How to increase quality of this "game" (we prefer more simulation) with not a lot of work?

[SCG_Neun]

In this day and age you start with whatever the market will support....let's call it a game within itself.....and it evolves into the simulation we all want.....I know many of the historical based squads are upset, but it will morf into what you guys are looking for. It's got to be successful first though and rise up from a firm financial foundation. We all want too much, too soon, it's human nature. Having said that, people should be able to submit their thoughts on the project and I personally commend guys like Genius for laying it out like this....

[=69.GIAP=RADKO]

In this day and age you start with whatever the market will support....let's call it a game within itself.....and it evolves into the simulation we all want.....I know many of the historical based squads are upset, but it will morf into what you guys are looking for. It's got to be successful first though and rise up from a firm financial foundation. We all want too much, too soon, it's human nature. Having said that, people should be able to submit their thoughts on the project and I personally commend guys like Genius for laying it out like this....

 

I do agree with the fact a firm needs a decent financial foundation. However this foundation is lob sided, trying to lean one side to please one group whilst trying trying to lean to the other. It simply doesn't work. The DCS world has done a fantastic job without changing it foundation one bit. So why does the IL2 series with a much stronger reputation have to feel it needs to change to evolve around a current market when DCS hasn't?

Edited September 26, 2014 by =69.GIAP=RADKO

[Vaxxtx]

I do agree with the fact a firm needs a decent financial foundation. However this foundation is lob sided, trying to lean one side to please one group whilst trying trying to lean to the other. It simply doesn't work. The DCS world has done a fantastic job without changing it foundation one bit. So why does the IL2 series with a much stronger reputation have to feel it needs to change to evolve around a current market when DCS hasn't?

I was thinking exactally that.

[SCG_Neun]

There's no way for you and I to get into the right position to analyse one business model from the other.  We just don't have the insight to make a judgement one way or the other.  Besides....have you ever heard the axiom..."you just never knows what  goes on, behind closed doors."  Manpower, funding, organization, salary, overhead, marketing, legal, distribution.....

 

Another way to look at it, is taking what you've already said...."the IL2 series with a much stronger reputation"....maybe that reputation has decided that this model is the best one, at this time.  I mean all of the developers are experienced at this...they know what the 5 percent of us want....it's the other 95 percent sales that are going to decide the future for this sim, or so I've read here on the forum....somewhere.  

 

All that I know...is it's not going to silence the guys who take this very serious who fly within the dedicated squadrons...many for years and years, who have anticipated something they can use right out of the starting gate.  So.....I understand the frustrations....but that's easier for me to say....I don't spend the time online the way I did in the old days.  I'm sorry for you guys, and I'm hoping the sim evolves quickly for everyone, but especially you guys.

[FlyingNutcase]

I don't get a lot of time to fly, and was initially turned off by the gamey style of unlocking, but I like the idea of a progression now and look forward to the single player  campaign as well as multiplayer, with whatever restrictions there may be. Personally I have faith that the creators of this work of art are smart enough to know what's right with the big picture in mind. Bring on the release; not far away it would seem. 

[steppenwolf]

All valid points on this list; but I think more than anything it, and threads like this, illustrate just how behind on the times this genre and our community have become. 

Edited September 26, 2014 by steppenwolf

[FuriousMeow]

He means this: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/10936-battle-no-mans-hill/?p=167087

 

Which is really just a lot of pie in the sky dreaming without a true understanding of the base layers that make each of those titles what they are, and why they are all different titles.

 

Imagine GTAVs active world, planes randomly despawning when they get just to the edge of visibilty and respawning back in but as a totally different plane - that just won't work. Or NewCar's DM that doesn't account for ballistics and NewCar's physics only account for cars, not aircraft, so if you took NewCar's physics it will work fine for the trucks in BoS but not do a single thing for the planes. Or BF's worlds that are pre-set to damage at pre-defined points, ArmaIII does the same thing but it is always the same destruction, nothing dynamic so nothing any different than the blown out buildings we see in every air combat sim.

Edited September 26, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[steppenwolf]

I'm mean, on top of the things listed, design elements like human POV movement, depth of field, character body and customization, tire deformation, land deformation(craters), better and varied effects and DM, cockpit effects, ambient life, usable AAA...all the stuff in other games and more, minus the great physics of course. In GTA V, when you run your character for too long his shirt dampens with sweat...this kind of detail is what I mean.  

[steppenwolf]

This isn't the first time I've heard you Furious, or others, say something can't be done or that if it's tried it can only fail. The marked sterility of our genre is caused by this. 

[Trident_109]

S!

 

I would like a enhanced minimap(M map), like the Il2 or ROF style. But, once the O map is already done, i would like to keep it also, because is a pretty good plataform for further map tool implementation......which we certainly will beg for

Given the choice I'd prefer a good mini-map too, but seeing how they implemented the map in RoF and then to end up with what we have here, I can only hope it's not a finished map. It really does hinder navigation when not playing with icons. I sounded rather raggy on my last comment, but that's more a symptom of how well other aspects of the game are and then to see this glaring short coming.

 

We can hope, I guess.

[AbortedMan]

Given the choice I'd prefer a good mini-map too, but seeing how they implemented the map in RoF and then to end up with what we have here, I can only hope it's not a finished map. It really does hinder navigation when not playing with icons. I sounded rather raggy on my last comment, but that's more a symptom of how well other aspects of the game are and then to see this glaring short coming.

 

We can hope, I guess.

I prefer playing on expert settings at any chance I get and having a seemingly magical map that floats just in front of my virtual pilot's eyes while he scans for aircraft isn't too immersive to me. I don't see the "O" map as a short coming at all and wish the minimap was gone altogether on the expert preset. The fullscreen "O" map is a better in-game representation of any navigation reference I've seen aside from the legboard map in DCS that actually requires you look down at your pilot's leg to view.

 

Staring at a map or receiving navigation information from an external source (anything other than memory or landmarks) should hinder your ability to be aware of the outside world while you're looking at it (when the difficulty settings are appropriate), as it does in real life, the fullscreen map simulates exactly that.

[IRRE_Genius]

I prefer playing on expert settings at any chance I get and having a seemingly magical map that floats just in front of my virtual pilot's eyes while he scans for aircraft isn't too immersive to me. I don't see the "O" map as a short coming at all and wish the minimap was gone altogether on the expert preset. The fullscreen "O" map is a better in-game representation of any navigation reference I've seen aside from the legboard map in DCS that actually requires you look down at your pilot's leg to view.

 

Staring at a map or receiving navigation information from an external source (anything other than memory or landmarks) should hinder your ability to be aware of the outside world while you're looking at it (when the difficulty settings are appropriate), as it does in real life, the fullscreen map simulates exactly that.

 

But in real life you have a field of view and when you see your map, your eyes can be attract by external movements. With "o" map = only map. 

[13Nrv]

Totally agree with genius ...good sum up of what we need in the final release ....

 

Concerning the ingame map ...."o"   is everything but realistic ....   it s just like a slap in the face considering immersion ... 

 

WE just need the same map than in rof ...

[cromagnon]

Dear Developer - 1C Team,

 

First of all, thank you for the work done so far. This beta has no major bugs and is pleasant to fly. 

 

But, some choices seem to persist for the gameplay or others reasons and a lot of us want some changes. With the advance of your work (Loft said 90% on the video, the work focuses on debugging), we think it's time to express our requests. Some of them are also a copy of what already exists in ROF.

 

The purpose of this post is not to add a long list of requests, it is to list the main weaknesses of the current "game" core because we want, like you, the success of this "game" but we have a different vision of how to achieve it.

 

Our requests:

 

1) No locking/unlocking system outside the campaign-AQM mode for multiplayer or single player missions. We do not want to have to fly 1/2/10 or any given time to be allowed to fly an aircraft in multiplayer or our own missions. If this choice may be understandable to extend the life of the single-player game, it is not at all for players focused on the multiplayer game.

 

2) A FMB ! Without mission editor, no possibilities for the differents virtual squadrons to create their own missions and campaigns. If you can't develop a simple tool for that (what we understand for economic reasons), please give access upon release to the current mission editor (based on ROF) if necessary with a public download link for those who wish and a disclaimer.

 

3) In game Map like the ROF Map. The current map is unusable because too small for proper navigation and impossible to set up as you want. The Rof map is very easy to use, no latency, configurable size, movable, zoomable, etc...Why not keep this advantage of ROF?

 

4) To separate the different HUD functions:

- Engine management / "technochat"

- HUD display (bearing, speed, etc...)

- Chat

- in-game/server informations (success of current objectives, etc...)

If you don't want hud informations but chat or server informations, it's currently impossible

 

5) A dedicated software server without another game key and configurable (lock/unlock payload, mods, etc...). We would like to be able to configure the informations available on the server (hud, technochat, etc...). Expert mode should not allow the hud (no hud or technochat) 

 

6) No graphics presets after beta period / game released. We understand this for the beta phase and debugging process but, after the game's release, it would be incomprehensible to be unable to fine-tune the graphics quality .

 

 

We want this discussion open, calm and quiet to share our views and hope that the potential support of the community in this post can influence you.

 

Sincerely yours

 

Genius

 

 

P.S.: If we have misunderstood some point perhaps you could clarify

+1

Thanks Genius

[361fundahl]

Useable AA and Airbase Defense type game mode or something would be awesome

[steppenwolf]

I could go on ... OK then, I will.

 

The fact remains that without a similar multi million dollar budget (like GTA V, your chosen comparison) it's little more than a pipe dream to expect most of the stuff on your list.

 

Why?

 

Because with a small development team there are far more important features that are needed in a flight sim.

All the other stuff is just fluff.

Sure, it'd be enjoyable fluff to have but, just like the sweat on the player's clothing in GTA V, you can still enjoy the game without it.

If it takes hundreds of millions to have bomb craters that dent runways, or a POV that vibrates when belly landing, or tires that deform to illustrate weight, or a host of other ideas; than there's a problem somewhere. And the money doesn't guarantee anything anyway, just look at Destiny. And I wouldn't call the ability to disable a runway with real bomb 'craters' fluff.     

[AbortedMan]

I get that you want new features, I'm not disagreeing that these features would be nice to have.

The problem is that you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of prioritising workload based on the things you need against the things that would be nice to have.

The number of people in the team dictate the number of man-hours available.

If the list of must-haves takes X number of man-hours and your team can produce X number of man-hours, then you cannot do the things on the nice-to-have list unless you invest in more team members.

This is where the multi million dollar budget comes in.

How many people do you think Rockstar were able to employ on GTA V, with their multi-million dollar budget?

Do you think 1C/777 can afford to employ any more than a fraction of the number of employees that worked on GTA V?

I'm sorry if this comes across as patronising but it seems that, unless this is explained in simple terms, you'll never understand why what you're asking for is virtually impossible.

Sure, it's good to dream, but it's better to have realistic expectations.

PS. You seem to think people at having a dig at you when they contradict your opinions.

That's not the case, we're just trying to help manage people's expectations.

It's quite unfair comparing the feature-set in this game with another title that had a significantly larger budget and development team.

Nailed it.

[AbortedMan]

But in real life you have a field of view and when you see your map, your eyes can be attract by external movements. With "o" map = only map. 

Yes, but not to the degree in which you can see in-game objects, far and near, with a Google Glass style map that is seemingly being projected directly onto your pilot's retina. If your looking at a map in a cockpit you're not going to easily spot an aircraft the size of a dot, nor are you able to watch your 6 while referencing map details.

 

IMO, the minimap is an unrealistic crutch akin to icons...only suitable for non-expert settings.

[steppenwolf]

I get that you want new features, I'm not disagreeing that these features would be nice to have.

 

The problem is that you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of prioritising workload based on the things you need against the things that would be nice to have.

 

The number of people in the team dictate the number of man-hours available.

 

If the list of must-haves takes X number of man-hours and your team can produce X number of man-hours, then you cannot do the things on the nice-to-have list unless you invest in more team members.

 

This is where the multi million dollar budget comes in.

 

How many people do you think Rockstar were able to employ on GTA V, with their multi-million dollar budget?

 

Do you think 1C/777 can afford to employ any more than a fraction of the number of employees that worked on GTA V?

 

I'm sorry if this comes across as patronising but it seems that, unless this is explained in simple terms, you'll never understand why what you're asking for is virtually impossible.

 

Sure, it's good to dream, but it's better to have realistic expectations.

 

PS. You seem to think people at having a dig at you when they contradict your opinions.

That's not the case, we're just trying to help manage people's expectations.

It's quite unfair comparing the feature-set in this game with another title that had a significantly larger budget and development team.

I appreciate your comments Extreme_One, and I understand your point of view. But I think if the decade+ old bomb crater texture can't be replaced with a dent in the ground...well then, maybe you're right and my expectations are just too high. And like I said before, it's not all about money. We've all seen beautiful looking repackaged million dollar flops. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm happy enough just seeing simmers talk about new features.       

[SCG_Neun]

I have to admit....I'm personally behind the latest technology and expectations, but then again...Steppenwolf was a new and popular band, when I was a kid...   

[steppenwolf]

I have to admit....I'm personally behind the latest technology and expectations, but then again...Steppenwolf was a new and popular band, when I was a kid...   

I wasn't even born yet, but I like'm today. Love the Pusherman riff. Steppenwolf's a good book too!

[Superblu]

Agreed with OP on all points.

 

I prefer playing on expert settings at any chance I get and having a seemingly magical map that floats just in front of my virtual pilot's eyes while he scans for aircraft isn't too immersive to me. I don't see the "O" map as a short coming at all and wish the minimap was gone altogether on the expert preset. The fullscreen "O" map is a better in-game representation of any navigation reference I've seen aside from the legboard map in DCS that actually requires you look down at your pilot's leg to view.

 

Staring at a map or receiving navigation information from an external source (anything other than memory or landmarks) should hinder your ability to be aware of the outside world while you're looking at it (when the difficulty settings are appropriate), as it does in real life, the fullscreen map simulates exactly that.

Sorry but i can fly IRL and both have eyes on the map (properly folded) and look outside.

It's not like i unfold my whole map all over the canopy, you know

[AbortedMan]

Agreed with OP on all points.

 

 

Sorry but i can fly IRL and both have eyes on the map (properly folded) and look outside.

It's not like i unfold my whole map all over the canopy, you know

I'm not saying anyone can't, but your attention is divided and no one's peripheral vision is as good as what is afforded with a minimap.

 

In any case, this is just my opinion and worth putting another drop in the bucket for gameplay grievances and/or praises. Someone hates the current map situation, I enjoy it.

[Pollux]

 i agree with  Genius

[3instein]

I'm pretty sure that if the "O" map was movable and sizable "a la ROF" and you had it covering say half the screen,you then could see your view on the other half,wouldn't it be more realistic than covering the whole screen?

 

Seems like a no brainer idea to me,especially as it is in ROF already,you would think it would be pretty easy to implement,(famous last words).

 

Mick.

[dburne]

 

 

Seems like a no brainer idea to me,especially as it is in ROF already,you would think it would be pretty easy to implement,(famous last words).

 

Mick.

 

No kidding, you would think. Current map is a big step back.

[Gambit21]

If I could drag the 'O map' to my second monitor - well that would be just swell!

