Normandy map and Battle of britain planes

[-LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor]

7 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

If anything, it's worse

 

For me after blitz it got FAR worse. I hover over some UI elements and they dissapear into a blurry image. When you try to exit a mission the game locks my cursor to the center of the screen whenever I click anything. 

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I've been playing flight sims since before you were born.  And I've got 30 years of programming experience.  I'm definitely qualified to judge whether the GB series is better than CloD.

I do not think you are.  In order to judge that you need to look beyond your own nose, and consider a lot of other factors than what you yourself believe is most important. 
Your continuous attitude of know all things make me suspect you are quite finnish with learning. 
I grant you this however, you are correct on many occasions. 
However in your battle against cod and all other brands make you bias and not trustworthy

[GreenSound]

People who prefer GB: "It would be cool if GB did Battle of Britain, because I like the work they do"

 

People who prefer CLoD, through tears on their eyes: "NOOOOOOO!!! YOU ARE A HATER AND AREN'T QUALIFIED TO JUDGE EITHER GAME!!!!!! YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE PREFERENCES, YOU MUST PREFER MY GAME OR IT IS A DIRECT ATTACK ON ME. GIVE ME 35 ARGUMENTS AFTER YOU'VE PLAYED 300 HOURS OF CLOD AS TO WHY YOU PREFER GB; WHAT? NO I WON'T PROVIDE COUNTER ARGUMENTS, I'LL JUST SAY YOU'RE A MEANIE!!!!!"

Edited November 28, 2019 by GreenSound

[LeLv30_Redwing-]

8 minutes ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

Your continuous attitude of know all things make me suspect you are quite finnish with learning.

 

The whole nation of Finland is holding it's breath; "did he misspell or was it a compliment?"   ☺️

[CastorTroy]

46 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I recently tried to set up my controllers after getting the most recent version of CloD.  The game repeatedly thought I was trying to set up controller X when I was trying to set up Y.  This was a problem with the original version.  It has not been improved.  If anything, it's worse.

 

So, maybe they fixed some of the other stuff that made this game a disaster.  But I doubt it.

 

I had no problems what so ever setting up my HOTAS for Cliffs, buttons or axis,  and this was a few weeks back after I built a new machine. 

Edited November 28, 2019 by CastorTroy

[BraveSirRobin]

34 minutes ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

I grant you this however, you are correct on many occasions. 
However in your battle against cod and all other brands make you bias and not trustworthy

 

I'm not in a battle against CloD.  I own it.  I updated it.  I will probably even buy the next version, assuming that I live long enough to see it released.

 

But I like GB better.  By a pretty wide margin.  The idea that this opinion is "childish" or unwarranted is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

 

I also like Coke better than Pepsi.  

[IckyATLAS]

It is really strange why Jason choose an old game engine that is so limited in terms of number of planes or complex planes. This would mean that it is not very efficient resource wise. I hear that four engine bombers could not be handled by this game engine. So why to choose it in the first place. In the time span of six seven years the processors and graphic cards have improved a lot, but this game engine does not seem to profit much from this hardware evolution. 

But I admit I am not a specialist for these game engine and maybe there were other advantages, like low or free license costs, easier development, who knows ...

[CastorTroy]

37 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

It is really strange why Jason choose an old game engine that is so limited in terms of number of planes or complex planes. This would mean that it is not very efficient resource wise. I hear that four engine bombers could not be handled by this game engine. So why to choose it in the first place. In the time span of six seven years the processors and graphic cards have improved a lot, but this game engine does not seem to profit much from this hardware evolution. 

But I admit I am not a specialist for these game engine and maybe there were other advantages, like low or free license costs, easier development, who knows ...

 

 Didn't 777 buy, and/or was granted rights for the IL2 series by the publisher 1C, after CloD and Maddox games went belly up somewhere around 2011-12, and 777 just used the existing engine from RoF, to build BOS?  A great game RoF was/is, but now, a very old engine, and never was designed for the hundreds of bomber formations that helped win the war in Europe.... Correct me if I am wrong please....

Edited November 28, 2019 by CastorTroy

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I'm not in a battle against CloD.  I own it.  I updated it.  I will probably even buy the next version, assuming that I live long enough to see it released.

 

But I like GB better.  By a pretty wide margin.  The idea that this opinion is "childish" or unwarranted is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

 

I also like Coke better than Pepsi.  

Then we agree, 

I like some major (to me) important features in cod better. But over all GB is the one I fly and prefer. Time issue, VR, overall good flight models make me prefer GB on. Daily basis

[BraveSirRobin]

15 minutes ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

Then we agree, 

I like some major (to me) important features in cod better. But over all GB is the one I fly and prefer. Time issue, VR, overall good flight models make me prefer GB on. Daily basis

 

CloD does 1 thing better.  You can have large formations of bombers without a slide show.  GB is better at everything else.

[Cybermat47]

2 hours ago, GreenSound said:

People who prefer GB: "It would be cool if GB did Battle of Britain, because I like the work they do"

 

People who prefer CLoD, through tears on their eyes: "NOOOOOOO!!! YOU ARE A HATER AND AREN'T QUALIFIED TO JUDGE EITHER GAME!!!!!! YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE PREFERENCES, YOU MUST PREFER MY GAME OR IT IS A DIRECT ATTACK ON ME. GIVE ME 35 ARGUMENTS AFTER YOU'VE PLAYED 300 HOURS OF CLOD AS TO WHY YOU PREFER GB; WHAT? NO I WON'T PROVIDE COUNTER ARGUMENTS, I'LL JUST SAY YOU'RE A MEANIE!!!!!"

That’s such a massive strawman that I can see Nicholas Cage burning to death in it.

 

I like CloD. I’m a developer on CloD. But as you can plainly see, I also love and support GBS - in fact, I’ve supported it for longer than you and with more of my money. I’ve even made a very small contribution to GBS that became official content. And frankly, I don’t see the point in acting as though the two games are somehow in competition with each other when they have the same publisher and are being sold in the same store.

Edited November 29, 2019 by [Pb]Cybermat47

[AndyJWest]

Yeah, this shouldn't be a 'people who prefer CloD' vs 'people who prefer IL-2 GB' discussion. And it wouldn't have been at all if someone hadn't decided to bring CloD up in a speculative discussion on IL-2 GB content. People are entitled to like either. Or both. Or neither for that matter, though I'm not sure why they'd be on the forums. And people are entitled to say where they'd like to see the games extended. This petty sniping adds nothing to forum decorum, does nothing to encourage anyone to buy anything, and I'm quite certain discourages the developers of both sims from reading the forums at all. We know what both developer teams are working on now, and any possible decision about what the IL-2 GB and/or TF teams do next is a long way off. We have much to look forward to in terms of air combat simulation, and have the applications as they stand to meet our desires to shoot each other down. Save the dogfighting for the games, it is more fun there...

Edited November 29, 2019 by AndyJWest

[ShamrockOneFive]

2 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

It is really strange why Jason choose an old game engine that is so limited in terms of number of planes or complex planes. This would mean that it is not very efficient resource wise. I hear that four engine bombers could not be handled by this game engine. So why to choose it in the first place. In the time span of six seven years the processors and graphic cards have improved a lot, but this game engine does not seem to profit much from this hardware evolution. 

But I admit I am not a specialist for these game engine and maybe there were other advantages, like low or free license costs, easier development, who knows ...

 

Digital Warfare is a far cry from the Digital Nature engine that powered Rise of Flight. We've come a long way.

 

The reason for limited number of aircraft is because of a design decision and one that was taken before Jason was Producer on the project. That decision was to have AI aircraft fly according to the same physics as a human piloted aircraft. No other combat flight simulator currently does that. DCS World's AI aircraft by comparison use a very simplified physics model pull some ridiculous stunts that simply aren't possible with the aircraft when flown by a human (they aren't even affected by wind). That lets them put large numbers of aircraft in with lower CPU penalty. There's a trade-off to these decisions and you can kind of get away with it when flying modern jets but it gets really obvious with WWI and WWII aircraft and it's WWII where DCS World is busy adding a more sophisticated AI flight model system and damage model.

 

So we get some great flying aircraft with an AI system that flies by the same rules and doesn't cheat on engine management or flying BUT they incur a heavy CPU hit.

 

Perhaps the answer is for 1CGS to invest time and resources into an AI flight model and probably an AI gunner system for bombers that is lighter on resources. But I'm sure that'll not be a  flawless process and it will take time to do. Not saying it isn't worthwhile but at the end of the day this has little to do with the age of the engine.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

There's not really any reason that medium and heavy AI bombers, of the type we'd want in large formations, need the same sophisticated flight model that we use.  AI fighters...sure.  The bombers though, what are we really getting from that?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It’s the crew scripts (gunners) not the pilot scripts or FM’s that are resource hogs.

[-LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor]

Just now, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

It’s the crew scripts (gunners) not the pilot scripts or FM’s that are resource hogs.

 

This was my understanding as well. Its a very complex issue to deal with, on the surface it always looks so easy. 

[Enceladus828]

4 hours ago, GreenSound said:

It matters because GB would do a better and much quicker job of bringing North Africa and the MTO  to life in a more fun way

Yeah well doing something quicker doesn't always mean it will be better, sometimes it can even make it worse. Also, IL-2 GBs is limited to 10 planes per battle pack so a North Africa GBs version may NOT contain planes that would likely be included in a CloD version. For TF 5.0 they plan to include playable ships where you can control them from the outside, as well as playable vehicles. After the release of TF 5.0 they plan to include VR ~6 months following the release. If they get to TF 6.0 they plan to include the Fairey Swordish and the DKM Bismarck, which wouldn't (latter) be in IL-2 GBs. TF 6.0 hopefully won't take nearly as long as TF 5.0 did.

 

See you're being BIASED here GreenSound. IL-2 GBs and all of its content wasn't released yesterday. All of the content is a result of almost 7 years of hard development, same goes with Team Fusion. Even though after almost 7 years there are 4 installments, while there's just 1 for CloD. That's because it took a while for CloD to step in the right direction of development. Now they have and hopefully more planes and maps that you can't fly anywhere else will be released.

 

I mean, we have the Channel map here and that's probably the greatest, if not, one of the greatest gift that the devs have given us. Just be happy that we have it in IL-2 GBs and one can somewhat portray BoB. In IL-2 1946 the Gulf of Finland map was used to portray the BoB. They had most of the planes, but not the map and AFAIK, no one complained about that. Also, Team Daidalos recently released a Moscow map where one can fly over the Kremlin, and the map also connects Smolensk, as well as a Donbass map, Franz Josef land map were released, and no one here has complained about that.

[GreenSound]

1 hour ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

 And frankly, I don’t see the point in acting as though the two games are somehow in competition with each other when they have the same publisher and are being sold in the same store.

 

The first post of this thread does not mention CLoD, the second post immediately mentions it and the thread devolves from there. I have no problem with CLoD, as I've said, but CLoD fans bring it up every time someone mentions North Africa or the BoB, then throw a fit if someone mentions that GB should do it as well

[-LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor]

1 minute ago, GreenSound said:

CLoD fans bring it up every time someone mentions North Africa or the BoB

 

Pretty much sums up every BoB or North Africa discussion. Cant have one without the same characters getting all upset. Isn't there a section in the forum for Clod? you think they would just head on over there to talk about it. 

[GreenSound]

31 minutes ago, Novice-Flyer said:

Yeah well doing something quicker doesn't always mean it will be better,

 

See you're being BIASED here GreenSound. IL-2 GBs and all of its content wasn't released yesterday

 

Lmao. Notice I said quicker AND better, not quicker or better. Yes, I am biased, I freely admit that I prefer GB to TF.

 

30+ planes  and 5 maps in 7 years vs how many from Team Fusion? TF talks about a lot of plans, but how many have they delivered? They still haven't even shown off most of what they promise. Enjoy CLoD, by all means, but it is a mod team, amateurs. Not a pro dev team, professionals, with a track record. The products they deliver, even if the same, would be vastly different on terms of quality. I prefer the GB team's style to TF's. Of you prefer TF, fine, but I don't go to your forum and throw a hissy fit about what TF *might* theoretically do

 

Keep seething, I'll be over here enjoying the game

[Eisenfaustus]

While I would love to fly the BoB planes in GB's engine I think it is utterly unsuited to depict this battle due to the aready mentioned very limited amount of planes.

The only sim I know that put enough a/c in the virtual air to do the battle justice is battle of britain 2 wings of victory.

 

And of all the planes we have right now I'm only aware of one that participated in the BoB in later stages and small numbers: The BF109E7 - all other planes would have to be created newly.

 

I would prefer a Battle of France - the smaller engagements of that battle could be depicted quite well in the GB engine and the planeset of a BoF im combination with the map from BoN would allow to recreate some BoB dogfights ?

[[806th]_RipGZW]

after a long argumet lets accept that 

they never make a BOB Game for GB

(or maybe they will do

[Sandmarken]

13 hours ago, III./JG3_NrRip said:

after a long argumet lets accept that 

they never make a BOB Game for GB

(or maybe they will do

When normandy comes out some mp server can do "what if bob happend in 41 (and ussr was involved probably?) 

[Motherbrain]

You can already reasonably do a BoB scenario with the planes we have when the map comes out.

 

The exact aircraft models will be a bit off but its close enough for me in my opinion. 

 

I'd love a B model Stuka though. Just saying. ?

 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Motherbrain

[SYN_Ricky]

41 minutes ago, Motherbrain said:

I'd love a B model Stuka though. Just saying. ?

 

 

Absolutely, as it would also be the correct model for Battle of Moscow.

[Avimimus]

On 11/29/2019 at 9:41 AM, Eisenfaustus said:

I would prefer a Battle of France - the smaller engagements of that battle could be depicted quite well in the GB engine and the planeset of a BoF im combination with the map from BoN would allow to recreate some BoB dogfights ?

 

Just to be clear - I think that, if BoX does BoB it'll likely be many years from now - and may not happen. I think Battle of France is even less likely. There is a small chance that Team Fusion might, but I also think that is unlikely.

 

That said - I find the idea fascinating - and I think this is worth a read:

 

[Enceladus828]

10 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Just to be clear - I think that, if BoX does BoB it'll likely be many years from now

Agree, if they do it then it will probably be after Finland as there would be planes which were also in tBoB like the G.50, Gladiator, Blenheim, and Hurricane Mk.I.

[PatrickAWlson]

I am seriously entertaining the idea of doing BoB in PWCG with a 1941/42 plane set.  Hurricane II, Spitfire Mk. V,  and A20 on one side.  He111, Ju88, Ju87D, Me110E, Me109 F2 on the other.  Anybody that thinks this is a terrible idea can just skip it and start their campaign in 1941.

 

PWCG already has the ability to do phases of battle.  So the airfield attack phase followed by attacks on population centers (won't say cities because I don't know if the map will include any British cities) is doable.  Even though the planes will be the same, the feel will be totally different than the subsequent channel attacks.  The Germans will be the aggressors instead of defenders.  Combat will center around escorted bomber formations instead of raiders.  Action will be much more intense with less spacing between missions.  It will only be a few more hours of work to accomplish this, so why not?

[oFlyingDutchman]

@PatrickAWlson gotta say, what i'm most hyped about the normandy dlc is the map itself because of your mod
Can't wait to get a change of pace and fly brits and germans agaisnt each other in the early years of war instead of having to fly russians and germans if i wanted to play early war

[Chief_Mouser]

It's not the planes, it's the map. Ok for pseudo-BoB Channel dogfights but missing damn nearly everything else important. (According to the posted images - waiting to see what the final result is.)

 

I really don't understand what the current 'we must shoehorn BoB into GB' at all costs mentality is all about. If the next module for GB was BoB I'd be first in line, unlike a large majority of people on these forums, but I do not want a fake version. Now Dieppe, that IS almost doable and a thousand times more preferable than a half-baked Battle of Britain because of it.

[Motherbrain]

The only plane we would really need to fill the gap would be the Blenhiem or some domestic British bomber (Mosquito doesn't count). The A20 is close but its still bit of a stretch of the imagination.

[PatrickAWlson]

8 minutes ago, 216th_Cat said:

It's not the planes, it's the map. Ok for pseudo-BoB Channel dogfights but missing damn nearly everything else important. (According to the posted images - waiting to see what the final result is.)

 

I really don't understand what the current 'we must shoehorn BoB into GB' at all costs mentality is all about. If the next module for GB was BoB I'd be first in line, unlike a large majority of people on these forums, but I do not want a fake version. Now Dieppe, that IS almost doable and a thousand times more preferable than a half-baked Battle of Britain because of it.

 

Totally understand your point of view but I don't share it.  It is the feel of opposing an attacking force or being part of that force and not flying the specific planes.   Playing through the phases of the battle, even if there is no Spitfire Mk I or London. 

 

BoB is not the focus, France 1944 is.  However, all of these other things are possible with the Normandy map, so why not?  These modules take years to complete so a better option is not going to be available any time soon.  The beauty of 1C going backwards in the war is that those who disagree with my approach can start their campaigns at a time more to their liking.

 

I am also going to do the channel dash, even if it is a couple of destroyers making the dash.  Maybe put roundels on a U2  .  

 

Dieppe and Normandy should be pretty close in terms of aircraft content.  Won't be able to do justice to the scale.  Wonder how many landing craft and tanks I can get on the beach.

 

It's either do it with what you have or don't do it at all.  I have always been firmly on the side of the former.  When better options become available I revisit and revise.  That is neither right nor wrong, just a preference. 

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, Motherbrain said:

The only plane we would really need to fill the gap would be the Blenhiem or some domestic British bomber (Mosquito doesn't count). The A20 is close but its still bit of a stretch of the imagination.

 

I'm not sure which gap you are referring to - but the Wellington is a pretty good choice. It is also slow enough to be vulnerable to the Ju-88C. It was also very numerous, used as a day bomber in 1939-1940 - and then remained until mid-1943 in the night bombing role before being phased out. There were still some units using them in 1944 in Italy, and others switched over to coastal patrol duties. So one can get a lot of use out of it. 

 

It'd make a good AI plane at the very least (more useful than the Blenheim).

 

That said the A-20B is a pretty good match for the Boston III - and was the major RAF daylight bomber in 1942.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Avimimus

[BraveSirRobin]

8 hours ago, Enceladus said:

Agree, if they do it then it will probably be after Finland 

So, never.

[Avimimus]

55 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

So, never.

 

Well, Battle of France might be a bit unlikely - but a Gulf of Finland or Siege of Leningrad map is plausible. Because the front didn't move much they'd have from 1939-1944 - which means a lot of planes to choose from (plus Finland had a bunch of exotic types). So it is easy to build a full plane set that spans multiple eras!

 

I could easily see them doing such a map after doing a 1945 East map. It'd let them finish up the eastern planeset (to the benefit of all other modules).

[BraveSirRobin]

2 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Well, Battle of France might be a bit unlikely - but a Gulf of Finland or Siege of Leningrad map is plausible. Because the front didn't move much they'd have from 1939-1944 - which means a lot of planes to choose from (plus Finland had a bunch of exotic types). So it is easy to build a full plane set that spans multiple eras!

 

I could easily see them doing such a map after doing a 1945 East map. It'd let them finish up the eastern planeset (to the benefit of all other modules).

Famous early war eastern front modules almost ended this company.  Obscure stuff like BoF isn’t happening.

[Gambit21]

37 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Well, Battle of France might be a bit unlikely - but a Gulf of Finland or Siege of Leningrad map is plausible.

 

Watch 95% percent of the western customers wallets clamp shut so fast the resulting sonic boom will be felt around the world at 1C. 

[CountZero]

 

41 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Famous early war eastern front modules almost ended this company.  Obscure stuff like BoF isn’t happening.

oh and the unlocks didnt help ?

 

im amazed how ppl think battle of spain, france, finland, norway and so on ... could be even taken seriously at this point.

 

 

6 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I am seriously entertaining the idea of doing BoB in PWCG with a 1941/42 plane set.  Hurricane II, Spitfire Mk. V,  and A20 on one side.  He111, Ju88, Ju87D, Me110E, Me109 F2 on the other.  Anybody that thinks this is a terrible idea can just skip it and start their campaign in 1941.

 

PWCG already has the ability to do phases of battle.  So the airfield attack phase followed by attacks on population centers (won't say cities because I don't know if the map will include any British cities) is doable.  Even though the planes will be the same, the feel will be totally different than the subsequent channel attacks.  The Germans will be the aggressors instead of defenders.  Combat will center around escorted bomber formations instead of raiders.  Action will be much more intense with less spacing between missions.  It will only be a few more hours of work to accomplish this, so why not?

 

Maybe start with only Hurricane vs He111, ju88, ju87, 110s and 109E7s and later on add SpitV and 109F2. There was more Hurricanes then Spits so it would not be strange, and this Hurri we have can handle 109E7s.

 

Also BoB was not only about London, so it douable with map area they show as last draft, there was lot of bombing of costal radars, ports that are shown on map and airbases to make interesting campaigns for ppl that wont that on BoN map.

Edited November 19, 2021 by CountZero

[BraveSirRobin]

13 minutes ago, CountZero said:

 

oh and the unlocks didnt help ?

 

The worst flight sim design feature in recorded history.  But dumping it still didn’t make it fun to fly an I16 against a 109 when you really wanted to fly a P51 against a significantly better 109.

[Avimimus]

22 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Watch 95% percent of the western customers wallets clamp shut so fast the resulting sonic boom will be felt around the world at 1C. 

 

Well... one could say that about Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Moscow, Battle of Kuban... Conventional wisdom was that anything with an Il-2 in it shouldn't interest Western customers (and in fact, a lot of people were quite ignorant when Il-2 came out as a 'niche sim').
 

I suspect such a module (or '45 East) wouldn't sell quite as well as BoN or BoBP... so the publisher would have to be okay with that. But this is also true of BoB, BoF, Mediterranean, and probably a Korea or 1948-1955 European scenario or anything WWI... but I don't see why a Battle of Leningrad scenario should be less viable than any of these.

 

Hopefully the gradual growth of the user base and cumulative purchases are enough to encourage 1C to keep supporting the development of additional modules after BoN.

 

The truth is also that 'Forgotten Battles' - which featured Leningrad - did very well (purportedly better than the AEP - which had American aircraft and flashy jets) - these things may be a bit more complex than we think.