I was wondering what the devs had planned in the way of players communicating with each other in this sim. I know there are those who will want to talk to each other during on-line games, but I'm hoping that won't be possible. We talk before we take off, and once airborne, it's waggling of wings, and flares...that's the way it was, and that's the way it should be in KOE. There should be no way for someone to tell you ,"check your six!" Ya' just better have your head on a swivel!

For playabilities sake, please allow chatting while on-line. Off line tho can be a whole other ball game! Hand signals anyone?

yeah, an option to turn off chat would be great. Of course, you'd have to take people on thier words that they weren't using Teamspeak or Roger Wilco etc.

But no ability to talk once the mission starts would be very cool. I know because I was in an online war once called OLTL that only allowed Vis Chat and as anyone who's flown Red Baron knows, Vis Chat is very short range.

You get separated in a dogfight and suddenly you feel very alone and vulnerable.

It would be a flight sim coup if the pilots and crews use hand signals, waving and pointing. Commo and SA would be tied firmly.


Neal

The program could block all ports other than the ones it's communicating on... drastic, but possible.

Rob

Gotta have a nicely simulated pilot model for that Neal!

In the least chat should be able to be turned off (in-game/online), but as Pen said there's always methods to get around that.

It should be a server option for chat parameters, including option for multi-seat planes only chat

It may never be possible to eliminate 3rd party communication entirely ( anymore than you can 100% eliminate cheating 100% of the time ), however you can make it difficult by port locking, backround program detection and simple things like not being able to access desktop - other progams from the full-screen-only running online game .. as the hackers find ways, these can be closed with patches that are bound to be needed for other things anyway

I think what will be critical to make a non-chat game work, however, it to have a base/ground chat rooms where you can communicate between friendly bases

An idea I came up with for 17 hours , was to incorporate this into a 3D briefing-command room, where the commander-roomhost could pull a map and dynamicly draw on it , that being displayed on the other pilots screens in the room .. Commander-roomhost would have communication-telephone-chat channel to other aerodrome command-briefing room hosts-commanders

You can also have a wireline from balloon observers

Basicly, a main general official chat room ala' old WON P2P RBII MP .. then your making a private chatroom is your aerodome selection, and you launch into a 3D briefing-command room at your aerodome to plan , have a beer , whatever , then launch into your plane from there

You'd only need upper body and head and only for fixed motions. More would be nice, you could tell if the other was trying to load or unjam his guns. Still those are far less than full FPS models.


Neal

Why model half a body.............especially since we'll be able to see crew members in multi-seat aircraft, and gunner/observers as they rise to man weapons, or to manipulate cameras, drop grenades, etc.???

One option you could have for within a certain visible range: Just have a limited set of chat macros/commands that represent the hand signals. Maybe you would see something like "leader frantically signals: Enemy aircraft!" I imagine in the real deal you could see someone waving madly. Not sure you're actually gonna "see" one animation of an arm going up in a game though. You could still tie the animation to it as well since WE know that you can animate an arm going up or dropping a bomb in a game if you want to.

Hentzau,

That's an idea for a useable compromise............most signals were by wing waggling or flares anyway.

To continue on (hand)signals.

Handsignals can be made using an onscreen menu similar to FB's radio menu.
The difference would be that you don't tune in on a frequency and that everyone on that frequency hears you but that everyone who is within a certain arc of where you are looking and withing a certain distance can see the signal.
The procedure would then be to first look at the person you want to signal to, open the menu and pick the right signal.

The menu would contain various signals (climb, follow, etc) but also a few "blank" signals.
These can be used between human players and given whatever meaning they want or in the flightplanner to intiate preplanned procedures.

You can receive signal from other persons (AI or human) by looking at them.
When they signal you an icon could appear over their head showing their signal.

An icon could also appear if they are paying attention to you so that you know when you can signal to them.

Things like flares can also be called from a menu but would be visible from all directions, from a longer range and for a longer time.
Flares can also let the enemy detect you.

Pilots can also signal with their plane, for example by quickly pitching up and down.
Human players won't have trouble with understanding the AI or other humans but the AI might have trouble with interpreting signals.
AI to AI can be done using a "secret radio" where the signaller will wiggle his plane but still sends a message.

The player can be given a "radio" to send the signal but only have it sent to those who are looking at the player.
An algorithm that analyses the player's movements could turn the radio on only when the player is wobbling his plane.

I like most of those ideas Jeroen except for the icon to tell you if the other guy is looking at you. The pilots would fire off a pip to get the rest of the flights attention. The icon means they won't have to do that. Instead, leave out the icon and make them fire a pip to get everyones attention and then they can signal.

With "a pip" you mean a machinegun burst or some secret weapon I don't know about?

Wouldn't you be able to see if someone is looking at you at distances where you can also see handsignals?

But drawing attention by making noise with your MG would be nice too.

Hand signals were used close in, you should be able to tell if goggles are pointing in your direction and besides, the flight should be keeping watch while maintaining formation.

Menues are nice to have, they always work the same, but I'd really like to be able to assign keys to menu choices esp if there's submenues involved and the signal is like attack or tally on bandits.

FX I'm sure that having the whole pilot woulod be good but just where to stop in terms of function versus graphics... I'd suggest little or no functioning like the pilot model does not move the stick but just follows along. No gravity or forces either in that jumping out is by simple formula or better even a short table -- actually getting out being scripted. Even the crew moves in B-17II are scripted choices.


Neal

A pip is the shortest possible burst on a machine gun. Just tap the trigger quickly to waste the least amount of ammo to make noise and get everyone's attention.

Neal,

Scripted choices, like reloading or unjamming guns would be fine. Animated routines like grabbing the flare gun and firing off a certain colored flare, or switching off the engine would be ok too.

Now a pilot (aircrew) interface that allows input strength (or control stiffness) to be factored, like an active force-feedback is something that would really give us the "sense" of flying.

This is the content of another thread though, and we'll try to stay focused on communictions ideas here.

Good discussion btw!

Just straying for a post since I don't know when it will be up;

Strength based stick interface as done by IL2 is nice but it's a 1-way pull, away from center. That has a logic to it except for when stick forces vary esp when buffeting with the most critical case being nose bob. What I would really like to see is that the simulated pilot would try his damndest to hold the stick where I have mine or mine times a response curve factor. That means if I have it slightly back, he holds it there even if the backforce on the stick lessens which would be the case if the plane slows down for instance.

In the case of our 3D crew, the stick position drives the arm of the model and not the other way around although the pilot parameters and state would determine how well the pilot can match my stick positioning desires. And trim... in WWI they didn't have no steenking treem! Bodges maybe, but no treem!


Neal

Well some WWI aircraft did have trim wheels to adjust the angle of incidence of the rear stabilizer, while other aircraft could make pre-load adustments at the stick, but my ideas about control stiffness have to do with working through the pilot interface, and not around it.

The idea is to create the relationship between the pilot model and his plane first, which will be a relationship that takes preeminence over our joystick commands! As players we may want to immediately move the ailerons to full deflection at high airspeed, but our virtual pilots will be unable to do so, because this would have been impossible in some aircraft, and thus our scale pilots will only be able to respond as would be possible in the actual moment at hand.

If you've learned to fly a real plane, more often than not you're taught to think of applying control input as exerting pressure, not as inputing stick or pedal movement. This is my idea for KOE. As players we will input pressure "intent", but our pilot models will respond to the flight conditions and apply the ammount of force input pressure that would be humanly possible under the circumstances.

The intention is not to let things get out of hand, but to flow through the hands of our virtual pilots as they attempt to fullfill our joystick intentions.

Someone mentioned in another post flying a Zero in FB, and this can serve as a good illustration here. US Navy pilots were taught early in WW2 to keep their airpseeds up when fighting the Zero, because at high speeds the Mitsubishi ailerons became so stiff that even the Wildcat could out roll the Zero. It wasn't that the inhernet maneuverability of the Zero had changed, but that the Japanese pilot's ability to physically deflect the ailerons at high airpseeds had become difficult...........the force to deflect the control surface had become too heavy to allow for effective rolling.

This same condition existed in WWI, but to an even greater degree than it did in WW2.

Heavy stick forces and unbalanced (unharmonized) controls were the order of the day. To a large extent this is what made the Fokker D.VII such as good fighter, because unlike many other WWI aircraft it's controls were well balanced and therefore it was easy to fly, by experience pilot and novice alike.

If a sim's flight models ignore these pilot controlability issues, then it's really missing a large part of the dynamic equation.

In WWI air combat, it's often what you couldn't do in the heat of battle that decided a dogfights outcome, at least this is to me an important perspective to hold when interpreting the comparative fighting characteristics of the era's warbirds.

But the Zero's ailerons became stiff for three reasons. The first was they were huge. The second was, as you said, the speed. But the speed that it happened was somwwhere around 260-300mph. Which had a great effect on those yooge ailerons. Not a problem in WW1.

Were they fabric covered or metal? Were the controls hydraulic or control rod based? I don't quite remember.

I don't think that was much of a problem in WW1. The control surfaces were not that large, and the planes not that fast.

I could be wrong though