1C Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official 1C Company forum > 1C Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #531  
Old 12-23-2007, 11:02 PM
rex10 rex10 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1
Default

I´m so happy we have such a genious here Kurfurst! Im sure your advices will be noticed by 1C. Actually I think those Ideas are now #1 on their what would we concider list. I´m so happy!!

Usually I take my whole family to hear what has been written by you. You should see how thankfull and impressed they are!! Our life has changed. Thank You and Merry Christmas!!
  #532  
Old 12-23-2007, 11:21 PM
robtek's Avatar
robtek robtek is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,816
Default

at least is HE not writing pointless posts like some other people
__________________
Win 7/64 Ult.; Phenom II X6 1100T; ASUS Crosshair IV; 16 GB DDR3/1600 Corsair; ASUS EAH6950/2GB; Logitech G940 & the usual suspects
  #533  
Old 12-23-2007, 11:58 PM
LEXX LEXX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ussia
Posts: 276
Default

Good ideas Kurfurst. Thank you.

There are uses also for non-historical loadouts in any computer game -- if I read you correctly, non-historical loadouts would still be counted in the FM calculations over mass, drag, inertia, etc... In my original plan for Eastern Front dynamic campaign, where the Luftwaffe conducts strategic bombing, the Soviet PVO may keep RS-82 for the interceptors. I heard that the rockets were popular among some pilots and they wished they were available for fighter use after 1942, but the "higher ups" way high in the command or above, decided to stop rockets as air-air weaponry. I don't know anything more about this. But if LW heavy bombers flew high overhead to the Urals, I would like a campaign variable that may, or may not, allow RS-82 for things like, say, MiG-3U or I-185.

Last edited by LEXX; 12-24-2007 at 12:06 AM.
  #534  
Old 12-24-2007, 01:20 AM
Avimimus Avimimus is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 795
Default

Me, I would just like to see RS series rockets for the Pe-2...

As for the idea of releasing five expansions, one for each year: I like it!
  #535  
Old 12-24-2007, 06:52 PM
nearmiss nearmiss is offline
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,679
Thumbs up Mission Builder Tool

Oleg, are we going to get a competent mission builder tool in BOB SOW equal to the old MSFT CFS2 or Jane's WW2 Fighters Mission Builder?
  #536  
Old 12-25-2007, 11:31 AM
Codex Codex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hoppers Crossing, Vic, Australia
Posts: 624
Default

I can see both POV's on this and both are valid to a degree. I think the key to making SoW a success would be flexibility. I would like to see the following when it comes to load outs for both offline and online:

Historical option:
Have the ability to lock ordinance. This would mean if it wasn’t used historically it’s not available period. No mix and match ability.

What if option:
Have the ability to mix and match ordinance but with historical limitations, i.e. if the ordinance wasn't available at that time or in that theatre then you can't use it. While still using historical ordinance, you have the ability to load a G6 with gun pods and a SC250kg.

Free for all option:
Have the ability to go nuts. Here you could use whatever ordinance will fit no matter the historical side of it. Load Mk-108’s in the FW-190 A1, 2 or 3. It’s not historical but then again it’s not meant to be.

With all of these options, however, there is also the user’s setting of the FM. Obviously if you select full real then there should be a an indicator like a bar that climbs to the a cut off where it's simply say’s your too heavy or it’s unsafe to fly.

Flexibility is the key I think, anyone from the single player to server mods should have the ability to choose these options. After all how historical are labels and padlocking?
  #537  
Old 12-26-2007, 08:48 PM
SlipBall's Avatar
SlipBall SlipBall is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: down Island, NY
Posts: 2,718
Default

A question for Oleg.....Did the "hack" of IL-2, slow the development of SOW Bob?.....in general, you have been silent on this issue, please comment if you would
  #538  
Old 12-27-2007, 03:18 PM
Avimimus Avimimus is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 795
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlipBall View Post
A question for Oleg.....Did the "hack" of IL-2, slow the development of SOW Bob?.....in general, you have been silent on this issue, please comment if you would
The answer is that the 4.05 hack did. It lead to extra work being allocated to adding protection for the 4.06-4.08m series. The second hack then partially bypassed this protection but Oleg had moved his team to finishing Bob by then and Oleg decided to make no "move to parry it" (so it shouldn't have cost the team time).
  #539  
Old 12-27-2007, 03:25 PM
Avimimus Avimimus is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 795
Default

Oleg: Will you be making everyone that worked on the recent map pack Beta Testers for Bob? I would like to nominate them (after all they know enough they could even help test the map tools etc.)

S!
  #540  
Old 12-27-2007, 05:24 PM
Haigotron Haigotron is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13
Default

thanks for the beta Oleg and co, a great gift, better than the socks I received
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.