PDA

View Full Version : why no dogfight server with AI flights?



eskimo-again
03-14-2006, 12:04 AM
i have tried searching for it but i couldnt not find a plausible explanation why this is not being implemented. i remeber a very vague comment about this opening the game to cheating but i can not figure out how this would/could possibly expose so much of a vulnerability as to destroy the game through cheating.
even if cheating was inherent in such a server option it would be up to the host to not use such an option.

i posted something similar as suggestion for bob in orr and had hoped for a bit of discussion as to which other improvements can be made in terms of server types aswell as some more detail as to why this server type was not considered. (the enables cheating excuse sounds very much like just that, an excuse)
unfortunately my thread there got closed and i was refered to the suggestions thread. i duty fully reposted there but am quite convinced that it wont get read by many and neither will it encourage discussion.

msalama
03-14-2006, 12:56 AM
Yeah, I would like to see AI @ DF servers too. Maybe not as fighters - leave that to us humans - but as bombers and/or transports...

Opinions?

Capt.LoneRanger
03-14-2006, 02:27 AM
Would be a nice feature and a good thing to implement in BoB. It definitely would help some of the deserted online-servers...

slo_1_2_3
03-14-2006, 10:46 PM
yea but it would be the same as the ships and vehicles the same problem that aparently keeps them still would be there to

eskimo-again
03-15-2006, 12:16 AM
dogfight servers with ai flights or coops with a refly option of sorts.

it is hard to understand why this shouldnt be possible if both separately are there.

it is really one of the things that has bugged me ever since the release of FB.

xTHRUDx
03-15-2006, 01:34 AM
are you guys talking about bots? or are you talking about flying the AI planes we have in the game?

eskimo-again
03-15-2006, 04:13 AM
i wouldnt call em bots but yea thats what we are talking about, not how to fly ai planes.

Tully__
03-15-2006, 05:48 AM
The reason was clearly explained by Oleg himself fairly early in the series. It was a decision to minimise spawn lag. The developers can't control how many objects mission designers put in missions, but they can to some extent control the size of the data surge (and associated spawn lag) that the server must transmit when a new player joins the server. Stationary object have object type, damage data, attitude and position but moving objects have object type, damage data, start position, start attitude, current position, current attitude and current speed data to transfer. Allowing moving objects (aircraft or ground objects) at least doubles object data surge load on the server/server connection every time a player joins and consequently greatly reduces the number of players the server can host without unacceptable spawn lag.

diabloblanco1
03-15-2006, 09:05 AM
Yep, that is a plain and simple <span class="ev_code_RED">excuse</span> not to tidy up the inefficient netcode that is preventing this from being implemented. Granted it can be done, but it would just take time and money. Time and money the design team has decided not to spend. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

x6BL_Brando
03-15-2006, 09:17 AM
Time and money the design team has decided not to spend

I think the appropriate reply here is "take a hike!" For a total cost of less than a hundred dollars over nearly five years we have the best combat prop-sim in existence bar none. We have received hundreds of Mb's of additional maps and aircraft and the game has been steadily improved.

We have certainly received our moneys' worth and it's unrealistic to expect more major improvements at this stage. I hope that major efforts are being focussed on the upcoming BoB sim instead.

eskimo-again
03-15-2006, 09:32 AM
i dont have much hope to see something like it in FB but with BOB being developed for new generation computers/current technology spawn lag shouldnt be an issue anymore. at least not the way it used to be when this game was developed and when 512mb ram was a rarity and 56k dialup the norm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

thanks tully btw for the explanation.

diabloblanco1
03-15-2006, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Time and money the design team has decided not to spend

I think the appropriate reply here is "take a hike!" For a total cost of less than a hundred dollars over nearly five years we have the best combat prop-sim in existence bar none. We have received hundreds of Mb's of additional maps and aircraft and the game has been steadily improved.

We have certainly received our moneys' worth and it's unrealistic to expect more major improvements at this stage. I hope that major efforts are being focussed on the upcoming BoB sim instead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A typical xenophobic bootlickin fanboi response.

Let's try this a different way.
1.It was not implemented out of the box.
2.It can be or could have been done.
3.To implement it now or in the prior development stage years ago, it would take time and money.
4.The design team decided not to implement it.

The <span class="ev_code_RED">excuse</span> given does not jive with facts. While you desire the design team focus their efforts on BOB, their are others that see additional add-ons(ie. Pe-2)still being added to FB. Seeing that the design team is still doing work on FB, they/we would like to see them continue to support FB in the way they/we want.

You have one focus and they/we have another. It would have been that simple.

The take a hike comment was not needed, but after you get off the ground(busy lickin Oleg's boots) and the blood returns to your brain, you might realize that, but I doubt it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Mence
03-15-2006, 09:51 AM
Yeah, it would be nice to have that in FB. Why attack people for pointing out the obvious? Oh yeah kill the messenger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

SeaFireLIV
03-15-2006, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by diabloblanco1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Time and money the design team has decided not to spend

I think the appropriate reply here is "take a hike!" For a total cost of less than a hundred dollars over nearly five years we have the best combat prop-sim in existence bar none. We have received hundreds of Mb's of additional maps and aircraft and the game has been steadily improved.

We have certainly received our moneys' worth and it's unrealistic to expect more major improvements at this stage. I hope that major efforts are being focussed on the upcoming BoB sim instead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A typical xenophobic bootlickin fanboi response.

Let's try this a different way.
1.It was not implemented out of the box.
2.It can be or could have been done.
3.To implement it now or in the prior development stage years ago, it would take time and money.
4.The design team decided not to implement it.

The <span class="ev_code_RED">excuse</span> given does not jive with facts. While you desire the design team focus their efforts on BOB, their are others that see additional add-ons(ie. Pe-2)still being added to FB. Seeing that the design team is still doing work on FB, they/we would like to see them continue to support FB in the way they/we want.

You have one focus and they/we have another. It would have been that simple.

The take a hike comment was not needed, but after you get off the ground(busy lickin Oleg's boots) and the blood returns to your brain, you might realize that, but I doubt it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

woo! Aren`t we in an adversarial mood today!

Has no one seen what can happen if just 5 or 6 AI fighters goes online in coops? It can often become stutter city as the Host`s PC tries to handle it all, add even more AI and things can get worse with skipping AI and lagging AI. I think this is a greater problem than many think from behind the safety of their PCs. Remember, this isn`t some 2D FPS, the AI has quite a bit more to do.

Also, if you go online, you go online to fly against Humans mostly, not AI.

Tully__
03-15-2006, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by diabloblanco1:
Yep, that is a plain and simple <span class="ev_code_RED">excuse</span> not to tidy up the inefficient netcode that is preventing this from being implemented. Granted it can be done, but it would just take time and money. Time and money the design team has decided not to spend. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif
This game manages 30-50 players on the same connection that games like Silent Hunter 2 struggle to manage 8 players... hardly inefficient net code. One of the reasons it can do that is because of choices such as I described above. Even with this limit we still get lag when other players join missions, but it would be far, far worse if moving objects were enabled in DF mode.

Sure it works fine in coop, but remember that in coop mode all the initial load data occurs before anyone is flying. In coop any extra server load incurred by tranferring moving object data to newly joined players is not going to affect the performance for other players.


I sometimes suspect that people forget the internet is not designed for realtime data transfer. No matter how fast a connection is, extra traffic surges cause interruptions and surges in the routine data transfer, which in turn causes pauses and warping in real time applications. The omission of moving objects in DF's is to minimise these effects, not to allow more players.

x6BL_Brando
03-15-2006, 05:37 PM
A typical xenophobic bootlickin fanboi response.

You have no idea how empowering it is to hear this @ age 57! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif There I was feeling like a geezer - but I'm a boy again. Not sure about typical(ly) xenophobic though? If you mean "A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples" then you can't know how wrong you are and you're just shooting in the dark trying to embellish your insults a little beyond the very hackneyed "bootlickin' fanboi".

I never met Oleg or his boots btw - hopefully he will be standing on a large box, what with my rheumatism and so on, and the queue won't stretch around the building. The big dilemma for me is - should I mouthwash before I lick boot or after? After seems most logical, but might it seem disrespectful to lick with a dirty mouth?

What bugs me about the "excuse not to tidy the inefficient netcode" stuff is the picture you try to conjure of an overpaid development team that can't be bothered to tidy up their inefficiencies. Just an edge of xenophobia, no? I feel sure that there must be some kind of Confucian epigram for this, something like 'He who seeks perfection for $100 is either fool or cheapskate.' Whaddya think?

diabloblanco1
03-16-2006, 03:47 AM
Well well just more bootlickin, not unexpected. Sometimes I wonder just how big the paid staff is at Maddox. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Tully__
03-16-2006, 05:20 AM
There used to be a list of Maddox staff involved in this series on the main page, between 15 & 25 people IIRC

msalama
03-16-2006, 05:54 AM
@ Brando: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

vocatx
03-16-2006, 09:36 AM
Brando.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif