PC Gamer interview.

[Richie]

Originally Posted by TheSwede

I agree on the preferred sequel.

Me too big time. I would love to see a new F4 in North Africa camouflage. Sand blowing behind me as I take off etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0PygjC1o88

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by TheSwede

I agree on the preferred sequel.

Absolutely.

[Necrobaron]

Interesting interview. I have to admit that I'm still not sure what to make of this love story aspect but I suppose that'll just have to be a "wait and see" thing.

Regarding the dynamic campaign, while Oleg does not mention this in the interview, Ilya has said on these forums that they have (or will have?) a dynamic campaign generator in it's very early stages but it'll be quite some time before they get it up to the standards of the rest of the game (as opposed to simply tacking on something like what the old games had).

Regarding the sequel, yes I would've preferred the Battle of Poland and/or France but the Mediterranean would be pretty interesting too.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by The Kraken

Too bad that these days any disagreement has to end in drama on this forum...

Anyway consider these points:

- a story and event-driven campaign is a great showcase for the capabilities of the mission builder and scripting/trigger functionalities (also important during development)
- such campaigns will be popular with the general audience beyond the flight sim enthusiasts, which have to buy the game as well to make it a financial success. This will also be reflected in reviews which usually point out that flight sims are "too boring" for normal players. Provided it's well done of course.
- if it's not your cup of tea, just use them as training opportunities to get accustomed to the planes - or stick to the QMB if you're too disgusted. By the time you've set up everything and feel comfortable with the planes, HOTAS and engine management you can bet that some more serious campaign are already available for download.

No reason to panic. But maybe I'm just too relaxed for the current state of this forum...

I think i'm going to have to agree with this, but then i was around for the initial launch of IL2 back in 2001. It didn't have most of the features we enjoy today in IL2:1946 but that didn't prevent it from becoming a success and growing over the years. That doesn't mean we must settle for incompleteness in our simulators either, there just needs to be a balance.

As long we have enough tools to recreate scenarios from the BoB (flyable aircraft, AI units, mission builder, stock missions to showcase some capabilities, tracking of victory conditions and use of triggered events in online matches) the new sim will see similar levels of success to the original IL2. From where i'm standing, i think it has the tools needed.

Then, as it grows older some of this stuff will be automated to make it easier for us to just focus on flying.
It's just that when time limits force you to choose between getting the basics right or automating them you choose the first option, because you can't include an automation for something that isn't in the game engine. A dynamic campaign generator would be useless if we had only 3 flyables and 5 AI units in total, or aircraft that didn't fly accurately, and so on

[KG26_Alpha]

Hehe

I remember the vote at UBI for the Med or Pacific theatre.

I think Oleg was disappointed back then the Med didn't get the vote.

Cant wait for the whole lot to load on my hard drive

[Ploughman]

Great interview, intrigued by the radar comments including the enigmatic "There is even some attempt to simulate antenna pattern." Anyone any ideas what that might mean?
And I quite look forward to going into action with a dame on my lap. They don't have that in Flaming Cliffs. Here, another flight sim with the word Cliffs in the title, is this some kind of conspiracy?

[Les]

Originally Posted by Ploughman

Great interview, intrigued by the radar comments including the enigmatic "There is even some attempt to simulate antenna pattern." Anyone any ideas what that might mean?...

I could be wrong, but I took it to mean they've tried to make the radar effective only in those areas that it actually covered. Someone posted a picture of a map somewhere in the forums here that showed the fan-like spread of each radar station and how they overlapped, or didn't. The coverage of the channnel wasn't complete, with a series of stations beaming further out from certain points, while another series covered areas closer to home. Sounds like they've tried to limit the radars effectiveness in a more historically accurate way than just giving everything everywhere blanket coverage. I'm just guessing that's what they meant though.

[The Kraken]

Too bad that these days any disagreement has to end in drama on this forum...

Anyway consider these points:

- a story and event-driven campaign is a great showcase for the capabilities of the mission builder and scripting/trigger functionalities (also important during development)
- such campaigns will be popular with the general audience beyond the flight sim enthusiasts, which have to buy the game as well to make it a financial success. This will also be reflected in reviews which usually point out that flight sims are "too boring" for normal players. Provided it's well done of course.
- if it's not your cup of tea, just use them as training opportunities to get accustomed to the planes - or stick to the QMB if you're too disgusted. By the time you've set up everything and feel comfortable with the planes, HOTAS and engine management you can bet that some more serious campaign are already available for download.

No reason to panic. But maybe I'm just too relaxed for the current state of this forum...

[Blue 5]

I have deleted some posts in this thread, lets keep it positive please.

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.

[ckolonko]

Looks like the renegade thing is confirmed.