why not Africa?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

Even though you two like to think otherwise  

 

I've seen you regurgitate this entirely baseless position several times. It's tired, old, unfounded and completely incorrect.

 

You're old enough to know that when somebody disagrees with you they aren't stating you don't have a right to an opinion. In fact, nobody is trying to take your opinion away from you. In fact, I've personally said quite a few times that everybody is as equally entitled to holding an opinion as much as I am entitled to disagree with them. I implore you to keep wishing for the startup feature. I will continue repeating how pointless and unfun it is (objectively, naturally, before you attempt to jump on that one too) and how it would expend money and resources that are much better put to building a better flight simulator than a better ground crew/procedure simulator.

 

It's you who likes to think otherwise. Stop building straw men and if you're going to accuse me of something at least do some research on what I've said a dozen other times since I am (unfortunately) reiterating it for you, in another thread, on another subject, again. 

Eee? Just because it's not fun for you does not mean it's not fun for others. If start up would be added I don't think they would remove "click I" to start everything. So I don't know why are you complaining.

 

I'm not complaining. I'm voicing an opinion. Case in point, though...  

Edited May 4, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[Sokol1]

I would like to see greece/creta. We already have planes,

 

A new map with same planes add almost nothing, in the game the stars is planes and their operation, we have Stalingrad map, but almost 0 of "Battle of Stalingrad" in this map.

 

Why PTO soon is a game changer, besides new planes (and maps), a new gameplay with carrier operations, navigation exigences.

[InProgress]

You cut off what I said :| I said that it would not work as big dlc, but as smaller one with single player camiagn about invasion of greece. Also it would be small as this sirl something we have now. Could be nice experiment and training for devs before and if they make normandy.

[Uufflakke]

This thread is like the theory of human evolution:

 

It started in Africa and then we moved to other directions.

 

But instead of 1 million years it only took us a couple of days.

[Sokol1]

 

 

 

I will continue repeating how pointless and unfun it is (objectively, naturally, before you attempt to jump on that one too) and how it would expend money and resources that are much better put to building a better flight simulator than a better ground crew/procedure simulator.

 

You know that are people interested in Combat Flight Games/Simulator for motives other than just the "pew pew" and number of planes variants?

 

What can be added to "building a better flight simulator since improve planes operation is "pointless and unfunny"?

 

Just new "Battle of Somewhere" maps and dozen more variants of Bf 109?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

 

You know that are people interested in Combat Flight Games/Simulator for motives other than just the "pew pew" and number of planes variants?

 

What can be added to "building a better flight simulator since improve planes operation is "pointless and unfunny"?

 

Just new "Battle of Somewhere" maps and dozen more variants of Bf 109?

 

 

Improving plane operations is having a walk around/climb in/startup simulator?

 

A better, more granular physical DM with finer hitboxes and additional parts. A better, more detailed visual DM. A semi-manual fuel system for tank switching without the hassle of a clickpit. A working oil temp gauge for 109s. Rotating turrets for the aircraft that had them. Improved/granular radio commands for flight elements, squadrons, etc. Volumetric fog for compelling IFR events. Enhanced weather effects for other inclement conditions. Additional FM improvements (improved rudder/sideslip is already incoming). Loadout expansions for all aircraft. A ClOD like tactical marking system. Etc, etc.

 

I'm not going to bother continuing with the list because you're already too busy presuming.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[Gambit21]

Space Ghost - on my phone I can't type LuseKofte the reply that he deserves - thanks for covering that. Upvote coming later.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

I've seen you regurgitate this entirely baseless position several times. It's tired, old, unfounded and completely incorrect.

 

Might be true, but you and Gambit is very quick about dismissing sugestions you two do not like , in a very aggressive way. Gambit  got some truth in who start the engines in most occations, but this is part of pilots training and it did quite occur when in servvice, ergo he mis inform to get a cheap point. And the way you guys present your own truth is at best very provocative.  

[Gambit21]

Whine...whine...whine

[InProgress]

You 2 aren't the only one here.

[Gambit21]

I think both you and LuseKofte need to look up Straw Man

 

I really don't care what you like or don't like, and I have no attachment to what might or might not be modeled. I was simply pointing a few things out - no passion whatsoever.

 

But then the straw man whining...ugh.

No need for it. Simply state why you'd like to see whatever it is that you want to see. Then when I or someone else lends the reason (opinion) that it doesn't make sense and why...that's when you have the opportunity to follow up with an adult, non-whiny, non-straw man, reasoned response.

Then we go from there.

 

This projecting of your behavior on to us however can stop any old time if you please.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Gambit21

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

That's what we need right now. And turrets!!

Improving plane operations is having a walk around/climb in/startup simulator?

 

A better, more granular physical DM with finer hitboxes and additional parts. A better, more detailed visual DM. A semi-manual fuel system for tank switching without the hassle of a clickpit. A working oil temp gauge for 109s. Rotating turrets for the aircraft that had them. Improved/granular radio commands for flight elements, squadrons, etc. Volumetric fog for compelling IFR events. Enhanced weather effects for other inclement conditions. Additional FM improvements (improved rudder/sideslip is already incoming). Loadout expansions for all aircraft. A ClOD like tactical marking system. Etc, etc.

 

I'm not going to bother continuing with the list because you're already too busy presuming.

[Lusekofte]

that it doesn't make sense and why.

 

That was a refined way to put your answer earlier.

 

I do not set a priority list on what the developers should prioritise and when. I simply answered about pre op activities , witch you with a very fatherly tone dismissed. And now accuse me for being passionate. Not at all. 

However I do not disagree with any suggestions above about what we should have or wish we had. But you and Space continue with some sort of power you think you have to dismiss any other suggestion. Witch I oppose to.

 

There are possibilities we will have operational AA in Ships and Airfields, We might even have all major battlefields in WW2 if this game progress. And I see no reason for objecting to that, So why do you?

Edited May 4, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

But you and Space continue with some sort of power you think you have to dismiss any other suggestion.

 

-snip-

 

 

No, man. I don't. That's the part you're not getting.

[Gambit21]

 There are possibilities we will have operational AA in Ships and Airfields, We might even have all major battlefields in WW2 if this game progress. And I see no reason for objecting to that, So why do you?

Again with the straw man.

[Feathered_IV]

I find any request for walking to the plane and jump in to it a bit strange , when request about startup procedure is negatively commented by the same people.

 

My real interest in being able to approach or enter the aircraft in a first-person view is that it will give the player a sense of scale that is otherwise lacking in flight sims. Be it the small size of the 109 or I-16, or the huge bulk of the He-111 towering over you. It's a big part of the experience that we miss out on.

[Ribbon]

My real interest in being able to approach or enter the aircraft in a first-person view is that it will give the player a sense of scale that is otherwise lacking in flight sims. Be it the small size of the 109 or I-16, or the huge bulk of the He-111 towering over you. It's a big part of the experience that we miss out on.

It would be nice and on my wishlist too but it is unrealistic.

It would take more resources and time to develop it than whole PTO all together and i guess rewriting engine would be needed.

Those soldiers in game are pure animations. Maybe if devs make it as external camera not tied with airplane while on ground, with height limitations and entering plane animation.

Maybe when all theatres are covered they can make and sell it as dlc but now more important for me is BoK and moving to PTO.

[Scojo]

My real interest in being able to approach or enter the aircraft in a first-person view is that it will give the player a sense of scale that is otherwise lacking in flight sims. Be it the small size of the 109 or I-16, or the huge bulk of the He-111 towering over you. It's a big part of the experience that we miss out on.

I have to agree with this.

 

After flying planes in a Sim, then seeing the plane in person for the first time after that, you do notice that you'll start to feel like you're flying in ford focuses with wings.

 

I saw an Avenger in person for the first time a couple months ago. I was taken back how massive they actually are.

 

Whether or not it's worth their time to implement, I don't really know. However it would be neat to have an on rails camera sequence of running/walking to, and getting in your plane, even if there's no ground crew animated around you.

[No601_Swallow]

I have to agree with this.

 

After flying planes in a Sim, then seeing the plane in person for the first time after that, you do notice that you'll start to feel like you're flying in ford focuses with wings.

 

I saw an Avenger in person for the first time a couple months ago. I was taken back how massive they actually are.

 

Whether or not it's worth their time to implement, I don't really know. However it would be neat to have an on rails camera sequence of running/walking to, and getting in your plane, even if there's no ground crew animated around you.

 

I was struck by how tiny the 109 is compared with a Spitfire, and how massive a Ju87 is - approaching the size of a 110 or Ju88.

 

Anyway, a nice VR feature might be the ability to move in two axes in the hangar/prep screen. To approach and "walk around" the aircraft even in the artificial setting of that hangar (with Yuri welding in the corner) would be a lovely addition, I think.

 

I wonder if it would take a lot of work to implement, given that we already have the 360 degree orbit going on. It might be quite straightforward, since "realism" isn't an issue - just a bit of warbird porn, so to speak.

Edited May 5, 2017 by No601_Swallow

[Nibbio]

In VR, after landing and opening the canopy, just standing up in the cockpit and looking at the plane, maybe checking out the damage, is an amazing experience.

 

Stepping on the wing and climbing down to have a walkaround seems the natural thing to do, it would be really cool if it was made possible.

[Guest deleted@1562]

I for one, will refuse to shoot even a single bullet towards those little purring beings.

I actually consider them being a superior life form.

 

  

 

Which would make shooting at them pointless as you would never be able to hit them due to their superiority (and 9 lives!)

About elevators, animated flight deck crew, firing guns and other carrier operations Jason said something about it in the Q&A on Sept. the 10th.

They want to make it all as realistic as possible without sacrificing too much on performance. But a lot is still unsure.

 

 Carrier part at 2h:08m:44s

 

https://youtu.be/nhHmIxmnTEw?t=2h8m44s

 

 

Yeah I know...it's the "as possible" part that's key.

 

I take what 777 is able to implement. Still more interesting (for me) than North Africa.

[FTC_Etherlight]

I for one have become a big fan of startup procedures and the like as well, since I've started with DCS a couple years ago. It just adds to the experience for me quite a bit. I don't know if we will ever get clickpits (which would be awesome), but that would probably be a prerequisite for actual procedures, since just hammering through buttons premapped with the necessary steps for a startup would be quite meh, therefore I don't really hold my breath for those.

 

BoX definitely seems to go more the combat-action sim route than the authentic plane sim route, which is totally fine for me if they don't have the ressources to go into that kind of depth. A better damage model, the rudder fixes and a look at the implementation of propwash is definitely higher on my personal list than startup procedures at this point.

 

And that's what it comes down to, personal priorities, which obviously differ quite a bit. No need to play "annoying twat"-forumsimulator over that.

Edited May 5, 2017 by JG4_Etherlight

[novicebutdeadly]

I for one have become a big fan of startup procedures and the like as well, since I've started with DCS a couple years ago. It just adds to the experience for me quite a bit. I don't know if we will ever get clickpits (which would be awesome), but that would probably be a prerequisite for actual procedures, since just hammering through buttons premapped with the necessary steps for a startup would be quite meh, therefore I don't really hold my breath for those.

 

BoX definitely seems to go more the combat-action sim route than the authentic plane sim route, which is totally fine for me if they don't have the ressources to go into that kind of depth. A better damage model, the rudder fixes and a look at the implementation of propwash is definitely higher on my personal list than startup procedures at this point.

 

And that's what it comes down to, personal priorities, which obviously differ quite a bit. No need to play "annoying twat"-forumsimulator over that.

The only time I would really want to do a manual start procedure is in this: http://mazikainen.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/finnish-airforce-museum-bf-109-simulator.html

[Gambit21]

BoX definitely seems to go more the combat-action sim route than the authentic plane sim route.

With respect - I just don't see it that way.

I don't need every button push or lever simulated, nor do I find a floating cursor in front of my face very immersive.

I don't equate the absence of these things as "not an authentic plane simulator"

 

You're allowed to have your opinion. I'm just pointing out that flight sims have been around for a few decades before DCS and the click-pits.

 

I could get used to click-pits, (magic floating arrow that isn't there in real life) but don't lament their absence here. I think I'd want that more with an A-10 or F-15, etc.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Gambit21

[wtornado]

I always liked North Africa.

 

No.33 Squadron RAF 1941 to 43.

 

And every other plane right down to

the Martlet taking off a British carrier

HMS Formidable for Operation torch.

[JG13_opcode]

i think the title makes it clear...why don't the developers make an Africa map?

the planeset would be almost done already, and the map would probably not make any difficulty either, considering little vegitation and ocean.

yet i think, it would be a blast to go west in IL2. i personally would be much more interested in a western scenario like Africa or Malta or Sicily than another eastern front theater like Kuban, or Pacific.

yes of course, Kuban is already in the works and thats ok...and im not against Pacific, although i have no interest in it at all...but an Africa map i would buy instantly...

i've read some comments that the devs already explained why they don't go for Africa, yet i cant find the reason here in this forum...anybody has a link for it?or can at least explain why they dont consider it?

did they say that they wont do it at all?

just a question i would like to have an anser on.

As you have no doubt learned from the replies you are getting: any naysayers are immediately always swarmed by legions of sycophants who have nothing better to do than aggressively congratulate the people who agree with them.

 

I too believe going pacific will hurt this sim, but as usual the communication coming from the dev team is lacking. Jason's response last time this came up was basically "I know better than u, don't discuss this".

 

Pacific was never popular compared to the other fronts. That's why we needed a containment server for the PTO types because PTO maps would drive people away from other servers whenever they came up.

 

[Edited]

Edited May 16, 2017 by Bearcat

[Gambit21]

I so can't wait to not go to Africa.

I'm going to enjoy the next two NOT AFRICA releases very much.

[JG13_opcode]

I so can't wait to not go to Africa.

I'm going to enjoy the next two NOT AFRICA releases very much.

I'm happy for you. You and your pacific types filled up maybe one server on hyper lobby? I can only think of Zekes/Wildcats.

 

Meanwhile there were dozens of other popular servers, mostly focusing on the European theatre.

 

The decision to go Pacific is going to consign this sim to be a niche within a niche, while ceding the more popular theatres to CLOD.

 

Seems nonsensical.

[Gambit21]

Honestly - I truly believe that you're incorrect in that assessment - and you and I have a different memory of the old days.

I ran Pacific co-ops all the time.

 

What would have sent the sim into a death spiral is another release of more 109's etc.

PTO was the right move.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Gambit21

[JG13_opcode]

Honestly - I truly believe that you're incorrect in that assessment - and you and I have a different memory of the old days.

I ran Pacific co-ops all the time.

 

What would have sent the sim into a death spiral is another release of more 109's etc.

PTO was the right move.

In your opinion

[VBF-12_Snake9]

It can't get worse player base than it is now. Lol

 

Tic tac toe would have been better than another Russian announcement.

 

In all seriousness, that's why I say two years in any theatre then move on to new (sales ) theatres. Not everyone is going to like everything. I didn't buy Bok, so you don't buy pacific. Lets call it even.

 

 

Ps. A shot of good ole American money is going to be good for il2. Lolol.

[LFL-EightyPLUS]

My 2 cents: We really need a chance of pace...we've heard the roar of the Bf109's to much allready..

And lets be honest: the only thing more boring then Endless Russian grass plains is endless Desert..

[dburne]

I am loving this sim, but will say I am most excited about the PTO myself! 

[Feathered_IV]

I'm hanging in there for the Pacific too.  Africa doesn't hold much interest for me for a flight sim.  Can't wait for a Zero again. 

[Gambit21]

In your opinion

Which differs from your posts how exactly?

[Gambit21]

I'm happy for you. You and your pacific types filled up maybe one server on hyper lobby? I can only think of Zekes/Wildcats.

Meanwhile there were dozens of other popular servers, mostly focusing on the European theatre.

The decision to go Pacific is going to consign this sim to be a niche within a niche, while ceding the more popular theatres to CLOD.

Seems nonsensical.

I'll have you know that myself, Seahawk89 and others created and hosted not only Pacific co-ops, but Eastern Front as well - no need to be so binary about this. We did our best to make use of everything the sim had to offer, and enjoyed changing things up.

 

Guess what - Eastern Front is a niche within a niche.

Guess what else, if your absolute favorite thing is 109's and 190's and you're fixated on that, then you'll have 3 full releases to keep you busy. If you're like me and not fixated and want the sim to actually expand, you'll have at least 5 releases and a greater variety of experiences to keep you busy. Hopefully beyond 5, but that sure as shti wasn't going to happen with a "hey everyone, give us $80 for more 109's and 190's!" announcement.

 

I'll be in the PTO 90% of the time but like before I won't be ignoring Russia. Some of my favorite co-ops that I created and hosted were on the Kuban map.

 

Further, I wouldn't read too much into Zekes vs Wilcats - how many people had the wherewithal to set up a server?

If there were hundreds of rooms (or even 50) on Hyperlobby and just that one PTO room then you might have a point.

As it stands there were relatively few rooms with any permanence, one of which was the popular Zekes vs Wildcats.

 

Further still, whenever I decided to host a PTO dogfight room as a change of pace from co-ops - it it filled up no problem.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Gambit21

[JG13_opcode]

Must've hit close to the truth to get such a reaction.

[Gambit21]

I'm not the one calling people sycophants because some developers didn't creat the proper fake world for me.

[sinned]

Pacific is a niche of the niche theatre for WW2 combat flight sim?

 

Really?

 

No wonder reply was "i know better than u"

[9./JG27DavidRed]

pacific is not a mistake...they need to give the lufthaters as well something to play

its doing it 2 or even 3times in a row, like with the russian front.

they did this just now, and wonder why they struggle to surive...