|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
| View Poll Results: Would you enjoy more realistcally simulated aircraft | |||
| Yes, as realistic as possible |
   
|
72 | 86.75% |
| No, simplified aircraft as in Il-2 are more fun |
  
|
11 | 13.25% |
| Voters: 83. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
02-09-2010, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Desireable level of realism in a comabt flightsim?
I am curious what level of realism the people here, the hardcore Il-2 fans, consider desirable. Generally with each new generation of flight sims the complexity increased, each was closer to flying a real plane.
Currently in Il-2, the players workload is considerably lower than it would be in real WW2 aircraft. A lot of things like a realistic turbocharger simulation, the effects of carburetor air temperature and oil temperature, damage due to shock cooling, damaged cowl flaps due to overspeed, realistic start up procedures, realistic navigation, fuel(-tank) management, etc. are left out. Personally as a simmer, I would love to see all this aspects in a sim. But obviously more realism doesn't automatically equal more fun, at least for most (?). On the contrary if people have to spend days or weeks to learn how to operate specific aircraft many will become quickly frustrated or bored and might move on to something else. Thus economically further increasing realism is probably not very wise. While the necessary development time, and so the costs, are increased the potential customer only base becomes smaller. As developer I would spend my resources to improve the atmosphere and gameplay instead. Better campaigns, briefings, maybe some period newsreels etc. Trying to please a wider audience than just the hardcore WW2 aviation buffs. 
|
|
#2
02-09-2010, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Since when has this been an either/or question? IL-2 has always had adjustable difficulty settings, and I'd be very surprised if SoW:BoB doesn't too.
As for how complex the 'complex' settings need to be, I'd say it might be better to see what Oleg comes out with before deciding you don't like it...
|
|
#3
02-09-2010, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I guess no one should forget that a PC simulation can never be compared to a real car/airplane/whatever.
A developer must think about it and include only the elements that will make the PC simulation-game playable. I guess we all want the most realistic settings, but up to the point that game is still playable for everyone.
|
|
#4
02-09-2010, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The question is what you would like to see, not what is Olegs vision. Probably all these decisions were already made long ago. It seems to me that he has chosen the only viable path. As in MSFS, rather simple default aircraft but all options are there for 3rd party add ons. Last edited by Antoninus; 02-09-2010 at 06:42 PM.
|
|
#5
02-09-2010, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
BTW, I completely disagree that IL-2 is simplified.
It's the closest to reality that we could get with the technology of late '90s.
|
|
#6
02-09-2010, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe, but it is simplified compared to some of the latest add on planes for FSX whcih have all the stuff mentioned above and some people would prefer to keep it this way.
From the latest cklickable cockpit thread: Quote:
|
|
#7
02-09-2010, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#8
02-09-2010, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Poll is not adequately phrased
The Il2 option makes IL2 look negligible and unreal. Careful or very simple Yes * No responses to polls are best, if the questions are fairly worded. What you call realistic has many connotations or meanings for different people. You must be a politiican.. LOL
|
|
#10
02-09-2010, 10:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. 
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
