more news on Battle of Stalingrad

[nacy]

Everything is in the title!!!
tout est dans le titre!!!

[implicit A]

le post de référence récapitulatif sur les promesses du projet ( plutot tenues jusqu'à présent mais on est à 51 % ) :
http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=437&t=183178

le dernier commentaire sur les mises à jour récentes (en français) sur bos :

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7261-journal-des-developpeurs-n68/

[nacy]

le post de référence récapitulatif sur les promesses du projet ( plutot tenues jusqu'à présent mais on est à 51 % ) :
http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=437&t=183178

le dernier commentaire sur les mises à jour récentes (en français) sur bos :

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7261-journal-des-developpeurs-n68/

Sur le forum de checksix nacy a demander à (Ghostrider) d'être banni du forum,pour cause d'insulte répétitive sur moi,par les joueurs de Battle of Stalingrad.Sa fait bien long-temps pour les infos sur les insultes dans le forum C6 je suis pas aller voir.


Pour les infos sur les mises à jour en Français sur BOS dans le forum 777,c'est les même personnes qui traine sur le forum C6,pour nous donner des infos sur les insultes.Donc non merci pour les infos sur se forum ( http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7261-journal-des-developpeurs-n68/ )

Je prend les infos sur BOS ici,car les insultes sont banni,les écries de quelqu'un sont pas suprimer.La liberté de parole est donner ici,merci ATAG.

[implicit A]

Je pense que tu peux quand même lire les infos et posts, sans avoir toi même à poster ou être inscrit sur le forum bos.
bon enfin ta situation est compliquée à priori. donc le mieux c'est que t'attende la release, ou un article dans fligh sim ou équivalent, si les forum des founders ne te sont pour toi, pas fréquentables.

bon je comprends pas tout mais je t'avais répondu pour que tu ais de l'info fraiche malgré tout.

salut

[Continu0]

anything relevant for the international community?

[Combat Wombat]

anything relevant for the international community?

Or us in Australia :recon:

[gavagai]

No. Nacy is just boycotting forums where he says he gets insulted.

[ATAG_Freya]

No. Nacy is just boycotting forums where he says he gets insulted.

And therefore requests that he gets his info about BOS here, from ATAG forum members, without the bother of insults and bannings, and for that he his thankful to ATAG. At least that's what I could make of it, in the quick and dirty, via translator. I don't use checksix forums, so don't know what goes on there. That begs me to ask, what is going on with BOS stuff these days? Do we have release dates for alpha/beta/final/patches 1- 40 ? Is it still $95 bucks to get it? Here we go with my laziness again...

[Hood]

No. Nacy is just boycotting forums where he says he gets insulted.

Not many of them left I presume? It's all their fault of course.

Hood

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Update 69. All the teams at it apparently!

In short they are working hard in small windowless offices and are not allowed to take any time off debugging the 190 and He-111! Models are looking good and they are at the state that they can create some desktops images of the 111!

Hope they don't burn themselves out.


Cheers!

[implicit A]

you can get it, for Standard édition at 54$ on their front page.

The most difficult thing with bos is to wait about a summer map with green and no more snow. my eyes are fed up about so much white, anyway FM are quite good and landscape too. still work in progress. historical realistic side of FM and equipement is nice now.


post dev 69
"
Hi Everybody!

Another week of development is passing by. Some of you may even say that the game is basically complete and we only need to assemble the ready parts and release is straight away. But actually we all here in our small Moscow office (which doesn’t even have windows BTW) and we are totally engrossed with work. Tension is growing every week, but even summer time with its traditional human thurst for vacations cannot break us. I think, flight-sim developers are the toughest and some of the most driven specialists in the gaming world, because if you can’t keep your promise to deliver a new high-end flight sim - then you don’t get to work on a new IL-2 Sturmovik title.

The Project manager that some of you may know as Han on the forums is the one who, with his unfailing precision is coordinating pretty much all production segments and keeps the work going as planned and previously announced. Actually, he manages to solve so many production issues that I’d rather not bother him without a certain need - everything’s under control and the system is maintained like a perfectly serviced mechanism. He oversees all new elements and fixing newly discovered flaws - all that is in trustworthy hands.

The team of engineers is led be Andrey aka Petrovich who occupies the furthest room in our office. They run so many insanly complicated maths and physics that I’m honestly surprised their PC haven’t been caught on fire yet (three knocks on the wood). The flight model for the Fw-190 and He-111 is what we all are expecting from them these days. There’s no doubt that the result will be as impressing as always. When these two planes are complete, the engineers will run tests for all 10 aircraft that we have and make sure they are historically and technically correct. No use repeating how difficult and long that work can be, but we’re sincerely grateful to them for it.

Of course, there would have been nothing to fly in without the game engine and the program environment in general which are permanently maintained and developed by our programmers and their leader, Sergey Vorsin. Those who claim IL2:BOS to be nothing more than ROF with different planes and maps have no idea on how incredibly wrong they were. Our code guys are relentless. The constantly work on newly added graphical technologies and fresh content, and neverending game optimization - they always know what to do and how to bring the project closer to their ideals. It’s the same story with our network segment developers. BTW you help them a lot with your bug reports on issues in multiplayer; all that feedback is warmly welcomed and sincerely appreciated. It’s crucial to fix the netcode now, before the big release.

The long-awaited He-111 can easily be taken from a desktop on our modelers’ displays and made into a desktop - this much time and work it takes to make a large mighty German bomber. It’s still too early to show it on screenshots but trust me, there’s a lot in this aircraft for you to put your teeth into. The Fw-190 is much clearer - we only need to finalize the cockpit. Meanwhile, we still have to agree to some compromises, such as gauge illumination level dial is not going to be controllable in the game. Even though it’s a unique feature we still hope that you’ll be able to fly and and enjoy the game without it.

And that picture of peace and harmony that is saturated with creative energy is regularly resounded with rumble and clanking. Valery Kornilov, like a very self-critical and devoted goldsmith, is polishing the sounds that he prepares for the game. Well, we can’t shush on him: the war is a one loud thing, so our sound director is fighting for every decibel to be in its place.

The most quiet spot in our office is occupied be the customer support. If you’ve ever communicated with them them you must know how client-oriented they are. How could it be any different? Flight-sims is a unique genre and its community is definitely worth being treated correspondingly.

Unfortunately, the developer blog isn’t big enough for me to tell more about other crew members. But anyway what I was trying to share with you is the unique atmosphere here in the studio. It’s the spirit of the original, long-awaited and cherished project - a really new IL-2."

[mprhead]

On the other words, there wasn't anything really big to say this week. Fw 190 A-3 should be released in couple of weeks, they are working on net-code to get it work with reasonable number of players and are going to take another look at flight models after Fw 190 and He 111 are done. Or something along those lines.

[implicit A]

La 5 in MP this Week

very hard to nav and spot aircraft in snow landscape . at 4000m between snow and clouds you don't know where you are.

brighteness and light tweaked with tonemap from sweetfx, but still difficult.

boring to have short time in MP ( rounds ) don't like it for now. have to wait.

[dburne]

On the other words, there wasn't anything really big to say this week. Fw 190 A-3 should be released in couple of weeks, they are working on net-code to get it work with reasonable number of players and are going to take another look at flight models after Fw 190 and He 111 are done. Or something along those lines.

While I have gone ahead and grabbed the updates as they come out, I haven't played the sim now in about 4-5 weeks... just not much there that is exciting me at this time...

[AKA_Recon]

While I have gone ahead and grabbed the updates as they come out, I haven't played the sim now in about 4-5 weeks... just not much there that is exciting me at this time...

I felt the same - I thought the level bombing in PE2 would spark some interest... but it was very quickly lost.

It just doesn't have the same quality feel as CloD at this point (imo).

[dburne]

It just doesn't have the same quality feel as CloD at this point (imo).

Agree, not even close. Been flying the Hurri RAF campaign ( Hun in the Sun) most of the morning, and having a blast!

[LuseKofte]

The one and only thing that interest me right now is some of those russian planes. Best feel of flight ever. I state once again this sim got potential to be much better than CLOD.
But I agree, the simplified avionics and bombsight, together with no ME make it very uninteresting in long term flying

[AKA_Recon]

Agree, not even close. Been flying the Hurri RAF campaign ( Hun in the Sun) most of the morning, and having a blast!

I really need to try that one!

[AKA_Recon]

The one and only thing that interest me right now is some of those russian planes. Best feel of flight ever. I state once again this sim got potential to be much better than CLOD.
But I agree, the simplified avionics and bombsight, together with no ME make it very uninteresting in long term flying

Yes and no - like I feel like I did that for ... What? 10+ years? My IL2 1946 memories will last a lifetime.

I love the Med/Africa theater best personally

[javelina]

Africa theater best personally

Africa would be great.

I've been flying BoS, mainly the Kanonenvogel, (Stuka Cannon). Having a blast, as a PanzerJager. Until the Reds are circling around... :D

[LuseKofte]

Yes and no - like I feel like I did that for ... What? 10+ years? My IL2 1946 memories will last a lifetime.

I love the Med/Africa theater best personally

Yes I love med/ Africa too. But after that I like eastern front . I just have given up hope we ever will see a modern version of IL2 with its enormous wide perspective. CLOD and BOS are the same to me, too narrow and in the long run too few opportunities. I was hoping the two together could make a adequate sim experience.
But the way BOS is going I very much doubt it.
I just say the feel of flight is totally ok , but the amount of work they have put into it , does not compare with the amount of time I will play it ;)

[mprhead]

For me it's unfortunate that BoB doesn't really rock my boat. My interest goes pretty much along the lines Tunisian campaign > rest of Mediterranean > North Africa:Libya and Egypt > East Africa > Eastern Front mid and late war > Battle of Britain > Winter war > Eastern front early > Bliztkrieg. I am hoping that TF will take us to med in not so distant future.

[GloriousRuse]

Have they fixed the damage model, or is still "hitpoints per area" for testing?

[1lokos]

The DM is finished.

(Han - project manager on Russian Forum 06/24):



DM is final, except for small parts such as damage control wiring or separate fires tanks. Before the release is planned only to correct bugs. The release is planned improvements in the appearance of a major aircraft systems and their damage.


The fire on tanks appear in the last EA (06/27).

They dont have more much time - September is in > 90 days - need finished Fw 190, He 111, fix bugs, some instruments on all planes (e.g Artificial Horizon), do the SP contend (The Achilles Heel of the project)...

Dont believed in the mantra: "It's only Alpha, 51%..." :thumbsup:

Sokol1

[gavagai]

The Rise of Flight career mode is still in beta 3 years after its release.:doh:

[Hood]

Agree, not even close.

I'll respectfully disagree. Graphically the CloD scenery looks great as do the planes albeit with LOD issues. Visually the damage done is also better in CloD The feeling of flight is more for me far more "real" in BoS simply because the visual cues make it feel more like light aircraft I've been. CloD for me involves flying on rails.

For me though I have a feeling that most people will have flown too much BoS before its official release and snow can get a bit boring over time, just like any scenario or map even the BoB. For this reason I'm deliberately not touching it much until then.

I'm looking forward to the desert with CloD even if there are no new planes to come from TF (and I hope there are) though I really really hope for more dynamic weather conditions (in the sense of heavy weather, not changing weather). Possibly even more than that I'm looking forward to the DCS D9 release in August as that'll be my first foray into DCS. If Normandy is in EDGE then we're in for a treat - makes me glad of my $40 Kikcstarter funding.

Hood

ps And I don't know why people think there will be no ME/FMB. There will be, just not pre-release.

[vranac]

ps And I don't know why people think there will be no ME/FMB. There will be, just not pre-release.

There will be no FMB at the release. Maybe later if the project is succesfull. Wich means 200.000 copies sold.
How realistic that possibility is you can judge by yourself. Look >> FM in RoF.

[LuseKofte]

What about wait and see? Who is to know what we get or not. I bought this game because CLOD is not a complete sim. In the long run plain out boring watching spits and 109 fight eachother and occationally kill of one of the few bombers.
What about just see what happends, I have bought the game and can see I do not want to dump my IL2 install. This endless discussions of what might be or not is fruitless, and very much subjective, yes even with a agenda behind sometimes.
Excuse me for not being satisfyed for what clod have to offer, this is why I look for other stuff. BOS seems to me going to the wrong direction, for me that is. But I damn will give them the benefit of doubt, as I did with CLOD

[Hood]

There will be no FMB at the release. Maybe later if the project is succesfull. Wich means 200.000 copies sold.
How realistic that possibility is you can judge by yourself. Look >> FM in RoF.

Not quite right. They've said they'll provide a funky FMB if resources allow. They'll release the FMB as is on release or soon after and people can make what they want of it.

The 200,000 copies refers to future development. Part of that may be a better FMB or they may just allow the community to make it.

Wait and see is key.

Hood

[vranac]

No they won't. They said that RoF ME will be given for a few " chosen ones". They also said that the work on a new ME is very complex and they don't have anyone working on it.

And please, I'm bored of quoting Loft himself. Straight question: " What does it mean that the project is succesful?"
Straight answer: " Anything bellow 200.000 is a disaster "

And that doesn't mean 200.000 in a next few years but in a next few months after the release. That will decide if the work on the project will continue or not.

[Hood]

No they won't. They said that RoF ME will be given for a few " chosen ones". They also said that the work on a new ME is very complex and they don't have anyone working on it.

And please, I'm bored of quoting Loft himself. Straight question: " What does it mean that the project is succesful?"
Straight answer: " Anything bellow 200.000 is a disaster "

Below 200,000 is a disaster but that doesn't mean 200.000 is a success. It might just mean costs to date are covered with further development halted, or costs to date aren't quite covered. It might actually mean it's an awesome success. Anything other than the literal meaning is reading too much into it - it isn't a straight answer.

Early access - chosen few get the ME. There hasn't been a definitive answer regarding ME availability at official release but they would lose absolutely nothing by releasing it.

Wait and see.

Hood

[vranac]

You can read that however you want, you can even start a philosophical movement about it but that won't change a simple fact.
If they don't sell 200.000 copies in a few months, lock, the end.

And yes, they might lose something. If people from old il2 try to make some missions like they're used to, unawere of the limitations of DN engine,
the word will spread out very quickly through the comunity. And thats the only marketing they have.
Plain and simple.

[1lokos]

" Anything bellow 200.000 is a disaster "

This lead to "Chicken or the Egg paradox", they will dont sold "200.000" copy's for "onliner's" (maybe 20.000?)
so need a good contend to hook the "offliner's", not exactly a kind of "sandbox campaign"...

If they don't have an ace up his sleeve for this matter for release, better work for Russian Ministry of Culture (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7197-1cgs-announces-ilya-muromets-flight-sim-development/) money...

Well, September is in 61 days ... :thumbsup:

Sokol1

[Hood]

They've made the ME useability issue abundantly clear to the people that are likely to use it. Not to release it is likely to do more harm because then people can't play with it.

Those that want to make missions will use it. The vast majority will just play the game.

The lack of player-made co-ops for CloD suggests to me that the style of ME isn't the problem but the lack of people using the ME is. That may translate across to BOS regardless of the interface etc.

Hood

[LuseKofte]

For me it actually worked as soon they put more airfields on. Now I can fly above the clouds and wait for a spawning plane and bomb it and actually survive
For fast fun this is quality, for more than fast fun , naaah cannot spend more than 45 min on it

[gavagai]

There will be no FMB at the release. Maybe later if the project is succesfull. Wich means 200.000 copies sold.
How realistic that possibility is you can judge by yourself. Look >> FM in RoF.

I wonder if they read these threads, perhaps just to see what the "haters" are up to?:devilish:

Anyway, you are spot-on with your observation about FMs in ROF. I did not buy BOS because of their recalcitrance. Perhaps if they needed to sell 200,000 copies of BOS they should have behaved a little more wisely toward their core customer base.
:doh:

In the meantime I've been spending my flight sim dollars on DCS. At least there I can be sure that when errors are discovered they *will* be revisited and corrected.

[vranac]

They've made the ME useability issue abundantly clear to the people that are likely to use it. Not to release it is likely to do more harm because then people can't play with it.

Those that want to make missions will use it. The vast majority will just play the game.

No Hood, they will not have access to ME. Only a few "chosen ones" will. Ask that again on the offical forums.
"Will we going to have the access to ME after the release ?". Simple question.
Answer will be a vague one like it was before.

I'm telling you, Loft explained everything on the Russian forum. No one is working on a new ME. That is a huge and complicated task.
They will think about it if the project is succesfull.

[Hood]

I'm afraid I don't speak Russian, but as far as I know there is no definitive response regarding ME release with the official release. If you can show different I'd be very interested to see it. Until then it's wait and see.

Thanks for your fishing Gavagai. I'm not sure what ROF FMs have to do with BOS but your opinion is somewhat weakened by not having played with BOS. Each to their own I guess.

I've decided my mantra is now "wait and see" so that is what I'm going to do rather than get bogged down in circular arguments.

Horrido

Hood

[GloriousRuse]

AH good, Lokos, so they got rid of the war thunder model and replaced it with component ala CLOD, right?

[dburne]

If they don't have an ace up his sleeve for this matter for release, better work for Russian Ministry of Culture (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7197-1cgs-announces-ilya-muromets-flight-sim-development/) money...

Well, September is in 61 days ... :thumbsup:

Sokol1

Based on how they described what the release campaign would be like, two or three DD blogs back, I am somewhat concerned about how well it will hook the offliners.

I guess we will see in around 60+ days.

[1lokos]

@ Nacy

DD#71

Some important small fix/adds (in bold).


71

Hi Everybody!

Today’s update should be released as planned - it’s full of great new features and we want to deliver them to you as soon as we can. As you know from the previous dev diary we’re adding Campaign mode technology into the game. It does not mean that you or us are able to play this mode now, at this stage of early access. But it means that a huge volume of content and lots of gameplay algorithms are being merged with the project. It was only a couple of days ago when VikS’ screen looked like that.

http://i58.tinypic.com/2hs2l52.jpg

Almost one hundred airfields on the map. Each of them has its combat history, each of them is known for squadrons based on them - and all of them will play active roles in the campaign. When it’s ready the briefing screen will change a lot. And this is how one of the campaign starting screens will look like - you’ll see your progress in the current stage of the battle. (the text says: Choose first chapter of the campaign; New chapters will become available as you progress through the campaign).

As you can see the game is still being developed in your virtual presence, and you’re the main tasters of our sim cuisine. :)

And since the campaign is still being cooked, I’m going to tell you want we’ll be serving tonight.

The siren on Stuka is finally ready to sing. In a few hours you’ll be able to turn it on and, for instance, start vulching enemy airfields on your Ju-87.

Vertical rate indicators and horizon indicators have been turned on; fixed loop radio compasses are now working on Pe-2, Ju-87 and He-111. They are also available as unlockable modifications on Yak-1 and La-5.


Radio beacons in Quick Mission editor will be placed on all airfields where you plan to start and finish the mission. In multiplayer, the beacons will be working on almost all of the airfields. Your fixed loop radio compass will be responding to the nearest beacon by default. We know that you’d like to have more settings and an option to switch channels - and we’ll add it later.

Something that you’ve been waiting for long - binding separate keys for dropping bombs and launching rockets is now possible. The bombers also got some corrections: the boom that helps to release the bomb from the attachment on Ju-87 has ben fixed; half-doors of the bomb hatch on Pe-2 will interact with bombs under the Peshka’s belly correctly. Turnkey needle should now be functional on all planes. German aim sights were fixed with colour filter - Luftwaffe’s virtual pilots as always enjoy superior German comfort.

Today we also add new trees and bushes, and you can see some of the m on the screenshots below. And in a few hours this new richly updated version will be in your hands.


http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/page-2#entry134874

He 111 belly gunner animation (Wip): http://instagram.com/p/qUFy5ky6e4/

Anyone know what is "Turnkey needle"?

Sokol1

[LuseKofte]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/5594-will-there-be-other-maps/page-4

" user contributions, maps,"

Already even before release a new large user made map with many new objects is close to publishing...a map larger than the one promised for DCSWWII. read the whole thread to get more details.

All of the content promised at the earliest stages of announcement is being delivered at what in flight sim time has been quite remarkable,

I do think that most of your content worries could have been said exactly about original IL-2 release Lol. The latest update has fleshed things out a lot with many small features added, and the new trees and grass have really improved the look, performance and stability remain excellent especially when considering it is only now transiting into beta stage

I am quietly confident that on final release this will live up to my original expectations and will only get better with time and addons...well here's hoping anyway :)

Cheers Dakpilot

[Skoshi_Tiger]

?????? Zeus says the map is only 51x51km with 6 airfields? Great for testing purposes I guess. There still seem to be concern over Draw distances and
lod's

But even baby steps are still encouraging.

[implicit A]

Here is my work for my sunday, a printable big map of stalingrad area, for better Nav.
hope it can help in SP and MP for people here who fly on BOS sometimes.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7677-hd-printable-map-nav-over-stalingrad/#entry135653

a part of this:
http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-23169-0-36653200-1405269010.png

the complete aera
http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-23169-0-85477200-1405268514.png

Original file is to big ( 13,75 mo ) to post here. 4824x2904 so here is the link :http://bgyckkunzz.1fichier.com/

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Here is my work for my sunday, a printable big map of stalingrad area, for better Nav.
hope it can help in SP and MP for people here who fly on BOS sometimes.


Thank you very much! :)

[Foul Ole Ron]

?????? Zeus says the map is only 51x51km with 6 airfields? Great for testing purposes I guess. There still seem to be concern over Draw distances and lod's

The initial drop of the map will be the 50km one but the full release will be 170km.

I don't think the draw distances for terrain are terrible - can make out runways a good distance away with a bit of zoom. I'm not so sure yet about things like static objects like planes on the runways. Previously they used to disappear completely at unacceptable distances. Haven't tested in a while to see if they've improved that much - they removed static objects like He-111s from the airfields a while back probably to hide this issue while they worked on it.

[AKA_Recon]

I don't think I'm going to pass any judgement on this sim until it's released.

The positive of them sharing updates, pushing it out to pilots to fly is we get to see the progress.

The negative is that people forget it's a WIP and not a release candidate yet.

[Mastiff]

and don't forget there is already a 3rd party map in the waiting..

[Foul Ole Ron]

@ Mastiff - the 3rd party map was what was being discussed above.

@ Recon - true that people can sometimes be overly critical on a WIP but constructive criticism is fair enough. Personally I think there's a lot of good stuff in BOS but there's still areas that need some work. Overall I'm definitely enjoying the early access and I hope they can address the areas that need work prior to release so we end up with a really quality product. Where'd I'd see BOS at currently would be:

+

Feeling of flight is excellent
Generally the flight model is good though some changes are needed still - 109 flight behaviour, roll rates, etc.
Ground handling is good and brakes work as they should - tail draggers behave correctly and the 109 is very hard to nose over which is accurate
Flight model for speeds seems accurate
Flight model for climb rate seems accurate
Exterior plane models look good
Plane sounds are good and the in-flight sounds are decent too with the engine, buffeting, etc.
Turbulence properly tugs the aircraft - might be scripted but still feels ok and varied enough
Wake turbulence is nicely implemented
New clouds are nice
Some cockpits are pretty decent looking if not up to DCS / CloD level e.g. Lagg-3, Pe-2
DM is nice in parts - holes in planes, bits breaking off which can damage your aircraft, oil / coolant leaks smoke looks nice
Air contact visibility distance is good and seems realistic
Explosions, bullets hitting the ground, etc. all look good

-

DM still needs some work though I think they've acknowledged this
Roll rates are significantly too high across the board in all fighters
109 engine is a bit fragile in the F-4 when it comes to WEP
109 rudder is crazily effective - needs to be tuned down quite a bit and shouldn't cause flick rolls with rudder input only (though the devs are going to examine this once the other planes are finished)
Open cockpit noises are too low - should be deafening like in CloD
Closing cockpit has no effect on engine sound volume currently
AI is poor - all planes just pull hard turns and don't do much else, AI doesn't look to take advantage of the type of plane it's flying e.g. turning with a 109 when it could easily climb and extend away
Can lean out way too much from the cockpit while in the air for a pilot that's supposed to be strapped in
Hit sounds are too quiet though some improvements have been made - you still get louder sounds when hitting an enemy aircraft in front of you which seems weird
Landscape is a bit bland and barren - it's probably realistic but doesn't help it looking dull and flat overall
World is a bit empty overall apart from trees and villages - hardly any ground units around. Possibly will improve later though ROF had that same kind of sterile feel so we'll see
109 pit in particular is on the flat side - dials look very 2D
Only graphical presets - can't turn SSAO off right now which doesn't help how sharp pits look
Lack of a proper mission editor for all users is a bit of a gap but hopefully they can address this post day 1

[implicit A]

Foul ole ron : your sumary is perfectly true about today's BOS.
For a Wip it is ever quite good

[1lokos]

DD-72

- Ammo counts working on BF 109 and Ju 87
- Enemy fire hits can damage plane weapons
- External bombs racks can take damage and bombs fall
- Vapor trail and wing tip vortex at critical angles

Fw 190 A3 external video - Is say that modeller is not satisfied with cockpit and dont allow screenshots for now. Promise to be released in the "next week".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31qFvUIAdP0&feature=player_embedded
http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/page-2#entry136922

Sokol1

[LuseKofte]

I just love fly BOS, no other sim give me this feel of flight.

[AKA_Recon]

My interest level just doubled... looking forward to trying it out

[gavagai]

Roll rates are significantly too high across the board in all fighters


Expect them to remain that way forever, based on experience...

[Foul Ole Ron]

Yeah that's what I'm afraid of alright. Can just keep pointing it out in the hope they'll get adjusted to realistic levels. I just don't understand how they can put the current ones out there and even begin to think they're close to ok. Especially when they have a lot of other parts of the flight model which seem pretty accurate and realistic.

[trademe900]

Expect them to remain that way forever, based on experience...

What is this about and why on earth hasn't it been fixed yet? Is it an attempt to partially cater for the arcade crowd with excessive rolling combat?

[LuseKofte]

I could spend a week speaking about things I don't like with clod, I don't , I prefer to just enjoy the parts I like. Same goes for BOS, I give a rat ass about the roll rate, I am more concerned about how to use it, Will there be dedicated useful servers and so on. Meanwhile I enjoy the part I can roll rate or not ;)

If there still are people around thinking they are more hardcore simmers for preferring Clod well be my guest, call me arcadish all you want. Truth is some of those planes are more realistic than any in clod , if you focus on handling . complexity is much better in Clod that is all, concerning the planes that is

[Tvrdi]

I could spend a week speaking about things I don't like with clod, I don't , I prefer to just enjoy the parts I like. Same goes for BOS, I give a rat ass about the roll rate, I am more concerned about how to use it, Will there be dedicated useful servers and so on. Meanwhile I enjoy the part I can roll rate or not ;)

If there still are people around thinking they are more hardcore simmers for preferring Clod well be my guest, call me arcadish all you want. Truth is some of those planes are more realistic than any in clod , if you focus on handling . complexity is much better in Clod that is all, concerning the planes that is

With roll rates as they are now and DM of RC planes I hardly believe in what ur saying..not to mention unfixed relative pwrformance between planes in ROF will probably happen again in BOS...If i want to have a "feel of flight I will fly p51 and Dora in DCS...not BOS...BOS target audience is midcore simmers, probably much more heafty in numbers than "suckers" who want to have real ww2 airwar immersion..

[gavagai]

Same goes for BOS, I give a rat ass about the roll rate

At least you have the decency to be honest about your disdain for our passion.

[Foul Ole Ron]

Truth is some of those planes are more realistic than any in clod , if you focus on handling . complexity is much better in Clod that is all, concerning the planes that is

If they've gone to all the trouble to make a realistic flight model in other respects why not make the roll rates accurate? I do enjoy aspects of the game as I've made clear before but that doesn't mean that things that are glaringly wrong should be given a free pass.

[gavagai]

The reason for concern is not that some cannot enjoy BoS when the roll rates are excessive. The point is whether they will ever be adjusted...ever. In a few years when more and more of these things pile up you will wonder why 1CGS has no interest in revising their previous work.

[mprhead]

If they've gone to all the trouble to make a realistic flight model in other respects why not make the roll rates accurate? I do enjoy aspects of the game as I've made clear before but that doesn't mean that things that are glaringly wrong should be given a free pass.

They have said that there will be another look at FM, so hopefully this will get fixed. There are some weird thing in flight model other than just roll rate, they all might have the same root cause.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Truth is some of those planes are more realistic than any in clod , if you focus on handling . complexity is much better in Clod that is all, concerning the planes that is

Are you a flyer in real life LuseKofte?

I am just wondering what you find more realistic in BoS over CoD? We have experienced pilots on the TF Flight Modeling team, who do a great deal of flying, and their impression is the feel of flight in CoD is superior.

[LuseKofte]

At least you have the decency to be honest about your disdain for our passion.

So now I am disrespectful to your disdain what.
Let me spell this for you. We are flying a combatsim Clod is not at all true to the las of physics.
What I said, that in my opinion, witch Last time I checked I am entiteled to. Rollrate is on my lowest priorty right now looking for the usefulness.
Hope I did not step on any sensitive proffessional sim toe this time

[gavagai]

So now I am disrespectful to your disdain what.
Let me spell this for you. We are flying a combatsim Clod is not at all true to the las of physics.
What I said, that in my opinion, witch Last time I checked I am entiteled to. Rollrate is on my lowest priorty right now looking for the usefulness.
Hope I did not step on any sensitive proffessional sim toe this time

I did not say you were disrespectful.

I can't agree with you that Cliffs is "not at all true" to the laws of physics. I wouldn't say that about BoS or sims we played 10 years ago.

[Tvrdi]

They have said that there will be another look at FM, so hopefully this will get fixed.

They said the same in ROF and nothing happened. They even gave us a LIST of fm fixes on beta part the forum. So mistrust is from experience. Their selling spots are visuals and new planes...the more the better...give the mayority what they "want".

[Foul Ole Ron]

They have said that there will be another look at FM, so hopefully this will get fixed. There are some weird thing in flight model other than just roll rate, they all might have the same root cause.

They've only committed to reviewing the 109 FM after literally months of complaints about the rudder over sensitivity. I'm not optimistic at the moment that this review will include a general review of the roll rates for all planes. There's clearly something wrong with their mathematical model though as all planes roll far too fast. It looks to me like they haven't modelled stick forces at all so a pilot can pull max deflection easily at any speed up to around 650kmh.

[TheVino3]

We are flying a combatsim Clod is not at all true to the las of physics.

This is kind of offensive to the guys who have put in hundreds of hours making sure the aircraft in CloD are as true to the laws of physics as they can feasibly be at this point.

Use of such rhetoric is hardly advisable in a debate over something so quantitative as flight-modelling.

[Continu0]

It looks to me like they haven't modelled stick forces at all so a pilot can pull max deflection easily at any speed up to around 650kmh.

I`ve had a long discussion with someone else about this and there are some good points about not simulating stick forces. But be that as it may, it has been implemented anyway. You can not pull max deflection at 650 any more...

About BoS and realistic flight models, watch this:

NOT RECORDED WITH THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE GAME!!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0SH5OQHb6Y

[Foul Ole Ron]

I`ve had a long discussion with someone else about this and there are some good points about not simulating stick forces. But be that as it may, it has been implemented anyway. You can not pull max deflection at 650 any more...

About BoS and realistic flight models, watch this:

Once you get up to 650 you can't quite pull max deflection but you'll still be able to roll way faster than the real thing. In the 400-600 range there's no restriction on max deflection at all - it's a straight line graph of deg/sec roll speed from 200-600. I don't know if stick force modelling needs to be worked over or what but they need to tweak something to drag down the roll rates for all planes.

I've seen that video as well - there's definitely something funky about BOS flight physics around the critical envelopes. They seem to place an over-reliance on pure mathematics as a model and could really use a RL pilot who flies these WW2 planes to provide feedback and hone the model. When Yo-Yo in ED had the P51 modelled mathematically a RL Mustang pilot came back with copious notes on what needed to be adjusted to make it right.

[Hood]

They said the same in ROF and nothing happened. They even gave us a LIST of fm fixes on beta part the forum. So mistrust is from experience. Their selling spots are visuals and new planes...the more the better...give the mayority what they "want".



*yawn*

WWII has far greater scope for continued development and expansions and more planes and more money etc etc etc. It makes far more sense for them to revisit all aspects of FM modelling for the BoS underlying engine than for RoF. Aaaaaaand of course there is more data available for BoS and so on.

There is definitely something screwy about the FM modelling at present and it is wholly in the developer's interests to get it as right as possible. They have the data (though there isn't much available for roll rate) and as I agree it is likely to be a stick forces equation I'm sure they have the wherewithal to adjust the tools to get it right.

Wait and see rather than harp on about RoF.

Hood

[Hood]

I am just wondering what you find more realistic in BoS over CoD? We have experienced pilots on the TF Flight Modeling team, who do a great deal of flying, and their impression is the feel of flight in CoD is superior.

Personally I feel that the feel of fluidity in flight is what makes BoS feel more "right" than CloD. However, I feel it is slightly overdone, though watching the Spits at Duxford snake in the wind I'm not so sure.

Speaking purely personally, for me CloD feels as if the aircraft are too much on rails. That may be how it was but that's my subjective feeling.

And nope I've never flown a WWII aircraft or in fact any aircraft, though I've been bounced around in motor gliders over Germany - that was a giggle.

Hood

[gavagai]

There is definitely something screwy about the FM modelling at present and it is wholly in the developer's interests to get it as right as possible. They have the data (though there isn't much available for roll rate) and as I agree it is likely to be a stick forces equation I'm sure they have the wherewithal to adjust the tools to get it right.

Wait and see rather than harp on about RoF.


It was not for lack of data that they failed to review flight models in Rise of Flight.

777's track record in Rise of Flight is exactly what everyone should scrutinize because they stand by it. We had years of experience in doing business with them before BoS came to be, and you had...zero? This is not a personal attack, just an observation. Take a deep breath and ask yourself if just maybe, maybe we might have some insight.

-------------

As for roll rates, the lack of stick forces could definitely be the culprit. Aircraft like the Bristol F.2b and Albatros D.Va have roll rates in excess of 90 degrees/second, and they are supposed to be WW1 scouts. Real pilots observe that these aircraft have heavy controls in the roll axis.

[Hood]

777's track record in Rise of Flight is exactly what everyone should scrutinize because they stand by it. We had years of experience in doing business with them before BoS came to be, and you had...zero? This is not a personal attack, just an observation. Take a deep breath and ask yourself if just maybe, maybe we might have some insight.

-------------

As for roll rates, the lack of stick forces could definitely be the culprit. Aircraft like the Bristol F.2b and Albatros D.Va have roll rates in excess of 90 degrees/second, and they are supposed to be WW1 scouts. Real pilots observe that these aircraft have heavy controls in the roll axis.

Not taken as an attack, but the past does not always reflect the future. Sometimes companies learn from their mistakes.

What I suspect is that from a business perspective RoF had almost no revenue to come in so there was no point in continued development. If they could release the SDK to allow "correction" that'd be great but that's their decision. A WWII flight sim has far greater longevity hence the importance of getting it right either straight away or with patches.

Look at the original IL2 - on release there was some crazy stuff going on but they fixed it.

Hood

[Tvrdi]

Not taken as an attack, but the past does not always reflect the future. Sometimes companies learn from their mistakes.

What I suspect is that from a business perspective RoF had almost no revenue to come in so there was no point in continued development. If they could release the SDK to allow "correction" that'd be great but that's their decision. A WWII flight sim has far greater longevity hence the importance of getting it right either straight away or with patches.

Look at the original IL2 - on release there was some crazy stuff going on but they fixed it.

Hood

If wrong, you will be very very disapointed...I was, and it wasnt a pretty sight hehe

[gavagai]

Yes, revenue has to diminish after 4+ years.

As for learning from mistakes, you are correct, sometimes things change. In 777's case, there is no admission of a mistake. Their position has always been that every FM in Rise of Flight is fine as it is.

[mprhead]

Okey, since there is so much talk about ROF in here, and if I tell the truth, I have almost zero experience or knowledge about that. But am I wrong in my understanding that RoF is/was 777 game and 1 CGS actually has next to nothing to do with it? At least to me it seems that developing team of BoS comes more or less totally from 1C side of the new company?

[mprhead]

They've only committed to reviewing the 109 FM after literally months of complaints about the rudder over sensitivity. I'm not optimistic at the moment that this review will include a general review of the roll rates for all planes. There's clearly something wrong with their mathematical model though as all planes roll far too fast.

Yep, and my hope is that it's the same problem with mathematical model that causes both things. That's why I talked about same root cause. Ofc this is just wishful thinking from my part, but one can always hope.

[LuseKofte]

Are you a flyer in real life LuseKofte?

I am just wondering what you find more realistic in BoS over CoD? We have experienced pilots on the TF Flight Modeling team, who do a great deal of flying, and their impression is the feel of flight in CoD is superior.

No I am not, I just find patronizing comment suggesting I am not passion about simming very irritating. I have flown sim since 1996 and are pretty fed up about any kind of arrogance towards people for their subjective opinion, but granted their own as the one and only. I can agree in some point what those pilots say. But I find the physics better simulated on BOS , gravity and turn and such. But in the state BOS currently in, I prefer to actually have something to do, before turnrate is a issue. If they fix bothered great, but my avselout biggest worry is mission editor, wtf is the need for a accurate rollrate if you have no purpose being there in the first place
Be aware I fly only two engine planes in clod the rest is not of any interest to me.
There are many reasons for me choosing BOS and IL 2 before I fly clod.
None of those related to realism.
It is time and motivation,

[gavagai]

Okey, since there is so much talk about ROF in here, and if I tell the truth, I have almost zero experience or knowledge about that. But am I wrong in my understanding that RoF is/was 777 game and 1 CGS actually has next to nothing to do with it? At least to me it seems that developing team of BoS comes more or less totally from 1C side of the new company?

Quite the opposite. The lead developer, Loft, and the FM engineer, Petrovich, are the same as Rise of Flight. BoS uses the same physics engine as Rise of Flight. There is no way the 1C employees could develop a new sim with a new physics engine so quickly.

[TheVino3]

No I am not, I just find patronizing comment suggesting I am not passion about simming very irritating. I have flown sim since 1996 and are pretty fed up about any kind of arrogance towards people for their subjective opinion, but granted their own as the one and only. I can agree in some point what those pilots say. But I find the physics better simulated on BOS , gravity and turn and such. But in the state BOS currently in, I prefer to actually have something to do, before turnrate is a issue. If they fix bothered great, but my avselout biggest worry is mission editor, wtf is the need for a accurate rollrate if you have no purpose being there in the first place
Be aware I fly only two engine planes in clod the rest is not of any interest to me.
There are many reasons for me choosing BOS and IL 2 before I fly clod.
None of those related to realism.
It is time and motivation,

I don't think that people suggest that you are not passionate about flying sims. I think what people didn't like reading was comments like "I give a rat ass about the roll rate" which seem to suggest that the roll rate is somehow not important, and that people shouldn't complain about it.

For most hardcore simmers, the roll rate is as important as any other part of the flight model. To get the most authentic feeling, all aspects of the flight model should be as accurately modeled as possible. That's part of the attraction - you have to deal with the same features and constraints of the aircraft as the actual pilots had to, back in the day. For a lot of simmers, probably most, this kind of thing is the most important part of a sim, and is what separates a hardcore sim from a "midcore" sim, or what most would just call a game.

I can understand that you might get a better "feeling" of flight from BoS, but you cannot then say that it is more realistic than CloD because of that (especially if you are not a pilot yourself). I would think that even the BoS devs themselves would admit that CloD models quite a few more variables than BoS does. The way you judge realism in a sim is by comparing the results you get from it to real life results. Obviously a sim that models more variables, with greater precision, will have more realistic results and will therefore be the more realistic sim.

This doesn't mean BoS will be a bad game. If people enjoy it, it's a good game. If you enjoy it, power to you! But you cannot really argue that BoS is more realistic than CloD. I think most people would agree, that is a bit of a ridiculous statement.

[1lokos]

Bo$ "fanboyism" in one screen:

http://i62.tinypic.com/11qjurp.jpg
Picture from 1943 La5 manual.

:)

Sokol1

[1lokos]

2x

Sokol1

[LuseKofte]

Well I can not judge realism you say? But you can? Or anyone Else
You got to understand if I had to choose between those two sims. I choose CLOD any day.
But the developers clearly stated they was not copying CLOD . So why do people compare it.
I am not a fanboy, but the way people act against it discust me. It really dont give much hope for
Another go at it.
I am really sorry I dont find CLOD that interesting and realistic.
Mostly because how its played. Secondly because it isnt as hard to master as you guys like to think.
I understand this can be more interesting for fighter pilots, but my setup does not allowe fighter handeling that well.
You fly fingertip with digital joystick and call it realistic?
I fly a tight yoke with the need of using muzzles. Realism is subjective and you Are in no better possission to judge it than me



Sent from my iPad mini using Tapatalk

[implicit A]

"But you cannot really argue that BoS is more realistic than CloD. I think most people would agree, that is a bit of a ridiculous statement."

Who really knows ?
real Life wwii Pilot ? real life civil pilot ? I'm not one of them, but i'm curious and I'm a flight sim enthusiast, as it gives me the 'feeling' of realism.
I love COD i'm fan , but somebody (on Bos Forum ) explain me one day, about real life Landing feeling, reactions on wings of airplanes when you are close to the ground and things like that.
they told me, this part of clod developement was not correctly acchieved and implemented in original Clod ( close ground physics interact on wings ) impacting the way of landing and its realism feeling not achieved in clod. they told me flight physics was correctly modelised in BOS on that point.
don't know if it's true. Don't want to be rude or anything like that as it is difficult for me to write it in english. But, if it is one of the only part of clod who needs improvement : sure TF can do it !as they do amazing work ! what do you think about that point ? is it a work in progress in tf patch or something you totally disagrees with ?

respectfull for TF and CLod, what are nowadays, first known clod improvement needed ?

[ATAG_Colander]

Each person is allowed to think however they like just as others are allowed to disagree with them, however....
I'm going to have to ask everyone to stop the comments involving other people as this is starting to get hot and I don't want to have to lock this thread (which is supposed to be about BOS news).

[LizLemon]

Bo$ "fanboyism" in one screen:

http://i62.tinypic.com/11qjurp.jpg
Picture from 1943 La5 manual.

:)

Sokol1

Is this you implying that windscreens didn't have fingerprints wiped off by ground crews before flight?

What a crazy thought! Next you'll be telling me that ammo belts were given to aircrews pre-assembled at a factory, following uniform standards!

Or that gun convergence was set at the factory and unchangeable in the field!



As an aside, I'd say with my experience with the bureaucracy of game development - companies don't change unless they face big failures. Something that is "good enough" or performs below expectation, but not so low that it is a disaster, doesn't change their behavior or decisions making. After all it must be the market.. or not enough advertising.... or just bad timing that results in lackluster sales. Surely its not the people in charge making bad decisions that lead to lackluster sales. Unless sales are so bad that the leadership has to get some heads chopped off.

[LuseKofte]

Problem is I did not say BOS Are more realistic, I said the physics are better simulated. If I sound redicoulus to you. Well I am happy to please you

[gavagai]

As an aside, I'd say with my experience with the bureaucracy of game development - companies don't change unless they face big failures. Something that is "good enough" or performs below expectation, but not so low that it is a disaster, doesn't change their behavior or decisions making. After all it must be the market.. or not enough advertising.... or just bad timing that results in lackluster sales. Surely its not the people in charge making bad decisions that lead to lackluster sales. Unless sales are so bad that the leadership has to get some heads chopped off.

Well put.

I will only add "niche market" as the usual scapegoat for flight sim woes.

[1lokos]

Is this you implying that windscreens didn't have fingerprints wiped off by ground crews before flight?


The "joke" have another context... and a explained joke is not funny. :thumbsup:

But about the windscreen the (1943 La5) manual say - this caption in Cyrillic below our "desperate" pilot:

g) The canopy is not dirty and visor is not damaged.

After all a fly "shit" on windscreen can be confused with a distant dot and our "desperate" pilot go chasing him,
as already happens to some virtual pilots chasing fly "shit" in his monitor screen - according stories in forums. :)

Sokol1

[vranac]

Is this you implying that windscreens didn't have fingerprints wiped off by ground crews before flight?


Lizlemon, I think you understood Sokol's post wrong.

And I always admire that gif from The GoodTimesKid :)

[TheVino3]

Well I can not judge realism you say? But you can? Or anyone Else
You got to understand if I had to choose between those two sims. I choose CLOD any day.
But the developers clearly stated they was not copying CLOD . So why do people compare it.
I am not a fanboy, but the way people act against it discust me. It really dont give much hope for
Another go at it.
I am really sorry I dont find CLOD that interesting and realistic.
Mostly because how its played. Secondly because it isnt as hard to master as you guys like to think.
I understand this can be more interesting for fighter pilots, but my setup does not allowe fighter handeling that well.
You fly fingertip with digital joystick and call it realistic?
I fly a tight yoke with the need of using muzzles. Realism is subjective and you Are in no better possission to judge it than me


I totally agree that how a game feels is subjective. I am not saying you shouldn't enjoy BoS more than CloD if it feels better to you. If you like flying BoS more, I am not trying to change that - I wasn't trying to be malicious in my reply.

What I was saying is that CloD models more variables than BoS does, and generally with better accuracy (roll rate for example), and that this means that the results you get out of CloD with regards to relative aircraft performance are, at the moment, more reflective of reality than BoS. That doesn't mean you have to like CloD more than BoS, and that doesn't necessarily mean that someone will get a better "feeling of flight" from CloD or BoS. It is largely subjective, as you say.

Car racing games have been dealing with this for many years. A lot of people prefer unrealistic handling in their racing simulators because it "feels more real". It's an interesting phenomenon. I am not saying it is "wrong" to feel that way, but I am saying you can't then assert that a simulation is more realistic than another for that reason.

And, of course, you are correct in that there are quite a few aspects of CloD which need some real attention - I am not saying CloD is the perfect, be all and end all of flight simulation; I am saying that CloD is definitely the more "realistic" of the two sims, but whether you like it or not, and how it makes you feel while flying it, is largely up to you.

I'm not attacking you, LuseKofte. I am not being personal. This applies to anyone.

Anyway, as Colander pointed out, this thread has gone waaaaaaaay OT.

:salute:

[LuseKofte]

The problem is I fly CLOD mostly, but Are in need of another up to date ww2 Sim.
It is only 2 things I like better in BOS that is Russian planes and physics.
My involvement in these discussions are based on the fact that people call it a bad Sim.
And I disagree, it is not what I hoper for, it is not complete, it cover a to narrow territory, it is only that much to do, in got many issues and it got enemies.
On those terms CLOD should be deemed bad.
I think I in reality Are more sceptical than my "opponents" about this Sim, I just disagree on the prejudgement of a Sim that just entered betastage after a long hard alpha.

[LBR=H.Ostermann]

S!

Fw-190 is out!

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-7693-0-40023100-1406287276.jpg

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-7693-0-88103600-1406287284.jpg

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-7693-0-29729100-1406287299.jpg


I am not impressed with this cockpit.

[LizLemon]

I can't believe the bar is there. Guess they never read the old il2 forums.

[gavagai]

I think it's there in DCS, too.

[1lokos]

Bar? We have drinks? :alcohol:

In game (user made) video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E35jv0eYCGw

Sokol1

[LuseKofte]

S!

Fw-190 is out!

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-7693-0-40023100-1406287276.jpg

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-7693-0-88103600-1406287284.jpg

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-7693-0-29729100-1406287299.jpg


I am not impressed with this cockpit.

Looks pretty authentic to me
http://www.platinumfighters.com/#!untitled/zoom/c129j/image1ivr

[LBR=H.Ostermann]

S!

Well, something is wrong with this Fw-190 A5 cockpit lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V3TlPYL8Sw

[C.K]

S!

Well, something is wrong with this Fw-190 A5 cockpit lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V3TlPYL8Sw

god that fw-190 sounds beautiful firing up in real life at 32 secs in :)

[ZG15_robtek]

If the BoS Devs are not able to program the correct refraction of the armoured glass, they should at least take away the normally invisible framing,
so that the normal view is available that the engineers of the plane had designed.

[1lokos]

The "bar" dont seem a problem to shoot, they mount the gunsight high:

http://i62.tinypic.com/2v7thzr.jpg

Even if remove the frame at all there's the plane nose to hide the target - but not like in La5.

Sokol1

[LBR=H.Ostermann]

S!


@Robtek, Yep, is this that concern me. This cockpit is too strange
@Sokol1, the bar isn't the problem, the problem is the armoured glass thickness and that are very wrong. Watch the youtube video that i posted, that show a nicely Fw-190A5 with a 60mm armoured glass.

This cockpit is ugly and wrong

[9./JG52 Hans Gruber]

That cockpit framing is rough. Looks like it's made of i-beams.

[AKA_Recon]

S!

Well, something is wrong with this Fw-190 A5 cockpit lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V3TlPYL8Sw

Awesome video

[ChiefRedCloud]

Okey, since there is so much talk about ROF in here, and if I tell the truth, I have almost zero experience or knowledge about that. But am I wrong in my understanding that RoF is/was 777 game and 1 CGS actually has next to nothing to do with it? At least to me it seems that developing team of BoS comes more or less totally from 1C side of the new company?

1C & 777 merged for the making of Battle of Stalingrad. It uses the same engine that Rise of Flight has with some tweak's to it. One of the reasons, since your not into RoF, that it has taken a back seat in development (not counting the FM issues) is the development of BoS is the companies present priority.

BoS has every chance of success and the discussions of which is better or not is just subjective based on what each person feels. Some may feel more versed or trained to tell the differences in some things than others. To some it's just an opinion or guess. But I will say, in any given situation, you don't have to be an engineer IF you feel something isn't right. But proving it may be another thing. I hate something, someone else loves it. WE agree to disagree and leave it be. Choice is yours.

