Page 3
The Future of Military Simulations
by Len "Viking1" HjalmarsonGimme My Action Game!
The best hedge against the death of the serious combat flight simulation genre, however, is that game developers don't have to make clear marketing choices between SERIOUS on the one hand, and LIGHT or arcade on the other. In fact, the best serious simulations out there do not require any such choice on the part of the player.
Falcon 4, for example, while being an off-the-deep-end simulation much loved by the serious sim crowd, allows a host of options that can be selected by the casual sim pilot to enhance his survival and thus his fun. He can turn on invulnerability, choose a relaxed flight model and simplified radar. He can turn on LABELS to show the ID of all air and ground vehicles nearby. Targeting options can likewise be simplified, and enemy AI can be relaxed.
Microsoft CFS II
Similarly, the casual pilot in European Air War or CFS2 can choose a variety of parameters along which to ease the learning curve and enhance his success. The genius of this system is twofold: it allows easy entry into a serious simulation for someone who wants to learn the ropes, and from the marketing perspective, it allows a product to span a broad range of appeal and thus increases the economic viability of a serious simulation.
B-17: Hardware Requirements
"Flight sims are also extremely demanding of the hardware they run on...[placing] enough demands on a system to bring even the most cutting-edge computers to their knees."
At first glance, this statement rings true. On examination, however, it is a straw man. Let’s consider two examples.
When Jane’s released F/A-18, those playing with state-of-the-art hardware with full realism and maximum detail at 1024x768 discovered that a good frame rate averaged around 15 fps. Some players complained, especially those who lacked state-of-the-art hardware. But were the high end gaming systems “brought to their knees?” And if they were, was it the game designer’s fault?
It’s a complex question, because modern simulations offer enough graphics options to allow moderate systems to perform quite well. Simulation fans, however, are loathe to run the newest games at middle detail. While it is true that military simulations are among the most demanding applications available, I think it is debatable that they “bring cutting edge computers to their knees.”
My system at the time averaged 12 fps on deck, and 16 fps in the air, with full detail and full realism at maximum resolution. I didn’t consider that my system was underpowered, but rather was completely aware that reducing resolution one level or reducing detail or turning off clouds would allow me a higher frame rate.
My second example is Hasbro’s recently released B-17 Flying Fortress: The Mighty Eighth. I’ve run the beta on a Celeron II at 733MHz and an Athlon at 1 GHz. Both systems performed beautifully, but I discovered in the process that 128MB of system memory was a MINIMUM. Game performance at high resolution and high detail was much improved with an additional 64MB of system memory. In this case the gamer has two options: increase system memory or reduce game detail.
Development Cycle
Finally, the Gamecenter editors argue that the development cycle for a serious simulation is far too long to justify the resources. They seem to think that the development cycle of Falcon 4, which exceeded four years, is typical.
In fact, F4's four year plus development cycle is NOT typical for a serious simulation. After surveying developers, the average development cycle is between 18 and 24 months. Let's look at some examples.
Total Air War Intro screen
Digital Image Design’s TFX series:
EF2000 was followed by TAW in less than two years, and now Typhoon will be roughly thirty months after Total Air War. This last release has been delayed not because of increased complexity in the design, but because of the sale of DiD and the loss of many of the original team working on the game (rather like Microprose and F4).
Rowan Software’s simulation series:
MiG Alley followed Flying Corps Gold in less than two years, and Battle of Britain will be released about 15 months after the release of MiG Alley. These iterations are closer than usual because they build on the previous code and design model, extending the concept wherever desirable.
Microsoft’s Combat Flight Sim series:
With Combat Flight Simulator 2: Pacific Theatre the team built on the earlier title, and used the flight and graphics engine from Flight Simulator 2000. Wherever necessary, they extended and modified the engine to achieve their requirements. The time between the two releases was roughly two years.
The lesson? If the Falcon 4 team had not run into the incredible array of problems they encountered, we would now be playing Falcon 5.0 and the expense vs revenue figures for F4 would be more favorable. A team that is able to build two or three iterations by modifying and extending components gets a much more favorable return on their investment. With the smaller market of military simulation fans, this kind of approach is necessary for the company to remain viable.
Click Here for Printer Version
© 1997 - 2000 COMBATSIM.COM, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
