my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Jets   » Re-inventing the wheel

   
Author Topic: Re-inventing the wheel
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 12-29-1999 06:48 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Why are flight sim developers always so damn obsessed with reinventing the wheel? There are so many older sims which could be redone as totally new and kickass games. Consider:

-Fighters Anthology with updated graphics.
-Gunship 2000 with updated graphics, better AI, and damage modeling.
-Falcon3 with updated graphics (I'm referring to F3 in its final patched state, that is)
-JSF with more weapons and a dynamic campaign. Heck JSF wouldn't even need a graphics update and it would still kick *** over anything out there today.

Who wouldn't buy these sims? I'd buy 'em all. Sims don't have to be so expensive to make if these developers would stop trying to reinvent the wheel every time they make a sim. I'm sick of new, cutting edge sims that don't work. Give me a modern re-hash of a proven sim and I'll be happy.


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Judge
unregistered

posted 12-29-1999 06:59 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I think you're seeing the past through nostalgia coloured glasses. Sure those games were great, for their time. However, no matter how thorough a facelift you give them, their underlying fundamentals (flight modeling, avionics, AI, environment) are primitive in comparison to modern sims.
S.

IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 12-29-1999 09:10 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Not true. AI in both FA and JSF were far superior to any of the sims that came after them. And the mission builder in FA was simply the best ever. USAF tried to be a modern FA and failed miserably. The AI is worse, the flight modeling is worse, and the mission builder is worse. The only thing Jane's improved was the graphics. It's a shame.

Similiarly, I haven't found a sim yet to surpass the fluidity and sense of speed of the JSF graphics engine. Simply outstanding. Why was this fine engine discarded, when it would have worked so brilliantly in a game like Falcon4 or USAF? I would think licensing it from Innerloop would be a hell of a lot faster and cheaper than building a new one from scratch.

We complain about the dearth of flightsims as if its all our fault but these developers are too blame also, for their inefficiency.


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 12-29-1999 11:59 PM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Sounds like we need Chuck Yeagers Air Combat 2 based on the JSF engine.
Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member
Member # 358

posted 12-30-1999 01:42 AM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Franchise, Win-Failure, Translation.

Hey MB, If you discard a game to the secondline (multipackage, techsupport from 'hunh?') then you can continue to collect on royalties.

If you sell the conceptuals for redevelopment then you've got a competitor with YOUR 'Falcon 4' for instance.

If your 'new' game then falls flat on it's face you're dumped R&D is, /perhaps/, significant compared to the old. Even a victory may be more-marginal because you're outlay is greater and the other guy can come in sooner, advertise better, deyaddayadda Market Cuss Word Here.

Certainly your profit margin can swing wildly depending on how well the name sells vs. how 'been there, done that' the buying cattle are of a momentary mindset to react on.

Despite all our naysaying, marketing is important part of the commercial end of things and one of the basics of marketing is that you don't saturate with mixed generation choices, only new ones (upgrade! upgrade! .

Lastly, translation. There may not be much left in the way of original documentation on the machine interface, let alone the basic gaming (AI, campaign drivers etc.) for the designs like F3.

Personally, I've always been suspicious that most of the high level coders never even see the module 'systems engineers' that tack on strategy and GUI to their basic engines.

That means that you would have to look even farther for somebody that could not only hack the old but innovate the new and then Gregor Mendle them together.

IF there is a 'generation-X' type graphics engine coding going on with base-sales of a given prototype and 'game development' thereafter; cross licensing a 'new' set of flight and graphics engines to an old conceptual (presentation/feel/immersion, whatever) like that could get very tricky from the legal side.


KP


Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 12-30-1999 02:32 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Shoot, just give me JSF with wingmen that can do ATG work and a more dynamic campaign, and I'd be a happy camper. Or better yet, remember that "fly any plane" cheat in JSF? Wouldn't it be cool if you do do that for wingmen, to? And give them a custom loadout as well? That little addition alone would make JSF an entirely new game. I'd gladly pay $50 for it.
Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Curt Plummer
unregistered

posted 12-30-1999 03:56 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Of course, MB, If you change a game to the firsthand then you can continue to collect on profits off of the second release.

If you sell the conceptuals for redevelopment then you've got a lot of junk that would be sold online for no profit. That just does not make sense, but little of what I /say/ does anyway.

If your game then succeeds, /perhaps/, you can go on writing either add ons or just another game entirely. Even the marketing department can come in sooner, advertise better, deyaddayadda Market Cuss Word Here.

Certainly your earned income average on the dollar per hour invested in market research and /Flight Model/ development will go up depending on how well the name sells vs. how the buying sheep are.

Despite all our naysaying, I basically play these games because I have no sense of self-worth and no dating life whatsoever. As far as marketing is concerned that you don't have a dating life, well, /they/ don't care either as long as you're buying the product.

There may not be much left in the way of original verbiage here, but that's what happens when /posters here/ run out of time and words (I've always felt we were issued a limited amount of both) for the posts I write.

Personally, I've always been suspicious that most of the high level politicians browse these sites looking for /future/ terrorist activists learning modern military technology via the sim world.

That means that you would have to look even farther for somebody that could not only decide to blow up a Gov building, which in my opinion is a sometimes needed event in the course of modern politics. I see I have once again digressed; where were we?

IF there is a 'generation-X' type graphics engine coding going on with base-sales of a given prototype then we shouldn't really care; as long as the customer is satisfied with the peice of garbage he or she has purchased, and the corporate dead-heads get their /money/ then all is fair in sim and reality. Witness what Hasbro has done to Microprose to see exactly what I am or am not referring to, I've forgotten by this time.

Curt Plummer


IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 12-30-1999 07:42 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
LOL! That was a valiant attempt to imitate our crazy friend Kurt Plummer, but you failed to capture the schizophrenic essence of what makes KP so impossible to put up with. Your post was much to /readable/. You lack that subtle, "out there" quality.
Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
naysayer
unregistered

posted 12-31-1999 01:01 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
nay
IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved