PDA

View Full Version : 5 MOST important points in simulators



majnos64
11-10-2006, 03:15 AM
I'm interested in your opinion what is most important for you in flight simulators? Graphics, flight model or number of flyable aircraft, historical accuracy? It could be anything.
And post reason why.

Discuss.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"He,who has braver heart, more cold and full of foreseeing courage, which is born from believe in success and in righteousness of things, will smite his opponent." - Aleksandr Ivanovich Pokryshkin

majnos64
11-10-2006, 03:15 AM
I'm interested in your opinion what is most important for you in flight simulators? Graphics, flight model or number of flyable aircraft, historical accuracy? It could be anything.
And post reason why.

Discuss.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"He,who has braver heart, more cold and full of foreseeing courage, which is born from believe in success and in righteousness of things, will smite his opponent." - Aleksandr Ivanovich Pokryshkin

mrsiCkstar
11-10-2006, 04:51 AM
1. flight models, damage models, physics models... all of that.

2. Historical Accuracy

3. A good immersive campaign and online play

4. graphics

5. number of flyables...

I still think that a flight sim should focus on ONE aircraft... or 2 at the most.

the game can have a ****load of planes, but let the AI have 'em...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.no.net/jonmarja/images/f4usig.jpg

AWL_Spinner
11-10-2006, 05:02 AM
Ok, well as no-one else has had a go! [edit: dang, too slow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif]

Ranking these is difficult as some rely on others, so I'm not going to list these in any particular order.

1. Flight modelling. The first thing I do with any new sim is test the flight envelope and departures from controlled flight. This is an absolute pig to get right (must be, as no-one's managed a spin correctly in a PC sim before).

It's much more important for me that the "feel" of flight itself be correct than the 0.005% differential from performance charts that get some people out of bed in the morning. The "feel" got me hooked on IL2 from the start, it does a great job, but could be a lot better.

This, in part, relies on..

2. Atmospherics and immersion. All very well having a whizz-bang flight model but it's not much use in a sterile blue skybox. I want proper weather, proper air, proper wind, proper interaction between aircraft and temperature, air density, and so on. I want fog, I want towering cumulus, I want sea-spray.

I want to share this environment with...

3. AI and human piloted aircraft, in potentially large numbers. Very large numbers. And good AI, not AI that results in 100%-loss furballs 99% of the time. Most engagements in real life were brief, with few casualties.

Regarding online performance, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to see the sort of massive participation in the fidelity we'd like for mass furballs. The internet itself is part of the problem here, the game could be as efficient as you like but with the huge increase in net traffic, even the speed of your connection is not really a limiting factor any more; it's the sheer volume of other stuff your packets have to wade through on their route to and from the servers that's the trouble. So, I'll take whatever can be acheived and be thankful!

And all these aircraft need good..

4. Damage Modelling. Dynamic, not predictable. IL2 does a pretty good job with some progressive failures but there's still only so many ways you can get hurt. I think the BoB structural complexity is going to really help this aspect of the sim. Major addition to immersion.

5. Sounds! The most under-valued aspect of most sims. Immersion, again! I want the wind playing on the canopy whilst sitting with the engine off, ambient stuff, the wind in the trees, creaking of struts and gear. Radio crackles, clanking of ammo belts, glorious engines. This all really helps!

Of course, to get all these right with decent frames per second you have to make some sacrifices, I'm prepared to forgoe the following things to get them:

Incredibly detailed externals.
Advanced ground handling.
Crash physics.
Pretty GUIs.
Detailed ground environments (this helps with immersion, but I'm primarily concerned about it looking great from 1,000ft and above, I'd trade a lot for proper clouds).

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers, Spinner

<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
o Squads! Take a look at the ADW War (http://adwwar.com/en/#), it's fantastic!
o Spinner has been alive in ADW for a maximum of: 3hrs 38mins!

Dogfighter1969
11-10-2006, 05:03 AM
I would say I favour Second World War flightsims with the ability to fly about every plane that existed in those years. The sim should have all planes of all theaters. It should be based on history but it would be nice to plan missions on a strategic map and be able to change the outcome of the war based on results from these missions. For instance if I were Germany and I stuck to bombing of British airfields and aircraft factories instead of bombing cities, thereby destroying the RAF and opening the way for a naval invasion of Great Britain. Rowan's Battle of Britain and Battle of Britain : Wings of Victory had something like this.
Graphics is nice but does not have to so good that it requires the latest and greatest video card. If it can run smoothly on a 128Mb card and 512Mb RAM, I am happy.
Flightmodels are important to me as well.
Small order I have isn't it.

ploughman
11-10-2006, 05:11 AM
In addition to what has already been said I think the interface is important too and this depends, to a certain extent, on the level of resources (??????s) the player is willing to expend on sim-pits, track-IR and so on. The one thing that will really blow me away is a high resolution visor mounted display intergrated with a track-IR 6-DoF type set up.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/hellspenguin.jpg
Dum spiro, spero

Tintookkie
11-10-2006, 05:19 AM
Gday majnos64,here???s my list in order of preference.
1- Flight model
2-Aircraft systems and systems damage.
3-Realalistic environment, (weather)
4-Realalistic landscape, Maps
5-Playable FPS, no good if ya got all of the above if the Sim is unplayable on the average PC.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers _RAAF_Darby
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v322/Tintookkie/image050.gif

karost
11-10-2006, 05:41 AM
"5 MOST important points in simulators" for who ?
for a hard core sim-players ? or
for a common players who domain a maketshare ?

S!

carguy_
11-10-2006, 05:45 AM
1.FM/DM and CEM as accurate as possible(but not so complicated).
There is no reason for me to fly virtual planes that do not resemble their real performance,characteristics,etc.

2.Good graphics.To improve immersion and visibility modelling.Current graphics suit me 90% besides the dreaded unrealistic dots.

3.Sounds - anyone that ever heard a 109 flying by knows what I am talking about.

4.Historical accuracy & number of flyable planes.To make planesets historical in numbers and types for each theater of operations.

5.Realistic loadouts.Very important for operational potential of every plane.P38 without rockets would be a joke for example.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

Low_Flyer_MkVb
11-10-2006, 05:59 AM
Good post from Spinner.
Just one flyable plane really, really well done is an interesting thought - might be an interesting seperate thread. What would it be? How would online play work? What would you expect of the A.I? Not being negative - I quite like the idea. Perhaps one plane from either side - the same questions would have to asked.

The flight environment (clouds, terrain) is important. Sounds, of course. Compatability on lower-end systems would be nice, although I accept if you want the eye candy you'll have to keep up with developments. Historical accuracy and fidelity come high on my list, too. In all fairness, I think FB/PF doesn't do things too badly considering that it is, to a certain extent, trying to be all things to all men.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Screensignew.jpg

Sordid_Sinister
11-10-2006, 06:01 AM
1. Accuracy of decision-making. I don't really care if a plane goes a few kph faster than it would in real life, to me the important aspect of realism is decision-making. If I'm faced with the same problems as a real pilot and the correct choices are the same as they would be in real life, then the sim is realistic enough for me. It would appear that creating a 100% accurate digital copy of a real plane automatically accomplishes this, but it's not so due to the fact that there are things that a computer simply cannot simulate (G-forces, visibility, complexity of aircraft control, etc.).

2. Damage model. So far I haven't seen a sim with a satisfactory damage model.

3. Historical accuracy.

4. Low hardware requirements. This is related to the previous point. If a sim is supposed to handle battles involving hundreds of aircraft, it obviously has to be pretty damn optimized.

