Is it possible to start career missions from a cold start?

[dburne]

5 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I think it's the taxiing part that is most interesting.  Our engine management is pretty simplified - press E and wait fore the engine to warm up - so I'm not sure that is what people are looking for.  That's my  $.02.  I'll let others speak for themselves.

 

Yeah for me it would all be about starting up from parking and taxi to runway for takeoff.

[Zeev]

On 7/9/2022 at 10:02 PM, tattywelshie said:

Im guessing the issues are getting the AI to taxi properly and to the correct position at the correct time? I imagine it’s a very complex thing to achieve

A lot of scripted campaigns have taxiing.

Also VTOL VR which was developed by one guy has this feature and many more features that IL2 does not.

I guess the priority here is to release as many expansions as possible rather than fixing basic things.

[Gambit21]

On 7/13/2022 at 5:35 AM, dburne said:

 

Yeah me too, my preference would be to always cold start and taxi to runway. Just adds some nice immersion for me.

 

Technically, if you're talking 8th AF/9th AF etc, the crew chief would have already started up/warmed up your aircraft.

I made Hell Hawks all cold start though just for 'cool factor' reasons.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

 

 

3 hours ago, Zeev said:

 

I guess the priority here is to release as many expansions as possible rather than fixing basic things.

 

That is a bit unfair to be honest. Normandy has been announced for a while and it certainely hasnt been rushed! 

 

In the mean time, we've seen much improvements to the core of the game and what's already released. 

 

Do I always agree with the priorities of the devs and what's improved and what's left aside? No, not always, but there has been constant improvements. 

 

Cold starts in careers would be a nice step in the proper direction but not at any cost especially if that ends up as being more complicated to implement than we actually think it is. 

 

There are more important issues that, imo, require immediate attention and would obviously be a challenge. Overall AI, inflight communications and adding DYNAMISM to the not-so-dynamic careers. 

 

My 2 cents.

[PatrickAWlson]

There are several things that could be causing AI issues. The first would be failure to locate AI decision making in a coherent module.  Sometimes elements of decision making are scattered across wide areas of a code base, making it extremely difficult to get a grip on exactly what it is doing.  Code like this is also very fragile, as a small change here can have unintended consequences there.  I think you see some of that in issues like planes not attacking or not following orders - things that are seen across all planes of a particular category.

 

There is a significant order of magnitude issue with what this software is trying to do, and every new plane makes it worse.  The AI could be completely unchanged, but a change elsewhere can suddenly have a very bad impact.  A recent example is AI not being able to take off in the snow.  I doubt that they changed the AI, but they did change the physics around ground contact.  Now some planes make the AI do doughnuts on takeoff.  That is just one example.  Every new plane with its own unique behaviors adds another potential point of failure for any change that impacts airplanes in general.

 

No easy answer.  The company needs the revenue that comes from modules and new planes, but every new plane increases the regression risk for any substantive change they might do.  And think of the permutations: every plane, taking off under every condition, landing under every condition, reacting appropriately to every event. 

 

There is no easy answer.  My company is a SAAS company that has a recurring revenue stream.  People give us money because we save them much more than they give us.  We do not have to add new features to realize that recurring revenue.  That recurring revenue stream gives us some bandwidth for maintenance.  1C seems much more dependent on revenue from new products.  How much are they really making selling BoS for less than $8?  It is new product that is bringing in revenue.  To get what you want the company would have to stop making planes for awhile and focus on issue resolution.  But then the company doesn't make any money, unless those $8 copies of BoS are flying off the shelf (virtually, of course).  

 

If Great Battles was single player you could add a subscription and upgrade fee.  Don't want to pay it then you are cut off from new development.  Multiplayer complicates that, unless they  institute a policy that MP is latest version only.  Anyhow, I'm a software developer so business models are not my forte.  Still, I've been in the iindustry long enough to have some idea how tech issues and money issues play off of each other.

[tattywelshie]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

If Great Battles was single player you could add a subscription and upgrade fee.  Don't want to pay it then you are cut off from new development.  Multiplayer complicates that, unless they  institute a policy that MP is latest version only.  Anyhow, I'm a software developer so business models are not my forte.  Still, I've been in the iindustry long enough to have some idea how tech issues and money issues play off of each other.

Yeah, I've had this thought before around single player. So, maybe the option of an enhanced, properly dynamic career, with a shed load more options, such as a wider spread of mission types, more stats, cold starts, the ability to set preferences of aircraft numbers, even down to an element of squadron management, such as supply management. And then the dynamic element where the missions actually make a difference. This could come as a subscription only option, so you'd pay $x dollars each month to open it up, and then a cut of the income could go to obviously the company itself, and then the other part could go to facilitate the on-going development and maintenance of the enhanced career mode. I'm sure there would be a good take-up in it! 

[JonRedcorn]

4 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

There are several things that could be causing AI issues. The first would be failure to locate AI decision making in a coherent module.  Sometimes elements of decision making are scattered across wide areas of a code base, making it extremely difficult to get a grip on exactly what it is doing.  Code like this is also very fragile, as a small change here can have unintended consequences there.  I think you see some of that in issues like planes not attacking or not following orders - things that are seen across all planes of a particular category.

 

There is a significant order of magnitude issue with what this software is trying to do, and every new plane makes it worse.  The AI could be completely unchanged, but a change elsewhere can suddenly have a very bad impact.  A recent example is AI not being able to take off in the snow.  I doubt that they changed the AI, but they did change the physics around ground contact.  Now some planes make the AI do doughnuts on takeoff.  That is just one example.  Every new plane with its own unique behaviors adds another potential point of failure for any change that impacts airplanes in general.

