What's next for IC Studios?

[AndyJWest]

Not so much fun for those in a Yak-3 or whatever if historical accuracy is maintained. Most missions, you won't see the enemy at all.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

End of the Reich allows you to have Russian and Western Allies - and therefore some semblance of parity from a technical/equipment standpoint. This engine will never be more than a tactical simulator. Just have to deal with that aspect until there is a complete overhaul for generation IV of the Il2 series. Oh, and I’m totally OK with that

[Algy-Lacey]

19 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

End of the Reich allows you to have Russian and Western Allies - and therefore some semblance of parity from a technical/equipment standpoint. This engine will never be more than a tactical simulator. Just have to deal with that aspect until there is a complete overhaul for generation IV of the Il2 series. Oh, and I’m totally OK with that

 

"This engine will never be more than a tactical simulator."

 

I hope it will be more, some day. If they modified the game engine to run on multiple CPU cores then there would be plenty of hardware horsepower to dedicate 1 core to mass bomber formations. I'm not technically literate enough to really know what I'm talking about... but if you kept 4 engined Heavies as AI... and coded simpler AI and FM (for FM they could massively reduce the current complexity and ease the strain on that CPU core, as long as the Bombers flew by the numbers... X airspeed at Y altitude.) but for Damage Modelling and AI gunner positions I don't see that they could simplify all that much. I'd say if they introduced a multi-core game engine then it wouldn't be impossible. One day we'll see.

 

Before a Battle of End of Reich, I'd like to see a mid-war battle where the sides are strategically similar in strength as well as having fighter aircraft that are similar in capability. For me, a 1943 Med Battle such as Operation Husky and the invasion of Sicily would give some great match ups, as well as featuring RAF / USAF, Regia Aeronautica / Luftwaffe.

 

I'm dreaming of flying a Spitfire Mk.VIII escorting B-25's vs a few Fiat G.55 Centauro's and Mc.205 V's, then suddenly being 'bounced' by some high flying Me109G's ?

[InProgress]

42 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Not so much fun for those in a Yak-3 or whatever if historical accuracy is maintained. Most missions, you won't see the enemy at all.

Ground support. I don't see a reason why every expansion must be the same. If someone wants big air battles then he can fly in Stalingrad. Berlin would give completely different feeling and experience. It would be nice to get something fresh and different than copy paste the same equal battles. Pacific and okinawa feels similar. Japanese players in older planes with no navy and long fly to objective. Could say the same, Japanese players won't find it fun?

[Algy-Lacey]

2 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

My only objection to Griffon-engined Spitfires is that they should have called them something different. They've changed so much that next to nothing of R. J. Mitchell's design remains. 

 

Seriously though, Typhoons, Griffon Spits, Mosquitos etc are clearly an option for collector aircraft. Bound to sell well. I think an Ar 234 would too, though it's clearly going to be a bit of an issue for multiplayer to have an almost impossible to intercept bomber available. As for the Ta 152, are we talking about the C with the standard wing, or the high-altitude version? Very different beasts.

 

Ahh I have to argue otherwise there Andy! Still the same airframe, the same eliptical wing with it's great energy retention and pre-stall buffeting in turns, just with a rudder that wouldn't look out of place on a cruise ship and a beastly Griffon with double the horsepower of a Mk.1a and those raised aggressive looking rocker covers... The mark XIV was a brute, but still a Spitfire in my book. They certainly should have changed the name when they started messing around with the wing and adding counter-rotating propellors...

 

A Spit XIV and a Mosquito would get my votes for collector aircraft, as I've probably said already.

For the Luftwaffe I'd go for a Ta 152 H, as I think the C model was rarer, plus a Messerschmidt 410.

 

Algy

[AndyJWest]

19 minutes ago, anonymouse said:

Leave the super accurate roleplaying for single player campaigns. Multiplayer isn't supposed to 100% accurately reflect historical reality. Some degree of balance is needed in MP to keep things interesting for both sides.

 

Fine. Except that sales to singleplayer customers are necessary to allow the multiplayer minority to have a game at all.

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

Just three letters ..... PTO 

[Ribbon]

Pacific ⚓????

[Boomerang]

21 hours ago, InProgress said:

There should be some change in DLC model, 30-40$ expansions with career and map would be nice as well

That alone is a great option re a future purchase right there. A purchasable map/campaign for E.G. The "Battle of Kursk" in the summer of 43.

I'd  buy a Yakovlev Yak-9 as a collectors plane as well.

Re Tank crew: "The Battle of Kursk" ...

May not hit the tree birds with the one stone, but it would bring another plane, ( one I sure wish to add to the collection) and provide another battle field for existing assets.

 

 

[Flashy]

20 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

To be fair, what you describe is primarily a multiplayer concern - I have no such issues (within reason) designing single player missions.

 

That is fair  The SP object limit is certainly better, no doubt about that, but its still inadequate IMO to represent even small skirmishes properly.  Just as an example: depending on the time frame and your source, a single battalion of tanks was around 75-100 tanks. So lets go ahead an create a simple scenario of one German tank battalion vs one Russian tank battalion. Nothing excessive right? Nowhere near the Battle of Kursk, or even the Battle of Prokhorovka. Even without adding anything else to that scenario (like maybe.. I dunno.. planes,infantry, a player, some support trucks?) we are already at the limit for a SP mission, even on a fast PC. 

 

Just as an aside: Would you be willing to share what object limit you stick to for your SP missions and campaigns? Surely its not more than 100 is it?

 

Also, my tank example above is a generous one because tanks only have 1 AI routine (I think - might be wrong), so you can actually have quite a lot (relatively speaking) of them before things start to slow down. Planes with multiple AI gunners though is a different story. If you haven't already, check out IckyAtlas' mission here with a 50 bomber flight: 

 

This is a very good representative mission IMO because it has a nice number of all object types that create a mission that feels populated enough to create a relatively immersive scenario, while not being excessive - 66 vehicles and 65 planes (total of 170 entities). But yet its way more than the game can handle at the moment, regardless of your PC specs. And lets just be clear, this appears not to be a hardware limitation - the renderer runs well and maintains a good framerate throughout (except when there are lots of explosions - thats something not easy to get around due to the number of particle effects, etc), and throwing more CPU cores or MhZ at the issue doesn't seem to help much. This appears to be an issue with the actual game engine speed/latency when many objects are active. And, to be fair, there have been improvements made in this regard since the RoF days (a similar mission would probably just crash RoF), but we still have a long way to go.  I really do hope we can reach a point one day where this mission runs perfectly smoothly on even modest PC's..

Edited July 5, 2019 by Flashy

[Feathered_IV]

1 hour ago, Flashy said:

 

That is fair  The SP object limit is certainly better, no doubt about that, but its still inadequate IMO to represent even small skirmishes properly. 

 

I must admit with regard to AI and object limits, where even just two individual squadrons meeting in combat is pushing the absolute limits of what the engine can do, there is no theatre and no Battle that I can imagine would be suitable for the present capabilities of this game.  At a push, maybe the Phony War, or the Battle of the Atlantic.  Perhaps the Blenheim low level attacks against German merchant vessels off the coast of Holland in 1941.  But really I can't think of any other scenarios that the game engine could handle in realistic and historical numbers.

[Flashy]

4 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

I must admit with regard to AI and object limits, where even just two individual squadrons meeting in combat is pushing the absolute limits of what the engine can do, there is no theatre and no Battle that I can imagine would be suitable for the present capabilities of this game.  At a push, maybe the Phony War, or the Battle of the Atlantic.  Perhaps the Blenheim low level attacks against German merchant vessels off the coast of Holland in 1941.  But really I can't think of any other scenarios that the game engine could handle in realistic and historical numbers.

Well yes, technically thats true, but there is no game engine that will ever be able to handle the actual number of men and machines involved in these battles.Even taking a smaller battle like Prokhorovka, there were still quite a few men involved (from Wikipedia):

 

Casualties and losses
German (on 12 July):[j] 43–80 tanks and assault guns destroyed or damaged 842 men killed, wounded and missing 6 aircraft destroyed 5 aircraft damaged	Soviet (on 12 July):[j] 300–400 tanks and self-propelled guns destroyed or damaged 5,500 men killed, wounded

 

But games are, after all, smoke and mirrors - its a illusion created by moving pixels. So no one expects a game to really render or model millions (or even thousands) of men and vehicles at the same time, but it should be able to give the illusion of those kinds of numbers, at least in limited scenarios. I think that can be done using clever tricks and with a few hundred objects active at any time, but it becomes very difficult (or even impossible) to try and create this illusion when you cant have more than 100-200 active objects. 

[Feathered_IV]

Hi Flashy, I understand what you mean.  I don't tend to think in millions or thousands as you say.  More in the few dozens.  : )

My thoughts were directed towards whether the game could render a medium-sized aerial engagement from say, the Battle of Britain, Battle of France, Defence of the Reich, Singapore, Rabaul, Tobruk or Malta.  Or a raid on Ploesti, Peenemunde, Monte Casino or even Port Moresby in a realistic number of aircraft. 

 

I think it is not unfair to say that these sort of engagements are outside the scope of the present game's capabilities, and perhaps it is better to focus not on "Great Battles" that never really unfold, but more on smaller skirmishes that can be reproduced in a convincing way.  Maybe there is some wisdom in looking at a few more of those Forgotten Battles.

[Bullets]

Upgrade game engine

Improve all textures. (New 4k external skins excluded)

Improve Performance 

Improve AI

Rework Engine wear/damage mechanics

 

Just a small list of things I drastically need to happen to bring the current Il2 series up to 2019 standards. Granted this sim is still the best on the market for what it is. I don't think the team can do all this and work on a new expansion at the same time. Every time we have brought up one of these issues before we have always got the same reply "not enough time or resources" which makes me think something needs to change.

I would rather these things be worked on to rejuvenate whats already been released than get a few more 109's and another scenery. Otherwise if game engine development doesn't happen as the game progresses we could end up with what  happened to ROF. Finally a new version will be released which is not compatible with everything that's been released already and pretty much kills the player base of the old game.

[Boomerang]

44 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

more on smaller skirmishes that can be reproduced in a convincing way.

From a certain point of view, that seems more realistic really. Don't mean to be rude or anything.

[Algy-Lacey]

2 hours ago, Bullets said:

Upgrade game engine

Improve all textures. (New 4k external skins excluded)

Improve Performance 

Improve AI

Rework Engine wear/damage mechanics

 

Just a small list of things I drastically need to happen to bring the current Il2 series up to 2019 standards. Granted this sim is still the best on the market for what it is. I don't think the team can do all this and work on a new expansion at the same time. Every time we have brought up one of these issues before we have always got the same reply "not enough time or resources" which makes me think something needs to change.

 

I'm fully with you there, Bullets.

 

I'm not all that knowledgable on tech stuff, but to me it seems that the only way forward is to increase the number of CPU cores that Il-2.exe uses. I believe that currently it's all running on the 1 processor core.

 

Before we see the next Battle after Battle of Bodenplatte, I would very much like to see improvements in the game engine, especially improvements to the AI of fighters. Perhaps re-doing the game engine to work on multiple CPU cores might be impossible? Can we get one of the developers to speak about this? How does that happen?

 

S!

Algy

[Bullets]

1 hour ago, Algy-Lacey said:

 

Can we get one of the developers to speak about this? How does that happen?

 

S!

Algy

 

I can answer that for them, with our £££ .    

[Algy-Lacey]

For sure, the more £££ they get, the more that updates to the game engine itself become viable...

 

But what I meant was, how do we ask one of the developers to post a yes / no / or maybe on this forum topic, to the wish to have Il-2.exe utilising more than 1 CPU processor core in the future?

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

You won’t for the most part. That is not how the mechanics of this forum operate. Most communication from the devs is by way of the Developer’s Diaries. They may choose to interact with forum posts, of their own volition, but they rarely respond to direct questions in these pages for a variety of reasons.

