24 Sqn RFC Online Campaign

[Axgrinder 0]

Bravo Kingkat!

[sitting_duck 3]

Just from the last few nights of trying to fly wo tac or labels...will make these observations..

 

Have been enabling tac/labels for those who want them, and have been trying to keep them off for myself.

 

but when push comes to shove,,i do find i get tired of looking 360 constantly....and have been flicking the tac on for a sec...

 

and,,suppse if i had the labels mapped to a joystick button,,,,i would flick that on too...but im too lazy to hit cntshft L when flying...

 

would suggest that you go at minimum,,with the tac on,,,and let players chose if they want to display it or not. And then see if the players that claimed they wanted everything off turned it on occasionally during the game. Personaly, i dont see any difference in someone who has it on all the time,,and someone who flicks it on when they thing something might be close.

 

This is a pretty big jump in game play, and it might be a better idea to move into it slowly,,and get an aquired taste for it,,rather than just jump into it feet first.

[Vasco 3]

Guys,

 

From testing the available settings online the happy medium definitly appears to be TAC only. We don't lose each other in flight, we know what direction to look when unidentified aircraft appear 4 miles away and reforming after combat is a doddle with TAC and the gridded in-game maps that Winston put together based on Red-Dog's model.

 

I would urge you all to give this a go just once. If it proves unpopular to the majority we'll go back to enabling all the aids and have done with it.

 

Vasco

[Red-Dog 3]

Come on girl's , i'am not very good with out labels and way points but if you want to fly arcade get a play station .........

Edited January 8, 2010 by Red-Dog

[Macklroy 2]

My 2 cents (I didnt vote as I'm not sure I will be able to attend the sunday sessions)

 

Being one of the few that still have not purchased trakIR, being out of work limits my tech budget, I still use padlock for tracking my targets. Without TAC the padlock feature does not function properly. I love playing W/O labels in a sim like this but without a very suitable 'view' system it becomes very dificult to maintain a visual on the enemy I am pursuing or my wingman for that mater. I usually set the TAC limits to 2 miles (that way i'm not picking up bandits on radar waaay before they come into visual range). Seems to be a nice balance between realism and fun playability. Anyway, like i said, just my 2 cents.

 

Mack-

[Vasco 3]

Guys,

 

Yesterday evening Sitting Duck, Red-Dog, Sweeteye, VonGuber, Loony and I tested one of Sunday's missions using the proposed TAC Only settings without issue.

 

I'd appreciate it if any of the participants would give their honest opinions about how the proposed settings affected their enjoyment of the game.

 

Vasco

 

Only Multiplayer Aces Get Confirmed Kills

[von Baur 54]

Like Mack, I've not voted (unlike him I do expect to be flying Sunday). I believe I've shown myself to be a glutton for realism, what with my wing-waggles to signal course changes among other things, but I don't have a problem with TAC and labels for one very good reason...the inability of a computer monitor to provide the same level of detail as the human eye. I know from my days of skydiving that not only can you see an airplane at 12,000 feet (4000 indcated range in OFF) but you can identify a Twin Otter from a DC-3 (two twin-engine aircraft of roughly the same size) at that distance. I challenge anyone to tell the difference between a DFW and an RE8 at more than 2000 indicated, or even to see an aircraft at ranges of 4000 or more. The TAC helps me "see" beyond the limitations of my computer monitor and the labels help me identify aircraft types at greater ranges (although, to be honest, I usually can ID them by zooming in before the label does, it's just that with the reduced situational awareness of zooming in it's not always practical to do that to select your next target during a furball).

 

Another, IMO important, reason for labels is to tell who's who on a personal level. Guys, I love you all, but if I want to fly realistic missions I'll stay offline. No stutters, I don't have to co-ordinate it with a dozen other peoples' schedules from a half-dozen or so different time zones and it won't interupt my real world responsibilities or pleasures. The reason we put aside a couple of hours on Sunday afternoons is for the personal interaction with other humans with a shared interest. The main reason pilots took to personalizing their planes, and probably the main reason the top brass allowed it, was so your fellow pilots could tell who you were at a glance. Even if it was just a number on the side of your plane, a la the US planes. You could tell at a glance that the guy with the great big "1" was Rickenbacker. Does anybody remember the 94th Aero campaign? We all flew number 3. The first steps have been taken to remedy this, with personalized aircraft available (many thanx, Stumpy), but it's still rather dodgy because...well, see above paragraph.

 

Another point of agreement between Mack and me is how to balance the assitance to SA of TAC and labels with the desire not to go completely arcade. I like the two-mile range for TAC. I believe I would be able to at least detect movement at that range irl if not actually identify planes. In fact, the first thing I do is reduce the range to that and eliminate the clutter by setting it to show only aircraft. Another change I've made is to bring it to the bottom center of my screen.

At normal size that cuts out anything behind you, forcing you to check your six the old-fashioned way. I've reduced the size of mine and can see a couple hundred yards back there (I'd like to eliminate even that, just not possible to drag it any farther down).

 

Something that occurred to me while I was typing this addresses the other realism bugaboo...labels. Returning to my first paragraph, they're there to overcome the limitations of the technology. So is it the labels themselves that are objectionable or is it the unrealistic "all I need to see is if it's red or blue" aspect of them? I think it's the latter (Ok, I'll admit, I'd like to see them disappear when the aircraft goes behind a wing or something, but one thing at a time). I know I've seen color adjustments in the ui files and I'm sure we can adjust the TAC blips so that they're all the same regardless of nationality and the labels to something duller that will blend in well with aircraft parts, sky, and ground. In fact, I'll probably do that to ramp up my offline pucker factor regardless.

 

As a compromise (i.e. to take some of the barbs off the tighty-whities, if Vasco will allow me to paraphrase) how about we fly this campaign with TAC and labels so as not to scare anyone off, especially considering the significance of the prize being donated, and start the next either with all aids off or modified to eliminate the unnatural assistance provided by the default settings?

[sitting_duck 3]

OT...von baur...what the heck is the yellow square around your tac??

 

Vasco, from your session, and all the others ive flown w/o tac or labels...Obvously its much more fullfilling if you can fly this way,,,happen to locate the enemey,,and be succesfull....

 

without a doubt...looking at the squad around you,,and the scenerey without labels is addicting...its just sooo much better.

 

i dont see much difference between flying with tack,,and without labels......i thout the idea of not having lables was to not have something "point" you to your opponent....Put that tac up, and now you dont have to constantly scan for planes.

 

But to spend a day never seeing the planes everybody else is shooting down is pretty frustrating.

 

There are some really good pilots out there that deserve a format that is condusive to their talants, ill admit that. But if someone want labels and tac off,,they can always turn them off

 

I'll repeat what ive said before,,,the sunday session is the end result of alot of time and effort by a few pilots to get just for fun mp flying up and going. Personally i would like to see it formatted to attrack as many pilots as possible, to assure they have as much fun as possible, and not just (as winston put it) the "elite"

 

lol..but this is why i dont like hosting,,,i hate having that whistle around my neck.

Edited January 9, 2010 by sitting_duck

[Burning Beard 14]

I've been reading through all of the posts and am torn on what is best. We all have a preferences and the way we like to fly, so what is fair to all. Mac and others don't have track IR so padlock should not be disabled (I have Track IR and I use padlock all the time) so I can see his point.

 

I personally hate the compass on the DH2, so I would like to use the F5 compass.

 

TAC is almost manditory because of the graphic limitations of the game. Eyes detect motion a lot better than a monitor at distance. As it is now I am hard pressed to see a plane at 2NM let alone the 4NM that the tack uses. Quite often the planes have to be into the 1NM range for me to see them (unless against a contrasting background like the sky or a cloud). External views are nice if you like eye candy but they are an unrealistic way to identify aircraft at a long distance.

 

Now Labels.... The big plus for labels is identification of your wingman/confirmation of kills. You just cant be sure if Joe shot that thing down if you aren't sure it was Joe going after it. This could be eliminated if everyone flew with radically different custom skins and you are close enough to see them (see monitor limitations).

 

So the big thing is the fun factor. Some guys get off on Full Realism, some guys want to fly with no cockpit and F5. I as probably everyone else fall somewhere in between. I will fly a Full Real game but probably not a Full Arcade but at least on the latter you can set your end of the game up to your own preferences, you are just stuck on Full Real. Quite often in dogfights I will turn off labels in an effort to eliminate the shuddering (doesn't seem to help but I feel pro-active), but once the dogfight is over I go back to labels to form up.

 

The answer is ultimately up to whoever hosts. I'm gonna fly whenever possible no matter the limitations.

 

Beard

Edited January 9, 2010 by Burning Beard

[Winston DoRight 3]

Well said Von Baur and Duck. I recently repaired my computer from a complete burnout with the sole purpose of getting back to some MP in OFF. Imagine my disappointment when I took that most humbling flight with Vasco last week and realized that I would not be able to fly effectively and have any fun with the labels off. At 62 years old my eyes are a little slow to react and the only plane I actually put rounds into was a friendly! Not to mention that I was always in the clouds at altitude and could see absolutely nothing of the aircraft that the others were seeing. Nobody is going to want me near them in a shotting match, so with the TAC only settings, I had little choice but to retire. I haven't turned my gaming computer on since. I really hope I'm the only one who is not playing because of this, but it seems that may not be the case.

 

The poll here shows the voting for aids to be rather close to the barbed wire style vote. Add the votes for all kinds of aids together and it is clear that aids are requested. I've played flight sims since the '80's and have always enjoyed the fact that "aids" makeup for the limitations of being in a simulator. Not being able to see as far in a sim or to distinguish the difference between friend and enemy at realistic ranges here is "aided" by the TAC and labels. Now you have a campaign scheduled with 2 flyable aircraft that you really can't see behind you, another case point for aids.

 

It's going to be hard to attract new MP players or encourage an interest in online play if they need to be of advanced skill status in order to participate. I understand the need to move on in search of the realism that fulfills you leaving the less skilled ones behind, but is this the message you want to send to the rest of the OFF community?

 

Enjoy the campaign guys. Vasco has put a lot of hard work into the missions and the aircraft you'll be flying are a challenge in themselves. Hope you all stay alive and become aces. Watch out for the ground fire. In 1916 it shouldn't have been a factor but it got me twice in the test mission. Wish I were joining you. Cheers.

[themightysrc 5]

"I've played flight sims since the '80's and have always enjoyed the fact that "aids" makeup for the limitations of being in a simulator. Not being able to see as far in a sim or to distinguish the difference between friend and enemy at realistic ranges here is "aided" by the TAC and labels"

 

Got it in one mate.

 

I'm willing to fly practically blindfold, if that's what's required, but the essential problem (as I've alluded to elsewhere) is that without labels - in some form - to tell you who the bloke on your wing is, you aren't replicating the conditions of 1916-1918: you're making everyone Mr Magoo. That's also the case with TAC, to a lesser degree.

 

I would guess that pilots of the period spent a lot of time prior to becoming combat active in simply flying round and learning their areas both around the field and out towards the front. We don't really have that option, unless you are an ultra-realism spod who has days on their hands to acquaint themselves with every aspect of the local area.

 

If we are going to fight this campaign without aids, then I would suggest that there are certain rules set down about what you do depending on when and where you lose contact with your flight (typically after a dogfight). What I mean is - and this assumes that the scenery and ground objects match the maps - that anyone who's got lost should always do X. X might be 'head for Vimy Ridge' or 'follow the river back to town Z', or even 'press on, on your own to the target at the appointed height and speed, taking care to conform to the patrol timings'.

 

The only really worrying point about doing the DiD/realism thing is that it might conceivably put off OFFers who would otherwise try MP and become part of the throng.

 

For some odd reason, I'm feeling the same way about this as I did when the complaints started about the AI in HitR making the game too easy.

Edited January 10, 2010 by themightysrc

[VonGuber 2]

Guys,

Yesterday evening Sitting Duck, Red-Dog, Sweeteye, VonGuber, Loony and I tested one of Sunday's missions using the proposed TAC Only settings without issue.

I'd appreciate it if any of the participants would give their honest opinions about how the proposed settings affected their enjoyment of the game.

 

Vasco

 

 

Yes, I'll comment, and it may be lengthy, so scroll down if you're not in the mood....you've been warned....

 

<soapbox mode level 1>

 

I enjoyed the mission, in spite of my first plane getting hit in the engine (probably by AI) and forcing me to land in a field. That is, IMO a valid result, especially for a campaign mission. I am in complete agreement with VonBaur's comment about the inability of a computer display to provide a 'realistic'* view. Sitting Duck and I flew a "full real"* mission one evening and saw absolutely nothing for over an hour. We did, however, navigate pretty easily using paper maps and the occasional glance at the in-game map. We did decide on a patrol route and follow it (no waypoints). So, it did feel like a 'real mission'*, but aside from the immersion factor of flying around and chatting with each other, there wasnt' that much excitement. It's probably more true to life than magically/automatically seeing 4 dozen enemy every mission and shooting down 5 or 6 of them. But, I admit that it's not what everyone may be looking for.

 

If the intent is to increase the immersion factor of the online missions to provide a "more real"* game, then I think turning labels off and TAC on is a good compromise. The TAC can give a boost to our 'in-game eyes' that cant' see as well as we normally would...well some of us anyway. Even the DiD bunch allow TAC to navigate, only requiring it to be turned off as soon as something shows red. Then it's still necessary to close with and acquire the target, identify it, and then decide whether or not to engage. Oh, and you may not get that choice because you had to get close to ID them, and they may be faster than you. If the TAC is set to something like visual range, 2-4 miles, then by the time they appear, it's not too hard to get close enough to see them in-game. Works for me, anyway. I've never really cared for using the TAC to find stuff to chase, I'd rather fly the mission and see what I run into, but YMMV.

 

For this particular campaign, we also need the compass from the HUD, IMO, as the one in the AC doesn't seem to work. We need something to navigate with.

 

The suggestion above about neutral color labels might be a good compromise also. Right now, we know that we shoot at red and don't shoot at blue, negating the need to identify a target. Neutral, dull colored labels would still let us ID each other, but not be so decisive a visual aid? Just brainstorming here.... I also agree with Duck about being able to turn off visual aids if one wants to. We did that last night, with some leaving everything on, some turning everything off. No big problems. (But where were you all going, anyway?) The thing is, if there's any sort of real competition for prizes or something, then there really needs to be a level playing field for those who want to be competitive. The only way to do that is to host-manage the settings, I think. If it's all just for fun, who cares really, since it's all just BS bragging rights anyway. I seriously doubt that any of us are thinking that we're hotshot fighter aces because of what we do in online games.

 

DiD settings are harder, no doubt about it. But, I disagree that those using DiD settings are somehow 'Elite' or more skilled than others; I don't think I am. (Heck, until last September, I hadn't even flown OFF since the Sim Outhouse meltdown.) Now I fly mostly all DiD settings and get shot down regularly- I also get a fair number of claims in SP, so I know it can be done if one chooses targets wisely.

It's just different and takes some getting used to and a willingness to try something new in some cases, apparently. The main adjustment is (IMO) mindset. I think it forces a player to pay more attention to the mission and survival than just "fly, fly, fly...shoot, shoot, shoot" to quote a worthy colleague. It requires use of wingmen and period tactics, something I see mostly not at all in the Sunday games I've participated in. I don't mean to throw stones, just an observation. And face it, our kill tallies in the Sunday missions (the ones I've seen anyway) are higher than history might bear out...as are the numbers being returned in the DiD campaign.

 

So instead of fighting it out to the bitter end every time, sometimes one must run away, make emergency landings, or even avoid engagements. In other words, try to fly the mission like a mission, thinking of pilot survival before kill tally. It just makes for a different game than a 1st person shooter. I like it, you may not...Ok with me either way.

 

As a final thought: If there is truly a concern about scaring potential MP players off, then there needs to be time set aside (officially or unofficially) for "less real"* online missions. One of the main issues in this discussion seems to be that some players are interested in campaigning, and some just want to get online and fly for fun. Both are valid, and I suspect that there's time and interest for both.

 

</soapbox mode level 1>

 

* N.B.: I have trouble with 'full realism' or similar terms in connection with something I do sitting in a temperature-controlled room, in a comfortable chair, with drink of choice and a cigar if I want one, and no danger of more serious injury than mild intoxication. Your view may vary, and that's OK with me. I tend to think in terms of "more real" and "less real".

Edited January 9, 2010 by VonGuber

[FRO8769 0]

After reading everyone's posts and giving it some thought, I have decided not to fly with you guys on Sundays. The reasoning is, obviously the settings that are going to be imposed and us being made to follow them. I like flying with everything on and try to have fun in the process. I know you want to take it to a different level and try to get in new recruits, but I honestly don't thinks its going to happen making us fly with TAC only. If your also trying to create an elite unit and weed out the ones who show up Sundays to just have fun then have at it, you'll not only lose good guys and flying mates, but that will also be another reason you won't get recruits. You have to understand that this is 2010 and not 1914-1918. It is suppose to be a way for us M8's to get together and have fun, not get turned off by it. I think it should be our own decision if we want everything off or not and not the person who hosts. I have'nt been around in awhile because I have been busy with other projects and frankly the enjoyment has lost its luster. Not knocking anyone who hosts, it is much appreciated for keeping MP alive. When PD used to host OFF last year, I was on every Sunday and the reasoning is that we had nothing imposed on us and no rules, except ettiquette, to deter us from flying. I flew because it was fun, we flew allied fighter aircraft that had rockets and also bombers, we flew missions that attacked trains, zepplins, airfields, and any enemy aircraft we saw. Flying for hours, just having dogfights and then landing again repeatedly every Sunday is kind of gotten boring. Again not knocking anybody who hosts or makes missions but mix it up some. Let us fly with what ever setting we want and fly some missions with N-17's with rockets and while some part of the squadron is attacking land objects then the other half can be engaging enemy aircraft and then switch out each mission. IMHO load up some of PD's missions and let the fun begin.

 

FRO

 

 

[Macklroy 2]

I think people also need to realize a couple things...

 

1 - This thread was started as a "poll" to find out what people would "prefer" to fly on sundays. No decision has been made yet (as far as i can tell).

 

2 - This is NOT a decision setting the standard for ALL MP sessions. Only the Sunday campaign sessions hosted by Vasco.

 

 

From the tone of some of the posts it sounds like there is a strong opinion 'against' the stricter settings. Understandable ofcourse, we all want the game to be as FUN as possible (yes it is a SIM i know but yes, this is a game). But at the same time people have different opinions of what is FUN. Some of the posts here have become quite defeatest (*spell check please) in my opinion. Again remember, this topic started as a poll to find out how people would like to set up the sunday sessions. No one here is TELLING you how to play, only ASKING how you prefer to play.

 

 

[von Baur 54]

First, to Duck: The yellow box was added to the screenshot by me after-the-fact, to draw attention to my TAC.

 

Second, to Vasco: Once again Mack and I seem to be of one mind (which is not the same thing as sharing a brain ). I would ask that you table the increased difficulty levels at least until the regular players have time to practice and become more comfortable with them. And also not to have as significant a prize up for grabs the first time or two that they are implemented. They will see that it's not as tough to get used to as it looks at first.

 

To everyone, on both sides of this debate: I've posted some screenshots of my first test with modified lables on a new thread. Check it out http://forum.combata...ality-settings/ and post your opinions there, not here. As Mack said, this thread is about the settings for the upcoming campaign, not any beyond that.

[Vasco 3]

Gentlemen,

 

When I proposed a change to the reality settings by reducing the visual and targetting aids available to all players on the Sunday games, I didn't realise how devisive such proposals would be. We are are small community and having such notables as Winston and FRO stating they are withdrawing from the campaign because of it came as some surprise.

 

I have flown MP combat flight sims since Air Warrior II and at the time I could never understand why the RR (relaxed realism) arena was always more popular than the FR (full reality) when to my mind RR should have been no more than a stepping stone. If it was populated with casual gamers, I could well understand it but it was full of established players belonging to virtual squadrons. Eventually I bit the bullet, left my squadron and struck out into FR on my own. It was the best move I'd ever made in an MP game because the people I found there, although a smaller community, were a pleasure to fly with or against; it was in their nature to master the aircraft with the hardest settings that the game's flight model would allow and assist other players to achieve a similar mastery by communicating in the air as well as the forums. If this community could be called 'elitist' because of their love of the game, by using and practicing real-world tactics and combat manoeuvres and helping others to do the same, then call me an elitist and I'm proud of being one.

 

Over Flanders Fields is a simulation of the Great Air War like no other because of the attention to detail that the developers have lavished upon it, and to my mind it deserves a similar determination by the players that fly in it to make it all it can be. Our problem currently is that because the MP community is so small and so few of the people who own this sim have the appetite to fly online (I've heard most of the reasons, and quite frankly they don't bear scrutiny), and of those that do, an even smaller number are willing to commit to hosting regular games for the enjoyment of community we are destined to remain small. The loss of one or two of the regulars because of the settings diminish us further because although we once reached 15 players on one Sunday last year, our regular attendance is closer to 7 including the host.

 

So here's the deal -

 

• If someone is willing to regularly host beginner's sessions on an alternate day, then I'll support you and assist in any way I can including helping with mission design, give pointers on organising it and participating.

• If someone wants to volunteer to take over the Sunday campaign sessions, complete with hosting, mission design, record-keeping, prizes, etc and run it with the settings they want to use, speak up and I'll stand aside.

It is my intention to raise the bar a little at the time, and with some of the excellent suggestions and effort from various people in this forum (such as Beard's TAC Only alternative, Red-Dog's and Winston's In-Game maps, Sitting Duck's FR navigation exercises, von Baur's labels, Stumpjumper's aircraft and mods, everybody who has donated skins, etc) this is achievable. But this will only happen if the community supports it and flies regularly even when everything is not entirely to their liking.

 

So, support me or replace me. Your choice.

 

 

Vasco

 

Only Multiplayer Aces Get Confirmed Kills

Edited January 10, 2010 by Vasco

[Axgrinder 0]

Vasco,

You keep doing what your doing! You run your games however you wish to run them. Don't worry, people will join your games. The style of games run by game hosts should not be an issue. If you want to fly FR do it. If not, don't. You as the host decides how much time and effort goes into your games. You should not have to put up polls just to see what the general pulic thinks.

 

Players,

please remember hosting takes time and commitment by the individuals who choose to run regular campaigns. If you want to fly FR do it. If not, don't. There are plenty of people out there that can and are willing to host online games that should suit everyones taste. And players PLEASE, don't post on the forum your dislike of the way a host runs their games, they do have feelings. Just don't join their games. There are enough hosts out there that I'm sure can run an online game you like. If not, and you are able, YOU host!

 

Cheers Gents!