Translated QA

[DBFlyguy]

If the next product is something of interest to me, I'll buy it.  If it's not, I won't. That's how capitalism works.  I don't owe any for profit company my money, neither does anyone else. At the end of the day, 1C is just another company, albeit with some generally enjoyable products.  I've enjoyed most of the products I've bought from said company, I'm overall very pleased with Bodenplatte and Normandy and in my opinion those have greater global appeal than the earlier three eastern front focused "battle of" on top of the paid campaigns...collector planes...collector vehicles being primarily focused on the eastern front. 

 

Going backwards to what put this company in the same financial bind (as stated by Jason) seems extremely..."not wise"...but.... more power to them, I hope it works out.  If its something like the MTO (since they've all but closed the door on the PTO with this recent annoucement), I'll be first in line to pre-order it!  If it's more eastern front stuff.... I sincerely hope it works out for them, I'll continue to play and enjoy what I've already bought but I won't be contributing my money to it.

 

Hopefully, we'll all know in a few weeks what the next step is....

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by DBFlyguy

[Avimimus]

Seriously though - you guys have all had more than seven years of warning that the Pacific wasn't in the cards. The same goes for heavy bombers being unlikely.

 

It should also have been obvious that they'd finish the war in Eastern Europe eventually and give the Soviets a 1944-1945 planeset if they could.

 

Everyone should've known this was the case for years. My advice is to start speculating on the module after this one, look forward to the core engine upgrades that they'll add for existing modules, and if you want to complain about something to complain about, pick something that could possibly be changed - like the lack of hedges and bocage.

[Birdman]

Hopefully we get something new, another round with more variants of the existing planes wouldn't be terribly exciting.

 

Late eastern front probably would be a hit for the Russian market ( if they haven't mobilized the entire market base by then...) But not so much for western customers. And would still be more variants of what we already have.

 

Korea would be interesting, Solomon campaign I'd love (one can dream).

 

With the current political situation it will be a few months of uncertainty I'd imagine.

[=FEW=fernando11]

9 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Seriously though - you guys have all had more than seven years of warning that the Pacific wasn't in the cards. The same goes for heavy bombers being unlikely.

 

It should also have been obvious that they'd finish the war in Eastern Europe eventually and give the Soviets a 1944-1945 planeset if they could.

 

Everyone should've known this was the case for years. My advice is to start speculating on the module after this one, look forward to the core engine upgrades that they'll add for existing modules, and if you want to complain about something to complain about, pick something that could possibly be changed - like the lack of hedges and bocage.

 

Exactly!

 

I'm not complaining at all, but to my understanding, it was "hinted" almost explicitly on previous Q&As some time ago that some features such as needed to make the type of PTO that most have in their mind, would require an upgrade in the game engine so heavy as to make it not compatible with the current one.  Such as original il2 -> CloD   or RoF -> il2 BoS.

In both cases its technicaly a heavy modified engine, but so much so, as to be a diferent game.

Thaking that into acount, do you guys feel this current version is ready to be left behind and switch to a new one?  Without completing late war eastern front?  Wether I/you like it or not, a late war easter front is a must at some point, and there is still at least one or more expansions to do in the current game engine we have.

 

I'm prety sure a PTO game might come, when they decide a new game engine "version" is the next best step.

[Trooper117]

Fascinating stuff all of this... I hope it's getting viewed by the dev's?

Hope one of them steps up and gives us some up to date gen... otherwise Schmidtski will turn up and ruin all the devilry!  

[BraveSirRobin]

6 minutes ago, =FEW=fernando11 said:

 

Wether I/you like it or not, a late war easter front is a must at some point, and there is still at least one or more expansions to do in the current game engine we have.

 

I agree that it’s going to happen eventually, but right now is probably not a very good time.

 

I think Italy or 43 Channel is possible.

[Avimimus]

6 minutes ago, Birdman said:

Hopefully we get something new, another round with more variants of the existing planes wouldn't be terribly exciting.

 

Yes, I'm rather curious about this. Particularly for the Luftwaffe - as the Fw-190A9 and Bf-109G10 would still leave three slots to be filled. If the scenario includes enough of 1944 then a Ju-87D5/D7/D8 could appear right at the beginning, but we already have a He-111H16. It makes me wonder if we'd get a He-162, Ju-188, Fi-156 or something else?

[Eisenfaustus]

13 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

It makes me wonder if we'd get a He-162, Ju-188, Fi-156 or something else?

I really hope for a Ju-188, a Ju-87 D5 and a Ta-152 H. We‘ll see

[CAFulcrum]

1 hour ago, =FEW=fernando11 said:

 

Exactly!

 

I'm not complaining at all, but to my understanding, it was "hinted" almost explicitly on previous Q&As some time ago that some features such as needed to make the type of PTO that most have in their mind, would require an upgrade in the game engine so heavy as to make it not compatible with the current one.  Such as original il2 -> CloD   or RoF -> il2 BoS.

In both cases its technicaly a heavy modified engine, but so much so, as to be a diferent game.

Thaking that into acount, do you guys feel this current version is ready to be left behind and switch to a new one?  Without completing late war eastern front?  Wether I/you like it or not, a late war easter front is a must at some point, and there is still at least one or more expansions to do in the current game engine we have.

 

I'm prety sure a PTO game might come, when they decide a new game engine "version" is the next best step.

 

If the engine is holding them back at this point then they need to update the engine.  Too many holes are starting to appear.  I'm really not seeing how Eastern Front with variations of pre-existing planes at a pre-existing performance class in the same combat environment is going to attract more players/customers than a pacific module which would introduce a whole slew of brand new plane types and environments, or a heavy long range bomber module that would apply to a large amount of pre-existing content.  The lack of large scale formations of both land and air forces is what's stopping that, and it's been a problem with the sim since ROF, where large numbers of aircraft should also be flying.  At this point I'd rather have a north african or sicilian module if they're going to continue, to at least intoduce something that feels 'new' to the sim.

[Birdman]

15 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Yes, I'm rather curious about this. Particularly for the Luftwaffe - as the Fw-190A9 and Bf-109G10 would still leave three slots to be filled. If the scenario includes enough of 1944 then a Ju-87D5/D7/D8 could appear right at the beginning, but we already have a He-111H16. It makes me wonder if we'd get a He-162, Ju-188, Fi-156 or something else?

Maybe a He-162 and Ju-188? Fi-156 would probably work better as a stand-alone collector plane. But then again, anything German is pretty much covered in my opinion.

[Guest deleted@83466]

4 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I really hope for a Ju-188, a Ju-87 D5 and a Ta-152 H. We‘ll see

Uh huh.  I’m really excited about a new Stuka variant.  Maybe a Storch. 

[Jaws2002]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

3. What do you really want? What would make you happy? A resource intensive strategic bomber module (even fewer people fly heavy bombers compared to twin engined bombers)...? 

 Very few sims made fully flyable heavy bombers, but they, together with the  ability to use large formations, created a vastly different atmosphere in the missions. 

Didn't you get tired to fly against four bombers escorted by four fighters, or escort four bombers into Germany? Where's the immersion in that?

   

 

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

It isn't the game engine. It is the fact that it would take millions of dollars to develop any of this. There isn't another game engine that provides these features, so if they switched engines they'd have to spend tens of millions rebuilding existing features and solving bugs - then build the carrier tech anyway. This isn't a cheap asset flipped first person shooter... I don't think you have any idea how complex game engine development is or how finely tuned this engine is for what it does.

 

 

The CLOD engine was able to do all of that.  I personally flew against 200 bombers back in 2012, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

Now they would have to make huge, expensive engine changes if they want to implement those features. It would have been a lot cheaper to optimize and refine the Clod engine than it is now to add those missing features in this engine. 

Anyway. That's history now, but the chance was there to build on a much newer and more capable foundation. 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Jaws2002

[=FEW=fernando11]

1 minute ago, CAFulcrum said:

 

If the engine is holding them back at this point then they need to update the engine.  Too many holes are starting to appear.  I'm really not seeing how Eastern Front with variations of pre-existing planes at a pre-existing performance class in the same combat environment is going to attract more players/customers than a pacific module which would introduce a whole slew of brand new plane types and environments, or a heavy long range bomber module that would apply to a large amount of pre-existing content.  The lack of large scale formations of both land and air forces is what's stopping that, and it's been a problem with the sim since ROF, where large numbers of aircraft should also be flying.  At this point I'd rather have a north african or sicilian module if they're going to continue, to at least intoduce something that feels 'new' to the sim.

I'm not saying they shold DO late east front. I'm just saying not PTO/carriers is hardly a surprice, the hints were plenty and clear enough.

 

Also changing/heavily modifing the current engine in the hopes if doing PTO/carriers is a huge, huge gamble. Il2 1946 to CloD was a fail, and RoF to il2 BoS was posible because of its inital reduced scope. On top of leaving the east front war incomplete...

 

It is IL2 after all, late war east front should be a must, where you / I like it or not.

 

Everyone should look back and remember how BoS and BoM where at the beggining compered to where we are now.  Every game engine must have its limitations/cons but this dev team has hardly sat idle. They adressed a lot of initila limitiation... All of them? Not,  the ones I cared the most, maybe, maybe not. 

But what's holding them back, and if they "need" to change engine is something they know better than us for sure.

[TheWarsimmer]

It's for sure time for something new. PTO isnt happening, and a lot of us wish it would. Other than that, large formations or 4 engine bombers. High alt planes, particularly certain u.s. ones, are hamstrung and opening up a reason for high alt fighting would really expand the game beyond the rehash territory its getting in to. I do believe something needs to be done. If they cant do 4 engines yet, they should make simplified a.i. versions for mp and sp intercepts, with the ultimate goal being a flyable b-17. If it cant work on this engine make a new one.

 

The sim has come a long way and it's awesome. I remember when it first released and it's like night and day. But it's time for something new, and I know the devs are aware of this as well. They've done great all and all

Edited September 28, 2022 by TheWarsimmer

[Vishnu]

6 hours ago, CCG_Pips said:

Same here.

 

If 1c game no longer has the capacity to make me dream (pacific/heavy bombers/real gameplay for tanks/Air Marshall), I would dream elsewhere.

Where?

[Guest deleted@83466]

13 minutes ago, Vishnu said:

Where?

 

If I may say, not every flight simmer who loses interest in a particular game throws themselves into the arms of its competitor flight sims.  Some people say, “ok, maybe it’s time to remodel the living room that I’ve been putting off for so long,” as they’ve been playing online every day.  People do have other hobbies, jobs, relationships, and other things to do in the real world.  The idea of “haha, where are you going to go?” is not as persuasive as you may think.

 

I am absolutely NOT suggesting that anybody gives up on IL-2, only that if the excitement isn’t there, it’s not like all people are trapped in a cage.

[TWC_Ace]

2 hours ago, VBF-12_Pequod said:

Of course, there's no need of drama. Great Battles is the best WW2 sim out there, no doubt.

 

What?! Best in what? Number of planes available...yes.

 

[Denum]

It always amazes me that people think saying "oh well I won't buy that" does anything.

 

I'll fully admit at one point I was ignorant to think that had any relevance. 

 

Looking back on it now I feel like an idiot. 

 

Any sane company is willing to lose 20% of it's clientele to keep the 80% happy.

 

Just because you won't buy the next module doesn't mean a completely new person won't. 

 

Get over it. Move on.

 

There's little need to announce it. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Denum

[BraveSirRobin]

29 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

If I may say, not every flight simmer who loses interest in a particular game throws themselves into the arms of its competitor flight sims.  Some people say, “ok, maybe it’s time to remodel the living room that I’ve been putting off for so long,” as they’ve been playing online every day.  People do have other hobbies, jobs, relationships, and other things to do in the real world.  The idea of “haha, where are you going to go?” is not as persuasive as you may think.

 

I am absolutely NOT suggesting that anybody gives up on IL-2, only that if the excitement isn’t there, it’s not like all people are trapped in a cage.

The “where?” post obviously refers to other combat flight sims.  If you’re going to stop playing to go to the bathroom, then there’s really no need to announce it on the forum.

[Jade_Monkey]

Lots of bottled up feelings here. It goes to show you how much people love their flight sim hobby.

 

I hope they announce soon, so people can either stop worrying or just have their final meltdown.

[Denum]

3 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

just have their final meltdown.

 

I have my popcorn and drinks ready.

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

 

22 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

The “where?” post obviously refers to other combat flight sims.  If you’re going to stop playing to go to the bathroom, then there’s really no need to announce it on the forum.

So you want the obvious answer to “where?”  Late Eastern Front?  I think you know where you can catch the 3 wire in a Grumman Cat.  You can be my RIO Anytime Baby! (as long as you don’t talk).

 

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by SeaSerpent

[parkerc341]

I think people need to simply just accept that PTO isn't very probable, given the software limitations and the rarity of Japanese data on aircraft. As much as I'd like a PTO game, I'm still more than happy with what we've got right now. 20 years ago people would've given an arm and a leg for what we have in GB. There's still a wealth of other battles anyway, we still have all of Italy, and maybe if CloD ever shuts down we'll have North Africa too. I also really wouldn't mind a late eastern front or Finland game, but with current events I think its unlikely.  

[Gambit21]

Hmmm…

What are the odds on Korea?

I know years ago Daniel said he wanted to go there in an interview.

 

Seems like it checks all the boxes…and there was even a Yak flying around here and there.

 

 

[Alexmarine]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

What are the odds on Korea?

 

If they get more flexible on the 5+5 formula, we could maybe see it. I would literally have no issue with the only red planes being a MiG-15 and a La-9/11

[BlitzPig_EL]

How you going to do Korea without Panthers, Corsairs, Skyraiders, Sea Fury's?

 

Another theater shot down by the Carrier Mafia.

[CountZero]

Ah yes, we cant do carriers, night radars and 4 engine bombers and big maps... ok Lets do Korea lol

Korea is 4 years war with frontlines moving 1000+kms up down the peninsula, map size like most PTO land areas, new tech galor, ... and ppl say go learn Pacific history... saying lets do Korea is like saying lets do WW2 Europe as 1 DLC lol, what part what time ? Whole Europe ? 109E1 vs Yak-9UT ?

[352ndOscar]

You don’t need carriers for a “Slot” Campaign Map………or a “New Guinea” Campaign Map either.  

[Gambit21]

8 minutes ago, CountZero said:

…saying lets do Korea is like saying lets do WW2 Europe as 1 DLC lol, what part what time ? Whole Europe ? 109E1 vs Yak-9UT ?

I’d think what part, what time is extremely obvious. Think about it for 2 seconds.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

The CLOD engine was able to do all of that.  I personally flew against 200 bombers back in 2012, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

Now they would have to make huge, expensive engine changes if they want to implement those features. It would have been a lot cheaper to optimize and refine the Clod engine than it is now to add those missing features in this engine. 

Anyway. That's history now, but the chance was there to build on a much newer and more capable foundation. 

And the CloD engine has other drawbacks. For instance, as far as I'm aware (though I admit I don't play Clod myself), CloD has a different flight model for the AI as for players. Easier on the CPU, but can - and will - lead to unrealistic AI performance/behaviour. Like in 46, where the AI could do maneuvers no human possibly could.

 

But I personally suspect that they might be able to optimise the (gunnery) AI quite a bit still. Also, I've read analyses that seem to show that much of the current performance issues come from an outdated (3rd party) GUI system, and that switching to a more modern system would potentially solve some of those issues. Doing either of these things would be a huge job, sure, but it might be just within the amount of work they're able to spend on a new module.

 

(Which doesn't mean I think large bombers are especially likely though. Given the current situation with Russia, my money is still on Sicily 1943).

[JG27_Steini]

Just now, AEthelraedUnraed said:

And the CloD engine has other drawbacks. For instance, as far as I'm aware (though I admit I don't play Clod myself), CloD has a different flight model for the AI as for players. Easier on the CPU, but can - and will - lead to unrealistic AI performance/behaviour. Like in 46, where the AI could do maneuvers no human possibly could.

 

But I personally suspect that they might be able to optimise the (gunnery) AI quite a bit still. Also, I've read analyses that seem to show that much of the current performance issues come from an outdated (3rd party) GUI system, and that switching to a more modern system would potentially solve some of those issues. Doing either of these things would be a huge job, sure, but it might be just within the amount of work they're able to spend on a new module.

 

(Which doesn't mean I think large bombers are especially likely though. Given the current situation with Russia, my money is still on Sicily 1943).

 

The community suffered for 8+ years now that the AI has the same flight model. We had/have a bad AI, less resources and many other drawbacks. The flight model in 46 and CLOD was maybe not realistic for the AI, but the AI at the end behaved much better. It was fun to fight against it. The AI now is dump, just dump, but it flies correctly. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

1 hour ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Lots of bottled up feelings here. It goes to show you how much people love their flight sim hobby.

 

I hope they announce soon, so people can either stop worrying or just have their final meltdown.

 

I agree. They know what they’re going to do, and are supposedly “energized” by it, so announce it, and let the chips fall where they may.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

The community suffered for 8+ years now that the AI has the same flight model. We had/have a bad AI, less resources and many other drawbacks. The flight model in 46 and CLOD was maybe not realistic for the AI, but the AI at the end behaved much better. It was fun to fight against it. The AI now is dump, just dump, but it flies correctly. 

Well, I've always thought I was at least an average pilot, but perhaps I'm wrong at that and I'm actually rather bad even though I've got 1000+h in game. Anyhow, I'm not ashamed to admit that the Ace AI does pose a challenge to me, and that I'm regularly shot down by them, whatever planes the AI and I are flying (although I've obviously got my favourites).

 

What *is* subpar right now though, is the automated mission scripting. If a mission is properly scripted, the AI performs quite good IMHO, and as I said, can often shoot me down. Unfortunately though, the automatically generated missions rarely lead to optimal mission scripting.

[Avimimus]

38 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

How you going to do Korea without Panthers, Corsairs, Skyraiders, Sea Fury's?

 

Another theater shot down by the Carrier Mafia.

 

Well, technically it can be done - just focussing only on land based operations. Naval operations are less essential than they were in a lot of campaigns in the Pacific in WWII.

 

I think the bigger issue is that you end up with a handful of American aircraft (F-80, F-84, F-86, A-1, and just maybe a RAAF Meteor Mk.8) flying ground attack missions... and that is it. Occasionally a Mig-15 or Mig-15Bis might show up to bounce your flight. Of course, if one models the first couple of months of the war then you get more action from other North Korean aircraft (e.g. Il-10) but they'd disappear from the campaign for the most part pretty early on.

 

So how many people are interested in repeatedly flying American fast jets on Interdiction and CAS flights? Now, if one models the European theatre one gets a larger variety of aircraft in a much more balanced scenario with more varied enemies and more air-combat... this is why I keep raising the idea that doing Korea only makes sense if five years are spent releasing a 1948-1955 European module alongside it.

 

That is my 2 cents anyway.

[Missionbug]

Personally I would like to see something on the Finnish front, we know a map was in progress by community members and that went very quiet, it would be nice to have it ressurected, especially the early years and that wonderful collection of aircraft.

 

Two points on other things:

 

1.Large bombers have apparently been ruled out by the team because of all the turrets needing construction to allow the use by players, however, as a pilot I only want to fly the beast, let the AI do the rest.

 

2.The Pacific, or the entire Far east or even the Mediteranean for that matter does not need aircraft carriers to make it work, much of the combat took place on or over land, in many cases the ships mainly provided transport into theater.

 

This sim is designed to do specific things, not everything, there needs to be compromise from both players and developers.  We can live with what few Japanese aircraft there are enough details available for, those few types would be better better them than nothing for those who so badly want want the Pacific.  While carriers might be fun, they are not a necessity, a theatre of world war history can function just fine without them, to make them a reality might require a new build sim and that might means starting all over again after so much has been achieved with what we have.

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Missionbug

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Wonder?   

 

[Gambit21]

?

 

Old - much has transpired since then.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Apparently

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

I’d think what part, what time is extremely obvious. Think about it for 2 seconds.

So for most ppl Korea is MiG Alley like PTO is Carriers. By that if your like most ppl asking for Korea, then your asking for them to make DLC of MiG Alley, so its late war, front static, night bombing from big bombers, and its 1 airplane for one side and 9 for other side, good luck with that DLC. Map where one side operate from China and other from S Korea 400+km apart. MiG vs Sabers and nothing els, atleast in other WW2 options you get bombers and GA for both sides. Or your up for fantasy Korea with Tu-2S, La-11s, Yak-9s and IL-10s taking 4 places from other important allied airplanes, you can have 20 allied airplanes that fit, and only 1 for China. Yes dont see that as option with MiG alley timeline.

Edited September 28, 2022 by CountZero

[Alexmarine]

53 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

So how many people are interested in repeatedly flying American fast jets on Interdiction and CAS flights?

 

*Raises hand*

 

Hey, I just like pounding ground stuff, either with a Stuka, an Il-2, a Typhoon or any other ground attacker