Petition for better realism than IL-2:COD

[BraveSirRobin]

It didn't become obvious until about a year down the road that they were producing a continuation of the RoF series air combat game instead of an Il-2 series simulation game. 

 

To you.  To most of the rest of us it was obvious from the start.

[JtD]

Well, they are still selling and advertising it as an Il-2 flight simulation game, which still isn't an obvious description for a RoF air combat game. However, playing the alpha, it becomes obvious, and that's the only place. I wasn't aware that most of the rest of us had access to the alpha right from the start.

Sorry HarbringerFlanker1985 for derailing your topic a little, will leave now. But I guess our Not-Quite-So-Brave-as-Sir Launcelot won't, he knows everything best. I wish you all the best with your petition.

 

 

[FSM:] Unhelpful parting shot. Adds ill-will.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It is obviously a continuation cf the original series and a marriage with ROF. It is NOT a marriage with CLOD.

 

And not being a systems simulator was made quite clear in a Dev Update post. If you are looking for full switch, full real, click-pits or some other term associated with other titles you will continue to be frustrated here.

[AndyJWest]

Btw, I don't see why selecting fuel tanks would require dealings with the flight model because of different weight distribution, last time I checked fuel state had no effect at all on weight distribution in game. So adding fuel selection doesn't require anything WRT flight model that shouldn't be required anyway, or be ignored anyway.

 

Fuel state certainly affects the FM in RoF - the Sopwith Camel for instance is a very different beast with a near empty tank than full. As for whether BoS models CG changes, I'd not like to say one way or another, though I'd not expect the changes to be dramatic anyway.

[DickDong]

Fuel state certainly affects the FM in RoF - the Sopwith Camel for instance is a very different beast with a near empty tank than full. As for whether BoS models CG changes, I'd not like to say one way or another, though I'd not expect the changes to be dramatic anyway.

Not dramatic in a single seat fighter but how about in a fully loaded HE-111, it'll make a difference.  CG changes are going to be much more pronounced then in WWI, totally different era in aircraft design.  Multiple tanks in different part of the wings, and the P-4 had the ability to carry 835 liters in the bomb bay itself.  Thats huge change with those arms  back and forward would definitely effect the flight model. I hope they model CG change.  It's 2014 not 2001 lets push this sim not accept what has been.

Edited April 10, 2014 by jarhead2b

[LukeFF]

It's funny how we managed for years without badgering and begging Oleg for fuel tank management in the original IL2 series, but now it's suddenly something in some people's eyes that's the only thing separating BoS from being the next War Thunder. 

[Creepermoss]

It's funny how we managed for years without badgering and begging Oleg for fuel tank management in the original IL2 series, but now it's suddenly something in some people's eyes that's the only thing separating BoS from being the next War Thunder. 

You forgot clickable items that add nothing but code complexity. If the game doesn't feature a way to reset your tripometer, it's clearly absolute arcade mode...

[SYN_Jedders]

The next time you lose all your in game settings have a think about how many more we need. Realism in a computer game is a good goal, realistic in a computer game is pure fantasy. I'm all for more realism but clod clickable pits in my opinion brought nothing that I wanted to the table.

 

I fully appreciate more buttons to assign to my hotas. I take the op at face value and say yes, more stuff down the line please.

[E69papa_Osi]

Always thought that more realism implies clickable cabins. You do not need to have clickable cabins and have more engine management functions assigned to different keys on the keyboard or hotas. Most of those who flew these simulators have very expensive equipment to which can be assigned multiple functions.

[Stray]

To you.  To most of the rest of us it was obvious from the start.

Sorry man, I disagree.

 

 It looks like IL2 spin-off, RoF style and not continuation of IL-2. So far it has NOTHING to do with any of IL2 titles except for IL2 in it's title and aircraft in-game. I do not like where it seems to be going. Many came here to see continuation of their beloved series using excellent RoF engine and so far this is RoF remade for the next war. It is, in fact, continuation of IL2 franchise and not the sim we play for over a decade. We came here because 1946 and all it's predecessors need a face lift and what we seem to get is not what we have anticipated. Well, some of us anyway, as for you it was magically clear from the start it's not IL2, but RoF2.

 

And let's face it, our wishes, suggestions, polls and discussions like this one go ignored or unnoticed by te Dev team. No single comment from them, no Q&A on current development and plans - just new announcement, new features and that's it. Like it or realize you have misspent your cash. Every now and then Jason jumps in saying" stop it or you will be banned" or "no more CloD comments" and that's it, children. What we want or desire is not their concern and our support to the title doesn't matter. It's role ended with transferring itself from one bank to another, or so it seems.

 

To OP: +1. 

Edited April 10, 2014 by 9./JG54_Stray

[Matt]

Hm, i think most petitions require like a certain number of supporters. Not sure if the number of green arrows does the trick. I think it might be a better idea to open another poll about his.

 

Personally, i wouldn't be against having to select fuel tanks, priming the engine and such. As long as the basics of the flightsim get more attention and are completed first. I don't currently miss these possibilities though.

[FlatSpinMan]

We're not doing this, guys, we're not doing this.

By 'this', I mean:

 

1. Insulting fellow forum members - HarbingerFlanker is well within his rights to make a request, and his initial posts were completely appropriate in tone. whether you agree or not, there was nothing wrong with his request.

 

2. Comparing DCS, CloD, and BoS. We know they all exist, and that they each have their respective good and bad points. Whenever we as a community wade into it beyond that, everything turns brown and runny. On this forum, we're not going to bother with this any more. Nor are we going to tolerate snide comments to annoy or belittle people who like other games. Why bother doing that?

 

3. Badmouthing the devs for not communicating or for not taking into account the community's needs or requests. They  have clearly taken on suggestions throughout the process. Maybe not the ones you wanted, certainly not all the suggestions, but that's irrelevant. They do read these forums. They do listen to people's ideas.

 

4. Criticising the game for not being what you personally thought it should be. Everyone has different visions, including the team. At the end of the day, it's their vision and, more to the point, their effort and their resources that will get us a flight sim we can all play. Suggest. Comment. Be CONSTRUCTIVE. 

 

5. Criticising the game for not being a successor to IL2. Aside from the title, the Eastern Front setting, the planes available, the inclusion of an intuitive Quick Mission generator; the announced work on a more IL-2-like Full Mission Builder at some later date; the inclusion of dynamic (yes, I know, I know, not like Falcon...) single-player campaigns; multiplayer mode that is easy to access; scalable difficulty settings; a form of complex engine management;

 

 

 

I'm going to try and unlock this again, and see what pans out. I'm perfectly happy to lock and delete it permanently if people continue posting as they did before.