IL-2: Fantastic Flight-Sim, Appalling Video Game | Forums

[CARBONFREEZE]

Originally posted by MrQBerrt:
Where is the 30 seconds of fun in IL-2?

I think 30 seconds of fun is bouncing a bunch of Yak-3s in line astern formation with my Fw190 =)

--------------------------------
Regarding the training, there are already tracks that have some text messages telling you how to do certain maneuvers. They aren't that great, but 1C Maddox has not included any additional training tracks similar to this since FB came out, and I have never found out how to add those text lines to the track. If it was possible for the player/community to create tracks with "comments" such as are in the training tracks included with FB I am sure someone would have come out with some training tracks already. Or you could make a dogfight map and record it as an ntrk for training with your text commentary in the chatbar, because this would allow you to both add comments and be playable by all versions of the game.

I haven't read all 4 pages of this thread so I am not sure if someone has brought the above up already.

Edit: added additional comment on NTRK.

[sugaki]

There is faulty logic being employed here by most posters.

Simulation and video game are not mutually exclusive. Pacific Fighters can be a simulator *and* a video game. Video game does not automatically mean Crimson Skies.

Games always make compromises for the sake of fun--PF included. That's why you don't have 4-6hr long missions of just flying. That's why you don't have to go to the bathroom in your pants.

I agree that flight models should be realistic, but flight sims should spend an equal amount of attention in other aspects. Like a robust career mode for true roleplaying. Or particle effects that take advantage of DX9. I think the OP's point is valid in that flight sims often forget that they should focus on other areas other than flight models. There's more to flight sims than flight models, and unfortunately a disproportionate amount of time gets spent there but not anywhere else. Hence they're boring. Again, I don't think that means games should be easier, flight models more arcadey. But games should be, well, games. And just because a game has realistic flight models doesn't mean it can get away with being dry and dull in other areas.

[Unknown-Pilot]

Originally posted by sugaki:
There is faulty logic being employed here by most posters.

There is no such thing as "faulty logic". People simply don't understand logic. It either is, or it isn't. There is no inbetween. No "faulty", no "your" or "my", and no "circular". The process is either followed properly, or it isn't. Period. Starting information can be incorrect however, and that will, in turn, lead to an incorrect result, but that's independent of the process.

I agree that flight models should be realistic, but flight sims should spend an equal amount of attention in other aspects. Like a robust career mode for true roleplaying. Or particle effects that take advantage of DX9. I think the OP's point is valid in that flight sims often forget that they should focus on other areas other than flight models. There's more to flight sims than flight models, and unfortunately a disproportionate amount of time gets spent there but not anywhere else. Hence they're boring. Again, I don't think that means games should be easier, flight models more arcadey. But games should be, well, games. And just because a game has realistic flight models doesn't mean it can get away with being dry and dull in other areas.

There is only 100% of time available.

Therefore, if more time is spent on things other than FMs, it will eat into what was spent on FMs. The total can never exceed 100%, so if you increase one area, you have to decrease another.

That means that you are suggesting one of 2 things, either the development cycle should take longer, costing more money, in an already slim margin field, or, that FMs should be considered less important than they are, and as such, be less 'realistic' than they are.

Of course, you've said that you don't think they should be made less realistic, but there's not much choice. - If you shift the time spent over to campaign, role playing, eye-candy, etc, you end up with...... Crimson Skies - because you've taken so much dev time away from FMs in the process.

All sims are games. Even mil-sims would be games (to us) if we could get in there and play with them and not have our performance in them have any impact on our lives.

The biggest thing missing from IL2, has finally been added in PF - truly dynamic campaigns. Campaigns that allows the historical victor to lose. I don't know if the merged install allows this to work back and affect ETO campaigns (though I would really hope it does), but as long as BoB supports this and furthers PF in every category (save graphics - what we have is more than good enough, no need to waste dev resources, or CPU cycles on even more eye-candy while there are so many other things that could be worked on instead), then it will be a grand slam.

Anyone who would gripe about that (or about PF), just isn't a simmer. Such people would be happier with CS, or perhaps console stuff.

[sugaki]

There is no such thing as "faulty logic". People simply don't understand logic. It either is, or it isn't. There is no inbetween. No "faulty", no "your" or "my", and no "circular". The process is either followed properly, or it isn't. Period. Starting information can be incorrect however, and that will, in turn, lead to an incorrect result, but that's independent of the process.

Well, who's saying "faulty logic" is refusing that something "is either followed properly, or it isn't"? Faulty logic means it isn't, obviously. I have no clue what you're getting at here.

That means that you are suggesting one of 2 things, either the development cycle should take longer, costing more money, in an already slim margin field,

That's the whole point. The margin field is slim precisely because flight sims are only focusing on FMs. Increased dev time for better mass market appeal--yeah it'd require a willing publisher and a risk on part of the dev team, but interest in sims is out there. The problem is, sims have simply become too esoteric for most to understand. The other problem is that sims aren't scalable enough in realism--somebody with 0 sim experience should be able to get into the game--that won't happen with IL2, FB, or Falcon 4.0. AoA, boundary layer, prop pitch, fuel mixture is stuff that's overwhelming for the regular consumer.

And yes, I'm saying sims should cater more to mass market consumers. Because not doing so is exactly the reason why flight sims have been languishing as a genre.