time has passed

[Potenz]

today looking in my hard drives i found an old backup folder for 1946, so i launch it again

and here is a little comparison and you can see how the industry has advanced. 

 

enjoy

 

Bf-109 F4 then and now:

 

Then

 

Now

 

Potz

[Finkeren]

Tbh despite the low poly count and primitive shading, the old IL2 graphics still look pretty damn good.

 

To think the core of that game is 13 years old.

 

By comparison, SWOTL was only 10 years old, when the original IL2 was released:

 

[Nil]

But it now have 250+ flyables.. that will take some time to catch up with (I too still have IL2 1946 + daidalos latest patch installed)

[Bando]

SWOTL.

 

 

Wow.

That brought back some memories.

[Mags]

I played SWOTL to death with my first PC in 1993. It was a blast!

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

One looks like the representation of an aircraft. The other looks like a fighter plane!

 

Oh, SWOTL! Someone should do a mashup video of BOS with SWOTL sound effects! For the old timers it would be hilarious. For young trolls and naysayers it would be a field day in the comments section.

Edited February 23, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf

[VBF-12_Snake9]

Miss those days when I could force 24x Anti-Aliasing on IL2 and make it look smooth as silk.  Now I need a new card, cause before this new patch 8x AA was bringing it to it's knees.  Has anyone seen a difference in turning off AA in game and forcing it through the card?  Might have to try that. 

[Bearcat]

Tbh despite the low poly count and primitive shading, the old IL2 graphics still look pretty damn good.

 

To think the core of that game is 13 years old.

 

By comparison, SWOTL was only 10 years old, when the original IL2 was released:

 

Il2 is still a very nice sim.. I fly it a few times a week still.. Some people talk about the graphicsa being dated.. but I think IL2 is still the pound for pound top dog of WWII sims. Nothing comes close when considering plane set, map set, theater set, graphics, online , offline, mission builders, and mod input.. as a total package.. Some sims do some things better.. some sims do several things better.. but no sim in existence yet does all the things that IL2 does proportionately.. Hopefully with long term support IL2BoS will come close.

[SYN_Luftwaffles]

I don't see the difference

[Zappatime]

Il2 4.09 modded is still my favourite toybox :-) coop play still a favourite pastime with my mate Zodwik, I hope il2BOS can capture that same fun and have the ability to make interesting missions, quickly. :-)

[ShamrockOneFive]

The differences are getting smaller... No question that Battle of Stalingrad takes the visuals to the next level and while in motion it's really quite impressive. In still images its very impressive too... but that IL-2 Bf109 looks fairly good in its own right and that is, as people are pointing out, over 10 years old now. Not bad at all for a 10 year old game and still very playable.

[EAF19_Charlie]

IL2 1946 is the pinnacle of all WW2 flight sims in my opinion and no other game will reach the dizzy heights that 1946 has and still does; not even BoS in its fledgling state or its future development.

 

I still play 1946 as regular as clockwork but I cannot say that I share the same enthusiasm,optimism or time for BoS.

[III/JG11_Tiger]

IL2 1946 is the pinnacle of all WW2 flight sims in my opinion and no other game will reach the dizzy heights that 1946 has and still does; not even BoS in its fledgling state or its future development.

 

I still play 1946 as regular as clockwork but I cannot say that I share the same enthusiasm,optimism or time for BoS.

A lot of developement went into IL2 by the time Il2 1946 arrived, but no doubt IL2 was a quantum leap forward in flight simming.

[smink1701]

I don't see the difference

You would if you were looking at the cockpits!!!

[DD_Arthur]

You would if you were looking at the cockpits!!!

 

Hmmmm.........I'd say the weakest part of the BoS '109 is the cockpit.  Just not up to the standard we've seen in the LaGG and IL2 so far.

 

 

In my opinion this is not enough of an advance over IL2 1946 HSFX.

 

[smink1701]

I would agree but still much better than IL2 1946.  Also, Im using Fifi's FlightFX settings (thanks again Fifi), and it makes a big difference.  I hope the dev team give the 109 cockpit some love before the official release.  

[II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33]

Using Nvida inspector to Force anti-analyzing does alot for Il2 infact I still play it everyday.

[DD_Arthur]

I would agree but still much better than IL2 1946.  Also, Im using Fifi's FlightFX settings (thanks again Fifi), and it makes a big difference.  I hope the dev team give the 109 cockpit some love before the official release.  

 

Fifi's settings =  :biggrin:  .  Quick vid I made at the weekend to show the games development to some squad mates;

 

 

And IL2 1946's  cockpit for the LaGG

 

 

Time really has passed for this

Edited February 27, 2014 by arthursmedley

[FuriousMeow]

Could someone explain what is really wrong with the 109 cockpit? 60 year old museum examples that are 60 years old without any upkeep will look 60 years old as they should, but not a few months old as they would have been back during WWII. I just don't know what is expected, but if it's the weathered look of today's cockpits then that is just a terrible misconception.

 

This is just one example, but I'd much rather a proper looking cockpit as it was back then over a terribly weathered museum version that's 60 years old and looks it.

 

Edited February 27, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

today looking in my hard drives i found an old backup folder for 1946, so i launch it again

and here is a little comparison and you can see how the industry has advanced. 

 

enjoy

 

Bf-109 F4 then and now:

 

Then

 

Now

 

Potz

that looks like jap cats new 109 mod? not the one from il21946?

[Potenz]

the top photo is the vainilla Il-2 1946 Bf-109 F4

[AX2]

Could someone explain what is really wrong with the 109 cockpit? 

 

I can´t see the ball in Zoom Out, 

must be painted in black.  

 

someone agree ???

 

 

The rest is perfect for me . 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mustang

[Emgy]

I also thought it was hard to spot the ball, compared to the museum pit pictures.

[VR-DriftaholiC]

Could someone explain what is really wrong with the 109 cockpit? 60 year old museum examples that are 60 years old without any upkeep will look 60 years old as they should, but not a few months old as they would have been back during WWII. I just don't know what is expected, but if it's the weathered look of today's cockpits then that is just a terrible misconception.

 

This is just one example, but I'd much rather a proper looking cockpit as it was back then over a terribly weathered museum version that's 60 years old and looks it.

 

Messerschmitt_Bf_109_Cockpit.jpg

 

I think this is an important point. 

[Finkeren]

Yeah. The weathering is the one point, where I think the otherwise stellar rendering in BoS misses the mark. Most planes in service at the time were at most a few months old and would have looked nearly brand new - maybe just a bit dirty.

[=69.GIAP=C0NAN]

You might be surprised how quickly a "new" airplane begins to look like crap. First consider the short cuts of wartime production. Within a week in any unit, parts from the new plane will be scattered around in other aircraft and vice versa. When any airplane goes down for maintenance, many of its parts get "canned" or cannibalized. Also, new airplanes are often bought with the stipulation that many parts will be from government stock - not manufacturer's. The brand new airplane may have an ADI that was first used new in an entirely different model of aircraft. Parts salvaged from wrecks will certainly go into maintenance stocks but also may end up back in the production pipeline once they have been checked out (hopefully!)

 

Knuckle-dragging wrench benders (NOT the crew chief) don't worry about pretty when working under time and leadership pressure just to make the damn thing fly - paint gets scraped, lunches and inflight snacks get spilled and stuff that is unidentifiable but greasy and dirt attracting comes out of nowhere. Dirty fingers touch everything and rearrange the smears and smudges on the instrument glass using oil and hydraulic fluid stained gloves to better suit the current lighting. And don't forget, everything tracked in on the boots gets redistributed every time the stick is pushed forward and "G" is reversed.

 

In short, it ain't new for long.

[FuriousMeow]

Yeah, they just leave everything dirty. No, they do not do that in the military. Especially not in aircraft where stray gunk could cause a critical failure. It gets cleaned up between missions.

Edited February 28, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Yeah, they just leave everything dirty. No, they do not do that in the military. Especially not in aircraft where stray gunk could cause a critical failure. It gets cleaned up between missions.

My 6 years of F-15E maintenance would disagree with you.

 

though we did our best to keep the cockpits FOD free, while in the AOR, it was not uncommon to find (insert pilot carried fod here)  nearly EVERY sortie. And dirt stays in ther euntil the part its collected on gets replaced.

Edited February 28, 2014 by SYN_Hooves

[FuriousMeow]

Guess we kept our HMMWVs cleaner. They weren't eat off the floor clean, but there wasn't grease and mud everywhere.

[FuriousMeow]

More cockpits, not exactly mud filled grease smeared MRE littered (although the last one would be strange since these are no longer in military service but flown frequently). You'll notice rust around the rudder pedals on the Dr1, that photo also indicates which Dr1 replica it is - N757FK so you can look up what year it was built.

Edited February 28, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Potenz]

hey guys my post was just meant to be a point on how this industry has advanced, nothing else, i just want to show

how good it has become, now we have all the eyecandy we always dremt about

Edited February 28, 2014 by GOAPotenz

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Guess we kept our HMMWVs cleaner. They weren't eat off the floor clean, but there wasn't grease and mud everywhere.

I dont think he is actually suggesting that the cockpits are filled with layers of mud.  But they get rather dirty, Hydro fluid and grease mix with dust to make some grimey cockpit surfaces.  But its not like if you dropped a nickel (which the y often did lol) that it would disappear in a inch of mud on the floor board.  I imagine a HMMWV was a fair bit worse than an F-15 cockpit.  Mine in Iraq was always full of dirt and shell casings, even after we cleaned it out. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

FM, you changed your profile pic.

 

With five years on Blackhawks, I can tell you the amount of FOD, rough handling, and just general wear and tear takes it's toll on an aircraft. They aren't beat to hell but they also aren't factory fresh for more than a month or two. I'm on a non-military helicopter now and there is grime below the floorboard which you can see through the bubble, including the 12mm socket which has been there as long as I can remember, because no one can get a hand down there to fish it out.

[Finkeren]

As I said: Grime and dirt, I have no problem with. It's the amounts of peeled of paint, scratches etc that's bothering me.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Plenty of that as well. Both military and civilian aircraft I've been associated with have interior and exterior wear. Private aircraft are the only ones I've ever seen that stay in fairly pristine condition. Military aircraft in peacetime are better but still worn. Combat aircraft, which I've also been associated with, much less so.

[Finkeren]

Well HerrMurff, since you have practical experience in the field and I don't, I'm gonna take your word for it. I can't quite wrap my head around, that brand new aircraft would start looking more than just well worn so fast, but I have to concede, that I really have no expertice to be talking from.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I too will concede, as I didn't make it apparent (after reading my responses above), that I agree the gross wear of some surfaces is somewhat overdone in BOS and combat flight sims in general. Light to moderate wear should be the norm. Pictures of aircraft late in the war suggest more than moderate wear was common as the end drew near. Pristine aircraft and gross wear are both, generally, unrealistic in my opinion.

Edited February 28, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf

[Panzerlang]

I've had my cockpit up and running for about a month and the floor and pedals looks like a tip. And that's with a hoover handy.

 

The monitor is clean and shiny though.

[Sokol1]

 

 

 

 

 

It would even be weird, if this plane cockpit - that represent one used around the clock on Stalingrad front, November 1942 - where freshly painted, washed, polished and shiny...

 

It's fine these scratches, mud(?).

 

il-2 (original) Bf 109 cockpit, September 2001 - "Leaked" Beta - my first (il-2) online kill.

 

In a very crap Celeron/Nvidia 16MB PC. Not bad.

 

BTW - A "balanced" game: Bf109 x Bf109.

 

Sokol1

 

Edited February 28, 2014 by Sokol1

[ATAG_Slipstream]

Possibly not the reaction the OP was expecting!  il2 is/was a classic, and has stood the test of time very well. We wouldn't be here without it IMO.