Cliffs of Dover: IL2 Sturmovik

[Seeadler]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Hm, no mention of campaign in the announcement? Kind of curious what that means. My assumption though is that a proper dynamic campaign that was originally planned won't be ready with this first release...

From the German Q&A thread:

Q: Will the game have a dynamic campaign?
A: No, at least not at release of the game. The campaigns will be designed and scripted with a focus on specific events.

And another previously advertised feature will not be fully implemented into the release version, the dynamic weather engine!

One of the devs wrote:

The dynamic weather is extremely complex and done in-depth, more so than in any other sim. However its complexity is its downfall. It runs so slow, you can't fly with it on our large map. The physics kill the CPU and the complex clouds kill the video card. Since complex weather was down the task list for the team behind FM, AI, various plane systems, and DM, we started on optimizing it too late and so won't have it working at sufficient framerate in time for release.

However we actually are shipping the weather in its current state with the game, accessible to the player via the FMB as a "play with it at your own risk" undocumented feature. And we will definitely be updating and improving it in the future.

[CCIP]

So I see. Not unprecedented - this is a lot like the original IL-2 when it came out. However now as with IL-2, I may well hold off until the equivalent of "Forgotten Battles" appears (I did actually buy IL-2 sometime after release when the price came down, but didn't really play it much until FB superseded it).

[Dowly]

PCgamer interview with Oleg & Ilya:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/02/08/il...ya-shevchenko/

Hear those engine sounds in the technical trailer? I really hope we get new ones, instead of something taken from stock IL2.

[iambecomelife]

I was going to break the news about the campaign but I think Seeadler beat me.

A bit strange that they try to justify not having a dynamic campaign by saying dynamic campaigns can "never be historical". It's not hard to provide for a few random parameters - within likely historical probabilities - such as aircraft type, plane availability,flight size, ground target/convoy composition, etcetera. If "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" and "Red Baron 3d" could do this then I'm not sure why it is such a huge problem for modern devs.

I disliked CFS 1 and 2 because of their scripted missions, and shelved the original IL2 for the same reason until Lowengrin's herculean efforts with DCG made the campaign worth playing. I'd rather not feel like a train on a track or the hero of "Groundhog Day", thank you very much. In my opinion, the great appeal of simulations is their interactivity and unpredictability - things you cannot replicate easily with movies or books (or linear campaigns).

Also note that there are diminishing returns nowadays when it comes to graphics and DM. This game is far from the graphical leap forward that CFS1 and EAW were, and based on the interview above, the damage modeling is not dissimilar to the hit boxes used 10 years ago in the CFS1 generation of sims. Maybe some breakthroughs with respect to historical ambience and the campaign experience as a whole are in order.

[Arclight]

No argument on the missions, but I'd say the graphics are a fair leap ahead from the original, and the damage model seems more than detailed enough for the job.

At the very least, an in-game AA and AF setting is going to be very welcome.


I'm impressed. And that's saying something considering my fanboyish fascination with another series.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Hear those engine sounds in the technical trailer? I really hope we get new ones, instead of something taken from stock IL2.

Well I wonder if that's the sound of the game at all...because comon..a Spitfire sounding like a Stock IL2's BF110 on low revs....
just listen: 0:03 - 0:05

HunterICX

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Well I wonder if that's the sound of the game at all...because comon..a Spitfire sounding like a Stock IL2's BF110 on low revs....
just listen: 0:03 - 0:05

HunterICX

Dunno, just seems silly they would add those sounds in in post production.

You can also hear at one point one of the fly-by's, think it was 109 and it's quite perfectly synced, so that's what kinda makes me think those are, atleast at this point in-game sounds.

[Oberon]

I must admit, I am having some doubts about Storm of Dover.
This thread:
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...3212204/1.html
raises some questions about the vaunted 'historical accuracy' that has been trumpeted behind this whole sim. Then it dissolves into a massive row between everyone and the Oleg fanboys, which isn't a pretty thing to see.
I think this might well be a 'fixed by mods' sim ultimately, and after such a long development time (longer than WWII for that matter) that is rather a big shame.

