PDA

View Full Version : The next evolution in flight sims



GR142_Astro
05-15-2004, 02:12 AM
Ok, I like what you guys have come up with so far. Down to the bottom of the list with you and post up your idea of where flight sims are headed and where they SHOULD head.

[This message was edited by GR142_Astro on Tue May 18 2004 at 11:34 AM.]

GR142_Astro
05-15-2004, 02:12 AM
Ok, I like what you guys have come up with so far. Down to the bottom of the list with you and post up your idea of where flight sims are headed and where they SHOULD head.

[This message was edited by GR142_Astro on Tue May 18 2004 at 11:34 AM.]

Harh
05-15-2004, 10:26 AM
You mean like it was in Europian Air War: "Das icht Wotan Kontroller..." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (sorry for my German, it is... hmm... null). It might be implemented only in BoB, not earlier, because PF goes on the same engine as FB (as I know). I hope it will be in BoB at least.

[This message was edited by Harh on Sat May 15 2004 at 09:35 AM.]

_VR_ScorpionWorm
05-15-2004, 02:40 PM
Well in PF there will be gunners manning the guns on ships. You can shoot at them to incapacitate the gunfire. Ive only seen poeple fleeing from trucks or transports, but you have to only damage them not blow them up. As far as the LSO goes, its a 50-50 chance of getting it in PF. Check out Gibbages post at Netwings from E3.

"Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary force: You are about to embark upon a Great Crusade toward which we have strived these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking" - Gen. Dwight D. Eiseinhower-Supreme Allied Commander.

www.vultures-row.com (http://www.vultures-row.com)

WUAF_Badsight
05-15-2004, 04:05 PM
little guys running around doing stuff on the ground should not be the major focus in ANY combat sim

its true WAAAAY to much emphasis is on the graphics but the Major focus should be on

GAMEPLAY

more detailed game physics

more detailed FMs & DMs

& for gods sake AI that wont shoot me trying to steal my kill

LEXX_Luthor
05-15-2004, 04:54 PM
Yes WUAF right or wrong, flight sims fall under the name "computer game." The largest thing holding back the development of flight sims is the computer gaming industry. You know how the FB horizon is only 20km away from our cockpits? The giant cloud below is at least 100km away from the airplane the pic was taken from.

http://www.chitambo.com/clouds/cloudsimages/low/towercu_sunset_benin_jun95.jpg
---> http://www.chitambo.com/clouds/cloudshtml/towering.html


And cloud top goes up to about 10km altitude. This is the next evolution in flight sims...along with AI that knows about clouds. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

609IAP_Recon
05-15-2004, 06:12 PM
major focus is clear in my opinion:

more and more human pilots flying per mission with smooth play.

All else is eye candy imo. I want to run a mission with 50+ pilots per side http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I agree with Luther as well

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

GR142_Astro
05-16-2004, 02:24 AM
Ok I was thinking more of offline play which is what a large percentage of IL2 players are doing.

Agree about more detailed DMs, don't diss me too hard B.S. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.cox.net/kinetic/SigImages/LockheedLightningMed.jpg

____________________________

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limosine anyway." ~TheClash~

F16_Fatboy
05-16-2004, 12:37 PM
2005 will bring several big changes in computer hardware. Eg:

ATX-------------->BTX
ATA-------------->SATA (RAID)
ATAPI------------>SATA
SDRAM------------>DDRII
10\100Nic-------->1Gig
32bit------------>64bit
AGP-------------->PCI-X
PCI-------------->PCI-X
32bitOS---------->64bitOS

All this and hyper threading, onboard RAID and dual channel memory on 64bit systems must open new possibilities for the programmers.

FLSTF

http://img41.photobucket.com/albums/v125/F16_fatboy/Album1/sig_fatboy.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
05-16-2004, 01:45 PM
GR142_Astro:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ok I was thinking more of offline play which is what a large percentage of IL2 players are doing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Me too. Its refreshing to see offwhiners dare to reveal themselves here....as long as they don't attack my new planes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't think it's better graphics, landscapes, more detail, etc. Those will come along naturally.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, enough landscapes and aircraft detail for now. What is missing in both flight sims and your list (you "forgot" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) are New, Bigger, and MORE clouds that can effect air combat and air naviagation--running little men don't effect air combat, although there was a brutal story about Bf-110G pilot who's squadron strafed Russian troops and cavalry attacking German infantry and the 110s wasted them. Hs~123 Biplane ground attack would be even better for that.

Here is air combat view from about 10km altitude. You can see the little Flight Sim puffs down there, low over the ground at the bottom of the picture (yes it looks like water but through the low haze you can't tell). Actually, this photo was taken over Moscow, Russia, July 2001. You can't tell cos it looks like over ocean.

http://www.chitambo.com/clouds/cloudsimages/low/cb_cap_moscow_russia_jul01.jpg
Cumulonimbus capillatus Moscow, Russia, July 2001
Two massive formations with very clear horizontal extensions in all directions.
~ http://www.chitambo.com/clouds/cloudshtml/capillatus.html

Yes even Russia in summer has New, Bigger, and MORE clouds. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Harh
05-17-2004, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

I don't think it's better graphics, landscapes, more detail, etc. Those will come along naturally.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, enough landscapes and aircraft detail for now. What is missing in both flight sims and your list (you "forgot" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) are New, Bigger, and MORE clouds that can effect air combat and air naviagation--running little men don't effect air combat, although there was a brutal story about Bf-110G pilot who's squadron strafed Russian troops and cavalry attacking German infantry and the 110s wasted them. Hs~123 Biplane ground attack would be even better for that.

Here is air combat view from about 10km altitude. You can see the little Flight Sim puffs down there, low over the ground at the bottom of the picture (yes it looks like water but through the low haze you can't tell). Actually, this photo was taken over Moscow, Russia, July 2001. You can't tell cos it looks like over ocean.

[/QUOTE]

THEESE clouds we'll get no better than in 5 years. Its very hard to make cloud algorithm, no matter your video card is. Even now, for professional 3d graphics, I don't know any decisions, which would create SUCH result. For example, a powerfull system for that stuff (dreamscape 2.0) is far from the word "photorealistic".

Too bad http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

But I certainly agree with you that Il2 clouds must be renewed. By the way I think I know some methods to improve clouds alot, but it would require new cloud engine.

[This message was edited by Harh on Mon May 17 2004 at 04:09 AM.]

LEXX_Luthor
05-17-2004, 05:22 AM
We don't need photo~realism. Just improved classes of clouds. Actually, FB clouds are the best ever made. But they are all the same size every mission. All they have to do is scale them up and I would be Happy.

Another thing is more of them, enough FB clouds so the sky is packed with them approximating overcast. My ATI 9200 does not notice FB Detailed clouds, so something very drastic can be done today, never mind by the time ATI 9800 Ultra becomes low end 50$ video card.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Harh
05-17-2004, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We don't need photo~realism. Just improved classes of clouds. Actually, FB clouds are the best ever made. But they are all the same size every mission. All they have to do is scale them up and I would be Happy.

Another thing is more of them, enough FB clouds so the sky is packed with them approximating overcast. My ATI 9200 does not notice FB Detailed clouds, so something very drastic can be done today, never mind by the time ATI 9800 Ultra becomes low end 50$ video card.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I was too *hard* about photoclouds http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. But problem is the same - algorithm. By the way, I don't agree that FB clouds are best ever made (at least for now). I've seen only some screenshots from MFS2004 and think those clouds are better. But the case is not which clouds are better, it is about one of MS advertisments (wonder, do I spelled this word rightly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) for MSFC2004 was "look at our clouds" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif . It is MS of course, but that says those clouds were really hard to create.

As I posted somewhere near (Map creation thread) most will not agree with me, but I'm looking a bit forward. My point here is that FB cloud system must be fully recreated in the upcoming BoB. I don't say "it is bad". It is old. For the time when first Il2 came theese clouds were, really, the most good of all, but time is passing. After three years new algorithm is to be done.

Again I say that it is not just *empty words*. I have some useful ideas(at least I think so), but I don't think (if such question be) I should try to contact Oleg, because I see he is too busy for that all.

By the way it is not enough to scale existing clouds. I can't really explain myself, it would take too much space.

ednavar
05-17-2004, 06:36 AM
The next real evolution would be to greatly separate world phisic from units and AI, to allow different simulators to share a single battlefield. Something along the line of Operation Flashpoint but making it more modular. Having infantry, air, tank, naval simulators all sharing the same world and mechanics.
There are quite a few attempts going on right now: we will get there in the future, and then it will be really immersive.

S!

Harh
05-17-2004, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ednavar:
The next real evolution would be to greatly separate world phisic from units and AI, to allow different simulators to share a single battlefield. Something along the line of Operation Flashpoint but making it more modular. Having infantry, air, tank, naval simulators all sharing the same world and mechanics.
There are quite a few attempts going on right now: we will get there in the future, and then it will be really immersive.

S!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too bad it will not be soon.

starfighter1
05-17-2004, 08:53 AM
hi,
maybe the 'video array' technonoly by alienware X2 could be interest to the developer:

http://www.alienware.co.uk/

One mainboard + two PCI Express graphic cards

Normaly to use for two monitors.

But: in the event the developer Maddox can find a way of different programming the sim-engine to a synchronous way processing for the ground map + action powered by one graphic card + the rest of the sim graphics(including a better virtual pilots view) powered by the second graphic card.

Maybe a way for BoB..

we need more new ideas and not this old kind of 'Jonny and Igor Joystick marketing'

Hope the developer is not relaxing on his last success all the time..

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

starfighter1
05-17-2004, 09:00 AM
hi,
here the link:
http://www.alienware.com/press_release_pages/press_release_template.aspx?FileName=press_videoar ray_0512.asp

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

BaldieJr
05-17-2004, 09:03 AM
Eye candy is all you really want in a flight sim. The first thing anyone says about a sim is how it looks.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Specs:
More expensive than the dining set.
Less expensive than the couch.
Smaller than the dishwasher.
Just as noisy as the refridgerator.
Faster than the cars' computer.
Less practical than the car.
Face it, people who put thier computer specs in thier signature are pretty ****ing wierd.

</pre>

crazyivan1970
05-17-2004, 10:04 AM
Kinda agree with Baldie. If it wasn`t for IL-2 looks, i`d stay in ww2online http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Harh
05-17-2004, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Eye candy is all you really want in a flight sim. The first thing anyone says about a sim is how it looks.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree. Although graphics is not a simple thing to create, it is far more simple than make breakthrough in gameplay.

Harh
05-17-2004, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
maybe the 'video array' technonoly by alienware X2 could be interest to the developer:

http://www.alienware.co.uk/

One mainboard + two PCI Express graphic cards

Normaly to use for two monitors.

But: in the event the developer Maddox can find a way of different programming the sim-engine to a synchronous way processing for the ground map + action powered by one graphic card + the rest of the sim graphics(including a better virtual pilots view) powered by the second graphic card.

Maybe a way for BoB..

we need more new ideas and not this old kind of 'Jonny and Igor Joystick marketing'

Hope the developer is not relaxing on his last success all the time..

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

Seen that. Too bad, such technologies rarely get themselves standart. There is only one case, when they are needed - when top graphics card's power is not enough for enough people to make that thing competable (right spelling?). As for now, when nVidia and ATI fight each other trying to get the market that hard and newest games just can't load those cards enough that it is not a probable thing. Remember that Voodoo 2SLI didn't get word *standart* about it.

I don't say that techology is hopeless, ... heh... when nVidia released nForce2Ultra no one could imagine that it would be nearly main chipset for AMD... I mean - we'll see.

As for its applyance to BoB... I don't really want to say that, but I think BoB just won't need it.

Hmm... I don't like to ruin pple fanfare, but somewhy I'm doing this... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Sorry if I make anyone upset... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I mean just say when you think i'm getting overconfident.

But anyway I really agree that developers must not relax on their success.

[This message was edited by Harh on Mon May 17 2004 at 11:33 AM.]

Blutarski2004
05-17-2004, 12:49 PM
If we are talking about that 95 pct segment of folks who fly strictly offline, then the next big step to be appreciated will be improved AI.

For example -

Clouds, no matter how realistic, will do nothing for offline play until the AI becomes sufficiently sophisticated to know when it CANNOT see the human player. Ditto for other conditions of difficult visibility.

variable skills within a flight(the existing levels of flying skills and marksmanship could be modelled on the basis of individual pilots within a flight - veteran leader with regular wingman for example);

visual acuity (how far can the AI pilot physically see and recognize you as a friend or enemy);

inattention and fatigue effects (the likelihood of seeing the human pilot at all for example);

morale (at what point of individual damage or loss within the formation convinces the AI pilot to bail or flee);

stupidity (over-aggressiveness, failure to react, wrong maneuver, over committing to a dive or turn and augering in or stalling into a spin).

Improved FM performance, although this will always be a matter of great subjective opinion. Let's face it. We would not recognize the 'perfect' FM for any given a/c if it hit us in the face. The best we can hope for here is an honest close approximation. More important to me is that the relationships between the different performance parameters of various a/c be correct. The last 25 or 50 fpm in climb rate is totally immaterial IMO.

and PUHLEEEZE commit the AI a/c to observe the same laws of physics as the human who paid his hard earner money to buy the game.

Improved graphics is about 597th on my list. Compared to the above points, I could care less about photo-realistic aircraft. It is only sold to us now because it is the easist thing for flight sim developers to execute.

---

One last thought - someone discussed the question of view distance in terms of a 100 miles or more. I'd settle for the distance that a large a/c could be detected by someone with superior eyesight. Anything more than that will be a waste of computing resources as far as our purposes are concerned.

BLUTARSKI

starfighter1
05-17-2004, 01:36 PM
hi,
just thought about this home-sim for next evolution in flight sim:

http://www.flyaces.com/
http://www.flyaces.com/aces.mpg


the producers told me that LockOn and IL2/FB is possible to run on this system by some reprogramming of the game-engine.
Also a static or non dynamic motion system is available.
Anyway who is working on a WWII warbird cockpit home simulator ?
A small pc station system with a beamer could be interes. Or ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
maybe the 'video array' technonoly by alienware X2 could be interest to the developer:

http://www.alienware.co.uk/

One mainboard + two PCI Express graphic cards

Normaly to use for two monitors.

But: in the event the developer Maddox can find a way of different programming the sim-engine to a synchronous way processing for the ground map + action powered by one graphic card + the rest of the sim graphics(including a better virtual pilots view) powered by the second graphic card.

Maybe a way for BoB..

we need more new ideas and not this old kind of 'Jonny and Igor Joystick marketing'

Hope the developer is not relaxing on his last success all the time..

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seen that. Too bad, such technologies rarely get themselves standart. There is only one case, when they are needed - when top graphics card's power is not enough for enough people to make that thing competable (right spelling?). As for now, when nVidia and ATI fight each other trying to get the market that hard and newest games just can't load those cards enough that it is not a probable thing. Remember that Voodoo 2SLI didn't get word *standart* about it.

I don't say that techology is hopeless, ... heh... when nVidia released nForce2Ultra no one could imagine that it would be nearly main chipset for AMD... I mean - we'll see.

As for its applyance to BoB... I don't really want to say that, but I think BoB just won't need it.

Hmm... I don't like to ruin pple fanfare, but somewhy I'm doing this... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Sorry if I make anyone upset... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I mean just say when you think i'm getting overconfident.

But anyway I really agree that developers must not relax on their success.

[This message was edited by Harh on Mon May 17 2004 at 11:33 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-17-2004, 06:25 PM
Some Great Beery~esque ideas here.

I did offwhine test with Fb~109E4 and Fb~109E-7/Z behind enemy Pe~2 at 8km altitude and the 7/Z wipped waaay out in front in the chase, much faster--leaving basic Email in its contrail. So we know AI GM~1 boost works for AI. I was amazed at this. Good Show!


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WUAF_Badsight
05-17-2004, 10:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Kinda agree with Baldie. If it wasn`t for IL-2 looks, i`d stay in ww2online http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,


VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why .... you HEATHEN

the Gaming Gods shall smite thee with fearsome power for such Blasphemy

LEXX_Luthor
05-17-2004, 11:54 PM
BAN him

609IAP_Recon
05-18-2004, 05:13 AM
actually, it's the FM/DM of ww2online that is more of a turnoff than graphics for me.

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

Aaron_GT
05-18-2004, 05:30 AM
"Kinda agree with Baldie. If it wasn`t for IL-2 looks, i`d stay in ww2online"

I thought WW2OL was about to get a big graphics
engine improvment?

I have WW2OL - need to sort out my account -
forgot the password... How do you think the
FMs compare?

609IAP_Recon
05-18-2004, 05:33 AM
The FMs in ww2online are very simple.

They did add some graphical enhancements and some damage effects.

They have this new engine for ground graphics that looks 100% better from the screenshots

But it's still very simple FM.

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

crazyivan1970
05-18-2004, 11:25 AM
ww2online has something that neither of existing ww2 games acheived - best online experiance there is, best teamwork there is and most advanced server setup. I`m thinking more and more about revisiting it. Graphics, FM, DM nowhere near AEP BUT ...as far as gameplay in MP, it`s simply fenomenal.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

WUAF_Badsight
05-18-2004, 10:51 PM
wow ivan

im more of a fan of gameplay than Graphics any day

id rather have a more fun game to play than a more real looking game

...... no no .... must resist ....

you wont break me Ivan with your cunning Darkside temptation ..... soon as your back when the Patch is out ill still be flying FB to terrorise the VFC's

El Turo
05-18-2004, 11:26 PM
For my money, I'd much rather see some concepts brought BACK from the old-school.. like real dynamic campaigns where you have the ability to control the entire war effort.. Mig Alley or SWOTL for example. You plan your sorties, and depending on what targets you hit, and how successful your missions are, it effects the ground war accordingly. That's primarily an off-line thing.. but it would make the replayability skyrocket.

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

Edit: Ivan, what's your callsign over at WWIIOL? Do we know each other? =]

On WWIIOL, if you guys have any questions or want someone to give you a helping hand getting up to speed with the game (it's a BIG learning curve) I'd be happy to help out and/or get you set up with the a group of people to hang out with and get involved right away. I've been a subscriber since the beginning ugly days through today's incarnation, so I've got a bit of perspective on the whole thing. If you have any questions, fire away.

WWIIOL In brief..

Good things:

Ballistics modelling is second to none. Each and every round (and piece of shrapnel) is individually tracked from the moment it is fired until detonation, impact or it reaches maximum range. Joules of energy are calculated, angle of impact, riccochet, loss of energy from penetrating a given depth of material (wood, steel, etc all have accurate penetration values modelled)... it's really maybe my favorite part of the sim. Internal components of vehicles are where they are supposed to be. If a plane has a fuselage tank and two wing tanks.. they are where they are supposed to be. If the aircraft has two wing-root tanks only.. that is there too. Fuel tanks, radiators, coolers, oil/fuel pumps, ammunition boxes, prop governor systems and a bunch more components are all individually modelled. If you shoot someone in the tail, they aren't going to have some other component break randomly... you must hit the component in question to damage it, period. If your bullet skims by the pilot's head by 1mm and exits out the canopy on the other side.. no damage. If your round penetrates the headrest armor but only has enough energy left to nick the pilot, he only loses a bit of stamina and health. The arena is huge and there is always a 24/7 persistent "war" going on. The heavy/medium bombers are tasked with the levelling of the opponent's factories that produce research & production "points" for each country's development of the next "tier" of tank, fighter or whatever unit the high commands want to put on the battlefield first.

New in the game are trees that move in the breeze and vehicles that have multiple visible stages of damage depending on what is hit and how badly. Lighting effects have recently been upgraded for independent light sourcing and the doppler effects of bullets/planes/etc whizzing by are incredible.

Oh.. and the Combat Stats and Records page is really a fun little tool to track and compare your progress through each campaign and also for your historical career records. Some of the whacky statistics you find are entertaining.. for example, I just found out today that I have three lifetime kills on bf110-c/4 aircraft.. with a RIFLE, and I've only ever been killed as a rifleman by a 110 twice. So I have a 1.5 kill ratio.. hehe. Too funny!



Bad Things:

The FM/physics loop is in bad need of an upgrade. There are serious problems with lateral/yaw instability in some of the aircraft and energy bleed/retention is an issue as well (isn't it always, though?). The engine/prop management is very simplified across the board which can be a bit of a let down if you're used to the CEM options in IL2FB. Unfortunately their staff is a bit small and these are probably things not going to change or be upgraded anytime "soon".

That being said.. there IS something special about having infantry, tanks, trucks, anti-aircraft guns, destroyers, freighters, and all manner of aircraft being controlled by real people 24/7 in a persistent environment.

I'd say it's definately worth the $15 or $20 it costs for your first 30 days (CD-key purchase), and the $12 a month isn't much compared to alternative entertainment expenses.

If you're going to give it a try, just go in knowing that you're giving up the eye candy and fidelity of the flight-regime in IL2FB to get added ground features, vehicles and gameplay/mechanics that you don't get here.

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL
______________________
Amidst morning clouds
Fork-tailed devil hunts its prey
Lightning strikes, süsse tr¤ume.

[This message was edited by H_Butcher on Tue May 18 2004 at 10:40 PM.]

starfighter1
05-27-2004, 07:04 AM
hi,
of course the base is:
64 bit programming(Win/Linux),
dual CPU/2x graphic cards + multimonitoring(+beamers)
interface to EPIC technology
to create home build cockpits

some links:http://www.simpits.org/
http://www.microcockpit.com/
http://www.xflight.de/f16/

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

starfighter1
05-27-2004, 07:06 AM
hi,
link:http://www.simpits.org/

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

starfighter1
05-27-2004, 07:11 AM
hi,
http://www.accu-flightgroup.com/products1.htm

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

starfighter1
05-27-2004, 07:15 AM
hi,
a link to all:
http://www.cbel.com/aviation_simulation/?order=alpha



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
http://www.accu-flightgroup.com/products1.htm

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

TacticalYak3
05-27-2004, 10:03 AM
Interesting thoughts.

Taking a flight combat simulation game to the next level?

Well, that doesn't necessarily mean more this or that, but more immersion, right?

Closely related to more immersion must mean better hardware in order to create an even more realistic virtual environment.

So yes, better graphics (why frown on "eye-candy"? nothing to be ashamed of, absolutely necessary for immersion purposes).

Better modelling and flight dynamics absolutely mate!

It's interesting that, in my opinion, a lot of immersion is possible but not directly related to the game itself.

While I'm not promoting the "virtues" of force feedback, my present MS Sidewinder with FF adds to immersion to this game. And while I long for TrackIR, I can only imagine it adds a lot of immersion too.

What else? Surround sound and large, crystal clear monitor. Try to more accurately model visability for high-end systems I suppose.

My 2 cents gents!

"Concealment and swiftness are the two principal elements of closing." (Colonel V. Dubrov, Soviet Air Force)

:FI:TacticalS!

starfighter1
05-27-2004, 02:44 PM
hi,
and here a link to some basics:
http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/library/mcfarland/mcfarland.html

look at the pdf doc how to simulate turbulence


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We don't need photo~realism. Just improved classes of clouds. Actually, FB clouds are the best ever made. But they are all the same size every mission. All they have to do is scale them up and I would be Happy.

Another thing is more of them, enough FB clouds so the sky is packed with them approximating overcast. My ATI 9200 does not notice FB Detailed clouds, so something very drastic can be done today, never mind by the time ATI 9800 Ultra becomes low end 50$ video card.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish _"Gladiator"_ listed as _J8A_ _...in Aces Expansion Pack_


_"You will still have FB , you will lose _nothing_"_ ~WUAF_Badsight
_"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..."_ ~Bearcat99
_"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age"_ ~ElAurens
:
_"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore_!_"_ ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

mr_Decent
05-27-2004, 06:43 PM
Would really like better "weather system", and more dynamic singleplayer missions..."triggers and events"

Aaron_GT
05-28-2004, 02:53 AM
I'd second the weather point.

Good FMs, too.

On the offline front I think what is needed is a full gaming world running behind the scenes. Lots of targets of opportunity and activity happening even outside the missions you get asked to do in a campaign. Even if it meant 5 minutes of waiting between missions (5 minutes off every hour or two isn't a bad idea anyway) it could be good.

On the graphics front I'd like to see:
1. Full motion head tracking
2. Video headsets to go with the head tracking
with stereo vision
3. Data gloves to operate virtual cockpit switches (with the video headset you won't be able to see your keyboard!)

EmbarkChief
05-28-2004, 08:39 AM
My dream?

Combine the latest WWII flight sim with the corresponding WWII tank, naval, and FPS sim. That would be oooohhhh so sweet! Just imagine attacking ships that had human gunners and helmsmen, or straffing a trench full of human players? I can see them scrambling into buildings now trying to avoid getting straffed only to have a bomb drop on the building...

ajafoofoo
05-28-2004, 12:35 PM
When the sims get so realstic that when you hit a b17 with mk108, guts from crewmembers splatter on your windshield, and you have to go puke when you finally land; then you have true immersion.

What I really want is WWII online with next gen graphics. I want to pilot a transport and drop some paratroopers to take a town. Then the next game BE a paratrooper and drop into a town to try and take it. All of this with the FM fidelity of IL2 and realism in the FPS aspect.

The next big thing isn't flight sims or FPS. It's both of those and even some RTS thrown in.
Someone could play general and orchrestrate a battle plan. Combine all these things will probably take some serious computer power (if it is to have top notch visuals). It's gonna happen in the next five years.