Summer 2022

[No.54_Reddog]

@Buzzsaw

 

IIRC you posted previously you "hoped to release in summer" the VR, Weather, speedtree and texture work.

 

Halfway through summer (june-August) and we aren't seeing a whole lot more from the TFS PR regarding beta testing for the non VR elements. 

 

1) Is it still realistic to "hope" for a summer release and if not, can you share your current project plan timelines? 

 

2) Assuming you are still "hoping" for a summer release, at what point in time do you think you will be able to confirm you're ready for release (understanding that the final decision lies with 1C etc) or there will be a delay?

 

3) will there be a public beta of the non VR work prior to release or will the VR beta group just roll into testing the full release?

 

[OBT-Lionel]

Summer goes from June 21 to September 23, they are always on time.   ?

[Dagwoodyt]

I don't think it is possible to dissociate other Visual Update elements from VR. Please take note that system crashes in VR can represent a totally different animal from 2D crashes. 2D crashes on my system are now handled better than in times past in that the game now drops me back to the Steam game start menu whereas before I had to invoke Task Manager to leave the game. OTOH, a game crash out of VR could be quite upsetting. I have a few "Single" missions that I created or edited in the FMB long ago that still either crash randomly after a few minutes or run to completion. I never no which of the two will happen. If VR were introduced into the mix I would likely not attempt them at all. A Visual Update Package without VR is unthinkable so I would pay close attention to any references to system crashes in VR. Chasing down causes is imperative so any predictions of timeline absent resolution of that issue would seem problematic.

Edited July 11, 2022 by Dagwoodyt

[No.54_Reddog]

6 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I don't think it is possible to dissociate other Visual Update elements from VR. Please take note that system crashes in VR can represent a totally different animal from 2D crashes. 2D crashes on my system are now handed better than in times past in that the game now drops me back to the Steam game start menu whereas before I had to invoke Task Manager to leave the game. OTOH, a game crash out of VR could be quite upsetting. I have a few "Single" missions that I created or edited in the FMB long ago that still either crash randomly after a few minutes or run to completion. I never no which of the two will happen. If VR were introduced into the mix I would likely not attempt them at all. A Visual Update Package without VR is unthinkable so I would play close attention to any references to system crashes in VR. Chasing down causes is imperative so any predictions of timeline absent resolution of that issue would seem problematic.

That is true. However, one could make the argument to get the 2d elements finished and released in isolation if it's going to be problematic to get it all out in one go then work on the VR stuff. However, we are speculating that there are problems, I'm not in the VR beta so no idea if this is all part of the plan. 

 

But then as our comrade above points out, Buzzsaw never said which YEAR the summer he was hoping for was in...

[OBT-Eazy]

57 minutes ago, No.54_Reddog said:

But then as our comrade above points out, Buzzsaw never said which YEAR the summer he was hoping for was in...

 

Same for ED, they never say when they will try to fix bugs of the WWII era 

[Dagwoodyt]

8 minutes ago, OBT-Eazy said:

 

Same for ED, they never say when they will try to fix bugs of the WWII era 

Well "what about" you take your specific concerns to said developer's forum?   ?
 

[Hoss]

9 hours ago, OBT-Lionel said:

Summer goes from June 21 to September 23, they are always on time.   ?

It goes much longer than that in the San Joaquin Valley CA.  Was over 100°F for six days in May..... it's 101°F now.  This week runs the gammut of 101 to 105°F.

“Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.”  Lao Tzu..

[Dagwoodyt]

54 minutes ago, Hoss said:

It goes much longer than that in the San Joaquin Valley CA.  Was over 100°F for six days in May..... it's 101°F now.  This week runs the gammut of 101 to 105°F.

“Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.”  Lao Tzu..

 

Eventually your Summer may be year round. Why blame Nature? Neat deflection though.   ?

[Hoss]

30 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Eventually your Summer may be year round. Why blame Nature? Neat deflection though.   ?

