To expand on that comment (and not comment on the comment)... this is where "perfectionism" starts going to an extreme. It would be nice to have AI like that, it would also be nice to have 3D guages complete with paralax. Screws/ bolts/ rivets working themselves loose would be nice along with the effect that would have on airflow, etc. Nice also would be to have rain that falls as drops over the entire (or large section) of the map, blowing upwards and curling around as it does. Individual leaves on trees waving in the breeze with branches swaying and it would be really really nice to have the computing horsepower to run it all.



Actually, it is as simple as that. How else is the target audience identified?

You obviously haven't incountered me online! ;)

I think the technology shown in that video is fantastic! The people creating that setup, the software, and integrating the gauges are obviously very talented and dedicated individuals. (I wish I had half the talent that these people have displayed!)

But it does have limitations that I feel would limit it's effectivness in online combat. Having the fixed field of vision would severely limit your situational awareness.

This is not a problem with what these guys have made, it an inherent limitation of the display technology available at this time. If we put on a VR goggles, we loose the benefits of the physical gauges. If we use a technology like Track IR, we loose the benefits of the physical gun sight (Which is extremely cool in my opinion!).

When we get access to consumer 360 degree spherical displays these limitations will disappear, but then how real will flying a 109 in a spitfire cockpit be?

A big question would be should Oleg spend the development time and resources to cater for a single person in the process of creating a one off cockpit or should he attempt meet the major criteria that (over the 10 years+ of commercial combat flight simulator experience) he has determined to be important?

Shouldn't people like those that made that cockpit be the ones that need to adapt their project to work with the simulator (not the other way around)?

Cheers

1. "online players, who are focused on realistic damage/flight model and online modes of play"

I disagree, the most vociferous online players are after variety and game balance not historical correctness. Yes their are huge arguments about historical damage/flight models BUT those arguments are motivated by issues of game balance and fairness NOT a true desire for historical authenticity. Basically the online crowd is ego driven and looking for a fair (or occasionally biased towards their own side) playing field where eventually they hope to stand out. They see it more as a sporting competition.

2. "those who are more interested in avionic systems and navigation"

That specific market is more interested in civilian flight sims. What these sort of people in combat sims are actually about is "immersion". For example the ones who want to authentically feel what it was "really like" for their grandfather who flew in the 8th airforce and so forth. These people are trying to recreate history.

3. "and offline players, who want realistic AI"

Offline players want much more than just realistic AI. They need believable challenging campaigns that do not send you on useless suicide missions or repeat the same mission types over and over. They want to see rewards for doing well without necessarily changing history ( even a standard video of a medal award would be better than what we currently get). Also offline players are the ones that are way more interested in the scenery and eye candy ..., how the cows look and where the castles can be found. They are likely to do daft things like take a 109 and fly the full length of a river on the Slovakia map at tree height just to look at the scenery. Offline players have a lot more commitment to long projects than other types of players as well. Online wars etc regularly flounder but offline players commonly play the same campaign over several years.

*****

I definitely agree that online players are far more vocal. Most IL2 players I know personally do not play online, they also rarely go to online forums unless a new patch or update is due and even then tend to lurk and not post.

However its important to remember from a marketing point of view that the opinions of reviewers and online players in forums makes a huge difference to general sales (even if the reviewers are idiots and online players a minority). You need to keep reviewers and onliners happy to get the initial sales and then keep offliners happy to maintain those sales through various versions .

Someone should call ED, it's not too late yet to cancel DCS:A-10 now that it's been shown to be boring and has no multiplayer; ElAurens has spoken... :rolleyes: I guess all sim developers should follow the Rise of Flight approach and concentrate on Air Quake, seems to work fine for them...

That SimHQ article actually paints a rather grim picture of the current state of flight sim development by most of the remaining few developers who are still working in this area. Somewhat ironic that the main reaction here is for people to bring up their personal wishlist again.

SoW's detail level in systems modeling and startup procedures has long been explained by Oleg anyway, and his decision should be understandable no matter where you stand on this issue. Not sure why some still have to drag out the classic "if you want realism go and fly a real airplane" non-argument in this context.

I always wondered what those DCS multiplayer icons were which appeared at install, or the servers listed when I clicked on them.

hmm, oh well, if DCS has no multiplayer, that's that then

What I was trying to say is that not everyone fits neatly into these categories. I'd like to be able to fly an aircraft using original pilot notes but I equally enjoy combat and the mission itself. I often hear the argument that if you think procedures are important then you should be flying a civilian sim or a real light aircraft. That argument is just plain silly.

I agree...I flew a light aircraft for a few year's. What I look for in a simulation, is simulation. I guess feeling the work load, and making the right decisions is what I like. Now I also fully understand the 1C should not be expected to deliver such a product.:grin:

I guess you're not 100% right on RoF being "air quake" - I find its FM, DM and "systems" modelling quite accurate - for primitive machines they model, that is. Now, to put that into perspective, A-10C, itself being a rather non-complicated airplane, if you discount the "bolt-on" systems added in A to C transition, is still many times more complicated that a WWI airplane. For WWII airplanes, though, there is a huge variety, starting with quite primitive machines, like Gladiator for example or Tiger Moth, and ending with F4U and similar.

But the most important thing for me is not accurate modelling of the switches you use once and forget (famously - magnetos in Il-2 - why do I need to switch them off and on, if there's no magneto failure option?) but the accurate modelling of the features really important in real airplanes - which are BTW inexplicably absent in Il-2. A good example for this is the fuel tank selector, or the fuel shutoff. If it's hard to model the fuel consumption from different tanks, than please at least let me shut off the fuel flow to a burning engine. It could've saved my virtual butt many times...

Again, the flight sim, and a combat flight sim in particular, is a very complex mechanism. With that in mind, the all new features we'll see in SOW, especially in environment modelling, will give us a huge immersion boost - be sure :). The sims of tomorrow will need to follow the path of simulating the environment more accurately, and the interaction of the aircraft and the environment needs to be improved. For combat flight sims, a persistent, dynamic, war-like environment, with "jump-in - jump-out" features and a living, breathing world around it would be a "holy grail". For example, if we're modelling BoB, we could have a server (or a bunch of them) running the whole thing, according to the historical ORBAT, operations, weather etc., and offer pilots missions dynamically, which they could jump into and out of (with limitations, like no jumping out of the mission in combat, etc.). That wouldn't preclude the existence of some kind of more limited "offline training module" - but the main action would be online. I, for once, would pay a monthly fee for such an experience, and I'd gladly pay for any additional aircraft usable in such an environment.

PE Tigar, i'd agree with most of your post- right up until you want to 'limit' offline play.
are you seriously suggesting a game developer should ignore a large proportion of an already smallish potential customer base? doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me;)

@ others
if someone was to suggest the opposite here 'burning at the stake' would probably be one of the milder comments in reply:rolleyes:

personally i welcome the exchange of opinions however strong. they should however keep a basic degree of respect, something that appears to me to be slipping from some posters. is a degree of toleration too much to ask for?