Can this be cleared up please...

[WitchyWoman]

I agree with posters above and support the opinion that IL-2 1946 (espeially with BAT installed over it) is vastly superior to IL2GB and COD in regards to AI and the dynamic campaign structure. The games that have come since have gone backwards when it comes to these two important  areas of any combat sim and I do not understand why the AI logic in that game was not carried over in later sims that they produced. COD's completely linear story campaign also was a disappointment and this structure seems to have carried over to Tank Crew.

 

My first indication of a problematic AI came when I bought Rise Of Flight and invested in all of its expansions. I quickly got frustrated with it because the enemy just enters sharp turns and tries to avoid you if you aggressively enter into a dogfight every time. I feel like the AI was neglected in favor of online players.  It just became boring rather quickly and I moved on to Wings Over Flaunders Fields where the AI in that is smart and deadly, it provides for a real challenge as far as WW1 is concerned.

 

And as far as MP and SP goes, I have heard for so many years this about argument how SP play is dying out. Some of that has been an agenda to steer people towards online only depending on the product. Thats hilarious because the majority of people fly SP in simulators. I am one of them.

 

 If a game doesn't have proper AI or a decent career/dynamic campaign, It does not get bought or collects dust on my shelf pretty fast.

MP is just not appealing to me because your not part of a bigger picture in a long drawn out war with rank,awards, transfers, etc.

 

I was spoiled by all of the great classic sims that offered these features and its the reason they have never died off.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by WitchyWoman

[Bonnot]

14 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Yesterdays entertainment will no longer cut it

Often because the computer and system is obsolete - look above how many players regret some old games.....

 

14 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Few people will ever read the same book or pay to watch the same movie twice, but they will pay for a more in depth newer version of the same old story.

This is probably true to younger generations born with plethora of infos, continuous changing techs, noisy advertising of "NEW" as only argument, in a consumer unlimited paradise ........how long it will grow at the same speed  ????

And, yes, I often read the same books and watch some movies more than twice ♻️

[BlitzPig_EL]

Bonnot, I agree with you about books and movies, but we are talking about a simulation whose goal always should be to immerse the player as best as possible into the world being portrayed.  Would you go back to wire frame graphics? I think not.

 

There is an old saying in my country that became popular after WW1...

 

"You can't keep them down on the farm after they have seen the bright lights of Paris".

 

It's just human nature.

[Lusekofte]

Remember core game Old iL 2 and GB separate only 10 years

I played old IL 2 since its start. I remember it’s lousy ai and it did not improve until very late 

This means we should see a ai at same level by now. 
And this might be one of the reasons they will make new stuff

[Bonnot]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

  Would you go back to wire frame graphics? I think not.

 

Yes, that's true...

But I can't see the end of this race to the perfect sim, the best graphics, the faster computer....with so many valuable items discarded before they are finished !

IL2 -my opinion- is just as good as I want now, except it is unfinished :  landscapes, missing planes, faulty AI, drop tanks, etc.... GB is perhaps 60% what it should be ?

So polish it , end what you begin for once,  before dropping the baby.

GB xxx with additions AND improvements could be worth paying for keeping what exists....but the RoF to Circus didn't work for me- and I'm not alone !

IL2xxx will never be DCS quality for a medium price computer, an affordable program cost  and an easy access without a MIT level......

Believe me : I'd seen the lights of Paris long enough to enjoy living elsewhere -less light, but less strain, noise, smell........but everyone should be able to follow his way of life (or playing)  - which is far from true  ?

Edited January 8, 2023 by Bonnot

[Trooper117]

25 minutes ago, Bonnot said:

o polish it , end what you begin for once,  before dropping the baby

 

That's the point, they can't... this version of GB and it's game engine has gone just about as far as it can go, that's why they are (or appear to be) starting afresh.

Just how much more they will be able to get out of 'the improved engine' is anybody's guess.

I have the suspicion that most peoples expectations are too high.

[BlitzPig_EL]

52 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

I have the suspicion that most peoples expectations are too high.

 

What else is new?  

[Lusekofte]

In my point of view , “the new” should bring in features like fuel transfer , better and more complex parameters for engine damage. Same with fm and dm. 
Ability to have more things in a mission. Improved AI 

If not, I can’t really see a point. Am I expecting too much? In order to stop everything spend a long time developing, spend a lot of money. 
The changes should be worth while. I think we are going to get more than we think 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

More navigation options like course setting, not just being guided to the nearest airfield, asking Morse signal for homing.

I also hope they don't keep us waiting again for years for features like contact altimeter or realistic autopilot modelling (9 years).

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Lusekofte]

5 minutes ago, FlyingShark said:

More navigation options like course setting, not just being guided to the nearest airfield

With a ingame ME with beacons you can choose this will be doable. I full heartedly agree. Being able to navigate in bad visability would mean a lot in my type of flying

[BMA_FlyingShark]

Indeed and also, radio navigation doesn't only serve for finding your way back to base.

It also was used to find targets, you look where your home base is and then you fly to the radial from your home base to your target.

This is more difficult in game as you always get guided to the nearest base and then you're not sure what base you're guided to exactly and you can't calculate your heading to where ever you wanted to fly (you can but it gets really difficult and annoying).

 

Have a nice day.

 

[tattywelshie]

20 hours ago, WitchyWoman said:

 

 If a game doesn't have proper AI or a decent career/dynamic campaign, It does not get bought or collects dust on my shelf pretty fast.

MP is just not appealing to me because your not part of a bigger picture in a long drawn out war with rank,awards, transfers, etc.

 

I was spoiled by all of the great classic sims that offered these features and its the reason they have never died off.

 

 

Totally agree here! One of the main reasons I’ve never embraced DCS is the total lack of any sort of career mode, I’m sure others at the same. I really don’t understand why basically career and dynamic campaigns have gone totally backwards in recent times. I remember back to Microprose games where so much thought and immersion was put into the career mode, with so much control over things. I’m guessing MP is the issue, as game developers don’t really need to bother putting much effort into single player anymore. I really do think though that they are missing a major trick, simulator games by their very nature suit themselves very well to single player, more so than maybe any other genre. I really do hope single player is given a healthy refresh going forward with a bit of dynamism and some of the features of the wonderful PWCG incorporated into it. 

[Bonnot]

3 minutes ago, tattywelshie said:

I really do think though that they are missing a major trick, simulator games by their very nature suit themselves very well to single player, more so than maybe any other genre.

100%  OK for me,  add a career AND  an EASY/FAST  editor to customize your scens to your own taste, something wargames do well  ( or Arma type games ).

[WitchyWoman]

5 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

 

I have the suspicion that most peoples expectations are too high.

How are they too high when everything addressed in this post is offered in so many simulations that came before?

 

The problem is not that expectations are too high. Its that people nowadays have been groomed to expect a LOT less in a game or simulation and the push by the industry to jump on a server that is dead if human players are not present. So many games these days (not just sims) are dead in the water within weeks or months because they rely on a human player and totally lack ai logic. Crafting games especially.

Edited January 8, 2023 by WitchyWoman

[DBFlyguy]

 

31 minutes ago, WitchyWoman said:

How are they too high when everything addressed in this post is offered in so many simulations that cme before?

 

The problem is not that expectations are too high. Its that people nowadays have been groomed to expect a LOT less in a game or simulation and the push by the industry to jump on a server that is dead if human players are not present. So many games these days (not just sims) are dead in the water within weeks or months because they rely on a human player and totally lack ai logic. Crafting games especially.

 

 

Definitely a good point concerning games relying on multiplayer and lacking SP elements like decent AI. Enigma touched on this in one of his recent videos:

 

An intern made the Falcon 4.0 dynamic campaign way back when.... I can't help but wonder if there is also talent shortfall in the game dev world... I'm hoping DCS can finally get their Dynamic Campaign out there eventually but maybe some of the things we're not seeing in flight sims (games in general) is a lack of know how (knowledge/skill set) among current game developers.

 

[WitchyWoman]

Great vid. I know I tend to beat a dead horse but some people have to push for change. BMS is certainly a shining light in dark times and shows what can be done on software thats over 20 years old.

Edited January 8, 2023 by WitchyWoman

[DragonDaddy]

Some very interesting observations are made in this video. His theory on how flight sims got to where they are now, and where they should/ could go next, touches on issues and desires many flight simmers have. 
 

What I found particularly interesting is his theory on how War Thunder is involved in the decline of current sim quality. 
 

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by DragonDaddy
Additional thoughts

[simfan2015]

The succes of War Thunder is the same as like the many other 'free to play' MMOs. First give those stupid people 'drugs' for free, get them addicted and let them beg and pay dearly for more! 

[CountZero]

2 minutes ago, simfan2015 said:

The succes of War Thunder is the same as like the many other 'free to play' MMOs. First give those stupid people 'drugs' for free, get them addicted and let them beg and pay dearly for more! 

And i belive that most ppl stay in WT or games like that as they either spend to mutch money or time to grind stuff, and do not go into DCS or GB or games like that in big numbers like they would if there is no games like WT. So i think enigma is right in total it was bad for air sim world that games like WT exist. 

[WitchyWoman]

9 minutes ago, simfan2015 said:

The succes of War Thunder is the same as like the many other 'free to play' MMOs. First give those stupid people 'drugs' for free, get them addicted and let them beg and pay dearly for more! 

I tried WT a week and came away hating it. Its not simulation. Its a brain dead action game full of loot boxes they require keys to be bought to unlock content. I would not spend a dime on it. Its world of tanks or planes  with a cockpit added.

Edited January 8, 2023 by WitchyWoman

[CountZero]

4 minutes ago, WitchyWoman said:

I tried WT a week and came away hating it. Its not simulation. Its a brain dead action game full of loot boxes they require keys to be bought to unlock content. I would not spend a dime on it. Its world of tanks or planes  with a cockpit added.

But alot of ppl wil and do, so its most known flying game and sucks all ppl to it, they can call it sim, players playing it wil not know differance and will belive its best sim. Other games will have to take a look what is so succesfule and mimic stff, we had this with unlocks in IL-2, but as it catered to old players and didnt atraced new ones from WT , it failed so it got removed from here and we went back to what worked before in sims, but next new project will try again to change and atract new players, maybe not with unlocks, but i expect something els, as goal of lanching new game is to atract more ppl not just make it for users you have here.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

as goal of lanching new game is to atract more ppl not just make it for users you have here.

You might be right, and I was thinking on the that lane too. It would mean they loose all here, and bet everything on what might come

[tattywelshie]

6 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

You might be right, and I was thinking on the that lane too. It would mean they loose all here, and bet everything on what might come

Exactly, and with Microprose looking like they are embracing flight sims again with the B17 games and Jason joining them, I’d say sorting out the single player expedience is paramount to retaining and attracting existing and new players. 

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, tattywelshie said:

Exactly, and with Microprose looking like they are embracing flight sims again with the B17 games and Jason joining them, I’d say sorting out the single player expedience is paramount to retaining and attracting existing and new players. 

I wouldn’t count on anything ground-breaking from Microprose, with or without Jason. Look how long it’s taken the DCS engine to get where it is, never mind where it’s poised to go soon.

We’ll see.

 

 

 

 

 

[dburne]

Ah I must have missed the news Jason had joined Microprose. Good for him.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Well,

 

for a simmer like me who really cares, in the very first place, for the consistency of the flight and overall physics modelling in a flight simulator, IL-2 is my preferred flight simulator.

 

I never bought the Microprose B-17 tittles, so I can't really comment on how good they were, and OFC I will be interested in checking news about it, but for the unique experience of being able to operate a worth of great WW2 bomber/fighter models I choose IL-2 Great Battles, not even DCS with it's nice but limited, and IMH not as good "feel of flight wise", set of ww2 fighters.

 

IL-2 Great Battles has been a reference for me, and my escape from other flight simulation platforms where I do miss the quality provided by the tallented 1C / 777 developers.

 

A Flight Simulation tittle has to rely on good/strong marketing to survive, and I am sure elements in the team can be missed, but above all, the core code, the dedication and the actually delivered aircraft modules, together with the main features of the sim, like graphics, scenery, damage model, AI, etc... are the core and the most important decisions points for me.

[Trooper117]

Just now, cagarini said:

A Flight Simulation tittle has to rely on good/strong marketing to survive

 

Well there is absolutely jack she-ite marketing going on here at the moment... there is however an information vacuum that needs filling rapidly, otherwise their planned marketing strategy (if there is one) may fall on a lot of deaf ears... 

[Bonnot]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I wouldn’t count on anything ground-breaking from Microprose, with or without Jason.

Please, let me hope that Microprose find a second (?) life with Jason ....

I'd to check on documents and, yes, I'm associated with  Microprose  since (almost) FORTY years and for me it was really ground-breaking as Tanks, Trains, Civilizations, Subs, SF, Fantasy,  games.....Mind I'm still going sometime to Transport Tycoon - 30+ yo.

There were also bad attempts and deceptive titles and the bugs were impossible to correct with the net, making some games useless...

I wonder how they manage the dematerialized programs and I'll probably no longer wait the colorful boxes and manuals .....so, crossing fingers I hope to see old goodies coming back with a new Sid Meier era   ?

Ps : European Air War is 25 yo , but it seems to be now  playable on Win10 ?

anyone tried this ?

[CountZero]

31 minutes ago, cagarini said:

Well,

 

for a simmer like me who really cares, in the very first place, for the consistency of the flight and overall physics modelling in a flight simulator, IL-2 is my preferred flight simulator.

 

I never bought the Microprose B-17 tittles, so I can't really comment on how good they were, and OFC I will be interested in checking news about it, but for the unique experience of being able to operate a worth of great WW2 bomber/fighter models I choose IL-2 Great Battles, not even DCS with it's nice but limited, and IMH not as good "feel of flight wise", set of ww2 fighters.

 

IL-2 Great Battles has been a reference for me, and my escape from other flight simulation platforms where I do miss the quality provided by the tallented 1C / 777 developers.

 

A Flight Simulation tittle has to rely on good/strong marketing to survive, and I am sure elements in the team can be missed, but above all, the core code, the dedication and the actually delivered aircraft modules, together with the main features of the sim, like graphics, scenery, damage model, AI, etc... are the core and the most important decisions points for me.

So as hapy GB user, why do we need another GB 2.0 now, why cant we get more DLC like before... where is this need for improvment that cant happend here so that all this needs to be shelfed and started from new... I simply do not see GB 2.0 giving any big impromnets compared to GB when both will have same game engine that will have same limitations like GB have, that dont bather you i guess. So why GB 2.0 then ? is slightly better Graphics and FM/DM worth 5-10 years on no real content for GB or this new GB 2.0, or you expect that well get all we have now build in last 10 years from start in GB 2.0... i just don not get ppl who thing making same game 2 nd time is great idea, with only slightly better graphics and FM/DM to show for.

 

And on top Devs here are doing piss por job of explaining why they think its needed.

Edited January 9, 2023 by CountZero

[Lusekofte]

33 minutes ago, cagarini said:

IL-2 is my preferred flight simulator

I fly actively (relative) 4 different sims. 
It is to me not the brand. Comparing planes vs planes are more in line 

GB got a good air war simulation with a few comparable planes I favor instead of competitive brands. It was at one time my favourite.

But in my eyes it always had great potential, question I have, are these improvements coming in my favour?

I think that is what many wants to know. 
For my sake I doubt it, but that does not mean they make a mistake, I do not represent majority. But at least I hope for more complexity not more WT. 

If they could clear that up I would be pretty satisfied 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Lusekofte

[Guest deleted@50488]

Sorry, but has GB 2.0 been announced, or mentioned by the 1C / 777 dev team yet? And if that's the case, is there a link please?

Thx!

[AEthelraedUnraed]

19 hours ago, WitchyWoman said:

How are they too high when everything addressed in this post is offered in so many simulations that came before?

 

The problem is not that expectations are too high. Its that people nowadays have been groomed to expect a LOT less in a game or simulation and the push by the industry to jump on a server that is dead if human players are not present. So many games these days (not just sims) are dead in the water within weeks or months because they rely on a human player and totally lack ai logic. Crafting games especially.

Actually, people have been groomed to expect a lot MORE.

 

Take the 46 AI that people here are lauding so much. It isn't good AI, it's cheating AI. One of my biggest frustrations with 46 was when a plane I was chasing would suddenly do some kind of maneuver that I knew was physically impossible. Did this make the AI harder to catch? Of course it did. Did it make me enjoy the AI more than the current AI? Quite on the contrary. The current AI has its issues, but at least it uses the same FM as the player. I'd never want to go back to the "fake-good" AI of 46.

 

Or take drop tanks. They were in 46, yes. And they *would* have been in BoX by now, if they had chosen to make them similar to how they were in 46, i.e. just an "explosive-less bomb" that adds some bonus fuel. But instead they (well, at least someone in the management) chose to completely model the whole fuel system. Why? Well, the only plausible explanation for a commercial game is because they thought the player base would not be completely satisfied with a simplified system as in 1946 and would appreciate the increased complexity of a full fuel system.

 

Again, we have been groomed to expect more, not less.

Edited January 9, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

[CountZero]

7 minutes ago, cagarini said:

Sorry, but has GB 2.0 been announced, or mentioned by the 1C / 777 dev team yet? And if that's the case, is there a link please?

Thx!

There are ambitious goals ahead, and the team is gathering strength and resources to reach them. Here’s what we have planned for the next year:
1. Bring the production of the new large-scale project to full speed;
2. Complete the development of a number of new base technologies for the new project, which we started working on last year already;
3. Develop new approaches to the user experience in the next project, taking into account all the previous experience (both our own and that of our competitors);
4. Continue releasing new content for the Great Battles world;
5. Add new employees to the team, increasing the number of team members by 1.5 times in total;
6. Establish partnerships with teams and enthusiasts who will help us in the development of the Great Battles world, as well as in the creation of content for the new project.

