HerrMurf

"no matter how hard society today works at being upset by things" Closing with this after a rant is, with all love, respect and sincerity, absolutely hilarious! 🙂

Gutted, We were just talking about building our kid's first Euro trip around this airshow.......

Agreed, Jason has a really good handle on balancing wants and needs. BoX massively improved after he took the lead. It was a mess before his touch and is a mess after his departure as well. I'm sure this will inch closer to DCS and CloD for fidelity without losing sight of the overall gameplay, eye candy, and user experience.

Regarding Flight Modes: I wrote a series of articles early on in BoX development regarding Beginner, Normal, and Expert modes. A lot of what I wrote back then actually got modified and/or implemented by the Dev’s. Some things weren’t, because of technical issues, and some the Dev’s just didn’t think needed to be adjusted. I want to revisit here in CP, and give my humble opinion on the matter from the ground floor for both Dev consideration and cordial argumentation amongst ourselves. It won’t be copy and paste, though, many of the concepts will transfer. On the other hand, with further knowledge of how that development went, I have some newer, potentially better, ideas. So, strap in, it’s gonna be a long article. I largely think there should be three default modes for play. These should be good for both offline and online play. The fourth mode – Full Custom won’t be addressed here as there are far too many variables to contend with. I think there is absolutely a role for Full Custom and everyone should have the ability to adjust/play the game the way they want. I don’t want to force anyone to play the game “MY WAY.” Full Custom, however, is just a different animal altogether. There should, on the other hand, be a set of one click stock settings that correspond to both off and online modes that make sense. If I’m flying offline and want to fight with the same parameters, that should be an easy, and easily identifiable in the GUI, transition to online and vice versa. Further, the settings for each mode should both be progressive and make sense from the outset. I should be able to click on the mode I want in the GUI and, in online mode, all servers that don’t correspond to the mode I clicked should drop off the available servers list. The stock modes, let’s call them Ensign, Lieutenant and Commander, roughly correspond to Noob, Casual, and Expert. Let’s take a look…… Ensign: This is the selectable mode for beginners. This is where the noobs should be making the transition from mouse games, less complex CFS’ and GA flight sims to Combat Pilot. It should have the most aids for the flyer. Technical tips and a detailed HUD “on” for multiple flight parameters and compass. There should be multiple small icon flags for the nearest enemy aircraft along the outer rim of the FOV. There should be a distance marker on all aircraft with a color corresponding to friend or foe. The distance marker should be set to 6k and full color, though it should be faint at maximum distance and grow in intensity as you get closer. For example at 6k distance - marker only shown and very faint, at 3k - color is clearly discernable and AC type listed, at 1k - color is full and opponent name is printed as well as FOV flags present. Any further than 6k there should be no markers or icons. I am currently undecided if markers/icons should be visible behind clouds and through the aircraft. All of the external views are on. Padlock is enabled. Ground icons on at 3k with the same gradient style as aircraft. Map(s) should include all aircraft within 6k and all ground targets within 3k. Outside views are on but NO SUPERMAN view in this, or any of the three stock modes. Aircraft FM/DM should be the same/unchanged for all pilots in this or any other mode. A possible exception might be landing gear damage in Ensign mode - we want noobs to learn how to land on a carrier, without killing themselves every time, and build some confidence. Complex Engine Management should be “off” or automatic, including temperature and prop pitch. Keep all of the historical engine limits but let the AC handle CEM. Note: this has NOTHING to do with engine timers. Please DO NOT go OT in the comments. I will ask a Moderator to delete all "timer's" comments. I said historical engine limits with intent. Engine starts are one button/automatic but fully animated. Air Starts allowed. Ensign mode should be focusing on basic airmanship, gunnery, and a FUN place to learn. Enemy AAA and AC gunners should be present but moderately ineffective with modified (ahistorical) dispersion. There should be no G effect on the player pilot. Let the physics/AC stall characteristics/FM be the limiting factor in pulling G. G effect ON for AI pilots, though. Enemy AI should be a random mix of rookie and average skill. Combat should be geared toward the beginner and transitional pilots in this mode based on no CEM, icons, and AI skill. Ensign servers could be a really good place for squads to take new guys for training and teamwork exercises. I have always been in favor of a training server where noobs could go to class once or twice a week but that is probably for a different thread. Is it arcade? Simply, yes - but it has clear stepping stones for moving into Lieutenant mode. Lieutenant: Still not a full real mode but with relatively few aids. This is a casual mode but much closer to full real than Ensign and probably where the majority of players will, realistically, reside. This is still a quick(er) action mode for most pilots/servers. FM/DM, as stated above, should be full on in every mode, which includes landing (gear) damage in this one. The first step is to remove all of the FOV flags and reduce the distance markers to 3k. 3k because, while it is still an aid, it is far enough away to assist but not so far away that it is a complete crutch in a bounce. Either as the bouncer or the bounce-ee. 3k icons will still force you to pick up a scan and have some sense of SA. This is still enough distance/time to make a decision to fight or flee in most cases, as long as you are scanning. Some of the old ’46 "Skies of" servers had icons and no flags and you could get bounced if you were lazy. In BoX the FOV flags ruin this. Just one of the things ’46 “Normal” got right. Older guys with small screens and reading glasses need just a little help in the spotting department. Ask me how I know……. One of the responding comments in my original thread said icons were a must for those without headtracking and who relied on “thumb gymnastics.” He stated no headtracking and limited equipment were the primary factor keeping him from venturing into the Expert servers. I’m not sure I agree but it supports my argument for icons. So, there’s that. Icons should not be visible through the clouds or AC in Lieutenant mode. Make clouds and aircraft opaque. If you couldn’t see it in real life you shouldn’t see it in the game. The gradients generally apply the same as the 6k gradients but by half values and no FOV flags present. Ground target icons reduced to 2k with gradient. Padlock is not enabled/available in this mode. The HUD should include only speed and compass. No tech tips. All other pilot data is derived strictly from the instruments. CEM should be simple and mostly controlled by AI. The exception would be temperature/cowl flaps. The pilot should have to monitor the engine temps manually. Oil cooler, mixture, and other engine parameters can be automatic. Prop pitch should be manual if it was manual in real life. I really enjoyed prop pitch on the E3 in CloD. Takeoffs and Landings are full real. Air starts still are allowed online. I haven’t decided if one button starts are acceptable in Lieutenant or if the proper starting sequence is required here. Enemy AI should be a mix of average and veteran. Enemy gunnery should be full real for both AAA as well as AC gunners. Maybe with a bit of dispersion but I’m undecided on this ATM. Full G effect on for the player pilots. The map should show where your AC is located on the map only. It makes the map a navigation aid but not an engagement aid. NO EXTERAL VIEWS in flight. This is where traditional flight simmers and rusty CFS veterans would mix it up. It would force you to hunt, track, and check six considerably more actively. Allowing bounces to develop more naturally, opponents a better chance of using camouflage against terrain, use clouds/weather to mask your escape, and be more of a check six type of server. Pilots would have to be more deliberate in their airmanship as well. Commander: This is the true Expert mode. All CEM is “on.” Engine starts are manual and fully sequential within reason – not necessarily DCS level but certainly CloD level. No icons or map markers of any kind. No HUD. All AC parameters are pilot monitored strictly by the instruments and lever positions. Generally, no pilot aids and full G effect. No air starts. Enemy AI/AA/Gunners are a mix of Veteran and Ace with historical weapons dispersion. ************ So there it is. Mostly fleshed out in my mind and mostly committed to paper. Though, I’m sure I left things out and you have opinions to share as well. Generally, I think, Ensign should be a stepping stone to Lieutenant and Lieutenant a stepping stone to Commander. I’m going to let this thread ride for a few days and then post a follow up posting from the other forum in it’s entirety. It’s more conceptual than technical. This posting is long enough for the moment. I am completely open to tweaking my position based on constructive criticism. Let the arguing begin……….

This is in line with both of my replies.

This is a follow on from my reply to @Mysticpuma in regard to how detailed the weather should be here: The WWII air war was largely fought in good to middling weather. In terrible weather the aircraft would be lashed, aircrew would be below decks, while the rest of the fleet would be buttoned down and puking their guts out. WWII pilots are simply not flying in the majority of poor weather and sea states. I want boats and seaplanes to interact with the water in a convincing way. Landing on a rolling deck should be white knuckle inducing. I want weather to look somewhere between very good to excellent and be reasonably accurate to how it was during actual operations. Great modeling of the boats and how they interact with the water will be the most critical interaction, outside of aircraft, in any CFS simulation to date. As an addendum: PBY's were, generally, prohibited from landing on the open ocean. Even a moderate sea state is enough to destroy the aircraft while landing upon it. A case in point is the one that rescued dozens of sailors from the USS Indianapolis. It was broken upon impact with the sea and became, essentially, a medical barge from that point forward. Heroic pilot, broken plane. PBY's could land on the leeward side of reefs or islands, in lagoons, and harbors where the seas are much flatter. That is why MTB's, surface vessels, and submarines were so critical in pilot rescues in the Pacific.

Yes and no. I want to see dynamic weather within reason. I've seen other posts asking for real time weather, sea state six, and winds that affect wave direction. While that is all good for a modern sim, I don't see it being either realistic or necessary in a CFS. Firstly, the development cost would be somewhere between large and astronomical. Secondly, what does real time weather or sea state six have to do with 1941/42 air combat? The WWII air war was largely fought in good to middling weather. In terrible weather the aircraft would be lashed, aircrew would be below decks, while the rest of the fleet would be buttoned down and puking their guts out. WWII pilots are simply not flying in the majority of the above poor weather videos. I know the sea state can have a significant affect on navigation but much of this would simply be either eye candy or more useful to a surface sim. I want boats and seaplanes to interact with the water in a convincing way. Landing on a rolling deck should be white knuckle inducing. I want weather to look somewhere between very good to excellent and be reasonably accurate to how it was during actual operations - be an obstacle to locating targets, contributing to the fog of war, forcing course deviations, etc. I also want to be able to set the weather to the degree, or maybe more, we could in our last combat sim. Dynamic, yes - where it comes to convincing and changing weather from a piloting perspective. Dynamic, no - where the expectation is bordering on a meteorological sim. I'd rather the development dollars are spent on fluid dynamics and how our AC interact with the air. There is a limited budget and there are more important things than going overboard on weather - especially in the initial release. It's not MSFS and I don't expect, or even want, that level of weather detail in a combat flight sim.

Mostly agree but based on the referenced post, I can imaging one or both companies instituting NDA’s going forward. It wasn’t a completely clean divorce and they are competitors now.

Agreed, but that was the least of several point made. edit: rereading my referenced post, I can see why one would think that is my primary point. It took a bit of type to flesh out that thought.

In regard to Kintaro’s original Q. Beta testers are privy to a ton of what’s upcoming and what’s under the hood. I did some beta in BoS EA. I don’t see a problem with BoX testers migrating but there’s no way they could do both concurrently for competing companies. How these devs feel about migrating remains to be seen.

That's not how beta testing works. Beta testing is completely directed by management. Feedback is, of course, compiled but your simplification and implied bias of the testers is off the mark. There are many voices behind the curtain with many perspectives. Testers do not get their hands on items until it is tested in house first. Beta testers are not some cabal with a secret agenda. They perform a largely thankless job, for no pay, to try and bring the best out of the available data and code. Management has both the first and final say in the end product.

Addendum: Though, we have no idea if it is to be included as a production model or just a technology demonstrator for the team. The article seems to hint it may be the latter. Thanks for finding it Wheels. I was on a dying phone without my glasses. Getting old is BS.

Stated

I’m sure any off the shelf boat will be reworked as/if necessary to meet the rivet counting demands. Depending on how interactive they’d be, the only boat I’d expect to possibly be done completely in house would be the carriers. I mean, our Zero 3d model is literally being reworked from a mid war to early war version.

All of the proposed locations in the announcement are battles measured in days. Pearl is no exception. Each, however, will gain significant life in “what if,” scenarios, set piece naval engagements, and furballs for the pants on fire crowd. I don’t see either the historical or fantastical scenarios being detrimental to the first installment. Of the three battles mentioned, a Hawaii map offers the best opportunity for a land based furball map in MP. I loved carrier ops in ‘46 but being strictly historical or hardcore here is exceedingly shortsighted. I know plenty of MP pilots in BoX who still struggle to takeoff or land cleanly. Landing on a CV will be exponentially more difficult and justifiably so. Consequently, some existing pilots might stay away and novice pilots or the uninitiated might get too frustrated to stick around for a second installment if forced into a strictly hardcore/historical box. I imagine the goal is to be more scalable in order to attract the largest audience possible. This (amazing) thing hasn’t gotten off the drawing board yet but I’d put a solid wager on the Solomon’s being the second, or even the second and third, installment. There is a lot to explore there. Midway, Pearl Harbor and even Coral Sea have way too much name recognition and a familiar planeset not to be the opening chapter.

Dunno, the FM’s will have to be tweaked and the AC interacting with the water will be at least a small hurdle.

If from the get go implies in the first module then, yes, absolutely. If from the get go means, at the same time as the first flyable(s), probably not. The CV’s and the ability to interact with them will be among the earliest and most significant challenges to conquer.

Wasn’t this in Pacific Fighters? It’s been a while. Regardless, I second the motion. It was a nice touch.

There are work arounds for ships. There are a gajillion WWII 3d warship models out there. They don’t have to be modeled from scratch. Animating them, scaling them, FM/DM (I jest), AI scripts, and making them function properly in game is going to be the challenge.

This model is by Jason Hsiao. It showed up in my feed earlier this year and then again yesterday. Diorama is titled Frozen Kodiak Bay. Seemed like a good omen...... (Pics and model are not mine. Posted with permission from Jason Hsiao)

Non-techie here. The only thing I’d request for a QMB is to be able to program 4 AC x 6 flights, for twenty four a side, and two separate altitudes. For example 20 bombers at 20k and 4 fighters as cover at 24k or 16 attackers and 8 cover AC. Opposing up to 24 AC on the other side. ‘46 was good at 16 per. BoX left a lot to be desired in the QMB. I’ll let those more skilled than me program big involved missions an an FMB.

Just give me a carrier and two adversarial fighters as a technology/proof of concept demonstrator and I’ll buy five copies for me and four random forum members.

I think this belongs in MSFS but is not a realistic expectation of the typical CFS participant. This level of navigation is very niche and would likely commit development resources, at least in the initial run up, which could drive away more sim pilots than it might attract.

I think smaller planesets makes sense in so many ways. A 4+2 or 6+2 lets you do more releases/maps/aircraft over shorter periods of time. Gets your product out faster to keep the steam rolling. I didn't have a problem with the other guys release concept but it clearly has pluses and minuses. I'd rather be arguing about rivet counts which are correctable than complaining about things we don't even have yet or significant periods of radio silence. Oh, and at Mouser, I can't imagine there won't be significant map scaling over some of the expanses of ocean for gameplay purposes. That and air starts and waypoint skips for the same reasons.