Is ace combat-style maneuvering possible for a mod?

[rogueranger1993 7]

Hey guys, I wanted to ask this for future reference, since I am considering this idea for a future mod project. I know that we already have easy flight mode, but I wanted to know if it was possible for me to build a mod that would add a new control setting that would allow a player to maneuver their plane in a way that is very similar to the arcade method used in the Ace Combat series. Essentially, pushing the joystick left doesn't just roll the plane, it has the plane automatically execute a left turn, and you also have the ability to pitch up or down while standing on your wing simply by pushing the joystick forward or back.

So, any advice, ideas, anything? I'm not looking to do this right away, but I would like to know if it's possible, and if so, how it could be done.

[Arrow 83]

I'm no modder with very limited knowledge of the various SF2 INI's. That said, I know it's possible to combine rudder yaw with aileron roll, because on 1 occassion for a specific jet I had to make edits to achieve the reverse. Do I recall which specific value and INI?   ...sorry.  I've been impressed fom what I've read, as to what's possible with INI edits, so I wouldn't be surprised if what you want to do is indeed possible. 

[+Menrva 3,990]

Just set the difficulty level of the game (flight model, fuel consumption etc.) to Easy in the options. The maneuvering is very much simplified ala Ace Combat then.

[rogueranger1993 7]

That's what I did while first starting out, but I found that I struggled some with remembering to apply opposite stick to exit the turn, and I always hated how I couldn't move the nose up or down without leveling out first. I still use them, it just takes some getting used to. With this project, though, I wanted to try and build something that replicated the arcade controls from Ace Combat games, where you push the stick left to turn left, and continue turning left while you hold it there, then level out when the stick re-centers, and also giving pitch control at all turn angles. Probably needs some pretty complex coding to work, but for me it's less about making the game into an arcade system and more of a pet project I'd like to do to get started with more complex coding; it's also a thought-exercise for me as well, something I want to do just to prove that it's possible.

[Arrow 83]

Just out of curiosity, and at the risk of being off-topic or derailing, have your tried the milsim game ARMA3 with its Jets expansion? I ask because I find it strikes a nice middle ground between an arcade-style flight game like Ace Combat and a sim lite like SF2. It's avionics and flight dynamics are definitely lighter than SF2, but IMO it still leans a bit more in the sim lite direction. The land terrains in it are small, but the fidelity of land details is high and the sense of speed in that game when near the ground is as good or better than any flight sim I own.

It has this sandbox mode called Zeus, where you can drop any aircraft you like onto an apron or runway and then hop in and take off. Its the one flight sim where I'll just take a jet out for a spin and fly nape of the earth for the shear thrill of it. Like SF2 the number of free, fan-made aircraft mods available for it are dizzying and surprising well done - not as realistic as SF2, but quality none the less.

[rogueranger1993 7]

I've had it on my wishlist for a while now, particularly due to the wide array of mods for it. Being designed as an FPS game, it will of course have amazing detail in it's ground terrain compared to an old flight sim (and some modern flight sims), due simply to the game's primary goal of being an FPS. The disadvantage to that is, of course, smaller maps - putting that level of detail into the massive maps we see in SF2 and other flight sims is a very harsh and demanding task. I will say, however, that the IL-2 modding community on the SAS forums has seen some great new content recently, including graphics and effects upgrades, and the Spain 2019 mod really ups the ante for detailed maps in old flight sims like IL-2 - it actually inspires me to see if some of the same improvements could be made to SF2 with a small team of dedicated modders. Honestly, any group of people willing to spend some time combing through the SF2 code and fixing/updating it, along with implementing graphical upgrades to effects, maps, etc. would probably become heroes of the community, haha.

To get back on subject, though, I did find that SF2 has a very helpful feature for newbie flyers like me - the wing leveler. Just press the assigned keybinding, and the game will automatically bring your plane to a state of level flight from any angle. It's a godsend for me, and has helped me to get the hang of conventional flight sim joystick movements within just an hour of flight. I can now fly my plane like a novice pilot  rather than some crazy pedestrian who doesn't understand the first thing about how to properly maneuver a plane.

I'll admit, the controls I wanted to try and mod were partly to prove it could be done, and partly because I sucked horribly at maneuvering airplanes using flight sim controls. So, my interest in this particular mod idea has waned some, and I've placed it on the backburner in leiu of dreams involving a modpack that fixes bugs in the code, updates said code, and then goes on to add graphics updates. If IL-2 1946 can do it, SF2 should be able to do something similar, right?

[+gerwin 449]

10 hours ago, rogueranger1993 said:

If IL-2 1946 can do it, SF2 should be able to do something similar, right?

https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=50987.108

Quote

Because of their special relationship with 1c/Ubisoft, Daidalos Team got access to the original IL2: 1946 ver. 4.09 source code and development tools. Any updates that they release to the game represent legal, official, sanctioned content by 1c/Ubisoft, making the 4.13.1 version of the game the official "stock" version which, legally, everyone is supposed to be using.

Very big difference right there.
 

[+yakarov79 10,500]

12 hours ago, rogueranger1993 said:

- it actually inspires me to see if some of the same improvements could be made to SF2 with a small team of dedicated modders. Honestly, any group of people willing to spend some time combing through the SF2 code and fixing/updating it, along with implementing graphical upgrades to effects, maps, etc. would probably become heroes of the community, haha.

well, most of the modders here will let you wait for 2 weeks...but I guess some achieved said status  - modding for more than 10 years already. Seems to me that you are quite new here...so if you explore more you will find that this game improved quite well since the original product was released. Usually without any support from the developer. 

12 hours ago, rogueranger1993 said:

combing through the SF2 code and fixing/updating it,

no aces to code - no fireworks. If you have abilities to obtain in any way TW holy grail, then you are a hero.

[Arrow 83]

5 hours ago, gerwin said:

https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=50987.108

Quote

Because of their special relationship with 1c/Ubisoft, Daidalos Team got access to the original IL2: 1946 ver. 4.09 source code and development tools. Any updates that they release to the game represent legal, official, sanctioned content by 1c/Ubisoft, making the 4.13.1 version of the game the official "stock" version which, legally, everyone is supposed to be using.

Very big difference right there.
 

The same is true for Bench Mark Sims with their access to the Falcon 4.0 source code and Team Fusion's access to the IL-2 Sturmovik Cliffs of Dover code. The resulting enhanced versions by both of those teams are nothing like the originals in terms of game play and visual quality; both were recompiled as 64 bit and had DirectX 11 support added. Albeit, neither of those has had any modding efforts that makes them more sim lite, or were even given an alternate, more relaxed play mode. Of course the original games for both were targeted at a more hardcore flight sim crowd, so unlikely there's much audience for liter versions. 

Edited July 20, 2019 by Arrow

[+gerwin 449]

Funny thing in that link that I posted: The Il-2 1946 continuation efforts have to respect the original system requirements. So no 64-Bit/DX11 allowed there, also limitations are implied for polygon counts and distance LODs. Well... I actually like that. since many modded additions are too cruel for system requirements. 

I tried Falcon 4 BMS briefly, and I don't think I ever managed to properly take-off with the F-16. I was flying but could not use any weapons because I had failed to upload some files into the cockpit, during pre-flight procedures... 

Falcon 4 BMS's object quality is all over the place. You can see that in their object reference interface: For example the T-34 tank model is used as a stand-in for an M60A3? They will need many years of effort to get all these objects up to some acceptable level. Like the level of Strike Fighters.

In the past there was Jane's Fighters Anthology. And I remember a bunch of missions pitting the UK against France. That was a cool idea. So I was wondering the other day: did they even have objects to make it proper? Turns out they did not, and they used M1 Abrams and Humvee as ground units for both the UK and France. At that time the 3D objects were so fuzzy you could have just used these models and call them AMX-30 or something and nobody would notice, but no, it was called a French M1 Abrams. 

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by gerwin

[rogueranger1993 7]

Gerwin, when I mentioned the improvements to IL-2 1946, I was actually talking about the guys modding the 4.12.2 version, particularly the B.A.T. megamod that adds new content dating from WW1 all the way to the modern era. I was also talking about the Spain 2019 map mod and the IL-2GE graphics improvement mod that up the ante for detail in the game, but they're all designed to be used with he 4.12.2 version. I personally play IL-2 v4.12.2 with the B.A.T. mod installed, so I have no knowledge whatsoever about the stuff going on with the newer v4.13.x. I was specifically referring to progress made by modders using version 4.12.2 of the game. Sorry for not being more clear. 

And yeah, I read about the fact that the SF2 base code is unavailable to the modding community, but I only happened across that while I was exploring the forums AFTER I posted that response.  In any case, it would certainly be an interesting endeavor to undertake, and I actually happen to have one or two ideas in mind after I gave it some thought - but I'll not talk about that, since I have no idea if they'll ever work, so I feel that it would be better to only mention my plans if I manage to gain some measure of success. In any case, I'm much more interested in enjoying the updates made by the community for a while, now that I finally have a combat flight sim that I can really enjoy playing (and I wish to truly applaud the amazing things the modding community has done despite their limitations over the years), so that's something I'll save for the future.

[+gerwin 449]

8 hours ago, rogueranger1993 said:

Gerwin, when I mentioned the improvements to IL-2 1946, I was actually talking about the guys modding the 4.12.2 version ..... now that I finally have a combat flight sim that I can really enjoy playing (and I wish to truly applaud the amazing things the modding community has done despite their limitations over the years), so that's something I'll save for the future.

I do not know much about it either and still play IL-2 v2.04. That was the version that got the ACE expansion and the 'Battle over Europe' semi-official US and British aircraft.

The way they did the Pacific Theater in the subsequent IL-2 releases never really appealed to me.

It is a very good game obviously. Still, now I am slowly trying to make a WW2 minigame in SF2 instead. ;)

As to reply to your last bit. I think the original developer TK should get a lot of credit for the Strike Fighters expansion in all directions. I have never seen a game so flexible and trouble free in importing and utilizing user made objects, only ArmA 2 comes close. It is like a database manager in itself. The usual way of modding other games is like dropping one original plane for each new plane added, and annoying things like that.

 

[Arrow 83]

19 hours ago, gerwin said:

Funny thing in that link that I posted: The Il-2 1946 continuation efforts have to respect the original system requirements. So no 64-Bit/DX11 allowed there, also limitations are implied for polygon counts and distance LODs. Well... I actually like that. since many modded additions are too cruel for system requirements.

I game with a very long-in-the-tooth PC (i5 2500, 4 x 3.3Ghz CPU, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX680 w/2GB, Win7  64) and I find both BMS Falcon and IL2 CloD TF 4.5 to run well; in the high 40s -to-  low 60 fps with all the bells & whistles. So IMO the move to 64 bit and a newer gen of DirectX hasn't made them too unplayable. That said, I've found the optimal requirement specs posted on Team BMS and Team Fusions' respective website to be way out of line. Those seem to be for players that are doing mplay online on high pop servers, with 240 hz monitors at high resolutions who want bleeding edge fidelity.

19 hours ago, gerwin said:

I tried Falcon 4 BMS briefly, and I don't think I ever managed to properly take-off with the F-16. I was flying but could not use any weapons because I had failed to upload some files into the cockpit, during pre-flight procedures... 

Falcon 4 BMS's object quality is all over the place. You can see that in their object reference interface: For example the T-34 tank model is used as a stand-in for an M60A3? They will need many years of effort to get all these objects up to some acceptable level. Like the level of Strike Fighters.

Initially Falcon BMS is a bit of disaster for weapons use - you don't have access to them until you issue the commands to get a weapons clear and to uncage them. That's confusing enough, but that it's so poorly explained if explained at all in the BMS user manuals, makes it that much worse. 

19 hours ago, gerwin said:

Falcon 4 BMS's object quality is all over the place. You can see that in their object reference interface: For example the T-34 tank model is used as a stand-in for an M60A3? They will need many years of effort to get all these objects up to some acceptable level. Like the level of Strike Fighters.

I agree about objects in Falcon BMS - there seems to be some real limitations  imposed by the engine or the time constraints of the team. While the terrain got a significant improvement by the free inclusion of the once paid for 3rd party terrain tiles, objects seem to locked in the past. I still enjoy it when I want to click buttons in a high fidelity cockpit and I appreciate Team BMS's efforts, but TBH SF2's approach of device mappable commands with some relaxed realism is more my speed.  IL-2 CloD with Team Fusion's 4.5 patch on the other hand, has intro'd significant improvements in terrain and objects. And considering their soon to be released TF 5.0 will be a whole new game set in North Africa with completely new aircraft, objects and terrains, that's a good deal of object and terrain enhancement.  The game still has some warts like very quirky take-off physics in the Spitfire, but IMO it's evolved to be miles beyond the unplayable game it debuted as. 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Arrow

[+gerwin 449]

5 minutes ago, Arrow said:

So IMO the move to 64 bit and a newer gen of DirectX hasn't made them too unplayable.

That in itself does not make it less playable. Just incompatible with 32-bit systems. There are different things that concern me: Distance LODs and other polycount considerations, especially for high polycount situations such as airfields. Texture size for loading times and also SSD disk space. Consistent art-direction and quality control. Of course a lot of that is both tedious and unpleasant to do, it could even imply rejecting volunteer's work, but the worst alternative is ignoring such and calling the game engine 'unoptimized' instead. Which is a popular way of putting things.

As for Falcon BMS's objects. My personal preference is to have low poly good-enough shapes for everything, instead of detailed shapes for a few objects and stand-ins for the rest. But making objects is just a lot of work, especially making nice textures from scratch, and mapping them. With my limited experience with making ground objects; it took way too long. Often, In my head it was long finished, but in actuality it was not.

Good to read your other observations on Falcon BMS and  IL-2 CloD. I don't know much about Clod, but adding another theater like that besides the Channel front sounds like a great addition.