How Come all Combat flight Sims are stuck in the WWII era...

[JediMaster 451]

Ironically, it should be easier to model the modern fighters than the ones from the 80s and 90s. After realizing there was serious pilot workload overload, planes like the F-22 and F-35 are being designed to be more like the sims we played in the 90s with "god's eye radar" turned on.

You designate the target, choose the weapon (maybe that is even done for you based on range to target), give the authorization to fire and the weapon goes when the time is right. No worries about slewing this or activating that or remembering the right sequence. Point, click, and shoot.

 

I think TK could do that easy right now with his engine. The targeting boxes could simply be on your HMD. The only real change is the new jets can do AA and AG at the same time without changing radar modes.

 

The rivet counters are immaterial, anyway. Give me a sim where it FEELS real, where real tactics work and the enemies act real, and that's enough. Sure if I can't break Mach 1 in an F-15 I'll be annoyed, but whether you're going Mach 2 or 2.5 in 5 mins or 8 doesn't really matter to how you fly and fight, the whinerealism people to the contrary.

[Wolf65 0]

I really liked Total Air War, i don't know how realistic that game was, but it was fun and you got to fly the F-22.

[+Fates 63]

Yeah.. but what about Games Like Jane's F-15 , Israeli Air Force, USAF, and WOE? the avionics in these games are well simulated & the latter 3 games have at least 7 flyable jets...

I can't speak for IAF as I next never played it.

 

However, I'm an avid player and fan of Janes F-15 and Janes' USAF. Even if the games are 10 years old.

Jane's USAF had several aircraft, but they all had the same avionics package (for the most part) with different flight model. The terrain was satellite imagery superimposed on the world to make it look nice...but was super ugly down low and up close. The avionics were not without flaw either....and definately not realistic IMHO. Janes F15 had a raw flight model, so-so avionics, and a great mission editor, and so-so graphics (remember that these sims are 10 years old.)

 

I can't speak for WOE because I've never played it as well, however the ability for expansion is not limited and TK works every day to bring us more....maybe we'll see things like Inflight refueling, enhanced multiplayer, in-game mission editor like LOMAC and Janes series.

The world graphics are also very below par IMHO compared to games like LOMAC and even more modern games like Ace Combat (even if it is an Arcade)

 

However, what these two games did (Janes F15, USAF) and probably IAF as well, was they gave you the perception of reality. You believed they were excellent adaptation of what you perceived as being modern day avionics, weaponry, and flight models. Fact is...that is exactly what drew me to those games...that and the fact they have superb multiplayer.

 

Those games that you mentioned had limits, and many of those limits were overcome by fooling the player. I'm the type of pilot that if I believe it's real, then it is real in all intent and purpose. Although someone else may know better and say it's not. In this crowd, I'd get booooo'd out for saying I like a more lighter version of a game if it gave me more perceived realism (graphics and avionics and weponry). If someone creates a game that can fool my senses and give me everything that you are asking for all rolled into one game....Its #1 hands down. Until then, we all have to settle for what is being developed....no to say that they are not individually great games, but they just don't place my percieved reality ahead of all else. Total immersion. It's what everoyne wants.

 

To answer you original question why they are mostly WW2 games is a matter of money. It takes less time to develop, which is EXACTLY why Janes USAF went the route it did. It developed on Avionics/Weaponry package and applied it accross 10 airframes....cut their development cost down quite abit I'd say. Fact is, most MODERN FIGHTER aircraft pretty much have the same Avionics package, Slight variation in Weponry, and various flight models. You could do today what Janes did a decade ago and I would be totaly satisfied flying a Eurofighter with F-16 weaponry. I don't know any better...I just want a visual package that is pure eyeball candy and a multiplayer atmosphere that makes you rely on your real-life wingman and I'll shell out the money to buy all my friends a copy.

[Fubar512 1,350]

OH PLEASE!!!!!!! Enough!!! Why not make a game based on Jane's USAF or WoE but with a superior graphic engine, better flight model & of course a fine choice of aircraft....

 

Games like jane's USAF were designed with a different flight model for each je plus well simulated avionics..

 

I don't think there's any question of a breach in national security by designing new jet-age combat sims...

 

 

The "well simulated avionics" in Jane's USAF, were a joke. They were oversimplfied, and they weren't authentic.

 

For example. the A-10A in Jane's has radar, with air-to-air modes! The MiG-29 in that same title, uses a cockpit that doesn't even begin to model the real Fulcrum's cockpit with any degree of accuracy.

 

The only sim that modeled modern avionics with any degree of fidelity was Falcon 4.0, and even there, compromises were made to allow that title to run on the CPUs and GPUs of the day.

[eraser_tr 29]

And F4 goes too far to be fun. Jedimaster made the point I was trying to make a little better.

 

JSF_aggie, we're not all in the know, but for at least a thirdwire level sim, how advanced does it need to be, without simply becoming feature creep that nobody uses like the multipurpose cell "phones" that can do everything shy of hook up a usb joystick and fly on. And things like the electronics that communicate with other planes (rather old, mig-31) and such information, doesn't have any need to be modeled because it doesn't affect the gameplay.

[+Fates 63]

I don't agree if you're talking current day. But I guess if you don't know what you're missing, it's good enough.

 

That is my point. Each players reality is scewed to what they perceive to be realistic. Avionics Magazine published an excellent article on the JSF and included a fairly indepth discussion on the avionics of that aircraft including photo's (albiet nothing secret was spoke of). Yeah, some of us may not be in Aggie's position, but there is SOME information out there even though it may only be in trade journals, such as Avionics Magazine, and only read by a few people like me that are in the Industry.

[RunsWithScissors 0]

I like to think of the F-35's avionics as "Ace Combat" avionics. 360 deg. sensors, A2A & A2G at the same time...I saw some show about is that said they put kids in the sim with no instruction & they were flying & shooting down stuff in 15 min.

 

I need one of these. I have some neighbors I could practice my A2G on

Edited September 21, 2007 by RunsWithScissors

[SkyStrike 15]

The problems for developers is they have to build a game that will sell, not just a game that will only sell to HIGH END PC's.

 

When you create a WW2 flight sim, you can dumb down the avionics and increase the graphical world. This has been the tendancy for developers and it's not limited to the Flight Sim World.

 

I don't have to say this, but as you already know; for ANY TYPE Of the P.C. games released over the past 5 years, be it Simulation, Racing, Strategy, RPG or Shooter, you need a PC with AT LEAST the following specifications in order to play the game properly with accdeptable graphic standards..

 

Pentiun IV 1.4 Ghz.

at least a 128 MB graphics card

at least 256 MB RAM...

 

Unless someone has a at least a system with the above specs he/she need't even bother purchasing any game released over the past 5 years....

[+Fates 63]

I don't have to say this, but as you already know; for ANY TYPE Of the P.C. games released over the past 5 years, be it Simulation, Racing, Strategy, RPG or Shooter, you need a PC with AT LEAST the following specifications in order to play the game properly with accdeptable graphic standards..

Pentiun IV 1.4 Ghz.

at least a 128 MB graphics card

at least 256 MB RAM...

 

As you take away system specs, you take awae realism. Yes...the game may run on that system...but acceptable is not a word I would use. Acceptable is different for everyone. I would NEVER attempt to run ANY game without having 1GB ram and a 256MB Video card....but...that's just me.

[Fubar512 1,350]

I don't have to say this, but as you already know; for ANY TYPE Of the P.C. games released over the past 5 years, be it Simulation, Racing, Strategy, RPG or Shooter, you need a PC with AT LEAST the following specifications in order to play the game properly with accdeptable graphic standards..

 

Pentiun IV 1.4 Ghz.

at least a 128 MB graphics card

at least 256 MB RAM...

 

Unless someone has a at least a system with the above specs he/she need't even bother purchasing any game released over the past 5 years....

 

 

I recall an interview on Tech TV (a few years ago), where they asked a PC "game" developer if there was any sort of an agreement among the various companies as to the backwards-compatibility of new titles. His response was something to the effect of:

 

"No, not officially, but off the record, we all more or less agree that a three year-old system is about as old a set up as we'd want to support".

 

Flight sims that where released in the 1997-1998 period would NOT run well on anything older than a 2-3 year old system (though in all fairness, Pentium processors were only released at the end of 1993, and 3D graphics cards were quite uncommon prior to 1996).

 

By late 1999 early 2000, most titles coming out were written with hi-end PIIs and PIII's in mind. For example, Jane's USAF (released at the end of '99) was coded to take advantage of the PIII's SSE capability. And the PIII was only 10 months old at the time...

 

In closing, remember that SFP:1 was written in 2001-2002, and was officially released in November of 2002. I personally know at least two members of this board who are running it on PIII systems, even with the latest patch installed.

[+Typhoid 231]

I got to fly a really great F-18E sim a couple of years ago. It was superb, great graphics, a2a and a2g in the same mission with a carrier trap and just eyewatering performance.

 

of course, it took 2 people running the simulator support facility and my son in the back seat doing the cockpit function selections for me. But I imagine that most of us don't have the systems at NAS Leemore to support our gaming diversions.......

 

my mid-grade system is stressed now at the higher graphics levels as it is.

[+Major Lee 18]

To answer the original question, the entire official SF series has hit everything BUT WWII. The only other part missing is, of course, the most modern avionics of the last couple of decades. Of course, modders have filled in MANY blanks for the SF series, which was the entire point of SF anyway... For me personally, the earlier sims tug at my youthful memories, recalling the aircraft I read about in my mis-spent youth... (can I get a refund, USAFMTL?) The most modern jets have no nostalgic pull at my hearts memories...

 

As for graphic loads, my current machine is nearly maxed out with upgrades. I can go one step better to a 7600 x 512mbDDR video card, and that will be it. CPU is maxed, RAM is maxed... I would dearly love to be able to break down and buy a new monster Alienware something or other... just not right now. As for Windows Vista, the thought of an OS that requires 15GB of space is just too bloated for my mind...

 

ML

Edited September 21, 2007 by Major Lee

[+JSF_Aggie 1,291]

I got to fly a really great F-18E sim a couple of years ago. It was superb, great graphics, a2a and a2g in the same mission with a carrier trap and just eyewatering performance.

 

If anyone is interested, I can describe the two primary simulator types we use, that are considered "high fidelity".

 

First is the Handeling Qualities sim. It's purpose is to refine and evaluate the real flight control laws (CLAW) before they go out to the aircraft. The primary sim host is a 24 cpu SGI, and it uses all 24 cpu's. The gear model alone uses 3. The cockpit displays and HMD run on a 2 cpu linux box, and the P&W engine model has it's own linux box as well. There are several Windows computers that run the visual scene.

 

There are a few variations of the HQ sim. One is a motion base sim, where most of the CLAW testing is done. Others have the real aircraft computers in the loop, with the purpose of testing them. There's also one that is connected to a large room were all the aircraft actuators are laid out. As you fly, the CLAW is moving them as it would on the aircraft. These sims have nothing tactical, no weapon releases, no targets to shoot down. I've been told the X-35 was the first fly-by-wire aircraft whose CLAW worked well enough out of the sim, that no changes had to be made to it during flight test.

 

The second is the Manned Tactical Sim. They run on a 12 cpu SGI, but each cockpit has many linux and windows pc's running various weapon flyout models and sensor models. We run a scalled down version of the real CLAW, with several limitiations. We can't land, can't fly STOVL, can't air refuel.... There are many cockpits linked together to fly COOP missions. There are some manned RED aircraft, but most of the "world" comes from an entity generator model that has high fidelity bad guys and pretty good AI. The point of this is for the customer to develop it's real-world CONOP's for the aircraft.

 

What Typhoid flew was probably a trainer, which would basically be a HQ and MTS sim combined.

 

If you actually read all that, you did way better than my wife ever can.

Edited September 21, 2007 by JSF_Aggie

[RunsWithScissors 0]

That's very cool, JSF_Aggie. So where can I get one?

