Developer Diary 306 - Discussion

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, =BES=Senor_Jefe said:

 

I question the priorities and the resources spent here for something that won't enhance the core function of the game.

 

You have to add a lot more zeros to the checks that you write to have any say in development priorities.  They decided that this is important.  Send them a really big check and you get to decide what is important.

[Rjel]

8 minutes ago, =BES=Senor_Jefe said:

Disclaimer:  I am not at all unhappy with the game, and will continue to be a staunch supporter of the experience.  I only hope that this criticism is viewed with an open mind rather than the cultist-like attacks we sometimes see with anything perceived as negative today.

I'm not sure when in the now rather long history of this series anyone can truly claim the game developers have left any substantial part of the player base behind as they've upgraded and improved this sim. As to being a cultist, I'll just say being enthusiastic about what I see happening doesn't mean I've lost my objectivity either. I see far more positives in recent developments than I could have ever imagined almost 10 years ago.

[=BES=Senor_Jefe]

7 minutes ago, Rjel said:

I'm not sure when in the now rather long history of this series anyone can truly claim the game developers have left any substantial part of the player base behind as they've upgraded and improved this sim. As to being a cultist, I'll just say being enthusiastic about what I see happening doesn't mean I've lost my objectivity either. I see far more positives in recent developments than I could have ever imagined almost 10 years ago.

 That's a fair point.  Given the overall improvement in the last decade, can I question the devs plans? Maybe not.  But I am very sensitive to any performance hits since VR already has its heavy compromises.

 

Yes, I realize VR users are the minority.  But that doesn't make our concerns invalid. Does it?

[Rjel]

5 minutes ago, =BES=Senor_Jefe said:

 That's a fair point.  Given the overall improvement in the last decade, can I question the devs plans? Maybe not.  But I am very sensitive to any performance hits since VR already has its heavy compromises.

 

Yes, I realize VR users are the minority.  But that doesn't make our concerns invalid. Does it?

No, I don't think so either. And I bet neither does Jason and team. What I know about VR you could put on the head of a pin. Like you said, it's a small market base that will take time to grow larger. I have no idea where it's all going. I'm just happy seeing almost constant improvements continue, hopefully bringing everyone along.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Rjel
Forgot to add "think".

[=BES=Senor_Jefe]

5 minutes ago, Rjel said:

No, I don't so either. And I bet neither does Jason and team. What I know about VR you could put on the head of a pin. Like you said, it's a small market base that will take time to grow larger. I have no idea where it's all going. I'm just happy seeing almost constant improvements continue, hopefully bringing everyone along.

Well I can tell you that VR is a struggle, but it's not necessarily unique in the flight sim world.  A fact that makes me laugh because it's probably one if the best use cases for VR!  

 

I do agree that general constant improvement is infinitely better that stagnation.

[kendo]

31 minutes ago, =BES=Senor_Jefe said:

It looks like everyone here is stroking the devs......ego?  So I'll play devils advocate.

 

Please note:  this isn't a huge gripe, but slippery slopes and all...

 

I look at anything with a performance impact as a big red flag.  Speaking from the VR community, it's often completely irresponsible to buy a new GPU for 400% MSRP.  So I like to determine the cost/benefit of the enhancements.

 

So now for the controversial statement:  IL2 is not a weather/sky simulator. It's a combat flight sim.  There are still TONS of improvements to make to the flight/combat aspect of the game that I question this enhancement.  It does not improve combat or flight; only making things prettier.  Sure, eye candy is important, but if your primary concern is eye candy, go fly MSFS and enjoy your 15 FPS.

 

I question the priorities and the resources spent here for something that won't enhance the core function of the game.

 

Disclaimer:  I am not at all unhappy with the game, and will continue to be a staunch supporter of the experience.  I only hope that this criticism is viewed with an open mind rather than the cultist-like attacks we sometimes see with anything perceived as negative today.

 

 

 

Yes, it's a combat flight sim, but one that was in danger of starting to look somewhat behind the times due to other titles recently introducing new tech and rendering for clouds, lighting, sky. Technology and customer expectations constantly move forwards. I don't feel they could afford to ignore the recent raising of the bar in these areas by their competitors.

 

Every person here will have different priorities and opinions for what is most in need of improvement. Personally speaking for me, this and the clouds were very high on the list.

 

And obviously it's not a weather/sky simulator, but who can deny that (as a real pilot commented a few pages back) clouds and sky rendition is somewhat important for an aircraft simulation. And I'd say the clouds update with new capacity for massive scale cloud formations has contributed to new combat/tactical possibilites too.

 

But quite apart from all that, I just disagree that pure visuals are not important in their own right. To get that feeling of awe at a spectacular cloud formation or the light at sunset can be as much a part of the experience here as those other sims. 

 

[Jason_Williams]

52 minutes ago, =BES=Senor_Jefe said:

It looks like everyone here is stroking the devs......ego?  So I'll play devils advocate.

 

Please note:  this isn't a huge gripe, but slippery slopes and all...

 

I look at anything with a performance impact as a big red flag.  Speaking from the VR community, it's often completely irresponsible to buy a new GPU for 400% MSRP.  So I like to determine the cost/benefit of the enhancements.

 

So now for the controversial statement:  IL2 is not a weather/sky simulator. It's a combat flight sim.  There are still TONS of improvements to make to the flight/combat aspect of the game that I question this enhancement.  It does not improve combat or flight; only making things prettier.  Sure, eye candy is important, but if your primary concern is eye candy, go fly MSFS and enjoy your 15 FPS.

 

I question the priorities and the resources spent here for something that won't enhance the core function of the game.

 

Disclaimer:  I am not at all unhappy with the game, and will continue to be a staunch supporter of the experience.  I only hope that this criticism is viewed with an open mind rather than the cultist-like attacks we sometimes see with anything perceived as negative today.

 

 

 

We don't operate in a vacuum. How many posts out there compare us to others? How many talk about such things on Discord and other places? How many players have criticized our sky? The answer is many. This particular change has no effect on other things we are working on that mainly involve the engineering dept. which is a separate team. Our Lead Programmer works miracles on a weekly basis and while he has been developing the clouds and sky he has also built helpful tech and tools for the map team and fixed many bugs and made other improvements. He does many things for us and you the customer. One guy with some help from a couple others on a part-time basis has completely transformed our sky in just a few months. We know how long it has taken others and it was not a few months. Not sure what priorities you think we should be working on, but we are working on ALL fronts every day. And do not underestimate the lure of 'eye candy' to gain new players. It's the Number One draw for ANY video game or sim.
 

Myself and Daniel aka Han know the strengths and weaknesses of our team and believe me, we use everyone as effectively as humanly possible. I'm still short a half dozen people I need to truly do anything new. This is a severely difficult type of gig to locate qualified people for. When we have hired sub-optimal people, they didn't last and actually harmed the product. 

 

Also, this sky is also part of our research in making a round globe for a future engine and future products we are researching. Everyone in the sim-genre is looking to master certain features and technology. We may be a small team, but we do not just sit around drinking vodka and patting ourselves on the back.  

 

Jason

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

The last few months have given a lot of hope for the future of this sim. Jason and the team scour the forums and are taking our criticism and input, evaluating it, and then are adapting/improving the sim. That's a great business model and will only make the sim better.

 

For those that don't do vr, the current sky post-cloud update has had massive banding. This is a welcome and necessary fix. Fixing this gives me hope the nav lights, low speed wonkiness, dm, water shading, engine timers, and other issues like sparse maps will be addressed in due time.

Edited February 5, 2022 by -332FG-drewm3i-VR

[Lusekofte]

I like improvements better than new toys.

First off, improvements always make me think I ripped off the devs, did I really fund this with my few cent?

Secondly, it tell me the devs are devoted.

No matter how polite someone is playing the devils advocate. He forget that his opinion is his own, no one else. Realistic environment is to me important. 

But I still do not pretend its on everyones prioritylist. 

So play advocate some place else, be grateful for free improvements. They are very rare these days. 

[Rjel]

3 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

First off, improvements always make me think I ripped off the devs, did I really fund this with my few cent?

100% agree here. The long term play value has been great. The constant stream of upgrades that include all previous content as much as the newest edition has been a massive freebie that is too easily forgotten.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, =BES=Senor_Jefe said:

So now for the controversial statement:  IL2 is not a weather/sky simulator. It's a combat flight sim.  There are still TONS of improvements to make to the flight/combat aspect of the game that I question this enhancement.  It does not improve combat or flight; only making things prettier.  Sure, eye candy is important, but if your primary concern is eye candy, go fly MSFS and enjoy your 15 FPS.

 

I question the priorities and the resources spent here for something that won't enhance the core function of the game.

 

Disclaimer:  I am not at all unhappy with the game, and will continue to be a staunch supporter of the experience.  I only hope that this criticism is viewed with an open mind rather than the cultist-like attacks we sometimes see with anything perceived as negative today.

 

I'm sure there are things we'd all like (e.g. in depth artillery spotting from a Fw-189 ) or improved AI... clearly the graphics/engine department of this company has some real talent and artistry, it makes sense for them to lean into that.

 

I also doubt that the aircraft programmers, graphics engine programmer, and whoever would rework the AI are the same person - so these types of improvements probably don't slow down the other work at all.

 

Btw. Aren't the Il-2 clouds better than MSFS? On the other hand - I do find that DCS/ED has always had a tendency to allow their system requirements to climb a bit too quickly. It seems that every three or four years load times have massively increased (I remember FC2 - I had to make coffee while it loaded - prior to getting a faster hard drive. Now I'm finding that has become similar - except to get the SSD they expect I need a new MB & CPU too!) So I guess I'm saying that I understand your hesitation about graphics and system requirements too... and I'm probably a lot more excited about features other than graphics - at least until I saw the new clouds this year! Those... well... I still get shot down because I start gawking at them in the middle of a dogfight. Too pretty!

[Jason_Williams]

22 minutes ago, -332FG-drewm3i-VR said:

The last few months have given a lot of hope for the future of this sim. Jason and the team scour the forums and are taking our criticism and input, evaluating it, and then are adapting/improving the sim. That's a great business model and will only make the sim better.

 

For those that don't do vr, the current sky post-cloud update has had massive banding. This is a welcome and necessary fix. Fixing this gives me hope the nav lights, low speed wonkiness, dm, water shading, engine timers, and other issues like sparse maps will be addressed in due time.

 

Can't see the forest through the trees sometimes.

 

Jason

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

35 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

We don't operate in a vacuum. How many posts out there compare us to others? How many talk about such things on Discord and other places? How many players have criticized our sky? The answer is many. This particular change has no effect on other things we are working on that mainly involve the engineering dept. which is a separate team. Our Lead Programmer works miracles on a weekly basis and while he has been developing the clouds and sky he has also built helpful tech and tools for the map team and fixed many bugs and made other improvements. He does many things for us and you the customer. One guy with some help from a couple others on a part-time basis has completely transformed our sky in just a few months. We know how long it has taken others and it was not a few months. Not sure what priorities you think we should be working on, but we are working on ALL fronts every day. And do not underestimate the lure of 'eye candy' to gain new players. It's the Number One draw for ANY video game or sim.
 

Myself and Daniel aka Han know the strengths and weaknesses of our team and believe me, we use everyone as effectively as humanly possible. I'm still short a half dozen people I need to truly do anything new. This is a severely difficult type of gig to locate qualified people for. When we have hired sub-optimal people, they didn't last and actually harmed the product. 

 

Also, this sky is also part of our research in making a round globe for a future engine and future products we are researching. Everyone in the sim-genre is looking to master certain features and technology. We may be a small team, but we do not just sit around drinking vodka and patting ourselves on the back.  

 

Jason

Sounds like your doing a lot with limited resources.  Thank you for all the efforts to improve this game.   Looking forward to the new releases, and modifications/adjustments to existing stuff.

Edited February 5, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Beebop]

5 hours ago, JimTM said:

We already have Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Tempests. Isn't that enough?

We need Whirlwinds!  ?

 

1 hour ago, =BES=Senor_Jefe said:

So now for the controversial statement:  IL2 is not a weather/sky simulator. It's a combat flight sim.  There are still TONS of improvements to make to the flight/combat aspect of the game that I question this enhancement.  It does not improve combat or flight; only making things prettier.  Sure, eye candy is important, but if your primary concern is eye candy, go fly MSFS and enjoy your 15 FPS.

 

I question the priorities and the resources spent here for something that won't enhance the core function of the game.

 

I beg to differ with you sir.  Yes it is a combat flight simulator but the sky is the environment the pilot works in.  Having a realistic sky, clouds and weather is vital for total immersion.  The clouds improvement was HUGE IMO and this will be the next step in overall realism.

I don't do VR ($$$) but have "suffered" banding issues in the past, probably not to the degree a VR'er has but as mentioned before it most likely is the future of gaming so this is very proactive work.  

Frankly if you think this is a waste of time and resources I would recommend you to fly European Air War where the graphics were primative but the gameplay was quite good.

[kissTheSky]

Dang! Can’t wait to see it in VR.

[=ILS=_ppph]

I welcome any visual changes in this game as it gives truly immersive feelings about this combat around you. I really looking forward to the new game engine or whichever it may bring. I just finger cross and hope that it will optimize the VR experience without too much penalty on the frame rate.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Jason is right about the "eye candy" aspects.  I know people that we used to fly with who think the current sim is utterly dated graphically, because they are comparing it to a high dollar "corridor shooter" released by the really big publishers that sell millions of copies.  I don't agree with them at all, but they are out there.  

[Pikestance]

5 hours ago, =BES=Senor_Jefe said:

It looks like everyone here is stroking the devs......ego?  So I'll play devils advocate.

 

Please note:  this isn't a huge gripe, but slippery slopes and all...

 

I look at anything with a performance impact as a big red flag.  Speaking from the VR community, it's often completely irresponsible to buy a new GPU for 400% MSRP.  So I like to determine the cost/benefit of the enhancements.

 

So now for the controversial statement:  IL2 is not a weather/sky simulator. It's a combat flight sim.  There are still TONS of improvements to make to the flight/combat aspect of the game that I question this enhancement.  It does not improve combat or flight; only making things prettier.  Sure, eye candy is important, but if your primary concern is eye candy, go fly MSFS and enjoy your 15 FPS.

 

I question the priorities and the resources spent here for something that won't enhance the core function of the game.

 

Disclaimer:  I am not at all unhappy with the game, and will continue to be a staunch supporter of the experience.  I only hope that this criticism is viewed with an open mind rather than the cultist-like attacks we sometimes see with anything perceived as negative today.

 

 

 

I always love posts with a preemptive ad hom. 

The misconception about the game is that it is just a combat flight simulator. The game has been develop to present as much realism as possible. This includes the environment in which you fly. Anyway, you criticism really don't make too much sense. The environment (clouds and sky) has been a consistent area of improvement my a large number of regular posters. This was for good reasons. You have fly in that environment. It was a distraction for many people and it is apparently something that can and will be remedied soon. 

 

Rather than simply criticizing the development team for doing something that was motivated by feedback, perhaps you can suggest an area of improvement yourself. Just maybe "your complaint" would be address as well. 

[Denum]

6 hours ago, =BES=Senor_Jefe said:

It looks like everyone here is stroking the devs......ego?  So I'll play devils advocate.

 

Please note:  this isn't a huge gripe, but slippery slopes and all...

 

I look at anything with a performance impact as a big red flag.  Speaking from the VR community, it's often completely irresponsible to buy a new GPU for 400% MSRP.  So I like to determine the cost/benefit of the enhancements.

 

So now for the controversial statement:  IL2 is not a weather/sky simulator. It's a combat flight sim.  There are still TONS of improvements to make to the flight/combat aspect of the game that I question this enhancement.  It does not improve combat or flight; only making things prettier.  Sure, eye candy is important, but if your primary concern is eye candy, go fly MSFS and enjoy your 15 FPS.

 

I question the priorities and the resources spent here for something that won't enhance the core function of the game.

 

Disclaimer:  I am not at all unhappy with the game, and will continue to be a staunch supporter of the experience.  I only hope that this criticism is viewed with an open mind rather than the cultist-like attacks we sometimes see with anything perceived as negative today.

 

 

Not updating graphics hurts player retention and player uptake.

 

It is flat out a bad business call to try and cater to the small percentage of players running decade old equipment or that are just barely running VR.

 

There's always the option to reduce your graphics to improve performance after updates.

 

The game needs new players on a consistent basis to have good growth. No new players. No upgrades to combat or FMs. 

 

Graphic improvements is the fastest way to get new players interested.

 

Eye candy gets them in the door.

 

The quality of game play and the simulation keeps them here.

 

[GOZR]

Looks better but we need the lens flare out while in the sim .. there is no lens flare in real only through a lens.  but it's a great as " option " for movies and shots !

We also need darker shadows under the clouds on the ground.. and it will look much better.. all is coming along pretty well!

[Lloydy]

Great work IL-2 Team.  I must admit I'm more excited to see engine improvements than anything else.  As a VR player, the sky banding would really stand out so I cant wait to get my hands on this in the coming patches!! Great work!  

[IckyATLAS]

8 hours ago, =BES=Senor_Jefe said:

So now for the controversial statement:  IL2 is not a weather/sky simulator. It's a combat flight sim.  There are still TONS of improvements to make to the flight/combat aspect of the game that I question this enhancement.  It does not improve combat or flight; only making things prettier.  Sure, eye candy is important, but if your primary concern is eye candy, go fly MSFS and enjoy your 15 FPS.

 

Disclaimer:  I am not at all unhappy with the game, and will continue to be a staunch supporter of the experience.  I only hope that this criticism is viewed with an open mind rather than the cultist-like attacks we sometimes see with anything perceived as negative today.

 

 

 

I would comment that you have a somewhat limited ambition for what IL2 may be. My perception here is that over the time IL2-Sturmovik has become IL2-Great Battles. A small detail the name is not IL2-Great Air Battles. This means going from air combat to great battles. Great Battles I insist on the word Great is a combinations of multiple confrontations, artillery, planes, tanks, ships, trains, vehicles and the whole environment that is around those battles like cities, villages, buildings, roads, railways, mountains, lakes rivers and seas, atmospheric environment (seasons, sky, wind, rain, snow, clouds etc.) and the scenery in terms of plants like trees, grass, etc..  A consequence of this is  that the visual and graphic quality of the rendering is very important as you need all these elements to be of similar quality level for a good immersivity. For that yes high FPS is very important (even more in VR) and time dilation has to be kept to a minimum. This is why the dev team has to work out some delicate balancing act, but still push forward because there is also visual competition around. But let's face it, hardware and the CPU/GPU technology combination is improving a lot and it is normal that the devs try to use this. Now regarding market prices which are hellish at the moment, they will come down to an acceptable level in a year or two and maybe even sooner. It is normal that the devs plan for that to stay at the forefront of this genre.

 

It is a much bigger challenge to simulate a battle "world" than air combat. The game titles are Kuban, Normandy, Stalingrad, Bodenplatte. If you keep it to the word, Normandy was air, land, sea, Stalingrad was air and land with a majority on land, Bodenplatte was land first and then air. And a lot of the air action was also ground support. I have no idea about the detailed strategy of Jason and his team but one thing is sure the definition of Great Battles opens a very wide space to create  a more global battle world. And this widened horizon means to me a much longer life expectancy for this sim. I applaud strongly that, and every improvement on a given aspect is and will be always welcomed. And as an example if tomorrow the devs come up with more vehicles, ships, a much improved flora and effects like burning of trees for the maps or future maps (I mean tree grass etc) as well as a better model for the water surfaces like seas, lakes and rivers I will absolutely applaud that too and consider it as important as a new plane (here this is my personal opinion that I do not expect you to share ? ). And who knows maybe we will one day get some "soldiers" on the ground to animate even more the Great Battle world.

 

Conclusion, well done devs, just go on to make our Battle World true.

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

Beautiful, just know I'm gonna get shot down admiring the sunset!

[363FS-2Lt_Clayton]

I just wanted to say having been a software designer in Silicon Valley and played simulators for many years, and recently discovered this product,  I want to thank the developers for providing a great experience. I am really enjoying the product. Thank you for your dedication and hard work. 

[BlackHellHound1]

These images look amazing and I'm looking forward to the finished product already! 

I am missing some clouds though. Can we get some pictures of the new sky combined with the new clouds? I'd love to see the 2 beauties together!

 

Keep up the great work!

[RTA_Mojo]

I like it!

[rodgerdavies]

Wow, amazing and very unexpected bonus; I nearly always play Il2 in daylight conditions but I'm definitely going to have to start widening my horizons! Thanks to the team working on these great visual overhauls.

[Bonnot]

2 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

 

I would comment that you have a somewhat limited ambition for what IL2 may be. My perception here is that over the time IL2-Sturmovik has become IL2-Great Battles. A small detail the name is not IL2-Great Air Battles. This means going from air combat to great battles. Great Battles I insist on the word Great is a combinations of multiple confrontations, artillery, planes, tanks, ships, trains, vehicles and the whole environment that is around those battles like cities, villages, buildings, roads, railways, mountains, lakes rivers and seas, atmospheric environment (seasons, sky, wind, rain, snow, clouds etc.) and the scenery in terms of plants like trees, grass, etc..  A consequence of this is  that the visual and graphic quality of the rendering is very important as you need all these elements to be of similar quality level for a good immersivity. .

 

It is a much bigger challenge to simulate a battle "world" than air combat. The game titles are Kuban, Normandy, Stalingrad, Bodenplatte. If you keep it to the word, Normandy was air, land, sea, Stalingrad was air and land with a majority on land, Bodenplatte was land first and then air. And a lot of the air action was also ground support. I have no idea about the detailed strategy of Jason and his team but one thing is sure the definition of Great Battles opens a very wide space to create  a more global battle world. And this widened horizon means to me a much longer life expectancy for this sim. I applaud strongly that, and every improvement on a given aspect is and will be always welcomed. And as an example if tomorrow the devs come up with more vehicles, ships, a much improved flora and effects like burning of trees for the maps or future maps (I mean tree grass etc) as well as a better model for the water surfaces like seas, lakes and rivers I will absolutely applaud that too and consider it as important as a new plane (here this is my personal opinion that I do not expect you to share ? ). And who knows maybe we will one day get some "soldiers" on the ground to animate even more the Great Battle world.

 

Conclusion, well done devs, just go on to make our Battle World true.

That is exactly what i feel  : I enjoy all graphics improvement and agree even I don't feel concerned,  but I often wondered why the ground level doesn't receive the same enlighments...

The ground level is certainly very well done but so clean, empty, unliving....Only Stalingrad gives the feeling of a battle area.

Perhaps some maps could be twicked like seasons changes to reflect the tues condition of lands heavy fought on ( like Normandy or German borders ...)

Maybe my opinion is tweaked because I'm a bad pilot flying more often low level ( great to appreciate the clouds over ! ) straffing, ground support, etc...

Aces are over the clouds, in the blue when poor bloody infantery is in the smoky mud....

Think they deserve some thoughts as they free the ground and build airfields...so please give them some existence .

[blitze]

Pretty Pics.

 

Thanks team - onward and upward. ?

[conure]

Looks great! Also, graphics and environment are a big deal. Look at DCS vs BMS. BMS is a better simulator of modern air combat in just about every conceivable way, but has a community that is a fraction of the size of the DCS one. Why is that? 

[=RS=Funkie]

21 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Full text and visuals HERE.

 

Jason

Looking awesome Jason!

Are the sizes of the moon and the sun going to be revisited at all?
I'd noticed in VR that they seemed too big in the sky compared to real life. This isn't obvious in 2d mode.

Also, this one might be trickier, but regarding the stars, again more apparent in VR, the actual stars appear too big and splotchy, as opposed to pinpricks of light. But I can imagine that this would be limited by the resolution of the skydome... 

Just thought I'd ask, otherwise, amazing strides on the quality improvements, fantastic!

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

18 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I don't know about this... lack of banding? I don't know if I can handle a flight sim without it... it is part of how things should be! The only thing I have ever known! I suppose I can always go back to SWOTL if I don't like the improvements:

[

I loved SWOTL. It was my first combat flight sim and I bought my first "high powered system," to fly it.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

13 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

Also, this sky is also part of our research in making a round globe for a future engine and future products we are researching.

Wait, this is actually HUGE news and excites me but also scares me a little. Does this mean that the Great Battles series is coming to an end? Or will the current assets be ported to the newer engine so that we can continue to fly our beloved aircraft in the newer product?

 

Quote

Note 2: I changed the images to .png format and the compression is much less. I will keep the uncompressed images linked just in case you want to view them.

@Jason_Williams png is actually a lossless format, so any images saved as png will be 100% identical to the originals (but at a much smaller size!). Just to be sure you don't use some very weird conversion algorithm that screws things up, I compared two of the images and (apart from the IL2 logo, obviously) they are bit-for-bit identical. So feel free to remove the uncompressed images

 

13 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

we do not just sit around drinking vodka and patting ourselves on the back.

What's wrong with drinking vodka?

Edited February 5, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[J2_Bidu]

13 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

I'm still short a half dozen people I need to truly do anything new. This is a severely difficult type of gig to locate qualified people for. When we have hired sub-optimal people, they didn't last and actually harmed the product. 

 

The world is severely lacking software developers, I feel this everyday. People are switching jobs to earn two or three times more somewhere else. New and very inexperienced developers are thrown into the battlefront unready, I've never seen it so bad. Building software that has quality and is safe has become even more complex. Hold on to your team! It's a precious asset.

Edited February 5, 2022 by J2_Bidu

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I loved SWOTL. It was my first combat flight sim and I bought my first "high powered system," to fly it.

 

It got me started!  There was also an Eastern Front mod for it that was my first taste of the Mig-3. 

 

As I got bored I transitioned from only flying the Go-229 to experimenting with the 'mediocre' Me-262 and then eventually realised that a P-51B underdog was an interesting challenge. So I actually made the transition from wanting 'technofreaky' (as we said in the '90s - or at least I said) prototypes and late war maximum performance to wanting interesting or historically important aircraft or just plain difficult/challenging planes as a kid thanks to that game.

[Mysticpuma]

I would just say anyone saying this wasn't a necessary fix...well that's missing the point completely!

This is progress of the software, it cannot be allowed to stagnate and live in the past, time moves on and so does the software. 

The reason BoX has such a large player base is because it has expanded, added multiple new fronts, aircraft, vehicles, effects, campaigns, etc, etc. fixing the sky dome is just another step towards making the world believable and for a flight sim where we spend (hopefully if we don't get shot down) our time high above the earth, the sky dome, weather, lighting, all of it make the experience believable. 

 

This is a great update, the clouds were a monumentally great update.... I can't wait to see what comes next. (I have hopes for some of course but this is a very welcome step forward). 

 

Hardware has to move on, I mean there have been nearly (so close) 4 different PlayStation consoles released since the original IL2 came out. Development sadly means that new features have to be created to keep the crowd invested, BoX is just doing its best to keep it's fan base happy and while some may not reach minimum specs. Jason and the team are damned if they do progress and damned if they don't. 

 

Personally, while I just scrape by with above minimum spec. I. know at some point I will buy new hardware and then will reap the rewards of the Developers efforts. 

 

Love this update, great work team ?

 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

I completely agree with you, Puma.

 

3 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

I can't wait to see what comes next.

Well, look at the DD from 2 weeks ago, new runways are coming (although a minor improvement on first sight, it may add a lot to the immersion).

 

Have a nice day.

 

[ITAF_Rani]

Devs sleep sometimes ?...?

[Talisman]

Great update.  Very interesting and looking very good indeed.  Thank you Jason and team.  

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[derrick263]

Amazingly beautiful. Great work everyone.