Call of Duty, Silent Hunter, Panzer Commander?

[CptTrips]

Vinkman,

You bring up some valid points.

Certainly ground units are the harder problem.  It seems like the AH and SH example fits easier.  A lot of issues might be avoid by maintaining careful demarcation of the sim modules.  Like everything on the ground handled in the CoD clients.  When you parachute out, you switch to the CoD client when you land.  So you are in that mode of operation when on the ground.

And when I say Silent Hunter or CoD I’m not really talking about THAT particular game.  Let me adjust what I am suggesting.  Let me use those as a place holder for “ A custom client module built for AH interoperability by a 3rd party vendor with experience and code and art assets that can be modified and leveraged to in what ever way is necessary to provide content they specialize in that HTC wouldn’t have to develop themselves.”  I’m  not saying you could pull CoD off the shelf and plug it in.  There is code that would have to be written, design changes made on one or both sides.  If the ground module needs to start doing its hit calculation local, then it will.  If certain capabilities need to be disabled like time acceleration, then it will.  I’m assuming that what ever modification would need to be done, would be done.

I don’t think maps would need to be identical, they would need to be compatible.  There can be differences, as long as those differences don’t materially affect game play.   Just like to different clients in AH can set different detail levels. 

You make an interesting point about the object density, world scale differences between a CoD type map and AH.  One interesting thought might be to limit the CoD players to the boundaries of the large cities. When troops are dropped, CoD paratroopers and CoD defenders fight it out in a detailed map of the large city.

There are a thousand approaches that could be taken, a thousand problems they create, and a thousand possible solutions for each, etc.  It’s the same with any piece of software.

Any of it could be worked out technically or through gameplay design.  The real question is if there could be found sufficient financial reason to do so.  I just don’t think HTC’s playerbase is big enough for one of the big name players to want to carve a piece of.  I could be wrong.

Regards,
Wab

[muzik]

CoD players articulate, in that they squat, laydown, throw grenades, aim rifles, run etc. If AH runs the server it has to pass all the vector and tag[?] info that makes those motions visible to other players. I assume there is something that tells the host/clients if the players squatting and then the local console shows him squatting

In the example of the pilot, he is a stiff fellow who slides around like Gumby and can lift one arm. It is possible to leave it that way but it wouldn't make for quality game play perhaps.
A bigger problem I see is the the physical environment. CoD folks shoot it out in detailed buildings. If the AH server were to run the war how do you handle a building? In AH they explode and are hollow with no open windows. If in CoD they are taking a down by capturing detailed buildings, what happends on the CoD consol when an AH pilot drops a bomb on it? In AH hits are calculated on the local the local console/computer and then the info that a player is hit is transmitted to that player. How would AH calculate if I hit a player in a detailed building, if the detail for the building isn't there? Gameplay quality issues like that could be solved by having a common physical environment. But that would means all participating players would have to download a common physical map. CoD does this by downloading high detail physical map packs prior to game play sever connection. Same could apply for the combined but this means new common maps need to be developed. Also the CoD world is not very big in area so all that detail is crammed into a quarter of a square mile. I don;t know how many gigabytes/terrabytes a common physical map the size of an AH world, with the detail of a CoD map would be.

Also there are fundimantal differences in hit calculation. AH does it locally, where CoD does it on the server.

So it seems to my non-code writing non-sim developing mind that a quality joint game would at a minimum require a decision on what to make common, and then the code developers for each game would have to make a modified version of each game for "joint Play".

Thx Vinkman for the comment and posting. If you dont mind I would like to address these and clarify my idea some more. I dont know the terminology or mechanics, but I understand the function somewhat.

Bear with me, I will get to your examples. I like to use the word translator because it makes more sense to me but in essence what I am suggesting is software that translates AH to CoD, etc. For starters lets just use common items as examples. I believe CoD has a usable sherman tank as AH does.

2 guys are playing CoD online, both in shermans. One fires at the other and data (lets call it "packet1") is sent to the host and bam, the other sherman is dead. Packet1 obviously also contains data pertaining to turret angle, direction, vehicle angle and direction, etc. It tells us that when sherman1 fired his gun it was pointed at xyz angle.

What if that data wasnt going to the typical CoD host but instead to a 'host clone?' This clone takes the data and translates it into AH language and sends it to the AH server as if it were coming from another AH player. The clone sends translated packets to AH and un-translated packets to the proper CoD host or however its normally done.  (someone is about to cry because I said CoD cant have tanks. please console him, its just an example)

Now assume sherman2 wasnt a CoD player but an AH player. Now packet1 said that sherman1s main gun was at xyz angle. We want AH to determine ballistics and damage because CoD doesnt model it to our liking. Our translator filters packet1 so that no ballistics from CoD is transferred. AH takes complete control of ballistics from xyz on. Now this might not look right on CoDs end. Thats where a mod would come in. No tracers for them maybe and a different sight. Irrelevant though. They wont have tanks.

Of course Hitech would have to create a generic man capable of more complex movement than our stick figures, but I dont think it needs to be highly detailed. He also need not model damage or such, that would be determined in CoD. The same type of data that lets one CoD player see another CoD player crouching or squating is the same data that tells the new AH stick man what to do. There is no stick man control in AH. If you want to shoot a m1 garand you must log off and log back on in your "properly purchased and licensed" copy of CoD.

Buildings can be built to AHs current model in a CoD map. Like Wabbit said, they can be highly detailed compared to ours as long as there arent any significant differences. The CoD map would have a destroyed version of each building. I think it might require a mod, but destroyed buildings would replace undamaged ones just as AH does. The only difference is that the CoD map would have more complex internal structure to those buildings, destroyed or not. Those areas are inaccessible in AH so little or no changes needed to AH that I see.

CoD models at least a couple of different explosion sizes that I know of. Larger explosions might need to be mod'ed if they dont have them. If someone in AH drops a bomb, that bomb hit has a location and an intensity witch is duplicated for every AH player in the vicinity. The same data sent to AH players is sent to the translator which "generates" a similar explosion for any CoD players in that vicinity. Now I say generates because normally those explosions were the result of a CoD player firing on another CoD player with a big weapon of some kind. CoD then determines hits in the normal manner. I was confused when you asked about a hit on a building that wasnt there, but I hope this helps. Please elaborate if it doesnt cover it.

(Sorry Muzik for the hijack but this boggles my mind)
In case you think I'm nuts about buying the add-on modules in my hypothetical sim to get different capabilities....

Not at all, I appreciate your input. This is how to discuss ideas. I dont think youre nuts, but as you said those things arent quite what I had in mind and I have heard of those types of things going on in the virtual world, but no experience with them at all.

“ A custom client module built for AH interoperability by a 3rd party vendor with experience and code and art assets that can be modified and leveraged to in what ever way is necessary to provide content they specialize in that HTC wouldn’t have to develop themselves.”

I’m  not saying you could pull CoD off the shelf and plug it in.  There is code that would have to be written, design changes made on one or both sides.  If the ground module needs to start doing its hit calculation local, then it will.  If certain capabilities need to be disabled like time acceleration, then it will.  I’m assuming that what ever modification would need to be done, would be done.

You make an interesting point about the object density, world scale differences between a CoD type map and AH.  

One interesting thought might be to limit the CoD players to the boundaries of the large cities. When troops are dropped, CoD paratroopers and CoD defenders fight it out in a detailed map of the large city.

The real question is if there could be found sufficient financial reason to do so.  I just don’t think HTC’s playerbase is big enough for one of the big name players to want to carve a piece of.  I could be wrong.

1 That sounds more like what Im thinking.

2 Exactly! Some modifications, but I dont think there are as many as you seem to think. They might require a considerable amount of work, but I dont think any significant changes need to be made to either software.

3 Im not sure I am following you on this item, if I didnt address it well above, please elaborate this concern.

4 This had occured to me, but I am not sure I see a need for it yet. One of the biggest advantages to doing this is the MMP environment and huge maps. If you confine them to a town, then what purpose does it serve them to leave their "Lengro" world? Not only would they be back to being restricted to spawn and die maps, but now they're getting rained on by ords and aircraft fire in a comparatively "uglier" game. I do think that the numbers of players in an area is likely to overwhelm the system somehow. Please elaborate if you still think it necessary.

5 I think you are looking at this backwards. You question why a big name like CoD (not that I ever had any reason to pick that particular sim, there are a half a dozen others) would want to join with little ol'AH. Well AH is the largest MMP flight sim out there. They may not compare to CoD financially but if there was a reason to join with someone wouldnt AH be the appropriate choice? They cant go to WW2online. IL2 next best choice has what 60 player servers?

