|
|
|||||||
| 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
02-12-2010, 04:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. 
|
|
#2
02-12-2010, 04:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
W.
|
|
#3
02-12-2010, 05:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Solution to different realism settings online
As real and detailed as possible. With every part that can affect things being modeled accurately. If there are less aircraft to choose from because of this, that is acceptable. The reason is simple: I love the machines. I want to get to know them better. I don't want to do long winded start-up procedures, I'd rather automate them. But I still want all the systems to be there, and I'll decide which ones I want to mess with. This gives far more immersion than without, and the aircraft, and the experience, becomes more than a pretty ghost with a ghost pilot (without legs, body or arms) in it.
As the level of detail increases, and the task of flying each aircraft is more difficult due to the learning and consideration required, some care should be taken to make the different players be able to still fly together online (since this is stepping into territory that even some more realism minded simmers don't want to do). The solution is simple: Permit automatic handling of the undesired features online. But when score is calculated, flying on lower realism settings gives a penalty to score calculation. A somewhat humorous way to display someone's realism setting is to assign their rank based on that. The most hardcore simmers have the highest rank assigned to them, while the beginners and others who are not ready or willing have lower ranks. The very beginner gets the lowest flying rank of all, which probably accurately shows his overall level as well to the rest, who can also take steps to accomodate him better. Using the P-47 limited manifold pressure example, it could be set in the pilot's realism setting that the throttle cannot be moved past it so the engine won't blow from that, but the pilot gets a noticably felt penalty in scoring and other markers indicating the pilot's limited setting. Other from suffering some scoring and personal prestige, it doesn't affect the enjoyment the pilot gets online at all. Last edited by MikkOwl; 02-12-2010 at 05:11 AM.
|
|
#4
02-12-2010, 05:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 
|
|
#6
02-12-2010, 06:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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).
|
|
#7
02-12-2010, 10:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 
Last edited by Blackdog_kt; 02-12-2010 at 10:55 AM.
|
|
#9
02-12-2010, 01:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
02-13-2010, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
