I'm happy to pay for a new game engine/code.

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

So everyone reckons the game code/engine is old.....????... right ....wrong???

 

Sell us a new game with the same content so that we get the experience we want....heck, I'll pay for it. 

 

Guys are discussing 800-1000USD CPU's here on the forums, then you have not even looked at a GPU or motherboard. Its no wonder this game is struggling for cash....it needs a minimum 3000 USD PC to run ok at best and even then its struggling, because of the old coding and netcode etc.

 

The VR is insane in this game but the experience is demolished with all the stuttering in that you start to feel seriously ill.  Sad really because you know they are onto something but its just not there yet.

 

I'd much rather spend 80-100USD on a new game engine rather than MS2020 purely because they have no ww2 combat planned.

 

I'd pass up on BoN (I've already committed) and Pacific theatre just to get a new BoStalingrad with a new engine running it.  

 

I am clearly not a techie... but i have invested a LOT into my setup to really get into this game. VKB pedals and joystick, mounts, throttles, VGA cards, RIFT S.... ALL imported because you can't buy them in Africa.

 

All I am really saying is this............Tell me I am wrong in what I am assuming etc but if I might be right that a new engine will improve things then you have my 100% commitment..... who else?

 

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by =EXPEND=Dendro

[Legioneod]

My PC is over 6 years old yet I can run this game nearly maxed out and still get good frames. The only time I lag is when over big cities or in huge dogfights but even then my frames don't drop much.

VR is much more demanding so I can understand poor performance for VR if you don't have a higher end pc.

 

I'm not an expert on anything but I don't think an entire new engine would be necessary, just upgrade it in iterations to fit your needs as you develop the game.

Dev are doing their bet I'm sure.

[HappyHaddock]

I built my pc in 2012 and run this with everything maxed out, it looks stunning and rarely if ever dips below the refresh rate of my monitor. Sure if I tried to run an ultra high res VR headset at more than 144hz my PC would fall to its knees, but I only ask my Pc to do what it can do well so as to avoid problems.

 

IL2 great battles was the move to the new game engine from ROF and we waited ages to get WWI content in this "new" game engine.

 

Obviously everybody wants/expects different things but pursuing any form of "latest" technology is a futile game as  you can spend all your time changing without ever getting ahead of the curve, yet still find you are creating problems for yourself as when everything is close to limits nothing integrates or runs as smoothly as when you deliberately  try to stay a step or two behind the cutting edge.

 

The devs keep tweaking things here and there to evolve and improve what we have and this seems to suit most as a way to move forward at a gradual and comfortable pace.

 

 

[TWC_Ace]

This game isnt hardware demanding....but there is a problem with netcode or whatever thast why no large bomber formations and stutters online. The original version of this game engine was built for ROF with medium scale dogfight in mind.

ehhh

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

No complaints that the devs are not doing their best.... that's why I have every single product they have produced and are yet to produce (BoN).

 

Are you guys referring to SP or MP performance? My SP experience in a quick mission is great...it truly is a beautiful experience in VR. But most my time is spent in MP with my squaddies and other assortment of mad online friends. It is here that I am struggling to get any kind of satisfactory result as I mentioned above. It seems the MP is really having issues and again I see that Jason and co. are addressing the issue.

 

One could also argue that the tech is designed to work on older pc's but has not kept pace to take advantage of all the new features of modern cpu's and gpu's. Or is it just that flight sims are just much more intensive than fps shooters like battlefield etc? I don't know. 

 

What I do know is that VR has completely changed the game for me personally. It is clearly more demanding  on the game and I am expecting the game to work for it now because I am addicted. 

 

I suppose in all fairness I am jumping the gun by bringing the stuttering issues up again BUT...... VR will get better and cheaper and PCs more powerful and it will in all likelihood become the mainstream of flight simming. I just want IL2 to be at the forefront when it does get there. Essentially I am not complaining, I just want whats best for the game as well as the dev team.  

7 minutes ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

This game isnt hardware demanding....but there is a problem with netcode or whatever thast why no large bomber formations and stutters online. The original version of this game engine was built for ROF with medium scale dogfight in mind.

ehhh

 

Maybe not, but then won't a game engine update fix the netcode errors and stuttering? Or does it just need to be refined and a new engine really is not necessary whatsoever? Or is the hardware and internet limitations going to hold any flight sim back regardless of its modern code?

 

From my limited knowledge I get the impression that the engine is outdated/old and is not utilising hardware capabilities like it should be? 

Edited January 21, 2020 by =EXPEND=Dendro

[Goffik]

I don't see that the game requires a new engine at all, to be honest. I have a mid-range rig (by current standards) that cost nothing like $3000 even when I built it, and I can run IL-2 in VR on fairly high settings. It looks fantastic and runs fine for the most part. A few issues here and there, but that could be solved if I had the money to up my graphics card a little. (Which I don't.) In 2D I can run it on max detail with no issues at all.

 

And that's the issue when it comes down to it, money. Some people have it and some don't. Those that do buy all the latest hardware and then demand that all games make use of it, not really sparing a thought for the vast majority that have to settle for mediocre gear. VR is a great example... the phrase "no VR no buy" comes to mind, which you routinely see in simulator threads these days. Fact is that most dev teams probably couldn't care less about lost sales to VR owners because they are a tiny minority of their overall playerbase. The same can be said for those that own 4K monitors capable of ultra-high res and 2080ti's that can run a sim twice without breaking a sweat. I'm not saying that no sim should make use of the features and performance of this gear (especially since I'm a VR user myself) but catering for the majority is more important, both practically and financially.

 

Also it seems your problem is stutters in MP. If you're not having issues in SP then this isn't a problem that requires a whole new engine, since it's not a hardware performance problem. Sounds more like netcode to me. Besides, if you read this post then you'll find that there are already plans for a possible big change in graphics that will potentially grant a significant performance boost.

 

28 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Dendro said:

BUT...... VR will get better and cheaper and PCs more powerful and it will in all likelihood become the mainstream of flight simming.

 

Come on, be realistic. The old, obsolete VR headsets will get cheaper while the pinnacle of the technology remains at prices unreachable by the vast majority. PC hardware will get more powerful but again at prices too high for the vast majority. VR is very, very unlikely to ever become "mainstream" for that reason. It'll always be niche for those that can afford it, and so developers need to set their priorities accordingly.

 

People once said that 3D TVs/monitors were the greatest thing ever and would be mainstream within five years. Look how that worked out. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Goffik

[dburne]

I am getting great performance with zero stuttering in IL-2 VR.

They have improved the overall performance quite a bit since VR support was initially released.

[TWC_Ace]

If you dont have problems with performance in MP it doesnt mean that many others dont have. This ignorance drives me crazy....."im good so I dont care" attitude....

Edited January 21, 2020 by =VARP=Tvrdi

[dburne]

9 minutes ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

If you dont have problems with performance in MP it doesnt mean that many others dont have. This ignorance drives me crazy....."im good so I dont care" attitude....

 

Absolutely does not mean that I don't care, I have often tried helping folks in the VR community get better performance.

Just an acknowledgement that it  is possible in some cases rather than being something unachievable due to a game engine.

1CGS has improved the VR experience quite a bit since it was initially released.

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by dburne

[sevenless]

3 hours ago, =EXPEND=Dendro said:

All I am really saying is this............Tell me I am wrong in what I am assuming etc but if I might be right that a new engine will improve things then you have my 100% commitment..... who else?

 

It will happen sooner or later once they hit a tech wall they can´t get through. Until then (2023/2025 ?) they will try to optimise the existing engine. It will get interesting once they have to decide what will follow after BoN. My guess is a 44/45 EF module with Yak3 and La7, but after that, maybe with PTO the gameengine will be maxed out.

[MasserME262]

the fact is, they will have to change the engine at some point, anything is eternal.... my question is "when"

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

1 hour ago, Goffik said:

Come on, be realistic. The old, obsolete VR headsets will get cheaper while the pinnacle of the technology remains at prices unreachable by the vast majority. PC hardware will get more powerful but again at prices too high for the vast majority. VR is very, very unlikely to ever become "mainstream" for that reason. It'll always be niche for those that can afford it, and so developers need to set their priorities accordingly.

 

People once said that 3D TVs/monitors were the greatest thing ever and would be mainstream within five years. Look how that worked out. 

 

I might be wrong but I think you are underestimating a great piece of tech that brings new immersion to PC's in general and more specifically to gaming. You don't need a huge monitor. 3 years ago the VR goggles were insanely expensive and I did not even consider putting cash toward it. Yes, the new top end units are VERY expensive but you know what.... the Rift S costs under 400USD and that's when I jumped at it. Again, its not as good and it was not cheap BUT, I wont ever consider going back to pancake. I often find myself flying to objectives just staring at all the bits in my cockpit and out over my wings at the scenery passing below (not so much in MP because I get a bit ill)....its astounding.

 

Just a few years ago a 48 inch led TV screen was a big spoil and not many people had them..... they are pretty much mainstream now. Yes, you have a 100inch 4k led at stupendous prices and yes its awesome but it ain't that much better than a decent 48 inch led thats 1/10th the price.

 

Nonetheless I understand what you are saying and it might be a fad like 3d TV BUT whether its VR goggles or holographic solutions I think/believe a led monitors days are numbered when it comes to simming and probably even gaming. I might be wrong but VR kits are more popular and bigger than 3d screens ever were.

 

There was talk of streaming live sports events etc to VR.... I am sure those days are coming.  

 

It would be interesting to see how many of our BoX players are on VR, I don't think its as few as we all think.

 

When coders, GPU's and CPUs align to accommodate VR (or similar tech) then I think it will arrive in force.

 

1 hour ago, dburne said:

I am getting great performance with zero stuttering in IL-2 VR.

They have improved the overall performance quite a bit since VR support was initially released.

Pls share your setup.

 

39 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

It will happen sooner or later once they hit a tech wall they can´t get through. Until then (2023/2025 ?) they will try to optimise the existing engine. It will get interesting once they have to decide what will follow after BoN. My guess is a 44/45 EF module with Yak3 and La7, but after that, maybe with PTO the gameengine will be maxed out.

 

They have already optimised the existing engine I believe?

 

Can they just fix the netcode etc or is a whole new engine required is what I am asking? Do we need to redo all the 3d models/damage models/AI etc etc to accomodate a new engine or can you just put new components into an existing PC chassis? I can rip the guts out of my PC and leave a few bits inside....it looks like an old pentium but whats really inside is a i9 at 6GHz with a 2080Ti....if you know what I mean? Or is PC programming/coding just not like that, do they need bin the old C+ and rewrite everything in Java?

[sevenless]

16 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Dendro said:

They have already optimised the existing engine I believe?

 

Can they just fix the netcode etc or is a whole new engine required is what I am asking? Do we need to redo all the 3d models/damage models/AI etc etc to accomodate a new engine or can you just put new components into an existing PC chassis? I can rip the guts out of my PC and leave a few bits inside....it looks like an old pentium but whats really inside is a i9 at 6GHz with a 2080Ti....if you know what I mean? Or is PC programming/coding just not like that, do they need bin the old C+ and rewrite everything in Java?

 

Good Questions. I guess only the programmers can answer that. I hope the gameengine is build somewhat modular, so that they can optimize/replace parts as need arises. They have done great things if we compare BoS of 2014 fame with where we stand now after 6 years.

[Voidhunger]

Hmm reading this topic is strange to me because, even with 60fps the game is so cpu demanding that career mode is unplayable. And because i play only sp content im stuck in qmb forever. And I dont think that the new shader (or what is it) will help.

[CountZero]

Well in few years youll be able to pay for new game engine, There will be no more DLC to make so rehash of same will start on new game engine and youll be able to pay again for same airplanes, same like you have FC now insted RoF, you see how popular it is, so many RoF players are buying new engine its imposible to join WW1 servers...

[Turban]

VR having problem is one thing... and it's not just IL2... VR requires more power especially in the GPU department that's a fact. 

 

Is Il2 bad...... I don't think so .... I play on a Kaveri APU ..... ?? and it's playable..... Upgrade in the process though ?

 

The devs have continually improved the game and I'm sure they'll keep doing the best they can. The amount of work to create a new engine... would take years, massive amount of money etc...might not be the best route for now... just hang in there like we all have done at some point.

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

9 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

Hmm reading this topic is strange to me because, even with 60fps the game is so cpu demanding that career mode is unplayable. And because i play only sp content im stuck in qmb forever. And I dont think that the new shader (or what is it) will help.

 

Thats a good point..... I tried the careers when they first came out a few years ago, it was unplayable because of the stuttering....I remember now how bad that was that I never tried again. MP is like that now for me.

 

17 minutes ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

take it easy man. Having a VR doesn't make everything that immersive anyway. Wanna immersion? join the air force... It drives me mad people crying at the bad VR visuals they get... get a life

 

Im happy with my 5 year old rig, with a intel it4440 and a 1050 (not ti), and while I dont get eye-candy, I completely enjoy the game with almost zero stuttering.

 

Masser, dude.....there is no need to get personal or insulting.............. and yes I do agree with you to some extent, BUT.....I will say it again.....I am not complaining but this is my way of understanding if there is indeed a problem and IF there is a problem I would like to know where the solution may lie.

 

I've been committed and patient since the beginning and I will continue to participate, contribute and wait until things evolve again, even if it does mean a RoF to FC migration.

[dburne]

54 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Dendro said:

 

Pls share your setup.

 

 

My PC specs are in my sig.

[AndyJWest]

4 hours ago, =EXPEND=Dendro said:

So everyone reckons the game code/engine is old.....????... right ....wrong???

 

The engine is 'old' in as much as it originated with the one first used for Rise of Flight. It has however been updated considerably, so how much of the original code is still there, only the developers will know.

 

Quote

I'd much rather spend 80-100USD on a new game engine rather than MS2020 purely because they have no ww2 combat planned.

 

If MS can cover their development costs (for a project which has been 5 years in the making, and currently involves a team of about 200, from what I've read)  and sell their new sim at $100 (prices haven't been announced yet), they can do so because they are going to attract a much bigger customer base.  1C-777 aren't in that position, and accordingly have to work with the limited revenue stream they have. Jason has already stated that they intend to continue updating the existing code, and I think it reasonable to assume that he said that because it is the most practical option given the limited resources they have available. 

 

I think a lot of forum regulars misunderstand the economic context 1C-777 are working in. There may well be a small subset of their customer base who would pay $100 or whatever just for a 'new engine', but the majority of income almost certainly comes from more casual purchasers, who look at content rather than 'engines' when making their purchasing decisions.

 

 

 

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

I've got an old Core i5 6600 in my system (we're at least a few generations ahead of that now). It runs Career mode at medium density settings just fine. If you have anything newer and faster you should be able to do the same at minimum.

 

I don't think the game engine is old nor do I think it's badly optimized. There are also quirks and multiplayer stuttering is among them but I don't think a total rewrite of the engine is in the cards. Instead, Jason has talked about incremental updates as time goes on and the deferred shading will no doubt be a part of that.

[MikhaVT]

i'm running an i7-6770k, and an Nvidia GTX 1080 on a 4k monitor. Yes its a fairly modern setup but IL-2 barely gets my fans running on max settings. Also, it's not like an i7 is going to run this game any faster than an i5 will -- few game devs bother with multi-threading due to the complexity involved. 

[Feathered_IV]

19 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I don't think the game engine is old nor do I think it's badly optimized.

 

One full squadron of AI aircraft meeting another is enough to make the game struggle big time.  

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

19 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

i'm running an i7-6770k, and an Nvidia GTX 1080 on a 4k monitor. Yes its a fairly modern setup but IL-2 barely gets my fans running on max settings. Also, it's not like an i7 is going to run this game any faster than an i5 will -- few game devs bother with multi-threading due to the complexity involved. 

 

OKaaaaay.....so, what is hyperthreading good for....why do the CPU guys make such a big deal of it?

 

23 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I've got an old Core i5 6600 in my system (we're at least a few generations ahead of that now). It runs Career mode at medium density settings just fine. If you have anything newer and faster you should be able to do the same at minimum.

 

I don't think the game engine is old nor do I think it's badly optimized. There are also quirks and multiplayer stuttering is among them but I don't think a total rewrite of the engine is in the cards. Instead, Jason has talked about incremental updates as time goes on and the deferred shading will no doubt be a part of that.

 

Are you implying that our good old PC (IL2BoX) can become a shiny new PC with little bits of new hardware (code) upgrades without buying a completely new PC?  

 

 

3 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

One full squadron of AI aircraft meeting another is enough to make the game struggle big time.  

Will a new game engine fix that or are we still limited by computing power? 

[w00dy]

3 hours ago, dburne said:

They have improved the overall performance quite a bit since VR support was initially released.

 

I have to agree, VR performance has improved since I first started playing in VR.

 

25 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

 Also, it's not like an i7 is going to run this game any faster than an i5 will -- few game devs bother with multi-threading due to the complexity involved. 

 

The thing is multi-threading is going to be used a lot in the near future, even the new consoles will be using it. And I think this game will benefit from this a lot, it's just the cost and resources that is the problem.

[Ribbon]

46 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

If MS can cover their development costs (for a project which has been 5 years in the making, and currently involves a team of about 200, from what I've read)  and sell their new sim at $100 (prices haven't been announced yet), they can do so because they are going to attract a much bigger customer base.  1C-777 aren't in that position, and accordingly have to work with the limited revenue stream they have. Jason has already stated that they intend to continue updating the existing code, and I think it reasonable to assume that he said that because it is the most practical option given the limited resources they have available. 

 

I think a lot of forum regulars misunderstand the economic context 1C-777 are working in. There may well be a small subset of their customer base who would pay $100 or whatever just for a 'new engine', but the majority of income almost certainly comes from more casual purchasers, who look at content rather than 'engines' when making their purchasing decisions.

They are going to attract much bigger playerbase becouse they invested in product and deliver something innovative/next generation/bigger scale, good product with variety and playability does that!

I'm sure il2 GB would do the same if done on the same scale (wow gfx, bombers and engine that could sustain large amount of planes/formations and AI).

If they could go with 3 titles at once than some things are doable.

During the BoK development we've seen many improvements and suprises which all stopped once they crucified themself between 3 projects.

 

In MP on Rheinland map it's unplayable for me with constant stutters even fps count is stable.

Fact is BoBp and BoN will show game limitations; no bombers, small number of planes and AI in scenery, no large cities, sterile ground war....etc.

So game engine improvements are very welcome, i know it would be hard to go from scratch and create new engine and game but polishing/optimizing current one is needed.

3 hours ago, Goffik said:

I don't see that the game requires a new engine at all, to be honest. I have a mid-range rig (by current standards) that cost nothing like $3000 even when I built it, and I can run IL-2 in VR on fairly high settings. It looks fantastic and runs fine for the most part. A few issues here and there, but that could be solved if I had the money to up my graphics card a little. (Which I don't.) In 2D I can run it on max detail with no issues at all.

 

And that's the issue when it comes down to it, money. Some people have it and some don't. Those that do buy all the latest hardware and then demand that all games make use of it, not really sparing a thought for the vast majority that have to settle for mediocre gear. VR is a great example... the phrase "no VR no buy" comes to mind, which you routinely see in simulator threads these days. Fact is that most dev teams probably couldn't care less about lost sales to VR owners because they are a tiny minority of their overall playerbase. The same can be said for those that own 4K monitors capable of ultra-high res and 2080ti's that can run a sim twice without breaking a sweat. I'm not saying that no sim should make use of the features and performance of this gear (especially since I'm a VR user myself) but catering for the majority is more important, both practically and financially.

 

Also it seems your problem is stutters in MP. If you're not having issues in SP then this isn't a problem that requires a whole new engine, since it's not a hardware performance problem. Sounds more like netcode to me. Besides, if you read this post then you'll find that there are already plans for a possible big change in graphics that will potentially grant a significant performance boost.

 

 

Come on, be realistic. The old, obsolete VR headsets will get cheaper while the pinnacle of the technology remains at prices unreachable by the vast majority. PC hardware will get more powerful but again at prices too high for the vast majority. VR is very, very unlikely to ever become "mainstream" for that reason. It'll always be niche for those that can afford it, and so developers need to set their priorities accordingly.

 

People once said that 3D TVs/monitors were the greatest thing ever and would be mainstream within five years. Look how that worked out. 

VR is already mainstreaming in gaming, expecially in simming!

Otherwise PC hardware brands wouldn't invest much in it with "VR ready" advertise.

Half ppl i know owns VR and there are some EA space games with top threads asking for VR support saying "no VR no buy".

VR customer base is growing with new gen coming out and price drops, at least in countries with good/decent life standars. 

I get it it's still luxury thing for low life standard countries but it'll get there too as it gets cheaper/budget headsets available.

[AndyJWest]

8 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

They are going to attract much bigger playerbase becouse they invested in product and deliver something innovative/next generation/bigger scale, good product with variety and playability does that!

I'm sure il2 GB would do the same if done on the same scale (wow gfx, bombers and engine that could sustain large amount of planes/formations and AI).

 

 

I can see no evidence that there is anything like the demand for WW1/WW2 air combat simulations that there is for civilian flight sims. You have to convince the investors that they are going to get a return on their investment, and you can't do that just by claiming that a market exists. 

[SCG_motoadve]

My old PC ran IL2 ok, I had an ok  joystick , track IR and Saitek rudder pedals , but I was bored and burnt out with the game, played it less and less.

Bought VR two years ago, and my old PC struggled , VR was so good it deserved a better PC, so I have upgraded my PC the best I could and now I play every day, also upgraded to Croswind pedals, Warthog throttle, Virpil with extensions, ButtKicker  and custom controllers.

Started with Oculus, then Samsung Odyssey and now HP Reverb, which finally has the resolution I was looking for.

IL2 in VR its a different hobby for me now, it deserves all this.

It is expensive to buy all this hardware for sure, but in the case of HOTAS , they should last for years.

 

Still many times in MP get lots of stutters,almost not possible to fly, also in Career in Rhineland map, so IMHO the game engine still needs optimization.

 

 

[zdog0331]

The big issue i see regarding the issue of hardware is partly engine related, but its something that has and is being worked on.  When it first came out the top of the line hardware had trouble getting anthing above 40 fps.  It was a mess.  Now with middle grade hardware i can get 150 fps on a 2d monitor in 1080p.  However in vr i get about 75-80 fps.  VR is a completely different beast and those of us who are having performance problem.  One thing I do notices is that the game is much more CPU intensive than GPU intensive.  For example upgrading from a 150 dollar cpu to a 300 dollar cpu can get you a much higher boost in fps than going from a 150 dollar gpu to a 400 dollar gpu.  The reason a lot of people are saying buy a expensive cpu is the price per performance ration is much better in this game with the right cpu. But the devs have been working on this issue and it has gotten a bit better over the last 2 years.  

 

One of the big things That i have noticed when doing testing is that they recently got multi-threading to work a bit better.  Its not perfect, but it now is running in more than just 1 thread, though single core performance is currently king which still means that the tests showing the middle of the pack 2014 cpus are still outperforming current generation top of the line hardware.  But they have been doing some back end stuff which is helping with this.  Problem is the engine was built when multi-threading was not widely used and it wasn't clear where hardware would go.

edit: this is cpu only obviously having a modern GPU and ddr4 memory makes a big difference as well.

 

4 hours ago, Goffik said:

People once said that 3D TVs/monitors were the greatest thing ever and would be mainstream within five years. Look how that worked out. 

I have also heard some things regarding vr saying that its not mainstream, but i find a flaw with that.  The previous route that every flight sim gamer craved was a simpit and many people myself included invested in that kind of thing.  i mean many of us spent upwards of 5 thousand dollars on our just the flight hardware with curved projectors and multiple televisions and all sorts of things to try to best replicate an aircraft.  Many of us even bought the 3d televisions, but they still weren't really up to standard for flight sims.  VR has been a major money saving device.  You instead of needing to build a cockpit replicating one plane and spending thousands of dollars building it, you can simply buy a headset for 150 bucks and have a 1 to 1 scale pit that you can see rendering all of that hardware unnecessary.  That makes it having that best experience not only attainable, but affordable for this community. 

I remember dreaming about having a setup like this:

And that was as good as it got and was completely unattainable for most people due to the time money and know how it took to create something like this.  But with VR even a beginner can have a better experience than that simpit would allow for.  Its super relevant to flight simulators.  just like everyone wanted a simpit back in the day now everyone wants a vr headset, but the difference is that one can afford a vr headset where only someone with a lot of disposable income could afford a simpit

Edited January 21, 2020 by zdog0331
Missed something

[PatrickAWlson]

They need to work on specific performance issues to expand the games capabilities (AI performance to allow more planes  - especially bombers).  Iterations of targeted work that produce gradual improvements until product needs are met.  That is different from a rewrite on a new engine. 

 

We do pay for it every time we buy something.  The team is constantly putting out "free" improvements - i.e. they are working to improve their core code as they add new for pay product.  If you like what you see so far keep buying and you will get more of it.  I'm willing to bet the team would like to continue to go to work and get paid  

 

[Rolling_Thunder]

I have VR and never use it anymore. I used it in my old place but after my recent move it has stayed boxed up in a cupboard. 

I hate to admit it but DCS is my go to sim at the moment because it looks far better than il2. Il2 is a much better experience than DCS in VR but I just dont play it anymore. It looks old tech, to me. If Il2 had the lighting and ability to populate their maps like the Normandy map in DCS I would spend my time in il2. Unfortunately the limits of the current engine is turning me off. For the first time in forever I took the P51 online in DCS and was gobsmacked by the beauty of the experience. Admittedly there were only a handful of folk in the server but it was smooth I even scored a 109k, he disconnected before I registered the kill but I'm claiming it. My ideal sim would be il2 in the DCS engine. I dont need the full fidelity of the DCS aircraft but I cant do without the beauty of it right now. I would say the il2 engine needs an upgrade. Just my opinion.

[Ribbon]

10 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

I can see no evidence that there is anything like the demand for WW1/WW2 air combat simulations that there is for civilian flight sims. You have to convince the investors that they are going to get a return on their investment, and you can't do that just by claiming that a market exists. 

Ww1 not so much yeah but ww2 could!

You need to attract and market product.

You do that with content, variety and quality.

Old il2 was succes, that War Thunder game is popular too, silent hunter series, there is plenty of popular fps ww2 games out there so ppl like ww2...we even have dedicated ww2 tv channels like Viasat hitlerstory ?

It's not just attract current flight simmers but rather create new younger generation of simmers.

It may not become popular like some others but with more gameplay variety it sure would expand playerbase.

I started playing old il2 only when Pacific fighters and later 1946 was published, i sure wasn't attracted by few fighters from eastern front and i didn't know anything about ww2 aviation.

Only thing i knew was wow pacific warfare and picked planes by it's look.

 

I hope 1C won't go with another FC or TC, not that i dislike it but it did drained manpower/resources and improvements from main project as it seems.

[zdog0331]

6 minutes ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

I have VR and never use it anymore. I used it in my old place but after my recent move it has stayed boxed up in a cupboard. 

I hate to admit it but DCS is my go to sim at the moment because it looks far better than il2. Il2 is a much better experience than DCS in VR but I just dont play it anymore. It looks old tech, to me. If Il2 had the lighting and ability to populate their maps like the Normandy map in DCS I would spend my time in il2. Unfortunately the limits of the current engine is turning me off. For the first time in forever I took the P51 online in DCS and was gobsmacked by the beauty of the experience. Admittedly there were only a handful of folk in the server but it was smooth I even scored a 109k, he disconnected before I registered the kill but I'm claiming it. My ideal sim would be il2 in the DCS engine. I dont need the full fidelity of the DCS aircraft but I cant do without the beauty of it right now. I would say the il2 engine needs an upgrade. Just my opinion.

DCS actually for my pc runs a bit better in dcs in regards to VR though my flat screen performs better in IL2.  The devs have mentioned the lighting system is being worked on next, but as PatrickAWlson stated the AI needs to be optimised and a bunch of other stuff as well.  DCS does have its own set of problems.  The damage model for one has steered me clear of it even though I love my formation of 150 bombers in combat box formation with heavy flak groups and still able to host it and get 40fps On my medium to high end PC.  But it really brings me out of it when the ai do impossible things and the damage model falls way too flat.  Much better in multiplayer though especially since the current netcode issues that are currently affecting it.

Edited January 21, 2020 by zdog0331

[BlitzPig_EL]

In some ways our favorite sim is at a crossroads.  The wishes/demands by players for ever higher fidelity in every aspect, from AI, to FM/DM issues, to ever better graphics, and more detailed, ever larger maps, is crashing headlong into a major factor, playability, that affects online multiplayer far more than it does offline single player.  Online programming is much more difficult than offline, this is obvious, and understandable, as is the decision by the developers to focus this sim on the bulk of the player base, who play single player.  That is where most of the money comes from.

 

I'd wager that most "playability" complaints come from online players, though some do come from offline folks as well.  I do both, and most of my issues occur online, and all are tied to the Rhineland map.  I made an online DF  and offline single mission using SYN_Vander's generator program, using the same set ups as close as possible, same numbers of AI, objectives, weather, etc.  I can fly the single player mission to it's completion and beyond, well over an hour of flying, without issue.  Host the same mission online with myself and two or three of my BlitzPig mates and if I get past half an hour without a complete computer freeze, well, I cant...

I run an i7 5820K, 16 gigs of DDR4, EVGA 2070 Super.  It's not a slouch, and yet it is ground to a halt by Rhineland if I play and host at the same time.  And no, I cannot afford a second PC just to host on.  It's this type of issue that has people calling for a new game engine, or a vastly improved one, weather or not we understand what that would fully entail.

 

So, how do Jason and his team satisfy both camps?  I wish I had the answer, and I'll wager that Jason wishes he did too.  What I do know is that something has to change to make the demands for ever increasing levels of complexity work, for everyone on and off line. It would be simple to just no longer have multiplayer support, but if that happened the sim would in effect be dead to my whole squad, and our friends, and many others who enjoy both aspects on and off line play.  The fix for the issues are technical, and if Jason had a Microsoft budget I'm sure we would be past this obstacle already. 

 

To paraphrase Pink Floyd... Hanging on in quiet desperation is the flight simmer's way... 

[AndyJWest]

8 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Ww1 not so much yeah but ww2 could!

You need to attract and market product.

You do that with content, variety and quality.

Old il2 was succes, that War Thunder game is popular too, silent hunter series, there is plenty of popular fps ww2 games out there so ppl like ww2...we even have dedicated ww2 tv channels like Viasat hitlerstory ?

It's not just attract current flight simmers but rather create new younger generation of simmers.

It may not become popular like some others but with more gameplay variety it sure would expand playerbase.

I started playing old il2 only when Pacific fighters and later 1946 was published, i sure wasn't attracted by few fighters from eastern front and i didn't know anything about ww2 aviation.

Only thing i knew was wow pacific warfare and picked planes by it's look.

 

I hope 1C won't go with another FC or TC, not that i dislike it but it did drained manpower/resources and improvements from main project as it seems.

 

So what evidence would you present to investors that would convince them that there is a large untapped market for a new WW2 air combat simulation with an updated engine?

[zdog0331]

17 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Ww1 not so much yeah but ww2 could!

You need to attract and market product.

You do that with content, variety and quality.

Old il2 was succes, that War Thunder game is popular too, silent hunter series, there is plenty of popular fps ww2 games out there so ppl like ww2...we even have dedicated ww2 tv channels like Viasat hitlerstory ?

It's not just attract current flight simmers but rather create new younger generation of simmers.

It may not become popular like some others but with more gameplay variety it sure would expand playerbase.

I started playing old il2 only when Pacific fighters and later 1946 was published, i sure wasn't attracted by few fighters from eastern front and i didn't know anything about ww2 aviation.

Only thing i knew was wow pacific warfare and picked planes by it's look.

 

I hope 1C won't go with another FC or TC, not that i dislike it but it did drained manpower/resources and improvements from main project as it seems.

FC was defiantly not a worthwhile venture, but I honestly do not think tank crew was a bad idea.  Though its a bit early and rough right now with the proper marketing i think it could turn out big.  I mean look at how popular WWII tank games have been historically.  One of the problems I do see with Il2 is that no one knows about it outside of the flight sim community.  I mean you do get some people in the war thunder forums comparing war thunder to IL2 trying to make war thunder into an il2 clone, but even then you would need to be in the forums to actually hear about it.  I have setup an il2 sim for airshows booths and even there there are many people who though the last il2 released was il2 1946 which was very popular.  Its a tought situation because PC games have a tenancy to not get much notoriety due to the console market, but even by pc standards I do not see much about this game.  Even on youtube when you are looking for it its hard to find decent videos with this game that weren't from 2014 which most complained about Russian bias and performance issues.  Which at the time was completely true at release.  

 

Tank crew is even worse as far as public knowledge since right now there is next to no SP content (campaigns were great but a career is in my opinion necessary).  No one posts videos on in that has any sort of name.  But when i show people it they love it.  I mean its something that a lot of people have desired but not seen anything about. it obviously is a bit early for this to be advertised in any capacity due to the early access part of it, but when it comes out I think it could become popular.  It just isn't doing it for the flight sim community.

Edited January 21, 2020 by zdog0331

[MikhaVT]

1 hour ago, =EXPEND=Dendro said:

 

OKaaaaay.....so, what is hyperthreading good for....why do the CPU guys make such a big deal of it?

"Hyperthreading" is what intell came up with back in 2002. It allows a single core to execute multiple threads simultaneously, but the advantages it has in processing entirely depends on how the program is handing threads to the cores. Hyperthreading will benefit a 2 core processor just as much as it will benefit a quad core processor. On a Xeon (server) processor it allows the server to generally balance the load of any task across all cores of said processor due to the additional hardware they have for this purpose. On the 'i' series of processors it barely does that. As an example, when I was doing a Fluid Dynamics simulation on a server running an old Xeon 2012 CPU, if i set said program to run on all cores it would literally use 100% of each core on that server. My i7-6770k on the other hand only would utilize around 80% of each core aside from core 0 which was near 100%. Despite all elevations allowing the program to use as much of the CPU as it wanted, it would not. Keep in mind that this is all with a program which needs millions or billions of linear equations solved. It's an ideal case for multi-threading since it's a bunch of independent data which can be doled out in small chunks and is not time-sensitive if one laggs at being solved. 

 

No video game to date even comes close to this utilization of a CPU. As an example, below is some data i took with an older processor (intel i7-4700MQ, quad core with 8 threads total) back in 2015 showing the thread load for a benchmark in ArmA 3. Data was taken with as many other tasks killed as possible. The average load for the threads is shown below. Note that the graphs below are miss-labeled stating these all as "core" load or "CPU" load when it's actually "thread" load. Keep in mind that the threads are paired up two to a core so threads 0&1 are Core 0, threads 2&3 are core 1, et. al...

 

 

this all from a game that is supposed to support multi-threading. While core 0 saw an average of almost 80% load, core 1 saw only a 25% load, with cores 2 and 3 seeing even less. It is also important to note that there are several points where the load on Core 0 drops while the load on the other cores does jump upwards -- this is when tasks in the game come up that can make good use of multi-threading. Even though these took load away from core 0, had they not done so, or had only one other core done so it would have performed just as well since in this case core 1 could have taken up the load from cores 2 & 3 without issue. 

 

1 hour ago, w00dy said:

The thing is multi-threading is going to be used a lot in the near future, even the new consoles will be using it. And I think this game will benefit from this a lot, it's just the cost and resources that is the problem.

I would hope so, as without making efficient use of multi-threading it seems that we have just about hit the limits of processor technology within our current understanding of physics and electronics. The Xbox 360 was using multi-threading when it came out back in 2005 and so was the PS3. The gaming consoles are where multi-core and multi-threading processors really shine. Game devs for these often have a lot more resources provided to help them make use of the power available to the consoles. There's an additional advantage of all users on a console utilizing the same hardware and OS taking away many of the variables which might cause headaches in software development. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Kataphrakt

[JonRedcorn]

Sure just post up a couple million in funding and I am sure they will immediately get started on that. I think a lot of people here have expectations bordering on delusional. This games niche, the markets tiny, thus curb your expectations a bit eh. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by JonRedcorn

[Ribbon]

15 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

So what evidence would you present to investors that would convince them that there is a large untapped market for a new WW2 air combat simulation with an updated engine?

It's not my job to do that nor i did say we need new game with new engine!

My point is optimization is needed and will benefit product as it will sustain Greater battles which now isn't a thing and is a flaw.

Medium bombers were done before (he111) so why stop, new gameplay elements were added before so why not add for example torpedos...all that with better optimized engine that can handle more AI would benefit product.

Qualit and content is the key!

9 minutes ago, zdog0331 said:

FC was defiantly not a worthwhile venture, but I honestly do not think tank crew was a bad idea.  Though its a bit early and rough right now with the proper marketing i think it could turn out big.  I mean look at how popular WWII tank games have been historically.  One of the problems I do see with Il2 is that no one knows about it outside of the flight sim community.  I mean you do get some people in the war thunder forums comparing war thunder to IL2 trying to make war thunder into an il2 clone, but even then you would need to be in the forums to actually hear about it.  I have setup an il2 sim for airshows booths and even there there are many people who though the last il2 released was il2 1946 which was very popular.  Its a tought situation because PC games have a tenancy to not get much notoriety due to the console market, but even by pc standards I do not see much about this game.  Even on youtube when you are looking for it its hard to find decent videos with this game that weren't from 2014 which most complained about Russian bias and performance issues.  Which at the time was completely true at release.  

 

Tank crew is even worse as far as public knowledge since right now there is next to no SP content (campaigns were great but a career is in my opinion necessary).  No one posts videos on in that has any sort of name.  But when i show people it they love it.  I mean its something that a lot of people have desired but not seen anything about. it obviously is a bit early for this to be advertised in any capacity due to the early access part of it, but when it comes out I think it could become popular.  It just isn't doing it for the flight sim community.

I agree and i didn't said they are bad idea or bad product (i own FC) but i dislike it drawn away devs working from major product.

Just my preference!

[AndyJWest]

Ah yes, 'optimisation'. A magical trick that you perform on code to make it run faster. 

 

It doesn't work like that. You can't simply say 'optimise the code' and then expect immediate useful results. You need to find evidence first that there are places where the code is sub-optimal, and then (if you have the resources, and the expected benefits are going to justify it) make the necessary changes. This is of course standard procedure in software development (or at least ought to be), and accordingly you can be reasonably confident that a competent developer will already have looked into 'optimising' code that has been on sale for 5 years or so. And have already done so, where it is most likely to have significant benefits. It is of course possible that there are places where significant improvements can still be made, but they are unlikely to be simple, or they would quite likely have been done already.

Edited January 21, 2020 by AndyJWest

[SharpeXB]

Posts like this make me think the Devs should discontinue VR support until it’s popular enough to justify a separate VR version of the sim. It seems impossible to make a game that will push the visuals and fidelity in 2D and then also be able to run well in VR with anything other than literally the strongest hardware available. It doesn’t make sense to have a game that can’t be run well on average or above average systems. It possibly floods their support with tickets and hinders the development of the game. VR currently is being used by 1% of Steam users so it can’t be that large of a market. If VR just leads to all sorts of performance complaints then it’s maybe not doing them any favors to keep supporting it.