It's maybe just me....

[ACG_daffy_]

Well, clearly there is still passion.....

 

By the ground loops and finding through the grass, I was being facetious, and making fun of myself.  We all have a bad day....

 

I enjoy the game, and am glad that I purchased it.  I've played WWII sims since CFS and have enjoyed every one of them.  I've been fascinated with WWII Aircraft since I was old enough to point at one in a picture book.  Through all of the years, since the late 90's, I've never been the guy that got too wrapped up over roll rates, or climb rates, or sustained vs instantaneous turn rates more than what the game offered.  I understand the historical aspect of many simmers, and admire their research and input.  I've just never really gotten upset because someone flew an airplane that was over powered in the sim.  It's just a game....to me.  

However, if it were not for the contributions from the hardcore enthusiasts, then we wouldn't have improvements or growth. 

 

I was hoping to learn that there were some other multiplayer options....maybe one day.  I'll still fly.

S!

[SCG_Tzigy]

Online, nobody ever around.  Once or twice a week maybe, at odd times, but that's about it.  (I know it's a niche genre.  I accept that it is a unique following)  

 

I also wonder if a lot of people are turned away from it by the frustration of just trying to find a runway in all of the grass.  Or spin outs on the runway lol.  Or the burn time of the engines.  I think the game is cool, and I'm happy to spend my money on it.  I'll continue to do so, but for me, I think it's a misfire.  

Does anyone still play 1946 or PF?  Also, been noticing the DCS WWII servers are starting to fill up some.  I honestly feel that if there was more online play, that the frustrations would work themselves out for me.  Just curious if I'm missing anything...like other servers or connection realms?  

 

PS....it's a good game!  I'm happy to own it and will spend more on it.  Just wondering where everyone is online at these days.

 

http://online.il2forever.com/

 

usually just torture for me to check as i am invariably at work when everybody else is on....

[Bearcat]

WTF is wrong with you people...seriously. Is it so hard to read properly what i write?? I also never said anything of that stuff you are making up right now. I have never said, that Russians only fly Russian aircraft, or nonsense like that. This has absolutely nothing to do with FM issues. Nothing. I am flying the Yak regularly, and i still want it's flaps fixed. I have never said anything about "Russian bias".

But what's obvious, that most of the time people here dismiss issues about Russian FMs, are coming from former Soviet nations (or "Afrika"   )

Please stop for once putting wrong words in my mouth...just read carefully what i am writing. 

 

Look at what you wrote...

 

I can tell you the reason. First of all, noone apart from the former Soviet states speaks Russian. Meaning, you have all likeminded people together. No Russian would argue about German aircraft underperforming. If a Russian finds a thing he doesn't like, i.e. Russian aircraft not performing like he wants, he will rather find a lot of people supporting him, but no one will speak against him, because there is no "other side".

I would be amazed, if you find any topic in the Russian forum claiming that a Russian plane is overperforming, or a German plane underperforming.

Whereas in the English Forum we have both sides. People from Eastern Europe, USA or France, also Russians who hang out in both Forums, who fancy Russian planes over German ones due to various reasons. So anytime a FM related topic gets discussed, you have both sides involved, no matter how clear something is wrong (or right), you'll always find that biased people, that they will fight against it, get personal, and the stuff is derailing. 

Reason why the Devs are welcomed better in the Russian forums is maybe, that no Russian aircraft has ever underperformed in this Sim.

 

You don't see how that, along with many of your other posts on FM issues that are too numerous to post, could all be construes as an insinuation of a Russian bias in this sim?

 

Back on the subject of this post...

You want to see a vibrant and well populated multiplayer?

 

Here is what you need:

1. A Mission Editor that is easier to use than the developers tool we currently have.   There are a whole lot of people that used to make missions on a regular basis for original IL2 that don't want to deal with the overly complex ME we currently have.

2.  The ability to host games on our own machines without the necessity of running a separate dedicated server, and having to get keys, and permission from the dev team to do so.

3.  A real game lobby.

4. A new theatre of operations.

5. Fix the ground handling, the global FM issue with instability, and the stunningly poor implementation of engine limits.

6. A more accessible price structure.

 

Cover those bases and you can bring people back to the sim.

Ignore them and be happy with the tiny numbers we currently have online. 

 

I agree outright with 1,2 &3. 4 is.. a moot point because BoM is coming... and a totally new theater will not be here till it fits in with the plan of the team... so . 5.... could be an issue but those are the kinds of issues that are being addressed .. if not by now.. sooner rather than later.... 6 I just disagree with. I think the pricing of this sim is fine... particularly when considering the state of the genre overall... The only thing that we have to compare to this sim is DCS as far as an active pricing structure in relation to overall fidelity as far as being more sim than game (some may disagree with that idea..)  goes... and when comparing this to DCS... it is a no brainer.. Especially when you consider how often there are sales for BoS .. and there will most likely be even greater sales once things move to the next phase. I would not be surprised in gthe least if therre were eventually a F2T version like RoF has with 2-4 aircraft from BoS in it and a small map.. It would make good business sense.

