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

[sevenless]

24 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

 That said, I also don't want every mission I fly, to be a slaughter fest with 3 flights of 8 190s/109s bearing down on my flight, especially in BoBP (I fly allied).

 

I fly also allied in BoBP and BoN, but play with difficulty easy setting and density dense. I think that is the most realistic. In case of difficulty higher than easy there are too many enemy planes for my liking. Maybe I´m wrong, but it seems to me that upping the difficulty also seem to increase the number of enemy planes and not only their skill.

[Noisemaker]

8 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

I fly also allied in BoBP and BoN, but play with difficulty easy setting and density dense. I think that is the most realistic. In case of difficulty higher than easy there are too many enemy planes for my liking. Maybe I´m wrong, but it seems to me that upping the difficulty also seem to increase the number of enemy planes and not only their skill.

I'm also settled on that setting, but my BoN Mossie career for the last 5-8 flights (I'll have to check to be sure of the number), have all been daylight "free hunts", where there are 3 flights of enemy air waiting to take you down.  Thankfully two of the three are doing their own thing, and can be avoided, but that third flight has you as a waypoint and will follow you halfway across the channel (After which, thankfully they give up).

[BraveSirRobin]

5 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

I played MP for years and years, and I loved it... but things and people change. I can say I don't miss MP one single bit or some of the gits that inhabit it.

Lots of people I flew with have jacked MP in and have no desire to go back there... they have moved on from it.

So now that you quit playing MP you think everyone else should also quit?

 

 

[FuriousMeow]

SP bores me to tears. I only use it occasionally and get bored of it quickly. MP is a challenge and fun. MP wars/online scenarios are the best, far better than any SP career/campaign that's ever been and will likely ever be in my lifetime.

[Charon]

5 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

You managed 7.5 kills per hour of flight.

That alone speaks volumes to what's wrong with career mode.  It's currently an arcade game, where the enemy is always there, follows you around the map (Since you're their waypoint), and you almost never have flight time that doesn't involve air to air combat (Which for the bomber and attack players is a real problem).

 

6 hours ago, sevenless said:

Exactly, I only do airstarts. Don´t have time, nor any inclination for 2 hour missions, appreciate the career dependant development though.

This reminds me of one other critical feature: skip-to-waypoint.

 

Did anyone else play Microsoft's combat flight sims back in the day? This was such a great feature! Take off from the carrier, skip to the target, dogfight for 10 minutes, skip back, and land. There's only so much A-B flying I can tolerate, especially in SP or over the ocean. The lack of time-skip in the IL-2 series IMO makes entire categories of missions unappealing to all but the ultra-hardcore. Strategic bombing/escort, maritime patrol, photo-recon, even just most carrier missions. No contact missions could just involve a quick take-off, time-skip and landing.

 

I mentioned earlier that it should be great to have an asset that "follows waypoints without AI or physics computations but spawns in once humans are in range and is deleted once they are not." Well, the same principle could be applied to human flights: cut to the map, simulate the player flight sans-physics, and cut back to the cockpit once enemy contact is made. There could even be rules for simulated spotting (a la random encounter distance in TTRPGs), so that sometimes the player would regain control before contact, sometimes the player would regain control just before being bounced, and sometimes it would just be a fake-out.

 

Ideally, a player flight lead (or an isolated player) would be responsible for navigation as well. Want to time-skip back home and not equipped with radio navigation? Well, first you need to mark your position on the map. Place your pin wrong and you'd be out of place at the next waypoint, too.

[Guest deleted@83466]

I don’t do much MP now.  These days I spend that time with the kitties, and it’s better.

 

edit:  SP also bores me to tears.  It didn’t used to but when you go from Ace of Aces in SP to complete cannon fodder in MP, you’ve got some big learning challenges ahead, and it means you’ve really got something to strive for in a game, as opposed to just beating the hell out of AI all day.  You’re actually talking on comms with other fools like yourself, instead of issuing menu directives to predictable AI.  MP requires a higher level of skill, because you are fighting against real people, sorry, buts the way it is. 

