LEAVU development phase, coding MPCD graphics

[Groove]

erm... Groove with Comms I think they are definitely not a cheat because they are used in real life and on both sides... with this datalink it might be available for the F-15 and so be it but unless other aircraft are on same level it's unrealstic advantage... and also the code of it has to be secured, which is not right now, right?

 

Kuky, first of all it's available for all aircraft, if you are talking about a unrealistic advantage in MP games. Im not sure what you mean with securing the code. Do you mean that somebody could use it as a all seeing eye, having the code and lua exports enabled on a server?

[A.S]

@EitheraiIN: Can you modify TS to read out almost all datas you need?

Edited December 4, 2009 by A.S

[Kuky]

I don't think you have a point EtherealN... you are like nitpicking just trying to justify use of LEAVU

[159th_Viper]

Intersting analogies between VOIP's and LEAVU being drawn.......

 

One must however be blind not to see the obvious distinction between a Verbal Relay of Information and the Attendant 'Accuracy' and Time-Delay in the Processing of the said information between the Relayor and Relayee vs The Real-Time and Immediate Transmission of Visual Data Representing the Entire Theater of Operations to the select few Pilots of the LEAVU Flight.....or is it just me?

[EtherealN]

Kuky, I am a worthless fighter pilot. I don't fly any plane that has a radar in the first place in LockOn. I do not have a horse in this race because there's no plane for which this particular function would be of value to me. (I have like 5 deaths to 1 kill against the AI under normal circumstances... :P)

 

But my entire argument, including the similarities between the applications, have already been exhaustively presented so I won't repeat them yet again, except to note that in one of these cases the application actually evades an actual restriction placed into the engine on purpose.

[Groove]

Will LEAVU share more informations on a extra screen that you can get from people flying with you with very good and strict comms?

 

As far as i have understood it it won't share exact the same amount of data that you can share on voice. Correct? Maybe Yoda can clarify this again.

 

Im still trying to understand the "cheat" behind LEAVU in its actual form. Should any forthcoming DCS Modules lack any sort of Datalink ? Right now this seems to be what people want.

 

Datalink = Cheat

Edited December 4, 2009 by Groove

[Kuky]

Panzertard, I like your post.... groove by secure I meant no one can change the code and manipulate it for other use (if and when it's decided this can be put into game)

[topol-m]

At last a constructive post and not just barking at Yoda. Good analysis. It`s up to ED and not Yoda to modify the game taking into account the above mentioned if there`s a will for such modification.

[Kuky]

Also big difference with using comms and datalink is ability to have imediate real life picture versus actual ability, which takes time, to present info over comms in formated manner... and also requires other pilot to get mental piture of what's being said to him.. this actually takes pilots abilities and skil... having everything on datalink takes no pilot skill

[3Sqn_TomAce]

Will LEAVU share more informations on a extra screen that you can get from people flying with you with very good and strict comms?

 

As far as i have understood it it won't share exact the same amount of data that you can share on voice. Correct? Maybe Yoda can clarify this again.

 

Im still trying to understand the "cheat" behind LEAVU in its actual form. Should any forthcoming DCS Modules lack any sort of Datalink ? Right now this seems to be what people want.

 

Datalink = Cheat

 

 

Yoda do you plan to enable tdc snap locking given target information coming from the link system?

[Case]

Also big difference with using comms and datalink is ability to have imediate real life picture versus actual ability, which takes time, to present info over comms in formated manner... and also requires other pilot to get mental piture of what's being said to him.. this actually takes pilots abilities and skil... having everything on datalink takes no pilot skill

Exactly, this is precisely the difference between sharing information over TeamSpeak or Ventrilo, compared to sharing information directly through software. Doing it over comms presents a great challenge for those willing to do so, whereas sharing it through software presents no challenge at all, all you need is a 2nd monitor and the software.

[EtherealN]

One must however be blind not to see the obvious distinction between a Verbal Relay of Information and the Attendant 'Accuracy' and Time-Delay in the Processing of the said information between the Relayor and Relayee vs The Real-Time and Immediate Transmission of Visual Data Representing the Entire Theater of Operations to the select few Pilots of the LEAVU Flight.....or is it just me?

 

I'm not saying they are equal, or that Teamspeak usage should be considered a cheat.

 

I am observing the fact that Teamspeak actually circumvents restrictions placed in the game engine, namely line-of-sight. However I regard the advantages to gameplay given by Teamspeak to be of the nature that this circumvention is an acceptable evil.

 

I regard LEAVU, as I have understood it, in the same way.

[Panzertard]

Guys - the "cheat" argument is a bit beyond and above.

Bringing in the "cheat" debate will only create more heat to a very difficult debate. (And TS / Ventrilo and the rest of the derailments that follows ...)

 

The thing is LEAVU opens the possibility for "unfair advantage" in MP perspective for many players - but also "realism" in the perspective of the authors.

 

So can we stick at Game balance / realism?

Please?

Edited December 4, 2009 by Panzertard
Re-phrased

[A.S]

Yo dudes, is Yoda dictating the "rules" here or is it still DCS deciding how multiplayer environment is supposed to look like?

Edited December 4, 2009 by A.S

[159th_Viper]

Guys - the "cheat" argument is a bit beyond and above.

Bringing in the "cheat" debate will only create more heat to a very difficult debate. (And TS / Ventrilo and the rest of the derailments that follows ...)

 

The thing is LEAVU opens the possibility for "unfair advantage" - but also "realism".

 

Quite So :)

 

Question stands: How does the current LEAVU Program measure up to it's RL Counterpart. To date - and credit to you, Panzer - only you have attempted to cast some light on the issue by providing the links in your previous post. Would be good to receive Substantiation from the Authors of the Mod insofar as to what extent the program has been modelled to accord with it's RL Counterpart insofar as it's Capabilities/Limitations are concerned......'Realism' will then have been addressed.

 

Until then.

[topol-m]

Yo dudes, is Yoda dictating the rules here or is it still DCS deciding how multiplayer environment is supposed to look like?

 

ED is deciding how the multiplayer will look like. And as long as modification is possible anyone can do anything and create whatever tools with whatever uses.

[A.S]

ED is deciding how the multiplayer will look like. And as long as modification is possible anyone can do anything and create whatever tools with whatever uses.

 

 

soo, you dont mind if i modify a little bit to have UEBER SA? :music_whistling: actually great, then i dont have to work for a lock-bite in order to read out my bandit...i just look my new shiny tools :)

 

get my drift?

[Panzertard]

ED is deciding how the multiplayer will look like. And as long as modification is possible anyone can do anything and create whatever tools with whatever uses.

 

This is one of the many factors unfortunately.

 

- In any game anyone can create addons - as long as the game-engine publishes some information realtime. ED's game is no exception here.

- The day someone create's a standalone 3'rd party application that starts to share information across internet (ourside the game-engine builtin balancing mechanisms) then you will have no control over whats being shared.

- Shared information can realign the balance of a game, outside the game's builtin (balancing) control-mechanisms.

 

In that perspective - to ensure a happy community;

- ED *should* ensure that data cannot be abused.

- Authors of 3'rd party applications *should* ensure that their application isnt changing the game-balance as agreed on by the community and/or author of the original game.

 

But unfortunately - there's no such thing as a perfect world, where everyone lives happy side by side.

But we can *try*.

 

- Some preffer realism.

- Some preffer gameplay / balance.

 

Both sides should try to respect eachother - and try not to further undermine the experience you guys have when you fly your favorite sim.

This means both sides need to work together to find a compromise which is accepted and perhaps endorsed by the community.

 

~S!

- Panzer

[topol-m]

soo, you dont mind if i modify a little bit to have UEBER SA? :music_whistling: actually great, then i dont have to work for a lock-bite in order to read out my bandit...i just look my new shiny tools :)

 

get my drift?

 

 

 

I mind using such things online. I don`t mind if you create such things. That`s the difference. Stopping the use of cheats is ED`s work or Server admin`s work and not yours or Yoda`s. That`s been my point.

 

 

Both sides should try to respect eachother - and try not to further undermine the experience you guys have when you fly your favorite sim.

