PC Gamer interview.

[Juri_JS]

Quote:
"OLEG: Given the likely shelf-life of the sim, there’s sure to be dynamic campaigns created by third parties, as there was with the original Il-2."

For me that doesn't sound as if Oleg's team will work on a dynamic campaign. I guess he means something like Lowengrins DCG. But maybe I just don't understand it correct.

[Richie]

Originally Posted by TheSwede

I agree on the preferred sequel.

Me too big time. I would love to see a new F4 in North Africa camouflage. Sand blowing behind me as I take off etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0PygjC1o88

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by TheSwede

I agree on the preferred sequel.

Absolutely.

[jt_medina]

Some highlights

PCG: Mitchell spent less time developing the Spitfire than you’ve spent developing this sim. What have been the most time-consuming elements of the design?

ILYA: Everything! 3D models, the flight model, the damage model, cockpit gauges, artificial intelligence, weather, maps… they’re all responsible for the long development time. We are a very small team (there’s only 22 of us) and we’re doing a huge team’s job. Check the credits for other games, and you’ll often see teams ten times the size working on games less complex than Cliffs of Dover. The general spirit of perfectionism – we’re trying to make the world’s best WWII flight sim – is what’s responsible for the game taking as long as it did.

PCG. What makes Cliffs of Dover’s flight model better than Il-2’s?

ILYA: Simple. The formulas process more variables and are therefore more precise. Il-2 was pretty darn close to the real thing, so the flight model in Cliffs of Dover doesn’t feel drastically new. You will see the most differences at low speeds and in adverse conditions such as stalls and spins. Basically, in Il-2 we calculated simpler physics at fewer points around the aircraft. In Cliffs of Dover, we look at more parameters in more places. In reality this means a codebase that’s many times larger. Our engine model alone is over 20 times the size of that of Il-2.

PCG: I’m bounced by a Bf 109 and my Spitfire takes a few cannon rounds to the wing and engine. What damage may have been caused?

ILYA: Whoa. Lots of things can happen. To put things into perspective, we have over 10 times the number of damageable components that Il-2 had. A wing of a Spitfire has a few dozen things that can be damaged: the wing surface itself, control surfaces and control lines, spars and internal structure, landing gear struts, wheel, locks, and other components, the hydraulic system, brake lines, oil cooler, the flap, flap piston, a pneumatic hose driving it, three machine guns with associated lines, ammo boxes, and so on.

So depending on where your rounds hit, any number of those items could get damaged or destroyed, with expected results. A round could fly right through leaving just two insignificant holes in the skin, it could hit a spar and detach the whole wing, it could detonate the ammo box and destroy the entire plane – or a million other possible combinations.

OLEG: And there’s no difference between flyable and AI aircraft in terms of complexity for damage modelling.

PCG: Will radar installations play any role beyond providing targets for the Luftwaffe?

ILYA: Yes. Radar plays an active role in spotting and tracking enemy planes, and guiding interceptors to them. The radar can make mistakes, occasionally misidentify targets, or guide you to a wrong position. It can also help you navigate back home. When flying for the RAF you’ll be hearing radar operators a lot, and probably even get used to having awesome situational awareness beyond visual range.

OLEG: There is even some attempt to simulate antenna pattern.

I can't wait...

[Necrobaron]

Interesting interview. I have to admit that I'm still not sure what to make of this love story aspect but I suppose that'll just have to be a "wait and see" thing.

Regarding the dynamic campaign, while Oleg does not mention this in the interview, Ilya has said on these forums that they have (or will have?) a dynamic campaign generator in it's very early stages but it'll be quite some time before they get it up to the standards of the rest of the game (as opposed to simply tacking on something like what the old games had).

Regarding the sequel, yes I would've preferred the Battle of Poland and/or France but the Mediterranean would be pretty interesting too.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by The Kraken

Too bad that these days any disagreement has to end in drama on this forum...

Anyway consider these points:

- a story and event-driven campaign is a great showcase for the capabilities of the mission builder and scripting/trigger functionalities (also important during development)
- such campaigns will be popular with the general audience beyond the flight sim enthusiasts, which have to buy the game as well to make it a financial success. This will also be reflected in reviews which usually point out that flight sims are "too boring" for normal players. Provided it's well done of course.
- if it's not your cup of tea, just use them as training opportunities to get accustomed to the planes - or stick to the QMB if you're too disgusted. By the time you've set up everything and feel comfortable with the planes, HOTAS and engine management you can bet that some more serious campaign are already available for download.

No reason to panic. But maybe I'm just too relaxed for the current state of this forum...

I think i'm going to have to agree with this, but then i was around for the initial launch of IL2 back in 2001. It didn't have most of the features we enjoy today in IL2:1946 but that didn't prevent it from becoming a success and growing over the years. That doesn't mean we must settle for incompleteness in our simulators either, there just needs to be a balance.

As long we have enough tools to recreate scenarios from the BoB (flyable aircraft, AI units, mission builder, stock missions to showcase some capabilities, tracking of victory conditions and use of triggered events in online matches) the new sim will see similar levels of success to the original IL2. From where i'm standing, i think it has the tools needed.

Then, as it grows older some of this stuff will be automated to make it easier for us to just focus on flying.
It's just that when time limits force you to choose between getting the basics right or automating them you choose the first option, because you can't include an automation for something that isn't in the game engine. A dynamic campaign generator would be useless if we had only 3 flyables and 5 AI units in total, or aircraft that didn't fly accurately, and so on

[KG26_Alpha]

Hehe

I remember the vote at UBI for the Med or Pacific theatre.

I think Oleg was disappointed back then the Med didn't get the vote.

Cant wait for the whole lot to load on my hard drive

Originally Posted by ckolonko

Looks like the renegade thing is confirmed.

Indeed and a nice surprise at that. I hope our talented mission builders can come up with similar scenarios. This one's based on reality and that makes it even more compelling in my opinion.

With release date drawing near we're sure to hear more from the malcontents and trolls with hidden agendas. Since the early 2000's it seems to be a tradition around here.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Biggs

and it looks like the "renegade pilot" bit wasn't a typo, or bad translation.... very interesting.

It had to be didn't it. The alternative was that Oleg had lost his mind, so I was pretty confident it was a mistake.

[ckolonko]

I cant wait to see how the renegade thing plays out. I'd also like to hear some more about the real story as well. I think this will add a nice bit of variation to the game. As Oleg described it it appears that you can make a choice, thus increasing playability. Cant Wait.