Edited January 12, 2023 by SeaSerpent

[ACG_PanzerVI]

Well, obviously as a dedicated MP player, I won't buy it if its SP only - minority view or not.  I'd just move on to more DCS.  I have no 'must-have' features, other than equivalent or better MP support than current game.  'Like to have' would include searchable/testable control mapping like DCS, better MP scenario tools, and maybe some 1C hosted coop servers.  I think coop is the most underutilized element in the sim, and the best way to get SP folks into MP.  

 

Please don't make the generalization of thinking that all MP play is 'lurking' kill-stat-whores and unrealistic though.  I fly in ACG, and our weekly campaigns feature a full mission brief by both sides, two shifts with both full-server ie. 70ish pilots / 35 per side, schwarm/flight, staffel/squadron and gruppe/group comms, etc...  We do our absolute utmost to provide a realistic, immersive scenario that permits pilots of all competitive levels to feel as though they are flying in WWII.  It isn't perfect by any stretch, but its a dramatically different experience than Cbox, Finnish or TAW, and we build lasting friendships in the process. 

 

If you contend that 1C should abandon MP and focus exclusively on creating content for your personal PC, I would say that is a selfish, mean-spirited remark and reflects on your maturity.  You probably camp in the left lane at 65mph on the interstate too.  For myself, though my SP is limited mostly to warm up and test, I do hope that they improve the SP experience for all of you who enjoy it.  I recognize that it takes a lot of time/energy/effort to be even modestly competitive, or even survivable, on the broader MP servers.  I'm only modestly successful myself.  SP does appeal to a broader audience, and as folks have already pointed out, there are numerous features that could improve.  

 

My last request - I would offer up that trying to include playable ground units in a flight sim is a horrible mistake.  Tank Battles features some cool content, but is horrifically unrealistic (25 years in real tanks).  To craft a realistic ground sim involves a MUCH more detailed terrain system, lots and lots of infantry, artillery, AT weapons, logistics considerations, different comms, different restrictions, and a host of other things that are HUGE distractors from a flight sim team.  While Tank Battles has some cool, well modeled tanks, that is all it has, and their presence on MP servers is just a distraction from the kill-stat-whore lurkers and the other folks trying to become KSWs.  In WWII, ground units did get hit by aircraft, but their interactions would have been mere moments out of the hours, days, weeks and even months spent in ground combat without ever seeing a plane.  Split the sims, and do both - don't try to be WarThunder.  

[Charon]

9 minutes ago, ACG_PanzerVI said:

My last request - I would offer up that trying to include playable ground units in a flight sim is a horrible mistake.  Tank Battles features some cool content, but is horrifically unrealistic (25 years in real tanks).  To craft a realistic ground sim involves a MUCH more detailed terrain system, lots and lots of infantry, artillery, AT weapons, logistics considerations, different comms, different restrictions, and a host of other things that are HUGE distractors from a flight sim team.

I agree, with emphasis on playable. The air war was deeply enmeshed in the ground war (it's in the name of the series, even!), and I think presenting a convincing version of the ground war as seen from the air is important. That means ground units that disperse their vehicles, that park in the shady side of cover, that move in foot-columns, that fire on low-flying aircraft with small arms, that can call on air support when appropriate, and that move in plausible ways which need to be reconnoitered. A realistic ground war is important to my immersion, but TC hasn't done much to make the ground war more realistic as seen from the air.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 hours ago, Charon said:

 

This reminds me of one other critical feature: skip-to-waypoint.

 

Did anyone else play Microsoft's combat flight sims back in the day? This was such a great feature! Take off from the carrier, skip to the target, dogfight for 10 minutes, skip back, and land. There's only so much A-B flying I can tolerate, especially in SP or over the ocean. The lack of time-skip in the IL-2 series IMO makes entire categories of missions unappealing to all but the ultra-hardcore. Strategic bombing/escort, maritime patrol, photo-recon, even just most carrier missions. No contact missions could just involve a quick take-off, time-skip and landing.

 

I mentioned earlier that it should be great to have an asset that "follows waypoints without AI or physics computations but spawns in once humans are in range and is deleted once they are not." Well, the same principle could be applied to human flights: cut to the map, simulate the player flight sans-physics, and cut back to the cockpit once enemy contact is made. There could even be rules for simulated spotting (a la random encounter distance in TTRPGs), so that sometimes the player would regain control before contact, sometimes the player would regain control just before being bounced, and sometimes it would just be a fake-out.

