61 People Online on a Saturday.

[Dakpilot]

Things are getting confused when IL-2 1946 is being lauded for its better use of multi core processors compared to BoS....unless people are just getting confused and forgetting that it is simply just less detailed and uses scrips for AI instead of FM's what is meant by scaling?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[LizLemon]

So you say that AAA title like ARMA3 and CloD (dead game) and BoS doesnt have "scalable" game engine.So which game has? Is it standard in game industry? Cause it looks to me like dreaming from your side.Yes,man can have a dream.But the dream is not an argument.It is just a dream.

Plenty of modern engines are well threaded across multiple cores.

[[KWN]T-oddball]

Things are getting confused when IL-2 1946 is being lauded for its better use of multi core processors compared to BoS....unless people are just getting confused and forgetting that it is simply just less detailed and uses scrips for AI instead of FM's what is meant by scaling?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

How well your program is actually able to take advantage of these cores is called the parallel scalability.

 

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-189-multicore-programming-primer-january-iap-2007/lecture-notes-and-video/l5-parallel-programming-concepts/

Edited April 20, 2015 by T-oddball

[[BTEAM]_Shifty_]

 

 

Yeah, it was awesome! I find that the Wings of Liberty is one of the full real servers that gets a lot more players than the others, I dont know why, maybe its something on the mission design that attract more players ? I always find people doing the objetives with bombers, which is nice. 

 

Definitely the missions that have no major glitches.

Ded no gps used to be very popular as they launched new maps, now its very empty.

AIRWAR kupikolesa tries new mechanics but so far ends up with VERY long ampa loading time and fps drops in combat zone.

[Brano]

Plenty of modern engines are well threaded across multiple cores.

From my own experience RoF with older iteration of DN engine can run well on two core CPU and 4 core as well and ofcourse better.I dont know about 6 core CPU as I do not have such.So it is scalable for me.Also games during development are optimised for actual technology available,not for "what could be available".If you were developer and tried all the time to catch up with newest trends in HW,you would never release a single game title.

[DeafBee]

My Squadron and me have been playing much on the Wings Of Liberty where most people have been active. We like to practice navigating, but we like that we always can see our plane on the map. My guess is, thats one of reasons Wings Of Liberty is so popular. Another great thing with Wings Of Liberty is that the server tells you exactly what you have destroyed, making bomb missions much more interesting.  

 

I have only maybe an hour for playing each day, having wife and children, and  I simply don't have time to get lost on the map. Recently we played on the Eagles Nest server and that server is in my opinion the best objective server right now. But unfortunately it is almost empty most of the time. 

Edited April 22, 2015 by 19te.Deafbee

[BlitzPig_EL]

61 people, wow and you complain you should have seen saturdays with european air war an 12 people online

 

raaaid, that was the total number of people on line in ALL the servers that were active that evening.

 

It would seem that us online players are now the red headed step children of this series, as it is plain that devs have no care or idea to make online play viable for those of us that like it.

 

Simply hoping that user made content will fix it is not a business plan.

[DeafBee]

Just for the record I do like navigating which to me is a big part of the experience of this great sim. But most of the time I don't have the time for it and I still want to play on the objective servers. My guess is that a lot of players have the same issues with the multiplayer servers. 

[Feathered_IV]

It would seem that us online players are now the red headed step children of this series

 

Actually, the onliners have a much better deal at the moment than the offline players. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Which does not make it great though. Its very depressing to see where the ressources are flowing into but as customers we have no voice, just money.

 

And for me the deal with BoM still relies on crutial changes such as graphic settings, bigger MP, reworked campaing ect.

 

I have 10 planes already amd fly them rarely, another 10 alone wont do me any good.

[3instein]

Which does not make it great though. Its very depressing to see where the ressources are flowing into but as customers we have no voice, just money.

 

And for me the deal with BoM still relies on crutial changes such as graphic settings, bigger MP, reworked campaing ect.

 

I have 10 planes already amd fly them rarely, another 10 alone wont do me any good.

Yep, I'm with you on that 5tuka,

 

Not particularly bothered about the graphic settings, although as PC gamers I think we know how to tweak out settings and should be allowed to.

 

I would get BoM no problem but for the SP campaign content, as it is meant to be the same set-up as now in BoS.

 

It is pretty obvious that MP is lacking something going by the numbers, so it seems to me if you release a similar product without some major re-design features nothing much will change, if anything.

 

I suppose the summer maps and other seasons will inject some new found enthusiasm, but for how long?

 

It is nice to see some new SP missions coming out and in time I think there will be plenty to choose from but honestly if there was a way to link a pilot to a squadron and take care of him through the battles, even the campaign we have now would be a whole lot better, even if we could track a pilot over single missions strung together would be cool.

 

Hopefully something like this will eventually come, but for now I'm really looking forward to the summer colours.

 

Mick.

[FuriousMeow]

It's funny, because in the beginning of Il-2, there was no one because it's MP was limited to nothing unless you knew how to use Kali. Eventually Hyperlobby came around, and games were still limited to 16. Eventually the dedicated server came out, 3 years later, that still relied on Hyperlobby. There were more people in the lobby than there were in games, which is the way everyone remembers it. So busy in the lobby doing nothing, or just afk, and everyone remembers the hundreds, or thousands, of players in Hyperlobby but forget it was a fraction of that actually in the servers.

 

Maybe if everyone stopped complaining about how this isn't Il-2:1946 - WHICH IS 8 YEARS OF DEVLEOPMENT - and play this like it was Il-2 (the very first release), and treat it like that, then maybe they wouldn't be all doodie pants. Especially since this is far better than the entire Il-2:46 series in terms of FM - STILL NO HIGH ALTITUDE FM CAPABILITY IN 46! - and then maybe it would reach the realization that they have a smaller team than the Il-2 team and they only just started. Also, the whole "DLC" crap - when was Il-2:FB released? Just as they fixed the FM failure that you had to hold the stick back after what should have been take off speed for the slowest plane in  the game. Before they fixed the torque issue that all planes had the exact same torque properties (same direction, same speed, same everything), that there was no prop drag (had to pull high Gs in circles with no throttle to be able to land), the ground handling that is non-existant, and etc. The "sim of the century" had so many incompletes/failures/garbage to it, but everyone uses it as the measuring stick. Aces High should be used way before the old Il-2 series. There were so many, many, many problems and issues through its life that it amazes me that everyone white washes it because, apparently, it was their first and only WWII flight sim. Seriously, it was fun but it is not what so many hold it to - especially compared to this sim.

Edited April 23, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

It's funny, because in the beginning of Il-2, there was no one because it's MP was limited to nothing unless you knew how to use Kali. Eventually Hyperlobby came around, and games were still limited to 16. Eventually the dedicated server came out, 3 years later, that still relied on Hyperlobby. There were more people in the lobby than there were in games, which is the way everyone remembers it. So busy in the lobby doing nothing, or just afk, and everyone remembers the hundreds, or thousands, of players in Hyperlobby but forget it was a fraction of that actually in the servers.

 

Maybe if everyone stopped complaining about how this isn't Il-2:1946 - WHICH IS 8 YEARS OF DEVLEOPMENT - and play this like it was Il-2 (the very first release), and treat it like that, then maybe they wouldn't be all doodie pants. Especially since this is far better than the entire Il-2:46 series in terms of FM - STILL NO HIGH ALTITUDE FM CAPABILITY IN 46! - and then maybe it would reach the realization that they have a smaller team than the Il-2 team and they only just started. Also, the whole "DLC" crap - when was Il-2:FB released? Just as they fixed the FM failure that you had to hold the stick back after what should have been take off speed for the slowest plane in the game. Before they fixed the torque issue that all planes had the exact same torque properties (same direction, same speed, same everything), that there was no prop drag (had to pull high Gs in circles with no throttle to be able to land), the ground handling that is non-existant, and etc. The "sim of the century" had so many incompletes/failures/garbage to it, but everyone uses it as the measuring stick. Aces High should be used way before the old Il-2 series. There were so many, many, many problems and issues through its life that it amazes me that everyone white washes it because, apparently, it was their first and only WWII flight sim. Seriously, it was fun but it is not what so many hold it to - especially compared to this sim.

This is reasoning that i can follow.

[AvengerSeawolf]

And maybe if people  understand how better the flight modeling is and  all the graphics and the immersion of the game  willl also concentrate and appreciatte what they got and what really the BoS is, one of the finest WWII flight sims.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

It's funny, because in the beginning of Il-2, there was no one because it's MP was limited to nothing unless you knew how to use Kali. Eventually Hyperlobby came around, and games were still limited to 16. Eventually the dedicated server came out, 3 years later, that still relied on Hyperlobby. There were more people in the lobby than there were in games, which is the way everyone remembers it. So busy in the lobby doing nothing, or just afk, and everyone remembers the hundreds, or thousands, of players in Hyperlobby but forget it was a fraction of that actually in the servers.

 

Maybe if everyone stopped complaining about how this isn't Il-2:1946 - WHICH IS 8 YEARS OF DEVLEOPMENT - and play this like it was Il-2 (the very first release), and treat it like that, then maybe they wouldn't be all doodie pants. Especially since this is far better than the entire Il-2:46 series in terms of FM - STILL NO HIGH ALTITUDE FM CAPABILITY IN 46! - and then maybe it would reach the realization that they have a smaller team than the Il-2 team and they only just started. Also, the whole "DLC" crap - when was Il-2:FB released? Just as they fixed the FM failure that you had to hold the stick back after what should have been take off speed for the slowest plane in  the game. Before they fixed the torque issue that all planes had the exact same torque properties (same direction, same speed, same everything), that there was no prop drag (had to pull high Gs in circles with no throttle to be able to land), the ground handling that is non-existant, and etc. The "sim of the century" had so many incompletes/failures/garbage to it, but everyone uses it as the measuring stick. Aces High should be used way before the old Il-2 series. There were so many, many, many problems and issues through its life that it amazes me that everyone white washes it because, apparently, it was their first and only WWII flight sim. Seriously, it was fun but it is not what so many hold it to - especially compared to this sim.

 

Well said

[FS_Fenice_1965]

I agree on the fact that it is important to give time to BOS and that IL2 had 8 years development.

Anyway I humbly think that it's not wrong to expect that a new sim starts from the positions reached from the previous generation sim, instead of starting from some steps behind in many sectors.

This is in the nature of progress. If a sim (I'm not referring directly to BOS but talking in general) has to cut in 90% areas to improve in 10% areas........I do not think it can be considered totally a progress.

Many of the disappointments of the simmers are due to the fact that the failure of CLOD has broken the natural line of evolvement of the IL2 series. The new sims instead of starting from the results achieved with IL2, have started from some steps back in some areas. Achievements have been lost during the evolvement progress.

The community understands immediatly that a new sim has less theaters than the previous one, but not (I'm making just an example) as easily the fact that a new sim cannot hold the same number of players than the previous one, or the fact that the scenarios cannot hold similar number of objects. It's easy to improve on same areas moving resources to other areas and draining the first ones, but I do not think that this can be considered totally an evolution, if the drained areas were good.

Also some of the disappointment comes from areas not directly linked with development of the sim, but with design decisions (I'm thinking of coops).

We have also to consider that IL2 hadn't any background before, while BOS and expecialy CLOD aren't totally new products. BOS is basically ROF reworked and CLOD had the huge background of IL2.

It is normal that community expects more from a sim with a background rather than from a sim that has no background, expecially if the new sim holds the flag (IL2) of the previous one.

People expect achievements to be retained and they should be retained as much as possible, otherwise we should avoid to complain if BOS had the same features of FS1, because 30 years have been needed to arrive at IL2 levels starting from there.

Finally the comparison between BOS and IL2 is not made to say which one is better, but to indivduate areas of improvement for BOS given the experiences of the past.

Edited April 23, 2015 by FS_Fenice_1965

[BlitzPig_EL]

Finally the comparison between BOS and IL2 is not made to say which one is better, but to indivduate areas of improvement for BOS given the experiences of the past.

 

Exactly.

 

I would also say from a personal standpoint, that IL2 in it's early days was fun right out of the gate.  I never had problems finding a fully populated server, or servers, unlike BoS where there is usually only one server with anyone in it in numbers.  And sure there were lots of people in Hyperlobby not flying, but even so the number of folks flying was a quantum leap from the wasteland that Mulitplayer currently is in BoS.  Because in BoS you have how many tens of thousands of sales, and what, at the most 100 people online on the best of days?  Months and several patches after launch.   How long do you expect people to wait before they just give up and bin this title?

 

This situation is dire for the online community, regardless what you apologists for BoS say about it in it's current state.

 

This is no way to run a railroad, as they say.

[mb339pan]

It's funny, because in the beginning of Il-2, there was no one because it's MP was limited to nothing unless you knew how to use Kali. Eventually Hyperlobby came around, and games were still limited to 16. Eventually the dedicated server came out, 3 years later, that still relied on Hyperlobby. There were more people in the lobby than there were in games, which is the way everyone remembers it. So busy in the lobby doing nothing, or just afk, and everyone remembers the hundreds, or thousands, of players in Hyperlobby but forget it was a fraction of that actually in the servers.

 

Maybe if everyone stopped complaining about how this isn't Il-2:1946 - WHICH IS 8 YEARS OF DEVLEOPMENT - and play this like it was Il-2 (the very first release), and treat it like that, then maybe they wouldn't be all doodie pants. Especially since this is far better than the entire Il-2:46 series in terms of FM - STILL NO HIGH ALTITUDE FM CAPABILITY IN 46! - and then maybe it would reach the realization that they have a smaller team than the Il-2 team and they only just started. Also, the whole "DLC" crap - when was Il-2:FB released? Just as they fixed the FM failure that you had to hold the stick back after what should have been take off speed for the slowest plane in  the game. Before they fixed the torque issue that all planes had the exact same torque properties (same direction, same speed, same everything), that there was no prop drag (had to pull high Gs in circles with no throttle to be able to land), the ground handling that is non-existant, and etc. The "sim of the century" had so many incompletes/failures/garbage to it, but everyone uses it as the measuring stick. Aces High should be used way before the old Il-2 series. There were so many, many, many problems and issues through its life that it amazes me that everyone white washes it because, apparently, it was their first and only WWII flight sim. Seriously, it was fun but it is not what so many hold it to - especially compared to this sim.

 

+1

[AvengerSeawolf]

 

 

How long do you expect people to wait before they just give up and bin this title?

 

 Flight sims are mot made exclusively to be played as multi-player. Nor their future depends  only on offline playing. BoS is a really good WWII flight sim game. Now if people decide to play in SP or MP is another subject.
However since the nature of the vast majority of the il-2 BoS users are off line players it would be  the best choice for the developers to upgrade the game to that side, by adding whatever it takes to make it better.

[AndyHill]

When comparing with the original Il-2 you also have to consider the fact that it was released 13 years before BoS and that's an eternity in computer games. The game is also based on RoF and to I've got the impression that if people got RoF in WW2 they would've mostly been happy.

 

The main problems with BoS are design decisions, not product immaturity. It's 100% correct to assume that the BoS franchise will grow like Il-2 and you have to look at it as kind of a new beginning (despite the RoF background) - as long as the developers intend to take the project into the direction you or I would like to see it go. And that's what I have problems with. I don't really doubt the developers' capability as much as their willingness to turn this into the game I want to play.

 

When the first playable versions of BoS appeared I felt so much like the first time I flew the original Il-2 demo that I got goosebumps. I believe that the vast potential is still there, but whether or not it eventually gets released remains to be seen.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

When comparing with the original Il-2 you also have to consider the fact that it was released 13 years before BoS and that's an eternity in computer games. The game is also based on RoF and to I've got the impression that if people got RoF in WW2 they would've mostly been happy.

 

The main problems with BoS are design decisions, not product immaturity. It's 100% correct to assume that the BoS franchise will grow like Il-2 and you have to look at it as kind of a new beginning (despite the RoF background) - as long as the developers intend to take the project into the direction you or I would like to see it go. And that's what I have problems with. I don't really doubt the developers' capability as much as their willingness to turn this into the game I want to play.

 

When the first playable versions of BoS appeared I felt so much like the first time I flew the original Il-2 demo that I got goosebumps. I believe that the vast potential is still there, but whether or not it eventually gets released remains to be seen.

 

Yep it gives me that old feeling as well which is great. 

 

The only thing this is missing for me is a Hyperlobby type system which would make it easy to find opponents and host missions. The lack of coop mode is a minor issue but being able to communicate with people who are online but not yet in a server would really help in my opinion. I wonder if this is something that is hard to incorporate or whether they just don't see it as particularly important.

[Mac_Messer]

It's funny, because in the beginning of Il-2, there was no one because it's MP was limited to nothing unless you knew how to use Kali. Eventually Hyperlobby came around, and games were still limited to 16. Eventually the dedicated server came out, 3 years later, that still relied on Hyperlobby. There were more people in the lobby than there were in games, which is the way everyone remembers it. So busy in the lobby doing nothing, or just afk, and everyone remembers the hundreds, or thousands, of players in Hyperlobby but forget it was a fraction of that actually in the servers.

 

Maybe if everyone stopped complaining about how this isn't Il-2:1946 - WHICH IS 8 YEARS OF DEVLEOPMENT - and play this like it was Il-2 (the very first release), and treat it like that, then maybe they wouldn't be all doodie pants. Especially since this is far better than the entire Il-2:46 series in terms of FM - STILL NO HIGH ALTITUDE FM CAPABILITY IN 46! - and then maybe it would reach the realization that they have a smaller team than the Il-2 team and they only just started. Also, the whole "DLC" crap - when was Il-2:FB released? Just as they fixed the FM failure that you had to hold the stick back after what should have been take off speed for the slowest plane in  the game. Before they fixed the torque issue that all planes had the exact same torque properties (same direction, same speed, same everything), that there was no prop drag (had to pull high Gs in circles with no throttle to be able to land), the ground handling that is non-existant, and etc. The "sim of the century" had so many incompletes/failures/garbage to it, but everyone uses it as the measuring stick. Aces High should be used way before the old Il-2 series. There were so many, many, many problems and issues through its life that it amazes me that everyone white washes it because, apparently, it was their first and only WWII flight sim. Seriously, it was fun but it is not what so many hold it to - especially compared to this sim.

 

You can talk stuff like that to people who entered IL2 scene since 1946, but not to people who entered in the start. Those people know exactly what you say and where you are wrong.

 

Well, at least IL2 had a full blown sp campaign. Static and simple but did a good job, much better than the current game. Ubisoft had its own mp application which was very basic, nothing more than simple df mp took place. As for HL, there is nothing wrong with many ppl staying in lobby if the other 300-400s flew in the servers at the same time. There was much choice, anyone found their pick basicly anytime of night or day. Online wars were going on 24/7.

 

IL2 was already very good at around of 2004, 1946 was realeased in 2006. It is not 8 years, actually a *little* closer to 3 years from release. The mp extended to its final stage before the release of Pacific Fighters in 2004 and it was already very good.

 

All this you talk about 1946 is irrelevant. The game had its bigger and smaller quirks, but it did sp and mp right. So obviously it was interesting to use those planes to something more than flying over empty steppes, so people kept flying daily. The most important features for mp were there. BoS has pretty much none of those. If BoS was a bit more simple but had a good sp/mp features it would be more interesting. Without good sp/mp BoS might be just another study sim. Because you can`t use those aircraft in the way they should be used.

 

Was it *really* so easy to make the "sim of the century" back in 2000?Nope. It was just as hard as now. The technical features you talk about were just the stuff that could not be implemented because of the average pc spec limitations. I ran the demo of IL2 with my 1year old PC and it hardly reached 28fps, my brother lend me his new pc 2 months later and it was a smooth 40fps. As Average Joe Pc specs went stronger, Maddox extended the game engine features. The engine obviously was flexible enough to make the changes work almost flawlessly. The devs picked the right priorities and it worked.

 

You make it sound like you object to others requiring from BoS to make progress in most features. But it is obvious that a sim made in 2014 should be far more advanced than a 2000 sim. As of now, in mp we have a situation in IL2 from 2002 and sp doesn`t even get close to what IL2 had sp wise.

 

No difference if you have top of the line tools. You have to use them correctly or it doesn`t matter.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Mac_Messer

[Mac_Messer]

And maybe if people  understand how better the flight modeling is and  all the graphics and the immersion of the game  willl also concentrate and appreciatte what they got and what really the BoS is, one of the finest WWII flight sims.

Yes, one of the finest WWII flight sims to make df over and over.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

The online situation from a European perspective is not great but it's certainly not dire I usually get on around 8 UK time and have seen at times 130 folks and more online. While some will cry that's not good, it's nearest rival Clod will have similar numbers and sometimes less.

 

I just purely speculate but could the American online community numbers appear be lacking because of the theatre in BoS and of course the distinct lack of American aircraft?

 

I am a SP advocate and have moaned about it plenty, I long for a decent career mode but saying that I have been using online as a sort of career mode in itself. If I fly fighters I tend to set out an action plan and do a fighter sweep or just go free hunting. If I fly bombers again I set an objective and carry out the mission. I have been keeping track of progress and I have tried to keep the plane and pilot intact. I know this is not ideal but it's a great deal of fun.

 

Personally I  think that BoS has one of the best flight model in a WWII genre currently, It's not perfect but then neither is Clod's or 1946's

 

I think the only things these two are doing better is organised squad flying and larger servers.

 

Yes, they have career modes but the AI is just laughable.

 

Mods on of course, but these two titles are now fully in the hands of the community of a small number of modders , who have no accountably to anyone but themselves and are in effect in  full control of the game and what goes into it. I am not knocking what they have done BTW.

 

Both these titles have also had a lot more time to get stuff sorted but there are still things about both titles which are not good.

 

The sheer level of updates that the Bos team has thrown at us over recent weeks gives me hope that they are trying to do the best job they can.

Let's be honest if BoS  was ever to becomes the go to sim those titles will lose a fair proportion of their player base and I'm sure they wouldn't be too happy about that.

 

Probably the best FM is in DCS but it's just so cold and clinical and it still has some issues with no WWII theatre ATM, terrible distance spotting and terminator like AI. 

 

From a graphical stand point I think BoS can look gorgeous at times, but I do agree with many other that more freedom of control regarding settings would be great.  

 

I think it's Looking good!

 

 

I hope that people will give BoS and the dev's a chance because its a completely playable sim and it can be immensely enjoyable.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Thanks Mac_Messer, well said sir. On release IL2 was cutting edge for it's time. The "Black Death" track became a standard for testing gaming rigs by the computer testing websites. You sure cannot say that about any aspect of BoS.

[FS_Fenice_1965]

 

You can talk stuff like that to people who entered IL2 scene since 1946, but not to people who entered in the start. Those people know exactly what you say and where you are wrong.

 

Well, at least IL2 had a full blown sp campaign. Static and simple but did a good job, much better than the current game. Ubisoft had its own mp application which was very basic, nothing more than simple df mp took place. As for HL, there is nothing wrong with many ppl staying in lobby if the other 300-400s flew in the servers at the same time. There was much choice, anyone found their pick basicly anytime of night or day. Online wars were going on 24/7.

 

IL2 was already very good at around of 2004, 1946 was realeased in 2006. It is not 8 years, actually a *little* closer to 3 years from release. The mp extended to its final stage before the release of Pacific Fighters in 2004 and it was already very good.

 

All this you talk about 1946 is irrelevant. The game had its bigger and smaller quirks, but it did sp and mp right. So obviously it was interesting to use those planes to something more than flying over empty steppes, so people kept flying daily. The most important features for mp were there. BoS has pretty much none of those. If BoS was a bit more simple but had a good sp/mp features it would be more interesting. Without good sp/mp BoS might be just another study sim. Because you can`t use those aircraft in the way they should be used.

 

Was it *really* so easy to make the "sim of the century" back in 2000?Nope. It was just as hard as now. The technical features you talk about were just the stuff that could not be implemented because of the average pc spec limitations. I ran the demo of IL2 with my 1year old PC and it hardly reached 28fps, my brother lend me his new pc 2 months later and it was a smooth 40fps. As Average Joe Pc specs went stronger, Maddox extended the game engine features. The engine obviously was flexible enough to make the changes work almost flawlessly. The devs picked the right priorities and it worked.

 

You make it sound like you object to others requiring from BoS to make progress in most features. But it is obvious that a sim made in 2014 should be far more advanced than a 2000 sim. As of now, in mp we have a situation in IL2 from 2002 and sp doesn`t even get close to what IL2 had sp wise.

 

No difference if you have top of the line tools. You have to use them correctly or it doesn`t matter.

 

Exactly.

I remember more than 800 people effectively playing. Once I talked with one of the Greatergreen server admins (that server was closed around 2006) and he told me that people were complaining in their forum because they weren't able to play in that server for days, because was always fully occupied. 

The real truth is that IL2 was a breaktrough sim without a background. People were happy because IL2 was a step  forward in almost any direction. CLOD and BOS had a background, and people cannot be blamed because they expected to see IL2 as a starting reference point to be evolved in all directions.

BALANCE is the key in my opinion. Think of DCS. Amazing sim in many aspects, but that FM cannot be alone the key of success. It is needed an immersive historical battlefield, a good FMB, a good multiplayer code good gaming design formulas etc...

Pushing to the limits just one aspect (graphics, FM etc. ) at expenses of many others doesn't make a successful sim 

Edited April 23, 2015 by FS_Fenice_1965

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

The real truth is that IL2 was a breaktrough sim

 

Yes it was back then and didn't have anything to really contend with in all honesty, but look at what any sim or other game for that matter has to contend with in 2015. the choice for the consumer is mind boggling

 

Those were the salad days but a lot has happened in the gaming and sim industry since those heady days.

[FS_Fenice_1965]

There was nothing short than Microsoft CFS 1, 2, 3, European Air War (which was a very good sim), Screamin Daemons Over Europe and WWII Fighters from Janes. Not to talk of all the choices in jet area.....(Falcon 4 as first)

Community Btw is not asking a breaktrough sim, just a successor to a successful sim.

Edited April 23, 2015 by FS_Fenice_1965

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

There was nothing short than Microsoft CFS 1, 2, 3, European Air War (which was a very good sim), Screamin Daemons Over Europe and WWII Fighters from Janes. Not to talk of all the choices in jet area.....(Falcon 4 as first) Community Btw is not asking a breaktrough sim, just a successor to a successful sim.

 

Yes but none of them came close to IL2 in terms of a WWII flight sim, It was new, fresh and ground breaking and sorry to repeat but lot has happened since then.   

[FS_Fenice_1965]

Yes but none of them came close to IL2 in terms of a WWII flight sim

 

That's why was ground breaking. The competition was harder than now, if we consider how much were spending at the times developers like Microsoft, Microprose or DID

 

 

 

lot has happened since then

 

Not as much as it should, if we consider that IL2 has normally equal or more players online than newer sims. 

Edited April 23, 2015 by FS_Fenice_1965

[Mac_Messer]

Yes but none of them came close to IL2 in terms of a WWII flight sim, It was new, fresh and ground breaking and sorry to repeat but lot has happened since then.   

Yes, really I don`t see anyone denying that. Please remember though, IL2 development and in later app life also had to take a number of factors into account. It is not like in actual times the good online combatflighsim formula isn`t there.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Mac_Messer

[Mac_Messer]

 

BALANCE is the key in my opinion. Think of DCS. Amazing sim in many aspects, but that FM cannot be alone the key of success. It is needed an immersive historical battlefield, a good FMB, a good multiplayer code good gaming design formulas etc...

Pushing to the limits just one aspect (graphics, FM etc. ) at expenses of many others doesn't make a successful sim 

Yes, thank you for writing this. It is also my opinion that BoS is maybe too advanced in some game aspects. It is known to have a great FM, physics modelling and the feeling of flight.  At the same time what it needs to do in other aspects is not nearly enough, though I share the optimism of coming changes.

 

Also please be mindful, it is a lot easier to bring more customers if you have breakthrough graphics and average physics modelling than the other way around.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Mac_Messer

[Mac_Messer]

Probably the best FM is in DCS but it's just so cold and clinical and it still has some issues with no WWII theatre ATM, terrible distance spotting and terminator like AI. 

 

I think it's Looking good!

DCS will never be *the* combatflight sim of WWII, I knew that back when I gave them kickstarter money.

 

It looks good. No, really, what does BoS have that makes it *the* WWII combatflightsim amongst other two?

 

Just for the record : back when IL2 came out it blew everything else out of the water initially. Then after some time the advantage got extended with good mp. Then after some more time mp became one of a kind.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Mac_Messer

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Yes, really I don`t see anyone denying that. Please remember though, IL2 development and in later app life also had to take a number of factors into account. It is not like in actual times the good online combatflighsim formula isn`t there.

 

If you get a like minded group of folks on TS and work as a team its not that far off IMHO. Longing for the glory days doesn't change the fact that people would rather play War Thunder (not a sim in my view) or FPS's which I think is a crying shame ,rather than BoS or Clod for that matter because their online numbers are very similar. It's not perfect I know but I hope folks give it a try and get on TS and give flying in teams a try because it can be lot of fun.  

 

 

 

The competition was harder than now, if we consider how much were spending at the times developers like Microsoft, Microprose or DID

 

The main completion now is Clod which has similar numbers online to BoS and DCS which is in my view more of a Jet/aircraft sim that a WWII combat sim.

 

DCS will never be *the* combatflight sim of WWII, I knew that back when I gave them kickstarter money.

 

It looks good. No, really, what does BoS have that makes it *the* WWII combatflightsim amongst other two?

 

Just for the record : back when IL2 came out it blew everything else out of the water initially. Then after some time the advantage got extended with good mp. Then after some more time mp became one of a kind.

Maybe it's just my personal choice or maybe it's the FM's, because I think hands down it blows the "run on rails" feeling of those two out of the water?  

Edited April 23, 2015 by OriginalCustard

[Mac_Messer]

If you get a like minded group of folks on TS and work as a team its not that far off IMHO. Longing for the glory days doesn't change the fact that people would rather play War Thunder (not a sim in my view) or FPS's which I think is a crying shame ,rather than BoS or Clod for that matter because their online numbers are very similar. It's not perfect I know but I hope folks give it a try and get on TS and give flying in teams a try because it's can be lot of fun.   

Maybe it's just my personal choice or maybe it's the FM's, because I think hands down it blows the "run on rails" feeling of those two out of the water?  

To be honest I don`t think War Thunder is that far off from IL2:1946. Hard to say what happened if BoS was an advanced version of WT. Would an upgraded IL2 with traditional marketing model have customer base of BoS or WT (or both)?

 

Are you implying that the market had changed so much that people don`t want flight sims anymore? Or maybe they do want them in, but in a F2P grinding fest fashion? I can see that happening. Then why was BoS even created?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Are you implying that the market had changed so much that people don`t want flight sims anymore? Or maybe they do want them in, but in a F2P grinding fest fashion? I can see that happening. Then why was BoS even created?

 

Well the market has changed dramatically to when IL2 was first released. The developers of BoS are clearly trying to do their best to create a first class sim with many updates planned. The game has only officially been released since December of last year and the "I want it all I want it now" for some folks is a tall order for any developer trying to please it's customers.  

 

I think BoS is a work in progress and with every up date I am more and more encouraged.

[Trident_109]

It's funny, because in the beginning of Il-2, there was no one because it's MP was limited to nothing unless you knew how to use Kali. Eventually Hyperlobby came around, and games were still limited to 16. Eventually the dedicated server came out, 3 years later, that still relied on Hyperlobby. There were more people in the lobby than there were in games, which is the way everyone remembers it. So busy in the lobby doing nothing, or just afk, and everyone remembers the hundreds, or thousands, of players in Hyperlobby but forget it was a fraction of that actually in the servers.

 

Maybe if everyone stopped complaining about how this isn't Il-2:1946 - WHICH IS 8 YEARS OF DEVLEOPMENT - and play this like it was Il-2 (the very first release), and treat it like that, then maybe they wouldn't be all doodie pants. Especially since this is far better than the entire Il-2:46 series in terms of FM - STILL NO HIGH ALTITUDE FM CAPABILITY IN 46! - and then maybe it would reach the realization that they have a smaller team than the Il-2 team and they only just started. Also, the whole "DLC" crap - when was Il-2:FB released? Just as they fixed the FM failure that you had to hold the stick back after what should have been take off speed for the slowest plane in  the game. Before they fixed the torque issue that all planes had the exact same torque properties (same direction, same speed, same everything), that there was no prop drag (had to pull high Gs in circles with no throttle to be able to land), the ground handling that is non-existant, and etc. The "sim of the century" had so many incompletes/failures/garbage to it, but everyone uses it as the measuring stick. Aces High should be used way before the old Il-2 series. There were so many, many, many problems and issues through its life that it amazes me that everyone white washes it because, apparently, it was their first and only WWII flight sim. Seriously, it was fun but it is not what so many hold it to - especially compared to this sim.

Christ, I'd hope the FMs, damage models, altitude modeling and every other problem you describe with IL2 would be correct in 2015.

 

Any FS developer has had the advantage of 15 years of technical advances. Anything from PC improvement to Internet performance has increased multiple times. Would you expect a 300 Mhz processor, 128 MB RAM (maybe 256) and a geforce ti 2800 to handle all those issues? 56k modems were the rage in 2001. By the time FB was released 2.4 GMhz PCs were just hitting the market. Duo Cores were o the market when 1946 rolled out. Today we have such an advancement in technology that all these things should be second nature.

 

You say that we should look at BoS like the original IL2 (and I understand where you are coming from) but by doing that you forget the advances and advantages BoS has over IL2. I'd expect a 2015 Ford to have many more improvements and innovations than a 1965 Ford. It's progress. The engine is more efficient, stronger. The creature comforts are improved immeasurably. We have wi-fi and dashboard communication systems. For as many advances BoS has (FMs, DM, Graphics Engine, sight distance, etc) it's still running on poly-glass tires instead of steal belted radials.

 

In a way you're comparing apples to oranges. Online players only want a good experience and IL2 provided that - even if it took three years to implement that. My experience so far with BoS is one room that's usually occupied and the rest are empty. By today's standards what we experienced in the past should be equaled and I find it hard to see why it's not.

 

BoS does many many things well. You are right, and it's fantastic to have these advancements because they improve immersion ten fold over past simulations. But online is really lacking and I don't think using he excuse that the game is recently released is a good enough reason. From my attempts RoF was never a great online experience either, and I'd hoped that the developers would have seen that and tried something different... or something that already worked like Hyperlobby.

[AvengerSeawolf]

 SO what's the fuzz all about   with that subject ?

 

 

 

 

. Longing for the glory days doesn't change the fact that people would rather play War Thunder (not a sim in my view)

 

 Don't forget that War thunder is also playable on playstation , and has about 6 mil. "fans"

 

 

 

 

Yes but none of them came close to IL2 in terms of a WWII flight sim

 

 IMO I can only say about  the old il2 that  had lousy BF 109 FM's with constant overheating 25% reduced in top speed and  could not climb to save their lives.

 Also a curved earth at altitude above 4000 meter was a complete joke as it was the rest of the scenery, poor and boring. CFS 3 was an open game with much better effects, reasonable FM and

great terrain for it's time. But that's my 2cents on that.

Edited April 23, 2015 by AvengerSeawolf

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Don't forget that War thunder is also playable on playstation

Yep, because it's not a sim.

[AvengerSeawolf]

 

 

Yep, because it's not a sim

 

 

That's also why has so many online players and following.