The OFF DiD Standard. - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 124

Thread: The OFF DiD Standard.

  1. #51
    shunkan
    Guest
    Siggi,

    You haven't been on an American construction site with union guys doing the digging!!!

    No, I hear what your saying......I'll suck it up if I have too, just lodging my complaints.

  2. #52
    Siggi
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by shunkan View Post
    Siggi,

    You haven't been on an American construction site with union guys doing the digging!!!

    No, I hear what your saying......I'll suck it up if I have too, just lodging my complaints.
    Give it a fair go and see how it makes you feel about your character after a while. Time = value.

  3. #53
    gimpyguy
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Interlocutor View Post
    Elsewhere I've seen posts by the developers that more sales of OFF3 would be nice.

    I've also seen discussions about restricting the ability of players to "revive" pilots by encrypting the log file.

    It seems to me that limiting the options a player has in the way he/she "plays the game" might tend to inhibit sales rather than increase them? Or do you think that re-coding OFF3 so as to make for a more viable "ladder", by limiting ways in which ladder participants could "cheat", might attract more customers than would be lost if player options were limited?

    I have no opinion either way, I don't revive my own dead pilots, but I can understand that others might want to be able to do so. So I'm curious as to the developer's opinions on this. I love the game, and most definitely would like to see it prosper, sales-wise.
    Perhaps I'm speaking above my pay grade, as I'm not a developer. But we expect good product support, and we get it now. Partly because extensive testing has been done on existing variables.

    Just talking the life of the pilot, there are 3 possibilities, which have sufficed since 2005. Now everyone is to have the ability to Muck Around the files, doing as he pleases. But We Want the support to continue regardless of any changes he might make

  4. #54

    TAC DISPLAY and label

    As it stands now, I fly @ 100% realism. I use labels to sort out my Squad on the Mission. This is purely a time management issue.

    I do use the TAC DISPLAY, with what are some compelling reasons:

    1. I am not twenty, and my career as a combat pilot would be long over.
    2. Even with glasses, and a hat switch, and yes TIR, it is quite different from how your eyes would function, in a real cockpit setting.
    3. Your PC AI know exactly where you are. As they have "heads up", it is only fair to have the same. My TAC is set @ 1 NM, and the lower half is buried, so I only "see" ~ 200' behind me.

    I think that's a great post Siggi!

    With regards to WINDERS contemplation for embedding the code's, it is his project, so it would be his decision. For myself, I have "resurrected" pilot's based on reasonable criteria. Mostly though, I am not even interested in my pilot being in "Hospital" and just "Retire" that pilot, and "Enlist" a new one, same name; ( except for their middle initial going up the alphabet one letter each time I generate a new one), same squad, etc.

    Cheers,

    british_eh

  5. #55
    Dej
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by gimpyguy View Post
    ... Now everyone is to have the ability to Muck Around the files, doing as he pleases. But We Want the support to continue regardless of any changes he might make
    Good point.

    I look at it this way. If I were to meddle with a pilot file and then find I'd broken something and my pilot didn't load or had lost medals or whatever I wouldn't expect any developer support on that particular issue. It's 'taking the back off' - voids the guarantee.

  6. #56
    cptroyce
    Guest
    Siggi- I fly DiD already..save for Warping, because my time is limited most often. However..

    >> The warping issue isn't just one of fatigue, it also has a direct effect on how you regard/value your character and how you fight him.<<

    I absolutely agree.

    Royce

  7. #57
    Siggi
    Guest
    Cheers Royce.

  8. #58
    Mk2
    Guest
    Siggi you dismiss Labels too easily and give no counter argument as to them actually giving real world situational awareness.

    Have you flown a plane?
    If yes, have you seen what other planes look like at different distances?

    Pixels on a monitor do not translate that.

    If you want to fly without Labels then great! You are mkaing it even harder than real life then! You have gone beyond actual realism!

  9. #59
    Dej
    Guest
    Okay. I'm sold on DiD but I was practically playing that way anyhow.

    I flew last night w/o touching warp once and let the rest of my flight sort themselves out. Dint of corner cutting I rejoined formation DiDly... once the slowcoaches reached my height. I don't understand why, if I can reach 8000 ft in two circuits of the 'drome, they can't... especially as Jerry always has height... but never mind.

    One final question. How are the relative merits/demerits of airfcraft and era to be factored in?

    For example, my main currently flies an SE5a which has the benefit of altimeter, airspeed indicator, inclinometer (-ish) etc. and whilst he still suffers from 'spray and pray' a bit he is an ace... but could I fly an EIII or with the same success, chances are not.

    Would any ladder be grouped according to era, and possibly aircraft?

  10. #60
    Siggi
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mk2 View Post
    Siggi you dismiss Labels too easily and give no counter argument as to them actually giving real world situational awareness.

    Have you flown a plane?
    If yes, have you seen what other planes look like at different distances?

    Pixels on a monitor do not translate that.

    If you want to fly without Labels then great! You are mkaing it even harder than real life then! You have gone beyond actual realism!
    I absolutely agree with you, it is harder to visually acquire planes in the sim than it is in real life. Consequently one has to tolerate the horror of a visual aid. However...

    The TAC does too little. The labels do too much. The TAC doesn't tell you the altitude of the target, just it's general direction and range. But it does that at such a range that the target would be in your unobstructed line of sight more often than not.

    The labels show you where the target is regardless of LOS obstruction more often than not, and at a range where that has a big influence on your chance of survival.

    The TAC picks up bogeys at around 4 miles. The labels pick up bogeys at around 2 miles. At 4 miles the bogeys are invisible on the monitor, even with full zoom. At 2 miles they are visible with one level of zoom (normal flying zoom for many pilots).

    So, given that it IS just about possible to spot the bogey unaided, just at the range the labels kick in, what value are they other than as a massive cheat?

    Whereas the TAC does nothing more than give you a simulation of a 'glint of sunlight' beyond visual range, and you then get to use it to guide you in until the marker goes red (which happens to be well within label-range and thus within visual range). For sure, you still don't know if the target is above or below you, unless you were already able to visually acquire it (I personally get very varied results on that score), but seeing as how you knew they were there in the first place only by virtue of the tell-tale 'glint of light', and they could have dived or climbed since then...

    IF it were possible to reduce label-text to an asterix it wouldn't be SUCH an issue, that asterix could be simulating the target's natural luminosity. Though it would still allow you to see it through parts of the wing. But as it stands it's not only hugely unrealistic, allowing NO chance of realistically LOSING sight of a target, it's also as unimmersive as hell (though that's a matter of personal taste, not a DiD consideration).

    So it's a case of not having one perfect solution, but certainly one of having a total over-kill option (labels) and one in-sufficient option. Given the nature of DiD and what it's intended for one has to choose that which presents the greater challenge over one which reduces it to below what was real.

    Finally, consider the actual vCombat experience. Using only TAC puts one right on the edge of one's seat, IF one has been unable to visually acquire the target by the time the markers go red and one has to switch off the TAC. Labels don't provide that tension at all, especially not if they pop up through part of one's wing.

    Hope that clarifies the reasoning a bit.

  11. #61
    Geier
    Guest
    Hang on. Padlock is not allowed? It certainly gives you an indication of altitude of objects in TAC. Without padlock I don't have a chance since I don't have TIR. and padlock is pretty useless in anything but one on one dogfights.

    Also, I would recommend refraining from using the term "cheat" for any setting available in Workshops. "Not allowed in DiD" is more of a mouthful but more correct to me. Anyone has a right to play the game the way they see fit, if they want to go DiD then they have to conform to the rules but playing outside of DiD is never "cheating".

    Oh hell. I'm getting TIR.

  12. #62
    Dej
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Siggi View Post
    Any viewing system is fair, seeing as how none of them can be as good as TiR
    Geier, Padlock IS allowed, see posts #37 and #38. (Unless Siggi changed his mind further down the thread and I missed it.)

  13. #63
    Siggi
    Guest
    Padlock is allowed. Any viewing option lesser than TiR is allowed. Padlock allows one to lock onto a target one cannot necessarily see but it's a dire bloody liability other than that (limits SA considerably). Personally I would not fly any sim without TiR, I'd last about five minutes.

    "Cheat" is just a word, it doesn't have to carry negative connotations by default. Shall we use the word "crib" instead? As in "crib notes", a benign and permissable form of cheating.

    "Ay oop, t' lad's cribbin' tru t' wings like."

  14. #64
    Interlocutor
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Siggi View Post
    IF it were possible to reduce label-text to an asterix it wouldn't be SUCH an issue, that asterix could be simulating the target's natural luminosity.
    I suspect the asterisk thing would be easily do-able, coding-wise. Perhaps even with an option in Workshop: "Full Labels" and "Asterisk Label Only".

  15. #65
    Siggi
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Interlocutor View Post
    I suspect the asterisk thing would be easily do-able, coding-wise. Perhaps even with an option in Workshop: "Full Labels" and "Asterisk Label Only".
    I had a look in the files already. I think the labelling code draws from all the a/c names, so each and every one of them would have to have a seperate name consisting of an identifier plus the asterix, and then coded to display only the asterix. A bit much to ask of the developers just for a small minority of people who want to play DiD.

    A much better solution would be to have a/c flash at random intervals, to simulate light reflecting from various angles, observable from a good few miles. I have no idea if the engine allows that though.

    Then the TAC could be done away with too, for a wholly more realistic option.

  16. #66

    I agree, Labels are too muc, but

    as limitations of Video Cards and Processors, and etc, it is reasonable that they be part of the scenario, especially for those just starting out, who haven't got command of their aircraft yet, let alone sorting out enemy and friendly aircraft.

    The TAC is most reasonable at the 1 NM setting, and even with TIR, is a necessity, or so I believe.

    Great topic.

    Cheers,

    british_eh

  17. #67
    Siggi
    Guest
    Modified to take account of new realism settings, death in Workshop must now be HARD (dead is dead).

    The OFF DiD Standard.
    This is intended for the added enjoyment of those vPilots who choose to make the OFF experience as realistic as it can be. "Realistic experience", in this case, will be my interpretation of it, as I apply that to the standard I created many years ago for RB2-3D, a number of other sims subsequently and a one-year+ online war...DiD (Dead is Dead).

    Some of the settings are open to debate. Mostly ones I've had in my own mind. Others may have differing opinions on them, and I'm open to consideration of those, but they will most likely make no way. This is not an expression of contempt, just that experience has shown that 'Rule by Commitee' doesn't work for DiD.

    DiD is also not intended to express contempt for those who play the sim by a 'lesser' standard. People play the game in whatever way they like, for whatever reasons they like. And their reasons are entirely valid for their own private purposes. But (BUT), if one wishes to express one's prowess in the public arena (for fun, ego, bragging-rights, light-hearted competitiveness etc) one should rightly be held to a common standard, otherwise the expression has no substantive meaning or value. DiD is intended to provide that standard, to put all those of a like mind on a level playing field as it were.

    So...OFF DiD:

    Workshop:

    Auto Mixture: Users' choice. Not all a/c of this period had a manual control, it doesn't significantly affect the player's ability to kill and with that in mind not all players can or need to be arsed with it. If you choose to enable it you are DiD+, but it's a very tiny weeny little plus.

    Auto Rudder: Users' choice. It should be OFF, but maybe you have no pedals and your stick doesn't twist. In fact, with it ON you suffer a disadvantage in combat.

    Invincible: OFF.
    Unlim Weapons: OFF.
    Unlim Fuel: OFF.
    Sun Glare: ON.
    G-Effects: ON.
    A/C Stress: ON.
    Force-feedback: Users' choice.
    Flight Model: Realistic.
    Weapon Effectiveness: Realistic.
    Claims: Normal.
    Ground Fire: Normal.
    Death: Hard (Dead is Dead).
    Main Guns: Normal.

    Rear Guns: Wide. The choice here is between ALL gunners having, potentially, preternatural abilities vs ALL gunners having generally average abilities. I've been very nicely plastered under wide, by one to three 2-seater gunners I tried to approach, so it does NOT make 2-seaters a turkey-shoot.

    Wind effects: ON.
    Weather Mode: Historical.
    Weather Dynamics: Dynamic.
    Campaign Mission Frequency: Historical.
    A/C Spawn Control: OFF Campaign.

    Parameter Editor Panel in CFS3 Config (via button in Workshop).

    All settings in there are at users' choice EXCEPT:

    Targetting Cone: Disabled.
    HUD: Disabled.
    Simulation Warnings: Disabled.
    Time Compression: Disabled.
    Advisor Messages: Disabled.
    Chat: Disabled.

    In-Game Functions:

    TAC: Allowed. Rule: It must be switched OFF as soon as a/c spotted on it turn to red, irrespective of whether or not you have visually acquired them. It must not be turned on again until you are 100% sure combat has ceased and you are unlikely to be re-engaged by those same enemy a/c.

    Labels: Not allowed.

    MAP: Allowed. The game map, real maps and the landscape over which you fly are not sufficiently corrobative of one another to make real navigation more than an unrealistically difficult and hazardous chore.

    Auto-Pilot: Allowed. It's a straight & level device, use of it will put you at a disadvantage in fact.

    Visual Zoom: Allowed, it's binoculars.

    Trim: Allowed. Rule. Only at the very beginning of a flight (on the runway) and not to be touched thereafter. It's use simulates a pilot and his fitters setting up his a/c on the ground to his liking. Fly your a/c in QC, find out how many clicks of each put your plane as you like it, then apply those same clicks to your a/c on the runway in campaign before each flight.

    Real Time: All campaign missions must be flown in real time. To do otherwise gives a pilot an unrealistic advantage in terms of fatigue and attentiveness thereof. It also de-values the stock you invest in your character, which itself tends to lead to unrealistic behaviour in combat, which can skew combat-results.

    External Views: Not allowed, except to take screenies while paused. All flying and fighting must take place while in the cockpit with cockpit visible.

    That's it. If I've missed anything please advise.

    Oh yes...resurrecting your campaign character: Allowed, but only under the most STRINGENT of circumstances. If your character dies as a result of something OUTSIDE of the game's natural environment (major FPS lock-up/stutter/freeze, kids jumping into your lap, wife/GF clapping you upside of the head, you get the picture...) feel free to make things right. You'll know if you've done a dirty and your achievements will be tainted in your own mind as a result, so don't go there.

    That's the DiD standard, open to modification for a very limited time subject to persuasive proposals. But please don't hold your breath (for anyone who gives a hoot). If you wish to be regarded by it you are on your honour to observe it faithfully and may indicate your desire to such end by the inclusion of the acronym "DiD" anywhere you bally well please.

    I'll finish with the usual elitist bit..."DiD, sorts the men from the boys, the wheat from the chaff, the real vAces from the arcade wannabes!"

  18. #68
    cptroyce
    Guest
    Siggi- Just curious, I flew RB for years, SP & MP. In MP if you flew, what was your screen name..I don't recall a Siggi:ernae:

    Regards,
    Royce

  19. #69
    Geier
    Guest
    A fun memory that might have some bearing, or not, on your rules. Way back in the day when RB3D mp first took off there was a pretty amazing squad called KA7. As far as I remember they pretty much ruled most servers for a while before most of the original members quit.

    Anyway, as I was flying a lot with one of the members he showed me one of their secrets. They flew in external rear view, all the time. From what I can see in your rules there are no rules about using external views which, among other things, lets you ID anything you have padlocked and lets you fly without a cockpit (F3). Using an external rear view, like KA7 did, gives you a great big fov and once you figure it out you can shoot well from it too. I never got the hang of it and prefered the cockpit views anyway but those guys were lethal in the admittedly exploitable and arcadey RB FM. So if you wanna go competitive I would, if possible, limit external views to zilch.

    Zoikes! Eh, I trust no one here from the original KA7 ...

  20. #70
    Siggi
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Geier View Post
    A fun memory that might have some bearing, or not, on your rules. Way back in the day when RB3D mp first took off there was a pretty amazing squad called KA7. As far as I remember they pretty much ruled most servers for a while before most of the original members quit.

    Anyway, as I was flying a lot with one of the members he showed me one of their secrets. They flew in external rear view, all the time. From what I can see in your rules there are no rules about using external views which, among other things, lets you ID anything you have padlocked and lets you fly without a cockpit (F3). Using an external rear view, like KA7 did, gives you a great big fov and once you figure it out you can shoot well from it too. I never got the hang of it and prefered the cockpit views anyway but those guys were lethal in the admittedly exploitable and arcadey RB FM. So if you wanna go competitive I would, if possible, limit external views to zilch.

    Zoikes! Eh, I trust no one here from the original KA7 ...
    I guess I just took that for granted. Thanks, I'll add it PDQ.

  21. #71
    Dej
    Guest
    Shucks! Foiled again.... :d

  22. #72
    Siggi
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by cptroyce View Post
    Siggi- Just curious, I flew RB for years, SP & MP. In MP if you flew, what was your screen name..I don't recall a Siggi:ernae:

    Regards,
    Royce
    I'm damned if I can remember, but I don't think it would have been other than my name. I used to fly in some kind of formal war (online), I don't remember it's name but I seem to remember it was odd-sounding.

  23. #73
    Mk2
    Guest
    Ok I am game but the real time will exclude 80% of everyone that plays the game. I can't imagine that many people with hours on end to fly a 3 hour mission .

    Siggi please reconsider warp.

  24. #74
    Siggi
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mk2 View Post
    Ok I am game but the real time will exclude 80% of everyone that plays the game. I can't imagine that many people with hours on end to fly a 3 hour mission .

    Siggi please reconsider warp.
    There are a lot of talented darts players out there that can't play league due to real-job commitments. Them's just the breaks unfortunately.

    A standard is a standard, and once one starts watering it down to take account of special needs, no matter how legitimate, it's not a standard anymore.

    I'm not sure about that "3 hour" thing either. I select alternative flight if the one given is ridiculously long, and most times it's curtailed anyway when we get into a fight and all the ammo gets used up. Straight back to base at that point. Medium length ones I tend to keep, otherwise the 'alternative flight' gets a bit gamey. A significant number of my flights last no longer than around half an hour. Before I started using the TAC I'd see no action and even then 95 minutes was the max I can remember.

    I suspect people using warp miss a lot of target opportunities, even with the TAC up. Fly real time and it's rare not to come across something within about 20 to 30 minutes. Get stuck in, shoot off most of the ammo, back home for kippers, just like the real chaps.

  25. #75
    Dej
    Guest
    One point, at the start of this thread Death was by Dice Doll, now it's Dead Is Dead. I'm fine if that's the consensus, but it wasn't mentioned, unless I missed it. Or was it incorrectly stated at the start?

    For preference, I'd prefer Death By Dice Roll, there were many miraculous escapes in WW1, sliding down ballon cables, hanging upside down from your Lewis drum, falling several thousand feet, crashing through a nunnery roof and landing on a Nun's bed etc. (although W. E. Johns may have made that last one up).

    Clarification?

Similar Threads

  1. FSX/P3D Native New Standard D 25 and D 27
    By Spad54 in forum FSX General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 18th, 2013, 08:55
  2. USCG New Standard
    By burcham8 in forum FSX General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 5th, 2012, 12:39
  3. New Standard...and Free
    By heywooood in forum FSX General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 5th, 2010, 09:54
  4. FSX Standard and FSX Deluxe
    By leonross in forum FSX General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2010, 13:52
  5. F1: No standard engine.
    By Ferry_vO in forum Racer's Paddock
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 13th, 2008, 18:10

Members who have read this thread: 0

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •