Stalingrad vs Cliffs of Dover

[SharpeXB]

Bug or byproduct of the original engine being developed more for BVR combat? I never really thought of it as a bug, rather, WW2 AC deviating from "intended use"

Veering off topic into DCS... But

I find the WWII stuff to be fine in DCS (and at both 1080p and 4K)

It's the modern jet vs jet stuff where the issue is more critical. A WWII fighter can't shoot you from 12 miles away. Visual range for the F-15 etc is still like 10 miles.

Personally I think it's just a matter of contrast as much as anything. The detail even at 1080p in DCS is very nice and sharp. It's the lack of contrast that gets you under some conditions.

[[KWN]T-oddball]

kind of a sad irony but we should already be playing BOM.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

this  one is a bit of  question.....

 

[SharpeXB]

We will be playing BoM

And a better version of it.

 

Peeve #72. Besides not assigning any default keys in the game CoD doesn't alert you when you double map one. A useful feature for games with hundreds of key commands. BoS and RoF and DCS do.

Edited June 9, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Trident_109]

Whenever I see CloD vs BoS, or BoS vs Clod, threads I wonder to myself - what state will BoS be in when it has had 6 more years of development? After all, CloD has had 8 years of development including TF's reverse engineering/hacking/modding. I don't mean the reverse engineer/hack to be derogatory it is simply what has been done, they don't have access to the source code and have literally hacked it to change the game. As it was, CloD was terrible until TF. So adding in TF, that's a few years more of "development."

 

So why compare a 2 year old title to an 8 year old title?

 

As far as preference, play what you want. Who cares? I will only play BoS, and subsequent theaters/release/etc, for a litany of reasons - none of which impact someone who will only play CloD, and vice versa.

May as well include BoS's 5 years of the DN engine with the release of RoF when comparing development times. CoD was a whole new engine and while the finished product wasn't what it should have been it's not really fair to not consider the 5 years (plus development if you want to get technical) of RoF when comparing BoS and CoD.

[Sokol1]

 

 

Peeve #72. Besides not assigning any default keys in the game CoD doesn't alert you when you double map one.

 

I consider this a feature, because allow me map - in these different category in what CloD controls is divided - the same key to do different things, that is very useful, only require attention to avoid use for conflicting functions between category. Had all these options is nice, is better have more than less options. In some ways CloD controls options is better that DCS - that dont execute a second function in game if one key (other than modifiers) still pressed.

 

Allow for example, be press a key I jump for rear gunner, unpark the turret and take aim on MG - without use external macros with HOTAS software required in other games - because each one of these functions is in different category.

 

And If I try map the same key for two or more functions in the same category, a warning window is show. Complain about have better options show a swallow vision...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trident_109]

This is apparently how you enable the people

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=228865

 

99/100 players would never figure out how to do this, they'd just scratch their head and wonder at all the empty vehicles driving themselves.

 

See the thread topic asked us to compare. So I'm comparing. And maybe getting it all off my chest after all these years

I never had any WFT?! &@%#!!! Moments in RoF and BoS even from the earliest days of EA everything works nice and makes sense.

CoD can be made ok but you have to work at liking it.

 

You never configured your INI. file in IL2?  We may be fanatical to absurd levels but us flight simmers are a pretty helpful group. There's lots of things that folks haven't figured out in BoS. That's why we have members who make training videos and manuals. It's part of flight simming. Some features are buried. Others are not.

 

BTW, IL2's humans were always configured in the INI. file. I think it started with Pacific Flyers and the servicemen on decks manning anti aircraft guns.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Trident_109

[Sokol1]

Just (like in il-2'46) change in conf.ini: SpawnHumans=0 to SapwnHumans=1.

 

 

Really a very "complicate" way. 

 

 

Seems that he lost the old il-2 good days, and all these Conf.ini tweaks: 

 

HighGore=    

trackIRUse=

Water= 

Trees= 

3dGunners= 

EnableResize=

EnableClose=

SaveAspect=

ProcessAffinityMask=

Shadows=

VideoSetupId=

Water=

Effects=

ForceShaders1x= Values for Nvidia are different from ATI   

[Trident_109]

Sharpe. I just checked that Free Flght mission in CoD. There's no place to select alliance when choosing a plane. Using the Aircraft Options screen (after loading the mission) brings up a customize window where I THOUGHT I could change skins, insignias, and Axis verses Allie. The selection drop down window is there. You just can't use it. You can change skin, weathering, and markings but not alliance. Strange.

 

I haven't checked other missions, though.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Trident_109

[LukeFF]

 

 

Makes complete sense to me, you make your own key assignments that fit your play style, I thought we all liked options?

 

Some people just want to load up the game and play, rather than having to fiddle with keyboard assignments.  

[Finkeren]

I consider this a feature, because allow me map - in these different category in what CloD controls is divided - the same key to do different things, that is very useful, only require attention to avoid use for conflicting functions between category. Had all these options is nice, is better have more than less options. In some ways CloD controls options is better that DCS - that dont execute a second function in game if one key (other than modifiers) still pressed.

 

Allow for example, be press a key I jump for rear gunner, unpark the turret and take aim on MG - without use external macros with HOTAS software required in other games - because each one of these functions is in different category.

 

And If I try map the same key for two or more functions in the same category, a warning window is show. Complain about have better options show a swallow vision...

Well BoS does one better than ClOD here. You can map different functions to the same key and it alerts you to the fact that you have done so by displaying that little orange mark. You can also use both functions simultaneously, for instance I've got the two sets of cowl flaps on the La-5 mapped to the same rotary and it works like a charm.

 

I hate the fact that BoS has forced presets for graphics and difficulty, but when it comes to setting up controls, it is leaps and bounds above any other flight sim I've flown.

[Trident_109]

Can BoS use the shift key so one doesn't run out of buttons? If it does I haven't figured it out. I know CoD does but I'd love to see it in BoS.

[Lusekofte]

BOS did lie to me about hotas , in the beginning they had the possibilities for trim wheel . To me BOS is worthless in that regard, not giving me the option using hotas.

They suddenly claimed that this was a sim for all so such equipment was not a priority. Like there ever was a chance.

So I do not agree on the key assignment . 

To me BOS is fast fun, but a no no in dogfight, laggy TrackIr, yes I have a updated TrackIr . Make sure of that, so I am stuck with ground pounding and target practice for enemy fighters. To me cod is just a bit more serious and playable. Engine management is more than just how open your rads are. 

[72sq_Savinio]

Engine management is more than just how open your rads are. 

 

Just personal opinion of an untalented Virtual Pilot with limited knowledge of the aircraft WWII to have a clear idea of how it should be the engine management: after a bit of practice and after a few hundred hours on CloD .. I'm not so sure about that .

Edited June 9, 2015 by 72sq_Savinio

[SharpeXB]

You never configured your INI. file in IL2?

No. Why would a player need to do that to enable something basic in a game? See this is what I'm saying about CoD. It gets a big fat "Fail" for user friendliness. It's like these old games that are designed for computer programmers rather than normal people. 99/100 players probably never edit the ini files in their game. It's another reason why CoD flopped in the market.

[SharpeXB]

I consider this a feature, because allow me map - in these different category in what CloD controls is divided - the same key to do different things, that is very useful, only require attention to avoid use for conflicting functions between category. Had all these options is nice, is better have more than less options. In some ways CloD controls options is better that DCS - that dont execute a second function in game if one key (other than modifiers) still pressed.

 

Allow for example, be press a key I jump for rear gunner, unpark the turret and take aim on MG - without use external macros with HOTAS software required in other games - because each one of these functions is in different category.

 

And If I try map the same key for two or more functions in the same category, a warning window is show. Complain about have better options show a swallow vision...

The fact that CoD doesn't tell you about double mapped keys for a game as complex at this means a new player especially one without flight sim experience would need dozens of hours to figure out a assign keys and manually make a list of what they are so they don't duplicate. It's maddening and only the most die hard enthusiast would put up with it. The normal player would just quit.

[3instein]

The fact that CoD doesn't tell you about double mapped keys for a game as complex at this means a new player especially one without flight sim experience would need dozens of hours to figure out a assign keys and manually make a list of what they are so they don't duplicate. It's maddening and only the most die hard enthusiast would put up with it. The normal player would just quit.

Again, not sure what game your talking about. I played CloD last night and it certainly does lets you know when you attempt to double map a key assignment. 

 

Mick.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

The fact that CoD doesn't tell you about double mapped keys for a game as complex at this means a new player especially one without flight sim experience would need dozens of hours to figure out a assign keys and manually make a list of what they are so they don't duplicate. It's maddening and only the most die hard enthusiast would put up with it. The normal player would just quit.

Didn't take me dozens of hours went I started a couple of years ago.

 

You keep looking for reasons to naysay and I will keep looking too.

[SharpeXB]

Again, not sure what game your talking about. I played CloD last night and it certainly does lets you know when you attempt to double map a key assignment.

 

Mick.

Is that TF? Looks like it is.

I don't see that message on Vanilla.

Edited June 9, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Trident_109]

No. Why would a player need to do that to enable something basic in a game? See this is what I'm saying about CoD. It gets a big fat "Fail" for user friendliness. It's like these old games that are designed for computer programmers rather than normal people. 99/100 players probably never edit the ini files in their game. It's another reason why CoD flopped in the market.

I understand the sentiment but in today's internet society there's almost nothing you can't find. You visit these and other flight sim forums on a regular basis. There's always some sort of topic on config settings, whether it be IL2, CoD or BoS. There's always a member willing to help out.

 

The basics of the game have always worked and the INI. file isn't mandatory to make the game playable or enjoyable. Delving into it though opens up a whole different layer of features to turn on. For example IL2 had degrees of water quality so that those with less powerful systems could play and the more powerful your PC the more options you could use. Most functions turned on with the INI. file are off because they are resource intensive but not having them activated doesn't necessarily take the fun away.

 

Again, I understand the sentiment but most flight simmers like having the ability to configure the game to their liking. The games GUI doesn't allow for all options and having an INI. file just provides that much more flexibility. As fledglings  progresses most will find the INI. file a useful tool to improve their experience. It's part of the flight simmers 'path.'

 

 

[SharpeXB]

I understand the sentiment but in today's internet society there's almost nothing you can't find. You visit these and other flight sim forums on a regular basis. There's always some sort of topic on config settings, whether it be IL2, CoD or BoS. There's always a member willing to help out.

 

The basics of the game have always worked and the INI. file isn't mandatory to make the game playable or enjoyable. Delving into it though opens up a whole different layer of features to turn on. For example IL2 had degrees of water quality so that those with less powerful systems could play and the more powerful your PC the more options you could use. Most functions turned on with the INI. file are off because they are resource intensive but not having them activated doesn't necessarily take the fun away.

 

Again, I understand the sentiment but most flight simmers like having the ability to configure the game to their liking. The games GUI doesn't allow for all options and having an INI. file just provides that much more flexibility. As fledglings progresses most will find the INI. file a useful tool to improve their experience. It's part of the flight simmers 'path.'

 

That's actually the worst game or software design philosophy I can imagine. This game was released in 2011 not 1983. I remember how the computer guys in high school hated Mac computers because they were "too easy" to use. It could be worse, 1C could have made the game work on DOS

C:\newmission_spitfire.*

The designers were just completely out of touch with how to make anything in the game operate for people who weren't computer enthusiasts. It explains a lot about how CoD went down. "Fun for the users" isn't empty vehicles driving themselves around the airfield. It's a joke.

 

That's another reason why when you look at the actual usage stats on Steam you see the typical BoS player with 2.5x as many gameplay hours in a given period as in CoD.

Edited June 9, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Lusekofte]

If you never tried to improve IL2 it was outdated already in 2006, overall old IL 2 modded give me more than cod and bos together. 

If you insist on not installing TF patches you really do not have any valid points regarding cod. It is the only version alive today. 

In regards of flying on rails? What exactly are you guys calling auto level button in BOS? 

I am very happy with BOS game physics but when it comes to fly on the verge of stalling I find COD more realistic. I think that got to do with the light feel of planes in BOS. All in all these two sims simply is not comparable. 

they are two perfect co exciting sims for use on different purposes. I was fed up about cod for a while, and BOS made me keep on flying. 

[BraveSirRobin]

In regards of flying on rails? What exactly are you guys calling auto level button in BOS?  

 

I call it whenever I need to get a beer.

[SharpeXB]

I call it whenever I need to get a beer.

I do that too! So far nobody has shot me down while I'm away :-D

[SharpeXB]

What exactly are you guys calling auto level button in BOS?

The feature comes from RoF where most of the planes don't have trim commands, it makes flying long distances tiring. Also it's needed to SP the two-seaters. Trying to fly the Sopwith Camel at 8x speed is also rather impossible.

[Sokol1]

 

 

The fact that CoD doesn't tell you about double mapped keys for a game as complex at this means a new player especially one without flight sim experience would need dozens of hours to figure out a assign keys and manually make a list of what they are so they don't duplicate.

 

Yes, for new player or non experienced (or lazy) player this became complicated. This people should ask for help in forums, I already write hundred of lines explaining this minutiae. 

The point is possible the casual and "grognard" player (specially) became happy with options.

 

Little history: In CloD "bugfest" (release) one related bug was that are not possible move and fire the gunner MG at the same time (tracking the bandit).

 

But this was no bug, just a conflict key introduced by developer (Murphy Law at the best), as the mouse left button - commonly used be people to fire guns (in General category) games - was assigned (in View category) to "Hold do adjust FOV" (that mouse zoom), so if the player press this button the mouse movement is only registered back and forth (for zoom), but as the turret MG is controlled with mouse left/right/up/down movements, stop to move. Just remapping one or other function solve this. 

 

 

Trident_109, on 09 Jun 2015 - 00:32, said:

Sharpe. I just checked that Free Flght mission in CoD. There's no place to select alliance when choosing a plane. Using the Aircraft Options screen (after loading the mission) brings up a customize window where I THOUGHT I could change skins, insignias, and Axis verses Allie. The selection drop down window is there. You just can't use it. You can change skin, weathering, and markings but not alliance. Strange.

 

As I say previously, CLod don't have Quick Mission Generator as IL-2'46 and BoS, has only pre-made "Quick Missions" in what is only possible change the planes type, skins, time of day and clouds, so things like Nationality, Fuel quantity, Loadouts... is the one defined in the mission file. 

 

If the mission was created with only one flyable plane, or planes for only one nationality, although is possible change the plane for any flyable (even the UFO SU-26) and select other skin in Aircraft Options is not possible change the plane Nationality marks, the mission file does not provide that option. 

 

For weapons and fuel is possible do a workaround in Options > Plane creating a specific loadout, saving with custom name and select this under plane in "Quick Mission", a confuse thing to do...

 

In this department the game is a steep back relative to il-2'46 QMB. 

[SharpeXB]

Maybe it's that game designers of the old era that produced CoD didn't have access to enough data about their game like they do today for example from Steam or how this game is always online. So they put complex features into the game figuring it's what players would want but the reality is that almost none of them will use. Look at some Steam data from CoD

50% of the players played the game for less than 2 1/2 hours. That's not even enough time to figure out anything about the controls or game. So that's about 100,000 people who bought the game and quit. This number is rather typical for games so it's not a slight against CoD. Although BoS number is higher at 6:10

The top players with a hundred hours or more that would be the ones who want to mess around with the complex settings and mods represent only less than 1%. Even in BoS a player with over 50 hours, enough time to finish the campaign is in the top 2%. So given information like that why have these very complicated time consuming settings and features. It doesn't make the effort and cost worth it because hardly any player will use them.

