Custom Icons...?

[1Sascha]

I seem to remember that the old IL-2 offered the possibility to customize icon-settings - does BoS have a similar feature?

 

 

I personally detest flying "full real" when it comes to icons - not to be starting a discussion on the matter, but we're not looking at a real sky, but at flat monitors. And I just don't enjoy pressing my nose up against my screen, zooming in with bionic eyes to scan the skies for single pixels to track.

 

Here's what I would like my icons to set at:

 

1. Much reduced general icon range. They should only become visible (as grey icons) at around 1.5 to 2.5 km.

2. Much reduced color/ID range. Something like just under 1km for color, maybe 6 or 700m for type. I'm not even sure I'd want the ID-feature anyway. Color at close range should be enough.

3. Elimination of those dreadful "look here to find me"-arrows pointing to planes that are offscreen or hidden underneath parts of your own plane.

 

 

I'd also love for the game to fade icons out quickly once you lose them from sight, making "re-acquisition" necessary to get color/ID back.

 

Is there any way to achieve any of this by tweaking a setup-file or something?

 

 

Cheers,

 

Sascha

Edited July 10, 2016 by 1Sascha

[coconut]

Not possible today, but I like your suggestion a lot!

[wtornado]

Ya I used to set it up in co-ops when I was hosting and I used icons that at over 1km all icons were black and under 1 km they were their appropriate colour.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Iv suggested this kinda thing many times and all I ever get is learn how to fly expert which is a joke as I do all the time!

 

I would really like this kinda customisabilty but good luck getting it through to others.

[wtornado]

I preferred and would host co-ops without icons but is was not popular on the HL.

 

That is why no icon full real generates only 200-250 players total online the old hardcore ones.. 

 

 

We are seeing the old icon flying ''fun for all'' players joinng more and more clogging runways and

taking off from anywhere playing where there is population for emmersion and it drives the old

hardcore purists nuts 

 

For 1c/777 studios a sale is a sale.

[1Sascha]

 

We are seeing the old icon flying ''fun for all'' players joinng more and more clogging runways and

taking off from anywhere playing where there is population for emmersion and it drives the old

hardcore purists nuts 

 

For 1c/777 studios a sale is a sale.

 

Not sure I understand you correctly, but I can assure you there's a wide range of players between the "icons are the work of the devil"-faction and the "where's the afterburner and Sidewinder-missiles on my 109??!"-crowd.

 

I always thought the elitist mindset of people who think they're closer to "real" aircombat, just because they sit 2 inches from their monitors to spot enemy planes is hilarious. Or perhaps feeling "superior" because they have huge screens or multiple monitor setups to play on.

 

Icons or no icons, this is a game, after all, not real flying - even when you switch icons off, you'll still be staring at a monitor. And even if we take the "real pilots didn't have icons"-argument, then it also has to be said that real pilots didn't have to stare at a flat computer-screen of 23 or 27'', giving up stereoscopic vision and all sorts of other advantages the human eye has in a "real" situation.

 

 

And in any case: If people don't like icons (even extremely limited ones), nobody forces them to play with them. To each his own, I suppose. But it would be extremely helpful if the game would at least offer a choice on the matter. I gotta admit that the current set of icons is way too arcade-y and in your face for my taste, too. But reduced settings as I've outline above, as an intermediary solution between arcade-icons and no icons, would be very nice to have.

 

Plus: The "instructions"/mechanics of how the game handles icons must be there, somewhere in the code already. So it shouldn't be too much work to make them customize-able  - at least that's what my "non-programmer"-mind imagines.. :D

 

 

S.

[1Sascha]

Yeah.. I kinda failed to steer clear of that argument. Sorry about that, Chief.

 

But the general principle still holds, IMO: A lot of people find flying without *any* icons too stressful and not very enjoyable.

 

I just never understood why it has to be either "Miami-Vice-style neon-signs and huge pointers" or "nothing at all".

 

I remember how icons were handled back in "Warbirds". They could be set to anything from ultra short range (like 10m which was basically like "off") for events and the "historical arena", out to IIRC D30 or D45  (3 - 4.5 km) in the regular "main arena". I always loved the scenario settings where you'd only get color and range at a few hundred meters but beyond that, you had to search for planes/fights yourself. But you did get the "confirmation" at short range. Of course: That game was current in the days of 17 or 19'' CRT monitors and 640x480 or 1024x768 resolutions.

