"Realism vs. Balance" - which MiG-29 for future project?

[Pilotasso]

It was pointed out that map development is by far the slowest process at ED, so the less terrain at a time, the better, IMHO. Break it up into small, manageable chunks, of which Cyprus is IMHO the best small chunk to start with. Otherwise both the terrain remains unfinished, and the sim is delayed and released with fewer missions.

 

The "red down" scenario would be very interesting with cities and urbanization with sky scrapers but would require alot of ground to be credible. Guess that one is out.

 

How about a sea strech that features cyprus to the left, Israel and bits of surrounding countries to the right?

I actualy prefer a small terrain but with enhanced and optimized features in everything else.

[SwingKid]

How about a sea strech that features cyprus to the right, Israel and bits of surrounding countries to the left?

 

What do you need Israel for in a Cyprus campaign? Save Israel for its own add-on and make it properly, IMHO.

 

As the limiting step in ED's sim development, map-building is a zero-sum game. The more you add area, the more you lose quality. Just compare Sevastopol to Sukhumi for proof.

 

-SK

[Pilotasso]

What do you need Israel for in a Cyprus campaign? Save Israel for its own add-on and make it properly, IMHO.

 

As the limiting step in ED's sim development, map-building is a zero-sum game. The more you add area, the more you lose quality. Just compare Sevastopol to Sukhumi for proof.

 

-SK

 

I was already a bit minimalist with that my proposal^^^^ Cyprus is tiny, very TINY. If you guys made the current scenario in LOCKON you can very well develop a scenario with cyprus and israel.This country is also very small anyway. How hard could it be? Its still much smaller than the one we have now.We could have 2 potential campaings in just 1 small map. Think about it. Cyprus is not exactly popular for simmers. Rather a curiosity we can throw in with Israel. We can opt Mig VS F-16 or make combos. In cyprus we would have greece VS turkey in the same small patch of terrain over and over again. A bit monotonous dont you think? What would the migs do in Cyprus anyway? o_O (and pretend Israel is not on the way to stop them LOL)

[Weta43]

Just a thought - which I'm not convinced of myself.

Fictional conflicts in a fictional (melded) timeframe.

There's always the option of simply having an entirely fictional location as well.

I can see people crying already that for "reality's sake" it has to be a peice of genuine real-estate moddeled, but before you no-say, it has its advantages. If it's fictional it doesn't have to match any particular peice of real estate, which means the construction could be more automated & done for esthetic/gameplay reasons - so more detail over a larger area in a shorter time.

For gameplay you could custom make the terrain to have a variety of terrain available. Start with a temperate zone, extend to mountains, desert, an island, fiords etc. Take all the best bits from all over the globe & bring them together.

With a fictional map you aren't constrained when creating coalitions, allocating airbases etc. & while I like the idea that Sochi is a real place, I've never been there, am unlikely to ever go there, so all ED's efforts in getting it right are at some level wasted on most of the people who will fly the sim. What they like is the detail, the beauty & the variety. They have no idea if it matches the place with the same name.

There were some guys here in Wellington who must have spent hours & hours putting together a level for either 1/2 life or unreal or some other FPS which was a replica of Wellington city CBD ( which takes about 10 mins to walk across)

It was probably a bit of a kick for Wellingtonians who played it to recognise the streets etc, but if I gave it to someone from Oklahoma or Kiev would they know if it was accurate, & would it play any better if it was? Or could the time spent making it accurate have been better spent making it interesting.?

[Pilotasso]

You mean like the tornado SIM?

[Weta43]

No idea - never played it, but possibly ?

[Pilotasso]

thats what you meant yeah, but it would loose alot of atmosphere IMHO.

[Weta43]

You think so ?

It seems to me that when you're flying around the atmosphere comes from how well ED has modeled A world , not that it's a good replica of any particular place.

It's immersive 'cause it looks real, F4 models real counties, but looks crap.

A good artist will paint an imaginary figure & make them look real, a bad artist will paint a portrait of a real person & it won't look real at all.

If ED did a fictional map, called it Estonia & let you fly around in it would you be any the wiser?

When would it become less atmospheric than the present map modeled after an actual place?

[tflash]

He, if the Middle East scenario is chosen, Ed could try to work a little more on the F-15 Baz in Israel livery. As I understand it, they have air-to-ground capability (CCIP/CCRP would be already fine for me!) and maybe ED could model the Shafrir 2 and Python 3 missiles? A A/G Popeye missile would be welcome to of course, but I guess this is difficult to achieve.

 

Downside is a lot of the Israeli avionics, certainly in the ECM field, inside it are top secret and certainly not publicly documented.

[SwingKid]

If ED did a fictional map, called it Estonia & let you fly around in it would you be any the wiser?

 

YES

 

-SK

[Pilotasso]

You think so ?

It seems to me that when you're flying around the atmosphere comes from how well ED has modeled A world , not that it's a good replica of any particular place.

Part of the kick with a realistic scenario is to picture how strategy would mirror the real life in a SIM. We know the areas and wonder what real pilots have felt like with their tactics in this same landscape over the history.

 

"oh look, the valley of Maggido, and incoming backfires just ahead...so this is how it will end?" ;)

 

 

 

It's immersive 'cause it looks real, F4 models real counties, but looks crap.

..because its 8 years old? What kinda of map wouldnt look like crap in F4?

 

When would it become less atmospheric than the present map modeled after an actual place?

 

Sure thing, but then if you can recognize a place after flying over it in a SIM wouldnt that be fantastic? Fictional maps are the ones that look crap. They dont seem to be very likely nor the landscape looks harmonic. That was just the thing it bothered me in Tornado. There was nothing realy specific in those maps that could have reflected one side's demise because the real landmarks, strategical position or ifra-structures from the real world were not incuded.

[Weta43]

Only if you have either a/ been there or b/ studied a map beforehand.

If you like to study maps they could provide a map if their fictional landscape.

If they made up a bit of farmland & said it was the Wairarapa (& you didn't look at an atlas before hitting "S"), You'd never know the difference.

 

I have to congratulate everyone so far on their manners. I thought that the idea of a fictional map for a hard core sim (or nearly hard core sim depending on which board you're reading), would go down like a cup of cold sick.

[Weta43]

Pilotasso - Got to finish up here at work, but regarding the harmony & organic relatedness of the landscape & structures statement.

I'll say again - a good artist makes the imaginary real by creating that harmony of detail, a poor artist makes the real look false because they just don;t capture it.

How immersive the enviroment is in a sim is about more about the art side of it than trying to copy a specific place.

In the thread on the possible new flanker model is a link to a beauty competition for computer generated characters. Some of them are extremely lifelike, even though created from imagination, bcause they have that harmony that comes from observation of detail & proportion.

[Pilotasso]

Only if you have either a/ been there or b/ studied a map beforehand.

If you like to study maps they could provide a map if their fictional landscape.

If they made up a bit of farmland & said it was the Wairarapa (& you didn't look at an atlas before hitting "S"), You'd never know the difference.

 

I have to congratulate everyone so far on their manners. I thought that the idea of a fictional map for a hard core sim (or nearly hard core sim depending on which board you're reading), would go down like a cup of cold sick.

 

After flying for years in F4 I actualy recognized the landscape over in magazines and tv footage. I told myself. "wow I flew and fought there" and I actualy have footage of korean F-16's droping bombs and doing mock engagements in places I flew in the virtual world.

More: there was a map after my contry in F4. It was never finished, shame, because I could fly from my cities airport just a click away were Im standing, I flew and found our F-16's base were I have estimated it to be.

Another aspect is that precicely for people who never went to those places learn to know them like a virtual trip to mars. With a fictional map youll loose that pedagogic material. Except in a SIM you would also forced to develop and reinvent the same strategies as in real past wars.

 

Theres a reason why we cry over MS flight sims for not having practical military weponry nor campaigns, and why there is so a large client universe for map addons. We arent all airliner pilots you know.

 

Picturing myself as a pilot in a real war was what compelled me to go for a SIM. I almost went to the academy myself (my brother did instead), but then I cant exactly choose my causes nor do I have any freedom with yellin sargeants on my ass all the time. ;)

[SwingKid]

I was already a bit minimalist with that my proposal^^^^ Cyprus is tiny, very TINY.

 

Compared to what? Abkhazia, Lebanon, and the Golan Heights are all about the same size, or smaller.

 

If you guys made the current scenario in LOCKON you can very well develop a scenario with cyprus and israel.This country is also very small anyway. How hard could it be?

 

I myself once asked, "how hard could it be, to relocate the Razdolnoye airbase to Merzifon?" Someone from ED told me that it could not be done. So, I went and did it myself.

 

This would suggest that as far as map-building goes, even things that are possible for you and me, are not possible for ED. Because of the time constraints they work under and I don't, I really believe that. The team is capable of many things, but I truly believe I could build a better assortment of airbases and map objects myself, than what is currently available in Lock On's Caucasus. So, for any future theater, I think ED should stick to the minimum possible area, required to support the campaign. Of course I'd like to see as much terrain as possible too, but Israeli territory is IMO simply not a requirement (for a Cyprus campaign). It can be added in a later module, together with an Israeli campaign that adds an Israeli flyable, AI and ground vehicles.

 

Its still much smaller than the one we have now.We could have 2 potential campaings in just 1 small map. Think about it.

 

Any attempt to sell two campaigns for the price of one, when you could have sold them as separate modules, is IMHO flushing income down the toilet, and doing more work at a slower rate for free. The programmers at ED will all quit for more profitable jobs, and we'll be left with nothing.

 

Cyprus is not exactly popular for simmers. Rather a curiosity we can throw in with Israel.

 

I think we come to opposite conclusions for similar reasons. I agree that Cyprus is small and less popular. That's why I want to do it as the first module. User who are flying the F-16 in a Cyprus game will happily buy an Israel add-on. User flying the F-16 in an Israel game will NOT buy a Cyprus add-on.

 

We can opt Mig VS F-16 or make combos. In cyprus we would have greece VS turkey in the same small patch of terrain over and over again. A bit monotonous dont you think?

 

That's the whole point, to make people hunger for the add-ons. ;)

 

What would the migs do in Cyprus anyway? o_O (and pretend Israel is not on the way to stop them LOL)

 

There would be no MiGs in the Cyprus campaign. That's the other whole point of the Cyprus campaign - it can be played from both sides with the same jet, F-16. It allows all coding resources to be focused on one subject per development stage, and the maximum amount of money to be extracted from users for each new flyable aircraft.

 

I agree that Cyprus is more "boring" than other parts of Middle East, I just think we need to swallow this pill first, and early, to make things better later. Otherwise I predict that the "future sim" is doomed to resemble Lock On, just like Lock On resembled Flanker 2.0 - too much attempted, too little achieved.

 

Just my opinion,

 

-SK

[Pilotasso]

Compared to what? Abkhazia, Lebanon, and the Golan Heights are all about the same size, or smaller.

 

 

 

I myself once asked, "how hard could it be, to relocate the Razdolnoye airbase to Merzifon?" Someone from ED told me that it could not be done. So, I went and did it myself.

 

This would suggest that as far as map-building goes, even things that are possible for you and me, are not possible for ED. Because of the time constraints they work under and I don't, I really believe that. The team is capable of many things, but I truly believe I could build a better assortment of airbases and map objects myself, than what is currently available in Lock On's Caucasus. So, for any future theater, I think ED should stick to the minimum possible area, required to support the campaign. Of course I'd like to see as much terrain as possible too, but Israeli territory is IMO simply not a requirement (for a Cyprus campaign). It can be added in a later module, together with an Israeli campaign that adds an Israeli flyable, AI and ground vehicles.

 

 

 

Any attempt to sell two campaigns for the price of one, when you could have sold them as separate modules, is IMHO flushing income down the toilet. The programmers at ED will all quit for more profitable jobs, and we'll be left with nothing.

 

 

 

I think we come to opposite conclusions for similar reasons. I agree that Cyprus is small and less popular. That's why I want to do it as the first module. User who are flying the F-16 in a Cyprus game will happily buy an Israel add-on. User flying the F-16 in an Israel game will NOT buy a Cyprus add-on.

 

 

 

That's the whole point, to make people hunger for the add-ons. ;)

 

 

 

There would be no MiGs in the Cyprus campaign. That's the other whole point of the Cyprus campaign - it can be played from both sides with the same jet, F-16. It allows all coding resources to be focused on one subject per development stage, and the maximum amount of money to be extracted from users for each new flyable aircraft.

 

I agree that Cyprus is more "boring" than other parts of Middle East, I just think we need to swallow this pill first, and early, to make things better later. Otherwise I predict that the "future sim" is doomed to resemble Lock On, just like Lock On resembled Flanker 2.0 - too much attempted, too little achieved.

 

Just my opinion,

 

-SK

 

LOL I see your point. We consumers are doomed to drool for life I guess. LOL But you guys at ED better make for it for the lack of terrain. ;) or else!

No less than a sleek looking F-16 with AFM on it and weapons. DC sounds sweet but for me it will be mostly online. If it works online as well it would be heaven.

 

Is that moduled planning being realy discussed at ED?

Ill welcome cyprus if I know there will addons with Israel and the mig as another flyable.(or something else that can measure up to this) It will be interesting.

[SwingKid]

To be clear, I never discussed the Cyprus idea with ED, it's just my own opinion. Like the first post says, this poll (and other topics) is just to help me formulate for myself, where everybody stands, so I can say "I told you so" later when nobody listened to me. ;)

 

-SK

[Hawg11]

If ED did a fictional map, called it Estonia & let you fly around in it would you be any the wiser?

When would it become less atmospheric than the present map modeled after an actual place?

 

When? IMO, the moment that they stopped using actual satellite imagery as the basis for their terrain.

[Caretaker]

Most people (me included) prefer a real-life theatre. Just think about how much flak SF:P1 caught for coming up with a totally fictional desert kingdoms map. But at least people could create new maps for that sim (hint, hint... ;)).

[Trident]

To be clear, I never discussed the Cyprus idea with ED, it's just my own opinion. Like the first post says, this poll (and other topics) is just to help me formulate for myself, where everybody stands, so I can say "I told you so" later when nobody listened to me. ;)

 

Cyprus is a pretty good choice, one that I personally never thought of. OTOH it faces some of the same difficulties that a Taiwan scenario has, namely no Russian involvement (would be about as hard to justify as US carriers in the Black Sea, IMHO), indeed preciously little Russian hardware at all (only some naval units and SAMs used by Greece). That not only takes away one of the primary attractions of ED's sims to some, it might also be hard to convince a Russian developer with a large CIS market of its merrits.

 

It is also not a very "charismatic" theatre, less so than Taiwan, being not as widely known and less spectacular terrain-wise (this is something I thought of as a real drawback in Flanker2.0, inspite of its incredible terrain graphics, for the time). A fly-able Mirage2000 would be sublime though, it would probably become my favourite aircraft :cool: If the requisite info is ever declassified (big if, it seems) we could have that in a Taiwan theatre too though.

 

Syria sounds pretty good however, as for other Middle East countries Iran would also be acceptable to me. Forget the rest though, it's practically as flat as a billard table, very boring to look at :(

 

Nonetheless, I still know what my all-time-favourite theatre would be (I know, I should come to grips with the fact that it's too large, but one can dream... ;) ). BTW, check out my post in that old thread, some time ago I updated the map with ALL (seriously!) airfields I could spot in WorldWind/GoogleEarth. Those marked with a "+" are large enough to be used by combat aircraft (the runway length of Khersonnes was used as the yardstick here, it feels pretty short in a heavily ladden aircraft in LOMAC), a "-" indicates a small strip that may only be suitable for helos. You might be surprised to find several "+"es on the Kurils themselves! Also, this: http://www.theoceanadventure.com/KIIE/KI8.html

 

Anyway, back to reality...

[Jester_159th]

Terrain wise I'd love to see what ED could do with Scandanavia and it's fjords etc, but it would mean creating a ficticious modern "cold war" scenario.

 

Be a great landscape for all types of air warfare.

[Caretaker]

Terrain wise I'd love to see what ED could do with Scandanavia and it's fjords etc, but it would mean creating a ficticious modern "cold war" scenario.

 

...except if we'd use a "historical", not-so-modern scenario :)

 

Be a great landscape for all types of air warfare.

 

You bet... even with its - by today's standards - primitive graphics, EF2000 still manages to create quite an atmosphere there. Much less populated than central Europe as well, and plenty of ocean for naval operations... my very own theatre of choice.

[SwingKid]

Agreed on all points, especially the politics-driven, "curse of Russian flyables" - can't make it with them, can't make it without them. :(

 

In this regard, though:

 

"7/17 A report in Russia's Ruskiy Telegraf states that Russia has decided to transport the S-300PMU-1 system to Cyprus escorted by a Russian navy fleet sailing from the Atlantic Ocean through the Strait of Gibraltar en route to exercises in the Indian Ocean. The missile frigate Peter the Great and aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov will form part of the fleet, which is scheduled to remain in Cyprus temporarily to perform protective duties while the S-300PMU-1 system is deployed."

 

http://cns.miis.edu/research/cyprus/chr98.htm

 

Cyprus also employs T-80s, BMPs and Hind helicopters.

 

Note that ED recently announced plans to include Ka-50 as a flyable "Turkish" aircraft in v1.2. I guess that's to go with that other iconic representative of NATO airpower, MiG-29, flying now from the vast array of NATO airbases in... Russia..? Sorry, until I have an F-15E thrown at me, I have NO worries about ED needing my help with Russian hardware anywhere. In this regard of imagination, I bow to their superior abilities.

 

"Who could have predicted Russia buying F-16s?" ;)

 

-SK

[192nd_Erdem]

 

Note that ED recently announced plans to include Ka-50 as a flyable "Turkish" aircraft in v1.2.

 

Can you direct me to the "announce"?

 

Turkish "Attack Helicopter" contract should be opened again in February.Ka is still an option,so it may not be "not very realistic" when the sim is out :)

[SwingKid]

Can you direct me to the "announce"?

 

Turkish "Attack Helicopter" contract should be opened again in February.Ka is still an option,so it may not be "not very realistic" when the sim is out :)

 

Yes, that was the reason given, there's still "hope" for some kind of Ka-product in Turkish army. ;)

 

Unfortunately the message is lost somewhere in the Russian forum, and now I can't find it, sorry.

 

-SK