Oleg, SOW engine abuse by pilot?

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by AKA_Tenn

ok so this debate about realism vs. playability... should actually be more on the lines of... a counter-strike type first person shooter (but in the sky), or a simulator.

trying to be as close to real life as u can get while sitting in your computer chair... the debate weather its redundant or quicker or useless doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is... super high manifold pressure killing ur engine in a few seconds is realistic, so it should happen... if u don't follow procedures and dont managing your engine properly you should be punished for it... if those kinds of things don't happen, it can't really be considered a simulation nowadays, can it?

so for all you "one button does all" dudes, sorry i couldn't find a flying game like that, but i found one thats "two buttons do all"

right here

I too like to have as much realism as possible, but there's no need to think ill of the preferred gameplay experience of others.

In fact the best scenario would be super high realism for the old timers, but with a lot of difficulty options for the people who want it easy, so that we can bring more people into flight sims. Better yet would be the option of not just turning off realistic features, but have help tools that assist the user in managing them. This way the realistic features are still working, but at the same time the software itself shows you how to do it and helps you learn it. It's a bit better than going from no torque and simplified engine management straight to full FM options and realistic systems modelling, as it smoothens out the learning curve.

It's not in our best interest as a community and a hobby to pose as the "smart guys" who know it all and drive away any potential newcomers. What's in our best interest is to have our gaming software be highly realistic and challenging, but also highly accessible and scalable, so that newcomers can come in, enjoy themselves and learn as they go in stages, without quitting because of a steep learning curve and frustration.

I have a lot of friends who are interested in WWII and i'm trying to tide them over to flight sims. You know what they tell me? "It's too hard to just jump right in, plus it takes lots of time to learn and make the experience worthwhile". If these people could be assured a smoother learning curve, i alone could help make an extra 3-4 sales for SoW and possibly for future flight sims, and that's people who have never ever used a flight sim in their lives.

So yes, let's have it as ultra-realistic as it gets, but also have enough help options that will help us win over new blood

[Azimech]

Exactly.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I have a lot of friends who are interested in WWII and i'm trying to tide them over to flight sims. You know what they tell me? "It's too hard to just jump right in, plus it takes lots of time to learn and make the experience worthwhile". If these people could be assured a smoother learning curve, i alone could help make an extra 3-4 sales for SoW and possibly for future flight sims, and that's people who have never ever used a flight sim in their lives.

No, they just dont really really care, and you cant make them learn.
Being interested in WW2 and being willing to learn how to fly are two different things.
We are nerds, and no no, we cannot pull 'em over to the dark side.
It's a fact, live with it.

This passion arises with the age of ~10 - if not, it never will.

[Blackdog_kt]

Well, Swiss, thanks for giving me such a valuable and accomodating insight into the minds of my real-life friends, whom by chance you don't happen to know. Are you a psychic? What are the lottery numbers?
Maybe i didn't properly explain what i mean, so here it goes again.

For the people i refer to, it mostly boils down to "that's so cool, but i don't have the time and inclination to study all this between work and other real life commitments". If difficulty options scale well enough to make them feel that they are playing a game instead of studying flight theory when they come home tired from work, they'll have a much better chance of picking it up. Cheers

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

For the people i refer to, it mostly boils down to "that's so cool, but i don't have the time and inclination to study all this between work and other real life commitments". If difficulty options scale well enough to make them feel that they are playing a game instead of studying flight theory when they come home tired from work, they'll have a much better chance of picking it up. Cheers

Sure, but IMO the vast majority of such people won't stick around to pick up the harder bits beyond the easiest mode.

[BadAim]

I think Blackdog's (and several others) point is that it doesn't really matter how each individual prefers to play the game, so long as they buy it and enjoy it enough to tell their friends about it thereby subsidizing the development of the game that we want to play.

I'm all for as much realism as possible, but I just don't see how making the difficulty scalable hurts anyone, anyone at all.

Or am I responding to the wrong argument? These things can get quite hard to follow.

[Blackdog_kt]

That's exactly my point BadAim. I don't care if my friends never fly full real. As long they enjoy the game enough to buy it and fly it at their preferred difficulty settings, they help fund the next expansions for us

[WTE_Galway]

It is not as simple as "let everyone select the difficulty they want".


1.
There is a portion of the market that wants to be able to boast about "beating a game on the hardest settings" without actually putting too much effort in. It's considerations like that that which has led to the "dumbing down" of quite a few games.

Examples include Gothic III where a very well thought out combat system in Gothic II and Gothic I was replaced with US style "stand next to the monster and mouse click as fast as possible", the more recent versions of the Warhammer tabletop game franchise and of course the classic dumbing down of D&D in the recent 4th edition.


2.
The issue arises of how many people will use a feature versus the work involved implementing it.

If for example the work involved in realistically simulating the effect tire pressures have on takeoff means losing an entire extra aircraft and only a handful of users will ever check those tire pressures before takeoff, the feature is best left off, at least initially.




PERSONALLY I am interested in as much "realism" and "immersion" as possible and for example in Il2_1946 fly with cockpit on and LHS speed-bar and RHS HUD turned off However there is a limit to what can be implemented in a mass marketed game.

[Blackdog_kt]

Good points Galway. In fact, i suspect there's quite a portion inside the sim community who also subscribe to the mentality you laid out in your first point.

A few months back some of us started asking if it's possible to implement certain features, some of which have been confirmed by the check six interview as being entirely possible under the new engine.

What happened was that an interfacing issue (clickable cockpits being unrealistic and clunky) was used as a red herring to throw the discussion off from the important issue...that some people who are content to fly full switch in IL2 and wish to keep flying that way, would lose the full switch "boasting rights" if SoW came with more options to tick that would make it more difficult.

In fact, the debate only died down completely when the check six interview was aired and such features were described as being already in the engine.

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

What happened was that an interfacing issue (clickable cockpits being unrealistic and clunky) was used as a red herring to throw the discussion off from the important issue...that some people who are content to fly full switch in IL2 and wish to keep flying that way, would lose the full switch "boasting rights" if SoW came with more options to tick that would make it more difficult.

hehehe... boasting rights for full switch. That's a funny thought!