PDA

View Full Version : Eye Candy or Flight Model ?



stalkervision
01-20-2008, 11:15 AM
Which is more important to you, lots of eye candy or accurate f.m.'s? Which would you be willing to trade off more?

Deedsundone
01-20-2008, 11:37 AM
I think I´ll take accurate FM,cause I haven´t learn to eat with my eyes yet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

space_bandit
01-20-2008, 11:40 AM
Flight models are most important for me.

I would be happy with IL2's looks but with better flight and damage models and the ability to handle large formations.

I think we have been spoilt by the current array of planes, If they take ten times longer to model then I for see getting 1/10th of what we got with IL2.

waffen-79
01-20-2008, 11:40 AM
A good balance is needed

Industry tends to favor Eye-Candy, and there's always someone bi0tching about how he feel it's favorite 'mustang',er... I mean 'ride', should perform better

AFJ_rsm
01-20-2008, 11:41 AM
why can't we have both?

Accurate FM's with ****ty graphics means little immersion to me = i get bored fast


Arcadey FM's with awesome graphics = easy to play game, i get bored bast

Accurate FM's + Eye Candy = teh win.

MEGILE
01-20-2008, 11:51 AM
Eye Candy every time.

I care about Flight Models as much as I care about filing accurate tax returns.

foxyboy1964
01-20-2008, 11:53 AM
If I have to choose (and on my pc I do) I'll take FM and smooth frame rates every time. But if some folks have got uber rigs and can run the candy then they should also be catered for. I think IL2 strikes a good balance and I'm sure BoB will too.

Bearcat99
01-20-2008, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
why can't we have both?

Accurate FM's with ****ty graphics means little immersion to me = i get bored fast


Arcadey FM's with awesome graphics = easy to play game, i get bored bast

Accurate FM's + Eye Candy = teh win.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

triad773
01-20-2008, 12:59 PM
Balance of the two for me.

I get the impression that is what Oleg had gone for. That and how could one model over 200 different aircraft accurately? One would need a server farm to enjoy highly accurate FM for the virtual air force as well as highly detailed graphics. Just look at games like Cyrsis and its physics modeling. I know a guy in the industry who claims that they tested THAT game on an industrial system with 18 video cards running in series.

FliegerAas
01-20-2008, 01:03 PM
fm

jasonbirder
01-20-2008, 01:16 PM
FMs DMs and Systems Modelling (Start up sequences, Complex Engine Management, Fuel Management etc) every times...
The Graphics in this game are good enough...no need to improve them for BOB...its not like you see much when something dives past you at 500 KPH anyway is it?

BaronUnderpants
01-20-2008, 02:15 PM
Well, if it was only accurate FM we would still have EAW with extremly difficoult FM.

If that where the case i would proppably be playing Crysis instead

Paladin851
01-20-2008, 02:16 PM
Eye candy is great but not at the cost of realism....I would prefer as close a FM as possible to the real aircraft.

slipBall
01-20-2008, 02:26 PM
Oleg has other plan's for the high quality graphics...he spoke of this a couple of years ago. Something to do with filling a need for the film production company's to utilize in their work...so, another way to profit for Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

ElAurens
01-20-2008, 03:33 PM
It's simply not an either/or thing.

Both are entirely possible.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

joeap
01-20-2008, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
why can't we have both?

Accurate FM's with ****ty graphics means little immersion to me = i get bored fast


Arcadey FM's with awesome graphics = easy to play game, i get bored bast

Accurate FM's + Eye Candy = teh win.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Blood_Splat
01-20-2008, 03:36 PM
If it was just two sticks that formed a plane with an accurate FM the older crowd would be happy lol. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

ElAurens
01-20-2008, 03:51 PM
I'll wager I'm older than you, and I want both the Eye Candy and accurate FM/DM, and there is simply no reason that both are not possible.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Skoshi Tiger
01-20-2008, 04:12 PM
If 'Eye Candy' means I can recognise an aeroplane at a further distance without having the icons on I'ld have to go with eye candy.

No Flight sim will ever have a perfect flight model and for our purposes as long as everyone is on a level playing field (just like the real combat pilots) we get to learn to deal with the limitation a aircraft and exploit it's good points.

We are visual creatures. The eye candy helps our suspension of disbelief and our imersion in the game.

(That being said, my PC just can't handle the maximum graphics in '46 as it is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif, I wonder if a better computer would make me a better pilot! Time for an upgrade? )

Dance
01-20-2008, 04:18 PM
I want my cake, but still have a coronary http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jasonbirder
01-20-2008, 04:36 PM
If 'Eye Candy' means I can recognise an aeroplane at a further distance without having the icons on I'ld have to go with eye candy.
There's sense in that...but i suspect its more a function of resolution than anything else...
Be honest which adds more...ever higher res textures you can only appreciate in external views...or realistic levels of torque, airframes you can stress and fatigue, switchable fuel tanks and changing COGs and the need to manage engines/fuel properly to get maximum performance and not damage your engine?

buzzsaw1939
01-20-2008, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
If it was just two sticks that formed a plane with an accurate FM the older crowd would be happy lol. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I think you got that backwards partner! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Maybe if they had spent the time they were building those wierd planes, on the fm instead, we would have better accuracy!

DrHerb
01-20-2008, 07:19 PM
F/M = Priority
Eye Candy is a plus however
a good balance of both is achievable tho

ImMoreBetter
01-20-2008, 07:31 PM
FM is the most important.

But the eye candy still needs to be at a sufficient.

BSS_Sniper
01-20-2008, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If 'Eye Candy' means I can recognise an aeroplane at a further distance without having the icons on I'ld have to go with eye candy.
There's sense in that...but i suspect its more a function of resolution than anything else...
Be honest which adds more...ever higher res textures you can only appreciate in external views...or realistic levels of torque, airframes you can stress and fatigue, switchable fuel tanks and changing COGs and the need to manage engines/fuel properly to get maximum performance and not damage your engine? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You and Stalker can go play this game and leave us alone. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eosVhMLr1A&feature=related

Both, quality FM and graphics, are needed for any good immersion.

ElAurens
01-20-2008, 07:56 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Skoshi Tiger
01-20-2008, 08:11 PM
I remeber playin SWotLW, and saying to my self "Life is good! It doesn't get much better than this!" That was just after playing Elite (Wire frame space combat/trading game!)

M_Gunz
01-20-2008, 08:38 PM
As long as FM means more than hitting close to charts. The handling we have is still not
every little bit but it's got whole behaviours that no other PC flight sim models at all.

How many members won't take 5% +/- as close enough for them? When in reality the planes
themselves varied as much or more? Or have their picked charts where in one (I am sure NOT
unique) case speed is with one prop while the favored climb chart is with a different prop.
Hey, as long as it says Plane X on the chart and the fewer details, the more it's monkey food.

So go ahead and judge the flight model then announce how lame it is and feel big about it.

-------------------------------------------------------

I want to be able to see the other planes more like real myself. When the LOD jumps go then
it might become possible to judge distances and speeds better as well as see what the hated
enemy is doing. You want to judge energy states then that eye candy becomes as important as
FM. When you can't then FM becomes less important anyway.

tools4foolsA
01-21-2008, 11:38 AM
How many members won't take 5% +/- as close enough for them? When in reality the planes
themselves varied as much or more?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

My favourite wish....

Stop the chart fanatics! And brings in more realism too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

All those who need super realism FM to have a 'fair' dogfight should stick on fighting each other in same plane.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

More eye candy, please. More accurate damage model. Weather. Ground stuff. AI. AI gunners. Better full mission builder.

FM is detailed enough in my opinion. Don't waste resources to planes perform closer to "reality", none of us does know that reality, none has flown those planes in combat....

*****

stalkervision
01-21-2008, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How many members won't take 5% +/- as close enough for them? When in reality the planes
themselves varied as much or more?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

My favourite wish....

Stop the chart fanatics! And brings in more realism too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

All those who need super realism FM to have a 'fair' dogfight should stick on fighting each other in same plane.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

More eye candy, please. More accurate damage model. Weather. Ground stuff. AI. AI gunners. Better full mission builder.

FM is detailed enough in my opinion. Don't waste resources to planes perform closer to "reality", none of us does know that reality, none has flown those planes in combat....

***** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a good point. What if you could get a much better ai and accurate flight models too? Would you give up a bit of eye candy then?

BrotherVoodoo
01-21-2008, 12:24 PM
Accurate FM's Be sure.

tools4foolsA
01-21-2008, 12:24 PM
For AI yes, I mentioned that above.

For FM?
No, as said I think they are accurate enough.

More eye candy any time instead. I gain much more from a game flying around in a beautiful plane with beautiful environment (see the Flightsim screenshot topic...) the an improved FM which has my plane to perform supposedly a tad more "realistic"...

There sure can be improvements (acceleration, dive acceleration, zoom climb, energy retention etc) but as said I take eye candy first.

All those improvements in FM will not turn me into a better virtual pilot anyway.

The air combats I loose are because I do stupid things, am in bad position, outnumbered, or flying a grossly inferior plane.
The above FM improvements will not make it better for me in any of those cases...
...in that sense I rather stare with amazement at more beautiful flames streaking out of my plane, at all those bits and pieces falling off my plane, at the blue sky and its beautiful clouds, at the glittering water and the trees slowly swaying in the wind...before my planes goes boom and explodes in a great fireball.
That gives me way more from the game... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
++++++

joeap
01-21-2008, 12:32 PM
Has anyone thought that "eye candy," correctly implemented could actually help the FM or more exactly help in flying?

tools4foolsA
01-21-2008, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by buzzsaw1939:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
If it was just two sticks that formed a plane with an accurate FM the older crowd would be happy lol. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I think you got that backwards partner! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Maybe if they had spent the time they were building those wierd planes, on the fm instead, we would have better accuracy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That depends entirely on ones point of view.

In my opinion if they hadn't wasted any time on "weird planes" there would be no K-4's, no Mustangs and Thunderbolts, no Tempest, no Superfire...
I love even the weird fantasy planes of IL-46. At least for once there is no whining about their specs, no one running around and pointing his finger at charts, no one blameing Oleg for favourizing one side...what a break for once!

And I think it is a bit an unfair comment anyway as a lot of those weird planes were done by 3rd party folks who dedicated lot of their free time doing those planes...
(and those who came in a pay-addon, well nobody forced you to buy the add-on...)
******

buddye1
01-21-2008, 12:41 PM
What if the question had been, "Eye Candy or a more effective AI"?

stalkervision
01-21-2008, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by buddye1:
What if the question had been, "Eye Candy or a more effective AI"?

Interesting thought buddy. There is an apparent line of interest about a better Ai and a bit less eye candy coming from these posts..

jasonbirder
01-21-2008, 01:12 PM
Forget about FMs being simply comparisons of performance between aircraft for dogfight purposes...how accurate do you think it is when you can gun a corsairs throttle up to 100% without groundlooping it...or bounce your Bf109s undercarriage on a rutted field without snapping your wheels off?
How about zooming round at 100% throttle and cooling down by opening your radiator for a minute and prop pitch management basically meaning jamming at 95 - 100% in a dogfight?

Viper2005_
01-21-2008, 01:18 PM
FM all the way for me

mortoma
01-21-2008, 05:22 PM
I wouldn't care if BoB/SoW was not graphically improved at all over 1946, as long as it had good FM. But even more importantly, since I'm an offliner would be to get improvements to AI!!

If I could have only one improved of the three, ( AI, graphics and FMs ) I'd like see improved AI!! Totally screw everything else. If we got improved AI, online would go dead cuz who would need online?? I mean seriously........AI is the most important element to a sim for me.

Lurch1962
01-21-2008, 05:22 PM
There indeed must be a balance.

Too much "candy" for the PC's horsepower, and the resultant poor frame rates will impact any FM, If for no other reason than pilot over-control.

On a perhaps subtler level, I feel that lower frame rates introduce inaccuracies due to lack of fineness in the time-steps between calculations (unless there are the necessary extra calculation cycles between individual frames). If you know calculus you'll know what I mean.

=======================

On a more philosophical level, graphical fidelity is kind of relative--it depends on what's out there to compare with. Like an earlier poster pointed out, SWOTL (Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe) graphics made us happy in their heyday. What the crude display lacked in detail, or imaginations amply filled in!

=======================

Perhaps more important than hi-res textures and such is screen resolution. Or what's more relevant to us sim heads, pixel *density*. A lament we all share is the lack of ability to make out distant aircraft as well as we can in reality.

In the past the majority of combat flight sims got around the huge limitation of VGA and SVGA resolutions by making all plane (and other vehicle and structure) models larger--as much as 8 times bigger! (The Electronic Arts titles "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat" and "US Navy Fighters" come to mind, as well as the more recent CFS1.)

With the current ability to run our games at substantially higher resolutions, game developers are now modeling objects at correct scale. But the pixel densities of our displays are not yet high enough to simultaneously show a reasonably wide field of view AND resolution-limited graphics. To see detail we have to zoom in to uncomfortable, view-restricting degrees.

At the typical distance of a monitor from your eyes, you can actually resolve the pixels. Just for the sake of argument, let's say a distant plane on-screen is drawn 8 pixels long. In real life at identical scale, let's say it would effectively be 24 resolution units (pixels, if you will) long, thus having 3 times the linear resolution, or *9* times the areal detail (3 squared).

I guess what I'm getting at is that dynamical fidelity, high frame rates and a close-to-eye display resolution are important elements in a flight simulator.

By dynamical fidelity, I don't necessarily mean a hyper-tuned FM. The *feel* of smoothness and inertia can make up for a less-than-true FM. As long as the relative differences between aircraft are maintained (as well as a reasonable semblance to real-world performance), that's good enough for me.

And lastly, without a doubt, good AI is of paramount importance!! But that's a whole other topic...

--Lurch--

mortoma
01-21-2008, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
If it was just two sticks that formed a plane with an accurate FM the older crowd would be happy lol. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif No wrong, you'd need three sticks. The third would represent the horizontal stab.

leitmotiv
01-21-2008, 06:35 PM
Ha ha, baloney. This geezer wants maximum immersion in detail saturation. This, of course, does not mean phony Hollywood effects like Call of Duty, for example. I also want maximum fidelity for the FM. In other words, I want a fully immersive simulator. MAW has a whing ding FM, but pre-IL-2 graphics. As much as I prefer the FMs to Oleg's the paleolithic graphics can't enthuse me. P.S. And, equally important, AI that doesn't act like it is suffering from Alzheimer's Disease. This is asking for the moon, I know.

Chivas
01-21-2008, 07:08 PM
I believe the SOW series will see a huge increase of eyecandy meaning a much more visual increase in immersion.

SOW's FM should see an improvement over IL-2's already decent FM, especially in regards to how the DM effects the FM. This should put an end to people staying in the fight when they should be just trying to get their aircraft back to base or bail out.

For the offliner the AI is paramount, for an immersive experience. I don't fly much offline but found the AI stupid enough you could fly an effective campaign flying Rambo style, getting all the kills and saving your wingman at the same time. A smart enemy AI would make you use your suadron in order to survive and complete the objectives. IL-2 has alot of good commands but unfortunately the AI just gives lip service to many of them.

stalkervision
01-21-2008, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
I believe the SOW series will see a huge increase of eyecandy meaning a much more visual increase in immersion.

SOW's FM should see an improvement over IL-2's already decent FM, especially in regards to how the DM effects the FM. This should put an end to people staying in the fight when they should be just trying to get their aircraft back to base or bail out.

For the offliner the AI is paramount, for an immersive experience. I don't fly much offline but found the AI stupid enough you could fly an effective campaign flying Rambo style, getting all the kills and saving your wingman at the same time. A smart enemy AI would make you use your suadron in order to survive and complete the objectives. IL-2 has alot of good commands but unfortunately the AI just gives lip service to many of them.

I don't know about the Fm and Ai improvment Chivas. I believe somewhere Oleg said Il-2/ 1946's fm and ai were good enough already.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

PapaLazarou.LoG
01-21-2008, 07:42 PM
Well, in a time were EF2000's graphics were superb if you remember those coastlines and ground textures (but lacking on the FM and realism), su-27 v1 to 1.5 in all of it's flat shading glory still managed to capture a big crowd, which made Flanker possible (v2.0,2.5 and on to lock on). So I'm in favor for sacrificing a bit on graphics if the FM needs some of it's cpu or development time, because eye candy surely will be improved with time and later releases of the game.
We were very lucky for having a v4 of this game with a new FM, but this is an exception case.

Chivas
01-21-2008, 08:02 PM
Yes Stalker I remember him saying that the FM is decent and we wouldn't see much diffence from IL-2 to SOW. What I think he was implying was we wouldn't have to relearn how to fly.
There will still be enough of a difference that you will have relearn the finer details of flying on the edge and knowing your aircraft advantages and disadvantages compared to your opponants. As I said the big diffence will be how the DM relates to the FM.
As far as the AI goes...Oleg is wellaware that the AI will require major work. Improving the AI will be harder to code than all the other feature put together. That being I said I would lay money on Oleg doing extensive work to improve the AI. Not to worry...there will be plenty of time for that later.

All I know is I can't fathom the amount of work required to simulate WW2 combat aviation on our home computers. Growing up reading Reach for the Sky and many others, I never imagined I would have the chance to relive them in such an immersive style. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

stalkervision
01-21-2008, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
Yes Stalker I remember him saying that the FM is decent and we wouldn't see much diffence from IL-2 to SOW. What I think he was implying was we wouldn't have to relearn how to fly.
There will still be enough of a difference that you will have relearn the finer details of flying on the edge and knowing your aircraft advantages and disadvantages compared to your opponants. As I said the big diffence will be how the DM relates to the FM.
As far as the AI goes...Oleg is wellaware that the AI will require major work. Improving the AI will be harder to code than all the other feature put together. That being I said I would lay money on Oleg doing extensive work to improve the AI. Not to worry...there will be plenty of time for that later.

All I know is I can't fathom the amount of work required to simulate WW2 combat aviation on our home computers. Growing up reading Reach for the Sky and many others, I never imagined I would have the chance to relive them in such an immersive style. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Me neither! I remember playing a carnaval submarine game with a simple pariscope and ships that moved on a moving belt! This seemed high tech to me at the time.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

An airplane sim what is that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

roybaty
01-21-2008, 09:14 PM
I can here the 109E vs. Spit MK1 debates already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hopefully I will be giggling away as I out run and out climb the Spits http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

joeap
01-22-2008, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:


I don't know about the Fm and Ai improvment Chivas. I believe somewhere Oleg said Il-2/ 1946's fm and ai were good enough already.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I don't think he said that about the AI he already said they won't be able to "see" through clouds, I don't see what is so negative about the FM. I mean there are problems which is par for the course for every sim I've played. I am sure the FMs will be better especially with the better DM just looking at the detail on the models leads me to hope for more stuff to break.

tools4foolsA
01-22-2008, 04:28 AM
Another thing I would love to have first is a good campaign.

Something along of the strategical campaign of BoBII, where you can manage the strikes (but should be more user friendly...).
Full auto strategic campaign for those who don't want to spend time on it, 'Free fight' where you can manage the campaign and jump into any cockpit (with pilot record), 'Pilot Fight' campaing where you can jump into cockpit when one particular (always the same) pilot is engaging in a misson and finalle 'Pilot Campaign' where you will have to fly all missions assigned to pilot from take off to landing...

Plenty of room for improvement in this category...
+++++

Wurkeri
01-22-2008, 04:48 AM
I prefer FM. Anyway, I saw FSX played on 46" Sony some time ago; that was really a beauty.

slipBall
01-22-2008, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
Yes Stalker I remember him saying that the FM is decent and we wouldn't see much diffence from IL-2 to SOW. What I think he was implying was we wouldn't have to relearn how to fly.
There will still be enough of a difference that you will have relearn the finer details of flying on the edge and knowing your aircraft advantages and disadvantages compared to your opponants. As I said the big diffence will be how the DM relates to the FM.




I think that any new need in SOW to learn to fly, will be weather/propwash effects related. Not much new that could be done with the fm, other then fine tune taxi/ground handling peculiarities, of individual historical aircraft. For example, the brakeing of the 109...it tends to tip over now, but the record says that there was little or no tendency for that to occur