[Blitzen]

You know Mat that is how I look at it too.. and even when DCS WWII is released.. That will be Normandy and for all intents and purposes a different plane set.  I look at this as having 4 sims to choose from.. IL2, CoD, DCS and IL2.. Eventually depending on how this all shakes out I will more than likely setle more on one or the other with IL2 original being an all time favorite and standby because it is just fun and easy .. I'd rather do IL2 than WT... for fun.. but I see no reason why I cannot support and enjoy as many decent WWII sims out there as I can afford to.

Ditto!

[Trident_109]

That's actually the worst game or software design philosophy I can imagine. This game was released in 2011 not 1983. I remember how the computer guys in high school hated Mac computers because they were "too easy" to use. It could be worse, 1C could have made the game work on DOS

C:\newmission_spitfire.*

The designers were just completely out of touch with how to make anything in the game operate for people who weren't computer enthusiasts. It explains a lot about how CoD went down. "Fun for the users" isn't empty vehicles driving themselves around the airfield. It's a joke.

 

That's another reason why when you look at the actual usage stats on Steam you see the typical BoS player with 2.5x as many gameplay hours in a given period as in CoD.

It explain NOTHING about what went wrong with CoD. IL2 and CoD aren't the only games with INI. files. Popular games have them too - especially before many PC games became ports of console games. Your nit picking about personnel occupied vehicles because you don't want to be bothered with learning something to improve the sim experience.

 

As I said, there were good reasons to eliminate occupied vehicles. Would you feel better if they included a toggle switch like they do for the amount of trees or land geom? The INI. file may look intimidating, but like the tutorials and members in BoS's forums, there was always help in the other games.

 

I doubt that in today's internet climate that there are many that don't at least visit a games main web site/ forum. This isn't 1995 where resources weren't available. Info is virtually free.

[Bearcat]

I am curious about something... While I bought CoD within the first week I could not fly it at all on my rig at the time.... Between the whole epilepsy thing and all of that it just would not run. I was not able to run it until the very last patch... and then it got better after the TF patch but I was finally able to really run it when I upgraded my rig for BoS in 2012.

 

Because I could not run it at all I rarely went to the CoD forum at 1C... For me it was a waste of time... so I missed a lot if the drama that went on there and I have no idea how bad it was.. so my question for folks in this thread who were there at the time..

 

Was the level of discord over CoD as loud as it is in some circles here, or was it less or was it worse... ?

 

[Trident_109]

I am curious about something... While I bought CoD within the first week I could not fly it at all on my rig at the time.... Between the whole epilepsy thing and all of that it just would not run. I was not able to run it until the very last patch... and then it got better after the TF patch but I was finally able to really run it when I upgraded my rig for BoS in 2012.

 

Because I could not run it at all I rarely went to the CoD forum at 1C... For me it was a waste of time... so I missed a lot if the drama that went on there and I have no idea how bad it was.. so my question for folks in this thread who were there at the time..

 

Was the level of discord over CoD as loud as it is in some circles here, or was it less or was it worse... ?

 

 

Worse. From 2010 to it's release and after there was constant bickering and cheap shots taken. There were pro and con arguments. It got so petty that folks were picking on the arboreal height and color. People were tired of waiting, promises and delays. Getting what was finally released was the final straw.

[BraveSirRobin]

It was worse.  And now that is the greatest flight sim ever^tm, so there is hope for BoS.

[Feathered_IV]

The thing that really kills SP CloD for me is truly [Edited] l AI voice acting. I can't manage more than fifteen minutes of play before quitting in disgust. There where what, something like sixteen nationalities in the RAF during the Battle of Britain? Clod gives us one robotic voice that sounds like C3PO's [Edited] cousin. It gets used for everything from the rambling verbiage of the ground controller, to the indestinguishable exclamations of your own character. Messages are assembled from a string of random words. Each recorded in a mismatched series of expressions, ranging from bored, pleasantly surprised or mincing. All in the same sentence. It's a complete failure.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Bearcat

[SharpeXB]

Popular games have them too - especially before many PC games became ports of console games.

Those games were made back in the dark ages of PC gaming when these things only sold on floppy discs to computer enthusiasts. It's a new era now. No game today would even think of having major settings hidden away in config files.

[Trident_109]

Sorry. Wanted to edit this into my above post but too late.

BC. Imagine the UBI forums on it's worst day when we were allowed to discuss political and religious topics, and you have an idea of the atmosphere in the IL2:CoD forums.

Those games were made back in the dark ages of PC gaming when these things only sold on floppy discs to computer enthusiasts. It's a new era now. No game today would even think of having major settings hidden away in config files.

I'm too lazy to look, but there was a way to edit the BoS config INI. file that made ground detail look better from distance. BoS has an INI. file too. It's just locked down.

[Finkeren]

Yeah Bearcat, as bad as the negativity aimed at BoS can be at times, it's nothing compared to ClOD at release. People were furious and understandably so.

Curiously, there were people at the time, who continued to defend the sim against attacks. I'm not sure exactly why. Maybe they were lucky and ClOD actually ran acceptably on their systems or maybe they just couldn't admit to themselves, that the sim they had invested money, time and a lot of hopes in was in fact nearly unplayable, who knows?

The situation around BoS is very different, mostly because on a whole, the sim actually works. It was never in any kind of frustrating development hell, and it has progressed pretty fast since launch.

The negativity against BoS primarily comes from two sources:

1. Some dedicated sim enthusiasts, you can call them 'purists' if you will, many of whom had already soured towards the DN engine and the devs back in RoF, accusing them of cutting too many corners or of never going back to fix existing issues with the sim (The first is a matter of opinion, the latter obviously untrue)

2. Then there's the much larger group of players who have started to dislike BoS during development, because they are simply finding it hard to enjoy the sim due to some of the design choices made in development. Many of their complaints about lacking SP content, restricted MP, lack of modding support and forced presets are perfectly valid and deserve to be adressed still, but I disagree about whether any and all of those issues really break the sim.

Then ofc there's the odd ATAG [Edited] (most ATAG guys are nice people, so not a comment of the ATAG community at large) but honestly they are so few and far between and most of them have left by now.

[3instein]

Then ofc there's the odd ATAG [Edited] (most ATAG guys are nice people, so not a comment of the ATAG community at large) but honestly they are so few and far between and most of them have left by now.

About as bad as the [Edited] all for BoS over at SimHQ mind you.

 

Mick.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Bearcat

[6./ZG26_Emil]

About as bad as the trolls all for BoS over at SimHQ mind you.

 

Mick.

 

I don't see any pro BOS [Edited] on SimHQ, that forum has turned in to a wasteland with just 5 or 6 haters repeating the same stuff every day. I used to go there for a good read about my hobby but it's a waste of time now as every thread just ends up getting moved in to the extended discussion section.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Bearcat

[Bearcat]

Those games were made back in the dark ages of PC gaming when these things only sold on floppy discs to computer enthusiasts. It's a new era now. No game today would even think of having major settings hidden away in config files.

 

I disagree with this notion. I see the use of the config edits as adding more functionality without having to take the time to create an interface. It greatly increased the flexibility of IL2 and it also helps the flexibility of BoS as well.

 

Yeah Bearcat, as bad as the negativity aimed at BoS can be at times, it's nothing compared to ClOD at release. People were furious and understandably so.

 

Curiously, there were people at the time, who continued to defend the sim against attacks. I'm not sure exactly why. Maybe they were lucky and ClOD actually ran acceptably on their systems or maybe they just couldn't admit to themselves, that the sim they had invested money, time and a lot of hopes in was in fact nearly unplayable, who knows?

 

The situation around BoS is very different, mostly because on a whole, the sim actually works. It was never in any kind of frustrating development hell, and it has progressed pretty fast since launch.

 

The negativity against BoS primarily comes from two sources:

 

1. Some dedicated sim enthusiasts, you can call them 'purists' if you will, many of whom had already soured towards the DN engine and the devs back in RoF, accusing them of cutting too many corners or of never going back to fix existing issues with the sim (The first is a matter of opinion, the latter obviously untrue)

 

2. Then there's the much larger group of players who have started to dislike BoS during development, because they are simply finding it hard to enjoy the sim due to some of the design choices made in development. Many of their complaints about lacking SP content, restricted MP, lack of modding support and forced presets are perfectly valid and deserve to be adressed still, but I disagree about whether any and all of those issues really break the sim.

 

Then ofc there's the odd ATAG [Edited] (most ATAG guys are nice people, so not a comment of the ATAG community at large) but honestly they are so few and far between and most of them have left by now.

 

Much of what you say is true.. What is hard for me to understand is the oft spoken idea by either direct statement or insinuation that somehow if you happen to support BoS in spite of it's flaws as opposed to dislike it because of it's flaws.. there is somehow something wrong with you, you are not seeing the sim for what it is, you are deluding yourself or blindly tossing money at the product, when in truth I imagine that most of us who bought BoS and already bought into BoM did so after giving it thought and just deciding that it was a worthwhile investment to make. I know that is my reason for still supporting it. For me the fact that the sim actually does work, and works quite well is more important than some of the missing elements because some of those missing elements can be addressed.. Whether all of them or most of them will be remains to be seen but I have been willing to speak with my wallet on just how I feel about the sim and while I do not have a problem with others doing the same thing I do take issue with people engaging in an active relentless campaign to discourage others from even considering BoS, some of which has gotten very personal and vicious over the past two years and that is what I have a problem with and what I just find so hard to understand.

 

 

About as bad as the [Edited] all for BoS over at SimHQ mind you.

 

Mick.

 

 

Internet Troll:

A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues. Such arguments can happen on blogs, Facebook, Myspace and a host of others.

The best thing you can do to fight an internet troll is to not answer..or report them.

 

The people who support or have decided to not drop BoS who still post at SHQ with any regularity (most supporters of BoS have walked away from the site because of the atmosphere ) are not trolls.. Just because they have a differing opinion from the masses on that particular site and post their support of BoS there.. because it is still the SHQ BoS forum...  does not make them trolls. The people who latch on to any and every post that says anything positive about this sim and inject ridicule or derision either at the developers, the sim, the poster, this forum or it's moderation are the ones who are behaving more like trolls. For all the talk of bias and censorship here on this forum that goes on at SHQ's BoS forum... there are open discussions right now on this forum criticizing BoS for it's flaws.. and in many of the threads that have become contentious at times opponents and supporters alike are treated the same way..

This thread is just one of many that support that point. There are people in this very thread who are some of BoS's most ardent supporters and they have been warned via PM, had their posting privileges suspended for a time or had their posts edited to remove inflammatory rhetoric over the past two years just as some of the detractors have.. Just because they do not openly complain about it does not mean that that does not happen.

 

I don't see any pro BOS [Edited] on SimHQ, that forum has turned in to a wasteland with just 5 or 6 haters repeating the same stuff every day. I used to go there for a good read about my hobby but it's a waste of time now as every thread just ends up getting moved in to the extended discussion section.

 

+1 .. although I still pop in there because I think that it is necessary to offer up a different view from the prevailing one on that site. I have to walk on eggshells there because often anything I post becomes fuel for the torches.. but over the past year I have managed to develop a very thick skin..  I think that that kind of discord hurts the genre.. it hurt CoD, it will hurt BoS to a degree.. although I believe that as long as BoS remains developer supported things will at least be able to move forward to whatever degree the development team decides to take it.. or not.. and it (that kind of discord) will hurt future development of flight sims.

[SharpeXB]

I disagree with this notion. I see the use of the config edits as adding more functionality without having to take the time to create an interface. It greatly increased the flexibility of IL2 and it also helps the flexibility of BoS as well.

Sure. But it's a functionality which 90% of the players won't use or even know about. That's the difference between the two games IMO BoS borrows from RoF in making the interface of the game much easier to understand and use. And even with the ini options, the default setting should have been with the people tunrned on, not off. It's just another one of those hmmmm moments with CoD.

[Bearcat]

I disagree with the 90% part.. In IL2 anyone who went to the forum to ask... "How do I get rid of that annoying text" was immediately directed here. It was relatively common knowledge.