OK sim fans, it's time for another poll, so step up and make your wishes known!

To sample the sim community's desires for what we each expect from KOE when it's finally released, the question is:

How satisfied would you be if the following features make up the only improvements included in KOE when it's releashed:

1) 100 airplane models
2) better flight models
3) RB-type Campaign
4) better missions
5) better AI
6) online action like RB

Please select either; very satisfied, satisfied, or unsatisfied as your choices, and feel free to elaborate.

Sound like fun.............join in!

Unsatisfied, this would be less than the sort
of dynamic carreer that I've heard about..

You forgot improved graphics... I mean really, you have got to expect some big improvements in that area. If the sim is just so so graphically I would be disappointed. I want a nice looking sim to go with the improved DM, FM, AI, Campaign, etc.

very satified as far as that list goes .. but of course the devil's in the details

Right Toadvine! I left good graphics purposefully out here, because wanting "ok" graphics is all that's being proposed as part of the list.

Flybert, those are the details.

Oh, and you can define the "better flight models" choice, as meaning "reasonably accurate FM's".

Ok, sorry to interrupt the voting!

No. That's not enough and it is short of what Aspect said the sim would be.

There needs to be the same kind of campaigns online as off except that more players can participate online. For that, there needs to be AI online unlike RB.

100 planes at release is not a neccessary thing unless there's no way to add planes. I'd much rather see 20 to 40 planes at release with the ability to add on to a total over 200 or even 300. How many plane models in one mission, map or arena doesn't have to be so many... 16+ would suit me.

RB MMP is a milestone in sims but there's still problems in the predictor code and latency that may be unsolvable in any sim. Being shot by someone pointing 45+ degrees away from you is a definite minus. So is shooting at someone who never seems to get hit (FB code, the other side of the same problem) because their client sees you pointing elsewhere. A fix to those or even a tightening up would be a gas.

And now I'll ask why the nasty, limited options poll with the very LIMITED answer set? It's obvious that you don't like the way that RB works. now we're supposed to either want what you listed or go along with your idea of the ultimate sim? It's not a bad idea till other more important features get lost over it, like the ability to fly for who you want in the role you want just for instance. We don't all want to be movie-role heroes much less stuck playing the same setup over and over till an equally limited sequel comes out.


Neal

I think RB's Campaign can be improved on a lot (see eg Pat Wilson's Mission Generator which makes the missions much more realistic, and the various rule sets people have produced to make it more immersive). And from the SimHQ interview it sounds like they are going for something better.

But basically - sounds good to me. Not that there's a snowball's chance in hell of anyone releasing a sim with 100 planes all with good 3D models, well skinned and with reasonably accurate FMs - it just is not going to happen. Forty or so is achievable but bloody hard work. So long as they make it easy for them, or possibly for 3rd parties to add more.

Rob

Neal - my "ultimate sim" for WWI would be a cross between a flight-sim and a MUD. The campaign would be a persistent world in which the player enlists in a squadron at a particular date, and then has a career as in RB - but this campaign could also operate on a server where any number of players ould have enlisted. Appropriate missions etc would be generated, and the career could progress as appropriate with promotion & squadron moves.

When you were in the air you wuold never know whether the plane you were about to fight was going to be an AI or a human controlled one, unless you recognised him by his paint scheme.

So kind of like the online wars, but needing no effort to run, no long term commitment from the players to another group of human beings, and no rules; the campaign itself would manage everything and enforce any appropriate rules. It would be an excellent single player campaign, with the added bonus that you would be flying alongside and against other humans.

Rob

Neal, you're a smart guy, but please cease and desist on dragging KOE back into the "Third-Coming of RB"!

Design creativity is all about the paradigm shift........new ideas.........new features........new way of looking at things.......and of course doing the regular things better!

This poll will illustrate (or not) what the greater sim community wants out of KOE, not what I want, not what you want, but what we really think would make KOE a hit from day one.......this means ideas are welcomed.

So the poll goes forward, and we will see if six features satisfies the wants of the sim community at large.

This process shouldn't threaten anyone.........we certainly should be able to listen to other people's opinions and to contemplate what they have to say!

So the poll continues..........

Now see there's an excellent concept!

Have you followed the Birds Of Prey design brainstorming on the Wings With Wires forum Mahoney (I think I recall that you popped-in every once in a while)!

Sounds like the BOP concept would be right down your alley, and maybe some of that "RPG approach-AI manned-persistant online world" idea could make it into KOE too!

That would be fantastic!

Keep those votes and the ideas comin' guys.

FlyXWire - this irrational attitude to any mention of RB is frankly weird. Neal was suggesting something very different to RB, something far more (sigh) immersive.

You seem to be under the impression that we are all stuck in a thought rut about RB, unable to think outside the RB box (to use one of the buzz phrases you seem to be so keen on) - but actually you are the one stuck in a bizarre anti-RB rut. RB is a deeply limited and flawed sim; but some aspects of its features give some of the immersion that a lot of us are looking for.

