Jump to content
JonRedcorn

The downfall of the simulation community

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

 

But that Okay.

 

If a person is looking for "just a video game", then they really shouldn't be buying or spending their time in a complex desktop flight simulation, right?  They should be spending their money on something else, because it's not for them.    Hard-core study-sims aren't looking to entice those people in the first place.  If someone wants to use that kind of software then they're going to have to spend time learning it. i.e. if not, and someone want a Tomcat video game, and doesn't want a comprehesive simulation, there is probaby a Top Gun game for them somewhere.

 

 

Which is why the flight sim community is so small - because so many have come to define it as you do.

 

I'm not finding fault with DCS. ED makes a study sim, fine. I'm just saying that if that is the only thing that gets to be a 'flight sim' and everything else is derided or discounted, then people will do exactly as you say, spend their money elsewhere. And this is what has been happening for the last 15 years.

 

Also , whether people want to admit it or not, all these things are just video games. They come in all flavours.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Cpt_Cool said:

 

I agree with the overall quality of the stuff we have today. However, EAW did one particular thing much much better than our favorite sim today. 250 aircraft battles with heavy bombers, escorts, and interceptors approaching realistic scale. That's the number one thing I miss from that game.

 

 

 

It may have looked good, but the realism level was arcade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Pudu.  Well, as I said before, you want 'Flight Simulation' to be easy and light fare that appeals to the masses, but if it is truly living up to it's goal of actually being a simulation, that's impossible.

 

Quote

Also , whether people want to admit it or not, all these things are just video games. They come in all flavours.

 

If someone doesn't like a 'video game' with a 1000 page manual, that just happens to model all the systems of a real aircraft, then hopefully there are other 'video games' for them.

Edited by SeaSerpent
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Pudu said:

 

Also , whether people want to admit it or not, all these things are just video games. They come in all flavours.

 

I thought that SeaSepent's point was exactly that. They come in all flavours, so people can find a game of the level of complexity - and associated hardware choices - that suits them. 

 

Whether you choose to call these games  "flight sims" is to me academic, as is the question of the boundaries of the "flight sim community", whatever that is supposed to be. Is WT a flight sim or an aeroplane game? Who cares? It is an option that people have.  

 

I agree strongly with SS that trying to please all possible segments [with one product] is a mistake - it almost always is in business. We have already been some way down that road here with the dreaded "unlocks" and look how that turned out. 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

I thought that SeaSepent's point was exactly that. They come in all flavours, so people can find a game of the level of complexity - and associated hardware choices - that suits them. 

 

Whether you choose to call these games  "flight sims" is to me academic, as is the question of the boundaries of the "flight sim community", whatever that is supposed to be. Is WT a flight sim or an aeroplane game? Who cares? It is an option that people have.  

 

I agree strongly with SS that trying to please all possible segments [with one product] is a mistake - it almost always is in business. We have already been some way down that road here with the dreaded "unlocks" and look how that turned out. 

 

 

Well the discussion here is about " The downfall of the simulation community" so I think it has relevance in this thread.

 

I'm not advocating that one product has to apply to all. But when players needlessly alienate others  (how does my using autostart in anyway affect your game enjoyment?), then it leads down a path which is unhealthy for the game and the genre.

 

If people buy DCS and then bitch and complain that it's too complex and they should remove all the buttons for everyone and force everyone to use 'labels on' ... then you have an argument. But I don't often hear that. No one is telling you how to enjoy your video game.

 

This unyielding 'all-or-nothing for everyone' attitude is bad for flight sims, in my opinion.

Edited by Pudu
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

It may have looked good, but the realism level was arcade.

 

Yeah taken as a sum pf parts I totally agree and I am at peace with the current situation. But if we are talking strictly about possible numbers of aircraft present, EAW was way more realistic, and BOX is (lol) arcade. It doesnt ammount to much anyhow, but i hope that someday down the road its possible for BOX to significantly increase numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Pudu said:

 

If people buy DCS and then bitch and complain that it's too complex and they should remove all the buttons fro everyone and force everyone to use 'labels on' ... then you have an argument. But I don't often hear that. No one is telling you how to enjoy your video game.

 

 

I understand your argument if all you are saying that you wish that there were more choices available to suit your needs, and that provide a level of complexity equivalent to what was available in the 90's, which was a lot easier.  But if you're talking P3D or DCS, that kind of fidelity wasn't available back then and perhaps it shouldn't be included in the discussion at all, because those are desktop flight simulators, way beyond those 80s/90s video games, and in some cases actually used as ground familiarization tools by actual airline or military customers.  Instead of bemoaning the :"death of simulation", maybe we should be happy that some of these things are available for public consumer use at all.   20 years ago, instead of paying $70, you'd be spending a couple million, and you'd only find something equivalent at a training facility.   This is definitely my Golden Age of flight sim.  These are the kinds of flight simulations that I could only have dreamed about having when I was a kid playing some Sid Meier Microprose airplane game on my Apple II.

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cpt_Cool said:

 

Yeah taken as a sum pf parts I totally agree and I am at peace with the current situation. But if we are talking strictly about possible numbers of aircraft present, EAW was way more realistic, and BOX is (lol) arcade. It doesnt ammount to much anyhow, but i hope that someday down the road its possible for BOX to significantly increase numbers.

 

That realism test only works if you’re talking about the 1 feature that you like and ignore absolutely everything else. 

 

I doubt that BoX will ever go that direction.  They value flyable aircraft over AI, and developing a flyable B-17 is probably not a good financial option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every one wants BOX to be able to have more planes in the air.  Most of all the developers!  The question should be what would you rather have:  250 planes at EAW level of fidelity or 80 planes at BOX level of fidelity.  I'll take the 80 please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I understand your argument if all you are saying that you wish that there were more choices available to suit your needs, and that provide a level of complexity equivalent to what was available in the 90's, which was a lot easier.  But if you're talking P3D or DCS, that kind of fidelity wasn't available back then and perhaps it shouldn't be included in the discussion at all, because those are desktop flight simulators, way beyond those 80s/90s video games, and in some cases actually used as ground familiarization tools by actual airline or military customers.  Instead of bemoaning the :"death of simulation", maybe we should be happy that some of these things are available for public consumer use at all.   20 years ago, instead of paying $70, you'd be spending a couple million, and you'd only find something equivalent at a training facility.   This is definitely my Golden Age of flight sim.  These are the kinds of flight simulations that I could only have dreamed about having when I was a kid playing some Sid Meier Microprose airplane game on my Apple II.

 

At the risk of speaking for others, I think we'd all agree with you - DCS and BoX are fantastic games, otherwise we wouldn't be here. I spend as much time playing DCS as I do BoX or 1946. 

 

Falcon 4 came out in 1998 and was arguably more complex than several current DCS modules and BoX. I think any flight sim that people enjoy/enjoyed playing is allowed in this discussion.

 

The question remains, would it be better if there were more people here, better if there was more competition,  better if flight sims had a bigger market share with the concomitant larger choice of theatres, levels of detail, range of peripherals, people making campaigns, mods, more servers, etc. I'm not sure, but I think so. I would definitely be happier if I had somewhere to fly that isn't Russia (no offense to Russia) and hadn't had to wait for 20+ months for an MCG Gunfighter.

 

8 minutes ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

Every one wants BOX to be able to have more planes in the air.  Most of all the developers!  The question should be what would you rather have:  250 planes at EAW level of fidelity or 80 planes at BOX level of fidelity.  I'll take the 80 please.

 

This isn't facetious, as I never play online, but can we have 80 BoX planes in the air?  I didn't realize the game engine was that forgiving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The question remains, would it be better if there were more people here, better if there was more competition,  better if flight sims had a bigger market share with the concomitant larger choice of theatres, levels of detail, range of peripherals, people making campaigns, mods, more servers, etc.

 

I think there would be very few people that would answer no to that.   But I remember going to the software store in the shopping mall and spending time looking at the shelves.  They'd inevitably have a copy of whatever current version of Microsoft Flight Simulator.   They'd have something like Il-2, or Red Baron 3D, maybe Falcon 3 or 4.   Maybe there would be 1 or 2 offerings from Janes, like Longbow.  In other words, there would be a couple of things to choose from.  I think nostalgia for the Good Old Days tends to make people think that they were better than they actually were.

 

I feel there are a lot more choices now than I had back in those days.  In the ultimate of first world problems, I actually have the "problem" of having so many choices in flight sim that I have spread myself too thinly between too many things and not really gotten to the level I want to be at with any of them.  If I decide to do Flight Sim tonight, what will I fly?   Should I visit my pals in Il-2 and fly the mighty Yak-1 Series 69, should I fly a Helicopter, and if so, which one, or should I keep working on carrier traps.  Maybe I should get busy reading one of those zillion page manuals?   Or I can correct someone who is wrong on the Il-2 forum.  Don't know yet, but one thing I know is that if I choose to do something with flight sim, I won't be bored.

 

 

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pudu said:

Falcon 4 came out in 1998 and was arguably more complex than several current DCS modules and BoX.

You forgot to say that it was as mature of a product as CloD upon release.

 

1 hour ago, Pudu said:

The question remains, would it be better if there were more people here, better if there was more competition,  better if flight sims had a bigger market share with the concomitant larger choice of theatres, levels of detail, range of peripherals, people making campaigns, mods, more servers, etc. I'm not sure, but I think so.

To reiterate @SeaSerpent point, I too think that today you have vastly more choices of what you can get. Do you want a game? How much into simulation do you want to go? In 1990, even the most complex games could be mastered in one or two hours and you knew enough to use your 3 button CH stick, go "flying" and blow up stuff in a way intended by the game. Today, the spectrum from "game" to "most real simulation" has become wide enough to separate what is a plainly recreational activity from what is actually a pretty darn demanding fulltime job. (I don't know if I ever get proficient on all the stuff the DCS F-18 comes with.) Getting a lot of people to that end of the spectrum where what you are doing is basically that fulltime job and that just doesn't work that well in terms of getting a lot of players. It is the diversity of the offerings that dilute what is basically the same clientele, everyone to his niche.

 

Also, when you're in your 40's or 50's, already then you can't compare your view to WW2 aviation as the 20 year olds of today have. Just ask them about the topic. Not even their teachers know a bloody thing about it. The kids of today certainly never read Biggles. It is also less likely that they read other, more "rich in content" literature about the topic. If you are missing that "bonding" why should they care more for it than just another option of blowing up stuff? And if the sim is realistic, blowing up stuff (other that yourself) is not very straightforward. To get people involved, you first have to get them interested in the topic as such. The more the game helps doing that, the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were far more than a couple of things to choose from, that's not even debatable.

 

58 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I think there would be very few people that would answer no to that.   But I remember going to the software store in the shopping mall and spending time looking at the shelves.  They'd inevitably have a copy of whatever current version of Microsoft Flight Simulator.   They'd have something like Il-2, or Red Baron 3D, maybe Falcon 3 or 4.   Maybe there would be 1 or 2 offerings from Janes, like Longbow.  In other words, there would be a couple of things to choose from.  I think nostalgia for the Good Old Days tends to make people think that they were better than they actually were.

 

I feel there are a lot more choices now than I had back in those days.  In the ultimate of first world problems, I actually have the "problem" of having so many choices in flight sim that I have spread myself too thinly between too many things and not really gotten to the level I want to be at with any of them.  If I decide to do Flight Sim tonight, what will I fly?   Should I visit my pals in Il-2 and fly the mighty Yak-1 Series 69, should I fly a Helicopter, and if so, which one, or should I keep working on carrier traps.  Maybe I should get busy reading one of those zillion page manuals?   Or I can correct someone who is wrong on the Il-2 forum.  Don't know yet, but one thing I know is that if I choose to do something with flight sim, I won't be bored.

 

 

 

 

Well, while you are patting yourself on the back, take comfort in the fact that arrogant, dismissive elitism is definitely the best way to keep your current panoply of choices cheap, high quality and viable. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its the lack of women, we are doomed to dissapear

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pudu said:

There were far more than a couple of things to choose from, that's not even debatable.

 

 

 

Well, while you are patting yourself on the back, take comfort in the fact that arrogant, dismissive elitism is definitely the best way to keep your current panoply of choices cheap, high quality and viable. 

 

I'm not worried about that.  If the kind of simulations I'm talking about start pandering to the masses for the sake of more sales, they might get cheaper, but they won't be as high quality or viable to the demographic that they have proven to be succesful with, anymore.  I believe the term is called "Selling Out".  It's not really patting myself on the back, it's being appreciative of what I've got.  What will kill the hobby is when Flight Simulators stop trying to be Flight Simulators.  But even then, for example, you've mentioned the Tomcat, and autostarts: So go ahead and hit LWin+Home, and go shoot down some Migs, in single player.  That's there for you.  They've incorporated that option for flight simmers like you.  Heck, I've never looked at it before, but some of the modules even have a 'Game Mode'.  And there is a whole module with a bunch of simplified, non-clickable aircraft in it called Flaming Cliffs 3. And In Il-2, Rise of Flight, and a couple of others, you can start the engine by pressing 'E'.  How much more accessible does it need to be?  Maybe if people would stop always looking for the bad, they could actually start appreciating the good.  Flight sims range from hard-core to on the verge of arcade-like gamey, but no matter what level they're going for, if a player is determined to always find something wrong, then it doesn't matter what offerings are available.  Nothing can please them.

 

P.S. There is another thing to mention that I just remembered.  You had specifically called out Falcon 4.0 as one of the worst in terms of accessibility.  I too couldn't get into it.  It was an overwhelming amount of complexity compared to the things I was doing at the time.  But that was then, this is now.  We didn't have Youtube tutorials back then.  If there were support forums, and maybe there were, I wasn't aware of them.  I couldn't get on "comms" with people and ask questions.  I didn't have anyone to teach me things.  All of that has changed. 

 

Edited by SeaSerpent
removed response to raaaaaid.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The endless quest to find things that are wrong, and then refusing to play the game upon finding them, is the most likely reason why fewer people are playing flight sims (assuming that that claim is true).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pudu said:

There were far more than a couple of things to choose from, that's not even debatable.

 

 

 

Well, while you are patting yourself on the back, take comfort in the fact that arrogant, dismissive elitism is definitely the best way to keep your current panoply of choices cheap, high quality and viable. 

Yes, in fact many servers are full at 84.  I rounded down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

Every one wants BOX to be able to have more planes in the air.  Most of all the developers!  The question should be what would you rather have:  250 planes at EAW level of fidelity or 80 planes at BOX level of fidelity.  I'll take the 80 please.

 

Yep - but EAW did things that no sim has matched since, BoX or DCS or anyone else. Sure we can't compare flight modeling etc which I know is what you're referring to...

But remember those briefings? Remember that interface? It was SO WELL DONE.

The team that developed EAW understood immersion in a way that Oleg completely missed the boat on, then Loft came and failed to grasp just as completely.

 

If Jason had been in charge from day one we'd have a much better sim right now frankly.

It's a game of catch up in baby steps to slowly undo the lack of vision that BoX was born with.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

But remember those briefings? Remember that interface? It was SO WELL DONE.

 

 

No, I don't remember them.  That's how important that stuff is in a combat flight sim.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Yep - but EAW did things that no sim has matched since, BoX or DCS or anyone else. Sure we can't compare flight modeling etc which I know is what you're referring to...

But remember those briefings? Remember that interface? It was SO WELL DONE.

The team that developed EAW understood immersion in a way that Oleg completely missed the boat on, then Loft came and failed to grasp just as completely.

 

If Jason had been in charge from day one we'd have a much better sim right now frankly.

It's a game of catch up in baby steps to slowly undo the lack of vision that BoX was born with.

 

I also remember the M25 London orbital motorway on the EAW map - which did not get built until the 1970s, plus the decimal coinage on one of the loading screens. Both schoolboy errors.

 

It was a fun game, no argument there: but that is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CFS2 should get an honorable mention too for its interface elements.  They did a great job there.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

The team that developed EAW understood immersion in a way that Oleg completely missed the boat on, then Loft came and failed to grasp just as completely.

 

If Jason had been in charge from day one we'd have a much better sim right now frankly.

It's a game of catch up in baby steps to slowly undo the lack of vision that BoX was born with.

Wow, no truer words have been spoken here. Bravo. I will add that Jason's vision and 1C's hard work have brought the GBS to a very high level. Now, as Jason doesn't want to hear me say again, " if they would just invest in the AI, make it interesting and fun to fight, they would be able to tap into a vast market of SPs that are sitting on the sidelines waiting to see if they do. Baby steps have been happening with the AI in the GBS, but until they go full bore and do an overhaul and include, moral, more varying skill levels, pilot plane damage assessment, number of opposing forces consideration(run like hell if 10 to 1or vice versa), where is the AI geographically(friendly or foe territory), ammo left, fuel left, these are all things that make the AI great in other Combat Flight Sims, and it makes the AI fun to fight and non repetitive. I still hope that 1C gets there, but as a SP I am mostly waiting and looking at the beautiful models they are producing.

 

S!Blade<>< 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Oleg completely missed the boat on

Oleg and his team made a game that divided flight sim world into "before IL-2 Sturmovik" and "after IL-2 Sturmovik". Briefings and interface were fine. I still remember certain missions from original SP campaigns. It was a breakthrough. If it wasn't fo the original IL-2 we wouldn't have BoX today. Moreover it's still quite popular and has a big community.

 

Loft didn't fit this project. I'm glad it didn't turn into some MMO with unlocks, grinding and all that kind of crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly has nothing to do with quality of air sims!  Today's top shelf offerings are first class.

 

As many posters have mentioned it is a case of demographic shift and interest.   The baby boomer gen grew up with comics based on WW2 and moved onto history books and movies of that time when they got older, not to mention their family connections who actually served during the war.  Most of the current generation have little to no interest in WW2 and no personal connection to those times.    

 

The trend in Oz education is away from actual history to little more than anti-white male propaganda while pushing the GW, same sex marriage, any other culture but our own barrow.  I can only guess that the contemporary younger flight sim gamer must be interested in the era for some other reason or from an interest in general aviation.   The young generation seems to find computers and electronic gadgets a breeze so it is not complexity of interaction via peripherals or game menus etc. 

 

So i'm guessing the "hay-day" of flight sims coincided with a particular age range of the baby boomer gen.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Felix58 said:

The trend in Oz education is away from actual history to little more than anti-white male propaganda while pushing the GW, same sex marriage, any other culture but our own barrow.  I can only guess that the contemporary younger flight sim gamer must be interested in the era for some other reason or from an interest in general aviation.   The young generation seems to find computers and electronic gadgets a breeze so it is not complexity of interaction via peripherals or game menus etc. 

 

 

I can confirm this first hand as my youngest son is doing his teaching degree at the moment and wow some of the things he tells me about his courses, would certainly make you raise your eyebrows.

Edited by bzc3lk
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

It was a fun game, no argument there: but that is all.

 

It was the best WWII sim we had until IL2 came along - the end.

 

In the immersion department better after IL2 came along. In the end flight models, ballistics, damage model etc won out and I left EAW...but I still miss things that it offered that were never seen again.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Felix58 said:

The trend in Oz education is away from actual history to little more than anti-white male propaganda while pushing the GW, same sex marriage, any other culture but our own barrow.

 

That sounds nothing like my education. Did they just change everything in the past few days while I wasn’t looking?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt simulators to day is better than before, but before I could sit and do the same qmb mission over and over again for hours just enjoying being in a seat where pilots of WW2 where before me. 

Personally that is not the case anymore, MP in the old days where a huge mix of loners and squads , numbers we can only dream of today in a lot of servers. The game played out in a totally different way. Now with max 80 players in a server , and small maps, you are basically dead meat if you do not fly the fastest airplane or have the newest tech for spotting. 

As I see it the numbers are not growing, since people leave in the same phase people come.

Before I think a lot more joined because of historical interest and fewer choices. Now people can simulate shooting games without spending a lot of money in hardware just to be able to play. A good example is WT, It involve all ages and only depends on a relatively good internet connection. 

For me this series GOT no interest. I think in the long run you only enjoy box if you fly fighters and evolve your skills in them. Now I get the old feeling back flying SU 25 and choppers in DCS. It give in SP just perfect combination of failure and win. You can beat the aa but only if your smart about it

Edited by LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main thing I miss is scale. 

IL2 1946 with huge bomber formations and being able to weave in and out at contrails height in a P-47 and then seeing a schwarme of 190's heading towards us was a great buzz. 

 

I also loved playing on Warclouds where often you would have a huge group of bomber pilot's join, all take off from a distant base to the target to gain altitude and then a similar group of fighter pilot's forming up at altitude to meet the bomber formation and the slow progress to the target in the hope the enemy didn't find you. This was great. It didn't matter if you never got into combat, it just felt like you were part of history, flying with your group to protect a large formation of human bomber pilot's, get to the target and get back again..... but then other times you were found.... and TeamSpeak went wild with shouts for help, contact, bandit, bogey.... It was great :)

 

The main thing though during those great community events was Hyperlobby and without that, a common hub to view all servers, it is difficult to get that buzz back. 

 

Maybe someone should make a new Hyperlobby for all the flight Sims and start gathering all the strays into one place again? 

 

I miss the large formations though, especially B17, B24 bomber streams with 47's and 51's weaving in and out.... ❤️

❤️

Edited by Mysticpuma
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

‘Thanks for the update!

I missed your remark due to the fact your on the ignore list. 

And I just recalled why. Anyway a well put remark. I give you that. Putting things out of contex is your speciality. But I can be clearer. 

Since I have no interest in fighters this brand does not suit me as well as others. 

For those who do like fighters. Well I get why they like the game. Because it is well done

Edited by LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

Putting things out of contex is your speciality. But I can be clearer. 

 

There is nothing out of context about my remark.  You seem to feel the need to announce, on a weekly schedule, that this game is not for you.  I was just thanking you for keeping us up to date.

 

BTW, there are plenty of strike aircraft and light bombers in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy Cow, Batman, Lufeskunte, are you kidding me, Il-2 is oozing over with bombers and bomber guys.  We've got the He-111, and the Ju-88, and the legendary Stuka.  The Pe-2, the Il-2, the BF-110.  There are guys that fly nothing but!  Even schmucks like me who primarily fly single-seat fighters sometimes get a kick out of flying bombers for a change of pace.  There are entire squadrons dedicated to nothing but bombers.  Like I said in some comment earlier, you get into flight sim, what you put forth.  If you like doing close air support in DCS with Vikhrs, that's all good, but don't be all dogmatic about bombers in Il-2 Sturmovik, because you are simply wrong.

 

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

Bombers in flight sims over the last 20 years are bit like this. 

10285701390.jpg

 

Yes, I miss the old days when bombers were...um...

 

hqdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

Il-2 is oozing over with bombers

 

Well, from my point of view that's kind of an exaggeration. The Bf110 is no bomber, by the way, but the A-20 can take its spot on your list. The Il-2 is more of a ground attack aircraft.

 

Oozing with bombers is not when we get a Me262, which in terms of numbers operational and effect on the war is pretty much zero, but we don't have an Il-4, Tu-2, Do217, Ju188 or just a later Ju88 - let alone any of the major players of the Western Allies bombing effort.

Bomber guys basically have three or four types to play with, with little or no upgrade as the war goes on. I don't share their frustration, but it's understandable to me.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JtD said:

 

Bomber guys basically have three or four types to play with, with little or no upgrade as the war goes on. I don't share their frustration, but it's understandable to me.

 

Bomber guys got upgrades in every module except Bodenplatte.  And Bodenplatte is not lacking for ways to move mud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

And Bodenplatte is not lacking for ways to move mud.

 

But to be fair, there’s a difference between ground attack and level bombing.

 

That being said, I do like the tactical focus of GBS. Especially the huge potential for combined arms MP now that we have CaP.

 

As for Bodenplatte, I’m willing to bet that the B-25 will be made flyable at some point (I mean, look at the Ju-52), and adding jet technology to the game opens the doors for the Ar-234 down the road.

 

And IIRC the Brisfit and Halbie will be capable of performing level bombing in FC.

Edited by Pb_Cybermat47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deleted@32648

The campaign in BoX offers a huge amount of aircraft and squadrons....that offers pretty much the same soulless a or b experience (depending on ground attack aircraft or fighter), on repeat. All those pretty squadron badges serve no purpose after you select your squadron, and there's no option to write your own history?

 

I'd rather fewer aircraft and squadrons but with more depth in all the things people have already mentioned (morale, AI, aircrew etc.).. I mean I assume the original Il2 started out with the intention of focusing on the Il2 in particular and doing that the best it could didn't it? ( I assume because I didn't know the first release of it).

 

B17 was briliant because it gave you a connection with the aircraft and crew. You didn't have the option of a Lancaster, B24, or anything else, but you weren't stuck just flying and using a point and shoot bombsight and having no idea who your crew were. And you could level bomb/navigate.

 

F19 stealth fighter - the one aircraft but you had all the radar stuff going on that made you think. ( I do remember getting a stupid amount of air kills in that game though)

 

But BoX is what it is, and I don't beleive the PR any more. I hope it comes good because obviously the flight aspects and modelling is superb and there are clearly some really skilled people working on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...