This means both sides need to work together to find a compromise which is accepted and perhaps endorsed by the community.

 

That`s right but as you`ve said we do not live in a perfect world. As long as there`s a possibility for cheating someone will exploit it. The solution is to make this possibility an impossibility, or at least reduce it to a minimum.

Edited December 4, 2009 by topol-m

[A.S]

Well we agree then, cuz the implemtation of datalink generaly is great like hell, but they way it is achieved is more then to be worried about.

[RvEYoda]

Quite So :)

 

Question stands: How does the current LEAVU Program measure up to it's RL Counterpart. To date - and credit to you, Panzer - only you have attempted to cast some light on the issue by providing the links in your previous post. Would be good to receive Substantiation from the Authors of the Mod insofar as to what extent the program has been modelled to accord with it's RL Counterpart insofar as it's Capabilities/Limitations are concerned......'Realism' will then have been addressed.

 

Until then.

 

 

Well there is some information i wrote in the first post of this thread.

Essentially the dlink equivalent the F15 used before the more modern ones

is very hush hush, and for the sake of not going "overkill" i chose to model

an older type dlink. Because it being classified we chose the next best thing

which is available to us, basically the F-16 MLU manual(s). This is a reasonable

approach imo, and the opinion of F-15 crew I spoke to. I will not reveal any

names as they wish to remain anonymous. For those who think I'm lying to

you and just making excuses, that is your choice. This is what we got, and this

is what we're making out of it. I think i can show you the MLU manual if you have

time some day. TS?

 

I tried my best to replicate all shapes of the dlink icons as described in the manual.

[Panzertard]

That`s right but as you`ve said we do not live in a perfect world. As long as there`s a possibility for cheating someone will exploit it. The solution is to make this possibility an impossibility, or at least reduce it to a minimum.

Yes, just what suggested here; http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=793905&postcount=350

At least until we have mechanisms that can assist with balance in MP - as of choosing "this session should be with/without LEAVU datalink". ;)

[Kuky]

I mind using such things online. I don`t mind if you create such things. That`s the difference.

 

did I just read this right, if so... this is such double standard... so you don't care if I make some application as long as I don't use it? How does that make sense... really?

[topol-m]

You really don`t get it do you? I don`t mind creating cheats or tools that could be used/are considered as cheats . It`s a legitimate activity. It in no ways interfere with my experience with the game. The USE of cheats though do interfere with my experience. But it also is not a criminal activity. It`s just annoying but what can I do to deal with it? Rant? Quit the server find some with no cheaters? Search the cheaters one by one and beat the shit out of them and destroy their PC`s? Yeah pretty much each of these actions. But whatever I do I myself cannot resolve the problem nor it is my work to do so. It`s the creators of the game and the people managing servers work to terminate/limit cheating possibilities. If they don`t do that that would result in less interest towards multiplayer. So I once again am proposing to stop this barking against Yoda, and if you like you can start a new thread with asking ED specific questions regarding these problems. Is everything clear now? :thumbup:

[159th_Viper]

Well there is some information i wrote in the first post of this thread.

Essentially the dlink equivalent the F15 used before the more modern ones

is very hush hush, and for the sake of not going "overkill" i chose to model

an older type dlink. Because it being classified we chose the next best thing

which is available to us, basically the F-16 MLU manual(s). This is a reasonable

approach imo, and the opinion of F-15 crew I spoke to. I will not reveal any

names as they wish to remain anonymous. For those who think I'm lying to

you and just making excuses, that is your choice. This is what we got, and this

is what we're making out of it. I think i can show you the MLU manual if you have

time some day. TS?

 

I tried my best to replicate all shapes of the dlink icons as described in the manual.

 

Ta :)

 

I do not for a moment Doubt your Sources/Information and the Extent to which you have implemented it into the LEAVU programme. What I am attempting to ascertain for my Own Peace of Mind is whether a Scenario that I have contemplated as per post #311 is relevant to LEAVU or whether the RL Counterpart Software and as a consequence LEAVU has Inherent restrictions that alleviate the 'Gods-Eye' Mode as contemplated.

 

And If So - What are the Said Restrictions/Does the LEAVU Software model said Restrictions?