Why sims should be more like video games

[FlopGun]

Here are some features and concepts that could be in today's simulators to increase appeal. I know some don't want sims to be like games, but I think Sims could learn a lot from video games. Plus, they would be good for skills and make practice more entertaining.

CAMPAIGN MODE
Ever played Gran Turismo for Playstation? It starts you off with a 'trainer' car and easy tracks. And as you race, you earn points where you can buy new cars and faster cars. This could be a lot of fun with a sim, and creates a sensible progression of skills with aircraft. What's in your hangar?

MIXES/RATES
Sims should allow you to click a key and a menu comes up where you can choose different mixes and rates, both predifined, and custom, all from a menu or hotkey that can come up in flight. I know this can be done with a lot of radios but the ability to quickly create and test mixes on the computer would be worthy.

SKILL CHALLENGES
Sims need to have more obstatcle and slalom courses, and they should be timed. ANd they should be more like skills challenges like you have to be inverted through Gate D, and flat and level for Gate E, then KE for gate F, stuff like that.
This makes it a lot more fun to practice skills.

COMBAT MODE
Combat mode over the net. That's just fun. Also, skills challenges could be like dropping bombs or strafing runs!

PLATFORM SUPPORT
What would be wrong with a Sim for XBOX 360? PS3? That would be awesome, sell it with wireless tx controller.

TRAINING IMAC, Etc
Sims should have competitions like IMACs. Why not have an Aresti diagram guide and maneuvers that can be tried in conjunction. Also couldn't the sim score the event, and maybe you could go up against the Nalls and Woyshnis!

LITE VERSIONS WITH PLANE
When you buy a plane it should come with a CD with a SIM FREE! Just like scanners that come with photoshop lite. The Simulator lite version is limited, maybe one field, and low rates, but includes the plane with graphics you actually bought. This is a win-win for everyone as the software developer gets more exposure and an avenue to new customers. ANd of course we win because we get sim and plane to practice with.

Also all Sims should have free trial versions downloadable from net.

It amazes that these features are not in today's $200 simulators. My suggestion would be for Sim company to hire a modern video game lead developer and let him get busy!

[skirtz]

I strongly disagree. IMHO, there is a big difference between game and a rc simulator and for good reasons. The audience is not the same as well. If you have actually flown a real RC plane, you will understand that you can't do combat (due to fast action and lack of depth perception) and there is a reason why most flying fields are wide open spaces with no obstacles. For helicopters, 90% of people will be happy if they ever learn to hover nose in. It is hard and very unforgiving. If the sim sugarcoats the flight model, there is no value in the sim, you are better off getting a game, it will be cheaper and there will be more features that you are looking for.


Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[FlopGun]

Skirtz, I think you're missing the bigger picture, and that is why we do it? For entertainment, and to improve. Well why not have both?

All the sims seem pretty stark to me. Pick a plane, pick a scenery and fly around for a while. Essentially the equivalent of 'Arcade mode.' The game idea gets things more structured, more focused, and adds entertainment and personality.

I know that realflight has some of these elements but I would not call them well done.

Also, the audience for rc planes and video games, I assure you, is compatible. Boys and their toys.

Skirtz, I have flown *real* rc planes, lol, I know that many pilots, and ones at my field, fly combat and snipe races and fun type competitions. This could be implemented in sims. And has to some degree in some, although it seems like an afterthought in AFPD and Realflight.

And I think there is a forum for combat here at RC Groups.

There's no reason anything has to be sugar coated. Did I say that? But that might be a good option for some. Games typically have novice/expert type of options. Let the pilots choose.

Let me try an example, let's say I want to practice precision rudder control, what better way than to line up and drop some bombs on some tanks. So I get to improve my skills and have some fun while doing it. This is a proven technique for educational products. Kids learn typing faster (and actually try) when it is wrapped into a game.

And it allows you to set goals and keep score. Without some kind of scoring or achievements it's hard to judge your progress.

As far as obstacle at fields, you don't see practice equipment at football games either, but at football practice you have to run through all those tires!

And if I was into precision flying wouldn't it be cool if you could learn how a competition works and is scored. This would definitely improve your flying.

I think there is an opportunity out there for someone such as yourself to build something really special.

Clearview would be a good product to include in every 'Acme Hobby' plane product. Come to the cleerview website to upgrade!

[skirtz]

While I have a formed opinion, it is interesting subject for discussion. I wonder what would be the consencus. Let's see.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[shizack]

I see the point, but I also disagree. How much time (or money, if he farms it out) will the developer spend on purely entertainment features that would better be spent towards physics and model realism? Especially with (what I believe is ) a one-man operation like Clearview?

However, skills development (like maybe a semi-transparent disk at a certain level above the ground for altitude holding training, or circles to fly through) features may be useful. Maybe "score it and store it" and post scores online?

Enabling collisions between on-line flyers or between the model you're piloting and a flight pattern that's playing could be helpful towards training to fly at a crowded field. Especially if the AI could tend towards flying at your model. But...

Good sims already tend to bring all but the most brutal PCs to their knees. Unnecessary candy would likely make it even worse.

[skirtz]

The heart of any RC flight simulator is the flight model (physics) implementation. It is very hard to come with good physics and that is why the RC sims are expensive. The slick graphics is the easy part and is very well known from technological standpoint.

Most of the suggestions FlopGun make are definitely doable and not that hard to do either. They will add complexity to the user interface and from end user standpoint, the simulator will be harder to use, due to more choices and possible settings.

If we disregard the amount of work involved, I still would like to know if they add a value to the simulator in the mind of mainstream RC simulator users or will be a distraction.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[hancockdw]

A training mode for helis, in which a warning is given if the model strays from a system or user defined cube (for hovering) or path (for FF), might be useful.

[Ade]

some of the suggested things are a good idea, they can be used to structure your learning its common especially in helis to start throwing it wround without first getting the fine control.

phoenix has some of the features you talk about.

http://www.phoenix-sim.com/features_modes.htm

some of the things arent really practical. a lot of sims use the dongle as security key they go to great lengths to make sure its very difficult (not worthwhile) to crack so making a lite version would be tricky.

i believe there are big issues with licensing costs getting stuff onto the consoles this means you need to sell a large volume which then means you need a publisher to get it into the shops getting published isnt easy!

im not sure about a campain mode surely you want to fly the model your flying not something else?

Ade

[FlopGun]

Making a lite version is not difficult and is proven effective marketing. It's a win-win. Those companies that use dongles might consider a net based authentication, which I think I did when I bought Clearview. Also, sometimes it's better to have an easily distributed product (read no dongle) and tolerate some piracy. Most of the time the Pirates wouldn't buy the thing anyways so it's sort of a way to get your stuff out there. Another way to combat piracy is to constantly update your software, Automatic net updates with more planes and stuff. Also can verify license this way, maybe collect annual fees, etc......

On the Xbox 360 I don't know the details, you might need to pitch to a partner, but it surely is doable. The console thing would be nice but the main thing is the game concept.

Ade, I fly lots of models on the Sim. I tend to fly large models just because they are easiest to see. The model you are flying will not be exactly like the sim model anyways, so by flying different models you get a broader and more useful experience.

Campaign mode, you keep adding planes to your hangar, and depending on the next task, Pylon race, strafing run, you would select the appropriate plane. The P-51 for the strafing run and one of those Reno racers for the pylons. Oh and the B-52 for the carpet bombing!

Depending on how you do on challenges/races you get money that you can use to buy better planes, engines, whatever. If you crash a plane then maybe you get the engine back but the plane is gone, or it cost $ to repair, you get the idea.......

[shizack]

Upon further reflection, in my opinion...

Adding optional, more "gamey" modes would probably not hurt the sim as a whole. It probably would, in fact, add value. They build games into Windows OSs, which were originally "workstations" right? Taking a break from nose-in practice to napalm some cows with a Yak 54 has a definite appeal. However...

From a purely personal standpoint, file size is a HUGE issue for me. I can't afford broadband internet, and I use a USB interface from my cell phone to get my PC online. It's not much faster than dial-up, and no external power source. Downloading, for example, the latest version of Clearview is a two-full-charge adventure for me. That wouldn't be an issue with boxed software, but if I can't afford HSI, and can barely afford to keep one heli at a time in the air, I certainly ain't paying 200 bucks so I can pretend I'm flying my heli. The sim is supposed to save me money, and it has. If Clearview ever bloats to 200 megs or so, especially for superfluous features, I just won't bother updating.

Again, that's just from my personal (admittedly minority) standpoint. But there are other dial-uppers out there.

[AndyOne]

I strongly disagree. IMHO, there is a big difference between game and a rc simulator and for good reasons. The audience is not the same as well. If you have actually flown a real RC plane, you will understand that you can't do combat (due to fast action and lack of depth perception)

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

I beg to differ, have you ever flown in a gaggle of 10 Zagis all trying to occupy the same space.

I do, however, agree that RC combat is not a reasonable thing to do with with conventionally constructed planes.

Andy.

[Malc C]

Personally I feel that a simulator is a tool that one can use to improve or learn to fly model aircraft with. However, whilst the hart of a model flight sim is the physics engine and the search for making it as real as possible (both visually and in the behaviour) you could equally say the same effort goes into something like Tiger Woods Golf and most of the driving games (Need for speed etc). In these "games" there is a strong engine controlling the physics that act on the car, or the ball etc. So technically then both flight sims and these games are very close.

Having said that I don't think that I would want a lot of the options available in these games to appear in the main stream flight sims. Some form of career or competition mode where you could participate in performing set moves etc would be cool.

In responce to flopgun's suggestion for target practice, there is a good free fun game from small rockets called Red Ace Squadron that lets you practice droping bombs etc from WWI planes :) but as its not something I do from my helicopter in real life, I wouldn't want to see that sort of option in a model flight sim

[cozzykim]

When I read the post title my first thought, initially echoed by Stefan, was "naahhh no point".

But, the more opinions posted, the more I'm thinking "yes why not?"

Flopgun's point about using a competitive element to boost the learning experience is valid, learning to touch type is boring so most of us don't bother, but I bet platform games have taught most of us where our shift, alt and ctrl keys are?

My first PC game was X-Wing on a 486 SX25 where you had to fly through 3D gates to qualify for mission status, that sort of challenge is what keeps you at the game/sim - learning all the time hopefully.

As far as CV goes, maybe the competitive element could be an add-on so that you didn't have to download it as part of a massive file.

Taking a break from nose-in practice to napalm some cows with a Yak 54 has a definite appeal.
Oh yes yes yes please, I laughed out loud and, now you've suggested it, I WANT TO DO IT :) although napalm is a bit cruel mate - how about tomato ketchup, that'll scare 'em.

Maybe at least think about it Stefan, Ade ( sorry, of course I know you have NO influence at Phoenix ;) ) and anybody else who's interested

Regards

Kim

[flyin C]

I am happy with my Realflight G3.5

Online flying is way fun and you can play limbo, deadstick landing, pylon race, and free style. All great fun.

IMO I think sims are meant for training and learning RC. You can go from a trainer to a 3D plane for 'levels'

I am 14yrs old and video games dont really appeal to me, Id rather spend money on Rc planes! But the Sims really do grab my attention more than games, becuase its the real thing and you learn from what you do.

[dmulligan]

My opinion falls between both camps. Right now I've got my will and ideas alone to help push my learning and practicing forward. What if sims could give me a definite progression path as well as rate my flying. A virtual teacher of sorts. "Now try this" "Don't over correct," "that was good but try it again." I am not sure what else. For heli's implementing a RADDS course could be interesting and fun.

Perhaps something like this would help increase the 10% of people who progress beyond hovering nose in.

[FlopGun]

The skills needed for video games and RC are almost exactly the same. I might even take it one step further and modify a Nintendo Wii controller and control a plane with it! After practicing on the Sim of course.

[billyzelsnack]

I think the reason why there are not more game elements in sims is make them appear "more serious" and not "dumbed down."

It also allows the developers to price a sim higher as a "game" has lower price expectations then a "tool."

[dmulligan]

I think the reason why there are not more game elements in sims is make them appear "more serious" and not "dumbed down."

It also allows the developers to price a sim higher as a "game" has lower price expectations then a "tool."

I think it has more to do with demand. They just can't sell 10 million copies.

[billyzelsnack]

Yes. Niche market is a factor, but consumer price expectations can trump that. If the sims just look like a game.. Then why is it not priced like a game?

[Mnemic]

As a gamer who started on an Intellivision, and stuck with gaming to this day, I have some opinions as well. I'm one of the gamers out there with a very good PC gaming system, few consoles, and number of joysticks/controllers for all of them. I'm new to the hobby and really enjoy it so far. (Helis here, not planes). Pardon my long string of thoughts as I write them out.

Before I even purchased a heli I downloaded FSM and broke out a Dual-Shock like controller (game pad with 2 thumb sticks) and started with that. it was HARD. but the challenge kept me going. My wife tried it, and got fustrated after 2 mins, and gave up due to the difficutly of learning. There is no help, Just keeping this polygon model in the air was difficult, but the only "reward" was personal gain to keep it flying. For her, it was a pointless exercise. It still really felt like a game to me, but with no score, or life meter.

Having simple game modes built in that keep score would be very very cool. Helicopters remind me more of classic NES days where difficulty was a huge factor, and games back then were much less forgiving then anything these days. 1 Life to complete an entire level is not much unlike flying a heli... 1 Heli to fly... Crash it, you are out for a little while, if not longer. Once you mastered a level, you would go back and try to beat your score.

Freestyle Score keeping mode alone would be great. (I'm still new to Helis, so I don't know how to do much, but assume it wouldn't be difficult to detect certain flying elements which refer to a "stunt" like Inverted flying, etc.) Soon as the plane's blades start spinning your score starts going up. Abit slowly. Hovering = x/points per second. FFF gives a 1.5x score multiplier. Inverted 2.0x multiplier. Have the Sim give you specific stunts to pull of, and give bonus multipliers for each stunt pulled off. Inverted hover in a 10x10' area gives 5x bonus for 30 seconds. There are hundreds of ways to do this.

I know there are lots of other stunts, but thats one thing the sims seem to lack is clear instruction on how to do them, much less practice them. I can't even find the name of many stunts, and watching a youtube video of some expert flying looks cool, but it doesn't mean much to me yet, cause I have no clue what they are doing :P

A Trainer mode would be pretty nifty for a lot of things like that. Shows the pattern on the sticks, and lets you do them in slow motion to practice as well perhaps. Then A mode that acts like a co-pilot while you learn, and at the end of each session, puts a clear messages indicating "Your trainer helped you 50% of the time". Learning to hover could be a lot easier with something like that. And the idea of Having RADDs in electronic sim format (Got to have the humorous 1 liners as well!!) is just awesome.

On a sidenote, I really like clearview & its development. The fact he posts here, in these threads, and listens to customer feedback is a "WoW" to customer service to me. I know he can't make everyone happy, but I've been very happy so far. I had one problem moving my license from my main PC to my laptop once, and emailed, and got an reply in like 10 mins, and this was late at night.

[FlopGun]

Yes, Mnemic, that is right on.

Billy, I'm not suggesting that the sim developers make an RC Sim game or even look like a game (packaging and such), just that they use game modes and competition in the Sim. Yes the perception out there is a game isn't serious rc, that's unfortunate and imho narrow minded. Besides it can be done in such a way as to appear 'serious', IMAC events, F3A, etc.

And these perceptions can all be overcome by execution. Simply deliver the goods -- a compelling, immersive RC experience where you can match your skills up against top pilots!

[FlopGun]

Uhoh, I'm going to ramble on now and I apologize in advance.

So here's how my sim game would work, and I'm thinking out loud here.... some of this could be dumb.

OK, so you start off at your hangar. The hangar looks like your garage with tapes, glues and tools and stuff and one trainer plane. So you click 'new' to start a new 'season'. You choose rookie mode where flight model is a little more forgiving than 'expert' (high winds maybe).

You get $1000 cash, and you choose and buy a plane. Make the planes kind of cool, maybe enlist sponsors like 3dhs, EF, etc. You can rig the planes with your favorite servos, motors, etc. All of this cost $ but the player can choose his preference. This captures a little of the build part of the hobby, it's supposed to simulate it right?

Ok, so now you go to the training field where you have to do a bunch of stuff, fly thru hoops, do loops, pop the balloons, drop the bomb, whatever. You have to get through that before you qualify for the events. It is very important that these training exercises are effective, there is a lot of value in these if done right. THey get harder and more intricate as you move through the season.

Then comes the event where you have to fly a sequence or do some routine. Maybe in later stages it's a freestyle thing. But very basic stuff at first. Then you win trophies, earn $$ where you can buy a more advanced plane, etc..... More opportunities for sponsor stuff....

To add some personality, get one of the top pilots to do video tips, offer congrats and so on. Leseberg or Jesky or Woyshis, one of those guys. Have some stick video.....

Well, that's all for now, it would be a pretty cool sim.....

More ideas?

[glucoseboy]

Here's my take: The purpose of a sim is to train your fingers and brain so you can fly in real life. The more realistic the physics, the better the training. It's all about getting as much stick time as possible. I remember spending many sessions doing nothing but side-in, nose-in, inverted, etc. on the sim (I've used, clearview, AFPD, my current favorite is PhoenixRC).

However, without the danger/thrill of a possible crash and suffering the consequences, I find flying on the sim pretty boring. I know I need to do it to advance my skills, but those sessions often feel like work to me; it's tedious. I can't spend more than half an hour or so at a time. Why do something if it's not fun?

Some ideas for making RC flight sims a little more fun (apologies if someone mentioned these previously).

Pylon racing that keeps track of the best times
hovering obstacle course (like those used at some fun flys)
helicopter "rescue" (fly to a point, with a "hook" on a line and pick up cargo to deliver it to another point
Combat/racing with networked flyers (what's the point of flying with someone else over the internet if you can't really interact with them?)
Chase mode: Have an object (Plane, heli, car) move around in the environment and the player has to follow it around.
Destruction: have the field littered with various targets and bomb/shoot them.
I see nothing wrong with sims being more like video games in the sense of making them more interesting and fun. As long as the physics is correct, what's wrong with adding elements that don't really reflect what you would do at the field? You're still learning how to move the sticks properly.

[shizack]

Anyone here play "GTA: San Andreas" on PS2? I need to dig out my dusty copy and see if I can do the "destroy the building with the RC heli" level any better now that I have really flown them for a while.

I remember cussing at the game like a P.O.'d crackhead because that heli was so twitchy. Now, with a year of real stick time, I wonder...

What TX/RX was he using anyway? Had to be 2.4G - incredible range...

[skirtz]

deleted

[FlopGun]

I'm enjoying this thread. I should be flying on the Sim now.

Skirtz, we are not asking for Gran Turismo, this is just an example of successful games that require (and train) refined skills.

If you've played GT you know that when you first get it, you can't drive worth a s**t. After a while you get kind of hooked on it, and after about six months it's really amazing what progress you've made.

I don't think any of this gameplay has to be even close to perfect to be effective and fun. And it of course doesn't happen to happen all at once, merely incorporating one new element per year would be a welcome step forward and I'd upgrade/buy extras no prob. I especially like that Clearview is reasonably priced.

I say this because I am kind of stuck in a rut on my sim now. Like what Glucose says, it can get boring without the threat of crashing. So something more entertaining would keep me on the sticks. I keep trying to do these perfect 4 point rolls and they are harder than they look, I really need some way of measuring my progress.

As far as the flight model physics, Skirts, you've got something that works and of course it can always get better, but, it's in place, a lot of the work has been done. I guess finding the right feature set and pricing is a tough balancing act.

How small/large is the market? Worldwide, how many flew say more than 4 or more days in 2007? How many bought a plane/heli in 2007? 2006?

[skirtz]

The best way to learn without losing interest is to mix real flying with sim training. The simulator let's you try and learn new maneuvers, but you can only refine it when flying for real. Flying too much on the sim, without the checks or hard reality, will bring false sense of security (and may be some bad habits). The sim is just a learning tool ( very important one in fact) but only burning real fuel (or current) brings the refinement and skills that make for good 3d flyer.

I think game features are good for games and distractions for a simulator, if you look at the simulator seriously as a tool. Having said that, a good game with elements of simulator may make a good game for many of us. It will not sell a lot, just because we are a small market.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[skirtz]

....
How small/large is the market? Worldwide, how many flew say more than 4 or more days in 2007? How many bought a plane/heli in 2007? 2006?

AMA has about 120000 members, so that gives you some idea for the potential customer base. That is not that much, if you think that any one between 8 and 80 is a potential gamer - that makes 250000000 potential customer base for computer games in USA.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[FlopGun]

Well, I guess, Skirtz, despite the comments on this thread we won't be seeing any game elements in Clearview, which is unfortunate. Distraction or learning tool? Realflight and Phoenix (and AFPD a little) are two sims that have added these elements, albeit not very well. I suspect they will be going down this path, what else can they do to offer more features to sell more units?

I really think that you could sell a lot more copies of Clearview. The idea that if you have game elements in a product makes it 'not serious' is crazy. So by your definition you should make your product void of competitive and game elements? This makes it better?

And future flyers? 90% of kids growing up today are playing video games. So there's a huge opportunity to capture some of that.

Besides, how serious is this hobby. It's a recreational activity in the first place.

[skirtz]

ClearView will continue to be learning tool with true to life flight model simulation and I will take my chances. I will let other simulator be more like games (which they do already to their detriment).

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[FlopGun]

OK, well no hard feelings. Maybe you're right. I believe the rc sim market will move in this direction without you. Those hot shot 15 year old pilots honed their skills on you know what.

[dubd]

If RC sims came with the features that FlopGun suggest in his original post I would not buy it. I buy a simulator to practice. I am not interested in using it as a video game... I am a hardcore gamer and I have my Xbox360, PS3, Wii, PSP, PC for that.

It pains me that Real Flight G4 has a bunch of bloat features in it. Do I really need to fly a model from a pirate ship? :p

[FlopGun]

I don't understand the resistance to 'features.' Dubd, you don't have to use them. But they do give others who like them a choice.

I said 'more like video games' not 'should be video games'. I've played soccer, tennis, football, lots of organized sports. And at practice, we've always used games, gimmicks, and competition as a way of keeping it focused. In team sports you have practice games and in others you have timed results or sparring partners. All of this is called practice or perhaps a better word, training.

Anyone that coaches or plays competively knows this is *fundamental*. I'm actually quite surprised that some don't want to see this in the sims. I would like to be a better pilot, and 'practice games' would allow me to do that.

Let me give you examples of baseball little league games. Some of them utilize gimmicks. They are all serious practice.

The Strike Zone Drill
The purpose of this drill is to teach the hitter "strike zone recognition".

Teams get 3 outs per at bat.A coach pitches the ball from about 40 feet in front of the plate. The hitter sets up at the plate with a bat, strides at the proper time, follows the ball with his head into the catcher's glove, and calls "ball" or "strike" as the ball hits the glove.
(www.howtoplay.com)

Baseball Batting Drills The Colored Ball Drill
The purpose of this drill is to improve reaction time and thinking at the plate.

Paint several baseballs with different bright colors, and place them in a bucket behind the mound. Have someone place one of the balls in the pitcher's glove without letting the batter see the color. The pitcher then calls out a color before pitching the ball. The batter can only swing if the ball matches the color the pitcher called out (and if the pitch is in the strike zone).
(coach Mike Cole)

Baseball Batting Drills The Pitch Behind Drill
The purpose of this drill is to prevent timid hitters from backing out at the plate.

The timid little league batter always seems to assume that backing out will automatically prevent him from being hit by the pitch. He usually starts his getaway before he has any notion of where the pitch is really headed. I have had some success against this tendency by throwing behind the timid batter's back. After all, he will get plenty of these pitches at the little league level, and you don't want him backing into them and getting hurt.

Start out using spalding or tennis balls. At first, throw a lot of pitches behind him, then gradually decrease the frequency of these pitches as he starts to break the habit. Soon he will realize that he had better not back up until he sees where the ball is really going.

This will make him safer and more confident at the plate. And while he's watching the ball more closely, he's going to realize that he doesn't have to hide from the good pitches, but can stay put and hit them.
(coach Randy Wert)

Baseball Batting Drills Wall Ball Hitting Drill
This drill is actually a hitting game that allows players to build skills, learn to perform under pressure, identify strikes, and develop a line drive swing.

Practice without improvement is meaningless.
Chuck Knox

[skirtz]

>I don't understand the resistance to 'features.' Dubd, you don't have to use them.

We pay for everything, one way or another, sooner or latter. You assume that sim developers have unlimited resources. In fact, they do not. All the time they make choice what features to implement, given the limitation in people, in time or both. Sim features that make model flight realistic are difficult to implement. Beginners will not always feel the lack of them and may not appreciate them accordingly. That is why many simulators are heavy on "game" features and light on "physics" (or quality of simulation ) features. If the direction is that from any $100 develpoments dollars $80 go for implementing game like fluff and only $20 to core simulating functionality, I reject this direction. Many RC users will reject it too, because of common cense. Their dollar can buy a lot of "game" features in the current mass games and they don't want to pay for game elements in RC simulator. If they want to play, they get mass market game that is much cheaper and is a better game as well. When I want to learn RC, I want to get realistic simulator that is laser focused on proper physics in the first place. That is why when I develop ClearView, I put the physics implementation first and I know I will continue that way.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[FlopGun]

Stefan, it's not my job to figure out the balance of resources. I appreciate that you follow and respond in these threads. I understand resources are limited. As a consumer I can only express my interests and hopefully influence others such as developers like yourself. You don't think there is value in sim games or training gimmicks. I do, and would gladly pay for them. I am trying to change your mind. My view is that you would sell more units or could charge more for them if you added these features so you recoup your investment. You make more and at the same time the consumer gets more.

It's about value. You could be asking "What can I do to make my customers better pilots?" The answer to that might not be "work all day on smoke effects, water reflections and flight physics." It might be "you know, Clearview physics are pretty good, I think I'll add some practice drills that are fun and teach specific skills."

Maybe I should just ask nicely, "Stefan, Clearview's great, but please add some game drills to Clearview" :) And AFPD people I hope you are reading this. And Phoenix people please add a working demo that we can download so we can try it' And Realflight people "your planes fly like bricks." :eek:

[gregt@post.pl]

I would only say that so far playing with FMS and ClearView, as much as I like them for learning to use my controller and actually learning to fly a heli, it would be great from time to time to relax with the "from the cockpit view".. I do realize though that would require adding some gauge and instrumentation to that view to make it "sowmewhat realistic" which may be where the extra work would be for the developer. It sure would be nice though to see onself fly from "within" every so often, still using the Tx.
Is there a value to it from RC perspective? Not sure... :) But it sure would be a nice break :) I think that may, if advertized, increase the audience of the people who buy the product.. but then again it may push the developer to go in a different direction, which I think may be the issue developers of RC flight sims want to avoid.

[archiebald]

Personally, when I pay out my dosh for an RC sim, I would like to feel that I am getting my money's worth in terms of accurate physics and an immersive experience that is going to help me fly my helicopter better and have less crashes.

For example, I CAN see the point in having advanced wind effects, real-life shadows and auto-rotation target practise, but I cannot for the life of me see a reason why I would want to be flying from a pirate ship or from the cockpit. Totally unrealistic. When I see features like that in an RC sim it just makes me think that the developers are wasting my hard earned cash in an attempt to appeal to the Playstation crowd, who possibly don't even own an RC model.

The only "game" features I would like to see (if it were possible) would be a scoring system for individual maneuvers. For example, If I perform a cuban 8, I would like to be able to analyze how far I deviated from a perfect move so I can improve my flying. Others might include how out-of-round my loops are or how axial my rolls are. Auto-rotation or spot landing practise is obviously an easy one to implement, doing it for other aerobatic moves would be difficult I am sure, but real RC simmers might appreciate something like this.

Lets keep sims as sims and games as games.

[FlopGun]

Archiebald, good comments on the game features, that would be wonderful. A way to measure your progress is essential.

Archie, I have to disagree with you on the Pirate ship thing. Who cares if they added a 'novelty' scenery. For the life of you, you don't have to use it. It probably took them less than a few hours to toss it in there. It's a little diversion. Ever think there might be 12 year olds using the sim who might enjoy it and keep them engaged?

[gregt@post.pl]

You know.. I think after rereading this tread I see the point of the pple who'd rather have a better accurate and well behaved RC sim, and the points or at least analisys of some flying pattern and such would be cool. I would say adding the "virtual cage" so u can train yourself to stay in boundries would be good. Now.. if someone wanted to write a sim that would work with the standard TX but would be more of a "Game like thing" then people like me will dish out some $ and buy it.. but I agree that is the actual rc sim went that direction that would take away the focus and the direction frm the developers.. so I would not even be weary a bit of say ClearView comming out with a more game like product because I would wonder just what the penalty of them working on this was to the RC product....
Interesting discusion thought.. I wonder if some sim writer will get some ideas to make both sides of the fence somewhat happy ;)

[dmulligan]

I wonder if there would be an interest in a public API to develop such things. Create a modding community of sorts.

[skirtz]

I wonder if there would be an interest in a public API to develop such things. Create a modding community of sorts.
ClearView allready has networking API so you can get complete information for the model position, rotation, speed etc. together with info about the control inputs. You can develop a control program that receives ( in loop ) that info and sends back to ClearView either modified control inputs (in case of UAV simulator) or set the exact model position. This was developed for a customer that used ClearView as test bed for developing flight control software. I don't see many people interested in this API so I am not sure I want to support it.

Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[Johndou]

My initial reaction to this thread was a negative one. I did not see the need or reason for an R/C flight simulator to be a video game. Like others who have already posted I don't like the novelty scenes with pirate ships and carnivals, it detracts from the "reality" of using a simulator.

I don't see the need to have a group of cardboard cutouts of staff members of KnifeEdge Software set-up so that you can destroy an airplane or heli and knock them down - as they have on G3.5.

Anyone serious about developing an accurate R/C simulator would have thought about things like imac maneuver and pylon racing scores long before they wasted their time developing pirate ships and carnivals.

But, with that said, I think there is a great need to develop the current R/C simulator into more of a video game. Once the market is opened up to the game developers small companies like RealFlight will have to compete for their market share in an already very small market. More people will be attracted to the "game" which, in turn, will bring in more competition. That competition will drive the current R/C sim developers to either compete with the game developers and we'll have some very inexpensive R/C games, with great graphics, realistic airplanes and better physics that utilize our existing controllers - or - we'll have some "moderately priced" (existing prices will drop) R/C simulators with much improved physics, more realistic airplanes and helis, better graphics that utilize a "custom" controller similar to some of the existing 12 channels - and we'll have imac judging, pylon racing scores ... on-line competitions will develop and a whole new breed of R/C addicts will be born.

Competition is good.

[dmulligan]

I really don't see competition, such as pylon races, as being a game. Race car simulators allow you to compete in a race and not just do laps. There is at least an order of magnitude difference in the difficulty in implementing a r/c competition than an automobile race but that doesn't make it less fun. I don't know about you but I have an easier time learning when I enjoy myself at the same time.

I know I said it before but what I would love to see is a training simulator or a virtual instructor. Not a game but a learning tool.

CV has the autopilot tool which could be leveraged by a virtual instructor and RF G3.5 has the hover trainer and the follow-me feature as well. CV also has the flight recorder feature which could be used as a series of demonstrations, tutorials and exercises.

[FlopGun]

ClearView allready has networking API so you can get complete information for the model position, rotation, speed etc. together with info about the control inputs. You can develop a control program that receives ( in loop ) that info and sends back to ClearView either modified control inputs (in case of UAV simulator) or set the exact model position.

Nice. Are there some docs for that? That might be fun to check out.

[JWilliams2]

Obviously, sims are there to as closely represent (simulate) real flight, so that should be their foundation. However, I agree with a video game aspect to it just to make it more fun. I think real flight has some modes with lit up loops, for instance. That isn't relevant to anything, but is merely fun and it will increase sense of control. Any simulator that went too far away from its roots would no longer be a simulator, so there's no worry about them all turning into silly things that would be ported to a play station or something :)

[habitforming]

I for one am almost totally on the side of FlopGun here...

For me personally, I find that any of the rigid sims fall flat after a few hours of use. I've had this same experience in automobile racing sims, as I have now recently with R/C aircraft sims. At the beginning, there's a real thrill to picking up a new skill and enjoying a new experience. But once I feel I've figured out the physics and techniques to operate the machine, it becomes boring. I feel like I'm wasting time, because there's just no sense of "accomplishment." Now, take a videogame that on the surface appears to be repetitive (run, shoot, duck, reload, repeat ad nauseum), and I will play it for days, weeks, months, or years. And I'll keep coming back for the sequels. The difference is that those make me feel like I'm "doing something" with my time.

As a specific example - ToCA Race Driver series is a very good (though not brutally accurate) simulator for car racing. I have purchased each of the 3 and played through all of them a good deal. I'm still playing ToCA 3. The game has extensive online multiplayer opportunity, career modes, challenges for skill improvement, and so on.

Secondly, I think the developers especially need to consider demographics and generational characteristics. The old are going to get older, and eventually they will no longer be customers (sorry, old guys ;) ). The young will soon be your new customer base. I'd say you already have many Millenial Generation modelers using your products. I'm borderline one of them.

Keep in mind some of the characteristics of this generation - need constant entertainment, short attention span, looking to feel accomplished. A bare bones simulator does nothing to appeal to that group. Once it's served its purpose to show you the basics, it's just way more fun to take the real model out. Except for those occasions where the weather isn't good or the model isn't functional, the simulator will soon see little to no use. And there go the repeat customers for new versions, expansions, upgrades, etc.

With all that said, if I had to pick between "more fun to play" and "more accurate to real life", I'd pick "more accurate to real life." But that's not to say in any means that I don't want to enjoy using it!

Just my two cents, don't spend it all in one place.

[gregt@post.pl]

One of the reasons I was mentioning "in cocpit" somewhere above is the "virtual technology" that is available to modelers.. like having VR glasses or some sort of contraption getting video feed from the model.. Not very popular, but I think this is how many modelers, who possibly fly/drive models only because they cannot do the real thing, can get more of a feeling how to fly say a real heli. If the physics is still the same as in the already working emulator, so the manuverability and the controls are the same, now we can suddenly experience the same manuvers and actions seing what it looks like from the inside. Also.. something like adding some readouts like in a real plane/heli would allow the person to try to get their bearing as to the position and such still not seing the outside of the model. I do not think it would get quite to where "habitforming" was going above, but even with say limmited flying field that clearview offers, it would still be an additional thrill to try the same things from a different point of view. Personally I think it would be so cool to do autorotation from "inside"! Maybe it will get boring after 100 times, maybe not ;)

I do still agree that being as realistic as possible in the physics and response is the most important, but addig some "pleasure related" :) bells and whistles would be a cool addition ;) To bad most RC controllers do not come with fire buttons ;)

BTW, on the little bells and whistles - ClearView added a function that shows a little window with the closup of the model, so when flying further away I loose track of the heli's position I can check it.. quite useful, and heck.. good luck figuring out your orientation on a screen whenthe whole heli takes up 5 pixels! Good add ClearView! Thx!

[bilboa]

I personally wouldn't find a lot of value in adding lots of game-like features to an RC sim, so my vote would be for sim developers to focus first on improving the realism as much as possible, and only add game-like features if they have extra resources to do so. I don't have anything against computer games, but there are already thousands of them available if you want to do something fun on your computer other than practice your RC flying.

I do like having some kinds of structured practice in my sim though. For example Phoenix has a mode where balloons are released into the air and you have to try to fly into them. While this is not anything I'd do in real life, I've found it's a very good way to get practice controlling the plane or heli precisely without over controlling that's more fun than just trying to fly patterns over the ground in the sim. More things like that would be fine. However the main pleasure in this hobby as far as I'm concerned is flying the actual models. The simulator is just a tool to help me learn new skills without crashing a lot. If I want a real computer game I know where to find them.

[Deserteagle]

To make a sim very realistic for me would be to have my wife nag at me everytime I crash and have to order parts.

Basically it goes like this:

1 open sim
2 pick helicopter
3 fly helicopter
3 crash helicopter
4 throw parts in box
5 drive home
6 kiss the wife so she thinks everything is ok
7 wait for wife to fall asleep
8 get online and order parts
9 try make sure parts arive on days she works late
10 read credit card info in total darkness and only by the light of my monitor
11 keep checking over my back to make sure she's not behind me

If a sim did this then it would be about as accurate as one can get in my opinion.

also the sim must have a slider bar to represent the chance of wife findng the box of broken parts and/or noticing the credit card statement.

[davidd31415]

My only RC experience is with a car from 15 years ago, take my comments for what they are worth.

I think adding game elements to sims is a good idea.

I think making sims more like games is a bad idea.

Worst-case scenario, the author manages to make the sim into a great game, gamers come flocking, and the author realizes the best way to make more money would be to focus on the game play.

If I buy a RC sim I will be buying it so I can use a "real" controller with a simulator. Joysticks, console controllers, and keyboards may do great at simulating tanks, subs, and even cars to a degree but I don't feel much realism about flying a plane or a helicopter. Using a real controller and simulating a RC instead sounds like the next best thing!

I would probably be interested in taking off and landing to start but beyond that I would like to see statistics about my flight. Maximum and average speed and altitude, flight time- I'm sure I could come up with more. A measure of skill would definitely be nice.

A virtual trainer would be great, those don't exist yet? I don't see this as a game element. I agree with mnemic who recommended a display of stick controls, especially if the next best alternative is YouTube. Post-stunt analysis would be great: if the trainer could tell me "you had too much side fumbling on the recto encabultor" then that might help me improve.

Documentation and in-game videos (real or animated) of stunts, their names, levels of expertise, and so on seems invaluable, especially when mnemic is having trouble just finding such things. It wouldn't take a software developer to work on most of this. How can these things not exist? Did this app start out on Linux? (just kidding)

Seriously though, this data would not need to be stored in the game even (why torture Shizack's dialup). NOT having this type of data just seems lazy and cheap to me. Having a nice, comprehensive list of stunts, how to perform them, and user comments about them would be an asset to a sim's website. If it was done nicely enough RC enthusiasts would eventually end up on the sim's web site while Googling for stunt tutorials. This couldn't hurt sales.

Plenty of RC geeks must be willing to start this project as a short-term contract job; heck, many would probably help out for free. If the content is as difficult to find as mnemic makes it out to sound then maybe I'll put up a site and hope to attract sim and RC advertisers some day (right after I learn to pause time).

I don't like the idea of having to "earn" cash in any game. Between WoW and 2nd Life virtual cash sure is taking off but the racing games that make it a factor annoy me. It is interesting to see how xBox Live and all the virtual purchases are playing out- every generation has something new I suppose. I had the "information super highway" coming to the consumer level (was anyone else a teenage boy using the internet when the media industry decided to keep telling people that the internet was full of x-rated materials that teenage boys could easily access?) Ugh, I'm digressing.

I don't think there is a reason to change the sims to attract the newer generations. I assume it takes a certain mindset to get into flying RC models in the first place. The new generation will find things to do with them and that will be the time for the sims to change. We have no idea what a 10 year old of today is going to decide to do with his RC heli in 10 years. We will know after it hits the internet and everyone else starts doing it.

I hardly see complicated menus as an issue. Those controllers already look complicated enough. As long as there was a menu option for "take me straight to the sim, no b.s." then I would hope any RC hobbyist could find their way. I think glucoseboy's comment about stick time is important though. Story lines and cash would be tearing users away from the actual simulation.

Stefan has acknowledge that he is taking a risk in going his own way and not adding game elements to Clearview. That seems pretty risky to me when the 3 others he is in monopolistic competition with have all chosen to go the other way. There's a chance all three of them will suffer because of their decisions but either way Clearview will remain the program that doesn't have these elements.

We would never be able to speak so much with the author(s) of a video game, so this is nice. I'm trying to convince you of some "game-like" elements but, yeah, I hardly know what I'm talking about anyway :).

I think most people agree that some sort of benchmarking is desirable? This leaves other aspects. The ideas or implementations in other games that I read here don't sound appealing to me:
- knocking down cards
- pirate scenery
- dropping ketchup on cows (ok, this might be fun, especially if they moo)

I think a few criteria would be important for any sim developer considering adding game-like elements:

- realistic
- challenging
- easy to implement
- maybe also something that people would like to do in real life but never would (like trying to land a RC on something floating in the middle of a lake)

That last item I mentioned because I think of how much I love digital SLR cameras. One of the best things about them is that I can try all sorts of different things and not have to pay for film or development. I never would have experimented as much with a film-based camera.

So I tried to think up some "game-like element examples" that I think would be neat in a sim (I'll understand if everyone thinks they're dumb, again, I haven't started the hobby yet).

Heli: Landing on steep hill. Weather (rain, snow, wind?). Canyon-like terrain to navigate through. Hovering over a moving target or following behind one (cars, boat, person, cow). Landing on a floating object (I'm thinking of a small wooden raft or something).

Planes: Landing on a short or narrow runway (to increase difficulty the user could make the runway even shorter, maybe just have cones placed at the end of it). Landing on an "air-craft" carrier for RC planes.

Most of the game-like elements I have been thinking of would just involve having the ability to add/change the scenery or make the scenery more dynamic. Races, RC limbo, and the other described elements sound fun, realistic, and challenging too.

One common complaint is "getting bored" with the sim. Of course there is the danger of taking time away from the development of the physics engine too. I think the question it comes down to is "what elements can be added with a minimal amount of effort?"

Would those of you concerned about the physics engine only be bothered if 10% of the development time went towards adding realistic activities you could perform in the simulator?

If these features do not exist, I think they would be nice:

- ability to record flight and edit recording (e.g. to save only a minute or so)
- view exactly what was done on the controller during flight (maybe this would help someone else learn how to do it? or maybe not)

I did not like the idea about a "cockpit" view at first until the discussion of the "VR glasses" came up. I expect that this is coming. Cameras are getting less expensive, lighter, and less power-hungry. We see the military flying planes using only the cameras on TV on a regular basis... Well, I guess most of them fly themselves but who here doesn't want a "bird-eye view" from their RC? I'm not sure if it would add range in the sense of hobbyists wanting to take their vehicles "around the corner" but I would guess that many people are already doing that. Gauges would just be a matter of some static graphics and calculations so, sure, why not have a "bird-eye" or "cockpit" view if it's simple to implement?

Internet interactivity would be nice. I would prefer to fly in the same airspace as other people. I don't think a "combat" mode is necessary- people flying together would find things to do with each other. People get together in groups and fly in real life- this would just add realism to the simulator (if enough people were online simultaneously to actually make it work). I wouldn't mind learning to hover next to someone else who is learning to hover.

I don't know which companies use a dongle but I would specifically purchase software to avoid them. I already install and uninstall enough hardware on a regular basis, dongles have been a headache too many times. At the very least I would expect people to purchase and then pirate it anyway just to do away with the dongle. Even if Sweden surrenders some day, pirates will always circumvent copy protection.

If the dongle was built into the USB interface then I guess it wouldn't be too much of an issue. At least we're talking about one piece of hardware instead of two.

Okay, I'm done ranting! :)

Dave

[Deserteagle]

Even dongles can be cracked! 3d studio max or light wave (can't remember which) had a dongle and it was hacked in a matter of a week. The people that DL warez never have the intention to buy a legit copy anyway. The only way to get past pirates is to update the main program (or change it's size) everytime you offer an update or DL of new content. This won't stop them but will slow them down. Only other method is to do a log in off the web but even that's a pain.
One method that I heard a dev did on his own time was to offer a crack that broke the program. They could play the pirated software for a little while until it started screwing with the pirates computer. Guess he made it so it screwed up the pirates registry so they not only couldn't play the pirated software but could never reinstall it without cleaning out the keys or reloading windows! I believe he also made it so the pirates web browser would do pop ups and other not so fun things to various sites. Yeah I personally know him and he did it without the company that made the software permission.

Anyway one neat thing could be they made it so we could drop bombs from planes. They used to have kits from tower a while back that allowed people to drop bombs with baby powder in them for planes so I don't see why that couldn't be done in a sim.

[Malc C]

Even dongles can be cracked!

Correct, and there has been a well documented instancies where "compatible" interfaces for a top end sim got not only the guy who made them into deep water, but all his "custromers" too.

Yes there are lots of ways to try and prevent copying, but with the advent of the PIC micro even hardware dongles are fairly easy to make, and with the right tools any would be hacker can capture the data packets and reverse engineer the dongle. The deterent though is making it known that if you discover such a device that you will take legal action to recover your losses, no matter how small the threat is to your business. This is something Reflex has perfected and in the above mentioned case news quickly filtered through the newsgroups and forums.

However we are digressing here, back to the main subject:

A lot of people have mentioned a career mode, this to me is a good idea, however I would like to see it more along the lines of a competition. For those who fly helicopters why not allow entry into the "masters" where you have to fly the set patterns over the pegs that for a box etc, and at the end of the run the computer marks you on your performance

[HoverBovver]

They had the right idea years ago....
http://www.gwn.com/games/gameinfo.php/id/16171/platform/playstation/title/RC_Stunt_Copter.html