Author Topic: Well... (Read 587 times)

SkyChimp · « **on:** June 25, 2005, 07:23:14 AM »

Hard to put a title heh.

I was thinking of making the game more like ww2.

Complex engine management such.

I'm trying to say eng over heat guns jam such heh gear gets stuck every thing that really happened in ww2.

Ghosth · « **Reply #1 on:** June 25, 2005, 09:18:58 AM »

targetware.net

Target Rabaul mod

SkyChimp · « **Reply #2 on:** June 25, 2005, 09:44:51 AM »

heh i can't play that game:p

Rino · « **Reply #3 on:** June 25, 2005, 11:25:23 AM »

Do you have to kill yourself if you lose?

SkyChimp · « **Reply #4 on:** June 26, 2005, 10:44:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rino
Do you have to kill yourself if you lose?

?

hubsonfire · « **Reply #5 on:** June 26, 2005, 11:49:06 AM »

In the real war, you tended to die when you screwed up. Capping yourself after a bad run is the ultimate in realism. Why draw the line at random equipment failure or complex pilot tasks, when you can help cull the weak as well?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 26, 2005, 06:16:48 PM »

Cmon guys, that is a lame comeback to the request for more realism.

I've been here for a year and a half and that comeback has been around longer. You'd guess that something more creative would have thought of by now.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #7 on:** June 26, 2005, 10:25:28 PM »

If you've been here for that long, you should know that we're not known for our creativity. Complex engine managing and spontaneous catastrophic failures are not new ideas, and neither adds much to gameplay. Who wants to log on, find a fight, take off, fly a bit, get there, and then spontaneously burst into flames or have their engine die? I don't. HiTech's come on the bbs quite a few times and made his thoughts known on all the 'realism' stuff. This might be an interesting addition to ToD, but not the MA.

Just because you can beat a dead horse doesn't mean you should.

Ghosth · « **Reply #8 on:** June 27, 2005, 07:17:02 AM »

I agree with Hubsonfire.

Thats why I pointed him towards target.

They seem to be full blown over the top gung ho when it comes to realism.

Of course if that means that only 1 person in 20 can actually FLY a plane in RS, or TR thats ok.

At least thats the way it seems.

Yes, you CAN take realism too far.

I'd rather have immersion anyday.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 27, 2005, 12:26:29 PM »

There's a difference between fun gameplay, and annoying gameplay.

There is no reason to have random explosions. There's just no point in it.

However, there is a point in complex engine management, but how you set it up is more important.

What you do is make it a CHOICE for each pilot to make. If the pilot chooses to turn on complex enginer management, he would gain some performance, but he'd be working hard to keep it there.

On the Flip side, he could possibly screw up his engine's performance.

So with this, you now have a choice to make. Do you want to keep it standard and not play with it? Or do you want to control it and possibly squeeze out a little more power?

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #10 on:** June 27, 2005, 02:40:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
There's a difference between fun gameplay, and annoying gameplay.

There is no reason to have random explosions. There's just no point in it.

However, there is a point in complex engine management, but how you set it up is more important.

What you do is make it a CHOICE for each pilot to make. If the pilot chooses to turn on complex enginer management, he would gain some performance, but he'd be working hard to keep it there.

On the Flip side, he could possibly screw up his engine's performance.

So with this, you now have a choice to make. Do you want to keep it standard and not play with it? Or do you want to control it and possibly squeeze out a little more power?

In a word, NO. Why would anyone CHOOSE to do this? If you want to try this out get CFS3 and fly the 1% planes. The radial engines will overheat at low alt/low speed. You have to manage RPM, fuel mixture the whole nine yards. Why would anyone choose to do this when the guy on your six does not? IMO it's either all or none. Making it optional just adds more dweebery to the game.

It's bad enough we have the stall limiter. I CHOOSE to fly without it because I think it's dweebish, yet I know 4-5 year pilots who fly with it on. I'm beginning to think that not having it on puts me at a disadvantage. Sure I can tweek a little more turn performance out of my plane but he can high G high AOT maneuvers without worrying about a catastrophic stall.

How about some suggestions that will increase the number of dog fights in the MA? Instead of these same old suggestions about so called "realism". I've only been here a year and they are getting old for me.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #11 on:** June 27, 2005, 06:50:24 PM »

Remember this reply from another realism post?

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Basicly I call BS on your realism premis.

HiTech

BTW · « **Reply #12 on:** June 27, 2005, 07:44:24 PM »

>>There's a difference between fun gameplay, and annoying gameplay.

<<

I agree. So explain trim. No pilot was worried about moving a hat to look over their shoulder. I think we could forget about trim given the pita it is just to look left and right and the fact peripheral vision doesn't exist in the game.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 28, 2005, 11:23:06 AM »

Quote

In a word, NO. Why would anyone CHOOSE to do this? If you want to try this out get CFS3 and fly the 1% planes. The radial engines will overheat at low alt/low speed. You have to manage RPM, fuel mixture the whole nine yards. Why would anyone choose to do this when the guy on your six does not? IMO it's either all or none. Making it optional just adds more dweebery to the game.

It's bad enough we have the stall limiter. I CHOOSE to fly without it because I think it's dweebish, yet I know 4-5 year pilots who fly with it on. I'm beginning to think that not having it on puts me at a disadvantage. Sure I can tweek a little more turn performance out of my plane but he can high G high AOT maneuvers without worrying about a catastrophic stall.

How about some suggestions that will increase the number of dog fights in the MA? Instead of these same old suggestions about so called "realism". I've only been here a year and they are getting old for me.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote?

It is a fact that planes without Stall Limiter on can out perform those with Stall Limiter on. There's a higher chance you are going to snap stall, but that's the chance you take for better performance.

I don't see it as dweebish one way or another. It's a choice. If you want your plane to perform better, you have to work harder. It's the same thing with trim on your plane. It would be the same thing with engine management.

No one is going to make you turn it on. So why are you so freaked out about putting it in the game?

Blammo · « **Reply #14 on:** June 28, 2005, 12:04:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
No one is going to make you turn it on. So why are you so freaked out about putting it in the game?

Not that I have been a part of this discussion, but my response to this would be simple: I don't want to see HTC spending time on something like this when I would much rather see them spending time on...

A) Optomizing the existing code
B) Adding new planes
C) Improving the flight models
D) Correcting bugs
E) Fix the issues with SAVVIS
F) Anything that is currently wrong rather than add new things to clunk up to game and the code

Just my two cents...