Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by zapatista

except of course when you get to lower altitudes you silly little man

some of the high detail scenery addons for FS-9/10 in the last couple of years look great for medium and high altitude, because it is basically satellite photography textures pasted over a fairly rough contour map.

but once you get to lower altitudes like 2000 meters and below you get major problems (for a combat flight sim), the textures suddenly look like being exactly that, just flat textures, there is no 3D detail in the contour, there are minimal real 3D objects on the ground (houses, trees, cars, trains, troops, tanks, etc..). they might give you one highly detailed airport if you buy the next addon, but everything else immediately outside that airports it again just ugly flat textures that look like martian vomit after he had a meal of carrots and parsley.

oleg's project is entirely different in focus regarding scenery, as you should have been able to realize by now by following the release of screenshots in the last couple of years (just go to foobar's website to refresh your mind and compare)

even WoP is 100x better then the high detail fs9/10 scenery addons (when seen from low altitude)

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out .

Splitter

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by brando

And that's only the drill for a single-engined fighter. Try sorting that for a twin-engined bomber + taxying to the line + waiting for the rest + taking off + climbing to a mimimum 10,000 feet over France + + picking up the escorts ...... something near an hour so far ...... and then the fun begins. Let's hope you didn't make some kind of mistake during the start-up procedure and need to abort your flight!

Exactly.. All that sounds good on paper.. but consdiering the people who will actually use features that detailed.. you have to ask yourself is it worth it to the devs.. considering that that already know what they want to do with the product .. and given the track record of 1C I for one am expecting to be wowed.. I still get wowed from IL2.. just not as much anymore..

Originally Posted by Splitter

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out .

Splitter

Bingo... hyeck I am looking forward to having the buildings finally in proportion to the AC..

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Exactly.. All that sounds good on paper.. but consdiering the people who will actually use features that detailed.. you have to ask yourself is it worth it to the devs....

Well, look at all the add-ons for FSX that do actually feature complex start-up procedures. There is quite a big market for them.

There are over 30 small prop aircraft or WWI and WWII add-ons on the Just Flight site alone (not counting the shockwave products). There are lots of user made add-ons, some of them very professionally done (see PC Pilot's free downloads each month).

The people buying those at the moment might convert to SoW. I think realistic weather and turbulence etc. will win them over. Click-able cockpits too.
I am pretty sure that manufacturers of add-ons are keeping a keen eye on SoW, and that it will take no time at all after the release of third party tools before we see some add-ons, and some of them maybe with more complex start-up procedures.

Personally I enjoy both ways. Complex start-up is a different experience. But won't worry if everything is simplified

[Chivas]

Start up procedures are a must in sims like FSX where its a major part of a civil aviation game. Thats mostly all you do is fly from point A to B using all the correct procedures. Thats the game.

Combat sims are entirely different and start up procedures aren't as high on the priority list. The developers have to make tough decisions on which features have the most priority. I don't care for complex start up procedures, but sims like BOB WOV were you can just simply turn on the magnetos, fuel cocks, pump the primer, and hit the start button, is very immersive. Especially when you can combine this with a refuel, rearm, process. it can also be very immersive when you haven't primed the engine enough, in an emergency take off scenario, and engine is just turning over and not firing.

[nearmiss]

I prefer to push one button and start the engine. If Oleg provides a required start up procedure I'll just program my ChProducts MFP board to press one key.

The IL2 and BOB SOW will be about enjoyment for me. The MSFT flight sims were fine for awhile. I enjoyed all the procedures, navs, charts, approach plates,etc. After I pretty well had that mastered I got bored with it.

[ElAurens]

Agree 100%

Flying a King Air from Toledo to Chicago is the most boring thing I've ever done on a computer.

FSX lasted about 3 months on my hard drive.

I realize that everyone has their own idea of "fun", but honestly, there is nothing "fun" about a flight procedure simulator.

Nothing.

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by major_setback

Well, look at all the add-ons for FSX that do actually feature complex start-up procedures. There is quite a big market for them.

There are over 30 small prop aircraft or WWI and WWII add-ons on the Just Flight site alone (not counting the shockwave products). There are lots of user made add-ons, some of them very professionally done (see PC Pilot's free downloads each month).

The people buying those at the moment might convert to SoW. I think realistic weather and turbulence etc. will win them over. Click-able cockpits too.
I am pretty sure that manufacturers of add-ons are keeping a keen eye on SoW, and that it will take no time at all after the release of third party tools before we see some add-ons, and some of them maybe with more complex start-up procedures.

Personally I enjoy both ways. Complex start-up is a different experience. But won't worry if everything is simplified

All of this is a small niche of market. Several thousands to 20,000 comparison from half million to several millions copies (the last did Il-2).

I have a complete statistics that to decide what is important or not.

Yes it is nice feature to have complete startup procedure, to make manuals for all of the modelled planes... but... :
1. first of all see above about statistics
2. They are doing not from the zero, but based on the other code that was done originally by other team (in your case MS or Rowan's). Trust me to modify the original code is a way more easy than to create from zero by original team
3. Our team is very small but doing real things... we haven't forces for production for each flyable plane this procedure, including manuals. Samples from above - they are doing for single plane - just one (MS) and other - lets say that it isn't close even to Il-2 and can't be in competition to Il-2 in many ways (see amount of sales).

Just because great amount of sales of Il-2 (some time second to MS series, some time higher) we was able to make so cool looking cockpits and aircraft, other things... Because all money from income and even more was going for production (sad it anyway was not enough that to order more good people - programmers and airtist-modellers)

[Ironman69]

Hi Oleg,
I have a quick question for you. How has the joystick input curve changed from 4.xx IL2 to S.O.W. ? Do you still use your old joystick curve from old IL2 for your current build of SoW? If not, what do you use for X, Y, and Z? Finally, do you think that players using linear axis of 100 100 100. ect..for XYZ is advantage over those players using default curve? i.e. 10 20 30 ... ?

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Ironman69

Hi Oleg,
I have a quick question for you. How has the joystick input curve changed from 4.xx IL2 to S.O.W. ? Do you still use your old joystick curve from old IL2 for your current build of SoW? If not, what do you use for X, Y, and Z? Finally, do you think that players using linear axis of 100 100 100. ect..for XYZ is advantage over those players using default curve? i.e. 10 20 30 ... ?

I can't say you how we did now.
However these who use 100,100, 100 - make the problems for yourself, because the control became less realistic.
And advantage? No, in my opinion these have disadvantage using such settings... they need to be way more precise in control and use very small movements of the stick.
For the reaction speed of FM it doesn't matter which settings are used. If they like it - for me it is no problem, but for the behavior modeling by the stick the long size real control column my recommended settings wer optimal. And they were repeating the settins of two real pilots who was beta testers as well and did understand what these settings means.

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

All of this is a small niche of market. Several thousands to 20,000 comparison from half million to several millions copies (the last did Il-2).

I have a complete statistics that to decide what is important or not.

Yes it is nice feature to have complete startup procedure, to make manuals for all of the modelled planes... but... :
1. first of all see above about statistics
2. They are doing not from the zero, but based on the other code that was done originally by other team (in your case MS or Rowan's). Trust me to modify the original code is a way more easy than to create from zero by original team
3. Our team is very small but doing real things... we haven't forces for production for each flyable plane this procedure, including manuals. Samples from above - they are doing for single plane - just one (MS) and other - lets say that it isn't close even to Il-2 and can't be in competition to Il-2 in many ways (see amount of sales).

Just because great amount of sales of Il-2 (some time second to MS series, some time higher) we was able to make so cool looking cockpits and aircraft, other things... Because all money from income and even more was going for production (sad it anyway was not enough that to order more good people - programmers and airtist-modellers)

I understand. My point is that the people now buying FSX could change to SoW. That is NOT a small market, even if the add-market (as you say) is small.

I still think third parties will compete strongly with each other to make the first add-ons for SoW, putting in time and money to try to get a piece of the new market. And when that happens people (old fSX customers) will have to buy SoW to try them out!!!