IL2 1946 Boring

[STEED]

This is a great series but how much longer are they going to drag out WW2? Come on IL2 we want new action in Korea. I suspect some of you guys will rush out and buy it, well hope you enjoy it.

[NeonSamurai]

As long as there is money to be made of course. Personaly im starting to think ww2 is getting a bit over done (especialy with strat/fps games), and by a bit, i realy meen way.

[Saukko]

Heh, I bought it last week (my first flight sim in, um, four years. I have to learn to fly all over again). Yeah, WWII is overdone, but SH3 is the only WWII game I have been playing in recent years. So I like it, a lot.

[CCIP]

I think what's getting overdone about WWII is the same concepts within strategies and shooters. There is a LOT in WWII that hasn't been done, in all types of genres. Just that most companies aren't willing to take the risk.

As for IL-2 - well it is an add-on, you can't judge it as a new game. Obviously it's meant to be merged into the great WWII mastodont that is IL2FB of now over 250 flyable planes. And I will be bying it - mostly so I can have a full IL2FB package for multiplayer, which is great as always.

I've spent in excess of $200 on buying up the IL-2 series (all of which I have in both English and Russian editions) and I'm not sorry. It has its shortages, but it is the most expansive combat simulator to date with great multiplayer. The addons aren't gonna change the core of the game, but they're nice to have.

As for Korea, I hope you heard that a Korea sim is already in development on Maddox's next engine, Storm of War.

[Pants]

I've seen the vids for IL2 1946..did'nt like what i saw so i'm waiting for Storm of war

[HunterICX]

well, some say that the WW2 is over, well it isnt.
its just the difference in people's taste.

you have people that like genre's like , RTS, Simulators, Action, FPS, RPG&MMORPG

and you have people that like genre's like, WW2, Modern combat, Sci-Fi

I,m all about WW2, as long as it isnt made up crap but historical correct as it can gets I'll sure get it.
from 1995 I have been playing WW2 games on the computer
and it all started with Panzer General (Great game btw in those times)

my first flight sime was CFS , I was totally going nuts when I played that game spend many hours flying planes.

when I got my first pentium 4 I got IL2: Sturmovik and played it allot but because of the lack of power in my system It was choppy to play. and when I got a newer computer the one I,m one now..I discoverd it had no Joystick port (you know the big plug) and this christmass I,m going to get a brand new Logitech Force 3D Pro and I'll bet ya I,m back in the air again :rock:

[STEED]

I,m all about WW2, as long as it isnt made up crap

Well take a look at the start of this trailer. Select the second link Voir (Streaming) [14 Mo] (http://ubi.com/FR/Downloads/DownloadFile.aspx?dfId=3821) from here -

http://ubi.com/FR/Downloads/Info.aspx?dlId=2009

[HunterICX]

I,m all about WW2, as long as it isnt made up crap

Well take a look at the start of this trailer. Select the second link Voir (Streaming) [14 Mo] (http://ubi.com/FR/Downloads/DownloadFile.aspx?dfId=3821) from here -

http://ubi.com/FR/Downloads/Info.aspx?dlId=2009

I probally saw that one on another website , cant see it right now because I,m at work. but I have seen a couple of 1946 trailer and I must say it doesnt attract me ...mainly because I cant identify some of the planes in it as been really used in WW2. I probally wont be buying that game because its not attracting me, there is a game coming out with the title ''Battle of Brittian'' a different game but its made from the Devs of IL2 and I deffintly going to take a look at it as soon as the trailers come out.

HunterICX

[STEED]

Apart from the 1946 rubbish I was put off by these fake planes and before anyone jumps up and down yelling at me what about AR-234 and the ME-262. Granted not all of them are fake but never the less this IL2 1946 add on is taking the series in to the world of fantasy, come on let's see Korea.

[HunterICX]

Apart from the 1946 rubbish I was put off by these fake planes and before anyone jumps up and down yelling at me what about AR-234 and the ME-262. Granted not all of them are fake but never the less this IL2 1946 add on is taking the series in to the world of fantasy, come on let's see Korea.


I agree on that, some series goes a bit too far. at the sudden they seem to give a candy for the small kiddies to (12 - 16 yrs old) by giving them something that isnt correct but still ''Coool!!!!'' lots of blasting action, supersonic planes that never excisted...I know what you mean Steed. in game I like to keep it Real.

sometimes some devs need to know where to stop and when. and change the wind.

[joea]

Apart from the 1946 rubbish I was put off by these fake planes and before anyone jumps up and down yelling at me what about AR-234 and the ME-262. Granted not all of them are fake but never the less this IL2 1946 add on is taking the series in to the world of fantasy, come on let's see Korea.
BS BS BS Steed, I won't mention ANY of the jets and 46 is just the last bit the DVD also includes:

Pe-2: The Pe-2 light bomber similar to the Mosquito a superb little plane and some great static campaigns as bonus.

NOT FANTASY

Storm over Manchuria:

New planes:
А-20С, 1941 (with the glass nose)
Il-10, 1945 (the ultimate Sturmovik)
Ki-27 Ko, 1938
Ki-27 Otsu, 1938 -great old fixed gear fighters
Ki-43-II, 1942
Ki-43-II Kai, 1943
J2M5, 1944 Raiden
N1K2-Ja, 1944 Shinden -Kai super fighters


AI planes: A5M4, 1938
B6N2, 1943
Ki-21-I, 1937
Ki-21-II, 1940

NOT FANTASY

Maps: Burma, Manchuria, Khalkin-Gol (Nomonhan) and my favorite Kiev

Screenshots:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8841046415

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1061046415?r=6931007415#6931007415

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4351045315

Kiev has all the monuments (though some were destroyed before or during the war, which mission makers can do of course)

Plus hundreds of new skins and custom ground objects like ahem, bicycles, new tanks, car columns, TRENCHES and bunkers.

NOT FANTASY EITHER

So if you guys don't like the made up stuff fine, don't say it is not realistic, I certainly don't think it is boring, even the 46 part brings in some of those ground objects or the Kiev map which can make GREAT 1941 scenarios.

Again, 46 IS JUST THE LAST ADDON, EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE DVD, INCLUDING PARTS OF THE 46 BIT ARE HISTORICAL.

[STEED]

So if you guys don't like the made up stuff fine, don't say it is not realistic

How can the made up stuff be realistic when it's not real. This series is long over due to move on and I wish it would, yes it is a great series but the 46 add on dose not appeal to me at all. As I said if anyone buys it and enjoys it, well good for you.

[CCIP]

Um, he just listed a whole bunch of stuff from that DVD that is NOT made up :shifty:

Mind you, 1946 is just one of the 3 add-ons that are being released in a package - and even it has a whole bunch of historically-useful things. I know quite a few people mentioned that they plan to buy it not for the 'fantasy planes', but new objects and maps.

I think of it as a 'toybox' of sorts. You're free to avoid the stuff you don't like, but don't say it's entirely useless!

Besides - you know as well as we do that it's the last (official) breath of the IL-2 series - I don't think one departure into the 'fantasy' territory is completely bad. From now on it's Storm of War, starting with BoB!

But let's face it, of course they wouldn't be 'milking' IL-2 this much if they weren't trying to pick up cash to finance their next project (Storm of War). The IL-2 series could have easily stopped at Forgotten Battles - I wouldn't regard any subsequent developments (including Pacific Fighters) as either complete or entirely neccesary. Yea, they were cash cows. But fun cash cows that I didn't mind playing around with. If you don't, your loss. Soon as I find this baby, I'm off to play at my 4.07 servers :p

[joea]

So if you guys don't like the made up stuff fine, don't say it is not realistic
How can the made up stuff be realistic when it's not real. This series is long over due to move on and I wish it would, yes it is a great series but the 46 add on dose not appeal to me at all. As I said if anyone buys it and enjoys it, well good for you.

Do you have a reading problem?? I know the 46 addon is not realistic, but the 46 DVD set includes realistic stuff?? Let me repeat the Pe-2 addon and Manchuria are realistic and included!! Did you even click on the blasted links??? I expect this lack of comprehension from other posters like N00b not you mate!!!

Sorry mate I'm really disappointed, I usually like your posts and think you're a decent fellow but please don't select quote me without reading all that I wrote. :down:

Were there Soviet/Japan clashes in Mongolia and Manchuria in 39 and 45 (same month as it were) or not?

Were not Kiev and Burma scenes of combat in WWII or not???

Were the A-20C, Il-10, and the Japanese fighters mentioned real or not???

I mean would you say a pub is bad because they serve one lousy lager and the rest are superb pub brews???

I actually do not care for most of the 46 content myself, but got it for the other addons and the objects maps and the FM fixes (stable USN fighters).

I will admit the silly fantasy Lerch is certainly a test for future FM stuff (Korea ie. helicopters).

[Konovalov]

To be honest I haven't touched IL2 FB series for many months but blame that on SHIII with the Grey Wolves mod. :D

I am in the same boat as CCIP. I have the whole IL2 series up to the Aces expansion plus some third party add-ons. I would purchase this just to have the whole series on one single DVD not to mention what Joea and CCIP have written here with regards to the content of 1946 convinces me even more so to purchase this. Thanks gentleman. :up:

[STEED]

I will admit the silly fantasy Lerch is certainly a test for future FM stuff (Korea ie. helicopters).

This is the sort of thing they should not have been put in the add on and I read your post in full. :p

OK joea you like it good for you enjoy. ;)

[em2nought]

Sort of funny that a flight sim is called boring on a naval forum. Haze gray and underway is boring. lol

The only thing to dislike about IL2 1946 to me is the fact that they dropped fairly user friendly safedisc and put the latest version of SecuROM on the compilation. From reading the forums, it sounds like a few paying buyers are having problems too. Guess Silent Hunter IV is going to have SecuROM too. Oh boy, here we go again maybe. lol :damn:

[joea]

I will admit the silly fantasy Lerch is certainly a test for future FM stuff (Korea ie. helicopters).
This is the sort of thing they should not have been put in the add on and I read your post in full. :p

OK joea you like it good for you enjoy. ;)

Well it's Xmas so I'll just wish you a Merry one anyway, just don't treat me the way a politician or hack journalist would by picking stuff out of context OK? :know:

Anyway, since CCIP and Konovalov are convinced I'll add one more thing, the new joystick routines are fabulous, if you like US planes (esp. USN) the yaw from firing guns has been fixed...and the shake and recoil on ALL planes seems better. The Il-10 is a beast...love the little Kawasaki 27 too.

U-boats and planes for Xmas, next year will be WWII tanks. :arrgh!:

[woofiedog]

The Ki-27 in the 46 addon is a Great Ride. Handles well... but if hit in the fuel tanks you loose fuel Very Rapidly and it doesn't take damage to easy.
Also the Ki-21 bomber is added... although not a flyable... but a much needed aircraft to help with early war mission building.
If you into mission building though... they have added some Excellent objects... trenches, airfield equipment and much more with the 46 addon.
Plus New Maps.
There is one more addon along the way... 4.08 and this one may cover Korea. We'll find out more on this later this year.

[Tikigod]

Before running off to 1946 he needs to finish what's in 1939-1945.

Hopefully Maddox will run out of options soon and be forced to finish what he has already in game that doesn't work. (such as B-17's, B-29's, B-24 Liberators, PBY Catalina's, etc, etc) I like how he always manages to add completely new models to the game yet, never finishes the functionality of what's already there.

Also, the maps and battle environment are extremely boring. He needs to make the gameplay more like Falcon 4.0 or Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 3. Otherwise, IL2 will just be a WW2 version of Lock On: Modern Air Combat. All look and feel, but, no guts.

[CCIP]

I think you're rushing to comparisons that don't quite work though. As much as I see what you're saying... Falcon 4.0 (possibly my favoirte simulator) and CFS 3 are NOT good examples of games that work (it took years before they did), as both work pretty much just by virtue of modding communities keeping them up. Maddox should be given credit for releasing a sim that has always worked out of the box and more or less delivers on its promises - but you're right about its downfalls. Certainly saying that IL-2 has a dynamic campaign is an embellishment at best. Likewise, I think expecting ALL of them to be flyable is a bit too much, and as far as adding - that's the company's prerogative, I suppose. A point against them is the lack of openness to modders who'd be eager to fix it. Otherwise certainly noone ever complained that Falcon 4.0 only had an F-16 to fly, and that it somehow makes it incomplete (which isn't to say your point is wrong, just that the comparison you make doesn't quite work in the first place...)

I think IL-2 is the best WWII flight sim out there, but far from being a perfect one. It's certainly by and far the best up-to-date commercial effort - far better than the commercial work on Falcon 4.0 or CFS 3 that you bring up - as sad as that might be given its obvious shortfalls in some parts.

I personally have better hopes for Storm of War that promises to open up to modding more.

[Konovalov]

The only thing that I will add here is this. Just imagine that Il2 never saw the light of day in the late months of 2001? I am just grateful for the many hundreds of hours of entertainment and enjoyment that I have got out of the Il2 series. Thanks Oleg and crew for the good flight sims times. :up:

[TteFAboB]

You can fly all planes in IL2, without cockpits for the unflyable, if you edit a textfile (don't remember which) to allow you to select them in Multiplayer sessions. You can convert a SP mission into MP and play it alone anyway.

In Falcon 4 you can also easily fly any plane by renaming a file and you get to keep the F-16 panel & functionality/avionics.

IL2 looks good and flys great but I prefer WWIIOL, which looks worse and flies worse. :rotfl: Best in IL2 are the hardcore multiplayer groups who organize "virtual campaigns" but even the free-for-all (teamed) death match sessions a-la "Counter-Strike" can be incredibly fun if you're in for some low-altitude madness, especially if they let you fly the bombers and other stuff.

[Tikigod]

You are tlaking about the sims from a modding stand point. I was talking about them out of box.

Falcon 4.0 the original version had an excellent campaign engine out of box. The campagin itself isn't a mod and its the strongest campaign engine you can find for a flight sim.

Combat Flight Simulator 3 also has a strong campaign engine out of box. I can fly from England across the channel bomb Germany, Belgium, or France and fly back. This is all out of box with no mods.

Both allow me to see a progressed war where everything I bomb actually manipulates or changes the environment for the next mission. These games actually have a feel that I am paticipating in WW2 and fighting on the front lines.

Maddox games do not. Maddox has an excellent dogfighting sim, an excellent bombing sim, and excellent carrier take off and landing sim. But, having the look and feel that I am in a war is about as exciting as the front lines in LOMAC. Its just small groups of jeeps, aa guns, tanks, here and there and thats it. It doesn't give me the feeling I am in WW2 only that I am participating in small skirmishes.




I think IL-2 is the best WWII flight sim out there, but far from being a perfect one. It's certainly by and far the best up-to-date commercial effort - far better than the commercial work on Falcon 4.0 or CFS 3 that you bring up - as sad as that might be given its obvious shortfalls in some parts.

[CCIP]

Well, not quite from the modding standpoint. Sure these games have great campaigns - no doubt, Falcon would never have what it has were it not for the ambition of its designers - but the campaign came in an with a game released in unplayable state (in the case of Falcon 4.0) or a state that was at best problematic (CFS3).

I would agree that IL-2 has not been ambitious in many departments, though, especially campaigns.

Really, my hope is that SHIII (and perhaps SHIV) turn heads among sim developers - back to true dynamic campaign. IL-2's "dynamic campaign" is a joke in some sense. We've not had a true dynamic campaign in a flight sim for years, and certainly none that even approached "dynamic" in the sense that Falcon established in 1998.

That said, IL-2 will be played by the community as long as Falcon 4, I think - not for the campaign or immersion, but for its compatibility and function, especially in multiplayer. For campaign, I found that the community has worked their way back into canned campaigns and that's where I find my SP fun for this game - thankfully there's a lot of talented scenario designers out there.

[joea]

You are tlaking about the sims from a modding stand point. I was talking about them out of box.

Falcon 4.0 the original version had an excellent campaign engine out of box. The campagin itself isn't a mod and its the strongest campaign engine you can find for a flight sim.

Combat Flight Simulator 3 also has a strong campaign engine out of box. I can fly from England across the channel bomb Germany, Belgium, or France and fly back.
This is all out of box with no mods.

Both allow me to see a progressed war where everything I bomb actually manipulates or changes the environment for the next mission. These games actually have a feel that I am paticipating in WW2 and fighting on the front lines.

Maddox games do not. Maddox has an excellent dogfighting sim, an excellent bombing sim, and excellent carrier take off and landing sim. But, as the having the look and feel that I am in a war is about as exciting as the front lines in LOMAC. Its just small groups of jeeps, aa guns, tanks, here and there and thats it. It doesn't give me the feeling I am in WW2 only that I am participating in small skirmishes.

Hmmm from what I've read the CFS3 campaign engine could have strange results, anyway I don't think one pilot should affect the course of the war as much as is shown in many dynamic engines.

The best campaigns are user-made static campaigns, IMHO. Even the least few addons for Il-2 have included some superb static campaigns. I know you can only play them once or twice, but there are sooooo many you can be kept busy for ages.

I hear what you are saying about out of the box...but the best dynamic campaign generator I've seen is DCG by Lowengrin.
http://www.lowengrin.com./news.php A bit complicated but very powerful and it has moving vehicles and a front line that can be pushed forward or back.

Lastly some hope for single missions (and the static campaigns too) some guy is working in a random genetator, can't find the link though darn it. :shifty:

[Tikigod]

Well, I'm also looking at it from a reconnaissance standpoint. One of the strong features of Combat Flight Simulator 3 and Falcon 4.0 is you can develop a memory for what is out in the battlefield. You start recognizing buildings and areas that are hot spots where you can see where your forces are not holding lines. After bombing a certain area you can fly around recon for more targets or threats to your forces for upcomming missions that you create and plan from a tactical standpoint. (Instead of hitting a small area with a few obvious targets that limits any sort of tactical strategy)

IL2 dynamic campaign generators just place forces back and forth in wider predefined areas. I tried it and its still not as exciting as a larger campaign engine where you can watch troops that move in realtime over a huge area. I feel like I am actually providing CAS in Falcon and CFS3 whereas in IL2 its like playing electronic battleship. Once you complete one map you move to the next. Its just boring in my opinion.

WW2 Online is another example of an excellent battlefield environment where you can provide close air support, recon flights, and dynamically help an actual warfront.

Also objects you can attack actually function for the campaign. IL2 they just count as a statistic. You hit a bridge in Falcon 4.0 or CFS3 it actually cuts off supply and stops troop movements from reaching the front lines. In IL2 it doesn't do anything and is the reason noone attacks them in multiplayer.

[Letum]

IL2 dynamic campaign generators just place forces back and forth in wider predefined areas. I tried it and its still not as exciting as a larger campaign engine where you can watch troops that move in realtime over a huge area. I feel like I am actually providing CAS in Falcon and CFS3 whereas in IL2 its like playing electronic battleship. Once you complete one map you move to the next. Its just boring in my opinion.


Try the DCG community made campaign generator for IL2. Its fully customizable and 100% dynamic. Even the ground war is dynamic. The front line moves as tanks move around the map. If you destroy a tank in a depot behind enemy lines then it wont reach the front line. If you destroy a convoy then tanks will run out of ammo faster. If the enemy bombs your fuel supply then you wont get any missions until the fuel supply convoy arrives.
The only problem is that you need a good rig to run it on.

:up: Community modding at its best.

[IRONxMortlock]

...there is a game coming out with the title ''Battle of Brittian'' a different game but its made from the Devs of IL2 and I deffintly going to take a look at it as soon as the trailers come out.

HunterICX
Is that this game? (http://www.battleofbritain2.com/)

If not, could you give me a link the their homepage please?

Thank you.
________
Medical dispensaries (http://dispensaries.org/)

[Tikigod]

yes, its a game and its already out...its been out for awhile now.

http://www.gmxmedia.net/bob2/

[CCIP]

No, the one being made by the same devs as IL-2 is a different game, called Storm of War: Battle of Britain. I'm not sure if there's a site for it yet. The game will not be out until later this year at earliest.

[Konovalov]

No, the one being made by the same devs as IL-2 is a different game, called Storm of War: Battle of Britain. I'm not sure if there's a site for it yet. The game will not be out until later this year at earliest.

Yep. Itching for it. Should bring back memories of EAW years ago except 100 times better.

[AVGWarhawk]

I got 1946. I have to say the new fictional planes are a bore and I do not use them. I do however like the new flight/damage models. Of course there are those that still moan and are knit picking everything about IL2. Perfection ain't going to happen.

[CCIP]

I got it too, but I don't have the time to try it out. We'll see soon; and yea, I'm not really in it for the new planes either.

[desertisland]

So if you guys don't like the made up stuff fine, don't say it is not realistic

How can the made up stuff be realistic when it's not real. This series is long over due to move on and I wish it would, yes it is a great series but the 46 add on dose not appeal to me at all. As I said if anyone buys it and enjoys it, well good for you.

"Real" and "realistic" are two different things. 2001: A Space Odyssey and StarWars are both SF, but the story of the former is realistic though not real, the latter is neither realistic nor real. Space crafts don't behave the way in space as they do in StarWars.

I don't like the add-on but I don't think it is unrealistic, just not real. :hmm:

[Frenssen]

As a bomber pilot the Pe2 and new ground objects are worth the price of 1946 alone. With Lowengrins DCG I`m playing a really interesting Pe2 campaign right now. With Lowengrins DCG generator you will get much more enjoyment from the game.

[HunterICX]

I must say the Idea behind the CFS3 campaign , that you get a map and certain targets to pick from on that date is nice.

but I would like to see in IL2 is that you have a similar map and when you press a certain spot as for example a Stuka pilot that it says

Mission: Support
Target : Bridge (incl name of the city, area or village )
Story: the German troops are pinned down, the russians are advancing via the bridge , bomb it to prevent the advance of the russian army.

something like that.

and when ur a heavy bomber, you can get mission like that you have to bomb a city to clear it out as much as posible for the ground troops to conquer it.

[Dowly]

The IL2DGEN does pretty much that, hunter. Tho, you cant click the targets, but the missions are assigned for the different squadrons. You blow up a bridge, the ground war stalls in that are for a few days and the enemy (nor you) can seize the territory.

It´s just very slow. With 3 missions per day, it´ll take days (and tens of missions) to see the effects.

[HunterICX]

The IL2DGEN does pretty much that, hunter. Tho, you cant click the targets, but the missions are assigned for the different squadrons. You blow up a bridge, the ground war stalls in that are for a few days and the enemy (nor you) can seize the territory.

It´s just very slow. With 3 missions per day, it´ll take days (and tens of missions) to see the effects.

And our rate of crashing/screwing up our J8A wasnt very good....we lost a bit too much planes in just 1 mission :rotfl:

[Dowly]

Very true, mate! :rotfl:

[Huxy]

All planes in 1946 is true.

All planes in the game were drawn. Most of them were produced. The Lerche was only drawed but never produced. I am not sure about the made a prototype.

But as Oleg has said, the Lerche model in the game is based upon the drawings. The physics of the Lerche is based upon how the German scientists thought it would work.

And it is no use to fight about if IL2 is good or not...

IL2 is one of the games you either likes OR hates.

-Huxy

[Lionman]

Hey guys, I've only just discovered this thread so am making an ultra-late comment but I had to add my £5 worth!

Personally I don't like to hear sims like CFS3 even mentioned in the same breath as the mighty Oleg's amazing series of air combat sims. As for 1946 - it is a masterpiece in marketing terms alone, as it caused a huge number of aficionados of the IL2 series who had already bought Forgotten Battles, Aces Expansion Pack and Pacific Fighters (that's already over £100!) to go out and buy a combination of them all, all over again, just to get a smaller and totally patched combined installation plus the extra planes! As Maddox Games already had 80% of the content and the remaining 20% on the drawing board this was a masterly stroke. With equally astute marketing cunning Oleg started the whole of his series with IL2 Sturmovik on the Russian Front, a vast theater of war in WW2 which many sim flyers were scarcely aware of before Sturmovik, knowing that he could work his way up to more familiar themes as his sims established his reputation on their combat characteristics alone. With equal cleverness his sims gradually approached the most popular theaters of war whilst improving the game engine, damage and flight models.

But Oleg has saved the Battle of Britain done "properly", which is the subject which most virtual WW2 air combat pilots had wanted from the beginning, until now, having used the years leading up to its launch to build a massive market for his games and defeat the mighty Microsoft. [MS were effectively knocked out of the air combat market by Forgotten Battles against which Combat Flight Simulator 3 looked relatively lame which was published at almost the same time.] I know that there is a huge group of enthusiasts for the CFS3 total WW1 MOD "Over Flanders Fields" and I have to be careful what I say about that here because I made the mistake of stating my honest opinion that OFF was simply an outdated sim re-skinned [on another air combat forum] and was immediately subjected to a mini-flame war by its affronted MOD developers and supporters. Virtual flying is a very subjective thing and I am as entitled to my opinion as they are to theirs. I took it off my PC after a few flights but may re-install it when the new enhanced version 3 of OFF goes Gold soon as in my view any negative option not based on direct experience is bigotry. I'll give it a fair go. But last time it wasn't in the same league as Bed BAron 3 D as regards the quality of game play, combat and flight models IMO. To me the CFS3 game engine always felt "arcadey" and I never felt truly "immersed" in its world, so I soon removed it from my hard disk.

Oleg's totally new game engine, massively increased accuracy in flight and damage models, dynamic weather (like FSX) and hugely increased aircraft detail and realism should ensure that Battle of Britain (the first offering in his new 'third generation' "Storm Of War" series) will instantly become THE benchmark WW2 air combat sim of all time when it finally goes Gold in late 2008 and I think the thing that is going to really grip users is the dynamic weather, which will change everything and make the whole experience far more immersive and real.

The only way he can really fail now is to have waited so long to "get it right" that it seems outdated graphically by the time it arrives, which would be a pity as a truly enormous amount of effort has gone into realism.

I am an old sim pilot (almost 62 now) who has been flying since the days when simulators were white wire frame outlines on a black screen with white wire-frame outline horizon and runway and basic flight controls on a lower screen edge panel. As an aviation buff I have also owned and flown most of the best sims that have been published for WW1 (IMO the best was Red Baron 3D) WW2 (IMO the best is 1946) and jet combat (IMO Falcon F4 was the best technically and Lock-On the best visually) and I am looking forward to Oleg's Battle of Britain along with the whole WW2 virtual air combat pilot community. Having established my "provenance" I will say that IMO 1946 is the best value for money in one package for air combat ever. My sole criticism of what Oleg has done so far are that although he has given us all those exotic jets, experimental designs and many relatively obscure aircraft, he never gave us a flyable, multi-crew Vickers Wellington, Avro Lancaster or B-17 when all three were as key aircraft in their way as the Spitfire and Messerschmidt. I asked him about that once and as I remember it his reply had to do with the complexity of the latter two aircraft at least and the fact that multi-crewed versions would virtually demand a whole new dedicated sim for online play, while his resources were already totally commited to the coming new Storm of War series projects. A pity but understandable in some ways, yet he bothered to create that vast lumering old Russian bomber, the Boston and several relatively obscure heavy bombers. Perhaps however (oh JOY) he is going to include all three in his storm of war series and has been saving them for that precisely because of their complexity? That would indeed make it an amazingly attractive purchase to a whole other makret - our virtual bomber pilots.

If any of you can remember the amazingly detailed and immersive game-play of the single player B-17 The Mighty Eighth you can see what an awesome online WW2 air simulator could be made from that, now that we have both the bandwidth and the market. I would really really love to be in a co-op mission online in a multi-crewed B-17 daylight raid or a Lancaster night mission with 9 other squad buddies in the same crew! I've done that in IL2 FB with an He III and it was amazingly immersive fun. It also gave me a new respect for the courage of the crews of those flimsy flying glasshouses!

The other "great contender" (IF it ever actually gets completed!) is Kights of the Sky or KOTs which I heard gained a financial boost in December 2007 and could go Gold around the same time as Battle of Britain. Knights of the Sky could do for WW1 air combat what Oleg's IL 2 has done for WW2 and it is certainly the one all the old Red Baron flyers await with baited breath. But in the end it may never happen and the virtual sim graveyard is full of equally impressive contenders which in the end proved "vapour ware".

Personally, far from whining about things left out or poorly done, I hugely admire those developers who undetake the vast "labour of love" which producing a really top quality air combat sim actually must be. I admire their skill, patience, dedication and the degree to which they ignore their own financial people, who ALWAYS seek to focus only on fast profit rather than satisfying the users.

My dream has always been air combat sims as immersive, dramatic, realistic and gripping as our beloved Silenthunter III & IV

One day in the not too distant future we will see the dawn of a mighty online combined air, sea & sky virtual battlefield world in which one may take any role from an FPS or stratgeic perspective. Like the FSX realm where for some years now one can fly with real-time LIVE air traffic control provided by remote players taking ATC roles and watching virtual ATC screens, just as the real professionals do. I imagine a future virtual combat war in which the virtual phone will ring in the fighter station hut and when one picks it up the REAL flight controller (playing his role in-game online in virtual London) will scramble the squadron!
. . . . . . and we have scarcely started on WW1 yet!

TALLY HO CHAPS!!!!!!!!

DIVE! DIVE! DIVE!



:rock:

[XabbaRus]

The on issue I have with BOB:SOW is that Maddox seems to be detailing things like the suspension on a truck and individual blades of grass. So much so you'll need a fast machine to play it on low settings. I saw the model of teh Spitfire and see how they have made a detailed 3d model of the engine. That to me sucks up FPS and would be better spent on the AI. I won't be able to upgrade my machine anytime soon and though it is a 3.2 GHz P4 and I could expand its RAM to 4GB and I have decent GFX I wonder if it will be enough to fly SOW when it comes out.

[Dowly]

The on issue I have with BOB:SOW is that Maddox seems to be detailing things like the suspension on a truck and individual blades of grass. So much so you'll need a fast machine to play it on low settings. I saw the model of teh Spitfire and see how they have made a detailed 3d model of the engine. That to me sucks up FPS and would be better spent on the AI. I won't be able to upgrade my machine anytime soon and though it is a 3.2 GHz P4 and I could expand its RAM to 4GB and I have decent GFX I wonder if it will be enough to fly SOW when it comes out.

Very true. And IL2's engine isnt known for it ability to run smoothly when lots of planes are in the air... and the game is almost 10 years old in few years. :doh:

[Oberon]

If Oleg can stop his AI cheating, put in some decent sounds and capture the immersiveness of BOBII and not need the specs of a supercomputer, then he's sold me.

Till then... :hmm:

[Dowly]

If Oleg can stop his AI cheating, put in some decent sounds and capture the immersiveness of BOBII and not need the specs of a supercomputer, then he's sold me.

Till then... :hmm:

Amen to that. :up:

One thing I'd REALLY like to see in BoB:SoW is AI's plane specific tactics. For Example, BoBII's BF110s use the Luftberry (Tho, I read from the forums that this isnt enabled in BoBII, dont know if it was old post or something but I swear I saw them do a Luftberry in 2 missions I flew). Seeing the AI go head on to a turn fight with 109 against Spitfire is just silly. :oops:

[HunterICX]

The on issue I have with BOB:SOW is that Maddox seems to be detailing things like the suspension on a truck and individual blades of grass. So much so you'll need a fast machine to play it on low settings. I saw the model of teh Spitfire and see how they have made a detailed 3d model of the engine. That to me sucks up FPS and would be better spent on the AI. I won't be able to upgrade my machine anytime soon and though it is a 3.2 GHz P4 and I could expand its RAM to 4GB and I have decent GFX I wonder if it will be enough to fly SOW when it comes out.

1: Oleg is doing something not done before, by maxing out details. taking combat flightsims to the next level. I dont want a IL2ish BOB game, I want something that I'm going to look at like I did back then when IL2 sturmovik hit my computer. I was looking at the features and details never seen before in a flightsim those days.

the only thing I'm worried about in SOW is: The AI, and the Aircraft Flight models. after that I hope he did something about the sounds too. and I want the MP just as good and stable as IL2 is now.

OpenGL is the base of SOW so it wont be that bad in terms of performance, just compare CFS3 and IL2 FB they both came out around the same date, and CFS3 is a blasted System hog to get pretty graphics. and IL2 FB on my computer back then ran around medium and gave me twice the amount of graphics and ran smoother.

2. P4 3.2 those overheating CPU's, get a DUAL or Quad, Dual if you want to be economic and better performance ofcourse

3. I'm fairly under the impresion that my PC is SOW prepared but if needed I just add 2 gb extra ram in it. (currently have 2gb)

HunterICX

[XabbaRus]

my 3,2 P4 stays quite cool. Can't afford a dual core though I might just get a mobo/CPU/RAM deal and keep the rest of my kit and box for the time being.

[Steel_Tomb]

You want modern sim, go get falcon 4.0!

I'm desperate to hear from LP on what their next product will be. Also REALLY looking forward to DCS Black Shark, saw a preview by BeachAV8R on SimHQ and the flight model looks simply STUNNING you can really see different forces acting on the Ka-50... awesome stuff!!!!

[Lionman]

The on issue I have with BOB:SOW is that Maddox seems to be detailing things like the suspension on a truck and individual blades of grass. So much so you'll need a fast machine to play it on low settings. I saw the model of teh Spitfire and see how they have made a detailed 3d model of the engine. That to me sucks up FPS and would be better spent on the AI. I won't be able to upgrade my machine anytime soon and though it is a 3.2 GHz P4 and I could expand its RAM to 4GB and I have decent GFX I wonder if it will be enough to fly SOW when it comes out.
Very true. And IL2's engine isnt known for it ability to run smoothly when lots of planes are in the air... and the game is almost 10 years old in few years. :doh:
I am sure that you know this but I feel it needs stressing that BoB SOW uses an entirely new game engine, not just a tweaked upgrade of the IL2 1946 engine. When I spoke with Oleg at a sim show in the UK he implied that it has always been his embition to dynamically model engine internals to make complex engine management, wear & tear, oil leaks and damage modelling under fire, as realistic as possible. He wants to get as near to a true simulator as possible, within the limits imposed by hardware and effective game play. As far as I know he is putting far less focus on moving blades of grass etc, and in any case that kind of thing can be modelled by collective alogorythms anway - like seagull flight in SH II & IV - so it need not eat CPU cycles quite as much as it seems likely to at first.

I just hope that we are all going to be very pleased with BoB when it finally arrives after such a long development period and that it will not prove to be a beta, after we have waited for it for so long . . . . .

[Dowly]

No, I didnt know they are using a whole new engine. Judging from the screenshots, it looks very similar to that of IL2. For example, the ground's underlayer is almost identical to IL2s in the latest shots of BoB where it shows the new dials. But if they are indeed using a new engine, then that explains the 2 year delay from the 2006's release date. :yep:

[HunterICX]

:hmm: Interesting about the Engine complexity....
I really hope there will be mechanical failures as well.

And perhaps a system that keeps track on you aircraft in the career mode, so that you wont get a shiney new Aircraft each sortie you start. No, you will recognize that it is the aircraft you flew last sortie.

also depending the time between sorties (to simulate time for ground crew to do service maintenance on your aircraft) to have less risk of having a failure in flight.

HunterICX

[Lionman]

No, I didnt know they are using a whole new engine. Judging from the screenshots, it looks very similar to that of IL2. For example, the ground's underlayer is almost identical to IL2s in the latest shots of BoB where it shows the new dials. But if they are indeed using a new engine, then that explains the 2 year delay from the 2006's release date. :yep:
The new game engine will be most "visible" in the flight models, damage modeling and dynamic weather but I entirely agree with your misgivings about the ground mapping, which I too think looks as lame, unrealistic and "cardboard" as in the whole IL2 series so far. Olegs team seem "object focussed" as opposed to "ambiance focussed" and IMO they have NEVER paid enough attention to making the place you start every flight from, fly over throughout and have to land on again, as realistic and "immersive" as the air combat and sky. Oleg's buildings look like kids building bricks on a fuzzy focus carpet picture - which is BAD just like the earlier days of MS Flight sim.

Another pet hate of mine is the "empty cockpits". From the outside you see pilots (but not in ALL the aircraft) while once inside and flying, you become a ghost with neither legs, arms nor hands, in an "empty cockpit". This instantly RUINS the immersion for me and is almost criminally stupid given the "rivet by rivet" attention paid to the mechanical environment inside the cockpits in SOW. Hell there are even splinters in the WOOD GRAIN on throttle handles, yet the pilot has no legs or hands! I think they have been doing it for so long like that, that they have "forgotten" how unrealistic it is.

I would like to see not only an animated pilot's body below me in the cockpit, but internal reflections of my head in the cockpit glass under the right conditions (perhaps when caught in searchlight beams!) and above all a nifty little utility to enable one to easily give one's pilot avatar one's own face! You CAN do that already with a little graphics skill, but it could SO easily be offered in a low-overhead built-in utility.

As a sim pilot who always flies with track IR 4 Pro, these tiny details would make a massive difference to my immersion. Hey I want to be able to look at my WATCH when I'm flying and have it show the real game-time! [I'm the guy who lobbied for seagulls in SH III and who has since lobbied for shoals of AI fish and even the odd shark and whale in SH IV!]

IMO the difference between "full/dull-real" and "utterly immersive & gripping" in any simulator is the creative ambiance that helps to induce a feeling of really "being there" in the player. It's the same as the difference between a professional but dull "training film" and a gripping block-buster thriller. It's all in the lighting, the detail and the overall "feel" of it all. Sound is also incredibly important and I must admit that BOBII has IL2 beaten hands down in the air combat directional sound effects. Hearing a Spit or a 109 fly close past your cockpit in a dogfight in BOBII is SO realistic that I often instinctively duck!

Although we all think it has come such a long way, this is still a medium in it's infancy, relatively speaking. About where film was in the 1930's. IMO NONE of us will be satisfied until we have photo-realism, motion capture movement of avatars, our own faces on our avatars, and in-game lip-sync & facial expressions mimicking those we actually have, via face-tracking SW through our live webcam! Don't laugh because ALL those things are going to happen.

Using Track IR 4 in ARMA (the only infantry combat FPS to support all 6 axes of motion so far), you can already nod and shake your head to other players and look in any direction you like without moving your hands or weapon. These sounds like small things but trust me, walking down a road with your gun relaxed in your hands, scanning the surrounding sky and hillside and buildings without having to change the direction or pace of your stride suddenly makes everything a 100% more "real" and immersive. Riding into battle perched in the side door of a Blackhawk, tracking the ground with your chain gun, and being able to glance over your shoulder at the other infantry filling the main cabin and the pilots in the nose, seeing peoples head's and face move and all with live comms coming over the headsets that you can SEE everyone's avatar wearing - THAT'S immersive! Right down to not being able to make out what people are saying over the noise of the chopper, and dropping the last meter to the ground and sprinting for cover with fire ricocheting all around you. It all really helps to get the old adrenaline pumping.

So I want to be able to scamper through the submarine, opening and closing hatches, and turning valves as I go and I want "cone" surround sound, related to my viewpoint, glance direction and head position, such as some leading sims in other realms already have.

Above all I want to BELIEVE the faces of the avatars around me are real people, not lego men made of cardboard. I want to see panic in their faces , sweat running down and the seawater washing of their oilskins as they skid down the conning tower ladder before a crash dive. ALL these things are already possible and its just a matter of making our collective wishes heard long enough and loud enough for the developers to slightly alter their agenda and priorities. We don't need new theatres of war or new game genres, just FAR better realism, DRAMATIC immersion and "interactive realism" in the realms we already have. I want campaign badges on my uniforms, bandages on my wounds and some avatars wearing glasses that can fall off or get broken! LOL

I even want mugs of tea that can roll off the table and spill during a depth charge attack! And I'll take out a contract on any idiot who (Still) says "but that's all just eye candy"! The difference between an amatuer 8mm home movie and an epic medieval Japanese battle directed by Kurusaw is ALL "eye candy" and "sound candy". In other words ART!!!!!

Yes, this simulation realm and its virtual worlds are a whole new ART FORM and people like Oleg are its pioneering directors & producers. Look at the realism we can already now see in SH IV with the best ocean and weather MODs! The biggest single change we will all notice as time goes by will be due to ever increasing bandwidth and ever cheaper RAM. There is little point in a 400 Kilometer square map (as in ARMA) when there are less than 40 people in it 90% of the time and you spned half your time trying to find other players in an deserted landscape! But take a 50 man server in Red Orchestra on a far smaller map and suddenly the realism takes a giant leap, purely because you are surrounded by so many other people frantically doing stuff and reacting to the same situation alla round you. That changes everything. But there is no short cut. A full squadron of B-17s with escort fighters can mean approaching 1000 men in the air and that's before you ever include the enemy but one day, we will have that and rmember that I said it this early on.

Our collective appetite for realism is driving a whole industry's software, hardware and design philosophy and producing ever more advanced military applications as a by product, which in turn feeds back into the development curve. As TV is to movies, one day we will all be doing all this in real-time, in a full hollo-deck, surrounded by an apparently "real world" in every detail. It won't be a physical room, it'll be a lightweight version the old headset/visor devices but a super-Rolls-Royce version of that, (perhaps even built into contact lenses - which is already being done as a new direction of display technology) with a small platform on which one can sit, walk, run or sway, whilst remaining on the spot in reality. But in-game, everything surrounding us will be as "real" and convincing as you can imagine. Those days ARE COMING. You only have to imagine describing what we already now have to somebody at the dawn of computer gaming. They would NEVER have believed the level of realism we take for granted now and the Victorians would have been convinced it was all sinful witch craft! LOL

Todays fantasy is tomorrows reality and that is the lesson of all history.

:arrgh!:

[HunterICX]

:o Damn thats quiet the wishlist there mate :up:

but cant disagree with it :yep:

EDIT: You made a very good point of not having a visible pilot in the cockpit, would be very nice to see it happen one day.

HunterICX