Until we get the announcement on TFS V6, where do you think the next module will be?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

What I do agree to, Reddog, is that we were agreeing since the very begining and that you immediately forced me to step into an endless chain of parallel discussions with you... for nothing. You said "I can't imagine we will get a large number of brand new aircraft models". I answered "After so many years, my assumption is that a new module in the "IL-2 Sturmovik" series (whether it is a "Great Battles" game or a "Dover" game) usually does bring approximately 10 new types and/or variants"... which is nothing more than an acquiescence to what you said. Indeed, 10 aircraft not being at 100% new types... this is not, as you yourself said, "a large number of brand new aircraft models". Please reread the first response you gave me : "Thank you once again for another of your completely irrelevant quotes and replies to my point". Not very pleasant to read in a forum... is it?

 

 

[BOO]

Having applied a little thought (stress little) The continuation of a med (not malta) timeline helps to establish the sandbrand of TFS without worrying too much about the crtisism anything but a very well modelled malta with all its iconic and unique features brings. 

 

However - If id just shelled out on Speedtree 9 Id wanna use it  for more than a smattering of palms. Likewise Truesky. I assume the med has clouds (closest Ive been is Portsmouth - I tend to go east and west) but a more temperate theatre would likely justify the licence more perhaps?

 

Finally, the channel is gettng to be a bit like my sister. Everyones had a go at it. Clods old map is starting to show its age now and the blitz reroad wasnt the greatest, espeically on the French side. 

 

On planesets - I dont concure that TFS follows the GB model. I think you get what you get - maybe more, maybe less.  Sticking to med possibly increases the clamour for Italian types like the SM79 or (deam) Airone which may be doable or maybe a pipe deam due to information and good referencess (genuinley dont know). Certainly another map of sand would have to generate interest somewhere which put the pressure on the planesets. Variants would not, IMHO cut it. 

 

Or

 

It could focus on providing a top bang version of a tried and tested popular map within an engine that was really rather kind to the look of Southern England and Northern France, covering a period GB or DCS isnt touching to a level that GB-ers amy find appealing. 

 

Thats caffene for you!

[Mysticpuma]

Buzzsaw has already said the Channel Map is effectively getting a rebuild but won't be new so it isn't clear if that means a major bug fix overhaul or a rebuild with the new map tools used for Tobruk. 

 

Boo, I get what you mean about Malta and Speedtree but with a complete rebuild of the Channel Map (England France + Island maps) there is plenty of opportunity to utilise the new tech. 

 

V6 is all speculation until 1C speak up, which is still confusing why they have missed announcing it by 3 months, hence this speculation thread. 

 

Personally speaking, Malta would be great, Southern Italy would be intriguing as it would open up Romania/Hungary/Germany for V7, expanding into France I'd find disappointing but all we can say is time will tell. 

[No.54_Reddog]

Maybe there is a plan to take a leaf out of DCSs book and pick something completely unrelated and uncohesive, like central America? @BOO you'd get plenty of use for trees there. Or maybe TFS will be the ones to give us a Vietnam map? 

[BOO]

9 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

Boo, I get what you mean about Malta and Speedtree but with a complete rebuild of the Channel Map (England France + Island maps) there is plenty of opportunity to utilise the new tech. 

 

 

Didnt make it to clear in my late night ravings but i agree Truesky and ST9 appear to be largely for the benefit of a redux channel (not that they wont benefit  other maps as well).

 

8 hours ago, No.54_Reddog said:

Maybe there is a plan to take a leaf out of DCSs book and pick something completely unrelated and uncohesive, like central America? @BOO you'd get plenty of use for trees there. Or maybe TFS will be the ones to give us a Vietnam map? 

 

How about the Jurrasic?  Decent time frame (56 million years), three good Epoch based DLCs, and a tonne of published research. Just depends whether the engine can manage sauropods in large formations...  

 

 

[Guest deleted@7076]

 

-Deleted-

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by Varrattu

[Bell]

Of course Battle of France.

[BOO]

5 minutes ago, Bell said:

Of course Battle of France.

Is TFS had a backroom full of bored 3D atists and coders adding some more of the aircraft relevent to the short period the battle lasted would be nice as an extra but as a title I doubt it would be popular.

 

Id be delighted with a refined Battle of Britain on an improved map with a few more of the clod kinks smoothed out to build on whats already been done. . But I doubt that would be popular either.  

[343KKT_Kintaro]

I know what you mean, BOO. In my opinion all aerial conflicts from 1914 onwards are doable (and interesting to be done) in the domain of PC-platform flight sims. What's funny with flight sim fans is they usually find cooler a late WWII aircraft (1944-1945) rather than an earlier WWII aircraft (late 1930s)... but most of them find that 1914-1918 wood-and-rag aircraft are cool to be flown in a game... An Emil ? Not cool! Let's get a Kurfürst! A Fokker D.VII? Cool! (I think you got what I mean).

 

- The aerial battles over Spain in 1936-1939 DO DESERVE to be reenacted in a flight sim

- The aerial battles over China in 1937-1941 DO DESERVE to be reenacted in a flight sim

- The aerial battles over Poland in 1939 DO DESERVE to be reenacted in a flight sim

- The aerial battles over France in 1940 DO DESERVE to be reenacted in a flight sim

 

But they won't... In this game they won't... I know. It's not a reproach, just an observation... and a regret.

 

Anyway this sim rocks, and I trust the TFS guys, so I'll accept whatever scenario they planned for the next game in this series.

 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by 343KKT_Kintaro
the TFS guy, sso -->the TFS guys, so

[Mysticpuma]

Macchi 205 would be most welcome ?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

17 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

Macchi 205 would be most welcome ?

 

 

These wishes of ours ("ours" as I share them with you, Puma) won't be granted. My memory may be foggy (and I haven't the time to look for the thread) but I think Buzzsaw already explained that the C.205s weren't manufactured in sufficient numbers so that the aircraft is justified in the Dover series.

 

That was the Reggiane Re.2005, not the Macchi C.205... thank you Barone!

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by 343KKT_Kintaro

[Mysticpuma]

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

These wishes of ours ("ours" as I share them with you, Puma) won't be granted. My memory may be foggy (and I haven't the time to look for the thread) but I think Buzzsaw already explained that the C.205s weren't manufactured in sufficient numbers so that the aircraft is justified in the Dover series.

 

We get what we get...no harm in dreaming

 

[5th_Barone]

No, he talked about the reggiane 2005: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/64487-wishlist-for-il2-cliffs-of-dover-blitz-desert-wings-tobruk/?do=findComment&comment=1066528.

 

If I have to choose between late Regia Aeronautica 's fighters, I surely would like to see the G55 instead of the 205V (which is not even a real "serie 5" aircraft). That would also be useful for a late war Italy liberation scenario.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

3 hours ago, 5th_Barone said:

No, he talked about the reggiane 2005: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/64487-wishlist-for-il2-cliffs-of-dover-blitz-desert-wings-tobruk/?do=findComment&comment=1066528.

 

If I have to choose between late Regia Aeronautica 's fighters, I surely would like to see the G55 instead of the 205V (which is not even a real "serie 5" aircraft). That would also be useful for a late war Italy liberation scenario.

 

 

You're right Barone! Great! Now I share the same dream with Mysticpuma... but not in the same bed like his...

Oh, by the way: a G.55 would be fantastic equally.

[Avimimus]

On 8/31/2022 at 6:58 PM, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

I know what you mean, BOO. In my opinion all aerial conflicts from 1914 onwards are doable (and interesting to be done) in the domain of PC-platform flight sims. What's funny with flight sim fans is they usually find cooler a late WWII aircraft (1944-1945) rather than an earlier WWII aircraft (late 1930s)... but most of them find that 1914-1918 wood-and-rag aircraft are cool to be flown in a game... An Emil ? Not cool! Let's get a Kurfürst! A Fokker D.VII? Cool! (I think you got what I mean).

 

- The aerial battles over Spain in 1936-1939 DO DESERVE to be reenacted in a flight sim

- The aerial battles over China in 1937-1941 DO DESERVE to be reenacted in a flight sim

- The aerial battles over Poland in 1939 DO DESERVE to be reenacted in a flight sim

- The aerial battles over France in 1940 DO DESERVE to be reenacted in a flight sim

 

But they won't... In this game they won't... I know. It's not a reproach, just an observation... and a regret.

 

Anyway this sim rocks, and I trust the TFS guys, so I'll accept whatever scenario they planned for the next game in this series.

 

I wonder if there is a way to change this...? Maybe model everything else first so that these things need to be modelled in order for there to be any new content in our genre?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

I wonder if there is a way to change this...?

 

 

Change what Avivimus? Change the fact that plenty of aerial conflicts have been neglected by software developers for years and still are neglected in the present day?

 

 

[BOO]

Simming since the mid 90s I have to say the same theatres appear time and again. IL2 broke the mould somewhat in 2001 but it was so much better than anything else it could get away with going East. The East was also a new concept back then so it was novel too. Even then it wasnt long before that too went mid and later war Americana with the Ace expansion pack and then the soporific Pacific Fighters before loosing the plot completely with the forget about the quality feel the quantity1946. 

 

Ultimately in WW2 you are left with only a few commerically attractive options and most of these seem to involve P51s and/or later types. Its a groundhog day type scenario. Same theates'time periods played on new tech, rinse repeat because that is what sells. The number of customers is also a fraction of what it was 20 years ago and the price of admission to simming so high its no longer a casual purchase for newcommers. So there is nowhere near the opportunity to tap into a curious goodwill of the masses when punting on a left field product as there was.  

 

Cliffs/Blitz/Sandclod is, in my view, already on the cusp of what the majority of simmers consider to be "early enough" and even "obsure" enough. For now I think it can only continue to work and find some success by producing products within its Western Europe and Med 1940-1942 timeframe. 

 

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Hey BOO, maybe "the soporific Pacific Fighters" is the only part in your message that I disagree with. I knew about IL-2 since its release in 2001 but I didn't purchase it. I finally went to the first generation of "IL-2 Sturmovik" games in 2005, and this happened thank to "Pacific Fighters" (released in 2004 though).

 

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Change what Avivimus? Change the fact that plenty of aerial conflicts have been neglected by software developers for years and still are neglected in the present day?

 

 

Well, yes. Also encouraging people to buy such a sim in sufficient numbers to make development feasible.

 

 

5 hours ago, BOO said:

The number of customers is also a fraction of what it was 20 years ago and the price of admission to simming so high its no longer a casual purchase for newcommers. So there is nowhere near the opportunity to tap into a curious goodwill of the masses when punting on a left field product as there was.  

 

I'm not sure if this is true. Back in 1999s a decent flight sim capable computer was often in the realm of $3000 (correcting for inflation). In the mid-1990s a single aircraft expansion disk for SWOTL was over $80 (correcting for inflation). Access to computers and internet connections was limited to a fairly small portion of the population back then in the first place. The markets were small and the prices were higher.

 

 

5 hours ago, BOO said:

Simming since the mid 90s I have to say the same theatres appear time and again. IL2 broke the mould somewhat in 2001 but it was so much better than anything else it could get away with going East. The East was also a new concept back then so it was novel too.

 

Not entirely. There had been mods (e.g. for SWOTL) and the ambitious Luftwaffe Commander had a Stalingrad section to the game. There were probably a couple that I am missing. Flanker also game out around that time which modelled only Soviet aircraft too.

 

I remember the consensus in 2000 was that Il-2 would be a niche sim aimed mainly at the Russian market. A lot of people in the "West" didn't find it interesting and were quite dismissive. By 2002 it had benefitted from the fact that it was a major leap forward in technology, the failure of several flight sim companies, and the tendency to engage with the community and offer free upgrades (unusual at the time). So, it did have those advantages - but I suspect that it'd still have turned a profit. It might have never lead to the (still in some ways incomplete) Pacific Fighters if it had more competition, but it would still have gained an audience.

 

There is another interesting factor - currently there are only two high fidelity sim companies - Il-2 series with BoX and Cliffs/Tobruk - and DCS. The high degree of fidelity means that no one can break into the market without years of work and a huge investment. This means that these companies basically have a monopoly on new content - so what matters is that enough of an audience can be found to turn a sufficient net profit. 

 

I suspect that a Chinese 1937-1941 scenario could be profitable if it was kept limited in scope (e.g. a smaller map, only four flyable aircraft and two ai aircraft). Many people would purchase it just to have new content to try (since there would be no other new content coming out, as there is essentially no competition within the genre).

 

I honestly suspect that DCS has a bigger problem - their emphasis on switchology means a lower pace of development and a tendency for people to specialise in just one or two aircraft...  few people will have time to learn to fly almost every aircraft and collect them all. So this limits overall sales. It is worth noting that most of those people who specialise will never move beyond an F-16 or F-18. However, a much smaller number will choose aircraft like the Mig-19, Su-25 or Mi-8... but these aircraft do seem to be turning a profit.

 

I suspect it is possible to have at least 'half-size' modules for more unusual settings that turn a profit (e.g. if Team Fusion were to release a four flyable. two AI aircraft. Battle of France expansion) - it just might take longer to make back the money and the returns might be smaller overall. I have access to sales information though, and there may also be investors involved, or middleware suppliers, who need a cut etc.

 

But I don't think we need to be caught in a loop of 'Might 8th' with the occasional 'Midway' or 'Battle of Britain' game endlessly repeating with slightly upgraded graphics. IMHO, we've already escaped that loop, as the amount of cumulative investment in DCS and BoX/Cliffs over essentially twenty years of development means that no sim will rival these and these are likely to become the definitive flight simulators - at least for half a century. I could see the appearance of radically new technologies changing that sometime - I just think it'll be at least another twenty years away (if not more).

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

currently there are only two high fidelity sim companies - Il-2 series with BoX and Cliffs/Tobruk - and DCS

 

 

This applies to air combat simulation obviously. Civilian aviation flight sims go their way...

 

 

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

I honestly suspect that DCS has a bigger problem - their emphasis on switchology

 

 

DCS is a study, not a survey. It does need such an emphasis on switchology... or simply there would be not a single study air combat simulator out there, not at the state of the art in 2022. I think Eagle Dynamics knows what it does.

 

 

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

I suspect it is possible to have at least 'half-size' modules for more unusual settings that turn a profit (e.g. if Team Fusion were to release a four flyable. two AI aircraft. Battle of France expansion) - it just might take longer to make back the money and the returns might be smaller overall. I have access to sales information though, and there may also be investors involved, or middleware suppliers, who need a cut etc.

 

 

Yes, same thing for what you said about the 1937-1941 China scenario. China in 1937... Poland in 1939... France in 1940... Let's say all of them are doable!

 

 

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

But I don't think we need to be caught in a loop of 'Might 8th' with the occasional 'Midway' or 'Battle of Britain' game endlessly repeating with slightly upgraded graphics. IMHO, we've already escaped that loop, as the amount of cumulative investment in DCS and BoX/Cliffs over essentially twenty years of development means that no sim will rival these and these are likely to become the definitive flight simulators - at least for half a century. I could see the appearance of radically new technologies changing that sometime - I just think it'll be at least another twenty years away (if not more).

 

 

Who knows... maybe some brave guy, in not so far future, will start coding his own game. But in the present day this really does take years and years...

 

 

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Who knows... maybe some brave guy, in not so far future, will start coding his own game. But in the present day this really does take years and years...

 

Well, I don't doubt that people can code flight simulators - one person with the right background can start one (Tiny Combat Arena is an example). The external flight models developed for DCS are also surprisingly good. But to develop a full fledged flight sim engine, which is efficient to render at large scales, has competent AI, has sophisticated damage models, and detailed research to support all of this... would take a moderately sized team many years (and tens of millions of dollars)... and even then it wouldn't have anywhere close to the present amount of content.

 

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

a full fledged flight sim engine, which is efficient to render at large scales, has competent AI, has sophisticated damage models, and detailed research to support all of this...

 

 

You simply defined Oleg Maddox ambitions back in the 2000s when Oleg started coding "IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover" (working title at the time: "Storm of War: The Battle of Britain").

 

Anyway, we are losing sight of the topic, Avivimus, so I have a question for you: where do you think the next module will be?

 

 

[Avimimus]

15 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Anyway, we are losing sight of the topic, Avivimus, so I have a question for you: where do you think the next module will be?

 

I'd say Sicily or Malta. They are moving the timeline forward, but gradually - and I think there was some rumour that Torch was out of the question? That would be my guess.

 

Which actually meets the criteria for what we were discussing - less well known theatres!

 

 

Do you have an updated guess?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I'd say Sicily or Malta.

 

 

Me too! Time will tell! (let's hope not too much time).

 

 

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I think there was some rumour that Torch was out of the question? That would be my guess.

 

 

 

Tunisia in TF6.0 is out of the question, that's for sure. I think TFS never dismissed the Torch landings as the theater of operations in TF6.0. But... these latter landings required a relatively important participation of aircraft carriers... and we know from official statements of TFS that aircraft carrier operations won't be ready for TF6.0... so maybe TF6.0 will deal with the Torch landings, but in such a case, there won't be carriers in it.

 

 

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Which actually meets the criteria for what we were discussing - less well known theatres!

 

 

Yep!

 

 

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Do you have an updated guess?

 

 

Nope!

 

 

[Padre*]

Some very interesting scenarios touted for TF6.

 

However some of the suggestions are a bit far fetched. You have to take away personal feelings and apply a business model. For instance, how many people would actually purchase a Battle of France/Spain/China/Poland scenario. It will be incredibly one-sided and cover a very narrow time frame.

 

Look at how poorly early scenarios in Great Battles do in terms of player numbers in servers when the same one sided missions are on. The same applies to Battle of France scenarios already in Cliffs of Dover in servers online. In order to maintain an interest for players of both sides, you need a more balanced scenario.

 

Think about the many nations that took part in other scenarios, and how much a wider appeal will likely entice more customers to purchase that scenario. Because of that, scenarios like Malta and Italy are more widely appealing.

 

Another potential money spinner, which is absent in most sims, is heavy bombers on the allied side. Anything that would include B-17, B-24, Lancaster or Halifax would likely draw in those not only wanting to fly them, but also those who want to shoot them down and escorts providing cover for the bombers. This would bring about scenarios not currently available in sims except the very dated IL-2 1946, and despite being a bit more difficult to develop, in my opinion would be a massive draw for players to the sim.