Jump to content
Jason_Williams

Developer Diary, Part 159 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Perhaps rather than engaging in vacuous point-scoring you could actually stay on topic, and tell us why you think the developers shouldn't be entitled to make their own commercial decisions? Because 'me and my squad don't like it' isn't much of an argument. Not without evidence that a significant number of other potential customers share your opinion.

Where did I say they aren't entitled to do that? That's two times you have ascribed to me things I did not write. What is your agenda here? To get the thread locked? I don't understand why else you would attempt two such obvious straw man arguments.

 

What I wrote was that the decision is controversial and I asked Jason why we can't discuss it here.

 

Please actually read what I wrote, and not what you wish I wrote.

Edited by JG13_opcode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and have been saying for a while now that they should move to the European theatre. There are plenty of scenarios that wouldn't need 4 engine heavies.

 

 

Frankly, the European theatre wasn't even all that interesting to the people who actually flew in it until the bombers started going up. Fighter sweep after unsuccessful fighter sweep came up empty.

 

To even get the Luftwaffe to play, the allies needed to send up the heavies.

 

Unless you are talking about the Med, which they aren't going to do (yet) for reasons they have stated. They probably won't be doing scenarios that directly compete with CoD either.

 

Help me understand you a little better. What would your vision of a European theatre be?

Edited by hrafnkolbrandr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as far as I'm concerned the aim to finally go PTO was the best news ever and pretty much guarantees I'll pre order it day one.

 

Jason for a while now you've managed to make the new IL2 finally completely catch up with the old one. That's awesome - thanks so much for that. Better content (with the death of unlocks, future career mode, current PWCG support etc), VR support - this is a platform that can count on my continuous support. And more than just mine, lately old friends of mine who had been quite active during the old IL2 days but absent from combat flight sims for years now (since the CLOD disastrous release) are finally coming back (VR was the key here). Now all I miss indeed is some PTO carrier ops and maybe a good old coop lobby like hyperlobby used to be and I'd feel like we're back to the golden age of combat flight simming!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what rational grounds are there for suggesting that the PTO can't be made to the same quality?

 

The only concern - and anticipation - that I have on this front are the ships. Everything else seems to be essentially the same in different skins. I am sure the treatment of the planes, torpedoes and so on will be to the usual high standard.

 

Problem with the ships is that naval engineering is not the team's area of expertise.  That does not mean that they cannot learn but it is a huge task - ships are much more complex systems. Of course much of this will be left out, just as the tanks in BoS/Bom are simplified.  

 

Ships in Il-2 46 were pretty much cosmetic - they could not do much, and were not terribly convincing.  Once we have ships in a Pacific setting I am fairly certain that people are then going to start asking for surface-surface and ship-ground interaction.  Midway, for instance, featured a determined attempt by the Japanese to bring about this outcome. (I would love naval action with BoX's standards of realism and graphics!)

 

We shall see: if they can pull off the nautical aspects convincingly for Kuban, then I will be all in for the Pacific even if I still pine for the Med.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I say they aren't entitled to do that? That's two times you have ascribed to me things I did not write. What is your agenda here? To get the thread locked? I don't understand why else you would attempt two such obvious straw man arguments.

 

What I wrote was that the decision is controversial and I asked Jason why we can't discuss it here.

 

Please actually read what I wrote, and not what you wish I wrote.

 

Given that Jason has already made it clear that "This DD is not a discussion about other theaters", I could throw the question back at you. What is your agenda? Because far from 'controversy', I'd say this thread indicates clear support for the proposed PTO content, though you seem unable to recognise that.

 

If you have actual evidence that the move to the Pacific will hurt sales, I suggest you PM it to Jason. Because he is unlikely to engage in open discussion regarding such matters here. That isn't his style, and it isn't the way most games developers operate. They don't base commercial decisions on forum posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks AndyJWest, I value your suggestions and continued attempts to drag me away from my original point.

 

Not only have you tried to put words in my mouth twice, but when asked to back up your assertions you "turn the question around": the calling card of the person with nothing but bluster and hot air.

 

I am now solidly convinced you are just another troll with nothing of value to say. Welcome to my ignore list.

Edited by JG13_opcode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only concern - and anticipation - that I have on this front are the ships. Everything else seems to be essentially the same in different skins. I am sure the treatment of the planes, torpedoes and so on will be to the usual high standard.

 

Problem with the ships is that naval engineering is not the team's area of expertise.  That does not mean that they cannot learn but it is a huge task - ships are much more complex systems. Of course much of this will be left out, just as the tanks in BoS/Bom are simplified.  

 

Ships in Il-2 46 were pretty much cosmetic - they could not do much, and were not terribly convincing.  Once we have ships in a Pacific setting I am fairly certain that people are then going to start asking for surface-surface and ship-ground interaction.  Midway, for instance, featured a determined attempt by the Japanese to bring about this outcome. (I would love naval action with BoX's standards of realism and graphics!)

 

We shall see: if they can pull off the nautical aspects convincingly for Kuban, then I will be all in for the Pacific even if I still pine for the Med.  

 

I'm sure you are right: people will certainly "start asking for surface-surface and ship-ground interaction". In the same way they have asked for 'more tanks' and the rest. So far though, the developers have mostly resisted such moves (the tanks seem to have been more of a tech demo than anything more), and I suspect they will continue in this manner, and focus on building an air combat sim. And if they do that, I can't see any particular reason to worry. Yes, warships are complex beasts, but you don't have to model every system to make them credible in an air combat environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that - it will be interesting to see where the balance lies. At a minimum the ships need an ability to manoeuver  under attack, use AA weapons in a plausible way and have a damage model that responds credibly to torpedo, bomb and strafing attacks. That is still quite a big task. I do not think that that a treatment quite as simplistic as that for the BoX armoured vehicles will be enough, given the nature of this audience ;).   But Kuban will be the test of all of this, and I am very much looking forwards to release.  Quite apart from the Spitfire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds at least like they will make a credible attempt at some sort of surface to surface action. After all, they did say that they were working on modeling torpedoes and we don't even have aircraft that can carry them in Battle of Kuban. At least, not right now, so those torpedoes must be for submarines and other ships to fire at each other.

 

That would be exciting to see.

 

Ships using their flak I doubt will be an issue... going on the defensive might be more of one. I'm curious to see if they try and do some of that or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shall see, but I'd probably be satisfied with 'credible naval warfare as observed from an aircraft not interested in hanging around in the flak just to watch'. So ships that weave if you try to dive-bomb them, and submarines that crash-dive as soon as they see you will probably make for a decent start. Trying to accurately represent the complex manoeuvres of warships engaging in prolonged broadside engagements with each other might be asking too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shall see, but I'd probably be satisfied with 'credible naval warfare as observed from an aircraft not interested in hanging around in the flak just to watch'. So ships that weave if you try to dive-bomb them, and submarines that crash-dive as soon as they see you will probably make for a decent start. Trying to accurately represent the complex manoeuvres of warships engaging in prolonged broadside engagements with each other might be asking too much.

 

Agreed.

 

A little weaving back and forth by a destroyer under attack and a submarine that, once spotting you, begins dive procedures, would be pretty interesting to see and probably not as complex as full formation maneuvering and the like. As I understand it, the surface engagements of the Black Sea area were smaller scale with destroyers, gun boats, torpedo boats, etc. Nothing like The Slot at Guadalcanal.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, the sea is flat (at least it will be in BoK and BoP, assuming the engine does not change) so there is only a 2D problem, not a 3D problem.  

 

Naval formation movement is mostly turn in line either sequentially or together, with every formation trying to maintain their optimum range against a given opponent under the given visibility conditions.  I would have thought that it would be orders of magnitude easier to do ship battle AI than air battle AI.  Games like Jutland 1916 can do a fairly convincing job of it. That is not to say that the team will, or even should, go that way.  Would be fun though.....

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you are right: people will certainly "start asking for surface-surface and ship-ground interaction". In the same way they have asked for 'more tanks' and the rest. So far though, the developers have mostly resisted such moves (the tanks seem to have been more of a tech demo than anything more), and I suspect they will continue in this manner, and focus on building an air combat sim. And if they do that, I can't see any particular reason to worry. Yes, warships are complex beasts, but you don't have to model every system to make them credible in an air combat environment. 

I agree with much of what has been said here, generally, but Jason has said he is opening up the tanks to talented modders for inclusion in upcoming titles as long as it meets BoX standards. Even though I don't drive tanks, I think this is a very exciting idea and the ground war may open up more if the right people apply their talents. The terrain graphics aren't ideal for a tank sim but the physics are. I would love to see an expansion of types on the ground and a polishing of what we currently have as well.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the game starts going into that direction nobody  knows where it will stop (like Star citizen), e.g. 1000 $ ship to be crewed with your friends or 10 000 $ carrier.

Edited by JG27_Kornezov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

(like Star citizen)

 

WHen that got introduced I bought the most expencive starship availeable , it costed 125$ and I never tested it, I forgot my login name and password too ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see how modders are going to suddenly start driving the price of the base game up. This is not a pay to win title. If the price of a mod is too much (if any - nothing has been mentioned of comps or contracts) or the quality is off or the modelling is not accurate it will just be rejected by the Devs. Modders completely filled out both '46 and CloD for free. CloD until very recently anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally could care less about driving tanks, never tried it in this sim and likely never well. Probably why I never owned a tank sim. Had a submarine sim once, never cared much for it, so never had another one.

 

I am all about air combat, which is why I have this sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, the sea is flat (at least it will be in BoK and BoP, assuming the engine does not change) so there is only a 2D problem, not a 3D problem.  

 

Naval formation movement is mostly turn in line either sequentially or together, with every formation trying to maintain their optimum range against a given opponent under the given visibility conditions.  I would have thought that it would be orders of magnitude easier to do ship battle AI than air battle AI.  Games like Jutland 1916 can do a fairly convincing job of it. That is not to say that the team will, or even should, go that way.  Would be fun though.....

 

It shouldn't be flat at all. They announced that they would be porting and improving the ocean technology from Rise of Flight and that is definitely 3D.

 

Also the water that the Type 7 is traversing in this dev shot is 3D... :)

 

post-19-0-73539100-1489169681.jpg

 

Edited by ShamrockOneFive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with much of what has been said here, generally, but Jason has said he is opening up the tanks to talented modders for inclusion in upcoming titles as long as it meets BoX standards. Even though I don't drive tanks, I think this is a very exciting idea and the ground war may open up more if the right people apply their talents. The terrain graphics aren't ideal for a tank sim but the physics are. I would love to see an expansion of types on the ground and a polishing of what we currently have as well.

 

I think this is a wise move personally.

Anything that brings in customers from a more diverse base and doesn't compromise the primary direction of the product (which would never happen anyway) I'm all for it.

For instance I'm not a VR guy right now, but I'm giddy about it's implementation since it's bringing in more people. I look forward to discovering it for myself in a few years.

It's a good 'future proofing' move, as much as that can be accomplished with a product like this.

 

Tanks - bring them on...more users, more development, that's good for all of us. Especially since the core group of developers will remain focused on the 'flight' aspect of our flight sim.

I'm generally for a sensible diversification of this product, making it a bigger experience aside from just shooting things as well... which is why I love the idea of the Ju-52, but also the Storch and Po-2 and similar.

 

That said, back to armor...I'd think it would fun to operate a flakpanzer  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving tanks give a real sense of the ground war. They give purpose to all those attack and bomber types. Great to look at, great to fly over, great to hit. I'm sure they are great to drive for some. And they will come at no development cycle burden to the team.

 

I have a strange fascination with the Pz II Luchs for that modder who wants to do their first light tank - hint hint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an IL-2 developer diary - please keep ROF discussion in its appropriate subforum and the thread that already exists on this subject.

 

Just because this suggestion mentions RoF doesn't mean it isn't appropriate here.

 

This is a way to get cash together for the BoX series; it has nothing to do with RoF in particular and it's not a plug for RoF, it's a suggestion for raising money.

 

It's just a little pile of potential-cash waiting to be picked up by 1C.

 

The fact that most people who support RoF also support BoX, and vice versa, is the important link.  If this post goes into RoF sub-forum, it loses its point altogether.  I deliberately put it here where 1C is actively looking for help with securing community resources.

 

It's an out-of-the-box suggestion; delete the post if you don't think it is helpful to BoX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fantastic chap on the community did for 2 personal yak1b skins for me. Fantacstic and I really like them. This is what this community is about.  :salute:

 

The patriotic war slogans on these aircraft is: 

 

For IL-2                                для Ил-2 ! (will correct the slogan on that Yak)

 

For IL-2 Sturmovik               для Ил-2 Штурмовик !

 

Thirion I slipped in some French (Normandie Niemen spinner)

 

Vive la IL-2  :)  :salute: 

post-25547-0-03646800-1496200465_thumb.jpg

post-25547-0-80598100-1496200484_thumb.jpg

Edited by Luger1969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It shouldn't be flat at all. They announced that they would be porting and improving the ocean technology from Rise of Flight and that is definitely 3D.

 

Also the water that the Type 7 is traversing in this dev shot is 3D... :)

 

 

 

 

Ahem.... I meant that the the surface of the water is a flat 2D plane, rather than the air which is a 3D space. Position co-ordinates x-y rather than x-y-z.   Hence the AI working out where to go and how to get there is much simpler - nothing to do with the cosmetics of the waves.

 

The RoF map is also flat rather than being the surface of a sphere, like BoX's, which presents some different problems for the representation of naval action, namely the horizons. Spotting ships should crucially depend on being high enough to extend the visible horizon: in BoX this is makes no difference since the map is not the surface of a sphere: or rather, the higher you go the less far away you can see a surface ship, due to the bubble of visibility. I hope the team change their engine before the BoP and make the world spherical, otherwise any number of weird effects will be manifested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving tanks give a real sense of the ground war. They give purpose to all those attack and bomber types. Great to look at, great to fly over, great to hit. I'm sure they are great to drive for some.

Indeed they are :) More tanks would actually bring me back to the game while waiting for my boston and kobrushka. And ofcourse would later fill the gap while waiting for the moment I will be able to land that winged barrel on top of the flattop for the first time ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem.... I meant that the the surface of the water is a flat 2D plane, rather than the air which is a 3D space. Position co-ordinates x-y rather than x-y-z.   Hence the AI working out where to go and how to get there is much simpler - nothing to do with the cosmetics of the waves.

 

The RoF map is also flat rather than being the surface of a sphere, like BoX's, which presents some different problems for the representation of naval action, namely the horizons. Spotting ships should crucially depend on being high enough to extend the visible horizon: in BoX this is makes no difference since the map is not the surface of a sphere: or rather, the higher you go the less far away you can see a surface ship, due to the bubble of visibility. I hope the team change their engine before the BoP and make the world spherical, otherwise any number of weird effects will be manifested.

 

Oh I see what you're talking about! Right that does pose some problems long term. I'm sure there are good reasons to simulate a flat world that simplify things but I know it causes other problems as time goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did i already say that i could not wait for the Henschel?..  :biggrin:  :biggrin:

 

That said, i'm also kind off excited to go to the pacific. I think the PTO can deliver a breath of fresh air, but i'm also a bit worried about Midway. Will just one battle be enough for an entire expansion?.. 

 

Grt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unlikely Midway will be the only map. Just my opinion but it doesn't make sense to have your map makers sit idle for a year after they are done with a single island, not to mention the sales fallout from such a decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unlikely Midway will be the only map. Just my opinion but it doesn't make sense to have your map makers sit idle for a year after they are done with a single island, not to mention the sales fallout from such a decision.

 

Thought so as well. But what would be other options? Coral Sea?

 

Grt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the map makers will be making carriers, battleships, cruisers destroyers, tankers and that sort of things. 

But indeed, might not be too difficult to do some other islands or atolls in addition to Midway, when most of the map will be water anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course my strongest recommendation continues to be the Hawaiian Islands chain for the BoMI release. Historical significance (obviously), same plane and ship set (plus an American BB for Pearl), tons of reference material, plenty of airfields, and large enough to be an MP map on its own - with or without CV's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A map like the original Il-2's North & South pacific DF map that came with the Aces Expansion Pack would be good.  That one is still popular today in online and singleplayer campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought so as well. But what would be other options? Coral Sea?

 

Grt M

Wake, Coral Sea, Aleutians, Hawaii. All of these are possible for an initial release. Solomons; Guadalcanal, Rabaul, Bougainville, is a prime candidate for a follow on map release.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wake, Coral Sea, Aleutians, Hawaii. All of these are possible for an initial release. Solomons; Guadalcanal, Rabaul, Bougainville, is a prime candidate for a follow on map release.

 

Thnx. Good to know that are quiet some options.

 

Grt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Luftwaffe did wax their planes. It's discussed in one of the books about JG 54.

 

Not really waxed but kept in a nice condition if time and personnel permitted it, the same legend is told about Soviet planes but has never been proven. Most of fast clean aircrafts painted with a oil based emulsion after some flights seems more gloss than normal but they normally are at maximum semi-gloss when new and most of the time matt. This is so ass to be invisible more or less on the ground. With the exception of the usaf and some raf plane in the Pacific due to the aerial superiority and so where in silver natural colour. Or like in the case of the Mosquito in the pacific theatre where painted in a special silver paint to preserve them is the hot and humid weather.

So to make it short, I do not think any plane was ever waxed to make it faster in ww2.  :salute: 

Edited by senseispcc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With what they are putting together for Midway, we could easily have a Battle of the Coral Sea.

 

Possibly an Attack on Pearl Harbor, but we'd need battleships. P-40 could likely be carried over for the Americans. There were A20's stationed nearby along with wildcats vindicators and dauntlesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

hrafnkolbrandr, on 01 Jun 2017 - 00:28, said:

With what they are putting together for Midway, we could easily have a Battle of the Coral Sea.

Possibly an Attack on Pearl Harbor, but we'd need battleships. P-40 could likely be carried over for the Americans. There were A20's stationed nearby along with wildcats vindicators and dauntlesses.

 

The Pacific theatre is so vast the it dwarfs the eastern front that did extend from Murmansk to the north to the oil fields of Poti in the South. And did did begin in 1941 and end in the end 1944 for the Russian territory.

In the Pacific it begun in China in 1937 until the end, then the big phase in December 1941 from Burma to Pearl Harbor, Korea to the north of Australia this covers nearly half the globe! (I do not forget the Aleutians but at the end it was a diversion for the Midway Attack)

Ok it is a lot of ocean!  But still this are a lot of battles many short and violent but most slow attrition battles in the style of world war one battles.

Now for air battles, until 1944 where the might of the industrial US did finally give them a overwhelming advantage from 1941 to end 1943 air battles where not dogfight but more like hit and run. So each battle is more like a scenario than realy a campaign!  :salute: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pacific theatre is so vast the it dwarfs the eastern front that did extend from Murmansk to the north to the oil fields of Poti in the South. And did did begin in 1941 and end in the end 1944 for the Russian territory.

Ehmm...so for the Japan home teritory it started in february 45 with battle of Iwo Jima and ended with battle of Okinawa in late june 45? Not very impressive nor "dwarfing" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×