Jump to content

Pudu

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Excellent

About Pudu

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

351 profile views
  1. There were far more than a couple of things to choose from, that's not even debatable. Well, while you are patting yourself on the back, take comfort in the fact that arrogant, dismissive elitism is definitely the best way to keep your current panoply of choices cheap, high quality and viable.
  2. At the risk of speaking for others, I think we'd all agree with you - DCS and BoX are fantastic games, otherwise we wouldn't be here. I spend as much time playing DCS as I do BoX or 1946. Falcon 4 came out in 1998 and was arguably more complex than several current DCS modules and BoX. I think any flight sim that people enjoy/enjoyed playing is allowed in this discussion. The question remains, would it be better if there were more people here, better if there was more competition, better if flight sims had a bigger market share with the concomitant larger choice of theatres, levels of detail, range of peripherals, people making campaigns, mods, more servers, etc. I'm not sure, but I think so. I would definitely be happier if I had somewhere to fly that isn't Russia (no offense to Russia) and hadn't had to wait for 20+ months for an MCG Gunfighter. This isn't facetious, as I never play online, but can we have 80 BoX planes in the air? I didn't realize the game engine was that forgiving.
  3. Well the discussion here is about " The downfall of the simulation community" so I think it has relevance in this thread. I'm not advocating that one product has to apply to all. But when players needlessly alienate others (how does my using autostart in anyway affect your game enjoyment?), then it leads down a path which is unhealthy for the game and the genre. If people buy DCS and then bitch and complain that it's too complex and they should remove all the buttons for everyone and force everyone to use 'labels on' ... then you have an argument. But I don't often hear that. No one is telling you how to enjoy your video game. This unyielding 'all-or-nothing for everyone' attitude is bad for flight sims, in my opinion.
  4. Which is why the flight sim community is so small - because so many have come to define it as you do. I'm not finding fault with DCS. ED makes a study sim, fine. I'm just saying that if that is the only thing that gets to be a 'flight sim' and everything else is derided or discounted, then people will do exactly as you say, spend their money elsewhere. And this is what has been happening for the last 15 years. Also , whether people want to admit it or not, all these things are just video games. They come in all flavours.
  5. Yes, there was a discussion prior to the release of the Tomcat about autostart. A number of folks voiced the opinion that it should not be available - to punish those who don't take multiplayer seriously enough (the inference being screw everyone else who doesn't play the game the way I do). This kind of attitude is too prevalent in the flight sim community for it's own good. It alienates so many people who do realize it's just a video game, and will be turned away by this kind of thing (me included) and take their money with them. While I can see the joy to be had from learning something complex, I often wish there was a slightly more relaxed attitude from both many players and the developers. I think we would have more options available if everything didn't have to be so exactingly accurate (and too often argumentative). Would we have a Pacific filled with WWII aircraft in the making by now? I will never know what a real Mitsubishi A6M flew like, so any decently informed guesstimate is far, far better and more fun, for me, than nothing at all. If it feels real and keeps me engaged, and is above all fun, I'm in. There is a bigger, happier middle ground between chase-view arcade fliers and hardcore full-real switch clickers which isn't being adequately exploited right now. Although BoX definitely is currently doing the best job of this out of anyone.
  6. I'm not totally sure I would lay the blame wholly in their direction. I have two kids who are more clever than I was at their age, and persevere at the things they love just as much as I ever did. Flight simming requires a huge investment - a powerful pc + controllers + track IR/VR. It's a bit much for kids or young adults unless their parents are supplying everything. There are so many other cheaper/easier options to occupy one's interest these days. If I wasn't already emotionally and financially invested in flight sims to the point that I am, I doubt I would take up the mantle. Also there used to be a larger range of options; WWI to Stealth bombers, arcade to moderately complex to Falcon 4. They don't have quite the same luxuries now. For me the biggest turnoff in current combat flight sims is the lack of options in the theatres of operation. It's one of the main reasons I am revisiting IL-2 1946.
  7. It was the same for me in the early 80s with the Flight Simulation cassette tape for my ZX81. Okay, maybe not. ๐Ÿ˜… But I know what you mean.
  8. By the way, I have another personal, crack-pot theory which may or may not have some bearing on this. I hesitate to share it, but what the hell .. I think as the games get more and more realistic, they engage our imaginations less and less, and we become less invested emotionally in the experience. It's like being able to remember scenes from a good movie, but relive parts of a good book. I can still vividly remember flying in the Solomons , hunting for a Japanese submarine at night, some 10-15 years ago. The islands and the ocean of my memory still look beautiful in the moonlight. Much more recently I enjoyed flying my Mirage over Georgia with my French instructor, marveling at the lovely looking contrails. But already I know the experiences aren't comparable and I can guarantee that I won't remember those contrails ten years from now. /crack-pot theory
  9. Right, but my playing 1946 does nothing to grow or enhance the current flight sim community - or fund ongoing development. By the way I just checked to make sure I wasn't talking BS. On the DCS files list there are 4 campaigns listed for the Huey - two are confirmed broken, one is Russian, and one came out recently, a four mission mini-campaign which I downloaded but haven't yet tried. For the Mig-15 there are zero. For the Mirage there are 3 - one is a redo of the Mig-21 stock campaign, one is 'under construction', and one is a fantasy setting of N. Kolcha vs S. Kolcha. Those are the three modules I often play when I can, and they have all been out for some years already. I do wish I had more time and the inclination to flight sim online, because that is definitely were the current strengths lie. Cheers
