|
Author
|
Topic: Salvation of online SDoE?
|
Jv44~Siggi
Pilot
|
posted 03-18- 12:37 PM
   
Firstly, as a community, we have reasonable financial energy at our collective disposal. So, an idea or two...Get the online damage issue sorted. Have all the patches, packs and whatever else thorougly checked code-wise to stop all the glitches/crashes they appear to be causing. Create new code/programming to allow join-games-in-progress, player choice of any a/c and a dynamic kill-board.
Donate cash to a central location (me..hehe, see ya in Argentina suckers!) to fund the purchase of a kick-ass server unit.
Find someone with an un-metered cable or ASDL connection who would be willing to install/run that server on an amateur 24hr basis.
If we had unmetered access here in the UK I'd volunteer. We've got ISDN which would be good enough but the rental/call charges are obscene. Thanks BT, you m********* What say guys? It's a matter of will. We have the resources at our disposal. We could surely raise enough to actually pay MH to create the programs/code, and check the patches/packs. It can be done, if we decide we want to do it.  IP: Logged |
esox
Pilot
|
posted 03-18- 01:29 PM
I would be willing to chip in to make the code changes happen. However, I think you will find that agreeing on a format will not be so easy Many (myself included) feel that the current, mission based setup is preferrable to the Warbirds 'arena' style. I personally am more interested in setting up missions and completing objectives than in a huge on-going furball with a killboard. That said, the online damage model, and various other bugs definitely need quashing, and if it takes some cash to make it happen, I will chip in. I've already gotten more than my $50.00 worth.  ------------------
-< -< -< -<
Esox=FC= IP: Logged |
bomber
Pilot
|
posted 03-18- 01:56 PM
Esox I agree with you that the fir ball thing is tiresome. How ever the advantage of an arena you can join at will cannot be over looked. I think you could have both perhaps because of the size of our world we could have an join at will mission based system with limits on the time, number, location, lives and and plane type of entries. IP: Logged |
Jv44~Siggi
Pilot
|
posted 03-18- 02:38 PM
Siggi,
We sure could have a server here in the US if a certain group of great programers would help out I dont know about others here in the States, but say I could do this, my provider wont lwt me run a server on my current set up. I'd have to get a full on bussiness line. That gets pretty spendy and it cost monthly. Great ideas Siggi, now if we could only re-arm our planes ------------------
Zoycite 33rd~GS
Excuse me quoting this here Zoy, just wanted to get this subject into one area.
visit The War Paint Factory IP: Logged |
Spanky the Mad Dog
Pilot
|
posted 03-18- 03:09 PM
Spanky here... "Many (myself included) feel that the current, mission based setup is preferrable to the Warbirds 'arena' style. I personally am more interested in setting up missions and completing objectives than in a huge on-going furball with a killboard" EXACTLY. IP: Logged |
Rattler
Pilot
|
posted 03-18- 03:18 PM
100 % agreement there.I like a closed end mission format after many,many years of open arena's.But,however, 2 types of Arena's to please all is even better. To me SDoE is about Freedom of Choice & Freedom from Online Charges, the better we promote that, the happier ALL will be. Just like the Padlock Issue....... when we don't agree,more choices to seperate into our individual preferences Should be an Option. Rattler IP: Logged |
Jv44~Siggi
Pilot
|
posted 03-18- 04:52 PM
Spanky, it could still be mission orientated. There would be a target for one side, limited ammo and fuel, so the mission would have a beginning and end. Some pilots would be shot down before they saw the end of the mish, some would come in to it towards the end, maybe in time to help the returning bombers make it back to base before the fighters got them. As soon as the last original plane had either landed or been shot down the mish would end, sending everyone back to the lobby. It's a compromise I suppose between the two formats. IP: Logged |
Mirthain
Pilot
|
posted 03-18- 05:20 PM
Programmers correct me if I am wrong here,
but I think that the main reason for not having in game joining, is the plane limits of the engine. Also, with the missions being setup ahead of time, it would make actually joining a pain. I do agree that having a place where someone could join in game would be nice, but unless there is a lock placed to avoid overrunning everyones machines, there could be problems.
Mirthain=FC=IP: Logged |
weasel
Pilot
|
posted 03-18- 05:22 PM
I like the idea of two choices. There is already code in place to change planes and take control of another plane. There could be a furball choice to join in whenever in whatever plane you want and there could be a mission oriented game where any AI plane available could be open. If someone has to leave just let the plane go back to AI. The mission oriented game would have a preselected number of planes on both sides. What do you think?
IP: Logged |
bomber
Pilot
|
posted 03-18- 06:29 PM
Just in case you didn't see this hehehe. Essox I flew in Warbirds for years and have resently returned to it. The realism there can be much greater than SDOE in the arenas that limit you to one life per day and the Icons are turned off. Try it you may like it.
I think we could have realistic join on the fly, but it's very important that we remove the radar and out of sight padlock. We could actually fly bomber missions if the axis did not know who we were and when and where we are coming from. More realistic I say.IP: Logged |
Pang
Pilot
|
posted 03-18- 09:12 PM
Yeah in Aces High and Warbirds, there's always that knot in your stomach where you're just HOPING that you can polish this guy off before his buddy's come along in a swarm and eat yer shorts. That and the persistent war is pretty fun..."what?? the Bishops only have 3 bases??...Sheesh". Pang 33rd~GS www.33rd.org IP: Logged |
esox
Pilot
|
posted 03-19- 01:17 AM
One life per day? That sounds cool! I dont think you'll get me into pay for play (by the hour), but the concept is good. I just wouldn't want an ongoing furball at the expense of the missions (MHO). Although, having both would be even better. IP: Logged |
Rattler
Pilot
|
posted 03-19- 03:09 AM
Warbirds and Aces High DON'T incorporate any Padlock at all,as their ONLINE games only.Something that makes sense there and is starting to grab more attention here in regards to Online play .......... I hope.
Rattler [This message has been edited by Rattler (edited 03-19-2000).] IP: Logged |
Mirthain
Pilot
|
posted 03-19- 04:38 AM
Rattler,
We had this conversation before... ;}
Stop hammering on the padlock. Some of us still think it is more realistic then panning with a button. It is possible that the online game programmers just think it is too complicated for them to implement, it doesn't reflect on the realism of flying at all.
As for realism in join in progress games...
I posted extensively on this already in another thread, but please, don't confuse what is on the big online games as realism. It isn't. not even close. even with one death a day, it still doesn't compare with taking off with your whole squad, with a single mission objective and then returning home. The whole point of the current online WW2 flight sims was to provide a quick way to get up and flying with no real structure.
I agree it is fun, but please don't confuse realism and convenience.
I prefer mission based flying for the effect of realism becuase unless you created it, noone knows what the mission is actually going to be like.
I do think that a join in progress type of game would be lots of fun, especially for those that would just like to work on ACM or for newbies to be able to get up and get a feel for the planes against other AC.
Mirthain=FC=
IP: Logged |
Spanky the Mad Dog
Pilot
|
posted 03-19- 07:00 AM
Spanky here... Mirthain EXACTLY!!! I think a padlock is better then panning. I don't use SDOE's but i do think having one is better then not having one. Now we just need one that is better designed. If you want to keep arguing about padlock do it in the thread I started in tech talk.
Lets not have this issue polluting the rest of the forums.
IP: Logged |
Jv44~Siggi
Pilot
|
posted 03-19- 08:36 AM
Dagnabbit!