Chief

[gavagai]

Can someone confirm this data? Is the 109F-4 seriously faster than the 190A-3 at all altitudes except 1000m?

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/8223-190-numbers-all-heights-and-some-bugs/



Height FW 190 BF 109 F4

1000m 553 km/h 542 km/h
2000m 533 km/h 536 km/h
3000m 492 km/h 519 km/h
4000m 481 km/h 502 km/h
5000m 475 km/h 489 km/h
6000m 464 km/h 468 km/h
7000m 430 km/h 433 km/h


What on Earth is going on here?:stunned:

[LuseKofte]

Boy, another surprise, really? Are you really surprised ? Really?

IF you did not expect this, you haven't been around. And in the same page you got the real theoretic numbers.

Anyway looking forward to come home from work and test it out.

[gavagai]

No, when I saw the thread, there was only the first post.

I buy that the 109F-4 has a higher ceiling, but overtaking the 190A-3 at only 2km seems very suspicious. Fwiw, that data source has the 109F-4 doing 416mph, and the 109G-1 435mph. The footnote explaining the figure is not visible. What is going on here?

The more I see of BoS the more I'm glad I'm not a founder.

[Kwiatek]

109 F-4 at 1.42 Ata should reach :

0 -537 km/h
6.2 - 650 km/h

At 1.3 Ata

0 - 523 km/h
6.0 - 635 km/h

climb time - 6 km - 6.0 min
turn time- 19-20 sec


109 G-2 at 1.3 Ata ( tailwheel retracted)

0 - 537 km/h ( 525 km/h - fixed tailwheel)
7.0 - 660 km/h ( 650 km/h - fixed taiwheel)

climb time - 5 km - 4.11 min

turn time - 20-21 sec


Fw 190 A-3 should reached at 1.42 Ata

0 - 540 km/h
6.4 - 660 km/h

At 1.3 Ata

0 - 520 km/h
5.7 km - 630 km/h

climb time 5 km - 6.0 min
turn time - 22 sec

Some German data claim for A-3 without outtern cannons ( 3850 kg):

1.42 Ata

0 - 565 km/h
6.5 - 680 km/h

1.3 Ata

0 - 540 km/h

5.8 km - 648 km/h


La5 1942 for comparsion:

0 - 509 ( 535 km/h - forzah)
6.5 - 580 km/h

climb time to 5 km - 6.0 min
turn time - 22 sec


Lagg3 ( 1942) M 105 PF

0 - 507 km/h
4.0 - 566 km/h

climb time - 5 km - 6.4 min
turn time - 21-22 sec

Yak1 ( 1942) M 105 PF

0 - 500 km/h
3,6 - 571 km/h
climb 5 km - 6 min
turn time - 19 sec

[Hood]

No, when I saw the thread, there was only the first post.

I buy that the 109F-4 has a higher ceiling, but overtaking the 190A-3 at only 2km seems very suspicious. Fwiw, that data source has the 109F-4 doing 416mph, and the 109G-1 435mph. The footnote explaining the figure is not visible. What is going on here?

The more I see of BoS the more I'm glad I'm not a founder.


Gosh you jumped in quickly onto this forum having only seen the first post. It seems to have been explained as correct though, though no doubt there is opportunity for questioning the testing methodology and the source of the facts and figures quoted. I can however agree that the more I see of BOS the more I'm glad you're not a founder.

Kwiatek, what are the figures for the FW190A-3 at 1.32 ATA, and where are you quoting your information from (just curious)?

Hood

[Tvrdi]

Now, their, so called (by devs) midcore simmers audience is having a large topic on founders part of the bos forum, concerning the too fast roll rates of all planes and apparently too thic inner frame in fw...considering this and funky 109 rudder there isnt too much too expect from this sim besides nkce effects, nice external models etc..

[Kwiatek]

Yea i dont belive in reliable and accurate FM and performacne of planes in BOS. I see what is going and i dont belive it would be changed. Russian planes can't be worse for sure :)

Lets wait for DCS WW2 planes - until now they put on realism and historical accuracy. Fw 190 D-9 is coming :)



Hood data are from various German charts or data ( scan from original documents) and Russian from internet most common suorces and books.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

BoS really needs something like Device-link so people can accurately log what performance the planes are actually achieving. It'd make performance discussions more useful an also let us put instruments on a second monitor.

[Tvrdi]

http://i.imgur.com/mR1MsmQ.jpg

[LizLemon]

I can't believe how hard-line that moderating stance on the BoS forums is. It'd be almost comical if it wasn't so stalinist.



Lizlemon, I think you understood Sokol's post wrong.

And I always admire that gif from The GoodTimesKid :)

Yeah it seems I did.

I bought a six pack of beer from japan and was so excited that I forgot to word my post properly. And I was so excited (aka not hungover) that I forgot to respond to this post the next day!

[1lokos]

http://i.imgur.com/mR1MsmQ.jpg

In short: Which "not historical" solution prefers:

- A high mounted REVI or a 20mm(?) windscreen instead the original 60mm(?). :)

Sokol1

[LBR=H.Ostermann]

S!

About the Fw 190A-5 WNr 1227, 4./JG 54.
Here is the video when the Fw190a5 was found, we clearly see that the armor glass is the same in the plane found and in the plane restored. And since glass take like 1 million years to decompose, i don't see the reason to not use the same.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jueDXiuU6aM

Here some photos

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/DETAILSITE/DE/190/a5_fuselage.jpg

http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/aero/galeria/fw190_abranco9_gr.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/spookythecat/6023241132/in/photostream/


@Sokol1, or use a refraction shader like Liz Lemon suggest?

[1lokos]

Dev's position about the "bar" is:



... we built the windshield according to the drawings we have and they show different from all the various stuff posted on the board. We built it to whatever drawings our research uncovered which is usually pretty damn thorough. Plus we don't have a way to model "refraction" or whatever optical illusion folks claim makes the window look bigger than it is. We may model physics like winds etc, but we don't model the bending of light. So the model would have to be physically altered somehow and therefore the 3D model would be inaccurate from our source documents. Again, that decision comes from the boys and girls in Moscow and they are unlikely to engage in a debate in the public forum over this topic. Your complaints have been duly noted. This is a small piece of a much larger product, but because so many are so damn passionate about it I will continue to discuss with Loft in private about this issue.

Conclusion: All different opinions is just a "optical illusion". :coolio: :)
Case "close". The next... :thumbsup:

Sokol1

[Cassius]

Is that message was on the official forums? Could you give link?

[startrekmike]

While I can see how the windscreen frame issue might be a big deal for some, I do think that it was taken WAY too far on the BoS boards, there are some folks there who have taken it from constructive critique to outright accusatory nonsense.

From my standpoint, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for the dev's, they could bow to the demands of a vocal few and change the size of the frame to something smaller but the model would therefore be inaccurate and we all know that there will be folks who will then show up on the forums with pitchforks and torches over the changed size of the frame model itself.

The whole thing has been blown way out of proportion and I don't blame the dev's for taking the tone that they have on the issue.

[HaJa]

Hi,

The model will not be accurate because, right now the physics of refraction is not modelled at all thus making the mounting frame of the
armoured screen way to big in vision. Look at my pictures. You clearly see that refraction makes the frame appear thinner than it
really is and also if you look at the pilots face in the head on shot it also produces a magnifying effect of sorts. Therefore the view
in game is incorrect even though the drawings are correct. Had to make smaller images but I hope they are clear enough.

The two last pictures are an example of refraction, the glasspane on the FW190 is tilted towards the pilot. this makes the light coming
in to the glass just above the cowling appear as even lower to him and thus the "bar"/frame almost disappear from view, the same
goes for the side frames but not to that degree.

10762 10763 10764 10765
10766 10767 10768 10769
10770 10770 10771 10772

[Foul Ole Ron]

While I can see how the windscreen frame issue might be a big deal for some, I do think that it was taken WAY too far on the BoS boards, there are some folks there who have taken it from constructive critique to outright accusatory nonsense.

From my standpoint, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for the dev's, they could bow to the demands of a vocal few and change the size of the frame to something smaller but the model would therefore be inaccurate and we all know that there will be folks who will then show up on the forums with pitchforks and torches over the changed size of the frame model itself.

Unfortunately Jason is using the response of a few members (or one in particular) to try and blanket out the whole issue and ignore all the perfectly valid and reasonably made points. It's a bit of a sneaky tactic.

This wasn't one of those you're damned either way issues. If they'd made the front canopy frame a bit thinner to simulate the refraction effect a lot of people would've been happy and the rest who probably don't care one way or the other wouldn't have raised it as an issue. They knew there was an issue with the way they modelled it as they raised the Revi which was probably the quick and dirty solution as opposed to going to work on the 3D model again which is the better but more costly solution. They should have seen this coming and accommodated in the 3D model from the beginning.

[startrekmike]

Unfortunately Jason is using the response of a few members (or one in particular) to try and blanket out the whole issue and ignore all the perfectly valid and reasonably made points. It's a bit of a sneaky tactic.

This wasn't one of those you're damned either way issues. If they'd made the front canopy frame a bit thinner to simulate the refraction effect a lot of people would've been happy and the rest who probably don't care one way or the other wouldn't have raised it as an issue. They knew there was an issue with the way they modelled it as they raised the Revi which was probably the quick and dirty solution as opposed to going to work on the 3D model again which is the better but more costly solution. They should have seen this coming and accommodated in the 3D model from the beginning.


I think calling it a sneaky tactic is perhaps a bit extreme, Jason's response was understandable when you take the reasons into account.

Think about it, there are a few folks on that forum that are dead set on not being happy with any choice made and in this specific case, they kept making topics about how horrible the simulation is, how deceived they feel and how clear it is that 1C/777 does not care about accuracy at all. Now, I know that they are a (very) vocal minority that perhaps has some self-control issues but in the end, Jason addressed them aggressively because that is simply how you have to deal with them.

I still think it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for them, as I said before, some of the same people talking about fudging the model to simulate refraction are the very same ones that would cry foul if the plane had the modified frame model to begin with, they still would have hit the forums hard with topics about how unrealistic the whole thing is because of that one detail.

Heaven help Eagle Dynamics when they release the 190D-9, I don't think they model refraction either...

To cap this off, I have said before that I understand the reason for all the fit throwing on the BoS forums but I don't agree with the severity and volume of it, the cockpit frame is a bit big due to the lack of refraction but at the same time, I can understand why they opted to keep the size of the frame accurate, it was a calculated risk that perhaps had no right answer that would please everybody.

[Foul Ole Ron]

If you look at the DCS FW-190 screenshots it looks like they modelled the canopy frame thinner to simulate refraction. If that's the case with the final product the vast majority of people will be happy and there'll be virtually no fuss (at least over that). Yes the exterior model will look like the canopy frame is too thin but we spend all our time in the cockpit so it's an acceptable trade-off. The BOS design was a poor decision that had predictable results.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Thank an you for this excellent post, Haja! :salute:

I'm not a FW190 enthusiast, so I admit I never truly understood "the bar" problem which everyone has been talking about for years (in previous sims). Thanks to your description coupled with the photos and diagrams the whole thing immediately becomes clear. For one thing, I never realized what a sharp angle the front windscreen is. I can easily see how that angle plus the thickness of the bulletproof glass would so radically alter the optics due to refraction. This is no doubt the same principle that bow fishermen must allow for when they release their arrows.

My own opinion is that it's desirable to have as close a viewing/visibility experience that the actual pilots did in a simulation. A related topic to this effect has been the ageless POV discussion. As most know, the actual cockpit instruments and gun sight in a real WW2 fighter are literally "in your face" only inches away. This is closest represented by the "zoomed in" 30 POV (30 = degrees). However, human vision has a peripheral angle of almost 180 degrees which the vast majority of home computer cockpits can't come close to accommodating. Yet, if a sim's view was permanently set at 30 degrees (to represent "reality"), no one would be happy with the claustrophobic tunnel vision effect, even with TrackIR. So we have "zoom out" capabilities to more effectively and realistically scan for bogeys, but the trade off is we have now pushed our virtual heads back through the rear of our seats and somewhere to mid fuselage POV-wise. Sim developers do this zoom out capability to better simulate a real pilot's ability to scan wide swaths of sky or even monitor their cockpit instruments with "peripheral" vision (an advantage of analog instruments with needles vs digital with numbers prior to HUD displays).

Hopefully the devs of both BoS and DCS can find a way for the FW190 to show what the pilot actually sees rather than just dogmatically sticking to hard yardstick measurements.





Hi,

The model will not be accurate because, right now the physics of refraction is not modelled at all thus making the mounting frame of the
armoured screen way to big in vision. Look at my pictures. You clearly see that refraction makes the frame appear thinner than it
really is and also if you look at the pilots face in the head on shot it also produces a magnifying effect of sorts. Therefore the view
in game is incorrect even though the drawings are correct. Had to make smaller images but I hope they are clear enough.

The two last pictures are an example of refraction, the glasspane on the FW190 is tilted towards the pilot. this makes the light coming
in to the glass just above the cowling appear as even lower to him and thus the "bar"/frame almost disappear from view, the same
goes for the side frames but not to that degree.

10762 10763 10764 10765
10766 10767 10768 10769
10770 10770 10771 10772

[HaJa]

No problem Snapper, glad to be of assistance :salute:

10795

[1lokos]

http://i58.tinypic.com/2u59d84.jpg

DD #74 (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/8466-developer-diary-part-74/#entry142514)

Fix for Fw 190. The "bar"? :D

He 111 external screenshoots and promotion of Ilya Muroments, that offer a new technology: "fly-by-mouse". :thumbsup:

Sokol1

[1lokos]

The new "bar" - enjoy the drinks. ;)

http://i.imgur.com/MVCkWrR.png
http://i.imgur.com/CNR8dn8.jpg

Sokol1

[LuseKofte]

Much better , I tried it expecting the worst and got 2 yaks with it, I don't know what happened because I got 2 more with my trusted PE-2 in a fair fight (not vulching) witch I do I admit since PE-2 is very vulnerable and hard to turn.
I must be in a good period

[AKA_Recon]

If you look at the DCS FW-190 screenshots it looks like they modelled the canopy frame thinner to simulate refraction. If that's the case with the final product the vast majority of people will be happy and there'll be virtually no fuss (at least over that). Yes the exterior model will look like the canopy frame is too thin but we spend all our time in the cockpit so it's an acceptable trade-off. The BOS design was a poor decision that had predictable results.

+1 couldn't have said it any better!

[AKA_Recon]

The new "bar" - enjoy the drinks. ;)

http://i.imgur.com/MVCkWrR.png
http://i.imgur.com/CNR8dn8.jpg

Sokol1

Wow they listened ... I like this better!

[AKA_Recon]

I still can't believe how poorly modeled that cockpit is though

[1lokos]

Well, maybe because the previous planes/cockpits 3D work are already done for other tittles owned by 1C,
the Fw 190 needed be done from scratch. :thumbsup:

Sokol1

[HaJa]

Unfortunately they haven't done anything but add an optical illusion in form a black border on the inside.
It is still the same worthless 3D model as before, sorry but it's smoke and mirrors.

[LuseKofte]

What a drastic way of using words.
I kind of liked it, There are many things I want different in this game. But calling it lousy 3 D tells me you know nothing about making 3D models.
My expectations isn't high regarding Luftwaffe planes, in BOS I only fly the Stuka , and I can't say I like it.
This is maybe why I was a little positive in my first experience with the 190

[gavagai]

Well, maybe because the previous planes/cockpits 3D work are already done for other tittles owned by 1C,
the Fw 190 needed be done from scratch. :thumbsup:

Sokol1

777 cockpits can be very beautiful given enough time. Things go wrong because of the very tight production schedules that Jason maintains. They are OK with releasing stuff unfinished or incorrect if it is a choice between that and losing time/money. Of course, this is probably the new normal for any title that offers 10 aircraft for $90, i.e. $9 per aircraft.

[HaJa]

@LuseKofte: On the contrary, my brother is a professional designer of trucks, vehicles and machines and I'm an engineer myself
so I know CAD/CAM and I can read drawings so even though I wouldn't dare to make a 3D model myself I am aware of the skills
and time needed. I admit I used pretty harsh words but I really do feel that it is not in any way to the standards I have come
to admire. There is simply to much that is incorrect regarding views and positioning. The 3D art itself is very nicely done but
that doesn't make up for the deficiencies in my book.

Kurt Tank designed the most user friendly cockpit of it's time with the forefather of all engine controls of the modern day with
a view from the pilots seat with a excellent situational awareness according to all my references and literature/drawings plus
the interviews with those who actually flew it. What we have in the sim doesn't come near this description.

