Moved: Thoughts on future add on etc for Thirdwire Games

[+Dave 2,322]

I haven't really asked TK for much in this series so maybe we can get one of these.

 

 

Can we have a parameter in the aircraft's data indicating that it will fly escorted.

 

Example

 

C-130J

 

[MissionData]

NationName=Australia

ServiceStartYear=1999

ServiceEndYear=2040

AircraftRole=TRANSPORT

AircraftCapability=DAY_AND_NIGHT

Availability=VERY_COMMON

Escorted=TRUE

Exported=TRUE

ExportStartYear=1999

ExportAvailability=VERY_COMMON

PrimaryRoles=TRANSPORT,AIR_ASSAULT

SecondaryRoles=STRIKE,ANTI_SHIP,CAS

NormalMissionRadius=1121

MaxMissionRadius=1824

Ceiling=12588.2

MinBaseSize=SMALL

 

That way we can we set up strike packages that can always have an escort instead of something random.

 

Finally TK, as you know I have been flying modding and promoting this series since 2002, can we please actually get help when we ask Red Crown for it? I am not sure what that entails but it has never worked. Please. :mrgreen:

 

Was just thinking if you implement that Escort feature, you can set it up so you you have help anyway. So either or would be great.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

Here is the thread.

 

http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...;p=40876#p40876

[eraser_tr 29]

Simple but brilliant. And flexible, you could make sure the Buffs always have an escort, yet allow an phantom flying the same strike mission to be on its own.

 

I also put in a suggestion, being able to use a newer texture formats. My install is probably about 40gigs, ~35 are bmp textures, and crashing problems I was having may very well have been running out of video memory. I think we would see a huge performance increase while having dense scenes like green hell 2 or seasoned WOE if a compressed format that can do mipmaps like dds was used.

[Gr.Viper 131]

an phantom flying the same strike mission to be on its own.

With scary Floggers around? :cray:

[zmatt 2]

Simple but brilliant. And flexible, you could make sure the Buffs always have an escort, yet allow an phantom flying the same strike mission to be on its own.

 

I also put in a suggestion, being able to use a newer texture formats. My install is probably about 40gigs, ~35 are bmp textures, and crashing problems I was having may very well have been running out of video memory. I think we would see a huge performance increase while having dense scenes like green hell 2 or seasoned WOE if a compressed format that can do mipmaps like dds was used.

 

Both are great ideas. There have been many times where I was in it deep and i asked for help only to have redcrown tell me that all assets were committed. Bitmaps are huge too and a lot of progress in raster image technology has been made since the format was introduced. Sure it allows you to make skins in mspaint, but a better format would probably help our hard drives and FPS a lot.

[+Dave 2,322]

Well if you thinks its a good idea let TK know in that thread. But try to keep it to to that request.

[GwynO 16]

imho it's not about having aircraft for the sake of having them like a pokemon gotz to have them all mentality. As beautifully rendered (on high end machines) as some models are, it is ultimately for me about gameplay, it is about what you can do with it, not what it looks like in a screenshot. There is only so much the game engine can do. I feel it more and more with aircraft that are totally un at home in the Thirdwire world, particularly mud movers that relied on some form of computerised bombing (to some extent this can also be said of the Thirdwire default planeset)

 

I desperately wish that something really new would be added to this series for me to do, rather than to look at, a few new key combinations, a more detailed mission planner, a feeling that what year the plane was built makes a difference i.e. not having to drop bombs using only iron sights in an F-4E in 1976 as with an F-4U in 1946.

 

I suppose TK doesn't want to change his formula too much because if it worked to get all us into the games for this long it must be doing something right! Trouble is, how many of us have truthfully been resenting the limits of the formulaic attack profile for years now and how many will be left come the next few years, will there be enough young guns to take our place?

 

I think TK needs to breath some fresh air into the gameplay as a first priority, even ahead of graphics, and that would most likely be achieved through more detailed avionics above all. After all, what use more cunning AI or better ground defences or more objects to bomb or effects to unleash unless you actually have to do "new" things with it all as opposed to just seeing new things but doing the same old?

 

What do you think?

 

On that bombshell I shall bid you all a good and pleasant night.

[column5 63]

TK has been very clear that cost is the issue. I also hope that someday he will be able to create a "2nd Generation" combat sim (SF through WOI being 1st Gen, SF2 being 1.5 Gen).

[JDSnypes 0]

Better and cunning AI would probably nice,like actually trying crazy aerobatics to fool your missiles, maybe realistic TV guided missile inside the cockpit?

I haven't tried this but an anti ship where you attack a destroyer and they actually fires at you?

also your squads actually talks to each other about thats going on and coordinating tactics just like in ace combat 6 to ease the atmosphere?

[+Dave 2,322]

Well this looks like a bust. Can't even get him to fix the Red Crown call for help.

[+Fracture 0]

What about a formation that includes the escort aircraft, such as a single C-130 following in trail of two F-4's. (do-able?)

 

Same thing could be done for FAC missions. Your wingmen could be the strike aircraft directed onto target by you. Not exactly accurate, but a possible work-around.

[+ST0RM 145]

Well this looks like a bust. Can't even get him to fix the Red Crown call for help.

 

Hence why I never bothered to ask. He's following his own agenda. Things from SF1 are still broke and will most likely stay that way.

[johnrey 0]

Well this looks like a bust. Can't even get him to fix the Red Crown call for help.

I can get Red Crown to respond yes but cant send help to you.I think you need to extract the commdata and messagesystem ini's.

[+ST0RM 145]

I can get Red Crown to respond yes but cant send help to you.I think you need to extract the commdata and messagesystem ini's.

 

Dave knows this as does anyone who has been around since Day 1. It's more than just an ini tweak. It's a non-operative feature that requires coding. Only TK can do that, but he won't.

 

Instead, I'd like to see a new Comm edit (by us) that replaces that in the menu with more wingman controls. Turn ECM on/off to coincide with radar, EMCON, etc...

[+ST0RM 145]

Better and cunning AI would probably nice,like actually trying crazy aerobatics to fool your missiles, maybe realistic TV guided missile inside the cockpit?

I haven't tried this but an anti ship where you attack a destroyer and they actually fires at you?

also your squads actually talks to each other about thats going on and coordinating tactics just like in ace combat 6 to ease the atmosphere?

 

Ace Combat is a scripted arcade game with ZERO chance to modify things. I really wish people would stop using it as a benchmark.

 

imho it's not about having aircraft for the sake of having them like a pokemon gotz to have them all mentality. As beautifully rendered (on high end machines) as some models are, it is ultimately for me about gameplay, it is about what you can do with it, not what it looks like in a screenshot. There is only so much the game engine can do. I feel it more and more with aircraft that are totally un at home in the Thirdwire world, particularly mud movers that relied on some form of computerised bombing (to some extent this can also be said of the Thirdwire default planeset)

 

I desperately wish that something really new would be added to this series for me to do, rather than to look at, a few new key combinations, a more detailed mission planner, a feeling that what year the plane was built makes a difference i.e. not having to drop bombs using only iron sights in an F-4E in 1976 as with an F-4U in 1946.

 

I suppose TK doesn't want to change his formula too much because if it worked to get all us into the games for this long it must be doing something right! Trouble is, how many of us have truthfully been resenting the limits of the formulaic attack profile for years now and how many will be left come the next few years, will there be enough young guns to take our place?

 

I think TK needs to breath some fresh air into the gameplay as a first priority, even ahead of graphics, and that would most likely be achieved through more detailed avionics above all. After all, what use more cunning AI or better ground defences or more objects to bomb or effects to unleash unless you actually have to do "new" things with it all as opposed to just seeing new things but doing the same old?

 

What do you think?

 

On that bombshell I shall bid you all a good and pleasant night.

 

Honestly, I've been feeling the same way. Yes for $20 you get some nice stuff and some new features (the new TEWS RWR is excellent!). But with that, you take a few steps back on some others (FM) or Gen1 features are still broke (Red Crown).

 

I'm going to continue to support Thirdwire until I see what the Gen3 sims are like (post SF2I or SF2FE). I'll make my final decision then. Until that point, I'll continue to use the fantastic resources that have been made available to me here, to make the experience as close as I can to what I want.

[jomni 6]

Better and cunning AI would probably nice,like actually trying crazy aerobatics to fool your missiles,

 

They do that in the current build.

 

also your squads actually talks to each other about thats going on and coordinating tactics just like in ace combat 6 to ease the atmosphere?

 

Ace Combat cockpit chatter is actually in violation of air combat doctrine. Too casual and many unnecessary talk.

 

The reason why there's nothing groundbreaking in the remakes is that the priority is to make verything SF2 standard. Once that's done TK is thinking of bringing new planes via little add-ons (separate post on this).

 

At least he surprised us with a major RWR upgrade in SF2E. Maybe there's another avionics surprise in SF2I. (Fingers crossed).

 

Agree taht adding little new gameplay elements will make the game really interesting. :P

Edited June 12, 2009 by jomni

[Icarus999 70]

Hence why I never bothered to ask. He's following his own agenda. Things from SF1 are still broke and will most likely stay that way.

 

Rule #1 to running a successful business: The customer(within reason) is always right... especially loyal customers whose word of mouth advertising is worth gold. If it was not for people like Dave, Column five

/the guys at the Mirage factory or terrain Gurus like Stary or Brian32 and all of the awesome modders here at combat ace I would not have bought all of TK's games. If it was not for your vision and hard work

I would have been dissatisfied with the original game as was and moved on to lock on or something else. Combat ace and a couple of other modding sites are responsible for a generating large percentage TK's business and it would be unwise of him to discount the input of those modders.

[+Dave 2,322]

Combat ace and a couple of other modding sites are responsible for a generating large percentage TK's business and it would be unwise of him to discount the input of those modders.

 

You would think TK would see that too. I can understand his work load but I think this would be worth his time fix. It only been broke since the sim came out almost 7 years ago. I hardly think I am asking for much. I mean it a feature he put in that is broke. Maybe I am missing something.

 

But if you all would like to see this fixed maybe you can back me up in that thread.

[Spinners 15,986]

Perhaps the constant small improvements blind us to fact of just how much better 2009's SF2 is compared to 2002's SF:P1.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Spinners

[+Dave 2,322]

God I hate Ace Combat 6 comparisons. The 2 aren't even close. The AI in the current builds are awesome. Much better than 2 /2 years ago.

 

Perhaps the constant small improvements blind us to fact of just how much better 2009's SF2 is compared to 2002's SF:P1.

 

Damn good point.

[Gr.Viper 131]

Still, some things remain unchanged... Like Ctrl+B thing.

[FastCargo 412]

Frankly, I'm glad TK hasn't spent the time or money upgrading the avionics just so I can have a countdown timer to a release point.

 

BTDT in real life for level bombing. It's dull, it's boring, it's not satisfying, and it's relatively inaccurate (for level bombing).

 

Nope, you can quote all you want from whatever sources you want. I've done it for real. Sure, in real life, there are many things to consider to get the aircraft to the computed release point...striking a balance between the demands of self defense, and the demands of the release parameters (when you're dropping a stick, that's real important). But this ain't real life.

 

Far more interesting to practice trying to do a manual pickle, to get the aircraft in the exact parameters for a release without getting killed. Or as you get in later years, CCIP which allows you to still do a visual release. Or trying to get in LGB parameters (newest patches have done a better job in simulating the tolerances of the release basket). I don't want to be the monkey looking at the timer (no offense to my WSO bretheren). Now, this might be different if you could simulate a 2 person cockpit (multiplayer) with a dedicated WSO...THEN things would get interesting because CRM becomes a whole other issue...

 

As our favorite friend sparky likes to say...if you want reality, start by filling out the paperwork. I'd rather have fun.

 

FC

[column5 63]

Frankly, I'm glad TK hasn't spent the time or money upgrading the avionics just so I can have a countdown timer to a release point.

 

BTDT in real life for level bombing. It's dull, it's boring, it's not satisfying, and it's relatively inaccurate (for level bombing).

 

The only thing that would make this interesting for me from a simming standpoint is if there were very detailed pre-mission planning elements.

[+Crusader 2,101]

I think many peoples fail to realize that TK is still on the same budget in 2009 as he has been back in 2002 *... and he once said that he didnt make any income at all from original Walmart SFP1 release ....

 

Then, over the course of 6 years, he made 4 new games with constant improvments of code and features, all the time providing free upgrades for ALL his previous releases ... that itself took alot of time and money.

 

No other game developer comes even close with such support.

 

For future add-ons etc, I'm sure that TK will do the best he can, after all, he seems to have fun doing what he does .... and if peoples keep buying the games from his store instead of ripping it off the net thent he future looks bright ....

 

edit : * and the value of $$$ hasnt really increased at all

Edited June 12, 2009 by Crusader

[Hokum 0]

The main thing i would like is a mission editor. The inability to create my own single missions is a real pain. I can make campaigns pretty easily without any application, but its just bounds for the random mission generator...

[ShrikeHawk 384]

For me, Tk's games hit that sweet spot between complexity and playability. For the first time, I'm flying jets and firing missiles without feeling overwhelmed by the "keyboard drill". Normally, I'm a total "prophead".

 

There's very few improvements I can think of, but here's a couple ideas:

 

- Improve the graphics for when close to the ground so the mudmovers get some eye-candy.

The aircraft graphics look great to me, so I don't think they need anymore help.

 

- Single mission creation - I'd like to select the specific aircraft, enemy count, skins and terrain I want to fly against, ala Il-2.

 

- Voices need to be upgraded. Not every American sounds like they're from Alabama (I suppose I could do this myself). Just now the voices in WoI don't fit at all. It also would be nice to support sub-folders in the speech folder so you could include a pointer to it from the aircraft.ini or aircraft_data file.

 

- Support for variable cloud files (Cloud1.tga, Cloud2.tga, etc). You could probably use the %d variable already in place in the environmentsystem.ini. You could have a lot of variety with multiple cloud sets that automatically (as opposed to editing the .ini) run on mission start.

 

Cheers!