How about an ONLINE map??? - FSIC Messageboard

FSIC Messageboard

How about an ONLINE map???

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: How about an ONLINE map???
MrBlob Pilot	posted 05-20- 11:38 AM How about an ONLINE map??? This would need to be VERY small and not based on anything. Just an area for which Dog fights could take place? No airfields would be needed or anything...just a slightly hilly terrain? This would help Frame rate no end and by making the down load VERY small it could be made standard? ------------------ "MrBlob is Currently Working on: The BE2c" Check out my WW1 Website for Fighter tactics and History: www.MrBlob.Freeserve.Co.uk/doattt IP: Logged
Michael Harrison General	posted 05-20- 05:47 PM You could always take the island from the OpenPlane demo and use it for online play IP: Logged
Mirthain Pilot	posted 05-20- 09:11 PM But why? More games have just the little maps with no reason to be in the air.... I must say I enjoy landing after a flight. It really adds to the realism and requres me to us all my flying skill in one mission, not just dogfighting.... But that is just my opinion..... Mirthain=FC= IP: Logged
MrBlob Pilot	posted 05-21- 02:50 AM No Mirithian, you've missed what I was trying to say. I to like yourself prefer realism with no padlock, enemy on map landing, take-off etc.... But as so many of our users have slower CPU's or Modem links I think we need a small map about say 1/4 the size of the normal maps to be used JUST for Dogfighting, when missions are just say 4 Spits Vs 4 109's. If you look at these missions on-line all airfields are turned of anyway!!! Just formthe run, We could TEXTURE an airfield on with maybe VERY simple 3D ground objects incase anybody wanted to land. The point being is if you wanted larger dogfights you could. You would also get GRREAT FPS and loading time. ------------------ "MrBlob is Currently Working on: The BE2c" Check out my WW1 Website for Fighter tactics and History: www.MrBlob.Freeserve.Co.uk/doattt IP: Logged
Mirthain Pilot	posted 05-21- 02:32 PM actually, I prefer Padlock.. ;} I could be wrong, but my view on this is that the viewable ground is the problem, perhaps using Tundra would be a better idea then since the only ground objects would be ones that the mission designer placed. Also the terrain is varied enough with low pallete requirements that it would be good for this purpose. I don't think the overall size of the land makes a difference to Frame Rates in general, just how much has to be rendered at the time. Mirthain=FC= IP: Logged
charmstar Pilot	posted 05-22- 03:08 PM Is the island terrain much smaller than a normal map? If so, that seems like it would be worth a try. Maybe it won't improve framerates... but maybe it will! charm IP: Logged

All times are CT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Fighter Squadron Information Center

(This site Copyright (c) 1999 Inertia LLC)

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c