![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It is certainly doable, and the common control would need work, but the net code to mention only this would not be more difficult than between several air simulations. You obviously have to accept that if you drive a tank and get destroyed you will not spawn at the controls of an aeroplane...another tank, maybe? JV I believe I still have some brains left, thank you, and I even know how to use them (sometimes) |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
We're not saying it's easy, or that it could be done without "watering down" some elements of each separate title for the sake of balancing out everything.
We're just saying that instead of playng ArmA2 with simplified FM/DM for aircraft, you could be playing something like Arma2 in WWII with better aircraft FM/DM than ArmA2, because it's already done for the starting title. It wouldn't be a pure flight sim, it would be a combined arms game with the only difference that the airplanes are more accurate than the rest of the combined arms games, that's all. Some people wouldn't use it, some would, but the bottom line is that there would be a market for that. There a lot of people who are flight sim gamers and they also play tactical shooters or strategy games. We can't make a single game that has everything with today's technology, but if the engine is broad enough to be able to support different genres then it's easier to fuse elements of each genre into a combined environment. It wouldn't be 100% tactical shooter, it wouldn't be 100% tank sim and it wouldn't be 100% flight sim. It would still be a compromise but a better compromise than the games before it, because it would all be based on the same engine. It's a purely technical point, 3 different games made on the same engine have a better chance of working together than 3 different games made on 3 different engines |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yes true, but as always there will be compromises. Just to give a simple scope when it comes to devtime issues, quality issues, disk-size issues.. it takes about 2 months to build a map in radiant which is the Quake/CallofDuty editor, it takes about the same for a quality map in Unreal 3 engine which works in a similar fashion. Obviously the maps goes through different processes such as lightning, geometry etc. These maps are very very small compared to anything you seem to ask for in a full world, these maps are usually only Blocks of a City yet take months to develop. So building a whole country with the amount of detail that is seen in RO,COD maps would be ludicrous, not to mention the map size.. DCS BlackShark is another good example. It takes Eagle Dynamics years to develop a product with one flyable aircraft, why? Well all focus is on that area and that aircraft and that model/aerodynamics alone, and some people here belive in a ww2 ultimate multi-sim... pfff Quote:
Still the complexity is enormous for a project like this no matter what, in the end your just gonna get a watered down product. The best thing is still if each game focuses on it's own niche be that Infantry & Tanks, Sub-sim or Flight sim, which would ensure engine quality, adaption and development time is spent on the right things. Last edited by zauii; 09-27-2010 at 06:33 AM. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This is obviously purely hypothetical as far as I know... I am tiring of this discussion, I have the feeling to talk with a brick wall! Try the "what could be done" instead of "cannot be done" attitude for a change... JVM |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Jesus.. there is jut no reason for it , why can't you see that instead. Give us a pure inf & tank sim or a pure flight sim instead of something halfwit wannabe project. Tired of dreamers & oleg engine fanboys.. Last edited by zauii; 09-27-2010 at 08:15 AM. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Its quite simple really. The SOW series won't be doing a combined forces sim for atleast 10 years until most of the major air theaters are done. By that time computers will be 10 years more advanced and will easily handle most combined forces battles.
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Just because you can't imagine it there is no reason to do it? Anyway, its the dreamers which make the world a better place, not the nay-sayers.
__________________
Win 7/64 Ult.; Phenom II X6 1100T; ASUS Crosshair IV; 16 GB DDR3/1600 Corsair; ASUS EAH6950/2GB; Logitech G940 & the usual suspects ![]() |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
with the current tech/devtime/moneyissues/ it's just not practical, fun, rewarding or possible. Cut it down and you've something like Arma , a watered down Combined sim on a smaller scale, that's where we are at in possible projects atm. Maybe it's because I work with hardware, software daily, and spend time with games on a regular basis that i can't help but notice your dreams. Dreaming is good, have faith.. but sometimes you can also use a realistic smack and get back down to earth. We will have space travel capabilities one day as well, not tomorrow but right now it remains a dream even if it's physically possible.. Last edited by zauii; 10-01-2010 at 01:05 PM. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's in development is a game engine, not just a game. The more games based on a given engine, the greater the return. Large portions of the codebase from SoW would be useful for such a sim. Fully-featured aircraft AI wouldn't hurt either.
An early demo vid of SoW featured a Halftrack with very realistic looking suspension running over rough ground. There are also other indications that vehicle modelling has been taken into account from an early stage. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
If that's how you see it, posting in this forum must be a bitch for you. LOL
|
![]() |
|
|