Let's help the Developer's of BoM. What would you like to see in the new sim

[Mysticpuma]

So we know that CloD is in it's final throws of death and it's now that we have to look to the future for "Battle of Moscow".

Luthier has stated that many of the features that were going to appear in CloD will now be kept back to be used in the Sequel.

So with that in mind (and really crossing my fingers that this thread will get a sticky, moderated and have constructive answers) please post a selection of ideas and features that 'must' be included in the BoM to make it at-least attractive to those of us tainted by CloD.

So here's mine (for now):

Dynamic Weather with proper cloud cover (opaque and can't be seen through), rain and a sense of 3 dimensions to play in. Although I know many don't like Wings of prey or War Thunder, please view this footage to see what thick clouds/overcast looks like and how much fun it is to think that a player could be below you in a dogfight, but you have no idea as you fight above the thick layer of overcast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJF_oPrvNtU

Please remove/delete or at-least make substantial efforts to stop the 'popcorn' effect of buildings being rendered in a bubble surrounding a players aircraft. There is nothing more irritating than to fly down low and visibly see buildings and textures being drawn as the player 'bubble' goes over the draw point where the buildings/land start to be rendered. Even a simple fade-in effect would be better?

Trees. While understanding the fact that Speedtree renders large areas of trees the fact that their is no collision is ridiculous in a sim.

Couldn't there be one large hit box created that encloses all forests or large areas of trees, or, why not just add maybe 50 trees as objects inside the Speedtree areas but at random points. That way at-least if you fly into the woods, you may actually collide with something and be downed. This would stop online players taking the chance of escaping in the trees as they wouldn't know which objects would be 'solid'?

Please bring back the original graphics detail with sunrise and sunset along with ground mist and fog. It looked 'proper'!

Fix the damage modelling/graphic modelling so that aircraft missing a back end can't fly back to base!

Maybe ask a selected few testers to become official Beta testers who must sign an NDA and who will help you develop the game BEFORE release? I realise ATAG do a lot of on-line gaming so they would be perfect to hold closed sessions to test net code, LoD issues, bomber attacking at altitude and can't see the target issues?

Finally I would simply ask two-things;

1) Listen to the community. Many have been here for years and really do know what they are talking about (I don't include myself in that other than knowing the in-game video recorder is porked in CloD!). They care passionately about WW2/1 Flight Simming and really do know what makes good on-line and offline (offline is really as important for many, trust me!) play and we/they willingly offer suggestions to improve the Sims you release.

2) Communicate with us! Look how much interest there was when you actually posted information, appeared to be interested in what we thought and spent maybe 30-minutes-per-week actually discussing the future plans and past defeats. We are keen to listen and know what is happening. We are your community and future pay-checks. Please listen to us and let us listen to you!

So, gents (ladies?) any suggestions for future development in the series (by which I mean BoM only) that hopefully the Dev's will take time to look at and maybe, just maybe, we can get the Flight-Sim we want?

Cheers, MP

[BH_woodstock]

straight up honesty about the game before i purchase it.No more broken promises.Since we are heading into Russian territory what are the chances of a p40?that is my one and only request,

[JG52Krupi]

Awesome... Right here goes,

1) Oil slicks from damaged ships.

2) Waves, on the sea.

3) The pilot bailout animations introduced.

4) Even more CEM.

5) Ability to look around when parachute is deployed.

6) Hailstones :twisted: (smashed windows)

7) Fire damage I.e. black burn marks.

8 ) Better collision models, bombs and debris as well.

9) Lightning strike hits :P

[Storm of When]

Trees with collision detection, I can`t say i`m too bothered about high quality vegetation I`d rather have less convincing trees that caused damage when collided with than beautiful trees that don`t.

Better online performance.

Undercarriage not visible in online play for the blue planes.

Less complex GUI

A server console like FBDj

Better communication, maybe a once a month Q and A session even once every 3 months would be an improvement.

[rakinroll]

I would like to see the current ver of the game is working.

