Where are the Retro Flight sims?

[Yskonyn]

Interesting discussion here. :)

I agree with Toonces. I do not think its a matter of the 'flightsim crowd have put themselves in a corner' at all. With new hardware more possibilities arrived and graphical fidelity as well as aerodynamic fidelity were able to be increased.
Even in the days of old a big dream has always been to have a big simulation with a grand scope and a true air, naval and ground war. The technology level just wasn't at such a state (at least not for consumers) to support this.

Funny thing about the visuals is that it depends on the type of sim; our full flight sims of the 737 have shitty visuals for todays standards. They're functional and are comparable to FS2004. Some fields have static objects like low poly aircraft and terminal buildings, but there are no cities, the land has a global mesh (elevation model is accurate), but is otherwise devoid of anything civilization related, except for airfields.
The clouds are not 3D and once you enter one you just get a white haze.
Visibility, however, is pretty accurately modelled.
My point being; eventhough these sims are used for real life training and certification, their graphical prowess is nowhere near modern consumer products like DCS.
Instead, you have a 1:1 replica of the cockpit with all the instruments and knobs. The cockpit displays need to operate in high FPS to keep indications fluid and realtime. Part of the visual prowess of computer desktop sims is taken care of with the actual hardware of the cockpit like the instruments and the knobs.

Another problem faced by desktop simulations; we need to have accurate instruments to enable a proper interface between the player and the virtual aircraft, but this takes up real estate on the screen, costs processing power and reduces room for things to enhance situational awareness like being able to look outside of the window.
Things that are completely seperate in professional full flight sims.

Yet, even with the subpar visual presentation of the full flight sim, you should see the computer 'tower' needed to drive all the parts of it. Hydraulic movement, instruments, visuals, etc.

On our consumer products we want to have it all as well, but it needs to be installed on a single computer and needs to run on one screen (more are supported but are luxury).
A complete cockpit, outside world, movement of other assets, calculations for the modelled atmosphere, firing and detecting solutions and tracking, etc etc all need to work... on one PC.

It's no wonder high fidelity sims with top notch graphics have had a long development process and took quite some time to get here. Even now we're still in the 'development' phase and trying to see what does and does not work (as shown by the way DCS is developed). We should not underestimate the sheer power needed for a modern (combat) flightsim.

But with the enhancement of the graphics, 3D capability of computer hardware and, stuff like TrackIR, they have been able to up the immersion factor by several levels, raised the ability for keeping situational awareness inside the sim (remember the old padlocking days?? ;) ) and push the boundaries of presentation.
I think it's a natural progression and something that is nothing short of awesome, but indeed; as pointed out above, the 'game' or perhaps the 'entertainment value' in a product like DCS is subpar at the moment.

But is this because it has become too difficult to learn and operate something accurately modelled like the A-10C, while in F-19 Stealth Fighter you just needed to remember a few keys?
For many flightsim enthousiasts the 'game' is learning the high fidelity stuff. I know several guys who are mostly busy with flying training sorties in DCS A-10C to refine their flying / weapons platform skills in it and have no need for any campaign or narrated missions.
They just fire up the same mission time and again with a certain training range and go through the same routines day after day to to hone they skills.
People create intricate missions or 'set piece situations' to run on a server and fly that one thing for weeks on end. Never touching the singleplayer stuff.
This, too, has been a natural progression with the advancements in internet technology. It's often much more an online thing now, flying together, than sitting alone in front of the monitor and flying a AI scripted mission with dumbnut AI wingmen. (which we didn't even have at all in the old days of simming, mind you!)

A seperate, but relevant discussion, is that often times people are bringing up the issue of getting the 'game' back into the 'simulation', while they are trying to run their missions in full realism mode, because that's aparently the way the sim needs to be used.
No it is not. If you're a more casual player you should enable you more casual options as well. DCS as well as Falcon have several options to reduce the fidelity of the sim and turn it into a more arcade experience. But at the same time people just reject these options. Weird no?
The magical word is 'options' here; As long as there are options for everyone to tailor their sim experience to something they are comfortable with I am only for getting 'as real as it can get' for those who want to get as close to the real thing as possible.
These things do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[Yskonyn]

I'd happily trade image fidelity to have a simulated dynamic war like Falcon 4 but with approachable avionics, a large array of flyable craft, multiplayer capability, story with a career path, etc.

It's already here and you named it; Falcon.
BMS has a mod to enable flying multiple aircraft, it has multiplayer, a campaign and you can tone down the avionics, weapons and radar fidelity to make it more game-like as well.

This is a nice example of the point I made above. :) (No offence meant in any way!)

[republic]

I've tried BMS a few times, maybe I just didn't know how to configure it so that it would be like you say.

I wouldn't be so forlorn had TK of Thirdwire not seemingly abandoned the PC for mobile.

[Toonces]

Republic,
I'm not trying to be argumentative here- this is a serious question.  I'm not sure what you're still looking for with respect to Thirdwire.  As TW currently stands you have 5 different iterations of Strike Fighters 2 (SF2, SF2:E, SF2:I, SF2:V, SF2:NA) and the sim is endlessly moddable.  What more do you want exactly? 

It's a pretty nice package as it is.  I don't see what additional development it needs....

[republic]

No offense taken from anyone, I am interested in hearing what all of you think, even if you disagree.

I'm mainly concerned about the future Toonces.  Gaming is now far bigger than Hollywood and we've got space games out the wazoo, wargames, adventure games, etc all sorts of niche games popping up and coming out of the woodwork...but no flight sims.

We are still relying on games that are 10+ years old.  They are still great games, but what is my son going to play?  I've grown up with the genre so as my skill increased so did the level of simulation available to me.  I can't imagine a young person deciding to get into flight sims and then sitting down with DCS: A-10.

I don't want to think that World of Warplanes and War Thunder is the best we can do for a new non-study flight sim.

[Toonces]

Ahhhhh...Gotcha. 

Well, the short answer from me is that we, as flight simmers, have slit our own throat on this.  We demand more and more realism, graphics, simulation fidelity, everything but the kitchen sink.  It turns out that to make all of that it is really, REALLY expensive.

Oh, and we simmers only want to pay $50 tops for everything, and we also want the option of waiting for a sale where we can get the sim of all sims for a few bucks at most.

Heh.  Makes me want to run right out and start developing a sim, how about you?

[Oche]

If some one made a Flight Sim or any other type o
f simulation game today without Super graphics, I doubt it would sell.

Unless the game came with an awesome truly dynamic campaign..I would sacrifice graphics for that.  But I do realize most people would prefer it to be pretty instead.

+1

[Father Ted]

We are still relying on games that are 10+ years old.  They are still great games, but what is my son going to play?  I've grown up with the genre so as my skill increased so did the level of simulation available to me.  I can't imagine a young person deciding to get into flight sims and then sitting down with DCS: A-10.

I don't want to think that World of Warplanes and War Thunder is the best we can do for a new non-study flight sim.

The spiritual successor to IL2 Sturmovik is slated for release next year (it will be released for "early access" next month).  The price for the basic edition is the same as any AAA console/PC title, so not too daunting.  In terms of fidelity it will sit nearer to DCS than WT, but will have a range of "difficulties", so I don't think the age of the realistic yet accessible combat flight sim is quite dead.

Also there seem to be players who've tried WT and now hanker after something a bit more realistic, so the market for the CFS could be opening up again , thanks to the likes of WT.

[Yskonyn]

Oh, and we simmers only want to pay $50 tops for everything, and we also want the option of waiting for a sale where we can get the sim of all sims for a few bucks at most.

It is quite odd indeed that the average flight simmer has no problem shelling out hundreds of credits to buy cool hardware to support his hobby, but once developers start to ask more money you will instantly see a lot of whining, discontent or outright anger. But let's look at (what I think makes up the demography of the community):

I do think the 'niche' in the 'niche' has no problem with paying more as it shown by the SteelBeasts Pro community.

But flight sims are an oddity in this; they are pretty mainstream and hardcore at the same time. Lots of casual gamers love flying games. And almost everyone I know has dabbled with one or several of FS's versions. Hardcore and family casual types.
Aviation is just an interesting subject to so many.
So perhaps this is why the community of various flight sims is such a vocally active bunch with wishes so widely apart at times?

But I am pretty sure that the sim hobbyist (hardcore types) have no problem with paying pretty substantial amounts of credits on hardware and software for their hobby.
The problem here is that the dev group would loose the (arguably bigger) part of the community who are more casually interested. Exactly this discussion has been done on the ED boards a while back and they claim they have more copies sold of the lower fidelity stuff like Lock On than they have A-10C level fidelity products.

As far as recent offerings;
DCS is the most modern one.
IL-2 successor is in development.
Part of the old Maddox' crew and Rise of Flight's crew have signed with ED to create a DCS WW2 game.
BMS still gets updated, but indeed is based on an older game. Still its nowhere near the initial product anymore.
Prepar3D seems to be getting a new version.
Combat Pilot is in beta which is based on the Prepar3D engine as far as I know.

Still a decent amount of options I would say, especially since DCS seems to be a 'living' project with lots of future...

Then we have games like World of Warplanes, which is a mainstream arcade shooter which happens to feature aircraft. Just like World of Tanks is no tank sim.

[MengJiao]

We are still relying on games that are 10+ years old.  They are still great games, but what is my son going to play?  I've grown up with the genre so as my skill increased so did the level of simulation available to me.  I can't imagine a young person deciding to get into flight sims and then sitting down with DCS: A-10.

I don't want to think that World of Warplanes and War Thunder is the best we can do for a new non-study flight sim.

The spiritual successor to IL2 Sturmovik is slated for release next year (it will be released for "early access" next month).  The price for the basic edition is the same as any AAA console/PC title, so not too daunting.  In terms of fidelity it will sit nearer to DCS than WT, but will have a range of "difficulties", so I don't think the age of the realistic yet accessible combat flight sim is quite dead.

Also there seem to be players who've tried WT and now hanker after something a bit more realistic, so the market for the CFS could be opening up again , thanks to the likes of WT.

  They all seem kind of retro to me in that any good game makes choices about where to overload the player with realism and where to make it a wild and interesting experience.  That's like gaming 101 and flight sims have had that recipe down for decades.

   So over the last year I've played ThirdWire (and stopped...not quite "real" enough i guess), IL2 1946 -- a Classic, RoF -- a classic and CLOD.  All I play now is CLOD.  It hits the classic sweet spot and is retro enough in an odd way (Well it is stuck in 1940..well really just June to Oct 1940).  U'm looking forward to Battle of Stalingrad -- which should be a fantastic game.

[W8taminute]

In the past when we've had these discussions I've stated the golden ruler I use to measure all flight sims against is SWOTL, Red Baron, and Aces over the Pacific. 

I'd love to see a flight sim today that had all the elements of Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe and Dynamix's Red Baron and Aces over the Pacific.

You'd have a sim that would containe an awesome story/campaign/career mode, aircraft that are made available on their historic frontline introductions, a little bit of industry management, and finally naming your pilots and watching their careers progress with yours.  They just don't make this kind of game anymore.

[MengJiao]

In the past when we've had these discussions I've stated the golden ruler I use to measure all flight sims against is SWOTL, Red Baron, and Aces over the Pacific. 

  I know what you mean, but I think my aerial fun meter was completely reset by my first few missions in an I-16 in IL-2: cranking up my landing gear, not getting killed, landing back in Leningrad.  That was just so cool and very unlike churning around in some ultimate gear.

[Toonces]

@ Yassy,
We had a discussion on SimHQ I think about sim pricing and it was shocking.  There are many folks like me that really are willing to spend an almost unlimited amount of money (within reason) for the right sim.  For example, if you married DCS's graphics engine with Falcon 4's dynamic campaign with a DCS-level F-4 Phantom featured, I would consider anything under $500 reasonable.  For me that is value.  There are a few folks like me out there.

There are far more people that insist, still, on a $50 price point, and even more that are in the "I'll wait for it to go on sale during the summer" crowd.  It really is remarkable.  We think nothing of investing thousands in a PC and HOTAS, TrackIR, etc., and then balk when it comes time to pony up a hundred or so for a decent sim.  And it's relative.  When you consider how expensive FSX becomes once you start adding stuff to it, I can't believe anyone wants DCS-WW2 for less than $50.

[Nefaro]

@ Yassy,
We had a discussion on SimHQ I think about sim pricing and it was shocking.  There are many folks like me that really are willing to spend an almost unlimited amount of money (within reason) for the right sim.  For example, if you married DCS's graphics engine with Falcon 4's dynamic campaign with a DCS-level F-4 Phantom featured, I would consider anything under $500 reasonable.  For me that is value.  There are a few folks like me out there.

There are far more people that insist, still, on a $50 price point, and even more that are in the "I'll wait for it to go on sale during the summer" crowd.  It really is remarkable.  We think nothing of investing thousands in a PC and HOTAS, TrackIR, etc., and then balk when it comes time to pony up a hundred or so for a decent sim.  And it's relative.  When you consider how expensive FSX becomes once you start adding stuff to it, I can't believe anyone wants DCS-WW2 for less than $50.

Basic supply & demand principles.  While there will usually be someone willing to pay $500 for something, that doesn't mean many people will do so when they expect it to be $60 or less.  That would essentially cut their customer base down to almost nothing and pretty much guarantee very few sales and certainly no impulse buys.

While a $500, or even $100 flight sim may sound reasonable to you, that doesn't mean it is for most people.  Hell.. you see the reactions when Matrix prices a game at $80.  That's a lot of spare change for some, and such expenditures can never guarantee you'll enjoy it as much as you thought you would (or that it's relativley bug-free).  You're obviously a rare example when it comes to spending habits.  ;D

[Toonces]

I understand you completely.  Which is why I said we simmers have slit our own throats on this.

We want really expensive niche software, but we don't want to pay a lot of money for it.  So developers don't make it anymore. 

By setting that arbitrary $60 price point we've killed our own hobby.

I bought DCS:A-10 for $5 on Steam.  That is a shockingly insulting price to pay for that sim.  Honestly.  I don't find it particularly entertaining to play, so there's that, but for a sim of such high fidelity that you can use it to train for the real jet that's just obscenely cheap.  15 years ago we couldn't even imagine sims like DCS.

But forget about asking folks to pay up!

But then again that's for combat flight sims.  Browse around at FSX products sometime.  Good payware aircraft for FSX routinely push $50+.  I don't know why $50 is appropriate for a P-47 in FSX, but for DCS:WW2, six aircraft of that caliber as well as a mission editor, a variety of terrains, and all sorts of other bells and whistles need to be included for the same price.