Friday Update, February 24, 2012

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Sad but true..

It has been clear for some time.. Eversince EA anounced they were cancling the A10 project some 10+ years ago flight simmers had to come to grips with the fact that flight sim games are not the best selling games.. Clearly 1C knows this.. And knowing that they know they need to pull in some other paying customers so they can continue to do what they love.. flight sims

This is directed at our bunch of complainers.

I recently posted a thread on the Games forum of my football club to ask why the flight genre is so overlooked. There are loads of crappy FPS and other genres which are healthy yet CFS struggles. The answers were:

1. Too complex to learn (steep learning curve).
2. Boring (ie long flight times vs short action). Gamers want to fire up the XBox and be instantly into the action.
3. Not portable to console.

So, the market is limited, the income is small and the detail required is large. Therefore we have to ACCEPT that in order to keep this going it either has to be programmed for FREE by a community or it has to be extended into other income streams. That or nothing at all.

That is unless you can persuade the multitude of BF3 and CoD:MW players to buy a PC and flight controls. They won't, but we can move into areas that meet the demands of others.

Regarding tank "Simulator". Don't assume that just because you are nerdy enough to want every detail in a tank replicated that everybody else does too. If you take into account the above and couple it with the short attention span for entertainment today (movies need instant action, pop music is instant stardom for a year only) then it makes perfect sense to have an 'arcady' tank sim anyway. I re-iterate, the majority of gamers want instant action - that means something easy to learn. Just means players jump from unit to unit as they point and destroy - which means a bigger battle on the ground anyway!

Looking forward to it, bring on the Navy!

[addman]

Originally Posted by Osprey

This is directed at our bunch of complainers.

I recently posted a thread on the Games forum of my football club to ask why the flight genre is so overlooked. There are loads of crappy FPS and other genres which are healthy yet CFS struggles. The answers were:

1. Too complex to learn (steep learning curve).
2. Boring (ie long flight times vs short action). Gamers want to fire up the XBox and be instantly into the action.
3. Not portable to console.

So, the market is limited, the income is small and the detail required is large. Therefore we have to ACCEPT that in order to keep this going it either has to be programmed for FREE by a community or it has to be extended into other income streams. That or nothing at all.

That is unless you can persuade the multitude of BF3 and CoD:MW players to buy a PC and flight controls. They won't, but we can move into areas that meet the demands of others.

Regarding tank "Simulator". Don't assume that just because you are nerdy enough to want every detail in a tank replicated that everybody else does too. If you take into account the above and couple it with the short attention span for entertainment today (movies need instant action, pop music is instant stardom for a year only) then it makes perfect sense to have an 'arcady' tank sim anyway. I re-iterate, the majority of gamers want instant action - that means something easy to learn. Just means players jump from unit to unit as they point and destroy - which means a bigger battle on the ground anyway!

Looking forward to it, bring on the Navy!

This is the truth that some people either can't comprehend or won't comprehend. There's also a larger complexity to attracting new players and those players eventually takes up interest in flying planes instead of driving tanks involved here. Weekend night ATAG server: max a hundred clients or so? Weekend night at WoT: 100.000+ players. Now imagine if we could only get a fraction of those players, that would mean more servers, more to choose from, more! more! more! Arcade servers, realistic servers, happy medium servers, dynamic war servers! You name it.

I like tanks but not nearly as much as aircraft, still I embrace diversity and the possibilities of it. Finally IMO, this game is getting some desperately needed "gaming" features to make the game both fun and challenging. You think you're gonna shoot down a Spitfire in you're Panzer III? forget it! Trajectory is modeled in the game, so even if the tanks and AAA will be somewhat simplified, shooting stuff won't be easy, kinda like RO2.

On another note, am I the only one who noticed the "coming soon" text at the end of the clip? "Coming soon" as in 2 years or "coming soon" as in coming soon?

[carguy_]

Originally Posted by Osprey

This is directed at our bunch of complainers.

I recently posted a thread on the Games forum of my football club to ask why the flight genre is so overlooked. There are loads of crappy FPS and other genres which are healthy yet CFS struggles. The answers were:

1. Too complex to learn (steep learning curve).
2. Boring (ie long flight times vs short action). Gamers want to fire up the XBox and be instantly into the action.
3. Not portable to console.

So, the market is limited, the income is small and the detail required is large. Therefore we have to ACCEPT that in order to keep this going it either has to be programmed for FREE by a community or it has to be extended into other income streams. That or nothing at all.

That is unless you can persuade the multitude of BF3 and CoD:MW players to buy a PC and flight controls. They won't, but we can move into areas that meet the demands of others.

Regarding tank "Simulator". Don't assume that just because you are nerdy enough to want every detail in a tank replicated that everybody else does too. If you take into account the above and couple it with the short attention span for entertainment today (movies need instant action, pop music is instant stardom for a year only) then it makes perfect sense to have an 'arcady' tank sim anyway. I re-iterate, the majority of gamers want instant action - that means something easy to learn. Just means players jump from unit to unit as they point and destroy - which means a bigger battle on the ground anyway!

Looking forward to it, bring on the Navy!

Let me repost this because some people obviously don`t understand anything of what is happenning.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by carguy_

Let me repost this because some people obviously don`t understand anything of what is happenning.

Had the same idea, with pretty much the same wording.
You should quote him tomorrow again, but with bold letters. Some still cant see them.

[phoenix1963]

I think the really interesting question raised by this much vehicle detail is whether Luthier et al have managed to distribute the AI control of many vehicles across many computers.

If they have managed this difficult job - hard because the AI actions have to appear to be the same on every flyers computer - then there's the possibility of very large (mostly AI) tank engagements with us flying ground attack - like Kursk.

I always felt that was one of the big limitations of il2 '46, the numbers of vehicles that could be handled was always too low.

Now, I suspect they haven't solved this problem, because it would mean huge amounts of data to be communicated. But if they have, and the "spheres of influence" effects that we see affecting ship positions may be a way of limiting communication load to nearby vehicles, then that really would be a huge step forward for the series.

56RAF_phoenix

[He111]

F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C !!!

World of tanks meets BOB! pity you couldn't FOV45 (close in)

cannot wait.

Do i see a BOM with Kursk option?

.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by phoenix1963

I think the really interesting question raised by this much vehicle detail is whether Luthier et al have managed to distribute the AI control of many vehicles across many computers.

If they have managed this difficult job - hard because the AI actions have to appear to be the same on every flyers computer - then there's the possibility of very large (mostly AI) tank engagements with us flying ground attack - like Kursk.

I always felt that was one of the big limitations of il2 '46, the numbers of vehicles that could be handled was always too low.

Now, I suspect they haven't solved this problem, because it would mean huge amounts of data to be communicated. But if they have, and the "spheres of influence" effects that we see affecting ship positions may be a way of limiting communication load to nearby vehicles, then that really would be a huge step forward for the series.

56RAF_phoenix

AI activity is computed by the server and the 3D point in space of each object distributed to each connected player for rendering, but only those within visual range. That's how I understand it anyway. Offline it is all on your machine.

[Silver_Dragon]

Next infantry vs artillery and royal navy vs Kriegmarine...... and the battle of Britain has been complete. Of course, new planes and fixed the errors, and the future.... battle of moscow.....

[phoenix1963]

Originally Posted by Osprey

AI activity is computed by the server and the 3D point in space of each object distributed to each connected player for rendering, but only those within visual range. That's how I understand it anyway. Offline it is all on your machine.

Indeed, but they have to communicate a lot more than just the 3D point in space - for example where the gun is pointing, when it fires, the trajectory of the shell, the damage to the vehicle....

My point is about the AI decision making - whether that could be distributed - as I understand it, that is all done on the server and would be a huge load for Kursk-like battles.

Maybe all the vehicles within a client's sphere-of-influence could be "controlled" by the client, taking load off the server? But then what happens when more than one client is within range?

56RAF_phoenix

[furbs]

Most know they are being worked on yes, its just getting on a bit you know, almost a full year.