Therefore even though it was the one aircraft I looked fwd to and one of the reasons I backed I will step away from it.
This is my personal opinion and I wouldn't impose this on anyone else.

regards

[LuseKofte]

Ok sorry, I was wrong about you. I offer you my deepest apology.
I have been living with IL2 modding for 10 years and am used to very various quality , from bad to worse and every now and then excellent. I never expect anything up front.
This is not something I plan to do, I just am. It might be the reason I am very grateful no matter what I am presented to use within the genre, if I don't like it I in general ignore it. And I defend it against any attacker.
I know most of those giving critique to BOS are just as disappointed as I am and really wanted something else. It is not like I disagree , I just respect the effort done and stop using it. After almost 20 years as a flightsim addicted bum , I just know official creators or modders wont listen. They go their own way.
And I have to axcept it

[HaJa]

No apologies needed at all, I didn't take it as an offence.

You are correct mate, the developer and designers will go their own way and always has.
I'm not angry with them or have any disrespect towards them at all. They have presented
us with a great game that will satisfy a lot of us and render us some great fun in the years
to come of that I'm certain.

We can only present what we think is wrong and what it depends on and nothing more.

What annoys me a wee bit is that the response from the dev. team to those that in all regards
are still testers of sorts are very slow and far apart.

But I will still play it and have fun both off-line and on-line and when I need the more advanced
stuff I will go for DCS and/or CoD and those also have their drawbacks.

There is one lesson learned on my part though :thumbsup: I will never again put down money in
advance before I get to view the finished product and read reviews of it :D

[1lokos]

My expectations isn't high regarding Luftwaffe planes, in BOS I only fly the Stuka,


"Good for me" don't necessarily mean good for all.
Seems that you missing the point: for 90%+ of MP "Luftwaffe'rs"
what mater is Fw 190 - and without "bars" or "optical illusion". :coolio:
Don't mater if is for fly over Stalingrad or Pearl Harbor. :D

Sokol1

[LuseKofte]

I know what everybody says, the bars of the FW 190 is debated in 200 pages all over the internet. For me this sim got other problems in a level I cannot accept, but I do not know if they will be addressed before the final release.
I just have to wait, most simmers look after fault everywhere, so BOS is probably a gift from heaven to them. I really seldom pay these any attention. Others got a point I choose to listen

[startrekmike]

"Good for me" don't necessarily mean good for all.
Seems that you missing the point: for 90%+ of MP "Luftwaffe'rs"
what mater is Fw 190 - and without "bars" or "optical illusion". :coolio:
Don't mater if is for fly over Stalingrad or Pearl Harbor. :D

Sokol1


To be brutally honest, I don't think there is really anything that the BoS dev's can do that will be "good for all", there will always be things that don't bother one person that much that will utterly ruin the simulation experience of another, sometimes they are minor things and sometimes they are major but either way, there is really no pleasing everyone.

The FW-190 windscreen debate got pretty absurd on the BoS forum, there were people who would hop into one of the (far too abundant) threads about the windscreen frame and say "this ruins the entire simulation to me! They clearly don't care about historical accuracy at all!" or other such pointed hyperbole when that was not really the case at all, it was a choice that they had to make due to the fact that actually modeling refraction would have been too expensive (in terms of system resources), thus, they were left with either choosing to fudge the cockpit frame model so that it looks historical from the inside but is actually not or keeping it historical and limited the inside view a bit. Did they choose correctly? I don't know, I did not mind it either way since the model itself was accurate and the refraction was already said to not be practical.

The 190 pit has other problems that are significant (the lower console not being really visible due to incorrect placement) but I don't know if they will be able to do a cockpit remodel on that level until they finish other things first.

here is a different way to look at it.

Imagine I come on the ATAG Cliffs of Dover sub-forum and start saying "The start-up procedure lacks proper fuel priming and I can't use cockpit controls to actually start the ignition sequence, hitting "E" (or whatever it is default, I have since remapped it) to start the engine lacks any realism and shows that the developers did not care about history at all!" You would be somewhat annoyed I imagine, I took something that is important to me and perhaps not as important to you and I made it a huge issue, I even called the developers historical dedication into question as a whole.

Pretty annoying stuff when you see it over and over but I think you get where I am coming from here.

I mean, it would be like having a bunch of DCS P-51D players hopping in to the Banana forums and telling everyone that the developers of CloD clearly did not care about historical accuracy since the cockpits are not fully functional or something like that, it is senseless because each sim is made with a specific goal in mind, a specific level of fidelity that the developer can reasonably simulate without biting off more than they can chew.

In IL-2 BoS's case, they are going to give us a WWII simulation that is roughly on par (realism wise) to Rise of Flight, this is what they can do and this is what they planned to do all along, in fact, they have done shockingly well in a lot of respects and even gave us a few surprises that we swore that they could not do (infantry, etc).

To tie it all together, the cockpit issue for the 190 was always going to be controversial, they can't model refraction so if they had gone with the fudged model from the beginning, the very same people that left the forum in a huff about the way it was released would have complained that the lack of a realistic windscreen frame model was a clear indication that 1C/777 cares little about history and is just making another War Thunder (or whatever such hyperbole).

We can keep picking sims apart and questioning the developers knowledge, dedication or skill at development, we can even question the fan-bases of said sims, I am sure that just as there are CloD fans who will argue with BoS fans, I am sure there are DCS fans who will argue with CloD and BoS fans.

This is why I don't take sides, this is why I always stop to think about the developers intentions and resources before I start calling them out and sometimes it even helps to put ones self in the shoes of the developer and see what they have to work with in terms of release schedule, budget and other factors.

I had to accept years ago that even if a sim is not DCS level, it can still be a sim, this is why I enjoy BoS, CloD and DCS in the context that they were designed to be enjoyed.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

The major difference between DCS, CoD and BoS is that CLIFFS OF DOVER can handle 100+ players online at one time, something the others can't.

CoD could also go to the level of detail which DCS does in modeling things like start up etc., if we cared, (or more realistically had the time) to do so.

As we continue to expand our planeset, I expect the modeling of these new aircraft and their functionality to become more sophisticated and closer to DCS.

However, our focus is on modeling those aspects which are most relevant to the combat experience and providing them to the players, all in a massively multiplayer environment.

[gavagai]

all in a massively multiplayer environment.

MMOG for air combat sims is AH2, where pilots are counted by the hundreds on weekends and during primetime. 400+ on one map is no big deal.

[LuseKofte]

I know Buzz, no doubt CLOD is better in many ways, but it is still only one theatre and to me it gets boring considering the impossibility to Finnish off a map.
There is only one map currently in rotation it is a slightest chance to win by objectives. To me it is just not motivating.
So I need a buffer, another sim to take over the lesser time I do on CLOD. Right now I still use IL2 for that, in fact more than I use CLOD . So the question to me isn't looking for a better sim it is more a adequate sim I am looking for.
Right now I see BOS as a 50 -50 for or against

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

MMOG for air combat sims is AH2, where pilots are counted by the hundreds on weekends and during primetime. 400+ on one map is no big deal.

I used to be a moderator and map designer for AH. And while it is definitely a good sim, it doesn't match up to the potential of CoD. :salute:

[startrekmike]

The major difference between DCS, CoD and BoS is that CLIFFS OF DOVER can handle 100+ players online at one time, something the others can't.

CoD could also go to the level of detail which DCS does in modeling things like start up etc., if we cared, (or more realistically had the time) to do so.

As we continue to expand our planeset, I expect the modeling of these new aircraft and their functionality to become more sophisticated and closer to DCS.

However, our focus is on modeling those aspects which are most relevant to the combat experience and providing them to the players, all in a massively multiplayer environment.

I understand that CloD has a higher online player count but it goes back to something I was saying a long time ago, that high player count works for servers like ATAG that are structured around those kinds of player numbers, the fact that it is capable of such numbers does not make it objectively superior in every situation.

For example, imagine playing a DCS server with a ton of A-10C's on one side (perhaps with some F-15C's in fighter support) while a much of Su-25T's and Su-27's fly around on the other team, sure, it would be fun in a "air quake" kinda way, it would be a good online experience if you are looking more for a community event kinda thing but for a realistic mission that those planes would take part in, cramming that many players is kinda nonsense on the realism scale.

The more realistic A-10C missions for DCS would involve two or four players at the most in any given combat area doing specific objectives or general CAS work, if you have more than that many players, it turns into a mess where everyone is getting in each others way.

The same even goes for Rise of flight actually, there were a lot of large scale air battles, sure but there are also battles that took place with only a flight of planes on each side trying to complete missions.

It really comes down to what you are looking for as a player, ATAG is great if you are looking for some fairly open ended mission objectives that act as a context for PvP, you can even do some pretty structured stuff on there as a squadron but at the same time, it's open nature does make it feel more like a online arena than a realistic mission based atmosphere that you get with more heavily scripted missions built for a specific group of players.

To be kinda blunt, I don't even really like playing on large scale public servers as much on any flight sim, I enjoy creating missions that are based directly on actual missions (for anything from RoF to DCS in terms of era) and that means that the player amounts tend to be smaller, the routes to and from the mission area are longer, the objectives are more specific and complex and often with not a lot of room for PvP.

Now, this is not to say that I am trying to make ATAG sound bad or whatever, I am not, I am just saying that the amount of players that CloD can support allows for that kind of thing but to make it sound like CloD is inherently better than everything else always because of it misses a pretty important part of online flight simming, the smaller, more focused missions for smaller groups of players and to be honest, that is kinda odd to me as I thought flight simming was about realism.

As far as CloD having capabilities that are not yet tapped, I believe you, don't worry, I really do but at the same time (and I have said this before as well), I can only judge what I can see and try out in front of me, it may have the capability to be as realistic and fully functional as DCS but it is not right now and to be honest, until Team fusion gets direct access to the aircraft it is modeling, you will forgive me if I have my doubts that it ever will be able to reach that level of detail (at least with the accuracy that we see in DCS).

Again, this sounds more negative than I really want it to or intend but you keep telling me that CloD can do everything and I am sure it has a ton of untapped potential just waiting to be found but it is not there yet, until I can take a actual start-up checklist from a Spitfire Mk-I and do every (in cockpit) step to start the plane in Cliffs of Dover, it won't fill the same spot for me that DCS does, I am sorry but that is how I see it.

This is why I enjoy multiple flight sims, each fill a specific niche depending on what I am looking for at the moment, each does something really well, for BoS, it is the flight dynamics and ease of getting into the cockpit for a quick flight, for CloD, it is the detail it has in terms of objects and because it has just enough realism to allow me to get into it as well as having a thorough set of options but when I want realism, when I want a hardcore simulation experience, I hop into DCS because it is the only show going in that regard at the moment, when CloD gets there, it will join DCS in that category but only when it gets there.

I suppose that the summery of this mess I wrote is that CloD serves ATAG's purposes perfectly, the kind of server that you are running requires the player amount capability to be high but please don't forget that there are other ways to play a flight sim and more importantly, there are mission types that can only really be done realistically with a much smaller amount of players, it might not be your thing, it might not be something you or any other ATAG guy is into but that does not make those smaller scale missions (that other sims excel at) any less valid or interesting.

[Hood]

Startrekmike you're quite right but watch out as you'll be burnt at the stake for being a heretic. Some of the most intense IL2 sessions I had were USL missions which were 8 v 8 to 12 v 12. Some of the best fun on DF servers was with me and 1 other having free hunts with no more than 32 each side. And for co-ops - 2 or 4 pilots makes it excellent.

I quite like the ATAG server but even with 100 online I've only ever seen a maximum of around 10 in my vicinity at any one time. Compare that with the BoS tiny map with only 20 or so online and I always seem to see 20 around me all the time. Personally I don't really like that but it does show that numbers alone are not everything.

Hood

[Continu0]

I suppose that the summery of this mess I wrote is that CloD serves ATAG's purposes perfectly, the kind of server that you are running requires the player amount capability to be high but please don't forget that there are other ways to play a flight sim and more importantly, there are mission types that can only really be done realistically with a much smaller amount of players, it might not be your thing, it might not be something you or any other ATAG guy is into but that does not make those smaller scale missions (that other sims excel at) any less valid or interesting.

Hi startrekmike

I believe Buzz`point was that with Cliffs, you can do all of what you have described above - and that is what gives Cliffs it`s hughe potential. Cliffs is not only ATAG, it`s a sandbox...

[Hood]

Cliffs is not only ATAG, it`s a sandbox...

I may have misunderstood this but Cliffs is not ATAG. ATAG's server runs Cliffs as a sandbox type server, and this website provides something of a window for TF, but that's it. Sandboxes are cool though provided the gameplay comes up to scratch. That's why you often see questions over AI elements and so on.

I still reckon smaller more tightly run maps (not possible at present sadly) would be better for the community as a whole as numbers of pilots do not always equate to a great experience. That's just an observation not a criticism.

Hood

[ATAG_Septic]

I may have misunderstood this but Cliffs is not ATAG. ATAG's server runs Cliffs as a sandbox type server, and this website provides something of a window for TF, but that's it.

Hood

ATAG also provides the download servers for the Team Fusion mods, some of the most essential Team Fusion members and was responsible for the creation of Team Fusion.

Septic.

[ATAG_Snapper]

@startrekmike - I'm puzzled by the blinkers you've put on with regards to Clod. We just completed a very successful Campaign on Server #2 put on by Hans Gruber that I thought was very realistic. Likewise ACG and 401 host ongoing Clod campaigns on their servers which are also very realistic, all of which meet the criteria you specified for RoF and DCS. One advantage that Clod presents is that it can be as small -- or as big (max 100+ players) -- as the campaign designers desire. As Continu0 said, the ATAG server is just a big sandbox. Sure, you may find just 10 players in one given area, but on the huge map there are numerous human-flown dramas going on simultaneously. Frequently I'll fly at 25+ angels as a lone wolf hunting human-flown bombers, other times I'll hook up with 6 other players on TS to defend an airfield at 2 angels, or fly at 12 angels escorting human-flown bombers through a cross-Channel mission. I have the choice.

[startrekmike]

@startrekmike - I'm puzzled by the blinkers you've put on with regards to Clod. We just completed a very successful Campaign on Server #2 put on by Hans Gruber that I thought was very realistic. Likewise ACG and 401 host ongoing Clod campaigns on their servers which are also very realistic, all of which meet the criteria you specified for RoF and DCS. One advantage that Clod presents is that it can be as small -- or as big (max 100+ players) -- as the campaign designers desire. As Continu0 said, the ATAG server is just a big sandbox. Sure, you may find just 10 players in one given area, but on the huge map there are numerous human-flown dramas going on simultaneously. Frequently I'll fly at 25+ angels as a lone wolf hunting human-flown bombers, other times I'll hook up with 6 other players on TS to defend an airfield at 2 angels, or fly at 12 angels escorting human-flown bombers through a cross-Channel mission. I have the choice.

I suppose i should have clarified that I do understand that you can make small missions in CloD that do indeed meet the criteria I discussed but I was speaking more directly about the 100+ player comment itself and perhaps more indirectly, the often brought up object and player limits of other sims being brought up as some sort of horrible handicap for them.
'
To put it more plainly, the general attitude I got from the post I was replying to was that CloD was inherently better because it allows for such player amounts but in reality, the limitation only really becomes a (very large) issue when you are trying to put a lot of players on the same server, you can do very, very realistic missions on a much smaller scale and I was reminding Buzzsaw that those missions are just as viable, realistic and fun, just not for as many players at any one time.

So, yeah, I get that CloD can do small missions as well as large, I know this because I ONLY do smaller missions, I don't really like playing with people I don't know so I stick with making my own historically inspired missions for every sim I play and my group of friends and I enjoy them on private servers, it is just that I don't really get on board with the general idea that CloD is somehow inherently superior at everything always just because it has higher object limits and higher player limits, I don't mean to be so blunt but that is really how I feel on the matter.

Perhaps my feelings on this stem from the debates I have had with various folks on the topic, I have heard over and over that CloD is the best because of the amount of players it allows, I have heard it's the best because of the amount of objects it allows and while it does indeed have those things going for it, there is also the fact that those features are held up as some sort of indication of CloD's objective superiority, a indication that all other sims have somehow failed on some deep level, that the only missions worth playing are large scale and if the sim can't do those types of missions (like the ATAG sandbox) that they are somehow not worth anything in comparison.

In short, when someone tells me that CloD is inherently better than other sims because it has the advantage of higher player counts and object counts, it is important to understand my position on the matter, I favor smaller scale missions that are purpose built around a specific set of smaller objectives, this works perfectly for things like DCS that don't really work well with larger scale missions (at least in terms of realism) so the larger player counts and larger object counts don't really matter in those smaller, more focused missions, as such, they don't actually become a limitation for other sims, at least for the purposes of many who enjoy them.

The ATAG sandbox is great, there is no need to get defensive about that as I have not said anything against it in ANY of my posts, if more friends in my small group had stuck with CloD, we would probably pop in from time to time and do some bombing but as it stands, I am a example of a player that does not benefit at all from larger player counts or object limits and I am not the only one that favors smaller, more focused missions so I think it is important to not dismiss sims that can do those very well so easily.

