Community produced game?

[column5 63]

If it's too much based on study, it won't be as popular and you might run into trouble getting people to buy it. One-plane biased games have never really done well. I'd put in the F-4 for studies and a bunch of planes from the downloads section for publicity. The F-14, -22 and others are good enough.

 

Hmmm...have one plane as a study, with others flyable but not with the same level of detail. Its an interesting idea and would lend itself to expansion packs to increase the level of detail of the other planes. A Vietnam sim with the F-4 as the primary, perhaps, with the Thud and some others brought up to standard in expansions?

[Rambler 1-1 9]

pretty much, yeah.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

To gain leverage in the market, you can do something never done before, and its very possible here.

 

(1) To leverage playability, you want a study sim that, unlike all the others, would offer two (2) flyable, equally "detailed" but totally different aircraft with very different tactical use and which offers different gameplay depending on which of the two aircraft is played.

 

(2) There are no two aircraft that are more different in design, tactical use, mission, and overall support environment than the F-4 and MiG-21.

 

(3) For later sim paid upgrade packs, there are no two aircraft with as long a service lifetime, series of development, and over the same years as the MiG-21 and F-4.

 

(3) If there will be any Online play, you do NOT want to offer the customers nothing but F-4 vs F-4 Online.

 

Other possibilities are...

 

F-86 series and MiG-15 series -- very different aircraft.

A6M series and Wildcat/Hellcat series -- very different aircraft.

Spitfire series and Bf-109 series -- not so different.

etc...

possibly...Nieuport series and Albatross series -- very different aircraft.

[FastCargo 412]

Actually, that's a pretty good idea!

 

A 'verses' scenario to start with would be great 'hook' to get people into the series. Both aircraft have never had a 'study' sim....

 

FastCargo

[Rambler 1-1 9]

I still think more than just two planes in the base game. Maybe one pair for each definite era? or the most popular pairs? The more planes, the more attractive the game will be.

[FastCargo 412]

Now here's where we would need to get to brass tacks.

 

Either make it a 'study' sim or not. If not, then you're not offering much more than the SF series offers now.

 

If so, you need to limit it. Otherwise, your budget/time increases geometrically...

 

I think 2 aircraft to start is fine...with other aircraft as AI only.

 

We're already getting feature creep here.

 

FastCargo

[MigBuster 2,884]

I would support such a thing - problem is where do you take it and how far do you go.

 

The engine is already there if its use can be secured and its pretty bullet proof at the mo - even in its current form a lot can be altered/added without affecting the stability.

 

A study sim (as proposed) for 1 or 2 aircraft only - would mean that a lot of people may have to support development of a plane they dont care about - and may lead to conflict later on IMO.

 

I personally would support any chosen plane - though I think it has to be chosen with care. There is a reason why Falcon 4.0 only really looks at 1 aircraft in detail.

 

Do you go for a populist approach and make a futuristic trendy F-22 sim to appeal to the masses (which would never be that realistic!)- or do you stick to the games Vietnam era roots?

 

Then there is the time line and location of the Sim.

 

Say the F-4 was modelled closely - what versions would be looked at and what avionics/weapons would they be able to use.

 

The great thing about the F-4 is that Carrier ops can be simulated too - however would we still wanting to be coming into land on the empty default carrier with no deck activity?

 

Also the Campaign in this game would need some severe revamping - quite a task - unless the game was restricted to hundreds of single missions disguised as a running campaign (where deck activity can be moddelled already to some degree)

 

Would you want A-A refuelling and can they incorporate a tanker with an animated boom?

 

Am kind of rambling on about some YAP / Flight of the Intruder hybrid now - but I guess thats 1 possibilty - with the F-4 and A-6 needing revamped cockpits, and the ability to change Mil settings for Dive bombing (free fall/retarded), Dive Toss, and DIANE.

 

 

Bottom line is we already have a series where anyone can fly any plane and have loads of fun - and a modern study sim probably wont surpass Falcon (or its predessesor). I would suggest if its to be detailed then stick to the 1960-1980 time frame which hasnt been covered to any degree (probably a reason 4 this ).

 

If you go for realistic it will really limit the planes featured - and if we went for say an F-14 you would need a bomber in there to supplement it (say an F-4).

 

I need to lay down :close_tema:

[Viggen 644]

I think 2 aircraft to start is fine...with other aircraft as AI only.

 

We're already getting feature creep here.

 

FastCargo

 

So saying the study sim went with Vietnam as C5 said. And it used both the F-4 and the MiG-21 as Lexx said. That would mean there would be campaigns for both?

 

But here is a new question (sorry if I'm sounding rude) Which Phantom? What Service? Although those could be easily decided later those were the first things that came to mind.

[+Jug 99]

I would definatley support you guys. 1 down 4,999 to go

 

I'm in. 4,998 to go. Since TK is the Godfather, we'd have to do something for him, right?

[Murphy'S 15]

i would support this kind of project

 

but not to get a study sim (even if i would pay for more and more avionics options (the phantom air to ground capabilities in this area are far to be complete))

 

as said before we already have a base

 

so would i would gladely pay money to allow tk to add all the options which he often says to us he don't have money to do them

 

even if this options would have to be included to a kind of SFP2

 

and this options are numerous (should i do another wish list?)

 

but i think we must keep a friendly modding sim

 

quite interesting discussion

Edited February 10, 2008 by Murphy'S

[column5 63]

Modelling two aircraft in detail would cut the budget for each aircraft in half before work was even started. I personally would not put my money behind that, because IMO the desired level of fidelity would require focusing on one aircraft at a time. I think the idea of expansion packs for other aircraft would be the way to go. Any profits the game might realize could go to fund the expansions.

[+Julhelm 266]

What about a strategic bomber sim like the old Megafortress game where the emphasis is on manning the different stations and penetrating enemy airspace undetected? It could be a study sim of something like the B-58, B-52, B-1 or even B-2.

[+drdoyo 2]

People talk about MSFS or X-Plane as the basis for a combat sim.

 

Either one of those engines actually been used to mimic a modern air combat sim? Or even a decent jet missile combat sim? That has actually made it to market?

 

The fact that MS themselves haven't put out a modern (or at least something based on the jet age) air combat sim since the CFS series first came out should tell you something.

 

FastCargo

 

Your right FC! The MSFS engine hasn't touched jet combat outside of user made jets for Combat Flight Sim and it's sucessors. The reality is that the CFS series wasn't that great to begin with. The only reason I put any amount of time into it was becuse it was the only thing at the time that could do what I wanted (continuing Carrier ops with the F4U in the Pacuific, even somewhat historical). Even then I had to do a lot myself to CFS2 to get what I wanted. I think the IL-2 series may have pushed the door for CFS towards closed. IL-2 is by no means perfect, but even with severe limitations imposed by it's creater, it's still IMO better than CFS was.

[+drdoyo 2]

Other possibilities are...

 

F-86 series and MiG-15 series -- very different aircraft.

A6M series and Wildcat/Hellcat series -- very different aircraft.

Spitfire series and Bf-109 series -- not so different.

etc...

possibly...Nieuport series and Albatross series -- very different aircraft.

 

For the WW2 Pacific, The F4U Corsair has NEVER had a study done, and was always pushed into the back seat in all the other sims which have included it.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

Mh strategic bomber sim, if it`s not a B-17 it would be like take off in the USA put on the autopilot and go to lunch or something else than come back and bomb something . It`s like FS. But I like the idea of the F-4 cause it`s still in use and you can bring out some updatet versions with new terrains and campaigns included. Why not bring a small bunch of aircraft. I find its more fun to have only a few aircraft to choose from, and love them. SF was a great idea, the addons are damn good and I like this community alot, but sometimes I sit infront of my installs and the Aircrafts and don`?t know wich one to fly ... cause they are so many

[triplethr3at 0]

that all sounds good but will we be able to keep all our mods. I got 477+ iarcraft inthe game and i dont want to give them up

[+drdoyo 2]

Modelling two aircraft in detail would cut the budget for each aircraft in half before work was even started. I personally would not put my money behind that, because IMO the desired level of fidelity would require focusing on one aircraft at a time. I think the idea of expansion packs for other aircraft would be the way to go. Any profits the game might realize could go to fund the expansions.

 

I'm not trying to diminish the idea, but this IMO sounds like what Falcon3 was. In the time it took to add the F/A-18 and MiG-29 with new theaters the sim's engine was dying out, as did Sierra's interest in doing study sims.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

C5::

Modelling two aircraft in detail would cut the budget for each aircraft in half before work was even started.

Its that bad? If the budget allows only one (1) flyable, then you cut the complex difficult to model F-4, and go with the simple, easy, Budget Friendly MiG-21.

 

------

 

As for any "additional" aircraft, these would be different versions of F-4 and MiG-21 -- there's enough of them both. That said, if the thing breaks out and make it, then more aircraft could be added later, especially by 3rd Party modders. We assume the sim will be open for this.

 

 

doyo::

For the WW2 Pacific, The F4U Corsair has NEVER had a study done, and was always pushed into the back seat in all the other sims which have included it.

Not appearing until Guadacanal and restricted to land bases until much later, the Corsair would not allow playing A6M2 at its most successful, and would not allow Corsair carrier ops until very late in the war. The Wildcat/Hellcat series parallels the A6M lifetime, and the Wildcat offers carrier ops from the start. Here I assume both these Grumman aircraft as part of the same series.

 

 

You need...

 

(1) two opposing aircraft series that are....

 

(2) very different and so offer different gameplay over...

 

(3) a parallel and very long time span.

[FastCargo 412]

But, WWII has been DONE. Several times. By several makers.

 

IMHO, that's the LAST place we need to go back to.

 

You need a 'hook', someplace different if you want a 'study' sim.

 

Modern and WWII sims have been done in study sims...Rhinos have not.

 

FastCargo

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

True, but we can toss out various matching aircraft ideas regardless of WW1, WW2, late 1930s, Korea, and beyond. The basic theory is the same.

 

----

 

On the other hand....a land based Pacific study-2 sim could use Corsair and Ki-61. These are far better matched in service lifetime, and there are enough variants of both for addons, although they are not nearly as different as the Grummans and A6M which offer an astonishing gulf between the two designs and offer both land based and carrier ops for both sides from the start to the end of the war.

 

Corsair vs A6M series would be like...F-15 vs MiG-21. They don't match as well as F-4 vs MiG-21.

 

You see, this is the stuff you have to think about if you want to plan a very good combat flight The Sim.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Lexx_Luthor

[+Fates 63]

I know its hairbrained but when you think about it, are we ever going to get the sim we all really want if we don't produce it ourselves?

 

The problem, as I see it from this thread, everyone has a different opinion of what "THAT SIM" is, thus it would be difficult to produce. ie...My big hangup with any sim today is multiplayer. If it don't have an enjoyable multiplayer then I'm simply not interested.

 

If we established what it WILL HAVE vs WILL NOT HAVE and everyone was aware of it before forking over $50 you may win some votes but I think overall people are going to look at that WILL NOT HAVE column and not spend the money...

 

But I do love the idea of gamers directly involved with developers to bring them what they want.

 

Cheers

[column5 63]

The problem, as I see it from this thread, everyone has a different opinion of what "THAT SIM" is, thus it would be difficult to produce. ie...My big hangup with any sim today is multiplayer. If it don't have an enjoyable multiplayer then I'm simply not interested.

 

If we established what it WILL HAVE vs WILL NOT HAVE and everyone was aware of it before forking over $50 you may win some votes but I think overall people are going to look at that WILL NOT HAVE column and not spend the money...

 

But I do love the idea of gamers directly involved with developers to bring them what they want.

 

Cheers

 

Yeah, I don't think everyone would be able to agree. That's why a small group would have to come up with the specifications in cooperation with TK, and then it would be up to each individual to consider whether they want to support it. It definately could not be done by comittee. I do think though that the majority of demands could be accomodated to one degree or another, and of course moddability (it would be a ThirdWire sim, after all) would allow for some of the off-the-wall stuff to be added by the community.

[Stwa 18]

Yeah, I don't think everyone would be able to agree. That's why a small group would have to come up with the specifications in cooperation with TK, and then it would be up to each individual to consider whether they want to support it. It definately could not be done by comittee. I do think though that the majority of demands could be accomodated to one degree or another, and of course moddability (it would be a ThirdWire sim, after all) would allow for some of the off-the-wall stuff to be added by the community.

 

1. Have you broached any of this with TK already. Is there anything you are not telling us?

 

2. Because, if TK is making money with the sims he is producing, then producing more of them horizontally across the market is his best bet.

 

3. TK has been able to make his codeline almost totally re-usable. This way he can retro-fit new features into the older games. He has been very meticulus in this area, like no other project team has. From the menu systems, to avionics, to the aircraft themselves. Its very astonishing, and very useful, as one person has been able to create the majority of this code. This might not be the case with the study sim, as most of the coded features would be 'one time' ponies.

 

4. I like the sims now. The lite sim allows me to focus on air-combat tactics, which is most enjoyable to me.

 

5. If TK's current formula makes money (I really don't know), then your capital would be better spent on another title of the same genre.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

True, true...

 

TK's sim is generally "detailed" enough as far as aircraft, as streakeagle has shown in his/her F-4 flight models. The avionics is light, but more important needs are...

 

Ramp up the AI coding, add things like abstracted air-air refueling for player and AI, working ground radars that function as a basic ground control intercept for AI (see even the old 1995 Su-27 Flaker sims), stuff like that. Maybe even a mission editor inside the sim that can use these newer features.

 

All this can deepen the air warfare environment far more than having one or two "detailed" player planes.

 

EDIT -- abstracted air-air refueling would be something like a designated "tanker" aircraft flying waypoints, and any AI aircraft that comes within, say, 10km of that tanker gets instantly refueled. Although it sounds 'lite' it adds very hardcore mission features such as AI aircraft having to find a tanker...actually getting close to a tanker and flying formation waiting for fuel could be restricted to player plane if desired.

 

Another need is for AI aircraft to actually stop flying when they run out of fuel!

Edited February 11, 2008 by Lexx_Luthor

[GreyCap 0]

I mean--and pardon me for rambling--it seems like the games released these days across all genres are generally crap. think of the best games you have ever played. I bet most of them are over 10 years old. For me, things like the Sierra adventure games (Kings Quest, Space Quest), the early Janes sims, Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, Gunship, Thief and Thief 2, the early Civilization and Sim City games, etc. come to mind. All old games. Even highly reagarded modern games leave me somewhat unimpressed. This may be due to nostalgia, but I also think that producers and developers were mroe in tune with their audiences a decade ago.

 

I'm wondering if the next revolution in the gaming industry could be games whose development is driven and financed by gamers themselves?

 

You're 100% correct.

Remember the Commodore 64 days, when the instruction manuals were 200 pages! Great stuff...

It's well known that most games these days put the emphasis on graphics instead of gameplay, big mistake.