Desireable level of realism in a comabt flightsim?

[Antoninus]

I am curious what level of realism the people here, the hardcore Il-2 fans, consider desirable. Generally with each new generation of flight sims the complexity increased, each was closer to flying a real plane.

Currently in Il-2, the players workload is considerably lower than it would be in real WW2 aircraft. A lot of things like a realistic turbocharger simulation, the effects of carburetor air temperature and oil temperature, damage due to shock cooling, damaged cowl flaps due to overspeed, realistic start up procedures, realistic navigation, fuel(-tank) management, etc. are left out.

Personally as a simmer, I would love to see all this aspects in a sim. But obviously more realism doesn't automatically equal more fun, at least for most (?). On the contrary if people have to spend days or weeks to learn how to operate specific aircraft many will become quickly frustrated or bored and might move on to something else. Thus economically further increasing realism is probably not very wise. While the necessary development time, and so the costs, are increased the potential customer only base becomes smaller. As developer I would spend my resources to improve the atmosphere and gameplay instead. Better campaigns, briefings, maybe some period newsreels etc. Trying to please a wider audience than just the hardcore WW2 aviation buffs.

[AndyJWest]

Since when has this been an either/or question? IL-2 has always had adjustable difficulty settings, and I'd be very surprised if SoW:BoB doesn't too.

As for how complex the 'complex' settings need to be, I'd say it might be better to see what Oleg comes out with before deciding you don't like it...

[HFC_Dolphin]

I guess no one should forget that a PC simulation can never be compared to a real car/airplane/whatever.

A developer must think about it and include only the elements that will make the PC simulation-game playable.

I guess we all want the most realistic settings, but up to the point that game is still playable for everyone.

[Antoninus]

Since when has this been an either/or question? IL-2 has always had adjustable difficulty settings, and I'd be very surprised if SoW:BoB doesn't too.

As for how complex the 'complex' settings need to be, I'd say it might be better to see what Oleg comes out with before deciding you don't like it...


The question is what you would like to see, not what is Olegs vision.

Probably all these decisions were already made long ago. It seems to me that he has chosen the only viable path. As in MSFS, rather simple default aircraft but all options are there for 3rd party add ons.

[HFC_Dolphin]

BTW, I completely disagree that IL-2 is simplified.
It's the closest to reality that we could get with the technology of late '90s.

[Antoninus]

Maybe, but it is simplified compared to some of the latest add on planes for FSX whcih have all the stuff mentioned above and some people would prefer to keep it this way.

From the latest cklickable cockpit thread:


Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to move between aircraft as a player. You'd practically have to marry one aircraft and stay with it or relearn all the controls and locations of those controls every time you attempted to fly the aircraft.

The startup sequence would run off users faster than you could give the software away for free.

The level of difficultly would take a air combat sim game that is pretty darn extraordinary for the genre and turn it into almost "full real" flight simulator. That is not what IL2 is about.

[Romanator21]

What's wrong with having an option? I want full functionality. That doesn't mean you have to suffer. You want playability and accessibility. I hope that doesn't mean I should suffer either.

Just a flip of the switch in the difficulty menu.

We can all be at peace.

[nearmiss]

Poll is not adequately phrased

The Il2 option makes IL2 look negligible and unreal.

Careful or very simple Yes * No responses to polls are best, if the questions are fairly worded.

What you call realistic has many connotations or meanings for different people.

You must be a politiican.. LOL

[rakinroll]

Yes, as realistic as possible!

[Blackdog_kt]

What's wrong with having an option? I want full functionality. That doesn't mean you have to suffer. You want playability and accessibility. I hope that doesn't mean I should suffer either.

Just a flip of the switch in the difficulty menu.

We can all be at peace.

I'm with Romanator on this one. As for what is the potential gain for Mr.Maddox and his team in implementing such things, let's all take the time to remember that there will be no more MS Flight Simulator because the ACES studio was shut down.

Where are all these people going to go? These are people who easily pay $30 or more for a single flyable aircraft as long as it is adequately well modeled, people who even pay 15$-50$ for scenery packs that might range from an entire continent or be as small as a single major european airport. The more "FSX friendly" the new sim is, the more 1c company has to gain from it. There's a gap in the market and if Mr.Maddox is well prepared he can cover it just like that (insert snap of the fingers sound here).

It would be very interesting to see a similar poll in a MSFS forum. "Would you buy a combat sim if the aircraft systems were modelled in an accurate and comparable manner to the way they are done in civilian sims?"

I was about to open a similar poll myself after all the discussion in the other poll about clickable cockpits, but then i went out for a couple of beers :)
In any case, i'm glad it has surfaced and it's interesting to note that while most people dislike the FSX-style interface, they don't necessarily dislike the added realism that can be found in some of the newer sims and their add-ons.

If you want to see some well done WWII birds, search youtube for clips of the aerosoft catalina and the A2A simulations accusim series, which includes the Piper J-3 Cub, the P-47D and the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser (a civilian passenger/airliner version of the B29). The A2A guys are the people behind the remake of Rowan's Battle of Britain sim by the way.

I've flown all of these on a friend's PC and i was not a big fan of FSX, but truth be told, i was very pleasantly surprised with the added realism. The workload is of course increased but it's definitely not impossible to manage.
For example, the Stratocruiser is very complicated but you have an AI copilot and an AI engineer to help you fly it, just like you have AI gunners in combat sims to help you defend your bomber.

Imagine flying a night raid in a Mosquito in some SoW expansion two years into the future and having an AI navigator correcting your course via the signals he receives on the Oboe navigation system and the beacons that feed your direction finder gauge, would be cool as hell. Want more? Switch through the crew positions and manipulate the instruments on your own if you want to do it all by yourself, just like we can take controls of the gunners now. Want even better? Have a friend join you online and share the crew positions between you. You go "hey mate, i'll get navigation,piloting and the radio station" and the other guy replies "cool, i'll take care of bomb aiming, gunners and the engineer station to help you monitor the engines while you fly". Come on, i can't be the only one who thinks this will be a blast to do online :grin:

As for how complicated it is to transition from one plane to the next, someone mentioned having to "marry" a single airplane to make it work. Well, i have some observations on this.

First of all, the most succesful pilots in IL2 are those who stick to a select amount of airframes and that amount is small. Usually it's 1-2 aircraft for each time period/theater/side and even if the guy is seen switching sides, he flies aircraft that behave in a similar manner. I mostly fly 190s so if i have to switch teams for balance reasons you'll never see me in a spitfire, you'll see me in a P-47. If there's an early war scenario going that has neither of those, i'll pick the plane that fights the rest of the planeset in a similar way to the previous two, that is the fastest i can get with the heaviest armament possible and not the best dogfighter. In a sense, even though flying a total of 10 airframes or less (3-4 fighters, but i fly bombers too), i'm essentially already dedicated to a certain "style" because it works for me.
I don't like it so much and i'm neither good enough at it to go headlong into furballs in a 109G2, Yak or Spitfire, so i choose the other way.

With that out of the way, real pilots also faced transition issues from one type to the next and it's not unrealistic to have it happen in the sim as well. However, the initial flyables of SoW will not be of the same staggering amount that we now have in IL2 (even without the mod-packs there's a ton of flyables). I'm guessing that it won't be hard to learn a couple of fighers and a couple of bombers really well, so that you can use the right tool for the job no matter which side you're on.

Which brings us to the final part. Conversion between different aircraft in a flight sim is easier than it looks. As i told you before, i had no experience whatsoever with FSX. After i learned a couple of things in one aircraft, i could apply them to all the rest as well. It's like driving a car, you don't have to get a different license whenever you drive a different car, as long it's the same vehicle category. The only case you'll need another license is you want to drive a motorbike or a truck and it's the same way for aicraft as well, if you move from single seaters to four-engined heavies you will naturally have a few more things to take care of as you fly.

The bottom line is that if you know how to manage an engine, you know how to manage 90% of all engines available. All you need to learn is the different power settings necessary for the engine you're going to work with. I had zero experience with things like that in a simulator and guess how long it takes me to get used to a new aircraft that simulates them...two hours maximum for multi-engined airframes, less than an hour for single-engined ones. I might have to try a few times before i manage to start it up, or cook the engine altogether on my first couple of flights, have to go-around because i screwed up the landing approach or set it down heavy and damage the gear, but after a mere two flights it's a piece of cake.

It's not necessarily difficult, it's actually very easy once you learn how it all comes together (which you only have to do once regardless of airframe, all piston engines work in a similar manner). What it is is that it's definitely more involving and interesting and it gives you something to do on the way to the target area between scanning for targets, which is otherwise complete downtime.

On top of that, most of the military cockpits have marked areas on each gauge. You don't fancy learning that a Jug has a maximum allowable manifold pressure of 52 inches mercury and a maximum RPM of 2700? Good for you. You can either turn down the realism settings, or simply keep the needles pointing inside the green arc and don't exceed that redline. It's as simple as stealing candy from a baby. :cool:

[Tempest123]

I think its a question of balance, the workload of a "pc pilot", having to look around with a hat switch or trackir and aim a mouse and click off fuel tank selectors, carb heat etc. is much more demanding than the quick motion this would be in real life with your hands.
Think about driving your car, you don't look down at your clutch, press it, then look at your gearshift and change gears, than look back at the clutch and let it go, then look back up, instead you do it quickly without looking. I think the way that Oleg has modelled some of these aspects such as fuel tank selection (and yes it is modelled) is correct in that it happens automatically. I would love to have a single keystroke for all the functions the cockpit but that just not possible, and having to aim and click while panning your view around and flying the plane is not very realistic to me. I would like to see maybe keystroke options for some of these features but a clickable cockpit I think is more work than it really is in the real aircraft. Its hard to simulate "feel" and routines of motion that are necessary to fly aircraft, but I think Il2 has a good balance of both. The "realism" I would like to see improved in SoW is the feeling of actually being in England in 1940, the atmosphere, terrain, other pilots, squadron management, the extra tension etc. I think the user of a flight sim, especially a historical one, should be transported to another time and place every time the sim is used, thats the fun of flight simming to me.

[Blackdog_kt]

I generally agree with you, but i'm not debating the interface of it at all. This was done in the other poll and that's why this one was opened, to discuss not the interface but the possibilities that exist.

The thing is, while i don't look at my turn signals and clutch in the car to use them, i do look momentarily (like a real life snap view) at the air-conditioning and the cd-player controls, because it's a whole cluster of buttons on the car's center console whose location i either don't remember (how often does one need to use the fog lights in Greece? :grin: ) or i can't find by touch alone. I just know their general location, move my hand towards it but before i press anything i still need to take my eyes off the road for a fraction of a second and confirm what i'm just about to press. This is actually preferrable to keeping eyes on the road at all times but also keeping my right hand tied up while i'm fumbling around for the correct switch for an extended period of time.

In that sense, things like a clutch and turn signal controls are the equivalent of controls mapped to HOTAS and keyboard. The other ones are secondary controls that you don't need all the time, so that's why the car's designer decided to put them in a place where you might need to look before you use them.

Once again, it's a matter of options. I would like to have the added option to go all manual on those juicy new flyables and if someone else doesn't, well there's always the difficulty settings where one can turn it off. I think the main reason for this poll is not a "my way is better" approach, but to gauge if there's enough interest from the potential buyers of the sim to justify going ahead and modelling these things.

When i first fired up the IL-2 demo almost 10 years ago it was the hardest, most realistic, most challenging experience i've ever had with simulators up to that point. When comparing it with the latest offerings however i feel like i've been having it easy for the last few years. That doesn't mean IL-2 is suddenly not up to par, because for a 2001-2005 title it pretty much is.

The distinction lies in the context however, because technology evolves and possibilities broaden. If SoW uses the same amount of excessive automation as IL-2 in certain functions without the possibility to select a more complex model, IL-2 will still be a benchmark sim for a 2001 title but SoW won't be a benchmark sim for a 2010 title.
I hope i'm making myself clear, i'm not dissing the titles, i'm just saying we have to judge them according to what else is out there on the sim market and at the same time understand that since the market is small, it might take a while before all the necessary bits are assembled.

I would be perfectly content with a statement that says "yes, these features are possible in the new engine, there is built-in support for them and sometime in the near future modders or the development team will implement them".

This stuff needs to be included, probably not on release but certainly during the first year of the sim's life. An important portion of the confirmed customer base wants it, but there's also a big part of the flight sim community in general that might want it, so this means that Mr.Maddox and team might probably want it as well due to the possibility of extra sales outside the dedicated fans of IL-2 and WWII combat sims.

For example, what about licensing the engine to developers of civilian sims? Or what about a mod-pack with 2-3 freeware open beta stages before it goes payware, like Over Flanders Fields? There's a big gap now that MSFS is dead and there are a whole bunch of companies that used to code for that series. I don't expect them to suddenly close shop, it's more likely that they'll search for a new platform and if that platform happens to be SoW it will be good for everyone. We get more realistic options in our combat sims, Maddox and co. get more money and if that money goes into hiring additional staff, we might also get the SoW expansions faster.

It's like that movie with the baseball field, "build it and they will come" ;)

[Erkki]

The more realistic, the better. As long as theres an option to turn each feature on/off separately... As we need to lure the fresh prey in somehow! ;)

[Sutts]

I agree with Blackdog, I'd like to see more complex system modelling and a more realistic workload for the pilot. I'm not too fussed about a clickable cockpit as long as we can map HOTAS or keys to everything.

We obviously need these as options to keep both camps happy.

I'm not demanding that Oleg provide this functionality, just asking that he provides interfaces so that third parties can give us what we need.

[csThor]

I think the boundary between realism and masochism is not a straight line but a blurred something that's meandering all over the place. To me civil flight sims as FSX are procedure sims first and foremost - the actual operation of the aircraft and the depth of its systems are what makes or breaks the sim experience in them. Combat flight sims on the other hand do simulate the reason why these crates were built - military operations. The military experience (from a simple sportive dogfight contest to carefully planned and built historical missions) is what forms the core of the sim experience here.

Now ... we really need to ask ourselves if the system depth of civil sims is really necessary or even desirable in a military sim? Does having the primers for the on-board electrics simulated really contribute to the sim experience? Not in my opinion. IMO systems which do have a direct influence on the military experience (i.e. accurate engine management, weapon systems, oxygen modelling for high-alt stuff, radio comms etc) should be as realistic as possible, but without impeding usability of the program itself. It's pointless to simulate the radio comms of a long-range weather recon plane down to the last rivet since I bet the least of us here are fluent in morse code (which is the way german aircraft on such missions sent their reports back: they extended a long cable serving as radio antenna and morsed their findings as vocal comms weren't up to the long distances back then) and that part of the game would simply be aggravating.

So for me bottom line is: As realistic as necessary, as simple as possible.

[Sutts]

Some guys enjoy the aircraft themselves as much as the combat and really enjoy the challenge of learning the operating procedures for their favourite aircraft type. To them it adds a great deal of immersion and makes it feel like they are operating a real aircraft. It is also a great education tool as you start to take notice and understand the various features of the pit.

This doesn't mean we don't also enjoy the combat and tactics side of things. That is of course what is missing from the FSX series. If SOW can combine the two then the FSX crowd will flock to it.

I think there is a demand for real systems modeling and hopefully third party developers such as A2A will deliver one day.

I also think it is quite possible for both camps to exist quite happily together, with add-on packs and option settings etc.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Realism all the way, but as csThor said in a meaningfull way. IL-2 is simplified, especially in CEM. P38 was not the most easy to fly for example. It could take the pilot up to 20-30 seconds to get the plane from cruise to combat readiness state! This included switching fuel tanks from externals to internals, dropping externals, adjusting engine boost, mixture and RPM etc. And you could NOT just firewall everything and go or the engines would have blown or seriously damaged.

In IL-2 we have the carefree CEM concerning planes with separate boost, mixture, RPM etc adjustments. In this area Germans had the upper hand with their automated engine controls like in FW190, on handle to use only. Also engine cooling etc should be better modelled in SoW. Limits were there for a reason and in IL-2 they are quite liberal.

Before you flame me. It is not maschocism, but realism. Real pilots had to adjust their planes and learn the systems to maximize their perfromance. Why do we have to have it easier just because it is a computer game? With full real settings flying should be harder as it was, not a simplified thing to get "more fun and easier kills". Making the sim hard on full real would maybe open some eyes to see it was not a victory parade to anyone involved in WW2 but a very stressfull and hard time fighting for survival.

So yes..full realism. We have HOTAS etc where to configure systems AND the game will have relaxed settings as well so you can gradually climb up from relaxed to full real. Right?

[JVM]

In other words, what all of you are asking is what Oleg has said (repeatedly) would be present in SoW series (maybe not all in SoW:BoB)?
Did he not say that 3rd parties would be able to do almost anything except modifying the core code and making large maps?
Did he not also say that former MSFS modellers were already working for MG?

I do enjoy the threads in this forum but I feel somewhat dizzy of all the circles I have been forced to think in when reading...

JV

[ElAurens]

I must agree totally with csThor.

I don't want a WW2 aircraft procedures training sim, which is what some here are really proposing, even if they don't know that they are.

I want to be able to "fly" any number of virtual aircraft, and enjoy the experience, not be saddled to one type by virtue of the fact that learning to operate it is so time consuming and complex that one is all you could ever learn well, as in real life.

And let's be realistic here. If aircraft for SOW were modeled to the degree that some propose, we would only have one flyable for each side.

And a dead sim, as it would not sell in the numbers needed to keep it alive.

[Blackdog_kt]

Well, we're getting excited since the renewed stream of updates and if flight sim people don't have anything concrete to talk about they will speculate :cool:

I pretty much agree with the previous posters, i do find it very rewarding and exciting to learn how and why the aircraft i'm flying works the way it does.

However, my desire for advanced systems modelling and a closer to real pilot workload doesn't only come from that. There's another can of worms that's somehow interconnected with it.

It's generally accepted knowledge in our community that in order for a mission or campaign to work, wether it's offline, DF or coop, it's not enough to have a talented mission maker. The players need to play along and cooperate with the stated goals, otherwise no matter how talented the mission maker is things don't go exactly as planned. We've all been in online servers where the mission is realistically and carefully crafted, yet one day it's a mission and the next it's an endless furball between Dover and Calais on the channel maps. Why is that? Well, for starters it's not bad to like furballs, everyone does. However, when joining a mission oriented server you are probably not there to fly furballs but to complete objectives.

Furballs are very much fun but the way they happen in flight sims is much different than they did in reality. The causes for this are the fact that we obviously don't risk our real lives and can thus afford to get careless or take unwise risks, we have years of experience under our belt and we have the chance to learn by making the same mistakes over and over again, mistakes that were most of the times fatal in reality. So, how are we going to raise the bar and force ourselves to cooperate with the mission maker in creating a more realistic environment?

There's one more reason for our "all out, careless, gung-ho" flying, it's too easy to do compared to reality. Our workload is probably less than 50% of a real pilot in a similar situation. Some may argue that the clunkiness of a PC interface compared to a real cockpit will make things harder than real life if we go 100% real on the workload, or simply too expensive if it's mandatory to have a custom built simpit on top of TrackIR and fancy Hotas sets. It could also separate the community between the ones who can afford all of these peripherals and dominate online and those who can afford just one or two items and be constantly on the losing side.

That's not entirely false and i agree up to a point, but it's not as hard to circumvent as it looks, because we are looking at aircraft with significantly simpler systems than most of todays civilian general aviation aircraft, plus they are used in an age and situation where there are simpler rules and capabilities. There are a good deal more switches, dials, operating limits and procedures to monitor and adhere to in a modern turboprop touring aircraft than in a WWII warbird. You don't have to maintain precise altitudes and headings to keep the IFR ground controller happy (heck, you can't because you don't even have the necessary equipment on your place) and you don't have all the complicated air traffic regulations to think of.

All you need to do is have a rough idea of where you're heading and how long it will take you to get within 10 miles of your intented target to visually pick it up. That's why we see so many servers who try to be realistic but they still use enemy bases too close to each other. In case you're still wondering, it's because navigation consists of " firewall throttle, open rads, lower pitch to prevent overheat,set trim, climb at the edge of the map and go have a cup of cofee while my ride climbs to 30000ft". Navigation simply put is boring because you have nothing to do.
If however manifold pressure on sea level could exceed the engine's tolerance if you applied full throttle, you would have to set throttle to 50% and you'd still be getting the power required for takeoff, but as you climb and the air gets thinner MP and power would drop. You would have to advance the throttle a bit every few thousand feet, check to make sure that your carburators aren't freezing as you climb into colder air and adjust your intercoolers to keep them at the right temps, etc.

You would simply have something fun to do, long before you start searching for targets. You would also have to complete your climb early enough, so that you are at a safe altitude and cruise speed with a nicely cooled and healthy engine a good deal before you ever need to look for hostiles. You would simply have to plan ahead a little bit more.
Ever wonder why so many of the short ranged early P-47Ds were based so far back to the west of the southern UK compared to other units? Maybe it was because they climb like bricks down low, so they had to be up high and cruising fast by the time they meet up with the bombers and definitely before crossing the north sea, on a "just in case basis". What does a Jug at 3000ft do when it's loaded to the brim with fuel and happens to get jumped by a 190 that's on an intruder sortie?

In short, the amount of things that you (and the enemy as well) can screw up increase if you model such things and that can only be fun. Don't call masochism on me because it won't work, we're all flight simmers here so we already know we suffer from it :-P

So, how hard does it actually get when you get to the fight? Well, i guess not much as long as you know what you're doing, but the way your battles play out would be closer to what you read in pilot biographies, because the realistic workload would force you to be a slight touch more conservative.

First of all, it wouldn't be possible to dive, climb or cruise at whatever power settings you wanted. Even in a furball, most pilots would set the desired power before entering the fray and leave it there, because you can't look at the gauges all the time to fine-tune things when you're getting shot at. This might not be fun for some and that's why it should be optional, but it's definitely closer to what happened in reality and that makes it really fun for others. So, what is that magic setting?

I guess it's the power setting used for climbs, as it's high enough to climb in a full-laden plane that flies through warm air directly after take-off, while at the same time keeping the engine within its limits. You'll say "but i don't want to climb!" and that's why you have trim. Plus, having burned some fuel and being a good deal higher in colder air, your engine will also be very effective.
You'll just be unable to cruise at your top speed all day long and will instead have to settle for 20-30mph lower speeds (military power and not top power), keeping your engine cool enough so that you can firewall it if you really need to (ie to escape).

Others might prefer an even lower power setting in combination with a careful approach to combat, because using max sustained power will bring the engine closer to overheat even if it doesn't actually cross the redline. That means one pilot could get 2 minutes at full emergency power before having to throttle back, while another pilot in the same type or aircraft could get 4 minutes. So what do you do? Decisions, decisions...

Of course, the other guy will be bound by the same constraints. What does that mean? That he will probably not want to give up his advantage because it's a slightly more complicated process to climb back up. He will have to score a quick kill or let you go, or risk climbing back to altitude and having to monitor his engine with a bunch of bandits around. In short, he will be reluctant to keep chasing if you dive.

And there you have it, the recreation of the typical accounts we've all read in pilot memoirs that go "i scored good hits on him but he dove out of the fight". How many of them said "i followed him down to the deck despite the presence of other hostiles and having bombers to escort"? Not many i think, at least not many that survived.

As you can see this adds a whole new layer of tactical variables and considerations that to me are not limitations, but extra tools for each virtual pilot to carve his own personal flying style. The more things we have to play with, the more we can distinguish ourselves from each other.

Nowadays we see a plane silhouette and say "this is definitely a G6/AS, the others can't get that speed and climb at this altitude band", we distinguish types.
Imagine the fun of seeing a Jug thundering along at 30000ft, contrails and all, at speeds unattainable by most of the server population in a similar plane and saying on voice comms "yes, that must be Mr.Awesome, nobody else on the full switch servers knows how to push a Jug that hard and not break the turbocharger in the process".
We would be able to distinguish individual allies and opponents by their style of flying and fighting, just like we read in the stories about the great aces. Talent with getting the most out of your systems while keeping them in good working order at the same time would be another factor in making an ace, in addition to a talent in maneuvering and shooting.

Of course, being who we are as a community i bet my right arm that the first thing to be said on voice comms would probably not be what i said above, but something closer to the lines of "Whoah, look at that #$&*@# cheater!" :grin:


In any case, increasing our workload is an easy way to keep our inflated and unrealistic kill scores in check and to create more indecisive encounters, just like in all the books we've read. Things mentioned by others before, like modelling the effects of a lack of oxygen and a fatigue model (i think the latter one was being discussed at some point), will make it all fall into place nicely.

The end of combat should leave you gasping for air with enough force to draw a couple of pints of beer in a single breath through your oxygen mask, glad that you survived to carefully nurse your stricken bird back home instead of sitting there and thinking "bah, i could have scored a kill if i had pushed it a little longer".
And then the simulator is talking to you "No you couldn't, you would have died the mother of all deaths or at the very least suffered the embarassment of having to dead-stick in the middle of the north sea if you had pushed it a bit more!"

That's what we need, we need the new sim to strike awe and terror into our smug, know-it-all, flight-simming hearts the first time we happen to see combat in SoW, to makes us jump out of the seat and run like a little girl the first time a flak shell bursts close (i still remember the first flak barrage i had to go through in B17 II:The mighty 8th). Frankly, what we really need is to be scared sh*tless with this one :lol:
And as long as it's not done by artificially imposed limits but by a move closer to what actually happened in reality, i personally find it a very desirable feature and a downright necessity to be included as an option ;)

[Blackdog_kt]

I would edit the previous post and add to it, but i'm afraid i'd go over the character limit :lol:

Anyway...

I must agree totally with csThor.

I don't want a WW2 aircraft procedures training sim, which is what some here are really proposing, even if they don't know that they are.

I want to be able to "fly" any number of virtual aircraft, and enjoy the experience, not be saddled to one type by virtue of the fact that learning to operate it is so time consuming and complex that one is all you could ever learn well, as in real life.

And let's be realistic here. If aircraft for SOW were modeled to the degree that some propose, we would only have one flyable for each side.

And a dead sim, as it would not sell in the numbers needed to keep it alive.

I would agree with you if we were moving from a totally simplified model to an utterly complicated one. However, there pretty much is a lot of procedure in IL2. To top it off, a lot of it happens during combat, can be perfectly managed by most people and doesn't even need the clickable cockpits that people generally dislike.

Where it goes wrong is that a lot of these procedures or techniques are contrary to the real world operation of an aircraft or are reversed between aircraft, for example "manual" flying aircraft sometimes need less management than automated ones to perform at their best.


Case in point, boom and zoom in an FW190 that is supposed to be fully automatic. First of all, since everyone abuses the engine model by increasing throttle above the redline and keeping it there, while lowering pitch and periodically opening rads to reset the overheat timer, your first step is to do the same. It seems that overheat is primarily a function of RPM and not so much of boost/manifold pressure/ata values while i have a suspicion that it should it be a bit of both. Furthermore, while there is overheating of some sorts, there is no real effect from overcooling.

So, it goes something like this if you want to boom and zoom in an Anton and regain most of your initial altitude after the attack:

1) Disable auto prop pitch, go to 100% throttle+WEP with 80% pitch for level flight. This is how you cruise for the entire sortie, on war emergency power and closed rads.

2) As you dive towards the target and surpass 600km/h IAS, start reducing pitch by 10% for every extra 100km/h but don't go below 50% pitch. Also, open rads fully to super-cool the engine for the climb back up to altitude.

3) Attack target, make your firing pass.

4) Pulling up, go to 110%+WEP and 80-90% pitch. Don't go to 100% pitch because the prop disc acts like a brake at that setting if you're doing high speeds. Usually, the best manual setting for climbs is 90% pitch so as soon as your speed drops below 600-700kmh switch from 80% to 90% pitch. As you near the top of the climb and you need to recover or stall, go to 100% pitch. You should be overheating at this point or be very close to it.

5) Levelling off, keep your pitch to 100% until you reach 300-320kmh, reduce to 90% as you hit 350km/h and go to 80% at about 370-400km/h. At this point you should be slightly nose down and accelerating past 400km/h and to your maximum speed. Open rads fully and drop throttle to 100% to reset the overheat timer. If needed, momentarily drop throttle below 50% or even to idle to cool the engine fast. Rinse and repeat as needed.


Now this is how it works in IL2. What would go wrong in reality however?

1) You would overheat and if you kept at it your engine would seize, as the oil breaks down above a certain temp and can't provide sufficient lubrication.

2) Assuming you got past that, the combination of open radiators and greatly increased airflow due to the higher speeds in the dive would result in rapid cooling of a schorching hot engine. At best it would choke and seize before a whole lot of damage was done and with some luck you would be able to restart it. At this point you're effectively out of the fight and pretty much a sitting duck for anyone that saw what happened.
At worst, you could break anything from push rods and valves or even cause cracks or even chunks to fly off of entire cylinder heads, as the overheated metal (metal gets weaker when hot) is forced to contract rapidly through excessive cooling. In short, shock cooling.

3) Nothing, you just fire your guns at this point.

4) Assuming all the previous bad things didn't happen by some sort of divine intervention, we would have the opposite effect. The engine parts go from super-cool to super-hot in a matter of seconds with pretty much similar effects, plus the added result of overheating on the oil system as mentioned in the first point. Also, see below.

5) During the entire process of zooming back up, leveling off and attaining high speed again, the pitch settings used drive the RPM a good deal higher than the maximum tolerance of the particular engine. With all the other stuff that has happened before, if we're lucky enough to have gotten so far we could even be dealing with a runaway prop at this time. Even if that didn't happen, the sudden power reduction to cool the engine would again result in shock cooling.

So, i think that most people would be able to manage it if they fly mid to late war energy fighters. The US birds are much easier than they should be on the matter of engine tricks, but their weaker armament makes convergence and trim an absolute necessity, so the guys flying those mess less with their engines but much more with their trim during the attack. All in all, the workload is definitely not light as it is, it's just different.

Not only that, but since we already have to deal with a bunch of keypresses and don't need clickpits or fancy hardware to do it (MS sidewinder precision pro and TrackIR for me, no pedals and no HOTAS yet, plus i used to do all this with a hat-switch as well before i got a TrackIR), why not make it in a way that actually conforms to reality? ;)

[Bearcat]

I'd like to be able to go from the easiest settings that this sim has to offer... to something a bit more complex than the realistic engine mods for IL2 have in terms of possiblre damage to the engine etc if not properly warmed and torque.. I'd like to see at least twice as much complexity in the CEM as we have here.. ort at least the option.. and I think we will get that .... and then some. I have no doubt whatsoever than SoW will be way ahead of it's time.. in fact I think one reason why it is takeing so long is that 1C wants to make it as future prone as it can... heck we are still having fun with IL2... and this sim will be 9 years old in November.. and the engine is actually older than that.. You figure what... at least 2 years for developement of the sim.. so we are talking around 99 at least.. 9 years old... and it can still tax a decent rig... with specs unheard of in 2001.. even with overclocking you couldn't get close.. and yet it is still not only a viable product.. that is still selling in it's current incarnation... but still the best WWII sim on the market to date.. I have no idea where WoP will go (I know some guys who like it.. and feel tht the FMs on the fighters are better than here.. I think it is debatable.. but not having flown the sim I cant say.. and I refuse to buy it till I can get a hard copy or get it with PP at least..) .. but I guarantee you that as good as it may get.. the complexity of SoW and the flexibility of it and the sheer for lack of a better term magnificance off it will be miles ahead..... Even the graphics... as good as they look in WoP.. I think SoW's will be at least as good.. if not better.

[RAF74_Winger]

S!

Interesting that most here have concentrated on the engine management and procedures side of things; the flight model in IL2 is also simplified, and probably for good reason.

We can see this when the time comes to land the aircraft, particularly the tailwheel aircraft which constitute the majority of the flyables available to us. In IL2, all of these aircraft are very tolerant of being touched down on the main wheels first. Try that in a real taildragger; you'll bounce, and bounce high. To wheel it on nicely, one has to touch down very gently and know exactly when the mainwheels have touched, because you'll have to make a smooth but positive forward motion on the stick at that time to keep the aircraft on the ground.

To make a smooth three point landing, you have to be in exactly the three point attitude before you touch down (putting the tailwheel down first is OK too, to a point) otherwise you'll bounce halfway down the runway.

The other aspect that isn't modelled fully is the roll-out - all the aircraft I've flown in IL2 roll out as straight as a die. Some real-world aircraft are like this, but the majority are not so docile and will try to veer off centreline constantly as you slow down to taxi speed - your feet have to be quick, otherwise you'll be facing the wrong way down the runway with a scuffed wingtip or worse.

As I said before, these simplifications have been made with good reason, to whit; virtual pilots don't have the advantages of real pilots: Peripheral vision - vital for taildragger pilots, especially when one cannot see over the nose of the aircraft at touchdown, vestibular senses - this is how you know the mainwheels have touched, or that the aircraft is about to veer off heading.

The foregoing is just a sample though, there are other things too; ever tried to change the characteristics of a spin by adjusting power or elevator position? Doesn't work. The under-modelling of adverse yaw and tailplane effectiveness at low speed is a pet peeve of mine, but they probably don't worry most people.

This is not to say that these elements cannot be modelled, they can, but I think they would place the difficulty threshold beyond most humans unless Oleg can find or invent a proxy for the missing senses.

W.

[AndyJWest]

....ever tried to change the characteristics of a spin by adjusting power or elevator position? Doesn't work.
I'd have to disagree. With some aircraft modelled in IL-2, you have to throttle back to get out of a spin, and judicious use of the elevator helps too. I'm sure that IL-2's modelling of aircraft in a spin is oversimplified, but it is better than in some 'flight simulators' I could name.

Modelling an aircraft accurately in such a situation, in realtime, is possibly beyond the capabilities of a typical modern PC, and certainly beyond anything that was practical when IL-2 was written. Hopefully the next generation of PC flight simulators (SoW:BoB?) will do better, but as you say, there are limits imposed by the lack of peripheral senses. Meanwhile, IL_2 still gives us a more realistic impression of what it is like to be in a flat-spinning P-39 than any of us would ever like to experience in reality.:shock:

[RAF74_Winger]

S!

One thing I forgot to mention: Ground effect.

I get the feeling, though I can't prove it, that ground effect is either not modelled, or turned down quite a bit. Aircraft in IL2 can be landed at very high speeds and don't seem to float for as long as I would expect.

W.

[RAF74_Winger]

With some aircraft modelled in IL-2, you have to throttle back to get out of a spin, and judicious use of the elevator helps too.

I'm sure you're right, but that's not quite what I meant. I was thinking more of accelerating spins by pushing fully forward on the elevator, or flattening them by adding throttle (try flattening an inverted spin in a pitts - what a trip! The nose is waaay above the horizon).

W.

[MikkOwl]

As real and detailed as possible. With every part that can affect things being modeled accurately. If there are less aircraft to choose from because of this, that is acceptable. The reason is simple: I love the machines. I want to get to know them better. I don't want to do long winded start-up procedures, I'd rather automate them. But I still want all the systems to be there, and I'll decide which ones I want to mess with. This gives far more immersion than without, and the aircraft, and the experience, becomes more than a pretty ghost with a ghost pilot (without legs, body or arms) in it.

As the level of detail increases, and the task of flying each aircraft is more difficult due to the learning and consideration required, some care should be taken to make the different players be able to still fly together online (since this is stepping into territory that even some more realism minded simmers don't want to do). The solution is simple:

Permit automatic handling of the undesired features online. But when score is calculated, flying on lower realism settings gives a penalty to score calculation. A somewhat humorous way to display someone's realism setting is to assign their rank based on that. The most hardcore simmers have the highest rank assigned to them, while the beginners and others who are not ready or willing have lower ranks. The very beginner gets the lowest flying rank of all, which probably accurately shows his overall level as well to the rest, who can also take steps to accomodate him better.

Using the P-47 limited manifold pressure example, it could be set in the pilot's realism setting that the throttle cannot be moved past it so the engine won't blow from that, but the pilot gets a noticably felt penalty in scoring and other markers indicating the pilot's limited setting. Other from suffering some scoring and personal prestige, it doesn't affect the enjoyment the pilot gets online at all.

[Blackdog_kt]

That's actually some very interesting points you're bringing up Winger. I guess the reason most focus on the systems is that the majority, myself included, probably hasn't flown a real aircraft and thus lacks the experience to comment on what's really missing.

In that sense we mostly go by a mix of what "makes sense" from a scientific standpoint and replicating what we read from real pilot accounts. That of course is infinitely easier for a single piece of machinery that's carefully crafted to work within certain parameters and has a small, predictable set of behaviours (like an engine), than it is for the entire combination of an aircraft within the entirety of the flight envelope. Furthermore, an engine in an abnormal range of function is also much easier to observe and understand than the whole plane is at the edge of, or even outside its envelope, as an engine out of control still feels "slower" than a plane out of control as far as human senses go.

In the latter case, this difficulty to explain and even accurately observe and notice all the possible combinations limits us to going by what "feels right" most of the time and taking the word of someone who knows more, like a real pilot or a FM modeller.

So, the reason i personally focus on engines and subsystems is that they make enough sense to me even without hands-on experience, but i've never actually been behind the yoke of a real aircraft to understand the more complex and finer points of how it should feel to pilot one. I guess that holds true for the majority of flight simmers.

Are taildraggers really that demanding on the rudders even without winds and if so, is that a result of a free-castoring tailwheel that can be mitigated by locking it in place?

[csThor]

Score means squat. It's pointless, superfluous and absolutely meaningless.

Blackdog - I disagree that a higher degree of realism autotmatically brings more "historical" results. The events of history turned out they way they did because of factors which a combat flight sim can't take into the equation: pilot training standards, economical limitations, doctrine and tactics ... I could go on and on. A more realistic CEM is needed, I agree here, but per se more realism doesn't necessarily has to lead to more immersion as well. Besides, Maddox Games is a small team and you can't expect them to work more than at 100% of what they can. ;)

[AndyJWest]

Maddox Games is a small team and you can't expect them to work more than at 100% of what they can.
I don't know, they've done it before...

[RAF74_Winger]

Are taildraggers really that demanding on the rudders even without winds and if so, is that a result of a free-castoring tailwheel that can be mitigated by locking it in place?

They can be, it depends on the aircraft. I'm really basing most of my comments on the Pitts, which has a power/weight ratio approaching (not quite though) that of the earlier WWII fighters, but obviously much less weight all told and designed with a different purpose in mind - I doubt that any WWII fighter would have the kind of control authority that the Pitts posesses. All the taildraggers I've flown have had steerable or locking tailwheels, so I can't really say what effect a free castoring tailwheel would have. The Harvard (AT6) is reputed to be a bugger on the ground though, and I think that has a free castoring TW.

W.

[MikkOwl]

Score means squat. It's pointless, superfluous and absolutely meaningless.

Blackdog - I disagree that a higher degree of realism autotmatically brings more "historical" results. The events of history turned out they way they did because of factors which a combat flight sim can't take into the equation: pilot training standards, economical limitations, doctrine and tactics ... I could go on and on. A more realistic CEM is needed, I agree here, but per se more realism doesn't necessarily has to lead to more immersion as well. Besides, Maddox Games is a small team and you can't expect them to work more than at 100% of what they can. ;)
The score means a lot for some people (as can be seen by shoulder shooting online in particular), thus these (large amounts of) people will be affected by score penalties.

Agreed on the rest of your post on that realism not being the main reason for the outcome, but rather the pilot skill (and I must mention teamwork, one of the most important force multipliers).

[Blackdog_kt]

Guys, i think i'm on to something. I was responding to MikkOwl in the other thread about merging difficulty settings for online servers and i got totally sidetracked in a discussion about systems modelling again. So, i started proposing ways to manipulate the various aircraft systems using only keyboard/stick/Hotas keys and no clickable pits, since most people want extra realism but no clickpits.

So, after discussing how to start a P47 in 5 steps and what kind of new controls we'd need to map, i said that we need to make some commands have varying functions between different airframes. For example the Jug has an inertial starter that's fed from the internal battery, but the 109Es we've seen in so many old videos always have a mechanic hand-cranking the starter. That's where i remembered that in Black Shark you can open the coms menu and ask the ground crew for an external power source (you have to have the radios powered or the window open, otherwise they won't hear you, not THAT'S going too far with realism :lol: ) and that maybe we could have similar things in SoW.

And then it hit me...




I think i'm on to the simplest, easiest to implement and most user friendly way to do this in a combat sim, without using a clickable cockpit and without having to map anything to any kind of controller at...all!

Why not move all non-critical subsystem controls to a menu similar to the comms menu we access with the Tab key?

What do you think of this? Instead of making complicated commands where the same keypress functions differently according to each aircraft (ie, what i foolishly suggested in the other thread before this latest inspiration hit me, lack of sleep and blabbing about gets me going in the right direction i guess :lol: ), i think this would be much easier to implement since all it does is render text on your screen.
It's the text and only the text that would be aircraft specific and save everyone a lot of trouble.

When selected, each option would flick the appropriate switch in the cockpit and perform the respective action. No need to worry about controls and mappings having to work between different kinds of switches that do the same job differently in each different aircraft (ie, starter button, 2-way starter switch, 3-way starter switch), no keybindings at all except one thing...the "systems menu". Then it would be just like the Tab menu we use for commanding the AI wingmen...press 1 to select the engine and fuel submenu and new options open up, press 3 to open up the fuel selector options, press 3 to select main tank, close menu. Easy, fast and will become second nature just like the wingmen commands after a few times.

One more good thing, seeing it written before you is like a mini-checklist that will help you remember what to do. What's more, it will also work for all the people who say "i would be able to flick a switch without taking my eyes off the target in real life, why should i have to look down to do it in-game?"

Extra realism, no clickpits, you can look outside the cockpit the whole time, everyone should be happy. Although being the way we all are, i fully expect someone to come out from hiding and complain that it's unrealistic to have text-menu commands displayed on screen :lol:

For the Jug i was using as an example in the other thread we would have something like the following layout:

Systems Menu:
1) Engine and Fuel
Primer-->1/2/3/4/5/6 strokes
Magnetos-->off/left/right/both
Fuel selector (internal)-->main/aux/off
Fuel selector (external)-->left wing/right wing/centerline/off
Starter-->energize/start/neutral
2) Electric equipment
Battery/master switch-->on/off
Generator-->on/off
3) Radios
(whatever options the radios of the time used, i think they were pre-tuned on the ground and you could only select between 3-4 preset frequencies)
4) Instruments
Altimeter calibration-->increase/decrease

..,plus whatever else you might ever need. Is your plane not a Jug but a cranky Spitfire IX that uses starter cartridges and has a more complicated start-up? No problem, no new controls, no nothing, just substitute the appropriate commands in the text menu and tie them to the switches (which we already know will be fully animated from the start) and the respective systems (which we have a good deal of hints that they will be modelled to some detail).

I think this is the best overall compromise. By all means do away with the IL2-style engine HUD messages ("throttle 90%" and so on) on full real settings and use that space or the top right of the screen for the systems menu. Please, someone tell me you like this idea as much as i do :cool:

[MikkOwl]

Pop-up menu works, but it is something I would personally avoid using as much as I possibly could (I really think they are mega immersion breakers). As a back-up method, sure.

[Blackdog_kt]

Well, i can't think of anything else really...it's either a host of new keyboard/stick keys to map (not too much but not too few either), a clickable cockpit or something like this.

Maybe it will gradually come to include all of this and everyone will be finally happy in the end :lol:

P.S. New update is up, go go go!

[ECV56_Lancelot]

I think its a good idea, but still i prefer keyboard mapping and clickpit. As MikkOwl said, its a good back up system, like clickpit, IMO, its a good backup system to keyboard mapping.

[Bearcat]

Score means squat. It's pointless, superfluous and absolutely meaningless.

Blackdog - I disagree that a higher degree of realism autotmatically brings more "historical" results. The events of history turned out they way they did because of factors which a combat flight sim can't take into the equation: pilot training standards, economical limitations, doctrine and tactics ... I could go on and on. A more realistic CEM is needed, I agree here, but per se more realism doesn't necessarily has to lead to more immersion as well. Besides, Maddox Games is a small team and you can't expect them to work more than at 100% of what they can. ;)

I agree 100%.. not to mention pilot strength.. or fatigue. I wonder how many pilots died because they were just too tired or didnt have the strength to make that extra pull on the stick. I recal accounts of some of the smaller pilots at Moton field having to almost stand on the rudder pedals to keep from torqueing off the runway on take off.. The one thing that we always forget and can never be modelled accurately in a PC sim is the seat of the pants feel.. that is something that is so crucial to flying.. and some tyhing that considering it cant be modelled I think IL2 does a good job of compensating for.

[Seeker]

All this talk of planes, planes, planes.

Making the same mistake as in IL-2, 14 bazillion flyables but only two ever get used....

You need to focus on the game more, and click pits less.

We need to be be able to start the program up, select a plane at random from a drop down list and be able to start a meaningfull life as a pilot of that plane.

90 % of the people here have respect for FSX, have it probably installed but never use it. Think about that a second. There's no doubt that an FSX after market Spit is more detailed, and therefore "better" than an IL-2 Spit, but nearly all the guys here leave it in the hanger.

Why is that?

It's because IL-2 gives more immersion in being a Spit pilot that FSX does. In IL-2 you're doing what a Spit pilot does, in FSX you're doing what a Spit wanna be pilot does, chasing a Buchon around a perfectly moddeled Duxford to no effect.

It's the campaign modelling, the enviroment we fly in that'll make or break SOW, not clickable cockpits.

And pop up menus in the cockpit? Yeah right, that sounds really real for a 1940's analogue cockpit. Not.

Get real. Get thinking about why you want to be in that cockpit, and how the game will encourage and inculcate that.

[MikkOwl]

You need to focus on the game more, and click pits less.

We need to be be able to start the program up, select a plane at random from a drop down list and be able to start a meaningfull life as a pilot of that plane.

90 % of the people here have respect for FSX, have it probably installed but never use it. Think about that a second. There's no doubt that an FSX after market Spit is more detailed, and therefore "better" than an IL-2 Spit, but nearly all the guys here leave it in the hanger.

Why is that?

It's because IL-2 gives more immersion in being a Spit pilot that FSX does. In IL-2 you're doing what a Spit pilot does, in FSX you're doing what a Spit wanna be pilot does, chasing a Buchon around a perfectly moddeled Duxford to no effect.

It's the campaign modelling, the enviroment we fly in that'll make or break SOW, not clickable cockpits.

And pop up menus in the cockpit? Yeah right, that sounds really real for a 1940's analogue cockpit. Not.

Get real. Get thinking about why you want to be in that cockpit, and how the game will encourage and inculcate that.
Could it not also be that IL-2 might run better, have better damage physics, better flight physics as well as better single player (I assume - never heard about single player with FSX - never tried it, don't own it)?

Desiring more realistic cockpits and ways of interacting with them does not mean wanting FSX.

Personal motives for liking/diving into something can vary greatly. Attempting to generalize the motives/preferences of IL-2 pilots is difficult. If categorizing the pilots into different generalized types, then that might be somewhat accurate.

In my own case, I appreciate all kinds of things, but especially I like authenticity (to history, especially in regards to the machinery used). I spend a lot of time trying to improve this where it lacks in IL-2 rather than flying. If it was already at a much higher level in regards to controls and cockpits I could skip that and only fly instead, being satisfied with the immersive, convincing simulation.

[Blackdog_kt]

So, i guess by the same line of reason the pop-up radio menu in IL2 should go as well? See, there's two sides of this coin. One is features and the others is how to manipulate them, which means interface/controls. We want the features, but we don't always have adequate hardware for all the controls, so we have to make "work-arounds". These can a lot of times be unrealistic or non-immersive, so the question becomes:

Would you rather have these features to the expense of having a not always ideal interface if the result was a simulated aircraft performing closer to the real one, ie a net result of increased realism? Or would you rather scrap these features altogether because of a dislike for the interface and have a net result of reduced realism? ;)

I would choose the first one. Choosing the second is like a console player saying "my gamepad is not as accurate as a mouse, so i want to have aiming assist" and indeed most console FPS titles do. The thing is, flight simmers are primarily PC gamers and the PC is all about options. Sure, have your aiming assist, but what about the other guy who likes the challenge of hitting targets with a crappy gamepad? Make it an option, have your fun with aiming assist and don't drag down the challenge factor for the rest of the players who want manual aiming.

In the IL2 context, it would be like saying "I don't want pop-up menus. I want to give direct, non-standardized voice commands to AI wingmen that have an intelligent speech recognition routine. As long as i can't have that, let's disable the TAB menu and have the AI of my aircraft give commands on my behalf automatically to my AI wingmen".

Well, there were flight sims in the past that did this. In 1990 or earlier. There were also many sims (especially combat sims) that didn't model the intricacies of flying a real aircraft. They've started doing it during the last couple of years or more. Is there a trend developing here or is it just my idea? :grin:

By the way, sorry if i'm coming off a bit aggressive here as that's not my intention at all. I'm simply being a bit more blunt than usual to illustrate the point i'm trying to make.

I agree that we can't have everything. What does that tell us? We need compromises. Now i don't mean "include what i want and ommit a meaningful campaign experience" because i'm very interested in that as a primarily offline player. That's the same reason i'd like to see detailed working machinery. That's a part of immersion as well, at least for me.

Sorry, but being able to firewall the throttle in most planes and keep it there for all but a minure or two at most is neither realistic nor immersive for me, and it spoils the fun just as much as my AI wingmen not following orders or crashing one after the other on a hill during final approach. Not to mention the fact that some planes are built more or less to specs in that regard, while others can exceed them with impunity.

What happens is that there are 2-3 interconnected issues, which however can be debated separately as far as what they can offer to the new sim. The reason they all get tangled up is that they are co-dependent.
An aircraft is more than its shape, sounds, armamanent,FM and DM and a 2010 next-gen sim should reflect that.


So, if i may go out on a limb here and suppose that we will be able to manage such subsystems in the higher realism settings, please tell me how are we going to control them without a $300-$500 investment in extra hardware like CH button panels? This is the feature-interface co-dependency right there.

For someone who doesn't want pop-up menus and clickable pits for example, it will still be possible to map everything to keyboard and HOTAS. Heck, let's go the extra mile and make the control bindings aircraft specific. Make your favorite setup, save it as "BF109E", click a little checkmark that says "default control scheme for..." and choose the corresponding aircraft from the drop down menu. Copy it, rename it, change maybe 5 bindings that are different between a Spit and a 109, save it with a different name and assign it as default for the Spit, and so on.

The thing is, i hear a lot of "no it can't be done" opinions with little to back them up substantially (at least from my point of view), while I've given three possible solutions, neither of which is exclusive to the other two. In fact, they can pretty much be used simultaneously to suit everyone's taste.

I'm beginning to think someone was right when they said that a dislike for certain interfaces is being used as an excuse to ommit certain features that people don't want to deal with, to the detriment of overall realism in the sim.
And since i'm genuinely interested as to why, especially when everyone will be able to disable what they don't like to use, i simply don't accept that it "can't be done" until someone proves why in a satisfactory (that means technical) manner. Don't tell me it can't be done if you can't tell me why not, or do it anyway but i won't believe you.

I say that it can be done, but i've also given three interface options that if used in unison (which they can), they will be more than enough to manage a realistic pilot workload with the limited means we have in our disposal and without making it harder than it was in reality. If anyone wants to convince me of the contrary, it's time to put some solid, convincing arguments on the table that amount to more than a plain "no, i don't like this in combat sims", because it's not only about what some of us like.It's about including as much as possible of what everyone likes, make it optional and let each one of us choose.

If someone wants to lower the realism settings to suit his taste and get a better experience i'm just fine with it, as long as he does it in his personal realism settings screen and doesn't drag down my settings along with his.

So far, the ONLY convincing argument was that it will take up valuable development resources from other areas. That's not convincing because the other guy's opinion has more merit than mine or vice versa, it's convincing simply because our opinions have equal merit and naturally, if there's a limited amount of development resources we all "campaign" to have them allocated to the features we like most.

The thing is though, we already have information that hints at the possibility of enhanced systems management, so i guess there's no reason to say "do something else instead of it" if it's indeed already supported (ie coded). What's done is done (if it's indeed done). Let's see if we can get a confirmation of some sort, so we can discuss how we can make it work in way that will not tax the development team too much, while having enough options for us to tweak to our comfort. They won't have to build everything on their own if they give us some clever and easy to use tools to help them building.

There are more than one ways to skin a cat. ;)

[rakinroll]

Blackdog_kt mate, it is taking hours when you write somethings. Please write shorter then we can follow forum messages.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

...There are more than one ways to skin a cat. ;)

And the cat don't like any of them! :D

[Blackdog_kt]

Well, i can put all the ideas in one post and try to explain with as many details as possible, or i can write short messages with only a few details, someone will ask me "what do you mean?" or misunderstand something and i'll have to explain it anyway in the next post :lol:

Plus, i'm just getting really exited about all the possibilities, I can't help it! :grin:

[AndyJWest]

Blackdog, you have some interesting ideas, but if SoW:BoB is as close to completion as it appears to be, they are unlikely to be incorporated if they aren't already in the works. I'm looking forward to its release (if I can get hold of a PC that will run it), but in the mean time I'm enjoying myself with IL-2. What with TD's work, and 'other stuff' (say no more..), it is better than it has ever been. I was online earlier with a guy that actually flew F4Us (I think?) during WWII. He was having fun. I was honoured to be having fun alongside him. He didn't complain about minor issues in the sim, so why should I?

This is a game. Don't treat it as more important than that. Or less important...

[robtek]

Yes, it is a game, but we should be happy for every step it takes to become more simulation!

[Sutts]

All this talk of planes, planes, planes.

Making the same mistake as in IL-2, 14 bazillion flyables but only two ever get used....

You need to focus on the game more, and click pits less.

We need to be be able to start the program up, select a plane at random from a drop down list and be able to start a meaningfull life as a pilot of that plane.

90 % of the people here have respect for FSX, have it probably installed but never use it. Think about that a second. There's no doubt that an FSX after market Spit is more detailed, and therefore "better" than an IL-2 Spit, but nearly all the guys here leave it in the hanger.

Why is that?

It's because IL-2 gives more immersion in being a Spit pilot that FSX does. In IL-2 you're doing what a Spit pilot does, in FSX you're doing what a Spit wanna be pilot does, chasing a Buchon around a perfectly moddeled Duxford to no effect.

It's the campaign modelling, the enviroment we fly in that'll make or break SOW, not clickable cockpits.

And pop up menus in the cockpit? Yeah right, that sounds really real for a 1940's analogue cockpit. Not.

Get real. Get thinking about why you want to be in that cockpit, and how the game will encourage and inculcate that.


FSX with add-ons like the A2A P-47 pack is a fantastic simulation, although I believe IL2 FM is far better. The only reason it gets left on the shelf is because it is an empty experience compared to the immersive combat environment of IL2.

This, however, is no argument to leave more complex system modelling out of SOW. If SOW had the OPTION of the same A2A Accu-Sim type detail it would be unbeatable in my opinion.

Blackdog makes some good points. From the start he has made it clear that he'd be quite happy if Oleg simply provided the necessary interface to allow third parties like A2A to give us the accurate system modelling many of us wish for. He's not asking for precious resources to be dedicated at this stage to detailed aircraft system modelling. I think everyone can be happy in the end if the architecture is left open to further development.

[robtek]

Well said, but ungrateful as we are:
We want it ALL and we want it NOW!!!!!

:-D :-D :-D

@seeker:

...It's because IL-2 gives more immersion in being a Spit pilot that FSX does. In IL-2 you're doing what a Spit pilot does, in FSX you're doing what a Spit wanna be pilot does, chasing a Buchon around a perfectly moddeled Duxford to no effect.
Thats where you get it wrong! It should read like:
It's because IL-2 gives more immersion in being a Spit pilot then FSX does. In IL-2 you're doing what a WANNA BE Spit pilot does, in FSX you're doing what a Spit pilot does, chasing a Buchon around a perfectly moddeled Duxford to no effect.

[Sutts]

All this talk of planes, planes, planes.

Making the same mistake as in IL-2, 14 bazillion flyables but only two ever get used....

You need to focus on the game more, and click pits less.

We need to be be able to start the program up, select a plane at random from a drop down list and be able to start a meaningfull life as a pilot of that plane.

90 % of the people here have respect for FSX, have it probably installed but never use it. Think about that a second. There's no doubt that an FSX after market Spit is more detailed, and therefore "better" than an IL-2 Spit, but nearly all the guys here leave it in the hanger.

Why is that?

It's because IL-2 gives more immersion in being a Spit pilot that FSX does. In IL-2 you're doing what a Spit pilot does, in FSX you're doing what a Spit wanna be pilot does, chasing a Buchon around a perfectly moddeled Duxford to no effect.

It's the campaign modelling, the enviroment we fly in that'll make or break SOW, not clickable cockpits.

And pop up menus in the cockpit? Yeah right, that sounds really real for a 1940's analogue cockpit. Not.

Get real. Get thinking about why you want to be in that cockpit, and how the game will encourage and inculcate that.


Let's face it, we're almost all WANNA BE warbird pilots. The only difference is that some of us want the experience to be closer to reality while others are happy with fantasy combat where the only thing you need to worry about is where the bad guys are.

A WWII fighter is a powerful and dangerous machine. Things can get out of hand very quickly if you don't know what you're doing. At the moment, you don't get that feeling with IL2.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Let's face it, we're almost all WANNA BE warbird pilots. ...
A WWII fighter is a powerful and dangerous machine. Things can get out of hand very quickly if you don't know what you're doing. At the moment, you don't get that feeling with IL2.

I basicaly agree with what your saying, but, you just have to look at an online scramble at the begining of a mission to see that IL-2 isn't 'that' bad. Planes bucking and porposing, weaving from side to side, and take off runs accross the rough in big curving paths! I think the problem is with our own inflated opinion of how good our own piloting skills are!

In reality the pilots in question would be grounded and transfered to the infantry for abusing their planes.

[robtek]

in reality or in a sophisticated sim those pilots wouldn't even finish the take-off roll.
They would be sitting on the apron with a seized engine, being first the laughing - stock and later jail-bait.

[ElAurens]

If this were a scalable option, as it should be, I will guarantee you that in the online side of the game it will be an almost universally unused feature.

Some of the mods have the selection of using a proper warm up time before taking off. It's a nice mod really, but not even the most dedicated online realism fanatic uses it. Why? Because it adds not one thing to the air combat experience. Please remember that this is an air combat simulation, not a takeoff proceedure simlulator. Now I know this will raise the hackles of you offline, total realism types, but that's the way it is. It doesn't have any thing to do with "furballs" or "vulching" or any of the other stereotypes that offliners use to disparage the online side of the game. We "fly" the sim to "fly", not to be bogged down in the minutiae of proceedure. I would welcome realistic engine heating and cooling effects in flight, because as they are, most aircraft overheat far too easily (I know this goes against the common belief as well, but, you is wrong, be sure!) And some improvements in maximum boost use times are certainly in order. But totally modeling the start up porceedure for all the different aircraft is a waste of time and will take enjoyment away from the majority of users.

So, if you offline guys want it, that's fine, but make it a selectable option, so those of us who have better things to do, can just get on with it.

Oleg has understood this from the start, thank goodness.

[Blackdog_kt]

If this were a scalable option, as it should be, I will guarantee you that in the online side of the game it will be an almost universally unused feature.

Some of the mods have the selection of using a proper warm up time before taking off. It's a nice mod really, but not even the most dedicated online realism fanatic uses it. Why? Because it adds not one thing to the air combat experience. Please remember that this is an air combat simulation, not a takeoff proceedure simlulator. Now I know this will raise the hackles of you offline, total realism types, but that's the way it is. It doesn't have any thing to do with "furballs" or "vulching" or any of the other stereotypes that offliners use to disparage the online side of the game. We "fly" the sim to "fly", not to be bogged down in the minutiae of proceedure. I would welcome realistic engine heating and cooling effects in flight, because as they are, most aircraft overheat far too easily (I know this goes against the common belief as well, but, you is wrong, be sure!) And some improvements in maximum boost use times are certainly in order. But totally modeling the start up porceedure for all the different aircraft is a waste of time and will take enjoyment away from the majority of users.

So, if you offline guys want it, that's fine, but make it a selectable option, so those of us who have better things to do, can just get on with it.

Oleg has understood this from the start, thank goodness.

Nobody said it should be mandatory, we totally agree on this one.

What we both don't like is one part of the fliers imposing their preferred difficulty setttings on the the rest ;)

As for what kind of use it could get online, it depends on the scalability of it all. I recall you had a try with RoF and despite all the things i disagree with in that sim, there are actually some it does pretty well and are worth mimicking, so i'll use that as a basis for an example.
Where they wrong to implement engine limits and a start-up sequence? Not really, especially since you can toggle the warm-up separately from the rest of the CEM and the start-up is automatic, but you can still see the airframe going through the correct motions for a start-up.
You have to set throttles and mixtures right before pressing "engine on" and even then, an invisible ground crewman turns the prop, your automated hand turns the magneto switches and sometimes you might need to try 2-3 times before it finally manages to start.

That's neither hard to do or slow, nor is it crippling for online play, plus it's more realistic than the prop simply springing to life each and every time, regardless of how cold and damp the air might be on that day or the pilot setting his mixture backwards.

Something similar in SoW as an optional difficulty setting would guarantee enough use online, plus there's also quite a lot of offline-only people who would use not just advanced CEM options but also things like random failures, which would not see much use online. That's no reason not to include them, there's an audience for things like that, it's just a slightly different one.

If it was my call, this is what i'd do. Have the flyables working as close to reality as possible (think A2A accusim quality), provide an easy to code and easy to use interface for them like pop-up menus as a stop-gap measure and finally, give the players the ability to customize their inputs with separate controls for each airframe, direct assignment of a button or HOTAS/stick function to aircraft-specific commands and support for editing clickable functions into the cockpits, so that they can come up with their own preferred interface.

This would also stop the interface issue from becoming a red herring against added realism. I wouldn't need to do it all myself, i'd just have to show the people how to do it on their own, if they wanted to. After a little while people would be swapping their control assignment scripts and mappings, community made files for clickable functions, everyone would mix and match to his heart's content and all would be fine ;)

Then, i would make provision for settings to automate parts of it. You're very accurate to spot the distinction that while engine and system parameters don't have as much of an importance during preflight (unless you have random failures enabled, then the engine run-up is a very important diagnosis tool), they do have a very real and significant bearing in flight and thus we can't do away with them completely.

So, the best compromise for me would be to include all the realistic bits and then provide a way to automate them, instead of pressing "I" and the engine magically and unerringly springing to life. Essentially, the realism settings should be "auto this" and "auto that", instead of "enable/disable". Some things should always be enabled under the hood with the difference being if it's controlled by an AI helper routine or the player. That would give everyone the chance to feel what really goes on and have a realistic experience, even if they are not willing to be swamped by the learning curve. Your plane' systems would function like the real one every single time, the difference would be the inclusion or not of an imaginary co-pilot.

What i would do to achieve this, is have sub-options for the difficult stuff in the realism settings. In this case, setting advanced engine management to on would open up a sub-option "allow automatic start-up/shut-down". Essentially, what Black Shark does. The engines don't start magically, they start automatically while following the correct actions and that's a big and important difference. It's just that instead of me it's my AI/ghost copilot that does it, plus if i know what i'm doing i can still do it manually and faster than him.

So, this would enable advanced CEM to have a place online, without making it too much of a hassle to transition between airframes in a DF/persistent server. If the start-up/shut-down part is allowed to be automated by the server admins, i could safely fly even the aircraft i'm unfamiliar with as the engine operating limits are clearly marked on the cockpit instruments. Thus we also solve the problem of having to "marry" a single airframe to make it work. Then, if i picked my regular ride for the next sortie, i would do it manually instead of pressing the auto-startup key and save some time (because i'd know the sequence well enough to perform it faster than the AI routine).

The "allow auto start-up option" wouldn't disable manual inputs, it would just automate a sequence of them, done at a pace that provides some sort of incentive to go manual (ie fast enough but still possible for the player to do faster on his own if he learns it). Essentially, setting this to on would be like the sim running a HOTAS script that maps one function after the other with a set delay between them to a single button press, nothing more.

Let's face it, we're almost all WANNA BE warbird pilots. The only difference is that some of us want the experience to be closer to reality while others are happy with fantasy combat where the only thing you need to worry about is where the bad guys are.

A WWII fighter is a powerful and dangerous machine. Things can get out of hand very quickly if you don't know what you're doing. At the moment, you don't get that feeling with IL2.

That's the scare factor i was referring to earlier. I think we need a bit more of it, user selectable of course ;)

P.S. I think we'll see a lot of complicated stuff in SoW and i'm glad for it, because they won't be complicated just for the sake of it, but for the sake of accuracy. If IL2 is slated to get a tune up that will make navigation instruments more realistic by using nav radios and morse code identifiers, what makes you think SoW will be lacking in similarly complex affairs?

[SlipBall]

Speaking of what I would enjoy, SOW needs complexity to set it apart from our IL2 that I have become very bored with. Just a pretty face will not be enough for the long haul. Everyone has their own comfort level, and I respect that, but for me I need to progress, and be challenged. But I'm also the type of guy who rebuilt his own Harley engine's, and big block Fords. I love the complexity of the combustion engine, and the proper use there of. I am a pilot, and I change my own oil, and have re-roofed my house. I'm looking for this sim to offer more than the same old on-line fur ball's, I need it to challenge me. If that is not in the release, or soon offered by third parties, then its not for me. I certainly don't expect everyone to feel this way, and good for them. This is 2010, its time to take the leap from the same old same old, and put some effort into the pretending roles that we play. To read some of these posts leaves no doubt, that they would have washed out of flight school 1940. :grin:

[ElAurens]

It's not 1940, I'm not in flight school. Role playing is for MMOs and is tedious at best. 'Nuff said.

Blackdog_kt,

RoF's starting proceedure is just fine with me. (As I rememember, have not touched it in months now). I would be just fine with having to adjust the major controls for start up. Mixture, throttle setting, prop, cowl/radiator, trim, and fuel tanks. Let an AI sequence handle the rest.

As for having a different set of button assignments for each aircraft?

Sorry, not gonna go for that one. Needless complication methinks.

Real WW2 pilots did this 24/7 for years, it was thier duty, and their "job".

I have a real world job already, I play the sim for enjoyment, not to rack my brain trying to remember how to run a pixel aircraft. Too much is simply too much.

[robtek]

@ElAurens

the nay-sayers have repeatedly told: go play FSX if you want procedures.
I say: go play Birds of prey when you want arcade instead of a simulation.

[ElAurens]

:rolleyes:

Always with the "arcade" accusation.

There is nothing "arcade" about the missions I fly, or the groups that I fly with. So stop with the name calling.

Any computer simulation in any genre is about balance.

Thankfully Oleg understands this much better than you. And he also understands the work involved in making every switch, button, and lever have it's realistic function on every flyable aircraft in the sim. Simply put, it's not going to happen. Or would you be satisfied with only a Spitfire and a Bf 109 as flyable? Where would that leave those who like the bomber experience? It's time to stop all this pie in the sky wishful thinking and be realistic about what can be done. Or would do you want to wait 2 or three more years? I know I don't.

And apparently you didn't see the bit about it being scalable and selectable, or do you want to enforce your play style on everyone as well?

[Novotny]

Chaps, try to think about it in economic terms.

There are 64 votes on this subject, in this thread, 54 of which want the kind of realism you are asking for.

I'm not sure how many people are currently working on SOW, but they all need to be paid every month. Development time is expensive. Additionally, every extra day, week or month is lost revenue - Oleg cannot sell that which is not ready.

What price to delay the game two/four/six months? Imagine, how many sales would that be? You can argue the sales will come in anyways, but Oleg has made it clear he cannot delay the release any more. He needs to get this out as soon as possible.

It would take time to implement features that a mere handful of people wish for, and clearly, given their exacting standards, and Oleg's desire to do things well, this would be very expensive.

Not everyone who will buy this game reads these forums. I'd say, in world terms, it's a tiny percentage.

Adding features to please a tiny, but vocal, minority makes no sense at all. Sorry guys, but that's the truth of it.

[ElAurens]

+1

[Blackdog_kt]

Your oversight is that you view this as an isolated IL2 community affair. There's loads more money to be had from a sim that implements advanced systems management. How long do you think the FSX crowd will be able to keep their sim alive now that ACES studio is closed? Where will they go? The only other alternatice is Xplane and while their FMs are better than FSX, they lack in other departments and there's also a sort of rivarly between FSX and Xplane pilots. Fun fact in all of that, is that many real world airline pilots practice the next day's route on laptops during their flights, in either of those two sims while the co-pilot is monitoring the airplane during the "autopilot transit" phase, there are training schools that use FSX as a training tool and there's also a version of X-plane that is FAA certified for use in pilot training.

The point is, a market for these things is way bigger than "a vocal minority of IL2 users" as you put it. If something new is going to get the piece of the cake that FSX had, it might as well be SoW. More money for Oleg's team, more people working on the SoW expansions, everyone wins.

Will that be enough for these features to make it into the release of SoW? I seriously doubt it and i don't expect it. What most of us are campaigning for is a gradual introduction of such features during the simulator's life. And if someone doesn't like it, be my guest and lower your difficulty settings to what you're comfortable with in IL2, no problem, everyone's happy ;)

[ElAurens]

I'll believe that when I see Oleg modeling a 777.

Not.

Gonna.

Happen.

And frankly I don't want the lack of fidelity that would have to happen to make SOW the next FSX. Nor do I want a bunch of United Airlines cattle car pilot wanna bees taking over and ruining the best air combat sim available. They have their playground, we have ours.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Nor do I want a bunch of United Airlines cattle car pilot wanna bees taking over and ruining the best air combat sim available. They have their playground, we have ours.

I'm not sure, it would make for a target rich environment. And bouncing airliners might be more my speed! ;)

cheers!

[robtek]

And who says that the "Cattle car-Pilot" wouldn't like to deliver a different kind of cargo, say 12 x 500 lbs when he can do it in a simulation?

[Blackdog_kt]

I'll believe that when I see Oleg modeling a 777.

Not.

Gonna.

Happen.

And frankly I don't want the lack of fidelity that would have to happen to make SOW the next FSX. Nor do I want a bunch of United Airlines cattle car pilot wanna bees taking over and ruining the best air combat sim available. They have their playground, we have ours.


Mate, do i have to spell everything out? Did i say anything about Oleg modelling airliners? What i'm saying is there's loads of money to be had if the SoW engine can "steal" pilots from other venues of the flight sim world.

For that to happen, the engine has to be modular enough to allow addition of extra features by 3rd party developers and players who are into modding.

New civilian sim on SoW engine? Oleg's team gets more money.
New WWI sim on SoW engine by the Over Flanders Fields team? Will probably be better than RoF and Oleg's team gets more money.
New Vietnam sim on SoW engine with everything from O-1 Bird Dog Spotters to F-105s, carrier ops, Mig-21s and choppers? Oleg's team gets more money.

None of this will be possible however, if there's not an option to tweak things under the hood.

Someone please explain how an increased revenue from engine licensing fees (in the case of possible payware add-ons, i doubt there will be licensing fees for free add-ons made by the community), a stream of controllable and thus, officially sanctioned, free add-ons and the resulting competition bringing down the prices on payware as well is going to ruin our fun, when that not only results in more products for us (both free and payware) but also makes the developers more financially secure and possibly enables them to upgrade equipment and hire more staff to bring us the expansions faster, because i seriously don't get it.


This is not aimed at you since you obviously realize the importance of options and user-selectable difficulty, but i get the feeling that we're getting collectively near-sighted hear and losing the big picture. I'm starting to get the idea that all the talk about how this will ruin online play is nothing more than some people being afraid of their favorite servers moving to more realistic/complicated settings which they don't want to adapt to.
I'm not one to take pride in my settings and my virtual achievements (or lack thereof) but there is a part of the community that thinks like that and to them, having their full-real settings in IL2 relegated to a "70% real" score in SoW could be a big deal, as they will have to adapt or lose the "bragging rights" for lack of a better word. If this is indeed the case, then all the rhetoric about lack of resources and how such features are out of place in a combat sim (i guess jet and chopper sims are not combat sims then) is not much more than an effort to drag the upcoming SoW down to a standard they will be comfortable with, but do it for everyone and not just themselves so they can still keep telling themselves that they fly "full real".
Well, there's no thing as full real anyway, just varying degrees of approaching reality, plus i can't see how flying full real equates to advocating simplified settings, as a combat airframe is so much more than weight, armament, horse power and material durability, ie more than simply FM and DM. It's a combat plane for crying out loud, not a bicycle with a gun that i can simply point and shoot once i get a feeling for how it handles.

I still don't see the problem if
1) it is possible resource-wise on behalf of the developer team and doesn't need major recoding
2) it is not a demanded feature on release but
3) there is only the underlying framework to support it so
4) we can do much of it on our own and finally
5) it is user-selectable

That's a lot of ifs, but we're talking about a sim with a projected lifespan of a decade or so that will have to compete with other products down the line. To simply expect a rehash of IL2 with prettier visuals is nothing short of a lack of vision and reasonable expectation on our part, which i think the developer team is not only aware of, but also better than. If people can't cope with some added complexity and a bit of a learning curve now and then, then i guess it's time to quit IL-2 as well, because Team Daidalos is implementing radio navigation and radar and "we don't need to tune radios in combat sims". :lol:

[nynek]

I voted Yes . Guys I do know that many of you are /was pilots and some even military ones. The biggest problem with this issue of "realism" is that realism will be as good to use as good I can actually LEARN HOW to use it.
As far as I'm concerned tutorials in our game sux .
Things I can comprehend I've found on youtube and at school like joint-ops MANY YEARS after publishing first Sturmovik .
In short You can put ashtrays and working doorknobs in the game as long I will know why they are here , what to do with them and most important what NOT to do with them .
Give me video with step by step guide and training mission to beat myself to death and after month or so we can meet on more or less equal footing on some full real servers. Otherwise gap between experten and greenhorns will deepened and more and more people are going to choose "easy path".

With Olympic Salute
nynek
P.S.
Some of You show your kids how to walk Right ?

[Sutts]

Mate, do i have to spell everything out? Did i say anything about Oleg modelling airliners? What i'm saying is there's loads of money to be had if the SoW engine can "steal" pilots from other venues of the flight sim world.

For that to happen, the engine has to be modular enough to allow addition of extra features by 3rd party developers and players who are into modding.

New civilian sim on SoW engine? Oleg's team gets more money.
New WWI sim on SoW engine by the Over Flanders Fields team? Will probably be better than RoF and Oleg's team gets more money.
New Vietnam sim on SoW engine with everything from O-1 Bird Dog Spotters to F-105s, carrier ops, Mig-21s and choppers? Oleg's team gets more money.

None of this will be possible however, if there's not an option to tweak things under the hood.

Someone please explain how an increased revenue from engine licensing fees (in the case of possible payware add-ons, i doubt there will be licensing fees for free add-ons made by the community), a stream of controllable and thus, officially sanctioned, free add-ons and the resulting competition bringing down the prices on payware as well is going to ruin our fun, when that not only results in more products for us (both free and payware) but also makes the developers more financially secure and possibly enables them to upgrade equipment and hire more staff to bring us the expansions faster, because i seriously don't get it.


This is not aimed at you since you obviously realize the importance of options and user-selectable difficulty, but i get the feeling that we're getting collectively near-sighted hear and losing the big picture. I'm starting to get the idea that all the talk about how this will ruin online play is nothing more than some people being afraid of their favorite servers moving to more realistic/complicated settings which they don't want to adapt to.
I'm not one to take pride in my settings and my virtual achievements (or lack thereof) but there is a part of the community that thinks like that and to them, having their full-real settings in IL2 relegated to a "70% real" score in SoW could be a big deal, as they will have to adapt or lose the "bragging rights" for lack of a better word. If this is indeed the case, then all the rhetoric about lack of resources and how such features are out of place in a combat sim (i guess jet and chopper sims are not combat sims then) is not much more than an effort to drag the upcoming SoW down to a standard they will be comfortable with, but do it for everyone and not just themselves so they can still keep telling themselves that they fly "full real".
Well, there's no thing as full real anyway, just varying degrees of approaching reality, plus i can't see how flying full real equates to advocating simplified settings, as a combat airframe is so much more than weight, armament, horse power and material durability, ie more than simply FM and DM. It's a combat plane for crying out loud, not a bicycle with a gun that i can simply point and shoot once i get a feeling for how it handles.

I still don't see the problem if
1) it is possible resource-wise on behalf of the developer team and doesn't need major recoding
2) it is not a demanded feature on release but
3) there is only the underlying framework to support it so
4) we can do much of it on our own and finally
5) it is user-selectable

That's a lot of ifs, but we're talking about a sim with a projected lifespan of a decade or so that will have to compete with other products down the line. To simply expect a rehash of IL2 with prettier visuals is nothing short of a lack of vision and reasonable expectation on our part, which i think the developer team is not only aware of, but also better than. If people can't cope with some added complexity and a bit of a learning curve now and then, then i guess it's time to quit IL-2 as well, because Team Daidalos is implementing radio navigation and radar and "we don't need to tune radios in combat sims". :lol:

+3

It's a combat plane for crying out loud, not a bicycle with a gun that i can simply point and shoot once i get a feeling for how it handles.:lol:

[Sutts]

I'll believe that when I see Oleg modeling a 777.

Not.

Gonna.

Happen.

And frankly I don't want the lack of fidelity that would have to happen to make SOW the next FSX. Nor do I want a bunch of United Airlines cattle car pilot wanna bees taking over and ruining the best air combat sim available. They have their playground, we have ours.

How could improving systems modelling possibly reduce fidelity?? Your arguments are getting pretty poor. I think you need to get that big chip off your shoulder mate.

[robtek]

Lets assume ElAurens is just playing "Advocatus Diabolus" and everything is fine.

[ElAurens]

How could improving systems modelling possibly reduce fidelity?? Your arguments are getting pretty poor. I think you need to get that big chip off your shoulder mate.


Ever flown FSX?

I have, and it's terrible. Poor terrain meshes, no FMs to speak of, no damage or collision modeling. Why? Because to have a total world modeled for folks who want to fly across the Atlantic in thier Boeing or Air Bus, and have all the ATC functions, and still have it playable on a home PC, something has to give, and that something is the immersive realism of our air combat sim.

But this discussion is rather pointless now anyway, as any decisions about how systems modeling are to be done were taken long ago. The way the sim will be is already set in stone.

We just have to see what we get.

[Sutts]

Ever flown FSX?

I have, and it's terrible. Poor terrain meshes, no FMs to speak of, no damage or collision modeling. Why? Because to have a total world modeled for folks who want to fly across the Atlantic in thier Boeing or Air Bus, and have all the ATC functions, and still have it playable on a home PC, something has to give, and that something is the immersive realism of our air combat sim.

But this discussion is rather pointless now anyway, as any decisions about how systems modeling are to be done were taken long ago. The way the sim will be is already set in stone.

We just have to see what we get.

I have flown FSX and have to agree that the FM and DM suck compared to IL2. I'm not sure if this is a resource issue or plain poor programming on Microsoft's part though.

I'm a programmer by trade and what I do know is that things like the line of sight calculations required in the modelling of radar and preventing the AI from seeing through clouds have a far greater hit on resources than enabling a few simple switches - a battery isolator can either be on or off, the strokes on a fuel primer would only be checked when the starter switch is pressed etc. A clickable cockpit may have a hit but that is already built into the engine from what Oleg tells us.

I also agree that it is unlikely that BOB will change much whatever we ask for here. What I'm sure of though is that Oleg will deliver the flexibility to allow for what we want in future releases - either from 1C or third parties and I'm quite happy to wait.

[ElAurens]

What I'm sure of though is that Oleg will deliver the flexibility to allow for what we want in future releases - either from 1C or third parties and I'm quite happy to wait.

No argument about that here. The new sim promises to have a very flexible and adaptive engine, and that is a good thing for all of us.

[Antoninus]

Ever flown FSX?

I have, and it's terrible. Poor terrain meshes, no FMs to speak of, no damage or collision modeling. Why? Because to have a total world modeled for folks who want to fly across the Atlantic in thier Boeing or Air Bus, and have all the ATC functions, and still have it playable on a home PC, something has to give, and that something is the immersive realism of our air combat sim.

But this discussion is rather pointless now anyway, as any decisions about how systems modeling are to be done were taken long ago. The way the sim will be is already set in stone.

We just have to see what we get.

Most of the in depth systems modelling was done by 3rd party add on makers and is not part of the default aircraft. You can't make it responsible for the well known defects of FSX. In many ways MSFS is just like an operating system for add ons and it looks like SOW will show this flexibility too. It would be the ultimate flight sim for me. Especially the realistic engine simulation found the latest A2A simulation planes like the P-47 was something I never expected to see in MSFS and it came without any significant performance decrease.

Also FSX is a bad example to explore what can be achieved with modern hardware. Technically it looked already outdated when released. Multicore and DX10 support were only added as an afterthought with Service Pack 1 and 2, the latter only emerged as a buggy "preview" mode. It completly relies on high GHzs numbers and barely uses the capabilties of modern graphic cards.
At least the last few versions of MS Flight Simulator were built ontop of each other. They had a great amount of legacy code and rather provided downward compatibility for old add ons than focusing on new technology. I am glad that Oleg started SOW from scratch. Just read what Gibbage (who worked for MSFS developer Aces before the Studio was closed) has said about their code in another forum:

I can assure you, they will NEVER release the source code. First, the code is MASSIVE!!! Its the culmination of over 10 years in flight sim programming. It surpasses Windows Vista in size of its code. Also, its size is only rivled by its complexity. When Aces closed, its office employed 150 people, and not one of them knew everything about the engine. I even heard 10+ year vets saying "wow, I didnt know it could do that!" when talking about features. If it did happen, 3rd party dev's would need years to even disect it, and that cost's money.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?22741-You-know-what-would-be-cool&p=251217&viewfull=1#post251217

However the terrain mesh is anything but bad. FSX can dispaly terrain meshes with a 1m resolution. Maybe out of the box in some regions.BY default you only have high resolution (76 m) mesh for europe, north america and few other places. But there the mesh is one of the elements of the landscape done better than in any other flight sim I'Ve seen before. Even with the horrible default landclass, that in no way resambles vegetation and settlements in central europe, I was instantly capable to orientate myself by terrain mesh alone. Most of these problems can be fixed by using 3rd party add ons.

[SlipBall]

It's not 1940




What!...get hold of yourself man:grin: