|
|
|
|
#1
04-23-2010, 11:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That was exactly my thought too! Lots of people, who run for cover if an aircraft appears, and who dive for cover as it approaches, and who survive the ensuing attack. They should of course stand around talking about their experience after the attack 
__________________
All CoD screenshots here: http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/ __________  Flying online as Setback. 
|
|
#2
04-23-2010, 11:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I totally understand that. As long as they focus on "your" areas of interest...(reports on how many bullet holes are in your plane, etc, etc...) that's where the resources should go? In another thread you said something to the affect that "This game is supposed to be about flying..." Well, that's an opinion but it's not held by everyone. Had Oleg not thought it important, he wouldn't have bothered building all those beautiful factories and houses that the arbiters insisted would be cpu hogs.
|
|
#3
04-23-2010, 11:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you really don't think "this game is supposed to be about flying" then what do you think it is about?
|
|
#4
04-24-2010, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes, of course it's about "Flying." People differ in what they find interesting about this sim. Some geek out about the climb and turn rate of one plane vs another to others its about "experience" of flying. It's about feeling like you're immersed in a real world when you look out the cockpit at the objects below and feeling like you're somewhat in this world they have created.
It's bewildering to me to think that people are ACTUALLY arguing not to have more complexity to a Sim. How dare people offer suggestions...
|
|
#5
04-24-2010, 04:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
where in the dark recesses of your somber mind do you now start to believe people here have to explain and justify ANYTHING to you about what THEY want to have included in oleg's flightsim project ?
|
|
#6
04-24-2010, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Since neither of us is involved in BoB development, I'd say that my grasp of elementary principles on application design, whhich is evidently greater than yours, is much more relevant than how long I've been posting on this forum. And isn't it rather infantile to use personal abuse when you don't have a better response? ----------------- zapatista is back on ignore....
|
|
#7
04-24-2010, 05:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
/note to lab: no increase in AndyJWest cognitive and reasoning ability despite repeatedly being given all information to solve simple clue's. behavioral pattern and genetic sequence of subject makes it unlikely they will ever contribute to the benefit of others around him Last edited by zapatista; 04-25-2010 at 02:47 AM.
|
|
#8
04-25-2010, 10:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don't want to get involved in what has become a very personal dispute, but thought i'd try to give my perspective on these issues. At the risk of being accused of 'copping out' I can see merit in both your arguments.
Zapatista, I don't think any of us would say that we don't want a 'living, breathing world' to fly over and interact with in SOW, and you are right that Oleg has told us that civilian traffic (buses, cars, etc) is modelled and will be included. This is definitely something that I have little doubt will play a big part in the future of this sim. I wonder though how much will be available and usable in the initial release? This is where I think Andy makes a good point - the word is 'resources' - both in Maddox Games development time AND in PC processing power. We are already aware that Oleg is aiming for a release later this year and that many crucial aspects of the game remain to be tuned and added. This means that of necessity some of the desirable but non-essential extras will be pushed back for inclusion after initial release. The best examples of 'desirable but non-essential' would be things like wildlife in the fields, civilian traffic, animated civilians (farmers, pedestrians, kids playing in the back yard, etc). The issue of PC processing power is key here too. There will not be much point in developing and including all the features of this world if no-one has a powerful enough PC to actually enable and run it. I think given this the most realistic result in BOB will be that some minimal amount of civilian traffic, wildlife, etc will be available for use. I fear though that attempts to make heavy use of it while simultaneously having decent-sized air battles will result in low frame-rates (similar to il2 over cities). However, one thing that I'm sure will be ruled out for the foreseeable future is the possibility of continuing the game on the ground after the pilot has bailed out. The big difficulty here is in developing realistic AI to control all of the vast number of possible interactions between a downed pilot and his environment. It is not enough having cars with open-able doors or pedestrians that follow pre-programmed routes along designated paths. That kind of 'dumb' modelled world is perfectly believable from a plane at 2000 feet, but when you are standing next to the pedestrian or when you attempt to eject a passing motorist from his car - think of all the possible interactions that will have to be modelled to make it seem real....! The only alternative I can see to this (initially) would be having your downed pilot in an unpopulated, dead environment - not very rewarding and not very realistic. Last edited by kendo65; 04-26-2010 at 08:38 AM.
|
|
#9
04-25-2010, 05:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
04-25-2010, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
And perhaps Zapatista should stop assuming that the only people who read this forum are those that post on it. Until 1C:Maddox started giving regular details about SoW:BoB, and Team Daedolos started reporting on IL-2 patches, there was little on the forum worth the bother of commenting on, at least in my opinion.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
