SF-2 Future

[Stratos 3,191]

- Possibility to pass radar contact from A-G radar to ASM

I think this should be part of manually slewable radar/FLIR cursor.

[+Florian 394]

Would be nice to have the parking aircraft set in the airfields INI. Like ParkingAircraft=F-4E and ParkingTexture=Camo1...

If left blank or not entered it still could be random...

 

I think it would make great campaign options if we could have a third side, maybe fighting both red and blue. 

[jeanba 1,920]

- Obviously : correct the bug preventing AI to use external flares / chaffs pods

[JediMaster 451]

Hey, it lasted 10 years. Longer than MS CFS did.

 

At least with a stable code base we can adjust the mods without worrying about a new patch/DLC/addon breaking them all yet again.

[macelena 1,070]

The weapons issue jeanba mentioned could be solved with some userlist ini, but it could be tricky to work properly. About the Sam sites SFP1Ace mentioned, a mission editor allowing to deply a whole battery the same way as a fleet would be great. After all, they are already arranged with their own radars and stuff in the maps as time goes by.

 

Also, it would be cool to make a few arrangement to allow for certain terrains and campaigns to be updated, so there could be naval groups in Desert and Vietnam for USN aircraft, don´t know if this is for SF2NA users only or not, but at least give the former that capability.

[+Soulfreak 6,524]

Would be nice to have the parking aircraft set in the airfields INI. Like ParkingAircraft=F-4E and ParkingTexture=Camo1...

If left blank or not entered it still could be random...

 

I think it would make great campaign options if we could have a third side, maybe fighting both red and blue. 

 

Now that is what i would like to see too!

[Snailman 517]

OK... so my shortened new features list. Ready the pills....

 

Game Features

- ASW code. Sonar (like) detection support.

- Negative "altitude". Submarines and ships set to run "at depth".

- Torpedo weapon type (set to run in "negative altitude" - under water)

- Draught. Ship object type attribute. Eg. Draught=-10.0 (in meters) default depth for ship object in "negative alt". It could be decreased for damage effect, or in case its a submarine it set minimum depth.

- Extra mission types - OR edittable ones. (FAC, ASW, Naval_search, Interdiction,  whatever else)

- Rescue mission type (this one includes pick-up target at waypoint, and must return base for success)

- Fixed ballistics for artillery and naval guns.

- Improved ground combat features and AI

- New object type to separate naval and land vehicles (that would fix multi weapon platforms)

- Ground object lights. (such as carrier landing lights...)

- Directional (spot) type light source support (searchlights, headlights, landing lights)

- Ground object animation support (gear shock, rotating radar, moving legs or stances for inf)

- Floatplane support. Landing gear, IsFloat=TRUE

- New Formation types - OR editable ones.

- Mixed Formation types - (eg Tank company and attached SPAA)

- Helicopter Flight Model with AI support

- VTOL AI support (may be as part of the Heli FM)

- Ground search and attack capable radar. Lock and guidance on ground contacts.

- Target linking via usable network (radar sonar radio) - built in or external pod. Eg, fire control helicopter can fire ASM from ship or observation plane can fire artillery, infantry can mark target for CAS.

- Player usable turret gun. Not too difficult, i mean selectability like other weapons. Like I select a turret gun from weapon list and fire it (if within arc) on the locked target.

- Switchable turret gunner (auxiliary function to turn AI gunner on/off when player wants to handle. Heli chin guns etc)

- Red side avionics support.

- Re introduce multiplayer

- Improved AI behavior and controls over team mates. Includes non leader positions.

- Carrier parking space parameters (Plane type, skin, probability) for each separate places

- Ground units placement on carrier deck (on surface of deck area deck.lod) similar fashion to planes

- Weapon type CGR rack

- MER up to 12 weapon places,

- Passive radar guidance type

- Weapon attribute: Terrain following (like sea skimming, but radar altitude, not barometric... lol)  for cruise missiles)

- Gun pods supporting multiple guns (multiple muzzle flash effect etc)

- Guided missile pods. (AA, AT) Supporting discarding tube covers (like rocket pods)

- Secondary control surface attribute to engines (vectored thrust)

- Parachuting pilot (+seat) - view stays with ejected pilot, not with empty plane

- Neutral side (purple or light blue) for civilian activity. Passenger planes, ships, etc.

- Interactive radio - new menu item - Target. Radio message/order to the selected target (friendly-neutral-enemy alike). Request ID, Force land, Cease fire etc. It can be used together with target link feature (see above)

 

Modder support

- FM Editor

Edited January 9, 2014 by Snailman

[Murphy'S 15]

I like the possibility of an DT like agreement between a trustable modder team and Tk :

"You give us the code, we make patches"

 

 

very unlikely to happen.

 

i guess he still had some sales on the pc and until  it get to zéro level he won't release anything.

 

if only he or DanW speak a little so we could see where things are.

[+swambast 722]

For what it's worth (and from a rusty programmer's perspective), asking for the code base in my opinion is not going to go far.  What I would like to see is a "Thirdwire Developer's Kit" that is first modular in design and focuses on different capabilities.   For example, one module is the "Avionics" module, another one is a "Flight Model" module, etc.  And then, each of the output of these modules can get compiled into a separate .dll or other binary library.  This is common on code design, and in many places is also consistent with the way TK has built it already so the integration can be more seamless.  Then this “AvionicsMod.dll would be associated/linked back into the main code base.  Then you have a simple core base code change that says “If “AvionicsMod.dll exists then use those values/features”.  Think about it from the old gun editor perspective for those familiar with that concept, that is what we need more of.  It is absolute minimal base code change and since many of those "external" compiled libraries already exist, it’s just a matter of saying use this one and not that one which can be done through a simple .ini setting.  But what we need access to, is what is the coding structure, variables and data types present in each .dll and the re-compliing method and that’s what is locked down/lacking in knowledge. 

 

As a side note, I’ve experimented with and already used programming Interops to read memory addresses and related data directly from the game’s core memory registers.  But the issue with using hex editors and especially writing/overriding memory addresses is it’s almost always a violation of your software agreement.  So for me that is not an option unless TK explicitly provides permission, which I don’t think will happen.

 

As far as the parking aircraft request, I thought I might have already done some sort of functionality for that in one of my STT tools.  If it generates that much interest, it might be worth getting a small team together to better understand the requirements and next steps.  I think that could be tactfully accomplished by coding up a small helper program.  What I don't want to do is invest time/effort into niche features that only benefit a few objects - would much rather cast the net wide and build functionality that can be broadly leveraged.  Now STT is under exploration by a few interested parties, so there needs to be more ideas generated which is why I like this thread.  The thing that's missing of course is what are the biggest priorities/interests of the community that has the most "leverage" power across the series - that's what particularly interests me. 

 

 

In the end though, the community really needs to settle on what is most important and most practical.  If there is a handful of modders that have the time, commitment and knowledge and want to collaborate on some tools then count me in.

Edited January 9, 2014 by swambast

[Centurion-1 1,228]

That sounds great, and yeah at this point I don't see why not? I can't help with anything relating to coding but will gladly test!

 

I think that at least some sort of avionics dll code suport could be very useful to the community and would maybe be good for TK too? He is not giving away his whole product software and does not have to worry about niche features, modders make new avionics DLLs and takes care of them working with the latest patches. It stands to reason that TK would not have released all those weapons editors, TE etc and have an open folder structure if modding was not a inherent feature of his game? This would just be taking it to the next level!

 

Also, custom shaders and more freedom in the eye candy department would be pretty nice.

 

BUT I think TK is fed up with us/modders in general because the ask for too much and complain too much. Maybe he is just burnt out with PC dev. Think about it, he has been working on SF for PC for a long ass time, most of the time alone.

