Jump to content
Bies

Auto level autopilot is single engine airplanes which gives additional speed is being abused in multiplayer

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Well the testing shows that there’s little if any advantage anyway. 

 

Unless you’ve got some test results showing auto level granting a bonus to speed over a manually trimmed aircraft this is all moot.

 

 

Refer to this part of my post:

 

Quote

You see people referring to it as "boost mode" not because it magically increases the top speed of your plane, but because it essentially bestows perfect flying skill upon the pilot (within limited parameters), letting you immediately maximize your plane's potential in a way you wouldn't be able to naturally.

 

Perfectly trimming your plane (or finding the right control inputs) takes time. Maintaining an optimally aerodynamic course - while maintaining situational awareness, checking your 6, etc - is very difficult.

 

Autolevel shortcuts all of that and gives you an instant "preserve as much energy as mathematically possible, computer!" button.

 

Differences in autolevel top speed due to trim settings are either negligible (in typical flight without extreme trim settings) or nonexistent, depending on the mechanical design of the control surfaces and trim mechanism.

 

Again, the difference isn't huge. It is probably somewhat rare for exploitation of this mechanic to be the deciding factor in an engagement. But it feels wrong for a convenience feature like autolevel to be a fixture of combat.

 

Baylor's post is a good summarization:

 

Edited by grambo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

i was just yanking your chain.   Flying straight and level just makes you an easier target to hit.  If you think that’s an advantage, keep on crying about it.  It seems like a productive way to spend your time.  I moved on.

 

Haha, I wonder how many failed attempts it took to come up with that excuse. I see that you have dropped your argued claim from your last post, though, while trying to stay hostile, so at least some progress has been made. Glad to hear you have moved on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

Haha, I wonder how many failed attempts it took to come up with that excuse. 

 

Zero.  I didn't even bother to start up the game.  Can you check to make sure it's still working?  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Zero.  I didn't even bother to start up the game.  Can you check to make sure it's still working?  Thanks!

 

I guess openly declaring that you are just trolling on forums is a lesser hit to your ego than admitting your failures :)

Anyway, I thought you had moved on. Another change of heart?

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this is getting utterly silly.

 

A claim was made in the OP about potential "abuse of autolevel in multiplayer" without providing any evidence for it whatsoever.

 

I proved the assumption that autolevel works as a "perfect trim" wrong. Page 5.

 

JtD made a valid statement that autolevel does in fact mask a downside of certain planes (some are more affected and some less) and is thus acting as a "gamey" feature. It being "gamey", one can think of whether or not to remove it from any "full realism setting". It would imply though that planes that require multicrew or actually were fitted with some sort of autopilot have that one added to their system. From the devs side, the answer is given by not prceeding that way, leaving us with the shortcut.

 

But not only the original assumption in the OP is technically wrong, it gets worse:

On 16.5.2018 at 7:36 AM, AndyJWest said:

When someone gives actual figures ("5-20 km/h depending on altitude"), I expect them to be able to back them up.

It is even worse than that. I gave proof that depending on the situation, autolevel can take that amount of speed from you, rather than giving it! Autolevel can penalize you by masking wether you fly out of trim or not!

 

Then there was some more color added to the thread and now this:

4 hours ago, grambo said:

Autolevel shortcuts all of that and gives you an instant "preserve as much energy as mathematically possible, computer!" button.

proven false statements are just re-posted, again without any evidence backing it up whatsoever.

 

Anything that is something along the lines "I simply can't fly, therefore a button keeping me airborne is a cheat for the others!" does absolutely not help your point. And it is really not that last % of wasted energy that determined your demise in MP. The other guy is better than you. That's it.

 

4 hours ago, grambo said:

Perfectly trimming your plane (or finding the right control inputs) takes time. Maintaining an optimally aerodynamic course - while maintaining situational awareness, checking your 6, etc - is very difficult.

No, it's not. I can do it. So can you. Practise and it will be easy.

12 hours ago, VesseL said:

by first pushing the autolevel, and then fine tuning the trims

You can't do that. You have nothing that lets you judge how well you trimmed if stick inputs override trim inputs.

9 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Indeed I want to be able to roll and turn and do all kinds of maneuvers in combat. But here we are talking about perfectly level flight with zero slipping.

Practise. Once you nanaged to fly cordinated, flying straight is "straight forward". And you have a coolie hat on your HOTAS that makes it VERY EASY to do so within about 3 seconds time, depending how fast you are accellerating or how steep your climb is.

 

 

If you really can't keep your plane straight, then you are dead on MP. Trust me on this, the other guy that shoots you down so easily that you might think he is cheating, he is not cheating. He can fly.

 

Flying cordinated maneuvers is not easy, it takes practise. You have to learn that when you sit in a real aircraft as well. You can learn that here as well.

 

One thing is of note: even though some AC have three axis trims, they are not meant to be flown "hands off". Autolevel is the only way to have them fly hands off to sort out possible domestic issues (your opinion on somebody elses is of little help) that make it possible to stay online in a longer mission.

 

Oh, wait, I have a GREAT idea! Why don't we activate the Pause button in MP? this way, I didn't have to use autolevel when having to leave the chair?

 

And now I have cheat for you about setting trims right in a high speed chase, but don't tell anyone!

Sekrit spoiler here! No look!

Spoiler

1) Enable technochat.

2) Load your aircraft of choice (in which later on you will be constantly wasted in MP) in a quick mission.

3) Let the aircraft fly at maximum speed with help of autolevel. take your time and set the trim such that it fliys straight at that max. speed.

4) Take a sheet of paper.

5) Take a pencil (or whatever you use for writing)

6) Write down the trim settings (the "%" that technochat is telling you where trim is)

 

Now THE CHEAT:

 

In case of a chase, immediately set rudder and elevator trim to the noted % position.

 

Lo and behold, miracle! Your aircraft is trimmed to fly straight! In seconds!

 

Yes, I'm your saviour!

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know auto level does not trim because in some aircraft at certain weight and trim settings the auto level will not stay engaged because the elevator can not provide the required force to stay level. 

 

So as the auto level only controls elevator it is clear that unless the plane is correctly trimmed the elevator will be causing more drag.

 

Please end this thread lol

Edited by AeroAce
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

So as the auto level only controls elevator

It controls elevator, aileron and rudder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

It controls elevator, aileron and rudder.

 

Ok ok I was only thing about the horizontal axis my bad. 

 

Ps I'm not sure in controls rudder that we'll actually.  I ofter have some slip. But let's leave it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Practise. Once you nanaged to fly cordinated, flying straight is "straight forward".

 

It would probably put us in a loop, if I said again that no amount of practice could match the computer's ability to keep your plane level and ball in the middle for extended period of time and for numerous repetitions. With no effort required from pilot (other than Bf109). I think this part has been pretty much covered by now, so no real reason to get into this loop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

It would probably put us in a loop, if I said again that no amount of practice could match the computer's ability to keep your plane level and ball in the middle for extended period of time and for numerous repetitions. With no effort required from pilot (other than Bf109). I think this part has been pretty much covered by now, so no real reason to get into this loop. 

Why don't you try it and see how fast you can get going, then activate autolevel and see how much faster it goes? Will you try it? Or do you think the experiment cannot be made because "it's not possible?"

 

You will also realize that in planes without rudder trim, you can quickly memorize how far to depress the rudder pedal such that the ball is centered.

 

I did that and I found the speed difference is somewhere in the measurement differences. So your theoretical speed advantage is so small, that it for sure cannot be the difference between life or death. It it just not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Why don't you try it and see how fast you can get going, then activate autolevel and see how much faster it goes? Will you try it? Or do you think the experiment cannot be made because "it's not possible?"

 

What would you want me to try exactly? People have tried it, for example xxvii-Dietrich in last October, and could not get his plane go faster than autopilot with trimming. You have showed that if stabilizer is wrongly trimmed, it will slow you down, so we know that autolevel does not touch the actual trims. But what about planes where stick, pedals and trims affect the same control surfaces? Or planes that don't even have trims. I have no reason to doubt Dietrich's tests, but if you are able to prove that you are able to go faster in these planes on level flight manually than with autolevel, I think again many people would be interested to see these results.

 

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You will also realize that in planes without rudder trim, you can quickly memorize how far to depress the rudder pedal such that the ball is centered.

 

I know it sounds like repetition, but even if a human being knew perfectly well, how far to press the pedal or at what angle to keep his stick, he sometimes fails at doing that. Just like basketball player knows that to get a point from a free throw, he should throw the ball to basket, but sometimes he misses, despite his best effort. 

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎16‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 12:27 AM, StickMan said:

The old IL-2 1946 in-flight map would be perfect.

Agreed :)  I hope the dev's are listening and able to develop a better map.  This would help pilots using VR very much too I would have thought.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestion: Remove manual trim for all aircraft (bonus: will stop complains about not being able to use the spiking, low resolution axes of X-52 throttle rotaries for trim), leave AI-Auto level... (can rename for AI-Auto Trim). ;)

 

Add a button for: Set Trim - based on AI-Auto Trim - similar system used in ancient Warbirds Online.

 

Then players can just use the two buttons for "trim" and "gamey by gamey" feature all will be happen, without "unfair (real or not) advantage" against any player/plane.

 

 

Edited by Sokol1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

Suggestion: Remove manual trim for all aircraft (bonus: will stop complains about not being able to use the spiking, low resolution axes of X-52 throttle rotaries for trim), leave AI-Auto level... (can rename for AI-Auto Trim). ;)

 

Add a button for: Set Trim - based on AI-Auto Trim - similar system used in ancient Warbirds Online.

 

Then players can just use the two buttons for "trim" and "gamey by gamey" feature all will be happen, without "unfair (real or not) advantage" against any player/plane.

 

Good grief, hell no. :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PROOF: Autolevel does NOT give "perfect" trim.

 

Here: the Yak-1 at full power on the deck:

1.jpg

 

You see, the ball is NOT centered perfectly!

 

The ball is a very sensitive gauge. The speed loss will be minimal, but this is *not* perfect trim.

 

It is however a very reproducable setting that is extremely useful in performance testings.

 

But I hope with that it should definitely kill the argument that autolevel gives "instant perfection". It would really be nice if people coming up with complaints really had something to back up their ideas.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also has anyone really looked at auto level in the spit. It bounces around like crazy.

 

Kill this thread already please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

Also has anyone really looked at auto level in the spit. It bounces around like crazy.

 

Kill this thread already please. 

 

A hearty amen to that!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 5:35 PM, hrafnkolbrandr said:

I feel like the people (erroneously) claiming that autolevel trims the plane don't actually do any manual trimming.

 

I feel like this when I click on this thread...

 

 

Untitled-1.jpg

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why this thread, or any other thread shoud be stopped before it fade away naturally.  This thread has been very good. Now we know that the autolevel dont trim, but adjust the main controls only. Thanks ZachariasX and all who did the tests to proof how the autolevel affect really. Theres still slight doupt in my mind that some planes, 109 and all planes with less that full trims will in some situations benefit if using autolevel. Looking around and fly coordinated is not possible at the same time. For me atleast it is impossible in 109. This thead and the autolevel are both OK. Nobody wanted to remove the autolevell.

 

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I feel like this when I click on this thread…

 

 

Untitled-1.jpg

 

You could be in danger, coz it could be astma, heart, or mentall, but hopefully and most likely it is just normal forum stress by reading too much complaints. You survive. Few days off will cure it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2018 at 10:04 AM, II./JG77_Kemp said:

I honestly don't know the code or how much it would take to change it, but it certainly does not seem like a big task to add a trottle cap or something like that.

 

On 5/16/2018 at 11:16 AM, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Well, I am not a coder by profession and have not seen the code of BoX, but these couple of possible suggestions really don'y seem hard to do in any way. If you have some real reason to think otherwise, would be interesting to know why.

 

Just to give an example, the "quote" feature in this forum could involve hundreds of lines of code and could be difficult to change without breaking things. So imagine the complexity of software for games/sims where you're often dealing with hundreds of thousands to millions of lines of code. Game code has to:

  1. Take user input from several sources like our flight sticks, keyboards, head trackers, or VR headsets.
  2. Then after taking your input it needs to update game state like where game objects are located. For example, if you turn left on the stick the game starts turning the plane left. And this game has extra physics complexity with the FMs and DMs to factor in too.
  3. Then the game needs to render those 3D objects new positions onto a 2D screen. If it's multi-player, they need to be rendered on each player's screen at the same place at the same time.

The software does those steps over and over again around 60 times a second so that the experience feels and looks real and it needs to do this without burning up your CPUs/GPUs. Most software is complex, but video games are a special kind of difficult, especially with the complexity of sims like this.

 

So to answer your question - and just like others have pointed out - making any change to a game like this is much more time consuming than it seems, even for things that seem simple to do from the player's perspective. There's much more going on behind the scenes than the game/sim you're experiencing. This doesn't account for the time it takes for meetings, planning or testing that others have already pointed out.


