Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

That's your personal opinion however, isn't it now? Because it certainly is not mine, or of the multitude of people around the globe who want it even more complicated than i do and spend 70 dollars on a 747 addd-on.

I don't have FSX, i fly it on a friend's PC quite often though and what most people talk about here are widespread misconceptions. Actually, the way it works is the way Splitter described it. When you need to be scanning the sky outside, you can be scanning the sky outside. The rest is just an accurate simulation of a real pilot's workload, because in a real aircraft you have things to do even when nothing's happening. How is that a bad thing for a combat sim, having stuff to do during the uneventful cruise to the combat area, when it won't even detract from your ability to wage combat when you need to? You see, it's simply about personal preference. Some people like wonder woman view, some like unlimited ammo and some like cockpit view and limited ammo. It's the same thing with this as well and there is a market for it, especially now that MS closed down their FS franchise.

The procedures are the tip of the iceberg. Up until the 30s there were no checklists in the real world either. Why did they invent them? Because planes got complicated and people were crashing left and right when they forgot to turn on switches, that's why. SoW might lack the checklists but since it will have the systems modelled, you are going to need them anyway sooner or later and then you'll have to come up with them on your own. Which is a good thing to be honest, because then people will realize that it's not a big deal at all for 40s designs that lack computerized instruments and complex electronics and they all share the same type of engine operation. Then they'll realize that it gives them stuff to fiddle with during the uneventful parts of the sortie and stuff to exploit in combat and it will all settle down.

The single FSX aircraft i've flown most is a payware Catalina add-on and it's quite a handful initially. However, it don't fly it with a book on my lap. I know the operating limits and fly according to them, because the knowledge is not in memorizing row upon row of numerical data (most of the times instruments are color coded anyway to show the permissible and non-permissible ranges), the real knowledge is knowing how each parameter affects the other. Then i can fiddle with keeping the neeldes in the green and by the time i've done this while settling into cruise after the climb out, i've shaved 5 minutes off the boring trip to the target area by doing something that matters in my aircraft's ability to perform well. This is what's been missing from prop sims, taking care of the ride so to speak. Clickable pits and procedural checklists are a by-product of this complexity, not the main goal. If you want to fly the complex way that's closer to reality you'll need to make a few notes,mental or real, and a way to interface with the switches, that's all.
If not, then by all means go to your options panel and set these options to "off", but let the other people fly the sim the way they think it's fun for them.

I've said it before and i'll say it again, my feeling is that some people in the IL2 community don't want to lose their full switch "bragging rights" so they try to dumb down the difficulty level collectively for everyone, in order to be able to say they still fly at what the sim calls 100% difficulty.

Let's face it, people who fly full switch in IL2 but don't want to learn about intercoolers, carb icing, over-torque or how a real engine works, will not be able to fly full switch in SoW now that systems modelling has been confirmed by Oleg Maddox. A guy who's used to executing 10000ft dives with radiators open, climbing with rads closed and running WEP on low prop pitch will have lots of nasty surprises and broken engines in SoW. That rubs some people the wrong way i guess and instead of choosing a difficulty setting that corresponds well to their lack of willingness to learn new stuff, they want to limit the scope of the sim because they're ashamed to say they don't fly full switch anymore.






Ditto.

I'm with El on this one mate. Oleg already said that complex engine management is going to be way more difficult in SOW, and that all of the intricacies that were common to all of the aircraft will be modeled (including all of those found in actual flight). The individual startup procedures, however will not. I'm of a mind that this is a good compromise, and while I don't assume that no one (a little harsh there El) would find it interesting to have the full boat of procedures, Oleg has done the research to indicate that it's a poor investment for the majority of future buyers.

I'm sorry, but it's a simple fact that we all have to accept some compromises for the commercial success of this sim. I for one am quite happy with Oleg's 'uncompromising' approach to compromises.

I'd actually like to see Oleg make some money on this sim, he's bloody well earned it. (and it's the only way we will get more content too)

Edit: I'm not even sure that everyone here is arguing about the same bloody thing! I don't even think that there is anything to argue about to be honest.

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by BadAim

Edit: I'm not even sure that everyone here is arguing about the same bloody thing! I don't even think that there is anything to argue about to be honest.

We are arguing even when we agree! I imagine it is due to a bit of prenuptial tension, as we wait our new game (oops...sim) .

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by BadAim

and that all of the intricacies that were common to all of the aircraft will be modeled (including all of those found in actual flight).

I do hope that includes simple system on/off functions such as for the electrical (battery) and fuel system. These were common to almost all aircraft and could be used in-flight (before crash landing to avoid fire) as well as being part of the startup sequence. Little things like seeing your ammeter spring to life really add to immersion IMO.

Anyhow, I agree it's too late to change anything, we'll get what we get and what we will get will be a heck of a lot better than what we have now. No argument there.

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by BadAim

I'm sorry, but it's a simple fact that we all have to accept some compromises for the commercial success of this sim. I for one am quite happy with Oleg's 'uncompromising' approach to compromises.

Commercial success of this sim I think is the number one priority for everyone here.
One thing that is a bit contradicting with my logic however is the fact that Oleg is already doing a lot of features that are not necessarily adding too many customers.

Having the diameter and shape of the carburator air intake modelled (I recall Oleg mentioned about this) won't change volumes much. However I love that level of detail and I assume everyone else here does too and it's what it's all about: a great simming / gaming experience with level of depth to last a decade. But I don't see startup procedures etc being too far fetched concidering the level of fidelity already being modelled.

I start to sound like a broken record but intend to raise no bad blood nor question Oleg's choises. The decision is made I'm happy either way and hope to get the extra bits from 3rd party one day. And getting SOW installed will be the highnote of my gaming career so far whether it has complex, simple or no startup procedures at all!