These latest comments from Jason...

[Danziger]

I thought Jason was saying something about PWCG being officially integrated into the game as a career mode?

[Jason_Williams]

I thought Jason was saying something about PWCG being officially integrated into the game as a career mode?

 

No sorry, that is not what we plan to do.

 

This thread has gotten personal and off the rails. Any more animosity and i'll close it.

 

Clickable pits and manual startup however you want to slice it, all take valuable resources I need to spend elsewhere.

 

Jason

[Brano]

We kids need new toys to distract us from the forum yada-yada :D

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Manual start was only a guess when Jason said that the game was going on a hardcore features.

 

What do you guys can think about hardcore now that manual start is out ???

[Jason_Williams]

Manual start was only a guess when Jason said that the game was going on a hardcore features.

 

What do you guys can think about hardcore now that manual start is out ???

 

I've addressed this one issue and explained the situation with clickpits and manual start up. This is the one area where what I consider to be a super hardcore feature does not justify the cost. Original IL-2 1946 had no such feature. I'm focused on adding as many 1946-like features back in as I possibly can with the budget I end up with. I'd rather focus on new technology and gameplay features or changing existing ones and building new content and involving the community more in building such content. There is plenty to like assuming we can do it all. Focusing on making this a study-sim is not the way to go here.

 

Jason

[Danziger]

I'm focused on adding as many 1946-like features back in as I possibly can with the budget I end up with. I'd rather focus on new technology and gameplay features or changing existing ones and building new content and involving the community more in building such content.

 

Jason

I think this is the dream come true for most everyone.

[FTC_Riksen]

I think this is the dream come true for most everyone.

+1

[Urra]

I've addressed this one issue and explained the situation with clickpits and manual start up. This is the one area where what I consider to be a super hardcore feature does not justify the cost. Original IL-2 1946 had no such feature. I'm focused on adding as many 1946-like features back in as I possibly can with the budget I end up with. I'd rather focus on new technology and gameplay features or changing existing ones and building new content and involving the community more in building such content. There is plenty to like assuming we can do it all. Focusing on making this a study-sim is not the way to go here.

 

Jason

1+

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

Sounds absolutely great to me Jason, thumbs up for the hard work and direction taken.

[smink1701]

I've addressed this one issue and explained the situation with clickpits and manual start up. This is the one area where what I consider to be a super hardcore feature does not justify the cost. Original IL-2 1946 had no such feature. I'm focused on adding as many 1946-like features back in as I possibly can with the budget I end up with. I'd rather focus on new technology and gameplay features or changing existing ones and building new content and involving the community more in building such content. There is plenty to like assuming we can do it all. Focusing on making this a study-sim is not the way to go here.

 

Jason

1946 - like features ... like Wonder Woman with gun sight???

[SharpeXB]

I thought Jason was saying something about PWCG being officially integrated into the game as a career mode?

Rise of Flight had a GUI Mod which added PWCG to the main screen in the game. Maybe if we get a Mods Mode for BoS something like that could be done to streamline the interface between the two. So semi-officially integrate it.

[SCG_Neun]

Count me in in full support of whatever the heck it is.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

 

 

1946-like features

 

Things that come to mind (other than planes/theaters/maps) -

Custom icon settings

More customisable graphics options

Co-op

Not exactly a 1946 feature but something in-house to provide similar features as hyperlobby with Realtime chat/server browsing for Co-op/standard servers built in?

[Brano]

Decals system like in old sturm would be nice to have + individual joystick curves for each individual plane,like in RoF.

...and I promise I wont mention manual start-up procedure anymore. I will leave it to the ghosts 

My two kopeks 

[DD_Arthur]

 + individual joystick curves for each individual plane,like in RoF.

 

 

Now that would be a nice idea

[BlueHeron]

Clickable cockpits are great. I like them, BUT they are a money and time sucking feature that I simply can't afford. I'd rather pay my engineers to work on ways to put more planes in the sky and new modes of gameplay like COOP than engineer clickable cockpits. Unless you plan for them from the start it's so hard to go back and add them later. :-(

 

Jason

 

Thanks Jeebus, that's exactly what I was worried about!  

 

100% agree.  As a software developer I can clearly imaging how an insert like clickable cockpits can wreck your development time lines.

[Capt_Stubing]

I've addressed this one issue and explained the situation with clickpits and manual start up. This is the one area where what I consider to be a super hardcore feature does not justify the cost. Original IL-2 1946 had no such feature. I'm focused on adding as many 1946-like features back in as I possibly can with the budget I end up with. I'd rather focus on new technology and gameplay features or changing existing ones and building new content and involving the community more in building such content. There is plenty to like assuming we can do it all. Focusing on making this a study-sim is not the way to go here.

 

Jason

+1 I couldn't agree more.  More content is more important than manual starts and clickable cockpits.  Content is what drove the original IL2s success.

[BlueHeron]

I'm honestly surprised that such a myth would still be alive after so many years of industry proving exact opposite - I can't recall a single game that got any sort of performance boost worth mentioning. IL2 needs what Mantle did with Battlefield - in other words MASSIVE increase in performance on low to medium range hardware.

 

T'is no myth.  If you own ATI hardware you would have seen a revolutionary jump in performance when DCS upgraded to the DirectX 11 engine.  Personally, I saw my FPS *triple* using the same hardware in DirectX 11 and couldn't be happier.  :D

[Neil]

I am so glad that Jason is willing to make this simulator the true successor of our good old IL2 with using what made its success.

Please keep it up!

[No601_Swallow]

Wow, one can feel the hostility in here....The only person that is continuing the argument regarding clickable cockpits ....

 

 

Um...

[SC_Manu653]

COOP, COOP and COOP this is the best feature to work on first !

A dream will be true ! It can be a subject to talk about better then start-up sequence.

 

Merci Jason

Edited August 23, 2016 by 4./JG52_Manu653

[BlueHeron]

I like where you're going with this, Jason.

[Firestorm07]

1946-like feature implementation is right on the money Jason.  If that's the core direction of where you're headed, this thing is going to blow the roof off the competition.  I'm in head over heels.

[[DBS]airdoc]

I've addressed this one issue and explained the situation with clickpits and manual start up. This is the one area where what I consider to be a super hardcore feature does not justify the cost. Original IL-2 1946 had no such feature. I'm focused on adding as many 1946-like features back in as I possibly can with the budget I end up with. I'd rather focus on new technology and gameplay features or changing existing ones and building new content and involving the community more in building such content. There is plenty to like assuming we can do it all. Focusing on making this a study-sim is not the way to go here.

 

Jason

 

Sounds like a plan to me. This should be the way to move IL2 forward.

 

I 'd like to point out that since COOPs were mentioned, perhaps consider the community's suggestions for improved versions of what we had back in IL2.

 

For example, in the FNBFs, we tried to simulate COOPs by resting on players' maturity - people had to exit the server once they were killed, although they could respawn technically.

 

We found out that it was more interesting to play with different limitations : only dead pilots should exit, bailed or ditched could respawn. Also, dead pilots could fly as gunners or take up tanks. This way people were drawn into a different type of flying - they didn't "play safe", they took risks, as long as they had the chance to bail out.

 

So perhaps an improved version of COOPs would allow the mission designers to set those parameters in advance :

- Limit number of lives per player (some servers may be set up for 2 or 3 lives per event) - this could be a number specific to either aircraft or tanks

- Limit respawn to a cockpit if pilot is dead, but allow gunner and tank position.

- Set a timer for the start of implementation of limits - this was very helpful in FNBFs, where people were allowed to respawn if they died within the first 30 minutes of the mission. This way we avoided the problems occurring due to the frequent runway accidents on crowded take-offs at the start of the mission and also allowed people a second chance if they were careless early on

- Play the classic hardcore way -one pilot, one spawn, that's it.

 

good luck with the project

Edited August 23, 2016 by [DBS]airdoc

[Jade_Monkey]

COOP, COOP and COOP this is the best feature to work on first !

A dream will be true ! It can be a subject to talk about better then start-up sequence.

 

Merci Jason

 

Does that mean we have to make... FRIENDS??

[Gump]

personally (i am not discounting others' preferences), i have no desire for manual startups. all it does is add time and complexity before being able to participate in the activity of the game - combat. if this was a civil sim, i could see it, but it isnt. i can understand the 'immersion' idea, but it still becomes just a procedure that delays participation in the goal. if it were a requirement, as in real life, i'd deal with it, but it isnt.

clickable cockpits *might* be a way to alleviate some of the plethora of key-combos one has to remember or remap..maybe but with a workable solution in place (key-combos) my vote would be to use the limited resources on things with more impact, as it sounds like is happening.

.

another +1 for the individual plane joystick curves (brano). but, after all, i recall hearing that the team already knows what they are going to do now and a step later. i have positive feelings about it and cant help but feel a bit like a kid before christmas. 

[WWChunk]

If you add an Il-2:1946-style COOP mode, and soften the stall of the 190, I'll buy everything you put out going forward!

[MadisonV44]

I've addressed this one issue and explained the situation with clickpits and manual start up. This is the one area where what I consider to be a super hardcore feature does not justify the cost. Original IL-2 1946 had no such feature. I'm focused on adding as many 1946-like features back in as I possibly can with the budget I end up with. I'd rather focus on new technology and gameplay features or changing existing ones and building new content and involving the community more in building such content. There is plenty to like assuming we can do it all. Focusing on making this a study-sim is not the way to go here.

 

Jason

 

+1

 

I would give and swap 1 million clickable cockpits to bring back a descent visibility bubble >10km.

I know it pretty ressources consuming as explained in several devs answers and I clearly understand the challenge ... but still hopping we will get it one day

[MadisonV44]

If you add an Il-2:1946-style COOP mode, and soften the stall of the 190, I'll buy everything you put out going forward!

 

 I like that too ! 

[SC_Manu653]

Does that mean we have to make... FRIENDS??

 

Yes just for flying with them after that we can continu the war on the forum !  

[RoteDreizehn]

Wow, one can feel the hostility in here.

Nobody has asked for clickable pits. all folk have asked for is more start up procedures. to clarify using their peripherals, that includes the keyboard sharp, not just the HOTAS, to go through the start up procedure.

Nobody is denying Jason said no clickable pits, we all saw it sharp, no need to quote it over and over.  The only person that is continuing the argument regarding clickable cockpits is sharp who is continually misinterpreting what he's reading. and now robin is weighing in.

Oh the US and THEM mentality.

 

lol, i am tired about to read this thread.

 

It seems that the guys are looking for an arcarde game like warthunder with a lot of "content". Not a realism Flight Simulator. 

 

>> (Jason) I've addressed this one issue and explained the situation with clickpits and manual start up. This is the one area where what I consider to be a super hardcore feature does not justify the cost....

super hardcore level for a sim? unbelievable, dont get it. Seems to be too expensive to add simple mouseevents and if then else conditions in code thread.

 

I am glad that DCS exists. Normandy, ME262, Spit, F18, F14 are on the way. Clickpits are already there. No need to discuss from my side here

[Jade_Monkey]

lol, i am tired about to read this thread.

 

It seems that the guys are looking for an arcarde game like warthunder with a lot of "content". Not a realism Flight Simulator. 

You really know how to read between the lines.

[[DBS]airdoc]

lol, i am tired about to read this thread.

 

It seems that the guys are looking for an arcarde game like warthunder with a lot of "content". Not a realism Flight Simulator. 

 

>> (Jason) I've addressed this one issue and explained the situation with clickpits and manual start up. This is the one area where what I consider to be a super hardcore feature does not justify the cost....

super hardcore level for a sim? unbelievable, dont get it. Seems to be too expensive to add simple mouseevents and if then else conditions in code thread.

 

I am glad that DCS exists. Normandy, ME262, Spit, F18, F14 are on the way. Clickpits are already there. No need to discuss from my side here

 

 

 

DCS never was and never will be what the original IL2 was. Don't get me wrong, I love DCS, but after so many years of waiting (and it's been many), it is clear that the development process of a study sim is so time consuming, that the required content for WW2 fans will never be met. And by WW2 fans I mean the regular online community, the ones who fly with their squadron mates. Us propheads are different from the Jet-junkies.

 

That's my view anyway, and I did not mention this in order to criticize DCS, but in order to make a point : those of us who are old enough have seen grandiose statements and plans about future projects many times. We saw what happened with Cliffs,  we saw the Kickstarter, we now see that DCS WW2 is already 2 years overdue (I remind you it was september 2013 that it was announced). IL2 BOS/BOM is currently the only project that I am aware of that has been concrete in meeting its deadlines and progressing steadily. And that's rather unusual in software development. If anything, it says a lot about how it is managed. They have also achieved something really important : they turned around all the distrust, suspicion and disappointment that had affected the community since CLOD. Now people are not concerned "if" there is going to be another theater, "if" the devs will add more features, "if" the product they will deliver will be in time or buggy. So, to the people that are harshly critical of the choices made by the devs, I 'd ask them to think of where we were 3 years ago and where we are now.

 

I 'm enjoying BOS as it is, and with new maps and new aircraft I will enjoy it even more. You refer to "content" in a demeaning way. I would disagree. Content is by far the most important factor for the WW2 community. What kept us flying so many years in the old IL 1946? Wasn't it the tremendous amount of missions, aircraft, theaters?  The mods that the community kept adding? Flight models, damage models and graphics are always improving, as long as the sim is alive, making sales, and expanding. For that, it needs content. We won't get anywhere if we have to wait a year for an aircraft and 3 years for a map. The guys here are not making money out of military contracts for the production of study sim - level aircraft, they have to sell to their audience!

Edited August 23, 2016 by [DBS]airdoc

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

It seems that the guys are looking for an arcarde game like warthunder with a lot of "content".

No they are not. If they would, they would be there, not here.  

 

 

 

Not a realism Flight Simulator. 

And what is a realism flight simulator ? There are far more sophisticated simulators that put DCS into shame. 

But truth is that there is no realism when you have no fear for your life when someone gets behind you and starts shooting. There is no realism when you dont feel how spin really feels or how you loose consciousness due to overload. Or how tiring it is to really fly an aircraft for multiple hours. And where is the realism when all the switches are operated by a mouse or HOTAS ? 

 

Nobody said that application of positive sides of old Il-2 will require a drop in quality of this product. If something Jason also said that they are also working on more hardcore features as well. Jason is doing his best to improve this product and there is nothing wrong with reaching the old solutions that worked, but that doesnt mean what was already build here will be dropped. 

[Rolling_Thunder]

So are we going to get map making tools? SDK?

[Gambit21]

It seems that the guys are looking for an arcarde game like warthunder with a lot of "content". Not a realism Flight Simulator. 

 

No

[TheElf]

I've addressed this one issue and explained the situation with clickpits and manual start up. This is the one area where what I consider to be a super hardcore feature does not justify the cost. Original IL-2 1946 had no such feature. I'm focused on adding as many 1946-like features back in as I possibly can with the budget I end up with. I'd rather focus on new technology and gameplay features or changing existing ones and building new content and involving the community more in building such content. There is plenty to like assuming we can do it all. Focusing on making this a study-sim is not the way to go here.

 

Jason

 

 

THANK YOU JASON.  I know Jason knows how I feel about this, but for those who want a second coming of another well known flight sim...I fly airplanes for a living, and let me tell you, starting one up everyday is OVER-RATED.  So is briefing for 2 hours prior, and putting on 30 lbs of flight gear etc. etc.  Just be glad we have a sim that has a start up but doesn't require you to break out a checklist! or think at all while all the switches are thrown.  That is NOT what this sim is about, never was, never should be.

 

Listen, this is a Combat flight sim, not an Admin or Tac-Admin (All the things that come before combat) simulator.  BoS/BoM does this very well and any time spent by a developer adding things like checking the pre-check valve on the external fuel tank prior to gasing up your sim airplane are a waste of resources.

 

Be glad Jason "gets it".  It means we'll continue to see amazing things from the franchise.  

[Martini]

I've addressed this one issue and explained the situation with clickpits and manual start up. This is the one area where what I consider to be a super hardcore feature does not justify the cost. Original IL-2 1946 had no such feature. I'm focused on adding as many 1946-like features back in as I possibly can with the budget I end up with. I'd rather focus on new technology and gameplay features or changing existing ones and building new content and involving the community more in building such content. There is plenty to like assuming we can do it all. Focusing on making this a study-sim is not the way to go here.

 

Jason

+1

[pilotpierre]

THANK YOU JASON.  I know Jason knows how I feel about this, but for those who want a second coming of another well known flight sim...I fly airplanes for a living, and let me tell you, starting one up everyday is OVER-RATED.  So is briefing for 2 hours prior, and putting on 30 lbs of flight gear etc. etc.  Just be glad we have a sim that has a start up but doesn't require you to break out a checklist! or think at all while all the switches are thrown.  That is NOT what this sim is about, never was, never should be.

 

Listen, this is a Combat flight sim, not an Admin or Tac-Admin (All the things that come before combat) simulator.  BoS/BoM does this very well and any time spent by a developer adding things like checking the pre-check valve on the external fuel tank prior to gasing up your sim airplane are a waste of resources.

 

Be glad Jason "gets it".  It means we'll continue to see amazing things from the franchise.

 

Good post and I agree with you w.r.t start up procedures, a pain in the arse in real life and simulators. Tried them in CLoD when it first came out and very quickly got cheesed off with them.

[LLv24_Zami]

Agreed, no need to put resources on clickpits. There are much more important tasks to accomplish.