[+Dave 2,318]

recalling the aircraft I read about in my mis-spent youth... (can I get a refund, USAFMTL?) The most modern jets have no nostalgic pull at my hearts memories...

 

Sorry sir, you need to read the fine print.

 

 

I think why sims are stuck in the WWII era is because a) Info is easier to get since 99.9999% is not classified. b) Easier to make avionics for it, gauges and dials are much simpler to simulate than a side scan radar system with look down shoot down capability paired with datalink systems.

 

I'm a sim junkie, so I fly it all, LOMAC, IL2, 3rd Wire. I used to do F4:AF but its an overkill switch fest and plane ass ugly. I have my likes and dislikes but overall I am satisfied with I have to fly.

 

 

Brian

 

Good read about the sims. I got through it. Was informative.

[SkyStrike 15]

I think why sims are stuck in the WWII era is because a) Info is easier to get since 99.9999% is not classified. b) Easier to make avionics for it, gauges and dials are much simpler to simulate than a side scan radar system with look down shoot down capability paired with datalink systems.

 

Yes that's true. It's much eaier to get access to the info of each plane's performance in order to simulate them in a realistic manner with regard to World War II aircraft as well as some of the Vietnam War & Cold War aircraft, as most of them have been withdrawn from front-line military service.

 

But then again, most combat fight sims nowadays, if not all, have a VERY SIMILAR choice of aircraft,(since most of them are placed in WWII), similar features & there's nothing extraordinarily unique about each of them.. they're all basically the same except that they're released by different compaies..

 

Even arcade-style flight "sims" like Secret Weapons Over Normandy, Blazing Angels, Attack On Pearl Harbor & Heroes of The Pacific are still stuck in the WWII era...

 

One probable reason why the popularity of flight have drastically declined in contrast to shooters, RPG's & strategy games is the fact that most of them do not proceed further than WWII and as for those that do, they halt at Vietnam...

 

And as someone mentioned earlier someone ought to design a sim like ATF or Fighters Anthology, but with a FAR SUPERIOR graphic engine, a good flight model & at least semi-realistic avionics....

Edited September 22, 2007 by Tomcat_ace

[SkyStrike 15]

I think why sims are stuck in the WWII era is because a) Info is easier to get since 99.9999% is not classified. b) Easier to make avionics for it, gauges and dials are much simpler to simulate than a side scan radar system with look down shoot down capability paired with datalink systems.

 

 

Yes that's true. It's much eaier to get access to the info of each plane's performance in order to simulate them in a realistic manner with regard to World War II aircraft as well as some of the Vietnam War & Cold War aircraft, as most of them have been withdrawn from front-line military service.

 

But then again, most combat fight sims nowadays, if not all, have a VERY SIMILAR choice of aircraft,(since most of them are placed in WWII), similar features & there's nothing extraordinarily unique about each of them.. they're all basically the same except that they're released by different compaies..

 

Even arcade-style flight "sims" like Secret Weapons Over Normandy, Blazing Angels, Attack On Pearl Harbor & Heroes of The Pacific are still stuck in the WWII era...

 

One probable reason why the popularity of flight have drastically declined in contrast to shooters, RPG's & strategy games is the fact that most of them do not proceed further than WWII and as for those that do, they halt at Vietnam...

 

And as someone mentioned earlier someone ought to design a sim like ATF or Fighters Anthology, but with a FAR SUPERIOR graphic engine, a good flight model & at least semi-realistic avionics....

[eraser_tr 29]

*cough* *cough*

Ahem, I'm trying to do that in SF as a freeware mod. If any of you know a good lawyer to get the propper rights, and can fund development....

[WarlordATF 1]

I've been a flightsim junkie since BAO's Flight Simulator 2.0 on the Atari AT. I logged hours in most of the popular sims we have discussed and each seemed to offer something different. I used to love F4 and F4AF, but the drama that the hardcore crowd created kinda turned me off to it.

 

When i found Thirdwires Sims it was fun again. No one was telling anyone else that "You Can't Do That, Its Not Realistic" or "You Can't Do That, Its Against the EULA". We have planes like Firefox (beta) that have no basis in realism, but they sure are fun! The hardcore crowd is without a doubt the most vocal, but alot of us don't need every last fact checked to the nth degree to enjoy a good sim.

 

Like was said earlier, its about fooling our minds into believing its realistic. Give me a decent 3d model,cockpit and a reasonable flight model and avionics and i'm happy. Thats why i have become addicted to Thirdwire sims, It looks like an F-4C,Cockpit looks good,Flight Models decent and its got the right weapons, Bingo! Homerun!

 

I really like the direction that TK has taken, some would say it a lite sim but i personally think its one of the best sims out right now. A huge thanks goes to the community modders who have given us tons of new content and to TK for his hardwork and for giving us sim we can make mods for.

[RunsWithScissors 0]

Ditto. The only thing I'd like is an option for an even tougher flight model. Some of these planes are supposed to be rather unforgiving when they depart. Flat spins are fun! In a sim, at least.

Yeah I know TK wants it this way & that's cool. But the option would be cool, too...

[eraser_tr 29]

Like an added difficulty level beyond hard "simulation" that would enable advanced stuff alot of people want, but leaves the other difficulty levels untouched for accessability.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Some of these planes are supposed to be rather unforgiving when they depart. Flat spins are fun! In a sim, at least.

 

Flat spins have been possible to model in SF since at least the second patch. That limiting factors are post-departure drag values and the location of a model's CG vs the real aircraft's.

 

You see, once a model departs from controlled flight in this sim, it seems to rotate around the 3D model's center of gravity, irregardless of what's defined in the data.ini.

[oldnavy 0]

Another way to look a things, is that for some, the older aircraft do put you in touch with history but mostly w/o them the SR-71 and the Raptor would have never evolved. Having been re-tired from the navy for 7 years, my best memories are of CV-43 USS CORAL SEA, with F4's, A7's, F8's, EA6B's, A4's and my first plane the E2B Hawkeye. To some like me those were the best of the best. I once had the chance to meet Pappy from VMFA-214 in Cubi Point in the PI. To see him sitting in the seat of an A4 was awsome. Don't get me wrong, the advances in tech are too cool and make for some wicked airplanes, but the real thrill is going away. By the way I flew and fixed Ch-46's my last 17 years.

[SkyStrike 15]

I think why sims are stuck in the WWII era is because a) Info is easier to get since 99.9999% is not classified. b) Easier to make avionics for it, gauges and dials are much simpler to simulate than a side scan radar system with look down shoot down capability paired with datalink systems.

 

Yes that's true. It's much eaier to get access to the info of each plane's performance in order to simulate them in a realistic manner with regard to World War II aircraft as well as some of the Vietnam War & Cold War aircraft, as most of them have been withdrawn from front-line military service.

 

But then again, most combat fight sims nowadays, if not all, have a VERY SIMILAR choice of aircraft,(since most of them are placed in WWII), similar features & there's nothing extraordinarily unique about each of them.. they're all basically the same except that they're released by different compaies..

 

Even arcade-style flight "sims" like Secret Weapons Over Normandy, Blazing Angels, Attack On Pearl Harbor & Heroes of The Pacific are still stuck in the WWII era...

 

One probable reason why the popularity of flight have drastically declined in contrast to shooters, RPG's & strategy games is the fact that most of them do not proceed further than WWII and as for those that do, they halt at Vietnam...

 

And as someone mentioned earlier someone ought to design a sim like ATF or Fighters Anthology, but with a FAR SUPERIOR graphic engine, a good flight model & at least semi-realistic avionics....

 

(I think this is the third time i'm posting this..)

[Guest pfunkmusik]

I think that the SFP1 environment can just about run anything on any computer running whatever hardware with an XP install. Both the game engine and that OS together can run it and run it well. You may have to throttle back the eye candy, but it can be done, so I'm not sure it's a hardware/software thing.

 

I think the WW2 theatre sells well because many consider it to be the last 'good' war, a war fought for noble reasons.

 

I think they're wrong, though.

 

pfunk