PDA

View Full Version : This is a dying genre.



msalama
04-18-2007, 05:45 AM
Justifications as follows:

* The larger CFS community is permeated with a sectarian and fundamentalist we're-right-even-when-proven-wrong mindset / cognitive bias which frankly speaking bewilders the heck out of any outsiders. I had a gamer friend w/ a casual interest in WWII-era aviation look into what's written around here the other day, and his opinion was that we're all either crazies or idiots with our continual your-plane-is-über-and-mine-porked drivel. A good way to impress new potential recruits? I think not.

* The lack of moral fibre in many combatants will eventually rot the whole genre. We _will_ eventually get a 100% pure arcade joke of a game if the too-prevalent notion of the FM always being wrong and the fallen pilot always right is allowed to flourish, because the developers of course listen to the loudest voice around. And when that happens there's absolutely no-one else to blame but us, because hey, we get what we pray for!

* The overall aviational / engineering know-how of the participants is much lower than what they think. Myriad are the episodes - and the whines - where the whiner started his "case" based on half-understood half-thruths only, with the hapless so-called case naturally going downhill from there too as more "evidence" got presented later on... and yet those same individuals expect the developers to respond in any sensible manner whatsoever? Please!

* All of the above combined I wouldn't be too surprised if the devs one day just called it quits out of sheer hopelessness and frustration, because we the eternal children can never be satisfied _anyway_ can we? No, we can't; even if the old-timers understand my drift here there'll STILL be the n00 kid around who cannot instantly shoot and fly like the aces on History Channel... and who do you think gets the blame AGAIN?

OK, a bit pessimistic, this rant, and somewhat exaggerated, too, granted http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif But still: look at how many CFSs there once were and how many there are now, and you'll see the general tendency...

I'm willing to chip in for the funeral drinks though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Worf101
04-18-2007, 06:04 AM
Well I for one don't think its as bad as all that. All things are cyclical (sp). When folks tire of just blowing stuff up on consoles, the flight sim and hopefully the space flight sim will be back. It's just too much fun, most days, to just abandon.

Last night I couldn't hit my plate with a fork and when I did hit the target I was promptly scragged by some plane.. But I'll be back.

Da Worfster

msalama
04-18-2007, 06:30 AM
S! Worf.

No, of course it's not _that_ bad really - I did exaggerate somewhat as I admitted already. But this outsider friend of mine leafing trough the boards the other day still kind of dropped at least some scales from my eyes, in that he really was all WTF'd about the lack of any scientifical method whatsoever in trying to convince the community & the devs about the alleged überness / porkedness of X/Y/Z - you know, whichever AC it happened to be that day. And even more so because this same community _also_ according to him seems to do its damnedest in trying to convince anyone under the sun about how great and accurate a _simulator_ this is! And still what they - according to him - seem to be doing is to convince the developers to change the product on basis of mere hunches and / or misunderstood, incomplete and mis-applied evidence into a non-simulator...

Now it pays to mention that this friend of mine is a scientist, and as such he does indeed take a close scrutiny of anything people present to him as simulators f.ex. & he of course understands this is a PC game, and as such, probably more rife with inaccuracies we care to admit. But what he said was still hefty enough to make me think twice...

Worrying. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

SeaVee
04-18-2007, 06:32 AM
Very timely comments msalama.

Unfortunately I think you are right on many fronts. And the partisanship can be found in the forums of ANY and EVERY flight game.

Here is a very good commentary from Tom Cofield over at SimHQ. Everybody should read and and start to think about the bigger picture of our favored genre rather than constantly fighting amongst ourselves and bickering and whining:

THE FUTURE OF OUR GENRE:
http://www.simhq.com/_air2/air_082a.html

slipBall
04-18-2007, 06:41 AM
I disagree,...pc flight sims are still in their infancey....the future is looking very brite I believe

p-11.cAce
04-18-2007, 06:43 AM
FSX, Knights of the Sky, Storm of War, Falcon4.0AF, Lock On + flaming cliffs + black shark, Shockwave BoB, OFF, Strike fighters + its many mods - if anyone is jumping to conclusions here...well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Have you ever played a golf game where at least one of your foursome wasn't spouting off this that and the other about why their score is poor, why some one else is "obviously cheating", why this guy is better or worse than that guy? Its the nature of people to whine, and half the fun is joining in.

I agree with what you say in regard to the level of aerodynamic knowledge, understanding of flight physics, and usage of proper tactics - its practically non-existent. I stuck 90+% of the guys who fly 46 in my pw-5 they would crash and burn - stick me in a WWII fighter and I could not even start the thing much less fly it . But do you think the devs really care? Come on man - they are in this to make $$$ not educate us about the proper usage of mixture controls at altitude. Whatever arguments and chaos happens here your nuts if you think 1c or Ubi even notices. I have nothing but respect for Oleg and his team, but if you think they developed this sim as some sort of educational simulation or teaching aid you are out of your mind.

msalama
04-18-2007, 06:51 AM
if anyone is jumping to conclusions here...well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Well I said I exaggerated a bit perhaps didn't I http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Gotta do that sometimes to get the discussion going...


I have nothing but respect for Oleg and his team, but if you think they developed this sim as some sort of educational simulation or teaching aid you are out of your mind.

I never said or thought they did. But you still have to admit that, for an outsider, it can't look but crazy to see a bunch of geezers doing this:

* Trying to convince n00bs & outsiders of how great a sim this is (plenty of this around and you know it).

* At the same time trying to convince the devs of how BAD a sim this is, in that most of their fave planes are porked and the bogie's at the same time über.

Sounds a bit insane, now doesn't it? Or cretinous, take yer pick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

But OK, maybe they won't give up just because we the community are bitter b1tches, granted, because they indeed are in this to make a $ or 2... makes you wonder, still, sometimes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WWSpinDry
04-18-2007, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Have you ever played a golf game where at least one of your foursome wasn't spouting off this that and the other about why their score is poor, why some one else is "obviously cheating", why this guy is better or worse than that guy?
Actually, no; but that's because I play in a league and its members tend to self-regulate as a group. Someone like that wouldn't fit in and wouldn't be around long. That's topical because I believe the solution to the woes caused by bad apples in this hobby is similar: fly with squads. The really outrageous jerks will generally end up ostracized and alone; don't hang out in servers where the lone wolves congregate and you avoid most of the problems. Fly with (and against) a group of like-minded people and you not only enjoy the camaraderie, when some mouthy brat does cause trouble you apply a group spanking until they go away.

As far as the endless evil postings? Just learn what thread names to avoid and what user names to block. Besides, most good squads have their own thriving forum communities that are well policed. Places like the Zoo are just sideshows.

If everything came to a screeching halt tomorrow, not another new sim coming, ever, and all the loners out there went on to playing The Sims or something, there'd still be enough people in the squads to keep a good player base going. Look at RB3D.

ImpStarDuece
04-18-2007, 07:06 AM
Aviation simming is looking healthier now than at almost any point in the last 10 years.

I really can't remember being this excited looking foward to a sim, as much as I am with SoW:BoB and Knights of the Sky.

As P-11c.Ace said, look at what is out there:

Current:

BoB II (Shockwave) - still being patch and developed
Falcon 4.0 - not sure about development?
Aces High II - still being developed
Targetware - still being developed
IL2-FB-PF-1946 - one patch left, maybe two?
CFS 3 'Over Flanders Fields' - and various 'Wings of Power' and suchlike high quality single models being made
LOMAC + addons - not sure on development?
FSX - tons of community made stuff coming through, with the professional stuff just lagging it a little
Strike Fighters (which is the only one in that list I haven't at least had a brief flirtation with)

Upcoming:

Knights of the Sky
more Targetware stuff
Storm of War: Battle of Britain.

There is probably 5-8 years in SoW alone, and who knows what that period will bring in terms of new competition, ect. Maybe Microsoft will give the

leitmotiv
04-18-2007, 07:09 AM
Of course the worthy M is dead right, and there is nothing new about this. Wargaming has always attracted freaks, twerps, dweebs, cranks, jerks, and boobs by the thousands. The situation was the same in the old board gaming days thirty years ago---for every perfectly nice guy, and they were legion, there were four cranks who made you want to never play competitively again. That's one reason I'm 100% offline. That way I completely enjoy the hobby. The forums are the natural haunts of these guys. So be it! M, I applaud you.

msalama
04-18-2007, 07:12 AM
+1

Cheers Leitmotiv, what you said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

leitmotiv
04-18-2007, 07:19 AM
Tell it like it is, mate! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWSpinDry
04-18-2007, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The situation was the same in the old board gaming days thirty years ago
Damned good point; I'd allowed selective memory to block those days out. The solution back then--at least for me--was similar to my post above: I gravitated to a gaming club where the members tended to be much cooler people and problem children just didn't get invited to our gaming sessions.

Worf101
04-18-2007, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by WWSpinDry:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Have you ever played a golf game where at least one of your foursome wasn't spouting off this that and the other about why their score is poor, why some one else is "obviously cheating", why this guy is better or worse than that guy?
Actually, no; but that's because I play in a league and its members tend to self-regulate as a group. Someone like that wouldn't fit in and wouldn't be around long. That's topical because I believe the solution to the woes caused by bad apples in this hobby is similar: fly with squads. The really outrageous jerks will generally end up ostracized and alone; don't hang out in servers where the lone wolves congregate and you avoid most of the problems. Fly with (and against) a group of like-minded people and you not only enjoy the camaraderie, when some mouthy brat does cause trouble you apply a group spanking until they go away.

As far as the endless evil postings? Just learn what thread names to avoid and what user names to block. Besides, most good squads have their own thriving forum communities that are well policed. Places like the Zoo are just sideshows.

