 

Hint. Bombers are not in the game to be used as death stars like in that fast food server.

[FuriousMeow]

I think it's funny "you guys want" is thrown in there. I fly bombers, attack aircraft and fighters. I prefer attack aircraft over bombers and they are even more vulnerable than bombers.

 

Then you go on to say that they should just fly straight in rather than be sneaky, and yet it's been stated they (we) shouldn't. You don't have to hide off the map to do it either.

 

I've been very successful with attack aircraft, like the Il-2 - bombers stand a better chance of getting away from a fighter than the Il2 - by flying alternate routes to avoid known enemy airfields and areas that could be considered defenses. It's tactical decision making. Going off the map is just going easy mode because very few to no one will be out there on patrol - except for the other people that want to avoid air combat in an air combat simulation.

Edited November 21, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Lord_Haw-Haw]

I think it's funny "you guys want" is thrown in there. I fly bombers, attack aircraft and fighters. I prefer attack aircraft over bombers and they are even more vulnerable than bombers.

 

Then you go on to say that they should just fly straight in rather than be sneaky, and yet it's been stated they (we) shouldn't. You don't have to hide off the map to do it either.

 

I've been very successful with attack aircraft, like the Il-2 - bombers stand a better chance of getting away from a fighter than the Il2 - by flying alternate routes to avoid known enemy airfields and areas that could be considered defenses. It's tactical decision making. Going off the map is just going easy mode because very few to no one will be out there on patrol - except for the other people that want to avoid air combat in an air combat simulation.

That is all fine, if the map has a size that allows that, otherwise you are only trying to talk something bad, as being o.k. Wee little maps are no goes for bombers which you should know if you do fly bombers as you say. Flying alternative routes only work if the map is big enough, other wise pointless. Bombers are for bombing and not for dog fighting, and proper escorts are even rarer than lots and lots of bomber fliers. I have been flying online since EAW and have found escorts to be usually more dangerous than enemy fighters, as most do not have a clue how to fly escort, it certainly does not mean by flying your plane up the rear of a friendly bomber.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Lord_Haw-Haw

[FuriousMeow]

I've already explained myself to the point of lacking anything more to explain, but have you tried RoF? The smallest maps are large enough that flying off of it is such a big issue that I haven't seen this map edge topic on the RoF forums. Maybe I missed them, but it's that big of an issue that it's apparently not.

 

I've been playing online sims since Confirmed Kill v.93, CK was the new AW, I'm no newbie. I have come across friendly bombers in CK, WB, AH, Il2 and escorted them to and from targets - mostly remaining on station and using the bombers defensive fire to distract the fighter giving me a quick break to get a snapshot off and hopefully scare them away.

[Lord_Haw-Haw]

I've already explained myself to the point of lacking anything more to explain, but have you tried RoF? The smallest maps are large enough that flying off of it is such a big issue that I haven't seen this map edge topic on the RoF forums. Maybe I missed them, but it's that big of an issue that it's apparently not.

 

I've been playing online sims since Confirmed Kill v.93, CK was the new AW, I'm no newbie. I have come across friendly bombers in CK, WB, AH, Il2 and escorted them to and from targets - mostly remaining on station and using the bombers defensive fire to distract the fighter giving me a quick break to get a snapshot off and hopefully scare them away.

Well good for you, I have not had that experiance yet except for one mission where JG4 was the escort. Have you played IL2? There are plenty of maps that make flying bombers pointless.

[FuriousMeow]

If we're going to be sarcastic, no, no I've never played Il-2.

[II./JG27_Rich]

I think it should be like IL-2. If your in a 109 and you can't can't catch the P-51 then lump it. Although maybe the G 10, K4 numbers may suprise us.. HP weight and all that 

Edited November 21, 2013 by II./JG27_Rich

[DD_fruitbat]

I think this solution makes the 20km or so around the edge of the map worthless regarding making missions. Maybe more than 20km.

