New information regarding PTO in GB Series

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I'm curious how all the purists will know the "appropriately detailed" flight models from the "wrong" flight models (barring UFO antics), given the lack of materials available, and the fact that Bettys and Vals had a different role and were generally flown differently in combat from a zeke or wildcat.

 

Is it just appropriately and highly detailed because we're told it is?  Or because it most closely matches the *available* performance figures?

Edited January 28, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[sniperton]

There's another problem involved in not going to the Pacific any soon: how to make the Axis planeset attractive in the future?

 

Together with the aircraft announced for Normandy, we will have

- 18 individual Allied designs complemented by 10 subtypes (IL-2, the Spit, and the Yak family having the most versions, 3-3);

- 12 individual Axis designs complemented by 15 subtypes (the 190 having 5 versions and the 109 no less than 9).

 

So what after Normandy? One more 109, one more 110, one more 190, one more Stuka, one more Ju-88?

 

Due to the limited nature of the German war inventory, I feel that not much has been left for the future -- unless we go to Finland or Italy.

Edited January 28, 2020 by sniperton

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

4 minutes ago, sniperton said:

There's another problem involved in not going to the Pacific any soon: how to make the Axis planeset attractive in the future?

 

Together with the aircraft announced for Normandy, we will have

- 18 individual Allied designs complemented by 10 subtypes (IL-2 and the Yak family having the most versions, 3-3);

- 12 individual Axis designs complemented by 15 subtypes (the 190 having 5 versions and the 109 no less than 9).

 

So what after Normandy? One more 109, one more 110, one more 190, one more Stuka, one more Ju-88?

 

Due to the limited nature of the German war inventory, I feel that not much has been left for the future -- unless we go to Finland or Italy.

 

IAR80/81 would be a worthy addition to the axis lineup.  Not to mention the more high performing Italian designs, or workhorses like the SM.79 series.

Edited January 28, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[BlitzPig_EL]

M.C. 200 is a glaring omission, along with the I-153.

[Avimimus]

13 minutes ago, sniperton said:

There's another problem involved in not going to the Pacific any soon: how to make the Axis planeset attractive in the future?

 

Due to the limited nature of the German war inventory, I feel that not much has been left for the future -- unless we go to Finland or Italy.

The He-162 and Do-335 were about to enter service and would attract some players. The Ju-87D5 is missing, as is the Fw-190A9, and the late war 30mm equipped Bf-110 factory kits. Finally, there is also the possibility of a Ju-188 or Do-217... That is just enough for a '45 East scenario (up against the Yak-3, La-7, Tu-2, and a late Il-2). One could also include some aircraft twice - and offer a discount for people who already own BoBP.

 

As mentioned the IAR 80 & IAR 81 are possibilities, along with the M.C.200. The Fw-189 and Fi-156 might also be attractive to some players.

 

One could also go early war: The Henschel Hs-123, Do-17, Ju-87B2, Bf-109E3, Bf-110C, Ju-88A-1 are all waiting to be modeled for a Battle of Britain / Battle of France release.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Avimimus

[40plus]

I've made it no secret that I don;t really care too much about he pacific but I was hoping to get some more anti-shipping content in the next release. It seem to like the Battle of the Mediterranean would scratch all of the itches related to carrier ops without the issue of missing plane data. There's lots of historical content available to explore there too.

 

I pre-ordered BoN based purely on the plane-set but am definitely disappointed at the theater choice. Was really hoping for the Med. Also, cough cough, north Africa.

[=621=Samikatz]

8 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

M.C. 200 is a glaring omission, along with the I-153.

 

Don't forget the G.50, for both Italy and Finland

Just now, pfrances said:

Also, cough cough, north Africa.

 

Wait for CloD 5.0

[Cynic_Al]

28 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

The Zero is not the problem.

 

It’s the Val, the Kate, the Betty, the Pete etc etc.

 

I didn't mention the Zero, my comment applied equally to all Japanese planes.

[40plus]

1 minute ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Wait for CloD 5.0

 

Seen the teaser videos. Game engine is showing its age.

[HerrBree]

25 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

late war 30mm equipped Bf-110 factory kits.

This is pretty much the only thing i want, and still dont really understand why it isnt already there

[Rei-sen]

2 hours ago, zdog0331 said:

I have played il2 1946 and its not the graphics that bother me, but the flight model and damage model

The damage model in 1946, although not as detailed as in GBs, looks way more realistic in certain aspects. For example, aircraft don't loose wings that often, although they still go down, you can damage landing gear hydraulic/pneumatic system so that they will drop, etc.

33 minutes ago, pfrances said:

Seen the teaser videos. Game engine is showing its age.

In some aspects it actually looks better than the GB engine. And it's less cartoonish, that's for sure.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Arthur-A

[Gambit21]

54 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

I didn't mention the Zero, my comment applied equally to all Japanese planes.

 

Yes I know I can read -  the “close to home” info exists for the Zero and Oscar  - the end. 

[6FG_Big_Al]

26 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

The damage model in 1946, although not as detailed as in GBs, looks way more realistic in certain aspects. For example, aircraft don't loose wings that often, although they still go down, you can damage landing gear hydraulic/pneumatic system so that they will drop, etc.

 

I can only partially agree with this. In Il-2, 1946, you get shot to pieces faster than you can look. You hardly need a few hits with the 20 or 30 mm and it rains chunks.
Whereby it would be desirable if the landing gear in GB would be as detailed in this aspect as in 1946. The same applies to the foldable ironsights (as on the I-16).
Maybe this will also be available in GB in the future.

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I'm curious how all the purists will know the "appropriately detailed" flight models from the "wrong" flight models (barring UFO antics), given the lack of materials available, and the fact that Bettys and Vals had a different role and were generally flown differently in combat from a zeke or wildcat.

 

Is it just appropriately and highly detailed because we're told it is?  Or because it most closely matches the *available* performance figures?

 

It's not about what the end-user thinks is appropriately detailed or not, but rather what the people coding the game deem to be acceptable or not. If you cannot accept that, then I don't know what else there is to say.

Edited January 28, 2020 by LukeFF

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, sniperton said:

So what after Normandy? 

 

Eastfront 1944/45 setting, be sure.

[PatrickAWlson]

Expanding on what @LukeFF said.  There are possibly hundreds of parameters that go into the flight model, including many that change as the state of the aircraft changes.  Static parameters like drag, torque, weight at various points, center of gravity, etc.   Dynamic parameters like load, damage, fuel state, changes in drag based on load, etc.  All are needed by the code.  If you have the data then the results mostly fall out and make sense in game.  Fudge them and you could get some really wacky results.  Commit to using fudged data (this would be the ask given the lack of correct data) and you end up in an endless trial and error loop trying to get something that looks believable but never quite seems to be right. 

 

In the end you fail and tarnish your reputation, all while spending large sums of money.  It's the sort of thing that can destroy a small company.

1 minute ago, sevenless said:

 

Eastfront 1944/45 setting, be sure.

 

Or west front 1940. 

Me109 E4

Me110 C

Ju87 B

Do217

Cr42

Hawker Hurricane MK I

Spitfire Mk I

Bristol Blenheim

Bristol Beaufighter

and, of course ...

Bolton Paul Defiant

... hey Harry, turn around so he's on our tail!

 

Wouldn't mind end of war eastern front at all.

[Diggun]

End of war east, or early war west would both be a day one pre order for me. 

 

*Says the spoiled child considering next year's Christmas presents before even having unwrapped this years yet*

Edited January 29, 2020 by Diggun

[sevenless]

7 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Or west front 1940. 

 

I guess it depends in part what evolves out of CLOD in 2021, but I wont hold my breath for France or Battle of Britain. Two games, same timeframe, same publisher? Rather unlikely.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

52 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

It's not about what the end-user thinks is appropriately detailed or not, but rather what the people coding the game deem to be acceptable or not. If you cannot accept, then I don't know what else there is to say.

 

Except the end user actually purchases the game.  Unless you're running a passion project, it comes down to what they think, and what will ultimately sell.  Obviously different developers have different ideas of how stringent they want to be, and how big they'd like their audience to be.

 

 But you never really answered the question.

Edited January 28, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Or west front 1940. 

Me109 E4

Me110 C

Ju87 B

Do217

Cr42

Hawker Hurricane MK I

Spitfire Mk I

Bristol Blenheim

Bristol Beaufighter

and, of course ...

Bolton Paul Defiant

Where's the Wellington and Ju-88A-1? IMO, the Defiant should be AI. Also this (BoB) would likely happen AFTER the devs do the PTO.

 

3 hours ago, pfrances said:

Seen the teaser videos. Game engine is showing its age.

Naw. The game engine for IL-2 GBs is based off one that was made in 2009 and upgraded in 2017, while the GE for CloD was made in 2011. Everything is mainly still WIP, wait til 5.0 is released, will be much sooner than PTO. Anyway, both games deserve to be supported, adding many battles/theaters of war and aircraft.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Novice-Flyer

[LukeFF]

25 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

But you never really answered the question.

 

Yes, because I know what you are getting at, based on how you phrased your post both here and in replies elsewhere. I have nothing more to say on the matter.

[theOden]

28 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

Except the end user actually purchases the game.

Very much so.

Considering the vast experience these devs have now from planes currently done I would not hold it against them if Pacific was made with "best guess" from these guys and sold with the note that true data is currently hard to obtain but all planes have been made as close as they believe they should perform and any future documents will be considered.

 

I'm sure many would have a great experience from that but surely reading any flightsim forum nowadays there will be a few vocal nitpickers - but do they affect sales in the big picture?

[AndyJWest]

19 minutes ago, theOden said:

Very much so.

Considering the vast experience these devs have now from planes currently done I would not hold it against them if Pacific was made with "best guess" from these guys and sold with the note that true data is currently hard to obtain but all planes have been made as close as they believe they should perform and any future documents will be considered.

 

I'm sure many would have a great experience from that but surely reading any flightsim forum nowadays there will be a few vocal nitpickers - but do they affect sales in the big picture?

 

Unfortunately, the 'nitpickers' tend to dominate the conversation, or at least get more attention than their numbers justify. Any statement from the devs that 'future documents will be considered' is likely to be taken by some as an open invitation to fill the forum with endless threads complaining that aircraft performance etc doesn't match whatever dubious 'evidence'/anecdote best suits their agenda. And yes, I suspect such behaviour does affect sales, when innocent questions asked by newcomers or potential purchasers get used as grounds to rehash the same old arguments time and time again.

 

Ultimately, the decision as to how much historical detail is needed to model a specific aircraft lies with the developers, and as far as I'm concerned, them having high standards is preferable to the alternative. Jason clearly cares personally about this (his interest in the Pacific theatre goes back a long way), and if he says the documentation available isn't currently sufficient to do the job properly, I see no reason to try to argue against it.

 

As for releasing the Zero as a collector plane, it would obviously be lacking the context it needed, which must have an effect on sales, and since a Zero would presumably be essential for any future 'Battle of the Pacific' release, either end up potentially duplicating content, or restricting which versions could be modelled. 

 

So as far as I'm concerned then, the approach Jason seems to be taking is the correct one - holding back until the job can be done properly.  As has already been noted, the IL-2 GB series is undergoing continuous development (not as fast as we'd ideally like, but resources are limited), and waiting for proper documentation may mean that if and when a Pacific scenario gets modelled, the performance issues that modelling carriers etc entail may be less significant.

[Feathered_IV]

I must remember to go and explain to all archaeologists, paleontologists, astronomers and theoretical physicists that the extrapolation of known and incomplete data will never form the basis of a workable solution.  

[Cynic_Al]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Yes I know I can read -  the “close to home” info exists for the Zero and Oscar  - the end. 

 

Unless someone knows different.

[BraveSirRobin]

It’s great to see how easy it would be to produce a PTO game with incomplete data.  It’s pretty amazing that there aren’t 2 or 3 dev companies working on it at this very moment.

[Gambit21]

3 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Unless someone knows different.

 

We can always hope - but not holding my breath.

12 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

I must remember to go and explain to all archaeologists, paleontologists, astronomers and theoretical physicists that the extrapolation of known and incomplete data will never form the basis of a workable solution.  

 

I know what you're intending to say, but the irony is that they tend to do a horrible job in this area. They are constantly undoing/re-doing each other's work, their conclusions are inevitability proven incorrect by the next generation, with the outcome that with the passage of time none of them are ever correct about anything.

 

 

[Cynic_Al]

23 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Not sure why we needed a thread to point out the other thread...but ok.

 

Well it had to be discussed somewhere and it couldn't be there.  Personally I'm quite relieved by that announcement, as it means efforts can be diverted elsewhere.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

37 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I know what you're intending to say, but the irony is that they tend to do a horrible job in this area. They are constantly undoing/re-doing each other's work, their conclusions are inevitability proven incorrect by the next generation, with the outcome that with the passage of time none of them are ever correct about anything.

