Friday Update, January 27, 2012

[Talisman]

Blackdog,

Your post regarding what you wanted in a dynamic campaign concerning airfield fuel supplies prompted me to check the ROYAL AIR FORCE WAR MANUAL, AIR PUBLICATION 1301 for the period; part II covers organisation and administration. It covers many things, including policy to be followed for reserves of supplies (inc fuel) and ammunition. Chapter XV states:

"The main reserves of supplies and ammunition are held in depots. Owing to the bulky nature of supplies and the vulnerable nature of ammunition and fuel, only a limited amount of these commodities is held by units. A definite amount of supplies and ammunition is normally in transit between depots and units, and this may be regarded as a further reserve. In principle, in addition to the complete or partly expended day's requirements held at units, there will be two day's full supplies in transit beween the railhead and the unit. This two day's supply may in certain cercumstances be kept on wheels or may be dumped at a convenient place."

From this, it would appear that as one would expect, fuel and other supplies are constantly being delivered by trucks and tankers, not necessarily in convoy. I suspect that the location of a tanker on the road or the location of a "convenient place" will rarely be known in advance by the enemy.

The publication is very interesting and covers many things, including reserves of aircraft in the field and reserves of engines in the field and even such things as pay and claiming marriage allowance. On a sober note, it also covers how graves are to be prepared and marked and states that "the burial of the enemy's dead and the marking of their graves will be carried out in the exactly the same way as for our own troops, a seperate cemetery or plot in a cemetery being used."

As for a dynamic campaign for CloD, I think it should not be made too complicated.

Happy landings,

Talisman

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by klem

I would say this falls under the heading of 'playability'. It is the lack of 'playability' and 'it doesn't feel like the Battle of Britain' that is keeping some of my friends away.

Yes, CoD is playable and I am really enjoying it because there is just enough available to keep my love of virtual 'flying' and 'combat opportunities' engaged but the kind of campaign Blackdog_kt is describing will bring a lot more palyability and 'feel' to what is at present a workable but slightly flat combat simulation.



An interesting angle is that Microsoft haven't left the building but they have redecorated substantially. Read this while you consider why 1C are having so much trouble with CoD ...
http://flyawaysimulation.com/news/43...osoft-studios/
You will see that MS are targetting the 'Gamesters', including their addiction to game pads or playing with a mouse so no 'simmimg' investment would be required. It seems it will have a limited free environment/terrain and planeset all of which can be added to by purchasing and with a gaming style of 'rewards' if they use the Windows Live aspect and there will be 'missions'. I suspect the Flight Models will be very good, probably with 'easy/gamer' settings and I expect they will be successful in selling it as a 'game' that is simple to install and run and it may even draw 'gamers' into our ranks of 'simmers'.

Now many CoD players may not want that 'gaming' style of play but 1C seem to have been positioning themselves for the gaming market with, as Oleg explained, a switch from OpenGL to DirectX for porting across to other platforms. That is, in the opinion of a number of posters here, what threw a large spanner into the works and accounts for 'why doesn't it look like it did in Oleg's early previews?' which were perhaps rendered in OpenGL.

So, MS's primary market looks to be the Gamer not the Flight Simmer, hopefully ensuring a financial success, whilst 1C appear to be doing it the other way around by catering to its established 'simming' market before moving to game patforms.

I meant that Microsoft has left the aircombat sim market. I've been following Microsoft Flight and it does sound interesting, but its of little interest to the combat flight sim market. I suppose if the tools are there it could be combat modded, but that never really happened to any of the previous FS sims.

Part of Oleg Maddox original plan was to have the new IL-2 series more accessible to modders and the flight sim market in general. They hoped to take some of the general aviation market. This still appears to be the case if and when they have time to finish and release the SDK and more community tools, ie, the Map making tool. Atleast it shouldn't be to hard to convert from an aircombat sim to general aviation sim if the game engine is capable of providing the necessary feartures.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I meant that Microsoft has left the aircombat sim market. I've been following Microsoft Flight and it does sound interesting, but its of little interest to the combat flight sim market. I suppose if the tools are there it could be combat modded, but that never really happened to any of the previous FS sims.

Part of Oleg Maddox original plan was to have the new IL-2 series more accessible to modders and the flight sim market in general. They hoped to take some of the general aviation market. This still appears to be the case if and when they have time to finish and release the SDK and more community tools, ie, the Map making tool. Atleast it shouldn't be to hard to convert from an aircombat sim to general aviation sim if the game engine is capable of providing the necessary feartures.

True Chivas. It was more a comment on the way the game market has gone, how MS have moved away from the strictly aviation-geek-build-my-cockpit market to the gamers and how 1C seem to have recognised that market change when they were well down the development road of OpenGL CoD. That could have led them into a large hole and loss of the quality they had forecast using OpenGL. I think it wasn't a case of someone stealing the code but rather the jump to DirectX would explain the sudden drop off between forecast product and what was delivered. But even so, I'm only surmising.


btw I understand there will be no SDK for Flight, it will remain firmly under the control of MS. I wonder.... with it's SDK could CoD/SoW/whatever be stretched across to the civil world of aviation and take over where FSX left off? Now there's a thought.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by klem

True Chivas. It was more a comment on the way the game market has gone, how MS have moved away from the strictly aviation-geek-build-my-cockpit market to the gamers and how 1C seem to have recognised that market change when they were well down the development road of OpenGL CoD. That could have led them into a large hole and loss of the quality they had forecast using OpenGL. I think it wasn't a case of someone stealing the code but rather the jump to DirectX would explain the sudden drop off between forecast product and what was delivered. But even so, I'm only surmising.


btw I understand there will be no SDK for Flight, it will remain firmly under the control of MS. I wonder.... with it's SDK could CoD/SoW/whatever be stretched across to the civil world of aviation and take over where FSX left off? Now there's a thought.

I agree and was disappointed when i heard that the sim was going to use DX, as I prefered the quality of Open GL. I presume DX is a better medium for the market. MS Flight not providing an SDK is good news for the new IL-2 series, to gain market share inroads in the civilian aviation market.

[Codex]

Just to through a spanner in the works, I saw over a SimHQ forums a P-51 was added to Eagle Dynamic's A-10 simulator. Don't know if it's in a patch or a mod, I can't access SimHQ forum from work.

Are they also going to take a stab at the WW2 genre?

[Flanker35M]

S!

The P-51D is part of the Flying Legends series they are doing for DCS. Not affecting the main work with modern jets etc. but a private venture by some members as I read it. Will include other planes too, but no types announced yet I think.

[Thee_oddball]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I agree and was disappointed when i heard that the sim was going to use DX, as I prefered the quality of Open GL. I presume DX is a better medium for the market. MS Flight not providing an SDK is good news for the new IL-2 series, to gain market share inroads in the civilian aviation market.

I really don't understand switching to DX for "porting" ability considering OpenGL IS cross platform (ms,mac,linux)

"As John Carmack said when asked if Rage was a DirectX game, "It’s still OpenGL, although we obviously use a D3D-ish API [on the Xbox 360], and CG on the PS3. It’s interesting how little of the technology cares what API you’re using and what generation of the technology you’re on. You’ve got a small handful of files that care about what API they’re on, and millions of lines of code that are agnostic to the platform that they’re on." If you can hit every platform using OpenGL, why shoot yourself in the foot by relying on DirectX?"

MG would have been better off continuing with the OpenGL for the initial release and then taken there time/testing a switch to DX later IF needed.

S!

[Flanker35M]

S!

And the latest OpenGL is not the same IL-2(original) used I think it goes now around 4.2 or something.

[Codex]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

The P-51D is part of the Flying Legends series they are doing for DCS. Not affecting the main work with modern jets etc. but a private venture by some members as I read it. Will include other planes too, but no types announced yet I think.

Ah so this is an official project of sorts ... interesting

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Thee_oddball

I really don't understand switching to DX for "porting" ability considering OpenGL IS cross platform (ms,mac,linux)

"As John Carmack said when asked if Rage was a DirectX game, "It’s still OpenGL, although we obviously use a D3D-ish API [on the Xbox 360], and CG on the PS3. It’s interesting how little of the technology cares what API you’re using and what generation of the technology you’re on. You’ve got a small handful of files that care about what API they’re on, and millions of lines of code that are agnostic to the platform that they’re on." If you can hit every platform using OpenGL, why shoot yourself in the foot by relying on DirectX?"

MG would have been better off continuing with the OpenGL for the initial release and then taken there time/testing a switch to DX later IF needed.

S!

I wonder if SpeedTree is a DX app only. There were probably many reasons for the switch to DX, and wonder if this could have been one of them.