[FuriousMeow]

I honestly don't see the point of the turn around, I do believe there are alternatives to allow a server to control "off map ventures" for certain events where going off the map and circumventing defenses really does matter. In the standard day to day server, it really shouldn't matter - as the areas that need defense should be centered and placed within surrounding defenses - such as aircraft factories and things of that nature (refineries that if destroyed mean less fuel available? Man it'd be awesome if more strategic elements could be introduced that require defending to maintain the ability to keep using certain weapons, having full fuel, and certain aircraft - but that's not the point of this topic).

 

I'm just saying that for certain events/scenarios there are those who will go out of there way to utilize weaknesses in the software to their advantage and I certainly believe those weaknesses should be nullified so they can't be taken advantage of for events/scenarios that truly rely on individuals not taking utilizing weaknesses in the software.

 

Day to day servers that run nonstop, let them go off the map and have a tea party out there unless the server operator decides that is not how they want to run things. I'm all for options, I've just experienced the other side of this and see the reason why it's implemented - but I do agree it should be a server side option with perhaps another option (like a radar alert about people leaving the map and staying off the map).

Edited November 21, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Emgy]

I think this solution makes the 20km or so around the edge of the map worthless regarding making missions. Maybe more than 20km.

And there are very few interesting historical battles that took place within 20km of the edges of the BoS battle map. Just some extreme flank actions involving the northwest flank of the 3rd and the south flank of the 4th Romanian army.

[6S.Manu]

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

 

Yes. And I still believe it.  

 

Strongly. 

 

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.

 

I agree. It's all about the mission.

 

BTW I think there could be better solutions, for example forcing some kind of damage to the plane (you can take it as a random mechanical failure... even if the truth is that you "suck" in navigation). 

Edited November 21, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[SKG51_robtek]

Still nobody has presented a valid reason imo why leaving the map should be cheating.

If a bomber leaves the map, any fighter can do this also.

That there was aaa everywhere is just nonsens, aaa was only where there was something to defend.(small aaa doesn't count at altitude)

The target will always be on the map and the bomber has to reach the target, enough chances to intercept.

That bombers are forced to approach from limited directions, that is cheating, as in RL the bombers

took every possible chance to misguide and avoid the enemy.

So either there is a point defense or the fighters fly cap on every possible approach, even if that is 360 degree.

I believe that only a fighter pilot can be against open borders, better to shoot fish in a barrel ;D.

[FuriousMeow]

Of course no one has presented a valid reason, because it's only valid if you agree with it which is to say that nothing is valid but your own view point.

 

At this point, I've said all I can and demonstrated several scenarios that do in fact show it as exploiting a weakness in the software.

 

No American bombers flew from Britain over the United States, over Africa, to bomb Berlin and land back in Britain. That's the equivelant of flying off the map to come in from behind the target.

Edited November 21, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[6S.Manu]

At this point, I've said all I can and demonstrated several scenarios that do in fact show it as exploiting a weakness in the software.

 

No American bombers flew from Britain over the United States, over Africa, to bomb Berlin and land back in Britain. That's the equivelant of flying off the map to come in from behind the target.

 

 

 

By mission our flight A has to cover an area (aka "the map") and I can suppose that we are not the only active fighters in the territory: it highly probable that in the adjacent areas of the map ("beyond the edges") there are other flights B and C who can spot and engage the enemies.

 

In game B and C do not exist while the bombers are going to fly through their area... it the same problem of sims like Arma, where you can go around the objective, far inside enemy territory, since the mission designer does not insert protection because of hardware/software reasons.

 

In Arma the solution is AI spawning points triggered when the player enters in defined areas: I really don't like AI... I prefer playing with guys who take the mission seriously (in fact in most of the online wars and campaigns it's explicitly forbidden): the bombers MUST pass there since it was their planned path to the target.

