Realism or accessibility, what decision should be made?
 

Dear comrades,

In the recent official patch, adjustments were made to make the airplanes more accessible. Electrical measurements system replaced the original mechanical gauges, because they were considered too difficult for some players.

Personally, I greatly oppose towards this idea. I think this simulator should be aimed at realism, rather than accessibility. It is what defines this simulator from others, because the true essence of a simulator is to represent reality in a digital form. Therefore, I feel really sad about adjusting the spitfire characteristics and the components of the cockpit.

JG52Uther has already made this statement, which can currently be considered as a hot topic. It can be found over here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=21459

With reference to this earlier post, I have decided to create a poll. If we really want to make a statement towards the developers, we most likely have to show them rough numbers.

So therefore this poll, should IL2: Cliffs of Dover focus itself on realism, or on accessibility?

S!

Accessibility can be reached with proper difficulty settings options. Turn off the more advanced options = more accessible :) All on = hard core. Simple.

Exactly, that would be the best solution to satisfy everybody. I don't mind if they want to keep the electrical stuff for those who need it, but I'd like to have the full realism option available as well. Letting these systems work parallel upon the demand of the player is probably a better thing than completely overhauling the current system.

I voted for the realism BUT there is no reason why both cannot be accomodated. Design the sim around realism but include less complex system/FM/DM models to help those new to flight sims etc.

In fact, its pretty important that newer players and left completely at the mercy of radiators/carb cutout/propellor settings etc to avoid putting them off. Its in everyones interest that this game does well. By making the realism scalable anyone from novice to 'expert' can enjoy what promises to be an excellent sim. Scdalable difficulty is a feature of most sims and this is the same, however the underlying sim should be as realistic as it is feasible to make a deskstop simulation of flying.

TBH I use simple settings when testing my system to try and get it stable. I want to be looking at the FPS etc not my temperatures! Though personally I do prefere 'full real' online.

Simulator or game?
 

+1

I wonder who's the brave one that voted Accessibility ... lol

What he said.

Either make a setting switch to turn the full real instruments off or keep the REALISM regardless.

Just to remember : each case according to realism has its own "life" so to say. For example, it has been agreed upon few years ago, that we wouldn`t want to have the guns jamming as in real life.

lmao, must be one of the devs who wants to go on Holidays!

I voted of course for realism.

But, in fact, this discussion should not even exist, as there is always the option.... for options in the game setup.

But the problem is that the "kikools", who think they're the best, cannot simply stand the fact of not flying with all the "realism" options enabled, even if it is not realistic at all, because of their ego.

Realism all the way for me. But realistic isn't always the same as "harder".

We, as a community, also need to try our best to help new players, because otherwise the genre will die. But helping new players isn't the the same as "dumbing down".

Both, just has to be both. Didn't vote.

I vote for Scalability.. I want the game to be commercial success first and for emost. That will drive future funding and development. FM's and performance online I want the server to be able to make sure everyone is on a level playing field..but if customer XYZ wants to play in arcade mode offline or on an arcade mode server and that allows thousands or tens of thousands in more sales then I'm all for adding those options to the realism panel.. I won't use them, but I don't mind them being there.

Well, there is a real problem.
Whatever the "full real" settings become, these will be "enforced" to everyone in top-level servers/coops/online wars.
So, we got to be carefull in setting the "most diffcult level", because this will be the guide for many cases.

On the other hand, we do know that game can't become realistic.
We can simulate a lot, but to be honest, we actually have a lot of advantages and disadvantages over real situation.
On Saturday I was flying over the British Channel and enjoyed a fantastic view and visibility and I said to myself: "real pilots could see much more than what we see in our small monitors". Then again, I watched the information screen in the Airbus and I saw the external temperature at 10.000m, which was something like -70 degrees Celcius (I don't recall the exact number, but it was really cold) and I said to myself "I've been several times at +10k on my IL-2 BF's and....it wasn't cold :D".

You do get the point, don't you?

So, the question should not be whether we prefer realism or not, because we will never get realism in a PC flight simulator.
The question should always be: how do we make the game as close to reality as possible, without making it silly difficult (i.e. is there a reason to start walking or running to the plane and then climb-open canopy-seat inside-put belts...etc., you get the point, don't you?).

In my opinion, developers completely understand this need and they do their best to accommodate it, so I have trust in them (until I discover that red planes are uber and then start yelling at them because I get shot on my BF :-P).

the real question is
who's realism?

gotta allways have a balance of realism and gameplay,its important for the online players to have a sense of it.

its quite clear by the spit/hurri carby changes threads that not everyone agree's on the experts changes to FM

i do respect their work and opinion,it must be a thankless task

sometimes however i think the data being used may not translate the same to the game engine as intended.

baby steps i think are in order instead of broad strides in FM changes

oh i abstained from the vote

oh well

For me I really couldn't tell the difference between the two patches... Take it from a newbie to old A/C sims, the type of person that would rather play an arcade fighter, probably isn't looking at the instrument panel closely enough to notice that it is bouncing around. For me the biggest annoyance is the muscle it takes on the rudder just to get her off the grass. And the compass behind the flight stick, which will be solved when my track-IR gets here.

It's important to distinguish 'Realism' from 'accuracy' in terms of the modelling. The Tacho may be 'realistic' in that it moves but is it 'accurate' in the displacement and oscillatory motion originally modelled? I don't know but a few better informed people have commented that it was overmodelled - 'realistic' in that it moved but not 'accurate' in how it moved.

Fortunately, we have far better information and evidence regards Neg G and I would expect this to be modelled accurately as Neg G modelling has far more impact than an erratic tacho needle'.

I think we should go all the way.

the game should ship with a 45, and when you get shot down, you have to shoot yourself in the head.

It has to be realistic. I agree realistic dosen't always mean harder but if something was hard in real life then it shouldn't be removed just to make the sim easier to play. If neccessary or possible provide an easier setting as an option. I suppose this is the one really good thing about Steam. The developers can continually tune and upgrade the code and provide frequent updates and patches that are automatically downloaded to the users. What you have today can always be improved tomorrow - so don't panic.

This post is for the "accesibility guys", :lol:

Maybe you should give a try on the following, it's really accesible and I'll bet you'll have lots of fun.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_3.../s800/1942.jpg

Yeah, that's the one for you, definitely.

This is a SIMULATOR, if you fancy easier things you better give 1942 a try.:lol:

Could be we get confused because there is not much inertia, or that plane seem to behave like it's in zero gravity, so that small turbulence makes plane shift gravity too easy.
Instead of fixing symptoms, maybe look for the problems elsewhere.
Coul be a gravity filter that removes small peaks of negative gravity, or less than 1g, would be enough to fix this.
But it can be even more complicated, if it's the same reason the planes moves like paperplanes on ground, with a little wind, maybe the weight of planes and the gravity are scaled wrong?

1. Realism is the default. A benchmark.
2. Lack of understanding of what real is, is met with explanation and education.
3. Accessability is the process of permitting the option of disabling or simplifying aspects of realism which is complicated, difficult or just inconvinient.

from my Side:

this Simulator must be fully realism. For me its very import that you can fly your
Plane truly as it was in 1941 (Technical/Physikal). Realism is the only Reason
that i am using this IL2 Series. Accessibility should be only how it be in real life as
Pilot.

By the Way:
I think Luthier will do his best, to bring IL2 Cod to the next Simulator Level.
Also will pay small prices if they need for continuing Developing to supply the
Developers

This was my understanding of the meaning of accessability and why I voted for it. Everyone should have the option to taylor the game to their liking whether that is fully realistic or not.

I think a lot of people have thought of accessability in meaning forcing on all players the opposite of realism to make it easier.

hahahahahahahahaha

Let's back to mechanical tachometers and realism settings!

Now that they modelled both mechanical and electricl, they can set an easy instrument mode and a realism instrument modes... there's room for all...

+1

Ditto - We've all been newbies (In fact often I feel I still am over the channel - especially in red planes!!) - so give them options - it also means the devs hard work on analogue dials does not go to waste - any maybe they can just dampen the flutter down - (at the same time as they fix our clod-hopping mixture problems - or if we are mishandling the engines somehow give us some clues .Though the fact that even when I jump into a free flight over the channel it bumps imediatley if I am not on full throttle does seem to indicate some other problem - but thats off topic - sorry).

Couldn't put it better. Realism is the best startpoint, allow people to turn off stuff that might impact their ability to enjoy the game. Result - everyone happy.

realism? Would that include restrictions on rear view ability even when loosening shoulder straps. Heads on swivels?

Lets face it, 6DOF, mouse lookaround and check yer six POV hat assignments are equally unrealistic with little penalty for being 'unstrapped' in combat even in full switch!

Just wondering how far people would be prepared to go or do they have a cut off point? In which case the arguments 'for and against' are not quite so black and white!

As posted elsewhere The changelog text referring to "some users" etc was an unfortunate use of words (maybe a language thing). This lead to those silly total BS "they are dumbing the game down for a few" statements.

Two Issues seem to have incited this hysteria the -Ve G cut out tweak and the RPM needle bounce. Again poor wording there. The needle bounce or lack therof is now more accurate than it was before. 2 Videos videos have been posted (1 in a Hudson and a one in Lancaster) that clearly show what a real British Tacho looks like and the fact that it doesn't bounce all over the place. There is a little hunting (+-10RPM) but no wild undamped phougoids we were originally seeing.

With respect the -Ve G cut out (interesting name isnt it ? even all the documentation refers to it as Negative G cut out not Reduced G Cutout sorry for that digression). The initial effect was plain and simply way to sensitive. We know this from practical piloting experience and direct statements from at least 2 current Spitfire and Hurricane pilots who fly early generation carby aircraft (AVT32 Carbys I think). The numbers initially used by the Sim to trigger the onset looked right from the very skimpy technical documentation available on the issue. However in practice in the Sim it was just too sensitive(Again refer to the Hurricane pilots statement). The initial attempt going to 0G has gone too far the other way. So tweaking I am sure will continue to get a response that replicates as best as is possible the real world effect inside the Sim environment.

The Devs aim is to always strive for the best level of accuracy possible using the best set of references and experience they can draw from.

Good to hear that the current status on the neg-g thing is not final. Me still thinks the former behaviour just needed a bit of inertia and it would have been fine. I do miss the smoke coming from the Merlin when it is pushed a bit.

About the needle thing I must admit I don't have any data supporting any postion. I though liked the old ways better as it made me feel inside a vibrating cockpit and sitting behind a huge power machine. I miss that now very deerly.

Look at the DCS sires.

How would people like this for realism? The first time you crash and die you are booted back to the desktop and the game is automaticly deleted off your hard drive and you are unable to re-install it ever again. :-P

I think since we don't have the benefit of peripheral vision, some compromises have to be made in regards to views. Unless you have a 360 degree projection system set-up?

Just another viewpoint, I'm all for more realism - but it has to be accurate. The issue with the needles (and there still remains an issue with the ASI and Altimeter) and the negative G cut-out thing really revolves around a perception of what should be realistic and not experience of what really is.

For all I know, the original 0.25 and 0.5g figures for the cut-out may well be absolutely correct, I suspect that the problem arose from the inertia of the carburettor components not being considered - resulting in the rather strange cut-outs in turbulence.

The bouncing needles thingy is a bit strange too - though I'm not really qualified to talk about mechanical tachometers, all the aircraft I've flown have used tachogenerators AFAIK - but it is somewhat perplexing that the ASI and Altimeter behave in the way that they do, and the VSI doesn't - though it should be even more sensitive than the other two instruments

The fact is that these instruments don't behave in the way they're depicted here. Before anyone jumps in to say 'Aha - but these were old fashioned instruments!'; the technology hasn't changed much since the 20's - except if you're talking about really modern stuff with ADCs etc.

So what would I like to see in terms of realism?

Well; I think that although the landing phase probably has to be modelled with a bit less fidelity than could actually be achieved in order to retain playability, I think it could do with being bumped up a few notches in this game - the aircraft here are much too tolerant of poor touchdown technique and roll out very straight (I've not noticed any tendency to an impending swing in any of my landings).

Another thing would be the tailplane effects (I've mentioned this before), the aircraft seem very sluggish to swing over the top in a humpty or stall turn, and there's not much swing on take-off - though I do appreciate the fact that the rudder is immediately effective, unlike the original IL2 where you'd actually have to get a bit of airspeed on before it would do the job.

Just my opinion, make of it what you will. Certainly won't stop me flying the sim.

W.

No, it's because their depiction in the game was simply incorrect.

Now I know where this will go. You will ask "Have you ever flown a Hurricane in real life?"

No, but here is the real shocker, neither has Luthier. For all we know he has only been around the pattern in a clapped out Yak 52 that couldn't get an airworthiness certificate anywhere in the West, and based his tacho needle hi-jinks on some worn out ex-Soviet trainer.

We have heard from real Spit and Hurri pilots who say that the needles don't bounce around like they did in the sim, but damn, we are all knowing flight simmers and can't ever take the word of real pilots, because, well, because we can't.

:rolleyes:

Yes

+1

+1

Don't dumb the game down.
If there are enough people that want more easy gauges, add it in the dificulty settings.
You can't have modern digital gauges in a ww2 sim and pretend you play full real.

"You can't have modern digital gauges in a ww2 sim and pretend you play full real."

Who said anything about modern digital gauges ?

Realism is cool, realism is for bad boys, electric tacometers is for good boys returning to their houses at nine o'clock.

This is a simulator, if he wanted to fly a simple product, fly Ace Combat, HAWKX, or any other of the same style, please this is a simulator, let's keep as a simulator. Thanks

http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/4549/gatscod.jpg

AP 1590B Merlin II and III Aero-Engines says:

Thanks Banks ... that AP available on the net somewhere ?

I don't think it's available in the net. Check PM.

+1

Options are good, realism is better.

Try and keep the amount of realism clickables low, if in doubt, take the realistic route.

...both is best.