PDA

View Full Version : What is the most unrealistic aspect of the game?



JtD
11-26-2008, 01:03 PM
I'm mainly thinking of online dogfight servers. I think coops or offline play will show somewhat different results. If you think that there is enough interest, feel free to open a poll for those.

Please focus on important aspects, I know the ground textures are very unrealistic, but then this has very little effect on how the game plays.

If you state "other", please give a comment.

La7_brook
11-26-2008, 01:11 PM
109 high speed handling http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

JtD
11-26-2008, 01:12 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

That would be flight models. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stew278
11-26-2008, 01:14 PM
Well, if it is a server with no icons on then I'd say the most unrealistic thing is visibility of aerial targets. Specifically that planes only a few km away are barely distinguishable dots, whereas in real life you'd be able to spot and ID them much easier at such range.

JSG72
11-26-2008, 01:20 PM
Jumping out of planes and going through the wing/fuselage?

Uufflakke
11-26-2008, 01:22 PM
What is unrealistic? Rules like no killstealing, shouldershooting and vulching. But that is a neverending discussion.

Another unrealistic thing is the choice of planes for Blue and Red. Shooting down a Mustang with your P-47 for instance. Or a dogfight between two Bf-109's at Midway.

But it has been a few months ago since I played online. I am a 95% offliner.

FoolTrottel
11-26-2008, 01:26 PM
Refly button... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Brain32
11-26-2008, 01:36 PM
I voted player behaviour, to further clarify that I mean:
1. Ramming enemy planes due to poor, careless decisions
2. Forcing head-on's
3. "Tunnel vision", "Mig madness", "target fixation" - note I'm not talking about regular examples here but those when they still follow you in their freakin parachute and shooting at you with the gun over your base http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif
4. Mindless shoulder-shooting, you think that's realistic? Wonder who would have the balls to shoot over their squadmates IRL...
5. Overall complete lack of just a little attention in managing virtual space, things are already uncomparably much simpler than IRL yet some people are...I don't know, maybe they are just ******ed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Other than that, some errors in flight and damage modelling do allow bad player behaviour and are IMO a big shadow on all FM/DM debates...

TS_Sancho
11-26-2008, 01:38 PM
Long range visibility/resolution and refly button, hands down.

Ba5tard5word
11-26-2008, 01:52 PM
The fact that I can place an aircraft carrier on top of a mountain in FMB!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif



Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
Refly button... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I don't think many people would play Il-2 if the game made your computer self-destruct whenever you got shot down...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

leitmotiv
11-26-2008, 01:53 PM
Anything which exists in a world without consequences is "Candyland" but that doesn't mean it can't be fun.

F0_Dark_P
11-26-2008, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I voted player behaviour, to further clarify that I mean:
1. Ramming enemy planes due to poor, careless decisions
2. Forcing head-on's
3. "Tunnel vision", "Mig madness", "target fixation" - note I'm not talking about regular examples here but those when they still follow you in their freakin parachute and shooting at you with the gun over your base http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif
4. Mindless shoulder-shooting, you think that's realistic? Wonder who would have the balls to shoot over their squadmates IRL...
5. Overall complete lack of just a little attention in managing virtual space, things are already uncomparably much simpler than IRL yet some people are...I don't know, maybe they are just ******ed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Other than that, some errors in flight and damage modelling do allow bad player behaviour and are IMO a big shadow on all FM/DM debates... I cant agree more.. sad but true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Billy_DeLyon
11-26-2008, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Stew278:
Well, if it is a server with no icons on then I'd say the most unrealistic thing is visibility of aerial targets. Specifically that planes only a few km away are barely distinguishable dots, whereas in real life you'd be able to spot and ID them much easier at such range.

That and the way they are more visible as long-range dots, then suddenly become virtually invisible as they resolve into the medium-range rendering.

I'll also gripe about the AI.. but then, I can't imagine how difficult it must be to try to program good AI behavior. They can be pretty fun to fly against at times, only to lapse into the same old annoying routines. Mostly good only for target practice - alto even that gets frustrating. It gets old trying to hit a/c doing the magic AI vector roll.

Friendly_flyer
11-26-2008, 03:18 PM
I voted player behaviour, as in taking of singly head to enemy area, shoot or being shot down, then re-fly.

I vastly prefer co-ops.

WTE_Galway
11-26-2008, 03:23 PM
overall ....

the aircraft selection

way to many flyable high performance prototypes, late war hotrods and imaginery stuff

at the expense of huge numbers of very common planes missing including (to mention just a couple):

Fokker DXXI
Wellington
Lysander
Dornier 17
Avia B534
Halifax
Defiant
Swordfish
Lancaster

Aaron_GT
11-26-2008, 04:23 PM
Unrealistic? You can't really die. It has big effects on player behaviour.

Aaron_GT
11-26-2008, 04:25 PM
at the expense of huge numbers of very common planes missing including (to mention just a couple):

Also Anson - total production (from 1930s to about 1952) was only a few hundred short of that of the Wellington.

WTE_Galway
11-26-2008, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

Also Anson - total production (from 1930s to about 1952) was only a few hundred short of that of the Wellington.

