This will be the decider for me as I'm not an online flyer and I really don't mind what the ground tiles look like when I'm in a clinch with a brace of Emils.
The gold standards in immersive dynamic campaigns are already out there (F4, Rowan's BOB, even B17II), so I never understood why the IL2 team failed so spectacularly on this front with their 'go here, do that, OK now do this' mechanical and impersonal style of campaign. I guess it was because they were so focused on hi-fidelity modelling of every plane that ever flew in WWII.
But the F4 and Rowan recipes are not hard to follow:
- let the player role-play if they want: a pilot, a squadron, a commander, whatever
- let the player decide the strategy, pick the targets and set the waypoints or assign the strikes and give the player enough information so that they can do so wisely and see the effect of their success on the battlefield
- give good feedback on results, who did what to whom when, who survived, whose mothers and wives you have to write letters to
- include a morale element, so that aircrew management matters
- do small things to enhance immersion, like cut scenes with historical footage, newspaper clippings, voice clips from historical figures, anything to give the player the feeling they are part of something bigger
I'm not heartened by the Oleg's answer when asked at E3 about the campaign in SoW BOB. See here:
Tom: The campaign in all of the IL-2 games was considered okay but not the strong point of the game. I We know that you have planned on revamping the single player aspect of the game to actually involve the player in the campaign. How will the campaign in Battle of Britain actually differ from the one in Forgotten Battles?
Oleg: All I can say now — it will be different to IL-2 series.
In otherwords, it will be an afterthought. If many of the gold standard campaign elements are absent from SoW BOB again, then the upgrade from IL2 is just eye candy, as the IL2 series already has great flight modelling and superb AI.
You're going to have to spend hundreds or thousands upgrading your system for what? Fields with hedgerows and towns with buses, tanks where you can read the serial number and aircraft skins where you can count individual rivets? If that is what I wanted out of a sim, I'd just buy a watercolor of a Spit and hang it on a wall!
[/i]
Airwarfare.com
A short text to describe your forum
But can Oleg's team create a campaign with soul?
Moderators: EURO_Snoopy, MaXMhZ, MudPuppy
19 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
But can Oleg's team create a campaign with soul?
by hein-kill on Thu May 25, 2006 1:05 pm
- hein-kill
- Air Cadet Level 2
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 12:00 pm
Re: But can Oleg's team create a campaign with soul?
by EURO_Snoopy on Thu May 25, 2006 1:46 pm
hein-kill wrote:Tom: The campaign in all of the IL-2 games was considered okay but not the strong point of the game. I We know that you have planned on revamping the single player aspect of the game to actually involve the player in the campaign. How will the campaign in Battle of Britain actually differ from the one in Forgotten Battles?
Oleg: All I can say now — it will be different to IL-2 series.
In otherwords, it will be an afterthought. If many of the gold standard campaign elements are absent from SoW BOB again, then the upgrade from IL2 is just eye candy, as the IL2 series already has great flight modelling and superb AI.
More than an after thought.
Oleg has also said:
From SOW announcement: 'New dynamic campaign engine.'
From ORR:
'As well as we like to go by two branches - Single + online with linmited online features and only online sim branch simultaniosly, where on dedicated server will be new events and wars regulating by developer/publisher. It is jut an idea for you in which way we directed now. Not all may happen, but it is ideal thing for which we force all our resources in future, where you will be able to control not only the planes.'
What we finally get only time will tell. There has been a database built over the last five years containing the wants and wishes of the community. I'm sure, given the time, Oleg will get as much implemented as is possible.
What is worrying is the 2006 release date, too early imho, but even then we must remember that SOW has been designed with future expandability in mind, so future expansions will bring more features.
What SOW will bring us will be revealed after July, so fingers crossed and chin up for now!
-
EURO_Snoopy - Site Admin
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:12 am
- Location: UK
BoB Campaign with "soul".
by Lionman on Sun May 28, 2006 4:34 pm
Although I have been one of Oleg's staunchest fans and promoters since the beginning (IL2 Sturmovik) and am also an obsessive about historical and aeriel accuracy, flight models and detail, I can sadly only agree.
I am also heartened to hear somebody mention B17 The Mighty Eighth which IMO was one of the most immersive and involving combat flight simulators ever designed. One quickly developed a real sense of involvement and personal responsibility for one's men in that sim and had they ever been able to produce a multiplayer with multi-crewed B-17s it would have become as popular as IL2 Sturmovik did.
Oleg and Luthier have always been brilliant technicians of virtuality with the minds of flight engineers but I fear they have always lacked patience or sufficient real interest in the human and social dimensions of combat simulation.
Yet, in truth it is THAT which involves all but the driest of techno-geeks in their products over time. Maddox Games' true market for their new "Storm of War" generation of combat flight simulators is that of the myriad online virtual squadrons many of whose members are mature and professional people with excellent attention spans, extensive historical knowledge, extraordinary enthusiasm for combat flying, sufficient disposable income to afford FF flight sticks, pedals, track IR, 3D glasses and surround sound and with high standards and demands regarding how they spend their precious liesure time.
A potentially lucrative clientel and almost the same market as that for MS FS9 ACOF and FSX but not quite.
MS FS clients are in the main content to fly simulated passenger and cargo airlines in virtual scheduled flights, after consulting vast in-flight manuals and extensive real-world checklists. Such virtual fliers are happy enough in a sealed and geekish universe. Indeed there is even a whole slew of virtual fliers whose preference is to operate virtual flight control software and provide real-time flight control for all online fliers! (VATSIM or Virtual Air Traffic Control Simulation) while not even flying themselves. Even in virtuality this is a technically demanding and taxing role yet there are plenty happy to spend all their spare time doing it.
Virtual combat flyers however have a very different agenda. Most of them are highly competitive and to this end are prepared to spend many hundreds of hours in flying practise, training and combat lessons from tutorials. Many are history buffs with extensive knowledge of WW2 and an obsessive need for historical accuracy. Not in the sense of being "rivet fanatics" but because they truly want to experience in virtuality those challenges which real-world WW2 pilots and soldiers faced in order to buy with their lives, amongst the many other freedoms we enjoy as a consequence of their sacrifice, our modern freedom to do ANY of this. Accordingly, at least in part, the agenda of such virtual pilots is about "honouring the dead" in all theatres of war. This motivation is shared by many online FPS virtual infantry soldiers too. I can attest to this as I have for a number of years belonged to both an online (WW1/WW2) squadron and an online (WW2/Modern) infantry clan both of whose agendas are precisely this and most of whose members are over 40, some as old as their mid 60's.
Combat is a realm in which humans (male & female) can "prove themselves" and face challenge of the most primal kind and hence there are few more addictive realms in the real-world or in virtuality, where such issues can be addressed in an adrenalating manner without physical risk, moral dilema or injury. There is nothing quite like the cameraderie one feels flying or marching into virtual battle with one's fellow pilots or soldiers, all virtual warriors. This is hugely hightened by the knowledge that one's virtual enemies are also "really" human rather than AI.
So if Oleg REALLY wants to "clean up" in his field and make BoB the new "gold standard" for Combat Flight Sims then Maddox games urgently need to address this.
I agree that B17 II is one of the very best examples of "how to do it" and still occasionally play single player missions in that sim for precisely that reason. Moving around inside the B-17 tending to wounded collegues, manning their guns, then limping home with a damaged bomber, casualties, wounded crew members and a highly challenging landing, followed by "the letters of condolence" and choosing replacement crew from their service records, is amazingly immersive. Flying a single mission in real time in B-17 leaves one feeling shattered, shaken and very moved, with the utmost respect for those amazingly brave young men who were honoured by Joseph Heller in Catch 22 and more recently in the excellent and realistic war movie Mephis Belle.
Combat is not about rivets or serial numbers, however deeply satisfying such levels of detail can be. It is about people and immersion in that historical period's true stresses and challenges. It is about understanding our forefather's sacrifices, heroism and challenges. It is also about keeping ourselves prepared for combat even in peaceful times.
I disagree with one thing said in your post however. Convincing ground detail IS as crucial as realistic flight models and planes. Every flight starts and ends on the ground and in flight navigation in full-real depends just as much on VFR, visual observation and interpretation of ground detail as on instruments and charts. Indeed the presence of the ground is, quite leterally a matter of life and death on every flight, regardless of combat success. Accordingly the realism of the ground is therefor ALWAYS going to be just as important as the realism of the action in the air.
(A good example of the disaster of not attending sufficiently to that aspect of a simulation was Mig Alley which was convincing in the air and totally useless on the ground. So it failed completely.)
I am also heartened to hear somebody mention B17 The Mighty Eighth which IMO was one of the most immersive and involving combat flight simulators ever designed. One quickly developed a real sense of involvement and personal responsibility for one's men in that sim and had they ever been able to produce a multiplayer with multi-crewed B-17s it would have become as popular as IL2 Sturmovik did.
Oleg and Luthier have always been brilliant technicians of virtuality with the minds of flight engineers but I fear they have always lacked patience or sufficient real interest in the human and social dimensions of combat simulation.
Yet, in truth it is THAT which involves all but the driest of techno-geeks in their products over time. Maddox Games' true market for their new "Storm of War" generation of combat flight simulators is that of the myriad online virtual squadrons many of whose members are mature and professional people with excellent attention spans, extensive historical knowledge, extraordinary enthusiasm for combat flying, sufficient disposable income to afford FF flight sticks, pedals, track IR, 3D glasses and surround sound and with high standards and demands regarding how they spend their precious liesure time.
A potentially lucrative clientel and almost the same market as that for MS FS9 ACOF and FSX but not quite.
MS FS clients are in the main content to fly simulated passenger and cargo airlines in virtual scheduled flights, after consulting vast in-flight manuals and extensive real-world checklists. Such virtual fliers are happy enough in a sealed and geekish universe. Indeed there is even a whole slew of virtual fliers whose preference is to operate virtual flight control software and provide real-time flight control for all online fliers! (VATSIM or Virtual Air Traffic Control Simulation) while not even flying themselves. Even in virtuality this is a technically demanding and taxing role yet there are plenty happy to spend all their spare time doing it.
Virtual combat flyers however have a very different agenda. Most of them are highly competitive and to this end are prepared to spend many hundreds of hours in flying practise, training and combat lessons from tutorials. Many are history buffs with extensive knowledge of WW2 and an obsessive need for historical accuracy. Not in the sense of being "rivet fanatics" but because they truly want to experience in virtuality those challenges which real-world WW2 pilots and soldiers faced in order to buy with their lives, amongst the many other freedoms we enjoy as a consequence of their sacrifice, our modern freedom to do ANY of this. Accordingly, at least in part, the agenda of such virtual pilots is about "honouring the dead" in all theatres of war. This motivation is shared by many online FPS virtual infantry soldiers too. I can attest to this as I have for a number of years belonged to both an online (WW1/WW2) squadron and an online (WW2/Modern) infantry clan both of whose agendas are precisely this and most of whose members are over 40, some as old as their mid 60's.
Combat is a realm in which humans (male & female) can "prove themselves" and face challenge of the most primal kind and hence there are few more addictive realms in the real-world or in virtuality, where such issues can be addressed in an adrenalating manner without physical risk, moral dilema or injury. There is nothing quite like the cameraderie one feels flying or marching into virtual battle with one's fellow pilots or soldiers, all virtual warriors. This is hugely hightened by the knowledge that one's virtual enemies are also "really" human rather than AI.
So if Oleg REALLY wants to "clean up" in his field and make BoB the new "gold standard" for Combat Flight Sims then Maddox games urgently need to address this.
I agree that B17 II is one of the very best examples of "how to do it" and still occasionally play single player missions in that sim for precisely that reason. Moving around inside the B-17 tending to wounded collegues, manning their guns, then limping home with a damaged bomber, casualties, wounded crew members and a highly challenging landing, followed by "the letters of condolence" and choosing replacement crew from their service records, is amazingly immersive. Flying a single mission in real time in B-17 leaves one feeling shattered, shaken and very moved, with the utmost respect for those amazingly brave young men who were honoured by Joseph Heller in Catch 22 and more recently in the excellent and realistic war movie Mephis Belle.
Combat is not about rivets or serial numbers, however deeply satisfying such levels of detail can be. It is about people and immersion in that historical period's true stresses and challenges. It is about understanding our forefather's sacrifices, heroism and challenges. It is also about keeping ourselves prepared for combat even in peaceful times.
I disagree with one thing said in your post however. Convincing ground detail IS as crucial as realistic flight models and planes. Every flight starts and ends on the ground and in flight navigation in full-real depends just as much on VFR, visual observation and interpretation of ground detail as on instruments and charts. Indeed the presence of the ground is, quite leterally a matter of life and death on every flight, regardless of combat success. Accordingly the realism of the ground is therefor ALWAYS going to be just as important as the realism of the action in the air.
(A good example of the disaster of not attending sufficiently to that aspect of a simulation was Mig Alley which was convincing in the air and totally useless on the ground. So it failed completely.)
Last edited by Lionman on Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The battlefield may be virtual but the experience is always real."
- Lionman
- Air Cadet Level 2
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:42 pm
- Location: London, UK
by hein-kill on Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:37 pm
Oh well. I guess that Maddox is building a platform for a series of sims, not a dedicated Battle of Britain simulation; and that is what they have to do to stay in business. It means we'll get a great game, but not a great Battle of Britain game.
I've been duking it out with BOB II Wings of Victory, trying and failing to get it to run consistently, despite all the patches and beta patches and workarounds I can't get more than a couple of flights into a day of the campaign before I get the dreaded 'English Text' crash. (And before anyone spends time trying to help, I've tried it all, thanks - it's just not destined to work for me.) I do like firing it up for a single intercept mission though, climbing into a sky full of Heinkels and 109s.
Even though BOB II WOV seems to be the best shot at the Battle so far, I'm still left wanting. I'd love to see a sim tackle the Battle from a single pilot's point of view, with 10 hours behind the stick and then thrown into 266 squadron in July 1940. It would be enough to be able to choose between a Spit or a Hurricane squadron on the RAF side, and a 109 or 110 squadron on the German. Put all that development effort into the immersion, graphics and gameplay, not into trying to model every version of every plane that flew in the Battle. Wouldn't it be great if it actually mattered to you that you had to keep your wingman alive? That it was you who had to write the letters home every night. I can't help thinking there is an element of drama and flight sim that still hasn't been explored outside of the console genre.
Imagine a flight sim with the sense of immersion and atmosphere of some of the WWII shooters like Brothers in Arms, or Call of Duty.
That was what I liked about B17. You picked a squadron, picked a crew and then shepherded them through a tour. It meant something when your tail gunner got pasted after he'd made it through 10 missions without a scratch. The lack of online doomed it, but the virtual squadrons were a brilliant 'workaround' with the Mighty 8th website posting targets and briefings several times a week, which you could fly and then send in your results for tabulation between missions.
Oh well, we can but dream. And hope. And keep buying every sim that comes out no matter what it is in order to keep flight sims alive!
I've been duking it out with BOB II Wings of Victory, trying and failing to get it to run consistently, despite all the patches and beta patches and workarounds I can't get more than a couple of flights into a day of the campaign before I get the dreaded 'English Text' crash. (And before anyone spends time trying to help, I've tried it all, thanks - it's just not destined to work for me.) I do like firing it up for a single intercept mission though, climbing into a sky full of Heinkels and 109s.
Even though BOB II WOV seems to be the best shot at the Battle so far, I'm still left wanting. I'd love to see a sim tackle the Battle from a single pilot's point of view, with 10 hours behind the stick and then thrown into 266 squadron in July 1940. It would be enough to be able to choose between a Spit or a Hurricane squadron on the RAF side, and a 109 or 110 squadron on the German. Put all that development effort into the immersion, graphics and gameplay, not into trying to model every version of every plane that flew in the Battle. Wouldn't it be great if it actually mattered to you that you had to keep your wingman alive? That it was you who had to write the letters home every night. I can't help thinking there is an element of drama and flight sim that still hasn't been explored outside of the console genre.
Imagine a flight sim with the sense of immersion and atmosphere of some of the WWII shooters like Brothers in Arms, or Call of Duty.
That was what I liked about B17. You picked a squadron, picked a crew and then shepherded them through a tour. It meant something when your tail gunner got pasted after he'd made it through 10 missions without a scratch. The lack of online doomed it, but the virtual squadrons were a brilliant 'workaround' with the Mighty 8th website posting targets and briefings several times a week, which you could fly and then send in your results for tabulation between missions.
Oh well, we can but dream. And hope. And keep buying every sim that comes out no matter what it is in order to keep flight sims alive!
- hein-kill
- Air Cadet Level 2
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 12:00 pm
by MaXMhZ on Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:13 pm
lol I bet you won't be disappointed with 1C:Maddox's BoB...
It's been in the works for years. Oleg held it back a long time just because the IL-2 engine could not model the cliffs of Dover correct. That says enough about the detail you can expect. You might need a good PC by the time it's published, but that never held me back And every sim I tried from 1C:Maddox ran like clockwork, unlike games/sims from other producers. I'm expecting to get the best BoB simulator ever published. And I'm sure I won't be disappointed.So much so that I will buy it unseen 
It's been in the works for years. Oleg held it back a long time just because the IL-2 engine could not model the cliffs of Dover correct. That says enough about the detail you can expect. You might need a good PC by the time it's published, but that never held me back
And every sim I tried from 1C:Maddox ran like clockwork, unlike games/sims from other producers. I'm expecting to get the best BoB simulator ever published. And I'm sure I won't be disappointed.So much so that I will buy it unseen 
-
MaXMhZ - Site Admin
- Posts: 1188
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:23 am
- Location: NL
by Lionman on Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:36 pm
MaXMhZ wrote:lol I bet you won't be disappointed with 1C:Maddox's BoB...
It's been in the works for years. Oleg held it back a long time just because the IL-2 engine could not model the cliffs of Dover correct. That says enough about the detail you can expect. You might need a good PC by the time it's published, but that never held me back
Oleg is such a stickler for realism and immersive detail in his simulations that I heard a rumour that he originally wanted to model the individual cylinders and internals of the aero engines of all flyable aircraft in his sims to ensure maximum realism in the damage model!
I am also a WW1 sim flyer and belong to one of the longest surviving Red Baron 3D squadrons (the Royal Air Corps http://www.citigraph.com/rac/) accodingly I recently re-installed CFS 3 purely in order to download, install and fly the massive (600 MB) free total WW1 MOD for CFS 3 called "Over Flanders Fields" or OFF for short. CFS 3 remains a dud however you dress it up.
Apart from its crippling lack of a multiplayer option OFF is an otherwise truly heroic effort by a team of CFS 3 enthusiasts to totally revamp almost every aspect of CFS 3. But although the resulting sim looks excellent, after flying Oleg's FB+AEP+PF and IL2 Sturmovik before it, the DFS 3 engine that is still "under the hood" makes it a total waste of time and I shall be de-installing the whole thing all over again.
Oleg has effectively seen off Microsoft for good in the Combat Flight Simulator arena and the MS bean counters and marketing gurus still just don't "get it" as CFS 3 so clearly showed us all. MS patronise gamers by offering cynically cosmetic revamps of an inherently poor, outdated and non-realistic underlying CFS game engine. They don't seem to understand that today's gamers aren't just a bunch of arcade-oriented rivet-counting kids but high spending and largely more mature consumers in a uniquely technically demanding market sector. Virtual air combat requires a high level of motor skill, quick wits, long hours of practise, good technical understanding and historical background knowledge. Accordingly it tends to attract mature, knowledgable and exceedingly demanding aviation enthusiasts and a lot of real-world milkitary and civilian pilots, whose quest for immersive realism and true simulation (not just a game dressed up to look realistic) makes them just about the most technically demanding consumers in the whole software market. They are also the kind of consumers who are prepared to spend more on peripheral controls and addtiions than any other market sector in computing. (flight sticks, throttles, pedals, 3D glasses, voice-control, Track IR, mini control panels and even whole home-built cockpits.) So MS have badly under-invested and misread the virtual combat aviation realm. Who knows? Maybe Oleg even took his ambitious plans to them first and they were just too cheap to go for it?
MS have reached FS X which the tenth iteration of their 20 year old civilian simulator and yet they have STILL not enabled military aircraf to fire guns or missiles. One understands that it would hugely complicate their collective inline air-space in multiplayer and open the poissibility of virtual wars and terrorism but not in single player offline mode. So instead of a franchise that is all-inclusive they force one to buy other software to cover all that they avoid or do poorly. Accordingly although I have over 450 aircraft (each one the best example I could find online) in my own 3 GB FS9 ACOF installation, Lock-On remains far superior for immersive jet flight and combat and Olegs products are far superior for WW2 flight. Meanwhile NOBODY has ever produced an even remotely adequate contemporary WW1 combat simulator so the ancient and venerable Red Baron 3D retains the lead in that untapped market.
So I agree with you 100% and I too shall be buying SOW BOB sight unseen. Anything with the Maddox Brand is guaranteed to deliver in my experience while MS remain leaders mainly in hype. However I shall also be getting FSX and hoping that it lives up to its marketing and we will soon see if MS "get it".
"The battlefield may be virtual but the experience is always real."
- Lionman
- Air Cadet Level 2
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:42 pm
- Location: London, UK
by EURO_Snoopy on Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:09 pm
-
EURO_Snoopy - Site Admin
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:12 am
- Location: UK
by MaXMhZ on Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:52 am
Good news! I want that one - allmost as bad as the Luft '46 add-on.
IL-2 is loooong but dead I know I got years of pleasure ahead still
As to the RPG-ish wishes - that would not interest me in the least. IL-2 is a flight sim in the first place. a game in the second. That's why I like it. I don't want to handle a squad, or run around in a field - I want to fly planes
Lionman - did you take a look at http://www.x-plane.com ? That's a great simulator too. Add-on planes etc are at http://www.x-plane.org It beats M$ easy IMHO The hi-res world data takes 60 GByte of DVD's The USA is in hi detail on one DVD together with the sim. In my opinion it delivers more than any M$ flightsim. It has every aspect of modern aviation and every airport on the globe modeled besides real weather a map makerand plane/airfoil maker
IL-2 is loooong but dead
I know I got years of pleasure ahead still
As to the RPG-ish wishes - that would not interest me in the least. IL-2 is a flight sim in the first place. a game in the second. That's why I like it. I don't want to handle a squad, or run around in a field - I want to fly planes
Lionman - did you take a look at http://www.x-plane.com ? That's a great simulator too. Add-on planes etc are at http://www.x-plane.org It beats M$ easy IMHO The hi-res world data takes 60 GByte of DVD's
The USA is in hi detail on one DVD together with the sim. In my opinion it delivers more than any M$ flightsim. It has every aspect of modern aviation and every airport on the globe modeled besides real weather a map makerand plane/airfoil maker-
MaXMhZ - Site Admin
- Posts: 1188
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:23 am
- Location: NL
by hein-kill on Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:25 pm
I wonder if Maddox is rethinking BOB (where is it? new screenshots? previews? out in November? Does anyone really believe that?)
Suspect Battle of Britain Wings of Victory has cornered the BOB market now. A lot of early problems solved in later patches and now a mega patch 2.04 which turns it in the definitive BOB sim with a perfect combination of the strategic game with high realism sim action.
If you want a hard core BOB game, no need to wait!
Suspect Battle of Britain Wings of Victory has cornered the BOB market now. A lot of early problems solved in later patches and now a mega patch 2.04 which turns it in the definitive BOB sim with a perfect combination of the strategic game with high realism sim action.
If you want a hard core BOB game, no need to wait!
- hein-kill
- Air Cadet Level 2
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 12:00 pm
by hein-kill on Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:44 pm
Thanks for the pointer! Oh how I wish he wasn't talking about everything in the future tense "we plan...", "it will...", "not final..." etc.
If it was being released in Nov the final beta should be in system testing by now and the Ubisoft marketing machine should be in high gear.
Then we could dare hope we'd see it this year, or even next. . .
Is anyone out there beta testing yet? Pls post!
If it was being released in Nov the final beta should be in system testing by now and the Ubisoft marketing machine should be in high gear.
Then we could dare hope we'd see it this year, or even next. . .
Is anyone out there beta testing yet? Pls post!
- hein-kill
- Air Cadet Level 2
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 12:00 pm
by MaXMhZ on Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:25 am
Well while no one would complain if we got it yesterday for free...
I don't care how long I'll have to wait. I don't expect it till end of 2007 at the earliest and won't be disappointed if it takes more time. It'll give me more time to get a good system for it together, and to get my left hand working again
flying around only using my right hand is quite cumbersome. I'd be dead in seconds would I join an online dogfight lol
I don't care how long I'll have to wait. I don't expect it till end of 2007 at the earliest and won't be disappointed if it takes more time. It'll give me more time to get a good system for it together, and to get my left hand working again
flying around only using my right hand is quite cumbersome. I'd be dead in seconds would I join an online dogfight lol-
MaXMhZ - Site Admin
- Posts: 1188
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:23 am
- Location: NL
by Bogusheadbox on Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:59 am
hein-kill wrote:Thanks for the pointer! Oh how I wish he wasn't talking about everything in the future tense "we plan...", "it will...", "not final..." etc.
If it was being released in Nov the final beta should be in system testing by now and the Ubisoft marketing machine should be in high gear.
Then we could dare hope we'd see it this year, or even next. . .
Is anyone out there beta testing yet? Pls post!
As Max said.
Unless Oleg is keeping his cards very close to his chest, there is no way in my mind that it will be released before q2 2007.
Just the detail he is putting in and the new harware becoming available. I cannot see it being this year.
Oleg is such a stickler for realism and immersive detail in his simulations that I heard a rumour that he originally wanted to model the individual cylinders and internals of the aero engines of all flyable aircraft in his sims to ensure maximum realism in the damage model!
Well i am not sure i share this view. It has been said in an interview that Oleg is not interested in having full engine control, including propper start up sequences etc.
His reply was because most people will get bored of the start up proceedure and indeptch engine control. It will only be of interest to the really hardcore simmer and then they would get bored of it after a few times.
He is planning on catering to the masses and not evolving his project to encompass all that it should. I understand his point of view and its a viable commercial decision. But i cannot understand why full detail can't be included as he is surely to implement the clickable difficulty settings such as IL2 has already. And this would cater for all and not just mainstream.
I think Oleg is missing the boat here.
Todays sim, and there are a few all point in the same direction.
This is what the sim of tomorrow needs. (not in any particular order)
Visually.
1. Good graphics. Graphics at a level that will last the R&D of future add ons over the product life span.
2. Dynamic weather.
3. customisable skins
Immersion.
1. Clickable cockpits.
2. Full working and interactive instument panel.
3. 6dof
4. full engine control including start up proceedure and shutting down proceedure etc.
5. Reload sequences and refueling for aircraft instead of the "refly button".
6. Dynamic co-op or head to head campaign such as F4:AF. But the game will need to support many aircraft in the sky at once.
7. Excellent misison creator as we have now.
8. Scrpiting of conditions to AI to give them directions on how to behave under certain circumstances.
9. realistic flight models, damage models and weapon load out.
10, heavies. If he is smart, he will include heavies. What is BOB without playable heavies. The heavy topic alone creates such a heated debate that there is definitely a want for them.
11. engine and aircraft failures. (Maybe random based, may be percentage based on how you treat your craft)
12. Propper ATC
13. Radar
Basically, what the sim of tomorrow needs. is a merge of il2, MS Flight sim, F4:af.
If you can put that together in all its intricacy, and have it scalable in difficulty level as IL2 is now. Then he will make what is wanted by all, caters for all and will have a platform that should destroy all other out of the water.
But unfortunately, oleg has stated that he will not go this way. He is cutting back on the immersion in order to make the game enjoyable to those that want airquake as well as make it appealing to the more hardcore simmer, but not make it too hard core.
And that makes me sad.
You know what. I don't want to buy. BOB + FSX + F5.
Why not put the whole lot into one and charge a bit more for it. I absolutely hate the thought of changing games just to grab the missing piece of the puzzle that the others lack.
I hope that makes sense.
- Bogusheadbox
- Lance Air Corporal
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:47 pm
by IV/JG1_Oesau on Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:21 pm
It’s not in beta, it’s not even in Alpha testing at the moment so yes, as a few of us have been saying it’s not going to be this year. Though he is most definitely holding his cards very close to his chest, so there is a lot more defined than he is letting on.
Ok, as for the realism and missing the boat. I don’t envy Oleg in this department; it’s always going to be a tough call on just how far you go in making it a sim or a simgame. Considering the detail that we have in IL2 many people refer to it as a sim, though I prefer simgame as it has elements of both and when you consider MSFS it’s not a sim but a detailed game IMHO.
Anyway, I was disappointed to hear that complex engine management was not going to be included, I was really hoping that this would be a part of the SOW series. I was happy to hear that clickable cockpit weren’t going to make it in, I must admit that I loath them and would prefer key bindings any day (trying to hold you head still while you move the mouse over a switch is just soooo annoying).
Random failures, I want this as well and was hoping that it would tie into complex engine management. I think we can only hope that the engine abuse failures that we currently had can be expanded, though without the complex engine management not being present we probably wont see much of an improvement.
However, the weather. What has been mentioned so far sounds fantastic. This is going to be a huge improvement and is going to make us initially have to get used to a little more real world flying procedures (like landing into the wind, wind drift). To me that’s great news, I hope that this being included will provide a little more order at airfields as the landing and takeoff direction should be fixed by the wind direction (though we’ll have to wait and see what happens there).
Radar, just having it set in BoB means that this is going to have to be included. I think we’ll be in for some surprises here in terms of additional roles within SOW and not necessary a flying role.
Ok, as for the realism and missing the boat. I don’t envy Oleg in this department; it’s always going to be a tough call on just how far you go in making it a sim or a simgame. Considering the detail that we have in IL2 many people refer to it as a sim, though I prefer simgame as it has elements of both and when you consider MSFS it’s not a sim but a detailed game IMHO.
Anyway, I was disappointed to hear that complex engine management was not going to be included, I was really hoping that this would be a part of the SOW series. I was happy to hear that clickable cockpit weren’t going to make it in, I must admit that I loath them and would prefer key bindings any day (trying to hold you head still while you move the mouse over a switch is just soooo annoying).
Random failures, I want this as well and was hoping that it would tie into complex engine management. I think we can only hope that the engine abuse failures that we currently had can be expanded, though without the complex engine management not being present we probably wont see much of an improvement.
However, the weather. What has been mentioned so far sounds fantastic. This is going to be a huge improvement and is going to make us initially have to get used to a little more real world flying procedures (like landing into the wind, wind drift). To me that’s great news, I hope that this being included will provide a little more order at airfields as the landing and takeoff direction should be fixed by the wind direction (though we’ll have to wait and see what happens there).
Radar, just having it set in BoB means that this is going to have to be included. I think we’ll be in for some surprises here in terms of additional roles within SOW and not necessary a flying role.
- IV/JG1_Oesau
- Squadron Leader
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:53 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
by Bogusheadbox on Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:04 pm
I agree. IV/JG1_Oesau
It really is a shame when this game holds one of the most user friendly scalable realism options known to the sim genre. Then Oleg leaves out complex engine management, complex starts, failures and (possibly) abuse failures.
His excuse if far from par saying that we the consumer would grow bored of it. Actually, those squads (and mine is one) that fly full real would adore the added immersion this would invcorporate.
I do understand that its not for everyone, but surely he could add a little button to disable these features as he has already in FB.
As for clickable cockpits. Well i would have liked to have seen them in there. It is a lot of work sure. But from a players perspective, there is no difference. If you don't want to click on the switch in the dashboard. Then use keybinds. There is no difference for us.
Personally. I would like it if time wasn't spent on going hell bent on graphics modelling, covering areas such as weathered interior of cars and trucks and spent more time on what the pilot can have to make it more immersive for us.
Clickable cockpits, engine management, dynamic weather, engine failures, dynamic campaigns is where sims are now headed. To leave out some of these features would be to shoot yourself in the foot.
It really is a shame when this game holds one of the most user friendly scalable realism options known to the sim genre. Then Oleg leaves out complex engine management, complex starts, failures and (possibly) abuse failures.
His excuse if far from par saying that we the consumer would grow bored of it. Actually, those squads (and mine is one) that fly full real would adore the added immersion this would invcorporate.
I do understand that its not for everyone, but surely he could add a little button to disable these features as he has already in FB.
As for clickable cockpits. Well i would have liked to have seen them in there. It is a lot of work sure. But from a players perspective, there is no difference. If you don't want to click on the switch in the dashboard. Then use keybinds. There is no difference for us.
Personally. I would like it if time wasn't spent on going hell bent on graphics modelling, covering areas such as weathered interior of cars and trucks and spent more time on what the pilot can have to make it more immersive for us.
Clickable cockpits, engine management, dynamic weather, engine failures, dynamic campaigns is where sims are now headed. To leave out some of these features would be to shoot yourself in the foot.
- Bogusheadbox
- Lance Air Corporal
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:47 pm
19 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Storm Of War (Battle Of Britain) Forum
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests