Release of BOS early access on Steam yesterday is news to me, at least.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/307960/ (http://store.steampowered.com/app/307960/)
Is now the time to jump in? Past time? Hold off til official release - or ?
From the Groghead sim mavens -- would love to hear thoughts on comparisons with Cliffs of Dover and Warthunder.
Quote from: sandman2575 on August 15, 2014, 12:13:05 PM
Release of BOS early access on Steam yesterday is news to me, at least.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/307960/ (http://store.steampowered.com/app/307960/)
Is now the time to jump in? Past time? Hold off til official release - or ?
From the Groghead sim mavens -- would love to hear thoughts on comparisons with Cliffs of Dover and Warthunder.
Not as a mavin, but I've been telling myself: "Looks great! I'll get it when it comes out on Steam." So, I'll get it. And if it works reasonably well, then DCS will go to the back burner for quite a while.
Flight models and damage models are in and pretty much solid. All the promised planes are in now except the He-111. They need to start working on fleshing out the game world and the single player campaign now. As of now, you can set up quick mission encounters similar by clicking a mission location icon on the map similar to how you could in ROF. Then you pick the number and type of planes to square off, select armaments, fuel, pilot skill, paint scheme, weather, time of day, etc. online play currently consists of Air-Quake dogfight servers.
To be honest, I don't find myself playing it very much these days. If something new gets added in an update (every few weeks), I'll quickly fire it up to check it out, but the lack of any sort of campaign structure or pilot stat tracking keeps me from getting more involved.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 15, 2014, 02:10:20 PM
Flight models and damage models are in and pretty much solid. All the promised planes are in now except the He-111. They need to start working on the world and the campaign now. As of now, you can set up quick mission encounters similar by clicking a map icon similar to how you could in ROF. Then you pick the number and type of planes to square off, select armaments, fuel, pilot skill, paint scheme, weather, time of day, etc. online okay currently consists of Air-Quake dogfight servers.
To be honest, I don't find myself playing it very much these days. If something new gets added in an update (every few weeks), I'll quickly fire it up to check it out, but the lack of any sort of campaign structure or pilot stat tracking keeps me from getting more involved.
I got the impression from the dev statements quoted here & there that they weren't going to do much work on the world or campaign. Pretty much hoping modders can create something out of it? :-\
I hope that's not the case, but if it is.... BLEH.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 15, 2014, 02:10:20 PM
Flight models and damage models are in and pretty much solid. All the promised planes are in now except the He-111. They need to start working on the world and the campaign now. As of now, you can set up quick mission encounters similar by clicking a map icon similar to how you could in ROF. Then you pick the number and type of planes to square off, select armaments, fuel, pilot skill, paint scheme, weather, time of day, etc. online okay currently consists of Air-Quake dogfight servers.
To be honest, I don't find myself playing it very much these days. If something new gets added in an update (every few weeks), I'll quickly fire it up to check it out, but the lack of any sort of campaign structure or pilot stat tracking keeps me from getting more involved.
Hi,
There are no ground units?
I think the game looks fantastic.
But, I'm holding off on this until I see where they're going with the final product. I don't need another "DCS" type game that has an unfulfilling single player experience, and I'm stuck surfing 32-player MP lobbies looking for something fun to do. Not for $100.
I'm not saying it's a bad game...because I don't know how good it is. But I'm not sure it's going to be the game I want to play in the end.
Quote from: JC______ on August 15, 2014, 03:56:12 PM
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 15, 2014, 02:10:20 PM
Flight models and damage models are in and pretty much solid. All the promised planes are in now except the He-111. They need to start working on the world and the campaign now. As of now, you can set up quick mission encounters similar by clicking a map icon similar to how you could in ROF. Then you pick the number and type of planes to square off, select armaments, fuel, pilot skill, paint scheme, weather, time of day, etc. online okay currently consists of Air-Quake dogfight servers.
To be honest, I don't find myself playing it very much these days. If something new gets added in an update (every few weeks), I'll quickly fire it up to check it out, but the lack of any sort of campaign structure or pilot stat tracking keeps me from getting more involved.
Hi,
There are no ground units?
Yes, there are ground units. You can select from artillery, armour, AAA, trains, and soft vehicles when you build a quick mission. Watching the train cars fly off the tracks when you hit them with bombs or rockets is quite satisfying.
As for the SP campaign, I have no idea what the plans are. They really haven't said much at all since that one announcement where they said it'd be "like Groundhog Day". Definitely hasn't been their focus during updates though.
Quote from: Toonces on August 15, 2014, 05:04:44 PM
I think the game looks fantastic.
But, I'm holding off on this until I see where they're going with the final product. I don't need another "DCS" type game that has an unfulfilling single player experience, and I'm stuck surfing 32-player MP lobbies looking for something fun to do. Not for $100.
I'm not saying it's a bad game...because I don't know how good it is. But I'm not sure it's going to be the game I want to play in the end.
I'm with you
I was burnt badly with CLoD.
Got it early this afternoon. I've played around with it for a couple hours. On my PC in dogfights my turning speed is so slow I feel like I'm playing the old Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 4. My rig will play just about anything OK, but the optimization on this one seems like the early days of ROF. I have a feeling this game and the gradual improvements are going to be another long drawn out process that will go on for years.
So, why did I buy it? Hell, I don't really know! I'm even thinking of buying the FW-190 for another $19.99! Maybe I just think the icon looks good on my desktop next to IL2-CLOD! I mean I've gotten so jaded about CLOD that I haven't even installed the Team Fusion mod I DL'd months ago!
I'm done with it for today, so, I'll just put the joystick away and finally spend a little time on Victory At Sea. Maybe tomorrow I'll get back into it. Sometimes the gaming life is hell!
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 15, 2014, 05:21:48 PM
Yes, there are ground units. You can select from artillery, armour, AAA, trains, and soft vehicles when you build a quick mission. Watching the train cars fly off the tracks when you hit them with bombs or rockets is quite satisfying.
Thanks.
Sold!
8)
Quote from: trek on August 15, 2014, 07:17:53 PM
Got it early this afternoon. I've played around with it for a couple hours. On my PC in dogfights my turning speed is so slow I feel like I'm playing the old Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 4. My rig will play just about anything OK, but the optimization on this one seems like the early days of ROF. I have a feeling this game and the gradual improvements are going to be another long drawn out process that will go on for years.
So, why did I buy it? Hell, I don't really know! I'm even thinking of buying the FW-190 for another $19.99! Maybe I just think the icon looks good on my desktop next to IL2-CLOD! I mean I've gotten so jaded about CLOD that I haven't even installed the Team Fusion mod I DL'd months ago!
I'm done with it for today, so, I'll just put the joystick away and finally spend a little time on Victory At Sea. Maybe tomorrow I'll get back into it. Sometimes the gaming life is hell!
I have no issues with overall game performance but I have noticed a few oddities.
- It takes a second or two for skins to load so if you flip to different aircraft using external views, it will look a bit strange to see the skin suddenly change.
- My TrackIR5 sometimes gets a bit twitchy in this game, especially when I'm trying to look up. Not good if I'm lagging in a turn fight and trying to keep eyes on the guy I'm trying to pull around on. Doesn't happen in any other game.
- Force feedback is unreliable. Sometimes it works properly, sometimes the stick starts to throw random, hard kicks at you. When that happens, you have to go in and alter the sensitivity sliders to stop the kicking output. Doing so kills all force feedback but allows the stick to retain return-to-centre tension.
"Key Features" lists "Robust Single-Player Campaign that features a challenging and innovative AI system" -- guess we'll see, but it sounds (?) like the single player experience will be a little more rewarding than Rise of Flight - ? Or maybe I'm just an optimist.
Re: Cliffs of Dover -- I understand why folks are still wary, given the debacle of the early days, but you can pick it up for $10 on Steam, and with a little patience install the Team Fusion patches to create for yourself a very satisfying, pretty deep WW2 flight simulator. SP is lack-luster to be sure, but there is enough content to keep you occupied while you hone your skills for MP. Team Fusion saved this game, and it's very much worth playing now if you have any interest in the genre.
Can't tell how much longer my will power will hold out on BOS. $55 ain't cheap, but I'm just drooling over the visuals, and the word of mouth seems good enough to warrant picking up at this stage --
I concur with Sandman on CloD - for $10 you can't go wrong. I have BoS and I would say if you're not a full-on enthusiast wait until the proper release. First impressions count (see CloD comments in this thread) and it would be easy to be dissatisfied with the unfinished state of BoS
Couple questions:
1) Does this game require you to be logged into their servers to play, even offline like the original ROF game did? Or can you completely play offline?
2) For us novice flight simmers, what kind of options are built in to make flying easier? Are there realism settings?
3) Any real idea when the full game will release? According to their write up they mention September, but without a campaign yet included, that seems a little ambitious.
Think I found one of my answers in an official FAQ about internet connection...
"Internet Connection Required for Registration, Career Mode, Multiplayer and Statistics Tracking. 256 Kb/s for single-player and 1 Mb/s for multiplayer"
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on August 16, 2014, 09:24:56 AM
Think I found one of my answers in an official FAQ about internet connection...
"Internet Connection Required for Registration, Career Mode, Multiplayer and Statistics Tracking. 256 Kb/s for single-player and 1 Mb/s for multiplayer"
How old is that information? I didn't even think they were planning a 'Career Mode' as of this year.
Or perhaps it will just be a series of canned missions called that?
CLoD was going to have a career (yeah - I know it had something!...but I thought they meant a proper one)
Quote from: Nefaro on August 16, 2014, 09:54:09 AM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on August 16, 2014, 09:24:56 AM
Think I found one of my answers in an official FAQ about internet connection...
"Internet Connection Required for Registration, Career Mode, Multiplayer and Statistics Tracking. 256 Kb/s for single-player and 1 Mb/s for multiplayer"
How old is that information? I didn't even think they were planning a 'Career Mode' as of this year.
Or perhaps it will just be a series of canned missions called that?
No idea...it was a sticky in the official forums...just assumed it was correct info, but maybe it is outdated....not sure.
No career mode on this will make it a no buy for me.
I'm sorta tired of all these flight sims with beautiful graphics and fantastic engines, but no attempt at an immersive dynamic campaign.
Oh for the days when developers actually put effort into the career side of the sim. The old Dynamix sims and games like Pacific and European Air War don't seem to have many challengers in the modern era.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on August 16, 2014, 11:40:26 AM
No career mode on this will make it a no buy for me.
I'm sorta tired of all these flight sims with beautiful graphics and fantastic engines, but no attempt at an immersive dynamic campaign.
Oh for the days when developers actually put effort into the career side of the sim. The old Dynamix sims and games like Pacific and European Air War don't seem to have many challengers in the modern era.
Amen brother
I found a little bit of info about the campaign that's attached in a recent dev diary.
Looks like it'll be a series of canned missions, telling the story of the Battle of Stalingrad over six chapters. Supposedly cinematics and voice acting will be included.
Not what I was hoping for, but pretty much what I've come to expect from modern sims.
You can read the dev diary discussing the campaign here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7631-developer-diary-part-71/
Quote from: SirAndrewD on August 16, 2014, 11:40:26 AM
No career mode on this will make it a no buy for me.
I'm sorta tired of all these flight sims with beautiful graphics and fantastic engines, but no attempt at an immersive dynamic campaign.
Oh for the days when developers actually put effort into the career side of the sim. The old Dynamix sims and games like Pacific and European Air War don't seem to have many challengers in the modern era.
I played the Hel out of those Dynamix Aces sims back in the 90's. I distinctly recall flying missions and then using the 'replay' feature to observe planes from all angles as well as watch bomb and gun hits frame by frame. Great fun!
If someone updated the graphics a little and sold them for under $10 on GOG I'd be all over them.
I'm not in for another soulless game. CLoD was some canned missions to...and broken they were. I've had my fill.
Any flight sim dev that wants to through a dynamic campaign into the mix (or even a semi dynamic) then I'll pass my money on. Until then, I'll keep it.
I have to wonder if they're regretting putting the game up on Steam. They're getting absolutely ripped apart in the forums despite Jason's feverish attempts to lock or delete any derogatory threads.
Seems a lot of people are mistakenly thinking it's the same dev team that made CLOD and they're understandably gun-shy. Others are coming in from the War Thunder camp and are horrified at the base price and even more-so when they see the $20/plane cost for the La-5 and the FW-190. They see this as gouging for DLC that they think should be in the base game and/or pay2win for premium planes. The dev team have been trying to explain that this game is not a War Thunder MMO title and that there aren't going to be tiered MP battles and stats tracking, but the community's having none of it.
I'm confused. I thought they were the same dev team. From what I recall, CLoD was dropped with no more patches, left in a pretty bad state and the excuse was, they needed to move on and get working on BoS...so is that not the case?
Nope. The CLOD team was dissolved and some moved over to work on DCS stuff while others were hired by 777 Studios, the Rise of Flight guys. 777 Studios are the ones making BOS. I think they were originally brought in to work on the planned CLOD sequel, Battle for Moscow but when that fell through, they may have got the rights to the IL2 brand name and decided to go ahead with a new title. (that's probably all wrong as I'm going from hazy memory of what I gleaned from various forums in the lulls between flame wars. I could go and verify it or something, but I'm lazy and whatnot.)
I have to admit, I am interested in purchasing, but I fear the controls will be too complex for me. Since my original post, I do see they have a bunch of realism options but reading some forums still appeared novices had a tough time controlling the aircraft. If I was confident I wouldn't be frustrated by the controls and I don't have to worry about all the little things, likely would have jumped in by now.
At this point, I am treating this game as being different from CLOD and any other sim, just trying to base my decision based on it alone. I have come to expect that there aren't many (if any) sims nowadays that has a fully dynamic campaign and that is just something I have to live with.
One question, besides the quick mission builder, is their a full blown mission builder where modders can create and share missions? Will there be canned single missions alongside the campaign?
They haven't yet released the full mission builder but have said that it may well be available come September. It's basically the same one as in ROF so it's a bit of a beast to learn.
There were some canned missions in the early stages of the pre-release but they pulled them all except for one in favour of the quick mission builder.
The guys who host the SYNDICATE server have said they've already got a bunch of missions pre-designed and are just waiting for the release of the FMB so one can assume the community will be churning out missions.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 16, 2014, 03:51:20 PM
They haven't yet released the full mission builder but have said that it may well be available come September. It's basically the same one as in ROF so it's a bit of a beast to learn.
There were some canned missions in the early stages of the pre-release but they pulled them all except for one in favour of the quick mission builder.
The guys who host the SYNDICATE server have said they've already got a bunch of missions pre-designed and are just waiting for the release of the FMB so one can assume the community will be churning out missions.
Thanks, sounds promising....
That was it - Battle of Moscow. But I'm sure there was a message from Lucifer or whatever his name was saying they had to leave CLoD and move on. I'm absolutely convinced I read an official statement to that effect from the team behind CLoD - and that was one of the main reasons why I was never looking at this (or Battle of Moscow as it was going to be called).
In fact that name change just smacks of the BS with CLoD. For years that game was being called Battle for Britain - it might have been "a place holder" - but it was being named as such in everything I read regarding the game. Then when they actually eventually decided NOT to include the actual Battle of Britain as a proper campaign, the name suddenly changed.
Yeah - I'm still bitter :)
Guys,
Unless you are a true die-hard flight sim fan, or have an extraordinary interest in this area of combat (Stalingrad air battle) then I would encourage you to wait a bit. This isn't Elite where everyone is raving about how awesome it is and you feel like everyday you don't have it you're missing out.
This game appears to be along the same lines as RoF but in a different theater and with different planes. The same type of mission builder, the same scripted mission campaign (eventually) and I'm not sure I've even seen something referring to a "career mode" beta or not as in RoF.
Furthermore, if you hold out a bit there will be the inevitable Christmas sale where you can pick up the game and DLC at a discount.
If you're into it, you're into it and it makes no difference to me whether you buy it or not. But just because it's for sale doesn't mean you should suddenly feel obligated to jump in. This game, in my opinion, is one where a wait and see attitude is completely warranted. Especially if we're looking at a full release in 6 weeks or less. I'd sit this one out and let the reviews take a look first.
I had good results from playing wait and see on ROF, which I refused to buy until the dynamic campaign was added. I think I'll do the same thing with this one and hope for a sale price if and when they add a real career mode.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 16, 2014, 03:32:32 PM
I have to wonder if they're regretting putting the game up on Steam. They're getting absolutely ripped apart in the forums despite Jason's feverish attempts to lock or delete any derogatory threads.
Seems a lot of people are mistakenly thinking it's the same dev team that made CLOD and they're understandably gun-shy. Others are coming in from the War Thunder camp and are horrified at the base price and even more-so when they see the $20/plane cost for the La-5 and the FW-190. They see this as gouging for DLC that they think should be in the base game and/or pay2win for premium planes. The dev team have been trying to explain that this game is not a War Thunder MMO title and that there aren't going to be tiered MP battles and stats tracking, but the community's having none of it.
Always have to take the comments in Steam forums with a huge helping of salt (no single grain thereof) -- but I do tend to agree that the $20 pricetag for individual 'bonus' planes like the FW-190 is excessive. I'd like to try the 190 but no way am I dropping an extra $40 on the already not cheap $55 just to be able to fly the 190 and the La-5. Seems like a misjudgment on 1C/777's part.
Also, agree 100% with SDR's "This sim needs more SP focus to avoid failure" thread on Steam/BOS discussions. Hope the devs listen.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 16, 2014, 04:42:49 PM
That was it - Battle of Moscow. But I'm sure there was a message from Lucifer or whatever his name was saying they had to leave CLoD and move on. I'm absolutely convinced I read an official statement to that effect from the team behind CLoD - and that was one of the main reasons why I was never looking at this (or Battle of Moscow as it was going to be called).
In fact that name change just smacks of the BS with CLoD. For years that game was being called Battle for Britain - it might have been "a place holder" - but it was being named as such in everything I read regarding the game. Then when they actually eventually decided NOT to include the actual Battle of Britain as a proper campaign, the name suddenly changed.
Yeah - I'm still bitter :)
Yeah, the CLoD name change was a disconcerting sign. Nothing says Battle of Britain like the IL2 Sturmovik. It was just
such an iconic part of that campaign. :P
Quote from: Toonces on August 16, 2014, 04:55:37 PM
Guys,
Unless you are a true die-hard flight sim fan, or have an extraordinary interest in this area of combat (Stalingrad air battle) then I would encourage you to wait a bit. This isn't Elite where everyone is raving about how awesome it is and you feel like everyday you don't have it you're missing out.
This game appears to be along the same lines as RoF but in a different theater and with different planes.
I flew a bit last night. It was very much like RoF (which I love) but more intense and atmospheric. I recommend the game to anyone with some
experience of flight sims who liked RoF. The Stalingrad angle is interesting, but the game is basically a flight sim of the cold and beautiful sort.
Are there tank-busting missions?
There are if you build them in the quick mission builder. Takes about 10-15 seconds. Select mission point, select plane, select loadout, select ground targets, click tanks. Start.
Out of the three (IL2, La 5 and FW190) which one was most suited for ground attack? I know they are all pretty much legendary planes but I don't know which one was best for tank-busting and other ground attack missions.
The IL-2. Blowing up stuff on the ground was kind of its raison d'etre. The La-5 and The FW-190A-3 were chiefly fighters/interceptors.
Having said that, I find getting any sort of accuracy with the rockets on the IL-2 much more difficult in this sim than any other I've played. I rarely get a hit on a moving target unless I'm way too close and then I usually end up lawn-darting into the ground a few metres from my kill.
I find the Ju-87 D-3 Stuka equipped with 3.7 cm BK cannons with AP rounds to be the best tank killer in the sim, at least for me. I'm much better with guns than with rockets or bombs.
Yeah the Shturmovik was basically the A-10 of WW2. It was a veritable beast.
Now that the game is out on steam and also available as direct download from the developer, will the final release still have both options or will the main release be consolidated on to just Steam? Or will it be like ROF where you can continue to buy either version, but can't share planes and such via each version?
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on August 17, 2014, 05:45:31 AM
Now that the game is out on steam and also available as direct download from the developer, will the final release still have both options or will the main release be consolidated on to just Steam? Or will it be like ROF where you can continue to buy either version, but can't share planes and such via each version?
They claim on the BOS forums that the there is only one game package and that Steam is just another way of buying that one package (or buying into some set of packages). I've been buying everything on Steam lately just to keep things simple (if not optimal).
After playing IL-2 BOS all weekend here are my impressions of the game so far. For those of you that are on the fence as far as a purchase decision I hope this will aid you in the decision making process.
As a long time player of ROF and IL-2 COD and many others I'll first list my system, specs and my graphics settings in-game:
Falcon-NW FragBox 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.17GHZ
8GB RAM
Nvidia GTX570 1.5GB
WIN7 64-bit OS
The game runs OK on Balanced setting, but I've noticed in dogfights it fares better on the Low setting. I'm using 22" monitor at 1680 x1050. No VSync and AA set at four. Currently I've set the FPS limiter at 30.
The game even on the Low graphics setting runs great and visually even at this setting the game looks gorgeous. Not to sound like a graphics whore (which I am) to me its' worth it just to fly around looking at the winter landscape. Obviously I'm going to need to upgrade to a quad cpu, get more ram and at least 2GB GPU card in the near future to really enjoy this game. At present on the graphics setting page there is a checkbox for multi-gpu support but its' not active yet. On the IL-2 BOS forums I have read complaints about the game optimization even with quad-core, etc., so overall in this respect this will be an ongoing project for the devs at 777 Studios.
Just like ROF it gives the best sense of flight of any sim I own. Someone asked in a previous post about their ability to successfully fly the various planes in the game if their flightsim skills are at the novice level. I consider myself at best an average flight simmer, so the answer would be a qualified yes. Again, like ROF you have all the same flight difficulty settings to help like: no wind, rudder assist, engine auto control, etc.
The caveat on the previous paragraph is even with all the assists on I'm still having a hard time with some of the various planes flight models. Making turns without going into a dive is something I'm trying to overcome. I've finally succeeded in the ground attack role and have become more proficient on my repeated runs at the targets. As it historically should be the Sturmovik with it's rockets and the Stuka with it's gunpods are the best against armor. However, of the three German planes I spend the most time with I personally find the FW-190 a more stable gun platform than both the BF-109 and the Stuka. So, go figure.
My dogfighting skills are another matter as I've yet to down an enemy fighter plane. I'm finding this particular talent very hard in IL-2 BOS. This is surprising since I'm pretty good in ROF, IL-2 COD and BOBII WOV, etc. I use a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro as I've found this stick more than adequate for the price point and easy to set up .
On the question of should you buy the game now. I'm going to deviate from what I would've said in the past which would be a "no." I personally think even in its' present state that the game is worth getting now. The learning curve is such that you will keep coming back for more just to get proficient. If you're familiar with ROF you will quickly ease right into this game. The WWII setting also personally for me creates a much more intense atmosphere than ROF. I'm content at present just to fly the quick missions either dogfighting or doing ground attack runs against trucks convoys and armor.
I think this game has great potential if modders like Heinkill whose done so much for IL-2 COD and BOBIIWOV on his own and with the Team Fusion guys get onboard with this one.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on August 16, 2014, 11:40:26 AM
No career mode on this will make it a no buy for me.
I'm sorta tired of all these flight sims with beautiful graphics and fantastic engines, but no attempt at an immersive dynamic campaign.
Same.
I suppose WOFF and Falcon 4 offspring will be my fallbacks.
Quote from: trek on August 17, 2014, 11:01:26 AM
On the question of should you buy the game now. I'm going to deviate from what I would've said in the past which would be a "no." I personally think even in its' present state that the game is worth getting now. The learning curve is such that you will keep coming back for more just to get proficient. If you're familiar with ROF you will quickly ease right into this game. The WWII setting also personally for me creates a much more intense atmosphere than ROF. I'm content at present just to fly the quick missions either dogfighting or doing ground attack runs against trucks convoys and armor.
I can second most of Trek's observations and my set up is very close to his, though I think I have less in-game time at this point. I've mostly flown the LAGG3-23 and it sure has some nice cannons. The only thing I've hit so far is an AI Stuka, but even missing things in this game is pretty fun -- the bomb blast animations are very nice and there's some crazy but fun cinematic stuff around crashes.
Quote from: trek on August 17, 2014, 11:01:26 AM
On the question of should you buy the game now. I'm going to deviate from what I would've said in the past which would be a "no." I personally think even in its' present state that the game is worth getting now. The learning curve is such that you will keep coming back for more just to get proficient. If you're familiar with ROF you will quickly ease right into this game. The WWII setting also personally for me creates a much more intense atmosphere than ROF. I'm content at present just to fly the quick missions either dogfighting or doing ground attack runs against trucks convoys and armor.
...but I would also like to reiterate that you're not really getting a game at the moment. What you get is a sandbox in SP to play with the planes and "air quake" MP. I would hate for anyone to spend money on this and be disenchanted that there's nothing to do. If cooing at the scenery and exploring the FMs is not your thing, then wait until there is some content. I'm pretty confident that there will be, but if you're not like trek (or me) and need context to enjoy your flightsim then wait to see what the official release holds before parting with your hard-earned.
Follow-up. OK, after much dog fighting practice I've finally shot down an enemy plane. It was a YAK 1 and I'm flying the BF-109F not the G version. I love the fact that the F version has several paint schemes too, I really like the Winter Leopard one. The more I'm getting into this game the more I already appreciate the quality and attention to detail that 777 Studios has put into it so far. If their plans are to follow the same game plan as they did in ROF it will be worth the wait. Too bad we can't get Pat Wilson to create a Campaign Generator for this one like he did for ROF.
Quote from: trek on August 17, 2014, 11:01:26 AM
After playing IL-2 BOS all weekend here are my impressions of the game so far. For those of you that are on the fence as far as a purchase decision I hope this will aid you in the decision making process.
As a long time player of ROF and IL-2 COD and many others I'll first list my system, specs and my graphics settings in-game:
Falcon-NW FragBox 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.17GHZ
8GB RAM
Nvidia GTX570 1.5GB
WIN7 64-bit OS
The game runs OK on Balanced setting, but I've noticed in dogfights it fares better on the Low setting. I'm using 22" monitor at 1680 x1050. No VSync and AA set at four. Currently I've set the FPS limiter at 30.
The game even on the Low graphics setting runs great and visually even at this setting the game looks gorgeous. Not to sound like a graphics whore (which I am) to me its' worth it just to fly around looking at the winter landscape. Obviously I'm going to need to upgrade to a quad cpu, get more ram and at least 2GB GPU card in the near future to really enjoy this game. At present on the graphics setting page there is a checkbox for multi-gpu support but its' not active yet. On the IL-2 BOS forums I have read complaints about the game optimization even with quad-core, etc., so overall in this respect this will be an ongoing project for the devs at 777 Studios.
Just like ROF it gives the best sense of flight of any sim I own. Someone asked in a previous post about their ability to successfully fly the various planes in the game if their flightsim skills are at the novice level. I consider myself at best an average flight simmer, so the answer would be a qualified yes. Again, like ROF you have all the same flight difficulty settings to help like: no wind, rudder assist, engine auto control, etc.
The caveat on the previous paragraph is even with all the assists on I'm still having a hard time with some of the various planes flight models. Making turns without going into a dive is something I'm trying to overcome. I've finally succeeded in the ground attack role and have become more proficient on my repeated runs at the targets. As it historically should be the Sturmovik with it's rockets and the Stuka with it's gunpods are the best against armor. However, of the three German planes I spend the most time with I personally find the FW-190 a more stable gun platform than both the BF-109 and the Stuka. So, go figure.
My dogfighting skills are another matter as I've yet to down an enemy fighter plane. I'm finding this particular talent very hard in IL-2 BOS. This is surprising since I'm pretty good in ROF, IL-2 COD and BOBII WOV, etc. I use a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro as I've found this stick more than adequate for the price point and easy to set up .
On the question of should you buy the game now. I'm going to deviate from what I would've said in the past which would be a "no." I personally think even in its' present state that the game is worth getting now. The learning curve is such that you will keep coming back for more just to get proficient. If you're familiar with ROF you will quickly ease right into this game. The WWII setting also personally for me creates a much more intense atmosphere than ROF. I'm content at present just to fly the quick missions either dogfighting or doing ground attack runs against trucks convoys and armor.
I think this game has great potential if modders like Heinkill whose done so much for IL-2 COD and BOBIIWOV on his own and with the Team Fusion guys get onboard with this one.
That is what I was afraid of, even with aids turned on, can be a little difficult to fly...read that elsewhere as well....I'll stay on the sidelines for now, maybe when a little further along.
Anyone else find it a little odd that Steam pulled BOS *really* quickly from both its "Now Available" slideshow and the list of "New Releases" on the main page?
Pulling it off has really killed the sales numbers.
Went from ~ 32nd best seller down to ~95th best right after they pulled it.
http://tools.garry.tv/steamchart/?show=221100,249230,230230,307960&range=7 (http://tools.garry.tv/steamchart/?show=221100,249230,230230,307960&range=7)
Seems like they're getting hit from both sides now. Steam users who aren't that familiar with the title are still mistakenly assuming it's from the same group who brought out CLOD and are slamming it. The WT crowd are slamming it over the pricing. If you head over to the official IL-2 game forum, a significant number of early access buyers are pissed that they aren't getting Steam keys for the game and wondering if the two versions will not be compatible as was the case with Rise of Flight.
Jeezus -- that graph will give the boys at 777 nightmares.
They really need to make sure BOS is 'cross platform' compatible for Steam and non-Steam. The silliness with ROF plane packages being "Steam" or "non-Steam" usable was/is just silly.
Hello folks! Was wondering where some of you had wandered off to, guess I figured it out now, lol.
I have a modest system to say the least:
Athlon II Dual Core @ 2.5Ghz
3GB RAM
nVidia 9800GT w/512MB RAM
I can run RoF at med/low settings and keep a very playable FPS through the full spectrum of things you face in a combat flight sim. I have heard the 777 folks say numerous times that if your PC will play RoF comfortably the BoS should run just fine. I was wondering what those who have time in game have to say about it. As was mentioned a couple posts above, even at med/low settings RoF is gorgeous to look at so if I can get equal performance out of BoS I am certainly going to give it a run. I tried to play CloD a few times on this rig......it was painful to say the least. I haven't tried since the new fuzion patch/mod was released, just seems like the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Thanks in advance!
Hi,
Somewhere in that website of them they mention that the "demo" is RoF itself. They say that the engine is the same for IL-2 BoS and that you should be able to pull the same performance in both games.
Cheers,
Quote from: JC______ on August 18, 2014, 12:45:53 PM
Hi,
Somewhere in that website of them they mention that the "demo" is RoF itself. They say that the engine is the same for IL-2 BoS and that you should be able to pull the same performance in both games.
Cheers,
For me the experience of BoS has been oddly exhilarating. The is a background of familiarity due to my 3 years of RoF, but -- for various pretty obvious reasons -- the differences seem huge: faster planes, bigger explosions, tremendous landscape, cannon hits causing puffs off the target, planes flying into pieces after a couple of cannon hits and so on. It's the RoF engine, but the experience is very different.
I find the planes in BOS much harder to fly effectively than RoF. I suspect it's due to the added variables of manifold pressure, prop pitch, and fuel mixture. I find it quite difficult to stay in the effective power band when I'm flying the Soviet planes, especially the La-5.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 19, 2014, 11:10:49 AM
I find the planes in BOS much harder to fly effectively than RoF. I suspect it's due to the added variables of manifold pressure, prop pitch, and fuel mixture. I find it quite difficult to stay in the effective power band when I'm flying the Soviet planes, especially the La-5.
I usually play in easy/normal mode these days so I don't notice any particular differences in engine and prop control between RoF and BoS. EG. on the "normal" US BoS server, you get your plane sitting on the runway with the engine running. I just put the throttle on max and stay on the runway until I can lift a little and pull up the landing gear. not that diffferent from taking off in RoF except for the gear up part.
If you take the leap into the world of complex engine management, it adds a whole new realm of difficulty. Trying to fly while keeping one eye on water and oil temps, oil pressure, manifold pressure, tachometer, fuel mixture, and trying to remember your prop pitch and oil and water radiator settings can be ridiculously challenging.
Manifold pressure, prop pitch, fuel mixture?
You guys should start flying civilian planes first in FSX / X-Plane before going to combat. :D
This is why I feel you really need a joystick + throttle combo to fly any kind of sim from WWII up. Every thing you do with the aircraft requires a change of some kind of setting, be it trim, prop pitch, super charger, etc. Trying to do all that with a key board would be maddening.
Quote from: jomni on August 20, 2014, 01:09:23 AM
Manifold pressure, prop pitch, fuel mixture?
You guys should start flying civilian planes first in FSX / X-Plane before going to combat. :D
Doing it when you've got all the time in the world to stare out the windshield is easy. Trying to change everything on the fly when in a tight bank so you can keep optimal power settings in order to get guns aligned on or evade a baddie is a different story.
Quote from: Stryker07 on August 20, 2014, 01:16:26 AM
This is why I feel you really need a joystick + throttle combo to fly any kind of sim from WWII up. Every thing you do with the aircraft requires a change of some kind of setting, be it trim, prop pitch, super charger, etc. Trying to do all that with a key board would be maddening.
Not only that but having an expensive one with numerous hat switches and many buttons if you're going to be flying stuff with all the modern avionics, such as DCS A-10C. Otherwise we're just making it more difficult on ourselves.
It's a damn nightmare getting all the "DMS/TMS/CMS-Left/Right/Up/Down-Long/Short" stuff set up even on decent HOTAS sticks if they don't have all the hardware to accommodate. And that's just a fraction of them!
You will probably need one of these. Instead of HOTAS setup.
http://www.saitek.com/uk/prod/tpm.html
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.saitek.com%2Fuk%2Fimgs%2Fproduct%2Ftpm_main.png&hash=ac286f6121ca47b9ae0ad3731d65731b8076aacd)
Quote from: jomni on August 20, 2014, 01:09:23 AM
Manifold pressure, prop pitch, fuel mixture?
You guys should start flying civilian planes first in FSX / X-Plane before going to combat. :D
8)
Quote from: jomni on August 20, 2014, 07:00:08 AM
You will probably need one of these.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifundchallenge.org%2Fwp-content%2Fblogs.dir%2F28%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F06%2FDr_-Evil-One-Million-Dollars_zps107ab072.png&hash=11a34fa055ec1dcce29a882922e164f914ff2ed7)
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 19, 2014, 10:15:09 PM
If you take the leap into the world of complex engine management, it adds a whole new realm of difficulty. Trying to fly while keeping one eye on water and oil temps, oil pressure, manifold pressure, tachometer, fuel mixture, and trying to remember your prop pitch and oil and water radiator settings can be ridiculously challenging.
I've tried engine/prop management from time-to-time. I found it far from easy -- especially when combined with some dog fighting. These days I end up with a "custom" difficulty level ie everything real except engine management and prop settings.
I might get back to engine management if the Wildcat ever gets the full sim treatment (I guess it was sort of like that in IL-2) so I can yell "Go to high blower!"
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 19, 2014, 10:15:09 PM
If you take the leap into the world of complex engine management, it adds a whole new realm of difficulty. Trying to fly while keeping one eye on water and oil temps, oil pressure, manifold pressure, tachometer, fuel mixture, and trying to remember your prop pitch and oil and water radiator settings can be ridiculously challenging.
Ain't this the truth. It's taken me close to a year of pretty solid practice to be confident flying the 109-E3 in combat in Cliffs of Dover. The bitch there is managing prop-pitch in the heat of battle. By now it's become more or less second nature, although I still do on occasion notice my RPMs revving too near the "you are about to destroy your engine" mark of 3000. The real key in combat is is *not* watching your instruments and being able to tell what your RPMs are based on the sound of the engine.
It's satisfying to feel like you've mastered it, though. Plus, using manual prop pitch in the 109 allows you to squeeze extra performance in combat, which is often crucial. I never use the auto-prop pitch even on the 109-E4 for this reason. Once I make the leap to BOS, I'm pretty sure I'll stay all manual on the 109-F and G as well.
Quote from: Stryker07 on August 20, 2014, 01:16:26 AM
This is why I feel you really need a joystick + throttle combo to fly any kind of sim from WWII up. Every thing you do with the aircraft requires a change of some kind of setting, be it trim, prop pitch, super charger, etc. Trying to do all that with a key board would be maddening.
The Thrustmaster HOTAS is a pretty decent setup esp. for the price:
http://www.amazon.com/Thrustmaster-T-Flight-Hotas-Flight-Playstation-3/dp/B001CXYMFS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408544764&sr=8-1&keywords=thrustmaster+hotas (http://www.amazon.com/Thrustmaster-T-Flight-Hotas-Flight-Playstation-3/dp/B001CXYMFS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408544764&sr=8-1&keywords=thrustmaster+hotas)
Has a reasonable number of programmable buttons (although you always wish you had more). Although I covet the Warthog hotas, I've been pretty pleased with this setup for a while now
I have one of these for twins engine planes (and one engine of course):
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F41Y59MF4FML.jpg&hash=3b52eaeb73a93dc5ad9f85f12aa23d93e0a4c655)
Quote from: sandman2575 on August 20, 2014, 09:19:46 AM
Ain't this the truth. It's taken me close to a year of pretty solid practice to be confident flying the 109-E3 in combat in Cliffs of Dover. The bitch there is managing prop-pitch in the heat of battle. By now it's become more or less second nature, although I still do on occasion notice my RPMs revving too near the "you are about to destroy your engine" mark of 3000. The real key in combat is is *not* watching your instruments and being able to tell what your RPMs are based on the sound of the engine.
It's satisfying to feel like you've mastered it, though. Plus, using manual prop pitch in the 109 allows you to squeeze extra performance in combat, which is often crucial. I never use the auto-prop pitch even on the 109-E4 for this reason. Once I make the leap to BOS, I'm pretty sure I'll stay all manual on the 109-F and G as well.
At least the evil Jerry planes give you the option of putting things in auto. The Soviet crates are very hands-on affairs.
The He-111 H-6 bomber was released as flyable in today's patch. I spent about an hour practicing bombing runs with it and then about 30-40 minutes shooting it down from a Yak-1.
Bombing with both the He-111 and the Pe-2 is actually probably the easiest part of the game. The developers have put in a sort of generic, English language bomb aiming system in both planes that's all mouse controlled and very simple to use. I'm not sure if this is intended as a place holder or if this will be the final version of the sight. I hope they also include the option to use the authentic aiming systems found in each plane as they've gone to great lengths to model the real-life cockpits and control systems for the rest of the planes and plane compartments and it seems a bit incongruous to have an idealized bomb sight.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 23, 2014, 10:54:31 PM
The He-111 H-6 bomber was released as flyable in today's patch. I spent about an hour practicing bombing runs with it and then about 30-40 minutes shooting it down from a Yak-1.
Bombing with both the He-111 and the Pe-2 is actually probably the easiest part of the game. The developers have put in a sort of generic, English language bomb aiming system in both planes that's all mouse controlled and very simple to use. I'm not sure if this is intended as a place holder or if this will be the final version of the sight. I hope they also include the option to use the authentic aiming systems found in each plane as they've gone to great lengths to model the real-life cockpits and control systems for the rest of the planes and plane compartments and it seems a bit incongruous to have an idealized bomb sight.
I haven't tried the bomb sights. Yeah, it would be odd if the game were completed with generic bomb sights.
It seems that the idealized sights are the final ones for the game. Odd choice given how they're trying to make everything else authentic. Oh well it's not a show stopper.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 25, 2014, 11:17:55 AM
It seems that the idealized sights are the final ones for the game. Odd choice given how they're trying to make everything else authentic. Oh well it's not a show stopper.
Interesting. I guess a bombsight simulator isn't as simple a thing as I thought. Which is fine with me, I only bomb from fighters as a rule.
In any flight sim with bombers, I almost never worry about the bombsight simulation. My bombs only hit the earth while still loaded in the flaming carcass of my plane.
There was a comment on my IL-2 screenshots in the photo thread that noted there was a lack of ground crew. Looks like they're being added (at least partially) in today's update. From what I read on the game forum, it seems that it's only for trains and vehicle convoys for now but perhaps gun crews will be added as well.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 29, 2014, 12:49:36 PM
There was a comment on my IL-2 screenshots in the photo thread that noted there was a lack of ground crew. Looks like they're being added (at least partially) in today's update. From what I read on the game forum, it seems that it's only for trains and vehicle convoys for now but perhaps gun crews will be added as well.
Wow. That was all very neato!
Fiddled with it a bit. Static AA Guns still aren't manned but those on trains and halftracks are. The infantry are invulnerable to fire. They just bail from soft vehicles and train cars, sprint off to the side, dive for cover and then disappear after about 5 seconds.
They did add two versions of one new single player mission called Ghosts in the Snow. It's mainly an exercise in navigation and target ID in poor weather conditions and if you play it in expert mode with no nav aids, it's a pretty cool scenario. Finding German positions in a snowstorm is a challenge and it's very rewarding to get bombs and rockets on them. I've played it 3 times and, while I've managed to successfully find and hit the enemy, I've yet to survive the trip home.
Well they finally released detailed information about the single player portion of the game. I hesitate to even call it a campaign because there's simply no hint of any sort of continuity to the missions at all.
It looks like they've managed to take a step back from the admittedly mediocre campaign found in Rise of Flight. All the single player game seems to offer is a series of randomly generated quick missions in which the player can select type of aircraft, starting airfield, and mission type (escort, intercept, ground attack, or bombing.) The victory condition for each of those 4 mission types is exactly the same every time. There are no historical squadrons nor pilot stats tracking so there's no real penalty for failing. Your only goal seems to be to grind enough XP (yes, they're using an XP system. So much for calling this game a sim) in order to unlock the next plane, plane component, or "campaign" chapter.
Very disappointing.
I honestly feel like I've lost touch with the flight sim community, so I am probably off base with how this sim will turn out.
On the one hand, things like XP and unlocks will appeal to the Xbox kids. On the other hand, putting it into a sim with an admittedly groggy appeal like Stalingrad...I smell failure here. Going hardcore flight models with Xbox mechanics is not a recipe for success...neither audience will be satisfied.
I'm glad I took a pass on this one. Maybe when it hits the $5 bin like CLoD. :(
No historical squadrons? No stats tracking?? Makes the Rise of Flight career 'beta' seem like WoFF by comparison.
Hugely disappointing. Should've saved the coin I blew on this and spent it on Elite: Dangerous instead.....
I think its pretty hilarious, and ballsy, that they are calling the campaign, "AQM" or Advanced Quick Mission. Historically in the world of gaming, you had quick mission builders as one option and a campaign as another. Now, like everything else in this industry, terms and features are being melded together, modified and altered to confuse the customer into thinking one thing is something else.
What pisses me off even more is that they've taken away the option to use custom game settings for the "campaign". You must either fly with "normal" difficulty settings which include targeting and nav icons, HUD, and simplified engine management or "expert" with no assists, complex engine management, and cockpit only view.
Want to play with mostly expert settings but the ability to use external views to check out your plane or see the aftermath of your bomb strike from the target's POV? Too bad!
Want to play with CEM but don't want to spend 5 minutes going through start up and waiting for the engine to warm up? Suck it!
Don't want to worry about CEM but don't want to have big red targetting assist icons pointing out enemy planes? Fag!
Seriously, I cannot understand why they'd remove the custom difficulty options selection from the player. It's already there and working now. How does removing choice from the game and shoehorning everyone into one of two choices make for a better gameplay experience. What a stupid design decision.
^That is so absurdly stupid that I would have to imagine its a technical issue? Not sure why it would be, but I don't see anything other than laziness in making it work properly that could be the root cause of this "decision".
It's all to do with the arbitrary XP grinding system they've put into place. In order to access all the aircraft, their skins, and their modifications the player has to grind through campaign missions to earn enough XP to unlock them. They've decided that those who play "normal" will earn 1x XP and those who play "expert" will earn 2x XP. They said coming up with a formula to work out what XP multiplier one would get from all the options offered through the custom setup screen was just too arduous so they removed it entirely. I guess making custom equal 1x XP just like normal was too much of a stretch for them to conceive.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on September 23, 2014, 11:59:53 AM
It's all to do with the arbitrary XP grinding system they've put into place. In order to access all the aircraft, their skins, and their modifications the player has to grind through campaign missions to earn enough XP to unlock them. They've decided that those who play "normal" will earn 1x XP and those who play "expert" will earn 2x XP. They said coming up with a formula to work out what XP multiplier one would get from all the options offered through the custom setup screen was just too arduous so they removed it entirely. I guess making custom equal 1x XP just like normal was too much of a stretch for them to conceive.
Boo!
This isn't an MMO! It's a damn Sim.
Sounds like they have an identity crisis.
That's the majority consensus on the various forums. It's a joint venture between 1C and 777 Studios. Speculation is that some middle management ass-hat has seen the success of War Thunder and World of Tanks and is pushing for that model. Who knows if it's true? It doesn't really matter what the rationale behind their decision was, it's a stupid idea that's pissing off nearly all of the founders and old-hands (there are always a few true believers who have become personally invested in the game and will defend any and all criticisms, real or imagined) and it doesn't seem to be attracting very many new players.
Even the MP only crowd are pissed because they'll have to grind through the SP missions in order to unlock the planes and weapons they want to use in MP.
I'm not a "true believer", but here goes...
They wanted a SP game mode where you could compare your progress with other players, knowing that everybody was on the same playing-field with regards to difficulty. In the livestream explaining the "campaign" they often mentioned that they wanted it to be a game rather than "just" a sim. That, I believe (ahem) is the rationale, misguided or no. They've also made no secret of the fact that they anticipate that a lot of the heavy lifting for generating missions and "proper" campaigns will be done by the player-base. It's happening in ArmA, so maybe...
A couple of things I would say before we bin the game completely:
The devs have been receptive to criticism (FW190 cockpit), so they may well back-track on some of these decisions (custom settings and grinding for MP players seems to be the most opposed)
Nearly all our info about the game comes from guys who are speaking/writing English as a second language, so they don't always convey what they really mean.
I honestly wonder at what the head guy is thinking when he makes these types of design decisions. I'm not just saying that. I really really wonder at it. Like, I'd love to be a fly on the wall during their design meetings when they chart out the features of the game.
Some of these decisions...I'm not kidding, it's almost like they're trying to fail.
What an extraordinary waste. I can't believe that we're honestly going to be counting on DCS to pull off the next WW2 flight simulation.
To me, they are trying to be all things to everyone, but will end up as nothing to anyone. They want this hardcore sim at its heart, but want to capture the light crowd in the campaign experience. Doing something like that pisses off your hardcore base, yet makes it still too much of a learning curve for the light base. No one will be happy. I am not sure I have ever seen this dual approach work in sims no matter how many times its been tried. Just man up and decide what you want to be.
I kind of feel like they did the hardcore thing to draw in the early money. Once they had enough, they lightened up the campaign piece to after the post-launch money.
I am not really complaining. I almost never play campaigns or online. I just play missions. But it is interesting to watch.
The latest update was released today and this one gives beta users access to the single-player campaign. In order to access it, non-Steam users need to delete their current IL-2:BOS game and all settings folders, download the new installer from their profile page at the IL-2 website, and then download the ~3.8 GB game files. The installer defaults to Russian so you have to change it to English. There's a little drop down tab in the top right corner of the installer screen to do this.
I fiddled around with the campaign a little before I came to work and it pretty much lives up to the lowered expectations. It's essentially a random mission builder and you need to grind XP to unlock new plane mods, airfields, and skins. The first 4 missions are tutorials and there's no way to skip them.
You must fly an LaGG-3 on "normal" mode. The first mission is simply following two waypoints and then pressing escape to finish the mission. This brings you to a debriefing screen that looks like it'd be more at home on a Call of Duty or Battlefield server. You get a series of full page screens flashing up to highlight your supposed achievements. Mission complete! +80XP!
New Pilot Award!
Young Pilot Award!
23mm cannon unlocked!
Once you complete the 4 tutorial missions, you can then open things up a bit and select from different aircraft. You are stuck with either "normal" or "expert" difficulty levels with no options for customization at all. You select a German or a Soviet airfield, select a plane, select from 1 of up to 5 mission types (intercept, escort, ground attack, bombing, or ground support). Some mission types aren't available for some planes so there are no intercept missions for He-111s for instance.
The mission briefings are full of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors and are sometimes lacking in important information. For example, I tried an escort mission and was told to escort some bombers to target but I wasn't informed what type of bombers I was to meet or what altitude they'd be at. I just flew up until I spotted some bombers and followed them until they bombed an airfield and then returned to base only to be informed that I'd failed the mission. I assume I hooked up with the wrong bombers.
Not a fan of this XP grind system at all. Even worse, you have to do it in order to unlock stuff for MP so if you want all the bells and whistles to choose from for online play, you'll have to grind all the planes in SP. Based on the XP awards and the unlock trees, that's looking like 100-200 missions per plane.
^ I am really, really sorry to hear that SDR. That sounds incredibly disheartening.
I don't know what else to say, honestly. :(
Are the Random missions well-made? Like the ones from Thirdwire?
Quote from: jomni on October 04, 2014, 06:29:19 AM
Are the Random missions well-made? Like the ones from Thirdwire?
I would think a career system, even like that in ROF, would be a big improvement. Despite the missions being far too repetitive and there being no world outside the player "bubble".
This one sounds more like they're trying to be War Thunder or World of Warplanes. In a single-player environment. And forcing you to choose between two realism presets! WTF? :-\
Quote from: jomni on October 04, 2014, 06:29:19 AM
Are the Random missions well-made? Like the ones from Thirdwire?
I'm still getting a feel for them but from what I've seen so far, they're a little formulaic but not too bad provided you don't stray from the way-points.
Missions will give the illusion that the map is reasonably well populated with friendly and enemy units provided you stick to a 2-3 km wide corridor along each leg of the flight patch. If you stray outside of that (something that's easy to do if you're flying "expert" mode and do your own navigation), the map becomes completely empty and you can just fly around for hours without seeing a single unit. One guy at SimHQ did report stumbling onto a complete German airbase but the AI didn't react at all and he was able to repeatedly strafe it and then land with no reaction from the AI at all. I haven't seen anything like this yet myself.
Missions themselves are pretty generic. Intercepts are always "fly here, shoot down at least 2 baddies (it's always 2), and RTB for XP." There's no information on what type of enemy, expected strength, or altitude. Again, kind of a problem if you're flying expert and don't have icons on as it's easy to miss them if you're a couple thousand metres too high or too low.
Also, I've noticed that every single mission I've flown so far uses the same flight path. It's always a diamond formation. Leave my airfield and head to a way-point either slightly north or slightly south of the target; turn and fly to target way-point, fly to a 3rd way point that's roughly the same east-west position as the 1st way-point but offset in the opposite north-south direction from the 1st way-point, turn and proceed to the 4th way-point which is my airfield. A little more variety would be nice. The distances are also very short so if you're flying a level bomber like a Pe-2 or and He-111, it's not easy to gain enough altitude while staying in formation with the AI.
WOFF set the benchmark for a campaign. Shame on the IL 2 devs. As with ROF they just don't seem to be bothered about single players.
What state of completion is the single player "campaign"? Are they still adding features and making tweaks, or is this it?
They said the campaign structure is pretty much finalized and the beta-release is mainly to find and quash bugs. I wouldn't expect any significant changes to gameplay. They're really digging their heels in and are repeatedly stating that there won't be any changes to the unlock system, the difficulty presets, or the campaign system.
I have found a few bugs so far. The fuel gauges on the IL-2 don't work properly. The needle sometimes displays full tanks and sometimes shows a value somewhere between full and zero. I have no idea if this is the actual fuel level or not. Also, the custom paint schemes aren't unlocking even when you get enough XP to unlock them. Pre-order users have access to all the aircraft from the start and therefore don't have to unlock them like post-release purchasers will be required to. This seems to be causing some weird glitches with the campaign though as people starting with the He-111s or Pe-2s aren't getting bomb loads or the AI wingmen load fighter behaviour.
If you do play with it, be very careful on the first 4 tutorial missions. If you crash, you fail the mission, don't earn XP, and you can't progress or restart. Unless you're very confident in your landing skills, just ESC out while still in the air and proceed to the next one. A fair number of players are posting that they bent a wing on landing, got a fail result, and are now stuck.
Also, the campaign progress you make during the beta stage is temporary and will be wiped on release. This is causing the MP crowd to go nuts as they'll have to play through all the planes in the SP campaign at least twice if they want the unlocks available for online play.
Sounds like they used the far too repetitive random mission generator from ROF what with using mostly the exact same waypoints every mission, and having a limited "living" area outside of which is nothing. :-\
It's obviously set in stone and on the fast track to being released soon as 'Battlefield: Flight Sim'.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mcl279HRXS1r657z8.gif&hash=1fbe6edea559e8ac0971de6ee66e472c7f07e5e3)
The campaign system could be alright if it gets more work, pretty bare bones. I can tell already the best missions coming from this sim are going to be coming from the community. I played an mp mission on this server called the eagle's nest and it was by far the best mission I've seen for this sim. It was objective based, capture an airfield and the frontlines move forward. Then you have to land an he111 with only supplies to make the airfield usable for your side. So in one of these capture the airfield moves, I was told to support a panzer korps attack by taking out AT guns around the contested airfield. It was impressive to see the battle going on below as about 30 panzers shot it out with at gun batteries. Then I swooped in an pummeled the at guns, which allowed the panzers to promptly capture the airfield. This was going on all over the main map, messages of front lines moving forward, support needed here, intercept fighter there. Great concept who ever made the mission.
So the tools are there to do things with this sim, it's just not going to be a great sp campaign.
Shame that 777 shut down the Eagle's Nest server after the admin complained about MP players having to unlock content.
I gather that the locked content meant that nearly all his missions would be unplayable unless and until all players had unlocked every mod present in the missions.
Yeah I just saw that, sounds like they may move the mission some where else. The good news is that a good dynamic based mission can be done, just have to venture into the mp world.
Quote from: Skoop on October 04, 2014, 09:21:40 PM
The campaign system could be alright if it gets more work, pretty bare bones. I can tell already the best missions coming from this sim are going to be coming from the community. I played an mp mission on this server called the eagle's nest and it was by far the best mission I've seen for this sim. It was objective based, capture an airfield and the frontlines move forward. Then you have to land an he111 with only supplies to make the airfield usable for your side. So in one of these capture the airfield moves, I was told to support a panzer korps attack by taking out AT guns around the contested airfield. It was impressive to see the battle going on below as about 30 panzers shot it out with at gun batteries. Then I swooped in an pummeled the at guns, which allowed the panzers to promptly capture the airfield. This was going on all over the main map, messages of front lines moving forward, support needed here, intercept fighter there. Great concept who ever made the mission.
So the tools are there to do things with this sim, it's just not going to be a great sp campaign.
That sounds exactly like some of the
War Thunder Arcade battles where you have to land at an enemy airfield to cap it and start gainging win "tickets". :-\
This is becoming fascinating.
So, the unlock system was released last Friday to heavily negative reaction. By far the most vocal disapproval is coming from those who play solely multi-player. They are upset that they have to grind their way through the single-player portion of the game in order to unlock all the plane modifications that they had access to in MP servers prior to the Friday update. They vociferously let their feelings be known in the forums.
During the general tumult, one of the MP crowd came up with a system to minimize the amount of time one would have to spend grinding equipment. By putting the game in normal, throwing the plane in auto-pilot, and hitting 16x time compression, a player could blast through a mission in a few minutes and not have to actively participate. If the mission was a success, they'd gain the XP and unlocks. If they failed, no big deal as the only penalty for a failed mission is the time lost playing it.
Well, the devs didn't care for this at all so what did they do? Not listen to the complaints from the community and separate the grinding system from MP or make XP earned in MP count towards unlocks. Nope. Instead they released a new patch today which removed the autopilot feature from both normal and expert modes and limited time compression to 2x max. Naturally, this is going down swimmingly with the community.
I have to wonder just what the thought process is with the dev team right now. Are they now in such an adversarial, siege mentality that they now see their customer base as the enemy and feel the need to punish them? Is it a cultural thing? I wonder what they'll do to shoot themselves in their feet next.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 06, 2014, 05:09:13 PM
Well, the devs didn't care for this at all so what did they do? Not listen to the complaints from the community and separate the grinding system from MP or make XP earned in MP count towards unlocks. Nope. Instead they released a new patch today which removed the autopilot feature from both normal and expert modes and limited time compression to 2x max. Naturally, this is going down swimmingly with the community.
This is just f*($#ng ridiculous! Their fixes to perceived exploits make the game far worse! ::)
QuoteI have to wonder just what the thought process is with the dev team right now. Are they now in such an adversarial, siege mentality that they now see their customer base as the enemy and feel the need to punish them? Is it a cultural thing? I wonder what they'll do to shoot themselves in their feet next.
After hearing this news, I'm glad that I didn't purchase. With the way things are going, I may never do so. It has officially hit Train Wreck status.
One last thing.. If they were trying to compete with War Thunder and WoT/WP with their unlocks then they're going to fail miserably. Those games are Free To Play. Therefore I can only assume that they're aiming for their own Call Of Duty in the air. Do they actually think this is going to work with the other
free alternatives already out there which have far more content for such Arcade style gameplay? Insanity!
Fortunately it's a WW2 sim, so I'm not terribly upset if I end up passing on it.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 06, 2014, 05:09:13 PM
I have to wonder just what the thought process is with the dev team right now. Are they now in such an adversarial, siege mentality that they now see their customer base as the enemy and feel the need to punish them? Is it a cultural thing? I wonder what they'll do to shoot themselves in their feet next.
Sure sounds it. The motivation for all this sure looks a lot like spite, doesn't it?
Curious about the cultural component, SDR -- the other developer that springs to mind as having a fairly adversarial, close-minded, thin-skinned relationship with their otherwise extremely devoted fan base is Graviteam. An East vs. West thing, maybe?
While I like BOS as a flight simulator, I really regret giving that much money to a pretty tone-deaf developer. This particular change seems almost punitive.
^ I like it as sim too, just frustrating at the course this has taken. At this point I would rather they ditch the campaign all together and put the effort towards a functioning editor similar to Dcs. If they are shipping it with Crap missions, then give us the tools to do our own.
Whenever I see BOS. I always think it means Bag Of $h!t.
Anyway, maybe they could have been better off keeping the ROF formula.
The positioning is a bit confused. Hardcore simmers vs. casual simmers? Multuplayers vs. Solo players? Instead of pleasing all the target audiences, it looks like they are annoying everyone in the end.
It's quite strange. I paid for EA and while I haven't yet been able to play the new Campaign system (multi is difficult for me - living in Oz means high pings to most servers; and work and family limit my sim time) I am confused by some of the decisions. The airplanes and maps are sim-like - detailed, accurate etc, but the SP campaign and the concept of unlocking planes, airfields and modifications through experience points gained in single player, seems very arcade.
Having watched some YT videos of people playing the SP 'campaign', I amazed to see these beautiful aircraft flying over a beautiful map, only to have giant yellow letters telling you to "proceed to action point" and the like. It seems like such a poor fit, with limited time compression, no autopilot and aiming helpers, along with in-air starts, diamond shaped routes, QMB style campaign missions with limited immersion etc.
Early access feels a bit like studying for matriculation only to be given a kindergarten exam.
I'm not surprised there's been flak about it from the sim crowd, but the controversy can't be good for the product. I was quite open minded about the SP campaign and figured that community members would make more historic missions and campaigns; and I was quite happy to try it out. I still will, but I am now nervous about what will happen to BoS as it proceeds to launch (not least the thought that after playing the SP campaign to gain points (gawd, it feels silly to type this about a sim), I will need to go through it all again when it actually launches and all progress is wiped)!
smith
They are going completely apoplectic about this game over on the SimHQ forums.
There is a guy over there, Picaziato (or something like that) that is a developer for Electronic Arts who posted a very eloquent monologue about the questionable design decisions being made by 777. He said something to the effect the same as smithcorp about how the game fails to appeal to either crowd...the analogy I saw was creating Forza cars and then Go-cart tracks to race them on.
This game is going to be an unmitigated disaster on release. I don't know that I've ever seen a design team publicly slit its own throat in such a blatant and transparent manner as BOS and 777.
SimHQ forums are quite tame compared to the official forums. Head over and read through the 30+ pages of the dev diary #81 thread. It's almost worth the $100 pre-order price.
Pizzicato posted the same critique on the official forums but it was locked within a few hours.
These guys are killing the reputation they earned from ROF.
Or maybe not. ROF is not know for single player. It's a high-fidelity multiplayer dogfight sim.
Quote from: jomni on October 06, 2014, 09:13:25 PM
Whenever I see BOS. I always think it means Bag Of $h!t.
Anyway, maybe they could have been better off keeping the ROF formula.
The positioning is a bit confused. Hardcore simmers vs. casual simmers? Multuplayers vs. Solo players? Instead of pleasing all the target audiences, it looks like they are annoying everyone in the end.
Well, they said they didn't make any profit on ROF. I it looks like intensive air sims on antique fighter planes are not going to make it with
any current business model. What might eventually happen is kind of what is happening on DCS world (and sort of on Third Wire and sort of on Target Tobruk etc.): a company builds a world and then
other groups put in content and try to sell it (or not). The world-builders would get a fee or royalty or some other cut and try to enforce standards and others would assemble whatever they could in that context.
I've been playing the tutorials and although they are simple, I'm not totally dissatisfied. Its sort of like a beautiful woman. You just sit there staring sort of dumbfounded not really hearing anything she says. What I'm trying to say is that this sim looks so damn good, I'm kind of blind to its faults.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 07, 2014, 08:51:18 AM
I've been playing the tutorials and although they are simple, I'm not totally dissatisfied. Its sort of like a beautiful woman. You just sit there staring sort of dumbfounded not really hearing anything she says. What I'm trying to say is that this sim looks so damn good, I'm kind of blind to its faults.
Well, same here. But I'm afraid she's a bit suicidal. If BoS were a woman this is what you'd say to your Czech friend when he said, "She says she's been reincarnated." You say: "Just stay away from her. Quit reading her books and quit that night ski-ing thing."
Czech: "You know, when I came to America I wanted to be a Boy Scout. Now I'm not so sure."
You: "Let me spell it out for you: THAT ONE IS TROUBLE."
Quote from: MengJiao on October 07, 2014, 08:35:08 AM
Quote from: jomni on October 06, 2014, 09:13:25 PM
Whenever I see BOS. I always think it means Bag Of $h!t.
Anyway, maybe they could have been better off keeping the ROF formula.
The positioning is a bit confused. Hardcore simmers vs. casual simmers? Multuplayers vs. Solo players? Instead of pleasing all the target audiences, it looks like they are annoying everyone in the end.
Well, they said they didn't make any profit on ROF. I it looks like intensive air sims on antique fighter planes are not going to make it with
any current business model. What might eventually happen is kind of what is happening on DCS world (and sort of on Third Wire and sort of on Target Tobruk etc.): a company builds a world and then
other groups put in content and try to sell it (or not). The world-builders would get a fee or royalty or some other cut and try to enforce standards and others would assemble whatever they could in that context.
ROF may not have been a success for them but I don't think it was due to the sim itself. Rather the marketing and login requirements.
Those may not bother some people but they were two marks against it before I had even played. Needing to log in to play some single-player content for something I've purchased just rubs me wrong. What's more, I had numerous login issues when I was trying out the freebie version. That lost any possible purchase from me at the time. Toss in the expensive DLC-fest and I gave it a pass early in it's life.
I didn't finally purchase ROF until they started selling more affordable packages of planes (on sale) at Steam and an offline campaign mod available (to a lesser extent). I still blew over $100 on ROF but it was years after it's release. If they had marketed it better in the first place, they simply would've had more success. It's the same story here, with IL2:BOS. Poor decision-making marring what
could be a great sim.
Another update released today. It's mainly concerned with bug fixes and tweaking a few things.
- Landings are now rewarded correctly
- Aim helper for fixed armament was removed on Normal difficulty
- Escort added to the Bombing the bridge mission
- The player and the wingmen should now be loading simultaneously
- The bug with the survived vehicle in the Attacking the convoy mission was fixed
- The bomb raid mission is now only possible at no or low clouds and little wind
- In the Interceptor mission player now has to take down or damage two bombers as required
- In the Convoy (short) mission a player is now correctly spawned behind the bombers and sees them properly
- In Campaign the short version of mission is now offered as default
- AA search lights are no longer active in day time
Quote from: Nefaro on October 07, 2014, 03:46:13 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on October 07, 2014, 08:35:08 AM
Quote from: jomni on October 06, 2014, 09:13:25 PM
Whenever I see BOS. I always think it means Bag Of $h!t.
Anyway, maybe they could have been better off keeping the ROF formula.
The positioning is a bit confused. Hardcore simmers vs. casual simmers? Multuplayers vs. Solo players? Instead of pleasing all the target audiences, it looks like they are annoying everyone in the end.
Well, they said they didn't make any profit on ROF. I it looks like intensive air sims on antique fighter planes are not going to make it with
any current business model. What might eventually happen is kind of what is happening on DCS world (and sort of on Third Wire and sort of on Target Tobruk etc.): a company builds a world and then
other groups put in content and try to sell it (or not). The world-builders would get a fee or royalty or some other cut and try to enforce standards and others would assemble whatever they could in that context.
ROF may not have been a success for them but I don't think it was due to the sim itself. Rather the marketing and login requirements.
Those may not bother some people but they were two marks against it before I had even played. Needing to log in to play some single-player content for something I've purchased just rubs me wrong. What's more, I had numerous login issues when I was trying out the freebie version. That lost any possible purchase from me at the time. Toss in the expensive DLC-fest and I gave it a pass early in it's life.
I didn't finally purchase ROF until they started selling more affordable packages of planes (on sale) at Steam and an offline campaign mod available (to a lesser extent). I still blew over $100 on ROF but it was years after it's release. If they had marketed it better in the first place, they simply would've had more success. It's the same story here, with IL2:BOS. Poor decision-making marring what could be a great sim.
For me (as I may have mentioned from time to time) RoF was just a big and very pleasant surprise. I hadn't played any air sims in a while and I suspected my system might not really be up to it. But -- everything worked! I'm not sure what the marketing was. I probably saw it on SimHQ while looking for submarines or something.
Still, overall, I'm not surprised that it is hard to hit the sweet spot with games like RoF or BoS or DCS. The programming is demanding, your audience is cranky and the topic is not well-defined: are you simulating just fighters in a narrow time frame? Or any random plane? The full electronic environment or just sticking to low-tech day fighters? Are you giving the audience a good editor and just letting them play? (which is why I currently prefer DCS) I'm just happy anyone is doing anything at all intensive with any antique planes when there is an obvious big audience for nearly everything else except intensive simulations of antique planes. Even trains, trucks and farm equipment seem to have a more coherent audience.
Much as the unlocks and arcade 'campaign' system are causing angst, the missions themselves are actually pretty enjoyable. I played a campaign mission last night that was just beautiful and challenging. A pre-dawn ground attack mission in the IL-2, shooting up a train. The lighting was lovely, I could see ground forces shooting at each other along the way, the train loco made a satisfying boom when I shot it up, enemy searchlights criss-crossed the sky and I enjoyed watching my escorts mixing it up with enemy fighters. On the egress, I flew over an enemy airfield and shot out a searchlight that came up just as I was nearby.
I got no experience points even though I fulfilled my mission, because I crashed trying to shoot up a line of vehicles I spotted on my way home, but I had a great time. It is a lovely sim and I can hope there will be changes to some of the elements that are causing concern. The latest update puts autopilot back in, though time acceleration is still limited to x2, so the developers are hearing some messages.
I'm still playing on Normal mode, as I want to be able to see the external view and admire my plane; and navigation on the snowy map is incredibly hard, but increasingly, I can turn off helpers and get a quasi-expert experience (at least CEM). The fly in the ointment is the campaign approach encourages you to jump around between planes, sides and airfields, whereas in RoF careers, you quickly get familiar with your local area and can use landmarks more effectively to navigate without a 'cheat' map.
The night time missions do look fantastic! Couple things they need to fix though. Your AI wingmen keep their nav lights on for the whole mission. Seeing those big, glowing green and red wing lights must be an AA gunner's wet dream. They should also put in blackout headlamps for vehicles or at least have the survivors of a strafed column shut their lights off once they know they're under attack.
The latest update said they we're going to lower the number of night missions. Pity.
The missions also need more variety. Intercepts are always "proceed to action point". Once you get there, a flight for 3 bombers always spawns in and heads right towards you. Always seems to be He-111s if you're flying a Soviet fighter and Pe-2s if you're flying a German. It'd be nice to see them mix it up a little and have the bombers in larger formations or have some Il-2s or Ju-87s down low to mix it up with.
Agree - I didn't mention my AI flight with their Christmas tree lights on! And it is a bit weird seeing the massive headlight of the train; and vehicle headlights, after we have started attacking them. i haven't played enough missions to see the same target planes, but I understand that's happening.
They have enough planes to mix it up a bit more. The 'proceed to action point' thing is silly, but in practice I think you can bump into AI on other legs of the course, so it isn't as dumb as "fly here, no need to worry about baddies, now when you get there, you'll find the same baddies as last time".
Guys,
thanks for the discussion on this title - I have been for some time looking for a WW2 flight sim that could replace the IL-2 bundle I got on Steam, and I appreciate very much the impressions here from people more heavily invested in the sim genre.
I got a simple question, though. Would you guys recommend the game? A brief explanation of why you would or wouldn't recommend it would be very useful. Thanks! :)
As a standalone flight simulator of the period, I would highly recommend it. As a campaign-driven game, probably not. With that said I only play missions, and almost never campaigns. I think is a great foundation for re-engineering Il-2. Does it pick up where Il-2 left off...no. I don't think it was supposed to.
Big disclaimer...I love RoF and never play online. Just felt I needed to say that.
Quote from: RyanE on October 09, 2014, 07:08:32 PM
As a standalone flight simulator of the period, I would highly recommend it. As a campaign-driven game, probably not. With that said I only play missions, and almost never campaigns. I think is a great foundation for re-engineering Il-2. Does it pick up where Il-2 left off...no. I don't think it was supposed to.
Thanks for the thoughts, Ryan.
I reckon that asking anyone to pick up where IL-2 left off would be a huge ask. I am not a big fan of IL-2 campaigns, really. I find the implementation to be clunky, messy and buggy. Even if it sounds like anathema, the last campaign games I thoroughly enjoyed on a flight sim were Lawrence Holland's games back in the 1990s: Battlehawks 1942, Their Finest Hour, Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe etc. Probably the "sims" I have played the most besides Chuck Yeager's Air Combat :) They weren't the most realistic sims ever - computers had very short legs back in the day - but I did find the experience very engaging. Playing the Great Patriotic War campaign on IL-2 is an exercise in frustration - I only recall having once reached the winter of 1941 flying an LaGG-3, after countless attempts at surviving the Luftwaffe superior planes on a I-16 :-) Indeed, it was very realistic - the chances of a Soviet pilot to survive were indeed ludicrously low - but it doesn't make much for a "cinematic" experience, it was a truly hardcore survival horror experience, before the term "survival horror" was even coined...
Wait until final release if nothing else. The single player campaign, well... it isn't really a campaign at all. It's basically a series of quasi-randomly generated missions. They can be quite fun taken individually but there's no greater sense of immersion or historicity to them as the results of the missions don't carry over. There are no pilot stats, no squadron stats, and no moving battlefields so the mission outcome is ultimately meaningless beyond the amount of XP you attained.
I suspect that the motive behind this XP/unlock grind will be introduced when the game is released as "final" and that it will be a pay-to-progress system. I can't see any other reason to force players to go through the grind process and the removal of time acceleration to make it even more irritating.
The raw components are there. The flight mechanics are decent. The game looks great but as of now, it's really lacking soul. If you're OK with just quick missions or want to fly exclusively in online dogfight arenas, it might be worth a look. If you want something more, wait and see what it looks like upon release. If they live up to their promise and release the full mission builder then the 3rd party mods might address the shortcomings. If not, I'd say avoid it. It's definitely not worth the $100 I spent on it.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 09, 2014, 07:50:51 PM
Wait until final release if nothing else. The single player campaign, well... it isn't really a campaign at all. It's basically a series of quasi-randomly generated missions. They can be quite fun taken individually but there's no greater sense of immersion or historicity to them as the results of the missions don't carry over. There are no pilot stats, no squadron stats, and no moving battlefields so the mission outcome is ultimately meaningless beyond the amount of XP you attained.
Doh.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot
I suspect that the motive behind this XP/unlock grind will be introduced when the game is released as "final" and that it will be a pay-to-progress system. I can't see any other reason to force players to go through the grind process and the removal of time acceleration to make it even more irritating.
What do you mean by a "pay-to-progress"? Looks like their business model will be that of releasing extra planes 20$ a pop. Do you mean that besides paying for the DLC
then you need to go through some shitty grindy process that makes no sense whatsoever in order to fly on the FW-190, for instance?
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot
The raw components are there. The flight mechanics are decent. The game looks great but as of now, it's really lacking soul. If you're OK with just quick missions or want to fly exclusively in online dogfight arenas, it might be worth a look. If you want something more, wait and see what it looks like upon release. If they live up to their promise and release the full mission builder then the 3rd party mods might address the shortcomings. If not, I'd say avoid it. It's definitely not worth the $100 I spent on it.
Yes, there's no rush on spending 100 bucks on this, to be honest.
Thanks, SDR O0
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on October 09, 2014, 07:58:27 PM
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot
I suspect that the motive behind this XP/unlock grind will be introduced when the game is released as "final" and that it will be a pay-to-progress system. I can't see any other reason to force players to go through the grind process and the removal of time acceleration to make it even more irritating.
What do you mean by a "pay-to-progress"? Looks like their business model will be that of releasing extra planes 20$ a pop. Do you mean that besides paying for the DLC then you need to go through some shitty grindy process that makes no sense whatsoever in order to fly on the FW-190, for instance?
It's my suspicion that they intend to introduce a pay system similar to what's in World of Tanks or War Thunder. That is, you pay money for in-game currency of some form that will allow you to pay for higher XP earnings (say 4x XP per mission instead of 2x) and/or to buy plane mods and skins instead of grinding for them.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 09, 2014, 08:03:30 PM
It's my suspicion that they intend to introduce a pay system similar to what's in World of Tanks or War Thunder. That is, you pay money for in-game currency of some form that will allow you to pay for higher XP earnings (say 4x XP per mission instead of 2x) and/or to buy plane mods and skins instead of grinding for them.
Okay, that's fair enough. It's not a bad business model, it's working for the two titles you mention. To what degree can the player customize the level of realism? I mean, a meaningful level of realism in IL-2 isn't precisely something you catch up with in a couple 10 minutes sessions...
Difficulty settings in the game are in a weird state right now. Up until the release of the beta-version of the single player campaign, players had the ability to go into a menu of difficulty settings and pick and choose which options they wanted enabled or disabled. For whatever reason, the developers removed the custom settings from the single player campaign and left the player with two presets to select from, normal or expert. The custom menu is still available for multi-player and quick missions, just not for the campaign.
Anyway, the normal and expert settings in the campaign are set up rather strangely. I had expected expert to have all the assists turned off and the player would be required to manage everything from a cold engine start to taxing, navigation with no assists, complex engine management, etc but that's not the case. Really the only difference between the two settings are that you can't go to external views in expert mode and complex engine management is required. By default, you still get what the devs call "technochat" which is a sort of mini HUD on the right side of the screen that shows any changes to inputs with an icon and text. It'll give you a numerical value if you change something like prop pitch or fuel mixture for example. Additionally, the default map settings show your position at all times and the locations of friendly and enemy units once you get close enough. You can turn these assists off (I do) but doing so also stops the text messages that show the radio chatter translations so unless you speak Russian or German, turning off the assists means you won't know what your wingmen and control tower are saying to you.
Normal is similar but has even more assists turned on. Things like simplified engine management and on-screen icons for navigation and target locations but most of these can be turned off with a few key presses.
There's more wiggle room between the difficulty settings that I suspected there would be but it's still annoying to be locked into only one of two choices rather than being able to set your own options globally. It's a little irritating to have to turn them on or off each time you fly out.
Overall, the depth of control of the planes is decent. It's not as involved or as in-depth as Cliffs of Dover or the study sim titles of DCS like A-10C but it's more involved than IL-2: 1946. I enjoy constantly tweaking throttle, fuel mix, prop pitch, and supercharger settings to maintain my tachometer and manifold pressure settings so that I don't overheat or seize up the engine. The only thing I don't like is that you can't use a trim or axis setting for prop pitch controls on the German planes like you can with the Soviet ones. I gather that the German planes had pre-sets so you have to map toggle switches or keys to flip the controls into the pre-sets rather than using a wheel like in the Russian crates. It means you have to use up some more controller buttons.
Bombing's a little off for the level bombers. The devs spent a lot of time making sure the cockpit and engine controls were accurate but then they turned around and threw in a simplified bomb sighting system for the He-111 and the Pe-2. The labelling is all in English unlike the cockpits and it all looks too clean and modern compared to the rest of the plane. Not sure why they did that but it's not a huge deal. It does make bombing a little too easy though.
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on October 09, 2014, 08:48:17 PM
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 09, 2014, 08:03:30 PM
It's my suspicion that they intend to introduce a pay system similar to what's in World of Tanks or War Thunder. That is, you pay money for in-game currency of some form that will allow you to pay for higher XP earnings (say 4x XP per mission instead of 2x) and/or to buy plane mods and skins instead of grinding for them.
Okay, that's fair enough. It's not a bad business model, it's working for the two titles you mention. To what degree can the player customize the level of realism? I mean, a meaningful level of realism in IL-2 isn't precisely something you catch up with in a couple 10 minutes sessions...
As I mentioned before, those other two titles are
Free-To-Play games. You can download and play them without spending a dime up front, and continue to play them without doing so.
That's not the case with BoS. I dunno if they plan on adding a Pay Boost option to the game (wouldn't surprise me either) for advancing into the aircraft you want to fly. But the game isn't F-To-P so they absolutely would not attract extra customers because they'd be using the wrong business model and their current customers would become even more pissed off. It would be a poor decision.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 09, 2014, 11:59:13 PM
Awesome in-depth walkthrough of realism settings
Some baffling stuff in there, yes. But thanks a lot for the comprehensive walkthrough, mate, much appreciated!
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on October 09, 2014, 07:27:38 PM
Quote from: RyanE on October 09, 2014, 07:08:32 PM
As a standalone flight simulator of the period, I would highly recommend it. As a campaign-driven game, probably not. With that said I only play missions, and almost never campaigns. I think is a great foundation for re-engineering Il-2. Does it pick up where Il-2 left off...no. I don't think it was supposed to.
Thanks for the thoughts, Ryan.
I reckon that asking anyone to pick up where IL-2 left off would be a huge ask. I am not a big fan of IL-2 campaigns, really. I find the implementation to be clunky, messy and buggy. Even if it sounds like anathema, the last campaign games I thoroughly enjoyed on a flight sim were Lawrence Holland's games back in the 1990s: Battlehawks 1942, Their Finest Hour, Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe etc. Probably the "sims" I have played the most besides Chuck Yeager's Air Combat :) They weren't the most realistic sims ever - computers had very short legs back in the day - but I did find the experience very engaging. Playing the Great Patriotic War campaign on IL-2 is an exercise in frustration - I only recall having once reached the winter of 1941 flying an LaGG-3, after countless attempts at surviving the Luftwaffe superior planes on a I-16 :-) Indeed, it was very realistic - the chances of a Soviet pilot to survive were indeed ludicrously low - but it doesn't make much for a "cinematic" experience, it was a truly hardcore survival horror experience, before the term "survival horror" was even coined...
My take on the game is much the same as Ryan's. I don't play campaigns very often. BUT the I-16 campaign in Il-2 was something I did play and it was one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had. At the moment, BoS doesn't seem like it is going to come close to that, but I think, these days, that's fine with me. Would I recommend BoS? I'd say, no not at the moment, unless you really like Russian planes.
The tone of the message in today's update blog was very placatory but also vague. I suspect they adopted a somewhat conciliatory tone to try and assuage the angry backers (the scores on Metacritic are plummeting by the day) but they didn't really offer up anything concrete. Just vague promises that they're listening to the complaints of the community and that we can expect great things 6-12 months down the road. Sounds like the Hope and Change speeches from the last election. Hopefully the results are better this time round.
Quote82
Hi Everybody!
I'd like to start today's dev blog with a few quotes from Loft's recent posts on the forum where he replies to a player who has completed the entire Campaign (MK.MrX) and shared his thoughts with us.
"Thank you for the information and thank you for the critics. We know about all flaws of the single player campaign and we realise all demands (about its insufficient variety and non-linearity) that you have.
We've successfully made the base for the game and completed the system in general however we haven't had enough time to fill the universe. We have detailed and described plans for improving the campaign, and it'll take from 6 to 12 months to make them reality. Those months have been spent on providing early access. So we hope that you, our actual and future customers will give us time to accomplish our goal.
Meanwhile we're making missions that involve escorting and intercepting assault planes, also some existing templates are being remade. New content is being added as well: ground objects, vehicles, AA artillery, specific colors of signal rockets for different regiments are to be added soon, etc.. After that new missions will be added including aerial domination, for example. These will be followed by intercepting transport aircraft and protecting them accordingly. There's a possibility that Ju-52 may become available in the game as a non-flyable plane in transport escort/interception raids.
Some time later a special page with all pilots stats will be published. You'll be able to check your progress on the game's web page and also see your friends stats. In the future the system of achievements may also be developed for the multiplayer as well.
Yes, we still have a lot to do. That's why we've came up with this decision to create a solid system that could be easily expanded, saturated and upgraded."
The first week with single player campaign on your PCs was rich in stormy discussions on the boards. There was quite a lot of fierce debates in our studio too if you ask. But the work is on as well the life on the forums, still constructive, positive and promising. Absolutely brilliant briefings were suggested by Feathered_IV and FlatSpinMan. Their ideas of immersion into the atmosphere of frontline routine and ruthless battles could be a great addition to the game missions. But I believe there are a lot of talented pilots on the forums who would be happy to share their creative approach with the community. That's why I suggest you all to write and publish your creative briefing descriptions for any type of IL2BOS mission in this specific section. We'll be checking it regularly to pick the ones that we like most and the best of them will be added to the official game build.
Also preparing the forum for the release we want to reorganize the subforum called Tutorials and Manuals. There you'll be able to post your own video guides, manuals and descriptions for the in-game vehicles and discuss control set ups for your planes.
CHANGELOG
Turret gun ammo counter added to GUI;
"Choose a mission" screen got its design improved;
Info about the mission task is now shown prior to its start;
In Chapter 2 of the campaign the target area marker is now shown correctly;
Incorrect counting of landings fixed in campaign;
Friendly fire is now punished with x0 EXP penalty in campaign;
Skins will be shown correctly both to the player and the AI wingmen (for player - according to their choice; for the bots - standard or winter pattern);
AI planes will know how to distribute ground targets between each other;
Ammo counter and recoil fixed for the WB81B pods;
"Floating" icons on the search lights fixed;
Trimmers and stabilizers are now set for cruise flight;
Frequent stall situation for AI bots on Fw 190 and Bf 109 fixed;
Techno chat will also be showing overheating, damaging and ammo depleting for the fixed armament;
Mission won't generate spawn points too close to the maps end any more in campaign;
The AAA will be getting more and more aggressive as you level up through campaign;
What the holy F*$k?!
So the devs are now basically blackmailing those of us who pre-ordered to submit positive reviews to metacritic or they'll wipe the game from existence in December? Is this even legal?
Quote from: ZakPilots.
There's quite a picturesque scene on our page at metacritic.com. Most of the comments left by players (there's no proof that they actually played the game thou) are blankly negative. These people have a direct, vivid and purposeful intention to finish the very existence of IL-2 brand. They want this remarkable and world-renown flight sim franchise to die.
I've discussed the situation with Loft earlier today. So, if the user opinion shown by metacritic is what the community believes in, then we, as he says, will need to close the project this December. If their attitude prevails, if haters win and dominate over those who love IL-2 Sturmovik then the game is over - it's out of the shelves, out of hard drives, out of memory.
If you want to shut down the series then just leave the situation as it is now, and let a bunch of trolls and haters finish it.
You want the game to live, to develop and to turn into the best WWII combat flight sim over time? You love it? Then speak it out. Tell you virtual and real friends, tell the new younger pilots, tell it to the group of 30 men who is not on the forum and whose days and nights are devoted to creating IL-2 for you.
A slow meltdown?
Good God, the drama. ::)
Wow. Just wow.
Seeing as how 90% of the negative reviews showed up once the campaign was released and that the majority of reviews on Metacritic point out the disappointment in said campaign, you'd think a reasonable developer would look into making changes to the campaign, not threaten to take their ball and go home. This behaviour is utterly astounding. 777 Studios, should they somehow survive this, won't see another dime from me.
777 seems to be sounding a somewhat less belligerent / extortionist tone on the Il-2 forums. ...no longer have any idea what to make of all this...
http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11677-user-reviews/ (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11677-user-reviews/)
Dear Pilots,
In this day and age of the internet user review we'd appreciate it if you left well-reasoned reviews of our products on various sites, such as Metacritic, that explore all the aspects of our products. Some users seem to want to intentionally hurt our business with purposefully negative ratings and reviews. They seem to be more motivated to share their opinion than those that hold positive opinions. We feel this unfair to the team which has worked very hard to provide this genre with a new and quality product. Our team is small and our budgets are small and it is difficult for us to weather such hate campaigns without the help of users who appreciate our efforts. It's an important time for the team as we prepare to launch the product into retail and we'd hate for the actions of a few to hurt that launch and cause a premature stoppage to future development plans. By leaving comments that explain the entire product and honest opinions about all features of the product potential new users can make an informed decision about the product. This is the true purpose of the user review sections. Well-reasoned reviews on those sites as well as in our forum of what you like and don't like also help us understand what our customers' opinions are and they help guide us in future design decisions. We appreciate all who take the time to write a fair opinion of our products and we thank you for your support and effort to keep this genre alive and growing.
The BOS Team
Threatening your customer base works, apparently -- BoS's Metacritic score is getting a big boost...
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/il-2-sturmovik-battle-of-stalingrad (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/il-2-sturmovik-battle-of-stalingrad)
Nice flight sim you got there... be a real shame if sumtin' bad happened to it...
:knuppel2:
Quote from: sandman2575 on October 14, 2014, 12:22:32 PM
777 seems to be sounding a somewhat less belligerent / extortionist tone on the Il-2 forums. ...no longer have any idea what to make of all this...
http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11677-user-reviews/ (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11677-user-reviews/)
Dear Pilots,
In this day and age of the internet user review we'd appreciate it if you left well-reasoned reviews of our products on various sites, such as Metacritic, that explore all the aspects of our products. Some users seem to want to intentionally hurt our business with purposefully negative ratings and reviews. They seem to be more motivated to share their opinion than those that hold positive opinions. We feel this unfair to the team which has worked very hard to provide this genre with a new and quality product. Our team is small and our budgets are small and it is difficult for us to weather such hate campaigns without the help of users who appreciate our efforts. It's an important time for the team as we prepare to launch the product into retail and we'd hate for the actions of a few to hurt that launch and cause a premature stoppage to future development plans. By leaving comments that explain the entire product and honest opinions about all features of the product potential new users can make an informed decision about the product. This is the true purpose of the user review sections. Well-reasoned reviews on those sites as well as in our forum of what you like and don't like also help us understand what our customers' opinions are and they help guide us in future design decisions. We appreciate all who take the time to write a fair opinion of our products and we thank you for your support and effort to keep this genre alive and growing.
The BOS Team
They pulled the original post down along with the 4 pages of WTF?! replies and replaced it with the text quoted above.
As for the sudden out-pouring of 10/10 reviews, I suspect people will notice that they were all posted on the same day and will figure something's afoot.
The pussification of game developers seems to be complete. Talk about a bunch of childish, bitter, self-conscious, irrational, out of touch twits. I'm not sure what is a greater disappointment, the state of the single-player campaign as released, or the manner in which the developers have responded to customer feedback...
If metacritic really is that powerful, then it needs some sort of moderation. Maybe a topping and tailing of the scores posted to cull those made by fanbois and haters?
I think the majority of gamers, especially the ones who are playing IL2, realize that the metacritic reviews must be taken with a grain of salt...that only makes the developer's reaction to this all the more bizarre and disturbing.
erm...wow? :idiot2:
So glad I didn't bung money their way. I did it because I thought they were the same devs that churned out the crap that was CLoD and then bailed on Battle of Moscow. Probably because of the IL-2 tag constantly being attached to these games - like they can't make it on their own so we'll tag on IL-2 because everyone respected that...but all they actually did was tarnish IL-2.
Anyway - enough of my mis-information.
They might not be (I was 100% sure there was a link) but it saved me a few bob anyway.
Trying to puzzle out this bizarre situation a little more, and I wonder if the ol' language / translation barrier isn't rearing its ugly head here (as it has so often on the Graviteam forums, although never in so spectacular a fashion).
Possibly what Zak was trying to say was something more along the lines of:
'Look, BoS is getting killed on Metacritic. If the game really were as terrible as these bad reviews indicate, we would be forced to close up shop by December. So we are pleading with you to go give the game some positive reviews.'
?
That said, I was just reading a thread on the BoS forums "Metacritic & Stalingrad" that appears to have just gotten deleted. Maybe 777 has been fantasizing the Battle of Stalingrad a little too much for their own good, because this silencing of all dissent is starting to look like NKVD tactics.
I suspect it's a CYA move as someone there might have realized they were encouraging fraudulant behaviour. In light of the Gamergate scandal, it won't look too good in the press were the original message to be posted to gamers outside of the hardcore simmer's niche.
Screenshots are already out there though so the damage is done.
These are some seriously thin-skinned devs. Threads are getting deleted left and right on their forum.
Quote from: sandman2575 on October 14, 2014, 02:36:07 PM
That said, I was just reading a thread on the BoS forums "Metacritic & Stalingrad" that appears to have just gotten deleted. Maybe 777 has been fantasizing the Battle of Stalingrad a little too much for their own good, because this silencing of all dissent is starting to look like NKVD tactics.
I was just trying to post in that thread...Although insults were starting to be slung around in that thread, I think that trying to silence everything will get people's backs up still further. What I was going to post there was that whilst it may be unprofessional to react to people vindictively trashing your work, and thereby possibly threatening your livelihood, it is at least understandable.
It's understandable, certainly, but as the saying goes, "if you can't handle the heat..."
The intolerance of criticism is really just amazing. I've seen 3 threads disappear in the "General Discussion" forum in the last hour.
Wow...so glad I stood strong and did not purchase. Seems like developers nowadays are reacting over the top to any critique their games receive....big turn off for me even if a decent game. The way they react bring a bigger spotlight than the negative feedback in the first place.
I have been keeping an eye on this over the past few days (I asked here some questions about the game, and I got a lot of info). One of the reasons I came here was because it was obvious that the game is being trolled and the user reviews out there make little to no sense. I wouldn't say "very badly" because the numbers of reviews on either Metacritic or Steam speak volumes.
What I mean by being trolled. Checking the negative reviews, I see
* Kind of a 50/50 split on flight and damage models. About half of the negative reviews by people who actually read like having a clue, say they're crap, the other half that they're very good.
* Almost all the negative reviews mention the Single Player XP-based unlocking of bells and whistles prominently (I say "bells and whistles" because according to SDR you're well able to fly any plane you have paid for).
* A significant number of reviews criticizing the handling of the German fighters. I am much less experienced than some here - it would be good to hear more informed opinions - but in IL-2 I do find the German planes significantly harder to fly to their full efficiency than their American, Soviet or British counterparts.
* Several reviews feature prominently stuff like not supporting 3 monitors as a reason to rate the game as shit. I reckon that's a bit of an exaggeration.
* Very interestingly, an especially articulate review criticizing the producer of IL-2, Jason Williams, with very specific and personal comments. With exactly zero content about the game itself.
We have had recently on this forum an episode involving an individual ripping a quite massive simulation because of a totally irrelevant detail regarding the maximum speed of aircraft. I can't help seeing something similar going on with this rubbishing - because it is rubbishing, no more, no less.
I also find shocking that dev posting. But not because of the content - that wouldn't ever happen, for starters, because you can't pull out stuff out of Steam like that without incurring in massive penalties. What I find shocking is that their community management procedures are so shallow that it allows a dev - who's probably sunk thousands of hours developing a game - going postal after reading stuff which is, to a substantial part, drivel. Who hasn't sent a raging e-mail into a public mailing list at least once in their lives? It's obvious that the producer scrambled to do some damage control as soon as he got wind of that post.
Asking people to have a thick skin, while kind of standing listless watching a bunch of folks being very unfair about a product on public venues which are known to be a very important factor for sales - Metacritic is shit, yes, but it tends to happen that sales number and good average scores there are correlated - leads to devs considering players less as partners, and more as reluctant adversaries/customers. Sometimes this animosity against developers/producers is warranted - I'm thinking of Stormpowered - and sometimes any rational person would find it hard to even understand the reasons motivating the criticism - I'm thinking of Battlefront here.
I think I am going to purchase this one. I actually quite like what I am seeing on the videos: a quite good balance between the hardcore and the casual. Or so it looks while sitting on the fence ::)
Those who pre-ordered the game can fly any plane from the outset. Those who buy after release will have to unlock each plane via the single player campaign XP grind.
There's been quite an interesting back and forth between some users and the flight model programmer over the performance of the German planes. The programmer basically threw down the gauntlet and challenged those who disagreed with the flight model to give him actual flight data. Several have done so and he's agreed to make some changes (still not enough to stop the more ardent of the Luftwhiners but they will likely never be satisfied.)
What's frustrating to me is that the actual flight dynamics in this game are great. Each plane feels different and is fun and challenging to fly. The sim runs well and generally looks great. It lacks in all the stuff that takes that excellent flight model and sucks you in.
If you just want to fly online, it's a great sim despite the unlocks. If you are happy with just throwing together some quick battles and flying for 30-40 minutes at a time then it's also pretty good. If you're looking for anything more than that, it's just not worth it at this point. A lot is going to depend on what the modding community can come up with, assuming they're given the tools and the permission required to make the mods that will make this game shine.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 14, 2014, 07:22:40 PM
Those who don't pre-ordered the game can fly any plane from the outset. Those who buy after release will have to unlock each plane via the single player campaign XP grind.
Ehm, that does indeed mean I need to get my act together and jump down the fence :)
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot
There's been quite an interesting back and forth between some users and the flight model programmer over the performance of the German planes. The programmer basically threw down the gauntlet and challenged those who disagreed with the flight model to give him actual flight data. Several have done so and he's agreed to make some changes (still not enough to stop the more ardent of the Luftwhiners but they will likely never be satisfied.)
Thanks for sharing that, SDR. Indeed, I was detecting a certain flair of that "Germanic Fanboyism" that you can find pretty much in anything related to WW2. This back and forth you mention between players and devs points out to me that they do care about the realism of the simulator. It also seems to me that they try to package it in a way which engages players - for good and for bad. The way they're trying to engage players via XP unlocks is indeed questionable, but it is not too different from the "grind" you can find in many interesting titles out there at the moment. Like Elite: Dangerous, for instance. In a game like that you can't allow players to rock into the more flashier ships right off the bat, Premium Beta or not. I am skeptical that this 'the game is the grind' approach is a good one for this genre, but I can't other than respect them for sticking to their guns. For good or for bad, we don't allow anyone to fill our shopping trolley at the supermarket, and I don't see why game developers should allow the players to make big decisions on the design. That's their call - not ours.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot
What's frustrating to me is that the actual flight dynamics in this game are great. Each plane feels different and is fun and challenging to fly. The sim runs well and generally looks great. It lacks in all the stuff that takes that excellent flight model and sucks you in.
If you just want to fly online, it's a great sim despite the unlocks. If you are happy with just throwing together some quick battles and flying for 30-40 minutes at a time then it's also pretty good. If you're looking for anything more than that, it's just not worth it at this point. A lot is going to depend on what the modding community can come up with, assuming they're given the tools and the permission required to make the mods that will make this game shine.
I must say that I'm possibly one of those 30-40 minutes at a time persons - I can't have very long sessions in front of my computer, and the required involvement of stuff like DCS was a deterrant for me. If flight sims had a Save Game feature...
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on October 14, 2014, 07:00:55 PM
I have been keeping an eye on this over the past few days (I asked here some questions about the game, and I got a lot of info). One of the reasons I came here was because it was obvious that the game is being trolled and the user reviews out there make little to no sense. I wouldn't say "very badly" because the numbers of reviews on either Metacritic or Steam speak volumes.
What I mean by being trolled. Checking the negative reviews, I see
* Kind of a 50/50 split on flight and damage models. About half of the negative reviews by people who actually read like having a clue, say they're crap, the other half that they're very good.
* Almost all the negative reviews mention the Single Player XP-based unlocking of bells and whistles prominently (I say "bells and whistles" because according to SDR you're well able to fly any plane you have paid for).
* A significant number of reviews criticizing the handling of the German fighters. I am much less experienced than some here - it would be good to hear more informed opinions - but in IL-2 I do find the German planes significantly harder to fly to their full efficiency than their American, Soviet or British counterparts.
* Several reviews feature prominently stuff like not supporting 3 monitors as a reason to rate the game as shit. I reckon that's a bit of an exaggeration.
* Very interestingly, an especially articulate review criticizing the producer of IL-2, Jason Williams, with very specific and personal comments. With exactly zero content about the game itself.
We have had recently on this forum an episode involving an individual ripping a quite massive simulation because of a totally irrelevant detail regarding the maximum speed of aircraft. I can't help seeing something similar going on with this rubbishing - because it is rubbishing, no more, no less.
I also find shocking that dev posting. But not because of the content - that wouldn't ever happen, for starters, because you can't pull out stuff out of Steam like that without incurring in massive penalties. What I find shocking is that their community management procedures are so shallow that it allows a dev - who's probably sunk thousands of hours developing a game - going postal after reading stuff which is, to a substantial part, drivel. Who hasn't sent a raging e-mail into a public mailing list at least once in their lives? It's obvious that the producer scrambled to do some damage control as soon as he got wind of that post.
Asking people to have a thick skin, while kind of standing listless watching a bunch of folks being very unfair about a product on public venues which are known to be a very important factor for sales - Metacritic is shit, yes, but it tends to happen that sales number and good average scores there are correlated - leads to devs considering players less as partners, and more as reluctant adversaries/customers. Sometimes this animosity against developers/producers is warranted - I'm thinking of Stormpowered - and sometimes any rational person would find it hard to even understand the reasons motivating the criticism - I'm thinking of Battlefront here.
I think I am going to purchase this one. I actually quite like what I am seeing on the videos: a quite good balance between the hardcore and the casual. Or so it looks while sitting on the fence ::)
my boldNot to contaminate this thread with the other you mention...but that's a bit harsh BG.
He has pointed out many issues with "that game" from release. A lot of which I noticed myself. The fact that others started to solely focus on that one point (to do exactly what you have done - dismiss other points offered) is being disingenuous and simply disregarding other points made.
I don't know if those points stack up now - but they certainly did on release...I know.
As for the other points - I totally agree that a lot of the negative reviews are
likely to be disgruntled simmers (or simply just gamers) who award a very low score just because they can. I've seen many, many reviews on Amazon where people give totally irrelevant reviews and low scores.
However, the product should speak for itself in the end (as that other game has). And by that I mean the people who are playing it and who like it do NOT need to be threatened about the future of their investment. They could very possibly just have said "Look - a lot of people are giving negative reviews and some rather harshly we feel. If you enjoy the game, please make sure you can review it and give it a genuine score as and where you can"
The original post, the follow up post and the deleting of threads is simply outrageous. I am astounded to think that devs and/or publishers think deleting threads is a calming measure to their disgruntled followers.
I don't know what was promised in this game at the beginning. I do know that they've piggy backed on the back of IL-2. When you do that with a game that has a huge following and much respect, you know what the players are expecting...much of the same, only better. Switching (from what I understand towards the end of development) to a ADHD like reward system for a campaign just borders on the unbelievable.
So yes, the reviews might be overly critical. Does that mean other reviews should be overly praising? Aren't they just as bad as each other? In one, the dev loses out. In the other the consumer loses out.
In the end it can be fixed by providing what people want...and from what I gather people did not want a "console type" campaign (and that isn't to be down on consoles). They wanted the same and better from the game's namesake - IL2.
Devs and publishers need to understand that it's quite important to listen to the people they are selling to.
It would also be nice for everyone to be objective and fair. But this is the real world - and it's a bit :uglystupid2:
And another thing - I love the fact that modders are out there and they are absolutely superb at what they provide.
But I'm sick to death of reading that they'll rescue something. Developers need to get their fingers out their arse and start producing complete, working products.
Well, JD I think it's a matter of being measured and fair. I found the vibe around BOS to come with a very low Signal -To-Noise Ratio, hence I approached the guys here to see what they actually think about the game. For whatever the reasons, which seem many, there's a substantial number of user reviews out there which aren't really meant to be "reviews".
Regarding the example I used, I won't discuss it anymore. I find facts speak by themselves. Everyone is entitled to make more or less charitable readings.
No game ever comes out without warts, big or small. Yet it is rare that a game is released as a DOA turkey (World in Flames was). Over the years I've come up to the conclusion that we are a bit too prone to cry murder over devs doing stuff in their games, when it's just a case of getting a bad haircut and a pissy attitude.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 15, 2014, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on October 14, 2014, 07:00:55 PM
I have been keeping an eye on this over the past few days (I asked here some questions about the game, and I got a lot of info). One of the reasons I came here was because it was obvious that the game is being trolled and the user reviews out there make little to no sense. I wouldn't say "very badly" because the numbers of reviews on either Metacritic or Steam speak volumes.
What I mean by being trolled. Checking the negative reviews, I see
* Kind of a 50/50 split on flight and damage models. About half of the negative reviews by people who actually read like having a clue, say they're crap, the other half that they're very good.
* Almost all the negative reviews mention the Single Player XP-based unlocking of bells and whistles prominently (I say "bells and whistles" because according to SDR you're well able to fly any plane you have paid for).
* A significant number of reviews criticizing the handling of the German fighters. I am much less experienced than some here - it would be good to hear more informed opinions - but in IL-2 I do find the German planes significantly harder to fly to their full efficiency than their American, Soviet or British counterparts.
* Several reviews feature prominently stuff like not supporting 3 monitors as a reason to rate the game as shit. I reckon that's a bit of an exaggeration.
* Very interestingly, an especially articulate review criticizing the producer of IL-2, Jason Williams, with very specific and personal comments. With exactly zero content about the game itself.
We have had recently on this forum an episode involving an individual ripping a quite massive simulation because of a totally irrelevant detail regarding the maximum speed of aircraft. I can't help seeing something similar going on with this rubbishing - because it is rubbishing, no more, no less.
I also find shocking that dev posting. But not because of the content - that wouldn't ever happen, for starters, because you can't pull out stuff out of Steam like that without incurring in massive penalties. What I find shocking is that their community management procedures are so shallow that it allows a dev - who's probably sunk thousands of hours developing a game - going postal after reading stuff which is, to a substantial part, drivel. Who hasn't sent a raging e-mail into a public mailing list at least once in their lives? It's obvious that the producer scrambled to do some damage control as soon as he got wind of that post.
Asking people to have a thick skin, while kind of standing listless watching a bunch of folks being very unfair about a product on public venues which are known to be a very important factor for sales - Metacritic is shit, yes, but it tends to happen that sales number and good average scores there are correlated - leads to devs considering players less as partners, and more as reluctant adversaries/customers. Sometimes this animosity against developers/producers is warranted - I'm thinking of Stormpowered - and sometimes any rational person would find it hard to even understand the reasons motivating the criticism - I'm thinking of Battlefront here.
I think I am going to purchase this one. I actually quite like what I am seeing on the videos: a quite good balance between the hardcore and the casual. Or so it looks while sitting on the fence ::)
my bold
Not to contaminate this thread with the other you mention...but that's a bit harsh BG.
He has pointed out many issues with "that game" from release. A lot of which I noticed myself. The fact that others started to solely focus on that one point (to do exactly what you have done - dismiss other points offered) is being disingenuous and simply disregarding other points made.
I don't know if those points stack up now - but they certainly did on release...I know.
As for the other points - I totally agree that a lot of the negative reviews are likely to be disgruntled simmers (or simply just gamers) who award a very low score just because they can. I've seen many, many reviews on Amazon where people give totally irrelevant reviews and low scores.
However, the product should speak for itself in the end (as that other game has). And by that I mean the people who are playing it and who like it do NOT need to be threatened about the future of their investment. They could very possibly just have said "Look - a lot of people are giving negative reviews and some rather harshly we feel. If you enjoy the game, please make sure you can review it and give it a genuine score as and where you can"
The original post, the follow up post and the deleting of threads is simply outrageous. I am astounded to think that devs and/or publishers think deleting threads is a calming measure to their disgruntled followers.
I don't know what was promised in this game at the beginning. I do know that they've piggy backed on the back of IL-2. When you do that with a game that has a huge following and much respect, you know what the players are expecting...much of the same, only better. Switching (from what I understand towards the end of development) to a ADHD like reward system for a campaign just borders on the unbelievable.
So yes, the reviews might be overly critical. Does that mean other reviews should be overly praising? Aren't they just as bad as each other? In one, the dev loses out. In the other the consumer loses out.
In the end it can be fixed by providing what people want...and from what I gather people did not want a "console type" campaign (and that isn't to be down on consoles). They wanted the same and better from the game's namesake - IL2.
Devs and publishers need to understand that it's quite important to listen to the people they are selling to.
It would also be nice for everyone to be objective and fair. But this is the real world - and it's a bit :uglystupid2:
A bigger distinction between that un-named game and BoS is that if you read BoS forums, it seems to be split pretty evenly between pro and con. Although the cons seem to shout a little louder. With the un-named, people pointing out relatively minor issues and making them bigger issues are by far the minority. That is on Matrix and other forums. It is also setting pricing aside. Coincidentally, BoS is actually more expensive for all in than the un-named game.
As to BoS, I'll again point out that its biggest issue is its trying to be all things to all people. But most likely, only the hardcore simmers went into early access. That skews the complaining to people expecting the next coming of IL-2. Also keep in mind the state of the original IL-2...it took years and extreme community modding to get it to the point of true awesomeness. Expecting BoS to just be a continuation or evolution of that is unfair.
There are definitely disgruntled people and often those type of people can be vindictive. Hence scores way below what they likely should objectively be.
I'm afraid I've been burned by enough developers and publishers to even bother to stick up for them. Alot of which was my own doing, I'll admit, by buying early...but still, there are some developers and publishers out there that must surely break some kind of law somewhere. They're big boys and can stick up for themselves.
I wrote a post many, many years ago (possibly even on the IL2-Battle of Britain (when it was initially about the Battle of Britain) that rivet counters were breaking the sim world. Kind of a sweeping statement and not directed at everyone who wanted levels of realisms...but there were (and always will be) a very vocal bunch of people who will want absolute realism, at any cost whatever that realism is...from the look of a particular type of model for a particular aircraft or the actual workings or the flight model.
I look at DCS and wonder where that's heading. Some great modules there - all of which I own - and yet a pretty empty overall experience.
I just don't get who thought this "unlocking" system in the sim genre was a good idea. I mentioned "console" system before because from my limited (very limited) gaming on console gaming, I got the impression games for consoles where prone to having "unlocks" more so than PC games. And in particular the genre...that's NOT how the hardcore sim genre works.
And don't forget people fight change...until it's there and embedded - then it's the norm and accepted.
I could be wrong - wouldn't be the first time.
This just seems to be one of those cluster fucks that's gained momentum by an apparent threat of the game being no more from the devs, a more reasoned post by the publishers and deleting of threads. I understand why they wanted to remove non-helpful (different to non-positive) threads - but that's NEVER going to go down well. EVER. Conspiracy theories abound.
In the end it's their business and it's their work. It could've been avoided (at least on this scale) if they'd listened to the fans of the series. And as I said - you put a tag on a game that represents a very respected game - people are going to expect that AND MORE. You can avoid that expectation by trying to play on the love of another game by leaving it out the equation.
The problem with the internet is too many idiots with a voice - including me ;) - so I'll go away and hope the game gives you the gaming pleasure you seek.
Holy Crap! I own BoS, but really haven't looked at the drama unfolding in any detail. I just dropped by SimHQ and got a whiff of what is happening. I feel like I'll need to take a couple showers after seeing that. After those threads, the Command thread looks like a choir practice.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 15, 2014, 12:43:22 AM
QuoteWe have had recently on this forum an episode involving an individual ripping a quite massive simulation because of a totally irrelevant detail regarding the maximum speed of aircraft. I can't help seeing something similar going on with this rubbishing - because it is rubbishing, no more, no less.
Not to contaminate this thread with the other you mention...but that's a bit harsh BG.
He has pointed out many issues with "that game" from release. A lot of which I noticed myself. The fact that others started to solely focus on that one point (to do exactly what you have done - dismiss other points offered) is being disingenuous and simply disregarding other points made.
I don't know if those points stack up now - but they certainly did on release...I know.
JD's right. All wasn't perfect at release and there is still a ways to go. Let's not dismiss all criticism on desired improvements.
As for the IL2:BOS developers, perhaps they should take such input from their customers and try to make use of it instead of fortifying their position and delivering Punishment Patches and tantrums. :idiot2:
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 15, 2014, 12:46:05 AM
And another thing - I love the fact that modders are out there and they are absolutely superb at what they provide.
But I'm sick to death of reading that they'll rescue something. Developers need to get their fingers out their arse and start producing complete, working products.
Good point. O0
I found it completely playable as a game on release. There were a few crashes here and there for some people. If you follow a lot of those threads through, they were related to not letting Directx and .net install all the way through. I made that mistake on first try also.
Most of the discussions were around features being added to limit manual intervention or make it more like Harpoon. Its not like it a mess on release.
A thought occurred to me on initial perceptions on Command...A number of the biggest complainers on initial release were some of the rivet counters. I posted a couple times about the risk of letting rivet counters take over the development of the game. I have that same concern on BoS. The devs spend so much time trying to make sure every single 2-person motor boat is in there that they never get to the important features.
Another issue is people who have no clue about modern naval combat. We are seeing that now and I think its related to the Steam release. The types of posts we are seeing now is people don'y know what a sonobouy is or what OTH radar is, etc. Command is not where you are going to learn the basics of modern naval combat. You have to have a baseline of at least being able to google stuff and then see how it applies in the game.
Quote from: RyanE on October 15, 2014, 05:51:30 AM
Also keep in mind the state of the original IL-2...it took years and extreme community modding to get it to the point of true awesomeness. Expecting BoS to just be a continuation or evolution of that is unfair.
This is the most important point to my mind. I don't think that anyone could argue that BoS isn't better than Il2 in terms of FMs, DMs and graphics. What it lacks is content (planes, theatres and campaigns/careers) and I'm sure the original IL2 was in a similar state on release.
Quote from: RyanE on October 15, 2014, 09:01:56 AM
I found it completely playable as a game on release. There were a few crashes here and there for some people. If you follow a lot of those threads through, they were related to not letting Directx and .net install all the way through. I made that mistake on first try also.
Most of the discussions were around features being added to limit manual intervention or make it more like Harpoon. Its not like it a mess on release.
A thought occurred to me on initial perceptions on Command...A number of the biggest complainers on initial release were some of the rivet counters. I posted a couple times about the risk of letting rivet counters take over the development of the game. I have that same concern on BoS. The devs spend so much time trying to make sure every single 2-person motor boat is in there that they never get to the important features.
Another issue is people who have no clue about modern naval combat. We are seeing that now and I think its related to the Steam release. The types of posts we are seeing now is people don'y know what a sonobouy is or what OTH radar is, etc. Command is not where you are going to learn the basics of modern naval combat. You have to have a baseline of at least being able to google stuff and then see how it applies in the game.
I complained about the UI lacking tools & essential info, some inabilities of the subordinate AI, and the lack of sound in the game. I'm not a complete noob when it comes to knowledge of modern naval & air warfare. It was just lacking in usability and features I had expected, especially for an $80 sim. I still see some of the same stuff reported so there is work left to do before it reaches the point of being unquestionable. It should've been listed as 'Early Access' for awhile, IMO. This is not to say it's a complete write-off. The hard working devs will get it all filled out in time, I am sure. ;)
While there may be some new Steam users tearing their hair out, that's generally expected of any Steam release. Especially when it's a program with such a difficult UI to learn. Hopefully some of them aren't turned off by veteran players' backlash, they eventually figure things out, and we get a few new fans of the genre. Instantly lashing out with derogatory replies calling them "noobs" and telling them to "go back to Call Of Duty", as I've seen people do so many times on Steam, doesn't help such possibilities. Even if the specific poster will never try the game again, there are numerous other lurkers who will see such posts and get the impression that the elitists run all the new people off. I try to avoid such fiery retaliatory posts against new players' criticisms anymore. Just makes things worse.
Hopefully the IL2:BoS devs have got a grip and will stop retaliating too. I'm still astonished by their nerfing of the time compression in response to someone "levelling-up" too quickly. ::)
But its not the UI I am talking about. Its the general lack of knowledge of naval tactics and even terminology. The game is built for people with some basic understanding of things as simple as sonabouys and SOSUS. Or at least the ability to use google/wiki to look them up in context.
UIs are always valid/invelid complaints. It just depends on where the devs put their time and money.
Looks like they managed to get all the user reviews pulled off of Metacritic as it's still early access.
Also, there's a new update today:
Quote1. Offline game mode was added
2. New mission type - "Attack Planes Intercept" - was added in Campaign
3. New mission type - "Transport Planes Intercept" - was added in Campaign in 3rd, 4th and 5th stages for Soviet side
4. New mission type - "Attack Planes Cover" - was added in Campaign
5. HUD waypoint icons were changed a bit in Campaign
6. Artillery positions in Campaign now have additional decorations like ammo boxes, cammo nets and so on
7. Invulnerable Heinkels bug in QM Duel was fixed
8. Bridges, buildingsa, facilities now are counting in Flight Statistics (comment for mission builders - they should have non-neutral country assigned to be listed in stat)
10. Static planes and trucks now are counting in Flight Statistics (comment for mission builders - they should have non-neutral country assigned to be listed in stat)
11. Player statistics now is storing during Multiplayer Mission untill rotation even if he have exited server and back again
12. Player Campaign Statistics counting was fixed in Pilot Profile page (previous statistics was dropped to have correct future counting)
13. Ammunition indication on HUD was fixed in case of switch to turret and back
I wonder what secret number 9 is?
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 15, 2014, 05:51:35 PM
Looks like they managed to get all the user reviews pulled off of Metacritic as it's still early access.
That's a fair bit of impassioned user feedback to just flush down the memory-hole! Granted, all the "10/10" and "0/10" rankings may have been childish, but there was at least some well-reasoned reviews posted. And which raises the question:
Why didn't 777/1C just try to get Metacritic to pull the reviews in the first place, instead of creating this sad saga to begin with, imploring fans to go on the site and boost the game's ratings -- ?!? :idiot2:
It is possible that 777 had nothing to do with it and Metacritic pulled it themselves because of 777's post.
Quote from: magnus on October 16, 2014, 11:36:23 AM
It is possible that 777 had nothing to do with it and Metacritic pulled it themselves because of 777's post.
That could set a bad precedent if all publishers have to do to get rid of Metacritic ratings is make a "To Arms!" post.
What a mess. I hope they pull it together and put that energy towards improving the experience instead of issuing Punishment Patches and Calls to Reviewer War. I
do want it to be good, in the end.
Jason was uber sensitive over Rise of Flight..which is off putting I agree.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on October 14, 2014, 07:00:41 PM
Wow...so glad I stood strong and did not purchase. Seems like developers nowadays are reacting over the top to any critique their games receive....big turn off for me even if a decent game. The way they react bring a bigger spotlight than the negative feedback in the first place.
No longer early access, but Officially Released:
http://store.steampowered.com/news/?appids=307960 (http://store.steampowered.com/news/?appids=307960)
Metacritic is still on lockdown though. I'm surprised they released it as it has got some bugs still. Friendly AI ground attack planes won't attack ground targets and online stats don't update. Seeing as how they want to appeal to the grind for achievements crowd, you'd think they would want to get the stats thing ironed out.
£40
:2funny:
Hey flight simmers know value when they see one. I can plop $70 just on an add-on plane in FSX or X-Plane.
Well - as a flight simmer I concur.
My "lols" were me lolling at the price for me. £40 for that game isn't going to happen. I don't like their unlocking idea. I don't like the sound of the career and I don't like the battlefield.
So...£40
:2funny:
Career? I wish!
Cat's out of the bag. As many suspected, the devs announced a "starter" version of the game in which the player will get only two planes (The Bf-109 F-4, and the LaGG-3 ser 29) and will have to grind for the rest. Currently it's slated for the Russian market only with a price of 499 rubles (~$13). Hell of a slap in the face to those of us who coughed up $100 for the game yet still have to do the same grind in order to earn the plane mods and skins.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 25, 2014, 04:34:27 PM
Cat's out of the bag. As many suspected, the devs announced a "starter" version of the game in which the player will get only two planes (The Bf-109 F-4, and the LaGG-3 ser 29) and will have to grind for the rest. Currently it's slated for the Russian market only with a price of 499 rubles (~$13). Hell of a slap in the face to those of us who coughed up $100 for the game yet still have to do the same grind in order to earn the plane mods and skins.
:knuppel2: :knuppel2: :knuppel2:
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 25, 2014, 04:34:27 PM
Cat's out of the bag. As many suspected, the devs announced a "starter" version of the game in which the player will get only two planes (The Bf-109 F-4, and the LaGG-3 ser 29) and will have to grind for the rest. Currently it's slated for the Russian market only with a price of 499 rubles (~$13). Hell of a slap in the face to those of us who coughed up $100 for the game yet still have to do the same grind in order to earn the plane mods and skins.
wow....very interesting decisions this developer/publisher is making.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 25, 2014, 04:34:27 PM
Cat's out of the bag. As many suspected, the devs announced a "starter" version of the game in which the player will get only two planes (The Bf-109 F-4, and the LaGG-3 ser 29) and will have to grind for the rest. Currently it's slated for the Russian market only with a price of 499 rubles (~$13). Hell of a slap in the face to those of us who coughed up $100 for the game yet still have to do the same grind in order to earn the plane mods and skins.
Wow.
They went for a WoT/WT setup, as suspected, yet they're still charging for the base game. Maybe $13 isn't too bad if you can unlock
everything but I suspect the grind will be so extensive that they're just trying to nickle & dime for every extra thing.
A large part of the reason match-based games like WoT & WT are so successful is their quick multi-player matchmaking systems and only a single central server you need log into. You can fire them up and get straight into full-size MP matches in no time, with little fuss. Does BOS even have any central MP system with such ease of use? Or is it just a small collection of user-created servers with a couple good full ones at cap and the rest being practically empty?
Great. Now SimHQ is going to eat up my entire morning! >:D
Quote from: Toonces on October 26, 2014, 02:45:45 PM
Great. Now SimHQ is going to eat up my entire morning! >:D
??
SimHQ's Il-2:BOS forum has been a rage-fest for the last couple of days. Didn't help when one of the moderators from the official forums came in to complain about the complaining going on and call anyone who complained an idiot for doing so. That got the blood up in some and he later edited his comments. Good little soap opera going on if that's your sort of thing. Sadly, I have to admit I'm enjoying the forum melodramas more than the game at this point.
Wow! Gotta love emotional simmers.
Quote from: jomni on October 27, 2014, 08:06:30 PM
Wow! Gotta love emotional simmers.
Mixed with emotional devs, it's a powder keg.
Quote from: Nefaro on October 28, 2014, 12:05:22 AM
Quote from: jomni on October 27, 2014, 08:06:30 PM
Wow! Gotta love emotional simmers.
Mixed with emotional devs, it's a powder keg.
Seriously...in this case I don't think it's the emotions of the simmers that is the source of the problem. The developers' public reactions to feedback have been childish and downright bizarre.
I don't understand why a metacritic review should affect a Flight Sim. I can't recall ever basing a purchase decision on Metacritic score. An educated gamer can see right through trollish reviews or reviewers unreasonably raging.
I have to say that the entry price of the game is rough. I can't help but compare it to DCS or even 777's other game Rise of Flight. You can get in to those for free and check it out, then buy DLC to your hearts content. Its hard to drop $60 especially because of the weird drama going on. If they'd just let you buy the game and one airframe for a low price just so people can see for themselves, it may help turn their bad PR tide.
Quote from: republic on October 28, 2014, 06:45:33 AM
I have to say that the entry price of the game is rough. I can't help but compare it to DCS or even 777's other game Rise of Flight. You can get in to those for free and check it out, then buy DLC to your hearts content. Its hard to drop $60 especially because of the weird drama going on. If they'd just let you buy the game and one airframe for a low price just so people can see for themselves, it may help turn their bad PR tide.
Someone mentioned that they're doing some $18 deal in Russia that gets you 2 planes to start with. And something about unlockable ones?
I don't know the details. Maybe that will only be a deal for Russkies? It would make the grind more palatable, I'd imagine.
It's also been mentioned that 777 Studios lamented how they lost money on
Rise Of Flight. Well duh. They expected to make a living on selling somewhat pricey individual aircraft DLC for years after release, with a server login connection required for much of the content. I love ROF but the marketing was atrocious and scared me away for a long time. This seems to be a staple of Russian devs - bad marketing.
I've also found that many Russian developers hoping to produce an MMO/Battle Arean style game are pricey by default and expect to ride that ride for a long time. I hear that's what ROF was originally meant to be and now IL2:BOS has gone down that road even further. Can't really blame them since the aforementioned 'battle arena' games have made money hand-over-fist and still do so long after release. But the IL2:BOS guys are going about it the wrong way. Those others are Free-To-Play (as was ROF, essentially) so they're starting off on the wrong foot to begin with (as Republic mentioned). If someone is coughing up the $60, or whatever it's going for currently, they're perfectly right to expect the content to be unlocked.
I didn't think ROF started out free to play. I thought that only happened a few years ago. You had to buy a starter pack with 6-7 planes and then add planes one at a time.
So how does one go about making money by producing a high-fidelity combat sim? Genuine question.
One (or two if allowing fighting on either side) flyable aircraft and a good single player experience (ala dynamic campaign) or perhaps even (god forbid) a solid online arena with a dynamic world.
Add other flyables as and when.
Sounds good in practice. I have ZIP idea on how difficult or easy it is to create a dynamic campaign or have a continuous online arena.
Quote from: Father Ted on October 28, 2014, 10:27:13 AM
So how does one go about making money by producing a high-fidelity combat sim? Genuine question.
This is the real issue. I think the really messy non-solution that DCS represents is paradoxically the best hope for the future. You do
get pretty good aircraft simulations -- and pretty good SAMs and even some okay ships. And third-party aircraft seem to do okay in the
environment. Whether much of it makes any real sense is an open question -- BUT -- the mission editor is very good and you can
put together battles that make some sense.
I don't have much hope for the Bos/Rof model of somehow extracting money from an irate community. The DCS model of offering a kind of
space where players can deploy their purchases might work better eventually.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 28, 2014, 10:46:58 AM
One (or two if allowing fighting on either side) flyable aircraft and a good single player experience (ala dynamic campaign) or perhaps even (god forbid) a solid online arena with a dynamic world.
Add other flyables as and when.
Sounds good in practice. I have ZIP idea on how difficult or easy it is to create a dynamic campaign or have a continuous online arena.
Do you think one or two flyables at release is enough? A reason that my squad mates are iffy about BoS is that it only has 10 - we're used to hopping in whatever we want in IL2 46. And then how do you price it? Say £40 for a game (any game) is a benchmark these days. So that's £20 a plane - people baulk at BoS "premium" planes for £14. How about the campaign - how much will people pay for that?
I just don't know where we go with this.
Quote from: MengJiao on October 28, 2014, 10:51:17 AM
I don't have much hope for the Bos/Rof model of somehow extracting money from an irate community. The DCS model of offering a kind of
space where players can deploy their purchases might work better eventually.
But then a lot of the ire directed at both RoF and BoS concerns their lack of a "proper" campaign/career. People seem to expect some sort of game, not just a sand-box for them to make their own game with. Of course my impressions about all this are gleaned from reading various forums, which might not truly represent what
most people want (ie would pay for).
Quote from: Father Ted on October 28, 2014, 12:28:41 PM
Do you think one or two flyables at release is enough?
Absolutely. People still play fixed versions of
Falcon 4, as JD mentioned, because it's the full package. Not just an assortment of hi-fi aircraft to fly in environments lacking life and immersion. Relying on large amounts of players to make it feel 'alive' isn't something that should be relied on and doesn't always lend itself to the living world aspect anyway.
QuoteA reason that my squad mates are iffy about BoS is that it only has 10 - we're used to hopping in whatever we want in IL2 46. And then how do you price it? Say £40 for a game (any game) is a benchmark these days. So that's £20 a plane - people baulk at BoS "premium" planes for £14. How about the campaign - how much will people pay for that?
I just don't know where we go with this.
I enjoy a lot of variety as much as the next person. But I think the sim environment needs it as much as the flyable aircraft to make a good game and I'd be more than happy to sacrifice some extra flyables in an initial release if that could be done well enough.
Unfortunately most of the current flight sim developers only want to spend all their time creating new flyables and skip spending much time on making the environment less limited and robotic. The only proposed additional work in such areas by the likes of DCS, 777, etc have been after large amounts of pressure from their customers. And they're not even whole-hearted attempts. :-\
I'm no businessman and I'm no games programmer, though I am a programmer.
So what I said before and what I say now is really only me mouthing off :)
For me, there are too many aircraft in DCS. I never know what I want to fly when I fire up DCS. Too many choices is bad news for my gaming. I need focus. Same with driving sims. I'm all over the place given an open sim. Give me something to focus on and a great world to use it in and I'm happy as a sand boy.
For WWII, give me a Battle of Britain sim (and a proper one - not CLoD) with a real, believable, shifting campaign and environment to play in and a Messerschmitt and a Spitfire and Hurricane and I'd pay full dollar for it. Then charge me for a flyable Stuka, He-111, Me-110, Hurricane, Ju-88...whatever else you want. That way people get all the aircraft they want to fly and with the company making money (MUST be priced right).
I'll be happy because the sim has a world I can actually play in and feel part of.
imo (and again - only my opinion) too much is being done to give content for online play and not enough is being given to the single player experience.
Falcon 4 done it years ago - a real, living, breathing environment to fly one aircraft in. Why the hell are we going backwards with game development? :uglystupid2: I say "we" and mean "single player" we. We're getting more flyables perhaps - but nothing to really do with them unless you want a sterile environment OR play online
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 28, 2014, 12:45:09 PM
imo (and again - only my opinion) too much is being done to give content for online play and not enough is being given to the single player experience.
A better campaign environment can improve the multi-player experience as much as single-player if it's integrated there.
Quote from: Father Ted on October 28, 2014, 12:28:41 PM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 28, 2014, 10:46:58 AM
One (or two if allowing fighting on either side) flyable aircraft and a good single player experience (ala dynamic campaign) or perhaps even (god forbid) a solid online arena with a dynamic world.
Add other flyables as and when.
Sounds good in practice. I have ZIP idea on how difficult or easy it is to create a dynamic campaign or have a continuous online arena.
Do you think one or two flyables at release is enough? A reason that my squad mates are iffy about BoS is that it only has 10 - we're used to hopping in whatever we want in IL2 46. And then how do you price it? Say £40 for a game (any game) is a benchmark these days. So that's £20 a plane - people baulk at BoS "premium" planes for £14. How about the campaign - how much will people pay for that?
I just don't know where we go with this.
It's not £20 a plane when you factor in a great environment to play them in. I am one who has baulked at the £15 price for a flyable - and that's because (for me) there's nothing to play it in.
£40 for a game with 2 flyables and a superb, thoroughly thought through and engaging environment and campaign will win my money every single day. I'd even halve the number of flyables I'd pay £40 for if the engaging campaign was there.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 28, 2014, 12:45:09 PM
imo (and again - only my opinion) too much is being done to give content for online play and not enough is being given to the single player experience.
The problem is that the segment of the gaming population that would be happy with a realistic campaign engine is not significantly less grumpy and/or larger and with more money to magnanimously spend than the segment of the gaming population that is irate about BOs and
ROF and CLOD. To build a realistic campaign engine for realistic planes must be about the least lucrative and most difficult and unrewarding of all realistic simming undertakings.
As for me, I've learned not to be grumpy. I take the games I can get and if they have a good editor all the better. I'm not expecting a decent campaign engine (other than Woff) any time soon because the realistic sim-builders see it as just another way to lose more money trying satisfy a small and very grumpy population of people who won't spend much money on combat air-sims because in the past the things were pretty cheap.
Which is all very sad, but it is unlikely to change any time soon.
Quote from: MengJiao on October 28, 2014, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 28, 2014, 12:45:09 PM
imo (and again - only my opinion) too much is being done to give content for online play and not enough is being given to the single player experience.
The problem is that the segment of the gaming population that would be happy with a realistic campaign engine is not significantly less grumpy and/or larger and with more money to magnanimously spend than the segment of the gaming population that is irate about BOs and
ROF and CLOD. To build a realistic campaign engine for realistic planes must be about the least lucrative and most difficult and unrewarding of all realistic simming undertakings.
As for me, I've learned not to be grumpy. I take the games I can get and if they have a good editor all the better. I'm not expecting a decent campaign engine (other than Woff) any time soon because the realistic sim-builders see it as just another way to lose more money trying satisfy a small and very grumpy population of people who won't spend much money on combat air-sims because in the past the things were pretty cheap.
Which is all very sad, but it is unlikely to change any time soon.
I try and not get mad about it...what's the point? I do get perplexed from time to time and sad about it, but again, I can only see these things through my eyes.
I have most definitely not given up hope that a modern flight sim will hit our computers one day with a fluid, dynamic campaign that's fed to you in real life ways and gives you that incredible sense of immersion.
Maybe I should give up - but I don't want to :)
This is purely a self-inflicted wound on 1C/777's part.
BoS wouldn't have half of these problems if:
1. No unlocks/unlock system.
2. Persistent pilot career in the single player campaign (even the shitty campaign they created).
3. Whatever planes you have purchased immediately available, including skins, field mods, etc.
4. Everything above also available in multiplayer.
5. No online log-in activation bullshit requirement, especially for offline play.
6. Make the sim moddable.
Done. Everyone would be gushing about how awesome this sim is instead of focusing on its shortcomings. It really isn't all that hard IMO.
Again, I'll state what I think their main issue is...they want to be perceived as a hard core sim that has appeal to the grinding market...or maybe the other way around. Any businessman will tell you a sure way to kill a business is to try to be too many things to too many market segments. That is especially true on launch.
Now what they have a mish mash of elements from both segments. They should go all War Thunder or all DCS-like.
But to be fair, hard core simmers are impatient asshats. Does anyone remember how long it took to get IL2 to a state where it has any resemblance to what it is now...3, 5, 7 years? And F4...how long did it take to get that campaign working right. It actually took the community to do it and it took a long time. I can see the foundation of that in BoS. But the devs have been such idiots, I am worried it won't have the grassroots support it needs to develop in the community.
I do feel like I wasted my $90. But lesson learned on early access stuff.
Quote from: RyanE on October 29, 2014, 06:08:08 AM
Again, I'll state what I think their main issue is...they want to be perceived as a hard core sim that has appeal to the grinding market...or maybe the other way around. Any businessman will tell you a sure way to kill a business is to try to be too many things to too many market segments. That is especially true on launch.
Now what they have a mish mash of elements from both segments. They should go all War Thunder or all DCS-like.
But to be fair, hard core simmers are impatient asshats. Does anyone remember how long it took to get IL2 to a state where it has any resemblance to what it is now...3, 5, 7 years? And F4...how long did it take to get that campaign working right. It actually took the community to do it and it took a long time. I can see the foundation of that in BoS. But the devs have been such idiots, I am worried it won't have the grassroots support it needs to develop in the community.
I do feel like I wasted my $90. But lesson learned on early access stuff.
The problem with Falcon 4 campaign is that the war will be over in days. There's constant combat 24 hours a day. But of course a real war can get that intense but for WW2, maybe not.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 28, 2014, 12:45:09 PM
For WWII, give me a Battle of Britain sim (and a proper one - not CLoD) with a real, believable, shifting campaign and environment to play in and a Messerschmitt and a Spitfire and Hurricane and I'd pay full dollar for it.
Have you ever played this sim: http://www.a2asimulations.com/bob/
Its AI is magnificent. No other sim I've seen is able to put 100s of aircraft on screen and still run great.
It looks a bit dated, but there is no competition for it when it comes to immersion and a full war.
As for a modern sim, what's keeping you from having fun in Falcon BMS, if you just don't get the feeling with DCS? Lots of others are still very much active with BMS. It's a great sim and perfectly suited for SP as well.
This is one of the most entertaining topics in PC gaming right now...
Check out this thread I was pointed to. Jason is the head of the US distribution for 777, I think. I am not quite sure what is going on, but it appears they laying the smackdown on testers and such complaining. Seems a mite heavy handed.
http://ii-jg3.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=244
Yeah, but it's Siggi/WernerVoss talking and he's full on insane and has a total vendetta against 777. He's the one who tried to bring down 777 by spamming a bike riding forum with negative reviews of IL-2. You can't really take anything he says at face value.
Quote from: RyanE on October 29, 2014, 08:40:58 PM
This is one of the most entertaining topics in PC gaming right now...
Check out this thread I was pointed to. Jason is the head of the US distribution for 777, I think. I am not quite sure what is going on, but it appears they laying the smackdown on testers and such complaining. Seems a mite heavy handed.
http://ii-jg3.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=244
This denotes a very unprofessional mistake by Jason. Beta testing or any other kind of volunteer contribution before release needs to be covered by a non-disclosure agreement. Every beta testing program I have taken part in has been very explicit at defining what's confidential and the understanding that any content created while having "privileged insider access" becomes intellectual property of the developing company.
Posting openly on the Internet what is obviously personal correspondence doesn't precisely match my standards of civilized and respectful behaviour. Friendship might have a floating value, but man, I do care about my friends. In this particular case, I can't help thinking that "Hooves" didn't complain much about the monitors, freebies and other stuff, much less return all those gifts.
I am also surprised by the reaction of this "Aborted Man" person. I certainly wouldn't qualify the first message by Jason as an "ultimatum": this is not like Putin coming down on the Ukraine and saying, "guys, make sure I like your political master otherwise (points to a Battalion of T-90s)".
It is very entertaining, but I find it also to be quite sad.
Also...why were these beta testers getting material favors from the President of 777? Throttles? trips? Free server? Etc.??? Talk about unethical...
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 29, 2014, 09:11:43 PM
Also...why were these beta testers getting material favors from the President of 777? Throttles? trips? Free server? Etc.??? Talk about unethical...
In Russia, developers develop YOU!
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 29, 2014, 09:11:43 PM
Also...why were these beta testers getting material favors from the President of 777? Throttles? trips? Free server? Etc.??? Talk about unethical...
This! I see it all the time now. There is almost no division between beta testers and internal quality control any more. That is exactly why so many games come out in a sorry state. It goes straight from a programmers hands to a beta test. Beta testers act like one of the company's employees. They moderate forums, provide tech support, build scenarios, etc. In this, they have gone from beta testers to unpaid employees. Beta testers should be regular customers get an advanced copy of the software and are used for real-world field testing. The only comp they should get is free or low-cost software. And they usually have no training or experience in testing and quality control. How many times on game forums do we hear someone ask..."how did this get by beta testing, its so obvious". Because these guys are real QA testers.
It leads to abuse of customers by so-called beta testers who think they are employees. It also leads to abuse by the SW companies towards the testers. You see this at BFC where once someone becomes a beta tester, all criticism goes away and they start talking on the forums like the are employees. At companies like BFC, beta testers run the forums, with only occasional input from developers. I know several companies that have specifically recruited their most effective critics as beta testers in order to silence them. And its worked. SES was well known for it.
Quote from: RyanE on October 30, 2014, 06:07:19 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 29, 2014, 09:11:43 PM
Also...why were these beta testers getting material favors from the President of 777? Throttles? trips? Free server? Etc.??? Talk about unethical...
This! I see it all the time now.
It's a fight to the monetary exhaustion of sim-builders versus people who are very grumpy. Not really all that interesting. A similar thing happened with Rome II: a fight to exhaustion of Rome II builders versus people who are very grumpy. I thought it was novel at the time and now I realize it happens all the time.
Quote from: RyanE on October 30, 2014, 06:07:19 AM
This! I see it all the time now. There is almost no division between beta testers and internal quality control any more. That is exactly why so many games come out in a sorry state. It goes straight from a programmers hands to a beta test.
And increasingly, it feels like the "beta" phase is being skipped in favor of Early Access (see JH's posts about Gal Civ III). From the dev/publisher standpoint, the genius of EA is that customers essentially pay to be beta testers.
Yeah, but EA state of a game is usually barely Alpha state, if anything. You are asking your customers to be the QA department. Its not even beta. beta is supposed to be fully functional. Alpha is supposed to be fully featured. What we are getting in EA is ususally not even fully featured.
There's got to be something more going on behind the scenes. Early on in the pre-access cycle, players had the ability to customize their graphics settings. This was yanked in favour of 4 pre-set options. At the time, the developers stated the reason was the tech support team was getting too many complaints about poor performance from people trying to push their cards too hard. One of the less diplomatic of the devs even came out and basically said most users are too stupid to properly understand their PCs and we don't want to waste time dealing with them.
Well, a Russian player has been archiving each version of the game release as it updates and he figured out a way to pull some files from an archived version and allow the players to go in and customize graphics options. He posted the files needed as well as a how-to guide and was nearly universally praised on the forums for his efforts by other players.
As the lack of gfx customization is one of the more common complaints, it would be natural enough to assume the devs would adopt the changes. Natural enough were this any other dev team than the BOS group. They immediately clamped down and re-wrote a few things so the fix would no longer work.
They really do want total, centralized control over all aspects of this game. I shudder to think what happens when (if) they finally release the full mission builder. I can only guess at the restrictions that'll be in place on that beast.
A user called Desode posted this over at SimHQ. Makes for some interesting reading. I knew that 1C had screwed over Gaijin, but I didn't realize just how much.
Quote from: DesodeThere is More to this then you know,, When 1C Screwed over Gaijin with Il2 BOP ,,that's where this all started and where its coming from and where its going.
There was a Big falling out between the two because as I said before in other threads,,Gaijin wanted to support their fan base with changes and fixes but Since 1C owns the Il2 license they would not pay for Gaijin to make Updates to support what the Sim Oriented Base wanted changed.
1C was Against red outs and Black outs and FM tweaks !
Gaijin wanted to update all these things for the fan base and release the fixes on Console for IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey.
Since this was a licensed 1C il2 game , 1C refused.
Gaijin said fine then, we will pay for at least a update to the ps3 version out of our own pockets !
So all the Dev team chipped in their own individual money to pay for that update. A update which added in Fm Changes and Red Outs and Black outs, PC Flight Stick Support and other things that the Full Sim game Mode Community wanted.
Then 1C got even more upset,,,but gaijin was smart enough to know their contract.
Lucky for Gaijin they had in the contract that it was still their work and that they could take the work and use it under another published name and leave 1C with their work intact..
That became WOP on the PC,,, But the Current game engine ( Dagor Engine ver 1 ? ) had reached it's limitations and they couldn't create a FMB under that build.
The PC crowd got upset over that and Gaijin went and moved on to WT with the Same Core build which had close to 100 FMs from the 1C Original Il2 1946 planes set.
I can Only Imagine How STEAMING Mad 1C was !!! because in all honesty Gaijin came out of it better off.
Hence,, I don't believe for a minute that Jason and 777 studios had any clue what was going on when they got involved in this mess ! they had a working relationship with 1C when they joined to further publish ROF,, but at that point in time ROF had been pretty Much completely created already.
So you see, 1C did basically the Exact Same thing they did to Gaijin with 777 on the BOS venture !
Difference is that 1C had Developers in the Mix during the creation of BOS and they also held the Il2 License over 777's heads !
That's what this is all about ! I would bet everything on that too.
1C is the Most Greedy and Backhanded publishing company in the PC arena.
They don't give a Damn about who they hurt or what their fan base wants.
They will step on anyone's throat to make a Buck !
So there is some background on that, and when you add that into the mix you then start to see why BOS is what it is and why it is going where it is going !
It's HONESTLY time to let the Il2 name Go !
Let's be honest here,, it's just a franchise name, and we need a Developer that can make what the Sim crowd wants and needs but just under another name.
Let 1C go down in flames to where they deserve to be, which is a Fiery Pit of Ruin !
How many times will we let them use the Il2 Franchise name to rip us all off and screw everyone over ???
Most gamers will never hear this story and they will never know what kind company 1C is,, but for those of you that do read this,, remember it and take it to heart.
1C does not deserve another dime from any of us EVER AGAIN..
They just keep dangling the Il2 franchise name in front of us and take our money and then Screw over everyone that was involved in that current Il2 title all the way down to the consumers.
I don't know if I buy all that...from reading that email exchange posted between Jason of 777 and two "beta testers", Jason didn't come across as an innocent well-meaning developer being taken advantage of by the big bad publisher.
I don't think he's innocent but I do suspect he's now realizing what a corner he's painted into. I think he may just be doing whatever he can (no matter how unethical) to recoup his investment costs.
Has anyone actually been playing this in Multi-Player? Or has the grind pretty much eliminated that for the moment?
I played it for a bit on the Syndicate "full-real" server but I quit because the stupid "normal" or "expert" realism presets means it's anything but "full-real".
As of now, it's impossible for the server to globally set options beyond what's allowed in the pre-sets. Even under expert settings, players can turn on GPS settings in the map. This shows the player exactly where they are on the map and also shows all enemy positions within about a 1km radius around the player. Playing as a ground-pounder is kind of boring because people just turn on the map assist and instantly find ground targets. The fighters turn it on so they can find ground pounders trying to fly low and slow to stay hidden, then they just vulch.
If you're into Air-quake, I guess it's all right and there are a reasonable number of people playing. It's not my thing though.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 30, 2014, 09:06:08 PM
I played it for a bit on the Syndicate "full-real" server but I quit because the stupid "normal" or "expert" realism presets means it's anything but "full-real".
As of now, it's impossible for the server to globally set options beyond what's allowed in the pre-sets. Even under expert settings, players can turn on GPS settings in the map. This shows the player exactly where they are on the map and also shows all enemy positions within about a 1km radius around the player. Playing as a ground-pounder is kind of boring because people just turn on the map assist and instantly find ground targets. The fighters turn it on so they can find ground pounders trying to fly low and slow to stay hidden, then they just vulch.
If you're into Air-quake, I guess it's all right and there are a reasonable number of people playing. It's not my thing though.
Yeah. >:( After investigating, I see that they have no mission editor, no server-specific setting options, etc, etc. This seems increasingly bare-bones when it comes to such things.
I noticed Jason had a distinct lack of customer relation skills when he was on the Rise of Flight forum over at Sim HQ. Think I had a little run in with him at one point. Obviously still heavy handed and defends the games way to aggressively.
I may have done something stupid in picking up the base package.
But I seem to have finally started playing multi-player ROF at the worst possible time this past week. The servers have been almost dead other than last Sunday IIRC. I'm sure many of the MP simmers are doing BOS right now, so I jumped on the bandwagon.
Not looking forward to grinding some missions out to unlock stuff for MP and the unimaginative "Quake Sim" generic MP missions that devolve into camping out over someone's airfield. Nor the ridiculous price tag on the two extra aircraft DLC. WTF is up with that?! But I feel the need to go where the targets are.
I also recently ordered a CH Fighterstick, throttle, and pedals. Been wanting a better setup with more of everything so may as well push it to eleven.
I played a short Multi-player stint after running through some single-player missions to unlock the planes. I think you only need to do the first four tutorial missions to unlock your sheeit, but the real grind will be for the extra weapons loadout options. ::)
IL2:BOS is definitely thin on quality content. I say quality because it does have that random mission generator. It seems to be an improved version of the one used in ROF's Beta campaign to create missions. I've seen the one in ROF give me the exact same mission and route, duplicated within a very few campaign days. Then there's the insta-spawn enemy squadrons. At least it has some randomization, I suppose, and hopefully a bit more variety in this version.
The game obviously uses the ROF engine. Down to the settings menus and hotkeys being the same. Minus the missing custom difficulty settings and mission editor. The latter is needed the most right now, for multi-player, because the MP mission is just a pair of airfields set up too close to each other where people will be shooting at you on take-off. If you manage to survive, the action can be fun if without much purpose other than the aforementioned "Quake" running & gunning. I did see people in Stukas and Sturmoviks but they seemed to be attacking the airfield spawns as opposed to accomplishing any attacks on ground units. Not even sure if they get points for doing so. Either way, I don't think you get any Unlocks for scoring in MP... so you're forced to do the random mission generator if you want to unlock each plane's armaments.
Despite all it's shortcomings regarding content and development decisions, the flight and damage modelling is quite nice as far as I've seen. And gorgeous. I watched in awe as my Yak-1 was shot down by a pair of pouncing FW190s. The tail lost a few pieces, then it popped off a couple seconds later. I did my best to lessen the impact, being so close to the ground, but when I hit the thing rolled and then skid sideways through a patch of trees along a road. One of the trees busted another larger chunk out of the back of my fuselage with bits flying, made it spin again, and then there was a small explosion as it finally settled. A smoke cloud shooting out and up.
If the developers ever manage to devote similar energy to increasing the content value of the game as they put into the audio, visual, and animation details then it could be pretty awesome. Right now it's like a relatively short-term sugar buzz.
ps: Flying ze German planes is obviously the popular thing to do on the Multi-player servers, as they have speed and climb advantages over the Russkie aircraft in general and their energy retention in a hard turn isn't much worse. Also more ammo. Better overall. So I started playing the underdog despite my enjoyment of B&Z.
Congrats on the CH gear, Nef! Do you have them already or are they still on their way?
I have been using my CH Pro Pedals for over ten years now and they're still going strong. Quality gear, that.
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 01, 2014, 06:52:14 AM
Congrats on the CH gear, Nef! Do you have them already or are they still on their way?
I have been using my CH Pro Pedals for over ten years now and they're still going strong. Quality gear, that.
Should get all of it next week. :)
Not sure how well I'll get on with using rudder pedals but at least I'll have a wide all the options.
Kept finding myself avoiding anything but WWI flight sims lately. Partly due to wanting more hat switches and buttons available on my HOTAS to govern engine and data management controls. Even though I'm fine with the lower fidelity sims that just use keyboard commands, I do
not like having to do two- or three-finger keyboard shortcuts combos for things that get used as regularly as those. Actually, even the hi-fi sims are still a pain in the ass with these things, too, if you don't have all the extras on your hardware.
Got some flight sim fever again. It's been WWI most of the year, so I'll spread out again for a bit. Not enough hours in the day!
Quote from: Nefaro on November 01, 2014, 11:50:12 AM
Not sure how well I'll get on with using rudder pedals but at least I'll have a wide all the options.
There will be a transition phase, but stick with it, is my advice. If you're already using a twisty stick then you probably won't see an actual improvement in your flying, but it is more immersive using pedals
Quote from: Father Ted on November 01, 2014, 12:59:36 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on November 01, 2014, 11:50:12 AM
Not sure how well I'll get on with using rudder pedals but at least I'll have a wide all the options.
There will be a transition phase, but stick with it, is my advice. If you're already using a twisty stick then you probably won't see an actual improvement in your flying, but it is more immersive using pedals
I actually use the big rocker switch on the other side of my throttle at the moment. It's okay other than being too sensitive, so hopefully the pedals will be less so.
My concern regarding using the pedals relates to comfort. Having nasty lower back injuries, with matching bolts and beams, may cause problems. Suppose I could just resell it if that's the case.
Yes, generally well looked after sim hardware is pretty steady with its price second hand, so if it doesn't work out you should be able to get some decent coin back for it.
What sims are you looking at for now?
I use these :
http://flightsimcontrols.com/store/available/t-rudder-pedals-usb-eu/
They are definitely a great addition, my flying and gunnery have improved since getting them. The ergonomics are great, you just push with your toes, don't have to move your whole leg to move the pedals. Extremely precise digital sensors and metal construction.
I up graded from saitek combat pros which were ok, just not as precise enough.
Your thoughts on the sim are right on, It has a lot of potential, just needs more content. A revamped editor is in the works, so that may really help the situation.
I have been on a big flight sim kick lately as well, putting most of my time in Il2 Bos and Dcs mig21.
Quote from: Nefaro on November 01, 2014, 02:34:02 PM
Quote from: Father Ted on November 01, 2014, 12:59:36 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on November 01, 2014, 11:50:12 AM
Not sure how well I'll get on with using rudder pedals but at least I'll have a wide all the options.
There will be a transition phase, but stick with it, is my advice. If you're already using a twisty stick then you probably won't see an actual improvement in your flying, but it is more immersive using pedals
I actually use the big rocker switch on the other side of my throttle at the moment. It's okay other than being too sensitive, so hopefully the pedals will be less so.
My concern regarding using the pedals relates to comfort. Having nasty lower back injuries, with matching bolts and beams, may cause problems. Suppose I could just resell it if that's the case.
Sorry to hear about your health issues - and obviously I can't speak to those - but I think that pedals will be a definite improvement over a rocker switch. Another advantage of them (for BoS, not RoF) is toe-brakes - makes taxiing and landing more manageable.
You may want to look into getting a twisty stick if you've got a bad back. Resting your feet on the pedals doesn't give you the support you need, especially if your chair is on casters. If it is, make sure you lock the wheels or you'll end up pushing yourself around the desk a lot. I've farted around with both pedals and twisty sticks and I find that I get more precision out of a stick than I do from pedals.
Thanks for all the suggestions guys.
I didn't expect my Fighterstick and Pedals to come in until Monday, but they showed up today. As did
Warfighter and it's first expansion. Always nice surprise to get toys early!
As for surprises, I didn't expect the CH Fighterstick to be this large. Never saw one in person. It's beastly. Which is good because it also has a very large throw range. As for the pedals, it looks like I may be okay with them if I keep my heels on the edge of the base instead of in the cups. Would just have to slide them up when I need to brake. Speaking of braking.. do you guys generally set up the toe brakes to both the left and right in your airplane sims or go set all brakes to both for parity?
Those T-Rudder pedals look amazing Skoop! Hopefully I'll manage with the CH ones. If it works out but the heel cups get on my nerves, I'll saw them off if need be. My only current concern (before actually using them) is how loud it is when you move them back to the center detent. I'd rather have it loud than weak though.
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 01, 2014, 02:44:09 PM
What sims are you looking at for now?
Well.. I
am into
BOS right now even though it needs more content, even for Multi-player. Not sure how long this stretch will last because it desperately needs the Difficulty options unlocked, individual Server Settings options, and a Mission Editor to make the Multi-player missions something more than "Air Quake". They're saying that the Editor will be coming soon™ so we'll see how that goes.
I've not really played WW2 flight sims much since... ohhhh..
European Air War? I think that was the last one I played a LOT. Didn't get into IL-2 Sturmovik back in the day, despite owning it. The thing had some issues for awhile and by the time I picked up IL-2 1946 awhile back, there were finally mega mods that helped a lot of that stuff. But then I was still spending more time in jets and biplanes.
My big hurdle with flying WW2 sims is learning the engine management. I'd prefer to have custom settings where I can turn off the 3D labels and such, but leave the engine management on auto for awhile until I get used to actually handling the planes and sighting stuff in BOS without assistance. I am very happy that they seem to have kept the same flight and damage models in the "Normal" difficulty mode.I'm currently just flying that mode rather than spending all the time learning each aircraft model's engine management (too much like work). I want to learn it but dunno if I should bother yet since I may not be playing a lot of MP with it until the extras get released and people create custom server missions.
As for the others..
I'll still be doing a lot of
WOFF and
ROF. The experience is just more visually and aurally engaging in those old open cockpits and I love the setting. ^-^
Will still be doing some ROF multi-player, when a Realism server gets decently populated anyway. Only been seeing between 2 and 8 people on at any one time this week. I suspect quite a few of the ROF players are doing BOS multi-player right now so I diversified too.
The main reason I also got the throttle, with the umpteen extra gadgets on it, is for flying more modern "study" sims. Wanted a lot of had switches for the Data/Weapon/Countermeasure HOTAS commands and other such stuff in
DCS and Falcon
BMS. That will mean spending a lot of time mapping all that crap, but I'll get to it eventually, once the prop plane cycle has passed again. I should probably finally get back into Falcon soon after my Throttle shows up.
If I knew that there were steadily populated DCS multi-player servers, then I would re-learn that stuff. But last I heard it was ~thirty servers, each with one or two people in them. Kinda meh.
*Engine Management Rant On*
For some reason I find WW2 prop plane engine management an annoying hassle. Probably because I mostly got into sims flying jets at a young age where you didn't have to mess with such things. Flying for the action & tactics and not so much the nuts and bolts. The WWI engine management isn't a big deal - there are only one or two throttles/cowls you gotta jockey on any single plane. Some of these WW2 planes have what? Four? Five?
Audio and visual cues have come a long way in flight sims (one reason I really enjoy ROF) but it's not quite so obvious in the these planes due to having a cockpit and the vibrations only becoming noticeable when things are very near a bad spot. I think of it like driving a stick shift.. if you've done it for a bit, knowing when and how to shift becomes second nature without having to look about, check your instruments, or think on it much. Some of those subtle cues are still missing or unnoticeable in flight sims, so the engine management takes a bit more focus to do it properly. When I want to dogfight or dive bomb. :D It doesn't help that there is little official documentation on this stuff for BOS right now, so I'd be left scrounging to get up to speed.*Rant OFF*
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F000%2F392%2F687%2F142.jpg&hash=8db71631b78e17d00537d77615546ae8e8d3223c)
Brakes are different for German and Soviet planes in BOS. Germans have both left and right brakes so you can map those to the toe brakes. The Soviets get by with one massive brake....for RUSSIA! Just remember to keep your tailwheel locked for take-offs and landings.
I really enjoy the CEM in BOS (for the Russian planes. Don't like it for the German ones but then again, I never fly the dirty Huns anyway).
Quote from: Nefaro on November 01, 2014, 06:22:50 PM
Will still be doing some ROF multi-player, when a Realism server gets decently populated anyway. Only been seeing between 2 and 8 people on at any one time this week. I suspect quite a few of the ROF players are doing BOS multi-player right now so I diversified too.
The Syndicate server is always worth a look coz their "Active Front" set-up means that there is stuff to do even if there aren't many people on.
There's some quick guides in the manuals/ guides forum of the official game forums.
http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/82-tutorials-and-manuals/.
Might help, the key to CEM is just knowing the range to operate in and use caution when exceeding them. If your not opposed to flying German planes, both 109 models and the fw190 have all automated engine management, you just control rpm with the throttle. Just have to keep manifold pressure under the damage setting.
Also, you can play the campaign in normal difficulty and add complexity with hotkeys, check the controls for which keys turn stuff like labels or engine management on-off.
Thanks for the info SDR and Skoop.
I forget that some of the icons and auto engine management stuff has toggle hotkeys. As for the German aircraft's automatic stuff, do you have to turn them on at the start of a mission or are they already turned on when you start the engine?
Quote from: Father Ted on November 01, 2014, 06:47:57 PM
The Syndicate server is always worth a look coz their "Active Front" set-up means that there is stuff to do even if there aren't many people on.
I was on the Syndicate server for awhile last Sunday. It was fun because there was around 30-40 people on too! Unfortunately that was the only day I saw anyone there in the past week. It's cool that there are some AI aircraft in there for doing Co-Op stuff too, if you can find them.
During the week, I had more luck finding a handful of people on the Wargrounds server. It's custom missions have much more airplane variety to choose from than Syndicate server and more ground attack, photo, and artillery support missions too. For the same reason, player and AI aircraft tend to be a bit more scattered around the map so a small server population is more like a long game of hide & seek. While there are some AI planes in it, I don't see them quite as often as Syndicate but that could be my inconsistent visual sighting. I was there when quite a few people were on once, however, and it was superb.
Been waiting for another ROF sale to come up because I still want to get a DFW 2-seater. I have the Halberstadt 2-seater, which is a nice plane, but it's not an option to fly on the Syndicate server for Recon. I've kinda enjoyed running solo Photo Recon over enemy territory and the only type available for that on Syndicate is the DFW (in most missions?). I have the Steam version, however, so I will end up having to pay for a 4-pack of airplanes just to get that DFW. Which means I'll be watching the upcoming Steam sales.
German planes default to auto settings. Also, you can't map axis or knobs to some German plane settings like prop pitch. Theirs go in stages so you need to map it to an up/down toggle and bump it up one notch at a time. Soviet planes use wheels to adjust pitch and stuff so you can map those to knobs and wheels.
I would just focus on flying German 109s to make the initial engine management easier, but that's usually what the majority is flying in multi-player.
Then again, I haven't done much MP anyway. Have a helluva time landing in this sim. While WWI and jet aircraft all seem to require a slow descent, flare, and a drop onto the runway at near stall while nose high, I keep getting more bounce than I expect. Nasty bounce, even. After watching some vids of other people I'm obviously not the only one with this issue. The couple I've seen do it with decent touchdowns didn't really flare much at all, with their nose almost level to the horizon, and came in rather fast. ???
Probably even more odd is the torque effect during take-offs for some of the fighters. While on the ground with the engine running high, the yaw can get ridiculous. So much so that I've actually not been able to fully counteract it with full opposite rudder on a couple occasions. The real kicker is when you first lift off while pushing your rudder halfway in the opposite direction. As soon as your wheels leave the ground, the heavy yaw caused by the engine is immediately dropped to very little and your counter-rudder instantly takes effect pushing and rolling you far too much. I think the ground yaw is too strong.
Had one crash and one complete computer freeze while playing BOS thus far. Only happened on the 'Ultra' setting, so it's probably gfx effect related because I didn't experience it on the High setting. Framerates are as good or even better when I have it set to Ultra so it's .. odd.
This thing has some drawbacks and obviously needs further work. But the ROF engine's flight & damage modelling translates wonderfully and still gives that exceptional feeling of flight. Crossing fingers in hopes development continues for a good long time, but if 1C is running the show then that's going to be in question.
Take offs can be tricky to get used to, I usually throttle up to see where the torque is going to pull, then brake and apply rudder. After enough time in certain aircraft you will just know how much rudder to apply. Lock the tail wheel by pulling back on the stick.
109 flys like a dream in the sim, I think that's why it's so popular. I actually like the 190 with all it's firepower, I like to use the 4 20mm like a shotgun effect. Can't miss, but it's harder to fly than the 109 because it has no slats for low speed turn fighting.
For landing tips watch the requiem you tube videos.
http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/3625-air-combat-tutorials-tir-profile-g940-controls-sweetfx-updat/
As a rule of thumb I always shoot for a touch down at about 150 to 160 ballpark and start pumping the brakes to slow down. You usually won't bounce too much at that speed.
In related news.. this CH Fighterstick is da bomb. Certainly lives up to it's reputation.
Sooo much more precise than my old inexpensive T-Flight. Between that and the CH rudder pedals, I've experienced a huge difference. The range of motion is is crazy.
O0 O0
When I get the Throttle, I should have all the gadgets available to map anything needed. :smiley6600:
Landing in IL-2 is tougher than other sims. I find it a lot harder to judge distance when lining up on the runway in this sim compared to others. Maybe they could introduce depth of field or something.
As for torque when taking off, make sure your tail wheel is locked (most planes have a lever but for the FW-190, you need to pull fully back on the stick to lock it) and don't throttle up too quickly. Kick opposite rudder as you start to feel the torque pulling you left or right (I think all the planes but the La-5 pull right).
If you play full length missions, remember that you have to taxi off the runway itself to get the full XP award. If you shut down or ESC out while still sitting on the runway, it's counted as an emergency landing and you get a 50% Xp hit.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on November 02, 2014, 10:35:58 PM
Landing in IL-2 is tougher than other sims. I find it a lot harder to judge distance when lining up on the runway in this sim compared to others. Maybe they could introduce depth of field or something.
As for torque when taking off, make sure your tail wheel is locked (most planes have a lever but for the FW-190, you need to pull fully back on the stick to lock it) and don't throttle up too quickly. Kick opposite rudder as you start to feel the torque pulling you left or right (I think all the planes but the La-5 pull right).
Will do. I've made sure that the rear wheel is actually locked, but I just started adding some back pressure on the run-up to be sure it's dragging properly. Being on 'Normal' mode for the moment, it starts locked by default when you load in on the runway.
I'm pretty sure the 109s pull left (due to their engines being upside down?) but I could be wrong. I've been slowly raiding the throttle and trying to slowly increase the opposite rudder with it. For the most part I'm taking off okay, despite having to hold the rudder over halfway or more down the whole runway. It's the lift-off that gets a bit alarming at times because the torque just disappears and my heavy rudder inputs take over. As soon as the wheels leave the ground. :o I was thinking maybe there's something wrong with the FM in this transition, as the planes always go directly into a sideslip as soon as the wheels leave the ground. Doesn't seem like the norm when there isn't much wind but maybe I'm wrong. :idiot2:
Can manage the take-offs right now as long as I don't have to dodge anyone or anything on the runway. Unfortunately your AI wingman right next to you begins taking off when you do in the single-player Missions. That has lead to some alarming moments during my heavy rudder battle down the runway. ;D
Quote
If you play full length missions, remember that you have to taxi off the runway itself to get the full XP award. If you shut down or ESC out while still sitting on the runway, it's counted as an emergency landing and you get a 50% Xp hit.
Thanks for confirming this. I kept seeing the "get off the runway you bastard" notifications on the UI and they seem pretty urgent. Thus far my landings resulting in an undamaged aircraft usually end up rolling off one side of the runway before stopping anyhow. So that just kinda works out, being off the runway, even if I'm not on the proper taxiway. :crazy2:
Man... I thought the damage modelling in ROF was superb. This thing is crazy. When I get noticeably damaged in single-player, I'll pause and check it out up close. I've seen individual machinegun bullet holes doing expected damage to the exact part of the aircraft they went through. Including to my pilot. Also had a couple close calls with a bullet passing through the window right in front of my face, getting a "POP!" sound as it does so along with the new hole there and the loud airflow through it. Damn fine job on the atmospherics.
Pretty sure a couple AA bullets went through my IL-2's right wing and then through the side of my cockpit to hit my pilot once, while circling around a ground target. Got that red vision with blood speckled on my goggles. Could see the exact holes lined up just right after looking in external view.
Sounds like you are having fun, Nefaro.
Post a picture of your 'pit' once you have all the toys, will you? O:-) :smitten:
I put some time into this yesterday, flew mostly the pe2 and il2 in the campaign to get everything unlocked. Those to aircraft are great, 2 of my favorites of the game. I love being able to level bomb and dive bomb in the pe2, it's pretty versatile air frame. You can bomb, dive bomb, ground strafe with mg and rockets, even do a heavy fighter role like the bf110.
The il2 is great as well, some tips I figured out with it:
When attacking armor use flaps to do a nice shallow slow dive and adjust with rudder on the target. You can get deadly accurate with the cannons against tanks, snipered 12 panzer4s and stopped a whole armored attack on a ground support mission. It seems that the 23mm with ap almost does more damage than the 37mm due to less recoil and a 4 to 1 rate of fire ratio. Cool that you do have to get flank shots or rear shots to do damage. Also cool that some hits will just mobility kill the tank and it will smoke for the whole mission or explode after 5 mins, just random which one. Sometimes you will get a catistrophic hit and the tank will go up in a fire ball.
Another note, when the campaign came out, I think the AI got heavily criticized. After getting up to level 9 at the end of the campaign, the AI definitely ramps up each level. AI fighters are more aggressive, AA is deadly accurate at this point. Also a lot more activity on the ground.
Yeah, I'm enjoying it. Although it has some drawbacks.
I had a couple d-bags exit the multi-player match right in front of me, after getting and staying on their tails. Not sure if your score remains if you just exit straight out of the game while flying MP, or whether they could log back in and still keep it. I felt robbed either way, especially after the long process of countering a 109's energy fight in my lil Yak and finally getting the advantage. >:(
The exit timer is only something like 5 seconds IIRC, if it works for completely exiting at all.
Quote from: Nefaro on November 03, 2014, 05:24:43 PM
Yeah, I'm enjoying it. Although it has some drawbacks.
I had a couple d-bags exit the multi-player match right in front of me, after getting and staying on their tails. Not sure if your score remains if you just exit straight out of the game while flying MP, or whether they could log back in and still keep it. I felt robbed either way, especially after the long process of countering a 109's energy fight in my lil Yak and finally getting the advantage. >:(
The exit timer is only something like 5 seconds IIRC, if it works for completely exiting at all.
Well, to be fair, you'll get d-bags (took me a minute to get that btw) trying to game the game in any online environment. The exit timer in RoF is a server setting I think, as I played an online war where it was set at 30s (possibly to stop the behaviour you're describing), but it's usually 5s. Hopefully we'll soon start to see clan servers and the like, so the MP experience will get a bit more refined
Your score does remain if you exit, I think this is in place In case you get dropped from a server due to tech problems, you can rejoin and continue on. Unfortunately dbags will use it as an exploit, it's more noticeable on the air quake style servers. Haven't seen it yet in the SYN or LD servers.
So the base game is £40?
Quote from: JudgeDredd on November 03, 2014, 06:06:58 PM
So the base game is £40?
Yeah, $60 here. That wasn't a bone of contention for me. It was the two release day DLCs with some of my favorite aircraft. For an insane $20 each. ::)
I
really want to check out the La-5 because it's probably my favorite Dubya-2 Russkie fighter, but have resisted picking it up. I'd feel dirty condoning such questionable marketing practices. The Fw-190 would also be nice. But $100 for the whole thing? Maybe if it were full-featured in all areas but right now there's not much variety regarding single-player missions (the "random" missions have less variation than the ROF campaign ones) and there is little to no customization of the multi-player servers yet allowed.
I really hope they continue to expand this thing, and not drop it after some cursory patches. The core sim mechanics are fun.
EDIT:
I actually ended up doing some campaign missions in ROF last night, and a short multi-player stint, because I needed a break from the repetitive random mission generator in BOS. As with ROF it's way too formulaic and, most notably, has little variation from one to the next. You'll reach the target area. Your target will spawn somewhere ahead of you. After you've achieved your mission goal, there is a chance that a flight or two will spawn somewhere around reaching the halfway home point. For a "random" mission generator, there isn't much randomization and it's even worse than the stock ROF beta campaign one.
If you wait on the la5 and 190, you may get them discounted down the road.
The la5 was great in the original il2, but I think the yak is better all around in this sim. Might be because this is the early model la5.
Quote from: Skoop on November 03, 2014, 07:44:31 PM
If you wait on the la5 and 190, you may get them discounted down the road.
The la5 was great in the original il2, but I think the yak is better all around in this sim. Might be because this is the early model la5.
I also feared the performance on those add-on birds. They're early versions, which were usually under-powered in some way.
Despite the 109s having the energy advantage, I've done fairly well against them with the Yak-1 online. That may not be the case when I start managing the radiators and prop pitch (I can be very OCD when it comes to keeping something like Engine Temp juuuust right all the time). It's not a bad aircraft. Rather short on cannon ammo though. :'( That's one thing about the La-5 .. it has two cannons with a lot of ammo for them. And wasn't the Fw-190A models mostly used for ground attack?
The 109s feel a bit 'wobbly' to me at times, even in level flight. Must be due to the torque pulling the opposite direction. Not used to that. They also don't have aileron trim AFAICT, unless the key commands just don't work for it. Gotta admit though.. all the aircraft are fun to fly. Been having tons 'o fun with the IL-2 and Pe-2 in ground attack. The AA can be damn murderous!
The Yak is definitely more nimble than the La-5. La-5 is decent at climbing and it is air cooled instead of water so you don't have to fiddle with settings as much. The visibility is pretty poor due to the massive engine cowling and the cockpit set way back from the nose.
The 109 has pitch trim, in the key controls it's called stabilizer. It works for both 109s and the 190, you have to map it separate to the generic trim controls.
This game will be in the bargain bin inside of 6 months. I'd wait on any expensive purchases, unless you really, really want them or are feeling particularly altruistic towards the developers. ???
Quote from: Skoop on November 03, 2014, 09:04:28 PM
The 109 has pitch trim, in the key controls it's called stabilizer. It works for both 109s and the 190, you have to map it separate to the generic trim controls.
Yeah, I had already set that to the same as my pitch trim switch. The "pitch trim" works for Russian aircraft but not for the "German stabilizer" trim. One of the Stabilizer trim sets of commands didn't work at all. So I switched the buttons to the incremental "throttle" type one (that has two commands in the same entry, + and -). It works now although it's
very sensitive since I had to use the throttle one to get it to work.
I was talking about roll, however. I don't think many planes had it back then but it's handy when they do. The leftward roll seems particularly strong in the 109s.
On another note, I just spent my whole evening flying ROF multi-player on the Wargrounds server. What a blast. I'm ultimately hoping BOS gets the same post-release attention and additions that ROF has had. But with 1C, I doubt it will. I read some dev remark on either their forum or the Steam forums. I got the impression that other than the few already promised tools to be released, they were going to leave it and start creating a new standalone sim again. Le sigh.
Still way too expensive to entice me given what I perceive to be it's huge shortcomings from my pov.
Maybe in a sale...never say never.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on November 04, 2014, 02:21:12 AM
Still way too expensive to entice me given what I perceive to be it's huge shortcomings from my pov.
Maybe in a sale...never say never.
I agree it's rather over-priced for the content. Especially the release day DLC. It's a love-hate relationship for me. I grabbed it because I thought the Multi-player might be fun. But I've ended up going back to ROF MP whenever there are people on the right server. Was about 22 on Wargrounds earlier, so I hit the jackpot after not seeing hardly anyone there for the past week. I guess they started coming down from the BOS sugar buzz.
Somebody even mentioned they came to play ROF because the BOS realism server was pretty much dead tonight. That may not be a good sign. They better get the editor and other stuff out soon. BOS really is fun to fly. Kinda like DCS, I suppose. Although it's probably easier to find a BOS server with more than two people in it right now.
DCS lends itself much more to closed virtual squadron servers rather than airquake servers, so that is what you see as a result.
There is quite some MP activity in DCS, but its not visible, similar to what we do at SB Pro with Dogs of War.
IL2 has always seen a lot of furball servers online with various realism settings . Its a much different approach. Where its All about bragging rights and endless discussion about how aircraft a is superior to b and how this and that should be changed in the flight model. :)
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 04, 2014, 02:51:00 AM
DCS lends itself much more to closed virtual squadron servers rather than airquake servers, so that is what you see as a result.
There is quite some MP activity in DCS, but its not visible, similar to what we do at SB Pro with Dogs of War.
IL2 has always seen a lot of furball servers online with various realism settings . Its a much different approach. Where its All about bragging rights and endless discussion about how aircraft a is superior to b and how this and that should be changed in the flight model. :)
I much prefer those kinds of servers anyway - less KJ's about. Though I always find it a problem to be pro-active in joining one! Which means I never get online - aaahhh...the irony! :buck2:
But I definitely don't really like the jump in a fight with anyone rubbish. Very similar thing with online FPS play. I used to hate the shoot fest of CoD and yet loved BF as a "tournament" game with co-op play and sound tactics (not realism obviously...but working together as a squad "tactics")
As I say though - I seldom look around for squads to join or air squadrons to join and therefore seldom play online. Steel Beasts and Dogs of War is the exception nowadays and that's because ASID was actively recruiting (or at least promoting) the game. I've always preferred co-op to adversary though.
I'd rather just jump straight into MP without spending a lot of time pre-planning to do just that.
So I guess you might call that "Air Quake" but there are still differences depending on the server mission. If it has just one or two airfields up close to each other, with what amounts to a small focused conflict area right in the middle, then it could definitely be called Air Quake.
But if it has multiple goals spread out around the map, and multiple ways needed to achieve them all for a side win, then that's MP gold. Doesn't require sitting around waiting for long periods of time waiting on people and planning beforehand, but still demands teamwork and some small degree of coordination once you're in the game. I'd rather jump straight in with minimal fuss and have fun.
That's why I spent hours flying ROF multi-player last night. Even though I'd only spot a target and attack (or get attacked) once in awhile, it was still immensely enjoyable sneaking around to do such things and taking in the experience. And paranoia. Even had an impromptu flight grouped up for a bit. Flew ground attack in a Breguet hunting Hun trains, took Photo Recon pics in a Bristol F2b, and shot a couple people down in a Sopwith Camel. Lotsa variety without thumb twiddling. Just requires a populated server. :knuppel2:
I think BoS MP got a lot of bad press simply because people didn't seem to get the idea that it was a testing ground. The devs hadn't set out to produce a fun game - they just wanted to know if it would all work. Now of course we should hope to see improvements in the actual gameplay. The Syndicate guys produced something worthwhile by all accounts.
As to RoF, your experiences mirror mine, Nefaro. I think that what I love about it is the unscripted nature. As you say you can fly for ages and not see anything, and it's not boring because of the paranoia. Then suddenly you're embroiled in a furball - it's breathless action for a few seconds and abruptly the sky empties once more. It really feels like the way it's described in the books.
Quote from: Father Ted on November 04, 2014, 05:10:48 PM
As to RoF, your experiences mirror mine, Nefaro. I think that what I love about it is the unscripted nature. As you say you can fly for ages and not see anything, and it's not boring because of the paranoia. Then suddenly you're embroiled in a furball - it's breathless action for a few seconds and abruptly the sky empties once more. It really feels like the way it's described in the books.
Heh. I actually put my Camel into a spin yesterday, when I glanced back to see a German Halberstadt 2-seater right behind me, preparing to deliver a sneaky kill shot. Yanked so hard she went into a nasty spin. Normally ideal in most aircraft, but a rightward spin can be unpleasant in the Camel. Then I nearly righted her but saw the Hun was on top of me again and accidently put it directly into another spin. This time I didn't recover before hitting the ground.
Gave me a good scare. :o
Got some payback later on, with a couple kills.
Quote from: Nefaro on November 04, 2014, 06:27:48 PM
Quote from: Father Ted on November 04, 2014, 05:10:48 PM
As to RoF, your experiences mirror mine, Nefaro. I think that what I love about it is the unscripted nature. As you say you can fly for ages and not see anything, and it's not boring because of the paranoia. Then suddenly you're embroiled in a furball - it's breathless action for a few seconds and abruptly the sky empties once more. It really feels like the way it's described in the books.
Heh. I actually put my Camel into a spin yesterday, when I glanced back to see a German Halberstadt 2-seater right behind me, preparing to deliver a sneaky kill shot. Yanked so hard she went into a nasty spin. Normally ideal in most aircraft, but a rightward spin can be unpleasant in the Camel. Then I nearly righted her but saw the Hun was on top of me again and accidently put it directly into another spin. This time I didn't recover before hitting the ground.
Gave me a good scare. :o
Got some payback later on, with a couple kills.
Lol, all your ROF talk makes me want to join you!
Tuna - where the hell have you been hiding? Are you spreading the love elsewhere? :-*
Quote from: Tuna on November 05, 2014, 11:29:33 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on November 04, 2014, 06:27:48 PM
Quote from: Father Ted on November 04, 2014, 05:10:48 PM
As to RoF, your experiences mirror mine, Nefaro. I think that what I love about it is the unscripted nature. As you say you can fly for ages and not see anything, and it's not boring because of the paranoia. Then suddenly you're embroiled in a furball - it's breathless action for a few seconds and abruptly the sky empties once more. It really feels like the way it's described in the books.
Heh. I actually put my Camel into a spin yesterday, when I glanced back to see a German Halberstadt 2-seater right behind me, preparing to deliver a sneaky kill shot. Yanked so hard she went into a nasty spin. Normally ideal in most aircraft, but a rightward spin can be unpleasant in the Camel. Then I nearly righted her but saw the Hun was on top of me again and accidently put it directly into another spin. This time I didn't recover before hitting the ground.
Gave me a good scare. :o
Got some payback later on, with a couple kills.
Lol, all your ROF talk makes me want to join you!
I overhead some clan players mention they were gonna be back Wednesday, so there may be a well populated server again later tonight. Presumably 'New Wings - Wargrounds' again.
Besides the grinding and other BS, how is the single player game?
It's shallow. The campaign is broken up into 5 chapters that supposedly reflect different stages of the battle. The only differences between the chapters are the location of the front lines and airfields. You also have to unlock airfields but there's no real point as you can spawn any of your chosen nation's plane from any field. Missions are randomly generated and aren't bad but they do get pretty repetitive as there isn't enough variety between waypoints or objectives. The AI isn't bad at air-to-air but air to ground is broken as are radio commands. Your wingmen don't follow orders very well at all.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on November 05, 2014, 05:12:45 PM
It's shallow. The campaign is broken up into 5 chapters that supposedly reflect different stages of the battle. The only differences between the chapters are the location of the front lines and airfields. You also have to unlock airfields but there's no real point as you can spawn any of your chosen nation's plane from any field. Missions are randomly generated and aren't bad but they do get pretty repetitive as there isn't enough variety between waypoints or objectives. The AI isn't bad at air-to-air but air to ground is broken as are radio commands. Your wingmen don't follow orders very well at all.
Good overview of BOS single-player's current situation.
The random mission generator suffers from similar symptoms as the one in ROF. There is only a few mission routes chosen from randomly at each airfield, and enemy flights will just spawn into the sim while you're flying near certain points. Admittedly, they spawn in beyond visual range but you can still tell because when their spawn "roll" succeeds, they tend to pop up in the same few areas of the mission legs like clockwork. I think the spawning in the ROF campaign was better, actually, but maybe that's due to there being more variety available to feed into it.
I saw some dev screenshots of some new on-screen command prompts that they're gonna release in the near future. This still strikes me as an unfinished sim due to things like your wingmen not following orders, always rushing off to do whatever they want, and their plans to add such a system. Presumably making the commands actually work while they're doing so. Along with the editor(s), dedicated server options, and other stuff they're promising, it's obvious that this BOS is still in development. Maybe they should've left the 'Early Access' label on it awhile longer?
In other news.. got my CH throttle in today. So now I have the whole setup. Should be able to bind everything I need in A-10C and BMS to the HOTAS now. Only cost me one kidney and my soul. >:D
Murphy struck again though. Been a bit ill since last night so I may miss any ROF multi-player bash tonight. :'( If there ends up being a 20+ server pop again, I may try anyway. :crazy2:
Nefaro, which CH set are you using?
Quote from: jomni on November 05, 2014, 08:37:47 PM
Nefaro, which CH set are you using?
CH Fighterstick
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chproducts.com%2FFighterstick-v13-d-722.html%3Fdo%3Dthumbnailer.get%26amp%3Bsrc%3Dimages%2Fchproducts%2Fproducts%2FSimulation%2FFTR.jpg%26amp%3Bw%3D200%26amp%3Bh%3D200%26amp%3Bmethod%3Dsurface%26amp%3Bquality%3D80&hash=ef0c680e5bb0db45178b52f5c5a23d7c3060be48)
http://www.chproducts.com/Fighterstick-v13-d-722.html
CH Pro Throttle
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chproducts.com%2FPro-Throttle-v13-d-719.html%3Fdo%3Dthumbnailer.get%26amp%3Bsrc%3Dimages%2Fchproducts%2Fproducts%2FSimulation%2FPT.jpg%26amp%3Bw%3D200%26amp%3Bh%3D200%26amp%3Bmethod%3Dsurface%26amp%3Bquality%3D80&hash=811952f13582b0f019437e279f8898e8b44ce2f4)
http://www.chproducts.com/Pro-Throttle-v13-d-719.html
CH Rudder Pedals
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chproducts.com%2FRudder-Pedals-v13-p-179.html%3F%21do%3DZG89dGh1bWJuYWlsZXIuZ2V0JnNyYz1pbWFnZXMlMkZjaHByb2R1Y3RzJTJGcHJvZHVjdHMlMkZTaW11bGF0aW9uJTJGUFAuanBnJnZlcnNpb249cHJvZHVjdHMubWluaQ%3D%3D&hash=2b6c404529c4d248cfba1bc8f55e2041935da79f)
http://www.chproducts.com/Rudder-Pedals-v13-p-179.html#2
Those are all deceptively larger than they look in the photos. Superb precision and feel to them. Especially the Fighterstick. The centering spring isn't so strong that it gives you hand fatigue from holding it in one position for long periods but still works wonderfully. Has a really long throw range and moves quite smoothly throughout. Even has manual trim wheels on the base to adjust manually via the stick itself.
I could've just used the Fighterstick and the Rudder Pedals and been quite happy with my setup since there's a throttle wheel on the stick base. But the Throttle has even more buttons ... and a mini-joystick for moving the radar gates and IR pods on the modern sims.
My only complaints would be that the Throttle base can slide a bit on my desk, from initial testing, if I don't apply a little down pressure when moving it. It may just need to be broke in a bit.
Another is the topmost red button and 8-way hat switch on the Fighterstick. Even with my large hands, it can be difficult to reach those quickly without shifting my mitts upward. With the large array of button/switch options, it's not that big of a deal. I'll use those for the more rare commands I may need on my HOTAS.
Lastly, the cups on the bottom of the rudder pedals are in the way. They wouldn't be an issue if my shoe size was smaller, but my size 13s tend to inadvertently push the toe brakes in at the top when resting on them normally. So I put some foam in that part in order to rest my feet lower on them without the cups pushing into my foot. I suspect I'd have the same issue with most rudder pedal sets except the most expensive kind with just bars.
I went a but nuts, dropping a few hundred dollars on all these, but it has made a huge improvement in my flight simming experience. I had asked around which HOTAS system people would recommend, and CH got some noticeable mention. I wasn't let down. Going from an inexpensive Thrustmaster HOTAS to this was a massive leap. Far better than the X45 I had years ago too. Between my new toys and the TrackIR 5 I already had, I'm in sim heaven.
Ah the "F-16 set". Good choice. :)
Quote from: jomni on November 05, 2014, 09:57:10 PM
Ah the "F-16 set". Good choice. :)
Yep. Planned for all occasions. :)
Quote from: Nefaro on November 05, 2014, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on November 05, 2014, 05:12:45 PM
It's shallow. The campaign is broken up into 5 chapters that supposedly reflect different stages of the battle. The only differences between the chapters are the location of the front lines and airfields. You also have to unlock airfields but there's no real point as you can spawn any of your chosen nation's plane from any field. Missions are randomly generated and aren't bad but they do get pretty repetitive as there isn't enough variety between waypoints or objectives. The AI isn't bad at air-to-air but air to ground is broken as are radio commands. Your wingmen don't follow orders very well at all.
Good overview of BOS single-player's current situation.
The random mission generator suffers from similar symptoms as the one in ROF. There is only a few mission routes chosen from randomly at each airfield, and enemy flights will just spawn into the sim while you're flying near certain points. Admittedly, they spawn in beyond visual range but you can still tell because when their spawn "roll" succeeds, they tend to pop up in the same few areas of the mission legs like clockwork. I think the spawning in the ROF campaign was better, actually, but maybe that's due to there being more variety available to feed into it.
I saw some dev screenshots of some new on-screen command prompts that they're gonna release in the near future. This still strikes me as an unfinished sim due to things like your wingmen not following orders, always rushing off to do whatever they want, and their plans to add such a system. Presumably making the commands actually work while they're doing so. Along with the editor(s), dedicated server options, and other stuff they're promising, it's obvious that this BOS is still in development. Maybe they should've left the 'Early Access' label on it awhile longer?
Come come now Nefaro. If they left the "Early Access" label on, they couldn't mug people for £40 :crazy2:
I've been using the same CH setup for about 9 years now. It's good gear- you will get a lot of use out of it! :smitten:
Quote from: Toonces on November 06, 2014, 09:00:22 PM
I've been using the same CH setup for about 9 years now. It's good gear- you will get a lot of use out of it! :smitten:
It also came with the reputation for not wearing out very quickly. O0
I've not flown a CPU in a couple days. Been trying to kick some damn plague. :buck2: Mostly bed- and couch-ridden so just been at some EU4 Ironman as Poland on the laptop, in between rest. But I'm itching to fly some plastic again ASAP. Whether it's in ROF or even BOS.
Since the weekend's coming up, hopefully one of the ROF realism servers will be hopping. I wouldn't mind playing on one of the lesser realism servers but most of those are just "Air Quake" dogfights over a single spot IIRC, which isn't all that enticing. If that's dead, I may start getting used to the BOS engine management. Been putting that off, especially since the extra BOS server tools won't be out for another month or two.
Will eventually start considering re-learning Falcon 4 (BMS) again, now that I have plenty of HOTAS thingamabobs.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on November 06, 2014, 01:14:39 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on November 05, 2014, 06:49:06 PM
I saw some dev screenshots of some new on-screen command prompts that they're gonna release in the near future. This still strikes me as an unfinished sim due to things like your wingmen not following orders, always rushing off to do whatever they want, and their plans to add such a system. Presumably making the commands actually work while they're doing so. Along with the editor(s), dedicated server options, and other stuff they're promising, it's obvious that this BOS is still in development. Maybe they should've left the 'Early Access' label on it awhile longer?
Come come now Nefaro. If they left the "Early Access" label on, they couldn't mug people for £40 :crazy2:
And yet people complain when the devs stop developing their released games?
Quote from: Nefaro on November 05, 2014, 09:52:54 PM
CH Fighterstick...Even has manual trim wheels on the base to adjust manually via the stick itself.
I believe those are to adjust the stick - you can't map to them to game controls.
Quote from: Father Ted on November 07, 2014, 01:26:03 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on November 05, 2014, 09:52:54 PM
CH Fighterstick...Even has manual trim wheels on the base to adjust manually via the stick itself.
I believe those are to adjust the stick - you can't map to them to game controls.
Yes, exactly. You can manually adjust the trim via the hardware itself. No need to map them to anything, they just work.
Nefaro, you adjust the deflection of the stick with those wheel. It makes the stick lean more towards a side, changing its 0-point.
Its like constantly pushing a little against it to keep the nose level, for example.
But this isn't going to trim the aircraft. Its just going to limit your control range.
Its fairly realistic for WW2 aircraft (WW1 aircraft mostly had no trim system at All), but not for the modern aircraft, at least not for the pitch channel anyway. Because a trim tab on the elevator deflects to negate control forces on the elevator, whereas your wheel deflects the whole elevator.
This might result in control issues with larger trim settings.
Bottomline, if the sim has trim Controls you can assign, use those instead of the wheels.
And if you are going to get back into Falcon again, avoid those wheels at all cost. The Falcon has a completely electronic fly-by-wire flight control system where the stick does not move when you trim the aircraft.
So if you use the wheels to trim it, you will severely hamper your controllability by limiting your trow in the direction of the trim.
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 08, 2014, 03:30:46 AM
Because a trim tab on the elevator deflects to negate control forces on the elevator, whereas your wheel deflects the whole elevator.
Slightly OT, but has anyone noticed if BoS has trim tabs? I say this because in IL2 46, using trim controls does deflect the whole control surface (visually at least).
That's why I said its fairly realistic as a one stop shop solution for WW2 sims, as not all aircraft had trim tabs yet. :) Spitfire is one that had tabs. As had most German planes, but I am not sure about the Russian aircraft.
And even on aircraft with trim tabs you could argue that using the trimwheels on the stick is still a viable option, because airspeeds in that Era were not going to be a limiting factor for aerodynamics until later on in the war (P-51 and Me262).
Whether this is simulated visually in the sim is another matter of course.
Actually, I don't plan on using those unless I don't have trim and feel the need to use it. Which would be the case in ROF, even though I've not done so yet.
Instead, I've offset the pitch control curve in the settings about 13-14% downward and into across into the negative area, giving up some of the forward stick pressure sensitivity in exchange. Not the most ideal situation, but hopefully I don't have to push the stick more than halfway forward for much, especially on all the inline engines which have no fuel injection.
Gotta group ROF fly-in happening this afternoon with a couple guys at around 2000 UTC (that's 2:00 PM Central Time, here) this afternoon so if you guys feel like joining, I think we're gonna fly some Brit planes. No comms, just wing waggles and flares for the sake of immersion. :)
Most of us aren't old hands at ROF, and it's as much an attempt at a historical experience as "Air Quake", but one of them records the outing, puts it up on YouTube and we kinda debrief on his fledgling forum created for this purpose. The last one was just myself, Dukely, Zebra, and Tailmange patrolling around in a somewhat loose formation for awhile and then strafing a train (near an enemy city!). The crazy archie fire killed one and forced the other three down (one of those - me - became a POW). Not exactly a success. ;D
Edit: Will be Syndicate server first, since it has some Co-op capability. After that flight is done, I may stay or switch to Wargrounds if that server is jumping this afternoon. Usually on ROF as "Nefaro" but "Phillip Payne" is my RFC alter ego for our Entente flight today.
What do the different Flare Colors mean? I might try and join, if I can figure out how to get them to 'fire' properly.. I always struggle with the Darn Flare gun in game... My ID I think is Hot Tuna (like the band)
I think I've just got the yellow flare mapped.
Not sure about the flare colors. I generally don't use them in multi-player as you're advertising your location to all your enemies in a wide area.
The Syndicate server is fun, but their plane selection is often very limited. I may switch over to Wargrounds server in a bit. The Recon escort fly-in was uneventful (until everyone left, then I got in a dogfight) so it's a free-for-all now.
So I put some time into the La5 today, and I can't believe how much of a difference trim in all the control surfaces makes. I can trim this thing to a point that it feels like it's a floating magic carpet. I think I just found my new favorite plane. The twin cannons in the nose really expose my gunnery weakness. I'm a spray and pray shotgun gunner and the la5 needs sniper accuracy. The thing flies so nice though, can't resist using it.
Quote from: Skoop on November 08, 2014, 04:33:29 PM
So I put some time into the La5 today, and I can't believe how much of a difference trim in all the control surfaces makes. I can trim this thing to a point that it feels like it's a floating magic carpet. I think I just found my new favorite plane. The twin cannons in the nose really expose my gunnery weakness. I'm a spray and pray shotgun gunner and the la5 needs snipped accuracy. The thing flies so nice though, can't resist using it.
I really wanna get the La-5 but at $20... sweet baby jesus on a stick!
Will probably wait to make any extra BOS purchases until after I see good evidence of them expanding it.
Quote from: Skoop on November 08, 2014, 04:33:29 PM
So I put some time into the La5 today, and I can't believe how much of a difference trim in all the control surfaces makes. I can trim this thing to a point that it feels like it's a floating magic carpet. I think I just found my new favorite plane. The twin cannons in the nose really expose my gunnery weakness. I'm a spray and pray shotgun gunner and the la5 needs snipped accuracy. The thing flies so nice though, can't resist using it.
Guess I need more trim practice because mine feels like a bowling ball when I try to pull a tight turn. I can't get the ball centered no matter what I try. I also find it odd that you can only select 100% or 90% fuel with it in the campaigns. Any idea why they won't let you go lower than 90%?
Finally, I thought air cooled planes were supposed to be more robust than water cooled. I find the La-5 seems to go up in flames more readily than the LaGG or the Yak. Feels like a Stuka gunner's just got to shoot in my general direction and my crate's on fire.
I think the stuka gunners are just snipers at later stages of the campaign. Funny thing is that the he-111 gunners are terrible, it seems like I can get right up in close and just pound away with the gunners never touching me.