Hamptons, Sunderland Flying Boats various Letovs the list could go on almost indefinitely ...



Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

Unrealistic? You can't really die. It has big effects on player behaviour.



Now that could be arranged ... I doubt such a competition would be popular though.

Skoshi Tiger
11-26-2008, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I voted player behaviour, to further clarify that I mean:
1. Ramming enemy planes due to poor, careless decisions
...

I agree with you on most points, but I would say about 90% of cases where planes colide is due to "poor careless descisions", The other 10% would be through sheer spitefulness and poor sportsmanship.

Just like in real life! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oh! another 10% would be from damaged control cables.... and then there's the 10% from PK's Those buggers won't get out of the way for anyone!

Aaron_GT
11-26-2008, 04:47 PM
Sunderland Flying Boats

Got to respect a plane with a proper porcelain toilet. I hope this will be modelled in BoB:SoW

mortoma
11-26-2008, 04:52 PM
How about so many airplanes having the same flap positions? The extremely simple engine management?
The fact that most US aircraft should have mixture controls but don't? The mixture being so coarse ( withing 10 feet of altitude your plane is suddenly running too rich )?? I could go on all night....

Badsight-
11-26-2008, 10:30 PM
PACMAN

^ IL2 is just complex PACMAN

no matter how good , its nowhere near realistic

without the bodily effects of flight , without the proper workload required to operate . . . . . .

you end up getting far better at Dog-Fighting than you ever would in RL

Player_43
11-26-2008, 11:11 PM
LOl, you're right.

http://www.whatihearyousayingis.com/pacman_sm.gif

Flying is all about G sensations and views ...

For the G sensations you may forget about it ... even a motion simulator cannot simulate more that 1g.

And for the textures, we are so far from the resolution that a human eye needs to confuse it with reality that you would need to be god to create such a computer.

How many pixels are needed to match the resolution of the human eye? Each pixel must appear no larger than 0.3 arc-minute. Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity. SO it is obvious that we so far from the human eyes requirements that even if we consider the most optimistic pronostics about computer power evolution, it will take 100 years ...

I would say that the only realistic aspect of this game is that it is close enough to reality to require you to use adequat actions to fly but it needs to be completed with real flight to give a value to what has been learned on a simulator.

Just compare what you feel when driving your car and what you feel when driving in GTA4 or Granturismo or whatever : the simulator looks miserably fake ... and if we talk about flying, yhe absence of phisycal sensations makes it look even more fake.

Last thing about simulator and IL2 and BoB ... One important missing thing is the absence of 3D vision, what makes the deflection shooting even more difficult that in reality ... but you can always buy some E-dimmensionnal 3 D glasses http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In final I would say that everything depends of your ability to imagine and you can still spend some good moments on this funny pack-man http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

Good too that provides 180? of vision field in stereoscopic view : http://www.sensics.com/

http://www.sensics.com/images/products/front-small.jpg

Not cheap ...

Manu-6S
11-27-2008, 01:25 AM
My 3 (I vote "Other"):

1) Sound of engines behind the plane (you should not listen enemy's engine) = no real 50m ambush.

2) Visibility = you can't see clearly enemy 500m under you, but you can see them 4KM above you!! They weren't black dots in the sky... = Lower planes can ambush you and can gain good SA against higher enemies.

3) Damage Models = since you can't close the enemy from behind without alarming him you have to shoot at distance, and in this way the DM differences are greatly exposed.

GregGal
11-27-2008, 01:31 AM
Refly, and AI.

I wonder how one's flying style would change if we put a usb-flame thrower next to his trackIR. You get shot down? Flame thrower activated!

Sturm_Williger
11-27-2008, 03:35 AM
I voted player behaviour - because the nature of the online dogfight server removes 90% of the realistic aspects of the way combat was irl :

Hours of boredom - leading to inattention leading to being bounced.
Levels of Combat fatigue of pilots - leading to all sorts of good/bad decisions made in combat.
Team / Formation flying with its attendant benefits - yes, you do get it on dogfight servers, but it's the exception.
Strengths/Weaknesses of aircraft increased/decreased by the demands of the mission parameters.
etc.

You can see where I'm going with this.
A lot of the other similar issues have already been mentioned above, but that covers the main ones, I feel.

JtD
11-27-2008, 04:01 AM
Well, maybe I should have been a bit more descriptive with my choices. For instance, unhistorical plane sets do qualify as general environment...so would the high paced action we usually see there.

The refly button can be either general environment or player behaviour - depending on what bothers you more: The existence of this option as such or what the players make out of this.

Looking for more votes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
11-27-2008, 04:10 AM
i voted player behaviour - well, as it was already said, this is a game...............

another point for me is the view system , that the pilots head is stick on one point.
at least when you are looking over your shoulder the head/eyes should move a bit to the side.

Skoshi Tiger
11-27-2008, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by Player_43:
LOl, you're right.

http://www.whatihearyousayingis.com/pacman_sm.gif

Flying is all about G sensations and views ...

For the G sensations you may forget about it ... even a motion simulator cannot simulate more that 1g.

And for the textures, we are so far from the resolution that a human eye needs to confuse it with reality that you would need to be god to create such a computer.

