![]() |
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------<<< |
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I get wrong? :) |
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. |
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.... |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
They always go down from your first kick. :mrgreen: |
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 ?
|
Quote:
But for a sim of this age what we have is not bad. |
Quote:
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 |
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. |
Quote:
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 |
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------<<< |
Quote:
To think some folks call those lovely targets uhh trains a waste of time. |
Quote:
~S |
Quote:
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!! |
Quote:
|
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
Not doubting this statement just requesting more info? Was it all airforces??? |
Quote:
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... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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... :) |
Quote:
P.S. What do you have against FPS? Honestly talking, they are very advanced in out times. <------BG-09------<<< |
Quote:
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) |
Quote:
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)... |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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)
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Ya, I was mirroring your sentiment...maybe I didn't make that clear enough. |
Quote:
As soon as AA starts to fire, that lone ranger is dead. |
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. |
@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. |
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? |
Quote:
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 |
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------<<< |
Quote:
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. :) |
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???? |
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. |
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.