Page 1
In Search of Prop Sim Grail - Part II
by Len "Viking1" HjalmarsonArticle Type: Feature
Article Date: March 6th, 2001
Click to Go Back to Part I
Virtual Pilots and Morale/Personality Factors
Up to 1998 or so most computer controlled pilots (CCPs) were not modeled to experience redout, blackout, or panic. This meant that computer AI was often far harder to fight than another human player. Even though AI responses were more limited than human players, CCPs were able to pull more g’s and always knew exactly where you were, in spite of their position relative to the attacker. The combination of god-like insight and the ability to pull amazing gymnastics made the fight difficult and unbelievable.
Then along came simulations like Fighter Squadron, European Air War and Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator. Suddenly CCPs had the same six degrees of freedom flight model as the virtual pilots. Physics too became realistic for the CCPs, with all the forces that act on the virtual pilot also acting on computer driven pilots.
Me-109 Cockpit in CFS Original
Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator (CFS) took another step by modeling realistic situational awareness into their CCPs. The field of view of the CCPs in both the original CFS and Combat Flight Simulator 2: Pacific Theater (CFS2) is divided into six sections, with each section modeled according to the pilots current attitude, taking into account the parts of his aircraft as well as sun attitude and cloud layers. As a result, these guys will realistically lose sight of you depending on where you are before and during a dogfight.
Moreover, Microsoft may have been the first to model target fixation. Once on the tail of a target a CCP would forget to check his tail. As a result, it was often easier to pick off a bandit who was trying to pick off someone else!
As far as I know, Microsoft was the first to model the pilot in the cockpit. No longer did AI simply move the stick, but AI first simulated the pilot and the forces on him, his damage state, morale and more. Now the pilot had to move the stick, and was limited by these forces as well as the deflection limits of the stick, aircraft physics and the like. The aircraft then responds according to the stick position given by the pilot. With this model a zealous pilot can over control and spin, the same as can a human pilot flying in the game.
Morale factors have been modeled in detail for various simulations in recent years, but Wayward Design’s recent B-17 Flying Fortress: The Mighty 8th! (B-17FF) took this to a new level, modeling fatigue, panic, morale and damage states for individual crew members. Essentially, personality factors became a component in mission success. If the player flies as Bomber or Squadron Commander, he must also reckon with these factors when crewing the ship.
Crew Transfer in B-17
P-47 in B-17
Intelligence in CCPs is another critical area for simulation performance. Watching incoming flights of Luftwaffe aircraft while flying the Fortress in B-17FF is impressive. One can observe a variety of attack tactics, both single and in formation, and these tactics vary depending on the skill level chosen for enemy in the game setup, as well as the type of aircraft attacking (Me-109, Me-262 or Fw-190).
Perhaps even more important for simulations that primarily model fighter versus fighter combat for virtual pilots is a variety of skill levels and a large grab bag of CCP tactical responses. Rowan’s MiG Alley excelled in dogfight AI, and combined with excellent flight modeling (FM) and physics, the action was some of the most intense yet seen on the PC.
Making the kill in MiG Alley
More recently, Rowan released their WWII simulation Battle of Britain. Taking the best of the CCP AI from MiG Alley and blending in a few new moves, Battle of Britain is probably the most difficult contest I have ever faced against AI-controlled aircraft. In most situations (not all) the CCP response is varied and unpredictable, with pilots making the most of the strengths of their airframe while taking advantage of the weaknesses of the attacker. When flying the Me-109 against Spitfires, I have been tempted more than once to follow my target into the vertical.
Spit on Tail of 109
It was in Battle of Britain that I first saw the impact of a panic model. I have hit a Ju-87 with a couple of good shots only to see the canopy fly off and the pilot bail out, long before the aircraft was seriously damaged! I’ve seen other bombers dump their load of bombs and try and make a snap roll. Amazing!
Other solid points in both MiG Alley and Battle of Britain involve the voice responses of others in your flight, or in the case of the bombers, sharing the same aircraft with you. I’ve heard shouts of encouragement when I make a hit from a gunner’s position. I’ve been reamed out by a flight leader for not staying in tight formation. I’ve even been warned for following too closely on the tail of another pilot! Naturally, I’ve heard more important communications also, like warnings of incoming fighters at 3 o’clock high or a bandit on my tail.
The Grail for CCPs
There is plenty of room for growth in AI abilities, but it may take an entirely separate AI module equivalent to virtual intelligence to make the leap! When fighting offline in single player mode, we want pilots who mimic real world behaviour. We want to see anger and determination, fear and panic, fatigue and hyper alertness. We want to see CCPs who try to leave the fight when they are outmatched or low on ammo. We want to see occasional panic reactions when those first bullets hit. And we want realistic SA modeled for CCPs, as well as the same limitations we face when flying our virtual aircraft, where too many g’s mean loss of control.
Bailing out in BoB
Bailing out of IL-2. Graphics are not final.
As in other areas, virtual pilot modeling overlaps with graphic modeling. In Aces High bailing out means that you eventually make a nice hole, or find yourself on your feet on the ground. In Battle of Britain you first eject the canopy, then jump out, and your second tap of the "O" key causes the falling pilot to reach and pull the cord for the chute. On some occasions the chute fails to open and your hear an horrific scream as the pilot realizes his fate. Empire did some innovative work here, even if the difference it makes to the game is slight overall.
Communications and Wingmen Interaction/Control
We have seen incredible advances in communications in modern jet simulations in the past few years, in particular with the Jane’s and MicroProse simulations, and we have seen similar advances in combat prop sims. European Air War and MiG Alley both offered a great variety of communications options, including the nested menus that are becoming commonplace for prop sims.
The advent of voice command software has also changed this area permanently. Jane’s USAF offered built in voice command, and Aces High currently offers Roger Wilco for voice comms in real-time with fellow squadron members.
COMMS in MiG Alley
As I was flying in MiG Alley recently I remembered that menu options change depending on the context. While this helps in streamlining menus, it complicates matters for programming voice control. Where “break!” required a macro using R, 2, 3 it may suddenly move to R, 2, 4. Context sensitive menus are a great innovation but the complexity of our control systems can create other issues. Battle of Britain shares the same context sensitive system.
The importance of solid flight and wingman control in single player games cannot be overestimated. Without solid wingman control, many basic strategies become impossible. Head-on merges are not the best way to live through an initial contact! For example, standard two-on-one or two-on-two doctrine requires the ability to send your wingmen off to bracket on one side (preferably 2 of them while the third remains with you) while you and your wing bracket the other, or to perform a DRAG maneuver while you get on the tail of the bandit. This greatly increases the likelihood of a kill.
I use Game Commander for communications with AI pilots in all my simulations now. Most prop combat simulations offer five or six main areas for communications:In Battle of Britain and Blue Byte's upcoming IL-2 Sturmovik the COMMS systems are similar, as shown by these images.
- Wingman
- Flight
- Squadron
- Ground
- Tower (ATC)
COMMS in IL-2
COMMS in BoB
The Grail in COMMS and Control
Wingmen should be smart enough to report any sightings using a standard communications system, and the view system could be integrated better with these types of communication. Rowan has integrated such a view since MiG Alley, using the F5 key for “view the subject of current message.” Another useful view integration would be “padlock the sender of current message,” since a call for help may not be very useful if your flight member is engaged defensive outside your forward quarter. Battle of Britain handles this by allowing the player to request a vector to his flight.
Both MiG Alley and Battle of Britain set new standards for immersion through AI chatter. Approaching too close to the tail of my flight leader in Battle of Britain I was warned off with a curt, “Watch the tail feathers, will you?” in a smart British accent. Chatter during dogfights is similarly contextual and often entertaining. Naturally, wingmen warn when a bandit is on your tail and are quick to call a “Break!” when they are ready to engage a threatening bandit on your tail.
Other kinds of contextual communications should be included in combat prop simulations. It would be nice to hear a wingman request my status when I take a serious hit, or call in my position when I bail out. A status request feature should also be included so I can check the fuel and stores of my wingman and flight members.
Integration of the Ground War
Integration of the ground war means greater reality and greater immersion; greater immersion means higher replayability . . . i.e., more fun! There are three implications for sim design: platform, AI, and weapon and defence systems. First, AI.
MiG Alley is the only combat prop simulation released to date that smoothly integrates an air and ground war in a single dynamic campaign structure. What does this look like? A few years ago Roger Godfrey commented on the system relative to the WARGEN AI:
"... a fully functioning ground war. The Tanks fight each other on the battlefield, trains travel around the desert (on train lines), trucks travel down the roads, SAMS trundle around taking pot shots at enemy aircraft and AAA snakes into the sky. This is great stuff for Close Air Support missions. Of course the other aircraft will perform CAS using SmartPilots as well so don't be surprised if you see A-10s smashing T-80s to bits or EF2000s performing Wild Weasel." (Full Interview)
Tactical Planning in MiG Alley
Integration of the ground war means that interdiction of supplies becomes a critical mission goal, and supply routes will be busy with vehicular traffic. Not only does this add to the immersion factor, it adds to the realism since resource management and resupply are the backbone of any military campaign. It is incumbent on YOU to protect your supply routes while knocking out enemy convoys.
It should be similarly incumbent on the player to ensure that his airfield is protected. We all want to face the unpleasant reality of returning home, on occasion, only to find the airfield in ruins and thus be forced to vector to an alternate strip.
As hardware power continues to expand, integration in the battlefield continues to grow. Future campaigns will model not only the integration of air and ground wars, but do it in larger worlds where more and more factors of a vital economy are connected to the ability to prosecute the war.
So, for example, not only will dams and factories and supply convoys be potential targets, but railway lines and roads, hydro lines and oil fields. And all these objects will be modeled as targets, destruction of which will impact the battlefield and enemy strategic objectives.
Weapons and defensive systems are another link in this chain. Modeling defence networks hasn’t been necessary in combat prop simulations until Rowan released MiG Alley and then Battle of Britain. This last release models the Chain Home system as well as the Observers network.
Flak in B-17
The release of B-17FF saw the first significant implementation of a defensive network of flak guns. Unfortunately, the time constraint for release of the software saw AAA systems completely neglected. But these defensive systems were critical in the war in Europe, and we should see better implementation of these in future sims.
Finally, choice of platform impacts the ability to effectively integrate the virtual battlefield. In order to do justice to an integral ground war the best platform choice is a strike fighter like the P-47, the Fw-190 with rocket pods, the Ju-87 with its huge cannon or the IL-2, known as the “flying tank.” The best implementation of a prop combat strike platform we have seen to date was in Jane’s WWII Fighters, but the simulation lacked a dynamic environment.
The Grail for Integrated Air and Ground War
The first necessity for a great mud moving prop sim is resource modeling so that killing a supply convoy in one mission makes a difference in successive missions. The other necessities for a truly great mud moving simulation are a highly detailed ground environment with specific damage models for various objects and the ability to select a variety of weapons for air-to-ground employment. It looks like IL-2 Sturmovik is about to meet these requirements in a big way!
Most combat prop sims to date have emphasized the air environment, with increasing detail in aircraft and effects, but very little improvement in ground objects and terrain. The emphasis has been on the air war to the exclusion of the ground war.
Arming Screen in Dogfighting GUI in IL-2
This is about to change with the release of IL-2. Ground detail is extremely high, and object population is dense. Virtually all ground objects are also targets, and destruction of them affects the outcome of the mission.
Ground Support in IL-2
Equally important, the ordnance selection for the “flying tank” as well as for the German aircraft, is extensive. Bombs, rockets, and gun pods are all modeled, including the 30mm Mk 108 (an anti-bomber gun). The firing delay can be set for rockets, and rockets come in multiple types and calibers. Truly, IL-2 is set to up the ante for combat prop sims in the area of ground attack.
Graphics and View System
The search for the graphics “grail” would seem at first glance to be the simplest part of this discussion. No part of the simulation experience is more apparent to the player. As soon as the game is installed and configured, we launch into the combat flight experience, and the combat world, the aircraft and environment is there for us to observe.
But graphical perfection is far from an objective science. What one virtual pilot finds appealing or acceptable, another does not. When we break down the graphics engine into specific components, however, the task becomes somewhat easier. Let’s consider the main characteristics as seen from the player's perspective.
Every flight simulation has the following:To date, no single simulation has excelled in every area, though some have excelled in more than one. Let’s consider some examples.
- Aircraft
- Cockpits
- Ground objects
- Clouds and smoke
- Terrain
- Effects
- Lighting
Ground Support in WW2 Fighters
Jane’s Longbow II was the first combat flight simulator to make use of dynamic lighting. Firing off a missile at dusk or at night produced not only a smoke trail, but a light trail through the night, illuminating the ground or the clouds around the missile. The impact of such a simple feature on players was significant. We all felt that the realism of the world had increased greatly.
Jane’s WWII Fighters was also a notch above other simulations of the time. Tanks and ground vehicles looked real. Light source shading was incorporated and enhanced appearance and perspective. Effects included articulated parts, so that you could watch a AAA turret turn to track you.
Jane’s WWII Fighters was also notable for taking cockpit detail to a new height. Gauges and instruments looked like a photograph, and the jitter of indicators was also realistic. Furthermore, the player was no longer stuck in a fixed position in the cockpit, but could zoom his view in and out, as well as moving his head position up, down, left or right.
Cockpit from WW2 Fighters
Furthermore, drawing back the view allowed the player to watch the controls being manipulated by an invisible pilot. While an unnecessary touch to some pilots, it promoted the illusion that the cockpit and aircraft were real, requiring real control inputs to operate. Equally impressive, aircraft suddenly had internal structures. A broken wing displayed the internal components.
WWII Fighters also gave us the most spectacular special effects ever seen. For the first time we watched as spent shell casings fell away from the guns. Hitting an aircraft in the fuel tank or the engine could produce great streamers of smoke and flame. Explosions were dramatic. Gun flashes were incredible.
WWII Fighters gave us the first realistic virtual clouds in a prop combat simulation. Smoke and clouds were far more impressive than anything else yet seen in the flight simulation world, even if fog effects were overused to offset the increased demand on the CPU.
The aircraft themselves were quite beautiful. Perhaps the most impressive were the P-47 and the P-51, but all aircraft were highly detailed. Steel skin shone and caught the light like actual steel. Markings and sheeting were evident, and damage effects were modeled for all surfaces.
Me-109 in WW2 Fighters
Finally, for the first time, damage effects included not only holes but oil splattered on a wind screen. Vision became increasingly difficult as oil would collect. Flying a damaged aircraft with a restricted view was a whole new experience. While we can complain about the limited dynamics of the campaign environment or the weaknesses in the flight model, WWII Fighters was an impressive package that did many things right.
Oil on Windscreen in B17
When B-17FF arrived late in November, 2000, it was a déjà vu experience for many. We were again treated to highly detailed fighter aircraft. Damage effects were not as extensive as that of Jane’s WWII Fighters, but were impressive nevertheless. B-17FF is not a dogfighting simulation, however, and instead centers around the Fortress itself. Consequently, AI for CCPs in fighters is severely limited.
The Grail in Graphics
Until the arrival of CFS2 no other combat prop simulation came close to the graphical splendor of Jane’s WWII Fighters. In the fall of 2000 that changed.
F4f in CFS2
The aircraft, objects, effects, and clouds of CFS2 were simply stunning. Since CFS2 is an air combat simulation, the team could afford to play less attention to terrain detail and object detail on the ground.
With IL-2, however, this is not the case. IL-2 is an attack aircraft, and the ground war was decisive in the East. IL-2 not only approximates the aircraft detail of CFS2, but actually surpasses CFS2 in lighting effects, clouds, and ground objects and detail.
Even more important, the development team of IL-2, 1C:Maddox Games, intends to mate superior AI and superior flight and damage modeling to the whole. Since “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” the total effect should be fantastic.
Wide Angle 109 in IL2
Pan view down and left in 109 in IL2
The other area where IL-2 clearly surpasses CFS2 is in the cockpit. There is no differentiation in IL-2 between virtual and fixed cockpits, and no sudden change when the player either pans the view or uses snap views, or even when the pilot zooms the cockpit in or out. And the cockpit detail is simply fantastic.
Who has seen in any other simulation the amount of detail presented in this image of the Me-109 G6 cockpit from IL-2 presented above? Note the sliding side entry. In fact I have learned that the slight changes from one model of 109 to the other are reflected accurately in the cockpit. The team designing the simulation did careful research to get these details right.
Finally, since the cockpit is the place where most virtual pilots spend the majority of their time, it makes sense that simulation designers have also been spending increased attention on the cockpit environment.
When Falcon 4.0 arrived, many of us were awed by the reflections we saw in the canopy. Not long afterward these internal reflections became an expected feature. Suddenly the player is no longer looking at the world outside through a perfect surface, but through a slightly opaque surface that models the same limits as real plexiglass.
Ball Turret in B-17
When I first ran the beta of B-17FF, I was impressed that the view beyond the gunner’s turrets was similarly marred by wear and tear and stains. The view from the nose is particularly dirty! While this was annoying to some players, to me it marked a step forward in environmental realism.
But what difference does it make? Aside from the tactical advantage presented by clouds, do graphics really help?
The first time you have to nurse a wounded bird home, you notice the difference. You pan to cockpit right and see the hole in your wing. On the other side you can see stringers showing where your wingtip was torn off. You know you have a challenge ahead of you!
A Bad Landing in IL-2
Shot up 109 in IL-2
Or when you are on a patrol mission, and you are in the air at sunrise. You don’t know how long you’ll wait to meet the enemy, but you don’t mind the wait. The morning light is beautiful, and the high clouds are illuminated with the first rays of the dawn.
When you finally meet the enemy, you are told in no uncertain terms that your bullets made contact. You see the flash of the explosive cannon shells, and you see small pieces fly off the target as your machine guns rip into the wing.
The glint of a distant canopy in MiG Alley
Perhaps more important, the sunlight catching a distant canopy may alert you to the presence of the enemy far before you can see the aircraft itself. Rowan was the first to model this effect in MiG Alley and then in Battle of Britain. Hopefully this will soon become as standard as the padlock system itself.
Padlock and Views and Situational Awareness
Since the view system is intimately connected with graphical modeling and artwork, it seems reasonable to include this discussion here. But how much variety is there in viewing systems anyway? Is there room for growth in this area?
The problem that must be addressed with any view system is this: how to compensate for the limited situational awareness (SA) offered by a limited and flat display (no depth of field perception) while maintaining suspension of disbelief.
Padlock in Battle of Britain
The padlock view is an attempt to give the player the sense that he is turning his head to maintain eye contact with his target, while also maneuvering his aircraft to bring the target back into weapon constraints. While we have seen some solid innovation in padlock systems within jet fighter simulations (notably DI’s F-16 and MicroProse Falcon 4.0), innovations have been harder to come by in prop combat sims.
Consider some of the innovations that have appeared over the past four years. ActiVision’s Fighter Squadron: Screamin' Demons Over Europe (FSSD) brought us a new approach to padlock views, where the model incorporated the increasing concentration of the pilot as he closed for the kill. As the distance to the target closed, the view automatically zoomed tighter, magnifying the target and reducing the player’s field of vision. This was a very effective feature that many virtual pilots grew to love.
Flying Corps incorporated a new padlock system with an auto switching feature and an auto external player-to-target view. Later the same system appeared in MiG Alley, and more recently in Battle of Britain. In short, the player can choose to let the program handle switching an internal padlock to an external player-to-target view. The player-to-target view not only helps situational awareness but is a great way to learn air combat maneuvering.
Horizon Ball and Icons in Battle of Britain
Other SA features include a horizon ball in the upper right corner of the screen, helping the player maintain his orientation relative to the horizon when pulling onto the tail of a bandit from some oblique angle.
In Battle of Britain both internal and external view padlocks also offer icons that slide along the edges of your screen, indicating the direction to both enemy and friendly aircraft. When the numbers are limited this is a great awareness aid; once the skies become crowded the value of the graphical aid becomes limited.
Padlocking onto a bandit who is no longer visible in the forward quarter has been handled differently by different simulation designers. In European Air War a red X slides along the edge of the screen. In order to bring the bandit back in front of the nose (and the guns!) the player maneuvers to bring the X to the top center of the screen and then simply pulls back on the stick.
Enemy Indicator in CFS Original
Microsoft engineered a more sophisticated approach to this with their Combat Flight Simulator in 1998. They took the enemy indicator and made it a three dimensional cone. When this feature is enabled the tip of the cone always points toward the current target.
“Radar” panels are another SA feature used by many designers in combat prop simulators. Rowan’s “radar” screen indicates both direction and relative position in the vertical. In CFS2 the “radar” screen shows enemy targets as elongated and colored triangles, indicating the relative position in the vertical and horizontal planes while also offering the target’s current heading.
Variations on the padlock view are legion. Rowan's sims offers the player the ability to padlock the source of the last message, useful when the flight LEAD is wondering where you are or calling for help. You can also padlock ground targets and waypoints, the tower, the escorted flight, and your wingman. All these views are ways of compensating for limited situational awareness and limited ground resolution.
Electronic Arts'Jane’s WWII Fighters offered an alternate SA enhancement with the ability to bring up multiple windows and position these windows in any of the four corners of the display. One window might offer an external player-to-target view, while another might show the bandit’s view of the player. Microsoft offers a similar system with their combat simulators, but also incorporates the ability to display these other windows on separate monitors.
Additional Window in WW2 Fighters
Another issue relative to use of views is how to maintain systems awareness while in an external view. Naturally, this view itself is considered a cheat by the very, very serious simulation fans, and this is why the view is not an option for players in Aces High, the online combat simulation.
The external view of the aircraft while in flight or in combat arrived very early in simulation history, however, and was likely an attempt to create immersion. Seeing one’s aircraft in flight while one is ostensibly sitting in the virtual pilot’s seat is a nice feeling, and it offers a sense of perspective on and thus involvement in the world outside the cockpit.
Padlock in IL-2
If, however, one begins from the assumption that the external view of the aircraft is a good thing, then one must engineer solutions to the situational awareness problem from an aircraft systems perspective. The essentials are altitude, attitude, heading, and speed. The concept is very similar to the modern HUD (heads up display) feature used in modern jet fighters.
As with the general approaches to SA, there are a variety of them here. One of the simplest solutions was that offered by European Air War (EAW). In EAW one can monitor one’s speed, heading and altitude while in an external view by a simple text display that is placed in one corner of the monitor.
Jane’s WWII Fighters took another approach. This simulation allowed one to place a choice of any three gauges on screen at any time. One could save a favorite pop up gauge selection, and even choose whether the gauges would appear in a no-cockpit view. The no-cockpit view is itself a standard feature of current combat prop simulations.
On Screen Gauges in WW2 Fighters
Still another SA aid is the use of labels. EAW offered a configurable system, where one could bring up a target label in the form of a small text display attached to the target, offering closure information as well as the target type (Fw-190, Me-109, etc).
The final (but critical) question with regard to SA features is how to incorporate realistic field of vision limits, or realistic head tracking constraints. If the padlock view is active, for example, does it break when the target enters clouds? Is padlock broken when the target disappears under my wing? How far can a pilot turn his head while pulling 6 g’s? How far (km) should a padlock view be possible?
Consensus here is more readily obtainable. Most players might like the option of cheating, but most also want the option of complete realism, and all want to know that whatever constraints are applied to them also apply to the enemy!
The Grail in Views, Padlock and SA
Innovation in these areas is not as common as one would hope, and has been even more limited in combat prop simulations. For example, why has no one incorporated a lift line in the canopy of a P-51?
While not a combat prop simulation, Strategic Simulations’ Flanker 2 incorporated an auto head turning feature that could be selected while banking the aircraft. As the pilot began to turn his view would angle in the direction of the turn, increasing slightly as the turn became more acute. This mirrored actual pilot behavior, since one learns to look into the turn for improved situational awareness.
With Battle of Britain Rowan pioneered a view new to combat simulations, allowing players to open the canopy and lean out the side, handy when landing a ship like the Me-109 which was notorious for poor visibility and dangerous ground handling. As in real life, using this view occupies two separate steps. First, slide the canopy open. Second, lean out! In reality pilots did open the canopy and lean out in order to monitor their tracking and ensure the path was free of obstructions.
Lean Out view in Battle of Britain
The particular solution to the problem of SA and the limitations of a computer display may be less important than that the ultimate simulation offer a workable solution as well as some options. Jane's WWII Fighters' solution was to offer everything. It’s hard to argue with that approach, but one wonders if SOME of the funding poured into that extreme of flexibility could have been better expended in other parts of the product (the campaign system).
IL-2 Sturmovik will offer typical padlock and SA features along with some small innovations. A red target box appears around the current target (this can be disabled, of course) and the padlock can be used from an internal perspective or an external player to target view.
One welcome innovation in the working of the padlock is that the cockpit view does not shift constantly to follow every move of the bandit, as it does in Battle of Britain or European Air War. Instead, there is an imaginary target zone that occupies perhaps 50% of the forward view area, with the zone centered on the screen. Until the bandit moves out of the zone, the cockpit remains fixed. Since the cockpit is not constantly shifting it is much easier to achieve a well defined guns solution as you close on the bandit.
IL-2 External with Gauges
Another innovation is the use of labels in IL-2. One can elect to have labels ON, but when the target slips into clouds, the labels disappear. This is an improvement that will be readily appreciated by those who use labels in Battle of Britain.
One of the solutions that we have sampled briefly in the past and are likely to see in the near future is VR headsets. With the technology now available to offer high resolution, head tracking and even depth of field perception, I can’t help feeling that the solution to a limited display area is just around the corner.
