Now What?

[Frostie]

Not everybody who flies in the sim world, be it IL-2 or FC2, has the time to dedicate real life procedures and scenarios.

IL-2 is easy to learn but hard to master, a lot of missions in HL have open cockpits and small maps, this allows for a quick turnaround of engagements so naturally its a paradise for the casual pilot to get involved for some combat action.

But there also more serious servers where the more dedicated pilots can thrive.

 

Where FC2 is concerned it is cut of the same cloth, you have the option to treat it like a game if the server allows this, a small map with AWACS, GCI and mountains can turn into a nasty furball without any room for co-ordination. Rambo fever breaks out and the rest is history. Fun for a while but not what it should be about.

If a lot of servers were built this way then the population would probably increase, but you'd have a huge crowd of casual pilots sickened by the thought of transit over 100km.

This diversity of servers combined with an easier method to combat gives IL-2 its huge but varied multiplayerbase.

This community treats MP FC2 a lot more seriously the mention of externals, open cockpits and labels are something only associated with beginners.

 

DCS A-10C seperate from FC2 is going to drain CAS pilots from FC2 servers, probably creating less involved scenarios, would it be wise to crack open the airquake server and bring a bit of diversity and player base to FC2, or would that be detrimental and immoral?

[bogusheadbox]

Bad in its interface and graphics mostly.

The graphics are good even now. They were ground breaking back then. Oleg implemented the ability to increase the graphical ability as computers and technology improved. Water = 4 anyone ? Did you use open GL option and up the anti using notepad? The interface i found was intuitive and simple. worked well

 

No idea about the FM of the aircraft. Problems I had with trim in many planes did not make them fun to fly.

Obviously i cannot comment regarding the real ww2 items, however the flight modelling responded very very well to pitch and power changes like real aircraft do. It was one of the first combat sims that made you trim. As for being difficult for you, i must say its unfortunately at your end. Trimming with HOTAS or keyboard worked well.

 

All in all IL2 is great.

 

The online community (even now) is testimony to that, i don't think there has ever been another combat sim that has kept such a loyal and very frequent/abundant user base.

 

I could never get a hang of the bombing either.

If you can bomb in Lock on or DCS, then you should have been able to bomb in IL2.

 

WIth the ability to skip bomb off water and Roads, it had a brilliant physics model. Skip bombing down a row of planes, i was amazed to see on replay the bombs ripping off wings of some craft then plowing into the next before detonating. Very good.

 

Dive bombing is as it was in real life, practice makes perfect and you could acurately dive bomb with accuracy

 

Level bombing was even simpler, people (including myself made comprehensive tables of airsped and alts) or you could use the auto bomb site (which replicated the fact you would have had a human bomber on board)

 

 

The variety of planes is amazing and Oleg makes a great game. But with DCS, IL2 just feels like GranTourismo compared to Rfactor. Its a game trying to be a sim when its really a game.

 

Here i have trouble understanding your perception. IL2 and DCS/lockon are different eras of aircraft. IL2 are WW2 aircraft short of complex avionics and systems - basically simple aircraft. And DCS Lockon are system riddled aircraft.

 

THe fighting and gameplay is different. IL2 is skill with the flight model and energy management and DCS/lockon is mostly proceedural and technical employment with a very rare dogfight thrown in.

 

The flight and ground handling models of all aicraft in lockon bar SU 25t are extremely poor IMO. However IL2, the aircraft have very beleivable handling characterisitcs considering the age of the engine. DCS airframes are great but they are very very new.

 

So to compare the two is like comparing apples and oranges. IL2 does extermely well for what it was intended for. To simulate the energy management and raw flying that was the WW2 era.

Not sure about the damage model in IL2. No idea how those planes took a burst from the enemy, but I always seemed to lose a control surface from the first couple squeezes of the enemies trigger.

 

The damage model in IL2 was unprecedented in its time as even today is very very good. Good pilots new where the fuel tanks were on aircraft and targeted them to great effect. You could get a pilot kill (happened to me from a very skilled or lucky pilot) where the pilot dies and the plane continues to fly in trim. You could loose a tip of a wing, a full wing, damage to various parts of the wing all with the environmental consequences. you could shoot off gear, damage gear, damage cabling, dissable engines, damage engines, even shoot the engine off (which again happened to me and made flying a challenge). Proppeler damage model for those that like to touch the tips on the ground. Control surface damage, the list goes on and on and really quite simply is a fantastic damage model even by todays standards.

 

The new shiny may be tarnishing my memories of IL2, but that is what happens when progress moves on.

 

I can't help but think you have forgotten or tarnished your views of IL2 because of the new shiny. Either that or you have not spent enough time in IL2 to discover all that it can do (it took me years) To be honest it really did feel like flying real aircraft and i am a real life pilot.

 

IL2 is not without its faults. Simplistic engine management, unrealistic altitude effects on engines and various other issues.

 

However, to call it NOt a sim i think is wrong. The plane models are a sim in their own right with detail they have inside and out, and IL2 has a very good flight model which i can relate to a sim in the way you fly. IL2 is a hands on game with flying and that coupled with its intricate flight model, damage model and gun physics to me makes it a sim.

 

Like i said, the two products are apples and oranges, but IL2 is not a game. Games take days or a week at most to master. IL2 will take years to master.

Edited October 23, 2010 by bogusheadbox

[power5]

Those A2A look very sweet. Too bad there is nothing to do with the loadouts you can pick since its an FSX addon. If they make the next generation of IL2 look and interact like those videos, you can count me in.

 

 

Edit: IL2 requires nothing done correctly to get the aircraft into the air and flying. Much of that is due to the simplicity of the aircraft. In DCS if you do not do the correct things, the A/C will not even start not to mention being able to use the weapons. I do like the physics and damage model of IL2. Just in most of my experiences control surfaces were lost very easily. Much of what is better with IL2 is mods and addons like F4. I don't really feel like re-installing IL2 to find a trim example but I know some of them were not able to trim for me. I am talking about a mostly IL2 package with just the patches. Could never get the ultra mod to install for some reason either.

 

Again, I have no real problems with IL2.

Edited October 23, 2010 by power5

[bogusheadbox]

I was also referring to stock installs of IL2

 

IL2 Does require correct handling of aircraft to get it to take off. Mosquito with non cotra rotating propellers and the tempest with its horsepower were very nasty aircraft to take off from in crosswinds.

 

As for DCS, well this is a brand new product. Back in the day, it was systems modelling (Falcon) vs flight modelling (IL2) as that was the limits of computing power. Il2 unfortunately has simple engine management, but as i mentioned has one of the best online experiences and flight models i have used.

 

I am glad you like DCS, and i love it too. But at least IL2 had collidable trees ;-)

 

From what i have read, i think the preferences for you lie with the intricacies of modern aircraft.

[Bucic]

Those A2A look very sweet. Too bad there is nothing to do with the loadouts you can pick since its an FSX addon.

Please read the features list on the official site before making any guesses.

 

Back in the day, it was systems modelling (Falcon) vs flight modelling (IL2) as that was the limits of computing power.

PR talk convenient for developers.

[Smokin Hole]

I don't think we'll ever see that. I don't know what it is but people like flying the old stuff more. Maybe the new gen is too complicated for them to comprehend. It would be nice to have at least 100 people online all the time.

 

No it's not the complexity, it's the time available to the player. I switched to Rise of Flight partly out of frustration with BS/FC2. The online experience with that combo required a large time investment often with little action to show for it. That isn't to say the the experience wasn't great at times. I can recall a handful of really gratifying online sessions. With Rise of Flight the multiplayer experience is extremely up close and personal. The fights are almost physical. After half an hour on a populated server my palms are sweaty and my heart is racing. And after an hour I can walk away from my desk and return to my family completely satisfied that I had a great time. IL2 is a similar experience. So while I have loved first Flanker 1, then BS since it's release, and am learning to love the Warthog, these last two will now be single-player experiences for me. I can fully "comprehend" a half-hour flight pre-brief followed by a 1 hour coordinated CAS mission with comms and SPI handoffs, I have zero desire to invest the time when other aspects of life take priority. It's basically a question of time invested online vs the joy of the experience.

[Cali]

No it's not the complexity, it's the time available to the player. I switched to Rise of Flight partly out of frustration with BS/FC2. The online experience with that combo required a large time investment often with little action to show for it. That isn't to say the the experience wasn't great at times. I can recall a handful of really gratifying online sessions. With Rise of Flight the multiplayer experience is extremely up close and personal. The fights are almost physical. After half an hour on a populated server my palms are sweaty and my heart is racing. And after an hour I can walk away from my desk and return to my family completely satisfied that I had a great time. IL2 is a similar experience. So while I have loved first Flanker 1, then BS since it's release, and am learning to love the Warthog, these last two will now be single-player experiences for me. I can fully "comprehend" a half-hour flight pre-brief followed by a 1 hour coordinated CAS mission with comms and SPI handoffs, I have zero desire to invest the time when other aspects of life take priority. It's basically a question of time invested online vs the joy of the experience.

 

If they have somewhat of a flight sim background, I don't think it would be too hard of a learning curve. But each person is different. The experiences you described many have had in the lock on series. A good sortie can last just as long as a real life one. It all depends on how the player wants to play. Like you said, what they have time for, real life comes first. We have seen many people that just want fast quick action. I hate trying to take off as fast as I can just to get airborne for 5 minutes and get shot down. To me it's not how many kills I can get, it's staying alive. Sometimes you do have to have a few random flights were you just have fun though.