PDA

View Full Version : New update XXII



=BKHZ=Furbs
Jun-28-2013, 08:09
http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/topic/737-developer-diary-part-xxii/

Looking very nice, love the pilot movement and reflection off the goggles.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR7O9fmyJwE&feature=player_embedded

Dutch
Jun-28-2013, 08:17
Yep, already watched it at the other place. Still getting a series of dashes for the aerials, I see. I wish they'd upload at 1080p too. 720p just ain't good enough to get a proper idea.

=BKHZ=Furbs
Jun-28-2013, 09:08
Yep, already watched it at the other place. Still getting a series of dashes for the aerials, I see. I wish they'd upload at 1080p too. 720p just ain't good enough to get a proper idea.


Yep, im sure the dashes are a product of the utube vid, ive got some high definition wallpaper of the 109s in the last vid and the dashes are not there.
1080 would be better though.

Royraiden
Jun-28-2013, 13:55
I liked the vieo and the update in general but I was hoping to see more, but I guess this is what is ready right now.

aus3620
Jun-28-2013, 22:04
Sound is good. At the resolution displayed the graphics look good.

Most impressive is the aircraft movement, suggesting air turbulence, from my uneducated eyes it looks very real. They have promised "weather" so this could be an indication of things to come.

Can only go by what they have said and released to date, but this project is looking encouraging.

I don't know if TF have any plans for a more realistic "air" environment (turbulence, ground effect, etc).

ATAG_Bliss
Jun-28-2013, 23:22
Sound is good. At the resolution displayed the graphics look good.

Most impressive is the aircraft movement, suggesting air turbulence, from my uneducated eyes it looks very real. They have promised "weather" so this could be an indication of things to come.

Can only go by what they have said and released to date, but this project is looking encouraging.

I don't know if TF have any plans for a more realistic "air" environment (turbulence, ground effect, etc).

That's a camera effect.

ROF has a chase camera that "loosely" follows the plane giving it that feeling that it's being recorded from another plane bobbing up and down in the sky. It's great for video makers.

Clod has turbulence, wind, and thermal layers you can set at almost any level btw, much more than what you can do in ROF (set wind and a generic turbulence setting)

I liked the video as well. ROF always looked good, but when you can only have about 70 people in a server and 100 objects on a map before it goes kaput, MP wasn't very fun, let alone filled with any immersion.

Skoshi_Tiger
Jun-29-2013, 11:48
Looks really good! It would be really nice to see bit more cluttered scene with a dozen or so more planes in the air, and the ground, and a few effects like flak bursts and maybe some gunfire.

With a release date of 2nd quarter of 2014, I guess I'll have an upgrade by then and It would be good to see how far the engine can be pushed.

As a complete aside, Today I bought an external hard drive that costed about $0.04AUD a gigabyte. To me that is completely mind blowing. Back when I had my Apple][+ it was $1000US for a 10 Megabyte drive! How times change!

Mattias
Jun-29-2013, 18:22
As a complete aside, Today I bought an external hard drive that costed about $0.04AUD a gigabyte. To me that is completely mind blowing. Back when I had my Apple][+ it was $1000US for a 10 Megabyte drive! How times change!

Back when I had my Amiga 500 it was $200US for 512 kb :)
One got to love the future we all live in :thumbsup:

aus3620
Jul-02-2013, 05:43
Screenshots
http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=372

http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=373

http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=374

9./JG52 Ziegler
Jul-02-2013, 07:54
I want to see some vid from the Pilot POV. I know I've harped on this everytime they post one but that is where I'm going to be 99% of the time in game. What does it look like and sound like from there.

PS: My first Apple Macintosh back in 1985 had 8 mhrz cpu 1 mg of ram (non expandable and this was up from 128k lol) and like maybe a 20mg hard drive! Sick! It was the first "icon" GUI machine and prolly where Bill Gates got his "windows" from. Oh and I almost forgot, it cost nearly $3 grand too! That's 80's dollars.

1lokos
Jul-02-2013, 10:00
I want to see some vid from the Pilot POV.

The "leaked/stolen" video show inside views (29s):

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8XsLHaG5Q2sa2VKWjl4TlpGMGM/edit?pli=1

Sokol1

Skoshi_Tiger
Jul-03-2013, 07:46
The "leaked/stolen" video show inside views (29s):

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8XsLHaG5Q2sa2VKWjl4TlpGMGM/edit?pli=1

Sokol1

I actually like the leaked video more than the official ones. It show the ground and inside the cockpit.

Personally I like the look of the CoD cockpits a bit better. Hopefully the leak is just a work-in-progress and will be improved by release.

1lokos
Jul-05-2013, 09:56
New "in cockpit" video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XNESUo1qQZg
http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/topic/168-developer-diary/#entry13594

And some ground detail:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=383

:thumbsup:

Sokol1

ATAG_Snapper
Jul-05-2013, 11:04
Looks good, sounds good. :thumbsup:

Skoshi_Tiger
Jul-05-2013, 11:23
XXIII - Like the video and pictures

Unlocking mods and features .......................:sick: ..... Sorry. need to go and get something to settle my stomach.

Dutch
Jul-05-2013, 11:50
XXIII - Like the video and pictures

Unlocking mods and features .......................:sick: ..... Sorry. need to go and get something to settle my stomach.

They've just confirmed that you can either unlock 'em with the offline campaign, or straight off buy them if you don't want to do that. Doesn't bother me much either way tbh.

But I'm confused by their posting of the ground shots. They look bloody terrible, like they've been coloured in with pencil crayon.......

Edit: Now it seems they can't make up their minds. Zak says you can buy them, then says he never said that, then Jason says you can't buy them, then the whole community go 'Eh?' :)

ChiefRedCloud
Jul-05-2013, 11:57
They've just confirmed that you can either unlock 'em with the offline campaign, or straight off buy them if you don't want to do that. Doesn't bother me much either way tbh.

But I'm confused by their posting of the ground shots. They look bloody terrible, like they've been coloured in with pencil crayon.......

Sort of Arcady huh?

Arthursmedley
Jul-05-2013, 12:48
XXIII - Like the video and pictures

Unlocking mods and features .......................:sick: ..... Sorry. need to go and get something to settle my stomach.



Couldn't agree more. Still pretty shy of showing us around the 'pits properly too.

ATAG_Bliss
Jul-05-2013, 16:35
Are there going to be power ups as well? I can not stand the fact that you own a plane and don't have all the bits that it had to begin with. That's why when they started selling stuff like fuel gauges, compasses, and different weapons for the planes, I gave up with it. And now it looks like its going to do the same thing with the same shitty MP elements and limitations. Here's hoping for DCS to finally release a dedicated server. At least they are still about high fidelity and not gimmicks and cash grabs. Sad. Very sad.

startrekmike
Jul-05-2013, 16:39
Later in the thread they clarify that you cannot buy the unlocks at all.

It sounds like a good way to get folks to actually play the campaign, as a single player kinda guy myself, I don't mind unlocking things as I play, sure it is not entirely realistic but I won't start crying "arcade" until I actually play the sim.

ATAG_Bliss
Jul-05-2013, 16:46
Who said anything about arcade? Having to purchase or "grind" for equipment that came on a plane in the 1st place is ridiculous. They talked about unlocking the ability to remove a piece of armor to see better. Well as someone who works for the military, they don't work that way. If SF decides a vehicle, plane, tank needs to be configured a certain way for a mission, they make it that way, plain and simple. It's not because some guy worked his way to have the ability to do it. It's because that team decided to configure it that way.

SOF has 1000's of ECRs/ECPs in the life cycle of any piece of military equipment. The people that got those finished modifications were the people who needed them. That's how the real military works.

Dutch
Jul-05-2013, 16:57
Who said anything about arcade?

Chiefy made a vague reference to it. :D

I even posted something on their forum today, but as 'Zak' agreed with me, it's obvious that sarcasm doesn't translate too well. :devilish:

I was participating in the RoF 'career' mode with a Nieuport 17, french model. Then they brought out the Anglicised version, and gave it to us for free. Whoopee!, but then I realised that to continue my campaign, I would have to buy the weapons mods for the new N17 version, again. Yes, again. The same weapons for the same plane, I had to buy twice, if I wanted to continue my 'career' as I had been doing. I bought them, they cost nothing really, but boy the moral of that business ethic really stings.

startrekmike
Jul-05-2013, 16:57
Who said anything about arcade? Having to purchase or "grind" for equipment that came on a plane in the 1st place is ridiculous. They talked about unlocking the ability to remove a piece of armor to see better. Well as someone who works for the military, they don't work that way. If SF decides a vehicle, plane, tank needs to be configured a certain way for a mission, they make it that way, plain and simple. It's not because some guy worked his way to have the ability to do it. It's because that team decided to configure it that way.

SOF has 1000's of ECRs/ECPs in the life cycle of any piece of military equipment. The people that got those finished modifications were the people who needed them. That's how the real military works.


I am not going to fight with you about this, frankly I am tired of trying to understand the hatred this game has received from the IL-2 CloD community so I am just going to leave it alone.

That said, as someone who also was in the military (Air force aircraft maintenance), I FULLY understand that it is not realistic for a pilot to have to "earn" the ability to alter a aircraft (at least from the second world war to now), I was simply saying that it seems like a decent way to encourage players to actually play campaigns that they spend time making.

Also, lets be realistic here, this is not that big of a deal, the campaigns will not be a big deal to finish and it will be nothing more than a warm up for us experienced flight simmers.

Now, that said, I don't personally like the idea of unlocking, I just don't complain because I can understand the logic behind what they are trying to do.

Dutch
Jul-05-2013, 17:51
I am tired of trying to understand the hatred this game has received from the IL-2 CloD community.

Put simply, it's because some of us have been around long enough to have thought of Oleg, Ilya and the rest of the Maddox Games team as friends. Or more like relatives actually, as in you love 'em, but the arguments you have with 'em are the worst kind of arguments.

What went on at the tail end of last year was business, pure and simple, but to some of us, it was like hearing that your wife or brother had been sacked from their job. Right or wrong, you'd support your relative. And you would harbour some resentment for the people that took over their job. That's how it is.

Some people will say that it's because of the limitations of the RoF game engine, the limitations on objects, multiplayer participants, the killing of a potential 'total war' sim, but at the back of it is some genuine human emotion, too. Hope that helps you understand. :thumbsup:

ATAG_Bliss
Jul-05-2013, 17:54
Starmike.

Well if you can't understand why some people like certain games and some don't like others than clearly you have a bit of learning to do.

Do you think military FPS games are all treated the same? Do you think there's BF players that hate COD and COD players that don't like BF? That's how all games work regardless of genre.

We don't have to put up with mediocrity, and we can complain about whatever we want. That's the neat thing about having a neutral forum instead of one that has to tow the party line.

@Dutch - it's also because things are going backwards. ROF still can't do what IL2FB from 10 years ago can, let alone Cliffs. So now we are going to pay more for something with less content and ability than what we already have? No. Sorry.

ATAG_Slipstream
Jul-05-2013, 18:10
I am not going to fight with you about this, frankly I am tired of trying to understand the hatred this game has received from the IL-2 CloD community so I am just going to leave it alone.

That said, as someone who also was in the military (Air force aircraft maintenance), I FULLY understand that it is not realistic for a pilot to have to "earn" the ability to alter a aircraft (at least from the second world war to now), I was simply saying that it seems like a decent way to encourage players to actually play campaigns that they spend time making.

Also, lets be realistic here, this is not that big of a deal, the campaigns will not be a big deal to finish and it will be nothing more than a warm up for us experienced flight simmers.

Now, that said, I don't personally like the idea of unlocking, I just don't complain because I can understand the logic behind what they are trying to do.

Frankly I am tired of your extreme fanboyism. Supporting a project is one thing, but only posting when someone rattles your cage because they express their unbiased opinion on it is quite annoying. I remember you doing the same thing over ROF on TS about 6 months ago.

Maybe something went wrong the last time scotty tried to beam you up, but you need to remember that many of the community are veterans from 2001 when IL2 broke new grounds and redefined PC based flight simulations. So these guys actually live up to the word veteran quite well, and they are very hard to please.

So when a new group of developers take over the project under weird circumstances, either people like it or they don't. But there is ultimately no hiding from the truth, which is that very few veterans wish to fly through clouds looking for an extra life :thumbsup:

Dutch
Jul-05-2013, 18:16
@Dutch - it's also because things are going backwards. ROF still can't do what IL2FB from 10 years ago can, let alone Cliffs.

Agree completely. That career thing in RoF is pretty tedious, frankly. But for some reason, I wanted to fly it from 1916 on, in a RFC squadron, so I could be Biggles I suppose. RoF is the best game to do that in. But then halfway through the career, I had to fly the new English Nieuport, which meant I had to buy the mods again. Very annoying, but if I'd moaned about this on the RoF forum, I'd've been slapped down just as I was at Christmas, for slagging the Channel map and Felixstowe off as being features with no function. This is still the case, to my knowledge.

The pictures coming out of 1CGS look very nice, but I don't hold out any hope of getting a new 'IL2 Sturmovik'. It grieves me that they're even allowed to use the logo.

Just thought I'd clear that up a little. :thumbsup:

ATAG_Snapper
Jul-05-2013, 18:54
Sorry to digress, but when I saw Slippy's avatar I thought, "What? Slippy's flying a 109??" Then I saw the RAF roundels and snicked my gun safety back on.....

:-P

Dutch
Jul-05-2013, 19:07
Sorry to digress, but when I saw Slippy's avatar I thought, "What? Slippy's flying a 109??" Then I saw the RAF roundels and snicked my gun safety back on.....

:-P

Yeah, our Slippy has been flying with pretty roundels a fair bit lately, as far as I can tell. As Mr. Ian Kilminster once put so profoundly;

'Don't try to hide, when the die has been cast'. (Iron Horse. Born to lose, Live to Win :D ) :thumbsup:

III./ZG76_Saipan
Jul-05-2013, 19:11
clod cant live up to what it can do, IL2 1946 is inferior in graphics yet a complete game , BoS will be a step back in a way yet still officially supported. dark days for sure.

Dutch
Jul-05-2013, 19:24
dark days for sure.

I agree with you mate. It seems as though we're in a kind of 'simmer's limbo'. The next new thing is going to look good (as long as you're in the air, and don't look at the ground detail), and that's about it.

What could've been, is languishing in some sort of Russian software Fort Knox, only to be revealed when some entrepreneurial soul stumps up enough dosh to release it.

OK, I admit that I'm dreaming....

ATAG_Slipstream
Jul-05-2013, 19:29
What could've been, is languishing in some sort of Russian software Fort Knox, only to be revealed when some entrepreneurial soul stumps up enough dosh to release it.

OK, I admit that I'm dreaming....

I just won the lotto :thumbsup:

Dutch
Jul-05-2013, 19:39
I just won the lotto :thumbsup:

Give me it.

Archie
Jul-05-2013, 19:39
il2 took up over 10 years of my gaming life.I played nothing else.I have been in one squad the whole time, through most of the online wars.I am really quite depressed about the way things have turned out.No way BoS should have il2 in its title.
Levelling up? They really have no idea. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuu.

startrekmike
Jul-05-2013, 20:04
Frankly I am tired of your extreme fanboyism. Supporting a project is one thing, but only posting when someone rattles your cage because they express their unbiased opinion on it is quite annoying. I remember you doing the same thing over ROF on TS about 6 months ago.

Maybe something went wrong the last time scotty tried to beam you up, but you need to remember that many of the community are veterans from 2001 when IL2 broke new grounds and redefined PC based flight simulations. So these guys actually live up to the word veteran quite well, and they are very hard to please.

So when a new group of developers take over the project under weird circumstances, either people like it or they don't. But there is ultimately no hiding from the truth, which is that very few veterans wish to fly through clouds looking for an extra life :thumbsup:



To be honest, if you think I am being a "fanboy" because I don't put down a sim before it even comes out than I don't really know what to tell you, frankly, if you think that is "fanboyism" than I can't really do anything about that and nor will I bother trying.

