voncrapenhauser Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 So if it was put up to a vote, I'd say NO. If it happens, then it happens. But I wont knowingly fly with anyone using it. I'm with you there Chief on its use, But I would vote yes for those who want this view and prevents them from buying into this wonderful game we have here. More people buy= more money for development IMO. But as you,I would not want to use wonder woman view if it was implemented anyway, and spoil the immersion factor..... no way.
voncrapenhauser Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I will never, ever use the Wonder Woman View, but if it's not a big deal creating it (which would also involve removing the external aircraft model and propeller disk from internal view) I don't mind having it as an option. +1
voncrapenhauser Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) 1) In real life you have your 5 senses and a movable head to develope your Situational Awareness. So you cannot say that having No Cockpit view is out of order in a sim environment - when all you have is pixels on a screen to develop your SA. +1 With all due respect to your choice, you know the 'old' IL-2 wasn't any more single player friendly than BoS was in the beginning. Oh yeah I remember those good old days ......old Days too. The I16 engine negative G cut out was fixed so it could at least recover when Gravity restored. First time I flew the I16 you just couldn't restart the dam thing again. also it would help with low end computers like mine, cockpit on severly hits framerate True I suppose. Edited February 19, 2015 by voncrapenhauser
71st_AH_Hooves Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Im all for a WW view. In MP as a server side option you can control its use, if you want it in SP you should be able to use it. Win win. Why is this all of a sudden a topic of discussion? Oh yeah the devs seem to have a love for doing away with already proven fun features. Add it to the list. Edited February 19, 2015 by Hooves_McG 2
voncrapenhauser Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) You calling the Dev's The Fun Police?........LOL. I'm with you on this even though I wouldn't use ww view personally. Im all for a WW view. In MP as a server side option you can control its use, if you want it in SP you should be able to use it. Win win. Why is this all of a sudden a topic of discussion? Oh yeah the devs seem to have a love for doing away with already proven fun features. Add it to the list. Edited February 19, 2015 by voncrapenhauser
SharpeXB Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Zak: "Won't be in the game at least at release." http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7060-old-il2-view-do-we-have-it/?hl=%2Bwonder+%2Bwoman&do=findComment&comment=126722
LeonMadDog Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Planes without bombsight require different bombing technics than usual bomber. Primarily divebombing is your way to go. You practise it by diving down on your target and keeping it in your usual gunsight as long as possible, than release your bomb just before pulling out. The steeper you dive and the lower you pull out the more accurate your drop will be. Thats why dive bombers like the Stuka enjoyed relatively high bombing precision against small and moving targets which couldnt be attacked effectively with conventional horizontal bombers. Thanks for your comments. I'll give it a try. I have been level bombing a lot. And when dive bombing I have not been using the sight ring (cross hairs) but rather using another technique in No Cockpit View. In level flight - at a predetirmined altitude and speed - as soon as the target reaches a certain 'zone' - I hold the target in that 'zone' - -( so it is like I begin to go 'over the falls' ) - - and try to keep speed constant by easing off the throttle -- keeping an eye on the altitude - - because I've got to hit the pickle button as I pass through a certain predetirmined altitude. The term cheating gets bandied about way too much IMO. How is that cheating if it is a server setable option that everyone can choose to use or not use? Yes I have to agree with you. I have no qualified opinions about multiplayer.
wtornado Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 I personally do not use open cockpit and never did but if it gets the TONS and I mean TONS of players that flew in the I-L-2 Fun 4 all server players to buy the game so I get my FMB faster then I am all for it, Anyone that truely played IL-2 for over 10 years knows damn well that open cockpit and all the planes available was by far the most popular servers online in the Hyperlobby. I know for a fact it angered the hardcore players to see it work on such a large scale and to see their servers empty and the free for all OC and all planes available servers bursting with players I did not fly on the open cockpit servers. We do need more sales and servers to go up. We need that option as on/off. People loved it. 1
SharpeXB Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Anyone that truely played IL-2 for over 10 years knows damn well that open cockpit and all the planes available was by far the most popular servers online in the Hyperlobby. I dare say that fact represents a problem considering how much work goes into creating 3D cockpits these days. All that work going to waste if most of the players have it switched off. 1
Finkeren Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) Anyone that truely played IL-2 for over 10 years knows damn well that open cockpit and all the planes available was by far the most popular servers online in the Hyperlobby. This actually angers me more than the Wonder Woman-View. Back in the old Hyperlobby days I deliberately avoided servers with full or a-historical plane sets. It baffles me, that people will fly a historic sim, yet go out of their way to create completely a-historical matchups. The result is simply, that everyone flies the same handful of late war planes (or never-existing post war UFOs) and 90% of the planes in the hangar never get used at all. Just to be clear: I don't mind servers having some planes 'stranding in' for others that are still missing from the sim. When BoM is released we'll likely see the Yak-1, Ju 87 and LaGG-3 from BoS used in place of their earlier incarnations on Moscow servers. I have no problem with this. But the plane roster of IL-2 1946 grew to such an impressive size, that there was hardly any need for stand-in planes anymore (except for Battle of Britain scenarios) so there was really no excuse. Edited February 22, 2015 by Finkeren
-NW-ChiefRedCloud Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 I stand by my original thoughts on Wonder Woman new. As for more the merrier view point, aka more people playing BoS, isn't this sort of like taking the front door off your house so anyone can come in because you like (assumed) people? As far as plane sets goes, I'm all for more planes being available, however, I earnestly believe in as close as possible historical sets. Now with this said if any of you have flown our New Wings Rise of Flight servers you'll know we include the two "free" aircraft where we can for beginners even if it isn't historical. Also we have ALL aircraft available in our Basic Training servers. But not in the others. I do not relish a sunny Brooke of 109 vs 109 or any other combos. Chief
grumpydog Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 As for more the merrier view point, aka more people playing BoS, isn't this sort of like taking the front door off your house so anyone can come in because you like (assumed) people? I think it's more like charging people to come to your party, whether you like them or not. If they're paying, you don't have to like them. The more people that pay, the more money available to cater to individual tastes. If you want your party to be exclusive and keep out the riff-raff, you'd better have enough customers to make it worth while. Honestly, I don't mean to argue, but if there aren't enough paying customers there won't BE an IL-2 series anymore. Then again, I don't know how many licenses have been sold, and maybe the devs are very happy with the sales. The only reason I'm responding is because I wanted to buy BoS when I first heard about it, but after learning more about the SP side of it I decided not to, and I'm sure there are a lot more like me. Then again, if they want to take off the door and let me in for free, I'll keep my mouth shut.
voncrapenhauser Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) I would like to say what right do we have to say who's in and who's out what's in and what's out. Its not an exclusive club, is it? I'm with Groucho Marx on this one. Sheeesh! Edited February 23, 2015 by voncrapenhauser
SCG_Neun Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Give us an ability to record guncam type footage for replays....and I'd be a happy camper. Anything that helps tie this "game" into the real life history that inspired it...has got to be a plus for marketing. I mean...what's cooler than guncam footage from a cyber aircraft you flew? 1
voncrapenhauser Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) The only reason I'm responding is because I wanted to buy BoS when I first heard about it, but after learning more about the SP side of it I decided not to, and I'm sure there are a lot more like me. I agree I want a SP experience like that of IL2 1946. I just got into MP in the past month or so because I have finished the campaign, unlocked everything. MP is'nt the vipers nest you expect from most online games, I was pleasantly surprised. However if MP is not you're thing then the campaign as it stands at the moment couldn't be recommended by me. However with an update imminent I am hoping things could change,(watch this space) Give us an ability to record guncam type footage for replays....and I'd be a happy camper. Anything that helps tie this "game" into the real life history that inspired it...has got to be a plus for marketing. I mean...what's cooler than guncam footage from a cyber aircraft you flew? +1 You see, more options that are choices IMO will bring more to the table in the long run. Edited February 23, 2015 by voncrapenhauser
-NW-ChiefRedCloud Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 I would like to say what right do we have to say who's in and who's out what's in and what's out. Its not an exclusive club, is it? I'm with Groucho Marx on this one. Sheeesh! Not sure where your answer lies so I may answer incorrectly .... but .... If in the fact the Dev's will do what they want and we have no say, your correct. They have to make judgment calls on what "they" think is best for the project. WE (I) sometimes think of Flight simulations as a rather exclusive club only in that anyone getting anything out of it, really, has to make an investment of time and money to do it (right). But NO, we are not and do not discriminate against anyone joining in the fun. Drop your money and have at it. The trick is to be able to recognize a dedicated Military Simulation from such as Battlefield 4. Too often I read things like "It's nothing like I thought it would be. I want my money back" type comments. What we buy is on us even if occasionally we get mislead. The burden of any purchase is on the "buyer" to do their research as best as they can. So the next time you hear complaints from those that just got their own planes shot up by a random crew member or such, just remember, some immature person has bit off more than they can handle in a program that is clearly NOT an arcade game and has chosen to have some fun to break up their boredom. And that fun is shooting up his/your own plane. But by all means, as cynical as my views can be, open the door and let anyone in. Just drop your money in the little slot. Chief
Recommended Posts