quote:

---

Originally posted by Clevy911:
If non programmers like me are to help, the bases of this project needs to be like the Flight-Sim toolkit that was available a few years ago. Where everybody could work on terrain tiles, simple 3-d models, etc.,etc, and submit them to the respective coordinator
for evaluations. Try to take the load off the programmers somewhat and give those of use that now feel useless that want to help
a task in the project.
I am very gratefull to all that has contributed to F4 and will take part in this project.Thank you

---

BRILLIANT!

An absolute must.

Cornerstone for OpenSim.

2. The ability to have ground or AWACS controllers similar to TAW. The AWACS feature combined with the ability to do it while playine an on-line game, ala Flanker 1x, would give this game an extra demension.

3. The ability to add all parts of the globe (eg MSFS).

4. The ability to have multiple layers of "ACURATE" ATC, which does not step all over each other. The ability to tune in the proper channels on the NAV radio as well as the comm. Enough of the chatter that doesn't matter (eg Jane's F/A-18).

5. The ability to have some sort of dynamic war going on. I personnaly like the way Falcon has deployed it, but others in the same vain could work. The key is the ability to see a continuous flow of action when you are not flying and just looking at the ATO. The ATO's in real life are planned day's in advance. Once the initial war begins, their should be at least 12 hours worth of missions ready to go. As those missions are flown, the "Checkmate" would plan more missions. (I kinda like that name for a dynamic mission planner, "CHECKMATE". It sings!

6. The ability/need for true refueling in the game. This means that the multiplayer code must be solid in order to ensure no warping or position errors exist.

That is all for now...I am sure I will be adding more.

By the way, Dominator, are you going to collect all of this information and put it into a requirements doc?

The original Falcon4.0 intended to be the first in the "Electronic Battlefield". Unfortunately Hasbro effectively pulled the plug on this idea. I have seen this written about before, by others (Chopstick in particular) but this is what I would like to see (I am not a programmer, so these are only my thoughts).

1. Essentially, this would be a hub type architecture. At the center would be a core program which contains the graphics module, terrain, mission, campaign, single/multiplayer support, and probably some other stuff that I have forgotten. Essential to this concept is "code for today, but build for tomorrow."

2. Into this root program would plug a module. You want to fly an F-16? Select that module from the GUI and off you go. Feel like a little tank battle. Select the M1A1 module and have a ball. Want to go snoopin' and poopin'? Select the Spec Ops module and bring extra ammo.

3. These modules would have the "extra" graphics necessary to make them immersive and realistic. At 20K in an F-16 you can't don't really need a tree to hide behind. At 6 feet with an M16A2 trees sure to help keep you from getting your butt shot off.

4. You like things a little more challenging and difficult? Plug in the ultra, super hardcore upgrade module for the fixed wing module. The real beauty of this is that you don't have to have a tank/helo/fighter sim all at once. Start with the core program and work build from there. Want weather? You got it in the "weather" module.

5. A must (IMHO) is a dynamic campaign. It is the thing that keeps me coming back to Falcon 4.0. The same dynamic campaign should be compatible with all other modules. For instance, fly a little BAI in your A-10 to weaken the bad guys, then hop into your M2A3 to finish the job.

6. Intelligent AI and commands are crucial. This, however, will vary and should be a function of the selected module.

7. Finally, multiplayer should have the capability to run any module simultaneously which would allow for total integration of the battlefield. Getting shot at by enemy artillery and need an airstike? No, problem, your buddy flying his F-16 on call CAS will more than happy to hook you up.

8. Almost forgot the ability to add different theaters and time periods via the theater module. This could easily be done similar to FS2K which allows the use of USGS survey data.

It's quite a list but it has the possibility to appeal to everyone, not just the flight sim community. The beauty is that different communities can work in their own special niche to develop that module to its full potential.

In regards to graphics.

Flanker2/EECH/WW2F 3D models

Wheather/Clouds - JFA18 and WW2F

Cockpit Quality - 2D WW2F, 3D EECH

Ground War Eyecandy - WW2F and EECH

AC battledamage - WW2F and probably CCFS2

This is a conceptual GUI for controlling the skins of every aircraft available to you in OpenSim. (All the aircraft, like the current Falcon 4.0, will be flyable, with varying degrees of fidelity)

This Customizing "Skin" User Interface will feature the following functions, designed for ease of use.