 

No easy answer.  The company needs the revenue that comes from modules and new planes, but every new plane increases the regression risk for any substantive change they might do.  And think of the permutations: every plane, taking off under every condition, landing under every condition, reacting appropriately to every event. 

 

There is no easy answer.  My company is a SAAS company that has a recurring revenue stream.  People give us money because we save them much more than they give us.  We do not have to add new features to realize that recurring revenue.  That recurring revenue stream gives us some bandwidth for maintenance.  1C seems much more dependent on revenue from new products.  How much are they really making selling BoS for less than $8?  It is new product that is bringing in revenue.  To get what you want the company would have to stop making planes for awhile and focus on issue resolution.  But then the company doesn't make any money, unless those $8 copies of BoS are flying off the shelf (virtually, of course).  

 

If Great Battles was single player you could add a subscription and upgrade fee.  Don't want to pay it then you are cut off from new development.  Multiplayer complicates that, unless they  institute a policy that MP is latest version only.  Anyhow, I'm a software developer so business models are not my forte.  Still, I've been in the iindustry long enough to have some idea how tech issues and money issues play off of each other.

I'd absolutely pay a sub or even expansion packs specifically for sp features. Do it like DCS and charge out the ass for every little thing. Really they should just give up on making the AI use the player flight model, it adds absolutely nothing to the gameplay. If they let the AI use its own cheating flight model they could alleviate 90% of the problems we have right now, let the AI taxi with dumbed down ground physics so they can do it proficiently. Let the AI fly and cheat so they can pull off good maneuvers to fight against. 1946, cliffs, and DCS all do this and it makes the gameplay 100x better. I rather fight a cheating but hard to kill AI that puts up a fun and good fight rather than fight one that uses the player model and can barely make aerial maneuvers. Let the AI cheat to stay in formation and make it easier for them to follow orders. All the other flight sims do it and it creates a better experience. I just don't understand the point of it if it's a detriment to gameplay...

Edited July 15, 2022 by JonRedcorn

[dburne]

3 hours ago, tattywelshie said:

Yeah, I've had this thought before around single player. So, maybe the option of an enhanced, properly dynamic career, with a shed load more options, such as a wider spread of mission types, more stats, cold starts, the ability to set preferences of aircraft numbers, even down to an element of squadron management, such as supply management. And then the dynamic element where the missions actually make a difference. This could come as a subscription only option, so you'd pay $x dollars each month to open it up, and then a cut of the income could go to obviously the company itself, and then the other part could go to facilitate the on-going development and maintenance of the enhanced career mode. I'm sure there would be a good take-up in it! 

 

Yeah that would be nice but I don't think 1CGS has an appetite for such a system. But realize also they have really come a long , long way in their single player depth since the beginning. It is so much better already and should continue to just keep getting better with each release. Between the newer Career Mode, Scripted Campaigns, and PWCG we have some great single player action available to us already. Yeah I would also love cold starts and taxi to runway for take offs in Career Mode, but sounds like that might be a pretty tough nut to pull off.. Perhaps someday.

[JonRedcorn]

4 hours ago, dburne said:

 

Yeah that would be nice but I don't think 1CGS has an appetite for such a system. But realize also they have really come a long , long way in their single player depth since the beginning. It is so much better already and should continue to just keep getting better with each release. Between the newer Career Mode, Scripted Campaigns, and PWCG we have some great single player action available to us already. Yeah I would also love cold starts and taxi to runway for take offs in Career Mode, but sounds like that might be a pretty tough nut to pull off.. Perhaps someday.

We've been saying perhaps some day for like 5 years... IMO the western front careers are basically just the original eastern front careers with late war airplanes made to fly at 25k feet. We need adjustments per expansion. There's gotta be something to say hey he's flying a bodenplatte or normandy campaign, lets put some code in to make the generated missions at a higher altitude depending on task. Right now it's all the same thing no matter what you are flying.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

On 7/14/2022 at 12:18 AM, RyanR said:

Would on the runway with engines off be a compromise? I recall that was how IL-2-1946 was.

 

-Ryan

In my case it would be a compromise. Not 100% with Taxi procedures ( I remember with a smile the FW190 A8 single player mission to destroy the bridge of Remagen ??) but maybe 40% and that’s better than nothing. Yes, the Engine start procedure is simplified but I still will enjoy bring my engine on temperature and set the rpm‘s, coolers etc… For two engine planes I set everything to control on separate buttons for each engine so far the game don’t give me limit’s (there are some, just for example the coolers of Bf 110 can’t separate for each engine…. and don’t forget can’t set the feathering separate ?). I don’t want as easy as possible, I want have the maximum feeling of simulation the game can offer and all the little dangers get damaged by my own mistakes.

That‘s why a start cold and dark on the runway would be a little but nice compromise for me ??

[Bando]

I think I'd do it like 2 or 3 times, then I'd start at the runway again as it is now.
I guess the option would be great for those who would want it, but for me the option to start warmed up and ready to go is the best.
I would not like it to be waiting for the flight to be warmed up. 
 

[354thFG_Leifr]

1 minute ago, Bando said:

I think I'd do it like 2 or 3 times, then I'd start at the runway again as it is now.
I guess the option would be great for those who would want it, but for me the option to start warmed up and ready to go is the best.
I would not like it to be waiting for the flight to be warmed up. 
 

 

The option is already available, the problem is that the AI doesn't know how to taxi properly.