Realism/Simulation Elements in SOW-BOB

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by csThor

Apples and Oranges, Blackdog. In BS you had one (= 1) type of helicopter modeled and as it looks each following release will include just one more type. SoW on the other hand will have to incorporate more flyable objects right from the start and with each theater there will be more "must have"s on the list. It's simply a pointless discussion because you can't compare the two venues because of their drastically different focus.

+1

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

Somewhere between the extremes of this debate, is the truth.

I love clickables - I have Black Shark, and it's convinced me of the utility and immersion of clickable cockpits. So much more efficient. Imagine simply "touching" the control on a gyro gunsight to increase/decrease the wingspan.

On the other hand, I can clearly see the level of complexity, in adding 10, 20 or 30 more variables to each cockpit.

Some folks seem to always want to drive discussion to extremes. It's obvious to the most casual observer that the objectives of Black Shark and Il2/SOW are very different.

With that said, clickables have been around for a long enough period that they would seem to be a "standard" feature.

Question is, did Oleg include clickables or not? If not, so be it, I'll live and fly SOW. If so, then he's figured out how to increase detail and features, while not compromising production too much. Great for him.

We in Il2, have been flying the same software package for about 8 years. We tend to be a bit more conservative about developments. At least, that's how I am.

Take LOMAC for instance - same developer, no clickables. If you've tried LOMAC after coming from Il2 - the first brick-wall you may have hit was the dramatic increase in assignable commands. No HOTAS has enough buttons to cover everything (no matter how many layers you assign), so you end up with more controllers or revert to a hoard of keyboard commands. That's really immersive, huh?

When I first setup BS before I became used to clickables, I actually mapped the Master Arm (switch is right in front of your face in the cockpit) to my Cougar. On my first flight, I noticed how dense I'd been and removed all of the commands from my Cougar from switches that were immediately within my normal cockpit view.

Cougar is much simpler now.

S~

Gunny

[jasonbirder]

Clickety...click...
Some people like clickpits...some don't; either way its just one method of interacting with your controls and if you don't like it they can be mapped to the keyboard or assigned to your HOTAS as you see fit...
But I started this thread specifically because I wanted to move away from the discussion of the interface...and talk about a desire to see SOW-BOB as a Combat Flight Simulator rather than a combat game with a flight element...
Mention Clickpits and you give every L33T arcade hyperlobby dogfighter ace an easy route to dismiss the discussion with the figleaf..."I don't like using a mouse to interact with the controls"
There is another thread to discuss clickpits
What I wanted to discuss was whether people felt that additions like realistic ground handling...realistic levels of torque...a high workload cockpit environment...realistic landing parameters...proper non-generic complex engine management...fuel management...radios...navigation...gun jams...engine failures etc etc...are things they would like to see in BOB-SOW or whether the preference was more of the same...a "lite" survey sim with lots of flyables and the emphasis firmly on the "fun" side...

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by jasonbirder

What I wanted to discuss was whether people felt that additions like realistic ground handling...realistic levels of torque...a high workload cockpit environment...realistic landing parameters...proper non-generic complex engine management...fuel management...radios...navigation...gun jams...engine failures etc etc...are things they would like to see in BOB-SOW or whether the preference was more of the same...a "lite" survey sim with lots of flyables and the emphasis firmly on the "fun" side...

Yes I would love to have all of these included, I enjoy (love) IL-2 but it is lacking in so many areas. I would like to see SOW advance in this direction, more complexity, more like what it was during the war. It would really set it apart from what we have now, and would give to us many new challenges to under take. I can understand why most would not want such a demanding sim, so there lies the main problem for the rest of us. I think that it very possible to have a scaled game with these features in the "expert" selection. I think that would be the only way to have our cake, and keep everyone happy.

[steppie]

why not have a more complex setting, the answer is simple and it how game like dark shark handle it that they have a key setting that does it for you but what it also let you do is if you like to do it. the present game let you fly at max minimum power for as long as you keep it cool,why not be able to fine turn the engine setting.most early spit and hurrie were ownly able to handle maximum throttle for about 2 minutes and they had a wire on the throttle that they had to brake to get maximum boost.

[IceFire]

I'm not strictly opposed to some of the more advanced and specific features except for one thing. WWII sims still thrive by having a decent stable of aircraft available and if Oleg's team were to model say the complexities of manual start up...thats another layer of research that you then must do to make something flyable.

And you can say...sure but lets just do it generally for all of the aircraft and not worry too too much about the nuts and bolts. And I'd be alright with that. But can you see Oleg being alright with that? Maybe not.

I think a good mix of the complex aspects in there is good...it makes the experience that much more enjoyable. But the key things are still flying and shooting (or bombing) and I think most of that is a behind the scenes sort of thing that we want right and we want to be able to do that in as many types as realistically possible.

Its a matter of weighing the scales and determining what is most valuable

Black Shark is a fine example of a study sim and the detail and attention to it are stunning and shocking. But even I am a bit scared of all that

[tagTaken2]

Originally Posted by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger

I love clickables -

S~

Gunny

Who cares?

What's with all the clicky spamming by TX- 'blank' crowd?

Is this something that mods should be stamping on?

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

Yes I would love to have all of these included, I enjoy (love) IL-2 but it is lacking in so many areas. I would like to see SOW advance in this direction, more complexity, more like what it was during the war. It would really set it apart from what we have now, and would give to us many new challenges to under take. I can understand why most would not want such a demanding sim, so there lies the main problem for the rest of us. I think that it very possible to have a scaled game with these features in the "expert" selection. I think that would be the only way to have our cake, and keep everyone happy.

That's exactly what i want as well. The interface is a secondary question, but it is important to move along with the times and have the option to use an extra peripheral or two.

Originally Posted by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger

With that said, clickables have been around for a long enough period that they would seem to be a "standard" feature. [.....]

Take LOMAC for instance - same developer, no clickables. If you've tried LOMAC after coming from Il2 - the first brick-wall you may have hit was the dramatic increase in assignable commands. No HOTAS has enough buttons to cover everything (no matter how many layers you assign), so you end up with more controllers or revert to a hoard of keyboard commands. That's really immersive, huh?

Exactly! I've read the Black Shark manual, do you know what was my first thought? "Woah, good luck remembering all those shortcuts".

If you feel that ctrl+shift+right alt+; is something easily remembered for when you need to eliminate the drift on your gyro compass, then you have a very good photographic memory and should probably better spend your time making a fortune by playing Blackjack in some casino I find it much simpler to point the mouse over the little knob and click, or roll the mousewheel a la FSX.

And we come to the basis of the whole debate of why we can't have realistic systems modelling in a survey sim.

Originally Posted by csThor

Apples and Oranges, Blackdog. In BS you had one (= 1) type of helicopter modeled and as it looks each following release will include just one more type. SoW on the other hand will have to incorporate more flyable objects right from the start and with each theater there will be more "must have"s on the list. It's simply a pointless discussion because you can't compare the two venues because of their drastically different focus.

I don't deny this but take into account that average WWII fighters of the same time period will have very similar controls. You need a knob to set the altitude meter correctly, a knob to set your compass and so on, it's not like they each had their own radar set with different modes.

I know this seems to contradict the quoted part about Lock on, but bear with me while i explain. Yes, someone might argue that "since the systems of the time were not so complicated we might be able to do with a keyboard only interface. Furthermore, modelling all those systems will delay production time for each new flyable, so why bother?"

My answer to this would be that first of all, most of the well known warbirds have manuals of them floating around the internet, it's not contemporary top secret electronic equipment, it's an aircraft of half a century ago. In fact, research on proper DM and FM will take much more time and effort than those needed to find the startup checklist of a P-38. I think i even have it lying somewhere in my hard drive and i'm not even one of the guys who collect aircraft manuals, like a lot do.

Now for the other part of the contradicting hypothetical argument, the interface. For me, evolution in the fidelity of systems modelling in the sim's aircraft goes hand in hand with the evolution of control methods. The reason? Well, we can pretty much use the keyboard for the basic controls that all aircraft of the era have. E.g ,these buttons are used to calibrate my altimeter, these buttons are used to calibrate my compass and they work in every fighter that has adjustable altimeters/compass, etc. However, take a look in IL2 and see how much of your keyboard is taken up already, with the limited amount of aircraft systems modelled. Imagine if we suddenly have fuel tank selector valves and other things like that. Now think about plane specific controls, that due to their less-frequently used nature will be relegated to obscure 4-5 keystroke combinations that nobody will remember.

And finally, think about the cost of a good Hotas set to map funtcions to. We are reaching a point where people need an increasing amount of peripherals to remain competitive in online play if we decide to increase the amount of things we simulate. Not everyone can afford a Cougar and a Track IR, but if you've got a gaming PC capable of running SoW chances are you'll have one of the two, or some sort of other equipment.

So what do we do? Do we make sims only for the elite few big spenders? Isn't this driving the sim down into a smaller niche market?

Or do we stay stale and rehash old recipes with slight improvements in graphics, sound and FM/DM?

Well, i'd like it if we could find a middle ground between these two. A WWII sim has an advantage that modern ones don't. The simple nature of the aircraft compared to a modern jet means that you can simulate every last switch in the cockpit for 4-5 WWII fighters in the time you'd need to get just one modern cockpit correct. Now if we can also have customizable controls for the whole lot we're getting somewhere.

I think it's silly to say "nobody will use such features" because there's clearly a debate going on and people want more realism. Your aircraft is more than the sum of your guns, ammo, engine and armor.And in order to make this work without a second keyboard or fancy and expensive gaming pads, we'll have to include a point and click function as well. It's not about realism or even immersion, it's about the mouse being suboptimal in many cases but also the most versatile and cost effective controller on your PC. Given the necessary software a mouse can do everything, from rotating your virtual head ingame , to clicking cockpit buttons, to typing your credit card number in a secure onscreen virtual keyboard and so on. It's a jack of all trades and master of none but it will have to do until you buy that customized gaming keyboard and install TripleHead2Go with TrackIR4.

I'm not much of an online ace, but i've been into flight sims for the past 16 years and to tell you the truth, pressing ctrl+D to drop my external tanks doesn't do it for me anymore. I'd prefer to have it the real away, moving the fuel selector to another fuel tank or risk the engine cutting out during combat if i forget to, and even then risking the tank not separating. This is the stuff we read about in aviation books and the stories of brave pilots who made mistakes, corrected them under enemy fire and managed to return home with a plane riddled full of bullets, but alive and with a story to tell.

Adding a realistic pilot workload will in turn multiply the chances of error and produce much more realistic combat scenarios. If you need to keep your head in the cockpit and monitor some of your vital systems it's that much more possible to suffer a surprise attack. Workload creates the possibility of error, error creates the possibility of imbalance, imbalance means an advantage for someone and that means someone is about to get a kill, and a realistic one at that.

People who don't like this sort of gameplay can scale it down offline, or use another server online. But having the possibility to properly model aircraft subsystems will add a new definition to the term "flying full-real".

I think we would be nuts to miss out on all the extra things that could be included and the awesome gameplay that could be generated as a result, because we act like we don't have adequate controllers to map a few cockpit switches to. That's all.

[ivagiglie]

Blackdog thank you, I've registered to this forum (which I'm reading regularly since last summer) only to say: "I completely agree with your proposals!".
There are a lot of people that would want much more realism than we're offered now.
And, as you said, every time I read a book where some bad/strange (usually recovered) events happened in a mission I wish I could - virtually - face the same one day.

[usagold2004]

In the big scheme, this topic is really kind of pointless. SoW will probably be out this year, so there is no time for a major rework. I never felt cheated with IL2. It is the best WW2 sim you can buy right now. That being said, I think SoW will be the same leap ahead that IL2 was.

Oleg has said already that the detail modeling will be there. Will it be in clickpit/engine start sequence? who knows! its just a matter of time now.

I'm all for having as much detail as possible, but really i'm ready for a new WW2 sim! so pack all of the details you can as long as we dont have to wait another year...