A pic of hyperlobby in better days :)

[BraveSirRobin]

LOL  No, I'm not wrong.  RoF coop servers are empty.  It's time to move on.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

[BraveSirRobin]

There was a RoF thread set up specifically to organize coops.  That lasted for all of 2 weeks.  The coop servers are empty.  Having a chat "lobby" won't be any different.  In fact, it's probably less useful.

[ShamrockOneFive]

A chat lobby won't do anything to help you get people to fly together on a Coop server.  There aren't enough people sitting around waiting for something to do for that to work.  They're too busy flying.  You need to organize coops ahead of time in a forum like this.  Then you have to hope that they don't disappear after getting shot down early in a mission.

Yet, that's exactly what HyperLobby had and we had tons of COOP missions hosted on the fly there. There are still COOP missions hosted on the fly. Not quite all the time anymore but there continues to be missions loading up frequently.

 

I remember in the heyday of that there was a couple of guys who always hosted large scale COOP missions on a Friday night. Was a good time! So people do sit in the chat lobby and chat away until a mission comes up. I think the critical part here, or at least for me, is that the system is handled like HyperLobby where the browser and chat is located external from the game. That way you can easily multitask with windows and then when a mission comes up you save your work and play.

 

EDIT: You know... I should mention that the relative ease with which a IL-2 coop mission could be generated greatly contributed to how popular the coops were.

Edited January 4, 2014 by IceFire

[BraveSirRobin]

Hyperlobby worked because it gave people easy access to lots of servers.  RoF already does that.  Coops worked because there were 100s of people playing the game.  There was no down time between coop missions.  We're probably not going to have 100s of people playing BoS for a while.  When we do, they can use the forum to organize coops.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Both Clod and RoF (and i presume BoS because of RoF) have one massive disadvantage over il2 1946 in my opinion, and that is the ease that anyone could/can host an il2 co-op or dogfight mission. 

 

I can host missions for the squad I fly with in il2, and people generally take it in turns on different flying nights.

 

I know i don't have fibre, but its not through choice. This however means that i just cannot host a RoF co-op mission fullstop, or a Clod mission with much going on or many people at all.

 

Now i'm lucky in that i with a squad so i have the option of being able to build our own server to remote host missions, but most people don't.

 

The more people that do not have the ability to be able to host themselves, leads to a limited number of groups controlling the online environment as has happened in both RoF and Clod. This is not to say that the said groups don't do a very good, job, i think for both games they do which is why they are the popular servers. However it limits the options of the player, particularly groups that want to fly amongst themselves, and control the environment in which they fly, and this will turn many people away.

 

I thinks it was a huge part of il2's success online, how 'available' it was for anyone to host for there friends, but wonder if we will ever see that again.

 

I hope so.

 

Well said sir.

 

This is exactly the case with the BlitzPigs and our friends, and why when we do fly now a days it's IL2/46.  I can easily build, and host DF missions in IL2/46, unlike RoF or CloD.

And IL2 has so much variety in scope, be it theater of operations or aircraft types.  Something that certainly cannot be said for CloD.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Well said sir.

 

This is exactly the case with the BlitzPigs and our friends, and why when we do fly now a days it's IL2/46.  I can easily build, and host DF missions in IL2/46, unlike RoF or CloD.

And IL2 has so much variety in scope, be it theater of operations or aircraft types.  Something that certainly cannot be said for CloD.

Great point. The trouble is that virtually nothing can enter the market with any kind of detail and try and be IL-2 1946 out of the box... we'll have to wait a number of years for that. I'd like to see the East Front fleshed out a bit more but also some other theatres offering some unique experiences and aircraft types.

 

If IL-2 just kept to the IL-2, a Yak and a couple of Bf109 models we'd be done a long time ago. But we've got level bombers, dive bombers, fighter-bombers, fighters, interceptors, weird rocket planes, a gunboat attack bomber, a float plane fighter, torpedo bombers ... I'm sure I've missed something. When I get bored of endless dogfighting I take out a Pe-2 or a A-20G or an IL-2 or a Pe-8... whatever to do something different and have a different experience within the same overall WWII flight sim context.

 

I think the 777 Studio guys have a notion of this already... the IL-2 is of course essential (given the name) but the Pe-2 is a very astute addition to the lineup for the VVS and the He111 and the Ju87 add that variety for the Luftwaffe too. Variety is key!

[DD_fruitbat]

Great point. The trouble is that virtually nothing can enter the market with any kind of detail and try and be IL-2 1946 out of the box... we'll have to wait a number of years for that. I'd like to see the East Front fleshed out a bit more but also some other theatres offering some unique experiences and aircraft types.

 

If IL-2 just kept to the IL-2, a Yak and a couple of Bf109 models we'd be done a long time ago. But we've got level bombers, dive bombers, fighter-bombers, fighters, interceptors, weird rocket planes, a gunboat attack bomber, a float plane fighter, torpedo bombers ... I'm sure I've missed something. When I get bored of endless dogfighting I take out a Pe-2 or a A-20G or an IL-2 or a Pe-8... whatever to do something different and have a different experience within the same overall WWII flight sim context.

 

I think the 777 Studio guys have a notion of this already... the IL-2 is of course essential (given the name) but the Pe-2 is a very astute addition to the lineup for the VVS and the He111 and the Ju87 add that variety for the Luftwaffe too. Variety is key!

 

For certain nothing 'new' could ever compete on content with il2, probably content wise il2 will be the high water mark.

 

But to be a true heir all BoS really needs to do imo, is 

 

1) ease of ability for any individual to host for their friends,

 

2) simple fmb

 

Thats what il2 has, and thats why people such as yourself made great offline campaigns, and why there were so many squads, many that are still here, and why online there are still many SEOWS being fought using it.

Edited January 4, 2014 by fruitbat

[FS_Fenice_1965]

"Battlefield servers or even the one that I belong (FS with the Skies of valor server) would have supported a CLOD server with different settings, the crowd following that sim would have been a lot wider."

 

We tried mate, I spent hours with the boss trying to set up interesting missions with that not so friendly mission builder (current devs take note..NOT FRIENDLY MISSION BUILDER) and it was such a pita with little or no people coming to fly we put it to bed. The programme and the missions still reside on one of our servers but I bet if we fired it back up again it would see little or no custom on the old BF`s UK2 settings.

 

Hi Smurfy,

similar to what happened to us....at the times we tried there were few PCs able to use CLOD. The program is there, but (and it's a pity...) I doubt that conditions will arise to fire it up. Uk2 (or Valor) settings would have been interesting considered the problems that CLOD had in terms of dots visibility.

 

You touched another important matter, mission builder has a key role on the success of a sim. At the moment I don't see any of the incoming sims with a mission builder able to compete with the one we had in IL2 in terms of popularity.

Variety of missions is one of the key of the success of servers and successful servers means people enjoying the sim and buying it.

 

(current devs take note..NOT FRIENDLY MISSION BUILDER).......+1

[beepee]

Yeah, but all in separate games. I hope some day BoS will be more like Aces High - capable of 350+ players in one world/server.

+1 to this.  I understand that there are certain limitations as to why it can't happen with IL2.

 

But, the days of flying Wabirds and joining the S3 with your squad when there were 200-300 real humans flying around were very cool.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Ahhh... Skies of Fire. It had it's critics, but hell, it was a lot of fun...

Yep both Fire and Valor were a lot of fun. AAA server got me going in HyperLobby until I went over to Fire/Valor and then Spits v 109. I still miss me some semi-arcade for a quick fix before work - when I didn't have enough time for a full flying day.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Both Clod and RoF (and i presume BoS because of RoF) have one massive disadvantage over il2 1946 in my opinion, and that is the ease that anyone could/can host an il2 co-op or dogfight mission.

 

I can host missions for the squad I fly with in il2, and people generally take it in turns on different flying nights.

 

I know i don't have fibre, but its not through choice. This however means that i just cannot host a RoF co-op mission fullstop, or a Clod mission with much going on or many people at all.

 

Now i'm lucky in that i with a squad so i have the option of being able to build our own server to remote host missions, but most people don't.

 

The more people that do not have the ability to be able to host themselves, leads to a limited number of groups controlling the online environment as has happened in both RoF and Clod. This is not to say that the said groups don't do a very good, job, i think for both games they do which is why they are the popular servers. However it limits the options of the player, particularly groups that want to fly amongst themselves, and control the environment in which they fly, and this will turn many people away.

 

I thinks it was a huge part of il2's success online, how 'available' it was for anyone to host for there friends, but wonder if we will ever see that again.

 

I hope so.

 

I don't understand where you are getting your information from or maybe you just don't know how to use the in-game lobby, but you can host your own mission in IL2COD in about 15 seconds all through the lobby it was designed for.  You put in your server name, server settings, password or not, then it browses and lets you choose what mission to pick from.  Hit start, and your server is running.  You can host in 15 seconds. 

 

Also, where do you think the netcode from IL2COD came from?  It's virtually identical in usage to IL21946.  If you can support 15 players in 1946 or (insert whatever number you host there) you should be able to support identical numbers in IL2COD.

 

Here's a video on how easy it is to host your own mission within your own group all with about 5 mouse clicks:

 

 

Well said sir.

 

This is exactly the case with the BlitzPigs and our friends, and why when we do fly now a days it's IL2/46.  I can easily build, and host DF missions in IL2/46, unlike RoF or CloD.

And IL2 has so much variety in scope, be it theater of operations or aircraft types.  Something that certainly cannot be said for CloD.

 

 

Hi Smurfy,

similar to what happened to us....at the times we tried there were few PCs able to use CLOD. The program is there, but (and it's a pity...) I doubt that conditions will arise to fire it up. Uk2 (or Valor) settings would have been interesting considered the problems that CLOD had in terms of dots visibility.

 

You touched another important matter, mission builder has a key role on the success of a sim. At the moment I don't see any of the incoming sims with a mission builder able to compete with the one we had in IL2 in terms of popularity.

Variety of missions is one of the key of the success of servers and successful servers means people enjoying the sim and buying it.

 

(current devs take note..NOT FRIENDLY MISSION BUILDER).......+1

 

 

As someone that built missions for both games, the FMB for IL2FB/46 is almost identical to the one for IL2COD.  The difference being the FMB in Clod lets you have far more options than the one for the old game.  I would love to see one player build a DF mission using the vanilla 46 game (dvd version) and make one single objective (that actually does something IE - rotate the map, give you a server message, ANYTHING) from the vanilla FMB only.  The only reason you can do any of that stuff is because of the 3rd party server commanders that do it for you.  The same can be said for SEOW which is 100% 3rd party. 

 

Doesn't anyone remember what it was like hosting an IL2 server before 3rd party had made something to use?  Remember all the batch files with "misLoad yourmission.mis", timeout this, timeout that, end this, end that, rotate this, rotate that, just to get it all to work?  You got the same exact format (the black box with the same exact commands as the old IL2) with Clod.  It's identical lol.  The difference being that Clod can have missions injected on top of ongoing missions, and it gave you the ability to essentially create that 3rd party tool right into your mission in the 1st place via any sort of script you can put your mind to creating.  But to say the mission builders themselves, the FMB of old IL2 to the new are that much different is pure non-sense.  One just lets you do a whole lot more.  It gives you a trigger to begin with.  Yep, you gotta write out in code what you want that trigger to do.  No different than the mouseclick in the 3rd party tool FBDj, is a whole bunch of code telling the game what your objectives are etc. 

 

The FMB is perfectly fine and is just as easy as both.  The problem was simply 3rd party hasn't come along to finish making a FBDj/server commander type program to have the same "easy" mission making that you guys obviously take for granted in the old game.  That stuff has nothing to do with the vanilla game, and if those tools weren't out there you would not have a single objective in any mission with the old game. Heck, it was only a few years ago with IL2 that you could even use AI planes in a DF server. 

 

I don't know a single modern flight sim right now that has 100 people (a full server) in it day after day besides Clod. And this is with many more waiting to get in sometimes.  And I guarantee if you make a server that is more keen to your types of settings and gameplay people will fly on it.  But did anyone of you guys ever think to ask us how to do something if you were having a problem?  I mean when I see someone complaining about how hard it is to host a mission, I'm just completely baffled.  Someone asked the question in our forum and someone else simply made that video to show how to do it.  Then the 1st person that asked was like, "wow - that's pretty easy then" and was off having fun with his friends.

 

The same can be said for mission help, all you had to do is ask.  There are knowledgeable people out there that will help you out. But all I see is the same walls of text saying how hard it is from the same people. No offense, but if you know the FMB in one game, the FMB in the other is virtually the same.   It's not hard at all.  It's the same damn mission builder.  Again, the fellas at Maddox tried to one up the 3rd party guys of the old game by giving you a trigger built into the FMB in the 1st place (to make it do whatever you want) without the need for 3rd party.  But regardless, every single thing out there in any future can not compete with IL246 with regards to content and 3rd party stuff.  And in almost 14 years of people creating and developing content (after release) it's pretty easy to see why.  And while I'm the biggest fanboy of IL246 there is, I simply cannot ever go back to it after playing Cliffs of Dover.  I tried, I really did, but it was so meh to me I didn't even last 2 days with it. I have several thousand hours in Clod and I still see new little details still.  And with the TF stuff, unless you have a very outdated PC, a 3rd generation ago decent nvidia card will run the sim just fine. But it's DX10, it's got huge textures and bigger resolution everywhere in the graphics department.  You need a 64 bit OS and some memory as well.  But if you have problems, all you gotta do is ask.  There is quite a big Clod community now, and it keeps growing every day. 

[sturmkraehe]

I think IL2 was great because of several good ingrediences:

 

- it offered a flight sim from pretty arcade to hardcore sim

- the abundancy of maps, small and bigger ones

- a good quick mission builder

- an easy to handle full mission builder

- a good deal of ground objects and a range of well modelled bombers

- a great deal of planes (not all necessary) for different time periods.

- at its time comparatively good graphics

 

I personally don't so much like the current tendency towards one big map and too few alternative maps. Too few ground objects to attack.

 

It is pretty simple: The IL2 we had servers with so many maps that occasionally one had to be lucky to be able to play one particular map. Map meaning not only the map itself but also the planeset and mission targets. IL2 1947 was simply incredibly flexible and allowed a lot of user made additions (maps, sp and mp missions, skins, ...) that allowed to recycle the game many times.

Edited January 12, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[FS_Fenice_1965]

 

As someone that built missions for both games, the FMB for IL2FB/46 is almost identical to the one for IL2COD.  The difference being the FMB in Clod lets you have far more options than the one for the old game.  I would love to see one player build a DF mission using the vanilla 46 game (dvd version) and make one single objective (that actually does something IE - rotate the map, give you a server message, ANYTHING) from the vanilla FMB only.  The only reason you can do any of that stuff is because of the 3rd party server commanders that do it for you.  The same can be said for SEOW which is 100% 3rd party. 

 

Doesn't anyone remember what it was like hosting an IL2 server before 3rd party had made something to use?  Remember all the batch files with "misLoad yourmission.mis", timeout this, timeout that, end this, end that, rotate this, rotate that, just to get it all to work?  You got the same exact format (the black box with the same exact commands as the old IL2) with Clod.  It's identical lol.  The difference being that Clod can have missions injected on top of ongoing missions, and it gave you the ability to essentially create that 3rd party tool right into your mission in the 1st place via any sort of script you can put your mind to creating.  But to say the mission builders themselves, the FMB of old IL2 to the new are that much different is pure non-sense.  One just lets you do a whole lot more.  It gives you a trigger to begin with.  Yep, you gotta write out in code what you want that trigger to do.  No different than the mouseclick in the 3rd party tool FBDj, is a whole bunch of code telling the game what your objectives are etc. 

 

The FMB is perfectly fine and is just as easy as both.  The problem was simply 3rd party hasn't come along to finish making a FBDj/server commander type program to have the same "easy" mission making that you guys obviously take for granted in the old game.  That stuff has nothing to do with the vanilla game, and if those tools weren't out there you would not have a single objective in any mission with the old game. Heck, it was only a few years ago with IL2 that you could even use AI planes in a DF server. 

 

I don't know a single modern flight sim right now that has 100 people (a full server) in it day after day besides Clod. And this is with many more waiting to get in sometimes.  And I guarantee if you make a server that is more keen to your types of settings and gameplay people will fly on it.  But did anyone of you guys ever think to ask us how to do something if you were having a problem?  I mean when I see someone complaining about how hard it is to host a mission, I'm just completely baffled.  Someone asked the question in our forum and someone else simply made that video to show how to do it.  Then the 1st person that asked was like, "wow - that's pretty easy then" and was off having fun with his friends.

 

The same can be said for mission help, all you had to do is ask.  There are knowledgeable people out there that will help you out. But all I see is the same walls of text saying how hard it is from the same people. No offense, but if you know the FMB in one game, the FMB in the other is virtually the same.   It's not hard at all.  It's the same damn mission builder.  Again, the fellas at Maddox tried to one up the 3rd party guys of the old game by giving you a trigger built into the FMB in the 1st place (to make it do whatever you want) without the need for 3rd party.  But regardless, every single thing out there in any future can not compete with IL246 with regards to content and 3rd party stuff.  And in almost 14 years of people creating and developing content (after release) it's pretty easy to see why.  And while I'm the biggest fanboy of IL246 there is, I simply cannot ever go back to it after playing Cliffs of Dover.  I tried, I really did, but it was so meh to me I didn't even last 2 days with it. I have several thousand hours in Clod and I still see new little details still.  And with the TF stuff, unless you have a very outdated PC, a 3rd generation ago decent nvidia card will run the sim just fine. But it's DX10, it's got huge textures and bigger resolution everywhere in the graphics department.  You need a 64 bit OS and some memory as well.  But if you have problems, all you gotta do is ask.  There is quite a big Clod community now, and it keeps growing every day. 

 

~S~ Bliss,

 

I haven't expressed myself in an appropriate way. The FMB part was referred to what I ask from BOS, rather than a complaint about CLOD mission builder, which shares with IL2 the same and awesome 3D builder  (even if it is needed a bit of time to get used to new features).

 

Nevertheless, the problem of human resources remains. As an example, in this era of IL2, the mission builders for our server passed from 4 to 1. The same guy follows the IL2 server itself FBDJ and the stats.

If you want to get people involved after 12 years of IL2, you need to build new maps and improve existing ones, and this requires time.

On the other side you cannot (or couldn't) afford to leave IL2 to its fate and concentrate only on CLOD, because the largest part of the community is not ready to play CLOD (both for hardware requirements and interest in variety of contents).

I believe some communities had to do choices and in some cases the choice was to direct resources towards IL2, to mantain the simmers gathered until there will be a sim (or existing sims will be ) able to gather them again under one roof.

 

In any case, only death is too late....... your suggestions are good, an error is not opening to other communities and ask help or knowledge.... personally I'll make treasure of these thoughts...

 

~S~

[Quax]

I think IL2 was great because of several good ingrediences:

 

- a good quick mission builder

- an easy to handle full mission builder

 

 

First point will be adressed:

 

"Quick Mission Builder - improved analog to the good old editor in IL-2. It's a pack of tools to create a battle scenario, choose desired parameters and try it out yourself or with your friends. Soon you'll forget the missions that we used to offer you for the early access sessions."

 

But the full mission builder will not become easy, because it will give a lot of complicated possibillities to the mission builders (all kind of triggers etc.). You just can´t have both. I don´t doubt, that there will be interesting missions by the "professional mission builders" as there are in RoF in the meantime. And as the BoS editor is based on the RoF editor, I guess that there will be good missions very soon, as the guys can already use their experience.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Quax

[Wandalen]

I think IL2 was great because of several good ingrediences:

 

- it offered a flight sim from pretty arcade to hardcore sim

- the abundancy of maps, small and bigger ones

- a good quick mission builder

- an easy to handle full mission builder

- a good deal of ground objects and a range of well modelled bombers

- a great deal of planes (not all necessary) for different time periods.

- at its time comparatively good graphics

 

I personally don't so much like the current tendency towards one big map and too few alternative maps. Too few ground objects to attack.

 

It is pretty simple: The IL2 we had servers with so many maps that occasionally one had to be lucky to be able to play one particular map. Map meaning not only the map itself but also the planeset and mission targets. IL2 1947 was simply incredibly flexible and allowed a lot of user made additions (maps, sp and mp missions, skins, ...) that allowed to recycle the game many times.

 

 

Totaly agree on that StormKråke  

 

And i think HyperLobby was great in that way you did not need to start the whole game to look over the servers,

You could just have HL up in the corner of your screen and jump in anny game you like, or if you suddenly see a friend in the friends list flying. 

I think BOS would gain a lot with HL support  

 

~S~