Which small things from the "previous project" do you hope to see improved?

[Coder25]

On 5/18/2023 at 3:12 PM, JediMaster said:

...

Hoping CP comes out of the gate with realistic AI! That doesn't mean I want Terminators who are deadly just 1v1 every time, I expect a realistic spectrum of elites, rookies, and in between for my dream WWII sim.

Who remembers Dynamix's Aces Over Europe?  If my memory is correct, it seemed like the aces and veterans in that sim NEVER missed...unrealistically so.  So, yeah, I don't want that.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Coder25

[wheelsup_cavu]

Spent quite a few hours playing Aces over Europe and the other games that came in the Aces package.

• A-10 Tank Killer
• Command: Aces of the Deep
• Aces of the Pacific and its add-on Aces of the Pacific Expansion Disk: WWII: 1946
• Aces over Europe
• Red Baron and Red Baron: Mission Builder
• Silent Thunder: A-10 Tank Killer II

 

Wheels

[charon]

A small thing, but I'd like AA that's a bit trigger happy and not perfect at recognition.

Edited May 24, 2023 by charon

[parkerc341]

7 hours ago, charon said:

A small thing, but I'd like AA that's a bit trigger happy and not perfect at recognition.

Wow, I've never seen that before. Is that from a pilot training manual or is it post war?

[IckyAtlas]

I would love to have a flyable Catalina and for the bombers a flyable B25, and why not the B26. Here I would not expect four engine bombers, but flyable two engines yes. 

After having ditched in the sea to be  rescued by a floatplane or a friendly ship that is something I would love to have.

 

[Charlo-VR]

As perhaps the first flight sim to be developed along side widely-available AI such as chatGPT and the like, it would be impressive if the radio chatter could be live-generated by AI.
 

Anticipating this option as AI progresses, using AI to generate what is essentially NPC dialogue, may just mean including the possibility of software “hooks” that allow AI to generate live dialogue.

By the time we are starting to launch off of carriers or island airfields in CP we likely will have some community members who can help with generating AI dialogue. CombatBox in IL-2 BoX already has a nice start going in their SRS implementation.

[Jenkem Junkie]

It's been mentioned already, but it's a big one so I'll say it again. NO engine timers! They make the planes dinky and unimmersive. 

I'd also like a damage model that's consistent, and not based on RNG. I'd want a fuel tank to explode, or a control cable cut because I hit the exact area with enough damage, and not a damage model that's based on just landing hits in a general area, and then RNG decides if you hit something devastating, or if your opponent will just shrug off the hits like you just scratched his paint. Its demotivating to know that all your maneuvering, aim and tactics ultimately end in a dice roll on whether your bullets decided to work or not.

The game Squad has a system where random players online can organize into groups within their team. If people could que/advertise themselves as a bomber, escort, bomber hunter, etc. and be matchmade into come and go groups on the fly, I think that would be huge for the online experience. 

If you add stat tracking, then give server owners the ability to choose what gets tracked. If you track K/D it can turn any server into TDM camper edition, instead of whatever the servers real objectives are, or encourage other types of player behaviour that may or may not be desirable for that servers vision.

Allow mods to be whitelisted by the server owner.

Allow all the planes textures to be editable and usable online, including the cockpit textures, but take measures to make sure people cant cheat by making their plane invisible, or all enemy planes hot pink.

Allow a way for other players to see your custom skins, and an option to not see custom skins if people don't want to see weird ones.

Built in system like VR necksaver. I consider it mandatory for VR, and if the guy who makes it stops for whatever reason and it breaks, were all screwed.

 

 

[Props]

There's some pretty good recommendations in this thread. I have noticed that some of the best are things we appreciated in IL2 '46 like running away from the plane on a land ditching or coming back to the surface in your dinghy after a water ditching. Little things like that are cool.

I remember flying a Ki46 Dinah near the US Fleet on a night mission (a QMB I put together and it was easier in IL2 '46 to get more variety out of it) and the AAA was downright scary and mesmerizing! It was also a stutter fest and I have always had a pretty highend PC for my simming! Same in daylight by the way. So I understand there may have to be some limitations to how many AA guns you have firing from a number of ships all at once and also the limitations we may have to accept on how many AI humans you can place on deck to keep the FPS at reasonable rates for the average user. Plus there would probably be no end to complaints if you even come close to the kind AA firepower the US put in the air during engagements i.e. The AA sucks man 'cause I can't even get within a mile of the carrier without dying every time! The laser snipers on the AAA Cruisers are to good, etc ad nauseum.....

Would like to see a typical Task Force Group set of ships; 1 Fleet carrier in a travelling combat formation of Cruisers, Destroyers, maybe even a Fast Battleship. Speaking of Carriers- We Have Got to Have the Enterprise, but then The Yorktown was the same class and was at Midway so I figure that's a sure thing.

I think a better AI pilot both friendly and enemy is a given as mentioned in this thread many times. Along with the aforementioned formations and actually reacting to orders as given by the element lead. 

 

[Stick]

If level bombers that are playable are included I hope to see realistic bombsights for the appropriate planes.  Also make bombing more realistic by having to factor TAS from IAS with the charts included and taking target ground height into account.  Also have a map with all necessary navigation tools that can be access on the ground before takeoff or even before spawning.  Having this map sharable with others wouldn't hurt.

Also, IMO, from an mp standpoint, there is no need for making every gunner position available in two or more engine level bombers.  How many people really use them?  I never use them except to look around and I'd give that up.  These should be manned by AI as currently done and which communicate any issues to the pilot.  The only thing needed is the pilot position, the nose position, and looking through the bombsight.  Whether another person could join as the bombardier couldn't hurt but not necessary.   I would think this would help not only in the development of the aircraft but also the impact on resources. 

[Rjel]

When flying in the QMB, the BoX world was far too sterile and predictable. One train, two vehicle columns, a couple of ships here and there in thousands of square miles and really nothing else. No sign of people. Just dead scenery. Occasionally, you might've heard a barking dog and birds singing, albeit sight unseen when on the ground. Everything seemed very lifeless. I'm hoping this new series will improve on that lack of immersion as the sim matures. Some randomness would go a long way towards making a make believe world seem lifelike. Unexpected ground targets. Chance encounters with A/C, friend and foe. Some, even any unexpected movement on the ground would be a welcome change.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Rjel

[wheelsup_cavu]

20 minutes ago, Rjel said:

Occasionally, you might've heard a barking dog

When in my tank with the engine off I hear a dog barking in every town. But you are correct that you never see one go running across in front of you or see one in the distance.

 

Wheels

[Rjel]

48 minutes ago, wheelsup_cavu said:

When in my tank with the engine off I hear a dog barking in every town. But you are correct that you never see one go running across in front of you or see one in the distance.

 

Wheels

Nope. Not quite the same thing but it does remind me of the flock of flying birds people would claim to see in EAW back when. I flew that sim a lot, never saw them either.

[charon]

@parkerc341 It's from Recognition and Identification Sense, Navaer 00-80Q-21, June-1944. https://digitalcollections.museumofflight.org/items/show/48199

 

4 hours ago, Stick said:

Also, IMO, from an mp standpoint, there is no need for making every gunner position available in two or more engine level bombers.  How many people really use them?  I never use them except to look around and I'd give that up.  These should be manned by AI as currently done and which communicate any issues to the pilot.  The only thing needed is the pilot position, the nose position, and looking through the bombsight.  Whether another person could join as the bombardier couldn't hurt but not necessary.   I would think this would help not only in the development of the aircraft but also the impact on resources. 

I agree, I'd rather see one properly done crew position than three half-baked. Of the possible positions, I think giving other players the ability to use the bombsight and relevant controls is the one that's essential. The gunners just need to call contacts and shoot, but the bombardier role can't be easily delegated to AI. How do you convey your target and intentions?

Edited May 25, 2023 by charon

[Majakowski]

@charon

The bombardier should of course be in the hands of the player or human crew member unless there is an intelligent way to "tell" him where to aim like pointing on a point on the map/bombardier view or by "padlocking" a certain ship if the target is to be a specific object. Then the pilot could either adjust his path according to the bombardier or switch control to him altogether which disengages after dropping.

Shouldn't be impossible as it is what AI is already doing anyway, in the case of bombardier advising the pilot on course, it would just necessitate to "vocalize" the correction moves for the player to act upon instead of using it as input for the steering logic.

[OriginalCustard]

I'd love to see flyable heavy bombers, with more a bit more love given to the bomber/ground attack aircraft in general.  A much more comprehensive damage model that includes ballistic effects/ deflections within the limitations of the engine (whatever it will be) etc and effective AI with radio communications/ vectoring to base etc. I'd add, that I'd like to see a simpler mission builder and/or Hyper Lobby style system implementation, if possible.

[T24_Martin]

Another one: after attacking ground targets it would be great to let them flame or smoke longer and more visible. A little bit like in DCS. Sometimes I made an attack run and destroyed a tank, but couldn't find easily after a turn if I wasn't padlocked on the enemy, because there was no smoke trail or it was gone already. Next to this it would increase immersion drastically, if the damage of the battlefield increases with ongoing battle and not just one after another target flames, smokes and after seconds it's all gone.

[OriginalCustard]

One thing that I noticed in the early days of the last "sim" was taking off/landing was somewhat of a challenge than the current build. I know that real life doesn't necessarily mean harder but I hope things like torque/propwash and side winds will be effectively modeled in Combat Pilot. 

[Habu]

A choice between static and dynamic weather, and live weather, like in FS2020.

Live weather will be a good addition.

 

[Feldgrün]

In one word: Realistic.

Make the sim realistic. That's all we ask for.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Feldgrün
Realism

[JediMaster]

Within reason. I don't want to preflight it.

I don't want to fly 30 mins to target and then have my engine fail because the crew chief didn't quite tighten the fuel line enough and it all leaked out on the way there.

I don't want my wingman to abandon me and get suicidal because he got a letter from home that his wife is leaving him.

In short, I want a realistic entertaining simulation. The real thing was not entertaining. Not the Pacific theater, not WWII, not the armed forces, and not it being a real job that also happened to be dangerous.

I've got a job and no desire to pretend I have a 2nd one that I actually pay to work...

[Trooper117]

25 minutes ago, JediMaster said:

The real thing was not entertaining. Not the Pacific theater, not WWII, not the armed forces, and not it being a real job that also happened to be dangerous.

There you go mate... right up your street...

 

[Feldgrün]

On 5/27/2023 at 3:39 AM, JediMaster said:

Within reason. I don't want to preflight it.

I don't want to fly 30 mins to target and then have my engine fail because the crew chief didn't quite tighten the fuel line enough and it all leaked out on the way there.

I don't want my wingman to abandon me and get suicidal because he got a letter from home that his wife is leaving him.

In short, I want a realistic entertaining simulation. The real thing was not entertaining. Not the Pacific theater, not WWII, not the armed forces, and not it being a real job that also happened to be dangerous.

I've got a job and no desire to pretend I have a 2nd one that I actually pay to work...

Ok, maybe not too realistic, but immersion make a great game. Otherwise, it's Warthunder.

[Luftikus]

The sea and the sky will be the main scenery, so they should look as lifelike as possible. For example via:

• Realistic cloud height, especially cumulonimbus can reach 15-17 km in the tropics. Make them as towering and imposing and violent as they are, not cute, harmless and only 6km high as in BoX
• Dynamic atmosphere, even if simplified, and not a static cloud pattern moving along predicably as if on rails. It would also give too many reference points for navigation if clouds remain the same over time.
• Atmospheric gravity waves for those lovely undulating cloud patterns would be nice too
• Realistic ocean color with color variation due to sea currents etc. Lots of satellite data available to inform this aspect. 
• Sea surface reflectivity should not be homogeneous. It should not reflect the clouds as much as in BoX too.

 

[Rjel]

I think everyone wants to see more sophisticated AI, both air and ground. In the air, one hope I have is that the AI can be dependent on the aircraft it is flying. So that a Zero AI would use different tactics from a Wildcat AI. Too, that dive bombers, fighters and torpedo planes use their planes correctly. I haven't a clue if it's possible,  but I'd like to see the AI not be completely aware of impending danger every time. That alone would make the AI seem more human like, IMO.

On the ground, especially from the ships, I want to see the AI gunners be a lot less accurate when firing at fast flying fighters. From watching WWII era films of ship borne AA, it always looks more like the gunners threw up sheets of fire more than really aiming at attackers. 

[Habu]

- A real command formation that suits bombers.

- Shared cockpit in multiplayer to play as a pilot and a buddy as a co-pilot.

- No limits for tracks.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Habu