Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
We're not saying it's easy, or that it could be done without "watering down" some elements of each separate title for the sake of balancing out everything.
We're just saying that instead of playng ArmA2 with simplified FM/DM for aircraft, you could be playing something like Arma2 in WWII with better aircraft FM/DM than ArmA2, because it's already done for the starting title.
It wouldn't be a pure flight sim, it would be a combined arms game with the only difference that the airplanes are more accurate than the rest of the combined arms games, that's all.
Some people wouldn't use it, some would, but the bottom line is that there would be a market for that. There a lot of people who are flight sim gamers and they also play tactical shooters or strategy games.
We can't make a single game that has everything with today's technology, but if the engine is broad enough to be able to support different genres then it's easier to fuse elements of each genre into a combined environment.
It wouldn't be 100% tactical shooter, it wouldn't be 100% tank sim and it wouldn't be 100% flight sim. It would still be a compromise but a better compromise than the games before it, because it would all be based on the same engine. It's a purely technical point, 3 different games made on the same engine have a better chance of working together than 3 different games made on 3 different engines 
|
Finally someone with a bit of reason.
Yes true, but as always there will be compromises.
Just to give a simple scope when it comes to devtime issues, quality issues, disk-size issues.. it takes about 2 months to build a map in radiant which is the Quake/CallofDuty editor, it takes about the same for a quality map
in Unreal 3 engine which works in a similar fashion. Obviously the maps goes through different processes such as lightning, geometry etc. These maps are very very small compared to anything you seem to ask for in a full world,
these maps are usually only Blocks of a City yet take months to develop. So building a whole country with the amount of detail that is seen in RO,COD maps would be ludicrous, not to mention the map size..
DCS BlackShark is another good example. It takes Eagle Dynamics years to develop a product with one flyable aircraft, why?
Well all focus is on that area and that aircraft and that model/aerodynamics alone, and some people here belive in a ww2 ultimate multi-sim... pfff
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVM
Please re-read thoroughly my last message...I said two different games, with different scales suited to the nature of each game, but able to communicate positions, status, orders etc. It seemed clear enough so I will not repeat myself...
It is certainly doable, and the common control would need work, but the net code to mention only this would not be more difficult than between several air simulations.
You obviously have to accept that if you drive a tank and get destroyed you will not spawn at the controls of an aeroplane...another tank, maybe?
JV
I believe I still have some brains left, thank you, and I even know how to use them (sometimes) 
|
So you want two different games with interlinked stats, and that the world is viewed differently depending on if your a tanker or pilot?
Still the complexity is enormous for a project like this no matter what, in the end your just gonna get a watered down product.
The best thing is still if each game focuses on it's own niche be that Infantry & Tanks, Sub-sim or Flight sim, which
would ensure engine quality, adaption and development time is spent on the right things.