How many pixels are needed to match the resolution of the human eye? Each pixel must appear no larger than 0.3 arc-minute. Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity. SO it is obvious that we so far from the human eyes requirements that even if we consider the most optimistic pronostics about computer power evolution, it will take 100 years ...

I would say that the only realistic aspect of this game is that it is close enough to reality to require you to use adequat actions to fly but it needs to be completed with real flight to give a value to what has been learned on a simulator.

Just compare what you feel when driving your car and what you feel when driving in GTA4 or Granturismo or whatever : the simulator looks miserably fake ... and if we talk about flying, yhe absence of phisycal sensations makes it look even more fake.

Last thing about simulator and IL2 and BoB ... One important missing thing is the absence of 3D vision, what makes the deflection shooting even more difficult that in reality ... but you can always buy some E-dimmensionnal 3 D glasses http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In final I would say that everything depends of your ability to imagine and you can still spend some good moments on this funny pack-man http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

Good too that provides 180? of vision field in stereoscopic view : http://www.sensics.com/

http://www.sensics.com/images/products/front-small.jpg

Not cheap ...

The problem is with the way we interpret balance and "G". There is no such thing as flying by the seat of your pants. Due to the construction of our inner ear and the signals it sends to our brain, the only way to reliably orient your self flying if by constant reference to the outside world (Visual) or by instruments. Both of which we have in our sim.

Now I'm sure some on can make a device that give us random kicks in various directions and screws up our inner ear (ultra sound maybe?) and then we'ld have a reasonably acurate "feeling" of flight. Just need to sell paper bags with the game! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pigeon_
11-27-2008, 04:56 AM
Other: you do not die when shot down.

easy one...

Vacillator
11-27-2008, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by GregGal:
I wonder how one's flying style would change if we put a usb-flame thrower next to his trackIR. You get shot down? Flame thrower activated!

More than likely the flying style would be 'don't go online, stay on the ground, don't start the engine' - not a very good gaming experience but a better model of real life fear perhaps.

Odirroh
11-27-2008, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Unrealistic? You can't really die. It has big effects on player behaviour.

Agreed!

Odirroh

M_Gunz
11-27-2008, 05:28 AM
Jump in, get off the ground and crank it to full power, go lone wulf, fight with little regard to survival and often getting waxed
as an alternative to having to fly all the way back to base to save time or just bail if no one gets you....
That doesn't cover things like team-kill, kill-stealing, firing up every kill possible till it blows up.

I am of course talking about the head movement, right?

idonno
11-27-2008, 06:57 PM
There's no question that it's player behavior. Hands down.

There is virtually nothing realistic about the way the vast majority of people (including squads) operate on DF servers, or even Co-ops and some online wars from what I've seen of those.

Manu-6S
11-28-2008, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by Odirroh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Unrealistic? You can't really die. It has big effects on player behaviour.

Agreed!

Odirroh </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you care about stats you are going to be scared: I look only to my KIA (I prefer to return to base without kills escorting some bombers than score 3 kills and been killed).

Only in some servers when I start to play seriously.

I still can remember my heart's beats when I was going to attack a formation of 5 Mosquitos during a mission or the strong emotions flying the missions of an italian champ.

M_Gunz
11-28-2008, 03:43 AM
I know what the most correctable aspect is in the great majority of cases.

rnzoli
11-28-2008, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Odirroh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Unrealistic? You can't really die. It has big effects on player behaviour.

Agreed!

Odirroh </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you could die, it would no longer be a game. It would a serious matter.

The original question was "What is the most unrealistic aspect of the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">game</span>?"

So I am confused, do you want to blame the game for being a game? Are we suffering from the flash of the obvious here?

M_Gunz
11-28-2008, 08:39 AM
Game Death = having sit in the time-out chair. I've seen kids act like they'd rather die IRL.

Art-J
11-28-2008, 11:09 AM
The infamous pencil in TB-3 bombardiers pit. This ******* thing will NOT fall from the table no matter what http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Cheers - Art

Duckmeister
11-28-2008, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Odirroh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Unrealistic? You can't really die. It has big effects on player behaviour.

Agreed!

Odirroh </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you could die, it would no longer be a game. It would a serious matter.

The original question was "What is the most unrealistic aspect of the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">game</span>?"

So I am confused, do you want to blame the game for being a game? Are we suffering from the flash of the obvious here? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. Yeah, it's unrealistic that you don't actually die, but come on! If you're the kind of nut that actually wants to die if he gets shot up in a WW2 Flight Simulator...

ElAurens
11-28-2008, 11:35 AM
Another question with no definitive answer.

And why do we always focus on the perceived "wrongs" of the sim?

This title does so many things "right", that the constant carping about what is "wrong" just seems silly anymore.

It's a computer game that we play from the comfort of our homes, for our personal entertainment. Viewed in that light is has succeeded beyond any of my, or anyone else's wildest expectations, no?

It is not perfect, but it never will be.

No other title has been on my computer for 7 years +. I think that is testimony enough to how good this sim is, was, and shall be in it's next evolution.

Be sure.

idonno
11-28-2008, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
It's a computer game that we play from the comfort of our homes, for our personal entertainment. Viewed in that light is has succeeded beyond any of my, or anyone else's wildest expectations, no?

No.

It hasn't succeeded beyond my wildest expectations. In fact it falls way short, and by far the biggest reason for that is player behavior.

The vast majority of people treat this like a game of air-quake instead of the air combat simulation it could be. It's a real shame.

Airmail109
11-28-2008, 05:57 PM
The fact you don't die.

The dead is dead players make me laugh, they should keep a revolver next to their desk with one bullet in it. Then use it when they get shot down.

Duckmeister
11-28-2008, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
It's a computer game that we play from the comfort of our homes, for our personal entertainment. Viewed in that light is has succeeded beyond any of my, or anyone else's wildest expectations, no?

No.

It hasn't succeeded beyond my wildest expectations. In fact it falls way short, and by far the biggest reason for that is player behavior.

The vast majority of people treat this like a game of air-quake instead of the air combat simulation it could be. It's a real shame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then it isn't the game that hasn't succeeded, it's the players online. The game itself, in my opinion, is totally awesome. Don't blame the game for what online players do. It's not the game's fault, folks.

deepo_HP
11-28-2008, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
It's a computer game that we play from the comfort of our homes, for our personal entertainment. Viewed in that light is has succeeded beyond any of my, or anyone else's wildest expectations, no?
yes, it has... well, not 'wildest' maybe.



Originally posted by idonno:
No.

It hasn't succeeded beyond my wildest expectations. In fact it falls way short, and by far the biggest reason for that is player behavior.

The vast majority of people treat this like a game of air-quake instead of the air combat simulation it could be. It's a real shame.
what do you think, is the game's shame here? looks more like your's...

if you suggest, that the gameplay should have been designed in a way, that the critisised behaviour was not possible, i wonder how many online-gaming there would be - without the 'vast majority' of now?
i wonder, how you would have advertised and earned money with a multiplayer-game, which targets for the minority of what we have actually now. besides the financial aspects, would you think, that those 'few' (like you) who got attracted by the suggested 'better' il-2, would have spent the last seven years by logging into hyperlobby to search for the (few, i guess) servers and have hoped to find the other 'few' players?
i guess not.

as much as i understand the disagree with many player's understanding of combat-simulation, it can't be the fault of the game - as long as it offers other and, in your views, 'better' ways.
in opposite...
by allowing 'quakery' it attracts far more than by keeping it 'pure sim'.
by attracting many, more can be shown the 'better' way and convinced to join.
by suffering from 'quakers', the delight of 'purism' will be more obvious and always fresh.

those who complain about behaviour of the 'vast majority' are the ones, who are a shame.
the game offers all they need to play by their rules, but obviously they are not able to organise themselves in considerable amount to play it. they are not able to convince enough 'quakers' to try the 'better' way and they are also not able to set up servers to keep the 'quakers' outside.

if there were no possibilities for 'air-quaking', this game wouldn't be.
i have no idea, how this game 'falls way short' by offering setups for any type, 'quaker' and non-'quaker'.

if you, idonno, want it 'non'-quake, it is up to you. the game doesn't restrict you.

Viper2005_
11-28-2008, 07:01 PM
The fact that we all get to learn from our fatal mistakes.

M_Gunz
11-28-2008, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The fact that we all get to learn from our fatal mistakes.

LOL! The fact that so many don't!

idonno
11-28-2008, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:if you, idonno, want it 'non'-quake, it is up to you. the game doesn't restrict you.

I'm working on it.

Notice the signature?

Bearcat99
11-28-2008, 11:41 PM
Assuming that we all agree that this is not "real" and that in reality it doesn't even come close, (I'd say that ths sim covers @ maybe 20% of the "reality of WWII aerial combat.. Id say the realism factor depends on how you fly. In coops I'd say the most unrealistic thing is definitely the AI... When a plane gets shot and is on fire the pilot should bail period.. he should not go flying around trying to shoot you or someone else down still... Even if the pilot was wounded... if he was so wounded he couldn't get out of a burning plane he probably couldn't fly it very well either... He also should black out close to when you black out... not be able to fly through maneuvers that put you to sleep for as much as 4 or 5 seconds.. and still hit you dead on. As for DF servers... Id sday one thing is the unmoving objects.. which is actually about to be rectified.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and the other things that are unrealistic have less to do with the sim than with those who use it.. after all it is still just software.

JtD
11-29-2008, 12:09 AM
The game is not just the software, the players are also part of the game, yet one the programmers cannot influence.

Football is a game, too. There is loads of rules for it, you also get the field and even the shirt for the players. Yet what you see of the game, is what the 22 guys on the field make out of it.

Aaron_GT
11-29-2008, 02:48 AM
One important missing thing is the absence of 3D vision, what makes the deflection shooting even more difficult that in reality ... but you can always buy some E-dimmensionnal 3 D glasses Thumbs Up

Is stereoscopic vision that important at the ranges the game operates at? Apart from cockpit instruments and flying in formation most things are ~500m or more away except for very short times. To what extent would stereoscopic vision help at those ranges (this is an honest question)?

Aaron_GT
11-29-2008, 02:55 AM
Yeah, it's unrealistic that you don't actually die, but come on! If you're the kind of nut that actually wants to die if he gets shot up in a WW2 Flight Simulator...

The point is more that it changes player behaviour online so you get people routinely behaving in a way that wouldn't normally be the case. This means that historical tactics aren't then used as much which means that the historical strengths of some aircraft aren't evidenced.

The other area that would help (online) is to provide a grouped launch facility like Aces High in which someone on a server can post a mission profile, 'E.g. 4 IL-2s to conduct strike with bombs on armour in square H3 with 4 Yak-3s to provide cover' and the mission waits until people sign up for it and then everyone launches together (ideally on the runway in a sensible way to avoid 5 minutes of people crashing into each other getting to the runway!) so you get some sense of tactics being enforced.

The other things that would be handy online would be control of ground and air traffic (recently online nursing a damaged plane I ended up having to land at an alternative strip after spending 10 minutes on go around waiting for a landing slot) and proper ground radar control and vectoring. The latter was a feature of old WB2 in that you could see the map in the control room so often you'd leave a squadron member there to relay radar information over comms.

Aaron_GT
11-29-2008, 03:01 AM
i wonder, how you would have advertised and earned money with a multiplayer-game, which targets for the minority of what we have actually now.

You can get it to some extent with squadrons and coops (which were some of the best IL2 experiences I had enforces the 'launch together' aspect I mentioned and if you fight against another squadron with just fill-in from AI it can work. It would be nice to have that in larger servers, although you really need a big persistent arena, and even then it might not work as you'll still get people doing daft things.

For something really hardcore I think you'd have to run a server with those requirements or go open source.

GH_Klingstroem
11-29-2008, 04:25 AM
I voted other as I think the AI is the biggest issue!

JtD
11-29-2008, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
I voted other as I think the AI is the biggest issue!

Then maybe you should have read the question.

csThor
11-29-2008, 06:12 AM
Player behavior is the key issue which drove me offline. Yeah the AI can be the epitome of stupidy and smartness ain't its thing, either, but at least I'm not bothered by "sportive" types who want a sports game with aircraft and not a serious WW2 airwar simulation.

But honestly I must say that the statistics and map composition of many servers have "bred" this kind of player by simply adding stats even after a player's death. If you want a serious simulation of WW2 air war (within the confinements of Il-2) you build missions which achieve that - and which aren't a shooting range with some ground targets to bait buff drivers. My 0,02 € ...

ElAurens
11-29-2008, 07:18 AM
I enjoy the sim. 'nuff said there.

Now, as to realistic portrayal of WW2 aerial warfare?

I must laugh.

At best we can have correct planesets and maps for a certain period, or specific operation. After that it's just a game.

No one, and I mean NO ONE flys historically. Case in point. Late war Pacific scenario. For the Allies, by early 1944 the air war was a cake walk. But go into a carefully crafted, coop or dedicated historic DF server and what do the Allies face? Not the undertrained, ill fed, young boys that the IJN and IJAFC sent up, in small numbers mostly due to lack of logistic support, no, you face 20 Saburo Sakais all with 7 or more years of experience, who all have radios and fly as if they were trained by the Luftwaffe.

The same can be said for early Eastern Front scenarios. Why do so many Luftwaffe flyers in the sim complain about the I16/I153? It's because they are well flown by sim pilots with years of experience, not a bunch of conscripted, hastily trained, poorly led, boys. Most without radios.

So stop whining and enjoy it for what it is.

deepo_HP
11-29-2008, 07:20 AM
hi aaron_gt,

yes, that is what i meant: you can get it (to some extent) if you want to.
i mentioned the commercial aspect, because i doubt, that 'hardcore' would get enough buyers. in that way, i find it acceptable, if a game can be played according to individual set-ups.

i was just reading quite a lot of posts about the hordes of 'quakers' and, imo, this is not an 'unrealistic aspect of the game', but of the players.
in my opinion, 'il2' is quite in favor of those who want to play a simulation, as you also said. taking 'warbirds', where there is no chance to setup a server to one's wish, 'il2' is offering sim-players much more.
the vast majority is always there - maybe not in some open-source projects, but then there is hardly a majority to seperate from the others...

deepo_HP
11-29-2008, 07:28 AM
hi idonno,

well, haven't seen your signature... which expresses partly what i was thinking of.

the less i understand, why you consider the game 'falls way short'? after all, it gives you the opportunity to create a server after your taste.
i just think, you shouldn't relate to the game what is the players. your opinion about the 'vast majority' is shared by me absolutely.

M_Gunz
11-29-2008, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One important missing thing is the absence of 3D vision, what makes the deflection shooting even more difficult that in reality ... but you can always buy some E-dimmensionnal 3 D glasses Thumbs Up

Is stereoscopic vision that important at the ranges the game operates at? Apart from cockpit instruments and flying in formation most things are ~500m or more away except for very short times. To what extent would stereoscopic vision help at those ranges (this is an honest question)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you ask an optometrist then 20 feet is the limit. However the canopy struts are inside 20 feet, they wouldn't be so occluding.

Swivet
11-29-2008, 11:45 AM
In coops I'd say the most unrealistic thing is definitely the AI... When a plane gets shot and is on fire the pilot should bail period.. he should not go flying around trying to shoot you or someone else down


Exactly BC.....All those other things ya said too....Dont forget when we fly thru clouds thinking we're gonna lose that bandit and they hit you dead on.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
11-29-2008, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Swivet:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In coops I'd say the most unrealistic thing is definitely the AI... When a plane gets shot and is on fire the pilot should bail period.. he should not go flying around trying to shoot you or someone else down


Exactly BC.....All those other things ya said too....Dont forget when we fly thru clouds thinking we're gonna lose that bandit and they hit you dead on.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Guys this is not always the case in real life WW2.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/ambulletin2.html

The Victoria Cross which has been awarded to Flight Lieutenant J.B. Nicolson (A.M. Bulletin No.2255) is the first V.C. to be won by a fighter pilot since the war began.

'He has gained his V.C. for refusing to jump from a blazing Hurricane until he had destroyed his enemy although it was his first fight and he had been twice wounded. For forty-eight hours doctors fought for his life but now he has almost completely recovered.'

Of course this should be the exception, not the rule.

R_Target
11-29-2008, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
The fact you don't die.

The dead is dead players make me laugh, they should keep a revolver next to their desk with one bullet in it. Then use it when they get shot down.

I was thinking you could have a unique serial for each copy of IL2. Then, you attend virtual ground school, primary and advanced training (during which you might be deemed bomber pilot material instead of fighter jock), and finally a squadron. If you get captured or KIA, your serial would be voided and you'd have to buy another copy of the game and start over. If you wash out in training, you'd get a discount on another copy of IL2.

This way, everybody gets their realism fix, and OM gets enough money to make more 90,000 polygon flak cannons 'til kingdom come.

Aaron_GT
11-29-2008, 04:35 PM
If you ask an optometrist then 20 feet is the limit. However the canopy struts are inside 20 feet, they wouldn't be so occluding.

Very true. I can envisage potential workarounds for that without stereoscopic video, if a bit of a bodge (semi-transparent struts, perhaps). 6DOF helps too.

Aaron_GT
11-29-2008, 04:41 PM
This way, everybody gets their realism fix, and OM gets enough money to make more 90,000 polygon flak cannons 'til kingdom come.

If it goes pay-to-pay online I suppose another option is to have it charged per flight hour but with a 25% discount on the flight time of a mission if you survive it. (A penalty or +25% for failing to survive might mean that learning players would get annoyed at larger than expected bills and give up, although SeafireLIV might approve http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). Also it would mean on penalty should you die because some accidentally taxis into you. Perhaps any mission under 5 minutes should be free to take account of that! It'll take 5 minutes to warm the engine up, taxi, and take off even at a scramble.

M_Gunz
11-29-2008, 07:30 PM
You think things are bad already, now add money lost over losing?
Aaron, if you're drinking then it's time to stop and if you aren't then it's time to start!

triad773
11-29-2008, 11:27 PM
Most unrealistic?

<Other> The Whiners http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

IRL, they (or- I) wouldn't be alive to talk about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Stiletto-
11-30-2008, 12:19 AM
Most unrealistic? The lack of HighGore=1 in the conf.ini doing much of anything.

danimalhanke
11-30-2008, 12:24 AM
I have more than 600 hours as a pilot and CFI. I have always thought the ground objects are too small from altitude. At about 5000' agl the ground objects look to be about what I expect to see at around 8000 to 10,000'agl. An average altitude for a SEL in VFR would be about 5000 to 7000'agl even down to 500 to 100' the objects still look too small. everytime I strafe targets I feel like I'm in a giant aircraft shooting at toys on the ground. I'm not a 20,000 hour airline pilot, but I do have 600+ hours and I've never felt the ground targets were large enough.

M_Gunz
11-30-2008, 04:58 AM
Could that be because only when you zoom all the way in, things appear smaller?
Default view is 1/4 size.

Jex_TE
11-30-2008, 05:00 AM
For me the most unrealistic parts of the game are the views. The flight model and physics of the aircraft can only go so far with current technology but the views are what really get me.

Padlock
External
No Cockpit

these 3 I cannot stand as the first two give far too easy SA for lazy pilots and no cockpit allows for too easy gunnery (well perhaps easier than easy lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Map icons I'm not really fussed about since the map is so awful anyway. The one thing I hate though is showing enemy plane postitions.

Dogfight servers basically = airquake servers. Airbases close together with little or no AAA to cover your own base (I'm sure vulching was a RL issue in WW2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) and a 2 minute flight time to the enemy airbase.

It needs virtual lives to be sorted out and more objectives in the mission with a fair amount of distance between opposing forces.

Jex_TE
11-30-2008, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
The fact you don't die.

The dead is dead players make me laugh, they should keep a revolver next to their desk with one bullet in it. Then use it when they get shot down.

Give a player infinite lives and give a player one life and see the dramatic difference in the way they play a game.

It's a fact, people who know they only have one life tend to play with that in mind and it dramatically effects the way a game is played. Saying people should kill themselves is just childish and shows your lack of understanding game dynamics and the reasons the comments are being made about one life.

However, with one life doesn't grant you the action some want. Who really wants to fly for 15 minutes to get shot down and then sit out? It is a game after all and we're here to have fun, not to recreate the fear, anguish and loss the real guys had to endure.

It really boils down to public servers. Lack of teamwork and communication are predominant here and if you want more realism, you'd be better off joining a squadron.

danimalhanke
11-30-2008, 11:55 AM
To M_gunz comment, I always fly with the view point the furthest from the panel, kinda like real life! Padlock I don't mind so much because you lose so much situational awareness in a sim. When I fly I can keep a plane coordinated without ever looking at the panel. All good pilots can. This is someting which you cannot duplicate in a sim. BTW I have, on several occasions, participated in University of Illinois School of Aviation studies comparing the value of simulators to actual flying. This was conducted for the FAA to help determine if sims would be an acceptable alternative to actual flight time for IFR refresher requirements. According to the study and the FAA sims are a bad idea except in a very limited use.

Aaron_GT
11-30-2008, 12:29 PM
M_Gunz:

You think things are bad already, now add money lost over losing?

That's why I pitched it as money saved by not losing. There are few things that can be done if things are MMOG that won't cause problems. The reward system is how WoW addresses it, and a discount would be a form of that. It's only a thought experiment, though.

danimalhanke:

To M_gunz comment, I always fly with the view point the furthest from the panel, kinda like real life!

Apparently IL-2 is configured that such full zoom in (smallest FOV) subtends the correct angle at the eye and object would subtend in real life, assuming a 17 inch monitor at arms length. It could be that the too small look issue is an artefact of the wide FOV setting which adds all sorts of distortions. I suppose the ultimate cure for that will be HMDs with a default wider native FOV. I haven't tried an HMD but the blurbs imply it gives quite a wide FOV, but the resolution of the affordable ones currently isn't great. Plus there's the issue then of how you'd find your joystick and buttons! Maybe what we need in the end if a virtual desktop and an track-ir glove to track hands in the virtual cockpit, then just click on the virtual switches. That's probably 10 years hence, though!

M_Gunz
11-30-2008, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by danimalhanke:
To M_gunz comment, I always fly with the view point the furthest from the panel, kinda like real life! Padlock I don't mind so much because you lose so much situational awareness in a sim. When I fly I can keep a plane coordinated without ever looking at the panel. All good pilots can. This is someting which you cannot duplicate in a sim. BTW I have, on several occasions, participated in University of Illinois School of Aviation studies comparing the value of simulators to actual flying. This was conducted for the FAA to help determine if sims would be an acceptable alternative to actual flight time for IFR refresher requirements. According to the study and the FAA sims are a bad idea except in a very limited use.

I like the sit-back view too, it's less fixating and I like the padlock too! I also have Cachya and a webcam.
Offline I would like to have a slip indicator on the speedbar and you can tell me, if I had a chair seat that would tilt
even just a few degrees controlled by slip readings from devicelink then would I get a hint of the real feel.
Back in the 80's I did get to spend some time in sim boxes as part of a job with a FlightSafety vendor. I think that
those were approved for what they were used for, they wouldn't spend a few million each and have the big insurance breaks
for pilots who took the systems courses otherwise -- the use being systems training.

BUT what has that to do with IL2 scaling the zoomed-out view down to 1/4 size? That's why things look so small.
If you zoom all the way in then they should look full size. It's not the objects that are wrong, it's the FOV and
screen size.

M_Gunz
11-30-2008, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
That's why I pitched it as money saved by not losing.

That would work with reasonable people.. alas. How long you been a moderator here?

M_Gunz
11-30-2008, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Jex_TE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
The fact you don't die.

The dead is dead players make me laugh, they should keep a revolver next to their desk with one bullet in it. Then use it when they get shot down.

Give a player infinite lives and give a player one life and see the dramatic difference in the way they play a game.

It's a fact, people who know they only have one life tend to play with that in mind and it dramatically effects the way a game is played. Saying people should kill themselves is just childish and shows your lack of understanding game dynamics and the reasons the comments are being made about one life.

However, with one life doesn't grant you the action some want. Who really wants to fly for 15 minutes to get shot down and then sit out? It is a game after all and we're here to have fun, not to recreate the fear, anguish and loss the real guys had to endure.

It really boils down to public servers. Lack of teamwork and communication are predominant here and if you want more realism, you'd be better off joining a squadron. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In coops if you get downed then you can't hit refly and help your team.
That's just one reason why coops are more realistic at least where you don't get any team killers, etc, joining the game.
That's where good squads come into it, these issues are much older than IL2 and keep coming down to the same answers.

P.FunkAdelic
11-30-2008, 09:29 PM
Whats realistic about letting someone pilot an advanced high performance military airframe for the cost of a decent meal with absolutely no prior experience and no sense of duty oneself or his comrades?

Pretty much sums it up. If everyone had to do a tour with Joint-Ops before being able to fly online then you might see something better. Servers that cater to lazy play don't help much either.

FliegerAas
11-30-2008, 10:54 PM
Flight Model + Player behavior...

WTE_Galway
11-30-2008, 11:02 PM
I am not sure if player behavior really counts as the player behaviour complaints generally relate to online play and only a small percentage of this games players ever actually bother going online.

FliegerAas
12-01-2008, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
I am not sure if player behavior really counts as the player behaviour complaints generally relate to online play and only a small percentage of this games players ever actually bother going online.

I act totally unrealistic even when playing offline http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

JtD
12-01-2008, 08:21 AM
Please read the entire first post, not just the question - this poll is intended for online play, dogfight servers specifically.

And yes, if it was for offline there'd be the AI option and I suppose it would be going to win.

WOLFMondo
12-01-2008, 09:25 AM
Player behaviour. Clearly.

HayateAce
12-01-2008, 09:59 AM
The wobbly Corsair.

JG53_Valantine
12-01-2008, 10:04 AM
Having a forum to whine in after http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
In all seriousness:
Offline - AI seeing through clouds
Online - really depends on the server and what settings they have on

SeaFireLIV
12-01-2008, 10:24 AM
DEATH. And the FEAR of.

Death makes a big difference to everything. If a player died if he was killed in game, I`ll bet that every virtual pilot would fly exactly the way they did in reality or simply not at all.

TheFamilyMan
12-01-2008, 10:42 AM
General Environment, or more specifically:

THE DOGFIGHT SERVER ENVIRONMENT!

IMO nothing is more unrealistic when it comes to WW2 aireal combat than the 'free for all' present on online dogfight servers. But it is fun, and great practice for when one flies coop missions with their squad m8s. S!

Bearcat99
12-01-2008, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Of course this should be the exception, not the rule.

exactly.. because in this sim.. it is not the exception..

TgD Thunderbolt56
12-01-2008, 12:04 PM
P & W R2800 one shot kill.

I_KG100_Prien
12-01-2008, 12:04 PM
That's why I pitched it as money saved by not losing. There are few things that can be done if things are MMOG that won't cause problems. The reward system is how WoW addresses it, and a discount would be a form of that. It's only a thought experiment, though.

WoW is a bad example really- you can get the rewards by still not learning the mechanics of the game and relying on other people to carry you through mistakes.

Trying to make something exclusive as a way to improve the environment for the people who feel "They" are the best is a poor system. It's a symptom of any game played in a MP environment.

It's the age old "I'm not the problem it's someone else". Punishing people for inexperience or for picking a particular way to enjoy a game is a bad idea.

I don't care for airquake personally. However I would never purchase a game that would take my mistakes out on my wallet. I'm not a perfect virtual pilot.. Can't count how many campaigns I've "deleted" through dying or being captured. (That's how I do my offline flight. I fail my objectives- No Refly. I get "killed"- No Refly. Captured- No refly. No refly period. )

But that's a step I take as a player through my own choice as allowed to me by the options provided by the program. It's not a play style that needs to be forced on anyone else.

Editing in my 2 pence on the most unrealistic aspect..

Another vote to the AI, and the command interface for giving directions to wing men.. Especially in bomber formations.

CRSutton
12-01-2008, 03:16 PM
You ain't dead yet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WTE_Galway
12-01-2008, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:

WoW is a bad example really- you can get the rewards by still not learning the mechanics of the game and relying on other people to carry you through mistakes.




To be truly like WoW you would need weapons and special upgrades to be only available after completing special quests. In such a system squads would be inclined to refly the same co-op over and over until all the members have "found" the latest upgrade for their planes.

You should also be able to sell your plane with its "upgrades" on ebay for real money.

Skoshi Tiger
12-01-2008, 05:30 PM
I guess the most unrealistic aspect to the game is people like us can fly a fighter or bomber. Most of us are too young or too old, not fit enough, lack the intelegence or discipline or aptitude to become a fighter or bomber pilot. ( I know I fit into a number of those categories http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Lets face it, most of us would be lucky to be incharge of a broom let alone a sophisticated warplane!

I probably would have been used as gun fodder or forced at bayonet point to clear a mine field with my booted feet!

Cheers!

Lemky
12-01-2008, 06:11 PM
The Zoom Veiw

Kettenhunde
12-02-2008, 05:14 AM
guess the most unrealistic aspect to the game is people like us can fly a fighter or bomber.

If you mean that anyone can pick up flying a complex high performance fighter in a few minutes time, you are absolutely correct.

I do not understand the logic behind complaining about some modeling aspect of a game because that aspect is "not realistic".

Maddox games has done a great job in keeping interest in the history of the air war alive. The times I have played it, it is a fun game.

VMF-214_HaVoK
12-02-2008, 09:04 AM
Other: The Whiners

Aaron_GT
12-02-2008, 01:06 PM
To be truly like WoW you would need weapons and special upgrades to be only available after completing special quests. In such a system squads would be inclined to refly the same co-op over and over until all the members have "found" the latest upgrade for their planes.

You should also be able to sell your plane with its "upgrades" on ebay for real money.

That would just be silly.

na85
12-02-2008, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To be truly like WoW you would need weapons and special upgrades to be only available after completing special quests. In such a system squads would be inclined to refly the same co-op over and over until all the members have "found" the latest upgrade for their planes.

You should also be able to sell your plane with its "upgrades" on ebay for real money.

That would just be silly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a very accurate depiction of World of Warcraft. I've got a friend who plays it compulsively. I've given the game multiple honest attempts, but it's just not fun.