PDA

View Full Version : From game to sim



zugfuhrer
05-13-2007, 10:16 AM
I think that details like the manual rising of landing gear of I-16 and wildcat makes this game more fun to play.

I would like the aircrafts in this game to have more of these details.

If a pilot could switch fueltanks used for feeding the engine, for creating better balance of the aircraft, it should be possible in the game.

If a pilot feed the a/c from wrong tank, it should be unbalanced, if it was so in real life.

I have read that the La-7 pilots had lots of manually adjustments to adapt the aircraft for best performance. If this was true, it should be like this in this game, and not automatically adjusted like it is today.

If the biplane pilots suffered from exhaustion because of not having a canopy, it should be like this in this game.

I would like anything that makes this game more like a simulator.

AKA_TAGERT
05-13-2007, 10:17 AM
simulators are over rated!

When most people talk about 'simulators' they are talking about a 'trainer'.

Where the focus/purpose of those 'trainers' is NOT dog fighting! The focus/purpose being getting familiar with where all the buttons are at and how to deal with system failures. That is what most commercial and military simulators are for!

With that said, the FLIGHT MODELING actually takes a back seat to SYSTEMS MODELING! That is to say this GAME does a better job of simulating FLIGHT than most so called 'SIMULATORS'! In that the game focus is on ACM not SYSTEMS!

So it comes down to this simply fact..

No sim/game was, is or ever will be perfect!

Right now there are two basic types of PC flight simulators

COMBAT (IL2) and NON-COMBAT (MSFS types)

If you want to dog fight and focus on ACM buy a COMBAT sim
If you want to talk to the tower and get permission to take off and taxi and navigate across country buy a NON-COMBAT sim

As time goes by COMBAT sims will incorporate more aspects of the NON-COMBAT flight sims as they have been doing for the past 15 years. I just hope they never make that their priority keep the ACM aspect the priority!

But alot of that stuff you want may never make it into a game! Not because the game makers can not do it! But because the user interface can not suport it! There is only so many keys on a keyboard! Granted, there are some people that spend alot of money on joysticks, throttle, rudders, etc. But they are the exception not the rule! So don't expect the game makers to spend alot of time and money simulating things that only a small portion of the customer base can make use of. Long story short, don't expect to see those things you want until the customer base and PC interface can catch up.

Last but not least..

Never ever be fooled into thinking that COMMERCIAL or MILITARY 'simulators' do a better job of FLIGHT SIMULATION because they have more knobs to turn!

In that most don't!

Most of their time and money is spent making a mock cockpit and writing software to train the pilot how to deal with system failures.

Yskonyn23
05-13-2007, 10:48 AM
True and furthermore you would want to ask yourself what you think is more important?

A single platform with many bells and whistles being modelled (for example Falcon 4.0) for you to play around with, or more platforms although less detailed. It takes a HUGE amount of programming to incorporate simulated systems into a game's structure. So the more aircraft you want to have modelled in high fidelty the more man hours you need to put into it.

Besides, put the amount of coding aside and you still remain with the fact that if you want many high fidelity aircraft in a sim people also need to aknowledge themselves with the workings and procedures, because there's no point in featuring system X or Y is no-one knows how to use it when there's no proper documentation.
With a simulator which has the scope of IL-2 (let alone a modern systems simulator with the scope of IL-2) you would end up having a whole bookshelf of game documentation! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (Not that I'd care)

It all comes down to production costs and to customer's appeal.
A games creator needs to sell his product, so if he has made a billion dollar project he has to sell it to a LOT of people. Making your game too detailed will only appeal to a niche-market.

AKA_TAGERT
05-13-2007, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Yskonyn23:
Making your game too detailed will only appeal to a niche-market.
Bingo!

willyvic
05-13-2007, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Yskonyn23:
...Making your game too detailed will only appeal to a niche-market.

As in MSFS or Falcon4? I'd say those are rather large "niche" markets.

It all comes down to personal preferences. What you/I want in a flight sim.

Zugfuhrer,
I predict that you will see an increase in aircraft systems detail as games and user components develop. So I believe that some of what you speak of will occur eventually. We've come a long way from the cookie cutter games of the 80's and 90's.


WV

NAFP_supah
05-13-2007, 11:46 AM
Too bad you are posting this here Zugfuhrer as you will not be making any friends here. Anything that prevents the crowd from making it into the airquake furball within five minutes after joining a server will not go with them. I'd love to have more complex aircraft systems, they don't make flight simulations overly complex. If fueltank management is too much for you to handle then I think it is best that you stick to play Second Life or the Sims. It's not hard to make, the MSFS series has had it for ages. The controls aren't hard to manage either once oleg get's of of his ludite "No click pit!"
trip.

joeap
05-13-2007, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by willyvic:
As in MSFS or Falcon4? I'd say those are rather large "niche" markets.

It all comes down to personal preferences. What you/I want in a flight sim.

Zugfuhrer,
I predict that you will see an increase in aircraft systems detail as games and user components develop. So I believe that some of what you speak of will occur eventually. We've come a long way from the cookie cutter games of the 80's and 90's.


WV

Hmmmm, MSFS is not a niche but then out of the box it is rather simple. What it does is appeal to the mass market while allowing 3rd party to make detailed "niche" type addons.

Daiichidoku
05-13-2007, 12:15 PM
obvisously, this will not happen with il2

will it make it into SoW? dunno..maybe its known already...maybe it CAN or WILL be brought into SoW at a later date, after its released, if it doesnt have that stuff already


IMO, if its within the capability of the program, and will not cripple your computer, then i support fully the most detailed functions

however, it MUST be fully scaleable function, so your hardcore "minutia-man" can click, toggle, slide anything, pitot heat, O2, even your uploaded cockpit "sweetheart" photo (cool idea, huh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )....yet the most casual user may have it set down to a level that we currently see in il2, or even simpler

scaleability, young man, scaleability

willyvic
05-13-2007, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:
As in MSFS or Falcon4? I'd say those are rather large "niche" markets.

It all comes down to personal preferences. What you/I want in a flight sim.

Zugfuhrer,
I predict that you will see an increase in aircraft systems detail as games and user components develop. So I believe that some of what you speak of will occur eventually. We've come a long way from the cookie cutter games of the 80's and 90's.


WV

Hmmmm, MSFS is not a niche but then out of the box it is rather simple. What it does is appeal to the mass market while allowing 3rd party to make detailed "niche" type addons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then we agree that "Making your game too detailed will only appeal to a niche-market" is somewhat in error... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-13-2007, 02:25 PM
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/NICHEVSNOTSONICHE.JPG

Bearcat99
05-13-2007, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
Too bad you are posting this here Zugfuhrer as you will not be making any friends here. Anything that prevents the crowd from making it into the airquake furball within five minutes after joining a server will not go with them. I'd love to have more complex aircraft systems, they don't make flight simulations overly complex. If fueltank management is too much for you to handle then I think it is best that you stick to play Second Life or the Sims. It's not hard to make, the MSFS series has had it for ages. The controls aren't hard to manage either once oleg get's of of his ludite "No click pit!"
trip.

This is one of the most ridiculous,insulting, and uninformed posts I have seen in here in a while. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

First off, to generalize so and lump this entire community into one "Airquake Furball" loving bunch is not only just plain incorrect but clearly shows how shortsighted the poster is. As if he actually knew what the people around here prefer.... Perhaps if he stayed out of the "airquake furballs" and did a little more research he would come up with some more informed opinions.

While it is absolutely true that fuel tank management (among many other feature enhancements that have been needed in this series for some time..) would be a great addition to any combat sim.. and this one in particular..... it isn't likely going to happen at this point. As for BoB.. well we don't know exactly what we will have there now do we.

Clickable pits? Nonsense. Programmable functions with assignable keys? Absolutely... a multi tiered level of CEM that is as detailed as say.... our difficulty screen... with the base easy, normal and hard settings but also with a level of individually progammable CEM features similar to the 24 individual difficulty settings we have curently in this series.. but just for CEM (well maybe not 24 but more than the two level CEM we currently have) would be great and I am sure that most of us would be smart enough to figure it out.. Whether or not we will see it in BoB remains to be seen. But you come here with the insults and the attitude.... to do.... what? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-13-2007, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
This is one of the most ridiculous,insulting, and uninformed posts I have seen in here in a while. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Agreed 100%

NAFP_supah
05-13-2007, 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 NAFP_supah:
Too bad you are posting this here Zugfuhrer as you will not be making any friends here. Anything that prevents the crowd from making it into the airquake furball within five minutes after joining a server will not go with them. I'd love to have more complex aircraft systems, they don't make flight simulations overly complex. If fueltank management is too much for you to handle then I think it is best that you stick to play Second Life or the Sims. It's not hard to make, the MSFS series has had it for ages. The controls aren't hard to manage either once oleg get's of of his ludite "No click pit!"
trip.

This is one of the most ridiculous,insulting, and uninformed posts I have seen in here in a while. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

First off, to generalize so and lump this entire community into one "Airquake Furball" loving bunch is not only just plain incorrect but clearly shows how shortsighted the poster is. As if he actually knew what the people around here prefer.... Perhaps if he stayed out of the "airquake furballs" and did a little more research he would come up with some more informed opinions.

While it is absolutely true that fuel tank management (among many other feature enhancements that have been needed in this series for some time..) would be a great addition to any combat sim.. and this one in particular..... it isn't likely going to happen at this point. As for BoB.. well we don't know exactly what we will have there now do we.

Clickable pits? Nonsense. Programmable functions with assignable keys? Absolutely... a multi tiered level of CEM that is as detailed as say.... our difficulty screen... with the base easy, normal and hard settings but also with a level of individually progammable CEM features similar to the 24 individual difficulty settings we have curently in this series.. but just for CEM (well maybe not 24 but more than the two level CEM we currently have) would be great and I am sure that most of us would be smart enough to figure it out.. Whether or not we will see it in BoB remains to be seen. But you come here with the insults and the attitude.... to do.... what? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you actually been keeping up with the discussions on this subject on this board? The replies generally read "Would only cost me time online" "Use it once, but wouldn't use it online" ad infinitum. People seem to just want to slam the I-key and roar off into the skies. I am not saying it's wrong to want that, I am saying I don't want that and it has very little to do with a simulation and more with a game. People have said on these boards that fueltank selection is overly hard to program etc. (tell that to MSFS5) and doesn't add anything ... obviously not mustang drivers these people.

If you think clickable cockpits are a fad and are going to go away then I think you will be badly surprised. It allows a higher level of complexity in aircraft systems simulation without forcing the user to use insanely difficult key combinations. 90% of people don't have expensive HOTAS setup, so mapping everything to a switch on it isn't really an option. Besides, you won't be reconfiguring your IFF settings or messing with your TACAN etc. during a dogfight, you do that before or after crossing the FLOT. If maddox once again choses to over simplify aircraft systems he will place his product firmly behind MSFS9 let alone FSX.

Bearcat99
05-13-2007, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
Have you actually been keeping up with the discussions on this subject on this board? The replies generally read "Would only cost me time online" "Use it once, but wouldn't use it online" ad infinitum. People seem to just want to slam the I-key and roar off into the skies. I am not saying it's wrong to want that, I am saying I don't want that and it has very little to do with a simulation and more with a game. People have said on these boards that fueltank selection is overly hard to program etc. (tell that to MSFS5) and doesn't add anything ... obviously not mustang drivers these people.

Yes I havbe been.... and yes I partly agree with you but if this were set server side.. like the current levels of difficulty.. those wanting more CEM could have it.. and there are those that would want it. I understand though... 99th_Papy made some missions that we run that start in the hangar.. You have to taxi to the end of the runway.. line up and take off.... often when we have guests.. they just shoot out of the hangar... so I understand... but you still cant lump us all together..


If you think clickable cockpits are a fad and are going to go away then I think you will be badly surprised. It allows a higher level of complexity in aircraft systems simulation without forcing the user to use insanely difficult key combinations. 90% of people don't have expensive HOTAS setup, so mapping everything to a switch on it isn't really an option. Besides, you won't be reconfiguring your IFF settings or messing with your TACAN etc. during a dogfight, you do that before or after crossing the FLOT. If maddox once again choses to over simplify aircraft systems he will place his product firmly behind MSFS9 let alone FSX.

I am not talking about MSFS... I am talking about a WWII sim... thisWWII sim and it's successor... while it may be true that everyone cant get a full HOTAS... if clickable pits were modelled... which we know they wont be.. not here... then even so.. I would still think that the ability to assign a key to the function would be just as important if not more so.


BTW.. this is my 10000 post... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif (Actually it is the second time I hit the 10k mark... but I lost @ 2 or 3 k in the great forum purge of a few years ago..)

NAFP_supah
05-13-2007, 03:59 PM
Think of it like this bearcat. Say you did not have a HOTAS and just a joystick with a twist rudder and mounted throttle (I consider that the bare minimum to play this game effectively). What key would you realistically assign to "Select Fuselage tank" or "increase Altimeter QNH Setting" and would it really be easier and more realistic then looking down and moving the handle about with your mouse? Once you start modelling more aircraft systems you simply run out of even remotely convenient key combinations. Especially if we are indeed moving into the korean war at some stage I think this will become a major issue. A clickable cockpit is the most convenient and workable way to adres this. Not including it now is a major mistake by maddox games and once again limits the game to over simplified cockpits, aircraft systems and procedures.

AKA_TAGERT
05-13-2007, 04:09 PM
MSFX did it so COMBAT sims can do it too!

NOT!

Sure you can have a mouse clickable 3D cockpit in MSFX! Why? Because your in no big hurry in the first place! There is no one on your six and there are no tracers buzzing past your window. So, you have all day to move the mouse around to hunt around the 3D cockpit looking for that button or lever to push or pull, or if you don't use the mouse tap the assigned keyboard key a dozen times to get that 'thing' to move.

Where as in real life, you wouldn't even have to LOOK at it! You would simply reach for it and push or pull 'it'!

That is why COMBAT sims will simplify some things in that trying to do that 'thing' in the heat of battle with a mouse or keyboard becomes an UNREALISTIC DISADVANTAGE!

It is bad enough that our VIEW of the world is shrunk down to a 21" monitor and that we don't 'FEEL' any of the forces to get some feedback as to our energy state!

No, now they want us to have to do what the real pilots could do with the flick of a wrist without even taking their eyes off the target by tapping a keyboard 27 times or taking one of our hands off the stick or throttle to move some mouse around.

Thanks but no thanks!

Might work for MSFX with no one on your six.. but not a COMBAT SIM!

Someday maybe when the PC interface looks more like a real cockpit.. but until that day some things will have to be simplified for REALISM SAKE!

NAFP_supah
05-13-2007, 04:15 PM
Certain tasks would be performed outside of combat operations, as I was saying earlier. For those a clickpit is much more convenient and even more realistic. Besides, as in the MSFS series, you would not lose the ability to program those functions to a key combo, you would gain the ability to use your mouse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Its not one or the other but both. BTW Tagert, in real life aviation looking at switches you are operating is highly advisable as not doing so is a very easy way to get killed. Especially if you are performing non combat procedures such as Take off, landing or cruise. For such things a clickable cockpit would be ideal.

AKA_TAGERT
05-13-2007, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
Certain tasks would be performed outside of combat operations, as I was saying earlier. For those a clickpit is much more convenient and even more realistic. Besides, as in the MSFS series, you would not lose the ability to program those functions to a key combo, you would gain the ability to use your mouse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Its not one or the other but both.
Again, economics! Now we not only want it.. but we want it as a hot key and a mouse clickable interface?

Two Words

COMBAT SIM!

If I am only going to use it at take off.. and not during a dog fight than I don't need it! I would rather they spend their time and money on things more important to a COMBAT SIM!


Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
BTW Tagert, in real life aviation looking at switches you are operating is highly advisable as not doing so is a very easy way to get killed.
DUH!

But at the same time there are things the pilots could do without looking at them! Take trim for example.. Kit Carson talks about reaching down (not looking down, just reaching down) and flicking the rudder trim a few notches while on a 190s six.

Like to see someone do that in the middle of a dog fight with the clickable cockpit!

Take my eyes off the bogie and take my hand off the joystick to grab the mouse and find that trim wheel?

PLEASE!

What works for MSFX with no one on your six is not guaranteed to work for COMBAT SIMS!


Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
Especially if you are performing non combat procedures such as Take off, landing or cruise. For such things a clickable cockpit would be ideal.
Which is taxi/takeoff/landing 90% of the activity in MSFX! In that once your airborne the excitement of MSFX drops of quick!

Where as a COMBAT SIM is just the oposite! The excitment starts once your airborn!

Remember.. more difficult does not mean more realistic!

So take that money intended for that 2nd way of doing things (clickable cockpit) that is only useful while on the ground and put it into something to improve the COMBAT aspect of the COMBAT SIM!

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-13-2007, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
Too bad you are posting this here Zugfuhrer as you will not be making any friends here. Anything that prevents the crowd from making it into the airquake furball within five minutes after joining a server will not go with them. I'd love to have more complex aircraft systems, they don't make flight simulations overly complex. If fueltank management is too much for you to handle then I think it is best that you stick to play Second Life or the Sims. It's not hard to make, the MSFS series has had it for ages. The controls aren't hard to manage either once oleg get's of of his ludite "No click pit!"
trip.

You have not one clue what this community is interested in and what we want from this game. So please in the future you feel free to speak for yourself and yourself alone and not the rest of us. There are reason certain features were not added and obviously you have not been paying too much attention.

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-13-2007, 04:30 PM
I would love to see hydraulic failures modeled in future releases. I know it is to an extent now, because I have had my gear not come down before after being hit. But I only recall this happening to me in a P-47 though. It would be cool to shoot up a plane and watch one of its gear drop. I think Oleg has a lot of this stuff planed for SoW:BoB.

Bearcat99
05-13-2007, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I would love to see hydraulic failures modeled in future releases. I know it is to an extent now, because I have had my gear not come down before after being hit. But I only recall this happening to me in a P-47 though. It would be cool to shoot up a plane and watch one of its gear drop. I think Oleg has a lot of this stuff planed for SoW:BoB.

You know Havok I have seen this.. I forgot the plane.. but I have seen it....

I understand where you are coming from sup.... I just partly agree... I think proper fuel management is actually not hard to model.. it might be for this sim but I would be surprised if it wasn't in BoB. As for actual full start up procedures and 100% accurate cockpts and full blown CEM... etc... nice features.. but like Oleg said.. I doubt many would use it for long... and it would be a waste of time. I think that what we have in here already.. flawed though it may be, combined with the FMs, DMs & graphics.... make this sim the enjoyable, immersive product that it is and keep it a cut above anything else.

LEXX_Luthor
05-13-2007, 05:05 PM
The keyboard is the best physical representation and functional modelling of aircraft instrument panels today. Far better would be somebody -- say the TrekkieIR people -- making a special and very large "flight sim" controller that looks like an instrument panel. Such a beast would have tonnes of switches, knobs, wheels, buttons, and replacement labels for any language like, say, German, Japanese, or even Ussianglish.

Click pits look like the real thing, but without touch-screen monitors, they don't work like the real thing.

willyvic
05-13-2007, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/NICHEVSNOTSONICHE.JPG

Oh yes, I forgot. Hyperlobby is THE meter used to measure these things. Silly me.



WV

AKA_TAGERT
05-13-2007, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by willyvic:
Oh yes, I forgot. Hyperlobby is THE meter used to measure these things. Silly me.
Whoops.. look like I struck a nerve.. Anyway, not saying HL is the only measure, just 'a' measure.

willyvic
05-13-2007, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:
Oh yes, I forgot. Hyperlobby is THE meter used to measure these things. Silly me.
Whoops.. look like I struck a nerve.. Anyway, not saying HL is the only measure, just 'a' measure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope no nerve, just expected more of ya... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Let's not lose that edge eh?

WV

Freelancer-1
05-13-2007, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/NICHEVSNOTSONICHE.JPG

LOL!!

At 9940 it would still be a niche game. Flight simming (and flying combat games, as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )in it's entirety is less than a drop in the bucket.

Gotta get out more, Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

-HH-Quazi
05-13-2007, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
I think that details like the manual rising of landing gear of I-16 and wildcat makes this game more fun to play.

I would like the aircrafts in this game to have more of these details.

If a pilot could switch fueltanks used for feeding the engine, for creating better balance of the aircraft, it should be possible in the game.

If a pilot feed the a/c from wrong tank, it should be unbalanced, if it was so in real life.

I have read that the La-7 pilots had lots of manually adjustments to adapt the aircraft for best performance. If this was true, it should be like this in this game, and not automatically adjusted like it is today.

If the biplane pilots suffered from exhaustion because of not having a canopy, it should be like this in this game.

I would like anything that makes this game more like a simulator. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif I will have to agree wholeheartedly with you m8. Not that including these features would take away from it being a game nor make it more like a simulator\trainer. To me it would just make it more challenging.

AKA_TAGERT
05-13-2007, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
At 9940 it would still be a niche game. Flight simming (and flying combat games, as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )in it's entirety is less than a drop in the bucket.
Oh master of the obvious!

Anyone that has been playing flight sims for over a week knows that flight sims users are the minority relative to most if not all other games..

The point here is relative to flight sims, Falcon is a niche relative to Il2 base on online users.


Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
Gotta get out more, Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Harldy, in that you did NOT tell me anything I didn't know 15 years ago

AKA_TAGERT
05-13-2007, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by willyvic:
Nope no nerve, just expected more of ya... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Let's not lose that edge eh?
Ah good.. because you seemed very upset! Nice to hear it was just an act!

Freelancer-1
05-13-2007, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

The point here is relative to flight sims, Falcon is a niche relative to Il2 base on online users.



Relative to Flight Sims they are both niche.

If your talking about flying combat games...

then maybe.

At least in that one second of time time when you took the screen shot. An hour from now it might be the other way around.

AKA_TAGERT
05-13-2007, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
Relative to Flight Sims they are both niche.

If your talking about flying combat games... then maybe.
If?



Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
At least in that one second of time time when you took the screen shot. An hour from now it might be the other way around. Nope!

The only way the Falcon room will exceed the IL2 room is if the IL2 room goes down. I mean they have more servers in IL2 than players in Falcon

striker-85
05-13-2007, 09:02 PM
I don't have any firm convictions for or against clickable cockpits at this point...

My only request would be that anything needed in combat has the ability to be mapped to a key or button. No way clickable cockpits would work for me if that was the only way to use a function needed in combat.

Has anyone used the clickable cockpits in BOB II WOV? I wonder how well or bad that has been implemented?

Freelancer-1
05-13-2007, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Nope!


Got Track?

AKA_TAGERT
05-13-2007, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Nope!


Got Track? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup!

Freelancer-1
05-13-2007, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Yup!



An hour and a half to come up with "Yup!"

Try again

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

NAFP_supah
05-13-2007, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
Certain tasks would be performed outside of combat operations, as I was saying earlier. For those a clickpit is much more convenient and even more realistic. Besides, as in the MSFS series, you would not lose the ability to program those functions to a key combo, you would gain the ability to use your mouse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Its not one or the other but both.
Again, economics! Now we not only want it.. but we want it as a hot key and a mouse clickable interface?

Two Words

COMBAT SIM!

If I am only going to use it at take off.. and not during a dog fight than I don't need it! I would rather they spend their time and money on things more important to a COMBAT SIM!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How was flying combat sorties described again? Wasn't it 95% boredom with 5% of sheer terror? Again, if you just want an aerial shoot em up then that's ok too. I'd rather have a simulation of flying these machines in combat. The majority of USAAF pilot's didnt see all that much of the luftwaffe and very few scored kills. ATM take-off is a non-event because it requires very little effort or skill, if this part were enhanced it would become a more important part of the game and perhaps more fun and exciting.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
BTW Tagert, in real life aviation looking at switches you are operating is highly advisable as not doing so is a very easy way to get killed.
DUH!

But at the same time there are things the pilots could do without looking at them! Take trim for example.. Kit Carson talks about reaching down (not looking down, just reaching down) and flicking the rudder trim a few notches while on a 190s six.

Like to see someone do that in the middle of a dog fight with the clickable cockpit!

Take my eyes off the bogie and take my hand off the joystick to grab the mouse and find that trim wheel?

PLEASE!

What works for MSFX with no one on your six is not guaranteed to work for COMBAT SIMS!

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tasks like manipulating control surfaces (trim tabs amongst them) are best mapped to buttons on your joystick. Most common joysticks have enough buttons for such basic things. Again, try and name me one of the things I asked bearcat.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
Especially if you are performing non combat procedures such as Take off, landing or cruise. For such things a clickable cockpit would be ideal.
Which is taxi/takeoff/landing 90% of the activity in MSFX! In that once your airborne the excitement of MSFX drops of quick!

Where as a COMBAT SIM is just the oposite! The excitment starts once your airborn!

Remember.. more difficult does not mean more realistic!

So take that money intended for that 2nd way of doing things (clickable cockpit) that is only useful while on the ground and put it into something to improve the COMBAT aspect of the COMBAT SIM! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
[/quote]

Well if that really is your average MSFS experience then you must be doing something wrong. There is a lot more to MSFS then just take off and landing. Such as navigation etc. More difficult doesn't mean more realistic? Neither does more over-simplified ! If you forget all other aspects of this game just to enhance the combat you end up with crimson skies just with prettier graphics.

Havok: Turn that statement around and it's equally true. You don't seem to have that good an idea of what this community wants either. I think the sentiments TAGERT is expressing here more then proves my point. Actual combat with the enemy is rare and is being modelled quit well allready, it's time to focus on the other parts of being a combat aviator.

zugfuhrer
05-13-2007, 11:50 PM
I am pleased to read that there are plans about fuel tank management in BoB. My wish about this game is that it would be more of a challange.

Those who dont want the complexity of the game should have the possibility to unselect this, like complex engine management today.

The most visited online servers are, as far as I know these with limited fuel, ammo and complex engine management.

I think that a more complex game is more fun. It adds more dimensions to the game.

As an example; I think that the abscense of damageprofile for radiators and cooling system for inline engines is bad for this game. If it was included it would make P-47, FW 190 La-7 more rugged and more like the real a/c:s they are supporsed to be.

A single (double) hit in the radiators of Spitfire, Hurricane, MiG and Me-109 would be fatal for them and make them overheat and ditch after some minutes in the air.

This would be a small step for UBI soft to make this game more like a battle-simulator and giant leap for gamers who wants more realism and more demanding comlexity.

willyvic
05-14-2007, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:
Nope no nerve, just expected more of ya... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Let's not lose that edge eh?
Ah good.. because you seemed very upset! Nice to hear it was just an act! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your perception is off today. Perhaps a nice cup of tea and some easy listening is in order.

WV

Yskonyn23
05-14-2007, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by willyvic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yskonyn23:
...Making your game too detailed will only appeal to a niche-market.

As in MSFS or Falcon4? I'd say those are rather large "niche" markets.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To to respond on this...
Do you really think MSFS is detailed 'out-of-the-box'? If so you clearly have no understanding whatsoever of what real-life aircraft avionics are like, let alone layout of cockpits.
The standard aircraft included in pack are a disgrace to aviation, except maybe the light aircraft like the mooney and the cessna's! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
So yes, the base pack does focus on mainstream public a bit.

No, MSFS only becomes detailed once you buy a third party addon like Level-D 767 or PMDG's packs. And yes, those are niche-market packs.
And that was the point which was made.

And as far as F4 goes. If you think that the community playing F4 is big, then you've got your radar misconfigured.
Main stream market is the area of Quake, Doom, Halo, GTA, etc etc etc. Falcon 4 has never come close to units sold in relation to said games.

It's not without reason that after the superb detailed release (unfortunately with many bugs) of F4, with the huge manual, the project was abandoned even before it was fixed right.
Lack of funds, I'd say. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

So, no, we don't agree that the 'niche-market' comment was in error. It still stands, people just have a hard time reading a post correctly and understanding what's it about in a broader scope as has been shown here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now don't start a flame-war, you hear. I am merely explaining. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

EDIT: BTW if you want detail then take a look at Aerowinx' Precision Simulator. It's a 747 CBT project which was released to the public as well. They claim it's 95% accurate.
The community consists only of a small amount of users though AND it doesn't cost the regular 50 bucks/euro's whatever either, so read the statements made by Tagert and myself again at beginning of this thread.

GIAP.Shura
05-14-2007, 06:57 AM
I certainly think that combat flight sims will model plane systems more accurately in the future, even if only as part of an enticement to get the niche market to "upgrade". I personally would gladly accept more complex flight procedures, so long as they were reasonably accurate and scaleable. That being said, I think that for WW2 combat flight sims accurate and more complex aerodynamic, ballistic and ordnance effects are going to be more of a priority because mastering flight and the art of making things go bang is what is important for these products, not mastering fuel management.

Sure Falcon4 and MSFS have clickable cockpits but that is because dealing with complex avionics and systems is about 80% of the game. I'm sure there is a reason why a lot of the best WW2 pilots were called "stick and rudder men" and not "stick, rudder and fuel management men".

As far as taking off being a non-event in IL2, tell that to the many newcomers posting here about the numerous difficulties they have with these sorts of basic flight maneuvres.

joeap
05-14-2007, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by willyvic:

Then we agree that "Making your game too detailed will only appeal to a niche-market" is somewhat in error... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I do indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Would love to fiddle with fuel tanks etc. as well as mix and superchargers, and I want my engine to blow a gasket if I mess up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

leitmotiv
05-14-2007, 07:32 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

What will be needed will be some real manuals in the line of what used to be written for the Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator line.

Yskonyn23
05-14-2007, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:

Then we agree that "Making your game too detailed will only appeal to a niche-market" is somewhat in error... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I do indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Would love to fiddle with fuel tanks etc. as well as mix and superchargers, and I want my engine to blow a gasket if I mess up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guys... I would love this and I would love that...
Even if 200 community users would agree with that it still doesn't make us (as in a flightsim community) a mainstream community.

BSS_Sniper
05-14-2007, 10:39 AM
I'd like to know what simulators some of you have been in outside of your personal computer, on a regular basis. This one almost reaches the top of the I don't know what I'm talking about list. lol

NAFP_supah
05-14-2007, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
I certainly think that combat flight sims will model plane systems more accurately in the future, even if only as part of an enticement to get the niche market to "upgrade". I personally would gladly accept more complex flight procedures, so long as they were reasonably accurate and scaleable. That being said, I think that for WW2 combat flight sims accurate and more complex aerodynamic, ballistic and ordnance effects are going to be more of a priority because mastering flight and the art of making things go bang is what is important for these products, not mastering fuel management.

Sure Falcon4 and MSFS have clickable cockpits but that is because dealing with complex avionics and systems is about 80% of the game. I'm sure there is a reason why a lot of the best WW2 pilots were called "stick and rudder men" and not "stick, rudder and fuel management men".

As far as taking off being a non-event in IL2, tell that to the many newcomers posting here about the numerous difficulties they have with these sorts of basic flight maneuvres.

I am using fuel management merely as an example of a major aspect of flying complex aircraft (which ww2 fighters were) that is sorely lacking in this series. Along with communication and navigation. Wouldn't it be cool for that navigators seat in a bomber to actually have a use other then to look at the cool rolling pencil?

Yskonyn23
05-14-2007, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
Wouldn't it be cool for that navigators seat in a bomber to actually have a use other then to look at the cool rolling pencil?

Yep that would be cool, but that was not the point in this thread. We're getting slightly off-topic now, gents.

willyvic
05-14-2007, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Yskonyn23:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:

Then we agree that "Making your game too detailed will only appeal to a niche-market" is somewhat in error... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I do indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Would love to fiddle with fuel tanks etc. as well as mix and superchargers, and I want my engine to blow a gasket if I mess up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guys... I would love this and I would love that...
Even if 200 community users would agree with that it still doesn't make us (as in a flightsim community) a mainstream community. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you misunderstand me kind sir. I did not claim that we (IL2) were a "maintstream" community. I responded to a particular quote that indicated that making a game too detailed would only appeal to a niche market. I disagree. And I cite MSFS and F4 as examples. These titles do indeed have extenisive detail in them and in my opinion are more than a niche market.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what you think a "niche/mainstream" game is and what you base your opinion on.

Thanks,
WV

willyvic
05-14-2007, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
I'd like to know what simulators some of you have been in outside of your personal computer, on a regular basis. This one almost reaches the top of the I don't know what I'm talking about list. lol

Sure Sniper. And good morninig to you. I have utilized the E6A simulator and the EA-3 simulator. Although to be truthful, the EA-3 sim was in 1984 and even by todays home computer standards it was a dinosaur http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good to see ya,
WV

AKA_TAGERT
05-14-2007, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Yup!



An hour and a half to come up with "Yup!"

Try again

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Only because I know your hanging on my every word!

So..

How was your 24hr wait for this one?

Freelancer-1
05-14-2007, 11:19 AM
Poor Nancy

Yskonyn23
05-14-2007, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by willyvic:
I think you misunderstand me kind sir. I did not claim that we (IL2) were a "maintstream" community. I responded to a particular quote that indicated that making a game too detailed would only appeal to a niche market. I disagree. And I cite MSFS and F4 as examples. These titles do indeed have extenisive detail in them and in my opinion are more than a niche market.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what you think a "niche/mainstream" game is and what you base your opinion on.

Thanks,
WV

With all due respect, but I think I have already clearly stated why. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought. It is a term most often applied in the arts (i.e., music, literature, and performance). This includes: * something that is not out of the ordinary or unusual;* something that is familiar to the masses Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream

Maybe re-phrase? Let me try again;
I wouldn't call the F4 community a mainstream one. I wouldn't even call any flightsim community a mainstream one for that matter as we only have a limited amount of players in relation to, in my eyes, mainstream games (or games for the masses) like strategy games (like Command and Conquer, Earth 2160), (most) first person shooters, World of Warcraft, you name it.

Those are games or gametypes with 10.000's or even 100.000's of players, whereas decent flightsimulators have a much smaller support platform under gamers. And eventhough F4 has a respectable community in terms of size, as does IL-2, it's not something the masses play.
Hence, in relation to the big picture, makes them a niche-market product. Especially in the eyes of developers and people wanting to make a profit out of them. And THAT is what the point was (read the thread again if you lost me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

The more detailed you will make them, the more people who would otherwise still be interested -but are now put off or are intimidated by the scope of the sim- will leave it alone, for various reasons, therefore pushing it even more into the niche-market segment.

Add to that the required amount of research and work needed to construct such a high fidelity sim its unlikely to see high-fidelity sims with super accuracy for your personal pc at least not for the normal 50 bucks, because of the narrowed down market you're aiming at. Ok, so up the price then, you would say, but that only keeps the vicious circle in place because you will lose even more possible buyers because they won't shell out the cash for a game, again pushing it even more towards the niche-market area.
And on we go, see? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for MSFS, out of the box it might be a product that appeals more to mainstream gamers, I agree, the issue was about lots of detail or high-fidelity sims (for the lack of a better word I've been using that term) and you need third party add-ons to get to the high-fidelity part in MSFS. Out of the box it quite bad and gamey, again for the lack of a better term.

I fly (commercial) aircraft in real life and I can assure you that MSFS is as close to reality as seeing a green sky when you look out of the window, avionics wise, and flight model wise.
Note; I said out of the box.

Freelancer-1
05-14-2007, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Yskonyn23:

The more detailed you will make them, the more people who would otherwise still be interested -but are now put off or are intimidated by the scope of the sim- will leave it alone, for various reasons, therefore pushing it even more into the niche-market segment.



The more detail will open the sim up not close it down. Serious simmers who would otherwise not play due to it's simplified modeling will join the ranks and those who want to play the 'WW bouncing ball' style can still have that.

I don't understand why so many people are so intimidated by this idea.

Yskonyn23
05-14-2007, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yskonyn23:

The more detailed you will make them, the more people who would otherwise still be interested -but are now put off or are intimidated by the scope of the sim- will leave it alone, for various reasons, therefore pushing it even more into the niche-market segment.



The more detail will open the sim up not close it down. Serious simmers who would otherwise not play due to it's simplified modeling will join the ranks and those who want to play the 'WW bouncing ball' style can still have that.

I don't understand why so many people are so intimidated by this idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's all meant to be seen in perspective, that's the whole point here! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif There will be more people put off by that then there would be joining hardcore simmers!
That's not something I make up, that has shown over the years. Why do you think we have so little high-fidelity sims around??

Look at SteelBeasts Pro, look at Aerowinx' Precision Sim...

striker-85
05-14-2007, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
The more detail will open the sim up not close it down. Serious simmers who would otherwise not play due to it's simplified modeling will join the ranks and those who want to play the 'WW bouncing ball' style can still have that.

I don't understand why so many people are so intimidated by this idea.

Provided you can select the level of detail you want similiar to enabling CEM in Il-2 or flying it as an arcade game I'm not sure I see the problem either.

I do see the point about limited developer resources but not the market share argument... Seems like having the ability to select anywhere from arcade up to ultra-detail level would only widen the product appeal.

GIAP.Shura
05-14-2007, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
I am using fuel management merely as an example of a major aspect of flying complex aircraft (which ww2 fighters were) that is sorely lacking in this series. Along with communication and navigation. Wouldn't it be cool for that navigators seat in a bomber to actually have a use other then to look at the cool rolling pencil?

Sure, I understand it was only an example and as I said, I generally agree with you and would like to see systems better modelled. However, would you prefer to see more detailed fuel management or better atmospherics? More detailed navigation or improved damage models? More involved engine start up and take off procedures or better AI?

Of course, these things aren't exclusive but there needs to be a priority on what is important in your product and that depends on your target audience. Perhaps with the smaller number of aircraft in BoB we will see some of the things you are looking for.

However, sometimes 'realism' isn't as good as we think it will be. I remember in B17-Flying Fortress they had a fairly detailed navigation post which required you to constantly correct your location from a direct down ground observation. It wasn't much fun doing 3 hours of that. Also, if I recall correctly the first IL-2 had random engine failures simulated. That wasn't much fun either.

Yskonyn23
05-14-2007, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by striker-85:
I do see the point about limited developer resources but not the market share argument...

You must not see them seperately. That's what I've been trying to tell you guys.

Let's take a little sidestep here; How many times do we get games rushed to the stores these days, fixing it with patches if we're lucky, but sometimes already even abandoned as it hit the shelves.
What has happened with the nice boxed games (or sims http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) with a printed detailed manual instead of cheap PDF versions? Once you figure out why this is, you will understand my point as well.

It's all about the money and so you just can't only look at the one issue or the other, its the whole kaboom that you have to look at.


Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
Of course, these things aren't exclusive but there needs to be a priority on what is important in your product and that depends on your target audience. Perhaps with the smaller number of aircraft in BoB we will see some of the things you are looking for.

Bingo! For previously noted reasons.

willyvic
05-14-2007, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Yskonyn23:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:
I think you misunderstand me kind sir. I did not claim that we (IL2) were a "maintstream" community. I responded to a particular quote that indicated that making a game too detailed would only appeal to a niche market. I disagree. And I cite MSFS and F4 as examples. These titles do indeed have extenisive detail in them and in my opinion are more than a niche market.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what you think a "niche/mainstream" game is and what you base your opinion on.

Thanks,
WV

With all due respect, but I think I have already clearly stated why. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought. It is a term most often applied in the arts (i.e., music, literature, and performance). This includes: * something that is not out of the ordinary or unusual;* something that is familiar to the masses Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream

Maybe re-phrase? Let me try again;
I wouldn't call the F4 community a mainstream one. I wouldn't even call any flightsim community a mainstream one for that matter as we only have a limited amount of players in relation to, in my eyes, mainstream games (or games for the masses) like strategy games (like Command and Conquer, Earth 2160), (most) first person shooters, World of Warcraft, you name it.

Those are games or gametypes with 10.000's or even 100.000's of players, whereas decent flightsimulators have a much smaller support platform under gamers. And eventhough F4 has a respectable community in terms of size, as does IL-2, it's not something the masses play.
Hence, in relation to the big picture, makes them a niche-market product. Especially in the eyes of developers and people wanting to make a profit out of them. And THAT is what the point was (read the thread again if you lost me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

The more detailed you will make them, the more people who would otherwise still be interested -but are now put off or are intimidated by the scope of the sim- will leave it alone, for various reasons, therefore pushing it even more into the niche-market segment.

Add to that the required amount of research and work needed to construct such a high fidelity sim its unlikely to see high-fidelity sims with super accuracy for your personal pc at least not for the normal 50 bucks, because of the narrowed down market you're aiming at. Ok, so up the price then, you would say, but that only keeps the vicious circle in place because you will lose even more possible buyers because they won't shell out the cash for a game, again pushing it even more towards the niche-market area.
And on we go, see? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for MSFS, out of the box it might be a product that appeals more to mainstream gamers, I agree, the issue was about lots of detail or high-fidelity sims (for the lack of a better word I've been using that term) and you need third party add-ons to get to the high-fidelity part in MSFS. Out of the box it quite bad and gamey, again for the lack of a better term.

I fly (commercial) aircraft in real life and I can assure you that MSFS is as close to reality as seeing a green sky when you look out of the window, avionics wise, and flight model wise.
Note; I said out of the box. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll split ya fifty fifty on this one. F4 niche by your standards and MSFS mainstream by my standards. My standards, for mainstream, being the amount of users a particular game draws. I think we can both agree that MSFS 2004, with an average franchise sales figure of 3 million plus, qualifies as a mainstream game. I do not know what FSX has done to date but I suspect it is equally impressive.

And you are correct, the initial issue is about details. More precisely, the lack of details. More details will not, imo, push this IL2 franchise more into the niche hole. If anything, I believe it will make the game more appealing to a larger audience.

As for your assurances of the game play, I respect your opinion. I will, however, rely on my own experience in aviation as to wether or not a game captures what I expect a game to capture. Fundamentally, I find the MSFS series delivers the goods (even right out of the box). The cockhouses may not be spot on but the fundamentals of button pushing, dial twisting, and flight management are there.

It's good that we have a difference of opinion. It's what keeps the developers hopping.

WV

Freelancer-1
05-14-2007, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Yskonyn23:

Look at SteelBeasts Pro, look at Aerowinx' Precision Sim...

I think the price may have more to do with it.

IL2 1946 $29.95 US

Steel Beasts Pro PE $125.00 US

Precision Simulator $336.37 US

Yskonyn23
05-14-2007, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by willyvic:
I think we can both agree that MSFS 2004, with an average franchise sales figure of 3 million plus, qualifies as a mainstream game.

Out of the box yes, I do agree. But in regards of being detailed (in relation to aircraft systems) you need to buy addons (PMDG, Level-D quality) and I don't regard them as being mainstream.


Originally posted by willyvic:
As for your assurances of the game play, I respect your opinion. I will, however, rely on my own experience in aviation as to wether or not a game captures what I expect a game to capture. Fundamentally, I find the MSFS series delivers the goods (even right out of the box). The cockhouses may not be spot on but the fundamentals of button pushing, dial twisting, and flight management are there.

Please do, each to his own for sure! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I, for that matter, don't regard button pushing and dial twisting as fundamentals of modelling flight or flight procedures.

But like you said very well: It's good that we have a different opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Yskonyn23
05-14-2007, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yskonyn23:

Look at SteelBeasts Pro, look at Aerowinx' Precision Sim...

I think the price may have more to do with it.

IL2 1946 $29.95 US

Steel Beasts Pro PE $125.00 US

Precision Simulator $336.37 US </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're almost there... Now ask youself why the prices are that different! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

willyvic
05-14-2007, 12:36 PM
Done and done. Great exchange Yskonyn23. Thank you for your time and effort.

Looking forward to our next discussion,
WV

Yskonyn23
05-14-2007, 12:37 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif my pleasure and so do I.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

P.S. When english isn't your native tongue, it can be damn hard to exactly write down what you mean, be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

willyvic
05-14-2007, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Yskonyn23:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif my pleasure and so do I.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

P.S. When english isn't your native tongue, it can be damn hard to exactly write down what you mean, be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Please be assured that even if english IS your native tongue writing what you mean is still difficult. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Freelancer-1
05-14-2007, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Yskonyn23:

You're almost there... Now ask youself why the prices are that different! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hmmm

I see where you're leading me on this and I don't necessarily disagree.

Let me think on this for a bit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

NAFP_supah
05-14-2007, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
I am using fuel management merely as an example of a major aspect of flying complex aircraft (which ww2 fighters were) that is sorely lacking in this series. Along with communication and navigation. Wouldn't it be cool for that navigators seat in a bomber to actually have a use other then to look at the cool rolling pencil?

Sure, I understand it was only an example and as I said, I generally agree with you and would like to see systems better modelled. However, would you prefer to see more detailed fuel management or better atmospherics? More detailed navigation or improved damage models? More involved engine start up and take off procedures or better AI?

Of course, these things aren't exclusive but there needs to be a priority on what is important in your product and that depends on your target audience. Perhaps with the smaller number of aircraft in BoB we will see some of the things you are looking for.

However, sometimes 'realism' isn't as good as we think it will be. I remember in B17-Flying Fortress they had a fairly detailed navigation post which required you to constantly correct your location from a direct down ground observation. It wasn't much fun doing 3 hours of that. Also, if I recall correctly the first IL-2 had random engine failures simulated. That wasn't much fun either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the Offline AI is another aspect that needs improving, but I trust maddox games on this one. What I am concerned at is the apparent lack of desire to include more complex systems and the most convenient way to operate those, via a clickable 3D cockpit.

Tab_Flettner
05-14-2007, 09:49 PM
"airquake furballs" lol my old nickname comes back to haunt me.....