[dburne]

If I could drag the 'O map' to my second monitor - well that would be just swell!

 

Oh yeah I agree with that, would be very nice!

[SCG_Neun]

You know....reading this over....I was dreaming...wouldn't it be cool to be able to have your forward ground units, pop a colored smoke to show the location of the front line, or where they'd like an airstrike.....

Edited September 28, 2014 by JagdNeun

[Rjel]

If I could drag the 'O map' to my second monitor - well that would be just swell!

How much system drag might that create do you suppose? I've wondered too if that would be a great solution. I've also thought about setting up my old system to display the map full screen with the flight plan superimposed with a paint program.

[ThreatCue]

I can live with everything else but the lack of more comprehensive graphics adjustments in the final version is bewildering to me. 

[KodiakJac]

Sorry but i can fly IRL and both have eyes on the map (properly folded) and look outside.

It's not like i unfold my whole map all over the canopy, you know

 

^ This.  Staring at a folded map and flying at the same time is very realistic...do it all the time IRL.  And I usually don't lay the map down in my lap like a legboard, I hold it up so I can keep my peripheral vision on the horizon.

[senseispcc]

First the tablet could/is already be used with a PDF reader and the actual map of 45Mb. Or the "o" key.

 

 

 

But most importantly it seems that the single player part of the game is the poor part of the game until now?! Only 3 mission for single player and the QMB is not perfect and very repetitive. Nothing else the campaign is for single player but shall be too easy or to hard this because of the choices in the difficulty levels, normal or expert no in between . Here is a big flaw in the game single players are still the majority of the players (read pc magazines on the subject and even if some are wrong all cannot be wrong).

 

 

 

I personally like to fly long complete missions but most of the people do not and there I am happy with the choices of the dev. team in the campaign missions (take off and landings or not).

 

 

 

So like so many times in live there are good things and bad choices in the game but this is a personal feeling not reality.

 

 

 

This is a great game in development and like so many IL2 games at the end in some years it shall be near perfection.  

Edited September 28, 2014 by senseispcc

[Habu]

You know....reading this over....I was dreaming...wouldn't it be cool to be able to have your forward ground units, pop a colored smoke to show the location of the front line, or where they'd like an airstrike.....

I talk on my experience with RoF mission editor which seem to be similar to the BoS ME. In Rof, we don't have smoke, but we can do what you descibe with flare. In many cooperative mission, ballon launch flare to alert when foe fighter enter in an area.

 

So, what you asking is not impossible. Remember that i don't know if smoke object is present in the ME. Flare should be, so you can use flare instead of smoke.

[Sokol1]

This map "confusion" is because what (M) key bring is not the "map", is some kind of  "radar" -
you know, necessary for please the so called  "WT" crowd.

[dburne]

This map "confusion" is because what (M) key bring is not the "map", is some kind of  "radar" -

you know, necessary for please the so called  "WT" crowd.

 

I am not confused.

M - Mini Map.

Not a radar unless one has icons on right?

 

But while not confusing to me, I do not much care for it, could be so much better.

[312_strycekFido]

Genius, you can add two more points after last patch

 

1) No overheat warning (and other warning) in technochat.

 

2) No map icons, my plane button and other helpers on map, that make navigation irelevant.

 

Both points apply for expert mode.

[SCG_Neun]

I talk on my experience with RoF mission editor which seem to be similar to the BoS ME. In Rof, we don't have smoke, but we can do what you descibe with flare. In many cooperative mission, ballon launch flare to alert when foe fighter enter in an area.

 

So, what you asking is not impossible. Remember that i don't know if smoke object is present in the ME. Flare should be, so you can use flare instead of smoke.

Flare would be neat....anything coming up from the ground positions would give a special feeling of communication between ground units and air support.

[Celtarcs]

I agree with Genius

 

Genius thank you for the list of requests

[C6_Zorkaiev]

I totally agree with Genius !