Jump to content

=IL2AU=ToknMurican

Members
  • Content Count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by =IL2AU=ToknMurican


  1. Title pretty much says it.   This has actually been a long standing issue since kuban or perhaps earlier.  
     

    Trim using a FFB joystick at one point a year or two ago worked completely fine in these aircraft, but all versions of the IL-2 and Pe-2 don't seem to work correclty anymore, requiring pretty much 100% nose up trim to fly level, and that's only after you hit speed.  Otherwise it wants to nose down.


  2. Restarted engines in the thing after throttling down too quickly, got just below about 500kph before I turned them back on and was back up to 630+ in no time.   Feels like your only real chance at nailing another fighter is if they're flying rather straight and level or maybe climbing/diving but without turning.     When you set the stab to tail heavy, you do get a little more control in a turn fight but I feel like it's just putting yourself at risk. After a sortie or two in it, I feel like if you get caught anywhere but landing/taking off you're flying it wrong.  Even if you aren't able to line up a shot on a fighter who knows you're there when you're flying it to its strengths.   I feel sorry for any bombers who find themselves in front of the guns. 


  3. 4 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

    image.thumb.png.560c1e5ad8d0c27bde0d3b3c9df363c8.png

     

     

    Guys you should mention HOW I can support the server on the support tab. Not only who did it. or did I miss something?

     

    So, I hate to be this guy, but I'm pointing at the big yellow "Donate" button at the top center of your snip . :)


  4. It's kind of funny, seeing the same names argue against any point against particular features repeatedly, for which many of us have been flying on taw for years, and didn't really have much complaint and therefore no reason to come to the forums until cold starts came along, then new features that make it harder to spawn in and do anything, when the balancing of teams changes throughout the day. 

     

    The people I fly with switch sides almost every campaign.    I'm starting to wonder if the current campaign design is the result of a few people, repetitively arguing against any differing opinion rather than a collective of individual opinions.   Frankly.. i don't come to forums complaining due to how I died in a video game most of the time. 

     

    What I am noticing, is that these "balancing" features haven't done much in the way to change the fact that LW is the preferred platform of gameplay for the majority of this playerbase.. and to many I fly with, seem to hinder the over all fun of the experience rather than solve problems. 

     

    For me it's not about winning or losing.. it's about having a good time with my friends, epic air battles and epic ground assaults.   It's NICE to win, to have effect on the map, and when we have the numbers we aim for it, when we're light we might stay on the defensive. 

     

    I'll even go as far as to say that the GAME being designed around early eastern front has more to do with imbalance than anybody's preconceived notions about other people flying against them.    As a community it would be nice if people just owned up and alternated sides per campaign, but I don't think trying to shove that down anybody's throats is going to fix the issue. 

     

     

     

    P.S.  this video is from what is likely the last campaign that RED has won.. before any spawn restrictions were ever in place.  I could be inaccurate about how many campaigns red has won since then, but my point's still the same. 

     

    IMO - Don't fly alone, bolster your numbers. Outside of language barriers, reach out to people you see online on your team and find out what VOIP client they're using.  Chances are you're more than welcome to join in on the fun if you aren't a poor sport.   "The more the merrier."   Personally, I like discord. Feel free to PM me to work out server arrangements  and lets make stuff like the video above happen, even against overwhelming odds.

     

    P.S.  I mean no offense to server admins, =LG= or any other member of this community.  I do appreciate the effort involved in giving us the TAW experience as long I've been around.  

     

    But looking at the total number of registrations for TAW,  expecting 24/7 balanced gameplay is a long shot.   You spread that out over worldwide timezones and the average person's amount of free time it's not a huge number.  

     

    A balanced game is giving everybody the same option of plane to fly, painted different colors.   And that just wouldn't be TAW >.<   Flying red takes having the stones, and maybe some additional control bindings, keystrokes and knowhow beyond toebrakes and throttle, that once it clicks, is like riding a bike.   

     

    I'm sorry if I've repeated myself, or if this seems out of the blue and I don't intend to hover over the forums after this.  But be nice to each other folks, getting killed on TAW while upsetting,  isn't the end of the world, and you have to ask yourself how you let yourself present the opportunity in the first place.  Try not to let it happen again.   Rinse. Repeat.   

     

    *Last edit* It's extremely hard to keep my thoughts short and sweet here,  as  thoughts pop up later on the subject and wishing I had a solution  myself,  but maybe influencing larger squads to fly for the underdogs needs to happen at the point of server registration based on squad size and current registration count, maybe even based on timezone  on a first come first serve basis.   "Register as squad", "register to squad" or "register solo" so to speak.   As it stands I can't blame people for hanging out waiting to fly with their wingmates, and a registration capping system might actually put the more experienced, more coordinated larger squads on whichever side happens to be the underdog and needs them the most.  That appeals more to me than longer death timers, airfields that open and close as players join/leave server, and the possibility of server slots going unused when there are willing players.  This could be further maintained with a minimum amount of flight time required per week or every other week to maintain an active account throughout the campaign, to make room for active players, even just a few sorties.   - I've more than spoken my peace here and I'll leave the thoughts be for now.  My apologies for it turning into an essay. 

     

     

    See you guys in the skies. 

    • Upvote 2

  5. Airfields on red side on the back are closed due to attacks from tanks/aircraft.  OUr only spawn point is closed because of the "balancing" feature of closing forward airfields when blue side is outnumbered.    Oversight on this feature here, that I still find unnecessary.   Red outnumbers blue during this timezone through the week, while blue spends most of the day crushing us.     I personally, don't mind a loss but the airfield restrictions bug me. 

    • Thanks 1

  6. On 2/25/2019 at 12:46 AM, AirshowDisaster said:

    Looks like it's the death knell for this map - another one to the villainous LW. Looking forward to MiGs and Yaks for the VVS!

     

    But not the LaGG-3. No-one is looking forward to the LaGG-3.

     

    You are mistaken.. I will shred many LW aircraft with the 23 mm next map.  

    • Like 1

  7. 5 hours ago, SCG_Riksen said:

     

    You said it all in your own post. This is not real war, it is a game and in a game there is a sense of competition. Any competition should provide equal chances of  winning to both sides so balance is necessary either you like it or not. The mechanism implemented is one that provides such balance. You fly TAW for its ruthlessness as you said, well, just add that to the list of features that makes it hardcore and "ruthless" as you say. People that "complain" as you say are most likely just trying to help the admins improve the campaign in terms of competitiveness even if you disagree with them that is your own view but that does not necessarily makes the others wrong. You also mention not minding flying in a server with zero opposition ... well to be honest there ... what are you doing in MP if you would even play in an empty server? Stats building? It makes no sense to wish to participate in a competition  with no adversaries ... you could always host a COOP session with your friends then with no enemies around ... Anyways, I'm not expecting to change your mind and respect your opinion but just like there are people who dislike the feature there are people who support it.

     

    Adexu, you do not need to go to IL2 website and change your nickname to fly for both sides. Just need to change the one in TAW to match the one you already have.

     

     When we get to moscow and my options go from a 30-40KM flight to target, to 70-100+KM not because an airfield was captured, but because somebody joined a server, that's discouraging.    "go play on a another server"... because of one example of nobody being on the other team isn't quite the solution to that either.  I'm sorry your take from one example is that "we want competition with no adversaries" but that would be an incorrect assumption.    We like the TAW campain, and generally there's people on the other team.   There's not another server like taw, with both population and a sense of progression, while including even the new stuff coming with BoBP.   i'd almost rather see increased enemy plane/pilot count or tank count for "balance" than be suddenly shifted to the back airfields.     TAW is a 24/7 battlefield that progresses based on the actions of the players.   It's a rare occurrance that either team is empty... but we're not just going to sit on our thumbs not attacking anything while waiting for opponents.    At times there is more blue, at times there is more red.  But even in instances where we're outnumbered we're still a group of friends that fly together, and we face those odds.  You can call it stacking.. but on a server where teamwork is key, joining in with friends is probably a good idea.   Flying solo should be hard and net a pilot a lot of punishment.    In an instance where its 35vs20.. there's nothing stopping 10 people from the side with 20 from forming up and flying as a group.  Sometimes it's necessary to send 8 fighters to cover two bombers.  In most cases flights to respond to that will be staggered and not the entire team coming at you at once.    Throughout the course of a 24 hour period the server is going to be stacked on one side at some point and I don't think gameplay should be punished just because people are logging in for the team they registered for.    We alternate sides per campaign/  Frankly, if one side outnumbers the other and the side with lesser people can't deal with it.. CALL TO ARMS.. WE NEED MORE PILOTS.    Or something else for balance rather than add tedium to the gameplay of the side that has the numbers advantage.  I encourage teamwork, working together, making new friends as opposed to holding the hands of people who can't seem to make that work.  I've seen campaigns won by the lesser numbered team, because one side has 40 fighters up while the other team is coordinating ground attacks with escort.  Anyway.  I've stated my peace.  We respectfully disagree with eachother.  I'll consider it food for thought for LG. 

