Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#3135590 - 11/12/10 02:53 AM Historical Accuracy vs. Fun  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,252
Colt40Five Offline
Polyatheist
Colt40Five  Offline
Polyatheist
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,252
Heart of Dixie
So I got to thinking it must be damn tough to try to engineer specific historical scenarios for any game. I mean there were so many bits of chance and human error involved in so many aspects of the Malvinas/Falklands conflict I can't imagine trying to build the single-player missions along the same trajectory they took in real life. For instance if players have better control of Argentine fusing/weapon selection how does the single player work if ships vital to the landings are destroyed? Do you just get the next setup as it actually occurred disregarding the events of the previous mission as flown?


As far as single-player scripted missions there are a few things that I think could impact the "fun factor", especially when flying as Argentina:

1) Will Argentine anti-air units attack their own forces?
2) Will bomb fusing be player controlled?
3) Can snake-eyes be used any Argentine air group or just the naval air groups?
4) How will recon and exocet employment work? Or will we just get a canned mission to fly to a specific point and let them fly?
5) Will distance and fuel consumption be accurately modeled? I mean during the landing at San Carlos basically there was only 20 minutes total Harrier CAP time in every hour(10 minutes each on station by two separate two-ship elements) because the carriers moved so far out to protect from exocet strikes. The Argentine forces were equally limited in the AO even with aerial refueling en route. Not sure how fun it will be making long transits for a few scant minutes in the AO, especially for more casual simmers.

I think it will be very frustrating to fly as Argentina if we are limited by the problems they had with their weapons and employment.


As far as mission-building possibilities(not sure if an editor has been announced), I'm wondering if we will have the capability to fight the entire conflict differently. For example keeping the Mirage IIIs in the fight and not restricting them to homeland defense. Keeping the Argentine naval assets in the fight(especially the carrier Veinticinco de Mayo). Utilizing larger strike groups to saturate British ship defenses. Directing the placement of ground units, EWR and air defense systems. I really don't see how it can be done without a dynamic campaign engine. It will be very tedious to build the missions in a linear manner with just a basic editor.

So what do you think? Can this sim's missions be historically accurate AND fun at the same time? The more I think about it the harder for me it is to imagine there won't have to be some compromises between the two along the way.


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, or how smart you are, If it doesn't agree with experiment it is WRONG. ~Richard Feynman
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#3135643 - 11/12/10 04:46 AM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 320
Dante-JT Offline
Member
Dante-JT  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 320
Florianópolis - Brazil
1) this is important, it's the reason for the bright yellow stripes you see in Argentine aircraft. It may go like this: at the beginning of the campaign, when there is no yellow stripes yet, you're in danger of being hit by own AAA. Specially at the first two weeks of the campaign. In these days, a Mirage guy was shot down and killed at Port Stanley (Captain Garcia Cuerva), and an A4 pilot killed at Goose Green (Lt Gavazzi). Then the textures will change (yellow stripes) and AA personal briefed about yellow stripes, so it may not happen anymore or not with the same frequency.

2)This is interesting, I had requests for this, it's technically possible to code it that way indeed. Would we leave the player in the dark regarding it, or give some clues?

3) Just the naval air groups

4) recon will be needed in order to get targets marked for a second sortie (this time an attack sortie), in the linear campaign. In the dynamic campaign we foresee, which may run technically like an strategy game in background, recon is a huge issue, it's Fog of War related: only fixed (static/strategic targets ie airbases and cities) appear in the map at start. Mobile enemy units will only be drawn in map if a recon plane was within sensor range of 'em. So, it may affect directly in the Exocet/Super Etendard missions, which I repeat, will not be canned, this is one of the reasons the Super Etendard/Exocet combo and missions will be available only in the full boxed release with the campaign next year.
It was dependant of Neptune planes, getting intel on the position of any british vessel, which will then have the position ploted to the player in the campaign's room. It will be basically a game of watch and wait, quite different and extremely relying in the 'dynamicness'. Once the Neptune recon plane spots a potential naval target, get its coords radio'ed back to HQ, and a symbol will appear in the campaign map screen. Player will then set it as the mission target, gets a SUE flight, edit its waypoints, loadout, verify weather forecast etc. This is a good example of the JT planned dynamic campaign gameplay.

5) This is a polemic point indeed. It's one of the reasons we'll be starting with the shorter ground attack missions (specially the ones starting at FOB San Carlos), while the full missions you mention will be left for the full release, specially with dynamic campaign in the background. There's a lot to do in those long transits anyway, and a lot of parallel activity to look at or be informed/reported of.

Speaking of Argentina equipment, one thing people from argentina asked, is if we're able to simulate the random equipment failures they suffered in nearly any sortie. It's common to read reports of their sorties and it's always something like "Number 4 had to abort because of electrical failure, so the package moved ahead with 3 airplanes." This IMHO should be an option, on/off failures. Want full realism, to experience the frustration of those pilots? Have failures enabled.

Regarding fun and accuracy, this is another polemic point. When we call JT a "simulation", when talking to veterans, it's viewed with regard and some respect. When we call it "game", it's viewed as a form of inferior media, and even disrespectful for those who fought in the actual war! So, I've learned to always call it a simulation. But the "fun" in a simulation is to represent reality "as is", no matter if it was boring or not. This is a philosophical discussion that we may have for hours. smile But summing up, when we tried to promote JT as a game and approaching game publishers, it failed, we lost a lot of time by barking up the wrong tree. When we stated "it's a simulation" and looked for a simulation company (Aerosoft), it all went smoothly. So, lesson learned. smile


-----
Jet Thunder Project
http://www.thunder-works.com
#3135653 - 11/12/10 04:53 AM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,252
Colt40Five Offline
Polyatheist
Colt40Five  Offline
Polyatheist
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,252
Heart of Dixie
I am all for realism and the title "simulation". I also want you to sell a lot of units so I am glad you are doing "game" modes as well. Your response gives me a lot of confidence that your thinking is in the right direction! Thanks for taking the time to reply. smile


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, or how smart you are, If it doesn't agree with experiment it is WRONG. ~Richard Feynman
#3135709 - 11/12/10 09:10 AM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,524
Keithb77 Offline
Member
Keithb77  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,524
UK
Quote:
Can this sim's missions be historically accurate AND fun at the same time?


Maybe a set of historical missions AND a set of what-if's.

The initial what-if's (flown in GR3) could include
* GR3's with sidewinders visual CAP / GCI
* GR3's with sidewinders riding shotgun to the GR3 bombers with Mirage CAP
* Coordinated Mirage top cover to Skyhawk strikes (dodge the Mirages, stop the Skyhawks)
* Skyhawk A4-C's with sidewinder 9B's riding shotgun to the A4 bombers (sting in the tail)
* Harrier head-to-head with an Exocet armed Entendard (take off and intercept before the Exocet launched to sink your carrier)

Cheers,
Keith


Last edited by Keithb77; 11/12/10 09:11 AM.
#3136015 - 11/12/10 05:17 PM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 230
FlandersRevenge Offline
Member
FlandersRevenge  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 230
Oneonta, NY
Hoorah Dante! This game is going be be freaking awesome

How long was the transit time from the mainland/ Carrier to targets for the Argentinians?

Last edited by FlandersRevenge; 11/12/10 05:20 PM.

Sims from start to finish: Fleet Defender Gold, A-10 Cuba!, F-22 Lightning II, FS2000, CFS3, FS2004, Il-2FB/AEP, LOMAC, IL2 1946, DCS:BS, Falcon 4.0 AF, SF2V, FC2, Janes F-18, DCS A-10C, ROF
#3136876 - 11/14/10 12:22 AM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 916
IvanK Offline
Member
IvanK  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 916
Aus
Transit times would have been close to 1 hour.

Fuse arming should be Player option and within the limits of the actual fuzes used.
Every pilot that walked out to an armed jet would know his Fuze settings and would be checking them physically as part of his pre flight.

#3136890 - 11/14/10 12:52 AM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 320
Dante-JT Offline
Member
Dante-JT  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 320
Florianópolis - Brazil
IvanK: thanks for your views regarding fuse arming, it should be possible (and highly recommended) to have this feature in JT.


-----
Jet Thunder Project
http://www.thunder-works.com
#3141250 - 11/20/10 06:03 PM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,382
CHDT Offline
Member
CHDT  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,382
Switzerland
Simple.
Without accuracy, no fun.
At least for me.

#3141519 - 11/21/10 06:03 AM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 230
FlandersRevenge Offline
Member
FlandersRevenge  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 230
Oneonta, NY
I'm midway through Pook's book: RAF Harrier Ground Attack and it is fascinating how backwards the branches of the British armed forces were. Us Americans began to have our institutional reforms by 82 because of the lessons learned in Vietnam, so it is quite shocking how poorly planned out and executed the war was.

I am definitely looking forward for the Gr.3 Come to think of it I don't think anyone of us have flown a light fast attack craft (Excluding the F-16 because it has radar, and advanced targeting capabilities, also the A-10 because it is on the slowside) And it is going to be a whole lot of fun using the Mk.1 eyeball.


Sims from start to finish: Fleet Defender Gold, A-10 Cuba!, F-22 Lightning II, FS2000, CFS3, FS2004, Il-2FB/AEP, LOMAC, IL2 1946, DCS:BS, Falcon 4.0 AF, SF2V, FC2, Janes F-18, DCS A-10C, ROF
#3141537 - 11/21/10 08:41 AM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: FlandersRevenge]  
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,264
jenrick Offline
Member
jenrick  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,264
Originally Posted By: FlandersRevenge
Come to think of it I don't think anyone of us have flown a light fast attack craft (Excluding the F-16 because it has radar, and advanced targeting capabilities, also the A-10 because it is on the slowside) And it is going to be a whole lot of fun using the Mk.1 eyeball.


While certainly not a study sim, Strike Fighters by Thirdwire can certainly provide a variety of fast moving jets w/ minimal assistance. The stock install includes the A-4 and F-4, neither of which have anything beyond a reticle to help you aim. As it's a "lite" sim, it's a great way to practice specific techniques without having to mess with switchology. I've spent many a pleasant evening on the range, practicing bomb and rocket attacks from a variety of profiles.

-Jenrick

Last edited by jenrick; 11/21/10 08:42 AM.
#3141603 - 11/21/10 01:46 PM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,507
Ripcord Offline
Member
Ripcord  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,507
Houston, Texas
Originally Posted By: Colt40Five
As far as mission-building possibilities(not sure if an editor has been announced), I'm wondering if we will have the capability to fight the entire conflict differently. For example keeping the Mirage IIIs in the fight and not restricting them to homeland defense. Keeping the Argentine naval assets in the fight(especially the carrier Veinticinco de Mayo). Utilizing larger strike groups to saturate British ship defenses. Directing the placement of ground units, EWR and air defense systems. I really don't see how it can be done without a dynamic campaign engine. It will be very tedious to build the missions in a linear manner with just a basic editor.


Just because you don't have a true dynamic campaign aka Falcon4 it does not mean we have a simple linear campaign. Sim's like Janes FA-18 had a pretty decent/serviceable campaign builder that allowed for non-linear campaigns, in which following missions are selected based on previous mission outcomes. OK now for the the STOCK campaign that will be historically accurate, there I can see them putting out a linear campaign, or near linear in which maybe just a few of the missions change order a little bit. But I don't think every campaign will necessarily have to be structured like that, or I haven't heard/read that, at least.

Dante, Colt45 brings up an interesting point -- will users get access to a campaign builder tool? Can we create our own missions AND our own campaigns and link them together? If so, what kind of mission outcome data will the campaign engine read from the previous mission?

Ripcord


USN/USMC -- when it positively, absolutely has to be blown up overnight.
#3141653 - 11/21/10 04:22 PM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 320
Dante-JT Offline
Member
Dante-JT  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 320
Florianópolis - Brazil
Ripcord: yup, although in first release, just a simple standalone one, the 'internal' one used to create the stock missions/campaign; on full boxed release next year, we plan a full-featured graphical editor fully integrated in the sim, much like the ones from other premier modern jet sims around.


-----
Jet Thunder Project
http://www.thunder-works.com
#3144416 - 11/25/10 09:49 PM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: jenrick]  
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 230
FlandersRevenge Offline
Member
FlandersRevenge  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 230
Oneonta, NY
Originally Posted By: jenrick
Originally Posted By: FlandersRevenge
Come to think of it I don't think anyone of us have flown a light fast attack craft (Excluding the F-16 because it has radar, and advanced targeting capabilities, also the A-10 because it is on the slowside) And it is going to be a whole lot of fun using the Mk.1 eyeball.


While certainly not a study sim, Strike Fighters by Thirdwire can certainly provide a variety of fast moving jets w/ minimal assistance. The stock install includes the A-4 and F-4, neither of which have anything beyond a reticle to help you aim. As it's a "lite" sim, it's a great way to practice specific techniques without having to mess with switchology. I've spent many a pleasant evening on the range, practicing bomb and rocket attacks from a variety of profiles.

-Jenrick


Honestly, I completely forgot about Strike Fighters. I got SF2V, played it for a week, and haven't touched it since.


Sims from start to finish: Fleet Defender Gold, A-10 Cuba!, F-22 Lightning II, FS2000, CFS3, FS2004, Il-2FB/AEP, LOMAC, IL2 1946, DCS:BS, Falcon 4.0 AF, SF2V, FC2, Janes F-18, DCS A-10C, ROF
#3145314 - 11/27/10 02:33 PM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,507
Ripcord Offline
Member
Ripcord  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,507
Houston, Texas

Dante,

You have been the best of all the devs of any project about answering questions and making a real connection with your community (soon to be your customer base). I really appreciate you for that.

Ripcord


USN/USMC -- when it positively, absolutely has to be blown up overnight.
#3149837 - 12/04/10 05:19 PM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,252
Colt40Five Offline
Polyatheist
Colt40Five  Offline
Polyatheist
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,252
Heart of Dixie
A question...Would anyone want to fly a Black Buck mission in this sim? They were the attacks on the runway at Port Stanley by Vulcan bombers flying out of Ascension island. I'm not going to dig out my books and look for the total flight time. Wiki says the return journey was 16hrs. So basically you would have to call in sick to work or do it on a weekend. Interesting to see where the uber-realism crowd draw the line on how much real is too much real. As much as I love realism I can't see myself trying to execute one of these marathon missions for fun.


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, or how smart you are, If it doesn't agree with experiment it is WRONG. ~Richard Feynman
#3150066 - 12/05/10 12:50 AM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 630
SC/JG_Oesau Offline
Member
SC/JG_Oesau  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 630
Sydney, Australia
Yeah I'm not too keen to fly the black buck missions, long long flights broken up by in flight refuelings and then a bomb drop or loiter to fire off the shirkes (I just was reading aviation classics magazine which about the Vulcun).


CPU - i7-3770K @3.50Ghz, RAM - 32Gb (800Mhz), Video Card - GTX980Ti
TrackIR-4, Thrustmaster Warthog, MFG Crosswind Pedals, Satiek Quadrant, Saitek Switch Panel, Logitech G510 Keyboard, Win 7 Home Prem 64bit
#3150233 - 12/05/10 12:57 PM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Well I for one would LOVE to fly BLack Buck missions in the game since:
- While it's true that those mission were VERY LONG, all flight simulation have a feature called TIME ACCELERATION (and I believe that Jet Thunder won't be an exception). Besides, there are many flight sim players that make virtual flight from London to New York or even London to Sidney ( screwy ) and so on in the Microsoft Flight Simulator series and all of this without any time acceleration and even in Multiplayer (where no time acceleration exists) and some of these flights (in FSX for example) take longer than the Black Buck missions with the "minus" that you can't shoot at anything (like happens in the Black Buck missions).
- I simply love the Vulcan, it's my favourite Cold-War era strategic bomber so one more reason why I would want to fly Black Buck Missions in Jet Thunder.
- With time acceleration of 16x, a Black Mission would take a little more than an hour or less or in case of time accelerations above 16x, like 24x or 32x a Black Buck mission would take less than a hour in which both cases are perfectly doable for ANY flight simmer!

#3150498 - 12/05/10 11:23 PM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,252
Colt40Five Offline
Polyatheist
Colt40Five  Offline
Polyatheist
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,252
Heart of Dixie
I bet it would take more than an hour at any rate because you'd have to slow down time every few minutes to refuel!


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, or how smart you are, If it doesn't agree with experiment it is WRONG. ~Richard Feynman
#3152767 - 12/08/10 03:01 AM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,507
Ripcord Offline
Member
Ripcord  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,507
Houston, Texas

This is a naval aviation sim, and that is something we are SORELY lacking right now, even with all the good titles coming out right now (finally).

Give me the AV8B is every kind of variation you can think of -- first do justice to the Falklands and then build on that -- expand into USMC Harrier combat aviation, operating off US Navy LHA and LHD ships, operating in any number of theaters.

Really if they are able to provide a working Argentine carrier with the A-4, I would like to fly that as well.... again, carrier aviation is just special and oh what we could do with that kind of platform to build on.

Dante, see what you have done -- I am already refering to JT as WE and I haven't even bought it yet!

Ripcord


USN/USMC -- when it positively, absolutely has to be blown up overnight.
#3153262 - 12/08/10 08:42 PM Re: Historical Accuracy vs. Fun [Re: Colt40Five]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Colt40Five
...because you'd have to slow down time every few minutes to refuel!



That's a bit on the exageration side I must say. The Vulcans were refueled 7 times inbound to target and that's many times for a flight granted but at least this has the plus that the flight wouldn't be "boring" and outbound from the target the Vulcans were only refueled 1 time allowing a more effective usage of the time advanced feature.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

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


Recent Topics
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0