PDA

View Full Version : BoS FM and DM discussion here



vranac
Oct-19-2014, 09:13
;146261']I don't have any video of attacking or defending the tanks with a full server, but I'm sure you can ask around or search YouTube for some recordings. A quick look at the old Eagle's Nest server thread on the official BoS forums offered this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pUCZFLvTbA but it's not attacking the tank formations, it's Stukas attacking one of the airfield's supply depots.

That video just showed how arcadish this game is, I just remembered one where someone is piloting 109 and sitting on a wing :whacky4:


Where is AAA ? You said there were 24 units at every airfield. I didn't see any flak at all.

WavingWhiteFlag[AM]
Oct-19-2014, 09:39
That video just showed how arcadish this game is, I just remembered one where someone is piloting 109 and sitting on a wing :whacky4:


Where is AAA ? You said there were 24 units at every airfield. I didn't see any flak at all.

That wasn't an airfield, that was a remote supply depot that is supplemental to a nearby airfield (~10 km away). What is "arcadish" about the video? What exactly does "arcadish" mean?

Vranac, have you tried/purchased BoS?

vranac
Oct-19-2014, 10:23
;146277']That wasn't an airfield, that was a remote supply depot that is supplemental to a nearby airfield (~10 km away). What is "arcadish" about the video? What exactly does "arcadish" mean?

Vranac, have you tried/purchased BoS?

This is arcadish. Video that I was talking about is removed but this was a description:

Flying both feets on the wing, just like in real life. Pilots back then had long arms and good reach. Meant for the Il-2 Battle of Stalingrad forums.

12570

It's very strange to me that no one recorded some nice action with a lot of planes around and some ground units, AAA.
You said your server was populated very well and I don't doubt that at all.


No I don't have BoS, but my friends have it. One of them is military pilot,an excelent virtual pilot who likes RoF very much and he actually bought BoS
with a prize money from RoF 4vs4 championship. I don't think you would like to hear what he thinks about BoS FM and DM.
I really don't have any desire to try it until they fix FM issues, which I doubt they will ever do because devs are saying the planes should fly like that.
Really ?
I beleive that some planes could fly without a half of a wing. What about this ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKt3qAy3yIM

You came here to show us that BoS MP is much more capable then some people are claiming. I was very interested in that as you can see from my first post.
We just need to wait fore some nice videos that can proove that because I saw none till now.

nacy
Oct-19-2014, 11:04
This is arcadish. Video that I was talking about is removed but this was a description:


12570

It's very strange to me that no one recorded some nice action with a lot of planes around and some ground units, AAA.
You said your server was populated very well and I don't doubt that at all.


No I don't have BoS, but my friends have it. One of them is military pilot,an excelent virtual pilot who likes RoF very much and he actually bought BoS
with a prize money from RoF 4vs4 championship. I don't think you would like to hear what he thinks about BoS FM and DM.
I really don't have any desire to try it until they fix FM issues, which I doubt they will ever do because devs are saying the planes should fly like that.
Really ?
I beleive that some planes could fly without a half of a wing. What about this ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKt3qAy3yIM

You came here to show us that BoS MP is much more capable then some people are claiming. I was very interested in that as you can see from my first post.
We just need to wait fore some nice videos that can proove that because I saw none till now.

Votre vidéo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKt3qAy3yIM#t=39 du 23.08 2014,on est le 19.10.2014.BOS a changer FM et DM aujourd’hui.

ATAG_Snapper
Oct-19-2014, 11:17
Hi everyone, I'm moving FM & DM commentary from the BoS ME thread to here. Please respect the OP topics.

Thanks,

Snapper :salute:

Hood
Oct-19-2014, 11:45
Goody, somewhere for folks with an axe to grind to vent.

You might as well lock this one already. Anyway, to get some stuff out of the way...

1.

"LW FMs are deliberately porked to suit a VVS bias for the purposes of sales."

"Rubbish. Prove it without recourse to unsubstantiated argument."

2.

"The LW FMs are porked."

"Some very slightly but there appears to be less criticism of VVS FMs generally. Lack of info to fuel the arguments? The LW still have the best fighters."

3.

"The FW190 FM is porked."

"Maybe but there has been a detailed response to criticisms. Next issue is acceleration. Wait and see as I'd expect some revisions but not as much people expect given their lack of evidence."

4.

"Roll rated WTF?"

"Seems they're all calculated correctly but some don't take into account stick forces experienced during real life. Some revision needed."

5.

"Ht boxes, really? In a 2014 game?"

"Yep - live with it or don't play the game. No it's not as good as CLOD's system but is less resource hungry."

5.

"Guns are too powerful. "

"Don't know about that. Maybe all previous games had gun power tuned downwards for the sake of gameplay. "

6.

"Generally, why won't Devs prove what they say?"

"It costs to get sources plus some may be covered by NDA. "



That should get us started.

Hood

ps. Think that Stuka thing was fixed in one of the releases.

SorcererDave
Oct-19-2014, 13:13
I have never understood the "guns are too powerful" argument. I flew a couple of quick battles yesterday and it seemed fine to me. If I hit a LaGG with two MG151s I expect the bugger to practically disintegrate before my eyes. I remember way back when I first started playing the MGs seemed a little too effective, but that seems to be fixed now since I rarely seem to inflict any major damage with them. A quick burst of accurate cannon fire should wreck a plane. It certainly matches with most first-hand accounts I've read by pilots who used them.

Chivas
Oct-19-2014, 13:50
I do agree about the gun effectiveness, and like the fact that the fight is over relatively quickly in BOS. Where as in COD, its feels much more difficult. Hit boxes or not, my sense of reality tells me that BOS is more realistic in this regard. In WW2 the fight was generally over after a few hits, with the pilot either bailing or trying to escape. That's with real pilots with relatively little gun practice compared to virtual pilots with years of shooting experience.

vranac
Oct-19-2014, 14:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SxOIHDILmc

800m two hits, it is no accident.

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

1lokos
Oct-19-2014, 14:21
In the latest EA guns effectiveness seems good, a burst of YAK-1 MG's can fire a He 111 if hit the right spot, at side of engines, hitting under convergence.
On the other way, some guns shells can only make holes in fuselage or wing surface. But one cannon shell on engine can put the on fire...

Like in this video, the fist He 111 take good hits, but no fatal damage, luckily a stray canon shell hit the left inner tank area on second He 111 that came down in flames.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO8G2zsewdI

Controls surface commands can be damaged, I hit the wing tip of He 111 and his left aileron stuck up, and the plane ending crashing.

Here hit the rudder of He 111 that came off and he spin out of control - although did a strange "maneuver" when hit... (the "OMG, wonderfull wing" enjoy this things). :D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNtb7RQn8GQ

Arthursmedley
Oct-19-2014, 14:39
@ Vranac, that video was posted on rutube in April - six months ago. Things have progressed considerably since then.

LuseKofte
Oct-19-2014, 15:20
I have had discussions with Vranac ever since, he is not really interested in BOS, and he consistent in his use of the friend having a license .
Anyway why do we have to drag cod into this fm discussion, most people here love cod. I am perfectly aware of the differences, positive and negative things vs cod.
I never knew you could do funny things with the 109 and 190 until someone did them.
If nothing else there need to be some balance, I like to fly the russian planes best, they got a real feel of physics and all responses feels right, yes Vranac I have flown planes several times. The German ones feel different, yet I do better with them. I don't like the german planes for some reason, in that regard I find the 109 in cod much more believable
But I am afraid my unsuccessful take offs in DCS are the one that is realistic.
I think BOS got the effectiveness of bullets pretty much as good as it should be in this game. It is not like your shot down when attacked in a Heinkel, you get punished for carelessness attacking a Heinkel. But it is easy if you do it right.
In this regard I feel bos is more realistic,
Rapports from pilots early in BOB, was they did not see any results emptying their guns at the bombers. But soon they knew where to hit them and things got better

1lokos
Oct-19-2014, 18:00
BoS He 111 gunners are like the old il-2 "sniper" gunners, but only react dangerous if you are in his dead low six under ~200 meters range.
In early EA have a better range, but this was reduced due complains.

But a single burst of his MG can damage your engine or put your plane in fire. This will be good for human gunners.

These gunners have a slow "ROF", they shoot a burst and stop shooting for a big interval, like in the end of this video (to show for some people that hits sound - and others - are audible from player cockpit).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxUItkp5ftw

Attack He 111 from side and from above is 99% safe, like is advisable in CloD. :D

I dont know about others planes, I see people complain about Stuka gunner.

In QM the a He 111 flight (4) on the merge became a "flock of scare Seagull", weaving and flying with high lateral tilt (like in some Clod Patch), latter resume target bearing and dont try more evade to player attacks, but aren't re able to maintain a concise formation, fly more a line astern and after drop bombs start circle above target area, like waiting to be slaughtered.



So is ease for a good shooter in LaGG-3 or YAK-1 shoot down the entire flight, what is good for "casual players" fun. :D

WavingWhiteFlag[AM]
Oct-19-2014, 19:42
I know some of you guys don't like BoS for whatever reason, and that's fine to me...I don't think it's "the ultimate video game" by any means, but I'm not trying convince you to change your mind about the game. I'm just answering questions and correcting misconceptions to aid people in knowing as much as they can about what they're discussing.

Chivas
Oct-19-2014, 22:01
Its a fact of life if one posts on a forum dedicated to one sim, and announce how much they like another sim over the host sim, they're going to get "some" negative feedback whether they're right or not. Get over it.

Skoshi_Tiger
Oct-20-2014, 00:02
Its a fact of life if one posts on a forum dedicated to one sim, and announce how much they like another sim over the host sim, they're going to get "some" negative feedback whether they're right or not. Get over it.

Yes, Passive/aggressive demeanour can be quite annoying at times.

Well I managed to get BofS patched and updated yesterday and had a look at the first four missions of the campaign. Visually it's not too bad.

On "normal" settings (Only had a half an hour or so, so I didn't try the expert settings) the flight model and game play reminded me a lot of Janes WWII Fighters. Once I trimmed up my plane I didn't really have to touch trim again. Without knowing the correct settings I just placed the throttle on 80% and went for it. (No fighter opposition in the missions yet.)

My landings were very bouncy and I tended to ground loop (without tipping)over at the end of my run. ( I remember doing a similar landing - sans ground loop - when I was doing my RPPL. My Instructor told me to pull the plane off at the first exit and come to a stop. As he jumped out of the plane he told me I was ready my first solo!!!!! White knuckles - I can tell you! )

Not sure what I need to do to stop the ground loops?

Otyg
Oct-20-2014, 03:57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SxOIHDILmc

800m two hits, it is no accident.

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

-Disclaimer-
This post has nothing to do with Bos. I will stay out of this battle :D

I never see in old GC films the bread and butter defense in clod. Mad pull on the stick and fish-like flopping about. In the GC its smooth and slow movements. feels like the speed is way higher online then it was in IRL. thats something that i always wondered about and it feels good to finally let it out.

Now carry on the battle no1 can win.

Ps i own gold BoS and i will play the living sh!t out of it, if it get OR support.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-20-2014, 04:45
-Disclaimer-
This post has nothing to do with Bos. I will stay out of this battle :D

I never see in old GC films the bread and butter defense in clod. Mad pull on the stick and fish-like flopping about. In the GC its smooth and slow movements. feels like the speed is way higher online then it was in IRL. thats something that i always wondered about and it feels good to finally let it out.

Now carry on the battle no1 can win.

Ps i own gold BoS and i will play the living sh!t out of it, if it get OR support.

That's because most pilots did not have the skill and/or confidence to push their fighters to the limit. Only 5% of commonwealth pilots were aces (five or more kills) and accounted for 60% of all victories (Shores & Williams). Which means 95% were rookies or average pilots. Online nobody really cares about losing control and possibly dying/having to bail.

implicit A
Oct-20-2014, 05:05
Not sure what I need to do to stop the ground loops?


try to do it like that :

1) check your settings and devices for rudder : uncheck "noise filter" and check if your rudder come back at the right position centered when you use it.
2) try to land with less flap to avoid boucing ( 20% for lagg3 30% max for La-5 original manual). Before take off take a look of the 3 point angle attitude to try to do the same after final flare
3) keep 250 in down leg. 210 at the beginning of the runway
4) flare it to lose speed, over 1 meter high from the runway. throltle to 0. You'll need long runway to lose all speed in the final flare so try to begin it BEFORE runway.
5) once you touch down without bouncing or with just a little bouce, increase throtle to 15% 20 % as you use full breaks OR rudder ( little quick inputs) to go straight, dont throttle to 0 untill you full stop.

Tips works nice with lagg3 and La-5

Same issue in Realistic DCS FM for DORA and P51-D.
BOS FM on ground and landing ( boucing and ground looping), is maybe a bit "over sensitiv" compare to DCS'ones.

vranac
Oct-20-2014, 05:09
I have never understood the "guns are too powerful" argument. I flew a couple of quick battles yesterday and it seemed fine to me. If I hit a LaGG with two MG151s I expect the bugger to practically disintegrate before my eyes. I remember way back when I first started playing the MGs seemed a little too effective, but that seems to be fixed now since I rarely seem to inflict any major damage with them. A quick burst of accurate cannon fire should wreck a plane. It certainly matches with most first-hand accounts I've read by pilots who used them.

There are a lot of gun camera recordings on YT.

This is from Lipfert:


Suddenly in front of me in through the rifts of clouds appeared a single IL-2, but it almost immediately disappeared again in the cloud. Then again, I saw him through the haze like a ghost.

Once this IL-2 reappeared out of the cloud, I dived on him. Before he could do anything, I opened fire with all weapons. On the nemy aircraft were seen several flashes. I kept firing until I was very close to him. Russian was flying straight ahead and acted as if this frenetic pounding never started. Damn it, he was stubborn!

My speed was too high, and I was forced to turn away not to ram it. I heard on the radio voice of Ponter: "Attention, Indians to the left and behind you! I'm staying higher. Attack again, this fellow didn't get enough! "

A new attack! I turned my plane. Reduced speed and slowly approaching! I fully opened radiator and then pulled the trigger. By this time the Russian finally noticed what was happening. Although his plane was badly damaged, he maneuvered skillfully, preventing me to achieve a greater number of hits.

I slowly reduced the distance, heaping heavy fire on the enemy,pieces started to fall off from the plane,there was a heavy smoke. But he did not fall! I noticed that the Russian is not trying to escape in the clouds, in which it is impossible to attack.

As a result, when I went to the third attack, it is through a break in the clouds and dived toward Gelendzhik. But again I caught up with him and opened fire from all my weapons. It was amazing how much enemy machine could withstand. I saw that the IL-2 are missing large chunks of the fuselage and wings.the flame was breaking out from the engine . Soon the enemy aircraft went into a steep dive. Not far from Kabardinka [52] it crashed into the water and drowned, while I gained altitude and flew towards the sea to get away from enemy anti-aircraft fire.


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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6oXxynjFLI&feature=youtu.be&t=3m18s

@Arthursmedley, nothing changed in DM except wing fuel tanks can burn now, thats from Han. There were a lot of threads on the Russian forum about that ,the one about He-111's burning and going down like paper handkerchiefs only with MG is actual now. Some people were banned ( just because of criticism) and opened new thread on sukhoi forum.
Devs claimed everything is ok as it should be in RL.

LuseKofte
Oct-20-2014, 05:47
First I want to say many of those banned did more than complain. I have complained many times and warned twice, that is because I publicly gave critique about the moderators on the board, witch by the rules only can be done by pm.
Secondly I got manyhours in heinkels in both games. You can much easyer defend yourself in BOS , in cod your dead if your attacked by a pilot with a little expirience.
Weather the bullets are historical in cod or bos , well I think it is marginal and not the first priority if something should be change

Revvin
Oct-20-2014, 06:22
try to do it like that :

1) check your settings and devices for rudder : uncheck "noise filter" and check if your rudder come back at the right position centered when you use it.
2) try to land with less flap to avoid boucing ( 20% for lagg3 30% max for La-5 original manual). Before take off take a look of the 3 point angle attitude to try to do the same after final flare
3) keep 250 in down leg. 210 at the beginning of the runway
4) flare it to lose speed, over 1 meter high from the runway. throltle to 0. You'll need long runway to lose all speed in the final flare so try to begin it BEFORE runway.
5) once you touch down without bouncing or with just a little bouce, increase throtle to 15% 20 % as you use full breaks OR rudder ( little quick inputs) to go straight, dont throttle to 0 untill you full stop.

Tips works nice with lagg3 and La-5

Same issue in Realistic DCS FM for DORA and P51-D.
BOS FM on ground and landing ( boucing and ground looping), is maybe a bit "over sensitiv" compare to DCS'ones.

Will give this a try tonight, my landings are quite poor at the moment, BoS does seem very bouncy

Skoshi_Tiger
Oct-20-2014, 06:29
try to do it like that :

1) check your settings and devices for rudder : uncheck "noise filter" and check if your rudder come back at the right position centered when you use it.
2) try to land with less flap to avoid boucing ( 20% for lagg3 30% max for La-5 original manual). Before take off take a look of the 3 point angle attitude to try to do the same after final flare
3) keep 250 in down leg. 210 at the beginning of the runway
4) flare it to lose speed, over 1 meter high from the runway. throltle to 0. You'll need long runway to lose all speed in the final flare so try to begin it BEFORE runway.
5) once you touch down without bouncing or with just a little bouce, increase throtle to 15% 20 % as you use full breaks OR rudder ( little quick inputs) to go straight, dont throttle to 0 untill you full stop.

Tips works nice with lagg3 and La-5

Same issue in Realistic DCS FM for DORA and P51-D.
BOS FM on ground and landing ( boucing and ground looping), is maybe a bit "over sensitiv" compare to DCS'ones.

Thanks for the tips! Will try them out. I had been applying full flaps on final and dropping below 200 on approach and touchdown. Then dropping the throttle to 0. That's breaking quite a few of those points! :)

Cheers!

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-20-2014, 07:44
Heinkels going down like handkerchiefs, that's because of the hit-box DM. An arcade product of an arcade game, which is one of the reasons my gruppe won't be using it.

WavingWhiteFlag[AM]
Oct-20-2014, 07:52
Heinkels going down like handkerchiefs, that's because of the hit-box DM. An arcade product of an arcade game, which is one of the reasons my gruppe won't be using it.

Can you explain what a hitbox is?

Leifr
Oct-20-2014, 08:32
Really Siggi? You won't be playing BoS? That is a surprise. :D

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-20-2014, 08:42
;146468']Can you explain what a hitbox is?

I believe so. It's a part of the model that takes hits and runs an algorithm to calculate a percentage and once that given percentage has been reached an action is triggered. So a hitbox in a wing will produce smoke at XX% and then fall off at the next XX%.

ATAG_Colander
Oct-20-2014, 08:49
FYI CloD also uses hitboxes.
I don't know if BoS hitboxes are bigger and/or in less detailed systems though.

SoW Reddog
Oct-20-2014, 08:49
Heinkels going down like handkerchiefs, that's because of the hit-box DM. An arcade product of an arcade game, which is one of the reasons my gruppe won't be using it.

I'm surprised by this. Seemed like you were kinda on the fence from reading all your other posts....

Arthursmedley
Oct-20-2014, 08:50
Excellent vid's Vranac, thanks for posting.:salute: The first one seems to confirm Lippfert's recollections quite accurately. The second one shows us what we're missing now AM is no longer running the Eagle's Nest server; attack on a group of Hienkels on a resupply mission. Going down like paper handkerchiefs? Machine guns? I seem to recall the La-5 is equipped with two twenty mike mike.

Siggi's "gruppe" is no longer flying BoS? Thats a crying shame. We miss both of you.

For the record; I'm really enjoying BoS and look forward to what the team of devs can produce in the near future just as I really enjoy Cliff's and can't wait to get myself into the cockpit of a Wellington in the near future too.:thumbsup:

I only have flight sims on my pc, its what it was built for and its all that I'm interested in. All this "mine is better/worse/bigger/smaller than yours" business drives me to despair.

Wifey is out tonight so once I've nailed the kids into their beds I can spend a couple of hours with my lovely new shiny Sabre tonight!!!:)

LBR=H.Ostermann
Oct-20-2014, 08:59
S!


BOS hit model (april2014):

12589

Cliffs of Dover:

12590

LuseKofte
Oct-20-2014, 09:23
Heinkels going down like handkerchiefs, that's because of the hit-box DM. An arcade product of an arcade game, which is one of the reasons my gruppe won't be using it.