Saying that "this should be easy to change" is like telling a surgeon that a surgery on your ankle shouldn't be difficult because it's just your ankle when in reality the surgeon still has to plan how to work around bones and tendons so they don't ruin your foot. It's like telling a lawyer that a court case should go quickly because there aren't many witnesses when you don't know the complexities of law or the particular case.

 

 

 

Edited by obit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the cheating, exploits and griefing that apparently goes on, it seems the most lasting solution would be to remove Multiplayer altogether.  Get to it Devs!  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

For all the cheating, exploits and griefing that apparently goes on, it seems the most lasting solution would be to remove Multiplayer altogether.  Get to it Devs!  

But then how would some folk measure their masculinity and bravery?

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

But then how would some folk measure their masculinity and bravery?

 

It appears that whining about MP in the forum already serves that purpose.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, obit said:

Just to give an example, the "quote" feature in this forum could involve hundreds of lines of code and could be difficult to change without breaking things. So imagine the complexity of software for games/sims where you're often dealing with hundreds of thousands to millions of lines of code.

 

While I am not a coder, I don't see how such a simple change could affect hundreds or thousands lines of code. All the lines and functions and stuff are already there, would just need to alter one input value. Whatever subfunction is handling autolevel, add something like "set throttle max at 70%". Or, they already must have a formula that calculates, where to keep rudder while in autolevel, let's call it a variable "rudder_pos". Now, by altering the value of this "rudder_pos" by a "+100" or something like that would make the plane fly aerodynamically less efficient.

Like I said, I am not a coder and don't know their code, but I have seen the devs send out hotfixes in hours after release on a lot more complex errors to have a guess that such a change would not require hundreds of hours of work.

 

When I look at many of the arguments in this thread, then it unfortunately brings to mind the classical resistance to change that is common in many organizations:

- there is no issue

- even if there was an issue, it is impossible (or very hard) to change

- fixing this issue would cause ten new problems

- whoever mentioned this issue is a stupid whiner

 

Instead of that could approach the issue with a two-step process:

- would changing the process (software in this case) make the outcome better or worse? If worse - stop now, if better - step two.

- impact-effort matrix (google it). Or simply put, would the achieved benefit out-weight the required effort.

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

- there is no issue

There isn't. At least not in the way the OP stated it. I gave proof to that.

 

Can you please proof that autolevel gives a perfectly timmed plane?

 

At least I made the effort to give proof of the contrary. Curtesy of taking people serious.

 

If you cannot or you are unwilling to subatsnciate your claim, then:

5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

- there is no issue

 

If there was

5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

- even if there was an issue, it is impossible (or very hard) to change

This may or may not be so. But as long as you don't give proof to the statement "that it's easy" you are on the losing end of the argument if the ones that actually CAN see how difficult this may or may not be don't even bother with it.

 

People are really astonisngly bad in assessing the impact of issues "by their own feeling". We (or at least I) do believe you that you think this is a serious issue, but not substantiating a claim just keeps it your issue. Fixing someone elses issues in common goods is always a lost venture and does nothing but damage.

 

5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Instead of that could approach the issue with a two-step process:

First, you should make sure that your hypothesis is true. You haven't done that yet. I have done it for your case and my result doesn't look good for your hypothesis.

 

If you don't sanity check your hypothesis, you might as well make a two step process about making setting up a fence around the edge of the world for people not falling off.

 

I say that because this is not the only thread where people come back from MP with a wasted ego and try to find a reason for being nothing but free food for some others. It seems that there is a substancial part of players that actually don't trim their aircraft. But in fact, ass soon as you settle your aircraft in a new flight attitude, you should trim it. Trim is smething you use ALL THE TIME while flying, especially in combat with ever changing flight settings. This is why autolevel cannot be an advantage even if it in fact did trim the aircraft. You should have done that anyway by the time you would use autolevel. And you couldn't use autolevel to trim the aircraft for climbs or dives. And these are in fact conditions that require trim most.

 

Thus, not only the argument is baseless, it also follows a deeper misunderstanding of how to use the function in question.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou Zach:salute:

 

Now surely that should be it for this thread.....please.:)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Zack, instead of trying to enforce the typical resistance approach again  (we have gone through enough circles of that already, so no need to go for another round), why don't you approach  my suggested two-step approach with open mind?

Would the suggested change make your gameexperience worse? If not, why resist it so passionately? It might make the experience better for somebody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

This may or may not be so. But as long as you don't give proof to the statement "that it's easy" you are on the losing end of the argument if the ones that actually CAN see how difficult this may or may not be

 

That is another interesting approach. If the "resistance movement" is throwing out statements that it is very hard to change (which is a textbook argument against changes), takes thousands of lines of code etc, then it is my job to prove that it is easy? How about you prove that it is hard to do, if that is your argument against the change in the first place. Especially if you CAN see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a non issue, but trying to change it (I have no reason to 'resist change') will depreciate my game experience because in my mind the Dev time could be spent on something more worthwhile 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my word,

 

I assure you if I ( playing SP) in my Spit come upon an AI enemy flying as if they had auto-level on staying straight and level, they would be a most easy target for me. In fact I would love it as my kill ratio would climb drastically. 

With proper engine management and judicious use of +16 boost - Talk about low hanging fruit for easy pickings, that they would be.

 

I can't imagine it would be any different for MP, if you try and use auto-level as a tactic to get away from a determined enemy, man you are going to be toast.

 

As I have said before, with this community if it were able to be used as a credible evasive tactic, it would have been discussed - hotly a long, long time ago.

 

And if somehow folks start being successful online doing this, you can be assured it will blow up the forums with talk of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

How about you prove that it is hard to do, if that is your argument against the change in the first place. Especially if you CAN see it.

 

There are much simpler 'under the hood' logic changes/additions that are not implemented because even they will take too much time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

While I am not a coder, I don't see how such a simple change could affect hundreds or thousands lines of code. All the lines and functions and stuff are already there, would just need to alter one input value. Whatever subfunction is handling autolevel, add something like "set throttle max at 70%". Or, they already must have a formula that calculates, where to keep rudder while in autolevel, let's call it a variable "rudder_pos". Now, by altering the value of this "rudder_pos" by a "+100" or something like that would make the plane fly aerodynamically less efficient.

Like I said, I am not a coder and don't know their code, but I have seen the devs send out hotfixes in hours after release on a lot more complex errors to have a guess that such a change would not require hundreds of hours of work.

 

When I look at many of the arguments in this thread, then it unfortunately brings to mind the classical resistance to change that is common in many organizations:

- there is no issue

- even if there was an issue, it is impossible (or very hard) to change

- fixing this issue would cause ten new problems

- whoever mentioned this issue is a stupid whiner

 

Instead of that could approach the issue with a two-step process:

- would changing the process (software in this case) make the outcome better or worse? If worse - stop now, if better - step two.

- impact-effort matrix (google it). Or simply put, would the achieved benefit out-weight the required effort.

 

I am a software developer and my post was simply to point out the complexity of game software, just like others have tried to do (unsuccessfully unfortunately), because you asked why something wouldn't be simple. What seems like "a simple adjustment" to you can involve much more behind the scenes that neither you or I can comprehend because we don't know their code, and you aren't a coder as you've pointed out.

My point about "millions of lines of code" was just to say that games involve a lot of complex code. I didn't mean that changes can't be made quickly (code is organized in a way to allow that). But your anecdote that "hot fixes can be done quickly so therefore this should be easy to do quickly too" is a misunderstanding of the differences between new features and hot fixes. Hot fixes are called "hot" because they're more important than standard bug fixes and usually have an impact on important functionality that needs to be addressed right away, so of course they're fixed quickly. That's completely different than adding new features or changing existing features. New changes or edits need to be thought out, the team needs to research the impact of the change on other parts of the system, they need to have meetings about it and plan the best way to do it. And even if the change is "simple", they still have to spend man hours on the meetings, research, and the followup testing anyway. That's not the same as fixing urgent bugs right away.

You keep opening with "I'm not a coder" then finishing with "but this shouldn't be so hard to do because of XYZ". Maybe just consider the fact that you're telling professionals that something should be simple when you don't work in that profession. Would you do that to any other professional who works in a profession that you don't work in?

I was just trying, as others have, to give you a better picture as to why "something that seems like it would be simple" is not always the the case, since that's what you asked. I gave you clear answers but you still keep arguing that you're right. I'm done pointing this stuff out and am not going to devolve into an argument about it.

Edited by obit
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, obit said:

You keep opening with "I'm not a coder" then finishing with "but this shouldn't be so hard to do because of XYZ". Maybe just consider the fact that you're telling professionals that something should be simple when you don't work in that profession. Would you do that to any other professional who works in a profession that you don't work in?

 

I have been  telling openly that I am not a coder and also that I have not seen BoX code, just to point out exactly that I don't know how hard or easy this specific change is. I don't claim it is easy, but based on the appearance of it, it seems not to be a complex change. See what I am saying? On the other hand, the professionals here that throw out the textbook excuse against changes ("it is very hard to do") somehow CAN know that it is hard to do? Probably have seen BoX code? Then I am asked to prove that it is easy, while I have never claimed that it must be easy - on the contrary, I have every time made clear that I have not seen BoX code, so I don't know. How about you prove that it is difficult, when you are the ones that bring out the complexity of the change. About the other question, yes, I have had to make estimates about tasks in other professions, too, based on my experience; but more importantly, I have learned to dismiss the instant "it is very difficult" excuse, unless there is something concrete to back up the claim also.

 

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

There are much simpler 'under the hood' logic changes/additions that are not implemented because even they will take too much time.

 

Like what?

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion about code complexity is ignoring the fact that the proposed solution would be very disruptive.

17 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Whatever subfunction is handling autolevel, add something like "set throttle max at 70%".

Something like this would break conventional applications of autolevel. I can think of many situations that demand full throttle in level flight.

 

Few developers will write any code to solve a small problem by disturbing important features that were established long ago. Engine management is already fairly complicated; additional complexity can really hurt the game. 

 

The only real solution is to provide an option to disable autolevel. However, it's entirely understandable that this is not a priority.

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

Like what?

 

Just certain small additions to already existing editor logic/additional simple trigger conditions that would allow greater functionality and user interactivity, etc.

For instance with a relatively small addition to the trigger logic, I could script the ability for you to call for additional air cover or ground attacks. It's all there, everything I need

save for one small addition. HUGE bang for the buck...huge. Interactivity that doesn't exist right now...but there's just no time in the schedule. Too much on the plate. Deadlines to meet, investors to make happy, bills to pay. It's just the reality of the situation. Thus I gently broach the subject now and then, but don't complain when it doesn't happen.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be a better argument for taking away the autopilot bank ability in fighters, the way the auto pilot throws in a bank, not only doesn't lose any speed but will accelerate to max speed while banked.   Try an auto pilot turn, than attempt to duplicate with a hand flown, same bank angle.  If that ain't an advantage, your not using the ole tool bag right.  Install the bomber turn rate, or eliminate that feature in fighters.  You still have the beer break ability, only go straight to the fridge, no energyless banking or wobbling. 

 

Definitely don't take it away, but it certainly could be tweaked a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Something like this would break conventional applications of autolevel. I can think of many situations that demand full throttle in level flight.

 

I can't think of any situations that would require autolevel on full throttle, when simulating planes that did not have autolevel historically. If a game situation requires more than 70% throttle, then maybe these are the situations, where players could fly their planes manually, instead of going for a beer or piss and let AI take over their planes. Bombers could be different of course, just like old IL2 1946 had autolevel on bombers, though I doubt that bombers went full throttle during bombing runs historically either.

 

6 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Engine management is already fairly complicated; additional complexity can really hurt the game.

 

I think that additional complexity, as long as it is real and historical, can improve the game for simmers. Arcade options are good for new players of course. But that is a different discussion. 

 

6 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Just certain small additions to already existing editor logic/additional simple trigger conditions that would allow greater functionality and user interactivity, etc.

For instance with a relatively small addition to the trigger logic, I could script the ability for you to call for additional air cover or ground attacks. It's all there, everything I need save for one small addition. HUGE bang for the buck...huge. Interactivity that doesn't exist right now...but there's just no time in the schedule. Too much on the plate. Deadlines to meet, investors to make happy, bills to pay. It's just the reality of the situation. Thus I gently broach the subject now and then, but don't complain when it doesn't happen.

 

Yes, it is understandable that with limited resources they need to prioritize things, but hopefully over time they can add these small additions also, piece by piece. 

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

I can't think of any situations that would require autolevel on full throttle, when simulating planes that did not have autolevel historically.

  • Engines with full throttle as unlimited nominal mode
  • Manning gunner positions without a player flying
  • Full power dash to avoid interception
1 hour ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

I think that additional complexity, as long as it is real and historical, can improve the game for simmers. Arcade options are good for new players of course. But that is a different discussion. 

Throttle reduction to 70% on autolevel certainly isn't "real and historical". It would be perhaps the most contrived feature in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...