Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fritz_X

  1. You definitely have my vote. I feel like an European Mediterranian setting with fitting Italian planes has been majorly neglected in the history of flight simulations. I have to admit, I'm pretty biased, since the Fiat G.55 is, along with the Spitfire series and the P-38, my favorite airframe. Such a great design with an amarment that packs a punch. But beyond that single plane, a Mediterranian expension would give both Allies and Axis options for interesting and fresh plane types.
  2. To be honest, my post wasn't aimed at you personally at all. I was just answering motoadve's initial question, the one I quoted. No hard feelings, man 🙂
  3. Because many people have a problem dealing with change, especially when they are forced to change behaviour that always worked before suddenly becoming invalid. After all, it's all about people's feelings. They often directly admit it. My favorite example comes is following situation: Racing game developer: 'We worked closely with real world race drivers, who helped us to improve the driving model based on their experience, to give the players a better, more realistic experience than ever before.' Long time players: 'The new driving model feels all wrong. Game is bad! Old game far better!' It's quite ironic that people who claim to want an experience as realistic as possible often play the 'feelings card' when it comes to change that is based on scientific evidence and facts, because in the end all they communicate can be boiled down to 'I have trouble when it comes to coping with change.'
  4. Please excuse me, but you mixed 'dorsal' ('back', upper turret) and 'ventral' ('belly', lower turret) up. Just to prevent any kind of confusion.
  5. I'm by no means an expert, so if I should be wrong anybody is free to correct me, but if I connect all the dots correctly, the 'spade like' handles in the Russian fighters are to clear the guns' breaches in case of a failure of the plane's power system. As long as the engine is running, the guns are cleared via electric power, you can see the little switches flick when you clear the guns. When the engine is off, the wooden handles are being pulled when entering the command to clear the guns.
  6. Did some of your bullets go astray and bounce off the ground against the Tiger's ventral armor?
  7. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you won't. The tank museum (apart from the fact that it wasn't present in WW2, of course) is located in Munster. The city we got in BOBP is Münster. Only two small dots, but still a whole different place 😉 Great DD, just as always!
  8. Guys, please take your time to re-read Cat's initial post about the canopy differences. He said that he has troubles to spot the differences between the two variants of the same canopy type. What he is trying to communicate is that he feels like the differences between Early Flat Canopy and Common Flat Canopy are hard to spot for him, just as well as the differences between Rare Blown Canopy and Common Blown Canopy. Everybody is free to disagree with him, but nobody should act like he said that flat and blown canopy styles look the same, which he never did. Anyway, great DD just as always and nice to hear about both canopy styles becoming available.
  9. Simple answer: All of the above. The only product of the whole IL-2 (both classic and BoX) I never owned was Pacific Fighters, which I caught up later on by getting 1946. The only module from RoF I never bought was the final Ilya Muromets DLC, for both included planes didn't really interest me. I don't play 1946, Clod nor RoF anymore, though. As much as I love them (especially 1946, for it will always have a special place in my heart for accompanying me through all of my teenage years), they simply can't keep up with BoX.
  10. Even if I always prefered flying the Alatross D.Va, the Pfalz D.III will always have a special place in my heart, for it once saved my virtual life when most likely no other plane would have: I was flying in SP over the French Coast on the Channel map one afternoon, fighting against several hostile fighters (don't remember which type of plane I was facing), when one enemy hit me with a massive burst from his MG's, damaging the wings on my left badly. They almost snapped off immediately, putting my plane into a dive from about 1,5 km's height. Shortly after, the wings on my right snapped off as well, only leaving me with the small part of the upper wing right over my motor section, as I kept diving straight to my doom. I hit the pause button. My plane was lost. All the wings were gone, I was plummeting towards the ground, no reason to continue. For whatever reason though, I decided to take it like a man, so I unpaused the game again and prepared to go down in style: Full throttle towards the ground. After reaching a speed of about 280 km/h at about 250 metres above the ground, the magic of the Pfalz happened: The plane started to slowly pull up, finally going into a stable level flight and then into a shallow descent. With very gentle moves to my elevator controls I was able to safely land the plane on a field, with no wings left, but a virtual life all safe. I'm positive that this was a one-time-bug, since I never had been able to recreate this situation. But boy, this gave me some good laughs and one of the weirdest looks of disbelief I must have ever had.
  11. Not really. The AI in 1946 definitely was worse. It only felt better on the first glance because the devs gave it a different flight model than the player had to deal with. The AI in 1946 had a much more forgiving flight model that allowed them to pull off manouvers the human player wouldn't be able to do in the very same situation. In BoX the AI has to deal with the same complex flight model the player has to cope with. Which is more fair, but also more demanding to the AI, which seems to not be able to fully cope with it, yet. The devs definitely decided to take the hard route for BoX, which is something we should really appreciate.
  12. I wholeheartedly agree. This goes not only for competitive MP environments, but also SP games. Back in 2007 the game 'S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - Shadow of Chernobyl' added a misfire / gun jam mechanism. I was really looking forward to this, since it would add a new layer of realism. But in the end, all it did was creating frustration. You played a mission and were almost done, but low on energy and there were still some enemies left to deal with. You spotted them from a cover, they didn't realize your presence yet. You made a plan in your mind how to take them out, you checked your weapon one last time, mag's full, 30 rounds will do the trick. You left your cover, opened fire... ... and then the game decided to give you the digital middle finger by making your gun misfire after the second round, giving the remaining enemies a free kill on you while you were a sitting duck out in the open. Random events can be implemented, as long as their consequences aren't too harsh and can be dealt with in an easy way. I really enjoy the misfire mechanism in RoF, which puts the player into a disadvantage as well, but can be dealt with within the blink of an eye. Things like gun jams however I feel like would do more harm than good.
  13. I both agree and disagree with this statement. What I agree with is the word 'seems' in your second sentence. The rest, I basically disagree with. AI is a very tough subject. It always has been, but I agree with you that things seem to be getting worse as time progresses and games evolve. Many of today's games that feature AI in single player seem to have it executed worse than we used to remember things from 'back in the day'. Many players agree: AI has gotten worse overall. And this is a statement I have to strongly disagree with. Yes, I do agree that AI more and more tends to feel lacking. But this has nothing to do with it not evolving or even becoming worse. It is all about games evolving faster than AI does. As time progresses, games become more and more complex, to give players a better and more detailed environment to play with. Unfortunately this also gives the AI the task to deal with the same mechanisms, which is hard to code at times, especially giving the technical limitations of a home computer system. Just go back in time and have a look at one of the very first games that allowed a human player to play against an AI opponent: Pong. The AI basically had only two things to do there, namely A) to realize the 'ball's' direction and calculate its' further path and B) move the paddle accordingly. And now compare this to the complexity of our flight sim. I agree with you when you say that the AI in BoX has alot of quirks and that there's quite alot of room for improvement. What nags me personally the most is the 360° view of AI pilots and the godlike aim of AAA and gunners on higher levels. But I still do admire the devs for what they have created so far and especially for chosing the hard way by deciding to give the AI the very same tasks and limitations the player has to deal with. They could have just taken the easy way out, like it happened back with classic IL2, where the AI had a different, much more favorable flight model that allowed it to pull off manouvers that made them look like TIE-Fighters instead of WW2 planes. Another good (or should I say 'bad'?) example for a favored AI is Sid Meier's Civilization series, where the AI doesn't get smarter on higher levels, but will be granted with several boni (like more starting ressources, more ressources from new conquered sources, shorter building times for units and cities, etc.) that the player doesn't get. One could basically say, that human players are playing against bad players that compensate their lack of skill by cheating. Giving the AI artificial advantages over the human player only 'improves' the situation until the sharade is discovered by players. From there on, all it creates is disappointment and frustration. Because flying a WW2 plane against TIE-Fighters just isn't fun, even though Lucas Art's 'Secret Weapons over Normandy' literally tried to convince us otherwise.
  14. Absolutely amazing what major impact these little things can have when it comes to immersion. My personal favorite was the reply of the German bomber crews upon the arrival of their fighter escorts: "Holla, die Jäger! Wir sind froh euch zu sehen! Danke für das Geleit, Ende!" Which roughly translates into: 'Hooray, the fighters! We are glad to see you! Thanks for the cover, over!' I really wish we could have things like this back on our ingame radio. And now I'll stop derailing this thread, promised.
  15. If this is true, I'll stand corrected and rest my case. To be honest, I'm not a video editor myself, but I never saw mock gun cam footage from BoX so far, compared to the many videos from the classic IL-2. I believe your words there, though.
  16. I'd really like to see this feature again, since a hidden cockpit would give video creators the chance to easily recreate gun cam footage. Even if the 'hardcore simmers' might disagree, it basically wouldn't hurt anyone. And neither it would hurt the sim itself. As long as you implement it as an option, that is. This would require a server side 'Always render cockpits' option, to keep things fair and balanced in MP.
  17. Phew, tough question... On the first glance I'd also think it'll be 40.-$, consisting of the 10.-$ base discount plus the 5.-$, 10.-$ and 15.-$ for each level, but only if you spent more than 201.-$ that is. On the second look things could be seen differently: Fact is, you will always get the 10,-$ base discount. If you also bought RoF content, you will get an additional discount, but without the three different levels stacking up. Which would give you the following discounts: Level 1: 15,-$ (10,-$ base discount + 5,-$ Level 1 RoF content discount) Level 2: 20,-$ (10,-$ base discount + 10,-$ Level 2 RoF content discount) Level 3: 25,-$ (10,-$ base discount + 15,-$ Level 3 RoF content discount) I honestly feel like this is how it's meant to work.
  18. Simple answer for me: Albatros DV.a. Together with the Nieuport 17 the latest Albatros iteration was my favorite ride back in RoF. Really glad it made it right into the first Volume of FC. That being said, I hope we'll get the Nieuport eventually just as well.
  19. William of Ockham agrees with you. Me too, by the way.
  20. I have to agree with Trup. The way the AI currently handles the SPAD is pretty much how it should be flown, especially against a much slower opponent like the Dr.1. Of course I can't say if this behaviour is exactly as the devs planned it or if the current AI routine just shows this behaviour 'by accident', which actually doesn't really matter, since the outcome feels very believable. I for myself enjoy it alot. Yes, of course it is tougher to down a SPAD that only goes for energy fighting, but why should the AI try to outturn a Dr.1 in a SPAD anyway? No halfway experienced player would do that and AI-wise we already had enough of this back in RoF.
  21. The AI is far better in comparison to RoF: - No more descending to ground level: The AI doesn't automatically descend anymore, fights at higher altitudes are actually possible. - No more left turn only: The AI makes use of different kind of manouvers. It still does turn fighting then and now, but most of the time I see them doing vertical manouvers. They also fly scissors occasionally. - No more sniper-like marksmanship: The AI isn't capable of sending a precise stream of bullets right into your pilot from great distances anymore, reducing the frustration of instant deaths. There seems to be a problem with AI SPADs ignoring the presence of the player and simply returning to their home field (seems to happen mostly on the Kuban map), but apart from this flaw, it is a great improvement to what we had to deal with back in RoF.
  22. Good research and very nice data sheet! Thank you! Comparing it to my own experience in FC so far I've got to agree with Space_Ghost: I have not managed to make an enemy engine burst into flames yet.
  23. According to the store page, we will! Even if only ten planes are listed, we are basically getting 13 RoF planes in Vol.1.
  24. Very nice post, Hell! I can agree on quite alot of things, even though I feel like your idea for Vol.3 is a little too ambitious. I just don't think that we'll ever get to see entirely new planes. Hope that I'll be proven wrong sometime in the future... Never getting the Hansa-Brandenburg W.12 would be quite sad, though. By the way, you can add another plane for the Central Powers for your Vol.3 suggestion, since we will already be getting the Fokker D.VIIF as an engine modification for the D.VII in Vol.1.
  25. I always wanted to see the Oeffag Albatros D.III and the Aviatik D.I in RoF. But for FC Vol.2 I feel like it'll contain planes we already have in RoF. Which will hopefully include the Nieuport 17, Breguet 14B2, DFW C.V and maybe even the Hansa-Brandenburg W.12.
  • Create New...