Future of simulations 2010 discussion
 

A bit of a discussion on flight simulators with comments from Oleg.

http://www.simhq.com/_commentary/all_106a.html

I personally like Olegs answer to this question.

"20mm: What do you think today's simulation fans want (besides everything). Is it mostly gameplay, eye-candy, a dynamic campaign, a solid multiplayer, better-and-better AI, or some new element?

Oleg: I would say everything anyway! And when we give more and more, making 3D more and more close to a realistic image they never stop their complaints. Comments like, “This screw is not on the right place or this curl of the cloud doesn’t look good”. At the same time a few users would like too much realistic control of aircraft using all the devices like in real life. These are in minority. So there always should be the right calculated balance between realism and usability for a casual player, or we will be not able to sell the new product well and cover our expenses.

"

Cheers!

Oleg - you got it wrong, the hex screw goes there.
These dashboard screws need a flathead screwdriver, but every odd numberd screw multiplied by the golden ratio is a philips.

Oleg - this is a sheep farming area, not cows.
Oleg - please change the shape of the control stick, it looks very odd where it is...
Ol....

LOL! was gonna quote the same text! Thank God the fanatics are in minority or this game would probably never see the light of day:)

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000

20mm: Broadband connections have significantly changed the methods of distribution. Whereas previously, it was a case of going to a retail store or buying from an online vendor, today it seems more and more developers are going the digital distribution route. Is the retail store becoming a thing of the past for simulation purchasers?

Oleg: Yes.

The last two Sims I've bought have been Rise of flight which I bought off ebay and the DCS:A10 Open Beta which was bought online.

For me ROF and the buying of aircraft has been smooth and seamless. I would buy off them again. My experience with the DCS product has been very similar.

One of the problems I have where I live that it takes a two or so for items to get into shops compared with the otherside of the country. If I was given the oportunity top buy BoB staight from the distributors on the day it was released, I probably would. It is extremely fustrating reading forums like this with people saying how wonderful a sim is and not being able to get it!

Cheers

1946 was the last sim I purchased in-store.

Download from distributor- or better they give you a torrent link, heaps faster- and burn exe to disk for backup. Save money, save waiting. It's not like you're missing out on a fancy manual these days.

Having said that, I still remember walking out of the store with the big boxes of Il-2 and Forgotten Battles, packaged together for some reason, and how carefully I opened them up.

And it's a bit sad going into a games store now and noting that the PC section is two shelves wide, everything else is console.

Once PC games started to require online activation, you may as well download the whole thing.

thats true +1

perfectionism, I guess, can go overboard and be just as detrimental as something half-assed if it is allowed to go to extremes.



+2

Is that your oppinion about IL-2 too?

Judging Olegs reply to the copyright question it looks as though it will be very quiet in the Pacific :(

what?

S!

I rather buy my game as a hardcopy so I can have it on the shelf. Just in case. HAve used RoF plane store without a glitch and Steam too. But still..the game in the shelf is better :D

Regarding the realism. People want realism that suits their needs and expectations. On the other hand combat sim fans scream and strive accuracy yet they do not want to have even a partial workload the real pilot had. To keep the "fun factor" so to say. Since when was war and dying fun or entertaining? Those vets did not complain about it and flew on, current pilots work under the ever increasing flood of information and advancing technologies in their planes..

Maybe I am one of those fanatics or minority that would not mind having to use the plane's systems as did the real pilots ages ago. To learn it, to see how demanding it really was to be a pilot. The full experience. For me it would be the immersion maker. Not every Joe Average or Fritz Kügelschreiber became a pilot or an ace ;)

Those of you who are familiar with and have used "real world" flight simulators know that all the requested detail people whine about in IL2 and SOW is just not the norm for "real world" simulators.

Simulators generally have definite purposes and they are designed to achieve those purposes. That doesn't mean they have dzus fasteners graphically articulated throughout the skin of every aircraft.

IMO, I am fine with IL2 detail levels... Great fixes are already underway with TD, improved AI, navigation, etc. On the fly weather changes would be a welcome improvement, along with a very comprehensive mission builder.

The Online IL2 game is now and always has been the most popular of all the air combat flight simulators. Look at the continued interest in IL2 on all the forums that discuss air combat simulations. IL2 is always the most posted discussions.

If BOB SOW wasn't a near term project and we knew nothing of it; the embellishments to IL2 available now would be suffice. Interest in IL2 would still be the front runner air combat sim, including all new and pending releases.

"Oleg: Oh, I have revolutionary ideas, but I don’t like to say them out loud. I was in hope to make it in my new sim, but I’m not sure that it is possible with a limited budget. If you really have such money, I would say come to me and under a strong NDA I will tell you what to develop, and which people in the world to hire for this project, etc"

Sell us the beta, like DCS did with A10c, and you have more dev.money.. hell I even pay for an alpha, and wait for the final product!

That approach doesn't earn the devs more money, it just starts to flow in a bit earlier. Not a magic way to increase the overall budget. Or quoting Oleg: "It’s one of the possible additional ways. But it is working for covering the current product expenses, not the next…"

But the money lands right in the hands of the prodiction (if they still dont have a publisher) And they can forsee the amount of nuts blindly buying anything with an Oleg label on it! (I would)

Edit-> they wouldn't get a publisher if they so9ld 3 mill copies on their own.. and wouldn't need one either when I think about it)

quote
"At the same time a few users would like too much realistic control of aircraft using all the devices like in real life"


:-P guilty.....

The future that I would like to see, would be a 24/7 on-line land, sea, and air WW II war.

You misunderstood him, his problem is not(-only) the current cashflow but the raising of big money for real studio productions; high 7 digit and above.
Developing is difficult without someone willing to finance the project.

Make it look and behave as close to reality as possible, depending on technical possibilities, thats the main idea of the simulation. That is the rule, the low that was written by Oleg and his team in the Il-2 Sturmovik 10 years ago.
And 90% of the business success depends only on marketing, but not on the product.
We have on the market one really successful "next generation" unfinished WWI simulator, and one absolutely incredible modern aviation simulator with no success at all.
RoF's idea of the product safety and idea to sell same product many times by selling new planes is really fine.
I hope that we will see same professionalism from BoB's sellers.

What would that be?

Frankly I hope Oleg runs away screaming from the RoF business model. I know far more people that didn't buy it than did, and mostly because of the extreme expense of buying all the flyable aircraft. It's one of the main reasons I quit RoF over a year ago.

I am glad Oleg understands his market so well.

I feel sorry for those players who don't think that the sim should be fun.

I already have a job.

I think the same: A sim should be able to torture you as well as give you pleasure (however you want). :)

+1

WWII aircraft like the Spitfire are not too complex at all. Many who flew into battle in these were kids with just a handful of hours on type. I think the problem is the culture of instant gratification for minimal effort and the short attention span of the modern gamer.

I still believe we should be aiming for a sim as realistic as the technology will allow and dumb down through options. If there is concern about casual gamers giving up after selecting full real (for ego reasons) then hide the full real option in a config file that can be changed by those who are ready for it.

I never used to be able to cope with full switch but now I think I'd lose interest if it wasn't there. People need a pathway to follow as they gain more experience. There really is no need to be hobbled by the demands of the casual simmer.

There can be fun in complexity....it's the feeling of achievement/accomplishment when you work at something difficult until it becomes almost second nature. In a small way you've faced and overcome the same problems as those great airman you've read so much about. You begin to think like they did and through that you get a better understanding of the accounts they've left us.

I do understand that some people just want to blast something as quickly as possible though.:grin:

Some accept the challenge to push through "adapt, overcome, survive" or give up and go home, its human nature... but secret squirrel hidden settings aren't, I feel, the way to go.
The "casual gamer" does need to be taken into account as much as older hardware/ operating systems do (as well so do experienced simmers and product scalability into the future. Having said that though, it is impossible to please everybody). By not taking casual gamers/ low end hardware into account, there is a real risk of running an extremely small niche market and that means very high prices., if in fact it is viable to develop a product at all. Some like to just "shoot s%^& up, others like to hang around at high alt and drop in on unsuspecting newbs, etc, etc the full range. Something which can cater to all tastes effectively has a greater chance of success.

keep in mind, we were all newbs once...

I agree very much that the sim should be immediately accessible to the casual gamer/newb. Without them the sim really has no future. But to dumb down a sim just to keep the pride of casual gamers intact would be a big mistake IMO.

If a real aircraft has a very violent torque roll under certain circumstances then it should be part of the sim, not left out just in case a newb can't handle it. The default options should of course eliminate such characteristics. Mastering a powerful fighter is an important part of a combat sim. If systems or flight characteristics are intentionally left out to cater for the masses then you might as well be flying a star wars TIE fighter.

If full real can only be achieved through a 3rd party paid for add on then I'll still be happy. There must be a way to accomodate the dreams of newb and hardcore alike.

future of simulation is a mix for home computer simulator and professional simulator military accademic simulator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6LNVDsUOA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnWg4v6iHk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6b_NTr1mdU
also military use computer application for professional simulation.
also OLEG MADDOX use computer aplication for realistic and professional simulator.
also computer invent new tecnology and new interface for project new real airplane.
yes the tecnology trasfer to military and professional aaplication to your home.
VIRTUAL WORLD WAR is POSSIBLE whit actual tecnology.
AIR SEA EARTH 3 dimension of world in ONE INTERFACE ONLYNE for any tipe of players professional or rookie.

Without a certain amount of perfectionism we wouldn't even be on this forum, because there wouldn't have been a sim :)

Huh, another CTD? Ahw, that's too bad. Hey, anyone want some борщ?

Sutts, you yourself mentioned options.
eg another sim series by DCS has a"simulation" setting for simmers and a "arcade" option for those who choose that. So there seems to be the best of, at least, two worlds there out in the open, with both having variable settings. Don't get me wrong, but I ain't going to get into a "full switch is or isn't the only way to go" argument with you.


Azimech (with respect) read the post again, you may have missed the "taken to extremes" part.

S!

IL-2 has difficulty settings to choose from. I think SoW is no different. If a new sim pilot turns on full realism then he should not whine if failing terribly. There are options to smoothen your learning curve, step by step increase the realism settings until you feel comfortable with full real switch. Simple ain't it? Has nothing to do with masochism or egoism..Build your experience on a solid base, then go higher.

So..the more realistic procedures and such we can get the happier I will be. Be sure!

no no no good full really swhitch.......i think the switch is different for any tipe' of plane modern or ww2 airplane we want new keyboard little keiboard whit multi option and macro ecc.. for new generation of simulator and the new and revolutonary sistem for real impact uman whit airplane

Xylon, Im sure the Italian army has simulators too, maybe even modern ones(;)).
Try to locate the sites, and ask them if they have visitor days(all armies offer that).
Once you're there ask them about the data processing room and let them show it to you.

Then come back and tell us again what is possible with current pc hardware.

I agree, that maybe RoF's project is a little bit to comercialized, but if you want fast project development and maybe new better products in the future, you have to pay for it.
Yesterday I was playing Il-2 4.10 on Spit server and I was impressed how good it is. It is worth much more than it is priced today. I hope that BoB will have good protection and that will be the reason not to overprice it.

modern pc for home not good for my idea of simulation because operative sistem base is WINDOWS for new generation of simulator for home computer we whait the operative sitem WINDOWS change in WORLD operative sistem
EXAMPLE GOOGLE EARTH.........
to google earth you now put 3D immagine 3D object but not possible play online in google earth sistem.
MR.SWISS access to military tecnology is impossible for normal peoples because exist privacy and MILITARY spy of tecnology example i am italian is impossible for me acces to AREA51 military area not possible because military secret U.S.A. military secret and tecnology.
RUSSIAN have another secret
ITALIAN have another secret
GERMAN have another secret ecc.ec.
not possible loock the professional military simulator and copy this tecnology to home computer.

you'll probably find the military training simulators are just that... training simulators. The focus being on "procedures" and component failure recognition / rectification.

slightly OT
There is a commercial (just like that found at commercial training) flight simulator available to the public in Sydney (Australia) on the top level of the Darling Harbour complex. They charge upwards of AUD$175/ half hour block and have various options, but it is the real "full switch", full mock up deal.

we do not have any secrets, we lost the war, don´t you remember?

yes i remember we lost the war but after born the cold war from russia and u.s.a. and born the secret project and spy and surprise.
the secrets remain today and continue in future.

"fast project development" and "RoF" do not belong in the same chain of thought...

:grin:

The math is pretty simple, for me to get back into RoF, and have all the flyable aircraft that were introduced since I uninstalled it, would cost me over $100 US. This is simply not an option, nor a community friendly business model.

In any case we are discussing SoW here and Oleg knows better.

Secret technologies? We were talking about simulators, not death rays or ufos.
Nervermind.

One thing I don't understand is that why should realism of say flight controls and usability / gameplay be mutually exclusive. Just tone them difficulty settings up and down. I do agree that for example realistic startup procedure or very complex engine management is not everyone. A casual gamer which creates majority of the gaming audience wants his point & shoot experience with quick rewards, but the simming crowd should not be underestimated either. They're (we're I guess =) willing to invest hundreds of dollars into their hobby and I as one love the details and the idea that the flight procedures and experience is as close to the real thing as possible without actually sitting in a warbird. (Ok, you can downsize oil temp rising etc =)

The closer SOW gets to realism the more customers it will extract from the dying(?) FSX scene. It's a resource question ofcourse, dev team can't do everything and get the game released in 2011 but underestimating the potential of customers who are ready to pay ~50$ for a single high-quality plane like A2A's accu sim packages can be a mistake too. But I hope Oleg has created an engine that's open and complex enough for 3rd parties to create whatever level of detail they see fit.

I'm looking forwards going through a thinck manual, monitoring million cauges and clicking billion buttons on my bomber flight in SOW! :cool:

The one thing computers do well - redundant tasks

Why would anyone want to go through complex engine start procedures everytime they fired up the SOW? Why would anyone want all the inflight complex features, because if full real is addressed it wouldn't be as nice as people perceive. By that I mean weather, wind, fuel, magnetos, etc. and dozens of other management items would be required.

Maybe for fun I might like a complex start procedure like you can do in Falcon 4.0. Then again, most everyone doing Falcon puts the startup on a programmable switch and pushes 1 button to go through maze of startup procedures<> LOL

If Oleg wants to give us all the complexity of real aviation I say go for it.
However, just give me switches to turn it off or tune it down. Many times when only I have 30 minutes or so to enjoy the sim. No way I'm going to sit at the keyboard and flip switches, wait for responses and flip more switches. Sorry, but that would lose my interest faster than watching wet paint dry.

Ha ha ha "thick manual"? The last time I saw a printed manual was with EAW which is a wee bit in the past.......if we are lucky we will get a pdf - file, but a manual I highly doubt.

If you don't want it you tune it down. You want your 30 minutes fix, go for it. But as already seen even on this forum you're not representing the entire simming genre. There is a fan base and a genre of it's own of aviation enthusiasts who like to keep it real and to create maximum potential for the engine that should not be overlooked even if that's not for your casual gaming needs. This genre hasn't had it's fix of state-of-the-art WW2 air war experience for the switch clickers and I'm smelling potential.

Atleast I'd throw money at at.. where do I pay? :-)

Boeing B377 sums up a good ~200 pages with it's three pdf manuals. DCS manuals ain't too bad either..

I'll print them out and collect to a binder at the cost of my employer and enjoy the thickness =)

The troubling part to me, if I were the developer.

Creating all the array of switching and responding with the application for all the different aircraft that will eventually be in the BOB SOW.

You can get some idea by reviewing all the aircraft in IL2.

Then you have to remember. The full real switching and responses are all a little different between aircraft models of the same basic aircraft. I mean if you really want to get full real.

The payloads (weapons loadouts) vary greatly between aircraft models and that would make loadout choices a nightmare, if Oleg didn't fix the payloads for each aircraft.

Then another biggy. We gotta have the AI doing all the switching as well or it just won't be fair. Oh, and the AI has to be programmed into the application to do switching in the myriad of possible circumstances necessary for full real.

It makes you realize why air combat pilots spend all their time in one aircraft, training on the one aircraft and becoming thoroughly familiar with the one aircraft. Back to training, if you moved from the BF109 to FW190.

I see it like this. I trust Oleg to give us the best of the situation, and hope he isn't cajoled into doing stuff that will just bog us down.

The full real guys with this inordinate twinge to dot all the i's and cross all the t's... well they need to go take "real world" flying lessons to satisfy their penchant for realism. They'd get a good taste of that in any 'full real" aircraft. Especially, if they are in a real plane and fail to switch fuel tanks in time. LOL

The option for the full workload, especially for fighters, is a must imho.
The amount of the workload during a dogfight, or even before, can be decisive for the outcome.
Imagine a 109e3 with manual proppitch, needing constant adjustments to get optimum power, vs a hurri with constant speed prop. One error by the emil pilot might cost him the speed and energy needed to win.
Or switching to a empty tank for the hurri.

@ Nearmiss

well, the choice would be: be mediocre with many planes or a ace with your special plane.
That would really add to the sim-part, as now, in il2, there are way too many aces and not enough mediocre or newbie fighters.

I found this one interesting:

I think he's talking about a modern built, high quality, WW2 Air, Land and Sea Massive Multiplayer. He was talking about this for quite some time.


Anyone of you has some extra cash?:mrgreen:

Look here: http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/

I was thinking about a modern one.

Well they somehow managed to create quite a few very detailed 3rd party planes in FSX for example. And that isn't really a marvel of software engineering when it comes to the game engine far as I've understood.

The problem is that the authorities will give me hard time when I start strafing and bombing the airfields of my beloved neighbours. Also getting my missus 'ok' a loan for a Spitfire will be tough!

how many of those who think realism options are 'a waste of Oleg's valuable time' can't recognise the fun in doing something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSkWKjp52B0

the flight sim 'community' covers a wide spectrum and what seems a waste of time to you might be rather important to others.

I have no reason to doubt that Oleg will strike a balance: and it will be broader than some here would like;)

I agree. I love the ability to transform or adapt my PC to the up and coming games.On a side note, i was rummaging through some of my old titles and found IL-2 Sturmovik! I really enjoy it but cannot access any updates or patches for it anywhere! This is the 2001 Ubisoft/1C Company version. Any guidance would be much appreciated

Thank's! that does look cool, and I will try it out for the 2 week period that they are offering...I hope that SOW develops in that direction in time:grin:

Try here
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...3/m/4721047273

I can't really recognize the fun in it, but I agree that:

It seems to me there are roughly 3 overlapping groups in flight sim community; online players, who are focused on realistic damage/flight model and online modes of play, those who are more interested in avionic systems and navigation, and offline players, who want realistic AI.
Of these, I think online players are by far the most vociferous. Also online gaming seems to relatively easy to implement in comparison to , for example, the development of realistic AI. Consequently, I think online gameplay seems to be at the forefront of development, despite representing only 20% of the market.

thank you

I have to agree 100% with you nearmiss.

And one thing the "total full real" proceedures folks keep forgetting is that having all that realism precludes having more than one or two flyable aircraft in the sim. So you end up with a "study sim" like DCS Blackshark or A-10. Technically interesting in concept, but frankly, boring. No online wars, no "Spits vs. 109s" or "War Clouds" type servers, no mutliplayer at all for that matter.

Folks simply are not thinking this through.

OH, and robtek, the manual prop of the 109 E3 should be modeled in SoW, some of the mods already do this. It's all that fiddling with the startup procedure, and large volume of extra programmiing and 3D work that isn't necessary at all.


In flight controls, no issue. 15 to 30 minute startup/warmup regimen? Sorry, not necessary and will adversely limit sales of the sim.

As I said before, Oleg understands that this is a business and sales numbers equal success and further additions to the franchise.

Please don't assume you know what people think, know or forget.

I'm a proponent of real procedures, but requesting something is not akin to demanding. If I were to order my wishes for a flight sim, real procedures would probably not be in the top 10. And real start-up procedures is following a flow chart and ticking the right boxes.

Start-up procedure would rate higher in my list than clickable cockpit. As far as I can imagine, a start-up procedure would be less complex than creating a clickable cockpit... for one aircraft. If clickable cockpit is a portion of the engine, I can imagine it being complex to implement in the engine, but simple thereafter for each aircraft. Still, I feel a clickable cockpit more of a gimmick than start-up procedures. In simulating a day in a virtual pilot's war, I would use a start-up procedure offline every time, online as often as possible. In the same situation, clickable cockpit maybe twice per aircraft offline and never online.

All the above is IMHO.

Regarding requests and questions being repeated, without a definite "No" or "no development resources" from Mr. Maddox or other team members, one can expect these to be repeated from time to time.

Nearmiss,

I can see you represent the views of the casual simmer and that's fine. But there are also plenty of folk who would see what you've just described as the perfect sim. I for one would love to have a dozen things to worry about while navigating to my target. This is what brings you closer to the experiences of the wartime pilots. It would be great to feel the tension of a fuel tank switch over water for example...perhaps forget to use the booster pump while switching tanks and experience the horror of fuel starvation as a result of an airlock.

Little things like this would create a link between the success of a mission and how well you know your aircraft and its systems...which was always the way it was in reality.

I don't agree with the argument that all these extra system functions would have to be programmed in for the AI to use. Oleg has already given us the key systems which affect performance and competitive advantage. Almost all the other sub systems would add to immersion for the players that wanted them but would have no bearing on the outcome of a dogfight....things like fuel priming, pressurising the brake system, switching on the generator/electrical system. These are all little features that make you feel like you're operating the real aircraft, something that many of us would love to do but will never get the opportunity.

It may seem odd to some but I have no interest whatsoever in flying a real light aircraft. I'm interested in combat in WWII aircraft just like the rest of you and will never experience the reality of that, however much money I have.

I see someone was breaking the flight sim community into groups but it isn't as simple as that. Just because I enjoy the systems side of things doesn't mean I can be pushed off with a copy of FSX or DCS. I love WWII aviation - that includes everything from the aircraft, the environment, the missions and of course the combat. Flying in the sterile FSX environment has no interest for me at all. All I want to do is experience the real problems the real pilots faced back then, warts and all (including all the boring bits which are still an important part of the experience IMO).

If I don't want to wait for the engine to warm up then I can always use time compression.

I'm aware of Oleg's opinions and know he's a switched on guy who for good reasons won't throw precious resources into the complex study type sims I crave. All I ask is that he creates a means for 3rd parties to provide the extras later on, that's all. Hardcore simmers may be a smaller group but I can guarantee they are willing to throw a hell of a lot more money at a developer than the more casual simmer. Cockpits aren't my thing but you can imagine how much is spent in this area alone.

Anyhow, just wanted to get across the views of someone who gets enjoyment from both procedures and combat, a concept that many seem to find hard to grasp for some reason.

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?

No, not suggesting that at all - I just think that, by nature of things, a server-client environment would be able to drive that "virtual BoB" with many more airplanes etc., and compared to that the offline experience would be more limited. I.e. - you have a set limit of airplanes you can put into an MDS mission in 4.10, if you had a server farm you could theoretically put in many more planes, a bigger map, more ground objects etc.

I have no doubt that the flight and systems modeling is great in RoF, but from a gameplay point of view there's a clear focus on furball action with little regard for a historically consistent planeset, non-flyable planes, campaigns and AI. I realize for a lot of people that's just fine and exactly what they're looking for, which is fair enough. I'm only puzzled when people assume that's the only way to play a flight sim. I also have little interest in complex startup procedures and fully agree with Oleg's decision to skip those for SoW. But I won't ridicule people who'd enjoy them with remarks like "play FSX" or "fly a real plane LOL".

(and yes I know how RoF is gradually closing the gaps in the planeset, has a flyable bomber now with another around the corner, and may even get a revamped single player campaign soon...)

What I find odd in discussions of this nature where more realism is requested is that you often get two types of responses:

1) It's boring to perform these additional tasks and and you should go fly a real plane if you want to spend your time performing these boring tasks.

2) If you do the requested X level of additional realism related features it's an impossible road to take as you don't have enough development resources or CPU power to model the aerodynamic effect of a mosquito hitting the windscreen

I want to comment these typical responses in general with no pun intended:

1) If people go through the trouble of registering to a forum to request it apparently there is interest towards it. If you're not interested on that particular area why the hell do you need to take a dump on other people's areas of interest?
We don't need a police force filtering the good ideas from the bad ones, let the developers do that and keep the forum as a platform for sharing the hopes and dreams of future sim genre.

2) Modeling X does not mean that you need to model the movement and causality of every atom on the planet. In this particular example where procedures are requested it's not rocket science. It's been done several times and to save Maddox resources the request has been to leave a possibility for that to be leveraged by third party. It's doable and it has been done. Several times.
This is not away from your point-and-shoot experience or whatever you desire, it's just a door left open to pour a lot more dollars into the sim from audiences titles like IL-2 might not attract.

I think Sutts summarized a lot of my thoughts pretty well in his post a few pages back. Already a lot positive comments have already been posted by different individuals in this thread alone on possibility to extend plane control realism. This micro survey alone proves that a market exists and that's the market in my experience that is willing to invest 20x the cost of the initial title to expand it further.

This is not an 'either this or that' discussion. It's about reaching the widest possible market by looking into the features from a broader scope than what IL-2 comes from. It doesn't have to be the initial SOW release, I'd just like to see this being a part of the business model in the long run.

And what comes to the categorization of the market segments: atleast I'm a sample that crosses a lot of the suggested categories. I want to click my buttons, follow the appropriate engine management to get the most out of my crate, fly on-line and score a lot of kills.

Reaching the widest possible market also means taking into account a wide range of PC hardware capability and playing style... but no matter what, there will be those who insist that modelling the bug splat is necessary and required and there will be those (if bug splat is modelled) who will insist the bug doesn't go splat in the correct manner. Meanwhile, for a reasonable amount of fliers out there, the splat will bog their PC hardware down.

Not just the actual PC hardware is a limiting factor. Look at the controller options. You have to buy a joystick and doing so is a real mixed bag. A lot of the entry joysticks are either crap with horrible deadzones or non-ambidextrous, leaving a small segment to be even more limited in their option. Plus if you want to do well you need a rudder. Some joysticks have twist rudder, but if you want a rudder that doesn't suck you need to drop another $100 on a set of pedals. If you go the hotas setup you have to drop $100-500 on something that has a good chance of being a lemon.

The Saitek X-52's have crappy spikes in a lot of their units, and G940 still has the reversal bug in the rudder and throttle plus some units overhead and shut down the force feedback. Even the warthog, the holy grail of Hotas setups have issues with DOA units and spiking in them.

It's hard enough for those of us who like flight sims to stay in the game, think about someone just getting into them!

This is exactly why I like CH Products. I get exactly the controllers I want to buy.

exactly

and then there are all the different flavours of PC Hardware itself, from CPU's to mobo's to soundcards, not to mention the plethora of VGA's.

I find the G940 just has issues - period... and made a mistake in purchasing it.

S!

I bought IL-2 for 40€ but have spent a lot over 1000€on my rig to get the most out of this game. And will do the same with SoW. Hobbies cost and where you put your money is a matter of priorities. I rather buy a new controller for simming rather than shell it out on a night in town and puke the next day ;) And there are Difficulty Settings for a reason ;)

Given the playing habits and the general dweebery of +70% of the online crowd the online area and the "human factor" is grossly overrated. Most cannot think beyond their limited horizon of dogfight this, dogfight that, sportive contest and other such cr@p (planeset whines anyone?) which is why you'll never see an accurate depiction of WW2 aerial warfare online. Simply put human entertainment and a realistic simulation of aerial warfare do not go along on a grand scale. This is limited to offline campaigns and perhaps handpicked tight sub-communities.

Limiting offline is the surest and straightest way to send a sim to the gray plains of insignificance. Offline players, despite not being well represented on message boards, are still the largest customer group. Alienate them and you'll have shot yourself in the foot.

+1 :!:

+ a lot

I'm not a game developer but still quite IT literate and I doubt that realistic controls and engine management would swallow a huge load of resources. You don't need to render anything extra, just have a model for monitoring relatively simple and logical rules of engine behaviour vs control inputs.

Like if you don't enable booster pump while switching between tanks fuel flow might have hickups which in sim would be represented in a similar fashion as negative g's on early Hurris for example.

Also I have not seen too many comments related to adding realism to the plane controls that would have gone to extremes that would have been in the same ballpark of irrelevance as bug splats you (and me) used in previous examples. So I'm not exactly following how this comment is relevant for this discussion or was it intended as a response to me in the first place? If it was then it's a classic example of Type 2 response I posted above. :-)

If I understand Oleg correctly, we will have full system's, management, and controls...what we won't have is realistic starting of the engine's, but. We may even see that someday through a third party effort.:grin:

True every word you're saying I recon, don't have too much online experience but I guess it's often a fragfest. And offline indeed is a mandatory piece which I couldn't live without.

I just started wondering whether arranging simulating WW2 aerial warfare online is indeed a mission impossible. One thing that there might be a lot to learn from is iRacing. For those of you not familiar with it, it's a pay per month approach of arranging true racing simulation online. You need to log with your real name (I think it was controlled by cross checking with your credit card) and there is an active governing hosted by the staff and the community to keep the experience top-notch.
I tried it and never ended up with a morons crashing or whining in the races or in the boards. You progressed in rank as you learned and the level of opposition remained challenging. I had to give it up as the level was too high for me at the moment, but I long to log in again and drive a few races. It's no GT5 when it comes to volumes but it has a community 20k strong.

I just wonder how many of the WW2 enthusiasts would be interested enough to invest a few bucks monthly for a well arranged and facilitated WW2 experience with mission/campaign focus, solid chain of command and only gentlemen in your wing. I would give high-fives for a thing like that, but I wonder if I'm the only nut willing to invest on something like that. Probably not enough volume for a 24x7 running controlled experience but with scheduled flying nights I think it might be easy to get a server filled over and over again.

Last night online I sank 6 capital ships online (which one of the main red objectives listed in the map brief!) and only encountered one lone Blue plane on the last mission which failed to shoot me down before I reached the target area a sank another ship.

There were plenty of Blue planes but as you know 'Wolves' and Dachshund hunt in packs! There were plenty of blue comments on shoulder shooting etc and I was even making remarks about how The Blues must really hate their Navy. I myself was flying buy myself which was very un-realistic. (A majestic Englist Pointer if you may!)

Which only goes to show that a developer can create the most realistic aircraft and environments, The mission designer can craft a intricate and/or historically accurate senario, but unless the people with their bums on their seats show a bit of dicipline it all comes to nought!


Cheers!

impossible to explain it better!
http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/t...plausoAFDN.gif

Thankfully we don't have to drop $50-200 on sound cards any more. Pretty much the only reason to get one is for professional sound work. Today's mainboards are great for onboard sound (most even support 7.1) and the odds are you're going to have to spend a few hundred on your speakers before you're even close to hearing the limits of onboard sound quality.

It depends on how deeply the want for modelling is really. You're right in a way that "procedure" (flicking switches in the right order) doesn't require any extra rendering but the math required for the "procedure" (the want for the effects of worn seals/ almost rancid hydraulic oil/ a dodgy injector/ intermittent loose wire on a cockpit gauge, for instance, or the added "realism: of the bug splat) involved is what would bog down hardware.

we need to be careful that we don't make the mistake of misinterpreting realism/ realistic/ procedure, lest we end up in casuistry to further agenda

Engine starts like this you mean :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XVgC...eature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkcX0KGIBwk

That would be awesome. Of course radials only start that badly if let sit for a while.

The Beech 17 is my favourite aircraft. I wonder if they hand swng her backwards to pump the oil out of the cylinders? Is that where the puddle of oil on the floor came from?

Cheers!

I take it you are describing the effects of a worn engine on how easy it is to start? If so then I agree that keeping track of the state of the oil and the degree of wear in the individual components would be way over the top and would affect performance.

However, I think all this could be easily modelled through a simple factor applied at startup that is based on the degree of abuse an engine has suffered. I believe Oleg is already keeping track of the "abuse factor".

The procedures we're talking about are pretty straight forward really. Things like:

If number of prime strokes are insufficient based on current engine temperature then make engine fail to start. (pre take off check with no framerate hit)

If master switch is not turned on then ignition and all electrical services won't work. (pre take off check with no framerate hit)

If booster pump is not used while switching tanks then % chance of fuel lock and engine cutout. (check state of booster pump only when fuel selector changed)

This kind of thing will not effect performance at all really (I program for a living). The problem Oleg has is that each aircraft has different sub system requirements. He just wants to stick to the features common to all and avoid having to spend time implementing the details specific to each type and sub type which is understandable.

While I hope he does make an effort to model the parameters and limitations of each type (boost/rpm/temps etc) I can understand his reluctance to turn this into a study sim (which was never the intention).

What I hope is that third parties can step in later and give study sim status to specific aircraft as has already happened with FSX. I believe strongly that this could be done without affecting the competitive nature of online play. The systems we are asking to be modelled are either only used on the ground or are of a nature that won't give the player an advantage in combat (in fact the player will be MORE likely to die if they fail to follow procedures).

The systems that would give advantage in combat are modelled already - Supercharger, RPM control, Mixture etc. A boost pump or a circuit breaker is not going to sway things one way or another.

I absolutely agree! I have seen that too often enough, a very nice map of Malayia, big furball right in front of a large port, the fighters all busy with checking their gunstats and kill-stealing bull, no one paying attention to a lone low flying bomber that has widely circuted the furball and is attacking from behind. They just where wondering how a bomber got past them, but could not figur that maybe their furball play kept them too distracted.....
I personally doubt this will ever change, at least not on general public servers. Squadron events is of course a differant cup of tea.

Ah yes love those radial engines!
One of my favorites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSpBw...eature=related
Should add also this one love the Ju52!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8_9r...eature=related

+1

Skoshi hit the nail.

It IS fun from time to time to just play around and we have to appreciate the fact that people fly combat sim for different reasons, but I wish everyone try get into planned and organized attacks... this is so much more rewarding... and the best way to do that is to join some kind of squadron. I have flown this game since it came out... and starting up F19 in 2003 was the best (or worst as my wife says sometimes with a grin) decision ... it has made me stick to glue to this sim for almost 8 years now, something I would never have done if I had flown solo. Our teamwork in F19/F16 (aka SvAF) is what makes this sim fun.

I think Oleg and Co should think about that and consider if they can promote and encourage squadrons because I believe that you really prolong "life expectancy" of a sim through organised simming.

one thing that i thought wasn't addressed in the interview was 'user generated content' (and let's be very clear here, i'm talking about legal content such as skins, missions etc;))
to me this is one of things that not only make a simulation more (re)playable but acts as a 'viral marketing tool'- how many people come to a game through having their interest aroused by seeing say a youtube video?
it also gives users sense of 'having a stake' in the product. hooking the talented people out there who do these things is i feel extremely important:- just imagine IL2 with all the community content removed:evil: would there be anywhere to fly online?

\o/

:cool:

~ Glad we agree, though a 1 ~ 10 rating on engine wear, will have some complaining things aren't real enough... back to square one

~ I understand what "procedure" is, some however, seem to think "procedure" should include the effect of a worn seal ;)


iirc, il2 Sturmovik started out very much as study sim and the series has been expanded on and extended from that

your "night" is probably my work day...

which I'm sure is fun, but I'm also sure takes a hell of a lot of time.

for a lot of us I suspect that:
fragfest online gamplay=rock
and
TIME needed for any other more co-operative gameplay=hardplace

I used to play Warbirds many eons ago before marriage and kids, not to mention hobbies that involve actual physical activity (mountain biking, cycling etc) made it clear that life just doesn't have enough time.
Throw in living on the far corner of the world with the ping time that goes with it, and online gaming has zero appeal.

An in depth offline campaign, with an interesting and believable AI/environment, which can be saved and continued at leisure is the best I can hope for.
Multiplayer is nice, but I would rather play on a LAN with people I know and a ping approaching real time.
In my view ROF dropped the ball in this regard. I was looking forward to putting one of the kids or wife in the back of a Brisfit and playing against AI on the LAN - that would have got them interested in flying for sure.

There are times I get the feeling that some of those on both sides of the "realism" issue are out to convert the other side to their way of game play. A "My way or no way!" stance that is simply not in the best interest of the sim overall.

Isn't this piece of entertainment software big enough to encompass all types of game play?

It always used to be.

You want no cockpit furball action? Go for it. More sales for Oleg, a good thing.

You want to take a half an hour getting all the bombers in an online war lined up perfectly on the runway by tactical number, and fly the whole mission with someone barking orders in your head set? Great! Again, more sales for Oleg.

The easier it is for people to access the sim in the manner that pleases them the better it is for all of us.

This is not rocket science, it's what we do for enjoyment.

Peace.

Well said :mrgreen: