PDA

View Full Version : Very Good Read......



Bearcat99
01-07-2005, 09:29 PM
This is rather old but I figure I missed it so maybe Im not the only one.....

The Future of Our Genre (http://www.simhq.com/_air2/air_082a.html)

civildog
01-07-2005, 11:28 PM
I hadn't seen that before, but it's a repeating theme for this genre. The flight sim has always had a small market share because the games just don't sell as well to the "average" gamer: the guy that just wnats to plug in and have a good time with minimal reading involved. Graphics and sound are what people want more than content.

I've been playing the Falcon series from the first iteration to the present Falcon mod from the Unified Falcon Team. Each version was increasingly complicated and you felt like you were buying it by the pound judging by the manual. The current mod is so detailed it takes into account the spin-up time for the INS during the ramp start and if you aren't careful, you'll accidently shut off you fuel pump intead of transfer the fuel from one tank to another in flight.

Games like that just don't attract the large crowd. Games like EAW did because it had great content and was easy to use. It was pretty intuitive to play. I played Falcon religiously, but once and a while it was fun to just "kick the tires and light the fires" and jump into MiG Alley or EAW for some stress free fun. I didn't care as much about the graphics in those games not being the greatest, the immersion was there and I could tailor the game as I grew into it.

FB and PF have steep learning curves but are more realistic, even though sometimes EAW is still more fun. Falcon had a steep learing curve, but Flanker's was murderous...as a result it sat on my shelf more than Falcon ever did.

Maybe the answer could be less slamming of "NOOBS" and easy-setting servers to encourage more new players and help them grow into the game more. Also, these new games require so much horsepower to play that it leaves out the more "casual" player who can't/doesn't want to spend 300.00 on a graphics card just to get the game to run smoothly. Companies should address that scalability issue,too.

It's like when I play wargames: it's fun to use highly accurate and detailed Napoleonic rules and dozens and dozens of accurately handpainted figures on meticulously addressed terrain. But it's hard to find a lot of other, let alone new, players. On the other hand it's sometimes fun to just break out Axis & Allies...and it's always easy to find lots of players for that. And then they can be gradually drawn into the more complex games.

We need some "Axis & Allies" level flight sims to draw in new players. Or at least be more tolerant and helpful towards those who play FB/PF at the more casual levels.

Tully__
01-08-2005, 05:18 AM
Good points, worth considering...

mvuk
01-08-2005, 06:03 AM
well you are wright to some point
but for me in begining any flight sim ypu have to prepare yourself to learn somthing, as I recall our comyniti is not so big but if you play it ypu are ready to learn.
In my case when I get Il-2 after WarBirds it was a litile hard but I learned, I try OLock On after Il and I had to learn new keystrokes and so on it was unusual but I prefer Il better
and as conclusion I still play WarBirds when i need just to relax and not to think about mix, prop and similar things and when I play it I am better than iI were, becouse Il is harder then WB, so people who do not like flight sims and wanted to try it to some point they will need a good friend who like to fly or they will just be 5 min. or less in that game...

Bearcat99
01-08-2005, 07:21 AM
IMO these are the most important points....

3. Stop reinventing the wheel. The most expensive portion of flight sim development is not creation of aircraft or even visual models. The major time and expense is devoted to creating the environment that allows these aircraft to fly. We all see wonderful looking games in preview that look ready to go. Why then does it take another year or longer for those games to get to the shelf?

One idea is to have a dedicated game engine that is used to create new simulations. This has been commonplace in the FPS world for some time now. The Unreal engine and the Quake III engine have been used for the development of many successful games. There really is no reason that the IL-2 or LOMAC engine couldn€t be modified to create a successful WW1 or Korea simulation. Since these engines are basically solid and bug free now, plus they look good, the development could concentrate on gameplay and on equipment.

The only thing with point 3 is..... how do you release the engine without opening it up to hackers and the very things we all hate about the negative aspects of the CFS architecture. I think that this engine though a bit long in the tooth is far from dead andf I would love to see a Korean, Mediteranian,Spanish Civil War and a WW1 product under this engine.. even if it wasnt released by 1C.. I guess the thing with that is that this engine is so good that it would almost be like giving your competition the keys to your warehouse. In any event I agree with his bottom line.. and I think that there will always be a market for what we do but I think the diversity of product will de line as the quality rises. Like he said one of the things I like about FB the most is its scalability. I have sold literally dozens of copies of FB and PF and one of the strongest selling points aside from the game itself that I have running on a PC in the store is, when people come over to see it and want to try it I set it up accordingly.. when a guy says..."Those arrowws are so hokey though..!" I show him the scale menu.. set it to full immersion and after he crashes two or three times he is walking to the register with his copy of PF and his X-45 under his arm. For the opposite end of the spectrum.. I just let them watch in awe as they bounce off the ground after falling from 3000m.... the result is often still the same though.


4. This is the hardest recommendation but one that needs to be said. Part of the reason we have become so small as a genre is because in essence we have alienated many potential gamers. Part of the reason many earlier games like Longbow and U.S. Navy Fighters sold so well was because they could be scaled so that new gamers could get into them. Most of the sims released today still can be but we tend to thumb our noses at those that play them that way.

In essence, we drive away folks that might get into these games. We demand that all games not only approximate reality, but we insult and impugn anyone who doesn€t fly it that way. If a game comes out that doesn€t conform to our view of reality or isn€t totally €˜accurate€, we slam it to the point that people don€t want to buy the thing. It is true that less than ten percent of all flight simmers are members of a site like SimHQ. Still, many people do come to sites like ours to read reviews and opinions of games before the purchase them.

I am guilty of this as anyone. My (and my co-writers) tend to focus so much on the €˜reality€ of a game that we forget to mention the scalability and the potential for a quick bout of fun that can come from it. In our quest for the ultimate sense of reality, I forget that not everyone cares about corner speeds or torque effect. In essence, my reviews make a non-simmer feel that these games are too complicated for the average flight simmer. In some cases they are, but often they have different scales that make them as easy as any FPS game. IL-2: Sturmovik - Forgotten Battles is a perfect example. This game can be as arcadish as Crimson Skies but no one knows it. In the future this point needs to be emphasized.

The point is that we need to get people interested in these games. Most of us long term gamers started with F-15 Strike Eagle or U.S. Navy Fighters. Games that really were arcadish compared to today€s games. We have progressed to Falcon 4.0 but that is after we cut our teeth on easier games. It is easy to progress when you start out simple, something we all tend to forget.

This one is the one that we all need to work on...... we ned to remember that this sim is so good... and it is so challenging that people who are getting bored with their old stuff are finally saying "OK..... time to check this thing out.." I think that for the most part we do agood job of welcming new people in here.. but there is always room for improvement...

T_O_A_D
01-08-2005, 08:12 AM
Definetly worth the time to read http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Monty_Thrud
01-08-2005, 08:51 AM
Thanks for posting this..

I have to say i find "Simmers" to be far more dedicated than the "FPS" crew of which i participate, but its really a sideline next to flight simming...for instance i've spent an arm an a leg on a new computer, trackIR, DVD's, books, joystick, ADSL...all this was for IL2 and i know many others do the same...FPS's ...you play them once...and thats it...IL2 has been on my older PC and my new PC since it came out and i keep playing it and still throughly enjoy it the same as the day it came out...1c have been taking flight sims in the right direction...stunning enviroments coupled with as close as possible FM's and constantly improving it...theres really only the sound that lets it down for me...but if it means paying more for it...i would still do it, i havent dared to add up the total cost that i've spent...but i've enjoyed it all throughly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dieg777
01-08-2005, 08:58 AM
Good read-
My only point to add is that people in general are now used to the playstation concept of pick up game-put in drive-play and this game needs work to get the best out of it.
The key I think would be to look at the manual and how it introduces newcomers to the game - PF manual is an improvement but could be bigger and simpler- also better
in game training section and better training videos would help - any thing to ease first time users in.
Once in then they will be hooked and thats when resources like this forum and web sites can help out.

Heavy_Weather
01-08-2005, 09:51 AM
thx for sharing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Da_Godfatha
01-08-2005, 10:06 AM
Great reading. The fun for offline gamers is completly gone from most of todays flight sims (yes, PF too!) It is hard to get new players when someone $crews to pooch, and you need 3 to 4 patches to get the promised flyable planes or to get the game running right.

Most games today are geared for online players. IMHO that is a big mistake. I remember hours and hours of fun with Microproses Pacific and European Air War series.

Alot of eye candy is in the sims today. Good or bad? If the game gets boring after a few hours, I would rather have less. See Unreal 2 and Doom 3 for example. AaHaa effect and then, "Is that all?"

I have a feeling that the IL2/PF series may be the end of the round. I really don't think we will see BoB. Either Ubi or EA will drop it like a bad habit. That would be a shame.

Stiglr
01-08-2005, 10:47 AM
I immediately tune out when the "bar" becomes popularity and sales.

This is a niche. Not everyone likes the challenge and the complexity that we do. Even "our" arcade players are willing to put more time and effort into playing than the average "Doom" or "Quake" thumbtwitcher.

NO flight sim, no matter how pretty, no matter how accurate with FMs and DMs, no matter how engaging, is going to sell compared to true games (and by true games, I mean, fun, relatively mindless and addictive software or Xbox).

For our sims to approach that, they have to be stripped bare of all the things that make them what they are. They can't be realistic, because then "Johnny can't win" in 10 minutes; hell, Johnny can't even take off within 10 minutes. They won't be historical, because all that detail and correctness takes time and money, and well, it's gotta be on the shelf by Thursday to factor into this quarters sales figures.

Etc., etc., etc. All kinds of reasons why it can't be anything other than meaningless eye candy and all of them beholden to the dollar.

Our niche will always be a "premium" one in some sense of the word. We will always pay more, because there will be far fewer of us to pay for development, and the lower sales numbers are also a given (see above). The development will always be of longer duration and greater cost than it takes to design something that is not bound by anything like "history" or "real physics".

For one thing, I think we need to drop this, "I ain't paying for nothing besides the box it came in" attitude. The same folks who "won't EVER consider" a subscription kind of sim are the same ones demanding a patch to fix "minutiae item #46" on a list of about 100 things that, admittedly, ought to be fixed. If you want it right, or you want it "like you want it", be prepared to pay for it. I'd think Oleg would like nothing better than to be free of developer pressure, and replace that with a few credit card number takers who bring in monthly income that keeps his staff afloat, and dedicated to being better.

Think of it as "HBO" rather than "regular TV". If you want programs of the quality of HBO, rather than the "reality cr@p" and mindless sitcoms of regular TV, dig into your wallet and pay the extra cable fee, and while you're at it, quit bellyaching about it. Because, far fewer people watch HBO than tune into the major network TV.

|CoB|_Spectre
01-08-2005, 10:53 AM
Here's my take on the originator's article:

1. Market forces determine acceptable pricing. His analogy should have him willing to pay thousands of dollars for a 200GB HDD rather than the $105 I saw online last night. While the majority of people who buy Oleg's sims play offline, many will eventually try multiplayer online and a portion of those will learn to make their own missions. I've never played any of the IL-2 series campaigns all the way through because my enjoyment comes from building and playing co-ops online with my friends. $50 USD seems to be the price point most people are willing to pay for a computer game whether pc or console based. "Spending and extra 25 bucks" will not ensure a better game, but you can bet fewer people would be willing to give it a try when the cost is 50% higher.

2. Sounds like the author is describing Oleg's group when he says "we should look...more toward the non-traditional forms of game development". 1C:Maddox's ability to pursue development of IL-2 came on the heels of the larger houses' like EA's publicized decision to move into console-based software with its less demanding technical support. Oleg's smaller organization and lower overhead was better able to tackle the flight sim niche due to their scale.

3. "Stop re-inventing the wheel" sounds very similar to "stop trying to continually improve the product". Most of what we enjoy in the IL-2 series was built from scratch because there was/is no acceptable off-the-shelf programming that would do what Oleg envisioned. Though not without its drawbacks, Oleg's decision to render the game tamper-proof by hard coding continues to pay big dividends. I'm not sure the author knows what is the most expensive portion of flight sim development, but you can bet it's whatever takes the most time. All the experience Oleg's team has gained during the ongoing process of supporting the IL-2 series will be used to shape BoB and future projects. As with inventions, where technological advancements are built "on the shoulders of giants", software development is true pioneering and new techniques are derived by improving upon what has come before. It takes many man-years to arrive at a product like PF. It's not like building a spreadsheet, for cryin' out loud. Again, comparing the "game engine" for a Quake-like FPS to a flight sim is comparing apples-to-oranges. While Oleg has to wait on hardware technology to advance that will allow faster and more complex computation of physics modeling, the HL2 or Doom player really just needs a more powerful videocard and a processor that can handle it. With that genre it's mostly eye-candy and storyline. While eye-candy is important to flight sims, storyline is somewhat important to offline players and unimportant to online players.

4. I've been playing flight sims since the Commodore 64. I've learned a lot along the way and I've invested many hours to reach the point where I am today. I prefer "full real" settings with the notable exception that, sans TrackIR, I like using padlock. To me, this gives the immersion factor I need to enjoy the potential of this game which is to simulate the experiences of real WWII pilots. I do not thumb my nose at those who play on other settings nor do I waylay them in the forums, though too many people do. I do not feel as though I've alienated any potential gamers. I don't expect a newcomer to the IL-2 to be able to play at those settings nor do I share in the author's guilt trip because I choose difficult reality settings. If someone wants to learn IL-2, I can scale the settings to their needs and help them learn. Over time I expect their skills to handle more difficult settings to develop and they can work their way up.

In short, flight sims have always been and will probably always continue to be attractive to a relatively small community when compared to role playing and FPS games. The death of the genre was predicted almost five years ago, the epitaph written. Then came an unknown group out of Russia and showed everyone how it's done. I'm not ready to bury my HOTAS rig anytime soon.

TheGozr
01-08-2005, 11:26 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Bearcat99
01-08-2005, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
Great reading. The fun for offline gamers is completly gone from most of todays flight sims (yes, PF too!) It is hard to get new players when someone $crews to pooch, and you need 3 to 4 patches to get the promised flyable planes or to get the game running right.

Most games today are geared for online players. IMHO that is a big mistake. I remember hours and hours of fun with Microproses Pacific and European Air War series.

Alot of eye candy is in the sims today. Good or bad? If the game gets boring after a few hours, I would rather have less. See Unreal 2 and Doom 3 for example. AaHaa effect and then, "Is that all?"

I have a feeling that the IL2/PF series may be the end of the round. I really don't think we will see BoB. Either Ubi or EA will drop it like a bad habit. That would be a shame. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally disagree with you. For one thing The offline although it could be better.. there is ALWAYS room for improvement.... it is decent VERY devent. One problem that people make with PF is.... they fail to see that to get the full flavor of this sim you MUST IMO look at it as one big $70 5 CD sim. Sure it is possible to play it as a standalone. It is possible to ride a Harley with no clothes on in Texas in July.... but do you get the full Harley Davidson expeience by doing so? No you get burned nuts. The stand alone move was actually brilliant. It introduces a whole new crowd to the series.. some of whom are die hard simmers but for whatever reason stayed away.... untill PF came out. I would be willing to wager that most of them if they havent already will be getting FB+Aces soon enough.

I still have a blast with this sim offline as well asd online. I think that to fully appreciiate this sim you have to spend the time to fully learn it. That measn learn the FMB, and with the UQMG around there is no reason for anyone to be bored offline. Sure the campaigns could be better.. but pound for pound if you like simming there is nothing better in the WW2 genre.

Like Monty... when I first started simming.. and although i folled around with sims for years I didnt become a simmer untill 2001 when I got CFS1 and then 2. When I began this journey I had no idea what ~S~ meant, I balked at spending more than $20 for a joystick... and I knew very little really about PCS and howe tey work. Since then I have upgraded several times and have spent sopmewhere in the range of $3K to $4K between the software, the high speed connection, the TIR, computer components, other hardware etc.etc.... I STILL get mega bang for my buck each and every time I boot up this sim online or off. The genre will be a niche for sure but it will always be asround as long as there is quality like this around.

LEXX_Luthor
01-08-2005, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One idea is to have a dedicated game engine that is used to create new simulations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Engine made by Microsoft? Just using that as example of why this won't work. Somebody else would just make a better engine, which would become a New Standard--if the New Devs wanted it to--if not somebody else will make an even better engine.

The solution to finally admit flight sims are not PC games anymore. The price should be higher, but then PC game stores won't carry it. Fine, advertise in the thousands of magazines dedicated to aviation, military enthusiasts, and wargamers. By the nature of their publications, these magazines may be more likely to pick up and review it which means extra exposure that flight sims won't get in PC game rags.

The trick to keeping buyers interested is making a small training "campaign" meant to keep the buyer's Passion. You do this through Functional coding (not Cute coding) of game interface that has basic flight trainers of historic relevancy availble to quick fly and take off in immersive training missions -- right there on the game's opening screen. The key to making the training "campaign" attractive is to keep Old Timers coming back to it just for a quick spin of fun and realism in a basic trainer plane.


Trainer focused is the real goal, and from there the Newbie flight simmer Chooses where to go, bomber, ground attack, fighter, etc...

Stiglr
01-08-2005, 10:30 PM
Luthor, do you think the average not-very-well-read gamer type is interested in doing touch and go's in a T6 Texan or a Tiger Moth???

No, they want to hop into a Spit or a P-51 like most folks in here and go blow sh** up, confident that they won't lose.

The more you cater to that audience, the more you can kiss any semblance of realism goodbye. And, the more likely you are to have the kind of crappy "flight sims" like Crimson Skies that are already out there (and probably still outselling this franchise, which by any account is totally unfair).

The big mistake this entire line of thinking makes, is to assume that the high-fidelity flight sim will ever be more than a niche product. Because a flight sim is simulating flying a military or even civilian aircraft, something that cannot be done by 'the untrained guy off the street' in real life (except in bad Hollywood movies), right there that rules out a good 80% of all gamers, who can easily instantly point a gun with a mouse, hop 20 feet in a single bound and pick up energy packs. And I'd say that's a conservative estimate.

LBR_Rommel
01-09-2005, 04:32 AM
If we have more movies, kids should see the how fantastic and dramatic can be a ww2 sim, in movies like The Battle of Britain, Tora Tora Tora and all the movies about the war, that changed the face of the world today, but with Teletubies Poke-mon and etc, the best you can get is Doom.

I miss a lot USAF(janes), Israely Air Force(janes)(fantastic sim), EAW(Microprose), F18(janes), and probably we will never have chance to fly a sim with a Corsair II, Delta Dart, U2, Mig 25, F111, Panavia Tornado and etc.

Thats why i ihave to say: Oleg have balls, he made a huge sim, and if Biggest was unable to beat him(CFS3, the huge waste of time), who will?

Now Oleg what i have to say to you is, keep comin because i want them all from ww1 to Persian Gulf, and thanks because i have a lot of fun.

OBS: BTW F190 cockpit still need to fixed (hua hua hua hua hua)

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2005, 04:49 AM
i like nice looking games , i really do . . . .

but when it comes to a WW2 Aerial combat simulation , im more than willing to forgo the eye candy for better physics

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2005, 04:51 AM
of course , standards are raising every month

Game developers want to make impressive stuff , & to out-do their competition

Graphics are what impresses the averge gamer the quickest & most initially

& in the Simulation world , there is just as big a emphasis on looks as there is physics . . . . sadly IMO

1.JaVA_Razer
01-09-2005, 05:06 AM
I have to agree completly.

Espesially the engine part. (because i'm interested in game creation etc I like those things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Why does everyone want a different engine? I know everyone has their own way of programming FM, DM , AI etc but we really need like an "open source" project between flightsim developers that share an engine. They don't need to look the same but just the primary basecode.

This would cut development costs and time, would be easier to advance on seing as ,if a lot of people use it, it'll get upgraded/ rebuilth a few times.

Things that can only benefit is.

Now the price of 150 approximatly is a BIT high I think

If you'd say 75 for IL2 i'd buy it for real. But for PF I would not pay 75 honestly.

Although PF is good and fun I do not feel "such" a product is worth 75 euro's. it's worth it's 35 I payed for it and maybe even worth 45.

IL2 sturmovik the original was worth well over 50 and Fb also. This , for me, is because of the "new" is off of it.

PF did not introduce much new things(nothing you can put your finger on) "except" tweaked FM's, new planes and a few new maps.

If PF would've introduced a new sytem of damage calculation or a physics engine of some sort ( for bullet impacts or something) it would defenitly be worth it's 50-60 bucks

Although I may sound snobby at the moment I feel PF did not introduce enough things to be worth 50+ euro's

If there is enough inovation in a game then you can charge enough but not for a sequel that has inovations but not to manny
:s

I love olegs work and the sims, don't get me wrong

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2005, 05:12 AM
without Maddox Games , where would we be ? . . . . CFS 2 & 3 thats where & not knowing any better *shudders*

if its going to take a higher asking price , why not ?

(for me , USD $75.00 is a pittance , i can spend that on a evening out)

|CoB|_Spectre
01-09-2005, 06:20 AM
The replies I've seen in this discussion are from names I'm used to seeing regularly in these boards. That means you are very much "into" this sim, far moreso than even the majority of people who've bought the IL-2 series releases.

To say you'd be willing to pay more for a sim is not surprising, most of us have spent considerable money on hardware upgrades and peripherals because of our sim addiction. However, we are a fraction of a niche market and when Little Johnny walks into his local software store with money in his pocket, maybe thinking he'd like to try an air combat sim, he sees it on the shelf next to Doom XXI tagged at $50 and the flight sim is $75, is he likely to spend the extra?

Remember, the point of the original article was how to keep the genre alive and that means enticing new and more customers. I've seen people post they'd spend double what the game costs and I shake my head in wonderment. The developer must sell the product to a sufficient number of people or they go out of business. The demographics will tell the developer/publisher what their target audience is likely comprised of and how much they are willing to spend. It's pure business, people.

IL-2/FB/AEP/PF may be the sole reason for your continued existence on this planet, but don't think it's that way for everybody else or that they put as high a premium on the world's best desktop air combat simulation. All it takes is one overpriced disappointment and the customer is lost forever.

Da_Godfatha
01-09-2005, 06:37 AM
Bearcat, you are right in one sense. The campaigns for the IL2/PF series are good. I am just saying that the PF offline is not up to the usual 1C/Maddox standards. Yes, I use a merged install( I have all IL2 series!). I like the idea of a dynamic campaign, not knowing what is going to happen next. I would like to see it, that when I foobar a mission, it comes back later to haunt me! And, I like the "What if" idea, what if the Japanese won at Midway? I would like to see if possible that maybe the Axis (don't freak out, just in the game!)could win the war. Another good twist would be the Soviets fight against the Japanese from, lets say, 1943 on or the Americans fight against the Soviets in 1945.

The biggest problem today is that the big companies only want money, money, and more money. We are lucky that Mr. Maddox and his crew are devoted to their product. But lets face it, if the console generation can't "plug and play" right out of the box, we will someday not have anymore Flight Sims to fly around with.

BTW, the FMB in the game is awesome, i am just a little too thick to make any working missions!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

csThor
01-09-2005, 07:10 AM
I somewhat agree with what Stiglr said. IMO catering the masses of "thumbtwitchers" (thx Stig, I'll save that one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif ) is not the way to keep the flight sims alive. Software is always a load of compromises so I'm wondering why even think about getting below the current lowest common denominator? To please "Jonny Joystick" who believes that History Channel has something to do with history?

There are other potential customers like the people reading aviation magazines or visiting air shows. These folks care about aviation, they might be interested in learning how to operate plane A or how warbird X was used in combat. But these folks also demand a little different marketing approach:

a) Deliver a sensible package. Right now many sims feel like patched together from spare parts they found in a corner of their warehouse. Flight training, a suitable amount of single missions, quick missions, mission builder are forming the base and a real campaign (like the one from Red Baron II) and a similarly "integrated" online mode make a sim complete.
And for the GUI choose a look&feel that fits the timeframe.

b) Concentrate on authenticity and relevance when integrating game modes and objects/planes. Right now we have planes like Mistel or Bf 109 Z which might be "KeWl" once, but useless afterwards.

c) Documentation. A real pilot expects a manual for the plane he's flying. Why should Sim pilots be satisfied without one?

d) Marketing should be mature and forget about comic-like and colourful stuff. Flightsimmers are mostly older than the casual gamers so they won't react to the usual "BOOM BOOM BANG" stuff I see in magazine ads.

I could add a lot more points, but why bother? It's not going to happen anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-10-2005, 06:26 PM
I always said there is a way to Fix the Future of flight sims in stone...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"World over computer gaming is becoming a very popular tool even in the <span class="ev_code_yellow">field of education</span>. The amount and variety of learning games that can apply to the learning classroom are practically unlimited. The games can range from simple quizzing review sessions to <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">simulation games</span>, group research competitions and online treasure hunts, just to name a few of the successful approaches of education," said Pradhan.

~ http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20640
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How to do that though. School LAN. Trainer focused flight sim, then teach Teamwork through bomber escort. Team Killers or Kill Stealers get bent over a desk and Paddled. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-10-2005, 06:38 PM
CsThor:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
b) Concentrate on authenticity and relevance when integrating game modes and objects/planes. Right now we have planes like Mistel or Bf 109 Z which might be "KeWl" once, but useless afterwards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There was an intriguing post made about the possibilty that Oleg used Bf~109Z as "experiment" for future methods of generating flight sim FM development. If so, Bf~109Z directly helps the Future of flight simming. Oh the Horror. But then, our arcade gamers here are already Pulling their own teeth Whining at the BoB FM seen in the leaked tests done on FB grafix engine.

With only the two (Mistel and 109Z) out of 200 Flyable Authentic Concentrated planes, your statement (b) has no meaning for helping the flight future of flight sims. If 50% of Flyable planes were like 109Z, then your idea (b) would work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Also, Bf~109Z cockpit was easy re~mod of existing cockpits, in case you didn't know that Bf~109Z was derived from Bf~109 family by Messer's real life (not gamer) aviation engineers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bearcat99
01-10-2005, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Razer:
I have to agree completly.

Espesially the engine part. (because i'm interested in game creation etc I like those things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Why does everyone want a different engine? I know everyone has their own way of programming FM, DM , AI etc but we really need like an "open source" project between flightsim developers that share an engine. They don't need to look the same but just the primary basecode.

Now the price of 150 approximatly is a BIT high I think

If you'd say 75 for IL2 i'd buy it for real. But for PF I would not pay 75 honestly.


If PF would've introduced a new sytem of damage calculation or a physics engine of some sort ( for bullet impacts or something) it would defenitly be worth it's 50-60 bucks

Although I may sound snobby at the moment I feel PF did not introduce enough things to be worth 50+ euro's

If there is enough inovation in a game then you can charge enough but not for a sequel that has inovations but not to manny
:s

I love olegs work and the sims, don't get me wrong <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just look at FB as one huge 5CD 3 front sim well worth the $70 US it would cost if I bought it today.. and that BoB preview in the patch is not THE BoB engine.. just an experiment.

Bearcat99
01-12-2005, 09:38 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

westcoastphil
01-12-2005, 01:15 PM
Very interesting reading.

One thing that hasn't been suggested is to have the hardware companies pay a fraction of the software production costs. Before you think this is a crazy notion, think of the software as a Formula 1 race car that has sponsorship. Although in this example the car (software engine) gives free advertisement (hardware mfg.) while it spins round the track.

How many of us upgraded to play this game? In reading the responses, quite a few of us. Well we in turn helped those hardware companies right? Why not , at the time of registration of their product, indicate to them that the reason for purchase was to play this or any other game (on a check box somewhere). Then they can send a portion of the proceeds to the software manufacturer. That would keep the cost of the software reasonable to the consumer (I would gladly pay $100 for this program) and would also promote the use of upgrades. Furthermore the cycle would keep generating income and pushing the genre forward.

Just my suggestion.

SithSpeeder
01-13-2005, 08:40 AM
Hmmm. Definitely good points on both sides of the fence.

To add, we need better marketing across the board, both from the developers and the community. I have some crazy ideas to spark discussion that I'm willing to share/get laughed at about...

(in no particular order)
1. Free demos that may allow for limited (say four players) online for like 20 days or something. This allows folks to try for free what a cool thing we've got and experience with their friends some of the excitement.
2. A plug (easy to find) on the box of the IL2 games where folks can get help (these boards, for example)...let's face it, setup for these things and simple questions have waylaid many a folk, both noobs and experienced folks. Releasing chocks and the german gunsights not working to the finer points of video card tweaking and level bombing.
3. Bringing in aviation freaks, like at airshows. Most of us (and I'm making a big ASSumption here) are aviation freaks. If there were a booth at an airshow that had 8 guys from our forum with four computers up that were networked and folks could see the hardware and software working together, could see flying their own <insert favorite plane here> with their own custom skin, and then the virtual pilot gets up and invites them to sit down and try it themselves while being guided by the virtual pilot. [yes, this is not particularly feasible due to cost and the volunteers necessary, but think about it anyway] I bet in this environment, you could sell a lot of copies because a lot of people have computers nowadays. Would you as a community member be willing to spend a four hour shift doing this? Would Ubisoft/Maddox be willing to try even funding this marketing approach to help with hardware, etc.?
4. Our moviemakers...show off the work. People spend tons of money on Hollywood movies every year. Our movie makers spend tons of their time, blood, sweat, and tears...and they do it for free. From historical to make believe, from dogfights to aerobatics to skip bombing. Show more folks this work at our workplaces, our homes, or at airshows like above. That gets people EXCITED.

I can come up with more (I wish I could do this as a job!), but maybe this will get the ball rolling.

* _54th_Speeder *

Bearcat99
01-13-2005, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SithSpeeder:
Hmmm. Definitely good points on both sides of the fence.

To add, we need better marketing across the board, both from the developers and the community. I have some crazy ideas to spark discussion that I'm willing to share/get laughed at about...

(in no particular order)
1. Free demos that may allow for limited (say four players) online for like 20 days or something. This allows folks to try for free what a cool thing we've got and experience with their friends some of the excitement.

Absolutely... so many people here got turned on to the original IL2 through the demo.

2. A plug (easy to find) on the box of the IL2 games where folks can get help (these boards, for example)...let's face it, setup for these things and simple questions have waylaid many a folk, both noobs and experienced folks. Releasing chocks and the german gunsights not working to the finer points of video card tweaking and level bombing.

That is already on the box.... its just that a lot of people dont really know just how extensive the online community is. When I was introduced to the sim it was by word of mouth. The guy told me to go to the forum... and I do the same thing when I introduce people to the sim. The ones who just see it and buy it and take it home may not even initially know that there are patches. I know that somewhere ther is someone with FB 1.0 going....."Danged P-40 blows up when I dive!!!!!!" "Danged P-47 rolls like a sleeping pig!!!!" and ..... if they have FB 2.0.... "D@@@@@@@mn this Mustang is fast!!!!! No wonder it won the war!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif"

3. Bringing in aviation freaks, like at airshows. Most of us (and I'm making a big ASSumption here) are aviation freaks. If there were a booth at an airshow that had 8 guys from our forum with four computers up that were networked and folks could see the hardware and software working together, could see flying their own <insert favorite plane here> with their own custom skin, and then the virtual pilot gets up and invites them to sit down and try it themselves while being guided by the virtual pilot. [yes, this is not particularly feasible due to cost and the volunteers necessary, but think about it anyway] I bet in this environment, you could sell a lot of copies because a lot of people have computers nowadays. Would you as a community member be willing to spend a four hour shift doing this? Would Ubisoft/Maddox be willing to try even funding this marketing approach to help with hardware, etc.?

My Ops O and I are working on tht very thing right now...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

4. Our moviemakers...show off the work. People spend tons of money on Hollywood movies every year. Our movie makers spend tons of their time, blood, sweat, and tears...and they do it for free. From historical to make believe, from dogfights to aerobatics to skip bombing. Show more folks this work at our workplaces, our homes, or at airshows like above. That gets people EXCITED.

Same as above.. that is one of the ways we are doing it (Our little project). Since that incredibly talented moviemaker UCLANUPE (Shameless plug for my buddy.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif) is amember of the 332nd we have an in house producer to meet out needs.

I can come up with more (I wish I could do this as a job!), but maybe this will get the ball rolling.

* _54th_Speeder * <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>