BoS release in 2014? Then they MUST include lots of legacy CoD and BoM coding, imho...

[Foobar]

Building high quality models is a time-killing business. The more already finished models from MG stock (including cockpit models) can be converted to BoS the more time can be saved to make other things.

[stiboo]

In about one month it will be 2013. My understanding is that BOS will be out in early 2014. That is approximately one year, not two.

 

Yes I really hope so!

 

Just think, we will be playing BoS sometime in the next 52-64 weeks!

 

The RoF engine will be very old by then...at least Cod was for the future...

 

but it's better than having nothing to look forward to and if we don't like it we can jolly well go out there and build a better sim ourselves!

 

Can't wait to see the first screen shots...

 

Simon

[=IRFC=Jorri]

Call of Duty is one of the most popular games in the world and its based on a 7 year old engine

 

Grand, bad comparison as it's an arcade FPS, and it actually looks and runs shite, but still

Edited December 16, 2012 by hq_Jorri

[machoo]

DX11 games run amazingly well , no DX11 game that I have I can't run on full detail without the fps dropping under 60fps.  I really can't get excited about a product running outdated graphics. You can't polish a turd.

[migmadmarine]

But ROF is by no means a turd. Sure it's not working with the newest tech, but it works VERY well with what it does use, and looks VERY good. 

[Logan]

If 777 had a TBD 3d model they gave to IL2 1946 4.11 then I guess the door swings both ways. They might be able to pull some stuff from COD and make it work in BOS. with the ROF engine. Maybe?

[mazex]

Well I don't think it will be too much of a stretch to complete in a year and a bit. This year 777 will have released (by Christmas hopefully) six aircraft and a map plus other improvements. I'd imagine that they would be aiming to have 4-6 aircraft at launch. 777 use 3DS Max version 8 so the existing aircraft and textures can be used as a base but I'd think from experience that they'd need to redo about 50 to 75% of the modelling work to get them into the new engine, probably less for ground objects. The flight models will of course need to be redone for the new engine but they should at least have all the reference material. The current modelling team for RoF used to work for Luther on the Korean expansion and then on CLoD.

 

I would expect that the game will feel and look a lot like RoF and personally I think that will be good thing.

 

+1 on everything - accept I'm not sure if I can sign the last sentence.

 

RoF as it is today is a bit sterile for me, so I hope they will be able to cram more objects into the new game... But that takes time so the hope for that being done is that they don't make the map to big or varied.

 

Having said that, RoF looks and flies good enough for me today, if they just add a bunch of WWII planes with decent FM:s into RoF with a credible Stalingrad map I'm all in, and I'm fully willing to sponsor the team to continue adding  more content into "RoF WWII" with the financial model they have today. If I get the option to buy a new flyable plane for around $10 every other month - how could I pass on that? But doing WWII planes requires a LOT more work than WWI so if they are going to do them in CloD detail we will get one every six months and we will have to pay $25. Sad but true. Just think of modelling all the "moving" external parts of a WWII plane like landing gear, flaps, cooling devices, canopies, variable pitch propellers etc. And then you have the cockpits of the WWII birds that I guess take five times as long as a WWI cockpit. And all the complex systems for aiming, sights, engine operation... 

 

So this is the cockpit of a RoF WWI Gotha two engine bomber:

 

 

 

Compare that to the Ju 88 in Clod...

 

Even if they import the 3D models into RoF - it has for work too. Something must tell dial d23 to move... And if a bullet hit part p23 and p45 - that dial should start to drop as system s34 has got damage sd4 that will cause system s3 and s4 to fail in x seconds with the initial sound ss78 and particle effects px90 and px93 if the pilot dont pull lever l5 to a position between p50 and p75 which should naturally also affect system s56-s62 in various ways, causing a number of effects on the ac performance! 

 

But MG went bankrupt and 1C handed the IL2 franchise over to 777 that had been interested in doing a WWII version of RoF for a long time. So we are getting "RoF WWII" - nothing else. And that is a good thing. I naturally would have liked to have both "RoF WWII" from 777 studios and and IL2/CloD from MG as long running financially healthy products. But sadly for us customers that did not happen... At least half of my dream has come true

Edited December 16, 2012 by mazex

[Freycinet]

Mazex you need to read Lofts developer diary. CoD-complexity cockpits are out the window, we won't see stuff like that again I guess forever, after the hate that came CoDs way.

[mazex]

Mazex you need to read Lofts developer diary. CoD-complexity cockpits are out the window, we won't see stuff like that again I guess forever, after the hate that came CoDs way.

 

Thanks for the heads up. Indeed i needed that. Somehow I missed the link to Lofts post when BS posted the heads up initially.

 

Even though it would be nice with CloD level of detail I think that Loft and 777 are doing the right thing - and it's the only way to not end up at the end of the runway in a smoking wreck like MG.

 

Go back to being a serious WWII aerial combat simulator and don't try to be a procedural simulator with every last dial clickable etc. I'm fine with that. Maybe a bit more systems management than IL2, but it simply gets to complex when most of the audience only wants a modernized IL2.

[Foobar]

Freycinet, do you really think they would build new cockpits with less details from scratch instead of taking already finished ones from MG (even if that would require some reworking in a way)?

 

I really don't think so, this wouldn't be wise. But we will see.

[mazex]

Freycinet, do you really think they would build new cockpits with less details from scratch instead of taking already finished ones from MG (even if that would require some reworking in a way)?

 

I really don't think so, this wouldn't be wise. But we will see.

 

It's one thing taking the 3ds file and import it into the engine which they are working on as it seems. Another thing to make all the dials work and thus all the systems "beneath them" (not talking clickable here as that is out of scope now - but if they move at all). Reading the answer from Loft that:

 

 

 

 

13) Can we expect the clickable cockpits?

 

No. We create a simulation of air combat (this includes attacking ground targets). The pilot will only receive critical systems, propeller pitch, boost, altitude control, different mechanization, weapons and more. Procedural training device it will not be, it will be a game simulator. We would like to return to the original idea of ???

[hiro]

If the ROF engine is done like usual game engines, importing models of planes and graphics, or any vehicle, or object is possible. Then the engine's variable (for game play) is determined for that object (FM, damage, etc) . . .

 

The possible part is if the CLOD / BOM models can be converted into what ROF's updated engine can use. If its modelling using standard software (like Maya) and a converter exists and works, then it'll be done. Time saver (like others have also already posted) 

 

The real test is will BOS' engine give us a feel like Clod (when it worked) . 

 

And I feel the BOS dev team can do this because they know their engine. 

 

 

And the time frame? WHo knows, the team might have had been working on this 2011 and 2012, just because we found out this  month doesn't mean both companies internally might have been cooking and marinating the engine for BOS prior to the public hearing about it. So they may have had more time. Since we're speculating . . .

 

The public learned of America's stealth fighter (actually stealth attack plane) and it was only in the twilight of its career.

 

 

The thing is clickable cockpits is nice, but it takes away from flying for me. In clod I set it up like 1946. All commands on keyboard, throttle / stick etc . . .  Most online pilots right hand is on the stick and also their right hand uses the mouse. It was just more intuitive to keep right on stick and left to toggle switches (BTW I keep a hand on the cessna yoke and left flips switches . . .). 

 

 

And you can't compare ROF to what BOS is . . . ROF models WW I cockpits, and their complexity was different than WW 2 planes. 

[Foobar]

HiFi models don't fall off the trees how some here around may think. Before thinking about how to make any dials working together the models have to be researched, built and textured. And still it may be easier to take existing models and strip some "dials" than making new ones from scratch. I don't see how a rather small team should build all required models from scratch AND programm all required code for a complete sim within only 2 years if ever. If someone would ask me I would say: take all models from here, take existing engine from there - put all together and hope it will become what the hungry croud demads

 

I'm curious.

[=IRFC=Huetz]

 Loft is obviously not ready to walk that path and I think that is a wise decision if we want any WWII sims in the future at all.

 

 

Just to clarify on this, Loft has actually endured quite some flaming in the past as well when RoF was first released and the community went apesh*t over bugs and lack of content despite them being cristal clear about the fact that they either had to rush it out or fail. If anything, the new team is careful because they have been on that path before.

 

I'm with you on everything else, the heart and soul of a good combat simulation are in my opinion flight-, damage- and ballistics modelling.

 

Things like broken high altitude FM could be a pain in WWI but are a dealbreaker in WW2 where a lot of the fighting was centered around who could fly higher and faster, especially late war.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Huetz

[mazex]

HiFi models don't fall off the trees how some here around may think. Before thinking about how to make any dials working together the models have to be researched, built and textured. And still it may be easier to take existing models and strip some "dials" than making new ones from scratch. I don't see how a rather small team should build all required models from scratch AND programm all required code for a complete sim within only 2 years if ever. If someone would ask me I would say: take all models from here, take existing engine from there - put all together and hope it will become what the hungry croud demads

 

I'm curious.

 

Agreed. And they have some nice looking trains laying around too that would be a shame to not use

[Freycinet]

Freycinet, do you really think they would build new cockpits with less details from scratch instead of taking already finished ones from MG (even if that would require some reworking in a way)?

 

I really don't think so, this wouldn't be wise. But we will see.

 

I started this thread thinking it was a no-brainer that they would re-use all the great models and cockpits from CoD and BoM. After Loft's developer diary I think, however, that we can forget about the cockpits. The external models will probably be re-used to some small extent (see the Russian fighter in his diary posting).

 

It would look really weird if they have superb, super-detailed legacy cockpits, and then new ones coming out, over time, of a lower complexity. So, much as I personally would love to see the splendid Stuka-, Ju-88-, Me-110- and He-111-cockpits and gunner stations carried over into BoS.... - Well, now I think it won't happen.

 

If there had been less bitching about the many bugs, and more appreciation of the revolutionary and frankly out-of-this-world mindboggling features, then I think CoD could have pulled it off, and become the start of a viable series, where bugs would be ironed out over time and features added, as happened with Il-2 Classic and RoF. But the worst part of this so-called "community" preferred the infantile and destructive fun of spamming the sim to death. It always conferred more brownie points to some sad individuals for them to be all-knowing asinine critics than to have a balanced and patient view. Those people never bothered to stop and think that, with the financial realities of hi-fi flight sim development, they perhaps, just perhaps, couldn't get EVERYTHING for a pittance of a price. Oh, and of course running fantastic graphics on a medium computer... Hell, it took two years for me to even afford a computer that could run Il-2 Classic back in the early 00's. Did I bitch about that? - No, I was super-happy that someone made a sim pushing the boundaries and I happily followed it in the forums until I could play it myself.        

 

Sometimes I wonder what the hobby computer fans of the 1970's would say if they knew the "entitled" crowd of today. They had a dream of ubiquitous home computing and spent ten years with frankly useless DIY kits that they had to tinker with themselves and that didn't do much more than light up a few bulbs. But they knew it was necessary steps to the future of computing and stuck with it. Well, with a little bit more acceptance and a good deal less bitching maybe the flight sim community could have supported next-gen CoD and had a super sim some years down the road, when hardware caught up and bugs were ironed out. Too much to ask for, obviously... Now the critics are pretending for a while that this new "realistic" vision of simming that 1C is presenting is what they always dreamed of. But, don't fool yourself, they will go back to their own sickening b!tching before long...

[Krupi]

when most of the audience only wants a modernized IL2.

 

I couldn't think of anything worse... I really hope we get more than just a pretty il2:1946 in the end.

 

I started this thread thinking it was a no-brainer that they would re-use all the great models and cockpits from CoD and BoM. After Loft's developer diary I think, however, that we can forget about the cockpits. The external models will probably be re-used to some small extent (see the Russian fighter in his diary posting).

 

It would look really weird if they have superb, super-detailed legacy cockpits, and then new ones coming out, over time, of a lower complexity. So, much as I personally would love to see the splendid Stuka-, Ju-88-, Me-110- and He-111-cockpits and gunner stations carried over into BoS.... - Well, now I think it won't happen.

 

If there had been less bitching about the many bugs, and more appreciation of the revolutionary and frankly out-of-this-world mindboggling features, then I think CoD could have pulled it off, and become the start of a viable series, where bugs would be ironed out over time and features added, as happened with Il-2 Classic and RoF. But the worst part of this so-called "community" preferred the infantile and destructive fun of spamming the sim to death. It always conferred more brownie points to some sad individuals for them to be all-knowing asinine critics than to have a balanced and patient view. Those people never bothered to stop and think that, with the financial realities of hi-fi flight sim development, they perhaps, just perhaps, couldn't get EVERYTHING for a pittance of a price. Oh, and of course running fantastic graphics on a medium computer... Hell, it took two years for me to even afford a computer that could run Il-2 Classic back in the early 00's. Did I bitch about that? - No, I was super-happy that someone made a sim pushing the boundaries and I happily followed it in the forums until I could play it myself.        

 

Sometimes I wonder what the hobby computer fans of the 1970's would say if they knew the "entitled" crowd of today. They had a dream of ubiquitous home computing and spent ten years with frankly useless DIY kits that they had to tinker with themselves and that didn't do much more than light up a few bulbs. But they knew it was necessary steps to the future of computing and stuck with it. Well, with a little bit more acceptance and a good deal less bitching maybe the flight sim community could have supported next-gen CoD and had a super sim some years down the road, when hardware caught up and bugs were ironed out. Too much to ask for, obviously... Now the critics are pretending for a while that this new "realistic" vision of simming that 1C is presenting is what they always dreamed of. But, don't fool yourself, they will go back to their own sickening b!tching before long...

 

+1 Agreed... (Unfortunately I have run out of votes today but tomorrow I will be back to up your post :D )

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

We dont even know if the COD cockpits would "fit" into BOS engine and if they dont, do you really think they could model...lets say 8 new ones to the same standard in 18 months?

 

Were going to have to face facts were not getting the sequel to COD, this is a new sim series.

 

 

 

 

Frey...we all have different opinions on why COD is gone, bringing them up again here on this forum isn't worth it and just invites petty arguments.

 

I decided im not posting or replying to that sort of post anymore, im not going to fight about on this forum...maybe all of us who used to bicker and squabble should.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Furbs

[LeazesNDR]

Agreed. Which makes this entire endeavour even more bewildering, as by 2015/16 the RoF engine will have run its course anyway.

 

Seeing as you can see into the future, could you tell me next weeks winning Lottery numbers please. Ta!

Edited December 16, 2012 by LeazesNDR

[Meusli]

Just how much worse are the cockpits going to be? I have ROF and I have never thought anything bad about the cockpits and everyone is varied enough to do the job intended. I admit that I was wowed by the CLOD cockpits when I first saw them but that soon disappears as you get used to them and track objects outside of your cockpit. I don't care if the cockpits or other details are slightly worse in detail if they can do the job at hand, ROF uses 6DOF and has working gauges. That will be enough for me.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

These 16 would be minimum in my opinion. Any less at release makes the game not worth buying, IMO.

 

Bf109E-7

Bf109F-2/4

Bf110E/F/G

Fw190A

Ju87B/R/D

Ju88A-4

He111H-6

Ju52

 

I-16

Yak-1

Yak-9

La-5

LaGG3

IL-2

Pe-2

Li-2

 

Personally I would be content with four flyables per side (fighter, heavy fighter, mudmover and momber) as long as I know there would be more to come. In my view, the important bit is a good mission maker (I've been told the RoF mission maker has a bit of a leraning curve to it) so that the 3rd party animals can throw themselves in to flesh it out. With a few non-flyables in addition and creative mission-makers, both off- and on-liners can have months of fun with a limited planeset.

[[KWN]T-oddball]

Personally I would be content with four flyables per side (fighter, heavy fighter, mudmover and momber) as long as I know there would be more to come. In my view, the important bit is a good mission maker (I've been told the RoF mission maker has a bit of a leraning curve to it) so that the 3rd party animals can throw themselves in to flesh it out. With a few non-flyables in addition and creative mission-makers, both off- and on-liners can have months of fun with a limited planeset.

http://www.amazon.com/IL-2-Sturmovik-Cliffs-Dover-Pc/dp/B004L5SJ4Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1355702109&sr=1-1&keywords=cliffs+of+dover

[Bearcat]

This is another one being watched.

[=69.GIAP=YSTREB]

I'm tellin gu guys, I'll be more than happy to buy if BoS has all the feature of Clod and

 

flyable planes,

 

Bf109F

 

Ju87

 

 

 

 

Yak-1

 

IL-2

 

 

other ai planes don't care 

 

but don't just lower the bar set by Clod. god's sake 

[Blitzen]

There were other planes shown in the developement before release of CloD that were quite far along in modleing that wereeither going to be flyable or in AI,in paticular the Bf-108 & the as yet unseen ( & probably never to be seen) He-59. There were some indications that the AU aircraft we have now might eventually have cockpits too.At one time nearly every aircraft that was around during the Battle of Britain would be available as the sim grew ( alas,sadly not to be...)Then all the Eastern Front planes we saw previewed.

  Is it the expert view that since these were all developed to some extent or another in another code, that everything about their developement is pretty much usless to Studio777?

Kinda sad isn't it? As I said in another post its too bad 1C couldn't give us what woould easily work with out CloD install ,like the Ju-88A-4...I know I'm just dreaming...

[=IRFC=Jorri]

Even RoF project, when it was still Knights of the Sky, went through a whole cycle where a lot of planes and content were produced but in the end, none of it ended up in the final product and it was recreated in higher definition (or some planes not recreated at all yet for RoF). It's a shame that unreleased content will go to waste, but it's not a rarity in developer world. It's good news that at least it's possible to port plane models from CloD and unreleased BoM, hopefully they can do it with quite a few of them. They look gorgeous.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Didn't Loft post photos of the Battle of Moscow Lagg 3 that was imported into the RoF engine as a test?

 

I think it may be possible to import the external 3D models, but DMs and cockpits will need fresh work to be enabled in the DN Engine.

 

Still if true, that could save quite a bit of effort, and more importantly time, especially in regards the many ground vehicles that have already been done for the old sim.

[=IRFC=Jorri]

Didn't Loft post photos of the Battle of Moscow Lagg 3 that was imported into the RoF engine as a test?

 

I think it may be possible to import the external 3D models, but DMs and cockpits will need fresh work to be enabled in the DN Engine.

 

Still if true, that could save quite a bit of effort, and more importantly time, especially in regards the many ground vehicles that have already been done for the old sim.

 

Yes, he did.

 

Also, we know those models are excellent quality (not that 777's aren't) so if they import them you can't go wrong Only thing might be that they want to use different amount of model/texture detail than in CoD, they would have to change them again.

Edited December 18, 2012 by hq_Jorri

[BlitzPig_EL]

Add the fact that a number of the old Maddox Games staff are now on board with BoS/777 and this could cut down dev time quite a bit, as the original team do know their own 3D work quite well, and are obviously very accomplished at it.

[Blitzen]

After some digging here are a couple of the old screenshots...just for fun :

 

 

 

Wouls have really liked to see the He-59.In fact in one of the early patches there was a He-59 skin!

[falstaff]

To answer the original post (and not the score settling 'them-wot-killed-it' stuff that is breaking out) ....it does not follow that much legacy Clod code will be used.

 

Any assertion needs clarifying. There are different code types. You have memory management routines, run-tinme exectables, run-time libraries, cache management, assets and asset management and swap-file routines, opitmised core run-times, fetches and pre-fetches and on and on and on.

 

From my own (relatively small) experience of flight-sim documentation and (larger) experience of complex software dev, I would say it highly unlikely any Clod run-time code could be used, or memory management code, or any of the inner structures.

 

It is fairly likely that the only code to be used would not really be 'code' but assets.

 

Code and assets are thought of as two different things.

 

Assets, maybe. Code...as in run-times and kernels...unlikely. I'd imagine even the transference of assets will involve intermediary translating and 'half-way house' programs, unless assets are using common formats (with the same revision number?!).

 

Given the time available I'd imagine the core run-times will remain pretty much the same, or only iterate. It used to be the case that the core graphics kernel would farm out instructions to be translated into rendering, and if done properly, this can allow updated calls to be added, to keep pace with graphical developments and libraries. The problem with this is that assets need to be kept updated to reflect these calls so that they are not left behind, looking old.

 

So, for a simple answer to the OP: assets, maybe...coding...highly unlikely (imagine de-bugging different or even mixed core run-times and code-bases!)

 

 

 

 

 

[Freycinet]

My first post was made before the developer diary - which answered my questions - was posted...

[Blitzen]

Perfectly understandable ...still a pity all of that work  will end up on the cutting room floor so to speak...

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Yes, he did.

 

Also, we know those models are excellent quality (not that 777's aren't) so if they import them you can't go wrong Only thing might be that they want to use different amount of model/texture detail than in CoD, they would have to change them again.

 

Hopefully the original aircraft models are made in very detail and then they are optimised (detail reduced ) to run on the sims game engine. (I think I remember a development post to this effect of the COD forum)

 

If this is a case they would probably go to the original high detailed model and optimise that  to the required level, rather than use the 3D model straight from the older title.

 

It would mean a lot of work to get them into the required format , but would be better suited to the new game engine.

 

(Any of the Development team like to enlighten us here please do )

Edited December 18, 2012 by Skoshi Tiger

[=IRFC=Jorri]

After some digging here are a couple of the old screenshots...just for fun :

 

That makes me want!

 

Ironic, since we DO have a Heinkel floatplane in RoF (The Hansa Brandenburg was designed by Ernst Heinkel)

 

Looks great, though, and great fun to fly! I hope the new WWII 'franchise' will also eventually have some floatplanes or flying boats, when it expands into new theatres.

Edited December 19, 2012 by hq_Jorri

[Bearcat]

To answer the original post (and not the score settling 'them-wot-killed-it' stuff that is breaking out) ....it does not follow that much legacy Clod code will be used.

 

Any assertion needs clarifying. There are different code types. You have memory management routines, run-tinme exectables, run-time libraries, cache management, assets and asset management and swap-file routines, opitmised core run-times, fetches and pre-fetches and on and on and on.

 

From my own (relatively small) experience of flight-sim documentation and (larger) experience of complex software dev, I would say it highly unlikely any Clod run-time code could be used, or memory management code, or any of the inner structures.

 

It is fairly likely that the only code to be used would not really be 'code' but assets.

 

Code and assets are thought of as two different things.

 

Assets, maybe. Code...as in run-times and kernels...unlikely. I'd imagine even the transference of assets will involve intermediary translating and 'half-way house' programs, unless assets are using common formats (with the same revision number?!).

 

Given the time available I'd imagine the core run-times will remain pretty much the same, or only iterate. It used to be the case that the core graphics kernel would farm out instructions to be translated into rendering, and if done properly, this can allow updated calls to be added, to keep pace with graphical developments and libraries. The problem with this is that assets need to be kept updated to reflect these calls so that they are not left behind, looking old.

 

So, for a simple answer to the OP: assets, maybe...coding...highly unlikely (imagine de-bugging different or even mixed core run-times and code-bases!)

 

Considering that the engine is not going to be the CoD engine you are probably right.. but I was under the impression that the 3D models were different.. that there was a lot more flexibility in usig various 3D models in different code because they were designed differently. The WoP modles are pretty good too.. so are the WT ones.

[Blitzen]

That makes me want!

 

Ironic, since we DO have a Heinkel floatplane in RoF (The Hansa Brandenburg was designed by Ernst Heinkel)

 

Looks great, though, and great fun to fly! I hope the new WWII 'franchise' will also eventually have some floatplanes or flying boats, when it expands into new theatres.

It is a very pretty bird...just waiting for the Channel Map & the Felixstowe...

 

 

[AndyJWest]

It is a very pretty bird...

 

Yes - though it doesn't climb as well as it looks. 

 

Then again, if you strap a couple of canoes to something that would probably be only an average performer on wheels, what would you expect... 

[BlitzPig_EL]

I enjoy flying the Hansa-Brandenburg, but it really is a death trap when land based scouts are about.

 

Doesn't turn too badly though.   It will come into it's own against the Felixstow.

 

Now if we only had the map and the aircraft so we could have the classic Macchi vs. H-B battles that took place over the Adriatic.

 

The Macchi M series flying boat single seaters are very sexy birds indeed...

 

 

The Macchi M5 of 1917.  

 

Top speed of 117 mph.  3+ hours endurance, 2 .303 Vickers guns.

 

Lovely, just lovely.

Edited December 19, 2012 by ElAurens

[AndyJWest]

Best not go to far off-topic into RoF-land, ElAurens. 

 

For BoS, there isn't much opportunity for floaty-stuff, but with any luck, we might see some in sequels. Walrus? :wub:  PBY?  :wub:  Sunderland?  :wub: Heinkel's efforts of course, the Japanese Zero-on-floats (can't remember it's name), and one or two other Japanese designs too, just off the top of my head. I'd best not give my opinion of the G****** D***, either on the grounds of aesthetics (I may be in a minority, but I think it looks even uglier from the inside than it does outside), or because nobody likes G****** anyway, for reasons deep in the history of the original IL-2...