#2572217 - 08/21/08 01:01 PM
Re: Un official KotS news from Leipzig
[Re: Laser]
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 25
mmitch10
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 25
England
|
Excuse my ignorance..what do you mean by "open-format missions"? First i mean 'not encrypted' missions, then i mean something at least 'potentially inteligible' if not (best case) a documented format. Thanks, I see what you mean.
|
|
#2572218 - 08/21/08 01:02 PM
Re: Un official KotS news from Leipzig
[Re: mmitch10]
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,118
Brigstock
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,118
London, England
|
Excuse my ignorance..what do you mean by "open-format missions"? He means if the missions are not encrypted and text based, missions could be created via a utility. Then a third party app along the lines of DCG would have the ability to generate missions and campaigns. Which is what I had hoped might happen
|
|
#2572220 - 08/21/08 01:05 PM
Re: Un official KotS news from Leipzig
[Re: FlyRetired]
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 258
BigBouncer
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 258
|
I think the design scheme above is close to what's been projected, except for the indication of only two initial player-aircraft being available (that would be a change), and a mission editor not being included in the package.
The scheme is based on the "grow your own game" concept, where you decide the content you wish to expand it by. Aircraft add-ons, mission packs, and other object content can be purchased as desired, this enabling expansion and support of the sim into the future. The plan requires the designers to stay engaged in the growth process too, through offering official add-ons, by controlling important code modifications via free patches, and to maintain online compatability for instance.....all the while being able to profit from the process of doing so.
I have to admit that I support this concept wholeheartedly, and have talked it up on a number of forums over these past years. It supports the sim's initial start-up and introduction process, and also projects a revenue stream for small developers to draw on over time (so they stay in business).
We've seen too many WWI sim projects fail over these past years, so hopefully some publisher now will see the sense of taking on the risk of producing another combat flight sim (if there's potential money to be made).
Of course it's not all about the dollars, as offering the consumer something he/she can get excited about buying is just as important too. Market realities dictate that both the commercial interests and the consumer have something to show for their investment. I agree. Reality is that ww1 flight sims are not a mega popular genre. The days of Red Baron, Knights of the Sky are gone, games now cost big money, and they need a large potential market. Or a smaller market that will pay for that quality and development. I think the concept is good. And as you say, encourages developers to build and improve on a good product otherwise buyers won't continue to buy. I've forgotten how many times I've been ripped off by a supposedly complete and expensive game, full of bugs and with little replayability. Just hope that single play will be still be viable with seemingly so little, and not releasing a QMB is just self-defeating. Wonder if people can do skins?
|
|
#2572229 - 08/21/08 01:20 PM
Re: Un official KotS news from Leipzig
[Re: BigBouncer]
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
FlyRetired
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
|
Just hope that single play will be still be viable with seemingly so little, and not releasing a QMB is just self-defeating. I agree too BB (most expect a single-player mission editor that should be included). I've sent some e-mails, and asked a question about the Mission Builder/Editor issue on the Sukhoi.Ru forum, and we'll see if we get a clarification on this. (there's been discussion on these "unofficial features" over there too)
|
|
#2572236 - 08/21/08 01:45 PM
Re: Un official KotS news from Leipzig
[Re: Brigstock]
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,618
Ming_EAF19
Babelfish Immune
|
Babelfish Immune
Veteran
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,618
London
|
I like the idea of developers making money by creating flight sims or missions or planes or anything that gives them rewards for spending all this time developing a niche product
If developers are making money then they can expect their customers to tell them how we really feel about flight models, not like now when we are very respectful
Will we be allowed to pay a premium for engines with more horsepower than the engines of people who can't afford upgraded engines, and will there be two servers one for the people with ready cash and one for students and other layabouts the cash-impaired
If I pay more can I have higher octane fuel and a nattier uniform please, plus can we shift the area of conflict to Italy they've got nicer ice cream
Ming
'You are either a hater or you are not' Roman Halter
|
|
#2572242 - 08/21/08 01:53 PM
Re: Un official KotS news from Leipzig
[Re: Ming_EAF19]
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 916
Tvrdi
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 916
Earth
|
so if you wont fly (and pay for) one type of the plane - this plane would not be listed as flyable? interesting....simply put the new planes in patch (for which we must pay ofcourse) IMHO no mission editor - no sell....I dont have a prob with supporting/rewarding them with dollars but lack of ME is disturbing...they dont have a publisher either...easily this KOTS project may die before birth....
Last edited by Tvrdi; 08/21/08 01:59 PM.
Once upon a time, A. Petrovich wrote: "Thank you all, guys, for your attention to FM"
|
|
#2572245 - 08/21/08 01:55 PM
Re: Un official KotS news from Leipzig
[Re: FlyRetired]
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 258
BigBouncer
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 258
|
Just hope that single play will be still be viable with seemingly so little, and not releasing a QMB is just self-defeating. I agree too BB (most expect a single-player mission editor that should be included). I've sent some e-mails, and asked a question about the Mission Builder/Editor issue on the Sukhoi.Ru forum, and we'll see if we get a clarification on this. (there's been discussion on these "unofficial features" over there too) Good, FR, let us know how things develop. Re self-defeating, as well as limiting replayability, I think most would agree that community modders do as well at doing missions/campaigns as any developers, if not a lot better. If modders did missions with add-on planes it would fit the development concept - it would actually encourage people to buy more planes if missions or better, campaigns, were available for them. And of course developers will never have the time to keep up with demand for missions, if the game is successful.
|
|
#2572253 - 08/21/08 02:16 PM
Re: Un official KotS news from Leipzig
[Re: Ming_EAF19]
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,456
Dunkers
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,456
England
|
neobq is still searching for a publisher.Is this the most worrying point of all? It is planned to release a basic version of the simulation with two (?) planes and a large map.No problem with this as a paid-for 'demo', but it will soon get stale unless the further add-ons come along quickly. The large map is irrelevant in what will be nothing more than a repeated dogfight. More planes will be available as add ons to be bought separately. The planes will cost money only when the player wants to fly them. They are free of charge when flown by the in game AI within missions. Fair enough for single-player depending on the pricing structure. How will it work in multi-player though, with everyone on a server having a different flyable plane-set? An update in the beginning of next year will introduce planes (bombers) with 2 or 3 crew members (pilot, bombardier and gunner).This would assume a release of late this year - excellent news; assuming the elusive publisher can be found. It is planned to have controllable ground units in single player. An irrelevance? Apart from a few tanks and AAA guns what else is there? Lorries, horses, massed infantry attacks that get mown down after 200 yds? Trench warfare = static warfare more or less. There will be a mission editor but it will not be published. The developer may charge for additional missions created by them. Sheer folly - the worst decision possible. The sim will die if we can't create our own missions and scenarios. For online play there will be a publicly available server software capable of holding 128 players per map.And...? Can we host our own games? If so, are we restricted to the pre-bought missions or limited to dogfight after dogfight (fly, die, fly, die, fly... die then go down the pub) that goes stale within ten minutes? There will be no AI controlled ground units in multi player.So it is just dogfight after dogfight then... There will be a simple interface to plan missions, for example escort missions for bombers, in a fast and easy way.Sounds like 'Pick one scenario from 'Escort bombers'; 'Attack Bombers'; 'Don't have any Bombers', ermmm now I'm stuck.' With the support of Intel the game engine has been improved to hold around 40 fps during air battles although the flight models and physics are based on dynamic flow calculations. Those calculations will not only apply to the player's aircraft but also on AI controlled aircraft.Minimum PC specs for 40 fps please. And could we have the support of AMD as well? Releasing a limited version of the sim and charging for add-on components I'm absolutely fine with (depending on cost); the rest of this news, well, I'm not so sure. It's early days so I hope that some of this gets re-evaluated and changed. We'll see. The best news of all is that we might see something fairly soon; hope so.
Last edited by dunkelgrun; 08/21/08 02:20 PM.
Once upon a time there was dunkelgrun...
|
|
#2572267 - 08/21/08 02:50 PM
Re: Un official KotS news from Leipzig
[Re: Dunkers]
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,188
Mahoney
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,188
Twickenham, London, UK
|
I like the "pay to make a plane flyable on your PC, all new planes are available but non flyable" format - that sounds very sensible to me, avoids online incompatibilities and keeps interest with apparent freebies whilst maintaining a revenue stream. I think that's a very sound business model, and I'm glad to hear that the principal of getting the software out there is being followed, at least to some extent. I've become a bit of an Agile evangelist - keep the feedback loop tight, release early with limited features and iterate, releasing updates very regularly, and follow the money. Big bang, "feature complete" releases are baaad, m'kay?
However, I'm a bit concerned about the game format. Canned, paid for missions just don't do it for me and never have. Even dynamic campaigns like DCG damage the suspension of disbelief quite a lot. I'd rather they released a really cool dynamic campaign format but made the maps small and pay per map, and per time period - so if you wanted to start in or during a campaign you wanted to transfer to a squadron in a different area you have to pay extra, and if you survive till 1918 or want to start in 1918 likewise. That would certainly give me an incentive to do it!
One thought along those lines - it would be very cool indeed if the game were embeddable. That is, you could write your own DCG like thing that actually wraps the "flying" bit, allowing 3rd parties to produce a seamless experience. It would actually be very like the process things like DCG go through, passing mission start parameters to the game at mission start and parsing mission event logs at the end, it just would mean you wouldn't need two processes running, and no clunky "generate mission in a separate program" between missions, and 3rd party developers could come up with something very pretty in the way of a campaign interface.
That would allow the developers of the sim to play to their strengths (the creation of AI, flight models, 3D models, damage models etc.), which represents the really "hard" part of creating a good sim and is very difficult for amateurs to contribute to with a high quality standard and is, for instance, what Oleg Maddox is excellent at, whilst allowing your ordinary programmer (like, say, me) to concentrate on the dynamic campaign element, which requires far less specialised knowledge but which is (in my personal opinion!) seldom done well; probably because the kind of people with that specialised knowledge are the kind of people who are less interested in the "game" aspect of sims, and because frankly they are very preoccupied with making the simulation good, which is very hard.
You could even do it on a license basis if you want to a) make more money from it and b) have some control over quality; so long as the license were reasonably priced. Run something like Apple's App Store, where you pay $100 to be allowed to develop, and the only means of distribution is via the store.
Last edited by Mahoney; 08/21/08 02:52 PM.
|
|
#2572307 - 08/21/08 03:59 PM
Re: Un official KotS news from Leipzig
[Re: BigBouncer]
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 697
Sturm_Williger
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 697
Virtual Paradise
|
Well, I agree with this point : "My expectation was we'd get a 1917 scenario based sim, with the relevant aircraft for that period and theatre of ops, a couple of scripted campaigns and some single missions, with a mission builder. Followed at a later date with expansion packs that bring in other era's and theatre's of WWI"
The number of "relevant aircraft" doesn't have to be high, but it really does need to be more than 2. I would have thought that "a few" planes on either side would make more sense. For instance, I'm an Albatros fan, through and through, but if they release the DR1 or the DVIII as the only flyable with no DVa, I would be fairly unhappy. Similarly a lot of Allied pilots may be keen to fly the SE5a, but if they get the Camel instead ( or vice-versa)...
It would be better to release 2 or 3 planes per side ( it doesn't have to be a lot to keep people happy ) and then release small batches of extras as pay-for addons eg. Halberstadt, Pfalz, Roland, Junkers.
This gives the customers enough scope to keep the game interest going. IL2 when it first came out had only a fraction of what later became flyable, but it had more than 2 which just aren't enough to give a feel for the period ( and is never going to satisfy more than 1/4 of your potential customerbase as a lot of people's "hoped for ride" isn't flyable. )
However, we know that Viks and others do read this forum, so hopefully we will get more hard info on this topic when they're back in the office. And maybe they will be able to see how we feel about the proposal.
But the locked mission builder .... when I think of the countless happy hours I've spent in the IL2 FMB just building some "cool looking" airfields for a single co-op...
It would be a mistake.
Pre-built addon campaigns and so forth can and have sold for IL2, despite the fact that you could "do it yourself". So there's no reason to go quite so far.
"Another glass of your loathsome, vaguely beerish frozen swill, if you please."
|
|
#2572348 - 08/21/08 05:07 PM
Re: Un official KotS news from Leipzig
[Re: flakfodder]
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 273
franksvalli
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 273
|
The original news came from this forum: http://forum.sturmovik.de/index.php?topic=12796.570You'll have to translate from German with Google or Yahoo. Grille Chompa, a site admin, is the one who visited the conference. He's since made some more comments. He says that addon-on planes would tentatively be priced at 4 euros.
|
|
|
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|