How to do it

[klem]

http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=26491&start=0

if only MG had the time and aircraft available.

[pupo162]

well, they could pull a similar trick on some russian planes. They should be aviailable there. some yaks and stuff.

[robtek]

The complex simulation of the A2A Aircraft, combined with CoD landscape and damage modelling....
That would be Dreams coming true!!
At least for me!

[Ze-Jamz]

http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=26491&start=0

if only MG had the time and aircraft available.

Agreed..

Nice find Klem

[LoBiSoMeM]

How they will handle damage model and model the weapons system? If A2A can do it well, I will buy any addon from this great company if MG release SDK to commercial third part addons for CloD.

[Phazon]

That's pretty impressive. Definately agreed on the comments he made in regards to sound. I don't actually have FSX but I might have to pick it up to play with these addons as they look great. :)

You can't really compare IL-2 and this in a fair manner though. IL-2 has to make some concessions to be able to simulate actual combat with realistically sized squadrons.

[ATAG_Snapper]

That's pretty impressive. Definately agreed on the comments he made in regards to sound. I don't actually have FSX but I might have to pick it up to play with these addons as they look great. :)

You can't really compare IL-2 and this in a fair manner though. IL-2 has to make some concessions to be able to simulate actual combat with realistically sized squadrons.

+1

Civilian flight sims have never interested me very much -- until now!

[BadAim]

Just freaking WOW!

[ARM505]

FSX is mostly boring for me - with the exception of the A2A Spitfire (and the PMDG NGX, but anyway). It's awesome, and shows how it should be done. If you're at all interested in operating a Spitfire, A2A capture the nuts and bolts - worth every penny. No combat, but then just flying a Spitfire is interesting enough for me.

[Sutts]

The complex simulation of the A2A Aircraft, combined with CoD landscape and damage modelling....
That would be Dreams coming true!!
At least for me!



I totally agree. Unfortunately when I enquired they told me they had no intention of developing for any other simulation product.:(

[Blackdog_kt]

I like their products but i think expecting that kind of quality in a survey sim is an unfair comparison: buying just one of their planes + the accusim pack (no terrain/environment and no DM, just the planes and their systems modeling) costs about as much as CoD.

That's how they can afford to do it. I'm not saying it's bad, they're very good and i've had the pleasure of flying some of their add-ons on a friend's PC, it's just that i find the comparison a bit too "apples and oranges" for my taste.

[Ze-Jamz]

I like their products but i think expecting that kind of quality in a survey sim is an unfair comparison: buying just one of their planes + the accusim pack (no terrain/environment and no DM, just the planes and their systems modeling) costs about as much as CoD.

That's how they can afford to do it. I'm not saying it's bad, they're very good and i've had the pleasure of flying some of their add-ons on a friend's PC, it's just that i find the comparison a bit too "apples and oranges" for my taste.

Agreed..

There shouldnt be or cant be any comparison between that and CoD..

As BD said, they can solely concentrate on the Model, they dont have to worry about anything else ingame and yes they get paid for it...quite well in fact

[klem]

I like their products but i think expecting that kind of quality in a survey sim is an unfair comparison: buying just one of their planes + the accusim pack (no terrain/environment and no DM, just the planes and their systems modeling) costs about as much as CoD.

That's how they can afford to do it. I'm not saying it's bad, they're very good and i've had the pleasure of flying some of their add-ons on a friend's PC, it's just that i find the comparison a bit too "apples and oranges" for my taste.

It wasn't really a comparison, it was a "wouldn't it be nice". Can't really expect that much dev for all the planes that are or will be in CoD.

It is impressive. I have the Spit I and II, they fly beautifully. Looking forward to the P51D very much.

[Ze-Jamz]

It wasn't really a comparison, it was a "wouldn't it be nice". Can't really expect that much dev for all the planes that are or will be in CoD.

It is impressive. I have the Spit I and II, they fly beautifully. Looking forward to the P51D very much.

Klem..

Whats the main differences between those and what we have in game here..? more complex CEM or...???

[klem]

Klem..

Whats the main differences between those and what we have in game here..? more complex CEM or...???

I think its fair to say the FM is more accurate - well I am assuming that from the research and supporting professionals that looked at it - and yes the engine management requires a little more care but you get used to it for just flying around. I know Kwiatek had a difference of opinion about the SpitII (I think) but there was also some discussion about precisely which mark and at what period it was meant to be modelled as. The Merlin negative G cutout seems very benign compared with ours, it requires a firm and sustained pushover not just a nudge of the stick. An overheat also delivers coolant venting and therefore loss of coolant. Many of the engine startup features are available in CoD like mags on, fuel on, mixture setting, engine start and also hand pumping when cold although CoD doesn't seem to need it.

The Accusim add-on to the main Spitfire software adds monitoring of engine wear and other systems like coolant, oil, fuel, coffman starter cartridges and oxygen levels all of which need replenishing after a flight or the position gets caried forward to the next flight. If you don't turn on the oxygen or don't set it for the height and climb too high you pass out. Its aimed at people who want to know what it was like to have to handle all those issues. Some of the guys pride themselves in taking it as far and for as long as they can before an overhaul is necessary. You kind of 'live' with the aircraft but you can of course go to the hangar, get a report and hit 'fix it all for me please' which I have had do do many times :) TBH I haven't flown it for a while. Kind of spoils me for CoD.

But as some of our guys have said, to take all that on in a combat sim would probably require a Virtual OCU course and mean sticking to the same aircraft most of the time. I think some CoD players may feel/have felt like that when they first tried it out. I think we probably have a good balance in CoD with some of its aircraft handling 'generalisations' (once the FMs get sorted).

[speculum jockey]

It should really be stressed that these aircraft from A2A take a year or more to make. I think they said that the B-17 took two or more to finish.

[Chivas]

I haven't bought any extra aircraft for FSX, but its quite likely the CEM is more complex in FSX, but its highly doubtfull the FM is better considering its using FSX code.

[ATAG_Doc]

To me they're completely different animals.

[louisv]

I haven't bought any extra aircraft for FSX, but its quite likely the CEM is more complex in FSX, but its highly doubtfull the FM is better considering its using FSX code.

I have both. The CEM is not more complex in A2A's Spitfire, but its probably more precise.

The FM is A2A's.

[Madfish]

CEM aside - can FSX really simulate the flight model that great? I haven't been a fan of the civil flight sims and find them boring but the videos I usually see are... questionable. Most of them show flaws especially regarding complex FM e.g. stalls and spins.

So while the buttons and gauges are maybe working better - does the flightmodel really work better as well? E.g. can you do a few test runs and verify climb rate, turn rate etc?


I agree with all who said it's apples and bananas though. A warbird without weapons? Not a warbird to me. I think the damage model is at least equally important. It's like comparing a model plane to an RC one - one may look shiny and have the details but it's not experiencing all aspects of flight / fighting.

I'm not sure if CloD could ever reach that level of detail for individual - after all they don't just make plane models. Maybe they could buy rescources to make it easier but then again - it'd probably mean CloD would end up costing 400$. :-P

[speculum jockey]

It should also be mentioned that a lot of those things that happen in the cockpit with regards to gauges and such are just animations, and don't really have anything to do with the mechanics of the aircraft. CloD actually simulates the engine, with pistons and fuel lines, not to mention the cooling system. A2A if very complex, but a lot of the switch clicking is just step#1->step#2->step#3. It's not like it's actually flooding the engine, just saying, "you did this too much, hence step#3 cannot happen until you do #1 and #2 again the proper way.

Or at least that was my understanding from what Oleg was hinting at months ago when people were complaining about not having clickable cockpits and some other options found in FSX.

Then again maybe A2A does all that stuff even though stock FSX doesn't.

You'd have to talk to the A2A devs and get them to explain it.

[ARM505]

Actually A2A have stated that they use a dynamic engine model, using software that runs alongside FSX. So when you see individual puffs of smoke from your exhaust stacks as the plugs oil up, thats not a canned effect, it's done on the fly. Startup also requires the correct mixture, priming etc and is done on the fly, not just do this then this then it starts.

Really. It's very good. If you don't like it just because it doesn't shoot, then I guess you're just not that interested in Spitfires.

[Sternjaeger II]

It will happen some day, but there are a series of things to be taken into account:

1) it takes MONTHS to develop ONE plane, so unless you have a team of at least 4 or 5 people for each plane, it might be a wait of more than just our "two weeks".

2) A2A works on plane and plane systems, not on armament and ballistics, that's another HUGE part of work that needs to be taken into account to that standards. Same goes for the complex DM.

3) have you guys seen the accuracy of that 3dmodel? Such high polycount is something you can have for a couple of planes maybe, not for 100+ in the sky.

4) A2A didn't develop also the sim environment, landscape, vehicles, weather..


So, the bottom line is that yes, merging the Maddox Games skills with the A2A accuracy and attention to detail would probably mean we don't need to get out of our houses anymore (Tesco delivery rulez!), but it would take a lot of time, money, qualified workers and above all a SUPERB managing to make something like that happen soon, not to mention that the pc technology is still not ready for this..

Having said this, I'm looking fwd to when I'll be a pensioner, by then we might have some properly impressive stuff!

[dash2099]

but Its already going to happen...
MG were always building a high fidelity flight sim engine with an SDK and open formats.These addon developers can make additional A/C for CoD, infact much easier as they wont have to code workarounds to introduce things like proper exhaust smoke etc.

if the hardcore flight sim market was as big as the console twich gamer market, then yeah MG would be able to do everything. but we're really something like 2%? also its all mature gamers (finite life), do you see any kids these days interested in WW2 aircraft? they are too busy text messaging and planking..

i'm sure all the hate threads on here inst helping that figure either.