Developer Diary, Part XI

[Uufflakke]

I can't imagine the release date will be early 2014 already because we have seen just a few screenshots in the dev's updates till sofar.

Which means we can expect a lot of screenies and video's in the near future (well, I hope so...).

I'm really looking forward to a sim like this (WWII + Eastern Front) with up-to-date graphics etc. 'cause IL2:1946 is gonna get too outdated in my opinion. Even with all the mod stuff and such.

[heinkill]

Thx for another good update. Asked a question a while ago and haven't seen an answer.

 

Will there be female pilots modelled for VVS? I'd like to start the research for a White Lilly campaign, but wont bother if there is no female pilot model.

Edited March 17, 2013 by heinkill

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

What i mean is that its not like daily QandA on the russian forums really SHAPES the outcome of BOS, apart from the little things - it looks like Loft was convinced by the massive outrage (silly in my book) to change Soviet icons to red even if friendly... Nobody will rewrite the Single Player algorithms now etc etc, feature freeze has happened already and quite long time ago.

I for one am happy about that. I always enjoyed flying red.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Friendly_flyer

[Feathered_IV]

I'd like to know if female aircrew are going to be represented too.  Any chance of some Cyrillic-savvy types sending that question down the pipe? 

[FlatSpinMan]

Btw, a big thank you to Fishbreath (I'm not asking where that name comes from) for braving the Russian forums to bring us benighted non-Russian speakers more info.

 

[89-]

Thx for another good update. Asked a question a while ago and haven't seen an answer.

 

Will there be female pilots modelled for VVS? I'd like to start the research for a White Lilly campaign, but wont bother if there is no female pilot model.

 

 

I'd like to know if female aircrew are going to be represented too.  Any chance of some Cyrillic-savvy types sending that question down the pipe? 

 

I've posted this question on Russian boards, will let you know if I get a reply.

[BlackSix]

I've posted this question on Russian boards, will let you know if I get a reply.

 

I have this question in my list and I hope Albert will answer in the future.

[MineFewer]

If I wasn't articulated and inarticulate, I wouldn't have conflated the conflagration! 

[Fishbreath]

Btw, a big thank you to Fishbreath (I'm not asking where that name comes from) for braving the Russian forums to bring us benighted non-Russian speakers more info.

 

Like all the best monikers, it was given to me instead of chosen by me. If I have some time at lunch tomorrow, I'll see about doing another page or two of questions from the Russian forum.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

9) In the old "IL-2" when the plane left the borders of map then starts to create a primitive landscape and plane can fly infinitely far away. How it will be implemented in BoS?

 

I think we'll make a loss of control and the forced return of the aircraft to the map. Able to fly outside the map allows you to receive an unfair advantage sometimes. But the map will be huge and I don't think that you will often see its borders.

 

Huh, that went from simulation to arcade quickly.

 

Seriously though, I don't think I like this solution to the map border issue (if flying out of bounds is an issue to begin with).

 

No matter how big the map is, flying nearby the borders is probably still going to happen and while flying outside the map might be used to an unfair(?) advantage by some people, losing control over your aircraft could bring just as many frustrating disadvantages.

 

Just imagine being in a dogfight, the opponent is gaining the upper hand and while trying to get away you accidentally leave the map. The autopilot takes control and brings you back in a nice and steady turn at the end of which your opponent is casually lining up a shot and boom - you're an easy kill.

 

There are games where I don't mind being brought back onto the battlefield or destroyed within 10 seconds when I leave the map but IL-2?

Personally I'd rather have people fly all the way across an empty landscape up to where Leningrad would be, if they so desire, instead of having to give up control over my aircraft just because I happend to cross the map border.

 

I think a more sophisticated solution is needed here.

(And no, I don't have one right now. )

[JtD]

I agree, Rollo. I don't like this idea very much myself.

 

But posting because I stumbled across this article, of a US evaluation of a T-34 in 1943. It's interesting, I think. Doesn't really matter for a flight sim, but still.

[Uufflakke]

Personally I'd rather have people fly all the way across an empty landscape up to where Leningrad would be

 

 

I think you mean Stalingrad.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

Nope.

[heinkill]

I also vote for the featureless non ending terrain approach. Worked well in both IL2 and BoB2, while on Wings of Prey the forced turnaround was implemented and it was pukeworthy.

 

Start a poll I say!

Edited March 18, 2013 by heinkill

[BlitzPig_EL]

Agree with the above gentlemen. 

 

A force field at the map borders is a cheap, and very arcade solution.

 

It has no place in a simulation.

[Heywooood]

how about an eight second delay to get back on the map by player controlled flight  -  then fade to black if they fail to return -

then an option to respawn at the original airbase - or restart mission

 

players need to become adjusted to the boundaries, not use them to advantage, and then have the options presented to the player if he fails to return to the map

in a reasonable (8 seconds or whatever) time period

 

I agree that bouncing the plane in an unrealistic characteristic is not attractive from the immersion POV and is arcadey - and having the map detail disappear is equally unattractive as an option IMO - so the fade to black seems reasonable -

"oops I've gotten lost and blacked out - now where am I?" 

might be acceptable - or not

Edited March 18, 2013 by Heywooood

[I/JG27_Rollo]

Interesting approach...

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Fading/warning works in the Battlefield series just fine. I think I like this solution the best so far.

[FlatSpinMan]

I agree, Rollo. In such an open type of game, just bring able to fly endlessly seems more natural, yes, even all the way to where a hypothetical Leningrad would be.

That said, as the map will be big I don't really care as long as the airfields are sufficiently far from the edges.

[Bearcat]

I don't like that approach either. I think they should do it like it was done in IL2. I mean really ... who flies off the map except accidentally? What advantage would that give anyone on a map with map icons turned off? None. That is a "solution" to a problem that does not exist and I really hope that they do not do that. WoP had something like that too... way too arcadey and has no place whatsoever in a seriou combat flight sim. A very very bad idea.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

Fading/warning works in the Battlefield series just fine. I think I like this solution the best so far.

 

Yes it does. Same in Planetside 2 and a variety of other games. However, none of those games claim to be a simulation unlike BoS which is developed as one.

That is the crucial point - imposing these virtual barriers is indeed way too arcadey and should not be part of a flight sim.

 

I don't like that approach either. I think they should do it like it was done in IL2. I mean really ... who flies off the map except accidentally? What advantage would that give anyone on a map with map icons turned off? None. That is a "solution" to a problem that does not exist and I really hope that they do not do that. WoP had something like that too... way too arcadey and has no place whatsoever in a seriou combat flight sim. A very very bad idea.

 

Well, there is a point in flying off the map intentionally. It's a good way for bomber pilots (who know how to use a compass in combination with a stopwatch) to circumvent the on-map fighter patrols (who would patrol far off the map?) and then attack enemy positions from the rear while already being on the way home when the bombs drop.

Still, you're absolutely right about there not being a problem. That advantage (if that is the one that was mentioned by the devs) is imho by no means unfair. Fighters who fly object cover need to check in all directions anyway and not just in the general direction of the front line so where is the unfair part in that?

Edited March 19, 2013 by I/JG27_Rollo

[csThor]

"If we are honest- its too late to influence and change. Apart from the little things. The train is flying ahead at full steam, brakes were thrown out to reduce weight - one year for developing a flight sim of this scale and depth - there no time to ponder on the meaning of life."

And this is the very core issue ... thanks 89- for posting this, because it was not really apparent to me (I'd heard rumors before about the incredibly short timeframe, though). When taking this into consideration I don't see anything but the bare minimum at release ... Makes things certainly clearer.

[SYN_Haashashin]

I don't like that approach either. I think they should do it like it was done in IL2. I mean really ... who flies off the map except accidentally? What advantage would that give anyone on a map with map icons turned off? None. That is a "solution" to a problem that does not exist and I really hope that they do not do that. WoP had something like that too... way too arcadey and has no place whatsoever in a seriou combat flight sim. A very very bad idea.

 

I never thought about it untill people were doing what Rollo said in RoF MP, the MP maps are not the whole map, so if people fly out the map and get to the objetive from the rear of the objetive with no opposition at all to me is not right. Now in RoF MP I think it will told you that you are outside battle zone (influence area) and autopilot will come up after couple seconds and bring you back inside, I think, tried while testing it a long time a ago. This was implemented in RoF after people complain about it, if I rememeber right, it will give you advance over the other as outside the battle zone it wont be any ballons or AAA or nothing. If the objetive is far north over enemy side, all you have to do is fly north outside the battle zone and then come back south, who will check planes coming from far inside your own lines with no flak?? also you have less chances of been damage before reaching the objetive or who will cover airfields that are not objetives?? people in flysims seems to like dropiing bombs in airfields, even if they are not objetives. This was mainly a problem with bombers in RoF MP. SP is different as there is no Influence Areas as its call in MP.

 

All I mean is that for MP is ok, for SP it wont be, but as far as I know RoF does not use it on SP. Maybe its happens in SP when you fly outside of the actual whole map but as you say, who will fly outside of the whole map except accidentally??

[6S.Manu]

Huh, that went from simulation to arcade quickly.

 

Seriously though, I don't think I like this solution to the map border issue (if flying out of bounds is an issue to begin with).

 

No matter how big the map is, flying nearby the borders is probably still going to happen and while flying outside the map might be used to an unfair(?) advantage by some people, losing control over your aircraft could bring just as many frustrating disadvantages.

 

Just imagine being in a dogfight, the opponent is gaining the upper hand and while trying to get away you accidentally leave the map. The autopilot takes control and brings you back in a nice and steady turn at the end of which your opponent is casually lining up a shot and boom - you're an easy kill.

 

There are games where I don't mind being brought back onto the battlefield or destroyed within 10 seconds when I leave the map but IL-2?

Personally I'd rather have people fly all the way across an empty landscape up to where Leningrad would be, if they so desire, instead of having to give up control over my aircraft just because I happend to cross the map border.

 

I think a more sophisticated solution is needed here.

(And no, I don't have one right now. )

 

A solution? Force the pilots to stay away from the borders, looking at it as another wing's airspace.

 

Give an harsh penalty to those pilots who cross the border, being it as point penalty or, better, a warning timer followed by induced damage to the plane (engine damage for example).

 

The "plan" to follow the border of the map is been used for many years, and I really hate it because it's so unrealistic... it's not simulative at all.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[I/JG27_Rollo]

Ok but how realistic is it if your plane is magically (and reproducibly) taking damage when crossing an invisible (aside from ground textures) map border?

 

Maybe encouraging players to stay on the map is not so much a matter of game design but more of mission design.

There could be things to consider such as: dont't have key (or any) targets near the borders, cover the indirect access routes (i.e. from beyond the map) with flak as well, maybe even have AI flights (from those other wings    ) patrol the outskirts of the map (will take more rescources of course), etc...

[6S.Manu]

Ok but how realistic is it if your plane is magically (and reproducibly) taking damage when crossing an invisible (aside from ground textures) map border?

 

Maybe encouraging players to stay on the map is not so much a matter of game design but more of mission design.

There could be things to consider such as: dont't have key (or any) targets near the borders, cover the indirect access routes (i.e. from beyond the map) with flak as well, maybe even have AI flights (from those other wings    ) patrol the outskirts of the map (will take more rescources of course), etc...

 

The mission designer has the key to avoid this problem, but in online campaigns there will always be guys using this exploit with their bombers (since they plan the mission for themself): these guys simply try to avoid the fighters (too few to defend all that area) instead of using escort and sweep flight effectively.

 

I initially thought about AI planes, but they should attack only if the border is crossed... it needs to be coded as a detailed function of the sim (event, spawn point numbers ect...).

 

I think the warning plus damage after 10 seconds is the best solution: it's not realistic I know, but with the unrealism of the "border" IMO it a fair thing to do. Just force the pilot to stay away from there.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Forcing players to stay in a certain area is what the "corridor shooter" FPS games do, it has no place in a true simulation.

[6S.Manu]

Forcing players to stay in a certain area is what the "corridor shooter" FPS games do, it has no place in a true simulation.

True simulations should have thousand of active planes and infinite landscape... , and realistic flight plans, not the one made by players to take advantage of the sim's limit.

Edited March 19, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[Uufflakke]

Infinite landscape is the way to go.

With map borders it feels like flying in a box.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I'm for the IL2 style "endless landscapes" at the map borders. I remember the first mission in an excellent RAF desert war campaign. The mission maker had really been thinking outside the box and managed to put a whole airfield and your starting point way outside the map border. One man's cheat is another man's golden trick. I like having possibilities.

[Sim]

Be realistic? The developers have one year to develop this sim with 10 flyable planes and one huge Stalingrad area map. Not to mention all the other needed (and IMHO more important) RoF engine changes for WW2 combat. Their hands are full.

[Bearcat]

A better option IMO would be to allow mission builders to put time limits on the mission. If I build a mission where the bases of both sides are within the map but on opposite sides.. the added time it would take to go off the map .. come around the edges of the map and sneak back in to hit the target would have to be significantly greater than just flying the mission. In IL2 there are estimated times on waypoints based on the speeds you set for the AC.. If the mission builder set a time frame for the objective that would force the side trying to achieve that objective to stay within the confines of the map or forfeit the mission .. that would be a better way to handle that than any kind of silly making you black out. or just having your plane magically pop up in the center of the map like WoP did.. so you have a bandit on your six and fly to the edge of the map and BAM you are back on the map somewhere else.. I really hope that that is not what they do. This issue of trying to build in ways to keep people from gaming the game is a fools errand IMO.. whatever the game.. someone will find a way to game it.

[FlatSpinMan]

Friendly flyer - I'm pretty sure that was birdbrain's desert campaign, wasn't it? That was a great use of the idea.

I found it handy to be able to set waypoints off the map so that big bomber formations could keep flying. Otherwise you had to either set landing waypoints for them all (often in unrealistic parts of the map) which took a while and was never seen by most players, or they reached the last waypoint then began that weird, endless circle thing.

However, I'll take whatever get.

[hiro]

They should do like joust or PACman you go outside the map you come out the opposite end :D. J/k

 

There isn't a good solution really. I'm not a big fan of the screen flashing red and the siren noise and a voice announcing return to the combat zone or insta death + respawn.

 

We wAnt to make going to the end of the map disadvantageous. I rather prefer if one were to leave the border they are greeted with endless repetitive landscape and can fly until dry. If they are off the map it's endless until they go back and re enter.

 

Other ideas is outside of the map weather gets worse until it's IFR or if night the stars fade ground lights fade etc. But it's endless skies like il 2

 

I remember 720 skate or die, if you stayed Out too long you got an unwin- able situation. For BOS it could be increasing enemy patrols , AAA that's accurate and eventually would be impossible to hold out. any kills or points wouldnt count but everyone would see your stats outside the map for heckle purposes.

 

Anyways we need incentive to stay in and make it a useless Easter egg novelty to exit, like running into 1000s of mustangs with tiger stopping fifties . Maybe a stay inside the map stat or award or medal. It's not realistic but this is a game. Or make large maps with action in the center and airfields outside but far from the edges.

[FlatSpinMan]

Jeez. If its getting this complicated (and potentially crippling on computers if they need to model all this flak or random fighters) then maybe the Devs' idea IS the best.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

They should do like joust or PACman you go outside the map you come out the opposite end :D. J/k

 

Haha, nice one. I was about to suggest the same.

 

Anyway I don't think the devs will change their plans on this any time soon but if they do realise this border bouncing (I still don't like this idea btw) they need to make sure that players get enough time to turn their plane around.

A short warning as in arcade games will not suffice. Situations where you can't just turn around right away (e.g. when running from a more maneuverable opponent) must be regarded thoroughly.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I hate to say this, but this single stance taken by the dev team has given rise to my fears for the fundamental

integrity of this entire project.

 

An arcade/fps/gamer solution applied to a combat flight simulation does not bode well for the vision the producers have for this title.

 

Color me worried.

[Heywooood]

which crayon IS that, El...?

 

seriously - all this dialogue over a single element of the first stage of an as yet unborn flight sim is a little excessive maybe?

 

I want the parts of the sim that are about flying in combat to be detailed...I'll worry about the rest of it later

[I/JG27_Rollo]

seriously - all this dialogue over a single element of the first stage of an as yet unborn flight sim is a little excessive maybe?

Maybe. But it gives us something to discuss while we wait for the next update and more importantly it gives the devs a hint that this is a controversal topic and that they might need to look into this element in a little more detail. Maybe not for now, or up to release but at least for later.

They probably know by now that this is an issue, they know the different points of view from different (future) players. Mission accomplished.   (for now)

[Feathered_IV]

A new flight sim chapter would not be complete without a manifesto from the Blitzpigs detailing why they will not be taking part.

 

Seriously though, the same dev quote also stated the map will be Huge. Who is going to spend all their time fussing around the edges?