Range of choices for the engine start-up sequence

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Jason just said "detailed aircraft systems and engine startup sequences" (DD 09).

I'd like we have at least two choices for that : one that would be accurate and realistic for the engine start-up (thus, time consuming, "alla DCS") and another one that would be the simplified in-game procedure. Or three choices why not.

In a nut shell : the realism settings of the game should allow a range of choices spanning from hard core simulation to the easiest setting for those not wanting to play a hard core sim.

 

[Catseye]

On 8/14/2024 at 8:03 AM, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Jason just said "detailed aircraft systems and engine startup sequences" (DD 09).

I'd like we have at least two choices for that : one that would be accurate and realistic for the engine start-up (thus, time consuming, "alla DCS") and another one that would be the simplified in-game procedure. Or three choices why not.

In a nut shell : the realism settings of the game should allow a range of choices spanning from hard core simulation to the easiest setting for those not wanting to play a hard core sim.

 

This is not a bad idea to broaden the player base regarding preferences. But, with online play, I think it is essential for the Server/Mission managers/creators, to either enable or disable this feature. Also, make it well known before a participant enters an online mission. Keep the playing field equal in this regard.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

On 9/11/2024 at 9:36 PM, Catseye said:

with online play, I think it is essential for the Server/Mission managers/creators, to either enable or disable this feature. Also, make it well known before a participant enters an online mission. Keep the playing field equal in this regard.

 

Absolutely. Indeed, I posted my wish working on the assumption that the online servers should apply fair rules and conditions. Other than that, the developers, as developers, develop the game, they may set (or not) online servers later, but as developers, at this point in the process, they don't.

 

[Major Lee]

I'm in agreement with @343KKT_Kintaro in that there shoule be a range of realism options, but not just for engine startup, but other aspects of the flight, damage, and Aircraft/Squadron management. Some guys want ultra real everything, some just want accurate FM/DMs, and to just get right into the fight. Looking at other video games, most seem to have a metric crap ton of options for all kinds of in-game parameters. Looks like that's kind of an industry standard at this point.

Given the intriguing nature of the premise of CP, and the extreme potential of the UnReal engine, I believe CP is going to be worth the wait and the money. 

[ZachariasX]

MSFS really sets the bar on what should be the minimum for a flight sim today, especially regarding plane modules. I think most (of the better) modules have a reasonable balance between what could be and what should be. If you offer less cockpit interaction, you need a damn good explanation for it. You can just go through the sequence of starting up. If you have the sequence right, it will work. Only in some exceptions, a whole system is modelled that "has to come to life". The charm of starting a carburated engine is of course absent. Although the chance of being the laughing stock of the cafeteria at your local airfield by failing to start your Lycoming engine in front of everyone is a common danger to any pilot, I don't think it ranks that high on the things we need in CP.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Hey guys, thank you for your interventions in the thread. This wish/suggestion of mine comes after years of traditional categorisations, all two sorted in two types: one is "survey sim"/"study sim", the other one "softcore sim"/"hardcore sim". They are related though not necessarily meaning the same.

Please tell me if you agree: Survey vs Study means that in "study" you'll get one aircraft only to fly by means of the product you purchased, at high level of simulation though (more dials you'll interact with, more instruments and controls to get control of, etc.). On the contrary in "survey" you'll get several types to fly for a similar price and in one single product too, but wih a lesser level of simulation. Flight models can be similar in both categories, whatever the number of available flyables and/or number of player-controlable controls on the dashboard. This is why I focused on the start-up sequence in the present request. As an example, "Rise of Flight", "Cliffs of Dover" and "Great Battles" (all three are surveys) present simplified start-up sequences, whatever the level or realism you set your sim with, while DCS presents exquisitely modelled start-up sequences. BUT, the flight models of all of these games I mentioned, from RoF to DCS, do not give the impression to be that different.

So, working on the assumption that "Combat Pilot" is being planned as a survey simulator, I say that time has come for a survey to present at least one realism option that allows to start your engine up as if it was a study. Technology has evolved sufficiently enough for that. Don't you agree?

 

 

[ZachariasX]

I think it has nothing to do with survey, study, hc, etc., but with the fact that it is supposed to be a flight simulator. To not be a laughing stock, you MUST adhere to the current standards of the genre.

When VGA became a thing, you didn't stay with CGA, when joysticks became available you used them, etc.. MSFS is the standard of flight sims, the sheer number of players make it the standard who you operate and interact with planes. And that is what is expected today. The player base shows that simulators are by no means niche. Even if some of us like to see themselves in a niche. They are niche, because frankly, their game is not fun enough for most people. "Just flying" alone is good for millions of clients. But it requires you to provide the client what HE wants, not what oneself thinks. Jörg did a lot of things right and has proven all the niche fraction wrong. It's not the sim that as as concept doesn't appeal to many. It is how you present it.

Don't ask someone who is fine without functionality MSFS offers if he wants clickpits. To me, it matters little. I can do without. (I am old.) But ask someone who hasn't bought a sim yet if the game would be fun for him in a given way and if he would be ready to pay for that. People readily accept a challenge. If the game is fun.

[Trooper117]

Even if it is a one button start up with all the actions automated, like some other sim, I don't care, I'll still buy it... on the other hand, even if it's 'full fidelity' and we have to start up as per real life like another sim, I'll still buy it... and so on!

[Sea Serpent]

I was ok with the simplified or generic systems in GB for a long time, but DCS really took off in the last few years, with so many airplanes, and my flight simming is now very much in the full fidelity camp.  I can’t really see myself going back down the GB-style survey sim route again.  It’s not that I don’t find it tedious at times to learn a relatively complicated DCS airplane, but once I get motivated and do learn it, the enjoyment factor makes it worth the effort.  I’m normally only current on a few planes at a time, but I can always go back to WW2 planes on short notice, because they are a lower level of difficulty compared to the rest.  They are still hi-fi, require good technique, and they each have a very distinct feel and uniqueness to them that I wasn’t really getting from the survey sims.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

And Trooper says that he'll buy it anyway, whatever the level of detail we get for the engine start-up... but the fact is that the two main trends have been mentioned above: "the game needs to be fun" (says Zacharias with his own words) and "flight simming is now very much in the full fidelity camp" says Sea Serpent.

So is my feeling, is that the more we move forward, the more the market will statisfy both "the full fidelity camp" (hardcore simulation) with the additional/parallel availability of funny & easy levels of realism settings. All in all in one game only. "Combat Pilot" should be such game. The fisrt in its own category.

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

So some of you think that a company that has never developed a combat flight sim of any kind is going to deliver a game with DCS level control?   I understand that new methods for growing weed have significantly increased the potency, but damn.

[Sea Serpent]

No, this was just people saying what they like in a flight sim, nobody putting forth expectations for what CP is to be…

Edited September 24 by Sea Serpent

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

"the game needs to be fun" (says Zacharias with his own words) and "flight simming is now very much in the full fidelity camp" says Sea Serpent.

I don‘t think these are conflicting statements. Cockpit interaction has nothing to do with „full fidelity“. Full fidelity is when a sim aircraft reflects the real one. Who wants that? Raise hands. A game is fun when it is accessible despite its complexity. The more complex you make a game, the more accessible it has to be in order to be fun *and be a viable product for entertainment*.

The only reason NOT to have cockpit interaction is when the expenses making it are not worth the added benefit (of more sales). I would say this is not the case. The reason we have that in flight sims is because they sell better. Not because someone just wanted it.

The game would equally work if we don‘t see the cockpit at all, with just Wonder Woman view as default. The only reason this is not done is because we here, as the target audience of the game, would not tolerate and thus not buy the game. Seeing a cockpit is a condition sine qua non.

It is seriously daft to think that not only seeing something, but interacting with it is not an improvement. It is a fact that people in general find it intuitive to be able to interact with things they see. Steve Jobs made a company out of that concept. Even IBM who thought a keyboard would do absolutely had to follow that trend. Or else. Clicking on stuff made computers what they are now, until fingers took precedence over a mouse pointer.

If a publisher is willing to go down a route that we all know doesn‘t work, especially since the preferred alternative has become commonplace, then good luck and good riddance. So yes it is possible and it is not even the difficult part of making the game. It would be good if we not only had said functionality, but also for instance had a map we could unfold (some planes had such a provision), where you could plot your courses to navigate in interctive manner. It would set the game apart from the competition if such very basic tasks that were absolutely part of flying the aircraft would be included in the simulation of flying said plane.

Myself, I am more agnostic about cockpit interaction, as I am used to the old ways. Same if you mastered vi, then Ultra-Edit is not that much better. But guess what most people would use?

Also, it is easy to dispense intuitive functionality when that tech is not out in the market. Then the client doesn‘t expect it. But now, it is out there. Even with free addon modules in MSFS. Then NOT having it is really like taking a p*ss at the client. If a game should be sold ten times as much as the previous, then nine out of ten clients will no idea about the game (and its antideluvian mode of interaction) when they first launch it. When they see that useful interaction that is commonplace today is missing, then they more likely ask for a refund than continue playing. Expectations matter! If you don‘t cater to your clients intuition, then you really deserved your „niche“.

If some argue that commonplace functionality is too cumbersome and/or difficult to make in a product, then a producer should ask himself whether they should really be in that kind of business.

Again, yes we can have an interactive environment and it is commonplace. Same as we can adress more than 640kb memory. Or simulate a spheric earth. Now, if you don‘t want all of that, then fine. Don’t do it then. And good luck on empty servers.

[Mysticpuma]

5 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

So some of you think that a company that has never developed a combat flight sim of any kind is going to deliver a game with DCS level control?   I understand that new methods for growing weed have significantly increased the potency, but damn.

Not forgetting,  the entire forum sub section titled "Wishlist and Suggestions", nothing asked, nothing gained.

[CPT Crunch]

Please don't do it as in that other sim that's too stupid to understand where your controllers positions are actually set and does crazy things like starting with the fuel lever all the way closed default or prop pitch set 0%, causing a failed start, and trim that has to be physically reset completely every dang sortie.  If your going to do an auto start, do an auto start where the virtual pilot sets even these settings critical to starting at default positions if the game can't see the actual physical controller positions as windows easily does.  That to me seems lazy and inexcusable.

[ZachariasX]

On 9/25/2024 at 6:36 PM, CPT Crunch said:

That to me seems lazy and inexcusable.

There is no reason against an autostart function. It is standard.

[CPT Crunch]

4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

There is no reason against an autostart function. It is standard.

No, re-read it again because that is not anywhere near what I implied or said.  Context is everything.  I just said do auto starts correctly and completely, not half arsed where half the players can't even manage to auto start some of the planes because the feature doesn't sync up correctly with the players hardware.

[ZachariasX]

17 hours ago, CPT Crunch said:

do auto starts correctly and completely

It was my assumption that a correct implementation that results in a useful setting for the player would go without saying. I might be old fashioned by expecting things to work. But I get that, I took for granted what is not.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

On 9/24/2024 at 2:56 AM, BraveSirRobin said:

So some of you think that a company that has never developed a combat flight sim of any kind is going to deliver a game with DCS level control?

 

The DCS source code dates back to the Jurassic. There are plenty of things you can do with, but coding in the present day has nothing to do with coding in the time when Allosaurus roamed Utah...

We (I and some others) expect new sims bring new things. If the old recipes still are the best by, let's say, 2035, then it's ok, I'll keep playing DCS by 2035. In the meantime, new games, new tries, new chances taken and some new fresh blood won't harm our hobby.

Other than that, have a nice day BraveSirRobin.