Jump to content
ShamrockOneFive

Stormbirds Podcast episode featuring Jason Williams coming this Friday

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

Jason about Great Battles series: "Sometimes it gets too big, it gets too bloated". This "bloated" product has 47 flyables and 6 maps. That's laughable.


You don’t understand the context. It gets harder to compile and push out updates and manage. 
 

Jason

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solid episode, definitely liked hearing about ongoing projects.  Definitely need more spotlight on IL-2, it's a great sim that gets overshadowed unfortunately by that "other Russian based sim"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My brief comment is this, at least as far as my thoughts on the Pacific: if at all possible please keep it part of the Great Battles series, for legacy and compatibility sake.  Whatever happens in development I hope there is a way to do that.

On the other hand, if it's a quantum leap in technology that takes the series in another more fruitful direction, then I'll gleefully just buy the next series anyway.

Thank you.

Edited by JG51_Beazil
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

Well, we do have the mirror technology in game 😉

 

 

*Does best cliche French laugh*

Count me in for a BOF too!

Edited by JG51_Beazil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Regarding Jason's comments about the accuracy of some of the models, such as the rear gunner station:

 

I would be perfectly fine with a "best guess" approach for such minor details. My guess is that people spend a negligible amount of time in the rear gunner position and even less time looking around instead of looking down the gunsights. It's nice to look around and appreciate the great work the devs put to recreate those spaces (especially in VR) but the truth is that very little time is spent doing so.

This shouldn't be an issue. Maybe even a way to uncover those hard to find details when a player comes with evidence that corrects the best guess. Two things are required:

  1. Thick skin-can't let the easily outraged get to you
  2. Need to be willing to tweak the model relatively promptly when new and better information comes available

:salute:

skud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@DBFlyguy... Il-2 overshadowed by the other Russian Sim... IMHO it's the other way around... as far as WWI and WWII is concerned of course. 

But visibility is another thing... I completely agree more people should be informed about il-2 GB... especially those that may never become interested in an even more complex Sim like... you know. Il-2 GB is still about fun *and* immersion ... more than most other sims and most games will ever be. This sure is thanks to the vision of people like Jason who are willing to expand the series with TC and FC but still keeping it integrated and accessible to (most) people. Therefore this podcast is important and all other press coverage from the incredible website and Sim support initiative of stormbirds blog! 

Edited by simfan2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG51_Beazil said:

*Does best cliche French laugh*

Count me in for a BOF too!

Hee hee haux haux!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Battle of France?... If you think getting all the technical info for Japanese planes was making life hard for the team, where on earth are you going to get that info on French fighters and bombers of the period?

Almost everywhere. 

First of all, you’ll can find the information and real models in France, in most of museum.

A-20 models are available, Curtiss are findable in the US and England, etc.

Spitfire, Hurricane. I guess it could be doable.

Bf109, Stukas, Bf110, He111, Ju-52...

Not so difficult 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If one of the big issues about the PTO is to know if the community is willing to accept educated or best guesses when the actual information is not available, then it is clear to me that we need to be asked. As simple as that.

 

Jason, make an official poll about this.

 

For me it is crystal clear, I want the PTO even if you have to sacrifice some fidelity. The PTO in the old IL2 1946 was a blast and the dogfights of Wildcats against Zeros was epic, the torpedo runs, the take offs and landings on carriers, the navigation with low fuel looking for your flatttops in the middle of the vast ocean, etc 

My mouth gets watering just recalling all those unforgettable moments.

 

I have not a single doubt that the PTO would be a total business success.

Edited by =gRiJ=Roman-
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Jason said that the trouble with making the larger planes, B-25 etc, flyable is that the cockpits are so much bigger and more complex, thus take up more time and resources to create. Then when the gunner stations are added as well it amounts to a very large undertaking. From my perspective I would be happy with a flyable B-25 or B-26 even if the gunner stations were still AI.

It would be a shame not to have a totally-mannable bomber but a compromise worth taking I think.

The same idea could be applied to the Pacific - if there is no hard and fast info for the rear gunners station in the Val or Kate, well, leave them as AI-only.

The gunner positions are the least-utilised player positions in the sim. They are fun to jump into in MP but seldom a mission-long choice, and I hardly use them at all in SP apart from checking six or the positions of AI flight members. (Apart from the Ju52 - stick that on level autopilot and you can have great fun taking potshots at LaGGs and MiGs without having to worry about what you should be doing as a pilot.)

Personally, I would forgo all of the gunner positions to get a dedicated bomb-aimer/navigator station, but then that's just me being weird 🤪.

Great podcast Shamrock, and thanks to Jason for taking part.

Cheers.

Edited by 216th_Cat
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, 216th_Cat said:

Jason said that the trouble with making the larger planes, B-25 etc, flyable is that the cockpits are so much bigger and more complex, thus take up more time and resources to create. Then when the gunner stations are added as well it amounts to a very large undertaking. From my perspective I would be happy with a flyable B-25 or B-26 even if the gunner stations were still AI.

It would be a shame not to have a totally-mannable bomber but a compromise worth taking I think.

The same idea could be applied to the Pacific - if there is no hard and fast info for the rear gunners station in the Val or Kate, well, leave them as AI-only.

The gunner positions are the least-utilised player positions in the sim. They are fun to jump into in MP but seldom a mission-long choice, and I hardly use them at all in SP apart from checking six or the positions of AI flight members. (Apart from the Ju52 - stick that on level autopilot and you can have great fun taking potshots at LaGGs and MiGs without having to worry about what you should be doing as a pilot.)

Personally, I would forgo all of the gunner positions to get a dedicated bomb-aimer/navigator station, but then that's just me being weird 🤪.

Great podcast Shamrock, and thanks to Jason for taking part.

Cheers.

 

These positions can be temporarily AI and in the future IF possible, be modified using the proper information to match the other planes standards. In short, better a glass have full than no glass at all! :pilot:

Edited by =gRiJ=Roman-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 216th_Cat said:

... The gunner positions are the least-utilised player positions in the sim ... Personally, I would forgo all of the gunner positions to get a dedicated bomb-aimer/navigator station, but then that's just me being weird 🤪.

That's the way to go, imho. But there are some strong marketing aspects - the grown-up sim-pilot tends to ignore that kind of buying decisions. But Jason has to care for markets where lot of customers cultivate a deeply childish relationship to weapons, too. Difficult to explain to that kind of customer why there's a detailed gunner station in that shabby old 111 but no chance for him to "blast away" in the gunners positions of the brand new XYZ-bomber. Gunny will use that option just once or twice in future, but his need has to be satisfied! That kind of customer is desperately disappointed not to find itself behind a gun and will publish some bitter comments about "missing important aspects of air war" in his micro-community. I fear that kind of marketing aspects are important.


Back to reasonable aspects - I'd like to have a outside view from that position, no internal details, the picture of that gun for the sake of immersion maybe. Just what the gunner could see outside because of navigation. It is not mentioned that often, but navigators of well trained bomber crews got valuable input from the gunners pointing on landmarks etc. pp.

 

For the navigator / bomb-aimer position - I'd prefer it over a gunners position any time, but it is a nice to have, too. I gladly overlook the missing positions, if I can find one circle on the map presenting my navigators best guess and another circle by my radio operator using his radio navigation devices. Finally the gunner calling out "single engined incoming from 6 below" and my radar operator telling me "target 2 km ahead, to the left, a bit up, slower" - dream on!

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =gRiJ=Roman- said:

 

These positions can be temporarily AI and in the future IF possible, be modified using the proper information to match the other planes standards. In short, better a glass have full than no glass at all! :pilot:

 

I tend to agree. Could even go the half measure that one important gunner station were modeled and the rest were AI only.

 

For example, on the A-20B the top rear gunner station does sometimes get used by me or by a human who has joined me. The bottom one is one that I looked at, said "Cool!" and then have almost never used since. About 95-98% of the time I'm in the cockpit which is gorgeous and the place I want to be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without forgetting the bomber cockpit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a good interview, but a bit disappointing in that when SP content was asked about, the response was all about what other people were going to build for us and not how the mechanics of building it ourselves will/might be improved.

 

That said, the recent QMB improvement with the tanks was first rate. If that could be extended so we could chose what tanks we wanted to hunt with the plane of our choice, that would be excellent! Yesterday I loaded up an IL2-43 with 37mm AP rounds in the QMB and for three flights in a row the tanks offered were MKIIIs and those little tin cans with exposed crew that don't even have armour on the rear. Then I load up an I-16 with MGs only, on the same map, same position, same everything, and I **** you not I get Tigers on the first flight.

 

Anyway, look forward to more podcasts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a way to view this latest podcast now?

Thanks!:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed both of the podcasts. Thanks to all who participated. I hope you'll have many more to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello!

 

Is a transcription soon to be made available? I am afraid like many others I would prefer reading it than listen to it (it's faster!)

 

JV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2020 at 8:31 AM, JG4_dingsda said:

Thanks!

happy-winking-smiley.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great interview @ShamrockOneFive,

 

a couple of thoughts:

 

1) Air Marshal.

NOW I'm really excited about this. I wasn't around when the idea was first mentioned to the community, so I never really understood what it implied.

But listening to Jason, THIS is what the multiplayer community NEEDS. More cooperation and coordination between players, perhaps combined with easier situation/contact report and assignment of objectives. This could bring the MP experience to the next level, expecially for the casual flyers that don't feel like joining discord channels or virtual squadrons.

A true reproduction of WWII tactical air/ground warfare instead of a "plane team deathmatch" with points. REALLY hope this feature makes it through!

 

2) Pacific possibly being a separate product (if it ever comes)

This kinda disappointed me a bit to be honest. I know it's a bit childish and that there might be technical constraints that do not make it possible, but i really think the strength of old IL-2 1946 was being able to span so many different scenarios while keeping the community under a single umbrella. Even people who might initially not be interested in a particular scenario can, with time, grow interested and decide to try it out while staying in the same "enviroment". I'm afraid that splitting an already small community between two games is going to hurt the MP scene, in particular. Anyway I hope that if they decide to go with the pacific they'll try to build it into the IL2:GB serie, if possible.

 

All in all some great things to look forward to!

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting interview. Interviews like this and explanations given in the forum, i am astounded people ever have issues with this development group. Anyway

 

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a different engine for the Pacific. It would mean (probably) "repurchasing" some planes that already existed on this engine.

Concerning information on Japanese planes. I was watching a youtube airshow of WWII planes of the Pacific. I know I saw a "Val" as one of the planes and unlike another plane, it was not indicated to be a replica. I wonder if it is possible to gather information through restored planes. I am guessing it would be possible to extrapolate some information through existing planes. These organization exist to "educate" the public, so I would be surprise that they would not offer some assistance. 

 

The Air Marshall does sound cool. It seems it would be cooler if there was some sort of in-game communication system, but Jason already "poo poo'ed" that already. It doesn't sound anything will happen soon. However, the presence of the Air Marshall may help to promote the servers themselves to develop a system of communication that people will use. 

 

I wish you had a normal podcast. My VPN is pretty dodgy on my phone. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...