Desireable level of realism in a comabt flightsim?

[Blackdog_kt]

I generally agree with you, but i'm not debating the interface of it at all. This was done in the other poll and that's why this one was opened, to discuss not the interface but the possibilities that exist.

The thing is, while i don't look at my turn signals and clutch in the car to use them, i do look momentarily (like a real life snap view) at the air-conditioning and the cd-player controls, because it's a whole cluster of buttons on the car's center console whose location i either don't remember (how often does one need to use the fog lights in Greece? ) or i can't find by touch alone. I just know their general location, move my hand towards it but before i press anything i still need to take my eyes off the road for a fraction of a second and confirm what i'm just about to press. This is actually preferrable to keeping eyes on the road at all times but also keeping my right hand tied up while i'm fumbling around for the correct switch for an extended period of time.

In that sense, things like a clutch and turn signal controls are the equivalent of controls mapped to HOTAS and keyboard. The other ones are secondary controls that you don't need all the time, so that's why the car's designer decided to put them in a place where you might need to look before you use them.

Once again, it's a matter of options. I would like to have the added option to go all manual on those juicy new flyables and if someone else doesn't, well there's always the difficulty settings where one can turn it off. I think the main reason for this poll is not a "my way is better" approach, but to gauge if there's enough interest from the potential buyers of the sim to justify going ahead and modelling these things.

When i first fired up the IL-2 demo almost 10 years ago it was the hardest, most realistic, most challenging experience i've ever had with simulators up to that point. When comparing it with the latest offerings however i feel like i've been having it easy for the last few years. That doesn't mean IL-2 is suddenly not up to par, because for a 2001-2005 title it pretty much is.

The distinction lies in the context however, because technology evolves and possibilities broaden. If SoW uses the same amount of excessive automation as IL-2 in certain functions without the possibility to select a more complex model, IL-2 will still be a benchmark sim for a 2001 title but SoW won't be a benchmark sim for a 2010 title.
I hope i'm making myself clear, i'm not dissing the titles, i'm just saying we have to judge them according to what else is out there on the sim market and at the same time understand that since the market is small, it might take a while before all the necessary bits are assembled.

I would be perfectly content with a statement that says "yes, these features are possible in the new engine, there is built-in support for them and sometime in the near future modders or the development team will implement them".

This stuff needs to be included, probably not on release but certainly during the first year of the sim's life. An important portion of the confirmed customer base wants it, but there's also a big part of the flight sim community in general that might want it, so this means that Mr.Maddox and team might probably want it as well due to the possibility of extra sales outside the dedicated fans of IL-2 and WWII combat sims.

For example, what about licensing the engine to developers of civilian sims? Or what about a mod-pack with 2-3 freeware open beta stages before it goes payware, like Over Flanders Fields? There's a big gap now that MSFS is dead and there are a whole bunch of companies that used to code for that series. I don't expect them to suddenly close shop, it's more likely that they'll search for a new platform and if that platform happens to be SoW it will be good for everyone. We get more realistic options in our combat sims, Maddox and co. get more money and if that money goes into hiring additional staff, we might also get the SoW expansions faster.

It's like that movie with the baseball field, "build it and they will come"

[Erkki]

The more realistic, the better. As long as theres an option to turn each feature on/off separately... As we need to lure the fresh prey in somehow!

[Sutts]

I agree with Blackdog, I'd like to see more complex system modelling and a more realistic workload for the pilot. I'm not too fussed about a clickable cockpit as long as we can map HOTAS or keys to everything.

We obviously need these as options to keep both camps happy.

I'm not demanding that Oleg provide this functionality, just asking that he provides interfaces so that third parties can give us what we need.

[csThor]

I think the boundary between realism and masochism is not a straight line but a blurred something that's meandering all over the place. To me civil flight sims as FSX are procedure sims first and foremost - the actual operation of the aircraft and the depth of its systems are what makes or breaks the sim experience in them. Combat flight sims on the other hand do simulate the reason why these crates were built - military operations. The military experience (from a simple sportive dogfight contest to carefully planned and built historical missions) is what forms the core of the sim experience here.

Now ... we really need to ask ourselves if the system depth of civil sims is really necessary or even desirable in a military sim? Does having the primers for the on-board electrics simulated really contribute to the sim experience? Not in my opinion. IMO systems which do have a direct influence on the military experience (i.e. accurate engine management, weapon systems, oxygen modelling for high-alt stuff, radio comms etc) should be as realistic as possible, but without impeding usability of the program itself. It's pointless to simulate the radio comms of a long-range weather recon plane down to the last rivet since I bet the least of us here are fluent in morse code (which is the way german aircraft on such missions sent their reports back: they extended a long cable serving as radio antenna and morsed their findings as vocal comms weren't up to the long distances back then) and that part of the game would simply be aggravating.

So for me bottom line is: As realistic as necessary, as simple as possible.

[Sutts]

Some guys enjoy the aircraft themselves as much as the combat and really enjoy the challenge of learning the operating procedures for their favourite aircraft type. To them it adds a great deal of immersion and makes it feel like they are operating a real aircraft. It is also a great education tool as you start to take notice and understand the various features of the pit.

This doesn't mean we don't also enjoy the combat and tactics side of things. That is of course what is missing from the FSX series. If SOW can combine the two then the FSX crowd will flock to it.

I think there is a demand for real systems modeling and hopefully third party developers such as A2A will deliver one day.

I also think it is quite possible for both camps to exist quite happily together, with add-on packs and option settings etc.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Realism all the way, but as csThor said in a meaningfull way. IL-2 is simplified, especially in CEM. P38 was not the most easy to fly for example. It could take the pilot up to 20-30 seconds to get the plane from cruise to combat readiness state! This included switching fuel tanks from externals to internals, dropping externals, adjusting engine boost, mixture and RPM etc. And you could NOT just firewall everything and go or the engines would have blown or seriously damaged.

In IL-2 we have the carefree CEM concerning planes with separate boost, mixture, RPM etc adjustments. In this area Germans had the upper hand with their automated engine controls like in FW190, on handle to use only. Also engine cooling etc should be better modelled in SoW. Limits were there for a reason and in IL-2 they are quite liberal.

Before you flame me. It is not maschocism, but realism. Real pilots had to adjust their planes and learn the systems to maximize their perfromance. Why do we have to have it easier just because it is a computer game? With full real settings flying should be harder as it was, not a simplified thing to get "more fun and easier kills". Making the sim hard on full real would maybe open some eyes to see it was not a victory parade to anyone involved in WW2 but a very stressfull and hard time fighting for survival.

So yes..full realism. We have HOTAS etc where to configure systems AND the game will have relaxed settings as well so you can gradually climb up from relaxed to full real. Right?

[JVM]

In other words, what all of you are asking is what Oleg has said (repeatedly) would be present in SoW series (maybe not all in SoW:BoB)?
Did he not say that 3rd parties would be able to do almost anything except modifying the core code and making large maps?
Did he not also say that former MSFS modellers were already working for MG?

I do enjoy the threads in this forum but I feel somewhat dizzy of all the circles I have been forced to think in when reading...

JV