Friday 2009-11-20 Screenshots Update discussion thread

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

The only problem is that where you don't have many flyables, multiplayer can get quite predictable.

Perfect definition.

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch:
The only problem is that where you don't have many flyables, multiplayer can get quite predictable.

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

Perfect definition.

I would respectfully suggest that large numbers of flyable aircraft do not contribute much to mission-variety when they can only perform two tasks ie: bomb something or shoot something down. In Il-2 the only variety is where you fly to to do one of these two basic tasks.

I love the Il-2 series, and have done for many years. I think that I have pretty much outgrown it though. There just isn't enough variety in the mission goals to make me want to do it all again for another eight years. I hope SoW will give more thought to the many roles and objectives of a pilot in WW2.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

I´m sorry but that´s an oversimplification, and in any case combat aircraft are made to either shoot something down, bomb something, and transport something. And most of us are mainly interested on the first two roles, otherwise we would be flying a boeing 737 on a civilian simulator.
There is none two bombing missions equal, and none two aerial combat equal, each engagement is diferent, and that´s what make it interesting to do it all over again, specially when you are getting more and more real physics modeled.
Also there is a lot of varitey of targets and combat areas that make everything diferent.
If you are tired of flying missions where you have to bomb something os shoot something, then why bother to buy and fly a combat flight sim?
I´m not against the idea of having maybe rescue mission, or flying a transport aircraft to a pocket zone and drop cargo to the troops while there artillery explosion all around, and come back, but they should be rare exception because you will get tired of them way more quickly than flying combat missions.

Anyway, its just an opinion.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Originally Posted by ECV56_Lancelot

I´m sorry but that´s an oversimplification, and in any case combat aircraft are made to either shoot something down, bomb something, and transport something. And most of us are mainly interested on the first two roles, otherwise we would be flying a boeing 737 on a civilian simulator.
There is none two bombing missions equal, and none two aerial combat equal, each engagement is diferent, and that´s what make it interesting to do it all over again, specially when you are getting more and more real physics modeled.
Also there is a lot of varitey of targets and combat areas that make everything diferent.
If you are tired of flying missions where you have to bomb something os shoot something, then why bother to buy and fly a combat flight sim?
I´m not against the idea of having maybe rescue mission, or flying a transport aircraft to a pocket zone and drop cargo to the troops while there artillery explosion all around, and come back, but they should be rare exception because you will get tired of them way more quickly than flying combat missions.

Anyway, its just an opinion.

Totally agreed. For example, I've been having lots of fun recently in the same sort of mission, most of the time - CAP - in the marvelous "For the honour of French Wings" (or something similar) DGen campaign.

What makes it more or less interesting is the challenge you're facing. Leading six planes into a hot spot against 12, 20, 30 or more fighters, and eventually bombers, can offer a good challenge to you. And during the Battle of Britain, this was more likely to happen.

[AdMan]

personally I like the ghost pilot, as well as in driving sims too, I have enough problems keeping my own hands out of the way of the screen and instruments without virtual-me getting in the way. I also like to be able to see how the control mechanisms in the cockpit move and it helps to make sure controls are calibrated right, for instance looking down and seeing the rudder peddles is a simple way of checking your axis, with a pilot modeled in-cockpit, you'd generally only be able to see his knees

Also it's already been said that pilot movements would take too much time for release because animating all movements for 6DOF devices is complex

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

Originally Posted by TheGrunch:
The only problem is that where you don't have many flyables, multiplayer can get quite predictable.



I would respectfully suggest that large numbers of flyable aircraft do not contribute much to mission-variety when they can only perform two tasks ie: bomb something or shoot something down. In Il-2 the only variety is where you fly to to do one of these two basic tasks.

I love the Il-2 series, and have done for many years. I think that I have pretty much outgrown it though. There just isn't enough variety in the mission goals to make me want to do it all again for another eight years. I hope SoW will give more thought to the many roles and objectives of a pilot in WW2.

Two ore even 4 flyables - the main mistake of any team that would start after success of Il-2. Even if to compare with intial release of Il-2 in 2001.
Player would like to fly and master different aircraft. Some time very different.
I can tell much more what make the sim successfull, but you know.... I will not tell it now
However I prsonally really know what should be and should't be in a fligth sxim that to make it successfull even morte than IL-2 series. And I hope to reach that stage that to "overjump" my onw Il-2.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch
The only problem is that where you don't have many flyables, multiplayer can get quite predictable.

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

Perfect definition

I urge balance here. I would rather have half the planes we had in IL2 and really REALLY good fm/dm/wm.

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

We will have minimal animations. No blood.

Head movement is all most pilots need.

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

And I hope to reach that stage that to "overjump" my onw Il-2.

We have waited a long long time.

I wish you success

S~!

[daHeld]

I urge balance here. I would rather have half the planes we had in IL2 and really REALLY good fm/dm/wm.

+++1 on that! but what does "wm" mean?

[HB252]

Hi Oleg and teamwork guys!

First of all great work again .

I have one idea and 2 questions .

Idea:

You could put in the game one option for see the screen to scale 1/1 only in the cockpit view , that is to say 1 cm of the real cockpit will be 1 cm of the screen. There is a bigs screem, or 2 or 3 tv makes a big screen, its is posible!!

Questions:

1.- Can you tell us your impressions and feelings to pilot some planes in sow?

2.- When you pilot some plane the objects (trucks, armor) how do you see it? (all the details are visible or not).

Thx.

[mungee]

You know, I've been wanting to say this for a long time now, but have never really got down to doing it.

I agree 100% with the comment that effort should not be diverted into the creation of a large number of "flyables" - just a few superb ones (with excellent FM & DM) would be fine - rather to spend the time/effort on enhancing/improving/tweaking other aspects of the sim.

I must tell you, I have been an avid IL-2 sim pilot since its inception and have bought all the add-on's.
During that time I've flown various versions of the Spitfire (only recently I guess, with the introduction of the England maps) and various versions of the Me109 (on the Eastern Front).
I've tried my hand at a few US fighters (when 'Pacific Fighters' came out), and there was a time when I was "hooked" on the Me110 (I think that its superb quality of its cockpit did it for me!) but essentially I've stuck to my two "favourites" ... the Me109 & the Spit!

Am I odd in doing this?

I must say, I find it hard enough to master the flying characteristics of one type of aircraft, let alone a myriad!