 

Still, stuff like Steam Greenlight or a kickstarter for EXP3 could be excellent for the future of the series, and it bothers me that TK does not seem it. The last 1,5 year has seen some major success for genres and games that would never made had been made in a traditional game publisher/developer relation.

[Stratos 3,191]

What I don't want to do is invest time/effort into niche features that only benefit a few objects - would much rather cast the net wide and build functionality that can be broadly leveraged.  Now STT is under exploration by a few interested parties, so there needs to be more ideas generated which is why I like this thread.  The thing that's missing of course is what are the biggest priorities/interests of the community that has the most "leverage" power across the series - that's what particularly interests me. 

 

 

In the end though, the community really needs to settle on what is most important and most practical.  If there is a handful of modders that have the time, commitment and knowledge and want to collaborate on some tools then count me in.

 

I'm pretty sure that the "poll of the features of the list" will get a small number of key features that more or less everyone want for the series. We're in the correct direction guys.

[+malibu43 142]

OK... so my shortened new features list. Ready the pills....

 

Game Features

- ASW code. Sonar (like) detection support.

- Negative "altitude". Submarines and ships set to run "at depth".

- Torpedo weapon type (set to run in "negative altitude" - under water)

- Draught. Ship object type attribute. Eg. Draught=-10.0 (in meters) default depth for ship object in "negative alt". It could be decreased for damage effect, or in case its a submarine it set minimum depth.

- Extra mission types - OR edittable ones. (FAC, ASW, Naval_search, Interdiction,  whatever else)

- Rescue mission type (this one includes pick-up target at waypoint, and must return base for success)

- Fixed ballistics for artillery and naval guns.

- Improved ground combat features and AI

- New object type to separate naval and land vehicles (that would fix multi weapon platforms)

- Ground object lights. (such as carrier landing lights...)

- Directional (spot) type light source support (searchlights, headlights, landing lights)

- Ground object animation support (gear shock, rotating radar, moving legs or stances for inf)

- Floatplane support. Landing gear, IsFloat=TRUE

- New Formation types - OR editable ones.

- Mixed Formation types - (eg Tank company and attached SPAA)

- Helicopter Flight Model with AI support

- VTOL AI support (may be as part of the Heli FM)

- Ground search and attack capable radar. Lock and guidance on ground contacts.

- Target linking via usable network (radar sonar radio) - built in or external pod. Eg, fire control helicopter can fire ASM from ship or observation plane can fire artillery, infantry can mark target for CAS.

- Player usable turret gun. Not too difficult, i mean selectability like other weapons. Like I select a turret gun from weapon list and fire it (if within arc) on the locked target.

- Switchable turret gunner (auxiliary function to turn AI gunner on/off when player wants to handle. Heli chin guns etc)

- Red side avionics support.

- Re introduce multiplayer

- Improved AI behavior and controls over team mates. Includes non leader positions.

- Carrier parking space parameters (Plane type, skin, probability) for each separate places

- Ground units placement on carrier deck (on surface of deck area deck.lod) similar fashion to planes

- Weapon type CGR rack

- MER up to 12 weapon places,

- Passive radar guidance type

- Weapon attribute: Terrain following (like sea skimming, but radar altitude, not barometric... lol)  for cruise missiles)

- Gun pods supporting multiple guns (multiple muzzle flash effect etc)

- Guided missile pods. (AA, AT) Supporting discarding tube covers (like rocket pods)

- Secondary control surface attribute to engines (vectored thrust)

- Parachuting pilot (+seat) - view stays with ejected pilot, not with empty plane

- Neutral side (purple or light blue) for civilian activity. Passenger planes, ships, etc.

- Interactive radio - new menu item - Target. Radio message/order to the selected target (friendly-neutral-enemy alike). Request ID, Force land, Cease fire etc. It can be used together with target link feature (see above)

 

Modder support

- FM Editor

 

This list is a good example the answer to "Why doesn't TK listen to the community?"  

 

This thread started out with a few of the very commonly requested features (IMHO) from over the years.  Improved A/G avionics, working FAC, and mulitplayer for example.  But then as soon as we start to put a list together, we get things that, in my 6 years at combatace, I have never even seen mentioned, let alone requested.  Working sonar?  Submarines that can run underwater?  Seriously?  And then there's some things that, while they make more sense, start to fall outside of the bucket of "big bang for your buck" stuff (neutral sides in campaigns, better radio menu, ability to specify specific aircraft for parking spaces, etc...).  I agree those things would be nice, but they wouldn't get me playing the game again.  And I certainly wouldn't pay for them.  Again, just my opinion.

 

I like swabast's idea about developer kits.  I doubt I'd be able to use one, but depending on their capabilities, I could see it being a major game changer.

 

My suggestion would be to let this thread run it's course for a few weeks/months to gather ideas, and then start another thread with a poll ("What features would you pay to have TK implement into the game or release as DLC") to narrow it down (maybe needs to be done multiple times) until we have 2 or 3 things.  Then someone with the right personality, communication skills, and some understanding of the business could work out best way to propose it to TK and handle the communication.

 

My 2 cents.

 

edit - I see Stratos has already started to consolidate the list and proposed a poll.

Edited January 9, 2014 by malibu43

[Stratos 3,191]

Thats the idea, vote for the most popular requests, I'm pretty sure the most commonly requested features will be top of the list, and those ones will be the ones that will be requested, also those ones will be REAL GAME CHANGERS for everyone, also I'm pretty sure those KEY features are only a few, a few that can be requested without looking a mad scientist.

[Snailman 517]

This list is a good example the answer to "Why doesn't TK listen to the community?"  

 

This thread started out with a few of the very commonly requested features (IMHO) from over the years.  Improved A/G avionics, working FAC, and mulitplayer for example.  But then as soon as we start to put a list together, we get things that, in my 6 years at combatace, I have never even seen mentioned, let alone requested.  Working sonar?  Submarines that can run underwater?  Seriously?  And then there's some things that, while they make more sense, start to fall outside of the bucket of "big bang for your buck" stuff (neutral sides in campaigns, better radio menu, ability to specify specific aircraft for parking spaces, etc...).  I agree those things would be nice, but they wouldn't get me playing the game again.  And I certainly wouldn't pay for them.  Again, just my opinion.

edit - I see Stratos has already started to consolidate the list and proposed a poll.

 

Then read back... This thread was NOT about to pay TK to fix this/that, a new patch  or to give us yet another payable DLC plane. It was about getting SF into a community funded future development with features we would like to see. SF3 even. From our money. I proposed the collection of thoughts and the poll on that in post #3. All is said.

 

About ASW... before you call me an idiot look into DLLs and inis, ASW mission type already exist in the game, that points out  an intended development path. And in another topic we were already discussed ASW not long ago. This is not without a prelude. I wrote down everything that came to my mind or other mentioned to me during the time. Mostly modder related, problematic stuff we encountered.

 

EDIT

We are the ones who create the DLC... We already have 1200+  "DLC planes". And DLC effects... Stary's stuff. Map's. Full battlefields...

What we need the code support, modding support, and the continued development of the main game. Why to ask for stuff we can do (better)?

Edited January 9, 2014 by Snailman

[NIELS 421]

RE: moved per direction in first line of DLC request topic.

 

OK, I know this has been basically written off in the SF2 future topic but I'm biased.................Spent a few years in this profession so I'll say it/request it...........Tanker AR capability:

 

KB-50 1950 - 1960 era

 

KC-97 1950 - 1970 era

 

KC-135 1960 - present, KC-10, V-Bomber force for WOE, All USN types etc.

 

The acft are present except the (KB-50) - Just need to get the code/access to make it happen like in the earlier SF1 tweak.

 

Not that important? Maybe not for simming, but if you read actual combat stories 'pre' and 'post' strike air refueling are a must for combat ops. Too much burner in the tgt area or the ability to AR if shot up and leaking fuel could be the difference between RTB or making it to a safe area for SAR pickup.

 

Minor step in the sim world, OK. Same in real deal if the receivers are good and the guy or gal up front is a good stick....................Still makesthe immersion factor better and gives the aviator (Sim or Real life) more breather room for ops.

 

 

Just my request/opinion

 

 

 

VR NIELS

Edited January 9, 2014 by NIELS

[+EricJ 4,244]

I think not just the tanker jets but tanker capable (KA-6, Echo/Fox Super Hornets), etc. could also incorporate the code as well.

[Centurion-1 1,228]

I too would like A2A refueling to be avaliable as an option. Maybe not on the top of my list, but still. Esp. in SF2E where you might need to do very long low level dashes at high speed a A2A refuel to top up would be great. Also a simple rearm and refuel button if you are landed at a friendly or your home base would be great for those really intense campaign missions. If WW3 really were happening aircraft turnaround would probably be minimal!

[Stratos 3,191]

ATM this seems the features more requested:

 

- Slewable A-A and A-G radar with manual lock.

 

- Slewable FLIR/EO display with manual lock.

 

- Laser designator/range.

 

- A-A refueling.

 

- Multiplayer.

 

This 5 keep repeating themselves. Should we go after this 5?

[+Soulfreak 6,524]

 

 

Would be nice to have the parking aircraft set in the airfields INI. Like ParkingAircraft=F-4E and ParkingTexture=Camo1...
If left blank or not entered it still could be random...
 
I think it would make great campaign options if we could have a third side, maybe fighting both red and blue. 

 

 

+1

[Stratos 3,191]

Should we add NVG?

[bucklehead101 29]

Stratos, before I got wrapped up with sweetfx, i was using a different post processing. It was available in the download section. I think there was a file you could use that would make everything look like it was being viewed from a set of NODs. However, there was no way to toggle it on or off in game. Perhaps if some code was released, we could develop a hot key that could toggle through various post processing effects, including night vision.

[+Gepard 11,294]

I would like to see a gunner who is able to fire on ground targets.

[jeanba 1,920]

In data.ini :

Add limits for pylons / loadouts :

For instance, if  pylon is loaded, max gs are 5.5 (instead of 9)

 

More AI-flight data according to weapon :

Example : profile adapted to Guided bombs, high drag bombs ...

The simpler would be to associate in the data.ini a profile with a loadout.

example :

[AIdata_AS30L]

AIloadout = AS30L

...

 

AI will use more or less efficiently ECM according to experience 

 

Induced drag coefficient is a function of Mach and use proper values

Edited January 10, 2014 by jeanba

[+malibu43 142]

ATM this seems the features more requested:

 

- Slewable A-A and A-G radar with manual lock.

 

- Slewable FLIR/EO display with manual lock.

 

- Laser designator/range.

 

- A-A refueling.

 

- Multiplayer.

 

This 5 keep repeating themselves. Should we go after this 5?

 

Sounds good to me!

[NIELS 421]

Yes Sir! As stated by EricJ and in my post ie. (USN types)................The Navy KA-3, KA-6, and any other drogue pod equipped fighter/tanker could be a player.

 

I would also like to 'coat tail' off of Centurion-1.............The ability to 'hot pit' refuel/re-arm would be a cool mod. Its been a player in all large scale air wars to date. May be a point in the taxiway or hammer head when taxing off the runway ones acft would be replenished accordingly. Even a minute time delay or auto time change would occur when this takes place to keep things more timing realistic.

 

Just wishes - I don't know the time, task, sacrifice & headaches involved but I'm sure it is no 'piece-O-cake' to tackle this venture. I do admire and appreciate the folks here that have taken on these daunting challenges in order to provide us with a rich and satisfying experience.............BRAVO to the TW program moders and staff here at Combat ACE.

 

Thanks, NIELS