Are people's objecting to an online subsim per se, or merely Ubi's "effort" here?

Julhelm · 02-18-13, 06:15 AM

The problem with contemporary sims is that they require far too much work over too much time to be profitable. The CloD team themselves have stated that a single cockpit took more than one year to make. Does that sound like a profitable business model to anyone? There's a reason the Stalingrad sim will revert back to Il-2:1946 level of detail cockpits.

Karl Heinrich · 02-18-13, 12:00 PM

I suppose a line needs to be drawn on the level of simulation, but for everyone that's going to be different. I'm an avid FS2004/FSX fan and play on as high a realism as possible (and on VATSIM etc). But I also love IL-2 46 and think the level of detail in the cockpits was sufficient., they looked decent, the gauges worked, and you had pretty good control over relevant aircraft systems if you wanted it.

I've not attempted to play Cliffs of Dover yet and I didn't notice more detail in what I've seen of it, just shinier graphics... but as I've not played it, I don't know, so that's pure baseless waffle :P

Of course the level of simulation we all want is going to be different.

For myself at the moment, modded SH3 is great, but would like more detailed hydrodynamics, manual trimming etc. perhaps more detailed control of engines and certain systems, but not a whole lot more to be honest. What I really want to see is "one boat multiplayer" of some form... (but not a sim that can only be played online).

StarTrekMike · 02-18-13, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julhelm

The problem with contemporary sims is that they require far too much work over too much time to be profitable. The CloD team themselves have stated that a single cockpit took more than one year to make. Does that sound like a profitable business model to anyone? There's a reason the Stalingrad sim will revert back to Il-2:1946 level of detail cockpits.

The CloD team was horribly mismanaged (funny how Ubi was also involved in that) and work that should have taken far less time was dragged out by many poor choices.

If you actually follow the Stalingrad development, they are expanding on the original IL-2 1946 formula while not making promises they can't keep, add on to that the inclusion of 777 (a company that is noted for delivering a great product with Rise of flight) and you have a recipe for success that should have been done with CloD.

One need only look at Eagle Dynamics to see that a good cockpit need not take a year.

So, in short, CloD is a terrible example of the usual flight sim production but a fantastic example of how little Ubi cares for the simulation market.

Julhelm · 02-18-13, 05:40 PM

Most ED titles are years in development and reuse much the same content over and over. Imagine how long A-10 would have taken if instead of mainly focusing on a single jet, they'd have to build a new map, all-new NPC units etc. Exacly why ED's solution to lack of content has been to open up the game to allow 3rd parties to develop new modules.

I have no doubts that 777 will put out a solid game, but a lot of people are going to be gravely disappointed because it will have less fidelity than CloD/A-10.

But it's the right way to go because they know they have a limited budget and there are physical limits to what x amount of money can get you.

For subsims the right way would be to go back to earlier designs like SH and AOD and iterate on their gameplay. On one hand because they were very playable designs and secondly because such a game would actually be within the realm of the possible for an indie team to handle on a small budget. There is no mid-tier dev like 777 to do subsims so it stands to reason any such effort would have to be smaller.

02-18-13, 12:00 PM	#2
Karl Heinrich Soundman Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 146 Downloads: 60 Uploads: 2	I suppose a line needs to be drawn on the level of simulation, but for everyone that's going to be different. I'm an avid FS2004/FSX fan and play on as high a realism as possible (and on VATSIM etc). But I also love IL-2 46 and think the level of detail in the cockpits was sufficient., they looked decent, the gauges worked, and you had pretty good control over relevant aircraft systems if you wanted it. I've not attempted to play Cliffs of Dover yet and I didn't notice more detail in what I've seen of it, just shinier graphics... but as I've not played it, I don't know, so that's pure baseless waffle :P Of course the level of simulation we all want is going to be different. For myself at the moment, modded SH3 is great, but would like more detailed hydrodynamics, manual trimming etc. perhaps more detailed control of engines and certain systems, but not a whole lot more to be honest. What I really want to see is "one boat multiplayer" of some form... (but not a sim that can only be played online). __________________ “Die Südfrüchte runter vom Kartentisch. Auf Bananen kann ich nicht navigieren.” Last edited by Karl Heinrich; 02-18-13 at 12:14 PM.

02-18-13, 06:15 AM	#1
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 693 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	The problem with contemporary sims is that they require far too much work over too much time to be profitable. The CloD team themselves have stated that a single cockpit took more than one year to make. Does that sound like a profitable business model to anyone? There's a reason the Stalingrad sim will revert back to Il-2:1946 level of detail cockpits.

02-18-13, 05:40 PM	#4
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 693 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	Most ED titles are years in development and reuse much the same content over and over. Imagine how long A-10 would have taken if instead of mainly focusing on a single jet, they'd have to build a new map, all-new NPC units etc. Exacly why ED's solution to lack of content has been to open up the game to allow 3rd parties to develop new modules. I have no doubts that 777 will put out a solid game, but a lot of people are going to be gravely disappointed because it will have less fidelity than CloD/A-10. But it's the right way to go because they know they have a limited budget and there are physical limits to what x amount of money can get you. For subsims the right way would be to go back to earlier designs like SH and AOD and iterate on their gameplay. On one hand because they were very playable designs and secondly because such a game would actually be within the realm of the possible for an indie team to handle on a small budget. There is no mid-tier dev like 777 to do subsims so it stands to reason any such effort would have to be smaller.