Newest edition of IL-2 -series developed by the team behind Rise of Flight.

[Saxman]

Russian Front?

TBH, I'm disinterested in ANY European Theater sim. Because that's pretty much all ANYONE makes. The Pacific Fighters expansion for Il-2 was just an afterthought (no really. On a forum thread I was participating in, Oleg outright SAID they didn't give a crap about the PTO, which is why it was such a half-assed POS, and why they were so concerned about adding drawing board-only German and Russian superplanes than good flight models for the PTO aircraft. Or, y'know, late-war American aircraft like the F4U-4).

How many times can you make the latest, greatest, high-fidelity flight sim centered around Luftwaffe vs. the World before they all start to blur together?

The last GOOD dedicated PTO sim was 1942: Pacific Air War (technically PF WAS a standalone sim, too, but it's only real value is to have it as part of the combined Il-2 package).

Frankly, I'm burned out. Regardless of their business model, I'll pass until someone decides to make a worthy successor to Aces of the Pacific.

[bozon]

Russian Front?

For me that is the least interesting front of WWII.

[Karnak]

A good Pacific/CBI theater sim would be nice.

Americans, Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Indians, Russians and Chinese vs Japanese.

So, the world vs the Imperial Japanese Navy and Imperial Japanese Army instead of the world vs the Luftwaffe.  


I am always torn about whether a sim should let other outcomes be possible.  Should the player, if they choose the Japanese side, just participate in a doomed venture and try to survive, or should the sim base Japanese performance on the player's performance to a degree and allow the Japanese to stretch the war out or even win?  What is more engaging?

Changing history also starts to entail "what if" aircraft like the A7M, J7W and G8N making it into service.

[GScholz]

Depends on if there is a strategic part to the sim, like in the classic Battle of Britain game. If it's just a flight sim, then there is no way that a single pilot could turn the tide of war; even if Germany had many more 100+ Experten they would still have lost the war.

[Karnak]

Depends on if there is a strategic part to the sim, like in the classic Battle of Britain game. If it's just a flight sim, then there is no way that a single pilot could turn the tide of war; even if Germany had many more 100+ Experten they would still have lost the war.

The way to do it for a single pilot sim is to base the overall performance of the player's side on how the player does.  If the player flies phenomenally or hits with his torpedo/bomb and survives then the game extrapolates that all of the Japanese (if playing Japanese), in the air and on the surface, perform better possibly changing historical outcomes.

If there is a strategic aspect of the game then that sort of extrapolation can be done away with.  A strategic component also makes determining if things like the A7M make it into service or not easier by giving the player the choices that the Japanese had that delayed it to late 1945, or could have had it in service in 1944 if another choice were made.

[Lusche]

I am always torn about whether a sim should let other outcomes be possible.  Should the player, if they choose the Japanese side, just participate in a doomed venture and try to survive, or should the sim base Japanese performance on the player's performance to a degree and allow the Japanese to stretch the war out or even win?  What is more engaging?.

I'd very much prefer sticking to the general outcome. You, as a fighter pilot are just a tiny piece of the overall effort and you will try to 'win' your own battles (which at some point may just mean staying alive to fight another day) and you will get fancy medals and rise up the ranks... but in the end, it's never enough to "change the world". That would be far more immersing to me.
Back in Lucasgame's BoB I singlehandedly won the Battle of Britain in my Stuka...  

I really liked the dynamic mission generation in the old Red Baron, and I extremely despised the scripted missions campaign of the original Il-2 Sturmovik. I remember one time doing a defense of Stalingrad. He 111's escorted by a crapload of 109s. I manage to shoot down 3 or 4 bombers before getting mauled, yet still nursing my barely flying wreck back home. Result: No medals, no "well done", not even another day... "mission failed" and I had to fly it again  

[GScholz]

Lusche, there's a "in Soviet Russia" joke in there somewhere.

Luckily there were 3rd party dynamic campaign generators for Il-2. I agree, the original campaigns were crap.

[Lusche]

Lusche, there's a "in Soviet Russia" joke in there somewhere.

I know 

[PFactorDave]

In Soviet Russia, you don't fly the mission, the mission flies you!   

[Saxman]

The way to do it for a single pilot sim is to base the overall performance of the player's side on how the player does.  If the player flies phenomenally or hits with his torpedo/bomb and survives then the game extrapolates that all of the Japanese (if playing Japanese), in the air and on the surface, perform better possibly changing historical outcomes.

If there is a strategic aspect of the game then that sort of extrapolation can be done away with.  A strategic component also makes determining if things like the A7M make it into service or not easier by giving the player the choices that the Japanese had that delayed it to late 1945, or could have had it in service in 1944 if another choice were made.

1942 had a strategic mode of sorts, though it was restricted entirely to specific battles (Coral Sea, Midway and Phillippine Sea, IIRC). But you could still pull out a completely different outcome if you managed your assets properly.

In a strict sim I don't see that working particularly well. As noted, individual pilots are just one cog in the machine. The furthest extent to which I'd take it is a dynamic campaign where your performance directly impacts your squadron. IE, if you're always getting shot down or losing planes, and your squadron is always getting shot to pieces around you, you might eventually run out of machines and pilots. European Air War took this approach, where your squadron could eventually be so badly torn up it's no longer able to function as an effective fighting force.

[Russian]

One year later - this is 39% Alpha.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8rfLoMfHao&feature=youtu.be

[GScholz]

Amazing!

The vibration and slight head movement. The dynamic sounds where you can hear the changes in airflow as speed and angle of attack changes. The lighting is fantastic, also with the scratches in the canopy glass. Everything about that video can be described with one word: Immersion.

[Saxman]

Amazing!

The vibration and slight head movement. The dynamic sounds where you can hear the changes in airflow as speed and angle of attack changes. The lighting is fantastic, also with the scratches in the canopy glass. Everything about that video can be described with one word: Immersion.

The question is, will the flight modeling hold up this time?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The scripted radio messages and the text on the screen instantly put me off when I tried IL2 for the first time and still does. Online play was just pathetic, like a gimped down version of the old AH h2h.

[Russian]

45% and looking impressive.