SAS_Storebror Posted December 29, 2020 Posted December 29, 2020 3 hours ago, unreasonable said: Bugs are bugs - every update seems to get one or two, they get fixed. How such a bug could go unnoticed by devs and testers is beyond me. How such thing could happen in an area of the game which, according to all dev diaries and game update changelogs has been completely untouched, is beyond me. The fact that such bug could make it into the patch release tells a lot about the efficiency of quality testing I'm afraid to say. Mike 3 3
Lusekofte Posted December 29, 2020 Posted December 29, 2020 7 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said: The fact that such bug could make it into the patch release tells a lot about the efficiency of quality testing I'm afraid to say. Can this be a so-called expensive bug. Not easily repaired. Like being in the core of the game? I can see a semi involved admin laughing at your opinion, and that is making this rather serious and maybe answering quite a few things about why it is not fixed. Sad, really.
BraveSirRobin Posted December 30, 2020 Posted December 30, 2020 10 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said: How such a bug could go unnoticed by devs and testers is beyond me. How such thing could happen in an area of the game which, according to all dev diaries and game update changelogs has been completely untouched, is beyond me. The fact that such bug could make it into the patch release tells a lot about the efficiency of quality testing I'm afraid to say. Mike Lots of things appear to be beyond you. In RoF we once had a bug where all of the trees on the map would float into the air a few minutes after a mission started. It seems like that would have been noticed in testing. But it wasn’t. It had nothing to do with the quality of the testing. These games are incredibly complex. Sometimes code affects things that you didn’t expect. Sh!t happens. Maybe try calming down a little. 2
1CGS LukeFF Posted December 30, 2020 1CGS Posted December 30, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, SAS_Storebror said: Anyway, the bug is fixed now according to the update announcement. This would have been a perfect opportunity to address the general cal .50 issues, but it was to be expected that this opportunity would get missed. Good grief, man, do you ever stop? It's the last two weeks of the year, we just had Christmas, and New Year's is coming up. The bug with AP ammo inconvenienced people a max of what, 24 hours, and during the holiday season, no less? To expect anything more than that in a hotfix is wildy unrealistic. Edited December 30, 2020 by LukeFF 1 1
SAS_Storebror Posted December 30, 2020 Posted December 30, 2020 (edited) Considering that modders managed to find a workaround (for offline use only, unfortunately, due to game limitations towards modding), the energy you spent on being mildly aggressive towards me would have better been spent on fighting the issue itself. And before anyone starts to tell that the mod workaround isn't close enough to reality: The indestructible 109 tail was close enough to reality for devs and testers to be used as a "stopgap" solution for 9 months now, and counting. Mike Edited December 30, 2020 by SAS_Storebror -modders +testers 1 3
Missionbug Posted December 30, 2020 Posted December 30, 2020 33 minutes ago, LukeFF said: The bug with AP ammo inconvenienced people a max of what, 24 hours, and during the holiday season, no less? To expect anything more than that in a hotfix is wildy unrealistic. Hello Luke, the ammo issue has been with us now for a long time, it is very difficult to play/enjoy any game if the aircraft you most want to use shoots inadequate ammunition, combine that with the fact that the most numerous aircraft in the game that you are likely to encounter has a armoured tail and so can put certain players at a severe disadvantage while playing their missions/campaigns and you should appreciate these are fundamental flaws that really should have been addressed long ago. Let us not forget also the failing wings in F.C. or tanks shooting through hills in T.C., I can do without pretty textures, excellent as they might be, what I/we all want is a game that works properly, or at least within what is possible of course in a electric box of tricks with the information available and there is plenty of that posted by community members to show what is wrong and how it impacts game play. Admittedly the team have done a excellent job of bringing this series to where it is and we all acknowledge the tireless work of improving they do but with the above issues it seems every time they try to fix something it becomes even more broken, that is a great shame and stops this series truly becoming the leader of the genre. Anyway, hopefully you are all well and the New Year will bring back some stability to our lives, take care. Wishing you all the very best, Pete. 3
6./ZG26_Custard Posted December 30, 2020 Posted December 30, 2020 I think that what some folk might be missing here is that to change any one aspect of the damage model would more than likely fundamentally affect the whole thing. Its not as simple as saying fix "this." For those that have missed it check out the post made on the 15th December: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/57896-jasons-briefing-room-and-officers-club/?do=findComment&comment=1036314 If it's a complicated fix, it won't take 5 minutes to sort it. If "hypothetically" it would take weeks or months of work hours to sort it's probably not the best policy to stop work on everything that will generate money for the company and pay the wages of the developers. The team has improved things time and again and they go back and revisit and are in state of constant development. Just checkout the Developers Diaries thread. I know it can be extremely frustrating if something in particular isn't being "fixed" but if it's an extremely complicated issue, it won't be sorted in the short term. I think it is also important to raise that some of the posts regarding the 50.cal ammunition issues haven't really helped because some have been insulting, mocking and derogatory to the testers and the developers. I can think of certain other development forums where the slightest criticism would be removed immediately and the poster of those comments banned. The developers are an extremely hardworking bunch and are dedicated to trying to create the best WWII combat sim. As for the testers, they genuinely are dedicated and strive to find every bug and issue that arises. Does that mean things will be missed over the holiday season? Yes it does. It is also important to note that because the developers don't always answer on the forum, this doesn't mean that they are unaware of issues. It's ironic, that over the years we have had threads complaining about how weak the aircraft were (particularly the P-47) or now they are too tough or how AP was over performing and HE was under performing or visa versa. This is also true for many other aspects of this continually developed sim. One thing that is certain is it doesn't matter which direction things go, some folks will never be happy. Wishing you all a happy new year. Let's hope that 2021 is better to all of us. 7
BCI-Nazgul Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) On 12/19/2020 at 5:58 PM, BraveSirRobin said: The problem here is not cultural. The problem is that you don’t understand their business model. They need to sell maps, planes, and tanks to generate the revenue to pay for the features that you want. That is not going to change. I don't understand why they don't charge for added features/improvements in the base game. Battlefront has been doing this for a long time and they're doing OK. You play for engine upgrades for their games if you see features or enhancements you want as well as new content. 1C could charge for adding .50 API, a more detailed damage model, and an upgraded flight model, better weather models, etc... The current ones aren't really "bugged" in that they don't crash you out of the game, but they lack stuff that a lot of people want to have when playing. The idea that they are stuck ONLY making money by doing new maps, planes and tanks is silly IMO. I'd pay for upgrades to general functioning of the game BEFORE I'd pay for more planes. We have plenty of those. Some of the people here seem to think that bigger is better, but the quality and fidelity of base game are very important to lot of people that fly IL2. Edited January 2, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul
PB0_Roll Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) We are not Battlefront Public. If they try to be EA, nobody will buy any more. Selling maps, planes and tanks will work, until people get tired of not improving singleplayer base game. And honestly, it would be sad because they are creating a real classic. Edited January 2, 2021 by KGM_Roll grammar
Cybermat47 Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 On 12/7/2020 at 4:53 AM, Styx13 said: You can model the 1940 Battle of France/Britain, Chanel Campaign etc., Already done in CloD, just last year in fact. Anyway, this idea that 1C has to stop working on new GBS content in order to fine tune previously released content doesn’t make sense for a number of reasons. As many have already said, they need to be generating revenue to continue working on the product. That’s how business works. Secondly, they have been finetuning previously released content. An update just came out with improved textures and crew animations for the free tanks. Plus, Battlefront II ended up having a load of free updates and finetuning. As a result, the game had a shorter lifespan. GBS, with money-making DLC coming out every one or two years, has had a 7-year lifespan so far. Make of that what you will. 2
BraveSirRobin Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 10 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said: 1C could charge for adding .50 API, a more detailed damage model, and an upgraded flight model, better weather models, etc... What happens when people who paid for a different damage model face those who haven’t in an MP server? 1
SYN_Mike77 Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said: What happens when people who paid for a different damage model face those who haven’t in an MP server? Very few people play on line. Keep repeating this until it becomes true even if there is no evidence that it is true. Oh wait, there was that study in 2001 that said 90% of PC game use was in Single play. And flip phones are like awesome! The only people who know what percentage of game time is on line vs single player are the developers.
Mitthrawnuruodo Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) 18 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said: I don't understand why they don't charge for added features/improvements in the base game. The average customer wants to buy a complete game, not an upgrade for relatively obscure improvements. Most people don't know or don't care enough about things like API ammunition for it to affect their purchasing decisions. Charging for improvements in the base game means selling a new game and killing off its predecessor, as in Flying Circus. This doesn't always make sense for the developer. How would customers react if it were announced that all Great Battles purchases are obsolete because development has ceased in favour of a new WW2 series largely based on the same content? Edited January 2, 2021 by Mitthrawnuruodo
BCI-Nazgul Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) 14 hours ago, KGM_Roll said: We are not Battlefront Public. If they try to be EA, nobody will buy any more. Selling maps, planes and tanks will work, until people get tired of not improving singleplayer base game. And honestly, it would be sad because they are creating a real classic. A couple of you are not thinking of the right entities: See here https://www.battlefront.com/ I'm talking about Battlefront the game company and their products (like Battle for Normandy, Shock Force, etc...) Not the EA Star Wars game. I probably should have been a little more specific. Battlefront the company decided years ago that adding upgrades to the base engine was something they should charge for and it's worked for them. They also charge for new content. This is a sensible approach because both require programming time aka $$. If there is an actual "bug" meaning something does not work that is supposed to work or something causes crashes they still release free patches to fix those, but if it's an addition to game functionality or new content they release a new code that they charge for. Though I'm sure they still make most of their money with new content at least adding features and improvements to other things isn't a zero revenue project for them. That means it's more likely to get done. 7 hours ago, SYN_Mike77 said: Very few people play on line. Keep repeating this until it becomes true even if there is no evidence that it is true. Oh wait, there was that study in 2001 that said 90% of PC game use was in Single play. And flip phones are like awesome! The only people who know what percentage of game time is on line vs single player are the developers. That's pretty simple. The server only serves people that are the same version. If you want to fly multiplayer than you have to have whatever code base of the game the server is setup for. My guess is that online players are probably going to always run the latest and greatest version because they're the most dedicated fans. 6 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said: The average customer wants to buy a complete game, not an upgrade for relatively obscure improvements. Most people don't know or don't care enough about things like API ammunition for it to affect their purchasing decisions. Charging for improvements in the base game means selling a new game and killing off its predecessor, as in Flying Circus. This doesn't always make sense for the developer. How would customers react if it were announced that all Great Battles purchases are obsolete because development has ceased in favour of a new WW2 series largely based on the same content? I'm talking about incremental improvements to the base game not complete replacements. Just because you add some new detail to the DM or whatever doesn't mean suddenly everyone else's game is obsolete. You still have the option to buy the whatever base version the company is selling and just leave it alone if you don't want to pay for the "relatively obscure improvements". Even the new planes could work with an older version of the base code. You just have to know what you're doing as a programmer to make that happen. I've done plenty of projects like this during my career. When you want backwards compatibility you just make sure the code knows how to handle older versions of the data or whatever. Also, just as a reminder, this version IS basically a replacement for IL2:1946 and it does replace the same planes and maps we had in 2005. It might be by a different company but nonetheless it replaces something we had before. Companies replace their products all the time. Are you still running on Windows 95? At some point 1C will have to completely replace their games or go out of business because someone else has a better game. It's inevitable. ? Edited January 2, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul 1
BraveSirRobin Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said: That's pretty simple. The server only serves people that are the same version. If you want to fly multiplayer than you have to have whatever code base of the game the server is setup for. My guess is that online players are probably going to always run the latest and greatest version because they're the most dedicated fans. So in your world all the MP people are forced to buy all the "mods" that the devs are selling to keep people like you happy? How is that fair? What if I'm happy with the current game and don't want all those mods?
SharpeXB Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 On 12/27/2020 at 5:28 PM, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said: I no longer promote or buy these products nor do I plan to any longer as the game has too many core issues that go unfixed while new modules are released. Ok bye... It’s funny when people make statements like this as if they are only one of a few dozen people who own this game and their individual purchases make any difference. Ummm this game has sold enough copies to have kept 1CGS in business for 7 years. Sorry it’s not fulfilling exactly what you personally want it to do. But there are several hundred thousand other owners of this game. 1 4
Thad Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 On 12/29/2020 at 6:59 AM, unreasonable said: Bugs are bugs - every update seems to get one or two, they get fixed. Completely different issue from the OP's list of complaints, and his incredulity that the developers do not spend time explaining to him personally, in detail, why they cannot or will not deliver all of this right now, or at all. Everyone seems to be going a bit unreasonable at the moment. Lock-down derangement syndrome? Unreasonable, your comments seem very reasonable. 1
von_Tom Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 I’m late to the party but this is not particularly constructive thread - simply put the developers are selling homogenous titles to create an overarching game world dealing with the air and tank battles of WWII. There will always be room for improvement and development, not least because the development team has resources that can work on different things, rather than having everyone tasked to precisely the same thing. Plus their stated goal has been accuracy and to make the whole thing as good as it can be. For a niche project that means free ongoing updates as and when they have the technical information and resources to deal with them. The updates to the core engine are “free” in the sense that they are not charged for when they are released. That is because we have already paid for it, and early access helps fund all of these lovely updates that we get. The main benefit to the way they’re rolled out is that we all have the same core game. Great Battles is unlikely to ever be a completed project because there is always something more to do or improvements to make, or bugs to fix. That’s the way it goes with such a sweeping/niche product. There are no “core” issues, simply some issues that cause frustration to some. My view on the next iteration of IL2 will be a game engine overhaul to allow more aircraft in the air and possibly better net code, but like all bugs and features we just need to exercise patience. If that means dumping GB then so be it. I’ve had my money’s worth many times over. /out von Tom 2 3
BCI-Nazgul Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said: So in your world all the MP people are forced to buy all the "mods" that the devs are selling to keep people like you happy? How is that fair? What if I'm happy with the current game and don't want all those mods? No, in my world if the server you want to play on is running a different version of the game than what you own, you can choose to play on a different server that has the correct version you own or you can change/upgrade your version. No one is forcing you to buy anything. 26 minutes ago, von_Tom said: The updates to the core engine are “free” in the sense that they are not charged for when they are released. That is because we have already paid for it, and early access helps fund all of these lovely updates that we get. The main benefit to the way they’re rolled out is that we all have the same core game. We have?? I think we're well past early access. What happens when no one wants to buy the planes that are left? What will bring in the money then? I have no desire to buy some plane that never flew in combat or is some unicorn that was rarely seen like the TA-152 or the Kommet. We have all the common planes already. At some point the only place left for 1C is going to be the Pacific (that means carriers and MUCH better ship models/abilities) or to revamp the engine so they can add four engine bombers to the plane set. This is the same thing that happened with IL2:1946 they built everything that was worth building and even some stuff that wasn't even a WW II plane like the F-86. Edited January 3, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul 1
BraveSirRobin Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 27 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said: No, in my world if the server you want to play on is running a different version of the game than what you own, you can choose to play on a different server that has the correct version you own or you can change/upgrade your version. No one is forcing you to buy anything. That's odd. Earlier you sure seem to think I'm going to be forced to buy things. 3 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said: My guess is that online players are probably going to always run the latest and greatest version because they're the most dedicated fans. How am I going to run the latest greatest if I'm not being forced to buy things? Of course, this is a rhetorical question, because this is such an incredibly crappy idea that it's never going to happen. 1
BCI-Nazgul Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 36 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said: Of course, this is a rhetorical question, because this is such an incredibly crappy idea that it's never going to happen. In your opinion. 1
BraveSirRobin Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 11 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said: In your opinion. Well, since your plan involves me not being forced to buy anything until I'm forced to buy something, I'm feeling pretty safe that my opinion won't be refuted by actual evidence.
SharpeXB Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said: in my world if the server you want to play on is running a different version of the game than what you own, you can choose to play on a different server that has the correct version you own or you can change/upgrade your version. There are not enough players online in this game to support an idea like this. It would fragment the player base too much. You’re also acting as if the base game hasn’t been improved substantially over the years, which it has. 1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said: What happens when no one wants to buy the planes that are left? This is funny again. Another person who thinks the flight simulator market consists of a few hundred people. ? Gee what will we do when all 263 people on planet earth who play flight sims have bought everything from 1CGS? What will be left?! Hey good news: The #4 selling PC game in the world today is a flight sim! There are literally millions of owners of that game who will perhaps expand their enthusiasm to combat flight sims like IL-2. There are hundreds of thousands of potential customers out there. 2
Dutch2 Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 4 hours ago, SharpeXB said: There are not enough players online in this game to support an idea like this. It would fragment the player base too much. You’re also acting as if the base game hasn’t been improved substantially over the years, which it has. This is funny again. Another person who thinks the flight simulator market consists of a few hundred people. ? Gee what will we do when all 263 people on planet earth who play flight sims have bought everything from 1CGS? What will be left?! Hey good news: The #4 selling PC game in the world today is a flight sim! There are literally millions of owners of that game who will perhaps expand their enthusiasm to combat flight sims like IL-2. There are hundreds of thousands of potential customers out there. The first time I did did see FS2020 on the flatscreen mode, I also did notice what BoX is missing. The reason why FS2020 is so popular is that the quality of the game is much better. We are now in 2021 and 1C still thinks it can be using technology from the past. Those bad made clouds, 2D grass&trees, dancing trees, arras black ink spots, the shimmers and a retro looking 2D map. Buyers wanting to see in 2021 an 2021 game, not something from 2012, the new Normandie and FC2 map will bring nothing new only some minor things, its the same tralala. Look I’m not saying BoX is bad, but sone it will be, it needs to go further and not running like an dog at its own tail. @Jason_Williams is now on a crossroad and I do hope he will announce something more then a new Russian winter pilots uniform. 1 1 2
THERION Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 We all know, that technology does not stand still and that there is always something new for the dev to jump on - like raytracing? Did you see how many and what kind of games are supporting raytracing? I don't think this is successful story, if you ask me. It is a question of balance, gents. We are a combat flight community and our main interest should be flying historically correct modeled planes, with correctly modeled weapons, flight model and of course a correct damage model. In my opinion, 1C/777 is doing well - it's not perfect, no, but it's well done although there is always room for improvement. Now, talking and comparing FS2020 (beautifully done btw.) is just not fair. FS2020 was built on a completely new engine with the newest technology. Let's see how it will look in a couple of years. With technology evolving constantly, FS2020 might also look "old fashioned" in some years. And FS2020 has not the same community - most of the people there want to fly from point A to point B, maybe tackle with some bad weather, maybe some emergency scenarios to cope with, but that's it. IL2 Great Battles does a really good job. It allows people with different hardware to enjoy the same experience and no one is actually in disadvantage so to speak. Now, if you compare DCS then things are different - to me, only guys with high-end rigs get a chance to fully enjoy their modules. Sure, you can run it on low settings, but then it's fu**ing ugly and performance is still crappy. Whereas IL2 Great Battles allows people not having a high-end rig, to have a good experience in balanced settings and it still looks good. I want to fly over a landscape to redo/relive some historical events. If the landscape points out every single and historically correct detail, but with a low performance, then no thanks. Our community is already starting to become some kind of divided - we have the flatscreeners and the VR guys. VR guy are constantly asking for more and blackmail the devs not buying things anymore, if this or that is not implemented. Flatscreeners on the other hand think, that they are in disadvantage when it comes to situational awareness etc. - you see what I mean? Cheers to all 1 4
AndyJWest Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 I'm sure that if Jason had access to the sort of funds that Microsoft have provided to Asobo for MSFS (or the sort of funds that endless mugs have provided to Chris Roberts for Star Citizen for that matter), a lot more could be done. Anyone got any good ideas about how to make that happen. ?
von_Tom Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 8 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said: I think we're well past early access. We’re in early access for Normandy, then we’ll be in early access for whatever comes next. Early access helps pay the wages of those that update everything. The way GB is set up, everyone can join a server as long as there is an aircraft on it that they own. That is far better than having to chop and change iterations just to comply with whatever a server admin wants. At the point where everyone has bought everything they can start again, with newer game engine and all that. /truly out this time. von Tom
SharpeXB Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 4 hours ago, Dutch2 said: The first time I did did see FS2020 on the flatscreen mode, I also did notice what BoX is missing. The reason why FS2020 is so popular is that the quality of the game is much better. The reason for this is so much more complex than you are assuming. Microsoft owns Bing Maps a literally has a 3D map of the entire earth to stream into the game. 1CGS is not Microsoft. Those maps aren’t collidable like a combat sim needs and they aren’t historical for WWII The MSFS maps actually don’t look as good up close like a combat sim game would need either. The aircraft in those civ sims don’t have damage models or authentic functioning weapons Also for whatever reason, civilian flight sims are just more popular than combat sims. 3
SAS_Storebror Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 Is it just me or is this thread just becoming another derailed, former complaint thread? Mike
Lusekofte Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 40 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said: Is it just me or is this thread just becoming another derailed, former complaint thread? Mike It is not only you, this kind of discussion is taking place all over the forum. I even taken part in some. It is that time of the year. Evaluating last year's happenings.
[DBS]TH0R Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 23 hours ago, SYN_Mike77 said: Very few people play on line. Keep repeating this until it becomes true even if there is no evidence that it is true. Oh wait, there was that study in 2001 that said 90% of PC game use was in Single play. And flip phones are like awesome! The only people who know what percentage of game time is on line vs single player are the developers. Oh wait, it is 2021 and you are quoting a study 20 years old. The number of MP games and average internet connection quality is not even comparable to the start of the century... There should be a much greater focus on MP in this game. 1
SharpeXB Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 It’s pretty clear that MP is a small % of gameplay. Unless you think there are only 2-300 people who own this game. 2
DD_Arthur Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 1 hour ago, [DBS]TH0R said: There should be a much greater focus on MP in this game. Like Team Fusion have been doing for the last seven years? It doesn’t seem to have done them much good. I’m a multi player myself but I don’t kid myself about what that means. We’re merely a vocal minority on a forum. The player base for all flight sims are single players, there’s no getting away from that. Don’t believe me? There are over two hundred and thirty thousand individual members of this forum. The highest number I’ve counted online at anyone time was around four hundred and fifty at Euro prime time on the first Friday evening after the last visibility update. It was the first time I’ve seen GBS exceed DCS online too.
[DBS]TH0R Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 (edited) 'Cliffs has an engine that can actually cope with large number of planes and units at one location. IL-2 GB engine OTOH cannot. However, they have different problems to begin with - the online community is what kept that sim alive IMHO. And it still has by far the worst and least intuitive interface to date. Let us not compare apples and oranges please. The COOP feature in GB is wasted as no one is using it (that I can tell at least). And the MP lobby leaves a lot to be desired featurewise etc. If one doesn't develop the MP for years, it will not improve much. I am not saying drop the offline support, far from it - just that MP side feels neglected and not on par with 2021 standards. Because of that it doesn't attract many new pilots... Edited January 3, 2021 by [DBS]TH0R 1
SharpeXB Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 Are we done with yet another if my personal wishes aren’t granted immediately this sim is dead thread? ? 2 3
PB0_Roll Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 2 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said: The COOP feature in GB is wasted as no one is using it (that I can tell at least). And the MP lobby leaves a lot to be desired featurewise etc. If one doesn't develop the MP for years, it will not improve much. Well integrate a coop generator and more will play it, most likely. I do from time to time, using PWCG's coop generator, but it's external.
DD_Arthur Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Irishratticus72 said: Mr. Shit, meet Mrs. Show. With [DBS]THOR? No, he's one of the most level-headed guys on the forum. Doesn't mean I have to agree with him though. 2 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said: The COOP feature in GB is wasted as no one is using it (that I can tell at least). And the MP lobby leaves a lot to be desired featurewise etc. - just that MP side feels neglected and not on par with 2021 standards. Coops? No, it's not wasted but it is under-used. It's a feature that works really well for squad guys and they're using it Mods On mostly. Not huge numbers but four or five squads use it regularly and yes the MP lobby certainly could do with more features and if Coops are to become more popular we all know what is needed as does Jason. Out of curiosity - since I only have flight sims on my PC, what are 2021 "standards"? 1
[DBS]TH0R Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said: Out of curiosity - since I only have flight sims on my PC, what are 2021 "standards"? I'll try to keep this as short as possible: - MP lobby is spartan in comparison to other games today (lack of server details, options used, players on it, que for joining etc...) ... hell DCS has a plethora more options here - COOP IMHO is a long shot from the very successful implementation in the old IL-2 1946 combined with 3rd party software HyperLobby where you could easily see when a new game popped up with details on how to join etc. I never saw more than 5-6 servers in IL-2 GB, haven't checked recently or heard anyone talking about it - MP cannot properly handle all the 84 units at one location without warping, even sound engine breaks up when lots of planes and other units are in one location (more evident for us in DBS who fly bomber formations 95% of time, if not bombers than other planes) - in-game chat is cumbersome and lacking in options - no integrated VOIP (no sim that I know has it, not counting for massive MP ones IIRC) - large number of games nowadays get released in MP only versions, with SP as an afterthought (Call Of Duty anyone?) - internet connection in 2021. is leaps and bounds above what was available on average in 2000. (think smartphone coverage) 1
SYN_Mike77 Posted January 4, 2021 Posted January 4, 2021 21 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said: Oh wait, it is 2021 and you are quoting a study 20 years old. The number of MP games and average internet connection quality is not even comparable to the start of the century... There should be a much greater focus on MP in this game. I guess I forgot the /s tag. I thought the flip phone comment was enough.
Recommended Posts