Desireable level of realism in a comabt flightsim?

[RAF74_Winger]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Are taildraggers really that demanding on the rudders even without winds and if so, is that a result of a free-castoring tailwheel that can be mitigated by locking it in place?

They can be, it depends on the aircraft. I'm really basing most of my comments on the Pitts, which has a power/weight ratio approaching (not quite though) that of the earlier WWII fighters, but obviously much less weight all told and designed with a different purpose in mind - I doubt that any WWII fighter would have the kind of control authority that the Pitts posesses. All the taildraggers I've flown have had steerable or locking tailwheels, so I can't really say what effect a free castoring tailwheel would have. The Harvard (AT6) is reputed to be a bugger on the ground though, and I think that has a free castoring TW.

W.

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by csThor

Score means squat. It's pointless, superfluous and absolutely meaningless.

Blackdog - I disagree that a higher degree of realism autotmatically brings more "historical" results. The events of history turned out they way they did because of factors which a combat flight sim can't take into the equation: pilot training standards, economical limitations, doctrine and tactics ... I could go on and on. A more realistic CEM is needed, I agree here, but per se more realism doesn't necessarily has to lead to more immersion as well. Besides, Maddox Games is a small team and you can't expect them to work more than at 100% of what they can.

The score means a lot for some people (as can be seen by shoulder shooting online in particular), thus these (large amounts of) people will be affected by score penalties.

Agreed on the rest of your post on that realism not being the main reason for the outcome, but rather the pilot skill (and I must mention teamwork, one of the most important force multipliers).

[Blackdog_kt]

Guys, i think i'm on to something. I was responding to MikkOwl in the other thread about merging difficulty settings for online servers and i got totally sidetracked in a discussion about systems modelling again. So, i started proposing ways to manipulate the various aircraft systems using only keyboard/stick/Hotas keys and no clickable pits, since most people want extra realism but no clickpits.

So, after discussing how to start a P47 in 5 steps and what kind of new controls we'd need to map, i said that we need to make some commands have varying functions between different airframes. For example the Jug has an inertial starter that's fed from the internal battery, but the 109Es we've seen in so many old videos always have a mechanic hand-cranking the starter. That's where i remembered that in Black Shark you can open the coms menu and ask the ground crew for an external power source (you have to have the radios powered or the window open, otherwise they won't hear you, not THAT'S going too far with realism ) and that maybe we could have similar things in SoW.

And then it hit me...




I think i'm on to the simplest, easiest to implement and most user friendly way to do this in a combat sim, without using a clickable cockpit and without having to map anything to any kind of controller at...all!

Why not move all non-critical subsystem controls to a menu similar to the comms menu we access with the Tab key?

What do you think of this? Instead of making complicated commands where the same keypress functions differently according to each aircraft (ie, what i foolishly suggested in the other thread before this latest inspiration hit me, lack of sleep and blabbing about gets me going in the right direction i guess ), i think this would be much easier to implement since all it does is render text on your screen.
It's the text and only the text that would be aircraft specific and save everyone a lot of trouble.

When selected, each option would flick the appropriate switch in the cockpit and perform the respective action. No need to worry about controls and mappings having to work between different kinds of switches that do the same job differently in each different aircraft (ie, starter button, 2-way starter switch, 3-way starter switch), no keybindings at all except one thing...the "systems menu". Then it would be just like the Tab menu we use for commanding the AI wingmen...press 1 to select the engine and fuel submenu and new options open up, press 3 to open up the fuel selector options, press 3 to select main tank, close menu. Easy, fast and will become second nature just like the wingmen commands after a few times.

One more good thing, seeing it written before you is like a mini-checklist that will help you remember what to do. What's more, it will also work for all the people who say "i would be able to flick a switch without taking my eyes off the target in real life, why should i have to look down to do it in-game?"

Extra realism, no clickpits, you can look outside the cockpit the whole time, everyone should be happy. Although being the way we all are, i fully expect someone to come out from hiding and complain that it's unrealistic to have text-menu commands displayed on screen

For the Jug i was using as an example in the other thread we would have something like the following layout:

Systems Menu:
1) Engine and Fuel
Primer-->1/2/3/4/5/6 strokes
Magnetos-->off/left/right/both
Fuel selector (internal)-->main/aux/off
Fuel selector (external)-->left wing/right wing/centerline/off
Starter-->energize/start/neutral
2) Electric equipment
Battery/master switch-->on/off
Generator-->on/off
3) Radios
(whatever options the radios of the time used, i think they were pre-tuned on the ground and you could only select between 3-4 preset frequencies)
4) Instruments
Altimeter calibration-->increase/decrease

..,plus whatever else you might ever need. Is your plane not a Jug but a cranky Spitfire IX that uses starter cartridges and has a more complicated start-up? No problem, no new controls, no nothing, just substitute the appropriate commands in the text menu and tie them to the switches (which we already know will be fully animated from the start) and the respective systems (which we have a good deal of hints that they will be modelled to some detail).

