|
|
#21
10-15-2008, 06:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
#22
10-15-2008, 11:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That wouldn't be so bad, but I'd be o.k. with it if there were a count-down timer that started as soon as you touched down in your chute to make your way back to friendly territory or if it only allowed that function (i.e. pistol gunnery) while you were in your chute. That would prevent some bored slacker from just flying over to an enemy airbase and running around in "first person mode" picking guys off at their airbase with his luger or .45 and snickering at his ability to pwn until he gets kicked from the server...and under the right circumstances, it WILL happen. That's just one example of why I do NOT want FPS capability in this FLIGHT sim.
There are inherent differences between shooters and flight sims whether you want to see the light or not.
|
|
#23
10-15-2008, 12:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I really did not see difference between shooting with turret machine gun and shooting with the pilot's personal gun. The difference is may be in this that the machine gun is mounted to the aircraft. We all know that German fighter pilots were equipped with automatic pistol 9mm. In case of forced landing on enemy territory, they used it.
|
|
#24
10-15-2008, 12:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
True...this is a "flight-combat-sim". People who want to play this game do so because they enjoy the mechanics of "flight-combat". Aerial combat maneuvers, formation flying, ground attack...the history, the aeroplanes, the pilots. Oleg (& crew) has/have done a wonderful job of making a computer sim that comes close to modeling the various dynamics of the air combat experience. At this point, I don't see the value of adding this particular feature to the air experience...the amount of time needed to add this one small (almost never happened) feature to the game play is a waist of time & effort. UNLESS you want to go down the FPS "road" (which is a bad idea)... How often is someone going to roll back the canopy of their P-47, FW190, Blenheim, or ME109 (oh wait, that one could be difficult) and start taking pot shots at a P-40 or Messerschmidt that's 150 meters away & traveling at 200+ mph with a 30 cal ? How many "parachute vultures" do you think are going to be deterred by a 9mm popping away when they can just fly out of the handguns range ? (My six 50's beat your one 9..."by-by"). Quote:
Last edited by proton45; 10-15-2008 at 12:57 PM.
|
|
#26
10-15-2008, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Now back to our flight sim. If you somehowe combine land/sea/air into one sim you combine markets. So you actually benefit from synergies. You actually market one game (reduce expenses) that adresses the need of a larger audience (more sales). I'm no software industry expert, but my little finger tels me that one of the largest expense in bringing a game to the market is well.... marketing. Reducing these expenses means higher return for the creator/publisher. And this is only one thing (i.e.: your are also using one game engine, etc.). Everybody wins. And I would dare to say more us (flight simmers) than FPS addics. I saw that Oleg, when he hinted, to the possibility of eventullay making down the road a AIR/LAND/SEA pay for play version of SOW knows of the potential and benefit of such a game. And I for one consider it to be a great way of insuring the continuity of flight sims. Keeping thing as they always where is just a great way of hitting the wall and go bankrupt... just look at GM and Chrysler that are maybe at most a year from filling for bankrupcy protection (at the rate GM is burning cash they are out of cash in less then 24 months)... But what do I knows I just advise businesses for a living. BTW sry for the English I'm French... Last edited by Zoom2136; 10-15-2008 at 01:51 PM.
|
|
#27
10-15-2008, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#28
10-15-2008, 09:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Do a little reading (and stop getting history from movies) combat pilots would carry hand guns in the event that their plane was going down in a flaming wreck. The idea was that if a pilot was trapped and facing a painful drawn out death they could end it quick... also, before pilots had parachutes they would shoot themselves instead of burn-up...sometimes the handgun was also used as a means of escape (but not the way you think), if the pilot had trouble with the canopy he could use it to break the perspex.. p.s. I'll make a little side bet...Oleg will never develop "SoW" into a FPS... 
Last edited by proton45; 10-16-2008 at 11:03 AM.
|
|
#29
10-16-2008, 11:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
P.S. What do you have against FPS? Honestly talking, they are very advanced in out times. <------BG-09------<<< Last edited by BG-09; 10-16-2008 at 11:40 AM.
|
|
#30
10-16-2008, 11:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
We don't really need guns for a realistic "FPM" escape feature... in the real world (I hate that term_LOL), by the time you where shooting the game was over. Most successful escapes through enemy territory where done by avoiding the enemy. If your shooting to stay alive your either dead or a prisoner (already). IMO I could almost live with a "run-only" "first-person-mode" (with realistic "human" damage modeling and enemy "line-of-sight"). Their would be several advantages to a feature like this...movie makers would like it, FP escape scenarios, and just plain old exploring (Oleg & crew are making a beautiful world for us to die in...It might be nice to explore the maps before blowing it to pieces_LOL)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
