The close future of WWII combat flight sims for PC

[Skelthos]

15 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Years ago I did some research, looking for the year when our serious military simulators started. I found that all of them (for DCS, Rise of Flight, Cliffs of Dover and Great Battles) started in the same year: 2003. If 1CGS started its new project in the late months of 2021, and if the new p^roject is a ne core engine, this would mean that nobody started the development of a new core engine for a serious combat flight sim for 18 years between 2003 and 2021. 18 years without anyone saying "ok, let's start now to develop a new core engine for a serious combat flight sim". In the domain of serious combat flight simulation, the last engine to be unveiled to the public is "Cliffs of Dover" back in 2011. "Stalingrad" and the subsequent "Great Battles" series are nothing but "Rise of Flight" with a few coats of makeup.

Game engine development is expensive and time consuming, they are typically reused as long as possible across all genre's of games, nothing new in this has been happening since the beginning. They just make incremental updates to make use of modern hardware.   Just for comparison Unreal Engine was released in 1998 and is still a very popular engine. 

 

18 years on the same engine is not a big deal at all.  That companies like VIRPRIL VKB, and WinWing are pumping out new expensive combat oriented peripherals, that the companies behind DCS and IL2 have development plans into the future, and that companies like Microprose are working on new combat flight sims should tell you that our hobby is very much alive and well.  If people where not buying  combat sims development would stop very quickly across the board.  If they are developing a new engine that just shows that the last couple GB modules sold enough copies that they feel an investment in a new engine is commercially viable. 

 

56 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

I have a shed load of flight sims... I've enough to keep me going until I pop my clogs I reckon.

Amen to that, so many flight sims could easily play offline completely indefinitely. 

 

 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

If you think about it, Luke, all of those third-party content creators do not develop large-scale models of combat features like ballistics, emulated physics for dropping bombs, explosions, aircraft systems behaviour after taking damage, flight models for combat situations depending on low, medium and high altitude, fluid mechanics for plumes behind your bird when it's leaking fuel (or when it's leaking glycol, etc.), drop tanks, fuel pumps and fuel management, emulated physics for fuel tanks on fire, for engines oon fire, for structures on fire, effects of bombs on ships, vehiches, buildings, water, etc.

 

No offense, but you are massively uninformed about what's being done out there. You really should take a deeper look for instance at what's being done alone in MSFS. Yeah, content creators there aren't developing things for combat flight action, but many of the things you list are being created or improved over what's currently out there. Just to write then off because its not being done for a combat flight sim is selling said content creators far, far short.

 

Besides that, it's far more than just planes that are being modified/improved. There are quite a few apps that improve the MSFS experience in a wide variety of ways - AI flight traffic, mission planning, map scenery, etc.

 

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

"Stalingrad" and the subsequent "Great Battles" series are nothing but "Rise of Flight" with a few coats of makeup.

 

Wow, just wow. Again, you just show how massively uniformed you are about how we got to where we are now versus where ROF was when it was first released. The engine changed so much (Jason's words, not mine) that a few years ago they renamed it from Digital Nature to Digital Warfare, because it was essentially that - a new engine.

 

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

nevertheless the situation is not bright at all for our niche.

 

In your opinion.

 

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

And it is not for a too long period of time now.

 

LOL what?

 

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

We are in 2023, we should take off on board our super well modeled B-17 all along with 299 other B-17s and go bombing Germany in 1942, or in 1943, or in 1944.

 

You woefully underestimate what needs to be done to model a B-17 in the level of detail that at the least matches the other planes in the game. It's definitely not for lack of will that we don't have it or the smaller mediums as flyable in the game.

[Wardog5711]

A reminder to everyone.

Keep things civil and as reasonably close to on-topic as possible. 

 

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

   

  

15 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

No offense, but you are massively uninformed about what's being done out there.

 

 

You run too fast. Take it easy.

 

 

15 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

You really should take a deeper look for instance at what's being done alone in MSFS.

 

 

I do it regularly.

 

 

15 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Just to write then off because its not being done for a combat flight sim is selling said content creators far, far short.

 

 

Combat flight sims are the main topic here. The lack of a serious combat flight sim whose core engine is younger than 12 years... this is a fact, and that was my point. Your point is MFS-2020. My point was combat flight sims. The situation, you know, the situation as it is... in the domain of combat flight sims. Forget the civilian flight sims. They are not the topic here.

 

 

15 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

There are quite a few apps that improve the MSFS experience in a wide variety of ways - AI flight traffic, mission planning, map scenery, etc.

 

 

MFS-2020 has nothing to do here.  What works for MFS-2020 won't work for our currently existing combat flight sims and won't work for the combat flight sims that are in the works right now (two confirmed only, the two B-17 games by MicroProse). I know, I know, improvements in civilian flight sims can help developing combat flight sims, but they have different core engines and different development teams. How MFS-2020 can help us, this is an influence, not effectively done work in a combat flight sim. You can pump fuel between inner tanks and drop external tanks in "Cliffs of Dover", but in "Great Battles"... you cannot. The small existing community of combat flight simmers  (at least divided by two if we compare what it is now with what it was in the mid 2000s) chose years ago to drop "Cliffs of Dover" and mainly use "Great Battles"... and now, the surviving community dreams of, if not new implemented features in "Great Battles", then new combat flight sims with these features. The new combat flight sims aren't yet here. It's a fact. That was my point. Still want to contradict me?

 

 

15 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Wow, just wow. Again, you just show how massively uniformed you are about how we got to where we are now versus where ROF was when it was first released. The engine changed so much (Jason's words, not mine) that a few years ago they renamed it from Digital Nature to Digital Warfare, because it was essentially that - a new engine.

 

 

2017 for the renaming of the engine and the creation of the "Great Battles" brand. I was there, not yet in these forums though, but I was there, I possess Stalingrad since 2015. I'm telling you: I'm aware of all of this. So yes, they renamed the engine, but that was much more of a business/PR manoeuver (Jason's especiality), not a new engine. Just because you call a donkey a horse doesn't mean you get a horse. I love "Great Battles" and I already said in other threads that "Great Battles" is a miracle if we consider where it comes from and what the devs managed to obtain from. But... no dropable tanks, no fuel pumps nor fuel management, no customisable ammo belts, no big formations of bombers, no four-engine bombers neither, no air marshall. And the devs dropped all of these features because they know they would be excessively time consuming in some cases and impossible to develop in others. Why? Because in "Great Battles" we fly WWI planes clothed with the aluminum of WWII planes. At any rate, please do not contradict me any more on that point: 2017 wasn't the creation of a new core engine, the newest existing core engine in a present-day serious combat flight sim dates back to 2011 and it is "Cliffs of Dover", released in 2011. "Great Battles" is a further evolution of "Rise of Flight" (developed between 2003 and 2009).

 

 

15 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

In your opinion.

 

 

I was credited with my first aerial victory in a combat flight sim back in 1992. I got down one Bf 109 while handling a machine gun as a waist gunner on board a B-17 in "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe". At the time we thought that, in the future, we could do the same things but with better graphics. Where's my improved B-17 Luke? Is it my opinion that, graphics had evolved but plenty of things that were feasible many years ago with the best graphics at the time, simply can no longer be done in the present day with modern graphics? It is not my opinion, it is a fact. Please have a look at World War II aviation, I mean, the historical facts of aviation as they were. What can I reenact of all of this right now? The bombings over Japan? The bombings over Germany? The dogfights between Hellcats and Zeroes? I cannot if not with IL2-1946, a 20 year old sim with obsolete graphics. It's not an opinion. It's a fact.

 

 

15 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

LOL what?

 

 

I said that the situation is not bright at all for our niche, and for a too long period of time now. There are too many things of WWII aviation we cannot represent in our currently existing games. We cannot. It's a fact. And nothing new is coming for too many years now. The devs in "Great Battles" did an excellent job when they implemented radio navigation, but we had it in "Cliffs of Dover" and DCS so it's not something new. There's nothing new in the upgrading of "Great Battles" out of a WWI simulator. Plenty of things were new for "Great Battles" but while being available for years in other sims.. Those latter didn't need to be upgraded because they had been conceived as WWII games since their very beginning. So here we are: after the failure of "Cliffs of Dover" in 2011 the world community of game developers had something like 12 years for the creation of a new WWII combat flight sim but no one has taken a step forward, not until 2021 apparently (1CGS apparently started something in late 2021). That latter company (under 1C's pressure maybe) spent the last ten years milking "Rise of Flight" under the brand "Great Battles", that's all. No new engine. So the situation is blocked. And the solution won't come from Microsoft nor from Asobo nor from their third-party contractors neither. The solution will come from developers wanting to really develop combat flight sims which are set in historical periods like WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam... but, this time, something new and modern without all the limitations we have now. Maybe MicroProse. Maybe TFS and their rescue plan for "Cliffs of Dover" (the visual update will be a major update in the history of their game and we don't know how things will go with it). Maybe the new project of 1CGS.

 

 

15 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

You woefully underestimate what needs to be done to model a B-17 in the level of detail that at the least matches the other planes in the game. It's definitely not for lack of will that we don't have it or the smaller mediums as flyable in the game.

 

 

Let's wait for the MicroProse B-17 games, they are supposed to fill this gap.

 

 

[Lusekofte]

You Are way to negative. Flightsims in general have gotten increased interest. You are 12 years too late with this. It been worse times. Now we see increased airtime g on sim hardware too. Your topic make no sense other than talking down your own interest

[343KKT_Kintaro]

18 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

You Are way to negative.

 

 

No, I'm not, you simply focus on the responses I give to those who are way too optimistic, which is not the same.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

Your topic make no sense other than talking down your own interest

 

 

It's not my topic, it's one topic. Feel free to stay here and discuss what the original post reads. If you think it makes no sense, then leave us alone. Friendly: Kintaro.

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

If all you do is WW2 simming, and you put the strict limits on it that it must be a complete theater map with 10 appropriate “survey sim” aircraft, and must eventually simulate 1000 B-17’s at once, you are limiting your own perception of what is possible or likely.  As I said, I think WW2 will continue to garner interest far into the future, and you are likely to get what you want someday, but if not, what are you going to do?  Maybe you’ll have to learn how to fly a JF-17.  Maybe you’ll become such a fan of Jason Williams’ Railroad Tycoon 4 that you’ll wonder why you ever bothered with airplanes at all?

 

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by SeaSerpent

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Different things are going to be unveiled in the domain of WWII combat flight sims, but we don't know when. Some of these things will satisfy some and won't satisfy others. This thread is in the "Free Subject" section for discussing that as any existing WWII flight sim (existing or planned to exist, related or not to IL-2) fits in this section. That's all.

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

At worst you’ll be like one of those Flying Circus guys, perpetually complaining that they don’t get enough love.  But they still have their WW1 games don’t they?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

10 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

you

 

 

"You", "you", "you"... it's an obsession? Why "you" guys want to talk about "me"? It's not "my" topic and there's nothing to say about "me". How is that, so often, things turn personal in the internet forums?

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

But it is your topic.  You started this topic, and you are the one who insists that the future is dim.  I don’t see you as one of my forum foes at all, we are just discussing things.

Edited January 27, 2023 by SeaSerpent

[343KKT_Kintaro]

It's a topic I started for those who, like me, want to discuss about what the topic announces. It's my topic as it is yours, SeaSerpent. And maybe, in the course of the discussion, somebody decided that the future is dim, but that was not me.

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

Did you not get the vibrant discussion you expected when you started this thread?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

Did you not get the vibrant discussion you expected when you started this thread?

 

 

Who cares?

 

 

[Enceladus828]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Wow, just wow. Again, you just show how massively uniformed you are about how we got to where we are now versus where ROF was when it was first released. The engine changed so much (Jason's words, not mine) that a few years ago they renamed it from Digital Nature to Digital Warfare, because it was essentially that - a new engine.

The difference between the DN and the DW engine is the difference between Quebec French and Metropolitan French while the difference between the IL-2 1946 engine and the CloD engine is the difference between French and Spanish.

 

Every combat flight sim being developed, including ones being modded like RoF and IL-2 1946, has its own strengths to it that will make people come back to them.

IL-2 1946: flyable heavy bombers, aircraft carriers, 300 flyable planes, aircraft carrier, pretty much all the theatres and maps, great radio comms and commands.

 

IL-2 CloD: can handle large formations of bombers, complex DM and fuel systems, can fly the Wellington, great depiction of ships, interactive cockpits, lesser depicted areas in combat flight sims (Tobruk)

 

IL-2 GBs: can drive greatly modelled tanks, VR, has some planes that aren’t flyable in official versions of IL-2 1946 (Typhoon, Spitfire Mk.XIV), D-Day and the Allied advance into Europe hasn’t been properly depicted in the IL-2 series before.

 

Rise of Flight: has the Eastern Front of WW1, Channel map and seaplanes.

 

WoFF BH&H II: has Zeppelins, much greater depiction of WW1 than in RoF and FC, moving front, flyable planes not flyable in RoF and FC, more immersive and more realistic than in other WW1

 

All of these games have their own strengths that make them stand out so if something ever comes up in a game that one doesn’t like or one is not very fond of a game as they used to, they can always head over to one of these games.

 

Cheers

 

[ST_Catchov]

3 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

At worst you’ll be like one of those Flying Circus guys, perpetually complaining that they don’t get enough love.

 

Hey, I'm one of them guys buster. Nothing else matters. Who cares about whiny jets or chopper abominations. They ain't natural. ?

[Amiral_Crapaud]

Don't want to sound like a butt Kintaro, or a smart-ass (which is another kind of butt anyway) but at that point if you do have very specific expectations in regard of what you'd like to play or how you'd like to play it, and feel that your design could work and would get the attention it needs to be commercially successful, then really there's no better way to make it happen than to make it happen yourself. And even if you can't code (and I really can't) you will find the right people out there for that job as long as you convince them that you have the creative, managerial & financial means to bring them all the way to the target area (and hopefully back safely too!).

 

I mean, see how much time was spent writing all this stuff in this very topic over the last week. Why not use that time to write down your game bible instead and start seeing for yourself if something can be done with the right persons, and the right money? Jason and others back then have done nothing else after all, and look where it has brought us all. Ok, no complex fuel pump management, fine, but even then, I would not consider the journey nor the destination or the scenery on our way there to be a disappointment, all things said & done, don't you agree

 

Cheers

[Koziolek]

On 1/26/2023 at 10:05 AM, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 I'm pretty relaxed about the idea of my favorite hobby disappearing. 

 

Do you mean this forum? I far as I know it's not going anywhere ?

[Bonnot]

14 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

I was credited with my first aerial victory in a combat flight sim back in 1992. I got down one Bf 109 while handling a machine gun as a waist gunner on board a B-17 in "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe". At the time we thought that, in the future, we could do the same things but witIh better graphics. Where's my improved B-17

 

I don't agree to all your arguments but this one goes directly to my heart  !!!  I could had wrote this METOO exactly the same  !  I remember pushing the research of immersion so far as to try to stay in uncomfortable position and attention for a "real time" mission flight.....totally crazy attempt but we endeavoured this  as a research on "realism in representation" with a wargamer's group .

As it was, SWOTL  was state of the art and gave us an incredible number of hours of playing time.....so great memories -and also for those gone since ...........!

 

 

14 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Just because you call a donkey a horse doesn't mean you get a horse....

4 minutes ago, Bonnot said:

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Bonnot said:

 

Just because you call a donkey a horse doesn't mean you get a horse....

.......or a BF109xyz a NEW PLANE but this the way our "real world" is managed from politicians to traders or masters of the semantic........

SORRY for the fuss and messy messages : I'm really tired  ?

Edited January 27, 2023 by Bonnot
error

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Not only I'm not a coder, Amiral_Crapaud, but I haven't the financial ressources for anything. So I'm simply a member in the community, that's all what I am.

 

About the close future:

 

1) Two years ago, the Eagle Dynamics video "DCS World: 2021 and beyond" ended by the veiled announcement of an AH-64 Apache and this year, the video "2023 and beyond" ended with Pacific War footage (fake footage done by means of an Eagle Dynamics' DCS simulation, obviously). At least Wildcats and an American aircraft carrier top are recognisable in their teasing ending, so I guess that, in connection with the Pacific, more than the Marianas map is in the works within Eagle Dynamics.

 

2) I'm not a coder but Loft and his men are coders, so let's wait and see what goes on with their "new project".

 

3) I'm not a businessman but Jason is a businessman and he's at least a pretty good one in the domain of flight sims. His "unannounced project" after his arrival at MicroProse tantalises the great fan of surveys I am. Will it be a survey? Time will tell.

 

4) TFS prepares its visual update with VR, and the shared material promises a renewal of this sim I love so much. The announcement of their next add-on still is pending because of others decidsions, so this is something we don't know too.

 

Question marks everywhere, answers nowhere...

 

My understanding is that the above is worth discussing.

 

 

[Lusekofte]

I have two eras very dear to me. Ww2 and Vietnam. Falklands made me a bit interested in the Harrier and I have seen them operate here in Norway.
Point is any flight sim eventually recruit new people and they will look around for more. 
this tread is for overthinking and problem making. It is nothing really helpful. 
I think developers of box series is fed up walking against the same wall of boundaries. So they will remove those. And they want to make better. And what do they get? 
This. 
A osean of tragedy and drama, After a while all must see that this is not helpful. Devs want to keep their job. They do really want to make a next level sim. They could be better in customer relationship , still overreaction keep coming 

[Amiral_Crapaud]

6 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Not only I'm not a coder, Amiral_Crapaud, but I haven't the financial ressources for anything. So I'm simply a member in the community, that's all what I am.

 

About the close future:

 

1) Two years ago, the Eagle Dynamics video "DCS World: 2021 and beyond" ended by the veiled announcement of an AH-64 Apache and this year, the video "2023 and beyond" ended with Pacific War footage (fake footage done by means of an Eagle Dynamics' DCS simulation, obviously). At least Wildcats and an American aircraft carrier top are recognisable in their teasing ending, so I guess that, in connection with the Pacific, more than the Marianas map is in the works within Eagle Dynamics.

 

2) I'm not a coder but Loft and his men are coders, so let's wait and see what goes on with their "new project".

 

3) I'm not a businessman but Jason is a businessman and he's at least a pretty good one in the domain of flight sims. His "unannounced project" after his arrival at MicroProse tantalises the great fan of surveys I am. Will it be a survey? Time will tell.

 

4) TFS prepares its visual update with VR, and the shared material promises a renewal of this sim I love so much. The announcement of their next add-on still is pending because of others decidsions, so this is something we don't know too.

 

Question marks everywhere, answers nowhere...

 

My understanding is that the above is worth discussing.

 

 

Yeah I want to believe too Kintaro, but I think you're reading a bit too much perhaps in some of these snippets. At least in regard of ED for instance, the latest video shows Hellcats (not Wildcats) in what looks to me to be actual footage (at least in my perspective). You'll get the Essex anyway, it's coming with the Corsair. But as for the rest... The Corsair for the duration of the video is clearly shooting at 190s masquerading as Zeroes & Ju-88s as Japanese bombers. Good things take time, we're not exactly there yet

 

As for survey sims in the PTO, you can pretty much forget it, or at least you'll have to accept that one side is much more accessible than the other when it comes to documentation & flyable examples. Jason's remarks years ago still stand, and the more Survey Sims become deep, the less likely it is going to be to see something flying along these standards in a PTO sky. I find the definition of Survey Sim itself frankly very subjective at any rate, especially as somebody who started flying in the 1990s, like you are. Back in the day, Their Finest Hour was as much a survey sim as SWOTL, arguably. See where we're at now

 

If you're pretty relaxed about the hobby disappearing and are not in a position to change the course of history or evolution, just let's agree to sit and watch with a good cocktail. I see no reason to get all fired up about the topic

As somebody once said - if there's a solution to your problem, why worry? And if there's not, why worry?

 

Cheers

[343KKT_Kintaro]

 

34 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

I think developers of box series is fed up walking against the same wall of boundaries. So they will remove those. And they want to make better. And what do they get? This.

 

 

We are not in the "Great Battles" specially-intended subforum. This thread doesn't aim to harm the developers and company you just mentioned.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

this tread is for overthinking and problem making. It is nothing really helpful.

[...]
A osean of tragedy and drama

[...]

After a while all must see that this is not helpful.

[...]

I think developers of box series is fed up walking against the same wall of boundaries

[...]

Devs want to keep their job.

[...]

They do really want to make a next level sim.

[...]

They could be better in customer relationship , still overreaction keep coming

 

 

Please stop focusing on your one-sided view which exclusively talks about "Great Battles". I beg you, read my posts as "Great Battles" is not the only matter of discussion here. Plus, I'm supporting the "Great Battles" devs for years now, but this won't prevent me from admitting the "Great Battles" limitations (you yourself admitted them: "I think developers of box series is fed up walking against the same wall of boundaries"). So, as I said, I'm a great advocate of the "Great Battles" adventure. Furthermore, I remember the mid 2000s when dStrict and Gennadich Team were separated coexisting companies, I remember when they merged, thus creating Neoqb... and when in forums I mentioned my interest on their by-then "Knights of the Sky" project (later "Rise of Flight"), most of the members of the community made fun of me because IL-2 (not even yet "1946" at the time) was at its peak of success and WWII aircraft were far "so cool". As soon as "Cliffs of Dover" didn't reach Maddox Games expectations, the community, divided by two, jumped into "Battle of Stalignrad", forgetting how funny was to make fun of WWI flight sims and of the failure of "Rise of Flight". Not that everybody did it, but most the members in the community did it. So I trust the 1CGS devs if they are preparing a new core engine, but we have no confirmation of that. I read your posts here in this thread, Lusekofte, and I see 1) that you feel that "Great Battles" is being agressed (a ridiculous assumption of yours) and 2) that you want to scuttle the present thread (up to you).

 

 

21 minutes ago, Amiral_Crapaud said:

I see no reason to get all fired up about the topic

 

 

I think, Crapaud, that you simply are under the influence of others. Please read more carefully the posts, simply read them as they come... you'll see who is getting "all fired up". At any rate, do not let others influence you... Cheers...

 

 

[Amiral_Crapaud]

19 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

I think, Crapaud, that you simply are under the influence of others. Please read more carefully the posts, simply read them as they come... you'll see who is getting "all fired up". At any rate, do not let others influence you... Cheers...

 

 

 

Nobody means you harm Kintaro ?

But I agree overall that the debate is a bit pointless. At that point it amounts to self-pity and empty sorrow. Things are like they are. They are likely to evolve in their own time. Whether they will evolve or not is not, in any way, linked to what will take place in this topic (or elsewhere in this forum). All parties are keenly aware of the stakes and the larger interest in this gaming genre. Those who can do something are doing something, new players might emerge, but in both cases nobody in this topic is to be told about their secrets. Why hurt ourselves any further and have this be the root of discord among peers? Nobody's right or wrong, but there's worse than to have a fruitless debate - it's having a fruitless debate that ends up badly and hurts egos. ?

 

At any rate, there's a life out there, and there's grass. And better hobbies than elaborating further on all this. And so little time for it all. I'll return to these. Perhaps you all should too. The weekend deserves better

Cheers guys

Edited January 27, 2023 by Amiral_Crapaud

[ST_Catchov]

48 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

A osean of tragedy and drama, After a while all must see that this is not helpful. Devs want to keep their job. They do really want to make a next level sim. They could be better in customer relationship , still overreaction keep coming 

 

Lol says he who keeps uninstalling GB because he's pissed with one thing or another and lets everyone know about it in 8000 posts and counting. The irony is gobsmacking.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Those (only a few at the moment) not thinking the thread is justified, please leave others give their own opinion on the matter. Others may arrive at the thread and bring new opinions and views.

 

Catchov, please, don't do to Lusekofte what Lusekofte does to me. It is very easy to distinguish "ad persona" and "ad hominem" posts from posts of good will that simply stay on topic. Please you fellow pilots, refer to this.

 

"At any rate, there's a life out there, and there's grass"

 

Oh my god... PLEASE Crapaud, stop lecturing me... I'm not a four-year old little boy...

 

 

[Koziolek]

3 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

. I'm not a four-year old little boy...

 

 

Hey, nobody says that. We all know you are six ?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 minute ago, Koziolek said:

Hey, nobody says that. We all know you are six ?

 

 

We all know all of this is off-topic...

 

 

[Amiral_Crapaud]

Bon tu fais comme tu veux hein, mais ne te mets pas martel en tête, ça ne sert à rien (désolé si tu prends ça pour de la condescendance, ce n'est pas l'intention, c'est vraiment un réaction de mec à mec autour d'une bière, pas beaucoup plus). Juste que ça me peine de voir les gens s'engueuler ou se faire engueuler pour des histoires pareilles, et que t'es un gars bien sympathique par ailleurs qui ne mérite pas ça.

 

Tu peux me croire, j'étais l'une des terreurs de C6 de mon temps, et le temps passé à m'engueuler avec les autres j'aimerais bien qu'on me le rende

 

Tchuss & bon courage!

Edited January 27, 2023 by Amiral_Crapaud

[Lusekofte]

Kintaro you write long epilogue you expect others to read and adopt. Yet you have no capability to see any other people’s point. You deliberately misunderstand, take things out of context and it is all about you. 
writing a reply to you is like yelling into the desert. You ask , but want only your own answers. So stop asking

[343KKT_Kintaro]

I'm being excessively patient and polite with all of those off-topic trips and personal attacks. I'm doing nothing to others so this thread needs urgent moderation.

 

Lusekofte, you and others are refusing to go back on topic and, plus, insisting on doing personal attacks. Talking about me, that's not the subject. I reported your last post and I hope all of this will end very soon.

 

 

[Wardog5711]

 

This thread is in the Free subject section so I have left it alone.

But obviously that is not going to work. 

The personal jabs will end right now voluntarily, or I will end them.

Life is too short, and time too precious to be spending it arguing on the internet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bloyamind]

Ok here goes, as a relatively new simmer... for the near future, I'm voting DCS. Lemme explain. I'm a single player guy mostly. Other people tend to make things either more or a lot less immersive or realistic feeling. Also I don't really like the pressure I feel sometimes when playing online. It can be a bit daunting. There's new material and dynamic campaigns coming to DCS and I've discovered third party single player campaigns. Also, I really like the immersion of taking the time starting a plane up. I fell in love with CloD Blitz as it was my first sim and it's great that TFS are working on visual updates and clouds, but I'm finding out more and more that graphics are not equal to (single player) immersion. AI behavior is absolutely central for me. Dynamic campaigns are a pro (think BMS, but that's F-16 and daunting to the max) and community content can keep something alive.

On the other hand, in DCS, existing WWII planes don't seem to get the love they should in the form of updates/bugfixes. Especially when compared to jets. But then again, the planes are extremely detailed and fun to fly, so who am I to complain. 

As for new people into WWII flight simming, and their reasons for diving in, mine was in reversal to most: I have no particular interest in WWII (although I kinda do now). I did not come from War Thunder. I came from Elite Dangerous. I bought myself a T16000M HOTAS after pouring in about 400 hours on a controller and flying with it in Elite Dangerous blew my mind, but I had about seen the game. I was done with just enjoying the HOTAS after +/- 60 hours. So I googled what games are good with a HOTAS, as I didn't want them to be a waste. Turns out there's only about pff 5 legitimately good options, of which most are relatively hardcore sims. I could get CloD for cheap, so dove in and really really enjoyed my time. So why am I still in the WWII area of simming? I enjoy the challenge being in engine management and flight itself. I don't particularly feel inclined to operate a self-flying computer system on my computer system shooting down enemy targets beyond visual range. Modern jets are daunting in a completely different way. And don't get me wrong, the challenge, also in BVR, is definitely real, I see that... I might dive into cold-war at some point though, but man... I just like understanding what's actually going wrong in my plane. The reason for the smoke and fire. etc. It's just so much more... mechanical. Also, the sound of a merlin or well most WWII planes I've flown so far is just extremely meditative. WWII flight sims just hit the spot with the variation between mellow and stress/action.

Long story short and why it's linked to the topic: I saw some earlier posts stating that WWII interest might be dying out. I just wanted to explain there's some people, like me, who come in from an entirely different angle: through owning the hardware.