4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[Sita]

Originally Posted by ECV56_Guevara

Hey Caspar! Where were you ? Get back to work!

LoL

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Caspar, please, tell us.. will be a surprise in the patch???

If so - it would be a surprise for me too.

I must admit, I'm a bit out of the current development, just because of private issues... almost since a year now. Have some minor projects ongoing, thats all. Hope, I can catch up some (not so far away) day.

[Sita]

we miss U Caspar)

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by nic727

It's just a wish, but what I would like is a complet remake of Il2 1946 with the name of "Il2 Sturmovik" and being made by fans and for fans.

I've wondered how much it would cost to buy the "old" IL2 Sturmovik franchise from its current owners. If the sale was done right, the new owners might be able to get around the ban on Northrop-Grumman "intellectual properties."

But, I think that IL2's graphics are "good enough" and that you really don't want to improve them that much.

Things like dynamic lighting and photorealistic models and scenery are mostly eye candy which just slow down frame rates and increase development time. They make for pretty pictures and aid immersion when you're flying around, but you mostly don't notice them when you're in a dogfight.

IL2:CloD failed in part because its developers concentrated on the graphics, at the expense of the things that made IL2 great - smooth gameplay, a solid mission editor, and enough maps and a big enough plane set to keep fans interested.

While it's too soon to tell, it also seems like IL2:BoS might fail for similar reasons - too much emphasis on eye candy and not enough attention to the things that keep fans interested.

IL2 and similar flight sims have lasted as long as they have because they're graphically simple enough that it's relatively easy to add content. IF IL2 gets any graphics upgrades, they should be simple things that reflect improved computer power and which improve the COMBAT experience.

[shelby]

for me the only thing that must be done is the historical rework of the stock maps

[nic727]

Originally Posted by shelby

for me the only thing that must be done is the historical rework of the stock maps

Agree

[RobN]

The patches have been of a very high quality in my opinion, and I want the team to keep 4.13 up to the normal standard. I am prepared to wait.

[Vendigo]

Currently in full mission editor it's possible to make big formations of fighter planes only if they carry bombs, because if they don't have bombs, then second, third and all other flights will circulate above the first flight in escort pattern.
Could DT fix this please!

[Buster_Dee]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I've wondered how much it would cost to buy the "old" IL2 Sturmovik franchise from its current owners. If the sale was done right, the new owners might be able to get around the ban on Northrop-Grumman "intellectual properties."

But, I think that IL2's graphics are "good enough" and that you really don't want to improve them that much.

Things like dynamic lighting and photorealistic models and scenery are mostly eye candy which just slow down frame rates and increase development time. They make for pretty pictures and aid immersion when you're flying around, but you mostly don't notice them when you're in a dogfight.

IL2:CloD failed in part because its developers concentrated on the graphics, at the expense of the things that made IL2 great - smooth gameplay, a solid mission editor, and enough maps and a big enough plane set to keep fans interested.

While it's too soon to tell, it also seems like IL2:BoS might fail for similar reasons - too much emphasis on eye candy and not enough attention to the things that keep fans interested.

IL2 and similar flight sims have lasted as long as they have because they're graphically simple enough that it's relatively easy to add content. IF IL2 gets any graphics upgrades, they should be simple things that reflect improved computer power and which improve the COMBAT experience.

None rings true for me. If clubbing seals is most important, then 46 should still be good enough. In my opinion, CLoD failed simply because it was forced out the door against the developers wishes. I'm buying other sims just to help keep the genre alive. What keeps me away from playing them is that they are not enough like CLoD. Defending a score is fine, but I want to defend a city that looks like a historic city. The visible history is the draw for me.

[Fighterace]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I've wondered how much it would cost to buy the "old" IL2 Sturmovik franchise from its current owners. If the sale was done right, the new owners might be able to get around the ban on Northrop-Grumman "intellectual properties."

But, I think that IL2's graphics are "good enough" and that you really don't want to improve them that much.

Things like dynamic lighting and photorealistic models and scenery are mostly eye candy which just slow down frame rates and increase development time. They make for pretty pictures and aid immersion when you're flying around, but you mostly don't notice them when you're in a dogfight.

IL2:CloD failed in part because its developers concentrated on the graphics, at the expense of the things that made IL2 great - smooth gameplay, a solid mission editor, and enough maps and a big enough plane set to keep fans interested.

While it's too soon to tell, it also seems like IL2:BoS might fail for similar reasons - too much emphasis on eye candy and not enough attention to the things that keep fans interested.

IL2 and similar flight sims have lasted as long as they have because they're graphically simple enough that it's relatively easy to add content. IF IL2 gets any graphics upgrades, they should be simple things that reflect improved computer power and which improve the COMBAT experience.

Who would be interested in buying the old IL-2 franchise?