Developer Diary, Part 66

[Zak]

Everybody who has performance issues when flying at low altitudes in the recent game version, please leave your comments in THIS TOPIC here

[BraveSirRobin]

This is not the only flight sim in development. I dont see your point.

 

And if I wouldn't be supportive I wouldn't be here talking about and being called whiner...

 

What else is there?  DCS?  You should see all the bitching and whining about the lack of updates on their forum.  There is nothing else that I know of.  At this point we're not really in a position to be whining about the lack of content.  We're lucky that there is any content at all.

[steppenwolf]

I think that's the crux of the 'back every sim' philosophy. The demand is there.

[Grizzly]

@Gambit21,Thanks for your comment on my silly post. Now i feel better knowing what you think.

 

Why the heck did you pre-order?

 

Because I am weak.

It's a drug I cant resist. I am trying not to, and I hope this was my last fix.

Edited June 3, 2014 by -=Volks=-Muggi

[BraveSirRobin]

Because I am weak.

It's a drug I cant resist. I am trying not to, and I hope this is my last fix.

 

It might be a good idea to stop blaming others for your own issues.  Personally, I think that it's great that they gave us early access.  I'd hate to see someone like you screw it up for us.

[[JG2]R7_Blackadder]

What else is there?  DCS?  You should see all the bitching and whining about the lack of updates on their forum.  There is nothing else that I know of.  At this point we're not really in a position to be whining about the lack of content.  We're lucky that there is any content at all.

 

You're not wrong but that's a shortsighted attitude

[SCG_Neun]

Only speaking for me on this....but I went into ROF the other day looking for the FMB.....happened to click on "About" and viewed the long line of credits associated with ROF and it really got me thinking how much I had simplified what it actually takes to make a simulation like BOS.  I made the mistake of expecting too much from the ROF side just to somehow magically be found in BOS because after all, hadn't the ground work been laid in ROF?  In retrospect.....everything for the most part has to be recreated for BOS.  Sure the game engine and some coding are compatible....but what about all the other calculations, artwork, GUI....etc....

 

I'm no fan boy in any sense of the word, but I have come to realize, that this project is going to take some time and my personal outlook is going to be a bit more understanding.  I hope some things get worked out in some areas I have concerns about but it's a process and there are a lot of opinions out there in what is priority and what is not.....and they don't always fit my agenda.....

[BraveSirRobin]

You're not wrong but that's a shortsighted attitude

 

What are you talking about?  How is it "shortsighted" to acknowledge reality?

[[JG2]R7_Blackadder]

Surely not, I meant just this.

 

We're lucky that there is any content at all.

 

You are practically saying that everything thrown at your face is better than nothing. (not that BoS is c...p, I want to be clear).

[BraveSirRobin]

You are practically saying that everything thrown at your face is better than nothing. (not that BoS is c...p, I want to be clear).

 

Yes, I'm pretty much saying that we should be happy with anything that is not complete crap.  We don't have a lot of options.  If you want to develop a game with realistic flight models, great graphics, a large map, and tons of mission content for a low price, I'll definitely buy it.  Until then, get used to great planes, a great map, and as much other stuff as they can afford while still staying in business.

[Gambit21]

@Gambit21,Thanks for your comment on my silly post. Now i feel better knowing what you think.

 

Ahhh...you must be one of my fanboys.

[[JG2]R7_Blackadder]

Until then, get used to great planes, a great map, and as much other stuff as they can afford while still staying in business.

 

Let's hope for better news ^^

[BraveSirRobin]

This community is suicidal...

[Grizzly]

This community is suicidal...

Yes. Maybe it has something to do with the game.

Edited June 3, 2014 by -=Volks=-Muggi

[Zak]

What else is there?  DCS?  You should see all the bitching and whining about the lack of updates on their forum.  There is nothing else that I know of.  At this point we're not really in a position to be whining about the lack of content.  We're lucky that there is any content at all.

Let's hope, brothers, that they will deliver!

 

Let's hope for better news ^^

Yay!

 

This community is suicidal...

Not that loud, please.

 

Meanwhile, Prangster published a great piece of work here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/6971-annotated-il-2-bos-map/?do=findComment&comment=124795

It's Stalingrad map that shows all groups of armies and all frontlines. This is very similar to the template system that is used to generate historically adequate missions in every phase of SP campaign.

[Lensman]

Hello everyone, it's been a while.

I've been a devotee of IL-2 since the beginning in 2001, I've purchased every variant including the collector's edition of Battle of Britain (unopened) and the download version too (idiot). I've also been flying ROF for quite a while.

I used to be a regular contributor to the various IL-2 forums but I got so upset about the clear con trick that was BOB it caused me to point out the debacle that was about to happen weeks before it did and leave it all behind.

However, I was very interested to see that the ROF team had taken on the challenge of a new IL-2 variant and followed the progress over the last couple of years. I had NO intention of laying down ANY money until it was proven that this is indeed a going concern but in the last two weeks I decided that it was indeed so and bought the Premium option. I've been delighted and disappointed by my hands on experience with the sim (game if you will): the flight models seem good and the limited environment available is well rendered and effective. The aircraft are excellent. I'm overjoyed that force-feedback is implemented: THANK YOU!!!  However, snow snow and more snow and a very limited area of terrain. The original IL-2 did far more than this straight out of the box. 46 did exceptionally far more than this (yes, I know it took years to develop). The graphical quality of the new sim is not THAT much better than IL-2-1946. I mean, it is obviously superior but I'm losing a hell of a lot of options to have that small graphical increment and in every other respect this is just the winter campaign of 1946 or the original IL-2.

Then I read this thread and it's like being straight back in the latter days of the Battle of Britain development horror. Things seemingly promised that suddenly aren't possible, money too tight to mention, restricted gameplay, no mission editor. This is exactly the slippery slope that I did for the community 2 years ago (or was it 3, I forget). Developers, PLEASE don't let it happen again, learn the lessons of last time. At least THIS time we KNOW we've bought a beta version unlike having it unwisely inflicted upon us as with BOB!

Regardless of all that, it's nice to be back and I have every hope that this will turn out to be a tremendous achievement. It's already provided several nights of good entertainment (poor Stukas).

In conclusion: Hello to you all! 

[Gambit21]

This community is suicidal...

It's pretty good for the most part,

You open up a room on the internet and let people post, you're always going to get a juvenile element.

There's always one or two, and every board is that way - just how it is.

 

Most of us save for the few I'm referencing probably couldn't stomach a message board dealing with a normal video

game. At least with a flight sim of this nature, it attracts mostly mature individuals.

[All_Apologies]

This community is suicidal..

Actually its not to insane. If you want to see crazy/lunatic type stuff check out the steam forum for WatchDogs or Rome 2. =p

[KodiakJac]

Actually its not to insane. If you want to see crazy/lunatic type stuff check out the steam forum for WatchDogs or Rome 2. =p

Yeah, compared to the Steam forums we're docile polite choir boys

[VikingFjord]

Awesome, thanks, saved it

 

And mourning about FMB not given in early access goes on and on, I see. Guys, you've probably been waiting for years for the new IL-2 to be released. And now when you have early access to it (and it has AFM which has never been introduced to the series before) you aren't happy at all. The game hasn't been released yet - and you're already surprised why you don't have the mission editor. Come on, you're all clever and grown up ppl (you have $100 to pay for the game so I guess you are), show some patience.

About the singleplayer mode - well, everyone's free to have their expectations but you can't tell if we have failed to satisfy yours because you haven't had a chance to try our singleplayer yet. Let's follow the old principle: reason goes first, reaction - second.

i have been flying all kinds of flights sims in my 17yr as  virtual pilot (mostly flying War birds from 1 & 2 World War) but never have i ever been more into flying like i have been with ROF

after playing it for few hours i bought all the content available for it

and that was not cheap more then 220 euros..but i don't regret a single second on doing so 777 makes the best of the best out there

so when i saw the 777 logo on il-2 i had to have it instant..even though it cost 100$

i don't think any casual gamer or anyone else then a die hard sim pilot would pay so much for a "game"

that said..that said il-2 has as far much of the same quality's that i loved about ROF

i don't really get all the complains about FMB if Jason is right and it more like ROF i don't think we have anything to worried about

even though i trust the skill and work of the developers i also think that developers should think about a little thing when making this game and thats

that many did pay a lot of money for this game..and some also payed a lot for ROF these customers are not average costumers

they are loyal fans and die hard pilots and they demand the very best

and i believe that once more we will get the best

 

BTW: i did love the Career mode in ROF where you choose a picture and a story so on..made your own character it was awesome

reading the news paper and stuff

will this be available for il2 as well?

Edited June 4, 2014 by VikingFjord

[Recon]

it has been decided to give the ME to a few trusted users who can work on some content for the community 

Jason

 

Like Founders ?  Those that bought the game in the fall immediately upon hearing of BoS and wanting to help promote it ?

 

See, I find it reversal of thinking.

 

1. you say you don't have time/money to build this content

2. you don't want to provide the tools for community to build this content

 

I just see a contradiction here.

 

You make the core game, provide the aircraft, maps, etc.. and then let the community build the missions and online communities.

 

I'd like to know the stats behind 'only 5% would use a FMB'.  You mention IL2:1946 as well.  A great deal of interest original was it's COOP mode - we ran missions all the time - and all of them were crafted in the FMB.   That series always lacked a dynamic coop mode, we had to use DCG to do it.  Later complex wars were created off those dynamic compaign generators.  

 

I created and ran a war for 12 years in IL2:1946, a persistent world where each mission built upon the last, supply systems, ferrying aircraft, tracking kills and stats - etc...

 

If you only give your tools to your elite mission people, stuff like what I and others did would never come to be.

 

"Build it and they will come"

 

"Teach them how to fish"

 

More effort in putting up video how-tos and wiki's instead of maybe trying to develop the perfect tool would be a better route.

 

That all said:

 

1. how many objects can the game support ?

2. are we going to be able to get a full server of pilots ?

 

Our war got to numbers over 100 people in a single mission.  Since BoS is next generation of 1946, will that work ?

 

1C often made same mistake, each patch would mean less objects.   IL2 1946 was more small scale, tactical type game.  Mostly because it was designed originally to showcase the IL2.

Now that is just comical. Its "half assed", but actually implemented correctly and modeled correctly compared to the previous Il-2 series. Just because it can't be mapped to an axis doesn't mean its half-assed, it just means its not mappable to an axis. Its actually modeled way better than the previous Il-2 series.

 

Seems to be two different arguments here

 

1. modeling trim

2. allow it bound to axis

 

Great they got 1 right, now they need to get 2 right

I'm late to the party but FWIW...

 

I consider myself a dedicated offliner, active mission and campaign builder in other sims. I'm really enjoying BoS so far, especially the QMB.

 

I am actually looking forward to this new take on a campaign interface - kudos to 777 for moving offline campaigns out of the box!

 

I too am mystified by the reaction around the RoF style FMB, as Jason said, 'the large majority of feedback over the years has been that it is too complex, too slow and not integrated into the main game enough to be effective or fun' and a new and better FMB was never promised, to my knowledge. So as an avid mission builder, I got over this disappointment months and months ago when it became clear there would not be a new user-friendlier FMB.

 

The idea of taking a QMB style interface and using it to make a highly flexible campaign engine where the player can fly multiple missions in different aircraft, from different airfields, in different phases of the campaign, all with historical weapons, weather, scenarios - I love it!

 

It reminds me very much of the original Battle of Britain II campaign interface. There, the player was/is presented with a full map of the battlefield on each day of the battle. By clicking on any airfield, they can fly any operational aircraft on the map. Usually I would fly just one type, from one airfield, during any particular campaign. In the next campaign, I might choose a different aircraft type, different airfield - it meant I could easily fashion my own campaign and each campaign was different.

 

Later, we/the BDG modded the sim to include a Single Squadron Campaign, where a player could choose a particular squadron and only fly for that squadron, whenever it was scrambled. I never really got into it, because I found it too limiting. For that type of gameplay, I much prefer branching scripted or semi scripted campaigns, with well developed storylines and plots, and random mission triggers. But I can live without that for BoS at launch.

 

So for this particular single player fan, this update is great news!

 

I do have a question or two though...if it isn't too late.

 

- Does time move forward with each separate mission or does it 'reset' depending on the mission/aircraft chosen? eg How many sorties are possible in a single 'day' or is the concept of a game 'day' not relevant?

- Does each mission have a briefing, mission objective and waypoints ? How is mission success criteria determined?

- Will AI aircraft be generated specifically for each player mission, or are AI aircraft pursuing their own objectives over the battlefield?

- Are there random elements in the missions (AI aircraft or ground objects spawning in, event triggers...)? If missions are replayable, will they always replay the same way?

- How does the locking/unlocking of mods fit into this type of campaign?

- Are you stuck in a particular battle phase if sufficient mission success hasn't been achieved, or can you advance anyway? Can you start the campaign at different phases?

- Does mission difficulty or success, and thus also the mod unlocks, depend on the realism settings the player is using?

- If I unlock a mod in a Bf109 and then fly a Stuka for a few missions, will the campaign remember my Bf109 mod next time I fly the 109 or will I have to earn it again?

- What is the max number of aircraft on both sides in the missions? Is this user definable for players with lower PC specs?

- Will the maps be populated with ground targets so that eg if an IL2 pilot completes his mission, he can go hunting for other targets of opportunity?

- Can a player choose aircraft from either red or blue during a campaign, or are they limited to one side for the duration of the campaign? Eg can I fly red in one phase, and blue in the next, or even both red and blue during the same phase?

 

Yours enthusiastically,

 

Fred

 

Well said!

 

I share your enthusiasm as well!

[No601_Prangster]

Like Founders ?  Those that bought the game in the fall immediately upon hearing of BoS and wanting to help promote it ?

 

See, I find it reversal of thinking.

 

1. you say you don't have time/money to build this content

2. you don't want to provide the tools for community to build this content

 

I just see a contradiction here.

 

You make the core game, provide the aircraft, maps, etc.. and then let the community build the missions and online communities.

 

I'd like to know the stats behind 'only 5% would use a FMB'.  You mention IL2:1946 as well.  A great deal of interest original was it's COOP mode - we ran missions all the time - and all of them were crafted in the FMB.   That series always lacked a dynamic coop mode, we had to use DCG to do it.  Later complex wars were created off those dynamic compaign generators.  

 

I created and ran a war for 12 years in IL2:1946, a persistent world where each mission built upon the last, supply systems, ferrying aircraft, tracking kills and stats - etc...

 

If you only give your tools to your elite mission people, stuff like what I and others did would never come to be.

As has been stated earlier in the thread, during the early access period the FMB will be given to a few people who already know how to use it and have created content for the community. Everyone will have access to the FMB after release either the current version or a more user friendly version. I know some people don't like the thought of others having access to things that they don't but relax it's only temporary. I wonder how many of the most vocal complainers (not including you Recon ) will actually use the FMB when it's available? Well see.

[Zak]

See, I find it reversal of thinking.

1. you say you don't have time/money to build this content

2. you don't want to provide the tools for community to build this content

1. Yes, and we never had both of them

2. No, we do want to provide the tools. But actually we don't have them in proper condition yet.

 

You make the core game, provide the aircraft, maps, etc.. and then let the community build the missions and online communities.

Sounds like a plan. Amen.

 

1. how many objects can the game support ?

2. are we going to be able to get a full server of pilots ?

1. We'll see when it's released, there can't be no official data before the game is out for common use.

2. What does "full" mean? I create a 10 slot server and get 10 ppl playing there, but I suspect that's not exactly what you mean. 

[Recon]

1. Yes, and we never had both of them

2. No, we do want to provide the tools. But actually we don't have them in proper condition yet.

 

Sounds like a plan. Amen.

 

1. We'll see when it's released, there can't be no official data before the game is out for common use.

2. What does "full" mean? I create a 10 slot server and get 10 ppl playing there, but I suspect that's not exactly what you mean. 

 

Thanks Zak - seems all fair to me, all that is being said here in the end is that the tools will be released, just not in early access - and everyone at that point can use them - but for now they aren't in proper condition.

 

What I meant by 'full' is that originally I know the multiplayer accepted more players on a server, but was quickly toned down  - I'm hoping more work is put into supporting a larger set of players and objects for multiplayer.

[Zak]

What I meant by 'full' is that originally I know the multiplayer accepted more players on a server, but was quickly toned down  - I'm hoping more work is put into supporting a larger set of players and objects for multiplayer.

Yes, the devs are working in this direction now. I'm not quite sure we'll get, like, a hundred players on one map, but the solid 64 is the current goal at this moment, and it seems to be achievable.

[VR-DriftaholiC]

Yes, the devs are working in this direction now. I'm not quite sure we'll get, like, a hundred players on one map, but the solid 64 is the current goal at this moment, and it seems to be achievable.

Will there be AI added on top of that number? Bomber formations to protect/destroy or tank columns and other various objectives in multiplayer or will it only be dogfighting with no goal. 

[FuriousMeow]

Will there be AI added on top of that number? Bomber formations to protect/destroy or tank columns and other various objectives in multiplayer or will it only be dogfighting with no goal. 

 

That's up to the server hosts. It's full of objectives in RoF online. Small AI bomber formations, ground units advancing, factories to destroy, etc. It will be up to the mission designers and server hosts when this product is released to do that. Key point - when its released.

[KodiakJac]

I wonder how many of the most vocal complainers (not including you Recon ) will actually use the FMB when it's available? Well see.

 

If the BoS FMB is made to the same standards as the previous IL-2 1946/Clod FMB it will be hundreds of players.  For proof visit Mission4Today...we don't have to speculate.  Build it and they will come.

[Zak]

Hi everyone

We're not publishing a new dev blog update today since we don't have any significant annd interesting news for you. But there're no bad news either which is good.

There's a couple of words about the up-coming update in Early Acccess section as always. The update itself is to be released later today, wait for an announcement.

[Nankeen]

Thanks Zak

[Mags]

Thank you, Zak.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Bad news would have been total silence. So updating tonight and testing as usual. Have a good weekend all!

[Kudlius]

Maybe it is possible to get summer map? This winter map is nice, but I like green warm tones more. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

RE: Summer

 

Not til the next release (probably) I'm afraid.

[LukeFF]

Maybe it is possible to get summer map? This winter map is nice, but I like green warm tones more. 

 

No, it's been said repeatedly this first version of the game covers November 1942 - February 1943, so no summer map. 

[BlackSix]

The update is available.

[ECV56_SkyHell]

COPY!

[Shibbyland]

I love Rise of Flight and am just unable to enjoy Cliffs of Dover. For me, the defining difference between these two games is the single player career (or lack thereof in CloD) and the ease of control for those without TrackIR.

 

Rise of Flight was really easy to use with simple control mapping and the single player career was very immersive.

 

Whilst BoS looks fantastic and covers an interesting part of the war, a lack of a pilot oriented single player career is a deal breaker for me when it comes to purchasing this sim.

[fjacobsen]

I love Rise of Flight and am just unable to enjoy Cliffs of Dover. For me, the defining difference between these two games is the single player career (or lack thereof in CloD) and the ease of control for those without TrackIR.

 

Rise of Flight was really easy to use with simple control mapping and the single player career was very immersive.

 

Whilst BoS looks fantastic and covers an interesting part of the war, a lack of a pilot oriented single player career is a deal breaker for me when it comes to purchasing this sim.

 

Isn´t it a bit too early to downvote something we haven´t seen yet ?

 

While it won´t be pilot oriented, it actually migh reveal itself as immersive.

 

FinnJ

[Shibbyland]

That's a fair call and I'll wait to see what happens. What I'm getting at is that RoF was an instant and ongoing success, it's engaging and replay able and I think a big reason for that is the ability to create a pilot and fly a career. It would be a shame if BoS followed a set single player campaign much like cliffs of Dover which wasn't as much of a success. Maybe that's not what it'll be like but right now it does sound like that's the direction they're going in