 

Ideally, a player flight lead (or an isolated player) would be responsible for navigation as well. Want to time-skip back home and not equipped with radio navigation? Well, first you need to mark your position on the map. Place your pin wrong and you'd be out of place at the next waypoint, too.

Good ideas ?

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

I don’t do much MP now.  These days I spend that time with the kitties, and it’s better.

 

edit:  SP also bores me to tears.  It didn’t used to but when you go from Ace of Aces in SP to complete cannon fodder in MP, you’ve got some big learning challenges ahead, and it means you’ve really got something to strive for in a game, as opposed to just beating the hell out of AI all day.  You’re actually talking on comms with other fools like yourself, instead of issuing menu directives to predictable AI.  MP requires a higher level of skill, because you are fighting against real people, sorry, buts the way it is. 

You're dead on.

50 minutes ago, ACG_PanzerVI said:

Well, obviously as a dedicated MP player, I won't buy it if its SP only - minority view or not.  I'd just move on to more DCS.  I have no 'must-have' features, other than equivalent or better MP support than current game.  'Like to have' would include searchable/testable control mapping like DCS, better MP scenario tools, and maybe some 1C hosted coop servers.  I think coop is the most underutilized element in the sim, and the best way to get SP folks into MP.  

 

Please don't make the generalization of thinking that all MP play is 'lurking' kill-stat-whores and unrealistic though.  I fly in ACG, and our weekly campaigns feature a full mission brief by both sides, two shifts with both full-server ie. 70ish pilots / 35 per side, schwarm/flight, staffel/squadron and gruppe/group comms, etc...  We do our absolute utmost to provide a realistic, immersive scenario that permits pilots of all competitive levels to feel as though they are flying in WWII.  It isn't perfect by any stretch, but its a dramatically different experience than Cbox, Finnish or TAW, and we build lasting friendships in the process. 

 

If you contend that 1C should abandon MP and focus exclusively on creating content for your personal PC, I would say that is a selfish, mean-spirited remark and reflects on your maturity.  You probably camp in the left lane at 65mph on the interstate too.  For myself, though my SP is limited mostly to warm up and test, I do hope that they improve the SP experience for all of you who enjoy it.  I recognize that it takes a lot of time/energy/effort to be even modestly competitive, or even survivable, on the broader MP servers.  I'm only modestly successful myself.  SP does appeal to a broader audience, and as folks have already pointed out, there are numerous features that could improve.  

 

My last request - I would offer up that trying to include playable ground units in a flight sim is a horrible mistake.  Tank Battles features some cool content, but is horrifically unrealistic (25 years in real tanks).  To craft a realistic ground sim involves a MUCH more detailed terrain system, lots and lots of infantry, artillery, AT weapons, logistics considerations, different comms, different restrictions, and a host of other things that are HUGE distractors from a flight sim team.  While Tank Battles has some cool, well modeled tanks, that is all it has, and their presence on MP servers is just a distraction from the kill-stat-whore lurkers and the other folks trying to become KSWs.  In WWII, ground units did get hit by aircraft, but their interactions would have been mere moments out of the hours, days, weeks and even months spent in ground combat without ever seeing a plane.  Split the sims, and do both - don't try to be WarThunder.  

I agree with everything in this post. Wish I could upvote, but I am out of them for the day (why is this a thing still?!?!)...

19 minutes ago, Charon said:

I agree, with emphasis on playable. The air war was deeply enmeshed in the ground war (it's in the name of the series, even!), and I think presenting a convincing version of the ground war as seen from the air is important. That means ground units that disperse their vehicles, that park in the shady side of cover, that move in foot-columns, that fire on low-flying aircraft with small arms, that can call on air support when appropriate, and that move in plausible ways which need to be reconnoitered. A realistic ground war is important to my immersion, but TC hasn't done much to make the ground war more realistic as seen from the air.

?, TC took away from the flight sim and didn't add enough back in return.

