Some new official info from ubi forums

[Col.Flanders]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

I heard a rumour that when they were testing the dynamic weather system, they put in all the enviromentally correct parameters for the South East of England and it rained every single day for the entire period of the campaign, thus negating any possiblity of actually flying.

Also, as the weather conditions for every single day of the Battle of Britain is readily availiable having a dynamic weather system would be rewriting history and spoil any chances of the virtual pilots getting sun tans as they waited for the scramble to be sounded!

What they didn't factor into the weather model was that the Summer of 1940 was unseasonally warm and that their model was infact completely correct.
Cheers!

Haha!!

Now imagine flying your mission VFR on top and then, if by some chance you survive, you've got to hope for a hole to punch through to get under the cloud base and make it back in one piece. Epic!

[NLS61]

Originally Posted by addman

For those of you who haven't read it yet:

The Dev team are trying to answer all of your frequently answered questions. To kick things off here are a couple they’ve answered for you this week…

Community Answers – Part 2

A. There are actually kill markings. They are applied as a separate decal onto some, but not all, fighters. You just enter a “kills” number into your plane options, and voila, it’s there.


http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...9/m/5151024809

It would be nice if kill are actually painted on the plane afther landing befor next sorty in df servers.
And ofcoarse be stricken when the pilot was killed.
this may trigger a more sensible behavior from gamers online, so they will not carry out kamikaze attacks or perform rams.
furthermore maybe als resetting points to zero when killed would work.

just my 2 cents.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by NLS61

It would be nice if kill are actually painted on the plane afther landing befor next sorty in df servers.
And ofcoarse be stricken when the pilot was killed.
this may trigger a more sensible behavior from gamers online, so they will not carry out kamikaze attacks or perform rams.
furthermore maybe als resetting points to zero when killed would work.

just my 2 cents.

While they don't even care about he points?
I don't think they intend to Ram you, those guys are just rookies suffering from target fixation - and some are just playing a different style.

[Tiger27]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

So I guess on the 128 player servers we have to make sure only 20 people take a bomber. Otherwise its going to stutter like the King. Im not overly concerned in truth, they did the best they could with an old game engine, it could run a little better if they ever do fix DX11. At least now we know why they kept IL2 in the title because it will appear like a small upgrade to the original.
Maybe they might reduce the price of the initial title by 50% seeing as we are only getting half the game.

Happy days, so you,ve actually tried it then Tree, member of the Beta team, or just moaning for the sake of it?

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Tiger27

Happy days, so you,ve actually tried it then Tree, member of the Beta team, or just moaning for the sake of it?

I think you'll find a pessimist in that corner

The 21 bomber comment almost undoubtedly applies to the offline world. And given the reasonably low minimum specs and the fact that the devs have to build missions that work well on all computers I don't doubt that smaller bomber formations were used. I think original IL-2 campaigns used bomber formations of 4 or perhaps 8 at the most.

That hasn't stopped any of us mission builders pushing the limits a bit with 30 and 40 plane formations where appropriate.

In the online world the removal of a substantial number of AI routines means that we can have many more bombers. Just like IL-2 of today. It's really not all that surprising.

[Heliocon]

Not even going to read the whole thread - 21 bombers? That is utterly pathetic. Seriously, and the whole cpu bs is also, it doesnt take cpu power to have a damage model unless it is being damaged, otherwise there isnt any calcs. AI aswell, and bombers fly in formation so the ai for them I would imagine is less intensive also.

But come on 21? Whats the point of making it for really crap machines that will not be around in a year anyway? Will this be change able in the scripted mission?

Oh and to the people who are talking about AI - why can shogun 2 total war have 56,000 units fighting on screen with motion capture animations and pathfinding in an enviroment full of obstacles with many properties, COD cant have more than 21 bombers flying in a straight line? Oh and then you have the tactical ai commanding the troops, unit ai, physics calcs etc etc etc. The machine limitation excuses are BS, a modern lower end quad core can easily hack it. There has only be 1 genre ever to push CPU limits and thats a small number of RTS's (unfortunetly now pretty much just TW series and a few other smaller titles) and stuff like Civ5. CPU's havent been the bottle neck for years, gpus have. Currently there are only a couple of titles that push pc's because of the big console market which means comp software lags behind 5+ years.

[JAMF]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Not even going to read the whole thread - 21 bombers? That is utterly pathetic.

That's the number of bombers in the single player campaign, so the owners of low-end CPUs can play it reasonably well. (Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+)

[addman]

Originally Posted by JAMF

That's the number of bombers in the single player campaign, so the owners of low-end CPUs can play it reasonably well. (Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+)

That's right, I know it's hard for some here to understand but a lot of people don't have (or can't afford) i7 rigs with sandy boat mumbo jumbo latest super computer gizmomagadgets graphics accelerated ENIAC 5478. It's a good thing because it will allow people who aren't living in the first world to play the game at a reasonable level, people how might have bought previous installations in the IL-2 series.

[CharveL]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Not even going to read the whole thread - 21 bombers? That is utterly pathetic. Seriously, and the whole cpu bs is also, it doesnt take cpu power to have a damage model unless it is being damaged, otherwise there isnt any calcs. AI aswell, and bombers fly in formation so the ai for them I would imagine is less intensive also.

But come on 21? Whats the point of making it for really crap machines that will not be around in a year anyway? Will this be change able in the scripted mission?

Oh and to the people who are talking about AI - why can shogun 2 total war have 56,000 units fighting on screen with motion capture animations and pathfinding in an enviroment full of obstacles with many properties, COD cant have more than 21 bombers flying in a straight line? Oh and then you have the tactical ai commanding the troops, unit ai, physics calcs etc etc etc. The machine limitation excuses are BS, a modern lower end quad core can easily hack it. There has only be 1 genre ever to push CPU limits and thats a small number of RTS's (unfortunetly now pretty much just TW series and a few other smaller titles) and stuff like Civ5. CPU's havent been the bottle neck for years, gpus have. Currently there are only a couple of titles that push pc's because of the big console market which means comp software lags behind 5+ years.

I hate to be the one to say it but, intellectually speaking, let's just say you're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

It might be better for you to stick to trying to figure out why the colours look to bright or something.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Not even going to read the whole thread - 21 bombers? That is utterly pathetic. Seriously, and the whole cpu bs is also, it doesnt take cpu power to have a damage model unless it is being damaged, otherwise there isnt any calcs. AI aswell, and bombers fly in formation so the ai for them I would imagine is less intensive also.

But come on 21? Whats the point of making it for really crap machines that will not be around in a year anyway? Will this be change able in the scripted mission?

Oh and to the people who are talking about AI - why can shogun 2 total war have 56,000 units fighting on screen with motion capture animations and pathfinding in an enviroment full of obstacles with many properties, COD cant have more than 21 bombers flying in a straight line? Oh and then you have the tactical ai commanding the troops, unit ai, physics calcs etc etc etc. The machine limitation excuses are BS, a modern lower end quad core can easily hack it. There has only be 1 genre ever to push CPU limits and thats a small number of RTS's (unfortunetly now pretty much just TW series and a few other smaller titles) and stuff like Civ5. CPU's havent been the bottle neck for years, gpus have. Currently there are only a couple of titles that push pc's because of the big console market which means comp software lags behind 5+ years.

It's a pointless argument. It is set up for less than quad cores etc. to be playable by the large majority of the community/prospective market. If you want more, create your own and in any case I'm sure they will be available from the community very quickly. By the way, many of those older PCs DO have a CPU bottleneck, even in IL-2.

Arguably Oleg could have created a top-tier campaign version with
150 bomber AI formations but how many PCs could play it and how much longer do you want us to wait?