Jump to content

What shall the level of simulate be?


Recommended Posts

I would hope that we will see the bar raised from what already exists in Cliffs of Dover (let alone the contemporaries like DCS/Accusim)....so I would surely hope that I/E to start (etc) is only a difficulty option, and that realistic systems operations and interface exists as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As many other programs, I believe, the degree of realism will be finely configurable by enabling or disabling individual aspects of simulation. With that in mind, I'd like to see aspects such as weather, pressure, air masses movement, environment temperature effects, scripted failures and many other aspects simulated - many not represented in other sims - because, they could be disable for the novice and enabled as one gets more proficient.

 

I really appreciate the immersion and simulation aspect of the programs - points are seccondary.

 

t???

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure - clickable like in FSX/IL-2 Cod/DCS Ka-50,A-10C with possibility to SET UP everything for controllers too (like in DCS).

Wonder what level of details they will be able to find for the Russian planes, seems info on those planes and their systems is harder to come by than most other countries. WIll be interesting...

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's fine with me, I set everything up on hotas anyway, even with CLOD you just hit "F" then "I", seems a little silly for a combat sim, and that damn mouse curser never going away was annoying as hell.  Jason's got the right idea, get the basics working first then add stuff in if it's possible

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are things to be improved or modified for BOS for sure ... and one of the first thing to do is lay out ideas "with out" the arguments of the past. I agree that starting  BOS clean is important then add on. It is very important to work on weather physics, clouds etc.. Cockpits views to accommodate a general audience and giving the best possible to reality ( ofcourse in a realism setting )

BOS with a more complex engine management is ofcourse great.. anyway I think everyone is pretty much in agreement.

 

For my part I'm very tired of the arguments and do not want to argue but  working on things that are far much more positive and beneficial for everyone.

 

Clean sim and clean attitude..  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the question:

 

A clickable cockpit is not a feature that appeals to me.

 

But, I do like a complex cockpit: for example: setting compas headings, set ADI, set altimeter, turn on fuel cock, set magnetos, set mixture, open rad, adjust prop pitch, perhaps even prime the engine all before startup which can then be a starter button/key.

 

Adjustments to a more simple cockpit can be achieved by turning off some these features for different pilot abilities.

 

Cheers

Edited by Catseye
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the question:

 

A clickable cockpit is not a feature that appeals to me.

 

But, I do like a complex cockpit: for example: setting compas headings, set ADI, set altimeter, turn on fuel cock, set magnetos, set mixture, open rad, adjust prop pitch, perhaps even prime the engine all before startup which can then be a starter button/key.

 

Adjustments to a more simple cockpit can be achieved by turning off some these features for different pilot abilities.

 

Cheers

This one.

 

Clickable cockpits are eye-candies in a civilian flight simulator: in a combat simulator there's no need of it as a military pilot is trained to manage many controls without looking at them.

 

I would like a complex engine management (the danger of burning the engine) and above all a decent realistic visibility of the contacts...

Edited by 6SManu
Link to post
Share on other sites

Infact a clickable cockpit is an easy way to control complex functions of the aircraft, for both civilian and military. You don't need to remeber all the key setting, something like RAlt+RShift+RCtrl+Home etc. And it can directly show the switch's position, turn the Altimeter knob or heading set bug, uncage the gauges like that.

The ROF have only WWI aircrafts. Most of them are simple. The WWII aircrafts are different. Perhaps the decision is because of the limit of the engine. Hope this will not affect the modeling of realistic aircraft systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the game's Control Option will really show the complexity, completeness and potential of the sim. Don't forget the landing light and Nav light  again, which was missed in CloD. :)

Edited by billeinstein
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I would like a complex engine management (the danger of burning the engine) and above all a decent realistic visibility of the contacts...

 

RoF do that...for example, if you lean the mixture to low the engine will stop and if you keep doing it it will break at some point. You can overrev your engine and break it (oil in the face) on hard dives if you dont wacth out the engine revs...so if CEM its there on RoF, at WWI level of course, I have no doubt it will be there in BoS, at WWII level.

