Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by major_setback

Well, look at all the add-ons for FSX that do actually feature complex start-up procedures. There is quite a big market for them.

There are over 30 small prop aircraft or WWI and WWII add-ons on the Just Flight site alone (not counting the shockwave products). There are lots of user made add-ons, some of them very professionally done (see PC Pilot's free downloads each month).

The people buying those at the moment might convert to SoW. I think realistic weather and turbulence etc. will win them over. Click-able cockpits too.
I am pretty sure that manufacturers of add-ons are keeping a keen eye on SoW, and that it will take no time at all after the release of third party tools before we see some add-ons, and some of them maybe with more complex start-up procedures.

Personally I enjoy both ways. Complex start-up is a different experience. But won't worry if everything is simplified

All of this is a small niche of market. Several thousands to 20,000 comparison from half million to several millions copies (the last did Il-2).

I have a complete statistics that to decide what is important or not.

Yes it is nice feature to have complete startup procedure, to make manuals for all of the modelled planes... but... :
1. first of all see above about statistics
2. They are doing not from the zero, but based on the other code that was done originally by other team (in your case MS or Rowan's). Trust me to modify the original code is a way more easy than to create from zero by original team
3. Our team is very small but doing real things... we haven't forces for production for each flyable plane this procedure, including manuals. Samples from above - they are doing for single plane - just one (MS) and other - lets say that it isn't close even to Il-2 and can't be in competition to Il-2 in many ways (see amount of sales).

Just because great amount of sales of Il-2 (some time second to MS series, some time higher) we was able to make so cool looking cockpits and aircraft, other things... Because all money from income and even more was going for production (sad it anyway was not enough that to order more good people - programmers and airtist-modellers)

[Ironman69]

Hi Oleg,
I have a quick question for you. How has the joystick input curve changed from 4.xx IL2 to S.O.W. ? Do you still use your old joystick curve from old IL2 for your current build of SoW? If not, what do you use for X, Y, and Z? Finally, do you think that players using linear axis of 100 100 100. ect..for XYZ is advantage over those players using default curve? i.e. 10 20 30 ... ?

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Ironman69

Hi Oleg,
I have a quick question for you. How has the joystick input curve changed from 4.xx IL2 to S.O.W. ? Do you still use your old joystick curve from old IL2 for your current build of SoW? If not, what do you use for X, Y, and Z? Finally, do you think that players using linear axis of 100 100 100. ect..for XYZ is advantage over those players using default curve? i.e. 10 20 30 ... ?

I can't say you how we did now.
However these who use 100,100, 100 - make the problems for yourself, because the control became less realistic.
And advantage? No, in my opinion these have disadvantage using such settings... they need to be way more precise in control and use very small movements of the stick.
For the reaction speed of FM it doesn't matter which settings are used. If they like it - for me it is no problem, but for the behavior modeling by the stick the long size real control column my recommended settings wer optimal. And they were repeating the settins of two real pilots who was beta testers as well and did understand what these settings means.

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

All of this is a small niche of market. Several thousands to 20,000 comparison from half million to several millions copies (the last did Il-2).

I have a complete statistics that to decide what is important or not.

Yes it is nice feature to have complete startup procedure, to make manuals for all of the modelled planes... but... :
1. first of all see above about statistics
2. They are doing not from the zero, but based on the other code that was done originally by other team (in your case MS or Rowan's). Trust me to modify the original code is a way more easy than to create from zero by original team
3. Our team is very small but doing real things... we haven't forces for production for each flyable plane this procedure, including manuals. Samples from above - they are doing for single plane - just one (MS) and other - lets say that it isn't close even to Il-2 and can't be in competition to Il-2 in many ways (see amount of sales).

Just because great amount of sales of Il-2 (some time second to MS series, some time higher) we was able to make so cool looking cockpits and aircraft, other things... Because all money from income and even more was going for production (sad it anyway was not enough that to order more good people - programmers and airtist-modellers)

I understand. My point is that the people now buying FSX could change to SoW. That is NOT a small market, even if the add-market (as you say) is small.

I still think third parties will compete strongly with each other to make the first add-ons for SoW, putting in time and money to try to get a piece of the new market. And when that happens people (old fSX customers) will have to buy SoW to try them out!!!

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by major_setback

I understand. My point is that the people now buying FSX could change to SoW. That is NOT a small market, even if the add-market (as you say) is small.

I still think third parties will compete strongly with each other to make the first add-ons for SoW, putting in time and money to try to get a piece of the new market. And when that happens people (old fSX customers) will have to buy SoW to try them out!!!

Its why we plan third party useful tools for the the makers of add-ons. Currently it useful only for us. Becasue we have no time to finalise them for external use before the sim will be out of gate
I was learning experience of MS with third party and get some info what is possible to give and what is not.
There are a lot of contradictions with this... especially due to online gameplay.
Sometime incorrect politics with add-ons may totally destroy the gameplay online.
The goal is to satisfy both sides:
1. these who want totally fair gameplay online with no cheating
2. these that want other set of objects, aircraft, ships, etc...

Trust me for the combat, not for the civil aircraft sim, it is very complex task to develope the code and to satisfy then all groups of interest.

CFS would be more popular with the investment power of MS, but from the beginning they did a lot of mistakes in this area.

In the other hand we can't anymore make everything ourselves - to get 3D from third party, to rework it and then to progam it, like it was with Il-2 series...it was total oveloading of our team. That all should be done on the third party side with the limits that we defining. And limits will be. For some parts - strong, for some - nothing in limit.

There is impossible to compare the MS FS third party development type with the Combat sim additions of third party. The main difference - Combat term, that defining the rules for inclusion in the game some new content by third parties. Gameplay of MS FS and any of combat flight sim is very different and its a problem to go by MS FS experience as a copy.

[NLS61]

I was drooling over the latest screenshots again and there is this “gun camera” switch.
Currently it’s in the off position, might it be possible to put it on?
Maybe?

Niels

[=BLW=Pablo]

Hello everyone!

I saw this site with the BOB SOW for sale, is something true, or is it a mistake?

http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/1021...n/Product.html

~S~

[Flanker35M]

S!

Pablo: the release date there can be whatever, has changed over the years All we need to know is that SoW is now close to be ready

I find this discussion of the realism and what is modelled quite interesting. There is a camp that basically want the fiery furball action with minimal input from themselves, the mediocre that wants some more than just the same old fruball over a certain place of map and then some that could live with all the complexity of the simulator. The last group being propably smallest. I belong to it.

Why? First of all I do NOT challenge Oleg's vision and what he has said, everything due it's time and 3rd party. That was made clear by Oleg. All is just my own views of the issue. For me realism means going all the way, there are no shortcuts because something is not convenient or allegedly fun. I want to learn, challenge my skills to the maximum while I fly the sim. To see if I am up to the challenge! I want the experience reflect something from over 70 years ago, within the limits of a computer game can generate.

It is not being masochist, it all comes from my work! I maintain, repair, arm, refuel, do checks and inspections, change parts and lead a team to get things done within a schedule. And all this happens by following PROCEDURES to the letter, there are NO shortcuts or "I do not want to do it because it is boring or smears my hands". It is 100% by the book and regulations or nothing, you are responsible for the work you do, the pilot depends on your work.

What this has to do with SoW? Well, even I would be the 0.01% minority that enjoys starting the plane all the way, monitor temperatures and pressures, trim, do checks..I would do it! There are pilot manuals out there fairly easily to get and printed. I miss something during the procedures and the sim might punish me with a bad engine performance or even a malfunction. It happened IRL and and they had no REFLY. The manuals are there to make it safer and to make sure you do not cross the limits.

You have to remember that back in WW2 most pilots got training in plane systems(not in super detail, but something) so they would have an idea how the plane works thus giving them some knowledge what could go wrong and where if they abuse the plane or cut corners. SoW models systems and other things in more detail than anything up to date so I expect it to surpass IL-2's very simplified CEM for example. So realism is the only option for me.

Therefore I find it amusing that many just want the "instant action gratification" and realism to a level that only is favorable for them. Even with 100% realism we lack a lot of the work load a real pilot had. Sure a limitation of being a game and lack of equipment(switches, controllers, you name it) but nevertheless with a sound approach doable to make a challenge.

End of rant. I patiently will wait for SoW and see. When finally can double click on it's icon on my desktop I will know how it is done. But I have faith and trust Oleg's vision.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Pablo: the release date there can be whatever, has changed over the years All we need to know is that SoW is now close to be ready

I find this discussion of the realism and what is modelled quite interesting. There is a camp that basically want the fiery furball action with minimal input from themselves, the mediocre that wants some more than just the same old fruball over a certain place of map and then some that could live with all the complexity of the simulator. The last group being propably smallest. I belong to it.

Why? First of all I do NOT challenge Oleg's vision and what he has said, everything due it's time and 3rd party. That was made clear by Oleg. All is just my own views of the issue. For me realism means going all the way, there are no shortcuts because something is not convenient or allegedly fun. I want to learn, challenge my skills to the maximum while I fly the sim. To see if I am up to the challenge! I want the experience reflect something from over 70 years ago, within the limits of a computer game can generate.