I think this is the best overall compromise. By all means do away with the IL2-style engine HUD messages ("throttle 90%" and so on) on full real settings and use that space or the top right of the screen for the systems menu. Please, someone tell me you like this idea as much as i do

[MikkOwl]

Pop-up menu works, but it is something I would personally avoid using as much as I possibly could (I really think they are mega immersion breakers). As a back-up method, sure.

[Blackdog_kt]

Well, i can't think of anything else really...it's either a host of new keyboard/stick keys to map (not too much but not too few either), a clickable cockpit or something like this.

Maybe it will gradually come to include all of this and everyone will be finally happy in the end

P.S. New update is up, go go go!

[ECV56_Lancelot]

I think its a good idea, but still i prefer keyboard mapping and clickpit. As MikkOwl said, its a good back up system, like clickpit, IMO, its a good backup system to keyboard mapping.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by csThor

Score means squat. It's pointless, superfluous and absolutely meaningless.

Blackdog - I disagree that a higher degree of realism autotmatically brings more "historical" results. The events of history turned out they way they did because of factors which a combat flight sim can't take into the equation: pilot training standards, economical limitations, doctrine and tactics ... I could go on and on. A more realistic CEM is needed, I agree here, but per se more realism doesn't necessarily has to lead to more immersion as well. Besides, Maddox Games is a small team and you can't expect them to work more than at 100% of what they can.

I agree 100%.. not to mention pilot strength.. or fatigue. I wonder how many pilots died because they were just too tired or didnt have the strength to make that extra pull on the stick. I recal accounts of some of the smaller pilots at Moton field having to almost stand on the rudder pedals to keep from torqueing off the runway on take off.. The one thing that we always forget and can never be modelled accurately in a PC sim is the seat of the pants feel.. that is something that is so crucial to flying.. and some tyhing that considering it cant be modelled I think IL2 does a good job of compensating for.

[Seeker]

All this talk of planes, planes, planes.

Making the same mistake as in IL-2, 14 bazillion flyables but only two ever get used....

You need to focus on the game more, and click pits less.

We need to be be able to start the program up, select a plane at random from a drop down list and be able to start a meaningfull life as a pilot of that plane.

90 % of the people here have respect for FSX, have it probably installed but never use it. Think about that a second. There's no doubt that an FSX after market Spit is more detailed, and therefore "better" than an IL-2 Spit, but nearly all the guys here leave it in the hanger.

Why is that?

It's because IL-2 gives more immersion in being a Spit pilot that FSX does. In IL-2 you're doing what a Spit pilot does, in FSX you're doing what a Spit wanna be pilot does, chasing a Buchon around a perfectly moddeled Duxford to no effect.

It's the campaign modelling, the enviroment we fly in that'll make or break SOW, not clickable cockpits.

And pop up menus in the cockpit? Yeah right, that sounds really real for a 1940's analogue cockpit. Not.

Get real. Get thinking about why you want to be in that cockpit, and how the game will encourage and inculcate that.

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by Seeker

You need to focus on the game more, and click pits less.

We need to be be able to start the program up, select a plane at random from a drop down list and be able to start a meaningfull life as a pilot of that plane.

90 % of the people here have respect for FSX, have it probably installed but never use it. Think about that a second. There's no doubt that an FSX after market Spit is more detailed, and therefore "better" than an IL-2 Spit, but nearly all the guys here leave it in the hanger.

Why is that?

It's because IL-2 gives more immersion in being a Spit pilot that FSX does. In IL-2 you're doing what a Spit pilot does, in FSX you're doing what a Spit wanna be pilot does, chasing a Buchon around a perfectly moddeled Duxford to no effect.

It's the campaign modelling, the enviroment we fly in that'll make or break SOW, not clickable cockpits.

And pop up menus in the cockpit? Yeah right, that sounds really real for a 1940's analogue cockpit. Not.

Get real. Get thinking about why you want to be in that cockpit, and how the game will encourage and inculcate that.

Could it not also be that IL-2 might run better, have better damage physics, better flight physics as well as better single player (I assume - never heard about single player with FSX - never tried it, don't own it)?

Desiring more realistic cockpits and ways of interacting with them does not mean wanting FSX.

Personal motives for liking/diving into something can vary greatly. Attempting to generalize the motives/preferences of IL-2 pilots is difficult. If categorizing the pilots into different generalized types, then that might be somewhat accurate.

In my own case, I appreciate all kinds of things, but especially I like authenticity (to history, especially in regards to the machinery used). I spend a lot of time trying to improve this where it lacks in IL-2 rather than flying. If it was already at a much higher level in regards to controls and cockpits I could skip that and only fly instead, being satisfied with the immersive, convincing simulation.

[Blackdog_kt]

So, i guess by the same line of reason the pop-up radio menu in IL2 should go as well? See, there's two sides of this coin. One is features and the others is how to manipulate them, which means interface/controls. We want the features, but we don't always have adequate hardware for all the controls, so we have to make "work-arounds". These can a lot of times be unrealistic or non-immersive, so the question becomes:

Would you rather have these features to the expense of having a not always ideal interface if the result was a simulated aircraft performing closer to the real one, ie a net result of increased realism? Or would you rather scrap these features altogether because of a dislike for the interface and have a net result of reduced realism?

I would choose the first one. Choosing the second is like a console player saying "my gamepad is not as accurate as a mouse, so i want to have aiming assist" and indeed most console FPS titles do. The thing is, flight simmers are primarily PC gamers and the PC is all about options. Sure, have your aiming assist, but what about the other guy who likes the challenge of hitting targets with a crappy gamepad? Make it an option, have your fun with aiming assist and don't drag down the challenge factor for the rest of the players who want manual aiming.

In the IL2 context, it would be like saying "I don't want pop-up menus. I want to give direct, non-standardized voice commands to AI wingmen that have an intelligent speech recognition routine. As long as i can't have that, let's disable the TAB menu and have the AI of my aircraft give commands on my behalf automatically to my AI wingmen".

Well, there were flight sims in the past that did this. In 1990 or earlier. There were also many sims (especially combat sims) that didn't model the intricacies of flying a real aircraft. They've started doing it during the last couple of years or more. Is there a trend developing here or is it just my idea?

By the way, sorry if i'm coming off a bit aggressive here as that's not my intention at all. I'm simply being a bit more blunt than usual to illustrate the point i'm trying to make.

I agree that we can't have everything. What does that tell us? We need compromises. Now i don't mean "include what i want and ommit a meaningful campaign experience" because i'm very interested in that as a primarily offline player. That's the same reason i'd like to see detailed working machinery. That's a part of immersion as well, at least for me.

Sorry, but being able to firewall the throttle in most planes and keep it there for all but a minure or two at most is neither realistic nor immersive for me, and it spoils the fun just as much as my AI wingmen not following orders or crashing one after the other on a hill during final approach. Not to mention the fact that some planes are built more or less to specs in that regard, while others can exceed them with impunity.

What happens is that there are 2-3 interconnected issues, which however can be debated separately as far as what they can offer to the new sim. The reason they all get tangled up is that they are co-dependent.
An aircraft is more than its shape, sounds, armamanent,FM and DM and a 2010 next-gen sim should reflect that.


So, if i may go out on a limb here and suppose that we will be able to manage such subsystems in the higher realism settings, please tell me how are we going to control them without a $300-$500 investment in extra hardware like CH button panels? This is the feature-interface co-dependency right there.

For someone who doesn't want pop-up menus and clickable pits for example, it will still be possible to map everything to keyboard and HOTAS. Heck, let's go the extra mile and make the control bindings aircraft specific. Make your favorite setup, save it as "BF109E", click a little checkmark that says "default control scheme for..." and choose the corresponding aircraft from the drop down menu. Copy it, rename it, change maybe 5 bindings that are different between a Spit and a 109, save it with a different name and assign it as default for the Spit, and so on.

The thing is, i hear a lot of "no it can't be done" opinions with little to back them up substantially (at least from my point of view), while I've given three possible solutions, neither of which is exclusive to the other two. In fact, they can pretty much be used simultaneously to suit everyone's taste.

I'm beginning to think someone was right when they said that a dislike for certain interfaces is being used as an excuse to ommit certain features that people don't want to deal with, to the detriment of overall realism in the sim.
And since i'm genuinely interested as to why, especially when everyone will be able to disable what they don't like to use, i simply don't accept that it "can't be done" until someone proves why in a satisfactory (that means technical) manner. Don't tell me it can't be done if you can't tell me why not, or do it anyway but i won't believe you.

I say that it can be done, but i've also given three interface options that if used in unison (which they can), they will be more than enough to manage a realistic pilot workload with the limited means we have in our disposal and without making it harder than it was in reality. If anyone wants to convince me of the contrary, it's time to put some solid, convincing arguments on the table that amount to more than a plain "no, i don't like this in combat sims", because it's not only about what some of us like.It's about including as much as possible of what everyone likes, make it optional and let each one of us choose.

If someone wants to lower the realism settings to suit his taste and get a better experience i'm just fine with it, as long as he does it in his personal realism settings screen and doesn't drag down my settings along with his.

So far, the ONLY convincing argument was that it will take up valuable development resources from other areas. That's not convincing because the other guy's opinion has more merit than mine or vice versa, it's convincing simply because our opinions have equal merit and naturally, if there's a limited amount of development resources we all "campaign" to have them allocated to the features we like most.

The thing is though, we already have information that hints at the possibility of enhanced systems management, so i guess there's no reason to say "do something else instead of it" if it's indeed already supported (ie coded). What's done is done (if it's indeed done). Let's see if we can get a confirmation of some sort, so we can discuss how we can make it work in way that will not tax the development team too much, while having enough options for us to tweak to our comfort. They won't have to build everything on their own if they give us some clever and easy to use tools to help them building.

There are more than one ways to skin a cat.