PDA

View Full Version : Quantity vs Quality



The-Good-Guy
10-13-2004, 08:13 PM
I hate to think of what the potential response to this might be, but I sometimes think about how there have been more and more and MORE aircraft added to the IL2 series.

A lot of members here are obviously keen to fly as many different types as possible, but then there's always the chagrin over AI performance, damage models, flight models and stuff like craters and the like.

This is no way meant as a criticism, but wouldn't it have been a good idea to have say half the number of aircraft, and put the saved resources into ironing out issues that significantly affect gameplay?

In other words, would you prefer more realistic aircraft performance and gameplay, or the current situation?

Yes, I'm actually genuinely curious so please don't hammer me more discussing the unchangable. I'm just always suprised by the "more, more, more" comments.

Okay?!

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-13-2004, 08:32 PM
Given the fact that SOME folk here can't hold their bloody water until a product is released before they start trying to put the preassure on.

Is it any bloody wonder that it has progressed in favour of quantity? I am afraid its a little late in the day for this kind of sentiment as far as FB/AEP/PF is concerned.

But hell maybe with BoB they will bear it in mind I would aim my sights in that direction if you are looking for improvements in quality.

CapBackassward
10-13-2004, 08:42 PM
If the quality of the flight models were lacking in IL 2, then I would say, 'you've got a good point.' But after flying every flight sim, with WW 2 planes, that has ever come out - IL 2 is so far superior to all of them and I can't say that, 'quantity has won out over quality' in the IL 2 series. If you fly a lot of different planes - in this sim - then you notice that each plane is so individually done and no two fly alike, except variations, of course.
So, to answer your question: I don't think we have that problem with IL 2, and as long as Oleg keeps a 'hands on approach' to his sim developement, I don't think we have to worry about the decline of quality. I think - if anything - with new sim engines, from Oleg's developement team in the future, we will actually see the realism increase as computers get stronger and more is added to future simulations.

Rick

VW-IceFire
10-13-2004, 08:43 PM
I'm quite satisfied with the level of quality that has gone into the product. They obviously spent a huge amount of time making the FM, DM, graphics, and all of those elements come together in their game engine. That wasn't done this year...that was done years ago when they were developing IL2.

Lots of that stuff they did is still considered ground breaking although we're all used to it and take it for granted.

So I'm not too opposed to the more, more, more attitude as long as is sustainable for the developers. Its popular with me...I'm up for new maps, planes, campaigns, and the like since I'm generally happy the way the core of it is.

The other factor is that reprogramming significant areas pretty much warrants building a new engine to encompass that sort of thing. Obviously the 1C team knows that and are developing BoB and their next gen flight engine. Thats where the core fundamentals will get changed and improved. Radically altering the core of IL2/FB/AEP/PF isn't really realistic in terms of a programming stance.

I would like to see a few things taken care of...but they are smaller items that can be solved in a patch or two. Meanwhile, content can be somewhat developed independantly of the rest...especially when it comes from third party sources and the quality is good enough for quick transition to the game engine.

Atomic_Marten
10-13-2004, 08:53 PM
I prefer current situation for few reasons. Cheers.

Weather_Man
10-13-2004, 09:02 PM
For some reason, people think more means less. I think we've got best of both worlds. If anything, the quality has been getting better with each additional plane.

LEXX_Luthor
10-13-2004, 09:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>but wouldn't it have been a good idea to have say half the number of aircraft, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, take out these planes and all other will have better FM.

Fw~190
Bf~109
P~51


I agree with Kurfurst that Fw~190 be taken out of the sim, so Bf~109 can have more FM.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-13-2004, 10:07 PM
Perhaps you need to highlight exactley what it is that you feel is 'in your opinion' unrealistic and then possibly present that as part of your argument for 'realistic' aircaft behaviour.

Being as I have never flown a real aircraft I can't really bring myself to comment on what is after all a simulation which by loose definition is never going to be 'real' in the first place and given current technology is only really going to be a facsimile of what it is truly like to fly / fight in a ww2 combat aircraft.

I wish you luck but as has been proved many many many times before this debate tends to spiral in ever decreasing circle's leading to an inevitable end. Most just don't seem to have the stamina these days to debate it.

folk will quote you statistics from various texts and books very few will qoute from their own actual experiance of flying afore mentioned aircraft of the period.

Its all pretty much second hand information and therefore I would argue that given the available sources this is about the best available product out there.

If you need more perhaps its time to take that programing course or save up and get a pilots liscence?

[edit]
Oh yeah and given some of your previous post's regarding hardware. Are you telling me you spent all that money on a new graphic card and surround sound system only to find that the game you bought em for doesn't live up to your expectations?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The-Good-Guy
10-13-2004, 11:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
Perhaps you need to highlight exactley what it is that you feel is 'in your opinion' unrealistic and then possibly present that as part of your argument for 'realistic' aircaft behaviour.
...

I wish you luck but as has been proved many many many times before this debate tends to spiral in ever decreasing circle's leading to an inevitable end. Most just don't seem to have the stamina these days to debate it.

...
If you need more perhaps its time to take that programing course or save up and get a pilots liscence?

[edit]
Oh yeah and given some of your previous post's regarding hardware. Are you telling me you spent all that money on a new graphic card and surround sound system only to find that the game you bought em for doesn't live up to your expectations?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

******************
Steady on there.

Did I angle for a debate? No, just comments. Just player's thought. There's no need to argue about everything.

I was going to let this drift off into the horizon realising that it wasn't such a good idea, but you're getting a little too personal (and creative).

1) I think IL2 FB ACE is GREAT. But like ANY product there is room for improvement. Do you agree?

2) Is, for example, the AI as good as it could be? Yes or No?

3) It's a zero-sum game. As Oleg apparently said, 95% of players are offline. Therefore, as a player (especially an offline only player), do you feel that there would have been more benefitto adding improvements to the AI or getting another twenty aircraft? I don't mean that to be a leading question. I'm genuinely curious.

Do you understand?

Now, can we let this drift off the page? Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

WTE_Galway
10-14-2004, 12:29 AM
Do bear in mind that a large percentage of new planes are 3rd party models where the first half of the job, the 3D modelling, has been done as a labor of love by someone from outside.

Personally i think there are many things that could be tweaked in the game including:
- the stupid torpedoes that you can dive bomb with
- AI behaviour in general
- offline voice sets, particularly eventually giving each flight and ground a different voice to save confusion
- the wind and the weather effects in general, currently they are way to simplistic

However, that said, I spend much of my time flying planes like the gladiator and the lightning, planes would not be around in a more limited plane set, so I really cannot complain.

Howie A
10-14-2004, 12:52 AM
I just have a quick comment. Regardless of how much can be improved and how much has been added, FB Aces, I think, is much better than FB v1.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-14-2004, 12:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The-Good-Guy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
Perhaps you need to highlight exactley what it is that you feel is 'in your opinion' unrealistic and then possibly present that as part of your argument for 'realistic' aircaft behaviour.
...

I wish you luck but as has been proved many many many times before this debate tends to spiral in ever decreasing circle's leading to an inevitable end. Most just don't seem to have the stamina these days to debate it.

...
If you need more perhaps its time to take that programing course or save up and get a pilots liscence?

[edit]
Oh yeah and given some of your previous post's regarding hardware. Are you telling me you spent all that money on a new graphic card and surround sound system only to find that the game you bought em for doesn't live up to your expectations?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

******************
Steady on there.

Did I angle for a debate? No, just comments. Just player's thought. There's no need to argue about everything.

I was going to let this drift off into the horizon realising that it wasn't such a good idea, but you're getting a little too personal (and creative).

1) I think IL2 FB ACE is GREAT. But like ANY product there is room for improvement. Do you agree?

2) Is, for example, the AI as good as it could be? Yes or No?

3) It's a zero-sum game. As Oleg apparently said, 95% of players are offline. Therefore, as a player (especially an offline only player), do you feel that there _would have been more benefit_to adding improvements to the AI or getting another twenty aircraft? I don't mean that to be a leading question. I'm genuinely curious.

Do you understand?

Now, can we let this drift off the page? Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well shaft me sideways with a four iron

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

I guess I am on a roll today one deleted thread and now a personal attack on your good self.

Well it certainly was not my intention to get personal and I didn't think I was (I admit I may have cocked a snook at yah a little there but I did not think it was a personal attack as such)

Ohh well I guess I will just have to go back to clubbing baby fur seals instead.

You have my appologies for my malignement of your personal sensabilities and by all means consider the subject slid.

WTE_Ibis
10-14-2004, 02:54 AM
Well we certainly have had quantity and I for one
will not complain about that as I love this sim,it's far and away the best available.Having
said that I realy do hope that Oleg concentrates
more on quality than numbers when it comes to BOB.
Just the main aircraft done as close as possible
to perfect without the fringe support planes or the never ending variations of any particular aircraft, or planes that almost flew.
In particular the sound needs to be improved,
and improved greatly,it is definitly losing immersion due to poor sound,I hesitate to say it
but this is the only area where other sims are kicking butt.
Oleg you are the best,I hope you can live up to the standard that you yourself have set.
Cheers, Ibis. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

F19_Ob
10-14-2004, 04:07 AM
I must admit I like the current balance.
I very much doubt there would be any success for a sim with few planes but very hard to fly.
I also very much like the more unlikely or unusual planes like Brewster, Gladiator, p11 and there are many more. They wouldnt be present in any other set up I think.

Personally I probably would enjoy more difficulty but I think that would lessen the popularity of the sim in the long run.

If one wants to crank up the difficulty one notch in FB its possible to do so by flying crappier planes or planes inferior to the opposition.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Tully__
10-14-2004, 08:16 AM
The trouble with AI is that it's very difficult to program much more sophistication into the AI without overloading the CPU. AI routines take a lot of computing power even for very simple routines.

Making the AI sophisticated enough to fly with the same FM as us humans do would bring our PC's to their knees. Adding more tactical sophistication with the current AI flight models would maybe not have as big an impact, but would still leave not enough CPU to run the level of sophistication in FM & DM that we currently enjoy and still have the game playable.

The developers have to choose some compromises in order to have the game run on a sufficiently wide range of systems that the game remains profitable. If only the top 10% of PC's can run the game, the developers will go broke and we wont have a game. With this in mind all aspects of the game have to be simplified somewhat. The balance lies in choosing what can stand more simplification without too much detrimental affect on game play.

As it currently stands, adding new planes doesn't impact on how well the game runs, it only takes more space on your hard disc. Adding AI complexity does impact on game performance and that effect is large. As I understand it the developers anticipate that there will be sufficient improvement in the average system performance by the time BoB is due for realease that they're adding quite a bit of AI complexity and flight/damage model fidelity for that new sim. I appreciate that they've made so much effort to keep the game available to a wide range of PC's as that allows the many more to become members of the community without starving their families to afford the required hardware. At the same time I look forward to the greater sophistication we can expect from future offerings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Aeronautico
10-14-2004, 08:22 AM
Fact is who designs 3D models are different from the code designers, and these intheir tuen are different from the FM etc. designers.
It's not that they could all work onthe code if no further 3D model was done.

sunflower1
10-14-2004, 10:00 AM
Tully's post above should be added to Loserboy's Guide http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif for Complete Users. Its tone and scope are perfect for letting people know the score.

I know nothing of programming, but perhaps it would be possible to select AI routines by hardware capabilities in the same way you pick screen resolution. People with dual processor rigs could turn up the heat and people with P4's near the end of their service life could still play.

LuftWulf190
10-14-2004, 10:15 AM
Personaly I have no problems with more aircraft added to the game. Gives people more choices on what to fly. All I care about is that when planes are added in, they need to be done right.

Chuck_Older
10-14-2004, 10:20 AM
Goodguy-

You'll get discussion and debate no matter what http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

My take on quality vs quantity in FB:

Quantity in FB is evident with the planes, maps, and objects in the FMB

Quality is evident in the effort put forth in various things: flight modelling, depsite constant complaints, visual modelling of aircraft, and constant add-ons and updates


But before we happily drool on ourselves in moronic bliss (which is my natural state), consider this:

there is always room for improvement

Look at this scenario for a moment:

a 3D modeller who works on FB would like to do new 'cool' things rather than improve an old model, logically, right? OK, so instead of fixing some cockpit gauges that don't work in FB, we get a new cockpit or plane or what have you from the modeller.

That is a situation where quality suffers for want of quantity. And it seems to me that this has happened in FB.

In general, to many players of this or any game, "quality" means cool new effects and graphics.

To many of us here who are history buffs and students, we'd like things to be 'correct', sometimes much more than we want them to be 'pretty'.

SO quality depends on just what you mean by the word, in many cases

Chuck_Older
10-14-2004, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sunflower1:
Tully's post above should be added to Loserboy's Guide http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need for names. I know you're kidding, but he has done quite a bit with the guide.
He seems very touchy to me personally, but that doesn't mean he's a bad guy

LEBillfish
10-14-2004, 10:30 AM
I have no complaints..........

More so, only kudos for 1C for what we have especially considering the cost to us. IL2/IL2FB/AEP/PF doesn't even cost as much as a dinner out for 2. I am CONSTANTLY amazed by it in all aspects of it.

However, perhaps some of you know WWII planes much better then I being YOU HAVE FLOWN THEM.

I await with great anticipation your real life experiences so I can become better educated as to why I should instead be disappointed.

sunflower1
10-14-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sunflower1:
Tully's post above should be added to Loserboy's Guide http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need for names. I know you're kidding, but he has done quite a bit with the guide.
He seems very touchy to me personally, but that doesn't mean he's a bad guy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you're right, its easy to take things the wrong way. LuckyBoy's guide should contain Tully's explanation.

Chuck_Older
10-14-2004, 10:37 AM
That's an odd standpoint, LEBillfish.

I understand that there are a lot of complaints about silly things.

But I have just posted what I feel can be improved without throwing a temper tantrum. FB is not perfect and it requires a good amount of tunnel vision to argue that it is.

In response to what you require as 'proof' of something being wrong, may I suggest that one can be very familiar with WWII aircraft without having flown them.

I know a man who was Crew Chief for a Huey Cobra. He never flew the helicopter, but he knows everything there is to know about his Cobra.

If there is a specific point I have made about anything that you feel is off base, please feel free to comment on that point of mine, but also please don't lump everyone together into the 'complainer and whiner' bin just because you feel FB is a good product. I feel it is a good product too. I just won't say it cannot be improved upon.

adlabs6
10-14-2004, 10:53 AM
For me the AI quality in terms of how well it fights is fine, on ace settings it's tactics are pefectly nice. There has most certainly been room for small adjustments over the years.

>If the AI did a check to see if there was a friendly between his bullet path and the target it could help stop the "wingman shot through me" effect.

>Missions might work better if the AI would do a simple division of the ground targets between themselves. Sometimes it seems that a flight of bombers will all aim for the lead vehical in a convoy until it's destroyed, then goto the next. If each AI in a flight attacked the next local enemy target, it might go better.

>Buildings and airstrips would really be nice as ground attack targets. Now, PF appears to have added 'craters' and this is great. Having buildings (or even simple "blocks" of "Types" buildings inside a radius) and bridges able to be flagged as destroy/protect targets in the FMB would be nice as well. If dynamic campaigns could employ this, bombing mission variety would be immensely expanded.

>FMB selectable wind speed and direction would add extra challenge on bombing runs. By now of course I realize this is impossible under IL2, we hope for BoB to include it.

These are the kind of things that would help improve offline play a good deal. Some of them are impossible under the IL2 engine, some maybe are not. Perhaps some things like building flags are being reserved as features for BoB.

Anyway, the quality in FB is there no doubt, adding more planes doesn't get in the way of that. But I'd not cry if one day a patch came that added nothing but a few finer revisions of a few such things. Every plane in the game would be bettered because of it.

Capt_Haddock
10-14-2004, 11:03 AM
I'd more than happy to leave the rest of the game as it is for years to come (AI, physics, etc.) if we had a full set of flyables for the Winter War, The Continuation War, and The Great Patriotic War.

Quality in numbers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/F19banner.jpg
http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/efas.jpg

Bearcat99
10-14-2004, 11:36 AM
I think its a non issue in this sim. The quantity of planes in the quality of each one speaks for itself. There isnt another sim that comes any where NEAR this. Once PF comes out...Pfft!! Forget it... This sim is without a doubt THE VERY BEST WW2 simulator EVER MADE up to this point.. The quantity of flyable planes with each one possessing the same overal quality of FM,DM, and visual is just off the hook. When I consider the impact that FB has had on the industry overall... think about it.. I wonder how many PCs, MOBOs,power supplies,video cards, sound cards,peripherals etc.. not to mention RAM that has been purchased over the last say 4 years is a direct result of this sim. It wouldnt collapse the industry but Id be willing to bet that it would be a noticeable drop if all the sales of all that stuff across the board could be removed for a second or two just to compare. One thing about flight simmers... because we tend to be an older bunch we have a bit more disposable income and are willing to spend it than a lot of youngsters. I have no problems with this sim. I have more fun with this than I did when I went to Disneyworld... I spent $140 for IL2,FB the AEP and BoE... and I will be dropping the balance of $$ for PF when it comes in which will bring my total to a mere $190.... for the past almost 3 years of absolute immersion and fun.. I cant complain.. that comes to about $5.37 cents a day..... and as time progrsses that will continue to drop.... BANG!!!!!!!.... all over that buck...

There are just a few things missing in the FMB that we willprobably get with BoB.. like triggers..... paintable default skins for planes.. and hopefully some paintable objects.... like signs in various sizes.

AFJ_Locust
10-14-2004, 12:02 PM
realistic aircraft performance

ArjenKuifje
10-14-2004, 02:29 PM
********** Steady on there.

Did I angle for a debate? No, just comments. Just player's thought. There's no need to argue about everything.
*************

ArjenKuifje
10-14-2004, 02:42 PM
******Steady on there.

Did I angle for a debate? No, just comments. Just player's thought. There's no need to argue about everything.
**********
(Sorry, wrong button or key I guess in the previous post)

Comments.... Well, I'm a simple guy, having a simple view.
At the moment, I'm spending more time on Il-2 than on Il-2 FB.... Maybe I've spent too little time on IL2 before, and got FB too early ... AEP and so on...
The Original is very very good. Personally, I don't need any more planes, IL2 is good, as long as there are enough different campaigns/missions to play (big thanks to the folks who create them!). Once got FB I started out in a B239... really great, just staying alive.
Who needs more?

Okay, I know, I know, there's always a specific plane you want to fly, especially one that is 'missing'. For me it would be the Beaufighter... and I'm really curious about the Boeing P12E.. but I guess this one will never ever appear in a sim, as it was between wars.... (but it looks so very good... I've got a 1/32 scale model of one)

And, maybe I can go on like this....

Okay, so now you can see how it works... What you have is good, but, we allways want something else, something more, something new!

mortoma
10-14-2004, 03:03 PM
The people who are mostly satisfied are mostly onliners who couldn't care less about AI or the problems us offiners face daily. They only care about their own little niche in the scheme of things. Also, the people who are complacent and suffice everything with the quip "Well, it's still the best sim out there." are not helping much. While it may be true it's the best sim of it's kind, that doesn't mean it can't be improved dramatically. And the present AI can be improved without substantially reducing the performance. To add a few lines of code that would make the AI smart enough to crash land into a clearing instead of a woods, would not do much to reduce performance. And sims made many years ago had AI routines better than FB/AEP does in many respects. And those games were playable, weren't they?? Take EAW for example, in it the AI would immediately head for home if damaged and not crash land in a stupid woods if they didn't make it. And that game was made a long time ago. The people who claim the AI can't be improved without impacting performance cleverly side-step a bit by acting like we who do want AI improved, want the AI to act totally human. We only want small improvement, we don't expect them to act human, only smart enough not to fly low and slow over an enemy airbase or something like that. Only a few more lines in the program and a quick subroutine or two will fix stuff like that. Us "AI improvement advocates" don't want miracles, we only want reasonable improvements. And we for sure don't want to play online!!!! Oleg has already proven that small improvements can be made to AI without any effect on frame rates at all. Look at the most recent improvement, where he removed the tendency of the AI to try and shot through you if you were on a bandits butt and they behind you. This was actually a huge improvement and it didn't kill anybody's frames, did it?? I think not..........So he can still improve it more without hurting anything. We are greatful for the AI improvements we have, but let's ask for even better.

Cajun76
10-14-2004, 03:21 PM
The decsion to have multiple planes in a format such as this has already fixed the level of "sim" this software goes for. Having half the planes won't change that. Having double the planes won't change that. It's a survey sim (multiple planes, shared controls), not a study sim (one a/c modeled in exacting detail). Having half the planes won't change the "quality" factor. If craters aren't possible with 50 a/c, they won't be availible with 25. This always seems to come up, but not many seem to understand.

LOMAC is the first survey/study sim, and I hope to see more like it. BoB has the potential. But IL2 is a survey sim, and the design, from the ground up, dictates the level of "quality". Many of the FM/DM type have been resolved over time, and the few that remain will hopefully be ironed out. But to say "Don't add planes, add this, this and this." dosen't work. The number of planes dosen't affect that at this piont. The actual game engine does.

I glad for what we have, I look forward to the improvements it needs, and I'll shutup now, work is calling. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TooCooL34
10-16-2004, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
The people who are mostly satisfied are mostly onliners who couldn't care less about AI or the problems us offiners face daily. They only care about their own little niche in the scheme of things. Also, the people who are complacent and suffice everything with the quip "Well, it's still the best sim out there." are not helping much. While it may be true it's the best sim of it's kind, that doesn't mean it can't be improved dramatically. And the present AI can be improved without substantially reducing the performance. To add a few lines of code that would make the AI smart enough to crash land into a clearing instead of a woods, would not do much to reduce performance. And sims made many years ago had AI routines better than FB/AEP does in many respects. And those games were playable, weren't they?? Take EAW for example, in it the AI would immediately head for home if damaged and not crash land in a stupid woods if they didn't make it. And that game was made a long time ago. The people who claim the AI can't be improved without impacting performance cleverly side-step a bit by acting like we who do want AI improved, want the AI to act totally human. We only want small improvement, we don't expect them to act human, only smart enough not to fly low and slow over an enemy airbase or something like that. Only a few more lines in the program and a quick subroutine or two will fix stuff like that. Us "AI improvement advocates" don't want miracles, we only want reasonable improvements. And we for sure don't want to play online!!!! Oleg has already proven that small improvements can be made to AI without any effect on frame rates at all. Look at the most recent improvement, where he removed the tendency of the AI to try and shot through you if you were on a bandits butt and they behind you. This was actually a huge improvement and it didn't kill anybody's frames, did it?? I think not..........So he can still improve it more without hurting anything. We are greatful for the AI improvements we have, but let's ask for even better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bump for this.
And we*offliners* just want some fix, a little care. Not huge improvements.

olaleier
10-16-2004, 08:35 AM
After PF and any free addons/patches, the IL-2 series will come to an end. What started out as a very daunting task in game development turned into something nobody could dream of.

The quality of planes is something you can see as lacking, but not because others have done it better, only because Oleg has made such a fantastic product. It's easy to see imperfections in a diamond, but not in a rock.

I don't think quality would have been much better if there were less planes. Perhaps there would be more time to work on the most-whined flyables, I don't really care much about that (not that I mind), my pet peeves are mostly around individual traits in aerodynamics such as stall behaviour, adverse yaw and such. There are limitations to the engine, and it's being stretched to its limits. Not only can it still hold its own, it's still blowing everything else away.

Battle of Britain will change that, fewer flyables in exchange for higher individual fidelity and still Maddox' unparallelled support and dedication.

There will probably be some who won't appreciate this, miffed that the Fairey Battle (which won the war btw) isn't flyable and such...and that's fine.

But cherish what you have and what will be, because there is nobody that does it better.