PDA

View Full Version : If you designed a Flight Sim .... what would you do different?



womenfly
12-22-2005, 07:04 AM
Seems everyone has a better way of doing a flight sim ... so tell us how you would do it and what would be different ...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Have fun ...

neural_dream
12-22-2005, 07:32 AM
My usual list

1. Togglable random breakdowns with close to historically accurate probability.
2. Rescue missions with Fieseler Storch and a flying boat.
3. Reconnaissance missions, where what photos you take have some impact on the next mission(s).
4. Anti-ship missions (real ones this time).
5. Two-seat trainers for online tutoring and offline training.

The-Pizza-Man
12-22-2005, 07:33 AM
-I'd make briefings a bit more comprehensive and individual. Falcon 4.0, FB and CFS3, which all have dynamic campaigns have very bad briefings that don't convey any information that really immerses you in it. They don't tell you why the target is important, why you have to escort this flight etc. It would be cool they actually had a virtual briefing room where the squadron leader/wing commander would explain the mission and you could ask question.

-Include detailed flight information on every aircraft. That includes all data neccesary to make a realistic flight plan. Things like time to altitude and RoC vs altitude, speed vs altitude at different throttle settings. Emercency proceedures, checklists etc. Basically everything you'd find in the PoH and more. Part of the fun of flying a flightsim is the learning experiance. This is something lacking in most WW2 sims. F4:AF and LOMAC have pretty comprehensive manuals, even though they aren't preprinted.

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 07:33 AM
More realistic airfields!

p-11.cAce
12-22-2005, 08:13 AM
I love the idea of the Storch being flyable!
I have no problems with the flying portion of this sim - what I would like to have is a reward system for AI squad members in offline campaigns similar to the crew system in SHIII. You are awarded "renown" points based on mission performance which determine your rank & what awards you receive. Once you reach a high enough rank you then decide which pilots under your command receive what awards, assign them to specific missions or positions within your flight, etc. In this way you could reward your "good" AI wingman (increasing his performance) and have an incentive to watchout for his *** when you go into combat. Likewise your "inexperienced" (low renown) AI pilots you can place with a high renown AI pilot in the hope that he survives a few missions and improves so you have a replacment if your aces get shot down. In short I want an automated offline campaign that functions like an online squad - is that too much to ask??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

KG26_Alpha
12-22-2005, 08:16 AM
To add to some of the already mentioned stuff above:

1.Dynamic weather: localized rain winds not blanket weather for the whole map.
2.Ground interaction: get in/out of aircraft, drive to airfield or scramble up land use ground objects flak etc
3.Walkabout mode: after bailing out if landed in enemy territory ability to escape, using a bicycle or motorcycle/truck etc.
4.Bombers, and more bombers and then some more too.
5.Taxi view mode: Full real locked in cockpit have a camera view on left or right wing for taxi only.

HotelBushranger
12-22-2005, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
I love the idea of the Storch being flyable!
I have no problems with the flying portion of this sim - what I would like to have is a reward system for AI squad members in offline campaigns similar to the crew system in SHIII. You are awarded "renown" points based on mission performance which determine your rank & what awards you receive. Once you reach a high enough rank you then decide which pilots under your command receive what awards, assign them to specific missions or positions within your flight, etc. In this way you could reward your "good" AI wingman (increasing his performance) and have an incentive to watchout for his *** when you go into combat. Likewise your "inexperienced" (low renown) AI pilots you can place with a high renown AI pilot in the hope that he survives a few missions and improves so you have a replacment if your aces get shot down. In short I want an automated offline campaign that functions like an online squad - is that too much to ask??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I like this mans idea!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bearcat99
12-22-2005, 09:00 AM
All the above are good. I would also have a sim with triggers in the mission builder. I would also make some static objects skinnable. Particularly the aircraft but a few other things as well.. like banner sized signs on poles that could be written on. I would also make it possible to issue commands to individual AI. "White 3 break!!" ... etc.

BBB_Hyperion
12-22-2005, 09:05 AM
Scriptable Df COOPs All Events ,Spawn AI in DF etc, Editing Score System and lots of other adjustments .)

waffen-79
12-22-2005, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
To add to some of the already mentioned stuff above:

1.Dynamic weather: localized rain winds not blanket weather for the whole map.
2.Ground interaction: get in/out of aircraft, drive to airfield or scramble up land use ground objects flak etc
3.Walkabout mode: after bailing out if landed in enemy territory ability to escape, using a bicycle or motorcycle/truck etc.
4.Bombers, and more bombers and then some more too.
5.Taxi view mode: Full real locked in cockpit have a camera view on left or right wing for taxi only.