[jcenzano]

sli

[arthursmedley]

Co ops, Blackjack and Hookers. What else could you need?

[CaptainDoggles]

Don't waste your time, guys. I'm sure the feature list has already been mostly finalized for the sequel.

I'm also sure that this thread won't make a lick of difference.

Your optimism does you credit, but is misguided.

[esmiol]

personnally.... i just want that all feature promise in CLOD will be put back and functional in the sequel! nothing more.

to be clear that with two game they make one finished!

[jimbop]

Weather.

[SlipBall]

What do you guys think luthier was referring to here, the part in bold. I hope it not something I'm using.:-P

Quote:
Can we increase even more the degree of realism e.g. available & working aircraft systems?
Just a side note, please remove the ever icing clouds, most of them are not, especially flying low, it's not that often sub zero.
We are seriously addressing our approach to modeling various systems. A lot of the stuff that we spent so much effort on with Cliffs of Dover ended up being a dud, no one wants it, no one uses it. At the same time a lot of systems people clearly want and need are not modeled with enough details.
So do expect a more sane approach in the sequels.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Visibility

#1 The game requires a proper set of LOD models. Right now the disappearing act at 500-1000 meters is unacceptable. The fact is, we are seeing a 2D game trying to model a 3D enviroment, but the developers in their design of the LOD models are not taking into account factors which allow the human eye to discern objects moving. For example, depth of field. An aircraft flying against a background is in focus at a different focal length than the background, the game does not take this into account, this is what allows the human eye to pick out an aircraft more easily. In addition, the tendency of the background to be lit at a different level of luminance than the plane means the foreground aircraft is outlined and highlighted. As the aircraft sequentially passes in front of bright and dark backgrounds, the result is a flicker effect which again allows the human eye to pick it out. This probably can't be effectively replicated by the game, considering the calculations required, the answer in 2D terms is to simply outline the aircraft LOD model with darker pixels around its outside edge, making a clear boundary between it and the background, thereby allowing it to be observed more easily.

#2 The game should have reflection modelled. Some original screens prior to publication showed reflection, (the Stuka model vid) for whatever reason, this was eliminated in the final release of CoD. Reflection off cockpit glass, painted surfaces, etc. was one of the most important indicators to allow sighting of enemy aircraft in the real world. Time and again, if you read the real life pilot accounts, you will hear them recount how a glint of light off an enemy aircraft was the first indicator of their presence. BoM should have reflection as a major priority.

[major_setback]

What do you guys think luthier was referring to here, the part in bold. I hope it not something I'm using.:-P

Quote:
Can we increase even more the degree of realism e.g. available & working aircraft systems?
Just a side note, please remove the ever icing clouds, most of them are not, especially flying low, it's not that often sub zero.
We are seriously addressing our approach to modeling various systems. A lot of the stuff that we spent so much effort on with Cliffs of Dover ended up being a dud, no one wants it, no one uses it. At the same time a lot of systems people clearly want and need are not modeled with enough details.
So do expect a more sane approach in the sequels.

I think he is referring to icing of windscreens, headshake, other cool visuals, etc. that are of less direct importance to gameplay. Especially those that particularly have a negative effect on gameplay, and that people have complained about.

Note to community: Never, ever, ever complain about such things :-)

I remember Oleg saying a long time ago that they removed headshake because people complained it was unrealistic (they do actually listen to us).

[planespotter]

Massive multiplayer online battles, online coop, online total war with moving front, clans, magic, dragons with lasers.

[major_setback]

I want cows that die, sprout wings and fly to heaven when killed.
Player should jump out of a burning plane on the ground, produce a sausage on a stick and fry it in the fire.
No parachutes, just long-johns attached to the harness. Some Mary Poppins umbrella parachutes.
A crow should land on your nose/windscreen and walk about as you try to aim.
You should see your own breath on a cold day.
Puddles on the tarmac.
A jack-in-the-box snake pops out of the instrument panel when you try to release the canopy. You fry.
You hear all your lose change flip around in the cockpit when you invert.
:-)

[Feathered_IV]

Less gimmicks. More soul. A development team that knows its capabilities a and does not overreach itself. I'd rather have a very good sim that works, than a brilliant one that does not.

[JG27_brook]

If they want to make money they need to bring on 1944 sooner , we the buys want and love IL2 46 with fw190,s vs P47,s etc . and i mis the GUI that IL2 46 had for off line coops and quick dogfights for training and hypo loppy.

And they sold us Stream ? just Sad !

[MadTommy]

Dynamic weather: precipitation, wind, turbulence, various cloud types at various heights.

A Full Mission Builder that i can understand and make work! ;)

[ElAurens]

More early war aircraft.

Personally I've had my fill of late war uber planes.

Oh, and a game that works.

Just sayin'.

[csThor]

Uhhh ... how about a game instead of just a beta engine? http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif

[Lurker_71]

Gameplay would be a nice change.

[Chivas]

Our input has some effect, as they did include more engine management and start procedures in COD, that they showed no interest in doing initially. That said the development will have set priorities, but even they won't know what will make the final cut in the Sequels release.

The only way the Sequel will be a success is thru smooth gameplay and improved AI, AI commands, and smooth net code.

They've rebuilt the sound engine.
They've rebuilt the graphic engine.
Hopefully the graphic/performance patch has made the sim playable for the majority of users. At first blush it appears the performance patch is working.
They're rebuilding the GUI and working on the AI.

The second priority are the clouds and weather with a lesser priority.
The AI not seeing thru clouds would be huge, but I'm not holding my breath on that one for awhile..
SpeedTree has made the sim playable, but I hate the fact their is no collision model. Hopefully they will be able rewrite SpeedTree or change software at some point without killing the frame rates.

Refuel, Rearm, and Reload is a huge immersion factor that the devs don't appear to be too interested in, but there is still hope as they showed no interest in engine management procedures at one time.

It will be interesting to see if the surprise feature ever sees the light of day.

[Chivas]

What do you guys think luthier was referring to here, the part in bold. I hope it not something I'm using.:-P

Quote:
Can we increase even more the degree of realism e.g. available & working aircraft systems?
Just a side note, please remove the ever icing clouds, most of them are not, especially flying low, it's not that often sub zero.
We are seriously addressing our approach to modeling various systems. A lot of the stuff that we spent so much effort on with Cliffs of Dover ended up being a dud, no one wants it, no one uses it. At the same time a lot of systems people clearly want and need are not modeled with enough details.
So do expect a more sane approach in the sequels.

It may be engine management and start procedures. That would take alot of work thats still causing the development alot of headaches. Personally the engine start procedures are especially immersive for me, while I haven't flown enough to get a handle of the engine management procedures. It will be interesting to see what the usage figures are, as I think it would be a huge loss if they dumbed down the procedures in the Sequel.

[MadBlaster]

What do you guys think luthier was referring to here, the part in bold. I hope it not something I'm using.:-P

Quote:
Can we increase even more the degree of realism e.g. available & working aircraft systems?
Just a side note, please remove the ever icing clouds, most of them are not, especially flying low, it's not that often sub zero.
We are seriously addressing our approach to modeling various systems. A lot of the stuff that we spent so much effort on with Cliffs of Dover ended up being a dud, no one wants it, no one uses it. At the same time a lot of systems people clearly want and need are not modeled with enough details.
So do expect a more sane approach in the sequels.

anthropromorphic control would be my guess.

[SlipBall]

It may be engine management and start procedures. That would take alot of work thats still causing the development alot of headaches. Personally the engine start procedures are especially immersive for me, while I haven't flown enough to get a handle of the engine management procedures. It will be interesting to see what the usage figures are, as I think it would be a huge loss if they dumbed down the procedures in the Sequel.

Boy I sure hope not

anthropromorphic control would be my guess.


That would not bother me then

[holdenbj]

Navigation and landing lights, where they go? They were great in Il2, especially for on-line multiplayer landings and take offs.

Searchlights that work with the intensity they should rather than a little torch down to its last battery.

Anti-Aircraft that does the appropriate damage.

Working weather and windsocks
Rearm and refuel.

Dynamic off line campaign.Having your "own plane" with kill markings, progressive aging, weathering, repair patches etc.

Working Control tower and communications.

Coop online with Blackjack and Hookers. ;)

[Anders_And]

Engines with some fault variations...

Like a 5% risk that the engine will have for example a overheating water temp no matter what you do, indicating maybe a something wrong with the coolant system or maybe a blockage in the lines...

Same for oilsystem...

This way, one is obliged to keep a look at the systems once in a while...

[kestrel79]

I'd like to see some gameplay innovations, not just IL2 rehashed with prettier graphics.

There was more to the air war in WW2 than being a bomber of fighter. I want to be able to help my team out without firing a single round. Recon planes scouting ahead, giving photographs. I want to fly a resupply plane to a base to allow the fighters and bombers to keep coming back to get rearmed.

Some would say these would be "boring" and the average user wouldn't find them interesting...well MAKE them exciting! Innovate, create. Weave them into the gameplay so they are....FUN.

I'd also like to see a GUI that is more interactive, less boring menus and is easier to navigate. CoD has probably the worst menu system of any flight sim I have played.

[kendo65]

I think you may get your wish in the sequel. It seems there will be a dynamic campaign (possibly online) judging from Luthier's "wink" comments - which I interpret as "Can't say anything officially to confirm this until the official sequel announcement but unofficially YES" !!

Incidently that was the most intriguing part of the whole Q/A for me. Seems to have slipped under the radar though.


Quote:
2. Will a sequel contain the ability or content for a dynamic campaign? or even better, a rolling dynamic online war, where choices your team makes determine the outcome of a battle over a number of days or weeks?
(wink)

Quote:
Agree and support and would like to add to this question...will the sequel include a dynamic campaign?
The community can build missions and static campaigns and for 1946 the best campaigns were comunity made. Desastersoft does great static campaigns. Heinkill does fantastic historic and alt history missions.
(hurts his eye winking, ow)

And the GUI will be redone - confirmed. Would be nice just to have the old-style il-2 QMB even.

[MadBlaster]

I think threads like these have the potential danger to repeat past community mistake. "I hope they do this, I hope they do that"...turns into "I expected this, I expected that" when the sequel comes out. Then when it doesn't materialize...which it won't, then there is disappointment. Fact is, this team still needs to prove to me they can do the job. The bar for me is very low (actually, that's a very bad choice of words, the bar is very high. But I think you understand my point!). Start with simply doing everything the mod 1946 game does with better graphics and excellent performance as the current goal. Why that game instead of warthunder or whatever? Because that is your main competitor 1C! That's it. Very realistic. Very obtainable, I think? Then add in the complexities, one step at a time. The improved damage model, engine managements...etc. Step by step. Each step tested and made bullet proof and released for consumer use before taking another step. This is the path to success I think. Why? Because this is how the modded 1946 game evolved successfully. It's just a matter of turning that evolution into a commercial enterprise. Partner with the modders with the SDK for some things. Use the community to get new gameplay ideas...but do this methodically. Know your limits and capabilities and communicate those to the community for feedback. Maybe they have another way to get the same or similar result?

I guess I'm really talking to Luthier here.;)

edit:
actually the bar is very high!

[Kodoss]

Historical cockpits!

The cockpit of the Bf 110 is so far from reality that it really hurts.
Even the description on the left circuit breaker box by the pilot (which came with the E-series) is wrong.

[Bloblast]

Better AI
More communication
Dynamic weather
Pilot bail out animation

[BadAim]

Pretty much just the Black Jack and Hookers will do it for me.

OK, I'd like to see the collision model on the trees looked into. It's really important. I'm with the "I'll take worse trees if necessary" crowd. Now, I don't know if this would make a difference, but really only the trunk needs to have a damage model, and that only so far up, I mean you really should be able to survive a "skim" across the top, rather than just exploding at first touch like in IL2. I think the idea about skipping trees in denser areas would work fine, as far as realism goes (if it could be done and will actually make a difference anyway).

I'm also with the "Give Ilya a bloody break" crowd. He's doing his level best (IMO) to clean up a massive mess that he didn't create, and all the bitching and moaning in the world will not make one tiny bit of difference (that's just a fact). Of course it could succeed giving him a nervous breakdown; if that's the intent, then good job guys.

Let's just lighten up a bit guys, we all know that COD is a bloody nightmare, including Luthier and every single person on his staff. Can't we have one productive thread? Just one.

[Codex]

I'm with BadAim.

The old IL-2 1946 trees work and don't look that bad, even if they're textured layers.

But for me, I'd seriously take a dynamic campaign engine and better AI modelling above all, but there's as much work in that as there is in the simulation as a whole.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Co ops, Blackjack and Hookers. What else could you need?

Yes! This! Minigames!

Don't waste your time, guys. I'm sure the feature list has already been mostly finalized for the sequel.

I'm also sure that this thread won't make a lick of difference.

Your optimism does you credit, but is misguided.

What thread around here rarley makes any difference. Let them have their fun. :razz:

[Sven]

1. A lot more variable weather, not super duper technologically advanced please, that will only make for long work days for you and poor performance for us ;).

2. A good wood damage model, as some BoM planes have wooden structures.

3. Living airfields

4. Simplified FMB in terms of 'coding' which the average joe can handle to a certain degree. Which would help 3rd party campaigns mission makers a lot I would reckon. Also, award system and more like '1946' pilot career statistics.

5. An AI who you can correspond with, and does what you say and inform you with useful information. Like spotting stuff on the ground or announcing distant formations of which identity is not certain. In short, more human.

6. A challenging AI in terms of fighting, energy fighters using BnZ tactics ect.

7. Well researched FM with presentable information to the customers.

[salmo]

1.] <snip> ..
3. Living airfields

See airfield templates HERE (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34502&highlight=RAf+bases+pack)

1.]
4. Simplified FMB in terms of 'coding' which the average joe can handle to a certain degree. Which would help 3rd party campaigns mission makers a lot I would reckon. Also, award system and more like '1946' pilot career statistics.

Agreed. The best medod would be to display a script "library" in FMB and have the ability to 'attach' scripts to airfields, AI flights & objects. You could add to the library with self-contained custom scripts from the community.

[Igo kyu]

A pilot roster as in Forgotten Battles, AI pilots with personalities and skillsets, and individual voices.

More complex squad management than we had in Forgotten Battles.

[RedToo]

I would like to see trees and their shadows that don't shiver. This is the single biggest immersion killer for me.

RedToo.

ps tree collision models would be nice too.

[senseispcc]

.
I am sorry it is NO fun to read all this and half of this post say the opposite to the other half when they are not pure criticize and nothing else.
This is a HUGE step forward in the simulation game and PC must adapt to it like the people how play it.
Some pictures taken in this simulation are of the highest quality possible but it can never be photographic quality it is very near it and I have seen in museum worse paintings.
I read that some interiors of planes are not like they should be but sorry this planes, even in the USA, were made by hand and during the production life of a plane from plane to plane in the production line things changed it is still true today. When the FAA do ask for a change in a planes characteristic’s it is done in 1940's it was the same more often so! The best example is the addition of a bullet proof windscreen on the Spitfire or the change to 100 octane fuel.
Have fun with this game and do not bash your head because of minor problems the majors ones shall be cleared in the IL2 series they always did in the end, have fun!
:evil::cool:

[hiro]

I'm going to go with these guys . . .


Less gimmicks. More soul. A development team that knows its capabilities a and does not overreach itself. I'd rather have a very good sim that works, than a brilliant one that does not.


Uhhh ... how about a game instead of just a beta engine? http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif


and set the bar low.


Just have a working game with a solid game engine. No CTD, no stutters, runs on a decent current ( 2013 / 2014 or whenever the release is) system. Essentially its just install, set features and go.



Ok, maybe some immersion stuff, like decently accurate FM, DM, physics, and others like sound and CEM . . . and great graphics . . .

Even if it came with a plane set like 4 fighters, 2 big bombers, a recon plane, and 2 attack (cuz the Il-2 is in it), just as long as its a solid, working game.

And even if ground targets were buildings, 1 tank type, 1 jeep or car type.

[David198502]

more realism!
-completely working cockpits(im sick of hitting the I button and im even more sick of hitting the W button)

-no arcade compasses or other dumbed down systems to please a minority(at least make it optional and give the option for full realistic and historical gauges)

-FMs closer to reality!(right now in my view clods biggest problem is the underperforming planes of the RAF.i know that all planes are too slow, and im a 109 guy, but its sad, that so many people cant really enjoy the sim, as the Fms are really way off)

-as already mentioned....working weather!in my view it doesnt even have to be dynamic if thats too performance demanding.better make a static but really working weather, where contacts cant be spotted with ease through clouds, and where clouds are really visible the same way for all the players.thunderstorms, flashes, turbulences....its a flight sim.

-things that worked in 1946 and now are missing in clod!there are many of them...although im not the guy who shoots at parachutes...i still want the possibility to do so...and that i can collide with them as well(note this is one really minor feature, of many, which were already working in clods predecessor, and now are completely missing)

-bailout animation, and other animations!looking around after bailing out, and mabye having to pull the cord...

-dedication to things like blind landing systems(if historical available at that time period)
in my view it was a massive improvement with the 4.10 patch in 1946, to have a more realistic navigation, with working radio beacons and landing systems like Lorenz)

-no IL2 girl!

-dynamic campaign

-a personal whish, where i dont know if many share that view: better make less planes, but with more love to details....look at DCS and you know what i mean.

-if possible, collision with trees!

....to be continued

[He111]

Allow the community to develop their own stuff - SDK ?

1C could save a huge development bill by releasing the source code to fans and move the development team to something more important ... Real Warfare - Rome ! :grin:

I want a flyable Defiant, Whimpy etc and would be willing to pay and invest my own time to get such. maybe not what others want but a nice add on to build CLODs plane base.

.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I want a flyable Defiant, Whimpy etc .

A flyable Beaufighter would be nice as well.

Everytime I spawn in my Blenhiem next to a shutdown Beaufighter I promise myself I ask for a transfer IF I get back alive! :)

[Toni74]

Historical cockpits!

The cockpit of the Bf 110 is so far from reality that it really hurts.
Even the description on the left circuit breaker box by the pilot (which came with the E-series) is wrong.

so true.

we even didn't get any single statement about all the facts and errors reported so far for Bf 110 on that bloody bugtracker wich even haven't been visited by any single developer so far.

useless. :evil:

[slm]

I think threads like these have the potential danger to repeat past community mistake. "I hope they do this, I hope they do that"...turns into "I expected this, I expected that" when the sequel comes out. Then when it doesn't materialize...which it won't, then there is disappointment.


Some companies actually ask their customers about which features would be useful. And if they have a list of features they consider implementing, user can put them to importance order. Polls like this are easy to do using free SW like www.surveymonkey.com
I'm pretty sure if 1c made such survey, the results would be useful for both development and users.

I agree with Feathered_IV who wrote " I'd rather have a very good sim that works, than a brilliant one that does not. "

[senseispcc]

.
If you ask what I want in Battle for Moscow ...
the same quality than in Cliff of Dover with a little more
Weather (more diversity)
and maybe a easy way to populate the map or a already populated map by this I mean a map with ground "things" on them but maybe friendly and not so friendly airplanes generated at "random"!
:cool:

[341_Knight]

One that actually works would be nice