Official 1C Company forum

Official 1C Company forum (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Oleg Maddox's Room #1 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2039)

Feuerfalke 06-10-2008 01:35 PM

I'm sorry, I'll make my point more clear, because I think you missed mine:
Again: I think this is not only about planes we'd like to fly or that are important for some addon in an historical context.

A simulation of this magnitude and with the goal of lasting a decade, different aspects become important, that go beyond historical considerations.
For the Battle of Britain the role of the autogyro might have been negligible, for demonstrating what can be done with this engine, attracting 3D-Party developers and players who are NOT ONLY interested in exact historic missions, this unique aircraft can really be a new step in flightsims.

Remember, the SoW-Engine is moving from early WW1 and 2 and Korea on into the future and if it the physics engine of SoW is capable of realistically modeling a rotary aircraft, this is an devastating blow for any competitor. So the reason for including an autogyro IMHO is just the same as with including the Su-26m and a lot of fans didn't get the idea behind that either.

Feuerfalke 06-10-2008 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tbag (Post 43651)
What if Oleg included the autogyro primarily as a proof of concept: Helicopters can be implemented in SoW as well. What do we know? Sorry for speculating again.

Exactly ;)

Feuerfalke 06-10-2008 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox (Post 43652)
I can't tell you finally how many types of cameras, but will be more features than in Il-2 and more useful.
Recording will be possible in two formats one of them is similar to NTRK, another - ready video, but still under question in which format finally.
But only NTRK will be possible to use for full HD video conversion.

Cool :)

I like the movies from Glowing Amraam for LockOn and BlackShark, who uses the camera-positions extremely well. Seeing a dogfight from underneath the wing is really cinematic and I saw some prop-plane-videos where the camera seemed to be attached at the outside of the cockpit and it really gave the movie an awesome realistic feeling, as the movement of both planes was much better visible than from within the cockpit.

csThor 06-10-2008 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke (Post 43653)
I'm sorry, I'll make my point more clear, because I think you missed mine:
Again: I think this is not only about planes we'd like to fly or that are important for some addon in an historical context.

This is where we seem to disagree then. A historical simulation must remain true to itself IMO. And as such historical relevance is the "Make or Break" criteria for me - it was either relevant or it wasn't. I have no use for the "KeWl" factor some people seem to be so fond of ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke (Post 43653)
A simulation of this magnitude and with the goal of lasting a decade, different aspects become important, that go beyond historical considerations.
For the Battle of Britain the role of the autogyro might have been negligible, for demonstrating what can be done with this engine, attracting 3D-Party developers and players who are NOT ONLY interested in exact historic missions, this unique aircraft can really be a new step in flightsims.

Remember, the SoW-Engine is moving from early WW1 and 2 and Korea on into the future and if it the physics engine of SoW is capable of realistically modeling a rotary aircraft, this is an devastating blow for any competitor. So the reason for including an autogyro IMHO is just the same as with including the Su-26m and a lot of fans didn't get the idea behind that either.

Quite frankly the Su-26 is more a proof of concept than the autogyro. I don't want to cling to this example too much,though, as I'm talking about a general principle here. As I said above the core of a historical simulation is its attempt to simulate historical air combat. Any other ... derivated use ... is and has to be secondary to historical accuracy. Such use can be derived from a historically correct base, but a historically correct use cannot be derived from a fundament made of "KeWl" objects which aren't historically relevant.

Feuerfalke 06-10-2008 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csThor (Post 43657)
This is where we seem to disagree then. A historical simulation must remain true to itself IMO. And as such historical relevance is the "Make or Break" criteria for me - it was either relevant or it wasn't. I have no use for the "KeWl" factor some people seem to be so fond of ...



Quite frankly the Su-26 is more a proof of concept than the autogyro. I don't want to cling to this example too much,though, as I'm talking about a general principle here. As I said above the core of a historical simulation is its attempt to simulate historical air combat. Any other ... derivated use ... is and has to be secondary to historical accuracy. Such use can be derived from a historically correct base, but a historically correct use cannot be derived from a fundament made of "KeWl" objects which aren't historically relevant.

Well, that seems to be the problem, then. SoW is not a historic simulation. BoB is.
SoW is a unique engine to simulate aircraft and vehicles in a combat environment.

BoB however is the first "addon", if you allow me to put it like this. The first of a series of addons with historic content on a limited area and time-setting.

Bringing both things together in SOW:BOB means showing what can be done on the one hand, simulating the Battle of Britain on the other. IMHO the autogyro is a child to both fathers, the SU to the first, the other planes to the later.

It has little to do with the cool-factor, but rather with the fact that MG has a wider perspective than just putting up a game for us with a few historic planes.

csThor 06-10-2008 02:12 PM

I think you have a different perspective than I. I think each release within the SoW series has to be self-sufficient meaning it has to contain everything it needs to run as a stand-alone. As such each individual release is a single project and not just an "AddOn". This is why I place so much emphasis on the "historical relevance". :)

Feuerfalke 06-10-2008 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csThor (Post 43660)
I think you have a different perspective than I. I think each release within the SoW series has to be self-containing meaning it has to contain everything it needs to run as a stand-alone. As such each individual release is a single project and not just an "AddOn". This is why I place so much emphasis on the "historical relevance". :)

No, I think we have quite the same perspective. It's just that the initial release of SoW has to prove a lot more than IL2 had to. And it's clear to me that this cannot be achieved by just historically rebuilding a few planes, that were already in IL2.

You know the boards as well as I do and I doubt you have missed the comments, what's the deal with BoB, as you won't see the eyecandy on a plane from 200m away, anyway, or the hedges down below from 30,000ft, that turbulences and exact physics, startups and stuff are irrelevant for a large portion of players.
Just look at Hyperlobby and tell me the relation of players on FullReal-Servers and those on easier settings. Or just count the number of servers. And like it or not, I am convinced the hack has also pushed the line further up.

As you can also see from the game I advertise for in my signature, I love decent simulation, but I also see that it's not us hardcore-simmers alone that can pay Oleg off and again, we're at the beginning of something really big ahead.

fireflyerz 06-10-2008 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox (Post 43652)
I can't tell you finally how many types of cameras, but will be more features than in Il-2 and more useful.
Recording will be possible in two formats one of them is similar to NTRK, another - ready video, but still under question in which format finally.
But only NTRK will be possible to use for full HD video conversion.


:arrow:Thanks Oleg thats great news , and thanks also for the speedy reply :grin:

csThor 06-10-2008 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke (Post 43661)
No, I think we have quite the same perspective. It's just that the initial release of SoW has to prove a lot more than IL2 had to. And it's clear to me that this cannot be achieved by just historically rebuilding a few planes, that were already in IL2.

The difference will be in the framework - the GUI, the interaction between AI and user, the campaigns, the single missions, the online part etc ... Incorporating unusual types is not going to draw more non-hardcore simmers than a solid gameplay part. This is where SoW will succeed or fail.

Feuerfalke 06-10-2008 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csThor (Post 43665)
The difference will be in the framework - the GUI, the interaction between AI and user, the campaigns, the single missions, the online part etc ... Incorporating unusual types is not going to draw more non-hardcore simmers than a solid gameplay part. This is where SoW will succeed or fail.

My English is probably much worse than I thought.

The autogyro is not to attract non-hardcore players or those not interested in perfect historic contects BUT it will demonstrate to 3rd Party-Developers what the engine is capable of and bind them to the product, increasing variety and support quickly. In a way exactly what you said: the autogyro will prove if the framework is good enough to stand above IL2-limitations like the problem with the multi-engines planes!

Non-hardcore players however are attracted by variety and fun. Maybe they will like the autogyro, yes, but I doubt they will buy BoB solely because of the autogyro.
On the other hand, if you present them in brutal pure and perfectly historic way the planes that flew in Britain, they'll walk right across the shelf with SoW:BoB and to the 10 bucks-pyramid and get 1946, because from their point of view they get the same aircraft for a fraction of the money.

And gameplay, AI, RADAR, communication, complex interactive campaings? That's for hardcore-players, too, but not for people who start the game and use the quick-mission builder 99% of the time.

So, for the hardcore-simmers, SoW will succeed and fail with all what you said above, but for the casual player it is most important to ensure a great variety of gameplay and planes in a quick time, maybe including those that are out of the ordinary.

Just consider how many people whine on this board that there is no Mustang or FW190 in the initial release, to see the importance of the initial success of the SoW-Engine in many different aspects of the game.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.