Developer Diary, Part 66

[Jaws2002]

I think the latest pages of posts are a bit unfair.

 

As posted earlier I remember how ROF has evolved and  that makes me confident that we will end up with one of the greatest WW2 sims ever developed.

This is not Rise of flight and it doesn't look like will grow and improve the way ROF did.

If that was the case, they would at least start with what they had in ROF and build on that. Maybe you didn't pay attention to the last few updates, but they are chopping off stuff from ROF, at this point, not building on it. We already lost features and parts of the game we had in ROF.

Heck, they took away the "free view" because someone used it to look at parts they were not suppose to see. Now they tell us that we are all too dumb, and except the select few, we can't be trusted with their FMB. Maybe there's more stuff we are not allowed to see.

Sorry, but this is not Rise of Flight we loved back then.

[76SQN-J0NJ0N]

This is not Rise of flight and it doesn't look like will grow and improve the way ROF did.

If that was the case, they would at least start with what they had in ROF and build on that. Maybe you didn't pay attention to the last few updates, but they are chopping off stuff from ROF, at this point, not building on it. We already lost features and parts of the game we had in ROF.

Heck, they took away the "free view" because someone used it to look at parts they were not suppose to see. Now they tell us that we are all too dumb, and except the select few, we can't be trusted with their FMB. Maybe there's more stuff we are not allowed to see.

Sorry, but this is not Rise of Flight we loved back then.

 

Way to damn a game before release.. Seriously, go unbunch your panties then come back and play nicely.

[1./JG42Nephris]

Way to damn a game before release.. Seriously, go unbunch your panties then come back and play nicely.

Great way of exchanging arguments !

[DigitalEngine]

// It's so much easer to complain than;

1) contribute,

// or

2 ) code...

 

% COMPLAIN =  

%CONTRIBUTE =  

%CODE =

 

% SUCCESS = BOS = OR > IL-2 1946 IN SCOPE AND CONTENT = (10 OR < YEARS) =

// much improved graphics, flight modeling, engine modeling, plus much, much more....

% NOSUCCES = NO REPLACEMENT FOR IL-2 1946 = (10 OR > YEARS) =

// while IL-2 1946 4.12m is the holy grail for scope and content, it's core physics and graphics are dated,

// in ten years from now, even more so.

 

 IF ( CONTRIBUTE AND CODE AND NOT COMPLAIN ) THEN;

          (  BOS => SUCCESS );

ELSE;

   IF ( COMPLAIN AND NOT CONTRIBUTE AND NOT CODE ) THEN;

             ( BOS =< NOSUCCESS );

    ENDIF

ENDIF

 

Gees peoples...

Edited June 1, 2014 by BlueMatrix

[startrekmike]

The only thing arguing like this will get is a locked thread.

 

   Those of us that have issues or grievances should probably find ways to constructively address them to the developers as opposed to just fighting among ourselves.

 

  Just a thought.

[SIDWULF]

// It's so much easer to complain than;

1) contribute,

// or

2 ) code...

 

% COMPLAIN =  

%CONTRIBUTE =  

%CODE =

 

% SUCCESS = BOS = OR > IL-2 1946 IN SCOPE AND CONTENT = (10 OR < YEARS) =

// much improved graphics, flight modeling, engine modeling, plus much, much more....

% NOSUCCES = NO REPLACEMENT FOR IL-2 1946 = (10 OR > YEARS) =

// while IL-2 1946 4.12m is the holy grail for scope and content, it's core physics and graphics are dated,

// in ten years from now, even more so.

 

 IF ( CONTRIBUTE AND CODE AND NOT COMPLAIN ) THEN;

          (  BOS => SUCCESS );

ELSE;

   IF ( COMPLAIN AND NOT CONTRIBUTE AND NOT CODE ) THEN;

             ( BOS =< NOSUCCESS );

    ENDIF

ENDIF

 

Gees peoples...

lol

[hiro]

Some posters may with to peruse and reread the dev dairy . . . 

 

I don't know why people are going crazy over being the 5 percenters or 95 percenters. It's stated the dev they will release the editor later. 

 

I think alot people are hurt because the opposition (DCS WW2) is promising the world and could deliver a slamming (awesome fulfill dreams with a million mission editors / dynamic campaign it makes arma devs copy it)  WW2 experience, but CLOD had lots of promise. And it's there but not a contender.

 

And lots want this game to win but feel it needs the dynamic style and editor to do so, but we got to have a basic flight sim that nails all the building blocks of a good flight sim (engine, CM, FM, DM etc)

 

The devs want a working game and I am assuming they want a working editor, not one that requires you to be a coder or hacker to figure it out. I think was ment to be be said it's not done yet, instead of 'you ain't got l33t haxing skillz FTW / pwn m3 editorz  or 'we going to assume you do not have the mental capacity as a race to figure out faster than light travel drive editor feature' put down. 

 

Which takes us to the time and money situation. They have to get working game with the least amount of bugs in a certain time frame and budget. And this is the first game. Not a few cycles that Arma has had.

 

Maybe the success of the alpha release had some people thinking they don't need to focus on the game, but focus on the features? No matter which way one slices or explains it, a mission editor and dynamic campaign are features, not basic components of flight sim or the foundational properties of a working game. 

 

Given that this is 2014 and not 1980, games are supposed to roll out with key and crucial features, and the basic foundations are supposed to be the standard, like cars having tires. Things that should be in place.

 

But who would have thought CLOD in 2010-2011 would be a buggy mess like many in the starting era of complex video games? After hundreds of horror stories about awesome games killed by buggy releases prior to 2009, and those people screwed it up royally. But they were making headway, but things changed . . . 

 

That's why I want a game that has the basics down solid. A game that sell on features isn't a memorable game. A game that has working foundation, and solid foundation means you can build a castle on it. Not a cardboard shack filled with notes and hopes and dreams of all the potential the game could have had. 

 

 

And it's surprising to see alot of good people that came from the IL-2 original background saying the lack of the editor or the dynamic single player will stunt or damn or short change or abort this game. Seriously they forgot how IL-2 started?

 

 

This game has good promise but one can't expect a newborn to win an olympic medal.  Have to let him or her grow up first. 

 

Anycase, keep plugging away devs. I like what's been done so far, and though I have many expectations, I know things have to be put on hold until they are ready.

 

And I guess now you know a heavy sticking point for a lot of people . . . lessons learned every day.

[Zak]

// It's so much easer to complain than;

1) contribute,

// or

2 ) code...

 % COMPLAIN =  

...

Awesome, thanks, saved it

 

And mourning about FMB not given in early access goes on and on, I see. Guys, you've probably been waiting for years for the new IL-2 to be released. And now when you have early access to it (and it has AFM which has never been introduced to the series before) you aren't happy at all. The game hasn't been released yet - and you're already surprised why you don't have the mission editor. Come on, you're all clever and grown up ppl (you have $100 to pay for the game so I guess you are), show some patience.

About the singleplayer mode - well, everyone's free to have their expectations but you can't tell if we have failed to satisfy yours because you haven't had a chance to try our singleplayer yet. Let's follow the old principle: reason goes first, reaction - second.

[FlyingNutcase]

Awesome, thanks, saved it

 

And mourning about FMB not given in early access goes on and on, I see. Guys, you've probably been waiting for years for the new IL-2 to be released. And now when you have early access to it (and it has AFM which has never been introduced to the series before) you aren't happy at all. The game hasn't been released yet - and you're already surptised why you don't have the mission editor. Come on, you're all clever and grown up ppl (you have $100 to pay for the game so I guess you are), show some patience.

About the singleplayer mode - well, everyone's free to have their expectations but you can't tell if we have failed to satisfy yours because you haven't had a chance to try our singleplayer yet. Let's follow the old principle: reason goes first, reaction - second.

 

@Zak: Yep, it's time me of me, and perhaps some others, to take a deep breath and just enjoy the content that's provided for a few months before we get a mission editor to sink our creative sides into. I would love to have an ME soon but I'm doing what I can for now:

1. About to renew the il2fullmissionbuilder.com domain which is due to expire tomorrow.
2. Learning the ROF editor, based on Bob Vanderstock's YouTube tutorials at this stage.
3. Doing (2) with the plan to submit a mission of sufficient depth to allow early access to the BOS mission editor (I don't have time for making missions for the community though, so does that count me out?)
4. Recoding the randomization program IL2 Fog of War (sorry folks, never released) for BOS.

But my business is #1 so all the above will slip under "engineered leisure time" which is about 1/10th of what it used to be. I'll do what I can though because I love the possibilities for this series and like other panic attacks that the community has had, I'm confident that this one will pass in due time as development progresses.

 

Kudos for putting up with another round of passionate responses. ~

 

Flying Nutcase

[DD_Arthur]

 Let's follow the old principle: reason goes first, reaction - second.

 

Great post Zak.   Unfortunately, on flight sim forums reason goes out the window first!

[LukeFF]

This is not Rise of flight and it doesn't look like will grow and improve the way ROF did.

If that was the case, they would at least start with what they had in ROF and build on that. Maybe you didn't pay attention to the last few updates, but they are chopping off stuff from ROF, at this point, not building on it. We already lost features and parts of the game we had in ROF.

Heck, they took away the "free view" because someone used it to look at parts they were not suppose to see. Now they tell us that we are all too dumb, and except the select few, we can't be trusted with their FMB. Maybe there's more stuff we are not allowed to see.

Sorry, but this is not Rise of Flight we loved back then.

 

What in the world are you going on about? 

 

Man, it's like a soap opera in here every time a development update is posted.

[fjacobsen]

This is not Rise of flight and it doesn't look like will grow and improve the way ROF did.

If that was the case, they would at least start with what they had in ROF and build on that. Maybe you didn't pay attention to the last few updates, but they are chopping off stuff from ROF, at this point, not building on it. We already lost features and parts of the game we had in ROF.

Heck, they took away the "free view" because someone used it to look at parts they were not suppose to see. Now they tell us that we are all too dumb, and except the select few, we can't be trusted with their FMB. Maybe there's more stuff we are not allowed to see.

Sorry, but this is not Rise of Flight we loved back then.

 

It really depends whether You compare IL-2 BOS with ROF the way it is now or how it was right after release some years ago.

I also remember what we got with the very first IL-2 release back then - not especially stunning compared with the final version.

 

I´m not sure how much that has been cut away from their initial plans for the IL-2 BOS release version, but I´m confident that this title will be further developed after release if the community gives it´s backing.

It will most definitly not go as fast as we have seen with ROF, nor won´t we see the same amount of addon aircaft I guess, but it´s still the most promising WW2 sim we have at this time.

 

FinnJ

[LukeFF]

// It's so much easer to complain than;

1) contribute,

// or

2 ) code...

 

% COMPLAIN =  

%CONTRIBUTE =  

%CODE =

 

% SUCCESS = BOS = OR > IL-2 1946 IN SCOPE AND CONTENT = (10 OR < YEARS) =

// much improved graphics, flight modeling, engine modeling, plus much, much more....

% NOSUCCES = NO REPLACEMENT FOR IL-2 1946 = (10 OR > YEARS) =

// while IL-2 1946 4.12m is the holy grail for scope and content, it's core physics and graphics are dated,

// in ten years from now, even more so.

 

 IF ( CONTRIBUTE AND CODE AND NOT COMPLAIN ) THEN;

          (  BOS => SUCCESS );

ELSE;

   IF ( COMPLAIN AND NOT CONTRIBUTE AND NOT CODE ) THEN;

             ( BOS =< NOSUCCESS );

    ENDIF

ENDIF

 

Gees peoples...

 

Brilliantly worded!

[II/JG17KaC_Wolfe]

Awesome, thanks, saved it

 

And mourning about FMB not given in early access goes on and on, I see. Guys, you've probably been waiting for years for the new IL-2 to be released. And now when you have early access to it (and it has AFM which has never been introduced to the series before) you aren't happy at all. The game hasn't been released yet - and you're already surprised why you don't have the mission editor. Come on, you're all clever and grown up ppl (you have $100 to pay for the game so I guess you are), show some patience.

About the singleplayer mode - well, everyone's free to have their expectations but you can't tell if we have failed to satisfy yours because you haven't had a chance to try our singleplayer yet. Let's follow the old principle: reason goes first, reaction - second.

 

 

Sounds reasonable...I think I will.

[KodiakJac]

% SUCCESS = BOS = OR > IL-2 1946 IN SCOPE AND CONTENT = (10 OR < YEARS) =

// much improved graphics, flight modeling, engine modeling, plus much, much more....

% NOSUCCES = NO REPLACEMENT FOR IL-2 1946 = (10 OR > YEARS) =

// while IL-2 1946 4.12m is the holy grail for scope and content, it's core physics and graphics are dated,

// in ten years from now, even more so.

 

This is pretty funny...well done 

 

But also some truth here.  I think the real angst for many of us is not seeing the ability for the community to create content.  We understand that scope is created by the developers and that won't happen over night.  But content has mostly come from the IL-2 community historically and without a FMB we can't begin to move forward in creating content.  The above also shows the great divide.  Pure dogfighters will move forward with BoS due to the better graphics and physics.  Many mission, campaign and squad players will likely stay with IL-2 1946 and CloD as there is no way to move forward with BoS until we have a FMB.

 

I don't wish BoS ill will.  I hope it succeeds so a FMB will be realized.  But I won't be on the servers helping with this first phase as there will be little for me to do that I enjoy.  I don't play Wings of Prey or WarThunder...never have.  Neither do my friends.  So there will be no initial release buzz from the circle of people I know...not because I'm trying to be negative, but because there is nothing for me to get excited about yet.

 

My RoF customer profile:  I owned only the RoF free content until PWCG came out, then I purchased all RoF content.  So the RoF eye candy and flight physics didn't wow a penny out of me.  When I saw what I could do with the eye candy and flight physics through PWCG I gave 777 all the pennys they asked for in their entire store.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Bucksnort

[BMA_West]

@ Bucksnort

Your take on the green parts = dev parts =  seems differently than mine, beats me how come?

It is said there more than just once a FMB will come with the game on release or soon after, Identical to the ROF one but with the BOS contend.

Also you do not have to be idle eihter because you have ROF already and so can practice on the ROF FMB  for the one to come with BOS.

GIAP makes ROF missions with the intend of converting them to BOS.

If they can ....

[Nankeen]

Patients is a virtue!

[Br00ns]

File me under "frustrated" about the single-player issues, as well. This is all part of an unfortunate trend in flight sim development, which is to make half a game and trust to the community to make the rest. Take DCS - it's a toy set, from an offline player's perspective. Here are your (admittedly exquisite) airplanes, here's your map. No, we didn't include anything to actually do with them. But here's a mission builder, so you can go do it yourself. It's a pity to see BOS leaning in that direction.

 

As amazing as some community-created content is, it's just not much of a substitute for something done professionally. Oh, you want to play these missions? Do you have this mod installed? Well, too bad, then. Oh, now you've got the mod? Too bad, these don't work on Windows 7, unless you manually edit this config I made, and also my English isn't very good, so have fun deciphering my instructions. I deeply appreciate the dedication and skill of so many of the modders and mission-makers, but expecting professional-grade content out of them simply isn't fair.

 

Note that it's not me that expects professional work out of random enthusiasts on the Internet - it's the developers, who do all this wonderful work on making these airplanes look and feel so spectacular, and then just throw up their hands when it comes time to make the other half of the game. As others in this thread have already pointed out, many of the great old sims of yesteryear were great because they gave you reasons to keep playing. Falcon BMS is STILL more immersive than DCS, because - despite being graphically dated and less-than-intuitive to set up - it has a wonderful, if deeply flawed, dynamic campaign system. You can just sit down and play it, and be challenged.

 

I realize that a dynamic campaign system is immensely complicated to build, and I realize that developers have limited resources - but a meaningful dynamic campaign is exactly the sort of thing that helps grow the audience, along with comprehensive in-game training. If new people have to spend half their playing time trying to get 3rd-party mods to work, or farting around with the mission builder, or simply Googling how to fly the bloody airplane because the instructions are entirely insufficient, is it really that surprising that the player base for this kind of game is so small? Is it so crazy to think that a game ought to be a complete package?

 

Sorry if this is too general - as I hope is clear from the text, I do have a tremendous amount of respect for the skill of the people making BOS, and the problem I'm talking about is hardly exclusive to them. BOS still looks fantastic, I'm still excited to see it develop. It's just a bit disappointing to see the same old pattern developing here, as well.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Bruins

[[JG2]R7_Blackadder]

+1 for Bruins

[startrekmike]

@Bruins

 

  I am a offline player primarily (and when I do play online, it is only with a small group of friends and with missions we make for our own purposes) but I do have to say that there is a reason why flight sim dev's have been moving away from single player content, it is too difficult to make and it is often ignored anyway, not just by online players but by offline players as well.

 

  In my case, I have yet to touch any of the pre-packaged DCS campaigns for the various modules I own because I just don't really care about them, I make my own missions that suit my specific needs, often with more realism in mind than the developers can have (not everyone wants accurate travel times to and from a target but I very much do).

 

  The thing is, flight sims are a sandbox most sims give you the planes, the maps and the vehicles and with the help of a FMB, you make the missions and content you want, if you don't want to make your own, most sims (even DCS modules) come packaged with campaigns (sometimes more than one for each aircraft) and if you want even more than that without making your own, you can download missions from someone else.

 

 I am not saying you are wrong to have your opinion or anything like that, it is just that things have changed not just in the development end but in the market itself, having pre-packaged content is all well and good but that is not what gives a sim legs, having the ability to make your own missions and other content is what keeps a sim going for longer than the single player campaign lasts.

[Br00ns]

@STMike

 

I hear you, and you make fine points about the way the market has gone. I don't have any argument with that per se, and I tend to agree with the assertion that most pre-packaged single-player content in modern sims isn't going to be a big draw for most people.

 

For me, though, I think the lesson to be taken from that is that single-player content needs more attention, not less. It becomes a circular thing - nobody wants single-player content because it's usually crappy, and it's usually crappy because devs know serious sim fans are paying attention to other stuff.

 

I love that sandbox options like FMBs and multiplayer are there - I just think it could be taken a few steps farther. What about FMBs with robust, detailed auto-generation templates, and powerful, intuitive interfaces?

 

Personally, though, I don't want a pure sandbox - I want a proper single-player game, and I think a dynamic campaign/career mode is the best way to go about it. The career mode in 1946 was far from perfect, but it's definitely the source of my happiest memories from that game. It's difficult not to fantasize about a similar experience with BOS. 

[[JG2]R7_Blackadder]

Basically you are saying that we have to accept that we are going to receive less and less content but at the same old price.Moreover you say that part of that content it's ours to be implemented.

 

I say that at least then I want the tools to do it since the start. And that should include the 3D models.....

Edited June 2, 2014 by [JG2]The_Blackadder

[BraveSirRobin]

You're not getting less content.  The aircraft are far more complex and realistic, as is the environment you fly in.  That is content.  Unfortunately, the community is small and whiny, so the game builders cannot afford to create lots of missions.

[Br00ns]

@BraveSirRobin

 

I don't understand what the community being whiny has to do with anything, but, by all means, let's take this discussion in a more aggressive and recriminatory direction.    

[[JG2]R7_Blackadder]

True but at the same time I think the bar has one too low considered the improvements you say. Moreover as per the kind of expectations. For instance all the planes I'd like to see shouldn't be even flyable.

 

Also I am kinda tired of this too easy "whiny" calling of those that have just not given up what I see as reasonable expectations. Real Whiners are way worse than that and way less constructive if you give ear.

Edited June 2, 2014 by [JG2]The_Blackadder

[BraveSirRobin]

The bar is too low??  LOL.  You're lucky anyone is even working on a game like this.  

[Tab]

it's been stated that 3% of all RoF players played the built-in campaign, and the developers have really put a lot of research and implementation effort into it, but it was wasted time (and money), because players did their own content or because the default one was too complicated.

I would also suggest to keep calm and wait for more details about SP. I am sure it will be cool. The QMB is already one of the best I ever saw, and I'm sure the campaign will keep up.

 

did I hear the word "bar"?

 

Edited June 2, 2014 by Tab

[Panzerlang]

The problem with not providing offline content to the standard of the old Red Baron or similarly fully-specced titles is severely compounded when online stuff isn't provided to take up the slack. And failing to provide a user-friendly FMB pretty well ensures there'll be a serious lack of that online stuff. It's almost as if the devs have sat down and worked out the perfect storm that'll sink their sim almost before it's left the harbour. Instead of being able to look forward to a plethora of people using an FMB to give us the various sandbox servers we have one ray of hope, the GIAP guys. And how many players do you think will fit on their server on a saturday night?! But maybe they'll share the goodies.

 

1C/777, you really do need to wake up and smell the coffee. IL2, for all that was good about it, had a lousy offline component and survived only because of its FMB. Without it it would have sunk without trace. You are offering a campaign that will last how long, and consist of what? It sounds like something out of a kid's comic. And nothing but vague promises for an online builder.

 

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but it's the way I see it. We're going to be left with a beautiful Ferrari on a 500 meter2 island.

[Grizzly]

The problem with not providing offline content to the standard of the old Red Baron or similarly fully-specced titles is severely compounded when online stuff isn't provided to take up the slack. And failing to provide a user-friendly FMB pretty well ensures there'll be a serious lack of that online stuff. It's almost as if the devs have sat down and worked out the perfect storm that'll sink their sim almost before it's left the harbour. Instead of being able to look forward to a plethora of people using an FMB to give us the various sandbox servers we have one ray of hope, the GIAP guys. And how many players do you think will fit on their server on a saturday night?! But maybe they'll share the goodies.

 

1C/777, you really do need to wake up and smell the coffee. IL2, for all that was good about it, had a lousy offline component and survived only because of its FMB. Without it it would have sunk without trace. You are offering a campaign that will last how long, and consist of what? It sounds like something out of a kid's comic. And nothing but vague promises for an online builder.

 

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but it's the way I see it. We're going to be left with a beautiful Ferrari on a 500 meter2 island.

 

Could not have said it better. I agree.

 

Il will not be surprised when this game comes out many of us "critics" are going to say "told you so!" and a lot of fanboys will resist to the bitter end, trying to convince themselves and everybody else that they were not ripped of.. I might be wrong, and I will admit it then. But lets wait and see

 

I believe one of the reasons is the pre-order concept. I have no understanding and experience in gaming development so I might be grasping here - but the only thing as I can see that has changed significant through gaming development history is that the company is able to get payed through the development from thousands of people who got no clue what they are paying for. That is why pre-access forums always are closed to non-payers. They cant see what they are going in for

 

Their money-income no longer only depends on the final released product. They get alot of money from people buying something they know absolutely nothing about. Should be illegal in my opinion! I would rather wait a year longer with no early access and have quality product in the end, than what I think almost every single pre-access game I have been funding so far has turned out to become.

It would be interesting to see how much of the total funding actually comes from preorders vs release orders in many games.

 

 

And I think thats why we are starting to see a lot of "low cost" indy games that are becoming very popular on many fronts right now. They are build with love, and from people who go to sleep dreaming about their game and creations. Not because they need so many money going in at the end.

 

 

"look at all our fancy graphics isnt it niiiize you can have it now!! in preorder for only 50 bucks!!!! special priize!!". (read out with an asian street-market dealer accent).

^Thats how I see every single "gameplay" trailer for a game right now.

 

Sorry for being a bit grumpy

 

 

You should probably re-read the OP. FMB will be available after the early release period. It is a developer tool and as such is very complicated. As a result the Dev's have decided to concentrate on finishing the game and not supporting the FMB for now. It is not being released until or somewhat after the commercial release.

 

Everyone stop freaking out already.

 

Im glad they decided to release it to everyone after release date.

But they should not worry so much about supporting it. People will figure it out sooner or later due to trial and error. Thats what communities are for.

 

As an example, I can create a whole map for Arma 2 and 3, with the worst tools made in mans history and with NO scripting experience or understanding at all, and without any support from the developers.

Only with the help from the community. I will almost bet you that the FMB will be easier than Arma tools.

Edited June 2, 2014 by -=Volks=-Muggi

[No601_Prangster]

 

Their money-income no longer only depends on the final released product. They get alot of money from people buying something they know absolutely nothing about. Should be illegal in my opinion! I would rather wait a year longer with no early access and have quality product in the end, than what I think almost every single pre-access game I have been funding so far has turned out to become.

It would be interesting to see how much of the total funding actually comes from preorders vs release orders in many games.

 

If you think pre-ordering should be illegal why did you do it for BoS. Did the developers hold a gun to your head? Oh and it's already been stated they need to sell 200,000 copies to make money and pre-orders will account for maybe 5,000 max.

Edited June 2, 2014 by No601_Prangster

[BraveSirRobin]

They get alot of money from people buying something they know absolutely nothing about. Should be illegal in my opinion! I would rather wait a year longer with no early access and have quality product in the end,

 

Why the heck did you pre-order?

[Gambit21]

Could not have said it better. I agree.

 

Il will not be surprised when this game comes out many of us "critics" are going to say "told you so!" and a lot of fanboys will resist to the bitter end, trying to convince themselves and everybody else that they were not ripped of.. I might be wrong, and I will admit it then. But lets wait and see

Right - because it's either one extreme or the other.

 

Some of use are simply keeping our heads and not declaring that the sky is falling.

Concerned a bit perhaps, but still supportive.

 

In your head though, we're already "fanboys" in the future resisting the bitter end.

 

Silly post you typed there.

[Gambit21]

Keep in mind people there is a mission builder, not IL2's original mission builder, but a builder nevertheless.

As someone who as taught himself several very complex 3D programs orders of magnitude more complicated

that RoF's mission editor, I can tell you that all it takes is motivation.

 

This being a WWII sim with much more interest than a WWI era sim, I have no doubt there will be enough motivated

individuals to provide us with content over time. That, along with the native single player campaign that

we haven't even taken for a test drive yet, and that I'm sure will evolve.

 

Who knows, maybe another "Patrick Wilson" will step up.

Point is, as I said above - the sky isn't falling.

[Jaegermeister]

People are talking a lot about how difficult the ROF Mission editor is, but back in the day, mission builders were wishing for triggers instead of static waypoints. Now that we will have them, I guess we will have to learn how to use them, eh?

[smink1701]

The bar is too low??  LOL.  You're lucky anyone is even working on a game like this.

 

Exactly.

[StarLightSong]

I use Logic and Final Cut, sound and video editors, I just can't imagine a mission builder project that's harder than a 64 track mixed and mastered recording project pinned and synched to an edited music video.

I feel confident with modern sofware applications and I started with Fortran.

 

But will I have time to create missions. . .

probably not, but others may.

[[JG2]R7_Blackadder]

The bar is too low??  LOL.  You're lucky anyone is even working on a game like this.

 

This is not the only flight sim in development. I dont see your point.

 

And if I wouldn't be supportive I wouldn't be here talking about and being called whiner...

[heinkill]

I'm late to the party but FWIW...

 

I consider myself a dedicated offliner, active mission and campaign builder in other sims. I'm really enjoying BoS so far, especially the QMB.

 

I am actually looking forward to this new take on a campaign interface - kudos to 777 for moving offline campaigns out of the box!

 

I too am mystified by the reaction around the RoF style FMB, as Jason said, 'the large majority of feedback over the years has been that it is too complex, too slow and not integrated into the main game enough to be effective or fun' and a new and better FMB was never promised, to my knowledge. So as an avid mission builder, I got over this disappointment months and months ago when it became clear there would not be a new user-friendlier FMB.

 

The idea of taking a QMB style interface and using it to make a highly flexible campaign engine where the player can fly multiple missions in different aircraft, from different airfields, in different phases of the campaign, all with historical weapons, weather, scenarios - I love it!

 

It reminds me very much of the original Battle of Britain II campaign interface. There, the player was/is presented with a full map of the battlefield on each day of the battle. By clicking on any airfield, they can fly any operational aircraft on the map. Usually I would fly just one type, from one airfield, during any particular campaign. In the next campaign, I might choose a different aircraft type, different airfield - it meant I could easily fashion my own campaign and each campaign was different.

 

Later, we/the BDG modded the sim to include a Single Squadron Campaign, where a player could choose a particular squadron and only fly for that squadron, whenever it was scrambled. I never really got into it, because I found it too limiting. For that type of gameplay, I much prefer branching scripted or semi scripted campaigns, with well developed storylines and plots, and random mission triggers. But I can live without that for BoS at launch.

 

So for this particular single player fan, this update is great news!

 

I do have a question or two though...if it isn't too late.

 

- Does time move forward with each separate mission or does it 'reset' depending on the mission/aircraft chosen? eg How many sorties are possible in a single 'day' or is the concept of a game 'day' not relevant?

- Does each mission have a briefing, mission objective and waypoints ? How is mission success criteria determined?

- Will AI aircraft be generated specifically for each player mission, or are AI aircraft pursuing their own objectives over the battlefield?

- Are there random elements in the missions (AI aircraft or ground objects spawning in, event triggers...)? If missions are replayable, will they always replay the same way?

- How does the locking/unlocking of mods fit into this type of campaign?

- Are you stuck in a particular battle phase if sufficient mission success hasn't been achieved, or can you advance anyway? Can you start the campaign at different phases?

- Does mission difficulty or success, and thus also the mod unlocks, depend on the realism settings the player is using?

- If I unlock a mod in a Bf109 and then fly a Stuka for a few missions, will the campaign remember my Bf109 mod next time I fly the 109 or will I have to earn it again?

- What is the max number of aircraft on both sides in the missions? Is this user definable for players with lower PC specs?

- Will the maps be populated with ground targets so that eg if an IL2 pilot completes his mission, he can go hunting for other targets of opportunity?

- Can a player choose aircraft from either red or blue during a campaign, or are they limited to one side for the duration of the campaign? Eg can I fly red in one phase, and blue in the next, or even both red and blue during the same phase?

 

Yours enthusiastically,

 

Fred

 

[SCG_Neun]

Thanks for weighing in on this Heinkill, all good comments and questions. I've really enjoyed your work over the years....let's hope guys like you are privy to the FMB ASAP.

[Pointman]

*Bump* Heinkills post.

 

Will be interesting to see how the SP works out, has me slightly worried the player will end up disconnected from the game environment but only the full product will answer that question.

Generally the quick mission style of campaign can work with fully functioning "flight" sims, time will tell if a "combat sim" can hold it's own in a starker campaign without the immersion in your pilot, unit, virtual squad, aircraft and personal progress.

 

But still optimistic, looking forward to getting my hands on the Gold.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Pointman