homepage Forums Read Only Forums Read Only Forums Knights Over Europe (Read Only) A poll........will this satisfy your KOE expectations?

This would have great immersive effect!

"Bit part" missions sounds like a good idea, and these could be enabled thru lone-wolf/frei-jagd mission tasking (or by teaming up with an AI wingman too).

Of course free-lance flying will have to originate from some aerodrome, and any victories scored by free-lancers online could cull enemy carrer pilots I suppose!

Perhaps there's some mechanism which would keep free-lancers from flying reoccurring "death-wish" missions aimed only at attriting enemy career players without risk or penalties?

Wouldn't want this to lead to any potentially unbecoming conduct from the get-go.

While all things are not created equal, I think that a sound based sim is required with:
- realistic FM
- pilot life cycles for campaigns
- period based, timeline for aircraft releases, stop Camel/Dr.I shooting down older aircraft
- freeflight to do partols as such
- both on and off-line playing
- AI for both off and on-line playing
- good graphics (unable for those with lower spec systems)
- good after release mod packs, both communitity and supplier based
- easy tool set for import and export of models and textures
- based on cheap 3D toos, such as AC3D, gmax and others
- Detailed development guides and examples

Most you see is focused around the development to allow for a long term growth of the sim over time.

Good stuff Dantes!

Hey Mossie, sounds like you could have written this already yourself:

-easy tool set for import and export of models and textures
- based on cheap 3D toos, such as AC3D, gmax and others
- Detailed development guides and examples

Wait, you already did!

Some people are going to be a-holes on public servers no matter what or at least I've come to believe that. The only real solution is to do your serious play with people you know and trust. Thta is why the customers must be able to run the server software.

A couple of other "features":

-- able to run on a lan for those who can get together for no-lag lan parties (send the spouses off somewhere).

-- able to run back to back on a null modem serial cable for those homes with 2 PC's.

One thing that would really cook is if the server runs the AI's and if the server runs on a lan then the other lan PC's can run more AI's or run them better. Even peer to peer if each players PC only runs a share of the AI's then they would either be less loaded or have more CPU cycles and resources for the AI's.


Neal

LOL.........my spouse enjoys keeping us all down here.......until we just have to take those potty breaks between sessions, and then it's a mass rush for the upstairs!

If not RB, what does this mean "if the following features make up the only improvements included"? Improvements over what? If it means Rb, I can not answer since I do not know RB good enough.

Why can't someone create simply a good sim without comparing it to some other sim

Aspect has already stated they are not putting in 100 planes. So unless they have changed their minds, forget the 100 planes.

The thing I like about the Falcon 4 campaign is that no matter what you are doing, the campaign is moving along.

That may work for the KOE campaign that lets you influence the war.

Thank you Osram:

Now finally, this thread can move forward......by going back to the future!

I guess reviewing elemental principles can always prove to be helpful when thinking about advancing the state of art of any endeavor, it's the ole getting back to basics approach that forms the fundamental basis for almost all organized thought.

As far as designing a WWI combat flight sim is concerned, I guess getting back to basics would first involve reviewing the source materials on the subject matter, working up a case study on the period, and then prioritizing those elements that seem essential towards reaching the goal of producing a good simulation model for replicating the era's aerial warfare. Of course design compromises will always creep into the formula, but the principle goal is to achieve the greatest degree of accuracy and fidelity as is possible, while maintaining playability and promoting the sim's fun factor.

What's all this have to do with Aspect's upcoming Knights Over Europe combat simulation............KOE's level of achievement should be compared to how well the sim comes to achieving an authentic feel for this era's aerial combat, and within an immersive and smoothly running game experience.

There's really only one standard to which KOE needs to be compared............and that's merely to history itself!!!

Just thinking.............

In the context of a discussion where the vast majority are familiar with Red Baron, the term "an RB style campaign" is an awful lot quicker than the two pages of exposition about the sort of campaign I would like that I had to write in order to explain it!

Besides, it's naturaly to compare; before I buy a DVD player I compare its features with other DVD players. I've flown lots of sims; consequently I know what I like and what I don't like in sims. I can't just delete that knowledge.

Rob

No, and it is stupid to try to delete that knowledge. Fact is, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel every time someone makes a new sim. It is frustrating when someone tries to do it a new way and it is worse than an old way everyone agrees was great to begin with.

It's egotistical to think you can improve on perfection by "forgeting the past on doing it MY way."

Of course, KOE will do it their way and if they are smart they will not delete the knowledge of what a great campaign Red Baron had and take that as a building block to improve from.

All great men stand on the shoulders of the great men that came before them. All great sims do likewise.

.....the wheel.....???

.....perfection.....???

.....great men.....???

What on earth are you talking about?

I'd have said that his post makes perfect sense, myself. "Improve on perfection" is hperbole, the RB campaign is far from perfect; but the basic principle, that in order to get something better *one* of the things you do is look hard at what was done well in the past, is self-evident.

Rob

Yes it is self-evident, and the point is if a simulation "seems" to replicate what a WWI pilot's flying experience might have been like from within a game format, it's because it does well to approximate what we may believe the history of the time might have felt like........therefore it is history that is the real test of "perfection"!

So is Aspect interested in simulating another simulation, or real history???

If we're all looking forward to the next WWI combat flight sim here (and isn't that the purpose)........that is to promote KOE's development, then isn't this forum somehow to enable an exchange of thoughts and ideas about the topic?

I've put forward some ideas about how our simulated flying and fighting experience within a game format might be enhanced thru creating a more intensive feel for what the WWI airman could have endured during combat...........thru creating a simulated pilot "entity".

I've also put forward some ideas about creating mission design (and campaigning) from a more in-depth, unit-oriented, multi-mechanism approach.

These are merely ideas, but one's which I've bolstered with quoted history, excerpts from published resources, and verbatim conversations I've had with real living experts in the field of WWI aviation..............I've defended my thesis
(with raw data)..........to me this approach is neither "weird", nor "obsessive", nor otherwise, but to be considered standard fare in the process of putting forth a position.

That's it in a nutshell.

Who knows what KOE will eventually look like when it's finally published, but from what we've seen, read, and hoped it looks like it'll be a vast improvement over previous endeavors in this area (that's the objective after all, the agenda).......right!!!

It does indeed make sense to look at what came before and learn from the good and bad points. However, IMHO there is a danger if you basically have one source of inspiration and say "I want to do a sim like xyz, but I want to change these three things". At least for people like me who do not have a strong phantasie, this can make it very difficult to think of different solutions. If I would put together people working on a WWI sim I would welcome people with RB experience, but I would also find it a good thing if one or two have NOT played RB and have a "fresh" mind. When I have to think about something and do not have the luxus of having a team, I often think about it at first before looking at the standard solution/app in that area and try to list basic approaches and different alternatives I can think about. Only then do I look at what has been done before. Also, I think a flight sim developer can learn from more or less all other flight sims and actually some completely different games as well.

from that list, very satisfied. Improved graphics are pretty much a given even compared to FCJ.

AK

Osram - I'd agree with every word of that, very sensible and balanced.

Rob

Are they? From the screenshots, the models are obviously better; no disrespect to the RB modelmakers, who in many cases (most notably Karel Dooms) are absolutely superb, but there's simply a higher polycount available and consequently more detail. But the artistry, in terms of the skins for the planes and the terrain, is well below FCJ level in my opinion.

Rob

Actually, I think the KOE skins are quite good:

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SAAAALcV8...434286707271314[/img]

Don't forget that things like dynamic lighting effects may render even more depth to the look of the sim beyond it's present state of build. I haven't seen skin detail like this from too many other retail WWI sim packages:

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SADbArAVK...436648644833882[/img]

Perhaps it depends on how close you actually want to get to the subject matter to make your comparison:

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TADbAscXO...434286628428440[/img]

Art is very subjective though, and I do like Kess's skins very much too, but maybe we should reserve our judgement a bit until we get those "in your face" screenshots that tell no lies!

You evidently have access to screenshots I don't. From the ones you have posted I can say three things:

1) The models are considerably more detailed (as one would expect) which will make a huge difference, particularly in damage detailing.

2) The paint scheme of the DrI is of FCJ standard; the DH4 isn't.

3) The gun, while pretty, is largely irrelevant; never get close enough to see those details in game.

I was working from the screens on their page - the skins (and again I emphasise I'm only talking about the skins - the models & damage effects look great and are way out of RB's league) on planes like these:




just don't look as good to me as the FCJ equivalents.

Rob

I would say that those skins look MUCH more hi-res and detailed than the FCJ skins... They may not be weathered yet, but they have much more detail (You obviously have more detail on a skin that's 1024x1024 in size that Red Barons allocated 256x256 max texture size...)

As for the gun, you will get close enough to see that! It's called the cockpit. Now for viewing outside, they will no doubt have a lower poly count model for that to save on frame rate...

Again, the skins do look polished, but they are detailed down to the rid indents. Just slap on some weathering, and they will have it! Look at the smoothness of the roundel, and the fine lines on the fuselage and the wings. These IMO are very important details. Try making a roundel look that good with Red Baron. You cant!