Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: kasperl on April 21, 2004, 07:28:12 am
-
Originally posted by madaboutgames
Just a quick one - Is it possible for me to design a 3d model of a cockpit view which can be used to overlay the internal view during game??
design it, make a bit of photoshopping to show us how it would look, wait till after 3.6, and hope some coder wants to implement it........
-
sure will, which ever mod you use for freespace. I think it looks better and is more atmospheric with an internal cockpit view, whether it is Star Wars or B5. Im sure everyone will agree, it adds atmosphere (and eye candy)
-
well, don't start a discussion just yet......
do a search on 3d cockpits, in the FS mod forum as well, it is one of the most discussed things for FSO.
aside from GeoModding that is.
-
Originally posted by madaboutgames
sure will, which ever mod you use for freespace. I think it looks better and is more atmospheric with an internal cockpit view, whether it is Star Wars or B5. Im sure everyone will agree, it adds atmosphere (and eye candy)
:lol:
I like you already :D
But yeah, I suggest you do as Kasperl said, do a search about 3d cockpits, first :)
-
Your not kidding, so im not alone in thinking its a good idea;)
I will design the cockpit for the star fury in the next couple of days (I am a 3d modeller) visit www.shaunsgallery.co.uk (it hasnt been updated in a while, ive been really busy with my game shop, but It will be updated next week. Some of my pictures are still available for free download.
I was also giving a lot of thought to the critisisms in the forums about a cockpit view. The HUD is the only major problem which could make it or kill it. My idea (star fury cockpit) could be combined with the Hud. As others said we can get away with parts of the Hud, because in the episodes of B5, the pilots HUD is viewed from the helmet. In the series it shows a small segment at the bottom of the cockpit where you see a wireframe view of the ships in view. This could be replaced with the radar, although not accurate it would be funcional. It would probably take a bit of work with the code, unfortunatley I havnt a clue about code, almost anything else yes, but code is not my bag.
-
:welcome:
:)
-
Originally posted by madaboutgames
Your not kidding, so im not alone in thinking its a good idea;)
I will design the cockpit for the star fury in the next couple of days (I am a 3d modeller)
here's some reference images...
http://www.descent-freespace.com/goodies/gallery/cockpit/
-
The starfury cockpit is not quite like the apollo one :p
-
:Welcome:
Someone give the opening phrase...
-
the thing about 3d cockpits is, no body wants to implement them (ie none of the coders like them) if a coder comes along who wants to implement it, they will be welcome to, but untill such time no body wants to do it, and we have better things to do, like getting 3.6 out already.
-
Exits are to the left, right, and back. You will find a flamethrower under you seat, but seeing as we are a non-profit forum, we can't afford flammable liquids, and the flamethrowers are loaded with water or cool refreshing Sierra Mist. You can either bludgeon people with them or try to get to the weapon lockers where you can try to find a good ol' shotgun. Stay out of the Admin weapon lockers, or you will be pwned.
If you happen to find yourself in the airvents, watch out for shivans. If you see a shivan, just forget the shotgun,( that only makes them mad), and offer it some meat. If it's Carl, then you can just back away and leave as quickly as possible, If it's not Carl, then... well, hope that it's Carl.
-
i threw around some ideas for 3d cockpits, but some people were arguing over petty issues (as always :rolleyes: ) and nobody commented on them
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,22630.msg445809.html#msg445809
:welcome:
-
They could always be like the WCP 3D cockpits...they didn't really serve any particular purpose EXCEPT that they gave each ship a particular feel to them (thus increasing your identification with the vessel you were flying) and the directional lighting changed as you flew around so the shadows would play across your cockpit...
We can probably do the same thing with FS2...
-
I just thought about something: we have a "third person view", now, right? well, I played around with my ezechiel and view, and you know what, when I managed to fit the view right in my copilots cockpit ( wasn't easy... ), it fitted perfectly ( well, with FOV set at 0.39, at least ). The maps on my cckpit are reasonably high res, the only thing I'd need would be to remove the HUD which is in the way ( edit: the one I placed in the model, heh, not the actual HUD, I prefer to point out, just in case... ).
If someone would be kind enough to implement the exact same view as that third person view ( well almost, don't need the swinging obviously ), but placed on the viewpoint of the ship, I'm sure that would work, the HUD would just be overlayed over the cockpit mesh.
Pretty please? That can't be that long to do, you folks made the external view with the swinging camera and all!
edit2: and I mean after the 3.6 release, of course, before somebody screams "code freeze!" at me :doubt:
oh, screenshot:
(http://www.swooh.com/premium/venom/fs2pics/ezecockpit.jpg)
Obviously I didn't use the same piece of map to put on the two HUD arms, so the right one is still visible.
Of course, the cockpit map is blurry, the original idea was not to be used in a close up view. That said, the view is too close, you see aproximately half the instrument panel, couldn't get a better view ( external view zooms in/out too fast ).
But you can see it fits well, there's no performance hit at all, btw, it's really a handful of polys there.
-
well if you can make a simple cockpit POF, something like a couple of support struts as a test, I'd likely whip up a test to see how it looks. All this after 3.6 of course :)
-
Same as I thought. After the new chase view in the new builds, which is great. I think it would be possible to build a low poly cockpit (should be finished by Mon) which would be like the chase view except an internal cockpit view. This cockpit could be a lot larger than the viewable screen and with restrictions could move about relative to the player movement. Becuase this is a poly 3d cockpit it could also make excellent use of the spec maps and ligting. Parts of the HUD eg . weapon & fuel energy, radar and other vitals could be intergrated onto the cockpit.
You will understand more when i have finished the cockpit and screens are avialable.
-
Well, the fact that my idea uses the whole ship has one advantage: you can have padlock, and when you turn the head, you can see the wings of your fighter, etc :)
-
Like I have said in times past, I have every plan to implement a 3d cockpit post 3.6
I will need a good one, though.
-
Why do you need a good one? If the idea is to be trashed after a couple tries, like hell somebody would spend his time making a good test cockpit.
-
Nico, your idea for a cockpit view is very appealing, and all the more with the panning and seeing the rest of your fighter. That would rock. In fact, it would be a totally free view, wouldn't it? That would be just right. :)
-
**** the 'test cockpit' idea.
Just stick a $cockpit thing in the table parser that moves and locks the camera if you use the -cock thing in the launcher.
Or even a new cockpit.tbl file, so models and tbl's for a cockpit-havin' ship can work with vanilla FS2.
-
I know the instruments in the cockpit could be animated with an ani.
But is it possible to have them show something really important ?
-
Originally posted by an0n
Just stick a $cockpit thing in the table parser that moves and locks the camera if you use the -cock thing in the launcher.
You said -cock... huh huh huh huh huh huh :)
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
I know the instruments in the cockpit could be animated with an ani.
But is it possible to have them show something really important ?
Like a live view of what you're seeing, but in wireframe :lol:
-
Cockpits are only really useful when you can set up the HUD on a per-ship basis (location of the various HUD elements, like radar, lists and such).
-
Going with Nico's idea, that's perfectly possible, Lightspeed. From what I can tell, that cockpit is part of the ship itself, not a seperate model at all. It should be perfectly possible to make a different cockpit for each fighter.
-
yeah, but we would need a HUD table to move the various items such as radar....
-
Can't be that hard - just have it arrange itself on a pixel-coordinate basis, where 0,0 is top left and 1,1 is bottom right (IIRC that's how it works?). Then all you need to do is specify where each .ani HUD file goes on the screen, save it and play. Making one per-ship shouldn't be hard either, as it could be referenced in the ships.tbl file.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
yeah, but we would need a HUD table to move the various items such as radar....
bingo. And it doesnt seem to be that easy Kalfireth, as the code gurus have been trying to get a modifyable HUD for a long time now ~ V seems to have done some pretty messy coding there :)
-
well we can rip out the hud code and do it correctly, but it won't be reverse-compatible with retail data
-
see, and that's no option ;)
-
unless we include a hud_gauges.tbl or something in a required VP
-
Originally posted by Nico
Why do you need a good one? If the idea is to be trashed after a couple tries, like hell somebody would spend his time making a good test cockpit.
Don't be stupid. If I'm going to spend the time working this thing in, the least I can ask for would be a fairly accurate example of what people would be using so I can optimise for it. However, if you want me to use my kludgy programmer-art cockpit and optimise for that, I'd be more than happy to deliver garbage frame rates with the real deal.
The other side is that 50% of the features we put in never get used so I'm asking for some proof that this is going to be utilized before I waste hours of my time.
I really don't understand your level of pessimism. I find it highly disrespectful to the coders who are volunteers and have sacrificed their time to bring you a decent product. We do not owe you features. Send us some money, then you can get pissy when stuff you want doesn't get in.
To everyone else, the cockpit will be a separate model, probably specified in a tbl file. The reasoning for this is that most of the ship is not visible from the cockpit, so you only want to model the stuff that is visible, and not have to cull a bunch of useless polygons every frame (most of the rear of the ship).
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Cockpits are only really useful when you can set up the HUD on a per-ship basis (location of the various HUD elements, like radar, lists and such).
Shh. Don't complain. I've been toying with putting a cocpit in the Shrike, and possibly a few other TVWP ships. Like you saw in my T******i. :) And you wanted one on the people's fighter, right? (Really bad code there)
-
well give us a sample model and we will work on this once 3.6 is done. its kinda hard to do things that require models when the only thing i can model is a cube/shpere/other simple primative
-
Originally posted by Sticks
The other side is that 50% of the features we put in never get used so I'm asking for some proof that this is going to be utilized before I waste hours of my time.
I really don't understand your level of pessimism. I find it highly disrespectful to the coders who are volunteers and have sacrificed their time to bring you a decent product. We do not owe you features. Send us some money, then you can get pissy when stuff you want doesn't get in.
To everyone else, the cockpit will be a separate model, probably specified in a tbl file. The reasoning for this is that most of the ship is not visible from the cockpit, so you only want to model the stuff that is visible, and not have to cull a bunch of useless polygons every frame (most of the rear of the ship).
Proof? What do you want, a signed contract? How the hell can anybody give a proof for something like that? I know that I always use cockpit views in games ( save for Freelancer coz it was unplayable ), that in car games I always view the inside view, etc. Now, for other peoples, I don't know.
My level of pessimism comes from the outcome of every thread about 3d cockpits...
As for the thing, I don't care if the HUD infos are not reflected on the cockpit, for now. Tha's not the point. For now, I want a cockpit, and,if possible, a padlock view. And you NEED the full ship for a padlock view.
As for the useless parts not seen, well, so what? Performance hit? ca't be more than the third person view, right?
Anyway, all that is useless, for now, I'm just asking for a view from the ships point of view that would show the ship as well, just one more cycle to the "*" key ( or the "/" one, don't remember ). That's all, I'm not asking for anything more fancy, no custom HUD, no info reflected on the cockpit mesh, nothing.
Anyway, about the cockpit mesh on it's own, if someone really wanna look at that way of doing things, I have the ezechiel cockpit on it's own, as a 3ds file, uploaded, check my sig. Would need the pilot removed ( you can see a weird poly on the top of my cocpkit in the screen*shot I posted above, it's not a glitch of the cokcpit, it's the underside of the pilot's chin :p ) and the thing conerted to pof.
That's good enough for a test cockpit if you ask me.
-
Also Sticks, you may find that number has increased somewhat lately, since this 'break' from new features has given, at least in my case, a chance to catch up with getting some of my Mods up to SCP quality. I suspect you will also find a lot of heavy use of the 'good stuff' in internal forums for projects.
I can assure you that the work you are putting in IS being used and appreciated. I suppose it ought to be bourne in mind that most of the campaigns were pretty much hammered into shape storywise before the SCP started coming along in leaps and bounds, so we are all quietly re-writing our campaigns to include the new features ;)
You and everyone elses hard work IS being used and IS being appreciated :)
I don't tend to use cockpits, but if the option is there to have them, I don't see why I wouldn't create them ;)
Edit : From memory, TI is using....
HT&L Hi-poly abilities.
DDS, TGA & JPG support.
Updated beam and turret weapon features, such as Shotgun etc.
A whole bunch of new Sexp's
Glow/Spec maps
Skyboxes
Alpha Transparency
Table updates (new species abilities etc)
Increased Subsystem allowance.
HT&L's clipping forgiveness ;)
And a few I've forgotten.
Plan to implement
Glowpoints
Rotating Turret barrels
A few other 'things' ;)
Still looking forward to :-
Cloaking in Direct3D.
Side mounted rotating turrets.
A whole bunch of other possible ideas that won't be requested till post 3.6 ;)
-
Originally posted by Raa Tor'h
Shh. Don't complain. I've been toying with putting a cocpit in the Shrike, and possibly a few other TVWP ships. Like you saw in my T******i. :) And you wanted one on the people's fighter, right? (Really bad code there)
Yes, but *that* is something different all together :rolleyes:
-
I don't care. :p
-
Here are some cockpit screens for the Star Fury internal cockpit view.
(http://b5.madaboutgames.com/cockpit1.jpg)
(http://b5.madaboutgames.com/cockpit3.jpg)
(http://b5.madaboutgames.com/cockpit4.jpg)
It was modelled in Max, so if someone wants to do the code for it it should be mint ref - [url]http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,6605.msg109767.html#msg109767 are the actual screens from the series
(http://b5.madaboutgames.com/cockpitpic1.jpg)
:D
-
what game is that from?..
-
I can tell it's FS2. Just look at the thrusterglow ;)
-
That's FS2...?:eek2:
-
it isn't since we don't have cockpits yet.
-
the image looks like a movie capture to me.
-
Well, the Omega certainly looks like TBP version. But other than that, I can't believe that's FS :eek2:
(the second planet screams lunarcell! :D )
-
Why can't freespace loook like that... :(
-
It's The Babylon prequel, I've Found Her. There's a thread in the main forums ;)
-
That just looks like fs2 screens with the cockpit renders pasted on.
-
Doesn't look like FS2 at ALL (FS2 looks much better :D).
But Nico's is real. It's not a real cockpit, just a third person view, with the camera situated in another Ezchiel's cockpit (read his post! :D)
-
Its Screenshots from fs2 (tbp mod). The cockpit is a low poly model (3dmax).
(http://b5.madaboutgames.com/wire1.jpg)
(http://b5.madaboutgames.com/wire2.jpg)
After the next release I`ll be able to work more on cockpits. Now we have shown that a good chase view can be implimented with good effect, then the cockpit view should work in the same fashion. Thanks to glow maps, shinemaps and other enhancments the cockipt should look the same as the shots. Given time time we may be able to implement cetain parts of the Hud onto cetrain polys or faces of an object eg. with the radar view in fs2/tbp. After the next release.
(http://b5.madaboutgames.com/cockpit4.jpg)
After the next release. ;)
-
If you're going to include a cockpit over a hud, especially one as ugly as that, please for the love of god make it optional.
I haven't seen a single GOOD (FS1 or FS2 Standard) Space Flight Sim, or Flight sim, that has a damned cockpit.
Reason;
Sometimes Realism Ruins Fun.
-
I am certain that it will be optional, just as every single other FSO feature is :)
Actually, as mad said, it's a low-poly model, yes, the texturing needs work, but this doesn't need to be the finished article, all that's needed at the moment is something acceptable to work with in testing :)
-
All the features are optional, but if a model is in the database does SCP have the ability to turn a model off? (One that's being programmed to replace the HUD?)
I know it can turn MODS on and off (buggy feature?), but...?
Questionage :P
-
Hmmmmmmmm.. I would have thought, from a very limited programmers point of view, it's just a question of.....
IF Cockpits=TRUE --->> Render Cockpit with HUD
IF Cockpits=FALSE -->> Render normal HUD.
Though, of course, that's about as over-simplified as one can get ;)
-
and thats all it is, but people make it out to be a big deal :rolleyes:
-
The Pseudo Code is easy to understand, point is though will FS2 like that for POFs?
I really don't know the ins and outs of SCP / Open Source FS2, I will say that right now ;)
I can code though, and I understand how limited some game engines are, if it really is as simple as that fine but if it's not that simple .. and is like Lighty's weapon changes then it'd be a mild annoyance (because lighty's changes there mean I have to move the folder every time I want to try the nettest build since SCP doesn't recognise me "Turning it off.") .
I suppose I could go personally delete the tbl/pof but meh.
I felt the HUD was one of the nicer parts of FS2, one thing it had over other games.
It was complex and simple at the same time, DIDNT OBSTRUCT VIEW WITH UGLY MODELS and gave me absolutely everything I needed to know without any bull :P
Just my view.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
If you're going to include a cockpit over a hud, especially one as ugly as that, please for the love of god make it optional.
I haven't seen a single GOOD (FS1 or FS2 Standard) Space Flight Sim, or Flight sim, that has a damned cockpit.
Reason;
Sometimes Realism Ruins Fun.
Wing Commander. Tie Fighter. X-Wing.
...need I say more?
As for the optional thing, I agree. It would help users shave just that much more polycount out of thier screen, for slower pc's...
And that looks like the Babylon 5 fighter cockpit. All of them are ugly. :p
-
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder is it not??
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
.. and is like Lighty's weapon changes then it'd be a mild annoyance (because lighty's changes there mean I have to move the folder every time I want to try the nettest build since SCP doesn't recognise me "Turning it off.") .
you sure you're doing it right?
make a new folder like
c:\games\Freespace2\evilMOD\data\ and put the files there
now if you select "\evilMOD" from the launcher as a mod directory it will use them, if you use 'no Mod' it will not find the folder and thus use the retail data.
-
I haven't seen a single GOOD (FS1 or FS2 Standard) Space Flight Sim, or Flight sim, that has a damned cockpit.
Reason;
Sometimes Realism Ruins Fun.
Sometimes realism adds more atmosphere thus adding to fun.
A first person shooter - can you see a weapon or hand?? And that tells you you are looking out the eyes of the character thus identifying with the weapon in hand. If you play the game and it doesn`t have a weapon or anything similar then how can it relate? Realism - if you where walking down a corridor with your rifle pointing down the corridor, would you see the rifle? It doesn`t spoil the fun - it helps create more.
If you are in a cockpit of a star fury, would you see the frame? Is it wise to assume that if a game has a cockpit view then it shows too much realism taking away the fun?
FS2 is a space combat SIMULATION, what is a simulation? realism or fun? It has both elements! So is it fair to say Realism ruins fun? or is it a contradiction? ;)
-
and, one more time, for those that have reading issues:
"EVERY FEATURE WILL BE OPTIONAL AND OFF BY DEFAULT."
-
Meh, just make it possible to turn it off - everybodys happy - problem solved :)
-
I still dont see why we cant just do it the way Nico already has.
Despite that, I made one too.
HERE (http://www.villagephotos.com/viewpubimage.asp?id_=8633545&selected=865212)
-
If it's just a flag to turn it off fine, I wont argue it's implementation as a feature, since, for some bizarre reason people like it.
Manic;
I said "Good" Games.
Madabout;
If you ever play against me, or, even with me in a multiplayer build, or on vanilla FS2, you will see exactly, why I make the comments I do in terms of realism.
normal flight sims with gravity bore me, because they're too slow, too easy, too predictable, have easy to calculate limits and of course, are far more limited than games which decide realism isn't, all that important.
Of course some people like realism, hense the whole UT/Quake vs HL/CS/OFP etc.
Don't get me wrong, some genres benefit, greatly from realism, but generally speaking it is of my .......experienced, oppinion, the further "Flight" Simulators are from true realism, the better off they are.
Haven't you ever, ever stopped to question why most Space Sims/Flight Sims are NEVER EVER near the top or at the top of the chart?
Cuz most of them are obsessed with real physics/astetics, and, to the common and the most elitist gamers, boring to hell.
FreeSpace has absolutely no realsim to it;
Subspace,
Alpha 1's performances,
Ship Physics,
Missile Physics,
Science,
The list goes on.
Most of that, is what made the game good.
Again;
If you ever see me fly an eri, perse, or even an MK1 -- You'll know why I say realism = as fun limiting as it is imagination limiting.
¬.¬
-
The very good thing about FS2 is that practically everything is possible with a bit of skill & practice ;)
I know no other game where you could possible become so intouchable / unbeatable as in FS.
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
The very good thing about FS2 is that practically everything is possible with a bit of skill & practice ;)
I know no other game where you could possible become so intouchable / unbeatable as in FS.
Bingo in two lines ;)
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
Don't get me wrong, some genres benefit, greatly from realism, but generally speaking it is of my .......experienced, oppinion, the further "Flight" Simulators are from true realism, the better off they are.
"breathes"
[SIZE=10]BULL****[/SIZE]
Don't you go and take your darn tastes as a rule.
Geez, pisses me off.
From my "experienced opinion" ( :rolleyes: ), plain shooters get boring very fast, that's why we're modding FS2, btw.
-
...
...
... did he just say Tie Fighter wasn't a good game?
-
Yes, he did.
Then again, he hasn't seen a good star wars game for it's time that has/had more than 8 colours.
Since every game they've brought out was either;
Crap that sold simply because of it's liscence.
Crap that sold simply because of it's liscence.
An actually semi-decent game that got killed by idiots whining and patches being implemented to nerf the crap out of everything.
mmkay?
Me No Likie Lucas Arts.
It's the reason KOTOR is actually paletable.... since Lucas kept his damn hands off it.
As for plain shooters, Nico;
Come fly with me on PXO.
See if you call vanilla FS2 Plain after that.
There are far more levels to this game than most of the people who frequent this forum are capable of producing ¬.¬
edit;
Before anyone *****es;
I'm refering to piloting skill not mission/model/program design.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
If it's just a flag to turn it off fine, I wont argue it's implementation as a feature, since, for some bizarre reason people like it.
Manic;
I said "Good" Games.
Madabout;
If you ever play against me, or, even with me in a multiplayer build, or on vanilla FS2, you will see exactly, why I make the comments I do in terms of realism.
normal flight sims with gravity bore me, because they're too slow, too easy, too predictable, have easy to calculate limits and of course, are far more limited than games which decide realism isn't, all that important.
Of course some people like realism, hense the whole UT/Quake vs HL/CS/OFP etc.
Don't get me wrong, some genres benefit, greatly from realism, but generally speaking it is of my .......experienced, oppinion, the further "Flight" Simulators are from true realism, the better off they are.
Haven't you ever, ever stopped to question why most Space Sims/Flight Sims are NEVER EVER near the top or at the top of the chart?
Cuz most of them are obsessed with real physics/astetics, and, to the common and the most elitist gamers, boring to hell.
¬.¬
If flight sims bore you, then you're obviously not playing them right. Flight sims are all ABOUT the limits. Unlike FS, which doesn't have any limits on your movements, I think flight sims are MUCH harder, mostly because you actually have to know what you're doing. If that's not your cup of tea, well, turn down the realism level. But think about it, if you're playing a Flight "sim" then what's the point of doing that? It's about simulating actual flight.
The thing about FS2 is that it's all about gunnery skills. There's no lateral movement, and it's all about putting crosshairs on target. Don't get me wrong, that's fun, but that's a different experience from a flight sim, and you can't really compare the two. A flight sim is all about taming your envireoment, and using it to your advantage, pushing your aircraft as far as it can go, and then going one step further, all in the name of getting behind that bandit.
-
normal flight sims with gravity bore me, because they're too slow, too easy, too predictable, have easy to calculate limits and of course, are far more limited than games which decide realism isn't, all that important.
If you've ever taken a 9G split-S and planned out your angles and speed in just a way that you have those few seconds to select your radar MFD, select the proper target, and launch that last AIM-120 right up your bogie's tailpipe (Falcon 4.0) AND can still call that easy and slow (and the worst offense of all, limited), I pity you. Many real life pilots would disagree.
That, my friend, is an excellent sim.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
If flight sims bore you, then you're obviously not playing them right. Flight sims are all ABOUT the limits.
As I explained in my post.
It's those limits that bore me.
It makes my opponents even MORE Predictable and easy to prey on than in FS.
They limit themselves too easily, whilst I will occasionally do things like control stall or airbreak / flap stop to get the upper hand.
Simple, simple games because they follow rules.
Rules make things easy.
Easy makes things boring.
Unlike FS, which doesn't have any limits on your movements, I think flight sims are MUCH harder, mostly because you actually have to know what you're doing.
Irony is with this, if you know what you're doing they're infinitely more boring because, as I have said a few times now if you don't seem to get it you will with this post, knowing the limits means you win, period.
Skill is purely and simply ability to calculate more than just ability to adapt.
Even the most advanced of the jet fighter sims which have actual Close To RL-dog fight engagement rules as BORING.
If that's not your cup of tea, well, turn down the realism level.
That's what FS is for.
But think about it, if you're playing a Flight "sim" then what's the point of doing that? It's about simulating actual flight.
Hense, I don't play them anymore.
AirForce Pilots go through how much training?
And most of that is the technical side of things.
Since the technical side is removed and you don't need to waltz around like a panzi for an hour and a half checkin your aircraft before you fly a mission, it's not realistic, and it's not something that's all that close to reality in most respects other than the physics, which uhh...is the thing which makes the game predictable.... theme coming through..?
Your opponent comes at you, can only do one of a few things, fights normally over (IRL/In Realistic Simulations) before you even approach visual range.
Fun! ¬.¬
The thing about FS2 is that it's all about gunnery skills.
LOL :)
I invite you to take any ship you like, I will not fire at you, you may use as many reloads as you like, and weapons you like, until you give up and admit that is a flaw in itself.
There's no lateral movement, and it's all about putting crosshairs on target.
Heh, plenty of it if you know how to get the fighters to do it.
Then again IIRC on Vanilla FS2 Lightspeed, Myself and a few other pilots are capable of forcing the ships to break their "Speed Limits" because of the way the game works.
You can get them to go faster than their afterburner will bring them to max...
----
Heh, Like I said, levels you guys mostly aren't even aware of.
Don't get me wrong, that's fun, but that's a different experience from a flight sim, and you can't really compare the two.
Uhuh.
They're two different styles of game.
Same rules govern most games, though.
Heh, Being good at FS2 is, in my books;
Being able to out turn everything.
Being aware of what EVERY SINGLE SHIP Regardless of numbers, on the battle field, is doing at any one moment in time, enemy and friendly.
Being able to dodge an infinite amount of missiles coming in from multiple angles without using counter measures.
Being able to hit people with primaries and secondaries whilst evading these missiles.
Being able to manage shields and energy systems including the emergency dump command in these situations.
Being able to Setup up kills for other people by making an enemies flight path predictable, since they're following your own.
Being able to force your enemies to collide into eachother resulting in eventual death or unfavourable fighting positions whilst in a more than 2v1 situation.
Being able to accurately predict your enemy.
Being able to CONTROL Your enemy.
Being able to read your enemies mind from how he/she is flying.
Being able to deal with any tactic no matter how "cheap" they are that your enemy can throw at you.
Being able to tactically prepair for ANY SITUATION and given the correct resources for the mission (EG; One human Wingman), complete any mission within reason (Some objectives ARE impossible, like destroying a Sathanus with no missiles Trebuche up, or bombs).
The list goes on.
And I have only just touched on the GENERIC Good FS2 Pilot Qualities.
A flight sim is all about taming your envireoment, and using it to your advantage,
Heh, As I said, you're limited by your imagination when you play these games, it's not just about taming the environment, sometimes the random elements can be used to advantage as well, it doesn't always pay off, but, most of the time, shutting off your engines for no apparent reason and shoving on the ECM Jammers then firing off missiles tends to = People pwned from no where.
Just another little trick that worked in more than one game.
pushing your aircraft as far as it can go, and then going one step further, all in the name of getting behind that bandit.
....Different from FS how?
See list above.
Learn to turn an Eri faster than most people turn in a Perseus or a Uly and I'll begin to believe you know what you're talking about.
Sticks;
I stand by my comments.
Other than Falcon 4.0 (Which is ALRIGHT, like JP3 Mediocre) the last flight sim I enjoyed as a flight sim was F15frickinE Strike Eagle.
And, Yes, angles, speed, timing, radar ping, target adjustment, and firing is what I call simple, and slow, compared to the stuff I do in my Perseus.
-
Wow.
an0n and rictor no long share the "most arrogant dickhead" title.
-
Fly me.
Then make up your mind whether I am talking arrogence or conviction of confidence.
Thin Line.
One I walk regularly.
The difference is obvious though, the more you know of my character.
-
:lol:
What would that prove? That you're a tenth as good as you imagine yourself to be? Who cares? Its a GAME. Even if you're as good as you seem to think you are, you're good at a GAME. It has no meaning, no purpose, no importance. You'll still be an arrogant dickhead, but you'll be an arrogant dickhead who can play a video game.
Wheeeeee!
-
Ahh, feeling threatened now, heh.
Because I was more than willing to put my money where my mouth is?
Arrogance is;
The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree.
Where have I said anyone is worthless because they can't fly?
Thanks but You be wrong.
Lightspeed is capable of confirming these traits whether he agrees with me this much on this issue or not, simply because he is capable of displaying them as well.
He has also seen me display them on multiple occasions, including when I haven't played the game for over a year -- first time back.
Arrogant isn't the word, find another one, whether it be insulting or not, should you find a definition that is actually correct, I'll tell you.
Since you don't know me, how can you judge me?
If you were going by the strictest (above) definition of arrogant, that would actually be what you just displayed, in your posts above.
Since, they have no content, other than flames.
Cheers.
edit;
btw, just incase you do mis-read the above definition I'd like to point out on of the keywords in it that maybe skipped and would change the meaning of said definition.
Exorbitant;
Exceeding all bounds, as of custom or fairness: exorbitant prices.
-
AirForce Pilots go through how much training?
A lot.
And most of that is the technical side of things.
No. Knowing a number of actual pilots I would say it's about 50/50. However, how much technical knowledge do you need to pilot a Perseus? The answer is, of course, zero. So, how can you call these things simple?
Display of prowess in an arcade shoot em up is not grounds for calling an obviously vastly deeper sim "bad."
I would even argue that you have far more limits in FS2 due to the simplistic nature of the physics and weaponry. Anyone can sit around and evade missiles all day long in FS. Arcade sims tactics generally consist of a simple "how fast can I jam my joystick in direction x," which, while fun, are certainly what I would call simple. There's no real thinking involved.
None of this is to say that there aren't valid strategies at times. However, the depth and breadth of true flight sims require that you be on your feet at all times. It's not a matter of you having more kills than the next guy, it's about not getting killed...ever...all the while running through your head everything that you need to be worrying about. AA, SAM sites, other bogies, radar prescence, contact with your group, aerodynamic issues (speed, altitude, angles), etc. Surely none of this is "simple."
-
I think the problem is that he likes fast-paced games (like FS2) and thinks that games that make you think (like most heavy flight sims I've tried) are too slow. Probably because they, in general, are a lot slower than FS2. Because FS2 is an arcade game and is very, very unrealistic, with players able to kill huge numbers of enemy ships without being hit, much less shot down. Meanwhile, in a realistic flight sim, the gameplay is both slower and generally less 'intense' - there are less badguys to kill. This is good, because each of those badguys is harder to kill because of the limits that are imposed upon you. At least, that's how it is in a decent realistic flight sim.
Note that I'm not trying to say anything bad about anyone, either Quantum Delta or Sticks. Just that QuantumDelta likes a different type of game than Sticks. And that's perfectly acceptable. It also means that this entire conversation doesn't matter at all, not to mention being completely off-topic.
-
Originally posted by QuantumDelta
Ahh, feeling threatened now, heh.
Because I was more than willing to put my money where my mouth is?
Feeling threatened? no. Feeling annoyed because you're a prick, yes. You can "put your money where your mouth is" all you want, that doesn't make the opinions you express gospel.
Since you don't know me, how can you judge me?
I can judge you on the only yardstick that matters: the attitude you portray here. You're a prick, and yes, indeed, an arrogant one.
arrogant: having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride; "an arrogant official"; "arrogant claims"; "chesty as a peacock"
I'd say your prior behavior picks you out as 'showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride', indeed.
-
Ok, ok. Enough with the personal attacks. I can see having disagreements about genres, but the personal attacks are not needed. And, as Langy pointed out, this is all completely a thread hijack anyhow.
-
Well I just miss the reasoning behind the fact that since QD is ( supposed to be ) good in multi, shooters are better than sims :doubt:
So, a good game, by the reasoning behind your posts, is a game that offers no challenge when you've mastered it? Sorry, a game like that is not a good game to me, it's a game that goes straight to the trash bin and he's replaced with something else.
I'm modding FS2 coz I don't like how it is anymore, I don't like the Look, the plot, and how it plays. What I still like ( love ) is that what we don't like, we can change. And for my part, I want a more realistic FS2. And I believe I'm not the only one.
And a more realistic FS2, to me, needs stuff like 3d cockpits. And then I ( and others probably ) will keep bugging the poor SCP dudes to get other things that go into the same mindset, things that you won't like.
There's a few things in the SCP I don't like, you see, the thing is, NOTHING forces me to use them, since they can be turned off. I never complained about those, actually, I even said everything should be turned on by default, regardless of if I like them or not ( well, now that I can actually TRY the SCP - new PC, yeah! -, I realise turning options on is really no big deal, so heh ).
So if you don't like that, Just ignore the damn thread, coz your pain ( and ours, in extention :doubt: ) is not gonna stop anytime soon.
Oh, and stop writing half sentences and jumping a line, your freagin posts are bigger than my screen, and I'm in 1280*1024 :doubt:
-
Yeesh, calm down guys. If you want to discuss something as off topic as this then go ahead, but this is all about 3D Cockpits and I don't see much talk of that lately.
It holds true for any feature of the SCP that if you don't like it, you can turn it off. If you really don't like something - simply request it be made an option, not a necessity, and let those who are interested in it battle out the differences of what they'd like to see in it.
And indeed, leave eachother alone :)
-
This thread is showing real signs of fraying. This thread is meant to be about 3d cockpits, how it could be implemented and constructive teamwork. Through no fault of my own it has turned into an arena!!!
If you are going to argue about realism, how it should have been or just how good you are!! I post messages and topics on this board for discussion, not slagin matches.
Sort it out and get down to business!!!
:hopping:
-
I've got a 3D cockpit that would be workable enough to put into FS2, so if the SCP guys do it, well, I'm ready for you.
Anyway, QD, you are so unbelievably wrong, it's not even funny.
Check out your list, if you read it, you'll see that most of that stuff is even HARDER in a flight sim, mostly because you have the ground, fuel, and ammo to look out for.
And you're blabbing about turning on your EM jammers and whatnot, and owning a guy from nowhere. Well, guess what? That doesn't mean you r0x0r his freaking b0x0rs, it just means he's not as aware as he should be. See, in FS, you can see up, down, all around you, with no limits whatsoever. Hell, you have that all-seeing eye radar. A flight sim requires much more concentration and situational awareness BECAUSE you don't have those tools to help you out.
And QD, the reason you're pissing everyone off is because you think you're oh so superior, and we are noooowhere near your skill level. Well, guess what? I've been able to make my fighters in FS2 do things that would make [V] cry, but you don't hear me bragging about it. Why? Because it's SO EASY TO DO. It's not even a challenge! When I used to play vanilla FS a bunch, I used to simply log in, blam, guy's dead, blam, guy's dead. (I never play vanilla FS anymore, so it's a different story now, tho).
See, the thing is, in FS, once you're good, you're pretty damn untouchable, but in a flight sim, it's all about skill. If you memorize all the tricks of the trade, exact countermeasure points, etc, you can pretty much kill anything and everything, but in a flight sim, you can be at the top of your game and STILL get shot down by a rookie pilot. Why? Because it's not all about GUNNERY. In FS2, tell me, how often have you needed anymore than a burst of AB to avoid a missile, on average? Not many, right?
In a flight sim, if you get a missle on your tail, well, hell, you're in serious trouble. It's not all about just hitting your AB and movin in a different direction. If that missile's coming for you, you better panic.
I'm starting to lose my train of thought here, so I better go, but you simply CAN NOT compare FS with a hardcore flight sim, like LOMAC, Jane's F-15, or F4.0.
-
EDIT: Whoops, double post.
As a side note: if you want to compare a sim and FS2, it's like comparing Ghost Recon and UT2k4.
-
You lost your train of thought so much you forgot you posted already :p
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
It holds true for any feature of the SCP that if you don't like it, you can turn it off. If you really don't like something - simply request it be made an option, not a necessity, and let those who are interested in it battle out the differences of what they'd like to see in it.
I doubt you even need to ask for that. With the exception of HTL almost all the changes the SCP have introduced are optional AND off by default.
Don't want 3D cockpits? Don't tick the box in the launcher. I'd bet money the SCP have the brains to make it that simple. :)
-
UT - Some of those limitations is precisely what I'm talking about.
Like I said if you want a challenge in FS2, especially since your last post actually grabbed my attention, come try.
Believe it or not, I have the most fun if I'm losing a match.
I myself haven't logged in for a while, yet, I'm still just as good as the best person who is currently still playing.
When BD and I were working as a team, we were easily and obviously, much more than the next best four pilots on pxo in a 2v4 situation (We asked the FZ Team to make a 6vs6 or 2vs4-10 Multi mission for us....didn't work some weird errors with people respawning in ulys...).
Langy got the point;
I find games with limitations, just that, limiting, slow paced, less reliant on skill more reliant on knowledge of the game and it's physics.
Sticks;
You didn't understand that;
Even by your own admission (which I don't really think is all that true, these days, with the F22s and Especially B2s, it's most definately more heavily based on technical/equipment, because specifically with aircraft like the B2 use technologies like those planes, computers, fly the plane most of the time under direction of humans. F22s are slightly more manual, however there is still a dominant technical side over a dog fighting/skill/reaction time side), is at least 50/50, so your beautiful "in depth" simtulations of "real life" instantly lose FIFTY PERCENT of what they claim to be.
Some Wannabe big kids running around in simulations of high priced equipment pretending to be the airmen they know they never can be.
Everything they're incapable of doing is because they can't think outside the box the game has put before them, obviously, it's down to the limits in the physics, planes aren't supposed to be able to do things like that.
Or "You cheat, you use 9g stunts to avoid missiles WAHHHHHH EXPLOITER" and general other bull**** ¬.¬
I mean.
UT Your comment reminded me of a Certain PXO Clan Leader who told me I don't fly very well, who told me I fly in a way that takes no skill.
When I asked them why, they told me because I just avoid all the missiles then hit.
I asked them what I'd have to do to prove I was better, they didn't have an answer.
Simple reasoning tells me they're talking crap because they know they can't match my missile evasion or my close range prethought/reactions.
Or reminds me of some stupid child on CS at the LAN Arena my RL friends frequent -- "Stop camping." "....We have the bomb planted...we're supposed to guard it....?" "You're camping, leave the bomb so I can defuse it damnit!" ¬.¬
To me, in this one specific genre, and oddly enough no other genre, realism = boredom due to limitations.
Still have fond memories of flying military RAF Pilots at a flight simulator at one of the airshows we have nearish my home city, completely pwning them into the dirt so far as soon as they shook my hand and mumbled something about impossible manuvers, ran off.
I found out later, because they were flying how you would fly a real aircraft, and I was flying a game, I was winning instantly, because they weren't pulling turns at the speed you WOULD pull turns because they didn't want the game blacking out or something similar.
Excuses from warriors of the air that got pwned by a 15 year old kid and his mate.
... Wah.
Depth?
Those games have no real depth ¬.¬
The issue for me was resolved as soon as people started mentioning the fact that, this too would be a feature that could be turned off, when you guys were talking about smacking models straight into the directory I figured you were working on it for a default option.
Since Madabout is brand spankingly new around here I wanted to make ONE HUNDRED Percent sure it wasn't going in as default.
UT;
Three people out of the history of PXO Pilots are on my tier level, or near enough to it to make me consider them fun in one on one.
I trained two of them.
The other uses exact copies of MY Techniques that he developed himself after fighting with/against me several dozen times.
So please don't think I'm talking about newbies being smacked around online ;)
-
....please give it a rest....
-
so your beautiful "in depth" simtulations of "real life" instantly lose FIFTY PERCENT of what they claim to be.
I really don't know what logic you haved used to come to this conclusion. My beautiful in depth simulations model these technical features as well.
Yes, the F22 is very computerised, however, it's still you and the stick and the plane. The computer's influence is limited to interpreting your control inputs (as the aerodynamics of the plane are very complex). The B2 is more like a civilian airplane with bombs, at least in the way you would fly it (using mostly an autopilot).
because they weren't pulling turns at the speed you WOULD pull turns because they didn't want the game blacking out or something similar.
If this was the case, YOU would have blacked out in-game and lost. The whole explanation makes no sense. Probably it was a military type-sim that doesn't model these things, which is irrelevant to this conversation.
-
QD, it takes a lot more skill to fly correctly in a flight sim, just because of those limitations you keep talking about. Because of those limitations, you have to learn to go around or avoid them, thus making you a better pilot than you could be by simply rotating your craft on a dime and putting the guns on target.
And when you talk about breaking FS's limitations, well, that's all well and good, but have you ever tried breaking a flight sim's? I remember I once managed to stall my Me-109 in mid-air, hovering like a helicopter, in IL-2 Sturmovik.
Anyway, I don't want to play against you, because I know you're better than me, for several reasons. One you play FS2 a lot, I don't (I just mod). One you play vanilla FS2 a lot, I don't (I just play my mod, which would be interesting to get a multiplayer test together ;)), and three, I'm still not acustomed (spelling?) to FS2 mplayer lag.
But if you would like to try me in my mod, then that would be fun :D I need to get it tested for multiplayer anyway :D
-
I see this thread being locked in...
5...
4....
3...
2...
-
Blablabla.
Just ignore him for the time being.
-
let's lock this and start a new 3D cockpit thread.
-
UT - Monday or Sunday sounds good.
An'... tonight was the first time I'd played FS in over 3 months, and I haven't played FS in 18months regularly ;)
I'll be more then happy to help ya test ya mod though
-
in b4 t3h l0ck!
-
Meh, if you want something done...:doubt: