P3 Settings Ratings...

[+Winder]

I just popped in to ask a poll....

 

The settings ratings seem to cause so much consternation and everyone seems to want to run at 100 or higher and I don't know why.

This was not the intention of this simple counting system - it was provided to allow users to compare results with a simple rating of how they have the sim set up without relaying exact settings given so many options and thus a simple number is produced

 

Hell its not even 0 - 100 - its now 0 - 140.....and I could invert it too - its just a settings number.

 

I run at 70 normally, and now with 1.32e extra Flak and MG settings 90, out of a possible 140.

I will never run at 140.

 

Cheers

 

WM

[+Olham]

My suggestion is, to change the settings number that way, that it doesn't look like "percent".

Perhaps you make it a range between 1 - 12 or 1 - 25 or something; so it would be a reminder,

that one is not yet at "full terror range", without making him think "I'm only 60 % real?" (Lol!)

 

I haven't voted yet - I'd say, it should be changed, but not totally dropped.

[77Scout]

I voted 'no'. It is just a number that tells me how close I am to full realism. It is not a reflection of how much fun a person is having or a measure of how much of a man anyone is...sheesh. Are people seriously not enjoying the game because of a number??

[CaptSopwith]

I also voted no. Flight sims have realism settings, it's the nature of the genre and the type of game that we play. It is a reflection of how "realistic" in terms of difficulty, the simulation is set for. Even a simple shooter like Call of Duty has an Easy, Hardened, and Veteran setting. I wouldn't give much credence to those gripping about a number. If you remove the number, then players will boast and compare based on which check boxes are ticked. I wouldn't worry about trying to please everyone out there, you'll never get there.

 

However, I would love to see efforts directed towards P4 and some plane packs - I think that's the most positive direction for the sim to go, now that we have the majority of the issues ironed out.

 

Just my two cents, your mileage may vary.

[Bullethead]

I said "no" just because I want you spending your time making me new stuff I can pay you for, not rehashing old stuff for free (unless there are real bugs with it, of course) :yes:

[Rickitycrate]

It's only a number I think about when I look at it in Workshop. I'm not in there very often. I say no.

[Hellshade]

I voted yes, not because I care but because it seems like a magnet for complaints. The % Realism number is irrelevant anyways, because even if you choose all of the "Hardest" option settings in the workshop, you can still turn on TAC, Labels and the combat pointer which shows me the direction of my closest selected enemy aircraft that I have targeted. Even with every setting on the hardest, using those options defeats the % Realism accuracy tremendously, so why bother having it there at all? All it does is seem to cause issues with people who can't seem to get past it. Honestly most people seem to DiD or PND anyways.

 

Leave it or keep it doesn't matter to me personally because I don't care. I just think it seems to cause you folks at OBD some unnecessary flak.

 

Hellshade

[angles1100]

I voted no because its another option/feature and the more of those the better :)

 

 

cheers

[Duce Lewis]

I voted 'No' because I think it's a relevent number

Shows you where you are by comparison and progression towards realism

That said, many get too hyped up on the number

We're the ones that need to make the changes

Play where you want and don't worry what others think

Only suggestion is to make it 0-100 or 1-12 as Olham suggested

[Burning Beard]

I voted yes because the numerical value seems to be a yardstick that is not needed. Say for instance the reporting thing. If you put it on the easiest setting it costs you lots of points when you may not care at all if you get credit for the "kill", it just puts a hoop to jump through. That is the one that sticks in my mind the most but I'm sure guys have there own quirks about what is needed to be ticked off to fill their particular fix for WW1 flying.

 

Beard

Edited August 19, 2009 by Burning Beard

[TSmoke]

I voted for it to be removed, it seems to cause irrational and usless complaints.

 

It is impossible anyways to reach a full real simulation with todays tech. anyways. Anyone that thinks 120% or 140% equals full realism is so full of crap their eyes are brown. How 2d world that a monitor gives you compare to a 3d world, ie field of view, depth perception all the little things that are impossible to duplicate on a home PC.

 

I could care less about the % number, I fly with what I am comfortable with.

 

The full real crap created a hell of a mess over in Hyperlobby for IL2, all the stupid number did was cause alot of bitchin and moaning. I would hate to see the same hapopen here.

 

My 2 cents worth.

[Herr Prop-Wasche]

I voted no but it doesn't really matter too much to me. I usually fly at about 20-40% realism, but a lot of that is because I choose the medium setting for claims. I agree that removing the ratings will not have much of an effect, because we humans are an ornery lot and are always comparing d*** lengths. So, even if the ratings were removed, people would find something else to use to compare themselves to one another.

 

My only suggestion is to eliminate or substantially lower the rating for the claims procedure. My reasons why are this: in contrast to the other boxes, such as gun jams, wind effects, AI accuracy, stress damage, etc. the claims form has nothing to do with how difficult it is to fly and fight while in the air. Some may argue that the claims form increases realism because it helps simulate the totality of the actual WWI airmen's experience in the air and on the ground, of which filling out paperwork is certainly one aspect. OTOH, there is a LOT of the actual WWI airman's experience on the ground that is NOT represented in the sim. Seems a bit strange to have the only aspect of the airmen's experience on the ground that is represented in the sim make up so much of the realism percentage.

 

My belief is that most people choose the full claims procedure because it helps give them a feeling for the period, not because it makes the game any harder. If it could be proved that filling out paperwork made one a better pilot, then I might be for weighting the claims procedure so heavily. Myself, I have to deal with enough paperwork at work. I don't care to be bothered with it during my free time!

 

In conclusion, I am in favor either of eliminating the claims rating entirely, or turning it down to maybe 10% or so. However, since many people like it, I think the feature itself should be retained. Everything else about ratings should stay the same, IMHO.

[Broadside uda Barn]

I voted yes, primarily for the claims rating being so high.

[Guest British_eh]

I just popped in to ask a poll....

 

Thank you for your consideration in this arena.

The settings ratings seem to cause so much consternation and everyone seems to want to run at 100 or higher and I don't know why.

 

Well,there is the machoism factor, and the desrie to be able to "Win" at the game. I always have played to win, in everything I do, so the game provides for another competition. Does anyone play it to relax? I had the wisedom of any OFF enthusiast who was able to sucinctly put it this way. OFF is a WW1 sim, with a WW2 engine. It just isn't that easy to mix the two. Certainly the OFF Team has done a great job working with the MSCFS3 hard code.

This was not the intention of this simple counting system - it was provided to allow users to compare results with a simple rating of how they have the sim set up without relaying exact settings given so many options and thus a simple number is produced

 

In previous editions of OFF there seemed to be less choice as to one's preferences. In my opinioin, perhaps for P4 we could have Choices of Rookie, Veteran, and Ace. The Ace settings would equate to 100 % Realism. But what is that? Well, perhaps the OFF Team would be amenable to having input ( only) in the form of a research committee(s) to generate such things as the Ace Standard. The committee could provide a report, and the OFF Team could decide what from the report, to implement. It is obvioius that given the OFF Teams size, this would free them up for more discretionary use of their time. The various avenues regarding the important aspects of OFF could be approached. These may include aircraft types,handling charasteristics, machine gun accuracy for pilots , FLAK accuracy/concentration/etc. For now the numbers are significant to many, and not to others.

 

DiD is another number cruncher, where the magic is at 100%. These are then several examples of why it can be perceived as important.

Hell its not even 0 - 100 - its now 0 - 140.....and I could invert it too - its just a settings number.

 

Perhaps a good idea that the top be 100% and Did structured to take into account the relevant settings.

I run at 70 normally, and now with 1.32e extra Flak and MG settings 90, out of a possible 140.

I will never run at 140.

 

I run at 100% to meet DiD, and the ideas presented in the first paragraph

Cheers,

British_eh

WM

[+Hasse Wind]

There's no need to remove them from P3, but I could live without such numbers in P4. They just aren't necessary in my opinion - I can see without any percentages when my setting are on hardcore realism or arcade mode, and the numbers seem to cause some headache for some people.

[Gremlin_WoH]

I did not vote yet but if people find numbers disturbing make it medals: say, Iron Cross 2nd class for easiest setting ... Pour Le Merite for hardest settings

[BigJim]

With my tired old eyes the day they take away icons is the day I remove the game from my harddrive

[themightysrc]

I'm not fussed one way or another.

 

I'd simply agree with the above poster who said not to bother - it ain't broke; don't fix it.

 

Invest your valuable time in new planes and the mouthwatering prospect of P4.

[Hellshade]

How about a compromise? Add a button next to the realism % that toggles Realism % display? Now we're talking nuts.

 

Hellshade

[CaptSopwith]

I did not vote yet but if people find numbers disturbing make it medals: say, Iron Cross 2nd class for easiest setting ... Pour Le Merite for hardest settings

 

And then in the world of the macho PC sim flyer, Pour Le Merite is the new 130%

 

Pilot 1: "I'm really enjoying P4, what a great sim."

 

Pilot 2: "What medal do you fly?"

 

Pilot 1: "Iron Cross, 2nd class..."

 

Pilot 2: *Scoffs* "Sissy..."

[+Olham]

A "progress box" would perhaps be good. You know, like what you get, when you

download something. There could be some 30 fields, each filling with green or whatever,

the higher you set up reality. That way, no one could compare much in terms fo "How many

percent are you?" or "how high is your reality number?"

Everyone would just see a certain amount of green fields, only to show him or her, how much

would still be possible to add.

[CaptSopwith]

A "progress box" would perhaps be good. You know, like what you get, when you

download something. There could be some 30 fields, each filling with green or whatever,

the higher you set up reality. That way, no one could compare much in terms fo "How many

percent are you?" or "how high is your reality number?"

Everyone would just see a certain amount of green fields, only to show him or her, how much

would still be possible to add.

 

And then they'll post screenshots of how much green is in their field lol. At the end of the day, some sim pilots feel the need to compare specs. No matter what the criteria is, or how you frame it, the systemic issue remains.

 

That said, I play at full realism because I'm a history junkie and I want it as close to a digital representation as I can get.

[+Olham]

Okay, Captain, don't forget to set up a huge powerful fan, blowing through a fridge into your face,

plus a leaking can of Castor Oil above in front of it!

That must give you "Realism: 220 %" Lol!

Edited August 19, 2009 by Olham

[CaptSopwith]

Okay, Captain, don't forget to set up a huge powerful fan, blowing through a fridge into your face,

plus a leaking can of Castor Oil above in front of it!

That must give you "Realism: 220 %" Lol!

 

lol! There was an old joke back in the RB3D days that said if you wanted full immersion you needed something like a wicker seat, a large brick to bash your head into upon crash landing, a huge fan with a block of ice in front of it, and a bucket of gasoline to set your self alight if you were hit in the fuel tank!

[Guest Barnstorm]

Very entertaining replies. Don't give my ex-wife any idea's.....the gasoline especially. I would look like a Harri Krishna at a Taliban bar-b-cue. If the rating numbers are to remain, I vote to limit the upper range at 100, as previously purposed.