Hyperlobby compatibility?

[=VARP=Cygann]

I have this vague memory of us setting up dead is dead missions some time in the distant past.  If memory serves most people did not like that and so we quit.  Anyway, I am pretty sure you could set up a mission where dead would essentially be dead in RoF.  I may of course be wrong.

 

I am not saying something can't be done. But it's still a matter of how much effort is needed for average host to achieve it if it's not properly supported by game designers. IL2 and HL made it simple for everyone and their pets. It was that easy.

 

I also very much understand that we are all different and like different things, hence I stated in my every post co-op missions are what I personally think about whenever someone mention HL. That simplicity to fill in slots, arrange some stuff in chat, play out mission (and spectate if dead and mission is of casual type, means not online war - this is game fature but made co-ops good place to learn as well), then parse results or not, and just jump into next one on HL that is forming up. Good old days for me. Would love to see such UI in game or as 3rd party software, don't really matter. 

 

It's simply without any doubt for me that it was HL that made co-op missions available to more players by allowing them that lobby where they can queue up and socialize even if they are new players or simply lone wolfs without squadron (clan/guild or whatever one want to call it). It is how I meet a lot of people since I prefer not to pollute in game chat when we fly.

 

So I am personally grateful to HL creators for making IL2 even better game to me then it already was. Still don't see any valid reason not to have similar or same UI for new titles for those of us that like it, and I am sure there are plenty players out there liking HL better then all in-game server browser implementations in followup games. Hence I stand behind my opinion that HL alike lobby is needed to make this title better in future. Workarounds are Ok to some extent, but it's never complete experience without combined server browser and social aspect. Why do you think Steam is so popular? There are cheaper sites to get digital content, yet Steam is where our friends and future friends are. 

[wtornado]

Excellent way to start off a discussion. I try to give you a fig leaf of respect and this is how you respond. Can you please act like an adult, a person who considers and weights the opinion of others before you start opining in this way? Or at least pretend for common courtesies sake?

 

 

 

 

Literally the first time you've brought up the Pe-2 in this discussion. Please give some relevance. 

 

 

 

 

I was referring to the way you love to end posts, and by that I mean disregarding the opinion of those you argue against. Since they made the mistake of using "we" to refer to their squadron, which you seem to have take literally to mean every person who has purchased BoS, even though it is clear that those peoples posting meant nothing of the sort.

 

I believe that creating such straw men is the last resort of someone who has lost an argument. But please remember that this is my opinion only. Do not throw other individuals under the bus, as you seem so prone to do. 

 

You can argue semantics all you want, but it wont change that fact that you have misinterpreted what was written at a very basic level.

 

 

 

 

I find it rather entertaining that you now fall on the "historical accuracy" argument, yet you are completely unwilling to acknowledge the basic and true fact of refraction. Something that is a well understood and basic fact of physics you argue against, yet you claim historical fact is in your favor when it suits you. I think this is a good demonstration of historical bias at its most basic level. 

 

Additionally you have not cited, let alone sourced any of those "history on your side"

 

I don't pretend to be a professional historian, but I did have a minor in history - principally cold war studies and aviation history. It would serve you well to cite your sources, rather then making statements that your view is true without backup. Especially so when what you are espousing has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry if your interpretation of my post was "sour grapes". That was not the intent of what I wrote, and if that is the way in which you happened to interpret it, then that is my fault.

 

I am glad that the Il2 name lives on, and I am glad that Olegs work lives on. You mis-interpreted that post which is my mistake, and for that I am sorry. I did not realize that I have to make things super simple for people to understand, but I guess this .is the burden of a native english speaker writing to non-native speakers This is short sightedness on my part, and I hope you can forgive me. 

 

 

As to what you wrote about co-op campaigns, I don't even know where to begin. I question whether or not you actually took part in co-op campaigns in Il2. Because what you say is so far off base that I do not even know where to begin. You should not approach BoS with a Rise of Flight attitude, thats the best and shortest way I can put it, I think.

 

 

 

 

Lastly, please tone down the hostility. Jason Williams, the owner of 777 and creator of Rise of Flight recently said that the combative community is harmful to BoS. That peoples responses drive off new customers. I think your behavior is exactly what Jason was talking about, and if you toned things back a bit then you would be doing a much better service to BoS.

 

As is I think you are too divisive and destructive, and you are causing more harm to this small flight sim community then you are helping. Please change your behavior. 

Threads like this is why I don't miss chat rooms like the Hyperlobby just the people I know.

 

ATAG put up a Team speak server for Clod that you see who is playing in the servers

what server they are playing on by catagory in game.

 

People that are not in Teamspeak 3 in theb ATAG server don't want to talk and mingle at

all they want to just fly.

Edited August 11, 2014 by WTornado

[FlatSpinMan]

Okay, had enough of the excessively sharp, personal comments that are going on on both sides in this thread by a couple of posters. Short holidays to awarded forthwith. 

Not interested in discussing them, either. 

[mondog]

 

 

The only true need for coop is to force people to do things, which sucks. I never cared for that style of gameplay. So many want dynamic offline campaigns/careers but online, everyone has to be forced into roles and to hit targets to "make it less quake" when, in reality, it isn't just air quake. There might be areas where dogfights are occuring - like the reality was - there are areas where bombers are making their run and only one or two are CAPing to protect, like reality, etc.

 

 

Because you never cared its invalid?  Co-op on HL was extremely popular  - yes it asked you to fulfil roles but that was the entire point of it. It also opened up lots of possibilities not available on DF servers. DF servers, even the best of them were completely removed from reality.  

[Gitano_Fraile]

I personally think that this whole discussion would not take place if: 

 1- The game is not called IL2. Unfortunately or not, has the name of a great simulator which until today is still used. If you call otherwise we would ask that we would have the characteristic of a given game. But to be called IL2, hopefully possesses certain characteristics that make / made ​​the old IL2 so popular 

 2 If the Mission Editor is released. with which each squadron can deploy your play style and try if you can not or accomplish. 

I think it's too late to change the name, I know many bought the game simply by name. 

Second, the more you delay, the more speculation will see. With respect to HL, is a quick way to see friends and they're doing, which your browser does not have the IL2. And if I like playing with my friends

[Sokol1]

Back to OP question:

 

 

I know there is an in game server browser but I'd like the ability to connect via hyperlobby is this planned?

 

Il-2 Sturmovik (2001) and all these games listed in Hypperlobby (HL)

 

 

are made possible connect via HL by HL creator - not by games makers (maybe in il-2 case O.Maddox give some help).

 

So the question should not be addressed to the creator of HL?

 

Sokol1

[EAF19_Swoop]

Hear hear Cy

 

With IL2, I used coops as a great way of training set pieces with other pilots and it was just so easy to host it. As many know it was the place to be if you were on the lookout to join a new squad and show off your talents. I also really liked Bellum type war missions ran through it in another rooms.

 

Fantastic bit of free software that brought the community together and nothing else has been as good imho, (thanks Jiri )

 

Now if BoS takes off and gets the players, it won't need H/L, just something as simple and as good, which hopefully some 3rd party will add down the line.

[Gambit21]

Anyone who flew the many and varied CoOps that I used to create and host almost every weekend, or those of Seahawk89, or Ajay (among others) knows the value

of CoOps and what they lend to the sim experience as opposed to just a server - which also has it's place. 

 

Can you arrange an enemy flight of 8 or more human players approaching your airfield for a strike while all 8 or more human players on the runway have to scramble and intercept with

first shots are fired while bombs are dropping and before the gear is even fully raised  - in a server? 

 

Don't think so. CoOps have their place.

[startrekmike]

Outside of the fact that confirmation of a FMB for BoS is sadly vague and uncertain at this stage, I don't see why there is talk of BoS not having any co-op ability, it does, it may not be called co-op but if it is anything like RoF, you can easily make co-op missions even if there is not a co-op mode explicitly stated in the editor.

 

  As far as hyperlobby, I don't really see the issue here, the combination of a functional server browser and Teamspeak adequately fills the role that hyperlobby did for 1946, I don't really see any issue here to be honest, are we just asking for hyperlobby support because IL-2 1946 had it? Is that really what this comes down to?

[Rama]

Can you arrange an enemy flight of 8 or more human players approaching your airfield for a strike while all 8 or more human players on the runway have to scramble and intercept with

first shots are fired while bombs are dropping and before the gear is even fully raised  - in a server?.

Yes you can, and more: you can have the human attacking flight spawning on their base at game start, having to take off and fly all the way to the ennemy base (and being possibly attacked on the way), and having the deffensive flight spawning on their base when the other flight is attacking them - something you can't do on il2 coop-style mission (because all flights are spawning at the same time)

 

With RoF, all coops, online wars and SEOW online campaigns are done on dogfight mode, and it works well.

[Gambit21]

Nice to know Rama - I wasn't clear of any of that to be honest.

[FuriousMeow]

Literally the first time you've brought up the Pe-2 in this discussion. Please give some relevance. 

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/8347-hyperlobby-compatibility/?p=145765