You missed the whole point.....Old Reddogg is impatient waiting on things he would like to see. I'm just advocating patients, we have no idea what they are working on. Find something else to while away the time.

“Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.”    Patients

As my Pops used to say.... " There is nothing to be learned from the second kick of a Mule"           I rest my case...

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, Hoss said:

You missed the whole point.....Old Reddogg is impatient waiting on things he would like to see. I'm just advocating patients, we have no idea what they are working on. Find something else to while away the time.

“Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.”    Patients

As my Pops used to say.... " There is nothing to be learned from the second kick of a Mule"           I rest my case...

If there is a point other than deflection I think you chose a suboptimal illustration  ?

[Art-J]

In the other thread a few days ago Buzz wrote "planned late summer or fall" anyway, so... It comes when it comes.

[Dagwoodyt]

The developer made a commitment to release a "Visual Update" package that includes VR. Whether that happens this year or next doesn't matter to me as long as the commitment is kept. Why continually attempt to create an illusion that anyone is impatient because their expensive VR and controller setups sit idle until Visual Upate launch. No one need wait for said Launch in order to make full use of equipment they currently have. That reality has implications that ought to be easily understood   ?

[Buzzsaw]

We are still hoping to release the Visual Update package this summer.

 

That package includes VR implementation, 4k upgrades to terrain, aircraft, cockpits, extended viewing distances to objects, improved objects and functionality on maps, trueSKY sun, sky, weather and cloud systems, and the upgrades of existing trees and vegetation from Speedtree 5.2 to Speedtree 9.0.

 

All of these elements have to work together... basically we are completely re-doing the game's visual presentation.

 

By the way, in regards to some questions which were asked, our coder tells me he has confirmed the implemention of the trueSKY Cirrus clouds in the game.

[Froddi_VR]

I can hardly wait for buzzing around the desert in VR:) Thanks for your work TF!

[Mysticpuma]

3 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

By way, in regards to some questions which were asked, our coder tells me he has confirmed the implemention of the trueSKY Cirrus clouds in the game.

Buzzsaw, quick question if the answer is known. 

Can Truesky simulate/represent lightning in storms? 

Please note, I am not asking for this in V5, simply asking if lightning is possible with Truesky and may be possible for V6? 

Cheers, MP

[Buzzsaw]

3 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

Buzzsaw, quick question if the answer is known. 

Can Truesky simulate/represent lightning in storms? 

Please note, I am not asking for this in V5, simply asking if lightning is possible with Truesky and may be possible for V6? 

Cheers, MP

I don't know... I am not the guy working on the implementation.

 

I would assume so, but just like Cirrus clouds or rain or snow, it has to be implemented within the CLIFFS source code.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Hi Puma. I just googled terms like TrueSky, weather, thunder and lightning... and found the below tutorial which I'm posting here... but not for the purpose of its content being taken into account by TFS. If it finally turns out that, for whatever reason, TFS cannot (or doesn't want) implement lightning effects before version 8.0... I don't care because at present my purpose is to show that lightning, indeedly indeed, can be modeled with TrueSky (lightning mentioned as of 4'24''):

 

 

 

[Buzzsaw]

2 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Hi Puma. I just googled terms like TrueSky, weather, thunder and lightning... and found the below tutorial which I'm posting here... but not for the purpose of its content being taken into account by TFS. If it finally turns out that, for whatever reason, TFS cannot (or doesn't want) implement lightning effects before version 8.0... I don't care because at present my purpose is to show that lightning, indeedly indeed, can be modeled with TrueSky (lightning mentioned as of 4'24''):

 

 

 

Note:

 

This demo is done with the UNREAL code engine adaption of trueSKY.

 

Simul has made a point of writing code to allow developers using UNREAL to get trueSKY up and running relatively easily.

 

CLIFFS OF DOVER does not use the UNREAL code engine.  CLIFFS uses a propriatary code engine developed independently by Oleg Maddox.

 

So while the CLIFFS engine has many advantages over UNREAL when it comes to Flight Simulations, ease of implementation of 3rd party programs like trueSKY is not one of those.

 

Yes, TF can implement all the elements which are offered by Simul in trueSKY, but all of that takes time.

[JonRedcorn]

I mean the fact you can even implement this into the cliffs engine which is what I believe an extension of 1946's original code (may be wrong) is a miracle in and of itself.

[Buzzsaw]

23 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

I mean the fact you can even implement this into the cliffs engine which is what I believe an extension of 1946's original code (may be wrong) is a miracle in and of itself.

CLIFFS engine does use some elements from IL-2 1946, but it has been heavily developed from that point with far more complexity in many areas.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 hour ago, JonRedcorn said:

Honestly was a way better decision than whatever engine great battles runs on. Great battles engine was fine for the low altitude russian tactical air war, but everything else it just fails miserably at.

 

 

This needs to be clarified.

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Great Battles" development started as of December 2012 out of the "Rise of Flight" core engine, a WWI combat flight simulator. On its turn, "Rise of Flight" had been previously developed by two different companies for two different projects: the "Sikorsky Project" (by dStrict, as of 2003) and the "Knights of the Sky" project (by Gennadich Team, as of 2004). Both companies (and both projects) fusioned by 2006 (or 2007... or 2008...) resulting in the NeoQB company and the "Rise of Flight" game, released in 2009. "Rise of Flight" didn't obtain the expected success and by 2010 its core engine ended up by being purchased by Jason Williams. In 2011 "Cliffs of Dover" didn't obtain the expected success neither and this is how, in December 2012, Jason Williams and his 777 company signed an agreement with 1C for the adaptation of "Rise of Flight" into a WWII flight sim. My point is that, in a interview that dates back to 2003, dStrict already had said that his "Sikorsky Project" was being developed as a flight sim with capabilities of ground combat (infantry, tanks...), and this is why "Tank Crew" became possible by 2019. Otherwise, by the same seminal development years (let's say from 2004 to 2009), Oleg Maddox repeatedly said in interviews that ground material (guns, tanks, tc.) was planned to be available for the player in "Storm of War" ("Cliffs of Dover").

 

As a conclusion, it's fine if you say "Great battles engine was fine for the low altitude russian tactical air war"... but please note it hasn't benn developed for that latter. It had been developed for WWI air combat AND WWI ground combat. So, yes, we may say taht ground combat IS low altitude combat.

[JonRedcorn]

19 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

This needs to be clarified.

 

"IL-2 Sturmovik: Great Battles" development started as of December 2012 out of the "Rise of Flight" core engine, a WWI combat flight simulator. On its turn, "Rise of Flight" had been previously developed by two different companies for two different projects: the "Sikorsky Project" (by dStrict, as of 2003) and the "Knights of the Sky" project (by Gennadich Team, as of 2004). Both companies (and both projects) fusioned by 2006 (or 2007... or 2008...) resulting in the NeoQB company and the "Rise of Flight" game, released in 2009. "Rise of Flight" didn't obtain the expected success and by 2010 its core engine ended up by being purchased by Jason Williams. In 2011 "Cliffs of Dover" didn't obtain the expected success neither and this is how, in December 2012, Jason Williams and his 777 company signed an agreement with 1C for the adaptation of "Rise of Flight" into a WWII flight sim. My point is that, in a interview that dates back to 2003, dStrict already had said that his "Sikorsky Project" was being developed as a flight sim with capabilities of ground combat (infantry, tanks...), and this is why "Tank Crew" became possible by 2019. Otherwise, by the same seminal development years (let's say from 2004 to 2009), Oleg Maddox repeatedly said in interviews that ground material (guns, tanks, tc.) was planned to be available for the player in "Storm of War" ("Cliffs of Dover").

 

As a conclusion, it's fine if you say "Great battles engine was fine for the low altitude russian tactical air war"... but please note it hasn't benn developed for that latter. It had been developed for WWI air combat AND WWI ground combat. So, yes, we may say taht ground combat IS low altitude combat.

I know great battles came from rise of flight but again that makes my point even more poignant, ww1 was low altitude, slow fighting, there weren't 200 bombers streaming in over the channel in ww1 with massive airbattles going on. This engine is holding this game back so badly at this point it's not even funny anymore. This upcoming expansion normandy was anything but a tactical air war. It was massive formations of bombers and high altitude battles going on constantly. All the planes we've gotten in the past year or two have been high altitude fighters. Yet if you don't want to play online you will never even get the chance to get above 10k feet. Every single career mode mission is below 10k feet, every AQM mission is super low I just wanna intercept bombers at high altitude... Cliffs and 1946 is capable of this no issue yet here we cannot do it. You can if you want to figure out how to use the insanely complicated mission editor... Maybe there are some scripted campaigns where you get to do it I do not know.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

3 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

that makes my point even more poignant

 

 

Sure JohnRedcorn, I wasn't contradicting you, only bringing one important precision.

 

Also, trust me, I seriously take into account all of what you've said. But, ultimately, if one thinks about it, both teams of developers (1C Game Studios and Team Fusion Simulations) are doing nothing but the same thing: they try to improve a source code they inherited by others (whatever legal differences might be between both in terms of property, conditions of access to the code, etc.). 1C Game Studios inherits the "Rise of Flight" of NeoQB and Team Fusion Simulations inherits the original "Cliffs of Dover" of Maddox Games. Both codes have their own advantages and disandvantages, both have their own potential. I'm sure that both series, Great Battles and Dover, will keep coexisting for a while, each one developing its own potentiality. Players not being happy with one, simply need to try the other one. And yes, I remember high altitude combat in "IL-2: 1946", many years ago, same as, now, we can go into air combat at high altitude in the Blitz version of Cliffs of Dover. If Great Battles frustrates you regarding altitude  fights and number of aircraft, simply take what you like in each sim.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2022 by 343KKT_Kintaro
what've you said -> what you've said.

[JonRedcorn]

4 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Sure JohnRedcorn, I wasn't contradicting you, only bringing one important precision.

 

Also, trust me, I seriously take into account all of what you've said. But, ultimately, if one thinks about it, both teams of developers (1C Game Studios and Team Fusion Simulations) are doing nothing but the same thing: they try to improve a source code they inherited by others (whatever legal differences might be between both in terms of property, conditions of access to the code, etc.). 1C Game Studios inherits the "Rise of Flight" of NeoQB and Team Fusion Simulations inherits the original "Cliffs of Dover" of Maddox Games. Both codes have their own advantages and disandvantages, both have their own potential. I'm sure that both series, Great Battles and Dover, will keep coexisting for a while, each one developing its own potentiality. Players not being happy with one, simply need to try the other one. And yes, I remember high altitude combat in "IL-2: 1946", many years ago, same as, now, we can go into air combat at high altitude in the Blitz version of Cliffs of Dover. If Great Battles frustrates you regarding altitude  fights and number of aircraft, simply take what you like in each sim.

 

 

The problem is cliffs isn't releasing late war western european aircraft. In my eyes there's nothing wrong with cliffs besides a lack of content and nobody playing it. I personally think its the better sim by a mile and a half. The UI is outdated and terrible but the game itself is lightyears beyond great battles, it's got a better damage model, better engine damage simulation, its got clickable pits to an extent, it has no issues with numbers of aircraft, its got far better AI, I wish all the content in great battles was on the cliffs engine I'd have 0 complaints besides the UI being in shambles. The great battles dev team needs to step it up in the AI and mission content. It's got better graphics in a way, and far more content but that's about it. This game could be so much more yet we are stuck with rudimentary AI, and terrible mission generation.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

12 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

The problem is cliffs isn't releasing late war western european aircraft. In my eyes there's nothing wrong with cliffs besides a lack of content and nobody playing it. I personally think its the better sim by a mile and a half. The UI is outdated and terrible but the game itself is lightyears beyond great battles, it's got a better damage model, better engine damage simulation, its got clickable pits to an extent, it has no issues with numbers of aircraft, its got far better AI, I wish all the content in great battles was on the cliffs engine I'd have 0 complaints besides the UI being in shambles. The great battles dev team needs to step it up in the AI and mission content. It's got better graphics in a way, and far more content but that's about it. This game could be so much more yet we are stuck with rudimentary AI, and terrible mission generation.

 

 

I'm not a developer, JonRedcorn, a simple player only, same as you yourself... I think. So there's nothing we can do if not leaving the development teams do their part, which they do, I'm sure. You brought some honest criticism here and the devs read it, I'm sure they read it. But THEY are the real decision makers, not you nor me, so we need to trust them if we want they improve these games, Great Battles & Dover. Think about how far we've come since the Blitz edition in 2017, think about the physiology system, the new clouds and the new weather features in Great Battles. At this stage we don't know if, in the future, everyone will fill its own gaps. Let's be positive.

[Dagwoodyt]

If the idea is to play "12 O'clock High" what sim is capable of all the AI coding required and who will do the coding for pay let alone for free? Assuming 100 4-engine bombers ~25,000 feet, needing crew and formation holding logic once attacked, maybe 20 fighters on each side, comms for fighter and bomber groups, time to get to altitude and get back to base on a map of adequate size would seem essential. Having hundreds of aircraft on screen is not the same as getting them all to do something purposeful. Would there be a way to get after-action analysis? Good luck   ?

Edited July 16, 2022 by Dagwoodyt

[Guest deleted@7076]

-Deleted-

Edited September 12, 2022 by Varrattu

[JonRedcorn]

4 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

If the idea is to play "12 O'clock High" what sim is capable of all the AI coding required and who will do the coding for pay let alone for free? Assuming 100 4-engine bombers ~25,000 feet, needing crew and formation holding logic once attacked, maybe 20 fighters on each side, comms for fighter and bomber groups, time to get to altitude and get back to base on a map of adequate size would seem essential. Having hundreds of aircraft on screen is not the same as getting them all to do something purposeful. Would there be a way to get after-action analysis? Good luck   ?

I mean I've played generated missions similar to this a bunch of times in il2 1946 with mods... You make it seem far more complicated than it is. I am not asking for missions with 150 planes in them although that'd be awesome! I just want AI in great battles that isn't so poor it makes you not want to play. I am not sure if you've played 1946 but the AI in that game blows great battles so far out of the water it ends up on the moon.

[Dagwoodyt]

47 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

I mean I've played generated missions similar to this a bunch of times in il2 1946 with mods... You make it seem far more complicated than it is. I am not asking for missions with 150 planes in them although that'd be awesome! I just want AI in great battles that isn't so poor it makes you not want to play. I am not sure if you've played 1946 but the AI in that game blows great battles so far out of the water it ends up on the moon.

I have the modded Il-2 1946 but haven't used it since 2017. If modded 1946 suits your needs that's great. Where we are now though is that it's not easy to sell what 1946 has on offer. You seem to be demanding what you state the modded 1946 can do (I take your word for it) from sims that are in a different graphical universe from 1946. If the AI from 1946 has made its' way into Blitz and Blitz has an FMB derived from Il-2 1946 are you currently making missions in Blitz that meet your needs?

Edited July 17, 2022 by Dagwoodyt

[JonRedcorn]

4 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I have the modded Il-2 1946 but haven't used it since 2017. If modded 1946 suits your needs that's great. Where we are now though is that it's not easy to sell what 1946 has on offer. You seem to be demanding what you state the modded 1946 can do (I take your word for it) from sims that are in a different graphical universe from 1946. If the AI from 1946 has made its' way into Blitz and Blitz has an FMB derived from Il-2 1946 are you currently making missions in Blitz that meet your needs?

I am not sure what any of that has to do with great battles having the worst AI out sims ranging from 2002 to present day. There's not a single other flight sim with worse AI. When the devs claim that some 90% of owners are SP only you'd think it'd be a more pressing issue. The mission creator in 1946 is easy to use and intuitive. Almost anyone can set something up on there.

 

Also you don't have to take my word for it go watch any of Fishyyy's fantastic videos he's made in 1946... Here's an example...

 

 

 

There's probably 100 planes in this mission.

 

The newer games mission editors are beyond my skill level. Especially great battles it's easily the hardest one to use out of any of the modern sims. DCS, Blitz, and 1946 all have much easier to use editors. I've tried to use great battles and it's just not something I can wrap my head around. And also I believe like I mentioned we have early war western front planes in blitz only, we don't have the late war high altitude fighters that I was talking about. All I am asking for is the devs to work on the AI.

[Mysticpuma]

6 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

I mean I've played generated missions similar to this a bunch of times in il2 1946 with mods... You make it seem far more complicated than it is. I am not asking for missions with 150 planes in them although that'd be awesome! I just want AI in great battles that isn't so poor it makes you not want to play. I am not sure if you've played 1946 but the AI in that game blows great battles so far out of the water it ends up on the moon.

The game engine is capable (you just need a good rig to run it) 

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2022 by Mysticpuma

[343KKT_Kintaro]

JonRedcorn, with respect, Dagwoodyt said "sims that are in a different graphical universe".

 

This video you shared, please watch it again:

 

1 - No cast shadows

 

2 - Much less (thus much more visible) polyhedral edges

 

3 - 2D clouds

 

4 - No VR

 

5 - Obsolete tiling and textures on the ground

 

6 - Is 4K compatible with '46?

 

7 - Etc.

 

'46 was great, it was a true revolution, I'll always love it, but in the present day, in 2022, modern standards in the domain of combat flight simulation are present in games that are a few older than 10 years, not those that are older than 20 years. ?

 

It's not yet done, but I plan to go back to '46. That's only by curiosity, for the purpose of having a look at the game as it is now, after so many years of modding. Other than that, if we want to contribute to the development of this hobby (WWI & WWII flight sims), we need to move forwards with modern standards games, maybe even supporting  the development of completely new games... if some brave guy out there tries to code a new serious sim that would be set in the first half of the 20th century.

 

Puma shows us this by now well known video. Let's see what happens in a historically set scenario with added ships, tanks, fighters, etc. It has been said that Great Battles couldn't manage such a mission, but Cliffs of Dover, BMS or DCS do have their own limitations as well.

[Dagwoodyt]

8 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

I am not sure what any of that has to do with great battles having the worst AI out sims ranging from 2002 to present day. There's not a single other flight sim with worse AI. When the devs claim that some 90% of owners are SP only you'd think it'd be a more pressing issue. The mission creator in 1946 is easy to use and intuitive. Almost anyone can set something up on there.

 

Also you don't have to take my word for it go watch any of Fishyyy's fantastic videos he's made in 1946... Here's an example...

 

 

 

There's probably 100 planes in this mission.

 

The newer games mission editors are beyond my skill level. Especially great battles it's easily the hardest one to use out of any of the modern sims. DCS, Blitz, and 1946 all have much easier to use editors. I've tried to use great battles and it's just not something I can wrap my head around. And also I believe like I mentioned we have early war western front planes in blitz only, we don't have the late war high altitude fighters that I was talking about. All I am asking for is the devs to work on the AI.

What is the logic of making GB asks in the Blitz forum? When all the relevant aircraft assets of 1946 are present in Blitz and GB and all sims then available support Tacview or an equivalent then we can compare notes on flight models, etc. What typically gets left out when stringent demands are made to developers is the unwritten requirement that all such grandeur must be able to be run on a "potato"   ?

Edited July 17, 2022 by Dagwoodyt

[Buzzsaw]

On 7/16/2022 at 3:30 PM, Varrattu said:

Hello Buzzsaw,

is it within Team Fusion's capabilities to implement or mod weather within the CLIFFS source code?

~V~

 

Of course... just takes time.