Why so serious...?

[Vaxxtx]

No way! Really?

 

How dare they play the game the way they want to! We must force them to play the game that we enjoy and not the one that they enjoy!

 

Or we could just stone them.

"The legend returns" on the box art, should be replaced with the statement above. Its much more accurate.

[SharpeXB]

No way! Really?

 

How dare they play the game the way they want to! We must force them to play the game that we enjoy and not the one that they enjoy!

 

Or we could just stone them.

I'm not saying that's wrong, just that players don't all necessarily move on.

And the trouble is the developer can't possibly accommodate every single feature of some past game exactly the way some players want it. It's just too time consuming and expensive for very little benefit.

[SharpeXB]

Do you not see the conflicting statements in the underlined above?

 

It's not a contradiction. It's just two reasons why this feature isn't needed or appropriate.

The invisible plane is a game aid back from the days of small monitors and no head tracking. Making the labels visible through the plane solves the claustrophobic problem that people without head tracking face.

[BlitzPig_EL]

No way! Really?

 

How dare they play the game the way they want to! We must force them to play the game that we enjoy and not the one that they enjoy!

 

Or we could just stone them.

 

Well answered.

 

SharpeXB, and others, why are you so afraid of having others enjoy the sim in a manner differently than you do?  I don't understand.  At all.

 

It may also come as a shock that not everyone uses a head tracking device.  If you or I do, or not, should not even be part of the conversation.

 

The discussion should be how we get new folks to come to WW2 combat flight simulation, not forcing someone to play the way that we think is best for them.

And what difference does it make in the long run if you have players that stick with "Wonder Woman" view?  They are still paying for the sim just like everyone else, yes?

[VBF-12_Snake9]

 

 

They are still paying for the sim just like everyone else, yes?

 

And they are paying money.  That's what this game needs in the end for all to enjoy. 

[SharpeXB]

Well answered.

 

SharpeXB, and others, why are you so afraid of having others enjoy the sim in a manner differently than you do? I don't understand. At all.

 

It may also come as a shock that not everyone uses a head tracking device. If you or I do, or not, should not even be part of the conversation.

 

The discussion should be how we get new folks to come to WW2 combat flight simulation, not forcing someone to play the way that we think is best for them.

And what difference does it make in the long run if you have players that stick with "Wonder Woman" view? They are still paying for the sim just like everyone else, yes?

Because it's a waste of the developers limited time and budget for them to try and provide every single game feature just because it was provided in the past for some other sim. Cliffs of Dover got flown into the ground trying to accommodate every request made of it. Learn from that.

It would be fully counterproductive and illogical to spend and entire year of man-hours creating 3D animated historically correct cockpits and then also add a command to turn them off.

And this feature won't attract new players because players new to flight sims won't even know what Wonder Woman plane is.

[Petrosky]

If you were like me when you first started IL2 most of the severs had open cockpit and it was a good way to start. along with the out of plane views you were able to

see just how your plane was flying compared to your enemy plane. After flying that way for awhile you naturally wanted more out of the sim and started going to servers with closed pit.

Then you needed a way to track the enemy so you bought a TIR.

 

I have no idea if they will consider this because the tags do help(they are visible through your plane) but to get the most from the sim hardcore will always be the most rewarding.

Some may not have the ability to fly hardcore and will need the lower settings to enjoy the sim.

 

Petrosky

[Sparrer]

I'm not saying that's wrong, just that players don't all necessarily move on.

And the trouble is the developer can't possibly accommodate every single feature of some past game exactly the way some players want it. It's just too time consuming and expensive for very little benefit.

Very little benefit?

 

No they are proven benefits (or not). The past features are now absorved knowledge, since they weren't innovations anymore.

When they are proven benefits, they change from innovations(with a big risk of being unsuccessful....like unlocks) to became standards.

 

The old il2 bring us a plenty of features that worked and were successful(90% of users complains). So the risk of failure is almost gone. There are a lot of other sims with great features. I don't think we need to throw them up

 

Is just a matter of reuse the thinks that worked - eliminate/adjust what don't worked + add innovations and new ideas

 

Regarding this camera: A friend of mine, who is a F5 pilot, told the cockpit view reduces FOV to a very unrealist view. He usualy fly with wonder woman

[=LD=Hethwill]

Not wanting to step on a puddle... but why do some RTS games don't give the ability for turn based as well ?!!! More options the better right ?!

 

Not necessarily see... in that genre example, they want to do a RTS not a turn base game, so they don't even consider the options.

 

Same here.

 

The objective here is to make a combat flight simulator which is accessible. Note that accessible comes after CFS. So priorities are quite clear here as they are in other products.

 

A sim is no different from other genres when the product design is clear.

Edited November 26, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[SharpeXB]

Very little benefit?

 

Very little benefit because that game aid is already solved by using labels or even the 3rd person view.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Honestly I think many flight sim players never advance to higher difficulty although that sounds reasonable. They remain addicted to whatever game aids they latch on to and won't want to play without them. Just look at this issue here. If people "graduated" from invisible plane mode and advanced they wouldn't keep asking for this feature for decades. And Wonder Woman plane is not a game play aid that helps beginners like labels or auto CEM. It would actually make handling the aircraft much more difficult because they're without any visual reference to what they're doing. I sometimes even have trouble if I'm zoomed in fully and can't even see a canopy frame. It's easy to lose reactions that way.

 

I cant say for defo if that is true but I started old 1l2 in normal type, invisible plane then after I really got into it and started chatting to people I progressed. I think its ok to have some of these more arcade settings (as long as that does not become the main focus), so there is something for everyone. Once people can host servers and select what ever game setting they want it can only add and not detract.

[SharpeXB]

The first game that got me hooked on flight sims was Wings of Prey because it had cockpits.

[Wandalen]

If you want to build a simulator in your garage it vould be nice to turn the cockpit off

I got a projector i vant to use.... 

 

[SharpeXB]

It's all me, me, me with you isn't it?

No, that's just to say not everyone is attracted to flight sims because they can turn off the cockpit. Many are attracted to sims because they like the cockpit, it's the chief distinguishing feature of a game like this vs World of Warplanes

Can it be done?

Can it be done in a way that doesn't break another feature?

Can it be done in a cost-effective manner?

Obviously the answer to all of the above is "no" because the developers already stated they wouldn't add this feature.

[SharpeXB]

And? What about the others that aren't? Don't 1C/777 want their money?

It's not a feature new players are going to look for. Only the old IL-2 players keep asking for it because that game had it. There's no new people coming online here and asking "Why is there a cockpit in my plane?" And it's only in the WWII era because of old IL-2. Over on DCS or RoF there aren't multi page threads asking for Wonder Woman planes. "This sucks I can't turn off the cockpit in my Sukhoi-27!" Just here...

if taht is true, then its time to mark this thread as answered and stored in teh archives.

Yes please

[SharpeXB]

How do you know?

Because I can't recall a post on any of these forums that goes "I'm totally new to flight sims but I'm wondering why do I see a cockpit when I'm in "cockpit view"?

Or a post on DCS that asked "This F-15 cockpit view sucks how do I turn it off?"

Surely it's down to the developers to say 'yes' or 'no' or 'under consideration'.

They already said no a long time ago. Edited November 26, 2014 by SharpeXB

[1PL-Banzai-1Esk]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m0ZbiWRZjvM

 

Just watch this video. This could be used to play BoS , and I know it's a unique set up , but it just ilustrates that there are other ways of enjoying flight sims.

 

I would personally not use wonder woman view other than for recording movies , but I fully support this option in game , just so I could travel to Finland and fly BoS in that fantastic setup they have there and so some other customers would enjoy this game more.

 

How can you be against someone enjoying a game different way than you do. Who cares if cockpits took ten years to painstakingly recreate them , if someone wants to fly wonder woman and turn them off , so be it , let them have freedom.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Wow.

 

Just, wow.

 

SharpeXB, at this point your pedantic responses are leading me to the conclusion that you don't have a basic understanding of how a profitable business works, or, more likely, you are simply trying to have a good "wind up" as the Brits call it.

 

I'm outta this thread, and looking for an ignore feature to put you on it.

[SharpeXB]

you are simply trying to have a good "wind up" as the Brits call it.

Yes.

Edited November 26, 2014 by SharpeXB

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

If you want to build a simulator in your garage it vould be nice to turn the cockpit off

I got a projector i vant to use.... 

 

Hans hasn't update that site in awhile.

[SharpeXB]

you don't have a basic understanding of how a profitable business works

The people who make such decisions, 1CGC already decided this issue.

Edited November 26, 2014 by SharpeXB

[avlSteve]

Thanks, beta looks great as far as I can tell.  May as well gray out the statistics icon on mouse hover, if it's private, I recon.

 

 

 

volition

 

Not often I need to refer to a dictionary while on a forum.  Thank you for this.

[Gambit21]

For the word volition?

[SharpeXB]

As if anyone needed any more evidence that we have stooges posting on the forums.

What really really tickles me is the possibility that some of the robots with the "must defend my masters" responses might actually be doing so of their own volition.

lol surely not?!?

I think 777/1C has made the right decision on many aspect of this and RoF. Sometimes that means not giving in to every single request made by the community. That's especially important developing a WWII sim. The last one crashed and burned doing exactly that.

I'm sad to inform you that they aren't adding a flyable Su-26 stunt plane with laser guns, drivable ground vehicles and a menu where you can select your pilots clothes either...

Edited November 26, 2014 by SharpeXB

[DD_bongodriver]

I think 777/1C has made the right decision on many aspect of this and RoF. Sometimes that means not giving in to every single request made by the community. That's especially important developing a WWII sim. The last one crashed and burned doing exactly that.

I'm sad to inform you that they aren't adding a flyable Su-26 stunt plane with laser guns, drivable ground vehicles and a menu where you can select your pilots clothes either...

 

Oh look! somebody had a quick bash at Cliffs of Dover when confronted with a criticism of BOS, how unusual......

[SYN_Jedders]

Oh look! somebody had a quick bash at Cliffs of Dover when confronted with a criticism of BOS, how unusual......

And of course that doesn't happen in reverse either...just for balance, you understand.

[SharpeXB]

Oh look! somebody had a quick bash at Cliffs of Dover when confronted with a criticism of BOS, how unusual......

Sorry. Still the best example of what not to do developing a flight sim.

[SYN_Jedders]

Ironically, tho, it only got good when they stopped developing it :/

[DD_bongodriver]

And of course that doesn't happen in reverse either...just for balance, you understand.

 

Can't say I've seen that much of it.

 

 

Sorry. Still the best example of what not to do developing a flight sim.

 

Compared to what? I'd say BOS hasn't been a roaring success either with some of the most awful design decisions.

 

 

Ironically, tho, it only got good when they stopped developing it :/

 

No, it was good already, Team Fusion are only modders and aren't delving into the code, the core game must have been good for them to be so successful with what they have done

[LAL_Luny]

This topic has gone a long way since yesterday, and Bmezz never came back ?

 

Dont be affraid we dont bite...

 

Some of us only stone people, but some are also open minded

[SYN_Jedders]

Can't say I've seen that much of it.

 

 

 

 

Compared to what? I'd say BOS hasn't been a roaring success either with some of the most awful design decisions.

 

 

 

 

No, it was good already, Team Fusion are only modders and aren't delving into the code, the core game must have been good for them to be so successful with what they have done

'good' and 'successful' are not words I would have used to describe clod at release. I seem to remember quite a lot of angst regarding its release state. Development ceased shortly after that. I'm told by many on this forum that TF has made a good game out of it.

[SYN_Jedders]

It's a fair point actually. What does define a successful title in the combat flight simulation genre. If we take what has happened post IL2:1946 there seems to have been an equal measure of success and failure.

 

DCS and WT seem to have been able to develop merrily along with their chosen audience in what appears to be a solvent, if not drawn out manner. CloD took its time but got there in the end with a lot of help from modders but what could have been, eh?. DCS:1944 seems to have been saved from the bin after its kickstarter issues but will take its time in arriving. BoS made its release with a very tight budget and team and faces criticism from its customer base to a very large extent due to some, em, 'original' design choices late in development.

 

There seems to be almost a crisis of confidence midway along the development in my last 3 examples that has blown the team off course. In some cases it has taken others to put it back on track. I would love to see this team back itself in its original choices and not deviate into the choppy waters we have seen in recent weeks. I just want an honest to goodness remake of IL2:1946...might be waiting a while...

[Matt]

'good' and 'successful' are not words I would have used to describe clod at release. I seem to remember quite a lot of angst regarding its release state. Development ceased shortly after that. I'm told by many on this forum that TF has made a good game out of it.

Development ceased one and a half year after release. Doesn't qualify as "shortly after release" imho. And that still has to be beaten by BoS (though i have little doubt, that they will beat that, we'll still have to wait for the official december announcement i guess).

Edited November 26, 2014 by Matt

[[KWN]T-oddball]

'good' and 'successful' are not words I would have used to describe clod at release. I seem to remember quite a lot of angst regarding its release state. Development ceased shortly after that. I'm told by many on this forum that TF has made a good game out of it.

 

10/2012 CLoD is officially  abandoned, shortly after that BoS is announced. 10/2014 BoS is released and TF has brought CLoD to a very playable level. Just for the sake of speculation what do you think would have happened to CLoD if instead of TF the official production had continued with the programmers who actually had the code? now remember they were already working on a battle of Moscow add-on and showed us some of the planes they already had.

 

My personal take on it would be that the 2 years that has transpired since 2012 would have brought us the BoM along with all the major bugs fixed along with missions ,campaigns, skins and a rich and diverse MP community....but like i said...speculation.

[avlSteve]

For the word volition?

 

Offhanded way of giving Extreme_One a compliment regarding his command of the English language.  Never contemplated the word before, and now I feel just a little smarter.  I'm probably not, but at least I can feel like I am.

Edited November 27, 2014 by avlSteve

[DD_bongodriver]

English thou maternal fornicator, dost thou speaketh it?

Edited November 27, 2014 by DD_bongodriver

[SYN_Jedders]

Development ceased one and a half year after release. Doesn't qualify as "shortly after release" imho. And that still has to be beaten by BoS (though i have little doubt, that they will beat that, we'll still have to wait for the official december announcement i guess).

Aye, you are right, of course. I'm of an age when games were 3-4 years between versions/remakes with maybe a single patch to sort out all that was amiss. Nowadays gamers want a new title every year!. I must be slowly becoming a minority in being happy to wait for patches/fixes/DLC. I'm still regularly playing around with IL2:1946 with all it's mods and content...that baby must have taken 10 years of development to get to its current build and they are still working on another patch.

 

It would have been interesting to see how 1c might have carried out their development of CloD. Let's hope I'm still enjoying what BoS has to offer in the years ahead!.

[Petrosky]

Please  stop feeding the animal

[Gambit21]

Offhanded way of giving Extreme_One a compliment regarding his command of the English language.  Never contemplated the word before, and now I feel just a little smarter.  I'm probably not, but at least I can feel like I am.

Nothing wrong with adding a word - I'm always a little grateful when that happens.

[avlSteve]

English thou maternal fornicator, dost thou speaketh it?

 

Nay.  Slurreth.