It is not being masochist, it all comes from my work! I maintain, repair, arm, refuel, do checks and inspections, change parts and lead a team to get things done within a schedule. And all this happens by following PROCEDURES to the letter, there are NO shortcuts or "I do not want to do it because it is boring or smears my hands". It is 100% by the book and regulations or nothing, you are responsible for the work you do, the pilot depends on your work.

What this has to do with SoW? Well, even I would be the 0.01% minority that enjoys starting the plane all the way, monitor temperatures and pressures, trim, do checks..I would do it! There are pilot manuals out there fairly easily to get and printed. I miss something during the procedures and the sim might punish me with a bad engine performance or even a malfunction. It happened IRL and and they had no REFLY. The manuals are there to make it safer and to make sure you do not cross the limits.

You have to remember that back in WW2 most pilots got training in plane systems(not in super detail, but something) so they would have an idea how the plane works thus giving them some knowledge what could go wrong and where if they abuse the plane or cut corners. SoW models systems and other things in more detail than anything up to date so I expect it to surpass IL-2's very simplified CEM for example. So realism is the only option for me.

Therefore I find it amusing that many just want the "instant action gratification" and realism to a level that only is favorable for them. Even with 100% realism we lack a lot of the work load a real pilot had. Sure a limitation of being a game and lack of equipment(switches, controllers, you name it) but nevertheless with a sound approach doable to make a challenge.

End of rant. I patiently will wait for SoW and see. When finally can double click on it's icon on my desktop I will know how it is done. But I have faith and trust Oleg's vision.

Couldn't agree mor Flanker35M, my thoughts exactly. Well said!

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Pablo: the release date there can be whatever, has changed over the years All we need to know is that SoW is now close to be ready

I find this discussion of the realism and what is modelled quite interesting. There is a camp that basically want the fiery furball action with minimal input from themselves, the mediocre that wants some more than just the same old fruball over a certain place of map and then some that could live with all the complexity of the simulator. The last group being propably smallest. I belong to it.

Why? First of all I do NOT challenge Oleg's vision and what he has said, everything due it's time and 3rd party. That was made clear by Oleg. All is just my own views of the issue. For me realism means going all the way, there are no shortcuts because something is not convenient or allegedly fun. I want to learn, challenge my skills to the maximum while I fly the sim. To see if I am up to the challenge! I want the experience reflect something from over 70 years ago, within the limits of a computer game can generate.

It is not being masochist, it all comes from my work! I maintain, repair, arm, refuel, do checks and inspections, change parts and lead a team to get things done within a schedule. And all this happens by following PROCEDURES to the letter, there are NO shortcuts or "I do not want to do it because it is boring or smears my hands". It is 100% by the book and regulations or nothing, you are responsible for the work you do, the pilot depends on your work.

What this has to do with SoW? Well, even I would be the 0.01% minority that enjoys starting the plane all the way, monitor temperatures and pressures, trim, do checks..I would do it! There are pilot manuals out there fairly easily to get and printed. I miss something during the procedures and the sim might punish me with a bad engine performance or even a malfunction. It happened IRL and and they had no REFLY. The manuals are there to make it safer and to make sure you do not cross the limits.

You have to remember that back in WW2 most pilots got training in plane systems(not in super detail, but something) so they would have an idea how the plane works thus giving them some knowledge what could go wrong and where if they abuse the plane or cut corners. SoW models systems and other things in more detail than anything up to date so I expect it to surpass IL-2's very simplified CEM for example. So realism is the only option for me.

Therefore I find it amusing that many just want the "instant action gratification" and realism to a level that only is favorable for them. Even with 100% realism we lack a lot of the work load a real pilot had. Sure a limitation of being a game and lack of equipment(switches, controllers, you name it) but nevertheless with a sound approach doable to make a challenge.

End of rant. I patiently will wait for SoW and see. When finally can double click on it's icon on my desktop I will know how it is done. But I have faith and trust Oleg's vision.

My thoughts exactly! I love the idea of replicating the combat flight experience as close to the real thing as possible and keeping your aircraft's systems tuned and at optimal performance levels was a big part of it.

Having to spend time and effort getting to the scene also makes it so much more frustrating getting shot and therefore makes sure you are doing everything possible not to get shot! And this was a pretty important part of flying one would think.

And having this as optional would make sure that you're not getting too frustrated if you've tried to pass your mission 10 times without success you can start using 'one-click-start - takeoff - autopilot - accelerate time' methods. And it would also enable the 'quick action' possibilities for the the more arcade minded who want to get in to the action asap and chase the nearest bogeys in a furball without too much focus on 'doing it right'.

Flanker, I'm from Finland too.. maybe I'll fly your wing one day once SOW gets out and we can fly sorties as they're ment to be flown