It is as I always say around here, every sim has a specific thing that they do really well, CloD has those high player counts for big stuff like ATAG, that is the thing it does really well over all other contemporary sims but that does NOT make it inherently better or superior in every case, it just means that it does something really well but other sims do smaller missions really well and I have a hard time not seeing value in both equally.

Really quick edit, it is also important to note that Cliffs is not alone in being a sandbox, DCS is a sandbox for players as well, Rise of flight is also a sandbox for WWI and BoS (will hopefully) be a sandbox for the Eastern front, you see where I am going with this?

After TF got their hands on it Cliffs became a really good sim but I am not so quick to jump on board with the idea that there is such thing as a best sim and that is why I am always so quick to promote every sim and not just one sim.

[LuseKofte]

Well I have never in the history as a bomber pilot in CLOD had so many of the few coming to shoot me down in all altitudes and routes I might choose

[LuseKofte]

New update, well the sceptic, mostly those never flown the game is proven wrong, yet again. All FM is revisited and changed, but the LAGG. So the LAGG still got a high Roll rate.

Apparently the FM of the plane I love the most, the PE-2 are changed, witch make me afraid :( , I loved that one. Not tried it yet, so I am sure there are much wrong doing, but they did take another look at the FM, and proved a lot of people wrong, and that alone make me smile :)

[Tvrdi]

New update, well the sceptic, mostly those never flown the game is proven wrong, yet again. All FM is revisited and changed, but the LAGG. So the LAGG still got a high Roll rate.

Apparently the FM of the plane I love the most, the PE-2 are changed, witch make me afraid :( , I loved that one. Not tried it yet, so I am sure there are much wrong doing, but they did take another look at the FM, and proved a lot of people wrong, and that alone make me smile :)

Yep, they were messign with the FMs..definitely an improvement but still not as expected. And, yes roll rates are still a bit too good, LaGG wasnt touched at all I think.

Listen, If you care about FMs wait for the DCS Europe 44...

[LuseKofte]

Hi Tvirdi, I really hope DCS 1944 will be a success, I haven't time to test out the new FM in BOS got a new kit to my pit, I want to set it up and ready for clod on my next 3 weeks off.
I just wanted to note the fact that they do listen and their effort are based on information at hand.
I know from IL2 that FM discussions never end in agreement, I cheer their effort as I do for TF effort

[1lokos]

The (Bo$) Bf 109 "FM" still the same "polemic":


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-UPl3sG5rc

Sokol1

[LuseKofte]

Yes I read it was improved but not ok

[Foul Ole Ron]

Yes they've made some improvements. The aircraft responses are a bit better generally. The roll rates are more in line with what you'd expect though I still would harbour serious doubts that the La-5 and Lagg-3 could roll just as well as the FW190. The rudder response is generally a bit better in the 109 & 190 - at least when in normal flight. The devs have said these are the final FMs though which is a little worrying - the recent changes were a step in the right direction but they're definitely not there yet.

The negative g stall in the 109 and 190 seems a bit suspect. The DCS version (a different model FW190 yes) doesn't exhibit any such negative g departures - it behaves the same way that the BOS Yak-1, La-5, etc. do when pushed forward.

The acceleration & climb in the FW190 is off currently - this may partly be due to the supercharger 2nd stage kicking in too early and power being lost. They also need to re-examine the whole cockpit view in that plane - it's impossible to see all the instruments and the Revi sight which just can't be right. No such problems in the DCS version.

Gun dispersion needs to be looked at - for some reason the German guns since day 1 have had a lot more dispersion than the Russian ones. At worst they should be equal. The German guns had very low dispersion figures.

The engine limits in the 109 at max 1.42 ATA are a bit suspect as well with 1-3 mins being on the light side.

With all these issues with the German planes there's a few over in the BOS forums who are starting believe there's some subtle balancing going on in the background to counter the fact that the devs picked a timeframe when the German planes pretty much totally outclassed the Soviet planes but don't want to release a game where one side has markedly better planes in all aspects. Don't really think this myself - it would be a foolish long term move that would damage sales and future product releases. Also in any case the 109 F-4 currently outclasses everything in the game so it's not hopelessly under-modelled right now anyway. But I think the devs need to spend some time addressing some of these concerns or there'll be a lingering perception that the planes with the quirky issues that don't make sense are all on the German side.

[1lokos]

http://i60.tinypic.com/2mp0gid.jpg

http://instagram.com/p/r4FA3dS6ab

Sokol1

[startrekmike]

That's a nice looking screenshot, can't wait to actually see how they do the He-111 in the sim.

[LizLemon]

So I guess Siggi had a meltdown and this is the result; http://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=293991

[AKA_Recon]

so i guess siggi had a meltdown and this is the result; http://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=293991

lmao

[LuseKofte]

@ Faul Ole
You cannot compare a 190 D with earlyer models at all. The D got better flight caracteristics in every way. Just seek up what said in interviews in you tube on the matter.
In general FM is something no one is capable to agree on anyway.

[aus3620]

The 111 is looking sweet! The gunner position looks pretty good in the Pe-2. Will be interested to see how the gunner positions perform in the 111.

At this stage I do like the "visibility' aspect of BOS. Seems a little "easier" /clearer than CLoD. Of course, it maybe only me!

[AKA_Recon]

I am going to give this sim another try this Friday/update - supposedly the flight is better.

I'm hoping this helps my issue with views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0By6dCtw_Y

[startrekmike]

It's a WW2 flight combat simulator being made by a Russian company (1C) in conjunction with a US distributor (777 Studios). They call it a 'sim' but it's not a sim, it's a game. One in which they have bent certain parameters so as to hugely favour the Russian aircraft and nerf the German ones.

In order to hide their chicanery they have been hiding negative posts in an access-only forum (only purchasers of the alpha version can get in there, at £50/$100 a pop), deleting threads and posts and harassing, bullying and threatening posters via PM, along with 30-day bans.

Then they put the game on Steam. And have now continued their behaviour there; locking posts and banning Steam Account holders from that forum despite them breaking no rules.

Source:

http://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=293991


That thread you linked is madness, I can't even begin to fathom the level of insanity required to post something like that.

Also, your writing style looks familiar...

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

@ Faul Ole
You cannot compare a 190 D with earlyer models at all. The D got better flight caracteristics in every way.

Actually the rollrate of the 190D was considerably worse than the 190A.

The overall best handling version of the 190, bar none, was the A-3 at 1.42 ata. Not the fastest, or with the best altitude performance, but as a pure dogfighter, it was the best. :salute:

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

The roll rates are more in line with what you'd expect though I still would harbour serious doubts that the La-5 and Lagg-3 could roll just as well as the FW190..

At low speeds the LaGG-3 series and the La-5 series had almost comparable rollrates to the 190's, but as speeds increased, lateral response fell off dramatically... overall high speed maneuver was not a strong point.

This is in contrast to the 190A's, which maintained their superb roll characteristics right up to 600 kmh, and additionally displayed excellent longitudinal response at those speeds as well. The 190A's were the first of the WWII Fighter types to be able to fly and fight effectively at the speeds which the more powerful engines of the time were able propel these aircraft to.

[ZG15_robtek]

That thread you linked is madness, I can't even begin to fathom the level of insanity required to post something like that.

Also, your writing style looks familiar...

You can disagree with the presentation, but what he is saying is correct.

[ATAG_Colander]

Just FYI copy/pasting the same link over and over and over in the same page accomplish nothing on search engine rankings. They started ignoring those tactics eons ago.
Same applies to twitter. I see tweets that paste the same hashtag 10 times thinking that it will add 10 to the hastag popularity but all it accomplish is clutter and spam.

[LuseKofte]

Actually the rollrate of the 190D was considerably worse than the 190A.

The overall best handling version of the 190, bar none, was the A-3 at 1.42 ata. Not the fastest, or with the best altitude performance, but as a pure dogfighter, it was the best. :salute:

I was not refering to the roll rate I was referring to stall in negative G witch would and must be different with a totally redesigned FW-190 with a much longer nose and tail end

HElenbrown, personally I restrain myself to answer subjective negative opinions, but yours are so hostile that I cannot resist.
My subjective opinion is whoever take the task and risk making a expensive in their opinion simulator are from me given the respect required. Your lack of the same stand for your own account.
I fly a couple of planes in that SIMULATOR once in a while, and enjoy it, it feels realistic and good to me. The lack of infrastructure and ground object to target make my time in it limited. The chosen route of less realistic bomb aim system does not mean it is worser than CLOD, I hit my targets in CLOD too easy from high altitude, as often that I would not call it realistic. But I still call CLOD a simulator.
I fly CLOD whenever I got the chance to, I flown simulators since 1996 , witch by now isn't a simulator pr definition. I and I think no one else need your subjective definition of what is a sim or not

[Chuck_Owl]

It's a WW2 flight combat simulator being made by a Russian company (1C) in conjunction with a US distributor (777 Studios). They call it a 'sim' but it's not a sim, it's a game. One in which they have bent certain parameters so as to hugely favour the Russian aircraft and nerf the German ones.

In order to hide their chicanery they have been hiding negative posts in an access-only forum (only purchasers of the alpha version can get in there, at £50/$100 a pop), deleting threads and posts and harassing, bullying and threatening posters via PM, along with 30-day bans.

Then they put the game on Steam. And have now continued their behaviour there; locking posts and banning Steam Account holders from that forum despite them breaking no rules.

Source:

http://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=293991

Oh, nice seeing you again Siggi.

Honestly, if your posts on the BoS and steam forums were not so much based on your "german aircraft not being superior enough" gut feeling and more on documented proof with empirical data to support it, people might have been more receptive and they might even not have been so hard on you.

And, as a quick follow-up to our last discussion... YES, numbers DO matter. Whether they come from Russian archives or German ones, performance charts do matter if you want to have a technical discussion with intelligent, knowledgeable folk. Otherwise, it's just slander, and IMO, not worthy of sh*tting bricks over.

MODERATOR'S NOTE: Agree. Posts deleted here and in other thread.

[1lokos]

Run, Forest, run! :D

http://instagram.com/p/r9JeX9S6Y_

Sokol1

[Chuck_Owl]

Russian aircrews behaving like Rocky Balboa = CONFIRMED!

[trademe900]

I haven't tried it with the latest FM revisions but if any such arcade 'balancing' is being implemented to counter the historical performance advantages with the planes of this era, then that is total BS to be claiming simulator status and a downright shame, especially as they are confirmed as final.

This is not helped one bit with the appalling, oppressive attitude of the powers that be, muting those who wish to civilly discuss FM issues.

As others have said, it really is becoming evident that this 'sim' is marketed for the potentially large and lucrative segment of buyers in the gap spanning Warthunder and 1946. Historical accuracy and FM's are the number 1 area of fundamental importance for a simulator and this is just a tremendous disappointment that things don't seem to be heading where we were expecting.

I suppose all in all, let this be a reminder that financially driven organisations are always going to cater for arcade interests rather than realism and historical accuracy; only the painstaking efforts of volunteer groups will put together results worthy of a historical simulation.

Still... fingers crossed, I suppose!

[startrekmike]

I haven't tried it with the latest FM revisions but if any such arcade 'balancing' is being implemented to counter the historical performance advantages with the planes of this era, then that is total BS to be claiming simulator status and a downright shame, especially as they are confirmed as final.

This is not helped one bit with the appalling, oppressive attitude of the powers that be, muting those who wish to civilly discuss FM issues.

As others have said, it really is becoming evident that this 'sim' is marketed for the potentially large and lucrative segment of buyers in the gap spanning Warthunder and 1946. Historical accuracy and FM's are the number 1 area of fundamental importance for a simulator and this is just a tremendous disappointment that things don't seem to be heading where we were expecting.

I suppose all in all, let this be a reminder that financially driven organisations are always going to cater for arcade interests rather than realism and historical accuracy; only the painstaking efforts of volunteer groups will put together results worthy of a historical simulation.

Still... fingers crossed, I suppose!

Look, I am not trying to be mean or angry so if this comes out in text that way, it is not really my intention at all, nor is it my intention to come off as defensive of BoS. With that said, I don't think it is fair nor correct to say that the BoS developers are not concerned with historical accuracy, all this talk of it not being a true simulation is kinda hyperbole.

BoS is a survey sim, the dev's never, ever said it was going to have the 1/4 click pits of CloD or the full clickable pits of DCS, they never said that they were going to model every system down to the individual hydraulic line, they just set out to make a solid survey sim that provides players with a solid "mid-core" simulation experience with the potential to bring in non-simulation fans who might be curious.

To put it simply (as someone who has been playing BoS as well as every other major combat sim for a while now), they have been very honest about what they set out to do, they have also been very quick to try and properly manage fans expectations so that people don't expect it to be something it never set out to be and for that, I actually applaud them, they know their limits and BoS works well when you keep those limits in mind.

As far as the whole "powers that be muting civil FM discussion, I am sorry, I frequent the BoS forum and I don't really see that happening, what I do see is people going to that forum, intentionally using very specific language to try and incite a argument, throwing around needless hyperbole and when the topic gets out of hand, when it devolves into personal insults and childish nonsense, the dev's/mods close the thread or delete really offensive posts.

Sadly, some of those folks who get punished for doing that stuff like to go around and say that they were the victim (this is not referencing anyone here on ATAG at all but there have been some cases where specific users got very out of hand on the forums, enough to get banned here and when rightfully punished, they cry all over the internet that they were the victims of jackbooted, thuggish mods.

BoS is not going to be a perfect simulation for those looking for systems fidelity but it never really set out to be one, it has delivered exactly on what was promised thus far, if I want systems fidelity, I go for the DCS Mustang or Dora, if I want large battles over the English channel, I go for CloD, if I want a survey sim that I can hop into for a quick fix with a good sensation of flight, I go for boS, a different sim for every mood, no one delivers everything perfectly.

[aus3620]

Some of my friends are into conspiracy theories and the like. I can say it only leads one to becoming neurotic! So treat all such theories with a large grain of salt!

The BOS devs have said when modeling the aircraft the goal is to provide an accurate depiction of each aircraft, within the limitations of contemporary PC horsepower. Apparently the models can be far more sophisticated, and they have such models, but they require too much horsepower to be included as such in the game. The devs have been consistent in saying they are modeling each aircraft in accordance with the research they have conducted. I imagine they have access to far more material than the average enthusiast.

It is always problematic what constitutes accurate behaviour. Experts of the time, only had captured aircraft to base their comparisons on. How much wear and tear was on the captured aircraft? Could the captured aircraft be brought up to its performance potential? Any keen reader will tell you both sides overestimated their own aircraft and underestimated the performance of captured aircraft. Outside of bare bones performance is the human component. Arguably the most important factor in the equation. What were the differences in training, operational doctrine, communications, etc? (Read about the Thach weave for example). Then you have the confusion of the combat situation - not all aircraft are performing at 100% (in the game we get a "new" aircraft every time).

Having said all that, I think most of us understand the bf109 FM is arguably the most important in the game. If the series continues to other theatres, there is a high possibility that 109's will feature in the German aircraft available. The 109 FM has some unusual characteristics at the moment, for example, when a severe "bunt" is applied. Like most I'm hoping this will be resolved.

It is pointless making vague, unsubstantiated comments and tout conspiracy theories. If you were a dev how would you treat such comments? Even comments like "it is rubber-banding" are useless. If you want to provide feedback, rather than supporting an emotional position, describe the conditions of the manouvre in detail and the resultant behaviour. Not saying we (the flight sim community) should not offer constructive criticism but turning this into a sport is not helpful.

End rant!

BTW I heard a new conspiracy theory about JFK the other day ...

[startrekmike]

Some of my friends are into conspiracy theories and the like. I can say it only leads one to becoming neurotic! So treat all such theories with a large grain of salt!

The BOS devs have said when modeling the aircraft the goal is to provide an accurate depiction of each aircraft, within the limitations of contemporary PC horsepower. Apparently the models can be far more sophisticated, and they have such models, but they require too much horsepower to be included as such in the game. The devs have been consistent in saying they are modeling each aircraft in accordance with the research they have conducted. I imagine they have access to far more material than the average enthusiast.

It is always problematic what constitutes accurate behaviour. Experts of the time, only had captured aircraft to base their comparisons on. How much wear and tear was on the captured aircraft? Could the captured aircraft be brought up to its performance potential? Any keen reader will tell you both sides overestimated their own aircraft and underestimated the performance of captured aircraft. Outside of bare bones performance is the human component. Arguably the most important factor in the equation. What were the differences in training, operational doctrine, communications, etc? (Read about the Thach weave for example). Then you have the confusion of the combat situation - not all aircraft are performing at 100% (in the game we get a "new" aircraft every time).

Having said all that, I think most of us understand the bf109 FM is arguably the most important in the game. If the series continues to other theatres, there is a high possibility that 109's will feature in the German aircraft available. The 109 FM has some unusual characteristics at the moment, for example, when a severe "bunt" is applied. Like most I'm hoping this will be resolved.

It is pointless making vague, unsubstantiated comments and tout conspiracy theories. If you were a dev how would you treat such comments? Even comments like "it is rubber-banding" are useless. If you want to provide feedback, rather than supporting an emotional position, describe the conditions of the manouvre in detail and the resultant behaviour. Not saying we (the flight sim community) should not offer constructive criticism but turning this into a sport is not helpful.

End rant!

BTW I heard a new conspiracy theory about JFK the other day ...


Well said!

I think that constructive critique is nothing but helpful but some perhaps need to learn that there is a pretty big difference between pointing out a issue in a mature and helpful way and pointing out a issue in a vindictive and snarky way with nothing by your own hyperbole to back it up. (not saying any of this to ATAG members specifically, just in regards to flight simming communities as a whole).

I don't really get involved in all the backroom politics behind sims, as a consumer it is too easy to jump to conclusions when I can only get hearsay and rumor about what goes down, thus I tend to just stay out of it until I get actual proof.

[LuseKofte]

I haven't tried it with the latest FM revisions but if any such arcade 'balancing' is being implemented to counter the historical performance advantages with the planes of this era, then that is total BS to be claiming simulator status and a downright shame, especially as they are confirmed as final.

This is not helped one bit with the appalling, oppressive attitude of the powers that be, muting those who wish to civilly discuss FM issues.

As others have said, it really is becoming evident that this 'sim' is marketed for the potentially large and lucrative segment of buyers in the gap spanning Warthunder and 1946. Historical accuracy and FM's are the number 1 area of fundamental importance for a simulator and this is just a tremendous disappointment that things don't seem to be heading where we were expecting.

I suppose all in all, let this be a reminder that financially driven organisations are always going to cater for arcade interests rather than realism and historical accuracy; only the painstaking efforts of volunteer groups will put together results worthy of a historical simulation.

Still... fingers crossed, I suppose!

I do not agree, it is too advanced to be called Arcade , how its currently played might be called arcadish.
But in my opinion, much we see inn ATAG last months or so , also border to arcadish.
PR definition all behavior FM and players not behaving in realistic way Are diverting from the definition simulator.
I claim the fact that if dedicated servers appear and infrastructure is improved, it will be as much a sim as our beloved CLOD.
I flown a lot in Syndicate serveres in Rof , In my opinion the realism created by the players them selves give a very authentic expirience.
To me I praise the oppurtunity BOS give, if I dont find it interesting I ignore it

[startrekmike]

That is actually a really good point, at this stage, the online component of BoS is pretty basic with really only some dogfight servers with some vague goals, as soon as the sim is release and as soon as we have a full mission editor later (which will happen), it is safe to say that we will be seeing a lot of variety in the missions and more importantly, missions that focus on realism more than dogfighting fun.

At the end of the day, it is not going to match DCS in terms of raw realism and systems fidelity, it is not going to match the server capacity of CloD or even CloD's 1/4 functional click-pits but it is still a good, solid survey sim with a lot of potential, it deserves to be judged by more criteria than just not being CloD.

[requiem]

So I guess Siggi had a meltdown and this is the result; http://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=293991

He just spammed a bunch of comments on my YouTube this morning. Wonderful.

[LuseKofte]

Well he has launched a campaign against it. Rediciolus as that fAct might be. He got a point, there has been a very perculiar way to meet critisism at BOS forum

[Chuck_Owl]

He just spammed a bunch of comments on my YouTube this morning. Wonderful.

Yeah, I had about 10 comments by him and different accounts this morning as well. Gee...

[Revvin]

when the topic gets out of hand, when it devolves into personal insults and childish nonsense, the dev's/mods close the thread or delete really offensive posts.

There does not seem to be an even hand in moderation. I was given a public rebuke and had a 3 day ban given to me for saying someone's use of a smiley was "aggressive" (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/8544-dcs-fw190-d9-release-countdown/?p=144102). Yet just a day before the same moderator deleted a series of posts where one member used the f-word and that member wasn't given a public warning or a ban and was able to continue posting. Far from me being aggressive I found his tone in warning me very aggressive and its not the first time I've seen him issue public threats to a user. I used the contact email link for the forum and was told I needed to contact the community manager, in the meantime Siggi included me in a conversation he had started with Jason Williams so I posted about my issues in the private conversation with him. A day later he responded and belittled me by comparing the discussion to being in high school and to "knock off the petty bullshit". This was a legitimate complaint from a customer yet to him it was just petty bullshit. I tried to calm Siggi down as he was getting angry (just for the record I don't know Siggi) and told him to give Jason some time. I waited another two days before asking if Jason had any update on my ban and got a terse "I don't have anything new to say on this matter yet." So that's three days I've been waiting but still I was patient and after 6 days I said I felt that that was time enough surely to investigate this issue and that I now felt like I was being hung around for his amusement, after all it was a simple matter. He maintained I should have contacted the moderator yet I used the link on the forum but by the time I got a response to contact the community manager - Jason I'd already been invited to this private discussion. I had previously contacted the moderator who banned me two months previous to my ban regarding another thread where I had a post deleted, he explained and I replied "OK thanks". In this case I'd already tried to explain to the moderator in the thread that my post was not aggressive so what would be the point in contacting him through a PM?

I've been a happy customer to 777 for many years, bought the boxed edition of Rise of Flight, own all the aircraft and most of the other content too, bought IL-2 BoS premium the day it came out and likewise Ilya Muromets. I've promoted all three sims through my web-site and Facebook and Twitter feeds and I'd welcome anyone to read through my comments on the IL-2 forum and you'll see I've been largely supportive. I didn't expect any special treatment but what I did expect was to be treated fairly as a customer and as an adult. It felt like Jason's attitude was "well I've got your money now so tough luck". A simple "sorry it was a misunderstanding" would have been ok but instead I can't post until I accept an unwarranted warning from a moderator who gave me the ban. I've gone from being a very happy customer to one that is unlikely to buy anything from this company - although they don't seem to care much about that.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Folks, with all due respect, let's please keep our posts on BoS and the ATAG Forum. What occurs on other forums is not up for discussion here.

Thanks to all.

Snapper :salute:

[Mastiff]

He just spammed a bunch of comments on my YouTube this morning. Wonderful.

same here hes trying to make BOS the number one shiet game on google ratings. he and his mom, are in my spam filter now, seems to be using his moms account too.

"Helen Brown"

[LuseKofte]

Well to me ,that is the only real problem with BOS. I do not like the way they treat people. Many I can understand but legit complain bugs me. The arrogant feel to their answer.
The same arrogance have been surfaced here at this forum against the sim.
Worst I believe is the need for labeling this game or sim whatever, by doing so we rise above the "gamers" as the noble CLOD flyers. Wonder what DCS pilots not flying CLOD call this game?
Anyway it should not matter, interest for the genre should matter.

[ATAG_Colander]

To me they are all games. In fact, I think we all say "I am going to play tonight" as opposed to "I am going to train tonight" :D

A simulator is this:
http://www.flightsimulator.nl/uploaded/A320_Rear.jpg


Now, if the argument is which one emulates X or Y to a better degree, that's another story.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Any Simulator which is designed to run on an ordinary home PC is going to have compromises built in.

Anyone who is programming one of these and who claims their Flight Models are 'completely accurate' is deluding themselves and their readers.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Waiting for the latest build to be released. With the He111 it may be worth doing some bomber intercept missions.

Even without a bomb load the LW pilots will have a chance to practice flying. It's always more immersive attacking planes that are in nice tight formations! ;)

[LizLemon]

At low speeds the LaGG-3 series and the La-5 series had almost comparable rollrates to the 190's, but as speeds increased, lateral response fell off dramatically... overall high speed maneuver was not a strong point.

Lagg and La series aircraft had Clark-yh airfoils, right?


Well to me ,that is the only real problem with BOS. I do not like the way they treat people. Many I can understand but legit complain bugs me. The arrogant feel to their answer.

Totally agree. And this isn't just something that happens not just on BoS forums but RoF forums as well. Point out the errors in game and you receive a ban in thanks.


The same arrogance have been surfaced here at this forum against the sim.

Also agree.

But I think its important to remember that this is a forum of enthusiasts who love this sim, rather then people trying to sell a game for 90$ a pop.

[ATAG_((dB))]

[QUOTE=ATAG_Colander;135668]To me they are all games. In fact, I think we all say "I am going to play tonight" as opposed to "I am going to train tonight" :D

I always call it a humility session :)

A simulator is this:
http://www.flightsimulator.nl/uploaded/A320_Rear.jpg

[aus3620]

Thought I would throw this bone out there regarding DCS. It seems to be the general opinion it is on top of the pile re FM. BTW, I have it and I do enjoy the "clickfest" (said in a nice way!) aspect of it and also appreciate that part is not everyone's cup of tea. In fact, i will probably pick up the F86 and Huey modules at some point. Too many games and not enough time!

I am certainly no FM expert so don't get me wrong on that score. Those who enjoy the DCS game model will point to the detailed cockpits and the accurate depiction of startup procedures, in-flight ops etc. Finally, on to the point I wish to make! I wonder if some of the "DCS is superior" guys are suffering from the "halo effect." A well known psychological phenomenon. In short, this is where, when rating (usually an individual but this also occurs when rating products) something, the rater observes something they particularly like and this aspect clouds their judgement regarding other aspects of the object. So in this case, DCS boosters think that because the detailed cockpits are excellent, the rest of the game must be as well (ie one does not necessarily follow the other). Of course, the DCS FM could very well be the best thing since sliced bread or maybe it is not. As flight sim enthusiasts there has to be a large subjective component to our judgement. And how can we really compare two games flight models if both are claiming the high ground of fidelity.

I guarantee that in 5 years flight sim models will be superior to what we have today, presuming the home PC market continues it's amazing performance improvement trajectory. I would suggest at this stage it is the end-user PC performance that limits what developers can aim for in FM fidelity.

No FM is going to be perfect and we all have our biases based on reasons far from objective!

[vranac]

Thought I would throw this bone out there regarding DCS. It seems to be the general opinion it is on top of the pile re FM.
.
.
DCS boosters think that because the detailed cockpits are excellent, the rest of the game must be as well (ie one does not necessarily follow the other). Of course, the DCS FM could very well be the best thing since sliced bread or maybe it is not. As flight sim enthusiasts there has to be a large subjective component to our judgement. And how can we really compare two games flight models if both are claiming the high ground of fidelity.

I guarantee that in 5 years flight sim models will be superior to what we have today, presuming the home PC market continues it's amazing performance improvement trajectory. I would suggest at this stage it is the end-user PC performance that limits what developers can aim for in FM fidelity.

No FM is going to be perfect and we all have our biases based on reasons far from objective!

That is because DCS FM is really very good. I can tell you one difference between DCS and CloD. To execute some maneuvers you have to use a rudder or you'll fail.
In CloD you can make it without a rudder but it won't be efficient enough ( if you're fighting against a good opponent).

The PC market is falling down and in the last 3 years there is no any significant improvement in CPU power. You can even say in the last 5 years if you neglect OC capabilities.
Graphic cards development is going very well , but that isn't so important for flight sims like CPU.

[PFT_Endy]

Well, just to add something about DCS FM. Here's a little comparison between AFM and what ED call PFM (professional FM) in some DCS modules:

Advanced Flight Model (AFM) and AFM+. An AFM uses multiple points of force application and calculation on the relevant flight surfaces. This simulates edge of envelope conditions well and avoids scripted behaviors as used in an SFM. This system also partially implements the aircraft's flight augmentation systems. DCS aircraft that use AFM includes the Su-25T. A further evolution of the AFM is what we term the AFM+ and this uses the same calculations as AFM but adds limited modeling of the hydraulic and fuel systems. Examples of AFM+ in DCS include the Su-25 and A-10A.

Professional Flight Model (PFM). This is generations beyond an AFM/AFM+ and is based upon:

• Use a wider array of wind tunnel tests CFD methods for aerodynamics parameters calculations.
• A higher level of aircraft construction details for forces calculations. For example: our landing gear model includes individual kinematics of retracting/extending is used to calculate its movement, servo-piston forces, etc. In such cases, we truly use real lengths, arms, etc. This also includes such items as a realistic simulation of airflow along the airframe due to the propeller or helicopter rotor thrust.
• Realistic simulation of Flight Control, CAS and Autopilot systems.
• Realistic simulation of Hydraulics, Fuel, Electrical, Engine and other systems influence flight characteristics.
• Unprecedented access to test data packs. (They also have access to planes from the Fighter Collection for example and have been consulting the FMs with real life pilots of these planes in most cases)

This is combined with much more detailed and accurate accounting of the physical forces on the aircraft and airfoils. DCS examples of the PFM include the A-10C, Ka-50, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, F-15C and Su-27 (in development) for DCS Flaming Cliffs, and the Fw190-D9.


So yeah, they're really, really good. Though as other people mentioned, no PC sim can probably compete with dedicated military or professional civilian simulators.

And what Vranac said, I don't think we'll get huge upgrades to FM in other games in the next 5 years, the sim market is simply too small for that. Nobody's really creating flight sims right now apart from ED and 1C/777 and the latter are not interested in sims that go into such detail because they think there's no money in it. It's really difficult to see a new group/game company suddenly emerging with a product aimed at hardcore simmers right now though that would definately be welcome.

[LuseKofte]

However there is a price to pay, I compare DCS with FSX. It does not bring much into Combat flight sim other than authentic feel of flight. Do not get me wrong I can spend long time flying for the flying itself. But P-51 is not one of my favorite, I might try out the D9 after christmas.
But for me right now a flight in the PE-2 give me more pleasure than DCS P-51 and the map is even better in BOS

[PFT_Endy]

You are correct that DCS doesn't have as many WWII planes or maps as either CloD or BoS. You have to remember though that it's first and foremost an established modern combat flight sim and the WWII planes started not that long ago as an offside project (P51) and then plans extended into other planes (Dora and later the ones from DCS:WWII project).

It's an ongoing project though and once a proper period map is ready and more planes are available then it can be a worthy competitor in WWII area. Some 3rd parties also plan to be adding their own planes. ED have created an engine, a framework for also 3rd parties to work with and results are visible even now (Belsimtek projects for example). All that will probably take a while, 2-3 years perhaps until you'll be able to do something more than dogfight or destroy ground targets in modern Georgia but I think it's well worth the wait.

Unless you're interested in modern planes/choppers as well in which case A10C, Ka50 or Huey are a real joy to fly, and due to the fact the modern battlefield is really well developed in DCS you can have loads of serious fun with your squadron or against other squadrons in meaningful kind of missions/campaigns. Then of course you may also want to try Falcon BMS as well if you prefer F16 :)

But like I said, you are of course right that in WWII area DCS is still lacking as a game at the moment despite very nice P51 and FW190 modules. In FM area it's very nice though (hence my earlier reply) and I have high hopes for it as a game in the future.

[startrekmike]

Thought I would throw this bone out there regarding DCS. It seems to be the general opinion it is on top of the pile re FM. BTW, I have it and I do enjoy the "clickfest" (said in a nice way!) aspect of it and also appreciate that part is not everyone's cup of tea. In fact, i will probably pick up the F86 and Huey modules at some point. Too many games and not enough time!

I am certainly no FM expert so don't get me wrong on that score. Those who enjoy the DCS game model will point to the detailed cockpits and the accurate depiction of startup procedures, in-flight ops etc. Finally, on to the point I wish to make! I wonder if some of the "DCS is superior" guys are suffering from the "halo effect." A well known psychological phenomenon. In short, this is where, when rating (usually an individual but this also occurs when rating products) something, the rater observes something they particularly like and this aspect clouds their judgement regarding other aspects of the object. So in this case, DCS boosters think that because the detailed cockpits are excellent, the rest of the game must be as well (ie one does not necessarily follow the other). Of course, the DCS FM could very well be the best thing since sliced bread or maybe it is not. As flight sim enthusiasts there has to be a large subjective component to our judgement. And how can we really compare two games flight models if both are claiming the high ground of fidelity.

I guarantee that in 5 years flight sim models will be superior to what we have today, presuming the home PC market continues it's amazing performance improvement trajectory. I would suggest at this stage it is the end-user PC performance that limits what developers can aim for in FM fidelity.

No FM is going to be perfect and we all have our biases based on reasons far from objective!


I think you will find that the "halo effect" is present in every flight sim fanbase in a big way, no matter the title, a lot of folks want to believe that what they like is the "best" just on the merit that they happen to like it more than others and this is what leads to a lot of needless animosity and pointless "this is arcade, this is a sim" stuff.

[LuseKofte]

Do not get me wrong, Endy . I have a huge respect for what DCS have done. I will when I got the time devote some of it for DCS. I like the pit and characteristics

[1lokos]

I think you will find that the "halo effect" is present in every flight sim fanbase in a big way,...

True, specially between "Gold Founders" in Bo$ forum (some because need justify for yourself the... 100$). :D

Sokol1

[Revvin]

Folks, with all due respect, let's please keep our posts on BoS and the ATAG Forum. What occurs on other forums is not up for discussion here.

Thanks to all.

Snapper :salute:

Sorry, it just grates a little when people make out the IL-2 forums are some sort of utopia.

[Otyg]

I own gold bos.
I bought it to support the idea.
Not that intrested in ussr planes. Could I done something better with my money? Yes I'm sure I could. But If I could go back in time I would still buy it.

I finds the bickering and finger pointing ridiculous and a killer for the community's. Grow up. All of you. Let people do/play what they want. Mind your own stuff instead and use all the energy to something good. Help a newb or go and see your granny.

[Tvrdi]

few nights ago I saw 777s =FB=Viks flying the Dora in DCS ww2 server...he was enjoying the best sim FM on the market and probably checking FW cockpit as they fixed something in that regard for upcoming patch

:D

[Revvin]

I own gold bos.
I bought it to support the idea.
Not that intrested in ussr planes. Could I done something better with my money? Yes I'm sure I could. But If I could go back in time I would still buy it.

I finds the bickering and finger pointing ridiculous and a killer for the community's. Grow up. All of you. Let people do/play what they want. Mind your own stuff instead and use all the energy to something good. Help a newb or go and see your granny.

Agreed, I buy pretty much anything that comes out in the flight and racing sim genre, they are niche genre's that I enjoy. Even in the days of comp.sys.ibm.pc-games.flightsim and the Falcon vs Flanker debates I never saw the level of animosity seen these days although the developers generally maintained a professional attitude even in the face of strong criticism....unless your name was Derek Smart :)

[AbortedMan]

True, specially between "Gold Founders" in Bo$ forum (some because need justify for yourself the... 100$). :D

Sokol1

May I ask why you abbreviate "BoS" with a dollar sign "$" for the "S" every time you write it? Is that really necessary to get your message across?...or is that some kind of message in itself?

[AKA_Recon]

The sad part really is that good ww2 flight sims are rare and often a 'dying breed' - so any company building one should be commended.

Are they going to be perfect ? Will they shut down on negativity on their forums - I hope so. But it would be better to start if people just sought more to get along.

The only thing that has bothered me is when negative things are said about other flight sims from the maker of a flight sim. I think that just stirs the pot.

[Chuck_Owl]

May I ask why you abbreviate "BoS" with a dollar sign "$" for the "S" every time you write it? Is that really necessary to get your message across?...or is that some kind of message in itself?

I think he's trying to be funny. I find it very distasteful. Just like this guy who called TF "Team Confusion". It is a childish, provocative name.

I hope someone is gonna take the hint.

[LuseKofte]

The flightsim community are the same as it was 10 years ago, it contain remains of a blody war going on for a century :) It is bigger than anyone knows because it is shattered in small tiny bits all over the inter web.
No matter what is going to be published there will be 50% + or - disliking it, many because a earlier enemy are in the dev team or in some other way involved.

Infact, the causality list here are light, I think we lost a couple in the biggest battles, but still most of us are talking to each other.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Sorry, it just grates a little when people make out the IL-2 forums are some sort of utopia.

Roger that. :salute:

Hey, the ATAG Forum is utopia! :)

[1lokos]

He 111 instrument panel - the Kurrsteurung light monitor the "autopilot for level trim".
A nice feature is the pre set snap views (keypad Del + Keypad #) for instruments not placed in front of pilot, like compass, trim adjusts. :thumbsup:

http://i58.tinypic.com/20v1ac6.jpg

The "Fritz"sight", notice the "bombsight automation" (auto drop).

http://i61.tinypic.com/35m4jo5.jpg

The full screen map (O) now have numbers for quadrants, and 1-9 to sub-divisions - like "keypad language" used in sim's "communication". :D

http://i57.tinypic.com/zj7wnk.jpg

This system is similar to Russian era maps, but in these the sub-division numbers are on clockwork sequence, maybe a bit complicated for "casual simmers"... :D

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-23169-0-62834100-1404659712.png

Sokol1

[Shello]

Ok this is pretty frickn cool!!!

[lion737]

Expect them to remain that way forever, based on experience...

You have been proofed wrong. Roll rates have been corrected already.

PS: the He111 is just outstanding. Details and FM are superb.

[Tvrdi]

You have been proofed wrong. Roll rates have been corrected already.
Yes, but not much. And LaGG FM wasnt touched at all. It still has almost as good roll rate as FW190. :D

But...gav was reffering to 777 dealing with FMs up to one point....after that they just didnt care anymore...that was probably, at the time when they started to work on BOS...

[III./ZG76_Saipan]

bombsite go's to 9k? we only got 6k in clod.

[ATAG_Snapper]

bombsite go's to 9k? we only got 6k in clod.

Very cool! :thumbsup:

I'm a fan of high altitude combat. Question: Can He111's get up to 9K altitude? I have never encountered 111's in Clod that were higher than 6K; is this because the current bombsight is the limiting factor in Clod?

[III./ZG76_Saipan]

yep 6 k max if u want to use the automation.

[SG1_Lud]

Very cool! :thumbsup:

I'm a fan of high altitude combat. Question: Can He111's get up to 9K altitude? I have never encountered 111's in Clod that were higher than 6K; is this because the current bombsight is the limiting factor in Clod?


No, the limiting factor is the ability to see the targets in the bombsight (rendering limitationsof current graphic engine) If we go too high, we cannot aim because of that. So we never plan the target waypoint for anything higher than 5km.

[III./ZG76_Saipan]

depends what the target is...small things are hard or impossible to see in time, but airfields are ok

[SG1_Lud]

Negative, in HRCODWAR we use hangars, factories with chimneys etc as target. None of us could see it at more than 5km.

if you can see them, can you share your conf.ini and graphic settings? we will try.

[AbortedMan]

I think he's trying to be funny. I find it very distasteful. Just like this guy who called TF "Team Confusion". It is a childish, provocative name.

I hope someone is gonna take the hint.

To me it's implying that BoS is somehow more expensive and money hungry than other games...I bought CloD for $56 after tax and BoS already feels like more bang for the buck at the same price, imo. (that's not a loaded statement, btw...I enjoy both sims)

I just wanted explanation for what others apparent grievances were.

[trademe900]

No, the limiting factor is the service ceiling of the plane. Heinkels were certainly not reaching 9k.

[III./ZG76_Saipan]

Negative, in HRCODWAR we use hangars, factories with chimneys etc as target. None of us could see it at more than 5km.

if you can see them, can you share your conf.ini and graphic settings? we will try.

im talking clod though....the 111s can go above 6k...but the lofte is maxed out. some guys were working on spreadsheets for 7,8k but i never heard if it worked. airfield targets allow quite a large area for a hit.

[SG1_Lud]

im talking clod though....the 111s can go above 6k...but the lofte is maxed out. some guys were working on spreadsheets for 7,8k but i never heard if it worked. airfield targets allow quite a large area for a hit.


Yes, talking about CloD here too.

SG1_ Sandokito developed a method to bomb accurately, he posted some videos here in this forum.

For us the situation is the following:

1st limiting altitude: 5.000 m -> because higher than that we can not see the target rendered. Of course we can see an airfield, but I am talking on precision bombing of strategic targets. For instance in HRCODWAR we had to bomb factories, power plants, ammo depots...
2nd limiting altitude: 6.000 m -> because of the lotfe sight limit to 6.000 m -> but we can overcome this limitation if we could actually see the target in our sights.

[LuseKofte]

æYou can bomb a target if you have intel on it at 6k , in our case we can see pics in forum where they publish the missions , or you have been there low level. You are not depending on rendering objects as a level bomber pilot.

[III./ZG76_Saipan]

Yes, talking about CloD here too.

SG1_ Sandokito developed a method to bomb accurately, he posted some videos here in this forum.

For us the situation is the following:

1st limiting altitude: 5.000 m -> because higher than that we can not see the target rendered. Of course we can see an airfield, but I am talking on precision bombing of strategic targets. For instance in HRCODWAR we had to bomb factories, power plants, ammo depots...
2nd limiting altitude: 6.000 m -> because of the lotfe sight limit to 6.000 m -> but we can overcome this limitation if we could actually see the target in our sights.

how do you calculate the drop angle over 6k? i imagine at 7k its a quite a bit shallower. i tried to come up with a excel formula but it seemed about 10 degrees off. with bos going to 9 i guess they can go sub orbital

[1lokos]

bombsite go's to 9k? we only got 6k in clod.

No, the limiting factor is the service ceiling of the plane. Heinkels were certainly not reaching 9k.

I'm a fan of high altitude combat. Question: Can He111's get up to 9K altitude?

A airfield see at ~6K through "Fritz'sight", not much good for specific target bombing:

http://i59.tinypic.com/iq97pi.jpg

I managed to reach 7k on (Bo$) He 111, 50% fuel no bombs, but is very, very slow process, no reason to climb so much...

Sokol1

[startrekmike]

You know, I make a effort to be very diplomatic about Cliffs of Dover when I talk about on this and other parts of the ATAG forum, I kinda wish that others would return the courtesy by stopping with the "Bo$" stuff.

[Uwe]

Indeed. For all that it takes to make a Sim that we will all play $100 doesn't seem unreasonable.

[1lokos]

You know, I make a effort to be very diplomatic about Cliffs of Dover when I talk about on this and other parts of the ATAG forum, I kinda wish that others would return the courtesy by stopping with the "Bo$" stuff.

Mister, sorry for being franc, but why "others" should care about your opinion - "diplomatic" or NOT - about CloD?

Even if you are redactor of the "Ultimate Game of World" magazine, blog or whatever.

After three years, everyone involved with simulation games should have their own formed opinions about CloD, no?

BTW - After more than a year I have mine about Bo$, is a good game, and I dont care about your opinion about.

My posts in this topic is in answer to OP request*, informing about some novelty in the game - in my style. This BS "my game is better than you" dont interest me.

* Do this for him, and I stay away.

FYI - The forum ignore list work.

Sokol1

[ATAG_Bliss]

You know, I make a effort to be very diplomatic about Cliffs of Dover when I talk about on this and other parts of the ATAG forum, I kinda wish that others would return the courtesy by stopping with the "Bo$" stuff.

People are allowed to have criticisms and concerns about flight sims on this forum. So stop taking it personally that others don't enjoy a particular game as much as you. When you stop discussing games and start discussing people instead that's why this section of the forum is so volatile.

You are one of many people that joined this forum who has 99% of their posts in this section. Il2COD has been called clod numerous times throughout this forum amongst a whole plethora of other names with no one thinking anything about it. But leave it to the people in this section to get wound up at the 3 letters of a video game.

I and others are sick and tired of people like you trying to tell others what their opinions should be about a piece of software. You want to discuss the software fine. You want to try and discuss people for not having the same opinion as you then you are going to be removed from here. You and people like you are 90% of the reason thread after thread turns to crap in this section.

It is also why this is virtually the only section that ever has any problems on this forum. There's issues discussed about clod every single day here and you don't see people attacking other people for bringing them up. And the last thing you see is people whining because IL2COD is being called clod.

Bottom line, don't attack people or think they are beneath you because their opinion differs from yours. Discuss that opinion all you want. Start discussing the people and you are crossing the line here. It maybe allowed in other forums, but it isn't going to happen here. Consider this a warning.

[JG4_sKylon]

Sorry, but i have to ask:

What is the problem calling "IL2: Cliffs of Dover" "CLOD"?
Never thought i do it wrong :recon:

[SG1_Lud]

Sorry, but i have to ask:

What is the problem calling "IL2: Cliffs of Dover" "CLOD"?
Never thought i do it wrong :recon:


I prefer COD, but sometimes I used CloD depending on the context. But I don't like this one too much. I think that CloD was used long ago by an individual to make a "funny name" about this sim, but I wont repeat it here, I dont want to spread the BS. I will PM you.

Regarding the LOTFE questions: all my intention was trying to give a simple answer to this question


Snapper
Can He111's get up to 9K altitude? I have never encountered 111's in Clod that were higher than 6K; is this because the current bombsight is the limiting factor in Clod


But as there is further discussion and this is not the correct thread to debate, and the last thing I want is that my posts were used to point at current flaws in COD in a non-constructive fashion, so to everyone genuinely interested in continue the discussion please PM me or open another thread.

S!

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Sorry, but i have to ask:
What is the problem calling "IL2: Cliffs of Dover" "CLOD"?
:

Sometimes, in English, the word "clod" can mean something like "idiot". (Am anfang war das wort "clod" als Beleidigung benutzt.)

However, now, many people use "CloD", or "clod" simply because it is easier than writing "IL2:Cliffs of Dover". We took the insult and made it useful.

[AbortedMan]

People are allowed to have criticisms and concerns about flight sims on this forum. So stop taking it personally that others don't enjoy a particular game as much as you. When you stop discussing games and start discussing people instead that's why this section of the forum is so volatile.

You are one of many people that joined this forum who has 99% of their posts in this section. Il2COD has been called clod numerous times throughout this forum amongst a whole plethora of other names with no one thinking anything about it. But leave it to the people in this section to get wound up at the 3 letters of a video game.

I and others are sick and tired of people like you trying to tell others what their opinions should be about a piece of software. You want to discuss the software fine. You want to try and discuss people for not having the same opinion as you then you are going to be removed from here. You and people like you are 90% of the reason thread after thread turns to crap in this section.

It is also why this is virtually the only section that ever has any problems on this forum. There's issues discussed about clod every single day here and you don't see people attacking other people for bringing them up. And the last thing you see is people whining because IL2COD is being called clod.

Bottom line, don't attack people or think they are beneath you because their opinion differs from yours. Discuss that opinion all you want. Start discussing the people and you are crossing the line here. It maybe allowed in other forums, but it isn't going to happen here. Consider this a warning.
I think there was a missed intention in my original question, my apologies...I think startrekmike is asking in kind about my inquiry to Sokol1 as to why the dollar sign was being used, not just three actual letters, as I don't think abbrevating "Battle of Stalingrad" with "BoS" (nor "Cliffs of Dover" with "CloD") has any underlying derogatory meaning...but "Bo$" (now) clearly does.

Sorry if I offended anyone by asking, I was genuinely curious.

[SG1_Lud]

Sometimes, in English, the word "clod" can mean something like "idiot". (Am anfang war das wort "clod" als Beleidigung benutzt.)



Ah so this is the real reason... thanks for the explanation.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Hopefully by the next update they will have a bit of time working on the AI for the bombers. I had my first intercept against He 111's and managed to light one up on my first pass (Team Fusion, please study for implementation of a "Correct" Damage model ;) ) and managed to get the other two bomber crew to start bailing out after single passes. So far I haven't been able do that in CoD :(

I did like the corkscrew maneuvers performed by the bombers, either it was like the ones performed by Lancaster's or they were trying to get a bead on me!

Anyway, I haven't that that kind of fun since flying Jane's WWII fighters.

Onwards and upwards I say!

[JG4_sKylon]

Thanks for the explanation.
I use "clod" because "cod" is (at least in my mind) the abbreviation for "Call of Duty" which i played for several years before coming to Cliffs.

</end offtopic>

[Chuck_Owl]

Mister, sorry for being franc, but why "others" should care about your opinion - "diplomatic" or NOT - about CloD?

Even if you are redactor of the "Ultimate Game of World" magazine, blog or whatever.

After three years, everyone involved with simulation games should have their own formed opinions about CloD, no?

BTW - After more than a year I have mine about Bo$, is a good game, and I dont care about your opinion about.

My posts in this topic is in answer to OP request*, informing about some novelty in the game - in my style. This BS "my game is better than you" dont interest me.

* Do this for him, and I stay away.

FYI - The forum ignore list work.

Sokol1

I have some thoughts on the matter and on that last post.

But I would probably get banned if I wrote them here.

[Revvin]

A lot of people use CLOD because its easier to type than IL2COD and just COD is often seen as the abbreviation for Call of Duty. In the English language CLOD can be used as a derogatory term though its not something you hear very often and is generally used by the older generation in my experience. I can understand startrekmike's irritation at Sokol1's use of the $ as I think that's more derogatory than using the term CLOD as people often change Microsoft's initial's to M$ as a sign of greed and Sokol1 seems to present two different persona's between here and the official IL-2 forums.

[ATAG_Snapper]

This thread is closed.

Direct attacks on another forum member is not permitted on this forum. Additionally, what goes on or doesn't go on inside other forums is not up for discussion in this forum.

Thanks to those who contributed constructively in this thread. :salute: