Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
#1389293 - 09/25/03 11:40 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
LORD BYRON Offline
Member
LORD BYRON  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
Medfield MA USA
FxW,

Oh yeah, another thing .... agree one hundred percent that I would rather have a fewer number well done aircraft as opposed to 50 poorly rendered ones. I wouldn't even object to the sim being modularized - say, one module covering late 1916 up to late 1917 and a second module covering through to the war's end.

And I'd like to see the different engine and performance configurations present for Camels, F2B's, D.VII's, SE5's, etc. What added immersion! It would be easily possible if a reasonably accurate physics based FM engine can be coded.


LB

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#1389294 - 09/26/03 12:40 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Lord Byron,

Hopefully Santa will deliver on your wish list Q4 2004, besides I recognize the same fundamental features on your KOE wish list as is on mine! \:\)

Allow me to link another thread from our WWW forum discussions to introduce another related concern of mine..........I'll call it the danger of "misson creep":

The blunt or the sharp end?

I hope Aspect concentrates on designing the essential sim features first and foremost, instead of trying to be tackle too much scope and thereby neglecting the basics. As you suggest LB, if you master the basics, then "layers" of immersion can be added with successive module offerings.

This is a tried and true model for success!

#1389295 - 09/26/03 04:57 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
LORD BYRON Offline
Member
LORD BYRON  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
Medfield MA USA
FxW,

I did read the "blunt/sharp" posts. The various contributors make interesting contributions to the discussion.

To my mind, the question is one of focus. What role is the customer of your flight sim intended to play? IMO, the principal role ought to be that of a single-seat fighter pilot. Nothing else should get in the way of optimizing that role as a gaming experience. There is always a particulr segment of the community who are ever reafy to dabble in the outre and theodd, but 95 percent of us insert the disk in order to chase MvR.

As regards the dynamic environment and its effect upon game play, let's stop and consider a few points.

The level of Western Front aerial activity was by no means constant, either in geographical terms or in timeline terms. There were periodic spasms of intense activity, usually instigated by the Entente and occasionally by Germany, which endured for varying periods of time. At any given point in time, much of the front was quiet, due either to outright lack of hostilities or to the intervention of poor weather.

To offer an option of flying and fighting over, say, the Alsace front, might appeal to perhaps six overwrought fanatics. Only those six fanatics will derive any serious entertainment out of flying three or four uneventful missions for every one enemy contact. This will be a complete non-starter in terms of entertainment and replay values.

The rest of the community will be thinking in terms of the Somme, Verdun, Flanders, Operation Michael, and so on, where the aerial activity was of a high intensity and generally occured under more clement weather conditions. So a pilot career might see a couple of missions per day in high summer, a couple of missions a week in the spring and autumn, and perhaps a single mission per week in winter. This would meld in poor flying weather factors and ack of enemy sightings in one rationale "mechanism".

A focus upon the big campaigns and/or the elite squadrons will always place the player within an entertaining high air traffic environment. And along with such an environment will come a multiplicity of mission types: drive off the artiller observation planes, intercept intruding bomber or fighter formations, protect the photo-recon flight, deflate some balloons, free chase over the front, etc, etc. When designing such an environemnt. it ought to be kept in mind that a primary mission of the fighter was to eliminate or frustrate the "specialist" a/c (recon, observation, bombing, ground attack aircraft). This is by no means to say that opposing fighter formation would not enjoy a good scrap topgether, but a good campaign will pay attention to that specialist a/c issue. It will function as a pivot upon which much of the action can revolve.

As for environmental eye candy, forget frontline troops, who would generally only be visible from a very low altitude. Consider the spectacle of sustained artillery bombardments and barrages (or even the odd mine explosion!), intermittent MG tracer streams arcing across no man's land, flaming onions, the odd signal flre arching up from the trenches, etc. There is some interesting eye candy!

LB

#1389296 - 09/27/03 01:39 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
YES!!!

Afterall, we're talkin' combat flight sims, and competitive action should be the ultimate focus (man against man....or man against AI-crew).

Deriving from your structure of interaction above, by analysing the probable frequency of encounters, and by including the events that commanded forth the high effort struggles for air superiority during the war, a historical format can be arrived at in which players will experience aerial combat through. This brings to mind Rowan Interactive's Flying Corps, which presented the air war through a series of well known campaigns.

The important point of course, is that Knights Over Europe should endeavor to create a virtual Front that forms the focus for the specialist army cooporation flights, and therefore the rationale for their interdiction!

However, it's my hope that KOE maintains a focus on generating aerial encounters, and not attempt to become a Great War strategy/flight sim hybrid. This is what I feel would reflect design "mission creep", and would work to dilute the sims overall focus on the aerial component!

Sounds like we're wanting the same things LB..........again!!! \:\)

#1389297 - 09/27/03 03:49 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered





\:\)

#1389298 - 09/27/03 01:46 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
The SE5a's cockpit was everyone's favorite Full Canvas Jacket pit as I recall.

By the way, been enjoying FCJ very much Kess!!! \:\)

Here's an early view of BOP's SE5a modeling:

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XADZAjod*...440544850272151[/img]

From KOE's screenshots to date, it appears the sim's cockpits are also intricately modeled, and could perhaps even be interactive (that would be interesting)............. switch on...................CONTACT...................Clear....................!!! \:\)

#1389299 - 09/27/03 05:22 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by LORD BYRON:
FxW,

Oh yeah, another thing .... agree one hundred percent that I would rather have a fewer number well done aircraft as opposed to 50 poorly rendered ones. I wouldn't even object to the sim being modularized - say, one module covering late 1916 up to late 1917 and a second module covering through to the war's end.

And I'd like to see the different engine and performance configurations present for Camels, F2B's, D.VII's, SE5's, etc. What added immersion! It would be easily possible if a reasonably accurate physics based FM engine can be coded.


LB
So we're going backwards instead of forwards, then.

We have all this great technology, but instead of using it to get more, we settle for less.

That sounds defeatest to me.

RB had 50 planes, and it wasn't enough.........FOR A SIM.

......For a GAME, I guess 4 planes is plenty.

I mentioned this before, and I'll say it again........

If I fly against a jasta that is supposed to have Roland D2's, and instead I see albatrossen, it's NOT a sim, it's a GAME.

Hopefully I've said that plain enough that no one can twist my words this time!!


#1389300 - 09/27/03 07:48 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Let's see, No.56 Squadron R.F.C. reports to the Western Front in April 1917 with S.E.5s, and soldiers on for the rest of the war flying S.E.5a scouts.

Now someone decides to design an in-depth simulation around the experiences of this one squadron, with the greatest attention given to detail and historical accuracy............and this will NOT be a simulation???

WHY NOT!!!

#1389301 - 09/27/03 08:21 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
SunScream Offline
Junior Member
SunScream  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
Northampton UK
No Aldis on that SE \:\(
I wonder if the Lewis reloading requires swinging the gun back on the Foster mount to remove and fit the drums.


Alert Status Level: AWOOGA
#1389302 - 09/27/03 09:16 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Good eye-ballin' SunScream! ;\)

The pic is of an early S.E.5a build for BOP (I'm sure the Aldis has made it on Nuum's successive build).

Well let's see............I see a Lewis gun, and I see a Foster mount:

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0WADhAlocR...440588502977173[/img]

Hmmmmmmmm.............I wonder too! \:D

#1389303 - 09/27/03 09:57 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
Let's see, No.56 Squadron R.F.C. reports to the Western Front in April 1917 with S.E.5s, and soldiers on for the rest of the war flying S.E.5a scouts.

Now someone decides to design an in-depth simulation around the experiences of this one squadron, with the greatest attention given to detail and historical accuracy............and this will NOT be a simulation???

WHY NOT!!!
......Because the Bargain Bin in the stores are full of such games, would be my first clue.

;\) :p

4 planes & a 3 metre patch of grass already exist, and they're not selling.

"Variety is the Spice of Life" is the old saying.




"Specialty Games" like what you describe have no lasting power.

We have the opportunity to get back the stuff in the first Red Baron, Knights of the Sky, etc:

Moving trains & other ground activity, a map that includes London, Paris & Berlin, and a wider variety of aircraft, aces, medals & squadrons.


#1389304 - 09/28/03 12:37 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
VH,

Aspect has already shown us screenshots of nearly a dozen KOE aircraft, so whatever you think about my opinions, you're going to get more than 4 planes in the sim!