That said, I have concerns about the project myself, I think the unlock system is kinda silly, I think they are going to need to be more forthcoming with information about ground objects (amount and detail) than they have and I think that they are perhaps putting a bit too much pressure on the audience to support it, I mean, I am not honestly sure how to express it but it feels like they are basically telling us "we need your support or the game will be left largely incomplete" (since they are not putting much into it on launch (apparently).

Now, the funny thing is, after spending some more time recently with the ROF editor, I actually agree with you all that ROF is just not capable of a lot of things that it needs to be capable of (add on the fact that the editor is pure garbage in terms of usability anyway), sadly, this has prevented me from making missions that I really needed to make to keep my flight sim group interested in it, that is a shame because a editor either makes or breaks a flight sim in terms of longevity.

Having said that, I still enjoy ROF for what it is, there is simply no better WWI simulator out there so I am going to stick with it as is, that does not mean that I am a rapid "fanboy", that just means that if I want a WWI simulator, ROF is still the best in the market (OFF is based on a much more primitive engine so while it has a better campaign, the flying itself is dreadful).


What I am trying to say here is that I AGREE that ROF has severe limitations and I suspect that BoS will have some limitations also, I don't know for sure yet but it looks like a lot of stuff is being kinda skipped over until they see initial sales (a system I just don't think it going to work for them).

Unfortunately, since I don't have the history that you all do with IL-2 as a franchise (I was always more of a Falcon 4.0 kinda guy back then), I just don't have the enmity that some of you do for 777 as a whole, I mean, I get that you all feel slighted and I would too if I were in the same boat but I am not, therefore, when I see posts that essentially dismiss it because it was not made by Maddox games, well, I guess it makes sense in context but it still does not make it right.

So, perhaps I do defend this game more than I should, honestly, I know it goes nowhere with some of you and that is why (as I said) above) I won't argue with any of you about it but honestly I just want you all to understand where I am coming from on this, you all think I am posting these things as a angry rant and that is not really so, I just don't have the emotional baggage that all of you do about the whole Maddox games/1C/777 thing and frankly I am glad, it means that I don't have to pick sides on this.

I am still skeptical about BoS, the screenshots and videos look pretty good but I need more before I can pass ANY judgment either positive or negative, until then, I am going to continue enjoying DCS, IL-2 (both CloD and 1946) and yes, even ROF (though I have taken a extended break away from it).

Keep in mind, I am not even angry or anything while writing this, granted, I am disappointed that Slipsteam started resorting to attempts at personal insults but I am still not angry, I just want to make my feelings on this whole thing clear so you all don't think I am just blinding defending a product when that is not the case at all, that would be as bad as blindly striking out at it before it is even released and we have all had a chance to test it out and have a informed opinion on it.

So, long story short, I don't have the emotional connection to Maddox games that you all have, forgive me if I don't have the same deep feelings on the issue that you all do as a result, I can only form opinions on what I can see and (more importantly) actually play, I know it will be more limited in scope than CloD, that is a given and while it is a shame that they are not using either a new engine or a fixed CloD engine, there is nothing I can say to change it so there is no point in me getting upset about it.

Hopefully that clears things up, just because I am not quick to express doubts does not mean I don't have them.

ATAG_Slipstream
Jul-05-2013, 20:18
No personal attack intended mike.

Basically, we are all waiting to see what happens when it actually comes out, but because of the nature of the whole affair people are going to have strong opinions, and I don't partially think its fair that people who make a valid comment are labeled as "crying" about realism.

The whole concept of IL2 has always swayed more toward realism than anything else.

ATAG_Slipstream
Jul-05-2013, 20:19
Give me it.

Its going to 1c :thumbsup:

Dutch
Jul-05-2013, 20:28
Its going to 1c :thumbsup:

With multiple provisos, presumably? :D

ATAG_Slipstream
Jul-05-2013, 20:59
With multiple provisos, presumably? :D

You know the score :salute:

Dutch
Jul-05-2013, 21:03
You know the score :salute:

Aye. :salute:

aus3620
Jul-05-2013, 21:09
As Dutch and Bliss point out in their posts, players can adopt allegiances to games based on perceived relationships, styles of gameplay, even the players they meet. Similar to brand loyalty that merchandisers take advantage of. Nothing wrong in viewing the world through a "bias" of some description - I view my football code through the prism of the club I support. As a flight simmer my game of preference is CLoD - even with its many issues. I really liked what I thought was Oleg's vision for the game.

I shared the general CLoD fanbase scepticism of BOS, but have been encouraged by what they have released on their forum to date. With a second/third quarter 2014 release there is still a long way to go before flight simmers can really make a realistic judgement on BOS. Arguments, heated or not, at this stage are just confirming established biases or protecting "personal" investments (time, expertise, etc). Not saying you cannot have an opinion, just don't get too invested in any arguments. I share some of the concerns (pricing model, multiplayer, etc) but am willing to give BOS the benefit of the doubt at this early stage.

Personally, I hope BOS ends up being a winner, much like 1946 was a winner to the flight sim community at its peak. (Acknowledging that il2 needed time to develop and refine itself). If you are just an unbiased flight simmer what have you got to lose?

startrekmike
Jul-05-2013, 22:52
No personal attack intended mike.

Basically, we are all waiting to see what happens when it actually comes out, but because of the nature of the whole affair people are going to have strong opinions, and I don't partially think its fair that people who make a valid comment are labeled as "crying" about realism.

The whole concept of IL2 has always swayed more toward realism than anything else.


Thanks for the reply, I suppose I should have been more careful to provide context to my words, when I said "crying arcade", I don't mean that a flight sim should not strive for as much realism as possible, in fact, I think that realism should always be the first priority in any flight sim period.

That being said, I think the term "arcade" has taken on a few different meanings in the flight sim community and not all of them are perhaps as precise as they should be.

This is not by any means exclusive to this debate, the term "arcade" is thrown around a awful lot in more than a few forums related to flight simming in general.

Still, I appreciate the nice reply, thank you.

Royraiden
Jul-06-2013, 00:05
Thats exactly what we need to do guys, just wait and see what they actually bring to the table , after that we can all pass judgement.The project is well underway and theres no way to stop it now.I hope TF keeps on improving CLOD as I believe and Im sure most would agree that it is the best WW2 aircombat sim out there at the moment, but I for one dont want that new project(BOS) to be a failure.I said it before,what other options do we have?Probably DCS and while Im super excited that they are actually going to venture into the 40's era, we cant be sure how that is going to turn out either and Im sure it will take more than a year so we can get enough planes and a proper theater/vehicles/ground targets,etc to have a solid aircombat sim on that engine.

This section of the forum is going to generate controversy, we all are different beings and have different opinions but dont call each other fanboys because of that, theres no need to label people based on their willingness to support or reject a product

Having said all this, I loved the video and specially the sound.As for their achievement/unlocks system, I have to admit that doesnt sound good to me.But as I understand it these field mods unlocks are going to be sort of "extra" stuff, like removing some armor plate to reduce a small amount of weight or adding gun pods.Certainly its not like you need to achieve a certain amount of victories to be able to to carry bombs on an IL-2 for example.

ATAG_Bliss
Jul-06-2013, 02:53
Thats exactly what we need to do guys, just wait and see what they actually bring to the table , after that we can all pass judgement.The project is well underway and theres no way to stop it now.I hope TF keeps on improving CLOD as I believe and Im sure most would agree that it is the best WW2 aircombat sim out there at the moment, but I for one dont want that new project(BOS) to be a failure.I said it before,what other options do we have?Probably DCS and while Im super excited that they are actually going to venture into the 40's era, we cant be sure how that is going to turn out either and Im sure it will take more than a year so we can get enough planes and a proper theater/vehicles/ground targets,etc to have a solid aircombat sim on that engine.

This section of the forum is going to generate controversy, we all are different beings and have different opinions but dont call each other fanboys because of that, theres no need to label people based on their willingness to support or reject a product

Having said all this, I loved the video and specially the sound.As for their achievement/unlocks system, I have to admit that doesnt sound good to me.But as I understand it these field mods unlocks are going to be sort of "extra" stuff, like removing some armor plate to reduce a small amount of weight or adding gun pods.Certainly its not like you need to achieve a certain amount of victories to be able to to carry bombs on an IL-2 for example.

Roy,

The difference is there isn't much of a "wait to see what they bring to the table". We already know what they are bringing to the table. This is based off of the ROF engine. In saying that, the game will more than likely run very well. People will get good FPS on moderate machines and it will more than likely be fairly smooth. The flight model will probably feel exceptional and the overall look and graphics will probably be decent. But then it all goes wrong on the rest of the front. The ROF engine simply can not handle having many objects (static or AI) in a MP mission. The mission won't even load or, if you do get it to load, will feel like you are in a slow motion machine trying to fly it by yourself. That is simply unacceptable for a WWII flight sim. That alone makes MP nothing more than a sterile environment where nothing is going on besides planes fighting each other. I have several thousand objects, along with several hundred AI on one of my CloD missions for comparison. And even with that, because of the size of the map, it can feel sterile at times.

Seriously just watch this to give you an idea (the music alone is worth it). Just keep track of all the objects. And then go "Oh".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H7Z5QZ-e_U

So I implore ANYONE to make a map that has anything close to that with ROF (just a stunt map) and watch what happens. This IL2 map probably has 60,000 objects in it. Everything from the mountains to the terrain, virtually everything in that mission is an object in the FMB. That's a good WWII sim engine. This same thing can be done in IL2CloD as well (considering they are both based off the same engine). This is beyond important.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg with what it "can't" do. You notice in all Maddox IL2 games there's a developer console. Using the "~" key or similar you can open up a command prompt and talk to the server, the server commander, or w/e 3rd party tool you use for your server. That "protocol" is there so people can create tools, commanders, moving dog fight servers, campaigns, or w/e a programmer can do to talk with and run your server. The only reason things like <obj<red, <timeleft, <help or w/e command you type to the server can bring back a response or action is because of that protocol in place. With ROF there is no protocol. There is no 3rd party server tools to create because the game does not allow it or have the "protocol" in place to do it. So any server tool you get within the game is what you are stuck with.

The same thing can be said for campaigns. IL2/CloD has a built in campaign and also the tools for users to create their own campaign as part of the game. That is why if you download one of the 3rd party SP campaigns available and install it, it actually shows up on it's own section in game. That is why, looking at the GUI, it looks like it's part of the game (a 3rd party campaign) to begin with. In ROF users can not create there own campaigns to be built into the game. So in a sense, all you can create is a series of missions that can be played one after the other, or in any order you want to. All the fancy scoring system, medals, briefs (depending on what you did etc.), all made by 3rd party are 100% incorporated into your game. In ROF none of that is possible and none of that exists other than what the developer sells you or gives you.

That again, is just the tip of the iceberg. ROF DM is based on hitboxes. An entire wing is a hit box. So for wing damage, the number of bullets hitting that wing determines when the wing fails. With even the old IL2, let alone CloD, the component you hit determines the wing damage or the part on the wing. That's why a couple short bursts into the right spot on a twin engine plane will send a stream of oil, a stream of coolant, a stream of fuel, or even produce a fire, all depending on what your bullets actually hit and not on how many bullets hit. That's also why, if you're not very accurate, you could chew through your entire salvo of ammo trying to shoot a bomber down. The rounds cause some minor structural damage, but without hitting an important component (control cables, fuel lines, fuel tanks, landing gear, oil lines, hydraulic lines [insert any part of a wing here/]) that it's not going to do anything major. That is why a ROF plane will never lose it's control cables. One good hit in the right spot in IL2/CloD takes your elevator out, takes your aileron out, etc.,etc., all only taking hits in the right spot, not the amount of ammo fired. Even the DM of the pilot in ROF is a hitbox. It takes 4 or 5 rounds (can't remember) to kill a pilot regardless of where that pilot is hit. In IL2/Clod, one round to the head = dead. I could simply go on about the DM aspects, and we could also point out some of the problems with Clod's as well. But not having component damage instead of hit box damage is like an arcade FPS game. It's the number of rounds you hit the other player instead of the precision of where the rounds hit. That is simply not acceptable in a modern flight sim. IL2FB of 10 years old had component DM.

And then there's the mission editor from ROF. This has got to be the worst piece of software ever made. In IL2's FMB if you want to do something, you select the object and properties you want to do and simply place them. You can put the object at any altitude, rotate them, essentially create w/e you want at will. A mission in ROF won't even run unless you start using special triggers that tell the mission to run. You should see the picture of a complex mission from the ROF editor and all the lines, timers, icons, and crap EVERYWHERE all over the screen while in the mission editor. And when I mean complex, I mean complex for the ME, not for the FMB that would take 1/10th of the time have 1000x more objects/AI and not all this dribble over the screen. Think about it this way, you can't even set the number of planes you want to use in ROF. Say you had a scenario where there was Me262's and you figured (as the mission builder) that only 4 should be in the air at all times (no more and no less) for balance or realism purposes, this isn't even possible in ROF. In Cliffs we can at least script this in so there's only so many of each type in the air. While it's a pain to do, it's still easily done. Kinda like anything else to script.

In IL2, 3rd party simply used this protocol available and made anything from SEOW, ADW, (full blown real time dynamic ever changing wars/campaigns for MP) and the server commanders. These server commanders also (because they can talk to the game) had elements put in them via 3rd party to help you complete your mission. You could set the loadouts, the objectives, the % of objective needed to be destroyed, the type of objective it was, the limits of planes etc.,etc.. Essentially the sky was the limit on what you wanted to have a server commander do. The same thing, of course, can be said for CloD. In ROF this is all impossible. This is just the major points of difference that are guaranteed differences between the 2 titles.

So when I say we are going backwards, this is the type of stuff I'm talking about. Irregardless, there's nothing I can do to change or convince them to use a different game engine or any of that jazz. But you gotta realize, this is just some of the stuff that WILL not be present. The sandbox of IL2/CloD is what keeps those 3rd party people making things for the game. The tools are part of the game to do it. So we are losing all of that. The 3rd party and content that kept people being able to play MP in a variety of modes, campaigns, moving dogfight servers., etc.,etc., is exactly why people used to have to wait to get into hyperlobby. With it's 1000 slot limitation, yes there was 1000 people online quite a bit in the old game, that's all that could be connected to HL at once. But those 1000 people were there because of all the things you had available to you in game in the forms of missions, 3rd party tools, and game types. That type of stuff can't be created in ROF.

So just realize when people are having some criticisms, especially mine, it's warranted. If this was a completely new engine, I would have some hope. But I, along with thousands of other ROF MP players, simply got tired of not having any sort of betterment to the basic core of the game. You can push out all the DLC in the form of scarves, compasses, fuel gauges, weapons, pistols, and planes all you want, but when the engine all this stuff flies in is severely limited, it gets very boring. If I was to try out all the 3rd party stuff made for IL2, I could probably spend 20 years playing it and never get to the last of it. Again, the reason for this community, and the 3rd party that's clung to it like glue over all these years, is because they had a sandbox to play in. You take the sandbox out, and you don't have much going on, let alone much of a community.

And I could go on and on and on about many other things. So if you're a MP guy, you most definitely should have some worry. It's not gonna be pretty.

startrekmike
Jul-06-2013, 11:06
Roy,

The difference is there isn't much of a "wait to see what they bring to the table". We already know what they are bringing to the table. This is based off of the ROF engine. In saying that, the game will more than likely run very well. People will get good FPS on moderate machines and it will more than likely be fairly smooth. The flight model will probably feel exceptional and the overall look and graphics will probably be decent. But then it all goes wrong on the rest of the front. The ROF engine simply can not handle having many objects (static or AI) in a MP mission. The mission won't even load or, if you do get it to load, will feel like you are in a slow motion machine trying to fly it by yourself. That is simply unacceptable for a WWII flight sim. That alone makes MP nothing more than a sterile environment where nothing is going on besides planes fighting each other. I have several thousand objects, along with several hundred AI on one of my CloD missions for comparison. And even with that, because of the size of the map, it can feel sterile at times.

Seriously just watch this to give you an idea (the music alone is worth it). Just keep track of all the objects. And then go "Oh".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H7Z5QZ-e_U

So I implore ANYONE to make a map that has anything close to that with ROF (just a stunt map) and watch what happens. This IL2 map probably has 60,000 objects in it. Everything from the mountains to the terrain, virtually everything in that mission is an object in the FMB. That's a good WWII sim engine. This same thing can be done in IL2CloD as well (considering they are both based off the same engine). This is beyond important.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg with what it "can't" do. You notice in all Maddox IL2 games there's a developer console. Using the "~" key or similar you can open up a command prompt and talk to the server, the server commander, or w/e 3rd party tool you use for your server. That "protocol" is there so people can create tools, commanders, moving dog fight servers, campaigns, or w/e a programmer can do to talk with and run your server. The only reason things like <obj<red, <timeleft, <help or w/e command you type to the server can bring back a response or action is because of that protocol in place. With ROF there is no protocol. There is no 3rd party server tools to create because the game does not allow it or have the "protocol" in place to do it. So any server tool you get within the game is what you are stuck with.

The same thing can be said for campaigns. IL2/CloD has a built in campaign and also the tools for users to create their own campaign as part of the game. That is why if you download one of the 3rd party SP campaigns available and install it, it actually shows up on it's own section in game. That is why, looking at the GUI, it looks like it's part of the game (a 3rd party campaign) to begin with. In ROF users can not create there own campaigns to be built into the game. So in a sense, all you can create is a series of missions that can be played one after the other, or in any order you want to. All the fancy scoring system, medals, briefs (depending on what you did etc.), all made by 3rd party are 100% incorporated into your game. In ROF none of that is possible and none of that exists other than what the developer sells you or gives you.

That again, is just the tip of the iceberg. ROF DM is based on hitboxes. An entire wing is a hit box. So for wing damage, the number of bullets hitting that wing determines when the wing fails. With even the old IL2, let alone CloD, the component you hit determines the wing damage or the part on the wing. That's why a couple short bursts into the right spot on a twin engine plane will send a stream of oil, a stream of coolant, a stream of fuel, or even produce a fire, all depending on what your bullets actually hit and not on how many bullets hit. That's also why, if you're not very accurate, you could chew through your entire salvo of ammo trying to shoot a bomber down. The rounds cause some minor structural damage, but without hitting an important component (control cables, fuel lines, fuel tanks, landing gear, oil lines, hydraulic lines [insert any part of a wing here/]) that it's not going to do anything major. That is why a ROF plane will never lose it's control cables. One good hit in the right spot in IL2/CloD takes your elevator out, takes your aileron out, etc.,etc., all only taking hits in the right spot, not the amount of ammo fired. Even the DM of the pilot in ROF is a hitbox. It takes 4 or 5 rounds (can't remember) to kill a pilot regardless of where that pilot is hit. In IL2/Clod, one round to the head = dead. I could simply go on about the DM aspects, and we could also point out some of the problems with Clod's as well. But not having component damage instead of hit box damage is like an arcade FPS game. It's the number of rounds you hit the other player instead of the precision of where the rounds hit. That is simply not acceptable in a modern flight sim. IL2FB of 10 years old had component DM.

And then there's the mission editor from ROF. This has got to be the worst piece of software ever made. In IL2's FMB if you want to do something, you select the object and properties you want to do and simply place them. You can put the object at any altitude, rotate them, essentially create w/e you want at will. A mission in ROF won't even run unless you start using special triggers that tell the mission to run. You should see the picture of a complex mission from the ROF editor and all the lines, timers, icons, and crap EVERYWHERE all over the screen while in the mission editor. And when I mean complex, I mean complex for the ME, not for the FMB that would take 1/10th of the time have 1000x more objects/AI and not all this dribble over the screen. Think about it this way, you can't even set the number of planes you want to use in ROF. Say you had a scenario where there was Me262's and you figured (as the mission builder) that only 4 should be in the air at all times (no more and no less) for balance or realism purposes, this isn't even possible in ROF. In Cliffs we can at least script this in so there's only so many of each type in the air. While it's a pain to do, it's still easily done. Kinda like anything else to script.

In IL2, 3rd party simply used this protocol available and made anything from SEOW, ADW, (full blown real time dynamic ever changing wars/campaigns for MP) and the server commanders. These server commanders also (because they can talk to the game) had elements put in them via 3rd party to help you complete your mission. You could set the loadouts, the objectives, the % of objective needed to be destroyed, the type of objective it was, the limits of planes etc.,etc.. Essentially the sky was the limit on what you wanted to have a server commander do. The same thing, of course, can be said for CloD. In ROF this is all impossible. This is just the major points of difference that are guaranteed differences between the 2 titles.

So when I say we are going backwards, this is the type of stuff I'm talking about. Irregardless, there's nothing I can do to change or convince them to use a different game engine or any of that jazz. But you gotta realize, this is just some of the stuff that WILL not be present. The sandbox of IL2/CloD is what keeps those 3rd party people making things for the game. The tools are part of the game to do it. So we are losing all of that. The 3rd party and content that kept people being able to play MP in a variety of modes, campaigns, moving dogfight servers., etc.,etc., is exactly why people used to have to wait to get into hyperlobby. With it's 1000 slot limitation, yes there was 1000 people online quite a bit in the old game, that's all that could be connected to HL at once. But those 1000 people were there because of all the things you had available to you in game in the forms of missions, 3rd party tools, and game types. That type of stuff can't be created in ROF.

So just realize when people are having some criticisms, especially mine, it's warranted. If this was a completely new engine, I would have some hope. But I, along with thousands of other ROF MP players, simply got tired of not having any sort of betterment to the basic core of the game. You can push out all the DLC in the form of scarves, compasses, fuel gauges, weapons, pistols, and planes all you want, but when the engine all this stuff flies in is severely limited, it gets very boring. If I was to try out all the 3rd party stuff made for IL2, I could probably spend 20 years playing it and never get to the last of it. Again, the reason for this community, and the 3rd party that's clung to it like glue over all these years, is because they had a sandbox to play in. You take the sandbox out, and you don't have much going on, let alone much of a community.

And I could go on and on and on about many other things. So if you're a MP guy, you most definitely should have some worry. It's not gonna be pretty.


While I agree with your assessment of ROF (The editor part is very true), I still will just wait and see when it comes to BoS, frankly, I am going to need more than your opinion of ROF to change my mind on that.

As I said before, I will hold out my judgments until I see a final product, it could be better than ROF in a lot of the areas you already outlined or it could not, we just don't really know yet.


Either way, as I said, I understand and agree with your points on ROF, I Just don't let it stop me from enjoying the sim for what it is, if I compared every sim I own to one another I would find that I would only play DCS World because it is the only one with a fully modeled airplane and a fully clickable (and functional) cockpit (yes, I know that it's terrain is not as good as CloD but you get my point).

So, until I have a product in hand to judge (or at least enough actual information), I won't hold ROF's faults against it arbitrarily.

1lokos
Jul-12-2013, 10:20
New video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFBl49lQdeg&feature=player_embedded

Sokol1

Hooves
Jul-14-2013, 20:59
Who said anything about arcade? Having to purchase or "grind" for equipment that came on a plane in the 1st place is ridiculous. They talked about unlocking the ability to remove a piece of armor to see better. Well as someone who works for the military, they don't work that way. If SF decides a vehicle, plane, tank needs to be configured a certain way for a mission, they make it that way, plain and simple. It's not because some guy worked his way to have the ability to do it. It's because that team decided to configure it that way.

SOF has 1000's of ECRs/ECPs in the life cycle of any piece of military equipment. The people that got those finished modifications were the people who needed them. That's how the real military works.

I have to SERIOUSLY disagree with this. While Ideally all forces should hit the field with the equipment they need. About the time I was in Iraq, Army units were bolting on Steel plates on their Humv's because they didn't come that way. And as far back as WWII battlefield innovation changed the tide of battel in many cases. Take adding plows to the Front of Sherman tanks, to get through the hedgerows. In Korea, Anti- Aircraft half tracks cutting the restrainer bar to be able to lower the guns enough to be used against waves and waves of Chinese. So as someone that was and is still in the military and been to teh deployed environment many times, I can tell you the exact opposite is true. Field Mods are an essential part of completing a mission that wasnt exactly what military planners had expected. The exact reason these mods happened were because smart soldiers and Airmen came up with designs that worked. Non of the things I mentioned (along with litereally THOUSANDS that I didnt), didnt come from the factory, they were created by soldiers in the field. Sometimes under fire as they welded.

AS i understand the context of the BoS' unlocks they are more historically introduced as they were in the actual battle, as far as they can tell from war time documents. SO in essence these "unlocks" are actually entirely realistic. Now how that relates to MP is entirely different. I understand that there are many that never touch the SP aspect of the game. I was one of them until recently with the CloD desaster soft release. I never knew that SP could be that entertaining.

ChiefRedCloud
Jul-15-2013, 10:02
I have to SERIOUSLY disagree with this. While Ideally all forces should hit the field with the equipment they need. About the time I was in Iraq, Army units were bolting on Steel plates on their Humv's because they didn't come that way. And as far back as WWII battlefield innovation changed the tide of battel in many cases. Take adding plows to the Front of Sherman tanks, to get through the hedgerows. In Korea, Anti- Aircraft half tracks cutting the restrainer bar to be able to lower the guns enough to be used against waves and waves of Chinese. So as someone that was and is still in the military and been to teh deployed environment many times, I can tell you the exact opposite is true. Field Mods are an essential part of completing a mission that wasnt exactly what military planners had expected. The exact reason these mods happened were because smart soldiers and Airmen came up with designs that worked. Non of the things I mentioned (along with litereally THOUSANDS that I didnt), didnt come from the factory, they were created by soldiers in the field. Sometimes under fire as they welded.


As for real life SNAFU's I have to agree with Hooves .... with the exception of Military aircraft (which doesn't work well without ALL the "Bells and Whistles") ground forces have nearly always come up short on equipment and sometimes even ammo. It's a travesty born by, dare I say it, bad management in upper circles. He who controls the purse strings controls the logistics. So you either improvise (and over come) or you do without. My son (US Army Afghanistan) had to barrow flares for his conveys simply because there were not enough to go around.

But I have no idea about how all this applies to gaming (in this instance BoS) which is the actual subject here and not Military mismanagement. Sorry .....

ATAG_Colander
Jul-15-2013, 10:12
I think Bliss is saying you don't need to "level up" a rank to be able to do a field mod.

ATAG_Bliss
Jul-15-2013, 11:43
I have to SERIOUSLY disagree with this. While Ideally all forces should hit the field with the equipment they need. About the time I was in Iraq, Army units were bolting on Steel plates on their Humv's because they didn't come that way. And as far back as WWII battlefield innovation changed the tide of battel in many cases. Take adding plows to the Front of Sherman tanks, to get through the hedgerows. In Korea, Anti- Aircraft half tracks cutting the restrainer bar to be able to lower the guns enough to be used against waves and waves of Chinese. So as someone that was and is still in the military and been to teh deployed environment many times, I can tell you the exact opposite is true. Field Mods are an essential part of completing a mission that wasnt exactly what military planners had expected. The exact reason these mods happened were because smart soldiers and Airmen came up with designs that worked. Non of the things I mentioned (along with litereally THOUSANDS that I didnt), didnt come from the factory, they were created by soldiers in the field. Sometimes under fire as they welded.

AS i understand the context of the BoS' unlocks they are more historically introduced as they were in the actual battle, as far as they can tell from war time documents. SO in essence these "unlocks" are actually entirely realistic. Now how that relates to MP is entirely different. I understand that there are many that never touch the SP aspect of the game. I was one of them until recently with the CloD desaster soft release. I never knew that SP could be that entertaining.

Hooves you are basically saying the same thing I did. So how are you disagreeing? :D What I said is the units that get modifications are the units that need those modifications the most. It's quite obvious that the government/contractors can't just make this stuff overnight. So usually an unauthorized field mod (where a solider/contractor/civillian begs, borrows, steals parts and fabricates stuff with the most rudimentary of tools/equipment) is a interim solution that is performed fast, also depending on how much access people have to the parts to make that solution.

But in the background an ECR/ECP (Engineering Change Request/Proposal) is fully submitted to the proper chain of command which eventually finds it's way to the proper gov/contractor who specializes in the type of field mod (could be anything from coms to weapons, to armor and suspension, etc.,etc..). From there out the contractor/gov agency tries to produce a prototype that meets all the needs requested in the ECR/ECP. Once a prototype has been made, this is then test fitted, and depending on it's it's armor etc., it may be explosive tested as well.

Once all those requirements are met, the numbers required for production are set, the contractor/gov facility making the parts spins up production (install kits) to where they are sent to the units that need the mods. These mods also change the configuration of the vehicle, which is also tracked (different variants etc.)

So yes, people do field mods as they need them and as they have access to the parts, tools, and equipment to do them. So again, there is no grinding or unlocking to gain access to them. If you need them, and your chain of command is ok with an unauthorized field mod or configuration, you just do it. But the proper field mods and the process it takes to produce them is a much longer, sometimes even political process. But irregardless, these mods go to who needs them.


I think Bliss is saying you don't need to "level up" a rank to be able to do a field mod.

Exactly!

startrekmike
Jul-15-2013, 12:29
I see a lot of folks (both here and even on the BoS forums) who are talking about a "grind" but we don't even really know how this is going to be implemented, I mean, when I hear the term "grind", I think of MMO's where you have to play for hours and hours just to see the smallest advance in gear or rank, I have a hard time believing that such a system would really work for a single player campaign.

When I read that dev diary, I did not have images of a MMO style grind, I suppose my impression is that we will play a single player campaign that will probably clock in a 20 hours total and unlock pretty much everything over the coarse of it, if given a choice between doing that and paying for the upgrades (as is done in ROF), well, I would choose earning those things in game.

Please note, I am not saying that it is "realistic", I simply understand the motivation behind it, there are A LOT of offline simmers out there, in fact, one might even call them the silent majority, thus, I think they are trying to find a way to get folks who might traditionally never start or even finish a flight sim campaign to actually play through one, who knows, they might even have the earning of upgrades and modifications done in a clever and interesting way, we honestly have no idea at the moment.

There are a lot of folks on the BoS forums saying essentially "I don't like single player so this is stupid!" Honestly, while i always hesitate to call a gamer "entitled" (due to frequent misuse of the word in gaming circles), I think that kind of thing is the textbook definition, I mean, I don't really mean that as a insult per se, I just think that perhaps many of us have been doing this so long that we don't really see the difficulties that face a flight simulation developer when it comes to bringing in new players.

If having a upgrade system tied into single player missions is a way to bring in more flight simmers then I think that is a pretty damn small price to pay (realism wise) to get a new WWII flight simulation, I mean, lets be honest, it is really not that big of a deal to play a single player campaign, get the upgrades and field mods and move on with your life.

ATAG_Bliss
Jul-15-2013, 13:22
Well, the feedback they received is because there's many people that have 0 interest in SP. The same can obviously be said there are many people that have no interest in MP. The grind bit is coming from those that are interested in MP only and having to play SP (something they have 0 interest in) to unlock a feature to go use in MP. That is grinding. Will there be some people that enjoy this type of thing? Sure. But forcing people to grind through something they have 0 interest in (for me, SP for interest) is why they received the feedback they did.

There is nothing wrong with playing how you like. The problem comes in when you force players to play a certain way or a certain mode to gain unlocks to use in the one mode they like to play. Though we don't know how this is implemented yet, they did say you would have to play SP to unlock features. For MP only folks, this type of thing is totally unacceptable.

Chivas
Jul-15-2013, 13:52
Grinding up to get aircraft is a non-starter. Grinding up for minor upgrades, which the BOS developers seem to be talking about, shouldn't be a problem atleast for most offliners. The key is, will we find the sim enjoyable enough to want to continue flying it, then the minor upgrades come without much effort/thought. I don't have a problem with buying extra aircraft in the ROF model, as long as there a good basic aircraft kit that comes with the initial release. WT basic biplane kit was a non-starter for me, along with the time limits, created a situation where I quickly lost interest.

I think of buying extra aircraft, especially large multi engine, expensive to develop aircraft, just a small investment in a developers that's producing the only genre I'm interested in. Grinding up for free aircraft makes no business sense. A steady stream of monies from aircraft and maps makes the most sense.

I don't think the old IL-2 business model, where you paid fifty bucks for a new map, aircraft, and engine/feature upgrades is viable in a genre that has become to complex/expensive to create. Oleg lost control of his company too his IC investors with this business model. Nevermind all the problems he had creating his highly complex new game engine. They simply need more revenue, to keep creative control. Paying for Maps/Aircraft/ Campaigns separately gives the developer a much needed steady revenue stream to pay themselves and employees to keep creating those game engine/graphic engine/maps/aircraft/upgrades etc etc.

A dilemma would be Mod support...., can the development afford to have a bunch of free content dilute their bottom line. Yes is keeps the game/community alive. Do you pay modders for their input, or a combination of paid and free mods. A combination of free and paid is probably the best. You would lose some income, but you would keep a larger healthier community to sell your products too.


Another key to the future of combat flight simming is Oculus Rift/VR support. This "is" the future of gaming, and especially combat flight sims.

startrekmike
Jul-15-2013, 15:07
Well, the feedback they received is because there's many people that have 0 interest in SP. The same can obviously be said there are many people that have no interest in MP. The grind bit is coming from those that are interested in MP only and having to play SP (something they have 0 interest in) to unlock a feature to go use in MP. That is grinding. Will there be some people that enjoy this type of thing? Sure. But forcing people to grind through something they have 0 interest in (for me, SP for interest) is why they received the feedback they did.

There is nothing wrong with playing how you like. The problem comes in when you force players to play a certain way or a certain mode to gain unlocks to use in the one mode they like to play. Though we don't know how this is implemented yet, they did say you would have to play SP to unlock features. For MP only folks, this type of thing is totally unacceptable.


I can understand your point of view, I also tend to stick with online play for flight sims myself (granted, I have my own isolated group) but I think we need to look at the wider picture here and I am not talking about gaming as a whole (as we know, flight simming is different than gaming in some important ways).

If there is one thing I have learned from spending time on flight simulation forums, it is that your core player-base, the ones that really bring in the money are usually not the ones that you might expect from looking at the forums, I mean, yeah, we as hard core flight simmers are more active in the flight sim community as a whole but our numbers are comparatively small when put up against the amount of players that either play offline only or perhaps only play in a small isolated group when they do play online, since these folks might not be on the forums (and sometimes I don't blame them), it is easy to forget that they exist.

This is why we keep seeing single player campaigns in flight simulations, if there was no demand for it than they would not bother making them, I mean, that effort and money is wasted from the beginning if they are doing it just because.

Now, I know that I probably should not bring up ROF here (as it usually causes...friction) but it is a interesting example of what I am talking about. ROF has a large amount of offline players who only do the career mode, perhaps this is due to the lack of a steady flow of new online missions (due to the difficult editor) or just because one might say that you can get a more historical experience offline where battles can take place at high altitudes and mission structure is aimed more at realism and building a personal experience for the player than pleasing a server full of folks with diverse tastes and skill levels.

To be perfectly honest, I play ROF careers (both the beta career and the one made by Pat Wilson) a great deal and so do many on that forum, in fact, there is a constant demand for more content that will fill out and complete the beta career.

At the risk of sounding like I am making a unfair comparison, I think we can both honestly say that IL-2 as a franchise has always been pretty weak (out of the box) on the single player side, sure you have some great additional payed and free content to help with that but out of the box, both 1946 and CloD don't offer much to the offline gamer, I am not saying this to be mean or to start a fight or anything, both the redux campaigns and the disastersoft campaigns are really good, I am just talking about out of the box here.

On the flipside, ROF comes with (as of now) a pretty enjoyable single player component, as a result, single player has become perhaps more important to the ROF players than it would for CloD, this (as I said before) is reflected in the forums and it is even stated by 777 that they have more offline players than online ones.

Anyway, in the end, I don't think that 777/1C is trying to twist your arm here, I think what they are trying to do is give us a campaign that actually has some texture and life beyond what you might see in a typical flight sim campaign (lets not get into the ground war stuff again, I know this might lead to that but I think we both have more than enough essay sized posts about that and I largely agree with you anyway), either way, 777/1C can only work on the experience they have and since ROF has a strong single player following, it would be logical to assume that they would expand on that for their next title.

Personally, I don't think the campaign is going to come off as a grind (by my definition, a grind is something you might find in a MMO where you have to do the same thing over and over for a slow trickle of small gains), I think we are looking at a pretty short campaign that focuses more on telling the story of the air war over Stalingrad to the player than just throwing them into a constant stream of missions with only some basic text to speak about the historical narrative.

In the end, I think that 777/1C are on to something really interesting by actually packaging the sim with a more substantial (and purposeful) single player component than we have seen in other sims to date, that kind of thing might pull in more potential players since they can enjoy the game even without getting involved in the online communities (and lets face it, we are a very intimidating bunch for a outsider, the same can be said for realism groups for Arma).

In closing, I don't think this will be a huge deal, I think we are looking at a small to moderately sized campaign that tells a story, if it is historically accurate (as they have indicated clearly in the dev diaries) than I don't see why anyone would be so against it, I mean, we are all about history here and a single player campaign is a great (probably the best) way to deliver a more authentic experience to the player, why be resistant to that?

ChiefRedCloud
Jul-15-2013, 22:22
Yes indeed Dutch I did mention Arcady ..... Look ALL the companies, or at least most game companies, are dancing to the same tune. And NO I do not like the tune. But it's one of piece it ALL out bit by bit. BF3, World of Whatever (defiantly an Arcade), you name it. It seems that IT will be a rare occasion if you see ALL of a game on a disk again. A sad, sad affair this. But the choices we have, basically is to go with it or not. Unless you TF boys want to turn this thing inside out for FREE. You guys are doing your level best (from what I see) with what you have and the small amount of time you have to spend on it. We ARE thankful (I know I am).

But will BoS be any good? Don't know. Will it be like RoF? Most likely. Will it make the cut? Only those who drop a dollar will be able to tell you this. I LOVE playing online. However, I do NOT believe that any game or sim should be tied to the internet. YOU buy a game or sim it should ALL be right there on your DVD or what ever. No, I am not debating the worth of Steam or the like.

Someone pointed out once that no one ever "owned" and game. I puffed up and said WHAT! He said, read the fine print. Yep, technically we don't own it. But when it's wasn't tied to the internet, THEY DID NOT KNOW (more or less). Enough of my silliness. Sorry all.

ATAG_Slipstream
Jul-16-2013, 05:49
I think 27 pages of posts on the thread at DCS to 4 pages on the latest Developer Diary spell out quite clearly what most people want.

1lokos
Jul-16-2013, 09:13
to 4 pages on the latest Developer Diary

And notice that in this one some post where edited, some images are remove,
and some post are from moderators threatening ban. :D

Sokol1

ATAG_Slipstream
Jul-16-2013, 10:37
And notice that in this one some post where edited, some images are remove,
and some post are from moderators threatening ban. :D

Sokol1


I just took a look to check and your right, the Clod pictures deleted, posts with lines through them, moderators losing their cool. Its going to the wall.

Then you have Hooves, who openly slates the hours of work TF members have put into this game. I don't know why he is still visiting this forum if he hates us so much.

Manoxerox
Jul-16-2013, 10:52
I just took a look to check and your right, the Clod pictures deleted, posts with lines through them, moderators losing their cool. Its going to the wall.

Then you have Hooves, who openly slates the hours of work TF members have put into this game. I don't know why he is still visiting this forum if he hates us so much.

Maybe Hooves got mouth disease?:shoot::wf:

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jul-16-2013, 11:08
Problem for me with this BoS game is not the 1C thing, or the ROF comparisons, or even some of the proposed purchase concepts.

I just don't want to fly eastern front games. I hated the bland snow covered maps in IL2. I hated the endless flat landscapes of the Steppe.
I grew up reading stories about the Battle of Britain, Dieppe, Normandy and the Drive across France. All my heroes were Western front guys. That's the theatre of war that has the romance for me, and that's the flying I want from a game.

One of IL2's great deficiencies was that it didn't ever ship with a proper BoB map and plane set.

SoW Reddog
Jul-16-2013, 11:25
Malta'd be my first choice to be honest for a theatre/map.

As for the OP, it seems that 90% of the praise on that thread is for the pilots hand gesture. Seems like that needs to be more of a priority for the TF guys. Sod the FM, DM and extra objects, I want to see my pilot wipe his eyes at an arbitrary (and no doubt annoying interval once I've seen it like 20 times).

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jul-16-2013, 11:36
Malta'd be my first choice to be honest for a theatre/map.
As for the OP, it seems that 90% of the praise on that thread is for the pilots hand gesture. Seems like that needs to be more of a priority for the TF guys. Sod the FM, DM and extra objects, I want to see my pilot wipe his eyes at an arbitrary (and no doubt annoying interval once I've seen it like 20 times).

Yeah, lots of kind words for the hand-wipe and the "glint of sun from his goggles".... Seriously, didn't CloD already go down that path once of trying to add too many useless details to a game? For crying out loud, the trains in CloD have patterned upholstery on the seats!

Hooves
Jul-24-2013, 04:33
I just took a look to check and your right, the Clod pictures deleted, posts with lines through them, moderators losing their cool. Its going to the wall.

Then you have Hooves, who openly slates the hours of work TF members have put into this game. I don't know why he is still visiting this forum if he hates us so much.


Ah come on, I dont hate you at all. In fact I played a round of Clod today! Felt the urge to plaster some 109's on the cliffs. I'm just of the opinion that some things in the TF mod, should have been left untouched. Namely the engine and gun sounds. Ive been trying to get CloD working with an Oculus Rift, as well, no joy just yet, but any flight experience I can get in that thing when I get it will be worth the effort. Im doing 3rd party solutions to get it going but if TF can figure out how to make it work, +1 for them!!

Hooves
Jul-24-2013, 04:37
Frankly I am tired of your extreme fanboyism. Supporting a project is one thing, but only posting when someone rattles your cage because they express their unbiased opinion on it is quite annoying. I remember you doing the same thing over ROF on TS about 6 months ago.

Maybe something went wrong the last time scotty tried to beam you up, but you need to remember that many of the community are veterans from 2001 when IL2 broke new grounds and redefined PC based flight simulations. So these guys actually live up to the word veteran quite well, and they are very hard to please.

So when a new group of developers take over the project under weird circumstances, either people like it or they don't. But there is ultimately no hiding from the truth, which is that very few veterans wish to fly through clouds looking for an extra life :thumbsup:

and it seems we have a little pot calling the kettle black here dude. I have opinions about som eof the TF mods changes. I appreciate the hours put in. I mod in ARMA and I know how passionate modding can become, I also understand that no matter how hard you work, some people might not like what you did. But its their opinion. Cheers!

Injerin
Jul-24-2013, 05:38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUaYbfKZIiA


:) Smile Jesus loves us all!

ATAG_Slipstream
Jul-24-2013, 10:05
Hooves, I understand and have no problem if people don't like something I or anyone else did, however when you have experience or have researched sounds, glints or flak bursts it would make your posts about more credible.

My problem was with the post


I have tried it with the TF modifications. I thought the sounds were absolutely horried and the over done "glint" was in my opinion laughable. The gun sounds came off as if some one was making the sound with tbeir moutb and recorded it.

I heard they made good headway in correcting tbe altitude performance, but alas I couldn't get off the ground from any red base due to the same old blues literally luft berrying at 1000 ft directly over the airfields. When commenting about the rabid vulching I was met with the same old " if you don't like it go to another field" so I did. And was promptly vulched by the two hovering over that field. Laughinv at the pitiful flak going up at them.

So I say. The absolute terrible community that is entrenched on the clod side of this ridiculous argument is what made me head for my control panel / programs and files / uninstall.


But since I really would never like to mention CloD again. Can we get back on topic.

Now if thats not the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is.

I think that the Clod community has been very inviting to all members even if it has been a bit crazy in the past. There are going to be vulchers in any flight sim, there are in 1946, Clod, ROF and no doubt will be in BoS and the new DCS sim so the only thing to do, is to change base or wait until the action quietens down a bit.

I think its pretty clear why I posted what I did.

Hooves
Jul-25-2013, 00:51
Hooves, I understand and have no problem if people don't like something I or anyone else did, however when you have experience or have researched sounds, glints or flak bursts it would make your posts about more credible.

My problem was with the post



Now if thats not the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is.

I think that the Clod community has been very inviting to all members even if it has been a bit crazy in the past. There are going to be vulchers in any flight sim, there are in 1946, Clod, ROF and no doubt will be in BoS and the new DCS sim so the only thing to do, is to change base or wait until the action quietens down a bit.

I think its pretty clear why I posted what I did.

SO your telling me you have flown in and fired rounds from a spitfire? as far as the glints, I am also a private pilot and from my experience they look silly. MY opinion.
AS far as the vulching. Im glad to say that i have now learned to enjoy single player. As there are un savory jack asses in every game and every server. Doest have to ruin my few hours of game time. hence why Im so thrilled about the campaign for BoS. I really enjoyed all the offering from RoF and the community built Pat Wilsons career.

I have discovered that the desasterosft campaign is fun. I actually get to fly missions the way they were meant to be flown with out relying on other people who aren't as interested in the true history.

Doesn't change my opinion about the TF mod features. In fact Id actually rather play the campaign stock. But since I cant be asked to completely reinstall just to get rid of the mod. Ill just play it how it is. To be totally honest Its a trade off. Somethings got better, some worse.

As far as the rest of the community, Im not a fan of there only being ONE server that is populated. It gives rise to a certain attitude that was hostile to anyone who felt that there was want proper missions or administration. Any other game you can just go to another server. In CloD its ATAG for MP or the highway. MAybe its due to the lack of players in CloD. I dont know, but it left an incredibly bad taste.

I only dont like a few ATAG members due to their openly hostile remarks made in the server. But that is neither here nor there. Or worth discussing here. All my opinion. So if you are true to your word, I shouldnt be attacked for that any more than you should at another forum.
Anyway I have succeeded in boring myself, and you im sure.

ATAG_Colander
Jul-25-2013, 09:52
Doesn't change my opinion about the TF mod features. In fact Id actually rather play the campaign stock. But since I cant be asked to completely reinstall just to get rid of the mod. Ill just play it how it is. To be totally honest Its a trade off. Somethings got better, some worse.

Simply replace the file "parts\core\maddox.dll" with the stock one (there should be a backup in the same folder from the MOD install) and you will be flying stock again.

Thanks for trying TF MOD and I'm sorry you didn't like it.

ATAG_Colander.

PS.: Now, please keep this thread back on topic.

Injerin
Jul-25-2013, 10:21
SO your telling me you have flown in and fired rounds from a spitfire? as far as the glints, I am also a private pilot and from my experience they look silly. MY opinion.
AS far as the vulching. Im glad to say that i have now learned to enjoy single player. As there are un savory jack asses in every game and every server. Doest have to ruin my few hours of game time. hence why Im so thrilled about the campaign for BoS. I really enjoyed all the offering from RoF and the community built Pat Wilsons career.

I have discovered that the desasterosft campaign is fun. I actually get to fly missions the way they were meant to be flown with out relying on other people who aren't as interested in the true history.

Doesn't change my opinion about the TF mod features. In fact Id actually rather play the campaign stock. But since I cant be asked to completely reinstall just to get rid of the mod. Ill just play it how it is. To be totally honest Its a trade off. Somethings got better, some worse.

As far as the rest of the community, Im not a fan of there only being ONE server that is populated. It gives rise to a certain attitude that was hostile to anyone who felt that there was want proper missions or administration. Any other game you can just go to another server. In CloD its ATAG for MP or the highway. MAybe its due to the lack of players in CloD. I dont know, but it left an incredibly bad taste.

I only dont like a few ATAG members due to their openly hostile remarks made in the server. But that is neither here nor there. Or worth discussing here. All my opinion. So if you are true to your word, I shouldnt be attacked for that any more than you should at another forum.
Anyway I have succeeded in boring myself, and you im sure.

Well to each there own. Sounds to me you like playing with yourself for enjoyment, you should just stick to what you enjoy :)