Within the scope of IL2's existing feature functionality, what is the most important issue that you want to see addressed? PLEASE READ DESCRIPTION BEFORE VOTING!

[QB.Creep 590]

The options for this poll were derived from this poll which was distributed across many Discord servers in the IL2 community. Because this forum's poll feature does not allow respondents to add their own answers to poll questions (and because the level of specificity will vary so much if people do that), the options available are high-level and encompass a wide range of specific concerns. Please choose whichever option most closely aligns with your specific concern. 

 

Note that the scope of this poll is constrained to existing feature functionality - e.g., "more planes" or "pacific theatre" are not valid responses for this poll.

 

If your issue is not represented by one of the options, please choose "Other" and then reply to the topic with the issue you had in mind. If the issue is within the scope of the poll and it is not covered by one of the existing poll questions, it will be added as an option.

 

Thanks in advance for participating!

Edited February 14 by QB.Creep

[Enigma89 98]

Netcode

[=OPFR=ColNinny 127]

netcode yes

damage model yes

[QB.Creep 590]

7 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

Netcode

I'm sorry I don't understand your response - this is covered by option #4: 

5 minutes ago, =OPFR=ColNinny said:

netcode yes

damage model yes

Same thing... both are options - please choose the one which is your #1 concern. Trying to understand what this response means...

Edited February 14 by QB.Creep

[Enigma89 98]

2 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

I'm sorry I don't understand your response - this is covered by option #4: 

Same thing... both are options - please choose the one which is your #1 concern. Trying to understand what this response means...

That's what I voted for, just wanted to say it also

[So_ein_Feuerball 89]

Thx for this poll. 

I like how its limits are realistic and achievable for the devs instead of stupidly ambitious.

 

If I had more than one vote and could weigh those votes, I´d argue for the following three:

 

1. Netcode (more players, AI, Bombers etc.)
2. VR optimisation (with a caveat)
3. Damage model

Though concerning VR optimisation, IL2 is already rather optimised for a game that was not specifically built for VR from the ground up.

So I would rather see a modernisation effort of the underlying engine in the sense of multithreaded CPU core utilisation. 

[QB.Creep 590]

The point is to determine the highest priority among. I think most people want all of these things.

[Redwo1f 346]

If recent posts concerning time dilation (seemingly affecting pretty much everyone in some capacity) is any indication, then that is suggesting some serious limitations in the engine/optimizations - so I'd like resources put to that for sure (and oops, I misvoted netcoding as coding/engine in general, my bad). -- so I guess my vote should be technically "other" (AI would be my 2nd choice).

Edited February 14 by Redwo1f

[So_ein_Feuerball 89]

8 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

The point is to determine the highest priority among. I think most people want all of these things.

Would be cool then if you added an option for CPU multithread utilisation specifically instead of under the overarching aegis of VR specific optimisation.

Edited February 14 by So_ein_Feuerball

[ThatRedcoat 2]

I just want something as simple as a queue system for full servers. Rather than waiting for it to drop to 83, spamming your mouse as fast as you can only to be kicked out as someone has a faster ssd than you 

[QB.Creep 590]

9 minutes ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

Would be cool then if you added an option for CPU multithread utilisation specifically instead of under the overarching aegis of VR specific optimisation.

I could change the option to make it more generic, but isn't that what any CPU/GPU optimization is for? Even if your PC is a potato, you can run it at beautiful settings in 2D mode...

[ZachariasX 2545]

It would be nice if the effect of ball rounds would be reviewed. On flimsy Sopwith they are fubar, yet they just tickle a 109.

 

It might even be that - as we have them - it is not even a problem of the bullets, but much rather what they enounter... I'm sure the solution to this is something that requires deeper thinking than just "making the 109 frial again".

[Missionbug 442]

For me the first option regarding damage should be the priority, anyone who bought into this series specifically to use the American warplanes has been short changed as far as the primary armament of their types are concerned, that and the 109 tail issue are long overdue for fixing, no one wants below par features like these two, both are detrimental to the communities regard of the series.

 

We do not require perfection, however, within the bounds of our make believe world something close is imperative, damaged aircraft that fly on regardless of the sustained impairment to flight characteristics is another aspect that is beyond belief even within our electric world.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[QB.Creep 590]

1 hour ago, Redwo1f said:

If recent posts concerning time dilation (seemingly affecting pretty much everyone in some capacity) is any indication, then that is suggesting some serious limitations in the engine/optimizations - so I'd like resources put to that for sure (and oops, I misvoted netcoding as coding/engine in general, my bad). -- so I guess my vote should be technically "other" (AI would be my 2nd choice).

Can you explain what you mean by time dilation? Are you saying you want increased ticks in multiplayer gameplay? If so, then I think netcode would fit the bill, but maybe I'm not understanding the ask.

1 hour ago, ThatRedcoat said:

I just want something as simple as a queue system for full servers. Rather than waiting for it to drop to 83, spamming your mouse as fast as you can only to be kicked out as someone has a faster ssd than you 

Added, then removed it. I don't think this qualifies as "existing features and functionality" - many multiplayer games do not have a queueing system. 

Edited February 14 by QB.Creep

[RedKestrel 3588]

I was torn between Netcode and DM, and maybe in the long term I feel like netcode is more important for the entire sim. But I also feel like the DM is more achievable and for myself would have a more immediate impact, so I chose DM.

Hard to choose honestly, but it was between those two. None of the other factors come close for me at the moment.

[Redwo1f 346]

47 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

Can you explain what you mean by time dilation?

 

It is essentially the slowing down in fluidity, even though fps stays high - sometimes people call it the "slow-mo effect" . The sim engine clock does not match the rate of real time real life progression (is slower), even though things visually are flowing smoothly (eg. 1 minute 15 sec real life time may equal 1 min sim game time - yet no frame rate reductions).

 

(and no, it is not multiplayer related per se - but core engine related (and seems to be what is looking like a relationship to the number of "thinking" entities in mission)).

Edited February 14 by Redwo1f

[SvAF/F16_lassekongo 4]

My biggest absolute wish is for the mosquito to get the mk3 low level bombsight and that the me 410 along with the ju87 stuka, ju88 gets the stuvi 5 bombsight. If there are dedicated bombsight available for the p47 and p38 that would be awsome to add as well but i dont actually know how common low level bombsights for the p47 and p38 was as finding info about it is hard so based on that so maybe there wasnt any. But the mk3 and stuvi can be added as both sides can utilise it. 

[Eisenfaustus 264]

As I don’t fly MP and am actually by  now quite satisfied with fm/dm/ai and be I voted other:

 

I‘d love if the already cool career mode  would get some more love - especially the Rheinland career. 
 

Random encounters on route, more variety in planes, height, weather and daytime, historic mission profile (airfield protection missions for III/JG54 eg)

 

I‘m very much looking forward to the letters/numbers thingy we were teased

[Leifr 344]

Damage model and netcode are the two most important, especially the latter for longevity.

[6./ZG26_Custard 1829]

Correct implementation of ammunition for the M2 (API) and more complex fuel and internal system management/damage. 

 

 

[QB.Creep 590]

44 minutes ago, Redwo1f said:

 

It is essentially the slowing down in fluidity, even though fps stays high - sometimes people call it the "slow-mo effect" . The sim engine clock does not match the rate of real time real life progression (is slower), even though things visually are flowing smoothly.

 

(and no, it is not multiplayer related per se - but core engine related (and seems to be what is looking like a relationship to the number of "thinking" entities in mission)).

Thank you for the explanation. I should have been more clear in my question... To what end? In other words, how will this improve the existing gameplay? I don't want to add very specific poll options like this - do you think an existing high-level category could be rephrased to capture this?

32 minutes ago, SvAF/F16_lassekongo said:

My biggest absolute wish is for the mosquito to get the mk3 low level bombsight and that the me 410 along with the ju87 stuka, ju88 gets the stuvi 5 bombsight. If there are dedicated bombsight available for the p47 and p38 that would be awsome to add as well but i dont actually know how common low level bombsights for the p47 and p38 was as finding info about it is hard so based on that so maybe there wasnt any. But the mk3 and stuvi can be added as both sides can utilise it. 

To me, this is out of scope for "existing features and functionality". Please let me know if you disagree and if so, please clarify why it is not.

23 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

As I don’t fly MP and am actually by  now quite satisfied with fm/dm/ai and be I voted other:

 

I‘d love if the already cool career mode  would get some more love - especially the Rheinland career. 
 

Random encounters on route, more variety in planes, height, weather and daytime, historic mission profile (airfield protection missions for III/JG54 eg)

 

I‘m very much looking forward to the letters/numbers thingy we were teased

I believe this is out of scope too, since all of the things you mentioned are enhancements and not fixes to existing feature or functionality. Let me know if you disagree!

[CountZero 1981]

21 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

Thank you for the explanation. I should have been more clear in my question... To what end? In other words, how will this improve the existing gameplay? I don't want to add very specific poll options like this - do you think an existing high-level category could be rephrased to capture this?

...

Slow downs happend where there is to many units in mission for game to handle it on PC player have, also you cant realy have 2x speed or more as its bearly 1x.

So adresing this alow more imersed missions for SP wth more units and so on i would guess.

 

My vote is for DM.

[QB.Creep 590]

6 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Slow downs happend where there is to many units in mission for game to handle it on PC player have, also you cant realy have 2x speed or more as its bearly 1x.

So adresing this alow more imersed missions for SP wth more units and so on i would guess.

 

My vote is for DM.

Hmm, perhaps the netcode option should be broader to include this as well?

 

[CountZero 1981]

Dont think it should be together, its problem of how game engine is not using CPU power and cores of it i think, old game engine for new multi core PCs of today.

[Enceladus 474]

I would want to see the issue with pilots instantly dying when parachuting into most bodies of water in the game fixed, as well as pilots being unable to exit their aircraft after landing. The latter you can do in TC, hence it should also happen for pilots as well.

 

Edited February 15 by Enceladus

[-332FG-Razor_ 25]

I've got no idea how no one else selected flight model... It's such an important thing to have realistic handling, although I get why people want so much a change for the damage model.

[QB.Creep 590]

10 minutes ago, -332FG-Razor_ said:

I've got no idea how no one else selected flight model... It's such an important thing to have realistic handling, although I get why people want so much a change for the damage model.

I mean, some people did. But it's about priority... "what's your #1 concern"?

[-332FG-Razor_ 25]

Agreed. 

[VBF-12_Stick-95 1036]

I voted for Netcode of the items listed.  I really think priority ought to be given to infrastructure vs "feature functionality".  What I really think is most important to expanding the game as well as longevity is an update of the game engine allowing for more complex objects, such as carriers, without major impact to frame rates.

[II./JG77_Manu* 907]

"Netcode optimization (support for more players, AI, bombers, etc)" -> AI and bombers are limited by the game engine and not so much by the netcode. So this rather plays into the so called "VR optimization" which in reality is rather an overall game engine optimization. 

[kendo 513]

I voted 'Other' .

 

Specifically: improved radio and tactical flight control options in single player.

 

(comes close to being classified as AI, but not quite)

[=TH=mincer 382]

DM is a no brainer. A lot of good Allies players simply abandoned the game because of it. We want them back before it is too late.

[Avimimus 625]

Wow... the initial responders are clearly part of the multi-player minority... how can I tell? Netcode and damage model (which is usually actually a net code issue).

 

Meanwhile we've had patches where you could scare AI bombers into flying upside down, losing control and corkscrewing into the ground... over aggressive AI... AI which still falls into gentle circling turns (old Rise of Flight issue)... there have been lots of improvements, but AI still really hampers single player experience.

 

Anyway, my list would be more along the lines of:

- AI improvements

- AI situational awareness modelling (i.e. calling out targets to the player, losing track of targets after a pass, regrouping if separated).

- Campaign missions which are shorter (10-15 minutes, using time-skip, or failing that, only taking place near the target area)

- An easy to use mission editor

- Ground target diversity and templates

- More AI aircraft types

 

That is a single-player focused list.

[QB.Creep 590]

11 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Wow... the initial responders are clearly part of the multi-player minority...

Thanks for the response! Where is your evidence to support the claim that multiplayer is the minority of the player base? How do you know who plays only multiplayer, only singleplayer, or both?

[RedKestrel 3588]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Wow... the initial responders are clearly part of the multi-player minority... how can I tell? Netcode and damage model (which is usually actually a net code issue).

 

The damage model issues specifically referred to here are not netcode related, as there has been significant testing done offline and off and the results are mostly the same. At most, the netcode exacerbates existing issues. The issues are more apparent in online play because your opponents are much more likely to maneuver violently, which limits time on target and exposes issues. If you are fighting docile AI it is not hard to target vulnerable portions of the airframe and achieve a kill with a 1 second burst. In online play, where maneuvering is extreme, there is a large disparity between someone who has to precisely target pilot/engine and the pilot who just has to land a hit somewhere on the plane.

People on the forum are probably much more likely to fly MP, but a large number of people fly both. All you have to do is look at the people with squadron tags posting in the scripted campaigns section. I have no doubt that single-player is the 'majority' but probably not by as much as people think. And if MP is a small number of players, there is an argument there that it is easier to grow that customer base.

 

It is also apparent, from how the servers look after every plane is released, that MP players are extremely likely to pre-order content in order to get it as soon as possible. If you go on voice comms with people and you say you don't own a plane yet, you usually get a chorus of people telling you to go and buy it now!

There is a dedicated AI programmer working on the AI and there are incremental improvements nearly every update, so clearly the devs are prioritizing it. There have been a few tweaks to online stuff but nothing major. The major server administrators are doing herculean work to get around instability in the Dserver software and make interesting missions, which masks issues the software has.

That said, optimization of the AI and mission logic would benefit both SP and MP, since those are major drags for complex missions of any type. 

[Avimimus 625]

3 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

Thanks for the response! Where is your evidence to support the claim that multiplayer is the minority of the player base? How do you know who plays only multiplayer, only singleplayer, or both?

 

My source is comments over several years by Il-2 developers (both the current ones and Oleg Maddox)...

 

I don't recall the exact numbers but it was somewhere less than 10-15% ever go online. The vast majority of the market is single-player apparently.

 

 

2 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

There is a dedicated AI programmer working on the AI and there are incremental improvements nearly every update, so clearly the devs are prioritizing it. There have been a few tweaks to online stuff but nothing major. The major server administrators are doing herculean work to get around instability in the Dserver software and make interesting missions, which masks issues the software has.

 

Yeah, I'm not complaining really - just observing that the initial poll response seems a bit more online focussed.

 

To be honest, I'm personally extremely satisfied with the damage model. The only area I'd really like to see improvement is an increased ability to hit aircrew from below in Flying Circus (their seats seem to protect them from the Lewis). Also a more complex wounding model with a couple of extra hit-boxes (or even just a 'crit' probability) so that the chance of killing a pilot with a single-bullet is a bit higher. Ideally, Flying circus would also add modelling of wing spars and wires... but that would be a lot of work.

 

But, as for BoX/Great Battles... I'm actually really satisfied - although the I-16 with just machine guns can be frustrating, and there is a lack of gun jams (which were a significant downside to carrying the Mk-108). I do feel that the overall damage resistance of aircraft is pretty realistic though.

Edited February 17 by Avimimus

[=AW=drewm3i-VR 71]

VR optimizations, yes.

 

AI reduced cpu usage and improved ability, yes.

 

Damage model, systems modeling, yes.

 

Increased .50s damage and reduced HE rounds, yes.

[[DBS]Browning 1100]

I'd like to see more realistic stalls and spins. Many planes known for their deadly spins can't enter stable spins at all ingame.

[sniperton 357]

On 2/14/2021 at 7:35 PM, QB.Creep said:

The point is to determine the highest priority among. I think most people want all of these things.

 

I'm primarily an SP gamer. I voted for DM, because

(1) it needs to be fixed to comply with common sense;

(2) both MP and SP can benefit from it, and

(3) it's a relatively easy fix compared to others where an overhaul of the game code is needed.

 

My second preference would be CPU optimization together with AI optimization.

It's not the same as netcode, which I find otherwise very important in the third rank.

Currently you can have nice visuals even on a potato PC, but you can't have as many AI units as you could have in the old game. Some cows on the field may limit your air combat possibilities.

This is still a WWI game with WWII units due to limitations of the game engine.

 

Edited February 22 by sniperton

[Feathered_IV 7012]

Other:

 

1/ Crushingly repetitive AI radio chatter

 

2/ Rapidly vanishing smoke & flame effects from destroyed targets