Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: muzik on December 02, 2010, 10:01:14 AM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Imagine what kind of computer you will need to play that with all that action on the graph
-
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.
-
Why do people make things harder than they have to be?
because it is that hard. ;)
-
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
-
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.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_level_architecture_(simulation)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_level_architecture_(simulation))
-
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
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_level_architecture_(simulation)
(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.
-
The only thing that "combines" is relevant data like the position of a carrier, an airplane, or a bullet.
My herotic AH pilot has just jumped out of a plane and landed safely. Here he is:
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee35/lengro/ah.png)
But alas, these bad guys - playing their CoD game - are at the same map x,y,z-coordinates - in their game - and start shooting at me!
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee35/lengro/cod.jpg)
Now, you please interface the epic fight where I run around an AH map - shooting with my .45, while the CoD players - in their game - with highly detailed enviroment tries to get a clean shot at me.
-
If HTC could afford to enter into a support contract with any of these games/companies it would be possible to share some things. The problem to this is the cost!!!! For $15 a month I am happy with what I get. I wouldnt want to see the cost of my membership go up drastically in order to pay for the contract. And I am sure that HTC would not want to pay the big $$$$$ needed for a cotnract like this. For only $15 a month as much as I spend on the computer playing this game it is the best investment I have made in years!!!
BigKev
-
My herotic AH pilot has just jumped out of a plane and landed safely. Here he is:
But alas, these bad guys - playing their CoD game - are at the same map x,y,z-coordinates - in their game - and start shooting at me!
Now, you please interface the epic fight where I run around an AH map - shooting with my .45, while the CoD players - in their game - with highly detailed enviroment tries to get a clean shot at me.
Be careful where you jump!
Again, some of you guys display the foresight of worms. First of all it would be a lot less work for hitech to model a slightly more agile pilot than it would to add a tenth of the items that CoD would instantly offer. Secondly there could be conditions set forth that discourages killing downed pilots unless of course you fail to surrender. And third, you bailed in enemy territory dude. You're captured, live with it! YOU GET ANOTHER PILOT duh duhduh And quit crying for fluffs sake, it's a game!
If HTC could afford to enter into a support contract with any of these games/companies it would be possible to share some things. The problem to this is the cost!!!! For $15 a month I am happy with what I get. I wouldnt want to see the cost of my membership go up drastically in order to pay for the contract. And I am sure that HTC would not want to pay the big $$$$$ needed for a cotnract like this. For only $15 a month as much as I spend on the computer playing this game it is the best investment I have made in years!!!
BigKev
How do you know what the contract is going to cost, it doesn't exist and nor does any example to go by does there? You fail to see the depth of this idea. There are M-I-L-L-I-O-N-S of CoD players. If even 10 thousand new players got as addicted to playing in our MM maps as we have, hitech would make a fortune (exaggeration) and would be expanding his operation, hiring new programmers, and working on giving you all those wish list items you've ever drooled over. I dont think hitech would even need to increase the cost and here is why.
Games like CoD and SH are bought and played FREE even in the online environments. Once a guy has bought the game and gotten bored with the missions he may or may not spend years playing this game online. If he does then the developer may make more money if they come out with a newer version and this loyal customer buys it. But how much money do they spend supporting that version and for how long? I dont know the answer to that. It obviously doesnt stop them from making a profit, but without a doubt cuts into profit to some degree. Ok so they made some money on sales. Then sales stopped. Now what?
By licensing HTC to charge for arena play they get continued profit on a version of the game that they have already worked out many if not all of it's bugs. Yes there will be some teething pains when they accept the deal, but they now have hugely more interesting game with a group of people that pay to play for (oh who is the longest running player of AH, AW and Warbirds?) 15 or 20 years! So hitech charges everyone the same 15 bucks to play, but instead of 3k players he has 20k if not a 100k. Silent Hunter doesnt have much of a following their cut would be considerably less. They would likely be giddy to get a deal at all.
If HTC offered them 1/100th of his $15 it would be more than they make with a game they dont sell anymore wouldnt it? So how do you figure he would have to raise the rate? HTC could end up with a game that blows every bit of the competition out of the water. If so, a million players is not out of the realm of possibility.
it COULD work.
THATS ALL I WANNA HEAR FROM YOU!
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.
JK, Like I said, not a programmer. I am assuming when you say bandwidth sensitive that means that AH already has a high volume of data that needs to go from my pc to the server and back again? And the HLA increases that load asside from the additional players? I dont even know where bandwidth reduction comes in. I am asking with all due respect because you sound more level headed than some around here and like you know what you're talking about.
So now we have a lot more bullets flying around and a lot more players. I'm sure that adds a great deal, but a base cap could limit the number of spawners and control that I'm sure.
-
Be careful where you jump!
You do have humor, good! :aok
Again, some of you guys display the foresight of worms. First of all it would be a lot less work for hitech to model a slightly more agile pilot than it would to add a tenth of the items that CoD would instantly offer. Secondly there could be conditions set forth that discourages killing downed pilots unless of course you fail to surrender. And third, you bailed in enemy territory dude. You're captured, live with it! YOU GET ANOTHER PILOT duh duhduh And quit crying for fluffs sake, it's a game!
May I in AH drive my new tank over those evil CoD guys in the above picture - or should more rules be changed in both games?
Please describe how it would look in CoD when AH forwards the x,y,z-coordinates of this tanks motion. Remember the low-poly (almost flat) AH world.
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee35/lengro/panther-tank-1.jpg)
I hope you can see the next picture, its a night attack in bad weather in SH. The captain goes for a surface attack because he knows he is hidden in this bad and dark weather:
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee35/lengro/sh-night.jpg)
But then I come along in AH in clear daylight in my B25 and notices he is about to attack some ships, so I drop a bomb in his head.
How should this be interfaced - or should we change more rules in both games?
-
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.
MonkGF,
First, this is not “necessarily” a wish of mine or one that I am lobbying for. Although it is intriguing, and something I’ve thought a lot about over the years.
To Lengro’s assertion that this would be impossible, apparently you and I know its not. It’s done all the time in the defense world. When I worked at the big defense contractor in FW, I had some exposure to HLA(granted a number of years ago). I saw different simulations, written in different languages by different companies, running on different hardware platforms in different parts of the country, simulating the same scenario simultaneously.
Each simulation might have drastically different representations of the world as its needs dictated. A tank simulator in California might have an exquisitely detailed ground component it renders as its armor units rolls across the farms and villages of the Fulda Gap. An F-16 simulator in FW might have a much lower resolution model of the terrain (but sufficient for its needs) and the armor units might be low polygon boxes. And over a GA Tech, a Battle Space Management System might only be showing everything as icons on maps and nodes of information on complex diagrams.
You are correct that the original intent of HLA was to serve an audience that has totally a different expectation of resolution and fidelity. But a couple of points:
1. Latency is much more important that bandwidth in simulation. Data pipes are fatter by the year. We’re not all on 28.8 modems anymore. The things you had to do to minimize packet size 10 years ago might not always be necessary. Example, I have several game programming books that had whole section on how to simulate floating-point math using integers because math co-processors were not common back then and floating-point math was computationally expensive. I’m not sure that’s really relevant nowadays. Sometimes changing technology invalidates a whole class of concerns.
2. HLA is only a specification (although there are some prefab implementations). It’s not necessary to swallow it whole. But if I were attempting something similar, I would certainly use it as a starting point. It’s a good overall design pattern that has had a lot of the issues of interfacing heterogeneous simulation platforms thought through carefully by a lot of really smart PHD types. However you could take the basic architecture and rules and modify it for optimization if you wanted to. But it’s a proven model at least.
Regards,
Wab
-
In my opinion, the issues are really more legal and business case oriented, rather than technical.
HOWEVER: if you were going to hold a gun to my head and make me say something silly :confused::
The intruiging scenario would be for the WWIIOnline guys to take over responsibility for all the ground actions, and let HTC handle the Air Action in a unified battle space.
(Yes, its been suggested before.)
Wab
-
To Lengro’s assertion that this would be impossible, apparently you and I know its not. It’s done all the time in the defense world. When I worked at the big defense contractor in FW, I had some exposure to HLA(granted a number of years ago). I saw different simulations, written in different languages by different companies, running on different hardware platforms in different parts of the country, simulating the same scenario simultaneously.
Each simulation might have drastically different representations of the world as its needs dictated. A tank simulator in California might have an exquisitely detailed ground component it renders as its armor units rolls across the farms and villages of the Fulda Gap. An F-16 simulator in FW might have a much lower resolution model of the terrain (but sufficient for its needs) and the armor units might be low polygon boxes. And over a GA Tech, a Battle Space Management System might only be showing everything as icons on maps and nodes of information on complex diagrams.
Wabbit, remember the OP is talking about interfacing the existing games Aces High, Call of Duty, Silent Hunter and Panzer Commander into a common environment. They are not designed from the ground up after HLA standards.
More examples:
SH - Try to attack an AH carrier in heavy fog - but the AH carrier sees the sub in clear daylight.
AH - win the war loads a new map. Those AH units will suddenly disappear in the other games.
What I'm trying to make clear for the OP, is that you need to design the games from the ground up - from a common design specification - to make them work together.
Units moving on ground need the same ground obstacles and hiding places - there have been plenty of debates in AH when some tried to hide behind trees others couldn't see. SH uses night - AH does not - time must be the same.
When you follow a specification method like HLA - all this is taken care of - you then already has designed the interfacing, and then you can mix a flightsimulator with a tank simulator. Its all about design standards. But this has nothing to with what the OP suggest.
Edit:
ops - removed bad SH example, which relayed on offline play.
-
Be careful where you jump!
How do you know what the contract is going to cost, it doesn't exist and nor does any example to go by does there? You fail to see the depth of this idea. There are M-I-L-L-I-O-N-S of CoD players. If even 10 thousand new players got as addicted to playing in our MM maps as we have, hitech would make a fortune (exaggeration) and would be expanding his operation, hiring new programmers, and working on giving you all those wish list items you've ever drooled over. I dont think hitech would even need to increase the cost and here is why.
Games like CoD and SH are bought and played FREE even in the online environments. Once a guy has bought the game and gotten bored with the missions he may or may not spend years playing this game online. If he does then the developer may make more money if they come out with a newer version and this loyal customer buys it. But how much money do they spend supporting that version and for how long? I dont know the answer to that. It obviously doesnt stop them from making a profit, but without a doubt cuts into profit to some degree. Ok so they made some money on sales. Then sales stopped. Now what?
By licensing HTC to charge for arena play they get continued profit on a version of the game that they have already worked out many if not all of it's bugs. Yes there will be some teething pains when they accept the deal, but they now have hugely more interesting game with a group of people that pay to play for (oh who is the longest running player of AH, AW and Warbirds?) 15 or 20 years! So hitech charges everyone the same 15 bucks to play, but instead of 3k players he has 20k if not a 100k. Silent Hunter doesnt have much of a following their cut would be considerably less. They would likely be giddy to get a deal at all.
If HTC offered them 1/100th of his $15 it would be more than they make with a game they dont sell anymore wouldnt it? So how do you figure he would have to raise the rate? HTC could end up with a game that blows every bit of the competition out of the water. If so, a million players is not out of the realm of possibility.
THATS ALL I WANNA HEAR FROM YOU!
JK, Like I said, not a programmer. I am assuming when you say bandwidth sensitive that means that AH already has a high volume of data that needs to go from my pc to the server and back again? And the HLA increases that load asside from the additional players? I dont even know where bandwidth reduction comes in. I am asking with all due respect because you sound more level headed than some around here and like you know what you're talking about.
So now we have a lot more bullets flying around and a lot more players. I'm sure that adds a great deal, but a base cap could limit the number of spawners and control that I'm sure.
Dear Lost one, what you fail to recognize is that a contract like this is not as simple as saying all three games could be accessed for one fee. In contracts (which I do for a living) there are a lot of unseen costs that people like you dont see nor understand. For example if HTC signs a contract to support this idea they will have to pay a royal fee to the other game companies as the rights of the game do not belong to HTC. To offset this cost to HTC they have to either take the cost out of pocket or raise revenue to cover it. Where would they raise revenue?? Higher monthly fee. In addition, the cost to upgrade the infrastructure at HTC to support all this costs money as well. And when you talk about combining three games into a shared environment then you have the possibility of three different royalty rates or a three way split of income. I doubt HTC (as it is not that large of a company) would want to take the investment risk of a venture such as this when their is no data to support the outlays in capital to do this. Buidling the capital to do this in one hurdle then the specifics of a contract to do this would probably be to much for HTC to even want to consider as their market share in it would not lead them to a strong negotiating position.
-
Wabbit, remember the OP is talking about interfacing the existing games Aces High, Call of Duty, Silent Hunter and Panzer Commander into a common environment. They are not designed from the ground up after HLA standards.
More examples:
SH - Try to attack an AH carrier in heavy fog - but the AH carrier sees the sub in clear daylight.
AH - win the war loads a new map. Those AH units will suddenly disappear in the other games.
What I'm trying to make clear for the OP, is that you need to design the games from the ground up - from a common design specification - to make them work together.
Units moving on ground need the same ground obstacles and hiding places - there have been plenty of debates in AH when some tried to hide behind trees others couldn't see. SH uses night - AH does not - time must be the same.
When you follow a specification method like HLA - all this is taken care of - you then already has designed the interfacing, and then you can mix a flightsimulator with a tank simulator. Its all about design standards. But this has nothing to with what the OP suggest.
Edit:
ops - removed bad SH example, which relayed on offline play.
If I misread your tone I apologize.
I will however, challenge you assertion that the sims have to be built from the ground up to HLA standards.
It is quite common for HLA layers to be bolted-on to existing simulations. That was assumed in the HLA design. Messaging internal to the local simulation can be translated and forwarded to the HLA space and information from the HLA space can be received and translated in to forms the local simulation understands. All that can be encapsulated in a layer and hidden from the rest of the local simulation. (in the AH context that would be handled at the main server and normal AH clients would not be able to tell the difference.)
I would assert that a well designed simulation is already not that different from HLA concepts. (Probably the trickiest part is AH is procedural based and not object oriented. Object oriented is easier to retro fit I imagine, but I know some of those defense simulators were probably written in C or Assembly! :O )
As to your other points, I don’t see any special technical problems. I assume AH would tell the SH client the time of day and the weather conditions. SH would render accordingly. Certain features like time-acceleration available in single player mode would be disabled in AH compliant mode.
AH can inform supporting sims of the scenario start, end, swap to another maps and starting conditions, etc.
I am assuming of course that a special product version or addon would be released for these games to add the HLA layer and supporting logic and constraints as well as the maps.
Again, I personally don’t see the technology as being the fundamental road block. In my opinion, its all the legal and business case issues to work out to justify the effort.
An WWIIOnline/AH symbiosis might almost be worth it. Each has a core competency they excel in that the other supports but isn’t their main talent. And they are in the same town (Sorta). And they’ve had a past working relationship (I don’t tknow tho it that is a advantage or disadvantage depending on the baggage ;)).
Regards,
Wab
-
If I misread you tone I apologize.
no need to, sir - your input is most welcome :)
I will however, challenge you assertion that the sims have to be built from the ground up to HLA standards.
It is quite common for HLA layers to be bolted-on to existing simulations. That was assumed in the HLA design. Messaging internal to the local simulation can be translated and forwarded to the HLA space and information from the HLA space can be received and translated in to forms the local simulation understands. All that can be encapsulated in a layer and hidden from the rest of the local simulation. (in the AH context that would be handled at the main server and normal AH clients would not be able to tell the difference.)
And that works very well for server-client based systems, where the servers can do all the decisions. But remember that the netcode in AH is primarily peer-to-peer: planes colliding is all decided at the clients, and the result then forwarded to the server - hence different outcomes on the clients.
I would assert that a well designed simulation is already not that different from HLA concepts. (Probably the trickiest part is AH is procedural based and not object oriented. Object oriented is easier to retro fit I imagine, but I know some of those defense simulators were probably written in C or Assembly! :O )
True, I've done my share of assembly programming back in the days, and if the design had to change during the coding proces, it was often easier to start again than trying to fix. When I learned OO programming, I never looked back :)
As to your other points, I don’t see any special technical problems. I assume AH would tell the SH client the time of day and the weather conditions. SH would render accordingly. Certain features like time-acceleration available in single player mode would be disabled in AH compliant mode.
AH can inform supporting sims of the scenario start, end, swap to another maps and starting conditions, etc.
I am assuming of course that a special product version or addon would be released for these games to add the HLA layer and supporting logic and constraints as well as the maps.
Thats the point, the games the OP mention has all to be changed to accommodate a common environment. They have to agree upon for example:
* should we get rid of knits, rooks and bishops, or should the other games implement them?
* is it ok to see an american P51 shoot an american P47 down in the skies of Cod?
* Is it ok for a german type 7C u-boot in SH to get strafed by an AH ME262?
In military simulations the above game considerations don't apply - the common framework is typically based on realworld scenarios - but we are talking existing games where the fun and playability factor is a key goal in the design - and that they handle very differently.
When the games converge to a common framework, it starts to make sense that they share common components when possible - it makes software versioning easier, often resulting in more robust applications.
Again, I personally don’t see the technology as being the fundamental road block. In my opinion, its all the legal and business case issues to work out to justify the effort.
An WWIIOnline/AH symbiosis might almost be worth it. Each has a core competency they excel in that the other supports but isn’t their main talent. And they are in the same town (Sorta). And they’ve had a past working relationship (I don’t tknow tho it that is a advantage or disadvantage depending on the baggage ;)).
Regards,
Wab
I too like the idea - it just has to be done the right way - and we agree on many points. But I still think that building a new common framework, handling a highly standardized world environment, running at a server farm, is the right way to approach this. Many existing components from the different games can of course be modified and recompiled - existing 3D models can be rebuild to common standards and so on. But this is no longer interfacing the 4 games the OP mentioned, this is a complete new online game. :salute
Regards,
lengro
Edited for clarity
-
Lengro,
I think you misspoke. I’m almost 1000% sure AH is client/server. Yes, each client executes its own collision detection, but then communicates its results back to the server to be distributed to other clients. Clients do not communicate directly to each other. P2P is not scaleable enough for MMOG.
Maybe COD, SH etc would be more applicable for AVA or scenario support to avoid the oddness of P51 on P51 combat?
I don’t agree that to support inter-simulation communication you would need to share code bases. You only need a common communication protocol. Interface definitions can be versioned. There would be too many Intellectual Property issues in sharing feature code. And I don’t think it’s necessary.
We do agree that some new code would have to be written on both sides to support the interaction. That’s unavoidable and the cost that would have to be justified. And I’m not sure it is justified, except for maybe the WWIIOnline scenario, which has is own issues.
Regards,
Wab
-
I think you misspoke. I’m almost 1000% sure AH is client/server. Yes, each client executes its own collision detection, but then communicates its results back to the server to be distributed to other clients. Clients do not communicate directly to each other. P2P is not scaleable enough for MMOG.
I'm pretty sure I once read that when planes are close, their positions were transmitted directly from client to client - but I'ts very likely that I'm wrong.
Maybe COD, SH etc would be more applicable for AVA or scenario support to avoid the oddness of P51 on P51 combat?
yes, the strategic and tactical goals has to be streamlined for all the games.
I don’t agree that to support inter-simulation communication you would need to share code bases. You only need a common communication protocol. Interface definitions can be versioned. There would be too many Intellectual Property issues in sharing feature code. And I don’t think it’s necessary.
Nor should you agree when you are right - nothing wrong with encapsulated private code talking through standard interfaces.
I was thinking in terms of cost efficiency - as in the companies should merge together. I'm a bit scared of the thought that it's an alliance, what if one gets mad, and pull their plug...
Regards,
lengro
-
On top of everything else, if the other companies mentioned wanted to do something like this, they'd most likely choose Il2 for the flight simulator instead of a small studio game like Aces High.
-
May I in AH drive my new tank over those evil CoD guys in the above picture
... captain goes for a surface attack because he knows he is hidden in this bad and dark weather:
...so I drop a bomb in his head.
How should this be interfaced - or should we change more rules in both games?
Yes, Im pretty sure CoD models running down infantry for a kill, which means if you are using a tank in any sim and you run over a generic troop in AH that's actually a player in CoD, he dies.
There ARE NO RULES in CoD, SH. Those players simply blow stuff up. The war is managed only in AH.
You keep bringing up environmental issues like it is a problem. It is not. The host of any kind of internet game determines the conditions of the game. Weather effects can be turned off, if it is daylight in AH then it will be daylight in SH. This is not a problem.
In my opinion, the issues are really more legal and business case oriented, rather than technical.
The intruiging scenario would be for the WWIIOnline guys to take over responsibility for all the ground actions, and let HTC handle the Air Action in a unified battle space.
Exactly right, but that is not to say that it won't be somewhat labor intensive.
I think if WWIIonline wanted a better flight model they would do it themselves. I am sure they will fight to own this market seeing how they were the first to come out with what we are looking for.
Wabbit, remember the OP is talking about interfacing the existing games into a common environment.
SH - Try to attack an AH carrier in heavy fog - but the AH carrier sees the sub in clear daylight.
AH - win the war loads a new map. Those AH units will suddenly disappear in the other games.
Units moving on ground need the same ground obstacles and hiding places - there have been plenty of debates in AH when some tried to hide behind trees others couldn't see.
Again the games DO NOT INTERACT DIRECTLY, they merely exchange data through a translator.
And again, environmental issues (time, lighting, fog, maps, map changing due to victory) are determined by the host. They are easily controlled.
Im not even going into a debate about "hiding behind trees...and not seeing." Those are determined by the accuracy of the maps or other bug issues.