 

Another great example is WW2 Online, which still has the best icons I've ever seen. You don't get a range in meters, but instead a "halo" (circle around all planes). You start seeing them around 2k  as grey (full circle) and only get color/ID at 800m (half circle). And if you lose a plane from your view for a few seconds, the halo disappears and you have to re-acquire it.

 

 

 

 

S.

Edited July 10, 2016 by 1Sascha

[BlitzPig_EL]

I am in total agreement with you Sascha.

 

There are large numbers of people that would like something between "full difficulty" (it's not real you know), and "full easy".

 

In the real world, even my old eyes can spot small aircraft at a pretty good distance, but in the artificial environment of a computer game, not so much.

 

Options are a good thing.

 

The more people that play the sim, the better it will be for all of us, and options let more people feel they have a place here.

[FS_Fenice_1965]

I am in total agreement with Sascha too. Another option I'd like to see is no icons visible trough fuselage.

[wtornado]

So there lies the problem not enough mission makers and servers to run that sort of a game/mission configuration

 

A smooth online experience with all of the network completely eliminated after at least by the date I joined that is almost 3 years now.

 

And most importantly not enough online players that wait/waiting/waited  for that to ever see it.

 

10's of thousands of copies sold so where are they all?

 

So what do we end up with?Maybe 400-500 players online total and that is being generous and we are going on the third

paid release add-on.

[SharpeXB]

There aren't enough players online to support so many choices.

So the only option you'll ever get will be, Icons: On or Icons: Off

And the only server that's regularly populated has them Off. So maybe just learn to fly that way or play SP

I don't see the appeal of playing online with a big red "shoot me" sign hanging over my plane.

[BraveSirRobin]

So what do we end up with?Maybe 400-500 players online total and that is being generous and we are going on the third

paid release add-on.

 

400-500 is not "generous".  It's a ridiculous underestimate.

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

just because you see upward of 30,000 players in WOT, doesn't mean there all playing on a server together, there is no server in the world that can handle more than 100 players in a game environment.

 

all the players are farmed out to other nod's, or other servers by IP and ping and levels.  

[1Sascha]

 

 

There aren't enough players online to support so many choices.

 

What do player numbers have to do with it? 

 

All you'd need to do is to make two icon-parameters customize-able: Initial detection/grey icon range and color-/ID-range. Those two values could be set by whoever runs a server and would be communicated for every MP-server in the server list. Or the game could offer a third "preset" (besides "full icons" and "everything off") with reduced icons to make things even simpler.

 

Plus of course the elimination of the terrible "pointers" and the fact that you can track icons through your own fuselage.

 

 

This would change *nothing* for the "no icons"-crowd. They would simply stay on the servers with no icons. But it would offer a new option for players like myself who don't like arcade-icons but who also don't like flying with no icons at all.

[wtornado]

I can't wait to see what they will do either continue to support online play where their are few players

or concentrate their little team on offline campaign,S/P play where the majority of player truly are.

 

Should be fun to watch all this play out.

 

 

Apparently it has never been a question of money are they too cheap to hire more talented coders?

[No601_Swallow]

There aren't enough players online to support so many choices.

So the only option you'll ever get will be, Icons: On or Icons: Off

And the only server that's regularly populated has them Off. So maybe just learn to fly that way or play SP

I don't see the appeal of playing online with a big red "shoot me" sign hanging over my plane.

 

That's just silly. My squadron certainly runs its own server for its own missions, with its own difficulty settings. More choice and more flexibility can only be good. 

 

I do get annoyed by the online DF-for-eva guys thinking there's only one way to play and enjoy this game.

[Sokol1]

1. Much reduced general icon range. They should only become visible (as grey icons) at around 1.5 to 2.5 km.

2. Much reduced color/ID range. Something like just under 1km for color, maybe 6 or 700m for type. I'm not even sure I'd want the ID-feature anyway. Color at close range should be enough.

3. Elimination of those dreadful "look here to find me"-arrows pointing to planes that are offscreen or hidden underneath parts of your own plane.

 

 

I will use different approach - use in this way in DCS "hard to see plane" days:

 

Bellow ~2 Km or distance that planes became visible and their silhouettes recognizable, no icons is showed. 

 

Above this distance, the icons is showed but without that silly labels "plane type, squad, distance", just to compensate the computer screen limitations.

 

In this way in close distances, where combat happens, one are chasing planes silhouettes and not icons/labels.

 

But is not realistic expect this options in Bo"X" series, this will mean more config options - what can scare "new players", and more buttons to select - against the rule "less key is better". 

[No601_Swallow]

 

But is not realistic expect this options in Bo"X" series, this will mean more config options - what can scare "new players", and more buttons to select - against the rule "less key is better". 

 

But in BoS "Ultimate Edition", there'll be an "Advanced" tab of difficulty settings for 'experienced' players, and an easily edited config file, with a community-supplied howto, for the DServer...! We can dreeeeeeeeeeeam...

[SharpeXB]

That's just silly. My squadron certainly runs its own server for its own missions, with its own difficulty settings. More choice and more flexibility can only be good.

 

I do get annoyed by the online DF-for-eva guys thinking there's only one way to play and enjoy this game.

If there were icon style options available then unless there were just thousands of players online so everyone could have their choice of all the permutations. What would happen is all the players would just gravitate to the one populated server (like Wings of Liberty) and all the other servers would be empty since nobody can agree on exactly how much icon they want.

On or Off is an easy choice to make. Most people in any flight sim I see prefer Off. Either bacause it's "realistic" or because Off is the easiest level playing field to agree on.

Without thousands of players online a multitude of options will just split up the player base.

[1Sascha]

If there were icon style options available then unless there were just thousands of players online so everyone could have their choice of all the permutations. What would happen is all the players would just gravitate to the one populated server (like Wings of Liberty) and all the other servers would be empty since nobody can agree on exactly how much icon they want.

On or Off is an easy choice to make. Most people in any flight sim I see prefer Off. Either bacause it's "realistic" or because Off is the easiest level playing field to agree on.

Without thousands of players online a multitude of options will just split up the player base.

 

Translation:

 

I want everyone to play the game the way *I* prefer to play it.

 

 

S.

[BraveSirRobin]

Translation:

 

I want everyone to play the game the way *I* prefer to play it.

 

 

S.

 

If you're going to play on other people's MP servers, you're going to play the way they want you to play.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I seem to remember that the old IL-2 offered the possibility to customize icon-settings - does BoS have a similar feature?

 

 

I personally detest flying "full real" when it comes to icons - not to be starting a discussion on the matter, but we're not looking at a real sky, but at flat monitors. And I just don't enjoy pressing my nose up against my screen, zooming in with bionic eyes to scan the skies for single pixels to track.

 

Here's what I would like my icons to set at:

 

1. Much reduced general icon range. They should only become visible (as grey icons) at around 1.5 to 2.5 km.

2. Much reduced color/ID range. Something like just under 1km for color, maybe 6 or 700m for type. I'm not even sure I'd want the ID-feature anyway. Color at close range should be enough.

3. Elimination of those dreadful "look here to find me"-arrows pointing to planes that are offscreen or hidden underneath parts of your own plane.

 

 

I'd also love for the game to fade icons out quickly once you lose them from sight, making "re-acquisition" necessary to get color/ID back.

 

Is there any way to achieve any of this by tweaking a setup-file or something?

 

 

Cheers,

 

Sascha

 

 

Translation:

 

I want everyone to play the game the way *I* prefer to play it.

 

 

S.

 

Wait, what..? No translation of Sharpe's text is necessary. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[ACG_daffy_]

I would argue that most of us...if not all of us....would not have survived the first 10 minutes of Fighter Pilot qualification tests in WWII.  Let alone be superior or hardcore compared to any other player online at any given moment.  It really comes down to basic computing power versus the other guy.  Yeah, yeah....all the "I know how to manage my aircraft better because I have studied and practiced...bla bla bla".  No, not really.  You actually just understand what position to slide your pretend throttle lever into while angling the control stick 'that or this' way based on how you've set it up.  

Of course there is a certain level of skill involved in the simulation.  Be it flight, driving, or even a fishing simulator.  Talent though...probably not.  The full real servers are fun, and a lot more intense as far as immersion, but they are still just a different level of the Video Game.  Most people don't care if icons are used or not used.  Some of the most fun I've ever had was in CFS and IL2 on the FFA servers.  Used to play for HOURS with Hundreds of people a night!  Then...all of a sudden...everyone started to think they were 1942's version of Maverick...and started making a whole bunch of rules about 'realism' and 'historical'....actually finishing up with less flying time than typing time each night lol.  

The simulator is great, and the parts are far superior and more fun than years ago.  It's just gotten better and better.  There's nothing wrong with the game (tech heads, please observe my generality here haha).  The reason there is less than 200 people playing anymore isn't because of a broken game.  It's because it's getting less and less FUN to just pretend to be a WWII fighter pilot in the swamp of rules/can-do's/banning/"historical accuracy" guidelines.  

.....my opinion. 

S!

[SharpeXB]

Translation:

 

I want everyone to play the game the way *I* prefer to play it.

 

 

S.

What BSR said.

 

I'm playing the way the server owner wants me to play. One of the reasons I prefer "full real" or whatever you want to call it is because that's how the most popular or best servers tend to be run.

 

Icons are a game aid. Switching them on basically eliminates any semblance of reality in the air action. SP or MP. Read any description of real air combat and imagine how that scenario would play out in an environment where nothing unexpected can ever happen. No surprise is possible. Every aircraft can be instantly identified. No persuit can ever lose sight of the target. The vital mantra "Lose sight, lose the fight" has no meaning. Every player is free to fly their aircraft solely within the realm of its advantages because they'll never encounter anything unplanned. No real air combat tactics make any sense in such a world.

Icons On = Game

Icons Off = Simulator

 

The last time I was playing a Campaign mission. On Expert. I'm returning to base in formation and habitual check six. There's a third plane. I only have one wingman... Fights on! That sort of excitement is better fun than shooting down 12 planes with little colored triangles over them.

Edited July 12, 2016 by SharpeXB

[[CPT]milopugdog]

-snip-

The reason there is less than 200 people playing anymore isn't because of a broken game. It's because it's getting less and less FUN to just pretend to be a WWII fighter pilot in the swamp of rules/can-do's/banning/"historical accuracy" guidelines.

.....my opinion.

S!

I know it's just your opinion, but I'm going to comment on it anyway... I know, oh boy.

Honestly, I don't think the core idea of the simulation has changed. I'm not sure about the rules you mentioned either. As far as I know, strafing isn't "illegal"? On the most popular server. It's discouraged, and quite aggressively by victims, but you won't be banned for it. People usually only get banned for repetitive team killing, or abuse in chat.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "historical accuracy guidelines", but wouldn't historical accuracy be wanted in a sim like this? I mean, isn't accuracy what a simulator is made for? Sure there are people like me who've joined a squad, participate in missions with other squads, but again, isn't that the main reason for the game? There's no guidelines for what you should or shouldn't do. While a certain server has locked certain unlocks (we all know which one), I read that it was more for balance than anything else.

So yes, while numbers have dropped, people wanting historical accuracy or getting frustrated by an airfield every five minutes aren't the problem. Most people just want more interesting games. My brother once mentioned to me that everytime he checks out what I'm doing, I'm just in transit to the target. I'm sure most people aren't crazy enough to fly around a map for 45 mins only for a minutes or action in attackers or bombers, nor do they want to fly for the same time in a fighter and still see absolutely nothing.

Equipment is another problem too. What do you need for a sim like this? A starter stick that's $30? Okay, that's alright. What about when you want to get better stuff? One of them fancy HOTAS, rudder pedals, and Track IR are only around a measly $800. Oh VR now? Better tack on another $800 for it, you'll probably want some new computer parts though, so better tack on some more.

So no. It's not really the player base wanting some decency in this small player base, or wanting to simulate stuff all realistic and stuff. It just takes a certain kind of cool to want to get into it all.

 

TLDR: What people want in games has changed, and shits expensive, yo. We're also idiots. Especially Spekre.

[JG13_opcode]

I am in total agreement with you Sascha.

 

There are large numbers of people that would like something between "full difficulty" (it's not real you know), and "full easy".

 

In the real world, even my old eyes can spot small aircraft at a pretty good distance, but in the artificial environment of a computer game, not so much.

 

Options are a good thing.

 

The more people that play the sim, the better it will be for all of us, and options let more people feel they have a place here.

 

+1 

 

Warclouds had limited icons on and was populated pretty much 24/7 during il2fb/1946's heyday.  I also recall there was another server with similar settings but without the same static plane set.  Greater Green maybe?

 

Colours under, say, 500 metres would probably cut down on a lot of friendly fire online.

Edited July 12, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode

[ACG_daffy_]

I know it's just your opinion, but I'm going to comment on it anyway... I know, oh boy.

Honestly, I don't think the core idea of the simulation has changed. I'm not sure about the rules you mentioned either. As far as I know, strafing isn't "illegal"? On the most popular server. It's discouraged, and quite aggressively by victims, but you won't be banned for it. People usually only get banned for repetitive team killing, or abuse in chat.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "historical accuracy guidelines", but wouldn't historical accuracy be wanted in a sim like this? I mean, isn't accuracy what a simulator is made for? Sure there are people like me who've joined a squad, participate in missions with other squads, but again, isn't that the main reason for the game? There's no guidelines for what you should or shouldn't do. While a certain server has locked certain unlocks (we all know which one), I read that it was more for balance than anything else.

So yes, while numbers have dropped, people wanting historical accuracy or getting frustrated by an airfield every five minutes aren't the problem. Most people just want more interesting games. My brother once mentioned to me that everytime he checks out what I'm doing, I'm just in transit to the target. I'm sure most people aren't crazy enough to fly around a map for 45 mins only for a minutes or action in attackers or bombers, nor do they want to fly for the same time in a fighter and still see absolutely nothing.

Equipment is another problem too. What do you need for a sim like this? A starter stick that's $30? Okay, that's alright. What about when you want to get better stuff? One of them fancy HOTAS, rudder pedals, and Track IR are only around a measly $800. Oh VR now? Better tack on another $800 for it, you'll probably want some new computer parts though, so better tack on some more.

So no. It's not really the player base wanting some decency in this small player base, or wanting to simulate stuff all realistic and stuff. It just takes a certain kind of cool to want to get into it all.

 

TLDR: What people want in games has changed, and shits expensive, yo. We're also idiots. Especially Spekre.

Like we each said...our opinions.  Mine isn't worth a lot!!!  

Anyway, I have nothing against the Historical accuracy, and simulated immersion.  I like it myself.  The cost for equipment can be daunting, but really when you break it all down, you can put a pretty good computer together for a few hundred dollars today, and the trackIR....hotas sticks etc....Man, if you haven't had those up until now...then you're about a generation behind.  (Not suggesting you are, just the comment)  VR...well, remains to be seen.  There are hundreds of thousands of WWII simulation enthusiasts.  I would bet that most of us have been pretty much set up equipment wise and toy wise for these simulators for a number of years.  Most.  I personally enjoy the full real stuff, and usually make a hell of a sort-of moving target for others.  I'm really good at crashing too.  I can get shot down 5 times in one night easily!  I'm an ACE in that aspect...Full Real or not.

I just think that what we miss now is the FFA just for fun mentality.  I don't mean giving up anything...or 'play my way, cause I can't play yours'.  I mean the level of intent online today.  The proportion of players online any given day now is significantly low when measured against the sold units and simulator equipment production.  It's reduced almost two fold over the past five years.....while Accuracy and History and Realistic has been enhanced to the platforms.  Clearly...the growth in these areas hasn't produced the sustained, popular interest in the genre.  Some of that is probably because....man, sometimes, playing online is just a big pain in the ass to do anymore!  I think the community should just unplug a little bit, and relax so that the new players aren't so turned off or intimidated.  Like I said...just my opinion, and maybe should just set up some FFA servers and see what happens.

[JG13_opcode]

 

 

10's of thousands of copies sold so where are they all?

 

Frankly I doubt that there are even 5000 people playing singleplayer because the AI just isn't a fun opponent.  I'd imagine the vast vast majority of games sold are just sitting dormant on someone's hard drive.

[LLv24_Zami]

Frankly I doubt that there are even 5000 people playing singleplayer because the AI just isn't a fun opponent.  I'd imagine the vast vast majority of games sold are just sitting dormant on someone's hard drive.

I think you are wrong. 

 

MP players seems to always think that it`s online or nothing. Vast majority plays SP.

[wtornado]

That's just silly. My squadron certainly runs its own server for its own missions, with its own difficulty settings. More choice and more flexibility can only be good. 

 

I do get annoyed by the online DF-for-eva guys thinking there's only one way to play and enjoy this game.

That is why the game is so dead.

 

Same for Cliffs of Dover about 10 servers maximum at any given time hell I am being generous again there are usually only 7.

 

I challenge any of you to go out and talk to people you don't know about this game or any of the IL-2 series

and this game especially with the younger generation that game all the time online and you will get the same response.

 

IL-what? i Never heard of it.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I agree Zami, but the vast majority of a small number is still a small number...

 

As a counterpoint, look at the racing sim, Assetto Corsa.  They too have a small dev team, but, they have a large player base, which allows them to regularly add new content, some as very affordable DLCs, and some of it free.

If "Battle of" had a player base the size of AC, there would be cash at hand to do all the things we want to see happen.

 

As it stands we are a tiny niche, one that is slowly, and sadly, fading away.

[1Sascha]

As it stands we are a tiny niche, one that is slowly, and sadly, fading away.

 

Meh.. they've been saying that since the late 1990s ... and sims are still around.

 

Not every genre/game can be the next "Battlefield" or "The Sims" in terms of popularity and sales. But as long as you can sell sims in reasonable numbers, there will be developers rising to the challenge and producing simulations.

 

It's also important to remember the changes distribution went through in the past two decades or so. I still like buying packaged versions of my games whenever I can (I'm old-fashioned that way, I guess), but not having to produce DVDs/BRD/printed manuals/boxes and not having to go through distributors/stores and all that jazz, makes it a lot easier and cheaper for a smaller team to reach its customers.

 

Plus: I refuse to believe that tastes and customer bases change this quickly and radically. Where are all those "mainstream"-players who bought stuff like SWOTL, X-Wing, Strike Commander or the "Aces"-games back in the day? Or what about the Falcon-series? Or Microprose sims like F-15 Strike Eagle or F-14 Fleet Defender? Or more recently: What about the success of Star Citizen or Elite Dangerous?

 

There's still a market out there and while not every player will want to tackle the tough stuff like DCS, I'm sure you could make a ton of money producing the next "Strike Commander" for example. And when you get a "sim"-y hit with mainstream audiences, developers working on more hardcore stuff will also have an easier time selling their products.

 

 

S.

Edited July 12, 2016 by 1Sascha

[No601_Swallow]

If there were icon style options available then unless there were just thousands of players online so everyone could have their choice of all the permutations. What would happen is all the players would just gravitate to the one populated server (like Wings of Liberty) and all the other servers would be empty since nobody can agree on exactly how much icon they want.

On or Off is an easy choice to make. Most people in any flight sim I see prefer Off. Either bacause it's "realistic" or because Off is the easiest level playing field to agree on.

Without thousands of players online a multitude of options will just split up the player base.

 

OK. I'll have another go.

 

Most of my online playing of BoS is not on the three or four general purpose DF servers that people and groups have set up. My own "group" creates its own missions, runs them on its own servers using its own "rules" and difficulty settings. Nothing to do with "fragmenting" the player base, because the player base is not one great lump that just jumps into DED or WOL each night.

 

Surprise, surprise: there are lots of different ways to play the game. We have (from time to time) run obstacle races, a mini one-v-one DF league (with spectating and time limits). We've had football (more like quidditch) and I've been trying to pursuade my squadron to have a curling competition (dead-sticking onto a frozen lake and then sliding towards a "zone". Some of these have been fun, and some of these have been a waste of time. All of them, though, would benefit from more "advanced" gaming options.

 

There's lots of ways to play the game, and more options in terms of difficulty settings, icons and - yes - graphics settings can only surely be good. 

 

It's not all to do with jumping into "ranked" servers to rack up some boring "score".

[1Sascha]

OK. I'll have another go.

 

Most of my online playing of BoS is not on the three or four general purpose DF servers that people and groups have set up. My own "group" creates its own missions, runs them on its own servers using its own "rules" and difficulty settings. Nothing to do with "fragmenting" the player base, because the player base is not one great lump that just jumps into DED or WOL each night.

 

Surprise, surprise: there are lots of different ways to play the game. We have (from time to time) run obstacle races, a mini one-v-one DF league (with spectating and time limits). We've had football (more like quidditch) and I've been trying to pursuade my squadron to have a curling competition (dead-sticking onto a frozen lake and then sliding towards a "zone". Some of these have been fun, and some of these have been a waste of time. All of them, though, would benefit from more "advanced" gaming options.

 

There's lots of ways to play the game, and more options in terms of difficulty settings, icons and - yes - graphics settings can only surely be good. 

 

It's not all to do with jumping into "ranked" servers to rack up some boring "score".

 

I think you and I are wasting our electronic breath here, but I still gotta comment:

 

I don't get why this issue is even a point of contention.

 

An option is an *option* ... You don't need to buy a GTI with GPS, a sunroof and leather interior if you want to buy a VW Golf. You have an option to buy a Golf that's less powerful and less well equipped and thus more affordable.

 

The people who prefer "no icons" would still be able to play on "no icons"-servers. Those who don't like "no icons" will have the ability to go elsewhere or play on their own servers with rule-sets *they* prefer.

 

Besides: This is not just about MP, but also about the single-player experience. On my own PC, playing against the AI, I want to be able to tweak the game the way I want to play it.

 

What some people in this thread seem to be arguing for is to force other players to play by the rules that *they* prefer and to deny those other players even the possibility to find or create an environment with other rules.

 

Or let me put it this way:

 

What if the game *didn't* have the option to disable icons altogether? Would the "full real or nothing"-crowd then still argue that including a "no icons"-option would "fragment" the player-base?

 

 

 

 

S.

Edited July 12, 2016 by 1Sascha

[JG13_opcode]

Meh.. they've been saying that since the late 1990s ... and sims are still around.

 

Not every genre/game can be the next "Battlefield" or "The Sims" in terms of popularity and sales. But as long as you can sell sims in reasonable numbers, there will be developers rising to the challenge and producing simulations.

 

It's also important to remember the changes distribution went through in the past two decades or so. I still like buying packaged versions of my games whenever I can (I'm old-fashioned that way, I guess), but not having to produce DVDs/BRD/printed manuals/boxes and not having to go through distributors/stores and all that jazz, makes it a lot easier and cheaper for a smaller team to reach its customers.

 

Plus: I refuse to believe that tastes and customer bases change this quickly and radically. Where are all those "mainstream"-players who bought stuff like SWOTL, X-Wing, Strike Commander or the "Aces"-games back in the day? Or what about the Falcon-series? Or Microprose sims like F-15 Strike Eagle or F-14 Fleet Defender? Or more recently: What about the success of Star Citizen or Elite Dangerous?

 

There's still a market out there and while not every player will want to tackle the tough stuff like DCS, I'm sure you could make a ton of money producing the next "Strike Commander" for example. And when you get a "sim"-y hit with mainstream audiences, developers working on more hardcore stuff will also have an easier time selling their products.

 

 

S.

Those mainstream players are playing War Thunder.

[SharpeXB]

You also have to consider that the Difficulty Levels are related to achievements in the Campaign. And there are only two settings. Normal and Expert. And there are some options within those, for example you can have map icons and waypoints indicated in Expert or turn them off at will. You can enable or disable Engine Management in Normal.

And for consistency those same levels, plus Custom are used in MP.

Rise of Flight used to have something like 4 or 5 levels of difficulty and reduced it to two as well.

Why? Probably because it's just too complex to adapt to MP. In reality players will just gravitate to one extreme or the other.

In this game and other flight sims I see, players tend to gravitate to "Expert" I.e. No icons.

So although these icon options could probably be added, since most players online choose not to use them my guess is those options would go unused as well.

 

Icons only need an On or Off setting. There's no such thing as a "realistic" degree of setting for colored game graphics.

If you want "real" turn them off. If you want "game" turn them on.

If you're not playing somewhere that enforces a setting like the Campaign or MP. Just switch them on or off at will with a key.

 

Icons though really are a legacy aid from the days when these games were played on an 11" 400x600 CRT monitor. They're not needed on today's HD displays. The use of them over the years gives players this false idea that aircraft in combat were easy to spot. Hence the countless discussions on how "hard" it is to spot aircraft as if it was ever easy in realty. It wasn't.

Edited July 12, 2016 by SharpeXB

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Icons only need an On or Off setting.

 

I disagree. Icons can be useful for a number of reasons (like ID of Friendly pilot names at very close range) and I support having the option to configure them with more granularity.

 

 

What would happen is all the players would just gravitate to the one populated server

....

Without thousands of players online a multitude of options will just split up the player base.

 

 

So which is it? Split into many different games or all one populated server?

If anything I feel that it would most likely only impact those servers which are already running icons, in that they would likely be set with options to reduce the amount of visibility currently rather than increasing it.

 

Are you are concerned that this might reduce the amount of pilots flying on the Expert difficulty setting?

It could possibly bring more online that either found the "Normal" setting too simple and the "Expert" setting too daunting of a step up and just gave up?

 

For what its worth, I prefer Expert - but I see value in having options stated by the original poster.

 

As for campaign, keep the scoring and classification as normal as long as the icons/map options are only being reduced in visibility levels and not increased. No need to change the scoring.

 

 

[wtornado]

Frankly I doubt that there are even 5000 people playing singleplayer because the AI just isn't a fun opponent.  I'd imagine the vast vast majority of games sold are just sitting dormant on someone's hard drive.

Well I am living that with Star Citizen I have downloaded several patches and updates but it is still too bugged

to be interesting enough to play so I along with hundred's of thousands of people wait until the game gets better.

 

Hell I bought Cliffs of Dover 2 weeks after it came out and shelfed it for 2 years before I could play it I can wait here too.

 

BOS for now is enough until the game improves to my liking and I can wait this what out too to see where it goes don't you?

[FS_Fenice_1965]

I think that we should once again look at what happened with 1946 (too many times in my opinion this sim forgot to look at 1946 as a starting point...but this is a different topic).

Intermediate icon settings have been a lot successful. Not only they were used in many of most of the successful servers of the lobby, but those servers using them are the last still alive in the lobby (with the exception of Aces over Europe).

The absence of scalability is dangerous for every sim. In my opinion also CLOD is paying the fact that there aren't intermediate options in multiplayer.

Easy and intermediate settings servers are the base that feeds expert servers.

I remember that when we had Skies of Fire it was normal that players coming from the easiest server switched after a certain time to the intermediate server (Skies of Valor) and many of them started playing full real after a certain time.

I think that this can be confirmed by all admins that have managed servers with different settings.

 

About the Icon/no Icon options my humble opinion is that recognising planes in real life is much easier than in simulations. The third dimensions, the light and the reflections are totally different. Full icons ruin immersion, but minimal icons at shortest distances are a good trade and probably - in my opinion - they make the combat experience more similar to what is expected from real than full real itself. During dogfights at short distance the nucleus of the experience is on manouvering the plane and finding a way to kill, rather than wasting 90% of the concentration to find a way to spot the plane emergin from ground (textures).

Comes to my mind the words of Geoff Crammond (for those who do not know Crammond was the creator of Formula1 Grand Prix one of the racing sims that were so ahead of their times that are now part of the sim history). He substained that during a race a pilot is not mainly concentrated on keeping the car on the track. This is rather automatic. The nucleus of the esperience is on the racing tactics, the best traiectories, the position of the adversaries.....in a word: the race itself.

Same happens in planes combat. The nucleus of the experience should be the combat.

At largest distances - always in my humble opinion - no icons is the best solution. It is normal having difficulties spotting planes at distance and seeing full icons at 9 kms distance kills immersion and eliminate the possibility of killing without being seen.

Probably situation is going to change with development of graphics and rendering techniques, but actually we need to overcome actual limitations.

[SharpeXB]

It does actually seem odd to me that all the attendance. Nearly 100% of it. Is on the Expert style server, Wings of Liberty.

When RoF was new, most of the action was on a "Normal" style server. That's what I'd expect to see if many new people are getting into the game. Most people playing at an easier level and less at the more difficult. That just seems natural.

So what would the reason be here? Not enough new players? Or does everyone just go to the one place that's populated.

This game does need a nearly full sever to be any fun online, otherwise it's too sparse. That's also a mission design problem though.