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

cheers!

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?

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:

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 ?

+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:

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.

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

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.

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.