IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad

[Burning Bridges]

Of course, that makes you a true simmer then. It was just a statement how my experience has changed over the years, that I realized I never got that much from flying around, more from my interest in the military hardware and its performance. And a lot of people are like me, they are really super interested in flight sims at first, then lose interest because the experience is so technical and fast. A lot of that taste is catered better with submarine sims, where there is not so much motor skill and workload, and you have more time to make decisions.

So basicly we need another IL2 game with dynamic campaign. I would be OK with that.

we need an autist who will dedicate rest of his life for this task and make a kickstarter out of it.

any volunteers ?

Unrealistic, because such projects all fail. Have you tried Over Flanders Fields by the way? It had a lot of what you describe.

 

[Makabb]

Unrealistic, because such projects all fail. Have you tried Over Flanders Fields by the way? It had a lot of what you describe.

Yes but the developers are top tier jews and they want you to pay 45$ for every single expansions which provides laughable content for a mod


talk about milking the flight sim community, they know they can squeeze every last drop because there are no other games

 

[Burning Bridges]

Thanks for proving my point. Your demands are astronomic, nothing is ever good enough and you want it for free. No wonder the guys who tried have left game development in disgust.

 

[Makabb]

Thanks for proving my point. Your demands are astronomic, nothing is ever good enough and you want it for free. No wonder the guys who tried have left game development in disgust.

hey dumbass, there is a difference paying for a mod for a 10 year old game on a limited engine and a game by a company that has its own engine with what they can do anything they want it they want to

 

[Burning Bridges]

You seem to think that anyones give a shit about your opinion that's amusing. Game companies are not your parents who shove stuff into your butthole so you feel better. There is supply and demand and the price is not dictated by you. It's also not by the age of the engine but by the effort they make to create it, or eventually what they can get. OFF was meant as a friendly advice for you, because it has a pretty impressive ground activity. If you dont want it just fuck off and do what you can do best, whine. You are not even the target group for sim companies, just the riff raff that creates problems in the forums and complains about their pirated copies of the game.

 

[SmartCheetah]

To be fair, they mentioned WT as a bad example for a sim.

This. Wasn't saying that WT is a sim lol. I was just saying that the engine could be used for a proper sim with some work. Unfortunately, it's an arcade shooter with a lot of stupid crap in it. Can't really argue about that.

Also, yeah - was talking about WW II alone. DCS is great. F86 module looks so fucking sexy it's seriously tempting to buy it.

 

[commie]

No dynamic campaign is no buy for me. Amazing how Rowan games had kick ass dynamic campaigns in the 90's and nowadays they simply don't seem to exist anymore. Shame the classics are so hard to get to run properly. Mig Alley for instance was an awesome rendition of the Korean war but it runs like a hog today. If it runs at all.

Not just Rowan. Razorworks with their Apache vs Havoc and Comanche Vs Hokum had great campaigns. Still look good enough now. IL2 BoS I managed to find boxed for less than 7 euros so I certainly got my money's worth. There is a third party DCG for it in beta that works pretty well as well: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/24312-pwcg-unified-20-beta-3-available/ It's also for Rise of Flight and unifies Battle of Moscow which I guess I'll get soon enough too.

As for Mig Alley and the like, bro, you need to make an old Win 95 P3 machine for a few bucks. If for nothing else,than you can also use the best joysticks (such as the original MS Force Feedback Pro. Haven't found a stick I liked since) from the time joysticks were make in exceptional quality(needed gameport hence limited to Win 95/98 for the most part).

 

[J_C]

Let me ask just this: is there any reason for playing Battle of Stalingrad over IL2: 1946? I haven't followed BoS very much, and 1946 is maybe the most complete WW2 sim ever.

 

[commie]

Let me ask just this: is there any reason for playing Battle of Stalingrad over IL2: 1946? I haven't followed BoS very much, and 1946 is maybe the most complete WW2 sim ever.

Well there is a point if you want better flight and damage modelling and AI. But it's a lot more focused and so if you (like me mostly) prefer survey sims where you have many aircraft easy to fly then I would stick with Il2 1946. Though if you can get BoS cheap I'd say it's still worth it.


BoS or BoM have few planes, much better modeled. It's a bit illusory though as realistically 1946 has a lot of aircraft you won't be flying and many others are basically variants of the same thing so the only 'completeness' that makes difference is having US and Jap planes and Pacific in addition to Eastern Front.

Being the cheap bastard spoiled by dollar bundles, I can't really justify 40 euros for BoS, but 10-15 is a good price if you can find it and they do keep adding AI planes and third party campaigns are springing up.

 

[J_C]

Steam review:

TheWeinerHero
0.6 hrs
POSTED: 5 SEPTEMBER
Too many controls, no tutorial, and have to look up a guide just to get into the game. It's as unfriendly as it sounds. Steer clear because this isn't what you want.

Fucking kids these days.

Thanks commie Can you tell me how well or badly optimized it is? I have an AMD Phenom II X4, 8 GB RAM and ATI HD6870, what are the chances that I can run it decently?

 

[commie]

Steam review:

TheWeinerHero
0.6 hrs
POSTED: 5 SEPTEMBER
Too many controls, no tutorial, and have to look up a guide just to get into the game. It's as unfriendly as it sounds. Steer clear because this isn't what you want.

Fucking kids these days.

Thanks commie Can you tell me how well or badly optimized it is? I have an AMD Phenom II X4, 8 GB RAM and ATI HD6870, what are the chances that I can run it decently?

I actually built a cheap steam machine for a friend and tested the game with an older AMD 7750 1GB and turned down my i7 to only use 1 core to get an idea how it runs before using the card in his machine. I found it was pretty smooth. Sure I knocked down shadows(which you wont see on the ground anyway) but kept draw distance far and textures high at 1080 and it was very smooth. I was a bit conservative too with the CPU settings as was more interested in the video card performance You have the benefit of quad core and a stronger card than that one so it should work fine. It's not a game with dozens of aircraft at a time in a small area(like il2 1946 for the most part) so it doesn't get overwhelmed. Sure, if you crank every AA setting to 16x and post processing with every fancy thing then you'll struggle(my GTX 660 struggled though a newer 950 has no issues) but that's common sense.AA at 2x or 4x(I'd keep it at 2x to make sure with your system) and it will be good. Still will look miles better than 1946 and be just as smooth.

 

[J_C]

That's nice to hear. I usually don't care about shadows, even turn off AA if needed, so I hope it will run well.

 

[Makabb]

the new sturmovik probably needs like 2 more years and a price point of -75%, then i will get it.


It took them 2 years to remove the mmo unlock system since the release ffs.

 

[Makabb]

The milking continues

Technology and Features:

- DX11

- VR (with existing GUI)

- New Career for Kuban, Moscow, Stalingrad (ROF-like)

- Scripted Campaign game mode with first Campaign of 15 missions. Community can add their own scripted Campaigns later.

- CO-OP Multiplayer Game Mode (ROF-like to start)

- Air Marshall and Field Marshall modes for MP. (i.e. HQ-ATC-GCI type screen to manage a battle with realistic limited info)

- In-Game Model-Viewer (tool for skin makers)

- Mods On/Off Mode (As open as possible including sounds and textures)

- Support for Tacview

- Rear View Mirrors

- Re-vamped Triple Monitor Support

- External Gauges API for app makers

- Ability for Players to Import Vehicles and Objects (Like ROF)

- SDK for Vehicles, Buildings, Boats and other Objects

- Custom Graphics Settings Options



Other Improvements:

- As much of Daniel’s DD120 (As time and budgets allow)

- Adjustable Cloud Heights

- Flight Model Optimization for AI planes (More AI planes in missions)

- Planes with larger wheels are less stuck in rough terrain

- Support for Larger Textures (Assuming tests prove possible)

- Sound/Graphics FX (Object linked hits and sounds)

- Sharper Shadows

- Haze Improvements (Possibly if research results are good)

- New Tracers (Possibly if research results are good)

- Oil Leak Texture Layer (Possibly if research results are good)

- Liquid effects on Canopies (Possibly if research results are good)

- Torpedoes

- Key/Axis Mapping Dialog Re-design

- PWCG custom button in GUI (Similar to ROF)

- Crew Position Hotkeys

- HEAT projectile

- Multiple Bomblets

- Cavity bursting charge AP projectile

- TrackIR seen as separate device by game

- Misfires when gun overheated

- Blown engine if something going wrong with it

- Trimmers on axis

- Cargo Drops and Paratroopers for Ju-52




http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25072-announcing-battle-kuban-and-development-plan/


They plan to finish this in december 2017

 

[Burning Bridges]

If I get this right they want to turn this into a series (Battle of .. Leningrad / Lake Balaton / Berlin / Kalchin Gol etc), sell this with the same pointless scripted campaign, and people rejoice because they finally remove the unlock gulag?

 

[Trash]

Nothing wrong with a decent scripted campaign. Dynamic campaigns however are simply much more fun.

 

[J_C]

Exactly. If the campaign is good, I can deal with it not being dynamic.

 

[Burning Bridges]

A scripted campaign is normally just an illusion just like a movie or a non game, that's why I have always been completely disinterested in them.
The real deal is wether you have the same degrees of freedom as in real life. That means you can go anywhere at any time, everything can be destroyed, and the destruction stays and is slowly rebuilt. Around you is changing weather and radio, there are animals in the fields and cars on the road, and when you return there may be enemy bombers attacking your airfield. It's not only a question of a dynamic campaign (a pretty dumb term actually for a simulated world) but for example the map borders in DCS / Lomac / IL2 are huge immersion breakers too. Static scripted sims cheat the simmer because they only simulate being in an aircraft but not the other aspects like the world, weather, radio traffic and the ongoing war, and a lot of people only want the full program.

 

[Makabb]

Scripted campaign is good for an RPG but not for a flight sim

 

[Endemic]

Combat Flight Simulator 3 has a fully dynamic campaign iirc, IL-2 1946 and Janes' Longbow 2 are semi-dynamic. DCS World isn't bad but the free part only gives you 2 aircraft. Other than that there's Falcon 4.0 (considered to be even better with the BMS mod).

 

[Burning Bridges]

CFS3 is the base for Over Flanders Fields, the pay mod that Makabb finds unacceptable. Microsoft had released a very ambitious, extensible engine with zero polish, then shut the studio game down, and the OFF guys put in 15 years to make it the (WW1) game it could have been. It's really nice to fly with all this ground activity but Makabb is right that the engine is too old. Same with Falcon 4.0, it's still the 90s. You also have Battle of Britain 2 with the various expansions which has a full strategy game inbuilt. And what happened to Rowan, the original designers? Blown into the winds and too frustrated to even speak about it. Sims with full "dynamic" campaigns are just a huge fucking tragedy, either no one makes them or the people don't pay for them.

 

[Endemic]

Falcon 4.0 Allied Force was released in 2005 iirc, but if you're SOL if 'modern' is a requirement.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I can remember the release of the Falcon 4.0 was long overdue in 1997, I briefly tried to run it in 1999 and my hardware was hopelessly behind.

 

[Endemic]

I can remember the release of the Falcon 4.0 was long overdue in 1997, I briefly tried to run it in 1999 and my hardware was hopelessly behind.

They released it in December 1998, development reportedly started in late 94. I don't know what you had in 1999, but the game's min spec called for a Pentium 166 and 32MB RAM (3D card not mandatory). I started playing it around that time as well, on a Celeron 533/128MB/ATI Rage 128 system which I picked up used for a few hundred bucks. Though it was a little slow on the campaign screen if you tried to accelerate time, heh.

 

[bonescraper]

Stop spamming.