Jason's briefing room

[JG1_Vonrd]

A big Salute to you Jason... thank you!

 

[AndyJWest]

Yes, I think Jason deserves a great deal of praise for an open and honest response to the long-standing issues he's addressed in that post. Things clearly haven't been easy, and from what he says, it seems that the team have been putting a lot of effort into these issues - to the extent of looking into it out of work hours in some cases. I think it says a lot about the team that they are willing to do this, and we obviously owe them thanks too. They obviously care a great deal about IL-2 GB, and it shows...

 

[ZachariasX]

Thank you Jason!

[76IAP-Black]

That's why i like this game and the responsible Game Studio behind it! 

Thanks for the honest and open words! 

Best regards

Martin

[LLv24_SukkaVR]

Thank you Jason. Actually thank you so much that i just bought FC 2 just to support you guys, even i rarely fly WW1 birds.

[LeLv30_Redwing-]

Very honest and open-minded writing, thank you. Wishing you and the shorthanded Team all the best ?

[CountZero]

i like the sound of open beta for some changes

[[DBS]Browning]

I love the communication we get from Jason and the team. I hope that never changes. 

 

Sukka24 has bought FC2 as a thankyou despite not flying ww1, I'm going to buy FC2 also, despite not having a working GPU for quite some time. I value 777 enough for that. 

 

I have some concerns about an open beta test. 

Please, please don't make it like DCS where most people run the beta instead of the main release.

There are so many reasons that it's a bad idea. 

Do something to avoid that happening. Perhaps restricting features on the beta to make it unappealing for use other than testing. Just quick missions and a single, very basic multiplayer server might be enough to deter people from making it their main install. 

[CCG_Pips]

Many thanks for this letter and most of us will continue to support by playing regularly purhasing all contents.

 

However, I have an important point to raise. In order for new players to come to this IL-2 world, more "additional" content is needed.

 

First of all, Jason, can you just tell us with by yes or no if we will have one or two expansions to the Tank Crew series in the coming months?

 

Then and based on my experience of the excellent Finnish Virtual combat server, the following contents could be added which would give an extraordinary dimension to any multiplayer game system:

 

1 / Reconnaissance planes equipped with binoculars making it possible to provide real-time information to all the players of your side ... ground artillery positions, moving tanks etc ...

 

2 / planes and seaplanes or ships intended for the recovery of pilots shot down in enemy territories or at sea (on this subject ... pilots should be able to survive at sea after their landing thanks to life jackets ... it was the case in IL-2 1946 and this is no longer the case in IL-2 Bos) ....

 

3 / engineer trucks, making it possible to rearm / refuel / repair major damage to tanks outside their spawn zones ... also, engineer trucks, could go and repair bridges destroyed by enemy aircraft. .etc ...(in the case of IL-2 Bos...existing Russian Gaz AA truck is already a solid base to create such kind of truck)

 

4 / Infantry ... announced a few months ago, we have no news anymore. But it would bring an extremely important touch in the dimension of total war ...

 

 

Well, not everything can be done, I am aware of it, but these are ideas and directions that seem interesting to me.

 

[Trooper117]

See, this kind of post is exactly whats needed to remind people that the team is slogging away, they are still listening and still correcting faults, plus honestly admitting stuff goes wrong from time to time and that they are on it... Faith should be restored somewhat.

I know for me, the fact that the WWI side is getting attention is really welcome news.

[ST_Catchov]

Well said Jason. It just shows you how a concise acknowledgement/explanation and consequent course of action relating to customer concerns can calm the missus masses. It's been a long time coming but very welcome. I hope that FC sales go through the roof for the greater good of all concerned.

[Missionbug]

Good to know the team is able to accept certain things are not quite as they should be and find the time in a busy schedule to actually put those things right, congratulations to you all really appreciated.

 

The issues mentioned are so fundamental to each module that without a fix many players are finding playing their favourite modules such a chore that they are turning to other therapies to combat the weekly blues like drink and other flight sims, maybe even consoles.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[354thFG_Leifr]

Thank you Jason. ?

[RNAS10_Oliver]

Thanks for the post Jason. ?

 

As to the part about FC control damage issues that queries;

 

Quote

But why was it not so obvious when FC1 was first released?

 

I was of the belief that damage causing jamming/loose controls did not exist in Great Battles during the November 2019 update 4.001 that signalled the release of Flying Circus. 
 

At the least I certainly never experienced them in the game from the moment I came over to IL2 when Bodenplatte and Flying Circus were announced.

 

And I then first read about and experienced them being introduced around the June 2020 update 4.007 that was released. And believed the end result of such damage being jammed controls to have been the (inaccurate but nonetheless) intended one result of the update.

 

Quote

Damage modeling has been improved to take into account the control systems damage (rods, wires, etc.).

 

Quote

2. Aircraft control systems DM has been upgraded. The probability of losing control in a certain control axis depends on the control wires or rods configuration of a particular aircraft and existence of a reserve control channel (or its lack thereof);

 

 

That update is also where other FC players started to experience these control jams and also understood this to be a new feature in Great Battles. At least judging from this thread.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by RNAS10_Oliver

[Talisman]

Many thanks Jason and team.  Top bloke, top team! 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[354thFG_Panda_]

Jason my man and the 1C team, thank you so much! 

[J2_Bidu]

The way to the top does not always climb. Great that you are taking us steadily onwards.

 

And thanks for clearing things up!

[TheWarsimmer]

I remember when il-2 bos first released, and it has come a long way. I can't remember the exact time, but there was a specific point a year or so after release that the devs said they would start listening to and participating with the community. Imo, it is THE reason il-2 has become the success that it is, and I respect them greatly for the decision. I hope they decide to go forward with the open beta. This sim is so many times better than it was at release, and there is really only one or two major issues left with it imo. They have done great work.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

The IL2 Devs are some of the most dedicated Devs I've seen for any game, and it's obvious that at least the core of the team really cares about their product. And indeed, they have a great track record for solving issues. Which makes it painful to see some of the abuse, blackmail and hijacking the forum has suffered. Let's hope that those days are over...

 

Anyway, it shows awesome dedication that you guys dig into these issues outside of normal working hours, but don't overdo it! You've earned your spare time, and if you get a burnout from working too much, IL2 will run into even larger delays.

Edited September 11, 2021 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Denum]

Thanks for your efforts team!  

 

Fantastic post! 

 

 

I don't think anyone wants to point fingers with the DM issues. 

 

It happens. It's human. 

 

I'm just very happy it's been addressed. I've got about.. 2 months before I have to park my motorbike and iL2 becomes my stress outlet while the snow flies. 

 

Can't wait for the drop tanks. My Griffon is a thirsty girl!

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Denum

[Dauntless]

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

4 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

I love the communication we get from Jason and the team. I hope that never changes. 

 

Sukka24 has bought FC2 as a thankyou despite not flying ww1, I'm going to buy FC2 also, despite not having a working GPU for quite some time. I value 777 enough for that. 

 

I have some concerns about an open beta test. 

Please, please don't make it like DCS where most people run the beta instead of the main release.

There are so many reasons that it's a bad idea. 

Do something to avoid that happening. Perhaps restricting features on the beta to make it unappealing for use other than testing. Just quick missions and a single, very basic multiplayer server might be enough to deter people from making it their main install. 

Open beta should be available for few days only to test new features and it must have open beta multiplayer server,  similar to Berloga where you can fast see changes in action.  Most complaints came from multiplayer customers  as  .50 , control surfaces jamming  and weak  wings in FC .

Edited September 11, 2021 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Denum]

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

Open beta should be available for few days only to test new features and it must have open beta multiplayer server, 

 

Absolutely agree.

 

It should be about a week or two depending on how significant of a change. 

 

But available all the time would be unnecessary, atleast in my opinion. 

 

 

[AndyJWest]

I'd think that decisions as to how long a specific open beta test needs to run and how exactly the content can be used would probably depend on what is being tested, and accordingly are best left to the developers to decide as and when the need arises. It certainly doesn't seem to be a good idea to get people thinking that betas are scheduled updates, one stage early. We've seen the sort of consequences this can have, with DCS, where almost everyone uses the open beta, for the 'latest features', and than complains that there are bugs.

[Trooper117]

''Setting up a public beta test system will take some time and we are not even big fans of this idea, but we are probably going to try it at least on this next damage revision''     

 

Jason isn't a fan of the idea... and yes, I can see already the whinging that might follow, but if it goes to pot the onus will be on the new testers... and if it causes grief, you can bet the devs won't let it happen again. They clearly have enough on their plates as it is.

[Avimimus]

The dedication of this team is amazing!

 

Two quick comments (@Jason_Williams):

 

1. WWI

 

My main conjecture is that the wing failure issue on WWI aircraft is due to the lack of modelling of the wing interior structure (or at least the bracing wires) in sufficient detail... as a result the complexity of bullets either only hitting fabric or hitting spars/ribs or hitting joints isn't modelled. Honestly, I don't see a way to do this cheaply. I personally think we should be content.

 

That said, pilot seats currently provide too much protection against upward firing Lewis guns... making pilots almost invulnerable to historical attacks from below. I also suspect that the sim could model through adding hitboxes for spine, heart, and head to the WWI pilots (in order to make wounding to aircrew less predictable).

 

2. WWII

 

As for bullets - I am personally quite satisfied with the heavy machine guns. However, I would like to request an examination of the rifle calibre guns... particularly their penetration, but also perhaps the amount of damage delivered as the bullet yaws once inside the aircraft. If it is the case that the penetration should be slightly higher for the early I-16 and IAR-80 it will be a blessing for these types.

 

That said, I think how convergence is handled is an issue for the 0.50 cal (both for realism and gameplay). If an option could be added to use 'historical convergence' which allows loading pre-loaded settings for each gun - that would allow realistic modelling of the actual convergence settings on American fighters. It would also have the benefit of bringing historical settings to other aircraft (e.g. the FW-190 having its guns converge at a different distance for each type of gun).

 

Thank you, as always for your time, patience, and clarity of communication.

 

[Denum]

24 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

As for bullets - I am personally quite satisfied with the heavy machine guns. However, I would like to request an examination of the rifle calibre guns...

 

Well... They're actually pretty close in terms of performance I think. 

 

As an example

.303 AP should penetrate 10m of armor at 100 yards. 

 

 

The .303 won't penetrate the armor on later 109s, so killing the pilot is quite tricky. So your only hope is to damage the engine. 

 

Link for relevant data here on an F4. 

 

 

I'm hoping when they check into the damage model they can add more subsystem damage and perhaps make engine leaks a bit more threatening. That's where the rifle rounds really shined. I know there's a fine balance between fun and realism at play also.

 

 

What's pretty neat is you can see where the offensive armament doctrine diverged between American and British aircraft here. 

 

The British were having difficulty developing their own .50 Vickers for aircraft and opted to focus on cannons as they felt it was a requirement to keep up with the increasing armor on Luftwaffe aircraft. The Americans had issues making a reliable cannon and stuck with .50s. The Luftwaffe never armored their aircraft enough to make the .50s ineffective. 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Denum

[[DBS]TH0R]

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

Open beta should be available for few days only to test new features and it must have open beta multiplayer server,  similar to Berloga where you can fast see changes in action.  Most complaints came from multiplayer customers  as  .50 , control surfaces jamming  and weak  wings in FC .

 

Absolutely from me as well. This should then also allow for server recorded tracks and comparison with client ones.

[Avimimus]

18 minutes ago, Denum said:

 

Well... They're actually pretty close in terms of performance I think. 

 

As an example

.303 AP should penetrate 10m of armor at 100 yards. 

 

The .303 won't penetrate the armor on later 109s, so killing the pilot is quite tricky. So your only hope is to damage the engine. 

 

Link for relevant data here on an F4. 

 

[...]

 

I'm hoping when they check into the damage model they can add more subsystem damage and perhaps make engine leaks a bit more threatening. That's where the rifle rounds really shined. I know there's a fine balance between fun and realism at play also.

 

 

Very interesting! Still though, even if we assume that a 0.303 loses a couple of millimetres of penetration due to bullet yaw after penetrating the skin of the aircraft... shouldn't it still have a decent chance of penetrating the 5mm-8mm of protection on German bombers - especially if one considers the fact that some bullets penetrate better than others.

 

The ShKAS apparently could do 7-8mm at 200 yards, which suggest similar performance at point-blank ranges. Of course, one would need to assess the different ways of measuring penetration (i.e. does the round have to penetrate through, or just produce a dent that shows light? How many rounds have to penetrate at that range - 70% or 100%?)... and then there is the aforementioned yaw from penetrating the aircraft's outer skin - so it isn't that simple to research.

 

I do think that they should occasionally penetrate the armoured seats of Axis bombers when fired at very close ranges... and overall smaller ball & AP rounds might do more damage to components due to internal ricochets (something which is less likely for the high calibre AP rounds that should have more predictable trajectories inside of the aircraft).

[Denum]

Here's the armor on a HE111, I'm not certain which model. So it's just an example. 

 

I've had my best success downing these from either head on or directly above. Low six, dead six was hit and miss and usually at great cost to me because the gunners are particularly violent. ?

 

From dead six they are actually fairly well protected.  The Ju88s were apparently more heavily armored also. 

 

One thing to mention is that they were also shooting API which resulted in fires more often. If/when that's added to the game no one can. Personally I hope it does come at some point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jade_Monkey]

One of the reasons why I stuck to IL2 other than acutally loving the product is the dev team and their constant effort to improve the product. 

Very few games/sims get support and updates for a module released several years ago.

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, Denum said:

Here's the armor on a HE111, I'm not certain which model. So it's just an example. 

 

I've had my best success downing these from either head on or directly above. Low six, dead six was hit and miss and usually at great cost to me because the gunners are particularly violent. ?

 

From dead six they are actually fairly well protected.  The Ju88s were apparently more heavily armored also. 

 

One thing to mention is that they were also shooting API which resulted in fires more often. If/when that's added to the game no one can. Personally I hope it does come at some point.

 

Very interesting.  eah... I definitely see that... penetrating the sloped skin will induce yaw, then impacting G plate... before reaching C plate... not much is going to get through.  So you may well be right that I'm over-estimating the vulnerability of the pilot from most angles.

 

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the overall damage from bullet ricochets is under modelled for the small calibre weapons... (and it might be worth double checking the penetration data in some cases).

 

I know people cite the British requirement of 8 machine guns as evidence for how ineffective they were... but (1) pre-war armament doctrine required being able to shoot down a bomber in a single pass from any angle and (2) no one can argue that they weren't ineffective when the comparison is with 20mm Hispano cannons. It doesn't necessarily mean that, say, a Gloster Gladiator's armament was totally ineffective.

 

However, when one considers that the Luftwaffe lost ~285 aircraft in Poland, and ~105 of those were claimed by Polish fighters, and ~2/3rds of Polish fighters were armed with only two machine guns... it does suggest that even a pair of rifle-calibre machine guns were capable of bringing down a German bomber... Louis Jacobsen, flying a Gloster Gladiator in Norway, claimed three He-111, with an additional He-111 and a Ju-88 as 'probable' during one sortie (amongst other examples).

 

Now all of these kill claims could be mistaken over-estimates... but there is also the possibility that we're missing something regarding how rifle calibre machine guns performed after penetrating an aircraft... especially when fired at close range.

 

P.S. Do you have more information on the plate-thicknesses?

Edited September 11, 2021 by Avimimus

[javelina]

great update, thank you Jason!

[Denum]

26 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

However, when one considers that the Luftwaffe lost ~285 aircraft in Poland, and ~105 of those were claimed by Polish fighters, and ~2/3rds of Polish fighters were armed with only two machine guns... it does suggest that even a pair of rifle-calibre machine guns were capable of bringing down a German bomber... Louis Jacobsen, flying a Gloster Gladiator in Norway, claimed three He-111, with an additional He-111 and a Ju-88 as 'probable' during one sortie (amongst other examples).

 

Early war fighters like the B series 109s were lightly armored if at all.

 

Early war was a different animal. So machine guns would have been very effective still. If I recall correctly the E3s were the first 109s with pilot armor. 

 

In regards to the bombers in some cases if an aircraft was leaking coolant they'd actually count that as a kill. The reason for that is with enough engine damage the probability of making home was at the extreme ends of unlikely. 

 

They didn't run very long while leaking coolant. In some cases pilots had mere minutes to either perform a forced landing or bail out before the engine died. This is where iL2 is perhaps a bit generous. 

 

I haven't had much luck finding how thick those plates are just yet, but I'm sure they'd be atleast 8mm. 

 

 

I found on other games that early war was quite a bit of fun. Slow nimble aircraft with machine guns but fancier then a WW1 kite. It's a good mix of both worlds IMO.

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Denum

[Cybermat47]

11 minutes ago, Denum said:

Early war fighters like the B series 109s were lightly armored if at all.

 

I don't think the B-series 109s were in frontline service by September 1939, IIRC it was all Ds and early Es.

 

Their armour was similarly lacking AFAIK, though, so your point still stands.

Edited September 11, 2021 by Cybermat47

[Rjel]

That was an excellent read. From the get go, I’ve felt Jason and his team have been very responsive to the community. We’ve been privy to information about future plans for this series more than any other game I’ve ever been around. There is still so much to enjoy in this sim, so much to explore and simply so much repeat play value, that those outweigh any negatives or single issues like those mentioned in his post. I much prefer to enjoy what this sim has to offer than focus on what it might not do or doesn’t do with 100% accuracy. The team’s track record of problem solving is exceptional. As Jason’s post points out, they’re working on several areas of concern, often on their own time it appears.  Given the times we live and their limited resources currently, they’ve earn my continued support and gratitude.

[sonnykims]

 

The team’s track record of problem solving is exceptional. As Jason’s post points out, they’re working on several areas of concern, often on their own time it appears.  Given the times we live and their limited resources currently, they’ve earn my continued support and gratitude.

 

DITO the above. ... I love this sim. Hours of relaxation thanks to "The Team."

[Lusekofte]

On 9/11/2021 at 10:17 AM, [DBS]Browning said:

I love the communication we get from Jason and the team. I hope that never changes. 

 

Sukka24 has bought FC2 as a thankyou despite not flying ww1, I'm going to buy FC2 also, despite not having a working GPU for quite some time. I value 777 enough for that. 

 

I have some concerns about an open beta test. 

Please, please don't make it like DCS where most people run the beta instead of the main release.

There are so many reasons that it's a bad idea. 

Do something to avoid that happening. Perhaps restricting features on the beta to make it unappealing for use other than testing. Just quick missions and a single, very basic multiplayer server might be enough to deter people from making it their main install. 

I am not sure beta release is for this community. 

I find it very satisfying in DCS because I do not read anything in ED  forum. And it is stable in my rig.

Like many others English is not easy for me to get the right meaning out. And I come off pretty often as rude and demanding in my post. Often when intention was opposite

I think that is happening a lot with other, mix that up with passion, and some counter replies from other members and you get a highly explosive mix.

Before I confused my own interest and ambitions for this game with our collective and devs ambitions.

And went on frontal attacks for this reason.

I think that also might be happening to our new users. They somehow feel cheated and blame all others for their 60 bucks.

The conspiracy theories about devs not caring or know but refuse. Is a damn lie and very unpolite. They have proved otherwise all these years.

So I rather choose to ignore these few dramaqueens making a fuzz about .50's

I can make perfect use of them myself.

 

[Denum]

3 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

So I rather choose to ignore these few dramaqueens making a fuzz about .50's

I can make perfect use of them myself.

 

 

I'll keep that in mind when there's something that's heavily effecting gameplay for the singleplayer community and insist that "since I can make it work, it shouldn't be dealt with and you're all a bunch of a whiners" 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Denum

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, Denum said:

 

I'll keep that in mind when there's something that's heavily effecting gameplay for the singleplayer community and insist that "since I can make it work, it shouldn't be dealt with and you're all a bunch of a whiners" 

 

 

 

 

 

It is no dispute about .50 cal. It is just how many times it got to be brought up. And answered. I rather call it being nagging than whining