 

Instead of cheating the enemy fighters (and ruining the day of whose players) bombers should coordinate with their teammates so they can provide escort/support to them.

 

IMO. 

[6S.Manu]

I believe that only a fighter pilot can be against open borders, better to shoot fish in a barrel ;D.

 

I know many players (including myself) used to fly bombers in the correct way (meaning the way I like): they don't fly in a predicable way but still inside the limits of the map. I admit that's possible only with cooperation and organization.

 

I understand it's difficult to reach that in the average online server but I have no problem since quite sociable guy and I was used to ask for cooperation to the other players.

 

In the past I flew many missions with 4-6 bombers and some fighters to cover us (usually guys of other squads found right in the server): of course we didn't cross the borders of the map. The bombers had fun as the fighters (our enemies too).

Edited November 21, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[FlatSpinMan]

Okay FuriousMeow, we all get it. Your point of view has been aired.

[kendo]

This issue is unavoidable in any simulation. In the real world there are no artificial boundaries or edges. In a virtual environment with finite maps they will always exist. This is one of those areas where our simulation of reality will always break down (at least until computing power advances enough to have the entire world modelled as a 3-d sphere!?)

 

So the question is how to handle it?

 

And I think the dev's solution is a good one. Being able to fly off 'the edge of the world' is not 'realistic', and that is what you are doing when you leave the modelled environment in a simulation.

 

It is NOT equivalent to choosing an alternative route to the target as some have advocated. In reality adjacent areas to the main map would be filled with their own combat units, defending aircraft, flak, etc. To take advantage of the artificial deadness of this area should not be possible. It is unrealistic and amounts to an exploit.

 

Also, given the size of the main map and where the action will take place I think this amounts to a non-issue anyway.

Edited November 22, 2013 by kendo

[Karost]

I just think in upside side down

 

Hey IL2 Friends let try this, (back to the future)  go back to 10 years ago and   we play  il2 online "small" map  but this time there is  ...."u-turn" in game engine .

 

How do you feel ?

 

- I just close my eye and think of the picture when  both side have air base at corner of the map .... while flying every one must be aware no to made urgly u-turn sign appear in his UI .... or some guy are smart  using u-turn like a spring board (in horizontal ) Bongggg.... and come back to be hind other guys ..... Ohh... I have to stop thinking ..  I leave it up to you  ... IL2 friends   .......

Edited November 22, 2013 by Karost

[FlatSpinMan]

For what it's worth, the U-turn isn't instant. You get kicked out of the plane and have to steer it from a distance to get it back in-bounds.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

If its an engine limitation. I.wouldnt mind there being unlimited area. But honestly i doubt ill ever get there.

[Bearcat]

Oh OK.. well it was wishful thinking..

[Feathered_IV]

If happened to me the other night where I ran off the edge and got turned back. It did its job though and will surely dissuade me from trying it again. Problem solved.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

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.

They? I think many of us who have a differrent opinion than you do have presented many valid arguments. I respect your opinion.. It's not to much to ask that you do the same without assuming that everyone who wants "open borders" are cheaters. I don't need to go outside the borders.. I don't even want to. In my example I argued for open borders as a navigational challenge once (hopefully) we end up in a theatre of war over open sea.... Pacific operations in original IL2 is fantastic in that sense... The notion of getting lost over a neverending water landscape does really augment the experience... We could never achieve that with a u-turn solution.

 

We will just have to see what the development team says.. I am quite sure they have discussed all this in length. If it is feasable to open up the map, then let us... their customers... tell them about our opinions... And keep the discussion in a reasonable civil tone.... and that goes for all of us...pro or anti u-turn..

Edited November 27, 2013 by F19_Klunk

[Flyingpencil]

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. 

 

 

150% agree.

 

Their are FAR better ways to deal with this.

 

How you say?

 

They show up on map of enemy players, becuase they are spotted ground forces, radar, a little bird told them.

 

Other ideas  aplenty.