The team has been working on the single player campaign (or AQM – advanced quick mission as we call it) for the whole week. The recent live stream shown on Friday was to demonstrate you some of the elements of that extensive mode. As you might guess, that’s a whole lot of work – to put that much content into this complicated system. You may have a lot of questions about this part of the project and you’ll find answers to many of them in the record of our latest live stream below.
Along with AQM, we’re completing the other elements of the sim. Today’s update brings you the technical chat (or technochat, sounds impressive). Anyway this feature is to tell you what happens to your plane: gears are released, an engine suffers from overheating, all your gunners are extensively bleeding, and so on. And of course you can always turn those off if you’re so hardcore.
Some peculiar DM improvement is to be deployed later today: incoming damage will be able to breaks rods used to control rudders and ailerons. It’s pretty hard to demonstrate such feature on a video for example so you’re free to try it yourself flying on a damaged aircraft in BOS. By the way, AI pilots will tend to bail out if those rods are damaged in their planes.
As it was planned from the very beginning, we’re adding deeper simulation step by step. Today is a good day for Messerschmitt pilots because they get to control all radiators manually.
Other changes are mostly about minor graphical fixes. Speaking of which: nVIDIA released new WHQL driver pack that features IL2BOS profile. So if you want to use your SLI-configuration in the game then just install the 344.11 version – the thing should work at least as good as in ROF.
Here goes the record of the live stream I promised. Have a good weekend everyone.
I am seriously disappointed with this. They promised a single-player focused sim. What I see is a bunch of unconnected quick missions with no sense of continuity, no penalty for failure, and no reward other than some silly XP grind in order to unlock the next goody on the list.
I am seriously disappointed with this. They promised a single-player focused sim. What I see is a bunch of unconnected quick missions with no sense of continuity, no penalty for failure, and no reward other than some silly XP grind in order to unlock the next goody on the list.
AND unlockable PAINTJOBS and AIRFIELDS!!!!!!
'Yes, thats sarcasm
In all seriousness I am disappointed as well. If they didnt make a big deal out of pumping the SP part, I dont think I would be so letdown.
I am seriously disappointed with this. They promised a single-player focused sim. What I see is a bunch of unconnected quick missions with no sense of continuity, no penalty for failure, and no reward other than some silly XP grind in order to unlock the next goody on the list.
Pretty much just this. Amazing that a developer can be so out of touch with his customers.
They stated no career like in ROF from the beginning of the project, how can people be disappointed? I am not because I didn't expect it and the campaign looks interesting.
Yes, I would love a deep dynamic career, choose a squadron and then the rest is up to you and your simulated commanders. Perhaps in time? Seriously this sim hasn't been in development for very long and is merely the beginning, Rome after all wasn't built in a day nor was the original Il2 game, this things are like wine, they get better with age and particularly with support.
Just finished watching the video, and I gotta say I'm pretty disappointed. I really, really hope they reconsider some aspects and ask themselves -
"what benefit do these features bring to the single player flight sim enthusiast?
The general concept of the campaign being broken down into 5 historical chapters with generated missions you can choose from is interesting, sure maybe not what we'd want (i.e. a more typical squadron based single player campaign) but still, with their limited time I actually think it's pretty cool.
what's not cool, however, is having to worry about 'progression', 'xp', 'unlocking', and not being able to use a custom difficulty setting in the campaign!
What benefit does that bring me? How does that help me enjoy the game?
What if I want to fly with full engine management, but have external views or some other options that don't fall into one of two categories - I can't fly the campaign? I'm sorry but that's crazy.
Again, what good does that do for me? Why can't I just start whatever chapter of the campaign I'd like to? Why do I have to unlock planes in the campaign? It just seems like this arbitrary barrier to me enjoying the game.
Loft has built what he promised he would. He never said he would build the same system as ROF or 1946 or anything else. It's all there in the Dev Blogs.
I always knew some in the hardcore community wouldn't like this system, but luckily for you I am still here and will work with talented individuals in the community utilizing the tools like the ME and give as much support as I can so eventually there can be a Campaign that is a more like the other campaign systems you like. With the ME and a little programming talent an amazing dynamic Campaign system can be built along the lines of what Pat Wilson built for ROF over the past 3 years. It's really good and is a testament of what can be achieved with our technology.
The guys who want a certain type of deep role-playing campaign are not the average customer any more in this genre unfortunately. I'm one of the old school types myself too, but its not easy making a popular flying game these days with simply the older game-play designs.
What you will enjoy is a sim/game that WORKS with minimal bugs that prevent you from flying and fighting. That has always been the first priority. The role-playing and historical detail you may want will have to come later on, just as much of it has come from the community with all the other popular simulations ever made. This is actually where 90% of my fun has come from as a sim pilot the last 15 years.
Loft has built what he promised he would. He never said he would build the same system as ROF or 1946 or anything else. It's all there in the Dev Blogs.
I always knew some in the hardcore community wouldn't like this system, but luckily for you I am still here and will work with talented individuals in the community utilizing the tools like the ME and give as much support as I can so eventually there can be a Campaign that is a more like the other campaign systems you like. With the ME and a little programming talent an amazing dynamic Campaign system can be built along the lines of what Pat Wilson built for ROF over the past 3 years. It's really good and is a testament of what can be achieved with our technology.
The guys who want a certain type of deep role-playing campaign are not the average customer any more in this genre unfortunately. I'm one of the old school types myself too, but its not easy making a popular flying game these days with simply the older game-play designs.
What you will enjoy is a sim/game that WORKS with minimal bugs that prevent you from flying and fighting. That has always been the first priority. The role-playing and historical detail you may want will have to come later on, just as much of it has come from the community with all the other popular simulations ever made. This is actually where 90% of my fun has come from as a sim pilot the last 15 years.
It will all sort itself out in time.
Jason
That is good to hear. Thanks. I am glad to see you address these concerns. I hate waiting......
Most of my fun has come from the modders as well, DCG, HSFX, TF, etc. etc.
Loft has built what he promised he would. He never said he would build the same system as ROF or 1946 or anything else. It's all there in the Dev Blogs.
I always knew some in the hardcore community wouldn't like this system, but luckily for you I am still here and will work with talented individuals in the community utilizing the tools like the ME and give as much support as I can so eventually there can be a Campaign that is a more like the other campaign systems you like. With the ME and a little programming talent an amazing dynamic Campaign system can be built along the lines of what Pat Wilson built for ROF over the past 3 years. It's really good and is a testament of what can be achieved with our technology.
The guys who want a certain type of deep role-playing campaign are not the average customer any more in this genre unfortunately. I'm one of the old school types myself too, but its not easy making a popular flying game these days with simply the older game-play designs.
What you will enjoy is a sim/game that WORKS with minimal bugs that prevent you from flying and fighting. That has always been the first priority. The role-playing and historical detail you may want will have to come later on, just as much of it has come from the community with all the other popular simulations ever made. This is actually where 90% of my fun has come from as a sim pilot the last 15 years.
It will all sort itself out in time.
Jason
That's nice to hear Jason (genuinely), but I still don't understand the reasons behind adding in what seem like arbitrary barriers to enjoyment, specifically - why limit people to only two these two difficulty modes to play the campaign? What's the point behind that?
Unless I'm misunderstanding what was said in the video of course.... it's not the campaign system I have a problem with, it's this weird thing of not being able to play the campaign the way I'd like to.
Loft has built what he promised he would. He never said he would build the same system as ROF or 1946 or anything else. It's all there in the Dev Blogs.
I always knew some in the hardcore community wouldn't like this system, but luckily for you I am still here and will work with talented individuals in the community utilizing the tools like the ME and give as much support as I can so eventually there can be a Campaign that is a more like the other campaign systems you like. With the ME and a little programming talent an amazing dynamic Campaign system can be built along the lines of what Pat Wilson built for ROF over the past 3 years. It's really good and is a testament of what can be achieved with our technology.
The guys who want a certain type of deep role-playing campaign are not the average customer any more in this genre unfortunately. I'm one of the old school types myself too, but its not easy making a popular flying game these days with simply the older game-play designs.
What you will enjoy is a sim/game that WORKS with minimal bugs that prevent you from flying and fighting. That has always been the first priority. The role-playing and historical detail you may want will have to come later on, just as much of it has come from the community with all the other popular simulations ever made. This is actually where 90% of my fun has come from as a sim pilot the last 15 years.
It will all sort itself out in time.
Jason
Thanks for the insights, Jason. I understand where you're coming from and the challenges you're facing. The vision for the campaign as described differs significantly from what I'd personally like to see, but I can understand why the team has gone the route that it has.
To be honest, the single biggest issue (or perhaps just open question) that I have pertains to randomness. What I really don't want to see is a rigidly structured "fly to the mission area because that's the only place your going to find the action". If there was always the possibility of jumping or being jumped by other flights at various points, that would really elevate the experience for me. Is that kind of emergence/randomness planned or built into the system at the moment?
Anyway, thanks again for the clarifications and additional perspective. Much appreciated.
As I jeard it, maybe I heard wrong, the aircraft and weapon unlocks are for those who pay less for the game? 'Premium' buyers get the planes and weps?
In SP campaign "unlocks" planes is for "Standard" editon owners. "Premium" have all planes.
You start flying in Bf 109F and based on earned "XP" "unlock" Ju 87 and Bf 109-G (video at ~7:10).
After, playing with Ju-87 or Bf 109-G you "unlock" his weapons upgrates and skins. Etc.
In the next fase you are able to unlock He 111... later Fw 190 (this if bought as standalone)... etc.
Probable 90% of Early Access buyers have the "Premium" edition.
What ones that bought "Premium" edition until specific have as exclusivity is the Sturmovik rear gunner, supposed for use in MP - what is unlock for "Standard" - plus some custom skins (selected by vote on forum) and the gold tag icon.
The polemic point in this system is, to use some Bf 109 gun pack or LaGG rockets in MP, is need "unlock" then in SP campaing, that lead MP crowd complain that they dont want waste time in SP mode...
The guys who want a certain type of deep role-playing campaign are not the average customer any more in this genre unfortunately. I'm one of the old school types myself too, but its not easy making a popular flying game these days with simply the older game-play designs.
Just curious, how do you know this? Market research data is scarce in a niche like this, and the voice of customer feedback so far seems telling to me.
And frankly, if you're going to compare sales numbers to a title like War Thunder, I'd have liked to known that before I plunked down $100 for BoS. I presumed that a hard core price would preempt a hard core game. Now, to be clear, I knew that I was putting down my money as a 'risk': that the title was in alpha, final design decisions not made (or at least shared with the community...), etc. I accept that risk, and acknowledge that 777 has not 'lied' or mislead about the title in any way, but that I am the victim now of my own assumptions that I was supporting a product aimed at the hard core simmer. Indeed, this has been a...learning experience....
Oh, and why the heck is the "older game-play" mutually exclusive to things like custom difficulty levels in the 'campaign'?
Originally Posted By: 777 Studios - Jason
What you will enjoy is a sim/game that WORKS with minimal bugs that prevent you from flying and fighting. That has always been the first priority. The role-playing and historical detail you may want will have to come later on, just as much of it has come from the community with all the other popular simulations ever made. This is actually where 90% of my fun has come from as a sim pilot the last 15 years.
Emphasis mine.
So shall I take that line as an indication that 777 will reverse it's stance on community content? Indeed excellent news, as so far there's a bit of a monopoly on how new aircraft and maps get into it's various titles...
Again, for clarity sake, I've always supported the RoF business model, and felt aircraft and maps represented a great value for the product delivered. But above it sounds like you're alluding to third party content filling in some of the gaps in BoS, as has happend in titles like IL-2 and the Thirdwire titles. Of course, titles like Arma also show both models can dove tail nicely, but I haven't seen that with a 777 title to date.
Originally Posted By: 777 Studios - Jason
It will all sort itself out in time.
Maybe.
But so far there are two milestone announcements that give me pause in agreeing: The removal of custom display settings, and now custom difficulty in campaigns.
If that's the direction things will be "sorted" in...
I like the way they are implementing the single player campaign. I play single player most of the times, so my main concern is for the sim to have a strong single player section, and from what I can see so far we have quite a bit of content, with the possibility of more coming in the future, which is interesting. That being said, if it was up to me, I'd implement to different progression "trees", one for fighter pilots and one for bomber pilots. More importantly, I think players should be given the chance to decide their custom realism settings. More flexibility is always welcome. I'd be open to getting less points the more "help" I decide to activate...
My russian is not good enough to understand all that. I hope we can use that XP functionality in a proper career where instead of skins and guns you get promoted and may end commanding a staffel or similar.
Imagine getting to plan the bombing missions and assigning targets to each kette, that's the good stuff.
Getting a bit of supply stuff in there as well where you can decide to ferry in some more bombs or get more fuel or a few more tents. The better you perform the more supply you get, just like in real life.
Now I just have to learn why my left engine always blows up even though I nurse my HE-111 like a baby.
I just watched the video. Every time Loft explains his narrow definition of a "game" I feel my excitement and anticipation about this game slipping away. This just leaves me shaking my head. I really hope it is fun, and I will reserve judgment until I can play the single player, but I must say that at this point I am hearing alarm bells. If you want to make a "game" then why base it on history at all? I just don't get the logic. And I get that mods are commonplace these days, but it seems odd to me that a developer would rely on them to shoulder the burden of providing the richest and most comprehensive historical content for their game. It sounds like Jason is in agreement with the rest of us, too. I appreciate his honest contribution to this thread. I really hope the decision to go this route wasn't 777/1C "jumping the shark."
Simmers don't want a deep rpg experience in their sims!!???
Pardon...
WOFF kicks ROF all over the place as a single player sim due to it's amazing single player experience.
Rather shocking to hear this sort of statement from a sim developer. When games like Ed Baron are still raved about. The BIGGEST problem with most recent sims is the fact they have a rubbish campaign system and barely cater for the single player.
Just throwing this out there, but why doesn't 777 just approach Pat Wilson about hiring him on to build a campaign engine for BoS? Just cut through the BS, make this guy an employee, and let him have at it.
I sympathize with 777 in trying to guess what the market actually wants, but in terms of single player I think the overwhelmingly successful titles speak load and clear.
Jason said he has already approached Pat Wilson about it and Pat told him WWII aviation doesn't interest him. Pat is a professional programmer already and I doubt he would leave his regualr job for a short term project even if Jason paid him.
But, Jason's posting on Page 2 is promising and as Hooves has said the Devs may have underestimated the WWII community and it may be they underestimated how much the IL-2 FMB is used by everyday players also. I don't know anybody who plays IL-2 1946 and CloD who doesn't use it. They aren't uber campaign builders but they play around with it all the time to set things up to suit. It's half the fun of these sims and gives them longevity.
Looks a bit like controll bondage on their side. Controlling grafic presets Controlling skin management Controllng user name Controlling diffculty settings Controlling fmb accessors At each single it is not much, but all in all it bothers a lot. It is no bad game, and for a quick jump after work it fine for 30mins But I dont see the way the game will tie users like Il2 1946 did over 12 yrs. Yes I know 30% to go ....however dont expect any changes in that points. And now, stone me, for not sharing the "kumbaya feeling".
Control bondage....men, throw me away here, if it just wasnt such a damn...pity.
Hope we get to choose the options regarding campaign and SP difficulty - I like to play with the highest realism setting, save external views (I love looking at my plane).
Like many others in this thread, I feel really disappointed by choice of using the grind and unlock system rather than an historical and immersive campaign. Sure, we can cross fingers and hope that the community will come up with a Pat Wilson's type of campaign generator in a few years, if we're lucky... I guess I'll go back to ROF and give up on any hope to see a good WW2 sim for a couple of years at least again.
I partially agree. On the other hand Im thankful to have ANYTHING to nit-pik over.
I just want to fly, and I suspect that's what drives most of us. I will fly everything out there, even CLOD at release. From 95 on its been wonderful with IL2 a high point ... it sustained me/us for over 11 years or so. Since then I can CLOD-TF, ROF, WOFF, DCS all I want, fun all yet all leave me at some point wanting? Along comes BOS and it works, it makes me smile, it continues 'weekly' to sustain that smile. Like long ago. Great, and if something better does show up, and its viable ... hell, Ill fly and gladly support that too.
One would hope, one would hope.
Reality ... We all know how many developers are out there or on the horizon today .... how many will there be in 5 years, in 10 years?
I think some people are reading this the most negative way possible.
Does it not occur to you that "grind and unlock" are exactly how historical campaigns work? You start with the earliest models, as time passes (as missions are flown) later equipment becomes available and you can then use it. Instead of sticking with historical dates for this but making your progression thru time random (because some campaigns you fly more than once a day, some daily, some perhaps weekly or whatever), instead it's based on effort.
If it takes say 100xp to "unlock" underwing cannons for the 109, you can get them faster by flying high difficulty missions with no aids (maybe earn 25xp per mission) or take your time by flying lower difficulty ones (earning maybe 10xp per mission). If you want to say yourself "low xp missions occur more frequently than high XP so it takes the same amount of historical time", fine.
As he said, making full historical OOBs for each airfield and when this squadron moved where and had what equipment is increasing their development task immensely. It can be done later if necessary. But you can "do it yourself". If you know what plane flew from where and when, the just pick that plane at that time from that spot as a fighter pilot, voila! If like me you don't really care as much about that, you just want the right planes in the theater at that time, then you can just fly a fighter, then a bomber, then switch airfields, then back, whatever.
Full historical "unlocks" via time. This is will "unlock" via a gauge you have the ability to control yourself, but still you won't be flying the best and baddest from the first day.
I don't really care about the grind and unlock. I think it's silly and a poor design choice but it isn't a huge deal. What is a huge deal is forcing me to either choose "normal" mode wherein I have to play with all the on screen prompts, HUD assists, icons, and simplified flight mechanics or "expert" with cockpit-only view, full CEM, and no assists. Interesting that the devs love to fall back on the "it's a game! It should be fun!" Line whenever someone criticizes one of their design decisions yet they then go and remove the ability of the player to chose how they wish to play and enjoy the game all because doing so would ruin their stupid two tier XP award system.
The lack of markings, squadron and player stars and any sense of continuity in the "campaign" just adds to the disappointment.
...What is a huge deal is forcing me to either choose "normal" mode wherein I have to play with all the on screen prompts, HUD assists, icons, and simplified flight mechanics or "expert" with cockpit-only view, full CEM, and no assists. Interesting that the devs love to fall back on the "it's a game! It should be fun!" Line whenever someone criticizes one of their design decisions yet they then go and remove the ability of the player to chose how they wish to play and enjoy the game all because doing so would ruin their stupid two tier XP award system....
I sincerely hope they change this before release, being a single player guy and having to be locked into one of two modes to even play the campaign is (to me) unacceptable.
I'm fine (not thrilled, but not crazy upset either) about the campaign system they're going to have at launch, and I bet in a year or so we'll have other ways of playing the campaign. But I think this one issue is really going to make a lot of people upset if they don't change it.
Wait... didn't the much praised Dynamic Campaign in Falcon 3 and 4 allow you to fly ANY of the flyables (which originally where a drastically limited selection) in any fashion you wanted? IIRC you where not A pilot. You where ANY pilot.
Bar the grinding for XP, which again isn't much different from real life WWII having to wait for that new experimental version of plane/weaponry, it strikes me as odd all the this hate.
Not calling everyone who dislike it hater, but opinions are not only perceived by WHAT one says but also by HOW it is said.
[quote=777 Studios - Jason] What you will enjoy is a sim/game that WORKS with minimal bugs that prevent you from flying and fighting.
This is good, but without a deeper purpose for flying, it kind of makes sims dull. Especially if you don't play PVP multiplayer.
Exactly this. Must kill another 3x planes so I can get those rockets and or cannon pods.
LOL, cus in real life back then VVS or LW pilots were asked before they were assigned a plane if they had enough XP.
Ooh, sorry Ivan, you can't have that weapon loadout because you haven't shot down 2x planes in your last mission. I know it's a close support mission you are flying but you simply aren't allowed bombs or rockets.
Ooh, sorry Fritz no you cannot have cannon pods for your 109 because you just don't have the experience points. I know it would make shooting down those IL2 you have to intercept much easier, but that's not how the LW does things.
In real life experience had absolutely nothing to do with what loadout you were allowed to fly. Many green and rookie pilots were sent out in exactly the same plane type with the same loadout as the aces in the squadron.
Picture the scenario in early 1943 near Stalingrad in a LW Fighter squadron equipped with 109F4s.
Today we must intercept IL2 Sturmoviks harassing our troops at the front line. All those with less than 200 experience points put your hands up? OK, you are not allowed to fit gunpods or armoured windscreens. All those with more than 200 but less than 300 experience points, put your hands up. OK, you can fit armoured glass but not gunpods... no gunpods for you. Everyone else, you can put armoured glass and gunpods on your 109.
Anyone found fitting equipment that is verboten at their XP level will be shot... Haben Sie verstanden?
Yep, totally realistic and immersive experience they have lined up for us there. Oh, sorry I forgot, it's just a game and we don't want hardcore flightsim nuts ruining our flight game.
Oh FFS, don't be so facetious. Renown points in Silent Hunter 3 were the same thing.
No one ask you to like them, but if you have to HAVE to parallel them to reality at any cost (which none really ask you to), just say you have an ace and three green.
Who are you going to give the only pair of 37mm BK to? But then again who cares...
I'm okay with the "game" unlocks, maybe it's because I grew up playing flying and racing games on consoles instead of PC. Or that I like to play modern console shooters and other console games as well as sims.
But I wish they could of used them in a more "in fiction" manner that is immersive. Instead of unlocking something after a mission of shooting down 2 planes...how about....
The mission before you "unlock" the new bombs you have to fly a mission where the supply trucks carrying the bombs is on it's way to your base. You have to fly escort to protect them. If they make it, next mission you get those bombs but only a finite amount. If you fail, you don't get them until another random mission like that comes up. Sounds pretty fun to me and makes it a little more realistic.
What is a huge deal is forcing me to either choose "normal" mode wherein I have to play with all the on screen prompts, HUD assists, icons, and simplified flight mechanics or "expert" with cockpit-only view, full CEM, and no assists. Interesting that the devs love to fall back on the "it's a game! It should be fun!" Line whenever someone criticizes one of their design decisions yet they then go and remove the ability of the player to chose how they wish to play and enjoy the game all because doing so would ruin their stupid two tier XP award system.
That's exactly what I think, and there seem to be a lot of people who want to play in their custom setting. (In most cases Full realism with external views.) I really hope they change this. It should not be hard to implement XPs that are calculated, depending on whatever settings you use. Or just give me the "Normal" XPs and let me disable some features of the "Normal" difficulty. Except for that, the campaign is fine for me.
I don't really care about the grind and unlock. I think it's silly and a poor design choice but it isn't a huge deal. What is a huge deal is forcing me to either choose "normal" mode wherein I have to play with all the on screen prompts, HUD assists, icons, and simplified flight mechanics or "expert" with cockpit-only view, full CEM, and no assists. Interesting that the devs love to fall back on the "it's a game! It should be fun!" Line whenever someone criticizes one of their design decisions yet they then go and remove the ability of the player to chose how they wish to play and enjoy the game all because doing so would ruin their stupid two tier XP award system.
The lack of markings, squadron and player stars and any sense of continuity in the "campaign" just adds to the disappointment.
Agreed.
Thinking more and more about it, this is my greatest source of "want my $100 back."
I don't really care about the grind and unlock. I think it's silly and a poor design choice but it isn't a huge deal. What is a huge deal is forcing me to either choose "normal" mode wherein I have to play with all the on screen prompts, HUD assists, icons, and simplified flight mechanics or "expert" with cockpit-only view, full CEM, and no assists. Interesting that the devs love to fall back on the "it's a game! It should be fun!" Line whenever someone criticizes one of their design decisions yet they then go and remove the ability of the player to chose how they wish to play and enjoy the game all because doing so would ruin their stupid two tier XP award system.
The lack of markings, squadron and player stars and any sense of continuity in the "campaign" just adds to the disappointment.
Agreed.
Thinking more and more about it, this is my greatest source of "want my $100 back."
+1...
AND user control of the graphics. Stop using shortcuts. Do it properly.
Thinking more and more about it, this is my greatest source of "want my $100 back."
Been there for a long time now. I really wish I had not preordered it. Luckily my experience has prevented a lot of my squad mates from buying into the game.
I think the devs, given the reaction to this whole thing, should decide definitively whether they want to be a War Thunder -ish type game, or an IL-2 hardcore simulation, and stop trying to please both camps. I'm biased for sure, but I'd urge them to go full hardcore, with scaleable options, for those who want less than the full hardcore experience. That means doing a proper, immersive squadron based, historical SP and MP experience, with no unlocks, and giving people the ability to scale back as necessary (e.g., don't lock them into a binary normal or expert choice). At the moment, I think they are trying to do both, and it's causing grief.
I rarely comment here, but just noticed a couple of posts which match my views exactly so couldn't resist.
Originally Posted By: mugwump
What is a huge deal is forcing me to either choose "normal" mode wherein I have to play with all the on screen prompts, HUD assists, icons, and simplified flight mechanics or "expert" with cockpit-only view, full CEM, and no assists.
They did the same thing to Rise of Flight several updates ago. I never bothered with RoF campaign mode too much, but it was really annoying that if you want full-realism with external views the game punishes you by not awarding any points. In my opinion RoF was already going downhill at that moment, so +/- one source of frustration didn't really matter, but you can imagine my surprise when I found that IL2 is also going to have the same system.
Originally Posted By: apoll
I think the devs, given the reaction to this whole thing, should decide definitively whether they want to be a War Thunder -ish type game, or an IL-2 hardcore simulation, and stop trying to please both camps.
Similar problem with RoF - a product of uncertain genre. I think their previous game was drifting between SP and MP, between serious and game-ish sim, and thus lacked the feeling of completeness and focus.
I was quite enthusiastic when they announced that IL-2 is in development, but as they progressed it become apparent that they are going to repeat the same mistakes again
Ah yes, once again people insist there are only TWO types of sims. They are hardcore or they are arcade, and all it takes is the omission or change of one feature for them to declare "arcade!!!!!!"
As we all know, people either live in holes in the ground or mansions. We all drive either a 40 yr old Pinto or a new Ferrari. People only eat rotten dog meat or 5 star meals.
I can't really tell for others but my gripe wasn't about intolerance to "other" gameplay styles, it was about the lack of focus.
I'm speaking about my ROF experience, but I haven't seen anything to assume it won't be the same in IL-2.
Mixing complex FM/DM with Flying Circus free for all style is a guilty pleasure, but when you throw in a point award system which is confusing, unreliable and simply not working most of the time, it becomes meaningless.
Mixing objective based flights on Syndicate with mostly sterile world and the lack of persistence makes it boring after n-th repetition of the same.
Mixing realistic mission duration and encounter frequency in career mode with the dumb and dumber AI doesn't make it a balanced experience, it makes it frustrating.
I don't play DCS or Warthunder exactly because they are either too hardcore or too arcade for me, I'm all for something in the middle, but I don't want it to be the bacon ice cream.
Ah yes, once again people insist there are only TWO types of sims. They are hardcore or they are arcade, and all it takes is the omission or change of one feature for them to declare "arcade!!!!!!"
As we all know, people either live in holes in the ground or mansions. We all drive either a 40 yr old Pinto or a new Ferrari. People only eat rotten dog meat or 5 star meals.
Ah yes, once again people insist there are only TWO types of sims. They are hardcore or they are arcade, and all it takes is the omission or change of one feature for them to declare "arcade!!!!!!"
As we all know, people either live in holes in the ground or mansions. We all drive either a 40 yr old Pinto or a new Ferrari. People only eat rotten dog meat or 5 star meals.
There is no such thing as anywhere in the middle.
Well, not in terms of the campaign [sic] options at any rate.
As I jeard it, maybe I heard wrong, the aircraft and weapon unlocks are for those who pay less for the game? 'Premium' buyers get the planes and weps?
In SP campaign "unlocks" planes is for "Standard" editon owners. "Premium" have all planes.
You start flying in Bf 109F and based on earned "XP" "unlock" Ju 87 and Bf 109-G (video at ~7:10).
After, playing with Ju-87 or Bf 109-G you "unlock" his weapons upgrates and skins. Etc.
In the next fase you are able to unlock He 111... later Fw 190 (this if bought as standalone)... etc.
Probable 90% of Early Access buyers have the "Premium" edition.
What ones that bought "Premium" edition until specific have as exclusivity is the Sturmovik rear gunner, supposed for use in MP - what is unlock for "Standard" - plus some custom skins (selected by vote on forum) and the gold tag icon.
The polemic point in this system is, to use some Bf 109 gun pack or LaGG rockets in MP, is need "unlock" then in SP campaing, that lead MP crowd complain that they dont want waste time in SP mode...
But none of these "unlocks" are a win factor.
Sokol1
I am the Standard edition owner, and I regret I've bought it right now. I am a bomber aircraft fan and I've bought the game to fly the Heinkel exclusively, and now I have to unlock it? Seriously? If I'd want any XP grinding and unlocks I'd play War Thunder, it's cheaper.
Lesson learned, never preorder anything anymore from you. I'll wait for final feature list and sales in the future.
IF YOU BOUGHT THE HE-111 OR ANY OTHER PLANE AS PART OF THE STANDARD OR PREMIUM EDITION YOU CAN FLY IT RIGHT AWAY. THE ONLY THINGS YOU UNLOCK ARE SKINS, EQUIPMENT AND POSSIBLY CORRESPONDING MISSION TYPES THAT MAY GO ALONG WITH NEW EQUIPMENT.
WE ALREADY BUILT THE CAPABILITY TO UNLOCK PLANES, HENCE THE DAMN SCREEN IN THE STREAM THAT IS CAUSING THIS CONFUSION, BUT WE ARE NOT DOING THE UNLOCK PLANE THING.
Jason, quick question then to put peoples mind at ease, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY POSSIBLY CORRESPONDING MISSIONS? DOES THIS MEAN YOU CAN FLY THE HE111 MISSIONS STRAIT AWAY, OR DO YOU STILL NEED TO UNLOCK THE MISSIONS FOR THE HE111? THE PART IS A TAD CONFUSING.
They did the same thing to Rise of Flight several updates ago. I never bothered with RoF campaign mode too much, but it was really annoying that if you want full-realism with external views the game punishes you by not awarding any points.
The difficulty settings in ROF only affect the points one can earn in multiplayer. It has nothing to do with career mode.
Jason, quick question then to put peoples mind at ease, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY POSSIBLY CORRESPONDING MISSIONS? DOES THIS MEAN YOU CAN FLY THE HE111 MISSIONS STRAIT AWAY, OR DO YOU STILL NEED TO UNLOCK THE MISSIONS FOR THE HE111? THE PART IS A TAD CONFUSING.
It means you can't fly ground attack missions until your plane can carry bombs and/or rockets.
Jason, quick question then to put peoples mind at ease, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY POSSIBLY CORRESPONDING MISSIONS? DOES THIS MEAN YOU CAN FLY THE HE111 MISSIONS STRAIT AWAY, OR DO YOU STILL NEED TO UNLOCK THE MISSIONS FOR THE HE111? THE PART IS A TAD CONFUSING.
It means you can't fly ground attack missions until your plane can carry bombs and/or rockets.
If that is correct then why have an unlocked HE111? Whats the point? You have all planes unlocked, but still cant just choose to do bomber missions?
Its like someone sells me a car, but I have to drive a motorcycle around until they give me wheels.
I doubt you'll need to unlock "ground attack" missions for the He-111 (or the Sturmovik, or the Stuka, or the Peshka), it's probably something meant for fighter-bombers.
IMO flight sims should be free from all unlocks & restrictions. Flight sims should be true sandbox games where the user decides how it will be used.
As a flight sim fan why would it be appealing to not be able to use a certain function of a plane until it is unlocked? If everything could be purchased it would make more sense. Is this the case? Can everything that needs to be unlocked also be purchased?
I ended up ploughing a lot of money into RoF, no need to grid XP points in SP....why not do the same in BoS?
It does sound like they are trying to please all and failing badly.
Very glad I never pre-purchased this. Luckily (for me) it has some very stiff competition that will keep me happy for years.
I doubt you'll need to unlock "ground attack" missions for the He-111 (or the Sturmovik, or the Stuka, or the Peshka), it's probably something meant for fighter-bombers.
Yep, probably you unlock some sort of "tank plinking" for the stuka only after you have unlocked the 37mm underwing pods.
Makes sense, in this context. I really can't see this unlocking thing as a problem.
It's not like it's going to take 6 months of heavy grinding to unlock all the stuff... Probably.
^ By this I only mean, ain't it a bit too early to cry wolf and being all scared about the future of flight sims?
Yeah it's a departure from most common games. So? So it was RoF, so it was DCS, and so it was Steel Beasts.
There can be no advance without someone trying something different. Will it be a disaster or a new renaissance? Who knows- the future us, probably- but I deeply suggest everyone to try and approach this with a little patience and an open mind.
It can't hurt that bad, isn't it?
Look, Elite (1984) was a deviation from EVERYTHING games were so far. No lives, no score- GASP! It also was MERCILESS! OMG!
And yet still- 30 years later there are so many people still loving it that a whole new sequel was not only wanted but it became reality.
Let's just give these people a little faith. I can't see anything that can't be eventually fixed somehow. Ditching the boat does noone any good. As does stomping feet.
Few precious ones managed to argument their point without resorting to name calling and outright insults- It can be done
Some people are willfully confusing themselves in order to be obstinate.
The idea that an He111 would be flyable but the bombs would be locked till some point is so supremely stupid it defies reply. If it's not instantly obvious that you would be unlocking alternative loadouts for less common/late campaign missions, but that standard loadouts (like bombs on a bomber!) would be there from the start, you shouldn't be complaining about the lack of complexity in this sim because you are incapable of handling a basic idea.
I can imagine trying to walk one of these people through making a change to their computer over the phone. "Go into Control Panel and change your desktop resolution to your monitor's native one and the picture will be clearer for your LCD." "I don't see Control Panel on my desktop." "It's under the Start Menu." "I don't see it there." "It's on the right side." "Ok, I'm in it. I don't see anything that says desktop resolution." "It's under Hardware and Sound." "Ok. I still I don't see anything that says desktop resolution. WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT TO CHANGE??" "Uh, it's under display...it says 'screen resolution'?" "But YOU said DESKTOP resolution."
Some people are willfully confusing themselves in order to be obstinate.
The idea that an He111 would be flyable but the bombs would be locked till some point is so supremely stupid it defies reply. If it's not instantly obvious that you would be unlocking alternative loadouts for less common/late campaign missions, but that standard loadouts (like bombs on a bomber!) would be there from the start, you shouldn't be complaining about the lack of complexity in this sim because you are incapable of handling a basic idea.
The Jedi Master
So stupid, yet obviously does not defy a response.....you know since you provided one.
I dont think the main concern is a bomber without bombs. In response to Jasons post about ALL planes being unlocked, yet corresponding mission might not be, makes the point of having all planes unlocked moot. Thats where some clarity is needed. Dont have to unlock planes...ok...but still cant fly them in a mission until you unlock the missions by doing ______. Or is a person who just wants to fly HE111 missions able to from the start?
Again about the complexity of this game, its not complex, just a lot of really oddball decisions that make users scratch their heads. What happened to pick your plane, pick your load out and go fly the missions you are interested in? Instead bring up XP points and unlocks, and restrictions on what you can an cannot fly, and expect people that are into sims to enjoy and not question the arcade take on it? Come on now....
I dont think the main concern is a bomber without bombs. In response to Jasons post about ALL planes being unlocked, yet corresponding mission might not be, makes the point of having all planes unlocked moot. Thats where some clarity is needed. Dont have to unlock planes...ok...but still cant fly them in a mission until you unlock the missions by doing ______. Or is a person who just wants to fly HE111 missions able to from the start?
Dude, you are making this way more hard than it needs to be. He 111s have bombs right from the start, so bombing missions are open for that plane from the very beginning. It's the very large, high-caliber bombs that are not available from the very beginning and must be unlocked. My previous statement, "It means you can't fly ground attack missions until your plane can carry bombs and/or rockets" was referring to fighters. That's it.
The idea that one could fly any of the bombers but would have to unlock all the bomb loadouts is utterly absurd.
Of course, zero allowances are made for the fact that Russian is their native language and maybe they're not coming across saying what they exactly mean to say.
I defy someone to criticize this without using the word "unlock", "grind", or "XP". Every single post uses them again and again like a mantra as if it's self-evident. "I've used these words, therefore it's bad, you can't disagree!"
No clarity is needed. It's very plain. There are things called synonyms. To someone who is not a native English speaker, the difference between a thief and a burglar may not be obvious like it is to one who was born speaking it. But if you listen to the context in which they use it, you can determine whether they meant to say thief when they said burglar. Likewise, listening to the ideas behind their decisions and how it will work, instead of laser-focusing on a couple of words and shouting "DURR!! UNLOCK!!! XP!!! DUR!!!" would show that there is almost NO DIFFERENCE between this and how a historical campaign would work.
Try replacing "XP" with "rank"--does that work better now? Replace "unlock" with "allowed access."
The sentences "by flying missions you gain XP that will allow you to unlock different skins and loadouts" and "by flying missions you gain rank that will allow you the right to paint your plane differently and get alternative weapons loads for your plane" are EXACTLY THE SAME. Because a rookie pilot wouldn't be allowed to have his plane repainted, or pick non-standard loadouts!!
Insisting that they are different merely because a different term is used does not make it so when the user of the term is Russian.
Of course, zero allowances are made for the fact that Russian is their native language ...
... replacing "XP" with "rank"--does that work better now?
What you say make sense, but if you look at project mannager posts in Russiam Forum, you see that his vision is game oriented*, for their target public "XP" meam Experience Points and not "Rank", is not mather of language issues.
"Hard core simmers" is the "enemy", picture used there - by staff member - for joke abouth what they think of this kind of player:
* Simple, he are tunned with today game market.
These, "making noise" in this forum or in ohers, are many? This same pool have only 111 votes until now.
In game forum, a related pool have received only ~300 votes.
Since I need - as "silver" - "unlock" the rear gunner for il-2, hope it's be fun.
Of course, zero allowances are made for the fact that Russian is their native language ...
... replacing "XP" with "rank"--does that work better now?
What you say make sense, but if you look at project mannager posts in Russiam Forum, you see that his vision is game oriented*, for their target public "XP" meam Experience Points and not "Rank", is not mather of language issues.
"Hard core simmers" is the "enemy", picture used there - by staff member - for joke abouth what they think of this kind of player:
* Simple, he are tunned with today game market.
These, "making noise" in this forum or in ohers, are many? This same pool have only 111 votes until now.
In game forum, a related pool have received only ~300 votes.
Since I need - as "silver" - "unlock" the rear gunner for il-2, hope it's be fun.
Sokol1
I guess I would be the cat, as I'm happy with many things, but not everything about BoS.
And then there's the dog. Ever loyal, always happy even if his owner is neglecting him.
But I must protest...I DO NOT wear a propeller beanie when playing combat flight sims!
I wear an aluminum foil hat to protect my brain from space rays!
And with that they have lost a customer. I was waiting to purchase the game based on the single player game, and low and behold, it's what I thought it would be. I don't know why it is so hard to actually use the old IL-2 dynamic campaign as a template. I want to feel "connected" to my squadron. I want to "level up" from fresh pilot to commander through attrition and campaign heroics. I want to see who in my squadron died. I want to see how many missions everyone has done. I want the units on the map to be persistent and dynamic.
Disappointing and one less customer. I got burned on Cliffs of Dover. I won't be burned on this.
And with that they have lost a customer. I was waiting to purchase the game based on the single player game, and low and behold, it's what I thought it would be. I don't know why it is so hard to actually use the old IL-2 dynamic campaign as a template. I want to feel "connected" to my squadron. I want to "level up" from fresh pilot to commander through attrition and campaign heroics. I want to see who in my squadron died. I want to see how many missions everyone has done. I want the units on the map to be persistent and dynamic.
Disappointing and one less customer. I got burned on Cliffs of Dover. I won't be burned on this.
I paid around 90 bucks each for COD and BOS. I certainly haven't been "Burned" by COD thanks to TF. Even at this Early stage of BOS,my 90 bucks has been well spent. Even if BOS doesn't go "Exactly" how I want,I am sure I can enjoy it. Another thing. You haven't even purchased BOS. Do you go into Restaurants and tell them "I am not eating here ! I "Heard" the food is crap"?
[quote=TacKLed] I paid around 90 bucks each for COD and BOS. I certainly haven't been "Burned" by COD thanks to TF. Even at this Early stage of BOS,my 90 bucks has been well spent. Even if BOS doesn't go "Exactly" how I want,I am sure I can enjoy it. Another thing. You haven't even purchased BOS. Do you go into Restaurants and tell them "I am not eating here ! I "Heard" the food is crap"?
Well I got burned by CoD....then Team Fusion kissed the boo boo and made it all better. I agree CoD with TF is well worth the price.
BoS on the other hand might be worth the price if you are looking for online air-quake. And some people are, which is fine.
On the other hand if you are looking for a good SP combat sim, I would not recommend BoS, especially before release. For $50+ in early access you get a quick mission builder with a 16 plane dogfight, or you can go bomb a target 2 mins away. After a while that can get dull. I wont go into the things that make BoS more arcade than sim, its already been discussed.
Maybe after release if people can enjoy a non-historic random mission generator with no accurate squads to chase XP points, then good on you. But some folks are looking for more out of a sim.
I still think it's not really accurate to say the campaign is 'non-historic', I mentioned this in another thread but I think Semi-historic is more accurate - there are front lines that move with phases of the battle (based on history), and the airfields are positioned historically as well.
