Future of simulations 2010 discussion

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

However, just give me switches to turn it off or tune it down. Many times when only I have 30 minutes or so to enjoy the sim. No way I'm going to sit at the keyboard and flip switches, wait for responses and flip more switches. Sorry, but that would lose my interest faster than watching wet paint dry.

If you don't want it you tune it down. You want your 30 minutes fix, go for it. But as already seen even on this forum you're not representing the entire simming genre. There is a fan base and a genre of it's own of aviation enthusiasts who like to keep it real and to create maximum potential for the engine that should not be overlooked even if that's not for your casual gaming needs. This genre hasn't had it's fix of state-of-the-art WW2 air war experience for the switch clickers and I'm smelling potential.

Atleast I'd throw money at at.. where do I pay?

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by whatnot

If you don't want it you tune it down. You want your 30 minutes fix, go for it. But as already seen even on this forum you're not representing the entire simming genre. There is a fan base and a genre of it's own of aviation enthusiasts who like to keep it real and to create maximum potential for the engine that should not be overlooked even if that's not for your casual gaming needs. This genre hasn't had it's fix of state-of-the-art WW2 air war experience for the switch clickers and I'm smelling potential.

Atleast I'd throw money at at.. where do I pay?

The troubling part to me, if I were the developer.

Creating all the array of switching and responding with the application for all the different aircraft that will eventually be in the BOB SOW.

You can get some idea by reviewing all the aircraft in IL2.

Then you have to remember. The full real switching and responses are all a little different between aircraft models of the same basic aircraft. I mean if you really want to get full real.

The payloads (weapons loadouts) vary greatly between aircraft models and that would make loadout choices a nightmare, if Oleg didn't fix the payloads for each aircraft.

Then another biggy. We gotta have the AI doing all the switching as well or it just won't be fair. Oh, and the AI has to be programmed into the application to do switching in the myriad of possible circumstances necessary for full real.

It makes you realize why air combat pilots spend all their time in one aircraft, training on the one aircraft and becoming thoroughly familiar with the one aircraft. Back to training, if you moved from the BF109 to FW190.

I see it like this. I trust Oleg to give us the best of the situation, and hope he isn't cajoled into doing stuff that will just bog us down.

The full real guys with this inordinate twinge to dot all the i's and cross all the t's... well they need to go take "real world" flying lessons to satisfy their penchant for realism. They'd get a good taste of that in any 'full real" aircraft. Especially, if they are in a real plane and fail to switch fuel tanks in time. LOL

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

The troubling part to me, if I were the developer.

Well they somehow managed to create quite a few very detailed 3rd party planes in FSX for example. And that isn't really a marvel of software engineering when it comes to the game engine far as I've understood.

Originally Posted by nearmiss

The full real guys with this inordinate twinge to dot all the i's and cross all the t's... well they need to go take "real world" flying lessons to satisfy their penchant for realism. They'd get a good taste of that in any 'full real" aircraft. Especially, if they are in a real plane and fail to switch fuel tanks in time. LOL

The problem is that the authorities will give me hard time when I start strafing and bombing the airfields of my beloved neighbours. Also getting my missus 'ok' a loan for a Spitfire will be tough!

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

The troubling part to me, if I were the developer.

Creating all the array of switching and responding with the application for all the different aircraft that will eventually be in the BOB SOW.

You can get some idea by reviewing all the aircraft in IL2.

Then you have to remember. The full real switching and responses are all a little different between aircraft models of the same basic aircraft. I mean if you really want to get full real.

The payloads (weapons loadouts) vary greatly between aircraft models and that would make loadout choices a nightmare, if Oleg didn't fix the payloads for each aircraft.

Then another biggy. We gotta have the AI doing all the switching as well or it just won't be fair. Oh, and the AI has to be programmed into the application to do switching in the myriad of possible circumstances necessary for full real.

It makes you realize why air combat pilots spend all their time in one aircraft, training on the one aircraft and becoming thoroughly familiar with the one aircraft. Back to training, if you moved from the BF109 to FW190.

I see it like this. I trust Oleg to give us the best of the situation, and hope he isn't cajoled into doing stuff that will just bog us down.

The full real guys with this inordinate twinge to dot all the i's and cross all the t's... well they need to go take "real world" flying lessons to satisfy their penchant for realism. They'd get a good taste of that in any 'full real" aircraft. Especially, if they are in a real plane and fail to switch fuel tanks in time. LOL

I have to agree 100% with you nearmiss.

And one thing the "total full real" proceedures folks keep forgetting is that having all that realism precludes having more than one or two flyable aircraft in the sim. So you end up with a "study sim" like DCS Blackshark or A-10. Technically interesting in concept, but frankly, boring. No online wars, no "Spits vs. 109s" or "War Clouds" type servers, no mutliplayer at all for that matter.

Folks simply are not thinking this through.

OH, and robtek, the manual prop of the 109 E3 should be modeled in SoW, some of the mods already do this. It's all that fiddling with the startup procedure, and large volume of extra programmiing and 3D work that isn't necessary at all.


In flight controls, no issue. 15 to 30 minute startup/warmup regimen? Sorry, not necessary and will adversely limit sales of the sim.

As I said before, Oleg understands that this is a business and sales numbers equal success and further additions to the franchise.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

The one thing computers do well - redundant tasks
Why would anyone want to go through complex engine start procedures everytime they fired up the SOW? Why would anyone want all the inflight complex features, because if full real is addressed it wouldn't be as nice as people perceive. By that I mean weather, wind, fuel, magnetos, etc. and dozens of other management items would be required.

Nearmiss,

I can see you represent the views of the casual simmer and that's fine. But there are also plenty of folk who would see what you've just described as the perfect sim. I for one would love to have a dozen things to worry about while navigating to my target. This is what brings you closer to the experiences of the wartime pilots. It would be great to feel the tension of a fuel tank switch over water for example...perhaps forget to use the booster pump while switching tanks and experience the horror of fuel starvation as a result of an airlock.

Little things like this would create a link between the success of a mission and how well you know your aircraft and its systems...which was always the way it was in reality.

I don't agree with the argument that all these extra system functions would have to be programmed in for the AI to use. Oleg has already given us the key systems which affect performance and competitive advantage. Almost all the other sub systems would add to immersion for the players that wanted them but would have no bearing on the outcome of a dogfight....things like fuel priming, pressurising the brake system, switching on the generator/electrical system. These are all little features that make you feel like you're operating the real aircraft, something that many of us would love to do but will never get the opportunity.

It may seem odd to some but I have no interest whatsoever in flying a real light aircraft. I'm interested in combat in WWII aircraft just like the rest of you and will never experience the reality of that, however much money I have.

I see someone was breaking the flight sim community into groups but it isn't as simple as that. Just because I enjoy the systems side of things doesn't mean I can be pushed off with a copy of FSX or DCS. I love WWII aviation - that includes everything from the aircraft, the environment, the missions and of course the combat. Flying in the sterile FSX environment has no interest for me at all. All I want to do is experience the real problems the real pilots faced back then, warts and all (including all the boring bits which are still an important part of the experience IMO).

If I don't want to wait for the engine to warm up then I can always use time compression.

I'm aware of Oleg's opinions and know he's a switched on guy who for good reasons won't throw precious resources into the complex study type sims I crave. All I ask is that he creates a means for 3rd parties to provide the extras later on, that's all. Hardcore simmers may be a smaller group but I can guarantee they are willing to throw a hell of a lot more money at a developer than the more casual simmer. Cockpits aren't my thing but you can imagine how much is spent in this area alone.

Anyhow, just wanted to get across the views of someone who gets enjoyment from both procedures and combat, a concept that many seem to find hard to grasp for some reason.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Sutts

I don't agree with the argument that all these extra system functions would have to be programmed in for the AI to use.

To expand on that comment (and not comment on the comment)... this is where "perfectionism" starts going to an extreme. It would be nice to have AI like that, it would also be nice to have 3D guages complete with paralax. Screws/ bolts/ rivets working themselves loose would be nice along with the effect that would have on airflow, etc. Nice also would be to have rain that falls as drops over the entire (or large section) of the map, blowing upwards and curling around as it does. Individual leaves on trees waving in the breeze with branches swaying and it would be really really nice to have the computing horsepower to run it all.

Originally Posted by Sutts

I see someone was breaking the flight sim community into groups but it isn't as simple as that.

Actually, it is as simple as that. How else is the target audience identified?

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Actually, it is as simple as that. How else is the target audience identified?

What I was trying to say is that not everyone fits neatly into these categories. I'd like to be able to fly an aircraft using original pilot notes but I equally enjoy combat and the mission itself. I often hear the argument that if you think procedures are important then you should be flying a civilian sim or a real light aircraft. That argument is just plain silly.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by whatnot

One thing I don't understand is that why should realism of say flight controls and usability / gameplay be mutually exclusive. Just tone them difficulty settings up and down. I do agree that for example realistic startup procedure or very complex engine management is not everyone. A casual gamer which creates majority of the gaming audience wants his point & shoot experience with quick rewards, but the simming crowd should not be underestimated either. They're (we're I guess =) willing to invest hundreds of dollars into their hobby and I as one love the details and the idea that the flight procedures and experience is as close to the real thing as possible without actually sitting in a warbird. (Ok, you can downsize oil temp rising etc =)

The closer SOW gets to realism the more customers it will extract from the dying(?) FSX scene. It's a resource question ofcourse, dev team can't do everything and get the game released in 2011 but underestimating the potential of customers who are ready to pay ~50$ for a single high-quality plane like A2A's accu sim packages can be a mistake too. But I hope Oleg has created an engine that's open and complex enough for 3rd parties to create whatever level of detail they see fit.

I'm looking forwards going through a thinck manual, monitoring million cauges and clicking billion buttons on my bomber flight in SOW!

Ha ha ha "thick manual"? The last time I saw a printed manual was with EAW which is a wee bit in the past.......if we are lucky we will get a pdf - file, but a manual I highly doubt.

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by Wutz

Ha ha ha "thick manual"? The last time I saw a printed manual was with EAW which is a wee bit in the past.......if we are lucky we will get a pdf - file, but a manual I highly doubt.

Boeing B377 sums up a good ~200 pages with it's three pdf manuals. DCS manuals ain't too bad either..

I'll print them out and collect to a binder at the cost of my employer and enjoy the thickness =)

[robtek]

The option for the full workload, especially for fighters, is a must imho.
The amount of the workload during a dogfight, or even before, can be decisive for the outcome.
Imagine a 109e3 with manual proppitch, needing constant adjustments to get optimum power, vs a hurri with constant speed prop. One error by the emil pilot might cost him the speed and energy needed to win.
Or switching to a empty tank for the hurri.