Desireable level of realism in a comabt flightsim?

[Romanator21]

What's wrong with having an option? I want full functionality. That doesn't mean you have to suffer. You want playability and accessibility. I hope that doesn't mean I should suffer either.

Just a flip of the switch in the difficulty menu.

We can all be at peace.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

What's wrong with having an option? I want full functionality. That doesn't mean you have to suffer. You want playability and accessibility. I hope that doesn't mean I should suffer either.

Just a flip of the switch in the difficulty menu.

We can all be at peace.

I'm with Romanator on this one. As for what is the potential gain for Mr.Maddox and his team in implementing such things, let's all take the time to remember that there will be no more MS Flight Simulator because the ACES studio was shut down.

Where are all these people going to go? These are people who easily pay $30 or more for a single flyable aircraft as long as it is adequately well modeled, people who even pay 15$-50$ for scenery packs that might range from an entire continent or be as small as a single major european airport. The more "FSX friendly" the new sim is, the more 1c company has to gain from it. There's a gap in the market and if Mr.Maddox is well prepared he can cover it just like that (insert snap of the fingers sound here).

It would be very interesting to see a similar poll in a MSFS forum. "Would you buy a combat sim if the aircraft systems were modelled in an accurate and comparable manner to the way they are done in civilian sims?"

I was about to open a similar poll myself after all the discussion in the other poll about clickable cockpits, but then i went out for a couple of beers
In any case, i'm glad it has surfaced and it's interesting to note that while most people dislike the FSX-style interface, they don't necessarily dislike the added realism that can be found in some of the newer sims and their add-ons.

If you want to see some well done WWII birds, search youtube for clips of the aerosoft catalina and the A2A simulations accusim series, which includes the Piper J-3 Cub, the P-47D and the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser (a civilian passenger/airliner version of the B29). The A2A guys are the people behind the remake of Rowan's Battle of Britain sim by the way.

I've flown all of these on a friend's PC and i was not a big fan of FSX, but truth be told, i was very pleasantly surprised with the added realism. The workload is of course increased but it's definitely not impossible to manage.
For example, the Stratocruiser is very complicated but you have an AI copilot and an AI engineer to help you fly it, just like you have AI gunners in combat sims to help you defend your bomber.

Imagine flying a night raid in a Mosquito in some SoW expansion two years into the future and having an AI navigator correcting your course via the signals he receives on the Oboe navigation system and the beacons that feed your direction finder gauge, would be cool as hell. Want more? Switch through the crew positions and manipulate the instruments on your own if you want to do it all by yourself, just like we can take controls of the gunners now. Want even better? Have a friend join you online and share the crew positions between you. You go "hey mate, i'll get navigation,piloting and the radio station" and the other guy replies "cool, i'll take care of bomb aiming, gunners and the engineer station to help you monitor the engines while you fly". Come on, i can't be the only one who thinks this will be a blast to do online

As for how complicated it is to transition from one plane to the next, someone mentioned having to "marry" a single airplane to make it work. Well, i have some observations on this.

First of all, the most succesful pilots in IL2 are those who stick to a select amount of airframes and that amount is small. Usually it's 1-2 aircraft for each time period/theater/side and even if the guy is seen switching sides, he flies aircraft that behave in a similar manner. I mostly fly 190s so if i have to switch teams for balance reasons you'll never see me in a spitfire, you'll see me in a P-47. If there's an early war scenario going that has neither of those, i'll pick the plane that fights the rest of the planeset in a similar way to the previous two, that is the fastest i can get with the heaviest armament possible and not the best dogfighter. In a sense, even though flying a total of 10 airframes or less (3-4 fighters, but i fly bombers too), i'm essentially already dedicated to a certain "style" because it works for me.
I don't like it so much and i'm neither good enough at it to go headlong into furballs in a 109G2, Yak or Spitfire, so i choose the other way.

With that out of the way, real pilots also faced transition issues from one type to the next and it's not unrealistic to have it happen in the sim as well. However, the initial flyables of SoW will not be of the same staggering amount that we now have in IL2 (even without the mod-packs there's a ton of flyables). I'm guessing that it won't be hard to learn a couple of fighers and a couple of bombers really well, so that you can use the right tool for the job no matter which side you're on.

Which brings us to the final part. Conversion between different aircraft in a flight sim is easier than it looks. As i told you before, i had no experience whatsoever with FSX. After i learned a couple of things in one aircraft, i could apply them to all the rest as well. It's like driving a car, you don't have to get a different license whenever you drive a different car, as long it's the same vehicle category. The only case you'll need another license is you want to drive a motorbike or a truck and it's the same way for aicraft as well, if you move from single seaters to four-engined heavies you will naturally have a few more things to take care of as you fly.

The bottom line is that if you know how to manage an engine, you know how to manage 90% of all engines available. All you need to learn is the different power settings necessary for the engine you're going to work with. I had zero experience with things like that in a simulator and guess how long it takes me to get used to a new aircraft that simulates them...two hours maximum for multi-engined airframes, less than an hour for single-engined ones. I might have to try a few times before i manage to start it up, or cook the engine altogether on my first couple of flights, have to go-around because i screwed up the landing approach or set it down heavy and damage the gear, but after a mere two flights it's a piece of cake.

It's not necessarily difficult, it's actually very easy once you learn how it all comes together (which you only have to do once regardless of airframe, all piston engines work in a similar manner). What it is is that it's definitely more involving and interesting and it gives you something to do on the way to the target area between scanning for targets, which is otherwise complete downtime.

On top of that, most of the military cockpits have marked areas on each gauge. You don't fancy learning that a Jug has a maximum allowable manifold pressure of 52 inches mercury and a maximum RPM of 2700? Good for you. You can either turn down the realism settings, or simply keep the needles pointing inside the green arc and don't exceed that redline. It's as simple as stealing candy from a baby.

[Tempest123]

I think its a question of balance, the workload of a "pc pilot", having to look around with a hat switch or trackir and aim a mouse and click off fuel tank selectors, carb heat etc. is much more demanding than the quick motion this would be in real life with your hands.
Think about driving your car, you don't look down at your clutch, press it, then look at your gearshift and change gears, than look back at the clutch and let it go, then look back up, instead you do it quickly without looking. I think the way that Oleg has modelled some of these aspects such as fuel tank selection (and yes it is modelled) is correct in that it happens automatically. I would love to have a single keystroke for all the functions the cockpit but that just not possible, and having to aim and click while panning your view around and flying the plane is not very realistic to me. I would like to see maybe keystroke options for some of these features but a clickable cockpit I think is more work than it really is in the real aircraft. Its hard to simulate "feel" and routines of motion that are necessary to fly aircraft, but I think Il2 has a good balance of both. The "realism" I would like to see improved in SoW is the feeling of actually being in England in 1940, the atmosphere, terrain, other pilots, squadron management, the extra tension etc. I think the user of a flight sim, especially a historical one, should be transported to another time and place every time the sim is used, thats the fun of flight simming to me.

[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.

[Bearcat]

I'd like to be able to go from the easiest settings that this sim has to offer... to something a bit more complex than the realistic engine mods for IL2 have in terms of possiblre damage to the engine etc if not properly warmed and torque.. I'd like to see at least twice as much complexity in the CEM as we have here.. ort at least the option.. and I think we will get that .... and then some. I have no doubt whatsoever than SoW will be way ahead of it's time.. in fact I think one reason why it is takeing so long is that 1C wants to make it as future prone as it can... heck we are still having fun with IL2... and this sim will be 9 years old in November.. and the engine is actually older than that.. You figure what... at least 2 years for developement of the sim.. so we are talking around 99 at least.. 9 years old... and it can still tax a decent rig... with specs unheard of in 2001.. even with overclocking you couldn't get close.. and yet it is still not only a viable product.. that is still selling in it's current incarnation... but still the best WWII sim on the market to date.. I have no idea where WoP will go (I know some guys who like it.. and feel tht the FMs on the fighters are better than here.. I think it is debatable.. but not having flown the sim I cant say.. and I refuse to buy it till I can get a hard copy or get it with PP at least..) .. but I guarantee you that as good as it may get.. the complexity of SoW and the flexibility of it and the sheer for lack of a better term magnificance off it will be miles ahead..... Even the graphics... as good as they look in WoP.. I think SoW's will be at least as good.. if not better.

[RAF74_Winger]

S!

Interesting that most here have concentrated on the engine management and procedures side of things; the flight model in IL2 is also simplified, and probably for good reason.

We can see this when the time comes to land the aircraft, particularly the tailwheel aircraft which constitute the majority of the flyables available to us. In IL2, all of these aircraft are very tolerant of being touched down on the main wheels first. Try that in a real taildragger; you'll bounce, and bounce high. To wheel it on nicely, one has to touch down very gently and know exactly when the mainwheels have touched, because you'll have to make a smooth but positive forward motion on the stick at that time to keep the aircraft on the ground.

To make a smooth three point landing, you have to be in exactly the three point attitude before you touch down (putting the tailwheel down first is OK too, to a point) otherwise you'll bounce halfway down the runway.

The other aspect that isn't modelled fully is the roll-out - all the aircraft I've flown in IL2 roll out as straight as a die. Some real-world aircraft are like this, but the majority are not so docile and will try to veer off centreline constantly as you slow down to taxi speed - your feet have to be quick, otherwise you'll be facing the wrong way down the runway with a scuffed wingtip or worse.

As I said before, these simplifications have been made with good reason, to whit; virtual pilots don't have the advantages of real pilots: Peripheral vision - vital for taildragger pilots, especially when one cannot see over the nose of the aircraft at touchdown, vestibular senses - this is how you know the mainwheels have touched, or that the aircraft is about to veer off heading.

The foregoing is just a sample though, there are other things too; ever tried to change the characteristics of a spin by adjusting power or elevator position? Doesn't work. The under-modelling of adverse yaw and tailplane effectiveness at low speed is a pet peeve of mine, but they probably don't worry most people.

This is not to say that these elements cannot be modelled, they can, but I think they would place the difficulty threshold beyond most humans unless Oleg can find or invent a proxy for the missing senses.

W.

[AndyJWest]

....ever tried to change the characteristics of a spin by adjusting power or elevator position? Doesn't work.

I'd have to disagree. With some aircraft modelled in IL-2, you have to throttle back to get out of a spin, and judicious use of the elevator helps too. I'm sure that IL-2's modelling of aircraft in a spin is oversimplified, but it is better than in some 'flight simulators' I could name.

Modelling an aircraft accurately in such a situation, in realtime, is possibly beyond the capabilities of a typical modern PC, and certainly beyond anything that was practical when IL-2 was written. Hopefully the next generation of PC flight simulators (SoW:BoB?) will do better, but as you say, there are limits imposed by the lack of peripheral senses. Meanwhile, IL_2 still gives us a more realistic impression of what it is like to be in a flat-spinning P-39 than any of us would ever like to experience in reality.