Developer Diary, Part 108 - Discussion

[Potenz]

Han is bigger than both those those pilot models. We only have one pilot model. We don't have the luxury of making multiple pilot models unfortunately.

 

Jason

maybe in a future, when the series will be mature enough, so maybe we could have that luxury.

[Finkeren]

I can see the 10 years for sure. The 6 not so much. What's your point?

[Matt]

They have about one year to make 10 planes and each plane costs 6,00-8,00 €. 

You can't expect Accu Sim (or DCS or whatever) cockpit quality in that time or for that price.

 

It's pretty simple really.

[JG4_Sputnik]

I can see the 10 years for sure. The 6 not so much. What's your point?

Well I can't, thats my point

Wished I had your perception...

 

They have about one year to make 10 planes and each plane costs 6,00-8,00 €. 

You can't expect Accu Sim (or DCS or whatever) cockpit quality in that time or for that price.

 

It's pretty simple really.

 

 

 

Considering 6 years have passed and I've paid 100$ for BoS I *hoped* to get visually a bit more than we have right now. Well it seems I don't

Glad to see though that everybody seems to be happy - SOMETIMES though I get the feeling that our noncritical attitude is part the reason why we (visually) are stuck in 2010.

To close with something positive though, the summer map looks kind of ok

Cheers

[LLv24_Zami]

Sputnik, you must have pretty high standards in your life. To me BoS looks visually stunning.

[ST_ami7b5]

Sputnik, you must have pretty high standards in your life. To me BoS looks visually stunning.

IMO BoS has a good balance of:

graphics / flight model / damage model / performance.

[Matt]

I'm critical about a whole lot of graphic (and other) features about BoS myself. 

 

What difference does the year make, as long as you have the same input (time + money) as before. The reason why AAA titles have improved graphically is because the money aspect has increased a lot in the recent years. You can't compare that to a niche flightsim title, unless you do it like DCS and Accu Sim and spend a lot of time and money into single planes. For instance, DCS planes easily take a year to complete (some much longer, for instance they completed the P-47 cockpit some time in late 2013, not sure if the'll still release the whole plane this year) and a DCS plane costs at least 150,000 USD to make. There's no machine that will make cockpits or textures or whatever appear out of thin air.

 

And no i'm not happy about that at all. But neither would i rather spend 3-4 times as much and wait 3-4 times as long (or just see CloD, that's like 10 times as long as BoM) or only get 20% of the content instead.

 

What the devs should do however, is to allow the community to improve things like this. Like adding a mods-on mode, which iirc, was actually one of the features they mentioned after the announcement of BoS.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Matt

[LLv24_Zami]

You got it right Matt.

[Dakpilot]

I am quite sure the graphic artists involved in BoS are quite capable of producing a higher level of detail

 

however there are two drawbacks.... would you sacrifice the trees and or AI FM to retain performance?

 

And have to charge $50 per plane (without a campaign  ) like A2A to make up for the greater Dev time

 

Many already complain about the price, I doubt people would be prepared to fork out $1000 for BoS + BoM even with faultless FM and Great campaign = result even fewer sales longer Dev time and bankruptcy

 

Of course best possible cockpits are what's needed..that is where you spend your time, but at what cost?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Sokol1]

BoM cockpit's are well done - not at A2A standard but good.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_07_2015/post-7693-0-35213200-1437144308.jpg

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_06_2015/post-7693-0-64555900-1434722645.jpeg

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_06_2015/post-7693-0-35890200-1434123919.jpg

 

But  don't look good in game like in 3D render (above)...

 

Anyway P-40 have a ugly cockpit, look at the announced VEAO version.

[JG4_Sputnik]

Sputnik, you must have pretty high standards in your life. To me BoS looks visually stunning.

 

Being a designer myself and working in the visual arts industry for years, yes I do.

But perhaps thats what makes me very sensitive to visual fidelity in general. Call it "deformation professionell" still not convinced a 2015 cockpit for a 100 buck game has to look like that. AND I play as well other games which made much more visual progress than Flight Sims did. But we already have had this discussion to completion...

Just swimming against the stream a little bit, please don't kill me

[LLv24_Zami]

Sputnik, no killing here :D. It is ok to have different opinion

[JG4_Sputnik]

Sputnik, no killing here :D. It is ok to have different opinion

 

BoM cockpit's are well done - not at A2A standard but good.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_07_2015/post-7693-0-35213200-1437144308.jpg

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_06_2015/post-7693-0-64555900-1434722645.jpeg

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_06_2015/post-7693-0-35890200-1434123919.jpg

 

But  don't look good in game like in 3D render (above)...

 

Anyway P-40 have a ugly cockpit, look at the announced VEAO version.

They indeed look much better, I wonder what the final product looks like.

[Saurer]

Well every P 40 Cockpit is ugly as far as I am concerned, it is just flat and boring

Edited September 19, 2015 by Saurer

[Picchio]

I'm with Sputnik, and Matt is right too; furthermore, I think BoS' daytime lighting needs a more aggressive shadows/highlights separation. And BoM too, for what's been shown until now. On a side note, I'm still hoping that landscape/objects shadows will be retouched and made more intense...

Edited September 19, 2015 by Picchio

[Finkeren]

Considering 6 years have passed and I've paid 100$ for BoS I *hoped* to get visually a bit more than we have right now.

Graphically I think BoS is overall miles ahead of the competition. The cockpits are one of the few aspects where it doesn't quite live up to the standards set by DCS/Accusim/ClOD, but in virtually every other aspect of graphics it surpasses them.

 

Furthermore I find, that the new cockpits for BoM have so far shown higher quality of textures and modelling than the old ones in BoS. We're getting small, steady improvements along the way.

 

What's even better in BoS (and RoF before that) is that the textures and level of detail are very well harmonized. Everything kinda looks like it belongs in the same world and everything fits together very nicely, unlike in for instance DCS where the gorgeous plane models stand in contrast to the bland, rather ugly landscape, especially viewed up close. We'll see if EDGE can do something to remedy that.

 

So no: BoS/BoM do not have the best cockpits, you can't have it all, but considering what else we've got, I'm plenty satisfied.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I want trees to collapse and fuel  barrels to blow up :-)

Edited September 19, 2015 by tomcatqw

[mb339pan]

 

They indeed look much better, I wonder what the final product looks like.

the cockpit of the Macchi end Rata shown in the photo is identical to what we have currently

 

It changes the perspective that is more distant and 'lighting, hence the sense that it is best

 

p.s. 100$ WTF?? deluxe cost 79$ 79$ for 10 plane end map. I think a fair price

In DCS (not world) pay 50$ for only 1 plane end no map

Edited September 19, 2015 by 150GCT_Pan

[BMA_FlyingShark]

Will there be a rear \/iew mirror?

 

Maybe as field mod?

 

No pun if there's none, just asking.

 

[Jason_Williams]

Sorry no rearview mirror. We haven't built that feature.

 

Jason

[JG4_Sputnik]

Graphically I think BoS is overall miles ahead of the competition. The cockpits are one of the few aspects where it doesn't quite live up to the standards set by DCS/Accusim/ClOD, but in virtually every other aspect of graphics it surpasses them.

 

Furthermore I find, that the new cockpits for BoM have so far shown higher quality of textures and modelling than the old ones in BoS. We're getting small, steady improvements along the way.

 

What's even better in BoS (and RoF before that) is that the textures and level of detail are very well harmonized. Everything kinda looks like it belongs in the same world and everything fits together very nicely, unlike in for instance DCS where the gorgeous plane models stand in contrast to the bland, rather ugly landscape, especially viewed up close. We'll see if EDGE can do something to remedy that.

 

So no: BoS/BoM do not have the best cockpits, you can't have it all, but considering what else we've got, I'm plenty satisfied.

 

I've never seen better external models than in BoS, hands down.  The landscape though I find a bit "lifeless", like plastic in lack of better comparison (playmobil-ish?), it's way better than DCS's but I kinda like the CloD landscape (4.0) the best. It looks vivid and natural, and I don't mind the ghost-trees so much as others do

 

I'm not sure if we will see better cockpits in the future since 777 uses way smaller textures than in other sims. Not sure if this is just lack of time or an DN engine  issue. "Flat" looking cockpits are a big immersion breaker for me. Its a bit like with omputer screens, since I have a 27" its impossible to go back and use a smaller one - it's almost the same here; Since I've got used to the CloD's pits I always feel like something is missing...

I've stopped flying BoS maybe for 5 moths now and maybe I will get back to it once BoM is released. Will see.

Perhaps we will be seeing a bigger improovement once they migrate to a new engine in 5 years or so. But for the moment I'm a bit underwhelmed and and I have a hard time motivating myself for flying this sim for more than a couple of hours. Of course the biggest issue is that my Jagdgeschwader never picked it up and I have to fly alone all the time

[JG4_Sputnik]

the cockpit of the Macchi end Rata shown in the photo is identical to what we have currently

 

It changes the perspective that is more distant and 'lighting, hence the sense that it is best

 

p.s. 100$ WTF?? deluxe cost 79$ 79$ for 10 plane end map. I think a fair price

In DCS (not world) pay 50$ for only 1 plane end no map

Well I was a Founder

Yes it's a fair price! But for me, I'd rather pay the same and only get one or two planes but with top notch cockpits and  never seen features. But that's just me.

[=IRFC=NakedSquirrel]

 

the pilot looks way to big for this plane?

 

Han is bigger than both those those pilot models. We only have one pilot model. We don't have the luxury of making multiple pilot models unfortunately.

 

Jason

 

 

Jason_P40_Cockpit.jpg

 

 

This pilot is also too big for the model 

 

Can't wait to fly this one

 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I don't believe we are tweaking FMs for those planes any longer.

 

Jason

As an aircraft and flight enthusiast who mainly cared about the aircraft and their physical simulation this sounds demolishing. We have some open FM reports more than 1 year old that still exist and now they give up and let it go. Thats exactly what I feared to happen.

Don't want to turn this into a FM topic, but FM building and tweaking is continues work. One has to be critical and check it based on user feedback regularily to get it closer to the aimed perfection. If BoS FMs are to stay the same as they currently are with no attention being given to reports anymore I don't forsee a good future for either BoS or BoM and other products eventually to come.

 

Too bad, had a great time during Alpha/Beta.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Nil]

They have about one year to make 10 planes and each plane costs 6,00-8,00 €. 

You can't expect Accu Sim (or DCS or whatever) cockpit quality in that time or for that price.

 

It's pretty simple really.

Can we ever see the 'DCS' WWII ready is the real question? I cursed this ones unlocks enough to uninstall it for a loong time. But now we payed for it to be gone, and can make own skins, and really like it again!

[Bearcat]

I never understood complaints about a cockpit based solely on screenshots.

[Freycinet]

One has to be critical and check it based on user feedback regularily to get it closer to the aimed perfection.

 

Since when is "user feedback" the be all and end all of accuracy? - Do we take a vote among users for most popular flight model?

 

The team is obviously dedicated to historical veracity, I'm not sure any group of amateur-historian-users with possible subjective attitudes would be any better at giving us the right FM's. And even if a particular group of users want something, why should they suddenly be taken for spokesmen for all simmers? Why would their particular wishes count especially much? 

Edited September 19, 2015 by Freycinet

[Freycinet]

I am quite sure the graphic artists involved in BoS are quite capable of producing a higher level of detail

 

however there are two drawbacks.... would you sacrifice the trees and or AI FM to retain performance?

 

And have to charge $50 per plane (without a campaign  ) like A2A to make up for the greater Dev time

 

Many already complain about the price, I doubt people would be prepared to fork out $1000 for BoS + BoM even with faultless FM and Great campaign = result even fewer sales longer Dev time and bankruptcy

 

Of course best possible cockpits are what's needed..that is where you spend your time, but at what cost?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

I wish more people would get these simple points.

 

Developers live in a world of limitations: 1) Computer rendering limitations. 2) Development cost limitations. 3) Sales price limitations. 4) Programmer qualification limitations. 5) Time limitations.

 

The particularly critical flight simmers that post A LOT in this forum live in a la-la land of no limitations whatsoever. They could  however try to keep in mind that that's not how the real world works.

 

I think 777 Studios are doing a great job in juggling all the factors and balancing the limitations to make a darn' optimal product.

[Frequent_Flyer]

The damage model , flight model  cockpit rendering, and structures are light years ahead of IL-2 1946. Which was the last sim I was able to fly the P-40 ( rather their interpretation of the P-40).  The city of Stalingrad is a pleasure to fly around. What's not to like.  Zak has  teased us - P-40's armament may also be closer to historical accuracy vs. the 1946 incarnation. All exciting stuff and much anticipated.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Since when is "user feedback" the be all and end all of accuracy? - Do we take a vote among users for most popular flight model?

 

The team is obviously dedicated to historical veracity, I'm not sure any group of amateur-historian-users with possible subjective attitudes would be any better at giving us the right FM's

Simple answer, devs working on FMs are probably 2 or less, users testing them are hundrets. We have time to spend on tests devs don't have, we can abuse every tiny inch of code in them to analyse what might be troublesome and report our observations accordingly with reasonable material. That's the ideal case of FM development.

 

You don't need ot be a credited historian or master of aeronautic engineering to catch and report trivial issues like the Ju 87 engine rev bug, but maybe in your ideal world this isn't nessecary.

 

And we have a bunch of real pilots in this comunity as well who can contribute to this topic with lots of practical expirience. Pls take your accusions somewhere else unless you consider them applying to you.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Both have a point, but the cases where they apply are different. Community testing can uncover SOME issues, but others (usually the 'plane actually performs like this or that historically') are harder to solve without a TON of reliable sources plus engineering plus pilots whenever available. While the community can often help with this too, there is a lot of 'this plane is overmodelled because I said so' or 'my fave plane sucks' which although can be seen across the community does not add to realism. All situations are different.

[Mysticpuma]

Which P-40 model/variant is this? Cheers, MP

[LLv24_Zami]

Which P-40 model/variant is this? Cheers, MP

 

P-40 E-1

[Mysticpuma]

P-40 E-1

Thx

[SharpeXB]

Well I was a Founder

Yes it's a fair price! But for me, I'd rather pay the same and only get one or two planes but with top notch cockpits and never seen features. But that's just me.

Two planes doesn't make for a very interesting air combat sim though.

[Zep]

How to fly the P-40 Warhawk:

[Boomerang]

Has the team created a good balance with this game?.

I believe they have. The look, sound, feel, assets, effort, etc., make it great value for the purchase I think. 

 

Some titles out there can cost much more, (if the need be), or become in some cases, a closed shop until release with minimal footage.

Here we are not only encouraged, but given tools, (when available) to take our experiences even further.

It's hard to please everyone, and all of the time, so hats off to the development here. Looking at how far this game has come, and continues to expand is just fantastic.

​

[keeno]

Hi,

 

All this talk of cockpit quality makes me think that I must be looking at a different set of cockpits as I find them really well done and they seem to me to be getting better as the sim progresses, each with its own character. I've got A2A, DCS, CoD, RoF and BoS/BoM and I'd say that each has its own merits and for me at least I do not see anywhere were BoS/BoM is lacking or lagging behind the other titles available. I'm more than satisfied and feel I've had more than my moneys worth, I pay it all again if I had to, that's how much I'm enjoying it.

 

Cheers.

[JG4_Sputnik]

Two planes doesn't make for a very interesting air combat sim though.

 

I meant flyable planes.

One russian plane an a german plane but with all the systems working as in real life, never seen cockpit quality, some features like infantery war, more detailled ground area in general, that would be the ideal sim for me.

Maybe for you this does't sound interesting, but hey, ppl are different.

And then every 6 months or so one or two new flyable planes... this also would encourage ppl to really learn a plane before switching to the next. More depth and less quantity I guess is what I'm saying. But I get that many see it the other way arround.

[LLv24_Zami]

Hi,

 

All this talk of cockpit quality makes me think that I must be looking at a different set of cockpits as I find them really well done and they seem to me to be getting better as the sim progresses, each with its own character. I've got A2A, DCS, CoD, RoF and BoS/BoM and I'd say that each has its own merits and for me at least I do not see anywhere were BoS/BoM is lacking or lagging behind the other titles available. I'm more than satisfied and feel I've had more than my moneys worth, I pay it all again if I had to, that's how much I'm enjoying it.

 

Cheers.

My thoughts exactly. And about general quality of the graphics in the game, I often find my self just admiring the view while flying the missions. In fact I have been shot down because of that . Scenery can be very nice especially at dawn and dusk. It will get even better with autumn/summer maps.

 

Of course things have to evolve and I think BoS/BoM graphics will do that over time. And there have been improvements already. But it is a flight sim, there are certain things to take into account. Performance is the most important. There can`t be all the latest graphical gimmicks like in first person shooter games.