Maps (hopefully objects, too), and skins are a prime example where they should really have things open (as they plan to with SoW).
I understand keeping the big maps for their own releases, but only to a point. Face it, if there were no arbitrary limits for map size for player built maps, and players made a kick-ass med map, why would 1C care? Would it stop players from buying a Med add-on? I think not, since the med add-on would have new planes, possibly new technologies (better AI, improved X, Y, and Z), etc.
Face it, unless they are having 3d parties build the maps anyway, they probably won't be all that great. They have not really shown the ability to make good maps themselves. The only good il-2 maps came from Ian, yogi, jurinko, et al, the rest are cut and paste jobs.
BTW, the lack of "lateral thinking," in terms of campaign/immersion stuff is one reason why I lobby so hard for open-ended systems for things. Features that are optional in campaigns. I'd love to see the AI opened up a bit, too. Each plane must either be assigned a generic "type" of AI to use (fighter, fighter bomber, level bomber, dive bomber, etc), or there are some variables in the code. They don't have to let is see the code to have access to the variables. Have a text file for each plane such that the AI parameters used are moddable by mission/campaign builders. Odd things can come of this, unpredicted things. A campaign builder might decide to do something crazy and assign the wrong "type" of AI to a plane and get a useful result for gameplay.
People like Chris are FORCED to be very creative in il-2 campaigns to get things even a little the way they want them. The devs are not forced, and they tend to think "inside the box," IMO.
tater
|