Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion - Page 56

Chivas · #**551** 10-25-2010, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by major_setback

Of course I know it is part of a series!
But SoW won't develop in the same way as IL2.
We have already been told that third party developers are essential if the game is going to grow like IL2, there is too much to do for the developing team to manage on their own.

If you want a Lysander, or Hudson, Hampdon or flyable Anson you will probably have to rely on third-party amateurs or professionals. The same goes for the rarer aircraft in subsequent SoW titles.

Who knows, if things work out well then the development team could concentrate on the more important programming, and future development (and the checking of flight models etc.), leaving relatively simpler model development and mundane tasks to be undertaken by third party actors.

SOW won't need third party developers to produce other addons like SOW-MED thru SOW-Pacific, but you are correct in saying rarer aircraft and maps will probably be done by third parties. Third parties will definitely make the SOW series better as long as there is strong qualitly control.

Richie · #**552** 10-25-2010, 10:19 PM

Can some one tell me how in the heck did Hannes Trautloft fly his 109?

bf-110 · #**553** 10-25-2010, 10:26 PM

Are there images of the Br.20 cockpit?

BadAim · #**554** 10-25-2010, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richie

Can some one tell me how in the heck did Hannes Trautloft fly his 109?

I suspect with great discomfort! I had the privilege of sitting in a Corsair cockpit and let me tell you at 6' and 200lb it was not something I'd want to do for a couple of hours (I felt much like I'd been packed into a sardine can, and that with the canopy open), and I believe the 109 cockpit was even more cramped. (by contrast the p47 cockpit is like sitting in a Cadillac, all very spacious and comfy)

major_setback · #**555** 10-25-2010, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bf-110

Are there images of the Br.20 cockpit?

ElAurens · #**556** 10-25-2010, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

That's your personal opinion however

Yes sir it is. One shared by a lot of folks I might add.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I've said it before and i'll say it again, my feeling is that some people in the IL2 community don't want to lose their full switch "bragging rights" so they try to dumb down the difficulty level collectively for everyone, in order to be able to say they still fly at what the sim calls 100% difficulty.

]Let's face it, people who fly full switch in IL2 but don't want to learn about intercoolers, carb icing, over-torque or how a real engine works, will not be able to fly full switch in SoW now that systems modelling has been confirmed by Oleg Maddox. A guy who's used to executing 10000ft dives with radiators open, climbing with rads closed and running WEP on low prop pitch will have lots of nasty surprises and broken engines in SoW. That rubs some people the wrong way i guess and instead of choosing a difficulty setting that corresponds well to their lack of willingness to learn new stuff, they want to limit the scope of the sim because they're ashamed to say they don't fly full switch anymore.

And the above is pure conjecture on your part. Where did I say I don't want to learn anything? Blackdog your posts are not usually so full of invective, and frankly guesswork, as this one is.

Just another offliner slagging onliners?

Sure sounds that way to me.

WTE_Galway · #**557** 10-26-2010, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens

And the above is pure conjecture on your part. Where did I say I don't want to learn anything? Blackdog your posts are not usually so full of invective, and frankly guesswork, as this one is.

Just another offliner slagging onliners?

Sure sounds that way to me.

Regardless of the current argument which I have not read, he does generically speaking have a point. However I do not think the issue has anything to do with online versus offline players.

Basically there do seem to be individuals (including a LOT of online game reviewers) opposed to a game having options either graphically or game mechanics wise that they will not or cannot use.

This segment of the gaming community exert continuous pressure to dumb down games and limit the graphics options to what will run on their mid range or older machines. This is the group that has led to most fantasy role play games now consisting of "stand next to the monster and left click madly".

The fact that advanced/high-res options can be turned off is not good enough for this group, they insist the game should run at FULL resolution on their older machine and include no difficulty options they can not be bothered learning. If its a game reviewer you will get a scathing review of how the game ran "far too slow" on their test machine on maximum resolution and was "unnecessarily complex" to learn.

Accusing online full switch players may have been unfair but players/reviewers with that attitude certainly do exist.

BadAim · #**558** 10-26-2010, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

That's your personal opinion however, isn't it now? Because it certainly is not mine, or of the multitude of people around the globe who want it even more complicated than i do and spend 70 dollars on a 747 addd-on.

