Use of aircraft names in game legal or illegal?

[Janosch]

Originally Posted by IceFire

We had 50+ players on Battlefields1 on Hyperlobby last week. It's not dead yet and we can have so much fun playing so many different theatres.

Battlefields1 is an arcade server (open cockpit, padlock etc) and thus not a good indicator of anything. When there are no players left on at least halfway decent servers, on hyperlobby or not, then the game is dead. As it is, realistic servers are still drawing people in!

[RPS69]

Just for the record, IL2 appeared in a time where something like it was hungered for.
It raised the bar so high, that any new product that tries to emulate the same level of success, can't go that further away from the il2 general concept.

Right now, the market is going on the respawning way, not the cooperative way. It is more like having a quicky, and forget about the fullfilling life.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Janosch

Battlefields1 is an arcade server (open cockpit, padlock etc) and thus not a good indicator of anything. When there are no players left on at least halfway decent servers, on hyperlobby or not, then the game is dead. As it is, realistic servers are still drawing people in!

I understand that some like different realism settings and that's fine but "halfway decent" is insulting. We (and myself included) worked pretty hard to put 60+ detailed scenarios in place with a mix of history and action to appeal to a pretty wide audience. Our admins are on as often as possible to make sure rules are followed and people are having a good time.

We still have players interested in playing on a regular basis. That's a good thing. Even if it doesn't fit some narrow definition.

[ElAurens]

While I prefer more difficult settings for some things, the whole notion that "more difficult = more real", and strident comments like Janosch made, is what is slowly and surely killing this genre.

"Hard core" players have always made up the minority of those playing the IL2 franchise, yet, because we screamed the loudest on the various forums, the game (yes it is a game guys) became more and more a niche playground for those the like the most difficult, if not the most realistic, settings. Thus, the majority of players that paid the bills for the thing in the first place, were left behind, and by and large went offline or stopped playing altogether.

Any future combat flight sim has to be scalable and inclusive of all game play types to be successful, otherwise we end up with two totally divergent camps, study sims like DCS that offer little content for big bucks, or arcade shooters like War Thunder, neither choice is acceptable to the majority of players that made IL2, to this day, the best WW2 virtual air combat title ever.

[Janosch]

Let's shoot down one misconception, shall we? Realistic settings do not in itself equal more difficult gameplay. Realism makes the gameplay deeper and more interesting, and some things actually become easier! It is easier to make a surprise attack on a realistic server (at least since things like dead low 6 exist), it's easier for jabos to sneak on deck, if all opponents are at 5000m or so, and you actually gain some advantage from the excellent cockpit visibility of planes like P-51D, since cockpit graphics cannot be turned off, et cetera.

With realistic settings, the learning curve can be bigger than with arcade settings. However, in online conditions, difficulty ultimately comes from other players. Let's not forget that the "difficult" settings apply equally to all your opponents and teammates! I have absolutely no doubt that if servers like bf1 suddenly changed to full or 90,44% real, people would adjust in a relatively small amount of time.

Why anyone would buy Il-2 '46 today (or more importantly BoS) just to play them on arcade settings is beyond me. There's no use in directly competing with games like War Thunder.

[GF_Mastiff]

Don't worry guys, we have Law firms that play this Sim; so its being worked on behind the scene's.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Janosch

Let's shoot down one misconception, shall we?

Who decides what is a misconception? I learned to fly in real airplanes before trying flight sims, and – in my opinion – many “realistic settings” are not realistic at all, while others represent simply more workload. Generally speaking, I agree with El, above. I play offline, and I play my way, without asking other people to share my tastes.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Janosch

Let's shoot down one misconception, shall we? Realistic settings do not in itself equal more difficult gameplay. Realism makes the gameplay deeper and more interesting, and some things actually become easier! It is easier to make a surprise attack on a realistic server (at least since things like dead low 6 exist), it's easier for jabos to sneak on deck, if all opponents are at 5000m or so, and you actually gain some advantage from the excellent cockpit visibility of planes like P-51D, since cockpit graphics cannot be turned off, et cetera.

With realistic settings, the learning curve can be bigger than with arcade settings. However, in online conditions, difficulty ultimately comes from other players. Let's not forget that the "difficult" settings apply equally to all your opponents and teammates! I have absolutely no doubt that if servers like bf1 suddenly changed to full or 90,44% real, people would adjust in a relatively small amount of time.

Why anyone would buy Il-2 '46 today (or more importantly BoS) just to play them on arcade settings is beyond me. There's no use in directly competing with games like War Thunder.

I agree with you up to the point where you think that people have to play with the most difficult settings. The easier settings on IL-2 1946 are still (IMHO) better than anything you'll get in War Thunder - War Thunder's arcade is another style altogether.

What you said still strikes me as rude or maybe elitist. Accept that people play this differently and still enjoy it.

I've had fun on all levels of difficulty and I'm glad they exist.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I don't expect that there will be much more after 4.13. I'm actually shocked that 1C keeps the lights on in here.

Look for that to change once BoS goes gold.

I don't like it, but that's how I see it.

You and me both. Everything beyond 4.12 is a bonus as far as I'm concerned. I wasn't even expecting any talk about 4.14, and frankly will be surprised if that version ever becomes realized.

Makes it a bit difficult to plan for campaign building when you're waiting for content from the latest version to be released, though. I've got two that have been put in deep freeze waiting (for years, as it turned out) for the release of v4.13.

As for the NG issue: let it die, people. That horse bolted long, long ago.

[robday]

Originally Posted by Treetop64

As for the NG issue: let it die, people. That horse bolted long, long ago.

Not only bolted, it's long dead. So let's stop flogging it!