Puke wrote:
Isn't it [IL-2] designed by Russians but produced by the French? Or is that LOMAC?
Indeed. IL-2 was developed by 1C:Maddox Games of Moscow. Originally it was to be published by Blue Byte Software (a German company), but it was then acquired by Ubi Soft, a French corporation. In the end, this was much better for IL-2 as the product saw a much more comprehensive marketing campaign and boxed sales in North America (whereas Blue Byte had planned only online sales for the region), albeit at the cost of a delayed release date. In the end this was a blessing in disguise, as it allowed for continued development and led to a very clean product out of the box (compared to so many other half-baked flight sims that had been shoved out the door).
To further complicate the issue, Ubi Soft's NA headquarters are located in Montreal, Quebec (Canada).
Sooo… before you lads ever get to see IL-2 in the USA, it has to get vetted through heavily socialist countries.
As for Oleg's bias, there may be, or there may not be one. Every game has its faults, and IL-2 is no exception. People that purport it is perfect are clearly delusional. That said, it has raised the bar without question where boxed flight sims are concerned not only for its sumptuous graphics but also for a close eye to detail. Little things like the fact that no two planes will ever have the same numbering/marking scheme; a detailed mission builder where you can place very cool static objects and zoom in to see the 3D in-game perspective; gorgeous clouds through which icons aren’t displayed; leading edge slats that open and close. The list goes on and on, and IL-2 was an early adopter of most of these things that have since been repeated by others. The cockpits alone are to die for. Personally I find it very immersive, and that allows me to overlook certain inconsistencies and find it very enjoyable.
The one aspect of IL-2 that I do find missing, however, is a dedicated massively multiplayer online component – that’s why I fly AH. Flying on a server with hundreds of people, knowing that every single plane you see apart from some bomber formations is controlled by another human being, provides a tension and a sense of satisfaction (if victorious, of course!) that no AI plane can ever match. On the other hand, it also leads to often ridiculous suggestions that something is “porked” because the loser of an encounter is often going to be unhappy with the result. Ahhh, the joys of the bulletin boards.
I'm not an IL-2 apologist, but, all things considered, I consider it an excellent product. What upsets my sense of immersion, however, is not what may destroy another's. In my experience the fact that something isn’t exactly spot on in one area doesn’t mean that the whole product isn’t worthwhile. If we held every flight sim to that standard, absolutely none would be playable.
What I can tell you, is that Oleg is a purist. I’ve had dinner and drinks with him a few times, count him as a friend, and I’ve never met anyone as generous nor as passionate about flight simming. While some of you may question his perspective or his sources – as is your wont – you’d be misplaced to fault him for deliberately trying to create a product that’s not the best he can make it.
He thoroughly believed there was a market for a high end combat flight simulator when every publishing company was dumping them from their inventory and cancelling development plans. As a writer covering interactive entertainment and as a fan of detailed flight sims, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to deal with the PR departments of software companies that had cut a flight sim product or sacked a development team all because they thought that the death knell of the genre had rung. Apart from Microsoft and their FS/CFS franchise, pretty much the only developers still working on dedicated flight sims were small companies offering niche products like Aces High.
Maddox, for his part, never “dumbed down” IL-2 to pander to any market other than the hard-core flight simmer. As consumers, we should all be pleased to see a product that was made to high flight sim standards, and then was made more accessible (options for see-through cockpit, turning off stalls and spins, padlock, icons, etc.) at the request of a publisher, but not in any way impacting the core of the game. That, my friends, is one of the secrets to a successful flight sim: Make it detailed enough to please the oh-so-vocal puritanical flyers, and then make it accessible to the more casual or neophyte players by having configurable settings.
28Sweep, while I respect your right to wax lyrical (or not) about political issues and differences, you should really be better informed before making accusations without merit. Consider the reason that LO:MAC features more Russian planes than NATO ones is because it is an evolvement from an earlier series of products (Flanker), rather than because Eagle Dynamics is out to belittle NATO, or from the way you make it sound, because they have an axe to grind with Western capitalists. Sure the programmers (as Oleg is) are grads from Soviet aviation institutes, and surely do have a personal fondness for the depiction of Russian aircraft, but we should be happy that there are any Western flyable planes in there at all: Originally it wasn’t going to be designed as a survey sim and it’s only through the whole SSI/TLC/Ubi Soft acquisitions that its scope was broadened. Considering Eagle Dymanic’s affiliation with The Fighter Collection based in the UK, why don’t you see that it’s a development team with a clear passion for aviation rather than one with a personal plan to jab you in the eye?
Ubi Soft has been a flight sim saviour, not a menace. Blame companies like Rowan, Strategy First, Electronic Arts, and, most recently, iEN’s boxed efforts, for shoddy flight sim products, not a company that’s supporting and publishing solid military simulations that work well right out of the box.
Frankly, if you don’t feel you will enjoy the products because they don’t have enough of the content you are looking for, don’t buy them. Or better yet, read informed opinions once the products have been released, and then decide whether or not they would be to your taste. But enough with your jingoistic conjecture and railing against products that haven’t even seen the light of day: It’s the very attitudes like yours that are one of the reasons why publishers stopped producing flight sims.
Cheers,
phaetn
