|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
| View Poll Results: Would you enjoy more realistcally simulated aircraft | |||
| Yes, as realistic as possible |
   
|
72 | 86.75% |
| No, simplified aircraft as in Il-2 are more fun |
  
|
11 | 13.25% |
| Voters: 83. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
02-09-2010, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Desireable level of realism in a comabt flightsim?
I am curious what level of realism the people here, the hardcore Il-2 fans, consider desirable. Generally with each new generation of flight sims the complexity increased, each was closer to flying a real plane.
Currently in Il-2, the players workload is considerably lower than it would be in real WW2 aircraft. A lot of things like a realistic turbocharger simulation, the effects of carburetor air temperature and oil temperature, damage due to shock cooling, damaged cowl flaps due to overspeed, realistic start up procedures, realistic navigation, fuel(-tank) management, etc. are left out. Personally as a simmer, I would love to see all this aspects in a sim. But obviously more realism doesn't automatically equal more fun, at least for most (?). On the contrary if people have to spend days or weeks to learn how to operate specific aircraft many will become quickly frustrated or bored and might move on to something else. Thus economically further increasing realism is probably not very wise. While the necessary development time, and so the costs, are increased the potential customer only base becomes smaller. As developer I would spend my resources to improve the atmosphere and gameplay instead. Better campaigns, briefings, maybe some period newsreels etc. Trying to please a wider audience than just the hardcore WW2 aviation buffs. 
|
|
#2
02-09-2010, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Since when has this been an either/or question? IL-2 has always had adjustable difficulty settings, and I'd be very surprised if SoW:BoB doesn't too.
As for how complex the 'complex' settings need to be, I'd say it might be better to see what Oleg comes out with before deciding you don't like it...
|
|
#3
02-09-2010, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I guess no one should forget that a PC simulation can never be compared to a real car/airplane/whatever.
A developer must think about it and include only the elements that will make the PC simulation-game playable. I guess we all want the most realistic settings, but up to the point that game is still playable for everyone.
|
|
#4
02-09-2010, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The question is what you would like to see, not what is Olegs vision. Probably all these decisions were already made long ago. It seems to me that he has chosen the only viable path. As in MSFS, rather simple default aircraft but all options are there for 3rd party add ons. Last edited by Antoninus; 02-09-2010 at 06:42 PM.
|
|
#5
02-09-2010, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
BTW, I completely disagree that IL-2 is simplified.
It's the closest to reality that we could get with the technology of late '90s.
|
|
#6
02-09-2010, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe, but it is simplified compared to some of the latest add on planes for FSX whcih have all the stuff mentioned above and some people would prefer to keep it this way.
From the latest cklickable cockpit thread: Quote:
|
|
#7
02-09-2010, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's wrong with having an option? I want full functionality. That doesn't mean you have to suffer. You want playability and accessibility. I hope that doesn't mean I should suffer either.
Just a flip of the switch in the difficulty menu. We can all be at peace.
|
|
#8
02-09-2010, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Poll is not adequately phrased
The Il2 option makes IL2 look negligible and unreal. Careful or very simple Yes * No responses to polls are best, if the questions are fairly worded. What you call realistic has many connotations or meanings for different people. You must be a politiican.. LOL
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
