Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Desireable level of realism in a comabt flightsim?

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

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

- - Desireable level of realism in a comabt flightsim? (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=13164)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 143495)

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

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

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:

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...

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker (Post 143484)

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.

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

:-D :-D :-D

@seeker:

Quote:

...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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker (Post 143484)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutts (Post 143558)

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.

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.