A question about IL-2

[[=PzG=]-Southernbear]

Well the title is pretty simple...idk where else to put this either so if this breaks any rules sorry. 

 

Well I'm wondering how the devs are actually going to be honest...I know I'm not obliged to any actual numbers and earning from the company but from what I've seen over the last 12 months it would indicate the teams going through a trough time.

 

Well lets start off with the evidence... oh and I should mention these are just my observations and from talking with other people and with what Jason has said over this time this is not a complaining piece by any means.

 

- first one that really strikes me as odd is the Yak 9 and 9T...I don't off the top of my head know why similarly to the Lagg with the 3-34 modification they couldn't be sold as one plane *aside* from the reason being financial. (again I'm fine with this)

 

-  Second the Ar 234, people with the new Normandy announcement have noted that the Arado 234 blitz bomber only had 2 flyable versions of the 234 during this time period that didn't have landing gear and were for recon only...now heres the thing...IL-2 makes sure that every expansion is able to make profit from the $80 price tag compared to the planes they have to sell, thus they can't just give use 20 planes per expansion and expect the purchase price to stay the same...the Ar 234 is a HUGE selling point, the ONLY video games to EVEN PUT it into their games off the top of my head would be IL-1946 (obviously), War thunder and World of Warplanes but (no offence to 46' veterans) comparing 46 to games these days it's engine isn't much better than WT SIM with some extra bits so REALLY, IL-2 BoN will be the FIRST and currently ONLY flyable Ar-234 on the sim market SO what does this all mean?.

 

Well people are correct that it probably should have been a BoBP plane just based of historical accuracy HOWEVER...as I said before to keep the cost the same they would have to trade planes over...and I imagine that for BoN most allied pilots want the Mossie and most German pilots want the 410 OR 234...now Jason has already said they are strapped for time and information on both but particularly the Me 410 thus is there a slight chance it is cancelled leaving the only 'poster' child for the Axis side being the 234 if this was already put in, in BoBP then you'd be getting something like a K-4 a G-14 or even a older version of a prop plane and it won't drive the sale of the expansion nearly as much

 

- Third Battle of Normandy itself...I understand people complain that BoN is just more BoBP and more of the same and they technically aren't wrong...aside from the time periods being different you could run a line of tap down the left side of the Rhineland map and and the right side of the Normandy made and make one big map of Europe...but as I stated before by splitting them it allows for this timeline difference and shows D-Day in its full and is more profitable and familiar to the customer... it would have been the same if they sold a MEGA pack with BoBP and BoN put together for $160 BUT for the average simer who is gonna fork out a sudden $160? makes a lot more sense to separate them

 

- Fourth, The C-47/DC-3 and Bombers! ah yes the big B word...I'll tackle that first then. It has caused a lot of controversy over the last 6 months or so...but from reading what Jason has said and taking what I have said previously into account its understandable...now when making a plane like the B-25 or B-26 flyable there are quite a few things to think about...

1. You need to model a HD cockpit for the players

2. More importantly you need to change the AI drastically

The first just costs time and money which as evident they don't have all that much to throw around at the moment but the second issue is the big one, what I can assume from how Devs and founders have described about the software for AI bombers is it works more similar to War Thunder where you have a 1 net AI over the plane that uses each gunner as one thing (think how you control gunners in War thunder) however if this plane becomes flyable...you must make each gunner its own separate entity so that a player can jump in and hop between gunner positions without turning off the AI in unoccupied seats this means you go from 1 AI per plane to (in the B-25's case) 6 separate AI gunners... not only is this complicated to do but it also drastically increases server lag with all the sudden influx of AI in a server which while people say "well you did the He-111 why not the B-25" the He 111 only has 4 crew...maybe 5 depending on the version I think...

 

This is all coupled with the fact that they have just lost 2 AI coders and gain 4 new ones so it could be that they need confidence and to 'settle in' before they tackle a major thing like that.

 

Now the C-47/DC-3 you say doesn't have this AI issue and your right...but similar to the JU-52 its kinda hard to make it seem that enjoyable to most regular players...and if I am correct and their time and money is sort why waste time on a plane that might not even sell that well (as we don't really know how well the Ju-52 did) when you can divert that time, effort and money to other projects that WILL earn like the Ar 234...I have no doubt in my mind the C-47/DC-3 WILL become flyable AT SOME POINT but what I've just said is probably why its not flyable on release.

 

- Fifth, a Pacific expression...must admit the timing of release for BoN *was not that great* due to it matching up with the anniversary of the Japanese navy leaving for Pearl Harbor and the use of a coded message as a hint...but all what I've said could tie into why we didn't get a pacific expansion...currently the main reasons are lack of Japanese documentation, which is fair, and that Aircraft carriers don't work in the engine at the moment (again getting new coders could also explain why they haven't tried to update it yet) However even then there are ways of making early or 'out of the way' battles that don't need carriers but if you don't have all the 'major and interesting' then are people going to buy it? the easy answer is "yes of course anything pacific will sell!" but if you reallly look at it...isn't it a safer bet to do Normandy? I would think so.

 

-Sixth and this is a short one, there is a squadron of A-20s on the BoBP campaign which are greyed out...this is due to them apparently only having VVS bombs...now its just a small example of how pressed for time they must be considering we now have American 1000, 500 and 250Ib bombs and yet they don't have enough resources to make a payload and (probably a skin is need too) for it.

 

Well that wraps it up...it was more explaining ways a company does things really...again I'm not accusing anyone or anything but what I've seen over the last 12 ish months is them heading their bets a little...regardless of what happens I'm looking forward to Battle of Normandy and my Hurricane

 

And P.S. again...I have no idea if this breaks TOS or any forum rules talking about this so sorry if that is the case...

[DD_Arthur]

22 minutes ago, Southernbear said:

This is all coupled with the fact that they have just lost 2 AI coders and gain 4 new ones so it could be that they need confidence and to 'settle in' before they tackle a major thing like that.

 

Link to this "fact" please.

[AndyJWest]

What exactly was the question?

[[=PzG=]-Southernbear]

The question is it feels like there is something behind the scenes that has lowered the scope a bit...and the way Jason was talking about the Me 410 ect seems like projects are getting pushed to a smaller and smaller time frame...as for the AI coders stuff it could be wrong but this is just what I've heard down the pipe line and helps to explain some of the things to do with aircraft carriers and the B-25/C-47 being non flyable atm 

[cardboard_killer]

1 minute ago, Southernbear said:

The question is it feels like there is something behind the scenes that has lowered the scope a bit...

 

I still don't understand the question.

[BraveSirRobin]

11 minutes ago, Southernbear said:

The question is it feels like there is something behind the scenes that has lowered the scope a bit...and the way Jason was talking about the Me 410 ect seems like projects are getting pushed to a smaller and smaller time frame...as for the AI coders stuff it could be wrong but this is just what I've heard down the pipe line and helps to explain some of the things to do with aircraft carriers and the B-25/C-47 being non flyable atm 

 

This still isn't a question.  It's not even an attempt at a question.

[AndyJWest]

3 minutes ago, Southernbear said:

The question is it feels like there is something behind the scenes that has lowered the scope a bit...and the way Jason was talking about the Me 410 ect seems like projects are getting pushed to a smaller and smaller time frame...as for the AI coders stuff it could be wrong but this is just what I've heard down the pipe line and helps to explain some of the things to do with aircraft carriers and the B-25/C-47 being non flyable atm 

 

That still isn't a question, but I'll try to respond anyway. IL-2 GB is a niche product. It always has been. The developers have always made it clear that they are working with limited resources, and that they can't do everything they'd like to. They have however continued to expand and update the project over time, which is all that can reasonably be expected. And any suggestion that they have 'lowered the scope' needs further explanation, because I can't see this. What I can see however is that some forum members (often the most vocal ones) have got their expectations up beyond anything reasonable, and then been disappointed. This is on them, not the developers. There is far too often a tendency to try to read far too much into passing comments made by Jason and his crew, and to make 'promises' out of 'likes'. The reality is that until the developers take money for something, any future plans must be assumed to be aspirations. And as far as I'm aware, that is still the situation regarding any Pacific expansion. Jason would like to do it - he's made that much clear.  Beyond that, speculating about what exactly limits future expansions is likely to be unproductive. We don't know the inner workings of 1C-777, and should have no expectation to have them revealed to us. We are customers, not shareholders. We don't get to see the books. We don't get told who is hired, or who leaves, or why. And nor should we have any expectation of having the reasoning behind commercial decisions revealed. Sometimes Jason may say something on the subject, but he has no obligation to. So, if you want to believe stuff from 'the pipe line' rather than what Jason actually tells us, fine, do so. But don't expect everyone else to treat it as credible.

[Jade_Monkey]

Strange past overall. The are several things that sound off in your post, some of them might just be the way you phrased them. 

But i want top focus my feedback on once thing:

 

4 hours ago, Southernbear said:

- Fourth, The C-47/DC-3 and Bombers! ah yes the big B word...I'll tackle that first then. It has caused a lot of controversy over the last 6 months or so...but from reading what Jason has said and taking what I have said previously into account its understandable...now when making a plane like the B-25 or B-26 flyable there are quite a few things to think about...

1. You need to model a HD cockpit for the players

2. More importantly you need to change the AI drastically

The first just costs time and money which as evident they don't have all that much to throw around at the moment but the second issue is the big one, what I can assume from how Devs and founders have described about the software for AI bombers is it works more similar to War Thunder where you have a 1 net AI over the plane that uses each gunner as one thing (think how you control gunners in War thunder) however if this plane becomes flyable...you must make each gunner its own separate entity so that a player can jump in and hop between gunner positions without turning off the AI in unoccupied seats this means you go from 1 AI per plane to (in the B-25's case) 6 separate AI gunners... not only is this complicated to do but it also drastically increases server lag with all the sudden influx of AI in a server which while people say "well you did the He-111 why not the B-25" the He 111 only has 4 crew...maybe 5 depending on the version I think...

 

 

1) No, the gunners are already independent an what you said is the exact opposite of how it actually works in the game.

 

2) That's to a large degree the reason why they can't build large bombers in game and still get good performance. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

4 hours ago, Southernbear said:

The question is it feels like there is something behind the scenes that has lowered the scope a bit...and the way Jason was talking about the Me 410 ect seems like projects are getting pushed to a smaller and smaller time frame...as for the AI coders stuff it could be wrong but this is just what I've heard down the pipe line and helps to explain some of the things to do with aircraft carriers and the B-25/C-47 being non flyable atm 

 

This is more conjecture or personal statement than question. Still, we can examine the notion that something has or hasn't changed behind the scenes and we can objectively look at what kind of content the team is doing and compare that versus what has been done in the past. When I do the latter I look at Battle of Normandy and see a similar effort to many prior products including Battle of Moscow or Battle of Kuban. BoN has a mix of types derived from those available before as well as new ones. It also has an ambitious map that I have high hopes for. Further still, it actually has more aircraft than we've seen them do previously with the B-26 and C-47, both AI, also planned in addition to the 10.

 

The trouble with speculating what the plan is long term is that I don't think we have a full deck of cards to play with right now. What are 1CGS' plans for the B-25, B-26, and C-47? They have tended not to leave aircraft unflyable for long periods of time as the work on the 3D external and the flight model justify making them flyable eventually. There may be plans there but we don't know what they are at the moment.

 

Also in the mix is Flying Circus and Tank Crew. No word of them or what is planned for them in the future if anything. Possibly they are working on a constellation of products in addition to BoN that are complementary but not ready to be announced. We don't know the answers to these and many more.

[Motherbrain]

 

The dev's need to communicate better.

 

You ask questions and the only real response you get are gate keepers ripping into you for having the audacity for not knowing what is going on and for daring to ask what is going on.

 

You have to dig just to find laughable tidbits of information, only to find out even those were made up by people that have about as good idea as you do about what is going on.

 

Mum dev's and gatekeepers that RIP into people asking questions.

 

It amazes me this game has so many passionate people chomping at the bit to know more about it but they don't do anything about it. Or they even don't think we should.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Motherbrain

[AndyJWest]

3 minutes ago, Motherbrain said:

 

The dev's need to communicate better.

 

You ask questions and the only real response you get are gate keepers ripping into you for having the audacity for not knowing what is going on and for daring to ask what is going on.

 

You have to dig just to find laughable tidbits of information, only to find out even those were made up by people that have about as good idea as you do about what is going on.

 

Mum dev's and gatekeepers that RIP into people asking questions.

 

The devs aren't actually under any obligation to communicate at all.  And given the amount of stuff that is 'made up' by people eager to treat passing comments from Jason as some sort of exercise in cracking the enigma code, I'm sometimes surprised they tell us as much as they do.

[Motherbrain]

8 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

The devs aren't actually under any obligation to communicate at all.  And given the amount of stuff that is 'made up' by people eager to treat passing comments from Jason as some sort of exercise in cracking the enigma code, I'm sometimes surprised they tell us as much as they do.

 

They are eager and rabidly consume  every rumor because they are passionate and they are squandering that.

 

These sims have such nasty, hostile, gatekeeper communities and so little go get hyped about it's no wonder flight sims are a niche thing.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Motherbrain

[AndyJWest]

Having a passion about one's leisure interests is a good thing. Having unrealistic expectations that a commercial concern is going to feed that passion by answering every question you can think of isn't. Particularly when the questions seem so often to revolve around things the developers may not yet know the answer to anyway.  Decisions about future expansions for example are likely to involve considerable input from people more concerned with return on investment than on anything us combat simmers are passionate about. The dev team clearly share some of our passions, but they are necessarily constrained by the cold hard reality of having to earn a living, and have to satisfy the men in suits. And they may feel a little more constrained when it comes to discussing future plans by the reactions already seen on this forum. With hindsight, I'd suspect that Jason wishes he'd never discussed a potential Pacific expansion at all. Communication of an aspiration (which is all it ever was) somehow became a 'promise' in the minds of some, and I don't think he'd want to see a repeat of that. When a firm decision is made, and the timing is commercially appropriate, I'm sure we will be told.

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

What exactly was the question?

 

Gotta love these long dissertations about video games. 

1 hour ago, Motherbrain said:

The dev's need to communicate better.

 

After 235 developer diaries, plus all of the developer replies here and on the Russian forums, plus the interviews they've conducted, and the numerous trade shows they've attended, I think they are doing quite well in the communication department.

[6FG_Big_Al]

The constant change of AI programmers would be new to me. Apart from what was told from the Dev Diarys.  
Otherwise I wouldn't say that the game is going downhill. It makes for me more the impression that Il-2 gets a little bit bigger with each expansion (of the amount of content of each part).

And as far as the Pacific is concerned, I didn't find any concrete reasons why the Pacific was not used, at least in this forum. Jason, apart from the fact that it wasn't possible to implement it at the moment, didn't give any concrete information what it lacks in the end. This means that all the sayings about the engine limitations and the Japanese data can be outdated and represent pure speculation. In the end we can look forward to Normandy and hopefully to all planned planes. 

Altogether, I also think that the communication between the Dev's and us is not so bad. There are regularly detailed developer diaries that keep us up to date, as well as comments from individual members. And as far as I know the developers in the Russian forum are even closer in contact with the community. I've been to several other games where the communication was much worse and slower. In this sense, there's no reason to complain much about it.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

2 hours ago, Motherbrain said:

These sims have such nasty, hostile, gatekeeper communities and so little go get hyped about it's no wonder flight sims are a niche thing.

 

There really isn't that much gatekeeping. Direct questions usually get answered very quickly even if they are somewhat naive. Besides the occasional flame war, discussions containing wishlists and criticism also do fine.

 

Veiled criticisms, unsubstantiated claims, dead horse topics, and walls of text rightfully receive immediate negative responses.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, Motherbrain said:

gate keepers ripping into you

I do agree on this though. 
I had the same concerns as the op. For a long time. 
It is a result of devotion and involvement. 
I can only advise op to take a step back, relax and enjoy the ride. If GB is going to succeed over time it is due to their ability to stay in peoples interest and keep within the budget while doing so. 
They do not have a walk in the park, if they fail doing so I am afraid WW2 cfs is doomed forever. This is why I stepped down my portion of demand and play this sim with more gratitude, because suddenly I understood that it is not to be taken for granted

[Ribbon]

3 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

This is more conjecture or personal statement than question. Still, we can examine the notion that something has or hasn't changed behind the scenes and we can objectively look at what kind of content the team is doing and compare that versus what has been done in the past. When I do the latter I look at Battle of Normandy and see a similar effort to many prior products including Battle of Moscow or Battle of Kuban. BoN has a mix of types derived from those available before as well as new ones. It also has an ambitious map that I have high hopes for. Further still, it actually has more aircraft than we've seen them do previously with the B-26 and C-47, both AI, also planned in addition to the 10.

 

The trouble with speculating what the plan is long term is that I don't think we have a full deck of cards to play with right now. What are 1CGS' plans for the B-25, B-26, and C-47? They have tended not to leave aircraft unflyable for long periods of time as the work on the 3D external and the flight model justify making them flyable eventually. There may be plans there but we don't know what they are at the moment.

 

Also in the mix is Flying Circus and Tank Crew. No word of them or what is planned for them in the future if anything. Possibly they are working on a constellation of products in addition to BoN that are complementary but not ready to be announced. We don't know the answers to these and many more.

Il2 evolved a lot since Moscow expansion and b25/26 are too iconic to not to be made flyable, c47 too but way less of importance for combat sim and i see it flyable more down the line after one of B's.

Those medium bombers mask absence of heavies and moving to BoN that is more noticable than with previous titles.

 

Me being one of the biggest cry-babies for not going to PTO i now see that going PTO after BoBp would be a business mistake.

BoN is a genious business move that will give huge opportunities for all 3 products (il2, TC and FC) with that Channel map.

 

 

[Sandinourcoffee6]

first thing they have to make a profit.

second thing they have to make the game appeal to several types of gamer,customer. my example of this is just say a young kid has a steam voucher for Christmas he or she has an interest in this sort of game, but properly only has lower to mid range software,hardware etc,

well they go ahead and buy great battles so here’s the two scenarios (1) they have a good experience they get good FPS enjoy the sim and want more aka future customer (2) the sim is slow they get low FPS they get bored and give up on combat flight sims,aka loss of customer he or she tells friends etc etc,

so for me I think the devs are nearly perfect in their approach to the future of this sim, they have to not just cater to the expert 3000 dollar pc owner who plays on full realism but to several types of customer.

i would say the future for them is getting new customers and keeping their interest with a good playable product.

thats just my view, I do think we have a very good product,yes it is not perfect but it is improving all the time

[Ribbon]

35 minutes ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

I do agree on this though. 
I had the same concerns as the op. For a long time. 
It is a result of devotion and involvement. 
I can only advise op to take a step back, relax and enjoy the ride. If GB is going to succeed over time it is due to their ability to stay in peoples interest and keep within the budget while doing so. 
They do not have a walk in the park, if they fail doing so I am afraid WW2 cfs is doomed forever. This is why I stepped down my portion of demand and play this sim with more gratitude, because suddenly I understood that it is not to be taken for granted

GB are already doing fine, BoK was turning point in sales, BoBp even better and now BoN.

If they managed to survive during BoS and BoM development they are pretty much at safe place now.

Forums and MP activity growth as well going 3 products at once is clear indication of that.

What once was budget problem now seems to be manpower issue.

 

[hirondo]

4 hours ago, Motherbrain said:

These sims have such nasty, hostile, gatekeeper communities and so little go get hyped about it's no wonder flight sims are a niche thing.

 

Lol !

Yes, always the same people who rip to shreds well-meaning criticism. You can count them on the fingers of your hands and their trademark is, they made thousands of posts. My Sim colleagues and I call them the Defense Department. You never hear criticism from them, even if it'd be justified. Is it possible that they are biased?

[PO_Baldrick]

When I read threads like these I wonder how most of us would feel if our own jobs were analysed to the nth degree? I am not really seeing constructive criticism about the product but trying to understand the inner workings and financial decision making of the company, which in most companies is considered company confidential even to most of its employees!

[Yogiflight]

1 hour ago, meplanes1969 said:

first thing they have to make a profit.

second thing they have to make the game appeal to several types of gamer,customer. my example of this is just say a young kid has a steam voucher for Christmas he or she has an interest in this sort of game, but properly only has lower to mid range software,hardware etc,

well they go ahead and buy great battles so here’s the two scenarios (1) they have a good experience they get good FPS enjoy the sim and want more aka future customer (2) the sim is slow they get low FPS they get bored and give up on combat flight sims,aka loss of customer he or she tells friends etc etc,

so for me I think the devs are nearly perfect in their approach to the future of this sim, they have to not just cater to the expert 3000 dollar pc owner who plays on full realism but to several types of customer.

i would say the future for them is getting new customers and keeping their interest with a good playable product.

thats just my view, I do think we have a very good product,yes it is not perfect but it is improving all the time

The second issue is, what players want to experience. On the one side there are hardcore simmers, who want everything to be as realistic as possible, on the other side there are fun players, who want to have action as quick as possible. Both groups have different expectations, how this game should look like, where the priorities should be.

[=FEW=fernando11]

I understand that many of us(if not all) wish to know the future of this game, and if our favourite plane/theater will be added.

 

What I dont understand is how some people get confused by reproaching instead of honest criticism. Or they think they are entitled to answers instead of just asking.

 

I dont think devs lack in comunication... They don't tell us EVERYTHING, and I think they shouldn't.

 

As an example, if Jason say that X plane is well advanced and they WISH to release it in some amount of time, when and if that time passes and the plane is not released, some will allways bitch and moan about it, and will deman explanation of why they broke their promes, why they "misslead" their costumer base, etc

(By the way, this has happened, More than once)

 

And whos fault it is?

 

Taking that into acount, I'm glad they still tell us as much as they do.

Edited December 16, 2019 by =FEW=fernando11
Tipo

[CanadaOne]

12 hours ago, Southernbear said:

Well the title is pretty simple...idk where else to put this either so if this breaks any rules sorry. 

 

Well I'm wondering how the devs are actually going to be honest...I know I'm not obliged to any actual numbers and earning from the company but from what I've seen over the last 12 months it would indicate the teams going through a trough time.

 

(Edited for space.)

 

And P.S. again...I have no idea if this breaks TOS or any forum rules talking about this so sorry if that is the case...

 

 

Are you channeling your inner lawyer? 

[Stoopy]

16 hours ago, Southernbear said:

Well the title is pretty simple...idk where else to put this either so if this breaks any rules sorry. 

 

Well I'm wondering how the devs are actually going to be honest...

 

TBH I stopped reading right there.   Starting off by suggesting the team is being dishonest tells me I'm reading a biased diatribe and not a real question.  I thought for a minute maybe it was just clumsy wording on your part, but you appear to have had plenty of time on your hands to write more carefully.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

10 hours ago, Motherbrain said:

 

They are eager and rabidly consume  every rumor because they are passionate and they are squandering that.

 

These sims have such nasty, hostile, gatekeeper communities and so little go get hyped about it's no wonder flight sims are a niche thing.

 

They provide weekly updates.  If you’re expecting daily or hourly updates, then the problem is on your end.

[PO_Baldrick]

1 hour ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

 

TBH I stopped reading right there.   Starting off by suggesting the team is being dishonest tells me I'm reading a biased diatribe and not a real question.  I thought for a minute maybe it was just clumsy wording on your part, but you appear to have had plenty of time on your hands to write more carefully.

 

I read that a few times, I think it is meant to say " I'm wondering how the devs are actually going, to be honest..." 

[Stoopy]

46 minutes ago, PO_Baldrick said:

I read that a few times, I think it is meant to say " I'm wondering how the devs are actually going, to be honest..." 

 

OK I can see that now. Had to look sideways at it, a little.  Thanks.

 

Skimming the rest, I'm starting to wonder if we just get *too much* info in the dev diaries.   They're so transparent about everything that it temps folks to get all up in their business and speculate like this.   Lots of discussion on the forums from us mere mortal users about business models, development costs and timelines, who is doing what on the project, etc.   An abundance of speculative armchair management from outside the walls.     

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by =[TIA]=Stoopy

[Elem]

2 hours ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

TBH I stopped reading right there

Likewise!!

[Jason_Williams]

Weird post. Not helpful or useful. Just speculation about our decision making and insinuating we are not honest. I don't like it and some of his info is completely false. I've been busy after the BON announcement and trying to take some vacay time for Xmas. I have lots to say about lots of things past, present and future, but I''m sorry, I can't explain every decision I or the company makes every other day. We are the most forthcoming sim operation I can think of. Why? Because I came from this community and know what it is to be a simulation customer. Some of you want to know the reasons for everything, but I cannot divulge confidential company secrets or information my bosses don't want out there. Even so, all decisions are pretty obvious and I've explained a lot along the way. My job is to make compelling, quality products, satisfy a diverse range of users from around the world, try to adhere to history and master ever changing PC game technology and compete against better funded and larger teams. All the while dealing with language and cultural barriers, budgets, deadlines and personnel changes. And don't forget trying to satisfy investors and turn a profit- we are after all a business. And do all this 6,000 miles away from my business partners and team. I think all things considered, we are doing pretty well. And if I didn't love it I wouldn't keep doing it. 

 

Jason