robmypro

Just to be completely clear, I am not advocating or suggesting that anyone build a game engine that supports both a FPS and flight sim. I do not think this makes sense, since it forces everyone to develop in the same toolset. What I am suggesting is integration of data between sims. I'm talking about sims that can share data and communicate at a data layer between each other.

This is exactly what I was talking about. What is HLA? HLA (High-Level Architecture) is a standard for connecting several computer-based simulation systems so that they can run together and exchange information. Instead of building a big monolithic simulation system from scratch, the HLA allows you to combine existing simulation systems with new systems. HLA enables you to reuse existing systems for new purposes. You can also mix different programming languages and operating systems. HLA supersedes several earlier standards such as DIS and ALSP.

Good stuff Aggi! See I knew someone had to be thinking along this path. Let's hope this makes its way to us somewhere in the future. I think it could be a win win situation. The consumer gets a great battlefield simulator, and the military can have whatever region they need modeled. We can all agree or disagree about this, but ultimately it is going to happen. It just makes too much sense.

Spoken like a true optimist! ;)

Thanks for the inside take on this Paco. Good stuff. Regarding being careful what we wish for, I don't think fun has to be compromised to achieve a united battlefield. For example, if I am a BS pilot, when I join a server the current campaign may call for BS pilots to take out the tank columns in support of our ground troops that are trying to take a key city. If I am in a FPS my objective is to take this town, and hold it. If I'm a LOMAC pilot maybe my orders are air superiority, or to take out a bridge that the enemy armor may use to flank us. If I'm a tank driver, me and a few buddies are moving on the city, trying to avoid Hinds, and support our infantry. The naval guys could be either a platform to launch planes or launch missiles against key targets inland. The battle of this city ends when one side takes the city. This then opens up other objectives for the winning side, and alters new objectives for losing side. So it's a fluid campaign that does not end until one side is so weak it cannot continue the battle. And each member in the battle will have an objective, and the progress of the battle will be impacted by the performance of all of its members. That doesn't sound boring to me. It's a totally watered down version of the campaign engine Falcon has now, and that was designed almost 15 years ago. It's doable. Again, I don't think this is that much more than a data integration project. I know some will disagree with me, but if I'm in LOMAC and join a server, and I have 4 missions to pick from, those missions were created based on the current state of the campaign (possibly using triggers). I jump in my A-10 and go blow up whatever I am suppose to blow up. I will see the world from my perspective, using my graphics engine, sound, etc. The objects I see, and their position, type, etc. will be data that was passed to me from the battlefield engine. How that data got there is of no consequence to me. This same logic applies to all other sims participating in the battle. And real-time data is used in just about every sim today. It's not rocket science. Somebody will do it eventually. I just hope it doesn't take 10 years.

Okay thanks! Do I just load this profile, or do I need to do anything inside FC2 as well to make things work?

I know this isn't a Saitek support forum, but has anyone else seen this problem? I loaded up a profile from here and went into the profile editor and crap was showing all over my screen. Little blocks. Feature? lol I've probably got 10 questions already but I will spare you guys the grief until I've RTFM.

Okay I loaded the profile (found one here).

Hey guys, anyone know where I can get a profile for my HOTAS? It's an X52 Pro. Thanks. Rob

Thanks! Will do!

I also ordered the downloadable version of FC2 .So I assume I just install LOMAC, then install FC2 in a different folder without patching LOMAC first?

Fair enough GG. Thanks for sharing your views on the topic. We'll respectfully disagree and see where the industry takes us. At this point clearly you are right, but that doesn't mean things won't change and come around to my way of thinking. In the meantime I'll buy and support the products you guys are making. BTW, I've just cracked the seal on BS, and it is full on. There goes another 2 years of my life. :-) Rob

I agree you'd ideally want to have a common physics engine that is shared between sims. But when I mentioned standards and specifications, this is partially what I was referring to. But BS and LOMAC already have that, right? They have a specification that all vehicles, weapon systems, etc. exist within. One thing that I think is being lost here, is once you've developed the unified engine you are left with individual elements that work within it. So the team that is developing the next F-16 isn't worrying about physics, because it's already defined and coded. They worry about accurately modeling the F-16 within that environment. And since the terrains, GUI, data communication, etc. are already modeled and exist, they don't have to worry about it. I guess we can agree to disagree, and I respect the nay's take on this. But I think you'll be surprised one day when it happens. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

First, thanks for sharing some insight into what the team did to integrate the two projects. Of course, it is never easy to do this, and I agree this isn't an ideal example. Also interesting to know that FC2 has the better sound engine. One thing I'd like to mention is the people that are claiming this is hard to impossible are looking at the project from their own unique reality. Of course, based on how things are structured today it would be challenging, but moving forward I'll bet if you asked the developers how they would do something like I am proposing, they would come up with ideas. The issue is, the existing code was not written with this structure in mind. Of course it would be harder than if you planned it that way from the beginning. That doesn't mean it's impossible to integrate, but it would definitely be a lot easier had that been planned from the beginning. But that applies to anything in software. The reason I mention this here is that I think the guys that are developing BS and FC2 are probably the best team to try something like this. It also gives them a dominate position, because the company that brings this to market is going to own the segment for 20 years. Why not these guys? BS seems like the perfect platform to start with. As far as GG goes, I read his title and I understand his connection with the project. I'm not sure if he is doing solely black box testing, or if he has knowledge, access and understanding of the internal code, and how it's structured. That would make a huge difference. Again, I know you guys are far more intimate with this project, but I just don't think it is impossible to accomplish. Hard? Yes. Impossible? No. Worth it? Absolutely. I'd love to talk to the lead developer on either of these projects to see what they think of the idea. As many people have mentioned, it would take resources, time and a lot of coordination among participants, and that would be the biggest hurdle IMO. The technical challenges could be overcome. But if you started with..."we are doing this...how do we make it happen?" I guarantee you the smart guys in the room will come up with the solutions. I'd bet several of them probably already have the nuts and bolts conceptually worked out. Once again, thanks guys for chiming in on this. Always good to hear opposing views. Maybe one day soon this will be attempted, and then we can all see the merits (or lack thereof) of such an idea. I hope to one day see it!

I can appreciate your take on it, and nobody said it was going to be easy. But there's a big difference between difficult and impossible, and I believe that what I have stated is not only possible, but ultimately inevitable. It's just an evolutionary process the industry will go through. Integrating FC2 and BS is but one step in that direction. I also agree that integrating something like ARMA II would probably be the most difficult aspect of this, for a variety of reasons. But it is still going to happen IMO. But to answer one point you made... "so now an 'I never miss' missile is launched from ARMAII against a pilot who's 'doing everything right' to evade, but nothing takes." Our unified battlefield is based on real-world physics. It's reality based. So any missile launched by any other participant is going to have to comply with real-world parameters. It's part of the specification. We're not building an arcade world, are we? And in this world reality is reality, and one participant isn't going to be able to bend it. Again, BS and FC2 prove integration is not only possible, but reality. How did the team do it? Smoke and mirrors? Data integration, plain and simple. Just ask them. Of course, there's more to it. But at the core it was a data integration project. You are closer to them than I am. Ask them. Let's see how things play out. Maybe you are right, but I doubt it. This unified battlefield is coming. Maybe not today or tomorrow. But eventually.

Does that make it bad? I know I've been thinking about this for a decade. Maybe it is old because it is the right way to go? Time will tell.

I agree it isn't enough, but I've already mentioned some of the other pieces you'd need. What do you think is missing?

Thanks buddy.

That would be awesome Udat. I just sent you a PM.

And that is exactly why no company can pull this off alone. I'm not talking about one sim engine that everyone develops with. I'm talking about a unified data sharing layer, where different sims can plug into a common environment. BS uses the same graphic engine they use now. LOMAC uses the one it uses. Falcon would too (or some future Falcon). It's a decision to model your aircraft, vehicle, ship, etc. to standards defined by the unified battlefield. It's no different than what is done now with every sim, but instead of having every team build the battlefield, it is shared by everyone else. The last thing you want to do is force all teams to use one development tool. I'm talking about data communication between sims, not everyone building sims from the same engine. That wouldn't obviously work. Again, think about the battlefield now. Let's say you are in a SU-27 and you fly over a city. If there is a tank down there, how is that rendered in your world? It's data. The data includes the type, direction, coordinates, and a zillion other pieces of information. Where does that data come from? In Falcon, maybe the campaign engine generated it. But where the data comes from is irrelevant. You have it, and the data is what is used to render the tank on your screen. It doesn't matter if it is AI data, or a real person. It's still data. Does it matter if that data came from your campaign engine, or a unified campaign engine that is relaying the information from the guy using a tank sim on the same battlefield? Data is data. And before you say how hard it would be to do that in real-time, every time you go head to head via another fighter in LOMAC you are dealing with real-time data. So the capability already exists to do that, and some companies are very good at it. If companies wanted to support the unified battlefield it could be optional. That way BS could develop their sim stand alone, or release a patch/mod to hook into the unified battlefield engine. Again, don't think massive game engine. Think "data sharing".

Good points, and I can see why you have reservations. Although you and I can agree that subs aren't the most exciting sim, there probably are a lot of people out there that love them. And if I'm a developer of a niche sub simulator, having our unified battlefield might just be the venue to breath new life into the genre. But let's look at tanks. Say we've got this ultra realistic M1 Abrams battle tank sim. Our objective is to take a heavily defended city. The A-10's go in to soften the enemy up, and then I roll in with some squad mates using ARMA II. It's combined forces, each with their own objectives that weave into the overall strategy. If I've got a buddy down there in the M1, I'm going to defend him as much as possible in my A-10, Falcon, etc. It just adds a totally new level to all sims. And that is the point of this. There has to be a campaign engine that gives each unit class meaning in the battlefield. Coordination. I think it would be massive. Nobody would buy a military sim unless it supported this unified battlefield. You take the combined players from ARMA II, BS, LOMAC, Falcon, etc. and you have a huge base of players to sell to. And maybe on the battlefield you and I see the benefit of the sub sim, and decide to give it a shot. And then we see how cool the tank sims are based on how much others are enjoying it. I think a lot of people would buy several sims, just so they can experience battle from other perspectives. And all along, the developers are saving money by focusing on core strengths, while leaving much of the plumbing to other teams. It's a platform, just like the 360 is a platform to host games and facilitate content distribution and communication. Think of all the great sims out there. How much better would they be if the developers could spend all their time on one specific vehicle, or terrain? Put it another way. LOMAC already supports various planes, and you can jump in any of them and interact with others on the battlefield. Instead of that interaction being housed inside LOMAC, what if it was a external library that other sims can tap into? LOMAC's code might not have to change as much as you think. Maybe my vision of this doesn't happen ever, or not for 10 years, but once it does people are going to see the benefits of such a strategy. That much I am sure about.

Thanks Udat. I am checking it out now. Appreciate the help!

You made a lot of great points, but the last line I have to disagree with. Allied Force is awesome, and it is very stable. FF and OF always lost me with the constant crashes. I know they were good in a lot of respects, but nothing kills immersion like a CTD. Allied Force was rock solid online. That's why I used it.

All in all it sounds like LOMAC and BS are great sims. Maybe LOMAC isn't at the level of Falcon when it comes to ultra realism, but that doesn't mean it isn't immersive and fun. And honestly, there are times when Falcon's over the top realism gets in the way of fun. They are different animals and I look forward to checking them both out. Thanks for all the replies, guys. I now have a much better feel for what to expect from LOMAC and BS, so I doubt I will be disappointed!

One last thought. Imagine a team that focuses exclusively on a plane. Say...an F-16. They worry about the characteristics of the plane, the avionics, the weapons systems, the cockpits, etc. They don't care about net code because that is already built in. So is the menu structure, the environment, the terrain. That's not their job to worry about those issues, because the platform already exists where the plane they build can exist in this virtual world. Think about how much easier their job would be? Is this really any different than the aircraft that people create for FS? Someone comes out with a new terrain for New York. As long as the terrain is built to specs, using standards already defined, any plane past, present or future built with the same standards in mind would work. Right now each developer has to deal with all these items alone, and that is just massively inefficient.