That's it. I derive my ideas on a WWI sim from all sorts of areas; my experience of Falcon 4, Il-2, Battle of Britain, EAW, RB3D & Flying Corps have all gone into the mix, along with my reading about the war and my experience of playing and modifying WWI flight sims over the last 5 years. Plus my own knowledge of programming, which gives me an idea of what is achievable and how it might be achieved.

I've no idea why you are trying to turn this into some bizarre FlyXWire v the RB supporters fight; to the point of insisting that you define what the RB supporters all think, even when they are saying something very different!

Rob

What you seem to have missed is that I was agreeing with and expanding on Neal's idea. Which you dismissed out of hand as "dragging KOE back into the "Third-Coming of RB"!".

Yes, I've been on the BOP forum. There are similarities with their ideas, but I would want a design much more closely tied to history than their online world was going to be.

Rob

This is a poll to contemplate some previously stated viewpoints put forth on this forum (it's an exercise in pulsing the thoughts of the overall WWI flight sim community, and other interested sim fans too).

Besides being listed briefly in the choice list, the discussion about RB originated from someone else's thread.

Frankly I think it a bit limiting that future concepts for our next generation of WWI sims be couched in comparison to a six year old game design, but it's what many members on this forum like to do, and so it's certainly open for discussion and debate.........don't you think?

Anyway, I tried to keep the poll choices as "unloaded" as possible, but the references did come from the forum discussions (shall I take them out)?

I defer to your judgement Mahoney!

I think this demonstrates a misconception; 6 years is not a long time in game design. It is a very long time in game technology.

The basic ideas of what people want from a sim could have been written down ages ago - I remember designing what would still be an excellent flight sim in my head when playing LucasArts Their Finest Hour about 13 years ago. It just wasn't remotely technologically practical on an Atari ST!

So there's no reason to reject a game design just because it's 6 years old, except in so far as it was limited by the technology available at the time.

I think people use the term "RB Campaign" as a short hand for the following:

1) A campaign focussed on the player *being* an individual pilot in the Great War. For instance in the Falcon 4 and Battle of Britain campaigns you take on the role of the overall strategic co-ordinator of the campagin, and then just hop into a particular plane when you feel like flying; most of us don't like that approach, we want to be pilot X assigned to squadron X and live the life of that pilot, being assigned missions from on high and trying to fulfil them and stay alive.

2) A campaign which is not linear; you can start it at the same point with the same squadron but you won't get the same missions because they are dynamically generated. Unlike say 1942 PAW, where there was just a succession of single missions in a campaign, and if you got killed you went back to square one and did it all again, with the same mission, same enemies appearing at the same time from the same place; very dull!

3) A campaign where the world seems alive when flying. In RB if you ignore your mission and just fly off into the wide blue yonder then you will bump into other planes from both sides fulfilling other missions. Unlike say EAW, where you could roam over the whole of occupied France with no-one batting an eyelid because it was empty!

4) A campaign where the world seems alive when not flying. In RB you can check out what's going on with the squadrons around you - where they are based, what they are flying, which aces belong to them etc. You can check out what's going on with other aces - how many kills they have, when they got the kills, when they die, where they are based. If you are flying with an ace and he gets a kill/ is killed, it's acknowledged in the campaign. You can transfer to another squadron. You can check out your own squadron and see how the non-aces in it are doing. You get notes about new planes being deployed to the front, or your squadron taking losses, or new people joining your squadron, or major war events like the Somme. This is in contrast to say Il-2, which maintains no such record.

I think all of those design features remain as relevant today as they were 6 years ago. And sadly no-one has really implemented them since! Apart from some 3rd party campaign generators for CFS3 and Il-2 Sturmovik (written by a prominent member of the *shudder* Red Baron 3D community!).

Rob

Just thought of a 5)!

5) A campaign that lets you mirror the progression of a pilot in the war; moving through the years and technology eras. Most sims have a number of campaigns which you fly and then complete, without giving a feel of where your pilot came from or what becomes of him at the end of it. In RB you could go into say the bloody April period as an existing pilot with a history; and if you survived it you could carry on.

Rob

Thought of a 6!

6) A campaign which lets you go to the parts that capture your imagination. Just been reading about Jasta 11? Cool, join Jasta 11! Fascinated by the Americans in the Lafayette squadron? Join them! I know from the RB community that people are fascinated by different bits of the WWI air war; I, for instance, have no imaginative interest in flying for the French or Americans, whereas I know lots of people who feel precisely the opposite.

All 6 of my points are, I think, totally wrapped up in the question of immersion. If I can be involved in something which immerses me in the role playing of being an individual (1), which never wakes me up to the fact that I'm playing a game by being totally predictable (2), which never wakes me up to the fact that I'm playing a game because the world around me seems real (3 & 4) and keeps that "I'm a real person in this war" thing going by letting me build up a history (5), all in a scenario that fires my imagination in the first place (6) - well, I'm immersed.

Rob

Nice expansion on the concepts of pre-existing formats, and this is not a criticism Mahoney, so please let's not get off on the wrong foot, ok?

Now, let's ask each reader here on how they would design the next flight sim blockbuster to hit the market...............and so now you're the manager in charge of this...............your own WWI flight sim design team (hey, we'll can call this our own exercise in "designing simulation")!

What might you do leader............of course you're probably already aware of many current and past sim developments (you're an expert), and you have your opinions about what is good about these previous efforts too, and you have some solid ideas of what's needed in the market! So now it's time to gather your team and brainstorm about what is expected and needed as far as that "must have" content, and what might really excite the potential buying public to want your new WWI sim project (afterall your project is a labor of love hoping to one day become a commercial success........gotta have a strong commitment, ample capital, and a vision from the beginning).

So the conceptualizing begins, and good ideas from past sims are discussed, and agreements are made of what content will be included, and a development plan is arrived at, but you ask yourself what will you build that improves upon these past efforts that might capture the imagination and interest of today's potential flight sim world?

Ahhhh.........this is where you plan on making your mark, you and your team have some new ideas to introduce that will knock the socks off of those scrutinizing types out there................you'll win their hearts and minds by giving them things they never even expected, nor even thought of!

YES!!!!

Now it's been roughly six years from the last commerical WWI sim, and you know there's certainly the demand out there for your type of product, and technology has changed too since then, with the benchmark for qualitative improvements constantly being moved forward (it's a good thing), but has the conceptualizing for new features and approaches to combat flight simming stood still in the past decade?

Well, would you be venturing into this financial real-life risk prepared only to copy ideas from the past, or are you moving forward with some innovative content that you hope further insures your project's success?

It's up to you leader............

Your team has come up with some interesting ideas, let's see...........cost, time, impact...............

Let's go for it..........afterall, nothing ventured nothing gained, and there's no turning back now!!!

OK folks, our desiging simulation sim has ended, and I'm sure you probably would have thought of some angles on what you might do differently if you had been the one writing this post, but while I've got you here reading one of my long entries (again ), I've got one final something that I just gotta add...........besides I can't stop now (it's become a habit)!

It's all about quality and immersion...............oh, and the road that gets us there!

Exactly Mahoney...........it's about building in the degree of quality and a level of immersion that takes WWI flight simming into the 21st century!

I like your Squadron-based concept, which allows for an in-depth flying experience with a high level of immersion, tied to an interactive sector where human players and AI flesh out our sim experience.............LOL.............I think we're moving forward indeed.

Keep it up, we're liking it!

S! Mahoney!

If I may add to your ultimate flight sim post:

Online

- players can jump onto a server to play "bit parts" without any history, an online equivalent of single missions. They can wait for a squad flight to meet in the Ready Room before going out (squad may be nothing but single pilots and AI just for getting them out or a mostly AI squad flying for fill in purposes) for briefing and choosing which open slot to fill and then fly the mission and either log off or stay for another. It could be a good alternative to mindless melee without a lot of involvement or commitment. It could be good practice without endangering your career pilot.

- career players can have more than one career.

- servers may be set up and run for private groups.

- the strategic decisions may be generated or they may be controlled by non-flying players. This would allow squads to be as in-depth about online wars as they want.

- newspapers, one for each side. Major events should get reported as news. Those being when a battle is on, an Ace is made or killed or reaches so many kills. The Kings' birthday. Home news like shortages, riots or support marches. Death tolls. Whatever can be generated or canned for inclusion or added by players. Also local news from scuttlebutt on up, hey the new planes just arrived kinds of things.

Offline -

Same things only you don't get other player inputs.


C'ya

Neal

1) 100? Well of course it would be a nice surprise but not needed IMHO. Satisfied I guess.

2) Better than what is the key here. If I feel like I'm actually flying something and can hamfist it into a unrecoverable spin, I'll be very satisfied.

3) Expected. This is a big one and the developers have already made it apparent this is happening. I hope they improve on it.

4) Again expected. The developers have stated this is happening, in two variations which I am heppy with.

5) A big Satisfied here. AI can always be improved and integrated better.

6) Satisfied I guess. Again, RB online is not the best sim to compare this to. Having a plane bursting into flames resulting in dumping all the players off is not good.

I am a big fan of the independant dedicated server though. Ensures the online keeps going no matter what happens down the road. Make it like Half-Life and I'll be very satsfied.

A few more:

7) Integrated Player Development Tools: Very very satisfied. This is crucial down the road. Create something like Battlecraft from BF1942 and have various avenues of export and import and this would keep people busy for years to come. I love BF1942's tools like full conversion mod add-on support. They are simply the best.

8) Future cross-platform integration. Very very very satisfied. I am really disappointed that they decided to pursue DirectX instead of Open GL here. It pretty well kills off any chance of cross-platform for the moment.

Mahoney's idea of Flight Sim and MUD combined makes me think I wrote it. Make that a very very satisfied 9)

S!

This would have great immersive effect!

"Bit part" missions sounds like a good idea, and these could be enabled thru lone-wolf/frei-jagd mission tasking (or by teaming up with an AI wingman too).

Of course free-lance flying will have to originate from some aerodrome, and any victories scored by free-lancers online could cull enemy carrer pilots I suppose!

Perhaps there's some mechanism which would keep free-lancers from flying reoccurring "death-wish" missions aimed only at attriting enemy career players without risk or penalties?

Wouldn't want this to lead to any potentially unbecoming conduct from the get-go.

While all things are not created equal, I think that a sound based sim is required with:
- realistic FM
- pilot life cycles for campaigns
- period based, timeline for aircraft releases, stop Camel/Dr.I shooting down older aircraft
- freeflight to do partols as such
- both on and off-line playing
- AI for both off and on-line playing
- good graphics (unable for those with lower spec systems)
- good after release mod packs, both communitity and supplier based
- easy tool set for import and export of models and textures
- based on cheap 3D toos, such as AC3D, gmax and others
- Detailed development guides and examples

Most you see is focused around the development to allow for a long term growth of the sim over time.

Good stuff Dantes!

Hey Mossie, sounds like you could have written this already yourself:

-easy tool set for import and export of models and textures
- based on cheap 3D toos, such as AC3D, gmax and others
- Detailed development guides and examples

Wait, you already did!

Some people are going to be a-holes on public servers no matter what or at least I've come to believe that. The only real solution is to do your serious play with people you know and trust. Thta is why the customers must be able to run the server software.

A couple of other "features":

-- able to run on a lan for those who can get together for no-lag lan parties (send the spouses off somewhere).

-- able to run back to back on a null modem serial cable for those homes with 2 PC's.

One thing that would really cook is if the server runs the AI's and if the server runs on a lan then the other lan PC's can run more AI's or run them better. Even peer to peer if each players PC only runs a share of the AI's then they would either be less loaded or have more CPU cycles and resources for the AI's.


Neal

LOL.........my spouse enjoys keeping us all down here.......until we just have to take those potty breaks between sessions, and then it's a mass rush for the upstairs!

If not RB, what does this mean "if the following features make up the only improvements included"? Improvements over what? If it means Rb, I can not answer since I do not know RB good enough.

Why can't someone create simply a good sim without comparing it to some other sim

Aspect has already stated they are not putting in 100 planes. So unless they have changed their minds, forget the 100 planes.

The thing I like about the Falcon 4 campaign is that no matter what you are doing, the campaign is moving along.

That may work for the KOE campaign that lets you influence the war.

Thank you Osram:

Now finally, this thread can move forward......by going back to the future!

I guess reviewing elemental principles can always prove to be helpful when thinking about advancing the state of art of any endeavor, it's the ole getting back to basics approach that forms the fundamental basis for almost all organized thought.

As far as designing a WWI combat flight sim is concerned, I guess getting back to basics would first involve reviewing the source materials on the subject matter, working up a case study on the period, and then prioritizing those elements that seem essential towards reaching the goal of producing a good simulation model for replicating the era's aerial warfare. Of course design compromises will always creep into the formula, but the principle goal is to achieve the greatest degree of accuracy and fidelity as is possible, while maintaining playability and promoting the sim's fun factor.

What's all this have to do with Aspect's upcoming Knights Over Europe combat simulation............KOE's level of achievement should be compared to how well the sim comes to achieving an authentic feel for this era's aerial combat, and within an immersive and smoothly running game experience.

There's really only one standard to which KOE needs to be compared............and that's merely to history itself!!!

Just thinking.............

In the context of a discussion where the vast majority are familiar with Red Baron, the term "an RB style campaign" is an awful lot quicker than the two pages of exposition about the sort of campaign I would like that I had to write in order to explain it!

Besides, it's naturaly to compare; before I buy a DVD player I compare its features with other DVD players. I've flown lots of sims; consequently I know what I like and what I don't like in sims. I can't just delete that knowledge.

Rob

No, and it is stupid to try to delete that knowledge. Fact is, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel every time someone makes a new sim. It is frustrating when someone tries to do it a new way and it is worse than an old way everyone agrees was great to begin with.

It's egotistical to think you can improve on perfection by "forgeting the past on doing it MY way."

Of course, KOE will do it their way and if they are smart they will not delete the knowledge of what a great campaign Red Baron had and take that as a building block to improve from.

All great men stand on the shoulders of the great men that came before them. All great sims do likewise.

.....the wheel.....???

.....perfection.....???

.....great men.....???

What on earth are you talking about?

I'd have said that his post makes perfect sense, myself. "Improve on perfection" is hperbole, the RB campaign is far from perfect; but the basic principle, that in order to get something better *one* of the things you do is look hard at what was done well in the past, is self-evident.

Rob

Yes it is self-evident, and the point is if a simulation "seems" to replicate what a WWI pilot's flying experience might have been like from within a game format, it's because it does well to approximate what we may believe the history of the time might have felt like........therefore it is history that is the real test of "perfection"!

So is Aspect interested in simulating another simulation, or real history???

If we're all looking forward to the next WWI combat flight sim here (and isn't that the purpose)........that is to promote KOE's development, then isn't this forum somehow to enable an exchange of thoughts and ideas about the topic?

I've put forward some ideas about how our simulated flying and fighting experience within a game format might be enhanced thru creating a more intensive feel for what the WWI airman could have endured during combat...........thru creating a simulated pilot "entity".

I've also put forward some ideas about creating mission design (and campaigning) from a more in-depth, unit-oriented, multi-mechanism approach.

These are merely ideas, but one's which I've bolstered with quoted history, excerpts from published resources, and verbatim conversations I've had with real living experts in the field of WWI aviation..............I've defended my thesis
(with raw data)..........to me this approach is neither "weird", nor "obsessive", nor otherwise, but to be considered standard fare in the process of putting forth a position.

That's it in a nutshell.

Who knows what KOE will eventually look like when it's finally published, but from what we've seen, read, and hoped it looks like it'll be a vast improvement over previous endeavors in this area (that's the objective after all, the agenda).......right!!!

It does indeed make sense to look at what came before and learn from the good and bad points. However, IMHO there is a danger if you basically have one source of inspiration and say "I want to do a sim like xyz, but I want to change these three things". At least for people like me who do not have a strong phantasie, this can make it very difficult to think of different solutions. If I would put together people working on a WWI sim I would welcome people with RB experience, but I would also find it a good thing if one or two have NOT played RB and have a "fresh" mind. When I have to think about something and do not have the luxus of having a team, I often think about it at first before looking at the standard solution/app in that area and try to list basic approaches and different alternatives I can think about. Only then do I look at what has been done before. Also, I think a flight sim developer can learn from more or less all other flight sims and actually some completely different games as well.

from that list, very satisfied. Improved graphics are pretty much a given even compared to FCJ.

AK

Osram - I'd agree with every word of that, very sensible and balanced.

Rob

Are they? From the screenshots, the models are obviously better; no disrespect to the RB modelmakers, who in many cases (most notably Karel Dooms) are absolutely superb, but there's simply a higher polycount available and consequently more detail. But the artistry, in terms of the skins for the planes and the terrain, is well below FCJ level in my opinion.

Rob

Actually, I think the KOE skins are quite good:

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SAAAALcV8...434286707271314[/img]

Don't forget that things like dynamic lighting effects may render even more depth to the look of the sim beyond it's present state of build. I haven't seen skin detail like this from too many other retail WWI sim packages:

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SADbArAVK...436648644833882[/img]

Perhaps it depends on how close you actually want to get to the subject matter to make your comparison:

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TADbAscXO...434286628428440[/img]

Art is very subjective though, and I do like Kess's skins very much too, but maybe we should reserve our judgement a bit until we get those "in your face" screenshots that tell no lies!

You evidently have access to screenshots I don't. From the ones you have posted I can say three things:

1) The models are considerably more detailed (as one would expect) which will make a huge difference, particularly in damage detailing.

2) The paint scheme of the DrI is of FCJ standard; the DH4 isn't.

3) The gun, while pretty, is largely irrelevant; never get close enough to see those details in game.

I was working from the screens on their page - the skins (and again I emphasise I'm only talking about the skins - the models & damage effects look great and are way out of RB's league) on planes like these:




just don't look as good to me as the FCJ equivalents.

Rob

I would say that those skins look MUCH more hi-res and detailed than the FCJ skins... They may not be weathered yet, but they have much more detail (You obviously have more detail on a skin that's 1024x1024 in size that Red Barons allocated 256x256 max texture size...)

As for the gun, you will get close enough to see that! It's called the cockpit. Now for viewing outside, they will no doubt have a lower poly count model for that to save on frame rate...

Again, the skins do look polished, but they are detailed down to the rid indents. Just slap on some weathering, and they will have it! Look at the smoothness of the roundel, and the fine lines on the fuselage and the wings. These IMO are very important details. Try making a roundel look that good with Red Baron. You cant!

Fact is Rob, you need to embrace a whole new way of conceiving what KOE is going to be!

You will in fact be intimately involved with these weapons, and in being within the aircrew's virtual cockpit(s), and in seeing an aircraft's textures in close proximity from your airman's point of view!

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0UQCFAqMZM...424791224940175[/img]

The whole realm of aircrew animation as well as weapon animation is now possible!

As a gunner in one of KOE' multi-seat aircraft you will be wielding these machine guns, taking aim, and perhaps even reloading and unjamming your weapon when needed.

As a pilot your MGs action will be right before your eyes, and it's certainly a possibility that you will be able to charge your weapons and perhaps even clear stoppages!

The state of game technology and sim development has advanced in leaps and bounds over what the last venerable retail WWI sim had to offer.

There's new game experiences to be had, and it's time to conceptualize the possibilites using a clean sheet of paper..............

Aaargh... not a-bloody-gain.

Look, would you please take the bloody blinkers off and read what someone writes instead of reacting with your default "you need to raise your eyes and see the new dawn" patronising bollocks.

I don't play RB much because it's so outdated. I prefer Il-2, because it's much better. Il-2, in which I can, as it happens, play a rear gunner.

So please, stop lecturing me - I am not stuck in the conceptual rut you think I am stuck in. I do not love Red Baron, its many and various limitations irritate the crap out of me and after playing Il-2 it's a pain in the arse to go back to old stuff like RB for a bit of WWI action.

So, returning to the point at hand:

1) Yes, of course the extra detail possible with higher resolutions makes it possible to do detail you can't in other places.

2) Yes, of course the fact they are applied to far more detailed 3D shapes akes a big difference

3) Yes, I can see that they can put a lot of details into the skins

4) All of that taken into account, the actual artwork on the skins simply do not look nearly as good to me as the stuff 3rd party artists are kicking out for Il-2 and Battle of Britain (I won't include Kess's work on RB as if I do you'll start frothing at the mouth and using stupid buzz words at me again...). And no, I don't think it's just a bit of weathering; they don't look new to me, they look... a bit plastic.

The concept sounds great, the specs they have shared so far sound really exciting, the 3D models look briliant and I will be buying it the moment it comes out and probably getting a new computer for it. But when I saw the screenshots for Il-2 my mouth fell open in amazement at the artistry; looking at the screenshots for KOE I'm just not particularly impressed. OK?

Rob

Bugger me...

Rob

Maybe you need to read over your entries before you post them in the future, so that "details" such as these don't continually confuse the discussions here:

Either you believe what you write, are possibly mistaken, or are intentionally offering up disinformation. Since I don't believe you're intentionally trying to confuse the issues here, then there's only a couple other explanations left.

Sorry, but your quoted statement above is dead wrong................there, do you like that better???

I think the skins you see are not finalized yet. In fact looking at some of them I am sure of it.
I think Aspect wanted to show the damage model in action.

There is no reason to think that you, me, or anyone would not be able to paint our own skins.
And a much better job can be done by those with the talent. Aspect probably does not have the time to make realistic skins.

I was impressed by the stock skins in IL2. But if you go to Il2skins,(I think that is it.), you will just fall out of your chair. They are far superior to the stock skins.

Painting aircraft is a big thing in sims. And as far as I can see, IL2FB has no limit, except the size of your harddrive. It would be somewhat short sighted for Aspect to ignore that.

There really is nothing to conceptualize with this upcoming game. It is what it is. Is it possible to have the gunner go through the motions of loading his gun, unjamming his gun, or dropping the fresh drum over the side?

Yes, it is. IF you have the horsepower. But it will have to run on a wide variety of systems that range form adequate to overkill. So it is not practicle to have things like that.

In IL2 nobody is unhappy with the fact that you don't reload the rear gun, the computer does it for you. Or that cockpits are not covered in blood.

Fly my lad, you are starting to sound like a certain someone who is obsessed with rotaries.
Drop it down a notch or too.

The message itself is not bad, but the delivery is ticking people off. Don't hammer it so much

Go to Frugals world, there are some new posts for you

Hopefully by years end we can get into talking about the relative merits of the airplanes.

Yes, much better. Your post is short, direct, sensible, accurate and non-patronising.

So, on that topic - yes, I was wrong; you do indeed see your own gun that close up. I'm still not certain that much detail is really a positive; you see it from one perspective only, and in the case of the vickers/maxim it is generally buried in the fuselage.

And it still ducks my preimary point, which was on the look of the skins, not the 3D models. In that screenshot of the Lewis gun from a gunner's perspective again it looks a little plastic to me; I'm sure the 3D model is brilliantly accurate but either the texture (or possibly the renderer) leaves it looking not that good aesthetically.

It's not a huge deal, looks aren't the most important thing by a long way and I'd be surprised if 3rd party skinners can't improve on them anyway. Just be nice if they could sell loads of copies based on people going "wow" when they see the screens.

And as Ironhand says, they may well not have finalised those skins - hey, we're all speculating on the basis of what's available to us, which is not a lot.

Rob

No one is ducking your point Mahoney.............we never have!

Low-res skins (if done well) look great at a certain range from the viewer, but terrible up close.

The point is that in KOE you'll be viewing your aircraft and objects "in your face" so to speak, and this is where low-res skins fall flat on theirs!

It's really a comparison of apples and oranges, which has worn quite thin over these past months.

And some hi-res skins are better than others! Il-2 - hi-res skins, I love many of them. KOE - hi-res skins, I think they're not nearly as good as some of Il-2's hi-res skins. In my opinion, the aesthetic effect of the artistry done on the textures in those screenshots is not that good.

Take Il-2 - some of the skins that came with the game were ugly as hell. Some of the skins done since by 3rd party skinners are works of art. Same 3D model, same resolution of the textures, different aesthetic result due to better art work on the textures.

So no, I am clearly not comparing apples and oranges. I am comparing the artistic effect of applying a texture to a 3D model, taking into account the limitations of the detail of the 3D model and the resolution of the textures. Which is all that is occurring in any of these case...

Rob

It gets irritating after awhile, doesn't it?

Droops

You know, I'm concerned now. Mr. FlyX here is suddenly posting KOE pictures that I've not seen before, that I can't find on the KOE website.

Where did these come from? What does Mr. FlyX know that we don't? Or is he hinting to us what the game's going to be like?

If so, its kind of scary to me and discouraging.

Oh well, I didn't really have the money to upgrade to a new computer anyway.

Droops

I honestly dont think the guns look like plastic. Looks metallic to me! Just my opinion tho...

Well Droops, "Mr. FlyXwire" has been doing his KOE homework here from the beginning!!!

So now Droops in the new found manner of not parsing our statements anymore on this forum, let me say that you are utterly and completely wrong!

In your effort to score hits in our discussions here, you have misstated the facts, and have put forth theories which bound on the fantastical...............I so thought we have left that sort of activity behind us months ago with the departing of another individual who got too personal with his forum activity.

It's time for you to search why you too feel compelled to engage in this type of conduct?

Now the facts Droops.........again the FACTS!!!

The screenshots I have recently posted here above are from previously previewed pictures that Aspect themselves showed us months ago on their own website!!!

That's right Sir, these screenshots have been available publically, some since Aspect's website first went online almost a year ago!!!

Where were you then I now ask, and where's your conspiracy theory now too???

The unseemly conduct of misstating supposed "facts", and in engaging in overblown "hyperbole", and in making direct and personal attacks on the character of others has got to stop!

You're on a slippery slope Droops.........quite frankly I think you're much better than this, but the bottom line is your assertions above are utterly and completely false, and really downright insulting........to both of us!

The question now is whether you can admit this............especially to yourself?

Mahoney, my first question to you is if you have ever textured WWI aircraft before (or done any skinning for that matter)? If yes, where can we access your work?

My second question to you is if you reserve judgment of a sim on previewed screenshots which is under development, and many months before it's supposed release date?

My third question to you is whether you think anyone from Aspect comes here and reads your postings?

Before you answer, let me give you my answers to the above questions: YES, YES, YES

You know, I think it very possible that the artist working for Aspect have done their damnedest to provide KOE with some of the best textures we've seen yet in a retail WWI flight sim. I think it also plausible that work continues on the game's graphics, and perhaps even on the sim's rendering engine too! Of course there are deadlines to make, and goals to be achieved.............

I think many artist put their heart and soul into their work, whether it be on physical media or through digital rendering.

Perhaps we need to give a bit more credit to those working on projects such as KOE?

Mahoney, you certainly have your right to critique what you've seen of KOE's screenshots (of which I'm aware now has been of a limited nature), but how aware are you of the present state of art of this sim's graphical development......and how aware can any of us really be of KOE's present state of being?

Ok Rob, it's all yours...........

I don't see how that's remotely relevant (I've never painted a picture or written a song, but I know that I prefer some artists work to others), but after a fashion, yes; I used some quite exceptional templates by Ishmael to put together a hi-res pup skin for my RB3D squadron. Not sure if it's still online, or if I still have it. Wasn't much of my own work really anyway; Ishmael had done all the difficult stuff.

Certainly I reserve judgement on the sim; that would by why I stated that the skins may change, but that the ones in the screenshots didn't look that special to me. Judging the ones in the screenshots, you see, rather than the sim itself. In response to a positive judgement about the quality of the art in the sim itself based on the screenshots.

I haven't the foggiest idea. How on earth would I know?

More than likely. I think they're more than likely big enough and old enough to cope with one less than enthusiastic comment on an internet message board, too...

Err, this doesn't seem to be in line with the rest of your post that strongly suggests you think it is wrong for me to critique them.

Sigh. It was a fairly inoccuous comment about the textures in a few screenshots; they look OK but not amazing compared to other stuff out there. Had you not gone off the deep end it wouldn't look like I was making such a big deal about it; for the record I don't think it's remotely a big deal. Yes, I agree that both the textures and the renderer may have come on a lot since they were made; more than that, as a programmer I know that they are totaly cosmetic, views onto the real meat of a program which is the actual logical model. Decorating is the last thing I am interested in a programmer.

It's bloody weird being on the other side of this argument; normally I'm the one saying people should cut the people who actually get up and do this stuff some slack. But equally I'm used to being in an environment where everyone doesn't get terribly upset if the response isn't uniformly positive.

Rob

Managed to find the skins on my HDD - you can find them here:

http://www.pm63.dial.pipex.com/files/IshPup.zip

They are hi-res compared to RB's default ones, but still only 256*80 at most. And I really must reiterate that the skill was all Ishmael's, I just used the template. Showed me a) how hard it is and b) what extraordinary results can be achieved even with the limitations of 256*80 dimensions and only 256 colours.

Rob

Edit - oh, and they're designed to fit Charles de Thielt's brilliant Pup model, not the stock RB one.

The fun of going through the archives - looks like I took some screenshots too. These were taken 3 years ago:

Well. All I can say is...

While you guys are debating or whatever on how the gun looks or how plastic or leather or dirty the skins look, I will be concerned with the most important part.

Shooting your tail out of the sky

And for the record, I have skin downloads off when playing IL2FB.

I'm more concerned with the development of the cockpit interface and detail than if a skin looks plastic. I'll be spending most of my time there.

Work in progress guys, work in progress.

I think the plastic look may be because these aircraft look like they just came off the factory floor.

It would be really interesting if KOE had some ability to enable progressive weathering as the player continues to use a particular plane. So, as the player goes through a campaign, one can start to see oil stains develop on the engine area or the elements fade and discolour the paint. Bullet impacts could be replaced by small patches on the air frame as the player continues with the same plane.

Now that would certainly be something new and interesting rather than jumping into a plane that looks like it has already been flying over the front for years (i.e. IL2)

S!

Dantes - I've thought that would be cool, too. I'd like to see a campaign system that keeps track of planes and pilots, and indeed assigns a plane to a pilot so that you feel a bit of a wrench if you manage to smash up your trusty mount (particularly if in consequence you end up flying the old DH2 that's the only non-allocated serviceavble plane in the squadron until a replacement can be found).

On that basis as you say a record could be kept of how old the plane is and how long since it was last doped/painted, with gradual increase in weathering. Being allowed to repaint your old plane could be a reward.

Could leave lots of room for interesting mistaken identity, too; you'#re a well known ace and you've plainted your DrI a pleasant combination of blue and yellow, but then you get injured and can't fly for a couple of weeks. Meanwhile your squad is short of crates so a rookie is handed your plane; in a dogfight the opposition are studiously avoiding him, convined it's the legendary X.

Rob

I like Pups too Mahoney!

Now here's one from a real close view:

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgAhA7gWH...428589966120434[/img]

Would you like to see more?

Neat ideas about weathering Dantes..........and I think you once mentioned it would be cool to see castor oil accumilate on our goggles in flight too.

Now that would be awesome!!!

This is the Pup I like.


It isn't mine. Chevelle over at Wings of Valor is building this.

The kit is from BalsaUSA

Is that a Sheltie? I have one too - sweet dog. Afraid of his own shadow, but still a lovable little dog.

I have no idea I got these right from the site.

I have a Shi Tzu myself. For some reason now, she is now real shy herself. Poor girl doesn't like strangers anymore. Half the time I take her out, she wants to go right back in



Chevelle and his wing.

I wish him success with it.

If they were publicly available I haven't seen them. I checked the website thoroughly before posting. If they were posted and are now not available, then I was wrong.

Slippery slope? Nah, I've already gone down the hill completely. I've decided that I don't like you a bit. My only reason for posting was to state that I was wrong if these pictures had at one time been publicly available.

Toodles.

3/04 a zip file of 20 screenshots.

http://www.3dgamers.com/dl/games/knightsovereurope/knightspix2.zip.html

Ironhand, that model of Chevelle's looks like fun (I hope he finishes it)!

To Droops.............don't burn your bridges yet, and furthermore I want you to know that I hold no personal animosity to you! You have voiced your opinions strongly, and although I have felt them a bit constraining, you're certainly entitled to them..........as am I of mine!

So Droops, take the time to shake off the strain of battle........you'll be back..........fresh as ever!!!

In the meantime, I'd like to link here a "critique" thread of KOE's damage modeling system that I first posted way back in April of 2003, over on the Wings With Wires forum (besides there may be some Aspect screenshots you guys might have missed from those early previews):

http://www.wingswithwires.com/forum/posts.asp?id=871&fid=3

It's also great to see Pat back here too (and no, you don't need to try to keep and up with my "load" of typing here)!!!

I think Chevelle's will probably have the best flight physics and damage modeling (although I hope he doesn;t test it). Has he trained the dog/groundcrew to release the chocks yet? Fritz the Fox WW1 style.

My dog would probably be afraid of the other two.

S!

Well as long as you can comunicate with the other players, and there is multiple server setups like melee etc. In the Online part. Then the single player part could be a trainer for my sake, think they should focus more on multiplayer than single player, because if you play the single player part you will sooner or later get borred, no matter how good it is. Multiplayer I think will never get borring, just look at redbaron its multiplayer have been around for 8 years, and still people play it. Also a nice feauture would be a wide grafix option so people with ****ty computers can still play it together with people who have supercharged NASA computers.

Ned (I meant Lucky 13, was thinking of Lucky Ned) your post made me remember an important flaw in Red Baron that would be great to see changed in KOE...the flight model should be the same for the player in both SP and MMP.

I don't care what has to be done to get the AI flying competitively in SP (as long as it cannot do the impossible) and my own plane flys right so I can practice in SP for play on-line.

On the other hand a campaign game like Red Baron would do a LOT to prevent getting tired of flying the "canned" game. I don't know how they did it but RB3d doesn't feel scripted. You never know what will happen.

It is as if it randomly generates aerial operations all along the Front whether the player is there to see them or not.

Hex