Future of simulations 2010 discussion

[Skoshi Tiger]

A bit of a discussion on flight simulators with comments from Oleg.

http://www.simhq.com/_commentary/all_106a.html

I personally like Olegs answer to this question.

"20mm: What do you think today's simulation fans want (besides everything). Is it mostly gameplay, eye-candy, a dynamic campaign, a solid multiplayer, better-and-better AI, or some new element?

Oleg: I would say everything anyway! And when we give more and more, making 3D more and more close to a realistic image they never stop their complaints. Comments like, “This screw is not on the right place or this curl of the cloud doesn’t look good”. At the same time a few users would like too much realistic control of aircraft using all the devices like in real life. These are in minority. So there always should be the right calculated balance between realism and usability for a casual player, or we will be not able to sell the new product well and cover our expenses.

"

Cheers!

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

A bit of a discussion on flight simulators with comments from Oleg.

http://www.simhq.com/_commentary/all_106a.html

I personally like Olegs answer to this question.

"20mm: What do you think today's simulation fans want (besides everything). Is it mostly gameplay, eye-candy, a dynamic campaign, a solid multiplayer, better-and-better AI, or some new element?

Oleg: I would say everything anyway! And when we give more and more, making 3D more and more close to a realistic image they never stop their complaints. Comments like, “This screw is not on the right place or this curl of the cloud doesn’t look good”. At the same time a few users would like too much realistic control of aircraft using all the devices like in real life. These are in minority. So there always should be the right calculated balance between realism and usability for a casual player, or we will be not able to sell the new product well and cover our expenses.

"

Cheers!

Oleg - you got it wrong, the hex screw goes there.
These dashboard screws need a flathead screwdriver, but every odd numberd screw multiplied by the golden ratio is a philips.

Oleg - this is a sheep farming area, not cows.
Oleg - please change the shape of the control stick, it looks very odd where it is...
Ol....

[addman]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

A bit of a discussion on flight simulators with comments from Oleg.

http://www.simhq.com/_commentary/all_106a.html

I personally like Olegs answer to this question.

"20mm: What do you think today's simulation fans want (besides everything). Is it mostly gameplay, eye-candy, a dynamic campaign, a solid multiplayer, better-and-better AI, or some new element?

Oleg: I would say everything anyway! And when we give more and more, making 3D more and more close to a realistic image they never stop their complaints. Comments like, “This screw is not on the right place or this curl of the cloud doesn’t look good”. At the same time a few users would like too much realistic control of aircraft using all the devices like in real life. These are in minority. So there always should be the right calculated balance between realism and usability for a casual player, or we will be not able to sell the new product well and cover our expenses.

"

Cheers!

LOL! was gonna quote the same text! Thank God the fanatics are in minority or this game would probably never see the light of day

[addman]

it's a little frustrating as we grew up with the idea that combat simulations were fun and entertaining, they had gameplay. The last in-depth simulations with some level of measurable gameplay was falcon 4.0 and enemy engaged: Comanche vs. Hokum. After that they became technical exercises rather than games, project staff didn't seem to include "game designers", just "editors". That's where it all went wrong. Mathematicians would call it a "feedback" loop. The press and community focus was on the nuts and bolts, pressing for more realism which shapes product. So the cycle continued while costs spiraled with complexity introduced by evolving hardware.

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000

[Foo'bar]

20mm: Broadband connections have significantly changed the methods of distribution. Whereas previously, it was a case of going to a retail store or buying from an online vendor, today it seems more and more developers are going the digital distribution route. Is the retail store becoming a thing of the past for simulation purchasers?

Oleg: Yes.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Foo'bar

20mm: Broadband connections have significantly changed the methods of distribution. Whereas previously, it was a case of going to a retail store or buying from an online vendor, today it seems more and more developers are going the digital distribution route. Is the retail store becoming a thing of the past for simulation purchasers?

Oleg: Yes.

The last two Sims I've bought have been Rise of flight which I bought off ebay and the DCS:A10 Open Beta which was bought online.

For me ROF and the buying of aircraft has been smooth and seamless. I would buy off them again. My experience with the DCS product has been very similar.

One of the problems I have where I live that it takes a two or so for items to get into shops compared with the otherside of the country. If I was given the oportunity top buy BoB staight from the distributors on the day it was released, I probably would. It is extremely fustrating reading forums like this with people saying how wonderful a sim is and not being able to get it!

Cheers

[tagTaken2]

1946 was the last sim I purchased in-store.

Download from distributor- or better they give you a torrent link, heaps faster- and burn exe to disk for backup. Save money, save waiting. It's not like you're missing out on a fancy manual these days.

Having said that, I still remember walking out of the store with the big boxes of Il-2 and Forgotten Battles, packaged together for some reason, and how carefully I opened them up.

And it's a bit sad going into a games store now and noting that the PC section is two shelves wide, everything else is console.

Once PC games started to require online activation, you may as well download the whole thing.

[JG53Harti]

20mm: How do you view open source availability to your product coding?

Oleg: This is usually killing the multiplayer. Once IL-2 was hacked then multiplayer became unfair. So if we are speaking about simulations, then the part of multiplayer and changes of settings should not be with open source code. Other part in some way may be open. But there is a lot of contradictions that again may damage the gameplay with a lot of versions.

thats true +1

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Oleg: I would say everything anyway! And when we give more and more, making 3D more and more close to a realistic image they never stop their complaints. Comments like, “This screw is not on the right place or this curl of the cloud doesn’t look good”. At the same time a few users would like too much realistic control of aircraft using all the devices like in real life. These are in minority. So there always should be the right calculated balance between realism and usability for a casual player, or we will be not able to sell the new product well and cover our expenses

One thing I don't understand is that why should realism of say flight controls and usability / gameplay be mutually exclusive. Just tone them difficulty settings up and down. I do agree that for example realistic startup procedure or very complex engine management is not everyone. A casual gamer which creates majority of the gaming audience wants his point & shoot experience with quick rewards, but the simming crowd should not be underestimated either. They're (we're I guess =) willing to invest hundreds of dollars into their hobby and I as one love the details and the idea that the flight procedures and experience is as close to the real thing as possible without actually sitting in a warbird. (Ok, you can downsize oil temp rising etc =)

The closer SOW gets to realism the more customers it will extract from the dying(?) FSX scene. It's a resource question ofcourse, dev team can't do everything and get the game released in 2011 but underestimating the potential of customers who are ready to pay ~50$ for a single high-quality plane like A2A's accu sim packages can be a mistake too. But I hope Oleg has created an engine that's open and complex enough for 3rd parties to create whatever level of detail they see fit.

I'm looking forwards going through a thinck manual, monitoring million cauges and clicking billion buttons on my bomber flight in SOW!

[nearmiss]

The one thing computers do well - redundant tasks

Why would anyone want to go through complex engine start procedures everytime they fired up the SOW? Why would anyone want all the inflight complex features, because if full real is addressed it wouldn't be as nice as people perceive. By that I mean weather, wind, fuel, magnetos, etc. and dozens of other management items would be required.

Maybe for fun I might like a complex start procedure like you can do in Falcon 4.0. Then again, most everyone doing Falcon puts the startup on a programmable switch and pushes 1 button to go through maze of startup procedures<> LOL

If Oleg wants to give us all the complexity of real aviation I say go for it.
However, just give me switches to turn it off or tune it down. Many times when only I have 30 minutes or so to enjoy the sim. No way I'm going to sit at the keyboard and flip switches, wait for responses and flip more switches. Sorry, but that would lose my interest faster than watching wet paint dry.