It's time to abandon map/plane dependency.

[oc2209]

With the major shakeups in the works lately, I now feel it's a good time to revisit this issue.

 

If new map development for the European theater is nearly exhausted, and the focus of creating new maps and complete DLC packages will, in the near future, shift over to the Pacific theater, then the only logical compromise for us to still get new planes in BoX: Europe, is to end the limitation that collector planes need an associated map and career.

 

With Advanced Quick Mission Builder, and Patrick Wilson's Campaign Generator, between the two, we can create our own missions in which to fly any collector plane. I don't really care if I'm supposed to be flying over Western Poland, but must use a Russian map as a stand-in. I have only ever cared about flying the plane itself.

 

Since the developers will need significant sales to expand and sustain their team, now would be a great time to consider offering collector planes for which there never will be a historically associated map.

 

Everybody--except for annoying purists--will be happy in this scenario. The possibilities are limitless. Want a Brewster Buffalo? Got it. Want a Boulton Paul Defiant? Sure, why not. It can all be made, eventually. This would even be a way to get the rare Italian fighters in the sim, without having to make a Mediterranean map.

 

If for no other reason, this will keep BoX relevant for years to come; as we can't expect the developers to remake every single already-extant plane in a new game engine. At this point, BoX is too big to transfer to a new engine, and too big to abandon. Compromise is necessary.

 

As an aside, I would throw piles of money, cash money, at anybody who could give me a Ta-152 and an Me-163. Charge me $50 each. I don't care.

 

Do it. Please, for the love of sims and money, do it.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

So you want il-2 to be DCS? Cohesion is what makes il-2, il-2. I'm all for collector planes and maps, but they have to fit somewhere in the sim and have accompanying ground units or else they're not appealing.

[LukeFF]

Just now, drewm3i-VR said:

So you want il-2 to be DCS? Cohesion is what makes il-2, il-2. I'm all for collector planes and maps, but they have to fit somewhere in the sim and have accompanying ground units or else they're not appealing.

 

Ditto - what am I supposed to do with an Me 163 in career mode? We have neither the maps (sorry bud, but the appropriate map does matter) nor the appropriate targets for it.

 

Ta 152 - same thing, doesn't fit anywhere. Buffalo? Same thing. Defiant? LOL no. I'm not going to spend my money on planes that don't plausibly fit anywhere within the maps and the career mode timeline we have. 

 

And before you say it - no, I'm not interested in multiplayer nor do I have the time for it right now. 

36 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Charge me $50 each. I don't care.

 

LOL, great understanding of economics there. There's no way they would make good on their investment if they started charging $50 for single-engine planes.

[CountZero]

By that logic, why even do PTO dlc, just make F4U and Zero, price each 50$  and we can fly them over Normandy

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 hours ago, oc2209 said:

With Advanced Quick Mission Builder, and Patrick Wilson's Campaign Generator, between the two, we can create our own missions in which to fly any collector plane. I don't really care if I'm supposed to be flying over Western Poland, but must use a Russian map as a stand-in. I have only ever cared about flying the plane itself.

*You* might only care for the plane itself, but many others do not. I'm mainly interested in re-enacting historical scenarios. I'd rather fly a Boulton Paul Defiant in a historical mission across the Channel, than the latest German Wunderwaffe(tm) Ta-152 on Lapino. The main reason I've never done something like a Western Poland PWCG campaign, or a Normandy campaign around Kerch when BoN wasn't released yet, is exactly that I do care about the map.

 

The one thing IL2 has over its biggest competitor DCS is that it does have coherence between maps and planes. If they'd go the DCS way and release a, let's say, F4U (and especially if they'd charge €50 at that) without any proper maps for it, why would I stay on IL2 rather than move to DCS, which is often regarded as the more accurate one regarding flight models etc.?

[Strewth]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

LOL, great understanding of economics there. There's no way they would make good on their investment if they started charging $50 for single-engine planes.

Well, Considering DCS are doing it successfully with IMHO an aircraft range that is substandard in flight model compared to IL-2.
Sure, you can click every button on the panel, but the aircraft needs to fly close to the original. And I personally believe that IL-2 does this very well in comparison to others.

Yes. I would love every aircraft for $2 or less and I appreciate IL-2's prices to date. But as long as the flight model is good, I will pay for individual aircraft.

Cheers.

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Strewth

[sevenless]

No single player career mode on the map = no sale. Pretty simple.

[Raptorattacker]

7 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Everybody--except for annoying purists--will be happy in this scenario.

For a start, I didn't actually realise that there was a spokesperson for eveybody, I slaute you. 

For seconds, I know quite a few 'purists' but I don't find them annoying in the slightest. In fact I often find them quite enlightening when I' searching for references and the like, not being a purist myself. Admittedly sometimes I find them a little unnecessary but at those times I just don't engage. It's easy.

I don't play DCS because I can't afford it and I don't play War Thunder because I can't stand it.

I do play IL-2 because I appreciate it's philosophy, it's fidelity and the quality of it's product(s).

[MisterSmith]

There is no way this happens before a last East Front module, if at all.

 

Smith

[MAJ_stug41]

A vast majority of the players are single player only, and want the maps and scenarios. While that may be the result of years of selection bias vis the current system, the company did use a pick and choose system in ROF and has deliberately changed from that.

[oc2209]

On 11/14/2022 at 1:43 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

*You* might only care for the plane itself, but many others do not. I'm mainly interested in re-enacting historical scenarios. I'd rather fly a Boulton Paul Defiant in a historical mission across the Channel, than the latest German Wunderwaffe(tm) Ta-152 on Lapino. The main reason I've never done something like a Western Poland PWCG campaign, or a Normandy campaign around Kerch when BoN wasn't released yet, is exactly that I do care about the map.

 

The one thing IL2 has over its biggest competitor DCS is that it does have coherence between maps and planes. If they'd go the DCS way and release a, let's say, F4U (and especially if they'd charge €50 at that) without any proper maps for it, why would I stay on IL2 rather than move to DCS, which is often regarded as the more accurate one regarding flight models etc.?

 

Well, at this rate, you'll never fly either the Defiant or the Ta-152 over any map. So it's rather moot to demand that planes be tied to a historical map, isn't it?

 

I just can't comprehend the blind devotion to selective historical authenticity. Authenticity is a tenuous thing in a sim. As many people have noted, we can fly planes that were built in tiny numbers, yet they have infinite resupply in career mode, and in the Luftwaffe's case, many of these late-war aircraft were grounded due to lack of fuel, to boot.

 

Flying the Ta-152 in career mode would be a joke, okay? I'll be the first to admit that. Flying the bubble Spit XIV is almost as much a joke in terms of time/numbers served, but at least it had plenty of fuel to fly with.

 

Likewise, flying an entire career with an Italian Re.2005 would be a delusion because of the numbers of it that were built. Your lousy AI wingmen would burn through the entire manufacturing run within 3 weeks. But do you think all the people who want a Mediterranean map and career, desperately want to include that nagging reality? Hell no. They'd happily put their blinders on and continue to fly planes that barely existed. As I myself would.

 

Let's get off our high horses regarding the sanctity of realism, shall we?

 

I'd also like to point out the inherent absurdity of the argument that by introducing a new sales model--after it's become increasingly obvious that further European development in the traditional business model will be impossible because all the major operations (that the team is willing/able to do) have been covered--it means IL-2 will suddenly 'sink' to DCS' 'despicable' level. Ew, the taint.

 

Let's get real for a second. Even if IL-2 changes its business model, that doesn't retroactively negate the historical value of all the stuff it did previously. Nor does it alter the fact that, I'm sure, when IL-2 goes to the Pacific, they will offer us careers and historical map settings there, too.

 

My entire point is that the European version of BoX is coming to an end one way or another, sooner or later. That's not conjecture, that's unavoidable reality.