Some of these sims are collecting dust. They are not making any money from them and yet they probably still have development teams trying to come up with something else to make money from. If they could throw together the mods needed to work with AH without an excessive amount of effort, then all they have to lose is a little development time and their product goes back to the store room. If it succeeds, not only do they start selling their software again, but it could potentially go for years with very little or no upkeep while producing residual income from HTC. All profit and no headache. They dont even have to deal with marketing. That could be left entirely to HTC. I dont think it would take much more than what Hitech does now to bring in old CoD players to see what's going on.

[Ten60]

+1 for idea of FPS and Sub warfare inclusion.
-1 for attempting to incorporate other platforms.
+1 for your depth of thought.
-1 for the way you reply to people.
+1 for admitting you aren't a programmer.
-1 for not being one and disproving people who are actually right with nonsense.

+1 to ack ack for all replies and at least trying lol.

Why would HTC spend ungodly amounts of time building interfaces with 2 separate independent companies when they could probably just spend the same time and hire 4/5 people and build up the game on their own...  It's ludicrous and probably against almost all ideal business principles...  You never allow another person any control over your business unless it's absolutely necessary.  If they own 1% they own you.  With that being said I *highly* doubt HTC would be the controlling interest party in this case between Infinity Ward and Ubisoft.  So another -1.

Another thing you've failed to take into serious account is the load that poly counts have on machines.  The best way this could be achieved is to use a distance relation to poly count of the object.  If you are 5k away it the poly count is 5% or whatever, at maybe 3k it increases to 35% , and at 1k it's a full 100% render.  That's a common thing to do in games, however, the problem that could arise is the speeds of these planes the render rate changes would be going nuts.  Any time you flew close to the deck you're frame rate would trip out, kind like how when you fly with 30 other planes it dips because of the amount of stress on the renders.  There's no way that you could have COD quality graphics for the FPS side doing this.  So another -1

Now before you go popping off like you have with everyone else I get that you want to have 3 separate platforms all running with each other and communicating between each other.  That whole you can't play sub unless you own SH, and you can't play Air unless you have AH...  Complete fail.  You would need to run a very large amount of servers to all communicate and then communicate with clients.  Just the lag between machines in that environment without clients would already make gamers cringe, so you'll suggest some super-computer upgrade,  money??  I don't know how many PC FPS's you've ever played but I've played FPS pc (not console) games since Team Fortress Classic April 1999 and still play some now.  Lag in pc gaming is much more monitored than console gaming and what you propose would detract plenty of people.  PC gamers upgrade their rigs like some racers do cars, whatever they can do to reduce video lag, network lag, or process lag.  I shouldn't have to tell you this...  So another -1.

+1 to Lengro.  He is exactly correct about map size and setup.  Have you seen how many objects are in those maps?  There's a reason maps aren't relatively empty like our bases are, because the world isn't empty and bases wouldn't have just the few things they have now.  The towns alone would probably increase 10-20 times in object count.  How can you possibly expect these machines to track all these objects across platforms through a dozen servers and then have the client track them as well?  You would basically need a MMO type server setup, and anyone who's played an MMO knows that in a heavily populated battle the video lag is horrid.  Most are timed command type attacks not FPS style aim and real time shoot.  Yet another -1.

What you want is a Simulation style game that basically did exactly what Battlefield (BF) 1942 did only about 20 times the size.  Like ack ack tried to explain to you repeatedly if you think big not a *SINGLE* big game company has done it for cost and time reasons what on earth makes you think HTC would.  If you think EA hasn't sat a team of their best game designers down and shot this idea out you're crazy.  BF1942 had subs, carriers, destroyers, planes, bombers, tanks, and FPS all rolled into one.  It was an EA game made by DICE who still creates BF series games that accomplish a lot of what you propose, just not in the simulation depth of this game.  Why hasn't EA done this, cause I promise you they've thought about it.  Fact is that in their last 4 major releases of the BF series movable ships and subs weren't included.  They at one time controlled the overwhelming majority of PC FPS gamers and probably still would if consoles and MMO's didn't explode taking player base away.

Overall a -4 for your post.  It was a good idea, and would be very fun to play.  It's just not plausible and I don't know what's worse, your ignorance of programming world or defending your idea as if you understand things.  Learn what FLOP's and poly counts and network connection's have to do with gaming and how they interact.  The information is free at most local libraries and the internet.  Then make your argument WHEN you know what you're talking about, not you almost know what you're talking about.  I've done 3d modeling for BF mod's, I've done skinning of models in several different games, and yes I do know multiple programming languages.  Take people's word who know what they are doing.  You'll go farther in life.