BoS competing with 1946

[Gambit21]

However, the community as a whole abandoned IL2:1946 long ago. Some went into hibernation, some moved to other titles but I think most will end up here. There has been a long built up desire for a proper WW2 CFS. Something we haven't had in nearly a decade.

Exactly.

I hibernated, then flew RoF for a minute for fix since I didn't have a WWII option - now I've happily landed here.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

What do you think?

Once BoS has ~100 planes you will see movement.. but until than BoS will only attract the must have eye candy types

[BlitzPig_EL]

Lots of folks are out there sitting on the fence, waiting for a new sim.

 

The vast majority of the folks that I flew with in IL2/46 are taking a wait and see stance after being badly disappointed by the CloD debacle.  Frankly, trust in developers is near non-existent for most of them.

A lot of us, myself included, tried RoF, but have mixed feelings about it at best.  Beyond the issues with the business model, RoF just left us wanting more.  It never felt like a finished thing.

Yes the aircraft models were very good, and the feeling of flight was also quite good, but, there was just too much missing for it to really come out as the be all and end all flight sim that everyone is looking for.

Especially if ground attack is what you want to do. The overly complex and hard to use FMB didn't help either.

 

Water under the bridge now though.

 

So we wait to see what BoS will be like, play other types of games, and still putter with '46 from time to time.

 

I will say this, the combat flight sim genre is on life support.  Too many broken promises and dashed hopes are thinning an already tiny player base.

 

BoS really needs to be a success or the genre is as good as dead, at least the WW2 portion of it.   I have no faith at all that the DCS WW2 entry will ever be more than a limited study sim, so this one has to be the one...

[startrekmike]

Are you speaking of latest CloD with Team Fusion mod (that is about all anyone flies online any more) ?

 

If you fly a Spitfire 1 for example, you will be constantly making sure you are setting the correct prop/throttle(boost)/rads based on altitude

 

auto vs. variable prop pitch is modelled - it can be quite a different flight experience with spitfire I vs. spitfire Ia/IIa, etc... 

 

Now, I haven't flown the DCS p-51, but it's an automatic/constant prop pitch so it's going to be easier than flying some of these variable aircraft.

 

If you don't watch your heat as well, you can very easily fry your motor.

 

This type of experience begins to make more 'simulator' and sets it apart from the experience of something like 1946.  It's one of the things in CloD that has made it such a joy to fly!

 

yes ,agree - and learning to master a plane becomes paramount as you have to know how to properly manage the engine - good stuff!

 

 

  I would go ahead and give DCS P-51D a go before you assume it is easier, in fact, this is easy because you can fly a unarmed version of it with the free DCS world client.

 

  Now, at the risk of sounding argumentative, I fly BoS, CloD and DCS (including the P-51D) and I have to say that while CloD is pretty good about engine management simulation, DCS has it nailed to very fine detail, to the point that flying a Spit Mk I or II is actually pretty easy in CloD by comparison.

 

  You will find that many of your early flights are going to end with your engine seizing in DCS where they won't in CloD since CloD seems more forgiving.

[Feathered_IV]

Il-2 can still deliver a solid experience. If the Mediterranean or Pacific is your thing, there is still nothing else out there to rival it either.

 

The ease of use of the mission builder ensures there is enough offline content to fuel further sales even now. The accessible nature of Il-2 in creating mods give further scope for creativity and also keeps the game alive to old an new players alike.

 

CloD is a failure in singleplayer mode, with the worst AI speech and behavior routines of any flight sim I've ever experienced. The commands system is laborious and only partially functional. Il-2 still wins there.

 

DCS... Well, that is shaping up to be a motley collection of aircraft over a loosely related landscape. Singleplayer experience looks like it will be confined to QMB brawling or FSX style ferry flights.

 

And then there's BoS. I'm hoping the developers will really put some thought into what really makes a person engage with a flight sim and feel immersed in the environment, the unit and the objectives. Ten to fifteen years ago when flight sims were king, developers made up for graphical and flight model fidelity by adding immersive flourishes to menus, missions and campaigns. That's all gone now. Maybe 1cGS will I it differently this time. I hope so. I won't be deleting my old Il-2 installs anytime soon though!

[NightFalcon]

Once BoS has ~100 planes you will see movement.. but until than BoS will only attract the must have eye candy types

Quality > Quantity, I prefer fewer but more authentic and unique planes than horde of pretty much the same plane with different skin.

 

Played IL-2 Sturmovik for many years, got nothing but good memories from it, but now I cant go back after playing TeamFusion ClOD and BoS, where each plane has it own character.

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Quality > Quantity, I prefer fewer but more authentic and unique planes than horde of pretty much the same plane with different skin.

 

Played IL-2 Sturmovik for many years, got nothing but good memories from it, but now I cant go back after playing TeamFusion ClOD and BoS, where each plane has it own character.

Yeah, but at the moment we have no quantity, and no quality. The FM of most planes here is pretty broken, the roll rates to high. Climb performance wrong. Cobra-Maneuvers are possible and easy. Rudder Bugs for every german fighter. 3D Model for the FW190 is plain wrong, the cockpit/dashboard is a abomination instead of a good looking thing.

And all we get to read is: We won't change it, it was our decision to make it so and we will look into the flight models after the release. Furthermore were are all the blueprints, the reliable sources they used to make the flight models?

 

If I build a Flightmodel for a plane, I have to check it if its atleast cope with the basic data of the plane. Speed, Characteristics and so on. But AFAIK this is not done here.

[JtD]

You know, I think the BoS glass is about half full. While I sometimes get annoyed with the empty half, and think it is necessary to keep discussing the missing parts, it would be good to keep acknowledging what we have, not only complaining about what we don't have. If we were to compare the FM's of Il-2:1946 and BoS, I'd by now say that the BoS is clearly better. BoS FM contains a few bugs which appear really big, but that's mostly because we're not used to them. Il-2:1946 FM also contains a few bugs, but they appear near irrelevant, because we're used to them. I suppose all that's missing in BoS is the developers dedication to fix the bugs, and a little time.

 

In the BoS vs. Il-2:1946 debate, the downsides of BoS besides lack of content imho are the poor interface, the arcade features (like exaggerated graphics, unlocks or timed engine explosions), the lack of a mission builder and historical campaigns. I think the radio sounds are crap, too. On the plus side, we have a generally much better looking and much better sounding game, with a way better feel of flight than Il-2.

 

On the bottom line, if they could figure out an acceptable interface, I know I'd be showing BoS around in order to (re)attract folks to WW2 flight sim games. I know I don't need to show Il-2:1946 to anyone younger than 25 I know, it's just too dated.

[Matt]

The BoS FM has some obvious bugs (which mostly need to be forced to notice them) and i really doubt they'll stay in until the final release or at least will be fixed soon after. '46 might now have the accurate performance figures for all planes after a decade of patching and modding (unless you deviate from standard temperature), but it just feels so much like flying on rails, that it's still no comparison at all imho.

 

I'm also not too fond of some features for BoS, like unlocks. I really can't see how these unlocks attract anyone. Neither the rivet counters, nor the Warthunder crowd (unless they all want to finish the campaign all of the sudden) and definately not the online-only community. And probably also not the people playing the campaign and who would like to have all options avaliable to them from the beginning. I still have a hard time understanding the design decision behind it and still hope it will still get changed.

 

Also it's true that the interface is a bit weird (three different elevator trim commands, yet combined commands for three stages of cockpit lights or multi-gear superchargers for instance).

 

Graphics is more subjective i guess. Not sure if unmodded '46 still has the gigantic muzzle flashes, which unfortunately made a return n BoS. For me, they are by far the biggest flaw in the otherwise nice graphics. I would like to disable some effects or at least tone them down though (bloom is one of those).

 

Sounds are again subjective. I like basically everything apart from the gunsounds (some sound better than others, but they all sound a bit too artificial for my liking) and the voices (which are probably the hardest thing to get right in the first place).

 

I think even in its current stage, BoS is a very promising flightsim and there's still some time to fix the issues. I can't remember a flightsim which was perfect at its release, especially not after less than 2 years of development. I would be pleasantly surprised if that were true for BoS, but like the RoF development showed, there's a good chance that it will get improved steadily.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Matt

[SharpeXB]

I'm also not too fond of some features for BoS, like unlocks. I really can't see how these unlocks attract anyone. Neither the rivet counters, nor the Warthunder crowd (unless they all want to finish the campaign all of the sudden) and definately not the online-only community. And probably also not the people playing the campaign and who would like to have all options avaliable to them from the beginning. I still have a hard time understanding the design decision behind it and still hope it will still get changed.

Unlocks are a great idea. They give players rewards for achievements and also encourage playing at higher levels of difficulty since you earn more points that way. RoF has a fantastic set of medals and souvenirs you can unlock. Without awards players would just play on arcade settings to rack up victories.

[Matt]

If that would be true, most people in CloD or '46 (or any other flightsim without these unlocks) would be flying on arcade settings.

 

Also i would assume that a huge scale online war mission is a bit more difficult than the average carreer mission and unless they change their plans, you'll get zero unlocks for the former.

[DigitalEngine]

Will be doing all, IL-2 1946 4.12 + HFSX, BoS, Clod + TF, DCS World, and even Falcon 4 + BMS (all except warthunder, not into arcade games, sorry). Always full switch on them all.

For scope, content and history, by far 1946 + HSFX, no compitition for long while to come.

for detailed functionality, DCS (study simulations as it's refered to by some, as you just have to do some studying, no Warthunder here, sorry kids.)

for potential, IL-2 Sturmovik BOS, absolutly beautiful!

Clod + Team Fussion is really cool, amazing what sim fans can do!

Falcon 4 + BMS is just an all time favorite, will be on my hard drive for awhile longer.

Haven't tried RoF yet, just not into the early stuff as much, even though I'm sure its a good simulation also.

Edited August 6, 2014 by BlueMatrix

[SharpeXB]

If that would be true, most people in CloD or '46 (or any other flightsim without these unlocks) would be flying on arcade settings.

I think the majority do play these sims with aids enabled. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But you should be rewarded as a player for using higher levels of difficulty. Those rewards can be unlocks or career awards. It makes sense and it's fun in the sim.

[Emgy]

I have the impression that unlocks represent a rookie pilot becoming experienced enough that the squadron lets him/her experiment with removing the armoured headrest, being allowed to carry heavier bombloads and so on. We'll see how it plays out in the campaign mode.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Why would an ancient $10 game compete with a brand new one that sports superior flight dynamics? Anyone who has wanted 46, has it. I still play it alot, it's still fantastic. I also still play Falcon 4.0, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying DCS.

 

People will enjoy both more than likely.

[Rjel]

Another factor is time. I simply don't have time to invest in flight sims like I once did. That reason alone likely means I'll fly BoS almost exclusively. Offline too, as the time investment for online isn't there anymore either.

[Matt]

I think the majority do play these sims with aids enabled. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But you should be rewarded as a player for using higher levels of difficulty. Those rewards can be unlocks or career awards. It makes sense and it's fun in the sim.

I don't want to turn this too much into an unlock discussion but:

 

Why should someone who buys a game be forced to play it under certain difficulty levels or fly a SP campaign to unlock all features (most of which the planes used in this flightsim had readily avaliable) and why should this be (more) fun, especially for someone who's mostly or only interested in MP. If this is really more fun, should that outweight historical accuracy in a realistic flightsim. I'm especially concerned about the bomb loadouts in this case and the cannon unlocks for ground strafing on the Il-2 for instance.

 

Let everyone do what he wants. Use arcade settings or highest realism, SP campaign or MP and all variations of that mode. What do i care if someone only wants to fly alone all the time with lowest difficulty and enjoy the scenery and why shouldn't he be allowed to do that and use all features/unlocks. It worked fine in all previous flightsims and i doubt anyone ever complained about having all features avaliable for him without playing a campaign. If you want to pretend to be a rookie and not use any unlocks, just stick to the default loadout (which i guess will now always exclude unlocks) for that mission.

 

Now medals, promotions etc. (RoF style) are a different thing, because they reward the player without forcing or restricting him in any way. Nothing wrong with that and i think they'll show up in BoS aswell. Those would've been enough imho.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Matt

[johncage]

how to take this seriously? bos already offers more than 1946 at this stage

[Felix58]

Just to offer a view on the concept of BOS "competing" with 46.

 

For the new casual SP player I cannot imagine they would be interested in 46.  The dated graphics would be off putting.  At that level BOS offers a more interesting product at contemporary build standards.  (Presume at finished product stage, career mode to keep SP players interested, single missions).

 

What about the MP/Squad crowd?  Ranging from the recent converts via War Thunder to those playing MP since the heyday of 46.

 

And as some posters have mentioned, are time poor.  So they want to maximize their online experience and not have to own a host of sims. 

 

Can BOS hope to convert some/most of the old squads and MP players over to the new title and hopefully new series?

The hard core guys who like a "study sim" have DCS.  BOS offers a more middle ground experience - not that different from CLoD really.

 

I think in that sense BOS is competing with 46.  Competing is probably too strong a word, perhaps the question should be "Can BOS attract the '46 MP/Squad flight simmers from their tried and trusted mount?"  

[BlitzPig_EL]

how to take this seriously? bos already offers more than 1946 at this stage

 

You are joking, yes?

 

Does BoS have a functional and easily accessed Mission Builder?

 

Does it have the plane sets, maps and ground units to simulate action in multiple theaters?

 

Does it offer a robust co-op mode, where mission makers can set up their own campaigns, or single missions easily?

 

Does it have accurate FMs even for the very limited numbers of aircraft that it has now?

 

You cannot answer yes to all these questions.  If you do, then I suggest taking off the rose colored glasses.

 

Not saying that in time some of these issues won't be addressed, but no way can you say that BoS offers more than better eye candy at this point.

 

And do take note that I mentioned ground units.  This is one of my biggest worries about BoS, as it's progenitor, Rise of Flight, never came close to being able to simulate the proper conditions on the ground

of the time it was trying to portray.

 

I understand that BoS is still deeply in Beta, but you guys on this forum have to understand that a very large number of previous players of the IL2 franchise are sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how BoS pans out.

This isn't the old days of flight sims where people hungrily purchased every title that came down the pike "just because".

 

A lot of people got burned by Clod, and are now very skeptical and will need proof, other than unfounded claims of the die hard fan boys, that this, or any future title is worth their hard earned cash.

 

I hope it is, but I will need to see the proof, be sure.

Edited August 8, 2014 by ElAurens

[Brano]

 I allready exchanged like 2 years ago all that quantity of old sturm for quality of up-to-date FM and overall feel of flying real airplane in DCS Mustang (2012) and BoS since early acces opened (november 2013).And I do not regret that decision.No one could take me back to old sturm.Progress is unstoppable.IMO people sticking to their old habits cant evolve and will eventualy lack behind.

 So to sum it up: No,old sturm is by no means competiton neither to BoS or DCS.It is just mere alternative for those who doesn´t want to move on.

[FuriousMeow]

I saw the same arguments towards the first Il-2 release from those playing EAW.

[DigitalEngine]

how to take this seriously? bos already offers more than 1946 at this stage

Not quite, very much personally like flying multiengine heavys (four or more engines) in our virtual flying world, which leaves us with only IL-2 1946.

Really hope DCS will do the B-17!!

The more engines, the more iron, the better!!

Edited August 8, 2014 by BlueMatrix

[DD_Crash]

I happen to really like the variety that 1946 gives. The DangerDogs still fly 1946 with HSFX 3 nights a week and CloD 1 night, Quite a few of us have various DCS modules and BoS as well. Yes the newer titles look better but with the right maps and cockpit mods 1946 is not that far behind. As for the most realistic flight model then I am sure that the newer sims are more complex and would give a more representative illusion of actual flight. Its horses for courses as some people say you need every switch modeled etc to be a proper sim and others dont think that clickpits bring much to the table. In the end its about enjoying what you do  

[Dakpilot]

I happen to really like the variety that 1946 gives. The DangerDogs still fly 1946 with HSFX 3 nights a week and CloD 1 night, Quite a few of us have various DCS modules and BoS as well. Yes the newer titles look better but with the right maps and cockpit mods 1946 is not that far behind. As for the most realistic flight model then I am sure that the newer sims are more complex and would give a more representative illusion of actual flight. Its horses for courses as some people say you need every switch modeled etc to be a proper sim and others dont think that clickpits bring much to the table. In the end its about enjoying what you do

 

How dare you bring reason to a thread comparing flight sims

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

others dont think that clickpits bring much to the table. In the end its about enjoying what you do

When it comes to piston fighters of the '30s and '40s, they're absolutely correct. What's there to actually manage? Hard to mount a LANTIRN pod on a P-47. The only time it offers anything worthwile in a piston fighter is during the start up. Even with clickable pits, most people use keyboard short cuts so they don't have to physically move the mouse to use something.

[LoneMerc]

Interesting thread, I always been a casual player and never took the time to learn the FM and Engine management of the planes I was always quite happy flying and fighting with normal settings, I was a professional rookie and did not mind. I have had all the combat Sims I can remember. However something clicked recently maybe a few years older now but when I got DCS A10 later than most I wanted to learn all about it the systems, and complete control from engine start to landing you almost had too in such a Sim. With BOS even though the option is there not to I still want to manually do everything and learn engine management and such. I appreciate the work that goes into such Sims and always hope that all is there to make it the most realistic experience as can be so I can work up to getting there and not fall short because it was dumbed down. BOS is my current jam and learning more on the EM is my focus and having a blast I'm sure there are shortcomings but until I get in the know, I don't know .

 

I have current loaded 1946, CLOD, ROF, BOS. I can't go back to 1946 just getting dated to go back and learn to be hardcore on it. ROF nice game I can play with it but WWI not a huge fan, CLOD and BOS are my top choices hell CLOD is new to me last time ran was when it was new and buggy as hell I quit, came back to it to find won't run on Win 8, just learned last week there was a Win8 fix I did not know about and the 4.3xx mod update I just got the dust off CLOD a week ago. Getting that going I said screw it I want the new thing so got BOS and fell in love again with my Stuka always been a bomber at heart. HE111 on the way, Oh Baby!

 

I hope great things for BOS and that it can be a true realistic Sim for those who want it and toggle to a normal sim for casual players. But need to be all it can be so pilots can grow and not stay dumbed down.

Edited August 8, 2014 by LoneMerc

[Jason_Williams]

These kinds of threads do nothing for the genre and just cause fights. We are competing with everyone and everything out there. Just the nature of the business. I'm watching this one. Keep it civil and insult free.

 

Jason

[Jason_Williams]

You are joking, yes?

 

Does BoS have a functional and easily accessed Mission Builder?

 

Does it have the plane sets, maps and ground units to simulate action in multiple theaters?

 

Does it offer a robust co-op mode, where mission makers can set up their own campaigns, or single missions easily?

 

Does it have accurate FMs even for the very limited numbers of aircraft that it has now?

 

You cannot answer yes to all these questions.  If you do, then I suggest taking off the rose colored glasses.

 

Not saying that in time some of these issues won't be addressed, but no way can you say that BoS offers more than better eye candy at this point.

 

And do take note that I mentioned ground units.  This is one of my biggest worries about BoS, as it's progenitor, Rise of Flight, never came close to being able to simulate the proper conditions on the ground

of the time it was trying to portray.

 

I understand that BoS is still deeply in Beta, but you guys on this forum have to understand that a very large number of previous players of the IL2 franchise are sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how BoS pans out.

This isn't the old days of flight sims where people hungrily purchased every title that came down the pike "just because".

 

A lot of people got burned by Clod, and are now very skeptical and will need proof, other than unfounded claims of the die hard fan boys, that this, or any future title is worth their hard earned cash.

 

I hope it is, but I will need to see the proof, be sure.

 

Show me the original IL-2 after 16 months of work? Can you? Where you there in the studio with Oleg? Cause that's where original IL-2 was at 16 months of work, still in the studio. We are flying in the public domain and building a AAA sim faster than anyone ever has. I think you are comparing apples and oranges.

 

And there will never ever be a sim that has as much content or features as IL-2 1946 in it's current state after 14 years of work, mods, hacks and thousand of man hours of free labor. The technology doesn't add up, the market doesn't add up, the budget's don't add up and the community's stubbornness is a major hurdle unfortunately.

 

I hope we will be able to keep developing our engine and content for those that have supported us in ROF, BOS and now IM, but time will tell. The 1C-777 team, especially the core team whom have worked so damn hard for so long deserve a chance to keep working. When I see people crapping on their work it makes my blood boil. Very few of you here know the real story of perseverance and dedication it has taken to get to this point at all. It's always easier to sit back and throw bombs and argue semantics I suppose. 

 

Jason

[ATAG_Bliss]

The ROF engine is essentially the same one used for BOS.  That was developed for years before ROF was released. ROF has been out for almost 5 years now?  Just because you change the map and planesets doesn't mean it's foundation is something brand new.  That is exactly why the same limitations that ROF has is currently in BOS as well.  So your statement about creating a completely new flight sim in the shortest amount of time isn't exactly accurate.  You've essentially created more content from the same engine you have been using. 

 

And when you put it like that, IL2 did the same thing every few years as well (with new planes, new maps, hundreds of objects added to the FMB to use etc.and added new features all the time -- The same you are doing to the ROF engine). 

 

A brand new flight sim engine would be using current technology - aka DX11 - and not graphics technology from the Windows XP era.

 

I'll give you credit for talking a great game, but the facts of the matter don't support a lot of what you say.  If your game isn't selling like you want it to, the last thing you do is blame the community.  Perhaps look at the reasons why?  And I can tell you when a 14 year old flight sim is more capable in features, usability, MP, SP, campaigns etc., that what a brand new offering is doing people don't like going backwards.

 

With your current game engine, you've essentially made squad play obsolete.  IL2 in 2001 could have 90 players on a server with everyone on a server on 56K modems.  Here we are in 2014 and you aren't getting 1/2 that atm. Nor is that number achievable with ROF.   And that's with a baron wasteland of a map with hardly any objects on it at all.  Other sims out there do this.  And when you realize placing objects, creating action etc., is the core behind mission building, when your game engine can't handle doing much of that, how do you expect it to sell well?  It's been done in the past.  Other games do it right now with better graphics etc. 

 

So when developers realize why the original IL2 did so well and incorporate those same abilities into their sims, you'll get the sales.  But threatening people that it's the communities fault for your own development choices and priorities isn't the way to get them.  People that play these sims want accuracy.  They want a dev team that wants a correct flight model.  Look how many people got fed up with ROF because you guys would never fix some of the most glaring FM problems.

 

So I don't see anyone throwing bombs around.  What I do see is a producer saying the community is to blame for his product sales.  The blame lies 100% in the product itself. If it's good, word will travel extremely fast.  If it's not it will have a stale life cycle.  The original IL2 didn't sell millions of copies because of some sort of advertising.  In fact there was hardly any advertising at all other than by the players themselves.  Instead it sold well because it was capable and good to begin with. 

 

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I have current loaded 1946, CLOD, ROF, BOS. I can't go back to 1946 just getting dated to go back and learn to be hardcore on it.

I have all that in addition to DCS World, Falcon 4.0, and '46.

 

'46 serves a special purpose amongst my own circle of digital wingmen in that it's the hook. It has a lot going for it that make it a great game to introduce people to combat flight simes:

• Low introductory price for a lot of content developed over quite a frame of time.
• A fairly stable and aged engine that provides players with low end systems with something that will work on theirs.
• A robust mission builder.
• A forgiving flight model

After someone cuts their teeth in '46, BoS is there for a more demanding experience.

[Picchio]

WTF, guys. It's not even ready yet.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Picchio

[JtD]

... and the community's stubbornness is a major hurdle unfortunately...

Thanks for keeping reminding us of our inferior intellect and character throughout the development. I'll try that strategy next time I'm in a sales meeting with one of our customers. Probably a winner.

[FuriousMeow]

IL2 in 2001 could have 90 players on a server with everyone on a server on 56K modems

 

No, it could not. Dedicated server didn't come out for years after 2001. It could support a max of 16 players in coop mode.

 

History according to Bliss, completely made up.

Edited August 8, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Uufflakke]

@J_W:

Blaming the community is the weakest defense.

I don't get this overheated reaction at all. As far as I can see it is very civil right now. Just different points of view. No putting oil on the fire. There is no fire at all.

Forget for a while the old guys who participate in combat flight simming since the early days. The one who buys this sim for whatever reason wants to have a working product that can compete in visuals and experience with current games. And really do not care at all how much work, time, money and frustration got into it. It needs to be immersive and worth every penny. They really don't care about a person with a name Oleg Maddox,

Same with buying a  bread: it should be tasteful, who cares about the baker's background or what his name is or of his helpers.

Or going to a cinema and watching a movie. Or the name of the pilot and co-pilot to my holiday destination.

 

Since you quoted ElAurens he is not negative but expressing his opinion and in both comments on this page he hopes it turnes out positively. That's the bottom line I read in it.

 

Forget about us vultures circling around the prey named BoS. Some eat everything they see, others wait a bit longer before diving but more important are the other birds watching the whole scenery from a save distance before deciding what to do.

[startrekmike]

Wow, a good majority of the posts following Jason's so called "blaming the community" comments show that stubbornness he spoke of in full force.

 

  Some of you really need to stop, take a breath and read his entire post again, I think you will see that it is hardly insulting to the customer, especially when this forum (like most flight sims forums) has proven to be exactly as stubborn as he said.

 

  Jason's post did not say anything that was not true, some of you are just looking for something to get self-righteously indignant about.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

It's like a farm field out here; so many strawmen.

[FuriousMeow]

Thanks for keeping reminding us of our inferior intellect and character throughout the development. I'll try that strategy next time I'm in a sales meeting with one of our customers. Probably a winner.

 

I completely agree with him. The vocal community very much chooses to denigrate BoS, the team, and anything they do while holding 1946 and CLoD (that just amazes me) up on some pedastal as the pristine examples of flight sims and that nothing will ever be as good and certainly not better while ignoring how many flaws 1946 had and still has, how many years of development it went through that changed things abruptly and without reason, and that it is aging so it there is a time to restart with fewer aircraft and develop something updated. And then there's CloD... yikes.

Edited August 8, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Felix58]

I think Jason's post has derailed the thread, but, while we are here!

As a flight simmer I don't care who takes my money as long as I get a good product.

And as a Founder participating in the Beta program I don't see anything wrong in offering (politely) constructive criticism.

 

However, much of the flight sim community have developed a passionate (read illogical) loyalty to various titles and, more importantly, personalities.  

And they can only see the flight sim world through that prism.  I think it is illogical to have a loyalty to an entity when the entity does not really care about your loyalty!

Nothing wrong with viewing the world through a particular "prism" (I view football through the "prism" of the team I support.) but understand it does limit your view and you can come across (as Jason has mentioned) as a carper with little to offer the debate.

[Jason_Williams]

It's always the same people that don't like what I say who have.

 

1. Never talked to the major gaming publishers and angel investors about investing in such a product.

2. Never developed a product like this from scratch.

3. Never had to develop such a title on a budget or a deadline and meet a payroll.

 

If any of these people ever did those things (sorry modding doesn't count), they would not be so ready to criticize us and would realize what I say is true.

 

The market has changed, there are fewer hardcore players. The investment arena has changed where money is more scarce. The technology to make such a title has gotten more complicated i.e. need more realistic physics, AI, scenery etc. The price of such a machine to run a game at the bleeding edge of technology has gone up. The MSRP of sims has not risen with inflation and cost of production. The community is jaded and argumentative even though you are trying to give them something they like.

 

All I ask, is to keep an open mind and focus on the things you like and stop scaring others away by constantly complaining about stuff you don't like or haven't had time to build yet.

 

I've had discussions about the business side of this genre many times over the years on the forums. I'm the only owner who does. Why? Because like you, I was just a fan once who wanted everything built yesterday. And because of that I worked hard to break into this crazy business. What I found was that my perception of how easy things are to do were wrong and there are a million decisions that affect what gets built for you and why. 

 

If you don't like what we are doing, do us all a favor and just give us your feedback (maybe once a week, not everyday) and move on without turning this place into such a den of anger and negativity, which to the average reader this place appears to have become. I say these things because I feel you should know about the climate in which we are trying to operate in to give you what you want. I'm sorry if my comments offend you, but it's easier to turn people off to a product than turn them on. That's a business fact and one we are forced to deal with everyday.

 

But in the end this is a business and maybe we will fail. If we do, then everyone can say we suck and deserve to fail and all our critics will say it was because of all the reasons they stated over and over again. Until then, we will continue to try and make a great product that hopefully enough of you will buy to keep us going.

 

We're not going to have the technological solution to every shortcoming our engine may have or make a design decision everyone likes, but the overall product will be quite enjoyable and we will be proud of it. 

 

Sorry I derailed this thread and I'll close it now. Hate it when I do that. Sometimes, you just can't sit here and let people beat you up after all the hard work you and your team put into it.

 

Jason