Please bring back many of the features of Cliffs of Dover with next IL-2 game engine.

[FeuerFliegen]

I wasn't sure if I should post this thread to here, or "Complaints", because I know it sounds like quite a complaint, but it's also nothing but suggestions, so here it is...

I can't even begin to count the number of times I have said, or thought... "man I wish this game had this, or that..."

 

and then either myself, or someone else will mention "CLoD has that..."

 

over and over and over again... constantly talking about features that BoX needs and CLoD has.

 

I was playing CLoD with someone the other day, and that person suggested that maybe back when they were creating and designing BoX, they were thinking they would get more players/purchases if they leaned more towards what War Thunder does, and simplify many things to make it appeal to more of a mass audience.  We were thinking.... man... that makes so much sense, and it sucks!!

Like the whole drop tank / complex fuel system that you guys spent forever trying to develop and implement and it all went to waste... CLoD has that!!  I was in a Bf110 in CLoD the other day, got a leak in my left side fuel tank, so I switched the fuel cocks to only draw fuel from that left side fuel tank in order to use it up as quickly as possible to not go to waste.  After using all of that tank, it was also apparent that the center of gravity had changed due to the rest of the fuel being on the right side of the plane, and while I know I can't make a direct comparison with the fuel alone, I really notice little things that change the weight of planes in CLoD, such as when I expend all of my 20mm ammunition, I can really feel the weight change; in BoX, weight changes due to ammo or fuel being spent is only noticeable if you really focus on it.  The only planes that it is obvious on are planes that carry an extreme amount of fuel such as the Arado AR-234, and even then it's more just because it climbs slower; not so much in other aspects.

 

Being able to shut off one of the two radiators in the Bf109 F models in CLoD is such a valuable feature!  It has saved me multiple times and made all the difference of making it home or not.  But at the same time, as much as losing coolant in a water cooled engine in BoX will eventually be catastrophic, it really seems like it takes longer than it should and it feels like the devs purposely made it easy for us.

In CLoD, you can really notice how much you will be punished for not keeping the side slip ball in the center.  If you are in a chase with someone with similar performance, much of who goes faster is a matter of who is a better pilot regarding properly trimming, rudder usage, and keeping radiators at ideal settings.  Other than radiators, many people will just set their plane to auto-level and allow their plane to go full speed while in reality, you should be having to work to keep that plane perfectly aligned to maximize speed.

 

Compass navigation is just too easy in BoX.  it completely removes any nuances of giving the compass time to settle, magnetic deviation, etc., etc..  Also autopilot systems in planes such as the Bf110, Ju88, He111, etc. should be implemented.  as much as planes are harder to fly, it would be such a nice feature to use the autopilot setting that holds heading but not altitude, and set up your plane to do an "auto-climb"

 

Radio navigation is another thing... setting up frequencies and it giving the ability to use it for target navigation, or a specific airfield, would be awesome, instead of just a basic feature that points us towards the closest beacon.

 

Ability to control the stopwatch in German planes?  It's a must-have.

 

Setting horizontal vs vertical convergence is a must-have.  Being able to create custom belts and have every type of ammunition modeled is invaluable.

 

Level bombing?  I didn't realize how simplified it was in BoX until I started playing CLoD.

 

Taking off and landing in a early Spitfire or Bf109 on a dirt runway can be seriously scary in CLoD.  Not so in BoX.  It was well known that those planes were very dangerous in take-offs and landings, but in BoX it's amateur level.  I think there should be a real incentive to take the Bf109 G-4 over an earlier model, for nothing more than the stronger and larger landing gear.  I have never seen, or would never imagine anyone purposely taking a G-4 or later model so that they'd have an easier time with this.  In real life, the Germans decided it would be well worth the additional drag/weight of the strengthened landing gear, but the way it is in BoX, it's a complete waste of drag/weight.  Also, a concrete runway is invaluable in comparison to a dirt runway/field, especially in planes such as the Spitfire and Bf109.

 

Being able to bring a handful of AI bombers with you is such an amazing features.  Imagine the amazing bombing sorties we could have in multiplayer if every one of us had 4-6 ai bombers flying in formation with us?  It would also give people more incentive to take planes such as a Stuka instead of a Bf110 or Ju88.  In the next game, a multiplayer server could be set up in a way where you based sorties on the amount of resources you use, i.e. you can take 3-4 Ju-88s, or you can take 9-12 Stukas, assuming the total cost and manpower would be similar.  That would be so epic!

 

Navigation is WAY too easy in BoX.  We should be given simplified maps that look similar to the same maps they were given in real life; not like the maps we have now where EVERY little creek, every unique shape of every tiny neighborhood is perfectly drawn out and every road perfectly drawn out to perfection.  What a luxury this would have been in real life.  It might be a little easier in CLoD than in real life, but it is much harder to navigate and you aren't given satellite perfect imagery.

 

In BoX, we don't even get a bombardier position in any plane such as the A20 (you could argue Ju88 and He111 do, but you only get that position as a gunner and there are no features as a bombardier).  In CLoD, we even get the radioman position in the Italian Fiat BR.20 so that we can dial in the frequency for navigation.  They didn't have to do that and could have just let us adjust the frequency some other way, but they went the extra mile to model this position in the middle of the plane even though there is NO GUN.

The start-up is so much more immersive, especially with planes such as the Gloster Gladiator Mk.II, BR.20, Wellington, Blenheim, where you do things like set carb heat, fuel cocks, magnetos,and after the engine warms up, you will push the throttle "quickly and firmly" to 100% and "after some coughing, engine should catch and start to run smoothly", which you must have chocks placed at the wheels to do (another feature we need in BoX).  Planes with 2+ engines you will throttle up and observe RPMs to ensure both engines are in sync.

Before I purchases BoX several years ago, and was doing research, I read an article that talked about a version or something (can't remember, it's been years) that allowed a fully realistic startup that could take several minutes.  After purchasing BoS a couple months later, I was confused because I couldn't find any mode or way to get a full realistic startup procedure, or even keybind things like magnetos or fuel cocks that would be necessary for this.  I couldn't find that article so I was left wondering what that was about, because I really wanted a full-real simulator that would also teach me some things (I had recently started flying lessons so I thought it would be a smart investment into flight sims to help myself learn), and I didn't want to be taught incorrect things with a War Thunder like game.  I only realized a few years later, after purchasing CLoD simply because it was so cheap, just to try, that they were probably talking about that, in the article I read back then.

 

I know, that was VERY  long, but I appreciate you listening.  And to be honest, there's actually numerous more things I've thought of before, but that's just what was on the top of my head just now.  Yes, I am well aware that CLoD has many bugs and is FAR from perfect, but future games should be a pure upgrade in every sense, and not include numerous simplifications and downgrades.

 

 

[HazMatt]

Well said. I was not aware of the amount of difference between the two.

[FeuerFliegen]

One more thing I forgot to mention (there's a bunch, but this one is a big deal in my opinion) - the damage/graphics modeling; you can see all the internal parts of the plane such as the spars, the guns, the engine, etc.  Notice that when a Spitfire or Bf109 gets damaged in the right spots, one of the landing gears will fall down a little bit.  Also notice the red tape over the spitfire's machine guns?  They don't have holes in them yet, as that plane had not yet fired it's guns; now that's attention to detail!

 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

IL2 and CloD are different games, each with their own strengths. If you prefer CloD, then why not just play it?

 

Still, there are some things you mention that I agree with, others not so much.

On 4/22/2024 at 2:54 AM, FeuerFliegen said:

Like the whole drop tank / complex fuel system that you guys spent forever trying to develop and implement and it all went to waste... CLoD has that!!

They tried to implement it and failed. It's no use suggesting they develop it again. Anyhow, Han has said something to the effect of us getting a more complex fuel management system in the new game.

 

On 4/22/2024 at 2:54 AM, FeuerFliegen said:

Other than radiators, many people will just set their plane to auto-level and allow their plane to go full speed while in reality, you should be having to work to keep that plane perfectly aligned to maximize speed

I hope you don't suggest the Devs disable auto-level. I use it all the time as a middle ground between full autopilot and manual flying.

 

On 4/22/2024 at 2:54 AM, FeuerFliegen said:

Also, a concrete runway is invaluable in comparison to a dirt runway/field, especially in planes such as the Spitfire and Bf109.

IIRC, the Bf-109 was difficult to take off especially from concrete runways, not so much dirt ones.

 

On 4/22/2024 at 2:54 AM, FeuerFliegen said:

Setting horizontal vs vertical convergence is a must-have.  Being able to create custom belts [...] is invaluable.

...as well as rather unhistorical, except for one or two aces who had enough sway with their higher-ups to warrant the extra effort.

 

On 4/22/2024 at 2:54 AM, FeuerFliegen said:

Being able to bring a handful of AI bombers with you is such an amazing features.  Imagine the amazing bombing sorties we could have in multiplayer if every one of us had 4-6 ai bombers flying in formation with us?  It would also give people more incentive to take planes such as a Stuka instead of a Bf110 or Ju88.  In the next game, a multiplayer server could be set up in a way where you based sorties on the amount of resources you use, i.e. you can take 3-4 Ju-88s, or you can take 9-12 Stukas, assuming the total cost and manpower would be similar.  That would be so epic!

Not going to happen in the current game, but the next iteration is already announced to support 100s of AI planes.

 

On 4/22/2024 at 2:54 AM, FeuerFliegen said:

Navigation is WAY too easy in BoX.  We should be given simplified maps that look similar to the same maps they were given in real life; not like the maps we have now [...]

Actually, the maps are similar to their real-world counterparts in their level of detail:

On the left, a 1944 RAF map of the Antwerpen area. On the right, the same area in IL2. IL2 has more detailed forests, but the road network is more detailed on the RAF map.

 

On 4/22/2024 at 2:54 AM, FeuerFliegen said:

future games should be a pure upgrade in every sense, and not include numerous simplifications and downgrades.

Eh, there are no "downgrades" in IL2:BoX since BoX isn't a development of CloD. They are separate games by separate game studios and have no shared heritage.

 

Both are good games in their own right. For some people, CloD is the better choice. For others, BoX. I don't think BoX should aspire to become more like CloD; just let these games peacefully coexist so everyone can choose whichever is the best for them personally

[FeuerFliegen]

11 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

IL2 and CloD are different games, each with their own strengths. If you prefer CloD, then why not just play it?

 

I do... practically every day.  I'm talking about suggestions for the NEW game engine that might come out in the next few years, just like I wrote in the title of this thread.

11 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

They tried to implement it and failed. It's no use suggesting they develop it again. Anyhow, Han has said something to the effect of us getting a more complex fuel management system in the new game.

 

I'm not suggesting the put it in the current game.  I'm suggesting it in the new game, and I'm glad to hear that Han mentioned this.  Thanks for the info.

 

11 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I hope you don't suggest the Devs disable auto-level. I use it all the time as a middle ground between full autopilot and manual flying.

 

I'm not; I'm actually not sure what the ideal solution would be.  I think auto-level is a must in certain situations; I'm simply saying I don't like the fact that it is used during a chase and then there is no more factor of pilot skill; maybe there could be a system where a person flying perfectly level and trimmed out would be slightly faster than the same plane would be in auto-level?

 

11 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

IIRC, the Bf-109 was difficult to take off especially from concrete runways, not so much dirt ones.

 

I did not know this; why would this be?  Do you have any source material you can show me on this?

 

11 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

...as well as rather unhistorical, except for one or two aces who had enough sway with their higher-ups to warrant the extra effort.

 

I think many options such as this should have the ability to be limited in multiplayer, while also giving us the option.  Especially the fact that they have quite a few different types of rounds for each gun, many guns having 6-7+ options, instead of simply AP or HE like in BoX.

 

11 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Not going to happen in the current game, but the next iteration is already announced to support 100s of AI planes.

 

as said above, none of these suggestions are for current game, as I feel it would be a waste of my time to even suggest it.  I've heard the next version will support many AI planes, but my point was to bring a squadron of ai planes with you, on a multiplayer server.

 

11 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Actually, the maps are similar to their real-world counterparts in their level of detail:

 

On the left, a 1944 RAF map of the Antwerpen area. On the right, the same area in IL2. IL2 has more detailed forests, but the road network is more detailed on the RAF map.

 

I can't recall exactly, but from what I remember, maps of the earlier war eastern front were not nearly as detailed.  The forests being hyper detailed down to the perfect shape of tree lines were one of my points.  Also the road network being more detailed on the RAF is only the case because those roads don't even exist in BoX; if they did, they would be detailed perfectly on the map.  Also the exactly dimensions of airfields aren't lined up to scale in the real maps, and neither are any of the cities; Antwerpen comes close, but only because they mapped out the road network and it's a larger city; other small towns don't have their shapes detailed at all.  I just think that the map in the game shouldn't be dead on identical to what we see in the actual battlefield.  I'd be good with them just giving us the real map they had in real life, and if things don't look perfectly like that in the game, then so be it.

 

11 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Eh, there are no "downgrades" in IL2:BoX since BoX isn't a development of CloD. They are separate games by separate game studios and have no shared heritage.

 

Both are good games in their own right. For some people, CloD is the better choice. For others, BoX. I don't think BoX should aspire to become more like CloD; just let these games peacefully coexist so everyone can choose whichever is the best for them personally

 

I'm not saying that they took CLoD and downgraded it into BoX; I could have worded that better but that's just semantics.  My point is that BoX has been over-simplified in some areas in a product that many people specifically refer to as a "sim" and not a "game".

 

I agree that both are good games in their own right; I play both, probably about equally.  But like I said before, I can't count the number of times I hear someone mention how they wish BoX had this, or that, and I later think about how CLoD has those things.  I don't want BoX to be CLoD, or CLoD to be BoX; my suggestions are to take the best features of both of these and try to implement them into the new/future projects.  Again, nothing said in my original post was meant to be a suggestion to change either game; it was suggestions for the new software that might be years away.... from your comments it appears that this was your take?  That I'm asking to implement all these things into BoX?

Edited May 1, 2024 by FeuerFliegen

[AEthelraedUnraed]

5 hours ago, FeuerFliegen said:

I do... practically every day.  I'm talking about suggestions for the NEW game engine that might come out in the next few years, just like I wrote in the title of this thread.

Ah, you are correct, my apologies. I indeed misread and thought you were talking about suggestions for the current IL2

 

5 hours ago, FeuerFliegen said:

I'm not; I'm actually not sure what the ideal solution would be.  I think auto-level is a must in certain situations; I'm simply saying I don't like the fact that it is used during a chase and then there is no more factor of pilot skill; maybe there could be a system where a person flying perfectly level and trimmed out would be slightly faster than the same plane would be in auto-level?

I think this is only a problem in multiplayer? Perhaps they could disable auto-level in MP, like they do with the full autopilot, or have it as a server setting.

 

5 hours ago, FeuerFliegen said:

I did not know this; why would this be?  Do you have any source material you can show me on this?

I did read a source on this once, but I can't quite remember what or where. I think it were the memories of some Finnish 109 ace?

 

Anyhow, the reason being that because concrete is a much smoother surface ( = less drag), the 109's narrow undercarriage in combination with high torque made it very prone to ground looping compared to a dirt field where the added wheel drag would help.

 

5 hours ago, FeuerFliegen said:

I think many options such as this should have the ability to be limited in multiplayer, while also giving us the option.  Especially the fact that they have quite a few different types of rounds for each gun, many guns having 6-7+ options, instead of simply AP or HE like in BoX.

Of course (as you probably know) BoX also has many different types of rounds internally, it's just the selection menus where you can only choose between AP or HE

I think the singleplayer experience especially is designed to provide a historical experience of WW2 air combat. Historically, pilots had little say in what ammo they were loaded with for a particular mission, and convergence was usually set to standard distances and spreads (when flying RAF, I always set my guns to the historical setting of 270m (300yds) even though I rarely fire from that far.)

 

Adding ammo types that are currently missing (like API) is something that I can agree with though.

 

5 hours ago, FeuerFliegen said:

as said above, none of these suggestions are for current game, as I feel it would be a waste of my time to even suggest it.  I've heard the next version will support many AI planes, but my point was to bring a squadron of ai planes with you, on a multiplayer server.

I think that's possible right now but simply something that none of the multiplayer mission builders have done yet? I can't be sure, since I haven't made any multiplayer missions ever, but it does sound like it's possible.

 

5 hours ago, FeuerFliegen said:

I can't recall exactly, but from what I remember, maps of the earlier war eastern front were not nearly as detailed.  The forests being hyper detailed down to the perfect shape of tree lines were one of my points.  Also the road network being more detailed on the RAF is only the case because those roads don't even exist in BoX; if they did, they would be detailed perfectly on the map.  Also the exactly dimensions of airfields aren't lined up to scale in the real maps, and neither are any of the cities; Antwerpen comes close, but only because they mapped out the road network and it's a larger city; other small towns don't have their shapes detailed at all.  I just think that the map in the game shouldn't be dead on identical to what we see in the actual battlefield.  I'd be good with them just giving us the real map they had in real life, and if things don't look perfectly like that in the game, then so be it.

You're correct about the reason for the fewer roads (and towns) in the IL2 map being that they aren't in the game in the first place However, the roads are pretty detailed in the real-world map too; see for instance the road northeast of Hulst in the northwestern area of the map. Waterways too aren't notably less detailed.

 

It's not true that small towns don't have their shapes detailed; albeit their detail is less than in IL2.

 

I think the airfields being detailed as they are is one of the concessions that are required for gameplay reasons. We don't have the time to study how an airfield looks like or how the taxiways are, so we need to refer to a map for that. It only makes sense that this is the same in-game map.

 

Overall, I agree that the IL2 map is somewhat more detailed than its real-world counterpart, but the difference isn't nearly as great as one might think

Edited May 1, 2024 by AEthelraedUnraed

[BOO]

I was curious about the ability bring along AI in an mp server. Was that ever a thing in Clod? I know the button existed but assumed it was another broken thing as it never did anything on the servers I used. Was this a server side disablement to prevent overload?

 

When it comes to loadouts I’m really torn. First the clod loadouts are a game within a game and something one can spend many hours experimenting with. However it’s not realistic in as much as your average pilot got what they were given.  I remember one player whose guns spat all sorts of coloured tracer other none at all.  Was very good for surviving mp situations were the person shooting at me had everything set to some “experten” 100m convergence but could never get closer than 250m. 
 

In the end I found a 228m convergence covered most situations in allied fighters the best for me so not too far off historical post 1940 settings. 
 

More complex DM and system modelling would be welcomed as would a more realistic bombsight, compass and auto pilot. More in depth modelled fuel systems have saved many a 110 and 88 I been using. 
 

I always liked the windows feature to. 
 

Clickpits are certainly a better option to me than remembering keybinds but Clod cannot be credited with realistic starting procedures. Last time I tried a Merlin it consisted of switching the tank, turning on the fuel and hitting “I”.  The mags would switch themselves on. The currently implement auto start in GB arguably better replicates the real procedure if in a detached way. I seem to remember at the time most comparing the new IL2 as it was then to clod quickly got over this aspect. Where clickpits do help me is we’re more complex systems come into play. 
 

Right now though, it would just be nice to know what is being planned. I can only hope that the silence is an indication that it’s something for the competition to worry about.