Lacking ground targ... assets !....

[Banshee]

First appologies for the faults , english is not my first language !...

 

Second , I don't want to cause any controverse because I really love this game from many years now and I'm very conscious for all the work and effort a small team must endure to create such a beautiful game and all the difficult choices which must be made when creating new viable contents ... And no comparison could be made compared to other sims product whith different teams and budget !!...

BUT I'm oblige to confess that I really hoped that at this point of development a lot more could have been done on the "ground" department !... Also I have recently started to work with the editor and this lack of content is really more flagrant ...

As I said I will not compare to actual other sims but it's difficult to not compare to the ancestor Il2 , specially when mods started ... 

In a nutshell this game really deserve more ground objects AND effects (differents explosions effects or smokes (and please correct urgently this fu... disapearing smoke effect !! , différent "fires" (and please update urgently this fu...  Stalingrad strange animated great fires !!... )

Please start to consider to add more "builded" stuffs like more diversified bunkers , modular trenches and shelters in order to create more different "frontlines" or entrenched positions which actually even with all the imagination of the missions/campaigns builders are very,very repetitive !...

For the ground stuff it lacks a lot of additionnal vehicules , artillery , boats , armours , horses , towed artillery/things , etc , etc ... for targets or only adding immersion on ground ... Just have a look (still no comparison intended) with all the matérials you can found in the last wargame "Steel division 2" on the East front !...

Also PLEASE try  to implement infantries units , even if static in trenches or foxholes !! some infantry animations are already implemented and nicely done for artillery servants or vehicules drivers ...

 

I really don't know if all this ideas will or could be implemented and by who , meaning developpers or modders  but this game is really beautiful and I really think that this "ground stuff /effects" part is now underdevelopped and really start , at least for me !! to damaging the overall quality of this game ...

 

Thanks for reading and see you in flight !!...

 

[Juri_JS]

I have to agree. When BoK was released I had to cancel a number of mission projects I wanted to do, because the game doesn't have the necessary ground objects.

 

It's especially unfortunate that the developers have stopped to add static versions of new aircraft types after Battle of Moscow, although mission builders need them to populate airfields.

[PatrickAWlson]

49 minutes ago, Juri_JS said:

I have to agree. When BoK was released I had to cancel a number of mission projects I wanted to do, because the game doesn't have the necessary ground objects.

 

It's especially unfortunate that the developers have stopped to add static versions of new aircraft types after Battle of Moscow, although mission builders need them to populate airfields.

 

As a stop gap I use the closest available static plane that is under a net.  Not ideal but usually not too bad.

 

@Banshee Been begging for infantry for awhile.  RoF had an infantry mod and I used it extensively.  It was simple enough - each unit was a section.  If you damaged it the visual became fewer men and then when the unit was destroyed it disappeared.  Again, maybe not perfect but really not bad, and that was flying in a WWI plane at 100MPH.  The lack of perfection is less noticeable flying at 300 MPH.

Edited July 17, 2019 by PatrickAWlson

[Jade_Monkey]

At the very least create static objects for the existing planes.

 

For the mission builders this is fundamental.

 

Im 100% on board with this.

[PatrickAWlson]

1 minute ago, Jade_Monkey said:

At the very least create static objects for the existing planes.

 

For the mission builders this is fundamental.

 

Im 100% on board with this.

 

Or a better variety of generic lumpy shapes under a net  

[CrazyDuck]

Even the venerable Jane's WW2 Fighters released more than 20 years ago in 1998 featured infantry. Not in form of single soldiers, but rather entire groups of soldiers either standing or running, but it was infantry nevertheless. Guess with some simplifications and tricks, something useful could be done here also.

[Gambit21]

8 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

 

It's especially unfortunate that the developers have stopped to add static versions of new aircraft types after Battle of Moscow, although mission builders need them to populate airfields.

 

Yep - just a simplified static version every time they create a new aircraft.

 

That said for single player I can use normal aircraft for parked aircraft to some extent.

