Yo! I don't post on this side of the fence often, but I got a good idea for a flame war (j/k, j/k.)! Really, I thought this could be a neat topic to discuss

Do you believe that the qualities that make a modern flight sim excellent, are the same ones that make a vintage-era sim excellent? Specifically, I wanted to hear from y'all how different standards might effect what details are intricately modeled in a vintage flight sim -- and which have to take a back seat.

I've mostly tried very detailed modern aircraft sims, and the focus seems to be on immersion by modeling intricate systems more than anything else. Seems the majority of vintage-era flight sims (that I've sampled anyways) try to bring out the complexity/difficulty by focusing on the fighting. It's hard to bring a target into a stable lead when you've got no fly-by-wire system to prevent drifting; or dive bombing at 30 degrees without a computer calculating the impact point. But when it comes to navigating with a radio/compass/map, flight communication/coordination, flight training, and modeling the non-combat functions of the plane, they seem to be lacking.

These don't seem to be show-stoppers for a successful, hardcore WWII/I era sim. For a modern combat sim on the other hand, methinks it might be suicide. The vintage stuff seems to require exclusive attention to flight model and weapons, to the decrement of everything else. I'm not claiming this is the gospel or that there aren't plenty of exceptions to what I said, just my POV...no more, no less. If you disagree, I'd really like to hear from veteran WWII/I simmers what really it really takes to make it in this sub-genre.

To me what makes a great sim is also a story (Read: Campaign), and use-ability on top of the flight model and AI behavior. I could care less about how the real-life radio system works. A simple key toggle and a preset list of wingman commands are fine for me. Training is good to have, and many sims have a set of training missions that take you through the basics. As for map navigation, this needs to be simple IMO otherwise you run the risk of making things too complicated for the end user. You can have a realistic mode I suppose in which you can only rely on your compass heading and the landmarks around you. I would never use it though and I doubt most would from my experience. I really miss the days of the Aces Over Europe/Aces of the Pacific quick mission builder where I could select the type of mission I wanted to fly, type of aircraft, number of aircraft, weather, if any aces were present, my loadout and so on.

There shouldn't be a question.

Just have a slider that has on one end ARCADE & on the other end SIMULATION.
The software then makes appropos changes based on where the slider is,
ie. not as much Gs are pulled during a sharp turn, bullets are more plentiful, flaps don't require that much adjusting, etc.

The World War II flightsimulator I'm working on for System 6 Macintoshes -- "Eagles Of Honor" -- will be the quintessential example of that.

I've been flight-simming for a long time (20 years plus). I've had flings with both modern era and finally now have settled on WW2 for the last ten years (brief year respite with Strike Fighters - if you want to label that as 'modern') I think it has to do with a developers creativity and being able to use the technology at hand properly..



Mmm well.. Il2 has some features under full realism that keep you pretty focused on flying. Prop pitch and trim are just a few. They can be quite a hand full when engaging in combat. Navigation-wise dead reckoning with the aid of a radio controlled (if you were lucky) compass was all they had.

The other thing to consider is that modern era aircraft rely heavily on computer controlled avionics and navigation systems - which just happens to be the platform we play these things on.

I agree with you Phoenix. Try to fly A2A P-47 with Accusim in FSX, this is the best warbird in any flight simulator I've ever seen. They've modelled everything, engine and systems management is awesome. This is why I've turned to modern simulators - DCS Black Shark, Lock On, and now I'm thinking about Falcon4. It's a pity there is no FLIGHT in WWII Combat flight simulators.

Check videos it this thread:

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopi...632c35d1b965fdf

I'd love to see an in-depth WW2 combat flight someday.

I'm totally at a loss in what you're trying to say here... on one hand you seem to praise A2A's P-47 model and then in the next breath state that you're moving on the modern simulators just because??



My take on the original topic is that we have some favoritism towards modern air simming - that it is somehow superior to the WW2 era..

- and that's OK if you prefer that genre.. I once did, but not right now..

Totally subjective Phoenix..

Yes, I'm praising A2A's Thunderbolt, and I've moved to modern sims, because there's no WWII combat simulator with such complexity as A2A's aircraft.

Whatever trips your trigger I guess...

Short lesson here is that modern sim systems are naturally more complex than WW2 aircraft - that's no revelation.. no epiphany in my mind..

I think posterity has something to do with that.. plus the users inclination for push button gadgetry..

Not necessarily so. Many modern combat sims are usually more complicated simply because they are modelled with more detail, not because WW2-era combat was so unsophisticated that it lacked features worth modelling. Understand that IRL, there would have been nothing easy about learning every switch and guage in a P51, orienting yourself with just a radio, compass and map, formation flying at night w/o sensors showing wingmens' positions, or flying with a strike package of dozens of aircraft without some AWACS telling you constantly where each package element is and what's coming your way.

Modelling the above would be a great way to make a WWII sim really hardcore. It doesn't do to say WWII sims must naturally be easier, and modern sims harder. I just think they can all be challenging in different ways, and I'd just like to see a WWII sim modelled to the upper limits of difficulty -- making you learn to navigate, manage your flight, fly and fight without all the digital amenities in a modern fighter aircraft.

I understand your esoteric point... but...

I haven't looked at nor do I have the interest right now of delving into a Lock-On or Falcon 4.0.. Since you've posed the question, do you have a theory or opinion on the matter? IE why do you think that detailed immersion switches, buttons etc. are limited to the modern sim market?

One thing I will not concede on is the RL notion that vintage prop jobs (ww2 etal) can somehow be on the same level of sophistication as modern warplane systems.

This is still quite an opinionated matter IMO.. Most of what is being discussed is of preference. I know some folks who find the FSX WW2 series of warplanes quite satisfying in the context you are discussing. In the end, I think it depends on what the particular end user is looking to get out of their simming experience.

Personally, when I climb into a virtual P-47, I go looking for quarry to shoot down or blow up.. That's what these planes were built for. BUT in the context of a mission of this nature, I definitely require a take off, challenging navigation, formation flying, and a proper landing to be fully satisfied with the experience (I can't stand airstarts!) So if your idea is to link WW2 combat sims to arcade experiences, I'm afraid you've lost me.