Hardware, software and the future of flight combat sims.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

This may be the answer:

http://developers.slashdot.org/story...ores-law-gains

Of course, it may also turn out not to work, but I don't know why it wouldn't.

Very interesting read. Thanks for the link.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by startrekmike

I would say that at this point, the DCS world modules (other than FC3) are pretty much the end all and be all of flight sims in the market.

While I like CloD, it's realism level pales in comparison.

i dont think that is true, but to be honest i havnt spent much time with the DCS p51, only tried it on a friends pc a few times (compared to what is prob 1000 hrs or more on il2 over the years). their DCS p51 is very good, has complex systems modeled etc, but in actual "flight feel", the issue of representing the sensation of flight itself, with the aircraft interacting against the wind and weather, to me the DCS p51 experience feels almost sterile compared to the "living world" of flying aircraft in CoD (or late versions of the previous il2 series)

for ex read some of the threads/posts on this forum on how to activate some of the currently inactive weather elements in CoD, then go and try some crosswind landings with a strong gale, its very realistic (because of the cpu/gpu load, most pc's can only run those as single player missions, but worth a try if you havnt experienced it). similarly for the feel of doing barrel rolls, immelman's, hammerhead's and other flight maneuvers, for me CoD is significantly superior.

then look at the detailed physical damage model to the aircraft in CoD, each element carefully modeled (em but not working perfectly yet), there is nothing like that in DCS p51, neither is the cockpit as photo realistic and 3D as in CoD

the DCS p51 is pretty amazing however, and to me is the next best thing. i really hope they proceed quickly with their with their new gfx engine built (to be used for all their aircraft), and that they add more ww2 flyable aircraft so the p51 can be used for actual combat flying in some historical settings

i am not stating these things to argue and currently DCS is our next best hope in ww2 combat sims, currently however their p51 aircraft is even as a single aircraft not quiet up to par to the CoD aircraft (but some of those have individual bugs that would still need resolving) and the environment it flies around in (weather, scenery, etc)

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by flyingblind

Yes, thats my point. If there is enough demand. But if the cost of writing the code becomes greater than the demand can support then no one will write it.

It is why console games do so well. Because the power of a console is limited in comparison to a good PC there is no point in producing large, complex maps and all the other things simers expect plus the users are quite happy with the limited input of their controllers. If it can be done on a PC people want it but they will only get it if developers get a return.

Maybe 1C will hold on to the engine for a few years and then re release. I'm talking about the original code being the starting point and further developed and polished for the Mediterranean for example. Who here wouldn't buy it?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Damn! I just spent half an hour crafting a beautifully worded response to this topic - distilling my thirty years experiences in computing, software development and flight simming and - my bloody computer turned itself off!!! **&^%$* %%^&&% $#^%%^ - Heres the short version


The scary thing is is that any development needs to be spending part of their profits on
research and development or the life of their product will be limited. Oleg knew this and this approach showed it through out the life of the Il2 series up until present. Unfortunately he forgot that they do have to make an actual profit and they couldn't get it together before funds ran out and COD development came to a crashing halt.

My biggest fear is that the new il2 sim will go the other way and will not get that fundimental development to the core of the product and the development will be focused on content. The problem with this approach is that when something does arive that is fundimentally better it will be too late to catch up.

To fund this development a steady stream of income is required. It shows how distructive the whinning, and snide remarks can be to these products.

From what I read on the BoS developer's Friday updates they have very deliberately been conservative, staying within a set time limit and (presumably) budget. I'm in favour of this because, much as I enjoy playing CLoD, I'm aware of its underdevelopment and the limitations that have resulted.

I haven't been around the entire time of CLoD development and introduction to the market, so I'm probably not as loyal to it as some are. However, I do know that CLoD unfortunately garnered a bad public reputation on Amazon and elsewhere, which still hasn't been fully dispelled, and sales must have suffered. Sad, considering how much time, energy and money was poured into it. CLoD deserved to succeed, and I hope someone will be able to use the software to develop a good immersion combat sim.

I also hope that the new IL2 iteration will succeed because success will hopefully lead to more developments more in tune with the wants and expectations of players. It must be a fine balancing act to develop a game which will go some way to satisfying the wants and desires of "immersion" gamers, versus those of the console variety.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

From what I read on the BoS developer's Friday updates they have very deliberately been conservative, staying within a set time limit and (presumably) budget. I'm in favour of this because, much as I enjoy playing CLoD, I'm aware of its underdevelopment and the limitations that have resulted. .

that is a twist on reality that the sales pitch wants you to believe, reality is somewhat different. from its very inception BoS is simply not capable to come anywhere close to the realism of CoD in simulating realistic flight models, or use highly detailed scenery and objects, neither does it allow for a high multpilayer count with a high AI activity figure. and the current designers have said as much themselves. the BoS ground scenery will again be sterile and empty, and be devoid of any activity

what they will do is sell you a reskinned RoF (same engine, same design team) with a few ww2 aircraft, and from then on you'll be expected to pay another 20 to 50$ per months for further aircraft and newer object, and if you dont hop on that jason-gravy-train you'll be told "you just dont want flightsims to succeed", while he orders his next lexus

when you compare the expectations for BoS with the current CoD, BoS looses out on just about every point in a direct comparison

that doesnt mean people shouldnt buy it, up to them to do with their money what they want (like the hesitant RoF customer visiting these forums recently who timidly said "he wasnt sure he'd want to spend another 500$ buying lots of addons for their next sim again just because he kept being told constantly it needed "support"). if you look at the product RoF is designing now for BoS, be ready to be disappointed if you think it will be anywhere near CoD/il2 in performance or ability, using the il2sturmovik name is just a re-branding from the 1C company who funds its development, its not a content description.

RoF current sales blurbs are deliberately pitching their next products ability and performance very low, because, well, it will be low compared to CoD, and they dont want to get sucked into not delivering on high promises which they know from the start they wont be able to meet. it will be pretty, it will have ww2 planes, people can play airquake and !S each other on forums and pretend to be the red baron, but it wont be il2 as we know it, or would expect it

.

[SlipBall]

^
Really an unfortunate state of affairs...I wonder if we could ever get something going with 1C again and the SOW engine

[flyingblind]

What I am saying is that the glass ceiling for developing sims and complex games is no longer the hardware limitations but the cost of coding the software. Gamers cough if they pay more than £50 for a game whereas professional graphics packages cost £1000, a MIS system £20 or £30 grand and a bespoke database system for the police or the NHS a few £million with no guarantee it will work. Ok there are many more gamers willing to buy a game and only one NHS to pay for its own software but the amount of coding and the costs involved are probably not that different. If more gamers move to consoles because that is where they are happy as they cannot be bothered with complex PC based sims or the expense of hardware then the financial base contracts further shifting the centre of balance untile it all capsizes.

Is this all inevitable? One thing I wondered was if a development company or a consortium of software and even hardware companies could get together and produce a universal standardise game engine that was adaptable enough to provide the evironment for a whole range of games and be more future proof and expandable to meet hardware advances.

This would spread the cost of the underlying effects and physics of the game over many more units leaving the game designers to concentrate on the 3D modeling, and game play of their offerings.

Being standardised it would also mean 3rd parties could concentrate on producing more specialised stuff like a wider variaty of trees or buildings etc. and know that they could be used in any game using the engine as simple plugins.

The same engine could be used for flight sims of any era or epic motor races such as the Milli Miglia or Paris to Dakar Rally etc.

Would this ever be feasable or even desirable. I don't know.

[Davy TASB]

Originally Posted by zapatista

[B]

that doesnt mean people shouldnt buy it, up to them to do with their money what they want (like the hesitant RoF customer visiting these forums recently who timidly said "he wasnt sure he'd want to spend another 500$ buying lots of addons for their next sim again just because he kept being told constantly it needed "support").

.

Timidly said indeedy... .

By the way, I didn't say that "I dont want to spend another 500$ buying lots of addons for their next sim again just because I kept being told constantly it needed support", I said I was willing to spend that amount of money on a WW1 sim as it was my preferred theatre of war and that I probably wouldn't be spending daft money on BoS because I can take or leave the Russian air war scenario.
I also said that you dont realise how much money you do spend seeing as you spend it in dribs and drabs and that you dont miss it.
(Jason DOES keep using the support the sim or we die though and he will probably keep doing it) That said, I bought RoF and the payware because I wanted to, not because I was told ROF needed support so yer talking out if your rear end saying otherwise.

I aint a hesitant RoF customer visiting these forums either and I certainly dont hate CloD by in any shape or form. I'm slightly disappointed with some aspects of it (who isn't) but quite enjoy it overall.
Been playing the IL2 series since its conception. I just dont bother posting much in forums, ANY of 'em.
I'm a very sporadic poster me.

Have a nice day.
Love from Mr Timid

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by zapatista

that is a twist on reality that the sales pitch wants you to believe, reality is somewhat different. from its very inception BoS is simply not capable to come anywhere close to the realism of CoD in simulating realistic flight models, or use highly detailed scenery and objects, neither does it allow for a high multpilayer count with a high AI activity figure. and the current designers have said as much themselves. the BoS ground scenery will again be sterile and empty, and be devoid of any activity

what they will do is sell you a reskinned RoF (same engine, same design team) with a few ww2 aircraft, and from then on you'll be expected to pay another 20 to 50$ per months for further aircraft and newer object, and if you dont hop on that jason-gravy-train you'll be told "you just dont want flightsims to succeed", while he orders his next lexus

when you compare the expectations for BoS with the current CoD, BoS looses out on just about every point in a direct comparison

that doesnt mean people shouldnt buy it, up to them to do with their money what they want (like the hesitant RoF customer visiting these forums recently who timidly said "he wasnt sure he'd want to spend another 500$ buying lots of addons for their next sim again just because he kept being told constantly it needed "support"). if you look at the product RoF is designing now for BoS, be ready to be disappointed if you think it will be anywhere near CoD/il2 in performance or ability, using the il2sturmovik name is just a re-branding from the 1C company who funds its development, its not a content description.

RoF current sales blurbs are deliberately pitching their next products ability and performance very low, because, well, it will be low compared to CoD, and they dont want to get sucked into not delivering on high promises which they know from the start they wont be able to meet. it will be pretty, it will have ww2 planes, people can play airquake and !S each other on forums and pretend to be the red baron, but it wont be il2 as we know it, or would expect it

.

Did anybody say that BOS will be anything like CLOD in performance or ability?

CLOD was released underdeveloped, after lots of promises by developers who blew their budget and, into the bargain, garnered a bad public reputation which it has never truly shaken off. Sure, it is playable but still so underdeveloped compared to its potential and, until someone commits finance time and patience into a program of proper engine development it's going to stay a dead-end. What's so good about any of that? It's all too easy to complain about the state of game play, but gamers who demand everything be bigger and better and more complex at every step are just as responsible as anyone for what has happened.

The fact is that CLOD, and other over-ambitious games, have ruined it for everybody - no-one wins. Love it or hate it we are stuck with a conservative, back to the roots flight sim which will at least be fully developed, all fingers xed. As for the comments about twist reality and on sales pitches etc? Of course it's a sales pitch, but at least there's some honesty there.

[kendo65]

Zapa, you are refusing to acknowledge that a key reason for COD's difficulties was that the developers over-reached themselves by being unrealistic (with hindsight, verging on reckless) about what exactly a development team of their size would be able to implement in the time available.

When the various features for COD were being trailed several years ago I was as excited about them as anyone. With the experience and results achieved in il-2 I had no doubt that they would succeed.

The scale of the ambition was breathtaking both then and now. But obviously things didn't go to plan even well before the release. Stories of staff being dismissed, the switch mid-stream from OpenGL to Direct X, Oleg quitting (or being removed?). Each one of those would have caused disruption and slowed down development.

But, it seems inescapable to conclude (again, with hindsight) that perhaps the key reason was because the scope of the project was just too ambitious. Partly that was down to the number of cutting edge features that were being built into the engine, but part was also down to poor management and planning (e.g. the decision to devote so much effort to a full set of detailed ground vehicles [superfluous in a BOB scenario - could surely have been delayed until sequel], non-essential aircraft (ME-108, Sunderland - even the Tiger Moth and the training aspect could have been left out at least initally with little detriment)).

When they were forced to release the game unfinished (after several years of development time and investment), many of the basics were not in place - a lashed together, clunky GUI being the most glaring example.

The game was released to a storm of disappointment and criticism, some of it over the top and unfair, but much of it was understandable and unavoidable given the state of the game.

The state of the game at release can only be understood as a direct consequence of earlier design and development decisions. They over-reached themselves and then didn't make the difficult decision of scaling back the ambition until it became apparent that there was no way they were going to get everything ready in time. Then there was a panicked stepping on the brakes and several features (dynamic weather, campaign) had to be postponed.

Complaining now that 777 are not going to go down the same route strikes me as a wilful refusal to face facts and learn the hard lessons that are all too obvious from the COD saga.