New posts on the IL2 Facebook page: Ju-88 & playable tanks. VERY interesting!

[FlyingNutcase]

I just bumped into the latest posts on the IL2 Facebook page and it's a mighty interesting read, especially on the playable tanks side, including a very nice video of Han at the controls of a PzKpfw III Ausf. L.

 

I can see the resource concerns of plane-only players but this could really boost numbers and make the future much stronger; quite apart from the fact that the gameplay could be fantastico for those of us with an interest in tactical tank/land combat.

 

https://www.facebook.com/il2sturmovik/posts/899050850172774

Edited November 13, 2015 by FlyingNutcase

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Aka dev diary 113 above

Edited November 13, 2015 by McKvack

[FlyingNutcase]

Oops, missed that! Well, a bit of love on FB won't do any harm. :-)

[Willy__]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/page-3?do=findComment&comment=302842

[Y-29.Silky]

See what I mean?

 

 

to better suit ground warfare and the results were good as well.

 

Battle of Stalingrad is almost 3 years old and we still don't have all the aircraft that flew in the battle, horrible game optimizations, and 80ish limited servers.

The War Thunder kids are going to swarm across the steppe blasting their historically accurate complaints and requests for even more new tanks.

 

 

Aviators, it's the beginning of the end!

Edited November 16, 2015 by Y-29.Silky

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Silky, Il-2 will forever be a pilot's game, no matter what. People love aircraft, and more importantly the developers love aircraft too. No need for scaremongering.

 

Few people (particularly 'War Thunder kids') are willing to shell out $50 to $80 to drive two tanks and be constantly harassed by air support. Look at the Friday Night Bomber Flights results for example - a flight of 8 Il-2 or so busted 61 tanks with only three losses, one dead.

 

DCS:Combined Arms did not detract from the flying experience for example, why would Il-2 be different?

 

As long as there will be people crazy enough to hop onto tin cans tied to 1.000HP engines to go kill and be killed by people in other tin cans, flight simulations will live.

[Bando]

See what I mean?

 

 

 

Battle of Stalingrad is almost 3 years old and we still don't have all the aircraft that flew in the battle, horrible game optimizations, and 80ish limited servers.

The War Thunder kids are going to swarm across the steppe blasting their historically accurate complaints and requests for even more new tanks.

 

 

Aviators, it's the beginning of the end!

 

I disagree with you. I think this dev team has been true to everything they ever told us.

Han explained it is some sort of test to see if it will "roll" so to speak (the mannable tanks I mean) but their core business is planes.

 

And look what a great sim this is becoming, so I think you're wrong in my humble opinion.

[FuriousMeow]

horrible game optimizations,

 

That's a bunk statement. It's highly optimized, especially considering how much calculations go on that you can't see. It actually uses multiple cores efficiently and accurately. If your CPU were to peg at 100%, which for some reason some people think is the sign of "using all the CPU" - the system would slow to a crawl. Take an i7 870 and compare it in performance to an i7 4760k, both at 4GHz. The former's cores will have slightly higher usage, but the i7-4760k will crush the i7 870 in running the game. The optimization statement some throw out is just ignorance.

[Finkeren]

Battle of Stalingrad is almost 3 years old...

 

No it's not. BoS is just over a year old. It officially came out on October 22nd 2014. In case you have forgotten: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11976-we-proudly-present-you/

 

 ...and we still don't have all the aircraft that flew in the battle

 

No, we don't. This is not IL-2 1946 and never will be. With this level of detail in modelling, the best we can hope for is a good representative plane set of a dozen or so aircraft.

 

horrible game optimizations

 

Care to be more specific? There are a few of the optimizations, that have annoyed me slightly over the years of development, but the far majority I haven't even noticed at all, except for the higher frame rate.

 

and 80ish limited servers.

 

A number which has been growing steadily since it launched with a cap of 48. It's just been raised again, and there is no reason to believe, that it'll stop at 84.

 

The War Thunder kids are going to swarm across the steppe blasting their historically accurate complaints and requests for even more new tanks.

 

I certainly hope, that the tanks will draw a few WT players to fill the many empty servers, but I certainly don't think it'll be a swarm at all. WT players are drawn by many things, but the 3 major ones they won't find here: Free-to-play, lots of eye candy and details in relative small maps, fast and easy casual gameplay.

 

Maybe the will demand more tanks, but so what? As long as this is something the 3D modelers do in their spare time (which is how this got underway in the first place) I certainly don't mind having a larger selection of tank types.

 

Aviators, it's the beginning of the end!

 

No it's not. I was not terribly thrilled to learn, that we'd be getting drivable tanks, because I saw it as a shift in focus. Every bit of info we've gotten from the devs since then has shown, that this is not the case. IL2 is and will be a flight sim, not a tank sim. Every part of the engine is geared towards it, and it will take a serious redesign to make it suitable for a full-fledged tank sim.

 

doom and gloom gets us nowhere. Unless the devs are the biggest liars in flight sim history (and that's saying something) tanks will add a bit of flavor to the sim and posibly draw in more players, and that's it.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Finkeren

[indyscout]

I wonder how realistic tank damage modeling will be. Will have to do some testing when they release.

Edited November 16, 2015 by indyscout

[Cybermat47]

Aviators, it's the beginning of the end!

No, it really isn't. Relax, there's nothing wrong with playable tanks.

[johncage]

 

DCS:Combined Arms did not detract from the flying experience for example, why would Il-2 be different?

 

how do you know? for all we know, it did. for all we know, some features enhancing the aerial part of the sim were removed or delayed or cancelled as a result. also il2 isn't dcs. the structure, clientele, and budget are different. for example, dcs guys have contracts serving various militaries. il2 devs don't have that luxury.

 

also dcs is more diluted than ever before. it's so generic and boring, like arma 3 when it tried to do everything and ended up being good at nothing.

 

the engine is still an outdated mess. still single core in an era where the most common cpus are quad core. they argue the game is dual core because they had one thread on the second core used for audio processing, like that's going to free up much. game stuttering is a common complain on their forums.

 

the graphics are the best they can do, of course, considering the technology they're using as the basis for it. terrain and environment scaling is still atrociously bad. flying at any height you still don't get the sense of distance and speed like in il 2 or rise of flight.

 

the flight models are the same. if you shut off an engine, your plane hovers in mid air. because there is no actual simulated aerodynamics or atmosphere in that engine, like in il 2.

 

dcs combined arms was an unnecessary excursion into something that didn't do anything particularly good, and isn't good looking enough to beat out vehicle sims like steel armor blaze of war.

 

i don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to comprehend the argument that the more focused a product is, the better quality it is.

[SpaydCBR]

Oh man! Playable tanks! This is REALLY exciting! I like tanks and I think it will add a whole new dimension to the immersion of this WW2 sim. I hope it could even get to the point of being a full WW2 combat sim like WW2Online with the same attention to detail they've put in the planes put into every other aspect of it!

[ShamrockOneFive]

That's a bunk statement. It's highly optimized, especially considering how much calculations go on that you can't see. It actually uses multiple cores efficiently and accurately. If your CPU were to peg at 100%, which for some reason some people think is the sign of "using all the CPU" - the system would slow to a crawl. Take an i7 870 and compare it in performance to an i7 4760k, both at 4GHz. The former's cores will have slightly higher usage, but the i7-4760k will crush the i7 870 in running the game. The optimization statement some throw out is just ignorance.

I'm running an 870 right now and yeah it's having a rough time of if. It only seems to have gotten worse but I think I having some hardware issues that are causing poorer performance. I've got a new Skylake i5 coming so I'm super curious to see what 5 years of CPU refinement will bring to the performance table.

[Neil]

No, it really isn't. Relax, there's nothing wrong with playable tanks.

+1

I love the way this sim is getting.  I love how the dev team put dedication and work to this sim

To me this is the only legitimate true successor of our good old IL2

Yet we have to be patient as a good simulator with very high standards like this one takes years to be made