Friday 2009-11-20 Screenshots Update discussion thread

[Chivas]

Like I said some have no vision. Its amazing that people expect a work in progress features and bugs to be completed in a few months on projects that take years to develop. The development has no finish line as its planned to be adding new and innovative features over atleast the next 8 to 10 years.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Chivas

Like I said some have no vision. Its amazing that people expect a work in progress features and bugs to be completed in a few months on projects that take years to develop. The development has no finish line as its planned to be adding new and innovative features over atleast the next 8 to 10 years.

I think the major sticking-point is that most people expect lots of aircraft to be in a sim release nowadays, whereas I was delighted that the DCS series decided to go the study-sim route in the hope that it inspires more developers to do the same. I like the sound of a handful of meticulously well-modeled flyables, and a decent few AI aircraft. Seems like you might be the same - rather a few aircraft very well-modeled than many to an average standard.
The only problem is that where you don't have many flyables, multiplayer can get quite predictable.

[Necrobaron]

This really isn't the thread to be debating this but while RoF is not perfect, so many of the negative things the minority say about this upstart sim are either blown out of proportion or simply not true (scripted FM? Oh, please...) and then they get in a huff when people challenge them on it. If you feel the game is lacking, put it away and come back to it in 6 months and see if anything you feel is lacking has been added. It's not like they're charging for the updates and the only thing that it costs you is time. I really don't understand the anger and vitriol some people spew toward this sim. I echo Chivas in the belief that RoF has a lot of potential and has a development team that really seems to want to make it all that it can be. I look forward to seeing what the future holds and hope they succeed.

Now back to SoW...
________
Box vaporizers

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Necrobaron

This really isn't the thread to be debating this.........

then dont !

[Necrobaron]

You first...

Originally Posted by zapatista

then dont !

________
MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARD

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

The only problem is that where you don't have many flyables, multiplayer can get quite predictable.

Perfect definition.

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch:
The only problem is that where you don't have many flyables, multiplayer can get quite predictable.

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

Perfect definition.

I would respectfully suggest that large numbers of flyable aircraft do not contribute much to mission-variety when they can only perform two tasks ie: bomb something or shoot something down. In Il-2 the only variety is where you fly to to do one of these two basic tasks.

I love the Il-2 series, and have done for many years. I think that I have pretty much outgrown it though. There just isn't enough variety in the mission goals to make me want to do it all again for another eight years. I hope SoW will give more thought to the many roles and objectives of a pilot in WW2.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

I´m sorry but that´s an oversimplification, and in any case combat aircraft are made to either shoot something down, bomb something, and transport something. And most of us are mainly interested on the first two roles, otherwise we would be flying a boeing 737 on a civilian simulator.
There is none two bombing missions equal, and none two aerial combat equal, each engagement is diferent, and that´s what make it interesting to do it all over again, specially when you are getting more and more real physics modeled.
Also there is a lot of varitey of targets and combat areas that make everything diferent.
If you are tired of flying missions where you have to bomb something os shoot something, then why bother to buy and fly a combat flight sim?
I´m not against the idea of having maybe rescue mission, or flying a transport aircraft to a pocket zone and drop cargo to the troops while there artillery explosion all around, and come back, but they should be rare exception because you will get tired of them way more quickly than flying combat missions.

Anyway, its just an opinion.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Originally Posted by ECV56_Lancelot

I´m sorry but that´s an oversimplification, and in any case combat aircraft are made to either shoot something down, bomb something, and transport something. And most of us are mainly interested on the first two roles, otherwise we would be flying a boeing 737 on a civilian simulator.
There is none two bombing missions equal, and none two aerial combat equal, each engagement is diferent, and that´s what make it interesting to do it all over again, specially when you are getting more and more real physics modeled.
Also there is a lot of varitey of targets and combat areas that make everything diferent.
If you are tired of flying missions where you have to bomb something os shoot something, then why bother to buy and fly a combat flight sim?
I´m not against the idea of having maybe rescue mission, or flying a transport aircraft to a pocket zone and drop cargo to the troops while there artillery explosion all around, and come back, but they should be rare exception because you will get tired of them way more quickly than flying combat missions.

Anyway, its just an opinion.

Totally agreed. For example, I've been having lots of fun recently in the same sort of mission, most of the time - CAP - in the marvelous "For the honour of French Wings" (or something similar) DGen campaign.

What makes it more or less interesting is the challenge you're facing. Leading six planes into a hot spot against 12, 20, 30 or more fighters, and eventually bombers, can offer a good challenge to you. And during the Battle of Britain, this was more likely to happen.

[AdMan]

personally I like the ghost pilot, as well as in driving sims too, I have enough problems keeping my own hands out of the way of the screen and instruments without virtual-me getting in the way. I also like to be able to see how the control mechanisms in the cockpit move and it helps to make sure controls are calibrated right, for instance looking down and seeing the rudder peddles is a simple way of checking your axis, with a pilot modeled in-cockpit, you'd generally only be able to see his knees

Also it's already been said that pilot movements would take too much time for release because animating all movements for 6DOF devices is complex