Concept and Fictional Aircraft

[M.Sonda]

Hey everyone.

I'm more of an Ace combat fan than a Sim fan and one of the reasons is because you get to fly in aircraft you just don't get in any sim. such as the F-16 XL, F-15 S/MTD, and my personal fave the YF-23. Obviously that's because none of these aircraft are used in military service. but it's still cool to fly em XD
I was wondering what Sim fans would say it they had a few of these aircraft in HAWX ? Would it spoil the reality?
And what about completely made up aircraft you think that would be too unrealistic?

[Mig-29]

You shouldn't have to worry about realism. Too much realism limits a game's creative aspect and reduces its fun factor. Personally I would like to see some concept or fictional aircraft in Hawx Such as the YF-23 and YF-22. And It would be cool to try out some of the prototypes you mentioned such as the F-16 XL with its awesome wing design.

Including fictional or prototype aircraft can open an entire chapter of possibilities.

[Tomcatter61]

Originally posted by Mig-29:
You shouldn't have to worry about realism. Too much realism limits a game's creative aspect and reduces its fun factor. Personally I would like to see some concept or fictional aircraft in Hawx Such as the YF-23 and YF-22. And It would be cool to try out some of the prototypes you mentioned such as the F-16 XL with its awesome wing design.

Including fictional or prototype aircraft can open an entire chapter of possibilities.

As a sim-flyer, I agree that experimental aircraft would open up some possibilities.

As to realism, however, I personally can find a lot of fun in the challenge of making things work and getting the kill in the confines of realism.

In "realism," I'm not so much saying that we can't have anything but jets that are already in production or only jets that are in service. What I want as far as realism is: realistic flight physics (i.e. gravity, drag, etc. all affect you as if it were the real world), realistic weapons and countermeasures (performance and payload capacity on aircraft), and realistic cockpit environments. It'd be nice to feel like you're sitting in the jet you're flying rather than watching the action happen from 100ft back. I don't want or need all the gauges to work - it'd be cool, but not a requirement for play. Unless you wanted to make the environment a little more realistic as well. I think an environment with weather other than daytime and severe clear all the time would make the game more interesting and add new elements.

Maybe you fly your mission, and you're on your way back to mom, but in the meantime, the weather has closed in. Now, you have to shoot an instrument approach down to the deck. That'd raise some hairs on your neck. Heck even the option of doing to good weather flying at night would be cool.

I like the things that make it seem more real - some of the little things that require you to be more of a pilot than a game-player.

[Mig-29]

yeah but too much realism is not good and remember its a game not a sim. the game should not be anywhere as real as a sim in terms of flight physics. they should be simplified flight physics like in crimson skies and ace combat with maybe slightly more realism to them.

also whats wrong with seeing you're airplane 100ft away in action? its a lot cooler than being in the cockpit. at least you actually see the cool jet you're flying instead of being confined to that cockpit. third person views with hud are one thing that many simulators seem to lack.

edit: made certain changes to post.

[Tomcatter61]

Why should the physics be dumbed down? Why is too much realism "not good?" Just because some people can't handle it? A flight sim is a niche game. Period. Not everyone likes having to fly a plane as if it were real; not everyone has the skills - that's one reason why every person on earth isn't a pilot.

There's no real point to arguing that in relation to this game, since the devs have already decided how they want this game to play (like a cheap imitation of Ace Combat - gotta sell stuff and make money). They've probably dumbed it down a lot - just like the interface that tells you where you should fly your jet. Last I checked, I was the pilot and I thought I was telling the plane where to go - not the other way around.

Also, the 3rd person view is a matter of opinion. I think it should be included, but there ought to be a cockpit view. Sometimes it's nice to look at your pretty airplane, but imo, that's what the post-mission replay is for. When I'm actually flying, I want to be able to see what I could see from the cockpit. I want to look over my shoulder and see the wings and control surfaces moving as I throw the jet around the sky. I want to look back and see the vapor trails I'm leaving as I pull some serious G's. You can look out at the wing and watch the leading edge slats pop out as you get slow. There's lots of little details that can be included to give a gamer more of that feel that he's really in the jet - to me that adds to the experience.

Third person views w/ a HUD are not in most sims because they are meant to be flown from in the cockpit, so there is no need.

[Mig-29]

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
Why should the physics be dumbed down? Why is too much realism "not good?" Just because some people can't handle it? A flight sim is a niche game. Period. Not everyone likes having to fly a plane as if it were real; not everyone has the skills - that's one reason why every person on earth isn't a pilot.

You see thats the point, were not pilots were gamers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The biggest problem with sims is that they give players a lot of things to worry about which can lead to real frustration. There needs to be stalls and wind effects but they should not be as sensitive as simulator physics. You should be able to jump into the cockpit and take off without having to worry about all of the other factors.

Look I do want the game to have depth in its gameplay such as being able to land and taxi on a runway for rearmament. Planes should have limited fuel and ammo. Stalls should be included but shouldn't be as sensitive as they are in other game like lo-mac.

But there are things that need to be dumbed down because they interfere with gameplay. One example is weapon selection. In certain sims you have to scroll between the different systems before you can choose a weapon which is really annoying.

The plane you fly should not be overpowered in comparison to the enemies that surround you. Multiple SAM sites and fighter patrol should pose more than a serious threat to you. Its just that the control scheme needs to simplified and that the physics should be easier to deal with. So that you can focus more easily on the action.

See you on the taxiway in your Tomcat.

[Tomcatter61]

I guess my point was that realistic flight games have never attracted a wide audience, so I don't think the game experience (realism) should be sacrificed for the purpose of attracting that wider audience. The way I see it, we have plenty of arcade-flight games to pick from already - why not more of a sim?

(I understand that decisions are made by the company based on money to be made. Honestly though, I think Ubi is screwing this up pretty badly. Not only are they trying to appeal to the wider audience of an arcade-style game, but they are making it less immersive than other arcade-style flight games. It literally looks like a low-grade version of Ace Combat.)

I agree that depending on the platform, some compromises will have to be made to provide a simpler user interface to do the things you need to do. On the other hand, I see the challenge of learning your aircraft and how to efficiently use the systems as a rewarding experience - which will also lead to other rewarding experiences, like getting kills.

Personally, I'd like to see sensitivity in stalls - provided that is a side effect of good all-around physics and not just stall physics. Being able to stall and depart controlled flight indicate that you are able to fly the aircraft to the edge of its flight envelope. As a pilot, even just a gamer pilot, that tells me I have a great deal of control over what my aircraft does. I'd rather have the control to do crazy things with my aircraft and learn how to fly it "on the edge of the envelope" instead of having the envelope artificially limited. That's another aspect that I see as taking away my options as the pilot.

Physics is something that you have to deal with anyway - so why not learn to deal with it as it is? It shouldn't be too hard. I think there should probably be settings that a player could adjust if he's more comfortable with a lower realism setting. Setting adjustments like that are common to most flight sims and allow you to tailor your game experience.

I do agree that having too much to control over systems could get overwhelming. So, especially for a console game, I would advocate a simpler interface with the aircraft systems. Switchology in real aircraft can get complicated depending on how well the aircraft was designed and that's something that gamers don't have to deal with, and probably shouldn't.

So, I would agree with you that simplifying the controls and interface (not to limit any basic functionality) would allow gamers to focus more easily on the action. However, I don't think this same philosophy needs to apply to the physics of the game.

PS - Unfortunately, you will not see me or my Tomcat on the taxiway, unless you play Over-G. I've decided I don't like the way this game is headed, and unless some substantial changes are made, I doubt I'll be picking up this one. But, happy flying to you.

[abnegnejs]

Originally posted by Mig-29:
You shouldn't have to worry about realism. Too much realism limits a game's creative aspect and reduces its fun factor.

Excuse my language, but that's complete bullsh*t. What exactly do you think flight simulators exist for, if realism is a bad thing? It does not limit creativity much, as an example you have most semi-realistic flight simulators, tactical shooters and such. And it does definitively not limit the fun factor, unless you're too lazy to learn the controls and stuff. (It's OK to be lazy, but you shouldn't blame the game for that) On the contrary, realism can be an important tool in making a game fun.

[Mig-29]

Yeah its true, lots of realism is good for a sim but not a game. If you look closely, I said a "game" not a sim. Sims can be as real as they want, but a game should not have too much realism because thats what it is, a game. Too much realism in a game will reduce its fun factor because it will increase frustration, too many controls, too many things to worry about as opposed to a sim which is different.

To me sim and game are two different categories.

Also note that I said "too much realism". I have nothing against realism in a game but I think that too much of it is bad because does limit creativity (a flight game thats 100% real will not allow fictional aircraft unless you are talking only about physics).

If you think i want this game to be totally unrealistic you are seriously mistaken. I want the game to have lots of realistic flight elements such as physics and loadout. I just don't want it to overdo those areas and I don't want controls to be overly complicated like in flight sims. I don't care about complicated controls but not to the extent of sims like Lo-mac.

[MPSSC]

in the demo,there is already an experimential fighter:Su-47

so,I think there will be more experimential planes for us.

[M.Sonda]

ReallY! Cool that Aircraft is sweet, still tho i had a feeling it would be , its in most games similar to this one. i was really on about the one you don't normally see such as this !!
http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Ente/mig1-44.jpg
Mig 1.44 , thats actually being used it think ? maybe not i dunno. and again completely original ones.

Tho it seem from what people have said that they wouldnt mind as long as the gameplays good.

I think what they should do is have the control style adjustable, for example an arcade stlye setting where the physics and everything work more like in ace combat. And then a Hardcore setting where its more like LO-MAC meaning you stall everytime you pull up... at least.. i do lol ( i'll never be a pilot ) but yer what do you guys think

[abnegnejs]

Originally posted by Mig-29:
Yeah its true, lots of realism is good for a sim but not a game. If you look closely, I said a "game" not a sim. Sims can be as real as they want, but a game should not have too much realism because thats what it is, a game. Too much realism in a game will reduce its fun factor because it will increase frustration, too many controls, too many things to worry about as opposed to a sim which is different.

To me sim and game are two different categories.

Also note that I said "too much realism". I have nothing against realism in a game but I think that too much of it is bad because does limit creativity (a flight game thats 100% real will not allow fictional aircraft unless you are talking only about physics).

If you think i want this game to be totally unrealistic you are seriously mistaken. I want the game to have lots of realistic flight elements such as physics and loadout. I just don't want it to overdo those areas and I don't want controls to be overly complicated like in flight sims. I don't care about complicated controls but not to the extent of sims like Lo-mac.

Okay, fair enough. I still don't quite agree on all points. Even if a game would be completely realistic, which no game so far is, that doesn't mean you can't be creative with it. This is simply because you can be creative in reality as well.

For example, in a flight simulator you could add the ability to modify your aircraft. This is at least to some degree realistic, and if implemented correctly, it can be completely realistic (at least in theory). But there is still no limit to how creative you can be with the modifications, because there is no such limit in real life.

Don't get me wrong though, there are some realistic things that a game should never have, even if it could. Such as dying.

As for the "fun factor", well, I guess that's subjective. Still, I don't see any apparent reason why realism would be a bad thing, as long as it's done right.

[Blademanx2008]

All you guys asking for Realism Realism Realism will be greatly dissapointed i can tell you that. THis game will be more Ace Combat type game.

[abnegnejs]

Originally posted by Blademanx2008:
All you guys asking for Realism Realism Realism will be greatly dissapointed i can tell you that. THis game will be more Ace Combat type game.

I won't be dissapointed, because I'm not buying this AC clone.

So why am I here? Because I'm anti-Ubisoft.