I always thought X-Plane was the shittier flight sim than MSFS. I haven't played since many versions ago either, but I remember not being very impressed. It always seemed a bit too unrealistic to me, when I played. Maybe X-Plane 10 will be different. Not sure about the $80 price tag though.
I think this may have been true, but then the civil aviation genre pretty much...ate itself, or something. Given how long FSX has been out, and that X-Plane is still getting updated, tables may have turned.
Well, with MS, I think they realized they shouldn't just keep updating the same shitty graphics engine year after year. Well, that and the horrible failure (mostly on their end) of their DLC model (and if we're going to nitpick, the lack of multiplayer and other non-static objects to make it not feel as lonely). Maybe? I don't know. MSF is just another pretty graphical update to the same shitty graphics engine that MSFS has had forever.
I could really use another civilian flight sim too.
You and the other 0.005% of Microsoft's market that plays flight simulators. Myself included, though graphics were the least of my problems. When FSX came out, people weren't going "Oh, man, this game looks like ass! Boo!" People were clamoring over to transfer their huge mod libraries over to FSX from FS9. Graphics were not going to make or break FSX (it looked better than X-Plane did back then). Now, come MSF...differen't story. Coincidentally, six years later. The genre was suffering well before FSX came out, now, I'm flat out shocked they even tried it.
Don't get me wrong: I wish I were playing FS11 right now. But even the modern military aviation genre is far smaller than it used to be (and mostly dominated by decade-old Falcon 4.0 and developers from Russia). Modern civil aviation? It's probably about as popular as the "commercial boating" genre. A tiny, dedicated fanbase does not a genre make, in reality. Especially given that FSX still works--nothing is stopping you from playing it, except for the fact that, like every single other civil aviation game, the engine is getting long in the tooth.
Not to be too shallow, but I think horrible graphics is part of the problem. Flight sims, we know, is a very tiny, niche market. For whatever reason, they always have been. Maybe it's because it's somewhat complex, and requires a bit of external knowledge and research. Call of Dudebro II: The Awakening Revengeance doesn't require anything more than picking up a controller and pressing the shoot butan.
I think the improvements from FS1998/2002 to FS2004/FSX was huge, graphically and flight-sims-physics-wise. I believe the graphical improvement was a huge selling point. A small number of people wants to fly over their home city and be able to see the sights from above, or the Grand Canyon, or Mt. Rushmore, or Hong Kong. A very small number. It's a bad thing when you're flying over NYC, and there are about 12 giant buildings making up downtown, two of which got removed in a patch later. But consider that's still twice as many buildings, plus dynamic trees and more traffic than previous years' had, that's saying something.
As for why flight sims are getting smaller, I don't know. Maybe it's fragmentation. IL-2 vs BMS vs DCS vs Combat Flight Sim (lol) vs Take Off vs X-Plane vs MS FS#/FSX. Maybe it's complexity. Maybe it's the knowledge needed. Or maybe even the price of entry ($60+ for the game, then $100+ for a decent controller, some kind of head-motion tracker; just to get the basic experience. Not including the pedal which make it even better, or any of the MFDs or other controllers).
Fixed that for you. We're not in the '90s anymore, and even then, people wanted to be racing or ramming or shooting other people while they did it. People were impressed by FSX's visuals to varying degrees--it was a very early DirectX 10 supported game, for example, with experimental shaders and the like. And while running on the same engine for six years in the meantime is a problem, if you think somehow throwing in better visuals would have made FS11 a totally viable game the same was Flight Simulator '94 was, you're mistaken. Even if you could literally offer people the option to buzz every childhood home of theirs with a Cessna, in beautiful detail, you wouldn't convince the huge chunk of Microsoft's market that has very little to no interest in learning even basic flight mechanics beyond something like Ace Combat (and even then, you're pushing it) while limiting yourself to the people who actually have machines that could run that. CoD runs on a lot of PCs. Some sort of hyperdetailed worldwide flight simulation? Unless your plan is to the state of Rhode Island your entire world, yeah, not as many PCs.
The thing is, I would pay for it. But I'm also part of a very small market, just like the rest of the people in this thread. Fragmentation is part of the problem, but only so much as "The audience for these games is now tiny, and the number of games is shrinking slower than the audience is."
Well, I should clarify that by everyone, I was thinking more towards us, the kinds of people who buy the game. We're not going to get Douchey McTwelveyearsold to even play the game or anything, obviously. So I should have been more clear and even more long-winded.
I guess we're talking past each other. My main point was that I think graphics are important, though not the most important thing. Making better, hyperrealistic, super, awesome graphics for a flight sim won't attract more people to play it than it would if it looked like the first MSFS. Well, maybe a few. But, as has been stated a billion times, it's only for a tiny, niche market. The two key things for the market are flight model and graphics. I was mainly focusing on graphics, because it's the quickest, easiest way to judge a game. And, after playing FSX for a billion years, the graphics suck a lot. Actually, there's a video on Youtube I saw which compares the graphics between MSF and FSX. FSX actually looks a bit better. I'll dig up the link later, when I find it. Regardless though.
As with all games, though, making them scalable is key.
Looks like in general no, but they are attempting to make it easy on the aircraft designers to update there craft but they have some issues to work out.
Edit: I freaking hate how the forums save drafts. I always forget that and post something with a quick snip of a aborted post I decided not to complete.
Another clue to the next dcs project being a f-18. It makes sense to me and I still stake my money on it. I think it's a wise choice for them too.
If you read the thread I posted, someone from ED said they won't be releasing it. I think it's because ED isn't actually doing it. I believe it's a 3rd party module and ED is just tweaking the flight model for them. There absolutely will be an F-18 module, one way or the other. You can bet on that.
Edit: I freaking hate how the forums save drafts. I always forget that and post something with a quick snip of a aborted post I decided not to complete.
I think ya read that wrong Sir. If you read a bit closer, it's the guys working on the third party craft that said they will not be releasing the hornet due to internal reasons. Others theorize they can't release due to dcs doing it themselves.
If any 3rd party developer were to develop a viable F/A-18C for release in DCS:World, it would be us! wink Again, sorry to disappoint... hopefully we haven't pissed anyone off.
Which only furthers the rumor that the next DCS:Fast Jet is going to be the F-18. We've got Iris doing the F-15, so it's not that. The only other possible conclusion to a "popular fixed wing US jet" is either the F-16 or F-18.
Unfortunately doesn't really help when you forget you typed something then deleted it but it got saved and you hit quote and have the little snippet you wrote and deleted earlier prepended to your message. It's not a big deal, but it is annoying:)
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I may have mistook who was from where. An official F-18 module would be aces.
And X-Plane 10 is sounding better and better:
One other neat feature to note…it’s a really simple feature but I think it adds a nice touch of realism. As Tom was working on the Baron he said to us that since so many users like to start their planes from cold-dark-cockpit mode, they should have a way of using a flashlight so they can see what they’re doing before they get the plane powered up. What a great idea! So that’s what we did! Most aviators use a red flashlight to preserve their eye sensitivity so in the View menu, you’ll now see a way to Toggle on and off the Red flashlight. You can tie it to a keyboard or joystick button as well. There’s no menu entry for it but if you’d prefer a white flashlight, there’s a command for that as well so you can pick what you like best. Like all of the other fancy dynamic lighting in the sim, the flashlight only works with HDR enabled.
Yeah man, X-Plane sounds like a nerdier flight sim - which just sounds redundant haha.
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Hopefully it follows the mouse, so when you click on things, it lights up with it. I think, come next paycheck, I will buy X-Plane. Here's hoping to not be disappointed.
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
Also, in some of the videos I've seen, it looks like you can walk around, at least in the cockpit. Maybe just for certain planes. That's one thing I've wanted in sims since forever. It might have just been camera trickery, but that would be awesome.
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Thanks for the link.
As long as they don't go the route with MSF, where you can get out of your airplane and run around all over the place, I would be happy.
Seriously, one of the stupidest features ever.
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
Thanks for the link.
As long as they don't go the route with MSF, where you can get out of your airplane and run around all over the place, I would be happy.
Seriously, one of the stupidest features ever.
I actually liked that....
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Thanks for the link.
As long as they don't go the route with MSF, where you can get out of your airplane and run around all over the place, I would be happy.
Seriously, one of the stupidest features ever.
I actually liked that....
How so?
I mean, it was one thing to get up and do a walk-around of the airplane and all, but the rest of the island is dead. Like, I got up and literally ran halfway across one of the islands.
Maybe I'm not so angry at the concept of being able to leave your aircraft, like in TOH, but the rest of the world better be damned lively.
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
Eh, I just like being able to land somewhere, get out, walk around, get back in, and take off. I guess it's an immersion thing. That's one reason I really need to spend some more time with Take On Helicopters, and Arma 2 for that matter.
Even as far back as Pilotwings on the SNES, on the overhead helicopter levels, I would enjoy just landing and taking off in different areas when the point of those was to shoot things. I'm just weird, I guess.
I liked it too, because a lot of the nicer planes had cool animations for opening the cargo doors and stuff. I feel like I saw screenshots of boats too, so I thought it supported numerous vehicle types. But maybe that's just scenery. I'll probably order this next week. But I think I need to get a new hard drive or something, I'm running out of space. Maybe finally add an SSD to my rig..
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
The Icon is kind of like a boat.... I like landing it on the water and jetting around.
I'll check out the X-Plane demo. I won't be able to buy it for quite a while, though.
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
When the models are done right, I like it too.
I do kind of like landing the helicopters in TOH, turning them off - properly, getting out, pissing around or whatever, then getting back in and starting it up.
In MSF, there was no reason to get out. No traffic, no animals, nothing at all. It was a wasted feature. That's kind of what I'm expecting with X-Plane. I mean, can you get out in mutliplayer, and jump into their planes and whatnot? That would be awesome if you could jump in and co-pilot some dude's B-17. Or maybe jump in the other positions (I know it's not a combat sim, but it's still fun to go to the different spots in the plane, regardless.
I love the B-17 (memphis belle woot!), but I think making combat planes for civil aviation sims is a waste. I don't want to fly a bomber, just so I can fly it.. I want to run missions! And that's what DCS is for
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
I would love to, just once, do a decent multiplayer, full-on WWII air raid/battle. Squadrons of bombers and their escorts vs defender fighters.
But, I don't think such a thing ever happens. IL-2 is full on fighter-vs.-fighter dogfights, with the occasional goof flying a bomber.
You could play WW2 online for that I'm sure Too bad it looks like poop.
I wouldn't be opposed to a IL-2 team dog fight session though. If we could get like 6+ people for that, it would probably be pretty fun. I never played mp IL-2 though. I guess Wings of Prey could be a prettier option too.
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Wings of Prey would be easier, for sure. IL-2 would just take months of everyone playing trying to learn how to dogfight effectively.
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
I've done a mp IL-2 mission against AI opponents with about 8 people and it was awesome. Most of the group provided air cover while me and the other newbie focused on ground targets.
I always thought X-Plane was the shittier flight sim than MSFS. I haven't played since many versions ago either, but I remember not being very impressed. It always seemed a bit too unrealistic to me, when I played. Maybe X-Plane 10 will be different. Not sure about the $80 price tag though.
I think this may have been true, but then the civil aviation genre pretty much...ate itself, or something. Given how long FSX has been out, and that X-Plane is still getting updated, tables may have turned.
Well, with MS, I think they realized they shouldn't just keep updating the same shitty graphics engine year after year. Well, that and the horrible failure (mostly on their end) of their DLC model (and if we're going to nitpick, the lack of multiplayer and other non-static objects to make it not feel as lonely). Maybe? I don't know. MSF is just another pretty graphical update to the same shitty graphics engine that MSFS has had forever.
I could really use another civilian flight sim too.
You and the other 0.005% of Microsoft's market that plays flight simulators. Myself included, though graphics were the least of my problems. When FSX came out, people weren't going "Oh, man, this game looks like ass! Boo!" People were clamoring over to transfer their huge mod libraries over to FSX from FS9. Graphics were not going to make or break FSX (it looked better than X-Plane did back then). Now, come MSF...differen't story. Coincidentally, six years later. The genre was suffering well before FSX came out, now, I'm flat out shocked they even tried it.
Don't get me wrong: I wish I were playing FS11 right now. But even the modern military aviation genre is far smaller than it used to be (and mostly dominated by decade-old Falcon 4.0 and developers from Russia). Modern civil aviation? It's probably about as popular as the "commercial boating" genre. A tiny, dedicated fanbase does not a genre make, in reality. Especially given that FSX still works--nothing is stopping you from playing it, except for the fact that, like every single other civil aviation game, the engine is getting long in the tooth.
Not to be too shallow, but I think horrible graphics is part of the problem. Flight sims, we know, is a very tiny, niche market. For whatever reason, they always have been. Maybe it's because it's somewhat complex, and requires a bit of external knowledge and research. Call of Dudebro II: The Awakening Revengeance doesn't require anything more than picking up a controller and pressing the shoot butan.
I think the improvements from FS1998/2002 to FS2004/FSX was huge, graphically and flight-sims-physics-wise. I believe the graphical improvement was a huge selling point. A small number of people wants to fly over their home city and be able to see the sights from above, or the Grand Canyon, or Mt. Rushmore, or Hong Kong. A very small number. It's a bad thing when you're flying over NYC, and there are about 12 giant buildings making up downtown, two of which got removed in a patch later. But consider that's still twice as many buildings, plus dynamic trees and more traffic than previous years' had, that's saying something.
As for why flight sims are getting smaller, I don't know. Maybe it's fragmentation. IL-2 vs BMS vs DCS vs Combat Flight Sim (lol) vs Take Off vs X-Plane vs MS FS#/FSX. Maybe it's complexity. Maybe it's the knowledge needed. Or maybe even the price of entry ($60+ for the game, then $100+ for a decent controller, some kind of head-motion tracker; just to get the basic experience. Not including the pedal which make it even better, or any of the MFDs or other controllers).
Fixed that for you. We're not in the '90s anymore, and even then, people wanted to be racing or ramming or shooting other people while they did it. People were impressed by FSX's visuals to varying degrees--it was a very early DirectX 10 supported game, for example, with experimental shaders and the like. And while running on the same engine for six years in the meantime is a problem, if you think somehow throwing in better visuals would have made FS11 a totally viable game the same was Flight Simulator '94 was, you're mistaken. Even if you could literally offer people the option to buzz every childhood home of theirs with a Cessna, in beautiful detail, you wouldn't convince the huge chunk of Microsoft's market that has very little to no interest in learning even basic flight mechanics beyond something like Ace Combat (and even then, you're pushing it) while limiting yourself to the people who actually have machines that could run that. CoD runs on a lot of PCs. Some sort of hyperdetailed worldwide flight simulation? Unless your plan is to the state of Rhode Island your entire world, yeah, not as many PCs.
The thing is, I would pay for it. But I'm also part of a very small market, just like the rest of the people in this thread. Fragmentation is part of the problem, but only so much as "The audience for these games is now tiny, and the number of games is shrinking slower than the audience is."
Well, I should clarify that by everyone, I was thinking more towards us, the kinds of people who buy the game. We're not going to get Douchey McTwelveyearsold to even play the game or anything, obviously. So I should have been more clear and even more long-winded.
I guess we're talking past each other. My main point was that I think graphics are important, though not the most important thing. Making better, hyperrealistic, super, awesome graphics for a flight sim won't attract more people to play it than it would if it looked like the first MSFS. Well, maybe a few. But, as has been stated a billion times, it's only for a tiny, niche market. The two key things for the market are flight model and graphics. I was mainly focusing on graphics, because it's the quickest, easiest way to judge a game. And, after playing FSX for a billion years, the graphics suck a lot. Actually, there's a video on Youtube I saw which compares the graphics between MSF and FSX. FSX actually looks a bit better. I'll dig up the link later, when I find it. Regardless though.
