Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ace_Pilto

Kudos to 1C for the recent news regarding the Campaign.

Recommended Posts

I just wanted to say that it was a pleasure and a relief to start BoS today and read the post by Zak regarding the campaign and the intentions of 1C to continue to develop it after release.

 

"Filling the Universe" is an excellent choice of phrase since it reflects the complexity of what needs to be accomplished, there's been a lot of discussion and I hope that this news will bring a more positive slant to the forum in discussions on this topic. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the work ahead and hopefully this kind of disclosure can help to head off the multitude of tedious topics arising from negative premature speculation. (Although even mounting a webcam in the office and having a live feed of ongoing development wouldn't entirely stamp that kind of thing out.)

 

Anyway, just wanted to say how pleased I was to read the news and thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I understand that many people don't like the concept of the campaign, I think it could, potentially, work quite well. 
The problem currently is that it's a very new concept (no one has ever done a campaign like this in a flight sim, have they?) with very little content. 
If it was a staggeringly good campaign, then people wouldn't be so suspicious of the whole "select your unit, get XP" system. But it's not a staggeringly good campaign, in fact, I think it's a little bland. This gives it a "grindey" feel, rather than a "OK, weird format, but WOW this is fun" feel.

 

Right now, it's a strange concept, with little content, making it not very fun to play.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think their design choice of compartmenting each phase of the battle into individual chapters gives them a distinct advantage in the future development of the campaign.

It will be much easier to flesh each smaller chapter individually than to work up one single one that does everything.  I was very glad too to see the devs open up for suggestions on future design and content. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Right now, it's a strange concept, with little content, making it not very fun to play.

 

Yep, and really this was what BOS was going to be all about, at it's core it was to be focused on single player and the campaign system.

I was somewhat surprised at what it was when access became available to it, both with the little content and the XP grinding/level ups.

 

I am mainly a single player guy, and I do hope they do fine tune and tweak it , adding content and making it something truly great ( as what I would perceive), if they do I will give BOS another look in 6-12 months, or however long it ends up taking them to provide it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what most people tend to forget is that most flightsims at release are far from perfect. Il2 wasn't. RoF wasn't. OFF wasn't. CloD definitely wasn't. I'm not saying that this should be the standard, but the noise some people here are making, threatening to uninstall the game etc. is simply uncalled for and not very well thought-through. Flight simulators are a small, but fairly stable market. It's with time that "greatness" is achieved, and so I'm fairly hopeful regarding IL2's future.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what most people tend to forget is that most flightsims at release are far from perfect. Il2 wasn't. RoF wasn't. OFF wasn't. CloD definitely wasn't. I'm not saying that this should be the standard, but the noise some people here are making, threatening to uninstall the game etc. is simply uncalled for and not very well thought-through. Flight simulators are a small, but fairly stable market. It's with time that "greatness" is achieved, and so I'm fairly hopeful regarding IL2's future.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what most people tend to forget is that most flightsims at release are far from perfect. Il2 wasn't. RoF wasn't. OFF wasn't. CloD definitely wasn't. I'm not saying that this should be the standard, but the noise some people here are making, threatening to uninstall the game etc. is simply uncalled for and not very well thought-through.

 

I hear what you are saying, from my perspective my high hopes came from them having a  great base to build upon,  ROF, and what they had already accomplished in that. In both the Beta Career, and what Pat Wilson did for it with his campaign generator.

 

I do hope you are right and down the road it turns into something I will really enjoy. But really these points have been much debated for over a week now , and are nothing new. Some are happy with it, some are ok, and some are disappointed.

No right or wrong in any of these, just opinions what each of us are looking for in the sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear what you are saying, from my perspective my high hopes came from them having a  great base to build upon,  ROF, and what they had already accomplished in that. In both the Beta Career, and what Pat Wilson did for it with his campaign generator.

 

I do hope you are right and down the road it turns into something I will really enjoy. But really these points have been much debated for over a week now , and are nothing new. Some are happy with it, some are ok, and some are disappointed.

No right or wrong in any of these, just opinions what each of us are looking for in the sim.

 

You have a very valid point. Why they decided to build a campaign from scratch instead of just improving the RoF one, we will never know. I don't understand why either. But it is the way it is, and I hope they make the best of it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to say that it was a pleasure and a relief to start BoS today and read the post by Zak regarding the campaign and the intentions of 1C to continue to develop it after release.

 

"Filling the Universe" is an excellent choice of phrase since it reflects the complexity of what needs to be accomplished, there's been a lot of discussion and I hope that this news will bring a more positive slant to the forum in discussions on this topic. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the work ahead and hopefully this kind of disclosure can help to head off the multitude of tedious topics arising from negative premature speculation. (Although even mounting a webcam in the office and having a live feed of ongoing development wouldn't entirely stamp that kind of thing out.)

 

Anyway, just wanted to say how pleased I was to read the news and thanks.

Hope is actual game development and not DLC's kind of development."Hey, here's a plane you can buy. As we promised, we'll keep developing the game." Like many game companies are doing now day with all these Alphas and Pre-pre- alphas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really like the idea of unlocks/XP in a flight sim singleplayer campaign, but I can live with it. If it's handled properly it might actually be interesting.

 

However, using the same system for multiplayer is bad news. Since they've always said it's a singleplayer focused game, then they could have easily left all the unlock stuff out of multiplayer, and allow people to fly what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think their design choice of compartmenting each phase of the battle into individual chapters gives them a distinct advantage in the future development of the campaign.

It will be much easier to flesh each smaller chapter individually than to work up one single one that does everything.  I was very glad too to see the devs open up for suggestions on future design and content.

+1

 

Just thinking the same thing, so really giving myself the green arrow! Given how WW2 worked, with more diverse theatres of operations and some fairly distinct phases, a chapter type setting does look like a good choice. By contrast WW1 with a static front really demands a single treatment.

 

What disturbed me, though, is the way they abandoned all of RoF's unit/pilot concept work and made the BoS pilot so anonymous. Baby with bathwater?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have they always said it`s a single player focused game??? Had we seen that I doubt the MP mob myself included would have bought into it. I can`t remember ever seeing that mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read all the posts regarding the campaign and I was (still am a little bit) a fan of BOS. I think it could be a flight sim to rival IL21946 (given time of course). However, I have to keep thinking back to what made IL21946 so great and successful. Quite simply - it was fun to play, especially in multi player coops. This is where, in my opinion, IL21946 kept its longevity and the huge number of players on hyper lobby every day(in its heyday) must be testament to that.

Why wouldn't any developer of flight sims take note of what made a previous sim great and then use them as a basis for improvement ?

 

BOS is possibly our last chance of getting a great new sim on the market, I just cant see where another one is going to come from.

CLOD is flawed and unlikely to get new maps and aircraft anytime soon if ever.

IL21946 has had its day.

ROF is great but its WW1.

DCS, hmmm. Again, it doesn't have the complete package and could be expensive.

 

So we are where we are. Personally, and I think this goes for my Squadron team mates too, I would much rather have:-

Multiplayer coop facilities in the release version.

No lock outs (waste of time and effort) in the release version.

A mission designer, so we can build coops in the release version.

Most campaigns in any sim that I have played are boring and bland, let the on-line community build them for you.

Yes, I know this sounds just like IL21946, but it was used by thousands of people!

 

I would be more than happy to pay for each new flyable aircraft and map as they come out and indeed I would also pay for all the locked items as and when I decided I needed them (as long as they were a sensible price), the developers must make money to continue to develop the sim. This is a must of course.

 

So a plea to the developers please (although I think its too late).... take a moment and consider where your future revenue is going to come from, I doubt it will be single users especially if the release campaign is boring, bland and flawed.. it will just put people off. There are soooo many squadrons out there just champing at the bit to get into BOS as a multi user coop system, if this doesn't exist in BOS, what are we to do ? I cant fly the BoB in CLOD for ever!!!

 

I must admit that I cant understand, if BOS is meant to be a successor to IL21946, why you didn't take all the great elements from that series and made them better. You have in same cases, but not with lock outs, skins and multiplayer coops.

 

I wish the developers every success and I hope that I am proved totally wrong - I really do.

 

Cheers

 

Bunny

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, roll on October 2015 (or April if we're really lucky)

I understand that sentiment, and I share your worries about release. Still, we have to keep in mind, that we won't have to wait that long to see the results. Changes to the campaign will be implemented gradually over a longer period.

 

Still doesn't change the fact, that the campaign really ought to have been more fleshed out at this stage (ought to have been an entirely different concept altogether IMHO but leave that be) but it does give hope for the future.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I must admit that I cant understand, if BOS is meant to be a successor to IL21946, why you didn't take all the great elements from that series and made them better. You have in same cases, but not with lock outs, skins and multiplayer coops.

 

 

Il-2 1946 is a decade's worth of development.

 

BoS is one year's worth of development.

 

Content from Il-2 1946 can't just be taken from it and spliced into BoS. BoS is a start from scratch.

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have they always said it`s a single player focused game??? Had we seen that I doubt the MP mob myself included would have bought into it. I can`t remember ever seeing that mentioned.

 

I've seen them say that MP customers make up between 5 and 10% of sales for games like IL-2 1946 historically so they have to focus on single play more.  I don't know where they get the numbers, but that is what I've seen from the dev's here on a couple of occasions.  Maybe by comparing Hyperlobby numbers to total sales for 1946 in its heyday?

I just wanted to say that it was a pleasure and a relief to start BoS today and read the post by Zak regarding the campaign and the intentions of 1C to continue to develop it after release.

 

This is a giant +1 :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read all the posts regarding the campaign and I was (still am a little bit) a fan of BOS. I think it could be a flight sim to rival IL21946 (given time of course). However, I have to keep thinking back to what made IL21946 so great and successful. Quite simply - it was fun to play, especially in multi player coops. This is where, in my opinion, IL21946 kept its longevity and the huge number of players on hyper lobby every day(in its heyday) must be testament to that.

Why wouldn't any developer of flight sims take note of what made a previous sim great and then use them as a basis for improvement ?

 

 

I agree... business model in IL2-Old days is working for over 10 years  with  a very simple idea

- give free dedicate online server

- give free flexible mission builder for single player and online player

this two thing made community  connecting each other to create a lot of fun and contents  then... wwii flight sim become bigger and bigger from many county.

 

IMHO ... 777  just keep impove

- strong master server for verify a user is the right one ( not piracy ) when he start to play a sim.

- improve free dedicate server and mission builder

- making money in long run from sale new plane and  map for the next theater.

- keep to host online server for promotion only on zone country target  to generate new community market.

Edited by Karost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Il-2 1946 is a decade's worth of development.

 

BoS is one year's worth of development.

 

Content from Il-2 1946 can't just be taken from it and spliced into BoS. BoS is a start from scratch.

I don't think he meant cut-and-paste, but using IL-2 as a standard to work from.

 

The original IL-2 really had an extraordinary career mode, and it didn't take 10 years to develop. It was more or less there in its fully fletched form in Forgotten Battles with only minor improvements being added since. The amazing thing about the IL-2FB career is that the mission generator is so simple that amateur 3rd party developers could dive right in and build extremely good campaigns and careers on top of it with fairly little effort.

 

While BoS is obviously a much more complex sim, the mission parametres themselves really can't be that different from IL-2FBs: Just a small text file with a few numbers determining preset weather conditions (while the effects are obviously better, we still don't have dynamic weather in BoS), describtions of the different flights of AC with numbers, flight paths, skill level and orders for the different waypoints (in IL-2FB the pilots in your flight would even have names and their results would be tracked along with your own), coordinates and waypoints for ground units, coordinates for the front line and definition of primary and secondary objectives. Slap an immersive briefing text on top of that and you have a mission that works equally well in IL-2FB and BoS.

Edited by Finkeren
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original IL-2 really had an extraordinary career mode, and it didn't take 10 years to develop. It was more or less there in its fully fletched form in Forgotten Battles with only minor improvements being added since. The amazing thing about the IL-2FB career is that the mission generator is so simple that amateur 3rd party developers could dive right in and build extremely good campaigns and careers on top of it with fairly little effort.

 

 

 

Yes, well, it was added into Il-2:FB but you are mistaken as to where it came from. It was done by a third party. Seems a lot of accuracy as to the entire campaign for the Il-2 series has been lost to rose colored glasses.

 

The devs of the Il-2 series never designed the extraordinary (I wouldn't call it that - it was good but I never pulled me in to play it a lot) campaign system, they modified it to include it in the game rather than an external system - but the majority of it was done by a third party. It sure was an amazing campaign system compared to what Il-2 originally had, and as I've always said third parties always make the best campaign systems because they invest themselves into it and see it created they want to which matches what most SPers want.

 

Il-2 was released in 2001, it's development began 3 years prior to that release. Il-2FB was released in 2003 - a full 2 years after the original. So,  that's five years total of game development and again the campaign was developed by a third party and included into FB by the devs with lots of interaction and development done by the third party.

 

So Il-2 1946's campaign can't be compared to BoS because it was not developed in-house, it was developed by Starshoy. It was also developed over several years, not just a single year. As soon as someone develops a third party campaign system here, then we can start going back and comparing to Il-2:FB or IL-2:1946. Then, and only then, will it be a direct comparison.

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Il-2 1946 is still a culmination of a decade's worth of work, so when people compare BoS to Il-2:1946 - it just doesn't work because that is over 10 years worth of work (and still going) compared to 1 year's worth of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really disagree with you FM.

 

It just seems to me, that the devs would've done better to work from the basic mechanics of the IL-2 Dgen, and not try to invent the world all over again and end up with a product that's far from feeling like a step forward. As I said, I have a hard time believing that BoS mission parameters are vastly more complex than IL-2FBs, regardless if the sim itself is more complex. Therefore it would've made more sense to use an already great career system as a rough template. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel each time you design a new car.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But DGen is Starshoy's, only Starshoy has a full working knowledge of the system. In any event, it would have to be completely rebuilt from scratch. Dgen was designed to work with Il-2's hooks. So it wouldn't work with BoS without access to the source code and completely retooling it to work.

 

For example, you can't take Pat Wilson's Campaign Generator and get it work with BoS - and that is the same engine. It's more than just mission file parameters, that is why each and every time a new flight sim comes out they do have to re-invent the wheel because the knowledge isn't shared or the previous system is incompatible or simply won't work in the new games not to mention it being Intellectual Property of other individuals.

 

Dgen would have to be completely redone to work with BoS, and it would have to be done by Starshoy because he is the one who designed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying 'use the IL-2FB Dgen directly in BoS'. I'm saying 'use it as a template'. The Dgen is simple enough, that most amateur developers could work with it directly. It honestly can't be that hard to design something similar for BoS. Regardless who developed it, 1C must have the code for the Dgen and the rights to use it, as it was developed specifically for IL-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really that simple. BoS is an evolution of RoF and uses a different engine. The only template that is portable is the idea, all the coding would have to be done from scratch.

 

The game that should be using Starshoy's Dgen as a template in code terms would be Cliffs of Dover as they have the same "genetic" heritage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

BoS is an evolution of RoF and uses a different engine

 

No, uses the same Digital Nature engine, enhanced by taking some features away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, uses the same Digital Nature engine, enhanced by taking some features away.

 

Could you be any more cynical? The engine's fine. Great, even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, uses the same Digital Nature engine, enhanced by taking some features away.

 

Which features were removed from the engine?  I thought it was more the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graphic customisation is one off the top of my head

Not really a change to the game engine, more like a change to the interface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I really enjoy is that the mission itself is never the same. It might be another iteration of the same kind of mission, but is never the same, so there is no feeling of "oh i messed up again, time to retry this cursed one".

 

I like a good basic system and them develop on top which is what I interpret from latest Devs words. Plus they flesh out the core system to deliver a raw FMB to the community. Two hares in a snare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really a change to the game engine, more like a change to the interface.

 

Maybe, but is the highest preset truly an absolute maximum? if it isn't then anything not included is likely excluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree... business model in IL2-Old days is working for over 10 years  with  a very simple idea

- give free dedicate online server

- give free flexible mission builder for single player and online player

this two thing made community  connecting each other to create a lot of fun and contents  then... wwii flight sim become bigger and bigger from many county.

 

IMHO ... 777  just keep impove

- strong master server for verify a user is the right one ( not piracy ) when he start to play a sim.

- improve free dedicate server and mission builder

- making money in long run from sale new plane and  map for the next theater.

- keep to host online server for promotion only on zone country target  to generate new community market.

 

I`m with this fella completely however I`ve yet to see a direct response from those in charge regards unlocks and MP. Unlocks have NO place in MP servers and having 10 years experience of doing missions and server work with BF`s I guess I have a clue what I`m on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but is the highest preset truly an absolute maximum? if it isn't then anything not included is likely excluded.

 

The Ultra preset is the same as running RoF fully maxed out, except for lack of dither, supersampling and depth-of-field features (present in RoF) and for addition of SSAO and motion blur features (present in BoS).

 

Now personally, i could live without any of those features (unless SSAO will be improved in the future). Supersampling can be activate with driver settings if necessary, so technically, the number of missing/added features evens itself out pretty well and talking about "taking away features" is a bit of a stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the campaign engine like it is for the moment (not perfect but the dev team is working on it) the most realist possible. I did  not read (I am not a WW2 pilot myself) that pilots could chose the missions they could fly and not fly so this QMB type of campaign is nearly close to reality with the exception of the switching side and choosing plane (squadron/staffel/regiment) to fly in seldom did a pilot have a say in  it ?! :cool:

 

 

 

I am happy with the game evolution and thanks all how worked on it my hope is that a FMB shall be coming soon! :biggrin: And some manuals  to learn to use it. ;) 

Edited by senseispcc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but is the highest preset truly an absolute maximum? if it isn't then anything not included is likely excluded.

This little hairsplitting tangent is adding nothing to the conversation. I quoted BD but it is intended for all participants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, an FMB similar to the old IL2 would be a god send, and would certainly open up the BoS world with many more single missions and user made campaigns.

However, that has been discussed at length on previous posts, and the ME for BoS is based on the RoF ME, which is a different and far more complicated beast.

 

There was talk some time ago if I remember rightly, that a more user friendly version might be in the offing? Not sure if that will come to anything, perhaps someone with more recent knowledge could expand on that...

 

As to having a campaign in separate segments, well, it's different but I don't see a problem with the concept. The only problem is the lack of content, storyline, the feeling of 'being there' and belonging to a squadron of pilots you care about, not a flight of just 'bots' with no previous history within the campaign you are supposed to be involved in.

The enemy you are fighting are just as faceless and bot like... in aviation combat, part of the mission intel should tell you who you are likely to meet, what they are flying and what their morale is like, do they have any prominent aces to watch out for, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying 'use the IL-2FB Dgen directly in BoS'. I'm saying 'use it as a template'. The Dgen is simple enough, that most amateur developers could work with it directly. It honestly can't be that hard to design something similar for BoS. Regardless who developed it, 1C must have the code for the Dgen and the rights to use it, as it was developed specifically for IL-2.

 

And I'm saying it took two years of development by a third party to create that template, and not take away from the development of the game from the devs because the devs didn't have to create it.

 

Therefore, use it as a template - but a third party do it. It'll come out faster and be better. The entire thing will have to be redone from scratch, even the dgen source code won't matter because it is more than just mission templates that feed it and how it generates the mission. Dgen just won't work, it would have to be redone from scratch to take into account BoS game structure. Mission generators are more than just a mission template, it has to be designed from the ground up to work with the game's framework.

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm saying it took two years of development by a third party to create that template, and not take away from the development of the game from the devs because the devs didn't have to create it.

FuriousMeow, what you seem to be saying (forgive me if this is incorrect) is because it would take two years of development to make an DGen type campaign generator we should not criticize 1C/777 for not including any aspect of role play in the initial SP offering.

 

The problem with that is the current SP generator is clearly capable of including some RP elements. For instance, the program knows when you are dead: it tells you. It records your total sorties, air victories, ground kills, flight hours. Therefore it would be trivial to record and report these data since you were last killed flying for either Axis or Soviet. This alone is all that is needed to get a pilot centred campaign going.

 

The developer diaries originally said that players would pick a named regiment. This has not happened, but I cannot see why anything in the current design would make it difficult. Likewise why can we not pick a historic skin?

 

The fact is that for some reason, still a mystery, the developers have expunged all role playing from the SP game, even where it would have been trivially easy to include it.

 

I know some people will never be satisfied and people have different ideas of what makes a good campaign: but all of them seem to want a common element of identification with a specific person in a particular unit. Leaving this out is a major mistake and why so many SP types are disheartened.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...