Future of simulations 2010 discussion

[PE_Tigar]

Originally Posted by bolox

PE Tigar, i'd agree with most of your post- right up until you want to 'limit' offline play.
are you seriously suggesting a game developer should ignore a large proportion of an already smallish potential customer base? doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me

No, not suggesting that at all - I just think that, by nature of things, a server-client environment would be able to drive that "virtual BoB" with many more airplanes etc., and compared to that the offline experience would be more limited. I.e. - you have a set limit of airplanes you can put into an MDS mission in 4.10, if you had a server farm you could theoretically put in many more planes, a bigger map, more ground objects etc.

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by PE_Tigar

I guess you're not 100% right on RoF being "air quake" - I find its FM, DM and "systems" modelling quite accurate - for primitive machines they model, that is.

I have no doubt that the flight and systems modeling is great in RoF, but from a gameplay point of view there's a clear focus on furball action with little regard for a historically consistent planeset, non-flyable planes, campaigns and AI. I realize for a lot of people that's just fine and exactly what they're looking for, which is fair enough. I'm only puzzled when people assume that's the only way to play a flight sim. I also have little interest in complex startup procedures and fully agree with Oleg's decision to skip those for SoW. But I won't ridicule people who'd enjoy them with remarks like "play FSX" or "fly a real plane LOL".

(and yes I know how RoF is gradually closing the gaps in the planeset, has a flyable bomber now with another around the corner, and may even get a revamped single player campaign soon...)

[whatnot]

What I find odd in discussions of this nature where more realism is requested is that you often get two types of responses:

1) It's boring to perform these additional tasks and and you should go fly a real plane if you want to spend your time performing these boring tasks.

2) If you do the requested X level of additional realism related features it's an impossible road to take as you don't have enough development resources or CPU power to model the aerodynamic effect of a mosquito hitting the windscreen

I want to comment these typical responses in general with no pun intended:

1) If people go through the trouble of registering to a forum to request it apparently there is interest towards it. If you're not interested on that particular area why the hell do you need to take a dump on other people's areas of interest?
We don't need a police force filtering the good ideas from the bad ones, let the developers do that and keep the forum as a platform for sharing the hopes and dreams of future sim genre.

2) Modeling X does not mean that you need to model the movement and causality of every atom on the planet. In this particular example where procedures are requested it's not rocket science. It's been done several times and to save Maddox resources the request has been to leave a possibility for that to be leveraged by third party. It's doable and it has been done. Several times.
This is not away from your point-and-shoot experience or whatever you desire, it's just a door left open to pour a lot more dollars into the sim from audiences titles like IL-2 might not attract.

I think Sutts summarized a lot of my thoughts pretty well in his post a few pages back. Already a lot positive comments have already been posted by different individuals in this thread alone on possibility to extend plane control realism. This micro survey alone proves that a market exists and that's the market in my experience that is willing to invest 20x the cost of the initial title to expand it further.

This is not an 'either this or that' discussion. It's about reaching the widest possible market by looking into the features from a broader scope than what IL-2 comes from. It doesn't have to be the initial SOW release, I'd just like to see this being a part of the business model in the long run.

And what comes to the categorization of the market segments: atleast I'm a sample that crosses a lot of the suggested categories. I want to click my buttons, follow the appropriate engine management to get the most out of my crate, fly on-line and score a lot of kills.

[Wolf_Rider]

Reaching the widest possible market also means taking into account a wide range of PC hardware capability and playing style... but no matter what, there will be those who insist that modelling the bug splat is necessary and required and there will be those (if bug splat is modelled) who will insist the bug doesn't go splat in the correct manner. Meanwhile, for a reasonable amount of fliers out there, the splat will bog their PC hardware down.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Reaching the widest possible market also means taking into account a wide range of PC hardware capability and playing style... but no matter what, there will be those who insist that modelling the bug splat is necessary and required and there will be those (if bug splat is modelled) who will insist the bug doesn't go splat in the correct manner. Meanwhile, for a reasonable amount of fliers out there, the splat will bog their PC hardware down.

Not just the actual PC hardware is a limiting factor. Look at the controller options. You have to buy a joystick and doing so is a real mixed bag. A lot of the entry joysticks are either crap with horrible deadzones or non-ambidextrous, leaving a small segment to be even more limited in their option. Plus if you want to do well you need a rudder. Some joysticks have twist rudder, but if you want a rudder that doesn't suck you need to drop another $100 on a set of pedals. If you go the hotas setup you have to drop $100-500 on something that has a good chance of being a lemon.

The Saitek X-52's have crappy spikes in a lot of their units, and G940 still has the reversal bug in the rudder and throttle plus some units overhead and shut down the force feedback. Even the warthog, the holy grail of Hotas setups have issues with DOA units and spiking in them.

It's hard enough for those of us who like flight sims to stay in the game, think about someone just getting into them!

[LukeFF]

Oleg: Really, not always. I have said many times that it would be good to sell separately joystick and throttles for flight sims. Users should be able to select by the price, features, and quality by themselves. Also, a user would like to build customizable system of peripheral controls — and get just what he needs.

This is exactly why I like CH Products. I get exactly the controllers I want to buy.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

Not just the actual PC hardware is a limiting factor. Look at the controller options. You have to buy a joystick and doing so is a real mixed bag. A lot of the entry joysticks are either crap with horrible deadzones or non-ambidextrous, leaving a small segment to be even more limited in their option. Plus if you want to do well you need a rudder. Some joysticks have twist rudder, but if you want a rudder that doesn't suck you need to drop another $100 on a set of pedals. If you go the hotas setup you have to drop $100-500 on something that has a good chance of being a lemon.

The Saitek X-52's have crappy spikes in a lot of their units, and G940 still has the reversal bug in the rudder and throttle plus some units overhead and shut down the force feedback. Even the warthog, the holy grail of Hotas setups have issues with DOA units and spiking in them.

It's hard enough for those of us who like flight sims to stay in the game, think about someone just getting into them!

exactly

and then there are all the different flavours of PC Hardware itself, from CPU's to mobo's to soundcards, not to mention the plethora of VGA's.

I find the G940 just has issues - period... and made a mistake in purchasing it.

[Flanker35M]

S!

I bought IL-2 for 40€ but have spent a lot over 1000€on my rig to get the most out of this game. And will do the same with SoW. Hobbies cost and where you put your money is a matter of priorities. I rather buy a new controller for simming rather than shell it out on a night in town and puke the next day And there are Difficulty Settings for a reason

[csThor]

Originally Posted by PE_Tigar

No, not suggesting that at all - I just think that, by nature of things, a server-client environment would be able to drive that "virtual BoB" with many more airplanes etc., and compared to that the offline experience would be more limited. I.e. - you have a set limit of airplanes you can put into an MDS mission in 4.10, if you had a server farm you could theoretically put in many more planes, a bigger map, more ground objects etc.

Given the playing habits and the general dweebery of +70% of the online crowd the online area and the "human factor" is grossly overrated. Most cannot think beyond their limited horizon of dogfight this, dogfight that, sportive contest and other such cr@p (planeset whines anyone?) which is why you'll never see an accurate depiction of WW2 aerial warfare online. Simply put human entertainment and a realistic simulation of aerial warfare do not go along on a grand scale. This is limited to offline campaigns and perhaps handpicked tight sub-communities.

Limiting offline is the surest and straightest way to send a sim to the gray plains of insignificance. Offline players, despite not being well represented on message boards, are still the largest customer group. Alienate them and you'll have shot yourself in the foot.

[Mango]

Originally Posted by csThor

Limiting offline is the surest and straightest way to send a sim to the gray plains of insignificance. Offline players, despite not being well represented on message boards, are still the largest customer group. Alienate them and you'll have shot yourself in the foot.

+1