Future of simulations 2010 discussion

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

The troubling part to me, if I were the developer.

Creating all the array of switching and responding with the application for all the different aircraft that will eventually be in the BOB SOW.

You can get some idea by reviewing all the aircraft in IL2.

Then you have to remember. The full real switching and responses are all a little different between aircraft models of the same basic aircraft. I mean if you really want to get full real.

The payloads (weapons loadouts) vary greatly between aircraft models and that would make loadout choices a nightmare, if Oleg didn't fix the payloads for each aircraft.

Then another biggy. We gotta have the AI doing all the switching as well or it just won't be fair. Oh, and the AI has to be programmed into the application to do switching in the myriad of possible circumstances necessary for full real.

It makes you realize why air combat pilots spend all their time in one aircraft, training on the one aircraft and becoming thoroughly familiar with the one aircraft. Back to training, if you moved from the BF109 to FW190.

I see it like this. I trust Oleg to give us the best of the situation, and hope he isn't cajoled into doing stuff that will just bog us down.

The full real guys with this inordinate twinge to dot all the i's and cross all the t's... well they need to go take "real world" flying lessons to satisfy their penchant for realism. They'd get a good taste of that in any 'full real" aircraft. Especially, if they are in a real plane and fail to switch fuel tanks in time. LOL

I have to agree 100% with you nearmiss.

And one thing the "total full real" proceedures folks keep forgetting is that having all that realism precludes having more than one or two flyable aircraft in the sim. So you end up with a "study sim" like DCS Blackshark or A-10. Technically interesting in concept, but frankly, boring. No online wars, no "Spits vs. 109s" or "War Clouds" type servers, no mutliplayer at all for that matter.

Folks simply are not thinking this through.

OH, and robtek, the manual prop of the 109 E3 should be modeled in SoW, some of the mods already do this. It's all that fiddling with the startup procedure, and large volume of extra programmiing and 3D work that isn't necessary at all.


In flight controls, no issue. 15 to 30 minute startup/warmup regimen? Sorry, not necessary and will adversely limit sales of the sim.

As I said before, Oleg understands that this is a business and sales numbers equal success and further additions to the franchise.

[JAMF]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I have to agree 100% with you nearmiss.

And one thing the "total full real" proceedures folks keep forgetting is that having all that realism precludes having more than one or two flyable aircraft in the sim. So you end up with a "study sim" like DCS Blackshark or A-10. Technically interesting in concept, but frankly, boring. No online wars, no "Spits vs. 109s" or "War Clouds" type servers, no mutliplayer at all for that matter.

Folks simply are not thinking this through.

Please don't assume you know what people think, know or forget.

I'm a proponent of real procedures, but requesting something is not akin to demanding. If I were to order my wishes for a flight sim, real procedures would probably not be in the top 10. And real start-up procedures is following a flow chart and ticking the right boxes.

Start-up procedure would rate higher in my list than clickable cockpit. As far as I can imagine, a start-up procedure would be less complex than creating a clickable cockpit... for one aircraft. If clickable cockpit is a portion of the engine, I can imagine it being complex to implement in the engine, but simple thereafter for each aircraft. Still, I feel a clickable cockpit more of a gimmick than start-up procedures. In simulating a day in a virtual pilot's war, I would use a start-up procedure offline every time, online as often as possible. In the same situation, clickable cockpit maybe twice per aircraft offline and never online.

All the above is IMHO.

Regarding requests and questions being repeated, without a definite "No" or "no development resources" from Mr. Maddox or other team members, one can expect these to be repeated from time to time.

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

And one thing the "total full real" proceedures folks keep forgetting is that having all that realism precludes having more than one or two flyable aircraft in the sim. So you end up with a "study sim" like DCS Blackshark or A-10. Technically interesting in concept, but frankly, boring. No online wars, no "Spits vs. 109s" or "War Clouds" type servers, no mutliplayer at all for that.

Someone should call ED, it's not too late yet to cancel DCS:A-10 now that it's been shown to be boring and has no multiplayer; ElAurens has spoken... I guess all sim developers should follow the Rise of Flight approach and concentrate on Air Quake, seems to work fine for them...

That SimHQ article actually paints a rather grim picture of the current state of flight sim development by most of the remaining few developers who are still working in this area. Somewhat ironic that the main reaction here is for people to bring up their personal wishlist again.

SoW's detail level in systems modeling and startup procedures has long been explained by Oleg anyway, and his decision should be understandable no matter where you stand on this issue. Not sure why some still have to drag out the classic "if you want realism go and fly a real airplane" non-argument in this context.

[Wolf_Rider]

I always wondered what those DCS multiplayer icons were which appeared at install, or the servers listed when I clicked on them.

hmm, oh well, if DCS has no multiplayer, that's that then

[PE_Tigar]

Originally Posted by The Kraken

Someone should call ED, it's not too late yet to cancel DCS:A-10 now that it's been shown to be boring and has no multiplayer; ElAurens has spoken... I guess all sim developers should follow the Rise of Flight approach and concentrate on Air Quake, seems to work fine for them..

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. Now, to put that into perspective, A-10C, itself being a rather non-complicated airplane, if you discount the "bolt-on" systems added in A to C transition, is still many times more complicated that a WWI airplane. For WWII airplanes, though, there is a huge variety, starting with quite primitive machines, like Gladiator for example or Tiger Moth, and ending with F4U and similar.

But the most important thing for me is not accurate modelling of the switches you use once and forget (famously - magnetos in Il-2 - why do I need to switch them off and on, if there's no magneto failure option?) but the accurate modelling of the features really important in real airplanes - which are BTW inexplicably absent in Il-2. A good example for this is the fuel tank selector, or the fuel shutoff. If it's hard to model the fuel consumption from different tanks, than please at least let me shut off the fuel flow to a burning engine. It could've saved my virtual butt many times...

Again, the flight sim, and a combat flight sim in particular, is a very complex mechanism. With that in mind, the all new features we'll see in SOW, especially in environment modelling, will give us a huge immersion boost - be sure . The sims of tomorrow will need to follow the path of simulating the environment more accurately, and the interaction of the aircraft and the environment needs to be improved. For combat flight sims, a persistent, dynamic, war-like environment, with "jump-in - jump-out" features and a living, breathing world around it would be a "holy grail". For example, if we're modelling BoB, we could have a server (or a bunch of them) running the whole thing, according to the historical ORBAT, operations, weather etc., and offer pilots missions dynamically, which they could jump into and out of (with limitations, like no jumping out of the mission in combat, etc.). That wouldn't preclude the existence of some kind of more limited "offline training module" - but the main action would be online. I, for once, would pay a monthly fee for such an experience, and I'd gladly pay for any additional aircraft usable in such an environment.

[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

@ others
if someone was to suggest the opposite here 'burning at the stake' would probably be one of the milder comments in reply

personally i welcome the exchange of opinions however strong. they should however keep a basic degree of respect, something that appears to me to be slipping from some posters. is a degree of toleration too much to ask for?

[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.

[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

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by csThor

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.

+ a lot