I don't have FSX, i fly it on a friend's PC quite often though and what most people talk about here are widespread misconceptions. Actually, the way it works is the way Splitter described it. When you need to be scanning the sky outside, you can be scanning the sky outside. The rest is just an accurate simulation of a real pilot's workload, because in a real aircraft you have things to do even when nothing's happening. How is that a bad thing for a combat sim, having stuff to do during the uneventful cruise to the combat area, when it won't even detract from your ability to wage combat when you need to? You see, it's simply about personal preference. Some people like wonder woman view, some like unlimited ammo and some like cockpit view and limited ammo. It's the same thing with this as well and there is a market for it, especially now that MS closed down their FS franchise.

The procedures are the tip of the iceberg. Up until the 30s there were no checklists in the real world either. Why did they invent them? Because planes got complicated and people were crashing left and right when they forgot to turn on switches, that's why. SoW might lack the checklists but since it will have the systems modelled, you are going to need them anyway sooner or later and then you'll have to come up with them on your own. Which is a good thing to be honest, because then people will realize that it's not a big deal at all for 40s designs that lack computerized instruments and complex electronics and they all share the same type of engine operation. Then they'll realize that it gives them stuff to fiddle with during the uneventful parts of the sortie and stuff to exploit in combat and it will all settle down.

The single FSX aircraft i've flown most is a payware Catalina add-on and it's quite a handful initially. However, it don't fly it with a book on my lap. I know the operating limits and fly according to them, because the knowledge is not in memorizing row upon row of numerical data (most of the times instruments are color coded anyway to show the permissible and non-permissible ranges), the real knowledge is knowing how each parameter affects the other. Then i can fiddle with keeping the neeldes in the green and by the time i've done this while settling into cruise after the climb out, i've shaved 5 minutes off the boring trip to the target area by doing something that matters in my aircraft's ability to perform well. This is what's been missing from prop sims, taking care of the ride so to speak. Clickable pits and procedural checklists are a by-product of this complexity, not the main goal. If you want to fly the complex way that's closer to reality you'll need to make a few notes,mental or real, and a way to interface with the switches, that's all.
If not, then by all means go to your options panel and set these options to "off", but let the other people fly the sim the way they think it's fun for them.

I've said it before and i'll say it again, my feeling is that some people in the IL2 community don't want to lose their full switch "bragging rights" so they try to dumb down the difficulty level collectively for everyone, in order to be able to say they still fly at what the sim calls 100% difficulty.

Let's face it, people who fly full switch in IL2 but don't want to learn about intercoolers, carb icing, over-torque or how a real engine works, will not be able to fly full switch in SoW now that systems modelling has been confirmed by Oleg Maddox. A guy who's used to executing 10000ft dives with radiators open, climbing with rads closed and running WEP on low prop pitch will have lots of nasty surprises and broken engines in SoW. That rubs some people the wrong way i guess and instead of choosing a difficulty setting that corresponds well to their lack of willingness to learn new stuff, they want to limit the scope of the sim because they're ashamed to say they don't fly full switch anymore.

Ditto.

I'm with El on this one mate. Oleg already said that complex engine management is going to be way more difficult in SOW, and that all of the intricacies that were common to all of the aircraft will be modeled (including all of those found in actual flight). The individual startup procedures, however will not. I'm of a mind that this is a good compromise, and while I don't assume that no one (a little harsh there El) would find it interesting to have the full boat of procedures, Oleg has done the research to indicate that it's a poor investment for the majority of future buyers.

I'm sorry, but it's a simple fact that we all have to accept some compromises for the commercial success of this sim. I for one am quite happy with Oleg's 'uncompromising' approach to compromises.

I'd actually like to see Oleg make some money on this sim, he's bloody well earned it. (and it's the only way we will get more content too)

Edit: I'm not even sure that everyone here is arguing about the same bloody thing! I don't even think that there is anything to argue about to be honest.

major_setback · #**559** 10-26-2010, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadAim

Edit: I'm not even sure that everyone here is arguing about the same bloody thing! I don't even think that there is anything to argue about to be honest.

We are arguing even when we agree! I imagine it is due to a bit of prenuptial tension, as we wait our new game (oops...sim)

.

bf-110 · #**560** 10-26-2010, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by major_setback

*Drools*

Is it me or those images are low quality?Looks like they are from IL2...