    50 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

    It depends :)

     

    If server is not full (less then 84 players) then dying doesn't kick you from the server and doesn't kick you from the list.

    If server is full then dying kicks you from the server and from the list. 

     

    You get 5 min penalty and you may get another 10min penalty if there is big disproportion between sides. 

     

     

    I understand you and others in that matter. Trying to fix one issue I make problems in different area. Unfortunately there isn't ideal solution. There is always a possibility to tune those new features like locking front AF, time penalties and limitation to 45 players. Perhaps some of the condition should be relaxed. 

     

    Your comments are important.

     

    Thanks Kathon for the acknowledgement.   I don't mean any kind of contempt and appreciate that you value opinions from the playerbase.  I'll leave it at that.  ;)

    • Thanks 1

  8. 1 hour ago, SCG_Riksen said:

     

    Sorry, I'm afraid I don't really understand what the issue is then. Not meant as an offense or anything ... but you gotta look at this implementation in a broader spectrum. It is meant as a balancing system so front lines are not always saturated with planes, giving a chance for ground attackers as well ... Perhaps try taking off from separate fields and set a rendezvous point?

     

     

     

    Part of the appeal for TAW with the group of folks I fly with is the requirement of teamwork to make things happen, and that even in less populated timezones it's generally easy to get into action due to the way targets are placed.  We also learned that when you join a sever with 6-10 people at once you tend to always be on the team that outnumbers the other. What used to be simple choices of picking an airfield, and getting in the air to fly out now becomes a discussion of multiple airfields, which involves a longer flight time and the voices I hear on discord don't really find that to be all that fun of a concept.  

     

    I don't fly TAW for balance.. I fly TAW for teamwork and ruthless combat.  even against a team of zero we still try to coordinate our attacks and draw AA fire so others can strafe and bomb. Suddenly because a few more people log on we're met with longer flight times to targets where the less populated team still gets to fly a short distance to have effect on target.   That team could still have a formation of bombers with escorts and have great effect on target while we're still only halfway there, or not even because we took your advice and set a rendezvous point from 3 different airfields. 

     

    We aren't real pilots, and we aren't in a real war.   We're at home on our hind ends playing a game on a computer, and I'm in the camp that such layers of tedium that add to the time to get in and have some fun don't make for a more enjoyable experience overall.  

     

    Anyway.. long story short, this isn't a feature I"ve been enjoying, and based on the comments I've heard regarding it while on discord.. I'm not alone in that thought.   In the not so often occurrence when we do find ourselves outnumbered.. we just try to make sure we have plenty of fighter cover in our personal group.  Not run to the forums declaring something be done against the overwhelming odds we might face.   This is personally maybe my 4th post in this thread, because unlike some people, when i'm losing or getting beat I don't complain to server admins about it.   I get back in the air and seek vengeance with trusted wingmen at my side. A death in a video game is no big deal..happens all the time, no matter how it's handed to me outside of blatant cheating/hacking, and even then I tend to just walk from it and find something else to do.    I kind of miss old ruthless TAW with insanely accurate AA without the hand holding. 

     

    I accept that you disagree with me.   That doesn't mean everybody's enjoying this "balancing" feature. 

     

     

     

     

    • Upvote 1

  9. 45 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

     

    Then take off from a different AF and organize a flight there. Simple solution ...

     

    when your flight lead, and other elements have already taken off to make room for the new group spawning in, at which point they have to land, despawn.. no problem not solved. 

    1 hour ago, =AVG77=Garven said:

    Go to page 292 of this thread.

     

    Welp..consider me surprised.    His story isn't as good as mine though.   Option of spawning at another airfield tho? Spawning at a hot one is risky even without the guy sitting there.   Still.. LG's server.  I can respect the rule even if I question it. 

    • Upvote 1

  10. 44 minutes ago, =IL2AU=SixFour619 said:

    Great to be back guys. 2 things that are killing the fun though. Please remove the 10-15 minutes death timer, these first maps are hard for reds and having to wait so long to get back in the action is discouraging. I am sure Germans would prefer planes getting back in the air asap. We want to fight each other, not sit doing nothing for 15 minutes. Also, please reconsider locking AF for spawns. This makes getting an air raid together very difficult. Before we could just roll off the spawn point a bit and another plan could spawn behind us. Thanks for your consideration. 

     

    +1, the airfields locking due to population kind of makes organized flight with more than 2-3 people people a little haphazard in this way as well imo.

    • Upvote 1

  11.  

    3 hours ago, =LG=Kathon said:

    It's a solution to the situation when a player deliberately lands on the enemy airfield and take a gunner position and then shots at spawned enemy aircraft. 

    Now it's not possible.

     

    I was thinking about similar time penalties as yours but in case 45:15 it wouldn't be fun for those 15.

     

    Maybe the good solution would be to have this penalties for all when number of players is similar and only for bigger side if there is much more players on that side. 

     

     

     

     

    There's another side to this story, other than the person salty about having been denied spawn.     The individual in question, who landed on the airfield spent about 2 hours throwing every plane he had at that airfield.. was joined by more and more of the red team in bombing and strafing AA and buildings on that airfield, the last axis airfield on the map, into nothingness, and even as he sat on the airfield with his tailgunner pointed there were flights of reds swarming the spawn point and strafing it to win the map and press on.   With ZERO targets left to bomb, and numerous aircraft strafing the spawn point, he landed, and parked.. and waited.   The ONE target he could get his tail gunner off, almost instantly cought a bomb and cannon rounds from a strafing a-20 shortly after his pilot was killed by a tailgunner which spent the remainder of its ammo on that pilot, the tailgun being the only weapon with ammunition left on his aircraft after several strafing/bombing runs beforehand.   One guy chose to spawn in knowing his airfield was being watched by numerous reds.  Personally I'd have accepted defeat and logged off until the next map.  It took a lot of work and a full team effort to clear the AA to even achieve landing on the enemy airfield. 

     

    It was a situation where whether or not the guy sitting on the enemy runway was there, nobody was spawning.. and the map was being won as axis had nowhere else to spawn as an effort of losing the map.   Can't say I exactly see the need for this measure, unless someone was salty for being on the receiving end of it.. and that person, wouldn't have been able to spawn that day regardless.   That airfield was covered, and red was flaunting their victory with a show of force. 

     

    No offense intended.. but it was a fun day and a glorious victory for the soviet team for one map..   The IL-2 in question even took off and started flying home before the map ended, with a bit of hilarity.  I don't see the harm personally, spawn point denial is still going to be a factor unless you outlaw airfield attacks, and when you got one enemy airfield left on the map it's the smart move. 

     

    I'm not trying to tell you how to run your server,  just voicing an opinion.  Thanks. 

     

    (If this has happened more than that one time, which I'd be surprised by, I still think it probably took a lot of team effort and work to make it possible) 

     

    • Sad 1

  12. 21 hours ago, Staz007 said:

    How would i disable it in steam?

     

    If I'm not mistaken you can do it per game in steam by right clicking it in your library, clicking "Properties"

    On the general tab at the bottom 


    Steam Input Per-Game Setting (Requires restart of game)   -  there will be a drop down box beneath this, set it to "Force Off" 

     

    This is a new thing on the properties tab so if that doesn't work for some reason, you can click "Steam" at the top left of steam, should drop down a menu, click "settings", and in the list on the left go to "Controller"   In the general controller settings unchecking everything there should disable steam having anything to do with controllers for all games.    "Generic controller support" is likely the culprit if this is the case. 

     

    I can say that I have steam controller support disabled at the moment and haven't had issues since I switched to the steam client for il-2.  

     

    • Upvote 1

  13. 14 hours ago, Staz007 said:

     Thankyou for the advice! I'll try updating the drivers. I am also thinking I may of assigned the hat switches to to different functions so I'm gonna check that when I get home. As for the pedals I installed the drivers yesterday so I'm not sure what I could be as windows can see me moving the pedals

     

     

    If windows sees the pedals, stick and throttle, and the inputs lightup and move in the windows properties, , Il-2 should see them.  You should just have to assign them manually in the in-game keymapping menus.  

     

    The only other reasons I could think of that not being true would either be drivers, or steam controller settings being applied if using the steam version.  Which, if using the steam version can be disabled in steam. 

     

     

     

     

    • Upvote 1

  14. Target is complicated for trying to create your own layouts and imo the only real use I've found for it was in older sims that didn't recognize multiple input devices, as it combines TM products into one input device. 

     

    Imo - download the driver packages from TM support site linked by spitfirejoe and make sure stick and throttle firmware is up to date, also search for your pedals on that site and make sure there aren't any driver or firmware updates for them.

     

    recommended to be plugged into usb 2.0 ports directly on the computer rather than a usb hub when updating firmware at the very least. 

     

    WH stick and throttle should have plenty of switches for your needs without TARGET imo.   I recommend something easy like xpadder if you want to make the slew nub into keybinds, or turn directx buttons into keyboard strokes.   You may have a couple buttons that do different things in different aircraft but I'm confident you can manage. 

     

    My two cents, the profiles in target i used for older sims were created by someone else and seem to involve a bit of target scripting that is above and beyond my knowledge. 

     

    Also if using a usb hub, ensure it's a powered usb hub with it's own power source. 

     

    When things are working correctly il-2 great battles  should recognize all of your input devices without the need for target or other controller programming software.   Are you running standalone or steam version?  As steam has some controller settings of it's own, which you can disable to rule out conflicts due to that. 

     

    If after installing TM drivers buttons still aren't working without target, i'd check usb and mainboard drivers to be on the safe side, failing that and pressing more buttons in the in game menus trying to find a cause I'd see about returning it for a replacement to rule out a dud.   

     

    from your il-2 install directory /data/input/devices.txt should list all of your connected directx/xinput devices that were connected when you launched the game.

     

    Mine -  just from launching the game with devices connected.     "Thrustmaster Combined" would be the titled of the virtual device with target running, where without it would list each device separately, and the number at the start of each line is a device identifier.  I.e. when you map buttons in-game if 1 is your stick, it'll show "joy1 button 1" for assigning trigger stage one.   Same example using my devices.txt it would be "joy4 button 1"

     

    devices.thumb.JPG.002e21f0feba38fe190ac2a3a1db0164.JPG

     

    Please don't be insulted by this suggestion, but you are going into the keymapping options in game and actually attempting to assign your switches to various functions right?  You know, double clicking the command and being prompted for a button press or axis motion?    My guess would be that you have, I'm just trying to cover everything I could think of for "hat switches not working" 

     

    Also verify in windows that the controllers are connected via typing "Usb game controllers" into cortana and pressing enter. 

     

    My stick's not plugged in at the moment but - YOu can click properties for any device and check button functionality to help you determine whether it's windows or something specific to il-2, or something you've done with target.   Without target, your throttle, your joystick, and your pedals should all be listed as separate devices. 

     

    gamecontrollers.JPG.5415960e946f424a13dc90c07dc17d51.JPG

    • Upvote 2

  15. Necro'ing this old thread rather than making my own on this topic.    Having purchased Bodenplatte, and getting into the territory of gyroscopic gunsights, and the adjustable turbocharger of the jug,   my control needs for individual aircraft vary.   Using a combo of  MSFFB2 and a warthog throttle,  I have 4 axes to use for various things, minus the slew nub on the throttle that isn't very useful due to it's self centering nature. 

     

    Up until now I've been able to manage with duplicate binds as the Spit was the only aircraft with an adjustable gunsight, and was able to use axes I use for radiators and the stabilizer in various german fighters for gunsight controls. 

     

    Not knowing what to expect with the p-38 and me. 262, I have to admit I'd love it if there were a box I could uncheck that allowed for individual joystick mapping per aircraft, that when unchecked would offer a dropdown box with all available aircraft in the controls menu.     It'd take me a lot longer to bind controls this way, but in the end it would make joystick mapping decisions a lot easier when it comes to gunsights and rads and trims.   I'd argue there's a case for immersion here as well, as controls across various cockpits are in different locations, as well as this opening up the opportunity for DIY home cockpit builders to have some fun. 


    The suggestion of a checkbox that is checked by default, for those who prefer the controls the way they are, imo the best of both worlds.

     

     

     

     

    • Upvote 3

  16. 18 hours ago, lefuneste said:

    Some users have this problem, but others (like me) not. So, untill I can reproduce it it will be hard to fix.

    Can you try to disable the cloud fix by pressing LCTRL+k ?

    And could you please use the thread in "mods" section ? It will avoid to spread information.

     

    Copy that.   Will use the other thread from here on out and try lctrl+k thanks. 


  17. 15 hours ago, Buddy said:

    acutally the only issue i am having is the shader and the clouds its like a outline that erases only clouds... im having a hard time explaining it 

     

     

    Disabled version I was using last using ovgme and enabled 10.1 , which I couldn't tell you what i upgraded from was but not likely 10.0, and worked until the latest patch,  what look like shadows are erasing the clouds...letting me see anything beyond them where shadows should be in the cockpit it felt like.   At least best way I can describe it.  Not trying to sound rude at all, but have to disable this mod unfortunately til it gets a fix.  Don't like being able to see through clouds, and the invisible shadows are like a bad hallucination.

     

    Not trying to offend just reporting my experience. 


  18. If you're already a steam user or just  appreciate fast download speeds for updates as well as not having to give login details every time you launch the game - buy BoS on steam. Ultimately if you find you enjoy combat flight simming you'll want more and then  buy the rest of the content @ the IL2 store.   Just make sure you make an account on the il-2 website and click the "Link my account" button when you launch the game from steam and you'll have access to anything you bought from the IL-2 store with your steam copy.  The expansions you buy from the il-2 store won't show up in steam but you'll have access to them once the game is running.  The one thing to note here is that the steam copy HAS to be Battle of Stalingrad as the expansions are listed as DLC on steam. 

     

    Having a 1Gbps internet connection I value steam and am so glad I picked up a second copy of BoS on sale for $16 because without it..patch day or having to reinstall IL-2 was a total PITA that is like living back in the early 2000's with ISDN and ASDL. I'm talking measurements in kilobytes, to maybe a couple MBps max.  So thanks Steam for the 1Gbps downloads.   Sure.. valve gets a take, but it's not like I needed a second copy of BoS.  Il-2 Devs got paid for me wanting access to better download servers.  Not that I'm complaining about it.. I'm just sayin.    I have over 220 games on Steam and I've been using it since Valve released the Orange Box.    And I'm obviously happy about the download speeds. 


    I don't get people's issues with it, Idk, maybe Valve should get a smaller cut, maybe, but I won't support the idea that they aren't providing services for both customers and developers.   Even retail stores make a profit on any boxed game sold, and all they do is put the things on their shelves.   This is coming from someone who had no idea IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad existed before I saw it showed up on the front page on Steam. (Also known as advertising, something many companies put billions of dollars per year into.)   Computer hardware issues led to me returning it, and I bought it from the IL-2 store after I realized my PC had an issue.  2 years later I ended up buying it on steam again despite already having access to all content besides Bodenplatte, Tanks, and Flying Circus if that says anything. 
    .


  19. It'd be nice if we had the ability to select two points on the in-game map and get a heading, with a distance @ speed = time calculation.   Currently we're having to alt-tab out of the game, use second monitors, or even our phones and Ipad to do this, which can be tedious and in some cases (alt tabbing) causes controller disconnections and IL-2 doesn't recognize when you plug in a joystick mid game. 

     

    Also for VR users, it also means having to lift our headset taking us out of the cockpit.   

     

    I would think this wouldn't be too terribly hard to implement, and would be a very useful feature for single monitor and VR users. 

    • Upvote 5

  20. So to answer my own question, as well as someone elses in this thread,  I went ahead and bit the bullet and picked up BoS on steam while it was on sale.  

     

    Everything worked fine.   I linked my account on first login and have access to all the content I have a license for from the IL-2 store, and apparently no conflict in having already having a license for BoS from the Il-2 Sturmovik store.     

     

    Having said that, I'm confident I'll be able to buy BoBP from the Il-2 store during pre-order and still have access to it via steam in the future.  

     

    I basically paid $18 purely for access to Steam's download servers for il-2 updates and future installations.  Not a complaint just a statement.   I'm actually enjoying the lack of a login screen, and it took me like 3 minutes total to install.  

     

    So hey Devs, as someone who is a regular Steam user, flight sims are about the only thing I haven't bought through Steam until now.  I appreciate your efforts to maintain a relationship with Valve and keeping products from your store compatible with the Steam version, as a purchase of a second copy of BoS for myself even if at a discounted price, will hopefully imply. 

     

     

    • Upvote 2

  21. Hate to make anyone stop and think about anything but -

     

    I have a curious hypothetical regarding steam linking.    

     

    All of my content is purchased through the il2sturmovik website, BOS+BOM+BOK and I will likely pre-order BoBP in the long run.   

     

    However - I have been tempted to snag BoS off of steam during a sale - mostly because in my part of the world I get extremely fast downloads through steam servers.  Just a method of future proofing any reason I might have to reinstall the client, I.E.  I wipe my drives and reinstall windows once or twice a year, or I plan to get some NVME drives in the future.  As well as utilizing those speeds for future updates.   I literally download over 1Gbps from Steam

     

    Is there any kind of time limit associated with account linking? And would I be causing myself any problems if in the future I did decide the cost of a game i already have a license for is worth having access to steams download servers?

     

    My best guess is - If I purchase BoS on steam although I already have a license through the IL2 store is that all I should have to do is link accounts and I'd have all of my content as well as the ability to purchase through either steam or the il-2 store for future content, all while getting those lovely download speeds. 

     

    I guess I'm asking to be corrected if the above statement is wrong. 

     


  22. 12 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

     

    This, is in fact, completely untrue and the only thing I have really called BS on.

     

    Alright.. I'll word it differently.   A list of bugs that have to this point been unaddressed and a few which have only shown up with the recent patch..or a growing list *cough*.   And my context being, hoping that sometime between now and BoBP they make the time to address them.    Which - was also before the DD today saying they're hoping to improve some things. So there's that.   I'm more than willing to be proven wrong by the IL-2 Dev team.  In fact.. thats the goal.  

     

    I can go back and put it like that in the post if you'd like.. we cool now Murf?   I mean.. we both like sims.. we won't be thinking about this when we cross paths and try to gun one another down.  ;) Until BAM i get booted to the menu while you have me in your crosshairs for no apparent reason.  Tell me you wouldn't rage a little? 

     

    really though.. wording aside..still.. looking forward to some fixes dev team *crosses fingers*

     

     


  23. 15 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

    I will never understand why people can go from “you challenged my opinion” to “why are you trying to silence me, you think everything is fine and you are on the DEV forever defense team!” Nothing is further from the truth. All of my refutations apply to your retort as well and contain none of the above. Read it again.

     

    There is only a certain amount of time/overhead and they budget what they can to bugs. Every patch, since ever, has bug fixes. Some small and some large. Your pets will get addressed at some point. Their priority list is their own.

     

    MOST people are clearly enjoying the game a great deal. I honestly wish you were having more fun. Focusing on the mountain of positives here would be a healthy first step in that regard.

     

    Sir.. you claimed my words as utter rubbish.   It's a fact, not opinion, that bugs exist that have gone unaddressed since before I started playing.   The opinion is that they're annoying more than just me. As I said -   You're welcome to the opinion that the bugs don't bother you.. but sir I will not respect you for telling me I'm just BS'ing.     As far as qualifications for speaking for "MOST" people as you're doing.. well I'm only speaking for the people I personally fly with, who on numerous occasions have had our fun ruined by some long standing issues. 

     

    What is claiming a fact as utter rubbish if not an attempt to silence someone you disagree with?   I'm not in any position not to ask you to not post your opinions of bugs in this thread.. but I'm going to ask you to just ignore what I have to say in the future.. if all you can see in all the valid points made is confrontation.   As I stated.. feel free to hop on the discords.. ask what bugs people have been experiencing and for how long.    You are not required to take my word for it and your need to tell me I'm speaking rubbish isn't something I'm going to continue listening to.  Then tell me it's utter rubbish that there are some long standing bugs that have continued unaddressed.  

     

    *edit* i feel peace has been restored. 

     


  24. 3 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

     

    Your post states "not ever addressing," which is utter nonsense. They are constantly addressing and correcting bugs as they go. Perhaps not at the rate you would prefer but every update contains tons of work in that department. Most fixes are listed in change logs, many are not. There are relatively few glaring bugs but there are a few.

     

    This small team is busting a hump on content. They are doing bug work where they can fit it in. Every new release will add much and break a little. You have to expect that. Hot fixes are always released within a few weeks and often within a few hours for major releases. It looks like one is on the way shortly, in fact. Relatively few design houses are that agile and attentive. Expecting them to devote a design cycle or even assign an engineer to bug crushing alone is not realistic at all. It is and will continue to be an 'as they go' endeavour for the forseeable future.

     

    The game works very well for most users and that is a testament to the vision, skill and work ethic of the crew. I hope you get the fixes you want but the above statement is a little over the top. It is patently unfair to guys who throw their lives into producing content and misleading to new users and people making decisions on whether to purchase the game.

     

    spectate bug - unaddressed since 2014, Dserver limiting connections when multiple people are trying to connect or whatever kicks people back to the main menu - unaddressed.  There's a list of bugs that goes on and on.  You can defend the lack of polish... however, my wingmates and I tend to find these pesky things rather annoying.  Add on top of that with BoK the lack of sorting the server list, as well has having to select every plane TWICE now to access aircraft modifications. 

     

     

    The BoK bugs are new, hope to see fixes soon..but what do you call bugs dating back to 2014?  The word I would use is unaddressed. aka "never addressed"  Also how inspiring is that supposed to be to me that the BoK bugs above won't be around for another 4 years. 

     

    I've avoided comparing the devs to another small team of about 9 devs I know whose entire early access release has been nothing but polishing, and quick addressing of any issues that pop up and get mentioned by their playerbase.  Putting AAA devs to shame.     The difference being they're kickstarter backed and have a lot more freedom, as well as working on something less complicated than a sim...but if something like the spectate bug was in their software for more than a week in what was available to the public, they'd verbally chastise themselves publicly and apologize for it.    I'm not asking for that.. or a fix to all my problems next week.    However, 

     

     

    Don't try to treat me like I'm talking out of my hind end.   There are bugs unaddressed for years... and they're already starting work on BoBP  with no mention of addressing 4 year old bugs.

     

    You can defend this if you'd like... but the more and more bugs that pile up without fixes the less and less the beauty of this game shines through.   

     

    Doesn't matter how small the bug at this point.. there are so fricking many it's almost more work to navigate around them than it is to fly the planes.   The longer they go unaddressed..the more buried in code  they are. 

     

    You're welcome to your opinion that the game is fine as is...but with the amount of money being asked for every year me personally.. some time dedicated to fixing a growing list of bugs would certainly inspire more confidence in buying the next IL-2 product. 


    I'm being unfair? I own every plane in the game other than the Ju-52, and personally I'd like to see some work done to correct the errors.    You react as if asking for fixes for the old content I've already purchased before dedication to a whole new planeset and pricetag that will likely have the same issues and add more is unreasonable... and it's not.    At some point they need to polish the product.    I know I'm not alone in thinking the lack of doing so is making the experience feel a bit sloppy. 

     

    Again...perhaps a new marketing strategy is necessary.   If the pressure from the publisher is so much that there is no time to polish the products being put out, again - imo try a new form of advertisement... hell seed a free copy to random airforce personnel  across the world and let word of mouth do its thing, which,  at least in my head  makes more sense than trying to sell to sell a new planeset to the  fans that are sticking without getting rid of as many layers of tedium as possible between the player and the gameplay.. (considering I took up the simming hobby after my father who was in the airforce introduced me to it)  

     

    No dis-repsect intended to anyone or the dev team, but attempting silence to my opinion won't change it.  And with the number changing to 4 relevant titles + collecters planes..how could anyone say someone being unimpressed by any one of those purchases based on their experiences with it wouldn't have an immediate effect on sales?   Big picture guys.. we want new players to buy ALL the content.   A polished product reinforces that possibility.  As well as improves the chances of customer retention.     

     

    *editing to acknowledge the DD mentioned some upcoming fixes and improvements.. which I am not attempting to discredit.    Long story short - this one's faith will be restored with some fixes to some long standing nuisances within what again I will describe as a beautiful program with heaps and heaps of potential that inspires enough passion to be able to say this much about something.     I didn't intend to reply further to this post, but.. the only utter nonsense I've posted was in my original response to the OP.. and to specifiy - I used sarcasm and have already apologized for it.    It runs in the bloodline >.<. My family doesn't really consider sarcasm an attack, we laugh it off.  I'll try to be more aware in the future.    But to say I'm speaking rubbish by saying there are bugs that haven't been addressed in going on half a decade felt ironic, and in need of correction.   I don't know one single player who has never experienced a host of several well-known bugs that have existed from the time I started playing.  "Utter rubbish." you say?  I challenge you to find your way to any discord server frequented by fans of the series and ask what bugs have been experienced and how long they've been experiencing them.  Come with a thick skin if you come to the one I frequent as the boys like to have some laughs. 

     

    If you still want to say I'm full of it.. you're welcome to pretend I don't exist.  I don't mind. 

     

    Call it misleading.. but I not only want people to buy copies of IL-2.. i hope they stick around..tell friends..have more fun than they do frustration.  

     

    Anyway.. I don't have anything left to say about this.. we'll see what the future brings.. I just hope to spark some consideration. 

      

     

     

     

     

     

    • Upvote 2
×
×
  • Create New...