Jump to content

Il2 Sturmovik - A franchise of non finished combat sims / A suggested future


Styx13
 Share

Recommended Posts

[DBS]TH0R

I kind of "flew over" that one. I see it now.¬†ūüßźūüėÜ

 

The reply wasn't aimed at your post, but more towards similar arguments tossed around by few individuals that still live in 2000.¬†ūüėá

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
On 1/2/2021 at 8:26 PM, SharpeXB said:

There are not enough players online in this game to support an idea like this. It would fragment the player base too much. 
You’re also acting as if the base game hasn’t been improved substantially over the years, which it has. 

This is funny again. Another person who thinks the flight simulator market consists of a few hundred people.¬†ūüôĄ

Gee what will we do when all 263 people on planet earth who play flight sims have bought everything from 1CGS? What will be left?!

Hey good news: The #4 selling PC game in the world today is a flight sim! There are literally millions of owners of that game who will perhaps expand their enthusiasm to combat flight sims like IL-2. There are hundreds of thousands of potential customers out there. 

I never said the base game hasn't improved.  What I'm saying is the base game isn't improving fast enough and if the problem is funds for more programmer time than paying for base game improvements is a possible solution.  I opinion is that they spend most of the programming time building new content because that generates revenue under their business model.

 

As far as your #4 selling game comment...I think that MS FS 2020 is going to move into the combat flight realm eventually.   If that happens, rather than bring new players into IL2 it's going to destroy IL2 and DCS because clearly the technology 2020 is superior to anything anyone else has out right now.   A game running on a years old engine isn't going to make it long term in the face of that.  The terrain is far superior in 2020 and it doesn't have any problem simulating four engine planes even now.  It also has a good weather system, multiplayer, real tower interactions, and real nav systems, etc, etc... and that's a just a short list.  I've already seen modern carrier operations in development for 2020 in one article plus the accompanying planes of course.

On 1/3/2021 at 6:29 AM, SharpeXB said:


1. Microsoft owns Bing Maps a literally has a 3D map of the entire earth to stream into the game. 1CGS is not Microsoft. 
2. Those maps aren’t collidable like a combat sim needs and they aren’t historical for WWII

3. The MSFS maps actually don’t look as good up close like a combat sim game would need either. 
4. The aircraft in those civ sims don’t have damage models or authentic functioning weapons 
 

1.  That's for sure.

2.  Something tells me that's not a major problem for someone with the resources to adapt them.

3.  I don't know what maps you're looking at, but considering my actual house and neighborhood look just like google satellite photos in 2020 I think you must be looking at different maps than what I'm seeing.  They look great close up or far away.  The airports look great on the ground as well.  They're far better than DCS or IL2.  

4.  See number #2. 

On 1/2/2021 at 8:26 PM, SharpeXB said:

This is funny again. Another person who thinks the flight simulator market consists of a few hundred people.¬†ūüôĄ

 

I have no idea what you're try to say here.  I agree their are lots of people in the flight sim that don't play online, but nonetheless, the number of WW II planes that would matter to anyone is finite.  You also forget that a lot of people probably buy only the base game and never buy anything else because they don't like it or they get bored with it eventually.  The combat sim community is SMALL compared to other branches of gaming.

On 12/30/2020 at 5:23 AM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

It's ironic, that over the years we have had threads complaining about how weak the aircraft were (particularly the P-47) or now they are too tough or how AP was over performing and HE was under performing or visa versa.

This seems like a scientifically solvable problem to me.   That's one reason it bothers me that it's still around "years" later as you've said.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SharpeXB
29 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

I never said the base game hasn't improved.  What I'm saying is the base game isn't improving fast enough and if the problem is funds for more programmer time than paying for base game improvements is a possible solution.  I opinion is that they spend most of the programming time building new content because that generates revenue under their business model.

 

As far as your #4 selling game comment...I think that MS FS 2020 is going to move into the combat flight realm eventually.   If that happens, rather than bring new players into IL2 it's going to destroy IL2 and DCS because clearly the technology 2020 is superior to anything anyone else has out right now.   A game running on a years old engine isn't going to make it long term in the face of that.  The terrain is far superior in 2020 and it doesn't have any problem simulating four engine planes even now.  It also has a good weather system, multiplayer, real tower interactions, and real nav systems, etc, etc... and that's a just a short list.  I've already seen modern carrier operations in development for 2020 in one article plus the accompanying planes of course.

