Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Friday 2010-08-06 Dev. update and Discussions

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - Friday 2010-08-06 Dev. update and Discussions (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=15864)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 174208)

Well, that's why the "detail fanatics" want things like realistic systems management in their simulators, because the real pilots had to do it as well. If one doesn't want to, then one should feel free to drop their realism settings a bit, instead of trying to enforce their preference for a lack of increased fidelity in modelling an aircraft, which by the way is the reason we buy all that expensive hardware every few months ;)

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. You like padlock? Fly with padlock. You like spending 30 seconds on each mission warming up your engine? Spend those seconds looking at your oil pressure and temp dials. No harm done.

The difference is, that if these things are included in a simulator then it's up to the player to decide if he's going to use them or not. But if there's no padlock feature coded into the sim, you simply can't choose wether to use one or not.

Ideally, SoW at 70% difficulty settings should be equal to IL-2 at 100% difficulty settings. Why? Because PCs grow stronger, sims evolve thanks to that processing power and developers can model the aircraft in much higher detail. Just the improved FM/DM and systems modelled could easily cover that much of a difference in difficulty.

However, i'm starting to get the idea that people are obsessed with keeping the title of full switch virtual pilot because they like thinking to themselves that they could operate a real aircraft: "man, i'm flying full switch, it's full real". No, it's not.

Full switch means nothing if it's not what happens in the real bird, it just means "the maximum amount of complexity our engine and your PC can take without making it all a slideshow".

Case in point, i can fly the classic Dynamix sims of the 90s like Aces of the Pacific all day long at full switch and claim whatever i want, but in the end it would be the equivalent of flying IL2 with most of the FM realism options turned off. It's just flying the sim at its maximum complexity, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that aces of the pacific at full complexity is still light years away from IL2 at maybe 20% difficulty, not to mention the way a real aircraft truly operates. In that sense, SoW should surpass IL-2 as well, funds and development time permitting of course.

Long story short, let's tick the appropriate boxes in the realism options when SoW is released and fly at our preferred settings, instead of trying to drop the difficulty level for everyone, even those who would want it increased, just so we can cling to our precious title of pretend-pilots. :rolleyes:

Choice people, choice...it's a good thing ;)

Flightsim is never gonna be real if you don't have the same movements, and the same g-pulling experience...

all peoples in this forum have age 20-28-30-35-60 age old and have experience from FSX F16 FALCON X-PLANE LOCK ON ecc.ec.
now we whait SoW simulator.
and we want SUPER SIMULATOR OF WW2 not arcade game ONE STANDARD SIMULATION IN ALL WORLD.
i loock OPS operation flash point and ARMA2 is good but very good product is a STANDART in all WORLD.
FSX is a stadart in all world.
BUT NOW WE WANT A NEW GENERATION OF SIMULATOR NEW TECNOLOGY NEW PHYSIC AND GOOD REAL SIMULATION not a simple game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xilon_x (Post 174213)

Omg, we already have an yber simulation for the public and it's called DCS series. Not even SoW will top it , DCS is more than 90% accurate to flying the real thing, reason why no one will top it is simple.. they focus 110% on one aircraft at the time. No we won't have one gigant super simulator, that's just wishful thinking, it's not even practical, fun or doable on a large scale if you're to create a 1:1 living world with Infantry, Tanks, Aircrafts.. i could list 1000+ issues with that
here and now.

Arma 2 isn't meant as a hardcore sim within any specific genre, its a Combat-simulator, simulating warfare overall in a realistic manner. By the way , check your spelling sometimes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by engarde (Post 174202)

sadly, i thought i might be lauded for posting real world, irrefutable, actual information that might contribute to the genre.

how naive of me.

;)

It was a fair point, engarde, but you did pick two of the most complicated aircraft of the Second World War systems-wise and the videos contained a lot of lengthy explanation that an experienced pilot would not need.
For the single-engined fighters like the Spitfire, Hurricane and 109s that the game simulates we're talking more like 3-5 minutes tops. From the Pilot's Notes for the Spitfire Mk II:

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/225...306470/000.jpg

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/225...5ae618/000.jpg

The Spitfire particularly was prone to overheating on the ground - as the Pilot's Notes above state "Warming up should not be unduly prolonged, as the temperature rises quickly, and some margin must be kept in hand for taxying. If it is 150 degrees before the aircraft taxies out, it will become excessive if there is any distance to taxy downwind."

As for the Luftwaffe twins, the BR.20 and the Blenheim, of course you're right, there's a lot more mucking about to do. The thing is, most of the things you'll notice on the checklist are not things we as sim pilots need to be overly concerned about. We fly pristine aircraft that don't suffer from mechanical failures without pilot error or enemy action. Things like checking the tires for bruising and slip or checking for the correct oil pressure after engine startup are things we can take for granted, and that means that we're not really talking about "realistic startup" (which DOES take a long time), we really mean, "pressing all the authentic buttons to make stuff happen". ;) In fact, since we're assuming that everything on the checklist before stepping into the cockpit the final time before takeoff has already being done, you can knock about half of the startup time off each of those videos anyway.

I have no problem with fully realistic proceedures as long as like every other aspect of the sim, they are scalable. For offliners it will be a very important part of their experience, so go for it.

For online, where folks have much more limited time to fly even very long, complicated missions, some compromise between the ultra complex and arcade start up proceedure will end up being used.

If an online campaign has only 3 hours to run it's mission, and you might be able to do 3 sorties in complex twins, I will virtually guarantee that the majority of players will not want to spend half that time sitting on the ramp clicking buttons.

The object is to fly and fight, not fight the game mechanics just to be able to play.

Thankfully Oleg understands this.

We should all be able to have our fun, whatever we think "fun" is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline (Post 174210)

There might be a reason why these trees look a bit simpler...First of all, there's way much more trees and buildings in the SOW screen, this means a lot more stress for cpu and videocard!

As far as I'm aware they are both screens from SOW. As to scene complexity, I can't speak for SOW, but other modern games have been able to do great things with object instancing whereby you can have a great many of the same or similar object and suffer minimal impact on system resources. Maybe this has to do with certain features in later versions of Direct X, or maybe it's just good programming on the developer side. I'm no programmer, I just know it's possible.

Quote:

How detailed do you want it to be?! Do you want to fly at least 30-60fps or do you want to watch your plane moving every second or so...

Scalable to current, future, and past hardware seems best. There's no reason not to work towards accomodating GPU/CPU power that may be a year or two away from now, especially if SOW is not going to be released for awhile yet. The latest DX11 cards from Nvidia and ATI are super quick, and some of the budget cards in these new lineups are very reasonably priced.

Quote:

Sacrifices have to be made for playabilty, for a flightsim trees are just a bonus. And this looks more then good enough.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'd imagine for a 2010/2011 flight sim, trees would be de rigueur by now. For a flight sim that's aiming to be a revolution and new standard setter for perhaps years to come, well... ;)

Quote:

I cannot imagine that everyone wants to buy a new super computer to be able to run just a flightsim. Please return to the real world.

It seems plenty of people following the development of SOW are preparing to upgrade their systems when the time is right. It's certainly been mentioned time and time again by people throughout these threads. Though I'm sure any computer up to fairly modern standards will be able to handle SOW- the devs have indicated they are taking precautions here.

Quote:

Planes' look and feel and behavier are the most important thing for a flightsim...

Yup.

Quote:

If you guys are just bickering about some trees, then this might be the evidence that everything else is allready on a high level...

There really isn't much else to talk about in static shots. There's just simply an absence of evidence (distinct from any evidence of absence ;))

For start up procedures a mixt between DCS BS and current IL-2 would be OK. That is 3 options:

1. Quick start up... like in Il2
2. Auto start up... like in DCS where all the switches are pressed in correct order by the computer... having an animated pilot inside would be a plus...
3. Manual start up... like in DCS... you press the switches to bring the beast to life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zauii (Post 174223)

Remember that SOW will be open to 3rd party add ons. Some have done wonders with FSX and made significantly more complex add ons than MS stock planes. WW2 fighters are not nearly as complicated as the modern stuff modeled in DCS. Thus we might very see similarly detailed simulation of certain aircraft in SOW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline (Post 174091)

If you look at your pictures, then you can clearly see that a lot of trees are actually taller then most buildings...

Conclusion, nothing wrong with screenshot #2!

Exactely what I wanted to say! :)

Mods have received continual complaints from members about OFF TOPIC discussions on the STICKY THREADS.

The sticky threads are for ON TOPIC discussions not personal complaints, bickering and other nonsense.

Mods don't have time to sort out all the persistent junk talk. Either you clean up your act or we take action.

The 1C company was generous enough to allow more open discussions on air combat and flight simulation in the non-sticky threads.

The sticky threads are to provide developers and users with competent information and constructive feedback discussions.

This thread will be locked for a few days so that everyone reads this message... then it will be re-opened.

If there is no respect from posters they will be banned on an individual basis for a week or more.

I repeat, the only intent of this is to preserve the integrity of sticky threads to be valuable to our community for constructive conversations between developers and members.

If you don't comply with this request, it will be clear you are only interested to be a disruptive influence on this forums