Jump to content

Would you pay for new, better optimized game engine


Would you pay for new, optimized engine which would bring more MP stability and possibility of having massive units in the air (bombers etc.) and on the ground in one MP mission?  

133 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you pay for new, optimized engine which would bring more MP and SP stability and possibility of having massive units in the air (bombers etc.) and on the ground in one MP mission?

    • Yes
      107
    • No
      26


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

I rarely play multiplayer these days, so obviously shouldn't vote here.

 

 

question is for MP players only...

3 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Pay who ?

We as cutomers...

jak nie wiesz

Edited by =VARP=Tvrdi
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

question is for MP players...

 

Fascinating. You think that the developers are going to develop an entirely new engine, just for MP, while disregarding the majority of their player base. Can't see that happening....

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 40plus said:

pointless thread is pointless

Care to explain?

4 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Fascinating. You think that the developers are going to develop an entirely new engine, just for MP, while disregarding the majority of their player base. Can't see that happening....

And you really thinnk SP players wont benefit from new engine? Fascinating...

 

anyways even devs mentioned the possiblity of doing that...I mena changing the game engine.

Anyways we would never see proper PTO without it....

Edited by =VARP=Tvrdi
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

Care to explain?

Yeah, this is yet another “why won’t they do what I want them to do?” thread. 

7 minutes ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

question is for MP players only..

It’s added hilarity😃

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Yeah, this is yet another “why won’t they do what I want them to do?” thread. 

It’s added hilarity😃

Nope. Thats why we have poll so its not only me.

 

so..its up to you if you want to degrade the franchise into CALL OF DUTY in the air as it is now....

Edited by =VARP=Tvrdi
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the vast majority of players would pay for an updated engine, regardless of if they are primarily single or multi players, just as we do for new expansions of the sim.  It would benefit all of us, and probably in ways we cannot visualize at this point.  I also believe that it's an inevitability.  Technology keeps changing and we as players,  and Jason's team as developers, have to keep up with it, as it benefits all of us.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

I would cash 100€ for it....to see large bomber/fighter formations like in SEOW videos.

MP or SP irrelevant factor here, both would benefit, also heavies and PTO wpuld be a lot more possible to happen 😃

I agree with all!!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to play singleplayer but it goes in slo-mo during game, both in scripted missions  and dynamic campaign modes, while fps is perfect, real world clock is out of sync with the one in the game, like the bullet time is on. Multiplayer works perfect in most cases except when there is server issues, and in QM there is 8 planes max on the opposite side and it works well, at least to me, but it is only 8 planes. And that leaves us that we as a group have to pull straws wich one will play because there is no room for full squadron on most servers.

P.S.

I think that this game has the best flight model, damage model, immersion with its blackouts and readouts which i really like, and it looks great.

 

Edited by =VARP=NeedForWD40
zatipak, forgot to mention
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 9./JG27golani79 said:

 

I don´t get it why you want SP players excluded from the poll ..

Now after second thought, you are right. They would also benefit from new engine. But I was skeptical because thought they would all vote No by default...I will change the poll now...I invite all to vote...thanks

Edited by =VARP=Tvrdi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody pays for a new "game engine", that's not how game development and marketing works. The consumers cannot play "game engine" itself, so why should they pay for it ?

That being said I would pay full-price for a small early-access scenario like for example "Battle of Berlin", where the emphasis is not on scale, but on this new generation gaming engine technology, which if advanced enough, can create an endless replayability "sandbox", based on the concept of "emergent gameplay".

 

I would like to see for example: gradual and persisted destruction of ground environment (trees, buildings, etc:), enhanced low-altitude textures, smooth LOD algorithms, so that more details comes into view in less-jarring way, varied and wind-driven smoke effects, and of course much more realistic explosions, with physicality tightly integrated, so that nearby objects (such as fuel barrels, ammunition caches etc:) are convincingly affected by the resulting chain-reaction. And that's even before were are starting to talk about the weather (which BTW I think should be imported wholesale from MSFS 2020, as opposed to spinning one's wheels to reinvent the wheel).

Link to post
Share on other sites

"How much would you pay, and how much in advance would you pay it?" are the questions that need to be answered. Of course everyone would buy a new game with a new, improved game engine in it.

 

I'd also give all my personal fortune away if someone gave me a little bit more for it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t want to pay for it.  But if lots of you want to pay for a game engine upgrade, I’ll definitely buy the next game that uses it.

 

Of course, this “pay for a engine upgrade” idea runs into trouble if enough people figure out that they can take advantage of an upgraded engine that other people have paid for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This game is eye candy. Nobody can deny that. And we all obviously love it. Is it good enough? Well, depends what is your level of expectation and what you've  been using until now. If you want static front, a hundred units and 80 players and avoid AI, sure, it is enough.

 

When you know that old IL2 game could support 2000-3000 static units (i've put 4000 once), 100-150 moving columns, 100+ AI planes, 80-150 players hell of a lot of AAA and shelling in ground battles, you simply want to cry when game start to slow down in single player  on high end machine with just as low as 30 AI planes. I doubt that it can handle more than 1/10th of what old game could. I simply can not image this engine in navy operations when just 10 ships with just 30 guns each start to shoot at you.

We gonna try to make SEOW system  for it, but we need to invent different things just to make it work with current limitations.

 

I don't blame people. People  who have never seen massive multiplayer action on air/sea/land can not understand why would we pay money "for nothing"  just be able to create massive events.

 

Yes, i would definitly pay extra to see it working in massive playing. Maybe if we make the initiative where more game users would pay for it, maybe devs would consider it and start to think in that direction for everyones benefit.

Cheers

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if the devs could do this without any negative/detrimental effects on the game,

they would have done so already.

So i would prefer for it to stay as it is, than have to accept anything less than the standards we have now!

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JG5_Schuck said:

I think if the devs could do this without any negative/detrimental effects on the game,

they would have done so already.

So i would prefer for it to stay as it is, than have to accept anything less than the standards we have now!

Did you play SEOW with 3000-4000 static units and 100 +AI planes,and 130 and more players?If you are not, then you try ,and then you will see  what  =VARP=Thor speaking!

Edited by =VARP=Klingon
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =VARP=Klingon said:

Did you play SEOW with 3000-4000 static units and 100 +AI planes,and 130 and more players?If you are not, then you try ,and then you will see  what  =VARP=Thor mean to say!

 

You need to give people room for their opinion my friend. Tvrdi has started this topic/pool not to provoke, but to see if this game have long term capability to survive and became battle simulator. There was 17 000 copies sold, if i heard correctly, so multiply this with 50-100 $ or put monthly subscription and money will have steady stream. Who ever want hardcore stuff, will find money for his hobby. Currently we have to be satisfied with DF options and very little skirmish capabilities. What else can we do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, =VARP=Klingon said:

Did you play SEOW with 3000-4000 static units and 100 +AI planes,and 130 and more players?If you are not, then you try ,and then you will see  what  =VARP=Thor speaking!


That was a different game with a different set of priorities.  Developers can’t just magically make a game that does everything well.  The GB series is designed for tactical operations.  It’s not intended for large strategic bomber formations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:


That was a different game with a different set of priorities.  Developers can’t just magically make a game that does everything well.  The GB series is designed for tactical operations.  It’s not intended for large strategic bomber formations.

Currently the game cannot handle more than 60 players in fighters in MP (without performance issues for many). For some SP missions its even worse case as WD40 explained.

How do you think this engine will handle PTO scenario? There is no way it will work with carriers etc...just forget it.

Edited by =VARP=Tvrdi
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

How do you think this engine will handle PTO scenario? There is no way it will work with carriers etc...just forget it.


I agree.  It probably can’t handle all the AI needed for a carrier group.  That’s probably why PTO was postponed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =VARP=Klingon said:

Did you play SEOW with 3000-4000 static units and 100 +AI planes,and 130 and more players?If you are not, then you try ,and then you will see  what  =VARP=Thor speaking!

 

I just meant, that if the devs could make the current Il2 series any better in MP they would do...

I'm pretty sure they would not intentionally limit it to 40 a side if they didn't have to,

And if they could improve/introduce a better game engine without sacrificing the quality we have now i'm all for it.

What i wouldn't want to see is Il2 War Thunder just so there were more players in MP......

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what we have been doing all this time already. Each new map and module brings some improvement to what you call the game engine. Pretty sure that, in time, a major 'engine' overhaul might be needed, but personally I think this won't happen very soon, money or not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JG5_Schuck said:

What i wouldn't want to see is Il2 War Thunder just so there were more players in MP......

 

If stooping to War Thunder level is what is paying the bills, then I am all for it. Widening customer base like that may actually inject some badly needed cash to keep this boat afloat (and to fund the new graphics engine).

 

As long as "full realism" settings remain for the rest of us..

Edited by WheelwrightPL
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the game engine is fine. The sim looks great, certainly in the A2A, and I get honking good FPS.

 

What would be nice is if more were done with the engine as it is. The maps, for example, could be (much) better simply by being better populated and more alive, and an option could be be offered for low/med/high detail in that respect so each player could find his own balance between eye candy and performance. 

 

The post-apocalyptic lifelessness many of the maps suffer from is by choice, not an inability to make them better with the tools available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing apocalyptic is going to happen with this game engine; it is, after all, getting on a bit now.

What we will all need to pay for is the next generation flight sim with a new engine, hopefully with the current development team, and one that is able to cope with the complexities of the Pacific Air War. I don't think we'll be seeing large formations of bombers over Europe any time soon.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...