[DBFlyguy]

1 hour ago, ACG_PanzerVI said:

My last request - I would offer up that trying to include playable ground units in a flight sim is a horrible mistake.  Tank Battles features some cool content, but is horrifically unrealistic (25 years in real tanks).  To craft a realistic ground sim involves a MUCH more detailed terrain system, lots and lots of infantry, artillery, AT weapons, logistics considerations, different comms, different restrictions, and a host of other things that are HUGE distractors from a flight sim team.  While Tank Battles has some cool, well modeled tanks, that is all it has, and their presence on MP servers is just a distraction from the kill-stat-whore lurkers and the other folks trying to become KSWs.  In WWII, ground units did get hit by aircraft, but their interactions would have been mere moments out of the hours, days, weeks and even months spent in ground combat without ever seeing a plane.  Split the sims, and do both - don't try to be WarThunder.  

This. ☝️

 

Trying to combine WWII air combat, WWI air combat and tank combat into one game was huge mistake and all three series have suffered because of it. The terrain fidelity alone is no where near where it needs to be to depict realistic ground combat, especially when compared to what else is market, and the "but, this is a true tank SIM" BS excuse I've seen just doesn't hold water. Why would someone bother with Tank crew with its poor maps, barely any single player content and a next to nonexistent multiplayer presence when they could just go play Hell Let Loose, Squad, Post Scriptum, ARMA, Gunner Heat PC or several other options.  Tank Crew brought nothing new besides VR to the genre and that doesn't make up for everything it was lacking.

Edited January 12, 2023 by DBFlyguy

[BraveSirRobin]

Lots of people who didn’t buy Tank Crew don’t like Tank Crew.  Shocking.  Personally, I hope the next big announcement is for an American or British AAA vehicle.

[CountZero]

4 hours ago, Charon said:

 

This reminds me of one other critical feature: skip-to-waypoint.

 

Did anyone else play Microsoft's combat flight sims back in the day? This was such a great feature! Take off from the carrier, skip to the target, dogfight for 10 minutes, skip back, and land. There's only so much A-B flying I can tolerate, especially in SP or over the ocean. The lack of time-skip in the IL-2 series IMO makes entire categories of missions unappealing to all but the ultra-hardcore. Strategic bombing/escort, maritime patrol, photo-recon, even just most carrier missions. No contact missions could just involve a quick take-off, time-skip and landing.

 

I mentioned earlier that it should be great to have an asset that "follows waypoints without AI or physics computations but spawns in once humans are in range and is deleted once they are not." Well, the same principle could be applied to human flights: cut to the map, simulate the player flight sans-physics, and cut back to the cockpit once enemy contact is made. There could even be rules for simulated spotting (a la random encounter distance in TTRPGs), so that sometimes the player would regain control before contact, sometimes the player would regain control just before being bounced, and sometimes it would just be a fake-out.

 

Ideally, a player flight lead (or an isolated player) would be responsible for navigation as well. Want to time-skip back home and not equipped with radio navigation? Well, first you need to mark your position on the map. Place your pin wrong and you'd be out of place at the next waypoint, too.

old IL-2 had skip to action thing also, ppl wont to do interesting stuff, taxi, take of, go to action df, go back to land taxi finish, 15-30min max, not trying 8x time skip that bearly do 2x, for 1h+ mission... IN MP i can do 2h single sortie in mission no problem, and its exsiting all the way as enemy can come from anywhere at any time, in SP all is predictable most of time i do not wont to be bored with boring stuff all the time, i can do long mission one or two times but aint gona do it all the time in SP, no wonder QM was most used thing in game. This game was like it was made by ppl who never played SP in before games.

2 hours ago, ACG_PanzerVI said:

Well, obviously as a dedicated MP player, I won't buy it if its SP only - minority view or not.  I'd just move on to more DCS.  I have no 'must-have' features, other than equivalent or better MP support than current game.  'Like to have' would include searchable/testable control mapping like DCS, better MP scenario tools, and maybe some 1C hosted coop servers.  I think coop is the most underutilized element in the sim, and the best way to get SP folks into MP.  

 

Please don't make the generalization of thinking that all MP play is 'lurking' kill-stat-whores and unrealistic though.  I fly in ACG, and our weekly campaigns feature a full mission brief by both sides, two shifts with both full-server ie. 70ish pilots / 35 per side, schwarm/flight, staffel/squadron and gruppe/group comms, etc...  We do our absolute utmost to provide a realistic, immersive scenario that permits pilots of all competitive levels to feel as though they are flying in WWII.  It isn't perfect by any stretch, but its a dramatically different experience than Cbox, Finnish or TAW, and we build lasting friendships in the process. 

 

If you contend that 1C should abandon MP and focus exclusively on creating content for your personal PC, I would say that is a selfish, mean-spirited remark and reflects on your maturity.  You probably camp in the left lane at 65mph on the interstate too.  For myself, though my SP is limited mostly to warm up and test, I do hope that they improve the SP experience for all of you who enjoy it.  I recognize that it takes a lot of time/energy/effort to be even modestly competitive, or even survivable, on the broader MP servers.  I'm only modestly successful myself.  SP does appeal to a broader audience, and as folks have already pointed out, there are numerous features that could improve.  

 

My last request - I would offer up that trying to include playable ground units in a flight sim is a horrible mistake.  Tank Battles features some cool content, but is horrifically unrealistic (25 years in real tanks).  To craft a realistic ground sim involves a MUCH more detailed terrain system, lots and lots of infantry, artillery, AT weapons, logistics considerations, different comms, different restrictions, and a host of other things that are HUGE distractors from a flight sim team.  While Tank Battles has some cool, well modeled tanks, that is all it has, and their presence on MP servers is just a distraction from the kill-stat-whore lurkers and the other folks trying to become KSWs.  In WWII, ground units did get hit by aircraft, but their interactions would have been mere moments out of the hours, days, weeks and even months spent in ground combat without ever seeing a plane.  Split the sims, and do both - don't try to be WarThunder.  

But to do what ACG is doing takes time and dedication of player, and most SP players do things on their time, so no wonder they dont know whats posible in MP when group of ppl with aim for some organaised historical MP get together, for SP player MP is quick DF take of go strait to enemy base and DF at deck with no objective or cooperation, so no wonder its not liked.

 

And yes TC was bad from game perspective, but they probably got money for something they didnt have to spend mutch to suport, i bet many ppl just buy it to suport devs and didnt even bather to play with it, that was main goal of it, to get more from player base here, its like 2 DLCs at same time, but team is focused on building 1.

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by CountZero

[Guster]

I'd go for just two high-fidelity flyables as the basis for each theater/module, one for each side, preferably somewhat equally matched, but still historical, and then a bunch of AI planes and other units where some compromises are made for the sake of performance.

 

The game should mainly depict combat air patrol, fighter sweep, escort and intercept missions, lots of tactics, radar, coms, and ground control direction where you can control things with simple voice commands, report visuals and warn your wingmen. Tactics should be an important part of the game and make of for the differences in aircraft performance, thus ideally making each mission a sort of rock, scissors, paper affair.

 

I suppose theaters could be the Channel Front 1940, North Africa 1941, the Eastern Front 1942-43, Solomon Islands 1942 (probably the first module), and the Western Front 1944, and maybe a Mig Alley thing too, and perhaps even Rolling Thunder 1968, though jets should probably be an entirely different series.

[Guster]

Oh and I'd love to create some kind of kill claim/confirmed system. And generally make it harder to become an ace because you have to be careful, follow orders, stay with your group and watch out for your wingies. Once you are fairly good at it, you may expect to get like maybe 5-10 kills during an entire career. If you want to practice, just mess around and go for a turkey shoot, you can set up a quick mission.

[Fodder]

Engaging game play over eye candy for me.

[dbuile]

9 hours ago, ACG_PanzerVI said:

I fly in ACG

 

Watching ACG videos brought me back to flight sims after 20+ years away.  We had similar campaigns way back when, too (the old Warbirds sim late 90s, early 2000s).  That was Over-And-Above the most compelling gaming style for me.  It's what "career" mode offers, but without the weak-link of AI or mission building tropes where enemy always appear at your altitude...

 

Strangely, I haven't stepped into MP after coming back.  Been a year, but so many interruptions, and less time/energy than I had way back then ?    

 

9 hours ago, Charon said:

presenting a convincing version of the ground war as seen from the air is important.

 

Absolutely.  It provides the immersive foundation for air war, for mission variety, focus, and goals.  Else you just have air quake, which I grew bored with a looooong time ago.  Hence, my sustained interest, even though I haven't yet participated in, the Air Combat Group and Flying Tin Cans style... it was the best gaming experience for me back then, and is still very compelling for me today.  

 

I'm curious what the admins/designers for the ACG/FTC campaigns feel are roadblocks to taking such gaming to even higher levels?  Is it purely scalability, or APIs?

[LLv34_Temuri]

I see combat flight sims as a network externality products, so a third party licensing model something akin to the Open Game License 1.0a would be needed to ensure the sim survives.

[Lusekofte]

13 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

So now that you quit playing MP you think everyone else should also quit?

 

 

Great idea

[Mainstay]

1. CPU multiple cores
2. Better Engine
3. State of the art graphics
4. Good dynamic campaign
5. 4 engine bombers
6. Dynamic weather and cloud layers
7. Time compression larger then what we have now
8. Customizable hud elements (like size of labels et cetera) 
9. All theatres of WW2 (pacific read carriers, eastern front, western front, north africa and italy)

Edited January 12, 2023 by Mainstay

[BlitzPig_EL]

One thing I forgot to add to my list:. Configurable icons.  Ability to adjust size, ID info displayed or not, and range of initial visibility.

 

It would be good to have options beyond "ON" and "OFF".

[Cynic_Al]

A commitment to in-house documenting of all aspects of the game (not just player guidance), and to make that documentation freely and clearly available to all voluntary supporters. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Cynic_Al

[Zooropa_Fly]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

One thing I forgot to add to my list:. Configurable icons.  Ability to adjust size, ID info displayed or not, and range of initial visibility.

 

It would be good to have options beyond "ON" and "OFF".

 

Bang on.

[Wardog5711]

Alright,

I've  already had one complaint about the content of some posts in this thread. 

It seems that we can't even have a proper fantasy wish list thread without folks getting hot under the collar.

Tone it down, or I'll turn it off.

 

[Chief_Mouser]

11 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Lots of people who didn’t buy Tank Crew don’t like Tank Crew.  Shocking.  Personally, I hope the next big announcement is for an American or British AAA vehicle.

 

I did buy Tank Crew and don't like it. Not for any particular reason other than it doesn't grab me. Not interesting enough as a game. 

[BraveSirRobin]

5 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

Great idea

 

I'm not sure that getting rid of a significant revenue stream is really a good idea.

[Lusekofte]

5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I'm not sure that getting rid of a significant revenue stream is really a good idea.

I was kidding. I see no reason to exclude MP. MP will gain same improvements as SP. SP probably will gain having MP since we talk numbers. Numbers will justify more investment 

[danielprates]

Map drawing tools. 

[[CPT]milopugdog]

1 hour ago, danielprates said:

Map drawing tools. 

RIP ?

[Jason_Williams]

 

 

Jason

[FTC_Tazz]

Red light and/or low light for reading maps in dark conditions

 

Unreal 5 would be great, lumin for night operations (moonlight on clouds and aircraft, tracers, flak, spot lights, burning cities) and nanite so there's no LOD bubble on the ground, plus all the juicy textures and details

 

Integrated VOIP, bonus if the AI interacts with it instead of running through a series of function commands

 

Streaming online service so there's a constant representation of the front lines on the ground, including burnt-out tanks, craters, destroyed towns and cities

 

Dynamic weather interactions with maps

[Irishratticus72]

14 hours ago, Wardog5711 said:

Alright,

I've  already had one complaint about the content of some posts in this thread. 

It seems that we can't even have a proper fantasy wish list thread without folks getting hot under the collar.

Tone it down, or I'll turn it off.

 

It was the Jesus post, wasn't it?

[Koziolek]

2 hours ago, Irishratticus72 said:

It was the Jesus post, wasn't it?

He had something against being the copilot?

[Mysticpuma]

5 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

 

Jason

Happy to help 

[Avimimus]

I give very different answers depending on whether it is an improvement to Great Battles or something else.

 

If it was an improvement to this sim I'd mainly focus on AI (artificial intelligence), then some map upgrades and minor upgrades to things like ground targets (e.g. damage models for ships, trains). I mainly think that the AI's lack of realistic spotting, lack of modularity, and limited number (of aircraft/objects) is the main thing holding back this sim series.

 

If I were starting a simulation series from scratch I'd:

 

(1) Build a jet simulator focussed on unbuilt projects, with simplified avionics compared to DCS, but a focus on modelling radar/IR seekers (better than DCS) and flight models... and use that simplified avionics to provide more aircraft, unbuilt aircraft, and 5th generation aircraft... it'd be a good niche.

 

OR

 

(2) Build a pre-WWI flight simulator along the lines of KSP or X-Plane... with a good flight model, good graphics, and structural modelling within a plane-builder... so you could attach bamboo, wires, silk, and prefab joiners/airfoil spars together to build an aircraft and then try flying it... (possibly with some typical pre-WWI airshow and record setting scenarios in addition to free-flight)... it'd be niche, but it might be a successful niche. I also find 1930s era gliders a really interesting subject (possible re-use of the same engine)?

[LuftManu]

There is also another curious thing about WW2 sims and is that Night combat can be really interesting if done right.

Radars, GCI, navigational aids we didn't have in the old 1946 (I think we had some with mods).

 

?

[[CPT]Crunch]

Directors or command and control for AI units like flak.  It would be better to have a single director controlling multiple flak guns instead of every gun doing it's own thing all tracking different objects.  You could have more guns throwing up flak boxes instead of each pin pointing individual targets and shooting with precision directly at it, wouldn't need such complex and fast tracking solutions. 

 

There should also be some logic behind the C&C, it must have positive identification friend or foe or no shooting settings, fire on anything and everything priority no fly zones, no firing on minimal threats to their assigned zone like fighters at X'K altitude patrolling who you don't want to alert to the ground targets location, no firing unless fired upon logic, and so on. 

[[CPT]Crunch]

 

Different tasking for different classes of guns for different missions assigned, doesn't need more complexity the guns are already pretty good, just need some brains and variety behind them, and more of them on the battle field, that calls for simplicity with better defined roles, not more complexity.

[oc2209]

All I want is everything already in the current BoX series, minus time dilation, plus AI improvements.

 

It's easy to say 'AI improvements' without really considering how it can be done. I believe the most direct method for enhancing AI behavior would be to emphasize the pair/element/rotte system. Novice AI would behave largely as it does now--no consideration of anyone else in your flight--but at veteran and ace level, it would cover its assigned partner closely.

 

The problem here, even from this relatively simple concept, is that the AI currently is omniscient; it's going to know the split second anything happens, even if it's not in a position to 'see' the action unfold. So then the issue becomes a matter of how quickly do you have it respond to its partner being attacked? That could be determined by AI skill level. There would also need to be an entirely new system wherein the AI would be aware of A) somebody shooting at it or you specifically, not just general shooting in the area at a nearby plane, and B) the AI would need to have 'clear my tail' behavior, both requesting it and performing it. This is something that's been lacking in BoX.

 

A nice side benefit of this system would be the ability of AI to call out when an enemy is setting up to attack you, beyond shooting at enemies to clear your tail. To keep it simple, nobody in your flight would be watching out for you except for your partner.

 

In dense fights with 10+ fighters in the mix, the AI pair behavior might get easily confused and become rather useless. So the main application/benefit of this system would be the times when an enemy AI is setting up on you or a friendly in a more gradual approach or bounce. In situations where enemy AI takes a snap shot at you as you cross its path, you're still going to be screwed, since there's no way even an omniscient wingman can warn you quickly enough. But that's realistic, at least.

 

*Edit:

 

To clarify, a useful warning would need to happen before the enemy starts firing on you. So the AI would need to recognize when an enemy is lining up to attack you. This would be the classic bounce scenario. Any enemy pursuing you in this fashion would become the immediate target priority for your wingman, above and beyond a warning over the radio. Provided you have a radio in your plane. Realistically, Japanese AI and a lot of early war Russian AI shouldn't even have simulated radio behavior.

Edited January 13, 2023 by oc2209

[GrendelsDad]

Blood splatter in the cockpits...

[DBFlyguy]

16 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

 

Jason

 

Looking forward to what you do at your new gig Jason  ?