However I shall not have my final judgment until it's out and we see what it's really like.

[Schroeder]

Actually the more I know about it the less I expect of it.

But we'll see. I for once won't buy it on release date and just wait for how it turns out.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Actually the more I know about it the less I expect of it.

But we'll see. I for once won't buy it on release date and just wait for how it turns out.

Same, and not just because the computer would run it as well as a Stuka would survive over Central London in daylight in October 1940.

[tater]

Originally Posted by iambecomelife

I was going to break the news about the campaign but I think Seeadler beat me.

A bit strange that they try to justify not having a dynamic campaign by saying dynamic campaigns can "never be historical". It's not hard to provide for a few random parameters - within likely historical probabilities - such as aircraft type, plane availability,flight size, ground target/convoy composition, etcetera. If "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" and "Red Baron 3d" could do this then I'm not sure why it is such a huge problem for modern devs.

I disliked CFS 1 and 2 because of their scripted missions, and shelved the original IL2 for the same reason until Lowengrin's herculean efforts with DCG made the campaign worth playing. I'd rather not feel like a train on a track or the hero of "Groundhog Day", thank you very much. In my opinion, the great appeal of simulations is their interactivity and unpredictability - things you cannot replicate easily with movies or books (or linear campaigns).

Also note that there are diminishing returns nowadays when it comes to graphics and DM. This game is far from the graphical leap forward that CFS1 and EAW were, and based on the interview above, the damage modeling is not dissimilar to the hit boxes used 10 years ago in the CFS1 generation of sims. Maybe some breakthroughs with respect to historical ambience and the campaign experience as a whole are in order.

Actually, I have to agree with them. If players can alter the course of the war with their fighter pane (or single bomber, or submarine for that matter), the "dynamic" campaign is hopelessly broken.

The scope of what would need to be simulated to have the "campaign" change seems impossible to do realistically, and the results need to be accurate down to the squadron level to be useful.

The best system would be one that might adjust the targets based on losses, etc.

One thing I hoped for (unrealistically since I don't think it was ever on 1C's radar) was no "instant sucess."

Ideally, a flight (or submarine) sim should NEVER tell you if you have a kill. Best would be a system where after a mission you make claims, then the sim can check the track to see if other planes were nearby to coroborate, then have them do so based on proximity and chance. PLanes equipped with gun cams would get credit if the target is clearly destroyed (fatal damage, or fire, or smoke within X seconds of trigger pull). Campaing engine would base what it does on CLAIMS, not reality. AI would need a claim system. A reality check would be that there should pretty much always be 2X the claims vs real kills at a minimum (completely borne out by stats on both sides during the BoB).

I can dream...

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by tater

The scope of what would need to be simulated to have the "campaign" change seems impossible to do realistically, and the results need to be accurate down to the squadron level to be useful.

Battle of Britain II: Wings of Victory manages this quite darn well. And it was
released in 2005.

Heck, even the 3rd party Dynamic Campaign Generator for IL2 managed to
produce (to some extend) dynamic campaigns where stuff blown up on last
mission, squadron losses etc. were tracked.

[Oberon]

Just Flight are doing a pre-order on Cliffs of Storm.

This bit made me laugh:

Non-flyable aircraft -13 AI controlled aircraft, including the Vickers Wellington and Dornier D-17. Show your pilot mastery and take advantage of the AI flaws!

Sure they want to be advertising that their AI is flawed?

I presume, and hope that it's just a translation problem from the intention that the AI is not an all seeing godlike creature like in IL2.

[Dowly]

Aye, I'm quite sure it just means the AI can make mistakes and stuff. I hope.

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Aye, I'm quite sure it just means the AI can make mistakes and stuff. I hope.

Well as you said earlier, Battle of Britain II managed to portrait that pretty well So I can see no reason why the AI for this shouldn't be able to make natural mistakes