Jump to content
dog1

Normandy map and Battle of britain planes

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by GreenSound
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?"   ☺️

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by CastorTroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by CastorTroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by [Pb]Cybermat47
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by AndyJWest
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 😄

  • 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...