New IL2 Sturmovik Title!!!
 

Great! Thus it is time to mod ClOD or pray Daidalos to work with it :grin:

"russian" classics - Николай Некрасов - ЗАБЫТАЯ ДЕРЕВНЯ (can't remember classics of any other countrys)...

it's like my first impression...:rolleyes:

Sounds to me like there is just too much wrong with Cliffs of Dover and they have decided to let it die and move on to a new but well established platform. Good on them. I can't see TD ever moving to work with Cliffs. Too many problems.

Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam!

If you don't like Steam you should see Origin. Steam is amazing in comparison :)

Don't think they're that keen on steam, at least that's the impression I got from reading over there. Real shame is that Clod was just about to come good before 1c pulled the plug. If a version of clod ever becomes available sans steam I'd buy it. It's replacement doesn't look to good, DX9 based on the ROF engine about a vicious ground battle where aircraft played a support role, which won't have any ground vehicles? The rush to get something out in 2014 smacks of lets cash in on IL2's name. I hope I'm wrong and wish them all the best but reading what's been posted so far over there it's a distinct step backwards from Clod in terms of flight model and graphics, we'll see.

This doesn't look good?

http://riseofflight.com/en/about/screenshots

I see vehicles there too.

It does seem that the engine is DX9 limited right now so that could be an issue moving forward. Two years of development to bring it along a bit further could solve all of that... provided that the core of the engine is sound. I'll stay hopeful for now.

Well, Clod for all it's faults was an attempt to create a futuristic game engine, Rof is nice, works etc, but do you think it'll get anywhere near Clod's high standards? Will we get wind, changing weather? Will it be a more realistic simulator than Clod? Or will it be a Rof with WW2 aircraft? They're not saying, but given the timescale involved until release what's your best guess? If your happy with that, fine. I remain deeply sceptical. Also about the proposed selling model to be employed, Galland's ashtray only $9 buy it now!

Yeah I'm not a fan of the free to play but you need to buy all of the rest of the stuff. I can't see how that works for RoF nevermind this. How do you put together a scenario if your players don't own any of the aircraft selected?

Launch date is 2014? Two years to put this together plus all of the content they have already built which probably won't require significant changes to connect to the RoF hooks. Not sure but I'd wager it won't take a total redo of any already build models or cockpits.

If they have the staff and the resources then two years is pretty good and what is usually allocated for most AAA titles. Some get longer but usually they are starting from scratch and with this there is already the basic engine. I DO hope the engine evolves... DX9 is fine, how about DX10, 11? Dynamic weather can be plugged in if the engine core is good.

I think Cliffs went wrong in three ways:

1) They tried to do too much.
2) They tried to do it with far too few people.
3) It was pushed out of the door far too early.

So more realistic goals with absolutely iron clad levels of content is what I'd like to see. IMHO. The whole Stalingrad scenario should be played out. I.e. every major fighter, bomber, tank, artillery piece, and bale of hay should be represented. No glaring holes of major types anywhere and it should all be player flyable. I don't mind if a few minor types aren't flyable but everything important... yes.

Also I'd like to see the actual game portion of it filled out. Dynamic or scripted campaign I don't mind too much either way but it should be fun, interesting, authentic, and it should be easily added to. IL-2 got that last part right which is why it's still so popular. The full mission builder we have for IL-2 is great... not perfect... but it's the tool with which we create unlimited playability.

So I'll stop waxing poetic and I hope they do it right.

Rise of Flight is a great game,despite WWI not being popular.I would dare to say here that it's the First World War IL2 Sturmovik.Not something totally different like CFS.

Q. Will you have to pay for new content like airplanes?

A. Of course, additional content once developed will be offered for sale.

Q. Will BOS include every imaginable feature and detail the community will want?

A. Unfortunately, no simulation title can have everything the community will want. There is a relatively short window to create and launch BOS. As 777 Studios learned from developing ROF, it is better to start with digestible chunks of features and content that works and add more over time. We also do not want to keep the community waiting for years while we make a large product that may not work as advertised. We prefer to take it one step at a time.

Q. Will BOS install over CLOD as promised by previous management?

A. Sorry it will not, BOS will be based on a completely different engine and be a completely different product line.


On il2sturmovik.net forum you'll find more Q&A!

Spamming already. Not a good sign. Snake, didn't used to work for steam did you? You know when Clod was released, telling us how wunnerful it'll be and how you might even buy a joystick for the new game? Lol....

These are bad news :(
RoF engine has much less features than CoD one has. Not no mention i really dislike the RoF bussiness model ("Congratulations, you have succesfully bought Spitfire. Now, please spend another 10 bucks to have gauges in it...")

IF it mean TD can develop channel map?

Same what I thought.BR.20 to IL2.

But is the new IL2 goling to have the Channel Map?I'd really like to make a joint strike at London with Luftwaffe,RA and IJN.

I think I'm not that Snake!

What do you think about that :


11) The question about economic side of the project. What exactly are we waiting for, purchase a single aircraft like in the ROF or normal paid add-ons like in the good old "IL-2"?



We are planning a hybrid system. This will create a line of products that can satisfy different groups of players with different financial capabilities and preferences. Those players who are committed flight simulation hobbyists can purchase additional content in the online store. In the future, if such a model is successful; we will be releasing regular additions that feature other famous air battles of World War II that contain the planes that took part in them.


I don't really like this idea. I'm not ready to pay an aircraft or maps. I prefer Team Daidalos Style where you download all of that in patch. It's funnier and all people can enjoy and have the same experience. We don't need a pay2win.

whatever, more news here : http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index.php?showtopic=168

You guys have funny ideas about ROF.

It's not Pay to win. The SPAD.13 and Albatros D.Va are free, and have field mods and weapon mods, and the SPAD is the best fighter in the game. The Fokker D.VIIF is the best German scout, so that would set you back $7 only to have the two best aircraft. (Ouch my wallet! :rolleyes:)

Online, you can join as a gunner for any plane, even if you haven't purchased it.

You don't need to buy everything to play or enjoy ROF. Just get what you would enjoy flying. It's pointless to buy everything, but only fly two or three of your favorite planes anyway.

On top of that, they have a sale every two months or so where planes can be had for as little as $2.50.

Lol? DT are volunteers. How do you expect a gaming studio which just bought a license to CloD to pay for its bread and butter? Free patches with everything?

sorry if this is repeat...

I'm of two minds here nic. One is that the situation is hardly ideal.. it means that some players will not have certain types of content. What happens when you do an online scenario and some people only have a piece of it... it does restrict things.

On the other side of the coin... coin literally is an issue. Flight sims are small potatoes these days and so continual funding on micro transactions to keep development going is important as they will never have the kind of retail mass success that other more mass market games will.

It does sound as if there will be a greater selection in a buy package and then some additional content will be featured as addon.

I'm not 100% on this but I'd rather there be a content pack at a discount then buying piecemeal. It disperses what players are able to do quite a bit.

I guess it depends on what it comes with initially and what you need to buy later. Is it that everyone gets a Bf109F-4 but you have to pay to get a G-2? Or if you want to do any bombing you have to pay separately for the Pe-2 or He-111? I'm unsure on these things.

Plus a million on this, lol!

You get what you buy fairly cheap and the base system is free(?), not $40+++++, though I would get upset if a system upgrade voided the planes I had bought... I'd be hot if I had to buy twice.

It makes sense to bundle planes at discount yet with the occasional more than 50% off sales of RoF planes you can at times pick up 8 for $20 yet still pick and choose your bundle (get none you don't want, none you already bought) to suit your self. Given the much higher quality of the newer models and the time they take to produce, the prices are not exactly high given I spent $7 for a lunch special yesterday and how long did that last?

I was reading somewhere that the model would be a hybrid between the RoF and more conventional IL-2 model. I forget the exact quote so forgive me if I'm wrong on that but that was my understanding. So if it's $20 or $40 to get started... how much content is that? If it is exactly like RoF then you start with two planes and all content and then go from there.

I can see myself wanting all of it but not wanting to pay full price for all of it. I see they have volume discounts and sales and that might not be half bad. I used to be 100% against this model but if it's the only way to survive then I understand.

I just get concerned that you both fracture the multiplayer audience AND you get people spending limited money on the best planes but never bothering to buy anything else.

It seems that many of you do not understand the way RoF works. Here's how in a nutshell:

You can download the FREE version of RoF and you get ALL the content. The only difference is that you only get TWO FLYABLE aircraft. You can man ANY gunner position. This goes for both on-line and off-line.

Should you choose to add to your selection of aircraft you can buy the RoF Iron Cross edition which includes eight (if I recall correctly) flyable aircraft. You can then purchase additional aircraft, weapons mods, field mods, etc. in the on-line store.

Even if you don't buy an aircraft or feature, it is still visible to you when someone else in the server is using it. In other words, if I have an Albatros D.Va with the 20mm canon overwing field mod and you haven't bought the aircraft or the mod, you can still fly against them and see them. Or, let's say you haven't bought the Handley Page 0400. You can still man a gunner position in the aircraft, even if I equip it with the optional twin-Lewis turret. You will get to use that feature because I added it to my aircraft.

I helped beta-test RoF, as did the rest of the Horsemen. Everyone admits it was a real dog when released. However, 777 Studios and Jason stepped in and got the project back on track. It is an incredible flight sim. I was not and still am not a huge WWI fan, but I urge all of you to at least download the free version and give it a try. If you like it, wait for a sale and buy what you want at a discount.

I'll admit that I wasn't that keen on the business model to begin with, but we have to face the fact that hard-core flight simmers are a dying breed. If we want high-quality sims in the future, we are each going to have to pay more to make it worth the company's time. They have to eat and pay bills, too. Once you get used to the idea of not having every aircraft available to fly unless you want to pay for it, it isn't that bad. We've always had AI only aircraft in Il-2. It's just that now you can fly those if you choose to pay for them.

As for the RoF engine: 70 people on-line, a map that covers a large portion of France, clouds and rain, explosions, gun-fire, moving trucks and trains, and NO STUTTERS. And this is on my less than top-line system with RoF graphics settings at all but maximum. Smooth as silk either down in the weeds or at 12,000 feet. No objects popping in and out of view. It's a lot better than many of you here are giving it credit to be.

One more thing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker View Post
Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam! Please don't be on Steam!

PLEASE! I never bought ClOD because of this Steam crap!

Fully understand the RoF model and I still have the concerns I have. If only some players have certain planes, what happens when a scenario comes up that only uses pay for planes?

Say my scenario only uses the Fokker D.VIIF and the Sopwith Camel but some players only have access to the two free ones?

As a matter if fact one of the reason of actual success of IL2 1946 (it's still the most crowded sim online) is that you can play with hundreds of aircraft in tenths of scenarios.
If you're bored playing one, you take another, in a never ending experience.
This means longevity.
In a pay every addon model of business this can be done only by fiew people.
This means more players bored earlier and less people playing after a short time.

+1

I add:
Less people playing= servers empty= servers dying= end of the simulation.

And shame on us for supporting it.
This game died stuttering as it was born and I paid good money for it.

At least they continue to support the game and improve it.
Whereas CLOD took my money and ran.

We've lived with this for ages in ArmA and simply put, don't blame the simgame but talk to the server host instead (he who actually pays for hardware people are playing on for free).


Fenice_1965, you honestly think that if there is no online activity there is no one using the game?

Clod
 

Cant believe CLOD is doomed to die. Was looking forward to Med and Moscow add-ons. It was 'the future' of air simulators . Once I saved enough for my new Rig it was going to give me a new lease of life in air combat. Oh well thank God for 4.11.1

So...I'm operating from the perspective of the server host. It significantly cuts my potential player base if I want to do an interesting scenario but one that features only certain aircraft and if I choose to do something interesting but not available to the base players then I can either choose to restrict those players (not something I want to do) or I can choose to not run the scenario (also not something I want to do). So in some ways it's a loose loose scenario.

The more I read at the new forum, I suspect they will have some sort of hybrid model. If there are enough aircraft in the base package then there may be enough breadth to do at least some interesting setups. But it will change the way that I approach online scenarios. Guaranteed.

Honestly not. I was thinking from the perspective that is closer to me (even if I've been playing simulators offline for more than 20 years, actually I'm more involved in online activity).
BTW online activity can be one of the indicators that can be considered in the judgement about vitality in a game thinked to be used also online.
I've the same perspective Icefire. can't be explained better. +1

For all complaining about RoF aircraft system.This is not a rant,just an experience I had.

I never had the culture of buying things from the internet.For me,it was like begging to someone to rob your credit card information.
Also,dollar isn't the currency of my country,and neither euro is.It's price is like 1 for 2 of our national currency.And buying things in dollars isn't the same as buying a pack of chips at the nearby market.
Yet,I got RoF and a few planes at every 2 months or when they have the 1/2 price sale and I'm enjoying it.

I guess its ok for First Person Shooters to sell DLC, but not Flight Sims?

This is a good point and worth thinking through it.

There are some differences the way RoF works versus a Call of Duty or Battlefield DLC. RoF you have access to the same game but can interact using only certain content unless you buy it piecemeal. Call of Duty you have access to a dozen maps and then buy more (usually 4ish to a pack) if you want to use those as well. When you buy the new maps you interact with only the people who also have that content.

With RoF you can interact with all of the same people but you are restricted in the content that you access without paying.

There are pros and cons to this model. My point from above, which I won't rehash, still remains. It's just not an issue that would come up in Call of Duty or Battlefield. If we do FPS style DLC packs then you'd buy a pack of aircraft rather than just one.

Likely there will be a need for scenarios to run differently with basically all available aircraft in the game on the list of available to fly.

My biggest complaint is not the money. I think it's reasonable to pay for additional content, especially in flight sims where content is difficult to produce and the market is very small. I'm just questioning how best to do it. I won't be torn up if the RoF model ends up being what we have too.

If it turns out to be simply RoF with ww2 aircraft that would be really sad.

I bought three copies of COD on speck just to back the old team and
I have the free copy of RoF and after playing that I didn't even think of buying it.
One man's treasure I suppose.
cheers

It's not only Rise of Flight, look at FSX and it's predecessors.

The whole nickle and dime, "extra plane costs $50+", or maps and whatnaught are going to drive this genre even further into the dust. The reason I love and still fly IL2 1946 (though not at all the last few months) is precisely because it is modable, has almost a hundred or so planes (through mods), maps, etc. It's not the prettiest gal on the block and it's aged reasonably well but a bit rough around the edges, but I wouldn't trade it at all for any of that closed market, closed environment, DRM-crippled BS. And don't even THINK about subscription based models.

Here's an idea. Instead of charging for content, charge for FUNCTIONALITY. Start with a good solid base, and go from there. Multi-crew planes a lot more work in code? Great, start with single user aircraft and then sell that in an expansion once it's worked out and stable. Don't try and charge me $10 for a map and 3 new flyable planes. Maybe add ground vehicles in a later expansion. Helicopters? Sure. Hopping around in planes? Sure. Just don't try and nickle and dime for functionality either. I never did mind paying $20 for full on expansions to games back in the day, because most of the time you were basically paying for a big enough amount of content that it was worth it. Above all else, make it MODABLE. Release the specs for how to make planes, maps, hell make it modular so people can make their own "add-ons" without having to open up the code base which can lead to cheating issues.

To anyone defending the nickle and dime mindset, that smacks of the recording industry's broken attitude toward it's own market. The world changes and they refused to adapt, and paid the price. The groups that rolled with the changes and times were the ones that made it through with flying colors. Nickle and dime isn't the new it, or is it the right way. Uncomfortable truths, just like the fact that piracy helps gaming and sales far more than it hurts it (unless it's a AAA title), and modding brings in far more of an audience than it costs to implement.

:-)

I understand the DLC scene, but it's the only way these producers and small flight sim companies are going to make it. Look at Micro-Soft twice they gave it a go, and twice they lost.

If it isn't a big title like (FPS) have become, then they should charge for the nickel and dime code and time to make a map, a plane, a car, a train... if it takes up time and money and resources sure charge, charge, charge.. It's the only way this 100k people game is going to survive..
I'm not saying charge full on game title cost for DLC, look at Train Simulator 3, 10.00 dollars here and there, yes ROF 20.00 for a map a little much,
Yes that's what the sales are showing only 250k plus, people bought flight sims in 2012.

compare that to COD=Black ops2....... over three million...

You're not wrong. But it doesn't invalidate concerns over how this will play out with the community and how it will affect how online is done in the community. It'll be a very different dynamic than IL-2 1946.

There's a number of things I believe you are overlooking.

Comparing our flight sims to CODBO2, BF3, Skyrim, etc for the purposes of budget and sales is way off. Look at the budgets that go into developing those games at the huge, HUGE dev houses, the money that goes into publishing, and even moreso advertising and support, etc etc. You can't watch ESPN these days without seeing ads for AAA game titles all over the place, and those ads aren't cheap, and represent only a fraction of their overall budget. In this day and age, if one uses the right tools, channels, and methods, advertising can be done on a relatively equal scale at a fraction of the cost.

Next, look at all the games picking up help from places like Kickstarter, or *shudder* Green Light on Steam. Minecraft is probably the original success story, and look at how many copies they've sold throughout the years at 5, 10, 20$. One of the best $5 games I ever bought.

Also consider how it's possible to reach a greater number of people by making the game's realism scalable. 1946 already did a great job of that, lots of options for what one can turn on and off. Hell make an "arcade" mode for casual gamers that just want to shoot up things, and give each plane an "arcade" and "realistic" set of characteristics. Casuals whining about balance? Fine, modify the arcade settings. Wrap a layer on top of the "real" game so that the casuals will buy and enjoy it, and we can still have our honest abe, true flight SIM.

Lots of ideas. Good ideas plus the right work can yield far more benefit that the effort it takes to do so. Dozens if not hundreds of small indie games over the past year or two are living proof.

That is kind of problematic.. After experiencing the RoF model I think it is a pretty good one. The old model has failed and I cannot help but wonder sometimes if IL2 had a similar model given all the content we got for free would MG still be around. Out of all the planeds available to me in IL2 I only fly less than 10 types on a regular basis.. We sometimes forget that the bottom line for all this is the folks who make these sims need to see a profit or else they will stop coming.. and if changing the way it s done can increase the possibility of me being able to still find a new flight sim a decade from now so be it.. When I think of how it would be if say.. IL2 was it.. if say the genre folded due to lack of pofitability and all we had was IL2 to mod from here on out.. afdter a while how would that be? Not very good IMO. The when you consider piracy.. and other facts of the business..


I think it will be fine.. One thing I like about the RoF model is when a new AC comes out you get it... so you can still make missions with it you just can't fly it without buying the cockpit. Those RoF sales are nice too.. they bring the prices down a bit.. I just hope that they get the marketing better.. and tat they put a shopping cart in the store.. Wtht eh last sale they said it would last till 12/30 .. but what they didn't say was 12/30 Russian time.. so when I got home expecting to capitalize on the sale I had missed it.. Little things like that are annoying but not show stoppers..

True, this is not really an issue and does not fragment the community. However the new Channel Map does fragment the community. it's too expensive to be commonly owned and so full-ish online servers playing the old map are suddenly empty when the mission switches over to the new Channel map. They need to solve that or the new map will not be used online much, thus decreasing its value, thus dimishing sales of the new map. A vicious circle rather than the virtuous circle they've got going for upgrading already owned and purchasing new aircraft.

Ah yes, the hated steam. The sole reason I didn't buy Clod.

if anyone missed...

here interesting post about soviet fighters in 42-43 from one of authors of this book (i'm not advise or PR, just, apparently, it's new info from archives)...

old sources have really have many little errors, understatements etc (for example, if i'm not mistaken, "yak-9 1942" began to fight only in kuban'43), so, if this is really more realistic picture of technical equipment of VVS in battle of stalingrad, it's answer, i think, why USSR could not win till 43...

experienced luftwaffe on bf 109f-4 and g-2, maybe, best german fighters according to complex characteristics, etc, against all these yaks/laggs'41-42, and, mainly, first series of la-5 with gargrot and 5 fuel tanks, low? level of command until the mid-end'43, some problems with quality (of planes, engines, weapons) etc...

it's really hard situation...

777
 

As said before 777 business model is to sell only to the rich......charge for the base sim and then charge for every plane, map, ....and who knows what else...
ROF is a very expensive sim......well done but there should be much more for the price you pay.....
IL2 1946 with all it's free updates, an incredible number of aircraft, 3rd party mods...and still excellent graphics for a 12 year old sim....
This is the masterpiece of flight sims......
I doubt if I will be able to afford Battle of Stalingrad......unless this lottery ticket pays off....

You get what you pay for. Quality costs.

IL2 mods is a unique situation where people do the mods/updates for free. Definetly not the norm.

Agreed. And, IL-2 mods are only quasi-legal. The fact that 1C has decided not to pursue prosecution of the modders does not mean that what they do is done legally. No one should expect there to ever be a situation similar to the current state of IL-2 1946 ever again.

This model works for me... ;)

One sees approx 5000 serious flight simmers worldwide

1) Pay for for base sim - 30-50 USD = 250,000 USD
2) Pay per plane - 5-10 USD = 50,000 USD
3) Maps are for free.

So if you end up with an IL2 type sim with just 100 or so aircraft sold

Base Sim = 250,000
100 aircraft = 5,000,000
TOTAL (approx min) = 5,250,000 USD

It makes more sense to cover your basic cost (base sim) in case the game flops.. then a/c sold is more profitable.

Moderator edit.

Talking of piracy and obtaining software illegally is against the forum rules

Thanks for doing your part to totally kill off the genre.
So tired of seeing this FSA attitude everywhere.

apparently, 1CGS wants to confirm stupid myths about russians as "mongols which fought for stalin", because personally i'm cant understand WHO is this dude... how and why in rof as pilot strange mummy... maybe, it's news for someones, even for some developers, but main type of peoples in ussr ie RUSSIA even now it's white peoples and NOT asians or even mongols which had own country...

if i'm not mistaken, game called "battle of stalingrad" and not "халхын голын дайн", although i would prefer second theatre with lot of variants of i-16s...

and these very strange speeches about some errors in flame or what is this was? and other "funny" jokes and inappropriate things...

but, of course, it's only my opinion...:rolleyes:

===========

for soviet planes of BoS better translate these manuals - "la-5 with m-82", 1942 and "yak-7b with m-105pf", 1945 (based on manual'43) - it's more appropriate than translate manuals for la-5fn or yak-3, although, of course all these books interesting...

but, i remember all these funny posts by some users here, so, it's can be new fun and no matter what now it's on english... it's even worse...:) but, maybe it's will be not true...

and, in fact, i can recommended this great document by Stepanec - "how to get best flight data on plane yak with vk-105pf", 1947...

another funny and eloquent delirium from 1CGS (by the way, here and here illustrations for previous prikol about "terrible young mongols")...

if i'm not mistaken, in USA/NATO blue it's our troops, red - opponent/enemy... right? so, for markers in games analogically... right? well... in USSR, from modern "map legend (or symbols), which used in combat documents of soviet army" - here - RED it's our troops, BLUE it's opponent/enemy...

for example, modern map with chart of battle of 6pdr of 104 pdp...

and, for example, map of defense of moscow'41...

only several examples after fast search and we can see what all times RED - red army (raboche-krest'yanskaya-krasnaya-armiya), blue - wehrmacht or enemy (boeviki)...

so, logically and HISTORICALLY need to do enemy markers as BLUE, right? and give choice for "blue players"...

but wth?!:confused:

although, lot of nonsenses and other strange things, and etc, like personally i and expected...


and i'm even not talking about our reality ie strange ideological differences or even ideological war in part of society of russia like this simple fresh example...


oh, and i remembered about main reason, why in game red army should have red color=red marker... all simple... and no secret, what in RL identification mark of ussr were - RED STARS...:) ie innovation of 1CGS, at this moment, really looks like absolute delirium in all senses...

===========

by the way, strange "il-2 1942" could be absolutely anything, becuase...

if i'm not mistaken, mainly were il-2 one-seater with vv-1 instead pbp-1 and filter on air intake, which could have shvak or vya-23 or even sh-37, am-38 or am-38f, gunner or without gunner, and it's if not talking about field mods, ag-2, rockets for shooting in pursuer etc...

were il-2 two-seater (for all planes with UBS correctly 150 rounds for this gun) with shvak or vya-23, with am-38 or am-38f ie with 8 or 4 rockets, with 200 or 400 kg of normal bomb load, etc...

really good description of il-2s here - because based on russian sources, which i read now too - like and about other soviet types...

and, of course, real types depends on front, regiment, etc, but it's real choice especially because BOS no only about stalingrad, by personally my opinion...

What if?
 

We know, that the game genre is dieing, but did we not know that in WW 2 as well, how many pilots were there? Around a million and I think I am overstating it by half and then how many submariners were there? Again around a million and how many, tank crew, were there? Around 10 million probably some more and how many supply personnel were there? again 10 millionish, how many artillery units were there around 5-20 million and the last question is how many INFANTRY were there 500million to 1 billion!

So how does that reflect then in real world, reflects now in "imaginary world of gaming". All people do not like the same things. Some one likes to fly and kill "planes", then some one wants to drive and kill "tanks", then some one wants to kill "ships" some one wants to drive and "resupply" people, yet other wants to shell, the hell out of the earth and every thing, that is in the vicinity and then most people just want to kill and shoot people in the head. So if we look at that, we can see that FPS games will never die and the RPG is on the rise. So how can companies, that we all know, only do stuff for money and not their "players=payers=their real masters".

Rectally, I bought a game Red Orchestra 2, for 49,99€ and like the games today it was a beta. I bought it, because I had RO or Red orchestra (tanks 10+ APC 2 off map arty) and the second one has 2 tanks one ally one axis and a new scout plane and still has off map arty but it looks more like an alpha, but that is the world we live now cars,GPU,OS... all half done. So you now buy a game and you get a box small at that, a dvd and a sheet of paper, with the KEY (that is what you are after) (most of it is just trowing away of materials, we are good or excellent at that now and you download the game 100X or more again trowing away materials) because you get like 2 h of, single player game play and the real value is the multilayer online, even if ti is a beta I have 600+ hours of game play on it and the population of players is between 1k-2k (after a addon-which they said it will be free but it was not and it made a game into that one now). I play it because it is the most "realistic" FPS around (ballistics and so one). So if you spend 5 years, on making a game, to sell it for a month at 50€ and then no one buys it after a year and they you stop all support for the game, because you do not want to trow any more money at it, because it did not meet the companies expectations, what do you think it did for your payers? So how would the companies need to make the games for the future?

So the companies, need to work together, on a single game called, lats say Combined operations WW 2 (or WW 1, cold war, Vietnam,.....) like it was in the real world. The companies, who make, fly sim games should go for planes and combined with FPS and the ones for arty make combined ballistics like they are in real world, driving sim for trucks, APC and cars and others for what they know. So how would the player base look like and how would companies make money?

Lets say there are (on the world) 10k pilots and you get them to pay 50€ (50 planes for 1€), 10k tank drivers (50 tanks+APC per 1€), 10-20k truck drivers (50 trucks+APC+cars per 1€) 20k arty (50 HE+AT+AA per 1€) and 100-250 foot soldiers (200 rifles+AA+AT at 25 c). That is 500k+ 500k+ 1M+ 1M+ 10M if people only bought the part of the game they would like to play and the whole game, would cost 250€ like you pay for all RoF planes. So it would be quite an investment, in the future lets say 10-20 years of game life and in that time the amount of players would go from 300k to at least 1M or even to 50M if it is really made with game play on the mind, not retarded epilepsy graphics, that they are doing now. So how would that world work?

People would buy and play what they like, it reflects what they are a pilot, a driver, a tankist, a sniper, arty, strategist,... and the world would be, probably full of people at any time and there would not be, you do not have this or that and can´t play, you would play and if you wanted work together, a pilot with infantry to do ground attacks or scout for them, or scout for arty, or would fight off dive bombers or tanks. Tanks would kill other tanks, planes (with mounted MGs) or inf or arty, arty would kill tanks and planes and inf, supply would supply all those units and keep them on the move, like trucks would pull atry, or carry inf or tanks to move them faster and inf would and could kill all others. It would be a platform, which could be implemented for many years to come, with upgrades that would cost as much or less, when the game came out, because the pool of players would only rise and players would buy other parts of the game to experience the HELL OF IT.

So what can we see today, that says that this should and will happen if they want to survive, (the gaming companies) all can see with next gen CPUs that have GPU core on them, that will soon make GPU obsolete or the ONE GPU company left (Nvidia, ATI is AMD) will make GPU with CPU on it to fight back. Like I see and we all, or at least most, that fighting gets you no where, like competition does, it only makes things worse. They should work together, it is the only option for the future, not only gaming, but man kind;)

And their end line is money, our is game play, so we all would gain from this, as all the players would play one game, ONE WORLD (NWO). Then if you had, like 10-50M players paying at lest 50€, for the part they want to play, that would amount to at least 2,5T trillion/20 years= 100 billion a year, at lest and I think, that is twice as much, all companies get together in a year. And if, that is not enough for you, you can charge for any addition to the game, part you bought at the same price, you payed in the beginning 1€ per plane, tank, truck..... and that is my limit, for something that costs 1c, you get 100 times more, but you still want more, for job done badly, as we grew used to now! Just some pieces of crap, I bought that were a total disappointment, Mafia 2, Red Orchestra 2, Company of Heroes 2, IL-2 Cliffs of Dover, KA-50 2 (which is a patch for 30€ crazy all I can say). It looks like they are milking of the game name, not the game play, it is just sick.

SO If you do not want to get in the place of VCR adapt, or the pirates will kill you as well, because people can see, you do not see it in DEMO, because it is a different game, to sell the crappy game, the true colors of your work and it sets people packing and not buying. So I hope, this is read by some one and it makes them think, even if it is 10 years from now and if it is not implemented, there will be games that you will play for 10 min and it will make you sick, from all the graphics going directly to your brain, trying to make sense, out of the graphics made to get you high on adrenalin, so you will be hooked and buy next 10 min of graphics that will, even try to beat that adrenalin sensation. I get an adrenalin rush only, if paling against other good gamers, I do not get it from graphics, the name of the game is GAME PLAY, not how realistic it looks, but how can I interact with the game on the play level, with others, like we do in real life. Because the future looks grim and I see the future, where people will be online the whole day and not leave their home like in Surrogates, because the world is going down the drain and only escape is online world playing, because we can´t leave this one until we die.

Now, hang on.

FlightSim (the original incarnation) was still a profitable product. It was bureaucratic idiocy and a stagnated, outdated developer-centric culture in the studio itself that led to its demise. Lots of people got cozy in their seats and stayed in their comfort zone doing the same thing for too long - sometimes for 10 years plus. The difference tech-wise and methodology-wise between 1999 and 2009 was massive. A good housecleaning instead of a shutdown would have fixed a lot. FS11 was looking awesome.

Flight Live, on the other hand, was deliberately and quite literally scuttled. Why, I can't say for sure. But at work here, I sit next to some folks who were part of that team (and who I worked with on FlightSim), and they described the final months of Flight Live. A new manager was forced on the studio by much higher-up MS management, and entirely scrapped years of planning and licensing partnerships and development - basically the heart of the product. The next area was going to be the Grand Canyon, and Gibbage had a Grumman Goose ready to rock that was ditched for cockpitless warbirds.

Then the new manager dragged the product kicking and screaming in a direction that was known ahead of time to be disastrous - nobody is going to buy arcade-incarnation cockpitless fighter planes for a civil sim with nothing to shoot at. The goal was to make it fail. Somebody wanted that program dead, but they wanted it to publicly crash and burn before they axed it.

I suspect somebody several floors up just flat-out hated the Flight Sim product and had a grudge. The situation has all the hallmarks of a corporate power struggle where there's been a change in the balance of power.


</sidetrack>

Because they "officially" cannot take money for the work, AFAIK.






As far as flight sims go MS constantly produced bugged software that needed Abacus products to re-model and re-work the aircraft & performance in the early days,
patches were rare if not non existent.

Then they released products that had minimal visual changes worse if any (FSX 10)
they were selling compete products where for the amount of work actually done it should have been a patch/addon not a £50.00 software release, thats what killed it off
people were fed up getting torn a new one every time a new FSX tiltle was put on the shelf, same thing happened with CFS3 rinse repeat recycle................

I actually heard CFS pilots on a TS server saying they would never buy IL2 Shturmovik because it was Russian/communist software and inferior programming to MS CFS/FSX

Ermmm yeah right.
.

EDIT - Deleted. Thought better of it...

Having seen sell-in and sell-through figures for the release of FS9, FSX, and FSX:Acceleration, all I can say is that they were indeed profitable and successful releases.

CFS4 was, by my understanding, cancelled primarily due to internal studio politics (CFS3 was a problem child and split the team politically and literally - there was a large schism before I arrived in early 2007). Many of the tech improvements prototyped for CFS4 were in FSX.

I'm not looking to start a purse-swinging contest, just had to rebut that comment that both of the Microsoft flightsim products died because of commercial failure, which wasn't true. The first was part of the 2009 Microsoft layoffs during the economic crash - likely because of the higher than average employee costs at the studio, since there was a full-time art staff and MANY long-time FTEs development and design side, which means higher than average salaries and benefit costs than most game studios. That product was profitable from a sales history standpoint when it died.

The second was stabbed in the cradle for murky corporate-politics reasons that will likely never be known, and you can't fairly call that commercial failure.

After 25+ weeks of updates at 1CGS this thread is screaming for a box of dental floss to get some of that shoe leather out of the mouths of a few opinionated folks who apparently did not know what they were talking about .. and a big cup of camomile tea to sooth some others.. and a good book to read while we wait with baited breath for this possible masterpiece to be released in less than 12..

Your breath has worms in it?

I think you mean bated, as in held.

"Baited" breath...
Lol

I can certainly vouch for what Plane Eater is talking about. Often, the reasons for a product's failure are because of events behind the scenes, that the consumer never sees, and often has nothing to do directly with the design of the product itself but still negatively affects it in the end.

One of the most difficult things about project management is dealing with "agendas" and - especially - conflicting egos within a team. It's a disease. Migraine-inducing stuff, that...