Call of Duty, Silent Hunter, Panzer Commander?

[muzik]

I think I ask this years ago, but seems like a good time to ask again. After reading about troops taking down town and rumors that first person shooter will be added to the game plus the dozens of other wish list items that seemingly will take years to implement even if HT said yes to them, I have a question.

Wouldnt it be easier to approach developers of Silent Hunter, Call of Duty, Panzer Commander or other ww2 sim games and enter a contract to allow their software to use your maps and server in essence joining players in one game? Come to think of it, Im not so sure you would even need their permission. Once their software is bought, I think it is up to the owner where and how he plays it is it not?

I dont know much about these sims and I know there would still be plenty of developing, for example, interfacing the games and 3d modeling items not already in AH but you wouldnt have to create the entire models from the ground up.

It seems that it would be mutually beneficial. It would potentially bring in 10s of thousands of customers and the partnered developers would benefit from a MMP environment for their games. It seems both sides would profit and AH players would in theory see 70% of the wish list granted in a fraction of the time it would take you to do it all yourself.

[lengro]

Wouldnt it be easier to approach developers of Silent Hunter, Call of Duty, Panzer Commander or other ww2 sim games and enter a contract to allow their software to use your maps and server in essence joining players in one game?

No - not possible. All the games would have to be rewritten from the ground up if they should share physics engine, 3D engine, environment engine, multiplayer engine, scoring system, win-the-war algorithms and many more.

[Pigslilspaz]

No - not possible. All the games would have to be rewritten from the ground up if they should share physics engine, 3D engine, environment engine, multiplayer engine, scoring system, win-the-war algorithms and many more.

Exactly, though it would be cool, about 1,000-2,000 folks playing one game, folks playing their FPS, with the AH folks playing above and as air support.

[ACE]

Imagine what kind of computer you will need to play that with all that action on the graph

[muzik]

You know what's wrong with AH, everyone is so supportive and positive it just kills the war like atmosphere.

No - not possible. All the games would have to be rewritten from the ground up if they should share physics engine, 3D engine, environment engine, multiplayer engine, scoring system, win-the-war algorithms and many more.

Im not a programmer, but Im pretty sure most of what you said is incorrect. First of all they do not have to have the same 3d engine. Just because we have a low end graphics engine doesnt mean they do as well. As long as the trees and bushes are all in the same place, it couldnt make a huge difference.

They definately dont need the same scoring system, we dont even have to tell them who wins the war if we dont want to, but both of these are minor and relatively simple.

HT would have to make sure the physics match as far as armor, ammunition, etc and if not, have a modifying system in place to correct it.

They will play the game on their software, not in aces high. The only interaction between the two is normal "player to server" data transfer. eg tank x is at location...firing main gun in direction... elevation...round...

Why do people make things harder than they have to be?

Imagine what kind of computer you will need to play that with all that action on the graph

I dont see how that would be any different from being in a spot where there's a large horde as things are now. Except in this case I think it's even more important to implement the base caps I suggested.

[Lusche]

Why do people make things harder than they have to be?

because it is that hard.

[Ack-Ack]

You know what's wrong with AH, everyone is so supportive and positive it just kills the war like atmosphere.
Im not a programmer, but Im pretty sure most of what you said is incorrect. First of all they do not have to have the same 3d engine. Just because we have a low end graphics engine doesnt mean they do as well. As long as the trees and bushes are all in the same place, it couldnt make a huge difference.

They definately dont need the same scoring system, we dont even have to tell them who wins the war if we dont want to, but both of these are minor and relatively simple.

HT would have to make sure the physics match as far as armor, ammunition, etc and if not, have a modifying system in place to correct it.

They will play the game on their software, not in aces high. The only interaction between the two is normal "player to server" data transfer. eg tank x is at location...firing main gun in direction... elevation...round...

Why do people make things harder than they have to be?



I dont see how that would be any different from being in a spot where there's a large horde as things are now. Except in this case I think it's even more important to implement the base caps I suggested.

Look at how hard of a time Ubisoft had when it tried to partner Silent Hunter with the destroyer game they released...both used the same engine but the matchmaking was terrible and more often than not, no way you could connect two players playing these two games together.  If you did manage to connect, it was a laggy and buggy nightmare but the idea was sound, just not the execution.

ack-ack

[Vudak]

I'm not sure I'd want to invite thousands of FPS players into this game, and without cloning Skuzzy, we sure as hell couldn't let them use the forum.

[CptTrips]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_level_architecture_(simulation)

[Plazus]

Look at how hard of a time Ubisoft had when it tried to partner Silent Hunter with the destroyer game they released...both used the same engine but the matchmaking was terrible and more often than not, no way you could connect two players playing these two games together.  If you did manage to connect, it was a laggy and buggy nightmare but the idea was sound, just not the execution.

ack-ack

Speaking of which, CCP is attempting to merge a PC platform game "Eve Online" into the same universe as their console game "Dust514". Dust514 will be FPS based and will mainly feature ground combat on planets that Eve players are trying to take control over. Also, both players from Eve and Dust will be able to have their custom avatars/characters and walk around in the same space station to interact, exchange items, information, etc. Hoping this attempt won't fail like Ubisoft's.

