The Parable of Jane's A-10 and Flight Sim Development

For 1991 SIM it innovative views (ex. paddlock), dynamic campaign, manual and maps, mission editor, addons (ex MIG-29 and Op fighting tiger), ACMI, Multiplayer..

I think all of those set a new standard that later generation flight sims just needed to improve.

;D

Ah, relatave to it's era..

Yet for all its realistic features, F3 it still had an arcade style "Top 10 Pilots". I think the best way I can summarize it is that I think 90s sims understood that they were games. Realism was very far off and they knew this, so they didn't try to be more than they could be. I dare say this is why they had more mainstream appeal. Sims are now much more akin to an esoteric war game like ASL. Falcon 4.0 could probably be credited with this, although the later Jane's titles were no slouches either. Even LOMAC is beyond those 90s sims despite being a survey sim because it is very obviously NOT trying to appeal to casual players as a game, no matter how much people claim otherwise. Sim players have some very skewed points of view.

The difference is that you have to devote some time learning esoteric things to simply enjoy them. You have to understand anywhere from a handful to a great many real-life concepts to be able to successfully play them. You begin to delve into the realm of things pilots study for years and do as a profession. The more you have to know, the more you want things to be more realistic (and the more vocal people complain about the unrealistic stuff) ;).

We're at the point now where people actually complain that the air conditioning switches don't work. Having to actually de-ice rotor blades isn't even enough. I think when you're at that point, the "game" mentality is pretty much screwed.

This is a little bit off topic, but not quite. I just read this announcement from Black Foot Studios:

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?autocom=blog&blogid=2&showentry=20

For those who don't know, BFS are trying to produce a realistic tactial "shooter" à la original Ghost Recon. The statement is a contrast to the article above, as it shows how hard it is to start something from the ground up in the simulation business, with a small indie dev team, no product to build on, no publisher backing and not a lot of funding.

...To this end, they've adopted a strategy to co-develop two simulation branches - military and entertainment. We often tend to think that the military contracts are now the "bread and butter" for ED, but this is not necessarily the case. It's more subtle than that. The idea is basically to utilize military contracts as a source of funding to develop technologies, which can then be "recycled" in the entertainment sector. Similarly, some technologies developed for DCS, for example AI entities and routines or world maps, can be "recycled" in a military contract. Two birds with one stone - as much as possible anyway...

And that's not only brilliant, but the way most of the innovations we enjoy today in our daily life actually came to be. Computers took a huge step forward during WW2's immense logistic efforts that needed coordination beyond human capability. Going to the moon helped us get small-sized computers, but yet has to prove ANY sensible return on investment... there are some things private capital will just not do, and public capital needs to encourage. Once you take the development costs out of the equation, I think the consumer market becomes as lucrative as it can be.

I'm glad TFC/ED is capitalizing on those mechanics. I figure the main stopper the guys must be facing right now on getting juicier military contracts is that the competition there is though, not on a per-contract basis, but for the scope of projects, i.e. there surely are some contractors pitching multi-billion dollar hypercomplex simulators that generate more "returns" to the military costomers, than the cheaper (and thus less "returning") PC based products ED can offer.

I also think, though, that TFC/ED should put more emphasis (when money permits) in developing the gaming part of their product. I do believe your series would be much more attractive to a broader audience if they featured an excellent immersive tutorial, in the form of a "pilot career" that took you through various very well designed trainings and rewarded you in the process (I understand Matt's Producer's notes intended that... but try to get my point, that is FAR from what I'm trying to convey). Come to think of it, that could come in the form of a MMO. I keep thinking it shouldn't be that hard to find another company as a partner that could provide that expertise and share the gains. ED has already done the hard part, and all is needed is some guys with excellent storytelling talent and the ability to program good UIs, which are much more cheaper than a simulator engine and aircraft. Your "Arcade" variant could get quite a boost from this model as well.

Westinghouse W-600 refrigerator - Corona six-pack - Marlboro reds - Patience by Girlfriend

I dig your "specs" there. :lol:

Sorry, I just had to comment.

I dig your "specs" there. :lol:

:D

I think if ED gave some tools to some promising dedicated players we could get more new models going from weekend warrior types?:doh:

Agree totally. With increasing complexity must come increasing tutorials/vids/manuals/etc. If the aircraft will be almost as complex as the real thing, then to fly it without killing ourselves, damaging the aircraft, using the systems poorly, we need training similar to what real pilots get.

 

I've been a flight instructor for several years now since graduating & I can tell you it's easy to teach someone when they're sitting next to you and you can demonstrate what to do. It would also be very nice if this same ability was incorporated in the sim. Perhaps a D-model F-15/F-16, or a 2 seater Flanker or Fulcrum where we can fly in the same aircraft and demonstrate what to do to others. The learning curve will go up and the enjoyment of the product will do the same.

 

It's frustrating to read the manual and know that some things are incomplete on how to do things and why. The article sure does give me a keener sense of what ED is doing, and I guess they're looking after themselves appropriately by modeling only aircraft that they are contractually providing for military purposes. They get a steady and large quantity of money which allows us to enjoy some of the fruits of their labor without the need to seriously research the aircraft they're providing as a game/simulation to the public.

 

I only hope they're able to get more military contracts in the future.

It is a very very very good idea to create 2 seater aircraft,So I can teach my friends how to fly it and then they will pay for the game too

Even if you can't do two seaters...Swap controls between Instructor and student via the multiplayer inviroment all in the same seat. Instructor does it. Then the student tries to reproduce his actions etc. Not sure that would be do-able though.

Imagine an F model with AESA in DCS with 2 seat MP it would own everything.:thumbup:

Fascinating thread and article! As someone studying for an MBA, I can reiterate that it's as simple as EA having too many MBAs in charge saying "we can make more money putting the same people to work coding or marketing sports titles than flight sims. consider yours canceled". If you put people with a passion in charge of this stuff, you can still make money and make great, complex, unique, niche products with most of what you want. If you have too many people in charge who don't care about the products/services at hand and are just interested in getting more cash flow, you'll end up with those results. Sad, but true. You don’t need to be in the weeds to explain it. I think dynamic campaigns and all that other stuff might make it a little harder, especially if you’ve been sliding past niche stuff in a potentially hostile managerial environment, but at the end of the day it's the MBAs versus the non-MBAs battle, and increasing the latter and decreasing the former will let you get more of what you want and less bad outcomes (from the perspective of those passionate about the given niche). The more capital, more people, or more talents/equipment on hand that cannot simply be moved over to another product/service easily, the easier it is to get away from the scourge of the MBAs. We’re great for penny-pinching within industries that have been commoditized where there’s no differentiation and we’re great for making sure good companies don’t do something outrageously stupid (assuming we don’t incite something reckless to begin with), but we are a constant problem in many other regards with otherwise sane business models that get irrationally disrupted. It’s downright inhuman, sometimes. It’s also why a guy flipping burgers often has better ideas for his chain than the suit CEO who would rather be golfing and probably would never eat one his own (the burger; he’d eat the employee) unless it was a photo op.

That was a great read very interesting lets just be happy ED filled the void and done it by setting a new benchmark! Who would have known when the project was stopped.

original article can't be reached on gamespot anymore

http://www.gamespot.com/features/pcgraveyard_janes/index.html/

is anyone aware where to find the full story now?

is anyone aware where to find the full story now?

https://web.archive.org/web/20000617022025/http://www.gamespot.com/features/pcgraveyard_janes/p2_01.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20000617022025/http://www.gamespot.com/features/pcgraveyard_janes/p2_01.html

many many many thanks man :thumbup:

like this simulation stories, must read for me

You can look at Thirdwire's rapid.decline from Sim-Lite greatness too.

yep, I did already read some stuff on Thirdwire's forums some time ago, very interesting. I dont mean that decline is interesting, but it is very interesting to have to opportunity to look 'under the pot-lid'.

The Parable of Jane's A-10 and Flight Sim Development

What happened to Origin products is characteristic of what happened to flight simulation in general... No one cares in Market driven by greed and profit.

The only way to make a flight simulation that surpasses time and grows is to remove profit and greed from the equation by removing the publisher and having a parent company interested in your product and success.

Or have deep pockets, strong interest in flight simulation, and offer a platform you upgrade and develop yourself.

Two cases in point are TFC/ED and Lockheed Martin. Their products? DCS World and Prepar3D respectively. Flight simulation is considered a game by any but the most ardent supporter ... typically referred to as Fan Boys. This, the best way to gather development resources for it is crowd funding like Star Citizen did.

Those most interested parties that want it put your money where your mouth is. This is becoming the best way to see flight simulations developed and simply remove the publisher and any middle man standing in the way. Deadlines, project among, development resources, training, and time become vested and shared between the supporter and developer.

Unfortunately, this can also become a curse when abusing the trust of the interested party so contracts are nice things to have.

I dont know if Star Citizen is best example. This kind of space games attracts more players then flight games imho.

I know at least about two flight games which crowd funding went wrong - Red Baron & F-35 Lightning II. And one successful - DCS WWII :)

And one successful - DCS WWII :)

And one successful - DCS WWII :)

The crowd funding barely got it started. It's being cross financed by other products now, obviously.

sobek, I just referred to successful crowd funding campaign on KS as was. yes, as wags stated, it is just fragment of the real financial resources needed

I am also not that mind that combat flight games ever died. history is full of these kind of games. yes, with jane's and microprose leaving the market it seemed as big end, but thats not fully truth. e.g. there is no Falcon4 downfall. if we examine the history of Falcon4 then we realize that it is one of the longest played flight sim game ever. this game is continuously played and supported (lately mostly by community) for almost 16 YEARS!!!

And HELL YEAH - according to wikipedia - its Falcon4 birthday today! :)

what I wanted to say? flight games were, are and will be with us as long as we will be with them ;)