[rlk281]

Oh how I long for the Hyperlobby days...all the smack-talk, small-talk, and sometimes interesting chatter...and then the co-op missions, OMFG the co-op missions!

 

I remember flying against a red flyer, who was kinda-notorious on-line, and see him get kill after kill, until it was just me left and OMG my hands started shaking because

hardly anyone else dropped off and I knew was watching the ROSS flyer hunt down his last victim...

 

..and it was just a matter of time too; I think we did one high altitude head-on pass and clipped wings...wish I could remember his name, but ever other MP battle has since failed to live up to that moment!

 

Bring back Hyperlobby please! :-)

[ACG_KaiLae]

Oh one more thing-theater is uninteresting.

I have great fun in it as is, but if we were fighting spits, hurris, thunderbolts, and Warhawks over Libya or Italy I think you'd have to beat the westerners off with a stick to keep from overloading the servers.

 

And co-op. Really need that.

 

That theater is called cliffs of dover with the team fusion 5.0 patch.

 

Personally I don't get the "Russian OP" comments - I've never seen complaint threads about the LaGG, LA-5, PE-2, etc. It's all about the Yak, and almost always about the flaps. I'm guessing when people say Russian bias they mean Yak bias.

 

I think the lack of responsiveness to questions in many cases is a language issue. The questions to devs thread sometimes has responses where when they respond it looks like they never understood the question being asked, so you get a bad answer. Not sure what to do about that.

 

I'll add another thing that I think the community needs - as a pilot that flies with ACG (http://www.aircombatgroup.co.uk/) every sunday, there's nothing like that in BOS and this is a shame. I suppose the closest thing is the Friday night bomber flights, but there's nothing quite like full player squadron on squadron combat missions with a briefing, command and control, and 50+ player furballs. BOS has really the same multiplayer experience on all the populated servers. Sure, they have their differences, but it's like the difference between an orange and a tangerine. Still kinda the same in the end.

 

Last the other thing that I've noticed, and something that a buddy of mine (who ran a '46 squadron for many years) has also said is odd, is that overall the community is oddly kinda clannish. There's not one central meeting place or TS. Generally you have all the individual squadron TS's that have people on them, which makes the "log in, see who's there and fly with them" pretty difficult if you're a starting player with no affiliation or a casual with no inclination. In any multiplayer game, you can take it to the bank that it's always better with a teammate, and in a combat flight sim, about the only way it's worse is if your wingman is so bad he rams you. At any rate all the small individual islands I think reduce interaction, which reduces fun.

[Feathered_IV]

Actual gameplay needs improving. After an hour of play you begin to realise that's all there is. It may well improve in the future, but for now the series remains a fairly shallow experience.

[jaydee]

Actual gameplay needs improving. After an hour of play you begin to realise that's all there is. It may well improve in the future, but for now the series remains a fairly shallow experience.

I agree Feathered. Shallow is a good description ! See my other post ! ~S~

[Guest deleted@50488]

While I think there are pros & cons on each sim, talking about DCS World vs IL2-BoS/BoM, at their present stage of development for me it is Cristal Clear that IL-2 BoS is a WW2 Combat Flight Simulator, while DCS is a Platform for Air Combat Simulation. Both also now offer ground environment and war machines since IL-.2 introduced the new user-controlable tanks.

 

I am permanently trying to give up on using both, and I am permanently incapable of doing so, because, each on it's own is SO GOOD, but there are at least three strong points in IL-2 that make me start it more often, and play it for longer periods of time:

 

In Il-2 BoS / BoM:

- The Superb Graphics and visual identification of other aircraft

- The view perspectives from the cockpit, which are 2nd to none I have ever experienced in a flightsim, specially using TIR5

- The overall immersion....

 

Since the Devs have promissed (DD120) that they will continue to address some of the users complaints about, for instance, the "wobbling", and consider detailled fuel management, for me IL-2 has only chances of getting even better, which is all I could look for / want to happen :-)

Edited February 11, 2016 by jcomm

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

For me overall i love to fly BOS, but the FW-190 was not worth the money sadley it's a flying brick.

How can i use my roll rate when the 190 go in a tail spinn after the second roll.

DCS Dora is much more agile plane one of the heavyst 190 versions

Edited February 11, 2016 by 9./JG27MAD-MM

[Dakpilot]

 

Now, fire up the game and fly the various fighters.  What you'll notice is there's nothing at all that's even remotely remarkable about  the 190's rate of roll.  It's okay but not as quick for example as an I-16, (or the La-5 ) even at high (650 k/ph) speeds.  Obviously, I haven't read everything there is to read about the I-16, but nothing I have read about it suggests it had a simply 'amazing' rate of roll.  In fact, from what I've read, the I-16 wasn't even a stand-out in the maneuverability stakes during the Spanish Civil War.  It was noted for its speed, not its maneuverability.  It was out-maneuvered by other fighters during the SCW.

 

 

 

Now, if this problem relates to the BoS/BoM engine then that is what the devs should have told us.  If that is indeed the case I could accept that even though I wouldn't like it.  But I don't accept that a bunch of computer programmers with an interest in aviation actually know more about the roll rate of the 190 than test pilots like Eric Brown who actually flew the bloody thing.

 

Maybe this explains some of the wrong perceptions, if some people are trying to  furball in 190 against an I-16 because "nothing I have read about it suggests it had a simply 'amazing' rate of roll.  In fact, from what I've read, the I-16 wasn't even a stand-out in the maneuverability stakes"

 

I guess if you expect a Fw190 to out roll an I-16 then it will lead to disappointment

 

Correct me if I am wrong but I was always under the impression that one of the I-16's well known traits/advantages was its very high roll rate and maneuverability, though outclassed in performance  by 1941

 

RE the comment about the Dev's, to suggest that the people in charge of FM's have no understanding of aerodynamics/physics seems a bit naive, I understand that some of them are highly qualified in this field

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Couldn't find any source besides Wikipedia, but I hope this quantifies the I-16:

 

An aileron roll could be performed in under 1.5 seconds (roll rate over 240 degrees/second).

Edited February 11, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The I-16 has a high wing loading and large controll surfaces giving it not only nasty stall chracteristics (they're still harmfull compared to what the pilot in the I-16 documentary said about it) but also rate of roll. What the Fw-190 posesses and what the lavotchkins lack of is roll inertia. That's why flying scissors with consitent chabge in roll direction is pointless with the 190 compared to those aircraft.

 

I for one wonder why the devs made the decision to leave roll inertia modelation out for tge La-5 and Lagg. Lack of data possibly is not the reason for it. Its even more bizarre when comparing pilots reviews from either side, the Fw-190s rate of roll was not only praised by western pilots. The russian test report of the captured (and damaged) Fw-190 A-3 stated it had excellent roll rate and that the pilots flying the latest Lag fighters only had a chance to follow a roll manouvre of the 190 with a great strain of muscle not every pilot posesses.

[Feathered_IV]

I can't find the original footage right now, but for I-16 rolls there is this at 1:32  It's pretty quick. 

Note:  The original footage only shows one roll, similar to the Ki-43 that we saw recently.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYKD4oD49l4

Edited February 11, 2016 by Feathered_IV

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

RE the comment about the Dev's, to suggest that the people in charge of FM's have no understanding of aerodynamics/physics seems a bit naive, I understand that some of them are highly qualified in this field

Dakpilot on word-twisting mission again, as usual.

He didn't say that. He only said, that he doubts that some programmers have more idea about certain departments or characteristics of historical aircraft, then test pilots of WW2. Nothing wrong with that.

The Devs already proved a few times, that they don't possess the sole wisdom about WW2 aircraft in terms of performance/sources etc. I still remember very good the beta 190, when it was a flying brick, completely broken. Only with the help of some people of the community (including me if i may humbly say), who provided the Devs with proper data, it got corrected to the current state. This clearly shows, that the Devs can do good with help from the community, from people who are well informed (better then the Devs themselves) about certain aircraft. Nothing wrong with that. With the amount of work, the Devs are having, and the small teams, i understand that you can't investigate all sorts of sources 24/7. No blame what so ever. But to dismiss the point, and just act like the Devs hold the ultimate truth about aircraft, and all aircraft are modeled perfectly from the beginning is just blatantly ignorant. 

[Dakpilot]

I don't need to twist words, I think the posters comment

 

 

 

I don't accept that a bunch of computer programmers with an interest in aviation

 

set's the tone, maybe its just me but that is a very condescending remark, along with his total ignorance of I-16 yet willingness for vocal comment on FM's

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I don't need to twist words, I think the posters comment

 

 

set's the tone, maybe its just me but that is a very condescending remark, along with his total ignorance of I-16 yet willingness for vocal comment on FM's

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Of course you twisted words. You claimed that 

 

the comment about the Dev's, to suggest that the people in charge of FM's have no understanding of aerodynamics/physics

. He never made such a comment.[Edited]

Edited February 11, 2016 by Bearcat

[Jade_Monkey]

You two: grow up or get a room.

[BlitzPig_EL]

 

  But I don't accept that a bunch of computer programmers with an interest in aviation actually know more about the roll rate of the 190 than test pilots like Eric Brown who actually flew the bloody thing.

 

There is a constant in the world of flight simming that pilot accounts are mostly taken as hearsay and are not to be given much, if any, real consideration.  Have we all not seen this over the last 15+ years of this franchise in every discussion revolving around flight modeling?  See the video that Mr. HInton made on flying the P 40 for his take on the roll rate and maneuverability of the Hawk 81, does it not stand in direct contradiction to the model we have in the game currently?

 

The chart fetishists prevail, as always.

 

 

Bearcat, we will have to agree to disagree on the price structure.

Remember all those BlitzPigs you used to see online back in the day?  Ever wonder what happened to them?

While several of us have BoS, not a one has purchased BoM, why?   $80 for an expansion pack is just too much, considering the still beta feel of the game so far.  Once it goes on sale on Steam, most of us will buy it then, but not until.

 

It's a value judgement, nothing more.  Not a statement about any other thing.

[BraveSirRobin]

There is a constant in the world of flight simming that pilot accounts are mostly taken as hearsay and are not to be given much, if any, real consideration.  Have we all not seen this over the last 15+ years of this franchise in every discussion revolving around flight modeling?  See the video that Mr. HInton made on flying the P 40 for his take on the roll rate and maneuverability of the Hawk 81, does it not stand in direct contradiction to the model we have in the game currently?

 

 

The problem with using pilot accounts is that they can't be quantified and often directly contradict each other.  

[Guest deleted@50488]

I can't find the original footage right now, but for I-16 rolls there is this at 1:32  It's pretty quick. 

Note:  The original footage only shows one roll, similar to the Ki-43 that we saw recently.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYKD4oD49l4

 

At 1:32, that's a snap-roll, not an "aileron roll" ;-)

[Chuck_Owl]

As far as fixing the planes go, I don't think a lot of people understand what kind of a job that is.  In a sim like War Thunder or DCS you can just adjust the data in the tables to match what the data you are using says.  That is because their sims are table based.

 

I don't think you completely understand what kind of job that is either. DCS is just as much a physics-based sim as BoS and ALL sims do use tables for some parameters and interpolate in-between in various degrees. BoS, DCS and War Thunder all use table-based data in some way, shape or form. It doesn't mean that certain parts of the physics engine aren't modelled dynamically (such as ground handling, certain intricacies of flight or engine model behaviour, etc.).

Edited February 11, 2016 by Chuck_Owl

[Y-29.Silky]

You'd be amazed how many times I see some guy spawn in for the Russian side, start his engine and then have it stall on him because he never advanced the mixture. They'll do it 3 or 4 times and then quit the server, never to be seen again. (Then they probably go to metacritic and see the comforting band-wagon of other people who failed the mixture test where they linger amongst the bad reviews and axe-grinders)

I've seen this often. Then they're all..

 

"This game is horrible, I'm going back to clod!"

[wtornado]

Co-op and a working lobby would do a lot to draw in people and keep the ones who are here engaged.

 

I really think the next project on this series should involve:

 

1. A lobby

 

2. Proper co-op mode

 

3. Full integration of PWCG into the sim

 

In addition to 10 new planes and a map ofc

Yes Been saying this since the beginning.

 

It was killed when Clod and that game never recovered

[wtornado]

After watching just real  FW-190 footage on youtube for a few hours with real planes I think the FW-190

was more stable and flew better in the reel footage and its roll rate was just a bit faster but not by much

in a few of the films.

Edited February 12, 2016 by WTornado

[Mac_Messer]

I`ve now played something of 50hours of sp campaign. I`m sticking far from the DF online experience, I can`t stand it. I`d rather fly around with AI but in more historical mission conditions, even if it means I`m not facing competitive enemies (ace AI is pretty good though).

 

Lack of mp lobby and a classic mp coop mode really holds this game back currently

[Bando]

Have you tried PWCG?

If not, give it a try as SP.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/19801-pwcg-121-released/

[No601_Swallow]

I`ve now played something of 50hours of sp campaign. I`m sticking far from the DF online experience, I can`t stand it. I`d rather fly around with AI but in more historical mission conditions, even if it means I`m not facing competitive enemies (ace AI is pretty good though).

 

Lack of mp lobby and a classic mp coop mode really holds this game back currently

At the risk of sounding like a lone lunatic, I'll defend the possibilities that BoS allows for coop gameplay. I thought about this stuff a hell of a lot when my squadron was struggling to transition to CloD.

 

For those (during the CloD era) who argued that coop was obsolete, my answer was always that the difference between coop and DF was how missions start.In a DF, the host starts the mission first and then people join when they want. In coop, on the other hand, people join (ready-up) and then, after everyone's in their slots, the host starts the mission. It's always seemed to me that the mix between human and AI participants. Is irrelevant. It's how the mission starts that makes the difference.

 

Now, from a mission design point of view, this difference was absolutely crucial. After all, the mission designer is making a mission where interesting stuff happens so he needs the players to be in a particular place at a particular time. Therefore timing is very important, and so the host clicking that "Start Mission" button and starting everything off in a coordinated way is the single most important event in the entire game. At least in IL2 '46.

 

My sqadron's best mission designers were absolute artists because of the way they judged and manipulated timing in IL2 '46 missions.

 

Clod changed this a bit, with the introduction of a fairly limited array of triggers. However, to get anything more than the basic things to happen in CloD, you have to layer submission upon submission within the main mission, and trigger them all through scripts. To say the least, scripting is a challenge if you're not a computer programmer. But it is possible to get sophisticated results with a hell of a lot of work and dedication. However, even now in CloD there are - what? - five or six people worldwide (!) who can put together really great missions and use CloD to its best potential.

 

Even so, CloD started to blur the distinction between DFand coop because of the possibilities that triggers offer.

 

Fast forward to DCS and, in particular, BoS. DCS has some very powerful and flexible trigger mechanisms, such that on the few occasions we've tried it as a squadron, the coop/DF thing just wasn't an issue.

 

And BoS. Now the thing about BoS is ABSOLUTELY EVERTHING MUST BE TRIGGERED. Every single element that you want to do anything at all in a mission must be triggered. It's like the total extreme of what was started in CloD (except - and thank you oh great God of mission builders - you don't need to use any scripting or programming to do it!).

 

Most obviously in BoS, mission elements can be triggered by the start of the mission itself. But they don't have to be. They can be triggered by the first person spawning in, or the tenth person spawning in, or the first person taking off, or the tenth person taking off. They can be triggered by players arriving at a point, or attacking a target, or getting shot down, or arriving back at base. Anything, almost.

 

What that in turn means is that the great mechanism the mission builder has built into the mission, all those cogs and events,etc, don't depend any more on the host clicking "Start Mission". All that worry about timing and so in is gone. Players can join when they want, in whatever order they want, and none of that mission mechanism will start to do its thing until the mission builder wants it to. Having everybody ready before starting the mission isn't important. Having everyone take off and form up in a timely manner isn't important. None of that matters, because the mission builder can make all the stuff happen whenever he wants it to,

 

So honestly: We don't need coop mode in BoS.

 

Do I wish there was a coop mode? Of course. Do I wish there was a HyperLobby? Of course. Jus the fact that I've had to spend half an hour typing this shows there's something wrong.

 

But it's not with the game, or with the way missions are run within the game. It's to do with the devs not explaining things, not having a mission editor guide, not helping us, etc. And it's to do with us players not putting the time in to learn the mission editor, play cooperatively, or really explore the possibilities that the game gives us.

 

Here endeth the wall of text.

Edited February 16, 2016 by No601_Swallow

[Sokol1]

So honestly: We don't need coop mode in BoS.

 

Seems that today people only need a excuse to don't play CFS/G, and "no COOP , no Hyperlobby, no campaign, no full servers..." are good ones.

[Y-29.Silky]

I went from playing this nearly every day, to a couple times a week due to repetitiveness and dullness. I get burnt out with the same set of aircraft with Russia vs Germany day in and day out so I fly elsewhere. Last night the numbers were around 28 Germans vs 6 Russians in the only server people play in. With so many JG clans now days that hardcore role-play in a server that has non-historical/arcade-like missions, it's just not as fun as it used to be and I lose any sense of immersion.

 

 

 

The problem with using pilot accounts is that they can't be quantified and often directly contradict each other.  

That's the problem with today's community, not listening to the actual pilots. Where's a couple examples showing this contradiction?

Edited February 17, 2016 by Y-29.Silky

[LizLemon]

I don't think you completely understand what kind of job that is either. DCS is just as much a physics-based sim as BoS and ALL sims do use tables for some parameters and interpolate in-between in various degrees. BoS, DCS and War Thunder all use table-based data in some way, shape or form. It doesn't mean that certain parts of the physics engine aren't modelled dynamically (such as ground handling, certain intricacies of flight or engine model behaviour, etc.).

 

Yep.

 

From Loft himself;

 

"It's kind of a mix. We have pre-calculated aerodynamic characteristics of a glider but the detailed model of propeller created streams which independently function in atmosphere."

 

http://www.wingsofhonour.com/riseofflight/articles/interview_neoqb_20090813/html_woh_riseofflight_interview_neoqb_20090813.en.html

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I went from playing this nearly every day, to a couple times a week due to repetitiveness and dullness. I get burnt out with the same set of aircraft with Russia vs Germany day in and day out so I fly elsewhere. Last night the numbers were around 28 Germans vs 6 Russians in the only server people play in. With so many JG clans now days that hardcore role-play in a server that has non-historical/arcade-like missions, it's just not as fun as it used to be and I lose any sense of immersion.

 

I've found WoL, DED/72AG Expert, Fighting Legenda and Coconut's Expert servers to be populated throughout the day, the latter two less but the mission design allows them to function well with less than 20 players.

 

The JG clan thing is true to an extent - too many, too often, but at the same time you have loads of opportunities to get these 6 guys you have at hand and organize a decent resistance to the LW onslaught. Form up or spread out, do intruder raids with individual aircraft and inform each other of enemy concentrations and activity with aircraft type, number, coordinate and altitude. It's amazing fun even when outnumbered to jump an unsuspecting attack and fighter group, capitalize on their confusion and dial in for help while getting out of the hot zone.

 

"The fighter pilot asks not how many enemies are there, but rather where are they."

 

There are enough squadrons that fly Soviet regularly though, there just has to be some more coordination between them to properly counter the LW teams.

[Mac_Messer]

And BoS. Now the thing about BoS is ABSOLUTELY EVERTHING MUST BE TRIGGERED. Every single element that you want to do anything at all in a mission must be triggered. It's like the total extreme of what was started in CloD (except - and thank you oh great God of mission builders - you don't need to use any scripting or programming to do it!).

 

Most obviously in BoS, mission elements can be triggered by the start of the mission itself. But they don't have to be. They can be triggered by the first person spawning in, or the tenth person spawning in, or the first person taking off, or the tenth person taking off. They can be triggered by players arriving at a point, or attacking a target, or getting shot down, or arriving back at base. Anything, almost.

 

What that in turn means is that the great mechanism the mission builder has built into the mission, all those cogs and events,etc, don't depend any more on the host clicking "Start Mission". All that worry about timing and so in is gone. Players can join when they want, in whatever order they want, and none of that mission mechanism will start to do its thing until the mission builder wants it to. Having everybody ready before starting the mission isn't important. Having everyone take off and form up in a timely manner isn't important. None of that matters, because the mission builder can make all the stuff happen whenever he wants it to,

 

So honestly: We don't need coop mode in BoS.

Yeah I noticed that when I reviewed sp mission recordings. Many times my flight was met with a flight of Pe2 bombers going their way, even in typical escort missions. Normally I did not engage them as I had to stay near friendly bomber group but during replay I observed the Pe2 flight distance itself from me and...literally disappeared into thin air. The way VVS fighter appear virtually out of nowhere the single moment my bombers reach Action Point also feels very wrong, because it doesn`t leave me space for creativity. Many times I wanted to intercept the fighter patrol on my bombers` route sooner than they arrive only to miss them completely and having to return to strict route point.

 

I agree with your last paragraph. Seems the devs did the hardest part - modelling the aircraft and feeling of flying - as it is IMO simply awesome, though they still did leave out some things like a virtual pub for mp crowd to come to and chat and fly toghether - those which without a great mp combatflightsim cannot be complete.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

I went from playing this nearly every day, to a couple times a week due to repetitiveness and dullness. I get burnt out with the same set of aircraft with Russia vs Germany day in and day out so I fly elsewhere. Last night the numbers were around 28 Germans vs 6 Russians in the only server people play in. With so many JG clans now days that hardcore role-play in a server that has non-historical/arcade-like missions, it's just not as fun as it used to be and I lose any sense of immersion.

 

All I can say in response to this(aside from the setting, which nothing can help) is:  DED/72AG Expert

 

It's full at peak and populated to some degree a lot of the time.  While it's not an "immersive" setup in the sense of having a briefing saying "You are Lieutenant Emelianenko and you will lead your squad of three IL-2's to destroy enemy locomotives near Orlovka. Also you had eggs for breakfast." I find that the attempt at simulating a larger battle within a larger campaign is very, very engaging and a perfect fit for a modern multiplayer context.

 

Because it makes life a bit harder for the wannabe knights jousting in the stratosphere the teams tend to be even lately, which is remarkable in my experience.

 

 

The JG clan thing is true to an extent - too many, too often, but at the same time you have loads of opportunities to get these 6 guys you have at hand and organize a decent resistance to the LW onslaught. Form up or spread out, do intruder raids with individual aircraft and inform each other of enemy concentrations and activity with aircraft type, number, coordinate and altitude. It's amazing fun even when outnumbered to jump an unsuspecting attack and fighter group, capitalize on their confusion and dial in for help while getting out of the hot zone.

 

There are enough squadrons that fly Soviet regularly though, there just has to be some more coordination between them to properly counter the LW teams.

 

I have a group of ~6 guys I fly with.  We always fly Soviet because we love the IL-2 and also because teams were practically always heavily skewed to Axis(making flying a stuka hollow) .  Frankly being swarmed by an avalanche of 190s and 109s has fed a grudge-match mentality among us.  But that can be fertile ground for solidarity and cooperation to grow, and we regularly coordinate with the other Soviet flyers(for fighter cover, etc) .  With a little effort, a silver lining!

 

 

The best thing on a sever for me is bombers flying in formation.

 

For anyone who does this, I thank you immensely as it is you guys who make MP good quality in my opinion.

 

You're welcome.  I agree that ground attackers fill an ecological niche that is necessary for multiplayer to function, I just wish it appealed to more people.  It can be demoralizing to feel like you're offering yourself up on a platter.

 

(BTW thanks for the protection today!)

 

 

Seems that today people only need a excuse to don't play CFS/G, and "no COOP , no Hyperlobby, no campaign, no full servers..." are good ones.

 

 

I agree 100%.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Silas

[PatrickAWlson]

Yeah I noticed that when I reviewed sp mission recordings. Many times my flight was met with a flight of Pe2 bombers going their way, even in typical escort missions. Normally I did not engage them as I had to stay near friendly bomber group but during replay I observed the Pe2 flight distance itself from me and...literally disappeared into thin air. The way VVS fighter appear virtually out of nowhere the single moment my bombers reach Action Point also feels very wrong, because it doesn`t leave me space for creativity. Many times I wanted to intercept the fighter patrol on my bombers` route sooner than they arrive only to miss them completely and having to return to strict route point.

 

I agree with your last paragraph. Seems the devs did the hardest part - modelling the aircraft and feeling of flying - as it is IMO simply awesome, though they still did leave out some things like a virtual pub for mp crowd to come to and chat and fly toghether - those which without a great mp combatflightsim cannot be complete.

 

In PWCG I did something with triggers that I call virtual waypoints.  It is a sequence of check zones that mimics a flight without putting a CPU crushing number of aircraft into the air.  Each AI flight actually does fly a path (they exist in a spot at a point in time) rather than wait in a location for a trigger (they exist in a spot).  As a result flying the same mission in a different way will absolutely lead to a different experience.  

 

In your example, if you decide to fly ahead of your bombers any number of things can happen.  Maybe you will encounter enemy fighters and clear a path.  Or maybe an enemy flight will come in from a different vector and have at the bombers that you have left .  Anyhow, the degree of randomness is almost infinite.

[wtornado]

At the risk of sounding like a lone lunatic, I'll defend the possibilities that BoS allows for coop gameplay. I thought about this stuff a hell of a lot when my squadron was struggling to transition to CloD.

 

For those (during the CloD era) who argued that coop was obsolete, my answer was always that the difference between coop and DF was how missions start.In a DF, the host starts the mission first and then people join when they want. In coop, on the other hand, people join (ready-up) and then, after everyone's in their slots, the host starts the mission. It's always seemed to me that the mix between human and AI participants. Is irrelevant. It's how the mission starts that makes the difference.

 

Now, from a mission design point of view, this difference was absolutely crucial. After all, the mission designer is making a mission where interesting stuff happens so he needs the players to be in a particular place at a particular time. Therefore timing is very important, and so the host clicking that "Start Mission" button and starting everything off in a coordinated way is the single most important event in the entire game. At least in IL2 '46.

 

My sqadron's best mission designers were absolute artists because of the way they judged and manipulated timing in IL2 '46 missions.

 

Clod changed this a bit, with the introduction of a fairly limited array of triggers. However, to get anything more than the basic things to happen in CloD, you have to layer submission upon submission within the main mission, and trigger them all through scripts. To say the least, scripting is a challenge if you're not a computer programmer. But it is possible to get sophisticated results with a hell of a lot of work and dedication. However, even now in CloD there are - what? - five or six people worldwide (!) who can put together really great missions and use CloD to its best potential.

 

Even so, CloD started to blur the distinction between DFand coop because of the possibilities that triggers offer.

 

Fast forward to DCS and, in particular, BoS. DCS has some very powerful and flexible trigger mechanisms, such that on the few occasions we've tried it as a squadron, the coop/DF thing just wasn't an issue.

 

And BoS. Now the thing about BoS is ABSOLUTELY EVERTHING MUST BE TRIGGERED. Every single element that you want to do anything at all in a mission must be triggered. It's like the total extreme of what was started in CloD (except - and thank you oh great God of mission builders - you don't need to use any scripting or programming to do it!).

 

Most obviously in BoS, mission elements can be triggered by the start of the mission itself. But they don't have to be. They can be triggered by the first person spawning in, or the tenth person spawning in, or the first person taking off, or the tenth person taking off. They can be triggered by players arriving at a point, or attacking a target, or getting shot down, or arriving back at base. Anything, almost.

 

What that in turn means is that the great mechanism the mission builder has built into the mission, all those cogs and events,etc, don't depend any more on the host clicking "Start Mission". All that worry about timing and so in is gone. Players can join when they want, in whatever order they want, and none of that mission mechanism will start to do its thing until the mission builder wants it to. Having everybody ready before starting the mission isn't important. Having everyone take off and form up in a timely manner isn't important. None of that matters, because the mission builder can make all the stuff happen whenever he wants it to,

 

So honestly: We don't need coop mode in BoS.

 

Do I wish there was a coop mode? Of course. Do I wish there was a HyperLobby? Of course. Jus the fact that I've had to spend half an hour typing this shows there's something wrong.

 

But it's not with the game, or with the way missions are run within the game. It's to do with the devs not explaining things, not having a mission editor guide, not helping us, etc. And it's to do with us players not putting the time in to learn the mission editor, play cooperatively, or really explore the possibilities that the game gives us.

 

Here endeth the wall of text.

Well I need the coop mod and I am shying away from online play due to the linear way people fly

in the online missions.

 

Going towards s/p campaign and s/p missions.

 

For my gaming experience anyways.

[Original_Uwe]

For me, co-op is a must for one reason:training

With a good co-op mission in 46 I could get everyone on and had a map set for everything from land nav, ground attack, wingman tactics, formation flying touch and go etc.

With just the dogfight servers I just don't see how to do this.

We have some great missions for combat flying but nothing for building good strong units.

Edited February 23, 2016 by II./JG53_Uwe

[Jade_Monkey]

For me, co-op is a must for one reason:training

With a good co-op mission in 46 I could get everyone on and had a map set for everything from land nav, ground attack, wingman tactics, formation flying touch and go etc.

With just the dogfight servers I just don't see how to do this.

We have some great missions for combat flying but nothing for building good strong units.

Why don't you host your own server with a training mission?

 

You only have to ask for a (free) serial key to host the server and you can host and play at the same time on your pc.

[Original_Uwe]

Well I'm glad I posted!

I was under the impression that I needed a separate machine to host on.

Furthermore, is it just like the old days? Fire it up, the pilots see it, log in, and go from there? No middle men or server fees?

[Jade_Monkey]

Well I'm glad I posted!

I was under the impression that I needed a separate machine to host on.

Furthermore, is it just like the old days? Fire it up, the pilots see it, log in, and go from there? No middle men or server fees?

I dont know much about "the old days", but yeah, just fire them up and it will show up on the server list. No middle man, no server fees.

 

Just make sure your CPU is decent enough to run both.

[No601_Swallow]

For me, co-op is a must for one reason:training

With a good co-op mission in 46 I could get everyone on and had a map set for everything from land nav, ground attack, wingman tactics, formation flying touch and go etc.

 

We've got all that in our squadron in BoS. I'd have thought most reasonably well organised squadrons would. It's just a case of building the missions. What's more, the grouping of mission elements, the ability to cut and paste, etc, make assembling missions in BoS more than easy.

 

And, here's something I never thought I'd type: having coop-style missions in a DF server makes training much easier. Someone's done a "No.1 Sqn" and porked their takeoff? They can just respawn, with no need to restart the mission. If the map's small enough, if someone's shot down they can even just respawn and get back to the location of the ground attack/bomber intercept/obstacle course, etc, without the need to sit out the rest of the mission.

 

For SP, I tend not to use the QMB much any more. I just like populated airfields to take off from and arrive at. So I just open up a mission in the Mission Editor and swap my old La5 for a shiny new Macchi, etc! Navigating pracitce? Just add cloud cover and an NDB (or whatever they're called)! To misquote Buggs Bunny: the pothibilitieth are endleth...

 

Edit: Don't get me wrong. Personally, I'd love a "real" coop mode, with slots, readying up, and the host launching, etc. But the fact that BoS doesn't have that yet shouldn't get in the way of having fun!

Edited February 23, 2016 by No601_Swallow