Another technology that has been available for some time but has been under utilized by almost all simulation producers is force feedback.
Controller Interface in Battle of Britain
It has been roughly four years since force technology first appeared for combat flight simulations in the form of CH Products' Force FX. I remember shelling out $160 US for the stick (it still sits on a shelf in my office). Huge, heavy, and a pain to hook up, it revolutionized my gaming when I first used it in Rowan’s Flying Corps. For the first time, I could feel the guns firing when I pulled the trigger. As I dove away from an enemy, I could hear the wings straining and my stick would begin to shudder. It was incredible!
Not long afterward I purchased MediaVision’s Fighter Duel. This prop combat simulation not only looked better than anything else I had flown on my PC, it also had configurable force feedback.
Two years ago Rowan released MiG Alley and surprise! MiG Alley allowed one to configure the force feedback components. When Battle of Britain arrived I wasn’t surprised to see a similar configuration menu, but I was surprised when I first flew the Me-109 with my Logitech Strike Force 3D. Here was the best implementation of force feedback I had yet experienced. It’s likely that the improvement involves the confluence of three factors: improved software, improved hardware, and improved force feedback API. Whatever the reasons, the SA increase makes the purchase worthwhile. The ability to feel the forces acting on the aircraft, not to mention the impact of cannon shells, also makes the purchase worthwhile.
Multiplayer
The strength and diversity of multiplayer features has varied greatly with each simulation, and in fact have generally been stronger with the modern jet simulations. There are signs of change, however, and the growth in popularity of dedicated online simulations like Aces High are indicators of change.
Dogfight Setup in IL-2
Currently the most popular boxed simulations for online combat are Combat Flight Simulator 2, Jane's WWII Fighters, European Air War, and Red Baron II. Of these, only Red Baron II offers a comprehensive campaign mode. Rowan’s recent Battle of Britain offers some excellent cooperative missions, but Rowan’s multiplayer support has always been somewhat quirky, at least in North American application.
The world is ripe for a boxed simulation that offers a realistic environment, solid flight models and damage models, and air-to-air as well as air-to-ground action with extended multiplayer features. IL-2 looks set to excel in this area, offering some much demanded features that have generally been available only in aftermarket form or not at all.
Multiplayer Interface in BoB
Some of these advanced features in IL-2 include:
- An advanced mission builder that allows the creation of cooperative multiplayer missions
- The ability to string player built missions together into new campaigns
- Dedicated servers so that more players can get involved in individual scenarios
- The ability to connect up to 32 players in death-match mode, and 16 players in teamplay
- The ability to upload custom squadron markings and custom paint schemes so that every aircraft in multiplayer mode can be unique
- An integrated skin paint and skin selection utility
- Protection against use of cheat modes or altered weapons or aircraft systems
Conclusions
The search for the Grail in combat prop simulations is not yet over. While IL-2 looks set raise to the bar in many areas, until the final release it is premature to identify IL-2 with that holy relic.
I began writing this article in mid January with the following components in mind:Looking back, I would add sound and system modeling as additional areas to consider in the quest. There is no doubt that we have seen great strides in sound modeling in recent years, but we are likely to see further improvements and it would be interesting to consider what those might be. This area is important not only for realism, but for SA, since positional sound can aid the pilot in fighting awareness.
- Flight Models
- Physics and Damage Model
- Campaign AI
- Virtual Pilots and Morale/Personality Factors
- Integration of Strategic Control
- Communications and Wingmen Interaction/Control
- Graphics Model
- Environment
- Multiplayer features.
Similarly, systems modeling has continued to improve, as evidenced by full prop control in both Battle of Britain and IL-2 Sturmovik. What’s next in improvements in this area and how does it connect to improve damage modeling?
I might also consider splitting the interface and mission flow components into a separate area for examination. Pilot records, briefings, debriefings, and the method of presenting new intelligence via video, text and voice can aid greatly with the sense of involvement in an ongoing virtual war. Game developers who handle this area well are more likely to create loyalty among virtual pilots and certainly contribute to the fun of the simulation. Finally, what about Mission Builders?
In conclusion, it’s exhilarating to consider how far we have come in the past ten years. Can anyone doubt that we are likely to move just as far in the next ten? What might we see in a new edition of Battle of Britain in 2005? Let’s dare to dream!
Click to join a discussion about this article.
Click Here for Printer Version
© 1997 - 2001 COMBATSIM.COM, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
