Developer Diary, Part 66

[=VARP=Cygann]

I think the crucial thing that Offliners feel they will miss, if we have interpreted things correctly, is Narrative.

 

...

 

I mean, a campaign should have a story to tell, right?

 

...

I guess much depends on how the briefings and debriefings move us through the phases, to how connected we feel.

 

This is actually pinpointing issue anyone should have with any game that has this component done wrong.

 

There needs to be some kind of story in between missions, and about a true ace so player feel special filling those shoes. Something along lines ROF's training campaign. But if animations are to expensive for this studio, set it up as a plain audio that will tell that story and add some atmosphere before one hops in cockpit.

 

Or even comic alike, static pictures/art with voice over to tell the tail about dramatic moment and perhaps feelings or thoughts some historic pilot had (assuming we're filling his shoes in the campaign). Good example of this is in the GuildWars2. Does not have to be that artistic or expensive, but something along those lines would attract even more casual gamer that will set everything to easy settings and go for the story mode.

 

Would be really nice to have scripted campaigns with narrative and set missions that had to be a success to move to the next. This does not mean there should not be your 'sandboxy' dynamic front generator, that is something we play after campaigns along with MP.

 

This idea by Extreme_One is the best I've seen in last couple of pages of this topic, it's almost a must have for better sales to wider audience and attracting new future simmers. They need to start somewhere, can't just hop in the MP and get crushed, and yet QMB is quite boring for most people I spoke to, myself included.

[flugkapitan]

As a single player guy - never have done the multiplayer thing,  nor do I have any desire to - this Dev Update is quite a disappointment to me. I'll wait and see, but what I've read in these 5 pages does not give me much hope.

[Zak]

Zak, one other question that I'm not sure if you guys want to answer right now. Will the campaign dynamically add in aircraft as they are added to the game. So hypothetically if the I-16 or IAR80/81 or Yak-7B or whatever aircraft get added later will the campaign be able to pick up on those without trouble? The biggest problem for some of the dynamic campaigns in IL-2 was that they never were updated/adapted to take advantage of aircraft that were added later. Not officially anyways.

If (IF!) we release new planes and maps they will most possibly have their own campaign (on their theatre of War). I don't think adding them to previous campaign has even been considered - since there's only BOS in development, and it's too early to count on other plane sets and TOWs

[LLv44_Mprhead]

All this "OMG everything is ruined" made me buy RoF channel edition last night On the topics at hand, my advice to everyone would be: Read all the green posts before posting. And I mean actually read them, don't skim, don't read between the lines. And while it might be so that pessimist is never disappointed, interpreting everything the worst possible way will not help enyone. It is obvious that BoS will not be all that it can be at release. That doesn't mean that it will never be that. For the longevity of BoS it is important to get FMB at some point, but it's not important to get it now. Same goes with SP stuff. As long as there is steady stream of new content from those people that will have access to ME it will not be a real problem. Rome was not build in a day and all that, you know...

[Rodolphe]

...

 

 Rome was not build in a day and all that, you know...

 

But remember Rome was repeatedly sacked in just a few days : August 410, May 1527 ..

 

 

...

 

...

[pilotpierre]

A little OT but that was Chuck Older aka Chris. He changed his tag when the real CO passed away. I did beta test it for him and pack the files for uploading.

I did The Blue, el Alemaine, Cactus Diary, Cat O'9 Tales and a few others. They were all historically based and researched. I started doing campaigns right after Extreme_One showed us all how with Battle over Britain and then when I posted a tutorial, it snowballed and we got lots more people putting them together.

Played all of them, all good and immersive.

[E69_Luke]

A big mistake. Seems amazing to me after all these years since Falcon 4.0 was launched, nobody has learned what makes a flight sim a legend. I hope you re-think your posture and at least use RoF beta dynamic campaign engine. Anyway thanks for the sim so far.

[Picchio]

I think the crucial thing that Offliners feel they will miss, if we have interpreted things correctly, is Narrative.

 

I mean, a campaign should have a story to tell, right?

 

My understanding regarding the "story to tell" is that there's nothing prohibiting it with the incoming campaign system has been explained and described; to the contrary, narrative could here be a simple (or cheap) way to keep missions together when they're not tied nor influenced by the player's and the AI's own successes and failures.

Yes, it could still be done within appropriate boundaries of historical accuracy, and that would surely enrich the experience, but how much?

 

Narrative, strictly speaking, wouldn't even be needed if there actually was a dynamic campaign system: it's only here that a player tells his own specific story: they've brought this up too, to describe their own system, but I'm afraid they did in quite a wrong and dull manner.

Yes, it can also perfectly work with a series of carefully scripted missions - perhaps some of you guys are familiar with Maple Flag Missions made for DCS's A-10C... those are the standard I refer to, when it comes to scripted campaigns. Leaving alone the fact that BoS approaches simulation differently, I fear the potential depth within such missions is quite lower.

But most of all, how can it work if these missions are not tied together? If there is no consequence at all, except that you have to finish a batch and start the next one, what does finish, or better, accomplish, even mean here... ?

 

The lack of a consequential process in making missions follow one another could make one feel like he's part of the bigger, intimidating and unavoidable History, but the fact that there is no real, individual insertion into it (it's not clear to me at this point, but it seems that one is able to choose any mission, any plane, any squadron, any side at all times, for each mission... just who are you? And why?) is only sounding very impoverishing to me. Narrative or not.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Picchio

[kendo]

For those considering having a look at the ROF mission editor there is a great series of videos describing how to create a mission:

 

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL724688FAC76E4385

 

Even the first video shows some interesting features.

Edited May 31, 2014 by kendo

[SCG_Neun]

Thanks kenda.

Sorry Kendo.

[Nankeen]

Hey all, this is my take on this. Where all flying early 1940’s birds of the past right, and where pilots of 2014.

We are unique and so are the planes we choose to fly . 

 

Zac (blue text):

Let your imagination personalize your gaming experience. *This gives us freedom folks*

 

We're an unbiased story teller. You are pilots living virtual lives in the sim.

* This may just be about past plane technoligy and the skill of the present ?*

 

IL2:BOS campaign will tell you the story of Battle of Stalingrad from November 19th 1942 till February 2nd 1943. 

The whole period is split into operations (phases of the battle). Each phase has a realistic template on how ground troops and airfields were positioned. 

We did our best to be as precise as possible in this and all templates are based on historically correct data and real maps.

 

A historical story about the BOS war and planes is quite fitting in a sim. 

 

As for role playing: Just be you, no need to be someone else

 

The groundhog day: 

I Looked at this like: If we where to travel back in time, and at any given point, that is where we would be in battle. 

Like a time traveller or something. 

[Brano]

Well,not being anglo-american I do not understand meaning of ''groundhog day''

[dburne]

Well,not being anglo-american I do not understand meaning of ''groundhog day''

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/

[Nankeen]

Me neither Brano, just a guess

dburnette,

[Matt]

It basically means that you experience the same day over and over and the same stuff is happening every time.

 

Which is probably exactly how many WW2 pilots (or ground troops etc.) felt like after some time.

[FlatSpinMan]

The artist formerly known as bird_brain is in our midst?! Great news.

Looking forward to your RoF/BoS FMB tutorial. As mentioned, your how to guide was what got me into the whole business.

[Jaegermeister]

@Jagermeister/Bird_Brain: It's good to see you back. ~

Thanks, it's cool to see some of the same people still interested in this 10 years later or however long ago that was. I think we started a Spanish Civil War campaign together and never finished.

 

Played all of them, all good and immersive.

Thanks as well... Comments like that were what kept mission builders doing their thing which led to.....

 

I'm sure I've spent a lot more time in the FMB than in the cockpits of any of the planes in IL-2 1946.

I can relate to that as well.

 

So some people would think this little side discussion between old IL2 mission builders is a little OT, but it's not. What it shows me is that there is a lot of interest in offline campaigns for BOS, those that are interested are stepping up and saying so, and that we can look forward to those tools as long as the overall sim is successful and everyone gets to keep working on it.

 

I will just wait and see how it turns out because the truth is I would not be able to spend the countless hours I used to working on offline campaigns either. At least there is significant thought going into the future development potential so it is not another CLOD.....

[ShamrockOneFive]

If (IF!) we release new planes and maps they will most possibly have their own campaign (on their theatre of War). I don't think adding them to previous campaign has even been considered - since there's only BOS in development, and it's too early to count on other plane sets and TOWs

 

Thanks for answering as I realize its a hypothetical discussion right now IF such things come to pass later, it'd be nice if the new types were integrated seamlessly into the campaign system as things progress. I find in projects its usually better to leave open a hook for these types of things early on than trying to make it work later. Without gold-plating things too much anyways.

 

Thanks again Zak!

[Jaegermeister]

The artist formerly known as bird_brain is in our midst?! Great news. Looking forward to your RoF/BoS FMB tutorial. As mentioned, your how to guide was what got me into the whole business.

Yep, still armchair flying..... I just have a cooler name now.

There are already some good tutorials on the ROF FMB so fortunately I won't have to worry about that.

[von_Greiff]

@ jagermeister...at least make it jaegermeister, I know you don't have the "umlaut" not on your keyboard, so the "ae" comes closest, as we also pronouce like the "umlaut"....  

[No601_Prangster]

A big mistake. Seems amazing to me after all these years since Falcon 4.0 was launched, nobody has learned what makes a flight sim a legend. I hope you re-think your posture and at least use RoF beta dynamic campaign engine. Anyway thanks for the sim so far.

Just to remind everyone, the Falcon 4.0 campaign was good but it didn't make any money and the studio was shut down by Hasbro. 

[=RvE=Windmills]

If (IF!) we release new planes and maps

 

Well that doesn't make it sound like you guys are confident in being succesful enough to continue development.

 

I get that you can't say with total confidence how its going to go with the release, but this does sound worrying to me.

[Feathered_IV]

 

It's not a career like in ROF and it was announced long before. What did you expect then, Feathered?

Hi Zack. Please shoot me a PM if you're interested for me to elaborate.

[FuriousMeow]

You guys are complaining about a lack of DCG in a game being built in close to a year and a half. Just getting something working out the door, let alone a historically based DCG, in that time frame is phenomenal.

 

It took several years after Il-2's release for a DCG. CloD still doesn't have one. You can't compare one game to another, especially when the development timeline is measured in less than 2 years compared to 4 to 5 of the other titles being mentioned. DCGs require a lot of effort, and lots of research for an semblance of historical accuracy.

 

We will probably get a DCG if a third party develops one (spoiler: the creators of Il-2 didn't build a DCG either) and the best DCG for RoF is Pat Wilson's. Probably just a waste of electronic text, but the reality is what I stated here and should require fully understanding before complaining of "how little" we're getting.

[Jaws2002]

If (IF!) we release new planes and maps they will most possibly have their own campaign (on their theatre of War). I don't think adding them to previous campaign has even been considered - since there's only BOS in development, and it's too early to count on other plane sets and TOWs

 

He was not talking about planes for other maps. He was talking about additional planes involved at Stalingrad. You posted polls about some of those, remember? Those were meant for BOS, not some new map/addon. At least that's what you said back then.

What about those?

Those polls, posted by you, we're a big reason I pre-ordered.

Was that just another thing "we miss understood"? ......like many other things you guys said before asking for money?

 

Honestly, but the message I'm getting now is "Thanks all of you Rise of flight and Il-2 players for the preorders and early support, but we are making a game for the War thunder fans, not for you."

 

Why didn't you tell us all this before asking for money?

[FuriousMeow]

but we are making a game for the War thunder fans, not for you."

 

Why didn't you tell us all this before asking for money?

 

Because they aren't. I played War Thunder, this is not War Thunder. Not even close.

[Jaegermeister]

@ jagermeister...at least make it jaegermeister, I know you don't have the "umlaut" not on your keyboard, so the "ae" comes closest, as we also pronouce like the "umlaut"....

I know, but the Liquor that I stole the label off for my avatar is spelled like that. Not grammatically correct but it's too late now...

[SIDWULF]

Who cares about Single Player or dynamic campaign. So boring and tedious to play. Just focus on the aircraft and make the best possible multiplayer dogfighting experience please.

 

The Devs clearly have no time to please the loudest minority. I assume most of the community just wants a realistic dogfighting experience in their favourite aircraft and couldn't care less about the history...

 

Well at least that's me.

[Meteor2]

IMHO there is nothing more boring than dogfight servers. That's killling multiplayer nearly immediately for me.

[DigitalEngine]

I'm extreamly pleased with the development of IL-2 BOS so far, and I'm looking forward to whatever will be coming next, from the publisher and 3rd party developers.

And whenever the next installment of IL-2 is announced,  I will plan on pre-purchasing it also.

Edited May 31, 2014 by BlueMatrix

[FuriousMeow]

Who cares about this, who cares about that.

 

One and a half years of development, you won't have an "involving" DCG. You'll have the sandbox to build that, which so many complain about. Sandbox? The sand and the box are being delivered, learn to code to build your castle. But no one will.

[Jason_Williams]

IMHO there is nothing more boring than dogfight servers. That's killling multiplayer nearly immediately for me.

 

Please go play ROF on the Syndicate server or something similar. They are not pure dogfight servers. Teamwork and objectives are all part of it. 

 

And there is also BOSWAR in development based on our server and mission building system. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/6470-boswar-testing-tonight-2100-cet/

 

Jason

[MK_RED13]

Stutter gone... for me.. thank you very much!!! And now.. please fix russian "LANDING FLAPS UFOs" ... :-)

[Voidhunger]

Stutters are still there. Unfortunately game is still unplayable. I hope they fix it soon.

[FS_Fenice_1965]

Please go play ROF on the Syndicate server or something similar. They are not pure dogfight servers. Teamwork and objectives are all part of it. 

 

And there is also BOSWAR in development based on our server and mission building system. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/6470-boswar-testing-tonight-2100-cet/

 

Jason

 

Agree,

on the IL2 lobby the servers with better longevity have that formula. Dogfight objective based.

[Zak]

He was not talking about planes for other maps. He was talking about additional planes involved at Stalingrad. You posted polls about some of those, remember? Those were meant for BOS, not some new map/addon. At least that's what you said back then.

What about those?

Those polls, posted by you, we're a big reason I pre-ordered.

I was not asking about planes for BOS. Talks about continuation of the series were active those days so we thought we should narrow the search by asking about your preferences. NOT for BOS.

[Original_Uwe]

Who cares about Single Player or dynamic campaign. So boring and tedious to play. Just focus on the aircraft and make the best possible multiplayer dogfighting experience please.

 

The Devs clearly have no time to please the loudest minority. I assume most of the community just wants a realistic dogfighting experience in their favourite aircraft and couldn't care less about the history...

 

Well at least that's me.

A great way to make sure no one buys this game. Edited May 31, 2014 by forsale

[=RkSq=Lodebeard]

Some time after game release FMB will be available to everybody but not during early access. At this point it is similar to ROF editor which means that it's not yet ready to be given to everyone. When it's done, it'll be okay to give it to wider audience.

 

Thanks for clarifying, Zak.  Your original wording made me worry we might not ever get access to the FMB, which would be a shame.  Cheers

 

Edit:

I would also like to remind everyone who is being so vocal with their disappointment about the dynamic campaign mode that right from the beginning when the game was first announced, 777 has been clear that their goal is to get a quality product to market in a timely fashion.  Yes, I want a dynamic campaign as well, but I am a bit surprised anyone was expecting a DC to be included in the initial IL-2: BoS release.  It took three years for the RoF dynamic campaign to be released; do people think the 777 team have become wizards since then who can zap products into existence?  Making this game, and more to the point, making this game properly takes time, effort, and love.

 

Let's not get so negative with our feedback that they get discouraged.  They are people, and if I were them I would read much of what I see on the forums here and feel frustrated.  Their game is still in alpha and it is already much more polished than Forgotten Battles was a year after its release.  

 

TL;DR, let's be realistic guys, and stop wishing for the moon!

Edited May 31, 2014 by =RkSq=Lodebeard

[nimitstexan]

2. Don't get too stressed about the Campaign. It's certainly different than how we did it in ROF, but it is more challenging in some ways which looks to me to be quite fun. It's not the usual role playing elements some of you want, but based on the time and budget we have this is what we can build. However, I think it will be liked by many users.

 

Jason

 

That's great, but a realistic "pilot's eye" ("role playing" as you put it) career is pretty much the one non-negotiable I have for a combat flight sim. Until there is some sort of option for an EAW/RB3D style career mode, I can't see myself playing IL2:BoS (or by extension, buying it) . . . which is unfortunate, because I was initially very excited for this sim.

 

I feel'em  negative waves

When old sturm was released,it had no dynamic campaign.Only linear with predefined missions.You could not even continue to next mission before first has not been succesfully acomplished.Then came DCG which was 3rd party tool IIRC.With Forgotten battles 2 or 3 years after original release.As years passed and more maps were available,there was also greater possibility to have ''full carrier'' like Barbarossa to Berlin.Now we have just 1 map,1 specific battlefield.Do not worry,time will come for proper offline campaign.

Have faith,comrades,Russia is large but there is nowhere to retreat!No place for defetism!Not one step back!

 

Yeah, but "old sturm," in my opinion, was not really worth the time or money till Forgotten Battles and the the DGen system, and even that (and DCG) were never completely polished to the level they should have been. Similarly, I avoided the IL2:COD primarily for its lack of a true career mode. European Air War and Red Baron 3D both did such a good job with the career mode aspect back in the 90s, it continues to boggle my mind why realistic career modes seem such a low priority for modern WW1/WW2 sims.

[71st_AH_Lucky]

I tend to agree with what many people here are saying...

 

Yes, a mission builder is an important tool,

But, (and it's a big one) If anyone has ever tried the mission builder in ROF, you will all know that it is very advanced and difficult to use.

I personally agree with the dev's decision, to not include it for the masses (If it was a 1946/CloD style editor, I would feel the exclusion pretty much inexcusable, however as it is an ROF style editor, I can understand it completely)

 

I suggest anyone who is replying to this with agitation tries the RoF mission editor if they haven't already (RoF is free to download with two planes included if you do not have it) and I am almost certain, if you are able to get along with it, and use it well the devs will include you in the "5%".

 

Lastly, I've heard Pat Wilson, may or may not be working with the dev's to produce a Dynamic Campaign generator for BoS, if this is the case, which, again, it may or may not be, I see little need for a mission editor, as his mind blowing campaign's are easily converted to co-op and/or multiplayer.

 

The only issue I can see is squads trying to set up training servers, but I think I have a solution (I have merely skimmed through the six pages of this thread, so apologies if someone has already suggested this) 

 

I believe that if there was a way to convert QMB missions over to Multiplayer, along with the ability for the host to change things, such as the runway start, AI loadouts, AI skill and flak density, It would be a perfect training platform. Especially with the amount of ground targets that are available in QMB by standard. The flak option would allow for squads to simply practice use of weapons in combat or non-combat situations. The AI options would allow for squads to practice their shooting skills/convergences, or realistically replicate combat tactics, without the stress of it being online.

 

Well, that's my two cents... thanks very much for reading! Please give me any feedback you wish on any of the above.

 

Also... sorry for my English, yes it is actually my first language, but it's 1am here, and starting to feel like my second! lol

 

Cheers 

 

Jack

 

(Reason for edit: Added more words)

Edited May 31, 2014 by 71st_AH_Lucky