Would a engine upgrade be in the cards?

[Sybreed]

I was talking to friends about IL-2 and how it would be neat to try some coop action (either through PWCG or Vander's MG), and surprisingly, one said he felt IL-2 is starting to look dated.

 

Can't say I disagree, though I'm not really bothered by it. But, come to think of it, would a engine upgrade be possible? Something that would make IL-2 look a bit more sharp and clean?

[R3animate]

Hmm, well, come to think of it we've just had several major upgrades in 4.0

 

1- New clouds in 4.002

2- Objects at 10km and distant cities in.. 4.003 or 4.004

3- New renderer, reflections, fxaa etc, new water, plus a huge perf boost overall, especially for VR in 4.006

4- New cloud tech to reduce/almost completely remove the plane+cloud visibility issues in 4.008

5- The damage model revamp in 4.005 

 

I guess my question is -- what do you consider an engine upgrade? 

Edited July 10, 2020 by R3animate

[Sybreed]

8 minutes ago, R3animate said:

Hmm, well, come to think of it we've just had several major upgrades in 4.0

 

1- New clouds in 4.002

2- Objects at 10km and distant cities in.. 4.003 or 4.004

3- New renderer, reflections, fxaa etc, new water, plus a huge perf boost overall, especially for VR in 4.006

4- New cloud tech to reduce/almost completely remove the plane+cloud visibility issues in 4.008

5- The damage model revamp in 4.005 

 

I guess my question is -- what do you consider an engine upgrade? 

 

something like DCS 2.0

[R3animate]

3 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

 

something like DCS 2.0

 

Did some googling -- I think the reason you're not seeing that big of a difference is simply because we're getting small additions every 1-2 weeks. If you look at a gameplay video from BoS at release vs now I think you'll see what I mean. Honestly the biggest change lately has been that new renderer, the perf gains enabled me to enable FXAA in VR -- which is a night/day difference in terms of looks. 

[Sybreed]

Just now, R3animate said:

 

Did some googling -- I think the reason you're not seeing that big of a difference is simply because we're getting small additions every 1-2 weeks. If you look at a gameplay video from BoS at release vs now I think you'll see what I mean. Honestly the biggest change lately has been that new renderer, the perf gains enabled me to enable FXAA in VR -- which is a night/day difference in terms of looks. 

 

you're not wrong, I'll try to do some convincing.

[Dutch2]

Maybe he talking about real multicore, using HT and DirectX12, only on the other hand, as being stated here above the devs are always busy in improvement.  Not only as above written down but what about converting to 64bit, introducing VR and Forward/Deferred  Renderer technique.

Just my opinion I think they are very active on that aspect. 

 

@1stcl/rudio, something confusing inhere? ?‍♂️

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Dutch2

[O_DesoLunatic]

23 hours ago, Dutch2 said:

Maybe he talking about real multicore, using HT and DirectX12, only on the other hand, as being stated here above the devs are always busy in improvement.  Not only as above written down but what about converting to 64bit, introducing VR and Forward/Deferred  Renderer technique.

Just my opinion I think they are very active on that aspect. 

 

 

Directx12 would be nice but it is indeed amazing how many changes were made if you look at yt videos uploaded right after release

[Rjel]

I've mentioned before my regret about not keeping any earlier versions of BoS to look back to for comparisons. But honestly, like those above mentioned, the differences are substantial. Comparing the latest patch of today to the earliest early access of BoS is almost like comparing to the original IL-2 pre-mod. Every cent I've spent on this series has been returned to me in improvements and hours of flight many times over.

Edited July 11, 2020 by Rjel
spelling.

[dburne]

7 minutes ago, Rjel said:

I've mentioned before my regret about not keeping any earlier versions of BoS to look back to for comparisons. But honestly, like those above mentioned, this differences are substantial. Comparing the latest patch of today to the earliest early access of BoS is almost like comparing to the original IL-2 pre-mod. Every cent I've spent on this series has been returned to me in improvements and hours of flight many times over.

 

Fully agree with that.

[CanadaOne]

As was discussed the other day regarding IL2 performance, you can run this sim on anything from a baked potato to a 9900K and you'll always be able to make it look good and have smooth action. That's a big plus.

 

For me, it's just the maps that are a bit... yesterday, at times. Once the planes are in the clouds it's fantastic. 

 

This is why the game needs higher grade custom maps offered, like collectors planes, for those who want them.

[Irishratticus72]

10 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

As was discussed the other day regarding IL2 performance, you can run this sim on anything from a baked potato to a 9900K and you'll always be able to make it look good and have smooth action. That's a big plus.

 

For me, it's just the maps that are a bit... yesterday, at times. Once the planes are in the clouds it's fantastic. 

 

This is why the game needs higher grade custom maps offered, like collectors planes, for those who want them.

Very, FS2002 at times. 

[Lusekofte]

Dated?? DATED?

compared to what? Do we have other choices?

I simply do not see the point here, one can fly a old ww2 cfs or a new in a reworked old game engine. 
I see no alternative

[BlitzPig_EL]

The really important thing a new game engine could bring is the ability to have proper numbers of units (land, air, and sea, human and AI) on the map.

Can't do the Pacific without an engine upgrade, even if the team had all the data they need to make IJN/IJAAF aircraft.

[DD_FT-]

I'd not call it 'dated' for its looks.

 

An engine upgrade will be useful, if and when it would use more than one CPU core, for sure. Performance wise. Yes. 'Proper numbers of units' as BlitzPig_EL stated above...

 

But, to me, the real performance issues started with that one version that introduced the moving suspension for vehicles. True, one might want/need that when driving a Tank.

(Not sure what version it was that introduced that - 3.00? - but I do remember the really heavy drop in performance in missions  with a lot of vehicles... 

Need to add that this change may not have been limited to the moving suspension, could also be other cool and relevant additions to the moving vehicles ...)

 

I really do not care for that level of detail when flying an IL-2, trying to kill them vehicles, I will not notice the suspension, but I will notice either a significant performance drop, or a significant drop of number of targets to shoot at ... let alone, flying fighter cover at altitudes where one would not even spot them vehicles ... 

 

With this engine, the combination of driving tanks and flying aircraft is just too much...

 

I dunno, probably it's just me ... but that's my take on it.

 

Though, still, I am having fun, lots of it, it still works ...  \/

  

 

[Feathered_IV]

Smoke and destroyed object effects would also benefit from an improved game engine.  The years spent carefully crafting a host of fighter-bombers in obsessive detail seems undermined by the current system of effects.  When the big payoff finally arrives and you put these aircraft to their intended use, the miniature columns of smoke and flame are so strictly rationed that they are vanishing in front of your eyes before you can even finish your attack.  A newer version of the game engine would be very welcome one day if it made such ruthless “optimization” a thing of the past.  
 

[WheelwrightPL]

My near-future wish list in no particular order:

1) remove "swirly trees" and replace them with 3-rd party "simple tree" code, or something similar

2) use Cliffs-of-Dover smoke system on the ground because what IL2 uses is not truly volumetric: the smoke-stacks unrealistically flicker on and off when observing them, and they often look like they were copied and pasted

3) improve the frame-rate which tanked for me with the latest patch's "ground detail enhancement", or if not possible at least give an option to lower ground-detail

It is simply untenable to expect a brand-new engine because it is too hard and expensive for a small IL2 team to write it from scratch. On the other hand buying a third-party engine is also not realistic, in large part due to developers' inflated egos (an industry-wide problem), so we will be stuck with band-aid solutions in a foreseeable future. 

[SJ_Butcher]

0pOne thing I would like to see accomplished is the stuttering issue, every time I load the game it stutters for a few seconds then it's normal again, better multicore support would be great. I would love a final fix for spotting issues, its God damn impossible to spot planes, should be much easier because we run behind thousands of different screens that don't perform equally. I run the game at highest graphics and it's a shame I can't spot planes.

[Motherbrain]

On 7/11/2020 at 7:11 PM, CanadaOne said:

This is why the game needs higher grade custom maps offered, like collectors planes, for those who want them.

 

I really like the idea of "collector maps". They could be smaller maps with higher detail for areas maybe outside of the scope of the Great Battles expansions.

[BP_Lizard]

I could be wrong, but I seem to have read somewhere that Battle of Normandy will be the last installment in the Great Battles series. Who knows? Maybe the new beginning in the next chapter will be using a new engine.

[Q_Walker]

1 hour ago, Motherbrain said:

 

I really like the idea of "collector maps". They could be smaller maps with higher detail for areas maybe outside of the scope of the Great Battles expansions.

I do like this idea, if they could release maps but also have a career for those maps I would certainly pay for it!

[=X51=VC_]

Being able to play all maps online without owning the modules is one of the best things about the way GB is set up. Having to pay for new maps is one of the things I hate most about the DCS business model. So... please no collector maps here...

[Asgar]

On 7/10/2020 at 10:06 PM, Sybreed said:

 

something like DCS 2.0

you want the devs to implements horrible performance and technology that still doesn't work properly years after it's initial implementation? no thanks

 

  

3 hours ago, BP_Lizard said:

I could be wrong, but I seem to have read somewhere that Battle of Normandy will be the last installment in the Great Battles series. Who knows? Maybe the new beginning in the next chapter will be using a new engine.

LATEST =/= Last

Edited July 13, 2020 by Asgar

[Yogiflight]

3 hours ago, BP_Lizard said:

I could be wrong, but I seem to have read somewhere that Battle of Normandy will be the last installment in the Great Battles series. Who knows? Maybe the new beginning in the next chapter will be using a new engine.

I think you mix it with Jason's statement, that a Pacific extension might have to be in a different engine, because the current engine might not be able to handle, what they wanted to have a Pacific extension look like.

[blue_max]

The team is basically upgrading the engine right now. They're just releasing the upgrades as they come so each individual patch seems less spectacular than a full engine upgrade. But over time that's exactly what we're getting. That being said, I agree that - except for Kuban - the maps really don't look as good as they could. This is less the engine and more that it just takes more time than the devs have to make pretty maps. Would probably be solved if they let the community improve the maps a bit. Kind of like the planes are now being upgraded to 4k textures.

[CanadaOne]

2 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

Being able to play all maps online without owning the modules is one of the best things about the way GB is set up. Having to pay for new maps is one of the things I hate most about the DCS business model. So... please no collector maps here...

 

I can't see why people who are willing to pay for new things should not be allowed to have them because others are not willing to pay for them.

 

MP players can't fly planes they haven't bought. Why are maps different?

 

If you want a plane/map/module, you buy it. If you don't, you don't. That seems fair.

[Motherbrain]

14 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

I can't see why people who are willing to pay for new things should not be allowed to have them because others are not willing to pay for them.

 

MP players can't fly planes they haven't bought. Why are maps different?

 

If you want a plane/map/module, you buy it. If you don't, you don't. That seems fair.

 

Or if your not inclined to play MP in the first place.

 

I'd rather buy somthing then play with it any way I want then only be able to play it in a mode I'm not interested in for free.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Motherbrain

[161snails]

you can keep some of the people happy some of the time but not everyone happy all of the time...i for one are more than happy and the maps look fine to me, I delated the other product as it ran like a dog in VR, but for me IL2 is the gift that keeps on giving..roll on Normandy and everything thereafter ?

[CanadaOne]

34 minutes ago, Motherbrain said:

 

Or if your not inclined to play MP in the first place.

 

I'd rather buy something then play with it any way I want then only be able to play it in a mode I'm not interested in for free.

 

Makes perfect sense. 

 

And again, if you can't fly a plane you haven't bought, why is that different from not being able to fly on a map you haven't bought?

 

Some people have said payware maps would "split the community", which I find odd because the community is already split. I don't think you and I and the guy I quoted all have the same planes and modules, so I can't see what would change.

[Asgar]

54 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

MP players can't fly planes they haven't bought. Why are maps different?

it splits the community, we are not a lot of people, why put more gates on servers? don't have a plane, no problem fly one of the many other ones. Don't have the map? well you can't play here

[CanadaOne]

16 minutes ago, Asgar said:

it splits the community, we are not a lot of people, why put more gates on servers? don't have a plane, no problem fly one of the many other ones. Don't have the map? well you can't play here

 

So the SP crowd aren't allowed to buy new stuff because the MP crowd want their stuff for free?

 

Okay. 

 

When do the SP players get stuff for free too? Can I make a list?

 

 

Edit: #1 on my list: Can I have the BoN map for free please?

 

I haven't bought BoN, and might not buy it. But since the MP guys can fly on maps I paid for and they didn't, how about they return the favour this time and the MP guys can finance the BoN map for us SP guys. Sounds great!

 

Thank you for your generosity. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by CanadaOne

[Lusekofte]

Why on earth are people having problems with collector maps?  
refusing other people to play because one self  do not want to buy? 
I have no words on the grade of selfishness this is

[O_DesoLunatic]

20 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

So the SP crowd aren't allowed to buy new stuff because the MP crowd want their stuff for free?

 

Okay. 

 

When do the SP players get stuff for free too? Can I make a list?

No idea what you are talking about - both MP and SP players get game updates with new features like improved g-force model or bug fixes for free. 
If devs locked people out of MP maps for some arbitrary sense of fairness it could effectively kill that part of player base and less players = less potential income = less content and patches for everyone. 
 

Edited July 13, 2020 by desolunatic

[Lusekofte]

Well I see no restriction if they sell singleplayer maps not for use in MP. 
It is the biggest part of customer base. The most silent too. Might very well be a business

[CanadaOne]

13 minutes ago, desolunatic said:

No idea what you are talking about - both MP and SP players get game updates with new features like improved g-force model or bug fixes for free. 
If devs locked people out of MP maps for some arbitrary sense of fairness it could effectively kill that part of player base and less players = less potential income = less content and patches for everyone. 
 

 

I'm looking at what you bought and what I bought and I see that you are flying on maps, for free, that I had to pay for. But you're a good guy and that's fine with me. 

 

I'm asking you MP guys to return the favour and finance a free BoN maps for us SP guys to fly offline.

 

Thank you.

[216th_Jordan]

Its not dated, but I'd like an engine upgrade to less washed out graphics (that also make spotting so much harder). Il-2 1946 had quite sharp maps, altough with less resolution probably, but the color distortion and lighting seemed to be slightly better for the eyes.

[Asgar]

37 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

So the SP crowd aren't allowed to buy new stuff because the MP crowd want their stuff for free?

 

Okay. 

 

When do the SP players get stuff for free too? Can I make a list?

 

 

Edit: #1 on my list: Can I have the BoN map for free please?

 

I haven't bought BoN, and might not buy it. But since the MP guys can fly on maps I paid for and they didn't, how about they return the favour this time and the MP guys can finance the BoN map for us SP guys. Sounds great!

 

Thank you for your generosity. 

you can fly ont he BoN map for free, like everyone else... play MP

[CanadaOne]

12 minutes ago, Asgar said:

you can fly ont he BoN map for free, like everyone else... play MP

 

I don't fly MP, I fly SP. And since I've been financing the MP crowd with free maps with all the stuff I bought, I think it's time they returned the favour and the MP crowd finances the BoN map for the SP guys to fly offline.

 

Or let us buy payware maps.

 

Or is it simply that the minority MP crowd get whatever they want and the majority SP crowd who shell out the majority of the cash, well, screw them? Is it that simple?

 

Edit: If you'll excuse me, I have to go to work now so I can buy food for my kids and maps for the MP crowd.  

Edited July 13, 2020 by CanadaOne

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

On 7/10/2020 at 9:36 PM, Dutch2 said:

@1stcl/rudio, something confusing inhere?

I 'm not  100% sure in which mean you've used HT abbreviation. I think that it might me hyper threading - just named workaround for CPU's with extremely long processing pipeline.

If it's right - there is no support in the code. You either enable it or disable and that's it.
If application code could distribute workload across CPU cores?  I don't know the game code, it depends if the pros from that change overweight the cons. Some single threaded parts of code could be always written for multiple cores, but not always it could be a win. Nice example is when you incrementing value and switching the lock between two threads. This is the example, where locking decrease performance. I believe that developers know what to do.

About DirectX12. I have to admit that I don't know on which version of DirectX library is game running. I know that's better than what I've ever seen in released games so far. I'm aware about some issues, for example smokes changing it's visibility as you fly to them. I know that fire not look like the real one, but I can enjoy the game with those disadvantages. The question is if improvements in DX12 in compare to curretly used library bring some performance or visual improvements.

[Asgar]

26 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

I don't fly MP, I fly SP. And since I've been financing the MP crowd with free maps with all the stuff I bought, I think it's time they returned the favour and the MP crowd finances the BoN map for the SP guys to fly offline.

 

Or let us buy payware maps.

 

Or is it simply that the minority MP crowd get whatever they want and the majority SP crowd who shell out the majority of the cash, well, screw them? Is it that simple?

 

Edit: If you'll excuse me, I have to go to work now so I can buy food for my kids and maps for the MP crowd.  

okay... honest question... are you mentally handicapped?? you finance shit, you buy stuff for yourself to enjoy, just like everybody else. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Asgar

[Dutch2]

8 minutes ago, 1stCL/rudidlo said:

I 'm not  100% sure in which mean you've used HT abbreviation. I think that it might me hyper threading - just named workaround for CPU's with extremely long processing pipeline.

If it's right - there is no support in the code. You either enable it or disable and that's it.
If application code could distribute workload across CPU cores?  I don't know the game code, it depends if the pros from that change overweight the cons. Some single threaded parts of code could be always written for multiple cores, but not always it could be a win. Nice example is when you incrementing value and switching the lock between two threads. This is the example, where locking decrease performance. I believe that developers know what to do.

About DirectX12. I have to admit that I don't know on which version of DirectX library is game running. I know that's better than what I've ever seen in released games so far. I'm aware about some issues, for example smokes changing it's visibility as you fly to them. I know that fire not look like the real one, but I can enjoy the game with those disadvantages. The question is if improvements in DX12 in compare to curretly used library bring some performance or visual improvements.

 

Yep, the topic starter was talking about the game engine and introducing multi core, HT and DirectX12 (or Vulcan) would be the only thing that in my opinion could be improved by the game engine.

On the other hand while seeing some of the  beautiful AAA games at an PS4 and Xbox that still running on an old AMD Jaguar CPU/GPU think optimization of the game engine would also be to the possibilities. 

 

But the statement is the devs did do a lot on game engine improvements, think at that point they do a good job in all those game engine upgrades. 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Dutch2