[This message has been edited by Jv44~Siggi (edited 03-19-2000).] IP: Logged |
Jv44~Siggi
Pilot
|
posted 03-19- 08:37 AM
Er Spanky...FoS. IP: Logged |
Rattler
Pilot
|
posted 03-19- 08:04 PM
It is possible that the online game programmers just think it is too complicated for them to implement,++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wow, you really know so little about WB and Aces High. Dale "Hitech" Addink could whip up a Padlock very quickly,and I'm sure you have NO idea what I'm talking about. Thats Very Funny! ROFL
Rattler IP: Logged |
Gunner
Pilot
|
posted 03-19- 11:49 PM
Siggi, Im with you all the way! What we need now is a price.
I would pay my share for sure. And I know there are alot of broke folks out there, but if I can everyone (almost) could.
I know that people think us all us Texans have an oilwell in our back yard but it isn't so.
I mean, yeah we do but not all of us, sheesh! hehe
Keep pushin Siggi. Carry on! IP: Logged |
Hedgehog
Pilot
|
posted 03-20- 11:01 AM
Hi All, Nice discussion. Some of my squaddies have returned to Ace's High, myself included. I'm still flying SDOE as well, so they are certainly not mutually exclusive. SDOE is great. Like many (most?) people here, I like the idea of a set mission format in SDOE - although, of course, larger organized missions do happen in AH all the time. If a sim company wants a great padlock system, they should just buy the subroutine used in Falcon 4. However, I guess my key motivation for posting this is that while SDOE is great, it basically doesn't come close to Ace's High in overall difficulty. I'm basically agreeing with Pang and Rattler here. I know that Pang has a lot of AH experience, so he knows what he's talking about. Much of that difficulty comes from the details that people have been mentioning about SDOE for a year now - the "god-like padlock", the ground unit bug, the somewhat simplified FM's, the bomb bug, the enhanced effectiveness of bombs. This is a very old discussion. It's almost entertaining to see people bringing these issues up sometimes like they just found out about them. Those like Rattler and Bomber know well what I'm talking about here. People prefer one flight sim over another for many reasons, and that's fine. But from a tactical ACM standpoint, Ace's High is simply more difficult. For those that might want to argue that point, forget it. Just go to the Ace's High arena and see what I'm talking about. Without a good wingman and some bit of organization, and a *lot* of staunch ACM discipline, it's very tough to return home in one piece and not on the end of a chute, and still score some kills. SDOE still keeps my interest as a good sim to use to teach ACM, and to have a mission oriented format. The mission format though is greatly compromised by the "bugs" we all know and don't love. I can still recall writing my first mission in SDOE like two days after the sim was released - which was a SEAD mission - or was supposed to be anyway, until I realized that online, the ground units were not all synchronized among PC's (ugh!). Well, that killed that SEAD idea. We don't yet have a WWII sim that "has it all", and I'm constantly looking for one to come along. Will it be WWII Online? Perhaps EA/Jane's/Looking Glass' Attack Squadron? =FWIW, =Hedgehog
IP: Logged |
esox
Pilot
|
posted 03-20- 02:42 PM
Good points and good questions HH. Sure wish we could deal with even just the most obvious of the bugs: Online Damage, Ground Unit, Bomb, Sending Missions, just to name a few... ;(Esox =FC= IP: Logged |
Poodle EAF322
Pilot
|
posted 03-20- 02:58 PM
Hmmm.... Maybe we could buy MH..... IP: Logged |
JG300x_Hartmann
Cadet
|
posted 03-20- 03:29 PM
Although I don't own SDOE (yet hehe) I would be glad to pitch in my C++ expertise.IP: Logged |
Jetlag
Pilot
|
posted 03-20- 04:23 PM
I was thinking we could resort to more desperate means... kidnap MH ...Seriously, I think the damage packet reporting bug has to be #1 priority to be fixed. Period. ------------------
Jagdverband 44
[This message has been edited by Jetlag (edited 03-20-2000).] IP: Logged |
Jv44~Siggi
Pilot
|
posted 03-20- 06:02 PM
Rgr that Jet. This is the one thing responsible for wiping-out online squad play.IP: Logged |
FSIC Messageboard
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
