Community produced game?

[+Johan217 5]

Well, here's the main thing...a complex campaign system does NOT require complex avionics system modeling.

You could take TK's planes, terrain, modeling, etc and mate it with an F4-style campaign and it would work.

That would be so great! But it doesn't even have to be as complex as Falcon's real-time campaign. The campaign system in TK's sims already has the basics of supplies infrastructure and ground offensives. What is needed (from a campaign builder's point of view) is a way to script events more accurately, and more mission types. If you could augment the current campaign system with things like working FAC/CAS (please!), an ability to see other flights' waypoints on the briefing map, and mission types like airborne assaults, air refuelling and AEW/electronic warfare... you'd get a fairly realistic environment that's complex enough, but not overwhelming to the player.

[hide86 0]

Just my two cents for the topic:

I'd love to see this idea turning into reality, I always thought about my ideal flight sim, so here's my opinion:

SF's engine is pretty much what we need for the job.

Improvements:

-some more system accuracy: radar modes, BOMBING modes (which I really miss in these games: an A-6 without DIANE is a woman without p***y XD)

-more situational consciousness and more immersion in the mission: as somebody said before, I feel the need to be part of a major scale operation, and this would open a whole new range of possibilities): targets of opportunity, refueling (even not fully hardcore, in my opinion), FAC, combined strikes (as somebody said before, SEAD missions to cover CAS, Strike and Anti-Ship missions, MigCAPs and fighter sweeps all the way for air cover);

-more squadron/package control: you want those wingmen to assist you, not to fly in a mountain as soon as they can...XD

-some minor bugfixes; XDDD

-a stable, fun multiplayer mode...I voted 3 on the poll, but I must admit the MASSIVE idea sounded SOOOO SEXYYYYYYYY.... We need something to enjoy playing this game on a daily-or-so basis, something other sims don't have... Like Virtual squadrons with their base on every server, and that sort of immersion that makes you REALLY feel part of a community...

And here comes the crazy idea: a content sharing utility, like the map downloading thing in CoD: everybody could fly with THEIR skins, THEIR aircraft, THEIR payloads, but everybody could have everything...this way you could say goodbye to all the issues we currently have with TK's multiplayer mode...

-A HIGH MODDABILITY: we're all here for that, right?

I don't think we'd need an EXTREME rate of simulation: I played F4, great sim, spent many hours trying to mater it, then abandoned it one day....There was more funny stuff around, with an overall good realism level (WOE is one of those, LockOn is my second mate...); I mean, some system complexity and more accurate damage modeling are welcome, but a "casual" gamer should be able to enjoy the sim in a few hours, in my opinion...

So here comes scalability, that 'll be a great ace in this game's sleeve...

And, by the way, I'd pick the Tomcat too...There's so many people willing to see an accurate Tomcat, and the sad news of its retirement should help us with documentation and "intelligence gathering"... A mig-29 on the other side would be fair enough I guess...

However, you have all the support I can give, it's not much, but my 50 bucks are there if you need them...

Edited February 13, 2008 by hide86

[Canadair 16]

My two cents

 

Strike fighters series is a jem for the long list of reaosn we already know; No need to look further but improve what is already there, with a few details.

-air refuelling

-better muliplayer that allows custom made missions and operations

-ai routine for release of guided weapons in campaing

-better brirfing screen and planning options

-ag radar modes

 

othr than that SFP1 s perfect. Focusing the changes in this direction would be great. I would pay for a patch or an expansion, say strikefighters pro, that allows what said before

Point being is, will TK support thiis? I don't see why not, could be a big bussiness

[lazboy 1]

Strike fighters series is a jem for the long list of reaosn we already know; No need to look further but improve what is already there,

other than that SFP1 s perfect. Focusing the changes in this direction would be great. I would pay for a patch or an expansion, say strikefighters pro,

 

I agree wholeheartedly with what Canadair says in that Strike Fighters meets my needs but could do with improving in certain areas that we are all aware of and then would be almost perfect.

 

I would like a better multiplayer expierence as that is somewhat lacking compared with other games that I play such as COD4 and hasn't really been developed fully or exploited but I am unsure that a community produced game that is limited to only perhaps 2 aircraft would hold my interest as long as Strike Fighters has.

 

Lazboy

[hide86 0]

Guess I'm agreeing with lazboy:

only 2 planes may not be that attractive, considering we're all used to 8+ ( in stock installs XD) planes...

Should maybe consider the idea of developing something like 5-6 planes in the first release, maybe updating them after release w/ new avionics, systems etc.

[column5 63]

There would of course be other planes in the sim. The idea was that one, and it has been suggested two, would be more detailed than the others.

[hide86 0]

I know, C5, I had understood that...

I'm still thinking that TWO accurate planes MIGHT not be very attractive for a larger-scale audience...Just my little opinion, obviously...

[+allenjb42 4,234]

Well if the two flyable aircraft were, say, the F-4 and MiG 21 you could have multiple versions of those as stock with the game, built to a higher standard than the other ai planes that come with the game.

 

Also, the F-4 would need both cockpits modelled, like in JF-15 and F-14FD, togable in single player mode, and conceivably people could play as two-player teams of pilot/wso if they wanted.

[JediMaster 451]

I think that's why the F-16 and Hornet are so popular with sims...they do it all, plus are single seaters (or at least aren't only dual seaters). You make one plane and a minimum of fuss.

[Thog10 0]

If:

 

1: The featured aircraft is a two-seater

 

and

 

2: It does not create nightmares for those responsible for development

 

Then:

 

I would love to see the AI WSO be a helpful fellow who would assist you in spotting the bandit, call out sam launches, and provide useful and humorous comentary such as "Come on, do some of that pilot sh...."

 

I still remember when I first heard my RIO in USNF use that line when I got into a sticky situation.

[+TK_ThirdWire 0]

Interesting idea, but I just wanted to be clear that this does NOT involve Third Wire in any way.

 

First, 250K really isn't all that much, there is no way we (Third Wire) can do a detailed study sim with that little amount. If you want to develop a game on budget, you probably want to be shopping for a studio outside US, in places like Russia, Eastern Europe, India and China where things are cheaper. Or a studio that out-sources to those places (which we don't). Or a studio that uses all volunteer force.

 

Second, normal game development takes around 2 years. And ambitious design (as most community designs tend to be) can take longer, easily taking 4 years or more. Add to that the time it takes to gather the 5,000 pre-orders just to get started, I think you're looking at 2010 release at earliest, more likely 2011 or 2012. We really don't want to be tied up to this single game for the next 4 years, as we do have other plans :)

 

Third, since you're taking money from the eventual customer, it seems to me that all you're doing is shifting when you get paid - you're essentially charging people more and asking them to pay up 2+ years in advance. And I can't really see as being good thing in the long run, because I think you'll just have less people buy the game that way. I know there are other studios that do their business that way (taking pre-orders first to fund development), and I wish them all the success, but that’s not the way we want to do our business.

 

Anyway, so those are the reasons why Third Wire will not be involved in this. This doesn't mean community can't do this without our involvement tho, don't let me stop you from producing your own game!

 

Good luck!

 

TK

--

[kesegy 5]

how about licensing your engine, TK?

[column5 63]

Interesting idea, but I just wanted to be clear that this does NOT involve Third Wire in any way.

 

I hope I did not give that impression. I proposed the idea of hiring TW because your are our favorite game studio and it made the discussion more interesting than just talking about hiring developer X.

 

how about licensing your engine, TK?

 

Let's not poke into TK's business matters. Better for everyone that way. :yes:

[FastCargo 412]

Well, in a sense he already has. Because the license is based individually (ie buying the game). The problem is that licensing the engine wouldn't change certain aspects of the engine (MP limitations, avionics limitations, etc). C5 is looking to change certain aspects of the game...which essentially is rewriting code. That's no longer the same game engine at that point...and that's what TK was addressing...at least I think so.

 

FastCargo

[column5 63]

C5 is looking to change certain aspects of the game...which essentially is rewriting code. That's no longer the same game engine at that point...and that's what TK was addressing...at least I think so.

 

Yeah and we can't ask any developer to make such an investment on speculation, given what we know about the flight sim market. That's where the idea of funding it ourselves came from.

[kesegy 5]

so that's it huh?

if we are to stick with TW base, max we can achieve is a community addon. no fundamental changes...

building something from the ground up is financially and technically unfeasible

so what's left? other engines? or in depth modding?

[column5 63]

so that's it huh?

if we are to stick with TW base, max we can achieve is a community addon. no fundamental changes...

building something from the ground up is financially and technically unfeasible

so what's left? other engines? or in depth modding?

 

All options are allways open, its just a matter of what is practical and reasonable. :)

[+Dave 2,322]

I have an off the wall question, has to do with game developing though. What does a piece of game code look like? I know a little off topic but you always hear that term. Is it ones ans zeros? Is it mathmatic equations? I am curious that's all. I know it's silly.

[kesegy 5]

I have an off the wall question, has to do with game developing though. What does a piece of game code look like? I know a little off topic but you always hear that term. Is it ones ans zeros? Is it mathmatic equations? I am curious that's all. I know it's silly.

 

no dude, it's not ones and zeroes, but you still need some programming language knowledge to understand it. sure, there are areas anybody can modifiy and understand but when you're dealing with underlying mathematics, especially in a flight sim, a whole lotta sh*t can hit the fan and mess up everything. you (we) really need a programmer to do this.

question is - where to find freeware flight sim source code that is even remotely suited to our needs?

[FastCargo 412]

If it's programmed in a compiler type code (most are), it tends to look like your old style BASIC stuff (more complex of course...I use BASIC as the example because that's my more familar ref point). Until it gets 'compiled'...then it looks like hex code.

 

Compiled code is what is released...the 'source code' is what is kept.

 

FastCargo

[+JSF_Aggie 1,291]

I have an off the wall question, has to do with game developing though. What does a piece of game code look like? I know a little off topic but you always hear that term. Is it ones ans zeros? Is it mathmatic equations? I am curious that's all. I know it's silly.

 

 

The ones & zeros is machine langauge, which is what the first computer programs were written in. Now, with more modern languages, code is much more readable, and it's the compiler that converts the code into one & zeros.

 

Here's an example of a simple function that is determining the number of tracks based only on slant range. You can imagine what it would look like if you were using azimuth, elevation, altitude, RCS, CM, etc.

 

The -'s are just there to preserve spaceing

 

int compute_track_list_count( void )

{

---int i;

---int tgt_track_count = 0 ;

 

---for (i=0; i<MAX_NUM_AIR_TGTS; i++)

---{

------struct airtarg_data *tgt = &airtarg_data ;

 

------if( tgt->allegence == HOSTILE)

------{

---------// range deltas need to be in north-east-down for body transform.

---------float dx = tgt->ft_air_pos[1] - ownship->ft_air_pos[1] ;

---------float dy = tgt->ft_air_pos[0] - ownship->ft_air_pos[0] ;

---------float dz = -(tgt->ft_air_pos[2] - ownship->ft_air_pos[2]);

 

---------// calculate slant range.

---------float ft_slant_range = sqrt( dx*dx + dy*dy + dz*dz ) ;

 

---------// check against max slant range

---------if( ft_slant_range < MAX_TRACK_RANGE ) tgt_track_count++

------}

---}

---return tgt_track_count;

}

[toonces 4]

I sort of lost where we are going with this thread.

 

It started as a 'study sim' of the F-4.

 

It has morphed into a multiplayer version of Strike Fighters it seems.

 

It doesn't sound like you're looking to build an in-depth sim of an aircraft or two, but rather build upon the game you already have, but add some features that are missing or wanting (or whatever).

 

No offense, but I don't think you are going to go far with a project like this. Not that it isn't a good idea, but I don't think you're going to attract the amount of paying customers you'd need to make it profitable.

 

The whole point of a 'study sim' is that it is hard. Strike Fighters already appeals to the casual gamer. Are you making a game that appeals to the masses, or a game that appeals to the hardcore flight simmer?

[column5 63]

The whole point of a 'study sim' is that it is hard. Strike Fighters already appeals to the casual gamer. Are you making a game that appeals to the masses, or a game that appeals to the hardcore flight simmer?

 

I'm suggesting that the fun versus realism continuum doesn't preclude adding more detail. Its a matter of what risks the developer can take and how much it costs.

 

This was an idea to promote debate and discussion and to that end, it has been a great success. Let's not get carried away by believing something like this could ever happen. This thread proves that everyone has a different idea of what the perfect flight sim would be, so any kind group development project on this scale would die squealing under its own weight.

[column5 63]

In fact, it might be a good idea to quit while we are ahead.

 

This has been a really interesting discussion, and it has been great to read everyone's ideas. Please keep in mind that this was a hypothetical question and that, as TK said, ThirdWire is not associated with this in any way.

 

We still have our polls open regarding the content of a community produced game, so let's focus on this as a question of what CA members would like to see in a flight sim, or what kind of game would emerge if the CA community built their own game. We'll leave ThirdWire out of it so as not to create confusion.

 

Thanks for the great discussion guys!