Disappointing Tobruk map

[simfan2015]

Maybe someone could post a comparison between the look of an exact same area in a. o. the upcoming fs 2020 and Tobruk ??? But anyway, when I am flying I, personally, am looking out more for enemies near Tobruk, not especially a variety in sand dunes. 

[adler_1]

more

 

 

 

 

more from above

 

 

AGAIN: No swastikas please. 

 

 

[Nightstalker]

For me it is more the lack of detail in the towns and on the airfields or even where defenses should be along the shorelines.  I understand deserts have long stretches of nothing but the inhabited areas need a lot more going on.  Everything else about the DLC is great.  

[adler_1]

more

 

 

and 2 more 

 

 

[ATAG_SKUD]

On 8/9/2020 at 9:37 AM, Buzzsaw said:

We will be going to 4k textures on tiles outside of the city/built up areas... these are 4k already.

 

We will also probably be adding some variation as well as more grass/scrub and potentially small rocks.

Can I suggest a little (I mean a lot) more variation in the details? Rocks don't uniformly distribute themselves they form piles  and clusters, cliff angles and heights have a very slight variation  in mean height deviation like a washboard. I'm sure its probably a lot of work though.

 

[adler_1]

here are some more. Note that there were carrier based hurricanes as well in the Mediterranean sea during the conflict .

and more 12 pm and 4 pm 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

The Tobruk map is not disappointing at all. The developers brought us both a battlefield and an air front. There are hundreds of planes involved in this specifically recreated virtual set. In this very place we can take off and follow the planned mission for today. We can dogfight, we can bomb, we can spray ground targets with bullets, or with obuses.

 

Wanna fly virtual planes? Go to DCS.

 

Wanna outstandingly reenact air battles set in the early 1940s in Britain or in North Africa? Go to "IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover".

 

In the "Cliffs of Dover" simulator, flight models, ballistics, and damage models are really conceived to represent historical air battles, better than no other flight sim does. Stop complaining about details, you are missing the point.

[vipe155]

18 hours ago, adler_1 said:

opinion

you might find the old IL2 with the North Africa mod map add on from SAS for the 412.2m version of the game much more detailed and complete .

Wow those old screenshots really look great!  I'm sure no one would have complained at all if the new Tobruk map would have looked like that or anything.

 

I'm don't think your screenshots helped prove your opinion.

[Enceladus828]

2 hours ago, adler_1 said:

here are some more. Note that there were carrier based hurricanes as well in the Mediterranean sea during the conflict .

and more 12 pm and 4 pm 

These are all images from IL-2 1946, a game with an engine that’s almost 20 years old (though it’s still a great game and has great general features), and my best guess is that these are from Mods; is this even from the Tobruk area?

 

I recall them saying that there were no significant Carrier ops off Libya and Egypt in the timeframe depicted, but hope to included them along with Carrier planes in the next or later module, if they can go there.
 

 

[adler_1]

I did point out in my initial post further up that these are from IL2 version 412.2m  MOD SAS  North Africa map , it was included in the MODPACK combo years ago . this map starts at Suez and ends at the Tunisian border . You can find the add on at SAS separately as well . MODPACK has the Med map which includes Malta so i made the skins for the Brittish navy squadrons which supported Malta at the time , the Carriers were default British carriers . The scenery resolution "pixels per sq inch" is the same as today . The skins and templates are 1028 and 2046 .The high definition skins work with a mod as well . I have deleted everything years ago but i still keep my work which is all available at M4T .   

[BB5000]

Many of the old IL2 46 maps were in a smaller scale...Suez to Tunis would be huge.

[Nightstalker]

11 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

The Tobruk map is not disappointing at all. The developers brought us both a battlefield and an air front. There are hundreds of planes involved in this specifically recreated virtual set. In this very place we can take off and follow the planned mission for today. We can dogfight, we can bomb, we can spray ground targets with bullets, or with obuses.

 

Wanna fly virtual planes? Go to DCS.

 

Wanna outstandingly reenact air battles set in the early 1940s in Britain or in North Africa? Go to "IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover".

 

In the "Cliffs of Dover" simulator, flight models, ballistics, and damage models are really conceived to represent historical air battles, better than no other flight sim does. Stop complaining about details, you are missing the point.

 

Nobody said the DLC was disappointing.  The complaint is with the detail of the map itself.  I absolutely love the DLC as a whole but the map looks like a game from the early 2000's.  Not up to the standard of the original map of BLITZ.  

[Dagwoodyt]

3 hours ago, Nightstalker said:

 

Nobody said the DLC was disappointing.  The complaint is with the detail of the map itself.  I absolutely love the DLC as a whole but the map looks like a game from the early 2000's.  Not up to the standard of the original map of BLITZ.  

Well the paucity of terrain detail certainly makes targets easier to spot. How realistic that is IDK.

[Mysticpuma]

16 hours ago, adler_1 said:

here are some more. Note that there were carrier based hurricanes as well in the Mediterranean sea during the conflict .

and more 12 pm and 4 pm 

 

Is that SAS mod for the old 1946? Details are very impressive on the ground for sure. 

[unlikely_spider]

17 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

The Tobruk map is not disappointing at all. The developers brought us both a battlefield and an air front. There are hundreds of planes involved in this specifically recreated virtual set. In this very place we can take off and follow the planned mission for today. We can dogfight, we can bomb, we can spray ground targets with bullets, or with obuses.

 

Wanna fly virtual planes? Go to DCS.

 

Wanna outstandingly reenact air battles set in the early 1940s in Britain or in North Africa? Go to "IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover".

 

In the "Cliffs of Dover" simulator, flight models, ballistics, and damage models are really conceived to represent historical air battles, better than no other flight sim does. Stop complaining about details, you are missing the point.

This image is not disappointing to you, in 2020? I am with the TC, and held off on purchasing after seeing images and videos like this. And I really want to support these devs.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

My reading of TFS' choice is that that map seeks playability. It is intended to be the set for a one-hundred aircraft online air battle. Other sims do not seek playability AND air combat realism at such a level of accuracy. That's why I think that WE SHOULD take into account flight models, ballistics and damage models when considering the quality of the map. The average player possesses an average computer, not a NASA calculator.

 

Otherwise please stop showing screenshots from 1946. I was over the Pacific with that latter and I whitnessed its fantastic evolution through the 2000s and 2010s, with plenty of new aircraft and fantastic modded maps. But that game, the original IL2, bears no comparison with Dover when it comes to talk about air combat and historical accuracy. Be honest and show the inner views of the 1946 cockpits, be honest and compare the flight models. We are nuts with air combat simulation which is a whole, not with maps only. Modern days Tobruk must be really cool to see, even better than in 1946... in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. Just hope you caught the irony.

[Semor76]

54 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

My reading of TFS' choice is that that map seeks playability. It is intended to be the set for a one-hundred aircraft online air battle. Other sims do not seek playability AND air combat realism at such a level of accuracy. That's why I think that WE SHOULD take into account flight models, ballistics and damage models when considering the quality of the map. The average player possesses an average computer, not a NASA calculator.

 

 

Sorry, but no. In no way. Flight models, ballistics, damage modell and what not, can not be an excuse for the map in that rather primitive state. (...and not for this steep price tag by the way) Yes the core graphics engine may be not the newest one and I don´t want to start to compare MSFS with CoD. But how this map looks is simply not acceptable in 2020.

I mean hey, even the 20 years old Il-2 ´46 with mods looks better than this one.

While Tobruk was in developement, I thought with every new screenshot and video I saw...hey cool stuff with all the new planes and new assets here and there and bug fixing etc. but the map....hmmm..ok, it´s still beta but I didn´t expect to see the map still in this shape at the release!

 

So yes, I´m disappointed as well like the TO.  And no, to get the flight models and the ballistics right is NOT everything what makes a flight sim worthy and enjoyable. (maybe for a purist like you)  It´s like flying over minecraft style terrain..and screaming: HEY, BUT LOOK AT THE AWESOME SPITFIRE DAMAGE MODEL!!!!!!

 

I´m pretty sure the guys behind TF will sort this out over the next weeks and I hope we will see some improvements in textures, details and bump mapping.

 

Be positive, the glass is alway half full.

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by Semor76
typos...

[343KKT_Kintaro]

"It´s like flying over minecraft style terrain"

 

I was polite and kept reading rather than stopping at that point in your response. Obviously, your statements ont that Tobruk map are an exageration.

 

let's move forward: there are planned improvements of both maps Channel Summer 1940 and Tobruk 1940-1943... right? So let's wait and see. Who knows, you may be happy in a near future.

[LuftManu]

Terrain is dissapointing for me indeed. I am sure they will fix it, but now it is not to the same level as other things in this great effort by TFS.

 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by LF_Gallahad

[Buzzsaw]

23 hours ago, adler_1 said:

here are some more. Note that there were carrier based hurricanes as well in the Mediterranean sea during the conflict .

and more 12 pm and 4 pm 

If you want to make this a comparison between 1946 and CoD then of course, please show closeups of the ground and more details.  Also show aircraft cockpits etc.

 

And of course, the damage modeling.  What you can't show are the Engine and Flight Models and how much more complex and detailed they are.

 

Regarding Carriers operations etc.... 1946 obviously provided those... with limited realism.

 

No other game besides DCS  has provided Carrier ops... and DCS cannot do that in massive multiplayer like CoD can.

 

The CoD engine can do carrier ops, we have already demostrated this is possible in in-house tests... landings, takeoffs, use of elevators, etc. but we will not implement those until they are ready.

 

Oleg Maddox moved onto CLIFFS OF DOVER because 1946 was clearly obsolete.

 

CoD was a big step forward in a huge number of areas.

 

If you are suggesting we move back to the 1946 engine then I am sorry, we can't do that.

 

 

 

 

[Wolfstriked]

I am no expert on FMs but I also really like the stall models in COD 5.0.Other big name sims and when planes stall my brain always feels like its wrong but not in tobruk.Maybe simpler modeling I don't really know but sitting at my PC I prefer it.Also when your flying fast and level in the other sims and you do massive pitch movements the planes dont act properly....even with their advanced FMs.Not true in Tobruk.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by Wolfstriked

[I/JG54_chuishan]

5 hours ago, Semor76 said:

But how this map looks is simply not acceptable in 2020.

 

Hi Semor76!

 

If you gained this first impression from MP experience, I suggest you to have a trip with diffferent time settings.

 

MP servers now tend to set the map's time at or around 12:00 (it's default time setting) and for the time being there's no complex weather system in MP servers.

 

The mid-day sun light of equator right above your head will kill all the shadows so that all the small hills and inclines of the ground will be concealed, seems only yellow sand and 'flat' surfaces leave behind, but it's not the case.

 

Have a look at the screenshots in this forum.

 

    

[Dagwoodyt]

No one that I am aware of has either suggested or implied a desire to return to the 1946 engine. Certainly the current terrain is adequate for MP as may have been the preeminent consideration. Unfortunately this decision represents an immersion killer for some as it sticks out like a sore thumb. It is probably too late to make any substantive improvements so the initial impression of a subpar map is likely to be the lasting assessment.

[adler_1]

take a look at the first photo to the left 2 posts up by Chuishan , does that look like a realistic Lybian or any other desert terrain on this planet ? now Google up and go to operation Crusader or Compass and take a look at British army archives even though they are black and white and go from air base to base town to town including the the inland high hills to the interior and compare . For color go back to google and check what the terrain looks like in these areas  in color and compare . the world is still the same 70 years later in that part of the world . The game engine surely could have handled that , the original game engine was born defective , fine but if it cannot handle a simple bare desert scenery by todays standard then you need a new one , after all you are asking for 40 USD .    

[I/JG54_chuishan]

1 hour ago, adler_1 said:

take a look at the first photo to the left 2 posts up by Chuishan , does that look like a realistic Lybian or any other desert terrain on this planet ? now Google up and go to operation Crusader or Compass and take a look at British army archives even though they are black and white and go from air base to base town to town including the the inland high hills to the interior and compare . For color go back to google and check what the terrain looks like in these areas  in color and compare . the world is still the same 70 years later in that part of the world . The game engine surely could have handled that , the original game engine was born defective , fine but if it cannot handle a simple bare desert scenery by todays standard then you need a new one , after all you are asking for 40 USD .    

 

Well, for me it's fair enough. If you are asking for shattered rocks and stones all over the ground, I think it's not necessary, since we are talking about a flight sim, not a sim for ground operations. I don't really know what's your standard of a good desert scenario, may be the DCS Gulf map will meet your taste?

 

edit: Although I don't think it makes much of a difference.

 

  

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by I/JG54_chuishan

[343KKT_Kintaro]

6 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

The CoD engine can do carrier ops, we have already demostrated this is possible in in-house tests... landings, takeoffs, use of elevators, etc. but we will not implement those until they are ready.

 

Oleg Maddox moved onto CLIFFS OF DOVER because 1946 was clearly obsolete.

 

CoD was a big step forward in a huge number of areas.

 

 

"Oleg Maddox moved onto CLIFFS OF DOVER because 1946 was clearly obsolete."

 

Absolutely. Back in 2003 Russian companies like d-Strict and G Team started preparing completely new WWI simulators. d-Strict started "Sikorsky Project" and G Team "Knights of the Sky". Both projects fusioned and gave "Rise of Flight" in 2009... which gave birth to the "Great Battles" series as of 2013. In the meantime, by 2005 or maybe even before that, Eagle Dynamics was already preparing DCS. Thus, Oleg Maddox was right when starting the development of a new engine by 2004. That latter, "Storm of War: The Battle of Britain", was announced for the first time in May 2006. We know how the project ended up in 2011, upon release. This is why I'd like to ask if there's any relation between the CoD bunch of bugs that spoiled the game's release and, maybe, an antiepilectic optical filter imposed at the time by the European Union. Is that rumor true?

 

"CoD was a big step forward in a huge number of areas."

 

CoD is a masterpiece and we only need one thing: that some whiners leave us alone. We need to keep moving forward and keep improving the game so that plenty of people stop complaining about the lack of VR compatibility or the graphic limits of one or two maps. These things can be improved and I trust they will be. In the meantime, this simulation remains absolutely outstanding.

 

"The CoD engine can do carrier ops, we have already demostrated this is possible in in-house tests... landings, takeoffs, use of elevators, etc. but we will not implement those until they are ready."

 

Good, the Kaigun requires me on board the Akagi. December the 7th approaches very fast and we have to be ready for the fight.

[Feathered_IV]

You're not high by any chance, are you?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 minute ago, Feathered_IV said:

You're not high by any chance, are you?

 

 

You lack of humour by any chance, do you?

[Art-J]

The HSFX mod map textures are a bit of a blurry, low-res mess (or maybe it's partially a question of settings used when these screens were taken, with aggressive aniso filtering clearly visible), so I wouldn't call them "better" in 100%, but I agree, with some extra colour variation and rock/bush details, even if only "painted on", they do look more lively compared to the ones we've got in Tobruk.

 

If TF guys plan to introduce 4k textures everywhere that's great, but I think adding a bit of artificial detail here and there, in a similar way as seen on these old screens, might make the scenery already somewhat better. After all, not all small terrain features have to be actual 3D objects to look plausible when flying above them at high speed.

[I/JG54_chuishan]

3 minutes ago, Art-J said:

If TF guys plan to introduce 4k textures everywhere that's great, but I think adding a bit of artificial detail here and there, in a similar way as seen on these old screens, might make the scenery already somewhat better. After all, not all small terrain features have to be actual 3D objects to look plausible when flying above them at high speed.

 

Agree too.

[sergio_]

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

CoD is a masterpiece and we only need one thing: that some whiners leave us alone. We need to keep moving forward and keep improving the game so that plenty of people stop complaining about the lack of VR compatibility or the graphic limits of one or two maps. These things can be improved and I trust they will be. In the meantime, this simulation remains absolutely outstanding.

 

 

Provided the simulation remains already outstanding (in its own strengths, but that's a different discussion), the way to move forward and keep improving is exactly the items you left out.

 

Outlining weak points is not whining, but pushing forward. 

 

The map (the main topic of the thread) is obviously a point where the sim can improve. Ignoring it or pointing players attention elsewhere makes no favor to the future of this series.

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

55 minutes ago, sergio_ said:

 

Provided the simulation remains already outstanding (in its own strengths, but that's a different discussion), the way to move forward and keep improving is exactly the items you left out.

 

Outlining weak points is not whining, but pushing forward. 

 

The map (the main topic of the thread) is obviously a point where the sim can improve. Ignoring it or pointing players attention elsewhere makes no favor to the future of this series.

 

 

 

Yep. That's true. Demanding simmers will make this simulation gets improved in the future.

 

On the other hand, plenty of simmers are not even trying CoD not only because some of them do remember the 2011 events in spite of a satisfactory patched game in the present day, but also, and sadly, because they pay too much attention to denigrators.

[Nightstalker]

If the map was simplified to allow much larger mp battles that is not going to bode well for the longevity of the game.  Majority of flight sim fans NEVER touch multiplayer.  Your main customer base is the single player and always has been.  

[KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82]

Cliffs of Dover came out in 2011 and it was broken in many regards, damaging the IL-2 name to some degree.

 

Who repaired it?

TeamFusion!

 

Over years they improved it and once they brought out "Blitz" after hard work, it was for free for every owner of the original CloD.

 

I mean, I have not a single doubt inside me, that they WILL improve now their completly own product over time for sure.

Regarding that they working with the old CloD engine the complete game is pretty good so far.

 

About the map:

Yes, some more details, more bushes, rocks and variation would be nice and they will come.

 

Imagine they would have done it the other way around: creating and focusing on the best possible map design and than the playerbase (with mostly older PC's as mine is included) could not play in multiplayer/singleplayer well enough, cause of stuttering.

My point is - they will improve it for sure, and better to add part for part to their game in a good pace.

 

Overall it is a desert and the balance, also in the discussion how many objects shall be there might be forgotten.

[simfan2015]

The past few years we had so many prophets declaring Blitz dead. Even I was beginning to lose hope. But look at... Tobruk now... TF did indeed deliver on promises ! I am now really convinced the hopes and desires I too share (concerning more detailed Tobruk map, VR,...) will be fullfilled. Let's give TF the credit they deserve and support these guys... we have no benefit whatsoever from doing otherwise! Look at what il-2 GB has become... If 1C believes in them they most probable have good reason to. 

Edited August 12, 2020 by simfan2015

[Semor76]

4 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

CoD is a masterpiece and we only need one thing: that some whiners leave us alone.

 

Buahahaha....omg

 

Aye,aye Captain Sushi. We are the unworthy ..and obey to the CoD masterace ?

 

 

 

Edit:

I´ve found an interesting thread at the Steam forum regarding this topic here:

 

https://steamcommunity.com/app/754530/discussions/0/2789370076135647763/

 

To quote Buzzaw:

 

Team Fusion intends to improve the map.

Some of the elements planned:

- Improvement of the basic textures to remove the overly 'yellow' look.

- Improved Tesselation to provide more of a 3D look

- Addition of another LoD view for improved middle distance visuals

- Addition of some grass and more rock formations
 

I think this sound promising.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by Semor76

[Feathered_IV]

4 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

You lack of humour by any chance, do you?

 

I don't do jokes

[Nightstalker]

I'm not even sure we are all talking about the same issue.  I have no intention of extending this thread forever because there are so many things that are great about this DLC.  What I"M trying to get across is that when I fly in "free flight" in IL2 Great Battles, I can just fly around enjoying the countryside while watching a living world going on around me.  Planes are flying around, vehicles are moving, trains are going about their business.  If I see a target of opportunity, I can decide to stop sightseeing and go blow something up.  It's a big sandbox.  The railyards look realistic, the towns look realistic and things are happening.  It's not sterile.  This is also the same when I fly "free flight" in DCS.

 

I for one have great respect for Team Fusion and what they did with Blitz and what they have done with other parts of this DLC.  But let's remember one thing.  This is no longer a group of mods who are fixing an older game out of the goodness of their hearts.  They are now paid developers who have come under the banner of 1C and 1C have seen fit to stick a 90 Dollar Canadian price tag on it.  The same price they are asking for their newer Great Battles modules.  Once you do this, you can expect that your customer base will expect more from the product all around.  Not just the flight models, sound etc.  We have living battlefields in Great Battles and in DCS.  It cost me 35 dollars Canadian for the channel map in DCS.  It's stunning and it's a living world.  We are in 2020.  Even though this is an older sim, we expect a certain level of quality in a 90 dollar product.  They did an amazing job on the planes, sound etc.  I'm just looking for the same quality in the map at some point.

 

I hope the map gets upgrades but aside from that, I'm having a lot of fun with the DLC.

[No.54_Reddog]

I'm not even going to begin to theorize where the idea someone wants to return to 1946 came from...

 

I just took delivery of "The Mediterranean Air War vol1" and on flicking to any random page I see images of landscapes which look like nothing I have been flying over in MP. Obviously these are B+W photos so I'm not talking about the colour palette chosen but the micro terrain and texture layers. I can't say the pictures I saw were of the exact area I was flying over since they're not labelled and as a geographer I'm well aware that landscape topography can dramatically change from area to area due to meteorological, geological and other processes..

 

What I can say is I haven't seen anything looking like these images or the satellite images I have seen of this area.

 

I've also seen plenty of pixelation along the shoreline near Sollum and villages which appeared to be floating and casting shadows inland of there.

 

[I.JG3_CDRSEABEE]

Just google map the area. It hasn't changed much since then. At least the desert hasnt.

Edited August 12, 2020 by CDRSEABEE