[Jade_Monkey]

I'm not a 3D modeller but I assume that it's a lot easier to produce a low poly version once you have the hi poly version, right? like the 3D tool itself has a function to turn into a simplified version. Then it needs textures and maybe a simple DM?

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

I'm not a 3D modeller but I assume that it's a lot easier to produce a low poly version once you have the hi poly version, right? like the 3D tool itself has a function to turn into a simplified version. Then it needs textures and maybe a simple DM?

 

Yep, very easy, especially since even the flyable aircraft are not composed of very dense meshes relatively speaking.

It's a matter of selecting and deleting edge loops and vertices. It's a bit time consuming, but I could convert one or two in an evening.

 

Probably the most work (and I'm just guessing here) is creating the simplified damage model...but I can't say what's really involved with that aspect.

 

...of course there's work adding to the editor, and probably some other steps when adding to the game that we're completely ignorant of.

[migmadmarine]

Weren't some ground vehicle models added ages ago that were donated by a community member? (Bt-7 and Madder III I think?) Wish I had the modeling/texturing skills to contribute a few more. 

[Gambit21]

There's no SDK right now to contribute such things, but Jason has mentioned in the past that it's coming at some point.

 

[migmadmarine]

I believe someone made the models, all the rest was done by the team. 

[Juri_JS]

In update 3.010 soldiers on airfields got a damage model and can be killed. I guess that means, that infantry might be possible in the future.

 

What's missing for Kuban are Soviet landing craft and barges. At the moment it's not possible to recreate any of the Black Sea Fleet's landing and supply operations. 

[Banshee]

80 p cent of the play time in a warbird simulator is blowing up / straffing ground stuffs ... or attacking or protecting planes which are blowing up/straffing ground stuffs !!!... And even if you are not destroying them there are all the details which are giving life and immersion to everything !... Like a well animated and populated airfield before taking off or the battles raging under your wings or events you just glance on your peripheral vision  even before you reach the destination where you have to go into action !... 

It's all in the name , you want to play a "simulator" it's all about to reach immersion ...

 

As a old warbird fan I really love the feeling of the well detailed planes physics and how the team succedded in modeling some planes details which for some may seems unnecessary ; for me some of those details are a big "wow factors" much more that many eye's candy stuffs BUT the all picture must be kept balanced ... And when you start to see over and over the same ground effects and ground units around you ...it start to become a real turn down !...

 

And this even with all the talents and imagination of the missions/campaign creators !... And as I have seen some famous one's who reacted to this post I can only thanks them  and express respect and admiration for the hard works they have done with this fu... pain in the a... But ...full of possibilities ... editor !!...

 

More of thoses effects and grounds objects are implemented and exponantially more are the possibilities of new scenarios and stories which can be done and keep alive this wonderful game ...

 

As always sorry for the faults and thanks for reading

[csThor]

I agree with the premise that there is a lack of ground targets available to the mission designer. In particular the utter lack of any kind of frontline fortification - trenches, bunkers etc - is an issue. It would be nice to have those, though I understand the devs' balancing act between manpower and "would be nice to have".

[[RBRI]Khaela]

3 hours ago, csThor said:

I agree with the premise that there is a lack of ground targets available to the mission designer. In particular the utter lack of any kind of frontline fortification - trenches, bunkers etc - is an issue. It would be nice to have those, though I understand the devs' balancing act between manpower and "would be nice to have".

These kind of things wouldn't be that hard to produce. Even A novice 3D artist could bang out a few of these fortifications in a day. 
What I'm saying is that we as the community would probably be able to help out with this kind of production just to get more stuff added to the game. 

But that would then require some form of asset validation process on the developers part, which is extra workload. 

[Juri_JS]

Another annoying fact is, that a number of useful objects only exist as part of larger blocks and can't be placed individually. For example we don't have individual oil barrels, ammo boxes, camo nets, haystacks or hardstands that could be used to make the scenary more interesting.

[Flashy]

+1000 to more ground objects and infantry.

 

I have been harping on about this for ages, but I'm afraid that there just arent enough people in the community making enough noise about these issues for the devs to notice, or to consider it any kind of priority. I am desperately in need of the statics for the new planes as well, but there doesnt seem to be any progress or even a mention of when or even if they will be added. I dont really know why they cant just add them at the same time as the flyable plane - surely it cant be that much extra work to make the statics once the full 3d model is done? I understand that making fancy statics (like planes with the engine removed, or cowlings open etc) would require extra modelling work, but just the basic static plane should be included with each new plane released IMO.

 

 

On 7/18/2019 at 4:44 AM, Gambit21 said:

There's no SDK right now to contribute such things, but Jason has mentioned in the past that it's coming at some point.

 

 

I think we as a community will need to take the initiative here and see what we can add to the game as mods - we could wait forever for the SDK. Gambit - do you know how much can be done without the SDK? I remember SYN_Vander added quite a few static objects and even new vehicles (horse carts etc) to RoF back in the day as mods, which were eventually added by the devs to the base game, and I'm not sure if he had any kind of SDK. Do you think it would be possible to try and add a simple 3D object (a table or chair or something) to the game as a test? I believe we need to use 3d Studio max to make these objects, right? I have quite a bit of 3d modelling experience in Sketchup, and I would be willing to learn 3dS max if I know we can actually import stuff into the game.. 

Edited July 20, 2019 by Flashy

[[RBRI]Khaela]

4 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

Another annoying fact is, that a number of useful objects only exist as part of larger blocks and can't be placed individually. For example we don't have individual oil barrels, ammo boxes, camo nets, haystacks or hardstands that could be used to make the scenary more interesting.

This is understandable as each asset would add to the amount of drawcalls that need to be done.  Too many individual assets that need to be streamed in and rendered will affect performance. 
So by adding them together you get more assets in one go. They probably even combine the different texturs to one texture map, making it even cheaper. 

[Lusekofte]

I think static objects and their dm should be available for modding and community contribution. 

Probably a good reason its not. But static objects is important and devs got a lot to do. 

[Gambit21]

9 hours ago, Flashy said:

 

. Gambit - do you know how much can be done without the SDK?

 

Nothing, which is why as someone already doing 3D work for other projects, I went into mission building mode instead of model/texture mode and why we have Havoc Over the Kuban now

Otherwise I probably wouldn't even know the editor at this point. As it is I learned long ago that I couldn't pursue building assets, (trucks, cranes, bulldozers, airfield junk etc was my idea) for reasons that I'm sure are very good ones on Jason's part. I don't pretend to know the various levels of concerns and complications that he has to navigate, so I just found another way to lend my services to the product instead. 

 

Now when and if an SDK does become available it will depend on timing and if I'm in the middle of a campaign build etc.

Also the longer I'm away from the 3D programs I get a bit rusty, so getting back up to speed takes a minute...so who knows.

 

I'd like to see a wide array of object, including just miscellaneous airfield junk like I said. Those little  pieces really add to immersion.

 

 

 

 

[Juri_JS]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Nothing, which is why as someone already doing 3D work for other projects, I went into mission building mode instead of model/texture mode and why we have Havoc Over the Kuban now

Otherwise I probably wouldn't even know the editor at this point. As it is I learned long ago that I couldn't pursue building assets, (trucks, cranes, bulldozers, airfield junk etc was my idea) for reasons that I'm sure are very good ones on Jason's part. I don't pretend to know the various levels of concerns and complications that he has to navigate, so I just found another way to lend my services to the product instead. 

 

Now when and if an SDK does become available it will depend on timing and if I'm in the middle of a campaign build etc.

Also the longer I'm away from the 3D programs I get a bit rusty, so getting back up to speed takes a minute...so who knows.

If you are interest in creating 3D objects for the game and if you have experience in 3ds Max, you can contact Kanttori. He's looking for 3D artists for his map project.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/37961-il-2-battle-of-finland/?do=findComment&comment=798317

 

Edited July 20, 2019 by Juri_JS

[Gambit21]

Thanks Juri, but my hands are full with campaign stuff and a bit of writing.

I'll wait and see if it makes sense for the game in the future.

 

I'm actually hoping it doesn't make sense though...because it means that I'm working on a campaign for a certain theater.

