|
|
#11
03-20-2008, 02:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
I have DVD copies of training films for most of the US fighters. I will guarantee that after using a detailed, 100% accurate start-up routine one time, 99.99% of users will never use it again. It's a complete waste of time to model it. In fact I would say it's impossible to do it, as every plane has totally different controls, in different places in the cockpit, and has a procedure unique to itself. No way to transfer that to a keyboard. And don't even start about "clickable" cockpits. That's even more unrealistic, given the limitations of monitors and our very restricted POV.
A flak gun is easy to model by comparison, and a hell of a lot more fun. If cockpit procedures turn you on, go "fly" FSX. If you can stay awake while doing so that is.
__________________
 Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov 
|
|
#12
03-20-2008, 07:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
CEM and start procedure : 10 000 things to configure. Flak gun : Modelize the seat of the gun and the gunsight and that's it.
|
|
#13
03-20-2008, 07:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If i just wanted to zoom around going badda..badda...badda at the bad guys i'd fly Blazing Angels or some such...as it is i play a Combat Flight Simulation and was hoping that the next generation of this game would significantly increase the realism and immersion... These old prop planes were tough birds to fly and often had high pilot workloads...i'd like that reflected in the game! I appreciate that not everyone wants all the bells and whistles modelled...buts its possible to turn them off in the options menu anyway... I am afraid that when i hear about AAA guns being modelled so people can "jump" into them and engage incoming aircraft it makes me wonder what direction things will be taking with BOB-SOW
|
|
#14
03-20-2008, 08:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The AAA simulation is a really handy thing for online-playing, because you have a lot of baseraids depending on the server and if there is just one airbase and the enemy got the upper hand, there is literally nothing you can do than just not spawning or spawning a bomber to use the guns to defend yourself. I doubt this will turn away the focus from the flightsim-part and nobody is forced to use the AAA. But it IS a good OPTION!
|
|
#15
03-21-2008, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I look forward to the first whines about being shot down by friendly human-manned flak at your own airfield
|
|
#16
03-21-2008, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't think they should model everything to the detail that ED is doing with DCS, startup procedures are certainly not needed I thinks... CEM and such that the pilot has to work while airborne should be modeled though I think.
|
|
#17
03-21-2008, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, it will be funnier, because a human guy won't be aware like the AI that can score hits through clouds, etc...
I don't want to be the guy beeing strafed on the ground while aiming at another aircraft.... I just hope you can PK flak gunners now when 108 rounds explose all around. Not like in the actual modelling.
|
|
#18
03-21-2008, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The AI seeing through clouds (period) would be a major failure to improve on IL-2, IMO.
Fixing the all-seeing AI to force LOS restrictions trumps grass on the ground, etc. Also, instead of seeing AAA guns explode when strafed, a more realistic approach would have the crews suppressed or killed. The gun itself? You'd not see it burning like il-2, it would simply not be shooting any more. The argument we usually see for poor ground AI, and poor ground DMs is "this is an aircraft simulator, not a XXXXXX simulator." That argument is only valid to the extent the simulator is aa air to air FIGHTER simulator, and not a bomber simulator. As soon as the player is tasked with attacking ground targets, the ground targets need a certain fidelity in terms of DM. etc, or the whole thing falls apart, IMO. This is clear in Il-2. Bombers/ground attack planes work best in il-2—aside from their poor AI having them make multiple passes til dead/out of ammo—as AI planes that are only in the mission for show. Some reason for you, in a fighter, to fly. "Escort the bombers," or "intercept the bombers." Once you ARE the bomber/CAS plane, you need the targets to be realistic at a certain level. AAA, and many ground targets need to be slightly more realistic than Il-2. Ships, OTOH, need to be grossly more realistic, both in AI capability (ships simply must evade attacks, DM need to be more than X bombs sinks ship in 1 minute). tater
|
|
#19
03-21-2008, 03:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Agree 100% tater.
There is nothing more frustrating than bracketing a flak implacement with 1000lb. bombs and having the thing still shooting back at you. Even if the gun crew was not killed outright, they would be incapacitated to the point of total ineffectiveness. (Burst eardrums, etc...).
__________________
Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov
|
|
#20
03-21-2008, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
True, but the gun would likely start shooting again after a while.
The same is true for open mounts on shipping. Suppression is important. Destroying a gun (like the kind of credit you get on a mission in Il-2) should require the type of damage that would actually make the gun inoperable, not just kill X% of the crew. Shack it with a bomb, gun destroyed. Get close with some big bombs, maybe it's out of action effectively for the rest of your mission as a pilot. Strafe it? Crew hits the slit trenches, some get killed/wounded, and the gun is back in action shooting at you as you egress. tater
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