Edited January 9, 2023 by CountZero

[DaveP63]

4 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Actually, people have been groomed to expect a lot MORE.

 

Take the 46 AI that people here are lauding so much. It isn't good AI, it's cheating AI. One of my biggest frustrations with 46 was when a plane I was chasing would suddenly do some kind of maneuver that I knew was physically impossible. Did this make the AI harder to catch? Of course it did. Did it make me enjoy the AI more than the current AI? Quite on the contrary. The current AI has it's issues, but at least it uses the same FM as the player. I'd never want to go back to the "fake-good" AI of 46.

 

Or take drop tanks. They were in 46, yes. And they *would* have been in BoX by now, if they had chosen to make them similar to how they were in 46, i.e. just an "explosive-less bomb" that adds some bonus fuel. But instead they (well, at least someone in the management) chose to completely model the whole fuel system. Why? Well, the only plausible explanation for a commercial game is because they thought the player base would not be completely satisfied with a simplified system as in 1946 and would appreciate the increased complexity of a full fuel system.

 

Again, we have been groomed to expect more, not less.

Plus, without fail, if your convergence is set for 300 meters at precisely 300 meters they will start evasive maneuvers. 

[Zooropa_Fly]

Never played it, but I believe WT is best suited to mouse control. The fact that it is so easily accessible likely has a lot to do with it's success.

The amount of gear required, and the learning curve of the more 'hardcore' sims has always been a problem getting punters in.

 

I understand the 'onwards and upwards' point of view that the tech keeps getting more advanced and things in time will get infinitely better, but will they ?

If we get a new game engine that requires more hardware power to run, I'd question if there's going to be the customer base for it to survive for long.

The World isn't what it was, and isn't likely to be again.

 

As things are, I don't know if I'll be spending any more money on game modules, never mind parting with £5K on a new rig to run a new game. I'll be making do with what I already have (which is plenty).

I suspect many others will be in a similar position.

So in a genre that's already in decline, the devs should be thinking about their next move very carefully in my opinion.

[sevenless]

6 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Never played it, but I believe WT is best suited to mouse control. The fact that it is so easily accessible likely has a lot to do with it's success.

 

One of the biggest factors is multiplatform. Playstation and XBOX users are in the majority compared to users on the PC.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

56 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

If we get a new game engine that requires more hardware power to run, I'd question if there's going to be the customer base for it to survive for long.

Quite the opposite, if there'll be a new engine (I still find it unlikely the new product will use a completely new engine), I don't think they'll get much of a customer base if the system requirements are still the same as back in 2014. The modern customer base demands a quality of graphics, AI and physics that cannot be achieved while at the same time still supporting 10 year old hardware.

 

Actually, one of the things that speak for the new product being a separate series, is that they could use it to finally ditch the curse of having to support 10-year old mid-range hardware. And good riddance. If people don't want to upgrade their outdated rigs, then that's their choice, but then they shouldn't demand to be able to play modern games.

[simfan2015]

2 hours ago, sevenless said:

Playstation and XBOX users are in the majority compared to users on the PC.

May be the reason the have to get a new engine at all cost, who knows !

Targetting only the PC sim-lovers with high end GFX cards may not be the easiest way to succes, surely not from now on.

XBOX and PS5 have become viable platforms for sims ... problem of console and flight sim suitable controllers remain a sour issue though.

[sevenless]

40 minutes ago, simfan2015 said:

May be the reason the have to get a new engine at all cost, who knows !

Targetting only the PC sim-lovers with high end GFX cards may not be the easiest way to succes, surely not from now on.

XBOX and PS5 have become viable platforms for sims ... problem of console and flight sim suitable controllers remain a sour issue though.

 

Microsoft is certainly catching a lot of new users with MSFS 2020 on consoles. 10 Mio users. One could use that potential, but user expectations with regards to visuals are high. Lets see what 1CGS is planning.

Edited January 9, 2023 by sevenless

[Lusekofte]

38 minutes ago, simfan2015 said:

XBOX and PS5 have become viable platforms for sims ... problem of console and flight sim suitable controllers remain a sour issue though.

There are controllers adequate for the job. But those platform do not provide the type of software majority here represent. 
It is a totally different and less complex program. Just look at MSFS 

If they go that route, I think they have to bet on getting same amount of new customers they have. Because most of those who are here would leave