Future of simulations 2010 discussion

[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.

Maybe for fun I might like a complex start procedure like you can do in Falcon 4.0. Then again, most everyone doing Falcon puts the startup on a programmable switch and pushes 1 button to go through maze of startup procedures<> LOL

If Oleg wants to give us all the complexity of real aviation I say go for it.
However, just give me switches to turn it off or tune it down. Many times when only I have 30 minutes or so to enjoy the sim. No way I'm going to sit at the keyboard and flip switches, wait for responses and flip more switches. Sorry, but that would lose my interest faster than watching wet paint dry.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by whatnot

One thing I don't understand is that why should realism of say flight controls and usability / gameplay be mutually exclusive. Just tone them difficulty settings up and down. I do agree that for example realistic startup procedure or very complex engine management is not everyone. A casual gamer which creates majority of the gaming audience wants his point & shoot experience with quick rewards, but the simming crowd should not be underestimated either. They're (we're I guess =) willing to invest hundreds of dollars into their hobby and I as one love the details and the idea that the flight procedures and experience is as close to the real thing as possible without actually sitting in a warbird. (Ok, you can downsize oil temp rising etc =)

The closer SOW gets to realism the more customers it will extract from the dying(?) FSX scene. It's a resource question ofcourse, dev team can't do everything and get the game released in 2011 but underestimating the potential of customers who are ready to pay ~50$ for a single high-quality plane like A2A's accu sim packages can be a mistake too. But I hope Oleg has created an engine that's open and complex enough for 3rd parties to create whatever level of detail they see fit.

I'm looking forwards going through a thinck manual, monitoring million cauges and clicking billion buttons on my bomber flight in SOW!

Ha ha ha "thick manual"? The last time I saw a printed manual was with EAW which is a wee bit in the past.......if we are lucky we will get a pdf - file, but a manual I highly doubt.

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

However, just give me switches to turn it off or tune it down. Many times when only I have 30 minutes or so to enjoy the sim. No way I'm going to sit at the keyboard and flip switches, wait for responses and flip more switches. Sorry, but that would lose my interest faster than watching wet paint dry.

If you don't want it you tune it down. You want your 30 minutes fix, go for it. But as already seen even on this forum you're not representing the entire simming genre. There is a fan base and a genre of it's own of aviation enthusiasts who like to keep it real and to create maximum potential for the engine that should not be overlooked even if that's not for your casual gaming needs. This genre hasn't had it's fix of state-of-the-art WW2 air war experience for the switch clickers and I'm smelling potential.

Atleast I'd throw money at at.. where do I pay?

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by Wutz

Ha ha ha "thick manual"? The last time I saw a printed manual was with EAW which is a wee bit in the past.......if we are lucky we will get a pdf - file, but a manual I highly doubt.

Boeing B377 sums up a good ~200 pages with it's three pdf manuals. DCS manuals ain't too bad either..

I'll print them out and collect to a binder at the cost of my employer and enjoy the thickness =)

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by whatnot

If you don't want it you tune it down. You want your 30 minutes fix, go for it. But as already seen even on this forum you're not representing the entire simming genre. There is a fan base and a genre of it's own of aviation enthusiasts who like to keep it real and to create maximum potential for the engine that should not be overlooked even if that's not for your casual gaming needs. This genre hasn't had it's fix of state-of-the-art WW2 air war experience for the switch clickers and I'm smelling potential.

Atleast I'd throw money at at.. where do I pay?

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

[robtek]

The option for the full workload, especially for fighters, is a must imho.
The amount of the workload during a dogfight, or even before, can be decisive for the outcome.
Imagine a 109e3 with manual proppitch, needing constant adjustments to get optimum power, vs a hurri with constant speed prop. One error by the emil pilot might cost him the speed and energy needed to win.
Or switching to a empty tank for the hurri.

[robtek]

@ Nearmiss

well, the choice would be: be mediocre with many planes or a ace with your special plane.
That would really add to the sim-part, as now, in il2, there are way too many aces and not enough mediocre or newbie fighters.

[Jaws2002]

I found this one interesting:

20mm: Let's say I win the lottery and make available a large pot of cash to any developer who could make the best case for a new simulation, without regards to a specific genre. With no budget constraints and being able to do anything, what would your submission look like?

Oleg: Oh, I have revolutionary ideas, but I don’t like to say them out loud. I was in hope to make it in my new sim, but I’m not sure that it is possible with a limited budget. If you really have such money, I would say come to me and under a strong NDA I will tell you what to develop, and which people in the world to hire for this project, etc.

I think he's talking about a modern built, high quality, WW2 Air, Land and Sea Massive Multiplayer. He was talking about this for quite some time.


Anyone of you has some extra cash?

[JG4_Helofly]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

quote


The future that I would like to see, would be a 24/7 on-line land, sea, and air WW II war.

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

[Jaws2002]

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

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

I was thinking about a modern one.