View Single Post
  #46  
Old 02-14-2010, 08:37 AM
Sutts Sutts is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
All this talk of planes, planes, planes.

Making the same mistake as in IL-2, 14 bazillion flyables but only two ever get used....

You need to focus on the game more, and click pits less.

We need to be be able to start the program up, select a plane at random from a drop down list and be able to start a meaningfull life as a pilot of that plane.

90 % of the people here have respect for FSX, have it probably installed but never use it. Think about that a second. There's no doubt that an FSX after market Spit is more detailed, and therefore "better" than an IL-2 Spit, but nearly all the guys here leave it in the hanger.

Why is that?

It's because IL-2 gives more immersion in being a Spit pilot that FSX does. In IL-2 you're doing what a Spit pilot does, in FSX you're doing what a Spit wanna be pilot does, chasing a Buchon around a perfectly moddeled Duxford to no effect.

It's the campaign modelling, the enviroment we fly in that'll make or break SOW, not clickable cockpits.

And pop up menus in the cockpit? Yeah right, that sounds really real for a 1940's analogue cockpit. Not.

Get real. Get thinking about why you want to be in that cockpit, and how the game will encourage and inculcate that.

FSX with add-ons like the A2A P-47 pack is a fantastic simulation, although I believe IL2 FM is far better. The only reason it gets left on the shelf is because it is an empty experience compared to the immersive combat environment of IL2.

This, however, is no argument to leave more complex system modelling out of SOW. If SOW had the OPTION of the same A2A Accu-Sim type detail it would be unbeatable in my opinion.

Blackdog makes some good points. From the start he has made it clear that he'd be quite happy if Oleg simply provided the necessary interface to allow third parties like A2A to give us the accurate system modelling many of us wish for. He's not asking for precious resources to be dedicated at this stage to detailed aircraft system modelling. I think everyone can be happy in the end if the architecture is left open to further development.

Last edited by Sutts; 02-14-2010 at 08:44 AM.
Reply With Quote