-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad
- Thread starter Sethos
- Start date
In terms of graphics I still think Wings of Prey is the better looking one. I know its lightning, models, etc. aren't as good as those in cliffs of dover, but as a whole, the game looks better, and runs at a stable 60 fps on most computers.
It's all about design choices. I would prefer a better looking sim that runs well on everyone's computer than something that tries to have advanced lightning/shadows/models and ends up looking like crap and run awfully slow.
I am so sad microsoft flight simulator died. When you realize that 20 years ago we even had games like X-Wing and Tie Fighters... it was the golden age of simulators.
Except Wings of Prey isn't even close to being a simulator. Even on simulation settings it's just an arcade flyer, same with every other Gaijin product.
Then I'm not sure where the parallel is to that engine? What I was talking about was encompassing a majority of simulators that go beyond the 'public face' of simulators - Like that Steelbeasts which looks like an ancient DOS game in an HD remake. A lot of simulators are way behind on their engines, not because they are striving for performance but because they simply don't have the time / money to develop them, also the reason why I added that to the 'steam exposure' argument.
If you were talking about engines suited for air combat, the Neoqb engine is more than capable and so are most other flight simulator engines these days. Even the DCS engine is very capable albeit with outdated terrain these days. CloD just seems to be the odd one out with their completely terrible engine.
I don't know if I'm right, but I think there are two things to take into account. The flight model, and the graphics. Wings of Prey has an arcade flight model, but basic, though efficient, graphics. The contrary goes for Cliffs of Dover, it has a relatively good flight model, but relatively bad graphics, and runs like crap.
The priority should always be the flight model, then how well the thing runs and then graphics. Being a simulator or a semi-arcade game shouldn't have anything to do with how well it runs, I was playing some nice simulators 15 years ago on a 486...
So yeah, they really messed up with cliffs of dover, it was terrible at release, and even though all those patches fixed a lot of things, it's still not as enjoyable as 1946. So now I'm careful.
edit: This discussion makes me want to play euro fighter 2000 and a-10 cuba again!
The priority should always be the flight model, then how well the thing runs and then graphics. Being a simulator or a semi-arcade game shouldn't have anything to do with how well it runs, I was playing some nice simulators 15 years ago on a 486...
So yeah, they really messed up with cliffs of dover, it was terrible at release, and even though all those patches fixed a lot of things, it's still not as enjoyable as 1946. So now I'm careful.
edit: This discussion makes me want to play euro fighter 2000 and a-10 cuba again!
Wiktor
Member
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
so, nobody ever play World of Warplanes?
Seems like more people stick with War Thunder for their F2P needs.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
can't believe I never heard of this! thanks!
Is it really though? Simulators have always been like that. Not only because simulations and open worlds draw more processing power than a corridor shooter, but it's also a fact that simulators don't sell that much and thus simulator devs tend to be smaller teams and more "simulator-focused" (visuals at a natural lower pri). Same thing with commercial simulators were the focus tends to be even more "skewed away from the visuals" (although it is kinda slowly coming back these days..).
A small digression while I have the opportunity to show it off; Here's one of several marine operations simulators at my workplace, 2-story high fully 360 degree bridge:
Anyway, with that said, I'm dreaming of a world were simulators were given GTA-IV-like teams of 600+.. It would be truly amazing..
I think you misunderstood that. I wasn't saying "Great mystery" to the visuals but their hatred and reluctance to release on Steam. Where the increased exposure could maybe give them some extra profit to improve their games.
Chance Hale
Member
So, it's Autumn, any updates? Site still just has a vague "Autumn 2013" for the Premium edition as far as I can tell.
Wiktor
Member
There's plenty of reason to be afraid of Steam though if you're indie dev and successful without it. Steam is in a way destroying the whole concept of indie these days. The simulator devs might be afraid that if they go into Steam they will be locked there forever and nobody will buy their games outside Steam anymore. If they are getting enough sales as they are now it's pretty valid concern.
This is especially true for simulator genre as it's fans are the least likely do exhibit the "if it's not on Steam I'm not buying it" behaviour right now. And second...modern sims rely heavily on DLC. Often that's the only thing that's keeping whole games afloat. And Valve doesn't let you put game on Steam if you're not also putting all the DLC on it too.