...there, what he said

Saunders1953
12-22-2005, 09:17 AM
To add to all of the great ideas above:

AI Comms that identify who is speaking so that the information can be acted upon.

The ability to command at a group level from the cockpit and to set up dynamic campaigns with the ability to distribute assets and give tactical orders to the group (or heck, even wing and higher levels) during the campaign (between missions) to counter the enemy's moves. Basically, an operational + Tactical level campaign system.

neural_dream
12-22-2005, 09:28 AM
What I think 1C doesn't get is that they have already reached a very high level of FM and graphics and we don't need that to get even higher.
What we really miss are new things. Roads that haven't been explored yet, like Rescue, Recon, Two-seat online Training, dambusting, transport, GLIDERS.

I can't imagine myself in a year or so again discussing about how the BF is for noobs and the Hurri is underpowered and the other BS of the online frag collectors. I want to discuss about the magnificent night we had trying to rescue Oleg with our gruppe of Arados in an area patrolled by Sunderlands, while a couple of our BFs were trying to distract them. I want to discuss on how we organised a massive bombing of the Lufties' factories after Danjama took the recon photos with his blue spitfire and pointed the locations. I want to tell my friend "Come online and I'll show you how to fly in the Tiger Moth" instead of "Here is the game, here is an encyclopedia of ww2 aircraft, here is a 200-pages guide a fan wrote, here is a campaign generator another fan made, here is the link to download hyperlobby, here is a list of online faux-pas, here is ...".



One more comment for the Two-seat online training. It appears 1C has already rejected the idea. They obviously don't want to make money out of BoB. If we get that feature, I can "sell" the sim to another 4-5 people. If not nill.

Prof.Lokovich
12-22-2005, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
What I think 1C doesn't get is that they have already reached a very high level of FM and graphics and we don't need that to get even higher.
What we really miss are new things. Roads that haven't been explored yet, like Rescue, Recon, Two-seat online Training, dambusting, transport, GLIDERS.

I can't imagine myself in a year or so again discussing about how the BF is for noobs and the Hurri is underpowered and the other BS of the online frag collectors. I want to discuss about the magnificent night we had trying to rescue Oleg with our gruppe of Arados in an area patrolled by Sunderlands, while a couple of our BFs were trying to distract them. I want to discuss on how we organised a massive bombing of the Lufties' factories after Danjama took the recon photos with his blue spitfire and pointed the locations. I want to tell my friend "Come online and I'll show you how to fly in the Tiger Moth" instead of "Here is the game, here is an encyclopedia of ww2 aircraft, here is a 200-pages guide a fan wrote, here is a campaign generator another fan made, here is the link to download hyperlobby, here is a list of online faux-pas, here is ...".



One more comment for the Two-seat online training. It appears 1C has already rejected the idea. They obviously don't want to make money out of BoB. If we get that feature, I can "sell" the sim to another 4-5 people. If not nill.

I agree.

Jetbuff
12-22-2005, 11:02 AM
Oh where would I start? An integrated performance comparison tool, better AI comms, AI that can't see through clouds, less sterile environments, more detailed briefings and debriefs, more flyable medium/heavy bombers, more control over ground unit AI, more mission randomization and tools to generate a branching scripted campaign in addition to a dynamic campaign, better LODs that are more consistent across aircraft... the list is so long. Not that FB is bad, just falls short on many of the little things.

But if I had to provide a concise answer I would say, "Give a little bit more thought to the gameplay and experience as opposed to the technicality of things." Of course, I am quite hopeful these issues and many more will be addressed in BoB so I won't bother writing the ultimate sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Maverick_MW
12-22-2005, 11:10 AM
On the technical side, I'd like it to be very easy to add new aircraft and maps etc, requiring a modular system.

The main drawback of this is you might get modders who create uber-unrealistic flight models, but I believe with a strong community, and "approved by..."-style awarding, it would mean alot of peoples whines about planes not being flyable would be solved much faster.

csThor
12-22-2005, 11:53 AM
I'd make sure the folks in the Online boards understand that they're a vocal minority and that an immersive and believable Offline experience is more important than some obscure Online Modes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JG52-6High
12-22-2005, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Prof.Lokovich:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
What I think 1C doesn't get is that they have already reached a very high level of FM and graphics and we don't need that to get even higher.
What we really miss are new things. Roads that haven't been explored yet, like Rescue, Recon, Two-seat online Training, dambusting, transport, GLIDERS.

I can't imagine myself in a year or so again discussing about how the BF is for noobs and the Hurri is underpowered and the other BS of the online frag collectors. I want to discuss about the magnificent night we had trying to rescue Oleg with our gruppe of Arados in an area patrolled by Sunderlands, while a couple of our BFs were trying to distract them. I want to discuss on how we organised a massive bombing of the Lufties' factories after Danjama took the recon photos with his blue spitfire and pointed the locations. I want to tell my friend "Come online and I'll show you how to fly in the Tiger Moth" instead of "Here is the game, here is an encyclopedia of ww2 aircraft, here is a 200-pages guide a fan wrote, here is a campaign generator another fan made, here is the link to download hyperlobby, here is a list of online faux-pas, here is ...".



One more comment for the Two-seat online training. It appears 1C has already rejected the idea. They obviously don't want to make money out of BoB. If we get that feature, I can "sell" the sim to another 4-5 people. If not nill.

I agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yup!!

horseback
12-22-2005, 12:14 PM
First, for the offline campaign, I'd want to be able to refer back to the briefing (which should be much more complete in the first place) while in flight, a la Red Baron's 'kneeboard' display. The compass, at the very least, would always be visible and readable, even at the expense of 'accuracy.'

Second, I'd want those verdammt backseat gunners to shoot at realistic ranges, at realistic angles (NOT while flopping around in a wildly maneuvering aircraft), and with realistic accuracy (ie, very poor). It would be nice if the damage their shots did to my aircraft were proportional to the damage the same guns do when fired from multiple fixed positions by the pilot. I'd also like a reasonable chance of taking the little SOB out when I put a burst of HMG into him or his position. Cockpits and gunnner's positions were not heavily armored.

Third: Ditto the AAA. Unless I'm right on top of the light AAA positions, boring straight in on my target, AAA damage should be a once in a thousand, random occurance for a fighter zig-zagging all over the sky at any appreciable range. This should also cut down on the demands the AAA currently make on my computer system. The ability to 'surprise' the AAA with the first flight of a low-level attack would be nice too.

Fourth: The ability to 'cross' from one map to another in a single mission. Except for the few big maps(which don't cover Southern England or Western/Central Europe), a long range 8th/9th AF style mission with all the bells and whistles is not possible.

Fifth: the ability to raise or lower the player's point of view, as well as lean from side to side would make the true strengths of many aircraft in this sim much more useful. A player should be able to look 'over' the gunsight or 'under' or 'around' canopy framing to see what's around him(her). Currently, the FW 190, P-47, P-38 and all of the a/c with 'bulged' or bubble canopies are thoroughly porked compared to the original item. Aircraft with heavy canopy framing like the 109 and the P-39 are even worse off.

Sixth: ground objects should be FAR more visible. I can pick out individual vehicles on highways from an airliner at 30,000 ft on a clear day with the naked (okay, glasses that correct my vision to 20/20); is it too much to ask that I be able to see much larger tanks moving across a field from 5,000 ft?

Seventh: ditto the aircraft in the air. I can usually ID aircraft types at around two miles, and see a light aircraft as far as eight or ten miles away. In this game, on a 17" screen, they're invisible until they're about three miles away-unsat.

Eighth: AI flight leaders would NEVER exceed 90% throttle, until engaging the enemy; the whole idea of flying formation calls for a lead aircraft to be in reach of the rest of the formation. Currently, it takes forever to catch up with your flight leader, and if you're 'tied' to another formation of fighters zipping along at 400+kph ahead of you, staying 'with' your leader while he loops and and swirls around at full throttle all the time just sucks.

Ninth: some reasonable 'slotting' of aircraft FMs and DMs, with sources and reasons for the slotting decisions made as part of the manual and/or patch readmes. Radial engines would be MUCH more damage resistant than inline engines and a P-47/F4U/F6F would take a lot heavier beating than any fighter in the LW inventory.

Finally, I'd make sure that my AI wingmen, at least, were not capable of ludicrous E retention, accelleration or climb that my own, ostensibly same-type aircraft was not able to reproduce, and this emphatically includes immunity from fulltime 110% throttle without overheating.

cheers

horseback

Kuna15
12-22-2005, 12:23 PM
Few things would be different from FB. First would be sound of engines and MG&cannons.
Better campaign UI... other than that few micro changes (gun desync etc.) and that's it.

Oh yes and installed guncams as selectable special loadout for aircrafts.

I believe we will have all that in BoB. And more (knowing Oleg&CO. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif)

StellarRat
12-22-2005, 12:31 PM
Pretty happy with the game. I'd only add the following:

Fully flyable US and UK heavy bombers. The ability to air start at any altitude. Runway cratering time that is adjustable as map parameter. Ships that move online. All of these additions need to work online and offline.

Grey_Mouser67
12-22-2005, 12:36 PM
1. There would be no AI aircraft...all flyable, but with degrees of completion if need be.

2. Interactive wingman. This would be online and offline. He would talk to you and present you with flight and mission information and status. He would tell you if you are leaking, if you are about to be bounced...yell break, tell you where you are relative to your heading and mission objective etc....you would want this guy to survive and live and if he didn't you'd be at a severe disadvantage.

3. It steal all the best ideas from all other sims...CFS2 Mission builder, FB/AEP/PF FM and AI, Janes sounds, CFSIII random triggers etc...

4. I'd have both open architecture and closed architecture in order to allow for great online play as well as third party development.

5. Ability to build and save objects, formations and attack groups...Computer controlled strike packages...ie select 30 bombers escorted by 40 fighters...large scale engagements.

6. Scalable icon settings for offline and online.

7. Field modifications section with each aircraft that is selectable if wanted.

8. Aircraft service dates to include month.

9. Largest selection of flyable aircraft and killable objects possible. Never throw away an old model...put it in and improve on it.

10. Ships and damage modelling to include burning, debris, slicks, capsizing, listing etc...

11. Fatigue from G's etc slowing down the movements of pilots in aircraft.

12. desync guns and have flyable torpedo bombers along with clouds that ai can't see through; weather generator; fog; draw distance scalable, better bomb effects, killable troops, phosfor bombs, explodable placeable objects to make big bangs and secondary explosions,

13. Photo recon missions complete with photos and ability to label them...an online mission might include such a photo or maybe you'd have to get it. In addition there'd be air sea rescue

14. night fighters and rudementry radar.

15. warp functions, scalable altitude airstarts, killable cities, mission objectives for online play that can be acheived from high altitude, online warp to simulate fuel conservation of various aircraft...ie warp 200 miles to your target area, placable islands and airbases.

Soooo many possibilities

stubby
12-22-2005, 12:43 PM
I would first of all secure the rights to IL2:FB engine because I think it's tight and **** near perfect. The rest of my sim invesment money would be used to hire artists, sound techies, writers, aviation experts, military strategists, historians to craft the next most essential part of the flight sim: a fun, immersive campaign environment (see games like RB, EAW, F4AF, and BOBII to get an idea).

Others have already mentioned things that would fall into this category so I won't repreat them. One thing that would be crucial would be integrating voice technology to do away with having to use a keyboard to communicate with the tower and my ai buddies. Face it, in the old days, they communicated with the spoken language not a series of keystrokes like tab-8-3-1. Along these lines would be a very robust set of AI lingo. Based on certain situations, have the AI choose randomlly from a set of finite responses.

1.JaVA_Hornet
12-22-2005, 12:50 PM
Damaged model in the cockpit.

Big holes, smoke etc.

KG26_Oranje
12-22-2005, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
To add to some of the already mentioned stuff above:

1.Dynamic weather: localized rain winds not blanket weather for the whole map.
2.Ground interaction: get in/out of aircraft, drive to airfield or scramble up land use ground objects flak etc
3.Walkabout mode: after bailing out if landed in enemy territory ability to escape, using a bicycle or motorcycle/truck etc.
4.Bombers, and more bombers and then some more too.
5.Taxi view mode: Full real locked in cockpit have a camera view on left or right wing for taxi only.


S! all,

6. some sort off Radar for Nightfighter action and late war bomber missions.

7. Split up the pilot / bombardier function in to 2 humans functions.
If that is possible than the road is open for radar operator in bomber or nightfighter`s.

8a. stick to 1 aria (east front only), i mean before u go to ahter aria`s try to make all goodie`s playable and in the sim.
8b. reduce the A.I. toy`s.
In ahter words try to get all airplane`s from that aria in the game and make it flyable , not a.i. only.
If possible historical correct or wiht a general cockpit.
And for historical correct freaks , a on/off function for those general cockpits/historical incorrect.
Exemple: a pe2 wiht general cockpit flyable or in a historical correct coop/DF as A.I.
like we have wiht airstart or not in settings.

S! and merry X-mas all.
I/KG26_Oranje

WTE_Ibis
12-22-2005, 01:42 PM
Kuna15
Picture of Kuna15

Posted Thu December 22 2005 11:23
Few things would be different from FB. First would be sound of engines and MG&cannons.
Better campaign UI... other than that few micro changes (gun desync etc.) and that's it.

Oh yes and installed guncams as selectable special loadout for aircrafts.

I believe we will have all that in BoB. And more (knowing Oleg&CO. whisper)

***************************************


Much better sound for more immersion plus what he said plus much better sound.

.

danjama
12-22-2005, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by JG52-6High:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Prof.Lokovich:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
What I think 1C doesn't get is that they have already reached a very high level of FM and graphics and we don't need that to get even higher.
What we really miss are new things. Roads that haven't been explored yet, like Rescue, Recon, Two-seat online Training, dambusting, transport, GLIDERS.

I can't imagine myself in a year or so again discussing about how the BF is for noobs and the Hurri is underpowered and the other BS of the online frag collectors. I want to discuss about the magnificent night we had trying to rescue Oleg with our gruppe of Arados in an area patrolled by Sunderlands, while a couple of our BFs were trying to distract them. I want to discuss on how we organised a massive bombing of the Lufties' factories after Danjama took the recon photos with his blue spitfire and pointed the locations. I want to tell my friend "Come online and I'll show you how to fly in the Tiger Moth" instead of "Here is the game, here is an encyclopedia of ww2 aircraft, here is a 200-pages guide a fan wrote, here is a campaign generator another fan made, here is the link to download hyperlobby, here is a list of online faux-pas, here is ...".



One more comment for the Two-seat online training. It appears 1C has already rejected the idea. They obviously don't want to make money out of BoB. If we get that feature, I can "sell" the sim to another 4-5 people. If not nill.

I agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yup!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I love the idea of being a recon flyer! That could be so immersive, especially the thought of flying the hour from East Anglian base in England to an obscure German target in France, all the while taking screenshots of it from my plane (camera view) at 38,000ft in a MkVII Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

How hard could it be to include this feature?

The only thing i can think of, someone said already, is give the AI more personality. In depth reports on their performance after missions, their wekanesses, strengths etc. Their family, their friendships with other pilots in the squadron, how losses affect their morale level, things like that, although fictitious, and perhaps eventually repetitive, would be really nice!

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 01:49 PM
I'd like it when your oil tank is hit your plane is visually covered in tons of oil. Just one thing I can think of the top of my head.

Old_Canuck
12-22-2005, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
More realistic airfields!

... aye and more recognisable terrain.

Deadmeat313
12-22-2005, 02:07 PM
I'm mostly happy with the game we've got, but here are my 2p worth:

1) AI might bug out and head back to base when damaged.
2) AI bombers would possibly abort their mission if intercepted. Currently in FB there is a chance they'll ditch their bombs, but then they try to fly over the target area anyway.
3) It would be possible to fly a campaign in a non-pilot position. You could be a bombardier or gunner on a multi-crew aircraft. This is sort-of possible now in FB, but the autopilot doesn't act like the AI planes do.
4) Ships would evade when attacked, and have a full damage model (or at least some system of detailing critical system strikes). I like the idea of them listing, burning and being slowed by damage etc posted earlier.
5) Kill markers would appear on planes, where appropriate.
6) Buildings may burn and emit columns of smoke when destroyed. When they do, this would be visible from far off (even if only as a dark smudge in the distance).

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

T.

Bearcat99
12-22-2005, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
First, for the offline campaign, I'd want to be able to refer back to the briefing (which should be much more complete in the first place) while in flight, a la Red Baron's 'kneeboard' display. The compass, at the very least, would always be visible and readable, even at the expense of 'accuracy.'

Second, I'd want those verdammt backseat gunners to shoot at realistic ranges, at realistic angles (NOT while flopping around in a wildly maneuvering aircraft), and with realistic accuracy (ie, very poor). It would be nice if the damage their shots did to my aircraft were proportional to the damage the same guns do when fired from multiple fixed positions by the pilot. I'd also like a reasonable chance of taking the little SOB out when I put a burst of HMG into him or his position. Cockpits and gunnner's positions were not heavily armored.

Third: Ditto the AAA. Unless I'm right on top of the light AAA positions, boring straight in on my target, AAA damage should be a once in a thousand, random occurance for a fighter zig-zagging all over the sky at any appreciable range. This should also cut down on the demands the AAA currently make on my computer system. The ability to 'surprise' the AAA with the first flight of a low-level attack would be nice too.

Fourth: The ability to 'cross' from one map to another in a single mission. Except for the few big maps(which don't cover Southern England or Western/Central Europe), a long range 8th/9th AF style mission with all the bells and whistles is not possible.

Fifth: the ability to raise or lower the player's point of view, as well as lean from side to side would make the true strengths of many aircraft in this sim much more useful. A player should be able to look 'over' the gunsight or 'under' or 'around' canopy framing to see what's around him(her). Currently, the FW 190, P-47, P-38 and all of the a/c with 'bulged' or bubble canopies are thoroughly porked compared to the original item. Aircraft with heavy canopy framing like the 109 and the P-39 are even worse off.

Sixth: ground objects should be FAR more visible. I can pick out individual vehicles on highways from an airliner at 30,000 ft on a clear day with the naked (okay, glasses that correct my vision to 20/20); is it too much to ask that I be able to see much larger tanks moving across a field from 5,000 ft?

Seventh: ditto the aircraft in the air. I can usually ID aircraft types at around two miles, and see a light aircraft as far as eight or ten miles away. In this game, on a 17" screen, they're invisible until they're about three miles away-unsat.

Eighth: AI flight leaders would NEVER exceed 90% throttle, until engaging the enemy; the whole idea of flying formation calls for a lead aircraft to be in reach of the rest of the formation. Currently, it takes forever to catch up with your flight leader, and if you're 'tied' to another formation of fighters zipping along at 400+kph ahead of you, staying 'with' your leader while he loops and and swirls around at full throttle all the time just sucks.

Ninth: some reasonable 'slotting' of aircraft FMs and DMs, with sources and reasons for the slotting decisions made as part of the manual and/or patch readmes. Radial engines would be MUCH more damage resistant than inline engines and a P-47/F4U/F6F would take a lot heavier beating than any fighter in the LW inventory.

Finally, I'd make sure that my AI wingmen, at least, were not capable of ludicrous E retention, accelleration or climb that my own, ostensibly same-type aircraft was not able to reproduce, and this emphatically includes immunity from fulltime 110% throttle without overheating.

cheers

horseback

All good stuff..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Originally posted by Maverick_MW:
On the technical side, I'd like it to be very easy to add new aircraft and maps etc, requiring a modular system.

The main drawback of this is you might get modders who create uber-unrealistic flight models, but I believe with a strong community, and "approved by..."-style awarding, it would mean alot of peoples whines about planes not being flyable would be solved much faster.

I am against that one..... I think that the ability to add aircraft should rest solely in the hands of the developer..... One source for all FMs..... The map issue is questionable. There is a lot of work that goes into that.. and I would hate to see this sim reduced to the motley blotchy down low look of any CFS series sim. I also would hate to pay big bucks for "Scenery" add ons.... or individual aircraft.. like in CFS.

I will also add that I would make all difficulty settings server side... I would also include one groundcontrol slot for each side. If a live person were manning that slot then he would have to approve or disapprove landing clearances, inform planes of enemy locations and/or size where applicable.

Lastly.... I would also try to incorporate some kind of ground action as well.

I think that we are almost at the point where we can have PCs with the capability of running decent flight sims and ground action at the same time for multiple live or AI players.... almost. I give it about another 5 years.... 10 tops.. and I think we will see combat sims on the order of FB4.xx/Silent HunterIII/COD2 all in a BF2 type format. I'm hoping...

jugent
12-22-2005, 02:25 PM
A more realistic flightmodel, that calculated the flight-charcteristics as it was, like lift from the fuselage, helix, etc etc.
All figures from modern experiments included.

I know that it demands not the next but the processor generation after the next, to calculate this.

I saw some movie-clips from carriers, and a hell-cat seemed to fly much slower on the clip than it does on the game.

Gold_Monkey
12-22-2005, 03:00 PM
Better gun and engine sounds for sure.

domenlovrec
12-22-2005, 03:36 PM
Make it alive!

If anyone had played Call of Duty, you know how real it was! I could actualy feal the war. And we all know, that the war was not only in the sky. I miss the fealing of beeing part of something when flying IL2. Maps are like empty boxes. Few tiny tanks, perhaps a train and that's it. Look at the games such as Mafia, Call of Duty, Deus Ex, Morrowind. Great stories!

And PLEASE! Roads are not straight.

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 03:41 PM
I don't agree with lowering the AA. Just look at 9th AF and 2nd TAF losses. 'HBF' hit by flak seems to be a reoccuring themehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I like the idea of surprising AA and AA not tracking correctly in clouds.

-HH- Beebop
12-22-2005, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Maverick_MW:
...The main drawback of this is you might get modders who create uber-unrealistic flight models, but I believe with a strong community, and "approved by..."-style awarding, it would mean alot of peoples whines about planes not being flyable would be solved much faster.

IIRC CFS2 had a "1% Club" where the planes were supposed to be modelled within 1 % of real aircraft specifications. If "making" aircraft were allowed someone would make a Po-2 that peeformed like an F-22 be sure. But if a code of some kind were placed in the a/c's code, perhaps by a neutral 3rd party, that certified it to be "realistic" and that code could be read by the online server, uber planes could be kicked. But that's just the John Lennon in me......"Some people say that I'm a dreamer..."

I would like to see the ability to at least print out the mission map for "kneeboard" use, triggers for mission builders, the ability to make Objects and skin them, they could be downloadable so if it was the Pledian Space Colony Headquarters you wouldn't have to have it, better AI comms so when you herad "fighters at 3 o'clock" and nothing was in your area you'd know who and where the call came from, a better view of planes and ground objects than we have, three French Hens, Two Turtledoves and a Partridge in a pear tree.

LStarosta
12-22-2005, 04:14 PM
I would add more Bf109 marks.

carguy_
12-22-2005, 04:17 PM
I would COMPLETELY rework the rendering - dots and LODs.

BRING BACK 3.01 DOTS!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

danjama
12-22-2005, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by domenlovrec:
Make it alive!

If anyone had played Call of Duty, you know how real it was! I could actualy feal the war. And we all know, that the war was not only in the sky. I miss the fealing of beeing part of something when flying IL2. Maps are like empty boxes. Few tiny tanks, perhaps a train and that's it. Look at the games such as Mafia, Call of Duty, Deus Ex, Morrowind. Great stories!

And PLEASE! Roads are not straight.

Try the new server on hyperlobby

Great_Battles.

Amazing ground battle recreations.

triggerhappyfin
12-22-2005, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
What I think 1C doesn't get is that they have already reached a very high level of FM and graphics and we don't need that to get even higher.
What we really miss are new things. Roads that haven't been explored yet, like Rescue, Recon, Two-seat online Training, dambusting, transport, GLIDERS.

I can't imagine myself in a year or so again discussing about how the BF is for noobs and the Hurri is underpowered and the other BS of the online frag collectors. I want to discuss about the magnificent night we had trying to rescue Oleg with our gruppe of Arados in an area patrolled by Sunderlands, while a couple of our BFs were trying to distract them. I want to discuss on how we organised a massive bombing of the Lufties' factories after Danjama took the recon photos with his blue spitfire and pointed the locations. I want to tell my friend "Come online and I'll show you how to fly in the Tiger Moth" instead of "Here is the game, here is an encyclopedia of ww2 aircraft, here is a 200-pages guide a fan wrote, here is a campaign generator another fan made, here is the link to download hyperlobby, here is a list of online faux-pas, here is ...".



One more comment for the Two-seat online training. It appears 1C has already rejected the idea. They obviously don't want to make money out of BoB. If we get that feature, I can "sell" the sim to another 4-5 people. If not nill.

Couldnt agree more with your ideas...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Tator_Totts
12-22-2005, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
To add to some of the already mentioned stuff above:

5.Taxi view mode: Full real locked in cockpit have a camera view on left or right wing for taxi only.

This would be great no externals. Luckily track ir is taking care of this problem.

Clan_Graham
12-22-2005, 06:00 PM
Girls, girls and more girls.

And a bunch of house cats to shoot at.

And sharks with lazer beams on their foreheads.

And more girls.

And Star Wars geeks to shoot at.

Planes with beer fridges in the cockpits.

And more girls.

And casinos on every runway.

Bearcat99
12-22-2005, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by domenlovrec:
Make it alive!
If anyone had played Call of Duty, you know how real it was! I could actualy feal the war. And we all know, that the war was not only in the sky. I miss the fealing of beeing part of something when flying IL2. Maps are like empty boxes. Few tiny tanks, perhaps a train and that's it. Look at the games such as Mafia, Call of Duty, Deus Ex, Morrowind. Great stories!

And PLEASE! Roads are not straight.

I am sorry but there is not and wont be for years until you get 3D VR video games that can cause actual pain and make you fear for your life that can even come close to "Making it alive!" There is nothing about the injustice, horror, stark terror of war, the fear of that random bullet or bomb, or grenade or whatever with your name on it. The rage and agony of seeing people you have come to love ripped limb from limb or being showered with thier body parts after talking to them not 2 seconds before can never be fully conveyed in anything that could even remotely be called a game. I am not insulting your intelligence..... just... pointing that out.

PBNA-Boosher
12-22-2005, 09:29 PM
I'd put in low alt recon/night bombing/messenger/transport campaigns with the Fi-156,C-47, Li-2, and Po-2. Nachthexen, Mussolini's pickup, Soviet supply drops, you name it, I'd try to put it in.

slo123
12-22-2005, 10:13 PM
i didnt read all the other stuff but heres what id like to add

heavy bombers and a map to use them

rnzoli
12-23-2005, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by womenfly:
Seems everyone has a better way of doing a flight sim ... so tell us how you would do it and what would be different ...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Have fun ...

A little bit overlooked fact is that you CAN in fact design your own flightsim, just remember FlightGear (http://www.flightgear.org). If you don't feel competent in programming, you can volunteer for testing, and that will give your word some weight in what the others will program for you.

That will teach you to think about how difficult (? x 10000 manhours) your requirements would be implement! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

But 'wishing' is always easier that 'doing' it, I agree. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Zayets
12-23-2005, 01:45 AM
1.Triggers,events in FMB.Fixed and random.
2.Native Linux dedicated server.

Tully__
12-23-2005, 03:10 AM
6. Scalable icon settings for offline and online.

See a guide on how to do it. (http://www.airwarfare.com/sturmovik_101/faq_index.htm#022)


explodable placeable objects to make big bangs and secondary explosions

Some of the train carriages from the "Stationary Objects" menu do this very nicely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


As for my wants:

Two seaters for training purposes.
Ability to have bombardier occupied by a different human to pilot.
Triggers in mission builder.

What almost everyone else said are very good suggestions also.

Xiolablu3
12-23-2005, 03:11 AM
I would like to be able to walk around the airfield (map even?) FPS style (maybe even with a sidearm?) and jump into flak guns or the aircraft of your choice.

Even doa sneak attack on the enemy airfield, land your plane near to it, then run onto the AF and steal a enemy plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Or even jump in the enemy flak gun and mow down some planes that are taking off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe even have tranport planes which can carry a few people and launch an assualt on the enemy Airfield.

I guess I am getting a bit carried away, but this would be cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lowfighter
12-23-2005, 03:31 AM
1.Triggers!!!!!
2.Include an element of randomness in the AI flight behaviour especially during battle.
3. More inteligent ground objects,e.g ability of ship to maneuvre under air attack or when engaging a naval battle, ability to steer off when on colision way with another ship.

DogTailRed2
12-23-2005, 04:19 AM
To make the sim more beliveable especially for offline play would be to;

1. Make your wingmen hold station until you give the order to attack (unless you or they are attacked first).

2. Give AI a sense of self preservation.

3. Ralistic fuel consumption.

Assume these three things are given to us in the new BoB (for example).
Using (1) I can place my flight in the best place to enage the enemy. Out of the sun, pick the escorts, disengage and reform.
(2,3) Now an aircraft may break away when low on fuel or when the odds go against him. I may pass an enemy beating for home without an incident, I may do the same. A fight becomes more interesting if I have to watch my fuel as well as for threats.

Most books on air warfare have instances when an enemy had them `cold and dead` only to find them pealing away or pass aircraft heading for home.

and finally...

4. Realistic Merlin sounds please.

Stuka_G10
12-23-2005, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by domenlovrec:
Make it alive!

If anyone had played Call of Duty, you know how real it was! I could actualy feal the war. And we all know, that the war was not only in the sky. I miss the fealing of beeing part of something when flying IL2. Maps are like empty boxes. Few tiny tanks, perhaps a train and that's it. Look at the games such as Mafia, Call of Duty, Deus Ex, Morrowind. Great stories!

And PLEASE! Roads are not straight.

What? Call of Duty is so scripted. you know exactly what will happen next. That's not like war.

Hawgdog
12-23-2005, 12:21 PM
If you designed a Flight Sim .... what would you do different?


NOT give out my email address.

danjama
12-23-2005, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Hawgdog:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you designed a Flight Sim .... what would you do different?


NOT give out my email address. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

For those of you wanting the FPS/Flightsim combined experience here is an idea!

Go grab a copy of Call of Duty, play a mission, and once u complete it, put on this and pretend your a pilot again. U can use your imagination to fill in the gaps made by switchin discs and loading times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif