![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
You mean everyones an Ace? There not gaming the game, there flying their aircraft at what it does best. Thats what pilots are supposed to do when their not terrorfied or inexperienced. Thats one of the problems with online flying, nearly everyone is an Ace. Its the pinicle of top fighter vs top fighter. Can you imagine if people only had 10 hours flight training like some BoB British pilots? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In regards to OP I believe this dev team simply has no passion or interest in the Battle of Britain. It shows in the amount of glaring omissions and errors that have continued since day one and continue to go uncorrected despite overwhelming evidence presented by the community. Hopefully, an East front based sequel will be different.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I kind of agree, they dont seem to have research the aircraft included to well.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
*facepalm*
![]() Just unbelievable... |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think if you add Blackdog's excellent post to B6's extraordinarily honest comment:
Quote:
I've worked modelling supersonic flow for nearly 40 years and people who can program well and understand the physics are fairly rare. Remember, Oleg's history: he came out of the military aircraft sector at the end of the Cold War and started il2 (after a porno tetris game - unless I've got that wrong). Which, despite all our frustrations, is why the moaners will only help destroy ww2 simulation. The market is small, the skills needed are rare, in demand and fairly expensive. I think, though, that a comment like this earlier from B6 would have earned some sympathy from many here. 56RAF_phoenix |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I don't know about the German a/c but for the British a/c they have reams of documentation supplied by a member on this board.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Also remember that the atmospheric modelling in the sim is not set at "standard day" conditions which are what most published performance numbers are corrected to. That in and of itself can skew the numbers generated by all aircraft in the sim.
Also have to remember that no online engagements on ATAG are taking place at 20K ft. plus, where the Spitfire and Bf 109 are more even. Not that I'm an apologist for the Huns, or the dev team, but it is a simple fact that online everything happens well below 15K ft. At these altitudes I'd rather have a properly modeled P40, but that's another story. Please try to understand that in the current state of affairs, there is no way to simulate anything remotely like the air combat of summer 1940. It's one of the reasons I am looking forward to the sequel, at least on the Russian Front we know that the Russian planes are inferior to the German ones, unlike the BoB, where there was relative parity between the Spit and 109.
__________________
![]() Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The Eastern front is really better suited scenario for the kind of low level fighter-on-fighter air-Quake style of fighting that dominated the servers in IL2 1946. I look forward to go tank busting in the IL2! |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I'm generally not good enough in proper maneuvering in dogfights so i mostly fly ground pounders (or i fly high and careful when flying fighters) and that's probably why it took a while for you to catch up. I knew that sooner or later you'd catch me, so i focused on maintaining speed and postpone maneuvering for as long as possible: the nearer i could get to the friendly coast, the higher the chances of you breaking off or us running into more blue aircraft and turning the tables. That's one of the things i like about the extra parameters we have at our disposal with this sim. It's now possible to fly not only by your skill in combat, but also your skill in engine management or your capability to plan ahead and the outcome can be influenced by all these factors. Again, good fight and i'll see you again, maybe on the same team too (i do fly the Blenheim quite often). Cheers ![]() Quote:
I think the best we can all do is pick a field or two we are interested in and work on that. The way i choose to see it is that if i can successfully orchestrate and execute a bomber run with inaccurate FMs and bombsights, it will be even easier for me to do so when the bugs are corrected. Like i said above, i'm not that much of a hot shot in dogfights so i mostly fly bombers. Other players may focus on something else. Some people do skins, some people design missions, some people do scripting, etc. For me the important thing is to just pick what i like and can be moderately good at, then work on it a bit to identify how it works. This has a double benefit, because on one hand i can identify bugs and workarounds for them, on the other hand i can help other players get up to speed much faster than they would if they had to repeat the same process on their own. I think it's safe to say that i've spend much more time testing and researching the sim, than simply flying it. What i'm trying to say with all this is that as we are building up our collective knowledge base, we are getting closer to what you describe as a "proper" BoB environment to fly in. To get the "real BoB", we need bombers that work, triggers for area bombing (by the way, they added those in this beta) and missions that use them by setting the appropriate objectives. Then, mission design will move to LW attacking and RAF defending, so we'll be getting more of what we read in the books and less of a furball between Calais and Dover. ![]() Quote:
![]() If you think about it, this also falls within the realm of mission objectives. The 109s can dominate because they are on a constant freijagd. They choose when and how to engage. That can't happen when you have bombers to escort. Like i've been saying for some time, the easiest way to get accurate fighter matchups (in terms of situational conditions, not arbitrary balancing) is to ask 1c to get the bombers fixed first and make it easy for mission designers to factor them in their servers. Of course, nobody will fly the way Goering ordered the real LW to fly and we'll see variations, but still there will be changes in how people fly. I don't expect to see 109s burning all their fuel zig-zagging above the bombers as close escorts. In fact the most possible thing is that they'll be timing their departures, taking off after the bombers, overtaking them about mid-channel and doing a forward fighter sweep to tie up the defences, cruising to target and back at their own best cruise speed. But still, they will have an objective to perform and other players to cover, so they won't be able to just pick and choose when and what to engage. If they get tied up with a group of Hurricanes and get dragged low, then spot a group of Spits sneaking by them at higher altitude, they have no choice to duck and run because those Spits will tear through the bombers. They will have to follow and engage them, starting at a position of disadvantage. And this is more or less how things become fun and balanced, without placing artificial constraints. We just need to have something to do as players, something that other other players will depend on to get their own mission completed ![]() In other words: Quote:
P.S. Interesting thread and i want to thank you all for being articulate, polite and intelligent in this discussion. This thread is a perfect example of how we can disagree on things, but still get something useful and interesting out of it. I hope we get more threads like these, because that's how ideas form that we can use to enhance our enjoyment of the sim. Carry on gentlemen ![]() |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|