[AndyJWest]

6 minutes ago, Algy-Lacey said:

For sure, the more £££ they get, the more that updates to the game engine itself become viable...

 

But what I meant was, how do we ask one of the developers to post a yes / no / or maybe on this forum topic, to the wish to have Il-2.exe utilising more than 1 CPU processor core in the future?

 

 

I'm not sure that a answer from the devs would really help. 'No' would probably lead to uproar. 'Yes' would then lead to endless posts making it out to be a promise, rather than a response regarding a wish, and 'maybe' isn't much of an answer. 

 

And I'm not entirely sure that they couldn't answer 'it already does'. There are certainly things going on in more than one core when IL-2 runs, and figuring out whether it is the OS or the game code doing it isn't easy.

[Algy-Lacey]

Hmm, I hadn't really thought of the consequences of a reply from the developers on CPU usage / game engine upgrades.

 

I totally get what you're saying Andy.

 

Cheers,

Algy

[Gambit21]

Question for you "don't give us a new theater yet, concentrate exclusively on giving us improvements on existing content/game engine instead" types.

 

What do the Developers do for revenue to fund these operations during this period until they finally, eventually start pre-sales on another module?

Just wondering how that business model works in your head.

 

 

 

 

[Bullets]

27 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Question for you "don't give us a new theater yet, concentrate exclusively on giving us improvements on existing content/game engine instead" types.

 

What do the Developers do for revenue to fund these operations during this period until they finally, eventually start pre-sales on another module?

Just wondering how that business model works in your head.

 

 

 

 

 

I would be very happy to pay for this upgrade of existing content. 

[Gambit21]

Just now, Bullets said:

 

I would be very happy to pay for this upgrade of existing content. 

 

I'm sure you would, but revenue from you and the members of this forum that feel likewise wouldn't float the boat.

[Bullets]

4 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I'm sure you would, but revenue from you and the members of this forum that feel likewise wouldn't float the boat.

 

I don’t feel like you should write it off so easily. You don’t know that for certain and the devs don’t either. I am sure most players of this sim would float the boat to give it it refresh it needs. 

[Gambit21]

Just now, Bullets said:

 

I don’t feel like you should write it off so easily. 

 

Well I'm not writing it off "easily", but rather based on what I know.

There's feelings, and there's the truth of the matter, and the fact is that they're going to keep developing content along with other items.

Improvements seem to happen at a steady rate, even if your pet quibble 'seems' to be getting ignored, the likelihood is that it's on the agenda.

[Lusekofte]

Well. I agree with Gambit. 

People wait for several month to save a few bucks on sale. They wont easily give their money away. 

Those of us who are here might. But majority isnt. 

[Bullets]

46 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Well I'm not writing it off "easily", but rather based on what I know.

There's feelings, and there's the truth of the matter, and the fact is that they're going to keep developing content along with other items.

Improvements seem to happen at a steady rate, even if your pet quibble 'seems' to be getting ignored, the likelihood is that it's on the agenda.

 

That’s not what I am saying at all.. I just feel like that is the best way to avoid the situation where a new release is made which is so upgraded it’s not compatible with what we have so far...

[BraveSirRobin]

56 minutes ago, Bullets said:

 I am sure most players of this sim would float the boat to give it it refresh it needs. 

 

There are people on this very thread who say that they’re all done if PTO is not the next module.  They won’t even pay for actual content.  The idea that enough people will pay for updates with no new content is completely ludicrous.

 

there is absolutely no chance that this will happen.  None whatsoever.

Edited July 6, 2019 by BraveSirRobin

[Gambit21]

11 minutes ago, Bullets said:

 

That’s not what I am saying at all.. I just feel like that is the best way to avoid the situation where a new release is made which is so upgraded it’s not compatible with what we have so far...

 

ahh...well I'm guessing that the Devs have that well in hand.

I have no idea how that would all work mind you.

[BraveSirRobin]

37 minutes ago, Bullets said:

 

That’s not what I am saying at all.. I just feel like that is the best way to avoid the situation where a new release is made which is so upgraded it’s not compatible with what we have so far...

 

Um...  That isn’t how software development works.  A dev team doesn’t randomly  discover that the update that they’re working on isn’t compatible with their existing product.  Updates are always backwards compatible until the developer makes a planned decision to stop updating the existing product.

[Algy-Lacey]

I'm not sure if this suggestion is helpful... But perhaps the developers could change the pricing a bit...

 

What I mean is, keep the complete Battle of X modules at the standard $80 (when not on sale) for Premium Editions, but for each new Battle that comes out, have more collectors planes and charge more for them. For Battle of Bodenplatte they could make the Mosquito as a collector plane and charge $20 instead of $10 and plenty of players / customers would still buy it. The Focke Wulf Ta152H as a collector plane and charge $20 and people would buy it because it's the pinnacle of FW 190 development. Likewise for the Spitfire Mk.XIVe - I would pay $40 just for this one aircraft.

 

Likewise, a change in the way things are priced for additional content such as new maps. After a new Battle and 5 vs 5 planeset, release a new Map that uses the same planeset and charge maybe half of what the Standard Edition costs = $25. I think a lot of players would buy additional content in this way IF the content was desirable enough.

 

I think that what Bullets replied to me is accurate: If we want to see changes in the game engine such as change of CPU core usage for Massive Bomber formations, or improved AI, the only way we're going to see this is when the developers get more £££ $$$

 

Algy

[IckyATLAS]

I agree with Gambit that there is a problem related to the understanding of the business model or how it works. I am not in the "Gaming Business" so I can only look at it from the customer perspective.

 

At the moment the engine improvements are "free" packages. If this would not be so then you would have an incredible variety of versions to maintain as the engines would be of different performance between those accepting to pay and the others. By having the improvements free of charge you can "oblige" everybody to update and keep the game engine more or less at the same latest version level for all customers.

 

The only way to have the engine improvements "paid" is when a new "Battle of XXX" is released. (or through the Early Access program). But for a new battle to be released you need new maps, planes, objects etc....which in general are so time and money consuming that little is left for the rest. And in any case it has you waiting for a year or more to have it, except in the Early Access were you may get some of it in advance.

 

I think that except for the "bugs" category where you "should" or "must" release corrective updates, this is not always done because here again there will be a trade off made between  the impact of the bug on the game and the cost and effort to correct it.

 

In conclusion for engine improvements we must not expect specific work if not connected to paying stuff.

 

Now remains the objects packs to enrich the environment. The engine stays the same, but the objects that make out the living environment could be improved a lot, and here you may have additional "paying packs" for those who want a more immersive environment. This pack may include by the way additional high res textures and skins and additional features like mods but high quality and officially released inside a paying "immersion experience enhancement" pack.

 

How many would be ready to dish out some money to buy those packs from the whole customer base, is not clear for me. As an example there are many players that do not give much about details, just want to fight  in the sky between various planes or bombers. I can very well imagine that they will never buy such packs. A large number of different planes with high quality textures and skins, high level of cockpit detail, quality engine sounds, correct map and good quality sky and clouds as well as weather conditions should be enough. If you play in absolute realism mode (for a pilot) than you stay in your cockpit, you are not allowed to look outside or from a different point of view, then the cockpit details are paramount and frankly the ground details you may never see them or very little. You taxi, takeoff and land, finished. Many even won't bother the taxi takeoff and land, will just jump to action point fight get the mission done and that's it. This is all fine but it reduces the number of those ready to pay for different experience to a very small number. This is a personal subjective impression and I hope that I am wrong on that.

 

So who may buy? I suppose Mission builders and mainly those creating videos, or short films on a specific topics. If you want to show not just the flight but a story within a complete battle scenario with the environment, cities airfields, ships, trains, trucks etc.  then you need as much as possible high details at those levels.

 

I must admit that for Tank Crew this is a whole different story, as things happen on the ground (instead of up in the sky) and map details, objects quality and diversity become absolutely paramount for an acceptable level of realism. Thanks to Tank Crew we may all get more objects or details that could spill to the BOX games at least I hope so and cross fingers ? 

 

 

[Algy-Lacey]

4 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

Now remains the objects packs to enrich the environment. The engine stays the same, but the objects that make out the living environment could be improved a lot, and here you may have additional "paying packs" for those who want a more immersive environment. This pack may include by the way additional high res textures and skins and additional features like mods but high quality and officially released inside a paying "immersion experience enhancement" pack.

 

How many would be ready to dish out some money to buy those packs from the whole customer base, is not clear for me.

 

 

"How many would be ready to dish out some money to buy those packs from the whole customer base, is not clear for me."

 

I for one would pay for an "Immersion experience expansion pack", Some moving infantry, more vehicles etc. But this idea might run into problems with compatibility, some users who have the pack creating missions that people without the pack wouldn't be able to run. Scrap that - I just remembered that the objects would be available to all users, just unlocked for those who have bought the pack. I may be mistaken.

 

I do think they could make some of WW2's most desirable aircraft as collectors aircraft and charge a lot more for them, as I've said above. New maps as well.

 

Now I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and buy Battle of Moscow this month, Battle of Stalingrad next month. And I'd like a Yak 1b so might buy that as well.

 

[DD_Arthur]

8 minutes ago, Algy-Lacey said:

Now I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and buy Battle of Moscow this month, Battle of Stalingrad next month. And I'd like a Yak 1b so might buy that as well.

 

 

I'd get them now Algy, while they're all heavily discounted in the sale.....

[Algy-Lacey]

9 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

I'd get them now Algy, while they're all heavily discounted in the sale.....

 

I'll have a look at my bank balance and see what's possible! I don't mind giving 1C more of my money when they're not in the sale any longer... money well spent.

[Luger1969]

Sequence...

1Flying circus volume 2...bloody april..

and introduction of a campaign system

 

2Some collectors airplanes...mosquito plus 1

 

3Pacific...landbased campaign (dont think carrier battles will be first)

 

4all the normal improvement the devs do which is alot

?

5Tanks..possibly scenario that goes with bottenplate (or moscow or stalingrad, given bobp i think their choice will be in the west and these 2 later) i think here there is also a lot where commumity inputs will be considered..some comprehensive inputs have been made in the tc forum

 

Its all good. $70x3 and i am already saving for it.

 

[Lusekofte]

Their payment service is out of order, can't buy crap

[IckyATLAS]

Another interesting issue in terms of Business Gaming is the game price. How to price in an optimal way one game like a BOX.

The equation is simple:

 

Number of Units Sold   X   Sales Price per unit = Revenue.

 

As we see we have two parameters and what is the best combination to maximize revenue.

Two ways of finding it. One is to start high (according to market analysis)  and then lower by steps if the Revenue increases. In general nobody does like this.

A more typical way is to start low priced to attract enough players and once you have a well established position, you slowly increase the price until your Revenue does not increase anymore.

In reality I consider better the first way if you are very confident in the quality of your product and you know well your market. Simply because lowering the price is much more popular, whereas increasing the price is viewed as negative.

 

I know that his is a very simplistic approach. Reality is much more complicated, as the lifetime of games is in general short, and the interest is more of a bell shaped curve, you have to bring new versions out, and you have also the various marketing events with discounted sales, technology evolution can make a game look very obsolete etc. etc.

 

If any of you is knowledgeable in the gaming business pricing it would be interesting to have some comments on that. Then comes the question:

 

Is BOX optimally priced ?  ?

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by IckyATLAS

[Luger1969]

Just my inputs. I dont think BOX is optimally priced. Although I benefit from it for sure. They proably have their own market research etc but I think 100$ would be my input. This is a complete product- 10 aircraft...map...campaign...continued support and updating...some other free stuff thrown in for example sea dragons...proven record of delivery etc.

 

I dont have all the money but would be willing to pay a bit more, just my input.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Luger1969