*Drop Down Selection List for Specific Aircraft Type (Fighter/Bomber/Attack/EW,etc.)

*Squadron Selection(Airbase at which this custom Skin will appear)

*Tail Code (drop down list)

*Squadron Code (drop down list; code as it appears on the tail)

*Nose/Fuselage Art Window (Clicking on this window scrolls through available nose arts)

*Fin Flash/Tail Art (Clicking on the Window previews available Fin Flash and Crest types)

*Helmet Scheme (Clicking on the Window previews available helmet "schemes"--custom designs)

*Aircraft Paint Scheme (Bottommost Row of Windows; Scroll to right or left for additional paint schemes, unique to each aircraft: I.E. Vietnam Camo 01, Nellis Aggressor 01, etc.)

*Preview Window (Shows what your design will look like)

*Not Shown: Roundel Selection window, Click to select available roundels for each Nationality (U.S., German, North Vietnamese)etc...

*All potential texture/skin selections will be stored in an UNCODED format in clearly marked folders (Skins/Tail Art/Nose Art, etc.) Any user who wants to add or modify the textures in these folders may do so using a simple third party paint program...

As was already stated above, it is *critical* that this OpenSim implement an additional program, much like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which allows the end-user to design his own 3-D models/textures for additional aircraft. Further utilities would allow design of additional cockpits, etc.

This is not a survey sim!! That said, the cockpit design/ HUD etc. should be flexible enough that Joe User can create an F-111 cockpit, if he desires, with the appropriate, realistic targeting systems/interface. If Charlie, on the other hand, wants a B-52 cockpit, those systems will be "under the hood", for this user.

Remember to copy and add to your post so we can keep track of everyones idea.

Again, in no special order:

01. Dynamic campaigns
02. Ultras realistic avionics/airodynamics
03. Voice activation or compability
04. Dedicated server setup
05. Be able to create new objects
06. Player AWACS feature
07. Smart COMM channeling
08. Mid air refuling
09. Multi platform simulation (FPS/ground/Air)
10. Accurate damege modelling
11. Paint scheme interface

A lot of theese post have the same contents as a previous post, so Please read this list and see if your thoughts has not been posted already!

Now, copy/paste the list and add for your life

Wow, the posts are coming fast here...

General Concept. A software developer recently proposed the Sofware Angels or Flight Sim Angels or some such. They approached the community and got a lot of input on this whole issue. Perhaps that data could be obtained from Combatsim. A market survey may be needed to determine the types vehicles to model. For example, questions such as whether or not enough interest in sea battle sims exists to justify the programming effort to include human operable submarines, Aegis cruisers and the like. The same questions for first person ground combat, army combat vehicles and which aircraft to model for human pilots. Is the true electronic battlefield a reasonable and achievable concept, given hardware capabilities expected at the time of program release? I assume OpenSim implies open source, friendly to third-party add-ons, enhancements, expansion, improvements. Standards board is a good idea or no 2 pilots will be able to fly online.

Target Simmer. In my opinion the world has plenty of flightsim-lites. Target the program to the hard-core, high realism, online pilots portion of the community. Design the program to run at a minimum of 12 FPS on a "mid-range" computer with scalable graphics at minimum settings. Provide an "easy avionics" mode for nuggets.

Simulation General. The program must have rock-solid internet multi-player stability and be capable of accomodating up to 20 players at a time. Design a large theater, say 1,000 miles square with varied and interesting terrain, perhaps larger to accomodate naval operations. Avoid the stereotypical and bias-provoking US/Allies vs Commies. Instead, design a more neutral and fictional set of adversaries such as orange vs. green. This will promote the concept of having online squads assigned to the orange team and green team for direct head to head competition or missions against AI. Have one or more online servers with continuous campaigns in which individuals or groups can fly missions. Include naval air ops, of course. Provide voice comms or allow for integration of one of the 3rd party voice programs. A built-in art manager would be nice.

Campaign/Mission Design. Conditions could be devised for competition between the green and orange teams for campaign victory. Provide a function to test compatibility of individuals' aircraft characteristics to a variable standard (anti-cheat). Provide a highly functional campaign and mission planner (among present sims, JF-18 has one of the best). Provide the capability to get all of a team's human players in the mission planning screen together. Provide an "AWACS" type feature, similar to F4, but perhaps with improved resolution and functionality. Provide a fully functional ACMI. Include detailed training missions, similar to F4. Mission modeling/design should reflect realistic threat levels, objectives, levels of combat activity. Missions should have author-controlled, built-in random events - ie. interceptors, SA threats, weather events, target/area surprises.

Graphics and Modeling. Shoot for photo-realistic terrain modeling. Shoot for dead-on accurate flight, weapons characteristics, avionics and damage modeling. Include all modern weps systems. The more realistic the graphics, the better, of course. Program all cockpit functions so they can be assigned to HOTAS. How about separate video feeds of MFD's and views to separate monitor(s)? Include full environmental effects - wind, precipitation, ice, cloud types, storms. Mission scoring should place a premium on individual and team survival. Provide a robust set of AI commands and competent AI modeling.

This would be my concept of the perfect combat flight sim. ALL of this is probably not feasible, but compromise is the essence of life. Go, Baby!

The Microsoft crowd have been building planes, panels and terrain for years but with all their efforts the planes still look terrible in terms of graphics. Their panels, usually 2D only are pretty darn good.

This could be the start of something big.

How about having a Dynamic Campaign Design feature that would allow you to "decide" which forces will make up each country's OOB?

For example, say that the user wants to create a highly unbalanced scenario (somewhat like Operation Allied Force, or Desert Storm) in which the OPFOR has very few aircraft at their disposal to fly BARCAPS. By the same token, the IADS for that enemy force can be made extremely robust and dangerous. The user would select the enemy Air Defense divisions and place them around the map...

He can then select from a list whichever countries he wants to participate on the NATO Alliance (U.S., U.K., France, etc.) and the number and type of squadrons that shall participate, placing them at designated air bases.

Then upon starting the new campaign, OpenSim will array all the ground forces to appropriate positions on their respective sides, and begin to generate an ATO, appropriate to the conditions. (I.e. more SEAD and mud-moving would be assigned in the Mission Schedule, b/c those forces are the current priority...) Dynamic elements (weather/supply shortages/political events)could come into play at random.

Sort of an advanced TE system, but specifically designed for generating full-scale campaigns.

2. Into this root program would plug a module. You want to fly an F-16? Select that module from the GUI and off you go. Feel like a little tank battle. Select the M1A1 module and have a ball. Want to go snoopin' and poopin'? Select the Spec Ops module and bring extra ammo.

3. These modules would have the "extra" graphics necessary to make them immersive and realistic. At 20K in an F-16 you can't don't really need a tree to hide behind. At 6 feet with an M16A2 trees sure to help keep you from getting your butt shot off.
____________________________________________

I was thinking along the same lines as you with the modules and the core engine. I think if we could develope a standard core engine with how all units in virutual world interact, you could create the battlefields in differant time periods with the weapons and vehicles of the time. With the same engine it could run a WWII prop plane simulation, or historic Vietnam battle. Third party's could then create differant aircraft modules for these differant era's. It would be similar to how some third parties create excellent detailed addon's or Fly! and FS. The third parties could then sell their addon for profit, but the standard core engine would be opensource.

One differance between your core idea and mine is that I picture the core as being more or less a large database containing all the data about every object in the battlefield and its location and also controlling non-player units. Module makers would then create programs to control these objects and would update the core when user input is made.

Standard graphics engine modules and weather modules could be created to be shared with all the differant aircraft, ground units, etc, but would be seperate from the core. Reason is so that the core could exist as a stand alone campaign server on the internet. Its main purpose, just to keep track of all objects, calculate damage from other objects such as AAA and whatever else it would have to track.

Sorry guys for the long post.

Boddman Out!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChopstickQ:
Please give a list of all the features you like from F4 and other sims that should be apart of OpenSim. Please state the feature and the game in which it came from. (Please, no flaming.)

[This message has been edited by ChopstickQ (edited 09-17-2000).]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by boddman:
____________________________________________

I was thinking along the same lines as you with the modules and the core engine. I think if we could develope a standard core engine with how all units in virutual world interact, you could create the battlefields in differant time periods with the weapons and vehicles of the time. With the same engine it could run a WWII prop plane simulation, or historic Vietnam battle. Third party's could then create differant aircraft modules for these differant era's. It would be similar to how some third parties create excellent detailed addon's or Fly! and FS. The third parties could then sell their addon for profit, but the standard core engine would be opensource.

One differance between your core idea and mine is that I picture the core as being more or less a large database containing all the data about every object in the battlefield and its location and also controlling non-player units. Module makers would then create programs to control these objects and would update the core when user input is made.

Standard graphics engine modules and weather modules could be created to be shared with all the differant aircraft, ground units, etc, but would be seperate from the core. Reason is so that the core could exist as a stand alone campaign server on the internet. Its main purpose, just to keep track of all objects, calculate damage from other objects such as AAA and whatever else it would have to track.

Sorry guys for the long post.

Boddman Out!

---

Not a bad idea. The only potential problem I can see is that you would have to figure out all of the units that you wanted to include with the core program when you first started development. A project like this will most likely be a long time in developement.

The only way around this would be, possibly, some way to add, or update unit data to the core, perhaps via patching process, or core program recompiles. I suppose it also might be possible to make addon unit modules for the core program. I really don't know the best answer.

The only way around this would be, possibly, some way to add, or update unit data to the core, perhaps via patching process, or core program recompiles. I suppose it also might be possible to make addon unit modules for the core program. I really don't know the best answer.
---------------------------------------------

I would say it would be possible to create editable data files with all the differant units data. I believe a lot of the reasearch for various data values has already been done for the RP updates.

As for the core program it would probably be continually in progress, with periodic major releases. It would be similar to how Linux is updated. There is always serveral differant beta versions floating around, then once they get a stable version, it is packaged and released as a major update. There would have to be a team responsible for the official released core. Anybody could get the source and modify it, and when somebody comes up with something good, they would submit it to the team for approval and possible inclusion into the next release.

If we can keep the graphics and other OS dependent stuff out of the core it may be possible to run the core campaigne engine on Linux, NT, or other OS's that may operate faster and more stable

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChopstickQ:
Please give a list of all the features you like from F4 and other sims that should be apart of OpenSim. Please state the feature and the game in which it came from. (Please, no flaming.)

[This message has been edited by ChopstickQ (edited 09-17-2000).]

---

regards,

Moose.

ICQ #: 33989047
email: hellskitchen@hotmail.com

------------------
Bite Off More Than You Can Chew - Then Chew Hard

Right now we have to define what this product is going to be. Is it a flight sim? A war-sim? A new pokemon?

Anyway, here is my take on the matter.

The product should definately follow an open architecture approach. (as said above)

It should also be "multiplayer-centric" or multiplayer-geared. What I mean by that, is that it either it will be based and run on the Internet, or it will be heavily geared toward internet, lan or Internet/LAN use.

The way I envision this is...

...An armed forces simulation. IT may not start with accurate physics moddeling of the way a soldiers legs would be affected by added weight in his backpack. It may well be more flight-sim associated BUT with the possibility for other parties to join the party, and take control over their area of interest.

For example we, the Falcon crowd have gained very valuable experience by taking Falcon to where it is now. We, for example, along with Flanker and JF-18 enthusiasts, create and be involved with everything that defines a COMBAT sim. Terrain for example could be handled by FS2K/Fly enthusiasts who 1. are A LOT of people 2. have quite a lot of experience and cool ideas to bring along to the project.

Same thing would go for ATC/Comms modelling for example. The Civil Sim people could jump in.

One thing that's very important for this group is structure. I disagree that this group should have a pyramid structure with managers reporting to Managers etc etc. Instead a "round-table" approach would work much better in this scenario. It is more effective and swift, plus "creativity" and "inviduality" are much better supported inthis way. Ideas would be just thrown "at the table" instead of people being overlooked by other people. It will also be less "stress-inducing" since no one will have the idea that he has 20 bosses over his head. He can always throw out his ideas, and talk with everyone in the group.

That is for the producing party.

I also envision a "SATCO-like" body or board which would organise and maintain "order" (gamewise) once this product would be available. If for example we were to have the whole globe in this simulation, we could have organisations of national or regional interests who would be responsible for their "country". Something like "Virtaul Armed Forces".

There are many flaws with my ideas and I can spot each and every one of the, But I can't start correcting myself jumping to 50 different conclusions at a time. it is both "time eating" and won't be as effective as "outside" critique.

So be sure to critisize all the above so we can get this discussions and al of the ideas put out here moving

Could talk for ages about something like this...

Cheers,

- A range of viewing options. One of my favourite F4 features is the way I can combine labels with the virtual cockpit. This gives me a viewing system that feels very natural. (I know many people dislike labels but I really dislike padlock!) The ability to vary the range, colour and information content of labels would also be nice (we can do most of this in F4 today).

- Good AI. I think a reasonable goal is that the AI should be able to do everything the player can. No more, no less. For example, if in an early version of OpenSim the AI can fight well WVR but not BVR then at that stage BVR weapons should not be in the game. Equally, shortfalls in AI should not be made up for by "cheats" such as higher G limits or 360-degree vision.

Maybe the new sim could have that.

And if we're going to "wish" for things, how about a JSTARS?

B2B was the last sim I know of to have nukes (not counting 3rd party addition in jf15).

The way it is now, bombs just fall "perfectly" without any wobble or turbulence. Just watch bombs falling in real life - they spin.

And not disappear like in Falcon 4.0.

I like good accurate HUDs and other cockpit symbology.

sorry

Falcon 4.0

• Dynamic Campaign - Falcon models the "living world around you" thing better than anything else out there.
  
• Comprehensive mission/package planner - The ability to put together complex packages with push points, ip's and set time on target is incredible. Combine this with the ability to assign specific targets a la Janes F/A-18 and it becomes unbeatable.
  
• ATC!! - ATC has to be near the top of the list for immersion factors in falcon.
  
• Tanker ops - despite some bugs, the way Falcon models tanker ops is the way to go (as opposed to Janes "cutscene" version).
  

Janes F/A-18

• High fidelity Weapons/Avionics - in the avionics department, F/A-18 is king of the hill. Realistic avionics make such a big difference that they are the reason I tend to play F/A-18 more than Falcon despite Falcon's other advantages.
  
• Dynamic Lighting - its more than eye candy: some incredible experiences are to be had in F/A-18 as barrage flak bursts ligt up the cockpit, nightime afterburner useage has tactical implementations, and the sun glare really can prove to be a tactical consideration in a dogfight.
  
• AWACS and wingman control - Janes does this better than anyone else out there. AI is very good.
  

Flanker 2.0

• High fidelity flight model - the feeling of inertia and just "flight" in general is incomparable in Flanker.
  
• Gorgeous 3D models
  
• Weather effects including volumetric clouds - nobody else has the type of environment fidelity that Flanker has.
  
• ZOOMABLE COCKPIT - why doesn't anyone else do this? No pilot flies with their nose plastered up against the console which is what most other sims present. Flanker solves this problem by giving everyone the best of both worlds.
  

For contrast, here are some of the "worst of" in each of those sims:

Falcon
*"dumb" AI wingmen/AWACS - this is the single biggest issue with Falcon IMO
*unrealistic sensor/weapon behavior
*hyperactive campaign activity

F/A-18
*lack of dynamic campaign
*environmet lacks some of the details that make falcon's environment so much better
*3D models of nonplayer aircraft are really poor
*terrain graphics could be improved

Flanker
*sterile, lifeless environment - i.e. no communications/atc, everything has scripted behavior etc.
*really poor sensor modeling
*some AI problems

Sort of a FALCON TV mode ! CH01 - A10s attacking tanks, CH02 - MIGs jumping F15s, CH03 - B1Bs on final approach, etc.

Hinge out