I survive a lot easier in BOS than I do in cod , so once again you push the truth a bit.
You say you know these things, but I once again think you 1. Want to provoke
2. Dont know

Hood
Oct-20-2014, 09:33
S!


BOS hit model (april2014):

12589

Cliffs of Dover:

12590


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

I'm presuming each part has a hit box attached to it. It doesn't look as detailed as CLOD's systems.

Hood

hnbdgr
Oct-20-2014, 09:54
Neither DM is perfect.

I think CloD could model the small caliber damage a bit better for instance and let's not forget about the fuel tanks on 109's and the never burning spitties. CloD seems to have a very small amount of instances of engine fire or engine damage in total. And also no hit sounds from cannons when you're in a spit.

BoS on the other hand seems very hollywoody. Like every hit hits something vital like a radiator or engine and starts a leak immediately. Last time I played it was super easy to down Il-2's in BoS. If I remember correctly, Hartmann found them such tough opponents his favourite angle of attack was to low 6 in order to hit the oil rad. In BoS you seem to be able to get that hit from any angle. And conversly to Clod every hit is an engine hit.

Neither game is perfect. I'm a bit dissapointed in certain FM & DM characteristics of BoS, but I will be playing it once they get round to fix all the issues like radiator temperature showing etc. I will enjoy it for what it is, probably will be doing more SP then MP however. As far as the price paid for it, well I think I paid too much. Should have waited for a steam sale or some such, but that's just my opinion.

LBR=H.Ostermann
Oct-20-2014, 10:00
S!

Already watched this video before, but he don't have any thing related to the damage model of all planes. I think this Lagg-3 is the one made for IL-2 Battle of Moscow, others new planes like Fw-190 don't show this kind of details.


12594


I-16 made for BoW

12595

I Hope to see a better damage model for BOS.

vranac
Oct-20-2014, 10:20
Excellent vid's Vranac, thanks for posting.:salute: The first one seems to confirm Lippfert's recollections quite accurately. The second one shows us what we're missing now AM is no longer running the Eagle's Nest server; attack on a group of Hienkels on a resupply mission. Going down like paper handkerchiefs? Machine guns? I seem to recall the La-5 is equipped with two twenty mike mike.

How that video confirms Lipfert's memoirs ? That guy shot down four il2's in a minute and one of them broke like a cardbox.
Do you know that some pilots had a special technique by shooting at oil rad because il2 was very hard to shot down ?

And yes, with machine guns. That second video just shows how easy it is with cannons even for a clearly inexperienced pilot.


That picture that Ostermann posted is from Lofts answer to LizLemon about DM. That video is just marketing.

LuseKofte
Oct-20-2014, 10:29
The IL 2 was not hard to shoot down, the german pilots very quickly learned that the cockpit and engine aerea was well protected. But slow defencive manouvers made them easy prey
IL 2 had heavy losses and successfully changed their tactics to be offencive when attacked, until they where equipped with rear gunners. Controlsurfaces and wingaerea was a achiles heal also

BlitzPuppet
Oct-20-2014, 10:39
S!


BOS hit model (april2014):

12589

Cliffs of Dover:

12590

And for a comparison to an older game:

12596

Each color represents a percentage of health, with headshots being 100% and the others with a different percent. Instead of a "You hit the chin, 40% damage" it's a "You hit the head hitbox, 100% damage".

Individual systems don't seem to be modeled. THIS oversimplification of percentage damage hitboxes is what I think of when I think of the term "hitbox"

1lokos
Oct-20-2014, 10:49
The IL 2 was not hard to shoot down,

This (BoS) early model il-2, with fuel tank behind pilot is a "flammable flying bomb", just don't shoot from dead six, but from ~4/5 - 7/8 o'clock.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glhhD607GgI&feature=player_detailpage#t=122

The "right spot":


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

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-20-2014, 11:02
FYI CloD also uses hitboxes.
I don't know if BoS hitboxes are bigger and/or in less detailed systems though.

Essentially everything is a hitbox. It's just that the hitboxes in CloD are things like spars and machine-guns while those in BoS are entire sections of wing (like thirds). To use a crude analogy, if they were graphical images CloD's would be 1000x1000px while BoS' are 10x10px. Kind of.

hnbdgr
Oct-20-2014, 11:25
The "right spot":


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

Now that's what I thought. It did seem extremely easy to light them on fire. what a shame.

Dakpilot
Oct-20-2014, 13:06
Now that's what I thought. It did seem extremely easy to light them on fire. what a shame.

Historical...there is a giant unarmoured non sealing fuel tank right where he is firing from that angle

Cheers Dakpilot

PFT_Endy
Oct-20-2014, 13:33
Historical...there is a giant unarmoured non sealing fuel tank right where he is firing from that angle

Cheers Dakpilot

The problem is he's only hitting the glass where the rear gunner would be...

LuseKofte
Oct-20-2014, 13:51
That tank was right under the harness the gunner sat on on later versions, btw it was often a lack of gunners for the IL2 squads, they had a much higher death rate than the pilots.

Yes clod got more complex models , also hit boxes, that and more got to do with priorities the devs made. It is to me expected

BlitzPuppet
Oct-20-2014, 13:51
Historical...there is a giant unarmoured non sealing fuel tank right where he is firing from that angle

Cheers Dakpilot


The problem is he's only hitting the glass where the rear gunner would be...

I really hope he meant to put an "lol" or at least was being facetious.

Dakpilot
Oct-20-2014, 15:06
Just to clarify where to shoot early model IL-2's

12599

:salute: Cheers Dakpilot

BlitzPuppet
Oct-20-2014, 15:18
Just to clarify where to shoot early model IL-2's

12599

:salute: Cheers Dakpilot

I stand corrected. What a dumb place for a fuel tank.

12600

implicit A
Oct-20-2014, 15:33
can't remember where i read it in a manual , but for the dora (or te 109k?), fuel tank is UNDER the pilot seat. .. do you think it's more clever ? ;-)
anyway there not so much place to place it in such a bird

PFT_Endy
Oct-20-2014, 15:40
Oh wow, ok, I stand corrected as well. From the short movie it looked like there's just empty space behind the glass...

LuseKofte
Oct-20-2014, 15:59
IT must be worst placing it in the front of the pilot like the spit and Hurry

1lokos
Oct-20-2014, 16:11
Yes, this early il-2 version is more a "flying flammable bomb" that a "flying tank" due design options (like Hurricane)- the il-2 M version move the tank for in front the pilot, in the armoured "bathtub". :)

In this drawing posted above is possible see his hit box:

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12589&d=1413809923

So aim from 4-5/7-8 o'clock. :devilish:

From Russian forum - good (rudder?) roll at slow speed?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qSuPW24wco&feature=player_embedded

Sokol1

SorcererDave
Oct-20-2014, 17:00
There are a lot of gun camera recordings on YT.

This is from Lipfert:

Is this the exception or the rule though? It's like when people trot out that one example of a P-47 taking hundreds of rounds and still flying, when that was in no way a regular occurrence. As I said I've read after action reports by German and Allied pilots and according to them most of the time enemy aircraft would burst into flames, break apart or simply fall into an uncontrollable dive after receiving cannon hits. I remember one passage in particular where Johnny Johnson makes a big fuss about how the cannons on his new Spitfire IX would usually completely destroy Fw190s in spite of them having considerable amounts of armour for a fighter.

LuseKofte
Oct-20-2014, 17:19
A P-47 is the absolute last plane we can compare with. It was the biggest brunt of them all and the one that really could take beating. I have seen german planes disintegrate in front of P-51 , spits and P-47
Anyway what is the point of this nitpicking. Either BOS or COD are historical correct, but both are pretty much balanced and should be able to bring a historical result.
This is a simulated world , it aint gonna be historical, and can never be defended as one, none of them.

Arthursmedley
Oct-20-2014, 17:23
How that video confirms Lipfert's memoirs ? That guy shot down four il2's in a minute and one of them broke like a cardbox.
Do you know that some pilots had a special technique by shooting at oil rad because il2 was very hard to shot down ?



Strange. From what I saw of it that guy shot up several IL2's over the course of some three minutes. Isn't it always a target rich environment when the server is full? The first one does indeed break up due to an explosion after a three second burst of cannon and mg fire. That's a lot of lead. That single seat IL2 has a large fuel tank just behind the pilot. Our guy then goes on to pump large amounts of lead into several other IL2's. I did enjoy his couple of passes on different Il2's where he manages six second bursts of fire!

So IL2 does seem fairly tough. Tough for one of the most shot down planes in history that is. Wasn't the oil rad technique found to be the best way to down an IL2 whilst avoiding the rear gunner? Nothing unusual in racking up lots of quick kills on the eastern front for the LW.

You should get the game Vranac, its interesting and enjoyable and then at least you'd have some idea of what its really like rather than relying on YouTube vids or "wot my mate told me". :salute:

WavingWhiteFlag[AM]
Oct-20-2014, 17:54
A P-47 is the absolute last plane we can compare with. It was the biggest brunt of them all and the one that really could take beating. I have seen german planes disintegrate in front of P-51 , spits and P-47
Anyway what is the point of this nitpicking. Either BOS or COD are historical correct, but both are pretty much balanced and should be able to bring a historical result.
This is a simulated world , it aint gonna be historical, and can never be defended as one, none of them.

+1!

I have to say, I enjoy reading your posts. They often make too much sense.

I giggle a little when people go on tirades about how such and such "...is a GAME and not a sim". Aren't they all games? Did someone not pick it up in the "games" section of whatever store they bought it from? Is someone actually logging real flight hours towards a commercial pilot's license while playing? If so, show me where to sign up!

hnbdgr
Oct-20-2014, 18:16
I stand corrected. What a dumb place for a fuel tank.

12600

I have to say I didn't even know these early models had a fuel tank there. to me it seemed like he was shooting at the back of the cockpit and the thing caught fire. Perhaps more tests can be done, e.g. hitting the wings and see if they catch fire or the back part of the fuselage. Because I can't deny that from my experience I've lit up every target every time there was a hit - i.e. black smoke coming out. Anyway that was my observation. Conversly in CloD you sometimes can't make the thing smoke ever, even though it damn well should.

1lokos
Oct-20-2014, 19:45
Perhaps more tests can be done, e.g. hitting the wings and see if they catch fire or the back part of the fuselage.

