What is realism? Does it kill simulators?

[HansHansen]

Reading through the "What are the things that get you mad in a flight sim?" topic, those questions came to my mind.

 

 

 

Flying a real aircraft is much more intuitive than flying in simulators. You feel heat, vibrations, etc. Every lever or button has a single purpose, its individual, mostly ergonomic, position, or is even shaped and/or colored differntly. therefore using them is much easier and quicker than using, for example, your keyboard, where you have to hit the right one of hundreds of "anonymus" 2x2cm keys and key cominations for one function.

 

I guess more than 50% of sim pilots still have to use the keyboard in some way, even tough HOTAS helps a bit in this case. In conclusion, increasing complexity, and by that i mean the amount of required buttons, is not the answer to increase sales or realism in simulators. It certainly is good for people that have whole cockpits at home, but for the majority of players, it is just increasing "the amount of key combinations required to press, that supposedly represent levers or turning knobs". so much for realism.

 

the average sim pilot probably has HOTAS and pedals and nothing more wich brings me to my next point: in-flight messages like overheating, manifold pressure (power), prop. pitch or even the speed bar.

hardcore sim veterans always complain about them. of course they are not "realistic", but lets face the situation of the average sim pilot: to check for example water temp, one has to use the coolie hat/ or even mouse, look down to observe that the average 22" screen displays the instruments not only smaller than in real life, but also pixelated. so the next step is zooming in to be able to recognize something. the whole process takes a lot of time. in real life you look down for a split second, see everything is ok and continue to fly, just as long as it takes to look at and interpret in-flight messages in simulators.

 

The problem is: Combining the disadvanteges of simulation with the disadvanteges of reality, for the sake of realism, which does not create "realism", but something worse. And to remove the simulation disadvanteges completely requires a lot of money and even technologies wich are not available right now.

 

Don't get me wrong, i still like realism, but not in a way of a pedantic button pressing simulation, but rather in good physics and immersion, that ,in my opinion, realism consist of, to 90%. this is the reason i bought the premium edition of BoS quite early, while being very sceptical regarding for example the development of the DCS series.

 

While i am sure my and similar opinions are represented by only a minority of people here (and even less elsewhere), consider that hardcore simmers have a much higher chance of their attention being drawn towards such forums, leave alone posting about their (sometimes not so humble) opinions, created in years and hundreds of hours in simulations. So forums not necessarily represent the whole sim market.

 

So in the end, i think the "pedantic button pressing realism" slowly will kill flight simulations. People without proper gear simply won't see the entertainment value anymore. the restraint to fly in simulators will grow simply because, to get started, you have to buy tons of expensive stuff you basically have no idea about. I am sure, for many of us, the passion for flight sims started in our early years, where we did not have a lot of money. We had luck, because 15 years ago, everything was still relatively simple (limited by technology) in terms of buttons amount and thus, a 30€/$ stick was sufficient to guarantee hours of fun.

 

So much on this topic for now (nearly 3am ) so please excuse me for potential grammar and spelling mistakes, confusing line of thoughts or missing points.

 

HansHansen

[FuriousMeow]

Well, most have options to turn down difficulty or have the systems run more automated. So as complex and difficult as they can be, there are typically options to make them much, much easier.

 

I don't see how the complexity and difficulty have any bearing on people not enjoying it when the options are there to make it much simpler.

[Sokol1]

...the whole process takes a lot of time. in real life you look down for a split second, see everything is ok and continue to fly, just as long as it takes to look at and interpret in-flight messages in simulators.

 

 

Why a lot? I my cheap 21" monitor take only seconds to check, for example, water temperature.

 

http://gifmaker.me/PlayGIFAnimation.php?folder=2013100220rfTDIuWsqPunrF3qDZDDWa&file=output_RJK4dA.gif

 

Or check "British compass".

 

This don't make the flight simulator more "realistic" (Oleg's bad (word) choince... ).

 

But (IMO) this make then more game.

 

Important is that are options for all "flavors".

 

And, as someone say: "You can turn a flight simulator in a flight game, but not a flight game in flight simulator".

 

Sokol1

[FlatSpinMan]

I'm with you, OP.

[TheBlackPenguin]

On top of what the OP states, and I am sure people will remember, but simulations made by Microprose and others also had what is best described as RPG elements, you felt really immersed with your pilot and in some cases crew, nothing has matched it since. 

 

Now, which is more important may come down to personal preference.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm with you, OP.

 

 

So am I.

 

There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the often mis-used term "realism".  Even the most hard core of "full difficulty" (a much better way to describe what some call "realism") player is still far removed from the realities of

actually flying, and fighting, a 1200bhp beast.  Sure many have  the best "crutches" (myself included) like Track IR, a full HOTAS, team comms for onliners, etc...  However, we still view our virtual world through what amounts to a gun port on an armored vehicle.  We view tiny little snippets of what is going on in the sim, and have no where near the distance acuity of a real pilot. (the infamous "dot" issue).  Yet we call this more "realistic".  (And yes, I loath icons).

