Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#3965814 - 06/10/14 10:20 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: bisher]  
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,147
Gambit21 Offline
Member
Gambit21  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,147
Pacific Northwest
Originally Posted By: bisher
How do we know how much time Master and his squad spend looking for things to be miserable about?

Toggles being a deal breaker may well be silly, if that was what Master had said. He did not


I still can't figure out what he said.

#3965821 - 06/10/14 10:39 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,147
Gambit21 Offline
Member
Gambit21  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,147
Pacific Northwest
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Perhaps expectations are too high?

Look at the recent WWII sims: DCS WWII -- who knows how long before it resembles a true WWII sim in the proper environment as opposed to the current "WWII planes fighting in a modern battlefield," reusing an existing engine

BoS -- given 18 months (stretched to 24) to make something with a modest budget by reusing an existing engine

CloD -- given the most money and TONS of time and produced a horrible broken mess that took another 18 months just to patch up to a playable state, albeit still far short of where it should be. Later modded to alter some details that were capable of being changed, taking another year plus of development but still missing features that will never show up because there's no source code, no funding, and no chance. Might become the ultimate BoB sim, but will never be a Pacific, Med, or Eastern Front sim.


So we have one major production that completely collapsed, a modest one that partly collapsed and will hopefully rise from the ashes, and another modest one that isn't pushing the boundaries enough for you as they attempt to broaden its appeal beyond the hardcore and limit the tech headaches they will have to deal with.

It's not going to happen. What you want costs too much and has too small a market to be a profitable enterprise. This isn't 1999. You will NEVER get something like the 2001 release of Il-2 again, let alone something like the 2006 Il-2: 1946 and you will be elected Emperor of the Earth before we see something like the final result after Team D patches on top of 3rd party mods.

So you have two choices: keep flying the old sims and grumbling about how great things used to be, or accept the new paradigm of having less ambitious sims in return for anything being made at all. The fact that your demands would likely cause BoS to fail just as badly as CloD did is not missed by the developers, which is why you're not getting them. The customer is NOT right when they want your entire inventory for free.

It's not personal, it's business, and what you want out of a sim is no longer practical, even for labor in Russia. Notice all the Western sim developers competing with them? Right, the last disappeared 10 years ago.

I'm not saying you're wrong to want those things. I'm saying you're wrong to blame them for not giving you what you want when it's not going to be viable ever again. Wags mentioned spending over $100k to make the AFM for one plane that already existed! That's US money for Russian labor!

Maybe if everyone who bought a copy of Call of Duty ALSO bought a WWII sim we'd have a $150m+ budget for a sim and see a sim like that again.




The Jedi Master


Yep
As someone who's been around this scene for a long time, like many others here, I tend to be fatalistic and more
to the point, realistic about these things while remaining supportive.
We've all been burned. CloD wouldn't even boot up for me, it simply crashed. THAT is a disaster.

I'm absolutely loving BoS so far - the feeling of flight is the
best I've experienced in any flight sim. If NOTHING was ever added or changed, I could spend many hours just messing
around with the QMB. Sure I remember EAW and the heyday of IL2, but I've moved on.
I can't whip up a mission in an afternoon and host CoOps later that night anymore, which bums me out a bit, but
I'm not spinning about it. Maybe we'll have a user friendly mission editor and CoOps later.

I certainly can't relate to the word "disaster" in relation to BoS, and to me this sounds like so much running in circles, crying that
the sky is falling. Most of us remember features that were slowly added to IL2, including FM changes. Those changes
and improvements went on for quite a long time. Crying 'disaster' at this stage and attempting to withdraw one's funds
is counterproductive to seeing the same kinds of incremental improvements happening with BoS.

From where I sit, the devs are doing an amazing job.
I'd give them another $94 (and that's no small thing for me) if they announced a pre-order for an upcoming add on.

I'm not putting any eggs in the DCS basket at this juncture - I'll wait and see how that progresses - looks pretty sterile to me.
If I see it coming together, I'll happily begin supporting it. Who knows, maybe that will be the team who gives us the immersive, EAW style experience back. For the moment, I'll be pleasantly surprised if it ever becomes a functioning, true WWII flight sim (not just an opportunity to fly WWII planes) Time will tell.
For now, BoS is the best we have.

#3965941 - 06/11/14 03:11 AM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: Sim]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 788
NattyIced Offline
Member
NattyIced  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 788
I'm guessing the historical feature/removed command was the 109's ability to eject its canopy. Not quite the disaster most with a level head would rush to declare, but I suppose when you truly want to denigrate a product any little thing will suffice.

Last edited by NattyIced; 06/11/14 03:12 AM.
#3965949 - 06/11/14 03:28 AM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: NattyIced]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,234
LukeFF Offline
Veteran
LukeFF  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,234
Redlands, California
Originally Posted By: NattyIced
I'm guessing the historical feature/removed command was the 109's ability to eject its canopy. Not quite the disaster most with a level head would rush to declare, but I suppose when you truly want to denigrate a product any little thing will suffice.


Exactly, and Jason even posted here to clarify that removing this feature had zip to do with "having too many buttons," as Master would have you believe.

#3966027 - 06/11/14 10:35 AM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: Sim]  
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 356
Dakpilot Offline
Member
Dakpilot  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 356
"You could count the number of hours my squad has put into BoS on one hand"

seems like you all gave it a fair go after such a large financial investment wave

However you seem to have made your mind up

"all we can do is stop other squaddies and friends from making the same bad decision we made."

As has been said, perhaps you are better off waiting for DCSWWII Master, why you need a separate button to eject the canopy in a 109 when it ejects when you bailout baffles me

Cheers Dakpilot

#3966079 - 06/11/14 12:53 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: Sim]  
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 239
KrustyvonKlown Offline
Member
KrustyvonKlown  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 239
Massachusetts
I completely forgot about the canopy eject button being removed.

#3966101 - 06/11/14 01:54 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: Dakpilot]  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,179
bisher Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
bisher  Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,179
Manitoba, Canada
Originally Posted By: Dakpilot
why you need a separate button to eject the canopy in a 109 when it ejects when you bailout baffles me


And this would be a good starting point for a mature discussion between fellow simmers as to why a toggle switch is important to another flight simmer

But we seem to prefer to make value statements about the individual, and we are incredulous

#3966131 - 06/11/14 03:10 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: Sim]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
As I said, the desire to have such a feature is one thing that could be debated, but the expectation to have it is another where the debate is far easier. Whether you think it's good to have or not, whether it's necessary or not, the issue still boils down to dedication of limited resources and where they're best spent.

While the addition and later removal of a feature that seems to be working is puzzling, it's not unlikely that there are deeper ramifications we don't see.




The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#3966251 - 06/11/14 05:56 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: bisher]  
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 239
KrustyvonKlown Offline
Member
KrustyvonKlown  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 239
Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: bisher
Originally Posted By: Dakpilot
why you need a separate button to eject the canopy in a 109 when it ejects when you bailout baffles me


And this would be a good starting point for a mature discussion between fellow simmers as to why a toggle switch is important to another flight simmer


Not really. It's so ridiculously minor that there is no possible way I'm going to understand why anyone would include it on their list of reasons they want their money back. In fact, his entire rant is absurd.

#3966308 - 06/11/14 07:40 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: bisher]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 788
NattyIced Offline
Member
NattyIced  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 788
Originally Posted By: bisher
And this would be a good starting point for a mature discussion between fellow simmers as to why a toggle switch is important to another flight simmer


I do feel this is important, why is there a sudden need for something - lets say nav lights for example - to use two commands to turn them on and off? Why would there need to be two commands for anything that can be turned on and off? Even the lauded pinnacle of flight sims - DCS - has single commands for on/off, or landing gear up/down.

Is it because this individual has a board with an array of switches, so they want to be able to assign one key to on and one key to off so that the switch functions in an on/off scenario? Well, you can just assign the same key to both positions. Up = On/Off key and down = On/Off key. It will still function the same exact way.

It is just another nitpick to complain about this product because the true, and only, complaint Master really has and repeats ad nauseam since it occurred is the fixed graphics settings which make it easier to debug and identify actual performance issues during alpha/beta testing. Most (in the 85% range) people absolutely mess up their graphics settings gaining themselves terrible performance and then blame it on the game and not that they went in to the advanced settings totally screwing them up because they never belonged going in there in the first place. Most people have no idea what they are messing around with and that certain combinations of advanced settings will yield terrible picture and performance, but they read somewhere on the internet that this setting does this and that setting does that so obviously when they contradict each other, or override, they should both be on/set to max. So it does make sense to lock down the graphics settings to ensure that development time is not wasted on performance issues induced by the end user.

Last edited by NattyIced; 06/11/14 07:43 PM.
#3966314 - 06/11/14 07:55 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: Sim]  
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
komemiute Offline
Hell Drummer
komemiute  Offline
Hell Drummer
Hotshot

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
Dunno... since I started messing around with personalised controls and Voice Attack in DCS I realised how frickin'important is to have to different input for one control.

It may sound minimal... but it does make quite a difference.

Maybe is only so for a certain hardcore sub-faction of simmers.
But in that case I sadly belong there...


Click to reveal..
"Himmiherrgottksakramentzefixhallelujah!"
Para_Bellum

"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..."
Ice

"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!"
MigBuster

"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands."
Sauron
#3966579 - 06/12/14 12:26 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: komemiute]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 788
NattyIced Offline
Member
NattyIced  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 788
Originally Posted By: komemiute
Dunno... since I started messing around with personalised controls and Voice Attack in DCS I realised how frickin'important is to have to different input for one control.

It may sound minimal... but it does make quite a difference.

Maybe is only so for a certain hardcore sub-faction of simmers.
But in that case I sadly belong there...


But then... you're using your voice to command your aircraft to do things. That certainly is the opposite of historical and realistic, which is the supposed reason for multiple inputs for on/off states. Not trying to start an argument about it, just that voice operated command systems don't even exist on modern day fighter jets so I don't think it could fall in the "realistic" argument.

Last edited by NattyIced; 06/12/14 12:27 PM.
#3966597 - 06/12/14 01:11 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: NattyIced]  
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
komemiute Offline
Hell Drummer
komemiute  Offline
Hell Drummer
Hotshot

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
Originally Posted By: NattyIced
Originally Posted By: komemiute
Dunno... since I started messing around with personalised controls and Voice Attack in DCS I realised how frickin'important is to have to different input for one control.

It may sound minimal... but it does make quite a difference.

Maybe is only so for a certain hardcore sub-faction of simmers.
But in that case I sadly belong there...


But then... you're using your voice to command your aircraft to do things. That certainly is the opposite of historical and realistic, which is the supposed reason for multiple inputs for on/off states. Not trying to start an argument about it, just that voice operated command systems don't even exist on modern day fighter jets so I don't think it could fall in the "realistic" argument.


Nope, you misunderstand me. Or better I explained myself really bad.
When you have voice control (I actually use it to "boss around" my crew in the Huey- do they have to have switches or I can use my voice?) you can meet two conditions.

1) The control is a single stage alternating function.
2) The control has two stage, on and off.

For example in the Huey- let's take Anti-collision Lights.
It's one of those unfortunate switches as in case 1).
That means I can't control it directly (Boss my Peter Pilot to get to a know state) but only command a state change. That's a bother. A big one.

If I want to go Shadow (all lights off) I first have to check the current state and then act accordingly.
Same thing when I'm inbound for landing and I need a specific Light condition set.

This of course doesn't REALLY relate to me... but let's just say that in an impetus of joy at seeing one of your favourite Software house, 777 (and they are to me...) getting into WWII fighters... Lo and behold they're making your favourite plane- the FW 190.

You can finally use your home-made cockpit with all the switches connected to the LEO Bodnar boards...
It becomes a drag to have to remember if your gear are up or down just because the producer can't be bothered to code in a two stage control.

Now, I have NO IDEA if the gear works like that.
Let's try to focus on the point- that being if the cockpit has a two stage control... why not code a two stage function?

PS: Anyway Eurofighter Typhoon HAS voice activated functions. And not a little number either.


Click to reveal..
"Himmiherrgottksakramentzefixhallelujah!"
Para_Bellum

"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..."
Ice

"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!"
MigBuster

"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands."
Sauron
#3966612 - 06/12/14 01:35 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: Sim]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
Well, in the case of those things I would think the answer would be "look at your cockpit". The gear handle and lights tell you if they're up or down. Ditto flaps. External lights should also have a switch in the cabin.

Just playing devil's lawyer here, but the ability to give the command "lights off regardless of whether they're on or not" is not realistic either. You're either going to look at the switch to see if you need to flick it, or you're going to put your finger on it to feel where it is and then see if you need to flick it. The actual cockpits don't have two switches for on and off.

So now you're in the classic "ease of use" vs "more authentic" debate. There's no right or wrong answer, it's a matter of preference (I use auto engine management because I'm not interested in it--I don't mess with the engine in my car and I don't mess with the one in my plane either!) You can NOT make the "but this is more realistic!" argument stick, though, because in an actual cockpit that's not how it would work.



The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#3966686 - 06/12/14 02:57 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: Sim]  
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
komemiute Offline
Hell Drummer
komemiute  Offline
Hell Drummer
Hotshot

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
Yes and no.

DCS allow us to match the switches of the virtual A10 C to our physical HOTAS.

That's good.
In absence of an option alike, it's pretty bothersome to have to readjust the entire cockpit for each mission.

And don't make the mistake to strike this only as a Quest for realism. There a good chunk of us who want just immersion.

And this discussion isn't limited to BoS. I honestly couldn't care less. I don't have it.
I am neither a squadmate of Master.

Buy when there's a physical switch with two or more states... why not code it with those states?

Setting the Huey office is really tedious, sometimes, whether you use keyboard shortcuts, voice or a physical switch IRL.
But it's not even that... it's about coherency sometimes.

It's weird that belsimtek went all the way to give each CB a keystroke... every single one.
Nav lights too, Radio as well... and leave out Anti collision?
And that's just the first that springs to mind. There are more important ones. Flares Dispenser Arming. (Which is bugged too, it's a single alternative state that doesn't rotate its states.)

Whether it sounds a little whine to you it's pointless. When you have to fumble during combat, flipping a switch 3 times to get it right you know it's wrong.

But again, it's only few hardcore that suffer from this. Luckily.

Peace.


Click to reveal..
"Himmiherrgottksakramentzefixhallelujah!"
Para_Bellum

"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..."
Ice

"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!"
MigBuster

"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands."
Sauron
#3966689 - 06/12/14 03:00 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: Sim]  
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
komemiute Offline
Hell Drummer
komemiute  Offline
Hell Drummer
Hotshot

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
And actually I never called for realism. Not once.

I just stated that I need to be able to set all the states a switch has.


Click to reveal..
"Himmiherrgottksakramentzefixhallelujah!"
Para_Bellum

"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..."
Ice

"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!"
MigBuster

"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands."
Sauron
#3967039 - 06/13/14 03:04 AM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: komemiute]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 788
NattyIced Offline
Member
NattyIced  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 788
Originally Posted By: komemiute

Let's try to focus on the point- that being if the cockpit has a two stage control... why not code a two stage function?


Quite simply, its redundant coding. It adds to build size too. Everyone complains about downloading x amount of data, but they want z amount to account for redundant coding. If one command does up and down or off and on, then truly - another isn't needed.

I wasn't aware the Eurofighter did voice command, but they appear to be very basic and again - not WWII. You may have not said "realism" but the other irate fella did.

But you don't have BoS, so clearly it doesn't matter to you but for some reason you are posting in this thread so it does matter to you for some reason because you are, again, posting in this thread?

Hardcore isn't voice commands in WWII aircraft, doesn't matter if you have all of the switches to flip - if you are telling the computer vocally to flip them then hardcore went out the window long ago. You are limited to a few modern day jets at best that voice commands will be "hardcore," and at that it's in the single digit.

I will repeat again, you don't have BoS but you are still concerned about this but you aren't because you don't care about BoS but you are posting about it for some reason.

Now about that voice command software, it functions just like joystick buttons. You could say "gear up" and "gear down" yes? But both of those commands could be the exact same key, yes? Yes. So your voice command software, flibbity flobbity could be R and hippity hoppty could be R - and R would be the key that toggles lights on/off. Not seeing the problem.

Switching switches does not hardcore make.

Last edited by NattyIced; 06/13/14 03:25 AM.
#3967044 - 06/13/14 03:28 AM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: NattyIced]  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,179
bisher Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
bisher  Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,179
Manitoba, Canada
[quote=NattyIced]But you don't have BoS, so clearly it doesn't matter to you but for some reason you are posting in this thread so it does matter to you for some reason because you are, again, posting in this thread?[quote]

Are you serious? If so, this is relevant how?


#3967065 - 06/13/14 05:18 AM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: Sim]  
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
komemiute Offline
Hell Drummer
komemiute  Offline
Hell Drummer
Hotshot

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
I apologize and take my leave.


Click to reveal..
"Himmiherrgottksakramentzefixhallelujah!"
Para_Bellum

"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..."
Ice

"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!"
MigBuster

"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands."
Sauron
#3967187 - 06/13/14 01:30 PM Re: Dev Update 66 [Re: komemiute]  
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 239
KrustyvonKlown Offline
Member
KrustyvonKlown  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 239
Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: komemiute

But again, it's only few hardcore that whine about this. Luckily.


Fixed that for you. But, sadly, it's more than a few.

Keep in mind that we're not discussing whether it would be better if they added every little feature that we'd like to see. We're talking about people who want their money back because they're not getting every little feature done exactly how they'd like to see it done.

Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  CyBerkut, 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