We're not saying it's easy, or that it could be done without "watering down" some elements of each separate title for the sake of balancing out everything.

We're just saying that instead of playng ArmA2 with simplified FM/DM for aircraft, you could be playing something like Arma2 in WWII with better aircraft FM/DM than ArmA2, because it's already done for the starting title.
It wouldn't be a pure flight sim, it would be a combined arms game with the only difference that the airplanes are more accurate than the rest of the combined arms games, that's all.

Some people wouldn't use it, some would, but the bottom line is that there would be a market for that. There a lot of people who are flight sim gamers and they also play tactical shooters or strategy games.
We can't make a single game that has everything with today's technology, but if the engine is broad enough to be able to support different genres then it's easier to fuse elements of each genre into a combined environment.

It wouldn't be 100% tactical shooter, it wouldn't be 100% tank sim and it wouldn't be 100% flight sim. It would still be a compromise but a better compromise than the games before it, because it would all be based on the same engine. It's a purely technical point, 3 different games made on the same engine have a better chance of working together than 3 different games made on 3 different engines ;)

Finally someone with a bit of reason.
Yes true, but as always there will be compromises.

Just to give a simple scope when it comes to devtime issues, quality issues, disk-size issues.. it takes about 2 months to build a map in radiant which is the Quake/CallofDuty editor, it takes about the same for a quality map
in Unreal 3 engine which works in a similar fashion. Obviously the maps goes through different processes such as lightning, geometry etc. These maps are very very small compared to anything you seem to ask for in a full world,
these maps are usually only Blocks of a City yet take months to develop. So building a whole country with the amount of detail that is seen in RO,COD maps would be ludicrous, not to mention the map size..

DCS BlackShark is another good example. It takes Eagle Dynamics years to develop a product with one flyable aircraft, why?
Well all focus is on that area and that aircraft and that model/aerodynamics alone, and some people here belive in a ww2 ultimate multi-sim... pfff

So you want two different games with interlinked stats, and that the world is viewed differently depending on if your a tanker or pilot?
Still the complexity is enormous for a project like this no matter what, in the end your just gonna get a watered down product.

The best thing is still if each game focuses on it's own niche be that Infantry & Tanks, Sub-sim or Flight sim, which
would ensure engine quality, adaption and development time is spent on the right things.

Based on the same engine but with different ways of developing the same map...Is it difficult to understand? Blackdog and others grasped the concept easily....obviously the tank map will be a small subset of the air map, but detailed to the needed degree!

This is obviously purely hypothetical as far as I know...

I am tiring of this discussion, I have the feeling to talk with a brick wall! Try the "what could be done" instead of "cannot be done" attitude for a change...

JVM

Trust me i would try that attitude if what you're asking for wouldn't be one of the biggest long shots ever..

Jesus.. there is jut no reason for it , why can't you see that instead.
Give us a pure inf & tank sim or a pure flight sim instead of something halfwit wannabe project.

Tired of dreamers & oleg engine fanboys..

Its quite simple really. The SOW series won't be doing a combined forces sim for atleast 10 years until most of the major air theaters are done. By that time computers will be 10 years more advanced and will easily handle most combined forces battles.

Well, if that isn't "narrow mindedness" i don't know how to describe it :-D
Just because you can't imagine it there is no reason to do it?
Anyway, its the dreamers which make the world a better place, not the nay-sayers.

If that's how you see it, posting in this forum must be a bitch for you. LOL

It could be done to the level of Operation Flashpoint 1 (if not Arma). I found that game fun. The vehicles would be much better in a SoW sim.
I'd enjoy being able to have very simple first person controls for vehicles in DCS (similar to what existed in Operation Flashpoint 1) - the ballistics alone would be interesting.

new ww2 tank sim for sure would be really nice one.

Hope Oleg gets intested about that aspect of war simulation too

Im not a very negative person , just this particular subject keeps popping up and its quite hilarious how people can even remotely believe in it ,
with the current tech/devtime/moneyissues/ it's just not practical, fun, rewarding or possible.

Cut it down and you've something like Arma , a watered down Combined sim on a smaller scale, that's where we are at in possible projects atm.
Maybe it's because I work with hardware, software daily, and spend time with games on a regular basis that i can't help but notice your dreams.

Dreaming is good, have faith.. but sometimes you can also use a realistic smack and get back down to earth.
We will have space travel capabilities one day as well, not tomorrow but right now it remains a dream even if it's physically possible..