When will there fourth generation il2?

[BraveSirRobin]

Send me your contact info.  @Gambit21

22 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 a little U-2VS with a radio has more firepower than anything else built!

Enola Gay.

Edited November 19, 2021 by BraveSirRobin

[Gambit21]

21 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I spend the summer in Greenville Maine.  They’re currently restoring a float C47 to flyable condition so that it can be sold.  Should I let them know that you are interested?

 

I'd forgotten there was such a thing...heart of mine be still!

[danielprates]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Thus the fiercest, and longest-term, "force parity"  fighting was land based. Guadalcanal/Solomons, New Guinea.

 

Oh man think of the wonderfully beautiful maps we would be flying in. Kuban-level beauty, more so even. 

[Gambit21]

2 minutes ago, danielprates said:

 

Oh man think of the wonderfully beautiful maps we would be flying in. Kuban-level beauty, more so even. 

 

I know...it's painful. 

[Oyster_KAI]

15 hours ago, Soilworker said:

One thing that bugs me about what is done on the current engine (however I don't know if it's a limitation or merely a design choice) is there is nothing metallic in the cockpits - by that I mean reflective (not including glass).

 

Everything metal in the cockpits is just textured to look metallic, it reminds me of gun models from early 2000's shooters (eg: Stalker), seeing as externally planes' metallic surfaces look amazing it annoys me that this isn't a feature of the internals, ie: where we spend most of our time. Just look at the latest DD, at the cockpit of the DFW C.V, great example.

 

I don't like talking bad of my favourite sim of which I'm 90% very happy, it's just quite an immersion killer for me. 

 

(Oh and before anyone says anything about the metal being dull and not very reflective, I'm not saying I want it to be polished chrome or anything but even very dull metal reflects in a way that still looks metallic.)

The Gun-sight knob of Yak-9 seems to use PBR metal texture correctly. It may take a lot of work to program each cockpit to contain enough realistic materials, but I think it will go there someday.

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I’m fully aware of the history of all these aircraft.  But I’m not the target audience.  Neither are you.  They’ve already got us.  For non WW2 dorks the PTO is carriers.

There aren’t any.  The fact that you can’t grasp that is the problem.

 

I'm quoting both of these comments because my answer is related to both.

 

I learned about the George and its semi-mythic exploits when I was six. It was in the manual of a WWII game my brother was playing. Fast forward to today where everyone can Google everything in five minutes. No one needs to have a fully stocked WWII library to know any of this. No one needs to be 'hardcore' to have heard about a Japanese plane other than the Zero.

 

Your other point also doesn't apply here. So, all of a sudden, IL-2 can only release modules that are appealing to a wide audience, outside of WWII interests? Since when has that ever been a goal? Or even remotely possible? 

 

By that logic, why did they bother making Kuban? Who outside of Russia cares, or even knows what or where, Kuban is? Or Bodenplatte. That's not common knowledge. Even Stalingrad isn't that important in the West.

 

This series has survived because it offers planes that no other title can, in levels of detail that no other title can. It can never have mass appeal to people who don't already care, at least superficially, about WWII aviation, or aviation in general. To care about detailed and realistic WWII planes is to assume you already care about the whole shebang.

 

Here's the real question to ask the potential sim gamer: do you want to fly some of the greatest fighter planes of WWII; or do you want to fly some of the greatest fighter planes of WWII in carrier battles?

 

Pretty sure that most simmers will jump at the mention of 'greatest fighter planes of WWII' and not stop to care about the how and where.

[BraveSirRobin]

18 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

By that logic, why did they bother making Kuban? Who outside of Russia cares, or even knows what or where, Kuban is? 

um… No one.  That’s why the next module was P-51, P-47, P-38, Tempest, Dora, and 262.  Duh.  They needed iconic aircraft or they were dead.   The Zero is iconic.  The George is only dorkonic.  

[Ribbon]

8 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Jason has clarified that the chief consideration in making 4 engine bombers is not technical limitation, but rather more trouble than it's worth from a development/economic standpoint.

 

Operating from that consideration, why would anyone think that developing several carriers, battleships, cruisers, and destroyers (to have an actual battle group and not just a carrier by itself), would be economically feasible or desirable for the current dev team? Above and beyond the inherent difficulties of making certain Japanese ships that likely wouldn't have adequate technical data to accurately recreate them in the first place.

 

That's asking for a huge time/effort/money investment from the developers, just so we can experience the thrills of carrier ops.

 

I'm saying it's not worth it. Not if the price is so high that the devs decide to never make any PTO modules at all, just because they're under the impression that no one wants the Pacific without carrier ops.

 

The solution is simple. When faced with serious impediments, unconventional thinking is required. Unconventional thinking in this case would be finding ways to make Pacific maps that can include diverse plane sets (all major US Navy planes, and the most common Japanese Navy and Army planes) without having ridiculously long flying distances between islands, and without involving carriers.

 

It's possible. As long as we don't rigidly adhere to prohibitive standards of what's absolutely necessary, it's all quite possible.

You've been here only for a year now so i'll tell you about conventional thingking of a long term customer; after nearly a decade of inland/army small tactical dogfights and five expansions with pretty much same copy paste gameplay to run a succesful bussines you need something new, new type of gameplay dlc....naval gameplay, PTO, bombers.....to keep your playerbase amused!

 

My ex sqdn got bored and moved to other sim, half of my current sqdn is going that path too!

Il2 need to step up after all these years, not going with crumbs!

 

So yes carriers are needed if they want to make PTO even closely right same as now medium bombers and torpedo bombers are needed too!

 

[Gambit21]

Yep - fresh blood is desperately needed.

 

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

Ive been shot down on this suggestion before but I don't see whats wrong with having a sideline fantasy version of the IL2 product.

 

Have a Kuban map, add a few islands and fill it up with collector planes. Have a standard carrier based on legit US carrier data and the Japanese planes can take off on these as well. I know its war-thunderish but hell....it'll just open up a whole new universe of options.

 

Already the servers are working round limitations like JU52's resupplying Allied airfields until the C47 arrives..... why not have US carriers that can launch and land Japanese aircraft.

 

Hell, I would throw serious dosh at a bush plane for the Kuban map..... 

 

The Devs and Jason however are very determined to keep it as a historical study so I doubt the above will ever happen.

 

Speaking for myself, I am not that hung up on carriers and the Pacific theatre so I am not too phased if they continue to expand on the current stuff with additional collector planes and assets.

 

I am just so damn happy we have what we currently have, its a breathtakingly beautiful piece of art and code and provides me with endless hours of fun and joy. I cant wait for the day I can fly this sim in VR and 4k!!!

[Alexmarine]

Just need a Battle of Malaysia/Singapore expansion with a Buffalo and an Hayabusa and I will be happy for years to come

[Robli]

I also think that when going to Pacific then carriers and carrier battles are the ones that will catch the attention of possible new customers as well as most of the current player base. I also recall that when Pacific was more prominently present on Great Battles roadmap then Battle of Midway was supposed to be the first title there and Jason mentioned how carriers would be the centrepiece and highlights of the Pacific title and because there is less land to map then the map-building resources would be directed to building carriers. 

[Feathered_IV]

13 minutes ago, Alexmarine said:

Just need a Battle of Malaysia/Singapore expansion with a Buffalo and an Hayabusa and I will be happy for years to come

Nice one centurion. Like it, like it. 
 

Lae to Moresby would work well for me.  Or Hal Far to Comiso if the devs were feeling lazy. 

[JG27_Steini]

6 minutes ago, Robli said:

I also think that when going to Pacific then carriers and carrier battles are the ones that will catch the attention of possible new customers as well as most of the current player base. I also recall that when Pacific was more prominently present on Great Battles roadmap then Battle of Midway was supposed to be the first title there and Jason mentioned how carriers would be the centrepiece and highlights of the Pacific title and because there is less land to map then the map-building resources would be directed to building carriers. 

 

Boring, flying endlessly over hundreds of miles over the sea to find some lonely ship? Might be intereting so some dive bombing pilots. For dedicated fighter pilots (the majority) it is only boring. It will be interessting for a short time or great for multiplayer but for a single player campaign they are just boring. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by JG27_Steini

[Feathered_IV]

Flying the same three or four day scenario over and over again.  Seems kind of hellish. 

[Alexmarine]

57 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

Nice one centurion. Like it, like it. 
 

Lae to Moresby would work well for me.  Or Hal Far to Comiso if the devs were feeling lazy. 

 

What can I say: IJAAF for fighters, IJN for for the attackers/torpedo bombers. The Zero is nice and all but the army fighters always had more character in my opinion

[Strewth]

10 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Have you read Guadalcanal by Richard B Frank?

I think you'll like it.  

 

Read that, and I think your opinion on the Zero and what makes it famous will at least adjust a bit.

No argument that carrier ops will have to come, but there's much more to the war than carriers. In fact for 18 months after Watchtower both sides had their carriers stashed out of harms way. Thus the fiercest, and longest-term, "force parity"  fighting was land based. Guadalcanal/Solomons, New Guinea.

 

That said, yes carriers will be important to a PTO product at some juncture. This can be immediately, or later,  but make no mistake there's room for 2 entire releases at least that don't even need carriers.

There's more than one way to skin the PTO cat. 

 

 

 

 

I haven't read Guadalcanal by Richard B Frank.
But I lived there for my early childhood.
Henderson was the main bomber field, taken from the Japanese and the ensuing battle to retake earned the ridge behind Henderson, for very good reason, to be called Bloody Ridge.
Now just outside of Henderson were Fighter-1 and Fighter-2. Airfields in their own right.
Plus almost every other island in the Solomon Chain had airfields built on them. 

There was a lot of land based fighting going on without a carrier in sight. So although a carrier or two would be nice, they are not required. Pappy Boyington and the Black Sheep were based in Guadalcanal.

Cheers

 

[CountZero]

In few days it will be 2 years since they drop BoN anouncment in nov 2019 ( and bobp was anounced 2 years before it in nov 2017), so its time to fined out whats next ww2 DLC.

For me Poland 45 is obvious one, posible suprises Channal 42 or Sicily+Malta 43, and something PTO considering we dont even have ship bigger then DD or new data about Japan airplanes, looks no go. Even if they go for PTO without ships, where is their airplane data if they only can get Zero to game standards, how ppl expect they can make other more opscured army types i dont understand, if you expect pto any time sone your delusional.

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by CountZero

[Alexmarine]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

For me Poland 45... or Sicily+Malta 43

 

Tbh, both are fine for me, though in the second case I would hope for a proper Italian plane set instead of again a german set with only one or two token italian planes (especially given that we have already german planes for that timeframe that only need minimal work and some MTO skins to work)

[PatrickAWlson]

5 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

Flying the same three or four day scenario over and over again.  Seems kind of hellish. 

 

Make the pilot look like Bill Murray

[Guster]

15 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I’m fully aware of the history of all these aircraft.  But I’m not the target audience.  Neither are you.  They’ve already got us.  For non WW2 dorks the PTO is carriers.

 

For most semi WWII dorks every Japanese plane is a Zero, like every British plane is a Spitfire, like every American plane is also a Spitfire (because that's what they used when they won the Battle of Britain on D-Day) - except every bomber which is a Flying Fortress, even if only has two engines.

[IckyATLAS]

For me only one float is enough and that is the Consolidated PBY Catalina, point.

[PatrickAWlson]

11 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

um… No one.  That’s why the next module was P-51, P-47, P-38, Tempest, Dora, and 262.  Duh.  They needed iconic aircraft or they were dead.   The Zero is iconic.  The George is only dorkonic.  

 

This sim is not absolutely marketed to people interested in aviation, and not the wider public.  It takes way too much effort to play this game to engage a larger, generic audience.  So let's take most people right out of the customer pool.  If they do not have a fairly strong interest in aviation they are not buying this product anyway.

 

With that in mind,  you can be sure that most potential customers know what a George is, or, if they don't, are interested in finding out.  I don't see that as a problem.  There are other planes like Vals, Kates,  Tonys, Oscars, Emmys (maybe that's not one), and Bettys (did Betty win an Emmy, Oscar,  or Tony?) that most aviation enthusiasts are aware of.

 

What was a problem, and your comment bears this out, is that until BoBP this sim did not offer plane sets that included western Europe or the US.  It was Germany vs. Russia.  BoBP and Normandy go a long way towards solving that.

 

A Pacific module will absolutely engage US audiences.  I feel that the plane set will be of interest.  Most likely scenarios might disengage Europeans, including British if the scenario does not include them.  They might engage Japanese and possibly other Asian markets.   Australians.  Flight sim enthusiasts in general.

 

I have no marketing data so I don't know how a pacific module will really sell.  Doubt anybody else on this board knows either.  However, the idea that it won't because the potential customer base is unaware or uninterested in the planes - that I disagree with.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Forget PTO. There is still a lot of Red Army glory to be pumped out, like Bagration etc. The ultimate release will be Berlin, culmination of the Great Patriotic War. 

[PatrickAWlson]

6 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S! 

 

Forget PTO. There is still a lot of Red Army glory to be pumped out, like Bagration etc. The ultimate release will be Berlin, culmination of the Great Patriotic War. 

 

Just realized this thread was about a fourth generation engine, and here we are talking about PTO or other modules.  Looks like we're done here  

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Well, the revamped engine and code should be able to make playable bigger battles without choking to a slide show. That requires a lot and would/will take a lot of time and effort. At some point one will hit a wall what an engine can do and not.. 

[JV44HeinzBar]

On 11/17/2021 at 5:36 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

...... you can't go back to the farm once you have seen the bright lights of the big city.

Begging your pardon, but each to their own. Raised in the country and miss it dearly. I'll take starlight & grain silos over streetlights and skyscrapers.

 

HB 

[[CPT]Crunch]

If the PTO were the panacea for this sim, why is original IL-2 dead these days?  It was pretty well fleshed out with the pacific.  Never put all your eggs in one basket, especially an untested one.

 

What this sim really needs is a housekeeping overhaul, fixing all the nagging little annoyances.  Such as command keys that don't even work, ECS key binding anyone, it's always been there but its never worked.  Why can't this game simply auto log in, why must it insist I put my VR headset on and push that stupid green button to actually finish loading up the game, how archaic.  It's the little things that add up and drive people nuts and away. 

[spreckair]

On 11/18/2021 at 10:54 AM, PatrickAWlson said:

Rebuilding from the ground up is not really how software works these days.  Games used to be tens or hundreds of thousands of lines of code.  You can rebuild that.  Now they are millions.  You don't walk away from that kind of investment.  

 

If your code is good then you don't have to rewrite.  You focus on upgrading one element at a time based on priorities.  If your code is not good (i.e. not neatly separated) then it is best to do that first without even attempting to change functionality.  This is referred to as addressing tech debt.  Then you change it from there .

 

The only way that you throw away a million plus line code base and start from scratch is if it is rotten and dated in every respect.   If you are in that state you are already in deep trouble.

This is way outside of my knowledge base so please give me some leeway, but I recently read that new AI based programs are being developed that will assist in moving programs to newer platforms.  I imagine that this is something that is being designed for huge institutional efforts.  But then maybe someday something similar will be available for smaller developers.  Who knows.

[J2_Oelmann]

18 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I’m fully aware of the history of all these aircraft.  But I’m not the target audience.  Neither are you.  They’ve already got us.  For non WW2 dorks the PTO is carriers.

There aren’t any.  The fact that you can’t grasp that is the problem.

No famous late war japanese airplanes? Nah. What about the Ki84?