Implementation of map borders

[I/JG27_Rollo]

By popular demand...

 

Concerning the development diary XI:

 

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.

 

Would you agree to this solution?

 

Do you have different ideas?

 

...

 

Go!

[AX2]

 I vote  * "The plane or player is somehow forced to return to the map area."

 

I flew many "online wars"   in IL2

 

I flew outside the map area and wait, We used this like a cheat, for attack ground targets.

I prefer be forced to return to the map area.

 

.

[FlatSpinMan]

Couldn't you just not cheat?

[I/JG27_Rollo]

Is it even a cheat?

 

It's entirely possible within the game engine with no changes or tweaks or external programs required and readily available for both sides to utilize.

I guess it's personal preference whether one sees it as a cheat or not.

 

Others could call it a player-developed game mechanic that other players have to adapt to.

I haven't flown all that many online war missions but I always considered it a viable option for bombers /recon planes.

It became somwhat of a standard tactic - fighters engaging each other over the target area, others maybe patrolling access routes and when one side had gained a sufficient advantage the heavies would fly in and do their job.

[6S.Manu]

It's not a cheat, but a method to take advantage from the game's limit (something like opening the cockpit to have better view or listen the enemy's engine). In this case there are too few active planes for a much bigger area. Impossibile to cover.

 

I agree with Mustang.

Probably with active comms between ground control and pilots, this problem will be limited.

Edited March 19, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[JtD]

What's the unfair advantage of flying outside the map? You're not immune to damage, you're not impossible to find (in fact, you're easier to spot), you'll still have to attack the targets at the designated positions... I've seen these off the map approaches a couple of times, but defenders aren't stupid, and after it has happened a couple of times, they'll shoot you down outside of the map, just as if you were somewhere on it.

 

Exception is with map icons on, but does it really matter under these settings? If so, maybe map border behaviour should be optional?

 

I know if I have someone on my 6 and my plane's advantage is that it is faster, I'll go straight until he's off my 6. It's a zero risk manoeuvre and I wouldn't want to be deprived of it because I'm going over the maps edge. It's like introducing an enforced ceiling of 5000m, whoever flies higher, will lose control of the plane and will find himself back at 4000m, in a dive.

[6S.Manu]

What's the unfair advantage of flying outside the map? You're not immune to damage, you're not impossible to find (in fact, you're easier to spot), you'll still have to attack the targets at the designated positions... I've seen these off the map approaches a couple of times, but defenders aren't stupid, and after it has happened a couple of times, they'll shoot you down outside of the map, just as if you were somewhere on it.

 

Let's say there is a total 20 Defenders who have to cover the target and try to get to the attackers BEFORE they arrive on the target (otherwise a single heavy bomber will destroy anything); so these planes, without radar as in vanilla IL2, have to scan the entire front limited by the map size.

 

The bombers go 50km out of the map, escape from the few fighters who scan the border, and simply surround the defender taking out the target at their back... in other words they fly quietly in enemy territory, because there is no virtual defenders over there.

 

These smart guys try to avoid the enemy's fighters, instead of relying on their own escort: Is this realistic? Really there was a total of 20 planes out there? Going out of the map the bombers increase the space to be scanned, while, IMO the map size should be binded to the players' number, otherwise we are going to play hide-and-seek (without radar I mean).

Edited March 19, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[JtD]

20 fighters should be able to scan about 200km of air space easily, that's a 35km radius around the target. Doesn't sound to me as if that was a particularly desperate situation. Unless of course it is supposed to be a game of collect-easy-points-by-killing-bombers.

 

A one-bomber-gets-through-means-victory map is the fault of the map maker. There's no need to try and preclude individual error by restricting the entire game. That's like reducing the plane set of the game to a few competitive types because otherwise the mapmaker might put a 1935 Gladiator vs. a 1945 Meteor.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

In a theatre like stalingrad I would think the developers could make a generic featureless white winter landscape that could blend in to the map and not look too out of place. I see it being like the North African desert map  in the original IL2 that just became an endless desert. It worked quite well.

