Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   The bigest mystery in forth comming SoW - The Humans... (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=4512)

BG-09 10-07-2008 09:33 AM

The bigest mystery in forth comming SoW - The Humans...
 
The bigest mystery in forth comming SoW - The Humans...
Salute!

Well pilots, while we know that Oleg will offer to us superb quality of the aircrafts, there is one question, which did not find satisfying solution in all Il-2 series in all these years of development. Here it is...

The Humans.

Oleg, my friend, please do something this time for the humans - bad done humans have devastating effect over the immersion. All of us have seen pilot falling through the wings, motors, fuselage...this is awful. And figure of the ground crew and the pilot looks like crash test dummy. It is useless for us to have 3D aircraft models, with all rivets in their places, while the pilot is looking like...sack full of potatoes...

May be you have no time to make people? If I was on your place, I would hire external developer from the gaming industry to create for me just the human figure and human behavior code.

Good idea I think...guys?

Please tell us what do You expect from the humans in Storm Of War - Battle Of Britain!

And one more thing - would you like civilians running on the streets and the roads and the fields?

What do you thing about personal gun armament for the pilot?

May be you have to say something about Human AI behavior...and more. Everybody is Welcome!

~S!

<-------BG-09------<<<

AA_Absolute 10-07-2008 11:45 AM

Hi.

I've only one hope for humans (size, height, etc no prob for me, Oleg make good job):

In WWII one pilot dont could turn and turn and turn all time, and no g-suit available.

I know red and black vision after hight G-forces turn, it's ok... BUT how time one pilot could turn at medium-hight forces continuosly?.
I read books over WWII pilots and some have hard training to maximize strenght, but no way to simulate all.

I wait in SoW pilots have medium strenght, in il2 i think lots of superhumans in copkits

S!

PD. Sorry for Uglish

Igo kyu 10-07-2008 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AA_Absolute (Post 53576)
Hi.

I've only one hope for humans (size, height, etc no prob for me, Oleg make good job):

In WWII one pilot dont could turn and turn and turn all time, and no g-suit available.

I know red and black vision after hight G-forces turn, it's ok... BUT how time one pilot could turn at medium-hight forces continuosly?.
I read books over WWII pilots and some have hard training to maximize strenght, but no way to simulate all.

I wait in SoW pilots have medium strenght, in il2 i think lots of superhumans in copkits

S!

PD. Sorry for Uglish

I don't think there is an easy answer to that. If being more resistant to 'g' forces than most men is necessary to become an ace (which makes sense to me), then all players have to have that level of resistance, because all players are potentially aces. Exactly what the 'g' resistances of WW2 aces were would be a very difficult thing to study.

AA_Absolute 10-07-2008 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igo kyu (Post 53584)
I don't think there is an easy answer to that. If being more resistant to 'g' forces than most men is necessary to become an ace (which makes sense to me), then all players have to have that level of resistance, because all players are potentially aces.The 'g' resistance of WW2 aces was would be a very difficult thing to study.

Ok, best aces have superior strenght, but no human (best aces too) pilot could make turns always, i think human strenght is "overmodelated" in il2

I get wrong? :)

Thunderbolt56 10-07-2008 01:52 PM

I think more-detailed humans will be present without a doubt. If they are even close to the quality of image we have currently available in COD4 or UT3, they will be outstanding. We don't even need 20 different ones. Simply having 3 or so to choose from would be fine because we all know it'll be a matter of days, post-release, that there will be myriad different downloads available to alter the appearances of our personal pilots.

I still use the Chuck Norris that I DL'd over 3 years ago.

Zoom2136 10-07-2008 02:28 PM

A human with a damage model could be fun... Imagine bailing and hitting your plane = dead
This would make more poeple A) Ditch B) Roll over before bailing C) Die....

BG-09 10-07-2008 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoom2136 (Post 53604)
A human with a damage model could be fun... Imagine bailing and hitting your plane = dead
This would make more poeple A) Ditch B) Roll over before bailing C) Die....

Yes! Damage model for humans - this is something very reasonable. It would be good too to control the walking or running of the pilot on the ground with your joystick - run left - run right...when vultures appear after successful parachute landing.

96th_Nightshifter 10-07-2008 02:56 PM

Yes a bit of "rag-doll" physics like we see in many games these days would add a great deal to the pilot when bailing out.............I don't mean I want to see limbs come off etc. but I'd like to see him being at least affected by it instead of passing through it.

Chivas 10-07-2008 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BG-09 (Post 53557)
The bigest mystery in forth comming SoW - The Humans...
Salute!

Well pilots, while we know that Oleg will offer to us superb quality of the aircrafts, there is one question, which did not find satisfying solution in all Il-2 series in all these years of development. Here it is...

The Humans.

Oleg, my friend, please do something this time for the humans - bad done humans have devastating effect over the immersion. All of us have seen pilot falling through the wings, motors, fuselage...this is awful. And figure of the ground crew and the pilot looks like crash test dummy. It is useless for us to have 3D aircraft models, with all rivets in their places, while the pilot is looking like...sack full of potatoes...

May be you have no time to make people? If I was on your place, I would hire external developer from the gaming industry to create for me just the human figure and human behavior code.

Good idea I think...guys?

Please tell us what do You expect from the humans in Storm Of War - Battle Of Britain!

~S!

<-------BG-09------<<<

Oleg stated quite awhile ago that they are working on the human skeletal form. So I have no doubt that humans will be developed with some detail. I've also recently read posts from people closer to SOW development hinting at the same. :)

tagTaken2 10-08-2008 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 96th_Nightshifter (Post 53613)
I don't mean I want to see limbs come off etc.

I do.

Jaws2002 10-08-2008 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56 (Post 53598)
I still use the Chuck Norris that I DL'd over 3 years ago.

Ah Chuck Norris....That explains why you only shoot planes once.
They always go down from your first kick. :mrgreen:

_ITAF_UgoRipley 10-10-2008 10:03 AM

I always had the feeling, when bailing out, that humans had too little drag. The plane and the bailed-out pilot have too similar relative speeds, and I think the pilot should slow down more violently. Don't you think so ?

Bobb4 10-10-2008 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _ITAF_UgoRipley (Post 54196)
I always had the feeling, when bailing out, that humans had too little drag. The plane and the bailed-out pilot have too similar relative speeds, and I think the pilot should slow down more violently. Don't you think so ?

You are right, realistically, the plane should scream past the pilot. Alot of pilots were injured hitting the rear section of the plane when bailing out.
But for a sim of this age what we have is not bad.

Former_Older 10-12-2008 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AA_Absolute (Post 53576)
Hi.
I know red and black vision after hight G-forces turn, it's ok... BUT how time one pilot could turn at medium-hight forces continuosly?.
I read books over WWII pilots and some have hard training to maximize strenght, but no way to simulate all.

I wait in SoW pilots have medium strenght, in il2 i think lots of superhumans in copkits


While this is very true, what do you suggest? All we can do is exchange one arbitrary system for another. If we limit high G turns to say, 3 complete circles, then all an opposing pilot has to do is count to three, and he knows that his adversary is helpless

What people don't seem to realize is that it's going to be the same for every player unless somehow there is a system that models pilot stamina

Now, that would be something to have indeed, but how is this done? Points system like CFS3? No thank you. Random chance at the beginning of each flight? No thank you. gaining "levels" of pilot experience that is recorded by the sim? No thank you. Choice of several default pilot 'models' that have strengths and weaknesses? No thank you

What do you suggest to replace the admittedly unrealistic system we have now? I see many choices, each just as unrealistic. There are many arbitrary systems we deal with in any flight sim, and it's easy to say "this is not right" but difficult to come up with a way of modeling something as unique as the human body. In order to make a real flight sim, we must model the whole world. Example:

Something we ignore completely is Oxygen. I don't mean how much is available to breathe, either

The human body has evolved to want the pressures we see right now at our desks. At altitude, it's not just a question of Oxygen that we can breath via an Oxygen supply system, a pilot's very body leaks out O2 at altitude because of the pressure difference

It's extremely difficult to model these things. I am curious to see how this and other unique aspects of flight are handled, but I suggest that instead of saying "pilots are superhuman, give them medium strength", we think in more detail and more in depth, that we think beyond what we see as wrong and try to gain insight into how to actually address it, and what a solution to the problem might affect- giving pilots "medium strength" only exchanges an old problem for a new problem

choctaw111 10-12-2008 07:27 PM

A year or two ago Oleg was talking about the humans and the "skeleton" structure he was using to create realistic movement of the in game humans. It sounded amazing the way he described it back then.
I too and anxious to see what progress has been made on the humans.
The "skeleton technology" as Oleg calls it, should be remarkable.

AA_Absolute 10-13-2008 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Former_Older (Post 54494)
While this is very true, what do you suggest? All we can do is exchange one arbitrary system for another. If we limit high G turns to say, 3 complete circles, then all an opposing pilot has to do is count to three, and he knows that his adversary is helpless

What people don't seem to realize is that it's going to be the same for every player unless somehow there is a system that models pilot stamina

Now, that would be something to have indeed, but how is this done? Points system like CFS3? No thank you. Random chance at the beginning of each flight? No thank you. gaining "levels" of pilot experience that is recorded by the sim? No thank you. Choice of several default pilot 'models' that have strengths and weaknesses? No thank you

What do you suggest to replace the admittedly unrealistic system we have now? I see many choices, each just as unrealistic. There are many arbitrary systems we deal with in any flight sim, and it's easy to say "this is not right" but difficult to come up with a way of modeling something as unique as the human body. In order to make a real flight sim, we must model the whole world. Example:

Something we ignore completely is Oxygen. I don't mean how much is available to breathe, either

The human body has evolved to want the pressures we see right now at our desks. At altitude, it's not just a question of Oxygen that we can breath via an Oxygen supply system, a pilot's very body leaks out O2 at altitude because of the pressure difference

It's extremely difficult to model these things. I am curious to see how this and other unique aspects of flight are handled, but I suggest that instead of saying "pilots are superhuman, give them medium strength", we think in more detail and more in depth, that we think beyond what we see as wrong and try to gain insight into how to actually address it, and what a solution to the problem might affect- giving pilots "medium strength" only exchanges an old problem for a new problem

Hi.

Human question isnt easy, as you say in oxigen example, i say too about open copkits...

I say "medium strenght" to simulate reality, now with "superhuman strenght" planes could make turn and turn and turn, only if you exceed "x" number of G's lost vision.

In real combat two ways of lost vision:
1 after one turn of "x" G's
2 after continuosly turns with "y" G's, and x>y.

1 is in 1946 ok.
2 in 1946 not simulated i think.

I dont know "x" and "y" values, but i believe Oleg team know well, only hope read this.

I think in 1946 limit is the plane, in RL limit is the pilot.

S! and sorry for uglish

BG-09 10-13-2008 12:16 PM

Hi Pilots!

I thing, it would be great to give to the pilot a gun to defend himself.
Guys did You know that the last aircraft shoot down in European theater of WW2 is Fi-156, which was shot down from the pilot of American "Piper Cub", while the American pilot used his personal gun to shot the motor of the German light aircraft.

Well...so...Oleg, give gun to the pilot!

~S

<------BG-09------<<<

JoeA 10-13-2008 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BG-09 (Post 54647)
Hi Pilots!

I thing, it would be great to give to the pilot a gun to defend himself.
Guys did You know that the last aircraft shoot down in European theater of WW2 is Fi-156, which was shot down from the pilot of American "Piper Cub", while the American pilot used his personal gun to shot the motor of the German light aircraft.

Well...so...Oleg, give gun to the pilot!

~S

<------BG-09------<<<

Lol that happened ONCE (ok it might have happened another couple of times) during the six year war and you want Oleg and team to waste time on that? ;)

To think some folks call those lovely targets uhh trains a waste of time.

BG-09 10-14-2008 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeA (Post 54727)
Lol that happened ONCE (ok it might have happened another couple of times) during the six year war and you want Oleg and team to waste time on that? ;)

I can assure you JoeA, if we have gun, it would happens millions of times in this sim. Just imagine how many aircrafts we have destroyed in this sim 1 000 000? Or may be 10 000 000...I do not know, I believe, we have destroyed all aircrafts built in the entire ww2 period in this sim...well...gun is good idea, look, we already have machine guns rotating in to the cockpits - gun is easy to create. And you can use your gun against other pilots on the ground. I know historical cases, when in Khalkhin Gol, japan pilot and russian pilot keep fighting on the ground with saber and knife, after air combat which finished with bail-out for both pilots.

~S

proton45 10-14-2008 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BG-09 (Post 54905)
I can assure you JoeA, if we have gun, it would happens millions of times in this sim. Just imagine how many aircrafts we have destroyed in this sim 1 000 000? Or may be 10 000 000...I do not know, I believe, we have destroyed all aircrafts built in the entire ww2 period in this sim...well...gun is good idea, look, we already have machine guns rotating in to the cockpits - gun is easy to create. And you can use your gun against other pilots on the ground. I know historical cases, when in Khalkhin Gol, japan pilot and russian pilot keep fighting on the ground with saber and knife, after air combat which finished with bail-out for both pilots.

~S

You want the "Storm of War" series to be a first person shooter (with aeroplanes)?

I don't think I like that idea...I can just imagine the string of threads we would be flooded with...

1) Why don't we have Luger's?
2) I don't think that the 303's in the Enfield rifle have the same hitting power as the 303's in the Hurricane.
3) When will Oleg add knife throwing?
4) We need a better "health/stamina" system...maybe something like COD.
5) The box said that this was a FPS but the makers spent TOO MUCH TIME ON THE AIR PLANES!!! This game SUX as a FPS!!

BG-09 10-15-2008 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proton45 (Post 54912)
You want the "Storm of War" series to be a first person shooter (with aeroplanes)?

I don't think I like that idea...I can just imagine the string of threads we would be flooded with...

1) Why don't we have Luger's?
2) I don't think that the 303's in the Enfield rifle have the same hitting power as the 303's in the Hurricane.
3) When will Oleg add knife throwing?
4) We need a better "health/stamina" system...maybe something like COD.
5) The box said that this was a FPS but the makers spent TOO MUCH TIME ON THE AIR PLANES!!! This game SUX as a FPS!!

Well proton45, this is shooter sim, all I am doing is shooting but using my aircraft as a BIG FLYING GUN. Bang-Bang-Bang...Who shoots sharper - he wins. Look, just one gun - Luger is good idea...but no grenades, and no throwing of knives (Lol).

Thunderbolt56 10-15-2008 11:58 AM

That wouldn't be so bad, but I'd be o.k. with it if there were a count-down timer that started as soon as you touched down in your chute to make your way back to friendly territory or if it only allowed that function (i.e. pistol gunnery) while you were in your chute. That would prevent some bored slacker from just flying over to an enemy airbase and running around in "first person mode" picking guys off at their airbase with his luger or .45 and snickering at his ability to pwn until he gets kicked from the server...and under the right circumstances, it WILL happen. That's just one example of why I do NOT want FPS capability in this FLIGHT sim.

There are inherent differences between shooters and flight sims whether you want to see the light or not.

BG-09 10-15-2008 12:29 PM

I really did not see difference between shooting with turret machine gun and shooting with the pilot's personal gun. The difference is may be in this that the machine gun is mounted to the aircraft. We all know that German fighter pilots were equipped with automatic pistol 9mm. In case of forced landing on enemy territory, they used it.

proton45 10-15-2008 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56 (Post 55020)
That wouldn't be so bad, but I'd be o.k. with it if there were a count-down timer that started as soon as you touched down in your chute to make your way back to friendly territory or if it only allowed that function (i.e. pistol gunnery) while you were in your chute. That would prevent some bored slacker from just flying over to an enemy airbase and running around in "first person mode" picking guys off at their airbase with his luger or .45 and snickering at his ability to pwn until he gets kicked from the server...and under the right circumstances, it WILL happen. That's just one example of why I do NOT want FPS capability in this FLIGHT sim.

There are inherent differences between shooters and flight sims whether you want to see the light or not.


True...this is a "flight-combat-sim". People who want to play this game do so because they enjoy the mechanics of "flight-combat". Aerial combat maneuvers, formation flying, ground attack...the history, the aeroplanes, the pilots. Oleg (& crew) has/have done a wonderful job of making a computer sim that comes close to modeling the various dynamics of the air combat experience. At this point, I don't see the value of adding this particular feature to the air experience...the amount of time needed to add this one small (almost never happened) feature to the game play is a waist of time & effort. UNLESS you want to go down the FPS "road" (which is a bad idea)... How often is someone going to roll back the canopy of their P-47, FW190, Blenheim, or ME109 (oh wait, that one could be difficult) and start taking pot shots at a P-40 or Messerschmidt that's 150 meters away & traveling at 200+ mph with a 30 cal ? How many "parachute vultures" do you think are going to be deterred by a 9mm popping away when they can just fly out of the handguns range ? (My six 50's beat your one 9..."by-by").

Quote:

From member "BG-09"
I really did not see difference between shooting with turret machine gun and shooting with the pilot's personal gun. The difference is may be in this that the machine gun is mounted to the aircraft. We all know that German fighter pilots were equipped with automatic pistol 9mm. In case of forced landing on enemy territory, they used it.
So why did pilots carry handguns? Traditionally speaking it was to kill "ones self" NOT the enemy...

Bobb4 10-15-2008 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proton45 (Post 55039)
So why did pilots carry handguns? Traditionally speaking it was to kill "ones self" NOT the enemy...


Not doubting this statement just requesting more info?

Was it all airforces???

Zoom2136 10-15-2008 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proton45 (Post 55039)
True...this is a "flight-combat-sim". People who want to play this game do so because they enjoy the mechanics of "flight-combat". Aerial combat maneuvers, formation flying, ground attack...the history, the aeroplanes, the pilots. Oleg (& crew) has/have done a wonderful job of making a computer sim that comes close to modeling the various dynamics of the air combat experience. At this point, I don't see the value of adding this particular feature to the air experience...the amount of time needed to add this one small (almost never happened) feature to the game play is a waist of time & effort. UNLESS you want to go down the FPS "road" (which is a bad idea)... How often is someone going to roll back the canopy of their P-47, FW190, Blenheim, or ME109 (oh wait, that one could be difficult) and start taking pot shots at a P-40 or Messerschmidt that's 150 meters away & traveling at 200+ mph with a 30 cal ? How many "parachute vultures" do you think are going to be deterred by a 9mm popping away when they can just fly out of the handguns range ? (My six 50's beat your one 9..."by-by").



So why did pilots carry handguns? Traditionally speaking it was to kill "ones self" NOT the enemy...

Well maybe we (flight simmers) don't see the advantages of combining a FPS aspect to this sim but from a business standpoint its obvious. The audience is a LOT larger. And this is also a good thing for us. Look at sport games... as an exemple look at to quality of football/basketball games versus hockey... these games a similar in nature (team sports) but the latter (i.e. football) is way ahead of hockey in term of quality... why... demand. Their's a wider audience for football games which means a larger sale potential thus warranting a more substantial investments to make the game better.

Now back to our flight sim. If you somehowe combine land/sea/air into one sim you combine markets. So you actually benefit from synergies. You actually market one game (reduce expenses) that adresses the need of a larger audience (more sales). I'm no software industry expert, but my little finger tels me that one of the largest expense in bringing a game to the market is well.... marketing. Reducing these expenses means higher return for the creator/publisher. And this is only one thing (i.e.: your are also using one game engine, etc.). Everybody wins. And I would dare to say more us (flight simmers) than FPS addics.

I saw that Oleg, when he hinted, to the possibility of eventullay making down the road a AIR/LAND/SEA pay for play version of SOW knows of the potential and benefit of such a game. And I for one consider it to be a great way of insuring the continuity of flight sims. Keeping thing as they always where is just a great way of hitting the wall and go bankrupt... just look at GM and Chrysler that are maybe at most a year from filling for bankrupcy protection (at the rate GM is burning cash they are out of cash in less then 24 months)...

But what do I knows I just advise businesses for a living.

BTW sry for the English I'm French...

BG-09 10-15-2008 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proton45 (Post 55039)
So why did pilots carry handguns? Traditionally speaking it was to kill "ones self" NOT the enemy...

Hmmmmm....to kill "ones self"... this is so only in Hollywood productions. Well, actually the weapon question is just a little part from one big theme: the total "human" approach of Oleg and team. Even if you look at the humans just like scenery, they are the most un-developed object in our favorite sim. Urgent measures are needed. Boys, once I just looked at the pilot figure in Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator, and I was astonished - the pilot got even BODY LANGUAGE! It was unbelievable! The pilot was nervous...he was doing completely human movements, hes behavior was just human behavior.

proton45 10-15-2008 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BG-09 (Post 55063)
Hmmmmm....to kill "ones self"... this is so only in Hollywood productions. Well, actually the weapon question is just a little part from one big theme: the total "human" approach of Oleg and team. Even if you look at the humans just like scenery, they are the most un-developed object in our favorite sim. Urgent measures are needed. Boys, once I just looked at the pilot figure in Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator, and I was astonished - the pilot got even BODY LANGUAGE! It was unbelievable! The pilot was nervous...he was doing completely human movements, hes behavior was just human behavior.


Do a little reading (and stop getting history from movies) combat pilots would carry hand guns in the event that their plane was going down in a flaming wreck. The idea was that if a pilot was trapped and facing a painful drawn out death they could end it quick... also, before pilots had parachutes they would shoot themselves instead of burn-up...sometimes the handgun was also used as a means of escape (but not the way you think), if the pilot had trouble with the canopy he could use it to break the perspex..


p.s. I'll make a little side bet...Oleg will never develop "SoW" into a FPS... :)

BG-09 10-16-2008 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proton45 (Post 55115)
Do a little reading (and stop getting history from movies) combat pilots would carry hand guns in the event that their plane was going down in a flaming wreck. The idea was that if a pilot was trapped and facing a painful drawn out death they could end it quick... also, before pilots had parachutes they would shoot themselves instead of burn-up...sometimes the handgun was also used as a means of escape (but not the way you think), if the pilot had trouble with the canopy he could use it to break the perspex..


p.s. I'll make a little side bet...Oleg will never develop "SoW" into a FPS... :)

Ok, proton45, I would like to have a handgun in the sim, to kill "my one pilot" if the parachute of the pilot does not open. Bang!...&...Refly. And one more thing, I can use the gun to broke the perspex as you say...

P.S. What do you have against FPS? Honestly talking, they are very advanced in out times.

<------BG-09------<<<

proton45 10-16-2008 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56 (Post 55020)
That wouldn't be so bad, but I'd be o.k. with it if there were a count-down timer that started as soon as you touched down in your chute to make your way back to friendly territory or if it only allowed that function (i.e. pistol gunnery) while you were in your chute. That would prevent some bored slacker from just flying over to an enemy airbase and running around in "first person mode" picking guys off at their airbase with his luger or .45 and snickering at his ability to pwn until he gets kicked from the server...and under the right circumstances, it WILL happen. That's just one example of why I do NOT want FPS capability in this FLIGHT sim.

There are inherent differences between shooters and flight sims whether you want to see the light or not.


We don't really need guns for a realistic "FPM" escape feature... in the real world (I hate that term_LOL), by the time you where shooting the game was over. Most successful escapes through enemy territory where done by avoiding the enemy. If your shooting to stay alive your either dead or a prisoner (already).

IMO I could almost live with a "run-only" "first-person-mode" (with realistic "human" damage modeling and enemy "line-of-sight"). Their would be several advantages to a feature like this...movie makers would like it, FP escape scenarios, and just plain old exploring (Oleg & crew are making a beautiful world for us to die in...It might be nice to explore the maps before blowing it to pieces_LOL)

proton45 10-16-2008 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BG-09 (Post 55213)
Ok, proton45, I would like to have a handgun in the sim, to kill "my one pilot" if the parachute of the pilot does not open. Bang!...&...Refly. And one more thing, I can use the gun to broke the perspex as you say...

P.S. What do you have against FPS? Honestly talking, they are very advanced in out times.

<------BG-09------<<<


A fair question...I'm not against everything first person (please see the post I just made).

To answer your question...I would just like to maintain the flight-combat integrity of the series. A good flight-combat-sim is a constant work in progress...the job is never done. I'm afraid that if we open up the "SoW" series to include FPS combat that it will water down future development of the flight aspect of the game. All features should support the simulation of the air combat experience.

Their are some features I would love to see worked into the games interface...one feature I would love to see would be in support of full scale on-line campaign mode. I think it would be interesting if ground-vehicles/tanks could be controlled (guided) by a "general" in real-time combat mode. A strategic gaming type of thing...this would support a "reactive-gaming" environment in support of an "air-tactics" strategy in campaign mode...ONE strategic gaming interface in control of ground movement for each side...Teams could route and time supply lines (convoys,trains,trucks), gather tanks & support vehicles for assaults, or react to flanking maneuvers... Allowing a human to react to changing conditions on the ground would enhance any air combat experience... flight recon sorties would hold real value. Flying escort missions as bombers take out a train/supply station would have a real effect on the game.

AND with a human guiding the strategy and placement of ground vehicles it would become very difficult to predict "AI" movements (= long life for the game)...

Thunderbolt56 10-16-2008 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proton45 (Post 55216)
We don't really need guns for a realistic "FPM" escape feature... in the real world (I hate that term_LOL), by the time you where shooting the game was over. Most successful escapes through enemy territory where done by avoiding the enemy. If your shooting to stay alive your either dead or a prisoner (already).

IMO I could almost live with a "run-only" "first-person-mode" (with realistic "human" damage modeling and enemy "line-of-sight"). Their would be several advantages to a feature like this...movie makers would like it, FP escape scenarios, and just plain old exploring (Oleg & crew are making a beautiful world for us to die in...It might be nice to explore the maps before blowing it to pieces_LOL)



Kind of the intent of my post. As far as the "pistol-wielding rogue" aspects are concerned, I rather that option (if it ever does come to pass) be unarmed as well. Escape and evade is best done with stealth afterall. The hard part would be the slow, gruesome crawl through no man's land in the middle of the night.

Igo kyu 10-16-2008 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56 (Post 55235)
The hard part would be the slow, gruesome crawl through no man's land in the middle of the night.

Does anyone else remember the UK TV series "Manhunt"?

robtek 10-16-2008 06:16 PM

I think what is overlooked by the people who promote a combined land - sea - air - simulation is the different time scale of the scenarios. a plane takes at most 30 min. to target (in il2), a tank would have to drive 2 to 4 hours and a ship would have to sail a few days. Thats rather impractical for online - gaming, imagine a skipper after sailing a few hours meets a swordfish or respectively a stuka. And i bet with a realistic DM nobody would take a sherman vs a tiger or even panther.(ok maybe when the tiger cannot move because he is out of fuel)

Igo kyu 10-16-2008 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 55274)
And i bet with a realistic DM nobody would take a sherman vs a tiger or even panther.(ok maybe when the tiger cannot move because he is out of fuel)

When a tank is out fuel, it is still just as dangerous, unlike a fighter. With tanks, one hit (from within range) is usually a kill. The thing about Shermans was they were easily better than the Mark three panzer, and cheap to build. The only Sherman that was any good against the Mark four panzer, Tiger or Panther was the Sherman-firefly.

I do like the occasional FPS, but when I want a change from that I want to fly, and I don't want that flying to be in an FPS.

Zoom2136 10-17-2008 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 55274)
I think what is overlooked by the people who promote a combined land - sea - air - simulation is the different time scale of the scenarios. a plane takes at most 30 min. to target (in il2), a tank would have to drive 2 to 4 hours and a ship would have to sail a few days. Thats rather impractical for online - gaming, imagine a skipper after sailing a few hours meets a swordfish or respectively a stuka. And i bet with a realistic DM nobody would take a sherman vs a tiger or even panther.(ok maybe when the tiger cannot move because he is out of fuel)

Well you have to realise that not all allied/axis units should start from the same area... as it was in real life... Once in the theatre of operation the ground units where mainly found near the front line and their supply base/rolling units were not far behind. So they did not roll out from an air base 40 miles away... but from a supply "depot" mearly a few km back of where the action was... This was also true of GIs.

Ships are another thing all together. For BOB, if only the chanel is modeled then they should not have to go to long before seing some action, as it is a norrow strech of sea. Open seas could pause a problem, but as we are looking at online here, maps should be made to prevent the situation you are describing.

proton45 10-17-2008 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56 (Post 55235)
Kind of the intent of my post. As far as the "pistol-wielding rogue" aspects are concerned, I rather that option (if it ever does come to pass) be unarmed as well. Escape and evade is best done with stealth afterall. The hard part would be the slow, gruesome crawl through no man's land in the middle of the night.


Ya, I was mirroring your sentiment...maybe I didn't make that clear enough.

Oktoberfest 10-29-2008 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56 (Post 55020)
That wouldn't be so bad, but I'd be o.k. with it if there were a count-down timer that started as soon as you touched down in your chute to make your way back to friendly territory or if it only allowed that function (i.e. pistol gunnery) while you were in your chute. That would prevent some bored slacker from just flying over to an enemy airbase and running around in "first person mode" picking guys off at their airbase with his luger or .45 and snickering at his ability to pwn until he gets kicked from the server...and under the right circumstances, it WILL happen. That's just one example of why I do NOT want FPS capability in this FLIGHT sim.

There are inherent differences between shooters and flight sims whether you want to see the light or not.

No, don't worry. As soon as he comes closer to 3 km, the bofors will start shooting at him like mad, and so will the 88's. I don't think one lone guy with a 9 mm can come close enough to a starting aircraft to do that. Besides, with a Luger, how far can you fire ? Max 30 m for a precision shot, right ?

As soon as AA starts to fire, that lone ranger is dead.

Oktoberfest 10-29-2008 08:16 AM

I really think a sea/air/land simulation can be done with the SoW engine. Just look at WW2 Online. It's really ugly, but you have a lot of people playing it because they can chose every possibility they want. It's true it's boring to drive at slow speed in a tank for half an hour to see action, but if you have the "Start from a Depot" option, then it will surely be more interesting.

Aircrafts can start from distance. Or who knows ? If the leading "general" of our airforce forgot to order the evacuation of an airfield threatened by an enemy army, then the aircrafts could take off under fire for a very close air support action....

And then, it would be very important for ground forces to have these bloody AA halftracks with them to protect them from bombing. And also friendly aircrafts to protect them.

I think this would do a lot for the community. And in another point of view, look at all the FPS fans that would suddenly sit in a cockpit having to fly with real FMs and not arcade FMs.... Look at all these easy preys..... Meeting aces would be way rarer. And that would make he fun even better.

robtek 10-29-2008 09:06 AM

@oktoberfest

yes it would be fun to have "realistic" balances of 95% rookies vs 5% aces :-)
but sadly it would change back really fast to 95 % aces vs 5% rookies as it is now.
In my opinion the "usual" fps - player has a short attention-span, so if he (or she)
crashes a few times at take off or gets shot down soon if he manages to start the
game wanders into the trash - bin.
Just imagine that half-track aaa-gunner who has driven, say 5 to 15 min. to that airfield
and now realizes that he is the primary target for all jabos or even fighters with nothing
else to do.
To be an gamer in any halfway realistic simulation requires a certain kind of stubborness
that most people just dont have, at least for a game.
What i want to say is that the market for difficult (realistic) games is not that big that
our wish-list might not be affordable in view of the cash-return.
But it is a nice dream.

proton45 10-29-2008 10:48 AM

I can tell you what would happen if SoW integrated a FPS feature. In a very short amount of time you would find "ground services only" servers popping up all over the place... And if you went on-line to look for a server to fly on you would find 50 or 60 (?) small squad (team based) games in progress, and you might find a couple dozen "fly only" servers in progress...

Honestly...how many people do you know that will want to spend the 90 minutes of (off-line) on-line gaming time (they have a day/week) trying to get back to their base? And how many virtual aces do you know that would rather "pop" back to an airbase after bailing-out?

TUSA/TX-Gunslinger 10-30-2008 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56 (Post 53598)
I think more-detailed humans will be present without a doubt. If they are even close to the quality of image we have currently available in COD4 or UT3, they will be outstanding. We don't even need 20 different ones. Simply having 3 or so to choose from would be fine because we all know it'll be a matter of days, post-release, that there will be myriad different downloads available to alter the appearances of our personal pilots.

I still use the Chuck Norris that I DL'd over 3 years ago.

Wow! Now I know the answer to a long running mystery....

For years as I've cleaned out my netcache - I keep finding Chuck Norris. Every time wondering how Chuck gets in there.

LOL.....

S~

Gunny

BG-09 10-30-2008 07:45 PM

Guys, SoW would not be First Person Shooter, but you must agree that the humans in to the sim can not be like this, as they are right now. Much attention to the pilot - we need this...I am sure.
What is you view point?



~S!

<------BG-09------<<<

KG26_Alpha 10-30-2008 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proton45 (Post 57005)
I can tell you what would happen if SoW integrated a FPS feature. In a very short amount of time you would find "ground services only" servers popping up all over the place... And if you went on-line to look for a server to fly on you would find 50 or 60 (?) small squad (team based) games in progress, and you might find a couple dozen "fly only" servers in progress...

Honestly...how many people do you know that will want to spend the 90 minutes of (off-line) on-line gaming time (they have a day/week) trying to get back to their base? And how many virtual aces do you know that would rather "pop" back to an airbase after bailing-out?


I cant see it going to a "full shoot em up" but what's the problem of having ground only servers ?? it would be like the locked/unlocked pit servers, you still have a choice to join or not as you have a choice of servers now, you don't like it don't join it.

Personally I would like to see it "expand" into ground active related features with shipping & vehicles available for use, along with rescue "pick ups" , I'm sure there would be many 3rd party licenses sold for adding these features of drivable vehicles with the reigns tightened to keep the 1c integrity of the Sim/Game intact.

Since the beta release I have family member who solely used IL2 Sturmovik for tank battles and consequentially followed the whole series up to 1946 DVD he's never owned a joystick and has no intention too, he thought it a crying shame to waste such huge maps with his historical battle recreations, he longed for a way to drive a T34 & Tigers into battle in IL2.

So I'm all for opening up the ground stuff so long as its not done BF1942 style.


:)

Skoshi Tiger 10-30-2008 10:42 PM

I guess it could be fun to take over a Wirblewind and go on a joyride coss-country to the oppositions air base. I wonder how long it would take them to nail you.

Imagine having to destroy the bridges between you and the opposition to safe guard your airbase.

Whats the saying. The most effective form of air superiority is a tank on the runway????

Oktoberfest 10-31-2008 10:17 AM

I think it would be good if a human player could, a bit like in ArmA, control a squad of AI players for ground missions only, to make the number of fighting elements higher. Then we could see huge battles with hundreds of vehicles fighting to take over an area, and yes, ground support would be 100% useful, as would be escorting AAA. Could be fun to have manned .50 cals + BARs + Rifles all firing at your stuka/110 or whatever when you do a ground attack.

I still think FPS fans would be happy, as much as we simmers would be if we would join such a huge battle.

BG-09 11-02-2008 07:10 AM

What about, in SOW-BoB, your vision from the cockpit to be restricted from the frames of aviator's eyeglasses and oxygen mask? Total immersion...Jut imagine.

~S!

<------BG-09------<<<


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.