I just have to ask ... any plans for a BoB-scenario/-game?

[Gambit21]

Common sense is your friend..if we want all of those we also want B17s, B24s, etc...

Yes thank you, common sense is my friend, I utilize it quite often and to good effect.

You seem a bit oversensitive about an 

opposing point of view, to the point of feeling the need to get snarky.

Amusing...I guess.

 

To clear things up, a B17 is in fact a bomber, just like the B24...so you now you can see how that works.

In WWII, they flew in what's called a...formation. These large formations were often referred to as "boxes'.

If we can't have large bomber boxes (again...bomber box = large formation of bombers, be they B17's or B24's, or the "etc" you speak of)

not only because of graphics limitations but more likely the many AI bots/gunners this entails then

there is little point going to the Western Front and flying Mustangs and Me262's.

Escorting or attacking a flight of 4 B17's just won't do.

 

Even in IL2 1946 I was able to get 12 in a CoOp mission.

 

...but then you were saying something about common sense? Please continue.

[wtornado]

 

 

Well, ekhem, nobody said old Il-2 was accurate. In fact it was so inaccurate across the board that most didnt really care for fighting realism. I guess thats why its so often brought up as a symbol of good simulation. And nostalgia.

 

 

I am starting to wonder about accuracy period.

 

Devs deal you your cards and you either play them or fold and move on.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Sure you do, just saying that what you see in game (especially as massive as old Il-2 was) might not reflect the actual state of things, leading to a wrong perception. 

[wtornado]

Not without the ability to represent large bomber boxes, at least on par with EAW if not better, no.

The game and networks probably can handle many planes  it is the computers

that will have to double in power.

 

I think someday we might see that with this game engine and a new computer

5-10 years from now.

 

In EAW I would remember a pixel emerging at at a distance and it would slowly

turn into a cluster of pixels and finally something that looked like a plane.Good times 

[KoN_]

I just want a decent Campaign and Multiplayer with NO unlocks .

No point having all this new stuff if we keep going down the same road over and over . 

[wtornado]

Sure you do, just saying that what you see in game (especially as massive as old Il-2 was) might not reflect the actual state of things, leading to a wrong perception. 

You are limited by code and by programming and the dev engine limits the researchers  and THEIR PERCEPTION  on how the plane should fly.

 

No one sees or experiences any true living experience the same.

 

The only way I can truly experience a flight in a Spitfire is to fly one and take in all in with my senses and process it with my brain to see it the

the way I experienced it.

[KoN_]

The game and networks probably can handle many planes  it is the computers

that will have to double in power.

 

I think someday we might see that with this game engine and a new computer

5-10 years from now.

 

In EAW I would remember a pixel emerging at at a distance and it would slowly

turn into a cluster of pixels and finally something that looked like a plane.Good times 

Really BOB II , with tons of aircraft at one time and good AI , computers today are far more powerful , Look at BMS 4.33 , so much going on in their campaigns , our computers are fine . 

[wtornado]

Really BOB II , with tons of aircraft at one time and good AI , computers today are far more powerful , Look at BMS 4.33 , so much going on in their campaigns , our computers are fine . 

With the same drop dead graphics?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

LOL.. CoD is/was buggy as hell and not a very good *game* overall. People are still getting mad when they hear that title, especially the more casual flyers who expected an IL-2 2.0 with a BoB scenario. I mean: I own it and I can't be bothered to give it another try with the Fusion patch.. that's how much this title disappointed me.

 

And DCS WW2? That thing is becoming the Duke Nukem Forever of flight-sims, isn't it? At the rate they're producing planes, we should probably buy all their modules to pass them on to our kids, who'd be able to fly a completed DCS:WW2 at some point in the distant future. Besides: $45 per *plane* pretty much excludes a lot of potential buyers from the party. I love DCS' level of realism - I own the Dora-9 and I adore how they've modeled it - but their pricing scheme is a bit weird.

 

Regardless of the obvious shortcomings these series have, they both have a pretty big following and many of these people like the way things are done there. Many won't pay $50, $100 or whatever twice to have the same scenario, whereas paying $150 for Stalingrad, Battle of Britain and Normandy is viable.

 

We don't need to go back to the 1990s where you had about a dozen of F-16s simulators.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

You are limited by code and by programming and the dev engine limits the researchers  and THEIR PERCEPTION  on how the plane should fly.

 

No one sees or experiences any true living experience the same.

 

The only way I can truly experience a flight in a Spitfire is to fly one and take in all in with my senses and process it with my brain to see it the

the way I experienced it.

I'm talking about hard stuff like data backed by numbers on performance, type of protection used and so on. You mentioned that Japanese aircraft were not liked because they easily caught fire and were poorly protected. 

 

In many cases Japanese aircraft were poorly modeled, lacking features, lacking protective elements or having performance numbers taken out of nowhere. Ki-61 mentioned above was a perfect example, being terribly modeled. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The primary limiting factor on large bombers, according to DEV's, are scripting large numbers of AI crewmen. I wonder if they could cut down by linking gunners together and cheating with a sort of central fire control system? Similar to the semi automated B-29 turrets but just a couple of gunners doing the sighting. It might cut down on the number of AI processes. Graphically it would look like ten crew but would realistically probably four making actual decisions plus the pilot and bombardier. Not perfect but probably workable.

 

This was originally my idea for linking AAA on capital ships and airfields to add guns without extra AI workload.

Edited May 24, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Norway!!!

 

Carrier ops, torpedos and Ju-52 flyable dropping paratroopers :D

[=CFC=Conky]

Really BOB II , with tons of aircraft at one time and good AI , computers today are far more powerful , Look at BMS 4.33 , so much going on in their campaigns , our computers are fine .

 

Depends on how you code it I suppose. In the old IL2 game series, things would get choppy when too many tracers were in the air, apparently because the path of each round was calculated. When flying coops with my squad, players with really good rigs would see their game stutter away when attacking large bomber formations. One solution was to arm only a few of the bombers in order to reduce the number of gunners firing, but then you ran into the issue of the empty kites flying faster than the loaded ones and it was hell trying to build a formation that would hold together for more than a few minutes.

 

I don't know how EAW did it but it did work beautifully and at the time I was playing on an only fair to middling system.

 

From a mission building standpoint, I fervently hope that any future sim will include the ability to select a formation type (eg US bomber box), and have it automatically filled, in their mission builder.

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

[=CFC=Conky]

I'm talking about hard stuff like data backed by numbers on performance, type of protection used and so on. You mentioned that Japanese aircraft were not liked because they easily caught fire and were poorly protected.

 

In many cases Japanese aircraft were poorly modeled, lacking features, lacking protective elements or having performance numbers taken out of nowhere. Ki-61 mentioned above was a perfect example, being terribly modeled.

 

Yup, the Ki-61's flight modelling in that game was my biggest disappointment. Sure, the ai could fly it well enough but it was always lacking in speed and energy retention when human-flown, when it should have been more competitive. There was a reason you rarely, if ever, saw it flown on online servers.

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

Edited May 24, 2016 by CFC_Conky

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I started writing New Guinea suggestion. I'm weird, I know. 

 

 

 

Sure, the ai could fly it well enough but it was always lacking in speed and energy retention when human-flown, when it should have been more competitive.

Lets put it this way, in BoS people argue over 1 m/s climb rate of FW-190. In old  Il-2 Ki-61 was on average 20-30 km/h slower at altitudes from deck to 6000 m and 40-60 km/h above that altitude. Rate of climb was 1-3 m/s lower than should be. Not to even mention stalls and other stuff. 

 

Tony is one of my favorite aircraft and what they made with it was very saddening. 

[KoN_]

I really think we should work on what we have now and iron out the bugs and the things we all hate , so many people still have`not come across .

Forget the next instalment for now !! let make this stable and spread the word that this is indeed a good simulator . With good single player and a good campaign in both BOS and BOM .

A none cheat system in Multiplayer with Anti Hack software . 

[Sokol1]

WTornado, on 23 May 2016 - 20:44, said:

Silly goose no one flew Japanese planes in the old IL-2 they caught fire after a few bursts of fire

due to no armor or would run out of fuel due to the lack of self-seal tanks and never make it back

to the carrier or base,

 

Strange, Zeke X Wildcat MP was very popular in IL-2'46 "hay days" (in fact I stop play IL-2'46 online when this server became dead as collateral effect of the myriad of "flavors" of MOD's era), and Japanese planes going down like "moths on fire" was not a common vision... 

Edited May 24, 2016 by Sokol1

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

When they were available people did fly the Japanese aircraft a whole lot. Though some were indeed poorly modelled, others shone very brightly and were a nightmare to deal with. I remember going on a full server on a P-51D shaking in fear, then having to bug out at full speed when ambushed by two IJAAS fighters

 

On a contemporary old Il-2 server with maps stretching from Normandy through Kursk to the Solomon islands, the most popular aircraft are in that order the Bf-109, La-5, Fw-190, Hurricane, P-39 and I-16 according to their stats. LaGG-3 and Yak-7 are close to the last two.

[Monash]

For me, the key thing now is the map.  I want lakes, plains, forests, mountains, canyons, and most of all coast line. Imagine flying over Greece, or Italy, or the Philippines!  Or what about the Siege of Leningrad if people want to stay in the East.  But Kursk?   Will that provide terrain much different than that in BOS or BOS?  (Honest question, I don't know the answer.)

 

I understand that this is a flight sim and ultimately it is about the aircraft, but I'll bet one can assemble an interesting collection of planes for almost any map you wanted.  

 

In the end however, I'll buy the next expansion where ever it is set because this is such an amazing game.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I started writing New Guinea suggestion. I'm weird, I know. 

 

 

 

Lets put it this way, in BoS people argue over 1 m/s climb rate of FW-190. In old  Il-2 Ki-61 was on average 20-30 km/h slower at altitudes from deck to 6000 m and 40-60 km/h above that altitude. Rate of climb was 1-3 m/s lower than should be. Not to even mention stalls and other stuff. 

 

Tony is one of my favorite aircraft and what they made with it was very saddening. 

 

I was an enthusiast of the Ki-61 and I remember how even the armament was totally messed up on release and it took two Pacific Fighters patches to get that somewhat right.

 

When the Ki-100 came along things got only a little better.

 

I'm pretty sure they slapped some of the aircraft in there and then forgot about them entirely. The Ki-61 not having enough fans shouting loudly enough for it to be sorted out. I still flew the Ki-61 every chance I got and made a whole campaign around it too. It's still up on M4T.

[=FEW=Hauggy]

lol someone made a thread to ask for a new Cliffs of Dover...

*rubbing my eyes to make sure i don't dream*

Cliffs of Dover is a very good game already (big thanks to Team Fusion for the hard work)!

I can't believe there are still people complaining over the state the game was in many years ago at release. The game was pushed out the door before it could even be finished so what did you expect???

Once TF patch 5.0 will be out, there will be no more room for complains about THE PAST, this sim has came a long way since it's release and will keep reaching summits long after Patch 5.0 I'm sure.

Edited May 25, 2016 by 4./JG52_Hauggy_

[Gambit21]

I flew that Ki-61 quite in CoOps a few times and did pretty well in it.

Always gravitated toward the Zeke first though, including the float version.

[Pharoah]

lol someone made a thread to ask for a new Cliffs of Dover...

 

What I'm after is a Channel/France map created in IL2 plus plane set so that we can actually generate missions from the period 1942-1944. It was during this period that the air war really ramped up esp with the entry of the USAAF on daylight bombing raids. Surely you wouldn't want to fly these types of missions? I've listed (either in this thread or another) the types of missions they flew (they flew a heck of a lot more which I haven't mentioned eg. anti submarine, etc). Essentially, without a 1C MP dynamic campaign mode or anything, they're just providing us with a sandbox (map) and tools (a/c, objects, etc) - we'll do the rest.

[ShamrockOneFive]

What I'm after is a Channel/France map created in IL2 plus plane set so that we can actually generate missions from the period 1942-1944. It was during this period that the air war really ramped up esp with the entry of the USAAF on daylight bombing raids. Surely you wouldn't want to fly these types of missions? I've listed (either in this thread or another) the types of missions they flew (they flew a heck of a lot more which I haven't mentioned eg. anti submarine, etc). Essentially, without a 1C MP dynamic campaign mode or anything, they're just providing us with a sandbox (map) and tools (a/c, objects, etc) - we'll do the rest.

 

The Channel War is much more interesting than the Battle of Britain.

 

I'd love to see the channel war properly done. Some great aircraft and great battles. I think the only thing that might get complex is the expectation of the USAAF bomber raids during this time period which were definitely a part of channel ops... especially some of the escort missions on the early legs of their bombing runs. It could be omitted altogether but I'm sure that would confuse some folks too.

 

I'd like to take a Spit V or IX up over Dover

[Feathered_IV]

Most other fronts are either incompatible with computer limitations of distance and historic aircraft numbers, or just exactly the same gameplay (or lack of) that we have now.  Maybe a new brown map or a greeny-yellow one, but not much different in most other respects.  Although it's not my first choice, carrier battles are the only scenarios that promise different gameplay to what we have now and also sidestep the issue of long, fixed distances and inadequate numbers of aircraft.

[Trooper117]

Well, we know from dev comments yesterday that they are looking at several options for the next theatre, but haven't decided yet... so anything is possible, except BoB, Jason Ruled that out. Can't wait to find out!

Edited May 25, 2016 by Trooper117

[TWC_Ace]

Pacific theatre would be cool too. Carriers, Zekes, Wildcats...ehhh

[1Sascha]

We don't need to go back to the 1990s where you had about a dozen of F-16s simulators.

More like a dozen F-22 sims..

 

But yeah.. F-16 was kinda popular too. I always preferred F-14 Fleet Defender myself. Tomcat is one bad-ass plane.

 

 

 

 

but more likely the many AI bots/gunners this entails then

there is little point going to the Western Front and flying Mustangs and Me262's.

 

Again: That should be an easy fix. Adjust the AI's ability to realistic levels. A single bomber (even a B-17 or B-24) should not be able to rack up dozens of fighter kills or even defend itself effectively. A formation of bombers should be able to keep fighters at bay by throwing up a huge "wall of lead" around itself.

 

There's a reason why the Germans were aiming to break up large formations of bombers in order to deal with them individually. Mutual covering fire in large bomber-box = bad news for attacking fighters (if they have to get into range of the .50 cals). Lone bomber relying on just its own guns to defend itself = bad news for the bomber.

 

Even the automated gunners back in "Warbirds" ("Otto") were more realistic than some of the stuff I've seen from the IL-2-series where the gunners seem to use laser-guided sights. It's almost as if some games want to retroactively prove that pre-WW2 theory of the lone bomber being able to defend itself from fighter attack ... :D

 

 

The historical facts speak for themselves here, I think. Unescorted bombing-raids often resulted in huge losses for the bombers - why else would everyone be harping on about the importance of the Mustang and its ability to escort the bombers all the way to target and back?

 

 

S.

Edited May 25, 2016 by 1Sascha

[Aap]

 

 

Again: That should be an easy fix. Adjust the AI's ability to realistic levels.

 

How would adjusting AI's ability to different levels fix the issue of game not being able to handle the amount of AI bots/gunners? Especially when talking about big formations, where the dozens and dozens of AI gunners in a formation would also have to be smart enough to avoid friendly fire when shooting at enemy fighters.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The AI bit, IMHO, is the most difficult fix. They would need to come up with a scaling AI system that didn't completely fall apart when not at the highest levels of detail. Particularly for a bomber box formation where you don't want the gunners shooting up other bombers. There's some serious CPU cycles involved and those are being well utilized for all of the physics related stuff going on.

 

I don't envy the devs on this part. It's not an easy thing. It would be massively cool if they could pull it off but it would be an extreme risk.

[Asgar]

I would love a BoB scenario. i want to shoot down P-51s Spitfires and Yaks in my Me 262

[ShamrockOneFive]

I would love a BoB scenario. i want to shoot down P-51s Spitfires and Yaks in my Me 262

 

Are you trolling or do you know that such a scenario is about 4 years removed from BoB?

 

I sometimes think people say 'We want THE BoB!" and they are actually referencing the whole channel war pre-D-Day invasion period.

[unreasonable]

Given Asgars' comment I assume he means Battle of Berlin?

[Sokol1]

Basically, an updated and expanded version of this game:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_II:_Wings_of_Victory

 

Think about, I believe that certain (flight) games of the past were the pinnacle of certain battles / genres.

 

BoBII:WoV was about Battle of Britain - CloD even in has only 10% of their know problems will continue fail short with their uninspired static campaign.

Mig Alley was about Korea War. 

Falcon 4.0 was about a F-16 sim.

 

The moment in history, the people and the motivation that create this games no longer exist.

 

The guys that are making IL-2 "II" was from a generation that grow up playing IL-2, with focus in PvP e-Sport and the FPS game of their generation, Counter Strike, COD's, BF's, with similar focus, is naturally that their game vision/preferences influenced their game concepts. Please, this is not critique. 

 

Hope that Pacific War did not have his "swan song".    

 

Imagine a BoB game with this "Unlock Campaign" system of BoS:

Intercept a Ju-87 Stuka formation and shoot down 3 to unlock 100 octanes for your Hurricane,

Intercept a He-111 formation and shoot down 5 to unlock  .303 "de Wilde" ammo.

Shoot down 2 Bf 109 to unlock a cleaned and polished windwscreen for Spitfire...

Rinse and repeat these missions,varying the time and place.

 

I fail in imagine more un-lockables that fit in BoB... at least for RAF, maybe a bunch of Polish pilots for fight in your squad. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Sokol1

[Asgar]

Given Asgars' comment I assume he means Battle of Berlin?

yes he does. because the last time we got a flight sim that let us fight over Berlin in some awesome late war designs was years and years ago. if you want fight over Britain there is a game for you called CloD

[Feathered_IV]

 

I fail in imagine more un-lockables that fit in BoB... at least for RAF, maybe a bunch of Polish pilots for fight in your squad. 

 

That might work...  When you get enough action points you can summon 303 squadron to fly on you wing and conjure them up like Harry Potter.  "Polskie Patronus!!!"

[Picchio]

"go play CloD" seems a bit of an abrasive answer; particularly as an 'official' response. Do the devs really want people to stop logging hours in BoS/M on Steam, and potentially spread the word ' I was told to play CloD, and I'm glad I did it's awesome...'

 

Of course they may be fed up with people talking about BoB and secretly knowing/thinking CloD is just not good enough for many.

 

C'mon, a bit softer PR perhaps, one that is more positive and relates to the future of BoS/M and why people should stick around...

 

 

Besides, BoB2 is still much better in recreating that particular aerial battle... 

[wtornado]

"go play CloD" seems a bit of an abrasive answer; particularly as an 'official' response. Do the devs really want people to stop logging hours in BoS/M on Steam, and potentially spread the word ' I was told to play CloD, and I'm glad I did it's awesome...'

 

Of course they may be fed up with people talking about BoB and secretly knowing/thinking CloD is just not good enough for many.

 

C'mon, a bit softer PR perhaps, one that is more positive and relates to the future of BoS/M and why people should stick around...

Oddly enough CloD is very good and at 10$ a copy plus the patches one of the best flight games out there minus the true co-op and lobby,and half decent mission builder.

 

I never really played ROF either but now I am and its dirt cheap too to top it off.

 

I am getting more and more excuses not to fly BOS anymore.

[Trooper117]

I'd laugh my dick off if everyone just upped and left for CloD...

[LLv24_Zami]

"go play CloD" seems a bit of an abrasive

answer; particularly as an 'official'

response. Do the devs really want people to stop logging hours in BoS/M on Steam, and potentially spread the word ' I was

told to play CloD, and I'm glad I did it's awesome...

 

Of course they may be fed up with people talking about BoB and secretly knowing/thinking CloD is just not good

enough for many.

 

C'mon, a bit softer PR perhaps, one that

is more positive and relates to the future of BoS/M and why people should stick around...

I really can't see what's wrong with that answer.

 

They are not making BoB next, so I think it's pretty fair of them to recommend Clod for people who wan't to fight that particular battle.

 

They don't recommend to stop playing BoS.