SAS_Bombsaway Posted March 24, 2019 Posted March 24, 2019 I'm confused. You say that the game engine can't handle a B-17 when Il2 1946 can. I would imagine that with BOS being much newer than 1946 that it should be able to. 2
MiloMorai Posted March 24, 2019 Posted March 24, 2019 3 hours ago, Trooper117 said: Aaaaaaand things have moved on just a tad since then... Have they?
BraveSirRobin Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 4 hours ago, SAS_Bombsaway said: I would imagine that with BOS being much newer than 1946 that it should be able to. You would be wrong. BoS is designed with very different priorities from 1946. The flight models use a completely different algorithm. Same with AI. And graphics. And damned near everything else. 4 hours ago, MiloMorai said: Have they? Yes
Feathered_IV Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 7 hours ago, SAS_Bombsaway said: I'm confused. You say that the game engine can't handle a B-17 when Il2 1946 can. I would imagine that with BOS being much newer than 1946 that it should be able to. The current AI is pretty much bloatware. It requires huge resources for the little it achieves in practical terms. 2
1CGS LukeFF Posted March 25, 2019 1CGS Posted March 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said: The current AI is pretty much bloatware. It requires huge resources for the little it achieves in practical terms. It achieves far more than the little credit you want to give it. Yes, it's not ideal, but it's continually being improved.
Feathered_IV Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 For a new or returning customer, what would you say the AI does so well that it makes this product a must-have buy for a person chiefly interested in SP? 1 4
Lusekofte Posted May 11, 2019 Posted May 11, 2019 I think if the ai works on the same level of engine management and suffer overheating the same way we do. It accomplish a bit. But the price for doing so ruins the rest of the experience the price is high. And being both stupid and gods at aiming make SP experience under pari. Except for the Sea dragoon scripted campaign and havocs over kuban. And probably the other scripted campaigns I haven’t flown. Those give me the good old IL2 feeling. I think the makers build it based on the rubbish ai. And managed to get around most of the stupidity
Trooper117 Posted May 11, 2019 Posted May 11, 2019 Considering we are told that the SP base is massive compared to MP, I would assume that the SP experience would have the highest priority in the developers game plan. 3 2
Lusekofte Posted May 11, 2019 Posted May 11, 2019 3 hours ago, Trooper117 said: Considering we are told that the SP base is massive compared to MP, I would assume that the SP experience would have the highest priority in the developers game plan. I Do not like career mode. I cannot put a finger on why. It just feel lifeless and repeatable. I do not think it is a easy fix. But I do think given enough time it will gradually be better. AI will be it just take time
Trooper117 Posted May 11, 2019 Posted May 11, 2019 I think the career mode in the game is pretty good actually. I enjoyed my Spit career... I'm not one for ''must see action every flight and kill something'' wallahs. I'm in it to survive. I can say however, the gripe I have with it is the bloody awful pilot portraits... you can see they are the same faces with different hair styles, moustaches etc and not proper human faces. That kind of spoils the effect of getting attached to your wing men etc. But hey, that's just me 1 3
Lusekofte Posted May 11, 2019 Posted May 11, 2019 Well I might test a fighter career. I am not for the action either. But ground pounder duties is repetitive and deadly
Feathered_IV Posted May 13, 2019 Posted May 13, 2019 I like the Career mode too. Even though it feels rather unfinished in several key areas such as missing aircraft (ju-52s in Stalingrad etc). Its main drawback is the career tends to showcase everything that can annoy players in SP. Horrible AI voicing, smoke and flame that is “optimized” down to 20 seconds duration, infinity-turning AI and inadequate numbers of aircraft.
1PL-Husar-1Esk Posted May 13, 2019 Posted May 13, 2019 18 hours ago, Feathered_IV said: I like the Career mode too. Even though it feels rather unfinished in several key areas such as missing aircraft (ju-52s in Stalingrad etc). Its main drawback is the career tends to showcase everything that can annoy players in SP. Horrible AI voicing, smoke and flame that is “optimized” down to 20 seconds duration, infinity-turning AI and inadequate numbers of aircraft. I don't like that part od "optimization" to. There can be raid of several aircraft at given objective, rockets and bombs explosion etc. but after 30 sec whole environment looks again so peaceful... big immersion killer. That place shude be visible from miles ahead, let's alone from dust which were lift in the air not mention fires... 1
-RR-Napoleon- Posted June 10, 2019 Posted June 10, 2019 At the risk of reviving a dead thread. This is my 2 cents about why B-17/B-24 should be added at some point as an AI aircraft. The reason it should be AI is because I feel that the management of the aircraft is more than just those of the plane, but also the crews - so in order to give an authentic experience, that would require IL-2 to go beyond the realm of their concept. 1) They should be AI, as much as I'd love to fly them, I think that in IL-2 they don't fit into the game as much. 2) We have many very high performance aircraft that have been and are going to be released. They were designed around attacking and defending bombers at 27,000ft. I play more multiplayer than SP and currently there is no reason for a P-47 to climb to its best fighting altitude because there is no reason for the Germans to want to/need to fight that high as well. 3) Immersion in SP, to see the contrails of a light of bombers passing overhead while completing ur missions in BP sounds incredibility immersive. Furthermore, a good chunk of Western front ground battles happened on the BP map, so if they ever wanted to release a tank pack for the Western Front with a battle zone or two on BP, again seeing the bombers flying over and crashing around you would be very immersive. (See Belton Y. Cooper's book, Death Trap, for a just hand experience of this) 4) It could be a cool campaign expansion for both Axis and Allies on the BP map to be defending/attacking the bomber streams.
Trooper117 Posted June 11, 2019 Posted June 11, 2019 I'm sure you already know why they can't make heavy bombers, even as AI... it's been discussed over and over on many previous threads on the subject. A heavy bomber force (even as AI) would simply grind the game to a halt... it takes up just as many resources as a flyable aircraft. We would all like to see them, but the dev's have told us over and over it's not going to happen...
=KG76=flyus747 Posted June 11, 2019 Posted June 11, 2019 On 3/24/2019 at 12:19 PM, SAS_Bombsaway said: I'm confused. You say that the game engine can't handle a B-17 when Il2 1946 can. I would imagine that with BOS being much newer than 1946 that it should be able to. along with a new engine came more complex aircraft and systems. The 111 is currently a huge aircraft for this game. As you can see the "Scale" of IL2 GB is much smaller. the devs have mentioned that the B17 in current engine will be a huge performance hit. In addition, designing the B17 will take the length of making 4-5 aircraft imagine. So unless the engine sees another massive optimization then the B17 is still very far from being a possibilty
sevenless Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 On 6/11/2019 at 12:15 PM, Trooper117 said: I'm sure you already know why they can't make heavy bombers, even as AI... it's been discussed over and over on many previous threads on the subject. A heavy bomber force (even as AI) would simply grind the game to a halt... it takes up just as many resources as a flyable aircraft. We would all like to see them, but the dev's have told us over and over it's not going to happen... Yep. Because of that, whenever you feel the urge to play "Aces over the Reich", fire up good old Il2-1946 and get your fix there. And it still looks very good for its age.
Y-29.Silky Posted July 28, 2020 Posted July 28, 2020 (edited) Sooooooo..... (Bump). Not even a "GoFundMe" would work for a B-17? Was that confirmed? 4 Engines is too much but not 3, 5 Gunners is too much but not 4, a single flight of 5 B-25's can work but not a single flight of 5 B-17s. What's the excuse not to have a B-26? We already have the A-20, the B-26 bombed Europe as much as the B-24's and B-17's. Is it the Norden Bombsite that's too complex to implement? The Allies need a bomber because it's beyond silly having P-51's escorting a flight of B-25's against K-4's and 262's. Yet we get the AR-234 before what America was mostly known for medium/large bomber. Edited July 28, 2020 by Y-29.Silky
BraveSirRobin Posted July 28, 2020 Posted July 28, 2020 24 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said: Sooooooo..... (Bump). Not even a "GoFundMe" would work for a B-17? Was that confirmed? Correct. Not even a gofundme. Confirmed. Repeatedly. And even if it wasn’t confirmed repeatedly, it sure feels like it was.
Gambit21 Posted July 28, 2020 Posted July 28, 2020 24 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said: 4 Engines is too much but not 3, 5 Gunners is too much but not 4, It's not strictly speaking the number of engines, it's the entire picture of what doing a B-17 or B-24 means, on multiple levels. Production time/resources vs pay-off, map size needed, game performance considering map size as well as the number of bombers, escorts involved etc etc. It's more of a big picture limitation, not because they've simply drawn the line at 4 engines. 5
DD_Arthur Posted July 28, 2020 Posted July 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Y-29.Silky said: Sooooooo..... (Bump). Not even a "GoFundMe" would work for a B-17? Was that confirmed? Why does this sort of thing keep coming up? No established developer in their right mind is going to want a kickstarter or a gofundme type thing. None of them. Apart from the obvious history of such things when related to flight sims, what on earth are they supposed to achieve? A big pot of money that will attract that well known army of Russian- speaking, unemployed programmers and designers willing and able to relocate to Moscow and start productive work on a bespoke game engine. Meh...... 3
AndyJWest Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said: Why does this sort of thing keep coming up? No established developer in their right mind is going to want a kickstarter or a gofundme type thing. None of them. Apart from the obvious history of such things when related to flight sims, what on earth are they supposed to achieve? A big pot of money that will attract that well known army of Russian- speaking, unemployed programmers and designers willing and able to relocate to Moscow and start productive work on a bespoke game engine. Meh...... Not to mention the inevitable consequences if they did take crowdsourced money to fund development of a specific item, and found a worthwhile way to use it, the people who'd donated - or at least, enough of them to be a problem - would start demanding 'accountability', and arguing over whether the money was being 'properly spent', whether they'd got 'what they paid for' and all the rest, if any minor detail didn't conform to their realistic or unrealistic expectations. Keeping to a simple customer - supplier relationship is a darned sight more honest for all concerned. The developers make stuff, you buy it if you want it. The developers can ask for opinions on future development, but it is their decision (and that of their investors, who have to provide funds up front) alone. Anything that looks like an invitation for customers to start making business decisions is a recipe for future trouble. Assuming, that is, that your objective is to come up with a completed product, rather than to keep the 'crowdfunding' loot coming in indefinitely, as seems to be the way this has worked out for a certain space sim I'd better not name... Edited July 29, 2020 by AndyJWest
Y-29.Silky Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gambit21 said: It's not strictly speaking the number of engines, it's the entire picture of what doing a B-17 or B-24 means, on multiple levels. Production time/resources vs pay-off, map size needed, game performance considering map size as well as the number of bombers, escorts involved etc etc. It's more of a big picture limitation, not because they've simply drawn the line at 4 engines. Are you saying B-17s would require an 8 hour flight to the target and would require 1000 B-17s at a single time? Because what's the difference between what they "mean" when they could be doing the same thing the B-25 is doing right now? Technically, every He-111 should have required a take-off from Tatinskaya in Stalingrad but everyone was okay overlooking that. So much hostility towards an essential part of the air war in a simulator, and no one has answered the B-26 question yet. Edited July 29, 2020 by Y-29.Silky 1
Gambit21 Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said: Are you saying B-17s would require an 8 hour flight to the target and would require 1000 B-17s at a single time? Not necessarily...I'm all about suspension of disbelief and making things work when feasible. That's why I'm about to release a 9th Air Force A-20 project using the A-20b. It's also why I'm a proponent of going to PTO and using a scaled down Solomons map. On that note - nobody is going to want to fly (stare at their monitor) for 8 hours either in PTO or Europe...don't look now but there's a check in the 'negative' column for the B-17 module. Add a check mark in the negative column for a strategic map while you're at it. Fine let's shrink it down to Rhineland size...only the Devs don't do that.... OK let's just use the Rhineland map...sure dues suck not having a place to take off from or to land my B-17 and get that "Miller Time" feeling at the end of hard mission. Also a drag not having a "skip to action" option so that I'm not sitting there for 8 hours.... As far as numbers...hold on a minute...why jump all of the way to 1000? Let's back up. Let's be more reasonable and just try 40 just on the Rhineland map - oops nope, doesn't work. Fine let's try 20 with escorts and attackers...oops nope. That's coming from a mission builder who's done experiments with B-25's and He-111s. 6 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said: Because what's the difference between what they "mean" when they could be doing the same thing the B-25 is doing right now? Technically, every He-111 should have required a take-off from Tatinskaya in Stalingrad but everyone was okay overlooking that. It really comes down to what the Devs are willing to do or not do, and they've stated that they don't have an interest in doing the B-17 for a variety of reasons. I'd love a modern European Air War, but that's not what this engine was designed for. I wouldn't mind an AI only B-17 in theory but even the B-25 is difficult to use as scenery because of resource/overhead reasons. By the time I have a mission build and working up to standard/vision, I don't have the extra resources available to place a flight of 15 B-25's. Or I feature them and lose something else more important. The salient point is, this is all a bit more complex that you think. 6 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said: So much hostility towards an essential part of the air war in a simulator, and no one has answered the B-26 question yet. I don't see any hostility, just a bit of exasperation perhaps because this subject has been beaten to death so many times. All that said - I understand the desire 2
BraveSirRobin Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 39 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said: So much hostility towards an essential part of the air war in a simulator, and no one has answered the B-26 question yet. There is no hostility towards the idea of B-17s at all. We'd all like to see them. But it's also pretty obvious to see why it's not going to happen. 1
Enceladus828 Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 I would prefer to see a Lancaster in this game before seeing a B-17, but we’re probably years away from that at the earliest. @Y-29.Silky Do you know why very few games these games have a B-17 as simply AI, because making it takes an enormous amount of time to model the aircraft, 4 engines, and ALL of those engine systems, and all of the guns. To make it flyable with a cockpit, bombardier, and several playable/man able gunner stations would probably take the same time, probably longer than simply making an AI B-17. Seems like a job that can only be built properly if one was making a game with a B-17 as the only aircraft flyable, if not the only aircraft in the game. 1 1 1
Dogbert1953 Posted August 1, 2020 Posted August 1, 2020 Prefer a Lanc and a B24. I find the Libby a much more impressive heavy bomber than the 17
33rd_SGRedleg Posted January 17, 2023 Posted January 17, 2023 Enceladus, You must not remember all the work that the modding community put into IL-2 1946 to get a flyable B-17 and B-24. I was involved in both of those projects. The only limitations we were having then was access to the code. The original code for the game was so sloppily written that it was a nightmare to get those in. I'd suspect that the new incarnation of IL-2 is somewhat the same way. All in all though, we completed both and they were AWESOME to fly. The B-24 was by far the best as we spent the most time on it but they both had all 4 engines controllable and a functional Norden sight and all gunner stations. The powers that be just need a push in the right direction. If not, then I'd suggest DCS. With all the new projects on the horizon for that sim, especially in the WWII time line, it's going to get very interesting. 1
Wardog5711 Posted January 18, 2023 Posted January 18, 2023 Quote Warning, necro thread, warning!!! Yes it is. Time to put this one back to bed.
Recommended Posts