Civilians?

[ChrisDNT]

The problem is that if you include objects like that there will be a certain percentage of people that will target them out of preference. It would also lead to vartiey of tasteless video's and movie sequences.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Simple, to avoid the legal actions of the PC police, just make the civilian objects not destroyable.

[zauii]

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

The problem is that if you include objects like that there will be a certain percentage of people that will target them out of preference. It would also lead to vartiey of tasteless video's and movie sequences.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Simple, to avoid the legal actions of the PC police, just make the civilian objects not destroyable.

I doubt that there would be any controversy surrounding SoW BoB at all. We're talking a flight sim here which means no gore, which is usually the number one thing people complain about if it involves civilians.

Secondly as long as you're not tasked with killing civilians on purpose i see no problem at all, the PC police has enough to do with games like GTA and even there Jack Thompson and his fellow babies failed. This is the least of issues Oleg has.

Then there are some folks around here that think this Flight sim is gonna be the new multi verse simulator, maybe it's time to wake up...or someone is gonna get disappointed at launch..

[whatnot]

A lot of threads seem to have a very similar lifecycle here these days:

1) A good (well personal preference ofcourse, but atleast feasible) idea is introduced
2) Someone envisions that even further, maybe even to unrealistic heights
3) A horde of unofficial resource controllers and priority polices hit the thread with "BOB is not a universe / farm / car / prison break / ground force / tree / cooking / whatever simulator! Stick to the essentials, resources are limited."
4) The original idea of the thread and the possible brainstorming around the topic slowly fades away

Interesting =)

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by zapatista

exactemundo !

there are several problems with the current empty and dead il2 world we have now, and by the sounds of it oleg recognizes this to and is in the process of addressing both elements

1) for the lifeless empty world of il2, oleg is now adding "life"
- some animals will be added as static objects and have been confirmed (? cows, horses, sheep in fields ?). and some bird groups/flocks will fly around and exist as "objects" you might hit (bird strike)
- i hope this will include some further objects like tractors moving around in fields, some civilian cars/trucks/bicycles on roads (driving a preset trajectory or loop probably). civilian ships on the water to, fishing boats have been seen in screen shots already.
- airfields will have a certain amount of AI ground activity now, probably jeeps and trucks driving around. ambulances and fire crews responding to damaged aircraft landing is likely. refuel and rearming on the ground will get some sort of animated ground crews

2) the other aspect is having to identify ground targets before you engage them, so it isnt the current "shoot anything that moves".
- even over enemy territory there should be civilian traffic, and penalties for hitting them (even some civilian air traffic ?)

about having individuals modeled and function in an animated form, we already had the single cyclist modeled in il2, having more of this type of single human action should be a logical progression for BoB (farmer in field, a pedestrian walking around in town, single mechanic/technician/pilot walking around the airfield, civilian cyclist on road ?). the articulated skeleton oleg developed for pilot and aircrew could be adapted to function in that role i presume (maybe in a lower detail mode, like the ships/vehicles are lower detail then the high polygon aircraft.
- i havnt seen oleg post much about it so far (other then as human animations he is planning on for refueling/rearming etc), but if it is possible in the new engine and he adds a few "active" objects like this, then it can be added on or expanded on later (3e parties being able to develop this further ?)
- modeling groups of individual humans marching/moving will probably be the most difficult from a technical point for programmers and seems unlikely for a while. like troops marching on their way to the front, columns of prisoners, roads clogged with refugees, etc .. and would be the most cpu/gpu hogging.

what i am hoping for in BoB, and there are direct confirmations that oleg is adding several of these elements already, is to get a living breathing active world to have our air war in.

to take this one step further, i am hoping we will also be able to fly some transport and resupply missions in unarmed or even civilian planes (mail, parts, troop transport etc). i initially this might be missions like flying supplies into Stalingrad for the germans, air dropping some allied supplies to the french resistance at night at a specific grid position (with points obtained depending on accuracy), picking up downed pilots from french fields, etc.. other missions might be flying photo reconnaissance over enemy lines etc

hopefully eventually the dynamic campaign engine will be able to "task" missions like that in the same way that combat missions are available for fighters and bombers.

All very good ideas!...that mission that I made was very time consuming to fly because of the few vehicles scattered all over the map. To add life over the entire map may not be possible because of the PC hit. Hundreds of vehicles would be needed to make the map more interesting, and more true to life, but it sure would be cool

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by whatnot

A lot of threads seem to have a very similar lifecycle here these days:

1) A good (well personal preference ofcourse, but atleast feasible) idea is introduced
2) Someone envisions that even further, maybe even to unrealistic heights
3) A horde of unofficial resource controllers and priority polices hit the thread with "BOB is not a universe / farm / car / prison break / ground force / tree / cooking / whatever simulator! Stick to the essentials, resources are limited."
4) The original idea of the thread and the possible brainstorming around the topic slowly fades away

Interesting =)

Something that might have been 'a good idea' earlier in the SoW development cycle but that only gets suggested now is unlikely to be incorporated into the release version unless it needs minimal work, I'd have thought, and many of the suggestions are anything but simple. One of the 'resources' involved - possibly the most significant one - is development time. If 1C:Maddox were to incorporate even only the best 'good ideas' they'd risk never actually releasing anything - it is a darned sight easier to think of an idea than implement it.

You might argue 'include it in a later version' - well yes, but before you do that, at least see what version 1 actually does first.

And pointing out that resources are finite isn't 'policing', it is stating an elementary fact.

[artjunky]

Something that might have been 'a good idea' earlier in the SoW development cycle but that only gets suggested now is unlikely to be incorporated into the release version unless it needs minimal work, I'd have thought, and many of the suggestions are anything but simple. One of the 'resources' involved - possibly the most significant one - is development time. If 1C:Maddox were to incorporate even only the best 'good ideas' they'd risk never actually releasing anything - it is a darned sight easier to think of an idea than implement it.

You might argue 'include it in a later version' - well yes, but before you do that, at least see what version 1 actually does first.

And pointing out that resources are finite isn't 'policing', it is stating an elementary fact.

So you're saying this is a good idea if it was introduced earlier in development?

I suggested this idea about 6-7 years ago. This was WELL before there was even talk of BOB so I think you must agree this is possible.

I also remember when Flight Sims didn't have ANY ground objects and the same sort of people said the SAME sort of things. And now today "it's preposterous to suggest new ideas." And even though Oleg has told us, HIMSELF, that they plan to have civilian buses, that run on a path, people STILL insist that THEY are the arbiters of ALL good ideas.

For example, while some here will "Geek-out" on the climb ratio of the BF-109, I really couldn't care less about it. It's just not something that interests me but I understand that some people have different ideas that DON'T include scenery. What interests me in this sim is flying in a "realistic" environment. To me, civilians bring a level of realism that doesn't CURRENTLY exist.

If it's a bad idea, fine, argue on that merit. However, what people are REALLY saying is "don't make suggestions unless it's a suggestion "I" agree with. If I agree with the idea then they're TOTALLY possible."

Civilians in the sim are totally possible. Most likely, some executive somewhere made the choice and that was that.

As far as the position that people shouldn't use the Civilians in the Sim to make violent videos, well, I wonder if that means Legos should stop making civilian Legos because someone might make a YouTube Video of their Military Legos killing the "civilian" Lego sets.

[AndyJWest]

So you're saying this is a good idea if it was introduced earlier in development?

I wasn't commenting on any particular idea, I was responding to whatnot's last post - the one I quoted. Whah I am actually REALLY saying is that there are finite resources. Nothing more, nothing less. Is this so difficult to understand?

[artjunky]

A lot of threads seem to have a very similar lifecycle here these days:

1) A good (well personal preference ofcourse, but atleast feasible) idea is introduced
2) Someone envisions that even further, maybe even to unrealistic heights
3) A horde of unofficial resource controllers and priority polices hit the thread with "BOB is not a universe / farm / car / prison break / ground force / tree / cooking / whatever simulator! Stick to the essentials, resources are limited."
4) The original idea of the thread and the possible brainstorming around the topic slowly fades away

Interesting =)

I've noticed that same trend.

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

The problem is that if you include objects like that there will be a certain percentage of people that will target them out of preference. It would also lead to vartiey of tasteless video's and movie sequences.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Simple, to avoid the legal actions of the PC police, just make the civilian objects not destroyable.

+1
That was exactly my thought too!

Lots of people, who run for cover if an aircraft appears, and who dive for cover as it approaches, and who survive the ensuing attack.
They should of course stand around talking about their experience after the attack

[artjunky]

Whah I am actually REALLY saying is that there are finite resources.

Yes, and let me continue your idea...'for things that I like.'

I totally understand that. As long as they focus on "your" areas of interest...(reports on how many bullet holes are in your plane, etc, etc...) that's where the resources should go? In another thread you said something to the affect that "This game is supposed to be about flying..." Well, that's an opinion but it's not held by everyone.

Had Oleg not thought it important, he wouldn't have bothered building all those beautiful factories and houses that the arbiters insisted would be cpu hogs.