So, if you started a flight sim from scratch, a new project, what are your must have features?

[Irishratticus72]

31 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I prefer God as my copilot.  Are they the same?  I flunked out of Bible studies.

Woah there chief, God only flies RIO in Tomcats.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Irishratticus72

[PatrickAWlson]

14 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

Woah there chief, God only flies RIO in Tomcats.

 

Tom Cruise killed God?

[=621=Samikatz]

One feature I'd really like is the ability to give other flights new commands mid session as some kind of "game master" role, it would allow for much more dynamic multiplayer set-ups, maybe even asymmetrical ones where its pilots versus an enemy commander with dozens of AI at their control

[Irishratticus72]

15 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Tom Cruise killed God?

Hell is where you're headed. Hell, or Queensland..... ?

[Jaws2002]

4 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

So, if you started a flight sim from scratch, a new project, what are your must have feature?

 

 

 IAR-80. ? 

[danielprates]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I prefer God as my copilot.  Are they the same?  I flunked out of Bible studies.

 

It's like that time the Son phoned the Father. "Hello, Dad? It's me... you!"

[=69.GIAP=VLADI]

2 hours ago, Wardog5711 said:

So from what I'm reading....

No commercial tie-ins to totally unrelated subjects like WG does?

No first aid kits hanging from balloons to regen your damage as you fly past?

No trail of gold coins streaming from your enemy that you can collect in flight for use on in-game purchases?

Poop. I better submit a new project plan.?

 

 

?

I was thinking about lootboxes or unlockables ?

[JimTM]

• Vulkan graphics API
• A facility (other than chat or voice) to easily organize multiplayer pilots into groups (e.g., list/join fighter sweeps, escorts, ground attacks, etc.).

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

5 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

No Multiplayer.

Single player only.

 

 

Your time machine works, now go back to 1995.

 

 

Also, as one suggestion: it's 2023...so XBOX support to draw in MSFS2020/Warthunder players is a MU$T.

 

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

Well its not our idea to make new game when we have working one, so if your just doing better graphic +10% FM +5% DM +20% , 8 airplannes insted 10, 200km map insted 300km because added complexity, why do new game. If you plan to do new game then expectations are acording 2023 not 2013, MSFS2020 exist now, this is new game standard, not failed CloD standard of old.

Some of us actually do have the idea to make a new ww2 sim platform...you don't speak for all of us, you speak for yourself.

Edited January 9, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[Rjel]

AI that is aircraft dependent. That is a Zero pilot would fly differently than one flying a P-47 ect, ect, ect.

 

AI that valued its own existence. One that would, when flying a damaged A/C or was wounded, skedaddle for home. 

 

I believe it was Aces Over the Pacific that allowed the player to jump back into a "recorded" flight at any point and continue flying the mission. A great feature for those once in a (virtual) lifetime events to see if one could have survived had he went left instead of right.

 

Allowing the mission to continue after the player's "death".

 

Large formations of heavy bombers, possibly using relaxed FMs while in formation.

 

Full use of multi core CPUs.

 

Also, a 3D paint shop to do away with painting on a flat template. In the perfect world, a paint shop compatible with an Adobe or Gimp type paint programs.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Rjel
Too many to list...

[dbuile]

"if you started a flight sim from scratch"

 

Ok, so if I'm building it, not just requesting features:

I'd put a lot of focus on navigation concepts, problems, and tools. I love that Cliffs of Dover has little touches (not that I've had a chance to play it) like magnetic and airframe compass deviations, resettable stopwatch, apparently more realistic autopilot behavior?

I'd add:
    - Definable weather between locations (for example, weather fronts, atmosphere pressure differences, potentially more weather hazards, definable turbulence layers)
    - normal operational limits on instruments (examples: gyro drift, delay/disruptions during extreme changes)
    - Navigator/Radio-Operator stations/capabilities
    - RADAR, IFF capabilities/limitations, including communications and command/control delays on disseminating information... Imagine having a situation room map, or a Seeburg-Tisch?
    - airfield infrastructure, onboard equipment for night/blind flying, night fighting; simulation/effects for night flying
    - Attention to offensive/defensive radio navigation and countermeasures
    - Seaplanes and Flying Boats

    - Larger maps, more ocean

    - Landmarks/features/obstacles to feel you're somewhere

 

 

 

[dburne]

I would like simply better than the last.

[Skycat1969]

Development must begin with a proper .50 caliber BMG bullet and the rest of the simulator shall be built around it.

[migmadmarine]

Things I'd hope to se are functions like bombardier and photo recon/artillery spotting being controllable by another player in MP, for one. 

[percydanvers]

109s. It needs lots of 109s

[RAAF492SQNOz_Steve]

Multi threaded CPU operation so we can get larger bomber formations and push AI stuff onto another CPU core.

Also, needs to have the 'One trick Pony' flyable Komet added to available craft with inbuilt random 30% chance of spectacular and fatal explosion on takeoff.
That would add some realism to career mode for our more experienced players.

Edited January 10, 2023 by RAAF492SQNOz_Steve

[BMA_FlyingShark]

More timers like we have for the engines now but also for the frame of your aircraft so that if you have done some manoeuvring a timer kicks in to make your plane disintegrate.

 

Have a nice day.

 

On a more serious note:

 

Realistic engine wear and tear.

Let each function have it's own bind (formation lights, cockpit lights, instrument lights,...).

Player controllable carburettor heat.

Icing (and de-icing) of the windshield.

Features like stuvi, realistic autopilot,... from the get go and for all planes that had them irl.

All planes on JackFraser's lists.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[JG27_Steini]

A new engine should focus more on SP

 

- a reasonable AI that has a live

- a more immersive career system (graphics, score list, historic squadron sizes, static groups like "Rotte" or "Schwarm", flight reports archiv)

- more mission types, more random encounter, less predictable encounter with same sizes of enemy's

- more historic missions in carrer mode

- immersive GUI for game and career system depending on the side or timeframe

[Bonnot]

13 hours ago, Raptorattacker said:

Lickable Cockpit... (yes, Lickable).

 

13 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

14 hours ago, Alexmarine said:

Only if they not include anime girls, afterall anime girls are the pin-up nose arts of modern days 

 

lickable what ????     ?

[Trooper117]

11 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Your time machine works, now go back to 1995.

 

Look at the thread heading gobby... this is 'my' I repeat my wishes in 'my' flight sim, not yours.

[Bonnot]

10 hours ago, Rjel said:

 

 

I believe it was Aces Over the Pacific that allowed the player to jump back into a "recorded" flight at any point and continue flying the mission. A great feature for those once in a (virtual) lifetime events to see if one could have survived had he went left instead of right.

 

Allowing the mission to continue after the player's "death".

 

This was a great feature I remember also ( not sure for AOtP....) as it was also possible to compare two planes in flight or two PoV etc....

Also jumping back in the "records"  allowed more studies on various options/tactics/moves........

[R7-S276]

for me:

- priority to crew/multiplayer with all plane seats flyable by human (pilot copilot gunners radio navigator bomber…) and be able to manage the crew (career mode, wounded ect) … and eventually a menu option to have or hide the pilot body in the plane and have or hide the AI crew

- a complex fully functional radio system 

- all cockpit function clickable (specially useful in VR)

- planes and maps development in chronological order exemple: from 1936 to 1946, so the developers could upgrade the plane like create the Hurricane MkIa first and use it to create the MkIIa MKIIb… same for the map, and could be great to have the map at a large scale and not a part of a country… 

- the same menu option as Il-46 to choose for each plane and pilot of a group the country, the skin ect… and all countries available under his own flag and language

- same priority to develop fighter plane as bomber recon transport planes and not be obsess only by armed planes…

- possibility to have aircraft carriers

- included civilians as AI traffic (planes people’s véhicules and trains) in order to make the player think before shoot…

 

to resume, for me the best version of Il2 would be the menu, options and variety of maps and planes of Il2-1946 B.A.T., the cockpit clickable and radio system of Il2-Cliffs of Dover and the graphic realism and technology of Il2-Great Battles… just take the best of these versions to create an ultimate one
- and of course, a big price promotion on all new game and DLC for customers who have already spend all their money in all Rise of Flight games and each il2 version and DLCs… ?

Edited January 10, 2023 by R7-S276

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Look at the thread heading gobby... this is 'my' I repeat my wishes in 'my' flight sim, not yours.

I understand, but that's simply crazy talk. We can have good AI and single player, along with dynamic and versatile multi-player. Good multiplayer features a healthy dose of AI...A good sim is a sandbox where any scenario is possible and is not linear.

[Jade_Monkey]

People confusing "must haves" with "in your wildest dreams"

[Ribbon]

-fighters

-medium bombers (heavies would also be nice if possible)

-carriers

-torpedo bombers

-capable of bigger air battles

-Arma like mission editor

 

Every expansion going to different theatre of war (PTO, ETO, MTO....)

Something like Il2:1946 but with better graphics and FM also it doesn't have to have all planes like il2:1946, just the most represented fighters, jabo, medium bombers and torpedo bombers.

Variety of gameplay at first!

 

[BladeMeister]

On 1/9/2023 at 12:06 PM, Irishratticus72 said:

Jesus. It must have Jesus as copilot.

He is always my copilot. Did you not receive Him as yours? I can tell you how to fix that if support won't help you Sir.

 

S!Blade<><

Edited May 20, 2023 by BladeMeister

[Bonnot]

On 1/9/2023 at 7:49 PM, SYN_Vander said:

Mine would be something like this:

• I turn my PC, start the simulator (pretty standard so far  ) OK
• The simulator starts quickly (within 10 sec) and presents the following: OK
  -My Pilots (avatars)
  -My Planes (personalized)
  -A list of ongoing campaigns/battles  : West front 1944/45, South Pacific 1943/44, Malta, Sicily, NA 1941/43.........
  -A campaign / scenario creation option -fast and easy...
• I have just read "XX Squadron" by Clostermann so I'm in the mood for WWII flying. I browse (search?) through the active battles and notice several  battles. One is set in May 1943, so I select that one.
• I can choose to sign up for an active squadron if I want to fly multiple missions as in a campaign or I can simply choose an open slot as replacement pilot. Since I just want to get into the action quickly I choose the latter. OK
• I read the battle description, historical background and select a side. OK
• I can now choose the game type, Single, PvE or PvP. Since I don't want to fly alone and PvE usually has more missions going I choose that.
• I can see the active missions and their squadrons, planes and objectives. Some are already in progress (in the air), while others are waiting to start.
• I select a mission that is in progress and see that the there are 8 planes in flight. Three of them are occupied by actual players, the others by AI. I select an available slot
• I quickly read the mission briefing and objectives and hit "FLY" - now the game starts loading for real.  OK

Thanks to the Author ?

Sorry, I copied without authorization because I'm too lazy......

Edited January 11, 2023 by Bonnot

[Irishratticus72]

1 hour ago, BladeMeister said:

He is always my copilot. Did you not receive Him as yours? I can tell you how fix that if support won't help you Sir.

 

S!Blade<><

Damn Jehovah's......

[Wardog5711]

Careful,  as many wars have been fought over religion as they have for territory.

Let keep things neutral.?

[sevenless]

21 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

Damn Jehovah's......

 

[Irishratticus72]

18 minutes ago, Wardog5711 said:

Careful,  as many wars have been fought over religion as they have for territory.

Let keep things neutral.?

So, why Navy is more manly than Marines topic inbound then.

[Dragon1-1]

Well, sure it's more manly, in the Navy even the girl back home is usually a guy. ?

[Tendo]

good mouse control, say whatever about mouse control but I believe it's a good way to introduce the product to casual players, and of course if this product has a multiplayer aspect there will be an option to separate mouse and joystick users

[Juri_JS]

Improvements to map technology would be on top of my list. MSFS 2020 raised the bar quite high when it comes to level of detail for flight sim maps. The problem is you can't use most of the MSFS map technologies in a ww2 combat flight sim.

 

As a developer I would talk to someone with a background in Geoinformatics, to see which technologies could be useable when creating a map for a ww2 flight sim. For example it's already possible to automatically extract terrain type data from old aerial photos by using machine learning technics. Using such a technology would probably speed up the map making process and improve the level of detail.

[Trooper117]

2 hours ago, Irishratticus72 said:

Navy is more manly than Marines topic inbound then.

 

It's because the Navy has bigger webbed feet than the Marines...

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

Improvements to map technology would be on top of my list. MSFS 2020 raised the bar quite high when it comes to level of detail for flight sim maps. The problem is you can't use most of the MSFS map technologies in a ww2 combat flight sim.

 

As a developer I would talk to someone with a background in Geoinformatics, to see which technologies could be useable when creating a map for a ww2 flight sim. For example it's already possible to automatically extract terrain type data from old aerial photos by using machine learning technics. Using such a technology would probably speed up the map making process and improve the level of detail.

This is a very good idea.

 

Also, I personally think MSFS2020 is a bit overrated. Most of the terrain is filled with errors and is generic. Dover castle is an office building after all...

[[I./JG62]steppa]

Highly detailed damage model.

Accurate aircraft structure, hydraulic lines, electrical system, fuel system and Crew with corresponding hitboxes. 

Soft Body physics for skins and select ribs and stringers.

[R33GZ]

An AI that is actually intelligent and a fully offline career mode

[Feldgrun]

Maybe I’m being too simplistic, but it seems like most folks want IL2 1946 with VR & updated graphics.

[Juri_JS]

10 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

This is a very good idea.

 

Also, I personally think MSFS2020 is a bit overrated. Most of the terrain is filled with errors and is generic. Dover castle is an office building after all...

Their auto-generation of buildings and trees doesn't work very well. Cities in MSFS only look good in areas that are completely based on photogrammetric data and even there you will find errors at low level.

 

Of course modern photogrammetric data wouldn't be useable for a ww2 flight sim map, but I wonder what could be done with old stereoscopic aerial photos. Maybe they could be used for detecting buildings and afterwards this data could be used for automatically populating cities? I am quite good at working with GIS software, but when it comes to more complex stuff I don't really know what's already possible.