 

My only real concern about being confined to the edges of the map is that you could find a situation where your enemy could herd you to the edge of the map in and take an unfair advantage.

 

Either way it will be interesting to see what the developers come up with.

[Bearcat]

Couldn't you just not cheat?

 

DUHHHHHHH..........

 

Let's say there is a total 20 Defenders who have to cover the target and try to get to the attackers BEFORE they arrive on the target (otherwise a single heavy bomber will destroy anything); so these planes, without radar as in vanilla IL2, have to scan the entire front limited by the map size.

 

The bombers go 50km out of the map, escape from the few fighters who scan the border, and simply surround the defender taking out the target at their back... in other words they fly quietly in enemy territory, because there is no virtual defenders over there.

 

These smart guys try to avoid the enemy's fighters, instead of relying on their own escort: Is this realistic? Really there was a total of 20 planes out there? Going out of the map the bombers increase the space to be scanned, while, IMO the map size should be binded to the players' number, otherwise we are going to play hide-and-seek (without radar I mean).

 

That is easily remedied by setting a time limit on the mission. In IL2 as you enter waypoints the time is displayed with each waypoint.. if you time the mission with a time limit that would make going outside the map and around the other side prohibitive there is not problem. Also as stated below...

 

In a theatre like stalingrad I would think the developers could make a generic featureless white winter landscape that could blend in to the map and not look too out of place. I see it being like the North African desert map  in the original IL2 that just became an endless desert. It worked quite well.

 

My only real concern about being confined to the edges of the map is that you could find a situation where your enemy could herd you to the edge of the map in and take an unfair advantage.

 

Either way it will be interesting to see what the developers come up with.

 

If you cant see a series of dots on a plain white/blue  background then shame on you and take your whipping. This is a silly feature (anything other than being able to fly endlessly on a plain featureless background) that has no place in a sim. It is better to give mission builders the options to build preventative measures into the mission. 99th_Papy was famous for placing suicide flak traps off the beaten path to prevent people from trying to do an end around.. and it worked. If nothing else the flak batteries can act as an alarm ... Flak going off behind you off the map? Well hello!! Somebody is back there!! Go get em!! Again.. DUUUUUUHHHH. This is a non issue. The fact that it is in RoF makes no difference.. it shouldn't be there either.. It has always killed me the way so many people see cheats everywhere.. There will always be a way to game the game.. no matter what.

[D13th_Korn]

wow people being concerned about not finding the enemy easily and playing "hide & seek"?  Feels like the warthunder forums lol.

 

I voted first option.  It's a great solution especially for a winter map, like some guys said before me.

 

I fly fighter and bomber and some artificial limit such as they're planning to put in sound not just (sorry) dumb but also immersion breaking,  I know it will be great fun and realism bouncing off the maps edge while running from some slower but highly maneuverable opponents.  Because everyone knows bombers should only fly on a straight path to the target, circling for a less predictable approach and for height is a cheat.

 

Excessive use of this tactic is easily avoided by proper mission building, not to mention time constraints.  Not that i recall that being a problem ever in Il-2, spotting planes on an uncluttered background is obviously easier, but i'm sure it's even easier to have a hardcoded limit.  It's not like we can do things now like they did back in 2001... now we get the hard bouncing border.

 

One more thing...  what happens when the target area (for bombers), which obviously often will be the dogfight area as well is near the border?  I guess you better keep your eyes on the map, you wouldn't want to ricochet from the map edge right in the middle of the dogfight...

Basically what this means is that some kilometers close to the map edge will be unavailable for action.  How about expending the map with a non-descript uncluttered area, then the bouncing edge?  Oh wait that effectively would be like in old Il-2, we sure wouldn't want that.

Edited March 20, 2013 by D13th_Korn

[Mirtma]

I think it's best that one is forced somehow to return to map.

[Lord_Haw-Haw]

Well being one of those who would almost always fly a bomber, being at the most with one or two

other bomber pilots, it was common practice to take the long way around to be not that easily

found. As no one enjoys playing canon fodder. Maps with time limits will have next to no bombers at all

if there are large numbers of fighters on that server. Bomber pilots might be crazy, but they are not

totally bonkers.

[crossfade]

I would say engine failure would be the best option not a loss of control

[Bearcat]

I am surprised at so many people saying they would prefer to be returned to the map.. or engine failure once you go off the map..  That is so arcadish.. WoP had it.. I seriously hope that that is not the case in BoS .. The endless map feature actually adds greatly to immersion.. There is a way that you can set up a base hundreds of miles off the map using notepad.. for long range bomber missions this is priceless and very immersive.. I know guys who have done 7 hour bombing missions using this method.. Not for everyone but it is all about options.. Besides .. that can be used to "cheat" as well ... some one on your 6? Head for the edge of the map ... if it is like it is done in WoP then both planes will not e moved to the same place or with the same orientation so you can loose someone on your 6 if you make it to the edge of the map.. No thanks.. We arer not a bunch of kids looking for ways to game the game.. although there are always some who will.. remember the print screen cheat in IL2?

[I/JG27_Rollo]

I'm beginning to like the aforementioned idea of old top-down arcade games: fly out of the map at one edge, come in at the opposite end.

Just kidding...

Edited August 6, 2013 by I/JG27_Rollo

[TheNotoriousFNG]

I'd prefer some kind of minor penalty, such as deducting points for victories obtained outside the map area (even that sounds a little too arcadish though). Something to discourage players from leaving the map area but engine failure or being immediately forced to return to the map? No thanks. If someone wants to fly out of the map area, by all means do so. It's not like it gives you some kind of serious advantage...considering how beautiful the terrain is, who in their right mind would fly out of the detailed eye candy?

[Sokol1]

 

 

I am surprised at so many people saying they would prefer to be returned to the map.. or engine failure once you go off the map..  That is so arcadish.. WoP had it.. I seriously hope that that is not the case in BoS .

 

 

Is the dogfight mentality: take off, fly straight to the near enemy base, so is expected that all, include bombers take the same way.

 

Fly "off map" require good dead reckoning navigation skill, pilots with ability to do this deserve a medal, and not be "kicked back". 

 

Sokol1

 

[Heywooood]

fly off map - all points lost...ok to keep flying and return to map area but all points are lost both before and after the map boundary violation for that flight...

new flight selected and all is reset

 

this way the player has incentive to stay on the map and not exploit the boundary - while immersionists can keep flying as normal, just with no terrain detail or reduced detail - or whatever the 'off the map' region looks like...but no score for that flight 

[Bearcat]

I really really hope the off the map features are the same as they are in IL2.. No penalties... no relocating... no engine failure... at the most if you just might get lost and run out of fuel.. I understand where guys are coming from with this but I think that that kind of exploitation actually adds to the challenge. It is less of a challenge when you know were the bomber is coming from but if you have to actually fly and scan.. and protect your base.. Now that's immersion ...

 

I think a way around that might better be addressed by the mission designer setting fuel limits .. or something like that .. but the endless map offers so much more versatility i the way of mission design. I flew a few coops where the base was off the map.. and you were given coordinates to fly to... and yoi had to remember than to get back home.. Fantastic immersion..

 

I guess the best balance would be to have that as a server side settable option if something like that were implemented.. I wonder how problematic it would be to do it that way?

[Drum]

Set a timer for off map flying.  Once this time limit is reached, the plane starts to lose fuel at 1% per second until plane returns back inside the map boundary.  Have a warning flash on screen when flying out of bounds with the fuel percentage being lost next to this warning once the time limit is exceeded.   Using an out of bounds map area should be penalized, imo.

[Foobar]

Set a timer for off map flying.  Once this time limit is reached, the plane starts to lose fuel at 1% per second until plane returns back inside the map boundary.  Have a warning flash on screen when flying out of bounds with the fuel percentage being lost next to this warning once the time limit is exceeded.   Using an out of bounds map area should be penalized, imo.

 

Although I've voted for the first option, this is an interesting idea!

[VeryOldMan]

I vote that  Godzilla should spawn once you pass map border and blast you with the atomic breath!

Edited September 2, 2013 by VeryOldMan

[AndyJWest]

I vote that  Godzilla should spawn once you pass map border and blast you with the atomic breath!

 

LOL! 

 

Seriously though, there ought to be at least some server-side option to keep people on the map. I rather like Drum's fuel leak idea.

[Jaws2002]

The first option please.  

 

The historical map is going to be limited. The war progressed in and out of that map. If you want to make historical missions, or dynamic campaigns, there's a good chance you'll end up placing airfields and targets close to the edge of the map. Give the planes a bit of room to take off, climb or extend.

 

No need for artificial rigidity.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Jaws2002

[FuriousMeow]

I voted none of the above. The offender flying off the map should have their name displayed in the same way x shot down y, but instead it will say <player> flew off the map. That way it's easily identifiable who is intentionally untilizing the map limitations to get to and from the target without being noticed. There's no flak out there, no early warning, nothing. Off the map is an intentional gaming the game, and everyone should know who does that.

 

This map is big enough that flight plans can be created that go out of the way of the main approaches, so if you can't get to target without going off the map you really deserve to be identified.

[VeryOldMan]

Why  no one likes Godzilla? 

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I voted none of the above. The offender flying off the map should have their name displayed in the same way x shot down y, but instead it will say <player> flew off the map.

 

+1. It is a simple and non-intrusive way of keeping control of things, and does not affect creative of-line use of the map.

[Matt]

With the Stalingrad map as it looks now (based on the presentations etc.), i don't think this will be a major problem. I don't see many targets/objectives being placed on the very edge of the map. So even if people will fly outside of the map, there should still be plenty of time for people who stay inside the map borders to intercept bombers before they reach their target etc.

 

Flying outside the map offers the advantage of not having to worry about AAA or that many enemy planes (most of them will stay inside the map). So i have a hard time understanding the support for flying outside the map for historical purposes (because in history, the areas outside the map were not deserted), but on the other hand, i wouldn't want to see any system that would force people to stay inside the map area (especially not by causing a fuel leak or anything like that).

 

Overall i think it's a limitation of every flightsim and it has to be avoided as much as possible by the mission designer and not by the server admin or the players. So i think it should be possible to fly outside the map area without any negative impact on the player who is doing so.

[Foobar]

Why  no one likes Godzilla? 

 

There are no scale drawings to build a historic correct 3D model.

[Trooper117]

Being forced to return to the main map area is a major bug bear of RoF at the moment... no doubt it will be ported to BoS as well

Taking part in operations that are set near the maps borders sometimes necessitates you having to lead your flight out of the area because;

1. It is tactically a sound idea to do so, or;

2. You have been ordered to approach from that direction to attack your target in your briefing.. (yes, it happens in Rof)

When you try to carry out those orders, and your aircraft is then taken over by the game and forced to return to the map borders, its a flippin pain.

[Allons]

I voted none of the above and would like to see enemy dumbasses crash into an invisible wall i just avoided in the dogfight. This would give us lots of laughter like killing enemy fighters with your bombs as a He111 flying nap-of-earth..

[VeryOldMan]

There are no scale drawings to build a historic correct 3D model.

I would bet japan  defense force has some detailed data!!

[Karost]

I vote one ----> like IL2 old school

 

small map is a good option for a daily DF  server

- load fast

- not waste time for keep looking each other

- has many trick of fun....

imho, I don't like ROF  solution   for this case 

server force >"turn back 180 now! or I will pull you back"

Edited November 16, 2013 by karost

[7./SchG2_BuRNeR]

Yesterday I was flying on the expert server and was shocked about the size of the map. And then the autopilot at reaching the mapborder was so disappointing for me. Sorry, but I think for myself IL-2 1946 will be many years in the future still the benchmark for WW2 flightsims. I still wish this project all the best and I am still watch the progress of it. But I have my doubts that we can get an real IL-2 replacement in the next couple of years.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Ideally, we'd have two or three different options, that can be set by the server.

[Nen]

In my opinion forced return to combat area feels rather unrealistic. For me the ideal solution would be to make the make vast enough but that I reckon is out of the question hehehe.

 

That's why I choose the first solution.