IL-2's Survivability and Expansion

[Feldgrun]

Most players of this game have likely been doing it for quite a while. Current players are likely to buy the next Battle of X, regardless of whether it's viewed as obscure, already replicated by other games, or an expansion of a battle we've already got.

 

How can 1C bring in new customers to ensure this game survives? Is it to make it more appealing to War Thunder players by adding more "exciting" and obscure aircraft? To DCS players by adding more detail and realism to controls and maps? To Wings Over Flanders Fields players by improving the atmosphere and AI? Is it to broaden the scope to include more vehicles, ships, and more theaters of war, or to go the other direction by limiting their focus and detail on certain aircraft and maps? 

 

I'm sure Jason & his team have planned for the future, but what do you believe can be done to make sure IL-2 doesn't fade into obscurity? 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Pretty sure most of the guys with hands in development are long time players themselves, they have a vision that coincides with ours, and that's something that rarely goes amiss.  Not worried a bit.  As long as they're having fun I'm pretty sure mine will continue too.  I hope its their dream f'n job, it's in my best interests!

[S10JlAbraxis]

The development team is constantly improving IL2 and it has been surviving and thriving since 2014 so I am not worried about it going away anytime soon.  I think IL2 is the best WW2 sim out there.  It is not necessary the best in every aspect but in my opinion provides the best overall experience by a long shot.  If it was up to me I would add the following enhancements:

• Upgrade the maps with more details (farms, small villages, points of interest, better roads autobahn etc.), higher res and more varied ground textures.  
• Enhance the career system including more mission types, ability to refuel and rearm (for some mission types), have an assigned aircraft with varying maintenance depending on how hard you fly it and extent of damage, ability to land at another airfield if you can't make it home then generate a mission to fly home the next day.
• Improve the AI communications system - ability to ask for assistance, have an assigned wingman or be an assigned wingman with specific associated communications, AI can call out enemy activity including an enemy on your six.
• Populate all airfields during career missions so if you loiter near an enemy airfield a flight will sometimes be generated to intercept you. 
• The engine sounds for some aircraft could use an upgrade for example the Yak and P51.  Overall the sound scape is quite good however.
• Add more real-world navigation tools as well as communications with the airbase and radar tracking to get bearings and distance to enemy aircraft (where it existed in reality).  
• Add battle of France/Britian, North Africa, Italy, Leningrad/Finland, late eastern front map (Poland/Germany) and Guadalcanal if the Japanese aircraft issue can be resolved.
• Mini additions utilizing existing maps with a few more aircraft and a different timeframe (early Kuban for example).
• The drop tanks and fuel management in the works will be an excellent addition.

Overall the direction IL2 is heading is very good so I do not see the need for any drastic changes.  Definitely do not turn it into another World of Warplanes or DCS.  I think it is a perfect balance between a deep study sim and arcade which is why I like it so much.

[Guest]

Every year another bunch of youngsters get a year older and their hands on their first earnings. They're the new financial blood that keeps this wagon rolling.

[56RAF_Roblex]

The game fits a particular need for people who want a nice balance of good MP gameplay and realistic flight models without needing a  supercomputer.  I would love lots more ground detail and lots of clickable cockpit switches but if they are added it will run slower.   DCS has clickable cockpits but they have far fewer aircraft so can afford to spend the time doing it. Also the WW2 multiplayer gameplay is vastly inferior. It is just a 'Warbirds display pilot' simulator.

[BBAS_Tiki_Joe]

Coming up on 3,000 hrs in the game, by far the most hours I've put in anything in the digital realm. I love the game but having also spent so much time in it you do see where improvements could be made. Like someone else mentioned, I'd love to see some more progress on A.I. I spend most of my time in MP now a days but I do love a good SP career campaign. I feel like the control we have over the AI is way too limited, we need some way to command individual's in the flight. Being able to have more control over what is happening as flight lead would help stop some of the stupid annoying things that can happen. For example, you should be able to tell your wingmate who is flying on a wing and a prayer that has been shot to hell to return to base. Right now he'll just keep fighting to the bitter end. For me, I feel like the orders in the game are currently suggestions as 50% of the time the AI just ignores some of the orders already available for us to give.

 

After putting a number of hours into the game, the AI routines also become very predictable. I've gotten to the point that I can watch the AI that I'm chasing and when he breaks into his defensive routine I know exactly what he is going to do next because it follows a repeated predictable pattern. Seems like there are only a small number of these defensive maneuvers that they do so as soon as you recognize it all you have to do is move to where they are going to be next because its always the same. With that, I'd like to see the "Ace setting" for the AI be much harder, or even have a setting above Ace for the AI. Maybe an "Ace of Aces" setting, heck I'd even be okay with the higher setting allowing the AI to cheat.

 

Secondary, I'd like way more voice acting in the game, more helpful call outs etc anything that can add more immersion during SP would be great.

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, Feldgrun said:

I'm sure Jason & his team have planned for the future, but what do you believe can be done to make sure IL-2 doesn't fade into obscurity? 

 

Not to sound hokey, but I think Sturmovik should just go on being itself. Don't try to be what you're not.

 

It's quirky, it's flawed (so is the competition), but it's worked this long. If it's not destined to go on perpetually, it still had a great run; and will be worth playing for years after official development ends. That's all there is to it, really.

[percydanvers]

I didn't do any of this stuff until 2018. The fact that there are so many long standing simmers there sometimes obscures the fact that new people are coming in all the time. Every time there's a new Ace Combat game or something like MSFS there's going to be a tranche of new people getting into flight sims of every kind (My own "gateway drug" was ARMA 3 Jets of all things), and many of these will make their way to IL-2, as long as it is staying current and competitive, which I think it is doing. 

[IckyATLAS]

IL2 has become immortal. Already 21 years that I have it and build campaigns and scenarios. At this rate it will probably survive me ? 

[=621=Samikatz]

As someone who has dragged some former non-simmers into playing these games, I think the biggest barrier for entry is all your learning has to be self-driven or you need someone to guide you through it. A little more handholding (like an in-game link to tutorials) and stuff like built-in target range missions that are less scattered than the QMB would go a long way to helping, and they couldn't go wrong with a few more built-in co-op missions. While there are a lot of excellent community resources, new players don't know how to find and filter these things, and on top of that not every community resource is sustained forever

[CountZero]

Fixing bugs, making new airplanes and more marketing with big YT players of more opular air games, there is still planty air game fans who dont know about this game and when they see it, and you get some sale at same time, youll get fresh blod in, will they stay who knows but thell try it atleast.

[IckyATLAS]

I would say some Marketing is maybe missing. In some flight sim magazines, MSFS is always all over the place and then DCS. But IL2 seldom is mentioned.

Clearly here there is some money to invest in marketing, but it is costly.

[Drum]

No offence, but for the last eight years we've all been that new customer, so why won't the first module do likewise for others today?  It's still new from their perspectives because it's been continually updated & upgraded with each expansion and has only become more enticing with each passing year, not less as you imply.

 

The shallow waters of War Thunder will help generate new customers who want more depth to dive into, and DCS is primarily a jet sim that doesn't offer enough WWII substance to be much of an enticement personally, yet.

 

VR is the new and exciting change in IL-2 for me right now, and that with the great on-line servers and SRS intergraded radio coms is making it even better.  Have you tried IL-2 in VR yet?  It's a real game changer in and of itself.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Drum

[taffy2jeffmorgan]

Having flow the sim since it's conception, personally I think there's not a combat flight sim out there that could a candle to BoS,  OK it still not perfect but it's by far the best there is .  Would one agree !!

[BlitzPig_EL]

What IL2 has done from the very beginnings of Oleg's original, to today's Great Battles series, is offer the best balance between difficulty and fun. 

 

It's the sweet spot between the mind numbing button pushing of DCS's BVR engagements, and the full on arcade nonsense of the "free to play", *cough*, titles.

The Dev team deserves a real pat on the back here.  What they have created with their limited numbers and resources is an amazing achievement.  Sure it has it's flaws, what game doesn't?  But taken as a whole, well ladies and gents, it has allowed us to be sitting at the peak of the genre, and I have little doubt it's going to stay that way.  There simply is nothing out there that competes with IL2 in any substantive way.

[PatrickAWlson]

Comparing IL2 to DCS and WoFF, This team is pushing from the middle in both directions.  IL2 occupies a middle ground and is gradually making its way towards both WoFF and DCS strong suits.  That is why this is my go to flight sim.  The fidelity may not be at DCS levels, but it is very, very good.  The atmospherics may not be WoFF levels, but IL2 is far beyond WoFF in tech and in fidelity.  For me, IL2 offers the best available complete package.

 

It is not a perfect product.  I would like to see more work done on AI and performance.  The AI has made great advances, but that is a never ending quest.  Performance holds the product back in many ways.  Those are the two aspects that I think need to be pushed.  Still, IL2 offers so much.

 

[Lusekofte]

9 hours ago, taffy2jeffmorgan said:

Having flow the sim since it's conception, personally I think there's not a combat flight sim out there that could a candle to BoS,  OK it still not perfect but it's by far the best there is .  Would one agree !!

It is a matter of taste, really.

To be honest, it is the only one out there.

I no longer support the idea of being the best.

It is the only ww2 sim with a degree of serious gameplay we have. And we have to accept it as it is.

I was very satisfied with it while there where only Ussr and axis planes out there.

My gradual decent of belief of quality began with P 40 and allison engine. And from it went in a steady route down hill.

What keep me here, is the fact that I like VR and WW2 bombers.

A 20 got no bombardier pit. And you cannot even get access to bomb aim device from bombardier position in the Heinkel.

We have no other choice, yes I love this game in many ways. I am grateful it is here. But COD will for me have a lot more to offer when VR compatible

 

[Mysticpuma]

I personally think BoX is in a really good place but the point of your question is progressing forward. 

 

I am not interested in Multiplayer so single player is my focus. I have to say the addition recently of the QMB battles in the quick missions is a fantastic feature. This I do believe is typical of the team, they listen to the feedback given. I realise they can't implement everything but small additions like that are really appreciated! 

 

Publicity and marketing, well it depends how you stand out from the crowd. BoX has VR, some incredible models and the new weather system is beautiful. 

I have mentioned before, Nvidia Ansel would really make BoX stand out from the crowd but more than that the free publicity it would generate and attention it would gain is just waiting to be exploited. 

Ansel allows super resolution images to be created, so it's easy to create large resolution images to hang on walls, offices, etc, etc. Someone walks in, sees it, asks where the the picture is from....marketing, publicity, sales.... I am always surprised when marketing and PR is sidelined. That said, the Developer Diaries here are really excellent and keep the local community engaged and informed but it's about generating new players. I hate to mention it but the Warthunder community is vast so there is more than enough interest in the genre. Having Ansel gives the ability to generate huge images as well as high resolution VR images that can be shared to raise awareness of the VR capabilities and just how great it looks.... it's a stand out from the crowd feature. 

 

I posted about Ansel here a while ago:

 

 

In terms of moving forward, a complete switch of battle locations would spark a lot of online discussions. The Pacific which I appreciate Jason has already said he would love to do if he had enough data, would really spark a large amount of interest, especially Carrier Operations and landings. 

 

The MTO would certainly be interesting to see, so many battles were fought from there including the Shuttle Missions..... but therein lies a problem. 

 

Four engine bombers and bomber streams, that is where a huge area of excitement would focused, however this is something that it currently appears is beyond the games ability. 

I am not sure what the issue is but I have read it is something to do with the game trying to calculate all the Ai involved? 

To be honest it isn't clear what the issue is (to me) but if it takes a new game engine to allow large formations and escorts missions I would gladly invest in that of the team began a new funding process. 

Hell, if they asked players to invest £15-20 to enable a new game engine to be built or purchased so B17's and B24's could take to the air... who wouldn't chip in? 

 

The final point I will add is visual/graphic effects. I understand to some these are filler compared to the foundations of the game but having seen the guys update the weather and then tweak the sky domes and banding I would love to see them work on the visual effects like smoke, fire, explosions, hits on aircraft. I feel visually this is the weakest point of the game. 

They are good and the new engine fire effects are a great step forward but the thick black smoke is just awful to view. 

 

Anyway, Pacific, MTO, 4 engine bombers and Ansel would be a great step forward in my humble opinion. 

[Rjel]

I like it. 

[[CPT]Crunch]

We're missing the ease of access the original IL gave us with the hyper lobby where anyone and everyone set up their server with the simple and easy to use mission builder, that's the missing link for rapid expansion, it really allowed aggressive user self marketed.  

 

Open it to far and grow to fast, well, we've also seen the end results of that game played out before, it fragmented crashed and burned just as fast, so playing it conservative may be the best way to run for longevity in the end.  Opening it up to the mob is good for a quick flow, but ain't a good long term survival strategy, think every serious game studio has figured that angle out.  Sometimes scarcity has a value all its own.

[Capt_Hook]

On 4/4/2022 at 5:13 PM, IckyATLAS said:

I would say some Marketing is maybe missing. In some flight sim magazines, MSFS is always all over the place and then DCS. But IL2 seldom is mentioned.

Clearly here there is some money to invest in marketing, but it is costly.

This.  If you want more people playing, tell more people about it.  I can't click through more than a few gaming news sites without rolling side bar adds for War Thunder, and even DCS occasionally.  I never see IL2.  

 

Edit:  Maybe not right now.  This is a global sim with a global footprint and global audience, but the branding is decidedly Russian.  May not play that well at the moment from an advertising point of view.  In this area, the much more neutrally-presented 'DCS' has a branding advantage.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Capt_Hook

[BCI-Nazgul]

I would tell you how they can keep me from jumping ship, but then this thread would get locked.   Let's just say there are a couple of weapon systems that need to be fixed/debugged and if I find a sim where these systems work correctly I won't stick around here that's for sure.

Edited April 6, 2022 by BCI-Nazgul

[ACG_Jaydog]

I'd love the Pacific, or Mediterranean Theater, but not holding my breath on those.  I really feel you can't complete western Europe without 4 engine bombers.  We have 1945 planes, yet no Lancasters, B24 or B17s that were doing raids in 1943.  That being said, I'm getting burned out on eastern front.  If there isn't an upgrade to a new engine or large bombers within a couple years, or a PTO, then I'd say move to Korea. P51, P47s, F9s, F80, F86, Mig15 early war jets to include carrier ops, Yaks...it shouldn't be that hard, but I'm not a developer or engineer, so what do I know. 

[357th_KW]

On the MP front it definitely feels like things are moving in the wrong direction in terms of active player population.  But some of that was inevitable with the pandemic ending and many of us returning to work.  That being said, some additional tools for server operators/mission builders could definitely go a long way - hopefully Air Marshall can deliver some of that.

 

As far as bombers and such, this just took place this past weekend: 

 

 

Apparently this was an 80 player MP event with 27 AI B-25's!  I think many of us assumed the limits of the current engine were far below this, so it looks like a lot more may be possible then we think.

[dureyo]

3 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

On the MP front it definitely feels like things are moving in the wrong direction in terms of active player population.  But some of that was inevitable with the pandemic ending and many of us returning to work.  That being said, some additional tools for server operators/mission builders could definitely go a long way - hopefully Air Marshall can deliver some of that.

 

As far as bombers and such, this just took place this past weekend: 

 

 

Apparently this was an 80 player MP event with 27 AI B-25's!  I think many of us assumed the limits of the current engine were far below this, so it looks like a lot more may be possible then we think.

How exactly is this achieved? 0 ground objects? Anything above 18 AI planes makes my game slow down to 30% gamespeed. 

[357th_KW]

That's a good question - just getting that many players within sight of each other has proven problematic in the past.  Hopefully some more info will surface on the nuts and bolts of how it was done.

[=WBR=Filbee]

On 4/4/2022 at 11:27 PM, =621=Samikatz said:

As someone who has dragged some former non-simmers into playing these games, I think the biggest barrier for entry is all your learning has to be self-driven or you need someone to guide you through it. A little more handholding (like an in-game link to tutorials) and stuff like built-in target range missions that are less scattered than the QMB would go a long way to helping, and they couldn't go wrong with a few more built-in co-op missions. While there are a lot of excellent community resources, new players don't know how to find and filter these things, and on top of that not every community resource is sustained forever

I quite agree with Samikatz, having moved from an older flight sim which we all though had a steep learning curve, IL2 was positively vertical at first! We persevered, found things on the 'net, found out out by trial and error and one of our group has made it an almost personal mantra to discover things about the game play, flying, navigation and so on, to pass on to the rest of us.

 

The idea of a gentle intro, especially to those who are not RL pilots together with ACM, tactics, etc., etc., would be very helpful to those newly joined. I know there are a number of players who already make their knowledge available on UTube and a big thanks to them but perhaps we could begin to think of online training sessions, this was a big plus point on the previous sim we played.

 

My pennies' worth. ?

[ACG_Jaydog]

4 hours ago, dureyo said:

How exactly is this achieved? 0 ground objects? Anything above 18 AI planes makes my game slow down to 30% gamespeed. 

I think that is likely more of an equipment issue. What are your specs? 

[dureyo]

5 hours ago, ACG_Jaydog said:

I think that is likely more of an equipment issue. What are your specs? 

R5 2600 OCed to 4,1 gHz
16 GB Ram
RX 6700XT

Has nothing to do with specs. This game is horribly optimized and doesen't run well on new hardware on remotely "active" missions. 

[Dawg35]

I'm all for AI improvements, better communications/interaction with wingmen etc. but as far as my buying any future modules (I have all current modules/aircraft) I am done until there is a Pacific Theater. I can continue to fly campaigns, MP missions etc with all the current theaters/aircraft. Normandy offers very little that is really "new" and practically nothing that is markedly different from what we have in Bodenplatte etc. so I have no interest in paying $100 for more of the same. For me it has to be the Pacific Theater (Guadalcanal, The Slot, Rabaul would be where to start) or nothing.

[[CPT]Crunch]

But Normand can be the deepest module by far, everything from Bodenplate can be used.  Add in the extra dimension of V-1's, naval, and C-47's.  They need to knock out a home run on this map and we'll have a real winner on their hands.  Keep me busy for a few years.

[Blue_Beep]

I'm a pilot and aero-engineer, I cant play this game.

I try from time to time but the very first thing I encounter is a clown mouse pointer that gets dragged behind my hand like it's attached by an elastic band. I feel sick after going through a few menus. I haven't even seen an aircraft yet!

 

Then you start flying auto level is off now you fight with up trim for the rest of the flight the nose bouncing up you hold it down (WW1 aircraft-no trim tabs).

 

See an aircraft turn spin crash.

 

Repeat the above 10 times uninstall, the game population festers and dies...

 

And I wonder how I have lived through real flying many hundreds of times?

 

Why the only time I have been in spins it took deliberate decisions to do so?

Why getting out of them was very straight forwards?

 

If a pilot a WW1 aviation buff gets sick and depressed trying and failing to "fly" IL-2 Flying Circus, ordinary people will uninstall and warn their friends not to waste their money.

 

The game is overly complex and way to hard to control, fifty times harder than real aircraft are.

 

Uninstalling again, what a lot of effort just to kill a dream...

[AEthelraedUnraed]

26 minutes ago, Blue_Beep said:

 now you fight with up trim for the rest of the flight the nose bouncing up you hold it down (WW1 aircraft-no trim tabs).

 

[...]

 

Why the only time I have been in spins it took deliberate decisions to do so?

Why getting out of them was very straight forwards?

Y'know, aviation in the day was not nearly as advanced as now. Some aircraft like the Camel were notoriously easy to spin, and notoriously hard to recover (IIRC, more Camel pilots died from accidents than got shot). You cannot simply say that because a modern aircraft is hard to spin, then therefore a vintage aircraft must be so as well. Same with the trim; some aircraft (e.g. the D.III) did in fact need forward stick for most of the flight.

 

35 minutes ago, Blue_Beep said:

 

The game is overly complex and way to hard to control, fifty times harder than real aircraft are.

So, how many WW1 warbirds have you flown in real life?

 

Yes, IL2 has some degree of complexity, like every simulation software has. But it definitely isn't extraordinarily hard, and much less complex than some of its competitors.

[stevinne]

I think it's a big mistake to avoid the Pacific Theater, particularly when DCS is getting ready to release the F4U with an Essex-class carrier. Like others, I have Stalingrad and Bodenplate. Along with Cliffs of Dover and a few premium planes, I feel like I have enough European choices to keep me satisfied. Once I begin buying DCS Pacific Theater stuff, (I'm betting the F4U is followed up by a Zeke and a Hellcat) I can't imagine I'll be looking for other WWII content from IL-2 for quite a while or will want IL-2 Pacific stuff after I'd already invested in DCS planes from that theater. One problem with doing a really good job is that it stands the test of time for quite a while. If the developers think they can't do GB justice to the Pacific, I'd take a two-track approach as we now have with COD and GB, with GB being the highest fidelity they can offer while a "Blitz" label offers something perhaps not as realistic, but with great graphics and gameplay and still enough realism to satisfy all but the most hard-core simmers. I hate to say it, but if I were them, I'd rush out something like IL-2:Cactus Airforce Blitz or IL-2 Black Sheep Squadron Blitz, or if they can get a carrier developed quickly, IL-2 Midway Blitz in advance of DCS' F4U - or at least announce something so folks who love blue planes and palm trees have an alternative to look forward to. With time of the essence, they could probably do an American offering that they could then follow up with either a Japanese offering or, if they feel they don't have enough info to offer a full slate of IJN aircraft, something like the the Zero and the Akagi as premium collector offerings.

'     

Edited April 10, 2022 by stevinne

[[CPT]Crunch]

14 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Y'know, aviation in the day was not nearly as advanced as now. Some aircraft like the Camel were notoriously easy to spin, and notoriously hard to recover (IIRC, more Camel pilots died from accidents than got shot). You cannot simply say that because a modern aircraft is hard to spin, then therefore a vintage aircraft must be so as well. Same with the trim; some aircraft (e.g. the D.III) did in fact need forward stick for most of the flight.

 

So, how many WW1 warbirds have you flown in real life?

 

Yes, IL2 has some degree of complexity, like every simulation software has. But it definitely isn't extraordinarily hard, and much less complex than some of its competitors.

I think you read him wrong, I'm seeing him as saying the exact opposite.

[tattywelshie]

As a single player fan, I’d love to see the career mode really expanded upon. It would be good to have expanded stats to look through post mission and for the squadron you’re flying for. I used to love the career in B17 where you really felt like you were part of a squadron and built up and affinity with the crew and aircraft. Id like as well the career to be dynamic where you’re missions have a direct effect on the enemy numbers. So failed missions might result in your base being overrun and you have to retreat etc, and then have intel before missions about enemy strength. And then just little things like specific skins for each squadron and the ability to set those skins for every plane in that squadron. 
 

I realise online is a massive part of the game, but I really feel like expanding on the career mode will give IL2 even more of an advantage over DCS and keep it set apart from it. 

 

[CountZero]

8 hours ago, tattywelshie said:

As a single player fan, I’d love to see the career mode really expanded upon. It would be good to have expanded stats to look through post mission and for the squadron you’re flying for. I used to love the career in B17 where you really felt like you were part of a squadron and built up and affinity with the crew and aircraft. Id like as well the career to be dynamic where you’re missions have a direct effect on the enemy numbers. So failed missions might result in your base being overrun and you have to retreat etc, and then have intel before missions about enemy strength. And then just little things like specific skins for each squadron and the ability to set those skins for every plane in that squadron. 
 

I realise online is a massive part of the game, but I really feel like expanding on the career mode will give IL2 even more of an advantage over DCS and keep it set apart from it. 

 

Online is small part of this game, just cjecked and there is total of ~50 players online now, and acording to steam charts there is ~200ppl playing game on steam only. So they should focus more on SP , if SP players are big part. But why old games made atmosphere better is because they lacked in graphics so they had to try more in creating good atmosphere for players to continue playing, new games count to mutch on other stuff and lack that atmosphere old games had in SP department. Also here focus is more on making missions more like they were in ww2 and that tends to beboring and repetative, only chance are scripted campaign, but hard to use mission maker limits who can use it to make missions so you again end up with small number of similar stuff, no big varaiti like old IL-2 even had with its easy and fun way to make SP stuff.

[tattywelshie]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

Online is small part of this game, just cjecked and there is total of ~50 players online now, and acording to steam charts there is ~200ppl playing game on steam only. So they should focus more on SP , if SP players are big part. But why old games made atmosphere better is because they lacked in graphics so they had to try more in creating good atmosphere for players to continue playing, new games count to mutch on other stuff and lack that atmosphere old games had in SP department. Also here focus is more on making missions more like they were in ww2 and that tends to beboring and repetative, only chance are scripted campaign, but hard to use mission maker limits who can use it to make missions so you again end up with small number of similar stuff, no big varaiti like old IL-2 even had with its easy and fun way to make SP stuff.

Interesting, I hadn’t even looked at the amount of online players. Games like SWOTL, B17 Mighty eighth really had cracking career/campaign modes, or at least from what I can remember they had! They might have been crap but my 15 year old self probably thought they were amazing!
 

Anyways, the career mode in IL2 is fab, but with some tweaks here and there could be even better! The ability to maybe plan missions as well would be good. Basically the current career mode, with the amazing features of the PWMG chucked in would be a massive upgrade

[parkerc341]

Quote

On 4/9/2022 at 8:26 PM, Blue_Beep said:

The game is overly complex and way to hard to control

 

The game isn't that hard. I've never flown a real aircraft or anything and I manage fine. Not to mention I'm only 16. I think you ought to put more time into it.

[fogpipe]

WW2 will always draw interest. Its the only morally justifable large scale modern conflict that i know of.

On top of that, getting to fly a fighter plane?

Also, where is the competition? Dcs is overpriced and lacking in ww2 content (at least compared to Il2) and all i hear about War Thunder is that its an arcade game (never actually played it myself) but that those two exist proves that there is sufficient interest to support more than one WW2 flight sim.

So unless the dev team loses interest or stops updating the game, il2 is not going away, heck people are still playing '46.