Desireable level of realism in a comabt flightsim?

[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.

[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

[ElAurens]

I must agree totally with csThor.

I don't want a WW2 aircraft procedures training sim, which is what some here are really proposing, even if they don't know that they are.

I want to be able to "fly" any number of virtual aircraft, and enjoy the experience, not be saddled to one type by virtue of the fact that learning to operate it is so time consuming and complex that one is all you could ever learn well, as in real life.

And let's be realistic here. If aircraft for SOW were modeled to the degree that some propose, we would only have one flyable for each side.

And a dead sim, as it would not sell in the numbers needed to keep it alive.

[Blackdog_kt]

Well, we're getting excited since the renewed stream of updates and if flight sim people don't have anything concrete to talk about they will speculate

I pretty much agree with the previous posters, i do find it very rewarding and exciting to learn how and why the aircraft i'm flying works the way it does.

However, my desire for advanced systems modelling and a closer to real pilot workload doesn't only come from that. There's another can of worms that's somehow interconnected with it.

It's generally accepted knowledge in our community that in order for a mission or campaign to work, wether it's offline, DF or coop, it's not enough to have a talented mission maker. The players need to play along and cooperate with the stated goals, otherwise no matter how talented the mission maker is things don't go exactly as planned. We've all been in online servers where the mission is realistically and carefully crafted, yet one day it's a mission and the next it's an endless furball between Dover and Calais on the channel maps. Why is that? Well, for starters it's not bad to like furballs, everyone does. However, when joining a mission oriented server you are probably not there to fly furballs but to complete objectives.

Furballs are very much fun but the way they happen in flight sims is much different than they did in reality. The causes for this are the fact that we obviously don't risk our real lives and can thus afford to get careless or take unwise risks, we have years of experience under our belt and we have the chance to learn by making the same mistakes over and over again, mistakes that were most of the times fatal in reality. So, how are we going to raise the bar and force ourselves to cooperate with the mission maker in creating a more realistic environment?

There's one more reason for our "all out, careless, gung-ho" flying, it's too easy to do compared to reality. Our workload is probably less than 50% of a real pilot in a similar situation. Some may argue that the clunkiness of a PC interface compared to a real cockpit will make things harder than real life if we go 100% real on the workload, or simply too expensive if it's mandatory to have a custom built simpit on top of TrackIR and fancy Hotas sets. It could also separate the community between the ones who can afford all of these peripherals and dominate online and those who can afford just one or two items and be constantly on the losing side.

That's not entirely false and i agree up to a point, but it's not as hard to circumvent as it looks, because we are looking at aircraft with significantly simpler systems than most of todays civilian general aviation aircraft, plus they are used in an age and situation where there are simpler rules and capabilities. There are a good deal more switches, dials, operating limits and procedures to monitor and adhere to in a modern turboprop touring aircraft than in a WWII warbird. You don't have to maintain precise altitudes and headings to keep the IFR ground controller happy (heck, you can't because you don't even have the necessary equipment on your place) and you don't have all the complicated air traffic regulations to think of.

All you need to do is have a rough idea of where you're heading and how long it will take you to get within 10 miles of your intented target to visually pick it up. That's why we see so many servers who try to be realistic but they still use enemy bases too close to each other. In case you're still wondering, it's because navigation consists of " firewall throttle, open rads, lower pitch to prevent overheat,set trim, climb at the edge of the map and go have a cup of cofee while my ride climbs to 30000ft". Navigation simply put is boring because you have nothing to do.
If however manifold pressure on sea level could exceed the engine's tolerance if you applied full throttle, you would have to set throttle to 50% and you'd still be getting the power required for takeoff, but as you climb and the air gets thinner MP and power would drop. You would have to advance the throttle a bit every few thousand feet, check to make sure that your carburators aren't freezing as you climb into colder air and adjust your intercoolers to keep them at the right temps, etc.

You would simply have something fun to do, long before you start searching for targets. You would also have to complete your climb early enough, so that you are at a safe altitude and cruise speed with a nicely cooled and healthy engine a good deal before you ever need to look for hostiles. You would simply have to plan ahead a little bit more.
Ever wonder why so many of the short ranged early P-47Ds were based so far back to the west of the southern UK compared to other units? Maybe it was because they climb like bricks down low, so they had to be up high and cruising fast by the time they meet up with the bombers and definitely before crossing the north sea, on a "just in case basis". What does a Jug at 3000ft do when it's loaded to the brim with fuel and happens to get jumped by a 190 that's on an intruder sortie?

In short, the amount of things that you (and the enemy as well) can screw up increase if you model such things and that can only be fun. Don't call masochism on me because it won't work, we're all flight simmers here so we already know we suffer from it

So, how hard does it actually get when you get to the fight? Well, i guess not much as long as you know what you're doing, but the way your battles play out would be closer to what you read in pilot biographies, because the realistic workload would force you to be a slight touch more conservative.

First of all, it wouldn't be possible to dive, climb or cruise at whatever power settings you wanted. Even in a furball, most pilots would set the desired power before entering the fray and leave it there, because you can't look at the gauges all the time to fine-tune things when you're getting shot at. This might not be fun for some and that's why it should be optional, but it's definitely closer to what happened in reality and that makes it really fun for others. So, what is that magic setting?

I guess it's the power setting used for climbs, as it's high enough to climb in a full-laden plane that flies through warm air directly after take-off, while at the same time keeping the engine within its limits. You'll say "but i don't want to climb!" and that's why you have trim. Plus, having burned some fuel and being a good deal higher in colder air, your engine will also be very effective.
You'll just be unable to cruise at your top speed all day long and will instead have to settle for 20-30mph lower speeds (military power and not top power), keeping your engine cool enough so that you can firewall it if you really need to (ie to escape).

Others might prefer an even lower power setting in combination with a careful approach to combat, because using max sustained power will bring the engine closer to overheat even if it doesn't actually cross the redline. That means one pilot could get 2 minutes at full emergency power before having to throttle back, while another pilot in the same type or aircraft could get 4 minutes. So what do you do? Decisions, decisions...

Of course, the other guy will be bound by the same constraints. What does that mean? That he will probably not want to give up his advantage because it's a slightly more complicated process to climb back up. He will have to score a quick kill or let you go, or risk climbing back to altitude and having to monitor his engine with a bunch of bandits around. In short, he will be reluctant to keep chasing if you dive.

And there you have it, the recreation of the typical accounts we've all read in pilot memoirs that go "i scored good hits on him but he dove out of the fight". How many of them said "i followed him down to the deck despite the presence of other hostiles and having bombers to escort"? Not many i think, at least not many that survived.

As you can see this adds a whole new layer of tactical variables and considerations that to me are not limitations, but extra tools for each virtual pilot to carve his own personal flying style. The more things we have to play with, the more we can distinguish ourselves from each other.

Nowadays we see a plane silhouette and say "this is definitely a G6/AS, the others can't get that speed and climb at this altitude band", we distinguish types.
Imagine the fun of seeing a Jug thundering along at 30000ft, contrails and all, at speeds unattainable by most of the server population in a similar plane and saying on voice comms "yes, that must be Mr.Awesome, nobody else on the full switch servers knows how to push a Jug that hard and not break the turbocharger in the process".
We would be able to distinguish individual allies and opponents by their style of flying and fighting, just like we read in the stories about the great aces. Talent with getting the most out of your systems while keeping them in good working order at the same time would be another factor in making an ace, in addition to a talent in maneuvering and shooting.

Of course, being who we are as a community i bet my right arm that the first thing to be said on voice comms would probably not be what i said above, but something closer to the lines of "Whoah, look at that #$&*@# cheater!"


In any case, increasing our workload is an easy way to keep our inflated and unrealistic kill scores in check and to create more indecisive encounters, just like in all the books we've read. Things mentioned by others before, like modelling the effects of a lack of oxygen and a fatigue model (i think the latter one was being discussed at some point), will make it all fall into place nicely.

The end of combat should leave you gasping for air with enough force to draw a couple of pints of beer in a single breath through your oxygen mask, glad that you survived to carefully nurse your stricken bird back home instead of sitting there and thinking "bah, i could have scored a kill if i had pushed it a little longer".
And then the simulator is talking to you "No you couldn't, you would have died the mother of all deaths or at the very least suffered the embarassment of having to dead-stick in the middle of the north sea if you had pushed it a bit more!"

That's what we need, we need the new sim to strike awe and terror into our smug, know-it-all, flight-simming hearts the first time we happen to see combat in SoW, to makes us jump out of the seat and run like a little girl the first time a flak shell bursts close (i still remember the first flak barrage i had to go through in B17 II:The mighty 8th). Frankly, what we really need is to be scared sh*tless with this one
And as long as it's not done by artificially imposed limits but by a move closer to what actually happened in reality, i personally find it a very desirable feature and a downright necessity to be included as an option