PDA

View Full Version : Waypoint suggestion for improving game play.



XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 04:31 PM
Hi all,

I'm mentioning this again because I firmly believe it would improve game play when designing missions in the FMB. What do you folks think?

<u>Problem</u>

Fighters and bombers are flown and attack targets as grouped objects. Let's say that you want 4 bombers to fly to a waypoint and be escorted as a group. When you reach the waypoint, as it stands now, the bombers will attack all the targets or just one specific target.

Supposing I wanted to sink 4 specific ships in a harbour and leave the others? This is not possible - the only way to do this is to assign one bomber to one path and then to one target, i.e. 4 bombers following 4 paths to sink 4 ships. This looks messy on the map, can be hard to do, cause collisions and takes time fiddling around.

<u>Solution</u>

On the individual aeroplane tab why not provide an option to disband from the group at a certain waypoint then reform the group at the next? The aircraft would reach the waypoint, disband and attack their specific targets then rejoin the group at the next waypoint. Then fly as a group back to base.

<u>Forseeable Problems</u>

The aeroplane tab is kinda cramped at the moment and would have to be redesigned to accommodate the text boxes;

Disband aircraft at waypoint number: (Value)
Rejoin formation at waypoint number: (value)

and the existing waypoint values such as:

Set Target (value)
Height (value)
Speed (value)

How would this idea react with the waypoint values for the group formation of planes? any possible conflicts?

When a plane has attacked its target does it circle the next waypoint waiting for other aircraft that still might be attacking?

<u>Final Thought</u>

I'm sure it would possible to do this and it could be used for fighters too. Would it really mean lots of programming extra work? Ladies and Gentlemen, your thoughts please?

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 04:31 PM
Hi all,

I'm mentioning this again because I firmly believe it would improve game play when designing missions in the FMB. What do you folks think?

<u>Problem</u>

Fighters and bombers are flown and attack targets as grouped objects. Let's say that you want 4 bombers to fly to a waypoint and be escorted as a group. When you reach the waypoint, as it stands now, the bombers will attack all the targets or just one specific target.

Supposing I wanted to sink 4 specific ships in a harbour and leave the others? This is not possible - the only way to do this is to assign one bomber to one path and then to one target, i.e. 4 bombers following 4 paths to sink 4 ships. This looks messy on the map, can be hard to do, cause collisions and takes time fiddling around.

<u>Solution</u>

On the individual aeroplane tab why not provide an option to disband from the group at a certain waypoint then reform the group at the next? The aircraft would reach the waypoint, disband and attack their specific targets then rejoin the group at the next waypoint. Then fly as a group back to base.

<u>Forseeable Problems</u>

The aeroplane tab is kinda cramped at the moment and would have to be redesigned to accommodate the text boxes;

Disband aircraft at waypoint number: (Value)
Rejoin formation at waypoint number: (value)

and the existing waypoint values such as:

Set Target (value)
Height (value)
Speed (value)

How would this idea react with the waypoint values for the group formation of planes? any possible conflicts?

When a plane has attacked its target does it circle the next waypoint waiting for other aircraft that still might be attacking?

<u>Final Thought</u>

I'm sure it would possible to do this and it could be used for fighters too. Would it really mean lots of programming extra work? Ladies and Gentlemen, your thoughts please?

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 05:10 PM
I would settle for much less..

As it is now, if you're not the flight leader you can only turn on autopilot to rejoin your squad after a dogfight. It would be great if the leader gave you some useful directions instead of simply yelling to rejoin.. Actually I hoped that they added this in FB 1.0 way back when I was playing IL2, because I don't like turning on AP at all.

Moreover, it would be great to be able to cycle trough waypoints, because if, for some reason, you don't want to fly over a WP (say there's some nasty fighter loitering that you want to bypass), then the direction arrow in the compass (e.g. in the 109) will point to that WP forever. As a last resort, I would prefer if the arrow alway pointed to the departure airport (with or without a distance reading)..

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 06:47 PM
I think that would be asking a bit too much. The flight leader would have to know where you are and work out the calculations, as it were, to the new rally point. Rallying the way i suggested seems a lot easier.

Also, you can't employ the autopilot away from the predefined path. It would be great to have a programmable AP but seeing as the panels are not mouseable it doesn't seem possible.

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 07:12 AM
What no thoughts ... or are you all still whinging about the P47 roll rate?

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 11:33 AM
KG26_Thief wrote:
- I think that would be asking a bit too much. The
- flight leader would have to know where you are and
- work out the calculations, as it were, to the new
- rally point. Rallying the way i suggested seems a
- lot easier.
-
- Also, you can't employ the autopilot away from the
- predefined path. It would be great to have a
- programmable AP but seeing as the panels are not
- mouseable it doesn't seem possible.

The problem with your solution, which I find good by the way, is that it would cost the development team some time to develop.

My proposal, though much less refined, would take them no time to implement. They already have in place code routines to calculate a vector (because ATC already does that).

If they choose to do something about the issue (and that is a big "if"), at least for the time being, they will probably go for something that takes them very very little time (for obvious reasons).

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 04:22 PM
Yeah programming takes time but I think testing takes a little longer. I'm not sure how the game is programmed but if it uses something like Visual Basic or Visual C++ it wouldn't take too much to drag on a few extra command buttons or text boxes. The time would be spent editing the code for these functions.

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 04:43 PM
KG26_Thief wrote:
- Yeah programming takes time but I think testing
- takes a little longer. I'm not sure how the game is
- programmed but if it uses something like Visual
- Basic or Visual C++ it wouldn't take too much to
- drag on a few extra command buttons or text boxes.
- The time would be spent editing the code for these
- functions.

While it's quite probable that Oleg & C. developed a custom programming framework, we shouldn't assume that run-of-the-mill GUI programming patterns apply to it. They are most probably very very different things.

And, anyway, I bet they are working on a tight schedule, of which FB could be a tiny fraction..

We're lucky if they will include small offline improvements in the add-on, which are something that no one promised at all, by the way.. It's strictly me and you speaking about it for the moment being.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 07:33 AM
I wonder what percentage of people prefer to fly online compared to those that prefer offline play? I think developing the multiplayer side, whilst sounding good in pronciple, is very difficult to undertake. This is because people have different types of machines with different capabilities etc, that is why software is usually built to the lowest specification possible, though this seems to be a shifting view of late. I was kinda surprised when I saw the required specs for the v1.1b patch.

I used to fly almost exclusively online by now i never do. This is due to experience /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif maybe I'm getting old or something.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:30 PM
Sooner or later, everybody will switch to something else, online. For one, we will be seeing a lot of people playing LOMAC soon (demo is out next week).

Offline is important also because of that. Replayability cannot be only multiplayer-wise..