 

 

 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I think some assets have been done by the community in the past, some of the ground AI vehicles for Battle of Moscow if i'm correct, like the Panzer 38 (t).

Edited July 20, 2019 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Gambit21]

Could be - I have no knowledge about it if that's the case.

[BlitzPig_EL]

All the great "assets" in the world will be meaningless because the current game engine cannot support them in anything like realistic numbers.  It's why ROF looked so lifeless, and why large numbers of AIs and multi crewed aircraft cannot be used.  Until the game engine gets a major update none of the other things we would like to have are possible.

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

All the great "assets" in the world will be meaningless because the current game engine cannot support them in anything like realistic numbers.  It's why ROF looked so lifeless, and why large numbers of AIs and multi crewed aircraft cannot be used.  Until the game engine gets a major update none of the other things we would like to have are possible.

 

I use tons of objects with no problems whatsoever.

[Banshee]

8 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I use tons of objects with no problems whatsoever.

I agree that the current game engine will need a update in the future but I think it's a problem for another day ... I really agree that a lot of objects could ,in the actual state, be added with the editor spawn/despawn logics without impairing to much the gameplay (but as a "newbie cooperative missions only créat ...tinkerer" my opinion is ...what it is !! ...)

But we don't need to add imperatively "tons and tons of objects" to radically  improve it ...we can compromise at least by just adding some new ones and more variations and varieties on the ground assets pool to expand quickly the possibilities for new sceneries and mission création ...

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Banshee

[BlitzPig_EL]

It's a case of nostalgia on my part.  I look at some of the old DF missions I made in the old sim, hundreds of AI tanks and vehicles moving in the desert, with flights of AI fighters and bombers, AI ship formations off the coast with carriers.  Trench lines with artillery and machine guns blazing away, forward airfields using a road as the runway, etc...  All running smoothly at the same time, with human pilots in the mix in all types of aircraft.  A really immersive combat environment, that currently can only be merely approached in single player.

 

The current sim is so good, I just want to see it become great.

[Banshee]

Nostalgia , nostalgia ...

All thoses few examples among hundreds were made by modders for the IL2 ancestor ...4,5,6 and more years ago ... meaning a different archeological time !!!...

 

Didn't want to make comparison or asking the devs to do it , only maybe to start thinking to give tools or guidance to better integrate some community work into the game ...

And as you said this game is so good , the best for warbirds by far actually in my opinion but it could really become greatissimo !!...

 

[Gambit21]

8 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It's a case of nostalgia on my part.  I look at some of the old DF missions I made in the old sim, hundreds of AI tanks and vehicles moving in the desert, with flights of AI fighters and bombers, AI ship formations off the coast with carriers.  Trench lines with artillery and machine guns blazing away, forward airfields using a road as the runway, etc...  All running smoothly at the same time, with human pilots in the mix in all types of aircraft.  A really immersive combat environment, that currently can only be merely approached in single player.

 

The current sim is so good, I just want to see it become great.

 

I get it, but I can do a good part of that already.

As far as 'hundreds of tanks' this sounds great in theory, but by and large (I'm not saying never) the guy flying the airplane doesn't notice or see that. I speak from the perspective of someone who spent hours and hours scripting tank battles through the streets of Carentan etc in the old sim. I never received one comment of the veracity and complexity of my meticulously scripted ground battles.

 

I can get plenty of tanks on the ground doing their thing is this sim, and the same end result is I get zero comments on ground battles more or less. So what's the point in adding even more tanks? Useless.

 

I can get plenty of airfield activity already, and that IS appreciated and commented on...I just need more variety.

Number of objects supported though is not the problem.

 

I'd like to see road airfields come back...I had a good time with those back in the day.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Gambit21

[Flashy]

7 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I get it, but I can do a good part of that already.

As far as 'hundreds of tanks' this sounds great in theory, but by and large (I'm not saying never) the guy flying the airplane doesn't notice or see that. I speak from the perspective of someone who spent hours and hours scripting tank battles through the streets of Carentan etc in the old sim. I never received one comment of the veracity and complexity of my meticulously scripted ground battles.

 

I can get plenty of tanks on the ground doing their thing is this sim, and the same end result is I get zero comments on ground battles more or less. So what's the point in adding even more tanks? Useless.

 

I can get plenty of airfield activity already, and that IS appreciated and commented on...I just need more variety.

Number of objects supported though is not the problem.

 

I'd like to see road airfields come back...I had a good time with those back in the day.

 

 

A couple of things I would like to comment on here: (sorry, this post is going to be a bit long)

 

Firstly, I'm not sure that comments are a good metric by which to measure whether people notice and enjoy ground battles. The enjoyment of a mission or campaign is made up of lots of little moments that people experience that add up to a good or bad overall experience, but they wont necessarily mention those experiences individually in a comment. Instead, they'll say something like "Wow! great campaign Gambit, I really enjoyed it and had a great time!"  and then maybe mention something that really stood out like: "I really loved flying over the Kuban mountains in the snow", but that doesnt mean they didnt notice and appreciate the other stuff. I LOVE the ground battle stuff, and even I hardly ever mention it when I write comments about missions or campaigns.

 

Secondly, I think another issue here is what we all define as "lots" or "tons" or "plenty". To you, a group of 20 or 40 tanks might be considered "tons", whereas I might consider that "tiny" and another person might consider that "adequate". I think we have normalised the low object limit to the point where even we consider 200 as "lots", whereas in reality thats just one company. And this might also be part of the reason why you consider adding more tanks to be useless and that nobody seems to notice , because we are talking about such a small number to begin with - nobody is going to notice and increase from 30 to 50 tanks, I agree, but an increase from 30 to hundreds (including infantry, support vehicles , etc)? 

 

Also, the issue with the low object limit is not necessarily the size of individual targets groups (like a group of tanks or trucks), but the number of those target groups we can have in a mission. In SP, its not so much of an issue because you only have one player and you can spawn and despawn groups based on their location using CT or checkzones or proximity triggers etc, but in MP you could have multiple players spawning multiple target groups at the same time, so now you need to make each group very small in case 10 of them get spawned at once. And even in SP, the amount of extra work it takes to set up all the spawning and despawing logic is massive. As an example, here is a group I have been working on that simulates a convoy of vehicles travelling from A to B, but only shows them when the player is nearby. When there is no player nearby, the vehicles are deleted/deactivated and their "progress" is tracked using timers so they can still "arrive" at point B without the vehicles actually being present in the mission(thus saving object load):

 

The idea is to potentially allow a convoy of vehicles on every road in a mission which appear to move as the mission progresses, but are removed once the player has left the area. If the player comes back to where they were, they will no longer be there and would have moved down the road, just like a normal convoy. As a mission designer, I'm sure you can appreciate the complexity of this, and I have honestly spent at least 40 hours on building and testing this logic just to get to the point where it works reasonably well and can handle cases like some of the vehicles being destroyed and then not spawned again next time the player approaches.  This is a lot of work (especially the testing, which I'm sure you appreciate from building your campaigns) and takes ages to build, all because we are so restricted on objects.

 

 And finally (this post is way too long as it is - sorry again!), I agree that fighter pilots probably wont notice and therefore appreciate effort spend on ground battles because their job is looking at the skies and finding enemy aircraft, but I cant fathom how ground attack pilots, for example, could fail to notice because their mission is literally to find and attack those objects - surely you'd notice if your target was a group of 5 tanks as opposed to 50 tanks + infantry + trucks + half-tracks etc? Similarly for recon pilots whose job it is to find ground units - you're gonna notice if there are 150 rather than 5, especially in slower aircraft like the WW1 types or the U-2.

[Jaegermeister]

Well hopefully and surely we will be getting some additional ground objects with the release of BoBP. It would be very difficult if not impossible to make Allied front line airbases without pyramid tents, deuce 1/2 trucks, jeeps and at least a few more scenery items. We have already seen the infantry uniforms modeled so that is clearly coming as well. 

 

I don't recall seeing any mention of pillboxes, trenches or new bunkers but that would certainly be welcome.

 

On forward airbases, there were usually no hangars or they were bombed out, so static versions of the aircraft is fairly important too. I can imagine trying to populate an airfield with 60 P38 lightnings and having to use stand in netted Pe2s. Might as well not do it.

[Jade_Monkey]

Those bomb carrying tractors are a must! They would really add a lot of immersion even as static objects.

I agree with Gambit that ground objects often go unnoticed but i also agree with Flashy that we have normalized having small numbers of objects as the norm.

When I first started building missions I was obsessed with performance but now I think the engine is much more capable after the 64bit and dx11 upgrade. For example, Flashy's ME logic above is a great but it's also absurd. Just setting the trucks on the road and let them do their thing is probably as efficient as having a million triggers checking for players and so many more objects on the mission. I haven't done perfomance tests but I'm willing to bet the difference is negligible.

[Gambit21]

Flashy - that was a long post! 

 

 

I was speaking mostly about airfields with my "tons" of objects remark FYI.

Other than that, we can get away with more objects that some players realize, at least in SP.

 

A great many ground objects go unnoticed, I've been building mission for too long now to not have a handle on that little fact.,,and yes I'm talking about ground attack pilots.

 

Also I agree with Monkey that the logic above is a bit silly. Far less activating and deactivating is necessary in actual practice.

I haven't found the object limit yet, as I've been able to place everything that I want to (that will contribute to the mission design) without issue.\

 

 

 

[Flashy]

2 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

For example, Flashy's ME logic above is a great but it's also absurd. Just setting the trucks on the road and let them do their thing is probably as efficient as having a million triggers checking for players and so many more objects on the mission. I haven't done perfomance tests but I'm willing to bet the difference is negligible.

haha, you're right, it is a bit absurd! But I did design it so that only one of the those checkzones is ever active at any one time, so basically the cost to the server is one active checkzone and a timer when there is no one nearby, instead of 8 AI vehicles navigating on a road.. 

[namhee2]

That's what I said, the game has no beginning and no end, I hope that with Tank crew and Flight circus many gaps can be closed. The Battle of Kursk without bunkers and trenches would be a shame. Instead of always offering new Senario, the team should first close all important gaps.

[csThor]

I don't think Flashy's logic is absurd, it would actually solve part of the problem of lacking "mass" for ground targets. I have barely any time to actually fly the game, let alone try to get back into online flying but I watch enough videos and when some twenty tanks are labeled a "Panzer Division" my left eyelid gets twitchy with disbelief. A real Panzer or Tank Division back then had hundreds or even thousands of vehicles, a number the engine cannot depict, but we can use Flashy's logic to show the progress of such a unit on the march - regardless of player intervention. A few planes may be able to take out a bunch of vehicles and tanks, but never an entire battalion, regiment or especially division. 

 

This way one could attempt to simulate a greater mass without the performance issues.

[Flashy]

6 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I was speaking mostly about airfields with my "tons" of objects remark FYI.

Other than that, we can get away with more objects that some players realize, at least in SP.

Ah, okay I misunderstood you, and yes I agree then that its possible to make airfields feel much more active and your can pretty much have enough objects for that. 

 

8 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Also I agree with Monkey that the logic above is a bit silly. Far less activating and deactivating is necessary in actual practice.

I haven't found the object limit yet, as I've been able to place everything that I want to (that will contribute to the mission design) without issue.\

 

 

Well I did wonder while I was building it if it was really valuable, but the thing with that logic is that you can now basically have as many 8 vehicle convoys in a mission as you want (and can be bothered to place -its a PITA), and the only "cost" of an inactive convoy is one checkzone and one timer. In SP especially, you could probably place 50 or more of these convoys  (400 vehicles)  all over the map without much performance hit (how much CPU does a checkzone use?), so the world will feel much more alive than before as you can now have vehicles driving on every road in the mission area if you wanted. But, I admit, its a PITA to place them, and it only starts to make sense when used in large numbers.But as a way to try and make the game world feel less sterile and more populated, I think it has value..

 

[Gambit21]

Yeah, I have fewer concerns with single player missions, no doubt.