Of course user generated aircraft and maps are feasible in the new flight sim era. In example, you mentioned the Wellington being developed by TF for CloD II. In your post above, who are "they." "They" are just some guys who put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us. ED is proving that right now by outsourcing the development of aircraft for DCS and turning former unpaid modders into professional modders by paying them.

Many modders are pilots and professional programmers who can create aircraft as well as "they" or better. Of course I don't deny the idea of developers selling planes, maps, and other content. They are the foundation of a game's development and need an income. But no development house like ED or 1CGS could create 200 aircraft alone (as found in IL-2 1946). The developers who can engage the community and sell content along with them will be the developers who build the next dynasty game like IL-2 1946. We're no longer in the era of a handful of rock star programmers who we depend on. We're in the era of a world community of rock stars and all it takes is a savvy business plan to engage them. Look at all the unknown players: the various small shops used by ED. Team Daidalos about to release a new version of IL-2 1946. Team Fusion about to release CloD II. Believe me, folks capable of creating user generated aircraft and maps are out there in spades.

And the only difference between the folks above and 1CGS is that they build flight sims that many of us like. 1CGS could turn things around in a heartbeat, but I'm starting to think Loft is a contrarian who can't.

con·trar·i·an

noun

1. a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion

Some contrarians make a lot of money in the stock market and atypical business ventures. Many don't.

aborted,

Everything I posted was fact. I sure the game could handle 1 trillion objects if they were all inactive and not there to begin with.

Clearly you didn't fully comprehend my post. That's why I specifically asked you to put those 12,000 objects in one spot, that way when a player flew near them, they would all be active at once. And once you see that 12,000 objects that are ACTIVE at the same time in a mission = insta-crash (actually far far less) then you'll start to understand the point I already said. Having 12,000 objects in a mission doesn't mean much when only a few hundred of them are active at once.

So go ahead and activate (or in simple FMB terms, place 12,000 static objects in a mission) and in ROF/BOS terms (make them all active at once - AKA actually having 12,000 active objects in a mission) and see what happens.

Should be an easy copy and paste.. Put them all in one spot so we can see all of them from the pilot's view and all at the same time. Now just for reference, I'll do the same in Clod, but go with 24,000 objects all in the same spot. I'll bet you $100 even, your test fails miserably while mine does not. Now if you're willing to take that bet and actually show 12,000 ACTIVE (REALLY THERE LOLs) objects in a mission. Get to hoppin. Should be the easiest $100 you've ever made in your life right?

Oh yes, and it must be online of course.

Good luck, have fun, maybe you'll finally understand.

Still doing research on what a master browser is, I see.

Poor guy.. Says BOS easily handles 12,000 objects in a mission. Gets asked for proof of showing 12,000 objects at the same time in a mission, even with a chance to win some really quick cash. Realizes he's lied again and resorts to forum deflection tactics.

I must confess, it is some serious fun calling people out on their BS. Thankfully I put my money where my mouth is and can back up anything I say. That's the beauty of knowing what you are talking about.

Thankfully I don't need to resort to any sort of tactic other than the truth.

Thanks for playing

But you do Bearcat, you do argue, you do get insulted just as you insult others here. But the problem is that when someone disagrees with you or the other supporters that come here with a mission to convert the "BOS Detractors" you are confronted with the reality of the concrete deficiencies in BOS. It seems you can't stand the fact that someone will write about the deficiencies in BOS, comparing them to long agreed upon Customer appreciated proponents that make up a Good Flight Sim that actually makes the paying Customer happy and gives enjoyment from using the product. It is funny, every time the BOS supporters leave the SHQ BOS threads here alone, it gets quiet and hardly any posting is going on, but as soon as you guys poke your head in here the thread posting goes wild.
Why does that happen? Because their are people here that are just as adamant about their dissatisfaction with BOS as you are adamant about your satisfaction with BOS. The Solutiion? Maybe you should accept that there are people that Love BOS and that their are people that Dislike BOS. Let it be at that and don't feel that you need to convince everyone otherwise for the Good of the genre. Be content that over at the Official BOS Forums that everything looks very good and that BOS is portrayed as a good product pretty much.

S!Blade<><

Let's stop using the derogatory terms, such as "Fanboys" / "Fanbois" and "Haters" to describe members. It lowers the conversation, and is unnecessary.

Self gratitude at its finest! Bliss...my word...it's almost indecent! You'll go blind if you keep that up!

Darn! Another deflection aimed at the poster instead of the content of his post. Gotta love the tactics.

And another post NOT showing 12,000 objects in a mission. Again, thanks for playing

Sorry, I apologize for speaking directly to you in a forum thread. Next time we engage in discussion I'll be sure it's solely in YouTube videos to appease your need for deeming yourself "the winner" of a conversation when nobody wants to waste time on your silly strawman demands.

I know DCS has 3rd parties involved. The point is their products aren't free. TF probably couldn't make payware anyways since they'd run into copywrite problems.

Since when is asking for proof of a statement a strawman? You said you could have 12,000 objects in a mission, and even went further to say you could do this in a full server.

Obviously, as someone who has worked with the DN game engine for years (not a couple months), I realize this is not a possibility. So do thousands of others in the forms of 10's of thousands of forum posts coming from users criticizing this and from developers stating the only way possible is to spend millions and create a new game engine.

So clearly, backed with all the evidence and experience, the understood status quo (to anyone that's tried) knows full well the limitations with the DN engine. And as such, when someone makes such a stupendous claim, it's only normal to ask for proof of said stupendous claim.

That is not a strawman. That is how science and theory work as well. If you make a claim, you had better be able to back it up. In the real world this happens every day.

So again, I'll ask: Put your money where your mouth is. If you can show 12,000 objects in a mission (like you say is EASILY done), then by all means, easily prove it.

I'm waiting

Just realize when you can't prove it, well, because I know it won't even come close to doing 1000 objects in the same spot let alone 12,000, then you should probably stop spreading lies. Just a guess, but those that know the limitations wouldn't call you out on them all the time.

That would be my suggestion to you.

http://online.il2forever.com/

Have at it.

Christmas shopping list:

1. A room for a certain couple.

2. A new keyboard for a certain poster who must certainly have nearly worn one out in this thread.

3. A free upgrade to "Member" for the poster who has shown the best effort to reach a zillion posts in a week.

4. A new computer for someone who has really been sort of good this year.

5. A copy each of all the games mentioned in this thread to each participant with a burning on New Years Eve of your least favorite.
The game with the least burnings will be declared the Undisputed King (or Queen, we must remain all inclusive, right?) of the CFS World.

Santa knows who we all are.

Poor guy. He's gone from posting pictures, then videos, and now he's posting a link to showing a server list, but absolutely nothing to show proof to back up his claims.

This is why it's soo much fun watching aborted back peddle out of everything he says. Gotta love people who claim to know what they are talking about and can't substantiate any of it.

Thanks again for the amusement. Time for bed

Do you know what back "peddle" (pedal) means?

So far when asked, you've shown a picture of a cartoon, a video of a guy in an office, pointed out a spelling mistake, and gave a website link to a server list.

But you still haven't shown those 12,000 objects in a mission. Sorry that you're upset about getting called out on your lies and falsehoods.

Poor fella got called out and can't back it up. Gotta love it

This thread is getting boring now gentlemen.

Paul

What lies? There are missions being played right this very moment with exactly what I'm talking about.

You're wanting the contents of AN ENTIRE THEATER OF OPERATIONS worth of objects in a 6km x 6km space. Why? That says absolutely nothing about a game and how it plays in a plausible and practical way.

You're begging the question. Not saying anything about anything related to what has been said...then spouting "hurr durr master browser" as if it's some magical buzzwords because it sounds "networky" like no one will know what it means (which you obviously don't, since you keep failing to cite what exactly a master browser has to do with the object count in an online mission). It's a self-perceived point of failure that you think no one can challenge. Get educated before you say this stuff. You're making zero sense.

Thanks Sunchaser ... cleaning popcorn off wall.

No there's not. If an object is not active, hidden, and not there, guess what? It's not there!!! That's like saying you can put 30000 AI planes in a server but in reality only 5 of them are actually there. That means there's 5, not 30000. The ENTIRE reason the function exists in the 1st place to deactivate and remove static objects is because the game can't handle hardly any at all in the 1st place. And if you place 12,000 objects, and had those people flying all spread out so many 1000 of those objects are actually TURNED ON, or there in the 1st place, the game will crash faster than you can say "CRASH". It always has and always will. It's the nature of the game. So unless you can have 12,000 ACTIVE objects at once, you don't have 12,000 objects in your mission. You're lucky, at best, to be getting 1000, and even then judging by your terrible SFS of 40-60, the game was on the verge of going to crap then.



Perfect. More back pedaling

If you say you can put 12,000 objects in a mission then do so. I already gave you the bet. Now you're finally admitting you can't? Thank you!!!! That's all I wanted to hear and you finally admitted it.

As far as the master browser and it's problems with regards to the objects and limitations of the DN engine, as I've already stated several times now, there's tens of thousands of posts about it on the ROF forum. I don't need to educate myself as I it's a common known issue to those that have been around the DN engine/ROF for any amount of time. I'm sorry that you're new to the DN engine and everything, but realize there's people out there that aren't.

Again, thanks for finally admitting you can't put 12,000 objects in a mission like you so adamantly stated earlier. That was fun wasn't it? Next time you should just admit your wrong to begin with and learn to speak facts not BS.