Jump to content


Photo

61 People Online on a Saturday.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
387 replies to this topic

#241 6./ZG26_Custard

6./ZG26_Custard
  • Member
  • Posts: 1345
  • Location:Blighty

Posted 15 April 2015 - 06:35

Nice photos...I wish I could get online and join you guys......Satellite here..

 

That's a shame, It really is a great deal of fun teaming up and working together. Hopefully one day soon we will see you over Stalingrad. :salute:


  • 0
The British were sporting. They would accept a fight under almost all conditions ~ Günther Rall, Luftwaffe, 275 victories.
ZG26 Forum ZG26 YouTube Channel

#242 WTornado

WTornado
  • Founder
  • Posts: 859
  • Location:Canada

Posted 15 April 2015 - 12:49

I also believe that the biggest error of this sim has been the "cut"  with old IL2 Sturmovik serie.

Obviously something had to be done to wipe out the bad reputation of Cliffs of Dover launch, but there was an excess in this.

Leaving the most successful formula to repeat, with WWII Planes, the formula of a less successful sim (ROF never had the same number of followers of IL2...I think none can deny this...) wasn't the best choice.

Add that many IL2 followers think that they have been decepted with a sim that holds IL2 name but is ROF WWII and you can argue the rest.

Nevertheless, I think that the IL2 crowd can still be recovered - at least in part - if producers and developers will start again watching at the past to retain what is appropriate to retain (or develop).  

Yes it is not too late.

 

They can develop all the goodies we need to make this game as popular as IL-2 1946

Grampa series editions.

 

The time is now.

 

We need the old honey in the plate to attract  bees and get them flying.

 

 

Hienz Guderian:

 

Es gibt keine verzweifelten Lagen, es gibt nur verzweifelte Menschen!

 

There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people

 

 

 

(that need and burning for individual server capability and coop access )


  • 1

Success flourishes only in perseverance — ceaseless, restless perseverance.

 

 Baron Manfred von Richthofen


#243 von_Tom

von_Tom
  • Founder
  • Posts: 527
  • Location:England

Posted 15 April 2015 - 15:19

Yes it is not too late.

They can develop all the goodies we need to make this game as popular as IL-2 1946
Grampa series editions.

The time is now.


As long as they get the same amount of time as the original IL2 got.

We're 2 years in so this gives them another 8 or so years. 2 theatres a year I reckon if they manage to really get going.

von Tom
  • 0

You have to learn the rules of the game.  And then you have to play better than anyone else.      Albert Einstein

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.     Douglas Bader

Up there the world is divided into bastards and suckers.  Make your choice.    Derek Robinson (Piece of Cake 1983)


#244 I./ZG15_robtek

I./ZG15_robtek
  • Founder
  • Posts: 322

Posted 16 April 2015 - 20:32

As long as they get the same amount of time as the original IL2 got.

We're 2 years in so this gives them another 8 or so years. 2 theatres a year I reckon if they manage to really get going.

von Tom

As long as this version of the DN engine is used no amount of time will be ever enough! imo.

It is now even more limited as in RoF.

A new version might be able to fill those empty steppes and skies with some life.


  • 0

#245 von_Tom

von_Tom
  • Founder
  • Posts: 527
  • Location:England

Posted 16 April 2015 - 22:05

Probably. I'm not sure what "limited" means though.

Hopefully it'll be just the same as the original IL2 being changed over its lifetime.

Some folks focus on what they want rather than what is needed though. For me I just need more content with game fixes as they come.

My wants include more visible DM, slightly nicer cockpits and as accurate a FM as possible (the Holy Grail).

48 in MP seems ok but smaller maps would offset any perceived lack of action. Much better to force team play rather than lone wolf stuff, if that can be achieved that'd be a need rather than a want.

I'm looking forward to developments.

von Tom

Edited by von_Tom, 16 April 2015 - 22:06.

  • 0

You have to learn the rules of the game.  And then you have to play better than anyone else.      Albert Einstein

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.     Douglas Bader

Up there the world is divided into bastards and suckers.  Make your choice.    Derek Robinson (Piece of Cake 1983)


#246 I./ZG15_robtek

I./ZG15_robtek
  • Founder
  • Posts: 322

Posted 16 April 2015 - 22:22

Probably. I'm not sure what "limited" means though.

Hopefully it'll be just the same as the original IL2 being changed over its lifetime.

Some folks focus on what they want rather than what is needed though. For me I just need more content with game fixes as they come.

My wants include more visible DM, slightly nicer cockpits and as accurate a FM as possible (the Holy Grail).

48 in MP seems ok but smaller maps would offset any perceived lack of action. Much better to force team play rather than lone wolf stuff, if that can be achieved that'd be a need rather than a want.

I'm looking forward to developments.

von Tom

Limited is for me, that if you have enough ground units to simulate a somehow realistic ground attack and defense, plus a realistic number of planes supporting this action, the DN engine will crash.

Even il2-1946 did manage quite large numbers of ai-objects close together.

What use are the nice models, the feel of flying and the wonderful countryside, when the action is so limited and concentrated on a few tight spots?

That did kill all immersion for me and without immersion its a lame game, imo.


  • 0

#247 216th_LuseKofte

216th_LuseKofte
  • Founder
  • Posts: 2296

Posted 16 April 2015 - 22:43

I disagree half way on your rhetoric Robtek, I find the immersion quite precent in this game. But agree with the limitation at currently stage of development. The developers has not yet given up fighting those in my understanding. 

I have however solved my problem with these limitations and play this game for what it is. I do the same with cod, I enjoy that game also very much despite its limitations and shortcomings. Lame? just shows your political stands in all this


  • 0

49efc10c-c436-418c-9fbd-9cffdcfaff3d_zps


#248 BlitzPig_EL

BlitzPig_EL
  • Member
  • Posts: 1501
  • Location:The Great Black Swamp of Ohio

Posted 17 April 2015 - 01:10

From an online perspective it is lame.

 

BoS is less capable than '46 in it's ability to simulate realistic ground activity for online use, and if you can't simulate a proper WW2 ground battle, or at least a part of one, why have an IL2 or Stuka?

 

And before anyone starts jumping up and down yelling "triggers!!!"  What difference does it make if BoS/BoM has event triggers, if you can't have them trigger meaningful numbers of things in the online environment?

 

So, us online folk are left with the same sterile, underpopulated online environment as RoF, which should come as no surprise when BoS/BoM is just a reskinned RoF.


  • 2

8wxp.jpg

Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943.
~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov


#249 Stallion

Stallion
  • Founder
  • Posts: 115
  • Location:Chicago, USA

Posted 17 April 2015 - 02:03

I only find decent player populations in the mid to late morning and until 3 in the afternoon, as someone very near Chicago.

 

There used to be higher populations about 6 months ago, who knows where all those players went.


Edited by Stallion, 17 April 2015 - 02:04.

  • 0

There seems to be nothing here...


#250 AndyHill

AndyHill
  • Founder
  • Posts: 349

Posted 17 April 2015 - 02:39

Limited is for me, that if you have enough ground units to simulate a somehow realistic ground attack and defense, plus a realistic number of planes supporting this action, the DN engine will crash.

Even il2-1946 did manage quite large numbers of ai-objects close together.

What use are the nice models, the feel of flying and the wonderful countryside, when the action is so limited and concentrated on a few tight spots?

That did kill all immersion for me and without immersion its a lame game, imo.

This post actually inspired me to write another one of my incoherent blog rants. I don't even really disagree with you, but when I started replying with a point about recent hardware development (or lack thereof) I went so far off topic I chose to post to the blog instead. If anyone happens to be interested the post is here: https://anttiilomaki...s-of-the-2010s/


  • 0

intel i7 2600K@4.2GHZ, nVidia GTX690, 16GB RAM

Windows 7 Ultimate 64

nVidia surround 5760 X 1080 resolution + a 1920 X 1080 touchscreen monitor


#251 Feathered_IV

Feathered_IV
  • Founder
  • Posts: 4177
  • Location:Girt by Sea

Posted 17 April 2015 - 03:39

From an online perspective it is lame.

BoS is less capable than '46 in it's ability to simulate realistic ground activity for online use, and if you can't simulate a proper WW2 ground battle, or at least a part of one, why have an IL2 or Stuka?

And before anyone starts jumping up and down yelling "triggers!!!" What difference does it make if BoS/BoM has event triggers, if you can't have them trigger meaningful numbers of things in the online environment?

So, us online folk are left with the same sterile, underpopulated online environment as RoF, which should come as no surprise when BoS/BoM is just a reskinned RoF.


Hopefully the devs are aware that this is one of the critical features that a successful title absolutely must have and are currently meeting in earnest to figure out what needs to be done to make it happen.
  • 0
"Nineteen years of age, eight years public education, three years military service. Intelligent, normally observant and answered all questions freely. He was arrogant and proud to be a pilot. Fellow prisoners in hospital consider him mentally unstable..."

#252 Juri_JS

Juri_JS
  • Founder
  • Posts: 941

Posted 17 April 2015 - 03:40

I wonder why some of you guys think that the game can't simulate large ground battles. I've build missions with quite a lot of ground activity and in my experience the number of ground units has a very limited effect on the games performance. What is causing performance issues on my system are large numbers of AI aircraft. It seems the calculation of AI behaviour puts a lot of strain on the CPU.


  • 0

#253 Sokol1

Sokol1
  • Founder
  • Posts: 4039
  • Location:"Internet"

Posted 17 April 2015 - 05:16

AndyHill 

 

 

Now multiply that sophistication by a factor of lots, since instead of the usual separation between the player aircraft and the AI, Il-2 BoS (and RoF) are running a high end flight model for every AI unit as well. 

 

 

I still to see the advantage of this HF FM for AI, they still acting like AI in other flight games.  :huh:

Specially the bombers fly that very ugly, weaving, colliding in turns...  :(

 

Maybe if this HF FM was only for fighters will be better and allow more numerous bomber formations. 


  • 1

... guns were too quiet when engine is running and speed is high, and there was no "immersion of fire and metal storm in 2 meters aside of me"


#254 No601_Swallow

No601_Swallow
  • Founder
  • Posts: 994
  • Location:Oh Vienna...

Posted 17 April 2015 - 08:01

AndyHill 

 

 

I still to see the advantage of this HF FM for AI, they still acting like AI in other flight games.  :huh:

Specially the bombers fly that very ugly, weaving, colliding in turns...  :(

 

Maybe if this HF FM was only for fighters will be better and allow more numerous bomber formations. 

 

I'm starting to respect the bomber AI. When they first spawn in, they're a mess. It takes them several minutes to sort themselves out (so the order in which they are placed in the formation relative to their positions when they spawn becomes important). But after that, so long as you don't ask them to do unrealistic things viz. course change and airspeed they seem to be absolutely fine - pretty good human imitations!

 

I would love mass bomber formations, but I don't think I want to return to the syncronized swimming effects of BoBII or IL2'46!

 

I want it all, and I want it now, dadgummit!  :wacko:


  • 0

TPRegBanner_zpsda0d4519.jpg


#255 6./ZG26_Emil

6./ZG26_Emil
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3076
  • Location:Northern Monkey

Posted 17 April 2015 - 10:09

Limited is for me, that if you have enough ground units to simulate a somehow realistic ground attack and defense, plus a realistic number of planes supporting this action, the DN engine will crash.

Even il2-1946 did manage quite large numbers of ai-objects close together.

What use are the nice models, the feel of flying and the wonderful countryside, when the action is so limited and concentrated on a few tight spots?

That did kill all immersion for me and without immersion its a lame game, imo.

 

What's the number of AI objects you have put in a mission that made it crash?

 

You did test this didn't you? 


  • 0

#256 von_Tom

von_Tom
  • Founder
  • Posts: 527
  • Location:England

Posted 17 April 2015 - 10:46


People witter on about IL2 being amazing. From memory there was only one (mod) map anywhere near the size of those in clod and BOS and if you had too much in that it crashed.

Personally speaking I think map size is critical and for me the standard BOS map is too big. Better to have two or 4 maps representing the same area. I don't know if that has an effect on mission capabilities though.

Again it's the wants rather than the needs. People want a huge number of ground objects permanently in situ all moving and fighting their own war. That just can't happen as our PCs would melt.

Far better to tightly script the mission objectives on a smaller map/area as in old IL2. Then the action is more concentrated.

Overall people have in their mind's eye a utopia of realism with plenty of action. The two are not that compatible.

von Tom
  • 1

You have to learn the rules of the game.  And then you have to play better than anyone else.      Albert Einstein

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.     Douglas Bader

Up there the world is divided into bastards and suckers.  Make your choice.    Derek Robinson (Piece of Cake 1983)


#257 AndyHill

AndyHill
  • Founder
  • Posts: 349

Posted 17 April 2015 - 10:49

I still to see the advantage of this HF FM for AI, they still acting like AI in other flight games.  :huh:

Specially the bombers fly that very ugly, weaving, colliding in turns...  :(

 

Maybe if this HF FM was only for fighters will be better and allow more numerous bomber formations. 

There are two main factors in how the AI flies. In addition to having a sophisticated flight model to fly with they also need to actually be good (as in human-like) at flying the planes. In fact creating an AI that actually flies the plane instead of just making the plane move by itself according to where the AI wants to go at any given time is probably quite difficult in comparison.

 

The immediate advantage is that you can be sure that the AI flies according to the same laws of physics and won't get performance bonus in dogfights (especially if it also has same engine limitations), but that of course doesn't really affect the bombers. So your point is actually very good, the flight model itself isn't enough to make the AI fly in a realistic and convincing manner. But it is (or can be) a big step into that direction.

 

As for how it works right now in Il-2 I'd say there's still room for improvement in the AI, but it's already quite a bit better (the AI used to be hopeless at flying the FW, for example) than before. And I really think the potential is great and the devs might even get there if they keep working on the AI along the way.


  • 0

intel i7 2600K@4.2GHZ, nVidia GTX690, 16GB RAM

Windows 7 Ultimate 64

nVidia surround 5760 X 1080 resolution + a 1920 X 1080 touchscreen monitor


#258 Brano

Brano
  • Founder
  • Posts: 2664
  • Location:Slovakia

Posted 17 April 2015 - 11:09

1. DN engine will not crash.It is your HW that will.

2. dont confuse high fidelity FM with how AI is actually flying the planes.


  • 0

#259 FS_Fenice_1965

FS_Fenice_1965
  • Founder
  • Posts: 209
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 April 2015 - 11:47

Limited is for me, that if you have enough ground units to simulate a somehow realistic ground attack and defense, plus a realistic number of planes supporting this action, the DN engine will crash. Even il2-1946 did manage quite large numbers of ai-objects close together. What use are the nice models, the feel of flying and the wonderful countryside, when the action is so limited and concentrated on a few tight spots? That did kill all immersion for me and without immersion its a lame game, imo.

 

 

BoS is less capable than '46 in it's ability to simulate realistic ground activity for online use, and if you can't simulate a proper WW2 ground battle, or at least a part of one, why have an IL2 or Stuka?

 

And before anyone starts jumping up and down yelling "triggers!!!"  What difference does it make if BoS/BoM has event triggers, if you can't have them trigger meaningful numbers of things in the online environment?

 

So, us online folk are left with the same sterile, underpopulated online environment as RoF, which should come as no surprise when BoS/BoM is just a reskinned RoF.

 

 

You got the point. I do not know if it is true that you cannot trigger meanigful numbers of objects, but for sure it is not at the hand of every mission builder.

It is also true that it can be hardware related. As a matter of fact on IL2 it is simple to simulate intense battles now that the hardware easily handles the game.


Edited by FS_Fenice_1965, 17 April 2015 - 11:54.

  • 0

#260 Mac_Messer

Mac_Messer
  • Member
  • Posts: 662
  • Location:non-founder

Posted 17 April 2015 - 12:00

 

English is not Zak's native tongue.. so take that quotye in the spirit it was given.. but the bottom line is.. the unlock are at lkeast now addressable, the FMB is released.. the Dserver is released.. the skin tools have been released, many many bugs have been fixed, FMs have been tweaked, an AI Ju-52 is on the way, as is a spring map for BoS and a new theater with new aircraft ... and all you see is a lack of progress to the SP campaign.. :huh:

 

Yes, one must give credit where it`s due. If the developpers provide a steady income of tweaks and improvements, there is no reason not to be optimistic about the extending of the first title. Whereas the actual direction of that will always be debateable.
 


  • 0

campaign%20badges2.jpg :crazy:

Smolensk`41 :: Moscow`42 :: Crimea`42 :: Kuban`42 :: Stalingrad`43 :: Crimea`44

 


#261 Mac_Messer

Mac_Messer
  • Member
  • Posts: 662
  • Location:non-founder

Posted 17 April 2015 - 12:07

Limited is for me, that if you have enough ground units to simulate a somehow realistic ground attack and defense, plus a realistic number of planes supporting this action, the DN engine will crash.

Even il2-1946 did manage quite large numbers of ai-objects close together.

What use are the nice models, the feel of flying and the wonderful countryside, when the action is so limited and concentrated on a few tight spots?

That did kill all immersion for me and without immersion its a lame game, imo.

Back when I was flying IL2, majority of online coops were a max of 10v10 and not more than 30 functional (non static) ground/air objects like ammo depots with tanks, flak, convoys, ships. It all worked and was very popular because it was simple and quick to make, stable and playable.

First we create that, then we think of making big scale battles.


Edited by Mac_Messer, 17 April 2015 - 12:13.

  • 0

campaign%20badges2.jpg :crazy:

Smolensk`41 :: Moscow`42 :: Crimea`42 :: Kuban`42 :: Stalingrad`43 :: Crimea`44

 


#262 Mac_Messer

Mac_Messer
  • Member
  • Posts: 662
  • Location:non-founder

Posted 17 April 2015 - 12:12

 

I have however solved my problem with these limitations and play this game for what it is. I do the same with cod, I enjoy that game also very much despite its limitations and shortcomings. Lame? just shows your political stands in all this

You cannot expect others to accept this game at this stage. Ok if you like it, others see this title needs more work.

 

The original IL2 was also very limited at first, it didn`t even know how to maintain/CEM two engine aircraft. But the devs changed it. Whether BoS will grow is a question of how much can the engine be taught new tricks.


  • 0

campaign%20badges2.jpg :crazy:

Smolensk`41 :: Moscow`42 :: Crimea`42 :: Kuban`42 :: Stalingrad`43 :: Crimea`44

 


#263 Mac_Messer

Mac_Messer
  • Member
  • Posts: 662
  • Location:non-founder

Posted 17 April 2015 - 12:17

 

I would love mass bomber formations, but I don't think I want to return to the syncronized swimming effects of BoBII or IL2'46!

 

I want it all, and I want it now, dadgummit!  :wacko:

If I go to Stalingrad campaign I expect to patrol and attack 10-16 Pe2 bomber formation and its escort. If the game can`t give me that then it`s no good to me. I don`t give a ***** if they make synchronized swimming.


  • 0

campaign%20badges2.jpg :crazy:

Smolensk`41 :: Moscow`42 :: Crimea`42 :: Kuban`42 :: Stalingrad`43 :: Crimea`44

 


#264 Mac_Messer

Mac_Messer
  • Member
  • Posts: 662
  • Location:non-founder

Posted 17 April 2015 - 12:26

People witter on about IL2 being amazing. From memory there was only one (mod) map anywhere near the size of those in clod and BOS and if you had too much in that it crashed.

Personally speaking I think map size is critical and for me the standard BOS map is too big. Better to have two or 4 maps representing the same area. I don't know if that has an effect on mission capabilities though.

Again it's the wants rather than the needs. People want a huge number of ground objects permanently in situ all moving and fighting their own war. That just can't happen as our PCs would melt.

Far better to tightly script the mission objectives on a smaller map/area as in old IL2. Then the action is more concentrated.

Overall people have in their mind's eye a utopia of realism with plenty of action. The two are not that compatible.

von Tom

Yes, and make no mistake, the coops provided so that the two player parties met in a max 15min time from server start. Also, most don`t remember that Pacific Fighters was largely a defeat. The pacfic coops weren`t even playable because of the flak.

 

I don`t know what size is good for DF servers, but coops routes should not be longer than 5-8 clicks from AF to mission area (5-12 clicks for online wars).

 

That is why the IL2:1946 example is still relevant. We need ideas that work. 32v32 players and 50AI missions are no use if they aren`t practical.


  • 0

campaign%20badges2.jpg :crazy:

Smolensk`41 :: Moscow`42 :: Crimea`42 :: Kuban`42 :: Stalingrad`43 :: Crimea`44

 


#265 FS_Fenice_1965

FS_Fenice_1965
  • Founder
  • Posts: 209
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 April 2015 - 12:28

That is why the IL2:1946 example is still relevant

 

+1 


  • 0

#266 Mac_Messer

Mac_Messer
  • Member
  • Posts: 662
  • Location:non-founder

Posted 17 April 2015 - 12:38

 

The immediate advantage is that you can be sure that the AI flies according to the same laws of physics and won't get performance bonus in dogfights (especially if it also has same engine limitations), but that of course doesn't really affect the bombers. So your point is actually very good, the flight model itself isn't enough to make the AI fly in a realistic and convincing manner. But it is (or can be) a big step into that direction.

Probably. The 1946 AI did have a simplified FM and did cheat but that meant nothing if the server admin set them at rookie-average level. As a result, such AI flew like pilots with less than 5 flights on their belt and the bomber gunners` accuracy was close to real. So even if it all was very simplified, the immersion was there, because the actual good pilots were in fact the human players, who in real life were a minority at best.


  • 0

campaign%20badges2.jpg :crazy:

Smolensk`41 :: Moscow`42 :: Crimea`42 :: Kuban`42 :: Stalingrad`43 :: Crimea`44

 


#267 Dakpilot

Dakpilot
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3864
  • Location:Afrika

Posted 17 April 2015 - 13:15

If I go to Stalingrad campaign I expect to patrol and attack 10-16 Pe2 bomber formation and its escort. If the game can`t give me that then it`s no good to me. I don`t give a ***** if they make synchronized swimming.

 

Already available in Veteranens first missions with a healthy ground war as well.....in 'campaign' mode I frequently have up to 30 aircraft in the immediate area, not every mission because they are random, maybe not 16 Pe-2 in one specific mission but I think the 'campaign' is 'scaled' for modest computers, user built campaigns/missions will provide more specific desires

 

Cheers Dakpilot


  • 0

i5 3570K at 4,46Ghz//H100i//P8Z77-I-DELUXE//16GB 1600mhz ram//Galax GTX970 4GB EXOC//Samsung Evo840 128gbSSD x2//LG 49" 3840 X 2160//MSFFB2// Saitek throttle quadrant//Win10-64bit


#268 Brano

Brano
  • Founder
  • Posts: 2664
  • Location:Slovakia

Posted 17 April 2015 - 13:47

For what one need to have 100+ planes in one mission?Never understood this point.

1. Its absolutely unrealistic for Eastern front and Stalingrad scenario in particular

2. Are you going to fight them all at once?With unlimited ammo?

3. VVS BAPs had max 20 planes (table nr.) in that time.Why there should be complete operational BAP in the air?It never was.Mostly they flew in smaller groups 3-6-9 max as tactical support of ground forces.Mass carpet bombing was not their daily routine.

 

On one side people cry for the most realistic FM and AI there could ever be made and then they complain about AI using same FM as human pilots and asking devs to dumb down the product into year 2003.It is your hardware guys,not DN engine,that limits your game experience.Jason has mentioned on one occasion (in DD?) that they have even more sophisticated FM in their engineers drawers.But that one would for sure melt your CPU as snow in the summer.


  • 0

#269 SYN_Haashashin

SYN_Haashashin
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 1158
  • Location:Home

Posted 17 April 2015 - 14:35

As long as this version of the DN engine is used no amount of time will be ever enough! imo.
It is now even more limited as in RoF.


I have to totally disagree with this statement. After using the RoF ME for the past 4 years and the BoS ME for more than a year, I could easily say that the DN engine is more advanced now, it can handle more IA planes and ground objects in BoS than in RoF, both SP and MP. Sure that in SP you can have way bigger number of IA planes than in MP but stating the DN is more limited than in RoF in plain wrong.

Also for those that think that the ME from BoS is exactly the same than for RoF are totally wrong, I can't even remember how many versions of the ME we had before the public release of it.
  • 0

www.syndicatesquadron.org


#270 csThor

csThor
  • Founder
  • Posts: 589
  • Location:Germany

Posted 18 April 2015 - 07:54

Well ... sorry if the following sounds a bit like smart-äss ( ;)) but I think people need to drop the Hollywood-effects-Bing-Bang-Boom mindset too many seem to have accquired and look at historical facts and details when designing missions. If I take robtek's post then I dare to extrapolate two key things from it:

 

1.) He believes a map like Stalingrad needs to be filled everywhere with tons of objects.

2.) He believes that there were hundreds of planes in the air at the same time all the time.

 

Both beliefs are wrong and a closer study of the Battle of Stalingrad would have revealed this. Battles will need to be localized to smaller areas (and in reality 90% of the map would have been virtually empty because a limited amount of areas have tactical or strategic relevance - like railway lines and stations, river crossings, important road junctions and localities etc) but there objects can be concentrated. One neat fueature of the CloD FMB was the ability to define a "Battle Area", it would be nice to have such a thing again.

 

Bottom line: concentrate the ground war where it would have happened in reality (a bunch of books on the Stalingrad battle can help locating these locations) and then have the air forces play their part.


  • 3

image.jpg


#271 AKA_Recon

AKA_Recon
  • Founder
  • Posts: 147

Posted 18 April 2015 - 12:19

I think all this shows is that the developers really don't need to waste time on multiplayer features if the developers are ok with 30-60 players online, when they know they have 4k-7k offline.

 

If you ran a business and you could make things for the 35 people vs. the 5,000 people, which would you develop for ?  :)

 

I love flying online, but those stats from a IL2 Sturmovik developer clearly shows where the focus is/should be.

 

Question is: is single player a good experience in your opinion of the game ?   


  • 0

#272 AndyHill

AndyHill
  • Founder
  • Posts: 349

Posted 18 April 2015 - 15:36

I will probably never get tired of repeating this, but the focus should be on both. Just do like in Forgotten Battles over a decade ago and make everything playable in single and multi alike. Absolutely no need to focus on either group at the expense of the other when every bit of content you create is automatically useful for everyone.


  • 0

intel i7 2600K@4.2GHZ, nVidia GTX690, 16GB RAM

Windows 7 Ultimate 64

nVidia surround 5760 X 1080 resolution + a 1920 X 1080 touchscreen monitor


#273 6./ZG26_Emil

6./ZG26_Emil
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3076
  • Location:Northern Monkey

Posted 18 April 2015 - 15:43

I think all this shows is that the developers really don't need to waste time on multiplayer features if the developers are ok with 30-60 players online, when they know they have 4k-7k offline.

 

If you ran a business and you could make things for the 35 people vs. the 5,000 people, which would you develop for ?   :)

 

I love flying online, but those stats from a IL2 Sturmovik developer clearly shows where the focus is/should be.

 

Question is: is single player a good experience in your opinion of the game ?   

 

But it's not the same few hundred people who log online every night.

 

Anyway planes and maps are great but we need focus on gameplay for everyone not just one of the other. It's fairly well documented what both parties need...it's just getting it that is the problem.


  • 0

#274 T-oddball

T-oddball
  • Founder
  • Posts: 333
  • Location:chicago

Posted 18 April 2015 - 15:44

For what one need to have 100+ planes in one mission?Never understood this point.

1. Its absolutely unrealistic for Eastern front and Stalingrad scenario in particular

2. Are you going to fight them all at once?With unlimited ammo?

3. VVS BAPs had max 20 planes (table nr.) in that time.Why there should be complete operational BAP in the air?It never was.Mostly they flew in smaller groups 3-6-9 max as tactical support of ground forces.Mass carpet bombing was not their daily routine.

 

On one side people cry for the most realistic FM and AI there could ever be made and then they complain about AI using same FM as human pilots and asking devs to dumb down the product into year 2003.It is your hardware guys,not DN engine,that limits your game experience.Jason has mentioned on one occasion (in DD?) that they have even more sophisticated FM in their engineers drawers.But that one would for sure melt your CPU as snow in the summer.

 

you are spreading misinformation, IT IS a problem with the engines failure to utilize all available resources effectively (all cores). if the engine was truly scalable  then going from a quad core to a 6 core would increase performance by %50  but it wont and there fore it is an issue with the DN engine just like it is with ARMA3,CLOD and so on.


I will probably never get tired of repeating this, but the focus should be on both. Just do like in Forgotten Battles over a decade ago and make everything playable in single and multi alike. Absolutely no need to focus on either group at the expense of the other when every bit of content you create is automatically useful for everyone.


  • 0

#275 BlitzPig_EL

BlitzPig_EL
  • Member
  • Posts: 1501
  • Location:The Great Black Swamp of Ohio

Posted 18 April 2015 - 16:24

 

 

Anyway planes and maps are great but we need focus on gameplay for everyone not just one of the other. It's fairly well documented what both parties need...it's just getting it that is the problem.

 

I totally agree with you Emil.   Can this, or any title in our little niche, afford to alienate any group of players?


  • 0

8wxp.jpg

Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943.
~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov


#276 AKA_Recon

AKA_Recon
  • Founder
  • Posts: 147

Posted 20 April 2015 - 01:58

I still would rather have a great single player experience with the ability to play different offline scenarios.  A small dev team can only do so much at a time and be productive, so you have to decide where the focus is.  Again, it's clearly evident in the the number when you have '60' vs. '4000'.   That is a no brainer.

 

If you want to fly online every night you can fly Cliffs of Dover.   It's more the opposite, a weak offline single player experience, but a strong multiplayer one.  I find the online actually to be rather repetitive, and you encounter the same expert pilots nearly every night.

 

I also think you will eventually draw more people into the genre by producing a good offline single player or COOP player experience.

 

Il2 Sturmovik had the most popularity when they ran VEF type wars where you had smaller, targeted missions with an emphasis on tactical strikes.  I picture BoS falling into the same setup as well.  

 

Although it's great in theory to think of having 100's on a server playing, I'm not really sure how practical it is with this engine and the effort to get it there ... again, it's worth to me the priority, when you can continue to work on making offline/and coop missions a bigger priority.

 

My last 2 cents  - I doubt any developer is reading this stuff anyway, it goes on and on and on.  Their team probably has a tight budget and they have to be very focused on what they deliver - in order to make a living and a good product.


  • 0

#277 Brano

Brano
  • Founder
  • Posts: 2664
  • Location:Slovakia

Posted 20 April 2015 - 08:22

you are spreading misinformation, IT IS a problem with the engines failure to utilize all available resources effectively (all cores). if the engine was truly scalable  then going from a quad core to a 6 core would increase performance by %50  but it wont and there fore it is an issue with the DN engine just like it is with ARMA3,CLOD and so on.

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.


  • 0

#278 AvengerSeawolf

AvengerSeawolf
  • Member
  • Posts: 256

Posted 20 April 2015 - 09:24

I also think you will eventually draw more people into the genre by producing a good offline single player or COOP player experience.

 

 

I strongly agree to that.


  • 0

#279 6./ZG26_Gielow

6./ZG26_Gielow
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1129

Posted 20 April 2015 - 13:51

Sunday afternoon on Wings of Liberty was insane !!!  I hope they increase the player slots soon  :ph34r:


  • 1

#280 Winger

Winger
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1810

Posted 20 April 2015 - 14:00

Sunday afternoon on Wings of Liberty was insane !!!  I hope they increase the player slots soon  :ph34r:

+1 beside the over the top YAK FM this is gamebreaker number one for me.

Hope they fix both issues soon.


  • 0
"The release date (of the rift) will NOT be measured in multiples of years from now" Palmer Luckey at GDC in October 2013




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users