Hooray!!! \:\)

#1389305 - 09/29/03 07:51 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
LORD BYRON Offline
Member
LORD BYRON  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
Medfield MA USA
Quote:
Originally posted by VonHelton:

So we're going backwards instead of forwards, then.

We have all this great technology, but instead of using it to get more, we settle for less.

That sounds defeatest to me.

RB had 50 planes, and it wasn't enough.........FOR A SIM.

......For a GAME, I guess 4 planes is plenty.

I mentioned this before, and I'll say it again........

If I fly against a jasta that is supposed to have Roland D2's, and instead I see albatrossen, it's NOT a sim, it's a GAME.

Hopefully I've said that plain enough that no one can twist my words this time!!

[/QB][/QUOTE]


VH,

My language was not completely explicit, so let me re-state more carefully -

I am not disagreeing with you on the principle of the point. I wopuld like to see all the correct a/c in place as well. What I do NOT want to see, hoever, is all the correct a/c done in half-a@@ed fashion, just so that the developed can make his big marketing claim on the back of the box - "78 authentic historical a/c included, blah, blah, blah". I want them done correctly, not only the 3D modelling, but also the FM's, the DM's, the different variants, and with a variety of correct historical paint schemes.

Rather than trying to cram them all into a single sim within a single marketing cycle, my proposal would be to "modularize" the WW1 air war into separate campaign disks. One disk might cover from late 1916 through late 1917, with a follow-on disk to cover from late 1917 through to war's end. Each disk would contain all the relevant aircraft for its respective period of time over whatever extent of the front was being covered.

Why multi-disks? My opinion is that trying to process the entire war period into a single sim will inevitably face timetables and deadlines too short for any developer to properly do the LARGE variety of a/c necessary for proper coverage. The temptation for the developers to short-cut their work on FM's, DM's, etc, in order to meet a marketing deadline will be far too great. We have all seen the unhappy results of that sort of approach - Because Sierra ran out of time, RB2 was released with an unfinished/cobbled together "authentic" FM. and we all remember what a joke that was (remember the Saturn missile D.III climb rates?). I'd rather allow double the development time, which would become available by this modularized development approach. I would pay 2 x $50 over two years to get the real deal done right.


LB

#1389306 - 09/29/03 07:54 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by VonHelton:

RB had 50 planes, and it wasn't enough.........FOR A SIM.

......For a GAME, I guess 4 planes is plenty.

I mentioned this before, and I'll say it again........

If I fly against a jasta that is supposed to have Roland D2's, and instead I see albatrossen, it's NOT a sim, it's a GAME.

Hopefully I've said that plain enough that no one can twist my words this time!!

It must be a sign of the apocalypse because I agree with you completely on this point. I want to see well-done models, but I personally want to see more planes in the game. I think that shooting for 100 (including seaplanes) is a reasonable figure for a WWI sim. Let's face it, there were a lot of planes that saw service in WWI. To be an accurate sim, you're going to have to do a lot of work to portray a lot of aircraft.

Droops

#1389307 - 09/29/03 08:36 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,522
Wklink Offline
Permanent Latrine Orderly
Wklink  Offline
Permanent Latrine Orderly
Hotshot

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,522
Olympia, Washington
You know, I partially agree with you Von Helton, but I am somewhat of a realist.

I do think that all of the major aircraft, including significant subtypes should be modeled in the game. If this is somewhere between 50-100 aircraft fine. If the developers have time to include lesser known, possibly less sucessful aircraft all well and good but I do think there is only so much time and effort that can be placed in one simulation, especially one that sells for 40-50 dollars.

I myself am willing to pay the 40-50 bucks for the base game and another 40-50 bucks for an 'add on' that adds every aircraft that saw any real service over the Western Front. I do honestly think that modeling (even as AI aircraft) some of the more obscure aircraft is just not feasable in a 40 dollar game.


The artist formerly known as SimHq Tom Cofield
#1389308 - 09/29/03 09:49 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
How many combat flight simulations, or general flight sims for that matter were released in the past year or two that included 50 flyable aircraft, let alone 100!!!

No, let me ask the question another way..........

Would you be willing to pay $200.00 up front for Aspect Simulations (and their producer/distributor) to recover their time and capital investment to design 100 high-fidelity WWI aircraft for KOE?

Now let me ask if you would be willing to wait twice as long (say yet another year), perhaps till Q4 2005 for this sim to finally be ready for release?

Has anyone cared to explore the Aspect Simulation's design team........how many people at present are working on KOE?

Now, if Microsoft, or Infogrames, or Ubi Soft, with vastly greater resources can only distribute sims with what 34(CFS3-including variants), 24(FS2004), 14(Strike Fighters), 31(IL2-including variants), +30(IL2FB-including variants)respectively, during these past few years, is it reasonable to demand 100 aircraft of KOE.........or we'll condemn Aspect's effort (sight unseen) to be worthy of only "a game" status???

It's time for a Reality Check here!!!

#1389309 - 09/30/03 01:23 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,568
Jamm0r Offline
Member
Jamm0r  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,568
USA
Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
Would you be willing to pay $200.00 up front for Aspect Simulations (and their producer/distributor) to recover their time and capital investment to design 100 high-fidelity WWI aircraft for KOE?
Yes.

#1389310 - 09/30/03 06:46 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
So would I! \:\)

Unfortunately, enthusiast like us are not going to make KOE a success, it'll be the retail shoppers who are willing to lay down maybe $50.00 for the sim at Best Buy, who will reflect the majority of Aspect's potential market.

What does our ever shrinking segment of the overall PC gaming market support nowadays............$200.00 WWI flight sims???

Heck, some people on this forum say they can't even afford to repair their hundred dollar motherboard................

#1389311 - 09/30/03 09:15 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,976
Hentzau Offline
Member
Hentzau  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,976
Tampa, Florida USA
I probably wouldn't pay $200, i'd wait till somebody put it on the "buy, sell, trade" forum for $20. \:D

BvH and Droops in agreement, we're all doomed! \:D

I like the idea of artillery bombardments with flashing skies and rumbling on the horizon as you get closer to the front.

#1389312 - 09/30/03 02:36 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
How many combat flight simulations, or general flight sims for that matter were released in the past year or two that included 50 flyable aircraft, let alone 100!!!

No, let me ask the question another way..........

Would you be willing to pay $200.00 up front for Aspect Simulations (and their producer/distributor) to recover their time and capital investment to design 100 high-fidelity WWI aircraft for KOE?

Now let me ask if you would be willing to wait twice as long (say yet another year), perhaps till Q4 2005 for this sim to finally be ready for release?

Has anyone cared to explore the Aspect Simulation's design team........how many people at present are working on KOE?

Now, if Microsoft, or Infogrames, or Ubi Soft, with vastly greater resources can only distribute sims with what 34(CFS3-including variants), 24(FS2004), 14(Strike Fighters), 31(IL2-including variants), +30(IL2FB-including variants)respectively, during these past few years, is it reasonable to demand 100 aircraft of KOE.........or we'll condemn Aspect's effort (sight unseen) to be worthy of only "a game" status???

It's time for a Reality Check here!!!
Goodness, such negativity! Calm down for a minute and let's discuss this a bit more rationally.

First, I realize that Mr. Helton is quite enthusiastic. If you're talking about German rotaries or three-winged aircraft, he's obsessive and a bit on the fringe. But a lot of the points that he's making are valid for game play. They shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.

As for 100 aircraft, let me share with you some of my experience. As you may know, I was on the now-defunct 17 Hours project. We discussed this issue obviously. As part of my research to get an answer on how many plane types should be done, I did check to see how many aircraft types (just the major types, not subtypes) saw either front line or training service during the war. The Western Front and North Sea/English Channel alone saw nearly 500 aircraft types, and this doesn't count zeppelins. Add in aircraft from other fronts, and I estimated that you would be looking at somewhere between 600 and 700 aircraft types. This would be all types which saw some type of active duty status, from the beginning to the end of the war.

How do you narrow it down? First, you divide up WWI into fronts, or theaters. The Western Front is an obvious division, but you should have the seaplanes in the Atlantic/North Sea/English Channel as another front. I also saw the Austro-Italian front, the German-Russian front, and a Med. front including the Balkans, Greece and Palestine. By concentrating on the first two fronts that I mentioned, you narrow down your plane needs.

Next, you narrow down by time. The early months of the war don't see a lot of combat, so really there shouldn't be much done at all with 1914 or early 1915. Personally, I would prefer to see a WWI sim start in July of 1915. While most of 1915 would be somewhat quiet, you do have some interesting aircraft and combat situations. However, if you want to eliminate such aircraft as the Bristol Scout or the early B series German aircraft, start in 1916.

Next, narrow down the list by including only those that saw service in significant numbers. How do you define significant? I first used a threshold of at least 5 of one type that saw service, and then 10 of one type. The 5 of one type is better for seaplanes, as they had much smaller batches completed relevant to the land-based aircraft. This narrows down the number of aircraft to around 200 types.

At that point, you then have to make judgement calls. Do you include some of the large R planes, that only had one or two of type made? I said yes you should. Then you have to ask if you can combine some of the types where there was little difference between the two. Finally, are there some aircraft that simply aren't interesting, didn't serve much use or gain much infamy, and can be cut with little lost? Yes, obviously, there are such aircraft. This allows you to get a good list down to about 100 aircraft types, not mentioning subtypes.

So, 100 types isn't really that outrageous when you look at all types seeing service during the war. Its a worthy goal in terms of the variety seen during the war. The question is, how does the company making a sim reach that goal.

There are a number of differnet possible paths. One, the company makes everything in-house. 100 aircraft models sounds like a huge undertaking. However, I will tell you that 17 Hours already had 100 different models done roughly. Obviously a lot of other work would need to be done, but its not impossible. However, a different company might not be so interested in this path.

This leaves us in the realm of addons. Again, there are multiple approaches to the problem. The company making the sim could do addons itself and sell them as they're made. This keeps all creativity and proprietary work within the corporate structure. However, you don't know how quickly, or even if, such addons will come out.

Next path is to ask the sim community to contribute. You could, for example, ask the community to create the 3D models and submit them to the company. The company could make the FMs and then issue the patch. Or, the company could choose a group from the community, give them the tools to make the FM, DM, and 3D models, and then let the community release a patch.

Any of these methods are valid, and each has advantages and disadvantages. However, all of them rely on the main game being flexible enough to accept the addons.

To me, this is the crux of the whole discussion. Will this new sim allow for someone, whether its the company or the community, to add on patches? Will it allow for new planes, new fronts, and other new items to be inserted into the game? This is one of the fatal flaws of Red Baron. The Western Front Patch, and FCJ, work around the lack of expandability in RB in creative ways. However, its not a perfect system and it does have limitations.

In my opinion, this game should allow for expansion. How much? Shoot for the stars. Allow for the possibility of having ALL of the aces included, ALL of the units, ALL of the active duty plane types, for ALL of the war, in ALL fronts. Maybe even allow for fantasy planes, or fantasy fronts. They don't HAVE to be in the first release, just leave enough flexibility in the game for such things to be added later.

I could definately accept a game which starts with 50 aircraft, provided that it allows for a lot of aircraft expansion slots for future additions. I honestly think that a minimum of 1000 aircraft type slots should be available. This may sound like a lot, but if a group wants to be able to make all of the types that I've mentioned then this should accomodate everyone's wishes. The FM and DM are different stories and I don't know how that will be resolved, but I'm sure that something can be figured out.

In other words, its not impossible to accomplish the goal of 100 or more aircraft types for single play or multiplay.

Droops

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Movie Box Office visits?
by PanzerMeyer. 05/21/24 05:42 PM
The Old Pilot
by KRT_Bong. 05/21/24 12:30 PM
Il Plastico
by wormfood. 05/20/24 11:22 PM
WWII Photos Realistically Colorized
by F4UDash4. 05/20/24 09:04 PM
How many words/sentence should a speech be?
by NoFlyBoy. 05/20/24 10:54 AM
Harrier Pilot "Sharkey" Ward was 80
by F4UDash4. 05/19/24 11:01 PM
Autographs
by F4UDash4. 05/18/24 06:34 PM
Boxing fans
by RossUK. 05/18/24 03:11 PM
Bud Anderson was 102
by F4UDash4. 05/18/24 01:14 PM
The guy in War Games passes at 92
by NoFlyBoy. 05/18/24 02:28 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0