1.  That's for sure.

2.  Something tells me that's not a major problem for someone with the resources to adapt them.

3.  I don't know what maps you're looking at, but considering my actual house and neighborhood look just like google satellite photos in 2020 I think you must be looking at different maps than what I'm seeing.  They look great close up or far away.  The airports look great on the ground as well.  They're far better than DCS or IL2.  

4.  See number #2. 

I have no idea what you're try to say here.  I agree their are lots of people in the flight sim that don't play online, but nonetheless, the number of WW II planes that would matter to anyone is finite.  You also forget that a lot of people probably buy only the base game and never buy anything else because they don't like it or they get bored with it eventually.  The combat sim community is SMALL compared to other branches of gaming.

This seems like a scientifically solvable problem to me.   That's one reason it bothers me that it's still around "years" later as you've said.


So basically your big text wall says we’re all doomed and should just give up. Oh darn...

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin
1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

What I'm saying is the base game isn't improving fast enough and if the problem is funds for more programmer time than paying for base game improvements is a possible solution.  I opinion is that they spend most of the programming time building new content because that generates revenue under their business model.

 


People have been suggesting this for years, and for years the developer has been ignoring them.  Have you given any thought at all to why people with many years of development experience would ignore people with no experience at all?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AndyJWest

I see the imaginary MSFS air combat simulator has made another appearance in this thread. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JV69badatflyski
1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

As far as your #4 selling game comment...I think that MS FS 2020 is going to move into the combat flight realm eventually.   If that happens, rather than bring new players into IL2 it's going to destroy IL2 and DCS because clearly the technology 2020 is superior to anything anyone else has out right now.   A game running on a years old engine isn't going to make it long term in the face of that.  The terrain is far superior in 2020 and it doesn't have any problem simulating four engine planes even now.  It also has a good weather system, multiplayer, real tower interactions, and real nav systems, etc, etc... and that's a just a short list.  I've already seen modern carrier operations in development for 2020 in one article plus the accompanying planes of course.

 

 

1* Nope, that won't happen, just because there is no DM-code build into ms2020.
2* It's not because you ('ll) have some "military" stuff build into it at some point you'll be able to do combat, (see point 1) Will you be able to sink the aircraft carrier? will  you be able to bomb a house/bunker/whatever building? Nope, you won't because ms 2020 uses data interpretation and not defined 3d objects like combat sims (be it main  public sims like il2-series/dcs or  military dedicated like Bohemai's simulations ...) To make dammage you need 3d objects  not extruded textures from sat pictures.
   BTW FSX had a lot of mil stuff, it just sucked....
3* Weather system : easier to do when handling real time data than create a whole new one where the mission makers will need to handle the differents air fronts, pressure spots, cloud
     layers depending on place and previously mentionned data. Otherwise you're welcome to pay for the following licence ( HeRe )and the dev's will be happy to integrate it into the actual
     engine, will "just" take a few months of work. :biggrin:
 

1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

 

2.  Something tells me that's not a major problem for someone with the resources to adapt them.

3.  I don't know what maps you're looking at, but considering my actual house and neighborhood look just like google satellite photos in 2020 I think you must be looking at different maps than what I'm seeing.  They look great close up or far away.  The airports look great on the ground as well.  They're far better than DCS or IL2.  

4.  See number #2. 

I have no idea what you're try to say here.  I agree their are lots of people in the flight sim that don't play online, but nonetheless, the number of WW II planes that would matter to anyone is finite.  You also forget that a lot of people probably buy only the base game and never buy anything else because they don't like it or they get bored with it eventually.  The combat sim community is SMALL compared to other branches of gaming.

This seems like a scientifically solvable problem to me.   That's one reason it bothers me that it's still around "years" later as you've said.

 

Point2 : don't think you really know what you're talking here about, you do not even imagine the work needed to recreate WWII terrain and layout from actual satelite pictures . when you'll finish the code to let the azur AI do the work based on recco pictures (when available of course :blush: ); the MS2020 engine will be even too old.

Just for the fun take a piece of Openstreetmap, and try to modify the data to fit some old WWII aerial picture. Will be watching a 3500 episodes mexican sitcom meanwhile and drinking a truck of beer :popcorm:
Point3: Your actual house and it's area still do not compare for what those were 80years ago.

But yes, in some point you're right, maybe it's time to upgrade (or change) the engine, maybe the CPU and GPU pipelines aren't used like it should and with some optimisation it will allow a lot of AI, 4 Engined bombers (even 6, always wanted to pilot the B-36 ) and a better "popup" of objects, maybe also a much better lighting of the atmosphere, or even a better DM (something MS will never have) and a nice wheather....but then it won't be BoS, it will be called something else and yes, like with DCS, you'll need to buy the whole stuff again.
I Do like MS2020 but it's engine is NOT for WWII Combat sims, you may turn the whole stuff apart, around and look the way you want at it, it (MS) can't handle combat or "old" Terrain.
 

Edited by JV69badatflyski
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard
1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

This seems like a scientifically solvable problem to me.   That's one reason it bothers me that it's still around "years" later as you've said.

The  thing with posting problems or complaints on forums is a great many of the posts are subjective to the individuals who are posting them. Although useful, Pilot anecdotes, gun camera footage and eyewitness accounts are not always the best source of information to determine what is "realistic" in a WWII combat sim.

 

My subjective view is that some missing elements from the current build that I would like to see are:

 

API for the .50 cal ammunition

More comprehensive gun harmonisation system

Complex fuel system 

Another look at the damage to the airframe of the 109's

 

As a customer, I am overall very happy with Great Battles and it has provided me with thousands of hours of entertainment. Does that mean it's perfect? No but we are never going to get a 100% perfect sim with current technology. In my view we have the best WWII combat sim to date with the best development team. That of course is subjective and I'm sure some would not agree.  

 

The problem is that without generating revenue no company will last very long.  If something is "wrong" the developers will try their level best to fix it but if it's something extremely complex it not going to be "fixed" in five minutes.  

 

I am confident that things will continue to improve. I say that because what has been achieved over the last four years has been incredible compared to where GB was back then.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:


So basically your big text wall says we’re all doomed and should just give up. Oh darn...

 

No, we're not doomed.  I'm just saying that 1C could be doomed if someone makes 2020 into a combat sim.   Whether or not it would be worth the investment to some company to try is not certain, so it might never happen.

 

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:


People have been suggesting this for years, and for years the developer has been ignoring them.  Have you given any thought at all to why people with many years of development experience would ignore people with no experience at all?

 

I've already provided an example of a company that's been doing this successfully for years and they've been doing games since around 1999 (I think.)¬† So, people with "years" of game development experience have done this successfully.¬† ¬†I've never worked on a project that didn't require payment for new or enhanced features in the business world.¬† Programming time is programming time expecting anything that doesn't produce directly revenue to get done quickly is na√Įve.¬† I'm just suggesting a path to getting some things taken care of faster.

 

48 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The  thing with posting problems or complaints on forums is a great many of the posts are subjective to the individuals who are posting them. Although useful, Pilot anecdotes, gun camera footage and eyewitness accounts are not always the best source of information to determine what is "realistic" in a WWII combat sim.

 

My subjective view is that some missing elements from the current build that I would like to see are:

 

API for the .50 cal ammunition

More comprehensive gun harmonisation system

Complex fuel system 

Another look at the damage to the airframe of the 109's

 

Your list is pretty much my list.  I'd real happy with the API and better handling of negative G's and violent stick handling.   In fact, that would make me pretty happy overall.   Those are really my only big complaints at this point.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin
38 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

 

I've already provided an example of a company that's been doing this successfully for years and they've been doing games since around 1999 (I think.) 


It isn’t a combat flight sIm.

 

42 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

 

 I'm just suggesting a path to getting some things taken care of faster.


While you completely ignore all the reasons that it won’t work.  The developer can’t do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
35 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:


It isn’t a combat flight sIm.

 


While you completely ignore all the reasons that it won’t work.  The developer can’t do that.

A games a game.  I have have cited one successful example in the gaming world.  The non-gaming world there are 100s of thousands of examples.   Where's your proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG51_Beazil

  I think MS will eventually make a cfs.  Big deal.  

You can look at it two ways I suppose.  On one hand the MS juggernaut comes along and sweeps away all competition, and provides us all with the "perfect" wwii sim.  Is that really so bad?  *cough, cough*.  This is making tremendous assumptions for the sake of the discussion.

On the other hand, unless they are going to buy out the programmers and managers from their current employers, where is even M$ going to find those folks?  Past performance is indicative of future performance, generally speaking.  M$ tried this before.  It didn't work then.  Why would it work now?

I can load up a game of BOX in a matter of less than a minute.  DCS, a minute or two more.  MSFS?  Jesus.  Shortest load time was about ten minutes.  VR performance is meh.  

I'm just not seeing a real threat to anyone other than maybe your War Thunder crowd, but I think they are safe too, given what they offer as well.  If anything, I think a MS wwii sim would just bring more people potentially to the smaller developers who are more involved in their communities, and have more to offer, IMHO.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin
13 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

A games a game.  I have have cited one successful example in the gaming world.  The non-gaming world there are 100s of thousands of examples.   Where's your proof?

 

I already told you how it would be a problem for MP.  You can't have people on the same server with different versions of the game.  So you end up splitting a group that is already split across different server types.  Or you force people to buy something that they don't want.  Neither situation is very good.  That's why it isn't going to happen.

2 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

I see the imaginary MSFS air combat simulator has made another appearance in this thread. 

 

It's always humorous to hear about all the developers who are really close to jumping into the combat flight sim market.  So very close.  No.  Seriously.  It's going to happen soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FlyinPinkPanther

I have to say this thread got pretty obnoxious and toxic.The suggestions by the OP seem like nice improvements to the game. If unreasonable or naive, then it is fair to point that out, but we can choose to be more polite. Let's present a strong and welcoming community spirit. 

 

Also, the criticism of the development team is a little unfair. They are a small team and they are active on the forum sharing updates and development and they have never been adverse to suggestions regardless how unreasonable the request may be at the time. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enceladus
4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

I see the imaginary MSFS air combat simulator has made another appearance in this thread. 

Yeah so, why does it matter?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

I have to say this thread got pretty obnoxious and toxic.The suggestions by the OP seem like nice improvements to the game. If unreasonable or naive, then it is fair to point that out, but we can choose to be more polite. Let's present a strong and welcoming community spirit. 

 

Also, the criticism of the development team is a little unfair. They are a small team and they are active on the forum sharing updates and development and they have never been adverse to suggestions regardless how unreasonable the request may be at the time. 

 

Well said!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

I have to say this thread got pretty obnoxious and toxic.The suggestions by the OP seem like nice improvements to the game. If unreasonable or naive, then it is fair to point that out, but we can choose to be more polite. Let's present a strong and welcoming community spirit. 

 

Also, the criticism of the development team is a little unfair. They are a small team and they are active on the forum sharing updates and development and they have never been adverse to suggestions regardless how unreasonable the request may be at the time. 

 

I agree. And as I started this topic, I have to ask everyone to focus on the original objective, which was to raise the devs attention for some petty, but obsolete (in my opinion not-too-hard-to-manage issue) which was once created well in Il-2: 1946. All-in all I think - from some perspective - the old Il-2 series (the latest versions) gave a better sim-experience for many of us, than this franchise.  Which is - whilst it is revoulutionary in the graphics and damage model etc. - a little step back in some perspective, like the AI, radio communication (squadron management system) and in the complete deficiency of AI (non-flyable) planes.

 

I do belive gradually finetuning these issues (and not waisting the capacities on the winter suit of a russian pilot, or the almost-useless AA ZiS etc.), will lead this franchise to the well awaited peak, because the gameing (sim) experience will be much-much better. I think most of us search somewhat for a SP "time travel" and a virtual reality in combat flight experience. But virtual reality is not only about the graphics. (And again - because I receive so many critics from the hardcore "fan club" - I do not declare myself as an IT- or PC game/sim expert, I am just a worrying customer/supporter, who see the huge opportunity in this franchise. This is an opinion, no need to consider it, and above all no need to be offended.)      

 

I agree with most of the comments, who cirticizes the game engine, which is also obsolete. Let's say it at last this is from the Rise of Flight and the devs want to peel as much skin as possible from RoF. I guess this is the reason why there is no 4-engine plane, and also this can result the moronic AI-planes, whilst the campaign system and menu are exactly the same. A WWI - and technically a five-six year old - engine is not functioning in a WWII combat sim (or game) with the latest technology. It should be about massive air combat, not the chivalrious fight of small squadrons, which could communicate each other only with flare pistols and hand signals! These circumstances underline the credibility of the whole stuff, and demolish the mid-term SP gameing experience as well.

 

I do not agree with those who compares this franchise with MSFS 2020. Not just because of the different staff-size and budget, but because of this franchise requires much more work in graphics (damage model) and an impressive historical researches. They created planes which don't fly day-by-day and they also created worlds which do not exist (luckily for all of us). BTW I purchased MSFS 2020 (with a high-end PC), but to tell the truth - apart from the amazing scenery - it was boring for me after a couple of flights. No tasks, no objectives, no carreer options. (I know that there are 3rd party add-ons, but I do not want to be off-topic). As for the DCS they made the same mistake with using a modern air combat engine in a WWII combat environment and - having turned away from the modern air combat - started to fragment their capacities in order to follow the market which was believed to be understood.  

 

And finally: excuse me for long-writing, a thanks for the patience for reading it. (I also ask everyone to handle it as an opinion, not a "hurtful critic", but please read that carefully prior to cirticize.)   

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Styx13
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTC_Q_Walker

I really do think we will see the AI continue to improve in the sim. Having a dedicated AI dev was crucial, and they are doing a great job. I do think we will see AI comms/squadron management, it just is going to take some time and maybe some tweaks to the engine if it calls for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Q_Walker said:

I really do think we will see the AI continue to improve in the sim. Having a dedicated AI dev was crucial, and they are doing a great job. I do think we will see AI comms/squadron management, it just is going to take some time and maybe some tweaks to the engine if it calls for it. 

 

Be so! ūüôā

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin
4 hours ago, Styx13 said:

 

 

I do belive gradually finetuning these issues (and not waisting the capacities on the winter suit of a russian pilot, or the almost-useless AA ZiS etc.)

 

 


Personally, I can‚Äôt wait for the AA vehicles. ¬†Adding them was a fantastic idea. ¬†And the fact that the developer is laughing at you is a pretty good indication that your ‚Äúideas‚ÄĚ are being tossed in the circular filing cabinet. ¬†They‚Äôll continue to work on AI, but it won‚Äôt be at the expense of everything else.

 

4 hours ago, Styx13 said:

 

 It should be about massive air combat, not the chivalrious fight of small squadrons, which could communicate each other only with flare pistols and hand signals! These circumstances underline the credibility of the whole stuff, and demolish the mid-term SP gameing experience as well.

 

 

 


You bought the wrong game.  This is a tactical air combat game.  It’s NOT about massive air battles.  

Edited by BraveSirRobin
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
23 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:


People have been suggesting this for years, and for years the developer has been ignoring them.  Have you given any thought at all to why people with many years of development experience would ignore people with no experience at all?

I know you know the answer to this one but I'm going to spitball some things for fun:


1. The guys who build 3D models and 2D textures probably aren't trained programmers, they're artists. Different skillset. Making a plane takes different people than fixing netcode issues, for example. Finding people who have those skillsets and (want to work in the games industry, when they can probably make more for less stress somewhere else) isn't necessarily easy. 

2. For new users, seeing core game content  advertised for sale is a huge red flag that something is wrong. And what do you do if only 30% of your user base buys it? Now you have like 10 versions of your game depending on which upgrades they bought. A mess and impossible to keep a consistent stable version for everybody.
3. Tons of people say "I would pay X for AI improvement!" because talk is cheap. Happens all the time. People say "You should start a business doing X! I would buy it!" and then like 90% of then do not do that, and the business crashes because they had an unrealistic idea of what their revenues would look like.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin

All that stuff. ¬†Also, he says ‚Äúa game is a game‚ÄĚ. ¬†That isn‚Äôt just not true, it‚Äôs ridiculous. ¬†Different types of games will have unique functionality that does not apply to any other type of game. ¬†For instance, the Battlefront game that he‚Äôs talking about has commands that you can give to the units that you control. ¬†You can buy upgrades that include unique, and possibly useful, commands. ¬†You could have an MP match between 2 people with different versions of the software in that case. ¬†One guy would have a slight advantage, but it‚Äôs doable. ¬†There is nothing like that in combat flight sims. ¬†We need to all be using the same version of the software, or it does not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jason_Williams locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...