Desireable level of realism in a comabt flightsim?

[csThor]

Score means squat. It's pointless, superfluous and absolutely meaningless.

Blackdog - I disagree that a higher degree of realism autotmatically brings more "historical" results. The events of history turned out they way they did because of factors which a combat flight sim can't take into the equation: pilot training standards, economical limitations, doctrine and tactics ... I could go on and on. A more realistic CEM is needed, I agree here, but per se more realism doesn't necessarily has to lead to more immersion as well. Besides, Maddox Games is a small team and you can't expect them to work more than at 100% of what they can.

[AndyJWest]

Maddox Games is a small team and you can't expect them to work more than at 100% of what they can.

I don't know, they've done it before...

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by csThor

Score means squat. It's pointless, superfluous and absolutely meaningless.

Blackdog - I disagree that a higher degree of realism autotmatically brings more "historical" results. The events of history turned out they way they did because of factors which a combat flight sim can't take into the equation: pilot training standards, economical limitations, doctrine and tactics ... I could go on and on. A more realistic CEM is needed, I agree here, but per se more realism doesn't necessarily has to lead to more immersion as well. Besides, Maddox Games is a small team and you can't expect them to work more than at 100% of what they can.

The score means a lot for some people (as can be seen by shoulder shooting online in particular), thus these (large amounts of) people will be affected by score penalties.

Agreed on the rest of your post on that realism not being the main reason for the outcome, but rather the pilot skill (and I must mention teamwork, one of the most important force multipliers).

[Blackdog_kt]

Guys, i think i'm on to something. I was responding to MikkOwl in the other thread about merging difficulty settings for online servers and i got totally sidetracked in a discussion about systems modelling again. So, i started proposing ways to manipulate the various aircraft systems using only keyboard/stick/Hotas keys and no clickable pits, since most people want extra realism but no clickpits.

So, after discussing how to start a P47 in 5 steps and what kind of new controls we'd need to map, i said that we need to make some commands have varying functions between different airframes. For example the Jug has an inertial starter that's fed from the internal battery, but the 109Es we've seen in so many old videos always have a mechanic hand-cranking the starter. That's where i remembered that in Black Shark you can open the coms menu and ask the ground crew for an external power source (you have to have the radios powered or the window open, otherwise they won't hear you, not THAT'S going too far with realism ) and that maybe we could have similar things in SoW.

And then it hit me...




I think i'm on to the simplest, easiest to implement and most user friendly way to do this in a combat sim, without using a clickable cockpit and without having to map anything to any kind of controller at...all!

Why not move all non-critical subsystem controls to a menu similar to the comms menu we access with the Tab key?

What do you think of this? Instead of making complicated commands where the same keypress functions differently according to each aircraft (ie, what i foolishly suggested in the other thread before this latest inspiration hit me, lack of sleep and blabbing about gets me going in the right direction i guess ), i think this would be much easier to implement since all it does is render text on your screen.
It's the text and only the text that would be aircraft specific and save everyone a lot of trouble.

When selected, each option would flick the appropriate switch in the cockpit and perform the respective action. No need to worry about controls and mappings having to work between different kinds of switches that do the same job differently in each different aircraft (ie, starter button, 2-way starter switch, 3-way starter switch), no keybindings at all except one thing...the "systems menu". Then it would be just like the Tab menu we use for commanding the AI wingmen...press 1 to select the engine and fuel submenu and new options open up, press 3 to open up the fuel selector options, press 3 to select main tank, close menu. Easy, fast and will become second nature just like the wingmen commands after a few times.

One more good thing, seeing it written before you is like a mini-checklist that will help you remember what to do. What's more, it will also work for all the people who say "i would be able to flick a switch without taking my eyes off the target in real life, why should i have to look down to do it in-game?"

Extra realism, no clickpits, you can look outside the cockpit the whole time, everyone should be happy. Although being the way we all are, i fully expect someone to come out from hiding and complain that it's unrealistic to have text-menu commands displayed on screen

For the Jug i was using as an example in the other thread we would have something like the following layout:

Systems Menu:
1) Engine and Fuel
Primer-->1/2/3/4/5/6 strokes
Magnetos-->off/left/right/both
Fuel selector (internal)-->main/aux/off
Fuel selector (external)-->left wing/right wing/centerline/off
Starter-->energize/start/neutral
2) Electric equipment
Battery/master switch-->on/off
Generator-->on/off
3) Radios
(whatever options the radios of the time used, i think they were pre-tuned on the ground and you could only select between 3-4 preset frequencies)
4) Instruments
Altimeter calibration-->increase/decrease

..,plus whatever else you might ever need. Is your plane not a Jug but a cranky Spitfire IX that uses starter cartridges and has a more complicated start-up? No problem, no new controls, no nothing, just substitute the appropriate commands in the text menu and tie them to the switches (which we already know will be fully animated from the start) and the respective systems (which we have a good deal of hints that they will be modelled to some detail).

I think this is the best overall compromise. By all means do away with the IL2-style engine HUD messages ("throttle 90%" and so on) on full real settings and use that space or the top right of the screen for the systems menu. Please, someone tell me you like this idea as much as i do

[MikkOwl]

Pop-up menu works, but it is something I would personally avoid using as much as I possibly could (I really think they are mega immersion breakers). As a back-up method, sure.

[Blackdog_kt]

Well, i can't think of anything else really...it's either a host of new keyboard/stick keys to map (not too much but not too few either), a clickable cockpit or something like this.

Maybe it will gradually come to include all of this and everyone will be finally happy in the end

P.S. New update is up, go go go!

[ECV56_Lancelot]

I think its a good idea, but still i prefer keyboard mapping and clickpit. As MikkOwl said, its a good back up system, like clickpit, IMO, its a good backup system to keyboard mapping.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by csThor

Score means squat. It's pointless, superfluous and absolutely meaningless.

Blackdog - I disagree that a higher degree of realism autotmatically brings more "historical" results. The events of history turned out they way they did because of factors which a combat flight sim can't take into the equation: pilot training standards, economical limitations, doctrine and tactics ... I could go on and on. A more realistic CEM is needed, I agree here, but per se more realism doesn't necessarily has to lead to more immersion as well. Besides, Maddox Games is a small team and you can't expect them to work more than at 100% of what they can.

I agree 100%.. not to mention pilot strength.. or fatigue. I wonder how many pilots died because they were just too tired or didnt have the strength to make that extra pull on the stick. I recal accounts of some of the smaller pilots at Moton field having to almost stand on the rudder pedals to keep from torqueing off the runway on take off.. The one thing that we always forget and can never be modelled accurately in a PC sim is the seat of the pants feel.. that is something that is so crucial to flying.. and some tyhing that considering it cant be modelled I think IL2 does a good job of compensating for.

[Seeker]

All this talk of planes, planes, planes.

Making the same mistake as in IL-2, 14 bazillion flyables but only two ever get used....

You need to focus on the game more, and click pits less.

We need to be be able to start the program up, select a plane at random from a drop down list and be able to start a meaningfull life as a pilot of that plane.

90 % of the people here have respect for FSX, have it probably installed but never use it. Think about that a second. There's no doubt that an FSX after market Spit is more detailed, and therefore "better" than an IL-2 Spit, but nearly all the guys here leave it in the hanger.

Why is that?

It's because IL-2 gives more immersion in being a Spit pilot that FSX does. In IL-2 you're doing what a Spit pilot does, in FSX you're doing what a Spit wanna be pilot does, chasing a Buchon around a perfectly moddeled Duxford to no effect.

It's the campaign modelling, the enviroment we fly in that'll make or break SOW, not clickable cockpits.

And pop up menus in the cockpit? Yeah right, that sounds really real for a 1940's analogue cockpit. Not.

Get real. Get thinking about why you want to be in that cockpit, and how the game will encourage and inculcate that.

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by Seeker

You need to focus on the game more, and click pits less.

We need to be be able to start the program up, select a plane at random from a drop down list and be able to start a meaningfull life as a pilot of that plane.

90 % of the people here have respect for FSX, have it probably installed but never use it. Think about that a second. There's no doubt that an FSX after market Spit is more detailed, and therefore "better" than an IL-2 Spit, but nearly all the guys here leave it in the hanger.

Why is that?

It's because IL-2 gives more immersion in being a Spit pilot that FSX does. In IL-2 you're doing what a Spit pilot does, in FSX you're doing what a Spit wanna be pilot does, chasing a Buchon around a perfectly moddeled Duxford to no effect.

It's the campaign modelling, the enviroment we fly in that'll make or break SOW, not clickable cockpits.

And pop up menus in the cockpit? Yeah right, that sounds really real for a 1940's analogue cockpit. Not.

Get real. Get thinking about why you want to be in that cockpit, and how the game will encourage and inculcate that.

Could it not also be that IL-2 might run better, have better damage physics, better flight physics as well as better single player (I assume - never heard about single player with FSX - never tried it, don't own it)?

Desiring more realistic cockpits and ways of interacting with them does not mean wanting FSX.

Personal motives for liking/diving into something can vary greatly. Attempting to generalize the motives/preferences of IL-2 pilots is difficult. If categorizing the pilots into different generalized types, then that might be somewhat accurate.

In my own case, I appreciate all kinds of things, but especially I like authenticity (to history, especially in regards to the machinery used). I spend a lot of time trying to improve this where it lacks in IL-2 rather than flying. If it was already at a much higher level in regards to controls and cockpits I could skip that and only fly instead, being satisfied with the immersive, convincing simulation.