What about "humans" in this sim

[IckyAtlas]

I remember that Jason said in a discussion  of an IL2 update where the detachement "vehicle" model (five soldiers in a row) was released that he was against that idea and it was Han's who did it. Jason may have had a valid decision in regard of the resources, but I applauded that it was done. This was requested so many times over the years. It is limited but still you can animate a little airfields and certain places. And when the latest ships came out there were humans behind all the guns. But older ship models where not updated and we still have robotic guns.

I hope that in this new sim "humans" will be everywhere. Behind any gun there must always be a human.

Humans on Carrier decks for sure. Human in the landing ships. Humans on airfields. This was so much lacking in IL2. The randomly wandering poor guys did not much to animate the airfield.

So Japanese and US soldiers must be modelled and in a varied number of postures or dynamic motions, like walking, running, standing etc. 

And maybe a few others like mechanics, that would be nice to have around planes or service installations.

Let's hope this time Jason does put "humans" in the must have list. I know it is a very long list but excellence comes at a price 🙂 

 

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

No matter who supervised/greenlit the "detachment vehicle", I'm a huge fan of it. I honestly think its main defect is that it currently only exists for two countries, both of which are on the same side and both of which are on the Western Front. Should this sim ever move towards ground battles (Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Marianas, ....) I think anything similar would be an important bonus.

That said, the only time we're going to see carriers is either when you're taking off from or landing on them, or when bombing them. In none of those cases should there be more than a couple of people on deck.

[Gambit21]

3 minutes ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

No matter who supervised/greenlit the "detachment vehicle", I'm a huge fan of it. I honestly think its main defect is that it currently only exists for two countries, both of which are on the same side and both of which are on the Western Front. Should this sim ever move towards ground battles (Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Marianas, ....) I think anything similar would be an important bonus.

That said, the only time we're going to see carriers is either when you're taking off from or landing on them, or when bombing them. In none of those cases should there be more than a couple of people on deck.

Yep...can't add German troops to Hell Hawks even if I had time.

Anyway what soldiers or deck crew eventually look like... cart before the horse at this juncture as I'm sure you'd agree.

 

 

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

Just now, Gambit21 said:

cart before the horse at this juncture as I'm sure you'd agree.

Actually, horses before a cart is the one vehicle I'd like to see most in IL2 and FC; in both wars it was the most common vehicle for many of the belligerents. 😛

[IckyAtlas]

Horses before a cart and also horses pulling artillery (mostly WWI but also in WWII). I would add also trucks pulling artillery units.

[DBFlyguy]

The "troops" in GB looked .... "clunky" at best.  I'm not surprised Jason was against them.  I get we have a lot of guys from GB but I really hope folks aren't just wanting "GB in the Pacific".  While Jason did amazing work at the helm of GB which basically saved that franchise, there were definitely areas to improve on and areas not to repeat.  One of those I hope that doesn't get repeated is trying to implement driveable tanks and gun trucks and other stuff that is ultimately going to take away the focus of making the best air combat sim possible.  There should definitely be ground/deck crew as both DCS and MSFS have them as well as crew for AI AAA etc but I wouldn't expect ARMA level ground troop detail where they are extremely detailed and carrying out a legit ground battle as you fly over. 

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Jason did more than saving Great Battles, he actively participated to its creation ("Rise of Flight" + "1C" = "Great Battles"). But I think I understand what you mean, you talk about the different views he had with others about how exploiting the game... don't you?

 

Other than that, just one comment please: there were these guys in interviews of 2003 (then the future "Rise of Flight") and 2007 (then the future "DCS") mentioning that they were considering to implement the use of infantry in their respective in-development games... but finally nothing happened, in none of them...

 

I know, I know, more humans on the maps or more humans on board the vessels doesn't mean the implementation of efficient in-action infantry, but it is ressource-consuming equally. Anyway, if one looks at that "flammable" truck (LoL) shared by the devs of "Combat Pilot", one finds that the level of detail is lower than the level shown by the ground vehicles in Great Battles... and this is, if I'm right, for a better and more fluent simulation in all levels. On one hand "Cliffs of Dover" presents less detailed 3D/polygons but on the other hand it does present droppable fuel tanks... so... after Jason's experience with "Great Battles", let's trust the devs of "Combat Pilot", I assume they'll make the good decisions regarding the amount of visible humans in the environment (on the ground and on board of boats).

 

 

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Anyway, if one looks at that "flammable" truck (LoL) shared by the devs of "Combat Pilot", one finds that the level of detail is lower than the level shown by the ground vehicles in Great Battles... and this is, if I'm right, for a better and more fluent simulation in all levels.

Not really, that's why LODs (Levels Of Detail) are created. If you move far from an object, it'll load a different model with much less detail in order to save resources. Unreal's super-hyped Nanite stuff basically takes this to the extreme. It's insanely detailed, but performs quite well.

Less detail will save a lot of development time however. For a flight sim, you're mostly not going to be very close to a fuel truck, so why spend much time to model every screw in 3D?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

5 hours ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

Not really, that's why LODs (Levels Of Detail) are created. If you move far from an object, it'll load a different model with much less detail in order to save resources.

 

Sure, I was referring to the closest sight, my bad.

 

5 hours ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

Unreal's super-hyped Nanite stuff basically takes this to the extreme. It's insanely detailed, but performs quite well.

 

By the way, one question please: it is not confirmed yet that Unreal is being used for the development of "Combat Pilot"... is it being used?

 

 

5 hours ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

Less detail will save a lot of development time however. For a flight sim, you're mostly not going to be very close to a fuel truck, so why spend much time to model every screw in 3D?

 

Well... in flight simulations, for years now, we pay much more attention than before to what happens at ground level. When taxiing our aircraft, for example, we can be very close to a tree or to a ground vehicle. Video makers, screenshot makers... all of them take seriously into account the LoD in the scenery and in ground vehicles. Nevertheless, I do agree at 100% with the above statement of yours, that part that I highlighted in bold type: to me, it is better to focus on the qualities of flight, emulated air combat physics and LoD of the aircraft themselves.

 

 

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

40 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

By the way, one question please: it is not confirmed yet that Unreal is being used for the development of "Combat Pilot"... is it being used?

Not really, AFAIK the only "confirmation" exists in that in their Career page, they have a job listing requiring familiarity with UE5 blueprints and C++.

Even if they indeed use UE5, that doesn't mean they'll also use nanites.

Also note that they'd probably heavily modify the engine code to make UE5 more suitable for a flight sim.

47 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Well... in flight simulations, for years now, we pay much more attention than before to what happens at ground level. When taxiing our aircraft, for example, we can be very close to a tree or to a ground vehicle. Video makers, screenshot makers... all of them take seriously into account the LoD in the scenery and in ground vehicles. Nevertheless, I do agree at 100% with the above statement of yours, that part that I highlighted in bold type: to me, it is better to focus on the qualities of flight, emulated air combat physics and LoD of the aircraft themselves.

Agreed here too, for screenshots or videos you need at least some detail. But yes, it should come second to more important things 🙂

[Majakowski]

Regarding humans I think some idle low poly officers on the carrier island catwalks and of course on the AA guns would make for great immersion. The officers could (or should) disappear when the ship is attacked.

Also some randomly toiling shore personnel to make the target feel more alive would be great but not something overly complex, just a little for the atmosphere, after all unless the focus will be on close air support, the only times you see people are on the home base and briefly over the target running away from what's about to get them.

It would be great if strafing the AA guns of a destroyer, freighter or carrier would actually silence their fire thus providing for scenarios like the battle of the Bismarck Sea.

[IckyAtlas]

7 hours ago, Majakowski said:

Regarding humans I think some idle low poly officers

Whatever the number of polys, as long as I can see the white of their eyes from my cockpit it is fine 😁

You will all make fun of me again, but that's allright, a little bit provocative why not. I posted long ago that the humans (not all) but pilots or those beside you when you drive a vehicle, should have their eyeballs moving. This is what makes an inanimate object becoming alive. I still believe that it would be incredibly "eye catcher". I am not sure this would eat too many resources. And eyes would be animated only at max LOD.

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by IckyAtlas