Rate it Now

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

As a guy who dont know much at all about FMs(except that 109s climbs better ) how realistic is the FM in BOS/BOM?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

That is a bag of worms which is best addressed in other threads and will likely get this one closed.

[Jade_Monkey]

I respect everyone's opinion and I understand that the rating process is already pretty subjective. However, I'm not sure what process are they using to reach a conclusion of a 4, 5 or 6.

Are you rating it against an ideal 10 in your mind that no game has ever reached? or is 10 the best game you have played and your grade is relative to that?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It's subjective by nature. For me it is 0 sucks and 10 rocks. I give it an easy 8. Very good with room for improvement. (For me 9 would be excellent and 10 would be wow.)

[FuriousMeow]

Rating system for some: 109/190 don't have penultimate FMs that dominate every facet of air combat - rated 5 or less even with the 109 reaching almost 95% accuracy in testable flight parameters and the 190 maybe missing climb, but that is to be determined because climb isn't just pulling back into the gut but a balance of speed and angle. And the Yak is too uber because it somehow hit 570km/h when I can't even manage 550km/h on the deck trimmed out with radiator and oil flaps fully retracted. The Yak's flaps are of course another point of "FM failure" but no one mentions the C.202's flaps which of course have the same behavior but because it isn't a point of contention for 109/190s then it doesn't matter. The Yak's flaps should perform the same as the LaGG's flaps despite the LaGG's flaps being almost 40% larger, if not more. The other VVS planes are of course fine because they are can't even hope to do anything 1:1.

 

That's how the rating works for some.

 

I rate it above 1946, and the other one.

Edited September 22, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[Bearcat]

I think that one of the problems with things like this is that in many cases people are not honestly objective and they do not give enough thought to how they come to their conclusions. I think that as a minimum there should be several categories used in rating a sim..  and each rating in each category should be added up and the total number divided by the number of options to come up with an average. Ratings based on passion alone are meaningless.

 

Those categories for sims are IMO.... in no order of importance:

 

1-Flight Models - In the case of FMs each plane should be considered and then an average come up with that for the overall rating of FMs. If you think that say out of 10 planes there are two with questionable FMs  than can you truly say that the FMs overall are questionable?

 

2-Damage Models - DMs should be broken up into two parts at least. The visual representation of the damage and the functional representation of the damage. I think that both are important and should be considered when assessing the overall DM. They should also not only be considered in terms of battle damage.. but also things like.. can you damage your engine? Can you stress your airframe? All that kind of stuff as well.

 

3-Graphics - Graphics not only on the objects but the terrain as well. This includes lighting, functionality of objects, daytime and nightime, up high and down low. I always thought that in MS sims the up high graphics were great but when you got down low you got that mottlred look that to this day I can't stand. IL2 had great graphics down low but you had some of the disparity in the size of objects.. as in you are Taxiing past a building that looks too small from outside the pit. Clouds, sky, all that should be taken into consideration when considering graphics.

 

4-Sounds - Engine sounds, gun sounds .. all that.

 

5-AI - Both friendly and enemy AI each have their own unique properties tat can make or break the AI. Do the friendlies actually fly with you or do they just fly the wing of the bandit ripping you to pieces? Do they warn you after you get shot up? Do they respond to calls for help? Are the enemy AI on every level just so good that it is almost impossible to get a fun experience? Do they all swarm on you? I think the AI in IL2 46 4.12 and beyond is some of the best I have ever seen. Back in the day it was very frustrating because often you would get gang banged by a whole flight or two sometimes.. but now it seems both friendly and enemy AI act much more realistic.

 

6-SP - How engaging is it? Or is it not? Can you actually have fun with it? Is it just QMs or is there actually a variety to the SAP experience? How easy is it to put together SP content?

 

7-MP - The same thing can be said. How is the network aspect worked out? How is the MP experience either hindered or enhanced as far as user content goes? Is it conducive to promoting teamplay and squad type activity?

 

8-Scalability - How flexible is it in terms of options for scalability.. setting icons, user aids etc? How is the CEM modelled? I think that IL2 in terms of overall scalability got a lot right. This would also include the overall interface - is it a clunky non intuitive ugly interface or is it very intuitive and easy to get around in overall? Under that you could add things like does it have a skins viewer and how easy it is to move around in the various components.

 

9-User content - How easy is it to make missions? How easy is it to make skins for aircraft? How easy is it to put all this content into the sim? I enjoy making skins but skinning in DCS is an entirely different process that involves more work and more knowledge than skinning in BoS, WoP (which IMO got it very right as far as skinning went.. it was like the best of both worlds between DCS and IL2) or IL2. BoS does a decent job there but I wish we could get a more pronounced alpha for the polished metal look.

 

10-Potential for growth -  As in developer support, communication etc. This one can be kind of vague... but it should be considered IMO when rating a sim. Do you get regular updates or do you have to wait every few months for snippets of information that has been trickling out over years? This would include pricing. How much does it cost not only on it's own merits but when compared to other comparible content. You can't compare pricing to sims that have been on the market for years and are now in the bargain bin.

 

 

I think if you just start there .. and rate each aspect accordingly on a scale of 1-10 (or 1-5 or whatever)  with 1 being poor and whatever that high number is being excellent and then add each number up and divide that total by the number of ratings categories you would come up with a more honest assessment of a given product as opposed to saying.. say.. I like SP so since the SP sucks or because I think the FM of my favorite aircraft is not as good as it should be then the whole sim sucks. That may be onre person's opinion but it is not an entirely honest assessment of the overall product. At least IMO.

 

Based on that formula with some stuff being as low as 5 and as high as 10 for me.. BoS comes out at a 8.8 overall. I am sure some folks would see things differently but if they used that formula they would come up with a more honest and therefore accurate way of assessing the sim even if many of their numbers were not as high as mine.

[SR-F_Winger]

Graphics 8/10 If only they would invest in an upgrade to DX12....
SP 4/10 didnt play much since it was too dull
MP 8/10 Despite occasional frustration when a supposedly inferior plane outperforms you its quite fun.
FM 4/10 IMHO: The FMs are very weak. But only because of how planes compare relative to eachother. Especially the 190 is a farce if compared to other aircraft and the YAKs antigrav generators arent funny at all. The sense of flight is very well made.

[RoteDreizehn]

absolutely correct your points, FuriousMeow

 

Also the missing of jaming and losing flaps at high velocity is annoying.

 

For me its a good simulator with a lot of potenial. They make the feel of flying

 

really good. Compare it with my soaring plane experience.

 

Dont understand why they are blocking the input of FM Claimes.

 

As I said i will extra pay for this to make FM's more realistic...

 

Graphics  8/10 COD Graphics a little better
SP           4/10 didnt play it long enough  
MP           7/10 it makes fun, but can be improved

DM           7/10  holes and broken wings/fuselage can be more detailed as in COD TF3.12
FM           4/10 as I describe above

 

Dont feel be bothered Moderators and Devs!

 

Thanks!

 

Rating system for some: 109/190 don't have penultimate FMs that dominate every facet of air combat - rated 5 or less even with the 109 reaching almost 95% accuracy in testable flight parameters and the 190 maybe missing climb, but that is to be determined because climb isn't just pulling back into the gut but a balance of speed and angle. And the Yak is too uber because it somehow hit 570km/h when I can't even manage 550km/h on the deck trimmed out with radiator and oil flaps fully retracted. The Yak's flaps are of course another point of "FM failure" but no one mentions the C.202's flaps which of course have the same behavior but because it isn't a point of contention for 109/190s then it doesn't matter. The Yak's flaps should perform the same as the LaGG's flaps despite the LaGG's flaps being almost 40% larger, if not more. The other VVS planes are of course fine because they are can't even hope to do anything 1:1.

 

That's how the rating works for some.

 

I rate it above 1946, and the other one.

Edited September 22, 2015 by RoteDreizehn

[TWC_Ace]

1-Flight Models - In the case of FMs each plane should be considered and then an average come up with that for the overall rating of FMs. If you think that say out of 10 planes there are two with questionable FMs  than can you truly say that the FMs overall are questionable?

Generally I agree with you. However, you must know that those 2 are the most popular planes....and the fact their FMs are somehow "tuned" to make a matches a bit more balanced. I cant be sure (and its my personal opinion) but i doubt its the time or resources which is hindering devs to fix them. They made FW190 because its a selling point, but it was used for different purposes in BOS (in RL) and used in limited numbers. Give that plane its rl performing climb (at alt) and superb roll rate and youll have swarms of superplanes (without bombs in the racks) for dogfighting in the fast food servers...reallity check

But again, this wont stop me for enjoying this great sim. Its not 90s anymore and this is not an excitiment we had with first original Il2 or ROF steps...We have other games too and "hardcore" sim population is less and less...Games must sell. The more the better, the nicer looking the shinier it gest in PR. Thats the formula. And still with that said BOS (along with the modded COD and DCS) are the best we have. Imagine Warthunder is all we have. ohh my

Edited September 22, 2015 by blackram

[SR-F_Winger]

have swarms of superplanes (without bombs in the racks) for dogfighting in the fast food servers...reallity check

Simple solution: They should have chosen another theater in the first run. Why choose a scenatio with one side clearly dominating thecnologywise if i want balance?

Worst decision ever. There are lots and lots of scenarios where their precios planes really dominated or at least were much closer than it was in BOS.

This artificcial balancing is what makes a GAME, not a sim!

Edited September 22, 2015 by JG4_Winger

[Trinkof]

Simple solution: They should have chosen another theater in the first run. Why choose a scenatio with one side clearly dominating thecnologywise if i want balance?

Worst decision ever. There are lots and lots of scenarios where their precios planes really dominated or at least were much closer than it was in BOS.

This artificcial balancing is what makes a GAME, not a sim!

This, just this.... The real problem with BOS in my opinion is the period. And battle of Moscow will be worst on that point.

A mid 43 scenario would have been much better for a GAME. But maybe less appealing regarding marketing.

 

Otherwise :

 

Graphics : 8 ( lack modern HD textures)

 

Sound : 10 ( the feeling of airflow is incredible.... The flight sensation we have in BOS and rof are mainly sound related IMO)

 

SP : 4

 

MP : initially 4, now 7-8

 

FM : I am not a pilot, nor an aeronautical engineer, but as far as I can tell, the tactical problematic of rhe eastern front are well represented. I bet a lot of Lw pilots began to feel uncomfortably surprised by VVS in late 42.... With is well represented by the Lw player "ranting" sometime.

 

Must admit the yak flaps seem doubtful, but again, I am no engineer...

 

I would give it a 7 in that part, but mostly due to the feeling of flying which is incredible.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Simple solution: They should have chosen another theater in the first run. Why choose a scenatio with one side clearly dominating thecnologywise if i want balance? Worst decision ever. There are lots and lots of scenarios where their precios planes really dominated or at least were much closer than it was in BOS. This artificcial balancing is what makes a GAME, not a sim!

 

While I agree with you on some points the fact that the 190's was not present at the BoS is probably one of the reasons that I'm not personally overly worried that the FM may not be what people want or expect. The same could be said about the introduction of the 202, a rather odd choice of aircraft to be included IMO, when you could of had a P-39 or some other aircraft more suited and in much greater numbers on the eastern front.

 

I don't think any flight sim to date has 100% nailed FM's for any aircraft and they probably never will.

 

Overall, the fact that we have what appear to be one or two dubious characteristics in certain aeroplanes is not a game breaker for me.

[[GOAT]Spoutpout]

Well, to explain my 8/10 who changed to a mediocre 4/10...

 

Fist of all, I have to say that I continually compare this game to Il-2 1946, which is for me the best WW2 sim. Period. Why ? Thanks to his tremendous amount of flyable and non-flyable planes, even in the base game Il-2 Sturmovik without its extensions (and of course the numerous DGen campaigns and stuff).

I quickly noticed the number of extensions. And I bought them all without much hesitation, once again thanks to all of the content offered by these.

 

The FMs, DMs etc... were not perfect, far from it, of course. But compared to what I paid, the potential of the game was gigantic. Then, I discovered the mods. The community, working together to improve further more the original game, correct many of its flaws (or at least the more obvious ones), add so much content... The problem, for me, was mainly the number of mods, making multiplayer quite difficult to obtain. I stayed on SP.

 

All in all, I paid, for that 100 €. And I'll give more if possible, but since the game is not developed any more by Maddox, it is more donations to the modders or team Daidalos at this point.

 

Then came BoS (yeah, I wasn't interested in CloD ATM, because of the lack of content too). 8 planes for 46 €, or 10 planes for 74 €. I was already pissed to see some "DLCs" planes, even before the game was released.

But Ze_Hairy was like "There is gonna be a Fw-190 !!! *drools everywhere* Come on, no more BS like on War Thunder"

 

I watched some videos/screens, was amazed by the visual quality. I thought finally that it was 1C, they deserved a bit more confidence from me. I bought it. I thought that with that price, I will get some top-notch quality planes.

 

First, I noticed that there was unlocks. Great.

Then, I noticed graphical presets, and nothing else. Because, yes, I don't have an über-PC.

 

I tried SP. Boring. Repetitive. Not worth my attention. But at least, the scenery looks good, and planes felt correct with their FMs.

 

I went to MP after that, and it was a good surprise. I feel there is lack of "balance" sometimes (generally, the LW team is more numerous than VVS. Since they have superior planes, it seems a bit unbalanced), but fortunately, I didn't buy a sim for balance.

 

So, there it goes with a 8/10. Full of hopes, I thought that the problems above would be fixed quite easily. After all, the game was just released. It has some undeniable qualities, so it was okay.

 

And then, I discovered I was wrong. I expected some quick hotfixes ASAP when some serious bugs were found, but we still have the monthly update, and that's all. Some FMs appear to be wonky. Some reports have been made, but are ignored. Heck, Blackouts/redouts are gone in the last patch. I don't know for a bug like this, a crucial point like this for a flight sim, it should be fixed like as soon as it is discovered !

 

For the price of this game, I expected a way better quality than that, and especially a better communication from the dev team.

 

But instead, yeah, another "game", BoM, is announced. Same price, same number of planes (with the same formula with the 2 DLCs planes). I dunno, BoS doesn't seem finished to me.

 

And I am certainly not the only one to be disappointed. Just look at the evaluations gave by players on Steam. Or just look at the "insane" amount of players on MP. A full 64 slots server in the best case. I doubt there is so few peoples interested in a WW2 flight sim...

[unreasonable]

I will rate it again when it gives me a reason for playing for any length of time - as opposed to a little sightseeing, and finding out if I can still land!

 

Bearcat's list is I think thorough and fair, and might be appropriate for a magazine reviewer trying to give a rounded assessment.  But all I care about is whether it is fun for me. 

 

Let me set my SP pilot level where I want it and use custom skins in Campaign for starters and then I might be prepared to re-rate it again from my original 6 (just). As it stands, RoF, for all its bizarre faults, is 1,000% more enjoyable.

[Dakpilot]

Just not sure who all these other developers are, who give better/quicker updates and more feedback that people keep comparing BoS to....especially when it comes to flightsims, let alone WWII ones..

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Bearcat]

Must be that other team... that is making a WWII sim..

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Just not sure who all these other developers are, who give better/quicker updates and more feedback that people keep comparing BoS to....especially when it comes to flightsims, let alone WWII ones..

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Must be that other team... that is making a WWII sim..

 

At least other teams will review the inequities with their product and don't give people the "case closed" perspective that we get here.

[BraveSirRobin]

At least other teams will review the inequities with their product and don't give people the "case closed" perspective that we get here.

 

That would make them the only dev team in computer software history to accomplish such a thing!  Who is this amazing dev team?!?

[Bearcat]

I'd like to know as well because we know what Gaijin is about in the FM/DM department.. and all you have to do is go over to the DCS boards to see the grand consensus on the FMs and DMs over there. I don't know of any developer who has ever constantly modified their SW because customers were not happy..

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I'd like to know as well because we know what Gaijin is about in the FM/DM department.. and all you have to do is go over to the DCS boards to see the grand consensus on the FMs and DMs over there. I don't know of any developer who has ever constantly modified their SW because customers were not happy..

 

No offense BC but you musn't be looking hard... There are many solid, transparent, communicative and productive development firms out there... 

 

Verdun (M2H/Blackmill Games), Arma III (Bohemian Studios), Witcher III (CD Projekt Red), Kerbal Space Program (Squad), Cities: Skylines (Colossal Order Ltd.), Elite: Dangerous (Frontier)... The list seriously goes on and on and on.   

Edited September 23, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[Bearcat]

I am talking about WWII flight sims.. That is the only thing I do when it comes to gaming.. I may fiddle with Madden every now and then on my son in law's XBox.. but I don't do the other stuff.. and as far as I am concerned the issues associated with WWII flight sims are different from any other genre.. As far as I can tell over the past 15 years at least .. no developer has been as open as this team that I know of...

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

and as far as I am concerned the issues associated with WWII flight sims are different from any other genre..

 

-snip-

 

I see and take your point...

 

But you did say...

 

-snip-

 

I don't know of any developer who has ever constantly modified their SW because customers were not happy..

 

[Wulf]

I am talking about WWII flight sims.. That is the only thing I do when it comes to gaming.. I may fiddle with Madden every now and then on my son in law's XBox.. but I don't do the other stuff.. and as far as I am concerned the issues associated with WWII flight sims are different from any other genre.. As far as I can tell over the past 15 years at least .. no developer has been as open as this team that I know of...

 

 

Sure, in the beginning there appeared to be some genuine interaction between the devs and the community but not so much these days.  Now they strike me as being rather dismissive and arrogant.    

[Dakpilot]

Not half as much as some customers, especially on topics such as engine responsiveness....it amazes me sometimes when people have no technical understanding of a subject will continue to argue about something they clearly do not have a clue about, that is more an example of arrogance

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Guest deleted@50488]

Flight - as in - "the sensation of flying a powerful ww2 prop aircraft".

 

Honestly guys, and although I agree there are quirks, of course!, tell me which sim comes SO close to the feel of "being there" compared to BoS?

 

I can't find one, among my civil sims either, although in X-Plane 10 I work hard to try to bring some flight dynamics closer to real....

 

The overall feel of flying an aircraft, even the way wind and turbulence are modeled in Il2 BoS is far superior to most of the other available choices I cared to try. 

[I/JG27_Rollo]

 

 

The overall feel of flying an aircraft, even the way wind and turbulence are modeled in Il2 BoS is far superior to most of the other available choices I cared to try.

Sadly, this doesn't seem to hold up against "my favourite plane isn't as good as I want it to be - FM: 1/10" (yes, I exaggerate), which is why player ratings can only be taken with a grain Me 323 load of salt and a bland smile.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Yes, but most simmers forget the flight simulator is so limited in the way it can "render" reality, for the many reasons starting with the absence of "seat of pants"...

 

I try to look at it from a "is it plausible" approach. I look for the main characteristics of a given aircraft model to be present, and I require that the main aerodynamic properties are respected and reproduced.

 

I then try to see if the aircraft matches it's RL counterpart. Speeds, climb rated, engine parameters, then stability, stall characteristics and flight at and beyond the extremes of the flight envelope, including near or above VNE. 

 

Prop effects are some of my preferred details too, and I really like to find in a flight simulator that the prop aircraft exhibit these effects in a plausible / sound way. I find this particular aspect very well modeled in Il2 BoS, actually superior to any other flight smulator I use, although I believe that given the necessary dedication to the required fine tuning X-Plane 10 can render very close results to what we get in Il2 BoS or DCS. But in as far as I'm concerned, Il2 BoS excels in this particular aspect.

[Wulf]

Not half as much as some customers, especially on topics such as engine responsiveness....it amazes me sometimes when people have no technical understanding of a subject will continue to argue about something they clearly do not have a clue about, that is more an example of arrogance

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

As I recall I asked a 'question' about throttle responsiveness.  I think that's allowed - at least it is where I come from.  I asked because I didn't know the answer but thought the current arrangement seemed incorrect.  You then proceeded to launch a personal attack on me for some reason.  

 

You know what amazes me 'Dak'??.  [Edited] who have zero online experience arguing as if they know something about the game.  You know anyone like that Dak?  Some [Edited] who can't cut it online but nevertheless pretends like he knows stuff.

 

What nik do you use online Dak?

Edited September 23, 2015 by Bearcat
Language

[Bearcat]

Sure, in the beginning there appeared to be some genuine interaction between the devs and the community but not so much these days.  Now they strike me as being rather dismissive and arrogant.    

 

I don't see it that way. If I had done my due diligence and worked hard to deliver a product and throughout the entire process, from inception to product delivery I had people insulting my work, my integrity, trying to sabotage my business, and basically telling me they thought I was incompetent because they did not think that what I delivered was good enough... I might develop a rather thin skin as well and dismiss critique from others who did not do the work, or do not know what they are talking about as far as the research I used and the effort I put in to get it right, particularly when it echoes the same issues that seem to plague every single WWII sim that has  been made of any note over the past 10+ years as just the usual beefs from the usual camp.

 

As I recall I asked a 'question' about throttle responsiveness.  I think that's allowed - at least it is where I come from.  I asked because I didn't know the answer but thought the current arrangement seemed incorrect.  You then proceeded to launch a personal attack on me for some reason.  

 

You know what amazes me 'Dak'??.  [Edted] who have zero online experience arguing as if they know something about the game.  You know anyone like that Dak?  Some [Edited] who can't cut it online but nevertheless pretends like he knows stuff.

 

What nik do you use online Dak?

 

You need to check your PMs please.

 

That is just pure nonsense. Who says that one's online experience has a major bearing on being able to know what is going on with this sim? It is a part of it absolutely but I would think that as far as determining FMs in particular  that the offline experience would actually be a better indicator of true performance as you will get less issues connected to network connection and a more accurate rendering of what the sim is doing. I have spent very little time online with BoS ... and I know enough about it to know that it is a good product and one of the best things to happen to WWII simming in well over a decade.. You can agree or disagree with the work of the devs.. but at the end of the day this is what it is like every other sim has been and we do not know what goes into producing it and opinions on what is more accurate or less accurate will be around no matter what they do.

[Maxyman]

As I recall I asked a 'question' about throttle responsiveness.  I think that's allowed - at least it is where I come from.  I asked because I didn't know the answer but thought the current arrangement seemed incorrect.  You then proceeded to launch a personal attack on me for some reason.  

 

You know what amazes me 'Dak'??.  [Edited] who have zero online experience arguing as if they know something about the game.  You know anyone like that Dak?  Some [Edited] who can't cut it online but nevertheless pretends like he knows stuff.

 

What nik do you use online Dak?

Lead by example, present your own stats

Being a good online player doesn't mean that you know stuff. Unless you're a member of the warthunder clicky bunch

Edited September 23, 2015 by Bearcat

[Wulf]

Lead by example, present your own stats

Being a good online player doesn't mean that you know stuff. Unless you're a member of the warthunder clicky bunch

 

 

My stats are available to anyone who cares to look.  As your's will be Maxyman; same with Dakpilot.   My stats aren't anything special (I've never claimed to be particularly good)  but they do indicate that I actually play the game quite a bit and against real people, unlike some of our forum 'experts'. 

[Bearcat]

My stats are available to anyone who cares to look.  As your's will be Maxyman; same with Dakpilot.   My stats aren't anything special (I've never claimed to be particularly good)  but they do indicate that I actually play the game quite a bit and against real people, unlike some of our forum 'experts'. 

 

The point is .. Playing against "real people" is not the end all and be all in being able to accurately assess what is good or bad about this or any sim.

[Maxyman]

My stats are available to anyone who cares to look.  As your's will be Maxyman; same with Dakpilot.   My stats aren't anything special (I've never claimed to be particularly good)  but they do indicate that I actually play the game quite a bit and against real people, unlike some of our forum 'experts'.

 

My point is that unless you're a real FW, Bf, Yak, La pilot, your opinion is as disconnected from the reality as ours. You don't own the truth regardless your online achievements.

[Bearcat]

Not only that.. consider that in some cases.. these planes were actually flown by members of the development team...  IRL.

[Wulf]

The point is .. Playing against "real people" is not the end all and be all in being able to accurately assess what is good or bad about this or any sim.

 

 

I have no interest in this discussion.  My comments were directed at Dakpilot alone because he launched a personal attack on me (and not for the first time).  If, however, my comments make you feel 'uncomfortable/inadequate' then I'm sorry about that but we're just going to have to differ over the issue. I have responded to your PM so I suggest you check your messages.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Wulf

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Not only that.. consider that in some cases.. these planes were actually flown by members of the development team...  IRL.

 

From where do you gather that conclusion?

Never seen pictures of Han or Loft or anybody else on the team in a Fw190, Bf109, He111, La-5, Pe-2, Il-2...

-snip-

 

Who says that one's online experience has a major bearing on being able to know what is going on with this sim?

 

-snip-

 

But seriously... How can you rate a product if you don't even use it?

 

There are a few forum members (and I believe Dak is one of them and I'm pretty sure BSR is too) who have admitted to having no time to fly the sim but they are still here holding the sword high... Shining armor and all.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[BraveSirRobin]

There are a few forum members (and I believe Dak is one of them and I'm pretty sure BSR is too) who have admitted to having no time to fly the sim but they are still here holding the sword high... Shining armor and all.

 

That is completely untrue.  I have many, many hours playing the game, both online and single player.

[voncrapenhauser]

 

 

how realistic is the FM in BOS/BOM?

 

Compared to the realism of real life flying?..... Not even close by a long way, but as a Simulation,  IMO it's still the best we can get.

[Bearcat]

From where do you gather that conclusion?

Never seen pictures of Han or Loft or anybody else on the team in a Fw190, Bf109, He111, La-5, Pe-2, Il-2...

 

But seriously... How can you rate a product if you don't even use it?

 

There are a few forum members (and I believe Dak is one of them and I'm pretty sure BSR is too) who have admitted to having no time to fly the sim but they are still here holding the sword high... Shining armor and all.

 

Be all that as it may very well be... they have flown some of the planes in here..  and they have done their research.. Just because you and some others do not think they have done due diligence does not mean that that is not the case or that they are wrong.

 

You do not have be a heavy online flyer of any sim to have an assessment of it's FMs or DMs.. all you have to do is own it or have acess to it ... and fly it. Online or offline.

 

That is not true.. again.. what makes you think that because a person does not spend hours online they do not fly the sim and therefore cannot have an accurate picture of it's capabilities?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Be all that as it may very well be... they have flown some of the planes in here..  and they have done their research.. Just because you and some others do not think they have done due diligence does not mean that that is not the case or that they are wrong.

 

You do not have be a heavy online flyer of any sim to have an assessment of it's FMs or DMs.. all you have to do is own it or have acess to it ... and fly it. Online or offline.

 

That is not true.. again.. what makes you think that because a person does not spend hours online they do not fly the sim and therefore cannot have an accurate picture of it's capabilities?

 

I never challenged anyone's due diligence but pointed out a flaw in your original statement, that's all... Furthermore, they are wrong in many cases and this has been proven by the due diligence of other community members... They just decided they didn't want to support updates to their FM's after the fact... That wasn't my business/development decision but as a frequent flyer and an investor in the product I have every right to critique the product however often and in whichever form I like within the guideline of the forum rules.

 

Less than 1/8th of my play time is online, BC... I never said you had to play online to have an accurate picture and you should stop drawing the context of other peoples' arguments and injecting it into my own... You do have to play it at all to have an accurate picture, though... That is a matter of fact... Another matter of fact is a lot of the die-hard supporters around here don't fly the sim... They see pictures of eye candy and the impression of others and formulate their opinions off of that... A poor way to go about it if you ask me and those types of opinions nary hold up in intellectual debate. 

Edited September 23, 2015 by Space_Ghost