Bit the bullet and did a review

[heinkill]

Posted it privately on WT Gamehub rather than as an official SimHQ review though because I don't want SimHQ to get the inevitable blowback.

:)

http://bobgamehub.blogspot.dk/p/battle-of-stalingrad-review.html

Cheers,

H

[1lokos]

You should have not used CloD as reference in the review, only servers to atrack "FLAK" from his hatters (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12681-review-bos-wt-game-hub-blog-heinkill/), use War Thunder instead. :thumbsup:

[gavagai]

I find it really hard to read any review of BoS that doesn't examine 777's track record with Rise of Flight. We're 5 years into it and the Sopwith Camel still runs down almost every German scout in the game, and the AI tries to turn fight in the Spad 13.


Barely a month out of release, it is worth commenting on the fact that this game is pleasingly free of killer bugs. There are currently some AI and FM frustrations, and an annoying tendency for the game to freeze or crash after a few campaign or multiplay missions, for some players. These are things the makers need to attend to quickly but otherwise the early access process has enabled the makers to smooth out most of the ugly lumps.

You need only look at their past creation to find out what will happen.

[theOden]

Why not on SimHQ?
They are independent so there should be no blowback issue?
Or maybe money talks as always?
Yeah must be, silly me.
Anyway, sorry for off topic thoughts. Good review still Heinkill.

[Mysticpuma]

What happened to the line about the $10 version which was there?

Good review but already the fanboys at the BoS forums have cried foul, mainly due to the 1/10 for landscape!

Cheers, MP

[Dakpilot]

Good review but already the fanboys at the BoS forums have cried foul, mainly due to the 1/10 for landscape!

Cheers, MP

Do you have to be a "fanboy" to feel that 1/10 is a bit harsh on the map/landscape :)

Cheers Dakpilot

[LuseKofte]

I like to say I respect a review, but the fanboyism are really more present here than in BOS site.
I am a very devoted flyer in COD , so this haters and fanboyism you guys cling so hard to. Is more a ATAG site thing. 1 out of 10 is rediciolus and will not be taken seriously at all.
I find what you guys call fanboys taking critique well compared to the same done to cod in general.
But that is my opinion.
I would personally give BOS 6 atm, maybe 5 since the ME is still absence, not even Birds of prey did deserve 1. I gave BOS 7 at another review, And I would not rate COD higher either, both games is not taken to its full potentials.
But I am sure your fanboyism rating give you high rating here

[TheVino3]

I like to say I respect a review, but the fanboyism are really more present here than in BOS site.
I am a very devoted flyer in COD , so this haters and fanboyism you guys cling so hard to. Is more a ATAG site thing. 1 out of 10 is rediciolus and will not be taken seriously at all.
I find what you guys call fanboys taking critique well compared to the same done to cod in general.
But that is my opinion.
I would personally give BOS 6 atm, maybe 5 since the ME is still absence, not even Birds of prey did deserve 1. I gave BOS 7 at another review, And I would not rate COD higher either, both games is not taken to its full potentials.
But I am sure your fanboyism rating give you high rating here

LuseKofte, he gave the landscape a 1/10 because he was genuinely disappointed with how they executed it. That is not "fanboyism" to CloD. Thats disappointment.

To be honest, it is most often you bringing up Cliffs in these discussions these days. No one has ever been saying CloD is perfect, no one worth listening to anyway, so why do you have this massive chip on your shoulder about it? Being disappointed with Battle of Stalingrad does not automatically make you a CloD fanboy. Similarly, making a comparison between the two does not make you a fanboy either. If the comparison is valid and constructive, which Heinkill's definitely was, then there is no need to dismiss it as "fanboyism".

And I disagree that fanboyism is stronger here than the BoS forum...have you ever looked through that place? Are you serious? Ignoring a problem completely and abusing people who report it is not "taking critique well". You must be joking.

[Mysticpuma]

Do you have to be a "fanboy" to feel that 1/10 is a bit harsh on the map/landscape :)

Cheers Dakpilot

I'm going to say.....yes...but only because Heinkill's review is very balanced and where it is positive there are no 'issues', however where he has been negative....that's a cause to say it's unfair.

The thing is, either his review is fair or his review is wrong. It's a case of taking the rough with the smooth, so it really is a case of; Either Heinkill's review is accurate and balanced or it isn't. You can't pick and choose what's correct in one person's point of view where ultimately when it is praising the product he is accurate, but when criticising it he is seen to be inaccurate? Either the review is taken as a whole or not taken at-all.

Overall I find it very balanced even with the removal of comparisons to other Sims.

When I see:

"The review reveals a bias when he starts comparisons to Cliffs of Dover which was a failed launch and not relevant for comparison.
Also he's airing forum rants that most buyers won't care about.

He's also completely unrealistic and naive when asking for ground action that rivals current action movies. This is a flight sim, not a first person ground action game.

Not a fair review. "

Followed by the same poster then directly using CloD as a comparison!!

"It's really the height of ignorance and bias for the review to post screenshots of Cliffs of Dover for comparison.
SHOW ME CLIFFS OF DOVER ONE MONTH AFTER IT LAUNCHED! "

Followed by:

"Exactly! all those Clod guys forget their own bloodpressure when it was released! BECAUSE you couldn't even play Clod, it crashes in the menues, on netcode, over london we get 5 frames..... yes! now its all forgotten, they call its superb! sure the TF guys doing a great job, but if you compare the both, it took 3 years to get there, back at release date Clod should be given 0 out of 10 points, unplayable it was.... Bos is fair rated with 8 out of 10, there is room to improve, but it works!

This review is not fair, its biased! Simple as it is! Look into the mirror and stay fair! "


I think Fanboys who are happy to see good in a review, but how dare anyone say one word against it?


But nice to see a little sanity:

"Of course it is going to be compared to Cliffs of Dover, IL-2 1946, and to some extent ROF due to obvious reasons.

It is billed as the continuation of the legendary IL-2 Series. How could not it be compared to previous IL-2 Sims?

Imho, Heinkill gave a very fair review, probably more generous than I would have been."



So, my opinion of Heinkill's review is that it was very thorough, detailed a lot of the good and bad, was written by someone with a deep knowledge of Flight Sims and therefore more trustworthy than some that have appeared on other websites.

Well done Heinkill, very balanced, very fair.

Cheers, MP

[Revvin]

It's a shame you appear to have bowed to pressure and removed all mention of CLoD including the images that illustrated the points you made. Its perfectly natural for a review to draw comparisons to other games and is frequently done. It's doesn't read like the original now but one dictated by certain corners of the flight sim community. IMHO it's no longer a review at that point but just a whitewash.

[Hood]

Fairly balanced I'd say.

:thumbsup:

Ideally every game should be reviewed in isolation but I suppose that isn't really possible. I disagree with the terrain comments but maybe that's because I like the terrain. I'm looking forward to seeing what mission builders can do once the FMB is released as I'm hoping they will create a more immersive environment.

I quite like that JW has described official release as a "commercial release" rather than a "final release". I suppose that's like saying it's still in what used to be beta stage where functionality was still being added to the complete game.

Hood

[ATAG_Slipstream]

I don't know why you bothered posting "I'm sorry" when you continue to act in the same manner and accuse people of fanboyism. heinkill's review was quite unbiased and he gave a balanced mix of positives and negatives. He also recommends people to buy the game, which to be quite frank I personally wouldn't have.

There are no haters or fanboys here. We are all grown adults, many with families and lives outside of simming. However we all have preferences and opinions and ATAG is a popular place for the community to discuss them. Its true that ATAG centres around Cliffs of Dover, but that's mainly because a large part of this community enjoys getting creative inside its extensive sandbox, building missions and scripting. etc.

And no, my "fanboyism" gets me one green dot next to my name, just like everyone else.


I like to say I respect a review, but the fanboyism are really more present here than in BOS site.
I am a very devoted flyer in COD , so this haters and fanboyism you guys cling so hard to. Is more a ATAG site thing. 1 out of 10 is rediciolus and will not be taken seriously at all.
I find what you guys call fanboys taking critique well compared to the same done to cod in general.
But that is my opinion.
I would personally give BOS 6 atm, maybe 5 since the ME is still absence, not even Birds of prey did deserve 1. I gave BOS 7 at another review, And I would not rate COD higher either, both games is not taken to its full potentials.
But I am sure your fanboyism rating give you high rating here

[LuseKofte]

I did not accuse anyone for fanboyism, other than using the terms already used above, my point is, most of us are old people . Average age in BOS site is the same as here.
It is people with their own integrity and it shows no lack of it by liking BOS. I think it is pretty obvious when you se the hostile answers and opinion agains me just for not agreeing .
Some people here are putting a wall between BOS and COD and the terminology used are very easily trow back. You do not see that in BOS forum.
They spend a lot of time using fanboy/ haters words, but little to non against cod.
If you read in there you see me together with other people promoting cod. Wether you like me or not, we get the same goals.
I still think 1 is as unserious as 10 in any rating. The map textures are pretty well done, They are good in COD too but both are beaten by old IL2 new map textures . And is one of the things I was rather disappointed of in both sims.

What I try to say is, if we can put away fanboy/ haters terminology . And just be a little objective. You will see good points and bad points in both "camps"

In this nest of everything I think the developers have spent too much time trying to get "new" people into the genre, that they in the process lost the ones dedicated in the genre.
It is possible I hijack this tread, and apologize if I do. But there are reasons to believe they use this trying to get to new people is a excuse for limitations to the Game engine

In 30 % development they abandoned the hotas control in trim and other similar things, this was done because the developers said the new simmers did not have the equipment.
But they got 3 slots for every dedications on controls , this issue is maybe a small issue, but it is in fact at this point I started to feel I was conned , this issue should not rule out the possibility to have trim by hotas . The ME is another story, it really smells like a scam not being available. They knew from the moment they started this sim development they would be in deep shit, and there are simply no excuse they did not deliver a usable ME from release date, and if BOS goes down, my guess it will be this reason
There are many deliberate tackling done in the excuse for aiming at other people than the sim people. And all those are issues I got problems with the developers . not the unlocks.
They where clearly stated from the beginning and regardless of what I think of it, it is not a scam.
COD is far more suited for squadron oriented and serious fun, I cannot state enough how much I appreciate TF work and ATAG server for being there for a starved audience.
These two simulators are not comparable , the differences are too great, and it is of totally different use.

[LuseKofte]

Heinkill you got famous :) http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12681-review-bos-wt-game-hub-blog-heinkill/#entry197828

peace and love everyone, my poor english is not suited for fair discussions . I will not attempt it any further. But believe me when I say it, I am not at all trying to upset anyone here

[heinkill]

Thanks for the input all, always good to hear and consider. Just a couple of context points:

- There is no commercial influence in my decision not to submit the review to SimHQ. SimHQ has a policy of 'reporting without fear or favour' and I have never seen commercial interests impact what I have written at that site - quite the opposite I once had my work defended by the admins at SimHQ against an angry developer/advertiser. I simply disqualified myself from writing a formal review on SimHQ because I have in the past been accused by 777 management of being a 'known hater' of BoS, therefore I decided to recommend SimHQ to have another writer tackle BoS.

- I decided to remove the comparisons to CoD not because of peer pressure but because I very quickly saw that it totally derailed conversations about the review and they degenerate into discussions of CoD vs BoS which was not the intention. I would like any discussion of this review to stay focused on BoS. For the same reason I included no discussion of RoF.

- I don't think detailing the unlock system is 'rehashing old forum arguments', if you are a new potential buyer, it is an important feature of the game you would need to consider.

- I agreed rating the landscape 1/10 was too extreme, so adjusted that to reflect the fact that I think it can be improved upon, significantly. A small effort would make a huge difference:

- include some 'stained/dirty' snow tiles and use them around airfields, roads and towns
- include new static 3D objects such as wrecked vehicles/ships/aircraft/infrastructure/bomb craters/cargo and use these to make Gumrak, Pitomnik and other airfields more believable as front line airfields under seige
- include the Ju52 as a static 3D object at least (whole/wrecked)
- adapt the Volga tiles next to Stalingrad so they can take traffic over them (make some 'ice roads' across the river), and trigger some convoys across the Volga as the player approaches

On the issue of bias, I'm a journalist by trade, so I get accused of bias daily! Because anytime you try to be balanced, half of the audience can disagree.

H

[ATAG_Lolsav]

On the issue of bias, I'm a journalist by trade, so I get accused of bias daily! Because anytime you try to be balanced, half of the audience can disagree.

H

Join the club :)

I know what you mean, as professional of the trade. You can never get happy Trojans and Greeks as the saying says. And somewhat when that happens i feel we are doing the right thing. I feel i produce a good product when both sides are unhappy ;) and they think im biased to the "other side".

[ATAG_Snapper]

Not to mention the Macedonians.......:doh:

:)

[heinkill]

Not to mention the Macedonians.......:doh:

:)

And in late breaking news SimHQ will go with the review anyway. Guess they couldn't find another sucker to take the flak!

http://www.simhq.com/air-combat/il-2-sturmovik-battle-stalingrad-review.html

H

[ATAG_Colander]

That's what pseudonyms are for :)

[Donathin]

"But, I felt the same way about the original IL2 when it was released.

I found that game to be a very clinically nice piece of software, but lacking the immersion and emotion of other titles of the period. And look what that turned into.

I have the same hopes for Battle of Stalingrad."

It is stunning that after removing references to CloD the review concludes by using the example of Oleg's Il-2 as a guiding hope for the future of BOS. There is no logical rationale for using Oleg's Il-2 in that context. The magic of the original Il-2 demo for me is unforgettable even after all these years (to best of my recall it was an eleven hour download). If one wants to predict a future for BOS based on past products (I am consciously avoiding the 'sim' word) I submit that one is obligated to look at ROF since BOS is from the same developer and uses the same game engine. At this point in time it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the BOS powers that be have simply deserted the CFS genre under pretext of providing a building block for better things to come.

[LuseKofte]

I was amazed by IL 2 when it came out, if you look at the development on other games and genres from 2002 to now, we should have had a DCS equipped sim with all the WW2 planes by now ;)

But we have to do with what we got, we are not many, but we are dedicated. So this genre might survive our generation.

[thee_oddball]

Followed by the same poster then directly using CloD as a comparison!!


"It's really the height of ignorance and bias for the review to post screenshots of Cliffs of Dover for comparison.
SHOW ME CLIFFS OF DOVER ONE MONTH AFTER IT LAUNCHED! "

I responded to that sugar troll with a pic...which I still don't think he understands followed by putting him on the ignore list.

A few weeks ago in a moment of nostalgia (after watching a BoS video) I took out the plastic card with the numbers on and took the plunge...totally forgetting why I left in the first place 18 months ago.

I walked right into the middle of a shit storm in the forums over the unlocks fiasco ...but being that this is the Internet if you are looking for a shit storm any forum will do :) but none the less I tried to remain positive but more I learned the less I liked...

one of the dev's chimed in on a conversation and I addressed him with the following to which I received no response.


Good analogy taleks and understood but the reality here is you have possession of every version of BoS to date and in one patch could roll us back to pre-XP/unlocks, nothing has been done that is irreversible.

Are you going to do this? Of course not because you have a certain idea of how you would like this business model to mature and become profitable but I have to say that it looks like you are trying to take the best of 2 worlds (DCS,war thunder) and create your on unique niche, which I don't think is going to work.



Now matter how pretty you make the pieces and now matter how flashy the box you are never going to get the Cup-and-ball crowd to come play chess...the majority of the WT crowd is what? Instant action/satisfaction crowd... and I am almost %100 sure that the WT crowd is not going to come here and reinvent the wheel when they are already invested in time and money along with the amount of planes and items available. Who are the people that play DCS? The patient immersive people who are in it for its own rewards and not vacuous scores and meaningless awards....



I understand this is a business and you guys need to turn a profit to keep the doors open and development to continue but at the same time there has to be a happy medium on which consumer and producer meet and in this case you are dealing with the IL2 community, a community with certain expectations from you or anyone else who takes on the task of continuing development of a franchise that has become something of a legend in the Sim market.



What are those expectations? In a nutshell we really want what we had just better all around, before I continue let me acknowledge that we most likly not see anything like the old IL2 again :( simple because a major event in the evolution of IL2 was not planned (becoming mod-able) it just happened but what is still there is the passion that drove so much CDD (Consumer Driven Development) DCG, HL ,IL2 server commander combine that with the MOD's and the life and sales of IL2 1946 was extended another 5 years at least.. The il2 community is you best customer, co-developer and sales force, you give us the tools and we add depth, content and new customers. Speaking of hyper lobby it would be nice if we could have something similar or better.



Now I hate to bring up the topic that has been discussed ad-nauseum but when the shit storm ensued it was followed by the official release of the game minus critical elements (ME,DServer) and while the excuse was given that you are working out bugs or optimizing or...what ever it really did not make any sense considering you released the game long before it was ready and in fact have working version of both ME/DServer in the hands of a few under NDA...and to add insult to injury you would not even throw the community a bone and give us at least one template for skinning...you have them...BTW did I hear correctly that we are going to have to submit our skins to you guys for approval and will be delivered in “official” patch's?? I speak for my self when I say, that ain't gonna work bro....the only blessing I require is that of the community.



Now you take the issue with the skins add in the XP/unlocks along with ranked/unranked servers, global stats and no ME or Dserver and wallah you have COD/BF4 in the air....its not just one thing that has happened its all of them together that is making a lot of people wonder where this is going.....

I strongly suspect that when the ME arives that it will have built in limitation as to how many objects/planes can be on any one map and any given time and that the DServer will be capped at 64 or maybe even lower.... I dont like the direction i see this going in but I also hope i am wrong....it's always nice to have 2 sims to choose from :)

[Donathin]

Why would they release a BOS ME? That could give complainers grist for their mill. No, better to keep dangling the possibility of a ME before everyone, that way the prospect of a ME is always there without any risk. Eventually the push for a ME might be forgotten and no expenses incurred.

[LuseKofte]

Well actually, I currently enjoy a little DCS, a little offline BOS and online COD. Somehow the urge to fly COD arrived and I will have a go at it from DEC 3, when I am back home. It is nice to have 4 sims available when needed, Yes I enjoy old IL2 too

[Bearcat]

FWIW I thought the review was fair.. I would have given it a slightly higher score.. I think I gave it an 8 on Metacritic.. I too thought the 1/10 was a bit harsh for the landscape .. but it is his opinion and since he is the author... That is how the cookie crumbles.

I had mixed emotions on his mentioning CoD in the initial review, some for obvious reasons, the .... for lack of a safer term... and I will use that term loosely... dialog that it seems to inspire whenever the two products are mentioned in the same sentence by ardent fans of both products was one reason for .. reservations. Also the fact that at the same stage in their development there is no comparison to be made between the two so the arguments of how can you compare a sim that has been through the changes that CoD has been through since it's release 5 years ago to a product barely a month old do hold some merit. On the other hand though .. since CoD is the only comparable product on the market at the moment it seemed appropriate or at least understandable that some comparison would be made if for no other reason than a point of reference reference.

Either way was fine to me as the overall meat of the review was sound as evidenced by the fact that when he removed all references to CoD .. it actually changed very little about the overall tone of the review.

When I look at some of the drama from both camps I can't help but think it is all rather silly. It isn't like we have a lot of high fidelity options at the moment in WWII sims. Basically for me it is 46 which is very long in the tooth.. still fun for me.. but very long in the tooth, DCS for what that is worth as far as it's current WWII offering.. CoD and BoS. Given those facts and the fact that unlike 10-15 years ago .. there aren't a lot of developers out there even trying to cater to the sim crowd.. I think we have some decent options across the board and I see no reason why those who are so inclined cannot just drink from every bottle.


As a side note... for BoS to survive and grow the devs must open it up to user made content. That is the main reason why we still fly IL2 to this day. Even if it had never been cracked I think some folks would still be flying it because of all the user options before it was cracked. If BoS remains limited in user options and remains totally developer dependet it will not last very long. I hope they make the right choices over the next few years..

[DUI]

Also the fact that at the same stage in their development there is no comparison to be made between the two so the arguments of how can you compare a sim that has been through the changes that CoD has been through since it's release 5 years ago to a product barely a month old do hold some merit.

Personally, I think a review score should not take into account at all how old a game is and how much time it had to grow. A review should base its score on the current state of a game with the main goal to answer the following question: Is this game in its current state a good (the best) choice for me or might there be other games which currently better fit my demands? In this context it is just logical to compare BoS with TFCliffs, DCS or 1946.

For example, for a long time every new MMORPG had to compete with World of Warcraft in reviews, no one would have questioned this comparison only for the aspect that WoW already was x years longer in development. For the player it simply does not matter if a game is x or y years old but how much it fullfils his expectations. It is a nice addition to speculate about the future potential of a game but I think this should not affect the current review score in any way.

