rumors are true!

[Mastiff]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/5594-will-there-be-other-maps/?p=108154


http://youtu.be/i6fgCU2Z3Ho

[LG1.Farber]

What is this cryptic message? :weirdo:

[Chuck_Owl]

Modders are working on new maps for BoS.

Post from Zeus--:


Hi, pilots!

It was back then in August 2013 when we decided to make a pretty small map for online missions specifically for La-5 and FW-190 battles. But as we studied the Velikie Luki battle operation we've come to conclusion that the idea grows as does the map (~170x100 km)
http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_04_2014/post-1696-0-94977100-1397569226.jpg

After the NDAs had been signed we received 1CGS's permission to get proper tools and started the work.
Long story short, the general map is now ready. Rivers, lakes, forests, roads and railroads were all accurately recreated and now are being tested in the beta version. Particular part like small towns and villages have also been modeled and added.
http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_04_2014/post-1696-0-56598500-1397570388.jpg
(reds dots - development completed)

Bigger towns took quite a lot of effort to make because we used historical prototypes (as much as we could considering the engine specifics and our limited time). We used Luftwaffe`s reconnaissance air photo and military maps of the Red Army General Staff for this.
http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_04_2014/post-1696-0-56634900-1397571993.jpg

All large cities such as Nevel, Novosokolniki, Toropets, and Velikie Luki have unique 3D-objects created by our team of enthusiasts map makers :)
Location of all airfields that were used in this operation were determined for both sides (including ice-airfields on the lakes).

Also we wrote the missions-scripts for small campaigns for all types of aircraft in the game.

[1lokos]

Fw190 x La5 map. :thumbsup:

Velikiye Luki - The little Salingrad. (http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-velikiye-luki-surrounded-in-the-snow.htm)

Sokol1

[The ghost]

That is good news, I am glad to see that they are open to modding and that teams are already working hard.

This is shaping up to be a great simulator, well worth the money.

[ATAG_Septic]

This is encouraging.:thumbsup:

Septic.

[MonThackma]

Great news indeed. Clouds lookin tasty too.

[LuseKofte]

Glad to se this will be a breathing sim full off life. Hope for summer maps also.
But I just updated my game and it freeze up after a while. anyone else ?

[1lokos]

Hope for summer maps also.

This will take more time, these Russia MOD'elers say that all textures modeled in game until now is for winter time.

Sokol1

[vranac]

Yes, old news from the Russian forum.

They just need to sell 200.000 copies and everything will be fine :D
FM DM everything ;-)

Just for a joke il2 hitting 109 on 800m :D

http://rutube.ru/video/8bfb12816f9c2d3dcbd0f8f891a33a16/


Historical , yes )

[Incog]

aren't the fw190 and la5 two aircraft that people who won't pay $90 won't get ?

[Wulf]

Yes, old news from the Russian forum.

They just need to sell 200.000 copies and everything will be fine :D
FM DM everything ;-)

Just for a joke il2 hitting 109 on 800m :D

http://rutube.ru/video/8bfb12816f9c2d3dcbd0f8f891a33a16/


Historical , yes )


.... and, apparently you can't just fly through the trees either....crazy but true!!!

Vranac, I get that you don't have any time for BoS. OK, that's fine, so you're not going to buy it, that's your call and who knows maybe its the right one, time will tell. But having come to that position why not just forget the bloody thing now and move on? Why all the negative stuff all the time?

[1lokos]

aren't the fw190 and la5 two aircraft that people who won't pay $90 won't get ?

Yes, these two planes is now only available for "gold founders" that pay 90$, but you can buy then latter, after the game release.
I suppose for 20/25$ each - not to be cheaper than the "golds" version. :D


... and, apparently you can't just fly through the trees either....crazy but true!!!

You can just touch the trees leaves, but branches kill you. ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ9ISKfr2MM&feature=player_embedded
Frozen branches are like razors. :D
I hate this il-2 "peacock" (http://eofdreams.com/data_images/dreams/peacock/peacock-03.jpg) elevator... :dazed:

Sokol1

[vranac]

Why?

Because they stopped development of the real successor of legendary il2 sturmovik series. They don't have anything in common with that except the name.
The former developers were striving to realism and historical accuracy. They made the new advanced simulation in every aspect.
If the 777 team made good and advanced sim there wouldn't be a way to point at such things like I did.

But what they are saying exactly?


1) What is the progress in DM development? It was 60% on November 9th. Is it correct to say that it's not yet ready in regards of visual presentation? How much work still must be done with the visuals and how different will it look from what we have now in early access?
DM is ready for 90% now. Some elements are not complete yet, props for example. And it's important because it plays its role, in collisions and similar events. But generally speaking the damage model is ready. There are still some visual bugs, and we're working on fixing them. Some other things are just different from you're accustomed to. Fact: in IL2 1946 all the weapons were made weaker than they must be for gameplay purposes. That's not how ot is done im IL2BOS because weapons deal realistic damage according to the WW2 archive data about gun tests that we use. For instance, these tests state that basically two 20mm canon shots take out a single engine fighter. I know that GUI doesn't provide the necessary info that would make DM more transparent, so it's just not ready yet, WIP.

;-)

In old il2 it was possible to damage a aeroplane at 500m with a lot of practice. Some pilots were very effective in that. But on 800m , come on.
Note that guy on that video did it twice. That just shows that they brought dispersion problem from RoF.
People that pointed out on that problem were banned even if they presented documents and calculations and were not offensive in any way.

[Tvrdi]

Why?

Because they stopped development of the real successor of legendary il2 sturmovik series. They don't have anything in common with that except the name.
The former developers were striving to realism and historical accuracy. They made the new advanced simulation in every aspect.
If the 777 team made good and advanced sim there wouldn't be a way to point at such things like I did.

But what they are saying exactly?



;-)

In old il2 it was possible to damage a aeroplane at 500m with a lot of practice. Some pilots were very effective in that. But on 800m , come on.
Note that guy on that video did it twice. That just shows that they brought dispersion problem from RoF.
People that pointed out on that problem were banned even if they presented documents and calculations and were not offensive in any way.

FM and DM is almost done and comic and sim wont have custom skins at all...then this insulting (In Jason sytle) comparison to IL2 46....OMG for how long they can lie to ppl like that...

[ZG15_robtek]

Of course two 20mm hits can bring down a fighter, IF they hit vital parts, not if the detonate in the general vicinity.
Even a fighter would still fly with several 20mm hits to the wingtips.
To bring a fighter down doesn't imply to desintegrate in the air, a oil-,water-, oxygen-, pilot-leak will also bring a fighter down.

[The ghost]

Well, I am not going to jump to conclusions on this latest update, it is still in development so I can't really comment on anything I have not actually played myself and one video is not enough to make me think that they are never going to work on gun dispersion.

From the looks of the latest blog post, it sounds like they are interested in realism, I suppose one does not need to believe it but from what I have played thus far, I can see that it is heading in the right direction, still, as someone who has spent enough time on flight sim forums in general, I have learned long ago that realism is often a sadly subjective term, some folks have a idea of what they think realism is and it may or may not match what we see in gun camera footage or actual data.

[LuseKofte]

calm down , it is allowed in ATAG site trolling this section,
it make no sense defending BOS either, I never understand where the despise come from, are you accusing 777 for Oleg not making the true follower to clod, is that not more a kind of putting a useless game out in market. No funding because of the consideration of customers hardware was not up for the new sim that should originally been releast 2006.It is only because of modern hardware TF was able to make it playable today.
It is just a game, witch I spend about 15 minute a week on, I eagerly wait for it to be finished. Was I the only one that did not expect a full workable game from the start.
I did as many people here did for DCS , I payed a very small amount of money for supporting a game that might be very good in the end ,despite you guys worst wishes.
I did not expect to be the developers souls owner as some do think in sim community.

[aus3620]

The BOS DD61 has potentially answered some questions about the DM.

As I mentioned on another thread, as a gamer a lot of these things are about perception from previous game experience. And who is to say that the DM in previous titles was not "moderated" by the developers for playability sake. When you are trying to sell a game, playability is one of the key issues.

The DM at the end of the day is a computerised model. The Climate Change debate has shown us not to be 100% sold on mathematical models! (too much modeling and not enough science). You show me your expert and I will show you mine!

At this point you either give the BOS devs the benefit of the doubt on their (still in development) DM or you don't.

Being consistently overly negative makes one sound shrill and reduces the effect of the argument presented. ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks").

[The ghost]

The BOS DD61 has potentially answered some questions about the DM.

As I mentioned on another thread, as a gamer a lot of these things are about perception from previous game experience. And who is to say that the DM in previous titles was not "moderated" by the developers for playability sake. When you are trying to sell a game, playability is one of the key issues.

The DM at the end of the day is a computerised model. The Climate Change debate has shown us not to be 100% sold on mathematical models! (too much modeling and not enough science). You show me your expert and I will show you mine!

At this point you either give the BOS devs the benefit of the doubt on their (still in development) DM or you don't.

Being consistently overly negative makes one sound shrill and reduces the effect of the argument presented. ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks").

I share this approach myself, everyone is going to compare based on previous experience but there is no real reason to automatically assume that previous experience is correct.

There are some pilots here talking about planes exploding after a cannon shot or two in Battle of Stalingrad, I have not had that experience myself, in fact, after reading this thread earlier, I hopped on the sim and did a little experiment.

I put a Yak-1 against a BF-109, during the coarse of the fight, I put a great many solid machine gun hits into him, it did some significant damage but I needed to hang out on his tail and put a ton of ammo into him before he really went down.

As far as the 20mm's go, I set up a second fight with the same planes and used only the 20mm, I was able to put a few hits into various parts of the target (wings, tail, rear of fuselage) without causing a Hollywood style explosion or anything of that nature, I did hit him in the engine and caused him to burn but that was a direct hit so it made sense.

The third try was free form, I fired a burst of both cannon and machine gun into the fuselage area and several cannon rounds hit the wing root and took the wing off, again, that was several hits with cannon and the loss of the wing made sense.


Now, I am not saying that it is perfect or anything, it could still have significant errors that I just don't know how to look for but as far as my experiment goes, it seems that the damage model seems okay as far as things go, it could use some more detail but they had said in the latest blog that it is still a work in progress so I will see what happens later and run tests again.

[vranac]

calm down , it is allowed in ATAG site trolling this section,
it make no sense defending BOS either, I never understand where the despise come from, are you accusing 777 for Oleg not making the true follower to clod, is that not more a kind of putting a useless game out in market. No funding because of the consideration of customers hardware was not up for the new sim that should originally been releast 2006.It is only because of modern hardware TF was able to make it playable today.

You're accusing me for trolling ? You who are writing one thing here and then opposite at sturmovik forum.

No, I'm accusing 1C (1CGS means something to you?) for forcing the release of unpolished product and when MG did that polishing, without any profit, in parallel with finishing the sequel they pulled a plug. And that happened under very suspicious circumstances. On sukhoi I saw info from respectable member that Jason and the head of 1C were and are friends privately.

And that about customers hardware was not up to is complete nonsense. Midrange graphic card from 2011 was and is completely capable of running CloD at almost everything maxed out.
Also on the midrange card from 2010 (gtx460, HD5850). Of course with "mighty" 8800gt from 2007. there was problems but even then with some tweaking sim could be played.
While TF did and still are doing a great job with optimizations (effects, clouds...) the main thing is done by MG team with patches at spring and summer 2012.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/1u/Xp/2sP1fTQR/clod-graph.jpg


And again, some of my favourites about FM and DM in BoS.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A0qumyf3bk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4BVU-bHk1c


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8rfLoMfHao


Just keep calm and this mantra will help ;-)

" It's alpha, only 45%, it's alpha , only 45%, it's alpha..."

[LuseKofte]

I haven't written in Sturmovik forum in month, and by then my view are change in regard of what I hope for, if you wherent trolling a little earlier you where pretty damn close to it.
But it really does not matter, I understand concerns toward the game, they are perfectly legit. But you did show a deeper feeling toward it then just concern. I rather call it hate. And mixing into it the could have been BOM is way off in my opinion.
I have said in sturmovik site I like the LAGG , IL2 and now the PE 2 (not said in that site) I like the effects and the map. I also said it something fishy about BF 109 over there. But I really don't have to defend my point of view on these matters to you. I simply only disagree on what tone you use describing BOS. Because you are not interested in it in other way than telling everybody else how stupid they are for giving it a chance.
Well that is the impression given by your posting.
I have the deepest respect for you as a serious flight sim community member and I wish no feud agains you at all.

[gavagai]

In old il2 it was possible to damage a aeroplane at 500m with a lot of practice. Some pilots were very effective in that. But on 800m , come on.
Note that guy on that video did it twice. That just shows that they brought dispersion problem from RoF.
People that pointed out on that problem were banned even if they presented documents and calculations and were not offensive in any way.

No, I have to disagree with you here. I am certain that I criticized the original dispersion in Rise of Flight more than anyone else. I always did my best to argue the evidence and not insult anyone, and I was never banned. Jason and others were pretty fed up with me but without making personal attacks I never gave them an excuse. The only people who were banned from the Rise of Flight forum made explicit personal attacks against the developers.

[vranac]

Gavagai, I'm not familiar with RoF neither with RoF forums. SMERSH was banned on the Russian Sturmovik forum.
He and Wad are experts on balistics. They were even asked to help developers earlier.

This is from sukhoi where they explained the situation away from the hands of Sturmovik forum "moderators".
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=81094


!
"Posted by -vik-s
Why argue that - that was announced by developers ?

That's interesting ! Let us remember that it was " announced by developers

When the dispersion was increased to 40000 - in the description for the changes was " announced " :


19. All guns ( the pilot and the shooter ) got historically correct spread of bullets , increasing the overheating weapons.


As recently as February this year, Han once again in black and green wrote :

Dispersion is now given in compliance with the maximum with available sources . " " Correspondingly , we are now assured that we shooting all that well , as it is possible in the game simulator, and to convince us in the opposite is frankly, quite difficult.

And Petrovich added :
"I assume , of course, that could nakosyachit , but one thing is for sure : the cone of dispersion was not taken from the ceiling ( as many here think that to please someone from the community or " playability " , etc.) , and was really counted ."

That is, developers are clearly and unambiguously stated that the dispersion was modeled according to the source and not the views of the community , and nothing they do not intend to change .

Smersh started to speak out about it because neither sources nor the theory of aerial gunnery in any way coincides in that what happened in RoF and given the position of developers
" At BoS everything will be as in RoF " was to be expected that the air shooting at BoS will be as far from reality as in Rofe .

But now developers position suddenly changed dramatically ! Khan , 26 October :
"Then we listen to those who shout about laser guns , in the memories on these distances you can't hit and all that. Increased . Now comes the return wave . Can reduce ...

That isn't "really counted" it turns out a shooting in RoF parameters are adjusted at will of the majority! And generally to blame for everything Jason -
Generaly in RoF chief is - Jason . You can spam him with this issue - he is responsive . Write to him in private - he will respond .

And at BoS, now it will not be as in RoF :
" in BoS , we go the other way - we have clear official data from tests and all who do not agree - in orderly rows go into the forest. For everyone to listen - and to do worse than the user himself and as it turned out . Still no one satisfied."

And what Smersh - man , by which a lot of people became interested in the aerial shooting ? Thinking about how the bullet flies ? Learned about how arranged sight ? Went to the museum? Re-read the book? A violinist Smersh now we do not need ! It can be generally banned for trolling !

But in all this there is an interesting pattern ! :

RoF " all modeled according to sources" -> RoF , " rely on the opinion of the community " -> BoS : " all clear to simulate the data of the official tests " -> BoS: ?
ES
What should be the next step? * ? * ?

Right! " Relies on the Community" ! And really , what is going on on off. forum other than " The Benny Hill Show " will not name !

Here you guys are offended when someone questions the competence of your staff on ballistics , but by God , you would be better off somewhere in a PM all discussed it !

Well here is how you can take a table shooting in which time values ​​are rounded to tenths of a second count of 100 / 0, 1 = 1000 and on the basis of this claim that this table is obtained according to the shooting of the unknown ' ballistic barrel , "which accelerates the projectile to 1000 meters per second ? * ? * ? * ? * ? And the fact that the table itself is written in large block letters " initial velocity of 800 m / sec " - so, for the spies ? As can be conceived in the mind is not a thought , a belief that the projectile ShVAK has some unknown science anomaly against Cx to a distance of 200 meters when firing any table - a table of calculated data , and not getting the test results ! Yes even written on it : "This table are calculated for ... " For the ballistic barrel , huh? Nobody had never measures the velocity of the projectile every hundred meters , as described in any textbook ballistics and if " ballistics expert " does not know it - then what can we say about his competence ? Calculate according to Cx of firing tables can any six grade schoolboy - really an expert on ballistics can not count Cx and find that the combination of the initial velocity of 1000 m / s and the time of flight data from the table , Cx is negative ? " Who can explain the strange anomaly - we've got air environment sucks the projectile from the gun ! " And instead of having to think about (or ask Smersh ) question tabled " Community" and hardworking " Community" in the modern ballistic calculator takes the same values ​​as in the ballistic calculator 40's !
Tadammm ! " We found a way ! " A " specialist ballistics " first became acquainted with the ballistic calculator !
...

And this shows the part of the problem in BoS:

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3G/TR/3dhkLwAr/td6.gif

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3/DV/4QUaJDzl/td36.gif

[The ghost]

Gavagai, I'm not familiar with RoF neither with RoF forums. SMERSH was banned on the Russian Sturmovik forum.
He and Wad are experts on balistics. They were even asked to help developers earlier.

This is from sukhoi where they explained the situation away from the hands of Sturmovik forum "moderators".
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=81094



And this shows the part of the problem in BoS:

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3G/TR/3dhkLwAr/td6.gif

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3/DV/4QUaJDzl/td36.gif


Is there any way you could clarify this exchange a bit, there is much lost in the translation and it is difficult to understand what exactly is being stated by the charts at the bottom of your post.

Not saying you are wrong or anything, I just don't really get what exactly is being said and by whom.

[gavagai]

Is there any way you could clarify this exchange a bit, there is much lost in the translation and it is difficult to understand what exactly is being stated by the charts at the bottom of your post.

Not saying you are wrong or anything, I just don't really get what exactly is being said and by whom.

Yes, I can't make out what's going on in that (google?) translation.

Also, be careful to distinguish RoF as in "Rise of Flight" from RoF as in "rate of fire." The greater dispersion in Rise of Flight was the correct way to go. If you have read anything about WW1 air combat it was painfully obvious that the tight-spread before 1.026 was a fantasy.

[vranac]

Is there any way you could clarify this exchange a bit, there is much lost in the translation and it is difficult to understand what exactly is being stated by the charts at the bottom of your post.

Not saying you are wrong or anything, I just don't really get what exactly is being said and by whom.

Uh, I already corrected the most auto translation mistakes in quoted text, in a quick run of course. Maybe you don't understand the rest of the communication ?
There is no "rate of fire" in that text. Google translates RoF to "Rofe" or "Wrath" and BoS to "CES".
In that thread two developers, Viks and Gys were present and they didn't even tried to disprove the facts from quoted text.

1. Firstly devs claimed that in RoF balistics are calculated according to documents.


19. All guns ( the pilot and the shooter ) got historically correct spread of bullets , increasing the overheating weapons.
As recently as February this year, Han once again in black and green wrote :
Dispersion is now given in compliance with the maximum with available sources . " " Correspondingly , we are now assured that we shooting all that well , as it is possible in the game simulator, and to convince us in the opposite is frankly, quite difficult.
And Petrovich added :
"I assume , of course, that could nakosyachit , but one thing is for sure : the cone of dispersion was not taken from the ceiling ( as many here think that to please someone from the community or " playability " , etc.) , and was really calculated ."

2. But now developers position suddenly changed dramatically !

Han , 26 October

"Then we listen to those who shout about laser guns , in the memories on these distances you can't hit and all that. Increased . Now comes the return wave . Can reduce ...

Generaly in RoF chief is - Jason . You can spam him with this issue - he is responsive . Write to him in private - he will respond .

I saw this statement from Han at Sturmovik forum. Can't find the link now.

3. Devs said that approach in BoS will be different and everything will be according the documents. And then they showed complete incompetence publicly on their own forums.
Complete non understanding of terminology and methodology in such calculations.
That "The Benny Hill show" mentioned by Wad is here http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/494-broneprobivaemost-strelba-spory-fakty-i-vsyo/page-18#entry86844

Wad also shared this document and many others with the community.
Shooting from aviation weapons and shooting tables 1942. There are tables for MiG-3, LaGG-3, Il-2, Pe-2.
Note that the hits from SHVAK( cannon) and SHKAS( mg) on 50m are grouped in a circle of radius 5cm.

http://www.dodaj.rs/t/2Z/12y/5Z0L0Iv/naslovna.jpg (http://www.dodaj.rs/?2Z/12y/5Z0L0Iv/naslovna.jpg)http://www.dodaj.rs/t/3c/wK/1fkfLJ5t/lagg-3-1.jpg (http://www.dodaj.rs/?3c/wK/1fkfLJ5t/lagg-3-1.jpg)http://www.dodaj.rs/t/2r/lW/1QtcrrYX/lagg-3-2.jpg (http://www.dodaj.rs/?2r/lW/1QtcrrYX/lagg-3-2.jpg)http://www.dodaj.rs/t/3M/H3/1AQ1rlDr/lagg-3-3.jpg (http://www.dodaj.rs/?3M/H3/1AQ1rlDr/lagg-3-3.jpg)

Those charts at the bottom I posted just to show how shooting results can differ with different dispersion of rounds.

P.S. I hope it's a bit clearer now. And sorry for the offtopic.

[The ghost]

Thanks for the clarification vranac, it was just difficult because it was hard to really see what was being said, perhaps I read it too early in the day but in the end, I now understand what you are getting at.

Still, I have to hesitate to take sides on this one, perhaps when someone does some experiments in BoS (someone smarter than me) that we can all view, that might provide some definitive information to go on, until then, I am going to give the dev's the benefit of the doubt on this.

Funny enough, when I read that thread you linked, I can't help but feel kinda bad for the dev's of any historical combat flight sim, no matter what you do, someone will tell you it is wrong and if you do it right, someone will complain that they don't think it is right because it is not how they want it, I am not sure if that is the case here but it still must be frustrating.

[gavagai]

It seems like they do not want to acknowledge that there should be a difference in dispersion between WW1 and WW2. Am I reading this debate incorrectly?

[Dutch]

Oh come on. You people cannot be totally immune to the unbridled excitement which is the 'Unlockable Skin'....??'

But they are asking us for help. They ask us to please take a vote on which skins should be given the ultimate accolade, and actually be included in the game, even if you you have go through the Hell of Stalingrad to get there in the first place...

Send me a PM if you can actually be arsed. I'll add you to my 'sadder than me' list. :D

[The ghost]

I can understand the apprehension that many in the existing IL-2 community feels about how they are handling user-made skins but at the same time, we really don't know all the fine details yet, if you look at the official Battle of Stalingrad forums, you will see some angry folks who perhaps are jumping blindly to conclusions since the developers have not really said anything conclusive at this stage.

As far as unlockable skins, meh, I am personally not too worried about skins but I also don't get involved with squadrons so the need for them is perhaps lost on me.

This is one of those times where it might be really useful to wait until the developers give us all the details, there is simply not enough to go on and emotions are pretty high (at least on the Battle of Stalingrad forums).

[Dutch]

It's a piece of shit mate, and everyone, including me, who bought into this is being taken for a ride. 'Please vote for which skins you wish to be included in the game'.

'Oh thankyou, thankyou!!!!' - for allowing me to participate in the development of this unbelievably realistic flight simulator!!! You are even allowing me to influence the colour of the aeroplanes???? Again I Thankyou, I thankyou!!!

I have a very simple response to these requests....Here it is.....it's coming soon...............give us a chance mate....ok, here it is. The number one most coherent sentence ever posted....

It's all a load of shit.

:)

[Continu0]

Dutch, you didn`t read what the thread was about, right? How is it about the skins now?

[darkside3/4]

Holy Guacamole, talk about thread drift, everyone crack a beer and chill. If there is third party development and moddig community creation then everyone should be hopeful no matter what we can mod it to our own desires. Sweet Mastiff.

[hnbdgr]

So this is a modded map? Does this mean modding is possible and if so can BoS be potentially fixed to be a semi-successor of clod?

[Archie]

Not sure. If it will be as controlled as RoF you might have to buy it like the Channel map...

[LuseKofte]

Drifted topic yes, I am not amazed by Clod either :) only default skins shows.

My hopes are more maps, also summer. More user influence in this very commercial sim, unlike CLOD that is more or less abandon together with IL2.
And that is the difference.

I would like DCS to get some airplanes I am interested in also. I would like a lot of things, but I don't hate the developers for not giving it to me. I appreciate their effort to make a WW2 sim that I might or might not choose to buy.

The thing is Vranac to me and a lot of other flightsim enthusiast that problem you say is a problem isn't for us, for some , but not for all. As long as it is fair and feels realistic I am ok with it.
I read a lot of historical books and magazines about aviation history, but never technical stuff. It is the people and situation that interest me. And with a few fixes and add ons I hope to enjoy BOS a long time in a virtual role-play that is.
To me getting vulched in a airfield in the middle of France by a lone Hurrycane is far more a immersion killer than wrong setting on DM. I don't look at the skin I wear so I don't care, I fly full realism.
I give the developers full right to do what they want with what they own, I can choose not to buy or get involved with it.
But they succeeded in getting people to buy it, I have not yet fought them doing so by lying. I can only see customers disagreement on how it is done, but that is very much their own subjective opinion and not based on a lie.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I agree this thread has drifted a lot. Some good info presented on gun dispersion and thoughts on skin mods. But out of respect for the OP, please let's keep this on map mods & objects. The other topics deserve their own threads.

Thanks! :salute:

[1lokos]

To me getting vulched in a airfield in the middle of France by a lone Hurrycane is far more a immersion killer than wrong setting on DM.

Curious... Vulching is a sim related issue (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/5895-fun-online)?
Bo$ come with some "anti-vulching" system?

Maybe like this (http://i62.tinypic.com/6dz9zq.jpg)...

:thumbsup:

Sokol1

[darkside3/4]

Curious... Vulching is a sim related issue (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/5895-fun-online)?
Bo$ come with some "anti-vulching" system?

Maybe like this (http://i62.tinypic.com/6dz9zq.jpg)...

:thumbsup:

Sokol1
.
Your tiny bomb pales in comparison to me vulching with the Stuka 1800KG bomb, half the airfield disappears. :)

[ATAG_NakedSquirrel]

I don't buy the argument that machine guns have no dispersion. I think the idea is silly.

The subject was beaten to death in RoF. But to think a MG on a semi flexible mount bolted to a wooden wing is going to be rock solid with no dispersion doesn't seem logical. I wish I could find the picture I used to have of a Nieuport testing its sight alignment, you could see bullet holes all over the paper target that was no more than 50-100 yards away.

9191

They might have the dispersion value a bit exaggerated in RoF, but there's no doubt in my mind that dispersion is a part of air gunnery. The aspects missing in RoF are the fact that some gun mounts would likely be better and more stable than others, and recoil against the plane isn't really taken into account.

The dispersion of WW2 aircraft would be influenced primarily the recoil of the gun pushing the aircraft itself, most guns have some 'give' within their mounts to damper that effect. (With springs)

You can see it in this video below how 6 50 cal machine guns have enough force to rock a p51 on the ground, and you can see the guns retract from recoil (most of this is designed to absorb the force of the recoil so it isn't all exerted on the aircraft


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJ82YCiuYU

With that, I like the way it works in DCS and CloD. Where most if not all of the 'dispersion' is due to recoil. The dispersion in RoF and BoS feels detached.
:ind:


P.S.

The 'wiggle' FM has been fixed, I went back to re-do the video to a Snoop D.O. Double G song because of a joke Injerin made, but alas, they fixed the FM and my music video endeavors are forever ruined.

:grrr:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4BVU-bHk1c

Oh well, at least the game flies better!

[LuseKofte]

I agree, but the dispersion is different. In a nose mounted AC like the nimble 109 there would be less than in an wing mounted on a Spit. Also there is the difference in caliber. If you look at so called good weapon platforms as IL2, P-47, Typhoon , Tempest it would be less.
Ofcource Vranac got a good point and BOS dev team should take this in consideration. This part is better in CLOD, Anyone saying anything else is not objective.
But all these discussion always end up in some attacking and some defending, both sides equal enthusiast.

But with more development and dedicated servers I will be all over this, and none can say that is wrong

[vranac]

I wanted to stop writing even before Snapper asked but now when I see other people continued, I'll just add a few answers. I hope that isn't a problem.


The thing is Vranac to me and a lot of other flightsim enthusiast that problem you say is a problem isn't for us, for some , but not for all. As long as it is fair and feels realistic I am ok with it.
I read a lot of historical books and magazines about aviation history, but never technical stuff. It is the people and situation that interest me. And with a few fixes and add ons I hope to enjoy BOS a long time in a virtual role-play that is..

What is realistic and historical in shooting someone down from 800m? That's ridiculous. That wasn't a lucky shot, he did that twice.
That guy firstly said that is very easy to shot planes down on long distances. Then the others said why not, cannons and MG are in the nose not wing mounted.
So he made the video with wing mounted weapons.

NakedSquirrel, that's good. Can you make a new video ?

[ATAG_NakedSquirrel]

What is realistic and historical in shooting someone down from 800m? That's ridiculous. That wasn't a lucky shot, he did that twice.

NakedSquirrel, that's good. Can you make a new video ?

Well of obviously it's possible to shoot someone down at 800m. What do you expect when you fly without wind and turbulence? Might as well fly a space sim, but most servers omit that from their settings since wind and turbulence = tears

:(


I probably should make a new video. I've opened up and modified my CH joystick a bit. I removed the mechanical deadzone and it's a bit looser than it was. I'm not sure if I'm getting the same effect, but once I get it tweaked properly, I will. It's definitely changed since I've done the first video, and it's changed fairly recently since I can't nose down with nearly the same authority.

[LuseKofte]

I get it Vranac, but it isn't my problem, I cannot make a kill at 300 mtrs. ;)
Some of the reasons are because I chosen a more realistic hardware than the commercial flightstick. Because whatever stick you use is not in any way realistic. I use this one: http://www.737yoke.com/pic/prod/1241653419297653.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-6y1Wtd60w
It give resistance and hard work.
I fly for fun, to me it is a role-play for getting away from real life. I can tear down most sims I flown also CLOD . But I choose not to. As long as it give me pleasure, or other pleasure why should I.
I am not defending BOS, but you should bear in mind, not all believe CLOD can deliver everything they want and spend all they time in it. I reduced my flying time in CLOD from two hours a day to two hours a week, for reasons said before.
I am looking for a good offline WW2 game with occasional online game. For a bomber pilot in CLOD life is too frustrating to do flying there everyday.

I get your point , but that exact point does not concern me at all

[Chuck_Owl]

I get it Vranac, but it isn't my problem, I cannot make a kill at 300 mtrs. ;)
Some of the reasons are because I chosen a more realistic hardware than the commercial flightstick. Because whatever stick you use is not in any way realistic. I use this one: http://www.737yoke.com/pic/prod/1241653419297653.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-6y1Wtd60w
It give resistance and hard work.
I fly for fun, to me it is a role-play for getting away from real life. I can tear down most sims I flown also CLOD . But I choose not to. As long as it give me pleasure, or other pleasure why should I.
I am not defending BOS, but you should bear in mind, not all believe CLOD can deliver everything they want and spend all they time in it. I reduced my flying time in CLOD from two hours a day to two hours a week, for reasons said before.
I am looking for a good offline WW2 game with occasional online game. For a bomber pilot in CLOD life is too frustrating to do flying there everyday.

I get your point , but that exact point does not concern me at all

Yay, a fellow bomber pilot! Well-met, mate!

Ever flown the A2A B-17 for FSX? It's a bomber pilot's wet dream at the moment.




@ Dutch:

The lack of customizable tail ID really p*sses me off as well, believe me. We had this feature since bloody 1946... seems like every sim we get is more stripped down in terms of features than the previous one.

[LuseKofte]

This one?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1TZbDjiqAA

[Chuck_Owl]

This one?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1TZbDjiqAA

Aye, that one.