Jump to content
Jason_Williams

Discussion of the Battle of Normandy Announcement

Recommended Posts

Maybe not all to my liking, but a sound choice to continue the series especially as a prequel to BoBP.

 

I am fully confident that most naysayers will cave in eventually and join the ride...

 

This series is simply to good to withstand...wait and see😑

 

 

Thank you Jason and team, for grinding on and on and delivering an underpriced product which to me is nothing short of ART. 

 

GOOD LUCK TEAM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, busdriver said:

 

The absence of four engine bombers is not a conspiracy, it is however a limitation of the game engine. This has been explained and discussed. 

 

 @Feathered_IV has captured my reaction perfectly...

 

 

:salute:

 Can someone explain to me how the game engine restricts the use of 4 engine bombers but not 3 engine transports? I'm not getting it and can't find a post that explains this.

:salute:

skud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, when will it be possible to play the early version of Normandy map?

I assume that the aircraft will be accessible sooner than new map, but I'll be glad if I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ATAG_SKUD said:

 Can someone explain to me how the game engine restricts the use of 4 engine bombers but not 3 engine transports? I'm not getting it and can't find a post that explains this.

:salute:

skud

The B-17 has a crew of 10. The Ju-52 just has a pilot and maybe one gunner, not 9. In this sense, one B-17 is almost 4 Ju-52.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ATAG_SKUD said:

 Can someone explain to me how the game engine restricts the use of 4 engine bombers but not 3 engine transports? I'm not getting it and can't find a post that explains this.

:salute:

skud


Exactly, makes no sense.

 

For those saying it wouldn’t be realistic either because the game engine can’t handle 800+ bombers in the air for a realistic mission, well there was thousands of aircraft in the air at any given time over Europe during ww2, but that’s not simulated in IL-2.
 

Should we not have the IL-2 game at all then because it can’t be simulated? That “game” can be played all day. It’s just an excuse people tell themselves to feel better about not having what SHOULD be there.

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how is that a game engine limitation? I understand its a lot of programming work but not a software limitation.

:salute:

skud

2 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The B-17 has a crew of 10. The Ju-52 just has a pilot and maybe one gunner, not 9. In this sense, one B-17 is almost 4 Ju-52.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the AI controlling all of the positions in a B17 would take the same processing power of ~4 Ju52s meaning 16xB17s in qmb would probably turn into a slideshow stutterfest. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ATAG_SKUD said:

So how is that a game engine limitation? I understand its a lot of programming work but not a software limitation.

:salute:

skud

 

The game engine just hast to process these added bots. At some point the bucket is full. Jason mentioned the B-17 sadly out of question because of that, but as I understand him, he'd be all for having the heavyies in the game. It's just... we would also have to have far larger maps. There's many things that preclude 8th AF missions in our sim.

Just now, Danziger said:

Because the AI controlling all of the positions in a B17 would take the same processing power of ~4 Ju52s meaning 16xB17s in qmb would probably turn into a slideshow stutterfest. 

Actually, it would rather make one minute take 5 minutes in game. It is up to the game devlopers how they partition scene processing and assembling on the CPU. That the game engine has a lot to do, you can see by not being able to do time compession. In offline missions with lots of AI actions, I can hardly pass 1.4x accellerated time, even if I set it to 8x. Just check the watch in the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn’t fit the theater timeline as well, but I hope to see an Me-109 G-10 to finish off the 109 variants at some point. 

 

Edited by MasterShake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always appreciated your work, especially Bodenplatte which is a fantastic expansion. Pity, I would have preferred something distinctly different, let me explain better, going from Battle of Stalingrad to Battle of Bodenplatte is like going from day to night (completely different scenarios, completely different planes) but in my opinion this new project seems to me something not too different with many recycled planes. An equally drastic change would have been better, such as theater of the pacific or Italy. This is my opinion

Edited by GZMaggior
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you put yourselves in the shoes of Jason and the 1C team this theater makes perfect sense. The question I would be asking if it were me would be how can I deliver the most satisfaction for the most people with X amount of cash and time.  BON is able to capitalize on buildings, terrain, vehicles, landscape that already exist in BOBP or earlier maps. This is a big pile of low hanging fruit.

Now, if the second thing I would do is invest in MP.  Yeah, I know there are a tiny number of MP players. Well I think that is because MP can only handle a tiny number of players and it's hard to find dedicated souls to invest tons of time in very cool MP servers like TAW and Coconut. I'd throw them a bone with good tools and features and work to get the server load up to run 200 players.

:salute:

skud

11 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The game engine just hast to process these added bots. At some point the bucket is full. Jason mentioned the B-17 sadly out of question because of that, but as I understand him, he'd be all for having the heavyies in the game. It's just... we would also have to have far larger maps. There's many things that preclude 8th AF missions in our sim.

Actually, it would rather make one minute take 5 minutes in game. It is up to the game devlopers how they partition scene processing and assembling on the CPU. That the game engine has a lot to do, you can see by not being able to do time compession. In offline missions with lots of AI actions, I can hardly pass 1.4x accellerated time, even if I set it to 8x. Just check the watch in the aircraft.

So how can a team of 8-10  Ju-88s attack an airfield with 20 bot- driven flak  batteries and not get lagging?

:salute:

skud

 

Edited by ATAG_SKUD
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeaah ! 😉

 

 

Mosquito FB, Ju-88C  !!

 

Now we "only"  need Beaufighters ,  Liberators and Sunderlands   for the Battle over the Bay !  😅

 

Super news

 

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

The Arado flew over all 5 beach heads and photographed the allied landing sites in Normandy in the summer (early August) of 1944. There were 214 built and Arados flew many recon and bombing missions in the last year of the war - it is perfectly relevant for the Normandy (and Ardennes) maps.

 

Though IIRC the Normandy aircraft was the A variant, minus undercarriage. Interesting if the team model that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ATAG_SKUD said:

So how can a team of 8-10  Ju-88s attack an airfield with 20 bot- driven flak  batteries and not get lagging?

You're very close to lagging then. Check how fast you can accellerate time. But compare your watch with the watch mounted on the dash in your cockpit.

 

And 36 B-17 contain far more bots than what you described. B-17 are not loners. They come in hundreds. Even if yoou reduce that its less. But how it could be, ask Jason specifically. He said it doesn't work. I'd say that's very plausible.

 

Beside, for B-17 missions to become meaningful, you should be able to fly from East Anglia to Bremen in the very least. But better so from East Anglia via Schweinfurt to Tunesia. Or via Berlin to Russia. See the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw in my oar, I do not see why the massed bombers need to be included. Their representation with any accuracy is a mammoth task. The tactical air war is fast-paced, fun and very mixed.

 

The Strategic air war is actually - at base - a lot of flying over long distances or a lot of waiting around

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sinned said:

This is where my financial support to this series stops. 

I have been an idiot to gift out and buy all these products that I have no interest.  

 

This series won't go to PTO.  

 

good luck to the devs. 

Never understood why people buy products they have no interest in just to "support" the developers.  I'm not gonna waste money on something just because I hope it'll lead somewhere else. If you have no interest in it, why buy it.

 

6 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

It's really difficult to understand how someone could look at this map and lineup of aircraft and think "That's it, I'm out of here...."

 

We get some really amazing aircraft and maps that we can use from 1940 to 1944.  This is a GREAT decision!

Agreed. So many good choices in this lineup. Honestly this will probably be the best expansion that they do so far, even better than Bodenplatte imo.

Location, aircraft, and all the other planned features are going to make this one of the best Il2 releases imo.

 

3 hours ago, E4GLEyE said:

Uhhhh... Rather sad for not getting carrier ops and the Pacific :(

The plane set is nice, but can we please change one letter? B26 to A26? That dream would make it an instant buy, for now I will wait a bit with the purchase.

Hopefully it doesn't change. I'm sure the A-26 will come eventually, maybe if we ever get to the Pacific. A-26 was an attack aircraft/light bomber, the B-26 was the mainstay of the US medium bombers over Europe. For the B-26 not to be included would be a huge mistake.

 

 It's my all time favorite medium bomber and seeing it as AI give me hope that it'll be made flyable one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have less desire for 4-engine bombers than I have even for a Korean module. However, it would have been nice to have either the B-25 or B-26 flyable. In fact, without it being flyable, I'd rather they just stick with the B-25 and not waste time on the B-26 at all. It would be nice to have the A-20 G, which could be used in future Soviet expansions as well.

Edited by cardboard_killer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cardboard_killer said:

I have less desire for 4-engine bombers than I have for a Korean module. However, it would have been nice to have either the B-25 or B-26 flyable. In fact, without it being flyable, I'd rather they just stick with the B-25 and not waste time on the B-26 at all. It would be nice to have the A-20 G, which could be used in future Soviet expansions as well.

I remember them saying they plan on making the B-25 flyable. Hopefully they’ll do the same with the B-26. I’m sure it will take plenty of time but imo it would be a worthwhile endeavor.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the devs decission and I wish them the best of luck. I'm sure BoN is gonna be a resounding success.

 

On a personal note, my heart is broken.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

You're very close to lagging then. Check how fast you can accellerate time. But compare your watch with the watch mounted on the dash in your cockpit.

 

And 36 B-17 contain far more bots than what you described. B-17 are not loners. They come in hundreds. Even if yoou reduce that its less. But how it could be, ask Jason specifically. He said it doesn't work. I'd say that's very plausible.

 

Beside, for B-17 missions to become meaningful, you should be able to fly from East Anglia to Bremen in the very least. But better so from East Anglia via Schweinfurt to Tunesia. Or via Berlin to Russia. See the problem?

 

I fully understand the scaling issues. Big, maps, tons of cockpit and interior details, and probably lagging over a certain number. We can't get 80 players on a server reliably enough to worry about 1000 bomber formations yet.

Still, there is a sizeable crowd of heavy bomber aficionados including myself that would be delighted to be in an 8-10 bomber formation taking off from airfields in the current map's extremities to rip the snot out of the opposing side's source of production and to watch our escorts go at it with  enemy interceptors.

 I think the main reason we haven't seen the super-heavies is the cost to build them. It's the same reason Germany never built 4 engine bombers (until too late).

 

:salute:

skud

Edited by ATAG_SKUD
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"IL-2 Normandy" will be a fantastic module, I'm sure it will… but I will not buy it, sorry. I will fly over the Normandy fields on board a Kurfürst because that will be free to me. Please, do not get me wrong, I'm proud to support the "Great Battles" series… my purchases are Stalingrad (Premium), Moscow, Kuban and Bodenplatte (Premium). But I am a Japanese fighter pilot mainly and I think that, from now, I will stop my expenses until a Pacific/Asian theatre of operations is released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Never understood why people buy products they have no interest in just to "support" the developers.  I'm not gonna waste money on something just because I hope it'll lead somewhere else. If you have no interest in it, why buy it.

 

If 1C stops doing what it does it could be the end of WW1/WW2 flight simulations. I don't clearly see a future where this kind of game will be cheaper to make or will appeal to more people, so if they stop it is not compeltely sure that someone else will do it.

 

So it is conceivable that in two decades we will have the hardware to make the ultimate VR WW2 flight simulation, with visually no difference or no significant difference with reality, but noone to make the software.

 

As I don't want that I tend to buy 1C stuff even when I am not too happy with their decisions.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad the game gets to move forward with a new battle, and yes, I'm sad for the chaps who are still waiting for the PTO... that said, if the team are staying in WWII , then the Normandy battle is a good choice.

It also allows us to use the same map to conduct other earlier battles... this is a good thing, and most here already understand why they chose to do it.

 

Well done to the Dev team!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

something just occurred to me, a lot of ocean in this map, what do you guys think if they introduced royal navy FAA (fleet air arm) with carriers? sub and ship hunting with swordfish and sea hurricanes  on escort carriers would be amazing and fun. 

 

i actually have no idea outside of the normandy invasion how much RN carriers operated in this region of the north sea. obviously this would be one sided and allied only but at least gives us some of the carrier ops we all want sooner rather than later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Esel_kong said:

something just occurred to me, a lot of ocean in this map, what do you guys think if they introduced royal navy FAA (fleet air arm) with carriers? sub and ship hunting with swordfish and sea hurricanes  on escort carriers would be amazing and fun. 

 

i actually have no idea outside of the normandy invasion how much RN carriers operated in this region of the north sea. obviously this would be one sided and allied only but at least gives us some of the carrier ops we all want sooner rather than later

A catapult armed merchant with a sea hurricane would be cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ATAG_SKUD said:

 

I fully understand the scaling issues. Big, maps, tons of cockpit and interior details, and probably lagging over a certain number. We can't get 80 players on a server reliably enough to worry about 1000 bomber formations yet.

Still, there is a sizeable crowd of heavy bomber aficionados including myself that would be delighted to be in an 8-10 bomber formation taking off from airfields in the current map's extremities to rip the snot out of the opposing side's source of production and to watch our escorts go at it with  enemy interceptors.

 I think the main reason we haven't seen the super-heavies is the cost to build them. It's the same reason Germany never built 4 engine bombers (until too late).

 

:salute:

skud

 

I know everyone likes the heavies, but 9th AF B-25s and B-26s (which we will now have) carried out many long range strikes against targets in France, Belgium and Germany in 1943-45: bridges, airfields, railway yards, v-1/v-2 sites, factories, etc. Many escorted by fighters, many intercepted by the GAF, so lots of potential missions. 

 

The map includes all of the 9th AF principal bases in England, so you can take off, strike targets deep in France and fly back. 

 

p.s. - personally very happy with the inclusion of the B-26 and was hoping it would be included at one point, since the B-25 and B-26 were the mainstay of the 9th AF medium bomber force and were involved in most of the important missions.

Edited by Sgt_Joch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of that too, but while F4Us were being used in the Atlantic by the RN, i appears they never got into any dogfights, although the carriers did strike Norway and the BB Tirpitz there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Never understood why people buy products they have no interest in just to "support" the developers.  I'm not gonna waste money on something just because I hope it'll lead somewhere else. If you have no interest in it, why buy it.

 

Well, why don't you ask Jason why he encouraged to buy products in hopes that it will lead to something else?  

 

Do you know dev's promises at BOK announcement and follow up promises about 'my dream is PTO and IL2 needs to go on?"

 

It is now customer's fault to 'waste money'?  

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 76IAP-Black said:

lets cross the fingers for a V1 carreer!!! 🤗

Might be the first career I'll be able to finish:biggrin:

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

I know everyone likes the heavies, but 9th AF B-25s and B-26s (which we will now have) carried out many long range strikes against targets in France, Belgium and Germany in 1943-45: bridges, airfields, railway yards, v-1/v-2 sites, factories, etc. Many escorted by fighters, many intercepted by the GAF, so lots of potential missions. 

 

The map includes all of the 9th AF principal bases in England, so you can take off, strike targets deep in France and fly back. 

 

p.s. - personally very happy with the inclusion of the B-26 and was hoping it would be included at one point, since the B-25 and B-26 were the mainstay of the 9th AF medium bomber force and were involved in most of the important missions.

Agreed, I'd be happy with having those two as flyables for awhile. Really what I was trying to get to the bottom of was the question of whether it was a game software limitation or not.

:salute:

skud

Edited by ATAG_SKUD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sinned said:

This is where my financial support to this series stops. 

I have been an idiot to gift out and buy all these products that I have no interest.  


... why did you buy things you had no interest in?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-26 also pleases me. I can't wait to pick it up as a collector plane when it becomes flyable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:


... why did you buy things you had no interest in?

I was never interested in aircraft. I noticed that there were Stalinist era collective farms in BoS and I bought the subsequent expansions in the hope they would make them manageable, like they did with tank commander.

 

As we're getting v1s, is there any hope of getting a Meteor as a collector's plane? They shot down a whole 14 v1s over the course of the war!

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:


... why did you buy things you had no interest in?

 

I am glad you asked. 

 

Jason, can you help answer this question - why we were asked to buy 'everything that 1CGS has to offer'?  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sinned said:

 

I am glad you asked. 

 

Jason, can you help answer this question - why we were asked to buy 'everything that 1CGS has to offer'?  


I mean, I would assume that the business wanted you to buy their products because businesses exist to sell products.

 

The question is, why did you buy the products if you had no interest in them?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sinned said:

 

I am glad you asked. 

 

Jason, can you help answer this question - why we were asked to buy 'everything that 1CGS has to offer'?  

Except for the Ju52. The poor sales figures indicate nobody bought the Ju52 and it was a waste of resources.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sinned said:

 

I am glad you asked. 

 

Jason, can you help answer this question - why we were asked to buy 'everything that 1CGS has to offer'?  

Err, because they're a commercial company? It's hardly cutthroat capitalism. As much as I like the product, I didn't buy tank commander as for now I'm not interested in tanks. If the update subsequent to battle of Normandy lives or dies by me purchasing tank commander or not I'll consider it but it is impossible for *anyone* to know that.

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, mossies, typhoons, and ar234 I'm sold

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Danziger said:

Except for the Ju52. The poor sales figures indicate nobody bought the Ju52 and it was a waste of resources.

 

I've actually bought that!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...