Hey Deacon, looks like we both dealt with our Albatros problem in the same way



The multiplayer ostensibly taking precedence over singleplayer content is I think a Russian thing... it began with the original IL-2 and continued with all the Russian developed sims since.

Exactly, one could argue that is because of money constraints... I don't know, sure Falcon campaign is complicated to develop, but Falcon's was the work of one single guy. I don't see how that could have changed at all (ie: more accurate aircraft systems modeled has nothing to do with campaign complexity), so I don't think the money argument is valid here.

And yes, Janson saying that only 5% of players engage in MP stroke me as a very strange thing. The SP campaign has never been ROF's strong suit... yet they knew all this time that 95% of players will play it.

I think it is very valid.

If you look at graphics, we've come a hell of a long way since the 90's. The level of 3D modelling expected, along with texturing and other art assets has created a huge increase in workload over what was needed fifteen years ago.

In terms of systems modelling, DCS and BOS feature a level of fidelity that simply wasn't there fifteen years ago.

Compare the damage modelling in ROF, BOS or DCS to what was present in Falcon 4, EAW or Flying Corps.

Flight modelling... I think the original IL-2 was the first combat sim to feature what X-Plane calls Blade Element Theory for its flight modelling. All subsequent IL-2 games, ROF and DCS use this method. I think it was revealed recently that the DCS WW2 Bf109K flight model alone cost $140k to develop.

We won't even mention the cost of developing stuff like sound, multiplayer networking code, AI, singleplayer content like missions and campaigns, documentation, making a website, dealing with stuff like marketing and PR, merchant and distribution fees, technical support..... even licensing. What's that, you thought you could make an F-18 sim without bunging Boeing a pile of cash for the license fee?

Even the guys who are making DCS modules - i.e. they don't have to worry about developing the platform because it's already there, they just need to make the content - have to sink serious amounts of cash into the development of the high end modules - take the Bf109K mentioned above. I think a lot of people would be genuinely shocked if they knew how much capital is actually required to develop a flight sim.

Now fifteen to twenty years ago there were big publishers with very deep pockets to underwrite all this development. Nowadays there are no big publishers who want to fund flight sim development so the developers have to find their money elsewhere. Not an easy thing to do I would imagine.


"Hey Mr Investor, I need $5 million and three years to make this really cool WW2 sim that will only sell to a niche market where much of the customer base are extremely demanding and inherently hostile to anything new."

Three years later...

"Hey Mr Investor, I need another $2 million and 18 months to finish the project because, ya know we blew all the money on developing an amazing graphics engine but didn't finish the AI yet"

18 months later...

"Hey Mr Investor can I get another $1 million because we're having problems with the network code and we need to make the single player content."

A few months after that...

"Hey Mr Investor it's now five years since we started the project, our awesome graphics engine is kind of looking dated now and we need to update it to the latest DX version. Can we get another $1 million, oh and we'll need another year to complete the project."

Project finally gets released...

"Hey Mr Investor, we released the flight sim, but it's kind of buggy and needs three or four patches and another 18 months of development work. How deep are your pockets again?"

Finally, two years after release and sales have slowed to a crawl...

"Hey Mr Investor, we know you gave us over $9 million, but we only sold enough copies to recoup $6 million. We were so sure this was going to be a big hit but they were a tough crowd to sell to.... anyway, we've got this idea for a sequel... it's gonna be awesome, we just need $5 million and three years."

And of course the alternative option being:

"Hey Mr Investor, we've got this great idea for a game called Call of Honour - it's a first person shooter featuring US Navy SEALS blowing #%&*$# up in the Middle East. It will be aimed at 8-17 year old console users because they'll pester their parents to buy them any old crap as long as the pre-rendered trailer looks cool enough. We'll need $3 million to license the Unreal Engine, hire some Z-list actors for the voice overs, and a year to make half a dozen levels and a couple of multiplayer maps, blanket video game media coverage and make the all important pre-rendered trailer"

One year later....

"Hey Mr Investor Call of Honour was released and hit the top seller charts on all platforms. We'll recoup our development costs in a month and we've already got the first eleven DLC packs planned, including one that swaps out the angry bearded dudes for zombies and another one that lets the players wear ski masks and carry pink guns."

Two months later....

"Hey Mr investor we made a nice fat profit for you. We've got a sequel planned, it's called Call of Honour Modern Ghost Warfare and we'll need two million and nine months for another pre-rendered trailer, advertising, half a dozen new maps and pay Bill Cosby to do the voice for the main character!"


Guess which one sounds more tempting for Mr Investor.

So now you have all this good stuff but leave out any single player replayability...appealing to only 5% of your customers is a good business strategy how exactly?

I remember Oleg saying the same thing as Jason...about 90% of his customers are offline only. I guess the mystery is solved why flight sim sales aren't as good as they could be. They are neglecting about 90% of their target audience by making things like AI and immersion/campaigns a tacked on afterthought.

^ no doubt.

With respect to graphics, I had read somewhere that it is actually easier to program to high graphics standards now than back in the old days...something to the effect that graphics development is cheaper, not more expensive, even though the graphics are exponentially better.

But that's not the point. Using your Bf-109 $140,000 flight model as an example, why? Why invest that kind of money in a flight model? For decades we've been satisfied with "close enough", with a sim that gave decent relative performance. I'll use Battle of Britain 2 as an example...how much do you think their -109 flight model cost, yet it is good enough isn't it?

There seems to be this new paradigm of pursuing utter authenticity in modeling aircraft at the expense of gameplay. I just don't understand this reasoning. I'd like to fly the best of both worlds of course- an authentic plane in a fully dynamic battlefield. But understanding that this isn't financially possible, why does all of the money go into the plane at the expense of fleshing out the game?

I reiterate my original point...successful, fun, popular, and enduring flight sims have already been created! The recipe has been demonstrated repeatedly. Just copy what has been already done, but do it a bit better.

I said this before and I personally think it's a valid argument: the only reason a sim like Wings over Flanders Fields can be a success is because the single player game in Rise of Flight is so #%&*$#. Understanding that many folks enjoy it. But if RoF had as robust a single player campaign as WoFF then WoFF couldn't exist. There would be no market for it.

As I said, my personal observation is that the neglect of single player/offline content started with the original IL-2 and has been something of a common feature among Russian developed sims over the last decade.

Why? I don't know. If I had to take a stab in the dark I'd say the single player content comes right at the end of the development cycle, and by that stage they're probably running out of money and the pressure is on to get the sim released and get the money rolling in.

Yes Pielstick, that's true. I was talking purely about the added cost of developing a dynamic campaign.

I'd guess it would make sense that it takes a modeller a lot longer to make a modern DCS level 3D cockpit in 3D Max than it would to have made one of the original IL-2 3D cockpits.

Time = Money and all that.



I broadly agree but it's apparently what the market demands - ever higher fidelity.

To be perfectly honest I wouldn't have the first clue if the Spitfire in CloD's time to 20,000ft was 15 seconds too slow or if the engine idle RPM in DCS A-10C was wrong.

But hey, that's apparently where we're at in this stage of things. If you want true madness check out the level of fidelity PMDG put into the airliners for FSX.... and then look how loud the clamour is among the FSX user base for every airliner addon to be just like PMDG's... because you know, real flight simmers fly PMDG and everything else is just a toy

It's also an excuse to put in some kind of DRM, multiplayer games are rarely cracked. And even if they are you won't be competing with majority who purchased the game legally. I don't blame the developer for doing so, it's his right to protect his intellectual property, but for many legit consumers it could be real PITA (looking at you Starforce).

To be honest I would pay 3x the price of current AAA game for decent, updated version of older classic like F-14 Fleet Defender for example. Look how much people are willing to spend on Star Citizen (which is basically inflated concept from Privateer + Wing Commander games with added elements along the way with rising funds like FPS combat and who knows what else will come down the road). Although feature creep may bring the development down.

I actually do buy flight sims just to keep the market going since it's highly unlikely I'll ever play all of them and sometimes that's actually my intention

The only ones I don't buy are either genres I don't care for (I'm only interested in BoB onward) or are just plain crap. Or I'm broke like now

Pielstick,

Interesting the way that this thread is going, but you have to admit that in many cases, the developer does not scope their market correctly. And in regards to this thread, I think it would do a lot of good to most of the developers to read what has been written here this week. The main problem here I think is what I refer to as 'armchair experts'. The internet has given everybody a world of free information. One of these so called 'experts' can read ad infinitum on a particular aircraft, but just because they know some facts and figures, that does not mean that the developers have to spend lots of $ and take years to release a product just to please these kinds of people.

Case in point, you mentioned the PMDG 777. I will be the first to agree that this is a first class project in many ways, however I (and from what I've read, quite a few others) will not purchase it simply because of the learning curve. Add to this the available free time you may have as an individual, and there lies one of the problems. In between work, study, and family, I get very limited sim time. In the case of the PMDG 777, I instead purchased the Captain Sim one, because I knew that the learning curve would be smaller.

Again, whilst I applaud the PMDG efforts in many ways, I think that they could increase their customer base if you could regularly modify the difficulty of the aircraft as you go along. As a simmer and a real world pilot though, where I WILL make a complaint is with FSX GA aircraft. Case in point for me being the Carenado Commander 114, an aircraft that I am type endorsed on. WRONG! in every performance aspect. Now, with this type of aircraft, the developers would have more access than, to say a 777, at much less cost, so the flight model SHOULD be better, no excuses.

In the world of military aircraft sims, the number of people who have real world experience would be even less. The only military aircraft I've had time in was a BAC Strikemaster, and that was back in 2001. I say let the complainers complain. And the publishers should perhaps toughen up a bit. You do not have to answer every question in a forum. It would be interesting to do a survey on a forum such as this one, to find out exactly what % of users have real world experience, and then a separate one for military types as well. At the end of the day, it's these 'armchair experts' that are ruining things for us.

Sometimes, the system depth can be a negative as well. In my time here, I have never purchased a single sim by DCS, and this is mostly motivated by my lack of free time, and the required learning curves that I have read on this very page. My favourite military aircraft is the MiG-21, and yes, I know there is a DCS one on the way, but again, it's a matter of free time, which I don't have. For me, the ideal system depth would sit between Strike Fighters and DCS.

Finally, in regards to multiplayer, I am all for it, BUT I think the developers should also look at some of the shoddy internet speeds we get in different regions around the world. I live in Western Australia (Perth) but I'm lucky if I get 4 meg speed. Hardly enough for the heat of air combat. Now, if we put a little more into single player, all the much better. I will go on supporting simulations always, but only ones that I can get any real use from.

^ I disagree somewhat.

Using PMDG as an example, I think PMDG has gone in the absolutely right direction. They're sitting top dog on the hardcore airliner market and they know it. There are numerous options for lighter airliner models...the F-Lite series is a perfect example. You go into PMDG precisely because it's going to require you to learn how to fly an airliner properly. I have the 737 and I learned more about professional civilian aviation digging into that aircraft than I have in years of flying other aircraft.

The difference between PMDG and DCS is that FSX is about as fully realized as you're going to get for a civilian simulator. About the only things missing are truly "things to do" to give your flying meaning (a constant shortcoming in MSFS IMO) and there is software to address that...Air Hauler, etc.

I would argue that to someone who wants to get into hardcore simulation, you can't really go too hardcore. The simulation of the aircraft can't be too detailed. If you don't have time you don't have time...but I don't think that's a valid reason for a developer to arbitrarily decide to make the sim lighter.

The problem, for me at least, is what happens when I get into the cockpit. What do I do now?

Using DCS, again, as an example, you have this super hardcore, super accurate, super realistic A-10. But then I go online to fly it and all of that realism is wasted when I'm basically forced into flying it in an unrealistic environment...a 32 or 64 player server with 8 random guys on just isn't going to provide that realistic experience that all of that plane modeling warrants. Taking it up into a Strike Fighters 2 single player mission is more realistic, in my opinion, due to all of the "stuff" going on around you, the various packages working towards common goals.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but to answer Jason's assertion that flight simmers are essentially complainers, I'd say that, although I think we will always complain about something, the biggest griping comes from developers that continue to consistently choose to not give us what the majority of us want:

1. Some sort of dynamic single player campaign, anything from IL-2/DGEN to WoFF to SF2 to Falcon 4. Pick somewhere on that spectrum of dynamic campaigns.
2. Multiplayer capable. Shared cockpit multiplayer would be game-changing.
3. Using DCS:A-10C as an example, a 70% solution of that level of detail on any of the following aircraft: F/A-18C/E, F-16, AH-64
4. A theater of war that was either really fought over (with appropriate planeset) or something that hasn't been beaten to death. WW3 Europe, Vietnam, Korea (50's), Desert Storm, etc.

Great discussion guys,keep it going.

I have to agree with the "great plane" in a sterile environment.I think most of us appreciates how much goes into these planes but it really is just wasted when you kind of ignore the context that it flies in.

Has any developer actually said why this is the case,and if they can't do some sort of dynamic campaign,why?
I am sure I have read that it would be to expensive or time consuming.
If not a DC then at least some sort of story and progression to keep us interested.

If they can put so much money and effort into these planes,could they not do a campaign separate and charge it accordingly?
Then again you would probably have the whiners rage about the greedy devs asking for us to pay for a campaign that should come with a game.

It would be great if a "dev" could chime in and give us some sort of breakdown why THEY think they can't have some of the things that made flight sims of old so playable.

Things like briefing rooms,story,squad you actually care about and a sense of achievement go a very long way to keep your interest in the sim going.

Maybe it is just the natural progression of this industry,leaning to mostly online gaming,just look at the SP in Battlefield,it really was just there to give you a little practice for going online.

Mick. :

Could be, could be.

One thing I will say... I was wrong when I pointed out it all started with the original IL-2. Thinking about it, the original Su-27 Flanker sim which was ED's first product and the great-granddad of DCS is the first one I can remember that skimped on campaigns and career mode and instead just had a bunch of single missions.

I'm really curious why the UK/US developed sims of the 90's all had pretty serious campaign or career modes, yet the Russian developed sims since the 90's have by and large totally dropped these features?



You're not wrong there. I think Star Citizen is very much in the danger zone at the moment and could be a victim of its own success.

I agree with your sentiment about updating older sims. It might be an interesting thing to do... I'd personally love to fly EF2000 or F-22 TAW with modern graphics... but I also know that there would be a very vocal section of the community who would condemn such sims as toys for the kids because they don't have DCS level systems modelling.



The funny thing is in real life - and I'm guessing this was very much true in WW2 - the build and finish of individual aircraft along with the maintenance and mechanical condition at any given time would have resulted in very significant performance variations between the exact same types of aircraft.

I still remember when IL-2 was first released and it was the first time we had ever had the opportunity to fly Soviet WW2 fighters. People who grew up in the west being told that anything built by the Soviets was junk were somewhat surprised to find their 109s and 190s were struggling to deal with the Lavochkin and Yakovlev fighters. The complaints of "Russian developer over models Russian fighters" began and the Luftwhiner was born. Likewise when the P-51 was introduced to IL-2 there were all sorts of complaints because John Doe has watched a lot of Discovery Wings and History Channel and if it's one thing he's learned from those it's that the P-51D was the best fighter of WW2 and won that war single handed, and that going up against German fighters in a Mustang was like clubbing baby seals.... yet JD's experience in the sim didn't bear that preconception out.



Bernt Stolle did a new flight model for the Carenado Commander 114. I think it's on Avsim. Might be worth checking out.

Carenado are an excellent example of how the community can shoot itself in the foot. Carenado have been around for years now and everybody knows that with a Carenado product you get top notch 3D modelling and textures, but you might end up with a ropey flight model (if it wasn't made by Bernt Stolle) and pretty much nothing more than default engine and systems modelling.

Yet a very vocal crowd queue up at places like Avsim to blast Carenado for not making every aircraft like an Accu-Sim one from A2A. To me that's like going to McDonald's and complaining that you want them to serve fillet mignon. It's just not what their product is all about. If you want a higher level of modelling and fidelity then there are other developers who do make those kind of products. Not everybody wants to run through a real world startup checklist and have to nurse their engine lest it explode before getting over the airfield perimeter fence. Some people just want a nice looking model they can jump into and get in the air right away and are happy it if flies something like the real thing. Yet the hardcore crowd who demand every addon be made to Accu-Sim or PMDG levels of fidelity are the most vocal.

I'd argue that given Carenado have been around since FS2000, put a new aircraft out every couple of months and have spawned an offshoot developer in Alabeo, they must be doing something right. If Carenado and all the other developers tried to emulate Accu-Sim or PMDG the hobby would wither pretty quickly.



Again I broadly agree. So what you're saying is the "Flaming Cliffs" level is pretty much where you want to be. The problem is the DCS Elitists regard "Flaming Cliffs" as dirty words. Now guess who makes the most noise and shouts the loudest on the various flight sim forums? Just the same with the PMDG fanboys in FSX-land.

The problem is these guys make so much noise you'd be forgiven for thinking that being balls deep in Litening III operation whilst programming your GBU-38 or flying along a magenta line at FL370 scrutinising the CRZ PERF page on the FMS are the only worthy forms of flight simming.



The important thing to remember here is that the flagship PMDG products weren't developed for flight simmers. They were developed for real world pilots to use as training aids. What we get is the spin off product.

The other thing to bear in mind is the glacial pace at which PMDG work. There's what, at least three years between each PMDG aircraft release. I don't know about you but I'd be happy to sacrifice quite a lot of the features and modelling that I'll never even notice, let alone use if it meant I got aircraft released at a faster or more frequent pace.

But as you say, there are other developers out there who cater to that kind of audience, whilst PMDG go the whole hog.

Which leads me back to my point - the vocal minority who dismiss anything that isn't PMDG level as totally worthless and anybody who doesn't demand PMDG level fidelity as kids playing with toys.

Funnily enough over on Avsim the other day there was the thread discussing the release of P3D 2.3 and as happens in every P3D2 thread over there one or two people drop by to say "I'm not moving over to P3D2 until I can fly my PMDG aircraft in it." You could see people were getting fed up with the PMDG fanboys because there was quite a backlash against these guys with people telling them flying along a magenta line with LNAV/VNAV enganged is not the be-all and end-all of flight simulation and to wind their neck in



I absolutely agree with those questioning Jason's statement about only 5% of hardcore simmer fly online - and if that really is the case why do all the contemporary sims cater more for the online flyer than they do for the offline flyer? Some developer insight would really be appreciated.

Unlike space games and racing sims, which really took off this year and will bring major/long forgotten features back onto PC, not to mention the VR mindblowing experience, flight sim market seems stagnant to me in recent years. DCS A10c release made the market mainstream for a while, when everyone tried to take off in that, buying warthogs and other equipment.

But almost four years later, we STILL don't have the DCS jet or Nevada released, not to mention dynamic campaign. It has become a waiting game for the next great feature, which never comes. This led me into selling my Warthog last year when getting into Asseto Corsa. I never regretted that decision.

Can flight sims bring back the same level of enjoyment like those two genres I now spend my time with? I doubt it. WW1 and 2 theme has been done to death and who wants to spend even more time in that, when there are space ships, space combat and other countless adventures available again in never-seen-before fidelity and immersion?

Elite strikes a perfect balance for me and already provides enough flight sim entertainment even in current beta stage. Controls are simple enough to play with VR, mouse and keyboard, but the game itself presents a good amount of realism and a challenge greater than current mainstream hand-holding games. And people with joystick can play them just as good when get fed up with the latest WW2 plane shooter. Sure there isn't a 10 minute start-up procedure and clickable cockpit, but who still wants that? People enjoy flying around, trading, quick dogfight, onwards to explore another solar system,...

SC aims to provide carrier ops immersion I always dreamed about. Climbing into a fighter, take off, fight the enemy, then RTB for debrief. No flight sim can provide that level of immersion, despite all the physics and weapons modelling. Simply because you play as a plane, not as a pilot flying the plane.

There's much more immersion, action and adventure to be found in ED and SC, compared to fligh sims, simply because they're like sci-fi second life. People forget about ultra realism, flaps settings, stall speeds, turn rates, radar modelling,... and simply enjoy their Star Wars or Kubrick fantasy they always wanted.

Actually, there are only five or six dedicated flight sims made, and only two still viable:

Red Baron
Red Baron II/3D
Flying Corps
OFF (which I think we can all agree isn't a mod, but a whole different animal from CFS3)
Rise of Flight

I can go along with that.

In which case I think it's only fair you also add First Eagles 1 & 2 to your list.

Dart...maybe it's just because I haven't had my coffee yet…but I don't understand when you say "dedicated flight sims". Did you mean to say sims with dynamic campaigns? It seems either way…that list is not very complete.

He forgot to say dedicated WW1 flight sims.