The sim that CA built!

[column5 63]

We've had a lot of fun discussing the "community produced game", and expressed our opinions on what one should be like in three polls. What does it mean? Maybe nothing, given the unscientific polling method and small sample size, but that isn't going to stop me from interpreting the results!

 

The first poll gauged the level of multiplayer support that would be desired. No surprise in this day that a significant set of multiplayer features is demanded:

 

 

 

The second poll dealt with what aircraft we would like to see in sim that was more like a study than a survey. There was a clear preference for the F-4 Phantom and F-14 Tomcat, with the MiG-21 coming in first among the opfor. The F-111 surprised me by making a strong showing.

 

 

 

The final poll asked you to prioritize several features. Modability came out on top, followed closely by detailed carrier ops. There was a preference for high graphic detail over performance, and a dynamic campaign over a story-driven campaign.

 

 

 

Given the poll results, it seems clear (to me, anyway) that the members of CA want...

 

A detailed simulation of the F-4 Phantom in the Vietnam War, including carrier ops and a dynamic campaign (though that sort of campaign would be somewhat less than dynamic given the ROE in Vietnam). The MiG-21 should be detailed and flyable for the North Vietnamese.

 

That seems to be a perfect fit based on your preferences, with the alternative being an Arab-Israeli sim, though that precludes the inclusion of carrier ops.

 

Now here is the interesting part....

 

The sim outlined above has, to my knowledge, NEVER been made. There have been sims like Flight of the Intruder, USNF '97 and WOV that include some of these features, but none have had them all.

 

It seems like someone would want to tap into this demand...

 

What do you think?

[+Typhoid 231]

I think you set in the initial framework a limitation on the dates. If you were to open up the timeframe, you might (or might not) find a broader set of time and scenario beyond Vietnam and/or Arab-Israel. That would be an interesting question to ask.

 

having said that - I think you are on target.

[column5 63]

Yes, I did that to ensure we stay in the "classic" era of jet aircraft, and not move into the F-22 realm that has been so thoroughly beaten to death. I agree its an artificial limitation on the poll.

[GreyCap 0]

Ughh not that lumbering F-4, It's been around since SF1! C'mon people, try something new! Tomcat all the way!

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

Did you ever tried the payware F-4 for MS FS9 it`s a joy to fly and far more complex ... imagine it`s like falcon 4.0 in a F-4 Phantom

[FastCargo 412]

Here's a question. I don't know how hard it would be to do code wise and legal wise.

 

What if we 'dumbed' down the Falcon 4.0 engine.

 

In other words, built a new theatre (Vietnam), upped the graphics, but got rid of a lot of avionics modes with building the F-4 and MiG-21.

 

A lot of the other pieces already exist in that engine.

 

Just a random thought.

 

FastCargo

[+hgbn 91]

I think you are on track here.

 

It would be a perfect Sim/Game with a lot of action, add a lot of CAS missions in country supporting mud marines and army grunts arround Firebases not attacking tanks but infantry and a lot of them, Strategic bombing and Sandy Ops up north. Dixie Station down south and Yankee up north and off cause the battle of Khe Sahn... And the option of having F-4B/J for the Navy and F-4C/D for the Airforce.

[+hgbn 91]

And if it's comming with a very high degree of moddabillity so modders can create new A/C in the same level as the "new" F-4 and Mig-21 then it would be heaven on Earth And the ultimative Flight Sim ever

[MigBuster 2,884]

Multiplayer games may have to involve unaltered files though - unless anyone wants to dogfight me in my Mach 25 capable F-4C

[ironroad 218]

The data is nice, but maybe everyone is not looking for another Wings over Vietnam (but I can't lie being able to Fly from Yankee or Dixie Station and fly during Pierce Arrow, Flaming Dart, Rolling Thunder, Niagara, Tet, Freedom Train, or the Line Backers would rock.)

 

I think the data can also be translated to, a lot of simmers want to step out of the realm of WW II and Europe and into the Cold War (which most of us grew up in be it the 50s or the 80s.)

 

I think people may want to do carrier ops in the Gulf of Sydra or Med, during the various Libyan, Lebanese, or even Israeli conflicts.

 

Could possibly want to play a scenario where we attacked Iran instead of sending in a failed helo rescue.

 

Maybe people want an armed response to the USS Pueblo incident.

 

Maybe people wanted Truman or Eisenhower to respond more strongly to China's aggression towards Taiwan.

 

Whatever the case...the evidence shows that a lot of simmers want to play out a Cold War (or super power war by proxy) scenario involving the "golden age" of Naval and Marine Corps aviation.

Edited February 15, 2008 by ironroad

[+Typhoid 231]

The data is nice, but maybe everyone is not look for another wings of Vietnam (but I can't lie being able to Fly from Yankee or Dixie Station and fly during Pierce Arrow, Flaming Dart, Rolling Thunder, Niagara, Tet, Freedom Train, or the Line Backers would rock.)

 

I think the data can also be translated to, a lot of simmers want to step out of the realm of WW II and Europe and into the Cold War (which most of us grew up in be it the 50s or the 80s.)

 

I think people may want to do carrier ops in the Gulf of Sydra or Med, during the various Libyan, Lebanese, or even Israeli conflicts.

 

Could possibly want to play a scenario where we attacked Iran instead of sending in a failed helo rescue.

 

Maybe people want an armed response to the USS Pueblo incident.

 

Maybe people wanted Truman or Eisenhower to respond more strongly to China's aggression towards Taiwan.

 

Whatever the case...the evidence shows that a lot of simmers want to play out a Cold War (or super power war by proxy) scenario involving the "golden age" or Naval and Marine Corps aviation.

 

my point exactly. Don't limit the scenario to just Vietnam.

[Viggen 644]

Could do Iran-Iraq to.

[column5 63]

Its just my opinion, but I don't think a game based on a niche or fictional scenario would sell well enough. I could be wrong.

[Viggen 644]

Its just my opinion, but I don't think a game based on a niche or fictional scenario would sell well enough. I could be wrong.

 

They have in the past...

[column5 63]

They have in the past...

 

Flight sims were a popular genre in the past.

[+Julhelm 266]

There is no need to slavishly follow "historical realism" as far as scenarios go. I say pull out the full monty and go all out conventional ww3 against the russkies.

[+Typhoid 231]

go for BattleStar!

 

[+Timmy 1]

You know C5, I bought Strike Fighters BECAUSE it was a non-historical flight sim. Having every unit that flew in Nam is awesome right up until I get 7 kills - then historical accuracy is thrown out the window and I might as well be flying over Paran again...

 

Just my opinion.

[column5 63]

I can't argue with any of these opinions. ;)

 

Seems to me though, that if you are going to try to model the aircraft and systems more realistically, you almost have to put them in a realistic scenario, or there is no way to judge the result. Just thinking out loud. Everyone's opinions on this are valid.

[JediMaster 451]

I loved USNF 97's Nam-era stuff.

[+Stary 2,427]

I like the idea of what-if hypotethical scenarios =more possibilities and outcomes

[ironroad 218]

Well I think what sells is a combination of "fiction" within a historical time frame and or era. I.e. you have a Vietnam Era sim with all of the planes, weapons, etc., but you fly and fight to your liking. Hetch as many clips and pics I have seen of SF Navy F-4Js carring Suu-23s....but I digress.

 

Just look at this community

 

some of the most popular projects have been DBS and 1962 Cuba

 

 

IMHO if you put in the right planes, give them decent flight models, right weapons, a full mission editor, and decent effects (be it gfx, audio, or animations) for immersion, it will sell.

[+Paladrian 11]

I can't argue with any of these opinions. ;)

 

Seems to me though, that if you are going to try to model the aircraft and systems more realistically, you almost have to put them in a realistic scenario, or there is no way to judge the result. Just thinking out loud. Everyone's opinions on this are valid.

 

Ha! You need to make another poll

[+pcpilot 181]

I always thought a Taiwan/US/China crisis/confrontation scenario would be interesting as a hypothetical, as well as perhaps a banana war in South America. Though the banana one wouldnt cover too well, I think, what the polls said we wanted. The China/US scenario could happen at any point so different aircraft from different periods from the 50's all the way to present would allow for a certain flexability, starting of course with the F-4 and the 60's. Being that its moddable, later additional periods in the conflict or additional scenarios like Iraq/Iran/Israel or coldwar Europe gone hot would be easy to implement. SPF1 bears that idea out I think. I think Ironroad has a point as to preferences. We all like real world scenarios of course. But "what ifs" have always had a deep fascination too.

[sugarblues 0]

There is no need to slavishly follow "historical realism" as far as scenarios go. I say pull out the full monty and go all out conventional ww3 against the russkies.

 

Wasn't that JF-18 ?

 

SB