You are trying to say this is not possible, but you keep bringing up issues that are minor bugs that only result AFTER YOU'VE ACCOMPLISHED the very thing you say cant be done. So it seems that you agree that it can be done but with minor problems. GREAT, then we agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Lost one, what you fail to recognize is that a contract like this is not as simple as saying all three games could be accessed for one fee. In contracts (which I do for a living) there are a lot of unseen costs that people like you dont see nor understand....
Dont tell me what I dont understand. If you are a contract lawyer which you seem to be hinting at, then you are well aware that none of the parties involved in a contract MUST use your services and if 2 people decide that it would be beneficial to take advantage of each other without charging a penny to do so, THEY CAN. It is THEIR decision how to conduct their affairs and no one else's.
As for Hitech having to pay "royal fees" (what is that, a REALLY big "royalty?") That is also somewhat incorrect. CoD is a player owned game. Players can play it where they choose. If they choose to pay a professionally administered server, they have that right and CoD has no claim to those fees. I am well aware there are other factors involved but I am not going to argue with you about them, so dont even bother.
Now I dont know what rules CoD has about creating custom maps or modifying the software, but I am sure this is where fees will start to apply. But you seem to think that makes it expensive. It does not!
What I am suggesting is that Hitech "host" CoD game play on his servers. He technically would be making money for the use of his professionally administered servers. He does NOT have to pay those game companies to do so. Where the kicker comes in is when he uses their name to advertise and the game needs to be modified for whatever purpose, then and ONLY then is hitech liable for royalties. I am not going to argue the complexities of this. We both know it can be done.
You talk as if when hitech approached CoD, they would have him over a barrel. There are plenty of first person shooters out there and all of them are struggling to stay afloat and continue their products. I haven't seen a new WW2 version of CoD for a LONG time (not that I've looked or care). They are the ones at a disadvantage. They have FAR more competition than hitech has in his genre. They have a product that has lost most of it's appeal because games like Modern Warfare are kicking their tulips on consoles. If someone came to them with a plan to revive and keep their product alive with minimal effort on their part, do you think they are going to haggle? Buddy, if you are a business expert, I hope for your sake your luck outweighs your expertise.
This venture would offer those games new life and profit they would not otherwise have. He is also ADDING VALUE to CoD by integrating the games and creating a form of game play they have never achieved alone! If they wanted to create big servers of their own, they would have done so. And maybe they dont ever want to..... Hitech- "NEXT FIRST PERSON SHOOTER PLEASE. How do you do sir? Step into my office. How would you like to strike a blow to your competition and grow your game?"
On top of everything else, if the other companies mentioned wanted to do something like this, they'd most likely choose Il2 for the flight simulator instead of a small studio game like Aces High.
WROOOOOOONNNNNNNNG Il2 has 200 aircraft or so and I dont think they would want to have to create that many planes. Plus Il2 is NOT a massively multiplayer game and none of the games mentioned except for WW2online have a system in place for large scale warfare. ..."YAY we just went from 60 players to 90 players, YIPEEEEEE" If they were going to do this at all, they would have done it wouldnt they? You see, that's the benefit of beating the competition to the punch! You get the best position in the market before they do.
I'm pretty sure I once read that when planes are close, their positions were transmitted directly from client to client - but I'ts very likely that I'm wrong.
yes, the strategic and tactical goals has to be streamlined for all the games.
Regards,
lengro
1 Even if it was client to client, it still has to go through hitechs server. (that doesnt exactly sound like client to client to me but Ill take your word) It still doesnt matter. ALL aircraft in the game are AH players on AH software. Aircraft in any other game is merely a rendered model of the plane so that those players are seeing US attacking them on the ground and they have something to shoot at! They DONT get to fly aircraft from CoD even if CoD had a flight model, which it doesnt.
2 NO stretegic play is determined in AH only. Players in CoD or SH will participate in the war by shooting and destroying things, but it is the AH software where the war actually exists. If FPshooters are destroying a town, AH players may drop troops....uh well, there are already troops all over town arent there? "quick ten of you guys run into the map room" I guess the base is ours :p
How's this for your little bail out scenario Lengro?... Ok you bail out of your plane at 2k above ground. You pull up your clipboard as you descend. You now have 2 options. Tower out and take whatever decision is made for you or select "SWITCH GAME." You now have 15 minutes to exit AH and open CoD. When you open CoD and log on to the AH server a pop up comes up asking if you want to "CONTINUE BAIL OUT." You select yes and you log back on at the same position as when you bailed. Now you are playing CoD with your lil 45. But your adventure is just starting. If the enemy doesnt see you, you can run away and try to return to base. You can call your buddies to come pick you up in a jeep and drive you back to friendly territory where you will land your flight and prevent a more severe loss of points. But if upon landing your chute you quickly get overrun by enemy soldiers you now have a choice to make. If they come within yelling distance they will issue a surrender command. They cant shoot you because it's against the geneva convention, but when the window that asks "surrender?" comes up and you dont respond in a certain amount of time, they can fire. Or you can just go out in a blaze of glory. If youre lucky enough to kill one and get his gun you could rack up some infantry perkies! If they shoot you without a surrender request they end up back in their HQ being court marshaled.
I dont know why youre still fighting it dude :)
Wabbit and Monk have nailed my intentions precisely it seems.
-
Either way, I don't want to download another 10+ gigs for a piss-poor game thing that probably wont work and will be filled with whining, screaming CoD kids on my crappy Alaskan internet :rolleyes:
-
AH can inform supporting sims of the scenario start, end, swap to another maps and starting conditions, etc.
I am assuming of course that a special product version or addon would be released for these games to add the HLA layer and supporting logic and constraints as well as the maps.
An WWIIOnline/AH symbiosis might almost be worth it. Each has a core competency they excel in that the other supports but isn’t their main talent. And they are in the same town (Sorta). And they’ve had a past working relationship (I don’t tknow tho it that is a advantage or disadvantage depending on the baggage ;)).
Regards,
Wab
1 You seemed to already see this as I envisioned it but just to clarify, I see HTC "hosting" the CoD, SH, etc on dedicated servers. HTC has complete control over the each game environment. When the war is won, HTC doesnt merely "inform," those game arenas are reset automatically with the correct maps etc. They will get text notification just as AH does.
2 That is what I foresee. And I dont think it would be cost in-effective as you pondered because after the initial merge and debugging, the game could go for years without any significant developments. For example CoD could license an old version of the game. New versions would not be released to HTC until it reaches the end of it's profit life. As for any new items that Hitech creates, a new plane for example could be developed by hitech and a cloning program could render the same item for CoD leaving the CoD team without any real expense in supporting the game.
3 I agree that using WW2Online would be easier, but I dont see either company liking the idea of, or doing well, splitting their profits unless a huge influx of new customers hit this "new joint game." If not, then both companies have just split profits for very little to show if anything. As a matter of fact the larger of the two would lose money if they split 50/50.
As I said earlier, games like CoD get their profit from software sales, not charging for online play. So the developers are more likely to say yes when offered a smaller cut yet ongoing income. If the idea failed they wouldnt lose anything other than development time. Plus as I said CoD has had millions of players where as WW2online has maybe 3x the number of players of AH. (my best guess) The potential for triple digit customer base is a far better gamble.
Either way, I don't want to download another 10+ gigs for a piss-poor game thing that probably wont work and will be filled with whining, screaming CoD kids on my crappy Alaskan internet :rolleyes:
If you dont want to play CoD you dont have to. So much for downloading the 10gigs. Learn to use squelch. A LOT!
-
using CoD or MoH and how they have their servers setup is actually apples and oranges compared to what would like to see. You're also mistaken that any royalties or license fees will be inexpensive and honestly I don't know why you think this will be such a simple thing when it is anything but.
ack-ack
-
Muzik,
What you think is simple, is very complex when you dig into the details. So let me give you another example:
the CoD players - playing in their game - sees this tank coming at them. the tank is controlled by an AH player. The
CoD players tries to hide in their highly detailed graphical complex environment.
The Ah Tank commander - playing his game - already spottet them before they took cover - so he is heading to run them
over.
Now, how will this look from:
1) CoD perspective
they see a tank coming at them. The tanks x,y,z positions is calculated in AH - but since AH ground is pretty flat,
there is not much variance in Z - these numbers is forwarded to the CoD higly detailed ground environment with lots of
bumps and holes. It doesn't look good that the tank seems to be totally unaffected by ground variance. It just runs at
a straight line directly at them.
You can then say - the server which transforms between AH x,y,z and Cod x,y,z - just could read the ground values from
CoD and modify them so the tank banks and tilt according to the CoD environment, or the CoD client could recieve the
raw data, and then do the manipulation of tilt and bank locally, but...
2) AH perspective
The AH player running at a flat map, has no problems with aiming his machinegun - he is not aware of how hes tank tilts
and banks in CoD. And he has no problem seing the troopers, because when the highly detailed Enviroment is send to the
transformation server and delivered to AH, the low-polygon ground engine in AH doesn't render their cover very well.
look at the screenshots of the AH tank and the CoD guys.
How will you transform the enviroment?
1) Build an AH low-poly map based on the high-poly CoD map?
Here is a link to the AH map editor - please try and make an AH mockup of the screenshot from CoD.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/downloads-content-art.html
Good luck!
2) build a transformation engine who can transform AH maps to Cod maps - or CoD maps to AH maps? Getting building,
trees, bushes, hills and so on right. place the texture mapping correct, flip all polys with normal vector pointing
outward, converting bump maps, ocapity maps, alpha maps and stitch it all together correctly. Running polygon
optimization/smoothing and still have objects look correct.
Good luck!
3) Build a completely new map which works in both games. hey, we can then use a common 3D engine in both games.
Now we are beginning to make sense!
When we are done with this, we can start to look how Panzer commander maps will interact.
How's this for your little bail out scenario Lengro?... Ok you bail out of your plane at 2k above ground. You pull up your clipboard as you descend. You now have 2 options. Tower out and take whatever decision is made for you or select "SWITCH GAME."
Good, you are starting to realize the problems with the map transformations - it's seems easier to switch game :aok
-
the CoD players - playing in their game - sees this tank coming at them. the tank is controlled by an AH player. The
CoD players tries to hide in their highly detailed graphical complex environment.
The Ah Tank commander - playing his game - already spottet them before they took cover - so he is heading to run them
over.
Now, how will this look from:
1) CoD perspective
they see a tank coming at them. The tanks x,y,z positions is calculated in AH - but since AH ground is pretty flat,
there is not much variance in Z - these numbers is forwarded to the CoD higly detailed ground environment with lots of
bumps and holes. It doesn't look good that the tank seems to be totally unaffected by ground variance. It just runs at
a straight line directly at them.
It seems that you are slowy catching on Lengro, but you still dont get it. CoD is playing on a custom-made CoD map modeled after AH maps. Every blade of grass would be itentical in CoD. If there are NO fluffluff'n BUMPS in AH, then there are NO fluffluff'n BUMPS in CoD. It is the same map. Get it?
Granted, CoD players have beautiful graphic renditions of trees, grass, people and tanks, but they are not going to play on one of the original CoD maps crammed into a AH environment. When they convert an AH map to CoD format, they can get as aesthetically detailed as they want to. But they CAN NOT put obstacles in CoD environments that are not in AH or that create an unfair advantage. How hard is that to understand?
YOU are making this far more complex than it needs to be. We dont have to "Build an AH low-poly map based on the high-poly CoD map." It doesnt matter how different the graphics engine is.
And when you said this..."build a transformation engine who can transform AH maps to Cod maps - or CoD maps to AH maps? Getting building,
trees, bushes, hills and so on right. place the texture mapping correct, flip all polys with normal vector pointing
outward, converting bump maps, ocapity maps, alpha maps and stitch it all together correctly. Running polygon
optimization/smoothing and still have objects look correct." AGAIN you are INSISTING that you cant do something in CoD or AH that you couldnt do in the other. If you can build a bush in AH, you can build a bush JUST LIKE it in CoD!
Personally, I think you might just be confused. But the other option is, you can't stand being wrong and you are throwing all this programming babble out thinking you're going to BS your way out of it. NOT going to happen. Im not a programmer, but Im not stupid either.
I never said this would be easy, I said it would be EASIER than doing it from the ground up. And if that isn't enough, then the fact that doing it from the ground up is STUPID considering that anything hitech creates isnt going to be half of what CoD is and it will never reach that level of popularity. If hitech does his own, he may increase his business over the years and someday 15 years down the road have 100k members. If he used CoD he might do it overnight! hmmm which sounds more appealing?
-
When we are done with this, we can start to look how Panzer commander maps will interact.
Good, you are starting to realize the problems with the map transformations - it's seems easier to switch game :aok
1 Great, looking forward to repeating myself.
2 Wrong again. For the 100th time, I never suggested that the games be "one" game. My assumption has ALWAYS been that you would have to switch from one to the other to play different aspects of the game.
-
Granted, CoD players have beautiful graphic renditions of trees, grass, people and tanks, but they are not going to play on one of the original CoD maps crammed into a AH environment. When they convert an AH map to CoD format, they can get as aesthetically detailed as they want to. But they CAN NOT put obstacles in CoD environments that are not in AH or that create an unfair advantage.
You can't make low-poly "as aesthetically detailed as they want to" - not gonna happen.
In CoD, a converted AH map will be ugly flatland - CoD is all about fighting and hiding in a very complex 3D environment - CoD players will stay in their own online maps - not a single will join flatland.
CoD 3D engine is highly optimized for complex 3D handling - no use for that anymore, they might aswell license HTC's 3D engine. (you know what I'm hinting at)
Then they can also use the same map - no need to rebuild maps between very different 3D engines.
If he used CoD he might do it overnight!
:lol
Personally, I think you might just be confused. But the other option is, you can't stand being wrong and you are throwing all this programming babble out thinking you're going to BS your way out of it. NOT going to happen. Im not a programmer, but Im not stupid either.
:banana:
Try to stay on topic.
My opinion hasn't changed, I still say - not possible - the only way is the ww2online way - design a common framework to acommodate all type of players. Do reuse the best 3D models, flight handling physichs, ballistic physichs engines and so on, but wrap it up in 1 game client.
This is going in circles, we will never agree. Can we still be friends? :aok
-
So this would only be in the Axis vs Allies arena?
-
1 Great, looking forward to repeating myself.
2 Wrong again. For the 100th time, I never suggested that the games be "one" game. My assumption has ALWAYS been that you would have to switch from one to the other to play different aspects of the game.
Have you thought about why this isn't done with other games? Like I mentioned before, Ubisoft tried this before with Silent Hunter and Destroyer Commander. Two seperate games that in theory were supposed to let players of each game connect with each other and play. The only problem is that it didn't work, it was a messy, buggy and laggy affair. In fact, the lesson learned from it was not to do it and I have yet to see anyone do it since, let alone successfully.
ack-ack
-
So this would only be in the Axis vs Allies arena?
FLS, I did not suggest AvA only, someone else did. I think that would be silly as long as the majority of players stayed in the MA. I suggest it be in all arenas. And in spite of what a couple of guys here say. It can be done.
In CoD, a converted AH map will be ugly flatland - CoD is all about fighting and hiding in a very complex 3D environment - CoD players will stay in their own online maps - not a single will join flatland.
CoD 3D engine is highly optimized for complex 3D handling - no use for that anymore, they might aswell license HTC's 3D engine. (you know what I'm hinting at)
Then they can also use the same map - no need to rebuild maps between very different 3D engines.
My opinion hasn't changed, I still say - not possible - the only way is the ww2online way - design a common framework to acommodate all type of players. Do reuse the best 3D models, flight handling physichs, ballistic physichs engines and so on, but wrap it up in 1 game client.
This is going in circles, we will never agree. Can we still be friends? :aok
So let me translate what you just said. An AH map can be built for CoD but it would be ugly and flat. And the only reason CoD guys wouldnt want to be there is because it's ugly and flat.
There's no need for their graphics engine because if you cant have "bumps" then everything should be ugly even the players and buildings. So they should just use stick figures like we have in AH.
Ridiculous!
Again, a bush is a bush. You are wrong that they cant make their bushes prettier than ours. As long as the dimensions are the same, they can paint the houses any way they choose and it wouldnt make a bit of difference to game play. As a matter of fact they would give all of the buildings internal structure that AH doesnt have and then we have instant house to house fighting.
Let me drop another bomb on you, It's ugly and flat on our end too. None of us are here because we are looking for the best graphics in the genre. But you dont see us running for Il2 or other games with 10x better graphics do you? None of us would trade AH for a better looking graphics unless it meant the same level of game play. And no one, especially those of us who despise the ridiculously small spawn and die maps in games like CoD would choose better graphics over better play.
Players could actually escape the area if they get into trouble. The squeakers running around at light speed with impossible aim would be a thing of the past because someone with more patience and a larger field of battle to hide in would put an end to that real fast. Even if some of that behavior did survive in a larger environment it would be minimal.
And your opinion did change, it started out as "impossible." Then it went to "you cant combine these games because the polygons don't like each other." (that was when you thought you fully understood what I was suggesting) Then it went to the "the lil foot soldier has bumps and the tank doesn't bounce enough." And finally we have "flat and ugly."
From a business standpoint WW2Online would not be very successful choice because HT would have to share more of the income with them as opposed to a smaller cut going to a game that isnt making money anymore.
Best case scenario, both sides might come out no better or worse than they were before, but there wont be a flood of new players in the genre. Merging with CoD might bring in thousands of squeakers who's daddy's willing to pay for them. And yes I have already thought of a fair way to SILENCE them so we dont have to hear them!
So we haven't been going in circles, you just steered right into my side. And we can be GREAT friends, as soon as you admit I am right. :p
Oh dont forget the other 2 programmers who also said I am right even though they dont like the idea either.
-
But you dont see us running for Il2 or other games with 10x better graphics do you?
I do.
None of us would trade AH for a better looking graphics unless it meant the same level of game play.
Maybe not you, maybe not him, maybe not me. But we aren't everybody. Lots of people have left this game and went elsewhere.
-
FLS, I did not suggest AvA only, someone else did. I think that would be silly as long as the majority of players stayed in the MA. I suggest it be in all arenas. And in spite of what a couple of guys here say. It can be done
So the Americans fighting Germans in COD on our map get bombed by P-51s and B-17s flown by Rooks fighting Bishops and Knights? How do games with 2 sides join a game with 3 sides?
-
Oh dont forget the other 2 programmers who also said I am right even though they dont like the idea either.
Don’t get me wrong Muzik, I never said I didn’t “like” the idea. I’ve dreamed for years that sims would be written to support a common interface standard so I could buy “BlackShark” and buy “Falcon 4.0” and then hook the up. That would be too cool.
And I personally think it’s technically possible. I never said easy or trivial, but possible. I do believe modifications would have to be made to the code base of both products. I know there have been some past sims that have tried it and failed. I’m not sure that a general principle can be drawn from that. I’ve seen some poorly implemented flightsims, that doesn’t prove that it’s impossible to write a flightsim. It only proves that THAT team did a poor job in THAT attempt. I do know I’ve seen some highly complex simulations, that weren’t originally designed to interoperate, be retro-fitted to share a simulation space through HLA. So I have to believe that with a proper design and approach and with smart enough people, it is possible to integrate two separate simulations through a decoupled layer.
My push back is on the business case. Frankly, I think a company that published COD would look at HTC’s subscriber base and think, “We have more play testers than that!”
And they’d look at HTC’s revenues and think “We spend more than that on free pizza for our play testers!” I just don’t think they are playing in the same ballpark.
WWIIOnline however, while still bigger, is at least in the same order of magnitude. They are in the same genre, and game business model. Since they’ve worked together at a previous company, I bet they are taking roughly similar approaches technically. It would probably me the easiest for them to integrate than anyone. They have almost perfectly complementary core competencies. Frankly, HTC's ground and strat components…..well, don’t make the best use of their talents. WWIIOnline is almost exactly the opposite. HTC tossing away their ground vehicles and strat at this point, and WWIIOnline dumping their aircraft, would not be a great loss for either, IMHO. They could each then concentrate on what their talents best support. I’ve seldom seen a more perfect candidate for consolidation.
But, it ain’t gonna happen. ;) Its like wishing the Eagles and Beatles would form a super-band and come play at my birthday party. :rofl
:salute,
Wab
-
So we haven't been going in circles, you just steered right into my side. And we can be GREAT friends, as soon as you admit I am right. :p
It's going to be interesting when these AH tankers, with AH realistic ballistics and AH viewing system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqTbvD1l44M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqTbvD1l44M)
Runs into these CoD tankers, with CoD non-existant ballistics and mouse point-and-shoot system. (please disregard environment and imagine flatland with pretty bitmaps)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2wd7M0Dllw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2wd7M0Dllw)
Players want equal footings in equal enviroment = same 3D engine, same physics engine
-
And your opinion did change, it started out as "impossible." Then it went to "you cant combine these games because the polygons don't like each other." (that was when you thought you fully understood what I was suggesting) Then it went to the "the lil foot soldier has bumps and the tank doesn't bounce enough." And finally we have "flat and ugly."
I will tell you that what you wish for is extremely difficult and the cost of development would be prohibitive for most large studios as there is no guarantee the developed tech will pan out.
Our company looked at doing something like this for a series of our games and came to the conclusion that the tech needed to get it to work isn't quite there yet and we would need to develop the tech, the money costs would be extremely high with little or no guarantee that we'd ever see a return on the investment and time. It was estimated that it would take at least 3 to 5 years to develop the tech to allow these seperate games to connect with each other, that doesn't include the development time for the engine these games would use that would allow not only cross-game play but also cross-platform play.
It's difficult enough to get people on different platforms to play together in a single game.
ack-ack
-
why dont we just wait for HTC which has told us that HiTech himself would both love to have submarines in the game, and want to make a FPS style combat for us also to build it in his own game and make things much more simple??? :aok
-
I do.
Run for you lives, Lush still speaks but he's not REALLY playing AH
Maybe not you, maybe not him, maybe not me. But we aren't everybody...
Do you have a REAL point, or do you just come here to push the buttons on your keyboard?
So the Americans fighting Germans in COD on our map get bombed by P-51s and B-17s flown by Rooks fighting Bishops and Knights? How do games with 2 sides join a game with 3 sides?
This is a MAGICAL land Dorothy, just tap your red slippers together and you'll be back in Kansas.
I never said easy or trivial, but possible. I do believe modifications would have to be made to the code base of both products.
I never said it would be easy either, I said easier (and better) than ground up. Granted, some work needs to be done. And I still say that WW2online is a poor choice for a partner. You cant go pro without getting in the ring with the pros. All it would accomplish is joining forces and make them king of the semi-pros. There would be little or no growth. But I could live with this and would be happy to see it done as well. But CoD is sitting on someones yard sale table for 50 cents, which would be cheaper?
<S>
It's going to be interesting when these AH tankers, with AH realistic ballistics and AH viewing system:
Runs into these CoD tankers, with CoD non-existant ballistics and mouse point-and-shoot system. (please disregard environment and imagine flatland with pretty bitmaps)
Players want equal footings in equal enviroment = same 3D engine, same physics engine
When are you going to find a decent argument? Tanks are disabled for "use" in CoD for that very reason. They dont get to use submarines or PT boats, they dont get to fly fighters or bombers and they dont get to drive tanks. Tanks are ONLY RENDERED for them to shoot at.
Now if at some point down the road, the CoD people feel the need to give the players that ability and are willing to redesign those things to match an AH tank, then great for the CoD players. But until that time, tough tits, they have to change games just like everyone else.
ack-ack
get lost flamer
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0iqFwwvp03QEIO57qa8LiQrEEusTVPvFGO5z9IM92x3JHBvwD6A)
why dont we just wait for HTC which has told us that HiTech himself would both love to have submarines in the game, and want to make a FPS style combat for us also to build it in his own game and make things much more simple??? :aok
Because my reflexes are going to be a little off when Im 90!
-
Because my reflexes are going to be a little off when Im 90!
it wont take that long! just wait another 10 :D
-
Run for you lives, Lush still speaks but he's not REALLY playing AH
What makes you think I do not play AH? And what would the point be about that anyway?
Do you have a REAL point, or do you just come here to push the buttons on your keyboard?
Yes I have, and I'd think I had worded it pretty clear. You made a broad and bold statement with no facts to support it. The actual facts (change in player numbers as well as well as open statements from players playing other games now) do indicate you even might simply be wrong.
:)
-
get lost flamer
Do you normally stick your head in the sand when you don't want see the truth about something? Unlike you, I work in the gaming industry and have a pretty good knowledge in what it would take to develop such a project you propose.
I could have been harsh and said it was a really stupid idea, now that would have been flaming this thread. Instead I told you the reasons why it's just not quite viable, if a company the size of the one I work for won't do it because of costs, how do you suppose a small indie studio like HiTech Creations will be able to fund it? Don't have to bother answering it since you can't, just stick your head back in the sand and imagine you're back in Imagination Land. You do remember the song to get you back there right?
(http://tiffsterr.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/south_park_imaginationland_lollipop.jpg)
ack-ack
-
When are you going to find a decent argument? Tanks are disabled for "use" in CoD for that very reason. They dont get to use submarines or PT boats, they dont get to fly fighters or bombers and they dont get to drive tanks. Tanks are ONLY RENDERED for them to shoot at.
Players of Panzer Command is getting worried - do they get to keep their tanks - please?
-
it wont take that long! just wait another 10 :D
Your right, my reflexes will probably be gone in 10!
What makes you think I do not play AH? And what would the point be about that anyway?
Yes I have, and I'd think I had worded it pretty clear. You made a broad and bold statement with no facts to support it. The actual facts (change in player numbers as well as well as open statements from players playing other games now) do indicate you even might simply be wrong.
1 YOU------ genius! When I suggested that people werent leaving AH for better graphics you said "I do" Lush <---- Duh duhduh He failed fingerpainting
2 "Facts?" No one here has presented any real facts especially the slug who only popped in here to make attempts at humor. As a matter of fact, the one person offering any REAL argument opposing my suggestion has gradually admitted that it could be done. He still doesnt like it, but the only argument that he or any of you other flamers have left now is that "it's too hard" :cry "we cant do it, it was tried 10 years ago already...if they couldnt do it how can we do it?" :cry whah "it's too hard" :cry
Get a life "plutonium member"
I told you the reasons why it's just not quite viable
ack-ack
You're obviously severely overestimating my faith in your intelligence.
Players of Panzer Command is getting worried - do they get to keep their tanks - please?
I'm not going to hack this out with you any further. If at first, you came to me with a hundred questions I would have been glad to discuss all the different issues you think would be problems. But all you are up to is trying to lead me into a debate about some aspect that I "MIGHT" not have an answer for so you can then flame the whole idea. I do have an answer for this question, but I dont claim to have ALL the answers.
And when it comes right down to it, the flame boys all say that Hitech cant do it. It's too hard for him. Well who am I to argue, I dont even know the guy. So I'll take your word for it!
-
Your right, my reflexes will probably be gone in 10!
1 YOU------ genius! When I suggested that people werent leaving AH for better graphics you said "I do" Lush <---- Duh duhduh He failed fingerpainting guy. So I'll take your word for it!
Reading comprehension fail on your side. How about correctly citing your own words?
Though I have to admit the strong man attitude when running out of arguments is rather cute in your case. Have fun! :aok
-
Reading comprehension fail on your side. How about correctly citing your own words?
Though I have to admit the strong man attitude when running out of arguments is rather cute in your case. Have fun! :aok
English comprehension completely escapes your side. Learn a little something called 'context.'
I didnt run out, I won!
-
This is a MAGICAL land Dorothy, just tap your red slippers together and you'll be back in Kansas.
Thank you for your response. I wasn't sure you understood the essential requirement for your wish to be implemented.
-
Get a life "plutonium member"
You're obviously severely overestimating my faith in your intelligence.
When you get your name in any game credits then come back and speak to me, otherwise you're just another person that isn't smart enough to realize they're stupid.
Some of the guys on our dev team though would like to know is how you propose to come up with the tech needed to do this and how much you would think it would cost to develop said tech. They find your "wish" and your rabid defense of it as funny as I do.
ack-ack
-
Muzik,
I mean this in the most supportive sense possible; but when you get personal, or allow yourself to be drawn into getting personal, you do your argument a disservice.
However, this is a kind of interesting example somewhat involving the kinds of integrations we are discussing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v45EOma7wDo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v45EOma7wDo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSimulator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSimulator)
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Main_Page (http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Main_Page)
A sailbot a guy built to use is other peoples grids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz-x7jn2hws&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz-x7jn2hws&feature=related)
whacky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjqPi0nklg4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjqPi0nklg4&feature=related)
Tranfering objects between simulation grids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1sd7UdP9TI&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1sd7UdP9TI&NR=1)
Instead of HLA, it is using a subset of the Second Life Messaging protocol. It is not SL, but can be accessed through a SL viewer(or any other compliant viewer). At one time you could go portal straight from SL to a OpenSim Grid. (I guess LL shut that down. Heh. Maybe they realized a potential FREE competitor. ;) )
Additional content can be created by various individuals in different technologies; as long as the interop protocol is obeyed they can interact thru the plug-in architecture.
No, it’s not exactly what was being suggested, but it’s an interesting example of what’s possible.
Heterogeneous content, created in different languages, by different parties, hosted on different platforms possibly,
interacting in common simulation spaces thru a shared protocol.
Trippy.
:aok,
Wab
-
TY Wabbit,
I appreciate the advice and I am well aware that I let myself get drawn into these things. It is a fault of mine.
It is really sad that someone either cant leave their bruised egos in the MA or they get a kick trying to put down anyone elses suggestions. And then the ankle humpers who dont have a clue, come in and jump on a bandwagon and I get defensive. It's a pathetic way to get into the "plutonium club."
I am more than willing to have civil discussions with anyone who asks me politely how I felt their issues would be addressed. Thank you for the fantastic posts. I would not know where to have looked for such info, I do know the time has come. And with that I rest my case with the bruised egos.
Now as for your post, would you mind answering some questions?
The projects that you have shown, do they create a third environment for two different programs to join or do they translate from one to the other? Was it intended for games or did they have other purposes in mind?
I take it the importing of objects converts a tank for example from AH to CoD but CoD wouldnt have the structure to use it only render it? And that object is only a shell, no physics for damage, etc? And that item would ONLY exist on the host server and not be stored in a players CoD downloaded files or mods?
My theory was that any items that absolutely had to be modeled for another game could have been cloned in this manner and be a permanent mod to the other software with permissions of course.
<<S>>
-
I thought this idea was interesting so I read the whole thread.
So to Muzik +1 for the thread it's not a fun idea to think about.
To dawabbit, + 1 for all the cool Tech stuff I learned a few things.
Wabbit it seems to me that what you are saying about connecting sims makes a lot of sense. the position vector info exchange is the critical part, and the physics engines, polys, etc, that are local to each console/compute do not prevent the hook up. But if AH runs the war server then the position vector and (structural/physical) environment would at least have to common for quality game play. The example posted of the AH pilot on the ground meeting the CoD players highlights a few things about common info and environment requirements. 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, I'm calling that a tag[you probably know what it really is]. So it's more than 6 dof of movement. So the info amount may be contained in the protocols you mention, but the software would need to be able to handle a combined info set for all platforms, and all platforms would have to be transmitted the combined info set. Their resident code, on their local platform would have to be able to handle the new combined set. Code wouldn't need to be rewritten if they share or use a protocol that already can handle the combined info set, but would need to be[rewriten] if they can't.
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".
Am I close? :salute
-
Now as for your post, would you mind answering some questions?
Well, I’m kinda hijacking your thread. OpenSim is only vaguely related to what you were suggesting, but does demonstrate the basic idea of interfacing different code in a single simulation by getting them all to speak the same protocol. Once you accept that, anything is possible; it’s merely a matter of time and effort. ;)
>The projects that you have shown, do they create a third environment for two >different programs to join or do they translate from one to the other? Was it >intended for games or did they have other purposes in mind?
Well, I’m still digesting it all myself, but from what I’ve seen, it seems to me they are developing the interop protocol and various tools and server to host the content. Once a Grid is created, it could possibly host any number of other programs written to its protocol. 3, 10, 50. Doesn’t matter.
I don’t think they have a single particular purpose in mind. It’s like asking what purpose they had in mind in writing TCP, games or other stuff? Anything that could use it is the answer.
I’ve seen everything suggested from a virtual environment for researchers to share, explore, discuss, and manipulate 3d models of protein molecules, to goofy Second Life type socializing worlds. It’s COMPLETELY up to who is creating the content what it’s used for.
I may have hopelessly confused the discussion by introducing OpenSim, because it’s taking a bit of a different approach to what you suggested. But it’s interesting and has a lot of similar possibilities. In OpenSim however, it does appear to be the intent to all see the same level of detail and same graphics. However, it does allow multiple contributors to share content without having to share the underlying source code necessarily. It is of course in its raw infancy. Just in the R&D mode still it looks like, but the possibilities look intriguing.
Well, now that I’ve completely muddled things, let me do a little more damage. Let me just describe a scenario of how I can see this technology being used someday. Maybe that’s the best way for me to make my point. (I you prefer I can move this to a different thread, but it touches on a lot of other ideas in this thread…)
OK. So I get bored one day and write a little WWII flighsim based on the OpenSim framework in C++. I get about 20 planes build and decide to go commercial. I create 10 or so Private For-Pay Grids. Each a “Map” like in AH. “Guadal Canal”, “Battle of Britain”, “Kursk”, etc. I set up all the logic for things to behave the way I want. I hook up with a portal like Valve’s SteamWorks. They handle billing, license keys, micro-transactions (important later), community services, etc. People buy my Client and start flying planes on my private grid. Cool. But now the ungrateful bastids start demanding tanks. “Sorry”, says I, “I only do planes.”
So Lusche hears this and see a commercial opportunity. He knows enough Java to be dangerous so he downloads the OpenSim SDK and start making a tank. He tells me “Hey! I wanna provide my tank as content in your sim!” So we test things out and I approve of his work and change my grid permissions to permit that content. Lusche starts tooling around in my flightsim world in his new tank blowing up stuff.
When Muzik logs into my flightsim, Lusche’s tank sim downloads its mesh, textures, sounds and animations to Muzik’s cache. Muzik can’t drive the tank yet, but he can see it in his world. He can be shot at by it. He can shoot at it, and drop bombs on it. My flight sim know how to tell Lusche’s tank object about bullets and bombs hitting it and visa versa through the shared protocol.
Muzik is suitably impressed and wants to drive a tank too. I setup the ability for him to purchase Lusche’s tank module plug-in as a micro-transaction through Steam (think like buying additional planes in RoF) for $5. He downloads it onto his machine. Now he not only can see tanks, but now he has the module to simulate driving one himself. Now Muzik can fly planes and drive tanks in my Grid world. I take a 1% cut. Lusche adds content to my sim and I funnel customers to by his add-on module. We both win and I didn’t have to go learn how to build a tank.
So know Muzik knows a bit of C#, so he gets the OpenSim SDK and starts building a submarine module. Wash, rinse, repeat.
So know MonkGF knows a bit of VB, so he gets the OpenSim SDK and starts building a fancy infantry module. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Anyway, just day dreaming on a Friday afternoon. ;o)
:cheers:,
Wab
-
(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....
https://marketplace.secondlife.com/products/search?search%5Bcategory_id%5D=1&search%5Bpage%5D=1&search%5Bper_page%5D=12 (https://marketplace.secondlife.com/products/search?search%5Bcategory_id%5D=1&search%5Bpage%5D=1&search%5Bper_page%5D=12)
Second Life has a market place where vendors make stuff people can buy for their avatars and their avatars houses. The transaction is done in Linden dollars that can be bought for USD and sold back for USD. The exchange rate is how Linden labs takes its cut.
There are people who make money (US DOLLARS!) manufacturing virtual furniture for virtual avatars houses. Think on that!!! :O :huh
:confused:,
Wab
-
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
-
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.
-
+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.