Friday 2010-10-08 Dev. update and Discussion

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by jameson

I'm confused about about why anyone would want little red arrows flying around the cockpit or statistics writ large in the corner. Why can't they learn to fly by instruments and learn to shoot properly, and then get situational awareness by looking out of the window? I thought this was going to be a realistic flight simulator....

I don't use them but i see the use for such helper tools. Poor scaling of difficulty is one of the prime reasons we don't get more people into flight sims.

Everyone likes games with explosions, so why aren't more people into flight simming? Well, what many of them don't like is getting smacked across the forehead with a 500 pager that details just the basics for theory of flight, formation tactics, gunnery principles and so on, not to mention that most of the times today the manual doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what's in the simulator. It's not just getting smacked across the head with that 500 pager, back in the day it was at least provided in the packaging, now you have to print part of it yourself from a pdf file and then scour the internet for the missing parts before flogging with the manuals can commence. That's the extra masochism that we long timers appreciate and crave, but it's easy to see it doesn't work any miracles for bringing new faces into the hobby

Just because the arrows are there doesn't make this a not realistic simulator, as long as we have the option to turn them off. Effectively, having a wide array of difficulty options to choose from enables us to have more games in a single title: from ultra realistic (PCs of the time permitting) to ultra arcade.
I don't use arcadish gameplay options but don't diss arcade mode, it's what can bring the new guys in and new guys help pay for our expansions and implementation of realistic features.

If i scoff at something , for me it will be the lack of personal chalenge in arcadish gameplay, not the people who use the options. For them, the challenge is there and when they reach a certain skill level when it's not enough the answer is simple: they either put the game down or up the ante by starting to fly with more realistic settings.
Frankly, as long as a person who flies with all the realistic FM options turned off doesn't try to play know-it-all on the realistic-flying guy about the physics of flight or claim expertise in how things should be, i have no problem whatsoever how he uses his simulator.
In a similar fashion, i don't think people who fly full switch are snobs just because of flying full switch. They have a more varied and accurate experience and as a result their knowledge pertains more to what is closer to reality, if people want to challenge them then they need to do their homework first and that's not snobbish, it's reasonable. Being a snob is telling people to "stfu n00b, i fly full real", it's perfectly ok however to say "i fly full switch and so i think that your opinions only apply to your preffered difficulty settings and not the entire simulator environment".

I think we all have to keep in mind that we didn't arrive at the point we are overnight. The reason i want ultra realism is because i've been using flight sims for 18 years and i've seen pretty much every trick in the book, so i'm looking forward to something a bit more challenging and maybe surprising. However, there are other people who are just starting now. It would be stupid of me to expect them to acculumate in a few weeks the same amount of knowledge i have managed to collect over the past 18 years and then proceed to degrade them when they try to learn gradually. It doesn't do good to anybody behaving this way, neither the new guy who will be discouraged, nor the veteran who is looking for some "fresh meat" or maybe the challenge of training an up-start wingman and finally, not for the genre on the whole which will suffer reduced sales.

The question is simple. We either try to accomodate the up-start guys and ease them into the hobby gradually, or the hobby gradually dies as we get older and start suffering from poor eyesight, hand eye coordination or worse

[Richie]

Originally Posted by robtek

The "problem" is that easy gained success is worth less.
To "beat the system" (or here to master the 60 year old systems of those obsolete planes) is worth the work put into it.
There is also NO border between simulation and game, the switch is fluent, and simulation is definitively not only for training but also for entertainment.

If you sell a sim with a default full real setting and that's all it will not have no selling power. Many of the newbs who buy it will simply not have the patients to learn. After the 100th ground loop and firery crash into the fuel depot they'll give up and take it back to the store and get a Microsoft product.

[Splitter]

To Blackdog and others who have posted similar: Yep.

I want to get my son (17) into SoW as one of those things we can do together. No way is he going to be able to know what I know (since I have been flying flight sims for almost 25 years off and on) or compete with me on settings that are more ""realistic".

But we could "dumb it down" and have some fun together right from the start. More realistic settings could be introduced to him as we go along. Eventually, we may go from playing "his" game to playing "mine"....and he'll probably kick my backside by that time lol.

Other people have friends and family they would like to get into "flight simming". 16 year olds are going to see the product on the shelves and pick it up. The wider the audience, the more copies that will sell. That helps all of us. Why limit the audience?

Just understand that people will be playing different games. Having the option to make it more "arcadish" would not take away from the "simulation" crowd at all.

Look at the Total War series. There are a dozen different way to play that game. Some people automatically resolve all battles. Some people control every little aspect of each battle. Some use diplomacy, others ignore diplomacy. The list and combinations go on. If the developers of those games said "Everyone will use diplomacy and fight all their battles" the over all market (and popularity) of the games would be severely limited.

As long as the "realistic" options are there, I am happy. If people can turn them off, how does that effect me?

Splitter

[Xilon_x]

N.1 we return 60 years behind.
N.2 an airplane of the second world war does not have computer.
N.3 comprises the difference between arcade game and simulation game.
N.4 to read to learn to study handbook in order to fly with an airplane of the second world war.
N.5 to study a takeoff procedure and to study the air navigation through manual maps and instrumentation for navigation type rules or protractor.
N.6 SoW classified whit a simulator not is a game.
elimination any help whit computer interface in the simulator.
No arrows no auto loock enemy no gps map no gps electronic instrumentation no night vision no ammo infinite no fuel infinite.

this is a simulation not a stupid ARCADE for little cildren.

[jameson]

Sow's box should have a label stating that the recommended age is "Over 25". What teenager could resist? It would be an instant 'must have'. Lol!

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by zapatista

brittish pilots that were about to engage enemy bomber formations had adequate time to place their goggles back over their face (eye's) before engaging aircraft they had spotted earlier (or were being vectored to by ground control). as you can see from many photo's and historical video, often they had the goggles over their forehead and not over their faces while patrolling or on the way to a target. it wouldnt take them more then 3 or 5 sec to do so.

many pilots on combat patrol, or before engaging the enemy, did not always have their goggles over their face because it did reduce peripheral vision somewhat (partic early model goggles) and it also slightly blurred the vision forward. so unless at very high altitude (cold !) many pilots/aircrew did not permanently have their goggles placed over their eye's.

i suspect that during takeoff and landings it was also a good idea to put them back over you'r eye's, because of the higher risk of crashes and incidents over that period of the flight

Well, seeing as though I have such a set and have tried this out first hand, I can say that it's not as easy as you say. I have played Il-2, and for fun tested what you just said, and the goggles kick up in my face and block out half my vision. The celluloid lenses don't help, and any surface scratches create shadows that look like far-away planes. With the mark IV goggles, they are easier to put in place, but for me require the strap to be tightened which is a bitch to do with one hand (too much force and you may risk snapping the strap) I can see why they might have done what you have written about, but it's not as easy as you make it sound.


The 'sunglasses' part you mention is a flipshield. If you look at the goggles the pilot is wearing in the update, you may notice they are mark IV's:

Have a look here: http://www.historicflyingclothing.co...=12088&phqu=10



The flipshields were really brittle though, and broke off easily.

Note the picture of Bob Tuck. He is wearing a pair of mark IVa or b goggles, with shortened ear-loops. The helmet is a modified b-type NOT a c-type as you may think it is. It's a very interesting set, as all aspects of his headgear have been personally modified (notice the strap on his d-type oxygen mask)

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by zapatista

nice find, thx for posting

i have never noticed these before, but it looks like it might have been standard issue (not just for the tropics ?)

Yes it was standard issue. The AM used the flipshield on all goggles after the Mark IV series cluminating in the mark VII's. (The goggles inbetween weren't goggles, but spectacles. If you're interested I can supply pictures)

This set, though, is not BoB.
A BoB set would consist of:

B-type helmet
D-type mask w/ type E carbon mic or type 19 mic (Tuck has the latter)
Mark II, III, IIIa, IV or IVa goggles (the latter 2 had flipshields that could be taken off)
I have not included spectacles here, as they were more common in coastal command, but if one was to take the spectacles into account, then the Mark V or Va would be BoB.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Xilon_x

N.1 we return 60 years behind.
N.2 an airplane of the second world war does not have computer.
N.3 comprises the difference between arcade game and simulation game.
N.4 to read to learn to study handbook in order to fly with an airplane of the second world war.
N.5 to study a takeoff procedure and to study the air navigation through manual maps and instrumentation for navigation type rules or protractor.
N.6 SoW classified whit a simulator not is a game.
elimination any help whit computer interface in the simulator.
No arrows no auto loock enemy no gps map no gps electronic instrumentation no night vision no ammo infinite no fuel infinite.

this is a simulation not a stupid ARCADE for little cildren.

Wow, what a stupid thing to say.
I know of at least 8 people who started playing IL-2 because they initially got the console version of BoP. They all started out on Arcade mode and within 8 months they've gone through Arcade>Realistic>Simulator modes on BoP and then gone and downloaded 1946 because they wanted more. These are console gamers crossing over. The more units Oleg sells of this game the better as far as I'm concerned and if that means making it more accessable then so be it.

To call arcade childish is, well, chidish. Why cut off a whole new audience just because you want some wierd 'sim elite'

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by winny

Wow, what a stupid thing to say.
I know of at least 8 people who started playing IL-2 because they initially got the console version of BoP. They all started out on Arcade mode and within 8 months they've gone through Arcade>Realistic>Simulator modes on BoP and then gone and downloaded 1946 because they wanted more. These are console gamers crossing over. The more units Oleg sells of this game the better as far as I'm concerned and if that means making it more accessable then so be it.

To call arcade childish is, well, chidish. Why cut off a whole new audience just because you want some wierd 'sim elite'

+1

Oleg is making this sim for all parties; simmers and acracders alike. Arcade may sound simplistic, but of course there'll be easier options for SoW

[Xilon_x]

the little child not have good pacience for learn a starting procedure of ww2 airplane this is a serius simulator not a ARCADE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM2-P...next=1&index=1