Of course, there is no reason to not re-review the game somewhen in the future and to compare it again with similar titles.

[Bearcat]

Personally, I think a review score should not take into account at all how old a game is and how much time it had to grow. A review should base its score on the current state of a game with the main goal to answer the following question: Is this game in its current state a good (the best) choice for me or might there be other games which currently better fit my demands? In this context it is just logical to compare BoS with TFCliffs, DCS or 1946.

For example, for a long time every new MMORPG had to compete with World of Warcraft in reviews, no one would have questioned this comparison only for the aspect that WoW already was x years longer in development. For the player it simply does not matter if a game is x or y years old but how much it fullfils his expectations. It is a nice addition to speculate about the future potential of a game but I think this should not affect the current review score in any way.

Of course, there is no reason to not re-review the game somewhen in the future and to compare it again with similar titles.


On the other hand though .. since CoD is the only comparable product on the market at the moment it seemed appropriate or at least understandable that some comparison would be made if for no other reason than a point of reference reference.

True... Although in the case of 46... I just don't think so. 46 is in a class all by itself.. even as old as it is it is still IMO the greatest WWII CFS ever made to date when taken in it's totality.

[JG4_sKylon]

As a side note... for BoS to survive and grow the devs must open it up to user made content. That is the main reason why we still fly IL2 to this day. Even if it had never been cracked I think some folks would still be flying it because of all the user options before it was cracked. If BoS remains limited in user options and remains totally developer dependet it will not last very long. I hope they make the right choices over the next few years..

This!
I often hear fellow virtual pilots saying that 1946 evolved over the years and that this might happen to BoS too. But i am afraid that the business model and the latest design decisions of BoS speak against it.
I´ll wait and see, at the current status BoS does not match my expectations.

[Chivas]

I think BOS has alot of potential. Reviews are necessary now, but its too early to fully judge the series, if it continues. My only problem, other than some developer decisions, is their use of the IL-2 name. It should be referred too as ROF-BOS, and lately with some WT thrown in, which wouldn't have been a problem if there were "options" not to use those "options".

[thee_oddball]

The truth is (and not my opoin) BoS is really RoF+ it is really just an expansion, if you open up your game folder in BoS you will see a lot of files starting with RoF, that is why the release went so smooth ...they had 3+ years to work out the major bugs in their engine. the fact that they took over the il2 project 18? months ago and just released the game proves this.




While CLoD on the other hand was a new engine complete with teething issues. Oleg himself said it best.

Doug: Some people in the flight sim community are concerned about the future and well-being of Storm of War: Battle of Britain claiming it has been in development much longer than they expected, so there must be something wrong. Can you put their mind at ease and say that Storm of War: Battle of Britain’s future is bright, and there is not a reason to be concerned for the project?

Oleg: First, a reminder that IL-2 Sturmovik was in development for over 4 years before it was released. Then many years of modifications and adding new features in add-ons followed. Without the right engine design to allow modifications in the beginning of the IL-2 project, we would never have seen the IL-2 series come to life. But keep in mind IL-2 Sturmovik was only one title.

The Storm of War series engine and the first product, Storm of War: Battle of Britain is many times more complex than the engine in theIL-2 series. Also, the content itself is in some cases a hundred times more complex than in the IL-2 series. And that is not all. We have added new features into the Storm of War series engine that will give Storm of War a long, long life. Maybe even longer than the IL-2series engine. We are building for the “next level” of quality and features. This takes much more time in development than it takes for one product title. Another benefit of having the Storm of War series engine — we will have 1-1.5 years production time for each follow-up title. Future titles from the Storm of War series will see the market with much less time in development compared to the initial release of theStorm of War series engine and the first series title, Storm of War: Battle of Britain.

Read more: http://www.simhq.com/_air11/air_341c4.html#ixzz3IoFwkiOS
Follow us: @SimHQ on Twitter | SimHQ on Facebook


Heinkill was spot and fair, his obervations about the map was the very first thing i noticed on my first flight, can this be changed? we will have to wait and see.

for me the easiest way to look at it is like this Lite, medium,heavy (WT,BoS,CLoD)

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

This:


Oleg: First, a reminder that IL-2 Sturmovik was in development for over 4 years before it was released. Then many years of modifications and adding new features in add-ons followed. Without the right engine design to allow modifications in the beginning of the IL-2 project, we would never have seen the IL-2 series come to life. But keep in mind IL-2 Sturmovik was only one title.

The Storm of War series engine and the first product, Storm of War: Battle of Britain is many times more complex than the engine in theIL-2 series. Also, the content itself is in some cases a hundred times more complex than in the IL-2 series. And that is not all. We have added new features into the Storm of War series engine that will give Storm of War a long, long life. Maybe even longer than the IL-2series engine. We are building for the “next level” of quality and features. This takes much more time in development than it takes for one product title. Another benefit of having the Storm of War series engine — we will have 1-1.5 years production time for each follow-up title. Future titles from the Storm of War series will see the market with much less time in development compared to the initial release of theStorm of War series engine and the first series title, Storm of War: Battle of Britain.


Unfortunately, 1C Games did not have the patience to wait for the development to finish.

If they did, we would now be in the development stage for the third release in the SoW series.

[hnbdgr]

I know this might have been suggested in the past along with kickstarter funds for source code and what-not but a well written letter (in russian and english) signed by members of the sim community to this man (http://www.software-russia.com/who_is_who/faces/nuraliev) might help.

Like a petition or plea to make SC available partially or in full or to allow people to buy a partial stake in the SC(?). Either way every now and then you hear about a single letter/email being written to the CEO and the CEO would respond positively. One can hope for a miracle.

The other option would be to write en-mass to make it clear that many feel this way..

Now, I'm not saying let's do it, just saying it would be an option and it has sometimes worked in the past. As long as such letter/email is written in a way that couldn't be misconstrued.

EDIT: It just occured to me there might be an agreement with 777 in place that would prevent any such action, if it's so then that's a shame.

[Foul Ole Ron]

1C will likely never release the source code. They want to make money through their joint venture with 777 so not much point in them assisting a competitor in the marketplace. The only scenario I could see it happening is if BOS completely bombed and 1C decided to get out of making flight sims completely. Releasing the source code might make sense then to squeeze out the last bit of money from CloD but even then I wouldn't hold my breath.

[hnbdgr]

1C will likely never release the source code. They want to make money through their joint venture with 777 so not much point in them assisting a competitor in the marketplace. The only scenario I could see it happening is if BOS completely bombed and 1C decided to get out of making flight sims completely. Releasing the source code might make sense then to squeeze out the last bit of money from CloD but even then I wouldn't hold my breath.

I know, companies purpose is to make money. I don't think BoS will be completely bombed and frankly I don't want it to be, I've invested more into it than i did into Cliffs (which is a darn shame) and whilst it has problems and I don't play it right now, I will do the wait-and-see and pick it up again periodically to check if it has improved.

Now, let's look at a middle of the road solution here:

1. Allow TF to have source code.
2. Allow TF to legally receive gifts from community for their work
3. TF will create the next patch (TF 5.0 or TF 6.0) and agree to put it out as a DLC on steam for a price. This would be the painful and partially unfair bit (to TF and community)because all the people already paid for the vanilla game. However if the price is around £5-8 ($7-10) it would be affordable. The profit will be distributed between 1C and TF, in a ratio that will probably favour 1C by a larger margin (7:3 or 8:2 ?).

There are many potential challenges with this approach: Both parties have to be on-board with the idea. What content will be added? Liasing with 1C on a lot of potential issues, TF would need to retain a lot of creative freedom and their organizational structure and their own deadlines. How would the DLC be integrated via steam? Also I imagine it would include a clause that would prevent any commercial release of an eastern front oriented expansion.

But is it feasible? I think it is in that it facilitates the following:

1. 1C makes profit
2. TF continues to be involved in the project, and now has the source code(!) and gets paid some money and are allowed gifts from the community.
3. Players have to put some more money in, but IMHO it would be a very worth-vile investment.

I don't know how you would even describe such a theoretical partnership (contractors?) and perhaps the involvement of a 3rd party to make an official DLC would be unprecedented, but could it work? What do you think?



EDIT: Sorry for OT, please feel free to move or delete this if it's inappropriate here.

[LuseKofte]

I personally do not agree, because the difficult level online are as balanced as in cod. The bombing and ground pounding even harder due to a much better game physics. But that is my subjective opinion.
I flown BOS since first hour, I rate it along side cod for many reasons, but not for the same reasons. I currently enjoy organized flying best in cod, for some shorter and more faster intensive fun I use BOS. The one does not rule out the other.

But this does not mean I disagree what said, I just got another perspective on things than most people here

[Bearcat]

1C will likely never release the source code. They want to make money through their joint venture with 777 so not much point in them assisting a competitor in the marketplace. The only scenario I could see it happening is if BOS completely bombed and 1C decided to get out of making flight sims completely. Releasing the source code might make sense then to squeeze out the last bit of money from CloD but even then I wouldn't hold my breath.

There could also possibly be some legal issues. I think if it were that simple they just would have used the code themselves. Thjere was probably a reason why they chose the DN engine for BoS as opposed to the CoD one... I am not privy to any insider information .. it just seems logical to me that there is more to this than just not wanting the competition. Perhaps they felt the code was too complex or perhaps they felt it was too susceptible to being hacked... IDK.

[Foul Ole Ron]

Now, let's look at a middle of the road solution here:

1. Allow TF to have source code.
2. Allow TF to legally receive gifts from community for their work
3. TF will create the next patch (TF 5.0 or TF 6.0) and agree to put it out as a DLC on steam for a price. This would be the painful and partially unfair bit (to TF and community)because all the people already paid for the vanilla game. However if the price is around £5-8 ($7-10) it would be affordable. The profit will be distributed between 1C and TF, in a ratio that will probably favour 1C by a larger margin (7:3 or 8:2 ?).

There's no real incentive for 1C to do this still. The mark-up they make from something like BOS + future iterations which can sell for $60 / $99 depending on the version is far more than CloD + any cheap DLC given that CloD sells for €10 these days. Unfortunately I think TF are stuck using what they have though it certainly seems they can do a lot now with it given the tools they developed. I can only imagine how much hell it was in the beginning trying to work out what all the bits and pieces did.

[Foul Ole Ron]

There could also possibly be some legal issues. I think if it were that simple they just would have used the code themselves. Thjere was probably a reason why they chose the DN engine for BoS as opposed to the CoD one... I am not privy to any insider information .. it just seems logical to me that there is more to this than just not wanting the competition. Perhaps they felt the code was too complex or perhaps they felt it was too susceptible to being hacked... IDK.

Quite possibly. CloD was developed by 1C / Maddox games so Oleg might have some shared legal ownership of the code with 1C. In any case once they started using 777 staff it would've been easier to keep using the DN engine rather than spend all that time getting those staff up to speed on CloD's engine (which was still in an unfinished state it seems). The path of least resistance was to use DN for all future iterations.

[Arthursmedley]

Unfortunately, 1C Games did not have the patience to wait for the development to finish.

If they did, we would now be in the development stage for the third release in the SoW series.



Hmmm....not sure there's any point in trawling over old ground but I'm really not convinced that the Cliffs official dev team could have managed it.
Here's what Luthier had to say;


Originally Posted by luthier View Post
Finally a comment that got to me. Today's a bad day after all.

It goes without saying for me, and that's why it might be hard to gather that from my reply, but it's obviously OUR fault for single-player being what it is and 3rd party support not showing up.

Your general criticism is spot on. We shipped a product that had too many technical issues for us to really focus on finer elements of gameplay. There had never been a point, we're not even there today, where we could sit back, look at the code, and say, hell, what a great foundation, let's build a great game on top of it.

The GUI especially is our Achilles heel. Like I wrote earlier in the thread, somebody somewhere before I ever showed up chose to make it in a horrible clumsy environment called WPF. By the time I showed up it was too late to go back, and going forward proved extremely painful. Each new screen took forever, everything was clunky, tiny changes or bug fixes required insane amounts of effort, and in the end it took a tremendous painful effort to reach the decidedly insufficient GUI that we have today.

It's extremely painful and frustrating for everyone involved. Believe me.

I think 1C simply pulled the plug to avoid shovelling even more cash into the black hole that Cliffs had become for them.

Any access to Cliffs code might be even more problematic as UbiSoft has an interest too.

[heinkill]

Any access to Cliffs code might be even more problematic as UbiSoft has an interest too.

1C and Ubi are businessness. Give the source code away? No. That just creates potential competitors to their own product (BoS) with no profit.

A2A did it with Battle of Britain, giving source code to BDG modders, because they had no competing title anymore. 1C Maddox did it with 1946 because they thought it was the end of the line for that game.

However, license the code on a paid, or royalties basis? If you made a good offer, sure they would listen.

H

[Jugdriver]

However, license the code on a paid, or royalties basis? If you made a good offer, sure they would listen.

H

I Agree, 1C potentially could be making money off of 2 sims. Both CoD and BoS (working well) does not mean exclusive sales for each but almost certainly having the community buying both, which is (excuse the cliche) a win win for 1C.

There is almost certainly an agreement between 1C and 777 that is keeping the CoD code from development, but I seriously doubt it is permanent, it is most likely performance based or time based. We can only hope that 1C sees the opportunity to have a stake in 2 sims that generate sales, however I am not really that confident that 1C is that perceptive.

AKA_MattE

[Donathin]

In DD #36 there is a lengthy description of AI air combat algorithms scheduled for BOS. How did that all work out? There is very limited mention in the posts I have read.

[LuseKofte]

An cooperation are looking for money, but I am afraid Combat sims of aeronautical sort is not in high regard these days. To get them to even care you need to convince them.
Luthier him self was happy when the project went down the drain. And you got another cooperation not mentioned. Maddox Games. Personally I think it is Maddox Games that own the Game source. UBI was the distributor. The source might very well be in Olegs own storage

[Continu0]

The source might very well be in Olegs own storage

I know from a reliable source that this is not the case.

[Donathin]

In DD #36 there is a lengthy description of AI air combat algorithms scheduled for BOS. How did that all work out? There is very limited mention in the posts I have read.

I have since posted this question as a separate thread.
Thx!

[Chivas]

An cooperation are looking for money, but I am afraid Combat sims of aeronautical sort is not in high regard these days. To get them to even care you need to convince them.
Luthier him self was happy when the project went down the drain. And you got another cooperation not mentioned. Maddox Games. Personally I think it is Maddox Games that own the Game source. UBI was the distributor. The source might very well be in Olegs own storage

Its highly unlikely that Luthier was happy when the project went down the drain. I can understand IC's frustration with COD's development, but there was probably a lot of backroom politics, and backstabbing [typical in most business dealings} that made up part of the decision to transition from Maddox Games too 777 Studios.

Its also highly unlikely that Maddox Games owns any part of the source code, as the percentage Maddox games owned of the source code probably burned away into IC's pockets during the long expensive development of the COD. Which is one of the reasons Oleg left in frustration, as he lost any authority on his companies direction, and IC's decision to release an unfinished sim.

IMHO IC made a huge mistake changing direction, as they would have already sold a Russian theater of operations, with many COD's original problems fixed, and been well into the development of the next theater with a more future proof, and capable DX11 COD game engine.

That said I'm not sure Luthier would have lasted, as from a distance, he appeared to have poor management skills, especially in regards to handling of his personnel, which seemed to become apparent with his DCS WW2 project.

[thee_oddball]

Its highly unlikely that Luthier was happy when the project went down the drain. I can understand IC's frustration with COD's development, but there was probably a lot of backroom politics, and backstabbing [typical in most business dealings} that made up part of the decision to transition from Maddox Games too 777 Studios.

Its also highly unlikely that Maddox Games owns any part of the source code, as the percentage Maddox games owned of the source code probably burned away into IC's pockets during the long expensive development of the COD. Which is one of the reasons Oleg left in frustration, as he lost any authority on his companies direction, and IC's decision to release an unfinished sim.

IMHO IC made a huge mistake changing direction, as they would have already sold a Russian theater of operations, with many COD's original problems fixed, and been well into the development of the next theater with a more future proof, and capable DX11 COD game engine.

That said I'm not sure Luthier would have lasted, as from a distance, he appeared to have poor management skills, especially in regards to handling of his personnel, which seemed to become apparent with his DCS WW2 project.

My guess is that the code is locked is some kinda of leagal limbo with vested interest unable to come to a mutualy benefial arangement.

October of 2007 olegs new room is opened 12/25/2009 olegs last post is made there.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2040&page=2
I believe this is the time he left :( I agree with chivas about finishing the game and having more expansion(s) out, Oleg himself said that expansion would come out between 1-1.5 years AFTER the foundation (core of the engine) was set,look at what TF has done as a volunteer group without! the source code in 18+ months....this tells me the engine can be fixed and if some studio with 20 coders could get their hands on the engine complete with source code i am almost positive that in 6-9 months we would have a solid core to build upon....which is what Oleg originally wanted.

Some of the casualties of the whole devolpent fiasco would be really nice to have right now, I wonder where these models are?
http://download.softclub.ru/pub/il2pict/p-51%20grab0003.jpg

http://download.softclub.ru/pub/il2pict/La-9%20grab0000.jpg

How many models were we shown that never made it into the game?

[Bearcat]

Its highly unlikely that Luthier was happy when the project went down the drain. I can understand IC's frustration with COD's development, but there was probably a lot of backroom politics, and backstabbing [typical in most business dealings} that made up part of the decision to transition from Maddox Games too 777 Studios.

Its also highly unlikely that Maddox Games owns any part of the source code, as the percentage Maddox games owned of the source code probably burned away into IC's pockets during the long expensive development of the COD. Which is one of the reasons Oleg left in frustration, as he lost any authority on his companies direction, and IC's decision to release an unfinished sim.

IMHO IC made a huge mistake changing direction, as they would have already sold a Russian theater of operations, with many COD's original problems fixed, and been well into the development of the next theater with a more future proof, and capable DX11 COD game engine.

That said I'm not sure Luthier would have lasted, as from a distance, he appeared to have poor management skills, especially in regards to handling of his personnel, which seemed to become apparent with his DCS WW2 project.

From my understanding of that entire process those are two unrelated incidents. The dropping of CoD by 1C had nothing to do with the advent of 1C777/1CGS. There was no cause/effect relationship there. The were two unrelated events that just happened to coincide timing wise. I am not at liberty to go into any detail but that is my understanding from a reliable source.


My guess is that the code is locked is some kinda of leagal limbo with vested interest unable to come to a mutualy benefial arangement.

October of 2007 olegs new room is opened 12/25/2009 olegs last post is made there.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2040&page=2
I believe this is the time he left :( I agree with chivas about finishing the game and having more expansion(s) out, Oleg himself said that expansion would come out between 1-1.5 years AFTER the foundation (core of the engine) was set,look at what TF has done as a volunteer group without! the source code in 18+ months....this tells me the engine can be fixed and if some studio with 20 coders could get their hands on the engine complete with source code i am almost positive that in 6-9 months we would have a solid core to build upon....which is what Oleg originally wanted.

Some of the casualties of the whole devolpent fiasco would be really nice to have right now, I wonder where these models are?
http://download.softclub.ru/pub/il2pict/p-51%20grab0003.jpg
http://download.softclub.ru/pub/il2pict/La-9%20grab0000.jpg
How many models were we shown that never made it into the game?

Yeah those models looked pretty good. One of my favorite things about CoD is it's lighting.. It has a unique look to it.. unmistakable. I look forward to seeing BoS in a different environment.. I think thast is when we will be able to really see some differences/similarities with CoD, WoP & WT... (While the latter two have issues as far as their "simmyness" the quality of their graphics are really non debatable as far as the over all look.. It may not be everyone's cup of tea.. but they still look very good...

[Mysticpuma]

Got to be honest, the skinning, lighting and landscape in this Warthunder image looks very impressive!

http://live.warthunder.com/post/16927/?q=%23historical

[LizLemon]

From my understanding of that entire process those are two unrelated incidents. The dropping of CoD by 1C had nothing to do with the advent of 1C777/1CGS. There was no cause/effect relationship there. The were two unrelated events that just happened to coincide timing wise. I am not at liberty to go into any detail but that is my understanding from a reliable source.

Do you really think it was just coincidence?

[Mysticpuma]

Well as Bearcat posted on the other forum.....BoS and CloD both had a fantastic launch......honestly. Assassins Creed Unity has caused a 9% drop in Ubisoft shares after it's disastrous and bugged launch. Some truly funny glitches all found within 24-hours of release! :


http://youtu.be/-PkzIGSyjLQ

http://youtu.be/-PkzIGSyjLQ

[LuseKofte]

Its highly unlikely that Luthier was happy when the project went down the drain. I can understand IC's frustration with COD's development, but there was probably a lot of backroom politics, and backstabbing [typical in most business dealings} that made up part of the decision to transition from Maddox Games too 777 Studios.

Its also highly unlikely that Maddox Games owns any part of the source code, as the percentage Maddox games owned of the source code probably burned away into IC's pockets during the long expensive development of the COD. Which is one of the reasons Oleg left in frustration, as he lost any authority on his companies direction, and IC's decision to release an unfinished sim.

IMHO IC made a huge mistake changing direction, as they would have already sold a Russian theater of operations, with many COD's original problems fixed, and been well into the development of the next theater with a more future proof, and capable DX11 COD game engine.

That said I'm not sure Luthier would have lasted, as from a distance, he appeared to have poor management skills, especially in regards to handling of his personnel, which seemed to become apparent with his DCS WW2 project.

Actually I refered from Luthiers own words, I guess somewhere down the line he was sacked , he also said he later regret it when he saw the poorley situation and choices the cs community got

[Foul Ole Ron]

Do you really think it was just coincidence?

Most definitely not. 777 had hit the end as far as ROF is concerned and needed a WW2 project + partnership capital from somebody seeing as ROF never made much money. I'm sure they worked behind the scenes to highlight to 1C some of their key advantages of their approach given that they do clearly know how to work within a budget and time frame. The timing was fortunate for them as 1C were clearly in a mood to listen as they can't have been happy with Oleg's flexible relationship with time and how the CloD release went. Can't really slam 777 for this in my opinion. It's just business at the end of the day and as a company you have to look out for yourselves first. Oleg left himself open to this sort of thing happening given the state of CloD.

[Dakpilot]

Do you really think it was just coincidence?

I have read several times from various 777 dev's that they were approached by 1C and not the other way around

(do not have the links but the info is out there)

If after finalising the deal, 1C pulled the plug on CLiffs I can see where the point of view (and it does exist) that BoS killed CloD comes from

However at this point Cliffs was in its own self induced crisis with budget/management and time overrun problems, whilst we may never know the inner details of the problems financial or programming it is not unreasonable to say that the unwise premature launch was the nail in the coffin. The decisions behind this were undoubtedly financial, -release it now and fix it quick so we can get some of our investment back or we cancel it- unfortunately for whatever reasons it did not get fixed quick enough to rescue itself from the bad launch publicity (warranted or not)

The conspiracy theories that abound and continue to be hinted at, that somehow 777 snuck in and killed CloD are just that and until proven differently are just a devisive tool to split this already small community.

1C may be a disliked entity among fans of the flight sim genre but I am sure if there was a financially positive way of continuing forward they would have chosen that route(what greedy corporation wouldn't), as bad/disappointing as the actual decision was for the community the only logical conclusion is that they had no choice, what killed it was bad management and over ambition within a budget/time frame...something that has happened many times in game/software development

This is all just a subjective opinion based on realities of fiscal responsibility, so please don't over analyse company name details etc. I think you can get the gist of where I am coming from, I am not stating any of this as fact, so if there are genuine facts I am sure people would love to know them.

P.S. I am not saying CloD is bad, It should have been great and the work TF have done to fix the initial flaws have been an example of hard work and dedication

Cheers Dakpilot :recon:

[Chivas]

There is no chance in hell that the demise of COD, and the funding of BOS are unrelated. That said, I can understand IC frustration with COD's long development time/costs incurred, that lead to the decision to release the sim unfinished in hopes that the development team would be able to optimize it in time to save the project. For anyone to suggest that the COD game engine was too screwed up to fix is ridiculous, just as suggesting the BOS game engine can't be improved.

Unfortunately the BOS development is straying away from the very popular IL-2 sandbox game play model, but some changes were necessary, while other changes made no sense. Combat sim fans were the big losers when the huge potential of the COD game engine sandbox was cancelled, but luckily the communities Team Fusion modders stepped in to save the day.

[thee_oddball]

I have read several times from various 777 dev's that they were approached by 1C and not the other way around

(do not have the links but the info is out there)

If after finalising the deal, 1C pulled the plug on CLiffs I can see where the point of view (and it does exist) that BoS killed CloD comes from

However at this point Cliffs was in its own self induced crisis with budget/management and time overrun problems, whilst we may never know the inner details of the problems financial or programming it is not unreasonable to say that the unwise premature launch was the nail in the coffin. The decisions behind this were undoubtedly financial, -release it now and fix it quick so we can get some of our investment back or we cancel it- unfortunately for whatever reasons it did not get fixed quick enough to rescue itself from the bad launch publicity (warranted or not)

The conspiracy theories that abound and continue to be hinted at, that somehow 777 snuck in and killed CloD are just that and until proven differently are just a devisive tool to split this already small community.

1C may be a disliked entity among fans of the flight sim genre but I am sure if there was a financially positive way of continuing forward they would have chosen that route(what greedy corporation wouldn't), as bad/disappointing as the actual decision was for the community the only logical conclusion is that they had no choice, what killed it was bad management and over ambition within a budget/time frame...something that has happened many times in game/software development

This is all just a subjective opinion based on realities of fiscal responsibility, so please don't over analyse company name details etc. I think you can get the gist of where I am coming from, I am not stating any of this as fact, so if there are genuine facts I am sure people would love to know them.

P.S. I am not saying CloD is bad, It should have been great and the work TF have done to fix the initial flaws have been an example of hard work and dedication

Cheers Dakpilot :recon:

No matter the rhyme or reason behind the demise of CLoD one thing I am almost %100 sure about is that 1C would have been better off in the long run by biting the bullet and finishing CLoD because Oleg was building a new engine not just re-skinning the original il2.

The new engine upon completion would be flexible, robust and feature rich giving it long legs and CLoD would have just been the first incarnation of it with expansions to follow and of course the licensing of the engine would naturally follow much like the original IL2.

Going with 777 and their engine was a fast but short term fix and I say that because the system requirements for BoS are the same as for RoF meaning that there has been no serious evolution of their engine if it can run on 3-4 generation old equipment. what ever 777 has done to their engine it is more lateral than expansive in terms of the performance envelope,if they have not done any serious work on the engine in the last 5 years I don't see them starting now, they have a stable platform and will continue to milk it for as long as they can which makes perfect business sense but in terms of IL2 and the long run I see Bos as an intermediate mid range sim that can be fun for smaller missions' CO-OP's and online wars, I really don't see any complex persist worlds with tons of objects A.I. and 64 player interaction happening with the BoS engine.

Now if I am wrong it's a win win for everyone :)

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Going with 777 and their engine was a fast but short term fix and I say that because the system requirements for BoS are the same as for RoF meaning that there has been no serious evolution of their engine if it can run on 3-4 generation old equipment. what ever 777 has done to their engine it is more lateral than expansive in terms of the performance envelope,if they have not done any serious work on the engine in the last 5 years I don't see them starting now, they have a stable platform and will continue to milk it for as long as they can which makes perfect business sense but in terms of IL2 and the long run I see Bos as an intermediate mid range sim that can be fun for smaller missions' CO-OP's and online wars, I really don't see any complex persist worlds with tons of objects A.I. and 64 player interaction happening with the BoS engine.

Now if I am wrong it's a win win for everyone :)

I wonder how many of the original Neoqu developers transferred over to 777 when they took it over? Maybe they lost a lot of the original expertise that was required to keep developing the base game system? Does anyone know?

[Bearcat]

Do you really think it was just coincidence?

Yes I do. Purely a matter of timing. If 777 had not been in a position to do that it never would have happened.


Well as Bearcat posted on the other forum.....BoS and CloD both had a fantastic launch......honestly.

I said that?


Got to be honest, the skinning, lighting and landscape in this Warthunder image looks very impressive!
http://live.warthunder.com/post/16927/?q=%23historical

Visually WT is fantastic. So was WoP.


Most definitely not. 777 had hit the end as far as ROF is concerned and needed a WW2 project + partnership capital from somebody seeing as ROF never made much money. I'm sure they worked behind the scenes to highlight to 1C some of their key advantages of their approach given that they do clearly know how to work within a budget and time frame. The timing was fortunate for them as 1C were clearly in a mood to listen as they can't have been happy with Oleg's flexible relationship with time and how the CloD release went. Can't really slam 777 for this in my opinion. It's just business at the end of the day and as a company you have to look out for yourselves first. Oleg left himself open to this sort of thing happening given the state of CloD.

That does not translate into 777 making a backroom deal with 1C to dump CoD and get in bed with 777 though. I am certain that had CoD been a better managed affair from the beginning it would still be supported by 1C today.


I have read several times from various 777 dev's that they were approached by 1C and not the other way around

(do not have the links but the info is out there)

If after finalising the deal, 1C pulled the plug on CLiffs I can see where the point of view (and it does exist) that BoS killed CloD comes from

However at this point Cliffs was in its own self induced crisis with budget/management and time overrun problems, whilst we may never know the inner details of the problems financial or programming it is not unreasonable to say that the unwise premature launch was the nail in the coffin. The decisions behind this were undoubtedly financial, -release it now and fix it quick so we can get some of our investment back or we cancel it- unfortunately for whatever reasons it did not get fixed quick enough to rescue itself from the bad launch publicity (warranted or not)

The conspiracy theories that abound and continue to be hinted at, that somehow 777 snuck in and killed CloD are just that and until proven differently are just a devisive tool to split this already small community.

1C may be a disliked entity among fans of the flight sim genre but I am sure if there was a financially positive way of continuing forward they would have chosen that route(what greedy corporation wouldn't), as bad/disappointing as the actual decision was for the community the only logical conclusion is that they had no choice, what killed it was bad management and over ambition within a budget/time frame...something that has happened many times in game/software development

P.S. I am not saying CloD is bad, It should have been great and the work TF have done to fix the initial flaws have been an example of hard work and dedication
Cheers Dakpilot :recon:

CoD is not bad at all. It was.. for a lot of folks .. at it's launch and subsequently up to that last official patch. That had more to do with it's demise than anything 777 did.

[vranac]

Yes I do. Purely a matter of timing. If 777 had not been in a position to do that it never would have happened.


That does not translate into 777 making a backroom deal with 1C to dump CoD and get in bed with 777 though. I am certain that had CoD been a better managed affair from the beginning it would still be supported by 1C today.



CoD is not bad at all. It was.. for a lot of folks .. at it's launch and subsequently up to that last official patch. That had more to do with it's demise than anything 777 did.

Really ?

So, 1C was financing that "broken" project for 18 months or so and just a few months before releasing alpha "BoM" they closed it.
Oh, and suddenly 777 shows up and start to make their product with 3D models that have been made by MG team.
Have you missed those ?

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3I/jO/YNy3yCg/shot20120720170525.jpg
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3C/JU/1lX3NCeN/shot20120330122419.jpg

You're implying that Oleg or/and Ilya are bad managers ? And you have no idea how many people were working on SoW development.
Search trough my posts here and you'll find some translated posts from Oleg and other ex-MG devs (the key ones) and you'll have a better picture.

CloD wasn't running well for you on your antique PC and others that didn't want to upgrade. That was the main problem.
Sim fans that wanted nice beautiful graphics but didn't want to invest in their hobby. I think I have the right to speak about that because I live in the part of the world
where it's a few times harder to buy a new gaming PC. You could buy a PC for 350-400$ then that would run CloD very well.
While I was flying together with some guys with three years old graphic cards (gtx260 from 2008). Was it perfect for them ? No. But it was well playable.
Try to play BoS on your old PC if you still have it.

[1lokos]

... antique PC and others that didn't want to upgrade.

I start play CLoD around May, 2011.

My PC at time: Athlon 64 3000+ (@2.0GHZ), 4 GB DDR DIMM, Gf 6600 GT 256 MB, devinitively "antique". :)

Of course be play I dont mean doing stunts at 20 meters over London streets or slalom between Le Havre chimneys,
but play QM, SM, did some missions in FMB, and play in ATAG server at end of year.

Which led me wonder what people give to their (hight end) PC's "eat"... :D

I only did upgrate in November 2012 and end deceived by the penultimate MG patch buying an ATI VGA (cost me 750$).
Because the fuck*** last patch, more a roll back of previous patches (which according Loft post on forums, was administered by him)
reintroduced the bug "Durero Magic Square"... :thmbdwn:

[LuseKofte]

Really ?

So, 1C was financing that "broken" project for 18 months or so and just a few months before releasing alpha "BoM" they closed it.
Oh, and suddenly 777 shows up and start to make their product with 3D models that have been made by MG team.
Have you missed those ?


You're implying that Oleg or/and Ilya are bad managers ? And you have no idea how many people were working on SoW development.
Search trough my posts here and you'll find some translated posts from Oleg and other ex-MG devs (the key ones) and you'll have a better picture.

CloD wasn't running well for you on your antique PC and others that didn't want to upgrade. That was the main problem.
Sim fans that wanted nice beautiful graphics but didn't want to invest in their hobby. I think I have the right to speak about that because I live in the part of the world
where it's a few times harder to buy a new gaming PC. You could buy a PC for 350-400$ then that would run CloD very well.
While I was flying together with some guys with three years old graphic cards (gtx260 from 2008). Was it perfect for them ? No. But it was well playable.
Try to play BoS on your old PC if you still have it.

I am saying COD was badly managed in the end, and the tone towards the customers at the end was very bad . What Oleg or Ilya specific did wrong is not up to us. But cod was a financial fiasco no matter what you say, Luthier him self said he was happy when it went down the drain. It must have been chaotic at the end

[vranac]

I start play CLoD around May, 2011.

My PC at time: Athlon 64 3000+ (@2.0GHZ), 4 GB DDR DIMM, Gf 6600 GT 256 MB, devinitively "antique". :)

Of course be play I dont mean doing stunts at 20 meters over London streets or slalom between Le Havre chimneys,
but play QM, SM, did some missions in FMB, and play in ATAG server at end of year.

Which led me wonder what people give to their (hight end) PC's "eat"... :D

I only did upgrate in November 2012 and end deceived by the penultimate MG patch buying an ATI VGA (cost me 750$).
Because the fuck*** last patch, more a roll back of previous patches (which according Loft post on forums, was administered by him)
reintroduced the bug "Durero Magic Square"... :thmbdwn:

:stunned: With 6600gt ? My friend was playing online with 9600gt 512MB and shooting planes down. Yes, he had problems, probably because of not enough VRAM,
but that card was weaker then legendary 8800/9800/250gts which was maybe the most popular card for years. He upgraded soon.
I just can't understand how that huge fan base from il2 could expect that the new shiny game with really astonishing improvements and detail should run well on a 4-5 years old PC's.

I'm astonished with those prices in Brazil. If other low end PC's are also much more expensive then in the rest of the world, they are stopping progress with that.

[vranac]

I am saying COD was badly managed in the end, and the tone towards the customers at the end was very bad . What Oleg or Ilya specific did wrong is not up to us. But cod was a financial fiasco no matter what you say, Luthier him self said he was happy when it went down the drain. It must have been chaotic at the end

What you want to say with this ? At what end ? They were a few months before a release. You can find B6s post that alpha will go out in early 2013.
How many times someone has to repeat, they weren't paid to fix CloD. There wouldn't be any profit even if they were completely focused only on that.
They were focused at releasing the sequel, which would by the way improve CloD as well and solve some problems with it also.

You're talking about tone toward customers ? Look at Loft and Han. I never saw something like that and there is a lot more from earlier times in EA.

Who would be happy that his life work, his goal in life is flushed down the drain ? Are you comprehending what are you writing?
This sound happy to you ?


So it is with a very heavy heart that I say goodbye to the IL-2 series today. It’s been a part of my life for so long, the one thing I cannot remember is not being a part of the Il-2 world.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=36444

Yes, he was so happy that he tried to make a new project with the same idea in mind but in much worse conditions for the producer, without any control over the engine and FM's for the example.

What was chaotic ? He and the whole team was sacked. The guy who made those beautiful 109 cockpits spoke on the forums.

I know I'm beating a dead horse here but when I see something like this I just can't get over it without a comment.

[LuseKofte]

Yes he did say that , but he said what I said later on. I will see if I can find a quote, like BOS developers and Oleg and Ilya Luthier was interested and passionate combat simulator enthusiast.
It do not get along well in a community forum in the long run. Luthier said just what I said , but he said now I am sad about it, because the combat flight sim enthusiast does not have anything

[Chivas]

Yes he did say that , but he said what I said later on. I will see if I can find a quote, like BOS developers and Oleg and Ilya Luthier was interested and passionate combat simulator enthusiast.
It do not get along well in a community forum in the long run. Luthier said just what I said , but he said now I am sad about it, because the combat flight sim enthusiast does not have anything

I'd like to see the quote with a link, as I've followed the Storm of War very closely over the years, and never read anything from Luthier that remotely suggested anything like he was happy the development crashed and burned.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Yes he did say that , but he said what I said later on. I will see if I can find a quote, like BOS developers and Oleg and Ilya Luthier was interested and passionate combat simulator enthusiast.
It do not get along well in a community forum in the long run. Luthier said just what I said , but he said now I am sad about it, because the combat flight sim enthusiast does not have anything

You are completely incorrect in saying Luthier, (Ilya Shevchenko) was happy CoD was cancelled.

I know the opposite was true from my own communications with him.

[ATAG_Colander]

I guess he was happy he didn't have to read the forums any more thought. I know I would! :D

[LuseKofte]

This is a quote from not long ago, I just need to remember where I read it.
It is not even relevant, What Vranac here describe as the happy days, really was far worse , I find it funny that those hit by the shitstorm then are the one create it now . It was devastating times , Now it is pi in the sea

[Hood]

I seem to remember a quote along those lines but who said it and in what context I can't recall.

Whatever, it's all tragic.

Hood

[Chivas]

I agree with Colander, it was more likely something like a negative comment about the COD forums, and then twisted to suit.

[LuseKofte]

Probably taken out of context too, I never read it all, because he was quoted

[IonicRipper]

I tried to like this game, i really did. I had so much faith in the game when it was in early access. Even now I start it up from time to time in the hopes that I might actually fall for it this time but every time I get the same feeling: For some reason it feels pointless and bores me to tears. Anyone else getting this feeling? I don't quite get why I feel this way about it... It had such a great start in the early access! :(

P.S. Sorry for reviving an old(ish) thread.

[dburne]

I tried to like this game, i really did. I had so much faith in the game when it was in early access. Even now I start it up from time to time in the hopes that I might actually fall for it this time but every time I get the same feeling: For some reason it feels pointless and bores me to tears. Anyone else getting this feeling?

Yeah I am right there with you, last time I launched BOS was the day after they unleased the unlocks upon us.
I bought into the EA the day after it was announced, and really enjoyed a lot of the sim during the developmental period. Some things I really liked, and some I was not real fond of, but overall I felt it was a really solid sim and had a great future. I was so looking forward to seeing the SP campaign system, especially after knowing how it was in ROF, thinking it would be similar but even improved upon.

In it's current incarnation, BOS is just not for me. Lesson learned, I will never do a pre-buy into early access on anything again.
My number one WWII sim remains, TF Cliffs of Dover. Next in line, IL2 1946 HSFX7. Then for variety ROF, and DCS. Heck just with these, I have way more than I really have time for anyways.
Oh and yes, I also supported DCS WWII Kickstarter project as well, another lesson learned :).

I don't think I could be any more disappointed than I currently am with BOS.

[Bucksnort]

Even now I start it up from time to time in the hopes that I might actually fall for it this time but every time I get the same feeling: For some reason it feels pointless and bores me to tears. Anyone else getting this feeling?

Yup, I fly about 1 sortie a week, but then give up with the same feeling. "Pointless" describes it best for me. There seems to be no purpose in what you're doing during a mission in BoS. It is the worst designed SP campaign I have ever flown in a PC based combat flight sim.

[Hood]

10 hours and you'll have unlocked everything on your 3 favourite planes. Then have fun online.

Or get through the first 3 campaign phases and it all picks up a lot.

Or don't bother, and delete it from your hard drive, though if single player is your thing I don't know what modern sim you'll play.

3 easy choices.

Hood

[ChiefRedCloud]

Well for what it's worth, I still enjoy BoS. Perhaps in no small part to the fact I'm rather ignorant of much of the details complained about many. Except UNLOCKS. I don't like them but am dealing with them. Should we have to? Most of us agree that we shouldn't have to but those of us who still play do.

As personal choices go, we each have to make our own. In that I respect your decisions. Perhaps with time things may change. Maybe not. We'll see in the New Year.

Chief

[Donathin]

After an almost three year hiatus I have fired up CloD updated with TF mods to 4.312, FSX with A2A Spitfire+Accusim and ROF. In CloD I have created a few simple missions in the FMB including a script that shows damage to enemy aircraft I hit as it occurs. Native fps counter in CloD is also nice. Admittedly I much prefer flying the Channel to the idea of flying over a frozen S*grad. Given the current state of BoS I just don't have a reason to buy it. If there were a f2p BoS version I probably would give it a try. One big turn-off for me is what looks in YouTube videos like a very arcadey damage model where everything smokes and burns profusely. Unlocks are fun in Far Cry3 but not in a CFS that has no entertaining storyline to accompany them. Thankfully I have not given the 1CGS/777 team any money. I do find BoS forum discussions entertaining and will continue to follow. For those who are enjoying BoS: Happy New Year!

[hnbdgr]

After an almost three year hiatus I have fired up CloD updated with TF mods to 4.312, FSX with A2A Spitfire+Accusim and ROF. In CloD I have created a few simple missions in the FMB including a script that shows damage to enemy aircraft I hit as it occurs. Native fps counter in CloD is also nice. Admittedly I much prefer flying the Channel to the idea of flying over a frozen S*grad. Given the current state of BoS I just don't have a reason to buy it. If there were a f2p BoS version I probably would give it a try. One big turn-off for me is what looks in YouTube videos like a very arcadey damage model where everything smokes and burns profusely. Unlocks are fun in Far Cry3 but not in a CFS that has no entertaining storyline to accompany them. Thankfully I have not given the 1CGS/777 team any money. I do find BoS forum discussions entertaining and will continue to follow. For those who are enjoying BoS: Happy New Year!

The DM is very simple. I've flown for an hour today just testing aircraft and gunnery and every hit left a smoke trail - it didn't matter where I hit them. Even from wingtips and stuff, amazing! :) Also one hit and you're toast more or less. a single MG bullet hit will damage your engine and black smoke pours out. I've noticed a lack of rudder authority on all A/c at all speeds - this makes aiming a bit more difficult then in Cliffs, but then again you only need one or two hits :D


On the other hand the collision model is fairly nicely done. especially slow speed collissions or ground collisions. Cliffs suffers in this respect.

[Hood]

... every hit left a smoke trail - it didn't matter where I hit them...

Now I'm not saying that this wasn't so, but every hit?

So many times I've poured fire into an IL2 or LaGG or even a Yak and haven't been rewarded by a hint of damage. Maybe that's because I've missed, or maybe because I haven't hit something flammable with something that burns, but many many hits haven't resulted in smoke.

I've also been hit plenty of times but manged to get home. It sure changes how you fly when you know that guns do real damage.

Hood

[hnbdgr]

Now I'm not saying that this wasn't so, but every hit?

So many times I've poured fire into an IL2 or LaGG or even a Yak and haven't been rewarded by a hint of damage. Maybe that's because I've missed, or maybe because I haven't hit something flammable with something that burns, but many many hits haven't resulted in smoke.

I've also been hit plenty of times but manged to get home. It sure changes how you fly when you know that guns do real damage.

Hood

I played the quick mission builder against laggs/il2s & 109F's. Almost every hit I scored resulted in smoke pouring out. Hitting the fuselage especially central and front guarantees some sort of smoke trail. hitting the wings from a higher AoA like in a snapshot or turnfight will (more often than not) lead to grey smoke appearing on the wings closer to the wingtips. In BoS smoke appears to work as an indicator of a successful hit. Maybe all the ammo belts have a mixture of incendiary in it, I dunno it might be. But overall one cannot deny that it is a simpler damage model than in cliffs as it doesn't look to calculate the vector of the projectile and the possibility of hitting a system inside the fuselage - beyond the surface of the hitbox. Instead it looks to me like a general hitbox area has subsystems assigned to it. So hitting a surface will result in the game computing a random chance of system failure/smoke appearing. In that respect it is simpler and perhaps a bit overdone . It makes for spectacular effects when you hit the enemy however.

Let me put it this way. 4 canon round hits in Cliffs in the rear fuselage might deal damage, but you'll still be able to RTB if they didn't hit anything critical. If no pipes, tubes, fuel has been hit and the ammo wasn't incendiary you won't see smoke coming out the hit a/c. In Bos, 4 hits on the fuselage carry a much higher chance of a fatal hit - you might crashland but you probably won't make it to base. Smoke is almost guaranteed to appear.

My personal theory is that with all the wind and turbulence, limited rudder authority and the somewhat bouncy flying characteristics; a more complex Damage model would mean very few people would shoot something down. Therefore the calculations on the hitboxes have an increased chance of critical hits to give people a fair chance.

To be fair - in Cliffs it can take an unrealistically high ammount of ammo to shoot something down. 109'ers complain about spit wings being armored, and spit drivers complain about 109's surviving hundreds of .303 hits. The complexity of the damage model is great, but the damage taken/dealt seems a bit off. Ideally I'd like to see it increased.

IMO you need to watch your six in both sims equally. in Cliffs a sneaky spit can turn you into a fireball in no time and a sneaky 109 will inflict enough damage for you to never limp home. It is the damage received in a snapshot that can be very different in these sims. Let's take a MG only fight for instance - In cliffs there's a smaller chance of the opponent hitting something vital on your plane let alone cause a critical. In BoS it is more likely to result in critical damage a bit randomly.

anyway, I'm still in the phase of ironing everything out as far as controls, curves and getting to know all a/c. Take it all with a pinch of salt but these are my observations so far.

[vranac]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMRV_Z67Ifg

Mighty il2 ;-)

[Dakpilot]

A .50 cal @ 1050 rof shooting into the known weak spot (oil cooler area) shows what?

agree that some more work is needed on damage/hits but that vid is rather irrelevant

Cheers Dakpilot

[vranac]

It's not shooting at oil cooler, but at the engine which should be armored. And with a very high angle also.

Here is shooting at both.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX8LNWuVZS4

[hnbdgr]

It's not shooting at oil cooler, but at the engine which should be armored. And with a very high angle also.

Here is shooting at both.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX8LNWuVZS4

can you put a translation of what they are saying? I understand the people on TS are in the targeted il2's and are calling out which systems are disabled with every hit, just unsure about the actual systems and level of damage

[Dakpilot]

Armour on IL-2

http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showpost.php?p=452428&postcount=7

Cheers Dakpilot

[vranac]

can you put a translation of what they are saying? I understand the people on TS are in the targeted il2's and are calling out which systems are disabled with every hit, just unsure about the actual systems and level of damage

Yes, you got it right. Instant damage every time, you see when they're re-spawning. I think oil radiator was also closed (not 100% sure), it was armored also.

This il-2 got two hits with 20mm cannon and landed safely at an airfield.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/1a/kq/3FU7sYi7/4339908.jpg

[Dakpilot]

Yep that was a lucky one, the other 23,650 that were lost did not fare so well

It is all a work in progress, hopefully as work was recently done to FW190 and LA-5 damage model, more updates will bring further improvements as was also recently done to ammunition type damage model in 1.007 or 1.008

We shall see what will come with the four major updates spoken about after the holidays

Cheers Dakpilot

[ATAG_NakedSquirrel]

It's not shooting at oil cooler, but at the engine which should be armored. And with a very high angle also.

Here is shooting at both.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX8LNWuVZS4

I dont know if that will change. It is the way the RoF engine is and I don't imagine BoS will change too much.

CloD takes into account quite a bit of different factors including the angle of impact.

RoF/BoS uses hitboxes.

The DM is one of RoF's biggest downfalls in my opinion. Control surfaces fall off with x number of bullets, wings break apart with x number of bullets, ect. Even with a single bullet, you know you've been 'hit' because your plane will suddenly generate turbulence, and you don't have to shoot wing spars or struts to break a wing apart. Even if you hit the wing tip with x number of bullets, the wing will crumple off just the same as if you hit the wing root. Your relative velocity isn't accounted for, so you can still smoke someone's engine at long distances in RoF. Engine damage is also fairly simple. There are around 7 different types of engine damage. BoS added a few more, but the base damage model appears to be the same as RoF.

CloD, on the other hand, is amazing for it's DM. I've seen small fires slowly start up from inside the engine before erupting from the aircraft, single pistons shot out, ammo belts broken, and aircraft slowly burn from the inside out.

I am not sure how the DCS damage model is done, whether it is a hitbox system with hit points and randomization or if they take into account armor penetration and bullet angles. Either way it produces interesting results. You can knock out electrical systems, hydrolic pumps, fuel lines, ammo belts, pistons, ect. (unfortunately it has aweful visuals)

If BoS does anything different to their DM, I believe it will most likely be along the lines of adding more random damage for bullet impacts. Or they will tweak the hit boxes to make them smaller.

[LuseKofte]

The damage model is one of the few things with BOS that bug me, I fly IL2 the most and it is too easy to shoot down. However it do damage those trying in a careless manner. So the playability is not ruined and the Historical outcome the same.
It is a myth that the IL 2 was hard to shoot down, that myth started on the first encounter with it in 1941, The armor around the engine and cabin can resist a 7 mm bullet coming from angles , but not on straight angle.
It is not a deal breaker , but if there is any for my sake , this is it. DM should have been more developed, not gonna argue with that.

[hnbdgr]

If BoS does anything different to their DM, I believe it will most likely be along the lines of adding more random damage for bullet impacts. Or they will tweak the hit boxes to make them smaller.

I'd be happy with this sort of change. Smaller more numerous hitboxes and a tad less smoke. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to do an outer hitbox and an inner hitbox for instance, replicating wing surface and inner structure. Then calculate the chance of the bullet penetrating the outer hitbox into the smaller hitbox. That would be a good move as it would potentially reduce the number of critical hits in empty areas.

[vranac]

The damage model is one of the few things with BOS that bug me, I fly IL2 the most and it is too easy to shoot down. However it do damage those trying in a careless manner. So the playability is not ruined and the Historical outcome the same.
It is a myth that the IL 2 was hard to shoot down, that myth started on the first encounter with it in 1941, The armor around the engine and cabin can resist a 7 mm bullet coming from angles , but not on straight angle.
It is not a deal breaker , but if there is any for my sake , this is it. DM should have been more developed, not gonna argue with that.

Complete nonsense. So, planes fall down after a few low caliber hits. Very historical and accurate.

20mm shots from a side at the cockpit.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/1M/FS/1NCWoUVh/4339902.jpg

Shots from behind, 20mm.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/d/aE/40ZSCe8f/4339904.jpg

Engine from below.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/m/LV/2rCc3Pma/4339906.jpg

All of those il-2's landed safely.

Il-2 got hit by five 37mm shells, destroyed elevator, right spar and cannon, landed safely. Pilot was Ltn. Titovich.
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/2i/st/3vy5kHFN/1/pic73.jpg

Krivoruchko's plane, attacked multiple times by enemy fighters, damaged elevators, broken right spar and damaged landing gears. Aeroplane fall apart during the landing at the airfield.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3J/fr/3GiMNW3Q/tmpsxsain.jpg

I could go on and on... Il-2 wasn't a tank but it was well protected and could suffer a lot of damage and land safely at a base.
There are testimonies from experienced LW pilots how much damage Il-2 could take.


@Dakpilot , is this that La-5 DM fix ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nGIHkAOG5U

The main problem here is that devs answer on those videos is "everything is fine and correct" ©

[Dakpilot]

To some extent this is already implemented when damage to control rods and guns was introduced a short while ago, at the moment it would seem that most efforts from the team (on holiday now) are on the ME, mods on mode and Dserver to be introduced, after the promised features have been put in and more testing of MP player restrictions/server stability I should imagine bug fixes and tweaks will become more of a priority,there have pretty much been tweaks with every update

@ Vranac you have been saying that the devs will never change anything right from the start, this has been disproved so many times that it becomes pointless to even debate with you

Cheers Dakpilot

[LuseKofte]

Vranac to refer your own words that is totally nonsense , you never flown that thing and discuss with me how it is who fly it every day. You are intact very wrong. But unlike you I do continue to fly it even if it has some obvious flaws, witch by the way I do in cod too, and dcs.
You obviously have not any knew how armour works and how much latest patch witch reduced DM problems with 50 %
You can no longer catch fire being hit by anything other than incendiary bullets. You actually can survive 3 to 4 attacks by a fighter now. And almost every time I manage to damage the attacker . It is a myth that IL 2 went unharmed , they suffered huge losses by AA and fighters

[Bucksnort]

10 hours and you'll have unlocked everything on your 3 favourite planes. Then have fun online.

Or get through the first 3 campaign phases and it all picks up a lot.

Or don't bother, and delete it from your hard drive, though if single player is your thing I don't know what modem sim you'll play. 3 easy choices.

Hood

The dated BoS SP Campaign is the problem and is anything but modern. It harkens back to the days of AD&D Gold Box unlocks and levels. IL-2 1946 and CloD campaigns are much more modern. BoS graphics are modern, but the BoS Donkey Kong style SP Campaign is the primary thing hurting BoS for single players. If 1CGS would step into the 21st century with their SP Campaign, BoS would be pretty decent for single players.

So I'll take option 4 and wait for the SP Campaign in BoS to change. It has to for BoS to survive...its the laughing stock of combat flight sims right now.

[IonicRipper]

Not sure if I would call it the laughing stock of flight sims... I certainly think its a contender but the campaign is boring and unnecessarily arcady and the DM definitely needs work. There is still potential for a great game if they fix those but as of now I think watching paint dry is more interesting (unfortunately.)

[Bucksnort]

Not sure if I would call it the laughing stock of flight sims... I certainly think its a contender but the campaign is boring and unnecessarily arcady and the DM definitely needs work. There is still potential for a great game if they fix those but as of now I think watching paint dry is more interesting (unfortunately.)

Thanks for pointing that out. When I said "its the laughing stock..." I meant the SP Campaign, not the whole of BoS.

[ATAG_NakedSquirrel]

I'd be happy with this sort of change. Smaller more numerous hitboxes and a tad less smoke. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to do an outer hitbox and an inner hitbox for instance, replicating wing surface and inner structure. Then calculate the chance of the bullet penetrating the outer hitbox into the smaller hitbox. That would be a good move as it would potentially reduce the number of critical hits in empty areas.

Maybe. I am not sure how the additional polygons aka double damage model for every plane would impact the game. At the very least, they really ought to add some randomness to the number of hitpoints delt out by round impacts, especially for armoured parts.

It's more likely that they will shrink the hitboxes of vital parts and/or have some random calculation with bullet impacts so you have a % chance of damaging an ammo belt, radiator, ect. I beleive that is how they do their engine damage, so I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the percentages. Regardless, if you hit a part enough, it will become 'damaged' because it will run out of hitpoints.

They seem to be using a hitpoint system for their DM in general. Bullets/cannons do a certain number of damage points. Once a part reaches a threshold it is damaged or destroyed. Engines are a little different because you hit an engine and it may burn, smoke, lose coolant, ect. Wings, control surfaces, and other parts don't have that randomness, they just lose hitpoints until they are destroyed, and of coarse wings and control surfaces can't withstand the same number of Gs or speeds.

It looks like they are adding more damage 'types' which they started with RoF. RoF has HE and AP cannon rounds which seem to have different damage values for different parts.

I doubt they will deviate too far from that, but I've been surprised before.

[hnbdgr]

As long as it leads to a well done, believable damage model, I wouldn't mind that no bullet entry angles etc. are used. All that matters is that it looks and behaves closer to the real thing. The approach (hitbox), although inferior to cliffs approach, shouldn't matter in the end.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Vranac's pictures are pretty much useless and out of context if there is no detailed information what 20mm was in question and what ammo. MG/FF or MG151/20? HE? AP? F2A-1 Brewsters armed with 4 x .50cal shot down IL-2's on regular basis over Finland during 1943/44, the round penetrated side of cockpit just fine. A VVS Guard's IL-2 pilot in his memoirs stated that even the IL-2 could take a beating, if NON-CRITICAL places were hit, it's armor was no match for the 20mm AAA gun or even less the 37mm. The bulkhead behind the pilot/gunner could stop most ammo, but that is the only thick plate of armor on the plane, rest is a lot thinner. Using isolated singular events to prove the IL-2(or any other plane) was a flying tank is just that, bolstering an overblown myth. Tough? Yes. Impervious to gunfire. No.

[IonicRipper]

With all that was said, I would still buy another IL2 from the same team if they made a Pacific theater.

[Bucksnort]

With all that was said, I would still buy another IL2 from the same team if they made a Pacific theater.

I wouldn't. Not until they free us up with a mission builder and the ability to create in-game campaigns similar to what we can do in IL-2 1946 and CloD. Just flying around blowing stuff up doesn't cut it for me.

With a decent modern campaign or the ability for the community to create modern campaigns I would be back in as a customer. The outdated campaign currently in BoS just doesn't have the depth that the more recent sims like IL-2 1946 and CloD offer. The only thing modern in BoS is the graphics...the BoS campaign is totally 1980's.

[Hood]

You do know this stuff is coming? Don't know when but it's coming - probably best for the single player only folks to wait.

Apart from dynamic campaigns all other campaigns are pretty much generic but with nicely written briefs. Take off, blow stuff up then land.

After playing so many none of them are immersive for me. That's my totally subjective opinion.

Hood

[IonicRipper]

I must say, though, that the Russian planes are much more fun to fly in this game. Perhaps because it is a Russian game? Who knows.

Its not a biased opinion, though. I enjoy flying both sides in CloD.

[Chuck_Owl]

Vranac to refer your own words that is totally nonsense , you never flown that thing and discuss with me how it is who fly it every day. You are intact very wrong. But unlike you I do continue to fly it even if it has some obvious flaws, witch by the way I do in cod too, and dcs.
You obviously have not any knew how armour works and how much latest patch witch reduced DM problems with 50 %
You can no longer catch fire being hit by anything other than incendiary bullets. You actually can survive 3 to 4 attacks by a fighter now. And almost every time I manage to damage the attacker . It is a myth that IL 2 went unharmed , they suffered huge losses by AA and fighters

The Il-2 WAS in fact a flying tank. Just read anything from german aces like Hartmann and they are all in agreement that the Il-2 was a tank. There are many instances where 20mm cannon shells just bounced on the armor. Yes: bounced.

Hartmann wrote that the only viable way to incapacitate a Sturmovik in a single pass was to get under it and hit its radiators or the oil coolers just under the engine block. Otherwise it was possible to run your guns dry and still see that russian plane flying.

[Valec]

Armour
14545
14546

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IElPsm5C8kQ

[vranac]

S!

Vranac's pictures are pretty much useless and out of context if there is no detailed information what 20mm was in question and what ammo. MG/FF or MG151/20? HE? AP? ...

For the first photo from previous post and for the last two with 20mm damage is specified it was MG151/20. At the first photo you can see some small caliber hits also.
Aeroplane landed safely.

Valec has another nice video on his channel ;-)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cA7mYtEfKA

[Valec]

Full fuel and speed 400Km/h

[IonicRipper]

I should also add to the list of things that need work (along with the campaign and damage model) that the flight model still feels like we're flying weightless kites. I think that what turns me off the most about this game. I think that is the reason why every time I jump in for a quick flight, it makes me feel that way. I guess its understandable since the game uses the RoF engine.

[ATAG_NakedSquirrel]

Did the Russians have fuel injected engines by the Battle of Stalingrad?

[LuseKofte]

The IL 2 armour was about the same quality as HS 129. A socalled tub very efficient against anything thrown at it from any other Angle than 90 degree.
The oilcoolant underneath, controllsurfaces wings and fueltank behind the cockpit underneath the canvas the gunner sat on was its greatest weaknesses.
The german pilots had avsolutely no problem shooting down a IL 2 once they knew how and the rear gunner was done with. The armor was efficient against protecting pilot and engine from ground fire. Despite the 1200 hp engine it was so heavy that only IL 2 without armament and rear gunner Could perform efficient manouvers against fighters Many times they started aggressive defences against fighters with great success.
What I am opposing is Vranacs approach in his chritisism.
IL 2 is a good simulated plane in BOS , it is a cfs witch cannot be mistanken for a simulator. Same goes for cod, they Are both balanced for playability.

[Kwiatek]

Whats wrong with these Yak-1 flying on Valec video?

Russian didn;t have fuel injection in these stage od war but used membran carburettor ( something like in Spitfire Mark IX) which prevent engine cut during negative G.

What casue engine cut at invert flight was drop oil preassure which could casue engine broke. Most WW2 fighers was not allowed to fly inverted more then a few seconds ( ab. 10s) casue of that reason no metter of fuel injection or not.

BTW im impreseed how they made Yak-1 flight model beside its quite high maximum speed dive i dont have too much objections about how it fly. I think these is one of the best general flight model in sims. Unfortunately can't say it about other planes in BOS.