PDA

View Full Version : My take on flight simming and BoS



ATAG_Bliss
Oct-15-2014, 00:44
I figured I might as well post a review of my experience with 777-BoS.

A little background on me as a flight simmer: My 1st PC flight game was Aces of the Pacific, followed by Aces over Europe (both on the old 3.5" disks - remember those? :D)

From there, I didn't find much that interested me on the flying front and switched to FPS games for a while. I played the beta of Americas Army 1.0 and then went on to heavily get involved to what we called AA2. By luck, one day I happened upon this DVD package that proudly said IL-2 on the box, and prominently displayed a WWII prop fighter on the cover.

This game was in the $5.00 or less bargain bin. Remembering my days from the Aces series, and after seeing the graphics on the cover and back of the box, I thought to myself, how can I go wrong it's $5!!??!!

I loaded it up, had myself a Logitech 3d pro/extreme, and took off. It was only a matter of days before I started looking at how to get to the MP side of the game. I found out about hyperlobby, and once connected, my mind was blown.

Server after server after server, had 90+ players in them. The chat box in HL was going so fast that you could hardly keep up with what was being said. There was people announcing COOP missions literally every 10-15 seconds. There was well over 900 people all connected all "shooting the shit" and flying.

After joining a MP server for the 1st time, I was not only hooked, but addicted. I would honestly hate to know how many thousands of hours I played the original IL-2. It was like a drug. Honestly, IL-2 could have been a poster for drug use, and many would have agreed at that time.

So coming from IL-2 and then learning of the upcoming sequel (IL-2 Cliffs of Dover) I, along with literally 1000's upon 1000's of others waiting day after day, month after month, year after year for the release, I was one of many that didn't care what shape it was in. I just wanted to play it as fast as I could.

And coming from the IL-2 series, playing probably well over 10,000 hours on the series, the staple piece that kept me playing all those hours are easily defined for me.

1st and foremost, IL-2 let you do anything you want. To expand on this, a "sim player" general enjoys tinkering with stuff, and "boy howdy" could you tinker with stuff in old IL-2. From changing literally 100 settings in your graphics, to damn near 100 settings for configurations in a server, to the almost virtually unlimited things you could do in the Full Mission Builder, you could never possibly play with it all.

The best way to describe IL-2 was like having a toy box that's a mile high. And just when you start pulling out more toys, you find something else in there that literally blows your mind, also fully knowing that this is going to continue to keep happening over and over again. You've only just pulled out the first layer of toys!!!

So the brass tax of what the "IL-2" name meant to me is simply the fact that it is the ultimate sandbox of doing anything and everything you want at anytime you wanted to do it. But that's just the beginning.

The foundation of what made old IL-2 the greatest selling combat flight simulator of all time, was exactly that. It's foundation it was build upon. And that foundation has been completely ignored by many developers today.

The foundation of IL-2 consisted of ability. To expand on ability, I'm talking about the core engine of the game. IL-2 was based around a core engine that allowed you to have 100 players in a server, and I'm talking players that were playing on 56k modems from every single inch of the planet. Ping..., hell, the netcode was so impressive, that unless you had over 400 ping, you were in the same fight that everyone else was. And the only reason you had over 400 ping wasn't because of distance, it would be your connection.

It also allowed you to create the most expansive, immersive missions using 1000's of objects, all in a very easy to use full mission builder where even the least technical person on the planet, could create an immersive, action-packed environment in seconds.

It didn't matter if you wanted to play with a buddy, or play on your very own COOP you created, it only took a matter of seconds to not only get the server up, get people joined, and start the fun. It was that EASY.

As one could imagine, there was not a more popular flight simulator on the market. And best of all, the developers never even tried to advertise. Hell, they didn't need to. It was that good. And word traveled fast. Every single day I watched another group of 10 people join in HL, all asking the same questions I used to ask, all getting immediate assistance and getting started. This happened EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!

So what does the IL-2 have?

-100 player servers
-missions that allowed you to create anything you wanted. (You want to put a boat, a bridge, hell, an aircraft carrier 3 miles up and fly around it?? IL-2 says "screw just putting 1 aircraft carrier in the air, put 1000 of them up there!!")
-a marking system that allowed you to easily identify your plane for your squad-mates.
-a campaign system that allowed users to create their own campaigns and simply add them right to the game.
-ironically enough, the easiest and most robust full mission builder ever created
-servers that could be setup in minutes, all with any number of user defined configurations and presets. (if you wanted to set the distance at which planes appeared at a distance "the dot" you could even set the "dot pitch". You want to setup how close and what is displayed for a server with plane markers turned on? IL-2 says "Go and do it!!" You could do anything and everything with a server config!!!!)
-Fully customizable graphics, axis, and control settings (Yes, that includes setting trim on an axis!!)
-And don't forgot about IL-2 compare where you could actually fact check the developers on their very own flight model
-And how about a component damage model and not a hitbox damage model.

And that's just a small portion of the IL-2 experience and what flight simmers that played through the famed IL-2 came to expect. IL-2 Cliffs of Dover also does all the above.

But this is where the IL-2 brand stops for me.

I won't dare put IL-2 in front of BoS. I'm sad to say it shares absolutely nothing with the IL-2 name that long time IL-2 fans came to love.

No longer will you huge MP servers, let alone missions with 1000's of objects in them, you'll also have a mission builder that's ironically, the absolute opposite of the FMB. Not only is it terribly complex to do the most simplest of tasks, it doesn't allow you to do 20% of what the FMB allows you to do in IL-2. And since IL-2 Cliffs of Dover, actually allows you to program anything you want in a mission based on the maddox game world and microsoft net, it would not be an exaggeration to say it's FMB isn't even in the same solar system as the "mission editor" from ROF/BOS.

Just to give you the slightest example of what I'm talking about. Anyone from old IL-2 will easily remember some late war maps that featured the Me262's. Most server hosts balanced missions by restricting the amount of those Me262's that are in the air. Some might use a total of 4 allowed. Some might use 1. But the point is, if you only wanted 1 Me262 flying at a time, you set it up that way.

Do you think you can do something so simple, or in IL-2 terms, so remedial of a task with the ROF/BOS mission editor? Of course not. The only option you have is to set the amount of time before a plane can spawn again. So all it takes is one person to wreck a couple planes and they run out. You can already see some of this complaining in some of the BoS server threads. So in 2014, we have a game that can't even set the number of planes you have a mission? And this is just the tip of the iceburg of the ME sadly. It is bar none, the worst mission builder I have ever seen in a flight sim. And sadly, I'm not down playing it because of complexity. It's only because of it's lack of ability.

So thus far, we have a flying game that doesn't allow many people playing it at the same time in a server, and to top it off, we have a flying game where those few people are now stuck in missions that have absolutely nothing going on in them. Do you think you're going to see someone setup a mission script that shows percent damage in a target? How about moving front lines? How about refuel and re-arm? How about players being able to communicate to the server via chat messages and commands typed directly into the console? Nope, nada, sorry about your luck. Welcome to 1985.

But even with all this lack of ability, they use a graphics version from the Windows XP era. DX9 in a 2014 game?? And a game that's asking you to pay $100 for it? Ok, ok, the pits do look a bit better than IL246. And the outside resolution on the plane models is the exact same resolution as those from IL-2 Cliffs of Dover. But sadly, that's where it stops. The land textures, the ground textures, and virtually all the rest of the textures are the same exact size as those from 2001 IL-2. To give you an idea, a texture for a city block in 777-BoS, is the same size as a single building in 2011 IL-2 Cliffs of Dover. So, again, not an improvement on the series.

But the most annoying deal stopper for me, comes right out of the Warthunder way of playing games. No longer can I, a pure MP player, go and play the content that I've paid for however I want. Judging from the posts I've seen over at the BoS forums, to fully unlock a single plane with all it's loadouts, configurations, and skins, could easily take well over 50 hours of flying. Multiply that number by the number of available planes (yes, I buy flight sims to fly them all) and you can see how this doesn't work for me.

This whole XP, power-up, grind, unlock non-sense is an absolute non-starter for me. I don't have the time to sit there and waste 50 hours of my life to be able to remove a head rest, get some cannons, some skins, or a couple bomb configurations. And I refuse to do it. That makes this game an absolute non-starter for me. And I'm sure as hell not going to waste weeks of my life doing just that, to finally be able to use content that I've already paid for.

IMO, on a scale from 1 - 10, I can't really even go as high as a 3. I have never ever been this disappointed with a game with the IL-2 title attached to it. And I respectfully say, at this point in time, I probably will not play it ever again. It just doesn't do anything I want it to do. And more importantly, it does absolutely NOTHING that the old IL-2 I fell in love with does.

To say this is worst IL-2 title I've ever seen, is an understatement. I'm disgusted with the game and even more disgusted that they have the audacity to say that BoS is a continuation of the original famous "IL-2" title right on their store page for buying the game. There is nothing IL-2 about this at all.

Would anyone really buy a 2015 mustang, if instead of improving on the 2014 mustang, they went out and sold a 1978 Mustang II and re-badged it as a 2015 model? Of course not. People expect innovation. But above all else, people, especially people like me, expect the "continuation of a product" to do everything the previous version did and then some. This can't even perform the very basic functions of the original.

This was more than a ramble than anything, but to say I'm disappointed in the product is an understatement. The sad part is I knew exactly how it would be long before it was ever made, and I still, out of love of the genre, bought the product. But adding in XP, unlocks, power-ups, and forcing players like me to play a way they have no interest in, has done just that - Make me absolutely uninterested in the product.

But more importantly, why would I play a game with less detailed graphics, arcade hitbox style damage model, small servers with hardly anything going on in them, and very questionable flight models (FW190's can do cobra maneuvers?? What??) when I can already play a flight sim that not only does everything I've said above better, but with the freedom to play it how I like? The answer is, obvious. I wouldn't and sadly I don't intend to. And I sure as heck didn't buy a $100 throttle quadrant to let it collect dust because we don't have trim that can be set to an axis on a flying game from 2014.

It's all quite sad tbh. Thankfully there are other options out there that do what I want them to do.

ATAG_Lolsav
Oct-15-2014, 01:04
Weird, your opinion doesnt seem to be the same as you posted on metacritic. I wonder why.... :-P

Mastiff
Oct-15-2014, 01:16
lol because bot hackers are in there showing how stupid metacritc is.

Hood
Oct-15-2014, 04:06
I figured I might as well post a review of my experience with 777-BoS.

Your post is sophistic in the sense that it isn't a review, it's more of a comparison between what you used to have to what may be the case on release.

By all means be negative about some possible limitations or whatever, but at least make it a proper review. If you're going to compare to other products then don't forget to point out their shortcomings too.

Hood

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-15-2014, 05:20
Very well said Bliss. Hear bloody well hear! :salute:

Tvrdi
Oct-15-2014, 05:50
Well said. Maybe now we should close the matter and move on with our SIM hobby (you know, DCS, CLOD, ARMA 3 etc)...

Skoshi_Tiger
Oct-15-2014, 06:06
One thing I have got used to in Il2/COD/DCS is the ability to run gauges on a separate monitor using the utilities like the old device link / Cods Virtual cockpit or the DCS's Lua monitor setup. Maybe I'm expecting too much. I don't know if it's my failing eye sight or what but I find it hard to read of the cockpit gauges in BofS.

I agree with the OP about setup of axis. It's hard to go back from my rotary trim box to an up/down toggle.

For me there is not one single big disappointment with BofS, just a lot of little ones.

dburne
Oct-15-2014, 16:36
Agree, very well said Bliss.

Marmus
Oct-15-2014, 17:00
Hear! Hear!

I agree 150%+ with the first half of your post, when talking about what IL-2 means to you. THIS should be posted everywhere, it is a great description of why IL-2 was the ultimate online flight sim experience.

BLISS, THIS IS WHY MANY OF US ARE HERE AND SUPPORT THIS COMMUNITY YOU CREATED!!



I can't comment on the 2nd half of post....I do not own BOS, nor do I have any interest in it. I am already heavily invested in too many flight sims....FSX, CloD, DCS, IL-2:1946, etc.

Hood
Oct-15-2014, 18:22
And again, it isn't a review but a rehash of old opinion.

Stop and think about old IL2. Awesome awesome game. Simple to work and great to enjoy. So what? The only thing it has in common with BOS is the name. You could just as easily apply the same comments to CLOD on release. Now that was the worst IL2 game I've ever seen.

There won't be another old IL2. Instead it'll be single games developed post release and expanded on. Once people get the idea they might understand BOS.

Hood

JimmyBlonde
Oct-15-2014, 18:39
You're reviewing a WiP Bliss, you might as well review a meal that hasn't been cooked yet and complain that, while it has some nice ingredients, it's still raw.

At 90% complete BoS works "straight out of the box", you don't need to patch it, tinker with it or fart around trying to figure out why it keeps crashing because the developers take care of that for you "On the fly". That's pretty rare these days and a hallmark of quality and good customer service. The "Foundation of Il-2" you mention didn't happen overnight either. Everyone seems to have forgotten the first Il-2; the release of Forgotten Battles and the long road that lead to being able to do anything you want. This didn't happen for several years and patches with a lot of the work being the result of third party mods. Remember all the times 1C said that such and such a feature is impossible due to the limitations of the engine? How many of those were proven wrong in the end by modders? Since then time-scales have contracted and developers are forced to deliver on demand, consider the gap between the first iteration of Il-2 Sturmovik and the release of the Ultimate edition and post more intelligently on the subject with those facts in mind.

As for the nonsense with unlocks and graphics presets I laugh at the purile drivel and teenage angst that has spouted from the four corners of the internet in response. It's like every moron with a keyboard and an agenda against Jason Williams has jumped on the bandwagon and they are furiously circle jerking themselves silly in a textual orgy of idiotic negative speculation and so called "criticism". There's never been any reason to believe that either of these things are set in stone after their first implementation and if they stay the way they are now I'll be very surprised, in fact I'll take any bet you like that in three months time you'll have graphics settings in the launcher and a way to grind your silly XP points online in pretentious "I Can't Believe it's Not Air-Quake™", "I'm teh bestest pilut on teh internetz" fashion. People who whine about these things need to take a reality check. Either they don't understand what a pre-release is and why it needs to be tested on a live market or are deliberately being obtuse. Anyone with half a brain can look back on the development of Rise of Flight and see the pattern, in fact anyone who knows anything about game development or has been in on other pre-releases will find these things surprisingly familiar.

I could go on and post individual examples where people have contradicted your most of your speculations on the RoFF/BoS engine here with hard code but it seems foolhardy to do so. Your points are so wild and wooly, bearing no basis in documented reality as archived on the Rise of Fligth forums, that they can't possibly be coming from any rational or objective complaint.

Put the toys back in the pram mate, take a time out and come back to the problem with a clear head.

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-15-2014, 18:49
And again, it isn't a review but a rehash of old opinion.

I suggest reading again.

I don't deal in opinions. That is why virtually everything I say, I also back it up with examples and evidence of what I'm talking about. That is also why instead of trying to point out exactly what I said was false or to provide an argument against anything I said, you instead go after the person that posted it. Strawman arguments not only show that you are upset, but also show that you don't have a leg to stand on in the 1st place.

As to the IL-2 name, I can only ask you to read it again as it is clearly pointed out, more than once, the reasons why I bring it up and the advertising that went into that name on 777-BoS.


Stop and think about old IL2. Awesome awesome game. Simple to work and great to enjoy. So what? The only thing it has in common with BOS is the name.

Again, I suggest reading it again. That is the exact problem. To highlight the example again, you don't release a 2015 mustang with less features and ability than a 2014 Mustang. Clod most definitely did not do this. As it's programming and ability, even 3+ years after it's release is only just getting a foot hold of understanding amongst mission builders and programmers alike.


You could just as easily apply the same comments to CLOD on release. Now that was the worst IL2 game I've ever seen.

Clod was unfinished on release. And even in it's unfinished state, and without any optimization Clod still easily outperformed ROF/BOS by a huge margin in almost every single feature imaginable. That includes amount of planes and objects in a mission, amount of people on a server, the graphics, the damage model, clickable cockpits, and virtually every other "core" area of a flight sim's success.

An example from 2011 (essentially at Clod's release) that ROF/BOS will never in it's wildest dreams be able to do 1/10th of. This is 1004 planes in the air at the same time. You can't even put 50 in a mission in ROF without the game crashing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xn1f7vnfxo




There won't be another old IL2. Instead it'll be single games developed post release and expanded on. Once people get the idea they might understand BOS.

Hood

Oh yes, Clod is the other IL-2 and it will be expanded upon as it is the only sim that can do more than the original on the market today.

A very very limited game with hitbox damage model and graphics from the Windows XP era definitely won't be it. Let alone a Warthunder type unlock grind fest with XP points and not even trim available on an axis.

I appreciate you are more a gamer than a simmer, but those of us with multiple displays and who also have a complete HOTAS setup buy those to be able to use them. And as I said earlier, I'm not going to play a flying game that won't even let me use a piece of flight sim gear I've used in every single flight sim I've ever flown for the past 10+ years. I applaud you that you aren't that type of player. Maybe my point about the "IL-2" crowd wasn't strong enough. But that's the type of game/sim I was talking about.

Mastiff
Oct-15-2014, 18:56
ground hog day again. :salute:

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-15-2014, 19:04
You're reviewing a WiP Bliss, you might as well review a meal that hasn't been cooked yet and complain that, while it has some nice ingredients, it's still raw.

Please explain to me what exact features are going to be finished, added, or changed in the month's time coming up to release. You can call it a WiP all you want, but until you tell me what is so drastically going to change in that month, it might as well be finished.

Is the damage model going to become realistic and component based? That's an obvious no

Is the game going to somehow start supporting large groups and amounts of objects or players for a mission? That's an obvious no

Is the game going to somehow create an easy to use FMB that actually does something we can't do in old IL-2 or IL2COD? Umm, no

I could clearly go on and on and on.. Please enlighten me on exactly what they are going to change, finish, or add that will change ANYTHING I said in the OP.


At 90% complete BoS works "straight out of the box", you don't need to patch it, tinker with it or fart around trying to figure out why it keeps crashing because the developers take care of that for you "On the fly". That's pretty rare these days and a hallmark of quality and good customer service. The "Foundation of Il-2" you mention didn't happen overnight either. Everyone seems to have forgotten the first Il-2; the release of Forgotten Battles and the long road that lead to being able to do anything you want. This didn't happen for several years and patches with a lot of the work being the result of third party mods. Remember all the times 1C said that such and such a feature is impossible due to the limitations of the engine? How many of those were proven wrong in the end by modders? Since then time-scales have contracted and developers are forced to deliver on demand, consider the gap between the first iteration of Il-2 Sturmovik and the release of the Ultimate edition and post more intelligently on the subject with those facts in mind.

Oddly enough I see people complaining of crashing, and virtually all people with triple monitors complaining of no support for them. Again, as I stated in the OP, I'm one of those that doesn't mind tinkering with a flight sim. Most hardcore flight simmers spend as much messing around with graphics, settings, and missions etc., as they do flying.




As for the nonsense with unlocks and graphics presets I laugh at the purile drivel and teenage angst that has spouted from the four corners of the internet in response. It's like every moron with a keyboard and an agenda against Jason Williams has jumped on the bandwagon and they are furiously circle jerking themselves silly in a textual orgy of idiotic negative speculation and so called "criticism". There's never been any reason to believe that either of these things are set in stone after their first implementation and if they stay the way they are now I'll be very surprised, in fact I'll take any bet you like that in three months time you'll have graphics settings in the launcher and a way to grind your silly XP points online in pretentious "I Can't Believe it's Not Air-Quake™", "I'm teh bestest pilut on teh internetz" fashion. People who whine about these things need to take a reality check. Either they don't understand what a pre-release is and why it needs to be tested on a live market or are deliberately being obtuse. Anyone with half a brain can look back on the development of Rise of Flight and see the pattern, in fact anyone who knows anything about game development or has been in on other pre-releases will find these things surprisingly familiar.

I feel sorry for you that you can't understand that some people don't like to play a flight sim the same way you do. The reality check is in order to play the content I paid for, I'm forced to spend nearly 400+ hours of my own time to unlock stuff and play in a mode I don't want to. While this may seem fine to as the mode you are also playing to do this in is the one you also enjoy, again, laughing or insulting people because they don't share your enjoyment in the same forced upon mode is pretty despicable on your part and it also says a whole lot about you.


I could go on and post individual examples where people have contradicted your most of your speculations on the RoFF/BoS engine here with hard code but it seems foolhardy to do so. Your points are so wild and wooly, bearing no basis in documented reality as archived on the Rise of Fligth forums, that they can't possibly be coming from any rational or objective complaint.

You could go on and on about people that have tried to do so. And every single time I ask for proof to back up their comments, they fail to do so. Unlike them I actually know what I'm talking about. That's why in well over 5 years, noone has been able to provide the proof that does back up their ridiculous statements. But thanks again at another strawman argument from the peanut gallery that fails to deliver that proof.


Put the toys back in the pram mate, take a time out and come back to the problem with a clear head.

I'm not the one getting upset at a person because of an honest review of a video game. Perhaps you should take the breather.

Chivas
Oct-15-2014, 19:07
There is no problem reviewing, or comparing Works in Progress. COD is a work in progress, as much as BOS is. Thats what todays simmers have to get thru their heads. We are never again going to see a finished product, unless these sims suddenly become much easier and cheaper to produce. Having a sim be a WIP for years is actually a good thing. The original IL-2 was a WIP for years constantly adding new theaters, aircraft, campaigns, and improvements to the game engine.

ATAG_Lewis
Oct-15-2014, 19:10
@Bliss...Apart from the FPS reference in your post everything else about the original IL-2 was exactly the way I experienced it...I could have written those paragraphs....even down to buying it in a bargain bucket for £2 ($5) and using my first stick, a Logitec Extreme 3D Pro...and then stumbling on Hyperlobby...and getting online...I was blown away by the online stuff....to be talking and flying with folks from everywhere on the planet at the same time...words can't explain that feeling of utter awe....I couldn't get enough of it....Within a couple months I was in an admin squad working hard to make our server the busiest in there....Great days flying with the FS, 69th, RS, =AFJ=, IRSS and so many big squads out there..most friendly folks...wonderful days they were...

As for BOS....well I haven't got it...yet...I plan to at some point but it will be when the price comes down and it has been around for a while and settled...so I haven't read the forums over at BOS yet either...I know very little about it.....its enough to read forums here for me....Nice to see some ones take on this who knows a lot more than I do about it without having to go away from home.....and what you say makes sense too...especially as I now see you came from the same IL-2 stock as I....So thanks for your review..very interesting.

EDIT - wow..there's been about 4 or 5 posts on this thread since I sat back to write my little post and hit SAVE

dburne
Oct-15-2014, 20:10
ground hog day again. :salute:

Kind of ironic you say that , when that is the same nomenclature the BOS developers used to describe what their campaign would be like...

Vaxxtx
Oct-15-2014, 21:18
Kind of ironic you say that , when that is the same nomenclature the BOS developers used to describe what their campaign would be like...

Ok, that was funny.

I agree with Bliss on every single point. My feelings exactly.

I wish it could be different....but I just dont see how the limitations (and decisions) set by the developers, and the limitations of the engine can produce something comparable to old IL2 or TF CLoD. Even in the future....

Injerin
Oct-15-2014, 22:44
Well with all that being said we still have Warthunder. LOL jking.

buster_dee
Oct-15-2014, 23:02
777 seems to be all about hitting completion dates, letting customers fuss until the current targets have been met. In a way, I can't blame them given the behavior of distributors that drove Oleg and Ilya out. Personally, I think there is no flight sim worth the name that should even be trying to stick to a target date nowadays--given the complexity of raising the bar. The orginal drivers of IL2 should have been left alone to reach the vision they had; distributors could have been basking as they did in another decade-long run.

I know, I'm not the one footing development costs. You would think that past success would count for more though.

Anyway, I'm with Bliss on this one.

JimmyBlonde
Oct-15-2014, 23:27
Bliss,

I'm not upset, more cynical about the disingenuous nature of your criticisms. I can't answer your queries about what will happen in the future because, much to my chargrin, I'm only human and not a Timelord. However, there must be a few Timelords on the internet since many people like yourself claim to know what is going to happen without any of this proof you have suddenly developed a sudden and convenient interest in. I rely on common sense on forethought to develop my hypotheses, basing my observation on past occurrences and trends so I can't definitively say what the DM will be, how the campaign will progress or any other matters. It does occur to me however that there must be hitboxes for various components in the game since these components are susceptible to failure in the game, as I have experienced in playing it (Something many of it's detractors should try) maybe the DM is not as richly detailed as in Cliffs but there's something there to build on. I don't see how the future of the DM, or any other aspect of the game is obvious to someone who misconstrues the facts of the present so wildly.

As for object numbers in missions, you of all people should know that this is limited more by the processing power available to us than the engine itself. Some people are able to get RoF running in PWCG with all buildings, a large number of ground objects, modded static objects, parked planes, MG positions, moving infantry sprites, a moving front and historically plausible numbers of aircraft in their missions but this is not possible for everyone. Also, RoF and BoS don't use cheat AI with dumbed down, scripted FM's so the calculations required take a lot of processor time. Most people don't have a machine capable of getting the most of the engine and you're saying it's no good when we have hardly tapped it's potential? Really? And wasn't it was many years and by the efforts of Team Daidalos that this AI matter was addressed in Il-2 not so long ago, something even the developers said was "Impossible".

Will the FMB be easy to use? Probably not but so what? What matters is what it is capable of. Is the Cliffs mission builder "easy" to use for someone like me who is a stranger to it? Maybe if I only want to do basic things with it but it is a complicated utility that takes time to master. Is the mission builder in Arma easy to use? Same answer for above but people persevere and learn until you get mods like DayZ, AliVE, and MSO. None of those things were easy. I put it to you that the BoS/RoF FMB is different to what you're used to, not particularly harder.

The crashing issues in BoS this is a result of development. I recently has a problem with it crashing after every mission due to something that had been altered in a recent update. Reported, developers looked into it, no more crash. If you bothered to read the threads about crashes you'd see that this is often the case. In other cases it's largely user error, the game itself is only as stable as the current build but it is better overall than many.

As for 400+ hours to unlock stuff, what a load of cock. What do you base that on? Fairytales, pessimism and rumors. All you have to do is wait until the unlocks are patched back the way they were so, if you're stupid enough to be grinding now then you deserve your misery. The unlock system needed to be tested is my guess and when the developers are happy that it works and assess the feedback they will adjust it so. This guess comes from looking at the way they have operated in the past. Remember that this is a big move for them towards bringing familiar gameplay elements into flight simulation with the aim of bringing new people into the genre. New people with new dollars to fund future development and releases. The internet response to this has been akin a toddlers tantrum. Poor diddums can't haz 1nder cannonz, tanty tanty. Must be the developers fault diddums is a spoiled brat. Personally I don't give a toss how you play the game, I'm not criticizing you because I have been there and played like that myself, to each his own. What concerns me is willful ignorance in the face of the evidence, getting stroppy when the developers take the toys away to improve them is just childish.

Proof of SP campaigns using the RoF/BoS engine:

http://riseofflight.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36060

http://www.pwcampaigngenerator.com/website/PWCG.html

Proof of the ability of the RoF engine to handle large numbers of objects can be found by using PWCG with the following mod pack:

http://riseofflight.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=278&t=43814

Whilst these do not provide proof that the BoS engine will be able to do the same thing they do suggest that similar, and hopefully better, things will be possible. I suggest you make a mission with front MG's checked, airfield MGs checked, set the density for air, buildings and ground objects to high and get back to me on that, if you have a processor that is up to the task.

As for being upest, don't make me laugh. I'm being reasonable, trying to allay your fears and superstitions that BoS is some big monster that's going to steal your player base and impugn your relevance.

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-16-2014, 00:20
Bliss,

I'm not upset, more cynical about the disingenuous nature of your criticisms. I can't answer your queries about what will happen in the future because, much to my chargrin, I'm only human and not a Timelord. However, there must be a few Timelords on the internet since many people like yourself claim to know what is going to happen without any of this proof you have suddenly developed a sudden and convenient interest in. I rely on common sense on forethought to develop my hypotheses, basing my observation on past occurrences and trends so I can't definitively say what the DM will be, how the campaign will progress or any other matters. It does occur to me however that there must be hitboxes for various components in the game since these components are susceptible to failure in the game, as I have experienced in playing it (Something many of it's detractors should try) maybe the DM is not as richly detailed as in Cliffs but there's something there to build on. I don't see how the future of the DM, or any other aspect of the game is obvious to someone who misconstrues the facts of the present so wildly.

Can you explain what is disingenuous about my criticisms? How about what is false? Again, if you have an issue with me wanting a repeat of the most successful flight sim ever created, then you are the person with the issue. Again, you try and attack me and not what I'm talking about. That is your problem, not mine.


As for object numbers in missions, you of all people should know that this is limited more by the processing power available to us than the engine itself. Some people are able to get RoF running in PWCG with all buildings, a large number of ground objects, modded static objects, parked planes, MG positions, moving infantry sprites, a moving front and historically plausible numbers of aircraft in their missions but this is not possible for everyone. Also, RoF and BoS don't use cheat AI with dumbed down, scripted FM's so the calculations required take a lot of processor time. Most people don't have a machine capable of getting the most of the engine and you're saying it's no good when we have hardly tapped it's potential? Really? And wasn't it was many years and by the efforts of Team Daidalos that this AI matter was addressed in Il-2 not so long ago, something even the developers said was "Impossible".

1st off, I of all people would exactly know what the real problem is. Not only did I start the SYN server for ROF, I, of course built plenty of missions for it. The Dserver will crash (aka not work at all) if you put a very small amount (I'd say 1/20th of what we would use for a cliffs mission or IL2). And as our server, at the time, was a dual hex core with 96 gigs of ram (24 total cores with HT) the processing power which the server (the same one we use today), never really goes above 4% of usage. Now mind you, this is a real dedicated server that does not use a video card. So just the fact that I'm remotely connected to it and messing about in the desktop, the CPU is driving all those graphics + obviously running the server, TS, steam, stats, you name it. And you, a person that has never set up a server, is telling me, a person that ran the most successful ROF server ever (back when I ran it), that you seem to know how all this works? And know more about it than I do? You'll have to excuse me while I laugh a bit.

ROF is free. Go download Dserver, put 1000 objects in it and 10 AI planes. Go ahead and launch Dserver and if you can miraculously even get it to stay running, join the server and watch dserver and you both crash.

I spent thousands of hours testing every possible method of getting the game to handle more than an absurdity compared to something like IL-2. This is a well known problem on the ROF board and that is why you will not ever see a video playing on youtube that looks like this from anything labeled ROF/BOS. You won't find it with 100 objects in a row, let alone 1000's upon 1000's of them all tightly knit and flown around like nothing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg8fC3APmfA

Real simple way to prove what I'm saying is wrong. Go take a free game and use the free editor, place a whole bunch of objects in a row, and them simply play the mission and record them. Seems easy enough right? Well in 5 years of asking from people such as yourself, not a single video has been presented to me, nor can you ever find such a video like this on the internet for ROF/BOS.

But instead you can find thousands for IL-2 (the original) and thousands for IL-2 Cliffs of Dover like the video above. Just a little hint: It's because original IL2 and IL2 Cliffs of Dover can actually do this stuff. Pretty simple concept eh?


Will the FMB be easy to use? Probably not but so what? What matters is what it is capable of. Is the Cliffs mission builder "easy" to use for someone like me who is a stranger to it? Maybe if I only want to do basic things with it but it is a complicated utility that takes time to master. Is the mission builder in Arma easy to use? Same answer for above but people persevere and learn until you get mods like DayZ, AliVE, and MSO. None of those things were easy. I put it to you that the BoS/RoF FMB is different to what you're used to, not particularly harder.

Once again you fail to get the point entirely. I even mentioned the fact that I could care less about complexity just so folks like you might get what I was saying. So once again, it has nothing to do with complexity. It has to do with ability. And the ability of the ROF/BOS ME isn't even 20% of what you could do in IL-2's FMB. That's why I even explained further and talked about how you couldn't do something as remedial and simple as limiting the total amount of a certain type of airplane in the game. The only option with the ME is to place a spawn on a timer.


The crashing issues in BoS this is a result of development. I recently has a problem with it crashing after every mission due to something that had been altered in a recent update. Reported, developers looked into it, no more crash. If you bothered to read the threads about crashes you'd see that this is often the case. In other cases it's largely user error, the game itself is only as stable as the current build but it is better overall than many.

Of course they are. I just wanted to correct your statement where you falsely said the game worked perfectly straight out of the box. Obviously if people are crashing on the current version they are on, or if people who run 3 monitors have not been able to use them since early access, it's not working perfectly out of the box.


As for 400+ hours to unlock stuff, what a load of cock. What do you base that on? Fairytales, pessimism and rumors. All you have to do is wait until the unlocks are patched back the way they were so, if you're stupid enough to be grinding now then you deserve your misery. The unlock system needed to be tested is my guess and when the developers are happy that it works and assess the feedback they will adjust it so. This guess comes from looking at the way they have operated in the past. Remember that this is a big move for them towards bringing familiar gameplay elements into flight simulation with the aim of bringing new people into the genre. New people with new dollars to fund future development and releases. The internet response to this has been akin a toddlers tantrum. Poor diddums can't haz 1nder cannonz, tanty tanty. Must be the developers fault diddums is a spoiled brat. Personally I don't give a toss how you play the game, I'm not criticizing you because I have been there and played like that myself, to each his own. What concerns me is willful ignorance in the face of the evidence, getting stroppy when the developers take the toys away to improve them is just childish.

Once again, you lash out with insults instead of actually providing any evidence to your claims. As I have already explained beforehand, there is a thread at the BoS forums where an individual completed the unlock process for one plane. He said it took around 40-50 hours to do so. It, then, does not take a rocket scientist to come up with the conclusion that 8 planes times 40-50 hours a piece will equal 400 hours of grinding to unlock them all. Again, just using some simple logic and reasoning based on others that have actually had the experience of fulling unlocking a single plane.


Proof of SP campaigns using the RoF/BoS engine:

http://riseofflight.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36060

http://www.pwcampaigngenerator.com/website/PWCG.html

Proof of the ability of the RoF engine to handle large numbers of objects can be found by using PWCG with the following mod pack:

http://riseofflight.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=278&t=43814

Whilst these do not provide proof that the BoS engine will be able to do the same thing they do suggest that similar, and hopefully better, things will be possible. I suggest you make a mission with front MG's checked, airfield MGs checked, set the density for air, buildings and ground objects to high and get back to me on that, if you have a processor that is up to the task.

As for being upest, don't make me laugh. I'm being reasonable, trying to allay your fears and superstitions that BoS is some big monster that's going to steal your player base and impugn your relevance.

And what does this show exactly? I see missions with hardly any objects in them at all. This just further goes along with what I'm saying.

As far as Pat Wilson, he replied to one of my posts which was basically saying how horrible the DM is alone with how limited the core engine is with regards to objects and the environment. Pat, a pure SP player plays missions inside the game itself. And that has nothing to do with the Dserver.

As far as performance, you get 50 objects within 1000ft of each other, the game becomes a slide show. It doesn't matter how much of a processor you have. Again, as a beta tester for ROF and a mission builder, I always checked what my PC was doing performance wise compared to the in-game performance. My PC's cpu (an i990x extreme hex core) hardly budged playing ROF regardless of what I did mission wise with it. The game, on the other hand, of course locked up, crashed, or become unplayable after the aforementioned above.

Here's Pat Wilson's reply to me. You'll notice how he says I'm right on both accounts (DM and object limitations)


There are two points to Bliss' post and he is right on both. First, the structure DM sucks (I think the engine DM is OK).

Bliss' other comments deal with performance. He puts it out as "environment", but performance is the reason the environment can't be there. This is IMHO the bigger issue. I have stated often that PWCG can easily recreate the whole front and put a couple hundred aircraft in the air. I have to write code to stop it from doing that and pick and choose which pieces can go into a mission.

RoF limits you to about eighty ground AI objects and twenty aircraft. Tripling those numbers would be a major breakthrough.

The cup is not entirely empty though and IMHO it is important to remember that. We wouldn't be here if RoF had nothing to offer. We have a pretty good set of planes. We need more but what we have is not awful. With the third party objects there really is quite a bit that you can put on the ground. More is better, but what we have is, again, not awful. Some interesting diversions like sea planes. Some interesting mission profiles like artillery spotting.

One can hope and I continue to.

What you'll notice is Pat says his tool is capable enough to fill the entire world with objects and make the sim come alive, but you'll also notice because ROF and now BOS won't allow for that, he has to be very mindful of just what he puts in because the game engine (or in Pat's words, the "environment") doesn't allow it.

And you'll also notice the AI limits 80 AI on the ground (tanks etc.) and 20 AI in the air at the same time. Now if you scroll up you'll see a video I posted with one thousand and four (that's 1004) airplanes in the air at the same time only days after IL2COD's release.

Definitely sounds close to the same right? Again, let me let out a slight chuckle. Clearly, that's really close!!!

Thanks again for all the insults. It might be best if you knew what you were talking about next time though.

Blade_Meister
Oct-16-2014, 01:19
Don't even know you Bliss, but I could not have written it better myself. After seeing Zaks' message today, and then seeing Jasons' post about the Poll, I posted this.

Jason, thanks for the opportunity to let you know how I feel on this issue. For me it comes down to this. Please 777, as Developers, do not tell me how to play the product I have already paid for from you. I.E ----> You the Customer cannot customize your in game settings(graphics and sound), we will make presets for you. You the Customer cannot play MP with any upgrades unless you play our SP content first and earn(Xpoints) them. You the Customer cannot customize your personal settings in the SP Campaign besides the presets we have set for you(Expert: no AI, no external views, no x2). The planes look very good(a lot of hard work went into them, it is easy to see), the map looks good(huge, good for all snow map), the feeling of flight is good(like ROF). Some FMs are very good and some are still a bit dodgy (a WIP, I understand). The potential is still there and I still hope 777 can turn this around. Before this last set of updates I was really enjoying BOS(what limited time I have in it), with only a few annoyances that I assumed you would iron out. I don't appreciate the post on threatening to shut BOS down. The attitude of 777s PR guy(Zak) and a couple of others on team 777, after these updates and the back lash that ensued, has appeared to be, You will play BOS the way we say, or if you don't like it, then just shut up and don't make negative comments on the Forums or give negative reviews. I have had some negative things to say, because I was not happy with your last updates. Once I went to Metacritic and saw the Fanboy Campaign going on there (all 10s posted on 10/03/14) I decided to give what I thought was a fair review IMHO. I encouraged others to give fair reviews, even asking people to not just trash BOS, but give a fair review, posting both good & bad points. At this moment, I still stand by that review. I did not post it to hurt 777, I posted it to let simmers who were looking at BOS know what I personally thought of the game, that is all. As far as Zak telling people that if they don't want BOS closed down, they had better change their reviews, that is ridicules. If BOS releases with improvements (IMHO) over what it is now, I will right another review and encourage others to again review BOS and share their opinions. As a paying Customer(Gold EA), I don't think I can be any fairer than that. I am not injecting any hate or attitude in this statement, please do not add any in your interpretation.

S!Blade<><



Unfortunately, I then went to Metacritic only to see that all of the Reviews have been Deleted. I posted this.

Wow, just checked Metacritic and all Reviews have been Deleted. That just says it all doesn't it Jason. Amazing.

S!Blade<><

My final post



you do understand that 1C has the final say right? as it is 1C product and not 777 Studios..

wow they deleted the whole IL2 BOS..



Sorry, no insult intended, I seem to always say 777, just add 1C/777 to what I wrote above. It doesn't matter for me anymore. With deleting all reviews over there(Metacritic) you can really see what this is all about. Many negative posts here have been deleted and even Testers run off and Servers closed for having critical opinions of the latest updates. As a Developer or Investor this must be very frustrating, but you can only control a customers' perception and opinion of your product so far, which for me is none at all. If the customer is not welcome to post his or her honest opinion of BOS's performance here on the Forum or out on an independent Forum or Review Site, well then there is no sense in being a Customer here anymore, for me at least. I hope everyone here enjoys BOS and the Devs are completely happy with how things turn out.

S!Blade<>< out.

I am done with them. I payed for BOS and will get a finished product at some point, soon I assume and I will review it then on an independent site, but I am done as of now.
"YYEAAAAAAAAAA! And there was much rejoicing!" Now I will have more time for other sims, :) I have 2 Campaigns going in IL2 1946 DBW and I can adjust them however I like and fly with Hundreds of planes and objects, all at 60FPS on Perfect mode!!! :)

S!Blade<><

LuseKofte
Oct-16-2014, 02:13
All this talk of BOS fanboyism, what is this then?
Bliss I agree on your cod part, there you talk about all the posibilities, somehow people tendens to forget that angle when it comes to BOS

Hood
Oct-16-2014, 02:14
Bliss what you say is pure BS. You may be right, but at the moment it's pure conjecture and BS. Back it up without some tired reference to ROF. Is what you state what you have found via the BOS ME?

Into the swarm video - great idea. Haven't seen that type of gameplay in CLOD yet because I doubt anyone wants to play at the slowest possible speed. You do know how it was made right? Not really sure on the reference to a Stalingrad environment but hey let's muddy the waters.

And yep I'm a gamer. As a gamer I play flight sims. Having a triple monitor and HOTAS setup just means you're a gamer with nice disposable income.

I state again, it isn't a review, more conjecture based on past experience with a different game. If it were a review it would be about your experiences with BOS, and it isn't.

Hood

Continu0
Oct-16-2014, 02:29
Bliss, I am a bit confused. Yesterday, I was on the BoS-Syndicate-Server and there were more aircraft and objects around every airfield than I have ever seen in a Cliffs multiplayer-mission. All without damage model, but they were there.
What`s more, the planes available were limited. Something of which you stated it was not possible....?

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-16-2014, 02:38
Ironic how people state something as BS but can't actually point out what is BS. i

I'll give a slight hint. The same game engine used for ROF is used for BOS. So changing the textures and the types of objects that same game engine displays does not change the ability of that game engine.

Simple logic and reasoning prevails again! Sorry about your luck.

@Continuo those objects are part of the map just like the million buildings in London are part of the map. And please re-read what I said about the plane limits. The planes are limited by a time limit. If you want 2 and only 2 of a certain type of plane flying it is not possible.

I'm honestly getting tired of having to repeat the same thing over again. If you read in the server thread on the BoS forum, you can already see the people complaining about the time it took to spawn another plane.

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-16-2014, 02:55
@Bliss...Apart from the FPS reference in your post everything else about the original IL-2 was exactly the way I experienced it...I could have written those paragraphs....even down to buying it in a bargain bucket for £2 ($5) and using my first stick, a Logitec Extreme 3D Pro...and then stumbling on Hyperlobby...and getting online...I was blown away by the online stuff....to be talking and flying with folks from everywhere on the planet at the same time...words can't explain that feeling of utter awe....I couldn't get enough of it....Within a couple months I was in an admin squad working hard to make our server the busiest in there....Great days flying with the FS, 69th, RS, =AFJ=, IRSS and so many big squads out there..most friendly folks...wonderful days they were...

As for BOS....well I haven't got it...yet...I plan to at some point but it will be when the price comes down and it has been around for a while and settled...so I haven't read the forums over at BOS yet either...I know very little about it.....its enough to read forums here for me....Nice to see some ones take on this who knows a lot more than I do about it without having to go away from home.....and what you say makes sense too...especially as I now see you came from the same IL-2 stock as I....So thanks for your review..very interesting.

EDIT - wow..there's been about 4 or 5 posts on this thread since I sat back to write my little post and hit SAVE

Good to hear Lewis!

It's nice to hear of someone else that remembers the best time in flight simming. Sadly newer guys will probably never get to experience that ever. Us old timers are getting less and less every year.

Chuck_Owl
Oct-16-2014, 03:19
Believe me, I'd fly Il-2 1946 in a heartbeat... if it wasn't so BLOODY laborious to install with all these mod and compatibility issues (HSFX vs UP... yadda yadda yadda).

I tried to play a B-17 single-player campaign in 1946... but I needed a version of UP that required me to have a couple of TD patches installed (but not the latest ones... go figure)... and most of the download links for the TD patches were either dead or requiring signing-up for an umpteenth website. Ugh...

I just gave up on 1946... too much trouble to install.

Hood
Oct-16-2014, 03:36
Believe me, I'd fly Il-2 1946 in a heartbeat... if it wasn't so BLOODY laborious to install with all these mod and compatibility issues (HSFX vs UP... yadda yadda yadda).

I tried to play a B-17 single-player campaign in 1946... but I needed a version of UP that required me to have a couple of TD patches installed (but not the latest ones... go figure)... and most of the download links for the TD patches were either dead or requiring signing-up for an umpteenth website. Ugh...

I just gave up on 1946... too much trouble to install.

HSFX is quite straightforward.

Install 1946, patch to latest version, download HSFX 7.3 via torrent. Install auto-updater then use JSGME to select the mods you want. That's the simple explanation though.

You may be disappointed though as it, as a game, has aged quite badly in my eyes. The best things are the weather and the nastiness of the AI.

Hood

Chuck_Owl
Oct-16-2014, 03:42
HSFX is quite straightforward.

Install 1946, patch to latest version, download HSFX 7.3 via torrent. Install auto-updater then use JSGME to select the mods you want. That's the simple explanation though.

You may be disappointed though as it, as a game, has aged quite badly in my eyes. The best things are the weather and the nastiness of the AI.

Hood

Yeah, DCS really spoiled me with their incredibly detailed cockpits. I find it hard to go back to 1946...

I really wished we had a proper B-17/B-24/Lancaster combat sim done to today's standards. Heavy bombers are an absolute blast to fly. At least... that was my experience with A2A's B-17 in FSX.

LuseKofte
Oct-16-2014, 04:04
I do use hsfx and modact, because 4,12 is too good to ignore. I use clean up3 for online flying together with SAS people. It is fastfood.
If you got time and want it all, cod is the thing, campaign il2 and fast fun online BOS

Hood
Oct-16-2014, 04:49
Ironic how people state something as BS but can't actually point out what is BS. i

I'll give a slight hint. The same game engine used for ROF is used for BOS. So changing the textures and the types of objects that same game engine displays does not change the ability of that game engine.

Simple logic and reasoning prevails again! Sorry about your luck...





Simple logic.

Did you review BOS and the BOS ME? If yes - fine but please do a proper review of the whole game, not just the ME and possible limitations. If no - not a review but conjecture. Posting conjecture as an actual review = BS.

Is the DN engine exactly the same as used in ROF? If yes, how do you know? If no, how do you know? If no, what are the changes? Might they affect your conjecture about how the ME will work? If yes, in what way might they change the ME capabilities? This in itself will be conjecture.

Compare and contrast with versions of other games. Was the engine in IL2:1946 the same as IL2: Forgotten Battles? Is version 4.12.2 the same engine as IL2: 1946. Does HSFX 7.0.3 use the same, or a modified version, of the engine as any of the previous versions? Is the engine in CLOD the same as the engine used now?

I could go on but, as with you, I'm tired of having to repeat the same points.


Just a couple of further points.

I completely agree with your perception of old IL2. I cannot count the number of nights I woke up because someone was on my 6 in my dreams, and how many times I went to bed very late because I was either playing or trying to figure out what went wrong in a squad match. Sweaty joystick was not a euphemism.

I do not have such a rosy view of the FMB though. In it's simplicity it was fantastic once you got used to it, and that didn't take long. In it's basic form it was limited though and editing mission files was necessary to add the functionality that really gave it life. That said, you didn't need that functionality to have a brilliant time.

CLOD is similar. The FMB has the same traits as old IL2 save that parts of it are broken. Ignore those bits or edit them in the .mis file and you're ok - theyre just an annoyance rather than a game breaker. But to add the functionality to make it sing you need to have a mind that works with scripting, submissions and all of that. So, the basic FMB is accessible by most but the added "bits", as with old IL2 has a much smaller user base.

Now a game has to contend with much higher graphics but also a much higher fidelity of FM, DM and crucially AI. If you want pure MP only that's fine but that ignores a huge gaming population. Likewise adding more objects with more complicated routines also adds to the mix.

My subjective comparison is between old IL2 DF missions on much smaller maps with less players and less objects. Still intense with concentrated action, still awesome high up in P47s v D9s or down low for turn and burn fun. Wanted to move mud, go ahead. CLOD for example has a 1:1 map that looks fantastic (please fix the rivers) but even with large numbers of players and huge numbers of objects you still don't get the same "feeling" that old IL2 gave.


Clod was unfinished on release. And even in it's unfinished state, and without any optimization Clod still easily outperformed ROF/BOS by a huge margin in almost every single feature imaginable. That includes amount of planes and objects in a mission, amount of people on a server, the graphics, the damage model, clickable cockpits, and virtually every other "core" area of a flight sim's success.

CLOD was released as a finished game. It has been stated that BOS will be in continual development post-release.

Amount of planes - conjecture as the server capabilities for BOS have not yet been fully explored.

Objects - conjecture (see above). The relevance of numbers of objects to immersion has never really been explained and you can have great immersion with very few ground objects.

People on a server - dserver for BOS not yet in general release so numbers yet to be determined i.e. conjecture. 50 pilots concentrated around Stalingrad is likely to be more interesting than 100 "concentrated" between Abbeville, Dunkirk, London and the Isle of Wight. That is conjecture on my part.

Damage model - I don't know enough about that to comment, save that as it stands I much prefer the DM as portrayed in CLOD.

Clickable cockpits - woo. I do not use a single clickable cockpit object in CLOD. Everything is mapped to a command/joystick profile and controlled from my HOTAS system. Others do use them - fine - I have nothing against clickable cockpits but having that as an advantage for one sim over another? As an aside, the FW190 "trim" has to be mapped to buttons because that is how it was done in reality. That is a realism point that is criticised... I have mine mapped to my HOTAS (not a rotary) via TARGET and it works perfectly.

Graphics - they are different is all. Some things are better in one game, some in the other. The 109 cockpits in CLOD look much nicer though.

"Core" areas - FM, DM, FMB etc:

CLOD - FMs were porked, DMs were porked, the UI was broken, FMB was broken. No weather except sunny (in England...?). Not playable by huge numbers of old IL2 players (may in fact have killed off a lot of interest in flight sims generally). Screenshots looked amazing. The only design flaw for me was the size of the map.

BOS pre-release - FMs may need to be tweaked but developers have accepted proven discrepancies. DM - not great in my eyes and definitely need hit sounds. You can have weather. It works without tweaking and is playable by most simmers. FMB - unknown as yet. Screenshots look amazing. Some design flaws (I like the unlocks system but think it is flawed from a commercial point of view). I also think the map could be smaller - most of the western side will not be used by most.


For a game 7+ years in development CLOD was a shambles. It's great now (save for the floppy He111s, lack of weather, stupid AI, marshland rivers and a host of niggly problems that I can live with). It sure as hell won't be "new" IL2 because it's infinitely more complex and TF won't be able to supply weather, better AI, new theatres and planes except to a very slow timescale. That is fact, not criticism.

BOS has been in development for under 2 years, and is receiving the same treatment as CLOD did post-release. Go figure.


Having read what I've just typed you know what, this whole CLOD v BOS thing is silly as they set out to do different things. CLOD was an undisputed mess on release but is now good (not great). BOS is likely to be good on release (maybe very good but not yet great). I won't add DCS to the mix because WWII is a new venture for them and ED/DCS operate completely differently.

Hood

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-16-2014, 04:53
The difference between CloD and BoS, at a simple fundamental level, irrespective of one having been released as a bus-wreck (CloD) and the other about to be released as a bus-wreck (BoS), is CloD has the code there to be worked on and improved while BoS does not. CloD's code has complex systems and a matching DM. BoS has empty space where that code should/could be. And if anyone is suggesting that code may be added later I'll respond with a long hearty laugh. The Digital Nature engine is a pile of arcade cack; we learned that with RoF (great dog-fighter air-quake server engine) and it is confirmed with BoS. There will be nothing more added to it. It's already been "enhanced" and we've seen the result of that proudly proclaimed 'improvement'. Wonky FMs, hit-box DM, object-numbers that bring the engine to its knees and all the rest that leaves ones jaw hanging in disappointment. RoF and BoS...pretty, pretty and pretty. A vacuous tart.

I would say this to the investors of BoS: you should have re-activated CloD. THAT'S the worthy successor to the original IL2. THAT'S your franchise right there. Even if it did take the work of TF to make it clear and obvious, on YOUR watch.

Everything Bliss says about the original IL2 is FACT. Everything he says about it in relation to CloD and BoS is FACT. Not opinion. And I speak as somebody who was on the original IL2 test-team and has his name in the credits of the first two manuals (IL2 and Forgotten Battles).

CloD is the future; BoS will be nothing but a blip.

gavagai
Oct-16-2014, 06:31
BOS pre-release - FMs may need to be tweaked but developers have accepted proven discrepancies.

When I look at the early access discussion forum I see a bunched of locked threads about the 190A-3. I read closer and I find out that there's an issue about the climb rate, where 777 wants to compare their FM to Soviet data instead of German data. Compared to Soviet data the FM is within 5% error, compared to German data it is way off.

In this way it is impossible to prove discrepancies. It is like Rise of Flight all over again where 777 cherry picks the worst possible data for some aircraft (and the best for others), claims the FM is accurate because it matches the cherry picked data, and then stonewalls anyone who tries to point out the alternatives.

And the LagG-3 rolls as well as the Fw 190.:doh:

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-16-2014, 06:50
12483

I said months ago the FMs are bent, which is a fact. It is also my opinion it is deliberate. The devs are, in my opinion, favouring the allied a/c because they think it will result in the best outcome in terms of sales.

The game has zero historical and simming credibility. That's not an opinion, that's a demonstrable fact. That the venerable IL2 stamp has been hijacked by the makers of this arcade game is worthy of nothing but dripping contempt.

LuseKofte
Oct-16-2014, 07:27
Too me this is far off, having to defend a Sim I fly occationally against many times outragious and far off coments, and being looked upon as a public enemy agains cod witch I spend more time with.
I am grateful for this time it is on a level I can agree on both sides.
I prononce my abcence from further discussions in here by saying, it is all subjective and I like BOS

Hood
Oct-16-2014, 07:54
12482

Everything Bliss says about the original IL2 is FACT. Everything he says about it in relation to CloD and BoS is FACT. Not opinion. And I speak as somebody who was on the original IL2 test-team and has his name in the credits of the first two manuals (IL2 and Forgotten Battles).

...

I said months ago the FMs are bent, which is a fact. It is also my opinion it is deliberate. The devs are, in my opinion, favouring the allied a/c because they think it will result in the best outcome in terms of sales.

The game has zero historical and simming credibility. That's not an opinion, that's a demonstrable fact. That the venerable IL2 stamp has been hijacked by the makers of this arcade game is worthy of nothing but dripping contempt.

Rubbish - until release and release of the ME everything about BOS is opinion only. About IL2 it is fact but omits information that gives a complete picture. I was credited in the in-game credits in IL2 but that doesn't mean anything at all. If you were part of the test team of the very original IL2 you will appreciate how much revision it needed.

The FMs are bent - of course they are. They'll never be perfect because it's a computer game with computer game limitations (yes they all have limitations) and incontrovertible evidence is impossible to find. The FW190 FM issue has been flogged to death. If they are going off dcouments then counter-documents are needed. Kwiatek has posted several but some important parameters are not known - affect of -15C, plane setup etc. there will never be a perfect set of data/evidence.

Deliberate? Woo-hee consipracy theorist alert. Prove it. Then prove why developers would deliberately make an incorrect FM when they know how rabid sectors of the flight sim community are. Then establish why bending FMs to favour VVS aircraft would increase sales. Maybe inside Russia but outside? And this is in the face of folks saying that the LW aircraft are better.

Zero historical and simming credibility. That's a stretch even for a biased opinion. Historical? FW190? Sure it wasn't at Stalingrad but the other stuff was (possibly the La5 too). I really don't know what other historical problems there are. Simming? What credibility issues are there that cannot be addressed to any other sim? Clickable cockpits but does switching hands to fumble around with a mouse pointer really make a simming experience?

Sorry Siggi your comments just don't hold water. You just have an axe to grind - your line has been crossed and as you see it that gives you unlicensed freedom to make whatever allegations you want. that's the beauty of the internet I suppose.

I have a horrid feeling that having dragged me down you'll end up beating me with your experience so I'll leave my comments at that.

Hood

dburne
Oct-16-2014, 08:42
Yeah, DCS really spoiled me with their incredibly detailed cockpits. I find it hard to go back to 1946...



After the BOS developers released the campaign with all the unlocks /XP Grinding, I decided to shelve it for now and went ahead and re-installed 1946 to play alongside with my favorite TF Cliffs. Had been a long time since I had 46 installed and previously had never really updated it with the mods.

It was not difficult to do, first I installed 46 then installed the Megapak to bring it up to date, then installed the HSFX 7 mod ( I copied my updated install and installed HSFX7 to the new copy, retaining my original install just in case).
Really what took me the most time was just downloading the mod, after that it was quick and painless, then I installed the auto-updater which brought it up to HSFX 7.03. I then installed DCG to generate some good offline campaign missions.

Having fun with it, but like previously mentioned, the graphics are pretty dated. Flying over water only is not so bad, once I get over an island though I am like ugh... but I am having a blast flying the carrier missions and fighting against the really good AI.

Between TF Cliffs and now HSFX 1946, I have plenty to keep me occupied in the WWII department. I backed the DCS WWII Kickstarter and will have all the flyables when released, looking forward to seeing where that all progresses.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-16-2014, 08:56
Rubbish - until release and release of the ME everything about BOS is opinion only. About IL2 it is fact but omits information that gives a complete picture. I was credited in the in-game credits in IL2 but that doesn't mean anything at all. If you were part of the test team of the very original IL2 you will appreciate how much revision it needed.

The FMs are bent - of course they are. They'll never be perfect because it's a computer game with computer game limitations (yes they all have limitations) and incontrovertible evidence is impossible to find. The FW190 FM issue has been flogged to death. If they are going off dcouments then counter-documents are needed. Kwiatek has posted several but some important parameters are not known - affect of -15C, plane setup etc. there will never be a perfect set of data/evidence.

Deliberate? Woo-hee consipracy theorist alert. Prove it. Then prove why developers would deliberately make an incorrect FM when they know how rabid sectors of the flight sim community are. Then establish why bending FMs to favour VVS aircraft would increase sales. Maybe inside Russia but outside? And this is in the face of folks saying that the LW aircraft are better.

Zero historical and simming credibility. That's a stretch even for a biased opinion. Historical? FW190? Sure it wasn't at Stalingrad but the other stuff was (possibly the La5 too). I really don't know what other historical problems there are. Simming? What credibility issues are there that cannot be addressed to any other sim? Clickable cockpits but does switching hands to fumble around with a mouse pointer really make a simming experience?

Sorry Siggi your comments just don't hold water. You just have an axe to grind - your line has been crossed and as you see it that gives you unlicensed freedom to make whatever allegations you want. that's the beauty of the internet I suppose.

I have a horrid feeling that having dragged me down you'll end up beating me with your experience so I'll leave my comments at that.

Hood

I've reported you for disrespect and rudeness. The old bait & report game will no longer work with me.

To answer your points. Numerous people have now reported the LW FMs are bent whereas the VVS ones are not. Fact. Why would they do it deliberately? I'll turn that around...why, if they're not deliberate, have they not been fixed after months of complaints?

Computer-game limitations in respect of FMs. CloD doesn't have them. Fact. BoS does. Fact.

The problem you now face Hood is that while it was relatively easy to beat down and bury complaints while the BoS fanboy wagon was at full speed ahead, things have now changed; the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. The blockade imposed by Williams and his mods has been broken. If there was no truth in the arcade deficiencies the out-pouring of criticism would not exist. It would have nothing with which to work. It would, as a natural consequence, wither and die. But that's not what we're seeing. The game has been exposed for what it is and those who didn't see it before, a lot of which was down to overly optimistic and faithful enthusiasm through rose-tinted spectacles, are seeing it now. The game will not sell 200,000 copies. It won't come within a country mile of that figure. Any objective analysis can predict that.