Link: http://www.dust514.org/

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYkuZLxAWBo

[Ack-Ack]

Speaking of which, CCP is attempting to merge a PC platform game "Eve Online" into the same universe as their console game "Dust514". Dust514 will be FPS based and will mainly feature ground combat on planets that Eve players are trying to take control over. Also, both players from Eve and Dust will be able to have their custom avatars/characters and walk around in the same space station to interact, exchange items, information, etc. Hoping this attempt won't fail like Ubisoft's.

Link: http://www.dust514.org/

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYkuZLxAWBo

Unfortunately, CCP's network code is going to be struggling to handle the load, if reports from the beta testing can be believed.  My company has been doing something similiar for around 6 years now, in that we allow cross platform play on the same servers for one of our games.

ack-ack

[Plazus]

Agreed. I play Eve online. CCP outdid themselves on creating an MMO vast enough to attract players of all backgrounds and interests. I am, however, expecting a lot of bugs, network latency, and a slew of other problems when "Incarna" is released for Eve Online. "Incarna" is, of course, the version of Eve that which CCP will attempt to merge both games of different platforms.

If this turns out to be a success, then CCP will have broken a world record. Or two...

[lengro]

Im not a programmer, but Im pretty sure most of what you said is incorrect. First of all they do not have to have the same 3d engine. Just because we have a low end graphics engine doesnt mean they do as well. As long as the trees and bushes are all in the same place, it couldnt make a huge difference.

No, I'm very correct. Those games you mention are completely different creatures, they just don't mix.

Silent Hunter captains sails on a real world map, with heavy storms, high waves and lots of rain. Night environment is a key element in convoy destruction.
AH water is flat and HTC don't want wind and night in their main arenas.

Call of Duty players fights on very small controlled maps (with lots of blocking obstacles, so you can't run freely around) with extremely high polygon-counts, which looks very realistic, but also use lots of ressources.
Flight simulators can't have high polycount maps, because they need lots of ressources for a complex flight modelling physics engine, and handling the 3D rendering distance challenges in big open environments (flying low, buildings should look good, flying high, world should look good, many LOD-leves for objects and so on)

Tactical CoD-maps just don't translates to strategic AH-maps, let alone SH's realworld watermap. It's not a matter of trees, bushes and buildings sharing x,y,z-coordinates. It doesn't mix with collision model if the 3D-geometry boundaries doesn't match.

I've barely scratched the surface, but I hope you get the point.

What can be done, is how they did it in WW2Online Battleground Europe. Build - from the ground up - a common world running on the same engine and allow players to fight the ground war or air war in the same simulator. But take a look at the forums to get an idea of, how difficult even that has been. Trying to do the same with different games is impossible.

[muzik]

No, I'm very correct. Those games you mention are completely different creatures, they just don't mix.

No you are EXTREMELY wrong. You are so wrong I am about to give up on you.

I will try to make it easy for you to understand one more time.

The games DONT ACTUALLY "combine." You dont jump out of a plane and into a submarine like you would go from flying to GVing in AH. You would have to leave AH to get into Silent Hunter.

You know how all games have maps? Silent Hunter would have their own maps modeled after AH maps. You know how games have "arena settings" like rain for example? Those would be turned off or disabled that arent interchangeable in the games.

No graphics engines are combined. It doesnt make a dam bit of difference what kind of engines each use or the physics of models. The only thing that "combines" is relevant data like the position of a carrier, an airplane, or a bullet.

That data is translated into usable data for the other game. Then some dude in SH hunts down the cv to sink it assuming he gets past the other guys playing defense for the cv. If he surfaces or when Hitech gives us depth charges for aircraft, PTs, and destroyers, he also has those to contend with.

Aside from Hitech having the time or inclination to do this, the only difficult part of this idea is writing software to translate the data, modeling additional items, and getting the other games do their part. Again, SH doesnt have to have a flight model, it only needs to render a plane when it shows up. AH only renders a submarine.

I never said it would be easy, but it would definitely be easier than Hitech trying to do submarine models in even half of the detail that SH does or trying to create a first person shooter that has all the weapons and dynamics that a game like Call of Duty has. It will take Hitech a decade to add half of those things to his game.

I dont think he has that long, someone else will do it first. It's only a matter of time. And if you don't believe, just look at the link AKwabbit posted...DAMN that wabbit is smart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_level_architecture_(simulation)  Looks to me like someones already considered doing exactly what Ive described.

[MonkGF]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_level_architecture_(simulation)

HLA is not built with bandwidth reduction in mind. For example, last time I checked it used 128 bits for position (to model the earth), while games usually get by with 16 or 32 bits. HLA is great for it's intended audience, but bandwidth-sensitive games is not one of them.

Barring some major changes over the last year or two...

Although the concept could apply, if you could get the game makers to agree to it. If you share a common state-replication scheme, and your maps are gameplay-identical (which is not the same as saying graphically identical), it COULD work.