 

Which is to say, if we wanted definitively-modeled aircraft which were to have precisely the same performance as their real-world counterparts, we would never have any aircraft.

 

I suppose with current technology, as in past generations of simulators; part of how/if you model a plane comes down to a combination of how much you are willing to extrapolate, and how much your technology dictates you have to extrapolate.

Edited January 29, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

Which is to say, if we wanted definitively-modeled aircraft which were to have precisely the same performance as their real-world counterparts, we would never have any aircraft.

 

With current technology, as in past generations of simulators, it all comes down to a combination of how much you are willing to extrapolate, and how much your technology dictates you have to extrapolate.

 

I get it, I was just responding to Feathered with regard to academia which is the most dysfunctional, backwards world you can imagine.

[ShamrockOneFive]

5 hours ago, pfrances said:

I've made it no secret that I don;t really care too much about he pacific but I was hoping to get some more anti-shipping content in the next release. It seem to like the Battle of the Mediterranean would scratch all of the itches related to carrier ops without the issue of missing plane data. There's lots of historical content available to explore there too.

 

I pre-ordered BoN based purely on the plane-set but am definitely disappointed at the theater choice. Was really hoping for the Med. Also, cough cough, north Africa.

 

You're absolutely right about the Med offering up some possibilities that meet at least some of the calls for things like carrier operations. I think it's a solid area for the series to potentially explore. Even another 1944 set could easily bring in some aircraft types that we haven't explored. An Allison powered Mustang, Beaufighter, and a huge number of Italian aircraft are hopefully doable and have sufficient resources available.

 

I do have to say, however, that the excellent Normandy planeset is at least in part because of the Normandy setting. You won't find a Typhoon in the Med nor nearly as many Mosquitoes and no Ar234's, Spitfire XIV's, and so forth. But that makes the ones I listed above all the more interesting as semi-unique to the setting.

 

 

[[=PzG=]-Southernbear]

With any expansion there is a split of people looking for Allied and people looking for axis aircraft. With the Pacific I find a lot of the talking points about Japanese aircraft and carrier ect because they are the road blocks...the things to solve to let the rest come in. But I would say there is a good chunk that is probably just looking more for the Allied planes but try to help out and discuses the Japanese planes because that needs to be resolved in order to have them

 

Which is why in the light of Jason's comments I feel a good way of getting around this would be British or European used version so they can still come to the game

We could get:
F4F (British as Martlet aircraft)

F4U (British as the Corsair Mk I to IV)

F6F (British as the Hellcat Mk I to whatever) 

SBD (Used on land by the Americans, British and French as the A-24 Banshee)

TBF (British as the Avenger Mk I to whatever) 

 

And all of these planes were used (in their stated versions) in Europe during some time...for instance 80 A-24 Banshee were used by the Free French military as CAS planes

 

I feel this is the best way to get at least the American planes from that thertre into the war (all be it land based versions) while getting around the Japanese aircraft and Aircraft Carrier problems.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Southernbear said:

F4F (British as Martlet aircraft)

F4U (British as the Corsair Mk I to IV)

F6F (British as the Hellcat Mk I to whatever) 

SBD (Used on land by the Americans, British and French as the A-24 Banshee)

TBF (British as the Avenger Mk I to whatever) 

 

And all of these planes were used (in their stated versions) in Europe during some time...for instance 80 A-24 Banshee were used by the Free French military as CAS planes

 

 

No offense, but all of those plane's service in Europe is but a tiny blip on the radar screen when compared to what they did in the Pacific. You can't change the fact that people associate all of those plane's with the PTO, and rightly so. 

[Ribbon]

1 hour ago, Southernbear said:

With any expansion there is a split of people looking for Allied and people looking for axis aircraft. With the Pacific I find a lot of the talking points about Japanese aircraft and carrier ect because they are the road blocks...the things to solve to let the rest come in. But I would say there is a good chunk that is probably just looking more for the Allied planes but try to help out and discuses the Japanese planes because that needs to be resolved in order to have them

 

Which is why in the light of Jason's comments I feel a good way of getting around this would be British or European used version so they can still come to the game

We could get:
F4F (British as Martlet aircraft)

F4U (British as the Corsair Mk I to IV)

F6F (British as the Hellcat Mk I to whatever) 

SBD (Used on land by the Americans, British and French as the A-24 Banshee)

TBF (British as the Avenger Mk I to whatever) 

 

And all of these planes were used (in their stated versions) in Europe during some time...for instance 80 A-24 Banshee were used by the Free French military as CAS planes

 

I feel this is the best way to get at least the American planes from that thertre into the war (all be it land based versions) while getting around the Japanese aircraft and Aircraft Carrier problems.

 

Or some of us just want certain theatre of war.....like Pacific, you know cos of the scenery and variety of gameplay.

Problem these days is all that ppl want is ship/plane/vehicle/weapon while scenery and gameplay variety is trash.

 

It's not all about type of the plane, tbh PTO planes are ugliest and last i would pick if i had to chance to fly one IRL.

Still PTO is my favourite theatre of war and one i want the most.

I want carrier takeoff/landings, torpedo runs, navigate and patrol over wast open sea, sink ships/carriers/destroyers...in short i want recreate feel of PTO.

If i want just plane i would rather go DCS, push those switches and fly around without purpose.

 

Focus in game industry these days is on things i mention above, to create perfect weapon/Ferrari while enviroment and story you drive that car is your backyard.

Well, i'd rather travel the world in Fiat Panda than doing circles with Ferrari in my backyard.

Edited January 29, 2020 by EAF_Ribbon

[danielprates]

15 hours ago, pfrances said:

I've made it no secret that I don;t really care too much about he pacific but I was hoping to get some more anti-shipping content in the next release. It seem to like the Battle of the Mediterranean would scratch all of the itches related to carrier ops without the issue of missing plane data. There's lots of historical content available to explore there 

 

 

There is a decent potential for anti-shipping ops in BoN. Specially so if it is used for a further 42/43 DLC or "mini-DLC".

 

 

 

[Alexmarine]

1 hour ago, danielprates said:

 

 

There is a decent potential for anti-shipping ops in BoN. Specially so if it is used for a further 42/43 DLC or "mini-DLC".

 

 

 

 

There is also in BoK but really underused...

[danielprates]

1 hour ago, ACG_Alexmarine said:

 

There is also in BoK but really underused...

 

Oh yeah that too. I will not stake on this PTO discussion, but it is important to note that a previous experience with smaller anti-shipping ops would be a good idea before a fully fledged naval aviation sim. BoK and BoN could provide that proving ground. 

 

The more I think about this, there more I conclude that the dev team should consider a mini-DCL of sorts. Less planes, same map (different period though), new career. Could be a much easier product to develop and sell for, proportionally, more. I imagine lots of people would but a cheaper career mode add-on with one or two new planes only in the Kuban map, for instance. Think of the torpedo versions of the HE111 and the Sturmovik, for instance, coupled with specific careers and a few more ships, some new mission types ... 

[DD_Arthur]

No PTO for the foreseeable future?  A pity but not the end of the world.  However that carrier itch can be scratched.  We just need to invade Italy!

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Avalanche

 

Carriers, torpedoes, the Italian airforce, air-dropped cruise missiles, etc.

 

Whats not to like?

[CountZero]

After they anounced BoN i give up on PTO in this game, in ~2 years when i expect BoN is to be finished i expect they do some late war east front next, and then in 4 years from now if they still see any point in new 10xairplane DLCs maybe Italy 43-44 as for other areas it would be hard to fit 10 airplanes not in game and stick to european theater of war.

Edited January 29, 2020 by CountZero

[MikhaVT]

18 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I'm curious how all the purists will know the "appropriately detailed" flight models from the "wrong" flight models (barring UFO antics), given the lack of materials available, and the fact that Bettys and Vals had a different role and were generally flown differently in combat from a zeke or wildcat.

 

Is it just appropriately and highly detailed because we're told it is?  Or because it most closely matches the *available* performance figures?

I've run into similar things before with other developer teams for games. Everyone likes to take pride in their work and often times the best game studios will set internal standards for what they're willing to put out. A previous instance of this that i've seen was with the game EvE online back when CCP (game devs) were working on some new ships to add to the game (IIRC this was the rework to the ORE brand ships, and the Venture was the specific issue). CCP had a dev diary something along the lines of how they noticed the immediate need for a ship able to fulfill the role that the Venture would and so they were developing the ship. A large portion of the player base commented to CCP that they wouldnt mind if the devs just took other ship X, re-skinned it, and adjusted its stats to be what was needed. The devs replied about how they have their own internal quality standards they follow and even if the players just want X re-skinned they cannot do so.