Jump to content
J3Hetzer

What happened to flight sims?

Recommended Posts

When I started my PC adventure back in 1994 there were literally thousands into combat flight sims. Red Baron over 56k modems had hundreds of professionals playing online and it only got better as the prices of hardware dropped. The golden era had a large number of WW2 vets playing too, obviously most of them are gone now though. But since the heady days of Oleg's original IL2 the genre has been slowly dying. Anyone got any idea why? Is it a generational thing with flight sims being too difficult to learn, or too many young gamers unable to afford the hardware?

Share this post


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

Warthunder


Gah, the Fortnight of sims. Is it really as simple as that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, J3Hetzer said:


Gah, the Fortnight of sims. Is it really as simple as that?

 

I honestly think that War Thunder has done more good than bad. It’s gotten people more interested in flight sims - most people I know who are interested in IL-2 started off with War Thunder, and that’s what led to their interest in IL-2.

 

Anyways, there are still thousands playing flight sims, they just mostly play single player.

Edited by [Pb]Cybermat47
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

 

I honestly think that War Thunder has done more good than bad. It’s gotten people more interested in flight sims - most people I know who are interested in IL-2 started off with War Thunder, and that’s what led to their interest in IL-2.

 

And yet even the WW2 MP struggles to fill more than a handful of servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J3Hetzer said:

 

And yet even the WW2 MP struggles to fill more than a handful of servers.

 

Like I said, players these days mainly do single player.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

 

Like I said, players these days mainly do single player.


You've lost me there. You didn't say, plus WT is MP only, so I don't see a connection with that bringing players into IL2 who then turn into SP pilots. More likely that, as robin says, it's taken most of the players who would otherwise have got into sims.

Edited by J3Hetzer
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much higher level of detail than the old sims, but at the cost of much less gameplay than the old sims. 

 

They are seen as boring now and in many respects deservedly so.  A video game tv show in my country relentlessly takes the piss out of one of their correspondents on-screen, each time he has to review a flight sim.  He just hangs his head and says yeah.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

Much higher level of detail than the old sims, but at the cost of much less gameplay than the old sims. 

 

They are seen as boring now and in many respects deservedly so.  A video game tv show in my country relentlessly takes the piss out of one of their correspondents on-screen, each time he has to review a flight sim.  He just hangs his head and says yeah.


I have to say, if I didn't play DiD I would become bored very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J3Hetzer said:

You've lost me there. You didn't say, 

 

I put it an edit shortly after I first posted, you may have missed it.

 

1 hour ago, J3Hetzer said:

plus WT is MP only, so I don't see a connection with that bringing players into IL2 who then turn into SP pilots. More likely that, as robin says, it's taken most of the players who would otherwise have got into sims.

 

WT has some singleplayer, but it is mainly MP.

 

As for the connection between WT MP and IL-2 SP, it could be that people are using IL-2 for SP and WT for MP.

 

But speculation aside, the facts as I know them are that WT is getting people my age (16 - 20) interested in flight sims, and the combination of the multiplayer population and the sales data I’ve had access to strongly suggests a largely SP-focused playerbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to flight sims is that games developers found that other types of software sold better. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that I have a 16 year old joystick sitting on my desk says enough, I think.

 

Microsoft are the ones who “killed” mainstream flightsim peripherals in the mid 2000’s by discontinuing the Sidewinder line, partly because of poor sales and party because they wanted their Xbox console’s XInput (with gamepad rumble) to supersede DirectInput (with force feedback). Other peripheral companies such as Saitek, Thrustmaster and Logitech never really filled the gap Microsoft left, their products either being cheap plastic crap or far too expensive for a mainstream gamer to pick up. With force feedback technology in the hands of a patent troll and joystick inputs themselves tied to a legacy DirectX library, it’s easy to see why innovation and money in that market dried up.

 

Flightsims themselves followed suit, really, and to this day IL-2 1946 and FSX are the last two “true” flightsims with mass market appeal (Red Baron 3D never really did... sorry). Both also still have an active community going through their Steam rereleases, and probably still the best value for money if you have a fleeting interest in flying.

 

I do believe that FS2020, VR and haptic controllers have a chance to change that over the next few years, provided that VR gets a killer app such as Half-Life 3. Joysticks, throttles and pedals will never make a comeback outside of the flightsim enthusiast market (that is: here).

Share this post


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

people get old and die too!☹️

I think everybody is neglecting this, but it is the truth.

 

What the cause of this is we can only guess, but fact is not much young players are in this genre.  Warthunder and world of warplanes type of games, never I did play them, but if these do have lots of youngsters then here lays the cause why old style classic combat flysims are dying. 

 

Personally, based on observations on my children, I think: 

no interest in WW1 & 2 history, Joystick I’m not going to buy that, pfff to complex, and do not forget for us oldtimers  flying and military did have an complete different meaning, then for the youth now. While we could be hysterical  on 1c, that an Albatros DIII is missing an rivet, they want it equipped with an 155mm canon, the difference in wanting an historic right game or gaming and having fun. 🙂   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

What happened to flight sims is that games developers found that other types of software sold better. 


When Mad Otter canned their new WarThunder-like Red Baron in favour of a mobile cash grab loot box fantasy RPG, I cracked one open for the WWI flightsim in general. Market forces at work.

 

They will make a comeback, eventually. When society is no longer built purely around profit and holodecks are available to all. I’m sure that WWI dogfighting skills will come in handy against the Romulans, so all the kids will be playing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ED is going to introduce a separate product called MAC. They too are trying to make flight sims more accessible. Fortunately il-2 is already more down to Earth if one adapts the settings, uses autopilot etc. MAC will most probably not compete with il-2 because it depicts another era. If it were not for the Russian dev teams there would not be any true flight sims by now! 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe ultra-high rez and full FOV VR will lead to a resurgence in the future (hopefully). I'll probably be dead by then though. :(

Oh well, maybe the passion will still be there in my next life (if I can't get out of coming back to this particular cesspit of a world. 😄 ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To expand on my earlier rather glib answer, people may be trying to answer the wrong question here. Maybe instead we should ask why there were so many successful flight sims (in particular air combat sims) for a few years around the turn of the century. I think this is intimately tied up with the history of gaming hardware and software. The first commercially-successful games were found on arcade machines, and on simple 1980s first-generation home computers, and were abstract, and two-dimensional (e.g. Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, or PacMan). That was all the hardware could do - or at least it was all it could do unless you were prepared to put in the sort of radical thinking and hard work that  David Braben and Ian Bell did with the original Elite. And even 3D outliers like Elite were still simplistic abstractions of the scenario they were trying to create in the players imaginations. It was only later, when the hardware advanced, and the software to put it to its best use became more accessible that actually modelling a 'realistic' 3D world became possible.  At this point, games developers, looking for ways to exploit the newly available tech, decided that emulating 'exciting' themes from the real world was the way to go. It didn't take a lot of thought to hit on air combat (or perhaps more accurately to take the abstractions and simplifications out of Elite and go back to the dogfight-style air combat it was clearly based on). Recreating simulations of 'real world' battles seemed an obvious way to go, and was no doubt easy to sell to investors, familiar with Hollywood blockbuster themes. So for a while, 'simulation' was king, or at least held a core position in the market, probably simply because game developers tended to follow the herd, and often lacked the imagination to try anything new. This wasn't to last though. The new tech made it possible to not just emulate the 'real' world, but to create new ones, with only lip-service to emulating reality. Whole new genres (e.g. First-Person Shooters) emerged which from a superficial perspective might look like 'simulations' but were in actuality not emulating anything except each other, and modelling nothing but 'FPS-world', or whatever, with its own rules and expected behaviour. Video games didn't need to 'simulate' anything to become successful, as their potential customers were already familiar with the invented reality of the genres now becoming dominant. 

 

And from the developers' perspectives, attempting to simulate historical reality adds multiple layers of complexity not encountered in other genres. Nobody criticises Rocket League for not representing the real-world sport accurately, because no such sport exists. It is an invention, purely for video game entertainment, and need only ever be assessed as such. Try to emulate WW2 air combat though, and you spend half your life looking for historical data on the usage of 150 octane fuel, or whatever it is that is needed to satisfy us rivet-counters. And at the end of it, you will find yourself with a simulation that can't be tuned in the way that abstract invented-for-video-gaming software can be, for best 'gameplay'. modelling historical reality is hard work, and often counter-productive if the object is to entertain a market intimately familiar with the abstractions and inventions of the invented 'reality' of other video-game genres. Simulations in general have become largely a niche product (driving sims being the exception, possibly because driving is so much part of the real-world experience of most people, sustaining the demand for a chance to do on-screen things that traffic laws etc don't permit on the real roads), and like other niche products, attract the lower levels of investment commensurate with their lower expected returns. And lower investment in turn means that air-combat simulators simply can't compete on 'eye-candy' terms with mainstream products.  If 1C-777 had the sort of funding available to the developers of Grand Theft Auto (which incidentally started off as a 2D top-down abstraction, before going 3D in its invented crime-infested dystopian 'reality') they could, I'm sure, make a better-looking simulation - and add whole new layers of complexity to it. That is unlikely to happen though, since the same level of investment aimed at the imaginary-reality-created-for-gaming genres still promises a better return.

 

Having said this, I don't subscribe to simplistic views of 'the market', and to the assumptions about the inevitable dominance of mainstream products that such simplistic views imply. It appears that even when competing with mainstream video-game production, there is room for historically-based simulations, if the potential customers are willing to accept that there are compromises that need to be made.  Rather than looking back to a 'golden age' of air-combat simulation which seems largely (in my opinion) to have been the consequence of a horde of rather unimaginative game developers following each other, as yet unaware of the potential for alternatives, we should look forward to seeing what the niche market can still support. And do our best to encourage it, by keeping the rivet-counting to a half-reasonable level, and not demanding that our small-budget favourites must match the latest blockbuster eye-candy. Bye and large, the air-combat simulator community seems to be relatively mature (or in my case, positively ancient compared to the stereotypical 'gamer') and to accept this. We can't expect the best that video-game-tech can offer, in many ways, but what we have now is not only better than nothing - it is scales of magnitude better in many ways than the sort of simulation we imagined was possible when we first saw Red Baron or whatever it was that caught our imaginations

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a game developer and new to playing IL2 in general and am almost entirely here to fly about with other people. From my perspective it seems like the rest of games has moved on and sims, other than getting prettier and having better physical simulations have not in the slightest. The fact that there is anyone playing multiplayer at all is testament to the legwork done by the community. There are pretty huge accessibility gulfs to be bridged in almost all aspects.

 

Then as a secondary issue I didn't even know there was a multiplayer aspect to any of the modern combat flight sims until I saw someone I follow on Twitter posting videos. That IL2 is more than Russian front action and even includes tank and WW1 expansions is basically invisible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

^^ Everything eloquently written above here.

 

vs.

 

"Oh no, they charge 70 bucks and I already paid for it once 5 years ago with RoF!"

 

 

 

Study sims are what you're referring to, and people know what they're getting into. It's about realism, clickable pits, and pitbuilding and the bottomless money pit (pun intended) that comes with it. I personally don't get into it because my wife won't let me — plus I spend enough money on real flying already. Real flying and study sims are great and all, but to me the appeal of Flying Circus is competitive AirQuake. At least AirQuake is what makes me want to play on weeknights to get the blood pumping a bit before bed. Again, my wife won't let me. You can pour an historical sauce over it and give it realistic limitations (which you can then creatively overcome), but the moment you make it out of reach for most gamers who don't own a joystick or TrackIR, you lose large parts of your audience. And the moment you give in to market forces completely and make it too accessible, you end up with WarThunder.

 

So I do agree that we are entering the golden age of the mid-life crisis study sim, and that truly mainstream F2P WarThunder is also doing pretty well with "them kids". AirQuake, which properly started with X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, Red Baron and IL-2 FB, is now getting its swan song through IL-2 Great Battles, and then AirQuake will cease to exist. Much like regular Quake, for the record, superseded by ultra-realistic shooters, and new and more accessible shooters like Overwatch and Fortnite.

 

If you don't believe me, you only need to look at the VR debacle. People, myself included, are not buying into it because it makes them less competitive online (I suck either way, but that's a different topic). If it were truly about realism, then that would be the last thing on our minds.

Edited by J5_Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J5_Hellbender said:

 

 

If you don't believe me, you only need to look at the VR debacle. People, myself included, are not buying into it because it makes them less competitive online (I suck either way, but that's a different topic). If it were truly about realism, then that would be the last thing on our minds.


Hence the desire for a VR-only server.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm with Feathered_IV. In the rush to please the rivet counters, moderate the "150-octane-fuel-yay-nay-yay-nay-yay-nay" arguments and avoid a blistering dressing down over inaccuracies in minor systems developers these days have forgotten that - underneath all the sometimes elitist "simulation" starch all too many folks are displaying in their disdain for "the masses" - a flight sim still is and needs to be entertainment software. Or, as Jason has said all too often here they don't have the resources to do everything and therefor they prioritize (though I don't see why outsourcing gameplay entirely to the community and focusing on just the sandbox to play in is really a good idea). Anyway, what I think sets apart the "old sims" of the golden age from today is that gameplay is often entirely missing ... Even here the career mode was an afterthought, developed post-release not only due to resource constraints (as understandable as that was) but because the initial concept left much to be desired and wasn't received that well.

 

As a sidenote: All games I really enjoyed over the past two or three years had one major thing goin for them: they were utterly brilliant at storytelling (and making the player think over his decisions because they mattered for the flow of the story). Sure Witcher III or Assassin's Creed Odyssey were visually brilliant, but I also enjoyed Pathfinder: Kingmaker for the same well thought out storytelling that also kept pulling me back to the two former games. That art of telling a story, either directly (linear campaign) or in general (= history), seems to be kind of a lost art in flight sim development. Sadly, that is.

Edited by csThor
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, J3Hetzer said:

Hence the desire for a VR-only server.

 

It's a different topic, but I don't agree with segregating VR users from the rest of us because you are at a disadvantage, especially one which you paid extra for in order to increase your realism. We also don't have servers exclusively for people with TrackIR and three monitors or for people who fly in a squadron with voice comms, because it puts them at an advantage over those who fly alone with a joystick and a hat switch. I do get that joysticks are seen as an absolute necessity in order not to become WarThunder, but that's about it.

 

RoF and now FC has always been a balancing act, which is itself already a balancing act between study sims and arcade sims. Historical events such as Bloody April/Black September are great and attract crowds, and are probably the best place to fly VR online since the outcome doesn't really matter, it's about the historical experience. It's however hard and time consuming to get those going year-round, plus fatigue sets in very quickly. Fast food servers with enemy airfields right next to each will always attract some since it's so easy to jump in and out of them at a moment's notice. Sadly we don't really have a good server like that at the moment. Where the game truly shines is in-between those extremes. J5's server is a good example of that (shameless plug). The problem there, is that you need a healthy playerbase coming from both sides of the realism/arcade spectrum to populate such servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

What happened to flight sims is that games developers found that other types of software sold better. 

 

I would say that the rush of history is part of that. Younger people, born after the 70s, simply don't have much interest in history that was so long ago. Put another way, I was born closer to the First World War than kids born in the 90s are to the Second World War.

 

Non-arcade sims require historical imagination. Ask the next waitress that serves you what the Cold War was and not one in five of them will know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

I would say that the rush of history is part of that. Younger people, born after the 70s, simply don't have much interest in history that was so long ago. Put another way, I was born closer to the First World War than kids born in the 90s are to the Second World War.

 

Non-arcade sims require historical imagination. Ask the next waitress that serves you what the Cold War was and not one in five of them will know.

 

I think you’re underestimating how many people my age have an interest in history. There’s a reason that bands like Sabaton and groups like r/historymemes are so popular in my age group.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

2001-2005 has been the gold era IL2 players online..

Edited by ITAF_Rani
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

 

I started flight simming seriously around 1993, and played most of the tittles, mostly civil, you can name, as well as some not even known to most simmers...

 

My experience with combat flight simulation started with CYAC, a couple of well known attack heli sims, Janes WW2 Fighters, then Combat Flight Simulator and a couple ww1 sims too.

 

Did try the initial version of IL-2 by Oleg, then skipped pretty much all stuff after that one, and returned by the hand of DCS after the fate of MS FLIGHT in 2012. I was tempted by the P51d, and really liked that sim ( still follow the news about it ) but then in 2014 someone offered me IL2 Battle of Stlaingrad, and it became my goto combat flightsim.

 

I even stopped playing PSX, ELITE IFT, X-Plane and P3D to become an almost full time IL2 player.

 

I was once called attention into War Thunder, tried it ( some 3 years ago ) and found it so so so Arcade that I couldn't even believe the guy who told me to try it did actually play t too...  Well, things change, and last year I revsited War Thunder, found about the "Simulator mode", Battles and EC, and decided to give it a new try.

 

War Thunder turns out to be the only flight simulator I play these days, and since I never played any other type of games in a PC, it's in fact something I couldn't really expect to happen only 2 yrs ago.

 

When I think about it the reason - for me is probably the fact that there is always something interesting and immersive to do in WT, the sceneries even if reduced and not accurately pretending to represent rw theatres of War, are great, with lots of interesting details, the skies look a lot more interesting than in either IL2 or DCS, and if I look realistically at the level of accuracy and feel of flight, even though ground physics are simplified, in the air most aircraft have performance and feel that doesn't at all disappoint me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 Flight sims offer less returns vs invested capital than other games. "Free 2 Play" like in WT or other games also played a role, easier to get money with in-game transactions than selling a boxed game. For making a good flight sim the requirements are quite high. Do the historical research, dig up sources of information, cross check data and start over again for each meticulously modelled vehicle. Make maps that are feasible to play, usually need to be relatively big like in IL-2 or DCS. Takes a lot of time and time is expensive these days. Firms want maximum income on a reasonable investment, that is not what flight sims offer. Risky investment to cater for a rather small audience vs FPS games or similar that anyone and their granny play. I am glad that could live thru the rise of flight sims, their golden age and current state. Has been a journey of a lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, J3Hetzer said:

 Is it a generational thing with flight sims being too difficult to learn, or too many young gamers unable to afford the hardware?

 

How many people under 20 age your know, interested in Combat Flight Sim/Game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What WT offers that BoX doesn't for the MP crowd is short, objective based missions. Everyone starts at the same time. A built in hyper lobby. With BoX you're joining in on a one hour mission with anywhere from 59 to 5 minutes remaining. With no idea what objectives remain, who's doing what or where they are. So most folk will fly towards the nearest tracer they see for instant gratification. It gets real old real fast. That's my personal experience, that's what I do. I don't feel part of the effort, in fact I rarely see any objective based effort from either side. Bombers and transports will follow objectives, albeit alone, because that's their purpose. Fighter jocks will generally fight for themselves. Ask any bomber pilot and they will rarely see any escort. There really is no organization in BoX MP. Folk rip on WT for its arcade FM, "it's not a simulator", but in general the WT player is more historically accurate when it comes to gameplay strategy than the average BoX player. We have an arcade game played by simulators and a simulator played by arcade gamers. Ive never felt any sense of accomplishment when a MP round has finished in BoX, win or lose, unlike WT. That's my opinion based on my experience from both games.

Edited by Rolling_Thunder
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

What WT offers that BoX doesn't for the MP crowd is short, objective based missions. Everyone starts at the same time. A built in hyper lobby. With BoX you're joining in on a one hour mission with anywhere from 59 to 5 minutes remaining. With no idea what objectives remain, who's doing what or where they are. So most folk will fly towards the nearest tracer they see for instant gratification. It gets real old real fast. That's my personal experience, that's what I do. I don't feel part of the effort, in fact I rarely see any objective based effort from either side. Bombers and transports will follow objectives, albeit alone, because that's their purpose. Fighter jocks will generally fight for themselves. Ask any bomber pilot and they will rarely see any escort. There really is no organization in BoX MP. Folk rip on WT for its arcade FM, "it's not a simulator", but in general the WT player is more historically accurate when it comes to gameplay strategy than the average BoX player. We have an arcade game played by simulators and a simulator played by arcade gamers. Ive never felt any sense of accomplishment when a MP round has finished in BoX, win or lose, unlike WT. That's my opinion based on my experience from both games.

 

Couldn't have put it better!  Than you Rolling_Thunder - excellent view / explanation of why WT has such an almost addictive effect on me that makes all other feel and look dumb these days ...

 

And honestly I don't find WT anymore "arcade" than IL-2 Great Battles when played in Simulator mode - I actually find that in some aspects aircraft performance appears sometimes closer to the historical data, and there isn't that woobliness that still plagues IL-2...

Edited by jcomm-il2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes, WT is great as well for MP , but SP and creating your own coop missions with 60 planes at your disposal to make it different each time? Only DCS can compete here!

This does not mean to troll WT, but each sim has strengths and weaknesses. I don't really fancy the business model of WT, makes me think too much of a money grab whereas I look at il-2 and DCS modules as... a True investment!!!!? 

Edited by simfan2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

I'm afraid "Flight sims" is giving way to this

 

This is awesome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People criticizing "riveting counter", "150 octanas" as culprit for the lack of "gameplay"* in actual CFS/G seems missing that in last 20 years appear a bunch of "shooters" flight games based on WWII or modern conflicts, full of "modern" features  and none became a blockbuster.

 

An (old) example: https://youtu.be/zgkQc7bBalE

 

 

* And also seem to have forgotten about the "gameplay" added (Loft "CFG") to early BoS  - inspired by WT and mainstream AAA games, and the "stellar success" resulting of this attempt.

 

In the short (~95-2000) "golden era" of CFS are plenty of failures, being (IMHO) the most expressive SDOE: Fighter Squadron, a kind of CloD of the time, they try incorporate new features (mainly physics) and end having a forced (by distributor) release full of bugs and unfinished features, without a enjoyable SP campaign and poor MP support in a time when many players expect MP,  due "MMO" (Air Warrior, figther Ace, Warbirds...) relative success.

 

What is wrong with CFS/G now is not technologies or developers, is the players - or the lack of "new players" from young generations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Sokol1

 

When Microprose went under (after Falcon 4) there was a definitive "break" in the flight sim producing environment, mostly filled with dev teams originating in the former USSR. I do not know if it is a different attitude or worldview, but those sims I either played or which I looked at all had this rather obvious "austere sandbox focused on excruitiating details and accuracy" to them. And initially BoX was just the same (though the issue of time constraints and lacking resources was more pronounced than elsewhere).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2019 at 1:23 PM, ITAF_Rani said:

2001-2005 was been the gold era IL2 players online..

That was, for me, the golden era,  I flew online with a great squad, and often 30-40 hours a week, long into the early hours, especially in the online wars. Things have never quite been the same since, but it's strange how so many of the old players just disappeared, and even the ones I know from those days mainly just play offline.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That was, for me, the golden era,  I flew online with a great squad, and often 30-40 hours a week, long into the early hours, especially in the online wars. Things have never quite been the same since, but it's strange how so many of the old players just disappeared, and even the ones I know from those days mainly just play offline.


I suspect if this new physiology had come along a lot sooner we might have seen significantly less of a drop-off in MP play. A lot of people became heartily sick of the arcade win-at-any-cost exploitation of weak physics and realism limitations and being seal-clubbed by those so obsessed they put tens of hours into practice each week. They essentially killed-off their own hobby and now we're left with the consequences of that. In my humble opinion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...