posted 12-05- 04:55 PM               

I hate to ask stupid questions, but's it's been almost a week since my last one, and I didn't want anyone to worry.

posted 12-05- 06:03 PM               

Thanks for the quick reply. Here is where I'm going with this....

If that is possible, would it then be possible to have that "unit" be attached to another "unit"? If it could, then would it be possible to have a multi-position aircrsft be made up of "two" units so that two different people could ride in what would end up being one aircraft, made up of two units?

For instance your IL-2, if the plane had a unit built within it that would in effect be the rear gun position, and could effectively be manned by a different person than the flyer of the IL-2. Is that even possible? If it is we would have the first "boxed" sim that I know of that could do that.

Thanks again for the quick reply.

posted 12-05- 06:50 PM               

If this is possible, it would open up a lot of doors in SDOE. The chance that the B17 could have all it's positions manned! Wasn't there a sim that promised to do that?

It would also be cool to be in a fox hole with a 50 cal machine gun, firing at low flying planes. hehehe Like I could hit those suckers.

posted 12-05- 11:04 PM               

You can paste one plane to another, you can hop from one to the other, off-line, like switching to a gunner position in a bomber. But online, only one player can choose the plane that was the parent object, not two.

I thought if you make one plane a reference file to another plane and vice-versa. Both planes would have to be in the same mission. But, I don't think the game can load this configuration and would crash. Don't know for sure.
=======================================
But we could do this.

Make a plane object into a gun station. (give it whatever properties that a plane needs to be usable online) But as Nat says, make it so it does not move. Make it so it is stationary, but the gun/turret can still turn and raise so you can aim the gun.

Next, make a mission with a carrier in it. In the mission editor place 8 of these gun objects so they rest on the carrier.

Hopefully when this mission is used online 8 people could choose the squad to man the guns of the carrier (as if they were planes) and some guys could fly actual planes.

It sure would be cool to try and defend your ship from real pilots. Even better, imagine trying to bomb/torpedo a ship with 8 real guys shooting at you.

These gun objects could even be used on land to protect towns, airfields, etc. You get the picture. (Sitting in your bunker, you hear the roar of engines overhead, so you fire up your flak gun. Blam, I got one) This would be so cool online. Shooting down real pilots. (You could really piss some people off)

PR you really got the ball rolling. Now we just need someone to convert some planes to these gun objects (start with a plane, make it so it doesn't go anywhere and looks like a gun station. Make it so it can shoot it's gun/s.

Nat and ArgonV are great at that kind of stuff

posted 12-05- 11:32 PM               

I knew some of you guys could figure it out. Don't worry, I have confidence you will do it!

Great!!!

posted 12-06- 09:25 AM               

------------------
-Sv =FC=

WWI in SDOE!

posted 12-06- 09:39 AM               

I would be guessing, but I believe MH has probably been amazed at some of the things achieved by the some of the true innovative builders and idea men of this sim. Some things that maybe at one time didin't seem possible. Hacks? Maybe, but when your playing the game you seldom care how a desired effect was achieved, just that it was achieved!

Sv, you should have been a Fireman! You seem to like to throw water on ideas.

Besides, who knows what is possible until we try.

posted 12-06- 10:22 AM            

One discussion awhile back was the problem of connections and lag. If 8 guys started in a bomber they might not all stay together during the flight as some would lag back, ect.

This on-line group manning of a B-17 has always been a hope of mine and if you guys could carry this one off, WOW!

posted 12-06- 10:28 AM               

If that can be done you may really be on to something.

Sv, is just pointing out the facts. But, the facts never stopped us before

posted 12-07- 09:23 AM               

Having said that, I think what's being proposed is unlikely to work. The network code attempts to create an aircraft for each network player and will not put two people in the same aircraft even if there are multiple pilot positions.

posted 12-07- 09:37 AM               

I thought as much, but I'm glad to see that you have left the door at least slighty ajar on this idea. Perhaps, after researching it the guys behind it will decide that what we initially wanted isn't going to happen, but along that road of discovery they might stumble upon 4 different cool thing that they didn't know! Thats the really neat thing about this type of project. All the amazing things you learn on the journey.

March on boys! Wonders await!

posted 12-07- 09:54 AM               

You mean...the dreaded "Rockwell Syndrome"?

posted 12-07- 09:57 AM               

If this will never happen, then I would think hacking away is the best idea because SDOE still kicks so much ass - anything to make it more fun is so welcome. But if there is a chance for some code updates, then the aircraft could be kept much more simple.

One example was control surface damage. That was an awesome hack by.. who was it? -I forget, but it worked great! However, it really makes a mess of the aircraft and makes it harder to maintain and update the aircraft. Also there as almost always some limitations to hacks, some more than others. I chose to not put the control surface damage in my aircraft to keep things more clear and using OpenPlane as it was intended - this way my aircraft will be easier to upgrade should SDOE 2 come around. Many hacks will surely stop working or at least become irelevant when the code is updated.

Now I am NOT at all against doing these hacks, it is one of the most fun things to do... the wing warping was my favorite accomplishment, and it is a hack. Also the FM hacks, like the rudder (keel) hack was fun to be able to pull off. My only reason for pointing all this out is to maybe help inspire the notion that the OpenPlane code might be updated. I know most have probably given up on this, but I think it needs to happen... only, how?

Maybe if we spent a little more of our creative time thinking of ways to get the code updated, we would have a SDOE update

Anyway, I love the hacks, and it was ment as a compliment in every way!

------------------
-Sv =FC=

WWI in SDOE!

posted 12-07- 10:04 AM               

If certain cool hacks make their way into every aircraft, DM, FM, model, DOF -whatever - unexpected results could start happening - the game overall could start becoming unplayable. At some point, aircraft created correctly according to OpenPlane would not have any value in the game... what you have is a new pseudo standard. This could make updates to the OpenPlane engine itself more difficult - that is if the existing aircraft are expected to work with no updates.

Some people are all ready jumping to the conclusion that the new packs are causing all kinds of CTD and FM bugs. Now from what I have seen, everything works sweet thanks to all the testing and careful work.. but at least it is something to think about as people begin talking about applying DM and FM "standard" hacks to all aircraft.

posted 12-07- 10:13 AM               

from how I see it, the OpenPlane 'hacks' are not hacks in the true meaning of the word, but function properly within the OpenPlane syntax and structure. It's just that parts of the syntax that were meant for something else were utilized to some other effect, but still completly within the OP framework. This means that any updates/bug fixes to the OP engine shouldn't affect compatibility with the 'hacks'.

Or am I missing something here?

posted 12-07- 12:18 PM               

Guys, lets look at this another way. I talked to Argon about this the other night and haven't heard anything from in in the way of "didn't work" or "it worked!"

i'm not going to try it sicne i'm not an OP guru.

Try this, take a plane with guns and cut the guns off. Then treat the guns as a plane, give it it's own SM file with loadout. then see if you can ref. that sm file in the plane you cut it from. if you can get the "plane" (gun in this case) show up on the plane (say a b17). If you could, then when you join a mission you would see something like

B17

Gun 1

Gun 2

Gun 3

It would mean you can't man the guns yourself so it would be more realistic.

I know you gurus are better at this then me, but every now and then, i do come up with a good ideas.

Now, lets see if we can do this.

------------------
Tony "Razer" Martin

"Making SDOE a dangerous Place, One plane at a time!"
FS Hangar

posted 12-07- 12:50 PM               

Again, I really don't want anyone to take my posts as meaning that we should stop these kinds of progreess, I just want to point out some things to keep in mind when deciding what kind of functionality to implement and how to impliment it.

I know that I have more things I could be doing than I have time to do it in, so I like to try to concentrate on those things that fit into the scheme the best - but this is just me. But when people start talking about updating all the aircraft and how we do things, I think that it is important for all people to voice their ideas.

posted 12-07- 01:42 PM               

Another senerio: On-line, if you select to fly the B-17, the guns may not have to have the B-17 show up, but instead the guns would start already in the B-17 IF the B-17 is selected in the mission first. This of course is wishfull thinking...

posted 12-08- 04:34 AM               

that's definitely the way to do it, as I believe you need separate plane objects for them to show in online missions (which gun1, gun2, gun3 should be). However, the problem is in attaching them back to the bomber in the mission.

Here is an idea:

What happens if you have an .sm file for the plane, but you have two plane object in the same file, much like shadows are a part of the plane file but are not in the object tree of the plane? Do both of these planes show up as available for online missions? Do they behave as unlinked objects, while, on the other hand they could be linked loosely with the rope points?

Also, how would it be possible to link two separate objcts in the mission by rope objects? For example, if we were to introduce glider towing, you would need the towing plane and the glider as both being able to be occupied by players, yet they would need to be connected by a rope. Is this possible? That way, connecting turrets by many ropes would effectively fix the turrets on the plane (think of it as a duct tape solution).

Sv,

I see your point regarding hacks. As long as hacks take advantage of the properties of the objects as they are documented in the OpenPlane docs, they should always work OK. One such example would be the sun. It's definitely a 'hack', but it does nothing that OP docs wouldn't describe as proper behaviour within the code.

On the other hand, some of the objects in SDOE have very specific behaviour in SDOE, which OP docs do not specifically mention and could perhaps be done in another way if there was another 'compiler' for OpenPlane files. I agree, these 'hacks' could suffer if the OP engine was developed further.