How Popular is Multiplayer?

[BlitzPig_EL]

War Thunder players are not playing this sim, or any other sim, they are playing a first person shooter in airplane shaped objects.

 

Don't fool yourselves, there isn't a giant untapped pool of players out there just waiting for this series to "mature" before they jump in.

 

Adding tanks and mouse control won't get them here either.

[Sokol1]

6./ZG1_GrendelsDad, on 13 May 2016 - 08:54, said:

Blitz I am not flaming...I am truly asking.  Did IL2 original have all of those things within 2 years of release?  Just asking because I was not a multiplayer back in the day.  Where at in Ohio, lets go have a beer

 

We fly COOP missions through Hyperlobby in iL-2 2001 even before the game official release, with the "leaked" DEMO, using dial-up connections.

 

This was the right product at right time, lots of people that play Warbirds online want leave the P2P and their 3D version - that dont looks good -became demanding in hardware.

 

The concurrence as basically MS CFS with MS CFS3 debacle just ahead (dont know the reason, never pay much attention in MS flight sim's).

 

In these days Operationd Flashpoint - that became ARMA series - was just a new (and awesome) game, those COD/BF/WT etc and their "fun at all cost" don't exist,

and kids play Counter Strike in Lan House's. 

[Trooper117]

It doesn't matter about the original IL2 had this or that when it started... the point is, BoS/Bom is called the successor to IL2 , and claiming that should have taken that name forward with the tried and proven track record of IL2 1946..

 

Now, I wouldn't have expected it to have the content in terms of aircraft and maps etc at game launch, but BoS should have had at least the same functionality as the previous version... an excellent SP campaign experience, a DCG experience, a Hyperlobby type system with a proper co-op system... these are just some of the things what kept the IL2 genre alive for god knows how many flight sim gamers.

It just astounds me that our current IL2 version didn't take that onboard... it's like someone tried to reinvent the wheel and make it square instead of round???

 

The dev's aren't new to this, they knew exactly what the previous IL2 had and what its merits were... right, having said all of that, we have what we have, and there is no doubt that the dev's have made some great improvements to the game this year, so they have to have much credit for that.

It has always been a fantastic looking game, but fantastic looks are not everything by a long chalk... but at least the game is now moving forward in the right direction it has to be said.

[coconut]

Just to offer some counter-arguments: BOS had a combined chat and server browser app developed by a third party. Barely anyone used it. This kind of application needs a certain critical mass to work, and yes, having it integrated with the launcher might just have helped achieve that. On the other hand, the MP numbers are just what they are, so maybe it wouldn't have taken off anyway.

 

Regarding the old IL-2 doing the right thing: The genre died while the old IL-2 had the crown, and maybe the gamer population has changed enough that a modernized IL-2 1946 isn't what today's gamers want.

 

Look at the other successful flight game/simulation out there: how close to the old IL-2 is it? Nowadays, it seems that to have a successful online MP game, you have to be a big studio or make a free-to-play game. You also need to be beginner and casual friendly.

 

The recent development steps of the devs tend to indicate this is their idea: Make an easy game to get into, while retaining the richness and complexity of an uncompromising physics engine. This lead to the almost comical situation where devs implemented an advanced simulation of the startup sequence, without giving control over it to the player.

 

I think if we want to increase the MP population, more efforts have to come from server owners and mission designers to support entry-levels of difficulty. I could be wrong, but I'm considering whether I should be focussing my efforts there.

[Mac_Messer]

War Thunder has no problems with people playing Multiplayer , So we are not short of people . 

Yes but it should be questioned whether BoS/BoM even thinks of being competition to WT. Since WT is F2P I think not. Although that does not mean the devs should just write off all the casuals rightaway.

[Mac_Messer]

War Thunder players are not playing this sim, or any other sim, they are playing a first person shooter in airplane shaped objects.

Not many people would admit it, but the actual feature of WT being playing lots and lots of whatever games to gather money and buy that special high tier plane may be the defining thing why so many ppl play it. In this case I agree with you, such players are lost for BoS or to say it differently, were never the potential customers in the first place.

 

That said, it is never all black or white. I have friends who purchased BoS and at least few of the DCS modules but they put in most hours into WT.

 

6./ZG1_GrendelsDad, on 13 May 2016 - 08:54, said:

 

We fly COOP missions through Hyperlobby in iL-2 2001 even before the game official release, with the "leaked" DEMO, using dial-up connections.

 

This was the right product at right time, lots of people that play Warbirds online want leave the P2P and their 3D version - that dont looks good -became demanding in hardware.

 

Let`s not forget that the original IL2 was also a very demanding game hardware-wise through most of its life, from the very start.

[wtornado]

War Thunder players are not playing this sim, or any other sim, they are playing a first person shooter in airplane shaped objects.

 

And the teen agers are using their old father's joystick they found in the closet when their father played IL-2 Forgotten Battles,EAW and Jane's WWII Fighters.

 

 

 

 

We fly COOP missions through Hyperlobby in iL-2 2001 even before the game official release, with the "leaked" DEMO, using dial-up connections.   This was the right product at right time

 

 

Co-ops worked then and for well over a decade later they still fly them today in the Hyperlobby just go there any saturday night and you will have more players flying co-ops in the HL

than MP pilots on all of the BOS servers combined.

 

 

 

 

Look at the other successful flight game/simulation out there: how close to the old IL-2 is it? Nowadays, it seems that to have a successful online MP game, you have to be a big studio or make a free-to-play game. You also need to be beginner and casual friendly.

 

 

Let's see where to begin we will start with WarThunder when I start a ''Realistic tank battle'' and invite up to four friends.ARMA 3 has incredible Co-op capabilities that are second to none in the co-op world with 10' of thousands of co-op servers running at any given time.Mechwarriors Online has great invite capabilities too with a maximum tonnage per team to go to battle.I was surprised to hear men's voices in their 30' and 40' talking on comms even in standard battles when I started playing MWOL.In all these games you play the levels you want too.Nothing is imposed on you.

 

 

I know personally that for what I want as a gamer IL-2 BOS/BOM is not what I want.and I will not pursue purchases because it is not what I want or how I game.

 

I never really played online wars too much hassle and organization  with often European times to play and mixed results as to how the campaign progresses etc.

 

Co-ops are in the games I play and were in the old IL-2 easy to organize and flexible with what players want and wanted.

 

If you want to blame anyone for the way I play today blame all the old IL-2 series co-op friendly games in the HL for years on end behind me that got me hooked on Co-op play.

 

Blame the old IL-2 Devs.

Edited May 22, 2016 by WTornado

[Mac_Messer]

It doesn't matter about the original IL2 had this or that when it started... the point is, BoS/Bom is called the successor to IL2 , and claiming that should have taken that name forward with the tried and proven track record of IL2 1946..

 

Now, I wouldn't have expected it to have the content in terms of aircraft and maps etc at game launch, but BoS should have had at least the same functionality as the previous version... an excellent SP campaign experience, a DCG experience, a Hyperlobby type system with a proper co-op system... these are just some of the things what kept the IL2 genre alive for god knows how many flight sim gamers.

It just astounds me that our current IL2 version didn't take that onboard... it's like someone tried to reinvent the wheel and make it square instead of round???

 

The dev's aren't new to this, they knew exactly what the previous IL2 had and what its merits were... right, having said all of that, we have what we have, and there is no doubt that the dev's have made some great improvements to the game this year, so they have to have much credit for that.

It has always been a fantastic looking game, but fantastic looks are not everything by a long chalk... but at least the game is now moving forward in the right direction it has to be said.

I think that this has a lot to do with the circumstances being a combination of devs having really really limited resources and the game engine being born from RoF.

That said, it is still a questionable matter whether the introduced advanced mission scripting etc. really do anything good without letting massive battles take place simultaneously in air and on the ground and without the coop feature s and HL interface.

 

One can only wait for so long before giving up and switching to the next big thing mp experience sitting just a link away, even if dumbed down quite a bit.

[curiousGamblerr]

 

 

This lead to the almost comical situation where devs implemented an advanced simulation of the startup sequence, without giving control over it to the player.

 

I've always wondered about this. I was just talking to p3zman last night about how you could control the magnetos in 1946. I think it's funny how you see them switch on in technochat during startup but can't control them yourself. That and a bunch of other things, like priming the engine and turning on bomb controls. 

 

I'm on the fence as to if I would actually want such things to be controllable... A lot of it would just be a one time switch on the tarmac, so I like the way the devs have done it now. You can only have so many key bindings after all.

 

And I don't think it would attract any players, to keep on topic.

[wtornado]

They are at a multi-player cross road with this game so far they tried everything to get people

to play without implementing co-op mod.

 

Its not working and it will not work.

 

I think people are sick of giving shots across their bows.

 

I am in a take it or leave mindset now.

[Pharoah]

I've always wondered about this. I was just talking to p3zman last night about how you could control the magnetos in 1946. I think it's funny how you see them switch on in technochat during startup but can't control them yourself. That and a bunch of other things, like priming the engine and turning on bomb controls. 

 

I'm on the fence as to if I would actually want such things to be controllable... A lot of it would just be a one time switch on the tarmac, so I like the way the devs have done it now. You can only have so many key bindings after all.

 

And I don't think it would attract any players, to keep on topic.

 

I kinda like where IL2 is at now - we're not fully bogged down in the startup sequence (like in CloD which can be a pain esp when you don't have everything mapped) and I don't particularly want to get a type rating on the JU-88, H111, BF110 and JU87. I like DCS but its more focused on this part rather than the gameplay, which is what IL2 delivers. How it is now is just fine.

 

Remember, IL2 is about playing the game - dogfighting, bombing, strafing, etc etc...not spending 5 mins on start up. IL2 was never about 'full real' because you just can't have 'full real' without losing some of the gameplay elements that make it enjoyable. Trust me, at the end of the day, its not much fun playing on a server with 5 people.

[Gambit21]

I don't personally need all that minutia - I like where it is as well.

I also don't care to see a magical floating mouse cursor clicking on things.

That to me is the opposite of realistic.

[t4trouble]

 

Remember, IL2 is about playing the game - dogfighting, bombing, strafing, etc etc...not spending 5 mins on start up. IL2 was never about 'full real' because you just can't have 'full real' without losing some of the gameplay elements that make it enjoyable. Trust me, at the end of the day, its not much fun playing on a server with 5 people.

 

 

 

You still have to watch the start up ? and if you're engine fails to start, it turns off all switches and then turn them on again....mmh

 

[216th_Jordan]

Biggest problem - also for multiplayer - is likely spotting even more as it is the hardest in this sim compared to others. There should be a way to configure it like it was in Skies of Valor in il-2 46. from 3 or 4 km out it shows an icon and from below 2 km distabce it shows friend or foe.

[Gambit21]

That's hardly the problem - or even a problem at all.

Even if it was, you can change that tomorrow and it still won't change the fact that we don't have proper CoOps.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Gambit21

[FS_Fenice_1965]

Biggest problem - also for multiplayer - is likely spotting even more as it is the hardest in this sim compared to others. There should be a way to configure it like it was in Skies of Valor in il-2 46. from 3 or 4 km out it shows an icon and from below 2 km distabce it shows friend or foe.

As a Skies of Valor admin, I could not agree more. Actually there is no choice between psichodelic icons and not icons at all...

[TheElf]

Biggest problem - also for multiplayer - is likely spotting even more as it is the hardest in this sim compared to others. There should be a way to configure it like it was in Skies of Valor in il-2 46. from 3 or 4 km out it shows an icon and from below 2 km distabce it shows friend or foe.

 

 

Unagree.  For full switch Expert players this is an abomination.  One of the things that Original IL-2 got wrong was players could join Full Real Servers, dump their Graphics settings to full dumb, and spot any aircraft on the server at full-retard ranges.  Those of us that appreciated the highest level of graphical magic were at an immediate disadvantage for spotting, which often meant the guy playing 800 x 600 spotted my 30 pixel aircraft at 30 miles while I was straining to maintain sight at 5 miles on his 2 pixel aircraft.

 

To my mind spotting and aircraft resolution MUST be level across the board or you are cheating the other guy out of a realistic combat.

 

And to say spotting in BoM/S is difficult, try DCS.  Its horrible.

[FS_Fenice_1965]

As a matter of fact BOS doesn't seem to be harder than other sims on spotting at full real.

At least this is the impression I have on my rig.

In any case, having a bit more flexibility on icons settings could help widening a bit the players base, and has nothing to do with flattening the players level.

[Gambit21]

 For full switch Expert players this is an abomination.  

 

This

[ZachariasX]

 

 

For full switch Expert players this is an abomination

 

What is that supposed to mean? So, if you're an expert, there's only one blessed way to play this game? C'mon.

 

If I have icons on, it means that EVERYBODY is supposed to see their opponents. If you have this configuration, you are supposed to, no matter what, fight it out to the bitter end. TS is less relevant then. You can just take on a loner then as a coordinated group if you're too much of a coward to provide a 1 on 1 fight. Practising formation fights is a good thing, If you do it with loners on servers, you drive them away. Better practise that with amoungst your buddies on TS if you want new people to stay.

 

Icons off is by no means "more Expert", it just turns the fight into a "hit-and-run" affair. Lose tally, end of the fight and death of the player that loses sight first. Player on TS always win, because they have several pairs of eyes, in this sense they are "icons on". What icons off does, it turns the game closer in charactersitics to how pilots fought it out back then. The absence of the phyisical issues still reclude it from being similar though.

 

Why should it make sense to declare icons verboten, when it is just a parameter that affects gameplay in a way as for instance does the presence of AAA guns change how you can play on a map?

 

Why not have a map where people race their planes, like Red-Bull air races? Could be fun! Why should that not be "realistic" when you use the same planes as in your "expert" mode? And fun is what we are here for. Let people have fun with their planes. Don't force them to use the game in a specific manner. Doing so just reduces your potential user base.

 

The "problem" of BoS/BoM is by no means "that it is too realistic" for the WT Untermenschen. Just set automatic engine management "on" and you're all set. Anyone with even remote interest in those planes can handle them then.

 

The "problem" is that you force everyone to play according to your way of play. If they don't like that or if they are too much of a casual player, well screw them then, huh?. Then we sit here and cry "oh, nobody wants to play with us".

 

Please, give people a break. Even the "lesser" ones.

 

Z

[Brano]

It's not about "untermench" or "experts". It's about server owner,which is private person/group ,to have more variety in options to set up realism as they want it to be. There are not only "expert" servers out there. We have also "normal" ones. It's up to everyone to decide which kind of difficulty they want to fly and which server they will join in. Server owners have full right to impose difficulty level and whatever rules they see fit. They run the servers on their own expenses and free time. If people don't agree with the situation on given server,they are free to run their own.

[216th_Jordan]

It's not about "untermench" or "experts". It's about server owner,which is private person/group ,to have more variety in options to set up realism as they want it to be. There are not only "expert" servers out there. We have also "normal" ones. It's up to everyone to decide which kind of difficulty they want to fly and which server they will join in. Server owners have full right to impose difficulty level and whatever rules they see fit. They run the servers on their own expenses and free time. If people don't agree with the situation on given server,they are free to run their own.

Thats my point of view.

 

I play full real mostly but I think there should be something inbetween full easy and full real and I also sometimes like to play a little different settings too. Lets face it: most players would probably be somewhere inbetween easy and full real.

[FS_Fenice_1965]

 

 most players would probably be somewhere inbetween easy and full real. 

• 
•  
• 0

• Quote
• MultiQuote
•  
•  

 

As  a matter of fact, the intermediate settings formula has been quite succesfull and long lasting in IL2. Look at what's remained active of the HL IL2 servers.

Obviously something has to do also with the fact that hardcore simmers are the ones who switch faster to new sims, because they normally raise up the bar of realism.

[Mac_Messer]

Unagree.  For full switch Expert players this is an abomination.  One of the things that Original IL-2 got wrong was players could join Full Real Servers, dump their Graphics settings to full dumb, and spot any aircraft on the server at full-retard ranges.  Those of us that appreciated the highest level of graphical magic were at an immediate disadvantage for spotting, which often meant the guy playing 800 x 600 spotted my 30 pixel aircraft at 30 miles while I was straining to maintain sight at 5 miles on his 2 pixel aircraft.

 

To my mind spotting and aircraft resolution MUST be level across the board or you are cheating the other guy out of a realistic combat.

 

And to say spotting in BoM/S is difficult, try DCS.  Its horrible.

Funny thing, spotting is easier in DCS for me. There is not one solution for all, it is a PC thing.

 

The 800x600 thing came at a price. I`ve played IL2 on `15 monitor and the cockpit took like 70% of the screen, not to mention the gauges being unreadable and aircraft LODs being literally pixels. In the original IL2 there were multiple ways to gain advantage in spotting. Simplest was to get a huge screen. I had a buddy in my squad who played on 22` when I was on `17. I played with medium settings 1024x while he had 22` native and graphics maxed out. He would always be the one to first spot the contacts in my squad.

[Mac_Messer]

Icons off is by no means "more Expert", it just turns the fight into a "hit-and-run" affair. Lose tally, end of the fight and death of the player that loses sight first. Player on TS always win, because they have several pairs of eyes, in this sense they are "icons on". What icons off does, it turns the game closer in charactersitics to how pilots fought it out back then. The absence of the phyisical issues still reclude it from being similar though.

 

Why should it make sense to declare icons verboten, when it is just a parameter that affects gameplay in a way as for instance does the presence of AAA guns change how you can play on a map?

Wasn`t this like that in real life? I mean the first to spot the enemy had an advantage and groups had an advantage and it was often hit and run. I see realism here.

 

Besides the point that server icons should be fully customizable, my degustibus on that is that from say 5km there should be all black spots-like icons with no colour and no distance. That way you don`t get a game of hide and seek and still have to ID incoming planes. This worked in the original IL2.

As  a matter of fact, the intermediate settings formula has been quite succesfull and long lasting in IL2. Look at what's remained active of the HL IL2 servers.

Obviously something has to do also with the fact that hardcore simmers are the ones who switch faster to new sims, because they normally raise up the bar of realism.

Yes, additionally with generic coops running virtually one after another (there were 3 coop slot rooms AFAIR) one could taste what it is all about and see if it fits him without going into full blown virtual wars with vets doing carnage. Generic coops was THE place from where virtual wars participant squads recruited most of their members.

The "problem" of BoS/BoM is by no means "that it is too realistic" for the WT Untermenschen. Just set automatic engine management "on" and you're all set. Anyone with even remote interest in those planes can handle them then.

Such attitude in flight sim community is an exception to the rule, I assure you. Most of us take fun just out of flying with other humans.

[beepee]

 

 

The "problem" is that you force everyone to play according to your way of play. If they don't like that or if they are too much of a casual player, well screw them then, huh?. Then we sit here and cry "oh, nobody wants to play with us".

 

So maybe you should  jump into the M.E, build your own missions the way you like them and host your own server with the settings you like. No "problems" then.

[216th_Jordan]

So maybe you should jump into the M.E, build your own missions the way you like them and host your own server with the settings you like. No "problems" then.

Considering that we are talking about unavailable options for mission planners here makes your argument rather, well, ignorant.

[Lusekofte]

Thats my point of view.

 

I play full real mostly but I think there should be something inbetween full easy and full real and I also sometimes like to play a little different settings too. Lets face it: most players would probably be somewhere inbetween easy and full real.

 

 

I am full real only, I like bombers because it is a proper task to do, you need to be good at it and good at navigating for level bomb in a non GPS server. Flying should be a learning curve all the way, or it will be boring. I envy the fact that you are able to fly easy "light" and have fun doing it. I am simply not capable doing it. Waist of time. And I am not in any way giving you critique. I myself have partly migrated to one of my untouched modules in DCS. I am selling my Yoke and go flightstick for choppers. 

I do not think it is a good idea leaving a game in-between anything, there must be choices and challenge. I hope the developers take time to make this sim deeper and make ME (fmb) a tool for all. Like DCS, IL 2 and COD

Edited May 25, 2016 by 216th_LuseKofte

[216th_Jordan]

I know most people on here are damn hardcore. Fine, me too.

BUT.. did we all start hardcore? or did we mostly start easy, then take settings a little harder end in the end fly full real?

What I am talking about is the huge GAP between easy and Hardcore (well technochat aside). I needed a lot of time to learn Silhouettes, now I'm doing fine with them but I liked SoV a lot for its realism and yet its playability for more people than only 'all time simmers'. Nothing bad about choices, you can still fly hardcore only.

[FS_Fenice_1965]

 

 

I liked SoV a lot for its realism and yet its playability for more people than only 'all time simmer

 

Ty Jordan,

and maybe SOV is close to enter the BOS/BOM arena.................

 

As a matter of fact SOV doesn't encounter the taste of arcade players (we had Skies of Fire for that...and died before) and a lot of its players are also full real simmers as well (Warbirds of prey / Aces over Europe).

Everything is full real and historical, apart from the "detection" assistance.

The "detection tools" - also - work only at close distance and not at the insane distance of the default settings that we have with BOS. The icons can not be seen trough the fuselage like it happens with BOS and are graphically less intrusive (I always dreamed of a way to reduce the icons to a single coloured unintrusive dot, enough to keep track of the friend/foe identification at a first glance during dogfights.....but il2 had its limits too....).

In our forums our players had a great discussion about removing the padlock option but, at the end the padlock party prevailed because people playing without tracking devices felt handcapped and it wasn't a good time to divide the community.  

 

The difference with hardcore servers is mainly (but not only obviously) on the fact that the time to action is reduced. You can jump in a plane, and even if you have only half an hour of time between the end of your job day and the time for your family, you can be sure that you will take part to a battle in a believable contest between a good bunch of veteran pilots. 

 

This formula kept SOV at the top of the HL list for years and is keeping SOV alive from 9 years, even if 1946 is in its sunset era. 

Edited May 25, 2016 by FS_Fenice_1965

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Coconut's server is running a mission for the crowd you're talking about Fenice, you can check it out

 

Fighting Legends is a good compromise right now and a great place to practice. While it doesn't have any icons, the maps in that server are pretty tight and even if you only have one person flying on each side you're likely to find them pretty quickly since you don't have to comb through 400 square kilometres to find a single person. That way you regularly have action going on while making it relatively easy for a novice to spot people.

 

PS: Thanks for keeping Skies of Valour running, I used to play there often back in 2007-2010, and I have only good memories of the server.

Edited May 25, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[KoN_]

It doesn't matter about the original IL2 had this or that when it started... the point is, BoS/Bom is called the successor to IL2 , and claiming that should have taken that name forward with the tried and proven track record of IL2 1946..

 

Now, I wouldn't have expected it to have the content in terms of aircraft and maps etc at game launch, but BoS should have had at least the same functionality as the previous version... an excellent SP campaign experience, a DCG experience, a Hyperlobby type system with a proper co-op system... these are just some of the things what kept the IL2 genre alive for god knows how many flight sim gamers.

It just astounds me that our current IL2 version didn't take that onboard... it's like someone tried to reinvent the wheel and make it square instead of round???

 

The dev's aren't new to this, they knew exactly what the previous IL2 had and what its merits were... right, having said all of that, we have what we have, and there is no doubt that the dev's have made some great improvements to the game this year, so they have to have much credit for that.

It has always been a fantastic looking game, but fantastic looks are not everything by a long chalk... but at least the game is now moving forward in the right direction it has to be said.

Totally agree with you , things were said along time ago that these things are what we still wanted in game , as you can see it wasn't implemented .

Why god knows .

Has BOM taken steps to correct the mistakes of BOS ,  From my point of view NO . Same awful campaign with a silly unlock system that don`t even work some times and is such a pain  ,

Now does PWCG use the unlocks system  . ?

I still hav`nt unlocked stuff from BOS . 

[ZachariasX]

Wasn`t this like that in real life? I mean the first to spot the enemy had an advantage and groups had an advantage and it was often hit and run. I see realism here.

 

 

Absolutely. But it is just one way to play the game. A good one. But one.

 

 

Besides the point that server icons should be fully customizable, my degustibus on that is that from say 5km there should be all black spots-like icons with no colour and no distance. That way you don`t get a game of hide and seek and still have to ID incoming planes. This worked in the original IL2.

 

 

I would also advocate making it possible to open these configurations for having them set server-side. Often enough, you find out what really works when you try it out. What is good for yourself is not necessarily the way that would attract the most crowd. You gotta try.

 

My only point was to let people try to configure settings as they like. With th very same planeset, adjusting map, objects, visual/operative aids you create a different gameplay with the same tools/modules provided in this sim. And all of this freedom wouldn't bar you from also creating "realistic" scenarios.

 

 

Such attitude in flight sim community is an exception to the rule, I assure you. Most of us take fun just out of flying with other humans.

 

 

I agree. I even think that the community here is helpful much beyond using this sim. I rather frowned upon using WT or Counterstrike as something bad, or as the bad example. You can make a point with that if you strive to recreate the "BoS" as accurately as possible. Since however those two games attract a great number of players, they surely are good games. So far, I see the "more serious sims" not on par in trying to deliver a great game. Getting the planes out to a level the vocal bunch in here deems them tolerable is a huge effort. And it seems like the devs, once a plane is out, they think the task is done and call it a hard days night.  IMHO, DCS fares even worse as it has even more the charm of a developper environment that an actual game that is meant to be played. BoS has progressed there a lot but is still handicapped by some design chioces (off topic here).

[beepee]

Considering that we are talking about unavailable options for mission planners here makes your argument rather, well, ignorant.

I was responding directly to...wait..someone that was not you. So you can call me ignorant all you want.

 

At the end of the day. We have what we have. MP would be a whole lot busier if we stopped talking about it and started having fun with it.

Edited May 25, 2016 by beepee

[FS_Fenice_1965]

Coconut's server is running a mission for the crowd you're talking about Fenice, you can check it out

 

Fighting Legends is a good compromise right now and a great place to practice. While it doesn't have any icons, the maps in that server are pretty tight and even if you only have one person flying on each side you're likely to find them pretty quickly since you don't have to comb through 400 square kilometres to find a single person. That way you regularly have action going on while making it relatively easy for a novice to spot people.

 

PS: Thanks for keeping Skies of Valour running, I used to play there often back in 2007-2010, and I have only good memories of the server.

Ty very much ! What was your nick at those times ? I remember Lucas__svk (or something similar...)

I have read about coconut's server and found it interesting. Will check it out.

I have played on fighting legends and found it a good server indeed.

What surprises me is that I haven't seen many IL2 servers transferring to the new sim, apart the Battlefield ones.

The perception is that there is a fracture between IL2 multiplayer communities and the new sim. I haven't found many of the thousands players I was used to see on our servers on this sim, nor many of those I was used to see in the other HL servers.

On the other side 1946 is losing players day by day, but I do not see them starting to fly here.

Then it seems like they are re lost rather than waiting to transfer.

Edited May 25, 2016 by FS_Fenice_1965

[216th_Jordan]

I was responding directly to...wait..someone that was not you. So you can call me ignorant all you want.

 

At the end of the day. We have what we have. MP would be a whole lot busier if we stopped talking about it and started having fun with it.

I did not call you ignorant but your Argument. And I know you did not respond to me but the comment you quoted did have a similar content as mine. Anyways, no offence intended.

[beepee]

No offense taken Jordan.

 

I am going to go against what I posted above about wasting time talking about it.

 

It may be my imagination, but is there a questions/ suggestions for the devs thread?

 

If so, has anyone asked the devs/suggested any of the above ideas ( like the icon draw distance for example)?

Edited May 25, 2016 by beepee

[Pharoah]

What surprises me is that I haven't seen many IL2 servers transferring to the new sim, apart the Battlefield ones.

The perception is that there is a fracture between IL2 multiplayer communities and the new sim. I haven't found many of the thousands players I was used to see on our servers on this sim, nor many of those I was used to see in the other HL servers.

On the other side 1946 is losing players day by day, but I do not see them starting to fly here.

Then it seems like they are re lost rather than waiting to transfer.

 

I've touched on this previously. Back in the day (ie. when IL2 1946 was at its height), the aussie IL2 scene was quite popular even with other major titles. I'm talking multiple servers on HL filled with constant chat, etc. There were atleast 3-4 major IL2 squads with large player bases (eg. Wedge Tailed Eagles, RAAF, |450SQN| I think it was, etc). Now, very few of these guys still play and those that do haven't left CloD. I've been actively trying to bring them to BOS (and some of them do have it) but most of these guys aren't interested in the eastern front. They think the sim looks good but I guess we were spoilt for choice back in the '46 days with multiple maps, a/c, coop (this was very popular), SEOW, etc.

 

So, until 1C moves either west ward, SW into the med/north africa or SE into the pacific, you aren't going to move these guys. They will just tire of the genre and go play something else (like DCS).

 

That's why I reckon jumping straight over to a Channel map (not to replace BoB, but to compliment it) to focus on the 1942-1944 era (or say 1943 time set) would interest a lot more people, esp in US/UK/Aust. Yeah it'll be a major task but start out with a limited a/c set that covers most bases (which I've listed previously) and you might inc the user base.

[Gambit21]

I doubt we'll be going to BoB any time soon.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Fenice, my username was Lucas_From_Hell from the beginning, with a brief spell as [KO]Lucas. That squadron is mostly gone today I assume, I wonder where did those chaps end up.

 

I think the reason for the drop-off is simply because while the years passed the old Il-2 by, that community fragmented. One camp stuck with it either through Team Daidalos or mods, while the other camp wanted something more modern - what CloD had geared up to be for such a long time. When it came out though, that camp was disappointed by its initial state and many called it quits. Many who stuck with the old Il-2, as it happens to any game that's older than a decade, slowly walked away as well. Between Cliffs of Dover and the current Il-2's development, release and refinement, there was a vacuum in high-end WW2 simulators, and most who left during that vacuum simply didn't have anywhere else to go and thus hung up their joysticks to find solace elsewhere. I know of people who once divorced because of Il-2 addiction who then converted to tank simming during that period.

 

As things stand now, we are in a positive attitude here. Arcade to casual players go for War Thunder, casual to so-called grognards go for Il-2, and button-loving grognards go for DCS. Many go for all of them eventually. This trinity is capable of attracting new players which is probably the most viable way to go. Many of those who walked away from the days of HyperLobby and DGen won't come back, but some will as well.

 

I feel that if it hadn't been for the poor timing in 2011-2013 things would have been simpler, and people would have smoothly transitioned. As history had it though, the old dynasty crashed and a new one raised from its ashes. It's not worse, just different. So far I'm enjoying it even more here than I did in the good 15 years I spent in the old Il-2

Edited May 26, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell