Friday 2010-08-06 Dev. update and Discussions

[LukeFF]

Where in the world was aircraft staring procedures a topic of this week's development update?

[engarde]

Originally Posted by LukeFF

Where in the world was aircraft staring procedures a topic of this week's development update?

it wasn't.

i thought it might offset the detail fanatics who look for anything, however minor, to criticise.

as in, no computers, it takes time to start an old warbird?

[engarde]

sadly, i thought i might be lauded for posting real world, irrefutable, actual information that might contribute to the genre.

how naive of me.

[Abbeville-Boy]

i think you just want attention so hello

[engarde]

Originally Posted by Abbeville-Boy

i think you just want attention so hello

no.

i dont.

anything worthwhile to add?

[Abbeville-Boy]

ok i really like the idea of chimney smoking and i will enjoy making a winter time mission

[engarde]

Originally Posted by Abbeville-Boy

ok i really like the idea of chimney smoking and i will enjoy making a winter time mission

haaaa hahaha smoke that chimney abbe boy.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by engarde

and, by second visit, you're telling me pilots dont pre-flight aircraft before every flight?

they just run up and fly away as per the movies?

without EVER... let me say that again... EVER... checking their mounts?

no.

just no.

Well, that's why the "detail fanatics" want things like realistic systems management in their simulators, because the real pilots had to do it as well. If one doesn't want to, then one should feel free to drop their realism settings a bit, instead of trying to enforce their preference for a lack of increased fidelity in modelling an aircraft, which by the way is the reason we buy all that expensive hardware every few months

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. You like padlock? Fly with padlock. You like spending 30 seconds on each mission warming up your engine? Spend those seconds looking at your oil pressure and temp dials. No harm done.

The difference is, that if these things are included in a simulator then it's up to the player to decide if he's going to use them or not. But if there's no padlock feature coded into the sim, you simply can't choose wether to use one or not.

Ideally, SoW at 70% difficulty settings should be equal to IL-2 at 100% difficulty settings. Why? Because PCs grow stronger, sims evolve thanks to that processing power and developers can model the aircraft in much higher detail. Just the improved FM/DM and systems modelled could easily cover that much of a difference in difficulty.

However, i'm starting to get the idea that people are obsessed with keeping the title of full switch virtual pilot because they like thinking to themselves that they could operate a real aircraft: "man, i'm flying full switch, it's full real". No, it's not.

Full switch means nothing if it's not what happens in the real bird, it just means "the maximum amount of complexity our engine and your PC can take without making it all a slideshow".

Case in point, i can fly the classic Dynamix sims of the 90s like Aces of the Pacific all day long at full switch and claim whatever i want, but in the end it would be the equivalent of flying IL2 with most of the FM realism options turned off. It's just flying the sim at its maximum complexity, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that aces of the pacific at full complexity is still light years away from IL2 at maybe 20% difficulty, not to mention the way a real aircraft truly operates. In that sense, SoW should surpass IL-2 as well, funds and development time permitting of course.

Long story short, let's tick the appropriate boxes in the realism options when SoW is released and fly at our preferred settings, instead of trying to drop the difficulty level for everyone, even those who would want it increased, just so we can cling to our precious title of pretend-pilots.

Choice people, choice...it's a good thing

[robtek]

1+ Blackdog_kt

and preflighting is the job of the ground-crew who lend THEIR plane to the pilot!
I have a ppl and the preflight of a C152 or Pa28 takes about 5 to 10 min., without crew.

[tourmaline]

Originally Posted by Vylsain

It's so easy to caricature... Almost everybody agrees that the height is fine. We all see outside, some trees 3 or 4 floors high. The proof is that screens posted by Tbag are fine for all despite trees are tall too.

But look at the differences :

The difference is not the height but the complexity. Everybody knows that some trees are 20m high but they do not look like little shrubs with tripled volume and do not have leafs with the size of an Opel Blitz...

By the way, the trees in the second screen are really good looking.

I think people are focusing on the scenery because that's what we see the first on screens and also because most of us know that Oleg and his team will provide us an amazing sim on every other sides...
The few problems IL2 had where related to sceney like "flashy green" and scale problems.

Personnaly, I focus my attention on trees and land textures because everything else is almost perfect to me. It should be taken as a compliment... If the most demanding simmers are complaining about trees, it means that Oleg is on the right way, isn't it ?

There might be a reason why these trees look a bit simpler...First of all, there's way much more trees and buildings in the SOW screen, this means a lot more stress for cpu and videocard!

How detailed do you want it to be?! Do you want to fly at least 30-60fps or do you want to watch your plane moving every second or so...

Sacrifices have to be made for playabilty, for a flightsim trees are just a bonus. And this looks more then good enough.

I cannot imagine that everyone wants to buy a new super computer to be able to run just a flightsim. Please return to the real world.

Planes' look and feel and behavier are the most important thing for a flightsim...

If you guys are just bickering about some trees, then this might be the evidence that everything else is allready on a high level...