Developer Diary, Part I

[Phantom-103]

Fantastic to see The Friday Updates returning,Great to see a plan laid out with future theaters being a possibility depending on popularity of BOS[it's all up to us]

 

**I'm wondering if you would consider releasing "Pre-Purchase Beta's" Similar to what DCS does?I think it's a sound business practice.

You release the product in a playable beta state,with the understanding there are bugs present but these will be erased in future updates.This brings in revenue to fund BOM and possibly future projects.

 

Thanks very much for the update,Cheers! 

[Catseye]

This is ROF's Spad 13 cockpit, aka the very first one modeled for the game. If that doesn't look good, then I dunno what does:

 

Cockpit.png

This is a nice cockpit suitable for a 10 year old product like the orginal IL2.

It has no where near the "photo-realistic" and functionality that the COD cockpits have.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Catseye

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

The cockpits of the spad and the tigermoth side by side...

 

http://imageshack.us/a/img825/6753/pit2.jpg

 

http://imageshack.us/a/img171/7541/pit1v.jpg

 

I think the spad holds up quite well.

[URUAker]

Yeah it looks nice on that screenie

[SYN_Haashashin]

This is a nice cockpit suitable for a 10 year old product like the orginal IL2.

It has no where near the "photo-realistic" and functionality that the COD cockpits have.

 

I wonder why people still comparing, seriously, you expect the same functionality from 2 totally different air war eras?? come on can not compare base on that simple because RoF doesnt need to be that much complex, the real thing was not that complex.

And saying that spad13 is like original il2...come on, install original il2, do not install mods (yeah those that makes the cockpit looks nice) and get back with a pic comparing spad13 and original il2 cockpits. Then if you are right ( what IMHO you wont) I will say you were right and everybody is happy.

[Krupi]

On the cockpit argument - no doubt about it that the cockpits in CLoD were superb.  One of the highlights for me.  That being said it is not like the ROF cockpits are very poor in comparison.  777 have already indicated the cockpits will not be to CLoD's standard.  Unfortunate, but they could still be very good.  Obviously would like a cockpit damage model and I do enjoy the "clickable" cockpit of CLoD.

 

At this stage, if the poor CLoD AI is improved, ROF ground attack is improved, multi-player is stable, and a good FMB is with BoS I would think, "on balance", combined with a very good cockpit the game would be a step forward for the community.

 

Look forward to the updates and good luck with the project.

 

This is what I hope for.

[APIKalimba]

Can we really expect a well known and respected company like 777 to pick up a legendary and famous WWII sim like Sturmovik and release it with outdated graphics ?

To release a sim that the whole community will perceive as the do or die of highend flightsim and not put in it all of its knowlege and top notch technology ?

It would be insane...And a catastrophic failure...

So they won't. They will release a fabulous and great looking sim with all the necessary options and feature to make it a "simulator" and respond to all the established criterias.

It can't be otherwise. 

 

Salute my friends !

Edited December 15, 2012 by Kalimba

[FTC_Karaya]

The most critical thing imho will be how many ground targets will be supported by the engine per mission file, that is the biggest issue for me with RoF! There are only so many things you can put into a mission, it will be a huge let down if the same holds true for BoS

[addman]

Can we really expect a well known and respected company like 777 to pick up a legendary and famous WWII sim like Sturmovik and release it with outdated graphics ?

To release a sim that the whole community will perceive as the do or die of highend flightsim and not put in it all of its knowlege and top notch technology ?

It would be insane...And a catastrophic failure...

So they won't. They will release a fabulous and great looking sim with all the necessary options and feature to make it a "simulator" and respond to all the established criterias.

It can't be otherwise. 

 

Salute my friends !

 

You might have to lower your expectations a bit, it's better to be realistic about this considering the timeframe and resources required for such a feat. Nobody buys flightsims any more, just us poor sobs here, I'm just grateful ATM that we will actually see a follow-up in the new IL-2 series. I don't think them catering to a small group of hardcore people will earn them a lot of money, there has to be balance between historical accuracy, accessibility and game features to accommodate as many different players as possible. I want the same as you, most of us do but try to be realistic about it.

[NZTyphoon]

What is clear to me is that the BOS developers have a budget to work to and they are determined to stay within it, which simply makes good business sense. What also makes sense is learning from the mistakes made on CLOD and developing software which avoids a repeat of that debacle. Yes CLOD has some fantastic features and it is bloody annoying to seemingly move backwards, but clearly those same features were also the source of a great deal of the game's problems.

 

Just reading the reviews of CLOD on Amazon - whether online reviews are useful, or a waste of time, they are there for all to see and read: the large majority of 90 reviews were negative to very negative: 44 = 1 star; many negative comments relate to Steam. And this just happens to be the world's biggest online store.

 

http://www.amazon.com/IL-2-Sturmovik-Cliffs-Dover-Pc/dp/B004L5SJ4Y

 

How many potential buyers/gamers were put off by reading these reviews? Can never know, but it doesn't matter, the fact is that it is a game that garnered a bad public reputation which still hasn't been resolved. There are all too many games on the market which have become over-ambitious,  been released full of bugs and garnered a bad reputation; eg

 

http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Hunter-Battle-Atlantic-Pc/dp/B002PAIPQO

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sid-Meiers-Civilization-V-Download/dp/B004774IPU

 

More importantly, why would anyone who develops and sells games want to develop a reputation for releasing buggy, problematic software? Look at what happened to the developers of CLOD. Even more important, who wins if the developers of BOS repeat the mistakes made by the CLOD developers? Nobody! The gamers will lose because they will be landed yet again with a buggy game which might have great potential, but only after two-three years of  effort and the expensive release of patches and more patches which may, or may not, solve all the problems. And, of course, the developers will once again be out of pocket, landed with a game that doesn't sell and is only played by the most dedicated followers.

 

Let's just be a little more pragmatic, and a little less sentimental, and give BOS a chance.

Edited December 16, 2012 by NZTyphoon

[Bearcat]

The System used by 777 is Ok. It is no more invasive than steam. Since the release of ROF I can only remember one or two times when the server was unavailable and those were in the early days.

 

Onced installed you can play in off line mode without logging into the server and there is nothing like the steam client that runs in the background 24/7 even when you are not playing.

 

When you start ROF you get the option of checking online for updates other wise you can skip that part and go to the game.

 

Cheers!

Well that right there is a huge plus.

[Mac_Messer]

Let's just be a little more pragmatic, and a little less sentimental, and give BOS a chance.

I don`t think anyone liking flightsims doesn`t want to give BOS a chance. It is obvious we want it to succeed.

 

That said, some of us are concerned and need to speak up of our needs. Because the new sim`s success depends hugely on catering to the most popular flightsimming needs.

[NZTyphoon]

Buggy is not the issue.

 

Content is the issue.

 

Rise of Flight with a WW2 skin won't cut it with me, or anyone else that understands the scale of the conflict.

 

Right now, all we have to judge the future sim on is Rise of Flight.  If that is the height the bar is set at then 1C and 777 should not even bother.   RoF judged on it's own is a fun little game, I enjoy flying it, but it's severe limitations will doom any WW2 combat flight sim based on it.  We keep hearing how the engine is so advanced and capable, but where is the evidence of that?  Certainly not in the lifeless, under populated world of RoF.

 

I'm willing to give Jason and crew a fair shot, but we need to see real evidence that the engine is truly capable.

 

And need to see it soon.

 

I don`t think anyone liking flightsims doesn`t want to give BOS a chance. It is obvious we want it to succeed.

 

That said, some of us are concerned and need to speak up of our needs. Because the new sim`s success depends hugely on catering to the most popular flightsimming needs.

 

And what do the developers, and those who are backing the venture financially need? First and foremost this is a business venture which needs to generate sales in order to be successful. Hopefully that will then gain you a satisfied gaming community, who will readily buy future expansion packs, and a decent public reputation, which will help genrate more sales.

 

Take a look again at what has happened to CLOD on Amazon

 

"List Price $49.99 down to $7.40 you save $42.59 (85%)." Add to that a sceptical public who will probably think hard before buying...

 

Compare this with  IL2 Sturmovick 1946, now five years old:

 

http://www.amazon.com/IL-2-Sturmovik-1946-Pc/dp/B000N4JENW

 

Suppose you have a budget of $1 million to develop a new game? Would you rather:

 

a) Blow much of your budget developing a complex, cutting-edge product which caters to the needs of a relatively small number of high-end users, then have to expend even more money and thousands of development hours trying to work out the bugs while being forced to issue several patches to help alleviate some - but not all - of the problems?

 

b ) Develop a simpler game which leaves plenty of room for development and augmentation through expansion packs, while catering to the majority of gamers who are happy to enjoy what's on offer without thinking too seriously about whether the instrument panel and cockpit looks and operates in exactly the same way as the real thing? :D

 

Being ambitious, complex, pushing the boundaries etc is all very well, but if you are only catering to the demands of high-end gamers who expect the level of complexity and detail pioneered by the likes of CLOD then you are missing a large part of the potential market. Plus you are risking yet another business failure which would probably spell the end of the IL2 series, and would stop any further development of such games in its tracks for the forseeable future.

Edited December 16, 2012 by NZTyphoon

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm not talking about the instrument panels, or click pits.  The 3D models of aircraft in R0F are by far it's best features.

 

What I'm tlking about is the ability to have a very large number of ground vehicles, ships, AI aircraft, all interacting on the same map to give a convincing portrayal of the theatre/theatres portrayed.

 

I'm talking about crashed aircraft and destroyed units that are persistent and don't just fade away after a few seconds.  Battlefields that look like it, not just "trenches" painted on a grey stripe from one end of the map to the other with an artillery SFX over lay looping in the background.

 

I'm talking about immersion here.  Something that I get in '46 and CloD, and not in RoF.

 

The Russian Front, as was the Front in WW1, was a gritty, awful, place.  I get no sense of that in the sterile, unpopulated, picture postcard world of RoF.

 

That is what needs to change, and what we need to see evidence of 777 being able to accomplish.

[SYN_Repent]

If BoS takes us one step further than IL2 1946, i will be happy.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

That is what needs to change, and what we need to see evidence of 777 being able to accomplish.

 

Who are these "we" people you are talking about?

[exhausted]

In that case why wait for BOS, you have War Thunder...

 

 

They can't just make a slightly better 1946 it has to be more than that or why would anyone buy it when you can get a lot more in a f2p game like War Thunder? 

 

For me and many other especially the bomber pilots War Thunder maps are just too small, but the map size is not going to win many customers over from WT.

 

 

I think you just answered your own questions, lmao!

[NZTyphoon]

FF, if you look around this forum there are more than a few folks asking these same questions.  All we have to go on, as I said, is the current state of RoF.  With that as a baseline, many of us are not altogether encouraged about the future viability of the new sim.

 

I am not saying that 777 cannot do it, however, so far the current engine seems incapable of  doing what is necessary for a WW2 combat flight simulation.

 

All we can do is wait, and hope that the developers understand our desires, expectations, and concerns about the future.

I'm pretty sure that the developers are aware of the desires, expectations and concerns of flight sim players about the future, but they also have to look at a bigger picture and be aware of the failings, pitfalls and flubs that should be avoided if they are to have a future.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

You have our support !!! Improve the good things about this game and everything will be all right

[Krupi]

This is a sim to me an entertainment game is something like far cry 3, mindless fun for me a sim its about forming up with your squad mates and flying a sortie I prefer to be able to do that as realistically as possible hence why immersion and some kind of startup procedure is very important to me. It's fun but it's my hobby not entertainment...

Edited December 17, 2012 by JG52Krupi

[Mac_Messer]

 

 

b ) Develop a simpler game which leaves plenty of room for development and augmentation through expansion packs, while catering to the majority of gamers who are happy to enjoy what's on offer without thinking too seriously about whether the instrument panel and cockpit looks and operates in exactly the same way as the real thing? :D

 

Being ambitious, complex, pushing the boundaries etc is all very well, but if you are only catering to the demands of high-end gamers who expect the level of complexity and detail pioneered by the likes of CLOD then you are missing a large part of the potential market. Plus you are risking yet another business failure which would probably spell the end of the IL2 series, and would stop any further development of such games in its tracks for the forseeable future.

Hey not a problem with me. If BoS ends up being an updated IL2 Sturmovik then I`ll probably end up buying just the first 1CS title. But if I can propose anything that devs would see as a cheap/clever way to deepen the immersion then I will propose it and they will decide if it is any good to them. Surely you can`t deny me the right to do so? This here moment is when we should voice any concern, and not whine when the sim is already in beta stage. 

 

From what Jason Williams wrote I take it will be a creation dependant on the current times and I aknowledge that. But maybe, just maybe I can make sure they don`t forget anything.

 

Is that ok with you?

[[KWN]T-oddball]

I'm afraid that won't happen. Realistically speaking the players really interested in history amount to such a small percentage of the simmers that - in the end - they won't even amount to the second digit behind the comma in the balance sheet of the publisher. And given the way things are on he sim market that's simply not a quantity publishers and producers can cater to.

keep in mind thor  that  very same "small percentage"   are the same people responsible for alot of the historical campaigns,CO-OP's , skins not to mention all the MODS (maps.planes ,oblects...etc) that the majority of us enjoy.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

keep in mind thor  that  very same "small percentage"   are the same people responsible for alot of the historical campaigns,CO-OP's , skins not to mention all the MODS (maps.planes ,oblects...etc) that the majority of us enjoy.

 

"Being interested in history" is quite an imprecise term. Some "interested in history" care about aircraft performance issues, other about nuts and bolts and technical details. Some are interested in the grand scheme of campaigns and battles, others in the "small scale" immersion. I consider myself an avid skinner (the skins for the SAS filter hurries were mine), yet I don't care if the performance is to absolute historic spec. Two of the best campaigns I played in IL2 were Castaway and Fleet Air Arm, both non-historical, yet I miss historical immersion details in IL2, like a fleshed out squadron and a closer relationship with my ride.

 

Historical interest is ... complex.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Friendly flyer

[Autorotate]

i'm just looking forward to hopefully seeing something new.

the orginal IL2 was an outstanding game in every aspect.. graphics, game play, technology and pure depth of content when it was released, a real groundbreaker.

now it's been over a decade for the online flight community (which in computer years is an millenium) full of stop gaps (rise & dover) and updates to the old games.

i feel it's time they launch a new series that takes advantage of the great strides forward computing has made over these years like they did back then.

please give us something that will not only be a great game, but be on par with how computer gaming has advanced over these years.

we know you can do it and we know it's what you want to do!

 

cheers!

[56RAF_klem]

FF, if you look around this forum there are more than a few folks asking these same questions.  All we have to go on, as I said, is the current state of RoF.  With that as a baseline, many of us are not altogether encouraged about the future viability of the new sim.

 

I am not saying that 777 cannot do it, however, so far the current engine seems incapable of  doing what is necessary for a WW2 combat flight simulation.

 

All we can do is wait, and hope that the developers understand our desires, expectations, and concerns about the future.

 

Exactly.

 

People rightly express there hopes and preferences here so that Jason can see what we would like him to incorporate if he can but there's no point in arguing amongst ourselves just what BoS should be. Ask, yes, discuss, yes, but a few guys arguing that their opinion is more important on something they have no control over is pointless. Only 777 will make those decisions. I personally set great store by brilliant graphics, depth of play and historically accurate flight models but clearly there are people here who only care about gameplay. Well, thats fine. If BoS doesn't do it for me (like RoF doesn't) then I'll stick with CoD and anything else that fits the bill.

 

A lot of people have been hurt and feel betrayed (yes, those are the words) by the failure of 1C to deliver on their vision. Its what many of us wanted and were led towards and many of us still believe that with enough resources it is possible to deliver, so the RoF guys need to understand what lies behind the CoDers feelings and hopes and the CoDders need to understand that this isn't going to be CoD and isn't being developed by 1C (never mind the credits). Its something else entirely.

 

We are in danger of turning this into a mindless clone of the banana forum.

[Bearcat]

Klem parts of that are spot on. The reason why you see references to RoF a bt more frequently than to CoD is because it is a modified RoF engine that will be used for BoS. It is not because the DN engine is "better" or "worse" than the CoD engine. If there were parts of the CoD engine that were going to be used then talking about them would be relevant but they arent. To make the discussion more fruitful it would be more beneficial to sperak of features found in CoD rather than what the engine is capable of because unless we are softare engineers or at leasst familiar with the workings of both engines most of us don't know what they can or cannot do.

 

  What also need sot be considered is this. If you want the devs to respond to anything you say you can't leave them two pages of substance out of 20 pages of ... other stuff like back and forth banter and debate.

 

Having said that I am gong to prune this thread soon so if anyone's posts get deleted don't take it personally. I just want it to be easy for the devs to get to the bottom line that made them post this in the first place.

[Capt_Hook]

The key is finding the mix of features that will make the new BoS title both achievable in the time frame allowed by economics and desirable for the FS community to buy in large numbers.  If the devs are reading this, then I'll try and give some small bit of feedback relevant to the feature list I think would be successful.

 

1.  I've bought every 'serious' flight sim on the market.  IL2 and every option since the earliest days (including multiple copies of CLoD).  RoF.  All DCS titles (except BS2... just don't care for helis).  So folks like me you paradoxically don't have to do much to get us to buy it.  I've booted DCS A-10 maybe 3 times.  RoF half a dozen times (I own more planes than I've booted the game... ).  Make a serious effort and I'll support it, though I may not fly it that often.

2.  To get me to fly it it's got to offer something more than IL2.  Look at IL2 HSFX 6... if you can't exceed that, then there's no reason to log in when everyone is going to be in Spits vs 109s or Ghost Skies. 

3.  You can't ignore everything that CLoD achieved.  Not that I think you will, but look at it seriously.  The shadowed cockpit is probably the single biggest 'jaw dropper' of the game, and we've been seeing it for 18 months on our PCs, and several years in dev videos.  You don't have to spend a man-year of graphics work on each 'pit, but you've got to achieve something close to what CLoD delivers there.  Aircraft models look great in RoF so I've personally got no concerns there...it's only the pits that worry me.

4.  Damage model.  The flight model of RoF seems very sophisticated, so I have no concerns there.  But you've got to get a damage model that exceeds both 1946 and RoF.

5.  Management interface & dedicated server.  It's got to be at least as easy to make co-ops and dogfight servers as IL-2.  Easy task here... anything is easier than CLoD. 

6.  I don't need this, but you'll sell more if you can present the war on the Eastern Front in a compelling series of single player missions.  This something few westerners bother learning about, and if you can draw people in you'll get great word of mouth in the offline community.  It always amazes me when I talk to others in the US how we all think the war started with Pearl Harbor.  Most here don't realize that most US involvement was nothing but a side-show.  The war in the east was the greatest clash of man and machine in the history of the human race (and hopefully it will never be exceeded), and if you can present even a shadow of this in the campaign it'll be a hit.

 

CLoD perhaps was a bridge too far, but I hope you can keep most of what made it groundbreaking while actually earning a living at the same time.  If CLoD pits are such time and resource hogs to create, consider selling something like that as paid upgrades. 

[NZTyphoon]

If the end product is well developed, and can be played and enjoyed by all but the most hardened of immersion simmers then it will be time well spent. Then again there's 21 December to get through...

Edited December 19, 2012 by NZTyphoon

[6BLBird-Dog]

keep in mind thor  that  very same "small percentage"   are the same people responsible for alot of the historical campaigns,CO-OP's , skins not to mention all the MODS (maps.planes ,oblects...etc) that the majority of us enjoy.

Agreed,there are masses of historical or history based coop missions and campaigns available for the iL2 series.To write &  re-enact historical scenarios from WW2 has been  a top feature of iL2 with missions still available way back from the first iL2 and on into 1946 & mods if you care to search for them.

Then of course there are the online wars and campaigns many stil flown by groups of enthusiasts & historicaly set.

It may not matter much to some who just want to dog it out and are not realy bothered about detail,I am not knocking that either, but decent visuals and map accuracy even if the scale may be r3educed on some maps for conveniance, is an essential for a good chance of immersion and a satisfying event if you run one.

Asside from the extra features we either got or did`nt in Cliffs of Dover, Improved visual detail both on Models and Map were the biggest selling point for many old iL2 hands.

Edited December 19, 2012 by 6BLBirdDog

[dburne]

The key is finding the mix of features that will make the new BoS title both achievable in the time frame allowed by economics and desirable for the FS community to buy in large numbers.  If the devs are reading this, then I'll try and give some small bit of feedback relevant to the feature list I think would be successful.

snip

 

 

And I would agree completely with this post, I feel much the same way.

[Bearcat]

Something I always wished we had in IL2 and something that they have in WoP is a skin viewer.. I know it is probably not a priority but is it possible that later down the road something like that could be added even is added as an optional paid add on.. that way those who do not skin would not need it. The skin viewer in WoP is actually a pretty nice feature.

The key is finding the mix of features that will make the new BoS title both achievable in the time frame allowed by economics and desirable for the FS community to buy in large numbers.  If the devs are reading this, then I'll try and give some small bit of feedback relevant to the feature list I think would be successful.

 

1.  I've bought every 'serious' flight sim on the market.  IL2 and every option since the earliest days (including multiple copies of CLoD).  RoF.  All DCS titles (except BS2... just don't care for helis).  So folks like me you paradoxically don't have to do much to get us to buy it.  I've booted DCS A-10 maybe 3 times.  RoF half a dozen times (I own more planes than I've booted the game... ).  Make a serious effort and I'll support it, though I may not fly it that often.

2.  To get me to fly it it's got to offer something more than IL2.  Look at IL2 HSFX 6... if you can't exceed that, then there's no reason to log in when everyone is going to be in Spits vs 109s or Ghost Skies. 

3.  You can't ignore everything that CLoD achieved.  Not that I think you will, but look at it seriously.  The shadowed cockpit is probably the single biggest 'jaw dropper' of the game, and we've been seeing it for 18 months on our PCs, and several years in dev videos.  You don't have to spend a man-year of graphics work on each 'pit, but you've got to achieve something close to what CLoD delivers there.  Aircraft models look great in RoF so I've personally got no concerns there...it's only the pits that worry me.

4.  Damage model.  The flight model of RoF seems very sophisticated, so I have no concerns there.  But you've got to get a damage model that exceeds both 1946 and RoF.

5.  Management interface & dedicated server.  It's got to be at least as easy to make co-ops and dogfight servers as IL-2.  Easy task here... anything is easier than CLoD. 

6.  I don't need this, but you'll sell more if you can present the war on the Eastern Front in a compelling series of single player missions.  This something few westerners bother learning about, and if you can draw people in you'll get great word of mouth in the offline community.  It always amazes me when I talk to others in the US how we all think the war started with Pearl Harbor.  Most here don't realize that most US involvement was nothing but a side-show.  The war in the east was the greatest clash of man and machine in the history of the human race (and hopefully it will never be exceeded), and if you can present even a shadow of this in the campaign it'll be a hit.

 

CLoD perhaps was a bridge too far, but I hope you can keep most of what made it groundbreaking while actually earning a living at the same time.  If CLoD pits are such time and resource hogs to create, consider selling something like that as paid upgrades. 

 

This is an excellent post that I second.

[AndyJWest]

Skin viewer? Ahem... 

 

The skin viewer from 'a well-known WWI air combat sim'. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Never seen that before in the sim.

[AndyJWest]

It's not really 'in' the sim - you'll find the exe file in the 'Rise of Flight/bin_viewer/release' folder.

Edited December 19, 2012 by AndyJWest

[BlitzPig_EL]

Ahhh... That explains why I've never seen the thing.

 

Thanks for the heads up.

[Uda]

I wonder why people still comparing, seriously, you expect the same functionality from 2 totally different air war eras?? come on can not compare base on that simple because RoF doesnt need to be that much complex, the real thing was not that complex.

And saying that spad13 is like original il2...come on, install original il2, do not install mods (yeah those that makes the cockpit looks nice) and get back with a pic comparing spad13 and original il2 cockpits. Then if you are right ( what IMHO you wont) I will say you were right and everybody is happy.

This!

 

But actually I understand these people disappointment. I went through something similar but in way worse form when Oleg announced his Il-2 specification. After flying Falcon 4.0 since 1998 Il2 was a huge step back. The cockpits looked ugly and were not interactive, carrier and campaigns were predefined with only few AIs, there was no real time war. Weather was static. Your sorties had no impact on what happend next. Horrible thing in compare with F4.0 in almost any way you imagine. But the whole community was excited. On the other hand I don't understand these people. I don't believe the BoS will be step back in compare with CloD in any way except maybe the cockpit visualisation.

 

Just for your imagination:

 

http://www.gamershell.com/screenpop.php?id=201614

 

Fully working cockpit from 1998. Ran on that time hardware. The only difference in compare with CloD are missing lights and shadows. Using some people logic I should complain that CloD offer just few new visual features while loosing important things like amount of AI objects, complex war simulation and what's even worse offering only simple cockpit functions (beacuse ramp-start procedure in F4.0 has about 50steps and need 15-20minutes). All of this in compare with almost 15years old sim. And all this running on way, way, way higher hardware requirements.

 

Anyway. I think BoS has a great potential. If the cockpits will be superb or nice only is not so important as general performance and playability. As many mentioned before RoF looks beautifull and is working well even on low end HW. FM and DM are both very good. That's why I believe the BoS (and we still have absolutelly no idea how it will look we only know it won't be RoF nor CloD) could be great and could be a more than good successor of original but aged Il2 series.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Pragr

[APIKalimba]

You might have to lower your expectations a bit, it's better to be realistic about this considering the timeframe and resources required for such a feat. Nobody buys flightsims any more, just us poor sobs here, I'm just grateful ATM that we will actually see a follow-up in the new IL-2 series. I don't think them catering to a small group of hardcore people will earn them a lot of money, there has to be balance between historical accuracy, accessibility and game features to accommodate as many different players as possible. I want the same as you, most of us do but try to be realistic about it.

Yeah...I know...But the more I think about how such a project can not only survive by getting a new crowd paying for it, but also ensuring many sequels to come, It has to be the king of the genre.

On the other hand, there is a good chance WT and BOS will be the only one on the market at that time....So being the king in  that timeframe  may not be relative to the same comparison as what we've being expecting from CLOD...

 

SAlute !

Edited December 19, 2012 by Kalimba

[Bearcat]

Skin viewer? Ahem... 

 

The skin viewer from 'a well-known WWI air combat sim'. 

Hey that's great..  didn't know that was there..

 

The Moving Dogfight Server like what we saw from Zuti in in IL2 is IMO an feature that if possible would set this sim heads and shoulders above anything else out there. I hope that the devs have that in their sights or will now consider it for the future.. even t it is not upon release because that would be absolutely great.. It could be like a two way Coop.. one with a locked door and one with an open door.. With the open door you can go in and out at any time but the locked door is like what we have in IL2.

[Jetlagg]

This is a nice cockpit suitable for a 10 year old product like the orginal IL2.

It has no where near the "photo-realistic" and functionality that the COD cockpits have.

 

Are you telling me that this...

 

 

...really looks like this?

 

 

Also, I think you're forgetting the simplicity of a WWI era aircraft.  There really wasn't much to them.  Comparing the cockpits of WWI/II birds is comparing apples and oranges.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Jetlagg

[Vector14]

Hi All;

 

i think the import from IL-2 is from IL-2-1946, not from CloD.

Also the first theatre is German/Russia, not the Canal-Front.

So I'm happy for this.

 

Happy Landings