As with all games, though, making them scalable is key.
Heh, we're not even talking pass eachother--we're coming to the same point of development, though I suppose not the same conclusion. The problem isn't Douchey McTwelve, the problem is everyone who's not Armchair pilot Joe like you or I. We're the exception, not the rule. The FS series wasn't cheap to develop as far as I can tell (and I can't even fathom the licensing costs that must have been involved). A good simulation, like you described, would be even more expensive for a tiny, niche market. It's an absolutely logical step as to how we've come to the point where tiny modification of existing games (that were very expensive to make in the first place) have become the norm for the genre.
As it happens, I have absolutely no doubt that there are times with MSF looks worse than FSX. And coincidentally, I have no doubt the reverse is true in others. This is an incredibly easy thing to do in flight simulation games (it's one of the reasons you can still have a decent screenshot in Il-2 of all things). Honestly, besides "both games are clearly showing their age", that doesn't really mean shit. Especially when the business model is highly suspect as it was, the game not being absolutely gorgeous is actually pretty low on the list of problems. If you could take the same "billion year old" graphics and actually make an insanely detailed world, you'd have a step up, and the tiny dedicated fanbase would appreciate it. If you could create an environment as detailed as something out of Crysis (eh, scratch that, say DCS BS2), you may end up with a much smaller and potentially much more shallow world, which is a huge step back for it. And you're not going to have both. MSF wasn't going to do either, as far as I can tell.
One thing's for certain: in addition to every other thing on its enormous plate, and trying not to choke on it, I don't expect Microsoft was going to just conjure up an entirely new, revolutionary engine that'll burn out video cards like a microwave oven for a game whose first year sales will be measured in the thousands rather than the millions. It's pretty daunting, even before you consider how many very dedicated modders and players on forums like Simviation are extremely opposed to a more demanding game on their setups. Given how hard it is to bring more people into civil aviation, I can see why you wouldn't want to alienate those who've been with you for almost twenty years.
That being said, I'd be incredibly happy with a FS11 that looked as good as DCS does now. Though I'd be happy with any FS11 that demonstrated the same progress from FSX that FSX did from FS2004.
Wings of Prey would be easier, for sure. IL-2 would just take months of everyone playing trying to learn how to dogfight effectively.
Wasn't WoP's multiplayer aspect rather shallow though? In terms of mission options and so forth. I suppose it's fine if everyone's okay with just dropping into planes and furballing it, but I don't think you could set up more elaborate things like fighter-bomber escort from takeoff.
You could play WW2 online for that I'm sure Too bad it looks like poop.
I wouldn't be opposed to a IL-2 team dog fight session though. If we could get like 6+ people for that, it would probably be pretty fun. I never played mp IL-2 though. I guess Wings of Prey could be a prettier option too.
Sure, I'd hope in if this got started though I might play the role of cannon fodder:) Either of those two games would be fine with me. Sorry for the slow reply but E.Y.E. Has hacked my brain and installed and called a recursive routine to launch and play Divine Cybermancy..... I think it might be missing a base case too
Isn't the actual aircraft warfare concept the least common role in WWII Online (behind armored warfare and infantry warfare?) Then again,I've heard the game, at least in theory, has extremely elaborate vehicle physics and damage modeling...
Isn't the actual aircraft warfare concept the least common role in WWII Online (behind armored warfare and infantry warfare?) Then again,I've heard the game, at least in theory, has extremely elaborate vehicle physics and damage modeling...
The aircraft side is unforgiving, or at least it was when I played. You have player ranks, which dictate what planes you can use. And because Armchair Joe plays obsessively, anytime you go up you need a decent squadron covering your back or he blows you out of the sky. Which then leaves you waiting to respawn and causes your side to lose that plane. And you only have a limited supply of planes that are any good.
And as for physics and damage modelling, there were some pretty major deficiencies when I tried to play. Namely, as far as tanks go, they'd modelled the effect of sloped armour but not overmatch. So in a face to face slugging match between a Tiger and a Sherman, the Sherman won every time as it had sloped armour and they hadn't modelled the ability of the 88 to just punch straight through regardless.
Tri-Optimum reminds you that there are only one-hundred-sixty-three shopping days until Christmas. Just 1 extra work cycle twice a week will give you the spending money you need to make this holiday a very special one.
I do remember doing parachute drops onto airfields and shooting up surprised pilots with an Anti-Tank rifle. Pity the AT-Rifle did nothing to armour.
Tri-Optimum reminds you that there are only one-hundred-sixty-three shopping days until Christmas. Just 1 extra work cycle twice a week will give you the spending money you need to make this holiday a very special one.
By way of the Steam thread, I've been pointed over here. I'm getting back into flight sims, after taking a few years off while my HOTAS gear languished in boxes in a rented storage unit because it was more important to have space in the living room for children to play than for me to have a desk with room for a joystick and throttle.
But a new rented home with more space means the CH Products gear has finally come out of storage! And after two evenings and an unspecified quantity of bourbon spent trying to get my old Jane's IAF and IL-2 discs to play nice with Windows 7, I ended up buying the IL-2 1946 pack off Steam.
Reading over some of this thread, it sounds like DCS ought to be high on my list also. No real point, I'm just looking forward to fiddling with prop pitches and trim settings again while looking for trouble in the skies over Russia, Europe, and the Pacific, and glad that there's the possibility of playing with some like minded folks from time to time.
shdwcaster - glad to hear you're able to finally dust off the old CH stick. The DCS games are definitely the best blend of modern gaming and hardcore sim at the moment. We've also been talking about getting some FSX multiplayer going - or maybe X-Plane if people take the plunge (I'm thinking of ordering it next week, if the money is there).
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
I figured I was about due for a change, especially since I haven't really played my Xbox since I bought a new PC a couple of years ago. Still not 100% set on this one (even though I like it), so I haven't changed it other places yet.
shdwcaster - glad to hear you're able to finally dust off the old CH stick. The DCS games are definitely the best blend of modern gaming and hardcore sim at the moment. We've also been talking about getting some FSX multiplayer going - or maybe X-Plane if people take the plunge (I'm thinking of ordering it next week, if the money is there).
Another thing I thought of that we haven't talked about (that I remember) is we could also see about getting some multiplayer going with some space sims. FSO, Evochron, etc.
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
I just joined too.
I thought I had most of you friended from the Steam thread, but I guess not. Well, now invites are sent.
Have any of you heard of this new MMO fligher put out by the guys who did WoP (I think)? http://warthunder.com/
I just got a invite to the beta in my mail cause I have WoP on Yuplay. Anyone else?
striderjg on
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Hmm, guess I'll go ahead and get in the beta and try it out. Downloading now. Maybe give it a spin tonight.
A note to those who want to try it: They're download servers suck. I'm rarely getting over 200 KB/s. There does seem to be a torrent link so that might work out better. I'm just gonna stick with the all day download.
Posts
Well, I should clarify that by everyone, I was thinking more towards us, the kinds of people who buy the game. We're not going to get Douchey McTwelveyearsold to even play the game or anything, obviously. So I should have been more clear and even more long-winded.
I guess we're talking past each other. My main point was that I think graphics are important, though not the most important thing. Making better, hyperrealistic, super, awesome graphics for a flight sim won't attract more people to play it than it would if it looked like the first MSFS. Well, maybe a few. But, as has been stated a billion times, it's only for a tiny, niche market. The two key things for the market are flight model and graphics. I was mainly focusing on graphics, because it's the quickest, easiest way to judge a game. And, after playing FSX for a billion years, the graphics suck a lot. Actually, there's a video on Youtube I saw which compares the graphics between MSF and FSX. FSX actually looks a bit better. I'll dig up the link later, when I find it. Regardless though.
As with all games, though, making them scalable is key.
http://developer.x-plane.com/2011/12/airplane-authors-please-let-us-fix-a-few-bugs/
Looks like in general no, but they are attempting to make it easy on the aircraft designers to update there craft but they have some issues to work out.
Edit: I freaking hate how the forums save drafts. I always forget that and post something with a quick snip of a aborted post I decided not to complete.
Another clue to the next dcs project being a f-18. It makes sense to me and I still stake my money on it. I think it's a wise choice for them too.
If you read the thread I posted, someone from ED said they won't be releasing it. I think it's because ED isn't actually doing it. I believe it's a 3rd party module and ED is just tweaking the flight model for them. There absolutely will be an F-18 module, one way or the other. You can bet on that.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/drafts
Unfortunately doesn't really help when you forget you typed something then deleted it but it got saved and you hit quote and have the little snippet you wrote and deleted earlier prepended to your message. It's not a big deal, but it is annoying:)
And X-Plane 10 is sounding better and better:
It does. There's a quick video of it here: http://developer.x-plane.com/2012/08/beta-6-and-more-view-improvements/
Also, in some of the videos I've seen, it looks like you can walk around, at least in the cockpit. Maybe just for certain planes. That's one thing I've wanted in sims since forever. It might have just been camera trickery, but that would be awesome.
As long as they don't go the route with MSF, where you can get out of your airplane and run around all over the place, I would be happy.
Seriously, one of the stupidest features ever.
How so?
I mean, it was one thing to get up and do a walk-around of the airplane and all, but the rest of the island is dead. Like, I got up and literally ran halfway across one of the islands.
Maybe I'm not so angry at the concept of being able to leave your aircraft, like in TOH, but the rest of the world better be damned lively.
Even as far back as Pilotwings on the SNES, on the overhead helicopter levels, I would enjoy just landing and taking off in different areas when the point of those was to shoot things. I'm just weird, I guess.
I'll check out the X-Plane demo. I won't be able to buy it for quite a while, though.
I do kind of like landing the helicopters in TOH, turning them off - properly, getting out, pissing around or whatever, then getting back in and starting it up.
In MSF, there was no reason to get out. No traffic, no animals, nothing at all. It was a wasted feature. That's kind of what I'm expecting with X-Plane. I mean, can you get out in mutliplayer, and jump into their planes and whatnot? That would be awesome if you could jump in and co-pilot some dude's B-17. Or maybe jump in the other positions (I know it's not a combat sim, but it's still fun to go to the different spots in the plane, regardless.
But, I don't think such a thing ever happens. IL-2 is full on fighter-vs.-fighter dogfights, with the occasional goof flying a bomber.
I wouldn't be opposed to a IL-2 team dog fight session though. If we could get like 6+ people for that, it would probably be pretty fun. I never played mp IL-2 though. I guess Wings of Prey could be a prettier option too.
Heh, we're not even talking pass eachother--we're coming to the same point of development, though I suppose not the same conclusion. The problem isn't Douchey McTwelve, the problem is everyone who's not Armchair pilot Joe like you or I. We're the exception, not the rule. The FS series wasn't cheap to develop as far as I can tell (and I can't even fathom the licensing costs that must have been involved). A good simulation, like you described, would be even more expensive for a tiny, niche market. It's an absolutely logical step as to how we've come to the point where tiny modification of existing games (that were very expensive to make in the first place) have become the norm for the genre.
As it happens, I have absolutely no doubt that there are times with MSF looks worse than FSX. And coincidentally, I have no doubt the reverse is true in others. This is an incredibly easy thing to do in flight simulation games (it's one of the reasons you can still have a decent screenshot in Il-2 of all things). Honestly, besides "both games are clearly showing their age", that doesn't really mean shit. Especially when the business model is highly suspect as it was, the game not being absolutely gorgeous is actually pretty low on the list of problems. If you could take the same "billion year old" graphics and actually make an insanely detailed world, you'd have a step up, and the tiny dedicated fanbase would appreciate it. If you could create an environment as detailed as something out of Crysis (eh, scratch that, say DCS BS2), you may end up with a much smaller and potentially much more shallow world, which is a huge step back for it. And you're not going to have both. MSF wasn't going to do either, as far as I can tell.
One thing's for certain: in addition to every other thing on its enormous plate, and trying not to choke on it, I don't expect Microsoft was going to just conjure up an entirely new, revolutionary engine that'll burn out video cards like a microwave oven for a game whose first year sales will be measured in the thousands rather than the millions. It's pretty daunting, even before you consider how many very dedicated modders and players on forums like Simviation are extremely opposed to a more demanding game on their setups. Given how hard it is to bring more people into civil aviation, I can see why you wouldn't want to alienate those who've been with you for almost twenty years.
That being said, I'd be incredibly happy with a FS11 that looked as good as DCS does now. Though I'd be happy with any FS11 that demonstrated the same progress from FSX that FSX did from FS2004.
EDIT:
Wasn't WoP's multiplayer aspect rather shallow though? In terms of mission options and so forth. I suppose it's fine if everyone's okay with just dropping into planes and furballing it, but I don't think you could set up more elaborate things like fighter-bomber escort from takeoff.
Sure, I'd hope in if this got started though I might play the role of cannon fodder:) Either of those two games would be fine with me. Sorry for the slow reply but E.Y.E. Has hacked my brain and installed and called a recursive routine to launch and play Divine Cybermancy..... I think it might be missing a base case too
The aircraft side is unforgiving, or at least it was when I played. You have player ranks, which dictate what planes you can use. And because Armchair Joe plays obsessively, anytime you go up you need a decent squadron covering your back or he blows you out of the sky. Which then leaves you waiting to respawn and causes your side to lose that plane. And you only have a limited supply of planes that are any good.
And as for physics and damage modelling, there were some pretty major deficiencies when I tried to play. Namely, as far as tanks go, they'd modelled the effect of sloped armour but not overmatch. So in a face to face slugging match between a Tiger and a Sherman, the Sherman won every time as it had sloped armour and they hadn't modelled the ability of the 88 to just punch straight through regardless.
Everything you need to know about WWII Online can be found from that, broken armor modeling aside.
But a new rented home with more space means the CH Products gear has finally come out of storage! And after two evenings and an unspecified quantity of bourbon spent trying to get my old Jane's IAF and IL-2 discs to play nice with Windows 7, I ended up buying the IL-2 1946 pack off Steam.
Reading over some of this thread, it sounds like DCS ought to be high on my list also. No real point, I'm just looking forward to fiddling with prop pitches and trim settings again while looking for trouble in the skies over Russia, Europe, and the Pacific, and glad that there's the possibility of playing with some like minded folks from time to time.
Contributing writer at Marooner's Rock
Twitch broadcasting! Currently playing through Wing Commander: Privateer
Pinny Lanyard
Penny Arcade Thrustmasters!
It's currently set to public, but I'll change it to invite only after a bit. Should be a good way to maybe get some multiplayer games going.
I'll try to put an avatar together tomorrow.
Steam: betsuni7
shdwcaster - glad to hear you're able to finally dust off the old CH stick. The DCS games are definitely the best blend of modern gaming and hardcore sim at the moment. We've also been talking about getting some FSX multiplayer going - or maybe X-Plane if people take the plunge (I'm thinking of ordering it next week, if the money is there).
Mission accomplished!
I figured I was about due for a change, especially since I haven't really played my Xbox since I bought a new PC a couple of years ago. Still not 100% set on this one (even though I like it), so I haven't changed it other places yet.
Another thing I thought of that we haven't talked about (that I remember) is we could also see about getting some multiplayer going with some space sims. FSO, Evochron, etc.
I thought I had most of you friended from the Steam thread, but I guess not. Well, now invites are sent.
http://warthunder.com/
I just got a invite to the beta in my mail cause I have WoP on Yuplay. Anyone else?
A note to those who want to try it: They're download servers suck. I'm rarely getting over 200 KB/s. There does seem to be a torrent link so that might work out better. I'm just gonna stick with the all day download.