Poll: Interactive Cockpits

[proton45]

"Supah" asked for a link to Olegs feeling about "clickable cockpits" and "flight sims" vs "Flight combat simming". Here is a resent post I saw from Oleg that addresses some of the issues (with Evgeny question):

Question...Originally Posted by Evgeny View Post


8. Hello Oleg

I've been flying the IL-2 series almost exclusively since the Beta test days. I've also flown Rowans and Shockwaves BOB WOV off and on since that series began. Recently I have been flying alot of BOB WOV since the stability of the 2.07 patch and because of the engine start procedures, and the ability to simulate refueling and rearming. These few things add alot of immersion for me.

I know you have some sort of rearming and refuelling simulation planned for SOW but I think I remember reading that you weren't too interested in simulating clickable cockpits. I'm not interested in clickable cockpits either, but enjoy having the option to map the fuel cocks, magneto's, fuel pump, and start switch to my Hotas. Do you have any plans to implement optional switches in the Controls section of SOW?



Olegs answer...

Third party would do it I think. Models of aircraft has all features that to program it.
However we don’t plan to make for each aircraft 100% precise start of engine, etc… They are too different and not like it is in simulator above in most cases…
Some aircraft has 20 operations, some up to 40… for each aircraft we would need some sort of flight manual (Pilot Notes) in such a case. This is possible if we would make the sim of just one, or say couple of aircraft. But we will have way more… and we don’t plan to continue development of SOW engine and BoB itself 3 years more.
In my very personal opinion – the main thing in a flight sim of WWII is how the plane is fly and its physics in total + plus features and physics of the weapon and the damage that this weapon would do… say the complexity of the internal construction of aircraft… This would make sim way more realistic that to model instead of it the starting procedure… the gameplay would be in this case more better than the game play with immersion of only starting procedure. Yes, I would say it is also interesting, but for less than 1 % of users… that will use it constantly and will not switch off right after the first attempt.

I hope this helps...

I think Oleg is saying that the "realistic" flight physics and weapons damage ect... would help with the immersion MORE the "clickable cockpits" (or complex starting procedure)...his feelings, his sim.


Oleg makes an interesting point about the difference in making a "flight sim" vs a "flight combat sim"...when your making a "flight combat sim" you have to spend time modeling all the internal systems and structures of an aeroplane while the "flight sim" doesn't have to spend time or resources modeling these things... the "flight sim" just isn't concerned with issues like "what gets damaged if flak hits the engine"...

Their has been some speculation here about M$ modifying their "flight sim" code into a "Flight combat sim", but I just don't see it happening... Adding bombs or machine guns is one thing but I just don't see how they could (write in) modify their code to include a complex "damage engine"... people complain about "IL2's" shortcomings and people complain about how the "Il2" engine was stretched beyond its original design, can you imagine what a M$ "flight combat sim" would be like if it was built on a modified "flight sim" engine? It would be a joke!

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by brando

Thanks BadAim, yes it went well & I'm obtaining considerable relief.

Good news!

[SlipBall]

Olegs answer...

Third party would do it I think. Models of aircraft has all features that to program it.(quote)


Well at least there is some hope for this in time

















0

[Supah]

Originally Posted by proton45

Their has been some speculation here about M$ modifying their "flight sim" code into a "Flight combat sim", but I just don't see it happening... Adding bombs or machine guns is one thing but I just don't see how they could (write in) modify their code to include a complex "damage engine"... people complain about "IL2's" shortcomings and people complain about how the "Il2" engine was stretched beyond its original design, can you imagine what a M$ "flight combat sim" would be like if it was built on a modified "flight sim" engine? It would be a joke!

For all you know that code might allready be in there Besides MS has a lot of resources committed to FSX, more then Oleg has on BOB. I think oleg will mis out on a lot of sales if he sticks to this road. But oh well, more developers have come and gone due to strange decisions.

[ElAurens]

Well, if Micro$oft's track record with combat flight sims is any indicator, Oleg has nothing to worry about.

They had all the resources in the world at their disposal, and still managed to release that steaming pile called CFS3.

Also, the MS architechture of open "air files" won't go over well with onliners in any case. It will be just like CFS2 again. Skys full of supersonic, aimbotted WW2 aircraft.

Been there, done that, never again.

[Supah]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Well, if Micro$oft's track record with combat flight sims is any indicator, Oleg has nothing to worry about.

They had all the resources in the world at their disposal, and still managed to release that steaming pile called CFS3.

Also, the MS architechture of open "air files" won't go over well with onliners in any case. It will be just like CFS2 again. Skys full of supersonic, aimbotted WW2 aircraft.

Been there, done that, never again.

If Microsoft comes out with a combat version of FSX I would rather give it a serious try before judging it.

[csThor]

a) SoW is first and foremost a military flight simulation. Maddox Games doesn't need to reinvent the wheel with it - they have a fundament both of experiences and technical solutions laid with Il-2 as well as input from the community and other "external sources".
b) Oleg doesn't need to cater to the civilian pilots in detail, because Maddox Games sure won't be able to do it all on its own. They will give external developers an interface to work with as well as tools to create/import the stuff they make. But that's about it - Maddox Games is a small company and needs to concentrate on the core business (if anything they have an issue with spending ressources on useless projects in the military part) and can't be spit-polishing the ground for the 3rd Party Projects.
c) The simulation aspect of civil and military flight sims couldn't be more different. Civil simmers are - IMO - procedure simmers first and foremost while "us" military types like to shoot holes into each other's planes. That's a drastic difference and sets completely different envelopes for the basic engine. I'd prefer Oleg did the military part right and doesn't try to be the jack of all trades. Because such is also the master of none.

Bottom line - clickable cockpits are a waste of time for a combat sim. If the SoW engine allows for 3rd Party Devs to add them for their own A/C then that is the maximum of what we can expect.

[RockStar]

Originally Posted by Supah

If Microsoft comes out with a combat version of FSX I would rather give it a serious try before judging it.

Agreed. Combat FSX could be awesome. I know it would be in my shopping cart in spite of how bad cfs3 was.

[Supah]

Originally Posted by csThor

a) SoW is first and foremost a military flight simulation. Maddox Games doesn't need to reinvent the wheel with it - they have a fundament both of experiences and technical solutions laid with Il-2 as well as input from the community and other "external sources".
b) Oleg doesn't need to cater to the civilian pilots in detail, because Maddox Games sure won't be able to do it all on its own. They will give external developers an interface to work with as well as tools to create/import the stuff they make. But that's about it - Maddox Games is a small company and needs to concentrate on the core business (if anything they have an issue with spending ressources on useless projects in the military part) and can't be spit-polishing the ground for the 3rd Party Projects.
c) The simulation aspect of civil and military flight sims couldn't be more different. Civil simmers are - IMO - procedure simmers first and foremost while "us" military types like to shoot holes into each other's planes. That's a drastic difference and sets completely different envelopes for the basic engine. I'd prefer Oleg did the military part right and doesn't try to be the jack of all trades. Because such is also the master of none.

Bottom line - clickable cockpits are a waste of time for a combat sim. If the SoW engine allows for 3rd Party Devs to add them for their own A/C then that is the maximum of what we can expect.

How on gods green earth do these points lead to the conclusion that clickable cockpits are a waste of time? There simply is no logic to your post if those are the conclusions. Civilian simmers are not procedure simmers at all, have you even tried FSX's new mission system? Or FS9's freeflight ? You can just power off down the runway just as easily without any planning as in IL2. The difference is that if you DO want to get serious you can in FS9 and FSX. You sound like you are basing you opinion on presumptions rather than actually trying the products.

[csThor]

The conclusion is that Maddox Games doesn't have the manpower to make clickable cockpits standard - especially because these are more of a gimmick than a real necessity. To me there are simply way more important issues - namely a decent offline campaign and an immersive GUI. It's a purely economic question and Maddox Games has proved to be "susceptible" to wasting precious ressources on sideshows.

I haven't spent any time in civil sims. My conclusions come from several visits to flight sim conventions. Of course that may have contorted the picture.