ENGLISH Interview with IL-2 GB team In October 2022

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, Muddy said:

“Something New to the sim scene”

I some how think more European fighters on a new European map is nothing new.

think out of the box guys.

CBI=

Over the hump in C-47, bombing Japanese airstrips and harbors in a fly able B-25.

A-36, P-61, Zero,Oscars etc.

No Carriers, mostly jungle terrain  

 

“NEW Material.”

Burma campaign is 4 year long, what time line ?

Just Burma is as big as whole Germany+England on one map, what area or battle ? and hump is far far away in IL-2 map size terms.

Its mostly Japan army air so its full of Kawasaki airplanes how they got data for them after saying that only Japan airplane they have full data on level of airplanes now in game is Zero. And even if the somehow got new data , in covid no travel times, on other Japan airplanes then Zero I highly doubt they would waist hype of first ever Zero fighter in IL-2 game for so long time on this area where Zero was not main Japan fighter used and played minimal role compared to army airplanes.

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

We don’t know if they have overcome their aversion to  Japanese aircraft, Countzero, we just don’t know…

 

p.s. nice pun on “zero”. You’re learning the art.

Edited October 9, 2022 by SeaSerpent

[CountZero]

13 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

We don’t know if they have overcome their aversion to  Japanese aircraft, Countzero, we just don’t know…

 

p.s. nice pun on “zero”.

Nothing hints that they did, i just dont know why would ppl expect that in perfect times before 2020 they didnt fined anything good enought with so many ppl and freedom of movment, but then somehow after all thhis restrictions in travel and especial in Japan they got new data they serched for so long.

Its big strech to think anything with Japan airplanes is in plans anytime sone.

 

Ah you know what i know what it is, its Battle of Football

Its something new, its prop centric, its not urban and no carriers

(P-51s, F4Us, T6s, T-28s and C-47s) x2 

It has all parts of puzzle and makes more sence as other crazy options...

Something new can mean torpedos or night fighter radars, or it is El Salvador vs Honduras... ?

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by CountZero

[Guest deleted@83466]

Honduras vs El Salvador, 1969, with Corsairs. Gotcha?

Edited October 9, 2022 by SeaSerpent

[CountZero]

Its world cup year now, maybe they gona anounc it on day of opening game, Battle of Football 69 DLC and opening game on WC 2022 in November, they are marketing geniuses i tell you.

Edited October 9, 2022 by CountZero

[Muddy]

Yes 4 years but lots of options,, European theaters are running low as has been flogged to death. And the biggest hint is “New” to the sim world that also puts Africa out.  
just my thoughts, we all gone be proven wrong when “Poland 39” comes out. ?

Frankly, more Roundels, Crosses or Red Stars will only equal NEW color to the map.

[oc2209]

15 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Of course, there is some subjectivity and bias in this result. But it's clear that a Sicily module would be highly likely given what we already know.

 

As my layers of denial fall away like the broken shell of a shattered Matryoshka, and I accept the dismal reality of your forecast, I can only weep silently for the Yak-3 I'll never turn in endless 15-second circles at an altitude of 4 feet... or the Ta-152 I'll never 'accidentally' stuff into the ass of an American bomber at 500 MPH.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Goodbye, plywood Salamander with a poorly tested ejection system! Goodbye, chronically overheating Yak-9U!

 

And farewell to my fondest wish, the Ta-152.

 

Or as I liked to call you, Sex-Wulf 169.

 

Alas, a dream deferred is a dream denied.

[oc2209]

On 10/7/2022 at 10:37 AM, SeaSerpent said:

I think they simply sell the best because they are iconic aircraft in Western Europe and North America.  I never built a model of a Macchi or an IAR when I was a kid, in fact never heard of them, but I sure built a Spit or a Warhawk.

 

Really?

 

I was building this when I was 10:

 

 

It's not my fault the bad guys had the cooler 1/72 scale toys.

[Skycat1969]

Now we're getting into late war drawing board and fantasy designs. Been there with IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 and CFS3. If the next installment includes a flyable Ho 229 I'm out. ?

 

As for the MC.202, it was love at first sight for me when I saw one at the Museum of the USAF 20 years ago. I enjoyed flying it in IL-2 Forgotten Battles and as a mod in CFS3, and I think the Great Battles version is fantastic.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Those planes were cool in SWOTL.

[oc2209]

20 minutes ago, Skycat1969 said:

Now we're getting into late war drawing board and fantasy designs. Been there with IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 and CFS3. If the next installment includes a flyable Ho 229 I'm out. ?

 

 

Wasn't saying the Arado 555 should be in the sim.

 

It was a joke.

 

I did build that model, though. Also built a P-40, P-47, and a Spit.

 

Yak-9K was my only Russian; though I wanted to get the Litvyak Yak by Accurate Miniatures, but it was too expensive for my skill level. Figured it'd be a waste.

 

Most of the models I built were German. My brothers built more American.

 

12 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Those planes were cool in SWOTL.

 

Oddly enough, that's the one major WWII title I never tried. I never flew exotic German planes in any sim until Sturmovik (and that was after my model building days). Just flew the conventional stuff before that. Aces of the Pacific, Their Finest Hour, etc.

Edited October 9, 2022 by oc2209

[ITAF_Rani]

I suspect Pacific is not totally out of the scene...maybe a scenario terrain based could be an option waiting to develop carriers.....

So my bet is 50% Italy and 50% Pacific..

[Chief_Mouser]

It's going to be Epirus I tell you! Mussolini's ill-fated excursion into northern Greece that had such a huge knock-on effect all the way through to Stalingrad.

You know it makes sense. ?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

To those who speculate on a future Pacific module in the Great Battles series, please note that TFS (Team Fusion Simulations) has been mentioned in the interview, and there are good reasons for that. Please pay attention to the interview as of timing 44'13'' when Enigma asks the question about TFS and 1GCS not stepping on each others' toes and reminds that TFS is doing Africa and the Battle of Britain and IL-2 Great Battles is focusing on late war western front and the eastern front. In my opinion, this "distribution" of theatres of operations could be potentially extended to the Pacific theatreS of operations (yes, in plural). Why? Mainly because now we know that 1CGS doesn't want to take the risk of failure when trying to model the interaction between a carrier and a aircraft... and we do know too, for one or two years now, that TFS has already made successful tests representing a carrier and its interaction with and aircraft. There were five large scale carrier-vs-carrier battles during World War II... same as there were several large battles with 100% terrain-based aircraft as well. In the future, 1CGS may take the risk of modelling aircarft carriers in a Pacific scenario... but for the moment, observing the situation as it is, we may think that both companies could extend their already existing gentlemen's agreement... as follows:

 

TFS could develop the following add-ons (for there are "add-ons" in the Dover series, you need first the basic game):

 

- Coral Sea

- Midway

- Solomon Islands

- Santa Cruz

- Philippine Sea

 

1CGS could develop the following modules (for there are standalone "modules" in the Great Battles series). A few examples only:

 

- Burma

- Singapore

- Guadalcanal

- Okinawa

- Iwo Jima

 

 

[Picchio]

6 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

now we know that 1CGS doesn't want to take the risk of failure when trying to model the interaction between a carrier and a aircraft

 

Aren't you simplyfing the whole matter just a bit too much?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 minute ago, Picchio said:

 

Aren't you simplyfing the whole matter just a bit too much?

 

 

Please reread this (and, for the source, click on the text, thank you in advance):

 

Unlike other modern sims where an aircraft carrier, if modeled, is a small fraction of the whole product and any shortcomings of its modeling don’t affect the quality of the whole sim, in the case of an integral, all-in-one BoX title about the war in the Pacific EVERYTHING should revolve around carrier operations and a carrier is ought to be its central part. This means that any shortcomings of the carrier modeling and interaction with it, any performance and other issues that may arise become super-critical, jeopardizing the whole product. In the current situation this makes it a huge risk we can't afford to spend 3 years on.

 

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

You forgot NEW GUINEA.

[Trooper117]

On 10/8/2022 at 2:27 PM, CountZero said:

Also Sicily have big conection to random M8 picture from DD

 

The M8 also saw action in the Korean war....

[CountZero]

11 hours ago, Muddy said:

Yes 4 years but lots of options,, European theaters are running low as has been flogged to death. And the biggest hint is “New” to the sim world that also puts Africa out.  
just my thoughts, we all gone be proven wrong when “Poland 39” comes out. ?

Frankly, more Roundels, Crosses or Red Stars will only equal NEW color to the map.

In video Han says somethin new to ther team. So its not some thing new to air sim world or IL-2 sturmovik world, its some thing new to this team, so it can be ment as some simple new thing as desert textures or complex as whole new war type like Desert Storm 1990 (im sure guys into Korea will say this is also prop centric war, there was planty of helecopter props there).

4 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

I suspect Pacific is not totally out of the scene...maybe a scenario terrain based could be an option waiting to develop carriers.....

So my bet is 50% Italy and 50% Pacific..

Again in video Sneaksies says pacific is not out of table but its risky for next project. So maybe in future but its not next dlc for Pacific of any type.

 

Also when asked about 4 engine bombers after they explained why they dont wont to do it, he did say it could even be considerad for next DLC.So next DLC is area where 4 engine bomber operated historicly. So its not early war stuff in europe. And for Sicily you had B-17s operating from bases in east area on Tunis. 

 

13 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

The M8 also saw action in the Korean war....

And you have two biggest citys game would ever need to model on map that would have to be in Korea... its 110% not Korea.

Edited October 9, 2022 by CountZero

[343KKT_Kintaro]

23 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

You forgot NEW GUINEA.

 

 

If 1CGS ever wants to develop a Great Battles module which would be set in New Guinea... no problem... but please note that I didn't forget anything as, regarding my suggested list of potential future Pacific War Great Battles modules... I said "a few examples only".

 

Aircraft carrier fleets of both sides, Anglo-American and Japanese, did participate in the New Guinea battles... so I guess it is sense-making too that TFS someday produces one add-on that is set in the New Guinea theatre of operations. At any rate, please click on the quotation so that you can read what Buzzsaw (TFS' boss) said recently about the Dover series potentially going to the Pacific: "We would not do Pearl Harbour... that was a one sided affair without any real competitiveness. If we went there, we would either do Midway or Coral Sea. (ALL THEORETICAL MUSING ON MY PART !!!!!!)".

 

I hope all of this helps to clarify the situation regarding the Pacific in the IL-2 series of games: at present, only the first generation of IL-2 games is fully reenacting the Pacific and the first generation is "IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946". The two other generations of IL-2 games which are the Dover series and the Great Battles series are absolutely not yet in the Pacific and all of these discussions are still 100% theoretical.

 

 

[Vishnu]

I’m totally out if this sim goes into ANYTHING fantasy.      

Edited October 9, 2022 by Vishnu

[Eisenfaustus]

3 minutes ago, Vishnu said:

I’m totally out if this sim goes into ANYTHING fantasy.      

I would stay onboard as long as the Fantasy interests me. Early Cold War gone hot or SWOTL? Count me in!

Although I of course understand your POV. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

9 minutes ago, Vishnu said:

I’m totally out if this sim goes into ANYTHING fantasy.      

 

 

1) if by "fantasy" you mean modules like "IL-2 Sturmovik: X-Wing vs TIE Fighter" or "IL-2 Sturmovik: Snoopy vs the Red Baron"... oh, yes, I do agree with you, there are other games for that.

 

2) if you assimilate "Pacific theatre of operations" to "fantasy"... then please abandon serious flight simuation forever since all serious PC flight sims, including the Great Battles series, do require an impossible to calculate percentage of approximation, but nevertheless a percentage of approximation ("fantasy") that is for sure far superior to 50%. To model a PC flight sim is nothing more and nothing less than making concessions to an unavoidable lack or realism. The real experience of flying a 109 or a P-51 this is something you'll never get with a PC flight simulator, you only get an approximation. "But, Kintaro, when it comes to talk about the modelling of Japanese aircraft, too many data are missing out there". Yeah, sure, I know that song... now please read this.

 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

On 10/7/2022 at 11:10 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

Yes, and corrected just as frequently.

 

 

 

I thought the limitation was AI entities.  We already have 3 engines so I can't imagine that 4 is such a big deal.

 

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

Please B17 PLAYABLE

[343KKT_Kintaro]

I’ve learned the hard way over the years, that when it comes to building our simulation, we operate in a world of “what’s possible” not necessarily “what we want to do”. When trying to add airplanes we always need access, money, talent, support and some luck.

 

Jason Williams (November 7 2021)

 

We will make 4 engine bombers when I have the personnel and resources to do it. EVERY flight sim has a limit as to how many aircraft, of any size that can be put in the sky at once.

 

Jason Williams (May 28 2021)

 

 

[Voidhunger]

No, please B17 as AI

Edited October 9, 2022 by Voidhunger

[[CPT]Crunch]

6 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Mainly because now we know that 1CGS doesn't want to take the risk of failure when trying to model the interaction between a carrier and a aircraft... and we do know too, for one or two years now, that TFS has already made successful tests representing a carrier and its interaction with and aircraft.

That's not at all what I heard, they said they believed the risk was too high in the allotted time frame, not a single word about it couldn't be done, to the contrary with enough time they are confident anything can be done with this engine.  They're limited only by the self imposed time schedule, doesn't mean they won't be working on building the engine up and ready for the next cycle while on this new cycle, they're simply saying it's not the main focus or goal this time around.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 minute ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

That's not at all what I heard, they said they believed the risk was too high in the allotted time frame, not a single word about it couldn't be done, to the contrary with enough time they are confident anything can be done with this engine.  They're limited only by the self imposed time schedule, doesn't mean they won't be working on building the engine up and ready for the next cycle while on this new cycle, they're simply saying it's not the main focus or goal this time around.

 

 

This is why I said too:

 

In the future, 1CGS may take the risk of modelling aircarft carriers in a Pacific scenario... but for the moment, observing the situation as it is [etc...]

 

Didn't you read that part of my post, Crunch?

 

 

[Dusty926]

I do dearly hope that a pacific module, if it is to EVER happen, happens either with Great Battles or the next logical continuation of it. Pacific being limited to CLoD would be a bit like it being limited to DCS: Sure, I can play something pacific, but that's not even close to the sim I want to experience it on. At that point, I may as well just go back to 1946.

Great Battles just has the mojo for me that I want in a combat flight sim, so I want to be able to experience the pacific within its creative purview, not that of any other sim.

[BRADYS555]

Anyone consider Torch as a stepping stone to the pacific, that way they could do some of the Relevant US Carier Aircraft and CV's, and then when they did get around to doing the pacific, half the work would be done. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

 

33 minutes ago, Dusty926 said:

I do dearly hope that a pacific module, if it is to EVER happen, happens either with Great Battles or the next logical continuation of it. Pacific being limited to CLoD would be a bit like it being limited to DCS: Sure, I can play something pacific, but that's not even close to the sim I want to experience it on. At that point, I may as well just go back to 1946.

Great Battles just has the mojo for me that I want in a combat flight sim, so I want to be able to experience the pacific within its creative purview, not that of any other sim.

 

  

It has been suggested above that only the 100% carrier-based battles would be attributed to the Dover series. The idea is that all the other battles would be left to Great Battles. Is that so unbearable to you, Dusty? Anyway "the idea" is mine and will only be followed if the affected companies first agree by their own will. You and I, Dusty, can express our wishes but we have no power to decide whatsoever.

 

 

2 minutes ago, BRADYS555 said:

Anyone consider Torch as a stepping stone to the pacific, that way they could do some of the Relevant US Carier Aircraft and CV's, and then when they did get around to doing the pacific, half the work would be done.

 

 

An add-on will soon be announced within the Dover series (it's in the works for two years now) and the Torch landings and Malta are among the most considered assumptions by fans of this series. At present the situation is that the Battle of Britain and the Mediterranean are left to TFS and it is important to take into account what the interviewees say in the here-treated interview: the two companies will not step on each other's toes. This situation may change in the future but, for now, it is what it is.

 

 

[BRADYS555]

What are the 'Five" posable campaigns, thought to be, assuming one of them is the Pacific, and one possibly Burma?

Of course, Burma had no IJN aircraft to speak of, so that might be a mixed blessing if we did get it. 



 

Edited October 9, 2022 by BRADYS555

[343KKT_Kintaro]

2 minutes ago, BRADYS555 said:

What are the 'Five" posable campaigns, thought to be, assuming one of them is the Pacific, and one possibly Burma?

 

 

By the term "Pacific", when referring to flight sims, we all mean any game where Japan of 1937-1945 is involved in. A PTO (Pacific theatre of operations) this menas "Asia and the Pacific Ocean". So, please, would you kindly be more precise?

 

 

[CountZero]

37 minutes ago, BRADYS555 said:

Anyone consider Torch as a stepping stone to the pacific, that way they could do some of the Relevant US Carier Aircraft and CV's, and then when they did get around to doing the pacific, half the work would be done. 

You would need carriers for that, and they said they dont plan them for next DLC

What part of landings you think game can do ? whole 1000km+ map its highly questionable when maps in game are max 400km.

Also why would they waist Wildcats and SBDs on this if they still hold some plan to do PTO later, then they cant do them for more important DLCs in Pacific.

Edited October 9, 2022 by CountZero

[BRADYS555]

Burma, would be just that Burma, in 42, the Invasion of, and possibly later 43-45.

The IJA was the Primary Japanese Air Power in Burma, the IJN did not really operate over Burma at all.

Pacific, I would tend to think of personally as the island Hoping Campaign CV vs CV, or against Shore based planes Over Tarawa or the mandates, possibly Wake, circa 42/43.

Or Guadalcanal and the Solomons campaign.

Or New Gunnie.

My Assumption would be the Solomons Campaign would be the most appealing from a marketing standpoint.

But Burma might be more interesting to me personally.

I think thought that data would be easier to come by for Planes like the Zero, Kate and Val, Oscar and Betty, all planes that saw service over the Solomons, the KI 48 and the Nell were also present, but I would think good data on them might be harder to come by.

[CountZero]

29 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

  

It has been suggested above that only the 100% carrier-based battles would be attributed to the Dover series. The idea is that all the other battles would be left to Great Battles. Is that so unbearable to you, Dusty? Anyway "the idea" is mine and will only be followed if the affected companies first agree by their own will. You and I, Dusty, can express our wishes but we have no power to decide whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

An add-on will soon be announced within the Dover series (it's in the works for two years now) and the Torch landings and Malta are among the most considered assumptions by fans of this series. At present the situation is that the Battle of Britain and the Mediterranean are left to TFS and it is important to take into account what the interviewees say in the here-treated interview: the two companies will not step on each other's toes. This situation may change in the future but, for now, it is what it is.

 

 

Higly doubt TF will do Torch , their maps are also 400km in size, and they go by timeline till now so next logical step in desert is El Alamain. And even if they skip on steps you would need carriers for Torch and 1000km+ map, so they would probably just skip it and do Algeria-Tunis advances that fit with 1942 airplanes that they do for Channal 42 at same time.

Edited October 9, 2022 by CountZero

[BRADYS555]

4 minutes ago, CountZero said:

You would need carriers for that, and they said they dont plan them for next DLC

What part of landings you think game can do ? whole 1000km+ map its highly questionable when maps in game are max 400km.

Also why would they waist Wildcats and SBDs on this if they still hold some plan to do PTO later, then they cant do them for more important DLCs in Pacific.

O - I did not know the said NO CV's at all that defiantly limits their options and makes anything with Japan seam even less likely as a result. 

[CountZero]

 

Just now, BRADYS555 said:

O - I did not know the said NO CV's at all that defiantly limits their options and makes anything with Japan seam even less likely as a result. 

 

They also said no pacific for next dlc in this video

[BRADYS555]

4 minutes ago, CountZero said:

 

 

They also said no pacific for next dlc in this video

O, I missed that part as well then, that's to bad, another 3 or 4 years then till we see a Japanese plane probably