 

Therefore, we can either shunt it aside and let it collect dust while we wait for the Pacific and all its shiny new toys to be released, or...

 

...just be happy with getting new planes for Europe, without all the other stuff.

Edited November 15, 2022 by oc2209
Profanity

[oc2209]

6 hours ago, Raptorattacker said:

For a start, I didn't actually realise that there was a spokesperson for eveybody, I slaute you.

 

Oh, I'm definitely speaking for anyone with any commercial interest in the continuance of the series. Unless anyone here can think of a better way to keep BoX: Europe alive while the Pacific is being developed.

 

Obviously, the expanded 50-man team cannot create full map/career/plane lineups for both the Pacific and Europe theaters at the same time, okay? Can we all agree on that basic point?

 

We have long been aware of the increasing difficulty in maintaining the current DLC model, in Europe at least. The developers have made it clear that certain locations and battles are simply not viable for them. The future of the European portion of BoX is therefore limited in scope. This is fact, as told to us by the developers. They can't/won't do major urban areas, Italy, etc. Barring one final Eastern Front DLC set in late '44 (probably), all they can do is move backwards in time, over areas that they have already covered or partially covered.

 

This means one thing and only one thing: European BoX must lose development priority in favor of the Pacific. There is no other way to continue the series for the next 5-10 years that, again, the developers have mentioned as their goal.

 

However, losing priority does not mean the end of all production for Europe, full-stop. There is a way to continue to give us content for it, to continue to justify allocating manpower to improving it (as much as possible within the limitations of its engine). As I see it, making planes without having to make maps, would be the most direct workaround for the problem.

 

There's easily 10 years' worth of collector planes that could come out of Europe, still. Provided the devs don't have to make maps for all those planes!

 

The alternative is to let European BoX peter out after whatever's currently in the works gets finished. Or to only limit future collector planes to very minor variations of what we already have, like Cujo finally getting his Fw-190A-8 modifications.

 

Sounds like a pretty boring future of European BoX, to me. No offense, Cujo.

[LukeFF]

Explain this to us all: who's going to check all these planes to make sure they meet proper development standards, i.e., who's going to build the flight model and damage model for them, add all necessary sounds, check the texture mapping, etc.? And what development features are you willing to give up because X number of developers are tied up testing that Re. 2005 that doesn't have an Italian map on which to fly? 

Edited November 15, 2022 by LukeFF

[CountZero]

They will just continue to make 2-4 collector airplanes separate from main DLC, like it was now, and adding airplanes that fit BoM, BoS, BoK, BoBp, BoN career, they can easy fined 10-20 europeian variant of airplanes for 5-10 years of PTO only DLCs, before they would need to add any Italian or late soviet fighters that dont fit areas. 

 

What can be added as collector airplanes to fit existing areas and timelines of careers:

 

MC200

Ju87D5

Bf-109G5

Bf-109G6/AS

Bf-109G10

Bf-109G14/AS

Fw-189

Fw-190A4

Fw-190A7

Fw-190A9

Do-217

Ju-188

He-177

Spitfire Vc CW

Spitfire XIc

Spitfire XII

Spitfire XVI

P-38J15

P-47M

P-61A

Beaufighter

Mosquito Bomber

Meteor

A-20G

B-25D

B-26C

Yak-1 early variants

Yak-7 variants

Lagg-3 early and lateer variants

IL-4

SU-2

SB

I-153

P-40C

Pe-3

...

planty of stuff that fit existing areas while they do DLCs not with europe war airplanes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by CountZero

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

12 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Well, at this rate, you'll never fly either the Defiant or the Ta-152 over any map. So it's rather moot to demand that planes be tied to a historical map, isn't it?

 

I just can't comprehend the blind devotion to selective historical authenticity. Authenticity is a tenuous thing in a sim. As many people have noted, we can fly planes that were built in tiny numbers, yet they have infinite resupply in career mode, and in the Luftwaffe's case, many of these late-war aircraft were grounded due to lack of fuel, to boot.

 

Flying the Ta-152 in career mode would be a joke, okay? I'll be the first to admit that. Flying the bubble Spit XIV is almost as much a joke in terms of time/numbers served, but at least it had plenty of fuel to fly with.

 

Likewise, flying an entire career with an Italian Re.2005 would be a delusion because of the numbers of it that were built. Your lousy AI wingmen would burn through the entire manufacturing run within 3 weeks. But do you think all the people who want a Mediterranean map and career, desperately want to include that nagging reality? Hell no. They'd happily put their blinders on and continue to fly planes that barely existed. As I myself would.

 

Let's get off our high horses regarding the sanctity of realism, shall we?

 

I'd also like to point out the inherent absurdity of the argument that by introducing a new sales model--after it's become increasingly obvious that further European development in the traditional business model will be impossible because all the major operations (that the team is willing/able to do) have been covered--it means IL-2 will suddenly 'sink' to DCS' 'despicable' level. Ew, the taint.

 

Let's get real for a second. Even if IL-2 changes its business model, that doesn't retroactively negate the historical value of all the stuff it did previously. Nor does it alter the fact that, I'm sure, when IL-2 goes to the Pacific, they will offer us careers and historical map settings there, too.

 

My entire point is that the European version of BoX is coming to an end one way or another, sooner or later. That's not conjecture, that's unavoidable reality.

 

Therefore, we can either shunt it aside and let it collect dust while we wait for the Pacific and all its shiny new toys to be released, or...

 

...we can take the 'it diminishes the historicity!' stick out of our collective asses, and just be happy with getting new planes for Europe, without all the other stuff.

We could have a Defiant...we have the Channel map, but would anyone want that?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 11/14/2022 at 1:58 PM, oc2209 said:

Well, at this rate, you'll never fly either the Defiant or the Ta-152 over any map.

And I'm perfectly happy with that

 

It's apparent that you care more about flying new, exotic planes than *where* you fly those planes. And that's a valid opinion. But it's not the only opinion out there. Now, you can either accept that there's people who disagree with you, and that some of us (including myself) will just never buy any planes there's no historical map for, or you can bury your head in the sand and call us annoying purists. Your choice.

[CountZero]

5 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

We could have a Defiant...we have the Channel map, but would anyone want that?

Dont fit BoN career timeline, so still not posible untill someone adds earlyer versions of Normandy map in game officaly.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by CountZero

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

7 hours ago, CountZero said:

Dont fit BoN career timeline, so still not posible untill someone adds earlyer versions of Normandy map in game officaly.

 

 

 

 

Please, we have a pre-Normandy Channel Map and plenty of objects which is all we need to have BoB Era planes in GB.

[CountZero]

11 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Please, we have a pre-Normandy Channel Map and plenty of objects which is all we need to have BoB Era planes in GB.

If 85% of players are SP, then your airplane have to fit your SP content, their career covers 1944, map is build to be representing 1944, what good would be making airplane that fits 1940 channel timeline, at that point its same as making Ta-152H, both have no historic career posibilitys with what we have now in SP.

 

Where do you see campaign or career for Spitfire Vb, Hurricane, Bf-109F4, He-111 and so on... on BoN map ? if its how you think we would surely have that as airplanes are done and in game, map is ok, so why devs didnt spend time addint that ?

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Please, we have a pre-Normandy Channel Map and plenty of objects which is all we need to have BoB Era planes in GB.

 

The map is a 1944 depiction of Normandy and England, not 1940. 

[oc2209]

22 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Explain this to us all: who's going to check all these planes to make sure they meet proper development standards, i.e., who's going to build the flight model and damage model for them, add all necessary sounds, check the texture mapping, etc.? And what development features are you willing to give up because X number of developers are tied up testing that Re. 2005 that doesn't have an Italian map on which to fly? 

 

I figured Steve, the janitor could do it all in his spare time. Or the Slavic equivalent of Steve.

 

Seriously, the team's being expanded to 50. I'm guessing that's for a reason: simultaneous development of two separate game lines. But since a new game can't be developed with less than the 35 the old BoX was made with, it stands to reason that the new Pacific BoX will need the lion's share of the 50.

 

Assume 40 or so will be allocated to the new project and beyond, on a more or less permanent basis.

 

That leaves 10 to do some work on European BoX. That team could churn out a few planes per year (probably 2-4, as Count said) depending on complexity.

 

12 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

And I'm perfectly happy with that

 

It's apparent that you care more about flying new, exotic planes than *where* you fly those planes. And that's a valid opinion. But it's not the only opinion out there. Now, you can either accept that there's people who disagree with you, and that some of us (including myself) will just never buy any planes there's no historical map for, or you can bury your head in the sand and call us annoying purists. Your choice.

 

Well, I'm not happy with that.

 

See, the difference between you and I, is quite clear:

 

By maintaining your position on the 'purity' of the franchise, you deprive me of enjoyment; of the possibility of ever flying the planes I wish to fly.

 

When I say I want to add planes to the sim that have no corresponding map, I deprive you of nothing. Absolutely nothing. You don't want to fly a plane without a map? Great. Don't buy it.

 

But allow me to buy it.

 

See the difference?

 

You're gatekeeping, based on largely arbitrary standards of what 'deserves' to be in the sim, and what doesn't. And based upon that, I will gladly call anybody with that attitude, an annoying purist.

[LukeFF]

Yep, we're at that point in the discussion now where it's down to personal attacks, because one side doesn't like what the other has to say. 

[oc2209]

7 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Yep, we're at that point in the discussion now where it's down to personal attacks, because one side doesn't like what the other has to say. 

 

Get real.

 

It's a generalization. I've called myself worse.

[CountZero]

 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

I figured Steve, the janitor could do it all in his spare time. Or the Slavic equivalent of Steve.

 

Seriously, the team's being expanded to 50. I'm guessing that's for a reason: simultaneous development of two separate game lines. But since a new game can't be developed with less than the 35 the old BoX was made with, it stands to reason that the new Pacific BoX will need the lion's share of the 50.

 

Assume 40 or so will be allocated to the new project and beyond, on a more or less permanent basis.

 

That leaves 10 to do some work on European BoX. That team could churn out a few planes per year (probably 2-4, as Count said) depending on complexity.

 

 

Well, I'm not happy with that.

 

See, the difference between you and I, is quite clear:

 

By maintaining your position on the 'purity' of the franchise, you deprive me of enjoyment; of the possibility of ever flying the planes I wish to fly.

 

When I say I want to add planes to the sim that have no corresponding map, I deprive you of nothing. Absolutely nothing. You don't want to fly a plane without a map? Great. Don't buy it.

 

But allow me to buy it.

 

See the difference?

 

You're gatekeeping, based on largely arbitrary standards of what 'deserves' to be in the sim, and what doesn't. And based upon that, I will gladly call anybody with that attitude, an annoying purist with a stick up their ass.

So they are expand team from ~35 to ~50 and they can sudenly suport 2 games, but when asked why not Italy, they say in same video that its not posible even with 100s. I keep saying, they are not making two differant games, it makes zero sence to do it now or in near future.

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by CountZero

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

See the difference?

I see no difference at all. By insisting the team switches their business model to one where they develop planes without also creating fitting maps, you're depriving me of the enjoyment of flying on the maps I want to fly.

 

Or more accurately, nobody is depriving anyone of any enjoyment. I'm sure the Devs have their own ideas of how their business model should look like. This whole discussion won't change a thing. If the Devs decide that releasing airplanes that don't really fit on any of the current maps is the way to go, then that's their decision and I'm fine with it. All I am saying is that I (and presumedly many people with me) won't be buying any such planes because it doesn't interest me.

 

If not spending my money on things that don't interest me makes me an "annoying gatekeeping purist" in your eyes, then we've got *very* different norms and values.

[MisterSmith]

That was a bit of cleanup. Everyone keep your sticks in uncomfortable places (and stones) to yourselves. You may remain annoying purist if you so desire. Going down this road again will result in some timeouts.

 

Smith

[oc2209]

55 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I see no difference at all. By insisting the team switches their business model to one where they develop planes without also creating fitting maps, you're depriving me of the enjoyment of flying on the maps I want to fly.

 

No, you don't get it.

 

These maps will never be made. Ever.

 

Finland won't get a map. Spain won't get a map. Italy won't get a map. France '40 won't get a map. Channel '41-'43 won't get a map. Berlin won't get a map. Courland won't get a map. Bagration won't get a map. North Africa won't get a map. Greece '41 won't get a map. Norway won't get a map.

 

Some of the above list are speculative, while others have been explicitly mentioned by the devs as never, or practically never, being possible.

 

As I said, I deprive you of nothing.

 

The pointless limitation of needing to build a full-fledged map and all that accompanies it, merely to fly 2-3 new planes with the rest being filler from other maps--that model looks increasingly absurd when you think of all the untapped potential that's being left on the table when BoX shifts to the Pacific.

 

And no, I'm not excited about the possibilities of getting minor variations of planes we already have, so long as they fit in current maps. Once BoX Europe reaches that point, it will be on life support, with nothing fundamentally new being added.

 

At least totally new planes would keep up general interest in the series.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 minute ago, oc2209 said:

 

No, you don't get it.

 

These maps will never be made. Ever.

 

Finland won't get a map. Spain won't get a map. Italy won't get a map. France '40 won't get a map. Channel '41-'43 won't get a map. Berlin won't get a map. Courland won't get a map. Bagration won't get a map. North Africa won't get a map. Greece '41 won't get a map. Norway won't get a map.

 

Some of the above list are speculative, while others have been explicitly mentioned by the devs as never, or practically never, being possible.

 

As I said, I deprive you of nothing.

 

The pointless limitation of needing to build a full-fledged map and all that accompanies it, merely to fly 2-3 new planes with the rest being filler from other maps--that model looks increasingly absurd when you think of all the untapped potential that's being left on the table when BoX shifts to the Pacific.

 

And no, I'm not excited about the possibilities of getting minor variations of planes we already have, so long as they fit in current maps. Once BoX Europe reaches that point, it will be on life support, with nothing fundamentally new being added.

 

At least totally new planes would keep up general interest in the series.

Honestly, what part of "I don't spend my money on things that don't interest me" are you not getting?

[oc2209]

3 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Honestly, what part of "I don't spend my money on things that don't interest me" are you not getting?

 

When you actually address the point I made, rather than sidestepping it, we can go on having a conversation.

 

When you make statements about absolutely refusing to buy a plane without a map, you're still gatekeeping. You're pushing your agenda. 

 

This, for the record, is a form of gatekeeping:

 

Spoiler

All I am saying is that I (and presumedly many people with me) won't be buying any such planes because it doesn't interest me.

 

You're telling anyone who's reading this that my 'scheme' is doomed to fail, because so, so many people agree with you and not me. My desires are inferior to yours. That is the clear intent of your statement. In reality, you have no idea how many people agree with you. You have no idea how many people would be drawn in to play the sim if there were more planes to choose from. But you want my proposal to look inferior, so you add the totally unsupported claim that 'many people' are on your side.

 

By the way, softening an unsupported claim with 'presumably' doesn't really change the substance of your rhetorical intent.

 

Do you see me making any similar proclamations about how I'll spend my money? "If devs won't make planes without maps, I and presumably many people with me, won't buy their future products." No. I don't. I merely tell the devs I'll buy planes if they'll make them. I don't tell them the conditions under which I'll withhold my money.

 

When I said originally that everyone would be happy with my idea, barring annoying purists, that was the truth. Nobody should object to something that doesn't concern them. Nobody should object to a product being offered that they may or may not wish to purchase. Only when you get into elitism, does there suddenly exist a reason to object.

 

I say once again: my stated desire for planes without maps, deprives you of nothing. Your stated desire for planes only made with maps, deprives me of things I want.

 

If you get your way, I lose what I want. If I get my way, you lose nothing.

 

Beyond maps that will never get developed in the first place.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Any effort the Devs spend on things I don't care about, is effort they cannot spend on things I do care about. If you get your way, I lose out just as much. That you think the Devs can simply conjure up some planes out of thin air without hurting the development of other planes (much less maps, which is an entirely different and unrelated part of development), is nothing short of baffling to me. If you think that I should spend my money on planes I'm not interested in to fund their development just so that you can fly those planes, and that I'm an annoying gatekeeping purist if I refuse to, you must be delusional.

 

There are many reasons for people to fly WW2 combat flight sims. Some are there just for the warbirds, some for the air combat, some to relive history. I'm there for the latter reason. I know and accept that many others are there for different reasons. I think all those reasons are perfectly valid as we each have our individual tastes, and I respect everyone for their personal preferences.

 

Now I would like to see that respect to be reciprocal. I would like to not be called something that MisterSmith found necessary to censor, just because I say I'm not interested in flying planes without a map. Is that really too much to ask for?

Edited November 16, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

A middle ground should be reached here.

 

A plane like the Defiant could be made because we have planes and a map that is a reasonable approximation of the 1940 BoB theater. If we did not have a Spitfire Vb, Hurricane II, BF-109E-7, and early He-111, Ju-88, and Stuka variants flying over a map that is close enough to the real thing (you know, considering that its a close enough approximation for the 1944 Channel despite missing dozens of landmarks and such like Canterbury Cathedral, the Hotel DE Ville in Calais, Salisbury Cathedral, English coastal lighthouses, Mont. St. Michel, etc. ?), I would object to the creation of a Defiant. However with the map we have, bring me a Defiant, a Beaufighter, a Wellington, etc. Also bring me a Spitfire VIII and early IXc and some float planes to do rescue missions with in the channel. If we still only had a Kuban map, I wouldn't want all of these Channel planes, but with the Rheinland and Channel maps, many Channel Battles, BoF, and BoB scenarios are possible and since all we are doing here is approximating the real thing, these maps are close enough to the real thing and with custom objects and creative mission design, can work perfectly well both online and offline.

 

P.S. I do not care about career mode as it is poorly made anyway and runs like garbage in vr with realistic frontline densities. The scripted campaigns I've played are way better and more immersive anyway and there are tons of free and paid ones. PWCG can also have better missions. In multi-player, more collector planes/maps would allow for a wider variety of scenarios as well. 

[RossMarBow]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Any effort the Devs spend on things I don't care about, is effort they cannot spend on things I do care about. If you get your way, I lose out just as much. That you think the Devs can simply conjure up some planes out of thin air without hurting the development of other planes (much less maps, which is an entirely different and unrelated part of development), is nothing short of baffling to me. If you think that I should spend my money on planes I'm not interested in to fund their development just so that you can fly those planes, and that I'm an annoying gatekeeping purist if I refuse to, you must be delusional.

 

There are many reasons for people to fly WW2 combat flight sims. Some are there just for the warbirds, some for the air combat, some to relive history. I'm there for the latter reason. I know and accept that many others are there for different reasons. I think all those reasons are perfectly valid as we each have our individual tastes, and I respect everyone for their personal preferences.

 

Now I would like to see that respect to be reciprocal. I would like to not be called something that MisterSmith found necessary to censor, just because I say I'm not interested in flying planes without a map. Is that really too much to ask for?

Bro if you want respect 
Start showing some
And stop flaming every thread you don't agree with

You're just selfish and toxic

And you haven't even brought all the modules so why do you think you're the most important customer?

Edited November 16, 2022 by RossMarBow

[MisterSmith]

Enough, your points have been made. Take it to PM's if you want to make it interpersonal. That is all.

 

Smith