PDA

View Full Version : AI planes Online, Perhaps standard cockpits? (improved idea)



F19_Ob
10-06-2005, 06:18 AM

Nimits
10-06-2005, 02:58 PM
Online only, server controlled . . .

Stigler_9_JG52
10-06-2005, 03:19 PM
I can't think of a single reason this would be a good idea. One thing IL-2 has always prided itself on (even to the point of carrying it too far) was the insistence on accurate pits.

Now, while I don't think a plane should "not be released as flyable" because there is not enough data to fill in unimportant small details that not critical for flight...like with the Pe-2 for so long...

I would draw a line well before a "standard" pit of any kind. That's just... ugh, unacceptable.

FoolTrottel
10-06-2005, 03:46 PM
Nice idea, but not acceptable for IL2 to implement it. (What Stigler said)

But, there's a workaround, just print out the picture below, cut out the white parts, stick it to yer monitor and yer good to go!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/fooltrottel/LotsOfFun01.jpg

(Note the truly clever thing left bottom? The speed-bar fix!)

F19_Ob
10-06-2005, 04:37 PM
I can understand your point of view stigler.

I prefer high level of realism myself.
However,I chose to see things from the constructive sides and there are possibilities wich are positive in this case.
I still wouldn't favor flying around in an AI-fighter to shoot others down with it.
I suspect no fullreal servers would use it in such way either.
Perhaps This is the scenario U have in mind wich caused your negative reaction?

Bombers and transports on the otherhand could add more life and variation to a DF mission online, as already done on servers that have implemented the B-17 or other, for example. It also is fun to see something new in the sky.

Infact the many flyables we have still dont give us big sets of flyable planes to fly on for yearspecifficly.
Some years and theatres and scenarios tend to be rather scarse.
Therewe have a need for the flyable Ai planes.

If I were negative I could say like this:
As U know, many historical setups on FR servers still often end up in quake style DF maps , although they contain historically correct planesets.
That scenario so many times ends with both sides flying the top ride only and discarding the less potent planes and one really could remove them and only leave the top-rides.
For example; 109K4 against La7 and similar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

------------------------------------------

I'll give a few examples on a scenarios or ideas wich could be interesting.

An early atlantic mission with Brittish wildcats (carrierbased) protecting ships (convoys) from attacks from FW200 Kondors wich reached and found the ships the
Ju88's and he111's didn't.
Ofcoures He and ju88's could be available aswell.
The Norway map would come handy for this since many of the german planes took off froom there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Although I am a somewhat full real guy I wouldn't mind flying the fw200 on a mission or two, and if it had a simple cockpit it would even be better than flying in outside view.

One doesn't ofcourse have to have flyable AI planes in every online mission. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

B24 could be used in the same role in Brittish service as the Kondor. It could also hunt Kondors.
Imagine catching a Kondor In a B-24 and only your AI gunners can Bring it down, and U as pilot must fly so they get best shot.
Could be really fun to leave something up to chance. Something new.
--------------------------------------------

Take a look at some of the AI planes below.
As U see there are several variants of planes wich means that one could fill yearspeciffic missions with planes instead of having only a few.

For example, an early B-17 or B24 , or Avenger in some mission could fill out a thin planeset.
An early Bf110 ,withou 30mm cannons, would be great in many scenarios (they aren't uber )

Bf-110, C-4 Bf-110C-4B, Fi-156 , FW-189A-2 , FW-200C-3U4, Ar-196A-3 .
The arado seaplane won't turn well at all but it has two 20mm cannons and could surely be an interesting addition to many DF maps.

B5N2 Torpedo-bomber and H8K2 (Emily)flyingboat.
Would surely make a welcome addition to the Japanese, aswell as the crazy Russian MBR-2-AM-34 Flyingboat wich hangs on one engine, also other russian bombers. would be welcome.
We don't have flyable carrierbased torpedoplanes for either allied or axis. so.

These named planes are no Uberfighters wich would destroy gameplay.
I also find it very hard to belive that servers like GG and Zekes vs Wilcats and others like them would destroy their server by adding stupid plansets to achieve arcade feeling.
So there really is nothing to worry about, but many possibilities to variation and to add some new life and blood into missions wich would be poor otherwise.

AI list:

AvengerMkIII
B-17D
B-17E
B-17F
B-17G
B-24J-100-CF
B-25C-25NA
B-25G-1NA
B-25H-1NA
B-29
C-47
Li-2
Il-4
BlenheimMkI
BlenheimMkIV
DB-3b
DB-3F
DB-3M
DB-3T
GladiatorMkI
GladiatorMkII
Hawk-75A-3
Hawk-75A-4
Hawk-81
MS406
MS410
MS-Morko
Pe-2series1
Pe-2series84
Pe-2series110
Pe-2series359
Pe-3bis
Pe-3series1
Pe-8
PBN-1
R-10
SB_2M-100A
SB_2M-103
Su-2
TBF-1
TBF-1C
TBM-3
Tu-2S
TempestMkV
U-2VS
Ar-196A-3
B5N2
Bf-110C-4
Bf-110C-4B
Fi-156
FW-189A-2
FW-200C-3U4
G4M2E
G-11
H8K1
He-111Z
Hs-129B-2
Hs-129B-3_Wa
J2M3
Ju-52/3mg4e <~~ Water
Ju-52/3mg5e
Ju-88A-4
Ju-88Mistel
Ki-43-II
Ki-43-II-Kai
Ki-46-Otsu
Ki-46-Otsu-Hei
Ki-46-Recce
L2D
MC-202
MBR-2-AM-34
Me-210Ca-1
Me-210Ca-1ZSTR
Me-321
Me-323
MXY-7-11
N1K1-J
N1K1-Ja
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Stigler wrote:
"I can't think of a single reason this would be a good idea."

There U are m8, Some good reasons that might bring some positive stuff to us. Glad to have been of service . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F19_Ob
10-06-2005, 04:54 PM
OK, Fun foolTrottel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

But The idea is not that stupid.
The yearspeciffic planesets in some theatres and scenarios can be fairly empty on flyable planes.
In these cases the flyable ai could be a good addition.

The whole idea with a simple "standard cockpit for Bombers and fighters was an idea to lessen the workload.
Since we have speedbar and the other bars no gaughes are needed (saves work).

To sit in a cockpit although simply modeled surely would add more than the way it is now, flying from outside, wich isn't as appealing to me.

And the thing I added about the famous Fullreal DF servers. That surely they wouldn't destroy their own servers if it becomes arcade rubbish.
They could have made them arcade with some of the flyable we have now but haven't.

Well, a few thoughts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
10-06-2005, 05:19 PM
Your thoughts are good ones, to be sure, but you're tampering with one of the key points of the IL-2 system, and you have to weigh them against the benefit of having these 'standard' bombers in the sim. Just as one example, say you do choose the "handy dandy" Sturmo pit for the Kate torpedo bomber. Now you've got no sight for the torpedo. That's a real problem. What about the relatively poor visibility from that pit if you're going to apply it to a glass nosed bomber?

On another front, you don't have a lot of controls Oleg should have built into the sim to control plane sets, numbers and ratios, point structures, etc. We do without those, too, so why should we allow this one VERY BIG kludge for the sake of convenience?

What is really complicating all this is the knowledge that Oleg is stopping any further production or development of IL-2, and that, IMO, is the biggest case you have for your idea: we can't exactly just point out the flaws of the sim design and keep asking for it in "the next version": there isn't gonna be a next version.

Food for thought. I'm still tending towards NO, but admittedly not as steadfastly against it as before.

Stigler_9_JG52
10-06-2005, 05:25 PM
Another "wishful thinking" idea:

I don't know why the online/server portion of the game never incorporated timed or scheduled appearances for AI flights. For example, set up a DF server so that flights of AI bombers or Jabos would "hit the front" at timed, scheduled or even random intervals. That way, there'd be groundpounding going on without the fighter boys having to climb out of their pits to do it. And the bomber pilots could tag along with a larger group if that's what they want to do.

That way, you'd get "bomber streams" or whatever, to create a more mission-centric atmosphere for even a DF server... and AI planes could stay AI planes.

LEXX_Luthor
10-06-2005, 05:54 PM
Good discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

F19, your idea is a decent one born from raw desperation. I would prefer a unique "simplified" cockpit for each AI plane made Flyable if the alternative is No Cockpit at all -- NONE.

If even that simplification is impossible, then yes, I could get desperate too and use Generic Cockpits if the only alternative is No Cockpits at all -- NONE.

I use Generic Cockpits for StrikeFighters, and its essential because very few 3rd Parties are interested in making Soviet cockpits and neither is the developer.

F19_Ob
10-06-2005, 06:09 PM
I'm not totally whacked so I do understand your points m8 (stigler) and I know there are many things to consider and not just implement something fast, but ideas and improvisation doesn't work well with a heavy atmosphere of rules and can not's.
I chose to see it from the constructive, positive , or wishful side, if u will, because there is no use to change anything if there are no benefits.
I also didn't mean that the dev-team should implement the idea without consideration.
The idea is only the first stage.

Personally I also very much doubt that implementation of cockpits for the AI to use in online play will change to the worse.
The Ai are used now in scenarios where the flyable planeset is too thin.
I see no harm in that use of ai ,not even on a Full real server.

If the ai had cockpits, (even a simple or borowed one) would it be worse than what we have now?
There would ofcourse be damage if the serverkeepers went amok and added crazy planesets wich destroyed the game, but again, I have a hard time beliving anyone would do that since they don't do it now when it's even more arcade by flying from outside.
The planes are still AI.

Since the Idea wouldn't leave my head I thought it was best to write it down.
and now I have. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Grey_Mouser67
10-06-2005, 06:15 PM
I would like to see a fairly accurate cockpit developed but drop the idea of modelling all the gunners stations...give me a cockpit and a bombsight...if third party developers want to do the gunners positions, great...if not, so be it...at least we get to fly bombers and drop bombs!

I'm sure there are people who really enjoy the gunners stations, but I find them more a novelty than anything...I'd rather fly a Storch than be a waistgunner in a B-17...pilot and bombadier or bust !

But as long as we are talking about the subject, we aught to be able to at least fly cockpit off in WW View offline and online with those settings enabled. I don't know how hard that would be to do but there is your generic cockpit.

F19_Ob
10-06-2005, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Good discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

F19, your idea is a decent one born from raw desperation.

Thanks...I think.
Desperation is not my trade. Improvisation and Variation works better, It just pops up and U can't stop thinking about it.
I'm just a shadow of what I used to be.
However I still manage simple stuff like this where there are no obligation to perform with timelimits.

I love this sim. It's getting a bit old but it
can be developed further in many areas.
Maps, online serverfeatures, increased number of default already made skins, new trees and bushes hedges, ground people,
, Setting equal zoom on all planes wich would fix many, like fw190,
Perhaps this idea will be discarded but then of 100 of ideas I perhaps use a few, and archive the rest for a new look later.
The forum is filled with creative souls and many could develop ideas in one field for free if asked.
I would http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

My approach is to never turn down any ideas just because the ide was not consieved by a family member. I look at them and see what I can do with it.
The ideas presented here was free of charge.
They may look at it or forget it, or miss it and so on.
Hmm....Better stop now so I don't get too philosophical.