Jump to content

Discussion of Flying Circus II Announcement


Recommended Posts

I pre-ordered Vol 1 and will certainly do the same with 2 shortly. The map improvement has me most interested. I was disappointed with the front/NML in Vol 1 as I’m of the opinion that flying low over the WW1 trenches would be one of the most unique and atmospheric experiences in VR. Period. I’d love to see that potential ultimately realized through Vol 3.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Consider two of these fighting each other... is it historical? Not really. Could it have happen (almost - there was a civil war)... would it be even more fun then a TB-3 vs. TB-3 fight? Yes!:

gun_mount.jpg

 

 

Couldn't resist buying this flying chicken pen .. would love to see it in FC2, historic or not, it's great in RoF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patersonski said:

I pre-ordered Vol 1 and will certainly do the same with 2 shortly. The map improvement has me most interested. I was disappointed with the front/NML in Vol 1 as I’m of the opinion that flying low over the WW1 trenches would be one of the most unique and atmospheric experiences in VR. Period. I’d love to see that potential ultimately realized through Vol 3.

 

Yeah... that is one area of an otherwise excellent map that would be improved significantly if they can up the technology.

 

It'd also benefit the Atlantic Wall fortifications in BoN as well (although they have a lot to do there tech/art wise already - English architecture and street plans, French Brocage etc.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

Vol 2 is pre-ordered. 

Know it's early to talk about Vol 3, but hope that will bring the early years, with planes like the Fokker E.III, Roland C2 and F. E. 2b etc. 

 

Looking at what is left after FC2, it looks to me that the earliest aircraft would most likely be in a FC4 rather than FC3 (considering the connectiveness approach to prior edition that they seem to be doing) - and that actually kinda makes sense, all things considered.

Edited by Redwo1f
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Redwo1f said:

 

Looking at what is left after FC2, it looks to me that the earliest aircraft would most likely be in a FC4 rather than FC3 (considering the connectiveness approach to prior edition that they seem to be doing) - and that actually kinda makes sense, all things considered.


FC2 is bringing us the bombers and fleshing out 1918.

 

Likely FC3 will bring the Fokker E.III, Halb D.II, Alb D.II, Alb D.III and Roland C.II — and that’s it for Central. The only thing left is the Brandenburg and new collector planes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, US93_Larner said:


I would highly recommend it!   WW1-Era aviation is an incredibly fascinating topic, you'll be hooked in no time...and there's nothing like a WW1 dogfight. 

If you're looking at getting into WW1 aviation history, try "Flying Fury" by James McCudden...great introductory memoir which goes all the way through 1914 to 1918! 

 

Ill look into the book ty.

 

While WW1 in unique and was the dawn of combat aviation with fledgling aircraft, WW2 just has more draw to me. There were so many huge leaps then with decently performing aircraft ranging to amazing and superb. The dawn of the jet and rocket age too and the huge leaps forward. You have thought to be antiquated biplanes  like the HS123 and Fairy swordfish that played major roles, to the various german jets and rockets. Technology that gets revisited and learned from even today. 

 

I'm about 2 hours from the national museum of the US air force. Their collection is amazing. As an aircraft mech, I LOVE the cutaway jet/rocket engines. However I'd love to see them together showing the progression vs being with the aircraft they were with. To a trained eye we could see the progression through the years. Though most wouldnt understand or notice most of it. I was there when a fool was bashing the B36 and how poorly done the model was because of the skin warping. I made a very loud comment to those that were with me that every plane here unless noted was an actual flying plane and many were in flight read condition still. I made sure the fool overheard it lol. I had a volunteer come up and listen to the conversation we were having. He finally interrupted and said he found it fascinating how much I knew about various planes. He said he would often ask people if they had questions and would educate them about various planes or aspects.  He said it was clear  that I knew what I was talking about and that he actually learned many things that he hadn't known before. Naturally the WW2 section was my favorite and I loved how they had more than just USAAC aircraft there, they have many allied and axis planes.

 

The WW1 and interwar years section is also well represented. However  I usually didn't spend as much time there. I may have to change that now. This is one aspect of flight sims that I enjoy as it can often be very educational and opens opportunities to learn more.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ksetuni said:

 

Ill look into the book ty.

 

While WW1 in unique and was the dawn of combat aviation with fledgling aircraft, WW2 just has more draw to me. There were so many huge leaps then with decently performing aircraft ranging to amazing and superb. The dawn of the jet and rocket age too and the huge leaps forward. You have thought to be antiquated biplanes  like the HS123 and Fairy swordfish that played major roles, to the various german jets and rockets. Technology that gets revisited and learned from even today. 


I actually went the opposite route - I was really big into WW2 at first, then I got turned onto WW1 and nothing's held quite the same appeal ever since! 

Hope to see you in FC soon ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:


I actually went the opposite route - I was really big into WW2 at first, then I got turned onto WW1 and nothing's held quite the same appeal ever since! 

Hope to see you in FC soon ;)

 

That's what happens when you hang with me and Adam.

 

3rd PG cant 't hold a candle to Dirk's Death Star.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I AM truly thrilled that FC2 is to finally make an appearance, but still, a part of me, feels disappointed, even though I am aware of the possible reasons why decisions as to content are as they are.

 

FC2 brings to the table a couple of Allied aircraft, the Spad 7 and Tripe that have no contemporary competition in the game, aircraft introduced at the end of 1916, if not widely seen, as a counter balance two German fighters included in FC2, that as you are well aware, were the high end of German fighter development and only fielded very late on.  They will also be fielded in their best guise with all mod cons ( even if some were purely experimental), working as conceived if not necessarily as in the sometimes grim reality.  .........and not to bang on about it (even if I am) the SE5a is still not performing as maybe it should, with the 20000 rpm engine, let alone a very (very) late war 2100 rpm engine (or even a 234hp Spad XIII for that matter) to counter the late 18 Central aircraft ?
 

The Central side already have a strong, mixed, line up to take on Allied Scouts that are already in game, on equal terms.  Surely a couple of Central Scouts, more contemporary to the Tripe and 7 would have improved the variety of gameplay options ?

 

With continued frustration at the present damage model however, all the above is moot anyway.if ever hopeful of an overhaul in the foreseeable future.

 

:salute:

Edited by HagarTheHorrible
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

The Central side already have a strong, mixed, line up to take on Allied Scouts that are already in game, on equal terms.  Surely a couple of Central Scouts, more contemporary to the Tripe and 7 would have improved the variety of gameplay options ?

 

If we get the pre-1.034 Triplane, which is likely to happen as we also have the pre-1.034 Camel with the same Clerget engine, it will walk all over the Albatros D.Va and be pretty much on-par with the Pfalz, 1.034 Dr.I and vanilla D.VII. Assuming we get both engine variants for the SPAD VII, the 180hp is a great machine if somewhat undergunned (the Belgians flew it till the end of the war), only the 150hp SPAD is outdated by 1918 standards, though still faster than everything on Central but the Fokker D.VIIF and Pfalz D.XII.

 

Some Central pilots will trade their Big F in for the little f: the D.XII is a far more stable gun platform and performs even better at high altitude, but it's less versatile at sea level. Only the very brave will fly the Fokker D.VIII. Actually, that will depend greatly on how it performs compared to the "nerfed" Dr.I, considering they have the same engine. Time will tell.

 

Central does need a machine that is in the same ballpark as the Camel, SPAD XIII and S.E.5a — and that machine exists: the Fokker D.VII 200hp (with Mercedes D.IIIaü).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BraveSirRobin said:


This should be a collector plane instead of the unicorns that some are suggesting.

 

I think it should be added as an engine variant of the vanilla Fokker D.VII package in FC1.

 

If it's a collector plane it can't really be made standard in multiplayer, which it should be as of May 1918. I'd keep collector planes for "exotics" only, including the Hanriot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from Jason.

 

"I am aware some of you are not totally satisfied with the current damage model as it pertains to WWI. We recently overhauled our entire damage model for the engine and making further changes to it for WWI will also affect WWII. This requires some thinking and more study, but at this moment I cannot make further changes to just WWI. I see this as a long-term project to somehow change only WWI damage modeling."

 

=================================================================================================================================================

 

First up, I'm just happy that FC development will continue after a period when things were looking grim. I don't even care what the developers do particularly, just that it lives again and will breathe new life into it. I have no complaints on that score.

 

But having said that, as an owner of FC only (which is unlikely to change), it's always bugged me that I'm forced to update gigs and gigs of primarily WWII stuff. Stuff that just takes up drive space and is useless to me. And does not always benefit FC as we all know.

 

So I'm heartened that Jason is even considering a "long term project" to "somehow change only WW1 damage modeling." Even better if it could be expanded to a totally separate entity from the WWII modules! A bit elitist and selfish sure and no doubt a very complex procedure. If possible at all? Probably not. It's not the model. But well, one can dream.

 

In the meantime, I hope FC sales swell to unimaginable proportions and you never know what might happen! The King is not dead. Long live the King.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

.........and not to bang on about it (even if I am) the SE5a is still not performing as maybe it should, with the 20000 rpm engine, let alone a very (very) late war 2100 rpm engine (or even a 234hp Spad XIII for that matter) to counter the late 18 Central aircraft ?

 

Well... if you are talking about historical aircraft that would provide game balance the following might be more suitable:

- Having an early S.E.5 with the 150hp engine

- Having a Sopwith Camel with a 110hp Le Rhône 9J or 100hp Gnome Monosoupape 9B-2 rotary

 

...because the Central Powers 1918 aircraft were relatively under-powered compared to the Entente :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved Rise of Flight,  was a day 1 buyer of FC, and will buy FC2, possibly very soon. I never knew I was a fan of WW1 aviation until ROF, and made me realize how awesome WW1 simulators are. Realistically, this is the only game in town, so I'll be a customer.
That said I am kind of a little frustrated with Jason's awareness but non-committal response to the damage model issue. I think his reference to "mixed opinions"  implies that it's debatable whether there is an issue with the DM. It is not debatable, there is an issue. I do not know how anyone can watch this video and think there is not a very real problem that has for me personally taken away a lot of the fun of ww1 flying and driven me over to the WW2 stuff (where there are not the same ridiculous damage model issues)

 

IL2 Flying Circus Wing Damage - YouTube


75% of poll respondents on the "polls" part of the forum think the current DM is bad for WW1 (Most people including myself think its fine for WW2 possibly excepting incendiary modeling for 50cal).  25% of people probably believe  that the moon landing was fake, .. getting 75% of people to agree on anything  is hard.

Its also not rocket science to fix the issue. All they need to do is go change some numbers in their structural calculations and "artificially" toughen up the weak wings of the scouts that exhibit this wing shedding behavior until it "feels right".. IE make SE5, Albatros, Halberstadt, etc roughly like the D7 is now... or at least when they take a poll of players they get a 50/50 result instead of a 75/25 result.
All that said, I am very glad they are releasing FC2, will support it,  and will buy it, but c'mon...
 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad thing Zigrat is those 25% that feel the DM is fine never fly in FC or they just go off line chasing ai. So to them it's fine. If we could get those 25% to come on line for more than just 1 flight, try it for a week and then see. And no flying the d7, dr1 or the phalz. Try the se5, camel spad, Halb and dolphin as well as the alb. Or if you want to find out how fast you lose controls fly the Bristol. Bet we could get that 75% to 100% in no time.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TX-Zigrat said:

That said I am kind of a little frustrated with Jason's awareness but non-committal response to the damage model issue.

Did you read what he wrote? Calling him non-committal when he clearly explained that solving the issue at the root is clearly beyond their means in the current workload?

 

3 hours ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Sad thing Zigrat is those 25% that feel the DM is fine never fly in FC or they just go off line chasing ai. So to them it's fine.

Sad thing is that complainers slow down sales, effectively putting brakes on what Jason has at hand to tackle issues.

 

Until then, we have what we have. And you can shoot down any plane in the Dolphin or the Camel. I fly those mostly, almost exclusively online. I‘m not a fan of the DM in FC, but for the time being it works. It is a structural downside having different kinds of vehicles in a common simulator and a common DM. Ball rounds in general pose a challenge to model their effects. If they saw a way to fudge things such to „make it good“ you really think they wouldn‘t have done it? Because that is what you are saying.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TX-Zigrat said:

Its also not rocket science to fix the issue. All they need to do is go change some numbers in their structural calculations and "artificially" toughen up the weak wings of the scouts that exhibit this wing shedding behavior until it "feels right".. IE make SE5, Albatros, Halberstadt, etc roughly like the D7 is now... or at least when they take a poll of players they get a 50/50 result instead of a 75/25 result.

 

3 hours ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Sad thing Zigrat is those 25% that feel the DM is fine never fly in FC or they just go off line chasing ai. So to them it's fine. If we could get those 25% to come on line for more than just 1 flight, try it for a week and then see. And no flying the d7, dr1 or the phalz. Try the se5, camel spad, Halb and dolphin as well as the alb. Or if you want to find out how fast you lose controls fly the Bristol. Bet we could get that 75% to 100% in no time.

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Until then me have what we have. And you can shoot down any plane in the Dolphin or the Camel. I fly those mostly, almost exclusively online. I‘m not a fan of the DM in FC, but for the time being it works. It is a structural downside having different kinds of vehicles in a common simulator and a common DM. Ball rounds in general pose a challenge to model their effects. If they saw a way to fudge things such to „make it good“ you really think they wouldn‘t have done it? Because that is what you are saying.

 

 

 

Note: I suppose we can discuss the DM again since Jason brought it up in the Officers Club, but let's keep it civil and factual so it doesn't get locked like all the other DM threads.

 

 

I agree with all of you. Having options to make multiplayer more balanced, more populated and more fun is never a bad idea. Jason needs to sell copies for him to fix the DM, and the DM needs to be fixed for him to sell more copies. Catch-22!

 

The current state of the DM is also the reason I don't spend quite as much in multiplayer as I used to. The main Central machines my squadron flies historically, the Albatros and Halberstadt, have to be deployed in massive numbers (think 10+) to be effective. Numbers which we don't always have or realistically can hope for in multiplayer every night of the week. Hence, going for pure realism or a realistic planeset in multiplayer is increasingly moot.

 

Like @ZachariasX says, if you're Entente then you have all the maneuverability, speed or a mix of both to never get hit in the first place or extend away in a straight line. And if you're flying Central, you're in a Fokker or a Pfalz or you trust in your parachute.

 

 

...but I still don't think the DM is that far from being realistic. I've spent a bit of time here and there over the last few months in the Dolphin, and I'm surprised at how much damage the wings can take as long as they aren't loaded. I've had a Dr.I parked on my 6 blasting away at me while I was slowly extending in a straight line, and I made it home with large gaping holes in all wings, streaming radiator, leaking fuel tank, busted controls and a half-dead pilot. And I've lost wings after taking the smallest amount of damage in a merge without any visual or audio feedback, and then accidentally loading the wings beyond 2g while sideslipping to "get that shot in".

 

That's how @TX-Zigrat loses his wings in the video he posted.

 

We have some in-cockpit footage of his reaction when this happens:

 

200.gif

 

 

 

That said: controls jamming into position is a product of advanced WW2 counterbalanced surfaces and has no place in WW1. Unless you somehow get your foot stuck in a pulley or a control rod breaks and gets stuck in position (how?), the worst you can expect is for a control surface to hang loose and align with the relative wind if a cable snaps.

 

Fixing this and adding a server side wing strength option is likely much easier than redoing all the wing spar strength calculations for a third time.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved RoF. Bought the boxed version. Bought every DLC for it. Was thrilled when VR was announced for RoF. Sad when the explanation came that VR wasn’t possible after all.

Incredibly happy when Flying Circus was announced! Even if it was a gamble, as Jason put it. VR is perfect for WWI flying!
Now I am really happy to have pre-purchased the second iteration of FC! Even happier to read that there will be a third and possibly a fourth volume...

 

I see some complaints about this an that. Yes, there are some things that could be improved upon. Isn’t there always..? Nothing is ever perfect, from everybodys view. But look at what’s bad about FC and then take a look at what’s good about it. There’s a lot more good than bad. Focus on the good, too. And keep feeding the developers with constructive critisism!

 

This is a great time to be a WWI flightsimmer! 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone wants parity then put up a server where everyone flies the same planes.

This, make such and such wings the same as such and such, isn't a road I'd want a 'Sim' to be going down.

I'm fine with the structural DM - I'm of the belief it's now harder to shoot down a plane than it was under the original DM.

With 1000 rounds I'm currently shooting down 7-8 bots maximum - whereas in the early days I was getting up to 10-11 in a good flight.

 

The control cable thing - yes I see that as a 'gameplay' problem. Happens 90% too often in certain planes imo for satisfying gameplay.

Then again I could try not getting hit.

 

S!

Edited by Zooropa_Fly
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

My normal reaction nowdays is to buy basically anything the developers throw at us to support the development but I did not jump in immediately this time for one simple reason and that is the WW1 DM.

 

No need to regurgitate all the details of why I think it’s wrong but in essence it boils down to the conventional wire braced kites being far too vulnerable compared to the unbraced box spar kites and that in general you should need to shoot an awful amount of full jacketed lead into the wing hit boxes to chip away at the spars or get the golden BB hit on a support wire or hit a structural element with no alternative load path. In addition, the risk of losing the connection to a control surface is far too high today and in 99% of the cases a surface would not lock up in the position it was when it was hit but weather wane. Finally, IRL planes don’t start to shake around after a few bullets hit the control surfaces.

 

However, having thought about it some more I will buy FC2 to support future work on the WW1 part of this great sim series but TBH if this money does not fix the WW1 DM then I will probably not buy an FC3. This is not a threat. It’s simply that I would lose interest. I don’t think I’m alone in this sentiment but that is of course just guessing.

 

Having rained on the parade I feel I need to end on a more positive note and for me I’m especially looking forward to the addition of the Sopwith Triplane and the Fokker D.VIII in FC2! :)

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

*Snip*

...but I still don't think the DM is that far from being realistic. I've spent a bit of time here and there over the last few months in the Dolphin, and I'm surprised at how much damage the wings can take as long as they aren't loaded. I've had a Dr.I parked on my 6 blasting away at me while I was slowly extending in a straight line, and I made it home with large gaping holes in all wings, streaming radiator, leaking fuel tank, busted controls and a half-dead pilot. And I've lost wings after taking the smallest amount of damage in a merge without any visual or audio feedback, and then accidentally loading the wings beyond 2g while sideslipping to "get that shot in".


*Snip*
 

That said: controls jamming into position is a product of advanced WW2 counterbalanced surfaces and has no place in WW1. Unless you somehow get your foot stuck in a pulley or a control rod breaks and gets stuck in position (how?), the worst you can expect is for a control surface to hang loose and align with the relative wind if a cable snaps.

 

Fixing this and adding a server side wing strength option is likely much easier than redoing all the wing spar strength calculations for a third time.


For me, one of the really glaring issues with the DM is how few rounds it seems to take to break certain planes - coupled with the frequency of an outcome like that. My general understanding is that spar damage causes the wings to fail after sustaining damage. 

Where the problem lies in that, for me, is that it seems all too common for certain aircraft to reliably go to pieces in very short order, with not a huge amount of rounds fired at them. The implication there is that rounds are finding their way into the spars more often than they're hitting canvas. It's a shame that modelling actual hitboxes for the spars is impractical, I'd be really interested in seeing what difference (if any) that would make. 

Agreed on controls jamming. That immediately stuck out as really odd to me when I first saw it. I also think the frequency of controls snapping is way too high, especially when you factor in redundant cables, or even just the fact that it's a cable in general (not the easiest target to hit). Again, seems like you can snap them with unrealistic frequency. 

...but, maybe that's a conversation better left to a different thread. 

A wing strength option would be a good stop-gap - it's pretty similar to having the improved visibility option IMO. 

 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

That said: controls jamming into position is a product of advanced WW2 counterbalanced surfaces and has no place in WW1. Unless you somehow get your foot stuck in a pulley or a control rod breaks and gets stuck in position (how?), the worst you can expect is for a control surface to hang loose and align with the relative wind if a cable snaps.

 

Good point.

 

Jason spoke of an interplay between the WWI and WWII models; a likely gremlin?

 

I've been looking at it like the sim is telling me I've lost control function and deal with it.  If it was only how it looks in the FR, no problem.  But my last jammed rudder flew like a jammed rudder and, as you say, "how?"

 

I guess it's possible: the rudder cable could somehow (damaged?) slip off a pulley and bind in a bracket?  That sounds like it might be able to jam the rudder to one side against the relative wind but in reality I kinda doubt it.  If that happened, I think the pedals would bind but the rudder itself would still be pretty much downwind.  But let's say it could happen once in a blue moon; twice?  Frequently?  Hmmmmmm....

 

So I agree: it seems unlikely yet we're seeing a lot of it.  Sim needs a couple clicks of windage there.  But I accept Jason's statement about how changes in the sim affect WWI and WWII games simultaneously and fixing them isn't simple.  He sounds aware and motivated so I'm inclined to be patient.  

Edited by Todt_Von_Oben
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Setting aside the issue of "it takes X number of bullets to break the wing off of plane Y", even just fixing the control jamming issue would be a major step forward. In the allied planes I'm usually flying online, we never get to the point of the wing breaking off because you lose all your controls and just drift into the ground.

 

I think the right attitude is an open mind about FC2, and I do think I'll pre-order just because I like the theater so much. New planes and maps need to work with repairs to the base game to bring out the full potential.

Edited by NO.20_Krispy_Duck
Link to post
Share on other sites

Control surface damage should be investigated, from my experience it happens to often on some airplanes, as the probability was set to high, especially for Camel which had 4 ailerons and no push rods just cables. In the game when this damage is triggered it happens to all ailerons simultaneously! and very often is fatal when control surface are stuck in deflect position because imaginary push rods were jammed ! From time to time  I should have broken cable and connected control surface or half of it should flutter  freely on the air - this how I see it correct. This push rods is WW2 control surface damage model not suited for ww1 IMHO.

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I fly the Bristol 90% of the time so wing breakage is not a problem unless I get smoked by the Halb's cannons. But control damage is. Flying over no mans land at over a thousand feet we lose our controls regularly from 1 hit from the ground fire. But we like the rest of you that actually still come on still come in and fly, We're dealing with it the best we can. 

Hell I was probably one of the first in line to purchase FCII. As soon as I heard the news I went shopping. Thank you Duck.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

 

 

Never seems to happen when I shoot at you, or any of 1PL for that matter.

Well just be patient and practice shooting 😉

Yet another issue to fix is the visual damage model which is misleading us. You can't tell that three holes in the wings is underlying broken spars or control cables and yours next +3 G maneuver will cost you life. Same with control surface. 

This picture was taken when I had full control of rudder and elevator - but as you see - no cables.

image.thumb.png.092c056aa9f92d5aa246350ee3dd0054.png

 

and this is my imaginary  push rods jammed!

image.png.9d3bd4e47373a60ee686ac394b421fee.png

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to preorder now. But i'm worried, because i usually use STEAM-VR to play the Sim.

 

On the store page there is stated: "This is a keyless non-Steam product."

Does this mean, that i cannot play Volume 2 in Steam? That would be a bummer for me, because i need Steam VR. :(

Edited by MechMech_Donald
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MechMech_Donald said:

I would like to preorder now. But i'm worried, because i usually use STEAM-VR to play the Sim.

 

On the store page there is stated: "This is a keyless non-Steam product."

Does this mean, that i cannot play Volume 2 in Steam? That would be a bummer for me, because i need Steam VR. :(

As soon as you link your Il-2 Account with Steam you can preorder everything from here and play it there.

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

As soon as you link your Il-2 Account with Steam you can preorder everything from here and play it there.

 

Thank you. The sentence "This is a keyless non-Steam product" made me worry about that. So i'll preorder now! 🙂

 

4 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

I believe you just run the steam vr app when playing the game. How do you fly FC and il2 now? It'll be the same. 

 

I launch the Game directly from Steam. I think i bought IL-2-BoS directly over Steam someday. But i'm not sure. It's too long ago... 😄

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...