![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Clickety...click...
Some people like clickpits...some don't; either way its just one method of interacting with your controls and if you don't like it they can be mapped to the keyboard or assigned to your HOTAS as you see fit... But I started this thread specifically because I wanted to move away from the discussion of the interface...and talk about a desire to see SOW-BOB as a Combat Flight Simulator rather than a combat game with a flight element... Mention Clickpits and you give every L33T arcade hyperlobby dogfighter ace an easy route to dismiss the discussion with the figleaf..."I don't like using a mouse to interact with the controls" There is another thread to discuss clickpits What I wanted to discuss was whether people felt that additions like realistic ground handling...realistic levels of torque...a high workload cockpit environment...realistic landing parameters...proper non-generic complex engine management...fuel management...radios...navigation...gun jams...engine failures etc etc...are things they would like to see in BOB-SOW or whether the preference was more of the same...a "lite" survey sim with lots of flyables and the emphasis firmly on the "fun" side... |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Yes I would love to have all of these included, I enjoy (love) IL-2 but it is lacking in so many areas. I would like to see SOW advance in this direction, more complexity, more like what it was during the war. It would really set it apart from what we have now, and would give to us many new challenges to under take. I can understand why most would not want such a demanding sim, so there lies the main problem for the rest of us. I think that it very possible to have a scaled game with these features in the "expert" selection. I think that would be the only way to have our cake, and keep everyone happy.
__________________
GigaByteBoard...64bit...FX 4300 3.8, G. Skill sniper 1866 32GB, EVGA GTX 660 ti 3gb, Raptor 64mb cache, Planar 120Hz 2ms, CH controls, Tir5 |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
why not have a more complex setting, the answer is simple and it how game like dark shark handle it that they have a key setting that does it for you but what it also let you do is if you like to do it. the present game let you fly at max minimum power for as long as you keep it cool,why not be able to fine turn the engine setting.most early spit and hurrie were ownly able to handle maximum throttle for about 2 minutes and they had a wire on the throttle that they had to brake to get maximum boost.
__________________
![]() http://www.raafsquad.com Intel® I7-3770 3.5Ghz,8G DDR3 ram,Gainward Phantom GeForce GTX680 2048MB,window Ultimate 7 64,trackir 4,CH Fighterstick,Saitek X52 Throttle,Saitek rudder pedals |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'm not strictly opposed to some of the more advanced and specific features except for one thing. WWII sims still thrive by having a decent stable of aircraft available and if Oleg's team were to model say the complexities of manual start up...thats another layer of research that you then must do to make something flyable.
And you can say...sure but lets just do it generally for all of the aircraft and not worry too too much about the nuts and bolts. And I'd be alright with that. But can you see Oleg being alright with that? Maybe not. I think a good mix of the complex aspects in there is good...it makes the experience that much more enjoyable. But the key things are still flying and shooting (or bombing) and I think most of that is a behind the scenes sort of thing that we want right and we want to be able to do that in as many types as realistically possible. Its a matter of weighing the scales and determining what is most valuable Black Shark is a fine example of a study sim and the detail and attention to it are stunning and shocking. But even I am a bit scared of all that ![]()
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com |
![]() |
|
|