 

For me, CloD had about the maximum amount of pilot work load I would ever want to deal with.  Not every system was modeled, and honestly that is good.  What we do is all about air combat, not systems training for real pilots, which most of us are not, btw.  Yet you had to manage the most vital things, temps, prop speed, engine speed, manifold pressure and mixture.  That was easily done even on the most difficult aircraft in the sim, it was easy for it to become second nature without having to memorize every switch position, and count every rivet in the cockpit.  This is why I hope that the developers will strike a good balance between excruciating difficulty at one end, and arcade gamey-ness, at the other.  It is also why I have some trepidation about DCS WW2.  Personally I don't like procedure sims like DCS and the MS Flight Sim series.

 

Time will tell for BoS.

 

Oh, and for those that always bring out the old line about scalability,  the trouble is that us online players really don't have a choice.  If you want to fly without icons, and in at least a semi-historic scenario, you generally have to take the whole "full difficulty" pill along with it, which so far has not been too bad, but as a small and very vocal minority push for ever more complication, I fear that this will change.

[FuriousMeow]

On top of what the OP states, and I am sure people will remember, but simulations made by Microprose and others also had what is best described as RPG elements, you felt really immersed with your pilot and in some cases crew, nothing has matched it since. 

 

Now, which is more important may come down to personal preference.

 

Yes, but there was a lot less that went into the simulation side so they had to make up for it by adding those elements. You play that today, throw it before the realism/immersion grognards, and you'll find it doesn't fly anymore. It was very lenient on history, units, everything. Great games, but they didn't really simulate to the extent most expect these days whether it be the flight aspect or the history aspect. Sure, it had an aspect to it that was more engaging but something like that today would get torn apart. Guys are looking at the 109 paint schemes in the alpha shots and stating that they are incorrect for the location/time/year - the 190s in the first B17 game just had colored noses.

 

Rose colored glasses and all that, they were great for their time but little went into it compared to what does these days and especially what is now expected.

Oh, and for those that always bring out the old line about scalability,  the trouble is that us online players really don't have a choice.  If you want to fly without icons, and in at least a semi-historic scenario, you generally have to take the whole "full difficulty" pill along with it, which so far has not been too bad, but as a small and very vocal minority push for ever more complication, I fear that this will change.

 

I only play online (except for testing aircraft, goofing around, or just a little practice/familiarization), and I do play "full difficulty" but can jump into other servers. I'm sure that as long as the title is popular, there will be populated servers with a myriad of settings - that was the case in the prior Il-2 series. There was a literal smorgasbord of game servers with varying settings, some with almost full difficulty but simplified engine management. So really, it comes down to the customer base and popularity of the title to get the myriad of options. That has nothing to do with the title having the options to require every step be completed to start the engine but instead everything to do with a large playerbase supporting it with the demand for varying types of settings.

Edited October 3, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[TheBlackPenguin]

Yes, but there was a lot less that went into the simulation side so they had to make up for it by adding those elements. You play that today, throw it before the realism/immersion grognards, and you'll find it doesn't fly anymore. It was very lenient on history, units, everything. Great games, but they didn't really simulate to the extent most expect these days whether it be the flight aspect or the history aspect. Sure, it had an aspect to it that was more engaging but something like that today would get torn apart. Guys are looking at the 109 paint schemes in the alpha shots and stating that they are incorrect for the location/time/year - the 190s in the first B17 game just had colored noses.

 

 

 

Even back in those days what people considered simulations vs arcade games (those arguments existed even back then) tended to favour simulations focussing on a single plane, while arcade types tended to focus on many, for example when comparing DiD Tornado  (or the Falcon sims) vs one of the Janes games, Tornado was always thought to be higher fidelity than any of the more arcade 'Janes' style game. Budgets and schedules are obviously not infinite, yet I feel from the time the Russian developers appeared with Il2 they missed that critical piece of the puzzle, namely that extra element tying you to the conflict taking place and it does not take away from realism whatsoever, just adds to the expense of course and I am sceptical and highly doubtful the points you raise are any of the underlying reasons, it seemed more to do with lacking experience at that time.

 

 

 

 

Rose colored glasses and all that, they were great for their time but little went into it compared to what does these days and especially what is now expected.

 

Obvious is extraordinarily obvious! The power of PC's is many magnitudes higher than it was even 10 years ago, let alone twenty, but it doesn't mean the point I raised isn't any less valid. You don't think I understand that? No way I could play a game from '93, the graphics and sounds alone will be too much of a turn off, yet they had something I feel the Russian developers lacked when they first appeared. I am not entirely convinced the OP's point is valid alone as the only or primary reason, but it is an intriguing one. ROF now has a great career system, or systems and its coming along well, so hopefully BOS will take this experience into account .

[FuriousMeow]

It's not about faster processors, better graphics card, any of that. A lot of people fail to grasp that while power has increased, so has the programming load. That's why games went from taking 3 months to make a full title, and about half that went into research to create those manuals everyone is so fond of, to taking 3 months for a single plane - maybe even longer.