 

About clickable cockpit, I agree with the most, its nice for civil flight sim, but I prefer to keep my eyes on the sky rather than looking at the cockpit to change something with the mouse.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

RoF do that...for example, if you lean the mixture to low the engine will stop and if you keep doing it it will break at some point. You can overrev your engine and break it (oil in the face) on hard dives if you dont wacth out the engine revs...so if CEM its there on RoF, at WWI level of course, I have no doubt it will be there in BoS, at WWII level.

 

About clickable cockpit, I agree with the most, its nice for civil flight sim, but I prefer to keep my eyes on the sky rather than looking at the cockpit to change something with the mouse.

 

I know, and infact it's the best feature of RoF imo: overcooling actually is my worst enemy. :D

 

But still I've issues with flying-carts: I've supported RoF by buying many planes, but WW1 air warfare is so boring to me...

 

And sun reflections do their dirty work in spotting enemies.

Edited by 6SManu
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah clickable cockpits aren't needed. This is a combat sim. As long as we can assign the keys to buttons and our HOTAS setups all should be good. I feel more immersed when I'm flipping switches on my joystick rather than clicking them on a mouse.

Edited by kestrel79
Link to post
Share on other sites

RoF do that...for example, if you lean the mixture to low the engine will stop and if you keep doing it it will break at some point. You can overrev your engine and break it (oil in the face) on hard dives if you dont wacth out the engine revs...so if CEM its there on RoF, at WWI level of course, I have no doubt it will be there in BoS, at WWII level.

 

About clickable cockpit, I agree with the most, its nice for civil flight sim, but I prefer to keep my eyes on the sky rather than looking at the cockpit to change something with the mouse.

 

 

I really wish 777 develop a function of moving mouse to clean the oil on the face. I have just bought the scarf and wish to use it. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's fine with me, I set everything up on hotas anyway, even with CLOD you just hit "F" then "I", seems a little silly for a combat sim, and that damn mouse curser never going away was annoying as hell.  Jason's got the right idea, get the basics working first then add stuff in if it's possible

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my taste. there are people that want a combat sim, and there are people that want a flight simulator with wwii aircrafts.

 

When I'am riding a manual shift car, I never look for the gearshift. They are placed where you dont need to look for it.

 

So for a combat sim, that screen clicking is quite annoyng, and trully unnecessary. Hard core simmers build their own cabins to have that filling. But screen clicking, is not an improvement, It is just a toy. But I must admit that having an indication for the first times of which instruments do what, and which levers indicate what, is not that bad.

Also the value translation could come in handy, but is questionable the complicated implementation of this features, since a simple sidebar will do the same, and be as counterinmersive.

 

On the other hand, CEM sohuld stay. And on that area RoF is doing their best. That is the main difference in flying a WWII combat sim, against star wars combat style.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like clickable cockpits for things like engine start-ups (DCS / FSX / CoD for example) but in the heat of battle the last thing I need to do is look down and try and drag my mouse to a control and click on it, I just hit the KB.

 

I personally want however the ability to map cockpit controls to multiple hardware controllers for home cockpit builders like myself. That???

Edited by CoderX71
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I'am riding a manual shift car, I never look for the gearshift. They are placed where you dont need to look for it.

 

Are we making a car simulator? 

 

As I just posted in the other thread:

 

"the pilots of complex aircraft have had it drilled into our heads that we are never to reach for a control without first looking at it and verifying that it is the one we intended to reach for. "

 

HOTAS controls of a modern fighter are modern things that you can use to your advantage - but why must it be forced on all? I won't even bother with LockOn beyond using it for my time on formation aerobatic teams, because of the need to remember all the hundreds of obscure commands "Left Shift-Alt-Page Up" etc. In my view, there's really no era of sim where the omission of a cockpit interface makes any sense, and no legitimate way to justify against the implementation of one. You don't need to want it or use, but many others will. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we making a car simulator? 

 

As I just posted in the other thread:

 

"the pilots of complex aircraft have had it drilled into our heads that we are never to reach for a control without first looking at it and verifying that it is the one we intended to reach for. "

 

HOTAS controls of a modern fighter are modern things that you can use to your advantage - but why must it be forced on all? I won't even bother with LockOn beyond using it for my time on formation aerobatic teams, because of the need to remember all the hundreds of obscure commands "Left Shift-Alt-Page Up" etc. In my view, there's really no era of sim where the omission of a cockpit interface makes any sense, and no legitimate way to justify against the implementation of one. You don't need to want it or use, but many others will. 

Its probably already at the point of beating a dead horse as it sounds like they have decided that there will not be clickable cockpits, after all I have trouble remembering this is more a sequel to RoF that CloD, and they have to work within those bounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, CEM sohuld stay. And on that area RoF is doing their best. That is the main difference in flying a WWII combat sim, against star wars combat style.

 

Absolutely.  It is not much of WWII Air Combat simulator without CEM.  CloD was the very first of these games that correctly emphasized the importance of proper engine operation to achieveing maximum performance.  IIRC, Shaw said it best in his book and I paraphrase; "WWII fighter combat, the weapons were simple to operatie and planes complex to fly while todays fighter pilot finds the plane easy to fly and the weapons complex to operate.

 

It is a step backwards in immersion for WWII era aircombat simulations fans to reduce the complexity of found CloD CEM.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to consider the use of words and phrases like "In my opinion" or "for some fans", because you are not speaking of certainties, nor do you speak for all players. When all we have to communicate with is words upon a screen, the deployment of those words is vital.

Things like this:"It is not much of WWII Air Combat simulator without CEM" are unhelpful.

The game is not made yet. Yes, it does sound like the CEM will be less than that of CoD, but no doubt there will be some form of it on offer, as good as the developers' resources allow in the time they have to make this thing for us. That's all we can ask. And again, for many players, highly detailed CEM is not up there on their wishlists for an air combat simulator.

Suggesting features is reasonable but writing things off a week after the game has been announced is not.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, for many players, highly detailed CEM is not up there on their wishlists for an air combat simulator.

 

 

Which is why it should be scalable in the games preferences.  The bottom line is that WWII fighters are complex to operate and manage.  A system that dumbs that down does not simulate the aircraft or the experience.

 

That is not my opinion, it is just the truth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, of course.

Now, I understand not even CloD Modeled every system 100%, so we conclude that there has never been a WWII combat simulator. Let's then leave the truth where it is and hopefully our expectations in the real world.

 

Though I'm a dreamer as well, and there are actually quite somepoints where I would like to see the DN engine improved..

Edited by hq_Jorri
Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to consider the use of words and phrases like "In my opinion" or "for some fans", because you are not speaking of certainties, nor do you speak for all players. When all we have to communicate with is words upon a screen, the deployment of those words is vital.

Things like this:"It is not much of WWII Air Combat simulator without CEM" are unhelpful.

The game is not made yet. Yes, it does sound like the CEM will be less than that of CoD, but no doubt there will be some form of it on offer, as good as the developers' resources allow in the time they have to make this thing for us. That's all we can ask. And again, for many players, highly detailed CEM is not up there on their wishlists for an air combat simulator.

Suggesting features is reasonable but writing things off a week after the game has been announced is not.

If it is less than CoD and more than IL2 I will be happy. For those who will not of course they have the option to not buy it..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely.  It is not much of WWII Air Combat simulator without CEM.  CloD was the very first of these games that correctly emphasized the importance of proper engine operation to achieveing maximum performance.  IIRC, Shaw said it best in his book and I paraphrase; "WWII fighter combat, the weapons were simple to operatie and planes complex to fly while todays fighter pilot finds the plane easy to fly and the weapons complex to operate.

 

It is a step backwards in immersion for WWII era aircombat simulations fans to reduce the complexity of found CloD CEM.

 

The developers have made their reasoning behind not including CEM and other COD features quite clear, if only people would read the comments:

 

13) Can we expect the clickable cockpits?

 

No. We create a simulation of air combat (this includes attacking ground targets). The pilot will only receive critical systems, propeller pitch, boost, altitude control, different mechanization, weapons and more. Procedural training device it will not be, it will be a game simulator. We would like to return to the original idea of ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

13) Can we expect the clickable cockpits?

 

No. We create a simulation of air combat (this includes attacking ground targets). The pilot will only receive critical systems, propeller pitch, boost, altitude control, different mechanization, weapons and more. Procedural training device it will not be, it will be a game simulator. We would like to return to the original idea of ???

Edited by Crump
Link to post
Share on other sites

The issues seem to be getting convoluted.

 

You don't need a click-able cockpit to have very detailed CEM.

 

You don't need animated toggle/buttons for a very detailed CEM.

 

You don't need cockpit graphics that take years to construct for a very detailed CEM.

 

99% of the information for a very detailed CEM comes from:

 

1.  Manifold pressure Gauge

2. RPM Gauge

3. Oil pressure

4. Oil Temperature

 

Adjusting the manifold pressure and rpm gauges encompasses the vast majority of complex engine management.  Want to stay aloft the longest time, set the engines to the appropriate setting and maintain Vbe speed.

 

Want to run at maximum power?  Set the two gauges to maximum continuous for the engine at the altitude you are at.  Want to maneuver?  Keep the manifold pressure in the range (green arc) so the propeller does not drive the engine!

 

Pretty much everything else comes from the sound of the engine.  For example, I have a very good engine analyzer in my airplane.  I can lean by slowly moving the mixture and watching the EGT's until I reach peak.  Then I can go 100 degrees rich for best power or 100 degrees lean of peak for LOP operations if I want.

 

I don't need to do that.  The "old fashion" way, which given the lack of an EGT gauge in most WWII fighters is the ONLY way, works with amazing accuracy.  Simple lean the mixture until the engine runs rough and then richen the mixture until the point the engine runs smooth again.

 

It works very well and is why it was the standard practice for so long.

 

Supercharger gearing is changed when manifold pressure begins to drop and the engine looses power.  It does not require a cockpit animation.

 

oil coolers, radiators, and cowl flaps do not require a cockpit animation, adjust as required to maintain engine temperature.

 

ADI systems do not require a cockpit animation just adherence to their limitations.

 

If you operate the engine properly it delivers the proper performance and if you don't, it looses performance or fails.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"A system that dumbs that down does not simulate the aircraft or the experience.

 

That is not my opinion, it is just the truth. "

 

No. That IS an opinion.

 

Truths

The sun rises in the east.

The earth revolves around the sun.

 

 

If what you typed we're true, then Jorri would be right. Nothing can simulate it fully - thats why they're called "simulators",not "real thing u lators". We're talking about game software that costs in the ballpark of I don't know, $40-$100 so some trade offs are required. Be reasonable with your expectations.

 

By all means express your opinion but be less dogmatic about it. That kind of comment just generates ill will and draws flames.

 

You posted again while I was typing. That kind of thing is way more helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issues seem to be getting convoluted.

 

You don't need a click-able cockpit to have very detailed CEM.

 

You don't need animated toggle/buttons for a very detailed CEM.

 

You don't need cockpit graphics that take years to construct for a very detailed CEM.

 

99% of the information for a very detailed CEM comes from:

 

1.  Manifold pressure Gauge

2. RPM Gauge

3. Oil pressure

4. Oil Temperature

 

Adjusting the manifold pressure and rpm gauges encompasses the vast majority of complex engine management.  Want to stay aloft the longest time, set the engines to the appropriate setting and maintain Vbe speed.

 

Want to run at maximum power?  Set the two gauges to maximum continuous for the engine at the altitude you are at.  Want to maneuver?  Keep the manifold pressure in the range (green arc) so the propeller does not drive the engine!

 

Supercharger gearing is changed when manifold pressure begins to drop and the engine looses power.  It does not require a cockpit animation.

 

oil coolers, radiators, and cowl flaps do not require a cockpit animation, adjust as required to maintain engine temperature.

 

ADI systems do not require a cockpit animation just adherence to their limitations.

 

If you operate the engine properly it delivers the proper performance and if you don't, it looses performance or fails.

 

I take it from this that you are going to help by funding the project, then you will assist by writing the software, after which you will test it to ensure it works for each engine type modeled, and the correct climactic conditions, before writing a games manual which will include definitive handling information for each engine type?

 

Read answer 13 again

 

No. We create a simulation of air combat (this includes attacking ground targets). The pilot will only receive critical systems, propeller pitch, boost, altitude control, different mechanization, weapons and more. Procedural training device it will not be, it will be a game simulator. We would like to return to the original idea of ???

Edited by NZTyphoon
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are those who treasure a detailed simulation aspect of a game; others value hype and high fun factor and there are many other variations. In my opinion, things are not exclusionary - it's possible to have fun with realism, I want them both.

 

If the game is flexible enough to go both ways: excellent. If not, the producer will determine what to leave out - that's a technical, fact base, decision and dictates the goals. Even if the development team volunteered to work for free on a certain complex feature they really really like, I hardly believe it would be implemented it, if not in the "plan".

 

Considering one can enable or disable things, I'd rather see only a list of features people want, what they would like in the game. Sometimes some really good ideas pop up. I share the opinion that censoring brainstorming or manifestation from others may shoo creative birds. I'd rather read only the single post requesting grasshopper splatter on the canopy, when the wind is coming laterally to a parked plane -engine off-, than that same post and the tens that usually follow bashing the idea and reasoning why grasshopper splattering should not be coded in the game. I trust the developers to rule that secondary to the pilot's ability to look at his instruments.

 

I really like the immersion. I would love to be able to export data to a simpit and have working gauges. However, a post in the lines of "do not simulate this stupid grasshopper splattering, I'm a real pilot, working gauges are much more needed than dumb insects that do not add to the simulation", in my opinion, regardless if it's a fact or a point of view, is bad form and may contribute less than a simple "it would really be great if the game could export data to drive gauges and maybe a motion platform".

 

my two cents...

 

t???

Edited by tityus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents, in RoF, the current application of the DN game engine, you MUST manage your engine or A: you will be out performed by your enemy, or B: you will destroy your own engine.  While the instrumentation in the WW1 birds, especially the German ones, is crude, it is there and usable.  AND YOU MUST USE IT.

 

Why does anyone think it will be different in BoS? 

 

Actually you could do these things in IL2, but they had little or very marginal effect. 

 

Look at the Dev post again,  we will have to manage our boost, rpm, and temperatures.  THIS IS CEM.

 

Clicking buttons in the cockpit with a mouse is just eye candy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Procedural training device it will not be, it will be a game simulator.

 

 

Procedural training device in aviation has a completely different meaning.   I am sure they are aware of it and I agree that a procedural trainer is not what anyone is looking for in the game.

 

I think the audience that would enjoy the challenge of a 1940's radio beacon approach would be very limited.

 

A flight procedure is the plan of operations that an aircraft has to follow while in the vicinity of an airport, in order to departure or land.

Edited by Crump
Link to post
Share on other sites

But, "no cockpit animation" (of levers, switchs) required a "HUD" to say:

 

Mixture: Lean

Pitch:70%

Oil cooler. Open

Flaps: Up

Etc, etc...

 

Appropriate?

 

Sokol1

 

I don't think you need to worry about this, given that ROF's cockpits are effectively full animated right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's fine with me, I set everything up on hotas anyway, even with CLOD you just hit "F" then "I", seems a little silly for a combat sim, and that damn mouse curser never going away was annoying as hell.  Jason's got the right idea, get the basics working first then add stuff in if it's possible

 

 

You've been flying in airquake servers.  I set up my gunsight and compass before I head out.  Not interested in 1946 in a new dress.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the audience that would enjoy the challenge of a 1940's radio beacon approach would be very limited.

 

Maybe, but how else do you land in poor visibility? Remember the final stages of the Stalingrad battle took place in a bad winter.

 

I think radio navigation is essential for mid- to late-war air operations, and it was definitely part of the eastern front scene.

 

Here's an idea: I wonder if anyone has actual meteorological data for the Stalingrad sector in late 42 to early 43. Wouldn't it be great to have the option to turn on actual weather conditions (or near enough to them) inside BOS?

 

In IL-2 1946 (TD) at the moment the sim shows the correct phases of the moon by date.

 

Cheers,

4Shades

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...