PC Gamer interview.

[Juri_JS]

I am very disappointed that there will be no dynamic campaign. I really don't understand Oleg's decision. The Battle of Britain would be a perfect scenario for a dynamic campaign and even an old game like Lucasfilm Games "Their Finest Hour: The Battle of Britain" (1989) had one.

[DD_crash]

Originally Posted by Juri_JS

I am very disappointed that there will be no dynamic campaign. I really don't understand Oleg's decision. The Battle of Britain would be a perfect scenario for a dynamic campaign and even an old game like Lucasfilm Games "Their Finest Hour: The Battle of Britain" (1989) had one.

I think I read that Oleg said it was taking too long but we will get dynamic campaigns later on. So why panic?

Originally Posted by ckolonko

Looks like the renegade thing is confirmed.

Indeed and a nice surprise at that. I hope our talented mission builders can come up with similar scenarios. This one's based on reality and that makes it even more compelling in my opinion.

With release date drawing near we're sure to hear more from the malcontents and trolls with hidden agendas. Since the early 2000's it seems to be a tradition around here.

[ckolonko]

I cant wait to see how the renegade thing plays out. I'd also like to hear some more about the real story as well. I think this will add a nice bit of variation to the game. As Oleg described it it appears that you can make a choice, thus increasing playability. Cant Wait.

[Ploughman]

If the Med gets the tick after the Defence of Moscow, which I think is the next add in if I remember from all that Igromir whoo-haaa, I wonder if carrier aviation will get an introduction? Still, first things first.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Blue 5

So in the name of not being sufficiently 'positive', you deleted the entirely of several of my posts? How pleasant to know that anyone not being 'positive' is no longer allowed to comment, what a nicely nuanced appreciation of people's concerns. What I said was:

It was not immature; it was a discussion based on the opportunity cost of the development of a particular product by a small team. Please see all the other posts full of 'ZOMG' and 'LOL' prior to opining that my reasoned argument about relative value was immature. For goodness, sake I said I'LL BUY IT, I am also entitled to question why a love interests is considered an import part of a fight sim, or am I the only one here that thinks this a tad odd?

That is a relevant and reasonable position.

I completely agree. It is up to the team what they put in it but I'm definitely not interested in a sideshow like that either. It's a small team, I would much rather have seen effort put into something else instead.
The good news for me in the interview is that Ilya commented that you can jump into other aircraft on the fly in MP modes - why is this significant? Well, it means that there is a Moving Dogfight Server ability!!

[ATAG_Bliss]

Blue 5,

Based on the interview, this part of the sim is based on a historical account of a WWII pilot. I think that just goes to show how much research this team has put forth into making the sim. I think it's a wonderful idea, even enough so, that I may actually play SP, which I never do.

I don't get why this puts a frown on your face? Heck, I think it's awesome lol. There's obviously gonna be plenty of "flying the planes" in this sim. What are you worried about?

[Blue 5]

Bliss,

like I said, it was an issue of priorities not a criticism of the game in its entirely. However, the mods appear to have deleted my last 2 posts in addition to the ones from earlier today removed for not being 'positive' so clearly we are not allowed to discuss this or cast any aspersions on the game. Frankly, if the moderation on this forum so unashamedly partisan I can't see the point in bothering to remain a member.

Bye all.

[Les]

Originally Posted by Sven

...Just 1 thing I do not really understand as a non-native English speaker, what is a 'renegade' pilot where they talk about in the interview?

A traitor. Someone on your own side who is fighting for the enemy.

It seems, as part of the Allied campaign, you will have to deal with a fellow pilot who is somehow found to be betraying your side.

The idea sounds crazy at first, but depending on how it's done, it could be believable. It needn't be some lunatic trying to shoot you down and then making a run for the safety of enemy territory. There are, potentially, lots of ways someone sympathizing with the enemy could have sabotaged or hindered operations in the field. Will be interesting to see what they make of it, and if any more details from the real-life events that were supposed to have inspired it come forward.

[easytarget3]

Originally Posted by Les

A traitor. Someone on your own side who is fighting for the enemy.

It seems, as part of the Allied campaign, you will have to deal with a fellow pilot who is somehow found to be betraying your side.

The idea sounds crazy at first, but depending on how it's done, it could be believable. It needn't be some lunatic trying to shoot you down and then making a run for the safety of enemy territory. There are, potentially, lots of ways someone sympathizing with the enemy could have sabotaged or hindered operations in the field. Will be interesting to see what they make of it, and if any more details from the real-life events that were supposed to have inspired it come forward.

what i understood from the interview it could be sort of personal hate or conflict between pilots, or maybe sympathizing with the enemy like you wrote, anyway it will be interesting angle to look at the airwar.