What Do You Want More??

[AceMan]

Let see how it.

 

REMEMBER ONLY 1 VOTE :D

[Seawolf]

I think Realism and stable (feature rich) multiplayer have to be at the top. Too many times Multiplayer is the last to get worked on and gets little attention. Just once I would like to see equal time and money spent on multiplayer and singleplayer.

 

oh yeah, online coop dynamic campaign that works. ;)

[McHighlander]

SeaWolf is right and I add this:

 

Realism wouldn't be an argument to talk about because would be the main goal of every flightsim... I prefer talk about expandibility.

 

This is the real thing that make a flight sim an eternal one.

After having trimmed your work you should take in mind about the possibility to develop a series of tools that make easy to create mods, but...

 

...theese mods should pass through the Development Team that would make up an expansion patch. In this way You could mantain a quality warranty! B)

 

Go Guys! Go!

[+Spectre_USA]

I voted for "Fun in the game". If all else is well, graphics, FM, DM, they all blend to

create the suspension of disbelief. Once there, the actual game scenerios, be it

SP, MP, or the mainstay for me, the campaign, are thoroughly engrossing, and gets the word of mouth sales going.

 

Just some thoughts from a guy who's been combat flight simming for entirely too long... :D

[PG_Raptor]

Here's how I see it:

 

Graphics attract the gamer.

Realism stimulates the mind.

Multiplayer forms the community.

Expansions prolong the game life.

Fun holds the gamer to the product.

 

In that order.

All are important. Even so, I voted for fun because if it's not fun to play, the phases stop at realism.

[Tucano]

realism ! more important in game is the realism !

[+Fates]

I voted for "Fun in the game".  If all else is well, graphics, FM, DM, they all blend to

create the suspension of disbelief.  Once there, the actual game scenerios, be it

SP, MP, or the mainstay for me, the campaign, are thoroughly engrossing, and gets the word of mouth sales going.

 

Just some thoughts from a guy who's been combat flight simming for entirely too long... :D

Here's how I see it:

 

Graphics attract the gamer.

Realism stimulates the mind.

Multiplayer forms the community.

Expansions prolong the game life.

Fun holds the gamer to the product.

 

In that order.

All are important. Even so, I voted for fun because if it's not fun to play, the phases stop at realism.

 

I Voted for Multiplayer...but in hindsight...I should have voted FUN. This is because, as Spectre says, "they all blend to create the suspension of disbelief. "

 

I've always believed, and even started TeamODB Squadron, that FUN was the entire reason we play these games. If we're not online having FUN...then what are we doing? I'm also a big believer that the MP part of any game allow me to have that FUN...and without it..there is none because the game becomes stagnet to my computer.

 

I'm pretty confident that FUN is what the BP are all about as well. They are great bunch. FUN is what keeps us coming back. It's not about being the best, it's about enjoyment and entertainment. If the Graphics and Emersions in the flight sim...or any sim for that matter can entertain me more by introducing a thurough MP environment...I'm There.

 

<C>

Fates

[Chaingun]

I voted Realism, MP is just as important though. Prefer something in the mmp format. Use to fly those MMP wars in Red Baron 3d, and nothing has been able to compare. Looking forward to this sim, the Harrier will be a welcome new experience. :P

[Chicago]

Smokin graphics

[SneakyPete]

Excellent Multiplayer connections (like IL2) with outstanding collision detection is as important to me as the highest realism possible. I want to fly with my squadmates and feel as if I am really flying.

 

It really sucks when planes warp online when all players have fast connections, or planes clip when they appear to not actually have touched in your view, or planes that sit below the ground or hover above the flightline.

 

Also the realism has to be as high as possible, I love to manually set things in the cockpit like it was a real plane I was flying (CLICKABLE COCKPIT HINT HINT). I love the plane to stall and react realistically to the laws of physics and aerodynamics.

 

I am really excited to see the progress Jet Thunder has made, the low level sense of speed in the video is better than anything I have seen to date. Keep up the good work and stay away from the big publishers, I would love to see the developers get every cent of my game payment.

[Lt McVittees]

Let see how it.

 

REMEMBER ONLY 1 VOTE :D

 

I voted realism. The more realism by the way of AI, avionics, flight model and graphics the more immersive, and therefore fun, the experience will be. :D

[nosecone]

1. Curious one but how bout animation for the pilot/crew in the pit so they turn their heads and move their limbs.

 

2. Detailed mission planning ALA DI's Tornado.

 

3. Pilot's record as well as squadron/wing management where you can edit the full names and data of every member of the squadron.

 

4. Heat distortion from the jetpipes.

 

Thanks..good luck

[Phlerp]

2. Detailed mission planning ALA DI's Tornado.

Now that is something I'd really like to see. IMHO no sim before or after Tornado has been able to get this one right (perhaps with the exception of Falcon 4 that gets close to Tornado but doesn't really get there). Not even DIs later sims that had the same interface for planning missions managed to get close to Tornado.

 

I probably spent more time planning my missions in that sim than actually flying. It's hard to say what really made it so good, but what I think I liked most was that you didn't just plan for your own flight but for the whole package and timing was one of the most important elements.

 

Getting a bit nostalgic whaen thinkning about it *sigh*

[ricnunes]

If there were a "Flyable Vulcan bomber" option I would vote for it, but since there isn't I voted "Realistic Gaming"! :)

Edited January 12, 2004 by ricnunes

[Bard]

I think Multiplayer and Realism should be joint first ;)

 

They don't have to be an either/or decision.

 

I would be more than happy to throw ideas at the devs for a multiplayer functionality specificiation. Would you guys be interested in having some email chat?

[uhoh7]

"Graphics attract the gamer.

Realism stimulates the mind.

Multiplayer forms the community.

Expansions prolong the game life.

Fun holds the gamer to the product."

 

well said sir

[PapaSmurf630]

I would really like a realistic damage model and nice detailed modelling of aircraft (especially cockpit and undercarriage)

 

Explosions and the way the aircraft fall apart (missile explosions, wings falling off, outright death, huge explosions where the pilot dies instantly, think of IL2)

 

Good, atmospheric missions with nice clouds, weather and lighting effects.

 

I would also like self casting shadows like in Lo-mac.

 

Now, the hardest part. Make the FPS playable even on lower end systems with fairly high graphic settings :)

[PFF]

I would really like a realistic damage model

 

Really! The damage model increases a lot the immersion in the sim.

 

[]z,

Edited May 10, 2004 by PFF

[Mothman]

A nice graphical representation of the weather and the stormy seas for when flying low to evade radar detection. B)

[Argentine Pucara]

Yeah, realism is the best thing one can put in a game about something that really happened.

[AWL_Spinner]

Two words.

 

Dynamic. Weather.

 

This conflict was all about the weather. Rough Atlantic swells, changeable winds and rain.

 

First post here, incidentally. Looks like a fantastic project and I wish everyone involved all the best with it!

 

Cheers, Spinner

[scary_pigeon]

people have mentioned dynamic campaign often. this is something we've noticed.

[Fenna]

I'd like to see the weather/ terrain modelled more accurately than other Sims.

 

Very harsh South Atlantic swells. Also I think the unforgiving terrain of the Falklands is important to model for immersion

 

Thanks

[SDirickson]

I've always been disappointed with most sim's low level terrain. No matter how attractice the terrain looks from 20,000ft, if I don't see shrubs and ground objects wizzing by when I'm at 50ft, there's no realism there for me.

 

Too bad there isn't any truly effectice way of doing that without a major blow to the fps.

[Mothman]

Well... There's no trees in the islands. That will help avoid some FPS issues and the use of too much low level detail, i guess. :P

 

Anyway, tunnel vision would be cool. B)

Edited August 28, 2004 by Mothman