Developer Diary, Part XXIII

[Frequent_Flyer]

El,

Realistically the consumer group/market they are most concerned with is in Russia. If they are upset with 1C's  approach it may be impactful. BOS is just BOB with snow.A large urban area that is not relevant to  air combat, with small groups of aircraft flying tactical missions over short distances.

[ACG_Kraut]

 

 

 

Exactly Uther,

 

I fell for the "wait and see" ploy with CloD.   Never again.  Well, actually many of us will wait and see before we spend our money on another 1C product.

 

I hope the devs realize they are skating on thin ice with a fan base whose trust was essentially betrayed by the failure of the last title.  They must be aware of this.

 

I want this title to succeed, honestly I do, but success is not a wait and see thing, it is achieved by understanding all of the target demographic.

 

And that is what this forum is for.

 

 

 

+1 to the community input point.

 

I actually do like CloD, though I didn't fly it at release when it was at it's very worst, nowadays it's very enjoyable.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2013 by Kraut

[Bearcat]

Exactly Uther,

 

I fell for the "wait and see" ploy with CloD.   Never again.  Well, actually many of us will wait and see before we spend our money on another 1C product.

 

I hope the devs realize they are skating on thin ice with a fan base whose trust was essentially betrayed by the failure of the last title.  They must be aware of this.

 

I want this title to succeed, honestly I do, but success is not a wait and see thing, it is achieved by understanding all of the target demographic.

 

And that is what this forum is for.

 

Of course it is.. and I know so many got burned by CoD.. but You have to put that behind you  because this isn't CoD and this isn't the same team.. and the success ort failure of this product is a wait and see thing.. that is exactly what it is.. otherwise you are shooting it down before it gets off the ground.. You are absolutely right about the trust of the fan base though..  I think this team will not make the same mistakes 1C made with CoD... they will make their own mistakes and they certainly won't please everyone.. but I think that this product will be the product we have all been waiting for since 2005 give or taker a year or so.. and I think this will be a worthy successor to IL2. We shall see..

[Opitz]

It is so funny to see that some people have "concerns" about "gaming" part of the future game even devs are posting here excellent videos not seen in any flight "SIM" in the history of combat flight sims. Technically it is freaking good. So, OK, it looks too good, let's start howling about "unlocks"... whatever it is - well, rhetoric question - how many of you knows what it is and how important part of whole game it is?

 

Just calm down and trust these people. They talk to you and show their work in progress regularly here. They are "simmers" like you btw, maybe with even bigger experience. 

 

It was long time ROF vs CLOD, later BOS vs CLOD and now it is ONLINE vs OFFLINE or newbies vs. hardcore simmers? Come on! Don't intoxicate this forum with old poison of false elitism which in fact almost completely destroyed this genre and its community.

[theOden]

+1 to the community input point.

 

 

 

That's the tricky part, how to know what the community wants - I'm not sure 12 posters on the forum is the community or should I say hope not as that will most surely render the title a very costy failure.

[Fornixx]

Unlockable content will be ok...... in two weeks.........  be sure :-)

[=69.GIAP=RADKO]

I think the worst type of people on a forum is the people who whine about the whiners which makes me also a whiner as I'm whining about the whiners whining about the other whiners. Honestly there is actually no point.

 

Some people have a genuine concern from what has been said so far from the devs and yes some of it has been blown out of proportion by some people which I have to say has annoyed me a bit as it boycotts a sensible conversation. It's best just not to react to such posts and reply to the sensible ones otherwise the topic never actually gets discussed. So stop it please. 

 

Let's see what the devs have to say next Friday.

Edited July 8, 2013 by =69.GIAP=RADKO

[FlatSpinMan]

I'm pretty sure the valid concerns of the online only players have been made clear to the devs by now. What did you think of the vids and graphics in the screenshots?

Of course,discussion of the unlockable is still fine, but there were others things in the updates, too.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

I read in some other post here (or in another topic) that the other plane in the video could not be heard.

Watching it again I think you actually can hear it, although it's rather silent. You can hear a part of the sound fading as the other plane banks away. Anyone else got that impression?

 

As far as graphics go: it looks great. It was nice to catch a glimpse of the landscape and I wonder to what degree this is what we are going to get next year or how much will still be improved.

 

However, I'm far more eager to get my hands on something flyable rather than seeing nice graphics. I read in an earlier update that it will be rather challenging to get these crates landed safely.

This is one of the things I remember very prominently back in the days of the IL-2 demo. Coming from EAW and Jane's WWII I could land pretty much anything. Then I tried the IL-2 demo and flying and landing suddenly were a challenge again. Not for too long but still...

I hope that BoS will give me such a feeling once again.

Edited July 8, 2013 by I/JG27_Rollo

[flyingjulez]

In my opinion the reward system sounds very interesting for the singleplayer only. But I dont see the point in having to play the singleplayer to a certain extent to unlock something for the Multiplayer, no matter what it is. I'm not a singleplayer guy, so I don't want to spend (or in my case it would even be a waste) my time in SP to reach a state of equalness with others who have it already unlocked.

 

The video looks good and sounds good. ((((some minor graphical bug with sun shining thru canopy bar))))

Although I would have exptected that the presence of the other plane so close to mine would be more noticeable, but I can't provide any RL experiance on that matter.

[MACADEMIC]

I read in some other post here (or in another topic) that the other plane in the video could not be heard.

Watching it again I think you actually can hear it, although it's rather silent. You can hear a part of the sound fading as the other plane banks away. Anyone else got that impression?

 

Possibly my post in Questions to Devs. I think you're right, in the video with the open canopy there's a very very tiny sound that fades away when the other plane breaks off. Can't say if it's realistic that you would even hear that - any RL open canopy fliers around here? However I can positively confirm you wouldn't hear a thing with canopy closed over your own engine noise. Only a few weeks ago was flying in tight formation, we were two Yak18Ts with 360/400hp engines, didn't hear a thing over my own engine noise which would be somewhat less than the bigger engines of WWII.

 

MAC

[I/JG27_Rollo]

Ah yes it was your post.

 

I also can't imagine to hear other planes with radio headphones on and the own engine running. However, I have no RL experience in that regard.

 

You wrote that you couldn't hear a thing with the canopy closed an a 360/400hp engine running.

With 4x the hp on WWII engines I'd imagine it is the same as the own engine would be that much louder as well.

 

Still, in the game it might not be bad to hear other planes that close with the pit open. It might - at least for some players -  add to the feeling of actually sitting in the cockpit and I think we can trust the devs that they will prevent this from being exploitable.

[StG2_Manfred]

The thing is that many hardcore simmers acctually dont touch multiplayer. And many dont want to waste time with multiplayer.

 

 

That's the tricky part, how to know what the community wants - I'm not sure 12 posters on the forum is the community or should I say hope not as that will most surely render the title a very costy failure.

 

So, you are the person who knows that "many hardcore simmers" don't touch multiplayer and the multiplayer fans are 12 posters here in the forum, right? And you do the cost calculations as well!

 

Sorry, devs punish me or delete my post, but that's the same whining, just in the opposite direction...

[theOden]

na

It was a direct copy of the previous statement just to show the impossible in the statement.

I do notice that point went way above some readers.

 

12 posters was in regard to the community.

 

I realize my english is extremely bad as it obviously is hard to interpret but while I need to point out it isnt my first language I will try to write more exact in the future.

[MACADEMIC]

Still, in the game it might not be bad to hear other planes that close with the pit open. It might - at least for some players -  add to the feeling of actually sitting in the cockpit and I think we can trust the devs that they will prevent this from being exploitable.

 

Personally would prefer to have it as realistic as possible, it was a very positive surprise to not hear anything over the own engine with canopy closed! But I don't mind if there's an option for server host to allow 'sound radar', together with other options such as icons.

 

 

MAC

Edited July 8, 2013 by MACADEMIC

[Uufflakke]

I read in some other post here (or in another topic) that the other plane in the video could not be heard.

Watching it again I think you actually can hear it, although it's rather silent. You can hear a part of the sound fading as the other plane banks away. Anyone else got that impression?

 

 

I listened again but can't hear the other plane or the fading sound when he banks away.

 

I'm just a virtual pilot so no RL experience but according the videos I've seen you can't hear the noise of the other engines with canopy closed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't know how it is with canopy open, I haven't found any decent videoclip till sofar.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Uufflakke

[theOden]

wonderful P-47's Uffa!

(my preferred late war machine taking over my P-40 flights when available :D)

Noticed how effortless the take-off was compared to the twitching mental-degrading sequence of DCS:P-51 .. but I'm going off-topic.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

I listened again but can't hear the other plane or the fading sound when he banks away.

I might be wrong. But I think I heard a change in sound when the other plane banked away.

Maybe it's just because the pilot is looking to the right.

Maybe it's my imagination...

 

Concerning the videos, what we can hear there might also depend on the microphones used but I think you're right. There's no chance of hearing the other aircraft.

 

 

Don't know how it is with canopy open, I haven't found any decent videoclip till sofar.

 

Well I guess the devs will definitely have to make another trip to that airfield near Mosow.

Now that the temperatures at Sheremetyevo airport show 20?

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Dear Developers,

 

Me and my whole squad are very worried (some have used the word horrified) about this "unlockable" features in the flying simulator(should i call it simulator or game?) you are developing. After more than 10 years flying every week with Il2 series and having bought every single update, we can only see with scepticism this new "flair" you are planning to bring to the genre. I now games like Warthunder and WOP are eating all the pies, but seriously, if you are in this for the money, just say so and we will not be disapointed later on when you give us more of the same. So far, yes nice pics and sound and a game system than reminds a lot of the previous mentioned games, but not a single word of engine management, physics, weather simulation etc etc. I think you do not care about us, the minority hardcore SIMULATOR users who probably will end puting all our faith in DCS and forget about you. As it happened already with CLOD.

 

Please, prove me wrong (you will not, will you?)

[I/JG27_Rollo]

[...] (should i call it simulator or game?) [...]

You can call it both because that's what they're trying to do. Check out the answer to question #3 in this thread: http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=9982

Edited July 8, 2013 by I/JG27_Rollo

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Dear Developers,

 

Me and my whole squad are very worried (some have used the word horrified) about this "unlockable" features in the flying simulator(should i call it simulator or game?) you are developing. After more than 10 years flying every week with Il2 series and having bought every single update, we can only see with scepticism this new "flair" you are planning to bring to the genre. I now games like Warthunder and WOP are eating all the pies, but seriously, if you are in this for the money, just say so and we will not be disapointed later on when you give us more of the same. So far, yes nice pics and sound and a game system than reminds a lot of the previous mentioned games, but not a single word of engine management, physics, weather simulation etc etc. I think you do not care about us, the minority hardcore SIMULATOR users who probably will end puting all our faith in DCS and forget about you. As it happened already with CLOD.

 

Please, prove me wrong (you will not, will you?)

+100

 

And I go further. I'm a simmer since some 25 years, I fly Il-2 since the very 1.0 version. I've lived all the "war" with Oleg about realism, the fanboysm around it, etc, all this years and I'm very tired of that. I'm tired about developers hidding of customers who will buy his final product, I'm tired of discussions about "sex of angels" from users who really don't know features of the final sim because devs don't really show what they are doing. At this time I don't really know if BoS will be a Birds of Prey Play Station game or a real sim.. People here is mistaking looking at nice eye candy pics with realism. For those there discussing things you don't know I AM a RL pilot, I DO know what the real thing is and right now I seriously doubt about this to be a realistic SIMULATOR without a single word on the subject from devs... Oleg did same for years, sold us a sim "as real as it gets" (while laughing about FS saying that exact words) but Il-2 really lacks A LOT of a simulator. Really I hope many time CloD to be the answer but it was a failure, now BoS could make it but now devs talk about unlockable things... and this is going to be a SIMULATOR? Hope to be mistaken, but again it doesn't look like, and it's sad see the same again.

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

You can call it both because that's what they're trying to do. Check out the answer to question #3 in this thread: http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=9982

They can call it a bycicle if they want, but it does not make it one...

[FlatSpinMan]

If it simulates the experience of controlling an aeroplane, of bombing or strafing, of engine management, of flight physics, of damage, then I'd say that we could call it a simulator.

 

If it has elements in the campaign portion to entice people to play on, such as, I don't know, points for kills, virtual medals, a virtual squadron roster, or even mods that can be unlocked by flying more, then it does not automatically detract from the simulation aspect.

 

Besides, if adding more gameplay options generates more income by attracting a wider base of players to a pretty tiny niche, then isn't that a good thing? More people to fly with, more sales to drive future development.

 

I don't seriously imagine these Devs would ever go the route of "Pay to win" or Power ups. Play longer to unlock later tech - yes.Pay to buy planes and maps - sure, but that's equivalent to an add on, something most games offer.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

Come on people. It shouldn't be too hard to realise that BoS needs to sell more copies than Cliffs of Dover in order to not suffer the same fate of being an economical disaster.

 

And to do that it has to be a good game and not only a hardcore simulator.

 

The devs are simulation enthusiatis themselves so they do care about the "minority hardcore SIMULATOR users", but they can not afford to only care about them.

You already said that they are the minority so that's where the minority of the money from sold copies will probably come from.

 

If BoS does not appeal to the majority not-so-hardcore gamers they lose the majority of the money and it might be CoD all over again.

 

So unless we are all willing and capable of paying 2.000$ for each copy of the game, we better get used to 1CGS partially approaching this genre in new ways.

 

It will still not be another WT or WoWP, the devs will run tests about the "unlocks" and so far we don't have enough confirmed detailed information to freak out about this anyway.

 

Also: what FlatSpinMan (you old ninja-poster) said.

[Zak]

Dear Developers,

...

Please, prove me wrong (you will not, will you?)

We are developing a flight simulator with it's FM more accurate and realistic than in earlier IL-2 titles. And it will have unlockables.

P.S. I hope not to sound harsh: I wish you luck not failing your first attempt to land successfully in BoS.

P.S.S. btw I'm not bragging about the FM, just being sincere about complex physical models our specialists are creating.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

P.S. I hope not to sound harsh: I wish you luck not failing your first attempt to land successfully in BoS.

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[smink1701]

Thanks to Zak and the dev team for all the communication.  I have never felt uninformed, misinformed or underappreciated here like I have in other "yellow" forums. 

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

We are developing a flight simulator with it's FM more accurate and realistic than in earlier IL-2 titles. And it will have unlockables.

P.S. I hope not to sound harsh: I wish you luck not failing your first attempt to land successfully in BoS.

P.S.S. btw I'm not bragging about the FM, just being sincere about complex physical models our specialists are creating.

Yes, I heard that about ROF in the past... "you won't even be capable to takeoff", but when finally I give a try it's the very same (may be a propper tail dragger anytime? I mean DCS apart...). Really I think we don't ask weird things, I hope you're right and that "complex physical model" would be just... real... instead of what right now is Star Wars physics and behaviour in old Il-2, but Il-2 is a 12 years old soft right now, you can't do the same again and that was the CloD failure for me.

 

S!

[Zak]

Yes, I heard that about ROF in the past... "you won't even be capable to takeoff", but when finally I give a try it's the very same (may be a propper tail dragger anytime? I mean DCS apart...). Really I think we don't ask weird things, I hope you're right and that "complex physical model" would be just... real... instead of what right now is Star Wars physics and behaviour in old Il-2, but Il-2 is a 12 years old soft right now, you can't do the same again and that was the CloD failure for me.

 

S!

Sir, it won't take long until you'll be offered an opportunity to try it out. I know it's best to evaluate something when you can actually touch it, so I perfectly understand a bit of scepticism you or any other experienced virtual pilot may have.

[JtD]

We are developing a flight simulator with it's FM more accurate and realistic than in earlier IL-2 titles.

It might be the benchmark, but it's really not that hard to beat, is it. It might be a good time to point out that neither difficult nor complex mean realistic - in fact, it's probably more complex to cover up poor basics to make them appear half way realistic than to make realistic basics.

 

At any rate, flight and damage modelling are probably the two issues I'm most curious about, and I'm really looking forward to an opportunity to try them out.

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

We will be following this thread with interest, and don't get me wrong, if finally the product is a truly realistic combat sim, I will be the first one runnig to the shop whatever the cost, I am just stating my concern because we were deceived in the past and like an rejected lover, I do not want to be hurt again.

 

Anyway, my vote goes for NO UNLOCKABLES. At least not in MP. Thats my humble opinion. Now obviously do whatever you want. It is your sim after all.

 

And by the way, the ROF editor is far too complex (too much trigger based) will be possible to simplify it a little for this title?

Edited July 8, 2013 by Ala13_Kokakolo

[gavagai]

Having to unlock drop tanks and other implements could be a deal breaker for many of your customers.  FYI.

[JG13_opcode]

I understand about the potential pitfalls of unlocks really, and I don't mean to be argumentative, but if a squadron in WW2 didn't have the means to carry out a mission, would they be assigned to it?

I doubt anyone would have detailed Hurricane Mk I's to fly escort over Berlin as they lacked the range, nor to take out a Panzer Armee as they lacked the armament.

 

Now, whether the mission templates in the career take that into account is another thing of course.

Oh good lord FSM there's no need to be a sycophant.

