Future of simulations 2010 discussion

[PE_Tigar]

Originally Posted by The Kraken

Someone should call ED, it's not too late yet to cancel DCS:A-10 now that it's been shown to be boring and has no multiplayer; ElAurens has spoken... I guess all sim developers should follow the Rise of Flight approach and concentrate on Air Quake, seems to work fine for them..

I guess you're not 100% right on RoF being "air quake" - I find its FM, DM and "systems" modelling quite accurate - for primitive machines they model, that is. Now, to put that into perspective, A-10C, itself being a rather non-complicated airplane, if you discount the "bolt-on" systems added in A to C transition, is still many times more complicated that a WWI airplane. For WWII airplanes, though, there is a huge variety, starting with quite primitive machines, like Gladiator for example or Tiger Moth, and ending with F4U and similar.

But the most important thing for me is not accurate modelling of the switches you use once and forget (famously - magnetos in Il-2 - why do I need to switch them off and on, if there's no magneto failure option?) but the accurate modelling of the features really important in real airplanes - which are BTW inexplicably absent in Il-2. A good example for this is the fuel tank selector, or the fuel shutoff. If it's hard to model the fuel consumption from different tanks, than please at least let me shut off the fuel flow to a burning engine. It could've saved my virtual butt many times...

Again, the flight sim, and a combat flight sim in particular, is a very complex mechanism. With that in mind, the all new features we'll see in SOW, especially in environment modelling, will give us a huge immersion boost - be sure . The sims of tomorrow will need to follow the path of simulating the environment more accurately, and the interaction of the aircraft and the environment needs to be improved. For combat flight sims, a persistent, dynamic, war-like environment, with "jump-in - jump-out" features and a living, breathing world around it would be a "holy grail". For example, if we're modelling BoB, we could have a server (or a bunch of them) running the whole thing, according to the historical ORBAT, operations, weather etc., and offer pilots missions dynamically, which they could jump into and out of (with limitations, like no jumping out of the mission in combat, etc.). That wouldn't preclude the existence of some kind of more limited "offline training module" - but the main action would be online. I, for once, would pay a monthly fee for such an experience, and I'd gladly pay for any additional aircraft usable in such an environment.

[bolox]

PE Tigar, i'd agree with most of your post- right up until you want to 'limit' offline play.
are you seriously suggesting a game developer should ignore a large proportion of an already smallish potential customer base? doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me

@ others
if someone was to suggest the opposite here 'burning at the stake' would probably be one of the milder comments in reply

personally i welcome the exchange of opinions however strong. they should however keep a basic degree of respect, something that appears to me to be slipping from some posters. is a degree of toleration too much to ask for?

[PE_Tigar]

Originally Posted by bolox

PE Tigar, i'd agree with most of your post- right up until you want to 'limit' offline play.
are you seriously suggesting a game developer should ignore a large proportion of an already smallish potential customer base? doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me

No, not suggesting that at all - I just think that, by nature of things, a server-client environment would be able to drive that "virtual BoB" with many more airplanes etc., and compared to that the offline experience would be more limited. I.e. - you have a set limit of airplanes you can put into an MDS mission in 4.10, if you had a server farm you could theoretically put in many more planes, a bigger map, more ground objects etc.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by PE_Tigar

No, not suggesting that at all - I just think that, by nature of things, a server-client environment would be able to drive that "virtual BoB" with many more airplanes etc., and compared to that the offline experience would be more limited. I.e. - you have a set limit of airplanes you can put into an MDS mission in 4.10, if you had a server farm you could theoretically put in many more planes, a bigger map, more ground objects etc.

Given the playing habits and the general dweebery of +70% of the online crowd the online area and the "human factor" is grossly overrated. Most cannot think beyond their limited horizon of dogfight this, dogfight that, sportive contest and other such cr@p (planeset whines anyone?) which is why you'll never see an accurate depiction of WW2 aerial warfare online. Simply put human entertainment and a realistic simulation of aerial warfare do not go along on a grand scale. This is limited to offline campaigns and perhaps handpicked tight sub-communities.

Limiting offline is the surest and straightest way to send a sim to the gray plains of insignificance. Offline players, despite not being well represented on message boards, are still the largest customer group. Alienate them and you'll have shot yourself in the foot.

[Mango]

Originally Posted by csThor

Limiting offline is the surest and straightest way to send a sim to the gray plains of insignificance. Offline players, despite not being well represented on message boards, are still the largest customer group. Alienate them and you'll have shot yourself in the foot.

+1

[SlipBall]

If I understand Oleg correctly, we will have full system's, management, and controls...what we won't have is realistic starting of the engine's, but. We may even see that someday through a third party effort.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

If I understand Oleg correctly, we will have full system's, management, and controls...what we won't have is realistic starting of the engine's, but. We may even see that someday through a third party effort.

Engine starts like this you mean

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XVgC...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkcX0KGIBwk

That would be awesome. Of course radials only start that badly if let sit for a while.

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

If I understand Oleg correctly, we will have full system's, management, and controls...what we won't have is realistic starting of the engine's, but. We may even see that someday through a third party effort.

\o/

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by csThor

Given the playing habits and the general dweebery of +70% of the online crowd the online area and the "human factor" is grossly overrated. Most cannot think beyond their limited horizon of dogfight this, dogfight that, sportive contest and other such cr@p (planeset whines anyone?) which is why you'll never see an accurate depiction of WW2 aerial warfare online. Simply put human entertainment and a realistic simulation of aerial warfare do not go along on a grand scale. This is limited to offline campaigns and perhaps handpicked tight sub-communities.

Limiting offline is the surest and straightest way to send a sim to the gray plains of insignificance. Offline players, despite not being well represented on message boards, are still the largest customer group. Alienate them and you'll have shot yourself in the foot.

+ a lot

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by csThor

Given the playing habits and the general dweebery of +70% of the online crowd the online area and the "human factor" is grossly overrated. Most cannot think beyond their limited horizon of dogfight this, dogfight that, sportive contest and other such cr@p (planeset whines anyone?) which is why you'll never see an accurate depiction of WW2 aerial warfare online.

True every word you're saying I recon, don't have too much online experience but I guess it's often a fragfest. And offline indeed is a mandatory piece which I couldn't live without.

I just started wondering whether arranging simulating WW2 aerial warfare online is indeed a mission impossible. One thing that there might be a lot to learn from is iRacing. For those of you not familiar with it, it's a pay per month approach of arranging true racing simulation online. You need to log with your real name (I think it was controlled by cross checking with your credit card) and there is an active governing hosted by the staff and the community to keep the experience top-notch.
I tried it and never ended up with a morons crashing or whining in the races or in the boards. You progressed in rank as you learned and the level of opposition remained challenging. I had to give it up as the level was too high for me at the moment, but I long to log in again and drive a few races. It's no GT5 when it comes to volumes but it has a community 20k strong.

I just wonder how many of the WW2 enthusiasts would be interested enough to invest a few bucks monthly for a well arranged and facilitated WW2 experience with mission/campaign focus, solid chain of command and only gentlemen in your wing. I would give high-fives for a thing like that, but I wonder if I'm the only nut willing to invest on something like that. Probably not enough volume for a 24x7 running controlled experience but with scheduled flying nights I think it might be easy to get a server filled over and over again.