If everything came to a screeching halt tomorrow, not another new sim coming, ever, and all the loners out there went on to playing The Sims or something, there'd still be enough people in the squads to keep a good player base going. Look at RB3D. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Couldn't put it better myself. Outstanding post.

Da Worfster

Lodovik
04-18-2007, 07:45 AM
Ah, the good ol' dying game genré discussion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Msalama has good points, but they don't actually point to the fact that flight sims are dying. Rather, they point out that as in any group of humans, even people who share similar interests, not all think alike.
Not every simmer thinks alike. I myself have never understood people who want to play around with representations of WW2 AC that have the flight models of modern (or imaginary) jets and shoot out similar minded opponents in bouts of "Air Quake", but each to their own...
Some simmer friends find my interest in bombers and early war planes "weird", but thats OK, too.
Some people in sim community I know, have actually evolved from one subgroup to another. Some have vowed to quit and come back after a few years pause, while some people with a keen interest in aviation history find sims lacking in interest after a quick try.

Personally, I expect sims to continue and improve, while the simming community will keep on consisting of many different kinds of people. And that in the end is a good thing. For everybody.

rnzoli
04-18-2007, 07:54 AM
I don't mind dying, as long as I can find a Re-fly button somewhere.

msalama
04-18-2007, 08:01 AM
Msalama has good points, but they don't actually point to the fact that flight sims are dying.

OK, I'll let you in on a wee secret here: that dying bit was just an afterthought-y dramatic flourish truth be telt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But I dead serious in my notion of us often coming across as total asses to someone potentially interested but still uninitiated nevertheless, because how can we claim a sim is both good _and_ totally off (re: FM quarrels) at the same time?

msalama
04-18-2007, 08:03 AM
I don't mind dying, as long as I can find a Re-fly button somewhere.

Me neither, now that you mention it. And it's all in a days work for a bomber pilot anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p-11.cAce
04-18-2007, 08:12 AM
But I dead serious in my notion of us often coming across as total asses to someone potentially interested but still uninitiated nevertheless, because how can we claim a sim is both good _and_ totally off (re: FM quarrels) at the same time?
I just wonder how many thousands of 46 players never even come to the forums? I owned IL2 for a long time before I ever came here.

leitmotiv
04-18-2007, 08:17 AM
I played the game without using the forums, used the forums just for play information, and, then, out of idleness, unwisdom, masochism, and folly, started jumping in the rat cages.

msalama
04-18-2007, 08:19 AM
I just wonder how many thousands of 46 players never even come to the forums? I owned IL2 for a long time before I ever came here.

Many won't, but how about generic gamers bitten by a WWII aviation bug searching for their 1st CFS? What are their impressions after finding this board I wonder?

leitmotiv
04-18-2007, 08:24 AM
Let's face it. Serious aero students do not go to a game site. This is lite lite. A place to kick off your shoes, drive a pithing needle into your brain, and relax. Since the advent of 46, the forums have been swamped by the junior set and the tone has taken another hit.

Deadmeat313
04-18-2007, 08:58 AM
Back when I used to play WoW I tried to hang on their forums, but they were PACKED with insane rants from users saying "WTF! Druid is totally PWNED! Fix this now or I'll never play again !!1!"

Over and over again. If you were to believe their forums then every single one of their character classes is utterly broken. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

More recently, I've been playing Eve Online. Their forums are nowhere near as bad as Wow, but still - when I returned to this forum a couple of days back - it was like a welcome relief to see people asking questions, and other people responding in a mature and helpful manner.

Yeah, there are some trolls under the bridges, but most of you are alright. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

T.

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-18-2007, 09:12 AM
You is wrong...be sure.


While not as inviting or as widespread as 10 years ago, the sophistication has brought many that weren't able or impressed enough with the technology back then to hang around.

With Sow:BoB and KotS both on the horizon, I feel the improvements and technological advances stand the genre in good stead and will continue to draw the next generation od gamers and developers. I don't care if Flight-sims outsell RTS games or vice-versa...just as long as they keep making them.


TB

leitmotiv
04-18-2007, 09:42 AM
Actually, I am more concerned about the makers than the users. I am more excited by the prospect of military simulation designers getting into civilian-market sims than anything else. STEEL BEASTS is the prime example. Its a mil sim dumbed to the civilian market as is OPERATION FLASHPOINT. I will be interested when the methods and rigor applied to military sims get applied to WWII-era sims. There is too much empirical fiddling in WWII aero sims now. Great toys but dubious simulators.

Pirschjaeger
04-18-2007, 09:59 AM
Quick, is there a genre practitioner in the house?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


Sorry, it just slipped out,...kinda,.....sorta http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
04-18-2007, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
Justifications as follows:

* The larger CFS community is permeated with a sectarian and fundamentalist we're-right-even-when-proven-wrong mindset / cognitive bias which frankly speaking bewilders the heck out of any outsiders. I had a gamer friend w/ a casual interest in WWII-era aviation look into what's written around here the other day, and his opinion was that we're all either crazies or idiots with our continual your-plane-is-über-and-mine-porked drivel. A good way to impress new potential recruits? I think not.

* The lack of moral fibre in many combatants will eventually rot the whole genre. We _will_ eventually get a 100% pure arcade joke of a game if the too-prevalent notion of the FM always being wrong and the fallen pilot always right is allowed to flourish, because the developers of course listen to the loudest voice around. And when that happens there's absolutely no-one else to blame but us, because hey, we get what we pray for!

* The overall aviational / engineering know-how of the participants is much lower than what they think. Myriad are the episodes - and the whines - where the whiner started his "case" based on half-understood half-thruths only, with the hapless so-called case naturally going downhill from there too as more "evidence" got presented later on... and yet those same individuals expect the developers to respond in any sensible manner whatsoever? Please!

* All of the above combined I wouldn't be too surprised if the devs one day just called it quits out of sheer hopelessness and frustration, because we the eternal children can never be satisfied _anyway_ can we? No, we can't; even if the old-timers understand my drift here there'll STILL be the n00 kid around who cannot instantly shoot and fly like the aces on History Channel... and who do you think gets the blame AGAIN?

OK, a bit pessimistic, this rant, and somewhat exaggerated, too, granted http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif But still: look at how many CFSs there once were and how many there are now, and you'll see the general tendency...

I'm willing to chip in for the funeral drinks though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

This might have a lot of merit if it wasn't based solely on the online behavior of a bunch of dweebs

leitmotiv
04-18-2007, 10:02 AM
I think there is a homeopathic simulator practitioner!

faustnik
04-18-2007, 10:21 AM
Red vs. Blue fights in the forums can really make you puke. The problem is that they are both right, they have the pilot quotes to prove it. I agree that less of this would make the forums much better places.

As for online flying, there are a lot of people on HL every night. If you get on TS with at least one friend, you can have a great time flying online. If a couple crazies can ruin your day, you're going to have a tough time in life, not just in online flight sims. Ignore the insanity, or laugh at it for what it is. If someone is abusing the chat line with whines and rants, find their plane and shoot them in the head. Their responses should be good for a laugh. Shoot them in the head a few times and they'll probably leave.

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-18-2007, 11:31 AM
Yup, they'll be easier to shoot while they're typing too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chivas
04-18-2007, 11:38 AM
I don't think things have changed to much. The worst thing is losing the ear of the developer. Once a game becomes popular the amount of whiners grows proportionately. The developer will try and justify a decision but soon realise he's just beating his head against a wall. We've lost Oleg.

Some guys at other less popular game forums will say how wonderfull their forums are compared to your zoo. Not realizing when their game becomes popular it will soon go down that same ugly road. H*ll...right now I'm the only whiner at some of them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

~Salute~
Chivas

GIAP.Shura
04-18-2007, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
... the lack of any scientifical method whatsoever ...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Was this you or your "scientifical" friend who said this?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

x6BL_Brando
04-18-2007, 12:23 PM
Ah well, it's all forum ****e isn't it. I'm much happier NOT having the climb rate of every particular plane engraved on my forebrain - it leaves much more room for the things I need to know in the world beyond the computer screen.

No offence - people know some fascinating things and are kind enough to share - but when I buckle on my flight gear and jump into a coop with the gang, all that recedes into the distance. It really is just a game - a social gathering - and not a war.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif B

crucislancer
04-18-2007, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Of course the worthy M is dead right, and there is nothing new about this. Wargaming has always attracted freaks, twerps, dweebs, cranks, jerks, and boobs by the thousands. The situation was the same in the old board gaming days thirty years ago---for every perfectly nice guy, and they were legion, there were four cranks who made you want to never play competitively again. That's one reason I'm 100% offline. That way I completely enjoy the hobby. The forums are the natural haunts of these guys. So be it! M, I applaud you.

Don't forget Geeks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Aside from flight sims like IL-2, I occasionally play D&D and Battletech, as well as being a bassist in a rock band, and the forums for each of these interests are all the same (www.wizards.com (http://www.wizards.com),www.classicbattletech.com (http://www.classicbattletech.com), www.harmony-central.com (http://www.harmony-central.com) respectively). Quite a few cool, intelligent people with a smattering of jerks who have nothing better to do then troll the boards and start fights.

As far as the genre of flight sims dying out, I don't think so, at least not yet. Granted, flight sims hit a plateau in the late 90's with all of the Janes releases, EAW, and so on. I remember going into CompUSA and the section for flight sims was enormous. Not so anymore. Why? I don't have the answers to that, but my guess would be that this genre is a very specialist one. With the popularity of consoles these days, diving into a complex but rewarding simulation isn't nearly as popular. One of the most popular Xbox Live games was Crimson Skies, flight sim lite right there.
Also, quite a few of the sims released near the turn of the century either had major problems or just couldn't deliver a balanced game. Screaming Demons comes to mind. That was a FM, a few planes and a couple of maps in a box. It had all the life of a doorknob, nothing really held it together. Of course, this is all my opinion, and I could be wrong.

It's not going to die out, but it will remain in the background for a while. Just like turn-based wargames.

leitmotiv
04-18-2007, 12:35 PM
Absolutely right, crucislancer---the title drought is amazing. This year with BATTLE OF BRITAIN and KNIGHTS OF THE SKY pending---two primo combat flight sims---we have a bumper crop. TWO, fer petessake!

WWSpinDry
04-18-2007, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
Just like turn-based wargames.
Wargames have faded in popularity? Since when?[/denial]

p-11.cAce
04-18-2007, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
Just like turn-based wargames.
The Total War series is doing pretty good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWSpinDry
04-18-2007, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
The Total War series ...
Bah. Computer-based wargames. Bah. Cardboard counters and paper maps with hexagons, that's where it's at!

msalama
04-18-2007, 12:48 PM
Was this you or your "scientifical" friend who said this?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Me, or rather my or-kanig speling kheker actually http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

msalama
04-18-2007, 12:54 PM
This might have a lot of merit if it wasn't based solely on the online behavior of a bunch of dweebs

Well actually it's based on a bulk of some more egregious postings on this board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

crucislancer
04-18-2007, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:
Just like turn-based wargames.
The Total War series is doing pretty good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but not turn-based. I love Rome Total War. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWSensei
04-18-2007, 12:59 PM
I remember reading this rant back in 1997. Old genre' has been coughing and wheezing on life support for 10 years at least. Been waiting on the old geezer to die off finally but noooooooo, it just keeps hanging on.

The best version of this style of rant had to have been on the old Usenet group comp.sys.ibm.pc.games .flight-sim back in 99 or maybe 2000. 500+ posts on that one in just 2 days. Probably grew larger but I killfiled it after it got boring. Back then the Ordbot swore lack of snap rolls in sims would be the death of the genre'.

msalama
04-18-2007, 01:00 PM
Red vs. Blue fights in the forums can really make you puke. The problem is that they are both right, they have the pilot quotes to prove it. I agree that less of this would make the forums much better places.

My words exactly.


If a couple crazies can ruin your day, you're going to have a tough time in life, not just in online flight sims.

Please Faust, I'm 40-odd years YOUNG http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I've seen a lot worse in my life than some forum jerks, trolls and whiners! It's just that... well, the motive is what you said already, i.e. Red vs. Blue fights in the forums can really make you puke can't they?

msalama
04-18-2007, 01:05 PM
I remember reading this rant back in 1997.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

crucislancer
04-18-2007, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by SeaVee:
Here is a very good commentary from Tom Cofield over at SimHQ. Everybody should read and and start to think about the bigger picture of our favored genre rather than constantly fighting amongst ourselves and bickering and whining:

THE FUTURE OF OUR GENRE:
http://www.simhq.com/_air2/air_082a.html

I just read this. He has some great ideas.

AVG_WarHawk
04-18-2007, 01:32 PM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/AVG_WarHawk/Breakfastofflightsimmers.gif
A box of this should be included with every purchase of IL-2. And your not able to log in to the forums, til you've had a bowl full http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
04-18-2007, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by msalama:

Please Faust, I'm 40-odd years YOUNG http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I've seen a lot worse in my life than some forum jerks, trolls and whiners!

Well, I'm 41 here junior http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and my point is don't let a few whackos chase you offline. Get back in the fight with the rest of us and help chase them off. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-18-2007, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
...i.e. Red vs. Blue fights in the forums can really make you puke can't they?

Sometimes they get very tiresome, but the reality for me is I simply don't completely understand them. I realize this isn't really the point, but I fly everything for both <span class="ev_code_RED">red</span> and <span class="ev_code_BLUE">blue</span> and just try to learn them all. If I didn't, I don't think I'd be getting all the packaged value out of this sim.

TB

faustnik
04-18-2007, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
the reality for me is I simply don't completely understand them.

The truth is that it's easier for many to blame Oleg's modeling than their own cr4ppy flying.

Rule of Online Flying Gamery #1 - The plane that shoots you down is always overmodeled.

Old_Canuck
04-18-2007, 01:40 PM
While I agree that the constant bickering about who has the uber planes etc. is not giving a good impression for potential flight simmers, I can't agree about combat flight sims becoming a dying genre after having a great game today on Zeke Vs Wildcats with a nOOb who is also a professional pilot. He has been enjoying IL2 for weeks now and hasn't once mentioned FMs, cheats .. just having fun -- despite our many deaths online :-). Yesterday he went onto Warclouds to show his friend "this incredible game" and his friend says he's going to buy it too. So in the little circle that I've been traveling in, I can see a healthy future for flight sims. Also, if others feel more comfortable in BoB WOV or CFS or whatever flight sim they like, more power to them. The more the better. More people will become exposed to flight sims (thank God for Youtube) and they will gravitate to where they feel comfortable. Quality sims like those produced by 1C will continue to be the choice of discerning armchair flight jocks (if 1C's products manage to survive clumsy marketing attempts).

leitmotiv
04-18-2007, 01:57 PM
Right. Bores galore but the game is still a kick.

msalama
04-18-2007, 01:58 PM
Well, I'm 41 here junior http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and my point is don't let a few whackos chase you offline. Get back in the fight with the rest of us and help chase them off. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

S! Faustnik. So many asshats, so little time, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Viper2005_
04-18-2007, 01:58 PM
There are fewer sims than there used to be because it's much harder to make a flightsim these days than it used to be due to the fact that people have higher expectations, especially with regard to eye candy.

Flightsims don't port well to consoles.

FPS games port well from PCs to consoles & vice versa. Porting is always going to be cheaper than making games from scratch, and as a result the existence of games consoles tends to increase the relative number of FPS games available without affecting the number of flightsims.

IMO the genre isn't especially unhealthy, despite the impression that a comparison between the number of new FPS games and the number of new flightsims might give.

As for whine, I look at it like this:

"Die-hard reds" might want a forgiving, arcade FM for red a/c, and an unforgiving, realistic FM for blue a/c. The last thing they want is a forgiving arcade FM for blue a/c!

Meanwhile, "Die-hard blues" want the opposite.

Provided that there are roughly equal numbers of reds & blues, the whine should cancel out.

If a developer wants to produce a realistic sim then he'll produce a realistic sim. If he wants to produce an arcade sim (which will likely have a larger market and be easier to make) then he'll produce an arcade sim; I don't think the whine will make any difference to that decision.

slipBall
04-18-2007, 02:06 PM
The only thing that could kill flight sims is same old, same old, been there done it. The future is to make them as real as possible, with a switch for the new-comers, who lack skill....these boards and all its negativity, is no match to a well made sim...if you build it, they will come!

XyZspineZyX
04-18-2007, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This might have a lot of merit if it wasn't based solely on the online behavior of a bunch of dweebs

Well actually it's based on a bulk of some more egregious postings on this board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, well yes...hence my statement : "This would have some merit if it weren't based solely on the online behavior of a bunch of dweebs"

You have re-stated exactly what I said...I'm saying that your conclusions are based on observing the behavior of one group of people...and now you're basing your conclusion on that observation

The catch is that you are not looking at the whole pie, but rather one slice of the pie. You can't judge the entire situation on the actions of one part of the group. The results are necessarily skewed. You've only factored in one group's opinions (actually your interpretations of one group's opinions) in your conclusions that sum up life of death of the genre. You need to look at ALL groups' opinions. It very easy to get the opinions of the vocal idiots. if all you take into account is the people that post nothing but negativity, how can you call your observations complete?

Scorpion.233
04-18-2007, 02:54 PM
CLUB OF ROME.

faustnik
04-18-2007, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
S! Faustnik. So many asshats, so little time, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Exactly!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MB_Avro_UK
04-18-2007, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
While I agree that the constant bickering about who has the uber planes etc. is not giving a good impression for potential flight simmers, I can't agree about combat flight sims becoming a dying genre after having a great game today on Zeke Vs Wildcats with a nOOb who is also a professional pilot. He has been enjoying IL2 for weeks now and hasn't once mentioned FMs, cheats .. just having fun -- despite our many deaths online :-). Yesterday he went onto Warclouds to show his friend "this incredible game" and his friend says he's going to buy it too. So in the little circle that I've been traveling in, I can see a healthy future for flight sims. Also, if others feel more comfortable in BoB WOV or CFS or whatever flight sim they like, more power to them. The more the better. More people will become exposed to flight sims (thank God for Youtube) and they will gravitate to where they feel comfortable. Quality sims like those produced by 1C will continue to be the choice of discerning armchair flight jocks (if 1C's products manage to survive clumsy marketing attempts).

Superb Post Old_Canuck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And I agree of course...


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

badaboom.1
04-18-2007, 03:59 PM
"This is a dying genre"
Darn!!!!And I just bought rudder pedals too!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
I think as a community we have our good days and bad days,usually when politics enter our arena it can get pretty ugly[I'm guilty of this]
I really think that most days are very good,Some examples
-most here have a love for military history and share it openly
-you can learn quite a bit here,I believe some members are extremely smart and some are borderline genius.
-look at some of the work that the Mission builders put in for the enjoyment for this community,20-30 missions in one beautiul campaign.....this is a lot of work,the pay isn't.
-same with The Movie Makers,hours upon hours running into days and months of endless editing and music matching to make a 10min MASTERPIECE!
-and The Skinners,painstaking work to get a WWII ACE'S aircraft just right!the colors the weathering effects the proper insignias and kill totals.

I would say to alot of new people coming to the community to stick it out!see past some of the silly B.S.You will learn a great deal of WWII history[as I have/do]and enjoy a great sim and the very hard work of the community. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

carguy_
04-18-2007, 04:41 PM
If anybody judges the status of the genre by the general attitude and level of online gamers,I`d say he needs to stop worrying about it.There are really a lot aholes around in very single field of life.The trick is not to let them get you down.

I couldn`t care less about newcomers either.The flightsim community is what it is and I ain`t gonna try to change the impression.For those that quit because of said whines here and there I think it is better.If they can`t cope with other people,ICLUDING all kinds of black sheep then I can`t help them.If one decides to enter the flightsim genre,he should search deeper,gather more information not to base his opinions on shreds he might have came onto.

Everyone has to find his own way in flightsim genre and if one comes to conclusion it is not his environment then quitting is the answer.

Search a bit deeper and you will surely find what you like.Just takes a bit of an effort.

I fly for fun.If I ever get angry or sad or so on then I just take a break.Not really worth getting your free time wasted.

After all this is just another face of the market.If there are new sims coming then it can`t be dying because it is simply all calculated.Personally I`ve never seen Oleg say IL2,even with it`s relatively low sales,was a disaster.
Why do you think BoB is in works?Because Oleg LIKES us?!I think because he can make money from his passion and good money enough to suit his and his teams` families.
Do you think I will play BoB if it turns out to be a POS?No,sorry.1c has me already so brainwashed that I`m ready to purchase Faces of war and Theatre of war blindfolded because it has 1C working on it.But it will not last forever,frankly it can come to an end with the last title.


Just wanted to point out a different angle of view on things.
If you want to stir things up,ok.You`re in the right place.But those who know what is really going on don`t really agree with this 'dying genre' ****.

pacettid
04-18-2007, 05:15 PM
"...I wouldn't be too surprised if the devs one day just called it quits out of sheer hopelessness and frustration, because we the eternal children can never be satisfied _anyway_ can we? No, we can't; even if the old-timers understand my drift here there'll STILL be the n00 kid around who cannot instantly shoot and fly like the aces on History Channel..."

Not to worry, this is probably the last place developers go for ideas on FMs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
04-18-2007, 05:25 PM
It's all true except for the fact that those points are more or less true for many genres. Whats different about ours is that its based heavily on a well documented piece of history or in the case of the jet combat stuff...often a well documented (sometimes classified) modern hardware.

Just go visit a C&C3 forum right now...'Mammoth tanks are too good! WTF!" and "OMG Scrin r0x0rs! GDI nerfed in this game! WTF" and so forth.

So far the only difference I see is that in that case the developers are dealing with teenagers complaining about stuff that doesn't exist while aviation/simulation game forums contain adults complaining about aircraft that used to exist.

I doubt developers will run away crying because their fan base is a bunch of ravenous loonies...all fan bases are. Especially once you reach a critical mass of fans in an online community. The early, calm, friendly days of the IL-2 forums were nice but once the game became popular then you attract all sorts of good and less desirable types to the forums. Like it or not this is ultimately a natural progression and maybe even a "good thing" (tm pending!) as it speaks to the size of the community and consequently the sales.

I know Oleg visits other forums that are IL-2 based that aren't here at the Ubisoft forums and that he can clearly see a different level of discussion there. I'm sure he's been around the block (so to speak) enough times to see through the pettiness.

Makabi-
04-18-2007, 05:25 PM
death of the genre? heh, it's been said more than once that adventure games are a dead/dying breed, yet you still see adventure games of varying quality being released all the time. I don't think that the flight sim genre will die until nobody takes interest anymore, and I don't see that happening any time soon. I'm 19 and have been playing flight sims since I got my hands on Aces of the Pacific at the young age of 7, and I'm not going to stop playing flight sims until there's nobody left to fly with. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

slappedsilly
04-18-2007, 05:54 PM
We all need to introduce new people to the genre. A flight sim is harder to learn than most other games and I think this keeps some from staying interested. Its all in our best interest to promote the genre.

BfHeFwMe
04-18-2007, 06:06 PM
Put that genre back in bottle and never wish again. be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Old_Canuck
04-18-2007, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
....

Superb Post Old_Canuck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And I agree of course...


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

TY Sir S~ Now remember when you see number 99 .. DON'T SHOOT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LEXX_Luthor
04-18-2007, 10:06 PM
With Microsoft having exited the combat flight sim market with the cancellation of CFS4 about two years ago, we are now seeing the Re-Birth of the combat flight sim genre. I figure it takes developers about two to three years to recover from being crushed beneath the boot of a crushing and artificial market domination from a giant such as Microsoft.

GR142-Pipper
04-18-2007, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Red vs. Blue fights in the forums can really make you puke. The problem is that they are both right, they have the pilot quotes to prove it. You're right about this point, Faustnik. The problem is that it doesn't seem to matter to the developers because even when real evidence contradicts the behavior of ANY aircraft represented (red or blue) in this game, little to nothing gets done or if it does, the pace is nothing more than glacial. I could easily cite numerous examples of this but they've all been hashed out many times before by people who know what they're talking about so there's no need for that at this point.

Personally, if there is ONE thing that is truly corrosive to this genre (and this game in particular) it is the lack of technical accuracy in the flight/damage/weapons modeling area. There are far too many planes to adequately model yet the developers insist on introducing more and more...and to support less and less. And including these corny ficticious jets and other "never were" planes don't help either.

Yes, this is certainly a fun game but my disappointment focuses on the developer's lack of commitment to technical accuracy. The developers are fine programmers no doubt but that missing commitment to technical excellence is the difference between just another game and one which would evolve into a remarkable flight sim.

...just my take.

GR142-Pipper

msalama
04-18-2007, 11:13 PM
If you want to stir things up,ok.You`re in the right place.But those who know what is really going on don`t really agree with this 'dying genre' ****.

Hey, I'm not stirring things up for stirring up's sake, for... eh... God's sake (now that's tautophony for you). It's just that we the community do sometimes come across as quite an obnoxious bunch - and I don't think it really matters that it's the minority who's the culprit here because it's the loudest voices that are best heard, aren't they?

And I'm not worried about the passionate newbs either, because they'll persevere. But the borderline interested (and I'm sure most potential new recruits belong to this group) might very well get turned off if they happen to encounter us on our worse moments, and that cannot be but harmful to the whole genre in the long run.

But OK, to say it's all dying is a bit strong still, granted. It's just that CFSs are not your easy entry-level games to begin with anyway, and this combined with our less-than-brilliant attitude at times kind of raises the bar unneededly high for the n00bs IMO.

Which indeed was the point I wanted discussed. S!

LEXX_Luthor
04-18-2007, 11:16 PM
Pipper you can "fix" the flight models to Taste in BoB And Beyond, as Oleg will be opening the new sim to 3rd Party aircraft modding. Have Fun!

If you want the Moscow Central Comittee to "fix" a flight model in this closed-aircraft sim, you will have to conduct flight model testing. Talk to TAGERT about how to do this. The best example was the LaGG-3 1941 where for four (4) years everybody said it was "overmodelled" but none here bothered testing the flight model, so it took four (4) years for Oleg to discover himself that she was underweight 300kg and "fixed" her. Community testing would have revealed this. Tragically, the hardcore "realistic(tm)" flight model gameplay community was never interested in *testing* the flight models.

hehe

TX-Gunslinger
04-18-2007, 11:48 PM
This is a dying genre = the world is coming to an end.

Prophesied since the beginning of recorded history, but hasn't happened yet.

Red fights with Blue
Blue fights with Red
Onliners fight with Offliners
Cockpit off versus Cockpit On
No Icons versus Icons
The Genre is dying : No it's the best it's ever been.

All these things have been around since the beginning, and always will. To have an expectation of a "perfect world" is to be continually disappointed.

The problem here is not with the simulation - it's with humanity - dirty little monkeys, one and all.

The day that I will worry about the genre - is the day that the fighting stops.

Where there is no passion, there is no life. By the looks of this four page thread - and particularly Tagerts last test - Everything is just fine.

The passion and fire in the gut, that the new crop of Noobs are demonstrating, indicates that they are carrying on in the fine tradition of us old folks. The reproductive cycle is occurring right in front of your face. Noob spring is here, yet some of you cannot see the flowers for the manure.

A happy pilot is a bltching pilot. For me, I'm sure I'll still be virtually flying and babbling on communications as the ocean rises up around my ankles, and the air pollution chokes me to death.

Have a good day

S~

Gunny

GR142-Pipper
04-19-2007, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Pipper you can "fix" the flight models to Taste in BoB And Beyond, as Oleg will be opening the new sim to 3rd Party aircraft modding. Have Fun!

If you want the Moscow Central Comittee to "fix" a flight model in this closed-aircraft sim, you will have to conduct flight model testing. Talk to TAGERT about how to do this. The best example was the LaGG-3 1941 where for four (4) years everybody said it was "overmodelled" but none here bothered testing the flight model, so it took four (4) years for Oleg to discover himself that she was underweight 300kg and "fixed" her. Community testing would have revealed this. Tragically, the hardcore "realistic(tm)" flight model gameplay community was never interested in *testing* the flight models. It's not the Lagg-3's of the world that really interest me (although I do realize that you're using this particular aircraft as an example). I'm far more interested in the "major" types (i.e. P-51, P-47, F4U, P-38, 109, 190, others as well.). These flight models have been so thoroughly poorly done that it aches. What's worse is that they've been allowed to remain in these states for literally years, even when ample evidence to the contrary has been presented (ask Kahuna and his P-38 offerings for his view). This is where I derive my conviction that the developers simply aren't interested in accurate flight/damage/weapons modeling. Let's not fool ourselves at this late date...they're not interested.

I'm certainly pleased that 3rd party developers will be able to provide modeling services in BoB as so many aircraft really require a thorough going-over...and support thereafter.

To be clear, no one is interested in overmodeled/undermodeled aircraft and no one expects perfection. But (IMHO) we simply have to do better than where we're at for this game to be taken seriously.

Then again, I have to be honest enough to accept the fact that my view may certainly not be a majority or even a widely held one.

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper

GIAP.Shura
04-19-2007, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
It's not the Lagg-3's of the world that really interest me...

One man's Lagg-3 is another man's P-51. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Regarding the main subject, I don't think we have to worry about casual gamers being put off by what is posted here. Compared to what you see on forums which deal with casual games (i.e. mainstream FPS, RTS, MMO) this place is a Sunday School...and they don't (can't?) even discuss politics. It might be true that there is a certain amount of snobbery about flying less than Full Real but, then again, a lot of people think that if you are flying less than that then you aren't experiencing as much as you can.

Frankly, I think that the difficulty curve of IL-2 itself (even at lower levels of difficulty) is going to turn off more novices than the forums but I wouldn't want IL-2 changed because of that.

Pipper, no offense intended but I think you are being overly critical of the game and what can be expected of it. Why do people complain that the devs don't fix things? The game has been supported during the entire period of its existence. Sure, some things are changed and some things are left as they are (for better or for worse). Look at SH3 for instance, 4 patches and that is it, nothing more. Sure it has been modded to a very high standard, which is not an option in IL-2, but at least we have robust online capability which is not damaged by cheats. You are complaining about having to many planes to be accurately modelled. Would you have preferred it if IL-2 had stayed purely as a one plane ground attack simulator? In other words, you said that the lack of historical and technical accuracy in this sim is especially corrosive. Which other sim is more accurate?

I think that historical and technical inaccuracies may lead to disappointment in certain sims for a few grognards with a particularly deep knowledge of the concerned field but not in the general gaming community or even in those with a general interest in sim games. You say that the game has to do better if it is to be taken more seriously. By whom?

In short, I sympathise with your wish for high quality historical and technical accuracy. For sims, it is generally better to be as close to reality as possible. However, this sim is in the end a game. It has received a pretty good level of support during its existence. In my opinion there isn't a better prop sim on the market. Also, in my opinion, it is a masterpiece.

Codex1971
04-19-2007, 05:56 AM
The larger CFS community is permeated with a sectarian and fundamentalist we're-right-even-when-proven-wrong mindset / cognitive bias which frankly speaking bewilders the heck out of any outsiders. I had a gamer friend w/ a casual interest in WWII-era aviation look into what's written around here the other day, and his opinion was that we're all either crazies or idiots with our continual your-plane-is-über-and-mine-porked drivel. A good way to impress new potential recruits? I think not.


I'd look at it the other way, get him/her to fly IL-2 first before reading the forums I'll bet they form a different view.



The lack of moral fibre in many combatants will eventually rot the whole genre. We _will_ eventually get a 100% pure arcade joke of a game if the too-prevalent notion of the FM always being wrong and the fallen pilot always right is allowed to flourish, because the developers of course listen to the loudest voice around. And when that happens there's absolutely no-one else to blame but us, because hey, we get what we pray for!


I doubt it. I've turned from an arcade tosser to simulation junkie, the more realistic this sim gets the better. I'd say the developers aren't that easily swayed by the whiners.



The overall aviational / engineering know-how of the participants is much lower than what they think. Myriad are the episodes - and the whines - where the whiner started his "case" based on half-understood half-thruths only, with the hapless so-called case naturally going downhill from there too as more "evidence" got presented later on... and yet those same individuals expect the developers to respond in any sensible manner whatsoever? Please!


I feel the developers consider changes to this sim very carefully, I honestly believe that any changes that are made to FM / DM's has been brought about from careful research...I have faith in that and I think Oleg isn't given enough credit for his credentials.



All of the above combined I wouldn't be too surprised if the devs one day just called it quits out of sheer hopelessness and frustration, because we the eternal children can never be satisfied _anyway_ can we? No, we can't; even if the old-timers understand my drift here there'll STILL be the n00 kid around who cannot instantly shoot and fly like the aces on History Channel... and who do you think gets the blame AGAIN?


If the developers call it quits because of that then this sim wasn't worth their trouble and my time in the first place. Oleg's on a winner here and he knows it, no matter who comes and goes from these forums, or who enters or leaves IL-2, or who makes the most noise about an under/over modelled plane it will always be know as the best sim in this genre for its time...period.

For those who think they can fly around, weather it be online or offline, and repeat the History Channel exploits they're going to get a rood "smack from a wet trout behind the head" ego shattering experience. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

msalama
04-19-2007, 11:07 AM
OK ye geezers, not a dying genre. Convinced me after 4 pages ONLY. Must be getting old or something http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

No but seriously, thanks all for an interesting discussion so far. S!

leitmotiv
04-19-2007, 11:42 AM
I fired up FSX yesterday and took up one of the brand new mega-beautiful Flight Replicas 109Gs in the gorgeous FSX sky over the gorgeous FSX landscape and I saw the future---BOB---and it was GOOD.

http://www.skyunlimited.net/id2bf109g/G_8_R2_2.jpg

FunGus1968
04-19-2007, 11:54 AM
IL2 is the only flight sim I have ever played.

I am curious. How many have there been and how many are there now?

I have a feeling that compared to the enormity of PC gaming, this genre has always been, well -insignificant.

I think that we take ourselves too seriously.

crucislancer
04-19-2007, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by FunGus1968:
IL2 is the only flight sim I have ever played.

I am curious. How many have there been and how many are there now?

I have a feeling that compared to the enormity of PC gaming, this genre has always been, well -insignificant.

I think that we take ourselves too seriously.

Oh, there have been plenty throughout the years. Just a few off the top of my head:

MiG Alley
Flying Corps
Red Baron
European Air War
WWII Fighters
Screaming Demons Over Europe
F-15
Longbow
Longbow 2
Su-27 Flanker
Flanker 2.0
Lock On Modern Air Combat
Battle of Britain
iF-16
iF-22
Apache
Gunship
US Navy Fighters
ATF
USAF
IAF
F/A-18
Falcon 1 through 4

The list goes on and on. Some of these were released within a couple of years of each other, some were more spread out. The late 90's was loaded with Flight Sims ranging from WWI through modern day.

I think some folks do take themselves a bit seriously, and that goes with anything like flight sims or games in general, but in the end I think we all know it's about having fun.

crucislancer
04-19-2007, 12:15 PM
By the way FunGus1968......Love the icon! From Aces High, right? Powerslave is a great album. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Rattler68
04-19-2007, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
Justifications as follows:

* The larger CFS community is permeated with a sectarian and fundamentalist we're-right-even-when-proven-wrong mindset / cognitive bias which frankly speaking bewilders the heck out of any outsiders. I had a gamer friend w/ a casual interest in WWII-era aviation look into what's written around here the other day, and his opinion was that we're all either crazies or idiots with our continual your-plane-is-über-and-mine-porked drivel. A good way to impress new potential recruits? I think not.
I don't think most new IL 2 pilots get the sim because they came to a forum.


* The lack of moral fibre in many combatants will eventually rot the whole genre. We _will_ eventually get a 100% pure arcade joke of a game if the too-prevalent notion of the FM always being wrong and the fallen pilot always right is allowed to flourish, because the developers of course listen to the loudest voice around. And when that happens there's absolutely no-one else to blame but us, because hey, we get what we pray for!
[\quote]I don't think that the FM discussions have much to do with "arcade" style servers. Most of the full-real "more"-real servers have satisfied customers, as far as I can tell.
[quote]


* The overall aviational / engineering know-how of the participants is much lower than what they think. Myriad are the episodes - and the whines - where the whiner started his "case" based on half-understood half-thruths only, with the hapless so-called case naturally going downhill from there too as more "evidence" got presented later on... and yet those same individuals expect the developers to respond in any sensible manner whatsoever? Please!
[\quote]Most of the same pilots as stated in previous reply don't complain while they fly
[quote]

* All of the above combined I wouldn't be too surprised if the devs one day just called it quits out of sheer hopelessness and frustration, because we the eternal children can never be satisfied _anyway_ can we? No, we can't; even if the old-timers understand my drift here there'll STILL be the n00 kid around who cannot instantly shoot and fly like the aces on History Channel... and who do you think gets the blame AGAIN?
[\quote]Combat Flight Sims are a small market. We all know this.[quote]

OK, a bit pessimistic, this rant, and somewhat exaggerated, too, granted http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif But still: look at how many CFSs there once were and how many there are now, and you'll see the general tendency...

I'm willing to chip in for the funeral drinks though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Rant away! It's your nickel...

Bearcat99
04-19-2007, 01:53 PM
I think that as long as the developers stick to A)Getting things as realistic as possible on one end, B)Making things at least as scalable as what we have here.... C)Making the whole side feature asapect (Mission builder, skinning capabilities etc..)and D)Keeping one standard for flight models that cannot be "tweaked" by any one other than the developer (I think that is one reason why this sim has lasted so long on it's current position..) and making it easier for folks to modify other aspects of the sim.. like say.. skinnable objects... etc... it is strange because it seems like the current generation is just not as interested in flight and such like many of us were... I think the genre will survive.. it is just changing.

WWSpinDry
04-19-2007, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
D)Keeping one standard for flight models that cannot be "tweaked" by any one other than the developer

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

FunGus1968
04-19-2007, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FunGus1968:
IL2 is the only flight sim I have ever played.

I am curious. How many have there been and how many are there now?

I have a feeling that compared to the enormity of PC gaming, this genre has always been, well -insignificant.

I think that we take ourselves too seriously.

Oh, there have been plenty throughout the years. Just a few off the top of my head:

MiG Alley
Flying Corps
Red Baron
European Air War
WWII Fighters
Screaming Demons Over Europe
F-15
Longbow
Longbow 2
Su-27 Flanker
Flanker 2.0
Lock On Modern Air Combat
Battle of Britain
iF-16
iF-22
Apache
Gunship
US Navy Fighters
ATF
USAF
IAF
F/A-18
Falcon 1 through 4

The list goes on and on. QUOTE]

I just went to gamestop.com and did a search for pc games / all genres. It produced 7,723 results.

slipBall
04-19-2007, 02:32 PM
A)Getting things as realistic as possible on one end, B)Making things at least as scalable as what we have here...


Why has MSFS done so well, why are they, and their add-ons, the big hit at flight sim conventions?....people crave realizum is why...at least I do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Widowmaker214
04-19-2007, 03:09 PM
I was going to make a large reply.. but I don't have a useless track file to post to seemingly validate my opinion. And without that, for the specific group of tards that seem to require them in order to have a conversation, there's no real point.

Regardless.. I dont care about any of the actual plane FMs (I can always go back to 4.07 which I personally feel is the best) Nothing EVER seems to get the way anybody wants everything... so you take the good with the bad
.. what IS the major downfall is the AI's lack of flying by the same rules as the Humans.
When an AI ki-43 can catch a P38 in a 400mph dive. I have a problem. Or when FMs are really messed. Like When a Corsair can't take off a carrier from a mission created by the Developers.. I have a problem. (Try launching in 4.08 in an F4U1D from the coop pacific fighters mission.. #2 I think it is. With 4 F4U1Ds and 4 Hellcats. Its off an escort carrier. You could do it in 4.05. In 4.08. Forgettaboutit. THough taking off from the #3 or #4 ship is possible)

But hey its a great game and the outlook for the future is bright. More good sims are coming...
BOB, KOS, the next version of Falcon and hey maybe even fighter ops.
IL2 still has a year and a half or so of viability on my end until BOB has enough aircraft in it to sway me over.

p-11.cAce
04-19-2007, 03:32 PM
Regardless.. I dont care about any of the actual plane FMs (I can always go back to 4.07 which I personally feel is the best) Nothing EVER seems to get the way anybody wants everything... so you take the good with the bad
.. what IS the major downfall is the AI's lack of flying by the same rules as the Humans.
When an AI ki-43 can catch a P38 in a 400mph dive. I have a problem. Or when FMs are really messed. Like When a Corsair can't take off a carrier from a mission created by the Developers.. I have a problem. (Try launching in 4.08 in an F4U1D from the coop pacific fighters mission.. #2 I think it is. With 4 F4U1Ds and 4 Hellcats. Its off an escort carrier. You could do it in 4.05. In 4.08. Forgettaboutit. THough taking off from the #3 or #4 ship is possible)

Ummm.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Let's see...something is missing here....

ReadMe_408m.rtf Corrections:

-Updated the J2M5 Artificial Horizon;
-Modified the Ta-183 Variometer;
-Updated the MiG-3 Landing Gear Indicator;
-Corrected the brakes animation in the LaGG-3 and Yak-1 / Yak-7;
-Updated weapons and ammunition types on the He-162C/D, Yak-15, N1K2-Ja, P-63C, CR.42;
-Modified the retraction of the tailwheel on the N1K2-Ja;
-Corrected the brakes on the N1K;
-Updated the Il-10 Fuel level indicator;
-Updated the trigger animation on the Ki-43-IIKai, N1K2-Ja;
-Modified instrument panel damage on the Ta-183;
-Updated rudder animation on the Lerche-III;
-Updated the Yak-15 compass;
-Modified the canopy framework on the N1K2-Ja, both internally and externally;
-Corrected the armored seat back on the MiG-13 and I-250;
-Modified the FAB-1000 bomb position in the A-20C bomb bay;
-Updated trimmer indicators on the J2M5;
-Updated trimmer indicators and controls on the Ar-234B;
-Modified damage model of the Ki-27 wings;
-Corrected distances in the K-14 gun sight;
-Corrected the J2M5's altimeter;
-Updated the flap sounds on the Pe-2 series;
-Changed Il-10 rear gunner compartment sounds to an "enclosed cabin" type;
-Corrected Ki-27 flap sounds;
-Decreased the volume of certain ground-based guns as heard in the cockpit;
-Modified Ta-183's AI routines;
-Changed parameters for the Ta-183, Me-262HG-II, Lerche-III, Bf-109F-2, MiG-13/I-250, Yak-3R;
-Updated Object Viewer data for the Yak-3R and A-20C;
-Modified the MG42;
-Updated the in-game credits;
-Fixed errors in loadout names for certain planes;
-Fixed the A-20C crew error;
-Updated the canopy damage model on the MiG-9;
-Fixed the MiG-9 artificial horizon;
-Modified the engine shut-down parameters at low altitude for the MiG-9 (I-300);
-Fixed the ground clipping on MiG-9's landing gear;
-Updated animations for the landing gear, flap and gear levers, bank indicator, and pylons on the Ta-183;
-Fixed Lerche-III fuel level indicator;
-Il-10's ShKAS ammo load set to 2x750;
-Removed the duplicated loadouts on the I-153P;
-Fixed tracer colors on the Ki-43 and Ki-61;
-Removed the GM-1 from the Ta-152C (which now only has the MW-50);
-Updated the engine temperature parameters on the Tempest V;
-Modified an airfield in Burma;
-Fixed textures in the following cockpits: A-20C; Ar-234; Il-10; MiG-9; Ta-183; Yak-15; Yak-3R; Pe-2 84th Series;
-Modified air-to-air AI on the Ar-234;
-Fixed the bug when hits on the Ar-234's #1 engine set #2 on fire;
-Modified G4M1 flight model;
-Protected fuel tanks on the J2M and La-5;
-Modified the propeller on the N1K2-Ja;
-Fixed the altitude indicator on The J2M5;
-Fixed the landing gear indicator on the He-162.


Ahh...NOTHING about any changes to the Corsair. Could it possible that you are imagining things.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

GR142-Pipper
04-19-2007, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
[quote]Pipper, no offense intended but I think you are being overly critical of the game and what can be expected of it. No offense taken whatsoever. We're just having a discussion.
Why do people complain that the devs don't fix things? [quote]Because so many of the flight models are so pitifully off and little to nothing gets done to correct them. This is often in spite of clear and ample justification offered that would support those requesting a change. [quote]The game has been supported during the entire period of its existence. That's a pretty big word..."support". I don't know if we share the same definition. Keep in mind that you're talking about a software product in which the developers won't even disclose what changed from revision to revision. Real software companies simply don't behave this way.
Sure, some things are changed and some things are left as they are (for better or for worse). Look at SH3 for instance, 4 patches and that is it, nothing more. What occurs or doesn't occur in other products does not impact this one.
Sure it has been modded to a very high standard, which is not an option in IL-2, but at least we have robust online capability which is not damaged by cheats. True and this is certainly a good thing.
You are complaining about having to many planes to be accurately modelled. Would you have preferred it if IL-2 had stayed purely as a one plane ground attack simulator? In other words, you said that the lack of historical and technical accuracy in this sim is especially corrosive. Which other sim is more accurate? Because I state that there are too many planes to be accurately model is nothing more than a statement of pure fact that's been validated over time. However, that's far removed from wanting it to remain a one aircraft game. What's reasonable is to introduce aircraft into the sim which the developers have the wherewithall to support. What we have now is a collection of mediocrity regarding flight/damage/weapons modeling. It didn't have to be that way.


I think that historical and technical inaccuracies may lead to disappointment in certain sims for a few grognards with a particularly deep knowledge of the concerned field but not in the general gaming community or even in those with a general interest in sim games. You say that the game has to do better if it is to be taken more seriously. By whom? By those who know something about aircraft and how they perform. The game is billed as a flight sim. It's certainly a decent game. The difficulty is that I see graphics trumping accuracy. My preference is for accuracy to lead and all else to follow.

As I previously stated, I'm quite willing to accept that my view is by no means a majority view. While I certainly feel the game is fun it has lost its edge in the things that I feel are important. Is it still a good product? Sure.

GR142-Pipper

polak5
04-19-2007, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by AVG_WarHawk:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/AVG_WarHawk/Breakfastofflightsimmers.gif
A box of this should be included with every purchase of IL-2. And your not able to log in to the forums, til you've had a bowl full http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Buhahahah nice...
JEzz just coming on these forums makes me realize how much i miss the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

crucislancer
04-19-2007, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
That's a pretty big word..."support". I don't know if we share the same definition. Keep in mind that you're talking about a software product in which the developers won't even disclose what changed from revision to revision. Real software companies simply don't behave this way.

I recall readme files for several patches I downloaded for IL-2 with a list of revisions. Is there something else you are referring to?


Because I state that there are too many planes to be accurately model is nothing more than a statement of pure fact that's been validated over time. However, that's far removed from wanting it to remain a one aircraft game. What's reasonable is to introduce aircraft into the sim which the developers have the wherewithall to support. What we have now is a collection of mediocrity regarding flight/damage/weapons modeling. It didn't have to be that way.

I agree with this, to a point. Unless you have a incredibly huge development house, having a game with over 200 planes, there is bound to be a point where these things will suffer. Where I disagree is that the flight, damage, and weapon modeling is mediocre. It seems quite good to me, though I don't have practical experience to comapare it to.


"I think that historical and technical inaccuracies may lead to disappointment in certain sims for a few grognards with a particularly deep knowledge of the concerned field but not in the general gaming community or even in those with a general interest in sim games. You say that the game has to do better if it is to be taken more seriously. By whom?"

By those who know something about aircraft and how they perform. The game is billed as a flight sim. It's certainly a decent game. The difficulty is that I see graphics trumping accuracy. My preference is for accuracy to lead and all else to follow.

I always thought that IL-2 was one of the better looking sims on the market, and at the time of it's release I wouldn't be surprised if it was also the most accurately modeled one to date. It's a bit of a balancing act for them, they want to give you the experience of WWII flight and combat, and make it look realistic as well.

Catering to only one particular group of folks (people who know something about aircraft and how they perform), seems like a counterproductive way to promote a product, and doesn't help get new people into the game. Doesn't that seem a bit elitist?

GR142-Pipper
04-19-2007, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
That's a pretty big word..."support". I don't know if we share the same definition. Keep in mind that you're talking about a software product in which the developers won't even disclose what changed from revision to revision. Real software companies simply don't behave this way.


I recall readme files for several patches I downloaded for IL-2 with a list of revisions. Is there something else you are referring to? Indeed. The readme's don't tell you exactly what aircraft were affected and what the specific changes were. I can't think of one other software company that introduces changes and then doesn't document what got changed.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
04-19-2007, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
Catering to only one particular group of folks (people who know something about aircraft and how they perform), seems like a counterproductive way to promote a product, and doesn't help get new people into the game. Doesn't that seem a bit elitist? Elitist? You're kidding, right? Keep in mind that technical accuracy and product promotion are not the same things.

GR142-Pipper

p-11.cAce
04-19-2007, 05:45 PM
Geeze http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif I give up! I post the entire 4.08 readme and the VERY NEXT post has this $#$@#

originally posted by Pipper
That's a pretty big word..."support". I don't know if we share the same definition. Keep in mind that you're talking about a software product in which the developers won't even disclose what changed from revision to revision. Real software companies simply don't behave this way.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
That sure looks like a developer disclosing what changed from the previous revison - just like EVERY patch readme since the original IL2! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

crucislancer
04-19-2007, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Indeed. The readme's don't tell you exactly what aircraft were affected and what the specific changes were. I can't think of one other software company that introduces changes and then doesn't document what got changed.


I don't have the readme's for the original IL-2 or Pacific Fighters here at work, but just reading the one for 4.08m posted above shows quite a bit of info on changes to certain planes. What are you looking for, the exact changes to the corner speed of a Corsair, for example?

crucislancer
04-19-2007, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:
Catering to only one particular group of folks (people who know something about aircraft and how they perform), seems like a counterproductive way to promote a product, and doesn't help get new people into the game. Doesn't that seem a bit elitist? Elitist? You're kidding, right? Keep in mind that technical accuracy and product promotion are not the same things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm well aware of that.

What I meant by elitist was that attitude that in order for the game like this to do better, it would need to be taken seriously by the diehead, hardcore folks. Maybe there's a better word for it, but that's what came to mind. I didn't mean any offense by it. This is the kind of discussion that I would have with a bunch of musicians over the merits of a Fender guitar over a Gibson. It can get vry elitist.

ImpStarDuece
04-19-2007, 07:30 PM
Things I'd like to see in the next patch notes:

-Adjusted the Mosquito FB Mk VI flight model (just to piss off ImpStarDuece)
-Adjusted the P-38L flight model (jut to piss of GR142-Pipper)
-Increased maximum power to +11lbs on Tempest V (just to make Icefire very happy)
-Added loadout options to Bf-190F2 & F4 (just to make DKoor happy)
-Nerfed the Red flight model (to make Blue happy)
-Nerfed the Blue flight model (to make Red happy)
-Got sick of the whingers, turned off the f$%&*ng forums again and got back to the business making SoW:BoB (to make OURSELVES happy)

heywooood
04-19-2007, 07:44 PM
oh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif so totally 100 percent and all you don't even know

LEXX_Luthor
04-19-2007, 07:44 PM
Right on crucis. The bizzare elitism is displayed when they accuse all others, many working profesional with little time or lots of family, of being "arcade gamers(tm)."

Here is what one developer said about the elitism, from an interview with the cancelled sim Target For Tonight (RAF Bomber Command vs Reich Defense)...


page 2...
:
:
Rick: I personally don't like the definitions of 'hardcore' and 'casual' simmers that exist around the web today. For two reasons, namely hardcore simmers I've known are unreasonable, unrealistic and have silly expectations and are <span class="ev_code_yellow">'never'</span> happy. (( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif )) Casual simmers on the other hand seem to reflect those interested in quick combat over serious missions. Both are nonsense. In T4T we are going into great detail as Ed mentioned, we're making it realistic but due to its scalability, it should apply to those seeking extreme detail as well as those seeking faster, easier action.

Tagert For Tonight ~> http://www.womengamers.com/interviews/t4t.php

The "hardcore" are never happy.

However, the casual simmer is not "nonsense" as Rick claims, as the casual simmer can be attracted into the more detailed gameplay if the game is immersive, which is something many sims fail to provide the customer, so developers dismiss them as "casual" when they become bored and leave the product instead of further exploring the sim. As well, the casual simmer provides the business revenue -- unless the sim is Online Pay-To-Play for the "hardcore."

I think Pipper is hinting that Oleg has made his sim a wide survey sim, a StrkeFighers style "lite sim(tm)" with hundreds of flyable aircraft, but Oleg can't admit to it. I'll admit it, and I agree with Oleg's decision. I would love a MiG-3 1940 that is almost impossible to fly safely in the game, but would love to see more casual simmers wishing to play Battle Of Moscow with an easy flying MiG. The point is getting people interested in playing something like that, and if they enjoy it, explore the gory "details" in higher fidelity flight models and other such corn.

Oleg could have went the other direction and made his sim into a "hardcore" study sim of the IL-2, similar to the F-16 Flacon superHudjetfigher sim, with no other flyable aircraft. There is a precedent for this in the A-10 study sims of the past, and the IL-2 is Russia's "A-10."

SeaVee
04-19-2007, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I think that as long as the developers stick to .....D)Keeping one standard for flight models that cannot be "tweaked" by any one other than the developer (I think that is one reason why this sim has lasted so long on it's current position..)


This is a GREAT point in particular Bearcat99, especially for this game which is so very strong in MP. Hacking and cheating have basically killed for me almost all other MP games I used to play so it is very nice to see that IL2 has been able to stay "clean".

I think the "genre is dying" is an overstatement. However, what it clear is that the development dollars allocated by gaming companies for OTHER genres DWARFS that of flight sims. The disparity is quite evident by the sheer numbers of new games with clearly massive amounts of resources expended in coding, graphics etc in the FPS genres.

For us to get more and better stuff for air combat games, and not be the poor step child that gets the scraps (and hence long lulls between games and by comparison far fewer releases) this needs to stay on the radar scope of the moneybags. The more popular and attractive this genre can be made to the masses, the more $$ are spent supporting it.

Right now the combat flight genre is like major league baseball compared to the goliath that the NFL is in terms of resources thrown towards its development.

Unless we all do our share - in whatever way we can (turning non-flight simmers onto these games, being good promoters of this wonderful genre, buying the few decent games that come out, not supporting pirating, etc) the disparity will continue to grow larger.

GR142-Pipper
04-19-2007, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Geeze http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif I give up! I post the entire 4.08 readme and the VERY NEXT post has this $#$@# If you examine the 4.08 read me you'll see that there are no flight or weapons model changes. The only damage model changes were to the canopy of the Mig-9 (why this is even in a WWII sim, who knows) and to the wings of the Ki-27. Yet it doesn't identify what was done. Now, also take a look at readmes prior to 4.08 and see if you can identify any SPECIFIC flight model changes that state exactly what was changed and to what aircraft. I think you'll be hard pressed to do so. Damage and weapons model changes are equally obscure.

GR142-Pipper

LEXX_Luthor
04-19-2007, 08:43 PM
SeaVee::
For us to get more and better stuff for air combat games, and not be the poor step child that gets the scraps (and hence long lulls between games and by comparison far fewer releases) this needs to stay on the radar scope of the moneybags. The more popular and attractive this genre can be made to the masses, the more $$ are spent supporting it.
Two (2) ways to do that...

(1) Making Offline gameplay development the primary focus, with Online gameplay secondary or even totally absent.

(2) Online Pay-To-Play.


Satisfying (1) can include open aircraft modding, although I suspect open aircraft modding with Oleg's interest in anti-cheating support can help expand the Online segment, especially the Online War segment. Oleg seems to be opening aircraft to modding for BoB And Beyond. He has indicated his wish to take BoB And Beyond's Online play to Pay-To-Play, ("but not yet time").

LEXX_Luthor
04-19-2007, 08:48 PM
Bearcat::
I think that as long as the developers stick to....D)Keeping one standard for flight models that cannot be "tweaked" by any one other than the developer (I think that is one reason why this sim has lasted so long on it's current position..) and making it easier for folks to modify other aspects of the sim.. like say.. skinnable objects... etc... ...
Closed aircraft may have helped "kept alive" only the tiny Online Dogfight server gaming segment, but certainly not helped the Offline segment which is what kept this sim alive and kept the Online play from going Pay-To-Play, for as one honest Online player poasted at simhq...

If not for the offline base, we'd all be paying 12$ a month to fly.

Bear, your experience with "online cheating" in Microsoft's sims is getting outdated with respect to a different developer who does not abandon support for, nor abandon development of, Online play. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GR142-Pipper
04-19-2007, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I think Pipper is hinting that Oleg has made his sim a wide survey sim, a StrkeFighers style "lite sim(tm)" with hundreds of flyable aircraft, but Oleg can't admit to it. I'll admit it, and I agree with Oleg's decision. I would love a MiG-3 1940 that is almost impossible to fly safely in the game, but would love to see more casual simmers wishing to play Battle Of Moscow with an easy flying MiG. The point is getting people interested in playing something like that, and if they enjoy it, explore the gory "details" in higher fidelity flight models and other such corn. Actually, I don't think Oleg made any decision in this at all. We've arrived at this position simply because the flight/damage/weapons models are crude and have remained that way. One wonders how many flight/damage/weapons models are identical or nearly identical regardless if the plane is red or blue.

Anyway, everyone has a view. Enjoy the game.

GR142-Pipper

Bearcat99
04-19-2007, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Closed aircraft may have helped "kept alive" only the tiny Online Dogfight server gaming segment, but certainly not helped the Offline segment which is what kept this sim alive and kept the Online play from going Pay-To-Play, for as one honest Online player poasted at simhq...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If not for the offline base, we'd all be paying 12$ a month to fly.

Bear, your experience with "online cheating" in Microsoft's sims is getting outdated with respect to a different developer who does not abandon support for, nor abandon development of, Online play. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A)Getting things as realistic as possible on one end, B)Making things at least as scalable as what we have here...


Why has MSFS done so well, why are they, and their add-ons, the big hit at flight sim conventions?....people crave realizum is why...at least I do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not going to get in a debate about MS sims vs 1C sims... my opinions on that are well known and shared by many... as is the other side... with other folks. I think that in light of the open architecture of MS products and other sims... having one that is not open to creative engineering is a good thing, and yes I DO think that that is one of the things that has kept this sim alive. If the FS series had the same resources as 1C, marketing and otherwise.. with the exception of the creative talent on the software side... instead of the $$$$$$$behemoth that is Microsoft... I don't think it would be as popular. Plus the huge commercial sim side is no small potatoes.... so in that respect the comparison is like comparing oranges to grapefruit.

I also disagree with that if not for the off line community quote from SHQ...

slipBall
04-20-2007, 02:11 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gifI was in agreement with your real as possible statement. After all, is'nt that why we love, and fly IL2, because it seems so real. My point is to make SOW much more real, offer option for full complex cockpit management. I think that would draw many MSFS folks over to Maddox

bazzaah2
04-20-2007, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif My point is to make SOW much more real, offer option for full complex cockpit management. I think that would draw many MSFS folks over to Maddox

I think that's right - Shockwave level of detail plus combat in a shiney new engine would be a winner, provided that detail was optional.

p-11.cAce
04-20-2007, 06:33 AM
(2) Online Pay-To-Play.

Do you know how much it costs the 334th to run its server? Almost $3,000 a year. That does not include the time squad members spend building and testing missions, maintaining and hosting the website, dedicated stats, and teamspeak server. This is all supported by squad fees and donations.

The amazing thing is that we have the number of servers available on hyperlobby that we do - its not cheap.

Monty_Thrud
04-20-2007, 06:56 AM
I must disagree with mmm-salami, i believe this genre has plenty of life...

Graphics, FM, DM, TrackIR(and other gadgets), Movies, skins, easier to use FMB and in BoB:SoW much better sounds(v. important), all improving constantly.

Oleg and crew raised the bar and i believe will also do it again in BoB...or i'll eat my hat... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


...but of course it'll never reach FPS numbers, but i see this as a good thing.

Abbeville-Boy
04-20-2007, 02:09 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gifno way is dieing

BadA1m
04-20-2007, 02:19 PM
I'm just amazed that this thread has remained as civil as it has, hats off to all participants http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif as for my $.02;

I think the genre is thriving, considering the small customer base and the expense of producing these sims. For what it's worth 1C has done a bang up job with IL2; yeah, it's not perfect but it's by far the best thing out there, and it's several years down the road and there are at least two sims in development that so far look like they will leave IL2 in the dust. Thats cool.

BadA1m
04-20-2007, 02:23 PM
Actually, I don't think Oleg made any decision in this at all. We've arrived at this position simply because the flight/damage/weapons models are crude and have remained that way. One wonders how many flight/damage/weapons models are identical or nearly identical regardless if the plane is red or blue.

Are you serious?

LEXX_Luthor
04-20-2007, 05:55 PM
Bearcat::
I also disagree with that if not for the off line community quote from SHQ...

simhq quote -- If not for the offline base, we'd all be paying 12$ a month to fly.

The part that we both could find disagreement with is the monthly fee denominated in declining Ussian paper, as this quote is about two (2) years old now. Today, we (Bearcat and I) would be paying Maddox/UBI 15$ per month or more each, if not for the offline base paying for this sim, as this Online player had stated. If you wish to talk here about business and finance, we can talk.

LEXX_Luthor
04-20-2007, 06:13 PM
P11Ace::
Do you know how much it costs the 334th to run its server? Almost $3,000 a year. That does not include the time squad members spend building and testing missions, maintaining and hosting the website, dedicated stats, and teamspeak server. This is all supported by squad fees and donations.

The amazing thing is that we have the number of servers available on hyperlobby that we do - its not cheap.
So the Squads are paying a monthly fee of sorts. I'd rather pay a small private server than a mass Online game publisher such as UBI, unless Oleg can come up with an immersive and "cheat free" dynamic Online War concept (but he stated he dislikes dynamic campaigns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif). But if that was served by the publisher, would it put out of operation private servers not able to offer the same immersive and "cheat free" Online War content as the publisher? I had read the TargetWare FAQ and it states, or so I thought, that when the sim finally comes online, the TargetWare server software once purchased can be used independently of TargetWare. Stiglr denied this, but I swear its in the FAQ, or it was. I dunno.

Bearcat99
04-21-2007, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Bearcat:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also disagree with that if not for the off line community quote from SHQ...

simhq quote -- If not for the offline base, we'd all be paying 12$ a month to fly.

The part that we both could find disagreement with is the monthly fee denominated in declining Ussian paper, as this quote is about two (2) years old now. Today, we (Bearcat and I) would be paying Maddox/UBI 15$ per month or more each, if not for the offline base paying for this sim, as this Online player had stated. If you wish to talk here about business and finance, we can talk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speak for yourself.... if this sim went pay to play online Id be doing a lot of IP to IP flying or offline. I pay to play by updating my rig. Thats as far as I will go.

GR142-Pipper
04-21-2007, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by BadA1m:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, I don't think Oleg made any decision in this at all. We've arrived at this position simply because the flight/damage/weapons models are crude and have remained that way. One wonders how many flight/damage/weapons models are identical or nearly identical regardless if the plane is red or blue.

Are you serious? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes and no. Yes, I believe that this is probably true and no, I really don't take this game that seriously.

GR142-Pipper

LEXX_Luthor
04-21-2007, 08:17 PM
Bearcat::
Speak for yourself.... if this sim went pay to play online Id be doing a lot of IP to IP flying or offline. I pay to play by updating my rig. Thats as far as I will go.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Smileys/thumbs.gif Thanks Bear. You poasted an irrefutable statement here that does not belittle the combat flight sim community and the contributors to this sim who would enjoy aircraft mods, and so will go unchallenged here.


PS: Your offline play will be enhanced by 3rd Party aircraft modding. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

...I'd suggest as well your online play may benefit, at least under Oleg's continued online support, as we have seen serious people such as JG-Tuckie's team wanting to mod Spanish Civil War for Oleg's sims.

LEXX_Luthor
04-21-2007, 08:31 PM
Pipper::
I really don't take this game that seriously.
Well I don't either, which may be why I like it so much, at least portions of it (Easter Front, Pacific), so that's what I focus on -- the enjoyment the sim does offer. To this day, I am still amazed that somebody came out with a World War 2 Eastern Front sim, although Oleg rather abandoned it with AEP.

GR142-Pipper
04-22-2007, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Pipper:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I really don't take this game that seriously.
Well I don't either, which may be why I like it so much, at least portions of it (Easter Front, Pacific), so that's what I focus on -- the enjoyment the sim does offer. To this day, I am still amazed that somebody came out with a World War 2 Eastern Front sim, although Oleg rather abandoned it with AEP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree, Lexx. Actually, I like the Eastern Front better than any other theater in this game. There's a lot to like about this product...and I do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif As is the case with many of us, work, family and other matters have interferred with game play as of late but I try to keep the rust off my flying skills as much as possible. I'll probably get back into it a bit more after BoB arrives.

GR142-Pipper

Jaws2002
04-25-2007, 12:00 PM
I would love a massive multiplayer made on this game or the next one. SOWBOB.

I used to play Aces high for quite a few years and I really loved it but with time it became dated and the designers got lazy. They got to a point wher they'll add one plane per year or something like this.
I don't mind pay per play. Heck I used to pay the 15$/month for half a year after I stoped playing Aces high just in case.

There's no substitute to a mission with 50+ four engine bombers escorted by 30-40 fighters, running onto a mass of 60+ enemy fighters coming to kill you. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">ALL FLOWN BY HUMANS</span>.

You can fly offline all day long you don't get the rush you get from flying with and against humans in big missions.

Whoever thinks I'm just talking cr@p should try the Mega Missions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif.