Just re-discovered Rise of Flight, and...

[1Sascha]

...I have to wonder if BoS/BoM will ever offer something like that game's "Career"-mode. I hadn't flown in ROF for years so I wasn't even aware that mode existed now and I have to say it's a lot more motivating than BoS' campaign. Of course: Having a terribly under-equipped hangar, I now have to fly Albatrosses III and Va for months and months before I can get my hands on the next planes I own (Dr. I, D. VII/F)

 

 

Yes: It's basically just random mission after random mission, but the way it keeps track of your squad's and your pilot's performance and throws historical info at you every week is quite interesting. Sorta reminds me of old sims like Red Baron or the Aces-series.

 

As long as we won't have to buy aircraft-mods/-loadouts with real money .... :D

 

 

S.

[LeRocket]

There is PWCG which IMO is fantastic and reminds me very much of Red Baron. Randomly generated missions to fly, promotions, transfer to different squads, go on leave and can do an ironman mode where dead is dead. RoF now has a PWCG option in the main menu, hopefully we'll be getting that in il-2 soon.

[Dakpilot]

In one of the early BoS livestreams Dev's talked about RoF Career, and how it had proved much less popular in actual use compared to PWCG,  and that the RoF Career had taken a lot of resources to develop, which is why they said they would not repeat for BoS even though the "concept" was popular

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[216th_Jordan]

they should just give Pat money for his effort and incorporate his campaign in Bos/bom parallel to what we got already. Would surely satisfy a lot of people.

[dburne]

ROF Career mode was way better than the BOS campaign system.

Thankfully there is PWCG...

[Dakpilot]

ROF Career mode was way better than the BOS campaign system.

Thankfully there is PWCG...

 

Based on what experience?

 

True BoS/BoM campaign and RoF Career are very different concepts, but BoS AQMG/Campaign has evolved a lot since it was released

 

and yes there is always PWCG, which also looks to soon evolve and include BoM fully

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

If Pwcg could be dynamic like TAW (there are scripts working now - why not in Pat?) plus future coop - great succes of sp or mixed (coop).

[FlyingNutcase]

If Pwcg could be dynamic like TAW (there are scripts working now - why not in Pat?) plus future coop - great succes of sp or mixed (coop).

I've been AWOL for a while. What's TAW?

[JimTM]

I've been AWOL for a while. What's TAW?

 

Tactical Air War

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

PWCG has a way to go, TBH, but it is also an incredibly big deal as far as delivering SP content.

 

I'd like to see persistence integrated at some point (i.e. Mission-to-Mission persistence a la Lowengrin's DCG.)

 

The production team should look in to some form of official support/integration of Pat's work or look in to using his expertise to build a similar SP model into the game.

[Gambit21]

they should just give Pat money for his effort and incorporate his campaign in Bos/bom parallel to what we got already. Would surely satisfy a lot of people.

 

What makes you assume Pat wasn't compensated for his work?

He in fact was.

[pilotpierre]

What makes you assume Pat wasn't compensated for his work?

He in fact was.

I should bloody well hope so.

[216th_Jordan]

If he was I wonder why no implementation has taken place. that's just a logical assumption.

[Dakpilot]

PWCG is written in a different format, it is not so simple to integrate, that would be a whole different ballgame, along with many stupid legal complications of being part of a retail "product"

 

Which I doubt Pat has interest in going through

 

(just my opinion)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[216th_Jordan]

PWCG is written in a different format, it is not so simple to integrate, that would be a whole different ballgame, along with many stupid legal complications of being part of a retail "product"

 

Which I doubt Pat has interest in going through

 

(just my opinion)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Alright, forgot it was written in Java. Well, I can see the obstacles.

[PatrickAWlson]

I was very hesitant to post this, but given that this comes up regularly I wanted to say a thing or two.

 

There are obstacles to the tighter coupling that folks would like.

1. PWCG is written in Java.  This is not insurmountable as a JNI interface could be written with a new/better UI layer.  It's just not easy and would require tight coordination between myself and the 777 development staff in Russia.  

2. PWCG is what I do with my free time.  I am not an employee of 777.  That means that there are real life limitations on what and how fast I can create product - including the fact that tight coupling with the team in Russia is not feasible.

3. PWCG is not a financially viable option as a full time engagement. 

 

In an ideal world I win the lottery, quit my day job and work on flight sims all day long.  Not exactly a likely occurrence .

 

Coordination is done through Jason, who I can assure you is doing everything he can to help me out.  Be nice to him - he really does go to bat for the community.  There are just some hard realities out there around time and money that limit the speed at which things happen.  

 

P.S.  Did anybody notice the alternative look that was delivered in the last version?  It eliminates most of the pictorial side panels and replaces them with a simple dark green/white look.

- Main Menu->Configuration->GUI->Use Generic UI (set to 1 to eliminate graphic side panels).

 

P.P.S.  Most of the graphics in PWCG are simple JPGs.  Anybody can change them.  If there is a graphics guy that wants to have a go, please do.

[Feathered_IV]

Thanks for the UI tip Pat. I'll check that out after work this evening. I've played the campaign in the past but I'm one of those types who finds 50% of the immersion occurs between missions and the old Red Baron style interface tended to take me out of the moment, if you know what I mean.

[PatrickAWlson]

Some like it, some don't.  I really like the image panels in RoF and would never consider changing it there.  For me it works in a WWI setting.  In BoS I actually agree - something more industrial would seem to work better.  

Edited July 23, 2016 by PatrickAWlson

[Crump]

...I have to wonder if BoS/BoM will ever offer something like that game's "Career"-mode. I hadn't flown in ROF for years so I wasn't even aware that mode existed now and I have to say it's a lot more motivating than BoS' campaign. Of course: Having a terribly under-equipped hangar, I now have to fly Albatrosses III and Va for months and months before I can get my hands on the next planes I own (Dr. I, D. VII/F)

 

 

Yes: It's basically just random mission after random mission, but the way it keeps track of your squad's and your pilot's performance and throws historical info at you every week is quite interesting. Sorta reminds me of old sims like Red Baron or the Aces-series.

 

As long as we won't have to buy aircraft-mods/-loadouts with real money .... :D

 

 

S.

 

i play ROF.  Career mode is fantastic.  

[SharpeXB]

In one of the early BoS livestreams Dev's talked about RoF Career, and how it had proved much less popular in actual use compared to PWCG,

I'm curious how they came to that conclusion seeing as PWCG is run outside of the game or even offline. I have a hard time believing a 3rd party add-on is more popular than something that's directly included in the game.

And simply looking at usage stats doesn't lead to the right conclusions sometimes.

The key question the Devs should ask themselves is not "What do people do with the game?"

What's more important to ask is "Why do people buy the game?"

One answer realty has not much to do with the other.

Right on the first page of the Rise of Flight website there's a window that says:

"Variety of Gameplay: Advance through a Pilot Career..." That's the first thing it claims about the game, mentioned ahead of Campaigns and Mulitiplayer. If the Career Mode isn't popular why is it mentioned first?

The trouble with reliance on 3rd party content, as good as it might be, is that it can't be advertised as a feature to sell the game.

I'm very glad we finally got PWCG here for IL-2 but I worry about the risk that the Devs took just assuming that a major feature of the game would be provided by a volunteer. Or that it was worth all the negative publicity not including this feature to begin with.

[dburne]

I have said this before some time ago, ROF Career Mode is what hooked me into pre-ordering into BOS. I loved the career mode in ROF and was so looking foward to having that, or something even better, in BOS when it was released.

[PatrickAWlson]

I would not give up on an improved in game career mode.  For RoF PWCG existed in a solid form long before the in game career reached the state that it is in today.  777 developed the RoF career anyway.  To be plain about it, I really don't think that PWCG or any other 3rd party component plays into their plans one way or the other.  The new career mode was a shot at something different.  Some people like it, some not so much.

 

I have plenty of experience working on small software teams.  It can be pretty daunting, especially with a subject the scope of WWI or WWII.  Heck, even PWCG after 7 years has plenty of ideas that are not in yet.  One of the biggest things to do is to finish something, and this team has now done that twice.  I am sure there is lots of conversation about "what next",  

[Feathered_IV]

I really loved the design of the Rise of Flight beta career.  The only thing that really killed it was the tiny numbers of aircraft and objects that would be encountered in a mission.  Perhaps this was to optimise it for the lowest-end computers.  Hopefully one day someone with the required mission editor expertise will notice that the Group files that make up the missions are accessible in the SCG.gtp and can be extracted and improved, thus taking advantage of RoF's mods-on mode to deliver the sort of immersive campaign experience that it always should have been.

[Picchio]

Reduced objects number (ground and air) really feels problematic in BoS/BoM too... stray from the flight route for a bit and there's a desert.

And it's a real pity because the ground (especially) gets populated quite nicely, on those places you're supposed to fly to.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Picchio

[SharpeXB]

Actually there are ground objects and other aircraft all over the map in the BoS/BoM campaigns. Look at the graphics on the "O" map, those are all real units.

This limitation I hope improves with DX11 which is now in the works apparently.

[Picchio]

Actually no, not really. Open one of the generated missions in the editor, you'll see what I mean.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Picchio

[SharpeXB]

If you go to where those icons appear on your map, they correspond to ground units in the game. So the world isn't exactly empty.

But no flight sim game is going to be capable of representing the real numbers on the ground. That much should be obvious. You aren't going to see hundreds of thousands of troops going over the top in RoF or supply columns stretching the entire length of the roads.

There is plenty enough ground action in BoS/M to make the missions interesting especially the custom ones in the Campaign. Hopefully a DX11 upgrade can even improve on that.

[Picchio]

And if I choose to fly a different route I'll find a map without buildings and I won't even have to fly too long for that to happen. It's not about "the real" numbers: you certainly don't need those in order to craft the illusion of a combat environment. It can be created even within the current engine limitations. That said, I think people are a bit over-estimating the true importance of a future API upgrade, and its related gospel is a bit silly.