5. AI. Being mostly an offline flyer, a sim with crappy AI is no good to me. Turkey shooting is boring and boosting AI performance by cheating is... well, just that. Cheating.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

???We need a hundred thousand aircraft.???

p-11.cAce
11-10-2006, 06:23 AM
1. Flight Model - like others here I'm not worried if its a few seconds faster to 3000M than the RL charts prove; give me realistic departures into uncontrolled flight, and a believable "feel" to the FM
2. Weather - I don't need dynamic weather systems but realistic turbulence, gusts and lulls while taxing, on takeoff and approach. I want to bounce in the wake of a box of B-17's and have to pay a price for landing downwind - which may not have been downwind when I took off on the mission http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
3. Aircraft systems - I love flipping switches in Falcon4.0; obviously WWII props were not as systems intensive but an OPTION for things like switching on fuel pumps, priming, spinnning up inertial starters, resetting gyros for precession, etc. would be nice imho
4. Dynamic campaigns - If nothing else it improves the re-play value to the offline players ( where most IL2 players spend most of their time)
5. Historical accuracy - no Nascar bf-109's or bright red B-17's please! Nice skins with appropriate unit markings, atmospherics that are consistent without being Disney (think CFS3 - yuck!)

rnzoli
11-10-2006, 07:02 AM
IMO, level of simulation = level of accuracy, so I group my top 5 accuracy issues as follows:

1. Visual accuracy - I need the support for multiple displays to overcome "tunnel vision" and make us of our peripheral vision

2. Motion-sensing accuracy - I need to simulator to provide input signals to force-feedbakc and G-force induction systems.

3. Air mass accuracy - I need the simulator to provide dynamic weather effects, wind and rain and snow, thin air at high altitudes.

4. Airplane accuracy - I need to simulator to provide a close imitation on aircraft behaviour, including uncontrolled flight and recovery from it, as well as weapon system accuracy (if any).

5. Historical accuracy - good static and dynamic campaigns, many different planes flyable within its own time periods, un-cheatable online play.


Way to go, Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

A "world's first": fully automatic, dedicated COOP server controller. Features and available servers here (http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/intro-coop.html).
http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/the_full_difficulty_COOP_server_2.JPG (http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/intro-coop.html)

R988z
11-10-2006, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Good post from Spinner.
Just one flyable plane really, really well done is an interesting thought - might be an interesting seperate thread. What would it be? How would online play work? What would you expect of the A.I? Not being negative - I quite like the idea. Perhaps one plane from either side - the same questions would have to asked.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to say the same thing, imagine only having say Spit Mk1 vs 109E or something like that, online play would get stale fast, though it would be fine if it was offline only or somehow online campaign based, but enemy ai just isn't as realistic as flying against humans.

I favour the idea that BoB is shaping up to be, starting out with a relatively small number of main flyable aircraft but modelled very accurately. Then later on add extra high quality aircraft as the game expands. There will always be whiners who dont get their own personal favourite plane or variant no matter how obscure or irrelevant. That's just life I guess.

jasonbirder
11-10-2006, 08:21 AM
Only having a couple of flyables...doesn't preclude having a large number of different AI planes, so there would be no issues with creating a huge variety of missions and scenarios...
I don't think anyone would say Falcon 4 has suffered for only having one flyable plane...
One family of planes modeeled in great detail would be better for me...than the present variety...I think there would be enough gameplay in flying 109's 1939 - 45 or Spits 1939 - 45 or F4F/F6F family throughout the pacific war or what about just modelling the Yak family on the Eastern Front...to give a great Sim...if everything else was modeeled accurately - proper sized maps, proper navigation, proper weather, proper systems, proper failures/reliability etc etc...
A more realistic historical sim which forced you to behave in a way World War 2 pilots behaved...learn the skills they learned etc rather than what we have at the moment.
I think I would definately rather have larger numbers of planes than super-dooper graphics...Wonderful though all the super accurate skins and models we have are...we still have a simulation where we get smaller formations than we had in EAW six years ago...

SithSpeeder
11-10-2006, 09:26 AM
Karost--

The original poster said: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm interested in your opinion what is most important for you in flight simulators? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> So whatever it is to *YOU*. So give it up, man! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

For me...it all comes down to immersion with real live people when possible. It's the EXPERIENCE. I take a broader view, so off the top of my head:

1. Visuals--it's gotta look really d@mned good so it looks like I'm there. This includes visual modelling (damage included), terrain, atmosphere, ...everything.

2. Audibles--it's gotta sound like real engines, guns, plane noises, etc.

3. Interface--I shouldn't feel like I'm using a keyboard to fly. So full support of enhancing peripherals (rudder pedals, HOTAS, 6-DOF TrackIR type, or better yet the goggle idea with head tracking (or even EYE TRACKING!))

4. It's gotta fly as close to "reality" as possible (not that I'd really KNOW, not being a pilot of WW2 aircraft, let alone just a plane ol' pilot).

5. Co-operative, goal oriented play (online with real people using comms and/or offline with decent AI). The real guys didn't go lone sharking and sniping hardly at all. Flying as a team and trying to achieve an objective greater than oneself just rocks. Building cool missions is key. Being part of a community of like minded individuals is just great.

5.1. (sorry) Affordable. Sure, we can have many of the things listed above, but it would currently take a multi (I mean like 6-10) monitor system running several tricked out rigs. I can barely afford the time I put into this game, let alone keep up with all the latest-greatest stuff to run it to its fullest potential.

5.2 (more sorry) To respond to JasonBirder's point, Tracks--gotta love 'em. For not only studying others and yourself, but also for playback (you gotta see the moviemaker's forum, Jason--those guys are creative as all hel_l_). That's why you have to be able to skin your plane and have nice models.

So knowing the golden triangle rule (Quality-Price-Timeframe...pick 2), gotta go with Quality and Price and understand that timeframe will take the hit (re: SoW-BoB).

That's just my opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

* _54th_Speeder *

***
"Talking with you is sort of the conversational equivalent of an out of body experience."
-- Calvin and Hobbes
***

jasonbirder
11-10-2006, 10:14 AM
Just another thought on the Graphics vs # Planes flying at anyone time...
I know people seem really keen on high polygon models and super nice weatheed skins but when do you actually see them...except when i'm flying in formation with a friendly i'm never close enough to any planes (and they and I are always moving so quickly) that they never look more like dots or basic shapes anyway...

Choctaw111
11-10-2006, 03:18 PM
I'm not sure what will be more interesting. The "plane" or the direction this thread will head in...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Alienware P4 3.2 EE
2 Gigs RAM
Intel D875PBZ MoBo
GeForce 7800 GS
CH Fighterstick, ProThrottle, ProPedals
TrackIR3 w/ 6DOF

Rjel
11-10-2006, 03:38 PM
One has to wonder what exactly is that "Thing"?

Skycat_2
11-10-2006, 03:53 PM
It's an Uber Shark, frozen during the Ice Age.

In the continued 'What if?' timeline that is introduced by 46', the Soviets find an Uber Shark in Siberia and they revive it. Clones are sent to the Chinese. These Uber Sharks are then released into the Yellow Sea where they wreak havoc on unsuspecting U.N. pilots bobbing around in yellow dinghys.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL-2/FB/AEP/PF FAQs (http://www.airwarfare.com/sturmovik_101/faq_index.htm) * Nutcase's Full Mission Builder tutorials (http://www.jumpintojapan.com/index.html) * Lowengrin's DCG (http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php) * Downloads at Netwings (http://www.netwings.org/library/)
UbiSoft Customer Solution Center: Pacific Fighters (http://ubisoft.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/ubisoft.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=10061&p_created=1099077749&p_sid=3_uGGxsh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PWRmbHQmcF9ncmlkc29yd D0mcF9yb3dfY250PTQmcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1zZWFyY2hfbmw mcF9wcm9kX2x2bDE9ODgmcF9wc) * CombatAce.com (http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?act=downloads&Itemid=70) * Hyperlobby (http://hyperfighter.sk/) * UberDemon UQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/) * <A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/9901017394" TARGET=_blank>
I mapped my keyboard controls so they're easier to remember, and added user- defined commands</A>

leitmotiv
11-10-2006, 03:53 PM
If you had ever seen the film A CHRISTMAS STORY, you would immediately recognize that some blue whale got his tongue frozen to the ice.

Chuck_Older
11-10-2006, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rjel:
One has to wonder what exactly is that "Thing"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just in case nobody gets that reference:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">You rule, Rjel</span>!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/Jimmychamp.jpg
Flower of Scotland, will we see your like again?

MEGILE
11-10-2006, 03:57 PM
It's a P-38... they are doing elevator authority tests.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8656/closter08ie6.jpg
YouTube Quote of the week - hey man, **** you because that dog is mad cute.

boxmike
11-10-2006, 04:05 PM
I bet that secret is kept iced...
Was scared off as a kiddo watching that one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Is it 2 weeks, or..?

Rgds,
- box<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Walter Mitty from Hell.

jamesdietz
11-10-2006, 04:11 PM
As my friend Ned Scott was saying ,just the other day ,in reference to this obviously secret aircraft:"Keep watching the skies..."<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

" God Help me , I love the smell of Computer wiring smoking in the morning!"
http://members.cox.net/doolittle80/DietzPilotSigBlockCropped.gif http://members.cox.net/fliegeroffizier/StukaPilot2.gif

Bearcat99
11-10-2006, 04:26 PM
For me all of the above.. but i wou;d classify them differently.

1. FM/DM - Which includes CEM. All CEM functions should have an effect.

2.Immersive qualities - To me this is not only graphics and sounds.. but also and controls manipulation.. I would like to see every function in the controls modelled.. and each with a coresponding input in the pit be it a lever, switch or button... Mind you now.. I AM NOT talking about clickable switches.. to me thats a waste of time. When you pull the trigger on your stick.. the trigger button in the pit should move.. when you hit the radiator.. a slide or button or something should move... For the most part this sim does that just ok IMO.. there are things that function that dont move.. and this can be a drag in a closed pit with the hudlog turned off. Also all text interfaces should be toggleable.

3. AI - AI should be varied on multiple levels, with each one behaving slightly different... but realistic... with random errors thrown in on all levels.. even the Aces made mistakes... also they should have the same limitations that I do.... If I fly into a cloud I should be able to loose the AI.... the AI should not be a sniper.... I think to a limited extent you can loose the AI here.. sometimes I can.. and sometimes.. more often than not I cant. AI should also be more responsive and have more controls.... a multitierd control level.... considering the voice control utilities that are available today.

4. Campaign/Mission building - the ability to create multilevelled static or dynamic campaigns and missions complete with multiple triggers etc......

5. Lastly scalability and playability - To me a good flight sim should be able to accomodate the flight sim rookie with the 3 year old system.. or the seasoned veteran with the latest hardware.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>

Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

<span class="ev_code_white">Oleg: I think players should upgrade their PC after the release of Storm of War: The Battle of Britain, but not now. Minimum system would be probably like last year good system for IL-2 series. The simulation has gone from what was to be a study sim involving one aircraft to a real monster anthology of WWII aviation. The engine has been stretched to fit multi-engined bombers, aircraft that are linked (such as the Mistel and the TB-3/I-16 combinations), aircraft carriers, runway cratering, working searchlights, etc.



</span>

Viper2005_
11-10-2006, 05:07 PM
REALISM
REALISM
REALISM
REALISM
REALISM

I fly IRL. IL2 has helped me when flying taildraggers. The more realistic the better! Much cheaper to learn in IL2 than IRL!

faustnik
11-10-2006, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
IL2 has helped me when flying taildraggers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

That is cool Viper! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Feathered_IV
11-10-2006, 05:17 PM
Looks like the Siberian surf championships have to ben cancelled. Again.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

***********************************************

http://server2.uploadit.org/files/Feathered-sigpic.jpg

"Intelligent, normally observant and answered all questions freely. He was arrogant and proud to be a pilot. Fellow prisoners in hospital consider him mentally unstable."

heywooood
11-10-2006, 05:33 PM
1) ambience / immersion - this includes evertthing from the population of the maps, to the background noise incl. radio traffic and AI ability and intensity to the campaign progression. All of that.

2) detail / accuracy of everything from the planes (incl. but not limited to exact engine and airframe controls) to the buildings and landscapes to the vehicles, you name it.

3) FM/DM details - more is better.

4) adjustabilty and flexibilty built in to the user interface - as many variables as possible - more is better.

5) the environment - listed last but all of these 5 things are of equal imnportance to me.
*the environmnet to me means everything from variable winds - winds aloft vs ground level - dynamic or changeing weather fronts - drifting clouds or stationary fronts - thermals - iceing
Everything atmospheric in other words.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/afewofTheFew-1.jpg

A few of The Few

scaredycat1
11-10-2006, 05:44 PM
...didnt see Marshal Dillin in that shot...

Airmail109
11-10-2006, 05:46 PM
1) More detailed FM, DM, Engine management and Cockpit

2) Better Sounds

3) Better online play with more options that induce teamplay....eg like being able to join teams like in battlefield 2, instead youd be able to join a wing in an online dogfight...your wingmen would appear with a highlighted box or something around them....though not totally realistic this would up immersion loads...increase SA and increase team play....give people more points for working in a team....

4) More immersive offline radio chatter....when an areoplane goes down in flames i dont want to hear them saying...this is one im hit bailing out....in a cool calm tone i want...."HOLY **** IM HIT YEARGHHHHHH"

5) Detailed airfields with men running about etc, making the airfield come to life...

6) Again better radio banter

7) Dynamic campagins iterspersed with random VERY well SCRIPTED events with a bit of storyline added into them

8) Period music such as jazz for the menus

9) Kills tallied on your areoplane in campaign mode

10) More realistic gun sounds

11) More cinematic damadge, as in when i get hit in the cockpit say...i dont want a few bit of hole to appear...instead i hant to hear a loud BAAANG...and the whir of bullets bouncing around inside the cocpit and shards of metal flying everywhere.

12) Online war in a PERSISTANT world, with a rank system...those at the top leading the battle and giving out orders....squads then carry out these orders.... i cant be bothered to explain totally but like WWII online. I want to feel that my kills online actually contribute to something....when i play counterstrike and i nail someone i know its contributed to winning the game. You dont get this feeling in il2 even on the good df servers. Id like to see NATIVE support for online wars...built into the sim. Not third party ones.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Megile : "Hey it's not technically spamming if its on different forums right?"

RCAF_Irish_403
11-10-2006, 05:48 PM
KEEP WATCHING THE SKIES! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

/*edit* dang you dietz...beat me to it

fantastic movie BTW<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

boxmike
11-10-2006, 05:55 PM
1.FM
2.DM
3.Immersion
4.Historical accuracy

Poor FM means you can whine about Tie-fighter's inertia factor in the forums.
I do not expect pro level cockpit in order to get it called a simulator.
Merely I expect a decent FM, not changing everytime 60% calls it not satisfactory.

Remember, the money comes from the majority. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Rgds,
- box<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Walter Mitty from Hell.

strider1
11-10-2006, 05:57 PM
Maintain course. Maintain speed. Well done, m8s!!! Excellent troll, tho. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Regards, Strider1<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Macabre doesn't begin to describe ME!!!--Som Assembly Required... http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/strider_07/GotHimOnTheRunMtnsA.jpg

horseback
11-10-2006, 06:02 PM
I know that some of these things are currently out of reach, or require tradeoffs, but I'm aiming at an ideal, so here goes:

1. FM/DM/Flight control 'authenticity'-Like Bearcat, I want the controls to work, and I want the option for correct practices to be rewarded (and engine/airframe abuse punished), but I also want an aircraft's control compexity modeled. A Mustang/Spitfire/FW 190's controls should be less complicated/more responsive or easy to fly than a Thunderbolt/Bf 109's, which should be easier than a P-38's...

2. AI behavior. Offliners are the Silent Majority around here, and they're losing a lot of the pleasure that online players get from reasonably evenhanded opposition. Obviously, AI will always cheat to a degree, but they should not have X-ray vision/perfect SA or G-proof 'bodies (and you should be able to hit them through the airframe instead of just the cockpit glass), they should be limited to actual tactics and aircraft limitations, and the damned gunners should lose about 80% of their accuracy at ALL levels.

And for heaven's sake, could we PLEASE have wingmen who don't steal our kills?

3. Aircraft models. The immersion factor is helped immeasurably by accurate/realistic looking cockpits and aircraft seen "out the window." This has always been the strong point of Oleg's Il-2 series of sims. However, it would be nice if I could get the stick handle or gunsight pad out of the way or to go invisible when I want to look at my compass or climb indicator because not everybody can afford 6DOF, much less TrackIR...

4. Campaigns. I'm still looking for an air combat simulator that can match the old Red Baron 3D campaign generator for immersion, historical accuracy and interest.

5. Maps and ground objects. I'd love to be able to fly from Northholt to Berlin, look down fifteen or twenty thousand feet to the ground and be able to pick out individual cars, buildings and so on. The current system makes groundpounding a cast iron biatch simply because you can't see your targets until you would normally be able to smell them in real life.

You should be able to 'jump' to the next adjacent map if you can't have one big world map.

cheers

horseback<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Sergio_101
11-10-2006, 06:07 PM
That looks lika a still from the first movie "The Thing".
Great film BTW.

Sergio

heywooood
11-10-2006, 06:42 PM
jeeez sergio - whyntcha just come out and say it then.


I think we're going to have to electrocute it...this thread I mean.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/afewofTheFew-1.jpg

A few of The Few

fordfan25
11-10-2006, 06:47 PM
looks like the tail of a LA-7<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
CIA_WildCard: &lt;gunstat :server 1 rounds fired, 0 (100%air hits, 0 ground hits, 2 air kills)

I love the mk108
-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

R_Target
11-10-2006, 07:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Just in case nobody gets that reference:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">You rule, Rjel</span>!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif That flick rules.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/9329/sigp39yx6.gif

DDastardlySID
11-10-2006, 10:42 PM
1. Support for groovy gadgets which enhance immersion. Given a choice between playing a pretty good sim which supports TrackIR and a great sim which doesn't, I'd pick the former any time. (In fact I wouldn't even bother buying the latter). Hopefully BoB:SOW will also properly support 3D shutter glasses as FB/AEP/PF has developed several nasty graphical fudges over the years, e.g. airfields always being drawn at screen depth, which make it almost unplayable when seen in true 3D.

I'd probably also include stuff like multi-monitor and glass cockpit support in this category too. I'd cheerfully pay at least the cost of the game over again for a UDPSpeed-like utility for BoB:SOW which would allow you to display the instruments from any of the included planes on a second monitor or PC, for example.


2. Decent game design. I know fans of the flight sim genre tend to get a bit snooty when the "G" word is used, so let me offer my take on the issue: If you're a pilot who's using some software to practise flying techniques with a simulated version of a plane which you're subsequently going to fly for real, then you're flight simming. If, on the other hand, you're tootling about in a virtual WWII warbird virtually blowing up your m8s, then you're playing a GAME. It may be a game which happens to simulate some elements of reality quite well, but it's primary purpose is to be FUN and far too often developers in this genre seem to forget this. In fact, they seem to get away with ommissions which would have a regular game developer laughed out of town. I struggle to think of a release in any other genre in which a game or mission might easily last three hours which doesn't offer something as basic (and blindingly obvious) as a facility to save the game, for example.