 

That's my point, is that they could fill in the void of less immersive graphics/physics/environments with the little trinkets like a static picture of a pilot inviting you back for Schnapps after your first victory or making ace, etc. because they had the development time to do that since creating the title took a matter of months in it's entirety.

 

Plus, all of the titles with that immersive feeling, the RPG element, were completely made up. Very little, if any, historical research or reality went into them. Just generic stuff for the time, because to actually develope something fully immersive with accurate historical content would take years of research to pull off - let alone begin to code to turn into a piece of software (aka an accurate campaign). The beta career required extensive external assistance for the research for squadron activity and location, and still things are amiss like people wanting to meet historical aces and be able to shoot them down but then they show up later because they historically still lived.

 

So back then they had the time to at least create that atmosphere, although it wasn't historical at all - simply fictional with a little historical relevency thrown in, because there was far less time spent actually creating the game itself. Today's titles requires the titles of yesteryears entire development cycle from start to finish just to create a few elements.

Edited October 3, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Crow]

I'm with the OP. Two of my favorite sim titles (IL-2: 1946 and Falcon 4.0) weren't 100% realistic and made concessions. I'm totally on board with allowing for some conveniences. Immersion and gameplay needn't be sacrificed at the altar of the almighty realism god.

[Mac_Messer]

So in the end, i think the "pedantic button pressing realism" slowly will kill flight simulations. People without proper gear simply won't see the entertainment value anymore. the restraint to fly in simulators will grow simply because, to get started, you have to buy tons of expensive stuff you basically have no idea about. I am sure, for many of us, the passion for flight sims started in our early years, where we did not have a lot of money. We had luck, because 15 years ago, everything was still relatively simple (limited by technology) in terms of buttons amount and thus, a 30€/$ stick was sufficient to guarantee hours of fun.

Nah, it`s false. The pedantic purist sims are even more of a niche and will not take over. Games that try to bring the best of both arcade and sim will still be there, in varying proportions.

I don`t have the proper gear and I`m just fine. Been playing like that since 2001. I like using multiple keyboard keys to get the most of my airplane. Ever since I bought a 24 inch monitor, in 1600x1200 I can read all the instruments . If I ever buy a trackir, it will be to extend the flying enjoyment more than anything.

If you don`t like the realism you can leave. I`m not interested in those one button wonders anyway.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

I agree tii with OP. I think that when we speak of "realism" in sims, what most of us talk about is "authenticity".

A sim experience can really never be "realistic" as we sit at a desk and press buttons, but it can be "authentic" to the experience.

.

It also has to do with "fun factor" and that is when we simmers diverge somewhat. Even though the FM/DM, environement etc are  authentic to the experience of flying combat in a WW2 warbird, some people, like myself just HATE too much buttonpressing.. it is not fun for me and it does not at all feel authentic one bit. I have tried some DCS titles too.. bought them as well.. and no... all that button pressing took away the fun factor as well as the feeling of athenticity - it does not  feel" like i am in a cockpit pressing levers and stuff.. it fells like I am sitting at my desk looking for the correct key combination to press.

 

I think CloD had it all right at the end.... but I think BoS is spot on as far as I have seen

 

 

 

However. I DO know people in my squad who really appreciate the button pressing aspect, but in my eyes that has nothing to do with realism or authenticity. It has to do with: They enjoy knowing exaclty what buttons to press and in what sequence... "if" they were to ever find themselves in a real cockpit... I respect that .

Edited October 3, 2013 by F19_Klunk

[von_Tom]

Realism in a simulation is part oxymoron and to some extent steps that can be taken to make something more realistic may be counter-intuitive.

 

For example, we can only go so far as to making the whole experience "real".  This is obvious of course - no way would I want to be blown off my chair by a hail of machine gun bullets when I'm playng a game.  I also disagree that we're talking about authenticity as that for me is the same thing and is likewise impossible.

 

To get "realism" we also have to play with the game to overcome the limitations of our hardware.  The best example is the use of limited close range icons showing aircraft codes.  "Aircraft didn't have codes floating around the sky with them" I hear you say.  No, but likewise you could probably identify a friendly aircraft a mile away.  What is more "real" - not being able to identify a friend, or being able to identify them using a gaming tool?

 

I have to say that I dislike the term "realism" anyway as it suggests something that is unattainable.  For me it is far better to use the term "immersion".  Then you have grades of immersion from the Wonder Woman view to full real (or full switch or whatever designation people want to give it).  Personally speaking, if you go full immersion then after an hour you are knackered, and for me this is what makes simulators sing.  If you don't then it's still a simulator, it's still fun, but you don't leave your real life behind you whilst you head off into the blue.

 

Hood

[ATAG_Slipstream]

Agree with Hood.I play full switch usually, and am certainly knackered after an hour of flying. I also think full switch is possibly more difficult than real life due to the limitations of flying with a computer.Having a big monitor helps me these days. Its certainly easier on the eyes using a 32" screen!

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

aww come hood.. you agree with me

 

It's all semantics, and even though English isn't my mother tounge, of course there is a difference between realism and authenticity.

 

Authenticity is about capturing the experience... brother of immersion. Realism takes this a step further in details.. and to me at least, can ruin the authenitity and immersion.. if you do not build a complete cokcpit with physical gauges exactly like the original

[von_Tom]

 

aww come hood.. you agree with me

 

It's all semantics...

 

 

I'm a lawyer, so semantics are mega important for me!

 

[Mac_Messer]

Many lawyers here actually.
 

[SCG_Neun]

Well, most have options to turn down difficulty or have the systems run more automated. So as complex and difficult as they can be, there are typically options to make them much, much easier.

 

I don't see how the complexity and difficulty have any bearing on people not enjoying it when the options are there to make it much simpler.

I agree with this, totally.  As an offline simmer now...not by choice but because I have to use satellite connection speeds now, I need the career tracking to create the cohesiveness of a unit while I track my progress through the different combat sequences and I have to have a dynamic campaign to really show the success or failures as the sim progresses.  Immersion for me does indeed include the sounds, historical elements and eye candy that sims like ROF and BOS can provide.  Immersion is also a responsibility of the individual, although from a marketing prospective I know this is not a consideration.  The individual can help create his own immersion by building a knowledge base concerning the actual historical setting of the battle and the units and personalities involved in 1942...let's say...... However, detailed briefings and debriefings (squad rosters, combat results, hit percentages and the like) can help give immersion a boost as well...............Give me flexibility in icons, if they are in fact needed, although in ROF I seem to do well without them.  I want a sim that I can play that I can grow into.  For instance, I will undoubtedly use icons for awhile until I get my visual adjustments tweaked...in spotting friend and foe alike, and that includes the elusive ground targets as well.

[FlatSpinMan]

Actually yeah, in RoF you don't really need icons. I found them essential in il2, in some configuration or another.

[6S.Manu]

Realism in a simulation is part oxymoron and to some extent steps that can be taken to make something more realistic may be counter-intuitive.

 

For example, we can only go so far as to making the whole experience "real".  This is obvious of course - no way would I want to be blown off my chair by a hail of machine gun bullets when I'm playng a game.  I also disagree that we're talking about authenticity as that for me is the same thing and is likewise impossible.

 

To get "realism" we also have to play with the game to overcome the limitations of our hardware.  The best example is the use of limited close range icons showing aircraft codes.  "Aircraft didn't have codes floating around the sky with them" I hear you say.  No, but likewise you could probably identify a friendly aircraft a mile away.  What is more "real" - not being able to identify a friend, or being able to identify them using a gaming tool?

 

I have to say that I dislike the term "realism" anyway as it suggests something that is unattainable.  For me it is far better to use the term "immersion".  Then you have grades of immersion from the Wonder Woman view to full real (or full switch or whatever designation people want to give it).  Personally speaking, if you go full immersion then after an hour you are knackered, and for me this is what makes simulators sing.  If you don't then it's still a simulator, it's still fun, but you don't leave your real life behind you whilst you head off into the blue.

 

Hood

In my opinion the entire issue here is about the definition of "simulation". If you search on the web you'll thing many slightly different meaning.

 

Some can think a good simulator is all about immersion (landscape, skins, weather, stars, FX effect ect), others' priority is witnessing problems that users have to solve by "realistic" ways (tactics, procedures ect).

 

Many here talk about a flight sim "community" but I still claim, as I did in the past, that we all don't think in the same way; our views of a flight simulator are very different.

 

For example we can look at the old FSX: a really good civil simulator of procedures and situations, but if I'm going to ask about it to one of my friends who's part of a aerobatic team, he'll tell me that it's not a simulator at all because he needs realistic behaviors in the plane's control management.

 

A great all-round simulator should have all these aspects (but of course it's expensive).

 

Anyway if we talk about a "combat" flight simulator to me it's all about tactics and warfare situations. I'm always been against clickable cockpits because it's all about immersion but it's really harmful in a dogfight, as the pilots touch the most important controls without having to look at them (something they are trained for).

 

At the same way I regret a system to limit the hardware issues: if we talk about icons I've to tell you that I really don't care if the landscape seems real, if the cloud are perfect and if I can spot crying soldiers running away from the strafed convoy: I care to see (and don't see) all the things that really matter to simulate a fighter/bomber pilot's situation. Some labels on the screen are not going to ruin my experience, as I'm there to search enemies, not to savor the view of the landscape at that altitude.

 

I mean, if you like to watch your plane by external camera, to take pictures of it against the sun and claiming "wow, that seems real", than I ask for your reason to own a "combat" flight simulator.

 

This difference between "immersion" and "tactic" can be easily seen in infantry warfare real simulations: there are guys who can wear all the real stuff but can't use tactics and can't shoot, other that are dressed in a not accordant way for the mission ("damn you! we are fighting a WW1 battle and you're using a WW2 helmet!!!"), but these ones really know how to move on the land fighting by tactics and skill.

 

In the same way if I was interested in medieval warfare I would probably go to a medieval martial art school: just dressing in armor is not going to make me feel as a medieval soldier.

 

Of course, fighting in the correct way while being in armor should be the right target. :-)

Edited October 3, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[SKG51_robtek]

My take on that is that the realism in the controls should be reflect the RL difficulties then.

Just to get the right workload according to the plane.

I.e. a P-47 pilot had to spend more time to manage his engine in a combat situation than his FW190 opponent, equalizing in this way a bit of the superiority of the Thunderbolt.

Same is with the pairing La 5 vs 109.

The advantages (and disadvantages) of the increased automatics in the german planes should be felt.

[Bearcat]

Reading through the "What are the things that get you mad in a flight sim?" topic, those questions came to my mind.

 

 

 

Flying a real aircraft is much more intuitive than flying in simulators. You feel heat, vibrations, etc. Every lever or button has a single purpose, its individual, mostly ergonomic, position, or is even shaped and/or colored differntly. therefore using them is much easier and quicker than using, for example, your keyboard, where you have to hit the right one of hundreds of "anonymus" 2x2cm keys and key cominations for one function.

 

I guess more than 50% of sim pilots still have to use the keyboard in some way, even tough HOTAS helps a bit in this case. In conclusion, increasing complexity, and by that i mean the amount of required buttons, is not the answer to increase sales or realism in simulators. It certainly is good for people that have whole cockpits at home, but for the majority of players, it is just increasing "the amount of key combinations required to press, that supposedly represent levers or turning knobs". so much for realism.

 

the average sim pilot probably has HOTAS and pedals and nothing more wich brings me to my next point: in-flight messages like overheating, manifold pressure (power), prop. pitch or even the speed bar.

hardcore sim veterans always complain about them. of course they are not "realistic", but lets face the situation of the average sim pilot: to check for example water temp, one has to use the coolie hat/ or even mouse, look down to observe that the average 22" screen displays the instruments not only smaller than in real life, but also pixelated. so the next step is zooming in to be able to recognize something. the whole process takes a lot of time. in real life you look down for a split second, see everything is ok and continue to fly, just as long as it takes to look at and interpret in-flight messages in simulators.

 

The problem is: Combining the disadvanteges of simulation with the disadvanteges of reality, for the sake of realism, which does not create "realism", but something worse. And to remove the simulation disadvanteges completely requires a lot of money and even technologies wich are not available right now.

 

Don't get me wrong, i still like realism, but not in a way of a pedantic button pressing simulation, but rather in good physics and immersion, that ,in my opinion, realism consist of, to 90%. this is the reason i bought the premium edition of BoS quite early, while being very sceptical regarding for example the development of the DCS series.

 

While i am sure my and similar opinions are represented by only a minority of people here (and even less elsewhere), consider that hardcore simmers have a much higher chance of their attention being drawn towards such forums, leave alone posting about their (sometimes not so humble) opinions, created in years and hundreds of hours in simulations. So forums not necessarily represent the whole sim market.

 

So in the end, i think the "pedantic button pressing realism" slowly will kill flight simulations. People without proper gear simply won't see the entertainment value anymore. the restraint to fly in simulators will grow simply because, to get started, you have to buy tons of expensive stuff you basically have no idea about. I am sure, for many of us, the passion for flight sims started in our early years, where we did not have a lot of money. We had luck, because 15 years ago, everything was still relatively simple (limited by technology) in terms of buttons amount and thus, a 30€/$ stick was sufficient to guarantee hours of fun.

 

So much on this topic for now (nearly 3am ) so please excuse me for potential grammar and spelling mistakes, confusing line of thoughts or missing points.

 

HansHansen

 

 

Realism in a simulation is part oxymoron and to some extent steps that can be taken to make something more realistic may be counter-intuitive.

 

For example, we can only go so far as to making the whole experience "real".  This is obvious of course - no way would I want to be blown off my chair by a hail of machine gun bullets when I'm playng a game.  I also disagree that we're talking about authenticity as that for me is the same thing and is likewise impossible.

 

To get "realism" we also have to play with the game to overcome the limitations of our hardware.  The best example is the use of limited close range icons showing aircraft codes.  "Aircraft didn't have codes floating around the sky with them" I hear you say.  No, but likewise you could probably identify a friendly aircraft a mile away.  What is more "real" - not being able to identify a friend, or being able to identify them using a gaming tool?

 

I have to say that I dislike the term "realism" anyway as it suggests something that is unattainable.  For me it is far better to use the term "immersion".  Then you have grades of immersion from the Wonder Woman view to full real (or full switch or whatever designation people want to give it).  Personally speaking, if you go full immersion then after an hour you are knackered, and for me this is what makes simulators sing.  If you don't then it's still a simulator, it's still fun, but you don't leave your real life behind you whilst you head off into the blue.

 

Hood

 

This sums up my take on this.. I think that it is relative.. and that the key is scalability in terms of features and graphics. I think that having the option to go through various degrees of CEM in one product is the key. In IL2 it was either CEM or no CEM.. but in future sims this needs to be more scalable and set server side with CEM functions being settable like unlimited fuel or ammo are now but individually. Also having it so that certain reality options remain options.. even if turned off.. For example .. if I set my server so that only full startup procedures are available then that would be the only option. However if I set my server so that quick startup procedures were available.. if I or another flyer still wanted to go through the full startup procedure on that setting we could but not the other way around..

 

These are the kinds of things that will make the "reality" or "immersion" or whatever you want to call it fully functional that would not drive users who prefer the easier settings away but give them room to grow into the same product over time at a continuously immersive pace.

[Mmaruda]

The button keyboard problem mentioned by the OP sort of dissapears with a clickable pit. If it's not something with a comlicated HOTAS like the A-10C, you can do with a basic joystick and do everything with the mosue. Simple? NO!

 

The problem is, it takes signifcantly longer to look around the pit even with TrackIR, aim at the thing you want to press (not that easy, only BMS has sticky pit switched that compensate for the TrackIR float). You also loose some situation awareness, beacuse in games you have a much more narrow field of view (and people seem to forget that this applies vertically as well, which means 180 FOV is nothing close to real life on a 16:9 screen). It's quicker and much easier to push a key on the keyboard (I don't know a single person who clicks the gear knob in any study sim instead of pressing 'G'). A lot of people use touchscreens to deal with the problem and have a more realistic representation of a pilots workload, but... At this point we go into huge costs of hardware necessary ro have fun, and what is the fun? Some study-sims focus too much on representing every detail of a given plane (like you can turn air-conditioning on!) and at the same time screew up the AI and online play.

 

This is a huge problem - on the one hand we have the core meaning of a simulator as something that is supposed to teach you how to fly something, on the other hand the fun factor and costs. I like study-sims, but mid-fidelity sims with customisable realism is what the genre needs most. Something you can pick up and play with a cheap joystick without a PC that costs a fortune and something that focuses on well designed gameplay like not giving the player a campaign where he flies an I-16 vs 109s all the time. I know one guy who started his adventure with flight sims with Falcon BMS... Just ONE guy. Most of us here probably started out with arcade '90 games and when the original IL-2 came out, I bet we all though it was damn hard to learn.

 

Don't get me wrong, study sims are needed and welcome - they are awesome pieces of software but not for everyone. The accesible survey-sim though should be a representative of the combat flight simulation genre. The original IL-2 wiped out all of it's competion in that field and perhaps that is why the genre has been slowly fading, since the only dev remaining were those making high-fidelity stuff for a narrow audience.

[AX2]

My take on that is that the realism in the controls should be reflect the RL difficulties then.

Just to get the right workload according to the plane.

I.e. a P-47 pilot had to spend more time to manage his engine in a combat situation than his FW190 opponent, equalizing in this way a bit of the superiority of the Thunderbolt.

Same is with the pairing La 5 vs 109.

The advantages (and disadvantages) of the increased automatics in the german planes should be felt.

+1 Is the truth.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Many things I agree with in this thread, especially as HansHansen and Bearcat. The turning of elements of CEM on and off separately, rather than on/off like in CloD (or "to simple/to complex" like in DCS) is a necessity.

In my opinion, realism is not about player having to turn head of his virtual pilot to check water temp gauge placed under his knee like in real cockpit - it's about water temp realistically affecting the engine and player having to check it periodically. The flashy interface is, well, just flashy interface. Interfaces should work, then look good. Hovering the mouse cursor over gauge to open readable display window in CloD was a very good compromise.

My two cents is that emphasis on realisitic behaviour of cockpit details leads to "cockpit simulators" - when it's the cockpit, not world outside the plane, that receive most attention of devs and players. I think it's what's slowing my transfer to DCS, where cockpits are very immersive but landscape feels like added by afterthought, as if looking at things not in cockpit was not a thing I was seriously supposed to do. I also believe it's part of what went wrong with CloD.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Trupobaw

[Jupp]

"What is realism"?

 

I believe that the end game to realism will eventually be something akin to the Holodeck of Star Trek fame. And when you think of it in "Matrix-y" terms, anything that successfully works as a visceral, immersive, and "4-d experence", would or could be used as a defacto Time Machine, of sorts. Being that you could, in the very highest of fidelities, experience through observation, or even direct participation in, many historical events and, by spending your "real time" in doing so it would be nearly the same as if you were there, observing, or, interacting with, whatever historical events that could be or would be represented by these future technologies, and programmers.

 

That said, simulating is far from reality, and we are still decades away from Holodecks. There is validation for the many styles of recreation time we spend on this hobby, even the "spawn die spawn crowd" have the right to spawn, die, spawn, if, that pursuit makes them happy, in thier own circles, on thier own servers, etc.

 

From where flight related softwares came from graphically to now has been a long hop, so, I'm happy enough to enjoy the level of complexity that has maintained the right amount of challenge for someone that's looking for a hobby, and, gameplay features that could entice the "spawn die spawn crowd" to become simmers.

 

Arcade games that attempt a simulator mode usually fail at it. Simulators that have arcade mode, or even "helpers" are frowned upon, since arcade games exist for that style, and, most simulator hobbyists are specifically looking for the highest fidelity available, to include accepting the purchase prices of any and all of the hardwares needed, to that end.

 

All and all the next two years are looking blue skies for many flight related software releases, new, improving, and less expensive kits of every type of aid and input device are becoming available to more people, and, the things that most of us have learned over the last twenty years will streamline the processes in the next twenty.

 

Long May We Fly,

 

-Jupp-

Edited October 4, 2013 by Jupp

[Bearcat]

The button keyboard problem mentioned by the OP sort of dissapears with a clickable pit. If it's not something with a comlicated HOTAS like the A-10C, you can do with a basic joystick and do everything with the mosue. Simple? NO!

 

The problem is, it takes signifcantly longer to look around the pit even with TrackIR, aim at the thing you want to press (not that easy, only BMS has sticky pit switched that compensate for the TrackIR float). You also loose some situation awareness, beacuse in games you have a much more narrow field of view (and people seem to forget that this applies vertically as well, which means 180 FOV is nothing close to real life on a 16:9 screen). It's quicker and much easier to push a key on the keyboard (I don't know a single person who clicks the gear knob in any study sim instead of pressing 'G'). A lot of people use touchscreens to deal with the problem and have a more realistic representation of a pilots workload, but... At this point we go into huge costs of hardware necessary ro have fun, and what is the fun? Some study-sims focus too much on representing every detail of a given plane (like you can turn air-conditioning on!) and at the same time screew up the AI and online play.

 

This is a huge problem - on the one hand we have the core meaning of a simulator as something that is supposed to teach you how to fly something, on the other hand the fun factor and costs. I like study-sims, but mid-fidelity sims with customisable realism is what the genre needs most. Something you can pick up and play with a cheap joystick without a PC that costs a fortune and something that focuses on well designed gameplay like not giving the player a campaign where he flies an I-16 vs 109s all the time. I know one guy who started his adventure with flight sims with Falcon BMS... Just ONE guy. Most of us here probably started out with arcade '90 games and when the original IL-2 came out, I bet we all though it was damn hard to learn.

 

Don't get me wrong, study sims are needed and welcome - they are awesome pieces of software but not for everyone. The accesible survey-sim though should be a representative of the combat flight simulation genre. The original IL-2 wiped out all of it's competion in that field and perhaps that is why the genre has been slowly fading, since the only dev remaining were those making high-fidelity stuff for a narrow audience.

 

 

Many things I agree with in this thread, especially as HansHansen and Bearcat. The turning of elements of CEM on and off separately, rather than on/off like in CloD (or "to simple/to complex" like in DCS) is a necessity.

 

In my opinion, realism is not about player having to turn head of his virtual pilot to check water temp gauge placed under his knee like in real cockpit - it's about water temp realistically affecting the engine and player having to check it periodically. The flashy interface is, well, just flashy interface. Interfaces should work, then look good. Hovering the mouse cursor over gauge to open readable display window in CloD was a very good compromise.

 

My two cents is that emphasis on realisitic behaviour of cockpit details leads to "cockpit simulators" - when it's the cockpit, not world outside the plane, that receive most attention of devs and players. I think it's what's slowing my transfer to DCS, where cockpits are very immersive but landscape feels like added by afterthought, as if looking at things not in cockpit was not a thing I was seriously supposed to do. I also believe it's part of what went wrong with CloD.

 

Yes.. I think that while a clickable pit is acceptable .. it is not for me and not important to me. I would much rather have every function in an aircraft modeled to an axis or a button with each subsystem scalable like I mentioned above. I like being able to program 90% of the functions I use in IL2 to my sticks. For me that adds to the realism.

[FlatSpinMan]

Mmaruda - great post.

Also, cool avatar pic.

[FuriousMeow]

I think clickable cockpits will become a common place, or at least far more acceptable, when the reality can be replicated - as in touch screens. Fumbling for another device to manipulate a switch/button/dial on a screen is less realism and more tedium.

 

I'm all for clickable cockpits, so long as the object I can see may be manipulated through what I'm viewing without reaching for an additional device to manipulate it.

Edited October 4, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Gort]

Clickable is fine, but I don't want to have to do it as a matter of routine. It used to take 20 minutes to get an F14 out of the chocks on a normal launch. Fighting the systems glitches and waiting for an inertial alignment to finish is like practicing bleeding. No big deal as you had the flight to look forward to, and enjoyed the process as it gave you time to think about the mission and settle down with time to review charts and plates and timing, etc. Doing that every time you "fly" a PC sim would drive me to look elsewhere for entertainment.

 

Now pushing over to zero or negative G and having all of the dirt and FOD that's not supposed to be there float into your face would be a nice employment of realism. Having a bogus radio call, either an error or an enemy spoof would be great, but don't make me do a preflight and have the engine expire because I failed to re-seat the oil filler cap, or have me launch on an alert and be unable to retract the gear because the gear pins were not removed. That's realistic, but not something that adds to the experience.

 

At some point, the enjoyment vs realism curves diverge.

[6S.Manu]

Fumbling for another device to manipulate a switch/button/dial on a screen is less realism and more tedium.

 

 

You mean that real 109 pilot have to look at the trim and flap wheels to operate them?

 

Have A-10 pilots to "look" at the ejection handle to pull that?

 

Even with touchscreens it can't be a realistic management. It can be only when you build your own working cockpit.

 

Controls by keyboard buttons (and external devices) take a lot less time than "look steady, put you hand on the mouse, move that little arrow over the 50*50px 3d model and click! Damn! I pushed the wrong button because of my imprecise mouse!"

 

 

Edited October 4, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[Bearcat]

I agree.

[FuriousMeow]

Yes, because I can move my hand directly to that switch. I don't have to reach for a pointy stick to then adjust that switch.

 

So it's not the same thing at all. There is an added layer of fumbling for something, then maneuvering it to the location of the switch or dial that would have been reachable without first fumbling for an additional medium to manipulate it. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

 

aww come hood.. you agree with me

 

It's all semantics, and even though English isn't my mother tounge, of course there is a difference between realism and authenticity.

 

Authenticity is about capturing the experience... brother of immersion. Realism takes this a step further in details.. and to me at least, can ruin the authenitity and immersion.. if you do not build a complete cokcpit with physical gauges exactly like the original

 

 

 

I agree totally with both of your posts Klunk.

 

When I have been away from virtual flying for a while, and take a plane up over the Kuban, and look down and get a bit of veritgo,  that's authenticity, immersion, realism.  

 

Hunting around the cockpit and clicking virtual controls with a mouse isn't.

[SCG_Neun]

I can map most of the essentials on my flight stick, without clicking on this or that or searching for this key stroke or that one......but I agree, I would like to see the advantages of trim, fuel mixture and prop pitch that were included on some aircraft as an auto feature be exploited within the CEM system.   Other than that, realism has so many components not the least of which is going to be AI and command features that really work well.  Even for the online player, commanding a group of AI aircraft to perform a support function while the human pilots carry out their particular mission is imperative.  At least I am guessing the DID type arenas are modeled the same as in the old days...   Offline, well what can I say.....we experienced the lack of support in COD in this area, which on it's release was a disaster.  So realism, simulation or whatever you want to call it is non-existence no matter how many aircraft you put in the skies, if they fly around aimlessly without the ability to support the objective........Judging from ROF, I think we are going to well off in this area.

Edited October 4, 2013 by JagdNeun

[Sokol1]

 

It's all semantics, and even though English isn't my mother tounge, of course there is a difference between realism and authenticity.

 

Yes! REALISM in "Flight sim" is a il-2 "invention" - a "sim" that came with "auto pilot level", "auto pilot course", "auto pilot speed", "auto radiator", NO engine management...

This unfortunately definition for "difficult" (or authenticity) are not use before.

 

Due this people that like only of game aspect - shoot and count kills/points - (not wrong with this   ) start say: "you need play sit at gasoline jerry can, and matches to ignite the to "proper realism" when are hit"...

 

So (IMO) better this game use the already tested formulae "hit I and slam the throttle"...  "Is just a game".   Leave "switchlogia" to FSX, X-Plane, DCS, CloD™...

 

And - Important to note, the demanded gamepad support need consider that this device have limited buttons.

 

Sokol1

[SKG51_robtek]

@Sokol

 

"Hit 'I' and slam the throttle" is really 'arcade' (IMO) and a thing of the past for games with a serious simulation aspect.

It should be posssible but shurely not mandatory.

Edited October 4, 2013 by robtek

[GabelschwanzTeufel]

Yes. Excessive realism kills it for a lot of people.

[FuriousMeow]

And - Important to note, the demanded gamepad support need consider that this device have limited buttons.

 

 

Demanded by a minority. If the sim part gets dumbed down for that, they can stay with WT. WT already fills the arcade/dumbed down portion of the market.

[Mmaruda]

Demanded by a minority. If the sim part gets dumbed down for that, they can stay with WT. WT already fills the arcade/dumbed down portion of the market.

 

It should not be a priority by any means, but if it can be implemented somehow without dumbing down the "proper" part of the game, so that say in "easy mode" you can play singleplayer and enjoy the game without it turning into Ace Combat, than I think it's worth considering at some point. Having a proper sim that is accesible to a complete newcomer to the genre as an alternative to the  MMO grindfest, could be highly beneficial both to the community and the devs. It's profit for the devs, a larger community and more mainstream game media spotlight, maybe it would help kick the sim-business into second gear.

 

I mean look at racing sims - they seem to be doing very well, and you can actually play them and have fun even with a keyboard with all the "easy driving" options turned on. I think it was also a big selling point of the original IL-2 as most reviews mentioned the highly customisable realism/difficulty settings. RoF is actually great in that deparment too.

 

Anyway, it's obvious that sacrificing any portion of the "proper" game's realism would be a big no-no with the main target audience, but if resources would allow it, it wouldn't hurt to implement stuff making it easier for the average Joe to pick up the game.