Future of simulations 2010 discussion

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

The troubling part to me, if I were the developer.

Well they somehow managed to create quite a few very detailed 3rd party planes in FSX for example. And that isn't really a marvel of software engineering when it comes to the game engine far as I've understood.

Originally Posted by nearmiss

The full real guys with this inordinate twinge to dot all the i's and cross all the t's... well they need to go take "real world" flying lessons to satisfy their penchant for realism. They'd get a good taste of that in any 'full real" aircraft. Especially, if they are in a real plane and fail to switch fuel tanks in time. LOL

The problem is that the authorities will give me hard time when I start strafing and bombing the airfields of my beloved neighbours. Also getting my missus 'ok' a loan for a Spitfire will be tough!

[bolox]

how many of those who think realism options are 'a waste of Oleg's valuable time' can't recognise the fun in doing something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSkWKjp52B0

the flight sim 'community' covers a wide spectrum and what seems a waste of time to you might be rather important to others.

I have no reason to doubt that Oleg will strike a balance: and it will be broader than some here would like

[Ivanhoe]

I agree. I love the ability to transform or adapt my PC to the up and coming games.On a side note, i was rummaging through some of my old titles and found IL-2 Sturmovik! I really enjoy it but cannot access any updates or patches for it anywhere! This is the 2001 Ubisoft/1C Company version. Any guidance would be much appreciated

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

Look here: http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/

Thank's! that does look cool, and I will try it out for the 2 week period that they are offering...I hope that SOW develops in that direction in time

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

I agree. I love the ability to transform or adapt my PC to the up and coming games.On a side note, i was rummaging through some of my old titles and found IL-2 Sturmovik! I really enjoy it but cannot access any updates or patches for it anywhere! This is the 2001 Ubisoft/1C Company version. Any guidance would be much appreciated

Try here
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...3/m/4721047273

[imaca]

Originally Posted by bolox

how many of those who think realism options are 'a waste of Oleg's valuable time' can't recognise the fun in doing something like this?

I can't really recognize the fun in it, but I agree that:

Originally Posted by bolox

the flight sim 'community' covers a wide spectrum and what seems a waste of time to you might be rather important to others.

It seems to me there are roughly 3 overlapping groups in flight sim community; online players, who are focused on realistic damage/flight model and online modes of play, those who are more interested in avionic systems and navigation, and offline players, who want realistic AI.
Of these, I think online players are by far the most vociferous. Also online gaming seems to relatively easy to implement in comparison to , for example, the development of realistic AI. Consequently, I think online gameplay seems to be at the forefront of development, despite representing only 20% of the market.

[Ivanhoe]

thank you

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

The troubling part to me, if I were the developer.

Creating all the array of switching and responding with the application for all the different aircraft that will eventually be in the BOB SOW.

You can get some idea by reviewing all the aircraft in IL2.

Then you have to remember. The full real switching and responses are all a little different between aircraft models of the same basic aircraft. I mean if you really want to get full real.

The payloads (weapons loadouts) vary greatly between aircraft models and that would make loadout choices a nightmare, if Oleg didn't fix the payloads for each aircraft.

Then another biggy. We gotta have the AI doing all the switching as well or it just won't be fair. Oh, and the AI has to be programmed into the application to do switching in the myriad of possible circumstances necessary for full real.

It makes you realize why air combat pilots spend all their time in one aircraft, training on the one aircraft and becoming thoroughly familiar with the one aircraft. Back to training, if you moved from the BF109 to FW190.

I see it like this. I trust Oleg to give us the best of the situation, and hope he isn't cajoled into doing stuff that will just bog us down.

The full real guys with this inordinate twinge to dot all the i's and cross all the t's... well they need to go take "real world" flying lessons to satisfy their penchant for realism. They'd get a good taste of that in any 'full real" aircraft. Especially, if they are in a real plane and fail to switch fuel tanks in time. LOL

I have to agree 100% with you nearmiss.

And one thing the "total full real" proceedures folks keep forgetting is that having all that realism precludes having more than one or two flyable aircraft in the sim. So you end up with a "study sim" like DCS Blackshark or A-10. Technically interesting in concept, but frankly, boring. No online wars, no "Spits vs. 109s" or "War Clouds" type servers, no mutliplayer at all for that matter.

Folks simply are not thinking this through.

OH, and robtek, the manual prop of the 109 E3 should be modeled in SoW, some of the mods already do this. It's all that fiddling with the startup procedure, and large volume of extra programmiing and 3D work that isn't necessary at all.


In flight controls, no issue. 15 to 30 minute startup/warmup regimen? Sorry, not necessary and will adversely limit sales of the sim.

As I said before, Oleg understands that this is a business and sales numbers equal success and further additions to the franchise.

[JAMF]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I have to agree 100% with you nearmiss.

And one thing the "total full real" proceedures folks keep forgetting is that having all that realism precludes having more than one or two flyable aircraft in the sim. So you end up with a "study sim" like DCS Blackshark or A-10. Technically interesting in concept, but frankly, boring. No online wars, no "Spits vs. 109s" or "War Clouds" type servers, no mutliplayer at all for that matter.

Folks simply are not thinking this through.

Please don't assume you know what people think, know or forget.

I'm a proponent of real procedures, but requesting something is not akin to demanding. If I were to order my wishes for a flight sim, real procedures would probably not be in the top 10. And real start-up procedures is following a flow chart and ticking the right boxes.

Start-up procedure would rate higher in my list than clickable cockpit. As far as I can imagine, a start-up procedure would be less complex than creating a clickable cockpit... for one aircraft. If clickable cockpit is a portion of the engine, I can imagine it being complex to implement in the engine, but simple thereafter for each aircraft. Still, I feel a clickable cockpit more of a gimmick than start-up procedures. In simulating a day in a virtual pilot's war, I would use a start-up procedure offline every time, online as often as possible. In the same situation, clickable cockpit maybe twice per aircraft offline and never online.

All the above is IMHO.

Regarding requests and questions being repeated, without a definite "No" or "no development resources" from Mr. Maddox or other team members, one can expect these to be repeated from time to time.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

The one thing computers do well - redundant tasks
Why would anyone want to go through complex engine start procedures everytime they fired up the SOW? Why would anyone want all the inflight complex features, because if full real is addressed it wouldn't be as nice as people perceive. By that I mean weather, wind, fuel, magnetos, etc. and dozens of other management items would be required.

Nearmiss,

I can see you represent the views of the casual simmer and that's fine. But there are also plenty of folk who would see what you've just described as the perfect sim. I for one would love to have a dozen things to worry about while navigating to my target. This is what brings you closer to the experiences of the wartime pilots. It would be great to feel the tension of a fuel tank switch over water for example...perhaps forget to use the booster pump while switching tanks and experience the horror of fuel starvation as a result of an airlock.

Little things like this would create a link between the success of a mission and how well you know your aircraft and its systems...which was always the way it was in reality.

I don't agree with the argument that all these extra system functions would have to be programmed in for the AI to use. Oleg has already given us the key systems which affect performance and competitive advantage. Almost all the other sub systems would add to immersion for the players that wanted them but would have no bearing on the outcome of a dogfight....things like fuel priming, pressurising the brake system, switching on the generator/electrical system. These are all little features that make you feel like you're operating the real aircraft, something that many of us would love to do but will never get the opportunity.

It may seem odd to some but I have no interest whatsoever in flying a real light aircraft. I'm interested in combat in WWII aircraft just like the rest of you and will never experience the reality of that, however much money I have.

I see someone was breaking the flight sim community into groups but it isn't as simple as that. Just because I enjoy the systems side of things doesn't mean I can be pushed off with a copy of FSX or DCS. I love WWII aviation - that includes everything from the aircraft, the environment, the missions and of course the combat. Flying in the sterile FSX environment has no interest for me at all. All I want to do is experience the real problems the real pilots faced back then, warts and all (including all the boring bits which are still an important part of the experience IMO).

If I don't want to wait for the engine to warm up then I can always use time compression.

I'm aware of Oleg's opinions and know he's a switched on guy who for good reasons won't throw precious resources into the complex study type sims I crave. All I ask is that he creates a means for 3rd parties to provide the extras later on, that's all. Hardcore simmers may be a smaller group but I can guarantee they are willing to throw a hell of a lot more money at a developer than the more casual simmer. Cockpits aren't my thing but you can imagine how much is spent in this area alone.

Anyhow, just wanted to get across the views of someone who gets enjoyment from both procedures and combat, a concept that many seem to find hard to grasp for some reason.