Fighter Ops - SimHQ Interview

[+Julhelm 266]

And Viper says what I've been trying to say all the time.

 

Which makes it all the more frustrating most of the time a TK sim is reviewed, as they'll invariably rail on about how it's a "lite" sim with "not so realistic" this and that.

 

Of course the general public will shy away.

[+streakeagle 871]

You have to remember, my idea of fun is reverse engineering TK's flight models to create an FM editor that allows you to predict in-game aircraft performance by scanning in aircraft data ini files.

I am a part of the flight simming community (at least as much as time permits me) because I share the same desires as most of the other people here: to enjoy simulating flying various military aircraft in combat situations that are challenging and/or entertaining in some way.

 

But what constitutes a simulation?

What is challenging and/or entertaining?

 

Calling me a liar because my defininition of simulator is different than yours is ridiculous.

Claiming that the sim market was killed by the demands of people like Stiglr and/or me is also ridiculous.

 

I can and have argue just as easily that the demands of people like us created the flight sim market in the first place.

 

And for the record, I think we can agree that anything that is intended to replicate some aspect of reality could be called a simulator.

Just some simulators are higher fidelity than others.

The original Atari 2600 Combat game cartridge with tanks, biplanes, and jets was a form of combat simulator... hence the name Combat.

Out of all of the Atari games ever made, that was not only the first one I had since it came with the system, but was one of my favorites...

The problem is that most of my friends found it boring, they would rather play Pac Man, Asteroids, Galaga, ect.

Ace Combat is a sim, and from graphical point of view better than a lot of PC sims.

X-Plane tends to focus more on the physics and less on the graphics.

Microsoft focuses on variety of aircraft and locations with potentially great graphics, though the physics can be good if someone works hard enough.

They are also all games.

Kind of like a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

Consumer combat flight sims are games, but not all games are combat flight sims.

Professional flight sims are still little more than really expensive computer games, but their goal is to maximize training value rather than entertainment value.

The US Army was so impressed by Battlezone, that they had it adapted to provide tank combat training, but they didn't get rid of the arcade scoring system.

Operation Flashpoint is another excellent game that got adapted for real military training.

So a game can be realistic enough to be a true training simulator AND a consumer grade entertainment system with minimal differences between the two versions.

So why is it so wrong to want combat flight sims that are accurate enough to provide decent ACM training and/or flight operating procedures?

Having a difference in opinion on a forum is normal and good... much better than everyone have to agree to one point of view or be banned.

But resulting to insults and accusations because my opinions and viewpoints radically differ from someone elses isn't much of a discussion.

I am not lying or trying to fool anyone nor was I even trying to rile anyone up...

I simply disagree with your assessments of why the flight sim market is the way it is and what could or should be done to make it grow.

 

My 5 year old nephew who plays Ace Combat right now will probably one day learn how to fly F-4s and F-15s from me.

My own son is almost 18 months old but can already drive a radio control 747 forward or turn in reverse and has successfully made my $200 RC helicopter take off (he knows what the collective stick does and really loves seeing the helicopter go up and down at his command).

In my opinion, that is how you build a community... it starts with exposing children to the fundamentals and taking the ones that show an interest even further.

Not stopping production of state of the art sims like Fighter Ops and Black Shark to update old sims that no one flies anymore in the hopes that other gamers might see them as fun as the other shooters, racing games, or whatever else it is they normally play on their XBox or PlayStation.

My son may not ever take up flight simming... or he may love growing up being able to try flying an F-4 with a hyper-realistic FM using his dad's actual F-4 stick.

That will be his call not mine.

 

To get back on topic, Fighter Ops hopes to be the mother of all flight sims.

If you are mainly into flight operations and tooling around the countryside like in FSX, it will have that aspect modeled as well or better than FSX.

If the future modules are released, then the combat parts become accessible.

But just because there is an option to fly using clickable pits and detailed checklists, does that mean you will have to?

The interview makes it pretty clear to me, they will let you scale the difficulty level to your liking, much as SFP1 does.

Which, if you think about it, with the settings dumbed down a bit, the cockpits in SFP1 function almost identically to the ones in the F-15 Strike Eagle/F-19 series-- complete with 360 radar and the ability to identify your target and his stats.

If you think Stike Commander and F-19 are the be-all end-all sims, get them running on XP and get as many people as possible to try playing them.

Anyone who has played a modern flight sim may find them nostalgic, but won't tolerate the step backwards very long.

Anyone who is happy playing XBox/PS/Nintendo games will wonder why you are wasting their time.

[Gr.Viper 131]

Did anyone here suggested stopping production of "state of the art sims"?

There's just no introductory level sim. No game that markets itslef as "combat sims can be fun!". We're not suggesting going back to SC and F-19 (BTW running them on XP is no problem with the right tools) - they're really too old. But there's nothing to take their place - live chatter and missions full of unpredictable action are all now in sci-fi combat (mech, space).

[+Julhelm 266]

Yeah really. Streakeagle keeps strawmanning me all the time asserting just that false dilemma.

 

Besides, when I say SC and F-19 I mean in the game design sense, not the technical sense - which anyone with half a brain should figure out.

 

If we had SC or F-19 with the AC6 or DCS visual tech, THAT would be the perfect "introductory sim".

 

And anyway you spin it - Ace Combat never was, is and never will be, a sim. It doesn't even trace it's lineage back to sims in any way, unless you want to call Flying Shark and Afterburner sims. It is really just the 1980's pseudo-3d shooter gone full 3d.

[+Gunrunner 314]

Well, the whole problem is that it is with flight sims like with every other games and entertainement we once knew and loved.

 

At first passionate people gather to build something "cool", for other passionate people.

Then success, or something close enough to it, comes, and they start churning out more of the same kind of thing, imitators arise.

Soon enough they build real companies, start to earn real money and need to hire people to make things work at the scale things are now.

Unfortunately, those people are not necessarily passionate, and they'd rather be paid than be part of the broke company that gave to the world the definitive Ford Fiesta parking simulation.

Soon enough there is a need for people knowing how to run a real business, how to raise funds so that the company can go on with newer, bigger, better projects.

And soon enough they realise that money and business come with strings attached, and passionate people who won't compromise their vision will leave, and slowly the spirit dies, and it all comes down to business and making profit, the projects are getting less and less ambitious in the passionate sense but more and more on a commercial level.

And soon the company is either closed because it failed to cut down costs and increase revenues, failing to recognize that chasing the Grail will lead them to bankruptcy, or producing soul-less crap, like everyone else, because it's the only way it can now survive.

 

That's the beauty of some of developpers nowadays, keeping the 80's garage dev spirit alive and producing games on a shoe-string budget without compromising their vision too much (either by taking their time, or expecting the community to pay for the development by releasing milestones as complete games (as ThirdWire does, in a way)).

Edited May 24, 2008 by Gunrunner

[jodandawg 18]

I really enjoyed your first post way up there streakeagle.

 

I really like the 'idea' behind Fighter Ops. However, I have much of the same thoughts as you regarding it (I think).

 

Upon reading what the initial release would be, my gut reaction is, 'this is all great, but how many folks are going to buy it?' I can boot up a T-38 or a Texan in FSX and play fighter pilot trainee. So can everyone else. Having said that, there just aren't that many hardcore flight sims out there, and I make enough money to be able to buy a game like Fighter Ops in the hopes that it is entertaining. But how many other folks will do that? Will it be enough to sustain development?

 

Fighter Ops sounds like a 'holy grail' sim, but I keep feeling that these folks have bit off way more than they can chew. Will there be any money/stamina left after the initial release to go the distance?

 

I hope for the best. It is a shame that Falcon is still the bar by which all combat flight sims are judged. But then again, given the legs that Falcon has shown, perhaps the Fighter Ops guys are right looking at the long goal rather than the short goal. I mean, heck, I just dropped $40 on some payware pits for Falcon last month...I'm spending as much money as the sim originally cost me 10 years later to upgrade it. That says alot about longetivity.

 

Great discussion guys.

my friend, you just freaked me out totally!! i have a cat named toonces. i knew the cat was smart but not this damn smart. time to get off the irish whiskey!

[JediMaster 451]

I think many are willing to trade uber graphics for fidelity in their flight sims. Just look how many decade-old sims are still being flown!

 

I think the last great sim-games (that fulfilled both sides wishes admirably) were Jane's F-15 and Longbow 2. They were as real as you wanted them to be (given PCs at the time) but they stayed fun and had a structure. Falcon, Flanker, LOMAC, Il-2--all are great sims, but not great games when compared to the previous 2. Others that were great in both ways were EF2000, F22ADF/TAW and the iMagic Hornet and Raptor sims.

The JF series were great games, but never great sims, with the exception of JF3. That was the pinnacle of that series...what I think we need today. It was almost as realistic as LOMAC, but it had a great game structure that kept you playing, and it was also the only one of the series to get an expansion I think. I was very hopeful for that line until JF4 regressed and it started to become what Ace Combat is today.

 

A sim cares about accuracy, button pushing.

A game cares about fun, ease of use, and rewarding the player for doing well with noticeable benefits.

 

To expect a game to look like Ace Combat while having the fidelity of Falcon isn't reasonable, but I'm willing to meet them halfway. The problem is there ARE no halfway choices. We get LOMAC, F4:AF, Il-2, and TW's sims.

 

Many of these sims also failed at being games because they didn't offer enough to entertain the lite simmer. Sure you can flip on unlimited ammo and arcade physics in F4, but if you do you'll see the game is really shallow without that simulation aspect to it. It literally flops without it. It pales in comparison to Ace Combat.

On the flipside, look how many games come out with lame realism that get "realism mods"! Once you've got the graphics and the game structure, all you need is some open architecture and people can increase the realism themselves (like the TW sims). However, look how much effort it's taken to improve F4's graphics to looking just 5 years old, let alone current.