Post made by Jason at Sim HQ

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Rattlehead

Where I disagree is the bolded part. Developers making up their own universe have a much easier time of it than developers faithfully recreating something.

Depends really..

What I am referring to is the time it takes to dream up and script those 'other worlds', and as you know time is money. With regards to flight sims, they don't have to dream up a world, just implement the one we have.

Originally Posted by Rattlehead

Think of all the research that goes into a simulator, not only visual, but what goes on on the inside, like CEM, bullet physics, flight models etc.

The good news is the physics (math) of bullet and flight models has been around for a long time and has not changed much if any. And the implementation of said math has been done on computers for a very long time too. For example you can find the implementation of a F16 in FORTRAN. The only trick over the past 20 years was to get it all to run in real time, what with todays PCs that is no longer an issue. 20 years ago some parts of the flight model math had to be done via table lookup to save on processing power, but with todays high speed processors they can calculate those values in real time. I guess what I am saying is nothing really new physics/math wise has been added over the past 50 years wrt bullets and flight models, nothing new that the user will notice that is!

On a related topic, The area that is wide open.. and as far as I can see never ending is the math behind the AI and damage modeling. There things can be added that the user will notice!

Originally Posted by Rattlehead

The devs for say, Halo have none of that to worry about. They can make it up as they go, and don't have to worry about it being realistic.

Well there is still physics math involved, the only difference between HALO and IL2 is you don't have a death star top speed to compare to, to say how well the model of it is.