And the plane set is historic, okay you can argue semi-historic I suppose with the FW-190, but it's not like there are Corsairs and Mustangs flying around.
Can't really speak to the 'online air-quake', as I'm a single player guy, but if you went on to one of the 'expert' servers, wouldn't it be a little more than air-quake if everyone was locked into those difficulty settings? You wouldn't have unlimited ammo or easy engine management, so you'd have to at least fly a little tactically, right? Or maybe you mean no online co-op missions, in which case I would imagine that would be very disappointing for online people.
All that being said, however, I do think if you were a strictly single player person and you haven't bought the sim yet it might pay to wait a bit and see what happens after release, as far as single player goes. I'm sure the majority of people that were interested have already picked it up though and are just hoping that some good single player options will be on the horizon.
I still think it's not really accurate to say the campaign is 'non-historic', I mentioned this in another thread but I think Semi-historic is more accurate - there are front lines that move with phases of the battle (based on history), and the airfields are positioned historically as well.
And the plane set is historic, okay you can argue semi-historic I suppose with the FW-190, but it's not like there are Corsairs and Mustangs flying around.
Can't really speak to the 'online air-quake', as I'm a single player guy, but if you went on to one of the 'expert' servers, wouldn't it be a little more than air-quake if everyone was locked into those difficulty settings? You wouldn't have unlimited ammo or easy engine management, so you'd have to at least fly a little tactically, right? Or maybe you mean no online co-op missions, in which case I would imagine that would be very disappointing for online people.
All that being said, however, I do think if you were a strictly single player person and you haven't bought the sim yet it might pay to wait a bit and see what happens after release, as far as single player goes. I'm sure the majority of people that were interested have already picked it up though and are just hoping that some good single player options will be on the horizon.
No squad markings, no squad based airfields, and unlocks to continue. I guess you can call that semi-historic. Pretty far from it IMO.
Air-quake has nothing to do with CEM or difficulty settings. IT has to do with jump in, fly for 10mns, shoot people down or get shot down then respawn right away and do it again, over and over. Now and the you will catch a Stuka trying to bomb an airfield, but most just low level pow pow. Just like the threads about all the FF going on. Oh, and rack up that k/d ratio. That's exactly how Quake s played.
I am sure as hell hoping something can come in the form of go SP action. But like most sims it seems, it will be up to modders and how restrictive the ME is. Even if it is great, it wont be until into next year to see gold.
The situation that lokitexas is describing as "air quake" is definitely not what I'm seeing on the Eagles Nest or Syndicate servers, and I have spent a lot of time in those servers.
Well I definitely agree with the sentiment that it won't be at least until into next year till we see single player gold, but hopefully the basis for creating it will be in there.
Seeing what came out of Rise of Flight was some good single player stuff, I'm not too worried.
And while it's not ideal, I'd be okay for a while with checking out whatever comes at launch campaign wise. If I have to just fly from the same airfield and only pick fighter missions to sort of fudge being in a squadron that's not too bad, at least for a little while.
Having to unlock airfields, "win" missions by shooting down x number of planes, and not being able to choose what difficulty settings I want in the campaign are the things I'm personally most displeased about, makes me feel a bit alienated from the game.
Well I definitely agree with the sentiment that it won't be at least until into next year till we see single player gold, but hopefully the basis for creating it will be in there.
Seeing what came out of Rise of Flight was some good single player stuff, I'm not too worried.
And while it's not ideal, I'd be okay for a while with checking out whatever comes at launch campaign wise. If I have to just fly from the same airfield and only pick fighter missions to sort of fudge being in a squadron that's not too bad, at least for a little while.
Having to unlock airfields, "win" missions by shooting down x number of planes, and not being able to choose what difficulty settings I want in the campaign are the things I'm personally most displeased about, makes me feel a bit alienated from the game.
A lot of people feel that way. Its an odd decision that makes people wonder how/why they came up with that. Heinkill 's theory of a money making setup seems pretty close to the reason I believe.
As far as "fudging" the campaign goes, that's about the only option. Not having squadrons for that area/era is still another head scratcher to me though. A bit of research, and having the right emblems, and airfields would have helped quite a bit.
While you are optimistic about what came from RoF, I am pessimistic. The single player stuff was sub par imo. Yes, even Pat Wilsons campaign generator. It was not the fault of the creators, but the restrictions of 777. With 777/1C don't expect great mods like ARMA, DCS, or old IL2. The freedom is not there.
I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'd like to voice mine and say that RoF, especially with PWCG, was quite incredible. I, for one, would be perfectly content if BoS turned out along those same lines.
I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'd like to voice mine and say that RoF, especially with PWCG, was quite incredible. I, for one, would be perfectly content if BoS turned out along those same lines.
Not to dismiss your opinion, but what about PWCG was incredible?
After playing Dgen and DCG campaigns in IL2 46, BOBII:WoV, BMS, and even WOFF, I never saw the great appeal. Granted is much better than the official beta career, but it was still clunky as heck. Having to tab out, save, and tab out, etc. it never felt right. Aside from the fact it was just a generator, I did like the stats and the log. If it would have been implemented into the game better, it would have made a difference as well.
Going the PWCG with BoS would be a bit better, but going full on IL246 DCG style would actually make it top notch.....for offline AND online. S
This is a review of the then "soon to be released" Comanche 4 in 2001:
"NovaLogic made it clear as development of Comanche 4 was nearing completion that it was slanted to mass market appeal, that is, Comanche 4 would be more of a helogame than a helosim. It was dubbed "Action Shooter in the Sky" and has been designed to allow quick access to the pilot's seat."
"Slanted to mass market appeal" should result in a huge success. Comanche 4 was the last in the Comanche series to be released. There was no Comanche 5. "Lite" versions of flight sims are usually the last version to be released as they almost always flop. So far the only one I've seen work is WarThunder, and it has free entry and I've read Gaijin is still trying to figure out how to make money on it. Just read a gaming magazine article about this that was published over 10 years ago. The intoxicating thoughts of reaching the masses has been the undoing of flight sim publishers since the beginning of PC gaming.
At the point NovaLogic had decided that hardcore simmers were dinosaurs in 2001, IL-2 was just entering the market and proved them wrong. There is nothing new here, and the cycle will continue.
This is a review of the then "soon to be released" Comanche 4 in 2001:
"NovaLogic made it clear as development of Comanche 4 was nearing completion that it was slanted to mass market appeal, that is, Comanche 4 would be more of a helogame than a helosim. It was dubbed "Action Shooter in the Sky" and has been designed to allow quick access to the pilot's seat."
"Slanted to mass market appeal" should result in a huge success. Comanche 4 was the last in the Comanche series to be released. There was no Comanche 5. "Lite" versions of flight sims are usually the last version to be released as they almost always flop. So far the only one I've seen work is WarThunder, and it has free entry and I've read Gaijin is still trying to figure out how to make money on it. Just read a gaming magazine article about this that was published over 10 years ago. The intoxicating thoughts of reaching the masses has been the undoing of flight sim publishers since the beginning of PC gaming.
At the point NovaLogic had decided that hardcore simmers were dinosaurs in 2001, IL-2 was just entering the market and proved them wrong. There is nothing new here, and the cycle will continue.
Eerily similar, yes. I hope it does not go down that way, but I can see that happening.
This is a review of the then "soon to be released" Comanche 4 in 2001:
"NovaLogic made it clear as development of Comanche 4 was nearing completion that it was slanted to mass market appeal, that is, Comanche 4 would be more of a helogame than a helosim. It was dubbed "Action Shooter in the Sky" and has been designed to allow quick access to the pilot's seat."
"Slanted to mass market appeal" should result in a huge success. Comanche 4 was the last in the Comanche series to be released. There was no Comanche 5. "Lite" versions of flight sims are usually the last version to be released as they almost always flop. So far the only one I've seen work is WarThunder, and it has free entry and I've read Gaijin is still trying to figure out how to make money on it. Just read a gaming magazine article about this that was published over 10 years ago. The intoxicating thoughts of reaching the masses has been the undoing of flight sim publishers since the beginning of PC gaming.
At the point NovaLogic had decided that hardcore simmers were dinosaurs in 2001, IL-2 was just entering the market and proved them wrong. There is nothing new here, and the cycle will continue.
Eerily similar, yes. I hope it does not go down that way, but I can see that happening.
I agree! When it dawned on me the direction 1CGS was heading with BoS I had the thought "Oh no, don't do that!" I wish them all the luck in the world. I'm disappointed because they didn't include the DCG and FMB features in BoS that I enjoy in IL-2 1946 and I'm not in their targeted customer profile, but I don't wish them ill will.
I have not played the games/mods that you are referencing, so I can't speak to their merits. All I can say is that PWCG really made my RoF single player experience much more enjoyable.
I have not played the games/mods that you are referencing, so I can't speak to their merits. All I can say is that PWCG really made my RoF single player experience much more enjoyable.
Ahhh that makes sense. If you never played a dynamic campaign like DCG, then I can see how PWCG can be appealing.
Let me put it this way, if you could have:
1. A campaign that tracked squad stats, in randomly generated missions, but did not take into account the results of that mission when you continue to next. Example: bomb an airfield, and bridge, and take out 1/2 a squadron, then next mission the airfield is back, bridge has been rebuilt overnight, and the squadron is back to full strength. Thats is PWCG.
2. A campaign that tracked squads + ALL other squads, is randomly generated, but DID take into account the results of that mission when you continue. Example: bomb an airfield, and a bridge, and take out 1/2 a squadron, then next mission the airfield is damaged (including grounded aircraft), bridge is destroyed halting enemy advances (real units on the ground not made up), and the squadron who was 1/2 wiped has gone from a flight of 12 to a flight of 6 planes, OR downgraded to an outdated model of aircraft depending on supplies. All this will change depending on when/if it gets supplied. Also it takes into account a moving ground war (again real tanks/arty etc). So your airfield might get taken over and your next mission is to relocate to a new field. This also tracks your squadrons wins/losses by pilots names. This includes promotions, as well as MIA, killed, bailed out successfully, and medals awarded....to everyone not just the player. It will also take into account pilot exp. More missions, more kills, means better AI pilots (on both sides in every squad, from bombers to fighter to supply). When one of your wingmen who is high on the list of kills/missions get shot and bails out, you are hoping that he makes it to friendly areas as not to be MIA. Basically everything matters. Not just the player but every unit in the campaign, from the supply aircraft, to the tanks, to the convoy's, etc. etc. That is DCG.
Now which one is more appealing in a WWII combat flight game?
DcG for IL-2 is great, but it is a third party made program which took a couple of years to be introduced to IL-2 after release, and has had the benefits of 10 years of development.
I am sure that after a while of BoS being released third party campaigns and probably a DCG campaign will come, there is already a new online dynamic mission program being developed as well as persistent online wars being tested, I am also sure a version of Syndicate "active Front" server will be introduced to BoS.
There is already one MOD map released and another on the way (big one) all before actual release...how long did it take to get a new map for IL-2...or CloD or DCS...and MODS are supported by Devs, just not new A/C which is kind of understandable
People are very impatient in some ways, how was RoF, IL-2 ,(CLoD) DCS like 1 month after release....RoF had 4 A/C at release now has more than 30
WWII is Much more popular and user campaigns/missions/ will come quicker than in the past
DcG for IL-2 is great, but it is a third party made program which took a couple of years to be introduced to IL-2 after release, and has had the benefits of 10 years of development.
I am sure that after a while of BoS being released third party campaigns and probably a DCG campaign will come, there is already a new online dynamic mission program being developed as well as persistent online wars being tested, I am also sure a version of Syndicate "active Front" server will be introduced to BoS.
There is already one MOD map released and another on the way (big one) all before actual release...how long did it take to get a new map for IL-2...or CloD or DCS...and MODS are supported by Devs, just not new A/C which is kind of understandable
People are very impatient in some ways, how was RoF, IL-2 ,(CLoD) DCS like 1 month after release....RoF had 4 A/C at release now has more than 30
WWII is Much more popular and user campaigns/missions/ will come quicker than in the past
Cheers Dakpilot
Well Dgen campaigns came in the original game. It was based off the CFS dynamaic campaign. DCG just took it further. Dgen is still used and still popular for IL2 as well as DCG.
While DCG did come out as a mod after release, Dgen was still there.
So I dont think the argument BoS being new so it does not have a good dynamic campaign is accurate. The fact that Dgen and DCG have been out for a long time, should have clued the devs into using that information and making something comparable. They should see the popularity of offline and online using those campaigns and acted on it.
And again hate to throw wrench in the works, but you wont see a true dynamic campaign for BoS. Definitely not anywhere even close to Dgen or Lowengrins DCG. Not next month, next year, or 5 years from now. Pat Wilsons non-dynmaic campaign generator is as close as it comes.
I know there was a pretty insightful post about the limitations of the RoF ME, and the fact the engine cant do it. I would love to eat my words, but I dont see that happening.
Now imagine that with a hybrid Dynamic SP campaign
If DCG was made for IL-2 in 2 years why would you say it is impossible for someone to adapt a similar program for BoS in less than 5 years...there is no logic
Come to think of it, the original il2 only came with 2 or three static campaigns. And I think you had to "win" each mission to continue.... This was fixed later with a optional difficulty setting. I think dgen only came with forgotten battles maybe?
They were very responsive, back in the day but it still took a little while to get a dynamic campaign going with il2
Now imagine that with a hybrid Dynamic SP campaign
If DCG was made for IL-2 in 2 years why would you say it is impossible for someone to adapt a similar program for BoS in less than 5 years...there is no logic
Dgen was also third party
Cheers Dakpilot
Well, I dont mean in 5 years, I mean ever. Unless the engine is changed. IF I am wrong bookmark this page, and rub it in my face, and give me a "told ya so". I would love that to happen.
Interesting read, and pretty much sums up what I also thought. Post #47.
Unless the mechanic worked on older models without experience of the newer ranges and left on bad terms with a grudge and now works for Audi but that is a subject best left.
I'm out of this one now ..only time will tell, not heresay, it will sink or swim on its own merits and support
