IL2 need to keep up

[GOZR]

Need new textures for basically all cockpits .. a good ratio size of cockpit for human size also a good head placement..  I love it but it's getting outdated quickly  DCS understand this..  IL2 need to do the same.. revamp existing aircraft with some TLC on FM

starting to look cartoonish..  we have a great sim to built on lets adapt.. optimizing for Good FPS

 

1-New textures interior and more poly 3D details of interiors

2-Light effects on textures internal like exteriors..

3- More TLC on FM 

4-Clickable cockpits ( VR and Gloves ) for fine tunings and really appreciate the sim

5- What the community can do to help.?. many artists here ..  Jason !

Edited May 13, 2021 by GOZR

[Eisenfaustus]

If this can be done without troubling my old rig and without delaying more pressing improvements and additions, why not?

[[DBS]Browning]

 

Saying "IL-2 should match DCS's systems modeling and cockpits" makes no more sense than saying "DCS should match IL-2's price per plane".

IL2 is not trying to be a better version of DCS.
They are fundamentally different products that focus their efforts in different areas.

 

[Mtnbiker1998]

Meh. my 2060 Super runs IL-2 in VR at close to max settings, looks great in my headset. DCS stutters on the lowest and is still barely playable, looks like garbage and spotting aircraft is nearly impossible through the jaggy mess of pixels. 

 

DCS will claim its "BuIlT fOr FuTuRe HaRdWaRe" but yet 5 years from now they'll have added even more useless eye candy that will still bring current hardware to its knees. If you've been playing DCS since the old 1.2 days you'll know this is true. Still the same lifeless, boring game with broken multiplayer it was in 2008 but now with pretty clouds (and thats to say nothing of the fact that they'd been teasing those new clouds "Coming soon" since the 1.2 days.)

 

One of many reasons I won't give ED another cent of my money. IL-2 Devs, please don't follow their example. 

[[-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR]

Dcs and Il2 being manned by Russians have something in common however, We should be grateful for Il2 being as playable and affordable as it is.

VR in Il2 is biggest selling point other things we could wish to be improved but realistically we don't have to many reasons for major complaints as opposed to other sim.

[SharpeXB]

10 hours ago, GOZR said:

DCS understand this..

You know it took DCS 9 years to make 6 WWII aircraft right?

I like both these games and I appreciate the difference focus of each one. But I won’t pretend that one game can have every feature all at once. That would be impossible. 

[DBFlyguy]

DCS is not IL2 and IL2 is not DCS.  Just use both sims and enjoy them for their strengths and hope they both continue to improve. 

 

 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, [-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR said:

VR in Il2 is biggest selling point

I would be curious to know the actual numbers. According to the Navigraph Survey only 11-12% of flight sim players use VR and that number has remained flat for the last three years.

[DBFlyguy]

9 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I would be curious to know the actual numbers. According to the Navigraph Survey only 11-12% of flight sim players use VR and that number has remained flat for the last three years.

I have VR but barely use it, its just so much easier and convenient to use track IR.  IL2 is the light years better than DCS when it comes to VR though, I get great frames and good picture in IL2 while VR in DCS is just an absolute resource whore unless you've got NASA rig.

[GOZR]

Ok first guys read.. I do not compare bot sims .. I just remember the decision made not to have clickable cockpit on Oleg IL2  I know..  but now decade later we should have the option..  I would pay 40$ per plane if it was full fidelity.. not 20 like how it is today.  So again I said basically DCS understand that it has to update it's 3D and textures aircraft .. Il2 as well got the point this is why there are new 4K textures coming up.. but i rather have shade effects and lights than 4K that taxed your GPu's Vram. Stop finding excuses for something we can add and help. 3D models can be bumped by now .. look at the P40 barely above IL2 1946..  Now Yes VR will be the main purpose of sale this sim .. same DCS on that matter..  see the future is good for us the sim will last longer ..  with VR.. because now "with out VR" i can care less !! any aircraft is good.. any is fun and good to be able to learn well .. DCS has some short coming regarding head VR axis limits.. same as this sim before WE ask for in many times .. you guys are enjoying now what many ask and battle to have.  and it's normal today..   IMO  this Sim can be totally mind blowing if some things get a bit updated and more complex as an "option".  WW1 theatre for me is by far the more fun.. and skilled .  Gloves are coming and having using your hand as well is a blast .. even maybe doing hand signal as communications as it was.   My point is...  if we can as a community we can help..  I can start a team and very make a difference if this is accepted and all for the benefit of all..   I give you an example .. making the FM better for as example the yak and early soviet aircraft ..  the plane is ok  but just some details need to be added ..  I know because I did fly 8 different Yak9UM in RL and more.  So as a small team we could actually make a positive difference as optional.  Jason had a good sens of it..  and I appreciate his way..  we can help 

Edited May 13, 2021 by GOZR

[BraveSirRobin]

You can’t help with clickpits, because that is definitely not happening.  

[Monksilver]

35 minutes ago, GOZR said:

  I would pay 40$ per plane if it was full fidelity. 

SharpXB says only 11-12% use VR. Of those how many have the VR gloves or will do?  Of the 8-9% how many will think the extra immersion is worth doubling the price of the planes? Doubling the price of the product for something that 90%+ of customers won't use is not the best marketing strategy.

 

Yours is a nice dream but I can't see it being more than that.

 

[GOZR]

2 minutes ago, Monksilver said:

SharpXB says only 11-12% use VR. Of those how many have the VR gloves or will do?  Of the 8-9% how many will think the extra immersion is worth doubling the price of the planes? Doubling the price of the product for something that 90%+ of customers won't use is not the best marketing strategy.

 

Yours is a nice dream but I can't see it being more than that.

 

How many TRACK IR guys when hat switches was a thing ?   same  have some vision..  Immersion is worth in any case. Any

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, GOZR said:

How many TRACK IR guys when hat switches was a thing ?  

TrackIR and VR are completely different things. Head tracking is much less expensive, even free. Plus is doesn’t change the system requirements for the game. VR requires an expensive headset and an expensive rig. For many reasons VR has failed to grab a significant share of the gaming market although I would agree that seated games like flight and racing are ideal for VR. Probably the reason so many people aren’t using VR is the system requirements/performance issues and that it’s actually too immersive. It will be interesting to see if MFS boosts VR adoption as the “killer app” it’s been waiting for. Then again MFS runs even worse than DCS. 

[Redwo1f]

1 hour ago, GOZR said:

 same  have some vision..  Immersion is worth in any case. Any

 

You are welcome to pay for my immersion. Or should I just buy and send you the bill? ?

[Oyster_KAI]

IMO, even if most people can pay $40 or $50 for an aircraft, the development energy of this small team can't handle it.
No one wants to wait 3 years for a full fidelity aircraft.
I saw that 1CGS started looking for 9 new devs vacancies for IL-2 team in March, and it seems that it's not easy to fill these vacancies.
I look forward to the expanded team being able to manage the existing SIM content very well and implement the engine update.

[Enceladus828]

1 minute ago, Oyster_KAI said:

IMO, even if most people can pay $40 or $50 for an aircraft, the development energy of this small team can't handle it.
No one wants to wait 3 years for a full fidelity aircraft.

What the devs could do after BON is fully released and after applying 4K skins and the DVD to all aircraft, they could start making existing planes have clickpits. It would be nowhere near the full fidelity that the DCS warbirds have, but you know the essential stuff... like what's in the Dover series. I mean, they could do it for 2 planes, and then do the same for another 2 planes six months later.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, Enceladus said:

What the devs could do after BON is fully released and after applying 4K skins and the DVD to all aircraft, they could start making existing planes have clickpits. It would be nowhere near the full fidelity that the DCS warbirds have, but you know the essential stuff... like what's in the Dover series. I mean, they could do it for 2 planes, and then do the same for another 2 planes six months later.

They could do lots of things, but they’re not doing this.  Jason has made that quite clear.

[unreasonable]

When you look at the high proportion of absolute garbage the mainstream gaming industry is pushing out these days, I am just amazed that we can have a functioning game/sim with so much scope, that still looks so good, and that is still being improved in a variety of ways. But let's be clear: it is not cheap, at least for those of us who support early access and do not wait for Steam sales.

 

I am not short of money, but if the planes were made much more expensive to enhance or add features I do not wish to use, like VR and clickpits,  I would be much more selective in which modules I buy. No more oddity aircraft I am likely to try out for one evening and then never use again.  No doubt some young buyers would be priced out of the game altogether.

 

In an ideal world, from my point of view, VR and clickpit functionality would be added by an optional DLC, priced so that the revenues from that DLC covered the cost of the work done on those modules, including cost of capital. Then the ultras could have their extra functionality, without expecting the rest of us to provide a massive subsidy. (Obviously I know that this would never happen).

 

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by unreasonable

[Cybermat47]

8 hours ago, GOZR said:

I would pay 40$ per plane if it was full fidelity..

Would anyone else? Would new players be willing to pay so much? Would that be a sustainable business model for the developers?

Edited May 14, 2021 by Cybermat47

[GOZR]

4 hours ago, Enceladus said:

What the devs could do after BON is fully released and after applying 4K skins and the DVD to all aircraft, they could start making existing planes have clickpits. It would be nowhere near the full fidelity that the DCS warbirds have, but you know the essential stuff... like what's in the Dover series. I mean, they could do it for 2 planes, and then do the same for another 2 planes six months later.

Yes

16 minutes ago, Cybermat47 said:

Would anyone else? Would new players be willing to pay so much? Would that be a sustainable business model for the developers?

I think so for a full develop plane yes.. IL2 was always ahead before.. I think there are a lot to add for the sim.  

[SharpeXB]

It’s been said on another thread with this topic, but all the main operation of a WWII aircraft can be accomplished with a HOTAS. Even in DCS you don’t use the click pit for anything other than starting up. The only scenario that you cold start in GB and CoD/DB is multiplayer. So it was rather a waste of this feature in CloD because you literally can’t use it in SP which is what most players do. 

For a sim that focuses on air battles which require many opposing aircraft, making them all so expensive hinders the development of the game. If BoS had followed the DCS level of detail, the IL-2 game we have today with 40 aircraft would have taken 60 years to make and cost $2,000

[von_Tom]

 

VR and clickpits are not that compatible either.  Fumbling around for the mouse might lead to beer spillage, or in my case pink cider or G&T.

 

von Tom

[unlikely_spider]

49 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Even in DCS you don’t use the click pit for anything other than starting up.

Well that's not true, at least for me.

[Enceladus828]

28 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

Well that's not true, at least for me.

Agree. In the Dover series I use it also to set the Directional Gyro (DG), select fuel tanks in case I have a fuel leak, turning the Fuel cocks and magnetos off if I have an engine fire, to drop the bombs all at once or one at a time, toggling the gunsight glare shield, etc.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

So it was rather a waste of this feature in CloD

Okay then, so why is TFS bothering to make planes have clickable cockpits in the IL-2 Dover series then, if it is a waste?

 

BTW, they are no longer a Mod team, they are now the official developers of this series. Also, just like 1CGS, their products need to be profitable for them to stay in business. If Desert Wings-Tobruk was not profitable then they wouldn't have released 20 patches since August 2020, nor would they be working on a 'yet to be announced' sequel.

[SharpeXB]

22 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Okay then, so why is TFS bothering to make planes have clickable cockpits in the IL-2 Dover series then, if it is a waste?

Sorry you just can’t use CloD as any sort of example to follow in flight sims. It was just about the greatest failure of a game in this genre. Yeah it’s been patched up over about ten years by a volunteer team but that hardly makes it an example of something to emulate. 

25 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Agree. In the Dover series I use it also to set the Directional Gyro (DG), select fuel tanks in case I have a fuel leak, turning the Fuel cocks and magnetos off if I have an engine fire, to drop the bombs all at once or one at a time, toggling the gunsight glare shield, etc.

All those commands could be done or are done with key presses in GB. If fuel management is added, and I believe it will be then again it’s a simple key press to toggle functions. 

[Enceladus828]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

you just can’t use CloD as any sort of example to follow in flight sims.

I would say the same about Flying Circus Vol. 1

[unlikely_spider]

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

All those commands could be done or are done with key presses in GB. If fuel management is added, and I believe it will be then again it’s a simple key press to toggle functions.

Maybe if it's modeled in an ultra-simplified state? But that was in response to my comment where I stated that in DCS I use the clickable cockpit functions in flight ALL the time. Each plane acts differently and there couldn't be a great solution to having key bindings for each function. For example, the procedure for turning off and getting rid of drop tanks in a FW involves a selector switch as well as turning off a circuit breaker, then pulling the release. And the P-51 has, what, five possible tanks to select from at any given time?

 

(And that's just talking about fuel. There's also radios, engine management, weapons selectors etc, that are different in each plane)

 

If those systems are modeled, it's soooo much better to be able to look down and physically interact with them then remembering which key bind on my horas is assigned to some esoteric function that only exists in one plane. For all the talk of the importance of immersion, there's no better addition to immersion than performing the procedures just like the actual pilots did 80 years ago. DCS is keeping that component alive much more than GB is.

[BraveSirRobin]

51 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

 

Okay then, so why is TFS bothering to make planes have clickable cockpits in the IL-2 Dover series then, if it is a waste?

 

Because the original developer made a really bad design decision and now the current developer is stuck with it.

28 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

I would say the same about Flying Circus Vol. 1

No one is using FC as a example to follow.  So you’d just be talking to yourself if you said that.

[AndyJWest]

If one were to believe some of the threads started on this forum, there isn't a single aspect of IL-2 GB that someone or another hasn't proposed needs a fundamental overhaul - graphics, AI, flight modelling, maps, aircraft systems, career, you name it. Which might lead one to surmise that the only option for the developers was to start again from scratch. And at some point, quite possibly they will. And expect people to pay for the new product, as a new product, not an upgrade. At which point there will no doubt be complaints from at least some of the advocates for 'overhaul' that they aren't getting it for free.

 

Meanwhile, people are currently getting significant improvements to content they have already purchased for nothing. Try persuading the Ford Motor Company to do the same thing...

[BraveSirRobin]

30 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

For all the talk of the importance of immersion, there's no better addition to immersion than performing the procedures just like the actual pilots did 80 years ago. DCS is keeping that component alive much more than GB

I find the task of trying to lock my eyes on a section of the cockpit while moving a mouse to click on a button to be the worst sort of immersion killer that anyone could possibly design.

[unlikely_spider]

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I find the task of trying to lock my eyes on a section of the cockpit while moving a mouse to click on a button to be the worst sort of immersion killer that anyone could possibly design.

? I mean... It's great for me? I'm in VR though so it works without issue on my end. I like looking at the gauges and switches and clicking them like the actual pilots did, vs having a million switches on a modern hotas and/or keyboard that a WW2 pilot did not have.

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, unlikely_spider said:

? I mean... It's great for me? I'm in VR though so it works without issue on my end. I like looking at the gauges and switches and clicking them like the actual pilots did, vs having a million switches on a modern hotas and/or keyboard that a WW2 pilot did not have.

I’m using track-ir and I find having to lock my vision on a button while moving a mouse around to be the absolute worst immersion killer.  It’s difficult to even think of a worse design.

 

You don’t need to use the keyboard, either.  

Just get this:  http://www.frozenpepper.it/ccp-2/

 

You can put all the buttons you need right on an iPad.  Better than clickpits by a lot. Clickpits suck.

[unlikely_spider]

8 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I’m using track-ir and I find having to lock my vision on a button while moving a mouse around to be the absolute worst immersion killer.  It’s difficult to even think of a worse design.

 

You don’t need to use the keyboard, either.  

Just get this:  http://www.frozenpepper.it/ccp-2/

 

You can put all the buttons you need right on an iPad.  Better than clickpits by a lot. Clickpits suck.

I'm in VR, unless I'm misunderstanding, I can't use that.

 

If clickpits suck so much, why does every other major sim use them? All the civ sims, etc

And if you don't like them in those other sims, you don't actually have to use them. You still can map whatever functions to any device you want. I feel like people forget that.

But the choice is what is great. If I jump into a plane that I haven't flown in a while and find that I haven't mapped a function to a key, then I don't have to Esc out and figure it out in flight (talking about immersion). I can just look at the dang switch in the cockpit and flick it. Then if I decide it's valuable enough to take a switch or button on my hotas, I can do that later. It's about freedom of choice.

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by unlikely_spider

[AndyJWest]

'Choice is great'. Yup. If you choose to purchase a product that doesn't have a specific feature, you can expect it to come at a price lower than something that does. As to whether the developers chose to add new features later, and supply them, free of charge, to customers who have already purchased, that is down to them. They certainly aren't obliged to do so, and are unlikely to be convinced by arguments that look more than a little like entitlement.

[BraveSirRobin]

4 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

I'm in VR, unless I'm misunderstanding, I can't use that.

 

If clickpits suck so much, why does every other major sim use them? All the civ sims, etc

 

Probably because they are useful for modern aircraft where there are lots of buttons or multi function screens.  It’s a somewhat necessary evil.  That isn’t the case with WW2 aircraft.  With WW2 aircraft there is no need for clickpits at all.

8 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

 

And if you don't like them in those other sims, you don't actually have to use them. 

 

 

But I’d still have to pay for it.  I have no interest in paying for completely useless, and expensive, functionality.

[unlikely_spider]

4 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Probably because they are useful for modern aircraft where there are lots of buttons or multi function screens.  It’s a somewhat necessary evil.  That isn’t the case with WW2 aircraft.  With WW2 aircraft there is no need for clickpits at all.

 

But I’d still have to pay for it.  I have no interest in paying for completely useless, and expensive, functionality.

And that is why GB aircraft all feel so much the same, compared to DCS craft. The price issue is a very valid argument, and one that I haven't gotten into. Mine was in response to a comment that said that with WW2 planes, clickpits are only used for startup, which is completely untrue in my case.

 

The WW2 planes in DCS are keeping the procedures alive that the actual pilots followed, and that has a lot of value, both in gameplay and historical terms. With GB they all have to be simplified so much so that it seems like I'm jumping into a much more arcadey experience when switching sims. And that's fine. But I'm saying that it's untrue that clickpits don't provide value for WW2 planes. It really is a much more authentic experience, assuming that all the systems are modeled.

[Enceladus828]

8 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Probably because they are useful for modern aircraft where there are lots of buttons or multi function screens.  It’s a somewhat necessary evil.  That isn’t the case with WW2 aircraft.  With WW2 aircraft there is no need for clickpits at all.

What about for bombers such as the Wellington, B-17, B-24, Lancaster, etc.? Those planes have large cockpits with many levers, buttons, switches and such (it's one of the reasons why bombers are usually the last aircraft to be completed). No doubt that if those planes are added in a TF 6.0 or TF 7.0 that they'll have clickpits.

 

And what about for all of these 1-2 seat non-Garmin planes that are in FSX, X-Plane, MSFS 2020, surely they have much less switches and such than in the cockpit a WW2 fighter, and yet they have clickable cockpits?

[BraveSirRobin]

12 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

What about for bombers such as the Wellington, B-17, B-24, Lancaster, etc.? 

 

Get some controllers with lots of buttons.

15 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

 

And what about for all of these 1-2 seat non-Garmin planes that are in FSX, X-Plane, MSFS 2020, surely they have much less switches and such than in the cockpit a WW2 fighter, and yet they have clickable cockpits?

 

So what?  Once you make the design decision to use clickpits you are stuck with it.

23 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

And that is why GB aircraft all feel so much the same, compared to DCS craft. 

 

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense.  

25 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

 

The WW2 planes in DCS are keeping the procedures alive that the actual pilots followed, and that has a lot of value, both in gameplay and historical terms.

 

Sorry, it adds no value whatsoever.

[unlikely_spider]

3 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense.

Quick and honest question - have you learned to operate one of the full-fidelity WW2 planes in DCS?

 

If not, then I think you're underestimating how complex these aircraft actually were.

 

They are much, much simpler to learn and operate in GB. I can basically spend one minute looking at the operating notes, jump in, then get into the air. Compare to the DCS manuals, which are hundreds of pages long.

9 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Sorry, it adds no value whatsoever

? Convincing argument!