Jump to content
Cloyd

OK, so this is a game, not a sim...

Recommended Posts

Why do you think BoS can`t replicate IL2? Sure it can, well, not by current devs decisions but that might change sometime in the future. All the sims are very different animals, you can really do certain things in only one, so they should stay apart without interfering one with another. IMO BoS is currently missing features that made IL2 gather most of the flying crowd and at the same time I see only BoS replicating it, other sims are of different purpose.

 

Well, in a way we are our own worst enemies.   We all clamor for higher and higher fidelity in every aspect of new titles.  Better models, better cockpits, better damage modeling, better FMs *COUGH*, ever more realistic AI routines,  better and bigger maps, dynamic weather, realistic clouds and weather effects, etc...   Yet all these things mean we get less of everything else.   Fewer aircraft, fewer ground units, etc, Why?   Because these high fidelity items take exponentially more time and money to produce, and also demand more and more computer power.

 

So a developer has to make decisions on the size, scope, and depth of a project, just to get it out the door.  Hence the limited scenarios we now have in CloD and BoS.

 

We will never have the depth of choice we had in the original IL2 series.  We will never be able to go from the cold winter of the Russian Front, to the steamy jungles of New Guinea in the same sim again.

We won't be able to have a really large community of players, with different interests all in the same house, and hence enabling the developers to gain access to a constant and stable income stream that will allow development over the long haul.

 

I just don't see any sim currently out in the market being able to do that.

 

Couple that with the fact that I much prefer the online side of things and it really is a dark future for the genre that I love.

 

I hope I'm wrong.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who posted in here about being turned off from the online experience you need to give coops a try and get on a TS server... that changes the entire experience and hopefully some form of coop will be doable in the near future for BoS even if it is technically not called a coop.

Yeah, I remember back in 2006 when I was first introduced to CrazyIvan online. Me in my Zeke, he jumped me in a P38. All this time from 2001 talking with him on the ubi forums, then being actually set against him in a immersive war scenario. That made a big impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in a way we are our own worst enemies.   We all clamor for higher and higher fidelity in every aspect of new titles.  Better models, better cockpits, better damage modeling, better FMs *COUGH*, ever more realistic AI routines,  better and bigger maps, dynamic weather, realistic clouds and weather effects, etc...   Yet all these things mean we get less of everything else.   Fewer aircraft, fewer ground units, etc, Why?   Because these high fidelity items take exponentially more time and money to produce, and also demand more and more computer power.

 

So a developer has to make decisions on the size, scope, and depth of a project, just to get it out the door.  Hence the limited scenarios we now have in CloD and BoS.

 

We will never have the depth of choice we had in the original IL2 series.  We will never be able to go from the cold winter of the Russian Front, to the steamy jungles of New Guinea in the same sim again.

We won't be able to have a really large community of players, with different interests all in the same house, and hence enabling the developers to gain access to a constant and stable income stream that will allow development over the long haul.

 

I just don't see any sim currently out in the market being able to do that.

 

Couple that with the fact that I much prefer the online side of things and it really is a dark future for the genre that I love.

 

I hope I'm wrong.

I understand. It`s not that I disagree with you fully, I just tend to look at things with a -little- more optimism.

The fact that IL2:1946 still stays as the main place to be in a online cfs world is not a coincidence. It gets upgraded from time to time and obviously many people tend to accept it. I can see the amusement here though I really couldn`t go on with IL2 shortly after 1946 was released. From that point on it has just been too archaic for me. So I guess what has been said in this topic is true, maybe just an upgraded IL2 should have been released. And I mean not BoS/CloD upgraded, I mean like Call of Duty upgraded. So we`d have a part of the aircraft/map content and all of the online infrastructure content, I`d buy that. I guess it`s not so simple but a man can dream, no?

 

In that aspect, I think BoS dev team was correct. Turn down the scope a little bit to make it doable and take little steps from there. That is a good plan. IMO what BoS is lacking the most at this time is the online infrastructure. Introduce that and It can be a call for all the old simmers to return. Or it can`t cuz nothing is ever exactly the same. Me, I`m staying off from BoS because of that. Sightseeing and DM flying I have in the DCS.

 

That said I don`t believe that the original IL2 was some kind of a simmer`s miracle. I`m not saying you do either. All I`m saying that IMO Oleg Maddox had a big plan, some funds, the right people and a little luck. And having an actual, *genuine* plan is what I`m aiming at.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of old sturm users are burned out.Part of them left the scene,another part lurks around other cfs sites and continue with their neverending "crappy FM/DM" and "my sim is better then your sim" crusade.Sometimes I think that they should put together a PC studio and show us how should that holy grail of cfs look like.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of old sturm users are burned out.Part of them left the scene,another part lurks around other cfs sites and continue with their neverending "crappy FM/DM" and "my sim is better then your sim" crusade.Sometimes I think that they should put together a PC studio and show us how should that holy grail of cfs look like.

 

+10000 if devs are not tired about these [Edited], a lot of BOS lovers are now really tired about!!!!

Edited by Bearcat
Name calling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of old sturm users are out adding planes, missions, maps, carriers vehicles, visual improvements and more.

Lots of new sturm players are showing up.

 

Due this weekend, unlock free:

 

CFM_zps34f08dde.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of old sturm users are out adding planes, missions, maps, carriers vehicles, visual improvements and more.

Lots of new sturm players are showing up.

 

Due this weekend, unlock free:

 

 

 

I am so looking forward to CFM, have a clean separate install of 46 waiting and ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in a way we are our own worst enemies.   We all clamor for higher and higher fidelity in every aspect of new titles.  Better models, better cockpits, better damage modeling, better FMs *COUGH*, ever more realistic AI routines,  better and bigger maps, dynamic weather, realistic clouds and weather effects, etc...   Yet all these things mean we get less of everything else.   Fewer aircraft, fewer ground units, etc, Why?   Because these high fidelity items take exponentially more time and money to produce, and also demand more and more computer power.

 

So a developer has to make decisions on the size, scope, and depth of a project, just to get it out the door.  Hence the limited scenarios we now have in CloD and BoS.

 

We will never have the depth of choice we had in the original IL2 series.  We will never be able to go from the cold winter of the Russian Front, to the steamy jungles of New Guinea in the same sim again.

We won't be able to have a really large community of players, with different interests all in the same house, and hence enabling the developers to gain access to a constant and stable income stream that will allow development over the long haul.

 

I just don't see any sim currently out in the market being able to do that.

 

Couple that with the fact that I much prefer the online side of things and it really is a dark future for the genre that I love.

 

I hope I'm wrong.

 

Considering that it took IL2 14 years to get where it is now and 5 years to get to the base 1946 content.. I doubt we will ever see this again either but in order to even come close the base of the sim needs to cater to a wide swath of users. That is why IL2 is still king. IL2 had flaws and shortcomings for sure. Many forget how IL2 was before the mods. The thing that made it such a success was that it was capable of sustaining a large base of users and allowed them to grow within the same SW and as you said it offered them variety even in the original.. I will never forget the first time I flew on the Kuban map. The thing IMO that ruined it was the business model used. I think they gave away too much stuff for free, and as quiet as it is kept I also believe that piracy and the hacking of the sim also played a role in it's eventual abandonment. It is a moot point now ... Oleg left the building a long time ago and at this point in it's lifespan mods are having the opposite effect but think about it ....  even before the big hack there was the little hack and I know for a fact that there were a lot of folks who were flying IL2 that got it from torrent sites and cracked it. Once it got hacked it was all pretty much done as far as developer created content being made that people would buy. There was a loyal base of supporters who would have gladly paid for new content .. and always did pay regardless.. (anybody remember the BoontyBox fiasco...) but that base was not enough to sustain the sim. Regardless to where you sit on the modding fence (and again it is a  moot point now..) if you look at things honestly, piracy and the hacking of the sim played a role in IL2 eventually being abandoned and also I believe in what happened with CoD because if memory serves me correctly CoD was hacked almost at the same time it was released.. I could be wrong.. but I was not too involved with CoD in the beginning. Since I couldn't run it I just shelved it until such time as I could run it so I missed a lot of the drama associated with it in the beginning.

 

BoS has the capability to become that next gen sim that everyone flies (not the "savior" of the genre as some have sarcastically stated, that cannot be achieved by any single sim since the tastes are too broad)  but they need to change some things very quickly, while the iron is hot and adjust the business model slightly. They need to dump the unlocks, reinstall the graphics adjustments, and adjust some of the difficulty settings slightly if possible. The DServer and ME are forthcoming according to the team and I have no reason to doubt them, so that is not really an issue to be concerned with IMO.. and they need to market future content correctly. I would buy new content depending on what it was outright if I knew that there would not be a sale for at least 6 months after it was released.. I wouldn't want to wait that long depending on what it was.. I think that $15-$20 a fighter is reasonable with bombers being $30-$40 initially.. and offer sales according to the sales figures and marketing strategy. It may never reach the level that IL2 did in 5 years as far as content is concerned ... maybe... but it certainly could reach the level of popularity as long as they made some small adjustments because it is a very enjoyable product that is immersive and could be more of everything good that it is if the team changed a few things. Being the only fully developer supported WWII sim on the market at the moment means something to fans of the genre and the only reason BoS is not more popular is because of choices made in implementation.. not design.

 

There are going to be those who will always find some fault with whatever comes down the pipe from this team.. if they say something or show something, pretty much anything other than what many want to hear, that will be jumped on and criticized.. If they say nothing then that will be jumped on and criticized..... but making some of the adjustments mentioned above  will go a very long way to reducing that number significantly and be a huge contributor to the potential longevity of this sim.

 

Lots of old sturm users are out adding planes, missions, maps, carriers vehicles, visual improvements and more.

Lots of new sturm players are showing up.

 

Due this weekend, unlock free:

 

CFM_zps34f08dde.jpg

 

 

No doubt. That looks good. Lots of sturm users never left.... ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Bearcat.

 

I wish I could learn to be as optimistic as you are.  It' just not how I'm built I guess.

 

I'm certainly not going to toss BoS in the dustbin, but my enthusiasm for playing at the current time is near zero.

 

I hope things change for the better, and soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Bearcat.

 

I wish I could learn to be as optimistic as you are.  It' just not how I'm built I guess.

 

I'm certainly not going to toss BoS in the dustbin, but my enthusiasm for playing at the current time is near zero.

 

I hope things change for the better, and soon.

 

Same here, I fire BOS up about once a week to just so I remember how to fly this sim or game. :unsure:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They need to dump the unlocks, reinstall the graphics adjustments, and adjust some of the difficulty settings slightly if possible. The DServer and ME are forthcoming according to the team and I have no reason to doubt them, so that is not really an issue to be concerned with IMO.. and they need to market future content correctly.

Yes, you are right! If they cannot do that...

Not matter it is game or sim or anything else, It will fail for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with that. It's a very pretty, hi fidelity game with lots of "hardcore" elements. PERFECT, I'm all in! I love just flying around in my F4 looking at the scenery and the cockpit, but that's starting to get old. What's the game plan? I've played the campaign, unlocked everything useful. I've played the veteran66 missions, which are beautifully crafted. Now what, what's the plan? I'm relatively satisfied with what I've gotten, but what do I do now?

 

Cloyd

Just because it is a GAME does not mean it is not a flight simulator..

 

Allot people 'feel' that to qualify as a flight simulator it has to be a flight training system.. Which is not the case at all

 

The air force is interested in training pilots how to fly certain types of aircraft, with more focus on the systems of the aircraft than flight.. But that flight trainer still contains 'flight simulation'

 

A GAME like BoS also contains some system training, but the focus is more on air combat.. and it too contains a 'flight simulation'

Edited by ACEOFACES
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think most of the people who purchased BOS want it to be a flight training sytem. They just want a stuff same as old IL2.  A kind of game or sim  that can let player focus on the combat , not a complicated cold start procedure.

No doubt, BOS does provide some parts. But BOS missed DS server, FULL ME. The worst part is the UNLOCK system.

The developers ever remove 4x time compress to force the player to play the boring single play campaign.

That crosses the red line...

 

 

Just because it is a GAME does not mean it is not a flight simulator..

 

Allot people 'feel' that to qualify as a flight simulator it has to be a flight training system.. Which is not the case at all

 

The air force is interested in training pilots how to fly certain types of aircraft, with more focus on the systems of the aircraft than flight.. But that flight trainer still contains 'flight simulation'

 

A GAME like BoS also contains some system training, but the focus is more on air combat.. and it too contains a 'flight simulation'

Edited by 4pg_inferno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think most of the people who purchased BOS want it to be a flight training sytem.

Agreed 100%

 

And I think it is safe too assume that it was NOT 1Cs goal to make a WWII flight training system.. In that sales would surly be limited and thus they would be out of business in no time.. Unless they are also working on a time machine?

 

They just want a stuff same as old IL2.  A kind of game or sim  that can let player focus on the combat , not a complicated cold start procedure. No doubt, BOS does provide some parts.

Agreed most.. but not all.. Truth is more complex starting procedure has been getting more and more complex over the years of PC flight simulations (games) based on user feedback.. But thank goodness 1C/777 was wise enough to make this an option, because truth be told, those who want a detailed start up sequence in a flight combat simulator game are in the minority of what is already a nitch gaming marker (read a few of the few).

 

But BOS missed DS server, FULL ME.

Sorry you lost me there, what is full me?

 

The worst part is the UNLOCK system.

Enhhh it does not bother me that much.. Nothing better than shooting someone down online who has all the unlocks with a plane that has none.. That and this 'is' the trend of gaming and 1C realizes that.

 

The developers ever remove 4x time compress to force the player to play the boring single play campaign.

That crosses the red line...

Enhhh, I have always been surprised how well the AI runs in games at 2x let alone 4x
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Lots of old sturm users are burned out.

 

But this sim needs 1946 Sturmovik users to be a success. This is the reason why BOS uses the "IL2 brand". Nevertheless using the "IL2" brand can be counterproductive if the sim does not fulfill the expectations given by the name.

 

Also I do not think that simmers can be cathegorized in their behaviour by the sim they fly. There are trolls for every sim and brilliant posters for every sim.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really understand what the question means. A sim is a game.

I am very sure that everybody says "I will play Battle of Stalingrad", and never said "I will simulate that I pilot an aircraft in Battle of Stalingrad". Unless you are some very serious guy, or are afflicted with Asperger's syndrome...


I think that BoS is a very good simulator, and by consequence, a good game.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Society lumps everything of this nature (i.e. games and sims) into one basket ..... GAMES. It's the individuals who play them that try to think of themselves as something other than a "gamer". Which in and of itself, is not, IMHO, a bad thing or a dirty word. I believe, myself, that most simulations try to go just a little farther than most games to reflect actual aircraft, ships, vehicles, etc. Does this mean that Battlefield 4 or such is less fun? Absolutely not.

 

In the end the perception is what WE, the players, want it to be. There is no real reason, and I've been guilty of this, to have any animosity towards something like War Thunder or such. As in reality these games bring in new members to simulations like ours here. WT or BF 4gives them a taste, and simulations give them a bigger dose of what they had. And short of actually flying, driving, or participating in real combat, this is good enough for most. 

 

Chief

Edited by -NW-ChiefRedCloud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this sim needs 1946 Sturmovik users to be a success. This is the reason why BOS uses the "IL2 brand". Nevertheless using the "IL2" brand can be counterproductive if the sim does not fulfill the expectations given by the name.

 

Also I do not think that simmers can be cathegorized in their behaviour by the sim they fly. There are trolls for every sim and brilliant posters for every sim.  

 

I agree...

 

I don't really understand what the question means. A sim is a game.

 

I am very sure that everybody says "I will play Battle of Stalingrad", and never said "I will simulate that I pilot an aircraft in Battle of Stalingrad". Unless you are some very serious guy, or are afflicted with Asperger's syndrome...

 

 

I think that BoS is a very good simulator, and by consequence, a good game.

 

yes..... at the end of the day it is a game.. but in practice it is something else.. or it should be. It doesn't have to be a study sim or have the detail of DCS... it just needs the fun quotient of IL2 with the scalability to appeal to a veteran IL2 simmer and a WT simmer who has gotten bored with it... and many will.. not all but many... and it needs to also appeal to the total noob, the guy who has never flown any "flying game" before. For the latter two it needs to have room for them to grow in the experience.. and that experience should have less to do with unlocks and gimmicks and more to do with features and ramping up the challenge level. Sims are a niche market because they are a challenge... everyone cannot do it and for a sim to do what apparently 1CGS is trying to do... open up the genre... which I totally understand... they need to have someplace for those new or graduating "simmers" to go to within the confines of BoS.

 

That is the key to success. When the 99th first got started in IL2 we used to fly with an open pit with icons... After a while we locked the pit.... with standard icons and then after a while we tightened up the icons to the point where just before we drifted apart our friendly icons would appear at .9 ... enemy icons at .8 ... with plane types appearing at .6 and .7 and names appearing at .7 and .6 respectively... and that evolved over time to that point... but because most of us and many people we flew with were older guys.. it worked for us. I never saw anything wrong with full switch.. no icons no nothing... it just was never fun for me because I could not always see .... I also preferred to have a minimap with my planes icon on it.... and some other stuff... but my point is that we had options.. That is why IL2 is still here.. because as old as it is and as long as it has been around a newb can jhop in and fly it like he wants to until and as his tastes/needs change. That is the key to long term success once the initial hurdle of making a good solid product, which 1CGS has done... is achieved..  Building in too many restrictions right off the bat.. especially ones that don't make any sense to the majority of those flying it.. is a recipie for failure.. and it may not happen right away but it will definitely shorten the lifespan of any sim. If it is too easy with nowhere to go folks will get bored and do something else..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BoS has the capability to become that next gen sim that everyone flies (not the "savior" of the genre as some have sarcastically stated, that cannot be achieved by any single sim since the tastes are too broad)  but they need to change some things very quickly, while the iron is hot and adjust the business model slightly. They need to dump the unlocks, reinstall the graphics adjustments, and adjust some of the difficulty settings slightly if possible. The DServer and ME are forthcoming according to the team and I have no reason to doubt them, so that is not really an issue to be concerned with IMO.. and they need to market future content correctly. I would buy new content depending on what it was outright if I knew that there would not be a sale for at least 6 months after it was released.. I wouldn't want to wait that long depending on what it was.. I think that $15-$20 a fighter is reasonable with bombers being $30-$40 initially.. and offer sales according to the sales figures and marketing strategy. It may never reach the level that IL2 did in 5 years as far as content is concerned ... maybe... but it certainly could reach the level of popularity as long as they made some small adjustments because it is a very enjoyable product that is immersive and could be more of everything good that it is if the team changed a few things. Being the only fully developer supported WWII sim on the market at the moment means something to fans of the genre and the only reason BoS is not more popular is because of choices made in implementation.. not design.

 

+1

 

1CGS needs to develop an optional traditional campaign path for SP players and simply cut the MP guys loose with all technology and skins to go do their thing.  Trying to force all gamers, MP'ers and SP'ers down the SP Campaign path is very restrictive and blocks access to BoS for many players.  I don't mind at all that the current "treasure hunt" style SP Campaign exists for those who like that style, but please don't try and force me to play it.  I'm sure the MP'ers would say the same thing.  1CGS has got to find a way to attract all playing styles to BoS in this already small niche.  Right now BoS is in a niche within a niche.

 

So I don't think they need to scrap the current SP Campaign, but rather set it aside as entirely optional in addition to more traditional playing styles.  If they don't think the current SP Campaign would be played if it were optional, then that in itself says volumes.  But I think gamers who like treasure hunts would always find it fun.  And if I never won the "Young Pilots Badge" but instead was wining historically accurate medals in a more traditional campaign I wouldn't mind at all.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed 100%

 

And I think it is safe too assume that it was NOT 1Cs goal to make a WWII flight training system.. In that sales would surly be limited and thus they would be out of business in no time.. Unless they are also working on a time machine?

 

Agreed most.. but not all.. Truth is more complex starting procedure has been getting more and more complex over the years of PC flight simulations (games) based on user feedback.. But thank goodness 1C/777 was wise enough to make this an option, because truth be told, those who want a detailed start up sequence in a flight combat simulator game are in the minority of what is already a nitch gaming marker (read a few of the few).

 

Sorry you lost me there, what is full me?

 

Enhhh it does not bother me that much.. Nothing better than shooting someone down online who has all the unlocks with a plane that has none.. That and this 'is' the trend of gaming and 1C realizes that.

 

Enhhh, I have always been surprised how well the AI runs in games at 2x let alone 4x

Well well well I guess we won't be arguing in here that HSFX is better than UP.

 

It ok there is no lobby in here you're good.

 

COOP's and a  FMB and you just might drag a few more of the old IL-2  crew in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We want it to be accurate, we want correct models and maps, but we want to have an enjoyable, fun experience, not a stressful, second job.

Unfortunately, that is the case with all games outhere.

 

There are armies of people who play 24/7 and many of us old farts are simply obsolete.

 

Not because we have some obligations in life and little time (or none at all in many instances) to play, but because if we had time now we surely wouldn't be spending it on sharpening my skills etc. Ok I'm a little advocating here, but I guess that goes for most of us.

 

Thing is, I only want fun at this point with games, and not a stress in a shape of another "job". I know what I'm talking about, I was there for several years. IL-2, World of Warcraft... Not any more.

 

Speaking of which... just when all games stopped being ones and turned into a 3rd shift that you need to work on?

 

Perhaps confronting humans online, predominant multiplayer orientations has something or everything to do with it?

 

 

COOP's and a  FMB and you just might drag a few more of the old IL-2  crew in here.

I wouldn't even consider classic ever-popular MP DeathMatch any more.

No sense at all, or rather, they differ one from another in difficulty settings.

 

About sensible content, well you can forget about that.

 

COOPs have exact mission goals and limited weapons, manpower & time to do it. Furthermore, and also just as important, one "gets" the immersion feeling of actually flying in squadron tasked with something. Perfect, unmatched by any other multiplayer mode, combination of these ingredients is what makes online COOP so good.

And is also quite fun.

 

That you will never ever get in classic quake dogfight server.

 

Not even if flying in best squadron outhere.

Edited by dkoor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...with plane types appearing at .6 and .7

 

 

Curious, why you guys need types on planes labels at this distance (close)?

 

At this distance types is recognizable visually easily.  ;)

 

Is like the label "plane" used on BoS, since dont are UFO's or Goat's flying around, what the purpose of this label?  :huh:

 

In the game are not implicit that things flying are planes?  :biggrin:

 

 

But BOS missed DS server, FULL ME.

Sorry you lost me there, what is full me?

 

ME = Mission Editor

 

In case RoF Mission Editor: 

 

 

BTW - Geduld

Edited by Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this sim needs 1946 Sturmovik users to be a success. This is the reason why BOS uses the "IL2 brand". Nevertheless using the "IL2" brand can be counterproductive if the sim does not fulfill the expectations given by the name.

 

Also I do not think that simmers can be cathegorized in their behaviour by the sim they fly. There are trolls for every sim and brilliant posters for every sim.  

If you are burned out cfs veteran pilot,you need a change.Change of mindset or change of activities.If you dont,another cfs will only make it worse.That's what happens with many forum members here.They took their old sturm mindset with them to BoS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are burned out cfs veteran pilot,you need a change.Change of mindset or change of activities.If you dont,another cfs will only make it worse.That's what happens with many forum members here.They took their old sturm mindset with them to BoS.

 

My humble opinion is that IL2 simmers only need a successor to IL2, they are not burned with sims. Many are simply tired flying with old graphics.

 

I agree on the fact that many took their 1946 mindset with BOS, but that is what they were expecting to do...how could they think differently with a sim called "IL2" ? Also, none can expect people change their taste so simply. They have been educated with years of IL2 flying...that's their education. 

If 1946 simmers had a sim like ROF in their tastes, they would have already started playing ROF in masses. This hasn't happened. Some had, but the most hadn't. Putting a coat of WWII planes above ROF body is not enough to satisfy their tastes.

BOS is still in time to choose going towards IL2simmers or leaving them behind and take another road.

 

I agree that a good part of the bad atmosphere in the forums is due to a contrast with old mindset, but this is understandable. An analogy with what is happening in the world is a paradox but can be not totally of topic. Old IL2 simmers have almost no choice going elsewhere to continue living with their education (CLOD is without support, 1946 is ageing and without commercial support, DCS is another "religion"), they come here hoping to find the promised land and they feel like another education is imposed to them. Thinking of what happens in the world with different educations mixing each other and some trying to impose over the others, we have the answer why people become angry and untolerant.

 

Angryness and untolerance is not the correct reaction of course (it is a game........here we should all agree) but finds an explanation.

 

From a commercial point of view and in marketing terms it's not the best terrain to hope success fot this sim........

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, that is the case with all games outhere.

 

There are armies of people who play 24/7 and many of us old farts are simply obsolete.

 

Not because we have some obligations in life and little time (or none at all in many instances) to play, but because if we had time now we surely wouldn't be spending it on sharpening my skills etc. Ok I'm a little advocating here, but I guess that goes for most of us.

 

Thing is, I only want fun at this point with games, and not a stress in a shape of another "job". I know what I'm talking about, I was there for several years. IL-2, World of Warcraft... Not any more.

 

Speaking of which... just when all games stopped being ones and turned into a 3rd shift that you need to work on?

 

Perhaps confronting humans online, predominant multiplayer orientations has something or everything to do with it?

Sure, some of us like the competitive gameplay, some not, others already were competitive and are tired with it.

BoS online should provide ground for all those parties, so one can find the exact type of cfs gameplay he wants and more important - like minded people.

 

Some folks want to have just fun while some take great pleasure in overcoming big and small obstacles, even when it gets really hard at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious, why you guys need types on planes labels at this distance (close)?

 

At this distance types is recognizable visually easily.  ;)

 

Is like the label "plane" used on BoS, since dont are UFO's or Goat's flying around, what the purpose of this label?  :huh:

 

In the game are not implicit that things flying are planes?  :biggrin:

 

 

ME = Mission Editor

 

In case RoF Mission Editor: 

 

 

 

BTW - Geduld

 

 

You are right sokol I may have gotten that twisted... the plane type showed up before the name... but that was done because some guys did not have great rigs and had to use lower settings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

 

1CGS needs to develop an optional traditional campaign path for SP players and simply cut the MP guys loose with all technology and skins to go do their thing.  Trying to force all gamers, MP'ers and SP'ers down the SP Campaign path is very restrictive and blocks access to BoS for many players.  I don't mind at all that the current "treasure hunt" style SP Campaign exists for those who like that style, but please don't try and force me to play it.  I'm sure the MP'ers would say the same thing.  1CGS has got to find a way to attract all playing styles to BoS in this already small niche.  Right now BoS is in a niche within a niche.

 

So I don't think they need to scrap the current SP Campaign, but rather set it aside as entirely optional in addition to more traditional playing styles.  If they don't think the current SP Campaign would be played if it were optional, then that in itself says volumes.  But I think gamers who like treasure hunts would always find it fun.  And if I never won the "Young Pilots Badge" but instead was wining historically accurate medals in a more traditional campaign I wouldn't mind at all.

 

This, a thousand times. Be it ever so easy or ever so difficult, this is simply and precisely what BoS really needs, sooner the better.

 

The current SP campaign and the unlocks are presumably a carefully-considered (and on the face of it, a skillfully and neatly implemented, for the most part) effort to construct a different approach to the SP campaign in particular. The devs/publishers rather than conventional simmers will determine whether this has been a commercial success as well as a technical one. BUT...from the standpoint of the majority or 'traditional' simmers, this approach was always very unlikely to be popular and on all the evidence, seems to have flopped fairly predicatably. We have either been driven away or learnet to put up with it; but like it, no.

 

So either this reaction doesn't much matter because the revised (post DD-21) Grand Design is still fine, as far as 1cGS is concerned.

 

Or...it matters enough that they keep the Grand Design and 'just' add the option Bucksnort has so concisely described. A clear 'win-win' unless the cost-benefit equation doesn't now stack up, in which case we're stuck with what we have plus some gradual, relatively trivial extras like the '52 and the best that can be provided via the 'FME', which may -  or may not - be able to provide something comparable to the SP campaign option Bucksnort has set out.

Edited by 33lima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but is this a rational and intelligent discussion of the sim/game we all play?  You are all in danger of being banned from the interwebs!  No tubes for you!!

 

To add to the discussion and risk my own banning:  I think the FMB when it gets here will have something like coop capabilities.  TBH, I missed the original IL2 craze but got back into flight sims with RoF.  From what I understand of IL2 coops we have the capability in RoF.  As an example, before BoS  My squadron would occasionally use the second server as a training server.  We would password protect the entry into the server and all fly against the AI and work on different aspects of the sim, like formation flying and being wingmen and such.  I'm pretty sure we could load up any mission and fly a bombing mission or arty spotting mission together against the AI.  Take a quick look at our weekday missions in RoF, Wouldn't it be very easy to do that fully coop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but is this a rational and intelligent discussion of the sim/game we all play?  You are all in danger of being banned from the interwebs!  No tubes for you!!

 

To add to the discussion and risk my own banning:  I think the FMB when it gets here will have something like coop capabilities.  TBH, I missed the original IL2 craze but got back into flight sims with RoF. 

 

IF the developers are indeed putting more into the Mission Editor, it would be nice if they shared some details and stop a lot of the speculations. However Jason has said repeatedly that the Mission Editor will be the same as in ROF, and they are just tweaking it to get the remainder of the ROF stuff out and make it all BOS ( at least that is the impression that was left). And in fact Zak stated currently the ME does not even have the capability to string missions into a campaign format, only single missions.

Hopefully they at the least are getting that feature added into the BOS Mission Editor. And if they went further and made it more user friendly, that would be a big plus for sure.

 

Right now the only ones that truly know, ain't talking.

Edited by dburne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

the Mission Editor will be the same as in ROF

 

And this is another discussable choice. If they could insert an interface similar to IL2 would be a lot better for the future of the game.....Il2 mission builders had fun building missions.....mission building was a game in the game....and that was another secret of IL2 success.

ROF mission builder can be good as a starting point (any FMB is better than no FMB), but not as a target. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in another thread Jason and Zak have let out some info both good and bad about the FMB.  The bad news is that their FMB guy (remember, this is a very small company) got very sick for a very long time, to the point where they had to hire and train a replacement.  Jason says they are stripping out all of the RoF specific stuff, streamlining the process and putting in all of the BoS specific stuff.  Zak said that they are putting in some new features as well. 

 

Again, I missed the original IL2 but from what I have read, the fmb had some problems of its own.  I have also been told by people who have used both that the RoF FMB is in many ways more robust than the IL2 fmb ever thought of being.  We're getting there, slowly but surely we are getting there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in another thread Jason and Zak have let out some info both good and bad about the FMB.  The bad news is that their FMB guy (remember, this is a very small company) got very sick for a very long time, to the point where they had to hire and train a replacement.  Jason says they are stripping out all of the RoF specific stuff, streamlining the process and putting in all of the BoS specific stuff.  Zak said that they are putting in some new features as well. 

 

Again, I missed the original IL2 but from what I have read, the fmb had some problems of its own.  I have also been told by people who have used both that the RoF FMB is in many ways more robust than the IL2 fmb ever thought of being.  We're getting there, slowly but surely we are getting there.

 

ROF MB has more features. The attempt should be to add good things from one to the other. This game should go beyond both sims not behind one or the other.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as most of us would like to see thru dserver and ME completed, I think most of us would rather it be done properly and be comprehensive and complete. For this, though I may be by myself, I'm willing to wait. Hopefully not too long, of course.

 

Chief

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but is this a rational and intelligent discussion of the sim/game we all play?  You are all in danger of being banned from the interwebs!  No tubes for you!!

I apologize for initiating a rational, intelligent discussion. It was certainly not my intention, and I promise that it will never happen again. ;)

 

Cloyd

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Again, I missed the original IL2 but from what I have read, the fmb had some problems of its own.  I have also been told by people who have used both that the RoF FMB is in many ways more robust than the IL2 fmb ever thought of being.  We're getting there, slowly but surely we are getting there.

 

I can tell you missed the original IL2 because if anyone said the RoF ME is more robust than the IL2 FMB, you would have laughed in their face.

 

I sure hope one the features added in the BoS ME is the ability to make a campaign not just missions as it is right now. Oh, and hope it does not choke on large scale air battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used both. Honestly I am more skilled with IL2 FMB. I can say that I would like to have some features of ROF FMB in the IL2 FMB but, from the point of view of the "fun" during mission building IL2 FMB is great. The 3D interface is more a creativity tool than a tech aid for the game. This is one of the reason why there's so much productivity around IL2, because many had fun building missions.

A look at the some works at mission4today (Ojisab Bart missions are some of the best) is enough to understand that FMB attracted real artists and not just technicians or simmers, people who were rewarded for the simple fact of creating a nicely looking and immersive environment. Like painters or movie directors. 

Edited by FS_Fenice_1965

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most def - the FMB was like a Playground. Grab an object, place it. move around it (camera) and drag and drop, rotate as needed- with few buttons to know, and little no programming/scripting needed to set up massive scenarios.

With BoS, its probably not gonna be massive (plane numbers in the sky, large formations of heinkels) which is bad already.

but if the small setups that are possible are a headache to produce, then who the hell would want to build missions at all?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I understand of IL2 coops we have the capability in RoF

 

The "COOP" of il-2 is plastered* to a point to began dumb, but is very simple and easy to start, what explain his success.

 

 

 

Again, I missed the original IL2 but from what I have read, the fmb had some problems of its own.

 

 

For most users dont have problem, maybe for advanced mission/campaign creators due the limitations - e.g no triggers.

 

The secret of il-2'46 FMB and COOP is the easiness use of the two.

You can create some training mission in FMB in 5 minutes, invite some friends and play.

 

* Mandatory simultaneous spawn, no re-fly, no join after mission start, need restart if someone mess the things (usual occurrence).

 

Requests for changes in il-2'46 COOP lead to disastrous CloD "No-COOP" with the damn "take any plane at any moment" that ended used as exploit in MP  - Unfair players under just fire "take another plane.

 

In this topic you notice that some people are referring to RoF/BoS ME (Mission Editor) as "FMB"  - "que es lo mismo, pero no igual":biggrin: 

Edited by Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but is this a rational and intelligent discussion of the sim/game we all play?  You are all in danger of being banned from the interwebs!  No tubes for you!!

 

To add to the discussion and risk my own banning:  I think the FMB when it gets here will have something like coop capabilities.  TBH, I missed the original IL2 craze but got back into flight sims with RoF.  From what I understand of IL2 coops we have the capability in RoF.  As an example, before BoS  My squadron would occasionally use the second server as a training server.  We would password protect the entry into the server and all fly against the AI and work on different aspects of the sim, like formation flying and being wingmen and such.  I'm pretty sure we could load up any mission and fly a bombing mission or arty spotting mission together against the AI.  Take a quick look at our weekday missions in RoF, Wouldn't it be very easy to do that fully coop?

 

 

IF the developers are indeed putting more into the Mission Editor, it would be nice if they shared some details and stop a lot of the speculations. However Jason has said repeatedly that the Mission Editor will be the same as in ROF, and they are just tweaking it to get the remainder of the ROF stuff out and make it all BOS ( at least that is the impression that was left). And in fact Zak stated currently the ME does not even have the capability to string missions into a campaign format, only single missions.

Hopefully they at the least are getting that feature added into the BOS Mission Editor. And if they went further and made it more user friendly, that would be a big plus for sure.

 

Right now the only ones that truly know, ain't talking.

 

... and that is fine... They do not have an obligation to tell us their every move.

 

Look certain members of this community (meaning the flight sdim community .. not necessarily just the BoS community) have placed the devs in a position where they are damned if they do.. damned if they don't.. damned if they talk about it and damned if they say nothing .. Just about every development over here is instantaneously relayed and scruntinized to the Nth degree, usually with a heaping dose of CC&C (condemnation, criticism and contempt)  on other sites that have nothing but negativity for this forum, this team and this product... so it should come as no great surprise that the devs keep things a bit close to the vest at times... unless they have something specific to say.

 

Well in another thread Jason and Zak have let out some info both good and bad about the FMB.  The bad news is that their FMB guy (remember, this is a very small company) got very sick for a very long time, to the point where they had to hire and train a replacement.  Jason says they are stripping out all of the RoF specific stuff, streamlining the process and putting in all of the BoS specific stuff.  Zak said that they are putting in some new features as well. 

 

Again, I missed the original IL2 but from what I have read, the fmb had some problems of its own.  I have also been told by people who have used both that the RoF FMB is in many ways more robust than the IL2 fmb ever thought of being.  We're getting there, slowly but surely we are getting there.

 

The IL2 FMB was not perfect but it was very user friendly. Things like the   U  ber Q  uickMissi onGenera  tor and Mission Mate were nice hybrids of the QMB and the FMB.. Hopefully someone in the community with the skills will be able to create something along those lines for BoS like Pat Wilson's thingamabob...

 

ROF MB has more features. The attempt should be to add good things from one to the other. This game should go beyond both sims not behind one or the other.   

 

Exactly... The RoF MB is more robust but it's lack of user friendliness (from what I have been told)  makes it more cumbersome to use.. and like Simon said.. that translates into less fun to use. Fun is the operative word that should be tacked over every doorpost, and every PC at 1CGS because if BoS can effectively translate into fun or a reasonable facsimile it's success will be all but guaranteed.. I think they are working on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree BC ( regarding the damned if you do and damned if you don't).   I think if they had any plans to do some of the things the community is basically crying out for, ie a true FMB that is more user friendly than ROF, rather than just a single mission generator - consideration of doing something with the unlock system, whether that be tweaking the current system or tweaking any future developments, or just getting rid of them for MP,  consideration of doing away with the graphics presets - any of these that are generating the most grief- sharing any of that with the community would go a long way in generating some hope and excitement that is currently missing from much of the IL-2 base that initially came on board early  to support this sim.

 

I believe it would be met with very  positive feedback ( for the most part) and would help settle things down a lot. Heck just look at the last DD that got locked and now shuffled away, Zak asked for  some community feedback in that diary on some items. It turned into more aggravation being displayed over this crazy unlock system, and Zak not getting any of that feedback he actually requested... to me that kind of says it all.

I certainly do not believe it would be met with any large criticisms from the community.

 

Now of course, if they have no plans to make any adjustments along the lines with what has been met with the most grief from the fan base, then obviously there would be nothing to share.

Edited by dburne

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

×
×
  • Create New...