Page 3
My image of a stereotypical flight simmer is someone usually misunderstood by their loved ones in their boyish or girlish desire to strap on some wings and fly, and who built little plastic Messerschmitts as a kid and probably still does. So we are usually excited about the mere idea of flying, and want to do it in virtual reality if there are no other means. I guess I will never understand real pilots who fly sims. That U2 song 'Even Better Than The Real Thing' starts playing in my head at this point.
The flight model then has to provide that elusive feeling of flight. Some simmers are heard saying that more important than feel is the accuracy of the performance figures. Some other simmers are calling these guys 'anal' (Sigmund, are you reading this?) and obsessive. Guys and gals, there is good news. The more accurately one models a given aircraft in terms of aerodynamics and other basic physics, which in the first place contributes to the correct feel especially in the more unusual attitudes of the airframe, the more accurate the performance figures may become.
But I digress. The point is that some simmers prefer to take on the role of a (combat) pilot, while others are more interested in being in control of the machine. The difference may seem subtle but I think it is important. When in primary school I rarely engaged in and preferred to avoid fights, and this mentality has been with me all along, so that's why I probably feel closer to the second, 'operator' camp. But somehow I feel that, just like in primary school, the overall trend of combat simmers is more towards the 'jock' group, which is reflected in the design of most of today's sims. Due to my approach towards the sims I guess I also like to fly civilian sims. But in those circles people will scoff me for really liking Flight Unlimited III as it is supposedly the most 'game' like of the big three. I guess it's a no win situation.
What is true about flight model also goes for the weapons and systems modelling. In the end I guess both groups agree that we want the modelled components to be accurate and believable, the two of which, incidentally, go hand in hand as this is what simulating is all about. I guess there was never much dispute about that, so the first essential is here.
AI or what?
'Nothing new as far as essentials go,' I hear your voice. Hold on, things get a bit more involved from here. While the core of the sim such as the flight model and systems were straightforward to put into perspective, the combat environment is that more difficult, as it is a really broad subject.
What about the Artificial Intelligence (AI)? We take it for granted, but is it strictly necessary? While I never participated in massively online multiplayer sims or games, there is no essential need for AI there. Yet most simulated flight hours of a majority of simmers are logged offline. As long as there is something to be shot down or blown up while you are alone in virtuality, some sort of AI is necessary, even if all it does is to keep the enemy flying in a straight line.
But then there are different sorts of AI (e.g. for different units). I will focus on the pilot AI here. Again, a compromise usually has to be made as to make it more intensive in a certain respect or more extensive covering all areas of combat but in less detail. For example, a Flanker 2.0 enemy pilot will probably get you toasted sooner than its equivalent in Jane's F/A-18, but there is nowhere as much fine tactical tuning possible in the Baby Crane as there is in the Super Hornet when attacking an enemy formation with your wingmen and thus gaining the edge over the bad guys.
The purgatory of dynamic campaignsThis is the first time where we bump into the issue of extensive versus intensive combat modelling, and this goes beyond the pilot AI but also ground units and other sim entities. One can try to simulate all possible aspects of combat in less detail or concentrate on one part of it in a deeper manner. Is one better than the other? My guess is, no. While I believe the 'jock' camp would prefer the extensive approach to all things combat in order to get the richer experience, the 'operators' would probably prefer a clipped but more focused approach.
Nowhere is this more apparent than when dealing with dynamic campaigns. These are a major achievement and are a true blessing for the 'jock' camp, as they really make you feel involved into whatever conflict your virtual generals cooked up this time. While I also haven't been immune to the excitement of the overall war in various sims, I've never gone as far as to finish a campaign in Falcon 4.0, be it a win or a loss (so stone me for it!). I've mostly considered them as a source of unpredictable missions, but I am leaning more towards the 'operator' camp, remember?
The main issue we are trying to settle, though, is whether the (semi)dynamic campaign should be an essential part of a hardcore combat flight sim. As there is nothing like 'war' in the name of what we are dealing with, the answer is a simple 'no'. To provide realistic combat situations one does not strictly need a campaign. Although a fully dynamic campaign may provide unique situations every time, this may also be its pitfall, especially if the subject of the campaign is not a limited conflict, which, by the way, is something I would prefer to be portrayed in sims more often, but an all-out war. The AI that assigns the missions sometimes simply cannot deal with the complexity of the situation. As Carl Norman, the executive producer of Flanker 2.0 said on the official Flanker 2.0 forum (the thread On the subject of Campaigns),
'... I've discussed Falcon 4.0's dynamic campaign with several former members of the Hasbro/Microprose project and they all advise AGAINST doing what they did in Falcon 4.0 for many of the reasons that [two forum members] have mentioned.'
The issue was the enormous complexity of the fully dynamic engine to provide satisfactory results, and at the same time run the simulation acceptably. There is the option of tweaking the sometimes questionable mission assignments in Falcon 4.0, true enough, but that defeats the whole purpose to some extent, especially if you are more interested in the flying part. So while covering an extensive war, a fully dynamic campaign may fail in focus of missions assigned to single elements. Which brings us again to the extensive vs. intensive modelling.
But again I digress. The (semi)dynamic campaign is not necessary to provide a combat experience, but more so to provide the pilot experience. The difference is that for a combat experience one does not need a succession of interlinked missions; these are only needed for the virtual social aspects of the sim. Still, at least individual missions of the sort that simulate true combat must be provided in a sim, even if in an implicit form of a mission builder. Dynamic campaigns are just one means of providing the assignments, and in their purest version perhaps they may even turn out not to be the best.
That's all there is in a sim?
There are many more issues to be discussed apart from the dynamic campaign, but they would all lead to similar conclusions and, on the other hand, I think the editor is already thinking of sending my e-mail address to some spam sites in order to let me experience what it's like to struggle through a ton of gibberish. The point raised is that, apart from good flight, systems and weapons modelling with either a strong multiplayer or AI capability and an ability to fly missions that simulate real combat, all the rest are merely additional features and not essentials to be taken for granted when evaluating a sim. It's of course a shame if a developer does not include much more than just these basics, thus not exploiting the capabilities of our systems and hence not making our sims fun enough. But I would like to point out that if not all additional features that are common and usually requested today are added to a given sim, if the included ones are more thorough for it the sim in question is no less hardcore than its feature packed cousins.
Its the extensive 'jock' vs. the intensive 'operator' approach, and I think there is place for both of these. The first usually provide a more emotional factor, while the latter are probably closer to the military simulators. None can be considered better or more hardcore than the other given that the hard core of both is roughly the same. To each his own. Even better though, the amazing breadth and at the same time depth of first Falcon 4.0, and now Mig Alley and Jane's F/A-18 after it, show that we may be getting very close towards a comfortable convergence of both approaches.
Click to join a discussion about this article.
© 1997 - 2000 COMBATSIM.COM, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
