objects interaction

[ECV56_Guevara]

IIRC in Clod, was planned a feature where some ground objects would interact between them, as power generators that if destroyed, would eliminate searchligths. This kind of interaction would be great in BoS.

Some quick examples :

Fuel depots that destroyed reduce readyness/launching AC capacity/ground vehicles movilizaton

Radars destroyed reduce enemy fighters vectorization / awareness /AAA

Forward air Controllers that killed reduce awareness

An air recon that if precise, gives more accuracy to AI bombers

I mean, no triggers, but direct interaction, like a broken link.

 

I guess the comunity could suggest lot of examples like these.  I don t know if some of these are possible or even present in RoF, but I really hope It could be done.

 

 

PD: sorry, my english is worst every day.

 

 

[slm]

I like the basic idea a lot.

But IMO it would be best if mission designers could define at least some things that happen as consequence when something is destroyed.

Like if an air field runway is bombed badly enough, some AI planes that were supposed to take off at certain time will not be able to take off.

[ECV56_Guevara]

Of course slm, but both thing could exists. I hope could explain it right in English:

One type of feature, "trigger type" mission  builder modificable. More in relation wiht an event that could or could not occur in along time. 

I.E: a recon that fly over determinate zone.or your example aobout the runway.

Another type "direct link"  more in realation wiht the object itself, a parameter, maybe  also modificable by mission builder. I.E: a power generator destroyed, etc...

[SYN_Vander]

WIth the current RoF mission designer, most of this is already possible. You can let events (such as an onject being damaged or destroyed) trigger an action or spawn other objects. 

As an example it is already possible to detect when a building gets destroyed and then turn-off a number of searchlights.

 

So I'm pretty sure this will be possible in BoS as well.

[4Shades]

These ideas are nice, but I think what Guevara is talking about is why not have a direct coding in the game that automatically generates the realistic behaviour.

 

E.g. any runway that has crater damage will prevent all aircraft movements (AI and human) until it is repaired.

Or searchlights that will not operate at all unless there is a generator nearby.

 

This kind of stuff is required for immersion, but is usually overlooked by flight sim types. Personally I welcome these ideas, anything for a more credible environment outside the cockpit, but I wonder how many others feel the same way.

[ECV56_Guevara]

These ideas are nice, but I think what Guevara is talking about is why not have a direct coding in the game that automatically generates the realistic behaviour.

 

E.g. any runway that has crater damage will prevent all aircraft movements (AI and human) until it is repaired.

Or searchlights that will not operate at all unless there is a generator nearby.

 

This kind of stuff is required for immersion, but is usually overlooked by flight sim types. Personally I welcome these ideas, anything for a more credible environment outside the cockpit, but I wonder how many others feel the same way.

 

exactly!!!!!!

And by the way, I wonder many others fell the same way than you and me 4shades!

[SYN_Vander]

In that case I'm pretty sure it will not be in the game. The reason? You need to create not just plane FM, but also a WM, ie a 'World Model' which has all these rules and logic in it. Takes enormous amount of resources to create and still more resources to maintain (because just as with FM you need to bug-fix and people will always complain it's somehow wrong). And all that while you can do the same thing in a mission script?

Just trying to think from a developer's perspective....

[slm]

Having this hardwired connection system in the game would probably save time when building missions,

but it wouldn't be as flexible as ability to do it in different ways in mission builder (like SYN_Vader wrote).

So if the Mission Builder alternative is possible, that's what I'd like to have.

 

Maybe it's time to download RoF to see how its mission builder works.

[ECV56_Guevara]

In that case I'm pretty sure it will not be in the game. The reason? You need to create not just plane FM, but also a WM, ie a 'World Model' which has all these rules and logic in it. Takes enormous amount of resources to create and still more resources to maintain (because just as with FM you need to bug-fix and people will always complain it's somehow wrong). And all that while you can do the same thing in a mission script?

Just trying to think from a developer's perspective....

I read somewhere in the forum that Jason said that all objects in RoF has "brain" It?

[SYN_Vander]

Maybe a good compromise would be to have a "subroutine" or user script option in the Mission Editor (as in ArmA, CloD ?). Then such logic can be created and easily inserted in any mission if you need it.

 

Example: For our RoF server I have created a small group for MP missions that consists of one balloon and an AAA gun. When an enemy player gets within a certain distance, the balloon will be winched down (using waypoints). The event will also spawn two machine gunners on the ground so if the enemy player persists in attacking the balloon he will be greeted by heavy machine gun fire (as was in RL). A timer will make sure that after some time the balloon will rise again and the MG's will disappear again (to save resources).

All this is placed in a group file and in RoF I can easily drop such a group anywhere on the map and copy it a couple of times. So far so good. But if I used this group in 10 missions and then I find I had made some kind of mistake in this logic, I then have to change all 10 missions and look for all those groups in the missions and fix it everywhere.

If, instead of a group that I have to copy, this would have been a pointer to a "subroutine" I would only need to fix the bug in that subroutine and all missions would be okay.

Edited December 19, 2012 by SYN_Vander

[Jason_Williams]

I read somewhere in the forum that Jason said that all objects in RoF has "brain" It?

[LG1.Farber]

What I was responding to was that critics like to point to the inability to have thousands of objects moving around on the map in ROF. My point was that yes, if you just want to place a truck for instance, the truck we offer has a brain and that eats resources. We already have thousands of objects on the ROF map in the form of buildings with damage models and bridges etc. What many ROF users want are simply "dumb" objects like static aircraft etc. which adds to the overall scenery. So, we have released the Object SDK that folks like Vander has already taken advantage of to make cool objects and Vander even figured out how to make objects with brains like horse columns and troops with rifles. A lot can be done with our system with a little knowledge.

 

Jason

Apparently I am a critic?! - An interesting thought.

 

I didn't say thousands of objects moving around the map Jason, you are mistaken.  No "critics" said "thousands"...  400 was my grand total.

 

The topic is here:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index.php?showtopic=153&hl

 

My actual post was:

 

 

From a multiplayer IL2 perspective I sincerely believe the following is needed.

 

One server of the correct specifications should be able to run:

 

100 Players

250 AI Ground objects (tanks, ships, AAA, artillery etc)

50 AI aircraft

1000 Static objects minimum (spawns, front markers, sandbags, static aircraft and other targets)

 

 

Simple dogfight style of play will not be acceptable to a large portion of the IL2 crowd.

 

You mention RoF users...  but please understand that some of us are (also) IL2 users...  The totals I state are quite achievable in IL2 1946 FB.

Edited December 20, 2012 by 5JG27Farber

[Kling]

Apparently I am a critic?! - An interesting thought.

 

I didn't say thousands of objects moving around the map Jason, you are mistaken.  No "critics" said "thousands"...  400 was my grand total.

 

The topic is here:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index.php?showtopic=153&hl

 

My actual post was:

 

 

 

You mention RoF users...  but please understand that some of us are (also) IL2 users...  The totals I state are quite achievable in IL2 1946 FB.

well, but here you clearly mention 1000s of static objects....

[ACG_Dickie]

Kling, that just adds fuel.  I doesn't take much to spot the difference here:

 

Farber: "1000 Static objects"

 

JW:  "inability to have thousands of objects moving around on the map in ROF."

 

It's clear these are 2 completely different things.

 

Now, this is not being critical but it is setting out some minimums which the customers believe are required in order to enjoy the sim.  It is up to 777 whether they decide to put this in or not, but I would urge them to because it is up to us whether we buy it or not.  I am afraid this IS needed for WW2 scenarios,  it is not news and is already in full use in 1946 and COD so WW2 flyers are used to this.  I don't care if ROF can or cannot manage it so critique is futile of ROF,  but it isn't of BOS which is in it's infancy. 

Edited December 20, 2012 by Osprey

[ACG_Dickie]

In that case I'm pretty sure it will not be in the game. The reason? You need to create not just plane FM, but also a WM, ie a 'World Model' which has all these rules and logic in it. Takes enormous amount of resources to create and still more resources to maintain (because just as with FM you need to bug-fix and people will always complain it's somehow wrong). And all that while you can do the same thing in a mission script?

Just trying to think from a developer's perspective....

 

Not quite.  You just need to have an API where a mission maker can access the events and methods which occur in game, and somewhere where you may code mission reactions to those events.

[SYN_Vander]

Not quite.  You just need to have an API where a mission maker can access the events and methods which occur in game, and somewhere where you may code mission reactions to those events.

 

Errr, isn't that the same thing? At least, this is how I see it as well...

[ACG_Dickie]

Perhaps I've misunderstood.  In COD right now their is a fabulous C# scripting component in with the mission builder where you have access to the game objects and events.  Because of this you can get things to happen during runtime.  You don't have to do this in the script itself, you can add your own components server side and simply reference them from a mission script,  this is what we do on ACG Storm of War Campaign server.

 

Having this is very powerful and enhances gameplay massively,  online and offline,  for example our coder (No.501_Moggel) also created a plugin called "Live map" which spawns 'life' into the map when you are in visual range and despawns it when you move away.  Therefore the map is filled with objects for you and comes alive but doesn't overload your machine or create any additional work for a mission maker.  Obviously this is only practical for single player modes, but you can see the kind of power available through such a system.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Osprey

[SYN_Haashashin]

Having this is very powerful and enhances gameplay massively,  online and offline,  for example our coder (No.501_Moggel) also created a plugin called "Live map" which spawns 'life' into the map when you are in visual range and despawns it when you move away.  Therefore the map is filled with objects for you and comes alive but doesn't overload your machine or create any additional work for a mission maker.  Obviously this is only practical for single player modes, but you can see the kind of power available through such a system.

 

Hello Osprey,

This can be done allready in RoF ME. No need of C# for it but you have to fill the map up yourself with the objets you want to be seen. Of course, as you said, also only practical for singleplayer, I tried once on MP but have to change that part of the mission.

Edited December 20, 2012 by SYN_Haashashin

[ACG_Dickie]

I'm not familiar with mission making in ROF so that is useful to know.  I don't think that 'needing' C# is a bad thing though,  that is a good thing because it opens up a lot of power which would be otherwise limited in a UI.  

What about server side stuff like stats?  Is this built in in some way?  You may be familiar with the stats gathering programs from Warclouds etc,  there is a similar script called Wild Willies CloD Commander which gathers stats based on game events,  I wonder if this is the same sort of thing.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Osprey

[FlatSpinMan]

Those features from both games that spawn and despawn objects sound great for someone like me. Once this Mac is operational I must have a look at RoF's mission builder again. 

[LG1.Farber]

well, but here you clearly mention 1000s of static objects....

No you are clearly mistaken on what is being discussed here.  Let me explain, Sand bag walls, front markers and spawn points and other things that don't move are not such a problem.

 

Jason Williams Wrote:

the inability to have thousands of objects moving around on the map in ROF.

 

 

I Wrote:

 

 

100 Players

250 AI Ground objects (tanks, ships, AAA, artillery etc)

50 AI aircraft

 

 

400 TOTAL (moving things say "mmm resources nom nom nom nom!    )

 

And:

1000 Static objects minimum (spawns, front markers, sandbags, static aircraft and other targets)

 

1000 TOTAL (Brain dead textures and models like the floor and sky say, "Resources? nah I will just have a salad.")

[SYN_Haashashin]

I'm not familiar with mission making in ROF so that is useful to know.  I don't think that 'needing' C# is a bad thing though,  that is a good thing because it opens up a lot of power which would be otherwise limited in a UI.  

What about server side stuff like stats?  Is this built in in some way?  You may be familiar with the stats gathering programs from Warclouds etc,  there is a similar script called Wild Willies CloD Commander which gathers stats based on game events,  I wonder if this is the same sort of thing.

 

Dont get me wrong here, I dont say C# is a bad thing, cant say is needed as I dont know how it works. As I see it, if there is allready a way to do it, dont know why they should implementing C#, other than making mission makers live easier, that would more than welcome by the way if they do implement it, well I will just learn to do it as I learnt RoF ME and if they dont, well I have a year to get even more into RoF ME.

 

About the stats, stats are now gather in MP RoF thanks to =FB=Vaal program. Take a look at our server stats if you want, here  

http://www.stats.syndicatesquadron.org/

 

@FlatSpinMan If you need any help or have any question about RoF ME, you allready know...just ask away, will do my best to help.

Edited December 20, 2012 by SYN_Haashashin

[LG1.Farber]

What Osprey is saying is that if we have a simple easy to use system of triggers objects etc etc thats great but it will not allow us to make some of the more creative things like No.501_Moggel's Chain Home system like this:

 

 

Please watch in Hi Def and full screen and pay ateention to the top left of the screen where the information is displayed.

[Krupi]

That's very cool.

[FlatSpinMan]

Thanks SYN=Hash,

Will do. I saw the replies in that thread but haven't been able to find it again. Can't believe how this place has filled up so quickly!

[SYN_Haashashin]

Thanks SYN=Hash,

Will do. I saw the replies in that thread but haven't been able to find it again. Can't believe how this place has filled up so quickly!

 

If you cant find it, just send me a PM and Yeah this place filled up of topics very fast indeed.

 

What Osprey is saying is that if we have a simple easy to use system of triggers objects etc etc...

 

To summarise, its like radio communications with the HQ, right?? It sound and looks good to me, now we have to wait and see what happens.

[ECV56_Guevara]

 for example our coder (No.501_Moggel) also created a plugin called "Live map" which spawns 'life' into the map when you are in visual range and despawns it when you move away.  Therefore the map is filled with objects for you and comes alive but doesn't overload your machine or create any additional work for a mission maker.  Obviously this is only practical for single player modes, but you can see the kind of power available through such a system.

 

Things like this, community/developer made, are just great!

 

 

Dont get me wrong here, I dont say C# is a bad thing, cant say is needed as I dont know how it works. As I see it, if there is allready a way to do it, dont know why they should implementing C#, other than making mission makers live easier, that would more than welcome by the way if they do implement it, well I will just learn to do it as I learnt RoF ME and if they dont, well I have a year to get even more into RoF ME.

 

A great point here IMHO.   I didn t get into CloD FMB because I was really disapointed so I don?

[LG1.Farber]

 

To summarise, its like radio communications with the HQ, right?? It sound and looks good to me, now we have to wait and see what happens.

Its totally scratch built.  Clod has the option if you have the brains to do anything you can think of.  Its limitless.

Edited December 20, 2012 by 5JG27Farber

[SYN_Vander]

Perhaps I've misunderstood.  In COD right now their is a fabulous C# scripting component in with the mission builder where you have access to the game objects and events.  Because of this you can get things to happen during runtime.  You don't have to do this in the script itself, you can add your own components server side and simply reference them from a mission script,  this is what we do on ACG Storm of War Campaign server.

...

 

Yes, this is exactly what what I mean. Of course, I don't really care if it's C# or Javascript or something else.

[ACG_Dickie]

So in the ROF ME you can add your own code,  or you can write a component that talks to the server, which means that you can have the game do things that you want according to events?

 

The video Farber posted is a demo of the first version of "Fighter Command" in COD - it was built by one of the ACG pilots and is a separate server side component so no scripting required by the mission maker.  Because 1C didn't put in the Fighter Command RDF defence system into the game we made our own.  Its behaviour mirrors the real system the RAF used, complete with the inaccuracies, to give the RAF pilots an experience of interception like the real ones did.  it works out where everything flying is in the game and works out vectors to fly to meet them.  The importance of this is that it operates on the server and allows the player to communicate with the server during his flight by overloading (extending) the existing in game functions.  This is an example of what can be achieved in COD,  it may be irrelevant  in BOS but the point is it's not just about stats gathering and triggers, it allows greater immersion to be created by 3rd parties.

 

You may have a go at this yourself on the ACG Storm of War server, if you are a 109 flyer then it can be accessed to rendezvous with bombers (the installed version is the second release).  Instructions here: http://www.aircombatgroup.co.uk/RDF.php

Edited December 20, 2012 by Osprey

[Jason_Williams]

Farber,

 

Chill out dude. I didn't say your name in my post nor do I care about the details of your post. I was speaking generally based on hundreds of comments over 3 years about ROF and objects and trying to explain something Guevara quoted me on. I'm all for creative people discussing how they can work with our ME to do cool things with objects. Don't turn this discussion into something it is not.

 

Jason

[slm]

Its totally scratch built.  Clod has the option if you have the brains to do anything you can think of.  Its limitless.

 

How well are these possibilities documented?

[LG1.Farber]

Farber,

 

Chill out dude. I didn't say your name in my post nor do I care about the details of your post. I was speaking generally based on hundreds of comments over 3 years about ROF and objects and trying to explain something Guevara quoted me on. I'm all for creative people discussing how they can work with our ME to do cool things with objects. Don't turn this discussion into something it is not.

 

Jason

Understood.

 

How well are these possibilities documented?

 

How can you document something which is essential limitless?

Edited December 20, 2012 by 5JG27Farber

[slm]

That is what I need to hear.

 

 

How can you document something which is essential limitless?

 

Let's say you want to document how recording audio with a field recorder might work.

Press Rec button to start recording. Talk as long as you want. About subjects you want. Press Stop button when you're finished.

That doesn't put many limits to what kind of recording you can make, still explains exactly how it is done. Is that a good example?

Edited December 20, 2012 by slm

[LG1.Farber]

You dont understand, its done with C# in clod, you can do pretty much anything how you do it is programming.

[slm]

Lots of things are done by programming.

One part of documenting these programming possibilities is documenting APIs that third parties can use.

 

I'll give you another example which shows how that could be done:

http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/

[LG1.Farber]

Sorry I dont use Facebook nor do I get your point. 

[slm]

My point is: usually when some company *wants* to allow third party developers to use the company's software (like FB in this case),

they document how this can be done. So that using the software would be easier.

That FB link shows one example of such API documentation.

 

Without any documentation it's a bit like trying to to call someone without knowing this person's phone number.

So my original question was about if something similar exists for CoD APIs.

[VO101Tom]

My point is: usually when some company *wants* to allow third party developers to use the company's software (like FB in this case),

they document how this can be done. So that using the software would be easier.

That FB link shows one example of such API documentation.

 

Without any documentation it's a bit like trying to to call someone without knowing this person's phone number.

So my original question was about if something similar exists for CoD APIs.

 

Maybe this?

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C_Sharp_Programming

[Krupi]

 

How can you document something which is essentially limitless?

 

LOL! 

 

Maybe this?

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C_Sharp_Programming

 

+1

Edited December 20, 2012 by JG52Krupi