IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad Press Previews after 1C Event

[Sneaksie]

SimHQ
http://www.simhq.com/air-combat/il2-sturmovik-battle-stalingrad-preview.html

Just Press Start
http://justpressstart.net/1c-journalists-at-play-2013-il-2-sturmovik-battle-of-stalingrad/

http://justpressstart.net/1c-journalists-at-play-2013/

IGN
http://www.ign.com/blogs/capitalistpig211/2013/07/29/nukes-planes-and-tanks

[SPUDLEY1977]

CLOD appeared to be a reskinned, retextured IL-2 program engine AND with only a couple of planes Ported in a non optimized engine that does not allow the scaling with modern or semi-current PC components.

The videos of BOS do not appear to offer anything tangible over CLOD. When combined with the lack of Allied aircraft and the seeming intent to build for low end PC's and DX9 it is unlikely that this will represent the long lasting IL-2 series. Just another variant of the CLOD business model which we all spent $60 US on with a long laundry list of promises which were advertised promises never delivered.

Based on the track record and the current videos WITHOUT any air combat footage = no pre-purchase, we expect no purchase on release based on the limited business model offered.

Still disappointing indeed.

[IceFire]

CLOD appeared to be a reskinned, retextured IL-2 program engine AND with only a couple of planes Ported in a non optimized engine that does not allow the scaling with modern or semi-current PC components.

The videos of BOS do not appear to offer anything tangible over CLOD. When combined with the lack of Allied aircraft and the seeming intent to build for low end PC's and DX9 it is unlikely that this will represent the long lasting IL-2 series. Just another variant of the CLOD business model which we all spent $60 US on with a long laundry list of promises which were advertised promises never delivered.

Based on the track record and the current videos WITHOUT any air combat footage = no pre-purchase, we expect no purchase on release based on the limited business model offered.

Still disappointing indeed.
I'm with you on some of this but the business model argument is different here. They intend to go with a Rise of Flight model (which served them well in the past) in combination with a more traditional package release. The difference in business model is a steady flow of cash to fund additional projects which, in the case of Rise of Flight, has lead to a steady increase in available aircraft and even an additional map. World War II for me is quite a bit larger in scope so it may be a challenge but in theory this type of business model has been shown to be successful.

The DX9 bit is hardly an issue for me. The engine itself is a strong one with quite a few features and its already been in the hands of players for a long time now.

Cliffs of Dover was a traditional monolithic release with the $60 box and no further plans.

This is an established engine and a new but successful business model. It needs some more videos and I'd like to see some proper air combat sequences... but calling this a rehash of Cliffs of Dover is unfair I think. It has some merits and it has some areas to be cautious about.

I'm more pessimistic about Oleg's new DCS related WWII sim crowdsourced funding system. But we'll see!

[FlyingRustBucket]

I'm with you on some of this but the business model argument is different here. They intend to go with a Rise of Flight model (which served them well in the past) in combination with a more traditional package release. The difference in business model is a steady flow of cash to fund additional projects which, in the case of Rise of Flight, has lead to a steady increase in available aircraft and even an additional map. World War II for me is quite a bit larger in scope so it may be a challenge but in theory this type of business model has been shown to be successful.

The DX9 bit is hardly an issue for me. The engine itself is a strong one with quite a few features and its already been in the hands of players for a long time now.

Cliffs of Dover was a traditional monolithic release with the $60 box and no further plans.

This is an established engine and a new but successful business model. It needs some more videos and I'd like to see some proper air combat sequences... but calling this a rehash of Cliffs of Dover is unfair I think. It has some merits and it has some areas to be cautious about.

I'm more pessimistic about Oleg's new DCS related WWII sim crowdsourced funding system. But we'll see!

They could atleast start after the game's release. I still can't believe the FW 190 and La-5 are day 1 DLC or that there is day 1 DLC at all. I liked to believe that these practices were only performed by the big corporations or something.

[GF_Mastiff]

http://youtu.be/keVsKqqLexY

[Tempest123]

looks nice but god I hate this micro-transaction dlc c***p, like release a game already ($60-$70), then maybe an add on with planes, new theater, missions etc, I'd pay $20 to $30 for that. not this $10 a plane, $5 for scarf stuff. If I wanted that I would go play CoD or candy crush. Feels like stuffing quarters in an arcade. Ahem, rant over.

[gaunt1]

This sim will be good for sure, but for me it will never replace good old IL-2 1946. Maybe it has better FM, DM, graphics, but with such limited selection of planes... The worst is that it doesnt feature any allied fighters. OK I know its eastern front, but still. Also, this pay for extra planes stuff is unacceptable for me. I'll stick with IL-2 1946 for sure.

[WhiskeyWhiskey]

I've said it before, you can't yet find a replacement for IL2.

The new sims are so limited that you will never see a P-51.

In IL2 there are so many different flight models for pretty much every nation that participated in the WW2 air war.

Do I care that much that the F6F may or may not be an accurate representation of what it really was? hell no!

Every aircraft in IL2 has its own characteristics that you have to learn and use, whether or not they are 100% accurate.

I'm not totally sure, but I think DT could even implement a patch that gives realistic aircraft management for all aircraft, if they wanted.

Big goal I know, but I think the function is there to do it, like priming the engine, or charging the guns.

I remember when Janes first started coming out. It was so detailed oriented the flight sim was just not fun.

IRL it takes a good 15 mins to fire up an engine and have all the systems ready for taxi and to make sure everything is set and ready, not to mention the preflight planning.

Thats IRL, I don't need all the extra stuff when the focus should be on the combat experience.

[TexasJG]

It's the machines and engineering of the time period for me. Incredible works of art! The more detailed the replications of the aircraft's and their systems the more I can get into it.
Engines, armaments, avionics, all of it!!
Wish we could open up the engine cowlings and such, that would be cool...:-P

BTW, I'm horrible at combat....

(and yes, I very much like DCS also).

[Janosch]

While the planes in Il-2 are many and different, they are not that unique. For example, all fighters can be divided into 4 different categories:
1. Slow but maneuverable
2. Fast but not maneuverable
3. Fast and maneuverable
4. ...back to the drawing board, comrades!

When you consider whether or not a specific plane has good armament or not, you have 8 archetypes. And by golly, there will be at least 8 different fighters in BoS! This is not to say that the good'ol Il-2 ever becomes boring, it's just that it's possible that BoS will compensate the smaller number of planes with things like complex engine start, improved flight models and graphics. And by the end of the day, the focus will be in combat!

What may sink BoS is not the business model, smaller day 1 content or such, but the policies concerning custom paintschemes. I posted about this on the BoS forums... long story short, imho using your personal paintchemes should always be allowed, even on "ranked servers", whatever the grobbendonk that means, and the choice to download others' skins should be left to the players.

One user pointed out that the filesize of paintschemes will be much larger than in Il-2. So, it might affect gameplay, if 30 players are online and using 9 megabyte - weighing paintschemes. I wonder if there's a way around that - advanded packing and unpacking on the fly (pun intended) ? Slower and flexible upload/download rate of paintschemes, so as not to compromise online gameplay? Ingame torrent paintscheme sharing technology? Let's hope for the best.

[DuxCorvan]

Too expensive, too many microtransactions. I don't mind paying for real expansions, but it seems like I'm paying for minor pieces detached from the game for that purpose, and God I hate that.

I won't buy until there's a good deal for some "Gold" complete version out there.

[Pips]

I hate ( and totally disagree with) the whole sales concept behind the ROF and BOS. Irrespective of whether the aircraft are well modelled or not, that aspect alone kills the sim the for me.

It's a pass. I'll stick with IL-2 and OFF.

[ElAurens]

I just figured out my computer does not meet the minimum spec for BoS.

Oh well. Spending $1500 every four odd years, just to shuffle pixels around on a screen is really losing it's appeal to me these days.

This hobby is just getting too expensive to bother with anymore.

Fun while it lasted though.

[Juri_JS]

Too expensive, too many microtransactions. I don't mind paying for real expansions, but it seems like I'm paying for minor pieces detached from the game for that purpose, and God I hate that.

I won't buy until there's a good deal for some "Gold" complete version out there.

There are no microtransactions in BoS, the sales concept is different to RoF. You can buy the standard edition (8 flyable aircraft) or the premium edition (10 flyable aircraft). If you like to upgrade the standard edition you can buy the Fw-190 and La-5 separately.

[Treetop64]

Not at all a fan of the nickel-and-dime business model they've adopted. Also, the asking price is a bit steep for a product that is clearly incomplete.

I'll pass. Maybe in a year or two when it's likely to be less expensive and more complete will I consider a purchase, but certainly not now.

[AG-51_Razor]

After messing around with BoS for the last several weeks, I must say that I find it very impressive indeed. More than any other flight sim I have ever flown, BoS gives me a feeling of immersion that is unsurpassed. The graphics are eye popping to say the least. Their attention to detail in every aspect is unbelievable. I am not disappointed with this purchase. Having said that, I will temper it with a few observations that are less than complimentary. The two biggest complaints I have are the arcadish use of locked features and the total absence of a mission builder. Now, the mission builder is in the works if you want to believe Bearcat, one of the moderators on their forum, but this system of unlocks is totally incomprehensible to me. I can see no reason for it whatsoever. It would make more sense to me if these features were just for sale and you paid X number of dollars per skin, gun, bullets or bombs. But forcing everyone to fly a campaign offline in order to unlock certain weapons or skins for each airplane just flat pisses me off! I do not have the time, much less the inclination, to grind my way through an offline campaign for every type a/c I want extra features for. The more I think about it, the more it pisses me off!

As an avid, if not rabid, fan of IL-2 since it appeared as a demo, I have come to appreciate certain aspects of that game that Oleg obviously put a lot of thought and effort into, which contributed to making it so enduring and such a classic within this niche market we represent. He built in a system whereby individuals could share their combat flight experience in many different ways. You could go on a DF server or join a coop mission and fly with other humans in addition to possibly other AI, depending on the mission builder's whims. You could host either one of those mission types as well. But the biggest jewel in the IL-2 crown, as far as I'm concerned, is the Full Mission Builder. That is what has kept my attention for so long. As the mission designer/builder, I can create any kind of environment I choose. I can make a simple mission just for myself to test some type of a/c or weapon system. I can make a training mission tailored to myself or my squad to try to get the most out of the experience. I can build historic recreations of famous battles or wild assed what if scenarios. My imagination is just about the only limitation. That is what is sorely missing from this sim and until they produce some kind of mission editor/builder AND a way to host missions, I will remain a lurker on the fringe of this game.

Don't misunderstand me, I am enjoying messing around with BoS, but until I have a mission builder and a way to host it, I will not abandon IL-2 1946. That's just too much to give up and is not out weighed by the graphics or feel of this new game.

[Bearcat]

After messing around with BoS for the last several weeks, I must say that I find it very impressive indeed. More than any other flight sim I have ever flown, BoS gives me a feeling of immersion that is unsurpassed. The graphics are eye popping to say the least. Their attention to detail in every aspect is unbelievable. I am not disappointed with this purchase. Having said that, I will temper it with a few observations that are less than complimentary. The two biggest complaints I have are the arcadish use of locked features and the total absence of a mission builder. Now, the mission builder is in the works if you want to believe Bearcat, one of the moderators on their forum, but this system of unlocks is totally incomprehensible to me. I can see no reason for it whatsoever. It would make more sense to me if these features were just for sale and you paid X number of dollars per skin, gun, bullets or bombs. But forcing everyone to fly a campaign offline in order to unlock certain weapons or skins for each airplane just flat pisses me off! I do not have the time, much less the inclination, to grind my way through an offline campaign for every type a/c I want extra features for. The more I think about it, the more it pisses me off!

As an avid, if not rabid, fan of IL-2 since it appeared as a demo, I have come to appreciate certain aspects of that game that Oleg obviously put a lot of thought and effort into, which contributed to making it so enduring and such a classic within this niche market we represent. He built in a system whereby individuals could share their combat flight experience in many different ways. You could go on a DF server or join a coop mission and fly with other humans in addition to possibly other AI, depending on the mission builder's whims. You could host either one of those mission types as well. But the biggest jewel in the IL-2 crown, as far as I'm concerned, is the Full Mission Builder. That is what has kept my attention for so long. As the mission designer/builder, I can create any kind of environment I choose. I can make a simple mission just for myself to test some type of a/c or weapon system. I can make a training mission tailored to myself or my squad to try to get the most out of the experience. I can build historic recreations of famous battles or wild assed what if scenarios. My imagination is just about the only limitation. That is what is sorely missing from this sim and until they produce some kind of mission editor/builder AND a way to host missions, I will remain a lurker on the fringe of this game.

Don't misunderstand me, I am enjoying messing around with BoS, but until I have a mission builder and a way to host it, I will not abandon IL-2 1946. That's just too much to give up and is not out weighed by the graphics or feel of this new game.

According to Zak the Mission Editor is supposed to be forthcoming. Exactly when I don't know but it is in the works. I forgot which DD it was but it is definitely in one of them. I don't get the unlocks either.. but it is what it is... and like you said there is stil a lot to like.