These ground vehicle models have been around for a couple of years now - even then they were fully detailed with accurate physics. Those of us who have been around for a while will remember them showcasing them in a weekly update complete with wobbly aerials etc.

We already have highly developed balistics models and the AI to make them move around and navigate the terrain. I think what we're seeing here has been on the back burner for ages and has been introduced with little additional effort. It's an added bonus feature that WILL attract new people to the product if done well. Attacking ground targets manned by real people has a lot of appeal to me and I'm sure others will feel the same.

Sorry mate. I wholeheartedly agree with you! I mean the complainers deny us to have options :D

Think about it... If you don't like tanks, don't use them. If the kids are in them online then we bomb the $hlT out of them! Sounds like a win to me.

All in all, the benchmarks that B6 hinted at is what I was hoping to see.

You look at 1C other game forums here? There dead much like those games. 1C should pool all there resources from those games to CloD so we have a MMO with or without the monthly fee.

I play EVE and came back here and check how the game is. I'm glad the devs are back to updating us.

But really, some of you people need to pick up a different game/hobby and quit sounding like your life is over because you didn't get 100 octane fuel.

+1

Personally I'd rather that they focused their resources on the flying part. Perhaps make it more accessible to new player, with an actually intuitive MP interface and more 'fun' online game modes as options.

What will the inclusion of ground vehicle control in Il2 bring to the 'ADHD market', that BF3 and Arma doesn't already do 10 times better?

Now, the question is, will they model in Infantry also? That would be flipping amazing.

BF3 and ARMA main focus is on FPS..

ARMA IMHO is the most realistic FPS todate..

But with that said BF3 and ARMA both suck at flight sims, wrt realism..

It is just in there to give those who get borred playig FPS all the time something else to do.. And something for otehrs to shoot at! ;)

The idea here is 1C is doing the same..

Only difference is 1C's main focus is on FLIGHT..

At least I hope that is the case! No one here knows for sure and anyone other than BS who claims to know is just blowing smoke

excellent update..:-P

BS said earlier on in this thread that there were performance issues with Infantry, so right now it sounds like it wont happen anytime soon...

I am really concerned about some possibilities. Like how many resources and bandwith needs a full war online war and how machines are going to handle it. Not that I am against the idea, which is old, but I thought that maybe the logical order was, first a full scale airwar, with clouds and collisionable trees for tactical reasons, capable of handle hundred of planes in the air, and after that the rest...

I wonder what will happen when you still have a limit of 60 online players, and 59 of them takes the ground slots :rolleyes:

Hopefully I am totally wrong, but I'd like to know if you have thought of this and what are the plans.

Anyway, thanks for the update and good luck, sincerely.

And then you talk to me about missing priorities...

I HOPE Tagert and Swiss are right and the reason of this plot shifting is to make money for the development of "best combat flight sim" (that should already be in my shelf).

At least don't talk anymore about how the game only needed to be "fixed"...

Fingers Crossed! ;)

Incredible update!! (for a flight sim) :grin:

You put in an option that only half of them can take ground units ;)

Decent vehicle simulation would be enough.
I so wanted to buy BF3, but the everything not infantry sux sooo bad, I just cant do it.

Exactly.

I got it.. just to keep current with what is out there.. And be glad you did not buy it.. Because like you, I was very disaponted in the non FPS part of the game.. Very arcade.. But I expected that going in, so disapointed but not suprised. On that note.. the BF offline campain was actully very fun, the online stuff is arcade as H

So, can we use the Channel map for coops?....thought not.:(

Could be a solution, if that half that still can get planes would be high enough for a real air war :rolleyes:

Pretty sure half this forum is high enough... sorry, couldnt resist that one ;)

Yes yes, I know. Sorry if it was ambiguous. I was not angry at you, but the others. :cool:

Bingo, but thats not a problem of the included tanks but a flight sim issue in general.

Tanks are nice but oh for that FPS hit!

Exactly, so whats the point of doing it, unless they have a plan of how they are going to improve the current state of the art? That's why I asked for a comment about that from the devs, because I am sceptic they can achieve that in the short/medium term.

In the meantime, I will continue to think that this is simply a trick to get founds, but I feel its like walking on thin ice and I can only wish good luck and a Luthier to be a visionary who sees better and beyond this humble user.

It's hardly a trick, they need to widen the audience and it's one way of doing so.

Can I drive the MGTA to the local?
I might need it after slightly pranging my Kite...( undoubtedly because of low FPS on final...)

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...223_170051.jpg

Thanks Dano, I stand corrected bc probably the word trick has a different meaning in english that the one I had in my mind when I wrote that. Substitute tricky for way. :)

Usually I don't pipe in but, have to on this one. Most of us, who's been flying CloD, won't go back to IL2 46 due to CloD being so much more immersible and enjoyable......even with current issues.

I'm just as annoyed about current state and time frame as the next person but even now, this game is a hoot!

As far as the ground vehicles, tanks but no tanks; I'm a flyboy. But, I will enjoy attacking columns and nice drive in the countryside. :)

Patients is a virtue, enjoy what we have now.......it only gets better.

ps my Savior has nothing to do with it!

k9

Bring it!
 

I loved the AAA defending the train! You can bet that will be a postion that gets play!

Adding more game play options is just that, variety, possibilities, strategy, however you describe it, it can only add to the feeling of a living lanscape that begs to attacked and defended.

"Who needs this stuff" some continue to say yet with that attitude I spose they dont need trees, buildings , vehicles, grass, untill we get the flight sim "they paid for". We could go on and on(and many have) in that direction but with out a living ground we would be in space!

x1000

Thank you!
Very nice video, I really like the direction the series is going!

Now... where is that Beta patch?!! :-P

few would be complain (i guess) about improved AI of ground objects or their improved DM...... if all this needs to by playable with "cockpits"....another story IMHO.

But 1C made their decission , lets wait and see how it will develop ! But its a forum about this game, and i think im allowed to say that i dont like it, in which way (showed by official WIP videos!) it SEEMS to develop.

IMHO complaining about 1C trying to generate more $ for flight sim development by attracting RO2 and World of Tanks players is like a dood complaining about his favorite bar/pub trying to generate more $ for a bigger beer on tap selection by letting ladies in for free on ladies night..

I see both as a good thing..

more targets! ;)

I don't get it, why are people complaining about these new features that may or may not make it in to the game? Who said they stopped working on the core game, DM and FM? Did I miss something? Geeeez :rolleyes:

Frankly I don't see the issues here with the ground element. It will bring in more players, and they won't be FPS speed freak kiddie types. Those gamers have had zero time fighting aircraft with real flight models, much less without shoulder fired 100% accurate guided weapons. The first time they raise their machine gun/Bofors/etc... and get torn to shreds by aircraft fire will be a real eye opener.

That's all I'll say about it.

What a lot of you seem to have missed in viewing the video is the fluid "gameplay" vis-a-vis frame rates.

Large explosions, fires and smoke everywhere, explosions in zoomed in "gunsight" views and it appeared to run really smoothly. This alone is big news as far as I can see. (ouch, sorry about the bad pun).

who says this more $ would be put in the flightsim part and not in the groundwar part if this groundwar part brings the easier money.
Anyway, we can change nothing, we have to wait what they will do and than can decide to buy or not.

My thoughts exactly addman. I think most of them are probably still at school. Their reasoning skills are certainly lacking.

Yeah, just imagine all the easy targets once people from other games join on for the ground vehicles! The bomber guys will have a field day! :-P

god (or whoever!) bless the netcode :D

I am the only one tank simmer that is not excited by theses videos?

Until trees can have collision i can see tanks driving trough entire forests...

I can remove or add buildings and/or forest in the CLODO settings (almost cheat). You want tank game, Fix this.

No infantry or infantry positions to shoot at/cover?

Yes the multiplayer aspect and graphical are great, but right now, i'm not interested.

Correct me if some statements are wrong.

great, now tanks. i believe more pressing matters lie within the AC but what the heck.

anyway i think this is kind of a side feature, in order to enhance the possibility of air-to-ground attacks on front line type engagements. that, on a scenario like the upcoming BOM, may be very interesting, like having missions where you have to destroy certain amount of armor before they reach some urban defensive perimeter (like Moscow), maybe capturing some defense airfields on the way and limiting defenders' AC readiness. of course the attacking AC would try to clear the skies over the advancing ground force. this could be very interesting, if it works..

let's just hope they don't overmodel Panzer IV and undermodel T-34... ;)

I think that there are better ideas, in order of importance.

1. fix the core game engine and bugs (in progress)
2. fix co-op (in progress?)
3. Add additional content (no mention)
4. Add additional aircraft, campaigns, etc.
.
.
.
.
.
53. Add tanks.

Fixxed that for ya

At least the threads pointing out, that the seatcovers of the german haltrack, are not the correct shade of saurkraut-brown will be entertaining.

Did I say it was a good idea?

I was just expecting a graphics engine improvement and was impressed at first when seeing the video.Now i am concerned because instead CLoD just went a total different direction here.Its fantastic that the game engine can handle all this with supposedly better frame rates but IMO the majority here would just like to get the game 100% before all these cool neat features are added.Is there any word on coops in this patch?

#5 would not apply if #1 was done in a timely fashion.

wood! long time no type! S! ;)

no word on eta of patch as far as I know :(

These are early development teaser videos, you dont know what it will be like when its released, it may have all you commented on.

if..

And 'if' monkies flew out of my butt waring red hats and holding ray-guns I could rule the world

im keeping my fingers crossed and hoping all this works out.

Haha good point, the problem is that the way I see it is like they're letting my wife get in too.mmm no targets for me! ;)

LoL

If anyone thinks that these vehicles and tanks are going to get more people to buy BOM the flight sim, then they need their head looking at.

This is a complete waste of time and energy. its not going to attract anyone who is not already interested in BOM.

The IL2 series is heading in the wrong direction.

Where is the info on whats in the patch? You know the patch for CLOD?

Has the patch fixed the CTD?

Has the AI improved so single player isn't a waste of time?

Has the patch fixed the FM problems?

When do we get the missing features?

Just a tip...

Sack the guys making tanks and jeeps and hire coders who can fix COOPS, fix SLI, make new clouds and fix the FMs.

Anyway...thanks for the update.

You need one of these

http://sliceofstyle.com/wp-content/u...rry-hoodie.jpg

carefull ACE....he will PM you with threats of violence.

AoA as soon as I saw furb,s post, I could predict what your post number 1000 would be :D

I see a big problem here if the final goal of this new feature is to bring tank people to the game to made more cash:

For this goal they need arcade tank players want to come to CoD. But if they go for the arcade game as it looks, then they need to offer more than competitors arcade tank games... I only can think about World of Tanks right now. And I really can´t see how this can compete with WoT for the arcade player. Landscape is more suitable for arcade players in WoT than CoD, because size, close up graphics being a lot better, and landscape offering a lot of arcadish planned environment to hide and so on, which are not in CoD. In WoT you have a complete upgradable tank system very suitable to arcade players. WoT tanks 3D models are far superior than CoD ones ( even superior than exterior CoD air crafts ). And I cant´t think about an arcade player that want to ride a tank 20 Km ( 100km anyone? ) to the battle and then being killed by an airplane with no place to hide and no way to defense. Not to mention WoT is free. So I can´t see a lot of arcade tank players buying CoD for the tanks as they already have their bed very well done. And not a lot of people who likes aircraft sims are going to buy CoD, or SoW, or BoM or whatever for the arcade tank game play. So if they go for the arcade market... I´m not sure they are going to succeed in generating a lot more cash without mayor changes to the game play and close up graphics.

But truly tank sim is a niche which is not properly filled today at the level CoD does for air crafts. It´s true there is not a big market there for this, but at least they would be offering something that WoT does not in a better way and WoT people would like to try it. Problem here is the resources that an approach like this would need, for all tank interiors and exterior updated models, and so on... So I think one way would be to build the tools and let all drivable tank vehicles to be build for third party with SDK with a MG control about quality.

Just my thought.

Anyway as they say that they have not very clear how to implement all this new feature in game I suggest we start to offer and discussing ideas for them about how they could do it from market, game play and available resources realistically point of view. Something useful could come from that... if we avoid the "I want to cross all te country by foot, kill the guards and steal the enemy plane to get home again... " We can open a new threat for this.

+1 - I don't understand it either. This is what I've been waiting for ever since I saw those updates several years ago. This basically makes ground objectives come alive. The scenarios with the ground war can become as dynamic as the air war. This is the dream I've always wanted out of a combat flight sim, total immersion from the air and ground. When it all gets sorted out, this is going to be massive.

We've already been told SDK's are being worked on, and obviously won't be released till the core game is up to par. But just imagine the whole new crowd of modders that's gonna come in to model new tanks, arty, etc. I can tell you we're definitely gonna have a ground war only server on top of what we have already. I think fighting on the ground, especially in a more realistic aspect is an absolute blast. I imagine there will be quite a few that get out of games like WoT when they figure out A.) no matchmaker B.) you can run your own scenarios, servers, missions, or well, flat out anything you can think of to fight with. And then to top it off, you're not paying for repairs or waiting to respawn again. Not to mention when you can sit there and make the winning conditions w/e your mind thinks of - from getting supplies somewhere, to attacking an airfield, a train, a capture the flag thingy, or well anything all over all the scenarios in all the maps they will make for this series. This is flat out awesome.

One day I hope some people go back to the old Oleg updates of old and realize this stuff hasn't been conjured up recently. All these tanks/models/ground detail have been in the works for years. Pure speculation here - But what this stuff shows me, is they are finally getting some main issues sorted so they are finally able to start adding in some of the other modules that have been removed / not finished for some time. Next thing you know, we'll have bail out animations back, etc.,etc...

Thanks B6 and all you guys at 1C/MG. This just keeps getting better and better. Now if I could only FF into the future a couple years :)

That was a fitting post count! ;) Need a screen shot of that.. its a keeper ;)

BS said could be a couple days, look at his most recent posts...

Easy..

WoT will get old fast.. except for the pure Quake types.. but for the rest it will get old fast

Note WoT does not even have internals (cockpits).. It is all done from externals..

And don't forget the RO guys! The only reason I got RO and RO2 was for tanks.. And from the videos thus far CoD's tanks are as realistic as RO and RO2 tanks..

And don't forget the WWII Online guys.. Same as RO and RO2, CoD looks to be on par wrt realism. So there are alot of other games CoD could pull memebers away from.

It's amazing how Battlefield 3 can stay in business without having to include any resource mining like in Minecraft.

Strange how Starcraft 2 can make a mint, without having to include a racing element to it.

How FSX can make a ton of money over the past decade without having to include a First person shooter portion to it.

So why does CLOD have to include Tanks to survive? It could be cool, but maybe once they actually finish the game. And I'm not even talking about bugs, but actually finish the game so one would classify it as a finished product. Right now the thing is closer to a Beta content wise.

Didn't say that you did or didn't. Just explaining my point of view, while using your post as a frame of reference for the topic.

It would be interesting to see how many who object to these new features were the same ones who thought it would be so cool to be able to sneak behind enemy lines when their plane was shot down? Two or three years ago when the tanks and AA were shown, there was a cadre of people clamouring for this, and now it's the end of CoD.

Time will tell how well this implements into the game, but it doesn't mean it's at the expense of CoD. I look at it as a vote of confidence to the users of CoD that 1C and this game isn't going any where.

If within the next few months some of the missing features or improvements that would make the game more enjoyable aren't corrected or at least updated through the Friday updates, then I'll worry. Until now I'm enjoying the prospects of fututre gaming and the fact that 1C/CoD isn't going any where. I hope i'm not proven wrong. I don't think I will be.

Glad I bought my second copy the other day.

Well based on 1C's track record CoD will never be finished..

Sequals will come out that add content and update features and fix bugs..

Thus never really finished

Which is a good thing imho

I don´t see WoT getting old fast... They have a small game that can be easily upgraded ( and they are doing it a lot ) with a incredible big point being free. I think CoD is going to get old much faster as it gets a lot more work to upgrade and patch ( we know this very well ). About the realism... they are talking about the tank gameplay is going to be arcade and what I see in the video feels a lot like an old graphics WoT really. I don´t think they plan to have tanks interiors. So no, it looks like the tank gameplay is not going to be "sim"... and that´s my post about.

With some of the largest tank battles (with air support) occuring on the Eastern Front, having the option to be in the air or on the ground could make for a very diverse gaming experience. I remain ever optomistic, thanks BS.

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree.. But there is still RO, RO2, WWIIOnline that CoD with tanks could attract imho.

Who said this? The developers haven't as far as I can see. There is selectable ammo types (look top left) and what looks like grouping in flak. We will have to wait and see.

We've already seen interiors in video two (controllable vehicles)- you can see inside the armoured car interior when driving, same with the car. Bren on top is in a turret that is modelled.

It is a flight sim?

And of course WoT is adding WoWP (World of WarPlanes) soon... so there is that ;)

He was refering to World of Tanks when he said that Gravey.. After I poited out that World of Tanks does not have interiors.. My point being not having interiors is one of the reason people will get tired of World of Tanks and be atracted to play the tanks in CoD

But will they both be able to play on the same map and the same time?

Not many details yet, but they hinted at being able to have a WoT clan request an air strike from a WoWP clan, so not really sure, but I think they want to be able to combine the 2 at some point... in some way...

Ah ok, so in essance CoD is going to beat them to the punch.. Compitition is a wonderful thing! ;)

personally i hate the lightning of the RAF cross airs, mostly because of historical reasons but also aesthetically

it should feature a glow like this
http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/9934/95083973.jpg

or like this (please don't mind the shakiness)
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/5184/71523913.jpg

even on the 109
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2052/88145566.jpg

and of course, nothing like the real thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blem3FlkaMc

instead we have this
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/5566/gmiifull.jpg

anyway, back to OT...

Dont get me wrong, i love tanks as much as the next guy!
BUT if i wanted to play tanks surley i would buy a game that actually works and not keep flogging a dead horse just because its there?
So i can only assume there were no fixes in the patch and that you were just adding content to game most people cant even play for longer than 10 minutes at a time?

Another thing I don't get in this thread, "I don't like this new direction CloD is taking". New?! what is new? Did anybody look in the control setup after they installed the game for the first time almost a year ago? Surely that must've been a hint of what would come. Nobody can seriously be surprised by drivable tanks and playable flak. MG clearly have a much wider scope than most people on this forum can wrap their heads around and I think some people should do a reality check. Does anybody in here seriously think that odd couple of hundred active members on this forum are the prime target group for this sim? Delusional....

The thought makes me fuzzy all over.:grin: Imagine a combined air/ground assault on a town/airfield coordinated over TS3, just awesome! What a difference it will make when you're flying cover for a group of tanks that are manned by players instead of A.I.

Does anyone know if 1C ever was going to put infantry in the game? It seems like they are near to producing the Best all around WWII sim I have ever seen.

Would you invest in a flight sim? Your life savings, maybe?
I guess not.
Why?
A pure flight does not offer big roi, so why do it anyway?
Because you got a perspective, a perspective, which, if it works, has a real chance to revolutionize the business.

LOL. Let's not start "high fivin" and throwin babies in the air just yet. As they said, it might not make it into the sim. It's not unheard of for them to show us cool vids of features that never arrive. *cough* dynamic clouds/weather *cough*

Feeling fuzzy too

If I remember right, that was Olegs end vision 24/7 on-line all out war with all the suspects.

I about lost it when I saw the flack gun on the train! Give us controllable infantry and ships and voila! WW2 in a box! If they execute this properly we'll be messing with this for the next 10 years. Nice update B6 keep it coming.

We don't ban anyone simply for having an opinion, no matter if its negative. It's bad manners that get people banned, not personal opinions.


Hahaha, excellent analogy :grin:



Exactly. I will probably not use the ground combat feature a lot. But i have friends who like WWII history yet they don't have the time or don't want to sit down and learn how to fly a WWII warbird.

Now, if this comes to fruition at a later date, i can fly in the same server as them, while they are moving forward in their tanks and i'm supporting them from the air. Voila, i can get like 2-3 more people to buy the sim and that's without even trying, people whose money will pay for my extra FLYABLE aircraft down the line.

We already have scripts for moving frontline markers that simulate ground units capturing territory (Repka servers have had this since forever).

Substitute front marker for tank spawn point and here you go, the folks on the ground don't have to "drive 100km just to be killed by an airplane, get bored and leave". And the best thing is, you can make it as realistic as you want: add a timer before the spawn point moves, or have AI or human-controlled convoys move up the lines to set up a forward command post and only activate it as a spawn point when the conditions set are satisfied ("have that much of this vehicle and that much of that vehicle drive here").

Which will in turn create the self-explanatory objective for the other team to attack those convoys and prevent them from consolidating their gains and moving on to capture their airfields. And all of a sudden, our flying has meaning and a tangible outcome on the game world/environment.

Am i really so smart that i am in a minority who can think this complicated stuff up (don't think so and this stuff is actually simple to think up, complicated is to implement them). Or are some people just so focused on their single pet-peeve missing feature and negativity that it stops them from actually thinking at all and realizing the boost in gameplay quality they will get over time from new features? I think it's option two.

It seems most of the annoyed feelings stem from these two reasons:

a) Many don't understand that different people work on the vehicles. But modeling vehicles with a separate designer team doesn't take away manpower from the flight sim aspects, especially since the physics (ballistics, ammo penetration, etc) and graphics (shading, etc) engines are COMMON.

It's the same engine, same physics, same graphics, same sounds, it's not like they had to suddenly quit all flight related work to focus on this. It's just that instead of firing a team of designers and rehire them at a later date to do the vehicles for the next add-on (and risk losing them to another company in the meantime, there are lots of simulation and strategy studios doing WWII stuff in Russia), they give them another project that might bring in some more sales for CoD.

b) Some people are just being a bit narrow-minded in what they expect from the sim. Sorry if this stings a bit, i don't have another way to say it but i assure you it's not meant as an insult.

What i'm trying to say is that for a lot of people this sim would just be IL2 remake with new graphics. Well, i'm glad it's not and has extra complexity under the hood.

So, who's right you'll ask? Well, it's one of those subjective things that both and none are, because it's a matter of personal taste. For people who simply want to zoom around in a dogfight sure, it's useless. For people who want an extra tactical and maybe strategic layer over their flying ops it's priceless.

And just like everything else in sims, the best way to do it if resources are available (or if it will secure extra resources by branching out to another customer demographic) is to have as much as possible and allow the user to turn off the stuff they don't want.

Saying "all i care about is warbirds, so they should just do that" is as shallow as saying "i do all my flying in full switch mode, so there shouldn't be difficulty options for rookies". I do fly in full switch mode and i do only fly, but i want them to have the extra options because a bunch of new buyers will generate income that will pay for my next maps and flyables and let's face it, it's far easier to learn and get into two dimensional ground combat for rookies than it is to fly.

This is the same discussion we had about clickable cockpits and extra CEM options a few years ago: most people argued against it with a passion ("LoLWut?! FSX in MY combat sims?")I and now they like and use the features because they are done in a clever, optional manner. Don't like CEM? You can turn it off. Don't like click-pits? Press F10 to disable it and map everything to your HOTAS.

But if you don't have a HOTAS and only a simple stick and keyboard setup, clickpits let you control a higher fidelity representation of the aircraft without needing a 2nd keyboard for all the bindings, you just keep the critical stuff mapped to stick and keyboard and use the mouse for the rest: essentially it let the developer up the ante in terms of realism without skewing the playing field depending on the player's peripherals. But most people were too blind to see it back then as well.

It will be like this with ground combat too. Don't like it? I don't drive it.

But somewhere down the line, the majority will be happy to zoom around, patrolling over hedgerows in Normandy in a bombed up P-47 and listen on TS for that CAS request from a friendly Sherman tank battalion that's been pinned down by 2-3 Tigers, swoop in and take them out and enjoy the added layers of gameplay it offers.

Thinking only about the couple of things that each one of us wants most and demanding that only those get implemented is not only egoistic, it also deprives us of better gameplay in the future.

I probably won't ever drive tanks. But i'll be smiling from ear to ear when i pull out from a dive after a rocket attack in a Typhoon if i know i just cleared the way for a friendly, human-controlled column in an online dynamic campaign, especially if those tanks overrun the nearby LW airfield stationing the 190s that have been giving me so much trouble during the past sorties and shell them in their hangars.

Video-games are all about escapism and imagination and pretending we are someone we're not, doing something we will probably never do in real life. Well, have some imagination people and stop acting like your wishlist is more important than that of the next guy ;)

Bohemia has released Take On Helicopters and want to incoporate the fm into Arma 3.

i just dont want to read/hear anything about "no time" or "limited resources" in regard of the flightsim part anymore actually

Again i love reading your CLOD fiction Blackdog, it sounds so good but whats makes you think any of that will happen?
When they fix what they already have and it doesn't crash after 30 mins EVERY time i play il have more faith in them pulling off a combined arms war.

I cant wait to drive into enemy territory with out being taken out by those P47s because i was driving through the trees

Well I'm certainly hoping the patch sorts out the CTD issues, as I want to fly bombers in formation.
As for the update, I love it.Think STORM OF WAR rather than 'il2 CoD'...

Yep and im going to be great at tanks because im going to turn trees, buildings off, the landscape detail to very low and il have no probs picking off Blackdogs mates from miles away in my flak 88mm.

I think you missunderstood.. I belive they implied it may not make it into CoD but it will surly be in one of the sequals to it

For the love of god. Please just fix the sim. I don't care about tanks. I bought a flight sim, not world of tanks.

That is good news..

And if 1C takes that same aproach.. That would be great imho! Get your foot in the door with tanks by offering up something that is not as detailed/realistic as it could be.. Make money.. Than if your in the black you can go back and add some polish to those items which in turn should bring in more people

All in all this aproach is about the only way I see a flight sims staying in business from this point forward.. Becuase as much as we flight simmers may hate to admit it.. Flight sims dont have a big ROI!!

I would be ecstatic! That is what is known as a "target-rich environment" for an aggressive and skilled FW-190, P-47, or IL-2 ground pounder!!!! :grin:

Thank you for the update. It is good to know that the developers are working hard in this tank simulator, it will be useless for most of the community but it is a great feature.
Any chance of us getting the Mercedes-Benz W125 ?

Please fix the game instead of adding new features. I still can't play for over than 45m without the game crashing.

+1

Deja vu:)

I'm sure the tank modeller will get right on programming the core engine of the game. Do you know anything about software development at all?

Thanks BlackSix

All the new features are going to make for a very immersive combat flight sim. There are no worries of everyone selecting a tank even if they wanted to as that would be defined by the server. Even furbs suggestion that he would remove all the trees etc so he could get a clear shot with his 88 wouldn't be possible as the amount of trees would also be defined by the server.

The work on the ground war features implies to me that the developer is confident that the air combat issues will be addressed, and it also implies the development is on more stable financial ground than I thought.

As long as 45mins, count yourself as lucky. If I last more than 15mins in game before Launcher exe crashes me I feel lucky !!!!!!

Regards