Complex engine management

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

For me, the ideal thing is the way Black Shark does it. There's the ability to do an automatic start, but it's not a magical "press key to start engine" affair: the automatic start goes through all the steps of a manual one, it's just like an invisible co-pilot is doing it. The end result of this is that experienced people can actually do it faster than the PC and this gives an incentive to use the manual mode. Also, it lets people decide on what interface to use, you can map everything to keyboard and HOTAS but you can also click on things.

+1

[ElAurens]

All you A2A fans need to realize that none of their current modeling practices would be accepted by Oleg because they have no damage model, no weapons, and as far as I know, no internal structure.

They are FSX eye candy planes designed for proceedure training, and nothing more.

And yes I have their P40. A nice external and cockpit model to be sure, but really no reason to have it in FSX at all because you cannont use it for what it was designed for.

Mock attacks on the odd Cessna were wholly ungratifying.

[JG4_Helofly]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

All you A2A fans need to realize that none of their current modeling practices would be accepted by Oleg because they have no damage model, no weapons, and as far as I know, no internal structure.

They are FSX eye candy planes designed for proceedure training, and nothing more.

And yes I have their P40. A nice external and cockpit model to be sure, but really no reason to have it in FSX at all because you cannont use it for what it was designed for.

Mock attacks on the odd Cessna were wholly ungratifying.

Why is there no reason to have these warbirds in FSX? IMO planes from this era are more than just dogfight machines. Just having to fly them correctly is an interesting challenge.
If no one would care about the flying non-combat part (95% of a mission) we wouldn't need any improvements in this area.

I mean, it's your choice how you want to fly the simulation, but after all it's still about realism.
Like some people wrote earlier: The most important thing is that complex engines have an impact on the way we fly and fight. To get closer to realistic flying. The rest is a bonus.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

All you A2A fans need to realize that none of their current modeling practices would be accepted by Oleg because they have no damage model, no weapons, and as far as I know, no internal structure.

That's why they could simply make mods for existing aircraft rather than the whole of it.

For example, you get Oleg's stock 109E that includes all those things you mentioned. Then A2A comes along and releases "109E enhanced: mod for IL2:CoD" or something like that, which includes the extra bits: stuff like detailed procedures, the carry-over of wear and tear from one mission to the next and a mechanic's dossier telling us what's wrong with the plane, for people who like to add some extra immersion in their single player campaigns or some extra challenge in their multiplayer habits.

People who want to fly and fight stick with the stock model, people who want the extra something get the mod and install it. And most of all, all of them can play on the same servers with a single installation of the game, because there's a server-enforced list of allowed mods that turns them on and off for you automatically, much like the difficulty settings.

Well, at least that's how i would do it if i wanted to accommodate as many people as possible without dividing the community. There is always a way

[Richard]

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

Of course it would have to be an option. Everyone has different ideas of how a combat flight sim should be programmed. It goes from hardcore simulation fans, to fast action arcade flyers.

About lenghty start up procedures: Warbirds aren't modern jetfighters. There aren't 1000 subsytems to worry about. I looked at the procedures for the spit I. If the engine is already warm (ready for scramble) you only have to use about 6 switches and some prime strokes. So, ready to go in under 60 sec.

Modern Jet fighters aren't hard to start up from scratch either. You must remember that they also need to have a "scramble capability" , so the process of starting up an F22 isn't that complicated at all. (I've heard that it's as simple as basically just pushing "one" button and bring the throttles up to the "idle" position.)

Regarding CEM, I dont mind if it's really complex, as long as its scalable.

[ElAurens]

Please do not mis understand me. In flight complex proceedures are OK by me.

My post about the A2A models was simply to point out that I don't think they can make a model to Oleg's level of detail, and sell it at a price that most, and certainly myself, would pay. It's a long jump from a fancy cockpit and high poly count external model, to a fully realized model like CoD has, with poly counts that actually allow online play as well, someting the FSX folks have never had to worry about.

[JagdNeun]

One of things that just doesn't seem to be modelled is the weight aspect of the amount of fuel onboard. Maybe it's just me, but the difference between 25 percent fuel and 100 percent should be fairly significant and it never really feels right to me. This is going to be fairly important in BOB as the Luftwaffe will be on fumes over England and should have a short lived advantage before they dodge back to France.

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

My post about the A2A models was simply to point out that I don't think they can make a model to Oleg's level of detail, and sell it at a price that most, and certainly myself, would pay. It's a long jump from a fancy cockpit and high poly count external model, to a fully realized model like CoD has, with poly counts that actually allow online play as well, someting the FSX folks have never had to worry about.

Not sure what you meant by a price you or most wouldn't pay, but ppl tend to pay 20-40$ for a high fidelity add-on for FSX. I'm not sure why they (and me) wouldn't pay the same for CoD add-on if you get all the bells and whistles that one gets with Accu-Sim packages for FSX. I would assume that it's possible to build a CoD capable HiFi plane for 30$ for example as the whole title doesn't cost much more than that.

Maybe the nutjobs paying such an amount only play FSX but I would assume they sometimes want to pull the trigger and shred something to pieces instead of just seeing a muzzle flash as they do in FSX. And that's where CoD would come in.

[ElAurens]

The A2A P40 was the only FSX aircraft that I purchased, and frankly it was not worth the money.

Hell, I don't think RoF's $7.62 single seaters are worth it either.

I don't think Oleg will change his business model of offering new aircraft in patches, for free, or in reasonably priced expansions that also include maps, ground objects, new missions, etc...

[Therion_Prime]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

All you A2A fans need to realize that none of their current modeling practices would be accepted by Oleg because they have no damage model, no weapons, and as far as I know, no internal structure.

They are FSX eye candy planes designed for proceedure training, and nothing more.

And yes I have their P40. A nice external and cockpit model to be sure, but really no reason to have it in FSX at all because you cannont use it for what it was designed for.

Mock attacks on the odd Cessna were wholly ungratifying.

I'm not talking about adding an A2A plane into CoD, but enhancing existing CoD planes with their Accusim technology.

And btw. the A2A P40 does NOT have Accusim!