So what 1C needs to do is dump BoS, dump 777 and the dollar-obsessed Williams and pick CloD back up and honour the product we paid for years ago but couldn't play until TF fixed its fraudulently abandoned code.

vranac
Oct-16-2014, 09:01
Simple logic.

Did you review BOS and the BOS ME? If yes - fine but please do a proper review of the whole game, not just the ME and possible limitations. If no - not a review but conjecture. Posting conjecture as an actual review = BS.

Is the DN engine exactly the same as used in ROF? If yes, how do you know? If no, how do you know? If no, what are the changes? Might they affect your conjecture about how the ME will work? If yes, in what way might they change the ME capabilities? This in itself will be conjecture.

Compare and contrast with versions of other games. Was the engine in IL2:1946 the same as IL2: Forgotten Battles? Is version 4.12.2 the same engine as IL2: 1946. Does HSFX 7.0.3 use the same, or a modified version, of the engine as any of the previous versions? Is the engine in CLOD the same as the engine used now?

I could go on but, as with you, I'm tired of having to repeat the same points.

There will be no access to ME for common users at least 6 months after the release. Why ?
I can tell you why, because that time is critical for the sales. The most of the MP will be on small map not the Stalingrad one.
If you missed this one from Loft.

Well, not half of a year. But there is a process. First we need to make a universal server ranks, I mean the interesting missions because there won't be many of them and the regulations.
Then fix it and then transferred to the statistics because we collect it only for ourselves. Ie, we will need some time. You can help. You have Zeus who uses our tools very well and ideas will come.

Conditions are as follows:

There shouldn't be many missions in the rotation. For the first half of the year no more than 10. It's desirable that they are on a small map, because we shall perhaps optimize more
but now saturated online at Stalingrad map will not work well with weaker computers .

All missions must have the same meaning. And may be different in the weather,wind, the location of airfields and goals. Game rules are universal. Airfields covered by anti-aircraft guns. Have the same equivalent quantity of targets for both teams. Ie 20 machines here and there, the train here and there, the tanks here and there. Ie whatever amount of points for a ground targets for both teams coincide.

It is desirable to have different goals, including the 1st super goal, a good AA cover, which can be destroyed only by heavy aircraft or several sturmoviks. The successful destruction of such targets provides an initial 50% to win for one of the teams. Accordingly, the fighters of both teams have 2 goals, cover your bombers or intercept the enemy. Within a 30-minute session there is a macro task. Or, you can of course crab or just DF arround. The message is clear, do not die,your death give the other team points.

The mission time is 30 minutes. Recovery time for a ground units I suggest 10 minutes. Ie time to revive 1 or 2 times per session. Well, you understand me, who understands you can now make it, do a mission,, we will than test it.

About the engine and objects and planes in a mission I could find you Lofts answer later, 16- 20 planes on a screen max. Look at the quoted text what is he talking about ground units, 20 here 20 there etc. Just to show you the difference, in Bliss's missions there were arround 40 AA units at every aerodrome and at every target IIRC.

Which map is running on SYN server by the way the smaler one or the Stalingrad one ?



CLOD was released as a finished game. It has been stated that BOS will be in continual development post-release.

CloD was pushed out as a "finished game". There were mulitiple beta and official patches and the support continued till the project was stopped by 1C.
Do you expect that work on BoS will continue if they don't reach 200.000 copies sold a few months after the release ?


Amount of planes - conjecture as the server capabilities for BOS have not yet been fully explored.

Objects - conjecture (see above). The relevance of numbers of objects to immersion has never really been explained and you can have great immersion with very few ground objects.

People on a server - dserver for BOS not yet in general release so numbers yet to be determined i.e. conjecture. 50 pilots concentrated around Stalingrad is likely to be more interesting than 100 "concentrated" between Abbeville, Dunkirk, London and the Isle of Wight. That is conjecture on my part.

And you won't have the capability to explore it, I can assure you about that. That is the main reason why ME will not be available.

I'm pretty sure that something like this won't be possible in BoS. This is just one ss but you can find videos from ACG campaigns on this forum, 60-70 pilots flying and fighting over 50-60 bomber formations and all that on not so strong PC without problems (it'll be upgraded soon).

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/12/ba/4ky1WbyK/bombers.jpg




"Core" areas - FM, DM, FMB etc:

CLOD - FMs were porked, DMs were porked, the UI was broken, FMB was broken. No weather except sunny (in England...?). Not playable by huge numbers of old IL2 players (may in fact have killed off a lot of interest in flight sims generally). Screenshots looked amazing. The only design flaw for me was the size of the map.

BOS pre-release - FMs may need to be tweaked but developers have accepted proven discrepancies. DM - not great in my eyes and definitely need hit sounds. You can have weather. It works without tweaking and is playable by most simmers. FMB - unknown as yet. Screenshots look amazing. Some design flaws (I like the unlocks system but think it is flawed from a commercial point of view). I also think the map could be smaller - most of the western side will not be used by most.


For a game 7+ years in development CLOD was a shambles. It's great now (save for the floppy He111s, lack of weather, stupid AI, marshland rivers and a host of niggly problems that I can live with). It sure as hell won't be "new" IL2 because it's infinitely more complex and TF won't be able to supply weather, better AI, new theatres and planes except to a very slow timescale. That is fact, not criticism.

BOS has been in development for under 2 years, and is receiving the same treatment as CLOD did post-release. Go figure.


Having read what I've just typed you know what, this whole CLOD v BOS thing is silly as they set out to do different things. CLOD was an undisputed mess on release but is now good (not great). BOS is likely to be good on release (maybe very good but not yet great). I won't add DCS to the mix because WWII is a new venture for them and ED/DCS operate completely differently.

Hood

DM was broken ? How ?

FM ? Planes were always flying ok, there were only problems with how the engines performed at different altitudes. Developers were adressing that issue but their first task was to release the sequel "BoM" and that was their priority. Fixing CloD wouldn't bring them any profit but even then they were fixing it. Only two ingeneers was working on that where the second one was hired much much later.
When you are talking about 7 years of development you should consider that MG was much smaller team than 1CGS is and they were making completely new and advanced engine
and 1CGS were using engine 4-5 years old. It is more like modding with some new graphic technologies.

I'm not in TF but I can tell you that you're very wrong in your assumptions. I'm pretty sure TF could provide some info that would be yaw dropping right now,
but they probably don't want to do that yet. Slow ? Yes.
But I'm patient and I hope that there are lot of others like me.
Because this is the only true succesor of il2 sturmovik.

LuseKofte
Oct-16-2014, 09:02
Siggi, your statement that Bliss versjon about IL 2 and cod is a fact shows only your ignorance on the matter, there are as many versions of what happend like it equal the number of us that witnessed the mess.
I have heard Bliss versjon from him and others, in the end all versions are a tad more subjective and only historical facts make them contain a minimum of objectivity.
I am not saying Bliss is wrong, I just say, on forumet like this everything is fractions of believers and nonbelievers

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-16-2014, 09:11
Siggi, your statement that Bliss versjon about IL 2 and cod is a fact shows only your ignorance on the matter, there are as many versions of what happend like it equal the number of us that witnessed the mess.
I have heard Bliss versjon from him and others, in the end all versions are a tad more subjective and only historical facts make them contain a minimum of objectivity.
I am not saying Bliss is wrong, I just say, on forumet like this everything is fractions of believers and nonbelievers

Ignorance? I played the original IL2 from the days it was a closed beta. I used its FMB extensively. I used it daily and ran an online war for it based upon those daily missions for over a year, serving approx. 200 signed-up players.
I played CloD from its release and used its FMB extensively.
I played BoS from day-1. I didn't use its FMB because that's been kept from us lest anyone who's not a rabid fanboy discovers and broadcasts its total lack of fitness for purpose and further harms sales. I did play with RoF's however and can confirm it's a PoS working on a PoS engine (Digital Nature).

So I am perfectly able to compare and come to an objective conclusion. My conclusion matches Bliss' 100%.

But if you wish to think me ignorant, that's ok. It's an opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it. Hopefully, though, my response will give you cause to re-evaluate. :)

LuseKofte
Oct-16-2014, 10:31
Well then, I just cannot for the life of me understand why you and Bliss Are so sure

Tvrdi
Oct-16-2014, 10:53
Well then, I just cannot for the life of me understand why you and Bliss Are so sure

Both are very exprienced with MEs. ROFs ME is a nightmare. Same Me is used in BOS and devs decided not to unlock it for customers just becaue of that reason. Even if we forget about cheesy FMs in BOS (rolls etc) and ugly cockpits (not much better than modded Il2 46), unlocks and everything...its ME is a pain. So show me one good side of BOS.

Kwiatek
Oct-16-2014, 10:55
Moment ago i got another ban in BOS forum casue i wrote what im thinking about all these crap hehe. Stalin methods and censorship is common practise there. And treating customers like a idiots :)

Chuck_Owl
Oct-16-2014, 11:27
12483

I said months ago the FMs are bent, which is a fact. It is also my opinion it is deliberate. The devs are, in my opinion, favouring the allied a/c because they think it will result in the best outcome in terms of sales.

By the way, we're still waiting for these FM comparison charts with the error % that you haven't yet provided.

If you're not gonna, it might be a wise decision to let people who actually know what the hell they're talking about discuss on FM matters...

I'm an aerospace engineer... and nothing irritates me more than people who make FM-related accusations without backing it up with numbers.

Got comparison charts? Go ahead! We might even agree on something for once.

Got nothing? Well...

ATAG_Colander
Oct-16-2014, 11:34
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12494&d=1413473658


12494

Chuck_Owl
Oct-16-2014, 11:38
Come on, Colander... that's a genuine question!

ATAG_Colander
Oct-16-2014, 11:42
This is becoming a you said, I said thread again.

ATAG_Lolsav
Oct-16-2014, 11:52
This is becoming a you said, I said thread again.

+1 and its tedious...

Chuck_Owl
Oct-16-2014, 11:53
So it's okay for people to compare FM in CloD but not in BoS because it creates a "you said I said thread"?

Forgive me Colander, but I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Not trying to pick a fight here... I'm genuinely trying to have a technical discussion.

ATAG_Lolsav
Oct-16-2014, 11:55
Chuck i believe Colander "Sign" was not directed to you, but to the whole thread. Thats how i read it at least.

Continu0
Oct-16-2014, 12:09
ROFs ME is a nightmare. Same Me is used in BOS

How do you guys know that? I mean, they probably work on it, right?

vranac
Oct-16-2014, 12:15
How do you guys know that? I mean, they probably work on it, right?

They are not working on it. Loft have said that is a very complicated and difficult task and they have only two programmers.

LBR=H.Ostermann
Oct-16-2014, 12:16
How do you guys know that? I mean, they probably work on it, right?

LOFT said that they don't have time and money to work on a new Mission Editor, but maybe in the future they will make a new one, if the sales... I guess that is the same editor. One guy developing a online war said that the BOS ME is the same as ROF ME.

Continu0
Oct-16-2014, 12:31
LOFT said that they don't have time and money to work on a new Mission Editor, but maybe in the future they will make a new one, if the sales... I guess that is the same editor. One guy developing a online war said that the BOS ME is the same as ROF ME.

Thanks for the infos, guys!

Ow-Chi
Oct-16-2014, 13:02
I am baffled so much is being said about the mission editor and features or lack thereof. For me the reason I have no interest begins and ends with xp. Points and unlocks. World of Warcraft in the sky sounds as appealing as washing my face with a cheese grater.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-16-2014, 13:16
I am baffled so much is being said about the mission editor and features or lack thereof. For me the reason I have no interest begins and ends with xp. Points and unlocks. World of Warcraft in the sky sounds as appealing as washing my face with a cheese grater.

I believe the BoS/RoF ME is as poor as it is because the Digital Nature engine is not capable of handling the number of objects that would warrant or necessitate a decent one. Kind of like why bother to put a five-speed gearbox into a lawn-mower.

mayday
Oct-16-2014, 14:00
I read these posts in awe of the obvious knowledge of the people writing them so maybe the thread could do with a line or two from someone like me who I suppose, when it comes to buying flight simulator games is just your average Joe. I bought Il2 the first week it was published and subsequently all its follow ons and played them, enjoyed them and got my moneys worth. When I read about Cliffs of Dover being developed I was overjoyed, obviously it was going to be a massive step up from Il2 which was great. I bought CloD when it was published on the understanding that my system was far from ideal for running it but sure that as the game was further developed I would some time in the future get a system that would do it justice. Of course that never happened. I could hardly believe it when I read one day that CloD was being abandoned and another game was being worked on. Now I didn't know how much of the CloD development team were going to be working on the new game but to a layman like me it seemed that they all were. The people involved were the same people who had worked on CloD. I straight away knew that I would never buy BoS or any other game they published until I read that it was a finished product. Catch me once, shame on you. Catch me twice, shame on me.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-16-2014, 14:11
I read these posts in awe of the obvious knowledge of the people writing them so maybe the thread could do with a line or two from someone like me who I suppose, when it comes to buying flight simulator games is just your average Joe. I bought Il2 the first week it was published and subsequently all its follow ons and played them, enjoyed them and got my moneys worth. When I read about Cliffs of Dover being developed I was overjoyed, obviously it was going to be a massive step up from Il2 which was great. I bought CloD when it was published on the understanding that my system was far from ideal for running it but sure that as the game was further developed I would some time in the future get a system that would do it justice. Of course that never happened. I could hardly believe it when I read one day that CloD was being abandoned and another game was being worked on. Now I didn't know how much of the CloD development team were going to be working on the new game but to a layman like me it seemed that they all were. The people involved were the same people who had worked on CloD. I straight away knew that I would never buy BoS or any other game they published until I read that it was a finished product. Catch me once, shame on you. Catch me twice, shame on me.

Do you have a good system now? If you do I recommend you install CloD again but with the TF patches. It's no longer the same game with them. :thumbsup:

LuseKofte
Oct-16-2014, 14:16
Both are very exprienced with MEs. ROFs ME is a nightmare. Same Me is used in BOS and devs decided not to unlock it for customers just becaue of that reason. Even if we forget about cheesy FMs in BOS (rolls etc) and ugly cockpits (not much better than modded Il2 46), unlocks and everything...its ME is a pain. So show me one good side of BOS.

I am also very experienced with FMB in IL 2 I have rebuilt all and made new qmb , campaigns and also made dngn . I done sims since the first crap in 1996. I am still firm in my opinion, no so called truth given from one are without subjective opinion, when a point is to be made the truth are very flexible in terms of proving ones point

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-16-2014, 14:20
I am also very experienced with FMB in IL 2 I have rebuilt all and made new qmb , campaigns and also made dngn . I done sims since the first crap in 1996. I am still firm in my opinion, no so called truth given from one are without subjective opinion, when a point is to be made the truth are very flexible in terms of proving ones point

Have you done anything (or tried) with the RoF ME? BoS' is the same one. It was known years ago that the Digital Nature engine cannot cope with more than about 50 objects, hence the crudity of its ME.

Chivas
Oct-16-2014, 14:29
Simple logic.

Did you review BOS and the BOS ME? If yes - fine but please do a proper review of the whole game, not just the ME and possible limitations. If no - not a review but conjecture. Posting conjecture as an actual review = BS.

Is the DN engine exactly the same as used in ROF? If yes, how do you know? If no, how do you know? If no, what are the changes? Might they affect your conjecture about how the ME will work? If yes, in what way might they change the ME capabilities? This in itself will be conjecture.

Compare and contrast with versions of other games. Was the engine in IL2:1946 the same as IL2: Forgotten Battles? Is version 4.12.2 the same engine as IL2: 1946. Does HSFX 7.0.3 use the same, or a modified version, of the engine as any of the previous versions? Is the engine in CLOD the same as the engine used now?

I could go on but, as with you, I'm tired of having to repeat the same points.


Just a couple of further points.

I completely agree with your perception of old IL2. I cannot count the number of nights I woke up because someone was on my 6 in my dreams, and how many times I went to bed very late because I was either playing or trying to figure out what went wrong in a squad match. Sweaty joystick was not a euphemism.

I do not have such a rosy view of the FMB though. In it's simplicity it was fantastic once you got used to it, and that didn't take long. In it's basic form it was limited though and editing mission files was necessary to add the functionality that really gave it life. That said, you didn't need that functionality to have a brilliant time.

CLOD is similar. The FMB has the same traits as old IL2 save that parts of it are broken. Ignore those bits or edit them in the .mis file and you're ok - theyre just an annoyance rather than a game breaker. But to add the functionality to make it sing you need to have a mind that works with scripting, submissions and all of that. So, the basic FMB is accessible by most but the added "bits", as with old IL2 has a much smaller user base.

Now a game has to contend with much higher graphics but also a much higher fidelity of FM, DM and crucially AI. If you want pure MP only that's fine but that ignores a huge gaming population. Likewise adding more objects with more complicated routines also adds to the mix.

My subjective comparison is between old IL2 DF missions on much smaller maps with less players and less objects. Still intense with concentrated action, still awesome high up in P47s v D9s or down low for turn and burn fun. Wanted to move mud, go ahead. CLOD for example has a 1:1 map that looks fantastic (please fix the rivers) but even with large numbers of players and huge numbers of objects you still don't get the same "feeling" that old IL2 gave.



CLOD was released as a finished game. It has been stated that BOS will be in continual development post-release.

Amount of planes - conjecture as the server capabilities for BOS have not yet been fully explored.

Objects - conjecture (see above). The relevance of numbers of objects to immersion has never really been explained and you can have great immersion with very few ground objects.

People on a server - dserver for BOS not yet in general release so numbers yet to be determined i.e. conjecture. 50 pilots concentrated around Stalingrad is likely to be more interesting than 100 "concentrated" between Abbeville, Dunkirk, London and the Isle of Wight. That is conjecture on my part.

Damage model - I don't know enough about that to comment, save that as it stands I much prefer the DM as portrayed in CLOD.

Clickable cockpits - woo. I do not use a single clickable cockpit object in CLOD. Everything is mapped to a command/joystick profile and controlled from my HOTAS system. Others do use them - fine - I have nothing against clickable cockpits but having that as an advantage for one sim over another? As an aside, the FW190 "trim" has to be mapped to buttons because that is how it was done in reality. That is a realism point that is criticised... I have mine mapped to my HOTAS (not a rotary) via TARGET and it works perfectly.

Graphics - they are different is all. Some things are better in one game, some in the other. The 109 cockpits in CLOD look much nicer though.

"Core" areas - FM, DM, FMB etc:

CLOD - FMs were porked, DMs were porked, the UI was broken, FMB was broken. No weather except sunny (in England...?). Not playable by huge numbers of old IL2 players (may in fact have killed off a lot of interest in flight sims generally). Screenshots looked amazing. The only design flaw for me was the size of the map.

BOS pre-release - FMs may need to be tweaked but developers have accepted proven discrepancies. DM - not great in my eyes and definitely need hit sounds. You can have weather. It works without tweaking and is playable by most simmers. FMB - unknown as yet. Screenshots look amazing. Some design flaws (I like the unlocks system but think it is flawed from a commercial point of view). I also think the map could be smaller - most of the western side will not be used by most.


For a game 7+ years in development CLOD was a shambles. It's great now (save for the floppy He111s, lack of weather, stupid AI, marshland rivers and a host of niggly problems that I can live with). It sure as hell won't be "new" IL2 because it's infinitely more complex and TF won't be able to supply weather, better AI, new theatres and planes except to a very slow timescale. That is fact, not criticism.

BOS has been in development for under 2 years, and is receiving the same treatment as CLOD did post-release. Go figure.


Having read what I've just typed you know what, this whole CLOD v BOS thing is silly as they set out to do different things. CLOD was an undisputed mess on release but is now good (not great). BOS is likely to be good on release (maybe very good but not yet great). I won't add DCS to the mix because WWII is a new venture for them and ED/DCS operate completely differently.



Hood


Still suggesting COD was released as a finished game is ridiculous. Everyone and their dog knew, or quickly understood that it was released by your friends IC unfinished. Not to mention the fact that just like BOS the development was supposed to continue with the COD game engine for years if sales warranted.

BOS has been in development for only a few years because its using the previously built ROF game engine, and probably some of prebuilt content for CODs eastern front sim. COD's development was building a new game engine from scratch along with all its content. Taking a look at COD's FMB and all the content and free options available is just mind blowing.

Both BOS and COD continue to be works in progress. BOS has the advantage of a steady workforce, and access to the ROF source code. IMHO COD has the advantage of newer more capable game engine, and are already working on a new theater, along with improvements the first theater. COD also has the potential of a larger work force, who do it for the love of combat flights sim rather than a paycheck. Hopefully BOS can address the liabilities of the ROF game engine, and TF finds all the necessary workaround for the missing source code, and both become leaders in the genre.

You can try to twist facts to suit your position, but there easily seen through, by anyone who has followed the developments.

mayday
Oct-16-2014, 14:32
Do you have a good system now? If you do I recommend you install CloD again but with the TF patches. It's no longer the same game with them. :thumbsup:

Yes thanks I do and I have and I'm thoroughly enjoying it.:thumbsup:

LBR=H.Ostermann
Oct-16-2014, 14:36
Still suggesting COD was released as a finished game is ridiculous. Everyone and their dog knew, or quickly understood that it was released by your friends IC unfinished. Not to mention the fact that just like BOS the development was supposed to continue with the COD game engine for years if sales warranted.

BOS has been in development for only a few years because its using the previously built ROF game engine, and probably some of prebuilt content for CODs eastern front sim. COD's development was building a new game engine from scratch along with all its content. Taking a look at COD's FMB and all the content and free options available is just mind blowing.

Both BOS and COD continue to be works in progress. BOS has the advantage of a steady workforce, and access to the ROF source code. IMHO COD has the advantage of newer more capable game engine, and are already working on a new theater, along with improvements the first theater. COD also has the potential of a larger work force, who do it for the love of combat flights sim rather than a paycheck. Hopefully BOS can address the liabilities of the ROF game engine, and TF finds all the necessary workaround for the missing source code, and both become leaders in the genre.

You can try to twist facts to suit your position, but there easily seen through, by anyone who has followed the developments.

Agree.

:thumbsup:

LuseKofte
Oct-16-2014, 15:34
Have you done anything (or tried) with the RoF ME? BoS' is the same one. It was known years ago that the Digital Nature engine cannot cope with more than about 50 objects, hence the crudity of its ME.

I made a test mission, and found it relatively easy, I never tried to script multi missions into a campaign.
People say it is very buggy and difficult, I stayed out of that discussion, since I obviously did something wrong, since I found it easy I mean

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-16-2014, 15:56
I made a test mission, and found it relatively easy, I never tried to script multi missions into a campaign.
People say it is very buggy and difficult, I stayed out of that discussion, since I obviously did something wrong, since I found it easy I mean

I think the point you're missing there is online MP missions of quality require considerably more than a dabble (test).

ATAG_Colander
Oct-16-2014, 15:56
Not having seen it, I think what they are saying is something like this:
A calculator only has numbers in the keyboard because it can't use letters. Using the calculator to add and subtract is very simple.
Once you try to use it to write a mathematical formula, you will notice it is very difficult even though a calculator is used for math.

Just paraphrasing here :)

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-16-2014, 16:00
Not having seen it, I think what they are saying is something like this:
A calculator only has numbers in the keyboard because it can't use letters. Using the calculator to add and subtract is very simple.
Once you try to use it to write a mathematical formula, you will notice it is very difficult even though a calculator is used for math.

Just paraphrasing here :)

I like that.

BoS ME: Calculator.

CloD FMB: PC.

:thumbsup:

ATAG_Colander
Oct-16-2014, 16:23
Just to clarify, that is not what I'm saying but what I think is being said.

Anyway...
http://www.geckotales.com/mac-pc-commercial.jpg

:)

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-16-2014, 16:48
http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr356/Langnasen7/clodvsbos_zpscead47c8.jpg (http://s499.photobucket.com/user/Langnasen7/media/clodvsbos_zpscead47c8.jpg.html)

LuseKofte
Oct-16-2014, 17:16
I think the point you're missing there is online MP missions of quality require considerably more than a dabble (test).

Well COD is better, but ROF is not bad at all. I have flown and still do. The 1000 bomber mission referred to in cod is a very doubtful experiment and there are rumors on how it was done. I would not use that one too often, without attempting it on normal settings yet again.
The reason I never discussed the complexity of ME in ROF is because I never made a mission for online use, and never tested it.

But the reason for me to pulling out of any further discussion is this.

You Siggi is like a cancer in my point of view, you do not build , you tear down. You are active in multiple forums just for one cause, make things difficult for BOS.
I may have broken many rules in this forum saying this, and might very well get banned for it. But really. I cannot for the life of me understand why people like you spend all this effort tearing down a game many like, Same goes to Bliss, he is very clever about it. But it has never been in the name of objectivity

I ask the moderators here to do whatever you want regarding me, I take the consequences for it, but it is not needed to close this tread for my sake. I should have ended my involvement here when I said I would.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-16-2014, 17:52
They don't need to ban you on my account, the term you use is a fair attempt to put across an idea. I refute it though, I've done my share of 'building' in the community. Over a year of creating and running an online war for approx. 200 of my fellow players. On the original IL2 beta-team and credited in two manuals. If the product is worthy I get behind it. And if BoS had been honestly described from the start I'd not give a hoot about it. But it wasn't, so they need to reap the consequences of what is, in my opinion, deliberate dis-honesty in the pursuit of unmerited financial gain. Plus no purchaser should be allowed to walk blind into buying an arcade game they've been told is a sim.

Chivas
Oct-16-2014, 18:07
Well COD is better, but ROF is not bad at all. I have flown and still do. The 1000 bomber mission referred to in cod is a very doubtful experiment and there are rumors on how it was done. I would not use that one too often, without attempting it on normal settings yet again.
The reason I never discussed the complexity of ME in ROF is because I never made a mission for online use, and never tested it.

But the reason for me to pulling out of any further discussion is this.

You Siggi is like a cancer in my point of view, you do not build , you tear down. You are active in multiple forums just for one cause, make things difficult for BOS.
I may have broken many rules in this forum saying this, and might very well get banned for it. But really. I cannot for the life of me understand why people like you spend all this effort tearing down a game many like, Same goes to Bliss, he is very clever about it. But it has never been in the name of objectivity

I ask the moderators here to do whatever you want regarding me, I take the consequences for it, but it is not needed to close this tread for my sake. I should have ended my involvement here when I said I would.

Bliss has had extensive practice with both game engines. He states his position with examples, and your best reply is "he's wrong", with nothing to back it up.

ATAG_Snapper
Oct-16-2014, 19:12
Everybody is banned except for me. :devilish:

JimmyBlonde
Oct-16-2014, 20:18
Well, we'll wait and see.

I'm optimistic that, despite the bashing BoS it is receiving by people who seem to feel threatened by it, BoS will be successful. It could grow into something unexpected over the years ahead and it's already having a knock-on effect for other existing simulations, increasing interest in the genre and bringing in new blood. Between Cliffs, BoS and the anticipated DCS 1944 we have some decent work being done and the luxury of choice for the first time in quite a while. I'd rather have a open mind on each product, in fact if I hadn't decided to do just that I wouldn't have discovered Cliffs since practically everything I read about it online told me that it was rubbish and that I shouldn't bother.

Hopefully that point registers with some of you.

For my $90.00 AUD I don't regret the purchase and for anyone wanting an objective review of the game by another gamer with his feet firmly in the Cliffs camp, I offer this one by Apeoftheyear:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjx4R00tZKM

:salute:

1lokos
Oct-16-2014, 21:30
The reason I never discussed the complexity of ME in ROF is because I never made a mission for online use, and never tested it.

LuseKote

You can download free RoF and his ME and try make missions. Some tutorial:

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOWxJi7rdwcfOPdqrrIt1sQ

The experience with it will be useful to create missions for BoS after release - Case you will be included in the "few" list. :D

Injerin
Oct-16-2014, 23:13
Ok... Sorry have to do this.... Snapper bare with me sir.

INJERIN'S WORDS OF WISDOM:
12505


If you like it.....................Play it!

If you don't like it................Don't Play it!


Who gives a fuck?

jaydee
Oct-17-2014, 03:55
Well, we'll wait and see.

I'm optimistic that, despite the bashing BoS it is receiving by people who seem to feel threatened by it, BoS will be successful. It could grow into something unexpected over the years ahead and it's already having a knock-on effect for other existing simulations, increasing interest in the genre and bringing in new blood. Between Cliffs, BoS and the anticipated DCS 1944 we have some decent work being done and the luxury of choice for the first time in quite a while. I'd rather have a open mind on each product, in fact if I hadn't decided to do just that I wouldn't have discovered Cliffs since practically everything I read about it online told me that it was rubbish and that I shouldn't bother.

Hopefully that point registers with some of you.

For my $90.00 AUD I don't regret the purchase and for anyone wanting an objective review of the game by another gamer with his feet firmly in the Cliffs camp, I offer this one by Apeoftheyear:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjx4R00tZKM

:salute: Agree Completely Jimmy !


Ok... Sorry have to do this.... Snapper bare with me sir.

INJERIN'S WORDS OF WISDOM:
12505


If you like it.....................Play it!

If you don't like it................Don't Play it!


Who gives a fuck?
Again I agree Completely Injerin !
@Bliss,I remember posts you made a few years ago about your Falling out with SYN/ROF crowd. Loans of Money for joysticks if I remember correctly ?
You have been posting on all Forums Denigrading BOS ,and pointing out all the flaws .Its like you are on a personal Crusade to shoot down(pun) BOS before it gets off the Ground.
As a senior member of ATAG, I would expect you to shy away from Sim Bashing. Now you are causing Division,even here with your so-called "Review".
I know you have put a tremendous amount of Work and personal effort into ATAG.
If you continue this present crusade you are just going to lose credibility (IMHO). Present all the Facts and arguments you like.
Its like a bunch of good mates getting together for a Beer and one of them has a constant problem with another. The mates just want to enjoy a night out without listening to gripes about one of their own.
If you dont like Bos, don't play it. Continue your great work with ATAG.
For me you are starting to sound like a Broken Record now.
I sincerely hope I haven't offended you Bliss..
When I see snot hangin out of someones nose,I think its better to tell them,even if I offend them.
~S~j

Skoshi_Tiger
Oct-17-2014, 05:14
Come on now, stating the flaws of a simulator can in no way affect the quality of the simulator being discussed. It can in no way alter the enjoyment and/or satisfaction of the people that enjoy using the sim experience.

Bliss has created a place that we can all come to and discuss flight sims. The rules are quite simple. Don't get into personal attacks and, if you want any credence, provide evidence if your presenting a "fact".

I for one enjoy the freedom of speech offered by the ATAG forum. Look at this forum, it's got a place that you can talk about BofS. This freedom to honestly express your opinions has never been available at the official BofS form. Just try it, within minutes your posts are spammed by the BofS BootBoy Brigade . (One of the only reasons I go to the official site is to get a laugh from Raaaids posts!).

Potential buyers deserve to know what they are getting themselves into, the good and the bad. That just won't on the heavily sanitized official forum and on the "Review" sites where negative posts are redacted.

I for one am very thankful that ATAG allows an open discussion.

LBR=H.Ostermann
Oct-17-2014, 08:39
S!

From Simhq, about the BOS engine.


[Originally Posted By: pakfront
Originally Posted By: lokitexas
I cant even get a direct answer IF a dynamic campaign is possible on this engine. If it isnt, I can stop wondering and move on. I dont mind leaving BoS behind if they are happy with this sad shallow state of SP.


I wrote an app similar to PWCG for Rof a few years ago, and in doing so discovered that RoF cannot handle the unit density required for a full dynamic campaign. The game needs the ability to abstractly resolve actions when no players are nearby, then upgrade them to high fidelity when a player is near enough to need it. This is something the Falcon series did very well and IL2 did pretty well. RoF is not engineered to do this at all.

Maybe BoS handles things better, but my impression so far is that it does not.[/B]

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4022936/Re:_Devs_suffer_complete_menta#Post4022936

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-17-2014, 09:01
That's pretty much what Bliss already posted and what long-term MP players found out directly while flying online in empty sterile environments. The Digital Nature engine is best suited to arcade console games.

LBR=H.Ostermann
Oct-17-2014, 09:47
That's pretty much what Bliss already posted and what long-term MP players found out directly while flying online in empty sterile environments. The Digital Nature engine is best suited to arcade console games.

S!

Yep, but some guys think that what Bliss say is because he have a agenda against BOS, not because BOS can't do a thing that the old IL-2 from 2001 can.

C'mon guys, Bliss is not bashing BOS, he is speaking about some technical limitations that BOS have and compared to IL-2 is a step Backwards.
BOS have nice FM, nice graphics, it's cool, right, but the engine lock the gameplay too much, we can't have the same possibilities that we have in IL-2 or in Cliffs of Dover and this is a shame, because it's a 2014 game/simulator tagged with IL-2 name.

Now if some one want to develop a online war he can't, because of the unlock system, if the guy want to play in the online war he have to unlock all things to all planes before, c'mon guys it's is a huge flaw.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-17-2014, 10:12
Even without the unlocks an online mission/war is untenable due to the DN engine being unable to cope with a viable number of objects. It'll be good for dog-fight servers but we've seen how successful that was with RoF in the mid to long term.

I'm not sure how important the DM is to most players. It was ok in IL2 because nobody had experience of anything better, but after CloD...? And it definitely affects the outcomes of combats for the worse. By and large it's take a hit, engine on fire or wing off. Yaaaawn. Though I'm sure 1C/777 will string people along on that score with the old tried & tested "we might in the future..." and "we'll possibly add..." etc.

CloD would very much like to have the BoS crash effects though. :D

Dakpilot
Oct-17-2014, 10:30
S!

Yep, but some guys think that what Bliss say is because he have a agenda against BOS, not because BOS can't do a thing that the old IL-2 from 2001 can.

C'mon guys, Bliss is not bashing BOS, he is speaking about some technical limitations that BOS have and compared to IL-2 is a step Backwards.
BOS have nice FM, nice graphics, it's cool, right, but the engine lock the gameplay too much, we can't have the same possibilities that we have in IL-2 or in Cliffs of Dover and this is a shame, because it's a 2014 game/simulator tagged with IL-2 name.

Now if some one want to develop a online war he can't, because of the unlock system, if the guy want to play in the online war he have to unlock all things to all planes before, c'mon guys it's is a huge flaw.

There are a number of plans I have read about, this is one of them

http://forum.il2stur...war#entry157859


"Effectively we have a map surface in 3D with textures including trees. After that every object like a house, piece of fence, signpost is an object. Some objects are composite to aid fast mission building like a section of village. You can also group objects together for convenience in moving and copying. Most of these objects have damage models (perhaps all, I've not checked).

Every object can be left to be neutral or you can 'enable' it by affecting to to a country, in which case it becomes a stats worthy target.

After that you have complex objects capable of interacting with players like planes, vehicles, trains, boats, baloons.

Then you have effects and triggers. To give you an idea of the power we are dealing with I can light a fire in the fireplace in a house and make smoke come out of the chimney when and if a friendly plane flies within 3000 metres of the house.

I have used the old IL2 FMB for around 10 years and this ROF/BOS mission editor is factorial 2 more powerful. A mission file often contains thousands of manipulable objects not hundreds. However that means you need skillful mission building otherwise you can build an unflyable mission (exactly as happened often using 1946).

Here I have been talking about the base technology we are using, but the key behind BOSWAR is that we automate the sequential mission building of a campaign so that you are manipulating groups of objects as simple counters on the map, dragging around a few waypoints then BOSWAR generates an optimised mission with all of the triggers timers and links set up for you."


http://forum.il2stur...war#entry126482


And talk of this tool for creating dynamic MP missions coming to BoS

http://riseofflight....p?f=347&t=44102



Cheers Dakpilot

LBR=H.Ostermann
Oct-17-2014, 10:46
There are a number of plans I have read about, this is one of them



http://forum.il2stur...war#entry157859



"Effectively we have a map surface in 3D with textures including trees. After that every object like a house, piece of fence, signpost is an object. Some objects are composite to aid fast mission building like a section of village. You can also group objects together for convenience in moving and copying. Most of these objects have damage models (perhaps all, I've not checked).



Every object can be left to be neutral or you can 'enable' it by affecting to to a country, in which case it becomes a stats worthy target.



After that you have complex objects capable of interacting with players like planes, vehicles, trains, boats, baloons.



Then you have effects and triggers. To give you an idea of the power we are dealing with I can light a fire in the fireplace in a house and make smoke come out of the chimney when and if a friendly plane flies within 3000 metres of the house.



I have used the old IL2 FMB for around 10 years and this ROF/BOS mission editor is factorial 2 more powerful. A mission file often contains thousands of manipulable objects not hundreds. However that means you need skillful mission building otherwise you can build an unflyable mission (exactly as happened often using 1946).



Here I have been talking about the base technology we are using, but the key behind BOSWAR is that we automate the sequential mission building of a campaign so that you are manipulating groups of objects as simple counters on the map, dragging around a few waypoints then BOSWAR generates an optimised mission with all of the triggers timers and links set up for you."





http://forum.il2stur...war#entry126482



And talk of this tool for creating dynamic MP missions coming to BoS



http://riseofflight....p?f=347&t=44102





Cheers Dakpilot

S!

Dakpilot, all your links are broken.

I allready know about BOSWAR, but since the unlock thing I don't hear what solution the STEANKA will use, for example, for guys that want to play the war but don't allready unlock the weapons needed for the BOSWAR, how the guy will resolve this problem? The guys of Eagles Nest can't make missions with some resources because of the unlocks, can you explain to me how they will solve this problem?

And STENKA explain in one of his posts how he will make to have things working in the war, exactly this: "The game needs the ability to abstractly resolve actions when no players are nearby, then upgrade them to high fidelity when a player is near enough to need it."

nacy
Oct-17-2014, 11:12
(FMB) mission editor BOS,not with the games. more powerful,a dream for all of us.:(

for real devs BOS.:sobbing:

Dakpilot
Oct-17-2014, 11:12
Sorry

Dakpilot, all your links are broken.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/10235-boswar-open-test/?hl=%2Bboswar#entry157859

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/6470-boswar-testing-tonight-2100-cet/?hl=%2Bboswar#entry126482

Believe this is currently being adapted to BoS

http://riseofflight.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=347&t=44102

While RoF engine does seem to have some limitations there have been some unquestionable improvements with BoS engine..we will have to wait and see, it has been hinted that these improvements can be retrofitted to RoF.
To say it is impossible to improve DN engine over the state it was in a few years back with RoF would seem to be as sensible as saying it is impossible to have improved original IL-2 engine from 2001 to what we have now with 4.12 with Mods...or to that matter CloD with TF

Cheers Dakpilot

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-17-2014, 11:17
While RoF engine does seem to have some limitations there have been some unquestionable improvements with BoS engine..we will have to wait and see, it has been hinted that these improvements can be retrofitted to RoF.
To say it is impossible to improve DN engine over the state it was in a few years back with RoF would seem to be as sensible as saying it is impossible to have improved original IL-2 engine from 2001 to what we have now with 4.12 with Mods...or to that matter CloD with TF

Cheers Dakpilot

Yet BoS has hit-boxes while CloD has per-component damage.

nacy
Oct-17-2014, 11:21
I love :glaughter::glaughter::bravo: we see the serious, the head of the driver, with the aircraft also.

http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/18/08/15/97/cod_x_10.jpg (http://servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=528&u=18081597)

vranac
Oct-17-2014, 12:14
While RoF engine does seem to have some limitations there have been some unquestionable improvements with BoS engine..we will have to wait and see, it has been hinted that these improvements can be retrofitted to RoF.
To say it is impossible to improve DN engine over the state it was in a few years back with RoF would seem to be as sensible as saying it is impossible to have improved original IL-2 engine from 2001 to what we have now with 4.12 with Mods...or to that matter CloD with TF

Cheers Dakpilot

Could you please specify those "unquestionable improvements" ?

How many pilots participated in those testings and could you please specify the numbers of ground units that were deployed ?

In logs that Stenka provided I saw less than 20 pilots IIRC.

And another question, why are those improvements that you're mentioned haven't been done so far ?
They had years to improve before BoS.

LBR=H.Ostermann
Oct-17-2014, 13:12
Could you please specify those "unquestionable improvements" ?

How many pilots participated in those testings and could you please specify the numbers of ground units that were deployed ?

In logs that Stenka provided I saw less than 20 pilots IIRC.

And another question, why are those improvements that you're mentioned haven't been done so far ?
They had years to improve before BoS.

S!

I Want to know too.

:thumbsup:

nacy
Oct-17-2014, 13:22
viewfinder bomber He-111 arcade BOS
http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/18/08/15/97/he-11110.jpg (http://servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=529&u=18081597)
http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/18/08/15/97/he-11111.jpg (http://servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=532&u=18081597)

viewfinder bomber real COD
http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/18/08/15/97/ju-88311.jpg (http://servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=531&u=18081597)

http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/18/08/15/97/ju-88410.jpg (http://servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=533&u=18081597)


love it or do not like

SorcererDave
Oct-17-2014, 13:47
I love :glaughter::glaughter::bravo: we see the serious, the head of the driver, with the aircraft also.

Of course in reality, in either case you're a random berk sat at a computer desk wearing a baseball cap with a bit of metal attached to it at 1G. Reality check, folks. Snobbery never helps anybody.

Chivas
Oct-17-2014, 13:58
Agree Completely Jimmy !


Again I agree Completely Injerin !
@Bliss,I remember posts you made a few years ago about your Falling out with SYN/ROF crowd. Loans of Money for joysticks if I remember correctly ?
You have been posting on all Forums Denigrading BOS ,and pointing out all the flaws .Its like you are on a personal Crusade to shoot down(pun) BOS before it gets off the Ground.
As a senior member of ATAG, I would expect you to shy away from Sim Bashing. Now you are causing Division,even here with your so-called "Review".
I know you have put a tremendous amount of Work and personal effort into ATAG.
If you continue this present crusade you are just going to lose credibility (IMHO). Present all the Facts and arguments you like.
Its like a bunch of good mates getting together for a Beer and one of them has a constant problem with another. The mates just want to enjoy a night out without listening to gripes about one of their own.
If you dont like Bos, don't play it. Continue your great work with ATAG.
For me you are starting to sound like a Broken Record now.
I sincerely hope I haven't offended you Bliss..
When I see snot hangin out of someones nose,I think its better to tell them,even if I offend them.
~S~j

You might think that, if you didn't look at, or don't want to look at the whole story, to suit your point. I've never seen Bliss go out of his way to trash BOS. In almost every case his posts have been responses too posts by simmers who can't say how much they like BOS without telling everyone how much better it is than COD in the same post. Most of them not having a clue what they are talking about, and are just spreading mis information on the state of COD. Bliss shows them the error they're making with examples, and their best response is to insult him. Much like your doing now.

Continu0
Oct-17-2014, 14:15
and their best response is to insult him. Much like your doing now.

Please read Jaydee`s post again. He clearly stated that he didn`t mean to insult Bliss...

Hood
Oct-17-2014, 14:20
You might think that, if you didn't look at, or don't want to look at the whole story, to suit your point. I've never seen Bliss go out of his way to trash BOS. In almost every case his posts have been responses too posts by simmers who can't say how much they like BOS without telling everyone how much better it is than COD in the same post. Most of them not having a clue what they are talking about, and are just spreading mis information on the state of COD. Bliss shows them the error they're making with examples, and their best response is to insult him. Much like your doing now.

Um you're only completely wrong.

First please highlight some posts where folks have said BOS is better than CLOD. My understanding is that all of the posters enjoy them both.

For the record I enjoy CLOD. It isn't perfect, the theatre is now boring (for me), the aircraft fly on rails (for me), the FMB is ok but limited if you don't have ninja scripting skills, the weather is limited. The LOD seems off at certain distances but It looks beautiful (mostly) and the DM and visual models are ace. The cockpits are fantastic.

Edit: I forgot to add my thoughts on BOS. The theatre is fresh (I only started in August), the aircraft don't fly on rails (for me), I am very glad to have an advantage flying LW planes, I cannot comment on the FMB as I haven't had it yet, the weather is good, it looks beautiful, the FM needs a touch of work, the DM is not so great visually, the cockpits (I fly LW only) are ok but are at best functional. I fly on Ultra so don't have an opinion about the lack of graphics options, I like the weapons damage, I quite like unlocks but think it is a commercial mistake. I haven't tried the campaign as I'm waiting for release, so cannot comment on it. It works for pretty much everyone out of the box.

Second, please explain exactly where there is a commentary on the engine used in BOS. There isn't. It is all conjecture based on the version of the DN engine used in ROF. Who knos, it may be right or it may be wrong, but posting it as opinion on BOS's engine and ME is disingenuous at best.

Simple question. Have the DN engine and FMB used in BOS been reviewed? Yes or No?

Dress it up however you want.

Hood

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-17-2014, 14:40
Um you're only completely wrong.

First please highlight some posts where folks have said BOS is better than CLOD. My understanding is that all of the posters enjoy them both.

For the record I enjoy CLOD. It isn't perfect, the theatre is now boring (for me), the aircraft fly on rails (for me), the FMB is ok but limited if you don't have ninja scripting skills, the weather is limited. It looks beautiful and the DM and visual models are ace. The cockpits are fantastic.

Second, please explain exactly where there is a commentary on the engine used in BOS. There isn't. It is all conjecture based on the version of the DN engine used in ROF. Who knos, it may be right or it may be wrong, but posting it as opinion on BOS's engine and ME is disingenuous at best.

Dress it up however you want.

Hood


The devs said it was the DN engine. That isn't conjecture. The DN engine is not suitable for a WWI let alone WWII flight sim. Those people who have programmed and made tools to use for mission building have also said so. That is also not conjecture. I have said so based on my experience in using it. That is not conjecture.

Thinking that it will somehow change in 2 years time all the while the devs try to make a new map, planes, etc., (a game) when from 2003 (first development of the DN engine) to 2014 nothing has improved in that regard, is the furthest thing from logic or reasoning in the 1st place. Simple logic tells you when the they've had over 10 years to make changes to make it better, and they don't do it in all that time, that they aren't going to take on another short time frame project and re-do the entire engine in the 1st place. That is also why the engine is still based on the Windows XP era (an OS that is no longer supported because of age) and DX9 graphics. This isn't conjecture, this is rudimentary logic and reasoning.

And if you feel the FM is on "rails", you might want to actually add some wind and turbulence in the mission you are flying. It would be no wonder if you think the FM is on rails to you if you don't have the mission setup to actually have any sort of wind or turbulence.

As you can see, it's the furthest thing from rails:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXy289FhR2s

It seems like many of your issues and thoughts aren't based on any factual information.

Hood
Oct-17-2014, 15:00
Did you "review" the current build of the DN engine and the FMB used in BOS? Yes or no?

If no - conjecture based on assumptions. Simple logic.

You may be absolutely correctly 100% correct but dressing up conjecture based on assumption as a "review" is simply wrong.

If yes, prove it. You're keen on people backing up their arguments. How about you prove your opinion first?

You could also say exactly why 1000 objects leads to a great experience. I don't recall ever seeing that point proven or even supported by evidence.

This is an invitation to prove what you say. Prove me wrong and I'll happily apologise. Note the emphasis on proof.

Hood

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-17-2014, 15:05
Did you "review" the current build of the DN engine and the FMB used in BOS? Yes or no?

If no - conjecture based on assumptions. Simple logic.

You may be absolutely correctly 100% correct but dressing up conjecture based on assumption as a "review" is simply wrong.

If yes, prove it. You're keen on people backing up their arguments. How about you prove your opinion first?

You could also say exactly why 1000 objects leads to a great experience. I don't recall ever seeing that point proven or even supported by evidence.

This is an invitation to prove what you say. Prove me wrong and I'll happily apologise. Note the emphasis on proof.

Hood

1000 objects = living breathing world.

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-17-2014, 15:09
Did you "review" the current build of the DN engine and the FMB used in BOS? Yes or no?

No, I personally did not. That's why I used the words of those and the devs making it that said it was virtually the exact same thing. Again, that's not conjecture. That's words right from the horse's mouth. It seems you don't read very well.


You may be absolutely correctly 100% correct but dressing up conjecture based on assumption as a "review" is simply wrong.

Of course I'm absolutely correct. Again, read above.


If yes, prove it. You're keen on people backing up their arguments. How about you prove your opinion first?

I already have, but it seems like you are unable to read and comprehend written English very well.


You could also say exactly why 1000 objects leads to a great experience. I don't recall ever seeing that point proven or even supported by evidence.

I already have if you could read the OP. But judging by past experience answering to you, I don't you'd understand the words written in the 1st place.


This is an invitation to prove what you say. Prove me wrong and I'll happily apologise. Note the emphasis on proof.

Hood

Yes there is, and that's why I did that in basically every single post where I've explained the same exact proof repeatedly. Perhaps read it next time?

Hood
Oct-17-2014, 15:12
1000 objects = living breathing world.

Gosh is that it?

I fly in ATAG's server and it is of course great, but it is a sandbox affair. If it were tightly scripted to several areas per mission there is no need to populate anywhere else. So where would the loss be? Treat this as a rhetorical question.

Using 1000 objects is a design philosophy, but it is only one of many. Think back to old IL2 and the fun then - how many objects were in a standard DF server? You can treat this as rhetorical too.

Hood

ATAG_Colander
Oct-17-2014, 15:14
Bliss,

I guess what he's saying is that the last version of the engine you saw could have been improved a lot in it's current form. If that is so and BOS does use the same engine, then the improvements are already in BOS.

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-17-2014, 15:16
Bliss,

I guess what he's saying is that the last version of the engine you saw could have been improved a lot in it's current form. If that is so and BOS does use the same engine, then the improvements are already in BOS.

It certainly could have, but when the people that build it and use it currently are saying it's virtually identical in ability to ROF, that's the answer I'm going to stick with.

They have never tried to approve on that ability because they think that won't make them any money. Instead they built scarves and fuel gauges to sell well the glaring issues remained.

Hood
Oct-17-2014, 15:20
No, I personally did not.



And there goes your credibility.

No proof explained or provided. You have given opinion but that's as far as it goes.

Look at definitions of the word proof as you don't appear to understand what it means.

I'll revisit this when the ME is available and the truth of what you say can be properly assessed.

Hood

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-17-2014, 15:32
And there goes your credibility.

No proof explained or provided. You have given opinion but that's as far as it goes.

Look at definitions of the word proof as you don't appear to understand what it means.

I'll revisit this when the ME is available and the truth of what you say can be properly assessed.

Hood

The people that made it said it was just like ROF's and the people currently using said it was just like ROF's. That's not credible? You have been proven time and time again that you don't even have the foggiest of what you are talking about. You are simply a mere troll here. You do nothing but stir the pot with disinformation and vitriol.

Hood
Oct-17-2014, 15:44
You are simply a mere troll here. You do nothing but stir the pot with disinformation and vitriol.

Rich when I've never made any claims about any game, but you have, but cannot prove them.

As I said:




I'll revisit this when the ME is available and the truth of what you say can be properly assessed.

Hood

To quote you, it seems like you are unable to read and comprehend written English very well.

Hood

ps Colander - bang on. :thumbsup:

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-17-2014, 15:56
Rich when I've never made any claims about any game, but you have, but cannot prove them.



To quote you, it seems like you are unable to read and comprehend written English very well.

Hood

ps Colander - bang on. :thumbsup:

I made the claims because the people making the game along with people using the game said those exact words I'm claiming. 1st you said that's not credible. Now you are saying I can't read because you can't make 2+2=4? You are a special breed. I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you.

I get it that you don't seem to understand, but when Ford releases a car and says it makes 400hp, I don't have to buy the car, remove the engine, and then go have it independently dyno'd on my own to see that. Because, Ford, the automaker says that's what it makes. And the last thing someone is going to say is I lack credibility for repeating the automaker specs in the first place.

The fact that you can't understand something so simple is quite sad. I honestly now feel very sorry for you.

Chuck_Owl
Oct-17-2014, 16:38
Bliss, why do we even have a BoS forum? I'm really starting to wonder why.

Every single thread has gone to shit. I mean, literally.

Just delete the forum and everyone will be much better off. I'm sick of this "you didn't understand a single thing I said no I didn't yes you did no I didn't": it is neither productive nor useful.

This whole forum section is like a huge broken record.

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-17-2014, 16:46
Bliss, why do we even have a BoS forum? I'm really starting to wonder why.

Every single thread has gone to shit. I mean, literally.

Just delete the forum and everyone will be much better off. I'm sick of this "you didn't understand a single thing I said no I didn't yes you did no I didn't": it is neither productive nor useful.

Chuck - Then don't read it. Go to the official forum where every single criticism of the game is deleted with users banned. Sorry, we're not running our forum that way. But I'm also not going to let someone spread disinformation either.

Chuck_Owl
Oct-17-2014, 16:54
The fact is that this particular forum section (not talking about ATAG in general) is basically a "why Cliffs of Dover is better than BoS" forum.

There's just no way anyone can have a discussion about anything BoS-related because it always ends up the same way...

Someone just has to say "but hey BoS is still shit" and the thread derails. And this behaviour is accepted and tolerated for god knows what reason. Free speech, I guess?

ATAG is a place about "fun and comradery". I haven't seen anything resembling this in this particular forum section.

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-17-2014, 17:08
The fact is that this forum is basically a "why Cliffs of Dover is better than BoS" forum.

And what exactly is wrong with that? Did you read the thread title?

What would the official forum be called then? "Why BoS is the best WWII simulator ever"?

Do you believe that also? How long would your thread last if you posted that on the BoS forums? What about your 1st post going after me?

Again, if you don't like it, I'm sure there are other forums that will cater to whatever wishes you have. But the fact of the matter is everything I've written is true. If you don't believe me, then make a wager or something. Tell me why it isn't. But don't sit there and be upset because you don't like the facts. That makes you add to the problem and not solve it.

I would enjoy just one single time I could post about a video game and the discussion stayed on the topic "a video game" but some people cannot post without trying to insult others. Read the entire thread again. Tell me again, when it started to go off the rails, and you'll find it didn't because of someone presenting facts. What you'll find is it did because people started attacking people for stating those facts.

I don't know exactly what you expect here, but if people have criticisms, they are going to be heard.

Again, BoS may be fun for you. You may enjoy the ever living shit out of it. But realize there are people that will not play 1 single second of SP. And realize there are SP players that will not play 1 single second of MP. I think I have more than enough right to be upset about the fact that BoS forces me to play a mode I have no interest in. And I also have a right to say what I don't like about it and why it won't ever be an IL-2 title.

If you are getting upset with people for talking about video games, then I honestly don't know what to tell you.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-17-2014, 17:17
Gosh is that it?

I fly in ATAG's server and it is of course great, but it is a sandbox affair. If it were tightly scripted to several areas per mission there is no need to populate anywhere else. So where would the loss be? Treat this as a rhetorical question.

Using 1000 objects is a design philosophy, but it is only one of many. Think back to old IL2 and the fun then - how many objects were in a standard DF server? You can treat this as rhetorical too.

Hood

Yes, that it is. The freedom to go off-mission, like USAAF fighters did in '44 and '45 and find stuff to shoot at. And if you think BoS will be able to handle "several areas per mission", scripted or otherwise, I can only say you're going to be disappointed.

One of the worst things for me, mission-wise, is knowing everything outside of strictly defined mission parameters is full of tumbleweed. Even if I never see 'those other a/c', just knowing they're out there, somewhere, is a pleasure.

gavagai
Oct-17-2014, 17:17
The fact is that this particular forum section (not talking about ATAG in general) is basically a "why Cliffs of Dover is better than BoS" forum.

There's just no way anyone can have a discussion about anything BoS-related because it always ends up the same way...

Someone just has to say "but hey BoS is still shit" and the thread derails. And this behaviour is accepted and tolerated for god knows what reason. Free speech, I guess?

ATAG is a place about "fun and comradery". I haven't seen anything resembling this in this particular forum section.

This is the conversation you get without censorship. I don't agree with all the opinions here (I don't think the DN engine is only good for consoles), but this is where I come to hear unedited conversation. You certainly can't get a sense of what people really think at the BOS forum. The animosity we see here is just people venting their disappointment with a bit of hyperbole.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-17-2014, 17:24
This is the conversation you get without censorship. I don't agree with all the opinions here (I don't think the DN engine is only good for consoles), but this is where I come to hear unedited conversation. You certainly can't get a sense of what people really think at the BOS forum. The animosity we see here is just people venting their disappointment with a bit of hyperbole.

This. ^

If this was the official BoS forum and Hood was Bliss saying the same kind of stuff to Williams he would have already been suspended, if not perma-banned.

dburne
Oct-17-2014, 17:27
This is the conversation you get without censorship. I don't agree with all the opinions here (I don't think the DN engine is only good for consoles), but this is where I come to hear unedited conversation. You certainly can't get a sense of what people really think at the BOS forum. The animosity we see here is just people venting their disappointment with a bit of hyperbole.

I normally do not comment on this type of thing, but,
I would just add, they have really stepped it up over there after the events of earlier this week, posts filtered/deleted, threads disappearing.
They are not allowing much to be said now from folks that are unhappy with the system they currently have.

I just hope they listen to the poll they put up in regards to it.

SorcererDave
Oct-17-2014, 17:45
No, I'm with Chuck on this. This subforum is literally now just a place for people to come and say "BoS is shit, and you should feel bad for liking it" ad infinitum. The people that actually play the game can't have a discussion because it gets derailed within minutes by people who for whatever reason can't suppress the urge to bitch about the game in everyone's faces. Hell people like Siggi even feel the need to come onto the ACG forums and brag in OUR BoS section about some rubbish he posted on the BoS forums. Okay guys, you don't like the game, and I respect your right to criticize it, but this is getting fucking ridiculous.

Hood
Oct-17-2014, 17:50
But I'm also not going to let someone spread disinformation either.


I'm guessing that's aimed at me. I'm not the one trying to prove anything or spread disinformation. The challenge to prove an opinion was unanswered so I rest my case at this point.

CLOD can be great fun (especially the new Storm of War server). So can BOS. Let's all be happy together. Hmmmm maybe not.

I'll be back when we can assess the BOS engine and FMB. See you then.

Hood

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-17-2014, 17:55
No, I'm with Chuck on this. This subforum is literally now just a place for people to come and say "BoS is shit, and you should feel bad for liking it" ad infinitum. The people that actually play the game can't have a discussion because it gets derailed within minutes by people who for whatever reason can't suppress the urge to bitch about the game in everyone's faces. Hell people like Siggi even feel the need to come onto the ACG forums and brag in OUR BoS section about some rubbish he posted on the BoS forums. Okay guys, you don't like the game, and I respect your right to criticize it, but this is getting fucking ridiculous.

But think how many hard-core simmers have been saved from buying an arcade game they were told was a sim! Here they get both sides of the story, yours included. Try that on over at the official forum and you can kiss your posting privilages goodbye. "The greatest WW2 air-combat sim since IL2!"

:sick:

ATAG_Lolsav
Oct-17-2014, 17:56
I dont care why it derails, i just know it does. Its the only section where the F word was used for more than 1 time. Dont mind me, im no puritan, but i always remind those posting this is a public forum, not a closed one.

SorcererDave
Oct-17-2014, 18:10
But think how many hard-core simmers have been saved from buying an arcade game they were told was a sim!

This internet-crusader attitude is part of the problem. Don't insult peoples' intelligence by assuming they can't make up their own minds about the game without you screaming "BOS SUCKS" from the rooftops.

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-17-2014, 18:23
This internet-crusader attitude is part of the problem. Don't insult peoples' intelligence by assuming they can't make up their own minds about the game without you screaming "BOS SUCKS" from the rooftops.

But the main problem is always those that attack people. That is the worst. I didn't start this thread to say "BoS sucks" and nowhere have I said at all. I gave a pretty clear definition of how I started simming and what I came to expect from a title with the IL-2 name. People have a right to criticize software they have purchased. But people should not be personally attacked for it. When that happens, that causes threads to derail.

I would love more than anything to just simply be able to talk about software, but doing that brings out the people that start attacking other people for it. Obviously it's much worse to attack a person than it is a piece of software. So here we are, once again, not talking about the game at all, and instead talking about people who talk about the game.

Thread derailment successfully completed. Closing this one as well.