What Do You Want More??

[Beery 0]

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

 

I've played a lot of flight sim games and a lot of the time I find realism to be lacking. Just look at IL-2 for example - an arcade game masquerading as a realistic simulation. The other thing is that realism is subjective: for one person realism might mean having an aircraft that behaves exactly the same as its real-life counterpart, whereas another person might want the game to produce historically reasonable casualties (no simulation ever made does this - they're all way too bloody (arcade-ism strikes again). So realism is important, because it needs defining, and it is often lacking in sims.

 

My main goal would be a dynamic campaign in terms of having at the very least a random mission generator. It doesn't matter if a flight sim models planes and the environment to a high standard, if the campaign is linear there's not much point in me buying it because the game disc will be a coaster within a week.

[Beery 0]

Just think of how much combat a normal sim has per mission, vrs real life. this is alway a bit esscesive

 

'A bit excessive'? Most flight sims are about ten times as dangerous as real life combat.

 

...but needed to prevent the game to be dreadfuly boring.

 

I disagree. I find most combat sims unpalatable because I end up going on mission after mission where it's always virtual suicide, so there's no chance of surviving a career. This is the main reason why I find myself modding sims - to make the career mode less suicidal. I don't know why they bother having a career feature when the survival odds are virtually zero. Just for once I'd like the OPTION of flying in an environment where the threat level was more realistic. In IL-2 it's virtually impossible to survive for more than a month or so, whereas in reality many pilots not only survived a campaign, they also survived the entire war. Half of all Battle of Britain pilots survived the war, yet every Battle of Britain sim I've ever played has had a pilot life expectancy of a few weeks. This lack of realism is beyond ridiculous. Heck, there's not even a good reason for it - with a threat level slider (like that of Wings over Vietnam) it should be possible to tune any simulation to pose as great or as small a threat to the player as desired.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Beery

[PapaSmurf630 0]

Would there be any chance of self shadowing effects on objects and aircraft?

 

The same effect can be found in Lomac, with aircraft wings and missiles etc casting realistic shadows on the rest of the fuselage. This effect has an ENORMOUS effect on the game, making it look TONS more realistic. I think even Battlefield 2 has this effect.

[+Dante-JT 6]

Would there be any chance of self shadowing effects on objects and aircraft?

The same effect can be found in Lomac, with aircraft wings and missiles etc casting realistic shadows on the rest of the fuselage. This effect has an ENORMOUS effect on the game, making it look TONS more realistic. I think even Battlefield 2 has this effect.

 

Yup this is an awesome effect in Lomac, was just amazed by it watching that virtualblueangels video the other day. It's a soft shadows shader as opposite to the stencil shadows (sharper) you see when plane is sitting on ground.

[NH2112 0]

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*

 

 

Maybe I need to look for an old 486 with DOS 6.x that I can run Tornado and Falcon 3.0 on! X-Wing & TIE Fighter, too :)

 

 

WRT graphics vs realism, I got into flight sims back in the early (pre-HOTAS days, if you can believe there ever was such a time!) and one thing I've noticed is that some old sims with very dated graphics (Falcon 3.0, Tornado, Su27) are much more fun to play than some of the more recent sims with great graphics. I think this was because the developers knew there was only so much they could do graphics-wise so they concentrated on trying to put as much depth as possible into the sim instead. Kinda like a guy who wants to build a "sleeper" car on a budget, he's better off putting his money into the engine and suspension than doing bodywork and paint.

 

If photorealistic graphics AND absolute realism are possible in the same sim at the same time, then I'm all in favor of both. But graphics should never be given priority over realism, IMO.

Edited August 19, 2006 by NH2112

[+Jug 99]

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.

 

Right on the nose! I agree with your assessment.

[csb 12]

I've found no other game with the immersive quality that Strike Fighter creates with the radio chatter. It's realtime and most (90%) of it is triggered by actual events in-mission.

 

SF has enough variety so it doesn't get repetitious either.

 

I start to feel lonely on most other sims.

[BlacK Death 0]

I would like to see a good multiplayer enviorment but not so realistic it takes the FUN out of the game because this IS a game.

 

Although it was arcadish, JetFighter IV was one of the best for fast action and fun dogfighting.

 

Lock on was a major disapointment in that it was supposed to have the "realsm" but it took a half hour to engage another player just to shoot them or be shot down and waste another half hour to get back into combat.

 

I want to turn hard and reaquire my objective(who cares if a real jet would be sheared in half due to excess G's) remember it's a GAME.

[Guest Stiglr]

I just looked at the most current poll results:

 

Realistic Gaming [ 110 ] [54.46%]

Graphics [ 11 ] [5.45%]

Fun in the game [ 18 ] [8.91%]

Expasion packs with more airplanes [ 28 ] [13.86%]

Multiplayer feature [ 27 ] [13.37%]

Other [ 8 ] [3.96%]

 

Realism supposedly trumps any of the other categories by at least 4:1.

 

I find this kind of funny, because the main body of posts on this and other sites overwhelmingly support the "sim-lite" theory and "fun" as much more important than realism. Seems like collectively, we all pay lip service to realism, except when that makes it challenging and stops us from being ace-in-a-day... then, we want "fun", because it's "fun" to win. We throw realism and all those inconvenient challenges out the window, dress it up with graphics and whiz-bang special effects and then it's fine to overlook the mistakes, the inaccuracies, the arcade features etc. in favor of "fun". Many even think that the more realistic you make a sim, the less "fun" it is, as though accuracy and attention to those boring details by itself sucks the fun out of any sim. (I find the two completely unrelated, in fact, some of the fun often comes from managing the more realistic features and challenges a good sim will throw at you). There's even a ready-made set of excuses for how, since no PC game can truly simulate flight, it's pointless to even strive for anything realistic....

[+Zurawski 33]

I just looked at the most current poll results:

 

Realistic Gaming [ 110 ] [54.46%]

Graphics [ 11 ] [5.45%]

Fun in the game [ 18 ] [8.91%]

Expansion packs with more airplanes [ 28 ] [13.86%]

Multiplayer feature [ 27 ] [13.37%]

Other [ 8 ] [3.96%]

 

Realism supposedly trumps any of the other categories by at least 4:1.

 

I find this kind of funny, because the main body of posts on this and other sites overwhelmingly support the "sim-lite" theory and "fun" as much more important than realism. Seems like collectively, we all pay lip service to realism, except when that makes it challenging and stops us from being ace-in-a-day... then, we want "fun", because it's "fun" to win. We throw realism and all those inconvenient challenges out the window, dress it up with graphics and whiz-bang special effects and then it's fine to overlook the mistakes, the inaccuracies, the arcade features etc. in favor of "fun". Many even think that the more realistic you make a sim, the less "fun" it is, as though accuracy and attention to those boring details by itself sucks the fun out of any sim. (I find the two completely unrelated, in fact, some of the fun often comes from managing the more realistic features and challenges a good sim will throw at you). There's even a ready-made set of excuses for how, since no PC game can truly simulate flight, it's pointless to even strive for anything realistic....

 

Alas... we meet again... ;)

 

In this pole I believe "realism" is subjective. What "is" realism? Is it modeling the entire start sequence of a plane or simply the adherence to documented flight specifications? Does the modeling of the start sequence make the simulation more real or does it simply make it tedious?

 

Obviously, giving the user the option is ideal... question is, considering the limited dev budgets... does it's inclusion enhance the simulation enough to justify the time expenditure or the cost? Will the "typical" user go through the start sequence once... twice... maybe three times, then choose to bypass it by selecting the "start" key in the future as it added nothing the the enjoyment of the simulation?

 

I know... I know... there ARE some folks like yourself who find fun end enjoyment in the mundane areas of flight simulations... I suspect you'd find enjoyment in blowing a ring and spend the entire flight struggling to keep up with your flight... but I digress ;)

 

Realism I believe is a simulations ability to give the impression and experience equivalent to the real world. Mind you... not necessarily "everything" that a real-world pilot goes through... as much of what they do is lost in the actual encounter/experiance...

 

IMHO... I suspect most sim enthusiast strive for the exciting encounters... regardless of how they got there, what they did to get there and what they have to do when they get back.... So long as for that brief moment when they engage the enemy, the plane does what it's supposed to do, as they expect it to, based on common knowledge and known specifications. The rest is ancilary...

 

For some switch twiddling is fun... for others its a tedious endevor... neither party is wrong, they just enjoy their simulations at varying cerebral depths. I can guarantee for almost everyone the fight is more important than the forplay... :D

Edited December 13, 2006 by Zurawski

[Guest Stiglr]

Alas... we meet again... ;)

 

In this pole I believe "realism" is subjective. What "is" realism? Is it modeling the entire start sequence of a plane or simply the adherence to documented flight specifications? Does the modeling of the start sequence make the simulation more real or does it simply make it tedious?

 

Obviously, giving the user the option is ideal... question is, considering the limited dev budgets... does it's inclusion enhance the simulation enough to justify the time expenditure or the cost? Will the "typical" user go through the start sequence once... twice... maybe three times, then choose to bypass it by selecting the "start" key in the future as it added nothing the the enjoyment of the simulation?

 

I know... I know... there ARE some folks like yourself who find fun end enjoyment in the mundane areas of flight simulations... I suspect you'd find enjoyment in blowing a ring and spend the entire flight struggling to keep up with your flight... but I digress ;)

 

Realism I believe is a simulations ability to give the impression and experience equivalent to the real world. Mind you... not necessarily "everything" that a real-world pilot goes through... as much of what they do is lost in the actual encounter/experiance...

 

IMHO... I suspect most sim enthusiast strive for the exciting encounters... regardless of how they got there, what they did to get there and what they have to do when they get back.... So long as for that brief moment when they engage the enemy, the plane does what it's supposed to do, as they expect it to, based on common knowledge and known specifications. The rest is ancilary...

 

For some switch twiddling is fun... for others its a tedious endevor... neither party is wrong, they just enjoy their simulations at varying cerebral depths. I can guarantee for almost everyone the fight is more important than the forplay... :D

 

Good questions.

 

For me, realism is in modeling, to what degree we can, the conditions and making intelligent decisions when faced with the inevitable collisions between complete adherence to realism and game play.

 

Here's where the rubber meets the road: if you can model a factor of combat, more than likely, you ought to. If the thing you're modeling actually was an important factor in combat, the player should have a chance to experience it. Engine management is a fine example of one of those things that often don't get modelled correctly, but should.

 

Now, there are some things that, for the sake of game design, you let go, or even add in as a player aid. Good example: autopilots. Not all planes had them (but some did!) However, when you consider your average gamer might actually have to go to the bathroom during a cruise (and alas has no "relief tube" in his den or office)... or more than likely, has a wife or a couple of rugrats that might demand 5 minutes of his undivided attention during a sortie... OK, I can live with an "unrealistic" auto level flight. That is, if it can't be abused as a "get out of jail card" to save a guy who's spun his plane. Again, a developer decision that has to be thought through.

 

I find many "gamer types" draw the line where the realism cuts into their ability to easily win. I really, truly believe this. They want the game to be somewhat of a challenge, but in the end, like John Wayne, they want to win every time, often without the skill to do so on their own merit, or without putting in the time or having learned the hard lessons like energy management, Situational Awareness, knowing your plane and the other guy's, getting altitude, using the sun, etc., etc., etc. Notice all this is even before actually moving the controls of the plane! There's a LOT to learn.

 

These hard lessons are the things that make flight sims such engrossing "game" titles. You don't get bored with them in 1 month, having learned all the "cheat codes" and tricks to "get through all the levels". No, if the sim is at all realistic, you have to first learn how to take off in the bloody things , then how to *gulp* land more often than you prang. Then you have to learn all the various facets of how to fight and survive, and fly as a team and all that. Then you have to learn the various capabilities many planes have, and factor them into the equation!!! And in so doing, you gain an immense appreciation for the men who did this with only ONE life at their disposal to lose. A low-fi game makes it look like it was EASY to rack up kills, let alone just SURVIVE those mythical first 5 sorties that often the "cannon fodder" never saw the other side of.

 

Or, you can cop out, throw your hands up and use the "it's only a game" excuse or any of a number of the usual wimp-out ploys. You can use all the arcade features that just help insure you'll fly like Chuck Yeager... and you don't have to have 1/1000th of his skill, either. Again, engine management offers a great example. You can rail against the [sarcasm]utter tedium[/sarcasm] of having to actually manage your prop pitch and RPMs, and have to open cooling flaps (which only slow your plane and make it a lot less aerodynamic, increasing your challenge of merely flying the plane). Dammit, [stamps foot] all this keeps you from just leaving the throttle at 100% and tear-assing all over the sky full out all sortie long, ignoring that pesky heat and the temperature of that oil!!!

 

But...then you're missing something. Maybe the fact that because you had to nurse an engine and a fuel supply for a long cruise over enemy territory, maybe THAT'S why some guys got bounced in their wonder planes and got lit up: because they WEREN'T at full speed and capability...and weren't on the lookout, either, another important lesson.

 

Realism, for my money, makes a sim equal part fun, challenge and history lesson. A lesser sim, or game, only covers about half that: it's 100% fun, but 50% of the challenge, and about 0% insight into the real history. What a missed opportunity.

[+Zurawski 33]

Well... I tell ya one thing Stiglr... you and I sure have differing ideas of "fun"...

 

Honestly, I've been siming since the days of Air Warrior (Man, am I getting old...) I did all the switch twiddling in every sim that offered it... I read virtually every aces biographies... I read every ACM handbook I could find... I immersed myself "in" air-combat...

 

After all these years, the only thing I still find enjoyable is the "engagement". I love a well executed merge... I live to get on my targets tail within 2 turns... Win or loose I appreciate a fundamentally sound engagement where the better man or AI wins. I agree the "set-up" prior to engaging is important... I suspect most sim enthusiast who have a cursory understanding of trying to enter the engagement with the advantage do this instinctively. I argue that this is more an understanding of ACM and knowledge of it's importance versus strict adherence to realism.

 

In a nutshell: What happens on the way there and on the runway post landing no longer means anything to me... Your idea of realism to me is the equivalent of a racing simulation that includes obeying posted speed limits and all traffic lights... with the mandatory stop at the quick-lube every 3000 miles.

 

Not a knock on your play style... It's just simply "Been there, done that"... deja'vu sort of thing.

 

Not to mention... I no longer have time in my life to fly 4 hour sorties.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Zurawski

[tank03 1]

I understand both views being expressed here, and I can't really offer anything new. All I can say is that with work, family, and other obligations sapping my time I get a few precious minutes each night to play the game. I don't want to use that time getting to the target and the related minutae. I want to jump in and fight right from the get-go. I wish I had the time to start from take-off, plan the route, manage the engine, etc. but my leisure time is very limited and I've set my priorities in terms of what I enjoy with the game.

 

As I said, I wish I had the time to "switch fiddle", but I don't, and when push comes to shove, the enjoyment of the engagement wins out over the enjoyment of the switch-fiddling.

 

Any future game I purchase will have to offer that "quick to the action" option for me to be interested since that's where my enjoyment lies.

[+SkippyBing 8]

You can use all the arcade features that just help insure you'll fly like Chuck Yeager... and you don't have to have 1/1000th of his skill, either.

 

Which is handy as I doubt anyone posting on this board has anything approaching the skill of Chuck Yeager, John Farly or Eric 'Winkle' Brown, hell I know I don't. If I've paid my £30 for a sim and I decide I want to hoon around with no regard for the rules of the air or the proper management of the engine then I want to be able to. It takes around three to four years to train a Sea Harrier pilot, how egotistical do you have to be to think you can pick it up after a couple of years playing flight sims as a hobby? I know I'm not that good, and that's why I use some of the 'arcade' features because then I can at least pretend, because it's a damn sight more fun than spending several weeks worth of spare time just trying to take off. And yes I'm aware the challenge of learning how to do it the 'right' way can be rewarding but it would involve sacrificing my social life to play a computer game and there's a word for people like that.

[Guest Stiglr]

Which is handy as I doubt anyone posting on this board has anything approaching the skill of Chuck Yeager, John Farly or Eric 'Winkle' Brown, hell I know I don't. If I've paid my £30 for a sim and I decide I want to hoon around with no regard for the rules of the air or the proper management of the engine then I want to be able to. It takes around three to four years to train a Sea Harrier pilot, how egotistical do you have to be to think you can pick it up after a couple of years playing flight sims as a hobby? I know I'm not that good, and that's why I use some of the 'arcade' features because then I can at least pretend, because it's a damn sight more fun than spending several weeks worth of spare time just trying to take off. And yes I'm aware the challenge of learning how to do it the 'right' way can be rewarding but it would involve sacrificing my social life to play a computer game and there's a word for people like that.

 

Well, all I can say is, as long as you admit you're "just a gamer", there's really nothing wrong with it. Nor is there anything intrinsically wrong with wanting to pretend to be Chuck Yeager without any of the skill.

 

I suppose the question is, should you be subsidized for not having the time/willpower/stick-to-it-iveness to actually succeed? This is really where it goes back to pure arcade gaming: with that kind of game title, all you really need to do is learn/find the cheat codes and "solve" the game. (twirls finger in the air) Whoopdeedo. What pleasure do you really get out of that when you KNOW you couldn't get there of your own merit?

 

For my money, though, just paying yer 30 quid doesn't entitle you to jack sh*t except saying you paid 30 quid. I feel a good sim presents you with a challenge, and if you're not up for it... well, you're not up for it. But, even if you're not, you will continually get your money's worth, because you can enjoy the challenge of trying to beat the odds (instead of wimping out with some cheat codes). And again, that's where you learn the lessons that demonstrate how hard it really was, what brave men these pilots really were and are, etc., etc., etc.

 

I feel a good sim has a duty to teach, challenge and entertain in equal measures. The ones that just lean on the entertainment value alone (graphics over flight modeling, arcade features over challenge, gamey design over historical scenarios, etc.) are actually cheating you out of 2/3 of the potential of any game title.

[+Fates 63]

Realism I believe is a simulations ability to give the impression and experience equivalent to the real world. Mind you... not necessarily "everything" that a real-world pilot goes through... as much of what they do is lost in the actual encounter/experience...

 

 

Zur, I agree with you 99.9%. My only exception in your statement above would be this:

 

Realism is not the impression and experience equivalent to the real world. Realism is the perception of the impressions and experiences that the real world may bring.

 

If I've never seen an F-15 in my life and I buy this "game" that simulates an F-15 (under the developers constraints of time and money), then my experience and impression of the game may be heightened. To me, this would be a great game full of realism. I'm not a rivet counter so a basic model and skin might look real enough to me. I'm not an avionics guru, so the ability to do certain things in the cockpit would give me a great sense of realism. I've never flown one, so the flight model seemed pretty real to me.

 

However,

 

My perception of realism would change the more and more I envelope myself in flight games, and aviation, and military jets, and readings of ACM's and taking airshow pictures, or growing up near an airbase. The more real my perception becomes, the greater impression a game is going to have to make on me. I'm going to start looking for differences in flight models, and I'll look for proper weapon loadouts, or I'll simply become more aware of the avionics abilities.

 

Point being, everyones perception of reality is different. I believe that Zur's enjoyment of the game is simliar to mine. It's not about having perfect models or accurate flight models. It's about the enjoyment that we all receive playing it. We engulf ourselves in the perceived reality and we extract fun out of it. The less fun/enjoyment you extract from the game the worse the game is for you. Having the ability to scale that perception level will mean the world to each player that comes to fly.

 

Fates

[+Zurawski 33]

Zur, I agree with you 99.9%. My only exception in your statement above would be this:

 

Realism is not the impression and experience equivalent to the real world. Realism is the perception of the impressions and experiences that the real world may bring.

 

If I've never seen an F-15 in my life and I buy this "game" that simulates an F-15 (under the developers constraints of time and money), then my experience and impression of the game may be heightened. To me, this would be a great game full of realism. I'm not a rivet counter so a basic model and skin might look real enough to me. I'm not an avionics guru, so the ability to do certain things in the cockpit would give me a great sense of realism. I've never flown one, so the flight model seemed pretty real to me.

 

However,

 

My perception of realism would change the more and more I envelope myself in flight games, and aviation, and military jets, and readings of ACM's and taking airshow pictures, or growing up near an airbase. The more real my perception becomes, the greater impression a game is going to have to make on me. I'm going to start looking for differences in flight models, and I'll look for proper weapon loadouts, or I'll simply become more aware of the avionics abilities.

 

Point being, everyones perception of reality is different. I believe that Zur's enjoyment of the game is simliar to mine. It's not about having perfect models or accurate flight models. It's about the enjoyment that we all receive playing it. We engulf ourselves in the perceived reality and we extract fun out of it. The less fun/enjoyment you extract from the game the worse the game is for you. Having the ability to scale that perception level will mean the world to each player that comes to fly.

 

Fates

 

Good point and well stated. I agree...

 

I imagine we both followed simular paths in our birthing into flight simulations? Started off with something simple like RB or Jet Fighter or BoB... Then advanced into CYAC or Aces or PAW1942, then advanced into Falcon AT... through to 4.0... Maybe Lock-On... finally back to sims like SF, WoV and FE.

 

So in summary, we started simple (Gamey / Arcade) advanced our knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the air-combat... with this, grew our desire to dig deeper into meatier simulation experiance and steep ourselves in ACM glory... (hardcore sim enthusiasts / gronards)... having done out duty and quenched our desire to wrap ourselfs in our simulations, we now happily "play" with all our simulations to varing depths that provide us appropriate levels of enjoyment.

 

We've "been there done that"... and enjoy "playing" with our simulations. We choose to leave the "work" part of our simulations at the doorstep and revel in the "fun" aspect of it now.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Zurawski

[+SkippyBing 8]

as long as you admit you're "just a gamer"

 

As are we all, I've spent enough time in real simulators swearing at myself under my breath to know that no matter how realistic the programmers make it a PC programme isn't the real thing and nor is a full on six degrees of motion simulator.

A lot of the things you talk about making a game realistic such as engine management with cowling flaps, rpm etc. are the sort of things a front line pilot would attend to automatically without thinking because of the amount of training he'll have done. As I don't have enough spare time to simulate having a second career I'll choose to take the easy option on that, the challenge I want is taking on another aircraft or a ground target, not doing the ground school for an aircraft.

I agree that sims that presents you with a challenge are more rewarding, however I think we disagree on where the challenge should be. I think it should be in manouvering the aircraft to get a kill (with the weapons operating in a realistic manner) with it performing as close as dammit to real life. I don't think the challenge should be in memorising the 140+ switches and checks you have to make to get the engine started, otherwise you may as well buy MSFS and one of the add on airliners.

As for should I be subsidised? As it's far more likley the people like me buying the game who make it financially viable, the question is should you be subsidised?

Edited January 6, 2007 by SkippyBing

[Psyfire 0]

As are we all, I've spent enough time in real simulators swearing at myself under my breath to know that no matter how realistic the programmers make it a PC programme isn't the real thing and nor is a full on six degrees of motion simulator.

A lot of the things you talk about making a game realistic such as engine management with cowling flaps, rpm etc. are the sort of things a front line pilot would attend to automatically without thinking because of the amount of training he'll have done. As I don't have enough spare time to simulate having a second career I'll choose to take the easy option on that, the challenge I want is taking on another aircraft or a ground target, not doing the ground school for an aircraft.

I agree that sims that presents you with a challenge are more rewarding, however I think we disagree on where the challenge should be. I think it should be in manouvering the aircraft to get a kill (with the weapons operating in a realistic manner) with it performing as close as dammit to real life. I don't think the challenge should be in memorising the 140+ switches and checks you have to make to get the engine started, otherwise you may as well buy MSFS and one of the add on airliners.

As for should I be subsidised? As it's far more likley the people like me buying the game who make it financially viable, the question is should you be subsidised?

I totaly understand where you are comming from because I used to feel the same way about it. For me the best simulators were the ones where you took off, skipped to the action, and then skipped back and landed. The combat is the most gripping part of it, sure but once I started flying real airplanes I began to look for more. When you fly a Cessna around you begin to understand it's quirks and features, and you really begin to appreciate how an airplane works. Wanting a realistic start sequence for a Jet Fighter is wanting to know what that plane was really like, not only in combat but also taxiing or taking off, or doing intentional stalls. Now I want to know what the fire emergency procedure is for a fighter before I even begin to think about getting into combat. I think they should simulate it all, down to the rivet so that we can begin to get an idea of what it is like to fly these amazing warbirds. I want to feel like after I get done playing this game, I could actually fly the plane. I'm hoping for realistic radar modes and realistic weapons launch sequences. I don't know much in the way of specifics, but I'd like to find out what went into these for the missle systems. A simulation has the potential to reveal scenarios that the creator never intended. Maybe the Sidewinder's best advantage was it's ease of use and not it's all aspect capability, maybe the Args really never had a chance against the Harrier, and refusal to engage was the smartest thing they could do. The more realistic a simulation is, the more it can reveal. Realism is much easier to scale back than it is to improve, and any simulator needs a range of difficulty settings, but I think the best model is to start with a simulation that is as realistic as you can make it given the data you have on hand, and the technical ability of your staff. Thats the framework apon which really outstanding simulations are built, everything else succedes or fails based on this. That being said, there are many more factors that go into success. It must be presented well and have an efficent and easy to navigate interface. In the case of this game, a wealth of historical knowledge is available and needs to be collected and utilized. Historical stills and videos could be used for cutscenes and wallpapers which will create an engrossing and interesting backdrop apon which to set the game. I have tons of suggestions, I don't want to get off subject here. The realism is necessary because it adds credability. If someone tells you a game is a realistic simulation of a Mirage Fighter, it's different than if they say they have a game about fighter jets. They don't have to mention that they play it with settings pegged at medium so it never flies like a real fighter.

 

Justin

[+Dante-JT 6]

hehehe i think is better a Expansion packof JT wich a fictional War btwen Brazil and Venezoela and Americans ,wich the Su-30,Mirage 5VD,F-16A Block 10,TOR-M1 batteries,Tunguska AAA,Mirage 2000C,ERJ-145R(R-99A/B) F-5EM/FM, and conventional US Fighters like Eagle and Raptor and Falcon.

XD this is my think hehehhe

Ps:Dante im Yuri from Orkut!

 

 

Hola Yuri! :D

 

Nice scenario you thought, indeed Venezuela is quite powerful now with Su-30, Hind gunships and other things they recently bought. Some people think they will be involved in some real action in the near future (nasty thought, but thats how things are).