Boba Fett Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 They have the flight sim and game experience to have a pretty clear vision. Just because they haven't shared it yet doesn't mean it's not on the planning board in someone's office. (While I'm sure its a virtual board, I still like to think of hundreds of neon post it notes tacked onto a rolling board in a fishbowl office) I think the videos in this thread demonstrate both the vision and expertise reasonably well. 4 Quote Fett “I’d say we’re offering a fair deal under the circumstances.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper117 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 To be honest, I don't care how they do it... if it's like DCS I'll buy it. If it's like IL2GB I'll still buy it. I've waited too long for a proper modern take on the Pacific war to surface... I'm getting longer in the tooth each year so for me it's a must regardless... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Serpent Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) 4 hours ago, Trooper117 said: Who knows how Jason and team are going to work this out... if you make it too hardcore it will take much longer to produce the assets you want to put in it (like DCS)... if you make it like IL2GB that won't please the hardcore crowd. Is it possible to make it a mixture of both? A kind of halfway house? with some scalability involved... it's a tough one. You said you don’t care which way it is. Do you consider yourself a “hard core” simmer? I’ll bet you can handle the Spit and 109 in DCS very well. I know you can fly the Sabre. You might be too old to fly a Phantom🌝, but that is really hard core, though not the most difficult. Where do you think CP should go for the greatest success, without dumbing it down so far that it attracts too many morons? Aside from the F-4 joke, I ask seriously. What age group should it appeal to? I was absolutely shocked to discover, when I first got on a squadron Teamspeak in RoF, that I was the youngest guy in the whole group. (I probably don’t count as a representative demographic of the player base, since I’m also the guy that listens to 60s music). I was a child of the 80’s. By contrast, when I did DCS MP, they said “Ok, Boomer”, and the people I flew with ranged from age 19 to 35, more or less. We had some problems. These guys were still in the getting laid as much as possible phase of their life, and I was very unimpressed. Thats in fixed wing, just to clarify. The rotary guys were all old bastards, but I got along with them much better, because I suppose I’m more like them. They could get a Mr T joke. Edited June 29 by Sea Serpent 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Lee Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Details of this sim aside, this thread has taken on a life of its own! 🍿🍿 Interesting discusion... 🫡 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachariasX Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 8 hours ago, Trooper117 said: Is it possible to make it a mixture of both? Also here, there‘s probably the point of diminishing returns. I think it is more important that the game in its scope can accomodate for all play styles. But how much items/details are filled in and thus its scale will have to have a slower start. It is always easier to add scale than scope. Jörg had to ditch MSFS2020 for redoing it as MSFS2024, as the envisioned game mode couldn‘t be provided by the legacy architecture. But it sure could accomodate a huge increase in content and system fidelity. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper117 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 9 hours ago, Sea Serpent said: You said you don’t care which way it is. No I don't... my post in context was illustrating it might be a tough one to crack for Jason and crew, to try to appeal to as many users as possible. Anyway, he's been in the genre long enough to get it right I'm sure... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Serpent Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) I was just trying to better understand what peoples’ expectation are when we use these terms like “hard core” or “easy-mode” or whatever. And also a hypothetical young guy, with much less flight sim experience might have very different interpretations and attention span compared to an old guy whose been playing sims for ages, grew up in an era where airplanes were more of a thing, but whose expectations might be colored by (or sometimes trapped in) some sim or game from days of old. In some cases, like FC, it appears that their target audience is old enough that they are quite literally dying off. I do remember there was a game from Microsoft several years ago called “Flight” where they tried too hard to reach the arcade gamer type, but also the more technical FSX grognards too, and flopped miserably: an attempt to please all ended up pleasing nobody. Edited June 29 by Sea Serpent 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper117 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 51 minutes ago, Sea Serpent said: an attempt to please all ended up pleasing nobody. That's always a possibility... However, didn't Jason say in the video presentation that the game would be ''the first original 'hardcore' WWII CFS franchise in 20 plus years'' ? but what does hardcore mean in this particular sense? 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Serpent Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 I wonder if CP will have an SDK for third party developers? 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aapje Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 In MSFS, all the full fidelity, complicated planes seem to be made by partners, and they take a long time to make and cost a lot. Asobo mostly makes a very good sandbox, but others provide most of the real content. This is made much easier by their huge player base. CP is simply not going to offer the same user base for 3rd party developers. So I don't know if their plan to involve a lot of 3rd party developers is going to work. MSFS has a similar problem as DCS, having a lack of activities. This is a main focus and selling point for MSFS 2024. Even IL-2 has issues with their campaign being rather 'dead.' PWCG does help with that a bit. Note that this also adds another 'hardcore' feature, having to identify the kills, have witnesses and make claims. Hardcore gameplay is not just about a clickable cockpit. So I would like for a flight sim to make it a priority to offer something much better on that front. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Serpent Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Only the developers themselves can answer these nuanced questions, which is why everyone is so eager for more Developer Diaries. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
343KKT_Kintaro Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 15 minutes ago, Sea Serpent said: why everyone is so eager for more Developer Diaries This is eagerness resulting of laziness... eagerness resulting of apathy. Contradictory? Absolutely not. The more simmers get access to armchairs, keyboards and internet connections with a nice can of cold beer close to hand... the more of them (proportionally) demand flight-sim development companies they work hard and produce development diaries. Considering that others do not necessarily owe you something, this is nobility. Considering that others necessarily owe you something, this is nothing but pettiness. There's an attitude among some simmers which consists in permanently demanding that others work hard for their leisure. A few tens of dollars paid at release of a flight sim do not justify such an attitude. On the contrary, they should show patience while development is in progress... and gratitude at release. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Serpent Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Oh Kintaro, my friend, I think you misinterpreted my post as a question 😁. It’s all good! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
343KKT_Kintaro Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Oh my god... I'm doing the biggest facepalm ever... Humble apologies. 2 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Im in @Trooper117's camp really. Whatever we get its gonna be better than Pacific fighters and will have a less of a sandbox feel than DCS with more scenario specific types. The rest is all speculation at this point. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper117 Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 5 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said: this is nobility. Considering that others necessarily owe you something, this is nothing but pettiness. How do you know I'm not nobility?... bow down to me now you peasant! 👺 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Lee Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 On 6/29/2024 at 11:34 AM, Sea Serpent said: I wonder if CP will have an SDK for third party developers? There's always the free unReal Engine download. They also have quite the marketplace with ready made environments, objects and plug-ins. Extraordinary work being done by that community! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BraveSirRobin Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Is anyone here familiar with the original RoF release? I think it was 4 aircraft and really basic. This might be more complex than that, but probably not by a lot. Building a complex combat flight sim is ridiculously difficult. You’re not going to get DCS or GB at first. Some people in here are setting themselves up for massive disappointment. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Serpent Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 I thought you had died and was just thinking about doing the in memoriam thread. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachariasX Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 4 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said: Is anyone here familiar with the original RoF release? I sure remember it. It was not an easy process, especially during the initial phase where we got a handful if biplanes in a playpen that was the old IL2 engine. Then Gennadich Team changed into neoqb and we got the digital nature engine to accomodate the playpen and only from there, what became „Rise of Flight“ started to grow. https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=149341 It was a difficult and uncertain initial period, but I‘d say it was more management quirks than technological constraints. Financial constraints sure, but that is also what you get from questionable management. As for what we will get in this sim, that remains to be seen. But technology wise, It is not 2004 anymore. Here, I would also count on better management. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BraveSirRobin Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 18 hours ago, ZachariasX said: I sure remember it. It was not an easy process, especially during the initial phase where we got a handful if biplanes in a playpen that was the old IL2 engine. Then Gennadich Team changed into neoqb and we got the digital nature engine to accomodate the playpen and only from there, what became „Rise of Flight“ started to grow. https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=149341 It was a difficult and uncertain initial period, but I‘d say it was more management quirks than technological constraints. Financial constraints sure, but that is also what you get from questionable management. As for what we will get in this sim, that remains to be seen. But technology wise, It is not 2004 anymore. Here, I would also count on better management. Sorry, but this is nonsense. Even with better management it took many years to get to GB. And now they’re starting from scratch. It’s not going to be GB or DCS. Not even close. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Serpent Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 (edited) But it’s not like modeling a Kate is the same thing as modeling the synthetic aperture radar of the Hornet. There are different levels of complexity that still can be modeled somewhat fully. And I totally believe it can exceed GB, and I expect it, or I wouldn’t be here. But no, it won’t be overnight, and I don’t believe anybody said it would be in this thread or elsewhere. Edited July 2 by Sea Serpent 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
343KKT_Kintaro Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 On 7/1/2024 at 7:20 AM, ZachariasX said: I sure remember it. It was not an easy process, especially during the initial phase where we got a handful if biplanes in a playpen that was the old IL2 engine. Then Gennadich Team changed into neoqb and we got the digital nature engine to accomodate the playpen and only from there, what became „Rise of Flight“ started to grow. Well, no, not exactly Zacharias. In fact, the Oleg Maddox "IL-2 Sturmovik" game engine (development as of 1998, release in 2001) little has to do with "Rise of Flight". This is what happened: in the early 2000s, at the very early days of the classic "IL-2 Sturmovik" (now called "IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946", as everybody knows), a few Russian young amateur developers wanted to collaborate with Oleg Maddox and, to do so, started preparing a WWI add-on for "IL-2 Sturmovik". For whatever reason, at some point in the process they decided to work on their own combat flight sim ("Project Sikorsky"), at first intended to make flyable a Sikorsky S-15, and own company (d-Strict). Years ago I found in the internet interview that now is only available in the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20030914014855/http://articles.dtf.ru/rus/interviews/2003/09/02/sikorsky/ I don't know Russian, but using online translators one can manage to learn that the journalist "Peter 'Amicus' Prokhorenko" had interviewed the project manager, S. Vorsin, and the "network, audio and chatter" manager Tarasov A. G. The interview was published online on "The Daily Telefrag" on the 2nd of September, 2003. It is the oldest trace of the Sikorsky Project that one may find in the internet... I think. In the meantime, by 2004 if I'm not wrong, other Russian developers launched a new company and a new project for a new WWI combat flight sim, "Knights of the Sky" of Gennadich Team. In 2006, both companies, d-Strict and Gennadich, realise that they'll be competitors for nothing and that it is much more interesting to them to collaborate in one single project... so both companies merge into a new company: neoqb. The latter will work on the release of one game only. The brand name "Sikorsky Project" is dismissed, "Knights of the Sky" is kept. In the meantime, in 2007, Jason Williams establishes 777 Studios. At that point, no contact yet with the Russian companies above mentioned. In 2008, neoqb changes the name of the project from "Knights of the Sky" to "Rise of Flight". By 2008 or 2009, an agreement is reached between Jason Williams and neoqb: 777 Studios will distribute "Rise of Flight" at release (at least in the USA and in the EU, if I'm correct). In June 2009 "Rise of Flight" is released. The expected sales are insufficient, the game is a commercial failure. In 2010 777 Studios purchases "Rise of Flight"... or maybe purchases the whole of neoqb, "employees in the books, included"... I'm not sure of what exactly had been purchased, if the company, or only the brand and code of the game. In 2011/2012 "IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover" is a commercial failure and the IL-2 brand is about to lose the 1st position in the ranking of WWII combat flight sims... but 777 Studios arrives, proposes to stick the IL-2 brand on the "Rise of Flight" source code for the development of Stalingrad. The rest is history. You know most of all the above, Zacharias, but I produced a longer post for those who, not knowing the story, would had liked a chronology. Obviously if I'm wrong about something specific, we can discuss so that I can edit and fix mistakes, sure I can. Other than that, there's a project called "Combat Pilot" that was presented at the FlightSimExpo in Vegas this year... 😄 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachariasX Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 6 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said: You know most of all the above, Zacharias, but I produced a longer post for those who, not knowing the story, would had liked a chronology. I am glad you posted that story. Most of what I seemed to know about the genesis ofthe game before it became available as "Knights of the Sky" (and I got my hands on it) is a bit second hand. So thanks for your clarifications. Still, it underscores the improvised genesis of the game that was not helpful for its developement. I actually agree with @BraveSirRobin that CP by no means will be IL2 when it will come out, and I sincerely hope that it will never be. But much rather something that provides a modern, lively and realistic gameworld. Of course, there will be less assets initially, but so what? That IL2 is mainly great due to the number of suitable assets is not a compliment at all to the simulation as such. It is always much easier and much more efficient to start out in a way that is suitable to cater for your dream result, rather than with something "that you just have". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BraveSirRobin Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 22 minutes ago, ZachariasX said: Still, it underscores the improvised genesis of the game that was not helpful for its developement. I actually agree with @BraveSirRobin that CP by no means will be IL2 when it will come out, and I sincerely hope that it will never be. But much rather something that provides a modern, lively and realistic gameworld. Of course, there will be less assets initially, but so what? That IL2 is mainly great due to the number of suitable assets is not a compliment at all to the simulation as such. It is always much easier and much more efficient to start out in a way that is suitable to cater for your dream result, rather than with something "that you just have". You know the guy responsible for the RoF and GB design decisions (that you don’t especially seem to like) is now in charge of this game, right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.