 

This isn't WWII. This is a WWII game that we play in our spare time for entertainment. Squadrons getting excluded from certain mission because they haven't reached some arbitrary number of XP defeats the purpose of entertainment.

[JG13_opcode]

I'm pretty sure the valid concerns of the online only players have been made clear to the devs by now. What did you think of the vids and graphics in the screenshots?

Of course,discussion of the unlockable is still fine, but there were others things in the updates, too.

/shrug

 

The graphics and videos look great. So what? Graphics don't make the game.

 

This thread isn't "Tell the developers how amazing they are"-land. If they wanted nothing but a thread of generic "GJ Devs!" posts, then I'm sure guys like Heywood will be happy to oblige. I myself am interested in giving actual feedback, and not in merely repeating the same tired phrases about how everything the developers do is 110% genius, like some of the other posters here.

[Jason_Williams]

El,

Realistically the consumer group/market they are most concerned with is in Russia. If they are upset with 1C's  approach it may be impactful. BOS is just BOB with snow.A large urban area that is not relevant to  air combat, with small groups of aircraft flying tactical missions over short distances.

Ummm....what am I doing here then? The entire team is concerned with all markets.

 

Jason

[Jason_Williams]

And knock off the name calling. State your point and kept it on the title and not your fellow simmer.

 

Jason

[Bearcat]

/shrug

 

The graphics and videos look great. So what? Graphics don't make the game.

 

This thread isn't "Tell the developers how amazing they are"-land. If they wanted nothing but a thread of generic "GJ Devs!" posts, then I'm sure guys like Heywood will be happy to oblige. I myself am interested in giving actual feedback, and not in merely repeating the same tired phrases about how everything the developers do is 110% genius, like some of the other posters here.

Yeah but it also isn't a 3 out of 6 page "Oh my goodness they are going to screw us like we got screwed before with CoD" thread either.. Only a handfull of folks actually hinted at that but that seems to be an underlying unspoken current..

 

Nor is it groan and complain about proposed features adnauseum thread... and I am certain that there are many who are not interested in that.  I am sure the devs  get it by now... There is certainly nothing wrong with being optimistic though and placing that optimism on the track record of the team that are putting this together.. and there is no need to keep indirectly bashing folks... Hmmm I see Jason was thinking the same thing as I was typing...

[JtD]

I'm curious about the popularity of the feature say half a year after the game's release, when this forum is not mainly visited by a 100 die hard Il-2 / RoF combat flight sim enthusiasts, but by a 1000 people, including many new faces and occasional players. As I've said already, I find the concept more funny than anything else, but I doubt it will be as unpopular as the reactions in this topic suggest. And if it helps to sell the game, which I actually can imagine it will, even I will benefit in the long term.

[Rama]

If it has elements in the campaign portion to entice people to play on, such as, I don't know, points for kills, virtual medals, a virtual squadron roster, or even mods that can be unlocked by flying more, then it does not automatically detract from the simulation aspect.

 

Besides, if adding more gameplay options generates more income by attracting a wider base of players to a pretty tiny niche, then isn't that a good thing? More people to fly with, more sales to drive future development.

Fine. I see no problems with unlocking stuff in the solo career, and I don't think any other potential player see any problem with that. If it's bringing more players to the game, it's a good idea.

 

The problem is not here, it's to force a player to play the solo career in order to unlock stuff that could be used in MP. Why then, I don't see the connection, and I don't see the usefulness in MP mode. Can anyone here give me any insight about how being obliged to unlock stuff in solo career is a good thing for the other game modes (MP and solo training for example)? Is there any interest for game sales to force MP players to play solo career? (I don't see any, but if someone can point any, I will read with interest). Is there any interest for game sales to forbid pure MP players to use mods that can only be unlocked in solo play? (Again, I don't see any interest in it that could boost sale... but I'm maybe not wise enough, maybe someone could explain to me?)

 

Isn't it possible to have a solo career with possibilities to unlock stuff and to have at the same time an unrestricted MP game mode??? (I"m even ready to pay for it, no problems if it's the case)

Or is there any technical reason preventing it???

(It would be sad)

 

In short, Isn't it possible to simply have everybody happy?

[Bearcat]

Remember .. we still do not know what the final release will be like.. so all this weeping and gnashing of teeth is for naught at the moment.. How many times and in how many different ways can you (a general you) say.. "I think this is a bad idea for MP!"

 

I think they get that.. Let's just see what happens..