  10. Yes, I fully understand your point of view. But you must realize that it's a highly specific view of gaming. For this to work, you must have the time and flexibility to prearrange a mutually agreed gaming time - you can't pop on and off whenever you have a moment. You have to like gaming cooperatively with other people, most of whom you don't know. You can't hit pause and come back to the game after you have averted whatever current crisis interrupts your session. I can easily agree that the way you enjoy flight simming gets the most from something like DCS. No question. But some people can't possibly dedicate the time and resources to do it that way, or simply don't want to spend their sim time engaging with strange people, online. I have been playing Battlefield, Rising Storm, and a few other shooty type games, once a week or so, with a group of friends since 2002. It's about socializing with them, beer in hand, and hanging out - even when we are living on different continents. I don't enjoy these games by myself or with strangers. And I have zero interest in flight simming online, in any form. The games we have now work reasonably well for the way they are designed. But great games are the ones that let everyone find something to love about them and keep them engaged. And that's when mods, user content, open structure, good AI, etc become important, and keeps things fun for more people. It's why I still play IL-2 1946, why I will always have Automobilista on my hard drive (so I can play the 1998 CART, and 1988 F1 championships whenever I want), and why I reinstalled GTR2 a few months ago. The question was asked, why is the simming community somehow less now than what it used to be. I believe it's because what we have now is very focused, fairly complex, and rather more closed than what was available before. What's there is quite good, but there isn't something for everyone, or at least not a lot for everyone.
  11. There are tons of mods available, but they are only useful if you or someone else cobbles them all together and does something with them. Many people don't want to make a mission and then fly it - it's like writing a short suspense story and then sitting down to read it. Yes there is a handful of user made campaigns for most modules (how many still work?). And if you are lucky there is one or even two commercial campaigns for the plane you have bought - A-10C has many more I know, some modules have zero. My point was that by now there should be sooooo much more content than there is - both official and unofficial. It's big, complicated and constantly changing. Before I got into DCS there was apparently a complete make over changing Georgia into a Vietnam-esque jungle environment. Which would have been perfect for the huey. But it was broken and is no longer viable. Then it gets more complicated still when you add in things like the high cost of additional maps and paid assets. I'm not suggesting devs shouldn't be paid for their work. But the business model isn't a good one. And the only map that everyone has is the Caucasus, so even the training missions for every module have to be set there. It's ridiculous to learn the F-14 flying around Georgia when NTTR is already available. And it's not just the lack of user content for our games. There used to be so many commercial games available to choose from. But we must have stopped buying them because they seem to have stopped making nearly as many. I'm not at all surprised that there is a lack of simmers these days. Simming is more complicated, more expensive, and arguably less interesting - both current major flight sims are thus far focused on the Russian area of operations - one heavily, the other exclusively - take it or leave it.
  12. I have gone back to IL-2 1946 and honestly find it more engaging than Il-2 GB. Older games were more open to user involvement (yes I know it took a long while to mod the original IL-2). In almost all games there were far more mods, missions, campaigns, skins, etc made by users. Most games these days are too complex or simply too closed off to allow as much of this. So you must play it the way it was meant to be played, or not at all. DCS - in theory there should be thousands of user missions and campaigns by now. But they break the damn game more frequently than they fix it. Who wants to spend hundreds of hours building something that could stop working forever a month or two after you finish it? And the official campaigns and missions content is so meager it boggles the mind. Why build this damn great game and then have nothing to do in it? Battlefield 1942 was so moddable. There was quickly a fantastic mod called Desert Combat which turned a WWII game into a cracking modern warfare game complete with new maps. It was brilliant. BF2 was equally fantastic for mods - hundreds of them. Then developers realized the money was in DLC and clamped down on modding. The people who owned Nascar 2003, in preparation for iRacing actually went systemically around the web threatening various modding sites with legal action unless that content was removed. In IL-2 GB there are four official campaigns, 50% of which are in a 109. Flying a 109 over Moscow feels the same as flying a 109 over Stalingrad. The game is slowly adding more and more quality user made stuff. But, personally, I find there is not enough variation in the map/setting/mission type to allow it to remain interesting to me. It's about money. Games have gotten so expensive to make and the commerce model has changed. I prefer simpler, cheaper and more open games. Look up Automobilista - this is a racing sim done correctly; great realism (no, the graphics aren't bleeding edge and no VR), best sim FFB/handling imho, decent AI, tons of mods, tons of replay-ability. If you yell "VR or no buy" or you must have ultra-realistic graphics, this game isn't for you. In fact this type of gaming isn't for you. Those things require so many resources that developers have to give way on other things and maximize profits. Rising Storm Vietnam is another good example - it's far simpler graphically than any current BF, but game play is, for me, far more satisfying, because they spent time on things that don't look good in a trailer but instead make the game fun. So I think it comes down to changed gamer expectations , ... and money.
  13. I'm the opposite. I haven't really touched GB in months but have been enjoying another go at some Pacific campaigns immensely. ๐Ÿ˜
  14. I started using it last week. At first it felt like 'hmmm... this feels kind of strange, but not mind blowing' ...๐Ÿค” But then I suddenly realized how much easier and precise flying had instantly become. Everything feels intuitive and natural. Love it. (That said, I got it up and running on the same day I reinstalled IL-2 1946 +VP Modpack, and I haven't tried it in BoX or DCS yet because I have been having too much fun landing on carriers in the Pacific. )
×
×
  • Create New...