Similarly, a "cut the cr*p" key (i.e. time skip) which actually works (rather than the painfully unfunny practical joke "show me a black screen for 20 minutes" key we have in PF) is also essential IMO. I know some players like nothing better than flying for a couple of hours over the featureless Pacific before getting even a sniff of an enemy plane, and good luck to them -I have no objection whatsoever to the game including some kind of "masochist mode" to cater for their tastes, but personally I (and I suspect most other players and potential players) would rather fit twenty dogfights or ground attacks into the same period of game time.

A decent quick mission generator would be a welcome addition too - I'd like to be able to pick, say, a random ground attack mission, flying for the RAF, with a hard difficulty level and a typical completion time of 20 minutes (selected from a bunch of drop down boxes) and have the game generate something which matches the criteria I've chosen (on any of the game's maps rather than on just a ridiculously tiny subset of them).

As for the multiplayer elements of game design - don't get me started lol. Would it really be so hard to allow someone who's died during a co-op mission to respawn in one of the A.I. planes, for example?


3. Improved flight, damage and A.I. modelling. All nice to have, so long as they're sensibly applied. If the framerate drops below some (set-able) threshold then simplifications should automatically kick in for any A.I. plane that isn't directly engaging, or being engaged by, the player. It's much more important to be able to attack a swarm of 50 bombers with reasonable fps than it is for every one of the bombers to have a super-detailed flight model.


4. More detailed skies and terrain. These are what most of your screen is displaying most of the time and so they're obviously where most of the effort should go graphically. Anything which makes the ground environment a bit less sterile would be great too - traffic on the roads, tractors and animals in the fields, ground staff fleeing from a strafing run on an airbase etc.


5. Better effects graphics - smoke which doesn't look ridiculous when seen from the wrong angle, fires which are visible from more than a few feet away etc etc.


FYI better cockpits would prolly rank about 10th, more detailed plane exteriors wouldn't even make my top 100.

Cheers,
DD<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

==============================

www.mikesteven.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk (http://www.mikesteven.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk)

==============================

ElAurens
11-10-2006, 11:26 PM
James Arness knows the answers.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

RedDeth
11-11-2006, 12:44 AM
frickin dietz... lol hehe hey James you should fly online with us...

hyperlobby.... pm me with your alias http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1088291823_taylor-greycap.jpg

woofiedog
11-11-2006, 01:21 AM
Wicked! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Woofiedog1b.jpg

Hunter 82's PC component shop
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
https://usm.channelonline.com/magnumpc/storesite/Search/External/

majnos64
11-11-2006, 05:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by karost:
"5 MOST important points in simulators" for who ?
for a hard core sim-players ? or
for a common players who domain a maketshare ?

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For everyone who is reading my post. Many people are whining for some improvements in bob. So it is time to generalize interestshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"He,who has braver heart, more cold and full of foreseeing courage, which is born from believe in success and in righteousness of things, will smite his opponent." - Aleksandr Ivanovich Pokryshkin

Holtzauge
11-11-2006, 06:24 AM
I think Karost formulated it well above: for us hard core simmer or the average PF user?

My two cents:

Even if the intention of the developers are/were to attain the highest level of realism, the crass truth is that whoever sponsors the development is probably more interested in money. This means that there is a strong force that will moderate a tendency to move to more realism at the cost of properties more appealing to the aberage user.

Face it, what are we? a few hundred hard core simmers posting here? if you add up the money made by the PF series how much have we contributed?

My guess is that there is a silent majority out there that buys this as a computer game and want to become instant aces and get annoyed by things like e-bleed when you turn and don't understand why you don't score hits when you aim straight for the target. A lot of them probably get frustrated and move on to something else. Now will you make cash by ignoring market demands?

I think we should be grateful we get the attention that we do seeing our importance in financial terms.

But of course, I totally agree with the above. 5xrealims is what it should be but i'm sceptic if it will happen. Probably more graphic detail and more flyable a/c is where it's heading. However, better AI might be an area where interests coincide?