For my tests, il-2 catch fire if hit in the "rear of cockpit" area from sides. The presence of rear gunner there don't matter. :thumbsup:

Hit the (il-2) rear of fuselage can "saw off" stabilizer, rudder, or entire rear section, but don cause fire. Same for wings.

Need confirm, but think that engine too catch fire, but take more "lead".

The DM can't be not much detailed*, but is good, only (IMO) the visual DM a bit exaggerated** - but this win "heart and minds". :D

*For example, Loft say that extend landing gear at hight speed don't cause damage because the system that can be damaged by this, the hydraulic system, is not modelled, since the landing gear itself is not possible take damage due this, since is a strong part, done for support all aircraft weight.

**Smoke effect are tuned down a bit in last updates, no more "KMs" of tick black smoke.

http://i59.tinypic.com/243ollf.jpg

1lokos
Oct-20-2014, 22:27
Mister X suspecting that someone is using the CloD collision mode: :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esm9EnjJA5o

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Oct-20-2014, 23:22
Regarding CLIFFS OF DOVER using hitboxes:

Yes it does use a hitbox system for particular sections of the aircraft... but it also uses damage elements which are not in BoS.

For example, the spar system, which model the structural supports inside the aircraft skin. A section of an aircraft wing is not just the box that follows its outline, the damage also takes into account the spar which is the main buttress and support for that wing section. Spars are not all identical... there are different types, based on the historical aircraft usage.

Plus the number of single hit elements, such as the different fuel lines, water lines, the individual weapons, all the various types of armour or armoured glass.

CoD also uses a 'materials' system... ie. what the object which is the target is made of... whether that be wood, aluminum, sheet steel, cast iron, glass, perspex, etc. etc. Each of the elements is rated on the basis of its durability.

So a spar section for a wing might be steel tube, while the skin is fabric. Or the skin might be aluminum, with aluminum spars.

Players may notice the ailerons and other control surfaces will catch fire relatively easily... this is because they are fabric covered... with either aluminum or steel tube skeletons as spars.

CoD has detailed modeling for the various fluids, whether they might be oil, gasoline or glycol, glycol/water. Each type of fluid is historically correct for volume... which affects how quickly it might drain once damage has been taken.

And as mentioned, there are many more hitboxes than you see in BoS... the more hitboxes, the more detailed the damage can be... the hitboxes are modeled on the actual aircraft structure.

Overall, CoD is much more complex than BoS even in its original form.

And TF is improving and adding to the detail of the game... which it allows us to do. There is really no limit to how detailed a damage model we can create... we are will be approaching the design of the new aircraft's damage models on the basis of optimizing the game's potential... and we expect to continue to revise and improve the original aircraft's modeling.

LuseKofte
Oct-21-2014, 01:36
Yes Buzz, we all agree on the complexity cod vs bos. Infact we all agree on pretty much everything said about cod.
What I does not agree on, is the fact that BOS not being cod makes it bad

WavingWhiteFlag[AM]
Oct-21-2014, 01:49
That video just showed how arcadish this game is, I just remembered one where someone is piloting 109 and sitting on a wing :whacky4:


Where is AAA ? You said there were 24 units at every airfield. I didn't see any flak at all.


Regarding CLIFFS OF DOVER using hitboxes:

Yes it does use a hitbox system for particular sections of the aircraft... but it also uses damage elements which are not in BoS.

For example, the spar system, which model the structural supports inside the aircraft skin. A section of an aircraft wing is not just the box that follows its outline, the damage also takes into account the spar which is the main buttress and support for that wing section. Spars are not all identical... there are different types, based on the historical aircraft usage.

Plus the number of single hit elements, such as the different fuel lines, water lines, the individual weapons, all the various types of armour or armoured glass.

CoD also uses a 'materials' system... ie. what the object which is the target is made of... whether that be wood, aluminum, sheet steel, cast iron, glass, perspex, etc. etc. Each of the elements is rated on the basis of its durability.

So a spar section for a wing might be steel tube, while the skin is fabric. Or the skin might be aluminum, with aluminum spars.

Players may notice the ailerons and other control surfaces will catch fire relatively easily... this is because they are fabric covered... with either aluminum or steel tube skeletons as spars.

CoD has detailed modeling for the various fluids, whether they might be oil, gasoline or glycol, glycol/water. Each type of fluid is historically correct for volume... which affects how quickly it might drain once damage has been taken.

And as mentioned, there are many more hitboxes than you see in BoS... the more hitboxes, the more detailed the damage can be... the hitboxes are modeled on the actual aircraft structure.

Overall, CoD is much more complex than BoS even in its original form.

And TF is improving and adding to the detail of the game... which it allows us to do. There is really no limit to how detailed a damage model we can create... we are will be approaching the design of the new aircraft's damage models on the basis of optimizing the game's potential... and we expect to continue to revise and improve the original aircraft's modeling.
Hitboxes inherently have all the qualities and variables you described in all modern flight sims, even War Thunder's tanks portion (which actually has a fairly "out of place" detailed DM). "Penetration" values for each box determine what type of material it's representing...this is common in all games, including FPS. Also, just because they're called "hitboxes" doesn't mean they're always cubes/rectangles...cables, tubing, and various hydraulic/fuel lines all count as "boxes" as far as the game is concerned, they're just a different shape. They should be called "hitpolygons".

I'm seeing that people are misunderstanding what a hitbox actually is. The level of fidelity/amount of hitboxes in CloD versus the level of fidelity/amount of hitboxes in BoS is what people here are contending (and eager to point out)...and should not be that there are/aren't hitboxes in their favorite game. If it reacts to damage, it's a "hitbox".

ATAG_((dB))
Oct-21-2014, 02:15
I am more and more impress with BoS, keeping in mind that it is still not a finish product.

o7

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Oct-21-2014, 02:29
;146712']Hitboxes inherently have all the qualities and variables you described in all modern flight sims, even War Thunder's tanks portion (which actually has a fairly "out of place" detailed DM). "Penetration" values for each box determine what type of material it's representing...this is common in all games, including FPS. Also, just because they're called "hitboxes" doesn't mean they're always cubes/rectangles...cables, tubing, and various hydraulic/fuel lines all count as "boxes" as far as the game is concerned, they're just a different shape. They should be called "hitpolygons".

I'm seeing that people are misunderstanding what a hitbox actually is. The level of fidelity/amount of hitboxes in CloD versus the level of fidelity/amount of hitboxes in BoS is what people here are contending (and eager to point out)...and should not be that there are/aren't hitboxes in their favorite game. If it reacts to damage, it's a "hitbox".

Whatever you want to call them, the 'hitboxes' in BoS are not as complex or detailed as those in CoD.

A hitbox for a wingsection in BoS can be struck by a projectile at any point, and the damage is applied to the box as a whole. This is why the wings fall off aircraft in BoS regularly and with very few hits.

In comparison, the boxes in CoD are smaller, more representative of the real wing structures, and they are supplemented by the underlying spars... in CoD if you hit wing box, but if you don't hit the spar which runs through the box, you won't cause catastrophic damage. You will weaken a wing, but unless the aircraft is stressed additionally with G, the wing isn't going to come off. You can continue to put projectiles through the same wing box with very little effect.

Here is a cutaway of a Spitfire:

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/5889/supermarinespitfireprmk.jpg

Section 128 is the main spar, Section 124 is the supplementary wing spar.

In CoD if you don't hit the main spar, your chances of removing a wing are considerably less. If the Spitfire was modeled in CoD in the same way the LaGG and 109 are in BoS, you would see the wing come off very easily, even if you hit a wing location away from the main spar.

Here is real guncam footage from 109's and 190's shooting at Spitfires and Hurricanes. How many times do you see a wing come off?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aqJwHdMDK0

WavingWhiteFlag[AM]
Oct-21-2014, 03:54
I agree that there are more internals modeled in CloD. I think the BoS devs realized that everything has an extremely high chance of getting hit with cannon rounds, which would absolutely destroy anything around its impact point and just cut corners.

I was worried about how easy it was to kerplode something and pointed it out during closed MP testing and was met with an explanation of the armament involved...which makes sense. It's very different than dealing with the smaller caliber weapons in CloD. I'm encouraging that being taken into consideration.

LuseKofte
Oct-21-2014, 04:33
If only one of these sims Could stay alive, I have chosen cod.
But I am so sure bos will bring more pilots to cod, and we will see two active servers every day, making us choosers not beggers, as is we log off when there are missions we dont want to fly, or its just half hour left of,
Half hour means you aint going far and High in a bomber.
It is for sure a win win

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-21-2014, 04:58
;146665']+1!

I have to say, I enjoy reading your posts. They often make too much sense.

I giggle a little when people go on tirades about how such and such "...is a GAME and not a sim". Aren't they all games? Did someone not pick it up in the "games" section of whatever store they bought it from? Is someone actually logging real flight hours towards a commercial pilot's license while playing? If so, show me where to sign up!

Movies are not real life, they are representative of real life, but would you say a comedy is as representative as a drama?

CloD is drama, BoS is comedy. CloD is a sim, BoS is a game.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-21-2014, 05:03
Yes Buzz, we all agree on the complexity cod vs bos. Infact we all agree on pretty much everything said about cod.
What I does not agree on, is the fact that BOS not being cod makes it bad

BoS isn't a bad arcade game; it is a bad sim.

SorcererDave
Oct-21-2014, 05:20
would you say a comedy is as representative as a drama?

If the comedy was Blackadder Goes Forth and the drama was The Room, I'd definitely say comedy. CloD is most definitely a game, and BoS is also a game. They just have somewhat varying degrees of historical authenticity (for me those degrees are so small it has little to no impact on my enjoyment of either, but that's by-the-by). It's like comparing Band of Brothers to Saving Private Ryan. Or Das Boot to U-571.

vranac
Oct-21-2014, 05:29
;146733']I agree that there are more internals modeled in CloD. I think the BoS devs realized that everything has an extremely high chance of getting hit with cannon rounds, which would absolutely destroy anything around its impact point and just cut corners.

I was worried about how easy it was to kerplode something and pointed it out during closed MP testing and was met with an explanation of the armament involved...which makes sense. It's very different than dealing with the smaller caliber weapons in CloD. I'm encouraging that being taken into consideration.

You have similar weapons in CloD, Me109s have cannons. You can stay without cannon shells in BoS and burn a few He-111 or il-2's. Look at the Sokol's videos again.
So your logic doesn't work for me. It's 2014. not 2000.

Few weeks ago I was fightin 2 109's and was hit in a throttle. Throttle blocked.
You can get supercharger damage, engine loses power.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-21-2014, 05:45
If the comedy was Blackadder Goes Forth and the drama was The Room, I'd definitely say comedy. CloD is most definitely a game, and BoS is also a game. They just have somewhat varying degrees of historical authenticity (for me those degrees are so small it has little to no impact on my enjoyment of either, but that's by-the-by). It's like comparing Band of Brothers to Saving Private Ryan. Or Das Boot to U-571.

But there you make the point yourself. Saving Private Ryan is an 'arcade' movie, Band of Brothers is a 'sim'. Both are enjoyable but if you're into fidelity one is taken more seriously than the other. If you're not into fidelity you'd probably not know the difference but simmers are, hence their categorisation of BoS as a game vs a sim.

SorcererDave
Oct-21-2014, 05:54
No, I'm sorry. Something like DCS is a sim (and even then it's pushing the boundary way down here at the commercial end of the spectrum). Its purpose is primarily educational rather than pure entertainment. While I appreciate Team Fusion's attention to detail CloD simply isn't in that category by a long shot. You are not going to learn how to operate a real Spitfire/Hurricane/109 by playing Cliffs of Dover. And frankly the way you bandy about terms like "arcade" makes me think you've never played a truly arcade game in your life. Especially since it's such a woefully outdated term in computer-gaming parlance. Hell the mere fact that you consider calling something a game to be derogatory in nature speaks volumes.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-21-2014, 06:08
No, I'm sorry. Something like DCS is a sim (and even then it's pushing the boundary way down here at the commercial end of the spectrum). Its purpose is primarily educational rather than pure entertainment. While I appreciate Team Fusion's attention to detail CloD simply isn't in that category by a long shot. You are not going to learn how to operate a real Spitfire/Hurricane/109 by playing Cliffs of Dover. And frankly the way you bandy about terms like "arcade" makes me think you've never played a truly arcade game in your life. Especially since it's such a woefully outdated term in computer-gaming parlance. Hell the mere fact that you consider calling something a game to be derogatory in nature speaks volumes.

Well, I suppose by those standards you'd call mini-golf a sport in the same context as golf. Or compare draughts to chess. We're all playing with semantics but we know what's really meant. BoS does a poor job of simulating the WW2 air-combat experience; the results we see in it correlate poorly with RL anecdotal reports. In CloD they correlate very well. Hence 'arcade' vs 'sim'.

SorcererDave
Oct-21-2014, 06:17
Well, I suppose by those standards you'd call mini-golf a sport in the same context as golf. Or compare draughts to chess. We're all playing with semantics but we know what's really meant. BoS does a poor job of simulating the WW2 air-combat experience

Pfft. War Thunder does a poor job of simulating the WW2 air-combat experience. BoS in its current state is merely adequate. Have a wider sense of perspective, Siggi.


In CloD they correlate very well.

I feel like that's a whole other can of worms best left unopened.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-21-2014, 06:20
Pfft. War Thunder does a poor job of simulating the WW2 air-combat experience. BoS in its current state is merely adequate. Have a wider sense of perspective, Siggi.



I feel like that's a whole other can of worms best left unopened.

Well, "merely adequate" isn't making the nut for 'hard-core' simmers. And as 1C/777 described BoS as "The best yada yada" you can maybe understand why it's taking such a beating. Grandiose and false claims don't make friends.

SorcererDave
Oct-21-2014, 06:25
Well, "merely adequate" isn't making the nut for 'hard-core' simmers.

Very few things do, it seems. Especially since each and every "hard-core" simmer seems to have a different idea from the next about what constitutes a correct flight model for a given plane.


And as 1C/777 described BoS as "The best yada yada" you can maybe understand why it's taking such a beating. Grandiose and false claims don't make friends.

Ugh, it's called marketing, Siggi. Welcome to the 21st century.

SoW Reddog
Oct-21-2014, 06:29
No, I'm sorry. Something like DCS is a sim (and even then it's pushing the boundary way down here at the commercial end of the spectrum). Its purpose is primarily educational rather than pure entertainment. While I appreciate Team Fusion's attention to detail CloD simply isn't in that category by a long shot. You are not going to learn how to operate a real Spitfire/Hurricane/109 by playing Cliffs of Dover. And frankly the way you bandy about terms like "arcade" makes me think you've never played a truly arcade game in your life. Especially since it's such a woefully outdated term in computer-gaming parlance. Hell the mere fact that you consider calling something a game to be derogatory in nature speaks volumes.

You mean I'm not qualified to rock up to Duxford and borrow one of their Spits? Shocked.:(

gavagai
Oct-21-2014, 06:33
Well, if you don't believe in genres, then sure, every computer application that depicts flying is a "game" in the same sense that pacman is a "game." But that seems like a categorical error. Games can be grouped into genres. One of those genres is flight simulation. Just because an application depicts flying doesn't mean it belongs in the genre. For instance, one of the things that has traditionally distinguished flight simulation games from other genres is the type of gameplay. There are no power-ups, xp points, no levels, no bosses to defeat. So it is because flight simulation is a game that we can readily distinguish it from games with airplanes that are not really flight simulations.

PFT_Endy
Oct-21-2014, 06:38
Ugh, it's called marketing, Siggi. Welcome to the 21st century.

You are right, it's not forbidden to advertise the product. But then again, every person is allowed to call the company's bluff or say bad things about a certain product or smear it if he feels cheated by the advert or some bait and switch tactics. Others can praise it to high heavens because it's their right too. That's what free speach and internet allow you to do. Unless of course you try that on that company's forum then your options may be a tad limited :)

SorcererDave
Oct-21-2014, 06:52
There are no power-ups, xp points, no levels, no bosses to defeat.

Tetris features none of these things. Am I to understand that by your criteria Tetris is therefore a simulator?

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-21-2014, 07:03
Ugh, it's called marketing, Siggi. Welcome to the 21st century.

No, it's called fraud and here in the UK such 'marketing' is illegal.

SorcererDave
Oct-21-2014, 07:06
No, it's called fraud and here in the UK such 'marketing' is illegal.

Here in the UK you'd have an incredibly hard time convincing Ofcom or the Trading Standards Institute that Battle of Stalingrad's marketing material constitutes fraud. In fact you know what - please do. Just make sure to post their response here. I could do with a laugh.

II/JG3~Siggi
Oct-21-2014, 07:09
Here in the UK you'd have an incredibly hard time convincing Ofcom that Battle of Stalingrad's marketing material constitutes fraud. In fact you know what - please do. Just make sure to post their response here. I could do with a laugh.

Their response would probably be "we couldn't blow a bigger hole in their foot than they've already done themselves". :D

But that doesn't take account of the huge number of backers who feel ripped off by the switch & bait shinola.

SorcererDave
Oct-21-2014, 07:13
Their response would probably be "we couldn't blow a bigger hole in their foot than they've already done themselves". :D

But that doesn't take account of the huge number of backers who feel ripped off by the switch & bait shinola.

Well it's their own silly fault for backing an early access title. You should never, EVER do that without accepting the fact that the final product may not be to your satisfaction. BoS is the only early access game I've purchased in years, and even that was after copious research on my part as to whether it was really worth my hard-earned cash.

Leifr
Oct-21-2014, 07:15
No, it's called fraud and here in the UK such 'marketing' is illegal.

Go ahead and lodge a complaint with Serious Fraud Office then Siggi. You seem so bent on dragging this into the dirt, maybe you should go ahead and take the first step (http://www.sfo.gov.uk/) for all of us poor bean counters whom have been so clearly deluded.

vranac
Oct-21-2014, 07:19
Is this the exception or the rule though? It's like when people trot out that one example of a P-47 taking hundreds of rounds and still flying, when that was in no way a regular occurrence. As I said I've read after action reports by German and Allied pilots and according to them most of the time enemy aircraft would burst into flames, break apart or simply fall into an uncontrollable dive after receiving cannon hits. I remember one passage in particular where Johnny Johnson makes a big fuss about how the cannons on his new Spitfire IX would usually completely destroy Fw190s in spite of them having considerable amounts of armour for a fighter.

Sorry Dave I'm a bit late ) Il-2 was really tough and like Lipfert said it could take a lot of damage and still fly and land.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/2i/st/3vy5kHFN/pic73.jpghttp://www.dodaj.rs/f/3F/zD/276dsBHd/pic74.jpghttp://www.dodaj.rs/f/1y/cV/3a1LNP6r/pic75.jpghttp://www.dodaj.rs/f/1e/oo/49OWKJc0/pic76.jpghttp://www.dodaj.rs/f/S/126/1ucIzSlq/pic77.jpghttp://www.dodaj.rs/f/2v/15/4IJ12DNy/pic78.jpg

SorcererDave
Oct-21-2014, 07:34
Sorry Dave I'm a bit late ) Il-2 was really tough and like Lipfert said it could take a lot of damage and still fly and land.

Hmph. Fair enough. Tell you what I'll load up a quick battle in BoS this evening and see if the DM has changed much. I'll see if I can record it.

Hood
Oct-21-2014, 07:40
... free speach and internet ... on that company's forum ...

There is no free speech on any forum. I could be less than complimentary on this forum and I'd rightly be banned. I thought better of posting a stuck record image for example.

There are any number of people that have criticised BOS on their forums who haven't been banned. There are also any number that have criticised the FMs and not been banned. Some have even supported their arguments and got changes made. By all means critique design decisions but do it politely or it's tough.

Now if you post that everything is sh!t and the developers are biased and generally throw your toys out of the pram then yes you'll get moderated/banned. It's like people don't understand that. Just like they don't understand that the developers have produced exactly what they said they would - see all their dev updates and try to identify something where they haven't.

Regarding flight sims - they're all flight sims even WT. There is just a sliding scale from a pure gaming experience to an educational one (though they're all educational to some degree or another).

For me, at the bottom you'd have WT, then CLOD/BOS, then DCS and at the very top some military thing with full replica cockpit etc. Some of them have different features or whatever but that doesn't mean they're better just because the design philosophy is different or intended to cater to a certain audience.

And what has this to do with FM or DM anyway?

Hood

ps I'm off to sue Red Bull because I had a can and I didn't grow wings.

LuseKofte
Oct-21-2014, 07:45
BoS isn't a bad arcade game; it is a bad sim.

You are ignored by this user

ATAG_Snapper
Oct-21-2014, 07:49
MODERATOR'S NOTE:

OK, We get that some folks on this forum don't like Battle of Stalingrad. Thank you for those who don't for letting us know. But resorting to terms like "fraud" and "bait and switch" is deliberately provocative and is clearly intended to elicit a negative response from fellow forum members. This is trolling and, quite frankly, I'm sick of it. This behaviour must stop, so please think carefully before posting again.

Thanks to everyone for contributing constructive and informative posts.

Salute,

Snapper

PFT_Endy
Oct-21-2014, 07:58
No Hood, there are many free forums around the internet. Mind you, ATAG is one of the moderately/lightly moderated (sic!) but is not fully free as you noticed. There are of course forums which allow way more freedom, including calling someone a moron as long as you have a good argument behind it and ones where you definately don't need to be polite about anything. Surprisingly they're not really worse for it. But still, ATAG is WAY better than many other forums and you can discuss quite a lot more topics here than in many other places and voice your opinion without risking an immediate ban. That's why I appreciate how this place is run. If you compare it to BOS forum where topics get removed left and right, people banned for even bringing some stuff up etc., well, I think you'll know what I'm getting at.

And of course it's just a side point. If you find a place where you can talk freely about a certain game by all means do. For BOS you can't do it on the official forum, at least not talk about the game's deficiencies or what you don't like in it, but you still can do it here (for as long Snapper or Bliss allow it) or some other places, which is good. And it's good places like this exist.

Ah, and btw I think the thread derailed somewhere around page 2 :)

EDIT: Wrote all this before Snapper's post so back on topic now hopefully? :)

LuseKofte
Oct-21-2014, 07:59
Sorry Dave I'm a bit late ) Il-2 was really tough and like Lipfert said it could take a lot of damage and still fly and land.



You can see the same and worse on P-47 and B-17 but still also they took heavy losses. And I really does not see the relevance here.
Dm and ammo effectiveness is not historical in any of our cfs, cod got a better more complex hitbox and have a good balance making good simulated historical result.
BOS got in my opinion the same. So even if you got a point it is still irrelevant.

LBR=H.Ostermann
Oct-21-2014, 08:11
Well, if you don't believe in genres, then sure, every computer application that depicts flying is a "game" in the same sense that pacman is a "game." But that seems like a categorical error. Games can be grouped into genres. One of those genres is flight simulation. Just because an application depicts flying doesn't mean it belongs in the genre. For instance, one of the things that has traditionally distinguished flight simulation games from other genres is the type of gameplay. There are no power-ups, xp points, no levels, no bosses to defeat. So it is because flight simulation is a game that we can readily distinguish it from games with airplanes that are not really flight simulations.



Agree, this history "all is a game" is what BOS developer says to calm down dudes in BOS forum, because of the XP thing in the campaign. And if you want fidelity about combat flight simulators, you want to reproduce every single aspect of aircraft possible with the computer power existent. BOS want to mimic good physics of flight and developed a complex flight model with 1000 variables, nice, that’s a good thing, but they cut corners in the Damage Model and make that simple, because "2x 20mm shots is enough to shoot down a plane", Wrong! If you don’t hit vital parts 2x20mm is not enough, and what's about 2x20mm AP/API hitting an empty part of the wing and the entire wing brings off?
I’ am not in a crusade against BOS and I am ok that some guys enjoy that, but defend things that are bad (like the DM) it’s a shot in the foot.
BOS have a Nice FM why he can’t have a nice (complex) DM too? Why don’t cut corners in Flight Model? Why don't admit that BOS DM is BAD for 2014 standards?

@LuseKofte, like BOS have model a nice FM, it's irrelevant, right? Nothing is irrelevant in the world, all things matters.

Bewolf
Oct-21-2014, 08:21
You can see the same and worse on P-47 and B-17 but still also they took heavy losses. And I really does not see the relevance here.
Dm and ammo effectiveness is not historical in any of our cfs, cod got a better more complex hitbox and have a good balance making good simulated historical result.
BOS got in my opinion the same. So even if you got a point it is still irrelevant.

Losses or not, there is a diference between a tough aircraft needing some good hits to bring down, or if you can shoot it down with just a few evil stares like in BoS as it seems. There are dozens of pilot accounts testifying to the strenghs of planes like the 47, the IL2 or even the FW190, these did not come from thin air.

That said, I always considered the CloD (and formerly IL1946) amount of damage to be delivered before a planes goes down a bit excessive. I regulary pepper Spits with 20 mm guns and as long it's not mineshells, it takes ages until you hit something really vital. Even with a good load of mineshells a lot of luck is still required. Sttructural damage is really hard to achive and only if you unload half your cannon's ammo consistently at one area.

For me the perfect balance in regards to effectiveness probably would be somewhere between CloD and BoS (and granted, this is purely based on "feeling", I can't know for sure how it was back then, just going by gut feeling and those average numbers often cited about how manny shells are required to bring down a plane).

Btw, the more complex FM, the more does my inner child squeal when shootinng at it. The more fun it is to fly home and trying to keep the aircraft in the air, with the ability to actually "do" something with the engine to prolong it's life, Cut valves, or adjusting engine management. BoS does not make me particulary squeal here, it's a big step back in an area that should have been even more advanced in 2014.

Double btw, to those wondering about the slow moving targets in those gun cam clips...keep in mind most of these camera tracks where presented in slow motion for people to actually "see" what's happening.

Hood
Oct-21-2014, 08:21
...but defend things that are bad (like the DM) it’s a shot in the foot.
BOS have a Nice FM why he can’t have a nice (complex) DM too? Why don’t cut corners in Flight Model? Why don't admit that BOS DM is BAD for 2014 standards?



Nobody is defending the DM. It is what it is for better or worse. Maybe because other things take preference, or time constraints, or engine limitations - who knows. Most if not all agree that CLOD's is better too especially graphically.

I don't know what 2014 standards are. I reckon there's always a trade off and maybe DM lost out. Maybe it's better than we think, though I for one want a more beefed up 109!

@ Endy - agreed, though I wish this one were moderated with a heavier hand. A lot of threads at BOS were moved to the Early Access forum. A lot were deleted for various reasons - some good , some bad. Play by the rules relevant to the forum and you're fine. Bash ATAG on this forum (no I'm not suggesting it!) and you'd rightly get booted.

Anyways, back on topic. Anyone tried the FW190 and can report on it yet?

Hood

Bewolf
Oct-21-2014, 08:25
double post

vranac
Oct-21-2014, 09:08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qSuPW24wco

LBR=H.Ostermann
Oct-21-2014, 10:13
S!


If some one want to see some battle damaged planes

http://imgur.com/a/SdA61

LuseKofte
Oct-21-2014, 10:33
i am not familiar with the 109. But I find nothing wrong with the fm in pe2, it is by far the best plane I flown to date in any cfs game.
I Could show you lousy ground handeling on cod but I prefer to ignore it since I like the rest of the game

hnbdgr
Oct-21-2014, 10:39
That said, I always considered the CloD (and formerly IL1946) amount of damage to be delivered before a planes goes down a bit excessive. I regulary pepper Spits with 20 mm guns and as long it's not mineshells, it takes ages until you hit something really vital. Even with a good load of mineshells a lot of luck is still required. Sttructural damage is really hard to achive and only if you unload half your cannon's ammo consistently at one area.

For me the perfect balance in regards to effectiveness probably would be somewhere between CloD and BoS (and granted, this is purely based on "feeling", I can't know for sure how it was back then, just going by gut feeling and those average numbers often cited about how manny shells are required to bring down a plane).

+1 on this. My thoughts as well.

vranac
Oct-21-2014, 11:05
i am not familiar with the 109. But I find nothing wrong with the fm in pe2, it is by far the best plane I flown to date in any cfs game.
I Could show you lousy ground handeling on cod but I prefer to ignore it since I like the rest of the game

What are you talking about ? This is FM, no it's famous AFM from Petrovich. Author of that video said he can make one with Yak if someone wants.
Have you seen cobra with FW190 ? Author of that video said he did it with La-5 also. It's FM, not a one plane problem.

Your stand that you don't want to fly planes like they shouldn't doesn't mean that other pilots will not. Of course they will.

FM and DM are the most important thing in a flight simulator. And this one is 99% finished, only debugging process has left, nothing else. That's it.



owl*Filin*, on 18 Oct 2014 - 17:39, said:

What was the percentage of readiness of the game? ... After an extreme fixation (89 mb) percent were not displayed.


We're done 99%. Timer is working. There are a number of bugs to iron out and the development now.

Archie
Oct-21-2014, 12:08
That 109 reminds me of radio controlled planes. Is it on some sort of easy settings in that video?

WavingWhiteFlag[AM]
Oct-21-2014, 12:20
That 109 reminds me of radio controlled planes. Is it on some sort of easy settings in that video?

I can't seem to do that on expert settings without plopping on the snow like a fire filled water balloon, so probably.

vranac
Oct-21-2014, 14:32
That 109 reminds me of radio controlled planes. Is it on some sort of easy settings in that video?

No, on expert settings and some guys replicated that.

Do you want more ?

WavingWhiteFlag[AM]
Oct-21-2014, 14:38
No, on expert settings and some guys replicated that.

Do you want more ?

No thanks. I already get the gist that you don't like the game, but love showing its discrepancies.

Message received.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Oct-21-2014, 14:53
By the way, I am not criticizing BoS. I hope it has success, this hobby has few enough companies creating new offerings for us.

However, I think it is important to understand CoD is not the same as BoS, and there are areas where the simulation detail is greater.

Re. CoD vs DCS... right now CoD is behind DCS in the level of control detail provided. However, if we wanted in CoD, we could model all of the switches, controls etc. which are available in DCS and have the same detailed start up procedures... there is no limitation inherent in the game... it is only a question of where we choose to invest our time. Right now we feel the community is more interested in seeing new flyable aircraft/objects into the game rather than TF spending its time to increase the detail on the existing aircraft.

LuseKofte
Oct-21-2014, 15:09
Vranac, my point is , you are criticizing developers not to copy dcs. You never shown any interest in buying it, and you have never obviously read what the developers wanted with this game. Yet you spend a big amount of time criticize them for not making a sim they never said they would.
COD dm and ordonance effectiveness are more complex and developed and expensive, but it is not more historical correct. But both sims got pretty much the same balance that simulate a battle with pretty much historical result.
Your endless pictures does not show any new things we haven't seen before, BOS got better animated half broken wings, but it also can fly with them, witch is impossible. It is not perfect.
But as a game, in total I pretty much approve. Mostly because bos has turned out just as the developers said. And it is a game with possibilities of official support and patches

I am however not entirely disagreeing in what you say, cod had a much higher ambition on complexity and realism in its development than bos ever had. And the feeling flying those two are different, cod is so much better in so many ways, but it still does not mean bos is bad. They are just not comparable . Not in the same stage of development, like two planets. But still I am able to enjoy both equally

PFT_Endy
Oct-21-2014, 15:19
COD dm and ordonance effectiveness are more complex and developed and expensive, but it is not more historical correct. But both sims got pretty much the same balance that simulate a battle with pretty much historical result.

Please explain? Because from what I understand you're claiming that no matter how unrealistic or undeveloped DM is, it's not a problem as long as it leads to "balanced" results???

I think I saw you claim something similar about FMs in another thread some time ago, that it doesn't matter how far from reality is each plane, as long as they are historically "balanced" against each other it's all fine? So you'd be fine if, for example in Clod, 109 and Spit could only fly at around 250 mph as long as they were balanced against each other? I'll be honest, that way of thinking goes against pretty much every simmer that has any interest in historical aircraft behaviour. Same for DM...

WavingWhiteFlag[AM]
Oct-21-2014, 15:26
Please explain? Because from what I understand you're claiming that no matter how unrealistic or undeveloped DM is, it's not a problem as long as it leads to "balanced" results???

I think I saw you claim something similar about FMs in another thread some time ago, that it doesn't matter how far from reality is each plane, as long as they are historically "balanced" against each other it's all fine? So you'd be fine if, for example in Clod, 109 and Spit could only fly at around 250 mph as long as they were balanced against each other? I'll be honest, that way of thinking goes against pretty much every simmer that has any interest in historical aircraft behaviour. Same for DM...

He's saying that each game accomplishes what it wants to accomplish...in this case the depiction of WW2 era aerial combat and the scenario in which it happened in. Focusing on buzzwords like "balance" and twisting them to mean something else isn't very relevant to the conversation.

LuseKofte
Oct-21-2014, 15:35
The complexity in cod is a preferable level of any cfs, it is what we want. I think everyone agree on that. BOS went for a less complex model and they never hide that fact at any time. They have found their way of making the end result of a battle somehow believable , but it is cheaper and the majority of users accept it. Wether it has do do with the game engine or budget I cannot say
I have made quite a lot of belly landings in bos, they are quite something. and much more realistic than cod. So it is not always like Vranac say. The wings got bendt and broken without teared off, I mean you can tear them off also. The crash physics are amazing, feels almost like you will bump your head in the monitor.
So I disagree on the general critique on the damage model, but agreeing in many specific ones. Vranac only got and is interested in bad things of bos, it is all he see and look for, unhealthy and questionable motives I guess, but ok he make many good points, but his opinion are too simplified for anyone with a genuine interest for bos. I prefer cod , but bos are quite good in many things. After reading Vranac posting most would be very positive surprised.
But again he is right in some of his points

LBR=H.Ostermann
Oct-21-2014, 15:46
COD dm and ordonance effectiveness are more complex and developed and expensive, but it is not more historical correct.


Lusekofte, I agree with you, it's all a "interpretation" of reality, but you have to think that, a more complex and detailed is a better interpretation, why? Because you add more variables. CLOD have much more DM variables than BOS, you see it in some game play videos, in BOS you see a lot of fire/smoke and broken wings (small variables), in CLOD you experience much other things (more variables).
Which one is more historical? The one that detailed better, the planes and weapons, and here CLOD is miles ahead of BOS.

vranac
Oct-21-2014, 15:57
Vranac, my point is , you are criticizing developers not to copy dcs. You never shown any interest in buying it, and you have never obviously read what the developers wanted with this game. Yet you spend a big amount of time criticize them for not making a sim they never said they would.
COD dm and ordonance effectiveness are more complex and developed and expensive, but it is not more historical correct. But both sims got pretty much the same balance that simulate a battle with pretty much historical result.
Your endless pictures does not show any new things we haven't seen before, BOS got better animated half broken wings, but it also can fly with them, witch is impossible. It is not perfect.
But as a game, in total I pretty much approve. Mostly because bos has turned out just as the developers said. And it is a game with possibilities of official support and patches

I am however not entirely disagreeing in what you say, cod had a much higher ambition on complexity and realism in its development than bos ever had. And the feeling flying those two are different, cod is so much better in so many ways, but it still does not mean bos is bad. They are just not comparable . Not in the same stage of development, like two planets. But still I am able to enjoy both equally

No LuseKofte, they promised excellent FM and I was really expecting a good one at least. They were pointed out to FM problemes that we see from the beginning of EA.
And that was reported by many real life pilots. Some of them with a good knowledge in aerodynamics even made some calculations in public showing them how wrong they are.
Their only response was: "Planes should fly like that." and our pilot is a sportsman ( very strong).

I'll repeat what my friend said, "Planes in BoS fly better than modern aerobatic planes" and " I can stall fight at 80-90 km/h like crazy".
This and other videos show just that.

And you're completely wrong about historical correctness. Watch gun cams, you won't see many planes falling apart like cardboxes.
You'll find FW190's losing their wings because of ammo explosions.
And watch that Sokol's video again slashing those il2's with mg, I would love to see that on a gun cam.
I can translate you memoirs of Yak pilots that is clearly showing how hard it was to shot down He-111's, they were armoured and protected from behind.
And in BoS they're falling down like handkerchiefs.
So don't be surprised when you get shot down from 500-700m, there are many good shooters out there and in BoS that's possible.

LuseKofte
Oct-21-2014, 15:58
Look at below post

WavingWhiteFlag[AM]
Oct-21-2014, 15:58
I think it ultimately boils down to the weight that different people hold each game's merits/faults on that's usually the crux of discussions like these. To me, the general feeling of combat and gunnery are equal in both games, which is good...the feeling of flight and motion is better in BoS which is important to me, but it is not unacceptable in CloD. Something that really sways me is the interaction with collisions in both games. I really enjoy BoS' physics modeling (collision, bending and breaking of materials) and I think it's a sneak peek at what we will be seeing in the future of sims (if there is a future in sims). I hold that very highly as a standard of enjoying my gameplay experience. Right when the closed testing for BoS started, I took a long break from CloD but only after messing around in CloD's QMB and took my Spitfire out for some target practice vs G50's...I collided with one of them and the G50 just *popped* and I kept on flying like nothing happened. Stuff like that kills the experience for me, while it may not mean as much for other people.

This sort of "tit-for-tat, this/that game is better" will never be solved because different variables about each game mean different things to people. It's a pity that it has to always start arguments or prompt someone to puff up and show what they like is "better", though.

LuseKofte
Oct-21-2014, 16:00
Lusekofte, I agree with you, it's all a "interpretation" of reality, but you have to think that, a more complex and detailed is a better interpretation, why? Because you add more variables. CLOD have much more DM variables than BOS, you see it in some game play videos, in BOS you see a lot of fire/smoke and broken wings (small variables), in CLOD you experience much other things (more variables).
Which one is more historical? The one that detailed better, the planes and weapons, and here CLOD is miles ahead of BOS.

Yes, all I need is to be better in english writing, many thanks. that is exactly what I mean :thumbsup:
And I really love that with cod,

LuseKofte
Oct-21-2014, 16:02
No LuseKofte, they promised excellent FM and I was really expecting a good one at least. They were pointed out to FM problemes that we see from the beginning of EA.
And that was reported by many real life pilots. Some of them with a good knowledge in aerodynamics even made some calculations in public showing them how wrong they are.
Their only response was: "Planes should fly like that." and our pilot is a sportsman ( very strong).

I'll repeat what my friend said, "Planes in BoS fly better than modern aerobatic planes" and " I can stall fight at 80-90 km/h like crazy".
This and other videos show just that.

And you're completely wrong about historical correctness. Watch gun cams, you won't see many planes falling apart like cardboxes.
You'll find FW190's losing their wings because of ammo explosions.
And watch that Sokol's video again slashing those il2's with mg, I would love to see that on a gun cam.
I can translate you memoirs of Yak pilots that is clearly showing how hard it was to shot down He-111's, they were armoured and protected from behind.
And in BoS they're falling down like handkerchiefs.
So don't be surprised when you get shot down from 500-700m, there are many good shooters out there and in BoS that's possible.

They made nothing of the sort, I have read everything there is, if I was fooled by anything it is the hotas controls turning over to buttons

And yes they are arrogant, hopefully in a learning process on how to behave. And the one thing I know about, probably better than you is getting shot down. And amazingly bos is equally frustrating as cod in that regard. Due to the balance witch is pretty amazing in both games.
Defending a bomber is easier in BOS and getting shot down in bos is easier. So the end result are about the same as in cod. If attacked by a skilled pilot in a bomber , you are dead

PFT_Endy
Oct-21-2014, 16:22
;146919']He's saying that each game accomplishes what it wants to accomplish...in this case the depiction of WW2 era aerial combat and the scenario in which it happened in. Focusing on buzzwords like "balance" and twisting them to mean something else isn't very relevant to the conversation.

You can't simply replicate final results without replicating how these results came to be. Making enemy aircraft go boom after barely touching the trigger and saying that's ok because you should be able to shoot it down since that's what generally happened in history when one aircraft shot at another for at least some time is not ok. The way of thinking that it doesn't matter whether you to hit something vital to achieve it or destroy the e/a ability to fly and simulating the ballistics and effects of each shell hitting the e/a or whether shooting in its general direction for 0,5 seconds is enough to blow it apart is also not ok. Well, at least not in a game pretending to be a serious flight sim. Of course, some simplification has to be made but we're not in 2001 anymore.

So no, you can't say that it's ok to use a simplified DM, at more or less the level of old IL2, way below what you could do nowadays, and pretend it's all fine, not in a serious flight sim in this day and age. Especially if the previous game in the series (yes, the IL2 brand and Clod argument) used a much more sophisticated one and made people expect something similar if not etter. And no, it does not depict a WW2 era scenario well because planes weren't blowing up to pieces and losing wings all the time. It did happen on occasion (for example on some guncams you can see FWs losing a wing when the ammo in it was hit) but again, BOS has it waaaaay over the top.

You shouldn't really be surprised why so many treat BOS as a simple arcade game and bash it if the devs went for some arcade type DM, unrealistic and ahistorical FMs etc. There are too many shortcuts taken, too many cost cuts done here and there. Sure, some people will still be happy with it, just don't be surprised by all the hate this game causes in people used to more realistic flight sims, especially if BOS was advertised as a real sim at first, not just a "flying game".

And by the way, "balance" was not twisted here because that's how Luse uses it. Like I said, he said pretty much the same in a thread about FMs, that if planes in a certain theater are balanced against each other as they were historically, meaning more or less same ratio differences in speed/climb etc. then the FMs for the planes don't even need to match historical test data very close. Meaning, as long as the 109 is faster than a Lagg by more or less the same ratio as historically, then it does not matter if their speeds are anywhere close to real data. By the way, this is not a personal attack because he has all the right to think this way, to each his own, but this is just not the way many flight simmers think, who want as much realism in their hobby as possible.

And some simplification is possible of course, both DM and FM, because you can't make it all full real, but at least try to move with the times and not be worse than a game from a few years ago and from the same brand series. Unless of course you're aiming for a different demographic and are making a game that does not try to be a serious flight sim, but then at least be fair about it from the beginning or the bluff will be called like what happened already many times with BOS.

1lokos
Oct-21-2014, 16:34
FM and DM are the most important thing in a flight simulator. And this one is 99% finished, only debugging process has left, nothing else. That's it.

GUI (finished) now show version 1.0.001 (http://i57.tinypic.com/fc0evt.jpg).

Most of Dev's personal leave for home or his country. Only last minute fix from now (today update bring three).

Sokol1

LuseKofte
Oct-21-2014, 16:37
The damage models are not simplified in every aspects , it is not that simple. COD got the best to date damage model and its complexity are to be found nowhere else.
And yes you can make things simpler and the word better or worse are related on witch angle you look at , actually you can choose to do nothing as long as you are honest about it.
So I really do not understand what you are on about.
You can make things much less complex and still be good. COD had a vision and tried to follow it, it did not serve them well. But we are now enjoying their work.
BOS are trying to do the same , but in a affordable way, and you cannot say they are not entitled to do so, wether you buy it or not , they still got the right to do what they want.
They are convinced they can sell more by make things more graphical and less complex. Well that is soon to be seen.
Anyway, it is not up to you to say what they can do

WavingWhiteFlag[AM]
Oct-21-2014, 16:41
You can't simply replicate final results without replicating how these results came to be. Making enemy aircraft go boom after barely touching the trigger and saying that's ok because you should be able to shoot it down since that's what generally happened in history when one aircraft shot at another for at least some time is not ok. The way of thinking that it doesn't matter whether you to hit something vital to achieve it or destroy the e/a ability to fly and simulating the ballistics and effects of each shell hitting the e/a or whether shooting in its general direction for 0,5 seconds is enough to blow it apart is also not ok. Well, at least not in a game pretending to be a serious flight sim. Of course, some simplification has to be made but we're not in 2001 anymore.

So no, you can't say that it's ok to use a simplified DM, at more or less the level of old IL2, way below what you could do nowadays, and pretend it's all fine, not in a serious flight sim in this day and age. Especially if the previous game in the series (yes, the IL2 brand and Clod argument) used a much more sophisticated one and made people expect something similar if not etter. And no, it does not depict a WW2 era scenario well because planes weren't blowing up to pieces and losing wings all the time. It did happen on occasion (for example on some guncams you can see FWs losing a wing when the ammo in it was hit) but again, BOS has it waaaaay over the top.

You shouldn't really be surprised why so many treat BOS as a simple arcade game and bash it if the devs went for some arcade type DM, unrealistic and ahistorical FMs etc. There are too many shortcuts taken, too many cost cuts done here and there. Sure, some people will still be happy with it, just don't be surprised by all the hate this game causes in people used to more realistic flight sims, especially if BOS was advertised as a real sim at first, not just a "flying game".

And by the way, "balance" was not twisted here because that's how Luse uses it. Like I said, he said pretty much the same in a thread about FMs, that if planes in a certain theater are balanced against each other as they were historically, meaning more or less same ratio differences in speed/climb etc. then the FMs for the planes don't even need to match historical test data very close. Meaning, as long as the 109 is faster than a Lagg by more or less the same ratio as historically, then it does not matter if their speeds are anywhere close to real data. By the way, this is not a personal attack because he has all the right to think this way, to each his own, but this is just not the way many flight simmers think, who want as much realism in their hobby as possible.

And some simplification is possible of course, both DM and FM, because you can't make it all full real, but at least try to move with the times and not be worse than a game from a few years ago and from the same brand series. Unless of course you're aiming for a different demographic and are making a game that does not try to be a serious flight sim, but then at least be fair about it from the beginning or the bluff will be called like what happened already many times with BOS.

Sorry, I just cannot agree with you. To me you're speaking in a bit of hyperbole, and I personally don't think it's as bad as this kind of sentiment is making it out to be. Everyone has their own preferences and standards, though.

PFT_Endy
Oct-21-2014, 16:45
Of course Luse, they're allowed to do what they want with their game, they design it after all. But then again any person is also allowed to express their opinion about this game and they are allowed to make it as unfavourable as they feel like, especially if they can back their point somehow and that's very often the case. And some other people have been fighting really hard against any bad opinions that appeared on BOS or some of its features and that's not ok.

II/JG77_Con
Oct-21-2014, 16:52
Personal for me BOS fails because of the lack of history in the missions , We are talking about Stalingrad .. one of the bloodiest battles in history , its like Hollywood rewriting history and totally forgetting what really happened . It has no pilot career , no real medals ,i want to dogfight the Russian ace who has a white nose on his plane , there is none of that .....no feel good factor , XP points , unlocks , your kidding me right . yawn ..:grrr:

Thank god for Team Fusion ..and Dcs.

Bewolf
Oct-21-2014, 17:13
;146939']Sorry, I just cannot agree with you. To me you're speaking in a bit of hyperbole, and I personally don't think it's as bad as this kind of sentiment is making it out to be. Everyone has their own preferences and standards, though.

He is correct, though. Compare the attitude to RC flyers. There are a lot out there who created masterpieces, talk about internal layouts and balance points, with intimate knowledge of how all teh internals work. While nowadays, there are more and more ready made RC models flyable out of the box, with people able to use it without any kind of knowledge but flying itself. It simply is a less substantial expirience.

1lokos
Oct-21-2014, 17:29
Engine fire:

http://i60.tinypic.com/hsntro.jpg

Depends on angle that are hit, the first don't catch fire (more angle), the second catch with few hits (less angle) - like in tank area.

Dutch
Oct-21-2014, 18:18
Oh man. Siggi got banned? The whole thread was just getting interesting.......:D

vranac
Oct-21-2014, 19:23
;146927']I think it ultimately boils down to the weight that different people hold each game's merits/faults on that's usually the crux of discussions like these. To me, the general feeling of combat and gunnery are equal in both games, which is good...the feeling of flight and motion is better in BoS which is important to me, but it is not unacceptable in CloD. Something that really sways me is the interaction with collisions in both games. I really enjoy BoS' physics modeling (collision, bending and breaking of materials) and I think it's a sneak peek at what we will be seeing in the future of sims (if there is a future in sims). I hold that very highly as a standard of enjoying my gameplay experience. Right when the closed testing for BoS started, I took a long break from CloD but only after messing around in CloD's QMB and took my Spitfire out for some target practice vs G50's...I collided with one of them and the G50 just *popped* and I kept on flying like nothing happened. Stuff like that kills the experience for me, while it may not mean as much for other people.

This sort of "tit-for-tat, this/that game is better" will never be solved because different variables about each game mean different things to people. It's a pity that it has to always start arguments or prompt someone to puff up and show what they like is "better", though.

Like this one ? You're not flying Cliffs online at least so your opinion on gunnery is a without any grounds.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esm9EnjJA5o

Or, can I remind you on some gunnery from BoS. Wing mounted cannons 800m, soooo realistic :whacky:

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

WavingWhiteFlag[AM]
Oct-21-2014, 19:51
Like this one ? You're not flying Cliffs online at least so your opinion on gunnery is a without any grounds.

Or, can I remind you on some gunnery from BoS. Wing mounted cannons 800m, soooo realistic :whacky:

I fly CloD online at least twice a week...and why would not flying online remove grounds to speak on an opinion about gunnery?

So has this moved on to trying to prove that my opinion is wrong? What is it you're trying to get at here?

Stig1207
Oct-22-2014, 02:36
Like this one ? You're not flying Cliffs online at least so your opinion on gunnery is a without any grounds.

But you don't have BoS...?

LuseKofte
Oct-22-2014, 08:18
I did not get that either

vranac
Oct-22-2014, 09:55
If you can't see that from the videos and screenshots that Sokol and I provided to you, maybe this will help.
12 kills in one sortie on Expert server. Try that in CloD or in old il2.

12675

SorcererDave
Oct-22-2014, 12:39
Heh, I guarantee you that given enough cannon ammo there are guys flying in CloD who could rack up 12 kills a sortie without too much trouble. Hell I think I saw Heiden manage it once even with the paltry 60 rpg in the E-4.

LuseKofte
Oct-22-2014, 14:13
That is MR X . he did the same in cod actually, he was monitored at stag server since so many meant he was cheating. Just search his youtube videos, there is a lot of sniper shots in cod also.
Vranac I knew when you started this topic you was in it to smear dirt over BOS, you decided not to like it, fine, I respect that. I accept you got some reason for hating this game, but I cannot for the life of me understand why you work so hard to get us all to not play

Foul Ole Ron
Oct-22-2014, 14:19
The thing with the 800m sniper shot is that we have no idea how many attempts this took to actually hit. To praise it for good shooting or slam it for being arcadey doesn't make much sense either way. He might have spent quite a while to get that 18s video.

ATAG_Snapper
Oct-22-2014, 14:27
This thread has gone the way of so many in this section. Nothing more to see here, folks.