Would a new engine require new models?

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

Every time the game engine topic comes up it get shut down quickly so im not expecting this to last too long. But please bear with me, I'm not asking for a new engine, I'm just trying to understand what IL2 great battles is and how it's evolving and how future proof it is.

 

If IL2 were to someday update its engine to say Unreal or some updated version would all the planes need to be rebuilt? I assume the 3d models/drawings should surely be compatible or am I mistaken?

 

I understand the code, physics and engine would need to be rewritten but from the sounds of things the current engine is entirely unique. What I'm trying to understand is how unique it all is? What could be carried over to a newer engine?

 

Am I totally clueless and misunderstanding what this game really is. Is it actually evolving and keeping up with modern alternatives as updates are released? Is the IL2 world engine able to keep up with modern hardware and software as time goes on, OR is an alternative "IL2 world" a desired item on the developer's wishlist?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

First of all, switching to Unreal or Unity or whatever is not nearly as easy as some people seem to think. It's probably less work than building an engine from scratch, but it's likely you'll need to (re)write large parts of the engine, and it might turn out that's not even possible. Also, you'll likely need to completely rewrite *all* of your existing code.

 

Regarding 3d models, the devs could write a conversion script to a format that the new engine could import. Or, more likely, they export directly from the original model in their 3d editing software (mgm is an export format itself). The problem though, is that mgm includes more than just the model. It also includes information about the lights, pilot models, animations, ..., and that might not be possible to automatically export to a new format.

 

The IL2 engine is constantly being updated. Graphics wise (take the new sky and clouds for instance, that IMHO look completely up-to-date and state-of-the-art), and other stuff (take the fuel management that's in development). So yes, it's keeping up with modern alternatives.

 

That said, they're probably running into some things they wish they'd done differently, and an engine change would be a good way to start with a blank slate. Jason has hinted at least once at that they might switch to a new engine for the next product. Whatever that means for the current game (i.e. will all our planes and maps still work?), only time can tell (and Jason, but I doubt he will at this early stage where nothing is certain ).

Edited May 28, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[firdimigdi]

2 hours ago, =EXPEND=Dendro said:

What could be carried over to a newer engine?

 

Given time, almost everything. But it's a monumental undertaking littered with any number of pitfalls and moving to a popular game engine like those you mention is not a guarantee of improvement.

 

Currently IL-2 treads a balanced line between performance (despite some longstanding issues) eye-candy and visual parity between rendering mediums (screen or VR). This would not be the case with the aforementioned engines without hefty customizations.

[Sandinourcoffee6]

The devs need to make money from early access stuff.

just say they went down the line of a new engine PTO sim,how long would it take to build,who would buy into it early access,80 dollers for something you can not use until its finished,while they were doing this would they neglect great battles [ no more updates ] would they ship everything over from great battles to the new engine for free?

would they keep expanding great battles,and work on the new engine seperate,that would be alot of work that would generate no money.

start again with a completely new sim,how long would this take and how could you get customers to sign up with their cash early access?

as far as the question goes i do not think the great battles planes could be used in the new module,we would most likely have to have them from scratch again and pay for them again,who knows,well for now we have a very good sim that sells well and has alot of life left in it yet

as the old saying goes { if its not broken dont fix it ]

[CountZero]

age of "we gona build completly new game engine" is gone, they will progresivily improve on what we have now.

If you look around there is no big fight for ww2 sim players so no need for anything completly new, here its gona be changing existing game engine to be as modern as posible, as long as ppl keep buying new DLC and collector stuff it should work ok.

Edited May 28, 2022 by CountZero

[Cravis]

IL2 GB is basically a platform. Just not an open one like MS:FS or DCS are. Its build in away to be expanded upon and it will probably be around for some time still.

 

We the consumer do not necessarily get the full picture of what a new engine actually means. For us it is mostly about eye candy. Newer engines are very efficient they get better performance for the eye candy. 

For the developer it is probably very different they have to deal with the code. They need the engine to to do what they want to do.

 

It is a bit telling that proper flight simulators (MS:FS, DCS, IL2 etc.) do not use one of the big licensing engines (Unity, UE, idTech etc.). Arcade game such as Ace Combat (UE) or Project Wingman (UE) however switched to these engines. Even for racing simulations it is mostly the same. While arcade games run on stuff like Snowdrop, UE etc. simulators e.g. iRacing mostly use their own solutions. The only simulation that uses a licensing engine I know of is Assetto Corso Competizione (UE).

It is however not that these engines would not work, its probably more to do with these engines where not created with that in mind and would need some bigger adaptation.

Then most simulators these days are rather old DCS has been around for 13 years and IL2 GB 8 years. MS:FS is new but still decided for its own solution probably because of the Microsoft Azure integration. Back then Unity or UE where nowhere near as encompassing as they are today so the decision to go with inhouse solution was made when the licensing engines where not really an alternative.

 

The market for these simulations is rather small so a new game would really need some serious reasoning to even happen. 

I think if someone today would make a new flight simulator he would actually use one of those engines. The problem is it would come with immense cost and effort. 

 

Example NOR:

 

 

It uses UE however it is a professional simulator there will not be a game for us.

But it shows UE etc can do it today but you would need tons of money (money defence contractor have) and time. 

 

[Ribbon]

Whatever will bring better performance and wider gameplay (bombers, naval ops...etc).

New engine or rewrited/upgraded one it's up to devs but it is time for il2 to step up gameplay, after nearly a decade and 5 expansions later it's time to get PTO, naval ops, proper bombers (medium, torpedo...etc.).

 

Graphics doesn't need to be latest state of the art, imo as a VR user i find latest clouds hotfix and new skybox were very bad tradeoff when it takes performance vs. graphics....in VR i can't see much graphical improvement exept excessive glare and sunken fps.

[Avimimus]

 

I think there are a few things people need to consider:

 

(1) Most of the sophisticated code relates to things flight models, physics models, and AI models. The graphics are a relatively small part of the engine, and often not the limiting factor.

 

(2) Using someone else's game engine would bring a lot of design choices which aren't optimised for flight simulators. Something like Unreal Engine has graphics designed for much smaller view ranges, developer tools designed for different genres (FPS, RPG), and a lot of features that would be useless overhead.

 

(3) The current game engine is very efficient (until recently I was running it on an HD7850 - which is a ten year old graphics card). This represents a lot of skill by the devs in optimising the engine, and also a choice to try to remain accessible to people who can't afford new machines.

 

Il-2 isn't an asset flip based FPS using very simply physics calculations - it is a flight simulator with a very sophisticated flight model and an entirely different set of graphical needs compared to most games. It represents almost fifteen years of gradual refinement. Swapping it out for another engine doesn't make sense - especially when it comes to graphics as the devs have shown their programmers can implement better mirror, clouds, and a bunch of other graphics features than their competitors can.

 

Also, things like increasing the number of AI objects and refining their efficiency wouldn't be served by switching engines, especially given that graphics aren't the limiting factor. What is likely required is raising the CPU requirements and possibly doing a considerable rewrite of AI code in clever ways - things that another game engine wouldn't bring.

Edited May 28, 2022 by Avimimus

[ATAG_SKUD]

For me the current graphics quality and performance are fine. The physics and flight models are fine. The limiting factor is the allowable quantity of active objects is too small. I don't know if GB has hit its absolute limit but I think if there were room for improvement the devs would have done it by now. I don't know if a new engine would help this or not, it seems like it may be more of a netcode issue. But the plane/tank/AI object quantity limit seals off the the prospect of some very interesting game play with large formations and many moving targets, particularly when you think about expanding the strategic elements of the game.

 

skud

[PatrickAWlson]

3d models and graphics will be the least of the worries.  Physics and everything that works with physics like flight models, damage models would have to be redone.   Not sure about AI and the processing loop, but I imagine that would have to be at least reorganized.  You are probably talking about rewriting significant portions of the code.

[Dragon1-1]

I'd rather have them improve what we have. Things like supporting 128 buttons per device, native OpenXR support and general flight model improvements can be done on the current engine. Even clickable cockpits could probably be, were the devs not dead set against it for some reason. A new engine wouldn't solve any of those problems, it's more of a matter of devs being willing to work on fixing them.

[Mainstay]

For me the graphics look fine. What bothers me though is the lack of being able to implement or create 4 engine bombers in this engine. 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

52 minutes ago, Mainstay said:

For me the graphics look fine. What bothers me though is the lack of being able to implement or create 4 engine bombers in this engine. 

Have a nice day.

 

[Gambit21]

5 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

3d models and graphics will be the least of the worries.  Physics and everything that works with physics like flight models, damage models would have to be redone.   Not sure about AI and the processing loop, but I imagine that would have to be at least reorganized.  You are probably talking about rewriting significant portions of the code.

This, and what Avimimus said.

3D meshes are neither here nor there.

[Flatfoot]

In some  cases switching game engines would be more expensive than just making a new game for said engine.   The only issue I have is the inconsistent spotting    of this engine.    But that's my opinion.   This sim can get very pretty at times.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by 336th_Flatfoot

[BraveSirRobin]

20 hours ago, =EXPEND=Dendro said:

Every time the game engine topic comes up it get shut down quickly 

 
That’s because most of the people who comment have no idea what they’re talking about.  Even the people who do know what they’re talking about still don’t know all the details of what the dev team needs in a game engine.  You just have to accept that the dev team knows what they need.  If they happen to be wrong, that’s their problem, not yours.

[Gambit21]

20 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 
 You just have to accept that the dev team knows what they need. 

 

This a thousand times.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

9 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 That’s because most of the people who comment have no idea what they’re talking about.  Even the people who do know what they’re talking about still don’t know all the details of what the dev team needs in a game engine.  You just have to accept that the dev team knows what they need.  If they happen to be wrong, that’s their problem, not yours.

Agreed. I kinda like to discuss the technical aspects of topics such as this one (which I already did above), but I don't think any of the Moderators would have a problem with that. There's nothing in my post that a Google search couldn't tell you as well. However regrettably these topics tend to quickly be flooded with posts saying "I only want a new engine if X is fixed", "Y is not good enough", "we're still missing Z", "PTO" etc., none of which has anything to do with the engine.

[tattywelshie]

Graphics etc is interesting isn’t it? I mean really, if you think about it, do you really pay that much attention to how the trees look, or if the colour of a certain type of building is correct, when you’re in a massive furball, scrapping to stay alive? Granted it’s important and it’s great to have stuff that looks amazing, but there is so much more to an immersive combat flight sim than pretty graphics. I get just as much excitement from embarking on yet another mission in my career, wondering what type of adversary I’m going to meet as I do marvelling at the graphics. The engine for me is fine, the updates the team make to the sim bit by bit all add to the wonderful sim we have. 

[Voyager]

Honestly, given what we've seen of the Unreal, Doom, and other FPS engines, and how they ha sme high speed/high view range, I don't see how they've be improvements over the current flight sim engines. 

 

Things like the dynamic LoD generation are very interesting technologies, but I've also seen how they'll chug hard once you're up to low aircraft speeds and how small their maps really are. 

 

As far as engine upgrades requiring new models, from what I've seen it's more likely for new models to drive new engines instead. 

 

The Il-2 1946 engine is apparently limited to only 1GB of ram usage and 32 bit processing, and that is part of what limits how high resolution the textures and how many verticies it can support. 

 

So if they did do the work for a major engine overhaul, I'd expect it to be to support new models with new capabilities that they couldn't handle with the current engine, such as full finite element kinematic models or other things like that. And it that case, current models simply couldn't support the new engine. 

[Halon]

I've always been amazed at the constant improvements in the sim in so many areas (not just graphical). I wouldn't put it past the technical creativity of the Dev team to find new ways of updating the game in its current form. Whether it's increasing the amount of aircraft the game can manage, developing new tech or more aircraft I suspect it's just, understandably, a question of many competing priorities.

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

Thanks for the input gents..... Once again I really appreciate the fact that we have a ww2 prop sim and a team that is dedicated to working on it. Salute to the devs.

 

I have many great hours flying MP on this sim and its incredible to have been here from nearly the birth of this piece of art. I was committed and flying when we had just a 109 f4 and a lagg to choose from. The Pe2 was still in progress! Fantastic days and many hours later I have made some amazing friends online and learnt tons and tons about ww2 aerial combat.

 

Its great to have a better understanding of what this amazing product is and where it might be going. I think my biggest concern was that the DEVS may at some stage be forced to move to a new "engine" and we would kind of lose all our planes and start again from scratch so it is a bit reassuring that we hopefully have a product that will be around for many years to come.    

 

With the recent sale announced I am super excited and hopeful that a certain mosquito will be unleashed this week to cause havoc on the German frontlines!

S all!

[CUJO_1970]

This engine has a shelf life just like legacy IL/2 had…otherwise why aren’t we playing that anymore? After all it has Pacific and a million more maps and aircraft?

 

The clock is ticking just like it does for every game…playing MSFS and then coming back to this sim is like stepping back into something programmed in the late ‘90s. and it gets less interesting to fly this sim every time I do it and compare. 
 

There are still people flying EAW. There are people still playing legacy IL/2. In 5-10 years there will still be same kind of core people flying this sim and believing it’s the best thing ever. We may even have a freaking FW190A-9 by then. The question is, in 5 years how many new people will be interested? 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I would like to see that devs would get ride of those current engine limitations preventing from proper aircraft, ground and damage modeling rather making new one. Plus make alive,  immersive  ground objects destruction and  long lasting effects. 

[Eisenfaustus]

11 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I would like to see that devs would get ride of those current engine limitations preventing from proper aircraft, ground and damage modeling rather making new one. Plus make alive,  immersive  ground objects destruction and  long lasting effects. 

The current Engine certainly has limitations (although I don't know wether they could be overcome by evolution istead of recreation) - ground destruction effects as you mention are among them. Low view distance is another - und und low aircraft count in my book the most severe.

 

But what do you mean by proper aircraft und damage modeling? From my point of view those are very good.